See also What Exactly is Q? and The Making of the Double Tradition.
In Essays on the Historical Jesus: 4. The Imaginary Q Evan Powell notes the “widespread belief that Matthew and Luke both used a hypothetical sayings gospel Q,” on which he comments as follows:
Within academic literature the Q theory is conventionally referred to by either of two more formal titles, either the Two-Document Hypothesis (2DH) or the Two-Source Hypothesis (2SH). In both cases they refer to the proposition that the authors of Matthew and Luke each independently relied upon Mark and Q as their two primary source documents. The 2DH is currently the most popular of several hypotheses offers as solutions to the Synoptic Problem, which is the field of study that addresses questions of the temporal sequence in which the Synoptics were composed, and which of the later authors may have relied upon the earlier gospels as literary sources. Herein we will use the Two-Document Hypothesis, or 2DH, and the less formal “Q theory” interchangeably.
Despite the widespread popularity of the 2DH, all scholars concede that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Q. No full or partial manuscripts have ever been found, nor are there any obvious references in early church writings to a sayings gospel that circulated prior to the publication of the NT gospels. Q theorists rationalize the disappearance of Q from the historical record on the grounds that the replication of the entire document by both Luke and Matthew rendered Q’s continued existence as a discrete publication superfluous…
The movement appears to have gone to great lengths to preserve the writings of John, even when it was clearly against its political interests. Why would it have retired a unique collection of Jesus’ sayings that was, according to Q theorists, revered by the faithful at least to the degree that Mark must have been? Thus, at the outset of the inquiry, the Q theory requires that we accept two highly improbable assumptions: One, that the movement discontinued and successfully removed all trace of a document that had been held in high regard, and two, that the editorial behavior of Matthew and Luke with respect to Q was entirely inconsistent with their use of Mark.
However, what if portions of Q (or perhaps something very close to Q) are actually ‘hiding in plain sight'? In 2013, in ‘Do Manuscripts of Q Still Exist?', Daniel B Wallace briefly considered whether some of the early papyri appearing to contain portions of the gospels might instead contain portions of Q, a hypothetical ‘second source’ used by the authors of Matthew and Luke in addition to Mark. For reasons that are discussed below Wallace briefly investigated just five papyri of Luke (P4, P7, P69, P82, P111), and of those considered that only P7 could potentially contain text from Q instead of Luke. However, his investigation was only superficial, and omitted other papyri that might possibly be considered to contain either an expanded version of Q, i.e. not just as defined by the International Q Project (IQP), or a different form of second source (SS). These papyri are considered in this investigation.
The earliest New Testament manuscripts that have been found are all written on papyrus, a medium that is well known for its susceptibility to damp. As a result, not only are the extant early NT manuscripts largely from the hot and dry climate of Egypt, but even many of those we do have are incomplete, some suffering erosion around the edges, some in the form of a codex missing pages or leaves, and some just mere fragments containing very small portions of the original text.
One of the common ‘rules’ of textual criticism is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in other words that just because you have no evidence of something does not mean that it does not (or sometimes did not) exist. For example, you may have been looking in the wrong place, but it is also possible that you DO have some evidence, but that the evidence has been incorrectly identified. For example, where a papyrus document has a small hole (for whatever reason) there may be a few missing or unreadable letters. In these situations there is some evidence (the letters either side of the hole, or the size of the hole itself) that may allow us to reconstruct with a high degree of confidence what was originally written there. The larger the hole, or any other missing piece of papyrus, the greater the likelihood that we may only be able to conjecture what was originally present, usually by reference to other examples of what we believe to have been the same (or similar) text.
Even where some of the papyrus is missing or damaged, if large portions of the text of a manuscript are extant it is often possible to tell at least at a 'macro' level what the ms originally contained, although even in the case of some of the most complete manuscripts some of the content is not fully known. For example, although codex P46 contains most of the text of most of the Pauline epistles, because some of the leaves are missing it is not known which of 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and/or Philemon were written on the missing leaves (See The Contents of Codex P46). At the other end of the scale P52 is a mere fragment of one page of a codex, containing some of Jn 18:31–33 on one side and some of Jn 18:37–38 on the other, with no indication of anything other than John 18 being originally part of the codex.
In the case of P46 the edges of all extant leaves are eroded, but there is sufficient text on each page to enable the missing text to be reconstructed with some reasonable degree of accuracy, i.e. by taking account of the habits of the original scribe and the later correctors as exhibited in the extant portions of the codex. However, in the case of P52 the fragment is so small that there is no possibility of reconstructing even the text of the rest of Jn 18, let alone knowing whether P52 ever contained Jn 21 (which some suspect of being a later addition), the rest of John, or any of Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Somewhat ‘between’ P46 and P52 with respect to content is P45. This codex of parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts bears witness to the early existence of the grouping of these five books into a single document, but because all the pages are eroded it contains nothing from Matthew 1-19, 22-28, Mark 1-3, 6, 10, 13-16, Luke 1-5, 8, 15-24, John 1-3, 6-9, 12-21, and Acts 1-3, 16-28.
The fragmentary nature of our early witnesses to the text of the gospels can be more easily seen in the tables below, which identify each chapter of the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) at least some of which is extant in papyri containing no other NT book, and dated no later than 300 AD (approximately). The exception is P45, which includes some of all the gospels and Acts, but is shown here because it is the only early ms that contains any of Mk.
What is immediately apparent is how weak the evidence of the papyri is when it comes to providing support for the early existence of many chapters of the synoptic gospels. In particular there is no early evidence of any of the text of Mk 1-3, 10, 13-16, Mt 6-9, 15-19, 22, and any of Lk 19-21, a situation on which Larry Hurtado comments briefly in The Early New Testament Papyri: A Survey of Their Significance:
The amounts vary considerably, however. For example, the 17 earliest copies of John together preserve 823 of the 867 verses, about 95% of John. By contrast, the nine copies of Matthew from the same period comprise 139 of the 1070 verses, or about 13%, the one copy of Mark (P45) preserves 157 of 666 verses… [Approximately 23.5%]
In ‘The Early Text of Mark,’ Peter Head expands on this with respect to P45:
Portions of six leaves of Mark are extant (designated as folios 3–8), providing parts of the following passages: Mark 4: 36–40; 5: 15–26; 5: 38–6: 3, 16–25, 36–50; 7: 3–15; 7: 25–8: 1, 10–26; 8: 34–9: 9, 18–31; 11: 27–12: 1, 5–8, 13–19, 24–8. This list is a little maximalist, since some of these are very fragmentary. For example, folio 3 preserves only one or two complete words from each of the verses listed (4: 36–40 and 5: 15–26).
The fragmentary nature of these papyri raises the question of how much we can deduce from the extant portions. For example, does the fact that less than one quarter of Mark is present in the one early manuscript of Mark that is extant mean that the text could be from something else similar to Mark, but a version of Mark not the same as we know it? As indicated in a few early synoptic hypotheses (see Stephen Carlson’s Overview of Proposed Solutions) it has been suggested that there was a ‘proto-Mark’ that was an early source for Mark, Matthew, and Luke, or instead that there was a later ‘deutero-Mark’ (a development of Mark that was then used as a source of Matthew and Luke), so could the Markan text extant in P45 be from either a proto-Mark or a deutero–Mark?
As P45 also contains portions of the text we see in Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts (a collection of New Testament books also found in other mss) it seems unlikely that the Markan text would be from anything other than a gospel of Mark. However, that ignores the fact that the text of P45 is very unusual. In ‘Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits’ Ernest Colwell noted that the text:
… gives the impression of a scribe who writes without any intention of exactly reproducing his source. He writes with great freedom - harmonizing, smoothing out, substituting almost whimsically. Here again there is no evidence whatever of control by a second party (fewer than three singular readings per hundred are corrected), nor in fact of external controls of any kind.
This may appear to suggest that the text of Mark in P45 is unique, but in fact it bears a strong similarity to that in Codex W, as Hurtado indicates in the conclusion to ‘P45 and the Textual History of the Gospel of Mark':
Together with the Freer Gospels codex (Codex W), its closest known ally, P45 forms an apparently distinct group that, though small in number, is an important witness to the variety of scribal purposes and historical forces that affected the transmission of the Gospels in the earliest centuries.
Its many lacunae are frustrating for some matters. For example, we cannot be sure what the ending of Mark was in P45 (and, as is well known, there were several Markan endings from which scribes could choose!). But in spite of its fragmentary condition, P45 is a priceless piece of evidence of the state of the text of the Gospels and Acts in the early third century.
Despite the fact that P45 contains less than one quarter of the text of Mark (with the first three and last four chapters entirely missing), and also that the text is unlike that in almost any other mss, its similarity with the text in Codex W and its overall format (the four gospels plus Acts) weigh heavily against the possibility of it containing the text of a different version of Mark, e.g. a proto- or deutero- Mark. However, this is not the case with some of the other early papyri, in particular those that contain text from, or at least parallel to (e.g. perhaps with unique variants) a single chapter of Matthew or Luke. In these cases there is the possibility that the papyrus contains a copy of some of the text of an earlier document that was used as a source by aMatthew and aLuke for the text common to Matthew and Luke that is not present in Mark.
