Editing Two-source hypothesis (section)

=== 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>