29:
198:
The Farrer theory has the advantage of simplicity, as there is no need for hypothetical sources to be created by academics. Instead, advocates of the Farrer theory argue, the Gospel of Mark was used as source material by the author of
Matthew. Lastly, Luke used both of the previous gospels as sources
307:
The second is that Luke sometimes preserves a more primitive version of a text that is also in
Matthew. Farrer replies that this depends on being able to identify the more primitive text; for example, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" suits Matthew's theology, but it would be natural for Luke to drop
319:
The final argument is that Luke does not use the material within the same Marcan paragraphs as
Matthew. Farrer points out that he takes them out of a Marcan context and reproduces them elsewhere. In chapters 10–18, Luke reassembles the teaching material in a way which makes the points that he wants
254:
Although many scholars originally thought of Q as a sayings gospel, a collection of teachings with no narrative content, all alleged reconstructions of Q from the common parts of
Matthew and Luke include narrative about John the Baptist, Jesus' baptism and temptation in the wilderness, and his
278:
Farrer comments that "is argument finds its strength in the fewness of the instances for which any one hypothesis needs to be invoked; but the opposing counsel will unkindly point out that the diminution of the instances for each hypothesis is in exact proportion to the multiplication of the
222:
Nor is it obvious, Farrer says, that a book like Q was likely to be produced as a written manual of the teaching of Christ, since the reconstruction of it requires it to also have significant narrative elements interspersed with the teaching, and to have an interest in symbolism from the Old
214:
This assumption could be displaced by, for example, identifying material appearing in both
Matthew and Luke that was very different from either of them, which, when extracted, appears to be a work in its own right, with a beginning, middle and end. Neither of these factors are found in Q, as
315:
The fourth is that Luke uses the material less well than
Matthew. Farrer replies that this may be so, but he would not be the first adapter to have produced a less skilful result, the only issue was whether it would suit Luke's message better to have the material arranged in this
266:
Some scholars have attempted to overcome problems with Q reconstructions by claiming we cannot know the actual contents of the Q gospel. However, postulating Luke's acquaintance with the gospel of
Matthew overcomes these same problems and gives the source for the common
210:
thirty years earlier, "wholly depends on the incredibility of St Luke having read St
Matthew's book", since otherwise the natural assumption would be that one was dependent on the other, rather than that they were both dependent on a further source.
311:
The third is that Luke follows Mark's order but does not do the same with
Matthew. Farrer asks, in reply, why he should: "Is it surprising that he should lay his plan on Marcan foundations, and quarry St. Matthew for materials to build up his
290:
is more coherent in
Matthew, but less so in Luke, who attempted to increase the number of servants from three to ten. The several instances where this is observed point to Luke using Matthew rather than contrariwise.
244:
The Q hypothesis was formed to answer the question of where Matthew and Luke got their common material if they did not know of each other's gospels. But if Luke had read Matthew, the question that Q answers does not
303:
The first is that he would not have omitted some of the Matthean texts that he did because they are so striking. Farrer replies that they were omitted because they do not conform to the 'edifice' that Luke is
275:). This would follow naturally if Luke was using Matthew and Mark, but is hard to explain if he is using Mark and Q. Streeter divides these into six groups and finds separate hypotheses for each.
240:, Austin Farrer made the case that if Luke had been acquainted with the gospel of Matthew, there would be no need to postulate a lost Q gospel. Farrer's case rested on the following points:
271:
The most notable argument for the Farrer hypothesis is that there are many passages where the text of Matthew and Luke agree in making small changes to that of Mark (what is called the
219:) that "we have no reason to believe that documents of the Q type were plentiful", which would have made the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke drew on one more likely.
286:, meaning cases where a derivative passage begins to make changes to its source but fails to sustain them and lapses back into the original version. For example, the
279:
hypotheses themselves. One cannot say that Dr. Streeter's plea is incapable of being sustained, but one must concede that it is a plea against apparent evidence".
261:
But from the earliest Christian writings, we see a strong emphasis on precisely the element that a putative Q omits, Jesus' death and resurrection.
540:
251:
When scholars have attempted to reconstruct Q from the common elements of Matthew and Luke, the result does not look like a gospel.
