|
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. This is known as the synoptic problem.
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).
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 XIII 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 problème
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).
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 hypothesis (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), whose views have 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 of  tradition,
what has come to be known as Q (Quelle = source, as in Spruche-Quelle
or Sayings-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). 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
a 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. A variation of the two-source
hypothesis is known as the "Farrar Hypothesis," named after
Austin M. Farrer, who accepted Markan priority but dispensed with the
idea of a common source used independently by Matthew and Luke; instead
he argued that Matthew added to his Markan source and then Luke used
Matthew as a source ("On Dispensing with Q," Studies in
the Gospels: Essays in the Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, 55-88). (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 is probably the best of all the proposals,
insofar as it can account for most of the data better than any other
hypothesis; this explains its wide acceptance among scholars. It must
be stressed, however, that not every detail of the process by which
the gospels came into existence is accessible to the researcher; rather,
one must be satisfied with being able to reconstruct the general outline
of the production of the gospels. In some cases, there are insufficient
data to conclude how and why a particular pericope reached its final
form, with the result that numerous equally possible (and therefore
speculative) possibilities exist. In particular, the origin and nature
of the non-Markan material in Matthew and Luke, the so-called Q-source,
remains obscure. These unknown factors at work in the production of
the gospels account for the anomalies or surds that plague every hypothesis.
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). How would you explain these data on the two-source hypothesis?
How would the advocate of the Griesbach hypothesis explain the same
data? Why is the two-source hypothesis the more probable explanation?
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, the author of Mark would have combined and abbreviated his
sources. The Griesbach hypothesis seems less probable, since a motive
is lacking for the creation of Mark, for (almost) its entire contents
(and more) are found in both Matthew and Luke. Moreover, why the author
of Mark would omit such important material from his two sources is hard
to explain. On the other hand, the expansion of Mark by the authors
of Matthew and Luke is conceivable.
B. The following pericopes
in Mark are in neither Matthew nor Luke:
1. 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
| 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
|
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
| 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
| For
every one will be salted with fire. |
6. 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. On the Griesbach or
two-gospel hypotheis and the Augustinian hypothesis, Mark would have
included these passages, 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: The Order of the Triple Tradition in the Synoptic Gospels.
(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" (The
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 in the same
way. 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. If Anyone Would Come after
Me (Sanders and Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 56-57)
| Matt
16:24-28
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples,
"If anyone would come after me, let
him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For
whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses
his life for my sake will find it.
26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains
the whole world and forfeits his life?
Or what shall a man give in return for his life?
27 For the Son of Man is to come with his
angels in the glory of his Father, and then he
will repay every man for what he has done.
28 Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who [hoitines]
will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming
in his Kingdom." |
Mark
8:34-9:1
34 And he called to the multitude with his
disciples, and said to them,
"If any one would follow after me, let him
deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever
would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life
for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
36 For what does it profit a man, to gain
the whole world and forfeit his
life? 37 For what can a man give in return for
his life? 38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will
the Son of Man also be ashamed when he
comes in the glory of his Father
with the holy angels."
9:1 And he said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there
are some standing here who [hoitines]
will not taste death before they see that the
Kingdom of God has come with power." |
Luke
9:23-27
23 And he said to [pros] all,
"If anyone would come after
me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and
follow me. 24 For whoever would save his life will lose
it, and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save
it. 25 For what does it profit a man [if] he
gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?
26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words,
[of him] will the Son of Man be ashamed
when he comes in his glory and the glory of the
Father and of the holy angels.
27 But I say to you truly, there are some standing
here who [hoi] will not taste death before they see
the Kingdom of God." |
2. Plucking Grain on the
Sabbath
| Matt
12:1-8
1 At that time Jesus went through
the grain fields [on] the Sabbath,
and [de] 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 [idou], Your disciples
dowhat is not lawful to do on a Sabbath."
3 But he said to them, "Have you not read
what (ti) David did when (hote)
he was hungry, he and those with him,
4 how he entered the house of God,
and they ate the consecrated bread, that was not
permitted for him to eat nor for those with him, but
for the priests alone?
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 [kai] it happened that
he was passing across the grain fields
on the Sabbath, and [kai] his
disciples began to make their way along while
picking the heads of grain.
24 And the Pharisees were
saying to him, "Look [ide], why
are they doing what is not lawful on
the Sabbath?"
25 And he says to them, "Have you never
read what (ti) David did
when (hote) he was in need and
he himself and those with him was hungry;
26 how he entered the house of God in the
time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated
bread, which is not lawful for anyone to
eat except the priests, and he also gave to
those who were with him?"
27 Jesus was saying to them, "The Sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the Sabbath,
28 so that the Son of Man is Lord even of
the Sabbath." |
Luke
6:1-5
1 And [de] it happened that he
was passing through grain fields on a Sabbath;
and [kai] his disciples
were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them
in their hands, and eating the grain. 2 But
some of the Pharisees said, "Why do you
do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?"
3 And answering them Jesus said, "Have
you not even read what (ho) David did
when (hopote) he was hungry, he and those
who were with him,
4 as he entered the house of God, and taking
ate the consecrated bread which
is not lawful for any to eat except the priests alone, and
gave it to those who were with him?"
5 And He was saying to them, "The
Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
|
3. The Question about Fasting
| Matt
9:14-17
14 Then the disciples of John come [proserchontai]
to him, saying,
"Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but
your disciples do not fast?"
15 And Jesus said to them,
"The sons of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the
bridegroomis with them, can they?
But 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;
for the patch (pleroma) pulls away from
the garment, and a worse tear results.
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 new wineskins, and
both are preserved." |
Mark
2:18-22
18 And the disciples of John and the
Pharisees were fasting; and they come [erchontai] and
say to him,
"Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees
fast, but the disciples of you do not fast?"
19 And Jesus said to them, "The sons
of the bridegroom cannot fast while the
bridegroom is with them, can they? So
long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
20 But days will come when the bridegroom
is taken away from them, and then they
will fast in that day.
21 "No one sews a patch (epiblema)
of unshrunken cloth on an old garment;
otherwise the patch (pleroma) pulls away from
it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results.
22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins;
otherwise the wine will burst the wineskins,
and the wine is lost and the skins;
but new wine in new 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."
34 And [de] Jesus said to [pros] them,
"You cannot make the sons of the bridegroom fastwhilethe
bridegroom is with them, can you?
35 But days will come, indeed, 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 patch (epiblema) 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 (+ ge) the new wine
will burst the wineskins and it will be spilled out, and
the skins will be ruined.
38 But new wine must be put into new wineskins.
39 And no one, after drinking old wine wants new, for he says,
‘The old is good.'" |
4. 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) to me the
coin of tribute." And they brought (prosenegkan) 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
and for you there is concern for
no one, for you do not look into the face of men,
but truly you teach the way of God
‘Is it permissible to give tribute to Caesar or not?
Should we give or not give?"
But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to
them, "Why do you test me? Bring to me
a denarius that I might see." And
they brought (enegkan) it.
And he says to them, "Whose image
is this and whose likeness?" And
they said to him, "Of Caesar." And Jesus said
to them, "The things that are Caesar’s
give to Caesar and the things that are God’s to God."
|
Luke
20:21-25
And they asked him saying, "Teacher,
we know that you rightly speak and teach,
and you do not take face,
but truly you teach the way of God.
"Is it permissible for us to
give the tax to Caesar or not?"
But he, perceiving their deceit, said towards
them,
"Show (dechomai) me a denarius.
It has whose image and whose likeness?" And
they said, "Of Caesar." And he said towards them,
"Now give the things that Caesar’s to Caesar and the
things that are God’s to God." |
On the assumption that the
authors of Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as a source, how
would you account for the pattern of verbatim agreement in the triple
tradition? In particular, on the two-source hypothesis how do you explain
the fact that Mark is the middle term in the relationship between the
three synoptic gospels in this respect (why Mark is closer to Matthew
and Luke than they are to each other)?
On the assumption
that the authors of Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as the
source, one must conclude that both tended to make few changes to their
Markan source, especially when reporting the words of Jesus. This explains
why all three synoptic gospels frequently have verbatim agreement. Sometimes,
however, Matthew or Luke diverged from the Markan source, while the
other stayed true to it; this is what one would expect from authors
using a common source in independence of each other. Thus, this explains
why Mark is the middle term in the relationship between the three synoptic
gospels. On the rare occasions, both Matthew and Luke depart from their
Markan source in the same way. 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 the author of Mark
sometimes chose to follow Matthew while at other times Luke. This is
equally as possible, but the question that arises, however, is whether
this is compatible with the other data relating to the triple tradition.
By the way, 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, since a motive is lacking for this.
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],
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 print (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?’
But that you may know that the son of man has authority on earth
to forgive sins —he then said to the paralytic—
"Rise,
take up your bed and go home."
And he rose, and went away into his house. When the crowds
saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God. |
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 they came bringing to him a paralytic carried by four
men. 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." Now some of the scribes
were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this
man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God
alone?" And immediately, Jesus, perceiving in his spirit
that they questioned within themselves, said to them,
"Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to
say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to
say, ‘Rise, take up your pallet and walk?" But that you
may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive
sins—he said to the paralytic— I say to you,
‘Rise, take up your pallet and go home’."
And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet
and went out before them all;
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, "Man, your sins are forgiven." And
the scribes and Pharisees began to question, saying,
"Who is this who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins, but
God alone?"
When Jesus perceived their questioning,
he answered them,
"Why do you question in your hearts? Which is easier, to say,
‘Your sins are forgiven you’ or to say,
"Rise, and walk?
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’."
And immediately he rose before them,
and took up that one which he lay and went away into
his house, glorifying God. And amazement seized them all,
and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying,
"We have seen strange things today." |
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.
This version of Mark is called deutero-Mark and is assumed no longer
to be extant (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 the so-called Q source,
i.e., the non-Markan source[s], 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, although there are more of
these in Matthew than in Luke (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?" 11 And he answered and said, "Elijah
is coming and will restore all things; 12
but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not
recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also
the son of man is going to suffer at their hands." 13 Then the
disciples understood that he had spoken to them about John the
Baptist
|
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.
11 They asked him, saying, "Why is it that the scribes say that
Elijah must come first?" 12 And He said to them, "Elijah does
first come and restore all things. And yet how is it written
of the son of man that he will suffer many things and be treated
with contempt? 13 "But I say to you that Elijah has indeed come,
and they did to him whatever they wished, just as it is written
of him."
|
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. |
How do you explain the additions
to the triple tradition in Matthew and Luke on the two-source hypothesis?
On the two-source
hypothesis, the additions to the triple tradition in Matthew and Luke
are explained by postulating that neither the author of Matthew nor
the author of Luke used the other as a source; rather both independently
made additions to their Markan source from other another source or sources.
This explains why they do not have the same additions to the Markan
tradition. (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 to 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, 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, how would you explain that Mark's pericopes
tend to be longer than their counterparts in Matthew and Luke?
On the two-source
hypothesis, Mark's longer pericopes are 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?" 15 And
Jesus said to them,
"The sons of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom
is with them, can they?
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?" 19 And Jesus said to them, "The attendants
of the bridegroom cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them,
can they?
So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot 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." 34 And Jesus
said to them, "You cannot make the sons of the bridegroom fast
while the bridegroom is with them, can you?
|
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, 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; 5:2-3,
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, 39-40; 6:3, 4, 6, 21, 45, 49-50, 51; 7:15, 18, 24,
41; 8:4, 9-13, 17; 9:2, 28; 10:6, 16, 38-39; 11:11-12, 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 1:2-3, 12; 2:3, 25; 3:13-16, 14-16, 16-17, 21-22,
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; 10:47-48; 11:1; 12:16;
13:2)
h. In 14 instances Matthew
has both halves and Luke no parallel. (Mark 4:17; 6:1-2, 45-46; 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;
5:3-4, 5 bis; 6:25, 31, 51, 52; 7:3, 3-4, 17, 26, 33; 9:12-13, 26, 27,
33, 35, 48; 11:4; 12:23, 45; 13:1, 37; 14:52, 56-57; 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 Written 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.
2.2. The Double Tradition
Matthew and Luke have
a large amount of material in common (c. 200 verses), the so-called
double tradition; almost all of this is sayings material as opposed
to narrative. There has always been some disagreement over what should
be included in the double tradition and how to divide up its pericopes.
The following list of the double tradition, with some modifications,
derives from J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1.77-79.
2.2.1. List of the Double Tradition
| Luke
3:7-9 (1) = Matt 3:7b-10 (1)* |
The
Baptist's preaching A |
| Luke
3:16b-17 (2) = Matt 3:11b-12 (2)* |
The
Baptist's preaching B |
| Luke
4:2b-13 (3) = Matt 4:2b-11a (3)* |
Jesus'
temptation |
| Luke
6:20-23 (4) = Matt 5:3-4, 6, 11-12 (4)* |
The
Beatitudes |
| Luke
6:27-33 (5) = Matt 5:44, 39-42, 46-47 (9)* |
Love
of enemies A |
| Luke
6:35b-36 (6) = Matt 5:45, 48 (10)* |
Love
of Enemies B |
| Luke
6:37a, 38b (7) = Matt 7:1-2 (16)* |
On
Judging A |
| Luke
6:39b,c (8) = Matt 15:14b (46) |
On
Judging B |
| Luke
6:40 (9) = Matt 10:24-25a (29) |
Teacher
and student |
| Luke
6:41-42 (10) = Matt 7:3-5 (17)* |
On
Judging C |
Luke
6:43-45 (11) = Matt 7:16-20 (20)*
(see Matt 12:33-35) |
Test
of Goodness |
| Luke
6:46-49 (12) = Matt 7:21, 24-27 (22)* |
Hearers
and Doers of the Word |
| Luke
7:1b-10 (13) = Matt 8:5-10, 13 (23)* |
Cure
of the Centurion's Servant |
| Luke
7:18-23 (14) = Matt 11:2-6 (35a)* |
The
Baptist's Question |
| Luke
7:24-28 (15) = Matt 11:7-11 (35b)* |
Jesus'
Testimony to the Baptist |
| Luke
7:31-35 (16) = Matt 11:16-19 (37)* |
Jesus'
Judgment of His Generation |
| Luke
9:57-60 (17) = Matt 8:19-22 (25)* |
Three
Would-be Followers |
| Luke
10:2-12 (18) = Matt 9:37-38; 10:7-16 (26-27)* |
Mission
of the Seventy |
| Luke
10:13-15 (19) = Matt 11:21-23 (38)* |
Woes
on Galilean Towns |
| Luke
10:16 (20) = Matt 10:40 (34)* |
Disciples
as Representatives |
| Luke
10:21-22 (21) = Matt 11:25-27 (39)* |
Praise
of the Father |
| Luke
10:23b-24 (22) = Matt 13:16-17 (43) |
Blessedness
of the Disciples |
| Luke
11:2-4 (23) = Matt 6:9-13 (11) |
Lord's
Prayer |
| Luke
11:9-13 (24) = Matt 7:7-11 (18) |
Efficacy
of Prayer |
| Luke
11:14-23 (25) = Matt 12:22-30 (40)* |
Beelzebub
Controversy |
| Luke
11:24-26 (26) = Matt 13:43-45 (45) |
Return
of the Evil Spirit |
| Luke
11:29-32 (27) = Matt 12:38-42 (42)* |
Sign
of Jonah |
| Luke
11:33 (28) = Matt 5:15 (6) |
Saying
about Light |
| Luke
11:34-36 (29) = Matt 6:22-23 (13) |
Eye
as Light of Body |
| Luke
11:39-40 (30) |
=
Matt 23:25-26 (52) |
|
42-44
|
23,
6-7 |
|
46-52
|
4,
29-30, 34-35, 13 |
|
Sayings
against Pharisees |
| Luke
12:2-9 (31) = Matt 10:26-33 (30) |
Exhortation
to Fearless Confessing |
| Luke
12:10 (32) = Matt 12:32 (41) |
The
Holy Spirit A |
| Luke
12:11-12 (33) = Matt 10:19-20 (28) |
The
Holy Spirit B |
| Luke
