THE SYNOPTIC QUESTION: PART ONE
1. The Literary Interrelationship of the Synoptic Gospels
1.1. That Matthew, Mark and Luke are similar to one another in content, the order of pericopes and in expression (style and vocabulary) is obvious to even the casual observer. This raises the question of why they are similar to one another in these respects.
1.1.2. In the late nineteenth century, B.F. Westcott proposed that the independent use of oral tradition by the three synoptic writers would account for any similarity (An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 1887). Recently, Eta Linnemann has revised the hypothesis that the synoptic gospels are literarily independent of one another (Is There a Synoptic Problem? 1991).
But the similarity seems too great not to postulate some sort of literary dependence among the synoptic gospels. This is especially true of the similarity in the order of the pericopes and, in particular, the order of the triple tradition. It seems unlikely that the individual units of oral tradition would have been passed on in a set order, since the order of pericopes in the synoptic gospels is generally non-chronological.
1.1.3. That the synoptic gospels are literarily related in some way becomes even more obvious when one compares the synoptic gospels to the gospel of John. It is clear from a comparison of one of the few overlaps in content between the gospel of John and synoptics (outside of the Passion and Resurrection narratives) that the synoptic gospels are literarily related to one another. A comparison of the account of the feeding of the 5,000 from any one of the synoptic gospels with that of John yields no verbatim agreement beyond what one would expect of accounts of the same event. But the opposite is true of the synoptic accounts as compared to one another. If each of the synoptic writers was composing his gospel independently of the others, one would not expect to find such homogeneous accounts of the same events.
The Feeding of the Five Thousand
| Matt 14:19b-20
Taking the five loaves and the two fish (ichthus),
looking up into heaven he blessed, and breaking, gave to the disciples
the loaves, and the disciples to the crowds.
And all ate and were satisfied.
|
Mark 6:41-42
And taking the five loaves and the two fish (ichthus), looking up into heaven, he blessed and he broke up the bread, and was giving to the disciples in order that they set before them, and the two fish he distributed to all. And all ate and were satisfied. |
Luke 9:16-17
But taking the five loaves and the two fish (ichthus),
looking up into heaven, he blessed them and he broke up, and was giving
to the disciples to set before the crowd.
And they ate and were satisfied. |
John 6:11-12
Thus Jesus took the loaves, and giving thanks, he distributed to the ones reclining; similarly also, whatever they desired from the fish (opsarion). And when they are full, he says to this disciples, "Gather the remaining pieces in order that nothing be lost." |
The extent of the verbatim agreement among the synoptic gospels when compared to the Gospel of John compels the conclusion that there is a literary relationship among the synoptic gospels.
1.1.4. Another argument for a literary relationship among the synoptic gospels is the fact that they have identical (or nearly so) parenthetical material. If the authors were using oral tradition, one would not expect verbatim agreement in what appears to be material added parenthetically to the tradition (Robert Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction, 37-42).
A. Mark 13:14 = Matt 24:15 "Let the reader understand"
B. Matt 9:6 ("Then he says to the paralytic") = Mark 2:10 ("He says to the paralytic") = Luke 5:24 ("He said to the paralyzed man ")
C. Mark 5:8 ("For he was saying to him, Come out of the man, unclean spirit" = Luke 8:29; ("For he commanded the unclean spirit to come out")
D. Matt 27:18 ("For he knew that it was out of envy that they delivered him up") = Mark 15:10 ("For he knew that it was out of envy that the chief priests delivered him up")
E. Matt 26:5 ("In order not to create a disturbance among the people) = Mark 14:2 ("Lest there be a disturbance of the people") = Luke 22:2 ("For they feared the people").
F. Matt 26:14 ("One of the twelve, the one named Judas") = Mark 14:10 ("And Judas Iscariot") = Luke 22:3 ("One of the twelve; Judas the one called Iscariot")
G. Matt 9:21 ("For she said to herself…")= Mark 5:28 ("For
she said…")
2. How the Synoptic Gospels Are Literarily Related to One Another
2.1. History of the Research Into the Synoptic Question
Augustine (354-430) claimed that the canonical order (Matthew, Mark, Luke) was the order in which the gospels were written. In addition, he said that the synoptic writers who composed later both knew and used the earlier compositions (De consensus evangelistarum 1.2). This would mean that the gospel of Matthew was written first, and was then abbreviated by Mark. Luke then used both gospels as sources for his own. How Augustine knew this is not clear.
Augustine's explanation of the literary relationships among the synoptic gospels prevailed universally until the rise of modern, Protestant scholarship in the 18th century. It became the official view of the Roman Catholic church in 1912, when the Biblical Commission (an institution created by Pope Leo 13 in 1902 to safeguard the church from destructive Biblical criticism) made a pronouncement to this effect. This view was supposed to be binding on all Roman Catholic scholars. In the 20th century B. C. Butler (The Originality of St. Matthew) and L. Vaganay (Le probleme synoptique) both present a revised version of the Augustinian explanation: Matthew is the first gospel, which was used by Mark as a source for his own gospel; Luke made use of both Matthew and Mark as sources. Recently, J. Wenham has taken up a modified version of the Augustinian explanation (Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem, 1992).
Beginning in the 18th century Protestant Biblical scholars began to investigate seriously the question of how the synoptic gospels were related to one another. Most concluded that the relationship was a literary one. In the late 18th century, J.J. Griesbach argued that the gospel of Matthew appeared first and was used by Luke as a source for his own gospel. Mark then used both gospels as sources. This has come to be known as the Griesbach hypotheis (more recently as the "two gospel hypothesis") and has been revived in the middle of the 20th century, after many decades of neglect, by W. R. Farmer (The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis), who has gained some adherents.
Although there is not complete
unanimity among scholars, the most accepted answer to the question of how
the synoptic gospels are literarily related was first proposed in 1838
by C. H. Weisse, who postulated that Matthew and Luke independently used
Mark as a source and independently combined their Markan source with another
source (or sources) of tradition, what has come to be known as Q (Quelle
= source). This has come to be known as "the two-source hypothesis," and
was given its classical expression by H. J. Holtzmann (Die synoptische
Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und ihr geschichtlicher Charakter, 1863).
In the early twentieth century, B. F. Streeter expanded the two-source
hypothesis to become the four-source hypothesis (The Four Gospels: A
Study in Origins). Although such material may be tradition from the
common source unused by the other, it is possible that what is unique to
Matthew and Luke was available only to one or the other gospel writer.
Thus, in order to take into account the Lukan and Matthean "special tradition,"
Streeter proposed that the three synoptic gospels ultimately derive from
four sources: Mark, Q, M (Matthean Special Tradition), L (Lukan Special
Tradition). For our purposes, we shall consider the two-source hypothesis
and the four-source hypothesis as the same; the latter is only a further
refinement of the former. (See S. Carlson’s Annotated Bibliography)
2.2. Data Explained on Assumption of Two-Source Hypothesis
The test of a hypothesis is its ability to account for all the available data. A hypothesis increases in probability as it increases in explanatory usefulness. No hypothesis concerning the nature of the literary relatedness of the synoptic gospels is without liabilities; each has strong and weak points. Nevertheless, the two-source hypothesis clearly is the most reasonable of all the hypotheses; this accounts for its wide acceptance.
2.2.1. The Triple Tradition
There are certain data relating to the triple tradition (pericopes that all three synoptic gospels have in common) that are best explained by postulating that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as a source. The alternatives do not account as adequately for all these data:
A. Matthew and Luke include the vast majority of Mark's pericopes. Matthew contains 90% of Mark's material, while Luke has over 50% (B. F. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, 159-60). (The much lower percentage of Markan material in Luke is in part the result of the omission of a large block of Markan material from the gospel [Mark 6:45-8:26].) In addition, Matthew and Luke are both longer than the gospel of Mark. Mark contains 11, 025 words, while Matthew has 18, 293 and Luke 19, 376 words (R. Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction, 48). On the two-source hypothesis, these data are explained by postulating that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, adding to their Markan source material that, for whatever reason, was unavailable to Mark. On the Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis, Mark would have merged and abbreviated his sources, but this seems less likely since there is no motive for the creation of Mark, since (almost) its entire contents (and more) are found in both Matthew and Luke.
