Editing Two-source hypothesis (section)

== Problems with the hypothesis ==
While the 2SH remains the most popular explanation for the origins of the synoptic gospels, two questions - the existence of the so-called "minor agreements," and problems with the hypothesis of Q - continue at the centre of discussion over its explanatory power, and alternative hypotheses that posit the direct use of Matthew by Luke or vice versa without Q are increasing in popularity within scholarship.<ref name=":02">{{Cite book |last=Runesson |first=Anders |title=Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins |date=2021 |publisher=Eerdmans |isbn=9780802868923}}</ref><ref name="TSP20222">{{Cite book |title=The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference |publisher=Peeters Pub and Booksellers |year=2023 |isbn=9789042950344}}</ref>

=== The minor agreements ===

The "minor agreements"—the word "minor" here is not intended to be belittling—are those points where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (for example, the mocking question at the beating of Jesus, "Who is it that struck you?", found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark). The "minor agreements" thus call into question the proposition that Matthew and Luke knew Mark but not each other. Streeter devoted a chapter to the matter, arguing that the Matthew/Luke agreements were due to coincidence, or to the result of the two authors' reworking of Mark into more refined Greek, or to overlaps with Q or oral tradition, or to textual corruption.

A few later scholars explain the minor agreements as being due to Luke's using Matthew in addition to Q and Mark ([[Three-source hypothesis|3SH]]). But the modern argument for Q requires Matthew and Luke to be independent, so the 3SH raises the question of how to establish a role for Q if Luke is dependent on Matthew. Accordingly, some scholars (like [[Helmut Koester]]<!-- "Ancient Christian Gospels" -->) who wish to keep Q while acknowledging the force of the minor agreements attribute them to a proto-Mark, such as the Ur-Markus in the Marcan Hypothesis (MkH), adapted by Mark independently from its use by Matthew and Luke. Still other scholars feel that the minor agreements are due to a revision of the Mark found in the Bible, called deutero-Mark. In this case, both Matthew and Luke are dependent on proto-Mark, which did not survive the ages.

"Therefore, the minor agreements, if taken seriously, force a choice between accepting pure Marcan priority on one hand or the existence of Q on the other hand, but not both simultaneously as the 2SH requires."<ref name="mindspring"/>

=== Problems with Q ===
{{See also|Marcion hypothesis}}
A principal objection to the 2SH is that it requires a hypothetical document, Q, the existence of which is not attested in any way, either by existing fragments (and a great many fragments of early Christian documents do exist) or by early Church tradition. The minor agreements are also, according to the critics, evidence of the non-existence of, or rather the non-necessity for, Q: if Matthew and Luke have passages which are missing in Mark (the "Who is it that struck you?" sentence quoted above is a famous example), this demonstrates only that Matthew is quoting Luke or vice versa.

Two additional problems are noteworthy, the "problem of fatigue" and the Q narrative problem. The first relates to the phenomenon that a scribe, when copying a text, will tend to converge on his source out of simple fatigue. Thus Mark calls Herod by the incorrect title ''basileus'', "king", throughout, while Matthew begins with the more correct ''tetrarches'' but eventually switches to ''basileus''. When similar changes occur in double tradition material, which according to the 2SH are the result of Matthew and Luke relying on Q, they usually show Luke converging on Matthew.<ref>{{cite web |author=Mark Goodacre |author-link=Mark Goodacre |date=10 January 2003 |title=Ten Reasons to Question Q |work=The Case Against Q website |url=http://ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm |access-date=2009-06-08 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081015182345/http://ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm |archive-date=15 October 2008}}</ref>

Pierson Parker in 1940 suggested that the non-canonical [[Gospel of the Hebrews]] was the second source used in the Gospel of Luke.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pierson Parker |date=Dec 1940 |title= A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews|journal=Journal of Biblical Literature |volume= 59 |issue=4 |pages=471–478|jstor= 3262407 |doi= 10.2307/3262407}}</ref> This view is yet to gain influence.<ref>{{cite book |last=Gregory |first=Andrew |title=Prior or Posterior? |publisher=Cambridge University Press |pages=51:3:344–360}}</ref>