The Two-Source Hypothesis (or 2SH) is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of similarities and differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a lost, hypothetical sayings collection called Q.

The 2SH emerged in the 19th century. Its strengths are its explanatory power regarding the shared and non-shared material in the three gospels; its weaknesses lie in the exceptions to those patterns, and in the hypothetical nature of its proposed collection of Jesus-sayings. Later scholars have advanced numerous elaborations and variations on the basic hypothesis, and even completely alternative hypotheses. Nevertheless, "the 2SH commands the support of most biblical critics from all continents and denominations."

History

The Two-Source Hypothesis was first articulated in 1838 by Christian Hermann Weisse, but it did not gain wide acceptance among German critics until Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed it in 1863. Prior to Holtzmann, most Catholic scholars held to the Augustinian hypothesis (Matthew → Mark → Luke) and Protestant biblical critics favored the Griesbach hypothesis (Matthew → Luke → Mark). The Two-Source Hypothesis crossed the channel into England in the 1880s primarily due to the efforts of William Sanday, culminating in B. H. Streeter's definitive statement of the case in 1924. Streeter further argued that additional sources, referred to as M and L, lie behind the material in Matthew and Luke respectively.

Background: the synoptic problem

The hypothesis is a solution to what is known as the synoptic problem: the question of how best to account for the differences and similarities between the three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. The answer to this problem has implications for the order in which the three were composed, and the sources on which their authors drew.

Any solution to the synoptic problem needs to account for two features:

The "triple tradition": The three gospels frequently share both wording and arrangement of "pericopes" (incidents, stories - this substantial sharing is what led to them being called "synoptic", or seeing-together). Where they differ on this shared material, Mark and Luke will agree against Matthew, or Mark and Matthew will agree against Luke, but very rarely will Mark be the odd one out. Matthew's and Luke's versions of shared pericopes will usually be shorter than Mark's.

The "double tradition": Sometimes Matthew and Luke share material which is not present in Mark. In these cases Matthew and Luke sometimes parallel each other closely, but at other times are widely divergent.

Markan priority

The 2SH explains the features of the triple tradition by proposing that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Mark appears more 'primitive': his diction and grammar are less literary than Matthew and Luke, his language is more prone to redundancy and obscurity, his Christology is less supernatural, and he makes more frequent use of Aramaic. The more sophisticated versions of Mark's pericopes in Matthew and Luke must be either the result of those two "cleaning up" Mark, if his is the first gospel, or of Mark "dumbing down" Matthew and/or Luke, if he was later. Critics regard the first explanation as the more likely. On a more specific level, Markan priority seems to be indicated due to instances where Matthew and Luke apparently omit explanatory material from Mark, where Matthew adds his own theological emphases to Mark's stories, and in the uneven distribution of Mark's stylistic features in Matthew.

The existence of Q

The 2SH explains the double tradition by postulating the existence of a lost "sayings of Jesus" document known as Q, from the German Quelle, "source". It is this, rather than Markan priority, which forms the distinctive feature of the 2SH as against rival theories. The existence of Q follows from the conclusion that, as Luke and Matthew are independent of Mark in the double tradition, the connection between them must be explained by their joint but independent use of a missing source or sources. (That they used Q independently of each other follows from the fact that they frequently differ quite widely in their use of this source).

Pierson Parker in 1940 suggested that the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews was the second source used in the Gospel of Luke. This view is yet to gain influence.

Other Hypotheses

Some form of the Two Source hypothesis continues to be preferred by an overwhelming majority of critically trained New Testament scholars as the theory that is best able to resolve the synoptic problem. Nevertheless, doubts about the problems of the minor agreements and, especially, the hypothetical Q, have produced alternative hypotheses.

The traditional view is represented by the Augustinian hypothesis, which is that the four gospels were written in the order in which they appear in the bible (Matthew → Mark → Luke), with Mark a condensed edition of Matthew. This hypothesis was based on an argument from authority: the claim by the 2nd century AD bishop Papias that he had heard that Matthew wrote first. By the 18th century the problems with Augustine's idea led Johann Jakob Griesbach to put forward the Griesbach hypothesis, which was that Luke had revised Matthew and that Mark had then written a shorter gospel using material on which both Matthew and Luke agreed (Matthew → Luke → Mark).

The two-document hypothesis emerged in the 19th century: Mark as the earliest gospel, Matthew and Luke written independently and reliant on both Mark and the hypothetical Q. In 1924 B. H. Streeter refined the Two Document Hypothesis into the Four Document Hypothesis based on the possibility of a Jewish M source (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews).

In 1955 a British scholar, A. M. Farrer, proposed that one could dispense with Q by arguing that Luke revised both Mark and Matthew. In 1965 an American scholar, William R. Farmer, also seeking to do away with the need for Q, revived an updated version of Griesbach's idea that Mark condensed both Matthew and Luke. In Britain, the most influential modern opponents of the 2SH favor the Farrer hypothesis, while Farmer's revised Griesbach hypothesis, also known as the Two Gospel hypothesis, is probably the chief rival to the Two Source hypothesis in America.

See also

Gospel harmony

Biblical criticism

Historicity of Jesus

Notes and references

Category:Synoptic problem Category:Biblical criticism Category:Christian terms

(1782, Bob Jones University Museum and Gallery).]]