12:22b-31 (34) = Matt 6:25-33 (15) |
Worry
About Earthy Things |
| Luke
12:33b-d, 34 (35) = Matt 6:19-21 (12) |
Treasure
in Heaven |
| Luke
12:39-40, 42b-46 (36) = Matt 24:43-51 (58) |
Sayings
on Vigilance and Faithfulness |
| Luke
12:51, 53 (37) = Matt 10:34-36 (31) |
Enigma
of Jesus' Mission |
| Luke
12:58-59 (39) = Matt 5:25-26 (7b) |
Agreement
with One's Opponents |
| Luke
13:18-21 (40) = Matt 13:31-33 (44) |
Parables
of Mustard Seed and Yeast |
| Luke
13:24 (41) = Matt 7:13-14 (19) |
The
Narrow Gate |
| Luke
13:25-27 (42) = Matt 7:22-23 (21, 59) |
Rejection
at Last Judgment |
| Luke
13:28-29 (43) = Matt 8:11-12 (24) |
Coming
into the Kingdom |
| Luke
13:34-35 (44) = Matt 23:37-39 (53) |
Lament
over Jerusalem |
| Luke
14:16-21 (45) = Matt 22:2-10 (51) |
Parable
of the Great Dinner |
| Luke
14:26-27 (46) = Matt 10:37-38 (32) |
Conditions
of Discipleship |
| Luke
14:34-35 (47) = Matt 5:13 (5) |
Parable
of Salt |
| Luke
15:4-7 (48) = Matt 18:12-14 (48) |
Parable
of Lost Sheep |
| Luke
16:13 (49) = Matt 6:24 (14) |
Servants
and Masters |
| Luke
16:16 (50) = Matt 11:12-13 (36) |
Law
and the Kingdom |
| Luke
16:17 (51) = Matt 5:18 (7a)* |
Fulfilling
the Law |
| Luke
16:18 (52) = Matt 5:32 (8)* |
On
Divorce |
| Luke
17:3b-4 (53) = Matt 18:21-22 (49) |
On
Forgiveness |
| Luke
17:5-6 (54) = Matt 17:20 (47) |
On
Faith like a Mustard Seed |
| Luke
17:23-24 (55) = Matt 24:26-27 (54)* |
Days
of the Son of Man A |
| Luke
17:26-27 (56) = Matt 24:37-38 (56)* |
Days
of the Son of Man B |
| Luke
17:33 (57) = Matt 10:39 (33) |
Days
of the Son of Man C |
| Luke
17:34-35 (58) = Matt 24:40-41 (57)* |
Days
of the Son of Man D |
| Luke
17:37b (59) = Matt 25:28 (55)* |
Days
of the Son of Man E |
| Luke
19:13, 15b-24, 26 (60) = Matt 25:14-30 (60)* |
Parable
of the Minas |
2.2.2. Appealing to “the
principle of economy in explanation,” some scholars reject the
need of postulating the existence of another hypothetical source or
sources to account for the double tradition and instead hold that the
author of Luke used Matthew as a source in addition to Mark. (No one
holds that the author of Matthew used Luke) (see A. Farrer, "On
Dispensing With Q," 58; M. Goulder, Midrash and Lexicon in Matthew;
M. Goodacre, The Case Against Q). It is argued that, only when
the position that the author of Luke used Matthew as a source is untenable,
should one posit the existence of hypothetical texts or sources. This
view is compatible with both the two-gospel or Griesbach hypothesis,
with the Augustinian hypothesis and with the “Farrar Hypothesis”
that the author of Matthew used Mark as a source and the author of Luke
used both as sources. 2.2.3.
Nevertheless, as will become evident, the data do not support such a simple
explanation. Against the postulation of Lukan dependence on Matthew,
the more reasonable explanation is to assume that Matthew and Luke independently
made use of another source or other sources of traditions about Jesus. The two-source hypothesis best
explains the data relating to the double tradition. Although an
individual datum may allow for other interpretations, taken together,
the evidence points in the direction of the two-source hypothesis. The
following data are interpreted on this hypothesis.
A. Unlike the triple tradition, verbatim agreement in the double tradition
ranges from almost 100% to much less (Why there is such a divergence
will be discussed below). Examples of significant verbatim agreement
include: 1. Luke
13:34-35 (44) = Matt 23:37-39 (53)
| Luke
13:34-35
37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets
and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to
gather (episunaxai) your children together, the way a
hen her own chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 But
I say to you, you will not see me until the time comes when
you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’."
|
Matt
23:37-39
34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills
the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted
to gather (episunagagein) your children together, just
as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not
have it! 35 Behold, your house is left to you desolate; for
I say to you, from now on you will not see me until you say,
‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’." |
2. Luke 10:13-15 (19) = Matt 11:21-23 (38)
| Luke
10:13-15
13 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!
For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed
in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting
in sackcloth and ashes. 14 Indeed it will be more bearable for
Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum,
will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to
Hades. |
Matt
11:21-23
21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!
If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed
in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth
and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre
and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum,
will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to
Hades. |
3. Luke 6:41-42 (10) = Matt
7:3-5 (17)
| Luke
6:41-42
41 "Why do you look at the speck that is in
your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your
own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me
take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do
not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first
take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly
to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye." |
Matt
7:3-5
3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in
your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your
eye? 4 Or how do you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck
out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5
You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then
you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's
eye." |
4. Luke 16:13 (49) = Matt
6:24 (14)
| Luke
16:13
"No servant can serve two masters; for
either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will
be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God
and wealth." |
Matt
6:24
"No one can serve two masters; for either he
will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted
to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."
|
5. Luke 11:9-13 (24) = Matthew
7:7-11 (18)
| Luke
11:9-13 (24)
And I say to you, "Ask and it will be given
to you, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened
to you. For the one who asks receives, the one who seeks
finds and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
And which of you [if] a son asks the father
for a fish, instead of a fish will give him a snake? And if
he asks for an egg will give a scorpion?
Thus, if you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your
children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy
Spirit to them who ask?" |
Matthew
7:7-11 (18)
"Ask and it will be given to you, seek
and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you.
For the one who asks receives, the one who seeks will find,
and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which man among
you is it whose son asks him for a bread and will give him a
stone? Or will ask for a fish and will give him a snake?
Thus, if you as evil know how to give good gifts to your children,
how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to
them who ask?" |
How would
you explain the close verbatim agreement in the double tradition on
the two source hypothesis?
On
the two-source hypothesis, close verbatim agreement in the double
tradition is explained by postulating that the authors of Matthew
and Luke had access to a source or sources of mostly sayings material,
which was unavailable to the author of Mark or at least was not used
by him. The common source(s) could be either written or oral.
The close verbatim agreement in the double tradition is, of course,
also compatible with the position that either the author of Matthew
is using Luke as a source or the author of Luke is using Matthew as
a source).
B. As already indicated,
unlike the triple tradition, verbatim agreement in the double tradition
varies greatly in extent. In some cases, pericopes in Matthew and Luke
are almost identical, as seen above, while in other cases two pericopes
are so different from each other that one is hard pressed to justify
the assumption of any sort of relation of dependence between them. In
a few cases, the differences are so great that one can legitimately
question whether one is dealing with two versions of the same tradition
at all, and not two different traditions. Any explanation of the literary
relationship between the three synoptic gospels must account for this
wide range of the extent of verbatim agreement in the double tradition.
The following are examples of lesser verbatim agreement.
1. Luke 16:16-17 (50-51)
= Matthew 5:18; 11:12-13 (7a, 36,)
| Luke
16:16-17
16 The law and the prophets are until John.
From then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed and all force
their way into it.
17 It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one
stroke of the law to fall.
|
Matthew
11:12-13; 5:18
11:12-13 From the days of John the Baptist
until now, the kingdom of heaven is advancing forcefully and
forceful men are seizing it. For all the prophets and the law
prophesized until John.
5:18 For truly I say to you, "Until heaven and earth pass away,
an iota and a stroke will in no way pass away until all is accomplished.
|
2. Luke 17:5-6 (54) = Matt 17:20 (47)
| Luke
17:5-6
5 The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase
our faith!" 6 And the Lord said,
"If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this
sycamore tree, ‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and
it would obey you." |
Matt
17:20 And
he said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for
truly I say to you,
if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to
this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,' and it will move;
and nothing will be impossible to you."
|
3. Luke 13:24 (41) = Matt 7:13-14 (19); Luke 13:25-28 (42) = Matt
7:22-23 (21, 59)
| Luke
13:24; 13:25-28
24 "Strive to enter through the narrow door;
because many,
I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
25 Once the head of the house gets up and shuts
the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door,
saying, "Lord, open up to us'; then he will answer and say to
you, "I do not know where you are from." 26 Then you will begin
to say, "We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in
our streets"; 27 and he will say, "I tell you, I do not know
where you are from; depart from me, all you evildoers."
28 In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets
in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out. |
Matt
7:13-14; 7:22-23
13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the
gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction,
and there are many who enter through it. 14 Because the gate
is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there
are few who find it.
22 "Many will say to Me on that day,
"Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name
cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; be separated
from me, you who practice lawlessness." |
4. Luke 15:4-7 (48) = Matt 18:12-14 (48)
| Luke
15:4-7
4 "What man among you, if he has a hundred
sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine
in the field and go after the one which is lost until he finds
it? 5 When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and
his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have
found my sheep that was lost!’ 7 I tell you that in the same
way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents
than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
|
Matt
18:12-14
12 "How does it seem to you? If any man has
a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not
leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for
the one that is straying? 13 If it turns out that he finds it,
truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine
which have not gone astray.
14 So it is not the will of your Father who
is in heaven that one of these little ones perish. |
5. Luke 11:2-4 (23) = Matt 6:9-13 (11)
| Luke
11:2-4
2 And he said to them, "When you pray,
say: ‘Father,
may your name be holy. May your kingdom come.
3 Give us each day our daily bread. 4 And forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation’." |
Matt
6:9-13
9 Pray, then, in this way: "Our Father
who is in heaven,
may your name be holy. 10 May your kingdom come. May your will
be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our
daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven
our debtors. 13 And do not lead us into temptation,
but deliver us from evil." |
In part,
the differences between the Matthean and Lukan versions of non-Markan
pericopes (the double tradition) may be explained on the hypothesis
of Matthean and Lukan redactional activity. In other words, either Matthew
or Luke (or both) may have made editorial changes to a hypothetical
original source, which is not unreasonable to assume, since both made
such changes to their Markan source. Redactional activity, however,
cannot explain all the differences. On the two-source hypothesis, how
else would you explain the differences in wording in some of the pericopes
from the double tradition? Why should the fact of the wide range of
verbatim agreement in the double tradition count against the acceptance
of the view that the author of Luke used Matthew as a source or that
the author of Matthew used Luke as a source?
The fact
that agreement between Matthew and Luke in the double tradition varies
so greatly seems to indicate that Matthew and Luke did not all the time
have access to the same versions of pericopes, for a motive is lacking
for such a variable and inconsistent redaction of a common source. Neither
Matthew nor Luke handles the Markan source in this way. This then counts
against the view that the author of Luke used Matthew as a source or
that the author of Matthew used Luke as a source. For why would the
author of Luke sometimes copy Matthew almost word for word, while at
other times exercise such remarkable redactional liberty, and vice versa?
The divergence
in the extent of verbatim agreement in the double tradition also seems
to preclude holding that there was a single document to which Matthew
and Luke each had access, conventionally called the Q-source (Spruche-Quelle
or Sayings Source), even when one posits the existence of a Matthean
and Lukan version of this hypothetical source, known as QMatt
and QLuke. (If one allows for too
many differences between its two rescensions, QMatt
and QLuke, the Q-source is no longer
a single document but has become two overlapping collections of traditions.)
The widely divergent verbatim agreement requires a less simple explanation
than that Matthew and Luke independently made use of the same written
source, since there is no credible explanation as to why Matthew and/or
Luke would use this document in such an inconsistent manner.
Many
of the differences between pericopes of the double tradition probably
result from there being more than one written or oral sayings collections
with different versions of the same saying and with different, but similar
sayings. In addition,
it must be remembered that there is no direct evidence that this hypothetical
document ever existed: no manuscript evidence or references to it in
other text exists. Things become even more complicated when the Q-source
is "excavated" and allegedly it is discovered to have three
layers: a sapiential layer composed of a Chriae Collection, six "wisdom
speeches" (Q-1) and a second apocalyptic layer consisting of five
judgment speeches (Q-2), all of which is then later revised (Q-3) (Kloppenberg).
But if there is insufficient evidence for the existence of the Q-source
how much less is there for its evolution as a document. For
this reason, what scholars refer to as the Q-source should be understood
merely as a convenient way of referring to non-Markan traditions about
Jesus available to Matthew and Luke either orally or as written sources.
C. In Matthew most of the
double tradition is found in five teaching sections (5:1-7:27; 10:5-42;
13:3-52; 18:3-35; 23:2-25:46), whereas in Luke it occurs in two blocks,
one large (9:51-18:14) and one small (6:20-8:2). The order of the appearance
of the double tradition in Matthew and Luke varies greatly. In other
words, the double tradition in Matthew and Luke exists in very different
relations to the triple tradition, which, as was already seen, tends
to share a common order of pericopes. Nevertheless, the order of the
double tradition is not completely random: there is discernible what
could be interpreted as traces of a common order of the double tradition
in Matthew and Luke. First, a few, shorter common sequences of material
exist in the double tradition, especially at the beginning and the end
of the gospels. (Those pericopes in Matthew and Luke that have a common
order or nearly a common order are marked with an asterisk in the list
of double tradition above.) Second, in Matthew's list the larger numbers
tend to be towards the end of the gospel and the smaller numbers tend
to be towards the beginning, which, on the assumption that Luke did
not make use of Matthew's gospel as a source, may be interpreted to
mean that some of the double material had a common order that
still vaguely survives. (For example, the average of the first ten pericopes
from the double tradition in Matthew is 13.7, whereas the average of
the last ten pericopes is 42.6.) (See Fitzmyer, The Gospel according
to Luke, 1.75-81; Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament,
39-40; Stein, The Synoptic Problem, 104-107.) On the two-source
hypothesis, this could be explained by positing that Matthew and Luke
independently made use of both unordered and partially-ordered
written or oral sayings-sources. Matthew and Luke combined the mostly
sayings from these sources with their Markan source in different ways,
so that there remain only traces of whatever original order existed.
This hypothesis probably best accounts for the great variation in the
order of the double tradition and the traces of a common order in it.
If this is not the correct explanation, then what happened to produce
the result that now exists is historically irrecoverable without further
evidence.
As already
indicated, some advocates of Markan priority hold that the double tradition
existed as a single document, the so-called Q-source. It is often claimed
that the order of the double tradition in Luke most accurately reflects
the original order of the pericopes in the Q-source, the hypothetical
document assumed to be the source of the double tradition, whereas Matthew
is supposed to have had little regard for the original order of this
document. This allows one to explain why there is such little agreement
in the order of the double tradition without calling into question the
existence of a single document to which both Matthew and Luke had access.
But the fact that there is substantial agreement in the order of the
triple tradition but hardly any agreement in the order of the double
tradition seems to preclude holding such a position, since a motive
is lacking for Matthew to change so extensively the order of
this hypothetical document when he does not handle his Markan source
in this way. Even Matthew's tendency to combine his other sources with
Markan material and the fact that the double tradition is composed largely
of isolated sayings cannot explain the lack of a common order of the
double tradition if it once existed as a single document: one would
still expect to see more of a common order in the double tradition.
Besides, it is questionable whether, even assuming that the Q-source
really did exist, there is enough evidence to conclude that the order
of the double tradition in Luke reflects the original order of the pericopes
in that hypothetical document. Really, only Luke's tendency to keep
his Markan and non-Markan sources separate would lead one to believe
that he would retain the original order of the Q-source, but surely
this is insufficient evidence to support such a conclusion (contrary
to Streeter, "On the Original Order of Q," Oxford Studies
in the Synoptic Problem). It must also be borne in mind that some
of the pericopes in the double tradition chronologically belong earlier
or later in relation to the Markan framework. It makes sense to place
"The Baptist's preaching" and "Jesus' temptation"
at the beginning and "Lament over Jerusalem" and "Days
of the Son of Man" towards the end. This could account for some
of the traces of a common order in the double tradition.
