The Synoptic Problem

[patrick457]

Going on…

Special Luke (L): Material specific to the Gospel of Luke. Out of the various materials, Special Luke is the most popular and the most well-known amongst many Christians, as we will see. Some of the most prominent representatives of this are the Lukan birth narratives (1-2), the boy Jesus in the Temple (2:41-52), the raising of the widow of Nain’s son (7:11-17), the Samaritan villages (9:51-56), the return of the seventy-two disciples (10:17-20), the Good Samaritan (10:29-37), Mary and Martha (10:38-42), the friend at midnight (11:5-8), the rich fool (12:13-21), the murder of the Galileans (13:1-5), the fig tree (13:6-9), the healing of the bent woman (13:10-17) and the man with dropsy (14:1-6), the invitation to feasts and dinners (14:7-14), the lost coin (15:8-10), the Prodigal Son (15:11-32), the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31),the servant of all work (17:7-10), the healing of ten lepers (17:11-19), the Unjust Judge (18:1-8), the Pharisee and the Publican (18:9-14), Zacchaeus the tax collector (19:1-10), the two swords (23:6-12), the trial before Herod Antipas (23:6-12), and the road to Emmaus (24:13-35).

Special Lukan material shares one of the complications of M material: sometimes, though less often than in Matthew, it appears in a Triple Tradition context, for example the women of Jerusalem (23:27-32) and the conversation with the two crucified criminals (23:40-43). In addition, L has another complication shared hardly at all by Special Matthew. It is sometimes difficult to judge whether one should ascribe a piece to L or whether one should call it a different version of Triple Tradition material. Examples of this include Luke’s version of the rejection in Nazareth (4:16-30; cf. Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6a), the calling of the first disciples (5:1-11; cf. Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20, also cf. John 21:1-11), and the anointing of Jesus (7:36-50; cf. Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9, also cf. John 12:1-8). In each case the incident is placed differently from its (partial) parallel in Matthew and Mark and in each case the account is a much fuller one. In both the pericopes about the calling of the disciples and the anointing one can also see parallels with the Gospel of John.

As we’ve mentioned, L material is famous among many people. Here you will find some of the most-loved parables - the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Rich Man and Lazarus to name three. In addition, one can find in the non-parable materials some of the most three-dimensional, human touches in the Gospels. You have one of the ten lepers who returns in gratitude to Jesus (and a Samaritan at that); the widow of Nain, whose only son had died; the short Zacchaeus who makes the effort of climbing up a sycamore tree just to see Jesus; and the two travellers to Emmaus, who only come to realize who their anonymous companion was when He breaks bread with them.

 

[patrick457]

We have so far discussed four kinds of material: Triple Tradition, Double Tradition, Special Matthew, and Special Luke. Triple Tradition material revolves largely around Mark, its ‘middle term’; Double Tradition seems to be largely sayings material, often with near-verbatim agreement, and not so similar in its order as Triple Tradition. These four make up the bulk of the Synoptics and each pericope will, in some measure, fall into one of these four categories. However, when looking at both Special Matthew and Special Luke, we can see that some difficulties would arise in classifying material. For instance, does Jesus’ encounter with John the Baptist in Matthew 3:14-15 fit in the Special Matthew category, or are they, rather, a special Matthean element embedded in the midst of Triple Tradition? Further, do Lukan pericopes like the rejection at Nazareth sit more easily in the Special Luke category or should they really be regarded as distinctive Lukan versions of material that also occurs in the other two Synoptics?

Thus, we notice that categories are not so clear-cut and that there is some blurring between categories. It is usually straightforward to classify a pericope into one type of material or the other, but sometimes the categories are shown not to be water-tight. In addition to the issues connected with M and L, one should also be aware of two further matters concerning Triple and Double Tradition.

 

[Contarini]

What’s the big problem with the Two source hypothesis?

Certainly makes sense to me and most priests and biblical scholars (including Catholic ones)

It makes sense to me too, but it goes against tradition, and it has often been used to push a “low” Christology and a reductionistic view of the development of early Christian ideas about Jesus. You will often here that Mark’s Jesus is more like a regular human being who is ignorant, tired, etc., while Matthew and Luke show a “higher” Christology, especially Matthew. The birth narratives are especially problematic–if Matthew were written first, we’d have a much better historical case for the virgin birth. If Mark is the first Gospel, then that raises the question of why Mark has no birth narrative. (It might make the question of why Luke has a very different narrative even more disturbing, though.)

From a purely historical/literary point of view, the main problem with the two-source theory is the complete lack of direct evidence for “Q.” A reasonably convincing argument for Matthaean priority has “Ockham’s razor” on its side, because it avoids postulating such a document.

In spite of these considerations, I think that the arguments for the two-source theory are compelling (I’m inclined toward the view that “Q” may be the original text written in Aramaic by Matthew and referred to by some of the Fathers, though this is speculative and I’m no specialist in NT scholarship). One theological consideration is that the traditional view has always had a hard time explaining why the Holy Spirit inspired Mark at all, since on that view Mark looks like a summary of Matthew.

Edwin

 

[patrick457]

1.) Not-quite Triple Tradition Material: The first of the two would be material that is not, strictly speaking, Triple Tradition, but which is, nevertheless, very closely related to it. We have seen before how a great deal of Mark is covered in the general category of Triple Tradition; i.e. most of his material is paralleled in both Matthew and Luke. We now add to this the fact that some of Mark is paralleled in Matthew but not in Luke and some (but less) of Mark is found in Luke but not in Matthew. An example of Matthew-Mark material would be Jesus entering Gennesaret (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-56); the story of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4), meanwhile, is a specimen of Mark-Luke material.

Now why is this material related to Triple Tradition instead of Double Tradition? Double Tradition, as we saw above, is the technical term used to describe the body of material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Here, by contrast, we see that Mark is the common element, like pure Triple Tradition. Furthermore, this material always appears in Markan order in Matthew and the Markan sequence in Luke: the common thread throughout is Mark.

The same pattern is repeated regularly in the Synoptics. Some have attempted to crystallize this phenomenon into a formula, saying that whenever Matthew departs from Mark’s order, Luke keeps to it (and vice versa). There has, however, been a great deal of debate about the use of such formulas. For one, it is difficult to state them without assuming one of the solutions to the Synoptic Problem, namely Markan priority. Further, all too often they tend towards an unhelpful oversimplification of the data. It is much more helpful if one simply continues to remember the rule that Mark tends to be the middle term in the Synoptics.

2.) Mark not being the middle term: To the aforementioned rule there are several important exceptions: there are a handful of instances where Mark is clearly not the middle term. These passages where Mark is not the middle term constitute the most difficult phenomenon in the Synoptic Problem, because it so blatantly blurs the basic distinction between Triple and Double Traditions, thus more than anything else preventing the easy classification of everything into clear-cut, convenient categories that would otherwise be possible.

A good representative of this phenomenon can be found the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19). where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in places.

Matthew: “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

Mark: “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.”

Luke: “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”

One would notice some clear agreement between all three Synoptics (“like a grain of mustard seed;” “the birds of the air”), some agreement between Matthew and Mark (“smallest of all the seeds…larger than all the garden plants”) and between Mark and Luke (“What is the kingdom of God like?”). What is striking however is that there is also agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark (“which a man took and sowed…becomes a tree…in its branches”).

Also interesting is the placement of this parable. As we’ve mentioned countless times, Mark is usually the common element which means that one tends to not to find agreements in order between Matthew and Luke. Matters are different here, however, since both Matt and Luke pair this with the Parable of the Leaven (Matthew 13;33; Luke 13:20-21), which does not appear at all in Mark’s Gospel.

Passages like this in which Mark is not the middle term appear in all three Synoptics and feature substantial agreement, either (or sometimes, both) in order and wording, between Matthew and Luke. Such are not very common and isolating them is not always straightforward, not least because the matter of agreement between Matthew and Luke is simply a question of degree. Every Triple Tradition passage features some agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark; what one has to decide is whether to consider the agreement major, as in the passages we are now discussing, or minor, as in the majority of Triple Tradition material. Other passages which people have taken the agreement to be major include John the Baptist (Matthew 3:11-12; Luke 3:15-17; cf. Mark 1:7-8), the Temptation in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf. Mark 1:12-13), the Beelzebub controversy (Matthew 12:22-37; Luke 11:14-23; cf. Mark 3:22-30) and the mission of the disciples (Matthew 10:1-15; Luke 9:1-6, 10:1-12; cf. Mark 6:6b-13).

