M source

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.

History

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.D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary, Inter Varsity Press, 1996 p. 739. 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.Bart Erhman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, p.80-81

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.Streeter, Burnett H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1924. 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.Pierson Parker. The Gospel Before Mark. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Parker argued that it was not possible to separate Streeter's "M" material from the material in Matthew parallel to Mark.Everett Falconer Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament, Wm. Eerdmans 1971 p. 152.

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

Composition Synoptic Gospels and the Nature of M

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. If the four-source hypothesis is correct, then M would probably have been a written document and contained the following: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

+ Likely content of M Source Parable Chapter Verses Number of versesParable of the Tares1320Parable of the Hidden Treasure131Parable of the Pearl132Parable of Drawing in the Net136Parable of the Unforgiving Servant1815Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard2017Parable of the Two Sons215Parable of the Ten VirginsDaniel J. Scholz, Jesus in the Gospels and Acts: Introducing the New Testament, Saint Mary's Press, 2009 p. 90James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 p. 2282514

M source (30–50) The third primary source is M. The study of pre-Gospel sources is declining in scholarship, with the tendency most visible with the M and L sources.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, , "The M-source : its history and demise in biblical scholarship", pp. 591–616Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ Trinity Press, SCM 2000 p.207- 210Delbert Royce Burkett, Rethinking the Gospel Sources, Vol. 2, Society of Biblical Lit, 2009 p. 135–141

M source

Bron en licentie