Farrer on the redundancy of Q
In 1955, Farrer wrote an essay that made an impression and for which he became famous, resulting in the so-called “Farrer hypothesis” [1]. Why, he wonders, is a common source usually assumed from which both Matthew and Luke would have drawn? The answer to that question is linked to another question, namely whether Luke merely had a sort of editing role, or whether he also had a message of his own. In the latter case, he could have edited and updated Matthew to convey his own message, or rather, his variant of that message. If that is the case, then the Q hypothesis can be thrown in the trash.
Farrer poses this question against the background of the uncertainty of Q as such. For if two texts are very similar, it is not the most obvious idea to trace them back to a common third source. Especially not if that third source has not been handed down at all, so that its very existence is hypothetical. The first idea is rather to derive one text from the other. Moreover, it is inconceivable that Q would have been handed down to the church as a mere source of words, omitting the crucifixion, from those involved from the very beginning, who were all Jews. You cannot, according to Farrer, omit the story of the crucifixion and hand down only the edifying words of Jesus, precisely not as a Jew. You would have to excuse yourself in some way for the crucifixion, unless you place the cross precisely at the center, according to Farrer.
Now, Farrer also assumes that Mark is the oldest and that Luke and Matthew at least share Mark as a common source. That, he says, covers all the facts. He does not even consider another possibility. Yet it is striking that Luke makes all kinds of changes to Mark, including all kinds of changes that he shares with Matthew. Did he not read Matthew after all? Then Q is not necessary. What are the arguments normally used to substantiate that Luke did not read Matthew?
1. Luke omits important passages from Matthew.
2. Anyone comparing Luke with Matthew will see that certain texts in Luke make a more original impression.
3. If he used Matthew, he chopped many of Matthew’s texts into small pieces and distributed them throughout his text.
4. The order of stories in Luke is less coherent.
5. The material that Matthew inserts into the order of Mark is often placed differently by Luke.
Farrer has the following counter-arguments to this:
1. The decisive question here is whether Luke merely compiles and edits, or whether he also has his own construction and his own story to tell.
2. In itself, this rule sounds plausible, but when applied to concrete texts, it is impossible to determine which are the most original. Reasons can always be found why that might or might not be the case.
3. Matthew also uses Mark in a unique way. Why, then, would Luke not do the same?
4. Coherent and convincing or not, the question here, too, is whether Luke has his own intention with this altered arrangement.
5. It is true that Luke, in turn, omits material from Mark that Matthew inserted into Mark, according to Farrer, but the question remains: does he have a reason for doing so?
Farrer points out that the rearrangement Luke introduces often reveals just a different aspect of the story. Through a new combination of texts, he brings his unique narrative to the fore. That is not unusual. It is standard practice in the Jewish tradition of synagogue sermons and storytelling. What stands out, according to Farrer, is Luke’s adaptability. His spirituality has its origins in Jewish piety but works its way to the Greek agora. An example is the “Our Father,” Matthew 6:9-15. For Matthew, this stands in the context of asking and receiving: you receive what you need. But Matthew then moves on to forgiveness in verse 16, after the “Our Father”: whoever cannot forgive the other will not be forgiven themselves. Luke, however, in his version, primarily focuses on the asking and receiving and develops this in Luke 11:1-12. If a friend asks for three loaves of bread in the middle of the night because he has received visitors, who will refuse him those loaves? The emphasis shifts from forgiveness to helpfulness. Many more examples of this can be given, leading Farrer to conclude that the very fact that Luke is familiar with Matthew also explains the different turn he gives to it and the differing interpretation. For instance, while Luke’s Sermon on the Plain provides a shortened version of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, Luke extracts precisely everything related to self-denial, humility, and generosity from that Sermon. Thus, he has his own agenda.
Furthermore, in his article, Farrer first shows what Matthew intends with his sequence of stories and then demonstrates what Luke, in turn, does with them. Several people have already noted that in Matthew, five major speeches of Jesus form a kind of marker in the text. Five times the words appear: “When Jesus had finished this speech…” and thus people have naturally thought of the five books of Moses. Does Matthew intend to provide an actualization of this? That is possible. Incidentally, Farrer distinguishes six speeches of Jesus and thus includes Joshua alongside the five books of Moses. For Matthew, this leads to the following result.
1. Genesis. The genealogy with which Matthew begins can be considered the first major discourse. After all, Matthew 1, the chapter of the genealogy, begins with the heading: “An overview of the descent of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” In Greek, literally the word “genesis” is used instead of the word descent, which means the “becoming” or “forthcoming” of Jesus Christ. The genealogy is, of course, not a discourse that can be concluded with the aforementioned text “When Jesus had finished this discourse…”. But the heading is clear enough.
2. Exodus. It is self-evident that the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew corresponds to the giving of the law on Mount Sinai and thus stands in the context of the Exodus. The baptism by John the Baptist in the desert represents the exodus from Egypt, and the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus. Next comes the temptation in the wilderness, and the three temptations of Jesus correspond to the three temptations Israel faced in the wilderness. Then follows the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. At the end of that discourse, the words “When Jesus had finished this discourse…” are heard for the first time. From now on, we know that this is a turning point.
3. Leviticus. In Matthew 10, the appointment and sending out of the 12 apostles takes place. This is a parallel to the appointment of the priests and Levites in the book of Leviticus of Moses.
4. Numbers. Matthew 13 deals with the number and size of the harvest and also with the question of who is and is not suitable to be admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven, just as this takes place in Numbers regarding access to the promised land.
