Fundamental flaws in the Two-Source Theory

Please be aware that one important pillar of the Two-Source Theory is not being challenged here, namely the priority of Mark. ^[1] This is well-established, and the arguments in its favour are in my opinion overwhelming. They can be found in most of the standard textbooks on New Testament Introduction.

1. A simplistic assumption

   The prevailing Two-Source Theory ("2ST") posits that the author of Matthew's gospel and the author of Luke's gospel independently used the same two written sources, namely Mark and the sayings source Q. However there has been a growing unease with the 2ST ever since the publication of A.M.Farrer's "On Dispensing with Q". ^[2] In this he argued that the synoptic similarities can be explained by positing that Matthew used Mark, and Luke used both Mark and Matthew. This became known as the Farrer Theory ("FT"). The most persistent modern supporter of the FT has been Michael D. Goulder, who wrote a two-volume commentary on Luke in order to demonstrate the feasibility of Luke's dependence on these two written sources only. ^[3] It is frequently assumed that the 2ST and the FT are the only reasonable alternatives given Markan priority. That this assumption is incorrect is clear from the following quotation of C.M.Tuckett:
   

   "It might be that Luke used Q for most of the 'double tradition', but that he also knew Matthew's gospel and used it occasionally. Such a theory..... is not logically impossible and has had a number of distinguished supporters, past and present." ^[4]

   Tuckett's observation is a timely reminder of the viability of the Three-Source Theory ("3ST"), though to find the most powerful form of the theory will involve going further than any of those distinguished supporters envisaged. For it will involve a radical reassessment of the nature and contents of the Q source.
   Before we attempt to do this, we must deal with a common objection: if Luke knew Matthew, surely this eliminates the need for a sayings source. This is not the case. For the arguments from doublets and from the relative primitivity of some of the Lukan pericopes (e.g. 6:20b;11:2b-4), do not simply vanish if it is decided on other grounds that Luke knew Matthew. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether mere oral tradition could explain how Matthew, written 50 years after the crucifixion, could contain so many authentic-looking sayings which form the majority within the group normally labelled 'Q'. ^[5]

2. Luke's dependence on Matthew

   
   The main evidence that Luke knew Matthew is as follows:
   • Luke refers to "many writers" who have "undertaken to draw up an account of the events [relating to Jesus]" (Lk 1:1). Q does not fit this description, and under no stretch of the imagination could one gospel (Mark) be referred to as "many". So allowing for a slight exaggeration, Luke was probably referring to Mark and Matthew. ^[6] This is the common sense explanation of the verse. Knowing about Matthew and being a good scholar, Luke would undoubtedly have made sure that he obtained a copy of it. He decided to write his own account (Lk 1:3), which can only mean that he was not satisfied either with Mark or with Matthew. Clearly Luke thought he could do better, so we should not be too surprised to find him correcting, developing and even entirely rewriting passages which he found in the earlier gospels.
   • Luke's Sermon on the Plain is most naturally understood as being named (in effect) and framed by someone who knew Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. Surely it is not a coincidence that Luke had Jesus come down a hill and stop on level ground (Lk 6:17), which looks like a deliberate contrast with Matthew's "he went up a mountain". Nor is it a coincidence that Luke created a sermon scenario framed by "he began to speak" (6:20) and "when he had finished addressing the people" (7:1) which closely resembles the Matthean frame "he began to address them" (5:2) and "when Jesus had finished this discourse the people ..." (7:28). For the sermons' closing sentences in both Matthew and Luke are editorial ^[7] and so cannot have been derived from the sayings source.
   • According to U.Schnelle there are about 700 'minor agreements' between Matthew and Luke against Mark. ^[8] It is very unlikely there would have been so many if Luke had never seen a copy of Matthew's gospel. Schnelle tries to solve the problem of the minor agreements by proposing that Matthew and Luke used a revised edition of Mark which he labels 'Deuteromark'. But he can see no theological differentiation between the canonical Mark and Deuteromark, nor any rationale for the production of Deuteromark, calling it merely a "stratum of editorial revision". ^[9] This is quite unsatisfactory. Moreover no explanation is offered as to why the supposed first edition (Mark) is still extant whereas the supposed later edition (Deuteromark) has been lost.
   • Many scholars date Luke five years or more later than Matthew. If this relative dating is correct, then notwithstanding the limitations of first century communications it is hardly conceivable that Luke, the most scholarly of the synoptic writers, could have been ignorant of what was to become the most popular synoptic gospel in the early centuries of the Christian Church.
   • Evidence will be presented on the next page of this site showing that several of the double tradition pericopes were not in the early sayings source, but originated in Matthew's gospel. Luke must have copied them from there, thus explaining the similarities in wording.
   • For example, the clause "If you are the Son of God ..." makes narrative sense in Mt 4:3, three verses after the proclamation "This is my Son ...". In most reconstructions of Q, the reader is left wondering how Jesus came to attain the title "Son of God" so early. In other words it appears that, instead of being in Q, the Temptation story originated in Matthew, and Luke copied it from there.
   
   

3. The incongruity of Q

   Q as normally understood is quite incongruous as a stand-alone document.
   • The mixture of many sayings with a few narratives in Q makes the identification of its genre extremely problematic. ^[10]
   • Moreover the narratives in Q are concentrated near the beginning. Thus Q appears to make a start on the story of Jesus, then abandon it, escaping into the realm of monologue. In an attempt to justify this, Kloppenborg has found parallels in Near Eastern literature which include examples of an "account which demonstrates in narrative fashion that the sage is indeed worthy of the hearer's attention". ^[11] But in the more relevant arena of early Jewish or Christian documents, there is no parallel with such a demonstration.
   • Even the monologue lacks consistency, for some of the sayings are attributed to John the Baptist.
   • In addition, Q is so incoherent that its leading advocates have thought it necessary to divide it up, often into three layers or editions. The 2ST would have been more convincing if Q had not lent itself to this surgery.
   • It is impossible either to date or to locate the original composition of Q. ^[12] It has no identifiable  Sitz im Leben. This is very strange considering how much we know about the early followers of Jesus from Acts and the letters of Paul. It is further testimony against the existence of a document too closely tied to the double tradition material.
   • There is no independent witness to the existence of Q outside the synoptic gospels.

Notes