Exactly such a source (commonly referred to as Q) is at the heart of the Two Source hypothesis (2SH), or Mark-Q theory, as described in The Synoptic Problem, and there are various other synoptic hypotheses that posit a different second source (SS) used by Matthew and Luke in addition to Mark. Generally speaking all the hypotheses that include any form of SS do so to account for some or all of the material common to Matthew and Luke that could not have come from Mark (often referred to as the Double Tradition, or DT), but depending on the details of the hypothesis SS may also contain material unique to Matthew (Special or Sondergut Mt, or SMt) or Luke (Special or Sondergut Lk, or SLk), or even some material also present in Mark (Triple Tradition, or TT), as explained in What Exactly is Q?, in which expanded versions of Q are considered. In the Mark-Q hypothesis material common to Mark and Q is often referred to as a Mark-Q overlap, but similar overlaps could be present in any hypothesis that includes both Mark and any other SS.
This analysis is written on the assumption that a second source used by aMatthew and aLuke (in addition to Mark) may have existed, although no trace of any version of Q or SS has been identified, and so the nature of such a source is hypothetical. However, although all the fragmentary papyri listed above are generally assumed to have originally contained complete gospels, in at least the case of those with very limited portions of extant text (e.g. text found in just one chapter of a gospel) it is worth investigating whether these small portions of text are consistent with what is proposed as the text of Q or any other SS. Although (as explained above) the text of Q varies depending on who you ask, for reference the English Translation of Q as specified by the IQP (with the verse numbering being the equivalent verses in Lk) will be used where it will help to clarify a point.
Because all the papyri under discussion are fragmentary (and most are fragments of just one leaf of papyrus), some of the text originally on the leaf or leaves is not extant, but must still be taken into consideration. However, whether any of the mss originally contained other non-extant leaves, and what text might have been present on those leaves, is unknown, and so is outside the scope of this discussion.
The main factor determining whether or not a particular papyrus might be a copy or part of any version of Q or any other second source is whether the verses that are extant today are consistent with the content of any particular hypothesized second source. As in every hypothesis that includes a second source that source was used by both aMatthew and aLuke (this is its major, and in some hypotheses essential, function) then not only would we expect to see parallels to both Matthew and Luke (i.e. Double Tradition text) in any candidate papyrus, but perhaps we would also expect that the order of those parallels should follow that of either Matthew or Luke. This of course is not a hard and fast rule, as we know that although aMatthew rearranged the text of Mark far more than did aLuke, aLuke nevertheless did not follow the order of Mark exactly, so why should either follow the text of Q exactly?
As typically hypothesized, in Q (including ‘expanded’ versions) the verses are almost all in Lukan order. However, as a parallel list of the double tradition verses in Matthew and Luke shows, only approximately half of those verses are in the same order in both gospels (but even so not in the same positions relative to the Markan parallels in Matthew and Luke). There are also smaller clusters of double tradition verses in which the order is the same in Matthew and Luke, while not being in the same position relative to the verses just mentioned. This leads to the reasonable conclusion that even if aMatthew and aLuke worked independently something influenced the ordering of the double tradition verses, and it is largely this phenomenon that leads Q supporters to believe that Q was a single document.
In contrast to the ordering described above, in ‘The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English,’ edited by James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffman, and John S. Kloppenborg from ‘The Critical Edition of Q’, there is a list of ‘Divergences from the Lukan Sequence,’ preceded by this explanation and footnote:
It has been generally assumed that Matthew tended to rearrange the sequence of Q in order to create the longer Matthean discourses, but that Luke tended to retain the sequence of Q. In preparing The Critical Edition of Q, such divergences of sequence between Matthew and Luke were examined when they occur. Indeed, in most cases, the Lukan rather than the Matthean order did seem to reflect that of Q. Hence one can normally follow Lukan sequence to find a text in The Sayings Gospel Q.1 But in cases where it became clear that the Matthean rather than the Lukan order is that of Q, it is this reconstructed sequence of Q, rather than the Lukan sequence, that is followed.
1 This is the justification for the now widely accepted convention of quoting Q by Lukan chapter and verse numbers, a policy first introduced in the initial planning for The Critical Edition of Q…
This explanation is then followed by the following list of ten divergences and a note stating: “The positions of Q 6:39 and Q 6:40 are very uncertain. As a convention they are presented in their Lukan position.”
Q 4:5-8: Between Q 4:9-12 and Q 4:13
Q 6:35c-d: Between Q 6:27-28 and Q 6:29, [[29<>30/Matt 5:41]], 30-32, 34.
Q 11:16: Between Q 11:17-20, [[21-22]], 23-26, ?27-28? and Q 11:29-30.
Q 11:42: Between Q 11:34-35, ?39a?, and Q 11:39b, 41.
Q 11:52: Between Q 11:46b and Q 11:47-51; 12:2-3.
Q 12:33-34: Between Q 12:2-12 and Q 12:22b-31.
Q 13:29: Between Q 13:27 and Q 13:28, [[30]].
Q 17:33: Between Q 14:26-27 and Q 14:34-35.
Q 15:4-5a, 7, [[8-10]]: Between Q 17:1-2 and Q 17:3-4.
Q 17:37: Between Q 17:23-24 and Q 17:26-27.
Additionally, in ‘The Reconstruction of Q’ in ‘The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus’ Frans Neirynck lists three additional passages proposed by J M Robinson “in which Matthew rather than Luke may have retained the Q-sequence:”
Q 6,29-31 before 6,27-28 (cf. Mt 5,39b-42,44)
Q 16,16 following on 7,24-28 (cf. Mt 11,7-11,12-13)
Q 13,34-35 following on 11,49-51 (cf. Mt 23,34-36,37-39)
These two lists identify passages in Q in which the Matthean location of verses is preferred, but nevertheless by convention are referred to by their location in Luke. The lists show that in several instances Matthew and Luke disagree, not just on the order of pericopes in the double tradition, but sometimes on verses within pericopes. For example, in Lk 4:5-8 Satan shows Jesus the kingdoms of the world, followed by setting him on a pinnacle of the temple (Lk 4:9-12), whereas in Matthew these passages are reversed, at Mt 4:8-10 and Mt 4:5-7 respectively.
The problem with the use of the convention of identifying Q verses by the location of their parallels in Luke is that, intentionally or not, it obscures the fact that the position of around 35 verses (approximately 15%) of Q is not much more than a guess, apparently based on how out-of-place the Matthean parallels to these verses would have been if in Matthew they were in their Lukan position. However, it is obvious that aMatthew could have re-positioned any verse from Q to fit smoothly with his other text, and also we must assume that any relocation of verses in Q by either aMatthew or aLuke was done for reasons valid to them. Consequently in Q these verses may have been either in their Lukan position or their Matthean position, and the only way to know for certain would be if we had an extant copy of the relevant portions of Q.
On the basis of the above lists aLuke only re-ordered a small number of the nearly 240 Double Tradition verses that came from Q and used those verses to create the basic structure of Luke, with the majority of his relocations of Q material being within what is usually referred to as the Lukan ‘Travel Narrative’ (Lk 9:51 – 18:14), and into this framework he added verses from Mark and the rest of what we see in Luke. In contrast aMatthew took the same verses from Q but re-ordered almost half of them, in addition to heavily rearranging what he used from Mark, making it unclear what aMatthew considered his primary source.
The problem here is that the convention of numbering Q verses according to the location of their parallels in Luke, now so ingrained into any discussion of Q, makes it very hard to consider why aLuke would re-order text he took from Mark more than the text he took from Q, especially as Mark (the much larger document) is typically considered to be aLuke’s primary source. The same convention also avoids the need to explain why aMatthew might have rearranged Mark even more than aLuke, while possibly not doing so with Q, by simply suggesting (on the basis of no real evidence) that aMatthew rearranged half of Q as well.
However, it is just as reasonable to hypothesize that aMatthew regarded Q as his primary source and so largely followed the order of Q but instead rearranged Mark (his secondary source), while aLuke rearranged half of Q but much less so Mark (his primary source). The use of Lukan chapter and verse numbering for Q verses very effectively obscures this possibility, but the reality is that it is no more than a very useful sleight of hand, and therefore any suggestion that aMatthew heavily rearranged both Mark and Q while aLuke largely preserved the order of both has no objective basis.
In KLOPPENBORG’S STRATIFICATION OF Q AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR HISTORICAL JESUS STUDIES, Dennis Ingolfsland notes the ‘stratification’ that Kloppenborg sees in Q:
Assuming that virtually all of Q can be reconstructed, Kloppenborg cites Arland Jacobson who argued that Q is pervaded with deuteronomistic theology. According to Kloppenborg, this demonstrates that “Q was organized and redacted from a coherent theological perspective.” Since Q contains both sapiential and apocalyptic forms, Kloppenborg asks whether Q underwent a “redactional intervention” such that one of these elements was formative and the other secondary.
Assuming the answer is yes, Kloppenborg proposes a method to determine the principles used in the composition of clusters of Q sayings and their association into a whole. He then meticulously analyzes the pericopae in Q separating the sapiential from the prophetic elements, proposing that Q began as a sapiential document (often cited as Q1), was later revised with the addition of prophetic/judgment/apocalyptic passages (Q2), and was finally revised once more with the addition of narrative passages (Q3).
It needs to be pointed out what Kloppenborg achieved with this stratification. It appears that because he stratified the text of Q in such a way as to provide insights into how Q was written, this supports the hypothesis that Q did exist. However, this is not so. Unless it is shown that there are no other ways in which Q could have been constructed, such as with a different number of drafts written for different reasons, Kloppenborg’s stratification can only be seen as one possible way in which a hypothetical document used as a second source by both aMatthew and aLuke could have been written, and no more. Consequently, any attempt to use Kloppenborg’s stratification to support any particular text of Q, as is done by Burton Mack in ‘The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins,’ is null and void, as is explained by Gregory A Boyd in ‘Cynic Sage or Son of God?: Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies:’
The arbitrariness and circularity of the post-Bultmannian use of Q comes out in a remarkable way in Mack’s work, especially in his book on Q, The Lost Gospel. Several examples will serve to illustrate this. Mack, for instance, observes in Q that, “[f]requently the way sayings are grouped or ordered makes a point. Sometimes a saying offers a specific interpretation of a preceding unit of material.” This is hardly surprising, however, since it is Mack (following Kloppenborg and others) who has ordered the sayings – on the basis of the points they think “the original Q” is making. Similarly, Mack notes that “the order and organization of material are … clear signs of the coherence of a particular layer of tradition” in Q. But, of course, it is Mack (or his supporting Q theorists) who imposed on the Matthean and Lukan sayings a particular “order and organization,” so arguing for a particular “layer of tradition” on this basis is less than compelling.
In similar fashion, Mack notes how in Q-1, as opposed to Q-2, “[t]here is no sign of hostility” toward those outside the community; hardly surprising since Mack (again, following Kloppenborg) has decided ahead of time that any saying that exhibits “hostility” is to be placed in Q-2 (or Q-3) instead of Q-1. He notes with interest the “shift in tone that awaits the reader of Q-2,” and notes how, “[i]n contrast to Q-1 the reader now encounters narratives, dialogue, controversy stories … warnings, and apocalyptic pronouncements.” But one wonders how it could have been otherwise, since all such material is methodologically ruled out of Q-1 early on!
The long and short of the matter is that, for Mack, and for the post-Bultmannian school in general, this use of Q can be shown to be quite inconsistent, arbitrary, and circular. What further calls into question their perspective is that a large number of scholars outside of their camp, using different starting points and different criteria for redactional analysis, have come to very different understandings of Q.
The whole idea of identifying the text of Q by hypothesizing one particular set of strata in one particular hypothetical text of Q is pointless. Yes, it can (and has) been done, resulting in the text promoted by the IQP as if it were the one and only possible text of Q. If it were possible to show that it is only with this one text of Q that it is possible to construct a valid ‘history’ identifying how it developed over time then there might be some validity for the claims made by the IQP, but it has not been done, because it cannot be done. There are in reality a vast range of possible texts of a second source used by aMatthew and aLuke, only some of which deserve the name Q, depending on where it was written, the language in which it was written, how many ‘strata’ it contained, which parts of it were used by aMatthew and aLuke and which were excluded, how aMatthew and aLuke regarded it in comparison with Mark, and how aMatthew and aLuke did or did not chose to re-order portions of the text.
One of the ways that can be used to determine the relative ages of parallel pieces of text in two different documents is to investigate whether or not the text of one shows signs of having been written either before or after the other, so indicating the directionality of the texts. With large pieces of text there may be very many places that provide an indication of the directionality, but even with documents as large as the synoptic gospels the indication is not always clear-cut. For example, although most people who have studied the matter believe that Mark preceded Matthew and Matthew preceded Luke (Mk -> Mt -> Lk), there are still a number of them who believe that Matthew was first, and/or that Mark was last.
There is also the problem that, although in general Luke appears to follow Matthew, there are places where instead Matthew appears to follow Luke (e.g. in the case of the Lord’s Prayer), an issue often referred to as Alternating Primitivity, although a better term would be Bi-directional Primitivity. While this issue is down-played by some, for example supporters of the MwQH (Mark without Q Hypothesis) or Farrer Theory, it is one of the main reasons why synoptic theories that posit a second source (e.g. Q) for Matthew and Luke are still heavily supported.
When looking at the extant text of two different gospels (e.g. Mark and either Matthew or Luke) it is sometimes possible to identify characteristic changes, or ‘redactions,’ that a later author made to the text of a former. For example, perhaps the most probative difference between Mark and Luke is that approximately 75 verses of Mark (usually given as 6:45-8:26) are not present in Luke, and the most common explanation is that for some reason aLuke simply chose to exclude these verses, although some believe that these verses were missing in the copy of Mark that he saw. Then again, there are those who instead believe that aMatthew added some text to the original version of Luke, and that aMark then further expanded it. There are other differences between pairs of the gospels that suggest a ‘trajectory’ in the theology and/or Christology, but to some extent this determination depends on outside and sometimes contradictory information, for example from other books of the New Testament, from the Church Fathers, or from other historical sources, and the whole issue of determining the directionality of an apparent redaction is fraught with problems.
Nevertheless, it is worth looking for signs of directionality in the text of the papyri by looking at variants in their text, i.e. where the text of the papyri differs from the equivalent text in other manuscripts. However, as we do not know in advance the text of Q or any other hypothetical second source we cannot tell in what ways that text might have been ‘more primitive,’ or might have included something that was not copied by either aMatthew or aLuke. All we can do is to look for differences, and accept the fact that if no differences suggestive of a directionality exist, that says nothing about the differences that may or may not have been present in the non-extant portions of the text, and so cannot affect the determination of whether the papyri could be fragments of a second source of Matthew and Luke.
The final point to be considered is that it is highly unlikely that aMatthew and aLuke saw exactly the same text in their respective copies of the sources that they has in common. In ‘From the Sayings to the Gospels,’ Christopher Tuckett explains:
For example, in the case of a hypothesis which proposes that the same gospel has been used by two subsequent evangelists, it is ludicrous to think of each of the later evangelists having access to exactly the same physical copy of the proposed source (whether Mark, Q or Matthew). Almost certainly they had access to different copies; and in a pre-printing era when all MSS were copied by hand, it is almost inevitable that the version of the text will have been changed in the copying process. It is equally absurd to think that e.g. Matthew’s or Luke’s copy of Mark (on the 2DH) can necessarily be taken as (all but) identical with the text of Mark printed in modern editions of the Greek NT. Any assumption then that, say, Matthew and Luke used Mark (or that Luke and Mark used Matthew), with the unstated assumption that it was the same Mark used by both, is clearly a simplification of what was originally a more complex situation.
Tuckett’s point applies just as much to any other source that may have been used by aMatthew and aLuke in addition to Mark, whether Q, an expanded version of Q, or any other SS, and so when looking for evidence of any form of Q this must be taken into account.
In ‘The Mysterious Flyleaf of P.Oxy. 2 (P1): An Odd Gospel Title,’ Brice C. Jones writes:
P.Oxy. 2 is a papyrus sheet (partial) that was folded in antiquity to create two codex leaves (i.e., a bifolium) on which the Gospel of Matthew was inscribed (complete high-res images: recto, verso). It is the the [sic] first papyrus in the Gregory-Aland system, designated "P1." Most of the first leaf is missing; the text of Matthew 1 is featured on the second leaf. The first, partial leaf is important, however, because it is a “flyleaf” or coversheet similar to what we find in other codices, such as BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3 (P4, Matthew). Surprisingly, most textual critics have ignored this flyleaf. Even Simon Gathercole in his 2012 article “The Earliest Title of Matthew’s Gospel” (published in Novum Testamentum) did not mention P.Oxy. 2 in his discussion of the flyleaf and title of Matthew’s Gospel in BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3/P4. It is also not found in INTF’s Virtual Manuscript Room’s transcriptions (http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace). Most people will have never heard of it. But this flyleaf appears to contain an unusual title(?) to Matthew’s Gospel:
Jones notes that although the extant portion of P1 consists of a single sheet of papyrus, the sheet is folded and so has two leaves, with fragments of a title on the first leaf. The second leaf contains Mt 1:1-9, 12 and a small portion of v. 1:13 on the verso and Mt 1:14-20 and a small portion of v. 1:23 on the recto, with the extant text being very close to that in B. The leaf has several holes in it, and has most of the bottom portion of papyrus missing, as shown here.
Because so little of the text of the first leaf is extant it is unsure what was written on it, and Jones writes that Comfort and Barrett suggested that in translation it could have read:
Was born [Jesus Christ, the son of David,]
from [the Holy Spirit coming upon]
his mother [Mary, the wife of Joseph]
Jones himself suggests another possibility:
Jesus was born
by the Holy Spirit and
his mother, Mary
Whatever the text read, the title (or “subhead descriptor” as suggested by Comfort and Barrett) may be later than the main text, but, as Jones concludes:
… a highly reasonable conclusion is that the three lines probably communicated something about Jesus being born by Mary.
Matthew 1 has no direct parallel in either Mark or Luke, so making the text of Matthew 1 unique, and meaning that Mark cannot be the source for this text. Therefore, either aMatthew created Matthew 1 from information he possessed from elsewhere, or he had access to a source document already containing that text.
As we do not know how much more text P1 originally contained it is conceivable that, instead of being a fragment of the complete gospel of Matthew, P1 could instead be a fragment of a much shorter mss, containing just what we see as Matthew 1 and so possibly being a witness to the original text of Matthew 1, although from the dating unlikely to be the source of Matthew 1 itself. If the first leaf did contain a title or "subhead descriptor" as suggested above then it would support the idea that P1 could have originally contained just the text of Matthew 1 rather than the whole of Matthew.
P35 consists of the central portion of a single leaf of papyrus, with some of Mt 25:12-15 on one side and some of Mt 25:20-23 on the other, as can be seen here. Mt 25:12-13 are part of the parable of the ten virgins (Mt 25:1-13), and Mt 25:14-15, 20-23 are part of the parable of the talents (Mt 25:14-30), and so it is conceivable that P35 originally contained just these two parables. (Here and below italic text represents a possible reconstruction, SMt means Sondergut Matthew, DT means Double Tradition, etc.)
MATTHEW LUKE MARK
[Mt 25:1-11 SMt - - ]
Mt 25:12-13 SMt - -
Mt 25:14 DT Lk 19:13 -
Mt 25:15 SMt - -
[Mt 25:16:18 Mt - -
SLk Lk 19:14 -
Mt 28:19 DT Lk 19:15] - ]
Mt 25:20-23 DT Lk 19:16-19 -
[Mt 25:24-25… DT Lk 19:20-21 - ]
The only noteworthy variant in P35 occurs in Mt 25:22, in which it appears likely that ‘de’ was not present (in common with B and some other mss). Wieland Willker writes: “Possibly the omission is a conformation to context verse 20,” but also notes:
The reconstruction given by Min (ANTF 34) p. 74 + 82, makes it quite probable that P35 omitted de, even though the relevant part is within a lacuna. With such a small word one cannot be certain, though.
Mt 25:1-25 either have no parallels (Sondergut Mt), or have parallels only in Luke (Double Tradition). In the Mark-Q hypothesis the Double Tradition verses are considered to have originated in Q, but because P35 also contains several verses unique to Matthew most people who believe in the Mark-Q hypothesis would not consider P35 to possibly reflect the text of Q. However, a number of people believe in an expanded form of Q that included at least some text unique to either Matthew or Luke (see What Exactly is Q?), and hence P35 could potentially be part of a copy of such an expanded Q instead of a copy of Matthew. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that the order of the verses in P35 is exactly the same as that of their Lukan parallels, as so also follows what is usually considered to be the order of the parallels in Q.
P37 is somewhat more extensive than either P1 or P35. Although it is also just a single fragmentary leaf of papyrus the damage is less extreme, with some of each line of text still extant, as shown here. The fragment contains portions of Mt 26:19-37 on the recto, and Mt 29:37-52 on the verso. It begins part way through the last supper (Mt 26:17-35), continues with Jesus in Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-45), and ends part way through Jesus’ betrayal (Mt 26:47-56).
MATTHEW LUKE MARK
[Mt 26:17-18 TT Lk 22:9-11 Mk 14:12-14]
Mt 26:19-22 TT Lk 22:13-14,21,23 Mk 14:16-19
Mt 26:23 Mk-Mt - Mk 14:20
Mt 26:24 TT Lk 22:22 Mk 14:21
Mt 26:25 SMt - -
Mt 26:26-30 TT Lk 22:19a,17,20b,18,39 Mk 14:22-26
Mt 26:31-32 Mk-M - Mk 14:27-28
Mt 26:33-34 TT Lk 22:33-34 Mk 14:29-30
Mt 26:35 Mk-Mt - Mk 14:31
Mt 26:36 TT Lk 22:40 Mk 14:32
Mt 26:37-38 Mk-Mt - Mk 14:33-34
Mt 26:39-41a TT Lk 22:41-42,45b-46 Mk 14:35-38a
Mt 26:41b-43 Mk-Mt - Mk 14:38b-40
Mt 26:44 SMt - -
Mt 26:45-46 Mk-Mt - Mk 14:41-42
Mt 26:47-49 TT Lk 22:47 Mk 14:43-44
Mt 26:50a DT Lk 22:48 -
Mt 26:50b-51 TT Lk 22:49-50 Mk 14:46-47
Mt 26:52 DT Lk 22:51 -
[Mt 26:53-54 SMt - - ]
Willker has the following comments on the text of P37:
In NA P37 appears 27 times. It reads 11 times txt and 16 times a special minority reading. It never reads Byz. It agrees 10 times (37%) with B, 13 times with D (48%), 11 times with Θ (41%) and 8 times with P45, which has lacunae. Because it agrees in some minority readings with Θ and P45, P37 has sometimes been called "Caesarean". The many minority readings and the low agreements with all texttypes, marks P37 as a "free" or "wild" text. The agreement with P45 is significant.
There are two variants in Mt 26:17-54 that are worth noting:
Mt 26:20 P37 omits ‘disciples,’ in common with P45, B, D and other mss.
Mt 26:44 omits ‘again’ and ‘for the third time,’ so reading “Leaving them he went away and prayed, saying the same thing again,” one of a few different combinations of omissions in this verse in other mss, suggesting uncertainty in its text. Uniquely in Mt 26:17-53 this verse has no parallel in either Mark or Luke, and Willker notes:
The verse 44 in Mt is not present in Mk: That he left them a third time. So our verse is either inserted by Mt or it's a later addition. There is no witness for a complete omission though.
In contrast to P1 and P35 all three passages in P37 have parallels in both Mark (Mk 14:16-47) and Luke (Lk 22:13-51), and so on first sight these verses and their parallels in Luke would appear to originate in Mark. Mt 26:17-54 follow the order of the parallels at Mk 14:14:12-47 (except for Mt 26:25,44,50a,52-54, which have no parallels in Mark) and are mainly close parallels. However, thirteen of the Matthean verses have no parallel in Luke, in many of the verses the parallels between Mark/Matthew and Luke are very loose, and there are also many of changes of sequence in comparison with Matthew: Lk 22:13-14, 21, 23, 22, 19a, 17, 20b, 18, 39, 33-34, 40-42, 45b-51. In addition there are several additional verses in Luke that have no parallel in either Mark or Matthew: Lk 22:15-16, 19b-20a, 27, 31-32, 43-45a.
The overall impression is that in these verses the close parallels in Matthew are following Mark, and there is little to suggest that P37 might be something other than a fragment of Matthew. However, the verses in Luke that are parallel to the Matthean text in P37 do not appear to have either Mark or Matthew as their source (or at least, if Mark or Matthew was the source then they were heavily edited: see Luke 22:17-20 - The Last Supper). Instead, together with the verses in Luke noted above as having no parallels in either Mark or Matthew, they appear to derive from a second source (SS), but as Q is usually considered to end at the equivalent of Lk 22:30 / Mt 19:28, it is unlikely to be Q.
P70 consists of three small fragments of Matthew, two of which are shown here, containing parts of Mt 2:13-16 (verso) and 2:22-3:1 (recto), 11:26-27 (verso) and 12:4-5 (recto), and 24:3-6 (recto) and 12-15 (verso) respectively. The Literal Translation of the Bible website provides a transcription of the text, showing how little is extant, but Comfort and Barrett provide a reconstruction of the third fragment of P70 from Mt 23:39 to 24:15, presumably because the extant portion includes the bottom of the leaf. Although this is not stated, it can be deduced from the fact that Comfort and Barrett’s usual ‘warning’ sign: “[location of upper / lower margin is uncertain]” does not accompany the reconstruction of this leaf.
MATTHEW LUKE MARK
[Mt 2:?-12 SMt - -] The coming of the wise men
Mt 2:13-16 SMt - - The flight into Egypt
[Mt 2:17-21 SMt - -] Ditto, From Egypt to Nazareth
Mt 2:22 SMt - - From Egypt to Nazareth
Mt 2:23 SMt - - Ditto
Mt 3:1 TT 3:2b 1:4a John the Baptist
[Mt 3:2 TT 3:3b 1:4b] Ditto
--------------
[Mt 11:25 DT 10:2 -] Jesus reveals the Father
Mt 11:26 DT 10:21b - Ditto
Mt 11:27 DT 10:22b - Ditto
[Mt 11:28-30] SMt - -] Take my yoke
[Mt 12:1-3] TT 6:1-3 2:23-25 Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath
Mt 12:4 TT 6:4 2:26 Ditto
Mt 12:5 SMt - - Ditto
[Mt 12:6 SMt - -] Ditto
------------
[Mt 24:2 TT 21:6 13:2] Signs of the end of this age – Lk 21:6-36
Mt 24:3a Mt-Mk - 13:3a Ditto
Mt 24:3b TT 21:7 13:3c-4 Ditto
Mt 24:4 TT 21:8a 13:5 Ditto
Mt 24:5 TT 21:8b 13:6 Ditto
Mt 24:6 TT 21:9 13:7 Ditto
[Mt 24:7-8] TT 21:10-11 13:8 Ditto
[Mt 24:9 TT 21:16b-17 13:12b-13a] Ditto
[Mt 24:10 TT 21:16a 13:12a] Ditto
[Mt 24:11 SMt - -] Ditto
Mt 24:12 SMt - - Ditto
Mt 24:13 MT-Mk - 13:13b Ditto
Mt 24:14 SMt - - Ditto
Mt 24:15 TT 21:20 13:14a Ditto
[[Mt 23:39, 24:1-15]] – Comfort & Barrett
As so much of the extant portion of this ms is outside the bounds of what is usually considered to be Q, and, more importantly, contains mainly triple tradition and Sondergut Matthew material, it is very unlikely that P70 could be a portion of Q.
