Independence hypothesis

Last updated
Independence Hypothesis
Synoptic independence theory en.svg
The independence theory posits that each evangelist has independently drawn from eyewitness accounts and perhaps oral tradition.
Theory Information
OrderNo relationship
Additional SourcesNo additional sources
Theory History
Proponents Eta Linnemann

The Independence hypothesis is a proposed solution to the synoptic problem. It holds that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are each original compositions formed independently of each other, with no documentary relationship.

Contents

Scholars have long noted that the three synoptic gospels have a great deal in common, not just in content but also in order and precise Greek wording. Most scholars have assumed that this must be due to some sort of literary interrelationship among the gospels, with fragments of text copied from one source to another, but have struggled to find a satisfactory theory of who copied from whom. The independence theory rejects this consensus of documentary dependence; rather, each evangelist has independently drawn from eyewitness accounts and perhaps liturgy and other oral tradition.

The similarities among the synoptic gospels, the whole basis for the synoptic problem, are held to be, first of all, vastly overstated, and secondly, explainable as artifacts of relying on the same witnesses or of different witnesses to the same events.

The witnesses to the gospel content, especially apostles such as Peter, would have preached their testimony countless times before contributing to the gospels, and such numerous rehearsals tend to make a story settle into a relatively consistent wording. Any of this material that entered public liturgy (e.g., the Lord's Prayer) would become even more stabilized. On the other hand, different witnesses nearly always preserve different details and present numerous minor inconsistencies. So, too, does a single witness consulted on different occasions. Moreover, sayings and anonymous healings may have recurred many times in a similar fashion, so that seemingly similar accounts actually preserve distinct events. What we would expect to see in the gospels according to this method of composition, goes the theory, is exactly what we find: many similar accounts, often with virtually identical wording, but many additions and omissions, a somewhat different selection of content in each, and apparent inconsistencies of order and details.

Some see the independence theory as especially consistent with divine inspiration of the gospels, with the similarities among the gospels explained by the Holy Spirit ensuring a faithful record of Christ's words and deeds.

Protestant theologian Eta Linnemann argues that the reason for four independent Gospels stems from the legal principle of Deuteronomy 19:15: "On the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed."

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Diatessaron</i> 2nd century gospel harmony by Tatian

The Diatessaron is the most prominent early gospel harmony. It was created in the Syriac language by Tatian, an Assyrian early Christian apologist and ascetic. Tatian sought to combine all the textual material he found in the four gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - into a single coherent narrative of Jesus's life and death. However, and in contradistinction to most later gospel harmonists, Tatian appears not to have been motivated by any aspiration to validate the four separate canonical gospel accounts; or to demonstrate that, as they stood, they could each be shown as being without inconsistency or error.

Gospel originally meant the Christian message, but in the 2nd century it came to be used also for the books in which the message was reported. In this sense a gospel can be defined as a loose-knit, episodic narrative of the words and deeds of Jesus, culminating in his trial and death and concluding with various reports of his post-resurrection appearances. Modern biblical scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless, they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later Christian authors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marcan priority</span> Hypothesis about Christian Bible Gospel of Mark

Marcan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the three synoptic gospels to be written, and was used as a source by the other two. It is a central element in discussion of the synoptic problem; the question of the documentary relationship among these three gospels.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Two-source hypothesis</span> Hypothesis in biblical criticism

The two-source hypothesis 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Synoptic Gospels</span> Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke

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 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Farrer hypothesis</span> Solution to the synoptic gospels

The Farrer hypothesis is a possible solution to the synoptic problem. The theory is that the Gospel of Mark was written first, followed by the Gospel of Matthew and then by the Gospel of Luke, with Matthew and Luke using the earlier gospel(s) as sources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M source</span> Hypothetical source for Matthews Gospel

M source, which is sometimes referred to as M document, or simply M, comes from the M in "Matthean material". It is a hypothetical textual source for the Gospel of Matthew. M Source is defined as that 'special material' of the Gospel of Matthew that is neither Q source nor Mark.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Augustinian hypothesis</span> Theory on origin of synoptic gospels

The Augustinian hypothesis is a solution to the synoptic problem, which concerns the origin of the Gospels of the New Testament. The hypothesis holds that Matthew was written first, by Matthew the Evangelist. Mark the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Mark second and used Matthew and the preaching of Peter as sources. Luke the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Luke and was aware of the two Gospels that preceded him. Unlike some competing hypotheses, this hypothesis does not rely on, nor does it argue for, the existence of any document that is not explicitly mentioned in historical testimony. Instead, the hypothesis draws primarily upon historical testimony, rather than textual criticism, as the central line of evidence. The foundation of evidence for the hypothesis is the writings of the Church Fathers: historical sources dating back to as early as the first half of the 2nd century, which have been held as authoritative by most Christians for nearly two millennia. Adherents to the Augustinian hypothesis view it as a simple, coherent solution to the synoptic problem.

