M source

{{short description|Hypothetical source for Matthew's Gospel}} [[File:Streeter's Four-Document Hypothesis.svg|alt=|thumb|400x400px|Streeter's [[four-document hypothesis]]]] '''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 [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]]. With the decline of source criticism the existence of a unified M source is largely rejected in scholarship today.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Foster |first=Paul |title=The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-0190887452 |quote= Where does this virtually unanimous rejection of a unified, written M leave scholarship on the unique Matthean material...the overarching hypothesis finds few, if any supporters...The insights into the ideological character of individual sayings and complexes of material are no longer attributed to a preexisting source but are now to be taken into account as part of the overall message and theology of the first evangelist.}}</ref>

== History == {{Main|Synoptic Gospels}}

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 [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] and [[Gospel of Luke|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'''.<ref>D. R. W. Wood, ''New Bible Dictionary'', Inter Varsity Press, 1996 p. 739.</ref> This [[two-source hypothesis]] speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a [[hypothetical]] sayings collection, called '''[[Q source|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 [[Temptation of Christ|temptations of Jesus]], the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer and many individual sayings.<ref>Bart Erhman, ''Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium'', Oxford University Press, p.80-81</ref>

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.<ref>Streeter, Burnett H. ''[http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Contents.htm The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates]''. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1924.</ref> This [[four-document hypothesis|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 source|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 ([[Aramaic Matthew|Aram. M]] or proto-Matthew) as the primary source.<ref>Pierson Parker. ''The Gospel Before Mark''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.</ref> Parker argued that it was not possible to separate Streeter's '''''"M"''''' material from the material in Matthew parallel to Mark.<ref>{{cite book |last=Farmer |first=William R. |author-link=William R. Farmer |date=1981 |orig-date=1964 |title=The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis |publisher=Macmillan |page=196 }}</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=qh7b4o6JQpIC&dq=Aramaic+matthew++%22The+special+sources+may+be+roughly+equated+with+Streeter's+M+and+L%22&pg=PA152 Everett Falconer Harrison, ''Introduction to the New Testament'', Wm. Eerdmans 1971] p. 152.</ref>

With the decline of source criticism the existence of a unified M source is largely rejected in scholarship today.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Foster |first=Paul |title=The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-0190887452 |quote= Where does this virtually unanimous rejection of a unified, written M leave scholarship on the unique Matthean material...the overarching hypothesis finds few, if any supporters...The insights into the ideological character of individual sayings and complexes of material are no longer attributed to a preexisting source but are now to be taken into account as part of the overall message and theology of the first evangelist.}}</ref>

== Composition == === Synoptic Gospels and the Nature of M === {{Main|Synoptic Gospels}}

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.<ref>{{cite book |last=Ehrman |first=Bart D.|author-link=Bart D. Ehrman |title=The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings |year=2004 |publisher=Oxford |location=New York |isbn=0-19-515462-2 |page=84}}</ref> If the four-source hypothesis is correct, then '''M''' would probably have been a written document and contained the following:<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliMSRGGkC&dq=M-source+OR+%22M+document%22+gospel&pg=PA143 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</ref>

{| class="wikitable sortable" |+ Likely content of M Source |- ! Parable !! Chapter !! Verses !! Number of verses |- |[[Parable of the Tares]] |13 |{{bibleverse-nb|Matthew|13:24-43|}} |20 |- |[[Parable of the Hidden Treasure]] |13 |{{bibleverse-nb|Matthew|13:44|}} |1 |- |[[Parable of the Pearl]] |13 |{{bibleverse-nb|Matthew|13:45-46|}} |2 |- |[[Parable of Drawing in the Net]] |13 |{{bibleverse-nb|Matthew|13:47-52|}} |6 |- |[[Parable of the Unforgiving Servant]] |18 |{{bibleverse-nb|Matthew|18:21-35|}} |15 |- |[[Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard]] |20 |{{bibleverse-nb|Matthew|20:1-16|}} |17 |- |[[Parable of the Two Sons]] |21 |{{bibleverse-nb|Matthew|21:28-32|}} |5 |- |[[Parable of the Ten Virgins]]<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=royKA4FeMB4C&dq=%22vineyard+21%3A28+%22+net+servant+sons&pg=PA90 Daniel J. Scholz, ''Jesus in the Gospels and Acts: Introducing the New Testament,'' Saint Mary's Press, 2009] p. 90</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Vs9YXAB_axYC&dq=Q+like+Christian+seminal+document++%22Where+we+should+expect+mention+of+a+dominical+sayings+source%22&pg=PA228 James R. Edwards, ''The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009] p. 228</ref> |25 |{{bibleverse-nb|Matthew|25:1-13|}} |14 |}

==== M source (30–50) ==== The third primary source is '''M'''.<ref>{{cite book|last=Jones|first=Brice|title=Matthean and Lukan Special Material: A Brief Introduction with Texts in Greek and English|year=2011|publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers|isbn=978-1-61097-737-1|url=https://wipfandstock.com/store/Matthean_and_Lukan_Special_Material_A_Brief_Introduction_with_Texts_in_Greek_and_English|archive-date=2014-05-31|access-date=2012-02-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531180933/https://wipfandstock.com/store/Matthean_and_Lukan_Special_Material_A_Brief_Introduction_with_Texts_in_Greek_and_English|url-status=dead}}</ref> The study of pre-Gospel sources is declining in scholarship, with the tendency most visible with the M and L sources.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Foster |first=Paul |title=The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-0190887452 |quote= While the study of pre-Gospel sources has in general seen a waning of interest among scholars, this tendency is nowhere more pronounced than in relation to the two proposed early sources M and L, and the early intermediary stage of Proto-Luke. Given the importance of these three hypothetical sources in theories of the solution to the Synoptic Problem during the late nineteenth century and for most of the twentieth century, it is instructive to trace the emergence of these source-critical hypotheses, to discuss the reasons for the demise of adherence, and to consider whether anything of value endures from these earlier theories.}}</ref><ref>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, {{ISBN|978-90-429-2401-7}}, "The M-source : its history and demise in biblical scholarship", pp. 591–616</ref><ref>[[Martin Hengel]], ''The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ'' Trinity Press, SCM 2000 p.207- 210</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=JvO4rj3NOoAC&pg=PA135 Delbert Royce Burkett, ''Rethinking the Gospel Sources'', Vol. 2, Society of Biblical Lit, 2009] p. 135–141</ref>

== See also == {{Portal|Bible}} * [[Jewish-Christian Gospels]] * [[Four-document hypothesis]] * [[Common Sayings Source]] * [[List of Gospels]]

== References == {{Reflist}}

== External links == Online translations of the [[Gospel of Matthew]]: *[http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/master.html?http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Ch9.htm A Four Document Hypothesis] *[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Hebrews,%20Gospel%20According%20To%20The Net Bible] *[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-throck.html Early Christian Writings] *[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZiX5d09931UC&q=canon+new The Development of the Canon of the New Testament]

[[Category:Synoptic problem]] [[Category:Christian terminology]] [[Category:Hypothetical Bible sources]]