Isaiah ( ; Greek: , Ēsaïās ; Aramaic/Syriac/Assyrian: ܐܫܥܝܐ , Isha`ya ; , Ašʿiyāʾ ; "Yahweh is salvation"; (US), (UK)) lived approximately 2700 years ago and was a prophet in the 8th-century BC Kingdom of Judah. Part of his message was: "The land will be completely laid waste and totally plundered. The LORD has spoken this word." (Isaiah 24:3). Isaiah therefore warns the people of Israel to turn back to Yahweh. Isaiah was sensitive to the common people's problems and was very outspoken regarding their treatment by the aristocracy.

Jews and Christians consider the Book of Isaiah a part of their Biblical canon; he is the first listed (although not the earliest) of the neviim akharonim, the later prophets. Christians believe that Isaiah prophesied the virgin birth of Jesus Christ (, King James version):

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Many of the New Testament teachings of Jesus refer to the book of Isaiah.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395), believes that the Prophet Esaias (Isaiah) "knew more perfectly than all others the mystery of the religion of the Gospel." Saint Jerome (c. 342–420) also lauds the Prophet Esias, saying, "He was more of an Evangelist than a Prophet, because he described all of the Mysteries of the Church of Christ so vividly that you would assume he was not prophesying about the future, but rather was composing a history of past events."

Islam usually regards Isaiah as a Prophet (although he is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an). Muslims believe that he was one of the many prophets to have prophesied to the Jews after the reign of King David. He is said to have prophesied about the coming of prophet Muhammad.

Biography

.]]

Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah (or Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (), the kings of Judah. Uzziah reigned fifty-two years in the middle of the 8th century BC, and Isaiah must have begun his career a few years before Uzziah's death, probably in the 740s BC. Isaiah lived till the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (who died 698 BC), and may have been contemporary for some years with Manasseh. Thus Isaiah may have prophesied for the long period of at least sixty-four years.

Isaiah's wife was called "the prophetess" (), either because she was endowed with the prophetic gift, like Deborah () and Huldah (), or simply because she was the wife of "the prophet" (). The second interpretation, that it was simply an honorary title, "Mrs. Prophet" as it were, is likely. They had two sons, naming one Jasub, meaning "A remnant shall return" and the younger, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, meaning, "Spoil quickly, plunder speedily."

In early youth, Isaiah may have been moved by the invasion of Israel by the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-Pileser III (); and again, twenty years later, when he had already entered on his office, by the invasion of Tiglath-Pileser and his career of conquest. Ahaz, king of Judah, at this crisis refused to co-operate with the kings of Israel and Syria in opposition to the Assyrians, and was on that account attacked and defeated by Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel (; ). Ahaz, thus humbled, sided with Assyria, and sought the aid of Tiglath-Pileser against Israel and Syria. The consequence was that Rezin and Pekah were conquered and many of the people carried captive to Assyria (, ; ).

, (c. 1317–1327, National Gallery, London).]] Soon after this Shalmaneser V determined wholly to subdue the kingdom of Israel, Samaria was taken and destroyed (722 BC). So long as Ahaz reigned, the kingdom of Judah was unmolested by the Assyrian power; but on his accession to the throne, Hezekiah, who was encouraged to rebel "against the king of Assyria" (), entered into an alliance with the king of Egypt (). This led the king of Assyria to threaten the king of Judah, and at length to invade the land. Sennacherib (701 BC) led a powerful army into Judah. Hezekiah was reduced to despair, and submitted to the Assyrians (). But after a brief interval war broke out again, and again Sennacherib led an army into Judah, one detachment of which threatened Jerusalem (; ). Isaiah on that occasion encouraged Hezekiah to resist the Assyrians (), whereupon Sennacherib sent a threatening letter to Hezekiah, which he "spread before the LORD" ().

icon of the Prophet Isaiah, 18th century (iconostasis of Transfiguration Church, Kizhi monastery, Karelia, Russia).]]

According to the account in Kings (and its derivative account in Chronicles) the judgment of God now fell on the Assyrian army and wiped out 180,000 of its men. "Like Xerxes in Greece, Sennacherib never recovered from the shock of the disaster in Judah. He made no more expeditions against either southern Palestine or Egypt."

The remaining years of Hezekiah's reign were peaceful (). Isaiah probably lived to its close, and possibly into the reign of Manasseh, but the time and manner of his death are not specified in either the Bible or recorded history. There is a tradition (reported in both the Martyrdom of Isaiah and the Lives of the Prophets) that he suffered martyrdom by Manasseh due to pagan reaction.

Isaiah in Islamic belief

Most Muslim scholars, both classical (Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir) and modern (Muhammad Asad, Abdullah Yusuf Ali) accept Isaiah as a true Hebrew prophet, who preached to the Israelites following the death of King David. The Qur'an states: }} Thus, in accordance with belief, Muslims generally accept Isaiah as a Hebrew prophet of the 8th Century B.C., some of whose writings and incidents were later recorded in the Book of Isaiah. The Book of Isaiah, in Muslim belief, essentially represents the hadith of Isaiah, as it contains portions of his sayings and teachings. However, Muslims feel that, like the rest of the Hebrew Bible, the words of the Book have been changed over time and now represent a corrupted documentation of Isaiah's life.

Rabbinic literature

According to the Rabbinic literature, Isaiah was a descendant of the imperial house of Judah and Tamar (Sotah 10b). He was the son of Amoz (not to be confused with Prophet Amos), who was the brother of King Amaziah of Juda. (Talmud tractate Megillah 15a).

See also

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

References

External links

Sermons on Isaiah

Isaiah (Isaias) at the Catholic Encyclopedia

Avraham Gileadi's new translation and commentary on Isaiah

Prophet Isaiah Orthodox icon and synaxarion

Category:8th-century BC people Category:Hebrew Bible people Category:People celebrated in the Lutheran liturgical calendar Category:Old Testament saints