Arguments for the Existence of Q

 

Within Matthew and Luke, there is about 235 verses worth of material that the two gospels have in common which is not contained in Mark. There are four possible explanations for this:

1) Luke used Matthew

2) Matthew used Luke

3) Matthew and Luke used common oral material

4) Matthew and Luke may have used a common written source(s). 

Hypothesis #2 is rarely ever argued today. The majority of scholars hold to either explanations #3 or #4 (what is known as the "Q" [German: Quelle, meaning "source"] hypothesis), but there are other scholars (proponents of the Farrer hypothesis) who advocate for explanation #1, namely that Luke used Matthew. 

Arguments Against Luke's Use of Matthew

[1]. Luke's lack of Matthean additions to the Triple Tradition is one argument that scholars who promote the Q hypothesis give against Luke's use of Matthew. Here is one example of this (the Matthean addition is in underlined italics):

Matthew 8:16-17	Mark 1:32-34	Luke 4:40-41
16 That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”	32 That evening at sundown they brought to him all who were sick or oppressed by demons. 33 And the whole city was gathered together at the door. 34 And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.	40 Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to him, and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them. 41 And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

[2]. Another argument against Luke's use of Matthew is the fact that Luke has a different context for their non-Markan (Q) material. Within Matthew, this material is found in about 5 to 6 sections with usually end with the phrase "and when Jesus finished these sayings..." (Matt. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). The five section are Matthew chapters 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 23-25. 

However, in Luke the non-Markan (Q) material is found in Luke 6:20-8:3 and 9:51-18:14. If Luke was using Matthew, why did he arrange their common non-Markan material in such a drastically different way than Matthew did?

[3]. Another argument against Luke's use of Matthew is the form of the Q material in each of the two gospels. If Luke used Matthew, one would expect the Q material to be more primitive in Matthew and "more developed theologically" in Luke. However, this is not what we find on a comparison of those two gospels. See Robert H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, pgs. 107-109 for a listing of several examples.

[4]. A fourth argument is that if Luke used Matthew, why do the two gospels rarely agree in order?

[5]. The final argument is Luke's lack of M material (pericopes and sayings that are contained only in the gospel of Matthew). If Luke used Matthew, why did he omit things like the coming of the wise men (Matt. 2:1-2), the story of the guards at the tomb (Matt. 27:62-66), etc.?