| 1712 |
|
LeClerc: Evangelists
could have used earlier sources. (LeClerc 1712: 429; accord
Michaelis 1777:
¶ 125; see Farmer
1964/76: 9 n.11). |
| 1764 |
 |
Owen: Mk used Lk as
well as Mt. (Owen 1764:
53-75; see Farmer
1964/76: 7 n.8, Farmer
1990: 147-156) |
| 1766 |
 |
Büsching: Order is Lk,
Mt, Mk. (Büsching
1766: 109-119; see Farmer 1964/76: 7
n.8) |
| 1776 |
|
Griesbach: Publication
of the first literary Synopsis. (see Farmer 1964/76: 3,
5-6; Greeven 1978:
26-28; Reicke 1978b:
69-70) |
| 1778 |
 |
Lessing (pub. 1784):
Aramaic Ur-Gospel source (Gospel of the Nazarenes) used
independently by Mt, Mk, and Lk. |
| 1782 |
|
Koppe: Marcus non
epitomator Matthaei [Mark not the abridger of
Matthew] because Mark deviated in order from Mt but which
Lk supports over the apostle. Gospels compiled from Greek
and Hebrew fragments. |
| 1783 |
|
Griesbach:
Successive dependence with order Mt, Lk, Mk. Mk is a
conflation of Mt and Lk, not an epitome of Mt. |
| 1786 |
|
Storr: contra Koppe,
authoritativeness of Mark comes from Peter via Papias'
testimony. Early proponent of Mark's priority. |
| 1794 |
|
Eichhorn: Original
Aramaic Gospel in four revisions. A - basis for Mt; B -
basis for Lk; C from A and B - basis for Mk; and D - used
by both Matt. and Luke but not Mark. |
| 1797 |
|
Herder: oral gospel
(Lk1:2), and Mk similar to Peter's words in Ac1:22. |
| 1798 |
 |
Marsh (pub. 1801): Two
Greek, common sources :- an Ur-Gospel (Aleph) which
contains the Triple Tradition, and a primitive sayings
source (Beth), both independently used by Evangelists. |
| 1832 |
|
Schleiermacher:
Fragmentary Hypothesis, gospels are a collection of
various written materials. Papias' Mark is a gospel
written by Mark, but not the canonical Mk. Papias'
"Logia" is a collection of Jesus' sayings that
formed a "Proto-Matthew" to which narrative
material was added. but not by Luke who used Mt.
(Canonical Mk is a later gospel as in GH.) |
| 1835 |
|
Lachmann:
Order of the fragments in oral tradition best reflected
in Mark. |
| 1835 |
|
Tübingen School, D.F.Strauss
& F.C.Baur: Greisbach Hypothesis adherents
with late date (c. 130) for Mt. Mt is not eyewitness but
myth. Lasted until 1864 with the appointment of
Weizsäcker. |
| 1838 |
 |
Wilke: Markan
priority, with both Matt. and Luke using Mark. The Double
Tradition is from Matt.'s use of Luke. |
| 1838 |
 |
Weisse: Both
Matt. and Luke combined Papias' Mark and the Logia.
Papias' Mark was first identified as the canonical Mk,
thus making the first formulation of the Two-Source
Hypothesis. |
| 1842 |
|
De Wette/1862
Bleek: Mk a conflation of Mt and Lk, but both Mt
and Lk independently based on an Ur-Gospel. |
| 1848 |
|
Ewald: 9-Source
Hypothesis: (1) Ur-Gospel, (2) Logia, (3) Mk on 1+2, (4)
"book of higher history", (5) Mt on 1+2+3+4,
(6) (7), (8), and (9) Lk on 1+2+3+4+6+7+8, not Mt! |
| 1856 |
 |
Weisse: Retreats from
his identification of Papias' Mark (and hence Mt &
Lk's source) with our Mk, but with an Ur-Markus,
containing the shared narrative between Mt & Lk. |
| 1863 |
|
Holtzmann:
Two-Source Hypothesis: (1) Alpha (Ur-Marcus), an early
gospel similar to Mk and (2) Lambda [later called Q by
J.Weiss], a sayings source used by Mt and Lk. Mt and Lk
are independent. Both sources are thought of in terms of
Papias. |
| 1880 |
 |
Simons & Holtzmann:
Luke also used Matthew as subsidiary source. Proposal
basically went unnoticed. |
| 1899 |
|
Wernle: Attributes Mt
& Lk's shared narrative to Q also, allowing Ur-Markus
to be identified with canonical Mk. |
| 1872 |
|
Sanday: brings
Holtzmann's synthesis to Oxford. |
| 1879 |
|
Abbott: Encyclopaedia
Britannica article. Argument from wording against
2GH: there is an almost total lack of additional matter
in common between Mt and Lk in Triple Tradition contexts.
Minor agreements accounted for by independent editorial
changes. |
| 1884 |
|
Abbott & Rushbrooke:
Another argument from wording against 2GH, Mark must have
carefully underlined the words common to Mt and Lk and
include all those and still be a natural composition. |
| 1886 |
|
Woods: Applying
Lachmann's argument from order, Ur-Marcus is
substantially the canonical Mk. Four objections to
Griesbach: (1) argument from omission, (2) Mark's
selections are inscrutible, (3) argument from order, and
(4) Griesbach does not explain relationship between Mt
and Lk as well as 2SH. |
| 1891 |
|
Sanday: Minor
agreements are a problem to the 2SH, perhaps to be
cleared up by textual criticism. |
| 1893 |
|
Stanton: Explains how
copyist errors can create minor agreements. |
| 1899 |
|
Hawkins:
Horae Synopticae Argues that many of the
Minor Agreements are independent editing by Matthew and
Luke of Ur-Marcus, rather than by the final revisor of
Mark. Ur-Markus, then, is almost identical to Mark. |
| 1901 |
 |
Abbott: Minor
agreements now best explained by a recension of Mk which
was used by Mt and Lk. |
| 1906 |
|
Burkitt: If Ur-Marcus
existed, then either Mk copies Ur-Marcus exactly or
whenever Mark didn't, either Mt or Lk also didn't. |
| 1911 |
|
Oxford Studies
with Streeter: Mark/Q overlaps: Mk knew Q. |
| 1924 |
 |
Streeter: The
Four Gospels, "Fundamental Solution" Mt
and Lk dependent on canonical Mk, not Ur-Marcus. Mk did
not know Q. Minor agreements explained by (1) Irrelevant
Agreements: compression of details and improvements in
the Greek; (2) Deceptive Agreements: coincidental
stylistic improvements; (3) Mark/Q overlaps; (4) Textual
Corruptions. |
| 1924 |
 |
Streeter: The
Four Gospels, proposes proto-Luke = Q + L. |
| 1922 |
 |
Jameson: Minor
agreements is positive evidence for Lk's use of Mt. |
| 1924 |
|
Springer: Argument from
order is invalid if Gospels are directly dependent. |
| 1934 |
 |
Ropes: Q is unnecessary
if Luke used Matthew. [Quotation]
|
| 1937 |
|
Chapman: Defense of
Augustinian Hypothesis, literary evidence against 2SH,
reiterates Jameson's criticisms of 2SH. |
| 1951 |
|
Butler: Streeter
committed the "Lachmann Fallacy," which is a
misapplication of Lachmann's argument from order to
directly dependent gospels. Lachmann's argument really
means that Mark is some kind of a "middle
term." |
| 1953 |
 |
Parker: Challenges
Markan priority by merging Mark and "M" into a
proto-Matthew, which is the source for Matthew and Mark. |
| 1955 |
|
Farrer: Dispensing
with Q with Luke's use of Matthew. |
| 1962 |
|
Styler: Accepts
Butler's critique of the Lachmann Fallacy, but defends
Marcan priority on other grounds (by literary phenomena).
|
| 1964 |
|
Farmer: Revives the
Griesbach Hypothesis. Lachmann's argument also supports
Mk being a conflation. Eschews reliance on hypothetical
sources (i.e., Q). Calls attention to the pattern of alternating
agreement over Mark's order between Mt and Lk, in
addition to much noticed absence of agreement
between Mt and Lk over Mk's order. |
| 1971 |
|
Morganthaler: Posits
Luke subsidary use of Matthew based on statistics. |
| 1974 |
|
Goulder: Argues for
Matthew's used of Mark without Q. |
| 1979 |
|
Gundry: Posits Luke
subsidary use of Matthew based on Matthean foreign
bodies. |
| 1984 |
|
Tuckett: The pattern of
alternating agreement is also mathematically possible
under the 2SH. |
| 1987 |
|
Kloppenborg:
Q was composed in stages. |
| 1989 |
|
Goulder: Argues that a
Matthean Vocabulary Fallacy and a Lukan Priority Fallacy
is used in favor of Q. |
Chronology of the Synoptic Problem