MARCAN PRIORITY THEORY

Marcan Priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the three synoptic
gospels to be written, and was used as a source by the other two, (Mathews and Luke). It the
central element in discussion of the synoptic problem; the question of the documentary
relationship among these three gospels.

Most scholars since 19th century have accepted the concept of Marcan priority. It forms the
foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory, although a number of scholars support
different forms of Marcan priority or reject it altogether.

The two-source hypothesis (or 2SH) is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of

similarities and differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that
the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a
hypothetical sayings collection from the Christian oral tradition called Q.
The two-source hypothesis emerged in the 19th century. B. H. Streeter definitively stated the
case in 1924, adding that two other sources, referred to as M and L, lie behind the material in
Matthew and Luke respectively. The strengths of the hypothesis are its explanatory
power regarding the shared and non-shared material in the three gospels; its weaknesses lie in the
exceptions to those patterns, and in the hypothetical nature of its proposed collection of Jesus-
sayings. Later scholars have advanced numerous elaborations and variations on the basic
hypothesis, and even completely alternative hypotheses. Nevertheless, "the 2SH commands the
support of most biblical critics from all continents and denominations."[1]
When Streeter's two additional sources, M and L, are taken into account, this hypothesis is
sometimes referred to as the four-document hypothesis.
The hypothesis is a solution to what is known as the synoptic problem: the question of how best
to account for the differences and similarities between the three synoptic gospels, Matthew,
Mark and Luke. The answer to this problem has implications for the order in which the three
were composed, and the sources on which their authors drew.
Any solution to the synoptic problem needs to account for two features:

 The "triple tradition": The three gospels frequently share both wording and arrangement of
"pericopes" (incidents, stories - this substantial sharing is what led to them being called
"synoptic", or seeing-together). Where they differ on this shared material, Mark and Luke
will agree against Matthew, or Mark and Matthew will agree against Luke, but very rarely
will Mark be the odd one out. Matthew's and Luke's versions of shared pericopes will usually
be shorter than Mark's.
 The "double tradition": Sometimes Matthew and Luke share material which is not present in
Mark. In these cases Matthew and Luke sometimes parallel each other closely, but at other
times are widely divergen

The 2SH attempts to solve the synoptic problem by advancing two propositions, Markan priority
to explain the triple tradition, and the existence of a lost Q document to solve the double
tradition. In summary, the two-source hypothesis proposes that Matthew and Luke used Mark
for its narrative material as well as for the basic structural outline of chronology of Jesus' life;
and that Matthew and Luke use a second source, Q (from German Quelle, "source"), not extant,
for the sayings (logia) found in both of them but not in Mark.[5]

Marcan priority

Main article: Marcan priority

The 2SH explains the features of the triple tradition by proposing that both Matthew and Luke
used Mark as a source. Mark appears more 'primitive': his diction and grammar are less literary
than Matthew and Luke, his language is more prone to redundancy and obscurity, his
Christology is less supernatural, and he makes more frequent use of Aramaic. The more
sophisticated versions of Mark's pericopes in Matthew and Luke must be either the result of
those two "cleaning up" Mark, if his is the first gospel, or of Mark "dumbing down" Matthew
and/or Luke, if he was later. Critics regard the first explanation as the more likely. On a more
specific level, Marcan priority seems to be indicated due to instances where Matthew and Luke
apparently omit explanatory material from Mark, where Matthew adds his own theological
emphases to Mark's stories, and in the uneven distribution of Mark's stylistic features in
Matthew.[6]

The existence of Q

Main article: Q source

The 2SH explains the double tradition by postulating the existence of a lost "sayings of Jesus"
document known as Q, from the German Quelle, "source". It is this, rather than Markan priority,
which forms the distinctive feature of the 2SH as against rival theories. The existence of Q
follows from the conclusion that, as Luke and Matthew are independent of Mark in the double
tradition, the connection between them must be explained by their joint but independent use of a
missing source or sources. (That they used Q independently of each other follows from the fact
that they frequently differ quite widely in their use of this source)

Problems with the hypothesis[edit]

While the 2SH remains the most popular explanation for the origins of the synoptic gospels, two
questions - the existence of the so-called "minor agreements," and problems with the hypothesis
of Q - continue at the centre of discussion over its explanatory power.

The minor agreements[edit]

The "minor agreements"—the word "minor" here is not intended to be belittling—are those
points where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (for example, the mocking question at the
beating of Jesus, "Who is it that struck you?", found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark).
The "minor agreements" thus call into question the proposition that Matthew and Luke knew
Mark but not each other. Streeter devoted a chapter to the matter, arguing that the Matthew/Luke
agreements were due to coincidence, or to the result of the two authors' reworking of Mark into
more refined Greek, or to overlaps with Q or oral tradition, or to textual corruption.

A few later scholars explain the minor agreements as being due to Luke's using Matthew in
addition to Q and Mark (3SH). But the modern argument for Q requires Matthew and Luke to be
independent, so the 3SH raises the question of how to establish a role for Q if Luke is dependent
on Matthew. Accordingly, some scholars (like Helmut Koester) who wish to keep Q while
acknowledging the force of the minor agreements attribute them to a proto-Mark, such as the Ur-
Markus in the Markan Hypothesis (MkH), adapted by Mark independently from its use by
Matthew and Luke. Still other scholars feel that the minor agreements are due to a revision of the
Mark found in the Bible, called deutero-Mark. In this case, both Matthew and Luke are
dependent on proto-Mark, which did not survive the ages.

"Therefore, the minor agreements, if taken seriously, force a choice between accepting pure
Markan priority on one hand or the existence of Q on the other hand, but not both simultaneously
as the 2SH requires."[4]

Problems with Q[edit]

See also: Marcion hypothesis

A principal objection to the 2SH is that it requires a hypothetical document, Q, the existence of
which is not attested in any way, either by existing fragments (and a great many fragments of
early Christian documents do exist) or by early Church tradition. The minor agreements are also,
according to the critics, evidence of the non-existence of, or rather the non-necessity for, Q: if
Matthew and Luke have passages which are missing in Mark (the "Who is it that struck you?"
sentence quoted above is a famous example), this demonstrates only that Matthew is quoting
Luke or vice versa.

Farrer hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Farrer hypothesis suggests that the Gospel of Mark was written first. The Gospel of Matthew
was written using Mark as a source. Then the Gospel of Luke was written using both Mark and
Matthew.

The Farrer hypothesis (also called the L/M hypothesis, the Farrer–Goulder hypothesis and

the Farrer–Goulder–Goodacre hypothesis) is a possible solution to the synoptic problem. The
theory is that the Gospel of Mark was written first, followed by the Gospel of Matthew and then
by the Gospel of Luke.

It has mainly been advocated by English biblical scholars. It is named for Austin Farrer, who
wrote On Dispensing With Q in 1955,[1] but it has been picked up by other scholars
including Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre.

The Farrer theory has the advantage of simplicity, as there is no need for hypothetical sources to
be created by academics. Instead, advocates of the Farrer theory argue, the Gospel of Mark was
used as source material by the author of Matthew. Lastly, Luke used both of the previous gospels
as sources for his Gospel.[2]

Farrer set out his argument in an essay "On dispensing with Q".[3] He says that the two-source
hypothesis, as set out by B. H. Streeter thirty years earlier,[4] "wholly depends on the incredibility
[i.e., disbelief] of St Luke having read St Matthew's book", since otherwise the natural
assumption would be that one was dependent on the other, rather than that they were both
dependent on a further source.

This assumption could be displaced by, for example, identifying material appearing in both
Matthew and Luke that was very different from either of them, which, when extracted, appears to
be a work in its own right, with a beginning, middle and end. Neither of these factors are found
in Q, as reconstructed by scholars. He also says (writing before the publication of the Gospel of
Thomas) that "we have no reason to believe that documents of the Q type were plentiful", which
would have made the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke drew on one more likely.

Nor is it obvious, Farrer says, that a book like Q was likely to be produced as a written manual of
the teaching of Christ, since the reconstruction of it requires it to also have significant narrative
elements interspersed with the teaching, and to have an interest in symbolism from the Old
Testament.

