Two-source theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two-source theory

The two-source theory is a literary-critical hypothesis on the question of the origin of the synoptic gospels . The core of the two-source theory for solving the synoptic problem is the assumption that the evangelists Matthew and Luke used two sources, namely the Gospel of Mark and a non-preserved, developed source, the so-called logia source , abbreviated Q. In addition to these two main sources, they each had their own Oral and written sources were available, the so-called Sondergut .

The two-source theory was first formulated in the 19th century by Christian Hermann Weisse in 1838 in his work The Evangelical History viewed critically and philosophically . In the same year Christian Gottlob Wilke published Der Urvangelist or exegetically critical study on the relationship of the first three Gospels , in which Wilke also comprehensively justifies the Mark priority. But Wilke assumed that the author of the Gospel of Matthew had used Luke's Gospel in addition to the Gospel of Mark, so that Wilke's work was assigned to the so-called theory of use , which also included the two-gospel hypothesis(also 'Griesbach hypothesis') counts. The breakthrough of the two-source theory came with the publications of Heinrich Julius Holtzmann in the second half of the 19th century. B. with the work The Synoptic Gospels, Their Origin and Historical Character (1863). At the beginning of the 20th century, the Pontifical Biblical Commission rejected the two-source theory in several responses and affirmed traditional assumptions regarding the writing of the Gospels by apostles and apostle students.

It is the most widespread literary criticism of the synoptics today , in the USA the 'two gospel hypothesis' and in Great Britain the Farrer hypothesis are still used as scientific explanatory models for the origin of the synoptic gospels.

origin

The following observations in the Synoptic Gospels have led to the two-source theory gaining broad acceptance:

  • Multiple tradition : In the synoptic gospels there are pericopes that appear in all three gospels ( triplex traditio ), others that appear in two gospels ( duplex traditio ), and still others that appear in only one of the gospels ( simplex traditio ). All combinations occur in duplex traditio: Mt-Mk, Mt-Lk and Mk-Lk.
  • Wording agreement : The fact that the pericopes partly agree right down to the wording indicates a literary dependency, i. H. Copying and not just drawing from the same (oral) tradition.
  • Material quantity and sequence : Only a few pieces of the Gospel of Mark are missing in both Matthew and Luke (5% of the text), so there are few Markinian special items . In addition, the threefold tradition shows that Matthew and Luke never both deviate from the sequence in Mark, but always only one. Both observations speak in favor of Mark's priority , i.e. H. for the assumption that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the three Gospels and served as a template for the other two - and for the independence of Matthew and Luke from one another, at least in the triple tradition.
  • Mt / Lk matches : Matthew and Luke have common non-Markinic pieces, especially speech pieces. These common pieces can be found in very different places. It is therefore assumed for these common pieces of an additional used by both source saying source or Q Source .

variants

The two-source theory can satisfactorily explain many, but not all, literary-critical observations in the Synoptic Gospels. Critics say the two-source theory raises more questions than it answers. For this reason, variants have been designed that are based on the two-source theory, but expand in one direction or the other.

  • Original Mark's Hypothesis : This hypothesis says that Matthew and Luke did not use the Gospel of Mark that we have today, but an earlier version, a so-called " Original Mark ", which was later expanded. It is possible that both of them did not have the same Markus version. This hypothesis is based on the fact that this explains the Markus special property and the Lukan loophole , i.e. the fact that the complex Mk 6.45  EU  - 8.26 EU is missing in the Gospel of Luke .
  • Four source theory : In addition to Mark and Q, both Matthew and Luke each used another source that none of the other evangelists know. From this source they would have drawn the special goods. The four-source theory (and other multi-source theories) suffers from the fact that it is very difficult to justify why it should be literary sources and not oral tradition.

criticism

Because of the unsolved problems with the two-source theory as a basis, alternative solutions will continue to be developed, discussed and represented. For an overview, see the article Synoptic Problem .

The main problems of the two-source theory are:

