This article is divided into two main sections. The first is an appropriate background for those readers who may not be aware of the similarities and differences between the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. If you understand this already, and are aware of the Q hypothesis, you are welcome to continue to either to a description of detecting the order of plagiarism through jumps in content or continue to the main content. Please note, there are three aspects to this document:

1. The first is a presentation of a graphical means of demonstrating the relationship between the order of pericopes between the synoptic gospels.

2. The  second is an argument to suggest that it is very unlikely that while the authors of Matthew and Luke definitely had access to Mark, they did not have access to each others texts, and thus suggests the existence of a 'Q' document.

3. The last is to see if there is a suggestion of a single 'Q' document, or multiple such documents. I am suggesting there might be evidence to indicate that there may in fact have been multiple documents or pamphlets that were circulating in the early Christian community, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke had used such documents when compiling their gospels.

The last aspect is based on the methodical copying of the authors of Matthew and Luke from Mark, and this is contrasted with the much more chaotic relative ordering of the pericopes that are alleged to have been taken from a Q source. 

​

For those interested, this document shows what I understand to be the common pericopes between the synoptic gospels. This was collated from a number of sources, and I tried as much as possible to confirm some and reject others. The most common pericopes that seem to be conflated are those discussing that divorce is forbidden, except that Matthew copies both from Mark and from Q while Luke only copies from Q.

 

 Background 

It is clear that the authors of Matthew and Luke used the text of Mark as a source, and there are entire pericopes that were copied verbatim or close to verbatim. For example, 

​

Καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελθόντες ἦλθον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος καὶ Ἀνδρέου μετὰ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωάννου. ἡ δὲ πενθερὰ Σίμωνος κατέκειτο πυρέσσουσα, καὶ εὐθὺς λέγουσιν αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτῆς. καὶ προσελθὼν ἤγειρεν αὐτὴν κρατήσας τῆς χειρός· καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁ πυρετός, καὶ διηκόνει αὐτοῖς.

​

Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Πέτρου εἶδεν τὴν πενθερὰν αὐτοῦ βεβλημένην καὶ πυρέσσουσαν· καὶ ἥψατο τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς, καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁ πυρετός, καὶ ἠγέρθη καὶ διηκόνει αὐτῷ.

​

Ἀναστὰς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς συναγωγῆς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος. πενθερὰ δὲ τοῦ Σίμωνος ἦν συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ, καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν περὶ αὐτῆς. καὶ ἐπιστὰς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πυρετῷ, καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτήν· παραχρῆμα δὲ ἀναστᾶσα διηκόνει αὐτοῖς.

​

Mark Goodacre also uses editorial fatigue to demonstrate that the authors of the latter two gospels copied from Mark and not vice versa. Two examples of this include the death of John the Baptist, where in Mark, it is clear that Herod admires John the Baptist:

​

But she could not because Herod stood in awe of John and protected him, since he knew that John was a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard him, he was thoroughly baffled, and yet he liked to listen to John.

​

When Herod Antipas was tricked into beheading John, it is clearly stated that he was frustrated:

 

Although it grieved the king deeply, he did not want to reject her request because of his oath and his guests.

​

In Matthew, however, Herod Antipas feelings towards John the Baptist are opposite those expressed in Mark:

 

Although Herod wanted to kill John, he feared the crowd because they accepted John as a prophet. 

​

Matthew, however, quickly forgets his edits and when tricked into beheading John:

 

Although it grieved the king, because of his oath and the dinner guests he commanded it to be given.

 

Comparing these two verses, an entire phrase is copied verbatim: 

​

καὶ λυπηθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς διὰ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τοὺς συνανακειμένους ἐκέλευσεν δοθῆναι, 

καὶ περίλυπος γενόμενος ὁ βασιλεὺς διὰ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τοὺς ἀνακειμένους οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ἀθετῆσαι αὐτήν·

​

Note also that Matthew copies the error in Mark where Herod Antipas is described as a king (βασιλευ or basilen), a title not given by the Romans to any of the sons of King Herod. When King Herod died in 4 BCE, Herod Antipas was given authority over approximately one quarter the lands of King Herod, and was thus titled a tetrarch together with his brother Phillip who was also given authority over one quarter. The remaining half (Samaria, Judea and  Idumea) went to Herod Archelaus, who was named ethnarch and who was later deposed by the Romans in 6 CE.  

​

As an example of editorial fatigue by the author of Luke, in Mark, we have the following introduction to the feeding of the five thousand:

​

Then the apostles gathered around Jesus and told him everything they had done and taught. He said to them, “Come with me privately to an isolated place and rest a while” (for many were coming and going, and there was no time to eat). So they went away by themselves in a boat to some remote place. But many saw them leaving and recognized them, and they hurried on foot from all the towns and arrived there ahead of them.

​

In Luke, however, this occurs at the town of Bethsaida--hardly an isolated and remote place:

​

When the apostles returned, they told Jesus everything they had done. Then he took them with him and they withdrew privately to a town called Bethsaida. But when the crowds found out, they followed him.

​

Yet, both authors give the same reason for the crowd's hunger:

​

When it was already late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is an isolated place and it is already very late. Send them away so that they can go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy something for themselves to eat.”

​

Now the day began to draw to a close, so the twelve came and said to Jesus, “Send the crowd away, so they can go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and food, because we are in an isolated place.”

​

In Luke, Bethsaida is no longer an isolated place, and if they were next to Bethsaida, would not some, if not all, simply go to that town to purchase food and, perhaps, find lodgings (although, why would they need to find lodgings if they do not seem to have travelled the distance they did in the telling of the story in Mark)?

There are, however, also pericopes that are common between Matthew and Luke that do not appear in Mark, so there must have been a third common source that the two authors of these gospels had:

​

Ἰδὼν δὲ πολλοὺς τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων ἐρχομένους ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα [a]αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς; ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας καὶ μὴ δόξητε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς· Πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν Ἀβραάμ, λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα τῷ Ἀβραάμ. ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται.

​

Ἔλεγεν οὖν τοῖς ἐκπορευομένοις ὄχλοις βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ· Γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς; ποιήσατε οὖν καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς μετανοίας· καὶ μὴ ἄρξησθε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς· Πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν Ἀβραάμ, λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα τῷ Ἀβραάμ. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται.

​

If there was a common source, which case was it:

1. Matthew had access to the text of Luke,

2. Luke had access to the text of Matthew, or

3. both authors had access to a common source.

​

We can begin by ruling out that Matthew had access to Luke. First, it is understood that Matthew was likely written before Luke, but also, there is another example of editorial fatigue is a pericope that tells the story of a master giving his slaves money while he is away, and they are expected to invest that money.

​

1. In Matthew, there are three (3) slaves, each given money, and the first two double their money while the third does not, and the first two are rewarded, but the third fearfully says ‘Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ The master responds with ‘You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents. For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

2. In Luke, the narrative now begins with ten (10) slaves, each is given money, and they are expected to invest that money; however, when the master returns, we are only told of the works of the three slaves, in parallel with the story told in Matthew, and the third fearfully says ‘Lord, here is your pound. I wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’  The master replies ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest. Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds. I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.’

​

One may see the author of Luke starting the story by thinking that he will significantly embellish the story he is copying, intending to tell of the exploits of all ten slaves, but upon copying the consequences, he only includes the same three that were told in Matthew. It is unknown what happened to the remaining seven slaves: did they make money for the master, or were they, too, punished?

​

Given the parable of the talents or pounds, and the editorial fatigue shown by the author of Luke, one may suspect that Luke may have copied from Matthew; however, there are good reasons to suspect that both the authors of Matthew and Luke had, instead, access to other sources. The first two are unlikely given that Mark says nothing about the life of Jesus prior to his baptism, and similarly says nothing about the events that occurred after his resurrection. This is likely that the author of Mark had an adoptionist attitude towards Jesus: Jesus was a human born of human parents and adopted the Son of Yahweh at his baptism. By the time Matthew and Luke were written, these authors appear to have believed that Jesus was born the Son of Yahweh, and neither gospel suggests that Jesus preexisted his birth. It is only John who appears to believe that Jesus pre-existed his birth, and Paul, who seems to have envisioned Jesus as an angel or other being lesser than Yahweh, for

​

who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,
but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.
He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross!
As a result God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow—in heaven and on earth and under the earth—
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

​

This poetry is nonsensical of one is to maintain the common belief that Yahweh, Jesus and the Spirit of Holiness are somehow one and the same since the beginning: if Jesus was Yahweh, why would Yahweh be exalting himself?

​

However, none of this appears to have been on the mind of the author of Mark, and it was only his ministry between his baptism and resurrection that mattered. It was only subsequently that other followers began to believe that Jesus needed to come from Bethlehem, and so it was necessary to get this Jesus of Nazareth somehow to Bethlehem for his birth. Note, however, that the author of John didn't seem to see this as important::

​

Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Nathanael replied, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip replied, “Come and see.”

​

However, with it being common knowledge the Jesus was from Nazareth, it was necessary to introduce a narrative that somehow had him born in Bethlehem. The issue is, however closely Matthew and Luke followed Mark, they provide mutually incompatible birth narratives:

​

1. Matthew has Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem. Luke has the family living in Nazareth.

2. Luke has the family travel to Nazareth for a census. Matthew has no need of this journey, as they are already there.

3. Matthew has Jesus born before the death of King Herod (4 BCE). Luke has Jesus born after the deposition of Herod Archelaus (6 CE), who was King Herod's son.

4. Matthew has the family flee to Egypt to escape the wrath of King Herod. Luke describes a family at peace, describe Jesus's circumcision, and the family's journey to Jerusalem for the ritual sacrifice of a pair of doves.

5. Matthew has the family return from Egypt upon hearing of the death of King Herod, and they seem to want to return to Bethlehem, but fear Herod's son, Herod Archelaus (the one who was deposed before Jesus was even born according to Luke), and only seem to end up in Nazareth almost by chance: After being warned in a dream, [Joseph] went to the regions of Galilee. He came to a town called Nazareth and lived there. Luke simply has the family return to Nazareth from Jerusalem with no hint of any threat.

​

It is important to note that in Luke, the family starts in Nazareth and returns to Nazareth. In Matthew, the family starts in Bethlehem, seems to want to return to Bethlehem but feared returning there (But when [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there.), and only seems to have come across Nazareth by chance: He came to a town called Nazareth and lived there. There is no suggestion that either he or Mariam had previously lived there and that they were simply returning to their home. It's also interesting to note that Luke makes no mention of a star: a star that no other astronomers in Greece, Rome or China seem to detect, but of course, did this star appear in 5 or 6 BCE or 6 CE?

​

Similarly, the narratives of what happens after the resurrection equally diverge:

1. In Matthew, the angel at the tomb says to the women: “...he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.” Then, after the disciples are told, Jesus never-the-less tells them again “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” The narrative continues: Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them and concludes with Jesus giving what is called the great commission.

2. In Luke, no such instruction is given to the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, and Peter returns to the tomb to find it empty. Jesus then meets two followers on the road to Emmaus in the vicinity of Jerusalem, although they do not recognize Jesus, and when they reach Emmaus, Jesus reveals himself and disappears. They then return to Jerusalem to meet with the disciples and other followers. Oddly, they tell the disciples and other followers that “he has appeared to Simon!” when no such meeting is recorded. Jesus then appears amongst them, speaks to them, and instead says “...so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”--no mention of Galilee. Jesus then leads them to Bethany (near Jerusalem) and ascends into heaven. It is understood that book Acts of the Apostles, also addressed to Theophilus, is a continuation of Luke, and all subsequent events take place in and around Jerusalem. Indeed, the only reference to Galilee in the first few chapters of Acts is to refer to the disciples as men of Galilee, and it is only next referenced in Acts 9 in relation to [m]eanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up, and no subsequent events involving the disciples occur in Galilee. 

​

So, did Jesus give instructions for the disciples to go to Galilee, or were the disciples told to stay in Jerusalem? Did Jesus meet the disciples in Galilee or did he meet them near Jerusalem? If the author of Luke had access to the text of Matthew, given how closely the author of Luke followed Mark (as we will see), one would think that he would also, at the very least, attempt to take at least some cues from the birth narrative and post-resurrection narrative of Matthew, as opposed to authoring a text that is irreconcilable with that of Matthew in both cases. Of course, most congregants are likely unaware of these discrepancies, and most ministers will simply deliver sermons that piece together different non-contradictory aspects of each narrative into a shared narrative. For example, prepending the narrative of Joseph and Mary in Nazareth to before the events in Matthew, interpolating the story of the shepherds and their flocks as an event immediately after the birth of Jesus, blending the stories of the return journey to Nazareth and appending the stories of Jesus as a youth onto the end of the birth narrative in Matthew. Any contradictory details, such as Jesus being born before King Herod dies or after King Herod's son and successor as ethnarch is deposed ten years later, are ignored. Similarly, the giving of the great commission can be told without reference to the location where it occurred, and it would not be necessary to comment that the author of Luke and Acts never once describes the disciples as returning to Galilee to meet Jesus, and it would not be necessary to contrast this meeting in Galilee told in Matthew with the observation that all interactions between Jesus and the disciples in Luke and Acts occurred in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

​

As an aside, to comment, this author no longer believes that any of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) in any way present a chronological order of events in the life and ministry of Jesus, apart from each beginning with his baptism, and ending with his entry into Jerusalem, execution and resurrection. Most of the stories in Mark start with phrases that would be associated with a person telling an independent story; after all, very few of the pericopes refer back to previous events or teachings of Jesus or even depend on previous events; instead, each is an individual story, as if the author of Mark was writing down one story at a time as they were recited to him. Individual stories as told by an oral tradition would necessarily need to be self-contained, and would not necessarily rely on the audience being aware of other narratives, and forty years had passed since the execution of Jesus. There is, however, one interesting contrast between Mark and Matthew, and Luke in relation to the timeline of Jesus's ministry: the reason for Jesus beginning his ministry. In all three gospels, Jesus returns to Nazareth following his baptism, and Mark and Matthew tell that the reason began his ministry is that he hears that John the Baptist has been arrested, which may very well be the truth. This strongly suggests that Jesus was himself a disciple of John the Baptist, and this perhaps did not mesh well with the idea that Jesus had his own purpose. After all, if Jesus was Yahweh incarnate, why would he wait until John the Baptist is arrested before starting his own ministry? Instead, a pericope found in Mark and Matthew where Jesus returns to Nazareth and is subsequently chased out, and forms part of the narratives in the middle of these gospels is copied to the very start of Luke where it becomes the driving reason for Jesus beginning his ministry.

​

This first section has just demonstrated with examples the fact that Mark, Matthew and Luke have common pericopes. Next, we will want to try to detect such plagiarisms by looking at the changes in the order of the pericopes. We will do this by considering how much the pericopes in on gospel change with another based on jumps from where they are copied.

​