Go back up one level Return to home page

Merits of the Three Source Theory

1. It is simple

The Three Source Theory does not need to posit a hypothetical document, for the reconstructed source can be identified with a historically-attested document, namely Papias' "logia".

Many leading advocates of the Two Source Theory find it necessary to postulate multiple layers for Q. But the logia's high degree of coherence rules out the presence of multiple layers.

Therefore the Three Source Theory is simpler than the Two Source Theory.

2. It is supported by statistical analysis

  1. A professor at Bern University has provided in-depth analysis (in German). [1]
  2. See also   A statistical study of the synoptic gospels

3. It retains the advantages of the Two Source Theory

  1. Mark was the first gospel to be written.
  2. Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark.
  3. Many of the sayings common to Matthew and Luke were derived from a common written source.
  4. At least 30 duplicate sayings ('doublets') in Matthew or Luke can be explained as resulting from overlaps between Mark and this written source.
  5. John (of the four gospels probably the last to be written) had no effect on the composition of the synoptics.

4. It solves the problems left unanswered by the Two Source Theory.

It explains the 'minor agreements' between Matthew and Luke against Mark

The similarity in wording between Mark and Luke in the Triple Tradition suggests that Luke must have had his copy of Mark open in front of him when he was editing Markan material. So it is not beyond the bounds of plausibility to suggest that he also had his copy of Matthew open in front of him at the same time. Given this scenario it is easy to see how Luke could have taken advantage of some of Matthew's often stylistically motivated minor changes to the older text of Mark. Thus the Three Source Theory can readily explain how the many 'minor agreements' between Matthew and Luke came about.

It explains why the text of Luke includes phrases characteristic of Matthew's style

The phrases include "you brood of vipers" (Mt 3:7 // Lk 3:7), "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mt 8:12 // Lk 13:28), the combination of law and prophets (Mt 11:13 // Lk 16:16), and ανθρωπος + a noun (Mt 11:19 // Lk 7:34). The 3ST can account for each of these four parallels as resulting from Luke's use of Matthew. All the other examples of these phrases occur in redactional texts in Matthew.

It solves the problem of missing contexts

For example the phrase: "If you are the Son of God ..." (Mt 4:3 // Lk 4:3) makes perfect sense in its context in Matthew, only a few lines after Jesus has been declared to be "my [God's] beloved Son" (Mt 3:17). In Q the equivalent context is at best uncertain and at worst absent altogether. Also the miracle summary in Mt 11:5 looks as if it was designed to match the healings of the blind (9:27ff.), the lame (8:5ff., 9:1ff.), the lepers (8:1ff), the dumb [2] (9:32ff.), and the raising of the dead (9:18ff.). Because it has a parallel in Lk 7:22 the summary appears in Q, but there it has no such explanatory context. The logical conclusion of the 3ST is that the passage including Mt 11:5 was not taken from a written sayings source, and that the verse originated in the context of the previously related healings.

It solves the problem of the incoherence of Q as currently defined

The odd mixture of a few isolated narratives with many sayings is now discarded, as is the pollution of Jesus' sayings with those of John the Baptist. Furthermore the detailed division of the material into multiple layers, the specialists' reaction to a mixed bag of material supposed to have been a real document, can now be consigned to the refuse heap of abandoned hypotheses. For the logia was highly coherent from both literary and theological perspectives, and its neat structure of paired poetical sayings would have inhibited any substantial modification to the text.

5. It sheds new light on the birth of Christianity by supplying the missing historical link

The prevailing synoptic theory sheds no light on the enormous gulf between the Jewish Aramaic-speaking Jesus movement in Jerusalem ca. 30 CE - 60 CE, and the first Christian Greek gospel ca. 70 CE. The 3ST provides the missing link: an Aramaic collection of the sayings of Jesus produced in Jerusalem by his first followers, then later selectively edited, translated into Greek, and merged distinctively by each synoptic author into his gospel account.

As can be seen from the source relationship diagrams below [3], the diagram of the Three Source Theory provides an elegant compromise between the predominant Two Source Theory, and the Farrer-Goulder Theory for which Prof. Michael Goulder has argued so persistently over a period of at least 20 years.


Two Source Theory Three Source Theory Farrer-Goulder Theory
2SH diagram 3SH diagram Farrer diagram

Notes for this page


1. R.Morgenthaler "Statistische Synopse" (Gotthelf Verlag, Zürich, 1971)
2. This is the only mismatch between the summary and the related healings, for the summary involves the deaf hearing where we would expect it to refer to the dumb speaking. However the difference is less apparent in the original Greek, for κωφος  can mean either deaf or dumb.
3. There is evidence that the first edition of Luke lacked the birth narratives, i.e. Luke 1:5-2:52. (For example, they are inappropriately placed before the genealogy; the formal language of 3:1 ff. follows more naturally after 1:4.) But the presence or the absence of a second edition can be held together with any of the three theories. So for simplicity the diagrams here show only a single edition of Luke.

Go back up one level Return to home page