B. The following pericopes in Mark are in neither Matthew nor Luke:
1. Mark 3:20-21
| Mark 3:20-21
20 And the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. 21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself." |
2. Mark 4:26-29
| Mark 4:26-29
26 And he said, "The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed upon the ground, 27 and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should sprout and grow, he knows not how. 28 The earth produces of itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come." |
3. Mark 7:31-37
| Mark 7:31-37
31 Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis. 32 And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech; and they besought him to lay his hand upon him. 33 And taking him aside from the multitude privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue; 34 and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, "Ephphatha," that is, "Be opened." 35 And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. 36 And he charged them to tell no one; but the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. 37And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, "He has done all things well; he even makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak." |
4. Mark 8:22-26
| Mark 8:22-26
22 And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man, and begged him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, "Do you see anything?" 24 And he looked up and said, "I see men; but they look like trees, walking." 25 Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly. 26 And he sent him away to his home, saying, "Do not even enter the village." |
5. Mark 9:49
| Mark 9:49
For every one will be salted with fire. |
6. Mark 14:51-52
| Mark 14:51-52
51 And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. |
On the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke must have chosen not to include these pericopes. In three cases (1, 5, 6), at least, it is understandable why Matthew and Luke would have omitted such material from their Markan source. Mark 3:20-21 would have been passed over because it placed Jesus and his family in a bad light; likewise, since the incident of the young man fleeing naked (Mark 14:51-52) was strange and irrelevant to the narrative, its omission would have been understandable. Finally, since the meaning of Jesus' saying about being salted with fire was no longer retrievable, the tendency would have been for it to disappear. (See W. G. Khmmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 30)
On the Griesbach or two-gospel hypotheis and the Augustinian hypothesis, Mark would have included these passage, while excluding other, more significant material from Matthew and Luke. A motive is lacking, however, for this redactional approach.
C. The order of pericopes in the triple tradition is similar. Although they agree at times in not having a pericope found in Mark, when they depart from Mark's order, Matthew and Luke do not do so in the same way. Rather, when Matthew departs from Mark's order, Luke supports it, and, when Luke departs from Mark's order, Matthew supports it. (They do agree, however, in not having some Markan material.) This means that Mark is the middle term in the relationship between the three: Mark is closer to Matthew and Luke than they are to each other. (See Appendix A.) (It should be stressed that Matthew and especially Luke generally agree with the Markan order of the triple tradition.) On the two-source hypothesis, this phenomenon is explained by postulating that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as a source, never coincidentally changing the Markan order in the same way.
W. Farmer correctly points out that the two-gospel or Griesbach hypothesis (and the Augustinian hypothesis) explains better (or at least as well?) the agreement in order among in triple tradition. He writes, "The problem of Markan order can be posed this way: It is as if Matthew and Luke each knew what the other was doing, and that each had agreed to support Mark whenever the other departed from Mark. Such concerted action is excluded by the adherents of Marcan priority in their insistence that Matthew and Luke were completely independent of one another" (Synoptic Problem, 213). Matthew and Luke never agree in their departure from the Markan order, even though each departs frequently enough from that order; Farmer argues that it is improbable that Matthew and Luke would never coincidentally depart from the Markan order at the same time. If Mark is using Matthew and Luke as sources, however, then the phenomenon is explained on the hypothesis that, when Matthew and Luke differ in order in relation to the triple tradition, Mark sometimes follows the order of one and sometimes that of the other. (If Matthew and Luke agreed with each other in their departure from the Markan order, this would provide support for Farrer’s position that Luke used Matthew and Mark as sources.) Nevertheless, in spite of the attractiveness of Farmer’s explanation, given all the evidence it seems better to hold that Matthew and Luke only coincidentally never depart from the Markan order at the same time; in fact, the probability is low that they would.
D. There is substantial verbatim agreement in the triple
tradition. The agreement is the closest when reporting speech, especially
that of Jesus. When there is no verbatim agreement in the triple tradition,
the pattern is such that frequently either Mark and Matthew agree against
Luke or Mark and Luke agree against Matthew. This means that most times
Mark is the middle term in the relationship between the three: Mark is
closer to Matthew and Luke than they are to each other. (It often happens
that there is no verbatim agreement.) Examples include:
1. Plucking Grain on the Sabbath
| Matt 12:1-8
1At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the
Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of
grain and eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, "Look,
Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath." 3 But He said
to them, "Have you not read what David did when (hote) he became
hungry, he and his companions,
5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath
the priests in the Temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? 6 But I say
to you that something greater than the Temple is here. 7 But if you had
known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice' you would
not have condemned the innocent.
8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." |
Mark 2:23-28
23 And it happened that He was passing through the grain fields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees were saying to Him, "Look,
why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" 25 And He said to
them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and
his companions became hungry;
27 Jesus was saying to them, "The Sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the Sabbath,
|
Luke 6:1-5
1 And it happened that he was passing through some grain fields on a Sabbath; and his disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their
hands, and eating the grain.
5 And He was saying to them, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." |
2. The Question about Fasting
| Matt 9:14-17
14 Then the disciples of John come to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples
do not fast?"
But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 But no one puts a patch (epiblema) of unshrunken
cloth on an old garment;
17 Nor they put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise (+ ge) the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved." |
Mark 2:18-22
18 And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting;
and they came and said to Him,
22 No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise
the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins;
but new wine in fresh wineskins." |
Luke 5:33-39
33 And they said to Him, "The disciples of John
often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also similarly,
but yours (hoi de soi) eat and drink."
