Two-source hypothesis

The two- source theory of the Synoptic Gospels states that the evangelists Matthew and Luke have used two sources, namely the Gospel of Mark and a non- preserved, undeveloped source, called the sayings source Q. abbreviated addition to these two main sources have them each have their own spoken and written sources been available to the so-called special property.

The two- source theory was designed in the 19th century at the same time by Christian Gottlob Wilke (1838 ) and Christian Hermann Weisse ( 1838/umgearbeitet 1856) and by Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1863 ) effectively represented. It is the most widely used today literary-critical hypothesis to the New Testament, but in the U.S. especially the Two - Gospel Theory and in the UK especially the Farrerhypothese serious competitors.

Origin

The following observations in the Synoptic Gospels have meant that the two- source theory has found wide acceptance:

• Multiple tradition: In the Synoptic Gospels, there are pericopes that are in all three Gospels ( triplex traditio), others that are available in two Gospels ( duplex traditio), and others that are only in one of the Gospels ( simplex traditio). In the traditional duplex all combinations occur: Mt- Mk, Lk and Mt- Mk- Lk.
• Text - Match: That the pericopes partly complied to in the text into it, speaks for a literary dependence, ie Cribbing and not mere scooping from the same ( oral ) tradition.
• Quantum fabric and order: Few pieces of Mark's Gospel is missing in both Matthew and Luke ( 5 % of the text ), so there is little markinisches special property. It also appears in the triple tradition that Matthew and Luke never both differ from the order in Mark, but only one. Both observations support the Markus priority, ie for believing that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the three Gospels and the other two served as a template. And for the independence of Matthew and Luke each other, at least in the triple tradition.
• Mt / Lk Matches: Matthew and Luke have common nichtmarkinische pieces, especially speech pieces. These common items can be found respectively at very different places. It is therefore assumed for these common pieces an additional, used by both source that source saying or sayings source Q.

Variants

The two- source theory has many, but not all literary-critical observations in the Synoptic Gospels satisfactorily to explain. Critics say that the two- source theory raises more questions than they answer. For this reason, variants were designed, which define the two- source theory to reason, but to the extend one direction or another.

• Urmarkus hypothesis: This hypothesis states Matthew and Luke would not have used the Gospel of Mark we present today, but an earlier version, a so-called " Urmarkus ", which was later extended. Maybe two have not been present the same Markus version. This hypothesis relies on the fact that as the special property of Mark and Luke's gap, so let explain the fact that in Luke's Gospel, the complex Mk 6,45 EU - 8.26 EU lacks.

• Four source theory: In addition to Mark and Q both Matthew and Luke each had used another source that know any of the other evangelists. From this source, they would have drawn the special material. The four- source theory (and other multi-source theories ) suffers from the fact that it is very difficult to justify why it should be to literary sources and not to oral tradition.

Criticism

Because of the unresolved problems in the basis of the two- source theory alternative solutions continue to be developed, discussed and represented. For an overview see the article Synoptic problem.

The main problems of the two- source theory are:

• No continuous narrative thread: The basic assertion that it is " a common by all three gospels uniformly therethrough pulling thread of the narrative " give (CH Weisse ) is not tenable. The alleged story line is often cut through, for example, in Mt from 8.1 to 9.26 times compared with Mk 1,40 ff Moreover, Mk 6.45 has - 8.26 in Luke no equivalent.
• Special material in the Gospel of Mark: The boisterous of Matthew and Luke Markus texts (approx. 5 % of the text ), mainly cures of deaf and blind that are problematic because the omissions can not always be explained as editing by Matthew and Luke.
• Extensive omissions markinischer formulations: Matthew and Luke have about 18 % left out about 34% of the formulations of Markus template. Thus the literary dependence is called into question.
• Minor agreements ( " smaller matches " ): It is around 700, mostly smaller similarities between Matthew and Luke against Mark in Mark's fabric. The assumption that Matthew and Luke would have done in many places independently the same change ( text variation, addition or omission ) on the text of Mark, is implausible. About twenty minor agreements can not be explained as coincidences. It is therefore assumed in newer approaches that Matthew and Luke have not resorted to that handed down to us the Gospel of Mark, but on an older form ( " Ur -Markus " ) or an edited form, the Deuteromarkus ( "Second Mark" ) is called.
• Passion and Resurrection of Jesus in Q and special property: As described above existed the special property and Q from the texts that remain when one puts the texts of Matthew and Luke and Mark originally ascribed texts subtracting. The remaining texts but would then contain no statements about Jesus' Passion and Resurrection: Whether a Christian writing from the first century could omit these issues is questionable. The Passion and Resurrection would - according to this view - at least the speeches ( logia ) of the sacrament be present.
• Hypothetical Character: The sayings source Q is an undeveloped, purely hypothetical quantity. There are no manuscripts of her. The same applies to the Sondergutsquellen in the four -source theory. In addition, the ( presumed ) sources are nowhere mentioned by ancient authors, although they could have known it, or even use or need. Therefore, the two or four- source theory remain hypotheses.

Followers of the tradition hypothesis to explain the similarities of the Gospels by oral tradition and criticize not only specific to the two- source theory, but in principle any form of use hypothesis posed by literary dependence of the Gospels.