A Bird's Eye Perspective
Why is NT Synoptic Scholarship still divided?
Two or three generations of New Testament scholars have tackled the problem of the relationship between the synoptic gospels. True, there is a fairly widely accepted solution in the form of the Two Source Theory. Yet many of its proponents have nagging doubts, and a few reputable scholars are trying hard to undermine it.
Why do rival theories still abound after such a long time?
Let's try to take a bird's eye view of the whole situation and ask how it could have come about that the leading theory is wrong.
According to its opponents, the Two Source Theory is a mistake. How big a mistake?
On the Farrer/Goulder view, the mistake of the 2ST advocates is gigantic. Q is but a figment of their imagination, arising from over-confidence in the importance of written sources. It will eventually die a natural death like the superficially attractive but flawed hypothesis of "Proto-Luke". (Many scholars once supposed that Q had been combined with other special Lukan material into a "Proto-Luke" prior to the addition of Markan material to make Luke's gospel as we know it.) Of course we all make mistakes, but for so many experts to have been under such a delusion about an essentially academic topic for so many decades would be quite extraordinary.
On the Three Source Theory as propounded here their presumed mistake is much less dramatic. Q still exists, though it is shorn of its narratives and a few of its more dubious sayings. The reasons for the mistake are easy to see:
- Most advocates of both the 2ST and Farrer-Goulder have made a simple error in logic: the assumpton that Luke's use of a sayings source and Luke's use of Matthew are mutually exclusive.
- The above assumption is sometimes defended by an appeal to Occam's razor, which says that one should always adopt the simplest hypothesis which fits the data. This is a valid principle. But the 2ST fails to explain observations such as the 'minor agreements', and posits a hypothetical source which has to be split into three editions to make any sense, and none of them are structured or fully coherent.
[1]
Likewise the Farrer-Goulder Theory fails to give a satisfacxtory explanation of the many doublets, or of the cases where Luke's version of a saying is more primitive.
So neither main alternative actually fits the data.
- The 2ST also implies an out-dated attitude to the freedom Au_Luke exercised as an editor. In the first half of the 20th. century, scholars were very reluctant to think that Au_Luke could have dismissed so many details of Au_Matt's birth and resurrection narratives, and 'destroyed' the Sermon on the Mount. Today there is an increasing recognition of Au_Luke's willingness to express his individuality by radically adapting his source material. This answers the common objection that Au_Luke could not have been aware of the text of Matt.
Major problems with the Three Source Theory
None.
( In the unlikely event of anyone finding that the 3ST has a major problem which I judge to be as intractable as the 'minor agreements' are to the 2ST, then I'll record it here! )
What will be the consequences when scholars realize that the Three Source Theory solves the synoptic problem?
- Because sQ is homogeneous, unlike Q as traditionally understood, it will do away with the need to hypothesize editorial layers.
- The absence of miracle-related accretions and Gentile and Pauline influence will reveal a tradition close to the human Jesus behind the divine Christ of Paul's letters and the gospels. True, we will be forced to look through the lens of the earliest followers of Jesus. So we will only see what James the brother of Jesus and his fellow Christian Jews wanted us to see in the light of their undoubted re-interpretation of Jesus' role consequent upon the crucifixion. But even so, it will be an insight of great significance for our understanding of the historical Jesus.
- Au_Matt's individual contribution to the gospel tradition will need to be re-appraised, for it is greater than that implied by the Two Source Theory and less than that implied by the Farrer Theory.
- Au_Luke will be seen to have respected Matthew rather less than the other two written sources. For Matthew was used primarily to fill in a few gaps, and some of its key narratives were almost completely rewritten (the birth stories) or completely rewritten (the resurrection appearances). This is consistent with the aims which Au_Luke set out in the gospel preface.
- The Three Source Theory will eventually lead to the demise of alternative theories. For it has the potential to explain most of the problems involving the relationship between the synoptics. Scholars will finally be able to turn their attention fully to dependent issues without the need or obligation to keep checking the foundations.
Notes for this page
1. As indicated on the previous page, the Three Source Theory is actually simpler if one takes into account the multiple editorial layers usually posited for Q in the Two Source Theory.