Pericopae wrongly assigned to Q

1. Terminology and procedure.

   Some of the pericopae normally assigned to Q include stylistic and other features which make it likely that they were never in Q but were adapted by Au_Luke from a copy of Matthew. For convenience, the sayings thus extracted from Q will be designated "xQ", for 'ex-Q', and the remaining Q sayings will be designated "sQ", for '(pure) sayings-Q'.
   We examine in turn four reasons for classifying a pericope as originating in Matthew rather than Q. At least two of these reasons apply to each of the pericopae which will be assigned to xQ.
   
   

2. Narratives.

   There is at least a prima facie case by analogy with the extant Gospel of Thomas that Q contained only sayings, indeed only sayings attributed to Jesus. This would eliminate the lopsidedness mentioned above.
   The following Matthean pericopae contain narrative, with distinct sentences having non-trivial story content (ignoring asked/said/replied & came/went) indicated in parentheses:
   • 3:7-12 John the Baptist's Testimony (3:7)
   • 4:1-11 Temptation (4:1,2,5,8,11)
   • 8:5-13 Centurion's Servant (8:5,10,13)
   • 11:2-19 John the Baptist's Inquiry (11:2)
   • 12:22-32 Beelzebul Controversy (12:22,25)
   
   

3. Matthean Style.

   • Phrases

     The following phrases look distinctly Matthean:
     1. "You brood of vipers" (Mt 3:7 // Lk 3:7, plus Mt 2; Mk 0; Lk 0)
     2. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" (Mt 3:10 // Lk 3:9, plus Mt 1; Mk 0; Lk 0)
     3. "gather ... wheat ... into ... barn" (Mt 3:12 // Lk 3:17, plus Mt 1; Mk 0; Lk 0)
     4. "If you are the Son of God..." (Temptation (twice), plus Mt 1; Mk 0; Lk 0)
     5. "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mt 8:12 // Lk 13:28, plus Mt 5; Mk 0; Lk 0)
     6. "man" (ANQRWPOS) + a noun (Mt 11:19 // Lk 7:34, plus Mt 5; Mk 0; Lk 0)
     7. "not/no one... in Israel" (Mt 8:10 // Lk 7:9, plus Mt 1; Mk 0; Lk 0)
     8. "take offence at" (SKANDALIZOMAI EN) (Mt 11:6 // Lk 7:23, plus Mt 3; Mk 1; Lk 0)
     9. "prophets ... law"/"law ... prophets" (Mt 11:13 // Lk 16:16, plus Mt 3; Mk 0; Lk 0)
     10. "my Father" (Mt 11:27 // Lk 10:22, plus Mt 16; Mk 0; Lk 3)
     11. "last ... worse than first" (Mt 12:45 // Lk 11:26, plus Mt 1; Mk 0; Lk 0)
     12. "would not" (Mt 23:37) is comparable to the refusals in 22:3 (also xQ) and 21:29.

     Goulder ^[1] recognizes phrases as being better than individual words as indicators of Matthean authorship. The idea is that the longer the repeated phrase, the more likely that it is a characteristic of the author. ^[2] The first six phrases on this list are all in Goulder's list. He does claim some other phrases to be Matthean, but they are in pericopae which otherwise show no signs of a Matthean origin.

   • Individual words

     The Lament for Jerusalem contains a whole set of words which are arguably Matthean::
     1. "stoning" (LIQOBOLEW, Mt 23:37 // Lk 13:34, plus Mt 1; Mk 0; Lk 0)
     2. "how often" (POSAKIS, Mt 23:37 // Lk 13:34, plus Mt 1; Mk 0; Lk 0 )
     3. "brood", though translating different Greek words, used only here and in the phrase "brood of vipers" (see above).
     Other individual Matthean words worth noting are "burn" (KATAKAIW, Mt 3:12 // Lk 3:17 plus Mt 2; Mk 0; Lk 0); "[play the] flute" (Matt 11:17 // Lk 7:32 plus Mt 1; Mk 0; Lk 0); "babies" (NHPIOS, Mt 11:25 // Lk 10:21, plus Mt 1; Mk 0; Lk 0); "whence" (hOQEN, Mt 12:44 // Lk 14:24, plus Mt 3; Mk 0; Lk 0); "faithful" (PISTOS) applied to a servant (Mt 24:45 // Lk 12:42, plus Mt 2; Mk 0; Lk 0).
     
     

   • Explicit Old Testament Quotations

     Au_Matt was very keen on quoting the Old Testament in support of his presentation of the gospel. The following pericopae contain explicit OT quotations using the standard formula: "it is written":
     1. 4:1-11 Temptation (multiple references)
     2. 11:2-19 John the Baptist's Inquiry (composite reference in 11:10)
     
     

   • Illustrations of aphorisms

     Finally only Matthew has parables which look as if they were specifically written in order to illustrate an aphorism. These are the Workers in the Vineyard (20:1-10, M) illustrating Mt 20:16; the Wedding Banquet (22:1-10, xQ) illustrating Mt 22:14; the Ten Maidens (25:1-12, M) illustrating 25:13; the Talents (25:14-30, xQ) illustrating Mt 25:29. Thus the Wedding Banquet and the Talents are characteristically Matthean. (The former is "thoroughly Matthean" and is tentatively assigned to M by Davies & Allison ^[3] With regard to the latter, the "straightforward explanation" of the muddle in the Lukan version is that "Luke has attempted to reframe the parable that he found in Matthew but his ambition, on this occasion, exceeds his capability". ^[4] )
   
   

4. Matthean Context.

   Several pericopae look as if either they were written specifically for their Matthean context, or they were dependent on information supplied earlier in the gospel, and if so they cannot have been in Q.
   • The Temptation story (Mt 4:1-11) is remarkably suitable for its context, in between the baptism (c.f. the crossing of the Red Sea) and the Sermon on the Mount (c.f. the giving of the law on Sinai). ^[5] In particular, our familiarity with the NT makes it difficult for us to see the incongruity of the question: "If you are the Son of God ..." in the context of Q. It makes so much more sense in Matthew coming three verses after the declaration: "This is my beloved Son".
   • John the Baptist's Inquiry (Mt 11:2-19) contains what looks distinctly like a summary (11:5) of the miracles in Matthew chs. 8-9. Also the mention of the wilderness in Mt 11:7 assumes that the reader knows that John the Baptist preached in the wilderness. But this prior information came in Mt 3:1. It is not in Q. (For this point about the wilderness I am indebted to Mark Goodacre.)
   • In Matthew, "Woe to Chorazin ..." is set appropriately in a sub-section consisting of chs. 11-12 on the theme of "The unbelief of Israel". ^[6] Au_Luke's location of this pericope (10:13-15) was probably influenced by its similarity to the Sodom saying (10:12). For him it may have been an indication that the Gentile mission (10:1-12) was to have greater success than the missions to Jewish towns. But in Q as normally reconstructed there was no separate mission to Gentiles. Without the context of a Jew/Gentile contrast, the mention of failures is anomalous coming immediately after the mission's carefully prepared inauguration.
   • The parable of the unclean spirit (Mt 12:43-45) is moderately intelligible following not long after the Beelzebul controversy. But the latter will be designated xQ, and as the only reference to exorcism the parable would be anomalous.
   • The Wedding Banquet (Matt 22:1-10) "is an allegory very much influenced by 21.33ff.". ^[7]
   • The Lament for Jerusalem (Mt 23:37-39) looks as if it was written for its Matthean context, for the verses "round off and summarize what has gone before". ^[8]
   
   

