Editing Marcan priority (section)

==Dependent hypotheses==
[[File:Synoptic Theory Mk-Q en.svg|203px|thumb|The [[two-source hypothesis]], one of several built upon Marcan priority, holds that a hypothetical document (the [[Q source]]) was used as a source by Matthew and Luke independently.]]

If Marcan priority is accepted, the next logical question is how to explain the extensive material, some 200 verses, shared between Matthew and Luke but not found at all in Mark—the ''[[Synoptic Gospels#The double tradition|double tradition]]''. Furthermore, there are hundreds of instances where Matthew and Luke parallel Mark's account but agree against Mark in minor differences—the ''minor agreements''. Different answers to this question give rise to different synoptic hypotheses.{{sfnp|Goodacre|2001|pp=107–108}}

* The most widely accepted hypothesis is the [[two-source hypothesis]], that Matthew and Luke each independently drew from both Mark and another hypothetical source, which scholars have termed the ''[[Q source]]''. This Q, then, was the origin of the double-tradition material, and many of the minor agreements are instances where both Matthew and Luke followed Q's version of a passage rather than Mark's.
* The foremost alternative hypothesis under Marcan priority is the [[Farrer hypothesis]], which postulates that Mark was written first, then Matthew expanded on the text of Mark, and Luke used both Mark and Matthew as source documents (Mark → Matthew → Luke). The double tradition is then simply portions of Matthew that Luke chose to repeat, so there is no need for Q.<ref name=Farrer1955>{{cite book|last=Farrer|first=Austin Marsden|authorlink=Austin Farrer|editor-last=Nineham|editor-first=Dennis Eric|editor-link=Dennis Nineham|title=Studies in the Gospels: essays in memory of R. H. Lightfoot|chapter=On Dispensing with Q|pages=55–88|publisher=Basil Blackwell|location=Oxford|year=1955 |url=http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/farrer.htm}}</ref>
* A hybrid of these two hypotheses is the [[three-source hypothesis]], which posits three sources for Luke: Mark, Q, and Matthew.
* The [[Matthean Posteriority hypothesis]] is similar to the Farrer hypothesis but has Matthew using Luke as a source (Mark → Luke → Matthew), rather than vice versa. This hypothesis has found a resurgence of support during the 2010s and has entered the mainstream of scholarship.<ref name="TSP2022">{{Cite book |title=The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference |publisher=Peeters Pub and Booksellers |year=2023 |isbn=9789042950344 |page={{page needed|date=May 2025}} }}</ref>{{efn|Andrejevs, Joseph, Lupieri, and Verheyden: "In hindsight, it now seems clear that the emergence of the MPH will be cited as one of, if not the defining feature of the 2010s as far as the synoptic studies are concerned…With the highest number of pro- and MPH-leaning contributions published by various authors in one place to date (Garrow, Huggins, Lupieri, MacEwen, Saulina, Tripp), this volume will likely be remembered as the moment the MPH crossed into the mainstream of synoptic studies. Thereby its theorists have made good on the momentum the MPH somewhat unexpectedly generated in the 2010s."<ref name="TSP2022"/>}}
* A final hypothesis holds that Matthew and Luke have no literary relationship beyond their dependence on Mark, but rather each supplemented the triple tradition with oral sources.<ref>{{cite journal | title=The Words of Jesus and the Future of the 'Q' Hypothesis | last=Rosché | first=Theodore R. | journal=Journal of Biblical Literature | year=1960 | volume=79 | issue=3 | pages=210–220 | jstor=3263927 | doi=10.2307/3263927 }}</ref><ref>Cf. {{cite journal | url=http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/q_linnemann.pdf | title=The Lost Gospel Of Q—Fact Or Fantasy? | last=Linnemann | first=Eta | journal=Trinity Journal | year=1996 | volume=17 | issue=1 | pages=3–18 }}</ref> Where these oral sources overlapped with each other, the double tradition arose, and where they overlapped also with Mark, minor agreements arose. This hypothesis, with few supporters, is usually viewed as a variation on the two-source hypothesis, where Q is not a document but a body of oral material, and thus called the [[Q source|oral Q hypothesis]].