35 But the days will come, and, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days." 36 And He was also saying to them a parable, that "No one, having torn a piece of cloth from a new garment, puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. 39 And no one, after drinking old wine wants new, for he says, ‘The old is good.'" |
3. Paying Taxes to Caesar
| Matt 12:16b-21
…saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true and that you teach the way of God in truth and for you there is concern for no one, for you do not look into the face of men. Thus tell us how it seems to you. ‘Is it permissible to give tribute to Caesar or not?’" But Jesus, knowing their evil, said, "Why do you test
me, hypocrites? Show (epidechomai) me the coin of tribute." And
they brought to him a denarius. And he says to them, "Whose image is this
and whose likeness?" They say, "Of Caesar." Then he says to them,
"Thus give the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar and the things that are
God’s to God."
|
Mark 12:14-17
And going, they say to him, "Teacher, we know that you
are true
‘Is it permissible to give tribute to Caesar or
not? Should we give or not give?"
|
Luke 20:21-25
And they asked him saying,
and you do not take face,
"Is it permissible for us to give the tax to Caesar or not?" But he, perceiving their deceit, said towards them,
It has whose image and likeness?" And they said,
|
On the two-source hypothesis, this phenomenon is explained by postulating that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as a source; both tended to make few changes to their Markan source, especially when reporting the words of Jesus. Sometimes both decided to adopt Mark's wording; at other times, either Matthew or Luke diverged from their Markan source, while the other stayed true to it. This explains why Mark is the middle term in the relationship between the three (why Mark is closer to Matthew and Luke than they are to each other). On a few occasions, both Matthew and Luke depart from their Markan source. Sometimes Matthew or Luke (but more often Matthew) adds related material to the Markan source.
The Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis explains the phenomenon of verbatim agreement in the triple tradition and Mark’s being the middle term in the relationship between the three synoptic gospels by the fact that Mark sometimes chose to follow Matthew while at other times Luke. This is equally as possible, but the question to raise, however, is whether this is compatible with the other data relating to the triple tradition. The Augustinian hypothesis must assume that Mark made changes to Matthew's wording and that Luke always adopted Mark's changes to Matthew, but rarely adopted Matthew's original wording (changed by Mark). When Mark adopted Matthew's wording, Luke adopted the common wording. It seems unlikely that Luke would adopt a redactional method that would favor Mark's wordings over Matthew.
E. There are instances of minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark in almost all pericopes of the triple tradition; these consist of both negative and positive agreements, but are relatively few. The percentage of agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark is about six per cent (See Frans Neirynck, The Minor Agreements in a Horizontal-Line Synopsis [Leuven: Leuven Univeristy Press, 1991], who lists over 770 such agreements and Stoldt, Markan Hypothesis, who finds 272.).
A striking example of minor agreements
between Matthew and Luke in the triple tradition is Mark 2:1-12 = Matt
9:1-8 = Luke 5:17-26. Verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke against
Mark (positive agreements) is underlined; material in Mark that is absent
from Luke and Matthew is in bold (negative agreements).
The Healing of the Paralytic
| Matt 9:1-8
And getting into a boat, he crossed over and came into
his own city.
And behold they brought to him a paralytic,
lying on his bed;
And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Have courage; son, your sins are forgiven." And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming."
But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, "Rise and walk?’
and went away into his house. When the crowds saw
it, they were afraid,
|
Mark 2:1-12
And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it
was heard that he was at home. And many were gathered together, so that
there was no longer room for them, not even near the door; and he was preaching
the word to them.
And when they could not get near him because of the crowd,
they removed the roof above him; and when they had dug an opening, they
let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their
faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
So that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying,
"We never saw anything like this." |
Luke 5:17-26
On one of those days, as he was teaching, there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting near, who had come who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was with him to heal. And behold, men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they sought to bring him in and place [him] before him; but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst of Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said,
And the scribes and Pharisees began to question, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins,
but God alone?"
But that you may know that the son of man has authority
on earth to forgive sins—he said to the man who was paralyzed— I say to
you, ‘Rise, take up your bed and go home’."
|
Other striking examples of minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark include:
1. Mark 6:31-34 and parr.(Part of Feeding of the Five
Thousand)
| Matt 14:13-14
13 Now when Jesus heard about John, he withdrew
(anechoresen) from there in a boat to a secluded place by himself;
and when they heard of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the cities. 14 When he went ashore, he saw a large crowd, and felt compassion for them and healed their sick. |
Mark 6:31-34
31 And he said to them, "Come away by yourselves to a secluded place and rest a while." (For there were many people coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat.) 32 They went away in the boat to a secluded place by themselves. 33 The people saw them going, and many recognized them and ran there together on foot from all the cities, and got there ahead of them. 34 When Jesus went ashore, he saw a large crowd, and he felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things. |
Luke 9:10-11
10 When the apostles returned, they gave an account to
him of all that they had done. Taking them with him, he withdrew
(huperchoresen) by himself to a city called Bethsaida.
11 But, being aware (of this), the crowds followed him; and welcoming them, he began speaking to them about the kingdom of God and cured those who had need of healing. |
2. Jesus' First Prediction of His Death
| Matt 16:21
From then on, Jesus Christ began to show to his disciples that it was necessary that he leave for Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. |
Mark 18:31
And he began to teach to teach them that it was necessary that the son of man suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and after three days arise |
Luke 9:22
…Saying that it was necessary that the son of man suffer many things and be rejected from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised. |
On the two-source hypothesis, the minor agreements in the triple tradition between Matthew and Luke in the triple tradition are explained in two ways. First, Matthew and Luke may have coincidentally made the same changes to their Markan source. This explanation becomes more probable when one notices that the positive agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark tend to be literary improvements (see below) and that negative agreements were bound to occur since both tended to condense their Markan source. Second, some positive and negative agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark could have resulted from both being dependent on an earlier version of Mark's gospel that differed slightly from the canonical version, from textual corruption of Mark or from textual corruption of Matthew or Luke in the form of assimilation of one passage to its parallel (Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 208-15; Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, 293-31; Stein, The Synoptic Problem, 113-28). (As we shall see below, other agreements in the triple tradition between Matthew and Luke against Mark resulted from there having been overlaps in content between Q and Mark.)
It should be noted, however, that the
minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are a weakness in
the two source hypothesis. (Indeed, for W. Farmer, the minor agreements
are one of the three major objections to the two source hypothesis, the
other two being the fact that the Markan order is reflected in Matthew
and Luke and the features of Mark’s gospel that allegedly indicate lateness
in composition.) Admittedly, the minor agreements would be best explained
as resulting from Luke’s use of Matthew and Mark as literary sources, but
in conjunction with the other evidence, the less simple explanation(s)
is required.
F. In most cases, Matthean additions to the triple tradition are absent from Luke (see Matt 8:17; 10:5-8; 12:5-7; 12:11-12a; 13:14-15; 14:28-31; 16:17; 17:6-7; 18:3-4; 19:9). Likewise, there are Lukan additions to the triple tradition not found in Matthew, but not as many as in Matthew (see Luke 4:14a; 5:17; 9:23; 9:31-32; 9:48 (see Stein, The Synoptic Problem, 91-95). Examples include:
1. Matt 12:11-12a
| Matt 12:9-14 9
Departing from there, he went into their synagogue. 10 And behold a man was there who had a withered hand. And they questioned Jesus, asking, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” – in order that they might accuse him. 11 And he said to them, “What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 “How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand!” He stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. |
Mark 3:1-6
1 He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was
there who had a withered hand. 2 They were watching him to see if
he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him.
3 He says to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” 4 And he says to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. 5 After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, he says to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. |
Luke 6:6-11
6 On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was
teaching; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered.
7 The scribes and the Pharisees were watching him closely in order to see
if he healed on the Sabbath, in order that they might find reason
to accuse Him.
8 But he knew what they were thinking, and he said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” And he got up and came forward. 9 And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?” 10 After looking around at them all, he said to him, “Stretch out your hand!” And he did so; and his hand was restored. 11 But they themselves were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might do to Jesus |
2. Luke 9:31-32
| Matt 17:1-9
1 Six days later Jesus took with him Peter and James and
John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 And
he was transfigured before them; and his face shone like the sun, and his
garments became as white as light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared
to them, talking with him.
4 Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be
here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and
one for Moses, and one for Elijah." 5 While he was still speaking, a bright
cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This
is my beloved son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to him!» 6
When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were
terrified. 7 And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up,
and do not be afraid." 8 And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except
Jesus himself alone. 9 As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus
commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the son of man
has risen from the dead." 10 And his disciples asked Him, "Why then do
the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"
|
Mark 9:2-13
2 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James
and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And he
was transfigured before them; 3 and his garments became radiant and exceedingly
white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them. 4 Elijah appeared to them
along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus.
5 Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be
here; let us make three tabernacles, one for You, and one for Moses, and
one for Elijah." 6 For he did not know what to answer; for they became
terrified. 7 Then a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came
out of the cloud, "This is My beloved son, listen to Him!" 8 All at once
they looked around and saw no one with them anymore, except Jesus alone.
9 As they were coming down from the mountain, he gave
them orders not to relate to anyone what they had seen, until the son of
man rose from the dead. 10 They seized upon that statement, discussing
with one another what rising from the dead meant.
|
Luke 9:28-36
28 Some eight days after these sayings, he took along
Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while
he was praying, the appearance of his face became different, and his clothing
became white and gleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with him;
and they were Moses and Elijah, 31 who, appearing in glory, were speaking
of his departure which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now
Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were
fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him.
33 And as these were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good
for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one
for Moses, and one for Elijah" -- not realizing what he was saying.
34 While he was saying this, a cloud formed and began to overshadow them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my son, my chosen one; listen to Him!" 36 And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and reported to no one in those days any of the things which they had seen. |
On the two-source hypothesis, this is explained by postulating that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other as a source; rather both independently made additions to their Markan source. (The exceptions to this phenomenon will be explained below as resulting from Mark-Q overlaps in content.)
It should be noted that the Griesbach
or two-gospel hypothesis explains this phenomenon by assuming that Mark
sometimes excludes material unique to either Matthew’s or Luke’s versions
of pericopes from the triple tradition. Again, the question is ask, however,
is whether all the data can be explained on the assumption of Markan dependency
on Matthew and Luke. On the Augustinian hypothesis, the author of
Luke excludes from Matthew what is not found in Mark and adds his own material
to the material common to Matthew and Mark. Why
Luke would do this is not clear.
G. In Luke is absent a large unit of Markan pericopes that Matthew includes: Mark 6:45-8:26, some 74 or 75 consecutive verses (the so-called "Great Omission"). (Mark 6:45-8:26 = Matt 14:34-16:12, but Matthew lacks Mark 7:31-37; 8:22-26, and has non-Markan material in 15:29-31.) On the two-source hypothesis, one must assume that Luke chose to omit this sequence of pericopes from Mark or that his copy of Mark did not contain these passages for whatever reason (J. Hawkins, "Three Limitations to St. Luke's Use of St. Mark's Gospel," Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem [Oxford" Claredon Press, 1911] 27-138; esp. 61-75; Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, 172-79).
The Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis and the Augustinian hypothesis must likewise explain why Luke chose to omit this block of material from Matthew, so that it offers no better explanation than the two source hypothesis. On any hypothesis that assumes that Luke has access to Mark or Matthew, this omission is problematic.
H. In general, Mark has longer versions of pericopes than do Matthew and Luke. Stein provides a list of the number of words in each of the versions of the pericopes in the triple tradition from the baptism of Jesus until the Passion narrative (The Synoptic Problem, 49-51). Stein calculates that in the 51 units listed, Mark has the longest version 22 times, Matthew 11 times and Luke 10 times. On the two-source hypothesis, this is explained in general by postulating that Matthew and Luke independently tended to shorten the Markan pericopes, in order to make room for additional, non-Markan material.
On the Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis and the Augustinian hypothesis, one must assume improbably that Mark not only chose to omit much important material from his sources (Matthew and Luke), but also chose to lengthen unnecessarily the material that he did use. It seems more unlikely, however, that Mark would both omit and lengthen at the same time.
There are several specific reasons that Mark tends to be longer than Matthew and Luke, each of which is explainable on the two-source hypothesis:
1. One reason for the tendency for Mark to be longer than Matthew and Luke is that often a Markan version of a pericope in the triple tradition tends to have unnecessary material, as compared to its Lukan and Matthean parallels. J. C. Hawkins lists more than 100 alleged cases of what he calls "context supplements," which he defines as "enlargements of the narrative which add nothing to the information conveyed by it, because they are expressed again, or are directly involved, in the context" (Horae Synopticae, 125-26). Some of these are more convincing than others. Three examples will suffice:
a. Mark 2:15-16 = Matt 9:10-11 = Luke 5:29-30
| Matt 9:10-11
10 Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they were saying to his disciples, "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?" |
Mark 2:15-16
15 And it happens that he is reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners are dining with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many of them, and they followed him. 16 When the scribes of the Pharisees, seeing that he eats with sinners and tax collectors, they were saying to his disciples, "Why is he eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?" |
Luke 5:29-30
29 And Levi gave a big reception for him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. 30 The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at his disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?" |
Mark 2:15 "For they were many and they followed him."
Mark 2:16 "seeing that he eats with sinners and tax collectors"
b. Mark 2:18-19 = Matt 9:14-15 = Luke 5:33-34
| Matt 9:14-15
14 Then the disciples of John come to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples
do not fast?"
But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast." |
Mark 2:18-22
18 And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting;
and they came and said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples
of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?"
|
Luke 5:33-39
33 And they said to Him, "The disciples of John often
fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also similarly,
but yours (hoi de soi) eat and drink."
|
Mark 2:18 "And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting"
Mark 2:19 "So long as they have the bridegroom with them
they cannot fast"
c. Mark 12:21 = Matt 22:26 = Luke 20:30
| Matt 22:25-27
25 "Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; 26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 "Last of all, the woman died." |
Mark 12:20-22
20 "There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no children. 21 "The second one took her, and died leaving behind no seed; and the third likewise; 22 and so all seven left no children. Last of all the woman died also." |
Luke 20:29-31
29 "Now there were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless; 30 and the second 31 and the third married her; and in the same way all seven died, leaving no children. |
Mark 12:21: "And the second took her and died not leaving behind seed"
As already explained, on the two-source hypothesis, this is explained by postulating that Matthew and Luke abbreviated their Markan source, editing out such unnecessary material.
2. Another reason for the tendency of Markan pericopes to be longer than their parallels in Matthew and Luke is that Mark is characterized by redundancy. Tuckett has identified 213 such instances of redundancy or duplicate expression. When the instances of Markan redundancy are compared to their parallels in Matthew and Luke, the following data result (C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983] 16-21; see also Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 139-42):
a. In 17 instances Matthew has one half and Luke the other. (Mark 1:32, 42; 2:18; 4:21; 5:2f., 12, 14-16; 6:14-16; 8:27; 10:46; 11:1, 2; 14:27, 30; 15:26, 42)
b. In 11 instances Matthew has one half and Luke both halves. (Mark 2:20; 4:9, 30, 39; 5:14; 6:111, 36; 14:1, 12, 47, 49)
c. In 46 instances Matthew has one half and Luke no parallel. (Mark 1:17; 2:1; 3:22, 28, 29; 4:1, 19, 31 bis; 5:23, 39f.; 6:3, 4, 6, 21, 45, 49f., 51; 7:15, 18, 24, 41; 8:4, 9-13, 17; 9:2, 28; 10:6, 16, 38f.; 11:11f., 13, 14; 13:3, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 34; 14:6, 18, 45, 54; 15:16, 32)
d. In 17 instances Luke has one half and Matthew both halves. (Mark 1:5, 39; 3:33; 4:5 bis, 40; 5:1, 13, 38; 6:11, 32; 10:42; 11:11; 12:14; 13:28, 29; 14:25)
e. In 25 instances Luke has one half and Matthew no parallel. (Mark 1:21, 28, 31, 38, 45; 2:4 bis; 3:8; 4:35; 5:11, 15, 19 bis, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42; 6:30; 9:38; 10:30; 12:42, 44; 16:15; 15:21)
f. In 39 instances both omit the same half. (Mark 1:2f., 12; 2:3, 25; 3:13-16, 14-16, 16f., 21f., 26; 4:7, 8 bis; 11, 15, 16, 39; 6:35; 10:22, 24, 27, 30, 49, 52; 11:15, 17, 27, 28; 12:2, 14, 23; 13:33; 14:16, 35, 43, 61, 68; 15:24, 44, 16:2)
g. In 6 instances both have Mark's duplicate expression. (Mark 1:3; 4:12; 10:47f.; 11:1; 12:16; 13:2)
h. In 14 instances Matthew has both halves and Luke no parallel. (Mark 4:17; 6:1f., 45f.; 10:1, 8; 11:24; 13:11; 14:3, 9, 22, 31, 33, 66, 71)
i. In 1 instance Luke has both halves and Matthew no parallel. (Mark 5:15)
j. In 37 instances Matthew and Luke have no parallel. (Mark 1:45; 2:4; 3:5, 9, 31, 34; 4:2, 38; 5:3f., 5 bis; 6:25, 31, 51, 52; 7:3, 3f., 17, 26, 33; 9:12f., 26, 27, 33, 35, 48; 11:4; 12:23, 45; 13:1, 37; 14:52, 56f.; 15:7, 19, 44; 16:8)
Examples of Markan redundancy include:
a. Mark 1:32 = Matt 8:16 = Luke 4:40
Mark "And when it became evening when the sun went down"
Matt "And when it became evening"
Luke "When the sun went down"
b. Mark 3:26 = Matt 12:26 = Luke 11:18
Mark "It is not able to stand, but come to an end"
Matt "How, therefore, will his kingdom stand"
Luke "How will his kingdom stand"
c. Mark 10:29 = Matt 19:29 = Luke 18:29
Mark "On account of me and of the gospel"
Matt "On account of my name"
Luke "On account of the Kingdom of God"
On the two-source hypothesis, Markan redundancy is explained by postulating that Matthew and Luke independently tended to remove redundancy from their Markan source. Kelber argues that Markan redundancy is part of its oral legacy, so that the tendency would be for it to disappear (The Oral and the Writen Gospel, chap. 2).
