Scot McKnight
BIBLIOGRAPHY Farmer, W R The Problem London:
1964.
Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, rev. 1989.
W. G. New Testament Introduction. Nashville, Abing- don, 1975.
Thomas R. W. and Page A. Thomas, eds. The Synoptic Problem: A Bibliography 1716-1988. Macon, Ga.: Mercer, 1988.
McKnight, Scot. Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Stein, Robert H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Ned B. Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: 1924.
Tuckett, C. M. The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis. Philadel- phia: Fortress, 1983.
164 I Scot
NOTES
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
New Testament Foundations 1.139-60.
good synopses are available. The standard critical synop- sis of the Gospels is K. Synopsis 13th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche 1985). Because this synopsis contains no English many students prefer K. Aland,
Synopsis of the Four Gospels (7th New York: United Bible
1984). Other good synopses include A. Huck, H. Greeven, Synopsis of
the First Three Gospels (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981; available from
Eerdmans); B. Orchard, A Synopsis of the Four Gospels in Greek: Arranged
According to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis Mercer University Press, 1983).
English synopses include K. Aland, Synopsis of the Four Gospels (7th New York: United Bible Societies, 1984); B. Orchard, A Synopsis of the Four Gospels in Greek: Arranged According to the Two-Gospel
Hypothesis (Macon, Mercer University Press, 1983); R. Funk,
New Gospel Parallels. 1 Fortress, 1985).
For a survey of the history of making synopses, cf. R. H. Stein,
The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 16-
25.
is commonly referred to as the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source."
McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 34.
finest book available today on the Synoptic Problem and on issues pertaining to critical issues in the Synoptic Gospels is Stein, Synoptic Problem.
J. Bellinzoni, Jr., The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal
(Macon, Mercer University Press, 1985), 9. (Emphasis added.) convenient collection of the early Christian comments (in their original language) on the origins of the Gospels is found in Aland,
Synopsis Quattuor, 531-48. For discussion, cf. esp. B. Orchard, H.
The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon, Mercer University Press, 1987), 111-226.
must not be thought, however, that the early Christians were oblivious to chronological and historical problems. Tertullian, for instance, states: "It matters not that the arrangement of their narratives varies, so long as there is agreement on the essentials of the Faith"
(Against 4.2.2; trans. Orchard, Order, 134). See also especially Augustine, Harmony.
wording is that of Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1; trans. Orchard, Order, 128). It is a known fact that Peter and Paul did not "found" the church at Rome, though this statement could be taken to mean "establishing through teaching subsequent to its genesis as a
Source Criticism I 165
church." Clement of Alexandria argues that Mark was written while peter was alive (cf. his in epistolas text and trans. in Orchard, Order, 131; see also Eusebius, Church History 2.15). Irenaeus most likely suggests that Mark was not written until after the death of Peter and Paul (Against Heresies 3.1.1; trans. Orchard, Order, 128 and note on p. 129).
recent defense of the Augustinian Hypothesis may be seen in B. C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-
Document Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951).
means "original" in German. This it was argued, is not extant.
first essay, published in Jena in 1783, was in fontes,
Evangelistae suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint Jena, 1783 [An Inquiry into the Sources from which the Evangelists drew their Narratives of the Resurrection of the the second, more substantial essay, published also in Jena in 1789 and enlarged in 1794
was qua totum e et Lucae
esse monstratur, Jena, 1789, 1794 [The Theory in which it is proved that the whole of Mark's Gospel is derived from the works of Matthew and The Latin text and translation of the second work can be found in B. Reicke and B. Orchard, "Commenta-
tio" and "Demonstration," /. /. Synoptic and Text-critical
Studies 1776-1976 (SNTSMS 34; ed. B. Orchard, T. R. W. Longstaff;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 68-102, 103-35. few useful studies about the history of the Griesbach hypothesis are G. Delling, Jakob Griesbach: His Life, Word and Times," and B. Reicke, Answer to the Synoptic
Question," both in /. /. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776-
1976 (SNTSMS 34; ed. B. Orchard, T. R. W. Longstaff; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1978), 5-21 and 50-67; C. M. Tuckett, "The Griesbach Hypothesis in the 19th Century," JSNT 3 (1979): 29-60; Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 1-198; H. H. Stoldt, History and Criticism of the
Hypothesis (Macon, Mercer University Press, 1980); C. M.
Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal
(SNTSMS 44; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). is for this reason that I choose to call this theory the "Oxford Hypothesis." All historians recognize that the roots of the movement are in Germany and not England; however, no one will contest the fact that the view that became dominant was most clearly articulated by B. H.
example, one can consult the standard work of B. F. Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (8th London: Macmillan 1895), 165-212, esp. 192-212, where Westcott puts each current theory to the test. It is clear that Sanday himself was dependent on the German scholar H. J. e.g., Farmer,
166 I Scot
Sanday and explores too many unknowable psychological motivations on Sanday's that are all but impossible for histo- rians to discern.)
especially his Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the
Synoptic Problem ed.; reprinted; Grand Rapids: 1968 [ = On see the statements of Interpretation, 126-
27.
for his ICC volume on a commentary singularly concerned with source-critical matters; cf. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew (3d
T & T Clark, 1912).
by W. Sanday (Oxford: 1911).
Four Gospels. For further details about Streeter, cf. Interpretation, 131-36.
famous chart can be found on p. 150 of Four Gospels. was hit hardest for suggesh'ng order and date for these hypothetical sources. In he "knew too much" because he inferred more than the evidence allowed.
Martin, NT Foundations 1:152-6, for a sympathetic discus- sion.
M. Farrer, "On Dispensing with Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. (ed. D.E. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), 55-88.
A survey of these conferences, with listings of major papers and participants, can be found in W. R. Farmer, New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Conference and Beyond (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University
Press, 1983),
44 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). massive bibliographical undertaking has begun under the able direction of the bibliophile, D. M. Scholer. See his latest "Q Bibliogra-
phy: 1981-1988," Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (ed. D. J.
Lull; Atlanta, Scholars, 1988), 483-95. A more popular survey can be seen in H. Biggs, "The Q Debate since 1955," 6 (1981): 18-
28.
Q. zur Logienquelle (2d Neukir- 1982). In spite of the German title, this book can be used easily by those who cannot read German but who can read Greek. There is an English introduction and key.
S. Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, & Concor-
dance (Foundations & Facets, Reference Series; Sonoma, Pole- bridge, 1988). This is the most complete Q text available and has a number of useful features: (1) the Greek and English texts for the parallels in question are given with the Greek words in common in boldface; (2) other parallels are provided with English translations; (3) a brief discussion of modern scholarship on the Q text is given;
Source Criticism I 167
(4) a Greek concordance is found; and (5) a useful bibliography is
added.
Gospels, 151 (cf. 161-62). The quotation is from Streeter's
introductory precis; pp. further expound this point and they do not show any sign of being aware of the circular nature of his argument.
is usually referred to as the Lachmann fallacy. A good critique of the Lachmann fallacy was made originally by Butler,
Originality, 62-71.
is probably impossible to state the phenomenon of order in a way that is completely neutral. The most neutral statement I have seen is offered by Tuckett: "Whenever Matthew's order and Mark's order differ, Mark's order and Luke's order agree; and whenever Luke's order and Mark's order differ, Matthew's order and Mark's order agree." See "Arguments from Order," 198.
odd thing about the proponents is that they, too, have committed a kind of Lachmann fallacy. Frequently, too frequently in fact, Griesbach theorists have concluded that the Griesbach Hypoth- esis is the only credible explanation of the phenomenon of order. But this is no more the case for the Griesbach Hypothesis than for the Oxford Hypothesis since either hypothesis can readily explain the phenome-
non of order. See e.g., W. R. Farmer, "Modern Developments of
Hypothesis," 23 (1977): 275-95, esp. 293-95. "Farmer's fallacy" has been ably exposed by Tuckett, "Arguments from Order," 205-6. The same critique can be applied to H.
Order, 3-18. The fallacy, simply stated, is to argue that a given
hypothesis is the only hypothesis that can explain the phenomenon of order.
However, it needs to be observed that the phenomenon of order may have as its best explanation the Griesbach point of view. It is a notable feature that, as they put it, Mark "zigzags" in that he moves back and forth from Matthew to Luke, never retracing his steps. And, as Riley has stated of the Oxford Hypothesis, "At every point where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order, whether for a short or longer period, Luke continues it; and wherever Luke ceases to follow Mark's order, Matthew in his turn continues it. There is surely an inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this. If Matthew and Luke were dependent on Mark for the order of events, they must have agreed together that they would do
this. Without constant collaboration, the result would be quite impos-
sible." From H. Riley, B. Orchard, Order, 7 (italics added). What Riley states is important and, I think, probably favors the Griesbach Hypothesis. However, as Tuckett has pointed out, the frequency of this phenomenon is "statistically insignificant" and ought not to be given the importance that it is by Griesbach proponents; cf. Tuckett, "Arguments from Order," 202-5.