The criterion of multiple attestation, also called the criterion of independent attestation or the cross-section method, is a tool used by Biblical scholars to help determine whether certain actions or sayings by Jesus in the New Testament are from the Historical Jesus. Simply put, the more independent witnesses that report an event or saying, the better. This criterion was first developed by F. C. Burkitt in 1906, at the end of the first quest for the historical Jesus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Myrrhbearers</span> Women with myrrh who came to the tomb of Christ

In Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition the Myrrhbearers are the individuals mentioned in the New Testament who were directly involved in the burial or who discovered the empty tomb following the resurrection of Jesus. The term traditionally refers to the women who came with myrrh to the tomb of Christ early in the morning to find it empty. Also included are Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who took the body of Jesus down from the cross, anointed it with myrrh and aloes, wrapped it in clean linen, and placed it in a new tomb. In Western Christianity, the women at the tomb, the Three Marys or other variants are the terms normally used.

The historical reliability of the Gospels is evaluated by experts who have not reached complete consensus. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events that may meet at least one of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies, the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Three-source hypothesis</span> Issue in biblical criticism

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 Common Sayings Source is one of many theories that attempts to provide insight into the Synoptic Problem. The theory posits that the Gospel of Thomas, a sayings gospel, and the Q source, a hypothetical sayings gospel, have a common source. Elements of this Common Sayings Source can be found in the text of the Gospel of Thomas and what scholars are proposing existed in the Q source. The high level of similarities between the two sources suggests that both documents are later redactions of a single source, the original Common Sayings Source, which was then redacted by different groups to suit their own needs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerusalem school hypothesis</span> Hypothesis for the synoptic problem

The Jerusalem School Hypothesis is one of many possible solutions to the synoptic problem, that the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew both relied on older texts which are now lost. It was developed by Robert Lindsey, from the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Two-gospel hypothesis</span> Hypothesis that the synoptic gospels were authored in the order of Matthew, Luke, then Mark

The two-gospel hypothesis or Griesbach hypothesis is that the Gospel of Matthew was written before the Gospel of Luke, and that both were written earlier than the Gospel of Mark. It is a proposed solution to the synoptic problem, which concerns the pattern of similarities and differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis is generally first credited to Johann Jakob Griesbach writing in the 1780s; it was introduced in its current form by William R. Farmer in 1964 and given its current designation of two-gospel hypothesis in 1979.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Q source</span> Hypothetical source of gospel contents

The Q source (also called The Sayings Gospel, Q Gospel, Q document(s), or Q; from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is a written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (λόγια, logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral gospel traditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oral gospel traditions</span> Oral stage in the formation of the gospels

Oral gospel traditions is the hypothetical first stage in the formation of the written gospels as information was passed by word of mouth. These oral traditions included different types of stories about Jesus. For example, people told anecdotes about Jesus healing the sick and debating with his opponents. The traditions also included sayings attributed to Jesus, such as parables and teachings on various subjects which, along with other sayings, formed the oral gospel tradition. The supposition of such traditions have been the focus of scholars such as Bart Ehrman, James Dunn, and Richard Bauckham, although each scholar varies widely in his conclusions, with Ehrman and Bauckham publicly debating on the subject.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hebrew Gospel hypothesis</span> Group of theories relating to early Christian history

The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is that a lost gospel, written in Hebrew or Aramaic, predated the four canonical gospels. In the 18th and early 19th century several scholars suggested that a Hebrew proto-gospel was the main source or one of several sources for the canonical gospels. This theorizing would later give birth to the two source-hypothesis that views Q as a proto-gospel but believes this proto-gospel to have been written in Koine Greek. After the wide-spread scholarly acceptance of the two-source hypothesis scholarly interest in the Hebrew gospel hypothesis dwindled. Modern variants of the Hebrew gospel hypothesis survive, but have not found favor with scholars as a whole.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Q+/Papias hypothesis</span> Hypothesis about the synoptic gospels

Advanced by Dennis R. MacDonald, the Q+/Papias hypothesis (Q+/PapH) 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matthean Posteriority hypothesis</span> Proposed solution to the synoptic problem

The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis, also known as the Wilke hypothesis after Christian Gottlob Wilke, is a proposed solution to the synoptic problem, holding that the Gospel of Mark was used as a source by the Gospel of Luke, then both of these were used as sources by the Gospel of Matthew. Thus, it posits Marcan priority and Matthaean posteriority.

References

    Sources