Source Criticism2
The Synoptic Problem
How do we account for the
similarities
as well as the
differences
between the three synoptic Gospels?
Source Criticism3
Early Solutions to the Problem
Papias (2nd c.) mentions two sources:
Mark, who was the interpreter of PeterLogia--a collection of sayings composed
by Matthew in a Hebrew dialect
Clement of Alexandria (2nd c.)Matthew and Luke were written first.
Source Criticism4
Augustine (5th c.)
Each wrote with knowledge of the
previous Gospel.
Successive Dependence, following
canonical order: Matthew, then Mark,
then Luke.
Source Criticism5
18th Century Solutions
Lessing (1778) proposed that an Aramaic Ur-Gospel (Gospel of the Nazarenes) was used independently by Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Griesbach (1783) argued that there was successive dependence: Matthew, then Luke, then Mark. Mark was a conflation of Matthew and Luke.
Source Criticism6
An Important Tool!In 1776 Griesbach published the first synopsis.
A Synopsis places the three (or more) Gospelsin parallel columns for ease of comparison.
Source Criticism8
Some Statistics on Content
Matthew Mark Luke
verses 1068 661 1098
scenes 117 98 120
sayings 225 80 182
First, the verse count --
Source Criticism9
80% of Mark’s verses are reproduced
in Matthew.65% of Mark’s verses are reproduced
in Luke.Matthew and Luke share 220-235
verses of material that is not found in Mark.
Comparisons -- in verses
Source Criticism10
Comparisons -- in scenes and sayings
Unique to Matt to Mark to Luketo Mt+ Lk
verses 396 89 530 218
scenes 35 10 48 5
sayings 38 1 39 77
Source Criticism11
Observations on Content --
Mark presents most of the narrative common to the synoptics but less than half of the sayings.
The material shared by Matthew and Luke (not in Mark) consists primarily of sayings.
Almost all of Mark is found in either Matthew or Luke.
Source Criticism12
Order (Chronology)
The clearest evidence of literary dependence among the synoptic gospels
--is the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke present their common material in the same basic sequence.
Source Criticism13
Outline Common to Synoptics
John the Baptist’s appearance & message Jesus baptized Jesus tested Jesus preaches in Galilee Cures & Exorcisms Social controversies Interpretation of parables 5000 fed Peter identifies Jesus as Messiah
Source Criticism14
Outline continued... 1st Passion prediction Transfiguration Exorcism 2nd Passion prediction Jesus goes to Judea Jesus summons children Call to abandon possessions and follow Jesus 3rd Passion prediction Blind cured Jesus enters Jerusalem Temple purged Jesus questioned by Jerusalem authorities
Note: Orange indicatesPassion Narrative.
Source Criticism15
Outline continued... Destruction of temple predicted Judas Iscariot cooperates with temple authorities Jesus celebrates Passover meal Jesus arrested at Gethsemane Trial by Sanhedrin Peter denies Jesus Trial by Pontius Pilate Crucifixion Burial by Joseph of Arimathea Women discover empty tomb (told to report to
disciples)
Source Criticism16
Observations on Order --
There is no agreement in the order of Matthew & Luke against Mark.
The non-Marcan sayings common to Matthew & Luke are presented at different points in their narratives
Source Criticism17
Observations on Style --
Mark is least polished and most oral. Matthew has better grammar and
smoother literary transitions. Luke’s Greek is most literate Greek
in the New Testament. Luke’s transitions and rhetoric are
never the same as the transitions in Matthew.
Source Criticism18
Conclusions --
The material that Matthew and Luke share with Mark is referred to asthe TRIPLE TRADITION.
The material that Matthew and Luke have in common that is not included in Mark is referred to as the DOUBLE TRADITION.
Source Criticism19
Conclusions -- Mark was probably the first Gospel
written. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a
source.
This “explains” the Triple Tradition.
This hypothesis is referred to as
MARKAN PRIORITY.
Source Criticism21
But . . .
Matthew and Luke share material that is not found in Mark.
This material is referred to as the Double Tradition.
Hence, Matthew and Luke must have shared a source in addition to Mark.
Source Criticism22
The Two-Source HypothesisThe Two-Source Hypothesis
In 1838 Weisse proposed that
Matthew and Luke combined Mark
and the logia.
In 1863, Holtzmann proposed a
similar thesis.
This was the first formulation of the
Two-Source Hypothesis = 2SH
Source Criticism23
The Two-Source HypothesisAccepts Markan PriorityPosits a second source
Shared by Matthew and Lukeprimarily sayings materialperhaps related to the logia source
mentioned by Papiaseventually called Q, possibly from the
German word “Quelle,” which means “source.”
Source Criticism25
Q -- A Hypothetical Textincludes . . . oracles of John the Baptist a dialogue between Jesus and Satan a sermon encouraging the oppressed sayings about Jesus’ relationship to John a list of instructions to missionaries an exorcism leading to debate over Jesus’ authority oracles against cities in Galilee and Jerusalem prayer instructions oracles against the scribes and Pharisees several parables predictions of the appearance of the son of man
Source Criticism26
Elaboration by B. H. Streeter (1924)
Streeter accepts that Matthew and Luke are dependent upon the canonical Mark.
Mark did not know Q.Streeter’s “Fundamental Solution”
expanded the 2SH by adding a “special Matthean” and a “special Lukan” source.
HENCE --
Source Criticism28
Further Developments
Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis
Elaboration of Q
Discovery of the Gospel of
Thomas
Source Criticism29
Griesbach RevisitedIn 1964 Farmer revives the
Griesbach Hypothesis and Matthean priority --Griesbach (1783) argued that there was
successive dependence: Matthew, then Luke, then Mark. Mark was a conflation of Matthew and Luke.
Farmer rejects reliance on hypothetical sources such as Q.
Source Criticism30
Elaboration of Q John Kloppenborg (1987) identifies
three layers in the (hypothetical) Q source. Q1 = a sapiential (wisdom) layer Q2 = a judgmental (eschatological)
layer Q3 = includes temptation narrative
NOTE: Kloppenborg’s thesis is important, but
has not received widespread approval.
Source Criticism31
The Gospel of Thomas
Discovered in 1948
Nag Hammadi, Egypt
Coptic version published in 1957
Greek papyrus fragments identified
Among the oldest manuscripts of early Christian literature
Source Criticism32
Contents of theGospel of Thomas
114 sayings of Jesus Introduction: “These are the secret sayings that
the living Jesus spoke & Didymus Judas Thomas recorded.”
More than half of the material is paralleled in the canonical gospels27 sayings in Triple Tradition46 parallels in Double Tradition12 echo special Matthean material1 is in Luke alone
Source Criticism33
Summary of Source Criticism
The Synoptic Problem Early solutions Three factors to consider: Content, Order,
and Style Conclusions
Markan Priority 2SH 4SH
Further Developments Griesbach Revisited Elaboration of Q Gospel of Thomas
Source Criticism34
Words and Concepts
Synoptic Problem
Papias
Logia
Griesbach
Three factors
Triple Tradition
Double Tradition
Markan Priority
Two-Source Hypothesis (2SH)
Four-Source Hypothesis (4SH)
Q
Gospel of Thomas