The two-source hypothesis is an attempt to explain the literary relationship between the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently used two different sources in addition to the Gospel of Mark when writing their gospels:
- The Gospel of Mark
- A hypothetical sayings source called Q (from the German Quelle meaning “source”)
According to this theory, the Gospel of Mark was the first gospel to be written. The authors of Matthew and Luke then independently used Mark as one of their sources when composing their own gospels. In addition to Mark, Matthew and Luke also had access to a collection of Jesus’ sayings called Q. This Q source is hypothesized to account for the material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.
The two-source hypothesis emerged in the 19th century as biblical scholars observed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke shared much material in common. Over 90% of Mark’s content is found in Matthew, and over 50% of Mark’s content is found in Luke. While this could suggest that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, it does not explain the material shared between Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark. Hence the idea emerged that there must have been a second common source – Q – that accounted for this additional material.
The two-source hypothesis has several logical implications and corollaries that seek to explain the literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke):
- Mark was written first.
- Matthew and Luke wrote independently of each other.
- Matthew and Luke supplemented Mark with a sayings source called Q.
- Q does not exist as an actual document – it is only a hypothesized source to explain the common material.
- Passages common to Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark came from Q.
While the two-source hypothesis remains the dominant explanation for the literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels, questions remain. Critics point out that Q remains a hypothesized document without any hard evidence. They also note the existence of material unique to Matthew and material unique to Luke that does not fit neatly into the two-source model. This has led to modified theories like the Farrer hypothesis and the Augustinian hypothesis that seek to explain the data in different ways. Nonetheless, the two-source hypothesis remains influential in Gospel studies.
Evidence for Q
The strongest evidence for the existence of Q comes from the observation that Matthew and Luke share large amounts of material not found in Mark. This accounts for about 250 verses across many episodes, sayings, and teachings of Jesus. Examples include:
- The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12; Luke 6:20-26)
- Love your enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36)
- The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4)
- The parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32; Luke 13:18-19)
- The parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7)
Since this material is not found in Mark, hypothesizing a second common source (Q) can account for these parallel passages. Q likely contained a collection of Jesus’ sayings and teachings that Matthew and Luke independently used to supplement Mark’s narrative-focused account.
Content of Q
While no copy of Q has ever been found, scholars have attempted to reconstruct its contents based on the common material in Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. This includes many well-known teachings and parables of Jesus, including:
- The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12; Luke 6:20-26)
- Love your enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36)
- Do not worry (Matthew 6:25-34; Luke 12:22-31)
- The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4)
- The parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32; Luke 13:18-19)
- The parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7)
- The parable of the great banquet (Matthew 22:1-10; Luke 14:15-24)
- The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27)
Based on this content, Q seems to have contained mostly sayings and teachings of Jesus. Unlike Mark, it likely lacked a narrative structure or a Passion narrative. While we cannot know for certain, proposed reconstructions of Q suggest it was likely a collection of Jesus’ words organized by theme or subject.
Historical existence of Q
The existence of Q has been debated by scholars. On one hand, Q helps explain the common material between Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. But on the other hand, no copy of Q has ever been found. There are several viewpoints regarding Q’s historical existence:
- Q existed as an actual document – Some believe Q was an early collection of Jesus’ sayings that served as a literary source.
- Q represents multiple sources – Others think Q may represent a diversity of early oral or written traditions.
- Q is hypothetical – Some scholars hold that Q is simply a hypothetical document that seeks to explain the data but did not necessarily exist.
- Q is a literary creation – A minority view is that Matthew and Luke collaborated directly to invent Q.
Debate continues among scholars regarding whether Q represents a unified written document or whether it emerged from the broader stream of oral tradition about Jesus. Nonetheless, the existence of Q in some form remains the dominant explanation for the material shared between Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark.
Implications of Q and the two-source hypothesis
The two-source hypothesis and the existence of Q have significant implications for Gospel studies:
- It supports Markan priority – Mark was written first before Matthew and Luke.
- It implies independence for Matthew and Luke.
- It provides insight into how oral tradition may have been passed on through early Christian communities.
- It suggests Jesus’ teachings were gathered and stored early on, not just his narrative.
- It shows how early Christians relayed and preserved the words and deeds of Jesus.
However, the two-source hypothesis also faces criticism and challenges from modern scholars:
- Q remains a hypothetical source without any hard evidence.
- It does not fully explain the unique material in Matthew/Luke.
- Questions remain about order and priority between Matthew and Luke.
- Some contest the genre of Q as primarily a collection of sayings.
While dominant, the two-source hypothesis still leaves many unanswered questions. This shows scholarship regarding the Synoptic Gospels remains an ongoing discussion as experts continue analyzing this rich literary relationship.
Alternatives to the two-source hypothesis
While the two-source hypothesis is widely accepted, questions remain regarding its ability to fully explain the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels. This has led to various alternative theories as well:
- Augustinian hypothesis – Matthew was written first, then Mark abbreviated Matthew, and finally Luke drew from both.
- Farrer hypothesis – Mark was written first, then Matthew used Mark, and finally Luke used both Mark and Matthew.
- Two-gospel hypothesis – Matthew was written first, then Luke used Matthew, and finally Mark used both.
- More complex hypotheses – Theories exist involving multiple revisions of the Gospels influencing each other in complex ways.
