What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two-source hypothesis? 'The likenesses and differences between the three Gospels present a problem of almost infinite complexity'

        To properly address the question in hand one must first try and establish just what the strengths of the two-source hypothesis are and why it has become the most acceptable solution to the synoptic problem. Essentially, therefore, one would look to reinforce the idea Markan priority but also leave room for the inclusion of the source ‘Q’ to be necessary in the formation of Matthew and Luke. One has to look for both similarities (to prove that there is a connection between the three) and differences (to understand that Mark wrote his at an earlier date with fewer resources, and crucially to note the independent material in Matthew and Luke that supports the theory about ‘Q’).

        There seems to be an abundance to evidence that would support the notion that the Gospel of Mark came before Matthew and Luke, and heavily influenced both: Markan priority. As I have already mentioned, the majority of both Matthew and Luke can be found in Mark. Furthermore, the Gospel writers ‘often use similar or identical wording for the same material’. Content is ordered similarly within the Gospels too: and Mark emerges as the initial source of the order: ‘whenever Matthew’s order and Mark’s order differ, Mark’s order and Luke’s order agree; and whenever Luke’s order and Mark’s order differ, Matthew’s order and Mark’s order agree’. Mark can be seen as a source: he is the ‘middle factor’ at some literary level, he is the common denominator between upon which the other two Gospels stand.

 His writings are much shorter – Matthew and Luke expand his account, they don’t shrink it. Why, if Mark came after Matthew, would he choose to omit words and stories that would enhance his Gospel? For example, Mark leaves out the beatitudes – perhaps the most important passage in the New Testament; yet Matthew and Luke include them.

One can not only see enhancement of Mark through the inclusion of new and important passages, but also through the manipulation of his own passages in to linguistically superior pieces of writing by Matthew and Luke. For example, when telling the story of the stilling of the storm by Jesus, Mark writes ‘And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat’ , whereas Matthew expands and develops his words: ‘And behold there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves’. The differences in language are small but visible: Matthew (and Luke) develop Mark’s primitive style. Mark’s style of writing cannot be seen as a revision of Matthew’s and Luke’s, surely. The signs of increasing divinity in Luke and Matthew are further examples of this: where Mark refers to Jesus as ‘teacher’, Luke may say ‘Master’, and Matthew ‘Lord’.

One can also see occasions where it seems as though Mark’s words have been used, but Matthew or Luke have incorrectly edited the passage in trying to develop it; for example when Luke talks about the raising of Jairus’ daughter. Jesus offers completely different instructions in Mark and Luke; which suggest that Luke has used Mark, but incorrectly. This seems to occur also in Matthew in relation to the story about the death of John the Baptist, where Mark’s account seems to have been wrongly interpreted and poorly edited by Matthew.    

Overall, it would seem indeed that there is sufficient evidence to believe that Mark came first and is indeed a source of the writing of Matthew and Luke. The other side of the argument will be brought forward in due course.

The second half of the two-source hypothesis is of course ‘Q’.  I’ve touched on some evidence that would support the existence (and co-existence with Markan priority) of ‘Q’ already. As we know, Mark’s writing does not form the basis for 100% of Matthew (90%) or Luke (53%). There must, therefore have been a source independent of Mark that influenced them. As McKnight reminds us ‘there are approximately two hundred verses, preponderantly sayings of Jesus, common to both Matthew and Luke which are not found in Mark;…the degree if similarity in wording…is striking’.

It’s unlikely that ‘Q’ is an oral source as the wording for the ‘missing’ passages and episodes in Matthew and Luke is almost identical. We can assume that Matthew and Luke had access to the same unique written source, therefore. The same order of the text in the Sermon on the Mount in both Matthew and Luke suggest that ‘Q’ is written: the chances of such a long list being transgressed accurately via oral means are unlikely. (One might mention that Luke could have used Matthew, who had received his information from word of mouth though?)

In support of the existence of ‘Q’ one could point to ‘doublets’: phrases that are repeated twice within a Gospel. This could suggest that two sources have independently provided this phrase. For example in Matthew the phrase ‘If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, take up the cross and follow me’  emerges in both chapter 10:37, and chapter 16:24. For me however this idea of doublets doesn’t support the existence of ‘Q’ and therefore doesn’t help the notion of a double-source hypothesis too much. Matthew and Luke could re-use phrases from Mark to emphasise them, and surely the fact they are identical means the chances of two different sources is unlikely? Particularly, as is argued, if Q and Mark are independent of each other.