Arguments for[edit]

In his 1955 paper On Dispensing with Q, Austin Farrer made the case that if Luke had been
acquainted with the gospel of Matthew, there would be no need to postulate a lost Q gospel.
Farrer's case rested on the following points:[5]

 The Q hypothesis was formed to answer the question of where Matthew and Luke got their
common material if they did not know of each other's gospels. But if Luke had read
Matthew, the question that Q answers does not arise.
 We have no evidence from early Christian writings that anything like Q ever existed.
 When scholars have attempted to reconstruct Q from the common elements of Matthew and
Luke, the result does not look like a gospel.
o Although many scholars originally thought of Q as a sayings gospel, a collection of
teachings with no narrative content, all alleged reconstructions of Q from the common
parts of Matthew and Luke include narrative about John the Baptist, Jesus' baptism and
temptation in the wilderness, and his healing of a centurion's servant.
o However, they don't include an account of Jesus' death and resurrection.
o But from the earliest Christian writings, we see a strong emphasis on precisely the
element that a putative Q omits, Jesus' death and resurrection.
 Some scholars have attempted to overcome problems with Q reconstructions by claiming we
cannot know the actual contents of the Q gospel. However, postulating Luke's acquaintance
with the gospel of Matthew overcomes these same problems and gives the source for the
common material.

The most notable argument for the Farrer hypothesis is that there are many passages where the
text of Matthew and Luke agree in making small changes to that of Mark (what is called
the double tradition). This would follow naturally if Luke was using Matthew and Mark, but is
hard to explain if he is using Mark and Q. Streeter divides these into six groups and finds
separate hypotheses for each.

Farrer comments that "[h]is argument finds its strength in the fewness of the instances for which
any one hypothesis needs to be invoked; but the opposing counsel will unkindly point out that
the diminution of the instances for each hypothesis is in exact proportion to the multiplication of
the hypotheses themselves. One cannot say that Dr. Streeter's plea is incapable of being
sustained, but one must concede that it is a plea against apparent evidence".

Goodacre puts forth an additional argument from fatigue, meaning cases where a derivative
passage begins to make changes to its source but fails to sustain them and lapses back into the
original version. For example, the parable of the talents is more coherent in Matthew, but less so
in Luke, who attempted to increase the number of servants from three to ten. The several
instances where this is observed point to Luke using Matthew rather than contrariwise.[6][7]

Streeter's five arguments against[edit]

Five arguments are given by Streeter for the impossibility of Luke relying on Matthew.

1. The first is that he would not have omitted some of the Matthean texts that he did because
they are so striking. Farrer replies that they were omitted because they do not conform to
the 'edifice' that Luke is building.
2. The second is that Luke sometimes preserves a more primitive version of a text that is
also in Matthew. Farrer replies that this depends on being able to identify the more
primitive text; for example, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" suits Matthew's theology, but
it would be natural for Luke to drop the "in spirit" to fit his concern with the poor.

Two-gospel hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GRIESBACH HYPOTHESIS

Jump to navigationJump to search

Not to be confused with Two-source hypothesis.

The two-gospel hypothesis: Luke was written with knowledge of Matthew, and Mark was
written with knowledge of both.

The two-gospel hypothesis or Griesbach hypothesis is that the Gospel of Matthew was written
before the Gospel of Luke, and that both were written earlier than the Gospel of Mark.[1] It is a
proposed solution to the synoptic problem, which concerns the pattern of similarities and
differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis is generally
first credited to Johann Jakob Griesbach writing in the 1780s; it was introduced in its current
form by William R. Farmer in 1964 and given its current designation of two-gospel hypothesis in
1979.

The two-gospel hypothesis contrasts with the two-source hypothesis, the most popular and
accepted scholarly hypothesis. Supporters say that it does not require lost sources like the Q
source and was supported by the early Church. Proponents of the two-gospel hypothesis
generally also support the traditional claims of authorship as accurate to disciples and their direct
associates, which implies the gospels were written comparatively soon after Jesus's death, rather
than the later dates of authorship supported by other schools of thought.[2]

3. The third is that Luke follows Mark's order but does not do the same with Matthew.
Farrer asks, in reply, why he should: "Is it surprising that he should lay his plan on
Marcan foundations, and quarry St. Matthew for materials to build up his house?".
4. The fourth is that Luke uses the material less well than Matthew. Farrer replies that this
may be so, but he would not be the first adapter to have produced a less skilful result, the
only issue was whether it would suit Luke's message better to have the material arranged
in this way.
5. The final argument is that Luke does not use the material within the same Marcan
paragraphs as Matthew. Farrer points out that he takes them out of a Marcan context and
reproduces them elsewhere. In chapters 10–18, Luke reassembles the teaching material
in a way which makes the points that he wants to make, often by pairing sayings that
have not been paired together before. This may have been to produce a
Christian Deuteronomy, just as it was argued that Matthew's gospel was in the form of a
Christian Pentateuch.

The hypothesis states that Matthew was written first, while Christianity was still centered in
Jerusalem, to calm the hostility between Jews and Christians. After Matthew, as the church
expanded beyond the Holy Land, Luke wrote a gospel with an intended audience of
Gentiles. Since neither Luke (nor his associate Paul) were eyewitnesses of Jesus, Peter gave
public testimonies that validated Luke's gospel. These public speeches were transcribed into
Mark's gospel, as recorded by the early Church father Irenaeus. Paul then allowed Luke's
gospel to be published.[3]

The proposal suggests that Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, probably in the 40s
AD. At the time, the church had yet to extend outside of Jerusalem. The primary political
problem within the church community was caused by the fact that Jewish authorities were
outright hostile to Jesus and his followers. Matthew wrote his account in order to show that
Jesus was actually the fulfillment of what Jewish scripture had prophesied. It has been long
recognized that Matthew is the most "Jewish" of the gospels. It, for example, heavily
references Jewish scripture and Jewish history.[4]

When Stephen was martyred, as recorded in the Book of Acts, the disciples scattered beyond
Jerusalem into Gentile (mostly Greek but also Syriac) towns. There they began preaching,
and a large number of pagans in Antioch became Christians. By the mid 50s, Paul, who
converted and claimed the title of "Apostle to the Gentiles" realized the need for a gospel
specifically to the Gentiles. This gospel would deemphasize Mosaic Law and recent Jewish
history in order to appeal to Greeks and Romans. Paul commissioned his associate, Luke,
who consulted the Gospel of Matthew as well as other sources. Once the gospel had been
written, its publication was delayed, however. Paul decided that he needed Peter's public
testimony as to its accuracy, since neither Paul nor Luke had known Jesus before Jesus's
execution.[5]

Paul asked Peter, who was the leader of the Apostles, to testify that Luke's account was
accurate. According to early church sources, Peter gave a series of speeches to senior Roman
army officers. Due to the commonality between Mark and Luke, these speeches would have
constituted Peter's public "seal of approval" upon Luke's gospel. These church sources
suggest that Peter was ambivalent when Mark asked him if he could write down the words of
the speeches. However, since the Roman officers who heard the speeches liked them, they
asked for copies, and so Mark made fifty copies of Peter's speeches. These copies began
circulating, and became Mark's gospel. Only after the speeches by Peter were made (and
Mark's transcriptions began circulating) did Paul feel confident enough to publish Luke's
gospel.[6]

The two-gospel hypothesis assumes that Peter made sure that his speeches agreed with both
Matthew and the still unpublished Luke. Since Matthew was the primary source for Luke,
and Matthew's gospel (the only published gospel at the time) would have been well known
to Peter, he mostly would have preached on the contents of Matthew. Knowing Matthew
better than Luke, Peter was more likely to mention details found in Matthew and not Luke
than vice versa. This would explain why there are more details found in Mark and Matthew
but not Luke than there are details found in Mark and Luke but not Matthew. It also explains
why Mark is so much shorter than Matthew and Luke, is more anecdotal and emotional, is
less polished, and why only it begins immediately with Jesus' public ministry. Peter was
giving public speeches as to what he saw, and never intended his speeches to become a full
gospel. This was asserted by early church historians, and explains why there are so few
commentaries on Mark (as opposed to Matthew, Luke and John) until a relatively late date.
It appears to have been considered the least important gospel in the early church.[7]
Contrasted with the two-source hypothesis

Proponents generally separate arguments made from the text of the gospels themselves
("internal evidence") and evidence from preserved writings of the early church ("external
evidence"). For example, early church documents claim that Mark's Gospel was created after
Mark made fifty copies of a series of speeches that Peter had given in Rome. The two-gospel
hypothesis leans very heavily on this external evidence: it embraces the views of the early
church, and claims that a strong reason needs to be provided to justify dismissing the
traditions of the early Church maintained over the authorship of the gospels. The two-source
hypothesis, in contrast, is based largely on the internal evidence for Marcan priority.[8]
Since the two-source hypothesis does not accept the conjecture of the early church, it follows
from internal evidence (such as the shortness of Mark) and logic (e.g. 'why would Mark
write a shorter version of a gospel in existence?')[9]

Approximately 25% of Matthew and 25% of Luke are identical, but are not found in Mark.
This has been explained in the two-source hypothesis as coming from the hypothetical Q
document. By the two-gospel hypothesis, this material was copied by Luke from Matthew,
but not testified to by Mark because Peter had not seen it. Proponents of later dates of
authorship (due to seeming familiarity with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in the
First Jewish-Roman War in 70 AD in passages such as Mark 13) state that information
unique to Matthew ("M") and Luke ("L") came from unknown sources. The two-gospel
hypothesis, by placing the authorship of the gospels earlier, assumes "M" to be mostly Saint
Matthew's eyewitness testimony and "L" to be eyewitness account interviewed by Luke
mentioned in the first verses of Luke's gospel. The two-gospel theory is more of a conjecture
than the two-source hypothesis because, unlike that theory, it depends on the unreliable
accounts of the early church.

Scholarly history
Johann Jakob Griesbach, who suggested a Matthew, Luke, Mark order on literary grounds.

The Church Fathers settled on Matthaean priority themselves, but kept to the order seen in
the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, then John. This would later be referred to as the
Augustinian hypothesis.

The first major proponent of something like a Matthew-Luke-Mark ordering was Johann
Jakob Griesbach. The Griesbach hypothesis is similar to the modern two-gospel hypothesis.
However, unlike the two-gospel hypothesis, the Griesbach hypothesis is principally a literary
hypothesis. What came to be labeled the Griesbach Hypothesis was anticipated by the
British scholar Henry Owen (1716–1795) in a piece he published in 1764, and by Friedrich
Andreas Stroth (1750–1785) in an article he published anonymously in 1781. Griesbach
(1745–1812), to whom this source hypothesis was first accredited, alluded to his conclusion
that Matthew wrote the first of the canonical gospels and that Luke, not Mark, made first use
of Matthew in composing the second of the canonical gospels in an address celebrating the
Easter season at the University of Jena in 1783. Later, for similar Whitsun programs at Jena
(1789–1790), Griesbach published a more detailed "Demonstration that the Whole Gospel of
Mark is Excerpted from the Narratives of Matthew & Luke."

Griesbach's theory was what German scholars came to call a "utilization hypothesis."
Griesbach's main support for his thesis lies in passages where Matthew and Luke agree over
and against Mark (e.g. Matthew 26:68; Luke 22:64; Mark 14:65), the so-called Minor
Agreements.

A related theory has Luke drawing not directly from Matthew, but from a common source,
seen as a proto-Matthew. This was advanced in the nineteenth century by Wilhelm de Wette
and Friedrich Bleek.[10]
Markan priority began to be seriously proposed in the 18th century, was fleshed out during
the 19th century, and became established scholarly fact by the 20th century, with the two-
source hypothesis the most popular variant. By the 1960s, scholars considered the two-
source hypothesis to be the unquestioned solution to the synoptic problem. William R.
Farmer raised objections to it in his 1964 book The Synoptic Problem, but this view did not
receive much uptake among scholars; exceptions included Bernard Orchard and David Laird
Dungan.[11] At a conference in 1979, proponents agreed to change the name from
"Griesbach hypothesis" to "two-gospel hypothesis".[12] Others such as David Alan Black
have kept up support for the two-gospel hypothesis since.

