Robert Derrenbacker: Review of Allan McNicol (et al), Beyond the Q Impasse

The following paper by Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr. was produced for the Synoptic Problem Seminar at SNTS, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4-8 August 1998 and is based on a review published in Toronto School of Theology Journal 14/1 (1998). It is reproduced here with the author's permission.

Allan J. McNicol, ed., with David L. Dungan and David B. Peabody. Preface by William R. Farmer. Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew. A Demonstration by the Research Team of the Institute for the Renewal of Gospel Studies. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1996. Pp. xvi + 333. Paper, n.p. ISBN 1-56338-184-2

Despite the over-confidence of a few Synoptic source critics, the Synoptic Problem still remains "unsolved." While Willi Marxsen has argued that the Two-Document Hypothesis is an "assured finding" (Introduction to the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968], p. 118), and Michael Goulder has recently stated that Markan priority is no longer theory but "fact" ("Is Q a Juggernaut?" JBL 115 [1996], p. 670), the Synoptic Problem remains "unsolved," as is recognized by most Synoptic source critics. The majority of these source critics hold to the Two-Document (or "Two-Source") Hypothesis (2DH): that is, Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q are the sources for Matthew and Luke. Others advocate a variety of competing "solutions": for example, the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis (Mark is a source for Matthew and Luke, but Luke also has access to Matthew); the so-called "Jerusalem School" hypothesis that envisions a Hebrew ur-gospel behind all three Synoptics, Luke being the earliest to make use of this source; M. É. Boismard’s "Multiple-Stage" hypothesis, etc. Yet by far, the most significant competitor to the 2DH has been the "Two-Gospel" (or "Griesbach") Hypothesis (2GH), since William R. Farmer’s publication of The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (New York: Macmillan, 1964; repr. Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1978) that revived the late eighteenth century Owen-Griesbach theory on Synoptic literary relationships. This theory posits the priority of Matthew, its subsequent use by Luke, and Mark’s eventual conflation of the two. Since 1964, Farmer’s revamped theory on Synoptic interrelationships has gained a small but significant group of American advocates. To date, Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew is the most comprehensive treatment of one of the Synoptic gospels from the standpoint of the 2GH.
Virtually all Synoptic source critics are convinced that the data of patterns of disagreement and agreement among the Synoptics establish some sort of literary interdependence. Directions of dependence (i.e., source-critical "solutions" to the Synoptic Problem) are usually established through redactional and compositional analyses of the Synoptic gospels themselves. This book, a result of the efforts of a team of scholars from the perspective of the 2GH known as the "Research Team of the International Institute for [the Renewal of] Gospel Studies," seeks to demonstrate, primarily through the means of redactional and compositional analyses, that Luke used Matthew as his primary source in the writing of his gospel.
For the Research Team, this work is, in part, a response to what it deems to be an "impasse" in North American gospels study. William Farmer argues in the preface that this "impasse" is characterized by the current "dogmatic defense" of the 2DH utilizing the (flawed) arguments of the early two-source theorist B.H. Streeter (ca. 1924) and his German predecessors by advocates such as Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar. This, in turn, has resulted in the "deplorable condition of some of the so-called scientific study of the Gospels" in present-day North America (p. xi). The "deplorable condition" of current gospel study is exemplified by Q research, which, according to Farmer, is "engaged in producing ever more dubious reconstructions of early Christianity" (p. xii). What is needed in response, argues Farmer, is a long overdue "demonstration that there never was a ‘Q’ in the first place," which can be accomplished by advocates of the 2GH (p. xii). In order to do just that, the Research Team endeavors to demonstrate that Luke used Matthew (instead of Mark and Q on the 2DH), which, in the end, Farmer hopes will allow for "a more reliable reconstruction of the historical Jesus and a more credible account of Christian origins" (p. xiii). Since, at least in the minds of the members of the Research Team, "all of the arguments used to support Mark’s priority are false, circular, or inconclusive" (p. 1), the Research Team recognized the need for an exhaustive compositional/redactional analysis of the later gospel documents on the 2GH (i.e., Luke and Mark). The present book is just that, the first of two anticipated demonstrations in support of the 2GH through a pericope-by-pericope analysis of Luke, which will eventually be followed with a similar work detailing Mark’s conflation of his two sources, Matthew and Luke.