V. Taylor
argues that in evaluating the order of Q in Matthew and Luke, one must
take into account Matthew’s redactional method of organizing his teaching
material into five units ("The Order of Q,"
JTS NS 4 (1953) 27-31; "The Original Order of Q," in New
Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson). He proposes
that, as he was writing his gospel, the author of Matthew scanned all
or portions of the hypothetical Q-source for useful material, inserting
it into his teaching sections. Thus one should find a greater common
order in the double tradition found in Matthew and Luke if one compares
each of Matthew’s five teaching units to the Lukan order than if one
compares the Lukan order to the Matthean order as a whole. (This works
only if one can assume, as many do, that the double tradition in Luke
is close to the original order of pericopes in Q.) Examples include:
( ) = passages in Matthew
that interrupt sequence in Luke
1. Matthew 5-7
| Luke |
Matthew
5-7 |
| 6:20-23 |
5:3-6,
11-12 |
| 6:27-30 |
5:39b-42 |
| 6:31 |
(7:12) |
| 6:32-36 |
5:44-48 |
| 6:37-38 |
7:1-2 |
| 6:41-42 |
7:3-5 |
| 6:43-45 |
7:16-20 |
| 6:46 |
7:21 |
| 6:47-49 |
7:24-27 |
| --------------------------------------------------------- |
--------------------------------------------------------- |
| 11:2-4 |
6:9-13 |
| 11:9-13 |
(7:7-11) |
| 11:33 |
(5:15) |
| 11:34-35 |
6:22-23 |
| 12:22-31 |
6:25-33 |
| 12:33b,
34 |
(6:20-21) |
| 12:57-59 |
(5:25-26) |
| 13:23-24 |
7:13-14 |
| 13:25-27 |
7:22-23 |
| 14:34-35 |
(5:13) |
| 16:13 |
(6:24) |
| 16:17 |
(5:18) |
| 16:18 |
(5:32) |
2. Matthew 10
| Luke |
Matthew |
| 6:40 |
(10:24-25) |
| 10:2 |
9:37-38 |
| 10:3-12 |
10:9-16 |
| 10:16 |
(10:40) |
| 12:2-3 |
10:26-27 |
| 12:4-7 |
10:28-31 |
| 12:8-9 |
10:32-33 |
| 12:11-12 |
(10:19-20) |
| 12:51-53 |
10:34-36 |
| 14:26-27 |
10:37-38 |
| 17:33 |
10:39 |
Whether
Taylor has proven that there was an original order of pericopes in the
double tradition is open to debate. He has shown that some common order
exists, establishing that at least some of the non-Markan material available
to Matthew and Luke may have been in a set order. This provides some
support to the hypothesis that the double tradition existed as a single
document. But it is important to note that Taylor's argument is circular,
insofar as he presupposes that Matthew made use of the so-called Q-source
in the manner that he describes. In general, in spite of Taylor's proposal,
there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there was a single document
on which the authors of Matthew and Luke were dependent.
The difference
in the order of the appearance of the double tradition in Matthew and
Luke and in its respective relation to the triple tradition is an obstacle
to the Griesbach or two gospel hypothesis, which assumes that Luke used
Matthew as a source, since this means Luke "must then have proceeded
with the utmost care to tear every little piece of non-Markan material
he desired to use from the context of Mark in which it appeared in Matthew...in
order to re-insert it into a different context of Mark having no special
appropriateness" (Streeter, The Four Gospels, 183). A
motive for the redactional method of the author of Luke is lacking:
why would he follow Matthew very closely when Matthew agrees with the
Markan order, but then completely and arbitrarily rearrange the material
that is unique to Matthew? In other words, it is difficult to explain
why Luke would mostly follow the order of the pericopes that Mark and
Matthew have in common (triple tradition), but rarely follow the order
of the pericopes that Matthew alone has (double tradition). That he
would operate in this manner seems unlikely.
D.
Some of the double tradition in both Matthew and Luke is conjoined with
Markan material. In such cases, Matthew and Luke have parallel material
that is absent from Mark and sometimes Matthew and Luke have minor agreements
against Mark. These cases are as follows:
1. Mark 1:2-6 = Matt 3:1-10 = Luke 3:1-9 (Luke 3:7-9 [1] = Matt 3:7-10;
11b-12 [2]) John the Baptist's preaching
Matt
3:1-10
1 Now in those days John the Baptist came,
preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 “Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
3 For this is the one referred to by
Isaiah the prophet when he said,
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’”
4 Now John
himself had a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around
his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey [see Mark
1:6].
5 Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all
the district around the Jordan; 6 and they were being
baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their
sins.
7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for
baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you
to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruit
in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can
say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say
to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children
to Abraham. 10 The axe is already laid at the root of
the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit
is cut down and thrown into the fire.
|
Mark
1:2-6
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “Behold I send my messenger
ahead of you, who will prepare your way; 3 the voice of one crying
in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’.”
4 John
the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of
repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
5 And all
the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people
of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan
River, confessing their sins.
6 John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt
around his waist, and eating locusts and wild honey.
|
Luke
3:1-9
1Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea,
and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was
tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias
was tetrarch of Abilene, 2 in the high priesthood of Annas and
Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias,
in the wilderness. 3 And he came into all the district
around the Jordan,
preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins
[see Mark 1:4];
4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ready the way
of the Lord, make his paths straight. 5 Every ravine will
be filled and every mountain and hill will be brought low; the
crooked will become straight, and the rough roads smooth; 6
and all flesh will see the salvation of God.”
7 So he
began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized
by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the
wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits in keeping with
repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have
Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones
God is able to raise up children to Abraham.
9 Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so
every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown
into the fire.”
|
Note: Matthew and Luke agree
in having a reference to Mal 3:1 in Luke 7:24-28 (15) = Matt 11:7-11
(35b)
2. Mark 1:12-13 = Matt 4:1-11 = Luke 4:1-13 (Luke 4:2b-13 [3] = Matt
4:2b-11 [3]) Jesus' temptation (Underlined = minor agreements between
Matthew and Luke)
| Matt
4:1-11
1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit
into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
2 And after he had fasted forty days
and forty nights, he then became hungry. 3 And the tempter
came and said to him, “If you are the son of God, command that
these stones become bread.” 4 But he answered and said,
"It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but
on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God'."
5 Then the devil took him into the holy city and had Him stand
on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, “If You are
the son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ‘He
will command his angels concerning you’ and ‘On their hands
they will bear you up, so that you will not strike your foot
against a stone’.” 7 Jesus said to him, “On the other
hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to
the test’.” 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high
mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their
glory; 9 and he said to him, “All these things I will
give you, if you fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus
said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall
worship the Lord your God, and serve him only’.” 11
Then the devil left him;
and behold, angels came and began to minister to him.
|
Mark
1:12-13
12 Immediately the Spirit drives him out into
the wilderness. 13 And he was in the wilderness forty
days being tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts,
and the
angels were ministering to him.
|
Luke
4:1-13
1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned
from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the
wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil.
And he ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended,
he became hungry. 3 And the devil said to him, “If
you are the son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”
4 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, 'Man shall not live
on bread alone'.” 5 And he led him up and showed him all
the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the
devil said to him, “I will give you all this domain and its
glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever
I wish. 7 Therefore if you worship before me, it shall
all be yours.” 8 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You
shall worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”
9And he led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the pinnacle
of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the son of God,
throw Yourself down from here, 10 for it is written, ‘He will
command his angles concerning you to guard you,’
11 and, ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will
not strike your foot against a stone’.” 12 And Jesus answered
and said to him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your
God to the test’.” 13 When the devil had finished every
temptation, he left him until an opportune time. |
On the two-source hypothesis,
how would you explain that some of the double tradition in both Matthew
and Luke is conjoined with Markan material? How would you account for
the fact that Matthew and Luke have parallel material that is absent
from Mark and have minor agreements against Mark?