5. Incompatibility with core sQ sayings.

   One of the main arguments for the sayings source is that from doublets. We define the core sQ sayings as those which are doublets in either Mathew or Luke, also occur in Mark, and can reasonably be explained by the use of two written sources. There are around 20 to 25 of them (depending on how they are delineated), and they can be used as the yardstick by which to measure the stylistic and theological compatibility of other candidate sayings.
   • Stylistically Jesus' Thanksgiving is closer to John than to the synoptics and is totally incompatible with the core sQ sayings.
   • Miracles are mentioned in the Centurion's Servant, John the Baptist's Inquiry, Woe to Chorazin and the Beelzebul story. However Mt 12:39 // 16:4 // Mk 8:12 states clearly that no sign (SHMEION, a term used frequently in John's gospel to mean "miracle" ) will be given to this generation. Instead sQ implies by analogy with Solomon and Jonah that people should repent at the wisdom (SOFIA) and proclamation (KHRUGMA) of Jesus.
   • In Mt 11:13 // Lk 16:16 the Mosaic law is seen to have been superseded already, whereas in Mt 5:18 // Lk 16:17 (sQ), it has yet to be fulfilled. (Compare Mk 13:31 and parallels, which probably arose from Markan adaptation of the sQ saying.)
   • In the Beelzebul story the kingdom of God is said to have come already, whereas in Mt 10:7 // 4:17 // Mk 1:15 (sQ) it has not yet come, c.f. the plea "May your kingdom come" in the Lord's Prayer (also sQ).
   • In the parable of the Servant set over the household the master seems to have been delayed (24:48), and in the parable of the Talents a long period of time elapses (Mt 25:19). These are inconsistent with the imminent expectation in Mt 10:7 // 4:17 // Mark 1:15 (sQ).
   
   

6. Summary of the evidence.

   Matt	Pericope Label	Narrative	Matthean Style	Matthean Context	Incompatible with core sQ
   3:7-12	Jn. B.'s Testimony	(*)*	****	-	-
   4:1-11	Temptation	*****	**	**	-
   8:5-13	Centurion's Servant	***	**	-	*
   11:2-19	Jn. B.'s Inquiry	*	*****	**	**
   11:20-23	Woe to Chorazin...	-	-	*	*
   11:25-27	Jesus' Thanksgiving	-	**	-	*
   12:22-32	Beelzebul	**	-	-	**
   12:43-45	Unclean Spirit	-	**	*	-
   22:1-10	Wedding Banquet	-	*	*	-
   23:37-39	Lament for Jerusalem	-	****	*	-
   24:45-51	Servant set over household	-	*	-	*
   25:14-30	Talents	-	*	-	*

   
   Key:
   

   *	An independent indicator
   (*)	The first double tradition saying in Mt 3:7-10 // Lk 3:7-9 necessitates at least one extra narrative item (sentence) to explain its background, i.e. John appeared by the Jordan river. [9]
   -	Not present

   
   

   Thus up to four independent criteria show that the twelve pericopae in the table above were never in Q. These pericopae are therefore labelled xQ.
   They were probably mostly composed by Au_Matt. ^[10]

Notes

1. M.D.Goulder,  "Self-Contradiction in the IQP" in  J ournal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999) 506-17

2. Goulder's arguments are countered by R.A.Derrenbacker jr. & J.S.Kloppenborg Verbin: "Self-Contradiction in the IQP? A Reply to Michael Goulder" in JBL 120 (2001) 57-76. They consider Goulder's criteria for identifying Mattheanisms to be too lax. But what Goulder's critics underestimate is the quirkiness of several of these phrases. Thus in the list above, "brood of vipers", "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and ANQRWPOS + noun are especially quirky. It is one thing to copy a quirky phrase through reverence for a written source, quite another to use it where there is no such constraint. On the 2ST, these phrases must have been used with no apparent constraint by two different authors. The simpler hypothesis is that all the unconstrained occurrences originated from a single author with an unusual fondness for quirky phrases.

3. Davies & Allison, ibid., III,194

4. Goodacre, ibid., 56

5. J.C.Fenton,  Saint Matthew (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963) 62

6. Fenton, ibid., 171

7. Davies & Allison, ibid., III,197

8. Fenton, ibid., 378

9. See e.g. B.L.Mack, The Lost Gospel (Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element, 1993) 8

10. According to Goulder, "... the Q material was to a large extent Matthew's own elaboration of Mark" (Luke, ibid., 52). We agree only with regard to the xQ material.

Go back up one level

Return to home page

Go to next page