Debate continues over whether these alternative theories better explain the existing textual data. Each viewpoint has certain strengths and weaknesses. But in the end, the two-source hypothesis remains the dominant model due to its explanatory power accounting for the sayings material (Q) common to Matthew and Luke.
The Griesbach hypothesis
The Griesbach hypothesis is named after Johann Jakob Griesbach and proposes an order and literary dependence different from the two-source hypothesis. In this view, Matthew was written first, Luke used Matthew, and then Mark conflated and abbreviated both Matthew and Luke into one narrative. This order and dependence is known as the Matthew-Luke-Mark hypothesis.
Under this theory, Mark’s role was primarily as an abbreviator of Matthew and Luke. The material common to all three Synoptic Gospels is thus derived directly from Matthew, not from Mark. Major arguments for this hypothesis include:
- It avoids relying on a hypothetical document like Q.
- It accounts for Mark’s short and fast-paced narrative compared to Matthew/Luke.
- It explains the triple tradition material as coming from Matthew first.
However, critics argue the Matthew-Luke-Mark order faces substantial difficulties. Defenders of Markan priority see Mark’s narrative style and grammar as indicative of it being earlier. Additionally, there are sayings only in Matthew/Luke but not Mark – hence the need for Q. Overall, support for the Griesbach hypothesis remains small compared to the consensus for Markan priority.
The Farrer hypothesis
The main alternative to the two-source hypothesis is known as the Farrer hypothesis. This similarly proposes Markan priority but dispenses with Q. Instead, it suggests that Luke simply used Matthew and Mark as sources when composing his gospel. The order and dependence is thus: Mark written first, Matthew uses Mark, and finally Luke uses both Matthew and Mark.
Proponents argue the Farrer hypothesis has some key strengths:
- It avoids the hypothetical Q document.
- It accounts for the Luke-Matthew agreements against Mark.
- It explains much of the non-Markan material Luke shares with Matthew.
However, critics argue it still does not fully account for all of Luke’s special material nor the exact nature of Luke’s dependence on Matthew. The sayings shared between Matthew and Luke remain a challenge for this view. Additionally, most scholars hold to the independence of Matthew and Luke. Overall, while debated, the Farrer hypothesis has not replaced the two-source theory as the dominant explanation.
Textual criticism and the Synoptic Problem
Textual criticism is the study of the history and origins of biblical texts. Understanding how the Synoptic Gospels are related – often called the Synoptic Problem – is a key area of focus in textual criticism. Scholars analyze the wording of parallel passages side-by-side across manuscripts, attempting to determine direct literary relationships and patterns of dependence.
Key goals of textual criticism regarding the Synoptic Gospels include:
- Identifying the sources the Gospel writers used.
- Determining which Gospel was written first.
- Explaining the origin of their similarities and differences.
- Reconstructing possible literary stages and editorial activity.
- Uncovering authorial motives regarding their selection and shaping of Jesus tradition.
This meticulous study has led to many theories over the years, with the current consensus being the two-source hypothesis. This sees Mark written first, then Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and supplemented it with shared sayings from Q. Nonetheless, scholarly analysis, debate, and discovery continue to further shed light on this important area of biblical studies.
Form criticism and the Synoptic Gospels
Form criticism is another area of biblical scholarship that studies the Synoptic Gospels. Form criticism seeks to identify the distinct literary forms that make up the Gospel texts. Some key goals and methods include:
- Classifying units based on literary type: parables, sayings, miracle stories, etc.
- Seeking the oral prehistory behind these forms.
- Identifying forms from particular communities.
- Suggesting sitz im leben (“setting in life”) where literary forms were used.
- Analyzing how the Evangelists assembled and edited these sources.
Form criticism affirms that the written Gospels emerged from earlier oral traditions. As materials circulated orally, they took on various standard forms and shapes. The Gospel writers then gathered traditional oral units and edited them into larger written narratives.
This approach provides further insight into the sources behind the Synoptic Gospels. Form criticism complements text criticism by delving into the pre-literary stages of Gospel traditions. Both disciplines aid in reconstructing the history of Jesus materials before they appeared in the canonical Gospels.
Redaction criticism and the Synoptic Gospels
Redaction criticism is another method used to study and compare the Synoptic Gospels. While form criticism focuses on pre-literary forms, redaction criticism looks at the editorial work of the Gospel authors themselves. Redaction criticism analyzes how the Evangelists creatively shaped, arranged, and adapted source material to convey specific messages or themes.
Key goals of redaction criticism include:
- Comparing literary pericopes, scenes, or teachings across the Gospels.
- Identifying author emphases based on additions, omissions, ordering, etc.
- Determining how sequence, structure and wording advance authorial intent.
- Highlighting theological motifs and concerns of each Evangelist.
By studying redaction, scholars can clarify the distinct portraits of Jesus presented in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This shows how Gospel writing involved creative editing, not just collecting fixed traditions. Redaction criticism has further illuminated the richness and theological depth of the canonical Gospels.
Conclusion
In summary, the two-source hypothesis remains the dominant theory to explain the literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke. With Mark written first, this hypothesis proposes that Matthew and Luke independently supplemented Mark’s account with another hypothetical collection of Jesus’ sayings known as Q.
The two-source theory has strong explanatory power accounting for the common material between Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. However, questions remain, and alternative theories have been proposed. As biblical scholarship continues, rigorous textual, form, and redaction criticism provide further insights into the origins and message of these important Gospel accounts.