History Synoptic Gospels

a page of griesbach s synopsis evangeliorum, in texts of synoptic gospels arranged in columns.

ancient sources virtually unanimous in ascribing synoptic gospels apostle matthew, peter s interpreter mark, , paul s companion luke, hence respective canonical names. remark augustine @ turn of fifth century presents gospels composed in canonical order (matthew, mark, luke, john), each evangelist thoughtfully building upon , supplementing work of predecessors—the augustinian hypothesis (matthew–mark).

this view (when model of dependence considered @ all) seldom questioned until late eighteenth century, when johann jakob griesbach published synopsis of gospels. instead of harmonizing them, displayed them side side, making both similarities , divergences apparent. griesbach, noticing special place of mark in synopsis, hypothesized marcan posteriority , advanced (as henry owen had few years earlier) two-gospel hypothesis (matthew–luke).

in nineteenth century, tools of literary criticism applied synoptic problem in earnest, in german scholarship. work revolved around hypothetical proto-gospel (ur-gospel), possibly in aramaic, underlying synoptics. line of inquiry, however, consensus emerged mark principal source other 2 gospels—marcan priority.

in theory first proposed weisse in 1838, double tradition explained matthew , luke independently using 2 sources—thus, two-source (mark-q) theory—which mark , hypothetical source consisting of sayings. additional source @ first seen logia (sayings) spoken of papias , called Λ , later became more known q , german quelle, meaning source. two-source theory won wide acceptance , seldom questioned until late twentieth century; scholars took new orthodoxy granted , directed efforts toward q itself, , still largely case.

the theory known in more elaborate form set forth streeter in 1924, additionally hypothesized written sources m , l special matthew , special luke, respectively—hence, influential four-document hypothesis. exemplifies prevailing scholarship of time, in canonical gospels seen late products, second century, composed unsophisticated cut-and-paste redactors out of progression of written sources, derived in turn oral traditions , folklore had evolved in various communities. more recently, however, view has gradually fallen disfavor, has centrality of documentary interdependence , hypothetical documentary sources explanation aspects of synoptic problem.

in recent decades, weaknesses of two-source theory have been more recognized, , debate has reignited. many have independently argued luke did make use of matthew after all—the common sayings source. british scholars went further , dispensed q entirely, ascribing double tradition luke s direct use of matthew—the farrer hypothesis (mark–matthew), leading challenger. meanwhile, augustinian hypothesis has made comeback, in american scholarship. jerusalem school hypothesis has attracted fresh advocates, has independence hypothesis, denies documentary relationships altogether.

on collapse of consensus, wenham observed: found myself in synoptic problem seminar of society new testament studies, members in disagreement on every aspect of subject. when international group disbanded in 1982 had sadly confess after twelve years work had not reached common mind on single issue.