Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    2014. The Synoptic Problem and Statistics.

    Gathercole, Simon 2011. Luke in the Gospel of Thomas. New Testament Studies, Vol. 57, Issue. 01, p. 114.

    Mealand, David L. 2011. Is there Stylometric Evidence for Q?. New Testament Studies, Vol. 57, Issue. 04, p. 483.


Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology

  • Francis Watson (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 August 2009

Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little since B. H. Streeter. The purpose of this article is not to advocate an alternative hypothesis but to argue that, if the Q hypothesis is to be sustained, the unlikelihood of Luke's dependence on Matthew must be demonstrated by a systematic and comprehensive reconstruction of the redactional procedures entailed in the two hypotheses. 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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Jan Lambrecht John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark 1.1–15: Markan Redaction of Q?’, NTS 38 (1992) 357–84

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

New Testament Studies
  • ISSN: 0028-6885
  • EISSN: 1469-8145
  • URL: /core/journals/new-testament-studies
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *