Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 . [ 12 ]
Farmer's most notable area of research was the synoptic problem, or the question of the nature of the connection between the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.In his 1964 book The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis, he disputes the two-source hypothesis that had generally become accepted in the 20th century, which suggests that Mark and an unknown tradition called "Q" were used to write ...
sentence quoted above is a famous example), this demonstrates only that Matthew is quoting Luke or vice versa. Two additional problems are noteworthy, the "problem of fatigue" and the Q narrative problem. The first relates to the phenomenon that a scribe, when copying a text, will tend to converge on his source out of simple fatigue.
The Augustinian hypothesis (sometimes referred to as the Augustinian Proposal) is a solution to the synoptic problem, which concerns the origin of the Gospels of the New Testament. The hypothesis holds that Matthew was written first, by Matthew the Evangelist (see the Gospel According to the Hebrews and the Jewish-Christian Gospels ).
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 , with Matthew and Luke using the earlier ...
The hypothetical L source fits a contemporary solution in which Mark was the first gospel and Q was a written source for both Matthew and Luke. According to the four-document hypothesis, the author combined Mark, the Q source, and L to produce his gospel. [1] The material in L, like that in M, probably comes from the oral tradition. [1] I.
A modern tweak of this view that maintains Matthaean priority is the two-gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis which holds that Mark used both Matthew and Luke as a source (thus, in order, Matthew—Luke—Mark). [23] This view envisions a Mark who mostly collected the common material shared between Matthew and Luke.
The Common Sayings source does not provide an alternative solution to the Synoptic Problem, but provides a deeper understanding of the two-document theory. [citation needed] This argument is considered a straw man when one observes that Q is not extant, and that 72 logia of the 114 (63%) that are in Thomas, have parallels in the Synoptic ...