Synoptic Theories & HypothesesTwo Source Hypothesis (2SH) Leading scholars: Christian Hermann Weisse (1838), Paul Wernle (1899), Burnett Hillman Streeter (1924); cf. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1863).The dominant source theory among scholars today, the 2SH holds that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and became the primary narrative source for Matthew and Luke (Markan priority). In addition, Matthew and Luke independently supplemented their Markan material with sayings of Jesus from a lost sayings collection, termed "Q". Related Models and variants: 4SH: Four Source Hypothesis (Streeter 1924). Matthew's and Luke's own special sources are postulated to be distinct, written sources. Streeter: Proto-Luke (Streeter 1924), Vincent Taylor. Q and L constituted a proto-Luke before being incorporated into Luke. MkH: Markan Hypothesis (Weisse 1856, Holtzmann 1963). In its original form, all three synoptics independently derive from a proto-Gospel, Ur-Markus, that is similar though not identical to Mark. Ur-Markus also included the narrative and Baptist material now assigned to Q. A less ambitious variant of Ur-Markus is found whenever it is proposed that our text of Mark is corrupt and that Matthew and Luke better reflect the original text in certain places. dMk: Deutero-Mark (Abbott 1901). The anti-Markan agreements are explained by Matthew's and Luke's access to a "corrected" version of Mark that is no longer extant. Koester (1983, 1990) modifies 2SH to account for the origin of "Secret Mark." Koester proposes that, after Matthew and Luke used the first version of Mark (pMk), which was revised into Secret Mark (dMk). Our Mark then comes an edited version of Secret Mark.3SH: Three Source Hypothesis (Holtzmann 1878/1881, Simons 1880, Morgenthaler 1971, Gundry 1979, Price 1999 [ext. link]) posits three sources for Luke: Mark, Q, and to a lesser extent Matthew.Pierson Parker I argued for a proto-Matthew called K, which is essentially Mark + the special Matthean "M" material of the 4SH (P. Parker 1953). This proto-Matthew is the source for Mark and Matthew, but was never available to Luke. Pierson Parker II augmented his previous theory by adopting Streeter's suggestion for a proto-Luke that was the source of the Q and L material (P. Parker 1980), then adopted Griesbach by making Mark a conflation of proto-Matthew ("K") and proto-Luke (1983). Griesbach Hypothesis: Two Gospel Hypothesis (2GH) Henry Owen (1764), Johann Jakob Griesbach (1783), William Reuben Farmer (1964).Official Homepage: Longstaff's 2GH HomepageTrowbridge's Summary of Farmer; see also Farmer's Argument at this site.The main challenger to the 2SH in America, the 2GH posits that Matthew was first and used by Luke and that Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke. Related Models: Harold Riley (1992) argues that our Matthew is a revision of the proto-Matthew used by Mark and Luke. Anton Büsching (1766) held that Mark conflated Matthew and Luke, but Luke was first. dWH: W. M. L. de Wette (1842) and Friedrich Bleek (1862) held that Mark conflated Matthew and Luke, but both Matthew and Luke were dependent on an Ur-Gospel. This hypothesis was perceived as a concession to Q within the Griesbach camp.Herbert Marsh (1801) viewed Mark as a conflation of an Aleph1 [= pMt] and Aleph2 [= pLk], both descended from an Ur-Gospel Aleph [= G]; for the double tradition, Marsh proposed a sayings source Beth [= Q], which merged with Aleph1 and Aleph2 to form Matthew and Mark, respectively.Pierre Rolland (1982) has a structurally similar hypothesis, identifying pMt as a Hellenist Gospel H, pLk as a Pauline Gospel P, and G as a Gospel of the Twelve D.Farrer Hypothesis (FH)James Hardy Ropes (1934), Austin Marsden Farrer (1955), Michael Douglas Goulder (1974, 1989).Homepage: Mark S. Goodacre's Case Against Q Identified as a possible theory but not endorsed by Herbert Marsh (1801).The FH, the leading contender to the 2SH in England, accepts Markan Priority but dispenses with Q. For the Double Tradition, the FH appeals to Luke's use of Matthew as the explanation. Related Model: Christian Gottlieb Wilke (1838), Bruno Bauer (1841), Ronald V. Huggins (1992). Markan priority, but the Double Tradition material is the result of Matthew's copying Luke. Traditional Augustinian Hypothesis (AH)Augustine (c. 400), Hugo Grotius (1641), H. G. Jameson (1922), Basil Christopher Butler (1951), John Wenham (1992). Matthew first, Mark second, Luke third, each successively dependent. Related Models: John Chapman (1937) argued that Luke's first draft was written without knowing Matthew. pMt: Proto-Matthew Hypothesis. Butler (1969) suggested that Luke is directly dependent on Greek Matthew and Mark as the AH and the FH hold, but Mark is dependent on Matthew's predecessor (proto-Matthew). Butler identified proto-Matthew as an Aramaic document that is substantially equivalent to the Greek Matthew.Other Theories, Variations, & Hypothetical DocumentsLukan Priority Models: JSH: Jerusalem School Hypothesis (1973), a development of Robert Lindsey's hypothesis (1963). Lukan Priority with dependence of all three upon an "Anthology" and Luke upon a "First Reconstruction." Online publication: Jerusalem Perspective Overview by David Bivin Bibliography by David Bivin Brief discussion with Eric Hovee Lindsey (1963): The original proposal by Robert Lindsey. Lockton Hypothesis: W. Lockton (1922). Anton Büsching (1766) held that Luke was a source for Matthew and Mark conflated Matthew and Luke. Miscellaneous Models UrG: Ur-Gospel, Lessing (1778/84). All three gospels descend from a single (Aramaic) gospel. LTH: The Logia Translation Hypothesis, Wilson (1998). All three gospels are dependent on Greek notes (the "Translation") which translated the Aramaic/Hebrew Logia of the Papias tradition. [LTH Home Page].