Two Source HypothesisEdit

The Two-Source Hypothesis is a foundational framework in the study of the Synoptic Gospels, the first three books of the New Testament that share a substantial amount of material. It posits that Matthew and Luke drew on two main sources: the Gospel of Mark and a separate collection of Jesus’ sayings and teachings commonly referred to as Q (from the German Quelle, meaning “source”). This model is used to explain why Matthew and Luke tell many of the same stories in similar orders, yet also contain considerable material unique to each author.

From this perspective, Mark is seen as the earliest gospel and a common narrative backbone for Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke are then thought to have independently expanded Mark’s framework, supplementing it with Q for additional sayings and teachings, and with their own distinctive material (often labeled M for Matthean and L for Lukan special material). The result is a coherent account in which the three]] Synoptic Gospels]]—Matthew, Luke, and Mark—exhibit a high degree of literary overlap, yet preserve individual characteristics tied to their respective communities and theological aims.

Core ideas and components

  • Markan priority: The narrative content and sequence that Matthew and Luke share with Mark is taken as evidence that Mark was used as a source by both writers.
  • The double tradition: Material that Matthew and Luke have in common but not present in Mark is treated as evidence for a second written or well-preserved oral source, traditionally labeled Q.
  • Q (the Quellenquelle): A hypothesized collection of Jesus’ sayings and teachings, arranged in a form suitable for both Matthew and Luke, but not attributed to Mark.
  • Matthean and Lukan special material (M and L): Writings unique to Matthew or Luke that reflect each evangelist’s theological emphases and audience considerations.

Evidence and textual relationships

  • Shared material with Mark: The vast majority of Mark’s narrative content appears in Matthew and Luke, often with similar wording and sequence. This pattern supports the claim that Mark served as a common source.
  • The double tradition: A large body of material appears in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. The consistency of this material across two independent authors suggests a second source or shared tradition underlying both gospels.
  • Order and arrangement: The way Matthew and Luke generally reproduce Mark’s order, while inserting their own expansions and transitions, is seen as compatible with a model where Mark is the primary source and Matthew and Luke supplement him from another source.
  • The hypothetical Q source: Because the material common to Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark shows up in both, scholars infer a source that predates their two-way dependence on Mark and that could have circulated in early Christian communities.

Q as a scholarly construct

  • Content and nature: Q is expected to preserve many of Jesus’ sayings—the Sermon on the Mount and related discourses are often cited as representative of Q’s likely material. Whether Q was a single document, a collection of sayings, or a broader oral tradition is a matter of ongoing scholarly debate.
  • Evidence and challenges: Proponents point to the substantial overlap of material in Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark as persuasive evidence for a shared source. Critics question the existence or practicality of Q as a stand-alone document, offering alternative explanations such as Luke and Matthew drawing on various early sources or on each other (as in some Farrer-hypothesis variants).

Variants and ongoing debates

  • Farrer hypothesis: This view keeps Markan priority but argues that Luke used Matthew as a source and did not require a separate Q. Proponents contend this preserves natural literary flow and avoids positing an unattested written collection of sayings.
  • Griesbach hypothesis (two-gospel hypothesis): An older model that posits Matthew was written first, Luke used Matthew as a source, and Mark used both Matthew and Luke as sources. This approach minimizes the need for a separate Q but requires a substantial rethinking of the observed literary dependence among the gospels.
  • Other refinements: Still other scholars explore more complex relationships among the gospels, including partial overlaps that could reflect multiple stages of composition, editorial strategy, and community transmission. Their work often emphasizes the same goal: account for agreement and difference in a way that respects early Christian authorship and the textual record.

Controversies and reception

  • Scholarly consensus and dissent: The Two-Source Hypothesis remains a central and influential framework in canonical studies of the Gospels, particularly for explaining the Markan priority and the double tradition. However, substantial scholarly debate continues about the exact nature and existence of Q, as well as about the relative weight of alternative models such as Farrer and Griesbach.
  • Methodological debates: Critics from various angles question whether the data necessitates a single, written Q or whether Luke and Matthew might have accessed overlapping oral traditions or multiple written sources. Supporters of the traditional model argue that the weight of textual similarities and the practical parsimony of Markan priority plus a common sayings source provide a robust explanation for the Gospel’s literary relationships.
  • Political and cultural critiques: In modern discourse, some critiques of traditional source-criticism frame the scholarly enterprise as shaped by contemporary ideologies. From a traditional, evidence-forward standpoint, those criticisms can be seen as overreliance on interpretive frameworks that read modern concerns into ancient texts. Proponents of the Two-Source approach typically emphasize the historical reliability of the manuscript record, the ancient Christian communities that transmitted it, and the methodological virtue of testing hypotheses against the actual flow of material across the gospels.

See also