Historical questions

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco makes a good point that if Luke had only Matt he could have produced his gospel much the way he did incorporating the elements of Mark in different places than Matt. But isnt it also true that he uses parts of Mark that Matt doesnt and adhers to Markean wording were Mat modifies it? How could this be unless Luke read Mark independently?

Why do you say that Luke “had little of his own witness” until Acts??? There are many sayings/facts in Luke that are not in Mark or Matt. Either Luke made them up or he got them from independent witnesses.

Luke, himself makes this confession in his opening, which opening Tatian uses verbatim in the opening of his harmony.
Luke’s Gospel is more a harmony of Lesser gospels and Gospel extracts, than a Gospel in its own right.

 

[patrick457]

To continue:

In my previous post, I explained that:

Perusing through Luke’s Gospel, one can see that he has a certain reticence over long discourses, something that would suggest that he will have been more concerned still with the notoriously excessively long Matthean discourses, e.g. the Sermon on the Mount. While Mark does not have anything as long as the Sermon on the Mount, he still does have a sizeable amount of discourses, one of which is the chapter on parables (Mark 4). Where Matthew has 52 verses in his parallel (Matthew 13:1-52) in contrast to Mark’s 34 verses, Luke shortens it, so that is discourse is only 15 verses long, less than half the length of Mark’s.

Mark’s discourse consists of the parable of the Sower and its interpretation (4:1-20), the Lamp under a Bushel (4:21-25), the Seed Growing in Secret (4:26-29), the Mustard Seed (4:30-32), and a summary (4:33-34). Matthew, with the exception of the Secret Seed, includes most of these parables and much more besides (such as the Weeds, the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl, and the Net). Luke on the other hand, chooses to retain the Sower (8:4-15) and the Lamp (8:16-18), omits the Seed Growing in Secret and the summary, and moves the Mustard Seed someplace else (13:18-19).

You can see it in the graph below (Matthew has been added for the sake of completeness, though the parables unique to him are not shown on the graph):

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1458/parables.png

This is not an isolated instance: the same feature can again be observed with Luke’s treatment of the discourse in Mark 9:33-50, which he manages to reduce into five verses (9:46-50).

Mark: And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”

Luke: An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.” John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

The point is this: if we think that Luke used both Mark and Matthew as his sources, given his reticence over retaining long discourses in Mark, it is scarcely a major leap of imagination to see the same reticence at work in his treatment of Matthew. Luke would thus be treating Matthew in the same way as he treats Mark: retaining some of the substance of the discourse and omitting and redistributing the rest.​

 

[patrick457]

The second point is that, literary critics have for some time now been making good sense of Luke’s order and literary design. As recognition and appreciation of Luke’s ability as a writer intensifies, so to it will seem less necessary to appeal to Q to explain his quirks in order. As we have seen, Streeter implies a negative value judgment of Luke’s order in comparison with Matthew’s, something that is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain in light of contemporary narrative-critical studies of Luke’s Gospel.

A good example of this is how Luke handles the double tradition saying about anxiety (Matthew 6:25-34; Luke 12:22-34). He places it in an appropriate context following on from his unique parable of the Rich Fool (12:15-21):

Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." And he told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man produced plentifully, and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.”

And he said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

This kind of sensitive narrative arrangement, so typical of Luke, gives us some indication of how overstated it is to speak of Luke “unscrambling the egg with a vengeance” or “scattering the ruins” of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount “to the four winds.”

Third, the idea that Luke conservatively followed the order of Q has always had difficulty with the Gospel’s preface, which seems to emphasize more strongly the matter of order.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Seemingly critical of predecessors’ attempts to write their versions of the Jesus story (1:1), he goes on to say that he investigated everything carefully (1:2) so that he could write to Theophilus “an orderly account.” (1:3) In the Two-Source hypothesis, there is little reason for this overt stress on order, since Luke is usually taken to have just replicated the order of his two main sources, Mark and Q.

​

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Freinds,
WRT:-
This kind of sensitive narrative arrangement, so typical of Luke, gives us some indication of how overstated it is to speak of Luke “unscrambling the egg with a vengeance” or “scattering the ruins” of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount “to the four winds.”

Third, the idea that Luke conservatively followed the order of Q has always had difficulty with the Gospel’s preface, which seems to emphasize more strongly the matter of order.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Seemingly critical of predecessors’ attempts to write their versions of the Jesus story (1:1), he goes on to say that he investigated everything carefully (1:2) so that he could write to Theophilus “an orderly account.” (1:3) In the Two-Source hypothesis, there is little reason for this overt stress on order, since Luke is usually taken to have just replicated the order of his two main sources, Mark and Q.

