Skip to main content
Biblical Hermeneutics

Return to Answer

replaced http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

The traditional view is that Matthew was the first written Gospel and that Mark summarized that account for easier consumption. More recently, however, scholars find the case for Markian prioritythe case for Markian priority stronger and therefore Matthew was an expansion of Mark. When all three synoptics share text (the triple-tradition), Luke invariably follows the Mark reading rather than the Matthew reading. This strongly suggests that Luke did not actually have access to Matthew as one of his sources.

But the Farrer theory does not explain why or how Matthew and Luke could present contradictory evidence on key points of the story. What was Jesus'Jesus' genealogygenealogy? Who was at the tombWho was at the tomb when the women arrived? How many demon-possessed mendemon-possessed men or blind menblind men did Jesus heal? How did Judas die? Why does Luke provide his own birth narratives and resurrection appearances without referencing Matthew's different accounts?

The traditional view is that Matthew was the first written Gospel and that Mark summarized that account for easier consumption. More recently, however, scholars find the case for Markian priority stronger and therefore Matthew was an expansion of Mark. When all three synoptics share text (the triple-tradition), Luke invariably follows the Mark reading rather than the Matthew reading. This strongly suggests that Luke did not actually have access to Matthew as one of his sources.

But the Farrer theory does not explain why or how Matthew and Luke could present contradictory evidence on key points of the story. What was Jesus' genealogy? Who was at the tomb when the women arrived? How many demon-possessed men or blind men did Jesus heal? How did Judas die? Why does Luke provide his own birth narratives and resurrection appearances without referencing Matthew's different accounts?

The traditional view is that Matthew was the first written Gospel and that Mark summarized that account for easier consumption. More recently, however, scholars find the case for Markian priority stronger and therefore Matthew was an expansion of Mark. When all three synoptics share text (the triple-tradition), Luke invariably follows the Mark reading rather than the Matthew reading. This strongly suggests that Luke did not actually have access to Matthew as one of his sources.

But the Farrer theory does not explain why or how Matthew and Luke could present contradictory evidence on key points of the story. What was Jesus' genealogy? Who was at the tomb when the women arrived? How many demon-possessed men or blind men did Jesus heal? How did Judas die? Why does Luke provide his own birth narratives and resurrection appearances without referencing Matthew's different accounts?

added 62 characters in body
Source Link
Jon Ericson
Jon Ericson
  • 31.1k
  • 46
  • 163
  • 345
2. One intriguing possibility is that _Jesus_ was the common source. Although it's unlikely he would have written down his teaching, it's quite likely he required his disciples to memorize his version of the [oral Torah][18]. If Matthew really was the author of the gospel bearing his name, he could have simply penned (or dictated) the teaching from Jesus that he had memorized. Similarly, Luke could have transcribed the same material from some other disciple of Jesus. However, as Noah Snyder [commented][19], "Matthew and Luke agree a lot in _Greek_, a common Aramaic[Aramaic][20] source does not really explain that." This entire proposal is even more speculative than the _Q_ hypothesis.
2. One intriguing possibility is that _Jesus_ was the common source. Although it's unlikely he would have written down his teaching, it's quite likely he required his disciples to memorize his version of the [oral Torah][18]. If Matthew really was the author of the gospel bearing his name, he could have simply penned (or dictated) the teaching from Jesus that he had memorized. Similarly, Luke could have transcribed the same material from some other disciple of Jesus. However, as Noah Snyder [commented][19], "Matthew and Luke agree a lot in _Greek_, a common Aramaic source does not really explain that." This entire proposal is even more speculative than the _Q_ hypothesis.
2. One intriguing possibility is that _Jesus_ was the common source. Although it's unlikely he would have written down his teaching, it's quite likely he required his disciples to memorize his version of the [oral Torah][18]. If Matthew really was the author of the gospel bearing his name, he could have simply penned (or dictated) the teaching from Jesus that he had memorized. Similarly, Luke could have transcribed the same material from some other disciple of Jesus. However, as Noah Snyder [commented][19], "Matthew and Luke agree a lot in _Greek_, a common [Aramaic][20] source does not really explain that." This entire proposal is even more speculative than the _Q_ hypothesis.
Added Noah Snyder's comment.
Source Link
Jon Ericson
Jon Ericson
  • 31.1k
  • 46
  • 163
  • 345
2. One intriguing possibility is that _Jesus_ was the common source. Although it's unlikely he would have written down his teaching, it's quite likely he required his disciples to memorize his version of the [oral Torah][18]. If Matthew really was the author of the gospel bearing his name, he could have simply penned (or dictated) the teaching from Jesus that he had memorized. Similarly, Luke could have transcribed the same material from some other disciple of Jesus. But this However, as Noah Snyder [commented][19], "Matthew and Luke agree a lot in _Greek_, a common Aramaic source does not really explain that." This entire proposal is even more speculative than the _Q_ hypothesis.
2. One intriguing possibility is that _Jesus_ was the common source. Although it's unlikely he would have written down his teaching, it's quite likely he required his disciples to memorize his version of the [oral Torah][18]. If Matthew really was the author of the gospel bearing his name, he could have simply penned (or dictated) the teaching from Jesus that he had memorized. Similarly, Luke could have transcribed the same material from some other disciple of Jesus. But this entire proposal is even more speculative than the _Q_ hypothesis.
2. One intriguing possibility is that _Jesus_ was the common source. Although it's unlikely he would have written down his teaching, it's quite likely he required his disciples to memorize his version of the [oral Torah][18]. If Matthew really was the author of the gospel bearing his name, he could have simply penned (or dictated) the teaching from Jesus that he had memorized. Similarly, Luke could have transcribed the same material from some other disciple of Jesus. However, as Noah Snyder [commented][19], "Matthew and Luke agree a lot in _Greek_, a common Aramaic source does not really explain that." This entire proposal is even more speculative than the _Q_ hypothesis.
Source Link
Jon Ericson
Jon Ericson
  • 31.1k
  • 46
  • 163
  • 345