5. Deuteronomy. The entire biblical book of Deuteronomy (literal meaning: second law) is a long speech delivered by Moses. It is a farewell speech in view of the future: how is Israel supposed to live in the promised land? In doing so, it is itself already an actualization and intended as new inspiration. The Deuteronomy of Matthew can be found in Matthew 17 and 18, in the transfiguration on the mountain and the humility of those who will lead the future church.
6. Joshua. The book of Joshua deals with the conquest of the land and the fall of Jericho. Matthew’s Joshua can be found in Matthew 24 and 25, the discourse on the last things and the fall of Jerusalem. Thus, the new Israel enters the promised land.
That is Matthew’s Hexateuch, always ending with the same refrain: “When Jesus had finished this discourse…”. What does Luke do with this? He leaves it in place, but in a somewhat diluted form, and he incorporates as much as possible into number 5, into Deuteronomy. Why? In the first place, the early Christian community experienced the gospel itself as a Deuteronomy: a repetition, revitalization, and taking seriously of the “first” law as Moses had already given it in the first four books. This second law, the gospel, adds Spirit to inherently dead and formal legal practices. That is also what Moses does in the long discourse that is the book of Deuteronomy: a revitalization and actualization of the familiar story in a new situation. Deuteronomy, too, is about generosity, humility, and compassion. So, Farrer. I would add to that: moreover, the words of Jesus in Luke were all spoken on the way. Jesus is always on the move, just as the Christian congregation is on the move. After all, the congregation is also called: the Way, in Luke (Acts 2:42-47, 4:32-36 and 5:12-16). On the way to Jerusalem, Jesus speaks words that are not ritual but after price. Thus, the congregation of believers from the nations enters the promised land of the future in the footsteps of Luke and Paul.
In the book of Deuteronomy, the Shema is the heart of the matter. In Deuteronomy 5 and 6, in the plain of Moab (Deuteronomy 1:1-5), Moses gives a recapitulation of the law, specifically the Ten Commandments, and the Shema follows. The Shema is the prayer that the devout Jew recites at the hour of his death. It reads as follows:
Hear, Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4). Therefore love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul and with all your strength. (Deut. 6:5, 11:13) and Write them on the doorposts of your house and on the gates of the city. (Deut. 6:9, 11:20).
There are two moments where this Shema resonates in Luke’s story. That is at the beginning of the long middle section, when Jesus sets out for nine chapters (10:25-28), on his way to the final confrontation in Jerusalem, and at the end of this nine-chapter journey before he enters Jerusalem (18:18-30). In the first instance, a Pharisee asks how he can inherit eternal life, and in the second instance, a rich man asks how he can inherit eternal life. In the answer, God above all and your neighbor as yourself, the words of the Shema come to life. At the same time, the story shows that Jesus himself also walks that Way, the Messianic way of living life with devotion and not making it your own. Walking the Way full of the Spirit, that is the Deuteronomy of Luke.
But Farrer also indicates where the other books of Moses appear in Luke’s interpretation of Matthew. Luke does introduce a shift in emphasis, but not a completely different message than Matthew. He wants to make that clear as well.
Genesis: Luke also has a genealogy. He incorporates Matthew’s themes into it, but develops them in his own way. He goes back to Adam, lists six series of seven names, so that we now stand at the beginning of the seventh historical period. The period of the Way is then the last week of world history. That is where we stand now. Now the nations must first enter. Thus Luke says about the fall of Jerusalem: “24The inhabitants will perish by the sword or be carried away into captivity everywhere, while Jerusalem will be trampled by the nations, until their time is over” (Luke 21:24).
Exodus: Luke adds to the exodus motif of the temptation in the desert the rejection of Jesus in Nazareth and Peter’s miraculous catch of fish. These can be read in parallel with Stephen’s speech, where Stephen addresses the rejection of Moses by his brothers in Egypt and the burning bush where Moses receives his commission (Acts 7:23-35).
Leviticus: In chapter 6, Luke recounts the appointment and mission of the twelve disciples. The sermon from the mountain in Matthew becomes, in Luke, a sermon after the descent from the mountain (where this appointment of the disciples took place) in the plain. In Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount was the Exodus; in Luke, it belongs to Leviticus. The disciples are addressed and sent out in Luke’s Sermon on the Plain.
Numbers: The mission of the twelve is Luke’s Numbers. This also includes the mission of the seventy in chapter 10. Just as in Numbers the counting of the twelve tribes in Numbers 1 and 2 is followed by the appointment of the seventy elders in Numbers 11, so in Luke 10 the seventy-two disciples are sent out to help with the harvest. In Numbers 10, thus between the counting of the twelve tribes and the appointment of the seventy elders, the people of Israel solemnly and resolutely leave the Sinai Desert to conquer the Promised Land. In Luke, this corresponds to Jesus’ decision to go to Jerusalem, which also stands between the mission of the twelve disciples and the mission of the seventy disciples: “51When the time approached for Jesus to be taken up into heaven, he set out with determination toward Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51). It is striking here that the word “taken up” is used. That same word is used in the Old Testament for Moses and Elijah, who also do not simply die but are taken up into heaven. Joshua: the cross and resurrection are, in Luke, the conquest of Jerusalem.
Thus, Farrer concludes that Luke integrates unique symbolic meanings into his version of the story. He is not merely editing and copying. Because he had Matthew before him, constantly responds to him, and, as it were, writes down the counterpoint to his text, an additional source Q is not necessary.
Farrer’s article to this effect has evidently made an impression. It is cited repeatedly in the literature, and perhaps the words “to dispense with Q” made the greatest impression, due to their matter-of-fact and purely declarative manner of expression: completely unnecessary.
[1] Farrer, A.M., 1955. On Dispensing With Q; D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), pp. 55-88, 1955 Basil Blackwell, on the website of Mark Goodacre: https://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/farrer.htm, 30-3-2026.
