Is It Possible To Dispense With Q?: Oxford

IS IT POSSIBLE TO DISPENSE WITH Q?
by
PAUL FOSTER
Oxford
Abstract
Solutions to the Synoptic Problem that argue for Markan priority, but the non-
existence of Q as the basis of the double tradition material continue to attract
scholars. The best known of these theories, the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis argu-
ing for Luke’s direct use of Matthew, has been championed most recently by
Mark Goodacre. He reworks some of the previous arguments in favour of that
hypothesis as well as oVering a number of new arguments. This paper assesses
the validity of such arguments and the claim that it is now possible to nally dis-
pense with Q.
1. Introduction
Despite the emergence and dominance of the Two Source Theory
(2ST), originating with Weisse1 and Holtzmann,2 there has existed for
a considerable time a group of scholars who, while maintaining Markan
priority vigorously, question the existence of Q in any form. The advo-
cates of what may loosely be termed “Markan priority, non-Q” type
solutions to the synoptic problem usually trace the origins of this posi-
tion back to Austin Farrer’s seminal essay, “On Dispensing with Q”.3
The reason for this is obvious: not only did Farrer awaken New
Testament scholars of his generation to this possibility, but he also
articulated his case in an incisive manner.
However, it should be noted that Farrer was not the rst to pos-
tulate the possibility of this type of solution. Eighteen years earlier
1
It appears that the existence of Q was rst utilised in a theory to account for the
material in the synoptic gospels in 1838 by Christian Hermann Weisse, Die evangelische
Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1838).
2
The 2ST came to dominance after the appearance of Holtzmann’s study in 1863.
H.J. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien. Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig:
Engelmann, 1865).
3
Austin Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q”, in D.E. Nineham, (ed.), Studies in the
Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955) 55-88.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003 Novum Testamentum XLV, 4

Also available online – www.brill.nl
314 paul foster
James Hardy Ropes had raised similar concerns, and suggested Luke’s
direct use of Matthew as a preferable alternative to the existence of
Q.4 Yet, perhaps the earliest formulation of a solution to the synop-
tic problem that argued for Lukan dependence on Matthew in con-
junction with Markan priority may be traced to the work of Eduard
Simons in 1880. 5 His proposal, however, did not dispense with Q. He
saw the third evangelist using both Mark and Q as source material,
but also consulting the Matthean text. In response to such proposed
solutions to the synoptic problem, this paper seeks to expose the crit-
ical weaknesses of those theories that attempt to dispense with Q while
maintaining Markan priority.
2. The Farrer Theory, or Luke’s Dependence on Matthew

Among those who suggest solutions to the synoptic problem that
are based upon Markan priority and the non-existence of Q Farrer’s
position is the most common, being advocated by scholars such as
Goulder,6 Drury,7 Franklin,8 Goodacre9 and Shellard.10 Basically, this
solution argues that when Luke composed his gospel he did so with
both Mark and Matthew in front of him. As Farrer states,
we can conceive well enough how St. Luke could have both read St. Matthew’s
book as it stands, and written the gospel he has left us . . . He [Luke] claims to
know, and, one would naturally suppose, to pro t by, more than one gospel nar-
rative other than his own. By all agreement he knew St. Mark’s, but what other
did he know? It would be natural for him to know St. Matthew’s, supposing
always that it had been in existence long enough.11
4
J. Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels (First Published 1934; Second Impression with New
Preface; London: Oxford University Press, 1960) 67.
5
E. Simons, Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthäus benutzt? (Bonn: Universitäts-
Buchdruckerei von Carl Georgi, 1880).
6
For the fullest statement of his views see, M.D. Goulder, Luke—A New Paradigm
(2 vols.; JSNT Supp 20; SheYeld: JSOT Press, 1989).
7
J. Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel (London: Darton, Longman and Todd,
1976 ).
8
E. Franklin, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew ( JSNT Supp 92; SheYeld:
JSOT Press, 1994).
9
M. Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (London: SheYeld
Academic Press/Continuum, 2001); The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the
Synoptic Tradition (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2002).
10
B. Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context ( JSNT Supp
215; London: SheYeld Academic Press/Continuum, 2002).
11
Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q”, 56.
is it possible to dispense with q? 315
This last comment illustrates an unproven assumption that is nec-

essary for the Farrer theory, and must hold for such a proposed solu-
tion to be even a possibility. It must be assumed not only that Matthew
wrote before Luke, but also that the Matthean gospel had been in
existence for “long enough” (however one may measure that) and had
also circulated widely enough to come to Luke’s knowledge. Although
this point will be addressed again later, it is worth noting that Farrer
sees this as being plausible on the assumption that “St. Matthew and
St. Luke both emanate from the same literary region—both are ortho-
dox Gentile-Christian writings composed (let us say) between A.D. 75
and A.D. 90, in an area in which St. Mark’s gospel was known.” 12
Many scholars would disagree with Farrer’s premise that Matthew’s
gospel was a Gentile-Christian writing and thus emerged from the
same literary environment as Luke’s gospel. In fact the consensus posi-
tion is just the opposite, namely that the rst gospel re ects a Jewish
background,13 with some suggesting that the community was still Jewish
at the time of the gospel’s composition, 14 and others going even fur-
ther by suggesting that the group was a Christian-Jewish community
that eschewed all contact with Gentiles and remained so until it petered
out in the third or fourth century.15 Thus Farrer’s explanation of the
likelihood of contact between the literary worlds of Matthew and Luke,
with Matthew of necessity being prior to Luke, seems to be extremely
weak on all counts.
Yet there is another fundamental weakness with Farrer’s statement.
He draws upon the material contained in the Lukan preface to ask
the question, apart from the Markan source “what other did he [Luke]
know?”16 Thus the polloÛ of Lk. 1:1 is conveniently reduced to just
Mark and one other source. The motivation for this sleight of hand
comes to the fore in the conclusion of Farrer’s argument where he
dispenses not only with Q , but also with all source material external
to the fourfold gospel canon. His reconstruction is as follows:
12
13
See G.N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1992).
14
A.J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1994).
15
D.C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The Historical and Social Setting
of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).
16
Farrer presents the following rendering of the relevant statement in the Lukan
preface, “in view of the fact that several authors have tried their hand at composing
an account of the things ful lled among us.” (“On Dispensing with Q”, 56 ).
316 paul foster
The literary history of the Gospels will turn out to be a simpler matter than we
had supposed. St. Matthew will be seen to be an ampli ed version of St. Mark,
based on a decade of habitual preaching, and incorporating oral material, but
presupposing no other literary source beside St. Mark himself. St. Luke, in turn,
will be found to presuppose St. Matthew and St. Mark, and St. John to pre-
suppose the three others. The whole literary history of the canonical Gospel tra-
dition will be found to be contained in the fourfold canon itself, except in so far
as it lies in the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, and the other New Testament
writings. 17
Would that the matter was this simple! First, the wealth of non-
canonical gospel material found at Nag Hammadi suggests that there
may have been other Jesus traditions, some oral and some written,
that existed alongside the material in the fourfold gospel canon, at
least as early as the second century. Second, is it really plausible, as
Farrer suggests, that all the additional material with which Matthew
augments his Markan source is due to redactional creativity, and like-
wise, anything that Luke has in addition to his two canonical gospel
sources stems from his own creativity with these received traditions?
This is the clear implication that Farrer himself suggests in relation to
other non-extant proposed gospel sources, such as M and L. He states,
“Once rid of Q , we are rid of a progeny of nameless chimaeras.”18
Michael Goulder, Farrer’s former student and one of the main pro-
ponents of his theory, puts this hard line even more forcibly.19
i. The Re-ordering of the Matthean Material

