Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (1899)

Hawkins, John C., Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899) (2d ed., 1909).

Hawkins' classic work, named for the hours spent in study of the Synoptic Problem, has three major parts. The first part details the "Words and Phrases Characteristic of Each of the Synoptic Gospels." The second part, entitled "Indications of Sources," assembles much evidence in favor of literary solutions to the Synoptic Problem. It is the third part, "Further Statistics and Observations Bearing on the Origin and Composition of Each Gospel," with which the Synoptic Web is concerned.

Markan Hypothesis

At the beginning of his chapter on the origin and composition of Mark, Hawkins held "that a source corresponding on the whole with our present Gospel of St. Mark was used by the other two Synoptists as a basis of Grundschrift, to which they added introductions, insertions and conclusions derived from other sources." [114] Thus, Hawkins' position, in the terminology of the Synoptic Web, falls within ambit of the Markan Hypothesis, which advances the priority of the Markan tradition, but not necessarily the canonical text of Mark, over Matthew and Luke.

Formal Argument from Order

For support, Hawkins deferred to F.H. Woods, Studia Biblica 2 (Oxford, 1890) and favorably cited Jülicher, Introd. to N.T., E.T., pp. 348 ff. [114 n.2] Of Woods' arguments, he related that "[t]he most simple and impressive of them rests on the fact that 'the order of the whole of St. Mark, except of course what is peculiar that Gospel, is confirmed either by St. Matthew or St. Luke, and the greater part of it by both' (p. 61)," exempting Mk1:2|| as "hardly ... an exception." [n.3] Therefore, while Hawkins acknowleged that there were many arguments in favor of the Markan hypothesis, Hawkins found the formal argument from order to be the most persuasive.

Argument from Style against Ur-Marcus

The main focus of Hawkins' section on the origin and composition of Mark is the nature of the Markan tradition used by Matthew and Luke. Hawkins initially set up two basic alternatives: (1) Ur-Marcus, "an original and probably shorter Mark which was altered and supplemented by a later editor" and (2) "a source closely corresponding with our present Gospel of St. Mark." [115]

In deciding between these alternatives, Hawkins proposed "to bring together and classify the Marcan peculiarities, so that we may see how far they are such as would be likely to be omitted or altered." [115] In other words, Hawkins proposed to examine the relative likelihood the "Marcan matter which neither Matthew nor Luke has incorporated" were (1) omitted or altered from Ur-Marcus or (2) added or altered by a later editor. More specifically, Hawkins collected the following Markan material that suggests that a later evangelist would omit but that a later editor would not add:

"Passages which may have omitted or altered as being liable to be misunderstood, or to give offence, or to suggest difficulties"

"Enlargements of the narrative, which add nothing to the information conveyed by it, because they are expressed again, or are directly involved, in the context" [125-26]

To bolster the idea that these "context-supplements" are characteristic of the Mark that Matthew and Luke used, but not of a later editor, Hawkins included context-supplements also found in one of the other Gospels.

"Minor additions to the narrative" [127-31]

Hawkins argued that "graphic and picturesque and lively" details are less likely to have been added than omitted for they have little catechical value.

"Rude, harsh, obscure or unusual words or expressions, which may therefore have been omitted or replaced by others" [131-38]

"Duplicate expressions in Mark, in which one or both of the other synoptists use one part or its equivalent" [139-142]

Hawkins acknowledged that this "duality" was once attributed to the supposition that "Mark had put together phrases from Matthew and Luke" in support of the Griesbach Hypothesis, but felt that "it will appear far more probable that he had there used two phrases in his customary way, and that in these cases Matthew happened to adopt one of them and Luke the other, whereas in other cases [Mk2:25 14:43], they both happened to adopt the same one." [142] As corroboration Hawkins cited Lake for similar occurrences in the Sinaitic-Syriac text of Mark. [n.3]

"The historic present in Mark" [143-49]

Hawkin's section on the historic present in Mark is used to eliminate "a large proportion of the cases in which Matthew and Luke agree against Mark," because "they were only preferring a more usual to a less usual mode of expression." [143] Although his argument is not so explicit, it is the same as in the other sections: it is easier to understand Matthew's and Luke's procedure of making coincidental improvements to Mark rather than a reviser spoiling of Ur-Marcus.

