The Synoptic Problem: Two-Source Hypothesis and Q
[This article is currently in the middle of being reformatted. Please bear with us as we roll it over to our new webpage.]
by Daniel Gaztambide
In my first article on the Quest for the Historical Jesus, I had made a quick review of certain things that many modern biblical scholars held as fact (Gaztambide, 2005)1 . In this article I just want to elaborate on some of my claims, in particular the relationship between the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke: commonly called the Synoptic Gospels. Once we’ve all gotten acquainted with some “landmarks” in critical scholarship we can move on to higher ground and talk about “deeper” topics of New Testament studies. Earlier I had 2 argued that
”… within the Synoptics, Matthew and Luke use Mark, as well as a second source(Holtzmann, 1863). This second source involves material not found in Mark, but shared by Matthew and Luke. Subsequently named ‘Q’ (Acronym for Quelle, German for source), it has been singled out as having been another Gospel altogether. That adds an extra account to our Synoptics.”
St. Augustine believed the order in which the Gospels were organized within the cannon reflected how they were written and who was who’s source. Matthew was written first, Mark edited Matthew (Extensively if this were to be true)3 , and Luke used both Mark and Matthew as sources. This view became quite dominant throughout orthodox Christianity, and is routinely respected within its pious institutions to this day. However, scholars from the 17th century onward have highly contested this view in light of some problems with the traditional model4.
The german scholar J.J. Griesbach (1783) had seen various attempts at a harmonization of the differing Gospel accounts. He considered such exercises at reconciling the differences between them as unrealistic, and had the genius to place the narratives of Mark, Matthew, and Luke in parallel columns, giving a side by side �synopsis� of the life of Jesus5 . Instead of presenting a tool that would help compare the accounts of the �Synoptic� Gospels as a united message, he created a mechanism by which their sharp contrast and curious relationships became highly apparent. Many scholars have argued over how to interpret the relationship between the Gospel literature ever since. Griesbach presented his own view, that Luke had known Matthew, and that Mark had edited both6 . Although his view has lacked support in recent years, it would nevertheless be the vision of a fellow German that would become dominant:
”The future belonged to a view initially popularized by a German scholar of a later generation. H.J. Holtzman, in a 1863 study of the synoptic Gospels set forth a ”two- document hypothesis” to explain the literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. As it has developed, this view can be succintly stated in two propositions: (1) Mark was the earliest Gospel to be written and was used independently by the authors of Matthew and Luke as their main written source; and (2) Matthew and Luke also possessed another written document, now lost, that consisted primarily of Jesus’ teachings. This hypothetical document received the designation ‘Q’ (for Quelle or ’source,’ in German).” W. Barnes Tatum, In Quest of Jesus, (1999:41)7
One of the particularly original things about Holtzman’s theory8 involves the ordering of the Gospel material. He was the first who broke the mold of tradition and scholarship of his time by setting Mark up as prior to its brethren. This has been upheld by modern scholars based on various criterion. First, there is the sheer length and content of the Gospels. Mark is the shortest and simplest of the Synoptics, sharing much of its narrative with Luke and Matthew. The latter two, however, wove other stories into Mark’s narrative and produced their respective Gospels- with birth epics, geneologies, extra teachings, and detailed resurrection accounts (Tatum, 1999: 42; Ehrman9 , 1997: 74-75; Harris10 , 2001: 103-107). In addition, Luke and Matthew also used Mark’s own stories with some degree of editing when necessary11 (Ehrman, 1997: 73-4).
Although it is beyond the scope of this article to present a full defense of this �Two-Source hypothesis�, I intend12, Pharisees see the disciples of Jesus plucking said grain on the Sabbath, and accuse them of breaking the day of rest. In the Gospel According to Mark, Jesus defends his disciples’ actions with Scripture and sapiential wisdom:
”.25And He said to them, ”Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 2.26how he entered the house of God, when Abi’athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” 2.27And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; 2.28so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.” Mark 2:25-28.
It would seem that Jesus really showed those Pharisees with his interesting use of Scripture, preaching on the importance of God’s grace and men’s necessities over structured legalism… but is this the case? Does his application of the OT passage hold true under scrutiny? The text Jesus tries to quote in this passage is 1 Samuel 21:2-10, in which David requests the loaves of the Presence13 for food. A simple reading reveals some problems concerning application of this story to Jesus situation. Nowhere does it say that David came to the Temple on a Sabbath, nor do any Jewish sources contemporary to Jesus provide such a reading. Jesus stresses David’s emergency and need (Let us recall that at this point in the narrative of David is being chased by King Saul: 1 Samuel 18-20. ) over ritual law, but nowhere in Mark’s narrative is it obviously present that the disciples were dying of hunger! More importantly, Jesus claims that the High Priest at the time was Abi’athar, but the Priest mentioned in this narrative is his father Ahimelech. Furthermore, it is somewhat clouded in ambiguity whether Ahimelech himself is High Priest or simply a levite present upon David’s arrival. Apparently, the Markan Jesus has confused the son for the father and made him High Priest to boot (Meier, 2004)14. Such an embarassment could not be allowed to stand, and here enter Matthew and Luke.