P77 consists of two fragments of one leaf of papyrus, with extensive damage, as shown here. On the verso it contains some of Mt 23:30-34 and on the recto some of Mt 23:35-39, the final verses of Jesus’ woes against the Pharisees. Most lines of text contain lacunae, and the end of Mt 23:34 and the beginning of Mt 23:35 are missing due to the damage. Wieland Willker reports that ‘desolate’ at the end of Mt 23:38 was most likely never present in P77.
Because the positions of the upper and lower boundaries of the leaf are unknown it is not certain what other text may have originally been present, but the reconstruction by Comfort and Barrett suggests that the missing portion of Mt 23:34-35 (and will pursue from town to town, so that upon you will come all the Righteous blood shed on the earth from the blood of righteous Abel up to the blood of Ze) would have most likely required five additional lines of text (some at the bottom of the verso and the rest at the top of the recto), making it likely that at most only one additional verse was present at the top and bottom of each side of the leaf.
Because there is a one-line gap between Mt 23:36 and 23:37, perhaps indicating the beginning of a new section of text, it seems unlikely that P77 would have originally ended after only three more verses, and so the most natural conclusion is that P77 probably originally continued with Mt 24. However, as Mt 24 begins with Jesus going to the Mount of Olives before speaking to a private audience, that would instead seem to be the obvious point at which to begin a new section of text, suggesting perhaps that in P77 something else originally followed Mt 23, perhaps a continuation of a new topic begun by Jesus in Mk 23:37-39. On this point it is worth noting that none of the extant verses in P77 have any parallels in Mark (and so cannot have Mark as their source), whereas Mt 24:1-8 is almost entirely a Triple Tradition passage, with Mark the most likely source.
MATTHEW LUKE MARK
[…Mt 23:28 SMt - -
Mt 23:29 DT Lk 11:47 -]
Mt 23:30 SMt - -
Mt 23:31 DT Lk 11:48 -
Mt 23:32-33 SMt - -
Mt 23:34-36 DT Lk 11:49-51 -
Mt 23:37-39 DT Lk 13:34-35 -
[Mt 24:1 TT Lk 21:5 Mk 13:1
Mt 24:2… TT Lk 21:6 Mk 13:2a]
Mt 23:29-36 have parallels at Lk 11:47-51 and Mt 23:37-39 have parallels at Lk 13:34-35, and so both are considered to be part of the Double Tradition, but because Mt 23:28, 30, 32-33 and 34b have no parallels in Lk then P77 seems unlikely to contain any of the text of Q as defined by the IQP. However, it is possible that aLuke might have chosen to not include text that he knew was in Matthew but not in Mark, or if he saw it in a source common to himself and Matthew that contained the same text as we see in P77, such as an expanded form of Q (including Sondergut Mt text) or a different SS.
There is also the issue that the Lukan parallels to the text in P77 have a ‘disconnect.’ According to the IQP the sections of Q that are parallel to the text in P77 contain the following verses (using the equivalent verse numbers from Luke):
Q 11:46b, 52, 47-48 Woes against the Exegetes of the Law
Q 11:49-51 Wisdom’s Judgment on This Generation
Q 13:34-35 Judgment over Jerusalem
As discussed above the verses in Q are usually hypothesized to be mainly in Lukan order (although there appears to be no solid basis for this belief for at least part of Q). In contrast, P77 appears to have contained verses in the order found in Matthew, with the Lukan parallels jumping from Lk 11:51 to Lk 13:34, so suggesting that P77 could not contain a fragment of the text of Q as defined by the IQP. However, as shown above the IQP’s Q already has Q 11:52 ‘out of place,’ so making it difficult to insist that Q could not have also contained parallels to Lk 13:34-35 immediately following the parallels to Lk 11:49-51.
The final point is that if Q contained a parallel to Lk 11:52 and P77 contains text from Q then we would expect it to contain that parallel between those of Lk 11:46b and 47, but as that text is not extant in P77 we cannot tell whether it did contain a parallel to Lk 11:52 at this point or not. There therefore appears to be no barrier to believing that P77 could be a fragment of a copy of a version of Q (even if not exactly Q as defined by the IQP), or a slightly different SS, and the issue of the blank line after Mt 23:36 and the ‘switch’ from there being no Markan parallels in any of Mt 23:28-39 to there being Markan parallels in all of Mt 24:1-8, suggest that what we see as Mt 24 may originally not have followed Mt 23.
P86 is yet another small fragmentary leaf of papyrus, as shown here. It contains portions of Mt 5:13-16 on the recto and Mt 5:22-25 on the verso. Mt 5:17-21 are not extant, and neither are any verses prior to Mt 5:13 or following Mt 5:25. The pericopes from which these verses are taken (The Beatitudes, Teaching about salt and light, The higher righteousness, Anger and reconciliation, and on Adultery and divorce), together with their parallels, contain a mixture of Triple Tradition, Double Tradition, and Sondergut Matthew material, as shown below.
MATTHEW LUKE MARK
[Mt 5:11-12 DT Lk 6:22-23 -]
Mt 5:13 TT Lk 14:34-35 Mk 9:50
Mt 5:14 SMt - -
Mt 5:15 DT Lk 11:33 // 8:16 (Doublet) Mk 4:21
Mt 5:16 SMt - -
[Mt 5:17 SMt - -
Mt 5:18 DT Lk 16:17 -
Mt 5:19-21 SMt - -]
Mt 5:22-24 SMt - -
Mt 5:25 DT Lk 12:58 -
[Mt 5:26 DT Lk 12:59 -
Mt 5:27 SMt - -]
At first sight P86 appears to have contained verses in the order found in Matthew, and because as indicated above the verses in the IQP’s Q are mostly in Lukan order it shows little sign that it might contain text from Q, although as discussed above other 'versions' of Q could have this order. However, the reality is that we do not know what text P86 originally contained prior to Mt 5:13, between Mt 5:16 and 22, and following Mt 5:25, the order in which any text parallel to what we see in Matthew was written in the non-extant verses, nor how that text relates to what we now see in Matthew. In addition, although the IQP’s Q does not include any Sondergut Matthew text, adding such text to Q (as in other hypothesized versions of Q) changes nothing except to indicate that aLuke chose not to include this text, which is a perfectly reasonable supposition.
Apart from the Sondergut Matthew text P86 appears to be an ideal candidate for containing part of the text of Q. In the Mark-Q hypothesis Mt 5:13, 15 and 25 (and the parallels at Lk 14:34-35, 11:33 and 12:58) are all considered to have their source in Q. In addition Lk 8:16 // 11:33 is a doublet in which Mk 4:21 could be the source of Lk 8:16, with Q as the source of Mt 5:15 and Lk 11:33. All that is then required is to allow Mt 5:14, 16, and 22-24 (all unique to Matthew) to have an expanded Q as their source to make P86 a possible witness to a version of Q (or other SS) that includes at least some Sondergut Matthew material in addition to the Double Tradition.
P101 is a very fragmentary portion of a single leaf of a papyrus codex, as seen here. It contains portions of Mt 3:10-12 (John the Baptist) on the verso and Mt 3:16-17 (The baptism of Jesus) and 4:1-3 (The temptation) on the recto. Mt 3:13-15 are not extant.
MATTHEW LUKE MARK
[Mt 3:8 DT Lk 3:8a -
Mt 3:9 DT Lk 3:8b -]
Mt 3.10 DT Lk 3:9 -
[- SLk Lk 3:10-15 -]
Mt 3.11 DT/TT Lk 3:16 Mk 1:7-8 (Mark-Q overlap)
Mt 3.12 DT Lk 3:17 -
[Mt 3:13 TT Lk 3:21b Mk 1:9
Mt 3:14 SMt - -
Mt 3:15 SMt - -]
Mt 3.16 TT Lk 3:21c,22a Mk 1:10
Mt 3.17a TT Lk 3:22b Mk 1:11a
Mt 3:17b TT Lk 3:22c Mk 1:11b
Mt 4.1 TT Lk 4:1,2a Mk 1:12-13
Mt 4.2 DT Lk 4:2b -
Mt 4.3 DT Lk 4:3 -
[Mt 4:4 DT Lk 4:4 -
Mt 4:5 DT Lk 4:9a -]
There is a significant variant in Mt 3:11, regarding whether or not the verse ends with ‘and fire.’ Although P101 is lacunose at this point the initial ‘κα’ of ‘καi πυρί’ is present, making it all but certain that P101 did originally include ‘and fire,’ in common with many mss, although it is omitted in the majority. Fire is also referred to in Mt 3:10, 12 and their parallels at Lk 3:9, 17, verses which have no parallels in Mk and so are part of the Double Tradition. However, Mt 3:11 and its parallel Lk 3:16 do have a parallel, at Mk 1:7-8, although the text in Mark is not in the same order, and it does not contain any reference to fire. Willker comments regarding Mt 3:11:
The addition of καὶ πυρί could be a harmonization to Lk.
The omission of καὶ πυρί could be a harmonization to Mk.
Normally a harmonization to Lk is more probable than to Mk.
He also notes what the IQP has to say:
On the 2SH the pericope is in Q and the omission would be the only serious difference. The IQP has καὶ πυρί for Q.
Note also that the IQP Crit.Ed. has ἁγίῳ in double brackets (= "probable but uncertain"). They comment: "Is ἁγίῳ in Q or from Mk?"
The above question: "Is ἁγίῳ in Q or from Mk?" raises the issue of the Mark-Q overlaps, i.e. places where what would appear to be Double Tradition verses in Matthew and Luke (with source in Q) may instead have a source in Mark. In this particular instance the issue arises because ἁγίῳ (Holy) is omitted from Lk 3:16 in a few mss, and in a private communication with Wieland Willker in 03/2002, John Kloppenborg commented:
Q 3:16 is one of the Q-Mark overlap texts. It seems clear that Q's text read at least PURI. The problem is whether it also read PNEUMATI or PNEUMATI AGIW, in agreement with Mark, or whether the latter phrase in Matt and Luke is due to both conflating Mark (PNEUMATI AGIW) and Q (AGIW). The variants #9-10 are present because there is in the body of discussion of the reconstruction of Q those who have argued that Mark and Q had different formulations, and that Matthew and Luke have conflated them (even though the IQP itself decided that Q probably had both spirit and fire. Thus the variant simply signals that there is a *potential* problem that reconstruction has to deal with. The reason for the [[ ]] around AGIW has to do with the argument, commonly found in the literature than [sic] PNEUMATI KAI PURI is a hendiadys, referring to divine judgment and might well have been what was in Q, with Mark supplying AGIW (And Matt and Luke taking it over from Mark. Again, in the end the IQP decided that AGIW was in Q, but with less certainty than PNEUMATI.
The issue here arises from the fact that Mt 3:7-10 and Lk 3:7-9 have no parallel in Mark, as is also the case with Mt 3:12 and Lk 3:17, which therefore appear to be Double Tradition text, and so in any hypothesis that includes SS aMatthew and aLuke would typically have SS as their source for these verses. As Mt 3:11 and Lk 3:16 are almost identical it might be expected that they also would be Double Tradition verses with SS as their source, but as they also have a parallel at Mk 1:7-8 they seem instead to be part of the Triple Tradition.
However, there is a problem: aMatthew and aLuke seem to have ‘colluded’ in making exactly the same change to the order of the text in Mk 1:7-8, something that is impossible on any hypothesis in which aMatthew and aLuke were independent, but is completely natural if aLuke saw Matthew, as on Farrer / MwQH. To get around this problem for the Mark-Q hypothesis it is supposed that at this point Mark and Q overlapped, i.e. they contained common text, which would allow aMatthew and aLuke to include or omit different words depending on whether they used Mark or Q at this point. Even the IQP admits to the need for Q to include parallels to some of Mark, and this represents the beginning of a ‘slippery slope’ in which more of Mark and Q (or any other SS) overlap the further down the slope you go. Essentially, once you allow some overlap there is no way to define its extent.
In ‘John the Baptist and the Jewish Setting of Matthew, Brian C. Dennert makes the point that Mt 3:7-10 and 11-12 occur in different Lukan contexts (Lk 3:7-9 and 15-17), with Lk 3:10-15 being unique to Luke, and then suggests:
Although there are similarities between Mark 1:7-8 and Matt 3:11-12, it seems best to view Matt 3:7-12 as derived from Q traditions.87 The minimal differences between the wording of Matt 3:7-10//Luke 3:7-988 and Matt 3:11-12//Luke 3:15-1789 make it likely that this speech comes from a written tradition (or traditions) possessed by both Matthew and Luke (Q). It is unclear if this shared tradition consisted of a single speech, a source with the two sayings in different contexts as in Luke, or sayings from multiple sources. Redactional analysis thus can look to Matthew’s hand in the wording of the passage but not its context or placement.
In footnote 87 Dennert then notes that: “… Mark 1:7-8 seems to be a secondary source for Matt 3:11-12, with the primary source being the Q tradition(s).” It should be realized that although the above discussion refers specifically to Q, and to overlaps between Mark and Q, exactly similar arguments apply to any other hypothesis in which there is a second source used by both aMatthew and aLuke. There is also no reason why an expanded Q or other SS could not have been the source of Lk 3:10-15, because this would simply be an example of aLuke selecting from SS material that aMatthew chose not to include in his gospel.
Interestingly, Jn 1:25-27 follow the Mattthew / Luke order. In a response to Mark Goodacre on Goodacre's NT Blog, Frank McCoy commented that:
… Mt 3:11/Lk 3:16 agree with John 1:26-27 against Mk 1:7-8a that John spoke of baptizing with water before speaking about a coming one mightier than he. This suggests that Matthew modified the order in Mk 1:7-8a in light of the order in John 1:26-27 and that Luke then used Mt 3:11 as his source for Lk 3:16.
Again, in Mt 3:11, John is addressing Jewish religious authorities. However, in Mark 1:7-8a he apparently is addressing all the people who went out to see him and the same is the case in Luke 3:16. Even the IQP version of Q has John addressing crowds coming to be baptized. It is only John 1:26-27 that also has John addressing Jewish religious authorities. This suggests that, in this respect, Matthew is following John.
McCoy suggests that here aMatthew changed the Markan order in favor of the order in John, but this then opens up the issue of why aJohn would have changed the order in Mark instead. There does seem to be a connection between Matthew and John here, but the direction is perhaps just as likely to be from Matthew to John, with (as discussed above) Matthew being largely based on SS.
If it is allowed that SS may have overlapped with Mk 1:7-8, then there is no a priori reason why SS may not have also overlapped with Mk 1:9-11 (Jesus’ baptism) and Mk 1:12-13 (The Temptation), so accounting for Mt 3:13, 16-17; 4:1 being part of the Triple Tradition, with parallels in both Mark and Luke. However, not only do Mt 3:14-15 have no parallels in either Mark or Luke, but there is a variation in Mt 3:17b that is not easy to explain: The NET Bible notes:
The parallel accounts in Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 read ““You are” rather than “This is,” portraying the remark as addressed personally to Jesus.
Willker comments that this is: “Probably a harmonization to Mk/Lk. There is no reason why all other witnesses should have changed the text here.” However, he also notes that: “The Gospel of the Ebionites clearly has a conflate text here, compare variant to Lk 3:22.” Here Willker is referring to the fact that, as noted in Panarion 30, Against Ebionites 13:1, 6-8, and 15, Epiphanius wrote (alignment and emphasis added):
And after saying a number of things, it adds, ‘When the people had been baptised, Jesus came also and was baptised of John. And as he came up out of the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice saying, ‘Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.’
And again: ‘This day have I begotten thee.’ And straightway a great light shone round about the place. ‘Seeing this,’ it says, John said unto him, ‘Who art thou, Lord?’
And again (there came) a voice from heaven, ‘This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.’
And then, it says, “John fell down before him and said, I pray thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. But he forbade him saying, Let it alone, for thus it is meet that all be fulfilled.”
Willker sees this as a conflation of Mk/Lk and Mt (so putting Ebionites later than at least Mark and Matthew), but it should be immediately apparent that the same evidence can support the view that here Ebionites appears to be either a second source, or a copy of text from a second source, with aLuke choosing the first statement from the voice, and aMatthew choosing the second, which is followed by an obvious parallel to Mt 3:14-15.
For Mt 4:1-3 see below the brief discussion of the parallel text in Lk 4:1-3 seen in P7, including some analysis of the variants in the parallel in Mk 1:13.
Overall the evidence supports the possibility that P101 reflects the text of a second source, although that source is unlikely to have been Q as defined by the IQP, and instead may have included a more expansive (and partly repetitious) rendering of Jesus’ baptism than exists in any of the synoptic gospels.
P103 is a single small fragment of a papyrus codex estimated to have been originally the same size and with very similar calligraphy as P77 (see here), containing parts of Mt 13:55-56 (with parallels at Mk 6:2-3 and Lk 4:22b) and Mt 14:3-5 (with parallels at Mk 6:17-20 and Lk 3:19-20). It has been suggested that P103 is part of the same codex as P77, or if not the same codex then likely to have been written by the same scribe.