However, the articulation of the theory of Markan priority and
Luke’s dependence on Matthew has moved on since Farrer’s article.
Most recently Goodacre has taken up the task of championing this
theory. One of his most urgent tasks has been to defend the Farrer
theory from Streeter’s pre-emptive charge that for Luke to know the
Matthean material and then to re-order it in the manner he does
would mean he was some kind of literary crank.20 Goodacre’s rst
17
18
19
Goulder, Luke—A New Paradigm, 22-23.
20
With his usual wit and sharp turn of phrase, Streeter described the case for Lukan
dependence on Matthew in the following terms: “If then Luke derived this material
from Matthew, he must have gone through both Matthew and Mark so as to dis-
criminate with meticulous precision between Markan and non-Markan material; he
must then have proceeded with the utmost care to tear every little piece of non-Markan
material he desired to use from the context of Mark in which it appeared in Matthew—
in spite of the fact that the contexts in Matthew are always exceedingly appropriate—
manoeuvre is to point out a slight inaccuracy in Streeter’s charge that

a Matthew-dependent Luke would be stripping material from appro-
priate Markan contexts and placing such material into a diVerent con-
text of Mark having no special appropriateness. He correctly observes
that,
Most of the pieces of Luke’s Double tradition do not appear in a ‘diVerent con-
text of Mark’, whether appropriate or otherwise, because very little of Luke’s Double
Tradition occurs in a Markan context at all. That is, whereas Matthew often features
Q in Markan contexts, Luke rarely does. Most of Luke’s Q material occurs in
two sections, 6.20-8.3 and 9.51-18.14, and in these sections there is very little
use of Mark.21
While fully agreeing with Goodacre’s more accurate statement of

what a Matthew-dependent Luke would actually be doing, this does
not seem to answer Streeter’s fundamental charge. Rather, the pri-
mary issue is that the activity of removing non-Markan material from
the Markan contexts in Matthew seems quite an unlikely procedure.
Downing makes this point not just at a theoretical level, but also more
signi cantly with illustrations of contemporary compositional techniques
in or around the rst century C.E. While he presents numerous exam-
ples of con ation of the type required by the two source theory, he
nds no evidence to support an initial unpicking then reassembling of
material to produce a document with a new literary arrangement. He
concludes by stating,
Even when such unpicking and reassembly might seem relatively easy (say, in
whole narrative units), there is no contemporary analogy. No other writer of the
time runs backwards and forwards in two sets of materials in the way the hypo-
thetical third of the Gospel writers must be supposed to have done.22
Yet Goodacre does not address this issue at all. Instead he asserts
that by asking the correct question one is more likely to nd the nat-
ural answer, and he states the correct question as: “Why does Luke,
on the whole, place non-Markan material from Matthew in non-Markan
contexts?” 23 This question is answered by arguing that Matthew’s or-
dering is rigid and wooden, whereas Luke is reticent to retain long
in order to re-insert it into a diVerent context of Mark having no special appropri-

ateness. A theory which would make an author capable of such a proceeding would
only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank.” B.H.
Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study in Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924) 183.
21
Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 124.
22
F.G. Downing, “Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem”, JBL 107
(1988) 69-85, see 82-83.
23
318 paul foster
discourses regardless of their being drawn from Mark or Matthew.

Again Goodacre may be right to note that the implication of Streeter’s
statement is the value judgement that the Matthean order is prefer-
able to that of Luke,24 but again this is not the primary issue. The
point at stake is whether it appears plausible for Luke to scour the
composition of the rst evangelist, carefully removing the Double
Tradition material, in order to re-assemble it in two major blocks in
non-Markan contexts.
The question of Luke’s re-ordering of Matthew receives a fuller
treatment in Goodacre’s The Case Against Q.25 First Goodacre argues
that Luke had good reason to use his sources in a diVerent manner.
It is suggested that, “He has known Mark for perhaps twenty years
whereas Matthew is a much more recent discovery.” 26 Thus Matthew’s
gospel is seen as being derivative on Mark, and Luke considers it to
be secondary and inferior to the gospel “that has long been at the
heart of his understanding of the Jesus story.” 27 This theory is based
on two dubious assumptions: that it is possible to be certain of the
temporal order in which Luke came across his two sources (the order
in which Luke discovered Mark and Q is not an issue for the 2ST);
and that he knew which was the more ancient source, and valued it
more highly. The last point is emphasized in the comment that “Perhaps
Luke is even more sure of Markan Priority than we are; he has known
Mark for longer and it had time to enter his bloodstream before there
is any question of its contamination from its interpretation by and
absorption into Matthew.” 28 Yet Luke gives no indication in his pref-
ace, or elsewhere, that he is privileging one source more highly than
another.
The second avenue of defence is based upon narrative criticism.
Goodacre sees the Q theory as an attack on the artistry of the Lukan
narrative. By comparison he states, “adherents of the Farrer theory,
24
In passing it should be noted that Streeter does not say that one ordering is
preferable to another only that Matthew appears to have placed this material in appro-
priate contexts, and Luke removes it from these contexts. Second, even if Streeter
asserted that the Matthean order was preferable and more user-friendly, he could have
marshalled much Patristic evidence in support of favouring the Matthean arrangement
of material. This does not make the preference for the Matthean ordering any less of
a value judgement, but it does show that such a point of view is not exclusively a sub-
jective assessment of modern biblical critics.
25
Goodacre, The Case Against Q , see in particular chapters 4-6, 81-132.
26
Goodacre, The Case Against Q , 89.
27
28
in denying themselves the expedient of the Q hypothesis for account-

ing for every peculiarity in Luke’s order, are inevitably more inclined
to look to Luke’s literary skill as a means of explaining the narrative
development of his gospel.”29 However, Goodacre is incorrect to imply
that proponents of the 2ST suggest that there is no narrative thread
or literary artistry in the third gospel. The problem for supporters of
the 2ST is not the narrative continuity in Luke’s gospel, but the implau-
sibility of the evangelist unpicking double tradition material from
Matthew’s gospel. This becomes more problematic since such a pro-
cedure is unknown in ancient literary documents.30
ii. Luke’s Critical Attitude towards Matthew

Actually, what Goodacre’s theory requires, and he supplies the neces-
sary step, is an assertion that Luke is critical of the Matthean docu-
ment and thus radically re-writes Matthew’s. He states, “Luke is making
clear that he is critical of his predecessors’ work and that his radical
reordering of Matthew is in Theophilus’s best interest.” 31 Goodacre is
not the rst to postulate a critical attitude on the part of Luke towards
Matthew’s gospel. Franklin agrees with Goodacre insofar as he asserts
that Luke views “Matthew’s updating of Mark as right in conception
but wrong in its overall execution, and . . . he sets out to write a con-
scious response to it.”32 Yet Franklin and Goodacre diverge over the
assessment of what issue causes Luke to be a critic of Matthew. Franklin
sees Luke as handling his two sources in a vastly diVerent manner and
instead of his relatively conservative attitude to the Mark, Luke is far
more radical in relation to the Matthean material. Franklin argues that
this is the case because Matthew’s “theological outlook is in fact inim-
ical to Luke.”33 And this opposition stems primarily from diVerent con-
ceptions of the law. Here there is a signi cant diVerence from both
Goulder and Goodacre in terms of Luke’s alleged re-writing of Matthew.
For Goulder “Luke is writing a reconciliation of Mark and Matthew
to reassure Theophilus that the apparently dissonant gospel tradition
is trustworthy.” 34 According to Goodacre Luke’s concern is neither theo-
logical nor pastoral, but rather literary. “He appears to be critical of
29
30
Downing, “Compositional Conventions”, 69-85.
31
32
Franklin, Luke, 372.
33
34
Goulder, Luke—A New Paradigm, 200.
320 paul foster
his predecessors’ attempts to write narratives of the Jesus story (Lk.

