A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence

Abstract

Despite the continuing debate between Matthaean and Marcan priorists some form of the widely-accepted Two-Document Theory seems necessary to a proper understanding of the Synoptic relationships. The Two-Document Hypothesis cannot, however, as generally conceived, cover the evidence of dependence and interdependence found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The same must be said of the theory of Matthaean priority. Both Marcan and Matthaean priorists are guilty of trying to solve the Synoptic Problem by over-reference to the evidence for interdependence in our first three Gospels. Their basic error stems from the failure to recognize the absolute necessity of positing the existence of a document other than Q which is no longer completely present in any of our evangelists. The interdependence of the Synoptics is a fact from which no theory of origins can escape, but the evidence of dependence on some further document not unlike our Mark demands an adequate literary explanation. Very few twentieth-century theories can be said to have wrestled seriously with the question whether a Mark-like extra-canonical authority may not be necessary to explain unsolved problems of Synoptic relationships. Instead, the tendency has been to abandon all hope of finding a literary solution of any kind 1). Despite these omissions and confessions the ghost of the muchmaligned Urmarcus continues to rear its head from time to time. R. BULTMANN has written: