I've previously argued for my own hypothesis explaining the literary relationships within the Synoptic Gospels.Among the more popular are the Two-Source Hypothesis, the Farrer Hypothesis, the Griesbach Hypothesis, and the Augustinian Hypothesis.
Which hypothesis explaining the literary relationships with the Synoptic Gospels do you favor as the most likely?
3 comments:
That this post has generated no discussion saddens me. There are enough seminarians and clergy who read this blog to fill the comments. Perhaps the Q theory is so widely accepted that most don't bother to ponder the matter any more. Pity.
Personally, I think Farrer hit the nail on the head. (Sorry Dr. Schuler, where ever you are: I just can't get into Griesbach. I tried!)
Well, it is a very complex issue.
It isn't something that I've studied with any detail, but if you shook me awake at 2 AM and demanded an answer, I'd say that Q probably existed.
Given the way the ancient Christian community preserved documents, I don't see how a written Q could have disappeared- at least not a Q circulated widely enough to be used by both Matthew and Luke. If it existed and if it was so trustworthy, why would the early Church let it disappear? They obviously didn't mind having multiple Gospels around. Why let Q go?
It seems far more likely to me that there was a strong oral tradition which Matthew and Luke drew from. I also think Luke had a copy of Matthew in his possession.
Post a Comment