Of course there are also a fair amount of weaknesses that undermine the two-source hypothesis – clear, initially, from the number of differing and opposing theories and hypotheses. It’s worth investigating some of the common themes behind these criticisms. An theory that forms part Augustinian and Griesbach hypotheses is that of Matthean priority as opposed to Markan. A view endorsed by a significant amount of scholars, such as B.C. Butler, Matthean priority asserts that Matthew came first, and that both Mark and Luke use it as a source for their Gospels. They do exactly what those who support Markan priority do, essentially – they note the differences between the Gospels and the connection between them, but instead believe Matthew was their first choice. Despite the factors that weigh in on Mark’s side, one can’t fail to note Matthew’s very distinctive writing style (more distinctive than Mark it could be said). Furthermore, some Matthean phrases are found within Mark’s Gospel, and we even see evidence of Mark elaborating Matthew. Is the seemingly strong two-source hypothesis suddenly under threat?

I don’t think so. We see an improvement in the quality in language; a broadening, not a narrowing, in stories and messages; and the inclusion of new and important passages in Matthew. Mark would not have omitted them if they had been available to him. Tellingly, too, one can find an example of much tighter organisation within Mark: and a more scattered approach within.

Another weakness of the two-source hypothesis is undoubtedly the argument for a four-source hypothesis – which includes independent sources M and L as having contributed, respectively, to Matthew and Luke. The four-source analysis seems to fill in the gaps that Mark and Q are unable to do – they account for the differences between Luke and Matthew for example. Aside from the obvious differences in their content and language, Matthew is much more Semitic than Luke in his writing, pointing to an influence that was perhaps out of the reach of Luke, and therefore not Mark or Q. However, Matthew may have just his own purpose in shaping his Gospel more towards Judaism. Scholars who prefer the two-source hypothesis see the assumption of two extra sources (M and L) as simply adding sources to represent the sayings and events particular to Matthew and Luke. There is no firm evidence for M or L, they are genuinely quite weak arguments for sources. At least with the assumption of Q we see that there are actually firm linked texts in Matthew and Luke. M and L, for me, just don’t offer enough to be credited as anything more than the opinions or motives of Matthew and Luke.

One has to look at Q more closely, as it clearly has frailties that weaken the argument for the two-source hypothesis. Q’s major downfall is that there is no major historical evidence to support it, nor do any scholars of any other texts from the Biblical era refer to it, or anything like it. It is just a theoretical means to explain a gap in history, one might argue. Q seeks to solve a problem but creates more itself.

Yet it cannot be denied that, despite the lack of hard evidence, the existence of Q is entirely logical. Where Markan priority is absent, the links between Matthew and Luke are clear to see; everything points to another source that they both must have used.  

The ‘minor agreements’ are the final weakness of the two-source hypothesis. The minor agreements pose a special dilemma, because they suggest a literary connection between Matthew and Luke outside of either Markan priority or Q, which questions the relative independence of Matthew and Luke. This is basically the argument that claims Matthew and Luke are linked – Luke using Matthew as a source; once Matthew had used Q and Mark. This would seem to upset the terms of what we see Q as – something used independently by Matthew and Luke. One could still argue that there are two main sources (Mark and Q) but Matthew now comes into equation and, realistically, must also be considered a source. However ‘if Luke and Matthew were largely dependent upon each other, one would expect, for example, that after the temptation there would be agreement in the placement of Jesus’ sayings; but there is not’. Luke cannot be proven to be dependent on Matthew – there is too much textual difference between the two for this to be the case, as McKnight suggests. Thus if Matthew and Luke are independent and yet contain so many passages with such striking similarity in wording, then it is reasonable to conclude that both were using one common source independently-Q.

Having weighed up the strengths and weaknesses of the two-source hypothesis I feel, like the majority of New Testament scholars, that Mark and Q are more feasible and compliment each other better than any other combination of sources. The two-source hypothesis is, despite the challenges from other hypotheses, the strongest possible solution to the synoptic problem.

Bibliography:

Internet:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

www.awitness.org/bible_criticism_methods/ two_source_q_hypothesis.html

Books:

S. McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels (USA: Baker, 1996)

B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A study of Origins (London: MacMillan, 1924)

C.M. Tuckett, ‘Arguments from Order: Definition and Evaluation’ in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984)

J.Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991)

W. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (New York: MacMillan, 1964)