Source Criticism

This is the term applied to the study of the use of written sources by the evangelists.  It is the earliest form of criticism, and has been applied particularly to the relationship of the Synoptic Gospels to each other.  It was J Griesbach who first placed the Synoptic Gospels into three columns side by side with each other, drawing attention to both the striking similarities and striking differences between them.  That a relationship existed seemed clear.  What that relationship was, was less obvious.

The three most plausible theories to arise were:-

  1. A Common Source for all 3 Gospels

    Lessing suggested that a common written source could account for the obvious similarities of content and order found in the 3 gospels.  He suggested that this common written source had now been lost.

    Other scholars suggested that the similarities were due to the gospel writers drawing on the same oral tradition, oral transmission being the commonest form of passing on important material within the Jewish tradition.

    However, what of the differences of content, wording and order within the accounts?  To mention but one point, Mark omits substantial amounts of Matthaen and Lucan material - and why do this if he was drawing on the same tradition?

    Such easily identifiable weaknesses with the 'one common written source' theory led to scholars considering the possibility that the Gospels relied on each other in some way.  We'll consider these next.

  2. Griesbach argued that as Matthew's Gospel was written by an apostle, he would not have used a non-apostolic source (such as Luke or Mark). Matthew must therefore have been written first.  Griesbach thought that there was evidence that Mark had used both Matthew and Luke, and therefore put the 'reliance' as follows:  Matthew was written first, Luke used Matthew and Mark used both Matthew AND Luke.  It was also felt that Matthew's 'Jewish' Gospel would have been written earlier than one for Gentiles, as the early church was predominantly composed of Jewish converts.

    This theory (although not is its original form has been taken up in recent years by Chapman and Butler, and by W Farmer.  Ancient tradition had held that Matthew the Apostle  had recorded 'logia' (sayings) of Jesus, which he had then compiled into a collection.  Carsten Thiedde has suggested that Matthew's job as a customs official would have necessitated his having a knowledge of shorthand, and that it is therefore possible that a record could have been made of Jesus' words as he spoke.

    Butler suggested that Mt wrote his gospel in Aramaic, which was used by Peter for preaching.  Mark then transcribed Peter's teaching, adding eye-witness embellishments.  As evidence, he pointed to parts of Mark where a previous knowledge of Matthew is implied.

  3. The Two Source Theory

    In the 19th century, scholars began to examine the evidence for Mark's gospel being written first.  They noted substantial parts of Mark being reproduced or paralleled in  Matthew (about 90%) and about half of Mark appears in Luke's Gospel.  So only about 5% of Mark is unique to him.  

    There is evidence, too, of editting. For instance, in the healing of the epileptic boy (Mk 9) the Matthaen parallel seems to have been substantially shortened.  Yet this gospel is longer.  If Mark is the later gospel, Why should the evangelist have lengthened individual pericopae, but omitted large chunks of, say, Matthew, including important teaching material in Chs 5-7, including the Lord's Prayer?

    The literary style of Mark's gospel appears less polished than that of Matthew and Luke, with more Aramaic words.  These two points were both taken as indicators that (a) Matthew and Luke had improved upon Mark's written style (although many recent scholars have taken the literary devices of Mark much more seriously)  (b)  that Mark had either an
    Aramaic-speaking audience (unlikely) or an Aramaic source, which is always viewed as a sign of an early source.

    Where Matthew, Luke and Mark have parallel material, the order of events is often the same, and when, say Matthew, departs from Mark's order, Luke agrees with it (and vice versa).  Where there is no Marcan parallel, they differ.  (e.g. the Birth and Infancy Narratives.)  This suggests that they may both have used Mark.

     Christology

    Luke and Matthew appear to have avoided or modified those verses in Mark which appear to place Jesus in a 'bad light'.  For instance, his family thinking he was mad.  Luke omits the Marcan observation that lack of faith in Nazareth meant that Jesus could 'do no mighty work there.'   Another example of the difference between gospels is apparent when Matthew, changes Mark's title 'Rabbi' (teacher) to 'Kyrie' (Lord).

