Two-gospel hypothesis

Please help to eliminate the shortcomings of this article, and please take part you in the discussion. Articles that are not noticeably improved, can be deleted.

The Two - Gospel Theory ( or: Griesbach hypothesis ) is a proposed solution to the Synoptic problem. It was first formulated by the Welsh theologian Henry Owen. Maybe Johann Jakob Griesbach Owens has taken ideas and incorporate them into his theory of 1776. The theory in its present form was established in 1964 by William R. Farmer.

As Synoptic problem, the question is referred to as the first three ( similar to one another ) are gospels of the New Testament in relation to each other, especially as their many similarities and differences are explained. The Two - Gospel Theory is next to the Farrerhypothese the most serious competitor of the two- source theory and especially in the U.S. has achieved a certain popularity. Its main advantages over the two- source theory are that it not only works with the findings of the Gospel texts, must strive not lost sources (such as the Sayings Source Q ), no auxiliary hypotheses needed and is consistent with the testimony of the early church. She comes to the conclusion that the traditional representations of the Gospels regarding order, publication and authorship are true.

A further development of the Griesbach hypothesis is present in Eta Linnemann and F. David Farnell, who has followed her in the fact that, two gospels ' were necessary because of the " two-witness rule" of the fifth book of Moses.

Historical embedding of the Synoptic Gospels

The Two - Gospel Theory says that Matthew was written first, as early Christianity still had Jerusalem as the center, drafted with the aim to appease the opposition between Judaism and Christian community. When the Church had spread beyond Israel, the Gospel of Luke was written as a gospel to the Gentiles. However, since neither Luke nor his patron Paul were eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, Peter had publicly testified to the reliability of Luke's Gospel. These public speeches had been received into the Gospel of Mark and was distributed soon after, as the early church father Irenaeus reported. Then Paul had allowed the publication of Luke's Gospel. The proposal is generally believed that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel same name - probably already in the 40s of the first century. Politically, the early church was faced with the problem that the Jewish authorities and Jesus were hostile towards her. Matthew wrote his work to prove that Jesus really brought the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Tanakh. For a long time Matthew is recognized as the " most Jewish " of all the Gospels. It refers to a great extent on Jewish traditions and Jewish history.

When Stephen died as a martyr, as described in the book of Acts, is scattered the disciples of Jesus from Jerusalem and came into pagan (mostly Greek ) cities. There they began to preach, whereupon Gentiles in Antioch in large numbers moving towards the Christian faith. Paul, who bore the title " Apostle to the Gentiles ", the need for the gospel to the Gentiles at the latest mid-50s saw. This font should the Mosaic law and Jewish history to downplay, to meet the Greeks and Romans. Paul instructed his staff so Luke, Matthew and other sources heranzog. The first verses in Luke mention the fact that " many have taken on, to give an account of events" that were reported by eyewitnesses and that he " carefully investigated everything from the beginning" is to write it down properly. After the Gospel was written, Paul had delayed its release because he wanted to have the public witness of Peter first, to ensure the reliability, since neither Paul nor Luke had known before his crucifixion Jesus.

Paul asked Peter to confirm that the Lukan report was correct. According to early church records Peter held a number of speeches to older Roman officers. Due to the similarity between Mark and Luke, these speeches, the public " seal of approval " of Peter in the Gospel of Luke represents the early church sources suggest that Peter was ambivalent when Markus asked him to be able to write these words. But since the Roman officers liked the words, they asked for copies; Markus then created 50 copies of Peter speeches. These were passed around and have to Mark's Gospel. Only after these events Paul his cause was safe enough and had to publish the Gospel of Luke.

The Two - Gospel Theory assumes that Peter made ​​sure that his speeches were consistent with both the Matthew and with the ( still unpublished ) Gospel of Luke. Since Matthew was the main source of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew (then the only publicized Gospel) Peter must have been well known, he would have preached mainly about the contents of Matthew. As he knew better than Matthew Luke, it was more likely to mention more details from Matthew. That would explain why in more detail in Mark and Matthew are together as in Mark and Luke. It also explains why Markus so much shorter than Matthew and Luke, anecdotal and emotional, less polished, and why it is the only immediately begins with the public appearance of Jesus. Peter gave public lectures about what he had seen, and never had the sense that it would become a whole gospel. This is directly confirmed by the early church historians. It explains why, in contrast to Matthew, Luke and John pretty long so few comments on the Gospel of Mark was. Markus seems to have been considered in the early church as the least important gospel.

Internal and external evidence

Many arguments for the Two - Gospel Theory come from the Gospels themselves ( "internal evidence" ), while some evidence in the witness of the early church are present ( "external evidence" ). The early church shall not only witness to the authorship, the order and the time of composition of the Gospels, they also witnessed the emergence of specific circumstances of each Gospel. So, for example, represent some documents the view that the Gospel of Mark was after Mark had made 50 copies of a series of speeches Peter in Rome. The Two - Gospel Theory relates the views of the early church and to make assumptions due to internal and external evidence. The two- source theory, however, assumes that only the now available evidence should be used, ie largely text- internal conditions.

Contrasted with the two- source theory

Approximately 25 % of Matthew's and 25% of Luke's text are identical but are not found in Mark. This was explained as texts that originate from the hypothetical sayings source Q of the two- source theory. After the two Gospels theory, however, this material was copied by Luke from the Gospel of Matthew, but not confirmed by Markus, because Peter this was not an eyewitness. The two- source theory assumes also that the special property of Matthew and Luke came from other unknown sources. The Two - Gospel Theory assumes, however, that the Matthean special material largely represents Matthew's own testimony; Luke's special material it deems eyewitness accounts, as they are mentioned in the first verses of Luke. In addition, it provides a specific reason why Markus has more in common with Matthew and with Luke.

Held no later than in the 60s, many scholars, the two -source theory for the solution of the Synoptic problem undisputed. In the nineties, it was with the concord over and some scholars even claimed that two- source theory has been disproved. As a result, the Two - Gospel Theory emerged as a serious competitor of the two- source theory.

The Two - Gospel Theory is less conjecture than the two- source theory because it refrained to assume from the outset that the message of the early church were unreliable. Since the two- source theory rejects the testimony of the early church, it is based largely on internal evidence ( such as shortness of Markus text ) and on assumptions (eg, "Why should Markus [ namely Matthew ] Write a shorter version of a gospel that already exist? " )

Comparison with the Griesbach hypothesis

Griesbach described his solution to the Synoptic problem in 1789 in his work Commentatio qua Marci gospel totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum eat monstratur. Thus Markus 've known the gospels of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke and the two writings shortened reproduced ( compilation ). It is similar to the two- Gospels - theory, but is essentially a literary-critical theory. It has already been anticipated in 1764 by the British scholar Henry Owen ( 1716-1795 ) and in 1781 by Friedrich Andreas Stroth ( 1750-1785 ) in an article. Griesbach, which they attributed first played 1783 that Matthew wrote the first Gospel and that Luke (and not Mark) used the Gospel of Matthew in the composition of the second Gospel. Griesbach's theory thus argued for a direct literary dependence of the Synoptics, which mainly is in the German research known as "usage " hypothesis. After Griesbach Matthew and then Luke was written first, which was based on Matthew and other non- Matthean traditions; Finally, Mark wrote his Gospel using of Matthew and Luke. In this way, Griesbach maintained the priority of Matthew as before him, Augustine and in consensus with all other scholars to the late 18th century. Griesbach's main argument for his theory lies in the places where Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark ( eg Mt 26.68, Lk 22.64; Mk 14,65 ), ie in the so-called Minor Agreements.

Criticism

Many typical arguments in favor of Markus priority and / or the two- source theory also function as arguments against the Two - Gospel Theory. List all arguments and counter- arguments would blow up the scope of this article. Some notable points of criticism are:

• If Luke had access to the final form of the Gospel of Matthew, why are there so many significant differences between Luke and Matthew about the genealogy of Jesus, in the circumstances of his birth and the events after the resurrection? While Luke and Matthew many texts have in common that are not found in Mark, almost all of it is limited to doctrines and parables. The origin of the Gospels according to the two Gospels theory would mean that Luke greater part of Matthew narratives would have re-written - and this even though Matthew allegedly an eyewitness was, who lived in Jerusalem and was surrounded by other eyewitnesses, what can not be said of Luke can.

• " The ellipsis argument": Why would Mark and Peter omit so remarkable and miraculous events such as the virgin birth of Jesus, and especially his appearance at the apostles on Easter? Matthew and Luke testify explicitly that Jesus the eleven disciples, including Peter, after the resurrection, appeared, and it seems implausible that Peter would not this fact testifies in his public speeches. - Why the Sermon on the Mount is completely left out?

• If you follow the Two - Gospel Theory, the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. However, there are no such copies of a Hebrew original of Matthew. (. The majority of scholars holds the handed down to us Matthew text for originally Greek written ) This become a major advantage of the theory zunichtegemacht because although it does not require hypothetical source Q, but brings a different hypothetical (but of Papias testified ) Source into play: the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

• Many ( and in particular the most Jewish ) scholars hold the idea of ​​a virgin birth for the result of mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 into Greek; they therefore think that Matthew and Luke Gentile Christians were. This fits in well with the traditional biblical criticism chronology one, after which both were not Gospels written before 75 AD and Matthew came from an unknown author.