Two Gospels Theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is believed that Matthew was written first. The Gospel of Luke used Matthew as a source. Finally, the Gospel of Mark was written using Matthew and Luke.

The two gospel theory (or: Griesbach's hypothesis ) is a proposed solution to the synoptic problem . It was first formulated by the Welsh theologian Henry Owen . It is possible that Johann Jakob Griesbach Owens picked considerations and incorporate them into his theory of the 1776th The theory in its present form was put forward in 1964 by William R. Farmer .

The two-gospel hypothesis is, for example, next to the Farrer hypothesis and the two-source theory, a further variant of the so-called usage hypothesis for the creation of the synoptic gospels and has achieved a certain popularity, especially in the USA. Its main advantages over the two-source theory are that it works largely with the three synoptic Gospel texts , does not need any other lost source that can only be reconstructed (as is the case with the Logia source Q ) and is partly in line with traditional texts from various church fathers from the 2nd century AD . Chr. Stands. It assumes that various traditional representations of the Gospels are correct in terms of order, publication, and authorship.

Aspects of the two gospels hypothesis

General

The general statement of this model is initially only to state that the Gospels Matthew and Luke were written before Mark and John. Taking into account various larger oral and written traditions, Matthew is said to have written a Gospel first, which Luke in turn received and added other content that was handed down in writing and orally. Mark is said to have used the two existing Gospels and processed further oral or written material.

Almost all of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and much of Mark is similarly found in Luke. In addition, Matthew and Luke have a large amount of texts in common that cannot be found in Mark.

Main arguments

  • Patristic evidence, as in Eusebius of Caesarea , Church history (Historia Ecclesiastica), Book VI, 14th chapter, 5-7 , or Augustine , De Consensu Evangelistarum 4:10 , 11 , which convey the priority of Matthew; however, for example with Augustine, as with almost all church fathers and traditional traditions, Matthew is followed by the Gospel of Mark.
  • The Gospel of Matthew was the first written (Matthew priority) that was followed by the Gospel of Luke, and Mark, in turn, received both with an emphasis on Matthew. Hence the similarities and differences arose from Mark’s intention to smooth out differences between Matthew and Luke, for example, or to just want to supplement both Gospels.
  • The content of the Gospel of Mark is shaped by the place of origin in Rome and the proximity to Peter and Paul there. Correspondingly, for example, the so-called logia, as they can be found in Matthew and Luke, do not play a role in Mark, and Jesus' life and work are told analogously only from John the Baptist.
  • The so-called Minor Agreements , in which the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differ slightly from the Mark text, prove, from the point of view of the two-gospel model, the later Mark processing of the templates by Matthew and Luke, and thus the later composition of Mark.

Internal and external evidence

Some arguments for the two-gospel theory come from the gospels themselves (“internal evidence”), while other indications lie in the traditions of the Church Fathers (“external evidence”). Not only did the Fathers discuss and record the authorship, order, and timing of the gospels, they also testify to specific circumstances in the genesis of each gospel. So represented z. B. survived texts the view that the Gospel of Mark arose after Mark had 50 copies of a series of Peter's speeches made in Rome. The two gospel theory incorporates the views of the church fathers and makes assumptions based on internal and external evidence.

Differences to the two-source theory

About 25% of the Matthew and 25% of the Luke text are identical, but do not appear in Mark. This has been explained by the two-source theory as texts that come from the hypothetical source of logic Q. According to the two gospel theory, however, this material was copied by Luke from the Gospel of Matthew, but not confirmed by Mark because Peter was not an eyewitness to it. The two-source theory also assumes that the special property of Matthew and Luke comes from other unknown sources. The two-gospel theory, on the other hand, assumes that the Matthew special property largely represents Matthew's own testimony; the Lukan special property takes them for eyewitness accounts, as they are mentioned in the first verses of Luke. It also provides a specific reason why Mark has more in common with Matthew than with Luke.

Comparison with the Griesbach hypothesis

Griesbach described his solution to the synoptic problem in 1789 in his work Commentatio qua Marci evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur . According to this, Mark knew the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and reproduced both scriptures in abbreviated form ( compilation ). It is similar to the two-gospel theory, but in principle it is a literary-critical theory. It was anticipated in an article in 1764 by the British scholar Henry Owen (1716–1795) and in 1781 by Friedrich Andreas Stroth (1750–1785). Griesbach, to whom it was first attributed, alluded in 1783 to the fact that Matthew wrote the first gospel and that Luke (and not Markus) used the gospel of Matthew in the composition of the second gospel. Griesbach's theory thus formulated a direct, mutual literary dependence of the synoptics . According to Griesbach, first Matthew and then Luke were written, which was based on Matthew and other non-Matthew traditions; Finally, Mark wrote his gospel using Matthew and Luke. In this way, Griesbach retained the Matthew priority, as Augustine had done before him and in consensus with all other scholars until the late 18th century. Griesbach's main argument for his theory lies in the passages where Matthew and Luke both agree against Mark (e.g. Mt 26.68; Lk 22.64; Mk 14.65), i.e. H. in the minor agreements already mentioned .

criticism

Many typical arguments in favor of Mark priority and / or the two-source theory also work as arguments against the two-gospel theory. To list all arguments and counter arguments would go beyond the scope of this article. Some notable criticisms are:

  • The language level of Greek in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew drops significantly throughout the Gospel of Mark, which is not sufficiently understandable with the reference to a presumably more popular Greek in Mark.
  • The position in the two-gospel theory that Mark had merged or merged the Gospel templates from Matthew and Luke, partly in half-verse, is not always comprehensible in the ancient text composition technique and in terms of editorial criticism. Uniform and consistent compositional techniques, which Mark used in a comprehensible manner, have also not been adequately demonstrated in the two gospel model.
  • The view, often advocated in the literature of the two-gospel hypothesis, that its model goes back to numerous pieces of evidence from the Church Fathers and in traditional traditions, only applies to the Matthew priority. Almost all church fathers and traditional traditions cite a sequence of the gospels and the origin of the gospels that deviates from the two-gospel hypothesis: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
  • If Luke had access to the final form of Matthew's Gospel, why are there so many significant differences between Luke and Matthew, for example in the family tree of Jesus , the circumstances of his birth and the events after the resurrection? The emergence of the Gospels according to the two-gospel theory would mean that Luke would have rewritten larger parts of the Matthew narratives - even though Matthew was allegedly an eyewitness who lived in Jerusalem and was surrounded by other eyewitnesses, which Luke does not say can. To explain the discrepancies between Luke and Matthew, for example , additional secondary sources were introduced by the main creator of the two-gospel model, William R. Farmer .
  • If the Mark text has taken over the minor agreements from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, it will always be difficult to make plausible why Mark replaced many more understandable or additional formulations in Luke and Matthew with less understandable or less accurate formulations.
  • “The Omission Argument”: Why would Mark and Peter omit such remarkable and miraculous events as Jesus' virgin birth and especially his appearance to the apostles at Easter? Matthew and Luke expressly testify that Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples, including Peter, after the resurrection, and it seems unbelievable that Peter would not have testified to this fact in his public speeches. - Why is the Sermon on the Mount completely omitted?
  • According to the two gospel theory, the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. However, there are no such copies of an original Hebrew Matthew. (The majority of scholars consider the text of Matthew that has come down to us to be originally written in Greek.) This negates an important advantage of the theory, because, although it does not require a hypothetical source Q, it does bring another hypothetical source into play (however , as attested by Papias ): the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
  • Many (and especially most Jewish) scholars consider the idea of ​​a virgin birth to be a result of the mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14  EU into Greek; they therefore think that Matthew and Luke were Gentile Christians . This fits in well with the conventional biblical critical chronology, according to which both Gospels were not written before AD 75 and Matthew came from an unknown author.

See also

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Henry Owen: Observations on the Four Gospels , London 1764, pp. 53-75.
  2. ↑ JJ Griesbach: Commentatio qua Marci evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur. Jena 1789
  3. ↑ Michael Labahn: The one who has come as a returnee. The Logienquelle as a narrated story . Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig 2010. p. 28.
  4. ↑ See David Alan Black, David R. Beck (Eds.): Introduction. In: Rethinking the Synoptic Problem , p. 12
  5. ^ Cf. Craig L. Blomberg: The Synoptic Problem. In: David Alan Black, David R. Beck (Eds.): Rethinking the Synoptic Problem , p. 31
  6. ↑ Udo Schnelle : Introduction to the New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2017. p. 235.
  7. ↑ Martin Ebner , The synoptic question , in: Martin Ebner, Stefan Schreiber (ed.): Introduction to the New Testament . Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2008. p. 82.
  8. ↑ See also Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum 1, 2, 11 (English).
  9. ↑ Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2017. p. 235.
  10. ^ Bernard Orchard: A synopsis of the four gospels in Greek . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1983. S. XVII.
  11. ↑ See William R. Farmer: The Case for the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. In: David Alan Black, David R. Beck (Eds.): Rethinking the Synoptic Problem , p. 121
  12. ^ Augustine, De consensu evangelistarum I, 2,3f
  13. ↑ Michael Labahn: The one who has come as a returnee. The Logienquelle as a narrated story . Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig 2010. p. 31.
  14. ↑ Michael Labahn: The one who has come as a returnee. The Logienquelle as a narrated story . Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig 2010. p. 31.
  15. ↑ Andreas Ennulat: The> Minor Agreements. " Investigations into an open question of the synoptic problem . J. C. B. Mohr , Tübingen 1994. pp. 28f.
  16. ↑ Andreas Ennulat: The> Minor Agreements. " Investigations into an open question of the synoptic problem . J. C. B. Mohr , Tübingen 1994. p. 27.
  17. ↑ Ingo Broer : Introduction to the New Testament. Volume 1: The Synoptic Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the Johannine Literature . Echter Verlag , Würzburg 1998. pp. 51f.
  18. ↑ See the article on Early Christian Writings : Die Markuspriorität (English); as well: The Synoptic Problem (English)
  19. ↑ Geoffrey W. Bromiley: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1959, p. 281
  20. ↑ In Eusebius : Hist. Eccl. III. 39.16.
  21. ↑ Asher Norman: Twenty-six reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus. Los Angeles 2007, pp. 91-96.