Criticism

Many generic arguments in favor of Markan Priority and/or Two-source hypothesis also
work as arguments against the two-gospel hypothesis. While it is impossible to list all
arguments in favor and against the theory, some notable arguments are as follows.

If Luke had access to the final version of Matthew (as opposed to both drawing
independently on other sources), why are there so many significant differences between
Luke and Matthew on issues such as Jesus' genealogy, circumstances of birth, and events
following resurrection? While Luke and Matthew do share a lot of text which is not present
in Mark, almost all of it is confined to teachings and parables. Construction of the gospels in
accordance with the two-gospel hypothesis would require Luke to rewrite major parts of
Matthew's narrative – even though Matthew was presumably an eyewitness who lived in
Jerusalem and was surrounded by other eyewitnesses, and Luke was neither.

"The argument from omission": why would Mark and Peter omit such remarkable and
miraculous events as virgin birth of Jesus and particularly his appearance to apostles
following resurrection? Both Matthew and Luke explicitly attest that Jesus appeared to the
eleven disciples, including Peter, after his resurrection, and it seems incredible that Peter
 would not testify to that fact in his public speeches. And why is the Sermon on the Mount
completely omitted from both Mark and Luke?[13]

Proponents cite the simplicity of not having to include an unknown lost tradition in Q.
However, lost sources are not unusual in antiquity, with thousands of references by surviving
works to books that were not preserved. Even strictly theologically, lost works are attested to
directly in scripture: an Epistle to the Laodiceans is referenced in Colossians, but is generally
considered lost. The book of 2 Maccabees, a deuterocanonical book considered scripture in
the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, directly states it is an abridgement of a five-volume
work by Jason of Cyrene, but this original work has been lost. Even if taken on its own
terms, the two-gospel hypothesis cites patristic evidence such as Papias who believed there
to be a "Gospel of the Hebrews". If such a document existed, it too has since been lost.

Proponents also cite the early Church Fathers as holding a position of Matthaean priority.
However, the early Church Fathers disagreed with each other on many issues, and held
various positions given credence by essentially no one today. The earliest reference to all
four canonical gospels that calls them by the names ascribed to them now is from Irenaeus's
Against Heresies (written around 185 AD) and the Muratorian fragment (written around
170–200 AD) - over a century after Jesus's death. Justin Martyr, writing 30 years earlier than
Irenaeus from the same location (Rome), loosely quotes gospels but does not give them their
modern attributions, suggesting that these attributions were made at some point between
150–180. If the stories of Mark recording Peter's speeches truly originated from Rome circa
60 AD, why did Justin not refer to Mark or Peter? Even if Justin simply omitted mention
coincidentally, it is still a long time for a chain of oral transmission traditions on authorship
before it is recorded. As such, the Church Fathers should not be assumed to have special
insight into the truth on this matter.[14]

Conversely, if the early Church Fathers really are reliable, then why not trust them on their
ordering of Matthew - Mark - Luke? The two-gospel hypothesis introduces a delay in the
dissemination of Luke to explain the traditional order, but such a delay is never described
explicitly in ancient church writings.[15]

Matthean Posteriority hypothesis

  (Redirected from Wilke hypothesis)
The Wilke hypothesis holds that the Gospel of Mark was used as a source by the Luke and both
for Matthew.

The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis, also known as the Wilke hypothesis after Christian

Gottlob Wilke, is a proposed solution to the synoptic problem, holding that the Gospel of
Mark was used as a source by the Gospel of Luke, then both of these were used as sources by
the Gospel of Matthew. Thus, it posits Marcan priority and Matthaean posteriority.

