THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM



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 mind38 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