On the two-source
hypothesis, the conjoining of double tradition with Markan material
in Matthew and Luke is explained on the assumption that there were overlaps
in content between Mark and so-called Q, the non-Markan source(s), and
that the latter, in some cases, had more material than what was in the
Markan version. Consequently, the authors of Matthew and Luke independently
inserted material from the non-Markan source(s) into the parallel from
their Markan source. This explains the agreements in material in Matthew
and Luke that is absent from Mark. The authors of Matthew and Luke sometimes
altered their Markan source in dependence on the non-Markan version
of a tradition, which explains the minor agreements between Matthew
and Luke against Mark.
On the
Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis (and the Augustinian hypothesis),
agreements in content between Matthew and Luke against Mark resulted
from Luke’s use of Matthew. Whether the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew,
however, is supportable in light of all the data is questionable.
E. Some of the double
tradition in Matthew is conjoined with Markan material, but not in Luke.
Examples include:
1. Mark 3:20-27 = Matt 12:22-30
(Matt 12:22-23, 27-28, 30 = Luke 11:14, 19-20, 23) Beelzebub Controversy
(17)
2. Mark 4:10-12 = Matt 13:10-17
(Matt 13:16-17 = Luke 10:23b-24) Purpose of the parables (21)
3. Mark 4:30-32 = Matt 13:31-33
(Matt 13:33 = Luke 13:20-21) Parable of leaven (attached to parable
of mustard seed) (27)
4. Mark 6:6b-13 = Matt 9:35a;
10:1, 5-15 (Matt 9:37-38; 10:7-16 contains parallels to material in
Luke 10:2-12) The sending out of the disciples (33)
5. Mark 7:1-23 = Matt 15:1-20
(Matt 15:14b = Luke 6:39b,c) The tradition of the elders (39)
6. Mark 9:14-29 = Matt 17:14-21
(Matt 17:20 = Luke 17:5-6) Exorcism of boy (50)
7. Mark 12:38-40 = Matt 23:1-35
(Matt 23:4, 13, 23, 25-26, 27a, 29, 31-32, 34a, 35-36 = Luke 11:46,
52, 42, 39b-41, 44, 47a, 47b-48, 49, 50-51) Warning about the scribes
(71)
8. Mark 13:32-37 = Matt 24:36-44
(Matt 24:37-38, 40-41 = Luke 17:26-27, 34-35; Matt 24:43-44 = Luke 12:39-40)
Exhortation to be watchful (80)
On the
two-source hypothesis, this is explained on the supposition that Matthew
had a greater tendency to integrate material from his non-Markan sources
into Markan pericopes, whereas Luke's tendency was to keep this material
separate from the Markan.
On the
Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis, the author of Luke separated pericopes
conjoined in Matthew, and placed some of them in different contexts.
Mark then omitted the pericopes from his two sources, Matthew and Luke,
that were conjoined in Matthew but separated in Luke. A motive for such
a redactional method, however, is lacking.
F.
Luke has some pericopes that are equivalent to pericopes in Mark and
Matthew, but are in a different order (see Appendix
A: The Order of the Triple Tradition in the Synoptic Gospels). In
some cases there is little verbatim agreement with the Markan parallel
(**), whereas others have more agreement. These include: Luke **4:16-30
= Mark 6:1-6a (Rejection at Nazareth); **Luke 5:1-11 = Mark 1:16-20
(Calling of four fishermen); Luke 10:25-28 = Mark 12:28-34 (The greatest
commandment); Luke 11:14-23 = Mark 3:20-27 (Jesus and Beelzebub); **Luke
12:10 = Mark 3:29-30 (The sin against the Holy Spirit); Luke 13:18-19
= Mark 4:30-32 (Parable of mustard seed); Luke 17:2 = Mark 9:42-50 (Sayings).
On the
two-source hypothesis, this is explained by postulating that the author
of Luke tended to prefer his non-Markan source(s), so that when faced
with two versions of a tradition, he opted for the non-Markan. Luke
omitted the Markan version and inserted the non-Markan version into
his Markan source at a place he deemed appropriate. In these cases,
the non-Markan versions favored by Luke had more or less verbatim agreement
with the Markan version.
On the
Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis, the author of Luke is responsible
for omitting from Matthew certain perciopes and inserting other equivalent
pericopes in different contexts. Faced with these divergent two sources,
Mark follows Matthew, omitting the Lukan version altogether. Although
this is possible, given all the evidence the two source hypothesis is
preferable.
G. Some of the cases in which
Luke has some pericopes that are equivalent to pericopes in Mark and
Matthew, but in a different order, are such that Luke's pericopes have
a greater number of minor agreements with Matthew against Mark than
usual. The result is that Matthew is the middle term in the relationship
between the synoptic writers: Matthew is closer to Mark and Luke than
they are to each other. These cases are as follows (Underline = Verbatim
agreement between Matthew and Luke; Bold = Verbatim agreement between
Matthew and Mark):
1. Mark 12:28-34 = Matt 22:34-40;
*Luke 10:25-28 (The Greatest Commandment)
Matt
22:34-40
34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees,
they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer,
asked Him a question, testing him (peirazon auton),
36 "Teacher, which is the great
commandment in the Law?"
37 And he said to him, "‘You shall love the Lord your God with
all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your mind’.
38 This is the great and foremost
commandment.
39 The second is like this, ‘You shall
love your neighbor as yourself’. 40 On these two
commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
|
Mark
12:28-34
28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing
that he had answered them well, asked him,
"Which commandment is the foremost of all?"
29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord
our God is one Lord; 30 And you shall love the Lord your God
from all your heart, and from all your soul, and from all your
mind, and from all your strength’.
31 The second is this ‘You shall love your neighbor
as yourself’. There is no other commandment greater than
these."
32 The scribe said to him, "Right, Teacher;
you have truly stated that he is one, and there is no one else
besides him; 33 and to love him with all the heart and with
all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love
one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings
and sacrifices." 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently,
He said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God.'"
After that, no one would venture to ask him any more questions.
|
*Luke
10:25-28
25 And a lawyer stood up and tested him (epeirazon
auton), saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit
eternal life?" 26 And he said to him, ‘What is written in the
Law? How does it read to you?’
27 And he answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all
your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength,
and with all your mind;
and your neighbor as yourself’
28 And He said to him, "You have answered
correctly; do this and you will live." |
2. Mark 3:20-30 = Matt 12:22-37; *Luke 11:14-23 (Jesus and Beelzebub);
Mark 3:29-30 = Matt 12:31-32; *Luke 12:10 (The sin against the Holy
Spirit); Luke 6:43-45
| Matt
12:22-37
22
Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was
brought to Jesus, and he healed him, so that the mute man
spoke and saw. 23 The crowds were stunned,
and were saying, "This
man cannot be the Son of David, can he?"
24 But when the Pharisees
heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only
by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."
25 And knowing their thoughts he said to them,
"Any kingdom
divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or
household divided against itself will not stand.
26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself;
how then will his kingdom stand?
27 If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons
cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28
But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the
kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 Or how can
anyone enter the strong man's house and carry
off his property, unless he first binds the strong
man? And then he will plunder his house.
30 He who is not with me is against me; and he who does not
gather with me scatters. 31 Therefore I say to you,
any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy
against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
32 Whoever speaks
a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but
whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven
him, either in this age or in the age to come.
33
Either make the tree good and its fruit good or
the tree bad and the fruit bad. For a tree is
known by its fruit. 34 Brood of vipers! How can you,
being evil, speak good things, for from the fullness of the
heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man out of the good treasure
generates good things, and the evil man from the evil
treasure (of his heart) generates evil things.
36 But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak,
they will give an account of that word in the day of judgment.
37 For by your words you will be justified and by your words
you will be condemned."
(see Matt 7:16-20)
|
Mark
3:20-30
20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an
extent that they could not even eat a meal. 21 When his own
people heard of this, they went out to take custody of him;
for they were saying, "He has lost his senses."
22 The scribes who came
down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul,
"and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the
demons."
23 And he called them to himself and was saying to them in parables,
"How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided
against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a household
is divided against itself, that house will not
be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself
and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished.
27 But no one can enter the strong man's house
and plunder his property unless he first binds the
strong man, and then he will plunder his house.
28 Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven
the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;
29 but whoever blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness,
but is guilty of an eternal sin"—30 because they were
saying, "He has an unclean spirit."
|
*
Luke 11:14-23
14
And he was casting out a demon, and it was mute; when
the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke; and the
crowds were amazed.
15 But some of them
said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler
of the demons." 16 Others, to test him, were demanding
of him a sign from heaven. 17 But knowing their thinking,
he said to them,
"Any
kingdom divided against itself is laid waste;
and a house against itself falls.
18 If Satan also is
divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?
For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul.
19 And if I by Beelzebul
cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For
this reason they will be your judges. 20 But if I cast out demons
by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come
upon you. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his
own house, his possessions are undisturbed. 22 But when someone
stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away
from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes
his plunder.
23 He who is not
with me is against me; and he who does not gather with me, scatters."
12:10 "And everyone
who speaks a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven
him; but
to one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not
be forgiven."
6:43 "For a good
tree does not produce bad fruit, nor does a bad
tree produce good fruit. 44 For every tree is
known by its own fruit. For not from thorns do they
gather figs, nor do they pick grapes from a thorn-bush. 45 The
good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth
good, and the evil man from the evil (treasure of his
heart) brings forth evil; for out of the fullness of heart his
mouth speaks."
|
3. Mark 4:30-32 = Matt 13:31-32; Luke 13:18-19 (Parable of mustard seed)
| Matt
13:31-32
31
He presented another parable to them, saying,
"The
Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took
and sowed in his field; 32 and this is smaller than
all the seeds,
but when it is full
grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes
a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in
its branches." |
Mark
4:30-32
30
And he said, "How shall we picture the Kngdom of God, or
by what parable shall we present it? 31 It is like a mustard
seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller
than all the seeds that are upon the soil, 32 yet when
it is sown, it grows larger than all the garden plants
up and becomes and forms large branches; so that the birds
of the air can nest under its shade." |
Luke
13:18-19
18
So he was saying, "What is the Kingdom of God like, and
to what shall I compare it? 19 It is like a mustard seed, which
a man took and threw into his own garden;
and it grew
and became a tree,
and the birds of the air nested in its branches."
|
4. Mark 9:42-50 (9:42) = Matthew 18:6-9 (18:6-7); *Luke 17: 1-2 (Sayings)
| Matthew
18:6-9 (18:6-7)
6
"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe
in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have
a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned
in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of its stumbling
blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling
blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the
stumbling block comes!" |
Mark
9:42-50 (9:42)
42
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe
to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy
millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea."
|
Luke
17: 1-2
1
He said to his disciples,
"It
is impossible
that stumbling blocks not come, but woe to him
through whom it comes!
2 It would be better
for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were
thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little
ones to stumble." |
On the two-source hypothesis,
how do you explain the fact some of the pericopes in Luke that are equivalent
to pericopes in Mark and Matthew, but in a different order, are such
that Luke's pericopes have a greater number of minor agreements with
Matthew against Mark than usual, so that Matthew becomes the middle
term in the relationship between the synoptic writers?
On the two-source
hypothesis, this phenomenon is explained by postulating that it was
Matthew's redactional tendency to retain a Markan pericope in its Markan
order, but to make alterations to the Markan version in dependence on
the non-Markan version. This produced minor agreements between Matthew
and Luke against Mark, with the result that Matthew became the middle
term between the other two.
On the
Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis, the minor agreements in these instances
result from Luke’s sometime adoption of Matthew’s wording in his use
of Matthew and Mark’s decision to depart at times from both of his sources,
Matthew and Luke when they agree in wording. Although this explanation
is the simplest, as already explained, other evidence suggests that
Luke did not use Matthew as a source.
H. There are some cases where
a Matthean pericope in the triple tradition has verbatim agreement with
material in more than one place either in Luke and Mark or just in Luke.
In such cases, there is a greater frequency of minor agreements between
Matthew and Luke against Mark and agreements between Matthew and Luke
in material that is absent from Mark.
1. Matt 12:22-37 (see 9:32-34)
= Mark 3:22-30 = Luke 11:14-15, 17-23; 12:10; 6:43-45 (The Beelzebub
controversy and the sin against the Holy Spirit in Matthew/Mark)
See Above
2. Matt 10:1-16 = Mark 6:7-11; 3:13-19 = Luke 9:1-5; 6:12-16; 10:2-12
| Matt
10:1-16
1
And having summoned his twelve disciples, he gave them authority
over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every
kind of disease and every kind of sickness.
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The
first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother;
and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3
Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector;
James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot,
and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him.
5 These twelve Jesus sent after instructing them: "Do
not go in the way of the gentiles, and do not enter any city
of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel. 7 And as you go, proclaim, saying,
'The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.' 8 Heal the sick,
raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons.
Freely you received,
freely give. 9 Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper
for your money belts, 10 or a bag for your journey, or
even two coats, or sandals, or a staff;
for the worker is worthy of his support.
11 And whatever city
or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay
at his house until you leave that city. 12 As you enter
the house, give it your greeting. 13 If the house is worthy,
give it your peace. But if it is not worthy, let
your peace come back upon you.
14 Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you
go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off
your feet.
15 Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for
the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day
of judgment than for that city.
16
Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves;
so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves."
|
Mark
6:7-11; 3:13-19
6:7
And he summons the twelve and began to send them out two by
two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits;
3:13
And we went up on the mountain and summoned those whom he himself
wanted, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve,
in order that they might be with him and that he might send
them out to preach, 15 and to have authority to cast out the
demons.
16 And he appointed
the twelve:
Simon
(to whom He gave the name Peter), 17 and James, the son of Zebedee,
and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges,
which means, "Sons of Thunder"); 18 and Andrew, and
Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James
the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot; 19
and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him
6:8 and he instructed them that they should take nothing for
their journey, except a mere staff —no bread, no bag, no
money in their belt—
9 but to wear sandals;
and he added, "Do not put on two tunics."
10 And he said to them,
"Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave
town.
11
Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you
go out from there, shake the dirt off the soles of your feet
for a testimony against them."
|
Luke
9:1-5; 6:12-16; 10:2-12
9:1
And having called the twelve together, he gave them power and
authority over all the demons and to heal diseases.
6:12
It was at this time that he went off to the mountain to pray,
and He spent the whole night in prayer to God. 13 And
when day came, he called his disciples to him[self] and chose
twelve of them, whom he also named as apostles: 14
Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother;
and James and John; and Philip and Bartholomew; 15 and Matthew
and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called
the Zealot; 16 Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who
became a traitor.
9:2 And he sent
them out
to proclaim the Kingdom of God and to perform healing.
10:9 and heal those
in it who are sick, and say to them, "The Kingdom of God
has come near to you."
9:3 And he said to them,
"Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a
bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece."
10:4 "Carry no
money belt, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way.
10:7b for the laborer
is worthy of his wages."
9:4 "Whatever house
you enter, stay there until you leave that city."
10:5 "Whatever
house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house.'
6 If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on
him; but if not, it will return upon you. 7a Stay
in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; Do not
keep moving from house to house. 8 Whatever city you enter
and they receive you, eat what is set before you."
9:5 "And as for
those who do not receive you, as you go out from that city,
shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them."
10:10 "But whatever
city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its
streets and say, 11 'Even the dust of your city which clings
to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure
of this, that the Kingdom of God has come near.'
10:12 I say to you,
it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom
than for that city."
10:2
And he was saying to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but
the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest
to send out laborers into his harvest. 3 Go; behold, I send
you as lambs in the midst of wolves."
|
(Matthew combines material
from three pericopes, two of which are found in Luke and Mark separated
from each other, and one of which is found Luke separated from the other
two. In other words, in Matt 10:1-16, there are parallels to material
in Mark 3:13-19 = Luke 6:12-16; Mark 6:7-11 = Luke 9:1-5; Luke 10:2-12.)
3. Matt 23:1-36 = Mark 12:37b-40 = Luke 20:45-47; 11:37-54 (The Denouncing
of the Scribes)
On the
two-source hypothesis, how do you explain the fact there are some cases
where a Matthean pericope in the triple tradition has verbatim agreement
with material in more than one place either in Luke and Mark or just
in Luke and that in such cases, there is a greater frequency of minor
agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark and agreements between
Matthew and Luke in material that is absent from Mark?