512:
586:
320:
to make, often by pairing sayings that have not been paired together before. This may have been to produce a Christian
681:
632:
437:
533:
411:
D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955)
748:
655:
738:
526:
676:
637:
353:
691:
671:
627:
599:
287:
686:
617:
594:
203:
348:
8:
743:
394:
See, for example, Michael Goulder's summary of the hypothesis in "Is Q a Juggernaut?",
299:
Five arguments are given by Streeter for the impossibility of Luke relying on Matthew.
566:
358:
164:
248:
We have no evidence from early Christian writings that anything like Q ever existed.
558:
549:
343:
272:
216:
156:
28:
609:
441:
420:
Dr B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924)
338:
202:
Farrer set out his argument in an essay "On dispensing with Q". He says that the
183:
44:
647:
576:
571:
215:
reconstructed by scholars. He also says (writing before the publication of the
207:
168:
160:
128:
732:
491:
324:, just as it was argued that Matthew's gospel was in the form of a Christian
187:
175:
22:
L/M hypothesis, Farrer–Goulder hypothesis, Farrer–Goulder–Goodacre hypothesis
458:
399:
487:
174:
It has mainly been advocated by English biblical scholars. It is named for
321:
258:
However, they don't include an account of Jesus' death and resurrection.
507:
472:
The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem
325:
434:
717:
712:
707:
518:
496:
429:
Austin M. Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q" in D. E. Nineham (ed.),
171:, with Matthew and Luke using the earlier gospel(s) as sources.
503:
The Synoptic Problem and the Non-existence of Q, by Evan Powell
502:
182:
in 1955, but it has been picked up by other scholars including
431:
Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot
383:
Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot
508:
Matthew Conflator (Wilke) Hypothesis, by Alan Garrow
433:(Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), pp. 55–88, reproduced at
294:
308:the "in spirit" to fit his concern with the poor.
730:
282:Goodacre puts forth an additional argument from
534:
226:
453:Mark Goodacre, "Fatigue in the Synoptics",
541:
527:
27:
459:http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fatigue.htm
423:
400:http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/goulder.htm
731:
522:
385:, Oxford: Blackwell, 1955, pp. 55-88,
548:
457:44 (1998), pp. 45-58, reproduced at
163:was written first, followed by the
13:
398:115 (1996): 667-81, reproduced at
153:Farrer–Goulder–Goodacre hypothesis
14:
760:
682:Priority of the Gospel of Marcion
481:
435:http://NTGateway.com/Q/Farrer.htm
295:Streeter's five arguments against
255:healing of a centurion's servant.
633:Matthean Posteriority hypothesis
231:
155:) is a possible solution to the
136:Solution to the synoptic gospels
513:Overview of proposed solutions
464:
447:
414:
405:
396:Journal of Biblical Literature
388:
371:
1:
364:
7:
656:Jerusalem school hypothesis
497:The Case Against Q web site
332:
193:
10:
765:
381:, in D. E. Nineham (ed.),
700:
664:
646:
608:
585:
556:
227:Arguments for and against
159:. The theory is that the
149:Farrer–Goulder hypothesis
124:
114:
106:
96:
88:
83:
75:
67:
62:
54:
40:
35:
26:
21:
677:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis
638:Four-document hypothesis
354:Four-document hypothesis
692:Independence hypothesis
672:Multi-source hypothesis
628:Three-source hypothesis
600:Augustinian hypothesis
288:parable of the talents
618:Two-source hypothesis
595:Two-gospel hypothesis
515:by Stephen C. Carlson
455:New Testament Studies
204:two-source hypothesis
58:No additional sources
687:Q+/Papias hypothesis
665:Other or no priority
488:On Dispensing With Q
379:On Dispensing with Q
349:Griesbach hypothesis
238:On Dispensing with Q
180:On Dispensing With Q
101:On Dispensing with Q
208:B. H. Streeter
18:
749:Biblical criticism
587:Matthaean priority
474:(2002), pp. 40-43.
440:2009-02-01 at the
377:Austin M. Farrer,
236:In his 1955 paper
55:Additional Sources
36:Theory Information
16:
726:
725:
623:Farrer hypothesis
567:Gospel of Matthew
359:Gospel of Marcion
165:Gospel of Matthew
143:(also called the
141:Farrer hypothesis
134:
133:
17:Farrer hypothesis
756:
739:Synoptic problem
701:Possible sources
559:Synoptic Gospels
550:Synoptic problem
543:
536:
529:
520:
519:
499:by Mark Goodacre
475:
468:
462:
451:
445:
427:
421:
418:
412:
409:
403:
392:
386:
375:
344:Wilke hypothesis
273:double tradition
217:Gospel of Thomas
206:, as set out by
199:for his Gospel.
