Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§4.4 The Flight from Dogma
gether, these features are better explained by Matthew's and Luke's dependence
on a second source already in Greek 80 (Q), rather than by Luke's dependence on
Matthew, Luke having retained the Q material in its Q sequence. 81 In Kummel's
judgment, 'Holtzmann grounded the two source hypothesis so carefully that the
study of Jesus henceforth could not again dispense with this firm base'. 82 This
is almost wholly true in the case of Markan priority, 83 though the Q hypothesis
has never won such wholehearted approval, particularly in English-speaking
scholarship. In particular, with an eye to the present-day debate, we might simply
note here that Streeter's qualifications regarding Q 84 have been given too little
attention.
So far as the 'quest of the historical Jesus' is concerned, the emergence
of the two-source or two-document hypothesis should not be regarded as coincidental.
The case was already being made by C. H. Weisse in 1838. 85 The timing
is significant, since Weisse's contribution followed so closely upon the first
edition of Strauss's Life of Jesus, and was indeed seen by him as an attempt to
meet the challenge posed by Strauss. 86 In other words, the push to find the earliest
source(s) for a life of Jesus was in substantial part a response to Strauss,
an attempt to circumvent the devastating challenge of Strauss and the road
block he had so effectively erected against the use of miracles in the quest. 87
To have identified Mark as the earliest Gospel was in effect to sidestep the old
criticisms of contradiction and inconsistency between Gospel accounts; and Q
80. Here the logic is that the level of word-for-word agreement between Matthew and
Luke (a survey of the common Synoptic tradition immediately encounters Matt. 3.7-10 and
Luke 3.7-9) was unlikely to have been the result of independent translations of an Aramaic
original, and much more likely to result from Matthew and Luke drawing on the same text already
in Greek. See further below chapter 7, n. 29.
81. The case for Luke having retained the order of Q was made most effectively by
Streeter in his contribution to the Oxford Studies ("On the Original Order of Q', 141-64); and
subsequently by V. Taylor, 'The Order of Q' (1954), and 'The Original Order of Q' (1959), reprinted
in his New Testament Essays (London: Epworth, 1970) 90-94, 95-118.
82. New Testament 151.
83. But see again Kloppenborg Verbin's reservations (n. 75 above).
84. Streeter, Gospels 183: (1) 'a substantial portion of the 200 verses in question were
probably derived from some other (oral) source than Q'; (2) some passages from Q were probably
preserved by Matthew only or Luke only; (3) some of the common material may have been
proverbs circulating independently. The author of Q 'wrote to supplement, not to supersede, a
living oral tradition' (229).
85. C. H. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (2
vols., Leipzig, 1838).
86. See Kümmel, New Testament 149-51.
87. This becomes clear also in Holtzmann's introduction to his 1863 volume, as noted
by D. Liihrmann, 'The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection', JBL 108 (1989) 51-71
(here 51).
43