Wikipedia

M source

Streeter's four-document hypothesis

M source, which is sometimes referred to as M document, or simply M, comes from the M in "Matthean material". It is a hypothetical textual source for the Gospel of Matthew. M Source is defined as that "special material" of the Gospel of Matthew that is neither Q source nor Mark. With the decline of source criticism the existence of a unified M source is largely rejected in scholarship today.[1]

History

[edit]
Main article: Synoptic Gospels

Nineteenth century New Testament scholars who rejected the traditional perspective of the priority of Matthew in favor of Marcan priority speculated that the authors of Matthew and Luke drew the material they have in common with the Gospel of Mark from that Gospel. Matthew and Luke, however, also share large sections of text which are not found in Mark. They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a second common source, termed the Q.[2] This two-source hypothesis speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, called Q. For most scholars, the Q collection accounts for what Matthew and Luke share – sometimes in exactly the same words – but are not found in Mark. Examples of such material are the Devil's three temptations of Jesus, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer and many individual sayings.[3]

In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a third source, referred to as M and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke.[4] This four-source hypothesis posits that there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark, and three lost sources: Q, M, and L. (M material is represented by violet in the above chart.) Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. For example, in his 1953 book The Gospel Before Mark, Pierson Parker posited an early version of Matthew (Aram. M or proto-Matthew) as the primary source.[5] Parker argued that it was not possible to separate Streeter's "M" material from the material in Matthew parallel to Mark.[6][7]

With the decline of source criticism the existence of a unified M source is largely rejected in scholarship today.[8]

Composition

[edit]

Synoptic Gospels and the Nature of M

[edit]
Main article: Synoptic Gospels

The relationship among the three synoptic gospels goes beyond mere similarity in viewpoint. The gospels often recount the same stories, usually in the same order, sometimes using the same words. Scholars note that the similarities between Mark, Matthew, and Luke are too great to be accounted for by mere coincidence.[9] If the four-source hypothesis is correct, then M would probably have been a written document and contained the following:[10]

Likely content of M Source
Parable Chapter Verses Number of verses
Parable of the Tares 13 13:24–43 20
Parable of the Hidden Treasure 13 13:44 1
Parable of the Pearl 13 13:45–46 2
Parable of Drawing in the Net 13 13:47–52 6
Parable of the Unforgiving Servant 18 18:21–35 15
Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard 20 20:1–16 17
Parable of the Two Sons 21 21:28–32 5
Parable of the Ten Virgins[11][12] 25 25:1–13 14

M source (30–50)

[edit]

The third primary source is M.[13] The study of pre-Gospel sources is declining in scholarship, with the tendency most visible with the M and L sources.[14][15][16][17]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Foster, Paul (2023). The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0190887452. Where does this virtually unanimous rejection of a unified, written M leave scholarship on the unique Matthean material...the overarching hypothesis finds few, if any supporters...The insights into the ideological character of individual sayings and complexes of material are no longer attributed to a preexisting source but are now to be taken into account as part of the overall message and theology of the first evangelist.
  2. ^ D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary, Inter Varsity Press, 1996 p. 739.
  3. ^ Bart Erhman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, p.80-81
  4. ^ Streeter, Burnett H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1924.
  5. ^ Pierson Parker. The Gospel Before Mark. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
  6. ^ Farmer, William R. (1981) [1964]. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. Macmillan. p. 196.
  7. ^ Everett Falconer Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament, Wm. Eerdmans 1971 p. 152.
  8. ^ Foster, Paul (2023). The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0190887452. Where does this virtually unanimous rejection of a unified, written M leave scholarship on the unique Matthean material...the overarching hypothesis finds few, if any supporters...The insights into the ideological character of individual sayings and complexes of material are no longer attributed to a preexisting source but are now to be taken into account as part of the overall message and theology of the first evangelist.
  9. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. p. 84. ISBN 0-19-515462-2.
  10. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence studying the historical Jesus, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000 p. 143
  11. ^ Daniel J. Scholz, Jesus in the Gospels and Acts: Introducing the New Testament, Saint Mary's Press, 2009 p. 90
  12. ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 p. 228
  13. ^ Jones, Brice (2011). Matthean and Lukan Special Material: A Brief Introduction with Texts in Greek and English. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-61097-737-1. Archived from the original on 2014-05-31. Retrieved 2012-02-01.
  14. ^ Foster, Paul (2023). The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0190887452. While the study of pre-Gospel sources has in general seen a waning of interest among scholars, this tendency is nowhere more pronounced than in relation to the two proposed early sources M and L, and the early intermediary stage of Proto-Luke. Given the importance of these three hypothetical sources in theories of the solution to the Synoptic Problem during the late nineteenth century and for most of the twentieth century, it is instructive to trace the emergence of these source-critical hypotheses, to discuss the reasons for the demise of adherence, and to consider whether anything of value endures from these earlier theories.
  15. ^ Foster, Paul, New studies in the synoptic problem: Oxford conference, April 2008; essays in honour of Christopher M. Tuckett, Foster, P.; Gregory, A.; Kloppenborg, J. S.; Verheyden, J. (eds.), Peeters Publishers, 2011, ISBN 978-90-429-2401-7, "The M-source : its history and demise in biblical scholarship", pp. 591–616
  16. ^ Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ Trinity Press, SCM 2000 p.207- 210
  17. ^ Delbert Royce Burkett, Rethinking the Gospel Sources, Vol. 2, Society of Biblical Lit, 2009 p. 135–141
[edit]

Online translations of the Gospel of Matthew: