About THE TWO-SOURCE THEORY

It holds:

a. that Mt and Lk are independently re-written versions of Mk [as the first source] and

b. that they also made use of another common source. This second, common text has come to be designated as “Q”, probably from the German word Quelle, or Source. It represents the material found in both Mt and Lk, but not found in Mk: about 48 separate units, in the neighborhood of 200 verses.

This second source was not known as a document as far as we know; it did not survive in a manuscript, nor was at any time reference made to such a source. It has literally been “recaptured” by Mt and Lk from the "oral tradition".

c. that, when Mk and Q are lifted out of Mt and Lk it shows they (Mt & Lk) also had unique materials of their own, now called M and L.

these unique materials are: 2 independent infancy narratives and genealogies, their respective resurrection stories. Mt’s ‘Sermon on the Mt’, Lk’s ‘Sermon on the Plain’, individual Lord’s Prayer, differing accounts of the Ascension story.

d. finally there are a few passages that appear in all 3 synoptics in which Mt and Lk agree against Mk, suggesting to most scholars that the later evangelists may have used a version of Mk slightly different from the one we have, or that here and there Mk and Q overlap.

Again:

a. Mt & Lk hold independently written versions of Mk

b. They used a second source - known as “Q”

c. They have their own material called: M & L

d. There might have been a different version of Mk

The following is from Bishop Spong Why Christianity must Change or Die p.72

“To explore these issues properly. it is necessary first to get beyond that superstitious and mystical aura that believers have allowed to gather around the Gospels through the centuries, At least part of the problem lies in the excessive claims made for these scriptures. The Bible is not the word of God in any literal or verbal sense. It never has been. The Gospels are not inerrant works, divinely authored. They were written by communities of faith, and they express even the biases of those communities. The Gospels are not without significant internal contradictions or embarrassing moral and intellectual concepts. The Gospels are not static. They reveal changing, evolving theological perspectives. They are not even original. They lean far more than has yet been realized on the work of Paul and on the inspiration of the Hebrew scriptures. They are not the words of eyewitnesses, as so often has been claimed. Most eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus were long dead before the Gospels entered history. The Gospels were also shaped by the events of their own time, perhaps even more dramatically than they were by the events of the time in which Jesus actually lived. For example, the capture and destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army in 70 C.E. is a powerful reality in the background of each of the Gospel narratives. Seeing the Gospels in a proper historical perspective is therefore our first step into biblical knowledge.”