3. Another reason for the tendency of Mark to be longer than Matthew and Luke is that often a Markan version of a pericope in the triple tradition includes details not included by Matthew and/or Luke (Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 127-31). Examples of details that Mark alone includes:
a. Mark 1:33 "And the whole city gathered at the door."
b. Mark 3:9 "And he said to his disciples to have a boat ready for him on account of the crowd, in order that he not be crushed."
c. Mark 3:34 "And looking around at those sitting around him"
d. Mark 4:35 "When evening came"
e. Mark 4:38 "In the stern upon a cushion"
f. Mark 8:14 "And with the exception of one loaf they did not have bread with them in the boat."
g. Mark 9:36 "And taking [the child] in his arms"
h. Mark 10:50 "And throwing off his cloak he sprang up."
On the two-source hypothesis, the greater amount of detail in Mark relative to Matthew and Luke is explained by postulating that Matthew and Luke tended to eliminate details from their Markan source not essential to the narrative.
I. Stylistically, Mark must be judged to be inferior to Matthew and Luke. It is less literary, resembling the Greek of common speech. On the two-source hypothesis, this is explained by postulating that Matthew and Luke tended to bring their Markan source more in line with Greek literary convention; they independently improved their Markan source.
It is less likely that Mark would render his sources literarily inferior, as one must assume on the Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis and the Augustinian hypothesis. Farmer’s contention that Mark’s diction is not literarily inferior, but reflects later usage is weak
The specific details of Mark's literary inferiority are as follows:
1. The gospel of Mark has many more colloquialisms and unusual, awkward or ungrammatical constructions. (See Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 131-37; Stein, The Synoptic Problem, 52-54.) On the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke improve their Markan source by altering the linguistic oddities in their Markan source.
2. Mark is characterized by the excessive use (by Hellenistic literary standards) of the historical present as compared to Matthew and Luke and other Greek narrative writings, which tend to use the aorist tense (simple past) (Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 143-49, 213-14). On the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke changed Mark's uses of the historical present, in order to conform to Hellenistic literary standards.
3. Mark is characterized by asyndeton (the absence of conjunctions and other connecting words) (see Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 137-38). Examples include:
a. Mark 1:27 = Luke 4:36
...Saying, "What is this? A new teaching--with authority. And he commands the unclean spirits... (Mark 1:27)
...Saying, "What is this word, because in authority and
power he commands unclean spirits (Luke 4:36)
b. Mark 14:6 = Matt 26:10
And Jesus said, "Leave her be. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for me." (Mark 14:6)
And Jesus knowing said to them, "Why do you trouble the
woman, for she had done a good work for me?" (Matt 26:10)
c. Mark 5:39 = Matt 9:24 = Luke 8:52
Why do you wail and cry? The child is not dead, but sleeps. (Mark 5:39)
Withdraw, for the girl is not dead, but sleeps. (Matt 9:24)
Do not cry, for she is not dead but sleeps. (Luke 8:52)
On the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke smoothed out their Markan source by adding conjunctions and other connecting words to it.
4. Mark is characterized by the excessive use of kai (and) in preference to the more literary de (and, but) (Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 150-53). On the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke improve their Markan source by reducing the frequency of the use of the conjunction kai.
J. There are redactional indications that Matthew was
using Mark's gospel or something quite close to it. G. M. Styler gives
a list of possible indicators of Matthean dependency on Mark ("The Priority
of Mark," in C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 285-316.)
Some of Styler's examples are questionable and not very convincing, but
many do support his thesis of Markan priority. The best example is Mark
6:17-29 = Matt 14:3-12. Mark calls Herod Antipas "king" (6:26) as does
Matthew in 14:9. But Herod's official title was tetrarch, and this is what
Matthew calls him in another place in his gospel (14:1). Mark, on the other
hand, never calls Herod tetrarch; this fact suggests that Matthew was using
Mark as a source.
THE
SYNOPTIC QUESTION: PART TWO