I was just searching on the internet trying to find an answer to my other question when I came across a synoptic gospel problem site which deals with the gospel of Q hypothesis. Actually I thought that Q has been disproven but this argument here is pretty strong in my opinion, if it's really the way the author describes it. http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm The Phenomenon of Fatigue When one writer is copying the work of another, changes are sometimes made at the beginning of an account which are not sustained throughout - the writer lapses into docile reproduction of his / her source. This phenomenon of 'fatigue' is a tell-tale sign of a writer's dependence on a source. Matthew, for example, correctly calls Herod tetraarchV ('tetrarch') in 14.1, only to lapse into calling him the less correct basileuV ('king') in 14.9, apparently reproducing Mark (6.26) who has called him basileuV ('king') throughout. Likewise, Luke re-sets the scene for the Feeding of the Five Thousand in 'a city called Bethsaida' (polin kaloumenhn Bhqsaida, Luke 9.10) only to lapse into the Markan wording later, 'We are here in a deserted place' (wde en erhmw topw esmen, Luke 9.12, cf. Mark 6.35). It is revealing that this phenomenon also occurs in double tradition (Q) material, and always in the same direction, in favour of Luke's use of Matthew. Take the Parable of the Talents / Pounds (Matt. 25.14-30 // Luke 19.11-27). Matthew has three servants throughout. Luke, on the other hand, has ten. But as the story progresses, we hear about 'the first' (19.16), 'the second' (19.18) and amazingly, 'the other' (o eteroV, Luke 19.20). Luke has inadvertently betrayed his knowledge of Matthew by drifting into the story-line of his source (see further my 'Fatigue in the Synoptics', NTS 44 (1998), pp. 45-58).