[Google AI Overview at the query, expanded ('AI Mode Conversation' is the expansion's header), signed out and incognito (operator defaults of 2026-10-01 and 2026-10-14). Received 2026-11-06 10:50 EST. The numbered citation links are Google redirects, kept in the raw transcript; the source cards listed in the cite list as pasted.] [QUERENT] farrer hypothesis [SYSTEM] The Farrer hypothesis is a proposed solution to the [synoptic problem](https://www.google.com/goto?url=CAESbAHEIkXXmTGPkfvDlHEO1eoiKqEno3AV_JhHgXiSe6w7u8aurltvB7t3v2d_Ib5GWoqoEpL_LQ3xoOX66bMaoNIJP5fhPR9OM_2MDs-qAd09n2BwZZUq3ZVphE8oUYJP-FG9T8AZKoXx0JsvTg) in biblical studies that eliminates the need for the hypothetical "Q" document. [1] Core Literary Sequence The theory proposes the following order of composition: 1. Gospel of Mark was written first. 2. Gospel of Matthew was written second, using Mark as a primary source. 3. Gospel of Luke was written third, using both Mark and Matthew as sources. [1] Key Details and Origin * Originator: Proposed in 1955 by English biblical scholar Austin Farrer in his essay "On Dispensing with Q". [1] * Proponents: Developed and championed by later scholars including Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre. [1] * Alternative Names: Also known as the Farrer–Goulder hypothesis or the Farrer–Goulder–Goodacre hypothesis. [1] * Major Contrast: It stands as a direct alternative to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis (which posits that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and a lost collection of sayings known as Q). [[1], [2]] Arguments For and Against * Arguments For: Advocates point out that it simplifies literary history by relying only on existing, canonical gospels rather than postulating a lost document (Q). It also provides a straightforward explanation for the "double tradition" (material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark), suggesting Luke simply integrated and adapted Matthew's material alongside Mark. [[1], [2]] * Arguments Against: Critics argue that the theory requires Luke to systematically dismantle, rearrange, and recontextualize Matthew's well-organized discourses (such as breaking up the Sermon on the Mount) in ways that seem complex or counterintuitive for an ancient author. As discussed on [Reddit's AcademicBiblical community](https://www.google.com/goto?url=CAESigEBxCJF1zcUui1rDNS_qyEHw69R6w2wU4fnZS5ovSsuK-Sg0NovhEUoeWNdCTuPEBNk_5ua6GpRq4Ou6Y2nqmEHGQLkpMXY5tgT1QeLgO09JfRVwFV08hOby1YPtyioCuX26LDa-1f4RhJx14Sg7axw2RkgkJKd0LgzttwyMqMcZTUeH-U60hyinXY), it remains a notable minority view rather than the majority consensus in mainstream New Testament scholarship. [[1], [2], [3]] Would you like to explore how the Farrer hypothesis compares specifically to the Two-Source Hypothesis or look into how it handles the Sermon on the Mount? Wikipedia