1.1).” 35 While this discord among the main proponents of Lukan depen-
dence on Matthew in accounting for Luke’s motivation in reworking
the Matthean structure does not mean that one of these explanations
could not be correct, none of these formulations seems to have a great
deal of support from the text. Franklin’s Luke may not have the same
outlook on the law as Matthew, 36 but Torah dispute is not presented
as an inner Christian source of discord. In fact Luke highlights the
concord that exists between diVerent Christian gures in relation to
Torah (cf. Acts 15). Goulder correctly notes that Luke writes to reas-
sure Theophilus, but where is the evidence that his concern was about
dissonant gospel traditions? Goodacre’s reconstruction depends upon
the radical over-interpretation of certain statements in the Lukan pref-
ace. Contrary to Goodacre, the preface does not seem “to emphasize
so strongly the matter of order.” 37 Instead there is one eeting, and
rather enigmatic, statement that may refer to Luke’s own ordering
of his material without necessarily being critical of the purposes of
the other sources. The reference from Lk. 1:3 reads: ¦doje kmoÜ
parhkolouyhkñti nvyen psin kribÇw kayej°w soi gr‹cai.38 The empha-
sis here falls very much on Luke’s own literary practice, rather than
oVering a critique (implied or otherwise) of his predecessors, whom he
describes as eyewitnesses and servants of the word (oß pƒ rx°w aétñptai
kaÜ êphr¡tai genñmenoi toè lñgou) in the previous verse.39 Thus, not only
does the removal of non-Markan material by Luke from Matthew’s
account seem implausible and contrary to ancient literary practice,40
but moreover, all attempts to try and create an animosity between the
35
36
On Luke’s attitude to torah see S.G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (SNTSMS 50;
Cambridge: CUP, 1983).
37
38
Here Goodacre fails to inform his readers of the debate that centres upon the
meaning of the term kayej°w, which is so vital for his argument. Fitzmyer outlines
some of the major options in his discussion, see The Gospel according to Luke I-IX (New
York: Doubleday, 1981) 298-9. See also H. Cadbury’s discussion in F.J. Foakes Jackson
& Kirsopp Lake (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles (vol.
2; London: Macmillan, 1922) 504-5.
39
In large part, Loveday Alexander sees the purpose of Luke’s preface as locating
the literary work in a socio-cultural setting. She states, “Luke is writing from within a
Christian social context which is in signi cant respects like that of the Hellenistic schools
themselves.” L. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: CUP,
1993).
40
Again, see Downing, “Compositional Conventions”, 69-85.
intentions of Matthew and Luke seems to lack the support of any cor-
roborative evidence.
iii. Other Traditions used by Luke

A signi cant point at which Goodacre diverges from the earlier for-
mulation of the Farrer-Goulder form of the theory is in his allowing
the possibility that other traditions, apart from Mark and Matthew,
in uenced the Lukan narrative. 41 In eVect this possibility is an attempt
to address the charge that at times Luke has the more primitive form
of a Double Tradition pericope, and this appears inexplicable on the
assumption of Lukan dependence on Matthew. Thus he states,
Not only has the extent of Luke’s supposed primitivity been greatly overestimated,
based partly on misconstrued assessments of the presence of Matthean language,
but even on occasions where Luke does show possible signs of primitivity, this is
only evidence for Q if one is prepared to deny a role to the living stream of oral
tradition in the composition of Luke’s gospel.42
Here Goodacre is aware that such a possibility stands in direct oppo-

sition to the Farrer-Goulder form of this theory, which vigorously denies
any source material outside of the fourfold gospel canon. Quite sen-
sibly Goodacre acknowledges the reality that the writing of a gospel
did not instantaneously supplant the stream of traditions that had fed
into its composition. However, apart from the words of institution (Lk.
22:20) and the Lord’s Prayer (11:2b-4), there are no examples pro-
vided to illustrate where Luke is drawing upon a pre-Lukan tradition
rather than creating material de novo. For instance, is the Lukan Passion
Narrative tradition or redactional formulation, what about the dis-
tinctive parables of the third gospel, the infancy narrative and the
unique genealogy? If Goodacre is willing to admit that alternative
sources are being used in some of these cases, (and this seems to be
the implication of his statement about “other traditions”), how is he
able to determine with such con dence that such material was oral
and not written? Yet he must maintain that these traditions are oral,
41
Franklin also allows for the presence of other source material in Luke’s gospel
apart from the other two synoptic accounts. He states that although Mark was the pri-
mary source, and Luke being written in reaction to Matthew, that “This is not to deny
the possibility of other sources . . . The point is, however, that such other material as
Luke has remains secondary and supplementary to his Markan source. (Franklin, Luke,
377-8).
42
322 paul foster
for to allow the possibility of some written sources, but not the exis-
tence of Q would be extremely arbitrary. However, it is important to
be clear at this point of what Goodacre has recognized, namely, that
it is the very data within the gospels that force one to postulate the
existence of other traditions beside those contained in the fourfold
gospel canon.
Yet is this not the “thin end of the wedge” for those who advocate
Markan priority, but non-Q solutions to the synoptic problem? Goodacre
vigorously protests that his theory is not susceptible to such a charge.
He asserts, “Some Q sceptics feel a little uncomfortable with this sce-
nario since it might at rst sight appear to allow Q to creep in through
the back door. Is this, to use another image, a kind of ‘closet Q’,
believing in a form of the Q hypothesis but not owning up to it? I
don’t think so.”43 Despite, this declaration of not reinventing Q in a
diVerent guise, it was precisely in order to escape the necessity of hypo-
thetical sources or traditions that Farrer44 and Goulder framed and
maintained the theory of Luke’s use of Matthew. Without sticking to
this hard line the theory loses its appeal, since it results in the multi-
plicity of hypothetical sources with which this theory is trying to dis-
pense.
iv. The Genre of Q

The lack of an extant document that exhibits the supposedly hypo-
thetical genre of Q is often levelled as a charge against those who
maintained the existence of this second written source that Matthew
and Luke drew upon independently. Farrer articulated this concern in
his argument when he stated, “there is no evidence for anything like
Q. To postulate the existence of Q is to postulate the unevidenced
and the unique . . . We have no evidence that the primitive Christians
ever put together a Q or anything like it.”45 Farrer should not be held
blameworthy for not acknowledging the signi cance of the Gospel of
Thomas, for although the Nag Hammadi corpus had been discovered
ten years prior to his article, publication was slow and perhaps the
importance of the text was not fully realized.46 The signi cance of
43
44
45
46
As Richard Smith states in the preface to The Nag Hammadi Library in English,
“Scholarly rivalries and the situation in Egypt in the years following the library’s dis-
covery in 1945 hindered work on the manuscripts. Twenty years after the discovery
Thomas, speci cally in relation to Q , is summarized by Davies in the

following terms:
Both Q and Thomas are lists of sayings, having about one third of their sayings
in common, but they are not otherwise connected. Thomas is not Q, nor a source
for Q , nor is Q a source for Thomas. The Q hypothesis does, however, gain
strength from the fact that Thomas proves that lists of sayings did circulate in
the early churches. 47
Yet the discovery of Thomas has not convinced Q sceptics either of

