The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: a Test-Case for the Two-Document, Two-Gospel, and Farrer-Goulder Hypotheses

Abstract

It is not uncommon to read studies that either state explicitly or work under the assumption that the synoptic problem has been solved. Using the parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven as a test-case, it becomes clear that the problem is far from a solution. Each of the three major source hypotheses has its strengths (and weaknesses) when it attempts to account for the data generated by these two peri copae. Although this paper concludes that the Two-Document Hypothesis (2DH) deals with the data with the fewest problems, the strengths of the other hypotheses coupled with the weaknesses of the 2DH should help keep the 2DH honest.

Questioning the Feasibility of the Major Synoptic Hypotheses: Scribal Memory as the Key to the Oral–Written Interface

“…6.47, 7.30 and 13.20 (cf. Crook 2000: 24). Besides, the ‘unnecessary order’ of these two parables, as Crook argues, also supports the argument that there were two versions of these two parables (together) attested by Mark and Luke (Q).…”

“…However, according to the 2DH, a micro-conflation on a level smaller than topics or cognitive units seems to be at work in this particular passage. Regarding this example, Zeba Crook (2000: 24) has argued that ‘there is nothing to demand Luke’s reliance on Mark’ since the agreements between Luke and Mark are basically triple tradition materials, and that all agreement words between Luke and Mark and against Matthew are ‘comfortable enough in Luke that there is no need to suggest Mark’s influence at all’. For example, the τίνι in Lk.…”

“… 24. As Crook (2000: 25) argues, the Gospel of Thomas (20.1-4 and 96.1-2) and Mark suggest that the order of these two parables is not necessary. …”