Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

A thematic link between paired passages is readily apparent in A and B, and closer study shows the same for C, E, and F2/3.

“In A and B, a thematic link between the paired passages is readily apparent even from the outline above, and closer investigation shows that this is also the case with C, E and F/.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

This framework material corresponds closely to Luke's Sermon on the Plain, which corresponds closely to Q in both sequence and content.

“This framework material corresponds closely to Luke's Sermon on the Plain, which in turn corresponds closely to Q in both sequence and content.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The parallelism extends into the passage on the Coming One.

“The parallelism extends into the passage on the Coming One that follows.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Kümmel's argument that Luke could not have shattered Matthew's Sermon on the Mount has done more than any other to establish the prima facie plausibility of Q.

“This familiar argument has perhaps done more than any other to establish a sense of the prima facie plausibility of Q.”

• cites W. G. KümmelNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Kümmel assumes a later evangelist would inevitably wish to reproduce the Sermon on the Mount in more or less its Matthean form.

“First, Kümmel assumes that a later evangelist would inevitably wish to reproduce the Sermon on the Mount in his own work, in more or less its Matthean form.”

• cites W. G. KümmelNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The later evangelists often omit material from Mark, and speculating about their motives is rarely fruitful.

“The later evangelists often omit material from Mark, and speculating about their motives is rarely fruitful.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Q has a secure place in the dominant account of synoptic origins established in the later nineteenth century.

“Q has a secure place within an account of synoptic origins that established itself in the later nineteenth century, and that has remained dominant ever since.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Minor agreements against Mark in the baptism accounts are slight but not negligible.

“Minor agreements against Mark are again slight but not negligible.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The Q framework material consists of five items: four beatitudes; sayings on love of enemies, non-resistance and the Golden Rule; the warning against judging with the mote and beam; the passage on good and bad trees and their fruits; and the parable of the two houses introduced by 'Why do you call me Lord, Lord...?'.

“The framework material consists in the followingο five items:”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

In the temptation narrative, Matthew and Luke incorporate different elements from the brief Markan version into the much fuller Q version.

“In the temptation narrative, however, they incorporate different elements from the brief Markan version into the much fuller Q version, which completes this text's opening narrative sequence.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

At the point where Matthew and Luke first make contact with Mark and Q, a tendency to proceed in parallel is already evident in their independent decision to supplement Mark with birth stories.

“At the point where the later evangelists first make contact with these two sources, a tendency to proceed in parallel has already become evident in their independent decision to supplement Mark with birth stories.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

In the first three cases (A, B, C), Luke created a wholly new juxtaposition, as the dispersal of the original Matthean enumeration shows.

“In the first three cases (A B C), an entirely new juxtaposition is created, as the dispersal of our original Matthean enumeration indicates”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The Sermon on the Mount follows the Q Sermon only in the outline it shares with Luke, and is expanded with Q and non-Q material drawn from elsewhere.

“The Sermon on the Mount follows the Q Sermon only in the outline it shares with Luke, and it is expanded with Q and non-Q material drawn in from elsewhere.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In the introductory passage, Matthew and Luke conflate Mark and Q and supplement it with the Q judgment oracle, which they both cite almost verbatim.

“In the introductory passage, they choose to conflate elements of Mark with elements of Q, and they supplement this passage with the Q judgment oracle which they both cite almost verbatim.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Matthew and Luke provide similar accounts of the beginnings of Jesus' ministry; under the Q hypothesis, the similarities derive from their independent use of Mark and Q.

“Matthew and Luke provide similar accounts of the beginnings of Jesus' ministry, and-according to the Q hypothesis-the similarities derive from their independent use of both Mark and Q.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Both evangelists prefer the longer Q format, though Luke is also influenced by Markan wording.

“Both evangelists prefer the longer Q format, although Luke is also influenced by the Markan wording.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The Sermon on the Mount contains two types of Q material: framework material also found in the Lukan Sermon on the Plain and the underlying Q text in much the same sequence as Matthew; and supplementary material drawn from Q contexts that may still be preserved in Luke.

“It therefore contains two types of Q material: framework material also found in the Lukan Sermon on the Plain and the underlying Q text, in much the same sequence as in Matthew; and supplementary material drawn from Q contexts that may still be preserved in Luke.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little since B. H. Streeter.

“Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little since B. H. Streeter.”

• cites B. H. StreeterNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

There is an equally striking parallelism between Q and Mark.

“The other equally striking parallelism is between Q and Mark.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

A related anomaly concerns Luke's version of Jesus' true family.

“Fifth, a related anomaly arises from Luke's version of x {Jesus' true family}.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

After the opening narrative, Luke places common-sequence items in only two major groups, all later relative to Mark than in Matthew.

“Third, after the opening narrative sequence Luke incorporates items from the common sequence in just two major groupings, and these items all occur at a later point relative to Mark than in Matthew.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Luke's beatitudes bless the poor and the hungry now, while Matthew's bless the poor in spirit and those hungering for righteousness.

“In Luke, Jesus pronounces blessings on 'you poor' and 'you who hunger now' (Luke .-).In Matthew, he blesses 'the poor in spirit' and 'those who hunger and thirst for righteousness' (Matt ., ).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Matthew groups some common-sequence items but disperses them more widely through overlapping Markan sequences, and incorporates all by Mark's parable chapter.

“While some grouping occurs in Matthew, common sequence items are more widely dispersed through the evangelist's overlapping Markan sequences; and all have been incorporated by the point at which Matthew reaches Mark's parable chapter (Matt  = Mark ).”

Probably not a substantial claim.

This recalls the Markan true-family passage that Luke already reproduced in Luke 8.19-21.

“This recalls the Markan passage on Jesus' true family (Mark .-), which Luke has already reproduced (Luke .-).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In both true-family passages, a reference to Jesus' mother provokes his saying, and he commends those who hear and obey God's word.

“In both passages, Jesus' saying is provoked by a reference to his mother (with or without his brothers), and in both he responds by commending instead those who hear and obey the word of God.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Two of the three Markan-connected items also belong to Matthew's primary Markan sequence and mark points where Markan and non-Markan sequences converge.

“Surprisingly, two of these three simultaneously belong to Matthew's primary Markan sequence, and represent points where Markan and non-Markan sequences converge.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Because the sequence ends with the Sign of Jonah, the sequel to the Beelzebul controversy is the Return of unclean spirit.

“Since the sequence here concludes with viii Sign of Jonah, the sequel to vii {Beelzebul controversy} is now, appropriately enough, ix Return of unclean spirit.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Luke has the first three of these four expansions and puts the story not in its Markan location but in the sequence shared with Matthew.

“Luke attests the first three of these four expansions, and he places this story not in the appropriate location in his Markan sequence (that is, at Luke .) but within the sequence shared with Matthew.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Matthew inserts supplementary material into the Beelzebul controversy: a new introduction and sayings on exorcistic power, being for or against Jesus, and defaming the Son of man and the Holy Spirit.

“As with the other Markan controversy stories in Matthew , the later evangelist inserts supplementary material here, in the form of a new introduction (.-) and sayings relating to the source of exorcistic power (.-), being for or against Jesus (.) and defaming the Son of man and the Holy Spirit (.).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

A possible candidate for alternating primitivity appears at the beginning of the Inaugural Sermon.

“One possible candidate occurs at the very outset of the Inaugural Sermon.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

By adding woes, Luke produced antitheses: poor/rich, hungry/satisfied, weeping/laughing, hatred/esteem.

“By adding the woes, he has created a set of antitheses: poor/rich, hungry/satisfied, weeping/laughing, hatred/esteem (Luke .-).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In both later gospels, the common sequence is superimposed on the Markan one, and about 40% of double-tradition material lies within it.

“In both later gospels, this entire common sequence has been superimposed on the Markan one, and around % of the 'double tradition' material occurs within it.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Most of these ten items are non-Markan, but three show signs of a Markan connection.

“Most of these item are non-Markan, but three of them show signs of a Markan connection (= { }, below).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

In Matthew, the equivalent sequel is the fruitbearing passage, which Matthew connects to the blasphemy-against-the-Spirit sayings ending his Beelzebul account.

“In Matthew, the equivalent sequel is provided by the passage on fruitbearing (Matt .-), which this evangelist connects to the twin sayings on blasphemy against the Spirit that conclude his account of the Beelzebul controversy.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Luke has two passages on this theme, similar enough to form a doublet.

“Thus Luke includes two passages on this theme, and they are similar enough to comprise a 'doublet'.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

In Luke 11.27-28, Jesus blesses those who hear God's word and keep it, after a woman blesses his mother.

“Here, Jesus blesses 'those who hear the word of God and keep it', in response to a woman in the crowd who pronounces a blessing on his mother (.-).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The remaining 60% of double-tradition material is distributed differently: mainly in Matthew's great discourses and mainly in Luke 11.33-17.37, beginning where the common sequence ends.

“This is to be differentiated from the remaining % of this material which is differently distributed: in Matthew, primarily in the great discourses (Matt -; , ; -); in Luke, primarily in .-.,starting from the very point at which the common sequence ends.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Items iii-vi occur consecutively in Matt 9.35-11.27, while i-ii and vii-x occur in contexts determined by the first Markan sequence, to which two of them already belong.

“Items iii-vi occur consecutively in Matt .-.,but i-ii and vii-x occur within contexts determined by the first Markan sequence (= Mark .-.), to which indeed two of them already belong (vii {Beelzebul controversy} and x {Jesus' true family}).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Matthew, Jesus' true family appears in Markan form and within the primary Markan sequence.

“In Matthew, x {Jesus' true family} occurs in a Markan form and within the primary Markan sequence.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The redactional procedures consequent on both Q and Luke's use of Matthew must both be reconstructed and compared if Q is to be rigorously assessed.

“The redactional procedures consequent on both Q and Luke's use of Matthew must both be reconstructed and compared if the Q hypothesis is to be rigorously assessed.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

There seems no reason to doubt that a plausible account of the Matthean redaction would come to light.

“There seems no reason to doubt that a plausible account of the Matthean redaction would come to light.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Both hypotheses generate accounts of redactional procedure that involve omissions, and speculation about motives will usually be inconclusive.

“Both hypotheses generate accounts of redactional procedure that involve omissions, and speculation about motives will usually be inconclusive.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

In the opening narrative sequence, Q provides the two judgment oracles, gives way to Mark's baptism and Spirit descent, and reappears in the extended temptation narrative.

“Almost imperceptible in the introductory passage, Q provides the later evangelists with the two judgment oracles, gives way to Mark's account of Jesus' baptism and the descent of the Spirit and reappears in the extended temptation narrative.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

A Q introduction is required not only to account for minor agreements but also to prepare for the following passage.

“A Q introduction is required not just to account for the minor agreements, however, but also to prepare for the passage that follows.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

A later evangelist must reshape, omit or supplement source material to produce a genuinely new gospel.

“A later evangelist must reshape, omit or supplement source material if he is to produce a genuinely new gospel at all.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

If Q needed such a passage, Matthew and Luke independently prefer Mark to Q at this point.

“If so, Matthew and Luke independently prefer Mark to Q at this point.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

A successful hypothesis attains fact-like status.

“If it is successful in this regard, it will have attained the fact-like status to which it aspires.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

If Q is a hypothesis, Markan priority is also a hypothesis.

“If Q is a 'hypothesis', so too is Markan priority.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The Q hypothesis is verified only if it yields a more plausible account of the Matthean and Lukan redaction of Mark and Q than the L/M hypothesis yields of Luke's use of Mark and Matthew.

“The Q hypothesis will have been verified if (and only if) it generates a more plausible account of the Matthean and Lukan redaction of Mark and Q than the corresponding account of Luke's use of Mark and Matthew.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

On the L/M hypothesis, the five framework items and thirteen supplementary items take on a different significance.

“On the L/M hypothesis, the five framework items and thirteen supplementary items, listed above, take on a different significance.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

If Mark and Q are independent, then both pairs in the two-source hypothesis-Mark/Q and Matthew/Luke-give similar accounts of the beginnings of Jesus' ministry.

“If these two texts are independent of each other, as Matthew and Luke are supposed to be, then both the pairings that comprise the classic two-source hypothesis-Mark and Q, Matthew and Luke-give similar accounts of the beginnings of Jesus' ministry, proceeding in mysterious harmony like the four living creatures in Ezekiel's vision.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Luke would not have known this material as 'the Sermon on the Mount', and it is anachronistic to imagine he would necessarily share modern reverence for it.

“But Luke would not have known this material as 'the Sermon on the Mount', and it is anachronistic to imagine that he would necessarily have shared the modern reverence for it.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Given that Matthew and Luke otherwise agree here in their additions to Mark, Streeter's assumption must be that their disagreement elsewhere overrides their agreement here.

“Given that Matthew and Luke otherwise agree here in their additions to Mark, Streeter's assumption must be that their disagreement elsewhere is such as to override their agreement here.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

If Q best explains the rest of the double tradition, it makes sense to extend the hypothesis even into material that does not display the all-important disagreement.

“If Q represents the best explanation for the rest of the 'double tradition', however, it makes sense to extend the hypothesis even into material that does not display the all-important disagreement.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Q is the product of arguments such as those associated with Streeter and others.

“Q is the product of arguments such as these.”

• cites B. H. StreeterNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Matthew deviates further from Mark than Luke does, perhaps deriving from Q the reference to 'carrying' sandals rather than 'undoing' them.

“Matthew deviates further from Mark than does Luke, perhaps deriving from Q the reference to 'carrying' sandals rather than 'undoing' them.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

If Q is a hypothesis requiring critical testing, it is not sufficient simply to describe the Matthean redaction as though Q were an extant document.

“If Q is a hypothesis, however, requiring critical testing as such, it is not sufficient simply to describe the Matthean redaction as though Q were an extant document.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Each hypothesis entails an account of a consequent redactional procedure that should be possible to retrace.

“Each hypothesis entails an account of a consequent redactional procedure which it should be possible to retrace.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

It is inadequate merely to assert without argument that on the L/M hypothesis Luke's placement of double tradition would be difficult to account for, and to found a new document on that assertion.

“It is inadequate merely to assert without argument that, on the L/M hypothesis 'it would be difficult to account for the fact that Luke's placement of the double tradition differs almost entirely from that of Matthew'-and to found a whole new document of primitive Christianity on that assertion.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.

On the L/M hypothesis, the thirteen Q items inserted into the Sermon on the Mount would be redescribed as items extracted from the Sermon on the Mount by Luke and reincorporated later in his gospel.

“On that view, the thirteen Q items inserted into the Sermon on the Mount would have to be redescribed as items extracted from the Sermon on the Mount by Luke, and reincorporated at later points in his gospel.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.

The L/M hypothesis is supposedly at its weakest at this point.

“It is at this point that the L/M hypothesis is supposedly at its weakest.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

If parallelism without dependence can exist between Matthew and Luke, perhaps it can also exist between Mark and Q.

“But if parallelism without dependence can exist on the second tier (Matthew and Luke), perhaps it can also exist on the first (Mark and Q).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Dispensing with modern scholarly hypotheses would require treating the gospels as purely ahistorical, synchronic parallel texts whose interrelationship should not be further investigated.

“If we are to dispense with modern scholarly hypotheses, we would have to rethink the gospels in purely ahistorical, synchronic terms, as parallel texts whose interrelationship should not be further investigated.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Any hypothesis must demonstrate its superiority over its rivals.

“Any hypothesis must demonstrate its superiority over its rivals.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The L/M hypothesis accounts for a single redaction and does not need the coincidental parallelism required by Q.

“The L/M hypothesis seeks to account for a single rather than a double redaction, and has no need of the coincidental parallelism required by the Q hypothesis.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

To test Q, one should first reconstruct the redactional procedure the evangelist would have to follow in redistributing parts of the Matthean Sermon to later points in his gospel.

“In order to test the Q hypothesis, we should first reconstruct the redactional procedure the evangelist would have to follow in redistributing parts of the Matthean Sermon to later points in his own gospel.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Q's status as a hypothesis is not in itself a problem.

“For Q to be a hypothesis is not in itself a problem.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

A systematic investigation of Q must compare the redactional procedures entailed by both Q and L/M hypotheses, because the alleged implausibility of L/M creates the need for Q.

“A systematic investigation of the Q hypothesis would have to compare the redactional procedures entailed by both the Q and the L/M hypotheses, since it is the alleged implausibility of the latter that creates the need for the former.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The double redactional procedure entailed in the Q hypothesis requires both Matthew and Luke independently to make broadly similar choices.

“We already note that the double redactional procedure entailed in the Q hypothesis requires both later evangelists independently to make broadly similar choices.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Oral tradition may influence a later evangelist's handling of an earlier text, but the relationship can and must still be described in literary, redaction-critical terms.

“Oral tradition may influence a later evangelist's handling of an earlier text, but it is still possible and necessary to describe the relationship in literary, redaction-critical terms.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The Q hypothesis entails a whole series of similar yet independent redactional moves by Matthew and Luke.

“As we shall see, the Q hypothesis entails a whole series of similar yet independent redactional moves on the part of Matthew and Luke.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

On the L/M hypothesis, the framework items represent the Lukan reduction of the Matthean Sermon to around a third of its original compass.

“The framework items-four beatitudes; sayings on love of enemies, judging and fruitbearing; the parable of the two houses-now represent the Lukan reduction of the Matthean Sermon to around a third of its original compass.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

That would revert to a pre-Enlightenment and pre-Augustinian perspective.

“That would be to revert not only to a pre-Enlightenment but also to a pre-Augustinian perspective.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Once that hypothetical redactional procedure is established, one may raise the question of motivation, seeking a possible redactional logic within the new juxtapositions.

“Once this hypothetical redactional procedure has been established, we may then raise the question of 'motivation', seeking a possible redactional logic within the new juxtapositions.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Little if anything should be read into an omission.

“But little if anything should be read into an omission.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Kümmel's question about motivation is premature.

“Second, Kümmel's question about 'motivation' is premature.”

• cites W. G. KümmelNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Other phraseology unique to Matthew or Luke may also derive from Q, though lack of agreement makes identification difficult.

“Other phraseology, unique to Matthew or Luke, may also be derived from Q, though the lack of agreement with the other evangelist makes it difficult to identify as such.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.

Streeter claimed that after the Temptation story there is no case where Matthew and Luke agree in inserting the same saying at the same point in the Marcan outline.

“In response to 'the obvious suggestion that Luke knew Matthew's Gospel', Streeter claimed that, 'subsequent to the Temptation story, there is not a single case in which Matthew and Luke agree in inserting the same saying at the same point in the Marcan outline'.”

• cites Streeter, The Four Gospels, 183Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Q is premised on the unlikelihood that either later evangelist depended on the other in addition to Mark.

“since Q is premised on the unlikelihood that either of the later evangelists is dependent on the other in addition to Mark.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Matthew expands Mark's Beelzebul account as he does other Markan controversy stories, but the Matthean text gives little indication that he had a second full version.

“Matthew expands Mark's account of the Beelzebul controversy, as he expands other Markan controversy stories, but there is little in the Matthean text itself to suggest that the evangelist has at his disposal a second version of the entire story.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Luke first rewrites a Markan sequence and then adds selected supplementary material from Matthew.

“Luke first rewrites a Markan sequence, and then incorporates selected supplementary material from Matthew.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Q still must show that its redactional procedure is more plausible than the straightforward L/M procedure.

“But it remains a challenge for the Q hypothesis to show why its own consequent redactional procedure is more plausible than the straightforward one entailed in the L/M hypothesis.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In the true-family case, Luke followed both Matthew and Mark, reworking the Markan version in his Markan sequence and the Matthean version in the common sequence from Matthew.

“In the other case, he has followed Matthew as well as Mark, reworking the Markan version within his Markan sequence (Luke .-) and the Matthean version (itself dependent on Mark) within the common sequence derived from Matthew (Luke .-).”

Probably not a substantial claim.

If neither evangelist can depend on the other, a common source is the only option.

“The proximity is such that, if one evangelist cannot be dependent on the other, a common source is the only option.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The whole construction of Matthew 3-12 is shaped by the decision to merge the two sequences at their points of coincidence.

“The construction of Matthew - in its entirety is shaped by the decision that the two sequences should meet and merge at their otherwise inconspicuous points of coincidence.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Weisse observed that much of Schleiermacher's logia material recurs in Luke, so Luke depends on the same source as Matthew.

“Weisse makes the simple observation that much of the material in Schleiermacher's logia recurs in Luke, who is therefore dependent on the same source as Matthew”

• cites WeisseNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

For Q, refuting L/M is a prerequisite, and analyzing the redactional procedures of both hypotheses is indispensable for assessing Q.

“In the case of Q, refutation of the L/M hypothesis is a prerequisite, and a full analysis of the redactional procedure consequent upon both hypotheses is therefore indispensable for the critical assessment of Q itself.”

The quote only partly states this claim.

We must posit two independent sequences, Markan and Q, in both of which the Beelzebul controversy is followed by a true-family incident.

“So we must envisage two independent sequences, one from Mark, the other from Q, in both of which an account of the Beelzebul controversy is followed”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Two of these sequences are Markan and result from Matthew allowing Mark 1.40-4.34 and 4.35-6.6 to overlap.

“Two of these are Markan, and they are the result of Matthew's decision to allow the sequences Mark .-.and .-. to overlap in his own rendering of them.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Matthew conflates Markan and non-Markan sequences, while Luke preserves their separate integrity.

“Matthew seeks to conflate his Markan and non-Markan sequences, whereas Luke seeks to preserve their individual integrity.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Luke's grouping makes the Markan sequence clearer in Luke than in Matthew, though it is equally basic to both.

“As a result of Luke's grouping of common sequence material, the Markan sequence stands out more clearly in Luke than in Matthew, even though it is equally fundamental to both evangelists.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

L/M requires Luke to identify non-Markan material in Matthew only after rendering the Markan context from Mark alone.

“The hypothesis requires Luke to be able to identify non-Markan material in Matthew, but to do so only after he has given his own rendering of the Markan context in which Matthew has located it, on the basis of Mark's narrative alone.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

It is methodologically important to rule out the alternative possibility only after trying and failing to make a case for it.

“While this is certainly possible, it is methodologically important to exclude the alternative possibility only when one has attempted and failed to make a case for it.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Weisse concluded that Mark and Matthew's sayings collection were both common sources.

“Thus Weisse is led to the conclusion that '[n]icht nur Marcus ist beiden gemeinschaftliche Quelle, sondern, unserer bestimmtesten Ueberzeugung nach, auch die Spruchsammlung des Matthäus'”

• cites WeisseNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Luke's consistent grouping of Q items may preserve their original connections.

“Luke's consistent grouping of items from Q may preserve their original connections.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The earlier placement of Jesus and John in Luke links it more closely to the Baptist material introducing Jesus' ministry.

“Second, the earlier position of iv Jesus and John in Luke connects this passage more closely with the Baptist material that introduces Jesus' own ministry (Luke .- and parallels).”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Support for two earlier sources behind Matthew and Luke comes from the doublets in both.

“Support for the claim that two earlier sources underlie both Matthew and Luke is found in the 'doublets' in both”

• cites WeisseNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Although the Beelzebul controversy is said to occur in Q as well as Mark, in Matthew it stands at the appropriate place in the primary Markan sequence.

“Although the Beelzebul controversy story is said to have occurred in Q as well as Mark, it should be noted that it occurs here at the appropriate position within the primary Markan sequence.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

If Matthew's beatitudes are secondary, Luke's may be primary, but they may equally be tertiary.

“If Matthew's beatitudes are secondary then Luke's may be primary, but they may equally well be tertiary.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Matthew shows these passages belong to his primary Markan sequence, while Luke shows they also belong to the common sequence from Q.

“It is evident from Matthew that these passages belong to the evangelist's primary Markan sequence, and it is evident from Luke that they also belong to the common sequence derived from Q.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

In Q research, supposedly decisive points have often been accepted too readily and circulated without considering the wider framework needed to verify or falsify them.

“Yet the moral of the story of Q research is that supposedly decisive points have been too readily accepted as such, passing into wider circulation without consideration of the wider framework within which they must be either verified or falsified.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The issue is not whether the source existed but what its scope was.

“What is at issue is therefore not the existence of the source (which Weisse like Schleiermacher believes is attested by Papias), but rather its scope.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The issue is not settled simply by noting that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount appears to be a secondary construction.

“The issue is not resolved merely by observing that the Sermon on the Mount appears to be a secondary construction put together by Matthew himself.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The evangelist used at least one source.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Under Q, the non-Markan sequence shared by Matthew and Luke comes from Q, not from Luke's use of Matthew's supplementation of Mark.

“On the Q hypothesis, the non-Markan sequence common to Matthew and Luke is derived from Q, rather than being a Lukan construct derived from Matthew's supplementation of Mark.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

This explains why Matthew's Q material appears so early relative to Mark.

“That is why Matthew's Q material has to occur so early in relation to Mark.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

If those antitheses fit Luke's Gospel, the shorter beatitudes need not be traced back to Q.

“If so, there is no need to trace the beatitudes in their shorter form back to Q.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may state two separate claims as one.

If Luke built his beatitudes from Matthew's, he reapplied ethical beatitudes to the material deprivations of Jesus' disciples.

“If Luke's beatitudes are constructed out of Matthew's, then the later evangelist has reapplied beatitudes relating to ethical qualities to the material deprivations endured by Jesus' disciples.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The preliminary analysis supports Q if the thirteen items are more plausibly understood as supplementing a short Sermon than as extracted from a long one.

“It supports the Q hypothesis if the thirteen items are more plausibly seen as supplementing a short Sermon than as extracted from a long one.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The L/M hypothesis is vulnerable if there are passages where Luke clearly preserves the earlier form.

“The earlier form would then be the Q form; the L/M hypothesis is vulnerable if passages can be identified in which the earlier form is clearly preserved in Luke.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Like the Beelzebul controversy, the true-family passage exists in both a Markan sequence (attested in Matthew) and a non-Markan sequence (attested in Luke).

“Like vii {Beelzebul controversy}, this passage exists simultaneously within a Markan sequence (evidenced in Matthew) and a non-Markan one (evidenced in Luke).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Demonstrating alternating primitivity-where Matthew preserves the earlier form in some passages and Luke in others-is another way the issue might be resolved.

“One other way in which the issue might be resolved is by demonstrating what Mark Goodacre has described as 'alternating primitivity':”

• cites GoodacreNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

The common sequence shared by Matthew and Luke can be used to test the L/M and Q hypotheses.

“This analysis of the sequence common to Matthew and Luke can now be used to test the L/M and Q hypotheses.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

These coincidences occur late in Q and early in Mark, and Matthew uses them to merge the two sequences.

“These points occur late in the Q sequence, early in the Markan one, and the evangelist uses them to create a juncture at which the two sequences merge into one.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The Beelzebul controversy belongs both to Matthew's primary Markan sequence and to the non-Markan sequence shared by Matthew and Luke.

“Thus, this controversy story belongs both within Matthew's rendering of the primary Markan sequence, and within the non-Markan sequence Matthew shares with Luke.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

It was assumed that Luke was completely independent of Matthew, and the need to demonstrate that independence was neglected.

“It is taken for granted that Luke is 'völlig unabhängig' of Matthew (.), and the importance of demonstrating this independence is overlooked.”

• cites WeisseNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.