4 ms·

> The Farrer hypothesis proposes that Matthew used Mark as a source, but Luke used both Mark and Matthew as a source. This approach is simple and negates the ne

> The Farrer hypothesis proposes that Matthew used Mark as a source, but Luke used both Mark and Matthew as a source. This approach is simple and negates the need for a Q source altogether. > A weakness of the Q source hypothesis is the absence of any textual evidence despite extensive scholarly efforts to find it. The entire hypothesis is based on statistical and literary analysis and inference. It adds complexity to the synoptic problem by introducing an additional layer of tradition, transmission, and composition, which may not be warranted given the available evidence (or rather lack thereof). Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that the Farrer hypothesis is most likely true? Edit: Or, maybe I should just continue reading to the end first: > On the other hand, it would also make for a more complex explanation than other scholars have proposed, violating the principle of Occam’s Razor. Alternatively, Mark could have been the source for Matthew, and Matthew for Luke, which is a much simpler explanation than the Q hypothesis.

jdthedisciple 2y ago
You would think so, until you realize that Matt and Luke have some narratives in common to the exclusion of Mark. That has to be accounted for, which is where Occam's Razor falls short. It's probably the strongest argument in favor of a Q source.
- Cacti 2y ago
  Which ones do they have in common?
- Detrytus 2y ago
  Mark, according to tradition was a student of St. Paul, and he personally met St. Peter. Matthew was a Jesus disciple himself. Luke was also a friend of St. Paul, and possibly met St. Peter as well. So, for me the simplest explanation is that Mark had to write his gospel on his own, because he was first, but Matthew and Luke could both use previous works as a source, so they do not have to start from scratch, but still they both did have enough of their own stories to add. So, in the end "the Q source" isn't any written source it is just what they both remembered from their conversations with Peter and Paul (or, in Matthew's case, even with the Jesus himself).
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    I thought most scholars dated the gospels late enough such that the authors couldn't be people who actually knew Jesus. There isn't really much evidence as to who the authors were.
    - shakna 2y ago
      No. All the gospels were written within living memory of the events. The destruction of the temple dates the synoptics before 70CE.
      - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
        The earliest Pauline Epistle, likely Epistle to the Galatians, was likely written within a couple decades of the crucifixion.
      - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        That's certainly not what most historians would say. Wikipedia has an article on dating the Bible and 70CE is the earliest date for Mark, with Matthew and Luke later than that. John is listed as possibly as late as 110CE.
        abrenuntio 2y ago
        Indeed: some scholars date the synoptic gospels after 70AD because of their metaphysical assumption that predicting the future is impossible. But late dating creates a host of disparate problems that must be explained. One problem coming to mind: Acts of the Apostles clearly ends with Paul still being alive. If you simply don't share the assumption that prophecy is fundamentally impossible, then early dating for Mt, Mc and Lc becomes easy to accept on the basis of evidence.
        irrational 2y ago
        This. Many Christians take dating at face value and don't realize that most of the dating is based on the assumption that miracles (including knowing the future) is impossible, therefore the books must be written after the events mentioned therein have already occurred in the past.
- rodric 2y ago
  On the Farrer hypothesis, Luke used Matthew as a source, accounting for their shared material. Mark Goodacre may be the current leading academic proponent of the Farrer hypothesis. His article ‘Fatigue in the Synoptics’ (https://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fatigue.htm https://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fatigue.htm) is a short read that makes part of the case.

jdthedisciple 2y ago

You would think so, until you realize that Matt and Luke have some narratives in common to the exclusion of Mark. That has to be accounted for, which is where Occam's Razor falls short. It's probably the strongest argument in favor of a Q source.

Cacti 2y ago
Which ones do they have in common?
Detrytus 2y ago
Mark, according to tradition was a student of St. Paul, and he personally met St. Peter. Matthew was a Jesus disciple himself. Luke was also a friend of St. Paul, and possibly met St. Peter as well. So, for me the simplest explanation is that Mark had to write his gospel on his own, because he was first, but Matthew and Luke could both use previous works as a source, so they do not have to start from scratch, but still they both did have enough of their own stories to add. So, in the end "the Q source" isn't any written source it is just what they both remembered from their conversations with Peter and Paul (or, in Matthew's case, even with the Jesus himself).
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  I thought most scholars dated the gospels late enough such that the authors couldn't be people who actually knew Jesus. There isn't really much evidence as to who the authors were.
  - shakna 2y ago
    No. All the gospels were written within living memory of the events. The destruction of the temple dates the synoptics before 70CE.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      The earliest Pauline Epistle, likely Epistle to the Galatians, was likely written within a couple decades of the crucifixion.
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      That's certainly not what most historians would say. Wikipedia has an article on dating the Bible and 70CE is the earliest date for Mark, with Matthew and Luke later than that. John is listed as possibly as late as 110CE.
      - abrenuntio 2y ago
        Indeed: some scholars date the synoptic gospels after 70AD because of their metaphysical assumption that predicting the future is impossible. But late dating creates a host of disparate problems that must be explained. One problem coming to mind: Acts of the Apostles clearly ends with Paul still being alive. If you simply don't share the assumption that prophecy is fundamentally impossible, then early dating for Mt, Mc and Lc becomes easy to accept on the basis of evidence.
        irrational 2y ago
        This. Many Christians take dating at face value and don't realize that most of the dating is based on the assumption that miracles (including knowing the future) is impossible, therefore the books must be written after the events mentioned therein have already occurred in the past.
rodric 2y ago
On the Farrer hypothesis, Luke used Matthew as a source, accounting for their shared material. Mark Goodacre may be the current leading academic proponent of the Farrer hypothesis. His article ‘Fatigue in the Synoptics’ (https://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fatigue.htm https://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fatigue.htm) is a short read that makes part of the case.