the possibility of the existence of Q or of the appropriateness of the
comparison. Rather the criterion has been somewhat changed to try
and remove Thomas from the debate. Goodacre dismisses the positive
evidence that Thomas oVers for the Q hypothesis in the following cur-
sory manner:
The disappointing news for the Q theory is that the document looks nothing like
Q as it is commonly reconstructed. Thomas is quite lacking in the kind of ordered
arrangements that characterize Q , especially the all-important narrative sequence
in Q’s rst third. Thus, far from corroborating the existence of documents like
Q , the blatant contrast between Thomas and Q gives one major pause for
thought.48
Contrary to Goodacre, the signi cance of Thomas was seen by Q

supporters as at least providing solid evidence, despite previous asser-
tions to the contrary, that amorphous sayings collections could circu-
late in the early church, although to describe either as amorphous is
to miss certain structural features in both documents.49 Now that Thomas
has been discovered, the charge has changed and it appears that Q
is not amorphous enough, since it does not match Thomas exactly. Of
course it does not, for Thomas is not Q. However, what Thomas and
the synoptic gospels do is mark endpoints on a continuum of Christian
writings about Jesus, and to nd that the genre of Q sits comfort-
ably between these two extremes gives plausibility to inferring that the
genre of reconstructed Q is well within the realms of possibility.50 The
only a small percentage of texts had been edited and translated, mostly by European
scholars, and less than ten percent had become available in English translations. In
1966 the team responsible for the present volume began to come together into ‘The
Coptic Gnostic Library Project’ under the auspices of the Institute for Antiquity and
Christianity, Claremont, California.” (The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ix).
47
Stevan Davies, “Thomas, Gospel of ”, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), Eerdman’s Dictionary
of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000) 1303.
48
49
For a discussion of the structuring of certain groups of Thomas sayings see A.D.
de Conick, Seek to See Him. Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (Leiden:
Brill, 1996).
50
To take up mathematical terminology, prior to the discovery of Thomas the genre
324 paul foster
manoeuvre that is made in order to rule Thomas out of consideration

is therefore not only inappropriate, but seems to be rather disingenu-
ous on the part of Goodacre.
However, generic considerations for placing Q in the correct taxo-
nomic class need not be con ned to a comparison with Thomas.
Kloppenborg has highlighted a number of ancient sayings collections
that demonstrate that Q was not a generic anomaly.51 The three types
of sayings collections that have close aYnities with Q at diVerent stages
of its formation are the instruction genre,52 Hellenistic gnomologia,53
and small collections of chriae.54 While each example of these genres
exhibits peculiarities and unparalleled aspects, they are “intelligible
against the background of antique sayings genres.”55 The same obser-
vation holds for Q , and it is a mistake to limit the comparison only
to Thomas, especially since other ancient sayings collections parallel the
morphology of Q more closely.
v. The Minor Agreements

The minor agreements are of course raised by Goodacre as a stan-
dard argument against Matthew and Luke being independent. Here
the rst example is predictably the common inclusion of the ve Greek
words tÛw ¤stin õ` paÛsaw se in Matt. 26:68//Lk. 22:64 agreeing against
Mk. 14:65. This oft repeated example is perhaps the best evidence
of Q had to be extrapolated from the example of the synoptic gospels. What Thomas
provides is the other endpoint on a continuum. Therefore inferring Q is an interpo-
lation between two known quantities, and as statisticians stress, this is more likely to
produce valid results.
51
J.S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). See esp. chap. 7, “Q and the Ancient Sayings
Collections”, 263-316.
52
As examples of this genre Kloppenborg discusses texts from Egypt and other parts
of the ANE dating from as early as the third millennium BCE to texts contemporary
with Q. There are numerous collections of this kind with the majority having a named
sage as a regular feature of the incipit, such as a king (Amenemhat), a vizier (Ptahhotep),
priest (Ankhsheshonq), a scribe (Khety), or other types of authority gures.
53
Hellenistic Gnomologia exhibit much greater variation, especially in relation to
their morphology. The range of dating of this type of collection spans from third cen-
tury BCE papyrus fragments of gnomic anthologies at least until the early Middle Ages
with anthologies transmitted under the names of Johannes Damascenus (VIII CE) and
Maximus the Confessor (probably from IX CE).
54
Chriae collections were popular in cynic circles. As Kloppenborg notes, “The
credit for the invention of this genre appears to go to Metrocles of Maroneia, a fourth-
century Cynic who compiled the chriae of Diogenes of Sinope.” (The Formation of Q ,
306). This form is also used by Lucian in his Life of Demonax.
55
Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q , 327.
that supporters of Lukan dependence on Matthew can produce. However,

the evidence is not fatal to the Q hypothesis for two reasons. First, it
is possible to postulate explanations of how this may have occurred in
the manuscript tradition. Although some late manuscripts of Mark con-
tain these ve words, this is almost certainly due to textual assimila-
tion. 56 Therefore the explanation that the words “Who is it who struck
you?”, could have fallen out of the Markan text is possible, but unlikely,
since it requires accepting the more weakly attested reading as origi-
nal.57 Alternatively, these ve words could have been assimilated either
into Matthew from Luke,58 or into Luke from Matthew, 59 by a scribe
who was familiar with their presence in the other gospel. It perhaps
should also be noted that the earliest mss evidence for Matt. 26.68 is
to be found in the fourth century uncials, and B. Thus, there is a
signi cant period of unevidenced textual history when this assimilation
could have occurred. Goodacre rails against any appeal to conjectural
emendation, he asserts that “Q theorists cannot be let oV the hook . . . by
appeal to textual corruption.” 60 However, to deny the possibility of an
56
Metzger summarises the evidence in the following manner. “The longer reading
involves the addition of the question tÛw ¤stin õ paÛsaw se, (‘Who is it that has struck
you?’), with or without the introductory Xrist¡, appears to be an assimilation to the
text of Matthew (26.68) or Luke (22.64). The shortest reading, prof®teuson, supported
as it is by the Alexandrian text and several early versions, best accounts for the rise
of the other readings.” B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
(2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) 97. The mss evidence in favour
of the longer reading is N U W X f 13 33 543 565 579 700 892 1071 et al. syhl bo
geo aeth arm Aug.
57
However, it should be noted that the early textual evidence for Mk. 14:65 is not
strong. Given the paucity of papyrological testimony for Mark (P45 fragmentary, P84 88
very brief passages) it is questionable whether the original wording of Mk. 14:65, (which
is not extant in any of the three papyri), can be established with great certainty.
58
The reason that the case of assimilation into the Matthean text is seen as more
likely is because these words are more problematic in that setting since the rst evan-
gelist does not mention the blindfolding of Jesus. Streeter argued that “the taunt ‘Prophesy
who it is that struck thee’ depends upon the fact that He was prevented by the veil
from seeing who did it. Indeed this last consideration leads up to what I believe is the
true solution—the original text of Matthew and of Mark omitted both the veiling and
the words ‘Who is it, etc.’ These two stand or fall together.” (Streeter, The Four Gospels,
326 ). In support of a conjectural emendation in relation to the text of Matt. 26:68 see
C.M. Tuckett, “The Minor Agreements and Textual Criticism”, in G. Strecker (ed.),
Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993)
119-141.
59
Although this option is not usually supported, it would cohere with the fact that
Matthew was the most cited gospel in the Patristic period and in general assimilations
tended to be toward the text of the rst gospel. However, this does not explain the
diYculty of the lack of a reference to the blindfolding in Matthew.
60
326 paul foster
early corruption for which there is no longer any extant mss evidence
seems to place an unwarranted level of con dence in the textual tra-
ditional at all points. Rather, each textual problem must be treated
on its merits, and if an unattested reading is the best explanation of
the readings in the mss tradition, then it is warranted to posit a con-
jectural emendation.
Moreover, as a number of supporters of the Q theory have recog-
nized, even if one or more of the Minor Agreements conclusively
demonstrated Lukan knowledge of Matthew, this does not automati-
cally disprove the Q hypothesis. Responding to Goulder’s discussion
of minor agreements,61 Tuckett states that,
If one of his examples were established, this would indicate that Luke knew
Matthew, but this would not of itself prove that the whole Q hypothesis was
invalid. It might be that Luke used Q for most of the ‘double tradition’ but that
he also used Matthew’s gospel and used it occasionally.62
Again Goodacre resists the logic of this argument. He suggests, “If