The Research Team begins its work with an introductory section that locates its current work within the historical context of Synoptic source criticism. Since the 2DH, which has dominated the currency of Gospels scholarship for the past century or so in the wake of the mid-nineteenth century demise of the Owen-Griesbach theory, the 2GH’s primogenitor, is characterized by "circular reasoning" and "skewed data," the Research Team sets forth what is assumed to be a "better way." This "better way" is described as follows: "Working as an interdisciplinary team using impartial instruments, taking Mark completely out of the picture and dispensing with Q," in order to demonstrate Luke’s use of Matthew (p. 12). This is a fundamental supposition of the Research Team, comparing "the entire text of Luke with the entire text of Matthew, as if Mark did not exist" (p. 13, emphasis mine). The Research Team summarizes the characteristics of Luke’s use of Matthew, which is an interesting combination of the use of hypothetical sources ("non-Matthean traditions"), a narrative agenda characterized by Luke’s back and forth movement in his source, Matthew, and a weaving together of sayings and speech material in Matthew "around a number of themes appropriate for Christians in the Hellenistic world" (p. 14). Luke is depicted as the ubiquitous sifter of "the many collections of stories and sayings in Matthew, causing him to choose this story, then skip two or three pericopes to that story, then go back and pick up those sayings, and so on" (p. 18). Luke will also take advantage of several hypothetical sources (typically deemed "non-Matthean traditions" by the Research Team) in all sections of his gospel, beginning with the Infancy Narrative through the Passion Narrative to post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Research Team is careful to suggest that the "non-Matthean tradition" is not their "Q," since it is a group of hypothetical sources that is "required by the data because there is no other way to explain the data" (p. 28), unlike Q on the 2DH, which, evidently, is not required by the data (therefore unnecessary). For the Research Team, the 2GH enjoys the advantage over the 2DH in parsimonious fashion since it does not have to suggest a "major unknown [hypothetical] source called ‘Q’" (p. 28).
Luke’s compositional techniques are summarized as follows: he "creates a smoothly flowing, well-proportioned narrative," consistent with the standards of ancient historians such as Lucian of Samosata; he "uses journeys to organize his material and structure his narrative" in order to provide a sense of realism and excitement; and he adopts the narratives techniques of "promise and fulfillment," male and female pairing, and the use of "anticipations" (pp. 29-35). Tandem with this analysis of narrative techniques is the Research Team’s study of Luke’s redaction of Matthew, which produces a variety of major themes in the gospel: the activity of the Holy Spirit; Jerusalem and the Temple; John and Jesus in comparison; Jesus’ role in the divine plan of salvation; and "eschatological reversals," characterized by Luke’s version of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, where "the lowly will be uplifted, the sick will be healed, the poor will be exalted, the blind will see, and the lame will walk" (pp. 36-41).
The bulk of the Research Team’s work is taken up by a pericope-by-pericope analysis of Luke’s use of Matthew, which takes place within the general division of Luke into seven parts. Each part is broken down further by pericope division, with each pericopal section beginning with a summary statement of the content of each pericope. This statement is followed by general observations of Luke’ narrative technique in his use of Matthew, which often includes specific comments on Luke’s redactional motives, translational issues, or text-critical problems. Often, the Research Team provides helpful explanatory excurses, and frequently includes synoptic tables in order to more clearly illustrate how and where Luke is utilizing Matthew.
Clearly, there is much to be commended about this work, not the least of which is the great need that this book addresses, that is, a detailed explanation of Luke’s use of Matthew on the 2GH. In addition, the Research Team’s work is to be complimented for its detailed analysis of Luke, from the gospel’s major redactional themes to its structure to its (hypothetical) relationship to other sources. All Synoptic source critics, no matter what Synoptic Problem "solution" each might presuppose, can thank the Research Team for its contribution to source-critical discussions and the implicit but fundamental methodological assumption that it is impossible to analyze Luke (or any other gospel text) as a text unto itself, without attention to its sources and literary history.
No matter what source critical solution one might presuppose, it is very difficult to conclude that this work was not needed nor an unnecessary contribution to the 2GH, and therefore is to be welcomed by all Synoptic source critics. Indeed, the Research Team itself recognizes this need and understands (rightly) that compositional/redactional analyses of both Luke and Mark are required on the 2GH in order to increase its viability as a serious competitor to the 2DH. Yet many will likely disagree not only with their compositional and redactional "conclusions," but with certain fundamental aspects of their method as well. First, the notion that one can simply imagine that Mark never existed and solely compare Luke to Matthew without reference to Mark is, at best, moot, and at worst, a highly flawed methodological assumption. The fact is that Mark does exist and cannot be ignored from any source-critical discussion, whether it be from the perspective of the 2DH, 2GH, or any other "solution" to the Synoptic Problem. On the 2DH, proponents should not (and typically do not) consciously "ignore" Luke, for example, if they are analyzing Matthew’s use of Mark and Q. Similarly, John’s gospel cannot be analyzed without any attention paid to its possible relationship to the Synoptics (or, vice versa). In fact, the Research Team’s assertion that Luke used Matthew works best when Mark is removed entirely from the discussion. This, of course, is both moot and fanciful, since Mark does exist and therefore cannot be imagined non-existent by any source-critical discussion.