​

 

[patrick457]

We’ll only deal briefly with Special Mark. Compared to M and L, there is very little material unique to Mark’s Gospel; one would notice that the graph at the OP gives a rather measly estimate of only 3%, compared to Special Matthew’s 20% and Special Luke’s 35%. The three main examples of Special Mark include the healing of a deaf and mute man (7:31-37), the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-25), and the naked young man in Gethsemane (14:51-52).

In conclusion, yet another review of the various material and in-betweens:

1.) Triple Tradition: Found in all three Synoptics. The order of this material is similar across the three Gospels.
2.) Double Tradition: Found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. The order tends to vary between the two Gospels.
3.) Special Matthew (M): Found in Matthew alone.
4.) Special Luke (L): Found in Luke alone.
5.) M in Triple Tradition: Material unique to Matthew embedded in Triple Tradition material and would make no sense outside of context.
6.) Lukan Triple Tradition: Three pericopes which have parallels in Matthew and Mark and might be described as Lukan versions of Triple Tradition material.
7.) Not Quite Triple Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke or in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew. These are not, strictly speaking, Triple Tradition pericopes since they occur in only two Gospels, but they are akin to Triple Tradition because they appear in the Markan order.
8.) When Mark is not the middle term: Some material halfway between Triple and Double Tradition. Appears in all three Synoptics but unlike Triple Tradition, features substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark.

Final repetition: Mark is often, but not always, the ‘middle term’. Reason for this is, in Triple Tradition, there are usually substantial agreements between Matthew, Mark and Luke, between Matthew and Mark, and between Mark and Luke. There are only minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. The order of Triple Tradition passages and those which are not quite it is usually similar to the Markan order. Matthew and Luke less often agree together in order against Mark.

That ends our analysis of the problem (finally! ) We’ll look at the various solutions in the following posts.

 

[MarkInOregon]

But before we get into them, let’s review again the different kinds of Synoptic material in slightly more depth (repetition is a good teaching tool, see; I’m not letting anybody out until they’ve a good grasp of these ), more comprehensively this time:
Triple Tradition: Material found in all three Synoptic Gospels, making up the majority. Its key feature is that Mark is very often the common element, the so-called ‘middle term’ among the Synoptics. The order and wording of this material is generally the same across all three Gospels.

Triple Tradition broadly has the same order across all three Gospels, and this order tends to be identical with Mark’s. Luke occasionally places an incident differently: for example, the pericope about Jesus’ mother and brothers occurs before the Parable of the Sower in Matthew (12:46-50) and Mark (3:31-35), but a little after that in Luke (8:19-21). On other occasions Matthew tends to do the same: the story about Jairus’ daughter and the haemorrhaging woman is placed just after the question about fasting in Matthew (9:14-17), but it comes earlier in Mark (2:18-22) and Luke (5:33-39). The striking thing about this material, however, is that it is rare for both Matt and Luke to place the same incident differently. Hence, the patterns one can find here is: either a substantial agreement between all three, or an agreement between Matthew and Mark against Luke, or an agreement between Mark and Luke against Matthew. It is rare for Matthew and Luke to agree against Mark.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3347/63594641.png

A corollary of this is if one were to isolate Triple Tradition material from all the rest, one would have something resembling a complete Gospel, and this Gospel would actually be similar to Mark in structure, starting from John the Baptist and ending with the Resurrection. The same would not hold true for the other kinds of material.

I apologize if you answer this later but why is it assumed that Mark is the common element or first amoung the four gospels. Isn’t that a recent hypothosis? Just becasue Mark is shorter does’t mean it had to be first and the common source does it? Couldn’t Mark be an abridged Gospel?

Thank you,
Mark

 

[patrick457]

I apologize if you answer this later but why is it assumed that Mark is the common element or first amoung the four gospels. Isn’t that a recent hypothosis? Just becasue Mark is shorter does’t mean it had to be first and the common source does it? Couldn’t Mark be an abridged Gospel?

Thank you,
Mark

I think you’ve got it backwards. As we’ve explained earlier, Mark is the ‘middle term’ because in Triple Tradition, there are usually substantial agreements between Matthew, Mark and Luke, between Matthew and Mark, and between Mark and Luke; by contrast, there are only minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. The order of Triple Tradition passages and those which are not quite Triple Tradition is usually similar to the Markan sequence; it is rare for Matthew and Luke to agree together in order against Mark. This to the point that if one were to remove Double Tradition or material specific to Matthew and Luke, leaving only Triple Tradition material, one would be left with something like a complete Gospel, and this Gospel would be identical to Mark in its structure.

