Author(s): Paul Foster Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol… foster-q.pdf · PAUL FOSTER James Hardy Ropes had raised similar concerns, and suggested Luke's direct use of Matthew as a

Is It Possible to Dispense with Q?Author(s): Paul FosterSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 45, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 2003), pp. 313-337Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561102 .

Accessed: 27/02/2014 16:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:33:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561102?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


IS IT POSSIBLE TO DISPENSE WITH Q?

by

PAUL FOSTER Oxford

Abstract

Solutions to the Synoptic Problem that argue for Markan priority, but the non- existence of Q as the basis of the double tradition material continue to attract scholars. The best known of these theories, the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis arguing for Luke's direct use of Matthew, has been championed most recently by Mark Goodacre. He reworks some of the previous arguments in favour of that hypothesis as well as offering a number of new arguments. This paper assesses the validity of such arguments and the claim that it is now possible to finally dispense with Q.

1. Introduction

Despite the emergence and dominance of the Two Source Theory (2ST), originating with Weissel and Holtzmann,2 there has existed for a considerable time a group of scholars who, while maintaining Markan priority vigorously, question the existence of Q in any form. The advocates of what may loosely be termed "Markan priority, non-Q" type solutions to the synoptic problem usually trace the origins of this position back to Austin Farrer's seminal essay, "On Dispensing with Q".3 The reason for this is obvious: not only did Farrer awaken New Testament scholars of his generation to this possibility, but he also articulated his case in an incisive manner.

However, it should be noted that Farrer was not the first to postulate the possibility of this type of solution. Eighteen years earlier

It appears that the existence of Q was first utilised in a theory to account for the material in the synoptic gospels in 1838 by Christian Hermann Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1838).

2 The 2ST came to dominance after the appearance of Holtzmann's study in 1863. HJ. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien. Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1865). 3 Austin Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q", in D.E. Nineham, (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955) 55-88.

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003 Also available online - www.brill.nl

Novum Testamentum XLV, 4



PAUL FOSTER

James Hardy Ropes had raised similar concerns, and suggested Luke's direct use of Matthew as a preferable alternative to the existence of Q. Yet, perhaps the earliest formulation of a solution to the synoptic problem that argued for Lukan dependence on Matthew in con- junction with Markan priority may be traced to the work of Eduard Simons in 1880.5 His proposal, however, did not dispense with Q. He saw the third evangelist using both Mark and Q as source material, but also consulting the Matthean text. In response to such proposed solutions to the synoptic problem, this paper seeks to expose the critical weaknesses of those theories that attempt to dispense with Qwhile maintaining Markan priority.

2. The Farrer Theory, or Luke's Dependence on Matthew

Among those who suggest solutions to the synoptic problem that are based upon Markan priority and the non-existence of Q Farrer's position is the most common, being advocated by scholars such as Goulder,6 Drury,7 Franklin,8 Goodacre9 and Shellard.?' Basically, this solution argues that when Luke composed his gospel he did so with both Mark and Matthew in front of him. As Farrer states,

we can conceive well enough how St. Luke could have both read St. Matthew's book as it stands, and written the gospel he has left us... He [Luke] claims to know, and, one would naturally suppose, to profit by, more than one gospel narrative other than his own. By all agreement he knew St. Mark's, but what other did he know? It would be natural for him to know St. Matthew's, supposing always that it had been in existence long enough."

4 J. Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels (First Published 1934; Second Impression with New Preface; London: Oxford University Press, 1960) 67.

5 E. Simons, Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthdus benutzt? (Bonn: Universitats- Buchdruckerei von Carl Georgi, 1880). 6 For the fullest statement of his views see, M.D. Goulder, Luke-A New Paradigm (2 vols.; JSNT Supp 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). 7 J. Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1976).

8 E. Franklin, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew (JSNT Supp 92; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).

9 M. Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (London: Sheffield Academic Press/Continuum, 2001); The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Tradition (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2002).

'0 B. Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (JSNT Supp 215; London: Sheffield Academic Press/Continuum, 2002).

" Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q", 56.

314




This last comment illustrates an unproven assumption that is nec- essary for the Farrer theory, and must hold for such a proposed solution to be even a possibility. It must be assumed not only that Matthew wrote before Luke, but also that the Matthean gospel had been in existence for "long enough" (however one may measure that) and had also circulated widely enough to come to Luke's knowledge. Although this point will be addressed again later, it is worth noting that Farrer sees this as being plausible on the assumption that "St. Matthew and St. Luke both emanate from the same literary region-both are ortho- dox Gentile-Christian writings composed (let us say) between A.D. 75 and A.D. 90, in an area in which St. Mark's gospel was known."12 Many scholars would disagree with Farrer's premise that Matthew's gospel was a Gentile-Christian writing and thus emerged from the same literary environment as Luke's gospel. In fact the consensus position is just the opposite, namely that the first gospel reflects a Jewish background,'3 with some suggesting that the community was still Jewish at the time of the gospel's composition,14 and others going even further by suggesting that the group was a Christian-Jewish community that eschewed all contact with Gentiles and remained so until it petered out in the third or fourth century.15 Thus Farrer's explanation of the likelihood of contact between the literary worlds of Matthew and Luke, with Matthew of necessity being prior to Luke, seems to be extremely weak on all counts.

Yet there is another fundamental weakness with Farrer's statement. He draws upon the material contained in the Lukan preface to ask the question, apart from the Markan source "what other did he [Luke] know?"16 Thus the ncoXkoi of Lk. 1:1 is conveniently reduced to just Mark and one other source. The motivation for this sleight of hand comes to the fore in the conclusion of Farrer's argument where he dispenses not only with Q, but also with all source material external to the fourfold gospel canon. His reconstruction is as follows:

12 Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q", 56. '3 See G.N. Stanton, A Gospelfor a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1992). 14 AJ. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).

15 D.C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The Historical and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).

16 Farrer presents the following rendering of the relevant statement in the Lukan preface, "in view of the fact that several authors have tried their hand at composing an account of the things fulfilled among us." ("On Dispensing with Q", 56).

315



PAUL FOSTER

The literary history of the Gospels will turn out to be a simpler matter than we had supposed. St. Matthew will be seen to be an amplified version of St. Mark, based on a decade of habitual preaching, and incorporating oral material, but presupposing no other literary source beside St. Mark himself. St. Luke, in turn, will be found to presuppose St. Matthew and St. Mark, and St. John to presuppose the three others. The whole literary history of the canonical Gospel tradition will be found to be contained in the fourfold canon itself, except in so far as it lies in the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, and the other New Testament writings. 17

Would that the matter was this simple! First, the wealth of non- canonical gospel material found at Nag Hammadi suggests that there may have been other Jesus traditions, some oral and some written, that existed alongside the material in the fourfold gospel canon, at least as early as the second century. Second, is it really plausible, as Farrer suggests, that all the additional material with which Matthew augments his Markan source is due to redactional creativity, and likewise, anything that Luke has in addition to his two canonical gospel sources stems from his own creativity with these received traditions? This is the clear implication that Farrer himself suggests in relation to other non-extant proposed gospel sources, such as M and L. He states, "Once rid of Q, we are rid of a progeny of nameless chimaeras."'8 Michael Goulder, Farrer's former student and one of the main proponents of his theory, puts this hard line even more forcibly.'9

i. The Re-ordering of the Matthean Material

However, the articulation of the theory of Markan priority and Luke's dependence on Matthew has moved on since Farrer's article. Most recently Goodacre has taken up the task of championing this theory. One of his most urgent tasks has been to defend the Farrer theory from Streeter's pre-emptive charge that for Luke to know the Matthean material and then to re-order it in the manner he does would mean he was some kind of literary crank.20 Goodacre's first

7 Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q", 85. 18 Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q", 86. 19 Goulder, Luke-A New Paradigm, 22-23. 20 With his usual wit and sharp turn of phrase, Streeter described the case for Lukan

dependence on Matthew in the following terms: "If then Luke derived this material from Matthew, he must have gone through both Matthew and Mark so as to dis- criminate with meticulous precision between Markan and non-Markan material; he must then have proceeded with the utmost care to tear every little piece of non-Markan material he desired to use from the context of Mark in which it appeared in Matthew- in spite of the fact that the contexts in Matthew are always exceedingly appropriate-

316




manoeuvre is to point out a slight inaccuracy in Streeter's charge that a Matthew-dependent Luke would be stripping material from appropriate Markan contexts and placing such material into a different context of Mark having no special appropriateness. He correctly observes that,

Most of the pieces of Luke's Double tradition do not appear in a 'different context of Mark', whether appropriate or otherwise, because very little of Luke's Double Tradition occurs in a Markan context at all. That is, whereas Matthew often features Q in Markan contexts, Luke rarely does. Most of Luke's Q material occurs in two sections, 6.20-8.3 and 9.51-18.14, and in these sections there is very little use of Mark.21

While fully agreeing with Goodacre's more accurate statement of what a Matthew-dependent Luke would actually be doing, this does not seem to answer Streeter's fundamental charge. Rather, the primary issue is that the activity of removing non-Markan material from the Markan contexts in Matthew seems quite an unlikely procedure. Downing makes this point not just at a theoretical level, but also more significantly with illustrations of contemporary compositional techniques in or around the first century C.E. While he presents numerous exam-

ples of conflation of the type required by the two source theory, he finds no evidence to support an initial unpicking then reassembling of material to produce a document with a new literary arrangement. He concludes by stating,

Even when such unpicking and reassembly might seem relatively easy (say, in whole narrative units), there is no contemporary analogy. No other writer of the time runs backwards and forwards in two sets of materials in the way the hypothetical third of the Gospel writers must be supposed to have done.22

Yet Goodacre does not address this issue at all. Instead he asserts that by asking the correct question one is more likely to find the natural answer, and he states the correct question as: "Why does Luke, on the whole, place non-Markan material from Matthew in non-Markan contexts?"23 This question is answered by arguing that Matthew's or-

dering is rigid and wooden, whereas Luke is reticent to retain long

in order to re-insert it into a different context of Mark having no special appropriateness. A theory which would make an author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank." B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study in Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924) 183.

21 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 124. 22 F.G. Downing, "Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem", JBL 107

(1988) 69-85, see 82-83. 23 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 124.

317



PAUL FOSTER

discourses regardless of their being drawn from Mark or Matthew. Again Goodacre may be right to note that the implication of Streeter's statement is the value judgement that the Matthean order is preferable to that of Luke,24 but again this is not the primary issue. The point at stake is whether it appears plausible for Luke to scour the composition of the first evangelist, carefully removing the Double Tradition material, in order to re-assemble it in two major blocks in non-Markan contexts.

The question of Luke's re-ordering of Matthew receives a fuller treatment in Goodacre's The Case Against Q25 First Goodacre argues that Luke had good reason to use his sources in a different manner. It is suggested that, "He has known Mark for perhaps twenty years whereas Matthew is a much more recent discovery."26 Thus Matthew's gospel is seen as being derivative on Mark, and Luke considers it to be secondary and inferior to the gospel "that has long been at the heart of his understanding of the Jesus story."27 This theory is based on two dubious assumptions: that it is possible to be certain of the temporal order in which Luke came across his two sources (the order in which Luke discovered Mark and Q is not an issue for the 2ST); and that he knew which was the more ancient source, and valued it more highly. The last point is emphasized in the comment that "Perhaps Luke is even more sure of Markan Priority than we are; he has known Mark for longer and it had time to enter his bloodstream before there is any question of its contamination from its interpretation by and absorption into Matthew."28 Yet Luke gives no indication in his preface, or elsewhere, that he is privileging one source more highly than another.

The second avenue of defence is based upon narrative criticism. Goodacre sees the Q theory as an attack on the artistry of the Lukan narrative. By comparison he states, "adherents of the Farrer theory,

24 In passing it should be noted that Streeter does not say that one ordering is preferable to another only that Matthew appears to have placed this material in appropriate contexts, and Luke removes it from these contexts. Second, even if Streeter asserted that the Matthean order was preferable and more user-friendly, he could have marshalled much Patristic evidence in support of favouring the Matthean arrangement of material. This does not make the preference for the Matthean ordering any less of a value judgement, but it does show that such a point of view is not exclusively a sub- jective assessment of modern biblical critics.

25 Goodacre, The Case Against Q, see in particular chapters 4-6, 81-132. 26 Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 89. '7 Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 89. 28 Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 90.

318




in denying themselves the expedient of the Q hypothesis for accounting for every peculiarity in Luke's order, are inevitably more inclined to look to Luke's literary skill as a means of explaining the narrative development of his gospel."29 However, Goodacre is incorrect to imply that proponents of the 2ST suggest that there is no narrative thread or literary artistry in the third gospel. The problem for supporters of the 2ST is not the narrative continuity in Luke's gospel, but the implau- sibility of the evangelist unpicking double tradition material from Matthew's gospel. This becomes more problematic since such a procedure is unknown in ancient literary documents.30

ii. Luke's Critical Attitude towards Matthew

Actually, what Goodacre's theory requires, and he supplies the neces- sary step, is an assertion that Luke is critical of the Matthean document and thus radically re-writes Matthew's. He states, "Luke is making clear that he is critical of his predecessors' work and that his radical reordering of Matthew is in Theophilus's best interest."31 Goodacre is not the first to postulate a critical attitude on the part of Luke towards Matthew's gospel. Franklin agrees with Goodacre insofar as he asserts that Luke views "Matthew's updating of Mark as right in conception but wrong in its overall execution, and... he sets out to write a con- scious response to it."32 Yet Franklin and Goodacre diverge over the assessment of what issue causes Luke to be a critic of Matthew. Franklin sees Luke as handling his two sources in a vastly different manner and instead of his relatively conservative attitude to the Mark, Luke is far more radical in relation to the Matthean material. Franklin argues that this is the case because Matthew's "theological outlook is in fact inim- ical to Luke."33 And this opposition stems primarily from different con- ceptions of the law. Here there is a significant difference from both Goulder and Goodacre in terms of Luke's alleged re-writing of Matthew. For Goulder "Luke is writing a reconciliation of Mark and Matthew to reassure Theophilus that the apparently dissonant gospel tradition is trustworthy."34 According to Goodacre Luke's concern is neither theological nor pastoral, but rather literary. "He appears to be critical of

29 Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 117. Downing, "Compositional Conventions", 69-85.

31 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 127. 32 Franklin, Luke, 372. 33 Franklin, Luke, 372. 34 Goulder, Luke-A New Paradigm, 200.

319



PAUL FOSTER

his predecessors' attempts to write narratives of the Jesus story (Lk. 1.1)."35 While this discord among the main proponents of Lukan dependence on Matthew in accounting for Luke's motivation in reworking the Matthean structure does not mean that one of these explanations could not be correct, none of these formulations seems to have a great deal of support from the text. Franklin's Luke may not have the same outlook on the law as Matthew,36 but Torah dispute is not presented as an inner Christian source of discord. In fact Luke highlights the concord that exists between different Christian figures in relation to Torah (cf. Acts 15). Goulder correctly notes that Luke writes to reassure Theophilus, but where is the evidence that his concern was about dissonant gospel traditions? Goodacre's reconstruction depends upon the radical over-interpretation of certain statements in the Lukan preface. Contrary to Goodacre, the preface does not seem "to emphasize so strongly the matter of order."37 Instead there is one fleeting, and rather enigmatic, statement that may refer to Luke's own ordering of his material without necessarily being critical of the purposes of the other sources. The reference from Lk. 1:3 reads: i68o0e K&toli lcapr1KoAXoV0KOTi aivco0ev i&otv dKpip36 Ka0efq; ootI ypav/ai.38 The empha- sis here falls very much on Luke's own literary practice, rather than offering a critique (implied or otherwise) of his predecessors, whom he describes as eyewitnesses and servants of the word (oi t a' apXfi at6iroTalt Kaict icrXipXTai yev6gevotoI To) yoi) in the previous verse.39 Thus, not only does the removal of non-Markan material by Luke from Matthew's account seem implausible and contrary to ancient literary practice,40 but moreover, all attempts to try and create an animosity between the

35 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 127. 36 On Luke's attitude to torah see S.G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (SNTSMS 50;

Cambridge: CUP, 1983). 37 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 127. 38 Here Goodacre fails to inform his readers of the debate that centres upon the

meaning of the term Ka0?eqiS, which is so vital for his argument. Fitzmyer outlines some of the major options in his discussion, see The Gospel according to Luke I-IX (New York: Doubleday, 1981) 298-9. See also H. Cadbury's discussion in FJ. Foakes Jackson & Kirsopp Lake (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles (vol. 2; London: Macmillan, 1922) 504-5.

39 In large part, Loveday Alexander sees the purpose of Luke's preface as locating the literary work in a socio-cultural setting. She states, "Luke is writing from within a Christian social context which is in significant respects like that of the Hellenistic schools themselves." L. Alexander, The Preface to Luke's Gospel (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: CUP, 1993). 40 Again, see Downing, "Compositional Conventions", 69-85.

320




intentions of Matthew and Luke seems to lack the support of any cor- roborative evidence.

iii. Other Traditions used by Luke

A significant point at which Goodacre diverges from the earlier formulation of the Farrer-Goulder form of the theory is in his allowing the possibility that other traditions, apart from Mark and Matthew, influenced the Lukan narrative.4' In effect this possibility is an attempt to address the charge that at times Luke has the more primitive form of a Double Tradition pericope, and this appears inexplicable on the assumption of Lukan dependence on Matthew. Thus he states,

Not only has the extent of Luke's supposed primitivity been greatly overestimated, based partly on misconstrued assessments of the presence of Matthean language, but even on occasions where Luke does show possible signs of primitivity, this is only evidence for Q if one is prepared to deny a role to the living stream of oral tradition in the composition of Luke's gospel.42

Here Goodacre is aware that such a possibility stands in direct opposition to the Farrer-Goulder form of this theory, which vigorously denies any source material outside of the fourfold gospel canon. Quite sen- sibly Goodacre acknowledges the reality that the writing of a gospel did not instantaneously supplant the stream of traditions that had fed into its composition. However, apart from the words of institution (Lk. 22:20) and the Lord's Prayer (11:2b-4), there are no examples pro- vided to illustrate where Luke is drawing upon a pre-Lukan tradition rather than creating material de novo. For instance, is the Lukan Passion Narrative tradition or redactional formulation, what about the dis- tinctive parables of the third gospel, the infancy narrative and the unique genealogy? If Goodacre is willing to admit that alternative sources are being used in some of these cases, (and this seems to be the implication of his statement about "other traditions"), how is he able to determine with such confidence that such material was oral and not written? Yet he must maintain that these traditions are oral,

41 Franklin also allows for the presence of other source material in Luke's gospel apart from the other two synoptic accounts. He states that although Mark was the primary source, and Luke being written in reaction to Matthew, that "This is not to deny the possibility of other sources . . . The point is, however, that such other material as Luke has remains secondary and supplementary to his Markan source. (Franklin, Luke, 377-8).

42 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 139.

321



PAUL FOSTER

for to allow the possibility of some written sources, but not the existence of Q would be extremely arbitrary. However, it is important to be clear at this point of what Goodacre has recognized, namely, that it is the very data within the gospels that force one to postulate the existence of other traditions beside those contained in the fourfold gospel canon.

Yet is this not the "thin end of the wedge" for those who advocate Markan priority, but non-Q solutions to the synoptic problem? Goodacre vigorously protests that his theory is not susceptible to such a charge. He asserts, "Some Q sceptics feel a little uncomfortable with this sce- nario since it might at first sight appear to allow Q to creep in through the back door. Is this, to use another image, a kind of 'closet Q', believing in a form of the Q hypothesis but not owning up to it? I don't think so."43 Despite, this declaration of not reinventing Q in a different guise, it was precisely in order to escape the necessity of hypothetical sources or traditions that Farrer44 and Goulder framed and maintained the theory of Luke's use of Matthew. Without sticking to this hard line the theory loses its appeal, since it results in the multi- plicity of hypothetical sources with which this theory is trying to dispense.

iv. The Genre of Q

The lack of an extant document that exhibits the supposedly hypothetical genre of Q is often levelled as a charge against those who maintained the existence of this second written source that Matthew and Luke drew upon independently. Farrer articulated this concern in his argument when he stated, "there is no evidence for anything like Q. To postulate the existence of Q is to postulate the unevidenced and the unique ... We have no evidence that the primitive Christians ever put together a Q or anything like it."45 Farrer should not be held

blameworthy for not acknowledging the significance of the Gospel of Thomas, for although the Nag Hammadi corpus had been discovered ten years prior to his article, publication was slow and perhaps the importance of the text was not fully realized.46 The significance of

