Scholarly discussion about changes in biblical texts

[Thomas]

"Q source" is the source that scholars believe the 4 gospels came from.

Er ... that's not quite right.

The Two Source Hypothesis
This, the oldest solution to 'the Synoptic Problem' says that Mark appeared first, and both Matthew and Luke followed Mark and, where Matthew and Luke have the same material that is not in Mark, then they must have got that from another source, 'Q' (from quelle, German for 'source'). It assumes Matthew and Luke are independent of each other.

The Three Source Hypothesis
Mark appeared first, and both Matthew and Luke followed Mark, Matthew and Luke use Q, but additionally Luke had access to Matthew (thus Luke is dependent on Mark, Q and Matthew).

The Four Source Hypothesis
Prof B H Streeter proposed this solution in 1924. Mark appeared first, and Matthew followed Mark, using Q and another source, M. Likewise, Luke followed Mark, using Q and his own source L. The final forms of Matthew and Luke differ from the original forms, and then it all gets rather involved – he saw Q as being a document originally composed in Aramaic, possibly by the disciple Matthew, for Galilean Christians – so the final 'Matthew' would have been a fusion of Mark, Q, Aramaic Matthew and Antiochian church materials. Luke would have been mark, Q, his own source L, and an infancy narrative...

The Q Gospel
Scholars have reconstructed Q, working from the materials common in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. Then the problem arises: Q was always assumed to be a 'sayings' (logia) Gospel (as was Gospel to the Hebrews), but the reconstructed Q contains narrative elements.

There is no reason to assume Q is necessarily older than Mark, nor an eye-witness testimony, nor 'historically' accurate.

The Farrer Hypothesis
The Farrer Hypothesis rules out the need for a hypothetical Q source. Mark appeared first, was then used by Matthew, and then Luke used both. If Luke had access to Matthew, and its clear he had Mark, so why not Matthew, then who needs Q?

Believers see this Q source as being Jesus Himself.

Perhaps, but I don't know any scholars who say that?

 

[Longfellow]

Maybe Q is stories and sayings that were circulating at the times when the gospels were written. Mostly orally, but also maybe some written.

 

[Thomas]

Well there were surely oral traditions from which the Gospels were worked, as well as the scribe's own interpolations ... but the basic assumption was that because the stuff that's in Matthew and Luke are word for word the same, they both copied word for word from some unknown source.

If, however, we allow that Luke copied word-for-word from Matthew, then we don't need Q.

The two big stumbling blocks for an actual Q are:
1: Q assumes that Luke was unaware of Matthew, which seems unlikely.
2: There is no mention of Q in any early source – so as a document it's left no trace at all.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Believers see this Q source as being Jesus Himself.

Which believers are these? I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that believes Q was written by Jesus.

That is as strange to me as believing Moses wrote the Pentateuch

I'm curious too, I hadn't heard that as either a devotional or scholarly theory. (??)
EDIT - I added this before reading other remarks, good information from @Thomas

 

[Longfellow]

... the stuff that's in Matthew and Luke are word for word the same, they both copied word for word from some unknown source.

Some of it could have been written, but even then it could be sayings and stories that were circulating in the communities. Also, they could be sayings and stories that were memorized by the twelve in their apprenticeship with Jesus. It would not be at all like the telephone game, because those would be repeated in gatherings for everyone to hear, and there were people and written sayings and stories traveling back and forth between communities. That could be a reason for saying that Q was Jesus. It was sayings and stories of Jesus memorized by the twelve, and passed to the communities and preserved by them word for word. Even if they did diverge from what Jesus actually said, that would be a very slow process, and they would still be in sync with each other.

 

[Thomas]

Some of it could have been written ...

We can allow for that, but can't say with any certainty.

... but even then it could be sayings and stories that were circulating in the communities.

Oh, for sure.

Also, they could be sayings and stories that were memorized by the twelve in their apprenticeship with Jesus.

Again, I'm sure of it.

It would not be at all like the telephone game, because those would be repeated in gatherings for everyone to hear, and there were people and written sayings and stories traveling back and forth between communities.

Again, agreed ... but all this is without direct evidence.

I think Paul's letters, for example, were copied and passed to other communities.

Luke, for example, opens his Gospel:
"Since many have set their hands to laying out an orderly narrative regarding the events that have been brought to fulfilment among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and who became servants of the word, passed it on to us, it seemed a good thing that I also, having exactingly traced out everything from the beginning, should write it out in order for you, most exalted Theophilus, so that you might recognise the reliability of the accounts you have been taught." (Luke 1-4)

So it seems there were 'many' narratives, and one might suppose that these were apart from the direct transmission of the apostles to their followers and communities, and Luke's "reliability of the accounts" would suggest there were some unreliable accounts knocking about ... and no doubt some, "Oh, yeah, I was there," guys propping up the bar at the local taverna.

That could be a reason for saying that Q was Jesus.

I don't think any scholar ever said Q was Jesus? I don't think there's any reason to suppose that.

It was sayings and stories of Jesus memorized by the twelve, and passed to the communities and preserved by them word for word.

Was it, though? Supposing there was no Q, but simply Luke following Matthew?

The Big Issue is the early church made quite a thing about sources – Papias (c125) proposed the authors as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He and other church leaders had access to texts, and never mention a document that sounds like Q. The lost Gospels of the Hebrews was a sayings gospel, but Q, as reconstructed, is not that (whereas G Thomas is exactly that, and we might suppose the G Hebrews would read like Thomas).

Also, the Fathers were fond of citing Scripture. Some, like Origen, make so many citations that you can just about reconstruct a Gospel from them (OK, an exaggeration). They also cite the heterodox, heresiarch and pagan when it suits ... but again, there's no citations that seem to derive from Q.

Which means if Q existed, it must have dropped out of circulation very early on. That's quite possible, and possibly it's just another tragedy ... Papias wrote a five-volume work called Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord. Lost now, except for fragments quoted by later writers like Irenaeus and Eusebius. It contained accounts of Jesus's teachings, stories about his life, and information about the authors of the Gospels.

 

[Longfellow]

Again, agreed ... but all this is without direct evidence.

Agreed. What isn't?

I don't think any scholar ever said Q was Jesus? I don't think there's any reason to suppose that.

I meant that figuratively. What scholars are calling Q, the source of the material that appears in both Matthew and Mark, could have existed in the form of sayings and stories that were circulating in the communities and synchronized by exchanges between them. If, as my story says, that did not diverge very far from the sayings and stories of Jesus, then figuratively speaking, Q was Jesus.

(later) Isn't it reasonable to imagine that some of the sayings and stories that were circulating had some words the same in all the communities and over a few decades, if they were being memorized by many people and recited in gatherings, going all the way back to the community that formed around Jesus in Capernaum?

 

[Thomas]

Here's a (long) thought ...

Distilled from the substack of David Armstrong

James Barker’s Writing and Rewriting the Gospels: John and the Synoptics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2025) offers a commentary on the question of Q, and another on how to understand the Gospel of John: is it an independent work, reflecting an independent stream of traditions, or is it in conversation with the Synoptics?

Barker’s argument for the Farrer Hypothesis – Mark wrote first, Matthew utilised Mark, Luke then utilised Mark and Matthew, thus there's no need for Q. Barker also argues that the authors of the Gospels did not write in an intellectual vacuum.

Scholars recognise that G-Mark, while being 'the least produced' of the four, shows real artisanship for an audience of average literacy. David Hart has made the case even stronger – G-Mark begins with a stark announcement:
"There comes hereafter one mightier than I, regarding whom I am not fit to bend down and loosen the thong of his sandals... he will baptise you in a Holy Spirit" ... and Jesus appears (Mark 1:7-8).
And the Gospel ends with another, even more stark:
"you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified: he is risen, he is not here ... he goeth before you into Galilee; there you shall see him, as he told you" ... and Jesus has disappeared (Mark 16:6-7) .
And midway between these two moments, the Transfiguration.

G-Mark is the product of a Greco-Roman intellectual capable of composing, in fairly articulate if simple, Greek, a narrative account of Jesus aimed at an audience of average literacy.

If that’s true of Mark, it’s all the more true of Matthew, Luke, and John, all of whom seem more like intellectuals writing for other intellectuals, rather than the voices of distinct "communities." and as such, they would have drawn on all available materials, as Luke says:
"Since many have set their hands to laying out an orderly narrative regarding the events that have been brought to fulfilment among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and who became servants of the word, passed it on to us, it seemed a good thing that I also, having exactingly traced out everything from the beginning, should write it out in order for you, most exalted Theophilus, so that you might recognise the reliability of the accounts you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4).
Note Luke distinguishes between eyewitness oral accounts, and the "many ... orderly narrative(s)". Moreover, he makes the point of "so you might recognise the reliability of accounts you have been taught" and discern between them and other, unreliable, narratives or oral traditions!

Barker notes that classical writers would imitate a source, quoting it, or alluding to it precisely to undermine, surpass, or critique the original.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...be2f4-6e52-47dd-aa71-a994a95bf686_900x733.png
For example – Luke seems kinder to the Pharisees than Matthew, and 'corrects' Matthew when he had added something to Mark – thus Mark 12:38b-39 to Matthew 23:2b, 5b-8a and then Luke 20:46:

Mark: Watch out for the scribes who want to walk around in robes and greetings in the markets, prime seats in the synagogues, and prime positions at the dinners.
Matthew: The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses’s seat…For they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They like the prime positions at the dinners, the prime seats in the synagogues, the greetings in the markets, and to be called “rabbi” by the people. You are not to be called "rabbi."
Luke: Beware of the scribes who want to walk around in robes and like greetings in the markets, prime seats in the synagogues, and prime positions at the dinners.

