Great site on Synoptic Relationships

by peacefulpete 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    The Synoptic Problem concerns the literary relationship between the first three "synoptic" gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Synoptic Problem Home Page surveys proposed solutions and provides a clearing-house for materials related to its resolution.

    What's New? (November 14, 2003): See my Hypotyposeis weblog.

    Questions and comments may be sent to Stephen C. Carlson, the Synoptic Problem Home Page's maintainer.

    [ Theories | Web Sites & Mailing Lists | External Links ]

    Synoptic Theories & Hypotheses

    Two Source Hypothesis (2SH)

    Leading scholars: Christian Hermann Weisse (1838), Paul Wernle (1899), Burnett Hillman Streeter (1924); cf. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1863).

    The dominant source theory among scholars today, the 2SH holds that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and became the primary narrative source for Matthew and Luke (Markan priority). In addition, Matthew and Luke independently supplemented their Markan material with sayings of Jesus from a lost sayings collection, termed "Q".

    Related Models and variants:

    4SH: Four Source Hypothesis (Streeter 1924). Matthew's and Luke's own special sources are postulated to be distinct, written sources.
    Streeter: Proto-Luke (Streeter 1924), Vincent Taylor. Q and L constituted a proto-Luke before being incorporated into Luke.
    MkH: Markan Hypothesis (Weisse 1856, Holtzmann 1963). In its original form, all three synoptics independently derive from a proto-Gospel, Ur-Markus, that is similar though not identical to Mark. Ur-Markus also included the narrative and Baptist material now assigned to Q. A less ambitious variant of Ur-Markus is found whenever it is proposed that our text of Mark is corrupt and that Matthew and Luke better reflect the original text in certain places.
    dMk: Deutero-Mark (Abbott 1901). The anti-Markan agreements are explained by Matthew's and Luke's access to a "corrected" version of Mark that is no longer extant.
    Koester (1983, 1990) modifies 2SH to account for the origin of "Secret Mark." Koester proposes that, after Matthew and Luke used the first version of Mark (pMk), which was revised into Secret Mark (dMk). Our Mark then comes an edited version of Secret Mark.
    3SH: Three Source Hypothesis (Holtzmann 1878/1881, Simons 1880, Morgenthaler 1971, Gundry 1979, Price 1999 [ext. link]) posits three sources for Luke: Mark, Q, and to a lesser extent Matthew.
    Pierson Parker I argued for a proto-Matthew called K, which is essentially Mark + the special Matthean "M" material of the 4SH (P. Parker 1953). This proto-Matthew is the source for Mark and Matthew, but was never available to Luke.
    Pierson Parker II augmented his previous theory by adopting Streeter's suggestion for a proto-Luke that was the source of the Q and L material (P. Parker 1980), then adopted Griesbach by making Mark a conflation of proto-Matthew ("K") and proto-Luke (1983).

    Henry Owen (1764), Johann Jakob Griesbach (1783), William Reuben Farmer (1964).

    Official Homepage: Longstaff's 2GH Homepage

    Trowbridge's Summary of Farmer; see also Farmer's Argument at this site.

    The main challenger to the 2SH in America, the 2GH posits that Matthew was first and used by Luke and that Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke.

    Related Models:

    Harold Riley (1992) argues that our Matthew is a revision of the proto-Matthew used by Mark and Luke.
    Anton Büsching (1766) held that Mark conflated Matthew and Luke, but Luke was first.
    dWH: W. M. L. de Wette (1842) and Friedrich Bleek (1862) held that Mark conflated Matthew and Luke, but both Matthew and Luke were dependent on an Ur-Gospel. This hypothesis was perceived as a concession to Q within the Griesbach camp.
    Herbert Marsh (1801) viewed Mark as a conflation of an Aleph1 [= pMt] and Aleph2 [= pLk], both descended from an Ur-Gospel Aleph [= G]; for the double tradition, Marsh proposed a sayings source Beth [= Q], which merged with Aleph1 and Aleph2 to form Matthew and Mark, respectively.

    Pierre Rolland (1982) has a structurally similar hypothesis, identifying pMt as a Hellenist Gospel H, pLk as a Pauline Gospel P, and G as a Gospel of the Twelve D.

    • James Hardy Ropes (1934), Austin Marsden Farrer (1955), Michael Douglas Goulder (1974, 1989).
      • Homepage: Mark S. Goodacre's Case Against Q
      • Identified as a possible theory but not endorsed by Herbert Marsh (1801).
    • The FH, the leading contender to the 2SH in England, accepts Markan Priority but dispenses with Q. For the Double Tradition, the FH appeals to Luke's use of Matthew as the explanation.
    • Related Model:
      Christian Gottlieb Wilke (1838), Bruno Bauer (1841), Ronald V. Huggins (1992). Markan priority, but the Double Tradition material is the result of Matthew's copying Luke.

    Augustine (c. 400), Hugo Grotius (1641), H. G. Jameson (1922), Basil Christopher Butler (1951), John Wenham (1992).

    Matthew first, Mark second, Luke third, each successively dependent.

    Related Models:

    John Chapman (1937) argued that Luke's first draft was written without knowing Matthew.
    pMt: Proto-Matthew Hypothesis. Butler (1969) suggested that Luke is directly dependent on Greek Matthew and Mark as the AH and the FH hold, but Mark is dependent on Matthew's predecessor (proto-Matthew). Butler identified proto-Matthew as an Aramaic document that is substantially equivalent to the Greek Matthew.
    Other Theories, Variations, & Hypothetical Documents

    Lukan Priority Models:

    JSH: Jerusalem School Hypothesis (1973), a development of Robert Lindsey's hypothesis (1963). Lukan Priority with dependence of all three upon an "Anthology" and Luke upon a "First Reconstruction." Online publication: Jerusalem Perspective
    Lindsey (1963): The original proposal by Robert Lindsey.
    Lockton Hypothesis: W. Lockton (1922).
    Anton Büsching (1766) held that Luke was a source for Matthew and Mark conflated Matthew and Luke.
    • Miscellaneous Models
      UrG: Ur-Gospel, Lessing (1778/84). All three gospels descend from a single (Aramaic) gospel.
      LTH: The Logia Translation Hypothesis, Wilson (1998). All three gospels are dependent on Greek notes (the "Translation") which translated the Aramaic/Hebrew Logia of the Papias tradition. [LTH Home Page].

    [ Theories | Web Sites & Mailing Lists | External Links ]

    Web Sites & Mailing Lists

    The following Web Sites and Mailing Lists are among the most relevant and informative:

    Web Sites Mailing Lists
    A Synoptic Gospels Primer, from Mahlon Smith. Mainly from the perspective of the Two Source Hypothesis, this site "goes beyond the usual superficial discussion of the synoptic problem."
    Case Against Q, an exposition of the Farrer Hypothesis (FH) by Mark Goodacre.
    The Two Gospel Hypothesis, courtesy Thomas R.W. Longstaff.
    The Jerusalem Perspective Online is the Internet presence of the Jerusalem School.
    Ron Price (1999) has devoted a series of web pages to the 3SH, entitled, "The Origin of the Synoptic Gospels."
    • Synoptic-L is an academic list devoted to the critical, scholarly study of the Synoptic Problem and related topics. Knowledge of Greek is a plus.
    • Xtalk, the successor to the former Crosstalk, is now a moderated list for academics and amateurs alike devoted to the Historical Jesus and the Origins of Christianity. Questions of the origins of the primary documentary sources for the life of Jesus have been been welcomed and debated.
    • Ioudaios is dedicated mainly to the works of Philo and Josephus but includes discussions of various aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world, especially in the first century. The archived material contains a debate about Q.
    • B-Greek: Although higher critical topics such as the Synoptic Problem are not the focus of this list, B-Greek is a helpful place for investigating the meaning of the Greek text of the Bible, including, of course, the synoptic Gospels.

    [ Theories | Web Sites & Mailing Lists | External Links ]

    Links

    External Links
    On-Line Texts and Articles (Peer Reviewed)
    Edwin A. Abbott & W. G. Rushbrooke, The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels in the Text of the Revised Version (London: Macmillan and Co., 1884) pp. v-xi.
    On-line , ed., Stephen C. Carlson, Synoptic Problem .
    William R. Farmer, "The Present State of the Synoptic Problem" in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson, (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 11-36.
    On-line , ed. Mark Goodacre, Synoptic-L .
    On-line , ed. Thomas R. W. Longstaff, The Two Gospel Hypothesis .
    A. M. Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q" in D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955).
    On-line , ed. Mark Goodacre, Case Against Q .
    Francis E. Gigot, "Synoptics" in Catholic Encyclopedia 14 (Robert Appleton, 1912).
    On-line , ed. Douglas J. Potter, New Advent Catholic Web Site .
    Mark Goodacre, "Fatigue in the Synoptics," New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 45-58.
    On-line , idem, Case Against Q .
    Michael D. Goulder, "Is Q a Juggernaut?" Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 667-81.
    On-line , ed., Mark Goodacre, Case Against Q .
    Edward C. Hobbs, "A Quarter-Century Without 'Q'", Perkins Journal (Summer 1980): 10-19.
    On-line , ed. Mark Goodacre, Case Against Q .
    F. H. Woods, "The Origin and Mutual Relation of the Synoptic Gospels" in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica: Essays Chiefly in Biblical and Patristic Criticism, by members of the University of Oxford 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890): 59-104.
    On-line , ed., Stephen C. Carlson, Synoptic Problem .

    [ Theories | Web Sites & Mailing Lists | External Links ]
    Stephen C. Carlson, [email protected]
    Created: January 4, 1996
    Revised: November 13, 2003

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Sorry I can't seem to pull the text over and make it stay, but most of it is readable.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    That site is a great resource! Nicely summarizes the differences between the major theories and traditions.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Bookmarked! Thanks Peacefulpete...

  • MacHislopp
    MacHislopp

    Hello peacefulpete,

    thanks for posting the link to a very interesting research page

    with its various biblical aspects. Another one for the file.

    Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

  • gitasatsangha
    gitasatsangha

    Could Gospel of St. Luke have been "Q"?

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Gitasatsangha: The "two source hypothesis" basically implies that "Q" is the source for the common material in both Matthew and Luke, besides what in Matthew and Luke derives from Mark (or ProtoMark in further developments of the theory). In a very simplistic way, what is in both Matthew AND Luke but NOT in Mark is supposed to come from Q. This is the basic idea, but the reality is certainly more complex as:

    1) a number of elements from Matthew (or ProtoMatthew) and Luke (or ProtoLuke) have crept into the final redaction of Mark;

    2) Q itself has probably undergone an editorial process and changed in time;

    3) Matthew and Luke may not have taken exactly the same texts from Q (so a text specific to Matthew or Luke may actually derive from Q);

    4) Mark (or ProtoMark) may have known Q (or ProtoQ) but used less of it than Matthew and Luke.

  • gitasatsangha
    gitasatsangha

    my stupid error, I mean to ask if Q could have been Gospel of St. Thomas

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    How much thought have you guys given Goodacre's Case against Q?

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Gita: GThomas cannot be equated with "Q"; all that can be said is it has a lot in common with the tradition ascribed to "Q" and might derive from it at an early stage.

    For Q - Thomas parallels, see http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/thq.htm

    Peacefulpete

    How much thought have you guys given Goodacre's Case against Q?
    Certainly not enough as far as I'm concerned. What I'm most reluctant about is his ultimate resorting to oral tradition. I'm pretty convinced that at least some of the non-Markan synoptic material involves written source(s), the extent and content of which is admittedly hypothetical.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit