What, then, are the grounds for re-opening the case against Q?
My summary of Ten Reasons to Question Q should provide a useful starting point. The key works of those who have put Q to the test are listed in the Mark Without Q Bibliography. Ultimately it comes down to this: if one can make sense of Luke on the assumption of his knowledge of Matthew (as well as Mark), then Occam’s Razor shaves away the need for a Q. Q: If Luke knew Matthew, why are their Genealogies so different? The Genealogies (Matt. 1.1-17 // Luke 3.23- 38) are indeed quite distinct. But Luke’s difference from Matthew here does not rule out Luke’s knowledge of Matthew elsewhere. It is out-dated nonsense to assume that Luke would have used everything unchanged from his sources. Matthew’s very Jewish looking Genealogy, schematized so meticulously into three periods of fourteen generations, beginning with Abraham and revolving around David, was probably not to Luke’s taste, and so Jesus’ lineage is traced back to ‘Adam, son of God’ (3.38). Q: What about the Birth Narratives? Don’t t
