on gospel Q

The Two Source Hypothesis
Abstract
Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke, both of whom also independently used a now lost sayings source called Q.

Overview
The Two Source Hypothesis (2SH) has been the predominant source theory for the synoptic problem for almost a century and half. Originally conceived in Germany by Ch. H. Weisse in 1838, the 2SH came to dominate German protestant scholarship after the fall of the Tübingen school with H. J. Holtzmann's endorsement of a related variant in 1863. In the latter part of the 19th century, the Oxford School brought the 2SH to English scholarship, culminating in B. H. Streeter's 1924 treatment of the synoptic problem. Now, the 2SH commands the support of most biblical critics from all continents and denominations.

The 2SH derives its name from its postulation of two main sources for the synoptic gospels: a narrative source for the triple tradition and a sayings source for the double tradition. The triple tradition comprises the subject matter jointly related by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Generally, the triple tradition is characterized by substantial agreements in arrangement and wording among all three gospels with frequent agreements between Mark and Matthew against Luke and between Mark and Luke against Matthew, but a near absence of agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. The double tradition consists of the material that Matthew and Luke share outside of Mark and exhibits some of the most striking verbatim agreements in some passages and quite divergent versions in other passages.

While there are many variations of the 2SH, the most commonly accepted ???? of the theory adopts the following propositions:

The priority of Mark: The narrative source of the 2SH is Mark 1:1-16:8, which both Matthew and Luke used. Thus, Matthew and Luke are each directly related to Mark in the triple tradition and only indirected connected to each other in triple tradition via Mark. Variations of this prong include the supposition of an early ???? of Mark called Uk-Markus, or a revised ???? of Mark called deutero-Mark, or both, but these possibilities are only supported by a handful of active scholars.
The existence of Q: The 2SH's sayings source is a discrete document that Matthew and Luke independently used. This document is called Q, from the German word for "source," Quelle. Matthew and Luke are thus indirectly related to each other in the double tradition. Differences of opinion about the nature of Q are more common for this prong of the 2SH. While most scholars see Q as a document, some view Q as a collection of oral and written sources employed Matthew and Luke.
The Case for the Two Source Hypothesis
After a few false starts, the modern argument for the 2SH has settled into a two-step analysis. First, an explanation for the triple tradition is developed, in which the priority of Mark is established as superior to competing explanations by a series of cumulative arguments. Once the priority of Mark is accepted, arguments for the relative independence of Matthew and Luke are made, which require hypothesizing a common source, Q.

Among the best argued cases for the 2SH in contemporary scholarship include Robert H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem, and C. M. Tuckett, "The Synoptic Problem." (Stein 1987; Tuckett 1992)

Priority of Mark
The contemporary argument for the priority of Mark is cumulative. It rests not on the strength of any one argument but on the cumulation of many arguments. (Stein 1987: 88; Tuckett 1992: 264) These arguments supporting Markan priority include:

Argument from Omission. Easier to see certain material (infancy accounts, Sermon on the Mount) being added to Mark by Matthew and Luke than Mark's omitting them from Matthew and Luke. (Stein 1987: 48-49; Tuckett 1992: 264)
Argument from Length. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's compressing the text of Mark to add their own material rather than Mark's abridging the content and expanding the words of one or both of the others. (Stein 1987: 49-51; Tuckett 1992: 264)
Argument from Diction. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's improving Mark's colloquialisms in vocabulary rather than Mark's intentionally or incompetently being less literary. (Stein 1987: 52-53)
Argument from Grammar. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's improving Mark's grammar rather than Mark's "dumbing down" one or both of the others. (Stein 1987: 54)
Argument from Aramaic Expressions. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's removal of Aramaicisms for their Greek-speaking audience than Mark's addition of them to his source(s). (Stein 1987: 55-58)
Argument from Redundancy. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's eliminating Mark's redundancies. (Stein 1987: 58-62; Tuckett 1992: 267)
Argument from Difficulty. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's modifying certain "harder readings" of Mark rather than vice versa. (Stein 1987: 62-67; Tuckett 1992: 265-66)
Argument from Order. Easier to understand reasons for the specific divergences of Matthew's and Luke's order from that of Mark's than vice versa. (Tuckett 1992: 264-65)
Argument from Literary Agreements. Easier to explain how Matthew and Luke seem to occasionally refer to omitted explanatory material in Mark. (Stein 1987: 70-76)
Argument from Redaction. Easier to see Matthew's adding his theological emphases than Mark's removing them. (Stein 1987: 77-81) Easier to account for an uneven distribution of Mark's stylistic features in Matthew. (Stein 1987: 81-83)
Argument from Theology. Easier to see Matthew's and Luke's more frequent use of "Lord" being later developed than Mark's one use. (Stein 1987: 84-86)
Existence of Q
The existence of Q follows from the conclusion that Luke and Matthew are independent in the double tradition. Therefore, the liteary connection in the double tradition must be explained by an indirect relationship, namely, through use of a common source or sources.

