[1] NT III (1959), 29 f.Google Scholar

[2] e.g. Popper, K. R., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (London: Routledge; New York: Basic Books, 1963).Google Scholar

[3] It is obvious of course that if the common source is broken up into small units of mixed written and oral tradition, a theory may result which does not run contrary to the facts. Yet it will be a theory which is not falsifiable, for there are no dependable criteria for distinguishing between short passages of oral and written tradition, or between passages copied closely from a lost source and passages considerably redacted, or between accounts of the same event modified in tradition and accounts of similar events transmitted with little modification. It is all unfalsifiable (albeit sophisticated) guesswork, and therefore without cogency. Some idea of the difficulty of reconstructing supposed sources is vividly illustrated by considering one hypothetical case. Let us suppose that the authors of Matthew and Luke had met in AD. 90 and had discovered that they had independently used Mark as their main source; and that they had signed a joint affidavit, which had been preserved till today, asserting this to be so; and that Mark's gospel had disappeared, leaving no trace in Christian history. Who would dare to claim that from Matthew and Luke alone he would have reconstructed anything like our Mark in style, content or order? (No one could have guessed his style; content would have been problematical – there would be no means of knowing what part of the common material came from Mark and what from Q, or even whether parts of M or L might not have come from Mark. The order might have been partially recovered, but with much uncertainty.) A fortiori any reconstruction of a possible Q document is exceedingly unlikely to be anywhere near the real thing. Even more, any reconstruction of a collection of supposed oral and literary sources is almost certain to be wrong, as the number of possible permutations and combinations is enormous.

[4] In the passage concerning the faithful and wise steward, Luke, xii. 42–46Google Scholar remains very close to Matt., xxiv. 45–51 for more than 100 words, but the two versions cannot be described as nearly identical, since some 15% of the words show differences. Such a concise and memorable parable could well have been preserved within that degree of similarity along two lines of oral transmission from a single telling or from two slightly different tellings.Google Scholar

[5] See the articles ‘The Order of Q’ and ‘The Original Order of Q’ reprinted in Taylor, V., N.T. Essays (London, 1970), pp. 90–118.Google Scholar

[6] Regretfully space forbids a discussion of the Griesbach hypothesis. During this century H. G. Jameson, J. Chapman and B. C. Butler wrote noteworthy books arguing against Q and in favour of Matthean priority. Their criticisms of currently held theories were penetrating, but their Augustinian alternative failed to carry sufficient conviction to create a school of converts and critical orthodoxy continued its untroubled reign. Then came the bombshell of Farmer, W. R., The Synoptic Problem (New York and London: Macmillan, 1964).Google Scholar It followed the Augustinians, but with even greater thoroughness, in its assault upon the foundations of the regnant view, and then amazingly proceeded to revive the Griesbach theory! Griesbach's view of the origin of Mark seems to me utterly improbable, and the particular arguments adduced in support of his theory appear weak. Nevertheless, Farmer has gained converts and has effectively reopened the question, while M. D. Goulder, with his own independent line, has joined the opponents of Q, and Rist, J. M., On the Independence of Matthew and Mark (Cambridge, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar has added a strong argument against the too ready assumption of literary dependence between the first and second gospels. I can only state my belief that the critics of the current orthodoxy have rendered quite uncertain the existence of Q and even Matthew's use of Mark. Luke's use of Mark, however, seems to me to remain unscathed. I start with that presupposition.

[7] Occasionally there are differences of an interpretative kind, e.g. öτι έπί το⋯το άπεστάλην (iv. 43) for είς το⋯το γάρ έξηλθον; άνθρωπε (v. 20) for τέκνον; ύγιαίνοντες (v. 31) for ίσχύοντες. There is a small change in sense, according to most modern editors, at ix. 50 where ύμν (‘he who is not against you’) is substituted for ήμν, but, since both texts are uncertain and the interchange of ήμεīς and ύμεīς is one of the commonest types of textual corruption, it is precarious to regard this as a Lucan change. Sometimes it looks as though Luke is recounting his own (frequently used?) oral version, which differs considerably in language from Mark, but which he evidently (and rightly) considers to agree with it in sense, as for instance in his recounting and explaining of the parable of the sower (viii. 5–15) or in the concluding verses of his account of the rich young ruler (xviii. 29, 30).

[8] In this instance there were clearly two traditions in circulation (since Matthew too forbids them to procure a staff), and this may have been the tradition which Luke himself was accustomed to retail. Presumably he had to make a choice, and in this solitary instance he chose to contradict the sense of Mark.

[9] e.g. ix. 58–60a; x. 2, 3, 13–15, 21, 22; xi. 9, 10, 19, 24–26, 31, 32; xii. 40, 43, 44, 46; xiii. 21, 28a, 34, 35; xvi. 13; xvii. 37b.

[10] Further examples will be seen at Luke, xiv. 26; xv. 4–7; xvi. 16–18; xvii. 1–6; 22–37.Google Scholar The most plausible case for literary connection is xi. 14–32, a passage of nineteen verses which runs parallel to the twenty-four verses of Matthew, xii. 22–45.Google Scholar Not only are several of the sayings of Jesus found in identical or nearly identical form, but there is a sustained similarity of order throughout much of the passage. In addition the setting, including the reactions of Jesus and of the crowds, is similar. The relation here between Luke xi Matthew xii is, however, highly complex and a literary connection is by no means obvious. It is perfectly possible that the charge of demonic inspiration and the demand for a sign were favourite ways of attempting to discredit Jesus. These passages could be independent accounts of the same two incidents considerably modified in transmission; or they could be accounts of different occasions when the same popular slander was similarly dealt with by Jesus.