Source Criticism and the Synoptic Problem

The Biblical Warrant for Source Criticism: Luke 1:1-4. Luke tells us clearly that there were many other gospels (1:1). Luke tells us that these attempts were according to the early oral traditions (1:2).

Luke numbers himself among the many and decides to investigate his sources and write an orderly account. We can surmise that the other gospels writers used the same procedures. Source criticism is nothing more than the attempt to discover from Luke and the other gospel writers their sources, with a view to better understanding their intentions.

General Solutions to the Synoptic Problem One can argue that the three gospels are totally independent of each other and that similarities are either coincidental or providential. One can argue that the three are related only because all have used common oral traditions.

One can argue that there is a literal relationship between the three, that one or two or three have copied from each other. At this point let me briefly state that one's position on this issue is not determined by one's view of inspiration unless that view be mechanical dictation.

The Answer Note that one’s answer must fulfill: Linguistic Choices Selection of Material Choices Choices of Order of Material

The Augustinian Hypothesis. Proponents: Augustine, The Basic Solution: Matthew was first, Mark used Matthew

The Griesbach Hypothesis Proponents: J.J. Griesbach, W.R. Farmer Basic Solution: Matthew was first, Luke was second and used Matthew, Mark was last and used both Matthew and Luke.

Matthew Mark Luke

The Oxford Hypothesis (B.H. Streeter) Also known as the Two/Four Source Hypothesis.

Proponents: B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins Basic Solution: Mark was first, Matthew was second and used Mk and Q, Luke was last and used Mark and Q. Both Matthew and Luke also had access to another source, called M and L respectively. Dominance: many scholars, even to this day, will speak of this solution as one "assured result" of gospel studies.

MarkQ MatthewLuke (But what about special material?)

MarkQ M L MatthewLuke

The Farrer Hypothesis Proponents: Austin Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q," in D.E. Nineham, Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), pp Basic Solution: Mark was first, Matthew was second and used Mark, Luke was last and used both Matthew and Mark.

Mark Luke Matthew (Note no need for a Q)

Some Important Arguments for a Modified Oxford Hypothesis The Case for Markan Priority. Shared Content: Wording: Order: Primitivity: Expansion Tendency: Success:

The Case for Q: whether written or oral, or mixed. Wording: Order: Doublets: Independence of Matt and Luke: Nature:

Some Concluding Observations We will assume for the rest of the semester the general reliability of the Two/Four- Source Hypothesis. We must remember that the relationship was probably much more complex than we can trace with any degree of certainty. In the actual composition of each Gospel such factors as oral traditions, other written sources (cf. Lk 1:1-4), and redactional alterations are all at work.