43 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 138. 44 Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q", 86. 41 Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q", 58. 46 As Richard Smith states in the preface to The Nag Hammadi Library in English,

"Scholarly rivalries and the situation in Egypt in the years following the library's discovery in 1945 hindered work on the manuscripts. Twenty years after the discovery

322




Thomas, specifically in relation to Q, is summarized by Davies in the following terms:

Both Q and Thomas are lists of sayings, having about one third of their sayings in common, but they are not otherwise connected. Thomas is not Q, nor a source for Q, nor is Q a source for Thomas. The Q hypothesis does, however, gain strength from the fact that Thomas proves that lists of sayings did circulate in the early churches.47

Yet the discovery of Thomas has not convinced Q sceptics either of the possibility of the existence of Q or of the appropriateness of the comparison. Rather the criterion has been somewhat changed to try and remove Thomas from the debate. Goodacre dismisses the positive evidence that Thomas offers for the Qhypothesis in the following cur- sory manner:

The disappointing news for the Q theory is that the document looks nothing like Q as it is commonly reconstructed. Thomas is quite lacking in the kind of ordered arrangements that characterize Q, especially the all-important narrative sequence in Q's first third. Thus, far from corroborating the existence of documents like Q, the blatant contrast between Thomas and Q gives one major pause for thought.8

Contrary to Goodacre, the significance of Thomas was seen by Q supporters as at least providing solid evidence, despite previous asser- tions to the contrary, that amorphous sayings collections could circulate in the early church, although to describe either as amorphous is to miss certain structural features in both documents.49 Now that Thomas has been discovered, the charge has changed and it appears that Q is not amorphous enough, since it does not match Thomas exactly. Of course it does not, for Thomas is not Q. However, what Thomas and the synoptic gospels do is mark endpoints on a continuum of Christian writings about Jesus, and to find that the genre of Q sits comfort- ably between these two extremes gives plausibility to inferring that the genre of reconstructed Q is well within the realms of possibility.50 The

only a small percentage of texts had been edited and translated, mostly by European scholars, and less than ten percent had become available in English translations. In 1966 the team responsible for the present volume began to come together into 'The Coptic Gnostic Library Project' under the auspices of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont, California." (The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ix).

47 Stevan Davies, "Thomas, Gospel of", in D.N. Freedman (ed.), Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2000) 1303.

48 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 152. 49 For a discussion of the structuring of certain groups of Thomas sayings see A.D.

de Conick, Seek to See Him. Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 1996).

50 To take up mathematical terminology, prior to the discovery of Thomas the genre

323



PAUL FOSTER

manoeuvre that is made in order to rule Thomas out of consideration is therefore not only inappropriate, but seems to be rather disingenu- ous on the part of Goodacre.

However, generic considerations for placing Q in the correct taxo- nomic class need not be confined to a comparison with Thomas. Kloppenborg has highlighted a number of ancient sayings collections that demonstrate that Qwas not a generic anomaly.51 The three types of sayings collections that have close affinities with Q at different stages of its formation are the instruction genre,52 Hellenistic gnomologia,53 and small collections of chriae.54 While each example of these genres exhibits peculiarities and unparalleled aspects, they are "intelligible against the background of antique sayings genres."55 The same obser- vation holds for Q, and it is a mistake to limit the comparison only to Thomas, especially since other ancient sayings collections parallel the morphology of Q more closely.

v. The Minor Agreements

The minor agreements are of course raised by Goodacre as a stan- dard argument against Matthew and Luke being independent. Here the first example is predictably the common inclusion of the five Greek words TI; ?x'tv O6 ntaiac oe in Matt. 26:68//Lk. 22:64 agreeing against Mk. 14:65. This oft repeated example is perhaps the best evidence

of Q had to be extrapolated from the example of the synoptic gospels. What Thomas provides is the other endpoint on a continuum. Therefore inferring Q is an interpo- lation between two known quantities, and as statisticians stress, this is more likely to produce valid results.

'5 J.S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). See esp. chap. 7, "Q and the Ancient Sayings Collections", 263-316.

52 As examples of this genre Kloppenborg discusses texts from Egypt and other parts of the ANE dating from as early as the third millennium BCE to texts contemporary with Q. There are numerous collections of this kind with the majority having a named sage as a regular feature of the incipit, such as a king (Amenemhat), a vizier (Ptahhotep), priest (Ankhsheshonq), a scribe (Khety), or other types of authority figures.

53 Hellenistic Gnomologia exhibit much greater variation, especially in relation to their morphology. The range of dating of this type of collection spans from third century BCE papyrus fragments of gnomic anthologies at least until the early Middle Ages with anthologies transmitted under the names ofJohannes Damascenus (VIII CE) and Maximus the Confessor (probably from IX CE).

54 Chriae collections were popular in cynic circles. As Kloppenborg notes, "The credit for the invention of this genre appears to go to Metrocles of Maroneia, a fourth- century Cynic who compiled the chriae of Diogenes of Sinope." (The Formation of Q, 306). This form is also used by Lucian in his Life of Demonax.

55 Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 327.

324




that supporters of Lukan dependence on Matthew can produce. However, the evidence is not fatal to the Q hypothesis for two reasons. First, it is possible to postulate explanations of how this may have occurred in the manuscript tradition. Although some late manuscripts of Mark con- tain these five words, this is almost certainly due to textual assimilation.56 Therefore the explanation that the words "Who is it who struck you?", could have fallen out of the Markan text is possible, but unlikely, since it requires accepting the more weakly attested reading as original.57 Alternatively, these five words could have been assimilated either into Matthew from Luke,58 or into Luke from Matthew,59 by a scribe who was familiar with their presence in the other gospel. It perhaps should also be noted that the earliest mss evidence for Matt. 26.68 is to be found in the fourth century uncials, R and B. Thus, there is a significant period of unevidenced textual history when this assimilation could have occurred. Goodacre rails against any appeal to conjectural emendation, he asserts that "Q theorists cannot be let off the hook... by appeal to textual corruption."60 However, to deny the possibility of an

56 Metzger summarises the evidence in the following manner. "The longer reading involves the addition of the question Tzig emrv 6 nraioa oe, ('Who is it that has struck you?'), with or without the introductory Xpiarl, appears to be an assimilation to the text of Matthew (26.68) or Luke (22.64). The shortest reading, 2rpoqrfTEvzov, supported as it is by the Alexandrian text and several early versions, best accounts for the rise of the other readings." B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentay on the Greek New Testament, (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) 97. The mss evidence in favour of the longer reading is N U W Xf'3 33 543 565 579 700 892 1071 et al. syh' bo geo aeth arm Aug.

