COMPETITORS OF TWO-SOURCE HYPOTHESIS IN MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF NEW TESTAMENT

Abstract

The author discusses the various hypotheses suggested for the solution to the synoptic problem. For a long time the dominant solution to this problem was a two-source hypothesis. Today, many researchers believe that a two-source hypothesis should be rejected, and suggest various alternative hypotheses. Farrer hypothesis asserts the priority of Mark. Augustinian hypothesis and two-gospel hypothesis assert the priority of Matthew. Jerusalem school hypothesis asserts the priority of Luke. The author mentions that as for the synoptic problem there is no consensus.

References

1. BenDavid A. Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1967. 942 p.
2. Edwards J. R. The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. 376 p.
3. Farmer W. R. The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem. Louisville: Westminster, 1994. 240 p.
4. Farrer A. M. On Dispensing with Q // Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955. P. 55-58.
5. Gundry R. H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982. 690 p.
6. Lindsey R. L. A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark: A Greek-Hebrew Diglot with English Introduction. Jerusalem: Dugith Publishers, 1973. 159 p.
7. Lindsey R. L. A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence // Novum Testamentum. 1963. Vol. 6. P. 239-263.
8. Linnemann E. Gibt es ein synoptisches Problem? Nürnberg: Verl. für Theologie und Religionswiss, 1999. 191 S.
9. Morgenthaler R. Statistik des Neutestamentlichen Wortschafzes. Zürich: Gotthelf, 1982. 187 S.
10. Orchard B., Riley H. The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987. 294 p.
11. Parker P. The Gospel before Mark. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. 266 p.
12. Segal M. H. Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic // Jewish Quarterly Review. 1908. Vol. 20. P. 647-737.
13. Streeter B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1924. 624 p.
14. The Greek New Testament. Fourth Revised Edition / Editors B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellshaft, 1994. 979 p.
15. Ward Powers B. The Progressive Publication of Matthew. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010. 624 p.
16. Wenham J. Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991. 319 p.

Author information

About this article

Publication history

• Published: February 25, 2013.

Keywords

• текстология Нового Завета
• синоптическая проблема
• гипотеза двух источников
• гипотеза Фаррера
• Августинианская гипотеза
• гипотеза двух Евангелий
• гипотеза Иерусалимской школы
• Эта Линнеман
• textual criticism of New Testament
• synoptic problem
• two-source hypothesis
• Farrer hypothesis
• Augustinian hypothesis
• two-gospel hypothesis
• Jerusalem school hypothesis
• Eta Linnemann

Copyright

© 2013 The Author(s)
© 2013 Gramota Publishing, LLC

User license

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)