Second, the reader may often be puzzled by the specific decisions and conclusions of the Research Team, and conclude that in the final analysis, the 2DH still better explains the data. In the Baptism of Jesus pericope (Matt 3:16 [13]-17//Luke 3:21-22 [cf. Mark 1:9-11]), for example, Matthew’s clearly redactional and detailed explanatory dialogue between John and Jesus regarding John’s unworthiness to baptize Jesus is said by the Research Team to be omitted by Luke because of its "ambiguity" and Luke’s different interest in the divine signs that follow Jesus’ baptism. No mention is made as to why Luke alters Matthew’s public voice from heaven ("This is my beloved son" [v 17]) to the more private "You are my beloved son" (v 22; cf. Mark 1:11). One wonders why Luke would omit Matthew’s dialogue between John and Jesus, which very clearly defuses a potential theological problem, and change Matthew’s public heavenly voice, which likely has some apologetic value for Matthew, to the more private voice. This is especially the case if, as the Research Team claims in the previous section, Luke regularly avoids giving John "too much authority" and allows the baptism pericope to function as an inauguration of Jesus’ public ministry (pp. 74-75). If Mark is allowed to enter into the picture (which it should be), then it seems that the 2DH, as opposed to the 2GH, better explains the patterns of agreements and disagreements among the Synoptics, at least at the Baptism pericope.
Third, while the introductory chapter on Luke’s compositional techniques makes reference to the practices of the ancient historian Lucian of Samosata, no clear detailed attempt is subsequently made to relate Luke’s specific methods on the 2GH to the compositional techniques of ancient writers. (This criticism can easily be directed at proponents of other source-critical theories who exemplify this deficiency in Synoptic Problem studies by continually ignoring the ways in which ancient writers worked with source material.) In fact, Luke’s technique as is described by the Research Team is hard to imagine in any literary context, where Luke moves back and forth between pericopes in Matthew, and a variety of hypothetical sources that, on the 2GH, are evidently required of the data. From what we know of ancient writers, their techniques and media, and the physical conditions under which they worked, it appears that other "solutions" to the Synoptic Problem may provide better explanations of the data than does the theory that Luke used Matthew in the manner described by the Research Team.
Fourth, it is also evident that the Research Team cannot escape the use of hypothetical sources in order to maintain the viability of their theory. Yes, on the 2GH, the data does require the suggestion of at least one, probably several, hypothetical sources or "non-Matthean traditions." Yet as a result, proponents of the 2GH can no longer object to Q based solely on its "hypothetical" status. In addition, the Research Team is incorrect in stating that Q is not required of the data on the 2DH. If the Synoptic data suggest 1) a literary relationship between the three Synoptic gospels, 2) the likelihood that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, and 3) that Matthew and Luke also likely have no direct literary relationship (i.e., directly independent from one another), then one is compelled to argue that the data require a source to explain the material common to Matthew and Luke that does not appear in Mark. This, of course, is Q on the 2DH, which is just as much a data requirement as the (currently unknown) "non-Matthean traditions" (read: "hypothetical sources") are on the 2GH, which are, in a sense, more "unknown" than Q, since Q can generally be readily reconstructed based on the double tradition material shared by Matthew and Luke.
Fifth, the precise meaning of "Q Impasse" is never clearly defined. It appears that for the Research Team, Q scholarship is at an apparent "impasse" for two reasons: 1) Q is an unnecessary major hypothetical source that is not required of the data; and 2) some Q scholars are portraying the historical Jesus and the character of earliest Christianity in a "dubious," unsatisfactory, non-credible and unreliable manner (see Farmer’s prefatory comments above). Certainly many will disagree with this characterization of the current studies in Q, and the secondarily related renewed quest for the Jesus of history, being at some sort of "impasse." In fact, these two endeavours, which have created burgeoning areas of study themselves, have not produced an "impasse" or "juggernaut" (see Goulder above), but a new and stimulating interest in the development of early Christianity and the textual histories and traditions of the gospels. While the Research Team rightly recognizes both the pastoral and theological implications of Synoptic source critical discussions, one wonders if the characterization of the present state of North American gospels studies as being at an "impasse" has more to do with the Research Team’s apprehension with the current directions of NT scholarship and less to do with a perceived intellectual log-jam in gospel scholarship discussions.
The apparent weaknesses of this book by no means indicate that the 2GH should not be taken seriously by advocates of competing theories. Indeed, this book has several strengths (as listed above), with its main strength being the unique contribution that it makes to the 2GH perspective. Certainly many Synoptic scholars will disagree with several of the conclusions in this book, along with its method in a variety places. Yet, this work is a welcomed contribution to Synoptic Problem research, since the Synoptic Problem remains precisely that: a problem. The Research Team is to be commended for recognizing the need for such a study, leaving advocates from all perspectives waiting with eager anticipation for the second part of the Research Team’s project, a redactional analysis of Mark’s conflation of Matthew and Luke.
Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr.
Wycliffe College
Toronto School of Theology

© 1998 Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr., reproduced here with permission. This paper was produced for the Synoptic Problem Seminar at SNTS, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4-8 August 1998 and is based on a review published in Toronto School of Theology Journal 14/1 (1998).
Return to the Synoptic-L Home Page