A Defense of the Holtzmann-Gundry Hypothesis on the Synoptic Problem

Over at Remnant of Giants, Deane Galbraith has a good post on Luke knew Matthew, But Still Q.

In The Gospel of the Lord I’ve advocated this and called this view the Holtzmann-Gundry Hypothesis (HGH) to the Synoptic problem (I hope it catches on). It rests on the idea that although Luke used Matthew, Luke and Matthew might have had sources common other than Mark, including some oral and written materials, especially in the double tradition.

Galbraith’s argument is that Luke only uses one source at any one time, so if Luke possessed Mark and Q as sources, one might expect Luke to rely on one source (Matt or Q) but not the other for the double tradition. In which case, it is conceivable that Luke sometimes preferred the source or sources underlying Matthew in preference to Matthew itself. Of course, that would require a case by case breakdown of the double tradition itself to demonstrate.

He concludes:

In conclusion, the dependence of Luke on Matthew does not determine the question of Q’s existence. The Farrer Hypothesis’ compelling challenge to the Two-Document Hypothesis may, rather, be the first step in rehabilitating a reappraised Q.

I think this is an interesting angle worth exploring for those who are, you know, in to that kind of thing!

"Yes, it concerned me too when I first began reading bios of Calvin.But Luther and ..."

John Calvin and Refugees in Geneva
"You're desperate, and spinning out of control, Wee One."

Ah, No, Moving the US Embassy ..."
"This one thing is pretty simple. I'll type is slowly so even an unintelligent atheist ..."

Ah, No, Moving the US Embassy ..."
"Extreme believe in superstition is always bad. As an Atheist I could care less if ..."

Ah, No, Moving the US Embassy ..."

Browse Our Archives



What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment