Three-Source hypothesis

The Three-Source Hypothesis is posited as a potential solution to the synoptic problem. This theory has been most recently presented by a scholar by the name of Ron Price. There are two main facets to this hypothesis; first it combines features of the two-source theory in conjunction to the Farrer theory and secondly this hypothesis also makes use of a document entitled the Logia or ‘The Sayings of Jesus’.
The relevant documents that are utilized in this theory are; 1.the Logia, 2.Mark’s gospel, 3.Matthew’s gospel and 4.Luke’s gospel. These documents are to be positioned precisely in this order because each author is to be viewed as having full access to the earlier document that had preceded it. Due to the suggested order of the documents we can state that there are three main sources; 1.the Logia, 2.Mark and 3.Matthew, and therefore is given the name “The Three-Source Hypothesis”.
The Logia
The Logia is a collection of sayings that have been historically attested from the testimony of Papias. Regarding the nature of the Logia Ron Price states that, "these sayings contain no significant narrative elements. Most are, or contain, aphorisms. There are similitudes, but not full parables". Price also alludes to the fact that this collection of sayings draws from an obvious Jewish background, he believes this is a clear concept because the material references God, the law, prayer and Old Testament Heroes.
The date of the composition of the Logia is estimated by Price to have been published quite early in the tradition. He offers the explanation that, "With neither a mission to the Gentiles, nor any Pauline influence, nor any hint of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the logia must have been published ca. 40-50 CE.".
To determine the language that the logia was thought to be written in Ron Price brings into the discussion the hypothetical document Q. It has been argued by scholars such as Kloppenborg that the definitive original language of Q was Greek . Price comments however that, "with a distinctly non-random set of pericopae removed from Q, Kloppenborg’s conclusion does not necessarily carry over to the logia. For absent from the logia are Q 11:20 and 12:42, which contain the two cases of αρα, and also Q 7:24 and 11:14 which contain the only two probable instances of genitive absolute. Kloppenborg used both of these observations to support his conclusion regarding Q". Instead of the use of Greek language Price suggests that the logia were written in Aramaic, he believes this conclusion would provide an explanation for the "demise of the logia as a distinct document".
In order to indicate a place of origin for the logia Price argues a connection between the logia and James the brother of Jesus. James was said to be the director of the Christian Jews residing in Jerusalem and therefore possessed the authority over all written documents concerning Christianity and converts. On this basis Price argues that: "It is therefore unlikely that an important document by Christian Jews published in the decade 40-50CE could have originated anywhere except in Jerusalem under the authority of James. The documents rural background is adequately explained by the strong Markan tradition of Jesus’ Galilean origin. Naturally Jesus’ original disciples knew his sayings better than anyone else. Also their first language is usually taken to have been Aramaic".
It is important to historically prove the logia, and since we do not have the actual document available to us we must proceed in tying it to an important historical figure who can attest for its existence. This is precisely what Price does in order to support his hypothesis; he situates the logia with the historical figure Papias (ca 60-130) who Price points out was quoted as saying, "Matthew arranged in order the sayings in Hebrew language, and each one interpreted/translated as he was able". Price also draws our attention here to the fact that Papias would have been writing in Greek and therefore when he refers to the language Hebrew he may in fact have meant Aramaic.
The Scholars Weigh In
Ron Price provides a historical background to his theory by stating that, “The Three-Source Theory was first advocated in outline by H.J.Holtzmann in 1878. It was expounded in detail in a doctoral dissertation by his pupil Eduard Simons and published in 1880”. Simons agrees in many ways with aspects of Price’s hypothesis, Simons in his own theory supported the idea that there were several passages where commonalities could be found between Matthew and Luke, thus indicating that Luke relied on Mark’s gospel, a sayings source and on Matthew’s gospel as well.
There have been other scholars in more modern times who have complied with the argument that Luke depended not only on Mark but Matthew and a sayings source. In an article entitled Is it Possible to Dispense with Q, Paul foster defends the possibility of a direct Matthew-Luke dependence in conjunction with their use of a sayings source. While Sanders and Davies in their article Studying the Synoptic Gospels, come to a very similar conclusion as Price and the Three-Source Hypothesis but diverge by using sources as their sayings material in the place of the logia.
It is also possible to uncover support for the Three-Source Hypothesis by finding commonalities in other scholarly theories concerning the synoptic problem. In 1955 Austin Farrer published a work entitled On Dispensing with Q, Price points out that in this article Farrer, “suggested that the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark are just what we would expect if Luke had based his narrative on the mere ancient gospel of Mark, making small improvements in accord with what he read in Matthew. Farrer proposed dispensing with Q altogether”. In 1971 Robert Morgenthaler also proposed that while Luke was compiling his gospel he had at his finger tips three sources, Mark and Q as primary sources and Matthew as a secondary source, thus providing an explanation for minor agreements between Luke and Matthew. Lastly in 1982 Robert Gundry provided the first published endorsement of the Three-Source Hypothesis, “his conclusions emerged from detailed analysis of individual Matthean passages. He wrote about the presence of foreign bodies in Luke, revealed by texts which betray traces of Matthew’s distinctive dictation, style and theology”.
In conjunction with support for the theory there are also scholars who are not in agreement with the Three-Source theory. In 1899 Paul Wernle suggested three persuasive reasons why he believed that Luke did not have contact with Matthew; first that Luke did not include the additions that Matthew makes to Mark, Second being that Luke’s order differs from Matthew’s when Matthew’s gospel diverges from the order of Mark and lastly that the minor agreements between Luke and Matthew are not strong enough grounds to suggest an absolute dependence between the two gospel writers. Another scholar whose theory is opposed to Price’s hypothesis is B.H Streeter who shared a similar view with Paul Wernle, that Luke and Matthew worked independently of each other using two sources; the gospel of Mark and hypothetical Q.
Price’s Evidence that Luke knew Matthew
Ron Price offers many instances that endeavor to prove the key concept in his Three-Source theory, that Luke not only knew Matthew but depended upon his gospel to formulate his own. Price offers 3 arguments to support Luke’s use of Matthew:
1. In Luke 1:1 he states, “Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled before us”. Price suggests that Luke’s use of the word ‘Many’ suggests that he is aware of more than one gospel writer before himself. Price argues that since Q does not fulfill the description than Luke must be speaking of Mark and Matthew’s gospels.
2. Price also uses Luke’s account of the ‘Sermon on the Plain’ as evidence to suggest his knowledge and use of Matthew’s gospel. Price believes that Luke’s account is in direct contrast of Matthews ‘Sermon on the Mount’. He does no believe that it is pure coincidence that Luke uses a plain in contrast to Matthews mount. Price also believes that there is a connection between how both gospel writers frame their accounts he states, “nor is it a coincidence that Luke created a sermon scenario framed by “he began to speak” (6:20) and “when he had finished addressing the people” (7:1) which closely resembles the Matthean frame “he began to address them” (5:2) and “when Jesus had finished this discourse the people...”(7:28)”.
3. Lastly he debunks U.Schnelle who attempts to explain away the 700 minor agreements between Luke and Matthew by arguing that Matthew and Luke used a revised version of Mark. Price argues that this theory is unsatisfactory because, “he can see no theological differentiation between the canonical Mark and Deuteromark, nor any rationale for the production of Deuteromark. Moreover no explanation is offered as to why the supposed first edition (Mark) is still extant whereas the supposed later edition (Deuteromark) has been lost”.
Advantages of the Three-Source Hypothesis
Price advocates this hypothesis as a logical and simpler theory than the well attested Two Source theory. What makes his theory more plausible is that there is no need to maintain a hypothetical document, because he believes the logia is historically supported by Papias. Although Price is against the use of the hypothetical source Q which the Two-Source theory maintains he does draw some constructive aspects of the Two-Source theory for his own hypothesis;
1. Mark was the first gospel to be written
2. Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark.
3. Many of the Sayings common to Matthew and Luke were derived from a common written source.
4. At least 30 duplicate sayings (doublets) in Matthew or Luke can be explained as resulting from overlaps between Mark and this written source.
5. John (of the four gospels probably the last to be written) had no effect on the composition of the synoptic.
Price also suggests five merits which account for the credibility of the Three-Source theory, these merits are as follows:
1. The Three-Source theory lends an explanation for the minor agreements between Luke and Matthew. Price advocates the idea that just as many scholars believe that Luke had a copy of Mark’s gospel to turn to for reference he also had a copy of Matthew available for his use as well. The use of Matthew’s gospel by Luke would account for similar ordering of stories, wording and style seen between the two gospels.
2. The Three-Source theory also provides an explanation for similar phrasing between Luke and Matthew such as, “you brood of vipers” (Mt 3:7// Lk 3:7) and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8:12// Lk 13:28), these similarities are deduced to Luke’s use of Matthew.
3. Price also believes that his theory solves problems concerning missing context. What he means by missing context is passages where there are parallels between Luke and Matthew, and therefore have been made to fit into the hypothetical Q source by theories such as the Two-Source Hypothesis, where they do not have similar context to match with. This missing context problem does not exist for the Three-Source theory because again Luke is said to have borrowed from Matthew.
4. The Three-Source hypothesis also dispenses with the hypothetical Q source as well as all the incoherencies of this saying source. Price states that, “The odd mixture of a few isolated narratives with many sayings is now discarded... Furthermore the detailed division of the material into multiple layers, the specialists' reaction to a mixed bag of material supposed to have been a real document, can now be consigned to the refuse heap of abandoned hypotheses”. This abandonment of the Q source is made possible in the Three-Source theory by the application of the historically attested saying source the logia.
5. Price also posits that his theory sheds new light on the missing historical link between the time periods of ca. 30CE -60CE the time of “the Jewish Aramaic-speaking Jesus in Jerusalem, and the first Christian Greek Gospel ca. 70CE”. The Three-Source theory fills this gap with the logia, “an Aramaic collection of the sayings of Jesus produced in Jerusalem by his first followers, then later selectively edited, translated into Greek (with the occasional mistranslation), and merged distinctively by each synoptic author into his gospel account”.
Ron Price’s contribution to the Synoptic Problem
Price, as many scholars have done in the past, has made an attempt at positing research and statistical data in order to provide a comprehensive solution to the synoptic problem. His radical form of the Three-Source theory culminated in his publishing of a site in 2006 that displayed a reconstruction in the English-language of the logia. Price believes it is this reconstruction of the logia that makes his hypothesis a more radical form of the theory, “the most distinctive feature of this more radical form of the theory is a sayings source, used by all three synoptic gospels, which is stylistically consistent and structurally highly coherent. This unprecedented finding provides significant evidence that both the contents and order of the reconstructed source accurately reflect the original logia to which Papias testified".

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu