Easier to see the disparate treatment of the order of the Double Tradition versus the Triple Tradition as the result of two sources. Easier to explain why the form of the material sometimes appears more primitive in Matthew but other times more primitive in Luke Doublets . Easier to explain the different infancy, genealogical, and resurrection accounts as due to not knowing each other. Sometimes the exactness in wording is quite impressive. Some Correspondence in Order.
Doublets are often a sign of two written sources.
For example, John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q , has proposed a Q stratification theory that Q was composed in stages. The main competitor to Mark's priority is the priority of Matthew, which enjoys substantial external evidence in its favor. A fuller development of the case for Matthean priority, however, will not be treated here but in the explanation of the Two Gospel Hypothesis. Problems with Q While many of those who do not subscribe to Q also subscribe to Matthean priority, there is also a significant group of mostly British scholars who would dispense with Q within the framework of Markan priority under the Farrer Theory. Their argument, mainly involving the minor agreements, may be found at Mark Goodacre's Ten Reasons to Question Q .