167:and then by the
157:synoptic problem
118:Michael Goulder
107:Origination Date
97:Originating Work
63:Gospels' Sources
31:
19:
15:
764:
763:
759:
758:
757:
755:
754:
753:
729:
728:
727:
722:
696:
660:
642:
610:Marcan priority
604:
581:
552:
547:
484:
479:
478:
470:Mark Goodacre,
469:
465:
452:
448:
442:Wayback Machine
428:
424:
419:
415:
410:
406:
393:
389:
376:
372:
367:
339:Markan priority
335:
297:
234:
229:
196:
184:Michael Goulder
137:
119:
49:
47:
45:Marcan Priority
12:
11:
5:
762:
752:
751:
746:
741:
724:
723:
721:
720:
715:
710:
704:
702:
698:
697:
695:
694:
689:
684:
679:
674:
668:
666:
662:
661:
659:
658:
652:
650:
648:Lucan priority
644:
643:
641:
640:
635:
630:
625:
620:
614:
612:
606:
605:
603:
602:
597:
591:
589:
583:
582:
580:
579:
577:Gospel of Luke
574:
572:Gospel of Mark
569:
563:
561:
554:
553:
546:
545:
538:
531:
523:
517:
516:
510:
505:
500:
494:
483:
482:External links
480:
477:
476:
463:
446:
422:
413:
404:
387:
369:
368:
366:
363:
362:
361:
356:
351:
346:
341:
334:
331:
330:
329:
317:
313:
309:
305:
296:
293:
269:
268:
264:
263:
262:
259:
256:
249:
246:
233:
230:
228:
225:
195:
192:
169:Gospel of Luke
161:Gospel of Mark
145:L/M hypothesis
135:
132:
131:
129:B. H. Streeter
126:
122:
121:
116:
112:
111:
108:
104:
103:
98:
94:
93:
90:
86:
85:
84:Theory History
81:
80:
77:
73:
72:
69:
65:
64:
60:
59:
56:
52:
51:
42:
38:
37:
33:
32:
24:
23:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
761:
750:
747:
745:
742:
740:
737:
736:
734:
719:
716:
714:
711:
709:
706:
705:
703:
699:
693:
690:
688:
685:
683:
680:
678:
675:
673:
670:
669:
667:
663:
657:
654:
653:
651:
649:
645:
639:
636:
634:
631:
629:
626:
624:
621:
619:
616:
615:
613:
611:
607:
601:
598:
596:
593:
592:
590:
588:
584:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
564:
562:
560:
555:
551:
544:
539:
537:
532:
530:
525:
524:
521:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
498:
495:
493:
492:Austin Farrer
489:
486:
485:
473:
467:
460:
456:
450:
443:
439:
436:
432:
426:
417:
408:
401:
397:
391:
384:
380:
374:
370:
360:
357:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
342:
340:
337:
336:
327:
323:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
292:
289:
285:
280:
276:
274:
265:
260:
257:
253:
252:
250:
247:
243:
242:
241:
239:
232:Arguments for
224:
220:
218:
212:
209:
205:
200:
191:
189:
188:Mark Goodacre
185:
181:
177:
176:Austin Farrer
172:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
130:
127:
123:
120:Mark Goodacre
117:
113:
109:
105:
102:
99:
95:
92:Austin Farrer
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
61:
57:
53:
46:
43:
39:
34:
30:
25:
20:
622:
471:
466:
454:
449:
430:
425:
416:
407:
395:
390:
382:
378:
373:
298:
283:
281:
277:
270:
237:
235:
221:
213:
201:
197:
179:
178:, who wrote
173:
152:
148:
144:
140:
138:
100:
322:Deuteronomy
223:Testament.
744:Hypotheses
733:Categories
365:References
326:Pentateuch
115:Proponents
89:Originator
79:Matt, Mark
304:building.
267:material.
125:Opponents
718:L source
713:M source
708:Q source
438:Archived
333:See also
194:Overview
151:and the
312:house?"
284:fatigue
68:Matthew
245:arise.
147:, the
48:Matt
41:Order
557:The
316:way.
186:and
139:The
110:1955
76:Luke
71:Mark
50:Luke
490:by
735::
190:.
542:e
535:t
528:v
461:.
444:.
402:.
328:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