these two things, the Q hypothesis and the independence of Matthew
and Luke, were unrelated, the argument would be legitimate. However,
the independence of Matthew and Luke is usually taken to be the
essential premise for the Q hypothesis.” 63 Yet the logic is somewhat
faulty. While the independence of Matthew and Luke must necessar-
ily imply some common source for the double tradition passages, the
converse, that if Matthew and Luke are dependent at some points they
cannot share a common source, is obviously false. This said, most sup-
porters of the Q hypothesis feel that the minor agreements can be
dealt with adequately without recourse to postulating dependence
between the rst and third evangelists.
vi. Luke’s Ignorance of Matthean additions to Mark

Goodacre tries to counter the charge that Luke is ignorant of
Matthew’s additions to Mark in two ways. Initially he states that the
examples do not make the case. Admittedly, he provides evidence of
one example that should not be invoked, namely, the Matthean addi-
tion of Peter walking on the water. He correctly notes that this story
is “wholly absent from Luke, in either its Markan or Matthaean form.
61
M.D. Goulder, “On Putting Q to the Test”, NTS 24 (1978) 218-34.
62
C.M. Tuckett, “On the Relationship Between Matthew and Luke”, NTS 30 (1984)
130.
63
One can hardly be surprised that Luke lacks the Matthaean additions
to a story that does not feature at all in his Gospel.”64 However, there
are many more examples that do not fall into this category. Instead
Luke parallels the Markan account at a number of points without
showing knowledge of the following Matthean redactional additions:
the Baptist trying to hinder Jesus (Matt. 3:14-15); the counterexample
of temple priests and Hosea quotation (12:5-7); praise of Peter at
Caesarea Philippi (16:17-19); healing and children’s praise in the tem-
ple (21:14-16 ); the dream of Pilate’s wife (27:19); Pilate washing his
hands (27:24); blood on the heads of children (27:25); earthquake, rocks
splitting, and graves opening at Jesus’ death (27:51b-53). Certainly
Goodacre is correct that many of these additions re ect redactional
concerns of the rst evangelist (it would be surprising if they did not).
Nonetheless, it cannot be argued that all these comments are so oVensive
to Luke that they are “exactly the kind of Matthaean addition to Mark
that we would expect Luke to omit.”65 Surely the praise of the chil-
dren in the temple (Matt. 21:14-16 ) would cohere with the earlier
acclamations Jesus received in the temple in the Lukan infancy nar-
rative from Simeon and Anna (Lk. 2:29-32, 38).
The second defence that Goodacre tries to mount is that Luke’s
ignorance of Matthew’s additions is a fallacious argument. He con-
tends that, “wherever Luke features Matthew’s additions to Mark these
are placed in the category ‘Mark-Q overlap’ and ignored for the pur-
poses of this argument.” 66 He suggests that this is a convenient way
of ignoring major agreements between Luke and Matthew against
Mark.67 Four examples are oVered: the Baptist’s prediction of the
Coming One (Matt. 3:11-12//Mk. 1:7-8//Lk. 3:16-17); the Temptation
(Matt. 4:1-11//Mk. 1:12-13//Lk. 4:1-13); the Beelzebub controversy
(Matt. 12:22-30//Mk. 3:20-27//Lk. 11:14-23); and the Mustard seed
(Matt. 13:31-32//Mk. 4:30-32-//Lk. 13:18-19). 68 In the rst example,
Q appears to have an interest in John the Baptist material so it is not
surprising that it included its own version of this story. The tempta-
tion story is signi cantly longer in both Matthew and Luke with the
triad of temptations; thus, it was natural for both evangelists to inde-
pendently insert the Q version at the very place required by the Markan
64
65
66
67
See the discussion in Goodacre, The Case Against Q , 163-5.
68
Note that here Goodacre has given the wrong reference. The Matthean parallel
328 paul foster
framework. The Beelzebub story exists as a Matthean doublet (12:22-

30 and 9:32-34), which in this case seems to suggest that Matthew
knew this story from two sources, thus providing strong evidence for
a Mark-Q overlap. The mustard seed shows signi cant divergence in
all three accounts, moreover, the existence of a parallel in the Thomas
(G.Thom. 20) makes it plausible that the evangelists each knew vari-
ant forms either from written or oral traditions.
vii. Editorial Fatigue

Goodacre puts forward the criterion of editorial fatigue as a means
by which the direction of dependence on source material may be estab-
lished. He describes the phenomenon in the following terms.
When one writer is copying the work of another, changes are sometimes made
at the beginning of an account that are not sustained throughout. The writer
lapses into docile reproduction of the source . . . This phenomenon of ‘fatigue’ is
thus a telltale sign of a writer’s dependence on a source.69
One illustration of this tendency in the triple tradition is Goodacre’s

example of the Death of John the Baptist (Mk. 6:14-29//Matt. 14:1-
12). Two changes of detail are presented as examples of editorial
fatigue: rst, the change in the title of Antipas from tetrarch to king
in Matthew’s account; and second, there being no basis for Herod’s
grief in the Matthean form of the story (14:5). In relation to the rst
case it is noted that whereas Mark consistently calls Antipas king four
times in this story, Matthew changes the title to the correct designa-
tion tetrarch, but later reverts to the use of basileæw. Goodacre states,
“For Mark, Herod is always the ‘king’, . . . Matthew apparently cor-
rects this to ‘tetrarch’ . . . More is the shame, then, that Matthew lapses
into calling Herod ‘the king’ halfway through the story (Matt. 14:9),
in agreement with Mark (6:26 ).”70 However, this change of terminol-
ogy is not as signi cant as Goodacre suggests. While he mentions that
Mark uses the term basileæw four times (Mk. 14:22, 25, 26, 27), he
fails to mention that the Matthean abbreviation results in there being
no parallels to the term when it is used in vv. 25 and 26. Thus
Matthew gives Antipas a title only on two occasions in this story: in
the formulaic opening, ƒEn ¤keÛnÄ tÒ kairÒ ³kousen „HrÐdhw õ tetra‹rxhw,
is 13:31-32, not 13:18-19 which are the Lukan chapter and verse references. See
69
Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 71-72.
70
M. Goodacre, “Fatigue in the Synoptics”, NTS 44 (1998) 45-58, see 46.
where he is addressed formally as tetrarch (14:1); and then in the nar-

rative description, where the family name is omitted and he is given
the designation basileæw. This variation could surely be for stylistic
reasons, such as avoidance of the longer title, rather than a case of
editorial fatigue. The second alteration does seem to support the notion
of editorial fatigue. Having dropped the description of Herodias’ grudge
(Mk. 6:19-20), Matthew continues the description that Herod wanted
to execute John, but nonetheless speaks of the king’s grief over this,
kaÜ luphyeÜw õ basileæw (14:9). While this second case supports Markan
priority in terms of Matthew fatiguing with his source material,71 the
change of titles is not a convincing case of editorial fatigue.
Having established this criterion through an investigation of triple
tradition material as a way of identifying Mark as a source for the
other synoptics, Goodacre applies the same criterion to the double tra-
dition passages. He makes use of three main examples:72 the change
in terminology referring to the Centurion’s ward, from doèlow to paÝw
in the Lukan account (7:1-10); the use of the term “town” in the Lukan
missionary charge (Lk. 9:5); and, perhaps the strongest case, the para-
ble of the pounds (Lk. 19:11-27). With the rst example it needs to
be noted that Luke has reserved the term paÝw for the impassioned
plea of the Centurion. Like the change in titles given to Antipas, this
may be simply stylistic variation. With the second case, the descrip-
tion in Lk. 9:5 in which Jesus commands what action to take when
leaving the unreceptive town, Goodacre argues, “No town has been
mentioned in the previous verses, Lk. 9:1-6 (Mission Charge, cf. Mk.
6:6b-13//Mt. 10:5-15). It seems, then, that Luke has copied the words
from Matthew (10:14), who does have the appropriate antecedent (Mt
10:11, ‘and whatever town or village you enter. . .’).”73 Not only does
Goodacre fail to outline the complexity of the literary dependence in
this verse, more signi cantly, it is debatable whether it should even be
classed as double tradition material. Luke’s reference to a house, kaÜ
eÞw ¶n ’n oÞkÛan eÞs¡lyhte, (Lk. 9:4), is not a Lukan change that the
third evangelist later fails to sustain, but it is an expression that par-
allels the Markan account †Opou ¤Œn eÞs¡lyhte eÞw oÞkÛan, (Mk. 6:10).
Recognition of this as Mark-Q overlap raises the problem of deter-
mining which components have been derived from each of the two
71
See the detailed discussion in Goodacre, “Fatigue in the Synoptics”, 47.
72
The three examples are taken from The Synoptic Problem, 154-5.
73
330 paul foster
sources. Because of this, it becomes highly dubious whether this pas-

sage can be used to say anything about editorial fatigue in the dou-
ble tradition.
The parable of the pounds is the strongest example and almost cer-
tainly shows editorial fatigue on the part of the third evangelist with
his source material. As Goodacre points out Luke’s ten servants give
way to three later in the story, and their reward of cities turns into
pounds when the evil servant is deprived of what was entrusted to
him. Goodacre is correct to observe that “Luke’s version of the para-
ble does not hold together well.”74 However, the conclusion he draws
from this is debatable. He suggests, “there is a straightforward expla-
nation to hand: Luke has attempted to reframe Matthew’s parable but
editorial fatigue leads him to drift into the story line of his Matthaean
source, inadvertently betraying his knowledge of Matthew.” 75 Obviously
the most natural explanation is that Luke has fatigued with source
material here,76 but it is far from certain that the source was Matthew.
Goodacre dismisses the suggestion that Luke fatigued with Q since “it
seems impossible to nd reverse examples, cases where Matthew has
apparently become fatigued with Q , something that would be very
odd given his clear tendency to become fatigued in his copying of
Mark.”77 However, there is an important editorial lapse in the double
tradition where Matthew fails to sustain a redactional change that he
introduces not only in the double tradition, but also in all his source
material.
Matthew has a consistent tendency to replace the phrase ² basileÛa
toè yeoè with his preferred alterative, ² basileÛa tÇn oéranÇn, which
occurs 32 times in the rst gospel but does not occur in the other
canonical gospels. However, Matthew has the phrase ² basileÛa toè
yeoè only four times in his gospel (Matt. 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). The
example in Matt. 19:23-24, a triple tradition passage, is particularly
instructive. Adapting the Markan introduction with a reasonable degree
of freedom, Matthew in characteristic fashion alters the Markan ²
74
75
76
However, Fitzmyer suggests that the reference to “ten servants” originally came
from Q. He states, “For this reason it is better to think that the bulk of the parable
in Luke stood in ‘Q’ in a form similar to Matthew, but with a few diVerences. It is
more likely that ‘Q’ had originally ‘ten servants,’ which Matthew has reduced to three,
than that Luke would have introduced the ten only to forget about them almost imme-
diately.” J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke XX-XXIV (New York: Doubleday,
1985) 1230-1. This might be supported by the Matthean preference for triads.
77
basileÛa toè yeoè to his preferred ² basileÛa tÇn oéranÇn. However,

following Mark more mechanically in v. 24 he fails in his general edi-
torial policy and reproduces ² basileÛa toè yeoè. This is surely an obvi-
ous case of editorial fatigue as outlined by Goodacre in his discussion
of the phenomenon in relation to the triple tradition. 78
More signi cantly, Matthew also fails to change ² basileÛa toè yeoè
to ² basileÛa tÇn oéranÇn in the double tradition. In Matt. 12:28,
Jesus makes the declaration eÞ d¢ ¤n pneæmati yeoè ¤gÆ ¤kb‹llv tŒ daimñnia,
ra ¦fyasen ¤fƒ êmw ² basileÛa toè yeoè . The only diVerence with Luke
11:20 is that whereas Luke reads daktælÄ Matthew has pneæmati. It
has long been suggested by proponents of the Q hypothesis that the
Lukan form was more primitive because of the anthropomorphism
d‹ktulow.79 This case for a shared source can now be made even
stronger using Goodacre’s criterion of editorial fatigue, since Matthew
not only has a less primitive version of the saying, but more impor-
tantly, he has failed to sustain his redactional policy of introducing the
phrase ² basileÛa tÇn oéranÇn.
One may wonder in advance how Goodacre may attempt to resist
the logic of this application of his criterion of editorial fatigue. He puts
the case in the following manner, “Since there are no counter-exam-
ples of apparent Matthaean fatigue in Double tradition material, the
obvious explanation is that Luke becomes fatigued not with Q but
with Matthew.” 80 It may be argued that Matt. 12:28 is not an appro-
priate counter-example for one of two reasons. First, it might be sug-
gested that unlike the example from the triple tradition (Matt. 19:23-
24) that there is no change in the immediate context of Matt. 12:28
with the language alternating between ² basileÛa toè yeoè and ² basileÛa
tÇn oéranÇn. However, this is not at all damaging to the case at hand.
Matthew’s alteration to ² basileÛa tÇn oéranÇn is so thoroughgoing
that this cannot be doubted to be general Matthean redactional pol-
icy. Second, it may be argued that the two occasions when Matthew
uses ² basileÛa toè yeoè in chapter 21, he does so without the in uence
of editorial fatigue. However, a strong case can be made for seeing
78
Goodacre, “Fatigue in the Synoptics”, 45-54.
79
As Davies and Allison note, “The rst evangelist might have altered ‘ nger’ to
‘spirit’ because the former had magical connotations and the latter linked so well with
the Matthean context, where pneèma is a key word (12.18, 31, 32). Also the desire to
remove an anthropomorphism might have been a factor.” W.D. Davies & D.C. Allison,
The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. II (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991) 340.
80
332 paul foster
Matt. 21:31 as source material,81 not as an independent redactional

creation, in which case editorial fatigue could again be at work. The
saying in 21:43 is more problematic, since it is most likely a redac-
tional addition. However, it is possible that under the in uence of the
source behind v. 31, Matthew has made a double slip in this chapter
and used the uncharacteristic phrase ² basileÛa toè yeoè. Regardless
of whatever one makes of the two references in chapter 21, the pri-
mary discussion must centre on Matt. 12:28. Applying Goodacre’s own
criterion, there is a clear case where Matthew has fatigued by devi-
ating from his redactional policy, and the simplest explanation is that
this is due to mechanically following source material that he shares
with Luke.
viii. Evaluation of the Farrer Theory

