Year: 1995
Type: article
Abstract: The two-document hypothesis (involving the claim that Mark is a source for Matthew and Luke) has long been regarded by the majority of New Testament scholars as firmly established.Recently its status has been challenged by proponents of the Griesbach hypothesis (by which Matthew is a source for Luke and Mark).Since much gospel research depends on the validity of the two-document hypothesis, resolution is urgently needed.In 1863 Heinrich Julius Holtzmann argued that an examination of the Old Testament quotations in these three gospels would favour the two-document position.His argument depends on the existence of two groups of quotations in Matthew: those of Septuagintal text-type which Matthew copied from Mark, and those similar to the Hebrew, which Matthew preferred when on his own.My research indicates that these two groups cannot be clearly demarcated.Some quotations peculiar to Matthew are Septuagintal, and on only four occasions do Matthew and Mark both quote the Septuagint verbatim.iii Stephen R.
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature
DOI: 10.2307/3266285
Authors: Lamar Cope, David S. New
Language: English
Subfield: Religious studies
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W1575702461