Synoptic Gospels and Assumptions on Source

Copyright-QuestMeraki.com

The Advent has begun bringing Hope, Joy and a Season to celebrate Jesus’ birth. The birth of Jesus brought us good news of great joy. (Luke 2:10). Likewise, it is also a time to reflect on the good news of Jesus establishing the Kingdom for us, for bringing us into His heavenly abode at His call.

The Gospels present the birth and the story of Jesus in an exciting manner. However, they present the events in different ways, one dramatic, another more orderly or as in Gospel of Matthew, touching on the Old Testament prophesies.

Clearly, we see differences in the events recorded in the Synoptic Gospels – The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Recently, I had to work on an assignment on the Synoptic Gospels and it was rather perplexing to see the various similarities and differences in the Synoptic Gospels. Research revealed that various scholars have proposed different assumptions for the similarities and differences. In fact, scholars believe that someone wrote first and others depended on this source to write their Gospel.

Hence, in this post, I like to share the assumptions on the source.

Assumptions on Source

The different assumptions are as follows –

The Augustinian Hypothesis

Early Church father Augustine (AD 400) proposed that Matthew wrote his Gospel first and Mark used Matthew’s materials for writing His Gospel. Further, Luke wrote his Gospel using both Matthew and Mark (Carson et al, 1992).

The “Two-Gospel” Hypothesis

 J.J. Griesbach (1745-1812) proposed that Matthew wrote first from his own knowledge. Later, Luke used Matthew’s materials to add to the oral tradition. Mark used both Matthew’s and Luke’s materials for writing his account. This hypothesis rejects ‘Q’ (materials unique to Matthew and Luke). However, this hypothesis was challenged and scholars came up with their argument that Matthew and Luke have restyled and reinterpreted Mark’s writings (Carson et al,1992, p.21; Paynter, 2015, Stanton, 1989, p.38).

The Two-Source Hypothesis

Holtzmann (1832-1910) proposed that since Mark’s Gospel was ‘primitive in composition and language’; it must be the first one to be written. Moreover, the hypothesis stated that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q independently. Also, he came up with several propositions such as document A or Ur-Marcus and Lambda as sources (Carson et al; McNicol, 2007).

The Four-source Hypothesis

This hypothesis accepted by most scholars, proposes that Mark wrote first (Markan Priority) and independently used by Matthew and Luke, they used ‘Q’ too. Additionally, Matthew and Luke also used their own sources ‘M’ and ‘L’. (Carson et al, Paynter, 2015)

The Farrer Theory

This proposes that Luke used both Mark and Matthew but disagrees with ‘Q’ (Goodacre, 2001,p.20 – 23).

Triple Tradition

When a pericope appears in all three Gospels, it is referred as triple tradition (Paynter, 2015). For example – the Healing of a Leper, Call of Levi/Matthew, Calming the Storm, Feeding the Five Thousand, and more. Alderman (n.d) states that 90 percent of material in Mark is seen in Matthew and 65 percent is seen in Luke.

Double Tradition

These include materials shared by Matthew and Luke alone that cover a quarter of the content in Matthew and Luke. For example, preaching of John the Baptist, Centurion’s Servant, ‘the lost sheep’, ‘the faithful servant’ (Clay, 2017; Paynter, 2015); this is also referred to as ‘Q’. The ‘Q’ source explains why Matthew and Luke have more materials than Mark (Goodacre, 2001; Alderman, n.d ). In fact, there are about 200 verses of Double Tradition.

Special M & Special L

Lastly, this refers to the materials found only in Matthew (20% of the Gospel). For example, Genealogy, Birth narratives, parables) (Clay, 2017, Alderman, n.d) and unique to Luke (35% – examples, Birth narratives, genealogy of Jesus, Jesus as a boy, healings and parables) that are not found in other gospels (Goodacre, 2001, p.35-45). Hence, this adds to support the assumption that Mark was the primary source.  (Alderman, n.d)

There has been the issue of whether they were placed in the order due to dignity/honor or are chronological. Furthermore, there is also the Clementine Hypothesis that Matthew and Luke with the genealogies were written first followed by Mark and John (McNicol, 2007).

Hope you found this post useful.

References

Alderman, I.M., (n.d) The Synoptic Question. Society of Biblical Literature.[online]. [Viewed 2 November 2018]. Available from:  https://www.sbl-site.org>assets>pdfs

Carson, D.A, Moo. D.J and Morris, L., (1992). An Introduction to The New Testament. Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan, [online]. [Viewed 28 Oct 2018]. Available from:http://abv.hristianski.net/pluginfile.php/514/mod_resource/content/1/carson-morris–intnt.pdf

Clay, C. 2017. The Synoptic Gospels. OWLCATION. [online]. [Viewed 4 November 2018]. Available from: https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Synoptic-Gospels-Matthew-Mark-and-Luke

Goodacre, M., (2001). The Synoptic Problem – A Way through the Maze. T & T Clark International, Continuum, London

McNicol, A.J., (2007). The Importance of the Synoptic Problem for Interpreting the Gospels. Original scientific paper  KAIROS – Evangelical Journal of Theology. [online].1(1), 13-24. [Viewed 3 November 2018]. Available from: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/38564

Paynter, SE., (2015). How the Synoptic Gospels Were Written- An Evangelical Introduction to The Synoptic Problem, and to Source, Form, and Redaction Criticism. Researchgate. [online]. [Viewed 4 November 2018]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302904710_How_the_Synoptic_Gospels_Were_Written_An_Evangelical_Introduction_to_The_Synoptic_Problem_and_to_Source_Form_and_Redaction_Criticism

Stanton, G.N., (1989). The Gospels and Jesus. Great Britain. Oxford University Press.