"The conjunction kai preferred to de in Mark [150-152]

Therefore, Hawkins' argument from style against Ur-Marcus was that (a) there is a large amount of material characteristic of Mark for which it is more likely that Matthew and Luke would omit from Mark than a redactor would add to Ur-Marcus and (b) many of the matters omitted jointly by Matthew and Luke (and thus probative of Ur-Marcus) have analogs which are occasionally attested in Matthew and Luke (and thus weakens Ur-Marcus).

Markan Recension: Secondary Features in Canonical Mark

However, Hawkins was not willing to conclude that Matthew and Luke actually used Mark, rather a recension of Mark that is "almost; but not quite" Mark. [152] In the main text, Hawkins relied on what we now call form-critical considerations or secondary features in Mk1:1 ("Jesus Christ") 9:41 ("Christ's") 8:35 ("the gospel") 10:29,30 ("persecutions") 7:3 ("the Jews") 6:37 ("200") 14:5 ("300") 5:13 ("2000") and 14:56,59 (disagreement of witnesses). Hawkins believed that that the last four are instances in which Matthew and Luke would not have omitted but a later scribe would have introduced. [152-53]

Markan Recension: Minor Agreements Against Canonical Mark

In Appendix B, Hawkins found 21 "alterations and small additions in which Matthew and Luke agree Mark" (Mt9:17=Lk5:37 13:11=8:10 9:20=8:44 14:1=9:7 14:13=9:11 16:16=9:20 17:5=9:34 17:17=9:41 19:29=18:30 21:17=21:37 21:23=20:1 26:50=22:48 26:75=22:62 26:68=22:64 27:40=23:35 27:54=23:47 27:59=23:53 28:1=23:54 28:3=24:4 28:8=24:9 [21:1=19:29]). [210-11] Hawkins found it "reasonable to suspect" that these minor agreements and possibly others have been supplied from a common source [211].

Hawkins found Ur-Marcus improbable based on his original argument against Ur-Marcus and that nos. 1, 2, and 14 are "alterations of an explanatory kind which seem far more likely to have been inserted than to have been dropped by a later editor." As for an indirect dependence upon a shared, hypothetical, early non-Marcan document, possibly even Q [211], Hawkins felt this possibility was "rendered improbable by the very small bulk of the additions and alterations, compared with the whole amount of the matter of these sections." [212] Similarly, direct consultation of one's work by the other [211-12] was also "rendered improbable by the very same bulk." [212]

In contrast, Hawkins concluded that one or both of the following explanations seemed "less unlikely":

The Q Hypothesis

Argument from Doublets

Hawkins found that "[d]oublets in Matthew Nos. 2, 7, 10 (cf. also 1, 11, 12) and doublets in Luke Nos. 2 and 7 suggest the general use of two sources (probably Marcan and Logian)." [81] These doublets are:

Doublets in Matthew

Doublets in Luke

Argument from Papias

The time elapsed from the first edition (1899) to the second edition (1909) witnessed a lessening reliance on the testimony of Papias in favor of Q. However, Hawkins still gave some weight to Papias:

Since then [scil. 1899] the scholars of England and America have largely followed those of Germany in designating this source as Q (= Quelle). For it has been generally admitted that to call it 'the Logia of Matthew' was unfairly 'question-begging', as assuming that Matthew and Luke certainly used the document named by Papias (p. xiii). But the abandonment of that name in favour of the neutral symbol Q need not involve an intention of begging the question in the other direction, by ignoring the reasons for holding that the only two documents named by the earliest writer who deals with sources at all are the two which bulk so largely in out First and Third Gospels. [107, footnotes omitted]

In support, Hawkins cited ET 7:79ff. and 139.

The Document Q

Hawkins felt it "highly probable that this Q was a written source" [107] because of "[t]he exact or almost exact correspondence of some parallel passages of considerable extent" and "the use of not a few peculiar and unusual expressions." [107]

Considerable Correspondences

Peculiar and Unusual Expressions

Hawkins concluded that "these 'identities of language', which seem all but unaccountable unless we admit some use of written Greek documents." [67] Interestingly, Hawkins admitted that "a renewed examination has failed to produce any expressions which I could definitely label as characteristic of Q." [113, footnote omitted] However, Hawkins refused to see this failure as disproof of Q, but evidence that "both Matthew and Luke, and especially Luke, have so 'worked over' the source they employed that their Gospels frequently represent to us the substance rather than the words of the original documents." [113]

Stephen C. Carlson
Created: June 29, 1998
Revised: November 24, 1999
Back to the 2SH Web Page