B. H. Streeter'sFour Gospelshas had a critical influence on the study of the Synoptic Problem. Unfortunately, this seminal work rests on two fundamental errors. When these are corrected, however, Streeter points to a fully satisfying solution to the Synoptic Problem: Mark wrote first, Luke used Mark and other sources and, at a later date, Matthew conflated Mark, Luke and other sources – including some also used by Luke.

A striking feature of the current state of Synoptic Problem studies is the almost universal acceptance of Markan Priority. If Mark was indeed used by both Matthew and Luke, this reduces the number of simple solutions to the Synoptic Problem to just two: Luke used Matthew or Matthew used Luke. Studies promoting the latter option, the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH), have recently begun to attract wider critical attention. This article examines the three critical responses published sivnce 2017 and asks which of the problems so far identified presents the most serious problem for the MPH.

The mainstream approaches to the Synoptic Problem all agree: there are no extant instances of Q. The shape of ‘Q’ changes, however, if, as proposed in the companion article, ‘Streeter's “Other” Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis’, Matthew sometimes conflates Luke with Luke's own source. Where this happens Luke's source qualifies as an instance of ‘Q’ – inasmuch as it preserves sayings of Jesus used, ultimately, by both Luke and Matthew. This fresh conception of ‘Q’ opens up the possibility that examples of ‘Q’ are, after all, available. An extant text meeting this description is Didache 1.2–5a.

No abstract

No abstract