How then do we account for this phenomenon, of Mark being the middle term? Would this mean that Mark is first and that Matthew and Luke copied from and added his Gospel, or that Mark is a summarization of Matthew and/or Luke? By itself, Mark being the middle term does not automatically imply Markan priority - that is a (emphasis on ‘a’) solution to this conundrum.

 

[razredge]

It makes sense to me too, but it goes against tradition, and it has often been used to push a “low” Christology and a reductionistic view of the development of early Christian ideas about Jesus. You will often here that Mark’s Jesus is more like a regular human being who is ignorant, tired, etc., while Matthew and Luke show a “higher” Christology, especially Matthew. The birth narratives are especially problematic–if Matthew were written first, we’d have a much better historical case for the virgin birth. If Mark is the first Gospel, then that raises the question of why Mark has no birth narrative. (It might make the question of why Luke has a very different narrative even more disturbing, though.)

Yes, but we can’t just ignore the evidence because we prefer another theory which better support our belief.

The fact that the Christology and theological content of the Gospels increase as you go from Mark, to Matthew & Luke and finally to John is very telling and really only makes sense within the two-source theory.

In spite of these considerations, I think that the arguments for the two-source theory are compelling (I’m inclined toward the view that “Q” may be the original text written in Aramaic by Matthew and referred to by some of the Fathers, though this is speculative and I’m no specialist in NT scholarship).

Yes, it could also be that Q was a sayings Gospel like the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (which just presents sayings and stories of Jesus without an accompanying narrative framework) and so if Matthew & Luke incorporated all the content of Q in their gospels, then the community would have no reason to keep circulating Q.

This is similar to the hypothesised Crucifixion and Burial account that lies under Mark’s account which is also supposed to be very early tradition and which we also have no traces of.

 

[patrick457]

Yes, but we can’t just ignore the evidence because we prefer another theory which better support our belief.

The fact that the Christology and theological content of the Gospels increase as you go from Mark, to Matthew & Luke and finally to John is very telling and really only makes sense within the two-source theory.

Hey, Markan priority does NOT equal Two-Source Hypothesis (a common mistake) - one CAN believe in the priority of Mark without subscribing to that idea. The two ideas are not so wedded to one another as one might think at first. Personally I do also think that Mark is first, but I don’t believe in the existence of Q: instead I think Matthew and Luke knew each other’s Gospels (Farrer Hypothesis).

 

[Contarini]

Hey, Markan priority does NOT equal Two-Source Hypothesis (a common mistake) - one CAN believe in the priority of Mark without subscribing to that idea. The two ideas are not so wedded to one another as one might think at first. Personally I do also think that Mark is first, but I don’t believe in the existence of Q: instead I think Matthew and Luke knew each other’s Gospels (Farrer Hypothesis).

So you’re saying that Matthew is partly based on Mark and Luke is partly based on Matthew (or that the Luke-Matthew relationship may be the other way round)?

How does that explain the “middle term” phenomenon to which you allude above?

Are you saying that because the writer of the third Gospel (whichever this was–I would assume Luke but I suppose it could have been Matthew) had both earlier Gospels in front of him and knew Mark to be the earlier one, he consistently preferred to follow Mark and only departed from Mark when his own purposes (or tradition of which he was aware) caused him to do so?

This seems like a less convincing explanation than the two-source one. If Luke (say) was willing to depart from Mark when he didn’t have Matthew to support him, why wouldn’t he also be willing to do so when he did?

Edwin

 

[patrick457]

This is similar to the hypothesised Crucifixion and Burial account that lies under Mark’s account which is also supposed to be very early tradition and which we also have no traces of.

Ah, the one popularized by John Dominic Crossan, aka the Cross Gospel. Again, just a personal opinion, but even if we grant the existence of such a document, the Markan Passion account is such that the themes that were developed in the earlier chapters of the Gospel come into full play at this point - the flow is a bit too smooth IMHO; they are an integral part of the Gospel as a whole. So even if we suppose that Mark borrowed from a source that no longer exists he really made the Passion narrative his own. I think it’s difficult to let alone extrapolate a coherent non-Markan source from the account as it is now.

 

[patrick457]

So you’re saying that Matthew is partly based on Mark and Luke is partly based on Matthew (or that the Luke-Matthew relationship may be the other way round)?

According to the (often-ignored!) Farrer Hypothesis, Mark was written first, followed by Matthew, who used Mark as a source, and then by Luke, who used both Mark and Matthew. This is in contrast to the Two-Source Hypothesis, which posits that Mark wrote first, followed by Matthew and Luke, who both used Mark and the Q Document (in this idea, Matthew and Luke did not know each other’s Gospels).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...250px-Synoptic_problem_Farrer_hypothesis_.png

How does that explain the “middle term” phenomenon to which you allude above?

Through Markan priority (Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mark). The other popular alternative proposed by the Griesbach hypothesis that tries to explain why Mark is usually ‘the middle term’ is Markan posteriority: the idea that Mark wrote last, after Matthew and Luke.

Are you saying that because the writer of the third Gospel (whichever this was–I would assume Luke but I suppose it could have been Matthew) had both earlier Gospels in front of him and knew Mark to be the earlier one, he consistently preferred to follow Mark and only departed from Mark when his own purposes (or tradition of which he was aware) caused him to do so?

I quote from Mark Goodacre’s The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (p. 126-127):

Third, the idea that Luke is conservatively following the order of Q has always had difficulty with one of the most important pieces of evidence, the Lukan Preface, which seems to emphasize so strongly the matter of order. He appears to be critical of predecessors’ attempts to write narratives of the Jesus story (Lk. 1.1) and he goes on to say that
he has investigated everything carefully (1.2) so that he might write to Theophilus accurately and in order (1.3). On the Q theory, there is little reason for this overt stress on order, since Luke’s order is usually taken to replicate the orders of material in his two main sources, Mark and Q order and Q’s order. But on the Farrer Theory, the stress is understandable: Luke is making clear that he is critical of his predecessors’ work and that his radical reordering of Matthew is in Theophilus’s best interests.

Fourth, and finally, if Markan Priority is correct, it is likely that Luke has known Mark for longer than he has known Matthew. Let us say that the standard dating for Mark, somewhere in the late sixties, is correct (see above) and that the standard dating for Matthew, around 80, is also correct. Under these circumstances, Luke may well have been familiar with Mark’s Gospel for some years longer than he has been acquainted with Matthew. Perhaps, let us speculate, Matthew provided the direct catalyst for Luke’s reworking of Mark. He sees what Matthew has done: he has reworked Mark by adding birth and infancy narratives at one end of the Gospel, a resurrection story at the other end and adding lots of sayings material in the middle. Perhaps, Luke thinks, he can do the same kind of thing, but do it better, retaining Mark’s essential narrative outline but expanding it by adding birth and infancy narratives at one end of the Gospel and resurrection stories at the other, adding extra material — especially sayings — in between. Indeed, not only can he use Matthew’s basic idea of ‘fixing’ Mark in this way but he can also utilize some of this fine new Matthaean material in his own restructuring of Mark. In other words, it is easy to imagine an historical scenario that might give birth to a Gospel in which an evangelist essentially follows Mark but is at the same time influenced by and critical of Mark’s first corrector.

 

[patrick457]

Next stop: just exactly where Mark fits in all this. We’ll look at the various strengths and weaknesses of Markan priority and Markan posteriority and those in between.

 

[Contarini]

Patrick,

Thanks for this summary–it does seem like at least a possible hypothesis to be set alongside the two-source theory and Matthaean priority (and, as you say, Markan posteriority, though this seems like the least likely to me).

Edwin

 

[razredge]

So even if we suppose that Mark borrowed from a source that no longer exists he really made the Passion narrative his own. I think it’s difficult to let alone extrapolate a coherent non-Markan source from the account as it is now.

Yes, that’s the whole point of an underlying source for the death & burial accounts.

The problem with the Farrer hypothesis is that it doesn’t make sense for Luke to exclude parts of Matthews gospel that were striking or important.

The only real problem with the two source hypothesis is the existence of the Q source, which we have no evidence for - however if we presume this is a sayings collection or logia (like the Gospel of Thomas) and had all its content incorporated into Luke and Matthew then it makes perfect sense that the Christian community would not circulate it since they had Matthew & Luke and so there wouldn’t be enough copies of the text to survive to this day.

 

[patrick457]

Yes, that’s the whole point of an underlying source for the death & burial accounts.

The problem with the Farrer hypothesis is that it doesn’t make sense for Luke to exclude parts of Matthews gospel that were striking or important.

The only real problem with the two source hypothesis is the existence of the Q source, which we have no evidence for - however if we presume this is a sayings collection or logia (like the Gospel of Thomas) and had all its content incorporated into Luke and Matthew then it makes perfect sense that the Christian community would not circulate it since they had Matthew & Luke and so there wouldn’t be enough copies of the text to survive to this day.

I’d suggest that you read this first and tell me what you think.

 

[christosdavid]

well argued.

This has been the first “scholarly” piece Ive really read dismissing Q as a written source, the parallels between the pericopes are very convincing. To only be able to refute it with “they were added” is a weak case from the opposition. Textual criticism would have removed those words if there were not strong, convincing attestation to them.

good work on the thread

 

[razredge]

I’d suggest that you read this first and tell me what you think.

Hmm, well, I’ll have to look into that - but I can’t believe the majority of Bible scholars hold to the two source hypothesis if it has been so satisfactorily disputed.

I actually don’t mind either way, at least it’s not something absurd like Matthean priority.

Also have you heard of the idea that the Gospel of the Hebrews may by identical to Q?

Although scholarly consensus still holds to Markan priority, some modern scholars believe that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the second source used in the Gospel of Luke and helped form the basis for the Synoptic Tradition. They point out that in the first section of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), we find the Gospel of Mark listed as the first gospel written, and thus the basis of later gospels. Following it should be Q. However, such a source document (quelle means “source”) is absent from Jerome’s list, nor is one mentioned by Jerome in his writings. Rather, the first seminal document is not Q but the Gospel of the Hebrews. In “the place of honor” that should be given “the phantom Q” we find a Hebrew usurper.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews

 

[Jkimbo]

And what do you gentlemen have to say about the speculation that none of the final manuscripts we have are the originals and each author used copies we no longer have including some copies not included? The Q source? This would help explain much. Or how much did word of mouth tradition play?

I don’t particularly see the explanation of the three reporter types as satisfying because while certainly you will get some variation, I don’t really see that much in actual real life examples, unless we consider errors in reporting a possibility which I doubt happened in this case. I’m incline to believe there were copies we no longer have that were used as sources for the authors.

 

[patrick457]

Hmm, well, I’ll have to look into that - but I can’t believe the majority of Bible scholars hold to the two source hypothesis if it has been so satisfactorily disputed.

This just shows us yet again that scholars tend to be lazy. No, seriously, many scholars are usually hesitant to challenge accepted hypotheses since it would require major reassessments of virtually everything, obviously a very difficult task. As I’ve mentioned before, the T-SH is so predominant in New Testament studies nowadays that it is basically considered almost as an established truth: the student would literally get drenched in T-SH as soon as he steps foot in the world of NT studies. The downside of this is that many of the alternative solutions to the Synoptic Problem don’t get much serious consideration either because they are deemed ‘unacceptable’ or ‘unpalatable’. That, or they are simply too obscure to merit any attention. The Farrer Theory, for example, is not so well-known outside of the UK, almost non-existent (but things are gradually changing). Another popular alternative, the Griesbach-Farmer, does have some fame as being THE rival theory to T-SH in many areas (America being one of these), but even this hypothesis has its own flaws.

Not to mention that many people have the mistaken notion that Q and Markan priority must be intertwined; hence to question one would be to question the other. Because of a lack of awareness of ideas such as Farrer’s (which does believe in the priority of Mark but rejects Q), many people often tend to run to the other alternative: Matthean priority as expressed by Griesbach.

Also have you heard of the idea that the Gospel of the Hebrews may by identical to Q?

A little historical trivia for you: that is EXACTLY what the 19th-century German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher, one of the first people to propose the existence of Q (An Englishman named Herbert Marsh beat him to it a few decades earlier ), thought. He theorized that Papias’ famous cryptic testimony as quoted by Eusebius (Church History 3.39.16) that “Matthew compiled the logia in the Hebrew tongue” may refer to a Q-like document which Matthew may have drawn upon. In fact, Q is still called Logienquelle (‘Logia-source’) in German nowadays.

As an aside, we should note also that the ideas of a source document and Markan priority would only be combined together by Herman Christian Weisse (the father of the Two-Source Hypothesis really) six years afterwards, in 1838. Even before Schleiermacher came into the scene, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1778) was already positing a lost Hebrew Gospel as a proto-Gospel common source for the Synoptics.