In Matthew 12:1-8, the situation is forged to better accommodate the quoted passage. The Evangelist argues that the disciples 12:1�…were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat �, hence providing a defensive reasoning for the transgression. Also, Matthew eliminates the mention of who was High Priest altogether, hence salvaging Jesus from a position of embarassment to a more sophisticated exegesis15, as well as arguing that they have a right to eat, since something greater than the temple is here, presumably Jesus. Posthumously, Jesus even gets the chance to turn the argument around a lash out against the Phariseees themselves16. In Luke 6:1-5, the Evangelist dealt with the more crucial problem by eliminating the reference to Abiathar. He also edits Mark for his own theology by removing the element of the Sabbath being made for man and not vice-versa, but allows the authority of the �Son of Man� over the Sabbath to remain.
In the above example, Matthew and Luke saw material in Mark that was highly problematic and embarassing to their respective theologies, and went through great lengths to turn the narrative around to present Jesus in a positive light. The very fact that they edit and use Mark points to its use as a source, and hence prior to Matthew and Luke in its dating. Now we turn to another example to help illustrate the phenomena the we have termed ‘Q’.
Perhaps the most aesthetically beautiful pair of passages in the entire New Testament is found in Matthew 5:3-12 and Luke 6:20-23. We usually refer to them as �The Beautitudes�, and as stated before, they are found in Matthew and Luke, but they are not present in Mark. They contain more or less the same wording, save for the apparent differences between them. Here are the two passages for comparison:
Matthew 5:3-12
3a)”Blessed are the poor in spirit,
b) for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4a)”Blessed are those who mourn,
b) for they shall be comforted.
5a)”Blessed are the gentle,
b) for they shall inherit the earth.
6a)”Blessed are those who hunger
b) and thirst for righteousness,
c) for they shall be satisfied.
7a)”Blessed are the merciful,
b) for they shall receive mercy.
8a)”Blessed are the pure in heart,
b) for they shall see God.
9a)”Blessed are the peacemakers,
b) for they shall be called sons of God.
10a)”Blessed are those who have been persecuted
b) for the sake of righteousness,
c for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11a)”Blessed are you when people insult you
b) and persecute you,
c) and falsely say all kinds of evil
d) against you because of Me.
12a)”Rejoice and be glad,
b) for your reward in heaven is great;
c for in the same way they persecuted
d) the prophets who were before you.
Luke 6:20-23
20a)…Blessed are you who are poor,
b) for yours is the kingdom of God.
21a)”Blessed are you who hunger now,
b) for you shall be satisfied.
c) Blessed are you who weep now,
d) for you shall laugh.
22a)”Blessed are you when men hate you,
b) and ostracize you, and insult you,
c) and scorn your name as evil,
d) for the sake of the Son of Man.
23a)”Be glad in that day and leap for joy,
b) for behold, your reward is great in heaven
c) For in the same way their fathers
d) used to treat the prophets.
We consider passages like these to make up the corpus of ‘Q’. But now the question is, which version is closer to ‘Q’? Is it Matthew or is it Luke? We retain the view that Matthew and Luke operated apart from each other, but had the Common Sayings Source ‘Q’ at their disposal. The themes in Luke’s version seem aimed at the destitute, those who are poor, who hunger, and weep because of their plight and lot in life, while Matthew is preocuppied with themes of upright morals and ethics which reflect his view of Jesus as a teacher of the Torah. Luke only shares about half the material in the passage with Matthew (Matthew 5: 3=Luke 6: 20; Matthew 5: 6=Luke 6: 21; Matthew 5: 11-12=Luke 6: 22-23). This could mean one of two things: that he either edited ‘Q’ by excluding those sayings, or Matthew edited ‘Q’ by including those sayings from his own tradition17 . The topics Matthew discusses in his version of the Beautitudes deal with mercy, compassion, righteousness and the like. It simply doesn’t make sense that if Luke had access to such sayings in Q that he simply dropped them, since they have themes that flow within his own narrative. By this reasoning it is highly likely that Luke is using whatever he found in ‘Q’, while Matthew elaborated on the text with his own traditions. But of course, arguments could be made to the contrary, and for that reason I seek18 ; Robinson, Hoffman, Kloppenborg, & Moreland, 200219 ; Mack, 199420 ; Funk, Hoover, & the Jesus Seminar, 199721 ). One of the more interesting hermeneutics in ‘Q’ scholarship has been to include non-canonical Gospels for the purpose of determining ‘Q’s content. In this case, the Sayings Gospel of Thomas22 was brought in to compare the sayings within it with Luke and Matthew:
54)Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.”
69- a) Jesus said, “Blessed are they who have been persecuted within themselves. It is they who have truly come to know the Father.
b) Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who desires will be filled.”
68)Jesus said, “Blessed are you when you are hated and persecuted. Wherever you have been persecuted they will find no Place.”
Looking at these parallels (Thomas 54 = Matthew 5: 3 = Luke 6: 20; Thomas 69 = Matthew 5: 6a = Luke 6: 21a-b; Thomas 68 = Matthew 5: 11-12 = Luke 6: 22-23) we see that there are certain instances where Matthew seems to have included material of his own. Instead of what might be read as the economically (and hence socially) poor in Thomas and Luke, Matthew interprets as �poor in spirit�, the depressed and disillusioned (which are psychological states which may correlate with being poor and destitute, but is not limited to such a state). Likewise, while Luke and Thomas may be read as saying that those who are hungry will be fed, Matthew reads that those who hunger for restitution and justice will get it, a very different theme altogether. Finally, Matthew and Luke actually agree more on less on the themes of persecution and ostracizing that are also present in Thomas. Based on this evidence, it stands very strongly that Luke 6:20=Thomas 54 and Luke 5: 11-12=Thomas 69b are original portions of Q which Matthew has edited. As for the Matthew 5: 11-12=Luke 6: 22-23, the wording is so similar and without significant break that it probably goes back to the corpus of the ‘Q’ source as well23. Hence, the Gospel of Thomas can serve as a useful tool in trying to reconstruct the earliest form of the sayings that can be traced back to ‘Q’ (Funk, Hoover, & the Jesus Seminar, 1997).
In the end, we presented a short review of the history behind the Synoptic Problem up to that which is strongly held in contemporary New Testament Scholarship. In order to better conceptualize the two-source hypothesis we have looked at key passages which show the priority of Mark over Matthew and Luke, as well as the independence of the material shared between the two. This block of material independent of Mark we have traced to a hypothetical sayings source called ‘Q’, which is used and abused by its editors to suit their particular theological needs. We had a small test of the hypothesis and found it to conform to modern scholarship, as well as discussed what the corpus of this phantom Gospel may have looked like. One very important question remains. Since we have found this other source within the Synoptics, could it have its own image of Jesus? And if so, since it exists within our Canonical Gospels, is ‘Q’ itself �canonical�? It is the opinion of this author as well as others that if certain Gospels have been included within a collection of great relevance and considered �canonical�, then sources unearthed from within these writings must also be �canonical� (Smith, 1997)24.
Bibliography:
Borg, Marcus. The Lost Gospel ‘Q’: Original Sayings of Jesus. Ulysses Press: Berkely, CA. 1999.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY. 1992.
—————————-. The Essential Jesus- Original Sayings and Earliest Images. HarperCollins Publishers. New York, NY. 1998.
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 1997.
Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; & The Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: What did Jesus Really Say? HarperCollins: New York, NY. 1997
—————–. Profiles of Jesus. Polebridge Press, Santa Rosa, CA. 2002.
Gaztambide, Daniel. So Sayeth the Lord…According to Who? AramaicNT.org: http://www.aramaicnt.org/NEW/index.php?p=52. 2005.
Harris, Stephen L. The New Testament: A student’s introduction; 4th Edition. McGraw Hill Higher Education: Nashville, TN. 2001.
Meier, John P. The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol 66, 2004. Pgs 561-581.
Smith, Mahlon H. The Canonical Status of ‘Q’. Virtual Religion Index: http://virtualreligion.net/forum/q_canon.html#Top. 1997.
———————. Jesus: A Sourcebook. Peaquod Press. 2000.
Tatum, W. Barnes. In Quest of Jesus. Abingdon Press: Nashville, TN. 1999.