57 However, it should be noted that the early textual evidence for Mk. 14:65 is not strong. Given the paucity of papyrological testimony for Mark (P45 fragmentary, P84 88 very brief passages) it is questionable whether the original wording of Mk. 14:65, (which is not extant in any of the three papyri), can be established with great certainty. 58 The reason that the case of assimilation into the Matthean text is seen as more likely is because these words are more problematic in that setting since the first evangelist does not mention the blindfolding ofJesus. Streeter argued that "the taunt 'Prophesy who it is that struck thee' depends upon the fact that He was prevented by the veil from seeing who did it. Indeed this last consideration leads up to what I believe is the true solution-the original text of Matthew and of Mark omitted both the veiling and the words 'Who is it, etc.' These two stand or fall together." (Streeter, The Four Gospels, 326). In support of a conjectural emendation in relation to the text of Matt. 26:68 see C.M. Tuckett, "The Minor Agreements and Textual Criticism", in G. Strecker (ed.), Minor Agreements: Symposium Gottingen 1991 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 119-141.

59 Although this option is not usually supported, it would cohere with the fact that Matthew was the most cited gospel in the Patristic period and in general assimilations tended to be toward the text of the first gospel. However, this does not explain the difficulty of the lack of a reference to the blindfolding in Matthew.

60 Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 168.

325



PAUL FOSTER

early corruption for which there is no longer any extant mss evidence seems to place an unwarranted level of confidence in the textual tra- ditional at all points. Rather, each textual problem must be treated on its merits, and if an unattested reading is the best explanation of the readings in the mss tradition, then it is warranted to posit a conjectural emendation.

Moreover, as a number of supporters of the Q theory have recognized, even if one or more of the Minor Agreements conclusively demonstrated Lukan knowledge of Matthew, this does not automati- cally disprove the Q hypothesis. Responding to Goulder's discussion of minor agreements,61 Tuckett states that,

If one of his examples were established, this would indicate that Luke knew Matthew, but this would not of itself prove that the whole Q hypothesis was invalid. It might be that Luke used Q for most of the 'double tradition' but that he also used Matthew's gospel and used it occasionally.62

Again Goodacre resists the logic of this argument. He suggests, "If these two things, the Q hypothesis and the independence of Matthew and Luke, were unrelated, the argument would be legitimate. However, the independence of Matthew and Luke is usually taken to be the essential premise for the Q hypothesis."63 Yet the logic is somewhat faulty. While the independence of Matthew and Luke must necessarily imply some common source for the double tradition passages, the converse, that if Matthew and Luke are dependent at some points they cannot share a common source, is obviously false. This said, most supporters of the Q hypothesis feel that the minor agreements can be dealt with adequately without recourse to postulating dependence between the first and third evangelists.

vi. Luke's Ignorance of Matthean additions to Mark

Goodacre tries to counter the charge that Luke is ignorant of Matthew's additions to Mark in two ways. Initially he states that the examples do not make the case. Admittedly, he provides evidence of one example that should not be invoked, namely, the Matthean addition of Peter walking on the water. He correctly notes that this story is "wholly absent from Luke, in either its Markan or Matthaean form.

6' M.D. Goulder, "On Putting Q to the Test", ATS 24 (1978) 218-34. 62 C.M. Tuckett, "On the Relationship Between Matthew and Luke", NTS 30 (1984)

130. 63 Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 167.

326




One can hardly be surprised that Luke lacks the Matthaean additions to a story that does not feature at all in his Gospel."64 However, there are many more examples that do not fall into this category. Instead Luke parallels the Markan account at a number of points without showing knowledge of the following Matthean redactional additions: the Baptist trying to hinder Jesus (Matt. 3:14-15); the counterexample of temple priests and Hosea quotation (12:5-7); praise of Peter at Caesarea Philippi (16:17-19); healing and children's praise in the temple (21:14-16); the dream of Pilate's wife (27:19); Pilate washing his hands (27:24); blood on the heads of children (27:25); earthquake, rocks splitting, and graves opening at Jesus' death (27:51b-53). Certainly Goodacre is correct that many of these additions reflect redactional concerns of the first evangelist (it would be surprising if they did not). Nonetheless, it cannot be argued that all these comments are so offensive to Luke that they are "exactly the kind of Matthaean addition to Mark that we would expect Luke to omit."65 Surely the praise of the children in the temple (Matt. 21:14-16) would cohere with the earlier acclamations Jesus received in the temple in the Lukan infancy narrative from Simeon and Anna (Lk. 2:29-32, 38).

The second defence that Goodacre tries to mount is that Luke's ignorance of Matthew's additions is a fallacious argument. He con- tends that, "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."66 He suggests that this is a convenient way of ignoring major agreements between Luke and Matthew against Mark.67 Four examples are offered: the Baptist's prediction of the Coming One (Matt. 3:11-12//Mk. 1:7-8//Lk. 3:16-17); the Temptation (Matt. 4:1-11//Mk. 1:12-13//Lk. 4:1-13); the Beelzebub controversy (Matt. 12:22-30//Mk. 3:20-27//Lk. 11:14-23); and the Mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32//Mk. 4:30-32-//Lk. 13:18-19).68 In the first example, Q appears to have an interest in John the Baptist material so it is not surprising that it included its own version of this story. The temptation story is significantly longer in both Matthew and Luke with the triad of temptations; thus, it was natural for both evangelists to independently insert the Qversion at the very place required by the Markan

64 Goodacre, he Synoptic Problem, 129. 65 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 129. 66 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 157. 67 See the discussion in Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 163-5. 68 Note that here Goodacre has given the wrong reference. The Matthean parallel

327



PAUL FOSTER

framework. The Beelzebub story exists as a Matthean doublet (12:22- 30 and 9:32-34), which in this case seems to suggest that Matthew knew this story from two sources, thus providing strong evidence for a Mark-Q overlap. The mustard seed shows significant divergence in all three accounts, moreover, the existence of a parallel in the Thomas (G.Thom. 20) makes it plausible that the evangelists each knew vari- ant forms either from written or oral traditions.

vii. Editorial Fatigue

Goodacre puts forward the criterion of editorial fatigue as a means by which the direction of dependence on source material may be established. He describes the phenomenon in the following terms.

When one writer is copying the work of another, changes are sometimes made at the beginning of an account that are not sustained throughout. The writer lapses into docile reproduction of the source ... This phenomenon of 'fatigue' is thus a telltale sign of a writer's dependence on a source.69

One illustration of this tendency in the triple tradition is Goodacre's example of the Death of John the Baptist (Mk. 6:14-29//Matt. 14:1- 12). Two changes of detail are presented as examples of editorial fatigue: first, the change in the title of Antipas from tetrarch to king in Matthew's account; and second, there being no basis for Herod's grief in the Matthean form of the story (14:5). In relation to the first case it is noted that whereas Mark consistently calls Antipas king four times in this story, Matthew changes the title to the correct designation tetrarch, but later reverts to the use of paoctkei;. Goodacre states, "For Mark, Herod is always the 'king',... Matthew apparently cor- rects this to 'tetrarch' . . . More is the shame, then, that Matthew lapses into calling Herod 'the king' halfway through the story (Matt. 14:9), in agreement with Mark (6:26)."70 However, this change of terminology is not as significant as Goodacre suggests. While he mentions that Mark uses the term paSot,ekS four times (Mk. 14:22, 25, 26, 27), he fails to mention that the Matthean abbreviation results in there being no parallels to the term when it is used in vv. 25 and 26. Thus Matthew gives Antipas a title only on two occasions in this story: in the formulaic opening, 'Ev EKicivq) T() KOclpc 7CKOuEV 'Hp6'srl ; 6 pacaprqS,

is 13:31-32, not 13:18-19 which are the Lukan chapter and verse references. See Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 129.

69 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 71-72. 70 M. Goodacre, "Fatigue in the Synoptics", JVTS 44 (1998) 45-58, see 46.

328




where he is addressed formally as tetrarch (14:1); and then in the narrative description, where the family name is omitted and he is given the designation paotXoS;. This variation could surely be for stylistic reasons, such as avoidance of the longer title, rather than a case of editorial fatigue. The second alteration does seem to support the notion of editorial fatigue. Having dropped the description of Herodias' grudge (Mk. 6:19-20), Matthew continues the description that Herod wanted to execute John, but nonetheless speaks of the king's grief over this, KaCI u7rceiOcl 6 pacotXn?E (14:9). While this second case supports Markan priority in terms of Matthew fatiguing with his source material,71 the change of titles is not a convincing case of editorial fatigue.

Having established this criterion through an investigation of triple tradition material as a way of identifying Mark as a source for the other synoptics, Goodacre applies the same criterion to the double tradition passages. He makes use of three main examples:72 the change in terminology referring to the Centurion's ward, from 6oiXo; to nai; in the Lukan account (7:1-10); the use of the term "town" in the Lukan missionary charge (Lk. 9:5); and, perhaps the strongest case, the parable of the pounds (Lk. 19:11-27). With the first example it needs to be noted that Luke has reserved the term inai; for the impassioned plea of the Centurion. Like the change in titles given to Antipas, this may be simply stylistic variation. With the second case, the description in Lk. 9:5 in which Jesus commands what action to take when leaving the unreceptive town, Goodacre argues, "No town has been mentioned in the previous verses, Lk. 9:1-6 (Mission Charge, cf. Mk. 6:6b-13//Mt. 10:5-15). It seems, then, that Luke has copied the words from Matthew (10:14), who does have the appropriate antecedent (Mt 10:11, 'and whatever town or village you enter...')."73 Not only does Goodacre fail to outline the complexity of the literary dependence in this verse, more significantly, it is debatable whether it should even be classed as double tradition material. Luke's reference to a house, KOaC eiS i'v av oidKav eic0ae9T?, (Lk. 9:4), is not a Lukan change that the third evangelist later fails to sustain, but it is an expression that parallels the Markan account "Otnoo E&v eio{k0Tflr eis oidKav, (Mk. 6:10). Recognition of this as Mark-Q overlap raises the problem of deter- mining which components have been derived from each of the two

71 See the detailed discussion in Goodacre, "Fatigue in the Synoptics", 47. 72 The three examples are taken from The Synoptic Problem, 154-5. 73 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 155.

329



PAUL FOSTER

sources. Because of this, it becomes highly dubious whether this passage can be used to say anything about editorial fatigue in the double tradition.

The parable of the pounds is the strongest example and almost certainly shows editorial fatigue on the part of the third evangelist with his source material. As Goodacre points out Luke's ten servants give way to three later in the story, and their reward of cities turns into pounds when the evil servant is deprived of what was entrusted to him. Goodacre is correct to observe that "Luke's version of the parable does not hold together well."74 However, the conclusion he draws from this is debatable. He suggests, "there is a straightforward explanation to hand: Luke has attempted to reframe Matthew's parable but editorial fatigue leads him to drift into the story line of his Matthaean source, inadvertently betraying his knowledge of Matthew."75 Obviously the most natural explanation is that Luke has fatigued with source material here,76 but it is far from certain that the source was Matthew. Goodacre dismisses the suggestion that Luke fatigued with Q since "it seems impossible to find reverse examples, cases where Matthew has apparently become fatigued with Q, something that would be very odd given his clear tendency to become fatigued in his copying of Mark."77 However, there is an important editorial lapse in the double tradition where Matthew fails to sustain a redactional change that he introduces not only in the double tradition, but also in all his source material.

Matthew has a consistent tendency to replace the phrase i paot{eiax TOi O{eot with his preferred alterative, i1 paotXeica xr v oipavoVv, which occurs 32 times in the first gospel but does not occur in the other canonical gospels. However, Matthew has the phrase i pacotsXia ToD Oeo5 only four times in his gospel (Matt. 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). The example in Matt. 19:23-24, a triple tradition passage, is particularly instructive. Adapting the Markan introduction with a reasonable degree of freedom, Matthew in characteristic fashion alters the Markan i1

74 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 155. 75 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 155. 76 However, Fitzmyer suggests that the reference to "ten servants" originally came

from Q. He states, "For this reason it is better to think that the bulk of the parable in Luke stood in 'Q' in a form similar to Matthew, but with a few differences. It is more likely that 'Q' had originally 'ten servants,' which Matthew has reduced to three, than that Luke would have introduced the ten only to forget about them almost imme- diately." J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke XX-XXIV (New York: Doubleday, 1985) 1230-1. This might be supported by the Matthean preference for triads.


330




paoitXia TOD OEO? to his preferred i1 paotkeia xC v oDpavciv. However, following Mark more mechanically in v. 24 he fails in his general editorial policy and reproduces 11 paxafteia To O)o5D. This is surely an obvious case of editorial fatigue as outlined by Goodacre in his discussion of the phenomenon in relation to the triple tradition.78

More significantly, Matthew also fails to change i1 paoetXia To E0oi to h paaiXetia zriv oOpavov in the double tradition. In Matt. 12:28, Jesus makes the declaration ei 68 ?v 7veDCazti Oc Eyo) ei3cpdXXo0 zTx 8iati6vtLa, apa E(p0aoev (p' DiC&; h1 [3 aotXeia Tzoi ?eo . The only difference with Luke 11:20 is that whereas Luke reads 6aKTSU?) Matthew has nveDg(xat. It has long been suggested by proponents of the Q hypothesis that the Lukan form was more primitive because of the anthropomorphism 8aKTD)OX;.79 This case for a shared source can now be made even stronger using Goodacre's criterion of editorial fatigue, since Matthew not only has a less primitive version of the saying, but more impor- tantly, he has failed to sustain his redactional policy of introducing the

phrase i1 paoCeit C TCOv orpavcv. One may wonder in advance how Goodacre may attempt to resist

the logic of this application of his criterion of editorial fatigue. He puts the case in the following manner, "Since there are no counter-exam-

ples of apparent Matthaean fatigue in Double tradition material, the obvious explanation is that Luke becomes fatigued not with Q but with Matthew."80 It may be argued that Matt. 12:28 is not an appropriate counter-example for one of two reasons. First, it might be suggested that unlike the example from the triple tradition (Matt. 19:23- 24) that there is no change in the immediate context of Matt. 12:28 with the language alternating between i1 pa3otkea Tzo OE?o and i1 tatikecia Tcov opavocv. However, this is not at all damaging to the case at hand. Matthew's alteration to il p Xotteixa TCv o0ipaviSv is so thoroughgoing that this cannot be doubted to be general Matthean redactional policy. Second, it may be argued that the two occasions when Matthew uses in paoetkea zo TD 9eoo in chapter 21, he does so without the influence of editorial fatigue. However, a strong case can be made for seeing

78 Goodacre, "Fatigue in the Synoptics", 45-54. 79 As Davies and Allison note, "The first evangelist might have altered 'finger' to

'spirit' because the former had magical connotations and the latter linked so well with the Matthean context, where nTve?ga is a key word (12.18, 31, 32). Also the desire to remove an anthropomorphism might have been a factor." W.D. Davies & D.C. Allison, The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. II (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991) 340.


331



PAUL FOSTER

Matt. 21:31 as source material,81 not as an independent redactional creation, in which case editorial fatigue could again be at work. The saying in 21:43 is more problematic, since it is most likely a redactional addition. However, it is possible that under the influence of the source behind v. 31, Matthew has made a double slip in this chapter and used the uncharacteristic phrase i1 paotieiacoC T OF 90o. Regardless of whatever one makes of the two references in chapter 21, the primary discussion must centre on Matt. 12:28. Applying Goodacre's own criterion, there is a clear case where Matthew has fatigued by devi- ating from his redactional policy, and the simplest explanation is that this is due to mechanically following source material that he shares with Luke.

viii. Evaluation of the Farrer Theory

The Farrer theory with its twin postulates of Markan priority and Lukan dependence on Matthew does not account for the synoptic material as well as the two source theory. It has two fundamental weaknesses. First it requires one to account for Luke's attitude to his Matthean source, which appears to be markedly different to the attitude towards Mark. This difference in attitude towards sources is con- ceded by both Franklin82 and Goodacre.83 They solve this problem by positing a hypothetical critical attitude on the part of Luke towards Matthew. Yet this is not simply the replacement of one hypothesis for another, for it does not dispense with hypothetical sources material. This is because Goodacre allows the actual gospel data to be taken seriously, so consequently he cannot maintain the hard line of Farrer and Goulder and deny that Luke had no access to other traditions. While he is not willing to call these Q, his representation of the "liv-

ing stream of oral tradition" is also a hypothetical source. So he ends

up with both the hypothesis of a Luke who is critical of Matthew, as well as a number of unattested traditions. Second, despite Goodacre's best attempts, his arguments simply do not explain the absence of Matthean redactional additions to Mark's gospel in Luke's account. It must be concluded that the Farrer-Goulder theories do not offer a

81 P. Foster, "A Tale of Two Sons: But Which One Did the Far, Far Better Thing? A Study of Matt 21.28-32", XTS 47 (2001) 26-37.

82 Franklin states that, "The basic difficulty is that, if Luke knew both Matthew and Luke he handled them in very different ways."


332




more plausible solution, and hence those types of theories do not allow for dispensing with Q.

3. Matthew's Dependence on Luke, or Matthean Posteriority

It is extremely surprising that the theory of Matthew utilising both the gospels of Mark and Luke has not attracted the widespread atten- tion Farrer's proposal has engendered. Perhaps part of the reason for this is the Lukan preface, for whereas Luke tells readers that he has drawn on many sources, Matthew is silent in relation to his source material.84 Yet there may well be another reason. While the advocates of a Matthew-dependent Luke have complained that their theories have often not been taken seriously, they have been quick to scorn the reverse point of view, namely that of a Luke-dependent Matthew. Ropes stated categorically that "The third possibility, that Matthew is dependent on Luke for these sayings, may, for a variety of reasons, be dismissed, although the idea is sometimes advanced."85 Farrer, by contrast, simply assumes that the dependence must be in the order of Luke utilising Matthew and not the reverse. He states, "we can conceive well enough how St. Luke could have read St. Matthew's book as it stands, and written the gospel he has left us."86 Yet, the alternative possibility, that of Matthew having read Luke's book, is never considered by Farrer, instead it is dismissed by silence.87 By contrast

84 Tuckett, likewise, feels that this disparity is possibly due to the statements contained in the Lukan preface. Commenting on attempts to show that either Matthew or Luke knew the other's work, he states, "For various reasons, this is almost always postulated in the form of Luke's dependence upon Matthew. Matthean dependence on Luke is hardly ever advocated, though one sometimes wonders why given the tendency of many to believe that Luke's version is very often more original. However, Luke 1:1 clearly implies that Luke is aware of the existence of predecessors in writing some account of Jesus' ministry." Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 4.

85 Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels, 68. 86 Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q", 56. 87 In fairness, it should be noted that it has been rare for supporters of the Two

Source theory to interact with the notion of Matthean posteriority. An example of this can be seen in Stein's treatment of the synoptic problem. He has a relatively detailed section refuting Luke's knowledge of Matthew, with some very helpful examples that result in quite a strong case. However, the alternative possibility is not even acknowledged. R.H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation (2nd ed., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001) 99-104. Perhaps this a little more understand- able than the neglect by proponents of the Farrer theory, since advocates of the Two Source theory are reacting to the most vocal alternatives, whereas one would expect that those who are attempting to change the consensus would need to address the issue of why a theory that appears so similar to their own is any less plausible.

333



PAUL FOSTER

Goodacre does not damn the alternative theory with silence, instead he has a single polemical sentence to dismiss consideration of Matthew's knowledge of Luke. In very bald terms he states, "The theory that Matthew has read Luke is rarely put forward by sensible scholars and will not be considered here."88 This comment seems to reflect different standards. Goodacre bemoans the fact that the theory of Lukan dependence on Matthew rarely receives the examination it deserves and is marginalized by critical scholarship.89 Yet this appear to be the way Goodacre treats the alternative, especially by implying that those who propose such theories do not fall into the category of sensible scholars.

In fact a number of scholars defend Matthew's knowledge of Luke. Most recently Hengel has advocated the posteriority of Matthew as the most satisfactory way to account for the synoptic data.90 Admittedly, his reasons for supporting this solution are linked to his overall theory about gospel titles, and specifically that those with apostolic names (such as Matthew) must postdate those with non-apostolic attribution.9' While there are many objections that could be raised against his discussion of the incipits attached to the gospels, this does not in itself weaken the case for a Matthew who is dependent on Luke. Hengel questions the Two Source Theory because of the presence of the Minor Agreements, and offers the following hypothesis as a competing alternative:

Matthew presupposes Mark and Luke as sources which are fixed in writing and are clearly attainable for us. As the primary source, Mark, whose theology he treasured theologically, gave him the narrative thread; he used Luke eclectically as a secondary source.92

However, Hengel is not the only recent scholar to be attracted to the possibility of Matthew being dependent on both Mark and Luke.

One of the most extensive defences of Matthean Posteriority has been mounted by Huggins.93 The reasons Huggins sees this theory as

88 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 109. 89 In relationship to the dominance of the Two Source Theory Goodacre complains

that, "It is a matter that is simply taken for granted in much of scholarship, a mind- set that does not often get suspended, even for a moment." Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 23.

90 This receives fullest treatment in chapter seven of his recent book, M. Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 2000) 169-207.

91 Hengel, The Four Gospels, 169. '2 Hengel, The Four Gospels, 205. 93 R.V. Huggins, "Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal", NovT 34 (1992)

1-22.

334




preferably to the Two Source theory are basically three in number: they overlap with reasons given by the Farrer-Goulder theory, but are not stated in quite so extreme a manner. His arguments for the preference of Matthean Posteriority over the Two Source theory are as follows:

(1) it easily accounts for the minor agreements (though these are not nearly the problem opponents of the two-source theory try to make them), (2) it does not require the introduction of additional 'entities' in the form of a hypothetical document to explain the existence of the double tradition, and (3) it avoids the problems caused by the generic ambiguities of Q.94

Here we see three of the primary arguments employed by the Farrer- Goulder theory, namely, the existence of minor agreement, the invo- cation of Occam's razor (at least by implication), and the argument of generic ambiguity in terms of the non-existence of a contemporary document that parallels the genre of Q. Since these arguments have been addressed in the previous section, they will not be answered again.95

However, what is more interesting is the way that Huggins sees this solution as being preferable to the theory of Lukan dependence on Matthew or the Griesbach hypothesis. He observes, "In recognizing Matthew as the most heavily redacted of the Synoptics it does not founder, as do some alternatives to the two source hypothesis, on having to create far-fetched arguments to explain why Mark and/or Luke, though appearing to be more primitive than Mathew, actually used him as one of their sources."96 Another argument in favour of Huggins' proposal, in comparison to the Farrer theory, stems from the issue of the order of the double tradition material in Matthew and Luke. As has been outlined, assuming Lukan use of Matthew requires another level of argument to account for Luke's re-ordering of the Matthean material. Typically this involves postulating that Luke was critical of Matthew's arrangement of the traditions he had incorporated from non-Markan sources. However, it is more credible to see Matthew dip- ping into the two major Lukan repositories of non-Markan material

(Lk. 6:20-8:3; 9:51-18:14), and grouping the material into thematic

94 Huggins, "Matthean Posteriority", 3. 95 The formulation that Huggins presents is not totally dissimilar to H.P. West, "A

Primitive Version of Luke in the Composition of Matthew", ANTS 14 (1967-68) 75-95. However, the major difference is that West argues that Matthew is dependent on a primitive form of Luke (rather than canonical Luke) and that this form was related to the version of the Lukan text read by Marcion.

% Huggins, "Matthean Posteriority", 2.

335



PAUL FOSTER

blocks that served his pedagogical purpose, without scouring the gospel backwards and forwards as would be required of a Luke-dependent Matthew. In the process Matthew has increased the redactional complexity of the material, and hence made it less primitive than the parallel accounts in Luke's gospel. Consequently, Huggins states that when Matthew is assumed to stand last in line instead of Luke, "the argument from the phenomenon of order looses its force, because the actual number of instances where Matthew might have departed from the Marcan outline in favor of Luke is reduced to five for the double- tradition."97

Yet, despite the strengths of Matthean posteriority in comparison to the Farrer theory, the solution it offers to the synoptic problem is not without difficulties. The issue of primitivity still creates the difficulty that the most primitive version of double tradition material is not the exclusive possession of either Matthew or Luke, but seems to alternate between the two gospels.98 Furthermore, whereas with the Farrer theory Luke showed no knowledge of Matthean additions to the Markan text, similarly with Matthean posteriority it appears that Matthew is ignorant of the Lukan additions to triple tradition material. Examples of Luke's unique additions to Markan material include: Peter's mother- in-law having a great fever (Lk. 4:38); the comment, b 68 evi Kcaoctp Oaccov Tac; X?epa; ?titie0?ti; EOE?pt?REDv act:oi) (4:40); the saying about old wine being better than new (5:39); and the comment about the Geresene demoniac in Lk. 8:29b. This is far from an exhaustive list, but illustrates different types of additions Luke makes to the Markan source, of which Matthew betrays no knowledge. For these reasons, despite the attractiveness of a Luke-dependent Matthew, there remain a number of fundamental problems with this synoptic theory.

4. Conclusions

Goodacre is the latest in a line of scholars who posit a solution to the synoptic problem that holds to Markan priority, but refutes the

97 Huggins, "Matthean Posteriority", 5-6. 98 This point is acknowledged by Huggins in a footnote. He states "Matthean

Posteriority assumes that Luke is always more primitive than Matthew with regard to the double tradition. Most defenders of the two-source theory would not go nearly so far... Nevertheless these scholars would still agree that Luke is usually more primitive than Matthew. The solution here will ultimately stand or fall on whether it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that Matthew is more primitive than Luke at certain points in the double tradition." Huggins, "Matthean Posteriority", 3 n. 4.

336




existence of Q. The examination of the theory, as he formulates it, has been shown to fail to answer many of the objections of scholars who hold to the Two Source Theory. Rather than reiterate those arguments, two issues are raised which might help to generate further discussion and clarify the objectives of various scholars who propose competing solutions to the synoptic problem. First, it would be helpful if supporters of the Farrer theory could explain why Lukan dependence on Matthew is so much more appealing than the theory of Matthean posteriority. Such an explanation would assist in clarifying important methodological issues. Second, it would be beneficial if proponents of the Farrer theory could tell those who believe in Q what evidence they would require to be convinced of that document's existence. Perhaps they would require the discovery of an extant manuscript, but maybe such a requirement would be a little unfair. It would be similar to those who do not think the Farrer-Goulder theory is plausible saying that they would only accept this alternative if a document was discovered written by Luke that explicitly acknowledged dependence on Matthew (or a Matthean document acknowledging Lukan dependence, if Huggins' theory was correct). Instead, probably most proponents of the Two Source theory would be more likely to adopt one of the alternative positions if clear evidence of Matthean redactional material was present in Luke's account, or Lukan redaction in Matthew, if the latter were drawing on Luke as a source. Moreover, those who hold to the Two Source theory would be grateful for a more plausible account of the literary activity of Luke in removing the non-Markan material from Matthew's gospel, instead of the cacophony of voices that propose that Luke was critical of Matthew, either for theological,99 narratival'00 or pastoral reasons.'01 So, in conclusion, an open question is addressed to the defenders of "Markan priority, non-Q" type solutions to the synoptic problem: Is there any level of evidence that is internal to the literary accounts of the gospels that would be considered' plausible in showing that a document which is no longer extant stood behind Matthew and Luke as a common source?

99 Franklin, Luke, 372. 100 Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 127. '1' Goulder, Luke-A New Paradigm, 200.

337



Documents

Author(s): Paul Foster Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol… foster-q.pdf · PAUL FOSTER James Hardy Ropes had raised similar concerns, and suggested Luke's direct use of Matthew as a