168 I Scot
this kind of procedure in W. G. Introduction to the New Testament (rev. Nashville: 1975), 53-55.
a recent survey of the literature in preparation for this essay, I was amazed at the frequency of this self-congratulation. I will restrict the notations to four: W. R. Farmer, "Introduction," New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Conference and Beyond (ed. W. R. Farmer; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, xx. (Here he cites statistics of those invited but one might ask, "Was it a fair xxi. ("The old consensus about Priority has gone. We can now recognize that we have entered a new era in Synoptic studies. . xxviii. (Here he seems to assume that active writing on the Synoptic Problem is somehow a measure of statistics.) In the same volume, the essay by O. L. Cope is entitled "The Argument Revolves: The Pivotal Evidence for Marcan Priority Is Reversing Itself," 143-59; Dungan, "Abridgement," 87 (speaks of the "death-knell").
The most grievous statement of this sort is by Farmer, "Certain Results," 79-80, who states, "I take the situation to be this. Since Austin wrote Dispensing with Q,' those who have followed his counsel to read Luke through to test whether there was any need to appeal to have uniformly, so far as I know, come to the same conclusion: there is no need for Now this statement is inaccurate and a tendentious statement of the worst kind. "Q Bibliography: 1981-1988," lists some 240 and the earlier bibliography of F. was twenty-five pages long. Number counting probably favors belief in Q by a landslide, but this is not the issue. Farmer's statement is one that is woefully unfair and inaccurate. The problem with this kind of argument is that it is exactly what Farmer criticized the Oxford Hypothesis opinion wins! What counts is evidence and logic, not the number of scholars one can find on one's side. And, to continue with this logic, I can think of only one major commentary published in the last twenty-five years that has argued for (or assumed) the S. Mann's
robust Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27;
Garden City: Doubleday, 1987). This commentary, seems to be receiving more criticism than acceptance.
example, observe the explanatory nature of the proof given, or a simple assumption, and then the conclusion in favor of the Griesbach Hypothesis in the following sampling: it begins with J. J. Griesbach, 108-13, 123-33 (observe, however, his apparent awareness of this kind of an assumption as a problem on
p. 120) Orchard, H. B. Orchard,
Order, 3-99, 229-74.
Results," 91. Italics added.
do not wish to deny the importance of overall coherence for any theory being proposed. What I do want to point out is that explanations are not necessarily proofs. A similar, but consciously
Source Criticism I 169
aware, procedure is found in Tuckett, "Arguments from Order," 206- 13; outlined originally in Revival, 9-15, and used throughout his
book.
Synoptic Problem, 79; cf. also 83, 217, 264.
Revival, 80; italics added; see pp. 78-85 for the complete
discussion.
careful demonstration of the same kind of phenomenon can be found in F. G. Downing, "Towards the Rehabilitation of Q," 11 (1964-65): 169-81; reprinted in Bellinzoni, Two-Source Hypothe-
sis, 269-85.
G. Downing, "Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem," JBL 107 (1988): 69-85; "Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Problem, I, II," ]SNT 8 (1980): 46-65; 9 (1980): 29-48.
most careful linguistic work to date from a Griesbach Hypothesis viewpoint is that of Farmer's student, D. Peabody, Mark as
Composer (NGS 1; Macon, Mercer University Press, 1988). But work is surprisingly disappointing in conclusions regarding the Synoptic Problem. I know of no thorough response to the kind of linguistic phenomena pointed out by Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 53. Consequently, the language factor remains the Achilles heel for the Griesbach Hypothesis.
is the classical argument put forward in convincing fashion by J. Fitzmyer. Cf. his "The Priority of Mark and the Source in
]esus and Man's Hope (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary, 1970), 1.131-70, esp. 134-47.
best listing of these linguistic phenomena can be found in Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 131-38, which deals with odd Marcan elements that are not found in the parallels in Matthew and Luke; these include unusual words and constructions (thirty-three exam- ples), incomplete sentences (thirteen examples), and omission of conjunctions (twenty-one examples).
Four Gospels, 164. The next sentence, from the same
page, is perhaps more frequently quoted: "But since there are, from time to time, ingenious persons who rush into print with theories to the contrary, I can only suppose, either that they have not been at pains to do this, or else some of the highly cultivated people who think Bacon wrote Shakespeare, or that the British are the Lost Ten have eccentric views of what constitutes evidence." In spite of the rhetoric one hears here, it cannot be denied that the grammatical argument is the most important argument for the Oxford Hypothesis. And it remains a fact that the Griesbach proponents simply have not dealt with the phenomenon squarely.
good listing can be found in Hawkins, Horae Synopticae , 117- 25.