Footnotes:
- Gaztambide, D.. (2005). So sayeth the lord…according to who?. Retrieved Jul 16, 2005, from AramaicNT.org Web site: http://www.aramaicnt.org/site/index.php?mode=article&entry=28 [back]
- July 2005: Daniel Gaztambide is a honors student of Psychology and Religion at Rutgers University. Any correspondence concerning this article should be sent to him at gazti@eden.rutgers.edu, or mailed to 31045 RPO Way, New Brunswick, NJ. 08901 [back]
- Compare, for example, Mark 1: 1-9 with Matthew 1-3. Matthew starts of with the story of Jesus’ miraculous birth, escape to Egypt, and baptism by a reluctant and humble John the Baptist. Mark, however, skips Jesus’ early years and starts of with his baptism in a more nonchalant manner- John doesn’t question the ritual’s necessity in the case of Jesus. Mark also fails to mention John’s rather violent assault on the Pharisees and Sadducees, which is so pronounced in Matthew. If Mark had truly edited Matthew as a source, then he would have left out the entire birth narrative, as well as the elements that mark Jesus’ superiority of John in such a more blatant fashion. He also leaves out the Abrahamic-Davidic genealogy which would have legitimized his kingship. [back]
- Although the purpose of this article is not to in any way demean traditional thought, its aim is to present critical scholarly thought on problems presented by trying to harmonize the Gospel accounts. Each of the Gospels treats the material on the life of Jesus in rather unique ways reflecting their theological views, again ”Each author wanted their own view of Jesus to be accepted as the valid one. Considering the competition we must take notice that they can’t all be the historical, factual Jesus.” , So Sayeth the Lord…According to WHO?, 2005. [back]
- For a vivid presentation of this phenomena, see John W. Marshall’s ‘The Five Gospel Parallels’ at http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/syn-ini.htm. It’s a great resource that now sports parallels between the Gospels and Paul, Synoptics plus John, and ‘Q’ and the Gospels. [back]
- Griesbach, J.J.. (1783). A Demonstration that the Whole Gospel of Mark is Excerpted from the Narratives of Matthew & Luke. , : . [back]
- Tatum, W.B.. (1999). In Quest of Jesus. ‘Revised and Enlarged’ ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. [back]
- Holtzman, H.. (1863). Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (The Synoptic Gospels: Their origin and historical character). Leipzig, : Engelmann. [back]
- Ehrman, B.D.. (1997). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.. New York , NY: Oxford University Press. [back]
- Harris, S.L.. (2001). The New Testament: A student’s introduction. 4th ed. Nashville, TN: McGraw Hill Higher Education. [back]
- Editing of Markan material by Luke or Matthew usually involved dealing with highly embarrassing material for their respective arguments concerning Jesus’ teaching or identity. Editing also took place where it was necessary to strong arm Mark to fit their particular theologies. This will be argued in greater detail later in the article. [back]
- All quotes are from the Life Application Study Bible- Updated Edition, New American Standard Bible. Zondervan. 2000. [back]
- See Leviticus 2:2; Leviticus 2:9; Leviticus 2:16; Leviticus 24: 5-9; Exodus 25:30 [back]
- Meier, John P. The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol 66, 2004. Pgs 561-581. [back]
- 5�Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?� Matthew 12: 5. [back]
- 7�But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.� Matthew 12: 7. [back]
- This points to the four-source hypothesis, which is the modern revision of Holtzman’s two-source hypothesis. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to enter into a detailed discussion about the theory, it basically recognizes that there is material in Matthew and Luke that is their own material independent of Mark or ‘Q’. These independent sources are called �M� (For material found only in Matthew) and �L� (For material found only in Luke). An example of this phenomena in Luke would be the independent �Prodigal Son� (Luke 15:11- 32) and the �Good Samaritan� (Luke 10: 29-37), and �Words of the Law� (Matthew 5: 17) and �On Adultery� (Matthew 5: 27-30). [back]
- Borg, M.J.. (1999). The Lost Gospel Q: Original Sayings of Jesus. Berkely, CA: Ulysses Press. [back]
- Robinson, J.M., Hoffman, P., Kloppenborg, J.S., & Moreland, M.C. (Ed.). (2002). The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English: With Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas.. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers. [back]
- Mack, B.L.. (1997). The Lost Gospel : The Book of Q and Christian Origins.. Reprint Edition ed. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco. [back]
- Funk, R.W., & Hoover, R.W.. (1997). The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins. [back]
- For a text of the Gospel of Thomas, see http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Title/Complete/Thomas/thomas.html at the Westar Institute’s website. [back]
- Although the fact that the wording is not 100% exact could serve as a test case for the notion that ‘Q’ might have been a oral tradition, or that separate portions of ‘Q’ circulated in individual targums until collected into one work. [back]
- Smith, Mahlon H. The Canonical Status of ‘Q’. Virtual Religion Index: http://virtualreligion.net/forum/q_canon.html#Top. 1997. [back]