  • Special good in the Gospel of Mark : The Markus texts left out by Matthew and Luke (approx. 5% of the text), mainly healings of the deaf and blind, pose a problem. Because the omissions cannot always be explained as editorial editing by Matthew and Luke.
  • Extensive omissions from Markin formulations : Matthew would have left out approx. 18% and Luke approx. 34% of the formulations of the Mark model. This calls into question the literary dependency.
  • Minor Agreements : These are around 700, mostly minor, agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark in the Mark material. The assumption that Matthew and Luke made the same change (text variant, addition or omission) to the Mark text in many places independently of one another is unbelievable. Around twenty minor agreements cannot be explained as random agreements. Therefore, in more recent approaches it is assumed that Matthew and Luke did not fall back on the Gospel of Mark that has been handed down to us, but on an older form ("Original Mark") or on an edited form called Deutero Mark ("Second Mark").
  • Passion and resurrection of Jesus in Q and Sondergut : As described above, the Sondergut and Q consist of the texts that are left over when you take the texts of Matthew and Luke together and subtract the texts originally ascribed to Mark. The remaining texts would then contain no statements about Jesus' Passion and Resurrection: It is questionable whether a Christian scripture from the first century could omit these topics. With Passion and Resurrection - according to this view - at least the speeches (logia) at the Lord's Supper should be present.
  • Hypothetical character : The logial source Q is a developed, purely hypothetical quantity. There are no manuscripts of her. The same applies to the special goods sources in the four-source theory. In addition, the (presumed) sources are nowhere mentioned by ancient authors, although they knew or could or should have used them. The two- and four-source theory therefore remain hypotheses.

Supporters of the traditional hypothesis explain the commonalities of the Gospels through oral tradition and thus not only specifically criticize the two-source theory, but also fundamentally every form of a usage hypothesis that is based on the literary dependence of the Gospels.

See also

literature

Introductions
  • Udo Schnelle : Introduction to the New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2017, ISBN 978-3-8252-4812-3 .
  • Ingo Broer , Hans Ulrich Weidemann: Introduction to the New Testament . Echter, Würzburg 2016 (4th revised edition).
  • Martin Ebner , Stefan Schreiber : Introduction to the New Testament . Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2008.
  • Petr Pokorný , Ulrich Heckel: Introduction to the New Testament . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2007.
  • Ferdinand R. Prostmeier: Small introduction to the synoptic gospels , Herder, Freiburg a. a. 2006, ISBN 3-451-29056-1 .
More detailed studies
  • David Laird Dungan : A History of the Synoptic Problem. The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels . The Anchor Bible Reference Library. Doubleday, New York 1999. ISBN 0-385-47192-0
  • Burnett Hillman Streeter: The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Dates . Macmillan, London 1924, St. Martin's Press, New York 1956, 1964. (helped the two-source theory break through in the English-speaking world)
  • Arthur J. Bellinzoni, Jr. (Ed.): The Two-Source Hypothesis. A critical appraisal . Mercer, Macon 1985. ISBN 0-86554-096-9 (anthology with articles from 60 years for and against the Mk priority and for and against Q; from the perspective of the Griesbach hypothesis)
  • Andreas Ennulat: The "Minor Agreements". Investigations into an open question of the synoptic problem . Scientific research on the New Testament. Bd 2.62. Mohr, Tübingen 1994. ISBN 3-16-145775-7 (the minor agreements probably require a modification of the two-source theory; one postulates a deutero mark or original mark)
  • Thomas Bergemann: Q put to the test. The assignment of Mt / Lk material to Q using the example of the Sermon on the Mount . FRLANT. Vol. 158. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1993. ISBN 3-525-53840-5
criticism
  • Hans-Herbert Stoldt: History and criticism of the Markus hypothesis . 2nd edition. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Goettingen 1977, Brunnen, Gießen 1986. ISBN 3-7655-9324-9
  • Eta Linnemann : On the test bench. The two-source theory . In: Eta Linnemann: Biblical criticism on the test stand. How scientific is "scientific theology"? Nuremberg 1998, p. 173 u. a. ISBN 3-933372-19-4
  • Eta Linnemann: Is there a synoptic problem? VTR, Nuremberg 1999. ISBN 3-933372-15-1
  • Werner Kahl: From the end of the two-source theory - or: To clarify the synoptic problem : As a PDF online .
  • Ulrich Victor, Karl Jaroš : The synoptic tradition: The literary relationships of the first three Gospels and their sources . Böhlau, Cologne 2010. ISBN 978-3-412-20549-2 .

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Martin Ebner : The synoptic question , in: Martin Ebner, Stefan Schreiber (ed.): Introduction to the New Testament . Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2008. pp. 75f.
  2. ↑ Markus Tiwald: The Logienquelle. Text, context, theology . Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2016. P. 18.
  3. ↑ Udo Schnelle : Introduction to the New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2017. p. 210.
  4. ↑ Eta Linnemann: Is there a synoptic problem? , VTR, Nuremberg 1998 (3rd revised edition), p. 96.
  5. ↑ Bibelwissenschaft.de on the subject
  6. ^ Robert L. Thomas: An investigation of the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark (PDF; 1.0 MB), Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) Vol. 19-2 (1976), p. 103.