    Q

    Matthew and Luke have parallel material that is not found in Mark.  Much of this is teaching material - parables and sayings, such as the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer and the parable of the Great Feast.  This suggested to scholars that they may have used another written source, probably independently of each other.  This 'source' (if it existed) was named 'Q', after the German for Quelle. Q was assumed to be a written source, as many scholars did not believe that Matthew and Luke used each other, yet the common 'Q' passages often show a remarkable similarity in wording and order.  (Note the word 'often'! - some scholars 'Q' might have been a mix of written material and oral tradition.)

    So, we have the TWO Source theory.  Matthew and Luke both appear to have used two sources - Mark and Q.

  4. The Four-Source Theory

    B H Streeter was the great exponent of this one.  He accepted the evidence for the priority of Mark as above, and explained the unique material in Luke and Matthew - such as the Birth Narratives, and the parables unique to both (eg The Prodigal Son, Good Samaritan in Luke and the Wise and Foolish Virgins and Sheep and Goats in Matthew) by saying that they each had an independent source. These sources are known (with stupendous originality) as 'M' and 'L'.

    The arguments for the 4-source theory are strong - as I hope you can see.  But there ARE flaws with it.  And s the 4-Source theory is the foundation on which Redaction Criticism stands, you can see how the results of much modern scholarship would be threatened if it were to fall.

  5. Problems with the 4-Source Theory

    - There are occasions when Matthew and Luke appear to agree with each other against Mark.  This might be explained in several ways - tradition, theology or perhaps Mark used Q- but differently. But it could also mean that one (probably Luke) relied on the other as opposed to Mark.

    - Why have Matthew, and especially Luke, left out parts of Mark?  For instance, Luke contains no account of the Walking on the Water.  Perhaps he did not use Mark, or had an incomplete copy.  However, in this case, I must say that the tradition is so strong (it's in John too) suggests editorial redaction to me.  And, as Russell point out, "most of the omissions made by Matthew and Luke are not surprising".

    - Did Q really exist?  Why bother with it? For a start, there appears to be no trace of it elsewhere, although some scholars claim to detect references in the Church Fathers.  As an alternative, why not have Matthew use parts of Luke and vice versa.  Actually, most scholars are more prepared to consider Luke using Matthew, as there is much more of Matthew in Luke than Luke in Matthew.  But there are problems with this.  If Luke were using Matthew, why does he leave out additions that Matthew has made to Mark?  And why is rather a lot of shared material, (like the Beatitudes, the Lost sheep etc) used in a completely different context in Luke as compared to Matthew?

    - The content of Q appeared to be 'unusual' to some scholars - a collection of sayings with the occasional summary verse about miracles and the odd parable.  However, there ARE christian documents that seem to consist largely of cooections of sayings, such as the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas.  Likewise, as we have mentioned, ancient tradition claimed that Matthew the Apostle wrote down collections of 'logia' - sayings - and the Gospel of Matthew clearly consists of far more than that!

  6. Summary

    In recent years, scholars have been prepared to acknowledge that the production of the Gospels was probably a much more complicated process than had been previously though by Source, Form and Redaction Critics.  The materials may well have come from both oral and written sources.  Luke, of course famously mentions several layers of material from many sources - eyewitness, written, his own editing, in the prologue to his gospel Ch 1:vs1-4.  That there is a relationship between the Synoptic Gospels seems indubitable.  At present most scholars accept the 4-source theory or something like it.  But it is more accepted that the ways in which the Early Church preserved and transmitted material were less mechanical than had been previously thought, and there were probably intra- and inter-community ways of transmitting written and oral material which were rather more sophisticated than early textual critics gave credit for.  After all, it is clear from the content - and the existence of Paul's letters to churches, that accurate transmission of material was early considered important by Christians.

    What IS important though, is that if the 4-source theory were to fall completely, then so would many of the findings of the Redaction Critics, who depend on being able to compare use of parallel sources to draw conclusions from editorial use of sources, about the theology, ecclesiology and christology of evangelists.

     

How to use Source Criticism in Exam Essays

Return to The Vale of Tears