The Farrer theory with its twin postulates of Markan priority and
Lukan dependence on Matthew does not account for the synoptic
material as well as the two source theory. It has two fundamental
weaknesses. First it requires one to account for Luke’s attitude to his
Matthean source, which appears to be markedly diVerent to the atti-
tude towards Mark. This diVerence in attitude towards sources is con-
ceded by both Franklin82 and Goodacre.83 They solve this problem by
positing a hypothetical critical attitude on the part of Luke towards
Matthew. Yet this is not simply the replacement of one hypothesis for
another, for it does not dispense with hypothetical sources material.
This is because Goodacre allows the actual gospel data to be taken
seriously, so consequently he cannot maintain the hard line of Farrer
and Goulder and deny that Luke had no access to other traditions.
While he is not willing to call these Q , his representation of the “liv-
ing stream of oral tradition” is also a hypothetical source. So he ends
up with both the hypothesis of a Luke who is critical of Matthew, as
well as a number of unattested traditions. Second, despite Goodacre’s
best attempts, his arguments simply do not explain the absence of
Matthean redactional additions to Mark’s gospel in Luke’s account. It
must be concluded that the Farrer-Goulder theories do not oVer a
81
P. Foster, “A Tale of Two Sons: But Which One Did the Far, Far Better Thing?
A Study of Matt 21.28-32”, NTS 47 (2001) 26-37.
82
Franklin states that, “The basic diYculty is that, if Luke knew both Matthew and
Luke he handled them in very diVerent ways.”
83
more plausible solution, and hence those types of theories do not allow
for dispensing with Q.
3. Matthew’s Dependence on Luke, or Matthean Posteriority

It is extremely surprising that the theory of Matthew utilising both
the gospels of Mark and Luke has not attracted the widespread atten-
tion Farrer’s proposal has engendered. Perhaps part of the reason for
this is the Lukan preface, for whereas Luke tells readers that he has
drawn on many sources, Matthew is silent in relation to his source
material.84 Yet there may well be another reason. While the advocates
of a Matthew-dependent Luke have complained that their theories
have often not been taken seriously, they have been quick to scorn
the reverse point of view, namely that of a Luke-dependent Matthew.
Ropes stated categorically that “The third possibility, that Matthew is
dependent on Luke for these sayings, may, for a variety of reasons,
be dismissed, although the idea is sometimes advanced.”85 Farrer, by
contrast, simply assumes that the dependence must be in the order of
Luke utilising Matthew and not the reverse. He states, “we can con-
ceive well enough how St. Luke could have read St. Matthew’s book
as it stands, and written the gospel he has left us.”86 Yet, the alter-
native possibility, that of Matthew having read Luke’s book, is never
considered by Farrer, instead it is dismissed by silence.87 By contrast
84
Tuckett, likewise, feels that this disparity is possibly due to the statements con-
tained in the Lukan preface. Commenting on attempts to show that either Matthew
or Luke knew the other’s work, he states, “For various reasons, this is almost always
postulated in the form of Luke’s dependence upon Matthew. Matthean dependence on
Luke is hardly ever advocated, though one sometimes wonders why given the tendency
of many to believe that Luke’s version is very often more original. However, Luke 1:1
clearly implies that Luke is aware of the existence of predecessors in writing some
account of Jesus’ ministry.” Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 4.
85
Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels, 68.
86
87
In fairness, it should be noted that it has been rare for supporters of the Two
Source theory to interact with the notion of Matthean posteriority. An example of this
can be seen in Stein’s treatment of the synoptic problem. He has a relatively detailed
section refuting Luke’s knowledge of Matthew, with some very helpful examples that
result in quite a strong case. However, the alternative possibility is not even acknowl-
edged. R.H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation (2nd ed., Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001) 99-104. Perhaps this a little more understand-
able than the neglect by proponents of the Farrer theory, since advocates of the Two
Source theory are reacting to the most vocal alternatives, whereas one would expect
that those who are attempting to change the consensus would need to address the issue
of why a theory that appears so similar to their own is any less plausible.
334 paul foster
Goodacre does not damn the alternative theory with silence, instead
he has a single polemical sentence to dismiss consideration of Matthew’s
knowledge of Luke. In very bald terms he states, “The theory that
Matthew has read Luke is rarely put forward by sensible scholars and
will not be considered here.” 88 This comment seems to re ect diVerent
standards. Goodacre bemoans the fact that the theory of Lukan depen-
dence on Matthew rarely receives the examination it deserves and is
marginalized by critical scholarship.89 Yet this appear to be the way
Goodacre treats the alternative, especially by implying that those who
propose such theories do not fall into the category of sensible scholars.
In fact a number of scholars defend Matthew’s knowledge of Luke.
Most recently Hengel has advocated the posteriority of Matthew as
the most satisfactory way to account for the synoptic data.90 Admittedly,
his reasons for supporting this solution are linked to his overall the-
ory about gospel titles, and speci cally that those with apostolic names
(such as Matthew) must postdate those with non-apostolic attribution. 91
While there are many objections that could be raised against his dis-
cussion of the incipits attached to the gospels, this does not in itself
weaken the case for a Matthew who is dependent on Luke. Hengel
questions the Two Source Theory because of the presence of the Minor
Agreements, and oVers the following hypothesis as a competing
alternative:
Matthew presupposes Mark and Luke as sources which are xed in writing and
are clearly attainable for us. As the primary source, Mark, whose theology he
treasured theologically, gave him the narrative thread; he used Luke eclectically
as a secondary source.92
However, Hengel is not the only recent scholar to be attracted to

the possibility of Matthew being dependent on both Mark and Luke.
One of the most extensive defences of Matthean Posteriority has
been mounted by Huggins.93 The reasons Huggins sees this theory as
88
89
In relationship to the dominance of the Two Source Theory Goodacre complains
that, “It is a matter that is simply taken for granted in much of scholarship, a mind-
set that does not often get suspended, even for a moment.” Goodacre, The Synoptic
Problem, 23.
90
This receives fullest treatment in chapter seven of his recent book, M. Hengel,
The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 2000) 169-207.
91
Hengel, The Four Gospels, 169.
92
Hengel, The Four Gospels, 205.
93
R.V. Huggins, “Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal”, NovT 34 (1992)
1-22.
preferably to the Two Source theory are basically three in number:

they overlap with reasons given by the Farrer-Goulder theory, but are
not stated in quite so extreme a manner. His arguments for the pre-
ference of Matthean Posteriority over the Two Source theory are as
follows:
(1) it easily accounts for the minor agreements (though these are not nearly the
problem opponents of the two-source theory try to make them), (2) it does not
require the introduction of additional ‘entities’ in the form of a hypothetical doc-
ument to explain the existence of the double tradition, and (3) it avoids the prob-
lems caused by the generic ambiguities of Q.94
Here we see three of the primary arguments employed by the Farrer-

