Challenging a Consensus in Gospel Studies David Barrett PeabodyNebraska Wesleyan University
The Synoptic Problem Data In Search of an ExplanationVarious Kinds of Agreements and Disagreements Among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke
The ConsensusThe Two Document Hypothesis Gospel of Mark The Sayings Gospel “Q” The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Luke “Q” is required if Mark is placed first AND Mt and Lk are independent.
The ChallengeThe Two Gospel HypothesisThe Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Luke The Gospel of Mark There is no need to hypothecate “Q”.
Another Older ViewThe Traditional "Augustinian"Hypothesis The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Mark The Gospel of Luke
A Newer View The Farrer-GoulderHypothesis Mark without "Q"The Gospel of Mark The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Luke There is no need to hypothecate “Q”.
The Two Gospel HypothesisDungan Farmer Shuler McNicol Peabody Cope Longstaff (pictured separately) ResearchTeam
Thomas R. W. Longstaff Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies Colby College - Waterville, Maine Associate Director of the Excavations at Sepphoris, Israel Newest Member - Two Gospel Hypothesis Research TeamCo-Author with Peabody of a color-coded Synopsis of Mark on a CD
Evidence for 2GH 1. A Sketch of Marks Order (Mk 1:1-6:6a)See More Detailed Color-Coded Labeled Diagram of Marks Order
Evidence for 2GH 2. Alternating Wording (Mk/Mt and Mk/Lk) Within About 1/3 of Marks StoriesSee Spread Sheet of Marks Potential Use of Units from Mt and Lk
1996Step One:“Q” IsUnnecessary.Luke Made DirectUse of Matthew
Evidence in Support of the Two Gospel Hypothesis. Part 1. Beyond the Q Impasse. Luke’s Use of Matthew Section A. Luke’s Sequential Use of Matthew•In composing Lk 1-2: Luke adopted elements from, but notthe order of, Mt 1-2 while creating the first Part of his Gospel ina way appropriate for his narrative agenda.•In composing Lk 3:1-9:50: Luke began a cyclic progressionthrough Matthew, moving forward and going back again,selecting Matthean units and combining them with materials ofhis own to create his chronologically-oriented narrative. In thisway, Luke repeatedly moved forward through Matthew until hehad used most of the narrative units in Mt 3:1-18:5, in what wenamed Parts Two through Four of his Gospel.
•In composing Lk 9:51-19:27: Luke depicts Jesus giving a seriesof teachings loosely based on a “Journey toward Jerusalem” motif,comprised of(a) some of the remaining narrative units in Matthew --- which heused in Matthew’s general order --- plus sayings omitted fromunits used previously(b) sayings from all of Matthew’s sayings collections --- whichLuke interspersed throughout Lk 10-19 mostly in the same orderthese sayings occur within Matthews speeches (i. e. but notnecessarily in the general order of the speeches in which theyoccur in Matthew), and(c) non-Matthean traditions worked into the scenes where hethought it to be appropriate.This travel narrative we have named Part Five.
•In composing Lk 19:28-24:53: Luke followed the basic narrativeorder of Mt 19-28, considerably revising the content of eachnarrative unit. We have divided this material into Parts Six andSeven. Toward the end of Part Seven (Lk 24:13), Luke stoppedfollowing Matthew and, using non-Matthean tradition, composed aconclusion to his Gospel that anticipated the initial chapters of Acts. Part B. Linguistic Evidence that Luke Used Matthew•Matthean summary phraseology occurs in the text of Luke.•Matthean grammatical constructions occur in the text of Luke.•Matthean words occur in the text of Luke.
2002Step Two:Markan Priority isFalse.Mark ConflatedMatthew and Luke.
ONE GOSPEL FROM TWO. Marks Use of Matthew and Luke Edited by David B. Peabody, with Lamar Cope and Allan J. McNicolIn spite of centuries of discussion, New Testament scholars continue to debate the Synoptic Problem— that most fundamental question of the compositional sequence and interrelationships of Matthew,Mark and Luke, those gospels that most often record similar versions of the words and deeds ofJesus. For about the last 150 years, the majority of NT scholars have argued, or sometimes simplypresupposed, that the Gospel of Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke independentlyutilized Mark, as well as other sources, including the hypothetical ―Sayings Gospel –Q,‖ whencomposing their own, later gospels.In their earlier work, Beyond the Q Impasse. Luke’s Use of Matthew(TPI, 1996), the Research Teamof the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies presented for the first time detailedevidence in support of their conclusion that Luke made direct use of Matthew in composing his gospel,thus obviating the need for the hypothetical "Q" source in reconstructing the literary history of thesynoptic gospels.In One Gospel From Two. Marks Use of Matthew and Luke, this same Research Team, nowenhanced by the addition of Thomas R. W. Longstaff, presents equally detailed evidence in support ofthe second and complementary conclusion of their Two Gospel Hypothesis, i. e., that Mark was writtenthird on the basis of that authors conflation of material drawn from the two gospels, Matthew andLuke. In addition to Longstaff and the volumes three editors, co-authors of this new volume includeDavid L. Dungan, William R. Farmer and Philip L. Shuler.David B. Peabody is Professor of Religious Studies at Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln. LamarCope is Chair of the Department and Professor of Religious Studies at Carroll College, Waukesha,Wisconsin. Allan J. McNicol is Professor of New Testament at the Institute for Christian Studies inAustin, Texas.
Evidence in Support of the Two Gospel Hypothesis. Part 2. One Gospel from Two. Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke•At a macro-level,whenever Mark does not agree with bothMatthew and Luke or, in rare cases, whenever Mark provides aliterary unit that is unique to his gospel, Mark alternatelyagreeswith Matthew and Luke in theorder of pericopae.•In a consistent and complementary way, at a micro level, wheneverMark does not agree with both Matthew and Luke or provideswording unique to his gospel, Mark alternatelyagrees with Matthewand Luke in wording within pericopae.
•In material that Mark shares with Matthew or Luke or both, there areat least twice as many instances of characteristic words and phrasesof Matthew or Luke appearing in Mark’s parallel pericopae thaninstances of Mark’s characteristic words and phrases appearing inthe parallel of either Matthew or Luke.•Again, in a complementary and consistent manner, those words andphrases that are either unique to Mark’s text or represent alterationsof Matthew and Luke tend to be the words and phrases that arecharacteristic of the author of Mark.•This network of repeated words and phrases that are bothcharacteristic of the author of Mark and unique or distinctive withinthat gospel reflects a literary, historical and/or theological integritythat is consistent with the work of a single author.
•In several pericopae, Matthew preserves some well organized,Jewish style argumentation, centered on and built around amidpoint text drawn from Jewish Scripture. The parallel inMark, on the other hand, represents a fragmented or relativelydisorganized and, therefore, secondary version of Matthew.
Also availableTHE GOSPEL OF MARKA Synopsis of the First Three Gospels Showing Parallels to the MarkanTextThis color-coded, multi-columned electronic synopsis of Mark and its parallelson CD-ROM was prepared by David B. Peabody and Thomas R. W. Longstaffas an indispensible companion to One Gospel from Two. Marks Use ofMatthew and Luke. The structure of the interface for this Markan synopsis,therefore, features the same divisions of Mark into seven parts and ninety-onepericopae, with the same titles that are utilized in this book.Each synopticdisplay places similar or identical words and phrases on the same line,whenever possible, and color-codes and underlines those words in ways thatdistinguish among the various kinds of identities and similarities among thesynoptics in meticulous detail. In addition to the Markan synopsis, this CDprovides new, hypertext versions of two critically important essays on synopsisconstruction written by David Dungan and previously published in Biblica, oneon ―Theory of Synopsis Construction‖ (1980) and one on ―Synopses of theFuture‖ (1985).