Skip to content

Course 7 · Lesson 3.4

Solutions: Markan priority, Q, Matthean priority and others

11 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 7 outline

Module 1: The World of the New Testament

  1. Second Temple Judaism in the time of Jesus
  2. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and other movements
  3. Rome, the Herods and the province of Judea
  4. Hopes, protest and revolt in Jewish political life

Module 2: Jesus in History

  1. Sources for Jesus: Christian, Jewish and Roman
  2. The quests for the historical Jesus and their methods
  3. Criteria of authenticity and their limits
  4. Historical results and Christian confession

Module 3: The Gospels as Books

  1. The gospels and ancient biography
  2. Traditions of authorship and the arguments about them
  3. The synoptic problem: the evidence of agreement and difference
  4. Solutions: Markan priority, Q, Matthean priority and others
  5. Four portraits of Jesus: the distinct emphasis of each gospel

Module 4: Acts and the Spread of the Church

  1. Pentecost and the Jerusalem church
  2. The mission to the Gentiles and the council at Jerusalem
  3. Paul in Acts and in his own letters
  4. Acts as history and as theology

Module 5: Pauline Theology

  1. Paul and his letters: occasion, authorship and order
  2. Gospel, faith and righteousness in Romans and Galatians
  3. Christ, the Spirit and the body of Christ
  4. Reading Paul: traditional, new perspective and other approaches

Module 6: Johannine Theology

  1. The Gospel, the three letters and Revelation: authorship questions
  2. Word, light, life and love in the Gospel of John
  3. The signs and the I am sayings
  4. The Spirit, the community and the Johannine letters

Module 7: Hope, Authority and Church Order

  1. The kingdom of God and last things in Jesus and the apostles
  2. Ways of reading New Testament eschatology
  3. What an apostle was and how apostolic authority worked
  4. Offices and order in the first churches
  5. How Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches read the evidence

Module 8: The Testaments Together

  1. Fulfilment and continuity: how the New Testament uses the Old
  2. Law and covenant across the Testaments
  3. Comparing Paul and John: a method
  4. Shared convictions and meaningful differences

All courses

Program / Course 7: New Testament Theology and History / Lesson 3.4

What you will learn

  • Describe the Two Source Hypothesis and the Four Source Hypothesis, including Q.
  • Describe the Farrer hypothesis, the Two Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis and the Augustinian view.
  • State the main arguments for and against each solution.
  • Explain why scholars disagree and why no solution has won universal agreement.

The big idea

Several solutions have been proposed to explain how Matthew, Mark and Luke are related. The most widely held is the Two Source Hypothesis: Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke each used Mark and a collection of sayings called Q. Other scholars argue that Matthew came first, that Luke used Matthew and no Q existed, or that oral tradition explains everything. Each solution explains some evidence well and strains at other points. A student should know the arguments and hold conclusions with humility.

Key terms

Markan priority
The view that Mark was the first gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used it.
Q
From the German Quelle, meaning source. A hypothetical collection of Jesus’ sayings, used by Matthew and Luke, which no manuscript preserves.
Two Source Hypothesis
The theory that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and Q.
Four Source Hypothesis
The Two Source Hypothesis with two further sources: M (material special to Matthew) and L (material special to Luke). It was set out by B. H. Streeter in 1924.
Farrer hypothesis
The view that Mark came first, Matthew used Mark, and Luke used both, so that Q is unnecessary. Associated with Austin Farrer, Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre.
Two Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis
The view that Matthew came first, Luke used Matthew, and Mark combined and shortened both. Named for J. J. Griesbach and revived by William Farmer.
Augustinian hypothesis
The older view, taught by Augustine, that Matthew was first, Mark used Matthew, and Luke used both.

Background

For many centuries, Christians took the order of the gospels in the canon as the order of writing. Augustine, about 400 AD, held that Matthew wrote first, Mark followed and abbreviated him, and Luke used both. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, scholars compared the texts closely and some proposed that Mark was earliest. By the end of the nineteenth century Markan priority was the majority view, and today it is held by most New Testament scholars, though a vocal minority dissents.

The solutions below do not exhaust the field. Some scholars favor combinations, and some argue that written sources and oral tradition both mattered. Because no manuscript evidence settles the question, the judgment rests on internal arguments, and thoughtful scholars weigh them differently.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Markan priority and the Two Source Hypothesis

Several arguments support Mark’s priority. Mark is the shortest gospel, yet it often has the fullest and most vivid version of a story. Matthew and Luke usually have shorter versions of Mark’s stories, and add material of their own. It is easier to see two writers shortening and polishing Mark than to see Mark expanding two fuller texts. Mark’s Greek is rougher and his portrayal of the disciples harsher, and Matthew and Luke smooth and soften. And, as the previous lesson noted, the order of Mark is the framework the others follow.

The Two Source Hypothesis adds Q to explain the roughly 230 verses that Matthew and Luke share and Mark lacks. Because the two use the double tradition in different orders and settings, it is argued, neither can have copied from the other, and so both must have used a common source. Some scholars have reconstructed Q in detail, as in the International Q Project, and have debated its layers and community. B. H. Streeter’s Four Source form adds M and L.

Step 2: Objections to Q

The weaknesses of the Two Source view are mainly about Q. No copy of Q exists, nor does any ancient writer mention it. The reconstructed text is a scholarly construct. And a number of minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are hard to explain if the two never saw one another’s work. For instance, in the mocking of Jesus at his trial, Matthew 26:68 and Luke 22:64 both add a taunt asking Jesus to prophesy who struck him, which is absent from Mark.

Austin Farrer proposed in 1955 that Luke simply used Matthew, so that Q is unnecessary, and Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre have defended this view. Defenders of Q reply that Luke’s treatment of Matthew would be strange. Why would Luke break up Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount into scattered sayings, or omit passages that suit his own interests? Farrer-Goodacre supporters answer that Luke has reasons of his own for rearrangement.

Step 3: Matthean priority

The Two Gospel hypothesis, revived by William Farmer in 1964 and defended by David Dungan and others, holds that Matthew is earliest and that Mark combined Matthew and Luke. It rests partly on the early church’s witness that Matthew was first, and on cases where Mark seems to blend the others’ wording. Its critics ask why Mark, if he had Matthew and Luke before him, would omit the Sermon on the Mount, the birth stories and the resurrection appearances, and why he would make Jesus’ disciples look worse than they do in the others.

The Augustinian hypothesis has few current defenders among historical critics, though some conservative scholars hold versions of it. It keeps the tradition of early Matthew but must explain why Mark so often follows Matthew’s order. Some scholars suggest that none of these written-dependence models fits all the data, and that oral tradition alone may explain the pattern. Others reply that the verbatim agreement shows a literary link.

Step 4: Weighing the options

Each position has strengths. Two Source accounts for the order and the double tradition with the simplest assumption about Mark, at the cost of a lost source. Farrer avoids Q but gives Luke an odd method. Two Gospel respects tradition but struggles with Mark. A reader may find one more persuasive without being able to prove it.

A good habit is to ask what each solution would predict, check it against actual passages, and note where the evidence cuts against it. Whichever solution is held, the main lessons are shared: the gospels are literary works that draw on earlier tradition, and they were composed in conversation with one another and with the memory of Jesus.

  1. Which argument for Markan priority do you find most persuasive, and why?
  2. How would you describe the weakness of a hypothesis that depends on a lost source?
  3. What might explain why Luke would break up Matthew’s long discourses if he used Matthew?
  4. Why do the minor agreements matter to the debate?
  5. How should a student react to the fact that experts continue to disagree after two centuries of study?
  6. Does the choice of solution change the meaning of any gospel passage? Give an example.

Examples

Which is the more difficult reading?

Mark 10:18 has Jesus say ‘Why callest thou me good?’ Matthew 19:17 changes it to ‘Why askest thou me about what is good?’ Many scholars think a writer would more likely soften the first wording than harden the second, so Mark seems earlier. Others reply that the argument can be turned around.

The Lord’s Prayer

The prayer is in Matthew 6 and Luke 11, in differing forms, and not in Mark. Q supporters read it as part of the common source, while Farrer supporters see Luke abbreviating Matthew.

Streeter’s four sources

In 1924 B. H. Streeter set out the hypothesis that Mark and Q were joined by two other sources, one used by Matthew and one by Luke. The diagram of his theory still appears in many textbooks.

Different perspectives

Majority scholarly view

Most New Testament scholars hold Markan priority, and a majority of those accept Q, usually in a Two Source or Four Source form. A significant minority follows Farrer and Goodacre, and a smaller minority holds Matthean priority. All agree that the evidence is not decisive.

Catholic view

The Church does not require any theory. Many Catholic scholars, such as Joseph Fitzmyer, accepted the Two Source view, and others defend Griesbach. Earlier Catholic teaching favored Matthean priority, but the Church today leaves the question to scholars.

Orthodox view

Orthodox tradition honored Matthew as first in the canon and often in time. Orthodox scholars range from accepting Markan priority to defending the older view, and they stress that the four gospels belong together.

Protestant view

Protestants are found in all camps. Many mainline and evangelical scholars hold Two Source, some conservative scholars hold the Augustinian or Two Gospel view, and Protestant confessions leave the question open. Dispute here rarely divides churches.

Why it matters

The debate shows how historical study of the gospels works: through patient comparison, the weighing of probabilities, and awareness of what cannot be known. It also shows that Christians can hold different views of how the gospels were composed while confessing the same faith.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: Q is an actual ancient document that scholars have found.

Correction: No manuscript of Q exists. It is a hypothesis built from the material shared by Matthew and Luke. Some scholars doubt it entirely.

Misunderstanding: Markan priority means Mark is more reliable than the others.

Correction: Being earlier does not make a source more accurate, though it may mean closer to events. Each gospel has its own purposes and its own special material.

Misunderstanding: Belief in Matthean priority is unscholarly, and belief in Markan priority is anti-Christian.

Correction: Both views are held by serious scholars who are believers. The positions differ on evidence, not on faith.

Misunderstanding: The question has been solved.

Correction: It has not. A majority position exists, but important scholars dissent, and new arguments continue to appear.

Knowledge check

State the Two Source Hypothesis.

Mark was the first gospel written. Matthew and Luke, working independently, each used Mark and a second source, Q, a collection of sayings. The shared sayings of Matthew and Luke that are not in Mark are the double tradition, which Q is thought to contain.

Give two arguments for Markan priority.

Mark is shortest but often the most detailed in a story, and Matthew and Luke seem to shorten and smooth it. Mark’s order is the framework the others follow, and Matthew and Luke never agree with each other against Mark’s sequence.

What is the main objection to Q and the main alternative?

The objection is that there is no manuscript or ancient mention of Q, and the minor agreements suggest Matthew and Luke were connected. The Farrer hypothesis answers that Luke used Matthew as well as Mark, so Q is not needed.

What is the Two Gospel hypothesis?

It holds that Matthew was written first, Luke used Matthew, and Mark combined and shortened both. It draws on the early church tradition of an early Matthew, but critics ask why Mark would omit so much valuable material.

Why do scholars not agree on one solution?

Each solution explains some features of the evidence well and others poorly. Without external evidence such as manuscripts, the judgment depends on arguments about editorial habits, which can be read in more than one direction.

Think it through

  1. Which solution seems to you most economical, and what does it cost?
  2. What does the existence of a debate that has lasted two centuries teach about the limits of historical study?
  3. How might a believer in verbal inspiration of Scripture respond to source criticism?
  4. Would knowing that Mark was the earliest gospel change how you read Matthew?

Independent assignment

Testing a hypothesis

In your own notebook, write 350 to 500 words. Pick one solution from this lesson. State it in three sentences. Then read the parable of the mustard seed in Mark 4:30 to 32, Matthew 13:31 to 32 and Luke 13:18 to 19, and describe how your chosen solution would explain the three versions. Note any difficulty that remains. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study