Challenging a Consensus in

Gospel Studies

David Barrett Peabody

Nebraska Wesleyan University

The Synoptic Problem

Data

In Search of an Explanation

Various Kinds of Agreements and Disagreements

Among the Gospels

of

Matthew, Mark and Luke

The Consensus

The Two Document HypothesisGospel 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 Challenge

The Two Gospel HypothesisThe Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Luke

The Gospel of Mark

There is no need to hypothecate “Q”.

Another Older View

The Traditional "Augustinian" Hypothesis

The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Luke

A Newer View

The Farrer-Goulder HypothesisMark without "Q"

The Gospel of Mark The Gospel of Matthew

The Gospel of Luke

There is no need to hypothecate “Q”.

Longstaff (pictured separately) Research Team

The Two Gospel Hypothesis

Dungan Farmer Shuler McNicol Peabody Cope

Thomas R. W. LongstaffCrawford Family Professor of Religious Studies

Colby College - Waterville, MaineAssociate Director of the Excavations at Sepphoris, IsraelNewest Member - Two Gospel Hypothesis Research Team

Co-Author with Peabody of a color-coded Synopsis of Mark on a CD

1996 2002

Evidence for 2GH 1. A Sketch of Mark's Order (Mk 1:1-6:6a)

See More Detailed Color-Coded Labeled Diagram of Mark's Order

Evidence for 2GH 2. Alternating Wording (Mk/Mt and Mk/Lk) Within About 1/3 of Mark's Stories

See Spread Sheet of Mark's Potential Use of Units from Mt and Lk

1996Step One:

“Q” Is Unnecessary.

Luke Made Direct Use 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 not the order of, Mt 1-2 while creating the first Part of his Gospel in a way appropriate for his narrative agenda.

• In composing Lk 3:1-9:50: Luke began a cyclic progression through Matthew, moving forward and going back again, selecting Matthean units and combining them with materials of his own to create his chronologically-oriented narrative. In this way, Luke repeatedly moved forward through Matthew until he had used most of the narrative units in Mt 3:1-18:5, in what we named Parts Two through Four of his Gospel.

• In composing Lk 9:51-19:27: Luke depicts Jesus giving a series of teachings loosely based on a “Journey toward Jerusalem” motif, comprised of

(a) some of the remaining narrative units in Matthew --- which he used in Matthew’s general order --- plus sayings omitted from units used previously

(b) sayings from all of Matthew’s sayings collections --- which Luke interspersed throughout Lk 10-19 mostly in the same order these sayings occur within Matthew's speeches (i. e. but not necessarily in the general order of the speeches in which they occur in Matthew), and

(c) non-Matthean traditions worked into the scenes where he thought it to be appropriate.

This travel narrative we have named Part Five.

• In composing Lk 19:28-24:53: Luke followed the basic narrative order of Mt 19-28, considerably revising the content of each narrative unit. We have divided this material into Parts Six and Seven. Toward the end of Part Seven (Lk 24:13), Luke stopped following Matthew and, using non-Matthean tradition, composed a conclusion 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 is False.

Mark Conflated Matthew and Luke.

ONE GOSPEL FROM TWO. Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke

Edited by David B. Peabody, with Lamar Cope and Allan J. McNicol

In 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 of Jesus. For about the last 150 years, the majority of NT scholars have argued, or sometimes simply presupposed, that the Gospel of Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark, as well as other sources, including the hypothetical “Sayings Gospel –Q,” when composing their own, later gospels. In their earlier work, Beyond the Q Impasse. Luke’s Use of Matthew (TPI, 1996), the Research Team of the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies presented for the first time detailed evidence 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 the synoptic gospels.

In One Gospel From Two. Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke, this same Research Team, now enhanced by the addition of Thomas R. W. Longstaff, presents equally detailed evidence in support of the second and complementary conclusion of their Two Gospel Hypothesis, i. e., that Mark was written third on the basis of that author's conflation of material drawn from the two gospels, Matthew and Luke. In addition to Longstaff and the volume's three editors, co-authors of this new volume include David L. Dungan, William R. Farmer and Philip L. Shuler.

David B. Peabody is Professor of Religious Studies at Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln. Lamar Cope 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 in Austin, 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 both Matthew and Luke or, in rare cases, whenever Mark provides a literary unit that is unique to his gospel, Mark alternately agrees with Matthew and Luke in the order of pericopae.

• In a consistent and complementary way, at a micro level, whenever Mark does not agree with both Matthew and Luke or provides wording unique to his gospel, Mark alternately agrees with Matthew and Luke in wording within pericopae.

• In material that Mark shares with Matthew or Luke or both, there are at least twice as many instances of characteristic words and phrases of Matthew or Luke appearing in Mark’s parallel pericopae than instances of Mark’s characteristic words and phrases appearing in the parallel of either Matthew or Luke.

• Again, in a complementary and consistent manner, those words and phrases that are either unique to Mark’s text or represent alterations of Matthew and Luke tend to be the words and phrases that are characteristic of the author of Mark.

• This network of repeated words and phrases that are both characteristic of the author of Mark and unique or distinctive within that gospel reflects a literary, historical and/or theological integrity that 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 a midpoint text drawn from Jewish Scripture. The parallel in Mark, on the other hand, represents a fragmented or relatively disorganized and, therefore, secondary version of Matthew.

Also availableTHE GOSPEL OF MARKA Synopsis of the First Three Gospels Showing Parallels to the Markan Text

This color-coded, multi-columned electronic synopsis of Mark and its parallels on CD-ROM was prepared by David B. Peabody and Thomas R. W. Longstaff as an indispensible companion to One Gospel from Two. Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke. The structure of the interface for this Markan synopsis, therefore, features the same divisions of Mark into seven parts and ninety-one pericopae, with the same titles that are utilized in this book. Each synoptic display places similar or identical words and phrases on the same line, whenever possible, and color-codes and underlines those words in ways that distinguish among the various kinds of identities and similarities among the synoptics in meticulous detail. In addition to the Markan synopsis, this CD provides new, hypertext versions of two critically important essays on synopsis construction written by David Dungan and previously published in Biblica, one on “Theory of Synopsis Construction” (1980) and one on “Synopses of the Future” (1985).