170 I Scot
has been a major criterion for a solution to the Synoptic Problem for C. M. Tuckett; cf. his Revival, 9-15; "Arguments from Order," 205-13. See also J. M. "On the of Mark (and and Man's Hope (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary, 1970), 99-129, esp. 101-2: "In a generation in which the
Synoptic problem has been largely dominant, the success of
geschichte [redaction criticism] in clarifying the theologies of Matthew
and Luke on the assumption of dependence on Mark perhaps the most
important new argument for priority, just as perhaps the main
ingredient lacking in William R. Farmer's argument for Marcan dependence on the other written Gospels is a convincing
chichte of Mark based on that assumption." The same point is made by
G. N. Stanton in his masterful survey of Matthean research; cf. "The
Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from
1945 to 1980," Aufstieg und Niedergang der Welt (2.25.3; ed. H.
Temporini, W. Haase; Berlin: de 1984), 1899-1903. N. Stanton, "Origin," 1902.
e.g., B. Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of
Thought (SNTSMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980);
R. Mohrland, Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives (SNTSMS 48; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 7-26.
useful survey may be found in J. The
Formation of Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections
Philadelphia: Fortress, 64-80.
A lucid defense of the Q hypothesis by an evangelical scholar can be seen in Stein, Synoptic Problem, 89-112. The classic defenses can be found in J. C. Hawkins, "Probabilities as to the So-called Double Tradition of St. Matthew and St. Luke," Studies in the Synoptic Problem
by Members of the University of Oxford (ed. W. Oxford: 1911), 95-138; Streeter, Four Gospels, 182-86. A useful commentary on Q is T. W. Manson, The Sayings of (London: SCM,
H. Streeter, Four Gospels, 183.
doublet by definition is a single saying of Jesus that was then
reported by Mark and found its way into the "Q material." The
Evangelists Matthew and Luke then picked the saying both from Mark and Q. Calling something a doublet does not necessarily mean that Jesus did not repeat the saying more than once. Calling something a doublet, however, speaks of the Evangelists drawing the same saying of Jesus from two different sources.
Horae Synopticae, 80-107.
Martin, New Testament Foundations 1.145.
often appeal here to Jesus' repeating his own sayings. This is an altogether natural response and too often neglected
by critical scholars. However, a fundamental question here is not, "Did Jesus repeat himself?" for the answer is, "Of course he did." Rather,
Source Criticism I 171
question here is "Are the Evangelists obtaining their information
m Mark or Q?" In other words, Jesus may have repeated himself,
but the saying remains a doublet because Matthew or Luke have taken a saying from Mark and Q, and therefore that one-time saying has appeared twice.
of the and hypotheses continue to ask this question. e.g., Fitzmyer, "Priority," 149.
61-75. Streeter's solution to these was "to divide and conquer." What Streeter did was isolate the various kinds of minor agreements and examine them separately. By doing this he avoided the serious accumulation of agreements in a single location. Cf. Streeter, Four Gospels, 293-331, and the telling criticisms of Farmer,
Synoptic Problem, 118-52 (though Farmer's tone is not productive). 67.
75.
brief survey of Q studies can be found in Kloppenborg,
of Q, 8-40. What will strike most readers is that some of the
studies on Q are solid pieces whereas others are too speculative to be probable.
Streeter there have been several major treatments of the original order of Q. These have been surveyed by Kloppenborg,
Formation of Q, 64-80.
will need to have a synopsis to follow the next section. omission was discussed intensively in the early Oxford school. Cf. esp. J. C. Hawkins, "Three Limitations to St. Luke's Use of St. Mark's Gospel," Studies in the Synoptic Problem by Members of the
University of Oxford (ed. W. Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 27-94,
who argued that Luke intentionally omitted this section. On the other hand, Streeter, Four Gospels, 172-79, tentatively suggested that Luke's copy of Mark was mutilated at this point. Others have suggested an theory. Most Oxford proponents today seem to favor deliberate omission; e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke 1.770-71.
style of the verse is Lukan. Cf. I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of
Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text Grand Rapids: 1978), 366; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (2 AB 28, 28A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981, 1985), 1.773-74.
language here is reminiscent of Luke 9:7-8 and shows Lukan style.
is a substitute for Mark's wordy "and he was asking them." The change of verbs may be to avoid repetition (cf. Mk 8:27 with Lk 9:18).
case, of course, is dictated by the verb used. Both have used "say," though Matthew uses the historical present and Luke the indicative.
answer is asyndeton; this may give sufficient reason for
172 I Scot
Luke uses a Mark uses a finite verb
Luke 1.783-84.
of these words are singular agreements between Mark and Luke and are not the words of Matthew
the aorist, confirming again Mark's middle status
Luke concerned with a daily denial is also seen in the present tense "to come" at the of
a word is not necessary since it creates a
"For whoever is ashamed of me. . and then has and the Son of Man will be ashamed him," leaving
son at the of the second clause, even Luke a Luke's grammar, though not
cf Mark 8 38 and Luke 9:26 Matthew 10:33 and Luke 12:9 Cf above at Matthew's use of Mark 8:35. '