MATTHEW LUKE MARK
[Mt 13:53a SMt - -
Mt 13:53b Mk/Mt - Mk 6:1a
Mt 13:54 TT Lk 4:16a,d,22b Mk 6:1b,2b]
Mt 13:55-56 TT Lk 4:22c Mk 6:2d-3a-c
[Mt 13:57 TT Lk 4:24 Mk 6:3d-4
Mt 13:58 Mk/Mt - Mk 6:5-6
Mt 14:1-2 TT Lk 9:7 Mk 6:14]
Mt 14:3 TT Lk 3:19-20 Mk 6:17
Mt 14:4-5 Mk/Mt - Mk 6:18-20
[Mt 14:6-7 Mk/Mt - Mk 21a,22a,23]
There is uncertainty over the name ‘Joseph’ in Mt 13:55, with there being four variant readings in the mss. For P103 see these reconstructions. Willker comments:
Regarding Joses or Joseph a decision is not really possible. External support clearly favors Joseph. Weiss (Mt Com.) thinks that Ἰωσὴφ comes from Mk. It is possible that Joses has been used to avoid confusion with Jesus' father Joseph. The Arabic Diatessaron has Joses.
The extant portion of P103 has parallels in Mark, but with only some of the verses also having parallels in Luke, and with the Lukan parallels not following the common Mark-Matthew order. If P103 were part of a non-Markan SS common to Matthew and Luke then it would be very odd for most of the extant portion to have parallels in Mark, but for aLuke to have:
Made so little use of the close parallels in Mt 13:55-56 / Mk 6:2-3;
Changed so much of the text of Mt 14:3 / Mk 6:17; and
Ignored Mt 14:4-5 / Mk 6:18-20, which have no parallel in Luke.
This is similar to the situation seen above in P37, and on this basis it seems unlikely that P103 could be a part of SS or any version of Q. If so, and if P77 does contain part of the text of Q, then P77 and P103 could not have originally been part of the same codex.
P104 is a very fragmentary single papyrus leaf of Mt 21:33-45 (the parable of the husbandmen, which has close parallels at Mark 12:1-12 and Luke 20:9-19). It currently contains portions of Mt 21:33-37 on the recto and (nearly unreadable) portions of Mt 21:43,45 on the verso, as shown here. Because Mt 21:33 begins the parable of the husbandmen it is not possible to know whether in P104 it was originally preceded by the parable of the two sons (Mt 21:28-32), or indeed anything else. Similarly, it is not known whether P104 originally contained any of Mt 22.
MATTHEW LUKE MARK
[Mt 21:31 SMt - -
Mt 21:32 SMt - -]
Mt 21:33-37 TT Lk 20:9-13 Mk 12:1-6
[Mt 21:38-42 TT Lk 20:14-17 Mk 12:7-11]
Mt 21:43 SMt - -
Mt 21:45 TT Lk 20:19a,c Mk 12:12a,c
[Mt 21:46 TT Lk 20:19b Mk 12:12b
Mt 22:1 SMt - -]
Mt 21:44 is probably not present in P104, in common with D, 33, and several Latin mss, and a discussion of this issue can be found here, in which Willker notes:
P. Comfort (Encountering the MSS, p. 330) writes: "The exclusion of the verse is certain because the text on the verso of P104 can only be reconstructed with the verse missing."
Willker also has this comment:
B. Aland (Festschrift Delobel, 2002) notes: "Because P104 has been copied so accurately and correct, it is improbable that the scribe made this reading up, but found it already in his exemplar. Thus the omission is very early. Verse 44 could even be a secondary addition from Lk 20:18, added at the wrong place."
Because Mt 21:44 and Lk 20:18 are very close parallels it is highly likely that they have a single source. As there is no known omission of Lk 20:18 it seems likely that Mt 21:44 is not original, and that P104 is witness to an early form of this passage. As the parable of the husbandmen almost entirely Triple Tradition material (with the exception of Mt 21:43-44) there no is reason to suggest that P104 might contain part of the text of Q, or of any other hypothesized SS.
P110 is another small fragment of a single leaf of papyrus, as shown here. It contains portions of Mt 10:13-14 on the verso and Mt 10:25-27 on the recto, all of which are part of the mission of the twelve.
MATTHEW LUKE MARK
[Mt 10:11-12 DT Lk 10:8, 5 -]
Mt 10:13 DT Lk 10:6 -
Mt 10:14 DT Lk 10:10-11 // 9:5 (Doublet) Mk 6:11ab
[Mt 10:15-16 DT Lk 10:12, 3 -
Mt 10:17-18 TT Lk 21:12-13 Mk 13:9
Mt 10:19-20 TT Lk 12:11-12 // 21:14-15 (Doublet) Mk 13:11
Mt 10:21-22 TT Lk 21:16-17 Mk 13:12-13
Mt 10:23 SMt - -
Mt 10:24a DT Lk 6:40a -
Mt 10:24b SMt - -]
Mt 10:25a DT Lk 6:40b -
Mt 10:25b SMt - -
Mt 10:26-27 DT Lk 12:2-3 -
[Mt 10:28-29 DT Lk 12:4-6 -]
The only significant variant in P110 is a slight modification to the end of Mt 10:14, possibly as a harmonization to Mt 10:11.
Of the five verses of P110 that are extant, three (Mt 10:13, 26-27) are part of the Double Tradition, and one, Mt 10:14, appears to be part of the Triple Tradition, with parallels at Lk 9:5 // 10:10-11 (a doublet) and Mk 6:11ab. However, Mt 10:14-15 and Lk 10:10-12 are considered to be part of the Double Tradition, with Mk 6:11 being likely to be the source of Lk 9:5.
Of the non-extant verses most likely to have originally been present on the same leaf Mt 10:11-12, 16, 24, 28-29 are also part of the Double Tradition, Mt 10:17-18, 20-22 are part of the Triple Tradition, and Mt 10:23 has no parallel. Mt 10:19 has parallels at Lk 12:11-12 // 21:14-15 (a doublet), with Mt 10:19-20 and Lk 12:11-12 being part of the Double Tradition and Mk 13:11-12 most likely to be the source of Lk 21:14-15.
Assuming that the non-extant verses of P110 contained Matthean text, then all of the extant verses and most of the non-extant verses of this leaf of papyrus were part of the Double Tradition, even though of Mt 10:23-25 only Mt 10:24a and 25a have parallels (at Lk 6:40a and b respectively). The remaining non-extant verses (Mt 10:17-22) are Triple Tradition material with obvious parallels at Lk 21:12-17 and Mk 13:9-13. However, although Mt 10:19-20 have parallels at Lk 21:14-15, the parallels at Lk 12:11-12 are much closer, and together with Lk 21:14-15 constitute a doublet.
As it stands the content of the extant portion of P110 is consistent with a slightly expanded version of Q, and the Double Tradition and Sondergut Mt verses in the non-extant portions of the leaf at least partially support this determination. However, the six Triple Tradition verses at Mt 10:17-22 are problematic, although there is no specific barrier to having Triple Tradition verses in either ans expanded version of Q or a different SS, with the doublet at Lk 12:11-12 // 21:14-15 suggesting that this is a combination of Double Tradition text (Mt 10:19-20, Lk 12:11-12) and with Mk 13:11 being the source of Lk 21:14-15.
P7 is a very fragmentary part of a leaf of papyrus containing portions of Lk 4:1-3 (no more has been identified. See here).
The Matthean and Lukan versions of the temptation are much longer than the Markan version, with only Mt 4:1-2 and Lk 4:1b-2 having parallels in Mark, and are considered to be part of the Double Tradition. There are also several variants in Mk 1:13 that suggest that these verses may have been assimilated to the versions in Matthew and Luke, and it is conceivable that P7 could be a portion of a copy of Q, or perhaps another SS, containing the Matthean / Lukan version of The Temptation.
P69 contains small portions of a single leaf of papyrus currently containing text from Luke 22:41, 45-48, and 58-61, as shown here.
LUKE MATTHEW MARK
[Lk 22:39-40 TT Mt 26:30,36a Mk 14:26,32a]
Lk 22:41 TT Mt 26:39a Mk 14:35a
Lk 22:45b-47 TT Mt 40-41a,47,49,48 Mk 14:37-38a,43,45,44
Lk 22:48 DT Mt 14:50a -
[Lk 22:49-50 TT Mt 26:50b-51 Mk 14:46-47
Lk 22:51 DT Mt 26:52 -
Lk 22:52-57 TT Mt 26:55,57a,58,69-70 Mk 14:48-49a, 53a,54,66-68]
Lk 22:58-61 TT Mt 26:71b-75a Mk 14:69-72b
[Lk 22:62-63 TT Mt 26:75b,67a Mk 14:72c,65a]
P69 never contained Lk 22:43-44 (as also in P75, B, W, and several other mss), but it also never included Lk 22:42, and possibly even the beginning of Lk 22:45 (Lk 22:43-45a are unique to Lk). Claire Clivaz believes that this should be taken as a new (and possibly Marcionite) reading of this prayer, and Willker provides a detailed analysis of the omission, writing:
In P69 (3rd CE, POxy 2383) also verse 42 is omitted. Due to the fragmentary state of the papyrus the text is not completely safe. After verse 41 it continues probably with verse 45 καὶ ἀναστὰς … Possibly this indicates a secondary deletion in the exemplar of P69?