On the two-source
hypothesis, this phenomenon is explained by postulating that Matthew
changed the Markan order of pericopes and combined Markan material with
non-Markan material. Luke tended to follow the Markan order more closely
and keep non-Markan material separate from Markan. This explains why
material that is in more than one place in Luke and/or Mark is found
together in Matthew. In addition, Matthew made alterations to his Markan
version in dependence on a parallel or similar tradition from the non-Markan
source(s), the so-called Q source. This explains the minor agreements
between Matthew and Luke, for Luke tended to prefer the non-Markan version
of a tradition; it also explains why Matthew and Luke have material
in common that is absent from Mark: both independently had access to
other sources of gospel traditions.
On the
Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis, Luke is responsible for the dismantling
of collections of pericopes in Matthew and the placement of some of
these in other contexts. Mark then follows Luke. Again, although this
is possible, overall the evidence suggests Markan priority.
I.
There exist doublets in Luke and Matthew. (Doublets are two literarily
independent versions of the same saying or narrative.) Of special interest
are those instances where there are two versions of a saying in Matthew
and Luke, one belonging to the triple tradition, while the other belonging
to the double tradition. Kümmel lists these as follows (Einleitung
in das Neue Testament, 40-41). (Hawkins has a more complete list
of all the suspected doublets in Matthew and Luke [Horae Synopticae,
80-107].) Examples include:
1. Mark 4:25 = Matt 13:12 = Luke 8:18
Luke 19:26
= Matt 25:29
(Each occurs in the parable
chapter, but Matthew’s version is found earlier than Mark and Luke)
| Matt
13:12
"For whosoever has, to him it will be given,
and he will be in abundance; but whoever does not have, even
what he has shall be taken away from him." |
Mark
4:25
"For the one who has, to him it will be given;
and the one who does not have, it will be taken
from him." |
Luke
8:18
"So take care how you listen; for whoever has,
to him it will be given; and whoever does not have, even what
he thinks he has shall be taken away from him." |
| Luke
19:26
"I tell you that to all who have, it shall
be given, but the one who does not have, even what he does have
shall be taken away from [him]." |
Matt
25:29
"For to all who have, it shall be given, and
it he will be in abundance; but from the one who does not have,
even what he does have shall be taken away." |
2. Mark 8:34-35 = Matt 16:24-25 = Luke 9:23-24
Luke 14:27; 17:33 = Matt 10:38-39
| Matt
16:24-25
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples,
"If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and
take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wishes to save
his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake
will find it." |
Mark
8:34-35
34 And he summoned the crowd with his disciples,
and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must
deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever
wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his
life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. |
Luke
9:23-24
23 And he was saying to them all,
"If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and
take up his cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever wishes
to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for
my sake, he is the one who will save it. |
| Luke
14:27; 17:33
14:27 "Whoever does not carry his own cross
and come after me cannot be my disciple."
17:33 "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever
loses his life will preserve it." |
Matt
10:38-39
38 "And he who does not take his cross and
follow after me is not worthy of me.
39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost
his life for my sake will find it." |
3. Mark 8:38 = Matt 16:27 = Luke 9:26
Luke 12:8-9
= Matt 10:32-33
Matt
16:27
"For the son of man is going to come in the
glory of his Father with his angels, and will then repay every
man according to his deeds." |
Mark
8:38
"For whoever is ashamed of me and my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation,
the son of man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in
the glory of his Father with the holy angels." |
Luke
9:26
"For who is ashamed of me and my words,
the son of man will be ashamed of this one
when he comes in his glory, and the glory of the Father and
of the holy angels.
|
Luke
12:8-9
8 "And I say to you, whoever confesses me before men, the son
of man will confess him also before the angels of God; 9 but [he]
who, having denied me before men, will be denied before the angels
of God. |
Matt
10:32-33
32 "Therefore who confesses me before men, I will also confess
him before my Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever, having
denied me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who
is in heaven." |
4. Mark 13:9, 13 = Matt 24:9, 13 = Luke 21:12, 17, 19
Luke 12:11-12
= Matt 10:19-20, 22
Matt
24:9, 13
9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation,
and will kill you,
and you will be hated by all nations because
of my name.
13 "But the one who endures to the end, he
will be saved." |
Mark
13:9, 13
9 ‘But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts,
and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand
before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them.
13 You will be hated by all because of my name,
but the one who endures to the end, he will
be saved. |
Luke
21:12, 17, 19
12 "But before all these things, they will
lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you
to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and
governors for my name's sake.
17 and you will be hated by all because of
my name.
19 By your endurance you will gain your lives."
|
| Luke
12:11-12
11 "When they bring you before the synagogues
and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or
what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say;
12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what
you ought to say." |
Matt
10:19-20, 22
19 "But when they hand you over, do not worry
about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in
that hour what you are to say. 20 For it is not you who speak,
but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.
22 You will be hated by all because of my name, but it is the
one who has endured to the end who will be saved. |
On the
two-source hypothesis, the existence of doublets is explained by postulating
overlaps in content between Mark and the so-called Q source, the non-Markan
source or sources; sometimes Matthew and Luke include both versions
of a tradition from their sources. Whether there was ever any relationship
of dependence between Mark and the source or sources—in whatever
form they took—that stand behind the double tradition is debated
and is probably unanswerable without further evidence.
On the
Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis, Matthew includes doublets and Luke
follows him in this, but Mark chooses to eliminate doublets. Although
either explanation is possible, overall the evidence points in the direction
of Markan priority.
J. Possible Indications that
the Author of Luke Used Matthew
There are some data that
can be construed as evidence that the author of Luke used Matthew. This
is less sure, since the data are subject to different interpretations
(see Sanders and Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 93-95).
Two of the more cogent examples include:
1. Matt 8:11-12 = Luke 13:28-29
Each of the phrases in Matt
8:12 is a distinctive of Matthew's gospel: "the sons of the kingdom;
"being thrown into the outer darkness"; "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Although the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is found in Luke
13:28, all the other occurrences of the three phrases are in Matthew:
1. "sons of kingdom" to mean believing Jews = Matt 13:38; 2. "outer
darkness" 22:13; 25:30; 3. "weeping and gnashing of teeth" 13:42, 50;
22:13; 24:51; 25:30. This could be interpreted to mean that Luke borrowed
one distinctive phrase from Matthew for whom these phrases are characteristic.
2. Mark 6:6b-13 = Matt 9:35;
10:1, 7-11, 14 = Luke 9:1-6 (The Sending out of the disciples)
There are numerous agreements
between Matthew and Luke against Mark, one of which could be interpreted
as indicating that Luke used Matthew: In Mark 6:11 = Matt 10:14 = Luke
9:5, Matthew and Luke have "leave—exerchomenoi—that
city" instead of Mark's "leave—ekporeuomenoi—from there."
Luke, however, has no antecedent for "that" (demonstrative pronoun)
in 9:4 where it ought to be, unlike Matthew in 10:11. This could be
explained on the hypothesis that the author of Luke used Matthew as
a source.
Admittedly,
these instances of apparent Lukan knowledge of Matthew are difficult
for the two-source hypothesis. Other unknown and unknowable casual factors
are undoubtedly at work in the production of the canonical gospels.
3.
Evidence from the Early Church Fathers
Sources from the second century
are somewhat contradictory concerning the relative order in which the
synoptic gospels were written and the literary dependence among them.
Two usually reliable external sources state directly that Matthew and
Luke were written before Mark. Irenaeus writes, "Matthew also issued
a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter
and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.
After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter"
(Adv. Haer. 3.1.1). Similarly, Eusebius reports that Clement
of Alexandria writes in his Hypotyposeis "Those gospels were
written first which include the genealogies" (H.E. 6.14.5-6).
The Anti-Marcion Prologue asserts, however, that, when Luke the physician
from Antioch, Syria, wrote, the gospels of Matthew and Mark were already
available to him.
Unfortunately
no evidence from the writings of the early church fathers directly supports
the two-source hypothesis. Given the evidence and the fact that there
is discrepancy on this question, one must conclude that information
on how the synoptic gospels were related literarily was not available
in the post-apostolic church.
 BACK
TO INDEX PAGE
|