(a) The standard arguments for existence of Q appear to be inadequate—indeed close consideration of them in each case leads us directly to the plausibility of Luke’s use of Matthew:
Luke’s order: It is commonly said that Luke’s order of Double Tradition material is inexplicable on the assumption that he has taken this material from Matthew. However, this runs into the following difficulties:
- Dubious value judgments: The standard argument assumes that Matthew’s arrangement of Double Tradition, with its lengthy discourses, is preferable to Luke’s with its emphasis on narrative movement, but this is an unnecessary, subjective assumption.
- Redaction-criticism of Luke’s use of Mark: Luke treats Matthew’s lengthy discourses in the same way that he treats Mark’s discourses: he keeps some, omits some and redistributes the rest.
- Narrative-criticism of Luke: This helps us to dispense with the idea that Matthew’s arrangements are superior to Luke’s—Luke’s rearrangements make excellent narrative-critical sense.
- Luke’s preface: Luke 1:1–4 implies a critical attitude to his predecessors’ order. This critical attitude makes good sense on the assumption that Luke is working with Matthew as well as Mark.
- Markan Priority: If Luke has known Mark for longer than he has known Matthew, this may well have encouraged him to prioritize its order over Matthew’s.
Luke’s ignorance of Matthew’s additions to Mark: this argument runs into insurmountable problems: - Strength of evidence: The examples given are not strong enough to make the case. Luke’s omissions are quite natural when one looks at them in line with his redactional interests.
- Fallacious argument: The argument is based on a fallacy: wherever Luke features Matthew’s additions to Mark, these are placed in the category ‘Mark-Q overlap’ and ignored for the purposes of this argument.
Luke’s lack of ‘M’ material: Luke lacks Matthew’s Special Material by definition—where Matthew’s non-Marcan material appears in Luke, it is called ‘Double Tradition’. Further: - Matthew’s Birth Narrative: There are signs that Luke knows the narrative even though he does not utilise it extensively.
- ‘M’ material: The ‘M’ material all looks like ‘Luke-displeasing’ material, just what we would expect on the Farrer Theory.
Alternating Primitivity: A phenomenon that can be explained in the following steps: - Lukan secondariness: There are many places where all agree that Luke is secondary.
- Matthaean language: The presence of Matthew’s favourite expressions in Q material is regularly taken to indicate that his versions are later than Luke’s versions. But the same evidence is congenial to the thesis that Luke is using Matthew: Matthew composes the non-Markan material using characteristic expressions and Luke sometimes eliminates such expressions. Moreover, Luke has a much larger vocabulary than Matthew and he uses many more unusual expressions. It is a fallacy to assume that ‘un-Lukan’ expressions are necessarily ‘pre-Lukan’ expressions.
- Neglected arguments for Lukan secondariness: Sometimes scholars have drastically underestimated the arguments for Luke’s redaction of Matthew (e.g. the Beatitudes).
- Oral tradition: The living stream of oral tradition did not dry up as soon as the evangelists set pen to papyrus. Just as Matthew creatively interacted with Mark in the light of oral traditions, so too did Luke with Matthew and Mark.
The Distinctiveness of Q: Here the following points are relevant: - Isolation of Double Tradition from its context: this isolation of the Double Tradition from its context in Matthew and Luke inevitably generates a distinctive profile for Q.
- Overlap between Q and M: this overlap between Q material and M material partly undermines the claim.
- L Material: it is difficult to discover good candidates for material that might have derived from Q among Luke’s special material.
- A Distinctive Profile: the Double Tradition has a distinctive profile on the Farrer Theory, namely (Matthew minus Mark) divided by ‘Luke-pleasingness’.
The Redaction-critical Argument: - Association with Markan Priority: Q is allowed to gain credibility by association with Markan Priority, for which this argument is more legitimately used.
- Flexibility of Q: As an hypothetical document, Q has a degree of flexibility that gives it an unfair advantage.
- Redaction-criticism: Since Q is reconstructed by means of Redaction-Criticism, it is circular to argue in favour of Q on the basis of redaction-criticism.
- Entrenchment: an inevitable entrenchment of Q occurs the more it is assumed.
(b) Direct evidence: There is direct evidence for Luke’s use of Matthew, evidence that on the whole has been ignored or explained away:
Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark: These seem to point to Luke’s knowledge of Matthew in the Triple Tradition materials:
- Passion Narrative: Strong Minor Agreements occur in the Passion Narrative, where no one can appeal to influence from Q.
- Matthew’s Style: Several Minor Agreements show the marks of Matthew’s distinctive style, suggesting that he was the composer of this material.
Major Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark: Although commonly placed in a category of their own labelled ‘Mark-Q overlap’, the difficulty these passages pose for the Q theory should not be underestimated:
- Contradiction: They contradict the assertion that Luke never features Matthew’s modifications of Mark in Triple Tradition material.
- Continuum: They illustrate the mid point on a continuum of Luke’s use of Matthew and Mark, from greater (pure Double Tradition) to lesser (Triple Tradition).
Narrative Sequence in the Q material: This is found especially in the first third of the alleged document:
- Contrast with Thomas: The narrative sequence contrasts with anything found in the one extant example we have of a Sayings Gospel, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.
- Non-Markan narrative in Matthew: The narrative sequence makes good sense on the assumption that it is generated by Luke’s following the non-Markan material in Matthew, the first third of which often departs from Mark.
- Matthew’s Redactional Hand: Elements in the narrative sequence show the clear signs of Matthew’s redactional hand.
Editorial fatigue:
- The Double Tradition: Just as there appear to be cases where Matthew and Luke become fatigued in their versions of Triple Tradition (copying from Mark), so too there appear to be cases where Luke becomes fatigued in his copying of material in the Double Tradition.
- No Counter-Examples: Since there are no counter-examples of apparent Matthaean fatigue in Double Tradition material, the obvious explanation is that Luke became fatigued not with Q but with Matthew.
The Distinctiveness of Q: Here the following points are relevant: - Isolation of Double Tradition from its context: this isolation of the Double Tradition from its context in Matthew and Luke inevitably generates a distinctive profile for Q.
- Overlap between Q and M: this overlap between Q material and M material partly undermines the claim.
- L Material: it is difficult to discover good candidates for material that might have derived from Q among Luke’s special material.
- A Distinctive Profile: the Double Tradition has a distinctive profile on the Farrer Theory, namely (Matthew minus Mark) divided by ‘Luke-pleasingness’.
The Redaction-critical Argument: - Association with Markan Priority: Q is allowed to gain credibility by association with Markan Priority, for which this argument is more legitimately used.
- Flexibility of Q: As an hypothetical document, Q has a degree of flexibility that gives it an unfair advantage.
- Redaction-criticism: Since Q is reconstructed by means of Redaction-Criticism, it is circular to argue in favour of Q on the basis of redaction-criticism.
- Entrenchment: an inevitable entrenchment of Q occurs the more it is assumed.
(b) Direct evidence: There is direct evidence for Luke’s use of Matthew, evidence that on the whole has been ignored or explained away:
Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark: These seem to point to Luke’s knowledge of Matthew in the Triple Tradition materials:
- Passion Narrative: Strong Minor Agreements occur in the Passion Narrative, where no one can appeal to influence from Q.
- Matthew’s Style: Several Minor Agreements show the marks of Matthew’s distinctive style, suggesting that he was the composer of this material.
Major Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark: Although commonly placed in a category of their own labelled ‘Mark-Q overlap’, the difficulty these passages pose for the Q theory should not be underestimated:
- Contradiction: They contradict the assertion that Luke never features Matthew’s modifications of Mark in Triple Tradition material.
- Continuum: They illustrate the mid point on a continuum of Luke’s use of Matthew and Mark, from greater (pure Double Tradition) to lesser (Triple Tradition).
Leave a Reply