Wasserman notes that: “the Alands categorized P69 as a "very free text, characteristic of precursors of the D-text””.
Lk 22:52-57 does not have any parallels to both Mk 14:49b-52, 53b, 55-65 and Mt 26:56, 57b, 59-68. Some of these verses have no parallel anywhere in Luke, while others have parallels later in Lk 22:
No parallels in Lk: Mk 14:49b-52,53b,55-59 and Mt 26:56,57b,59-61,63a,66
Lk 22:63-64: Parallels to Mk 14:65 and Mt 26:67-68
Lk 22:65-66a: No parallels
Lk 22:66b-71: Parallels to Mk 14:60-64 and Mt 26:62-66
There is no possibility that parallels to any of these verses could have fitted into P69 anywhere between Lk 22:48 and Lk 22:58, so (assuming that P69 originally extended that far) it is likely that that in P69 Lk 22:63-71 were positioned as we see them in Luke. The omission of Lk 22:42-44 (and possibly also 45a) could suggest that this was the original reading here, but as almost all the verses likely to have originally been present in the extant leaf of P69 are Triple Tradition material, it seems unlikely that P69 was part of a copy of either an expanded version of Q or any other SS, although the text may be a precursor of the D-text, as noted above.
P111 is a small fragment of a single leaf of papyrus containing portions of a few lines of Lk 17:11-13 on the verso and Lk 17:22-23 on the recto, as shown here.
LUKE MATTHEW MARK
[Lk 17:9-10 SLk - -]
Lk 17:11-13 SLk - -
[Lk 17:14-21 SLk - -]
Lk 17:22-23 SLk - -
[Lk 17:24 DT Mt 24:27 -
Lk 17:25 SLk - -]
As Lk 17:7-23, 25 have no parallels in either Mark or Matthew, and Lk 17:24, 26-27 have parallels in Matthew only, all the text likely to have been originally present on this leaf is either Sondergut Luke or Double Tradition material, and for this reason it is possible that P111 could be a fragment of a copy of an expanded version of Q or some other SS. However, if this were the case then aMatthew chose not to include the parable of the unprofitable servants, the healing of the ten lepers, and at least part of the coming of the kingdom, all of which we see as being unique to Luke..
Where there is absence of evidence for something that has been hypothesized to exist (or have existed) there is a perhaps natural tendency to explain the absence in terms of what we do know to exist or have existed. For example, because no evidence of the existence of Q or any other second source (SS) has been recognized as such, it is perhaps natural to deny the possibility of its existence in favor of a synoptic hypothesis that does not depend on it, for example the Farrer theory / MwQH (Mark without Q hypothesis). However, it is possible there is evidence of Q or SS, but it has been misinterpreted. In particular, although it has been assumed that the fragmentary New Testament papyri were originally part of larger documents other early copies of which still exist (e.g. the gospels), there is the possibility that at least some of them were instead part of something else.
If aMatthew and aLuke made use of a second source in addition to Mark, then it is likely that it contained some or all of the material common to Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark (this is exactly the function of Q in the Mark-Q hypothesis). However, it seems improbable that such a SS would contain this common material and nothing more, i.e. that neither author chose to include something from SS that the other omitted, and that there was nothing in SS that both authors chose to omit. It also seems improbable that there would be no overlap between Mark and SS, which would make it possible for aMatthew and aLuke to select different versions of what we think of as a Markan pericope, one from Mark, and the other from SS. In the case of Q this phenomenon is referred to as a Mark-Q Overlap, and it is accepted that some overlaps between Mark and Q are a necessary part of the Mark-Q Hypothesis.
P1 is perhaps the simplest papyrus to analyze, as it contains verses we see in Matthew that have no known parallel in any other document. It is certainly not part of SS: The text cannot have either Mark or Luke as its source, and the equivalent (likely later) text in Luke is very different, although the subject matter is the same. Although P1 is generally thought of as the beginning of what was originally the whole of Matthew, it could instead be a witness to the source of a genealogy and infancy narrative that was added to other material, so later becoming Matthew 1.
The above analyses of P37 and P103 suggest the possibility that for at least part of their texts aMatthew followed Mark, while aLuke followed a shorter version of the text, which could suggest that he used SS. However, there are alternative explanations for what we see in these two papyri: ALuke may have simply edited what he saw in Mark (and possibly also Matthew) to create a much shorter version of the text, or he may have used a damaged copy of Mark that did not include some of the text that aMatthew saw. In either case, aLuke then either ignored the version of the text in Matthew, or simply did not know it.
The analysis suggests that P7 could be a witness to the text of a portion of Q, and P35, P77, P86, p101, P111, and (possibly) P110 could be witnesses to the text of portions of an expanded version of Q. Alternatively, these papyri could instead be witnesses to the text of a different second source that may not meet the criteria of Q.
This analysis simply raises some possibilities. Because of the very small portions of text in these papyri there is nothing here that can be considered to be conclusive. If you do not already believe in a synoptic hypothesis that includes a second source used by aMatthew and aLuke (whether Q, a later development of Mark, an early from of Luke, or anything else) this is unlikely to change your mind. However, if you do already believe in a second source, then this may prompt you to consider whether fragments of that second source have been ‘hiding in plain sight’ for several decades, and in some cases not far short of a century..
Bigg, Howard C.: The Present State of the Q Hypothesis, Vox Evangelica 18 (1988): 63-73
Bogs, Christopher R.: Q on the Chopping Block: Dissent in the Synoptic Problem
Boyd, Gregory A: Cynic Sage or SON OF GOD?: Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies, 2010
Clivaz, Claire: The Angel and the Sweat like "Drops of Blood" (Lk 22:43-44): P69 and f13, Oct 2005, and “A Sweat like Drops of Blood” (Luke 22:44): at the Crossing of Intertextual Reading and Textual Criticism
Colwell, Ernest: Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits, 1969
Comfort, Philip W., and Barrett, David P. (ed):The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, Tyndale, 2001
Dennert, Brian C.: John the Baptist and the Jewish Setting of Matthew, Mohr Siebeck, 2015
Goodacre, Mark: Taking Our Leave of Mark - Q Overlaps: Major Agreements in Matthew 3.7-12 // Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17 in "Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis,” and Mark-Q Overlaps II: Major Agreements Between Matthew and Luke
Hadley, Sean C.: Problems with Q: a Brief History of Source Criticism & the Gospels - www.academia.edu
Head, Peter M: The Early Text of Mark in The Early Text of the New Testament: Hill, Charles E and Kruger, Michael J, Ed. – 2012, and Not a Marcionite Manuscript
Hurtado, L.W.: The Early New Testament Papyri: A Survey of Their Significance, and P45 and the Textual History of the Gospel of Mark - 2010 (University of Edinburgh)
Ingolfstand, Dennis: KLOPPENBORG’S STRATIFICATION OF Q AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR HISTORICAL JESUS STUDIES - 2003
Jones, Brice C.: The Mysterious Flyleaf of P.Oxy. 2 (P1): An Odd Gospel Title – 4/5/2014
Kirby, Peter: The Lost Sayings Gospel Q and The Existence of Q - Early Christian Writings - 2017
Kloppenborg, John S.: Q, The Earliest Gospel – An introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus, and a review by Brandon Smith, also Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel - 2000
Kloppenborg, John, et al. (ed): The Critical Edition of Q - Fortress, 2000
Mack, Burton: The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins - 1994
Neirynck, Frans: The Reconstruction of Q’ in ‘The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus,’ Andreas Lindemann, ed - 2001
Palmer, David Robert: Table of N.T. Greek Manuscripts
Passantino, Bob and Gretchen: The Mysterious Case of the Missing Q - 2002
Powell, Evan: The Weak Case for the Existence of Q and Essays on the Historical Jesus: 4. The Imaginary Q
Robinson, James M., Hoffman, Paul, Kloppenborg, John S.: The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English, edited from ‘The Critical Edition of Q’, 2001.Tuckett Christopher M.: Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q - T&T Clark International, 2004, and From the Sayings to the Gospels - Mohr Siebeck, 2014
Tuckett Christopher M.: Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q - T&T Clark International, 2004, and From the Sayings to the Gospels - Mohr Siebeck, 2014
Wallace, Daniel B.: Do Manuscripts of Q Still Exist?, 2013
Wasserman, Tommy: P.Oxy. 2383 (P69) and Theological Concerns
Willker, Wieland: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels - Fragmentary Papyri, also Matthew and Luke
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM)
English text of Q as specified by the IQP - The International Q Project, 2001, also The Critical Text of Q from 1996 (showing uncertain text)
List of New Testament papyri (Wikipedia)
Table of N.T. Greek Manuscripts (Palmer, David Robert)