1. Challenging a
Consensus in
Gospel Studies
David Barrett Peabody
Nebraska Wesleyan University

2. The Synoptic Problem
Data
In Search of an
Explanation
Various Kinds of Agreements and
Disagreements
Among the Gospels
of
Matthew, Mark and Luke

3. The Consensus
The Two Document Hypothesis
Gospel of Mark The Sayings Gospel “Q”
The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Luke
“Q” is required if Mark is placed first AND Mt and Lk are independent.

4. The Challenge
The Two Gospel Hypothesis
The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Luke
The Gospel of Mark
There is no need to hypothecate “Q”.

5. Another Older View
The Traditional "Augustinian"
Hypothesis
The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Luke

6. A Newer View
The Farrer-GoulderHypothesis
Mark without "Q"
The Gospel of Mark The Gospel of Matthew
The Gospel of Luke
There is no need to hypothecate “Q”.

7. The Two Gospel Hypothesis
Dungan Farmer Shuler McNicol Peabody Cope
Longstaff (pictured separately) ResearchTeam

8. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
Colby College - Waterville, Maine
Associate Director of the Excavations at Sepphoris, Israel
Newest Member - Two Gospel Hypothesis Research Team
Co-Author with Peabody of a color-coded Synopsis of Mark on a CD

9. 19962002

10. Evidence for 2GH 1. A Sketch of Mark's Order (Mk 1:1-6:6a)
See More Detailed Color-Coded Labeled Diagram of Mark's Order

11. Evidence for 2GH 2. Alternating Wording (Mk/Mt and Mk/Lk)
Within About 1/3 of Mark's Stories
See Spread Sheet of Mark's Potential Use of Units from Mt and Lk

12. 1996
Step One:
“Q” Is
Unnecessary.
Luke Made Direct
Use of Matthew

14. Evidence in Support of the Two
Gospel Hypothesis. Part 1.
Beyond the Q Impasse. Luke’s Use of Matthew
Section A. Luke’s Sequential Use of Matthew
•In composing Lk 1-2: Luke adopted elements from, but not
the order of, Mt 1-2 while creating the first Part of his Gospel in
a way appropriate for his narrative agenda.
•In composing Lk 3:1-9:50: Luke began a cyclic progression
through Matthew, moving forward and going back again,
selecting Matthean units and combining them with materials of
his own to create his chronologically-oriented narrative. In this
way, Luke repeatedly moved forward through Matthew until he
had used most of the narrative units in Mt 3:1-18:5, in what we
named Parts Two through Four of his Gospel.

15. •In composing Lk 9:51-19:27: Luke depicts Jesus giving a series
of teachings loosely based on a “Journey toward Jerusalem” motif,
comprised of
(a) some of the remaining narrative units in Matthew --- which he
used in Matthew’s general order --- plus sayings omitted from
units used previously
(b) sayings from all of Matthew’s sayings collections --- which
Luke interspersed throughout Lk 10-19 mostly in the same order
these sayings occur within Matthew's speeches (i. e. but not
necessarily in the general order of the speeches in which they
occur in Matthew), and
(c) non-Matthean traditions worked into the scenes where he
thought it to be appropriate.
This travel narrative we have named Part Five.

16. •In composing Lk 19:28-24:53: Luke followed the basic narrative
order of Mt 19-28, considerably revising the content of each
narrative unit. We have divided this material into Parts Six and
Seven. Toward the end of Part Seven (Lk 24:13), Luke stopped
following Matthew and, using non-Matthean tradition, composed a
conclusion to his Gospel that anticipated the initial chapters of Acts.
Part B. Linguistic Evidence that Luke Used Matthew
•Matthean summary phraseology occurs in the text of Luke.
•Matthean grammatical constructions occur in the text of Luke.
•Matthean words occur in the text of Luke.

17. 2002
Step Two:
Markan Priority is
False.
Mark Conflated
Matthew and Luke.

