What is the problem with Mark-Q overlaps?
Q: Why are the Minor Agreements problematic for the Q Hypothesis? The Q Hypothesis is founded on the supposed impossibility of Luke’s dependence on Matthew. One way of testing this is to look for signs of Luke’s knowledge of Matthew in the triple tradition material (= material common to all three synoptics). Among the thousand or so Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are some which are very difficult to explain if Luke and Matthew were independent. Among the most striking are Matt. 4.12-13 // Mark 1.14 // Luke 4.16 (Nazara) and Matt. 26.67-8 // Mark 14.65 // Luke 22.63-4 (‘Who is the one who smote you?’). Q: The case from the Minor Agreements has been answered by Q Theorists, hasn’t it? For many years the matter seemed to have been settled by B. H. Streeter’s The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924) and J. Schmid’s Matthäus und Lukas (Freiburg: Herder, 1930). More recently, confidence in Streeter’s and Schmid’s ‘divide and conquer’ approach to