Arguments for Luke's and Matthew's independence:
Disuse of the other's non-Markan material in triple tradition. For example, it is easier to understand Luke's near total omission of this material as due to not having it before him.
Different contexts for the double tradition material. It is argued that it is easier to explain Luke's "artistically inferior" arrangement of the double tradition into more primitive contexts within his Gospel as due to not knowing Matthew. Easier to see the disparate treatment of the order of the Double Tradition versus the Triple Tradition as the result of two sources. This argument is more cogent for an oral Q rather than a written Q.
Mutual primitivity: Easier to explain why the ???? of the material sometimes appears more primitive in Matthew but other times more primitive in Luke
Doublets. Sometimes it appears that doublets in Matthew and Luke have one half that comes from Mark and the other half from some common source, i.e. Q.
Disuse of the other's non-Markan, non-sayings material outside the triple tradition. Easier to explain the different infancy, genealogical, and resurrection accounts as due to not knowing each other.
Arguments for Q being a written document:
Exactness in Wording. Sometimes the exactness in wording is quite impressive. E.g. Matt. 6:24 = Luke 16:13 (27/28 Greek words). Matt. 7:7-8 = Luke 11:9-10 (24/24 Greek words).
Some Correspondence in Order. There is some common order between the two Sermons on/at the Mount.
Doublets. Doublets are often a sign of two written sources. Used to great effect in the Documentary Hypothesis (OT analog to the 2SH).
Cutting Edge Q Studies
Much recent work has gone in studying the theology, community, and the compositional history of Q. For example, John S. Kloppenborg, The ????ation of Q, has proposed a Q stratification theory that Q was composed in stages. (Kloppenborg 1987; see also a partial critique by Tuckett 1996: 69-74) A thorough exposition of the state of the Q art is Kloppenborg Verbin 2000.

The Weak Points of the Two Source Hypothesis
The "minor agreements" are probably the weakest point for the 2SH, although each of the central theses of the 2SH, pure Markan priority and the existence of Q, can be attacked separately. The minor agreements are those agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark (or "anti-Markan agreements") that occur in triple tradition. Some of the minor agreements are quite striking; for example, both Matt. 26:68 and Luke 22:64 but not Mark 14:65 include the question "Who is it that struck you" in the beating of Jesus.

Mark's Priority or Matthew's?
The main competitor to Mark's priority is the priority of Matthew, which enjoys substantial external evidence in its favor.

Problems with Q
While many of those who do not subscribe to Q also subscribe to Matthean priority, there is also an increasing group of scholars who would dispense with Q within the framework of Markan priority under the Farrer Theory. Their argument, mainly involving the minor agreements, may be found at Mark Goodacre's Ten Reasons to Question Q.

Minor Agreements
The minor agreements pose a special dilemma for the 2SH, because they are suggestive of a literary connection between Matthew and Luke outside of either Mark or Q, calling into question the relative independence of Matthew and Luke.

A few scholars explain the minor agreements by Luke's use of Matthew in addition to Q and Mark (3SH). The problem is that the modern argument for Q requires Matthew and Luke to be independent, so the 3SH raises more questions than it solves, namely, how to establish Q is Luke is dependent on Matthew.

Accordingly, some scholars who wish to keep Q while acknowledging the force of the minor agreements to attribute the minor agreements to a proto-Mark, such as the Ur-Markus in the Markan Hypothesis (MkH) that was adapted by Mark independently from its use by Matthew and Luke.

Other scholars feel that the character of the minor agreements suggest that they are due to a revision of our Mark, called deutero-Mark. In this case, both Matthew and Luke are dependent on deutero-Mark, which did not survive the ages.

Therefore, the minor agreements, if taken seriously, force a choice between accepting pure Markan priority on one hand or the existence of Q on the other hand, but not both simultaneously as the 2SH requires.

The 2SH's response to the issue of the minor agreement is to weaken their significance by attributing various causes for them. B. H. Streeter devoted a chapter on this issue in his magnum opus on the synoptic problem with an analysis that is largely maintained today. (Streeter 1924: 293-331; see also Neirynck 1974 for a modern exhaustive treatment) The minor argreements are handled by one of four different reasons how Matthew and Luke could have independently arrived at their anti-Markan agreements:

Coincidence. Most of the minor agreements are attributed to the independent, coincidental redaction of Mark by Matthew and Luke. Streeter stated that "the majority of these agreements do not require any explanation at all" because they are the natural result of Matthew's and Luke's production of their own gospels. In this category, Streeter noted Matthew and Luke compression of Mark's diffuse style and their improvements of Mark's rough Greek, which is the most colloquial in the New Testament and influenced by an Aramaic coloring.
Overlaps with Q. Streeter attributed some agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark to their common of use of Q in those passages that Mark and Q overlapped.
Overlapping Oral Tradition. Stein suggested that. in minor agreements that appear "primitive," Matthew and Luke preferred their ???? of oral tradition over Mark. (Stein 1987: 126-27)
Textual Corruption. Streeter argued that, in a few cases, the best manu???? copies of the gospels do not reflect the original text in a manner that produces with Matthew and Luke agree against Mark.
History
A. Precursors (before 1838)
Serious study of the synoptic problem began in the late eighteenth century during the Enlightenment. The most prominent source critic in the early period was J. J. Griesbach who argued for the theory that now bears his name (Mark's being a conflation of Matthew and Luke) in 1783 and 1789. Around this time, early critics began to ????ulate the separate theses that would later join to ???? the 2SH.

For example, G. Ch. Storr, one of Griesbach's contemporary challengers, arguing that Mark, not Matthew, was the earliest, and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark (Storr 1786; see generally Farmer 1964: 7, Reicke 1978a: 51). For the double tradition, however, Storr was undecided about whether Luke used Matthew, virtually anticipating the Farrer Hypothesis, or whether Matthew's translator used Luke.

Herbert Marsh's synoptic theory was very mechanical, proposing three main hypothetical Hebrew documents, denominated with Hebrew letters. (Marsh 1801) These documents comprised the Matthew-Mark agreements against Luke (Aleph1, labeled "pMt"), the Mark-Luke agreements against Matthew (Aleph2, labeled "pLk"), and the Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark (Beth, labeled "Q"), respectively. The first two of these documents themselves were derived from a fourth hypothetical document Aleph (labeled "G"), which contained the Matthew-Mark-Luke triple agreements. The other source, Beth, was a sayings collection that was similar to Q.

Marsh's theory has an important contact with the 2SH, namely, the postulation of a Q-like hypothetical sayings source, Beth, that is largely responsible for the double tradition. Since Marsh offered a Griesbach-like explanation for the origin of Mark as a conflation of Aleph 1 (proto-Matthew) and Aleph 2 (proto-Luke), however, Marsh should not deserve credit as the originator of the 2SH. A modern variant of Marsh's theory is P. Rolland's Hypothesis.

Storr's and Marsh's views passed out of favor and left no direct effect on the course of the synoptic problem. By the1830s, when the consensus was coalescing around the Griesbach hypothesis, especially in the work of the Tübingen school, two scholars, F. E. D. Schleiermacher and Karl Lachmann, laid the groundwork for what would become the two fundamental tenets of the 2SH.

Schleiermacher operated within the perimeters of the Fragmentary Hypothesis, which held that the synoptic gospels were composed from a multiplicity of shorter documents. Interpreting the term logia (logia) as referring to a sayings collection in the testimony of Papias (c. 125), Schleiermacher argued that the "logia" was one of the documents that were available to the evangelists (Schleiermacher 1832; see generally Farmer 1964: 15). In fact, "logia" was how scholars originally called Q until the turn of the 20th century, when doubts about the identification with Papias's reference began to surface.

Lachmann, also a proponent of the Fragmentary Hypothesis, subdivided the narrative portions of the synoptics into roughly nine separate sections and investigating how these sections were eventually arranged in the individual gospels. Lachmann concluded that the Mark's order best reflected a relatively fixed oral sequence for these sections and found reasons for Matthew and Luke to depart from this fixed oral sequence (Lachmann 1835; English trans. by Palmer 1966-67: 376-378).

B. Conception (1838-1863)
Shortly thereafter, Ch. H. Weisse put these two pieces of the puzzle together, in which he argued that Mark and the logia were the sources of both Matthew and Luke. Although some of his comporaries expounded similar ideas (Wilke, Credner), Weisse was the first to identify this and only these sources as a sufficient solution to the synoptic problem and therefore deserves the father of the 2SH. Weisse did have a problem, though; he was not sure where to place such material as the preaching of John the Baptist and the Temptation of Jesus into this framework. First (1838), he placed them in the logia (Q), but later changed mind and put them in an Ur-Markus (1854) to preserve the integrity of Q's genre.

Weisse's views did not immediately establish a following. He was a lone voice during a period that was dominated by the Tübingen school, who found the Griesbach hypothesis amenable to their rigid conception of the development of history in accordance with the Hegelian dialectic. Specifically, they saw Matthew as the Jewish thesis, Luke as the Gentile antithesis, and Mark as the mediating synthesis. However, the excesses of the school led a questioning of all their positions created a favorable climate for other approaches the synoptic problem. Holtzmann (1863) investigated his predecessors and organized his theory around a narrative source he called Alpha (A). Noticing that Matthew and Luke rarely agreed against Mark, Alpha's nature so closely resembled Mark that Holtzmann called it an Ur-Markus. With a Mark-like source, there needs to be a saying source. which Holtzmann termed Lambda (L) for the logia. Holtzmann's work came out when members of the Tübingen school were retiring, and the new generation of scholars quickly and enthusiastically adopted Holtzmann's Markan hypothesis.

C. Establishment (1863-1924)
Meanwhile, in England the scholars there generally agreed with Westcott in an oral (i.e. non-literary) origin to the gospels. William Sanday, however, brought Holtzmann's ideas on the synoptic problem to Oxford where it was studied in great detail, leading to a modification of Holtzmann's theory that recalled Weisse's solution back in 1838. Specifically, the Oxford School produced a series of proofs that led to the abandonment of Holtzmann's Ur-Markus in favor of pure Markan priority.

The key step was made by J. C. Hawkins (1899), who decided to analyze the nature of Ur-Markus by looking at the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, which should belong to Ur-Markus. However, Hawkins discovered that many of these agreements (which we now call the "minor agreement") were smoother than the corresponding text of Mark, which made it very difficult to envision Mark as a debasing revision of Ur-Markus. Nevertheless, Hawkins listed about 20 anti-Markan agreements that he felt made it unlikely for Mark to be the direct source of Matthew and Luke.

The next step in this direction was F.C. Burkitt (1907), who found explanations for most of Hawkins troublesome passages, and the process was completed by Streeter (1924) who appealed to textual corruption as the answer to the most difficult of these minor agreements.