Goulder theory, namely, the existence of minor agreement, the invo-
cation of Occam’s razor (at least by implication), and the argument
of generic ambiguity in terms of the non-existence of a contemporary
document that parallels the genre of Q. Since these arguments have
been addressed in the previous section, they will not be answered
again.95
However, what is more interesting is the way that Huggins sees this
solution as being preferable to the theory of Lukan dependence on
Matthew or the Griesbach hypothesis. He observes, “In recognizing
Matthew as the most heavily redacted of the Synoptics it does not
founder, as do some alternatives to the two source hypothesis, on hav-
ing to create far-fetched arguments to explain why Mark and/or Luke,
though appearing to be more primitive than Mathew, actually used
him as one of their sources.”96 Another argument in favour of Huggins’
proposal, in comparison to the Farrer theory, stems from the issue of
the order of the double tradition material in Matthew and Luke. As
has been outlined, assuming Lukan use of Matthew requires another
level of argument to account for Luke’s re-ordering of the Matthean
material. Typically this involves postulating that Luke was critical of
Matthew’s arrangement of the traditions he had incorporated from
non-Markan sources. However, it is more credible to see Matthew dip-
ping into the two major Lukan repositories of non-Markan material
(Lk. 6:20-8:3; 9:51-18:14), and grouping the material into thematic
94
Huggins, “Matthean Posteriority”, 3.
95
The formulation that Huggins presents is not totally dissimilar to H.P. West, “A
Primitive Version of Luke in the Composition of Matthew”, NTS 14 (1967-68) 75-95.
However, the major diVerence is that West argues that Matthew is dependent on a
primitive form of Luke (rather than canonical Luke) and that this form was related to
the version of the Lukan text read by Marcion.
96
Huggins, “Matthean Posteriority”, 2.
336 paul foster
blocks that served his pedagogical purpose, without scouring the gospel
backwards and forwards as would be required of a Luke-dependent
Matthew. In the process Matthew has increased the redactional com-
plexity of the material, and hence made it less primitive than the par-
allel accounts in Luke’s gospel. Consequently, Huggins states that when
Matthew is assumed to stand last in line instead of Luke, “the argu-
ment from the phenomenon of order looses its force, because the actual
number of instances where Matthew might have departed from the
Marcan outline in favor of Luke is reduced to ve for the double-
tradition.” 97
Yet, despite the strengths of Matthean posteriority in comparison to
the Farrer theory, the solution it oVers to the synoptic problem is not
without diYculties. The issue of primitivity still creates the diYculty
that the most primitive version of double tradition material is not the
exclusive possession of either Matthew or Luke, but seems to alternate
between the two gospels.98 Furthermore, whereas with the Farrer the-
ory Luke showed no knowledge of Matthean additions to the Markan
text, similarly with Matthean posteriority it appears that Matthew is
ignorant of the Lukan additions to triple tradition material. Examples
of Luke’s unique additions to Markan material include: Peter’s mother-
in-law having a great fever (Lk. 4:38); the comment, õ d¢ ¥nÜ ¥k‹stÄ
aétÇn tŒw xeÝraw ¤pitiyeÝw ¤yer‹peuen aétoæw (4:40); the saying about old
wine being better than new (5:39); and the comment about the Geresene
demoniac in Lk. 8:29b. This is far from an exhaustive list, but illus-
trates diVerent types of additions Luke makes to the Markan source,
of which Matthew betrays no knowledge. For these reasons, despite
the attractiveness of a Luke-dependent Matthew, there remain a num-
ber of fundamental problems with this synoptic theory.
4. Conclusions
Goodacre is the latest in a line of scholars who posit a solution to
the synoptic problem that holds to Markan priority, but refutes the
97
Huggins, “Matthean Posteriority”, 5-6.
98
This point is acknowledged by Huggins in a footnote. He states “Matthean
Posteriority assumes that Luke is always more primitive than Matthew with regard to
the double tradition. Most defenders of the two-source theory would not go nearly so
far . . . Nevertheless these scholars would still agree that Luke is usually more primitive
than Matthew. The solution here will ultimately stand or fall on whether it can be
demonstrated beyond doubt that Matthew is more primitive than Luke at certain points
in the double tradition.” Huggins, “Matthean Posteriority”, 3 n. 4.
existence of Q. The examination of the theory, as he formulates it,

has been shown to fail to answer many of the objections of scholars
who hold to the Two Source Theory. Rather than reiterate those argu-
ments, two issues are raised which might help to generate further dis-
cussion and clarify the objectives of various scholars who propose com-
peting solutions to the synoptic problem. First, it would be helpful if
supporters of the Farrer theory could explain why Lukan dependence
on Matthew is so much more appealing than the theory of Matthean
posteriority. Such an explanation would assist in clarifying important
methodological issues. Second, it would be bene cial if proponents of
the Farrer theory could tell those who believe in Q what evidence
they would require to be convinced of that document’s existence.
Perhaps they would require the discovery of an extant manuscript, but
maybe such a requirement would be a little unfair. It would be sim-
ilar to those who do not think the Farrer-Goulder theory is plausible
saying that they would only accept this alternative if a document was
discovered written by Luke that explicitly acknowledged dependence
on Matthew (or a Matthean document acknowledging Lukan depen-
dence, if Huggins’ theory was correct). Instead, probably most propo-
nents of the Two Source theory would be more likely to adopt one
of the alternative positions if clear evidence of Matthean redactional
material was present in Luke’s account, or Lukan redaction in Matthew,
if the latter were drawing on Luke as a source. Moreover, those who
hold to the Two Source theory would be grateful for a more plausi-
ble account of the literary activity of Luke in removing the non-Markan
material from Matthew’s gospel, instead of the cacophony of voices
that propose that Luke was critical of Matthew, either for theologi-
cal,99 narratival 100 or pastoral reasons.101 So, in conclusion, an open
question is addressed to the defenders of “Markan priority, non-Q”
type solutions to the synoptic problem: Is there any level of evidence
that is internal to the literary accounts of the gospels that would be
considered plausible in showing that a document which is no longer
extant stood behind Matthew and Luke as a common source?
99
100
101
Goulder, Luke—A New Paradigm, 200.

Is It Possible To Dispense With Q?: Oxford

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is It Possible To Dispense With Q?: Oxford

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IS IT POSSIBLE TO DISPENSE WITH Q?

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003 Novum Testamentum XLV, 4

2. The Farrer Theory, or Luke’s Dependence on Matthew

This last comment illustrates an unproven assumption that is nec-

i. The Re-ordering of the Matthean Material

manoeuvre is to point out a slight inaccuracy in Streeter’s charge that

While fully agreeing with Goodacre’s more accurate statement of

in order to re-insert it into a diVerent context of Mark having no special appropri-

discourses regardless of their being drawn from Mark or Matthew.

in denying themselves the expedient of the Q hypothesis for account-

ii. Luke’s Critical Attitude towards Matthew

his predecessors’ attempts to write narratives of the Jesus story (Lk.

iii. Other Traditions used by Luke

Here Goodacre is aware that such a possibility stands in direct oppo-

iv. The Genre of Q

Thomas, speci cally in relation to Q , is summarized by Davies in the

Yet the discovery of Thomas has not convinced Q sceptics either of

Contrary to Goodacre, the signi cance of Thomas was seen by Q

manoeuvre that is made in order to rule Thomas out of consideration

v. The Minor Agreements

that supporters of Lukan dependence on Matthew can produce. However,

Again Goodacre resists the logic of this argument. He suggests, “If

vi. Luke’s Ignorance of Matthean additions to Mark

framework. The Beelzebub story exists as a Matthean doublet (12:22-

vii. Editorial Fatigue

One illustration of this tendency in the triple tradition is Goodacre’s

where he is addressed formally as tetrarch (14:1); and then in the nar-

sources. Because of this, it becomes highly dubious whether this pas-

basileÛa toè yeoè to his preferred ² basileÛa tÇn oéranÇn. However,

Matt. 21:31 as source material,81 not as an independent redactional

viii. Evaluation of the Farrer Theory

3. Matthew’s Dependence on Luke, or Matthean Posteriority

However, Hengel is not the only recent scholar to be attracted to

preferably to the Two Source theory are basically three in number:

Here we see three of the primary arguments employed by the Farrer-

existence of Q. The examination of the theory, as he formulates it,

You might also like

Thomas, speci cally in relation to Q , is summarized by Davies in the

Contrary to Goodacre, the signi cance of Thomas was seen by Q