Description

This study examines the relative plausibility of three contemporary synoptic gospel source-critical hypotheses, namely the Two-Document Hypothesis (2DH), the Two-Gospel Hypothesis (2GH), and the Farrer Hypothesis (FH). Specific attention is paid to the implied redaction of the Gospel miracle traditions, which are evaluated through the lens of first-century Greco-Roman biographical and narrative rhetorical conventions. The influence of such conventions is first demonstrated in the known adaptations of two first-century writers, namely Josephus and Plutarch. The same conventions are then used to assess the relative redactional plausibility of the three synoptic hypotheses, first in relation to the implied order and selection of miracle traditions, then in relation to narrative adaptations in three specific miracle pericopes. While the cumulative evidence clearly points to the greater plausibility of the Markan Priority hypotheses over against the 2GH, neither the 2DH nor FH was demonstrably more plausible than the other.

Spécifications