(Luke displaces the comment on the Pharisees to 11:43: "Woe to you, Pharisees, because you love the prime seat in the synagogues and the greetings in the markets.")

Elsewhere in Luke, the Pharisees are amicable with Jesus. If we compare Mark and Luke, then it appears Matthew had an issue with them.

 

[Thomas]

Continued –

John’s knowledge and use of the Synoptics is more controversial, with the extent of Jesus’s ministry, the role of John the Baptist, the dialogue with Nicodemus, the healing of the imperial official’s son, the Samaritan mission, the paralysis healing, the feeding of the five thousand, the raising of Lazarus, and the Gospel’s presupposition of sacraments about baptism, Eucharist, and anointing are all offered by Barker as elements easier to explain as commentary on the Synoptics, rather than from a totally independent tradition.

For example, John’s Jesus fails to be baptised by the Baptist, and this is not an independent tradition in which Jesus wasn’t baptised: it's a critique of the Synoptic story where Jesus is baptised.

When John’s Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, this is a commentary on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus and a critique of its contention that resurrection does not assist with repentance.

John’s Jesus insists in Gethsemane that he cannot and will not ask the Father to give him a pass on the hour of his suffering (John 12:27), it is an explicit critique of the Jesus of Mark 14:36, Matthew 26:39, and Luke 22:42, who prays for this "cup" to pass from him.

John knows the Synoptics, and he’s arguing with them.

John lacks a nativity narrative. John is not interested in the circumstances of Jesus’s conception and birth.

When the crowd is divided over Jesus in John 7:41-42:
"Others said, "This man is the Messiah." Yet others said, "Could the Messiah then come out of Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah comes out of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David dwelt?"
A complaint is that Jesus is not from Bethlehem, where the Messiah is supposed to come from. Scholars note this with the birth narratives – the authors know Jesus is from Nazareth, but they trying to make him be from Bethlehem. Neither Jesus nor John corrects them: instead, Jesus confronts them:
"So Jesus spoke aloud in the Temple, teaching and saying, "You both know me and know where I come from; and I have not come on my own
behalf; but he who sent me, whom you do not know, is true; I know him, because I am from him, and that one sent me" (John 7:28-29).

For John, accepting Jesus, who is from God, renders his geographic origin unimportant.

If John knew the Synoptics (not just Mark), then it’s hard to resist the idea that this is an explicit rejection of the Bethlehem birth stories.

In John's Christology (echoed in the Gospel of Philip), the Logos became flesh and tabernacled among us (John 1:14) not at Christmas but at Theophany, that is, when the Baptist saw the Spirit descending on Jesus (John 1:32), which in the Synoptics is framed in His baptism (which is not narrated or discussed in John, possibly by way of rejection of its historicity).

 

[Thomas]

Continued –

There are consequences to this –

If the hypothesis is right, then our number of independent, first century historical sources for Jesus’s life shrinks from a possible seven (Paul, Mark, Q, Matthew, Luke, John, Josephus) to a possible three (Paul, Mark, Josephus), since the transformations of tradition in Matthew, Luke, and John are no longer certifiably independent. Perhaps we can stretch that back out to four – about 80% of John would still stand as independent source material, and historians regard much of it as a highly plausible take on certain aspects of Jesus’s ministry.

But then again, depending on when we date John, it might well be that the whole text is second century in its final form, at which point its historical memories of Jesus might prove less reliable than we already regard them to be.

Moreover, if the Synoptics knew Paul, as Barker suggests, then what we have in the New Testament is basically one continuous elaboration of a literary Jesus tradition that goes back to Paul, in which case, it’s really just Paul and Josephus who give us independent sources for the historical Jesus.

+++

All four Gospel authors used sources, and it’s likely that Matthew, Luke and John knew Jesus material outside of Paul and Mark.

But if the literary relationship Barker argues for is true, then we truly cannot discern between those sources and the creativity of the authors in dealing with the sources we do know about – we simply lack the data, and in the absence of the data, we are hypothesising from a dearth of evidence when we assume something must go back to an outside source rather than being a creative riff of the writer.

If the scholars are right, we’ll never know what those unseen sources were, short of another happy archaeological accident along the lines of Qumran or Nag Hammadi, or a find in the stacks of unread Oxyrhynchus materials sitting in museums.