History[edit]

Storr, in his groundbreaking 1786 argument for Marcan priority,[1] asked, if Mark was a source
for Matthew and Luke, how the latter two were then related. Storr proposed, among other
possibilities, that canonical Greek Matthew was adapted from an earlier Aramaic
Matthew (the logia spoken of by Papias) by following Mark primarily but also drawing from
Luke,[2] although he later went on to oppose this.[3]

These ideas were little noticed until 1838, when Christian Gottlob Wilke[4] revived the hypothesis
of Marcan priority and extensively developed the argument for Matthaean posteriority. Wilke's
contemporary Weisse[5] at the same time independently argued for Marcan priority but for
Matthew and Luke independently using Mark and another source Q—the two-source hypothesis.
A few other German scholars supported Wilke's hypothesis in the nineteenth century, but in time
most came to accept the two-source hypothesis, which remains the dominant theory to this day.
Wilke's hypothesis was accepted by Karl Kautsky in his Foundations of Christianity.[6]

Wilke's hypothesis received little further attention until recent decades, when it was revived in
1992 by Huggins,[7] then Hengel,[8] then independently by Blair.[9] Additional recent supporters
include Garrow[10] and Powell.[11]
Evidence[edit]

Most arguments for the Wilke hypothesis follow those of the Farrer hypothesis in
accepting Marcan priority but rejecting Q. The difference, then, is in the direction of dependence
between Matthew and Luke.

Arguments advanced in favor of Matthaean posteriority include:

 Matthew's version of the double tradition appears more developed in wording and structure

than Luke's, which appears more primitive. (The same observation is made by supporters of
the two-source hypothesis, who regard Luke adhering better to the original Q.)
 Matthew contains passages that are conflations of elements drawn from Mark and Luke (e.g.
Matt 9:14-17, 9:35-10,12:22-30, 12:31-32, 19:23-30, 24:23-28). This phenomenon is unique
to Matthew, for there is no similar array of passages in Luke that are composed of elements
drawn from Mark and Matthew.
 Matthew seems to have deliberately rearranged his sources to collecting teachings into five
large blocks (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount), which makes better sense than Luke
rearranging Matthew into scattered fragments.
 In the double tradition, Matthew's language often retains characteristically Lucan features.
 The frequent occurrence of doublets in Matthew may indicate drawing from similar accounts
in two different sources.

Four-document hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

B. H. Streeter's four-document hypothesis

A four-document hypothesis or four-source hypothesis is an explanation for the relationship

between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that there were at least four
sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark and three lost
sources (Q, M, and L). It was proposed by B. H. Streeter in 1925, who refined the two-source
hypothesis into a four-source hypothesis.[1][2]

Description[edit]
According to B. H. Streeter's analysis the non-Marcan matter in Luke has to be
distinguished into at least two sources, Q and L. In a similar way he argued that
Matthew used a peculiar source, which we may style M, as well as Q. Luke did not
know M, and Matthew did not know L. Source M has the Judaistic character (see
the Gospel according to the Hebrews), and it suggests a Jerusalem origin; source L
Streeter assigned to Caesarea; and source Q, the analysis posits, was connected
with Antioch. The document Q was an Antiochene translation of a document originally
composed in Aramaic – possibly by the Apostle Matthew for Galilean Christians. Gospel
of Luke developed in two phases (see picture).

According to this view the first gospel is a combination of the traditions of Jerusalem,
Antioch, and Rome, while the third gospel represents Caesarea, Antioch, and Rome.
The fact that the Antiochene and Roman sources were reproduced by both Evangelists
Matthew and Luke was due to the importance of those Churches. Streeter thought there
is no evidence that the other sources are less authentic.

Streeter hypothesized a proto-Luke document, an early version of Luke that did not
incorporate material from Mark or the birth narrative. According to this hypothesis, the
evangelist added material from Mark and the birth narratives later. Telling against this
hypothesis, however, the gospel has no underlying passion tradition separate from
Mark, and Luke's travel account is evidently based on Mark 10.[3] A contemporary
version of the four-source theory omits proto-Luke, with the evangelist combining Mark,
Q, and L directly.[4] Still, the gospel might have circulated originally without the birth
narrative in the first two chapters.[5]