Synoptic problem in the context of Three-source hypothesis


Synoptic problem in the context of Three-source hypothesis

Synoptic problem Study page number 1 of 1

Play TriviaQuestions Online!

or

Skip to study material about Synoptic problem in the context of "Three-source hypothesis"


⭐ Core Definition: Synoptic problem

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is largely distinct. The term synoptic (Latin: synopticus; Greek: συνοπτικός, romanizedsynoptikós) comes via Latin from the Greek σύνοψις, synopsis, i.e. "(a) seeing all together, synopsis". The modern sense of the word in English is of "giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect". It is in this sense that it is applied to the synoptic gospels.

This strong parallelism among the three gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence, though the role of orality and memorization of sources has also been explored by scholars. The question of the precise nature of their literary relationship—the synoptic problem—has been a topic of debate for centuries and has been described as "the most fascinating literary enigma of all time". While no conclusive solution has been found yet, the longstanding majority view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, called Q, though alternative hypotheses that posit direct use of Matthew by Luke or vice versa without Q are increasing in popularity within scholarship.

↓ Menu
HINT:

👉 Synoptic problem in the context of Three-source hypothesis

The three-source hypothesis is a candidate solution to the synoptic problem. It combines aspects of the two-source hypothesis and the Farrer hypothesis. It states that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark and a sayings collection as primary sources, but that the Gospel of Luke also used the Gospel of Matthew as a subsidiary source. The hypothesis is named after the three documents it posits as sources, namely the sayings collection, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Matthew.

The sayings collection may be identified with Q, or with a subset of Q if some (typically narrative-related) material normally assigned to Q is instead attributed to Matthew's creativity in conjunction with Luke's use of Matthew.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Synoptic problem in the context of Two-source hypothesis

The two-source hypothesis (or 2SH) is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of similarities and differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection from the Christian oral tradition called Q.

The two-source hypothesis emerged in the 19th century. B. H. Streeter definitively stated the case in 1924, adding that two other sources, referred to as M and L, lie behind the material in Matthew and Luke respectively. The strengths of the hypothesis are its explanatory power regarding the shared and non-shared material in the three gospels; its weaknesses lie in the exceptions to those patterns, and in the hypothetical nature of its proposed collection of Jesus-sayings. Later scholars have advanced numerous elaborations and variations on the basic hypothesis, and even completely alternative hypotheses that are increasing in popularity. Nevertheless, "the 2SH commands the support of most biblical critics from all continents and denominations."

View the full Wikipedia page for Two-source hypothesis
↑ Return to Menu

Synoptic problem in the context of Q+/Papias hypothesis

The Q+/Papias hypothesis (Q+/PapH), advanced by Dennis R. MacDonald, offers an alternative solution to the synoptic problem. MacDonald prefers to call this expanded version of Q Logoi of Jesus, which is supposed to have been its original title.

The Q+/PapH has similarities to previous solutions to the synoptic problem. Like the two-source hypothesis, the Q+/PapH affirms that both Matthew and Luke have used a Q document. Like the Farrer hypothesis, it affirms that Matthew used Mark and that Luke used both Mark and Matthew. Like the modified two-document hypothesis, it affirms that Mark also used the Q document.

View the full Wikipedia page for Q+/Papias hypothesis
↑ Return to Menu

Synoptic problem in the context of Chronicle of Ireland

The Chronicle of Ireland (Irish: Croinic na hÉireann) is the modern name for a hypothesized collection of ecclesiastical annals recording events in Ireland from 432 to 911 AD.

Several surviving annals share events in the same sequence and wording, until 911 when they continue separate narratives. They include the Annals of Inisfallen, the Annals of Ulster, the Chronicon Scotorum, the Annals of Clonmacnoise, the Annals of Tigernach, the Annals of Roscrea, the Annals of Boyle, and the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland. "The Chronicle of Ireland" represents the scholarly consensus solution to this Gaelic synoptic problem.

View the full Wikipedia page for Chronicle of Ireland
↑ Return to Menu