The Q Hypothesis
The first convincing statement of the priority of Mark among the Synoptics was that of Wilke in 1838. Also in that year there appeared Weisse's hypothesis of an early but now lost source Q (short for German Quelle, "source"). Neither idea was entirely new, but the two were soon combined to form what is now known as the Two Source Hypothesis (or 2SH). Holtzmann gave it important support in 1900, and it is the dominant theory of the Synoptic Gospels at the present time. The hypothesis posits Mark and the hypothetical Q as the sources for the Matthew and Luke. To Q is normally assigned material absent from Mark, but present in similar form in Matthew and Luke.
In the 19th century, it was by some taken for granted that all the Gospels were independent accounts, and that where all three Synoptics agreed, they were separately witnessing to the same truth. On the analogy of the three witnesses required in Roman law to establish truth, this common Synoptic material was accordingly called the "Triple Tradition." Next in probity was the so-called "Double Tradition," which consisted of the Matthew/Luke common material. On the assumption then made, that the two were independent, it was not possible that this material was original in one of the two Gospels and copied by the other. It could then only come from some outside source then available to both, but now unknown and therefore early lost. Thus did the Q hypothesis arise.
At present, it is considered that the similarities between the three Synoptics are too close to be explained on the assumption of independence. Some literary relation among them is now presumed. But if the three are presumed to be related, it then becomes conceivable that new sayings in Matthew could have been copied by Luke (or the other way around), making unnecessary the assumption of a lost source prior to both. A new reason is thus required if the Q hypothesis is to be maintained. Such a reason has been provided, by Harnack among others. It lies in the claim that, of the common material, sometimes Matthew but also sometimes Luke has the earlier version. Note that, if one of the two always had the earlier version, then the probability that the other had copied from it would be overwhelming. It is the alternation of "more original" material between the two which requires the positing of a Q source, from which both copied independently, and made changes independently. The soundness of the Q hypothesis thus rests on the directionality of the "sayings" material of which it is composed.
The Harnack version of the Q hypothesis is tested here, by examining the directionality between pairs of Matthew/Luke modules that are currently referred to Q. No two versions of Q are identical, and which version to use for this test is a question in itself. We adopt the version for which a Greek concordance was published by SBL in 1975. It is conventional to refer to the supposed Q material by its position in Luke (and it is also generally held that the Lukan order better reflects the Q order). We will accordingly use the Lukan references in what follows.
- Q Material Re-Examined
- To be supplied
- To be supplied
- To be supplied
25 Sept 2005 / Contact The Project / Exit to Synoptica Page