18. ONE GOSPEL FROM TWO.
Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke
Edited by David B. Peabody, with Lamar Cope and Allan J. McNicol
In spite of centuries of discussion, New Testament scholars continue to debate the Synoptic Problem
— that most fundamental question of the compositional sequence and interrelationships of Matthew,
Mark and Luke, those gospels that most often record similar versions of the words and deeds of
Jesus. For about the last 150 years, the majority of NT scholars have argued, or sometimes simply
presupposed, that the Gospel of Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke independently
utilized Mark, as well as other sources, including the hypothetical ―Sayings Gospel –Q,‖ when
composing their own, later gospels.
In their earlier work, Beyond the Q Impasse. Luke’s Use of Matthew(TPI, 1996), the Research Team
of the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies presented for the first time detailed
evidence in support of their conclusion that Luke made direct use of Matthew in composing his gospel,
thus obviating the need for the hypothetical "Q" source in reconstructing the literary history of the
synoptic gospels.
In One Gospel From Two. Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke, this same Research Team, now
enhanced by the addition of Thomas R. W. Longstaff, presents equally detailed evidence in support of
the second and complementary conclusion of their Two Gospel Hypothesis, i. e., that Mark was written
third on the basis of that author's conflation of material drawn from the two gospels, Matthew and
Luke. In addition to Longstaff and the volume's three editors, co-authors of this new volume include
David L. Dungan, William R. Farmer and Philip L. Shuler.
David B. Peabody is Professor of Religious Studies at Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln. Lamar
Cope is Chair of the Department and Professor of Religious Studies at Carroll College, Waukesha,
Wisconsin. Allan J. McNicol is Professor of New Testament at the Institute for Christian Studies in
Austin, Texas.

19. Evidence in Support of the Two
Gospel Hypothesis. Part 2.
One Gospel from Two. Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke
•At a macro-level,whenever Mark does not agree with both
Matthew and Luke or, in rare cases, whenever Mark provides a
literary unit that is unique to his gospel, Mark alternatelyagrees
with Matthew and Luke in theorder of pericopae.
•In a consistent and complementary way, at a micro level, whenever
Mark does not agree with both Matthew and Luke or provides
wording unique to his gospel, Mark alternatelyagrees with Matthew
and Luke in wording within pericopae.

20. •In material that Mark shares with Matthew or Luke or both, there are
at least twice as many instances of characteristic words and phrases
of Matthew or Luke appearing in Mark’s parallel pericopae than
instances of Mark’s characteristic words and phrases appearing in
the parallel of either Matthew or Luke.
•Again, in a complementary and consistent manner, those words and
phrases that are either unique to Mark’s text or represent alterations
of Matthew and Luke tend to be the words and phrases that are
characteristic of the author of Mark.
•This network of repeated words and phrases that are both
characteristic of the author of Mark and unique or distinctive within
that gospel reflects a literary, historical and/or theological integrity
that is consistent with the work of a single author.

21. •In several pericopae, Matthew preserves some well organized,
Jewish style argumentation, centered on and built around a
midpoint text drawn from Jewish Scripture. The parallel in
Mark, on the other hand, represents a fragmented or relatively
disorganized and, therefore, secondary version of Matthew.

22. Also available
THE GOSPEL OF MARK
A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels Showing Parallels to the Markan
Text
This color-coded, multi-columned electronic synopsis of Mark and its parallels
on CD-ROM was prepared by David B. Peabody and Thomas R. W. Longstaff
as an indispensible companion to One Gospel from Two. Mark's Use of
Matthew and Luke. The structure of the interface for this Markan synopsis,
therefore, features the same divisions of Mark into seven parts and ninety-one
pericopae, with the same titles that are utilized in this book.Each synoptic
display places similar or identical words and phrases on the same line,
whenever possible, and color-codes and underlines those words in ways that
distinguish among the various kinds of identities and similarities among the
synoptics in meticulous detail. In addition to the Markan synopsis, this CD
provides new, hypertext versions of two critically important essays on synopsis
construction written by David Dungan and previously published in Biblica, one
on ―Theory of Synopsis Construction‖ (1980) and one on ―Synopses of the
Future‖ (1985).