Luke sets out an ORDERLY account. That does not neceassarily mean it is in TEMPORAL order, but rather it is in LOGICAL order.
You will note in my signature, a link to “The Forgotten Gospel”. This is NOT a pseudo gospel, but an English translation of the best Gospel harmony ever produced. I had the honour to receive the task of translating the ORIGINAL Latin into English.
This account also opens with Luke’s Introduction.
After I had completed the translation, I decided to un-pick it, to find out how much Tatian had used the Original Four, and what he had added, and where it was clear, what he had omitted. I found no evidence of additional sources, and such omissions as I found, indicated that the Gospel sources predated Jerome’s Vulgate, possibly back as far as AD200.
Tatian uses PRIMARILY Matthew and John, and unpicking the Harmony recovers over 85% of each. Tiny fragments of Mark are found, and Luke’s Nativity, virtually complete is found. You can find PDFs of the recovered Matthew and John, in the order recovered on my web-site, as well as other relevant documents to the project in Latin and German.

What I do find, is the Structure of Luke strongly resembles the structure of Tatian’s harmony, and from Tatian’s use of Luke’s preface, it is clear that he saw himself continuing Luke’s lead.

What we have in Matthew is a Contemporaneous report, made up of notes from his JOURNAL. In John, we have an ex-post-facto logical analysis, with a few contemporary vignettes to illuminate the analysis. Mark is criticsed for contracting the 3 year ministry into a single year, misunderstanding the purpose: Mark does not give a history, but a liturgical calendar.
Luke provides a rich narative in a logical order, trying, with some success, to sort out any apparent contradictions.

That is how I understand it, you may see things differently.

 

[patrick457]

What we have in Matthew is a Contemporaneous report, made up of notes from his JOURNAL. In John, we have an ex-post-facto logical analysis, with a few contemporary vignettes to illuminate the analysis. Mark is criticsed for contracting the 3 year ministry into a single year, misunderstanding the purpose: Mark does not give a history, but a liturgical calendar.

A little bit into this.

We get the oft-repeated idea that Jesus’ ministry lasted for three-and-a-half years from an interpretation of the Seventy Weeks prophecy of Daniel by people like Origen and (especially) Eusebius of Caesarea. The middle of the week when sacrifice and offering would be brought to an end (Daniel 9:27), they say, was fulfilled in the death of Jesus, when the age of the Old Law had passed away. Half the week is three and a half days, and so they arrive to the conclusion that Jesus must have preached for three-and-a-half years before He was crucified. So it is a conception that at least has some pedigree dating back to early Christianity.

In reality, the Gospels do not give us much in the way of helpful hints as to the exact duration. As you mention, there are some who read a single year of ministry, lasting between one early summer or late spring and the next spring, into Mark’s Gospel, based on descriptions in the narrative: in Mark 2:23-28 grain is eaten raw, which suggests early summer; in 6:39 it is spring since the grass is green; Jesus then goes to Jerusalem for Passover in 11:1, which could be interpreted as being the same spring as chapter 6.

As you have guessed, the problem with this theory is that it fails to consider that Matthew, Mark, and Luke often arrange their (episodic) materials differently. Hence, to use, say, the time indicators in Mark one would have to assume that the events happened in the exact order as Mark placed them, which would place one into a dilemma when you compare his Gospel with say, Matthew or Luke, both of whom place a number of pericopes in a different order than Mark.

We turn over to John’s Gospel. In John, there are three Passovers (2:13; 6:4; 11:55ff.): John’s version of the Cleansing in the Temple occurs during the first Passover, the feeding of the five thousand occurs in the second, and the last Passover marks the end of Jesus’ ministry. Besides Passover, John also mentions an unspecified “feast of the Judaeans” in 5:1, while chapter 7 is set during Sukkoth (cf. verse 2) and 10:22ff is set during the Hannukah. A literal reading would suggest that Jesus began His ministry somewhere before the first recorded Passover in the Gospel (John had been reckoning things with days before his mention of it), which would make the length of time He was in public only slightly more than two years.

Late March-late April (Spring): First Passover (2:13)
??: Unnamed feast (5:1)

Late March-late April (Spring): Second Passover (6:4)
Late September-late October (Autumn): Booths (7:1ff.)
Late November-late December (Winter): Dedication (10:22ff.)

Late March-late April (Spring): Third Passover (11:55ff.)

 

[patrick457]

Continuing where I left off:

Let us now say for a moment that the theory of Markan Priority is correct for our fourth argument. Let us also say that the standard average dating for Mark and Matthew given by the majority, around AD 60-70 and 70-80 respectively, is correct. It could then be possibility that Luke knew Mark longer than he had known Matthew, which may well have encouraged him to prioritize the former over the latter.

We can speculate here that Matthew’s Gospel may have even been the reason why Luke wrote his in the first place. He sees what Matthew has done, making a Gospel of his own based on Mark by including infancy and resurrection narratives at both ends, and lots of sayings material in the middle, and perhaps thinks that he can do the same thing, only better. Not only can he use Matthew’s basic idea of ‘fixing’/‘expanding’ Mark in this way but can also utilize some of this Matthean material in his own restructuring of Mark. In other words, it is easy to imagine an historical scenario that might give birth to a Gospel in which an evangelist essentially follows Mark but is at the same time influenced by and critical of the first ‘corrector’.

 

[patrick457]

Again, I’d like to take another digression here to explain what the heck the Synoptic Problem is.

If ya’ll will allow me a little rant here: nowadays almost no one really teaches the Synoptic Problem per se. What people get taught in schools and most books and webpages is actually the problem pre-refracted through a preferred solution, which is almost always invariably the Q hypothesis. The downside of this is, one would get to learn the answer first even before one even knows what the problem actually is. So for a change, let’s look at the problem itself before we get into further discussion.

To start off, what does Synoptic mean? It is derived from the Greek words σύν (syn ‘together’) and ὄψις (opsis ‘view’). The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes exactly the same wording (usually down to word order!), something that is much more evident if you read the original Greek. This degree of parallelism in content, narrative arrangement, language, and sentence structures can, it is said, normally only be accounted for by literary interdependence between the three authors.

We will group the data into four main categories: triple tradition, double tradition, special Matthew (M), and special Luke (L).

The material shared by Matthew, Mark and Luke is known as Triple Tradition, which largely consists of narratives (miracles, healings, and a huge chunk of the Passion narratives) but also some sayings material. The order and wording of this material is generally the same across all three Gospels. One of its characteristics is that it has a lot to do with Mark, i.e. Mark is often (but not always) the so-called ‘middle term’. In other words, in those materials where all three Synoptics agree, you usually have an agreement between all three Gospels, or between Matthew and Mark against Luke, or between Luke and Mark against Matthew. In contrast, agreements between Matthew and Luke versus Mark are far fewer.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3347/63594641.png

Triple Tradition broadly has the same order across all three Gospels, and this order tends to be identical with Mark’s, to the point that if you were to isolate Triple Tradition material in Matthew and Luke you’d end up with a complete Gospel generally similar to Mark in structure, beginning with John the Baptist and ending with the Resurrection.

Now Luke may occasionally place an incident differently: for example, the pericope about Jesus’ mother and brothers occurs before the Parable of the Sower in Matthew (12:46-50) and Mark (3:31-35), but a little after that in Luke (8:19-21). On other occasions Matthew tends to do the same: the story about Jairus’ daughter and the haemorrhaging woman is placed just after the question about fasting in Matthew (9:14-17), but it comes earlier in Mark (2:18-22) and Luke (5:33-39). The striking thing about this material, however, is that it is rare for both Matthew and Luke to place the same incident differently. Where Matthew and Luke apparently depart from Mark’s narrative order, they don’t usually keep up long; very often both of them revert into agreeing with Mark.

 

[patrick457]

The material that is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, meanwhile, are known as Double Tradition or Q Material, at least among supporters of the Two-Source hypothesis. Like the hypothetical Q Document, Double Tradition is mainly made up of sayings material, though there are a few narratives (which are then again themselves mostly comprised of sayings). It is made up overall of somewhere between 200 and 250 verses of material, usually Jesus’ own speech.

Part of John the Baptist’s preaching in Matthew and Luke (“You brood of vipers,” etc.) is a good example of Double Tradition material. A few other specimens include the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matthew 5-7; Luke 6:20-49); the centurion’s boy/servant (8:5-13; 7:1-10); the messengers from John the Baptist (11:2-29; 7:18-35); the parables of the lost sheep (18:10-14; 15:3-7), the marriage feast/great supper (22:1-14; 14:15-24), and the talents/pounds (25:14-30; 19:11-27); the discourse against the scribes and the Pharisees (23:1-36; 11:37-54), and the lament over Jerusalem (23:37-39; 13:34-35).

We’ve noted that Double Tradition material does have a few narrative material, which are the exceptions - the most obvious of which are the healing of the centurion’s boy/servant and the messengers sent by John the Baptist. Nevertheless, though they have a narrative setting, even these pericopes are mainly made up of sayings.

One matter of interest is the range of agreement between Matthew and Luke in this material. Whereas in the preaching of John the Baptist and the Log and the Speck (Matthew 7:3-5; Luke 6:41-43), the two Gospels are very close, in the case of accounts such as the parables of the Talents and the Wedding Feast (Matthew) or the Pounds and the Great Supper (Luke) the agreement is much more slight that one even has to give different names for the parallel accounts in each Gospel.

Whereas in Triple Tradition material there is substantial similarity in narrative order, in Double Tradition there is more variation. There are some similarities, such as placing the healing of the centurion’s boy/son after the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (though Matthew does insert the story of the leper in 8:1-4), but there are also big differences. For instance, the parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant occurs halfway through in Luke (12:39-46), but near the end in Matthew (24:45-51). The same is true for the lament over Jerusalem, the woes against the scribes and Pharisees, and the parable of the Wedding Feast/Great Supper. Much of the material found in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount is located differently in Luke: “consider the lilies” is in the middle of Matthew’s sermon, but much later on in Luke (12:22-34). Likewise the Our Father, also located midway through the Sermon in Matthew, is found in a different context, at the beginning of Luke 11.

One of the key areas for the study of the Synoptic Problem is Double Tradition and why this material is placed so differently between Matthew and Luke; in fact, whole books have been written on this single subject alone. The problem becomes particularly intense when one asks about the placement of Double Tradition in relation to the placement of Triple Tradition in Matthew and Luke.

 

[patrick457]

The material which is specific to the Gospel of Matthew is called Special Matthew (M material). You have, for example, the Matthean birth narratives (1-2; we’ll classify this as M material here because while Matthew and Luke do agree in the basics, namely that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that His parents were named Mary and Joseph, the two Gospels give two different accounts), a good deal of Matthew-only parables such as the Parable of the Weeds (13:24-30, 36-43), the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl of Great Price (13:44-46), the Dragnet (13:47-50), the Unmerciful Servant (18:23-25), the Laborers in the Vineyard (20:1-16), the Two Sons (21:28-32), the Ten Virgins (25:1-13, but cf. Luke 12:35-36), and the Sheep and the Goats (25:31-46), Judas’ death (27:3-10), and the soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus (27:62-66, 28:11-15).

It could also be considered that a part of the Sermon on the Mount, especially the first half of chapter 6, constitutes M material. However, it should also be kept in mind that it is often difficult to distinguish between what is called M material and what might be regarded as simply fuller versions of Triple Tradition pericopes. You have, for instance, Matthew 3:14-15, where Jesus comes to ask baptism from John.

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him…

On the one hand, these are two whole verses’ worth of what would be Special Matthew. On the other hand, though, these verses only make sense in the narrative context provided by Triple Tradition material (verses which have parallels with Mark and Luke). Much of the special material is in this fashion - unique to Matthew yet sandwiched in a Triple Tradition context. Other examples include Peter trying to walk on water (14:28-31), “Thou art Peter and upon this rock…” (16:17-19), the infirm and the children in the Temple (21:14-16), the dream of Pilate’s wife (27:19), and the earthquake and other supernatural events at the death of Jesus (27:51b-53). All in all, one would notice that like Double Tradition, Special Matthew is rich in sayings material, especially parables. It also has narrative, though one would notice that M Material has a more greater emphasis towards the supernatural and (for lack of a better term) ‘fantastic’: i.e. the coin in the fish’s mouth and the resurrection of the saints.

This feature is another element which needs to be considered when trying to solve the Synoptic Problem. The question that arise is: has Matthew ‘added’ these materials to an already existing account in Mark (or Luke, or both of the two), or did Mark (or Luke, or both) excise them away?

Moving on: material specific to Luke is called Special Luke or L Material. Some of the most prominent representatives of this are the Lukan birth narratives (1-2), the boy Jesus in the Temple (2:41-52), the raising of the widow of Nain’s son (7:11-17), the Samaritan villages (9:51-56), the return of the seventy-two disciples (10:17-20), the Good Samaritan (10:29-37), Mary and Martha (10:38-42), the friend at midnight (11:5-8), the rich fool (12:13-21), the murder of the Galileans (13:1-5), the fig tree (13:6-9), the fig tree (13:6-9), the healing of the bent woman (13:10-17) and the man with dropsy (14:1-6), the invitation to feasts and dinners (14:7-14), the lost coin (15:8-10), the Prodigal Son (15:11-32), the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31),the servant of all work (17:7-10), the healing of ten lepers (17:11-19), the Unjust Judge (18:1-8), the Pharisee and the Publican (18:9-14), Zacchaeus the tax collector (19:1-10), the two swords (23:6-12), the trial before Herod Antipas (23:6-12), and the road to Emmaus (24:13-35).

L shares one of the complications of M material: sometimes, though less often than in Matthew, it appears in a Triple Tradition context, for example the women of Jerusalem (23:27-32) and the conversation with the two crucified criminals (23:40-43). In addition, L has another complication shared hardly at all by Special Matthew. It is sometimes difficult to judge whether one should ascribe a piece to L or whether one should call it a different version of Triple Tradition material. Examples of this include Luke’s version of the rejection in Nazareth (4:16-30; cf. Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6a), the calling of the first disciples (5:1-11; cf. Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20, also cf. John 21:1-11), and the anointing of Jesus (7:36-50; cf. Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9, also cf. John 12:1-8). In each case the incident is placed differently from its (partial) parallel in Matthew and Mark and in each case the account is a much fuller one. In both the pericopes about the calling of the disciples and the anointing one can also see a few parallels with the Gospel of John.

Out of all materials we’ve discussed, L Material is the most famous. Here you will find some of the most-loved parables - the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Rich Man and Lazarus to name three. In addition, one can find in the non-parable materials some of the most three-dimensional, human touches in the Gospels.​

 

[patrick457]

We have so far discussed four kinds of material: Triple Tradition, Double Tradition, Special Matthew, and Special Luke. Triple Tradition material revolves largely around Mark, its ‘middle term’; Double Tradition seems to be largely sayings material, often with near-verbatim agreement, and not so similar in its order as Triple Tradition. These four make up the bulk of the Synoptics and each pericope will, in some measure, fall into one of these four categories. However, when looking at both Special Matthew and Special Luke, we can see that some difficulties would arise in classifying material. For instance, does Jesus’ encounter with John the Baptist in Matthew 3:14-15 fit in the Special Matthew category, or are they, rather, a special Matthean element embedded in the midst of Triple Tradition? Further, do Lukan pericopes like the rejection at Nazareth sit more easily in the Special Luke category or should they really be regarded as distinctive Lukan versions of material that also occurs in the other two Synoptics?

Thus, we notice that categories are not so clear-cut and that there is some blurring between categories. It is usually straightforward to classify a pericope into one type of material or the other, but sometimes the categories are shown not to be water-tight. In addition to the issues connected with M and L, one should also be aware of two further matters concerning Triple and Double Tradition.

]1.) Not-quite Triple Tradition Material: The first of the two would be material that is not, strictly speaking, Triple Tradition, but which is, nevertheless, very closely related to it. We have seen before how a great deal of Mark is covered in the general category of Triple Tradition; i.e. most of his material is paralleled in both Matthew and Luke. We now add to this the fact that some of Mark is paralleled in Matthew but not in Luke and some (but less) of Mark is found in Luke but not in Matthew. An example of Matthew-Mark material would be Jesus entering Gennesaret (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-56); the story of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4), meanwhile, is a specimen of Mark-Luke material.

Now why is this material related to Triple Tradition instead of Double Tradition? Double Tradition, as we saw above, is the technical term used to describe the body of material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Here, by contrast, we see that Mark is the common element, like pure Triple Tradition. Furthermore, this material always appears in Markan order in Matthew and the Markan sequence in Luke: the common thread throughout is Mark.

The same pattern is repeated regularly in the Synoptics. Some have attempted to crystallize this phenomenon into a formula, saying that whenever Matthew departs from Mark’s order, Luke keeps to it (and vice versa). There has, however, been a great deal of debate about the use of such formulas. For one, it is difficult to state them without assuming one of the solutions to the Synoptic Problem, namely Markan priority. Further, all too often they tend towards an unhelpful oversimplification of the data. It is much more helpful if one simply continues to remember the rule that Mark tends to be the middle term in the Synoptics.

 

[patrick457]

2.) Mark not being the middle term: To the aforementioned rule there are several important exceptions: there are a handful of instances where Mark is clearly not the middle term. These passages where Mark is not the middle term constitute the most difficult phenomenon in the Synoptic Problem, because it so blatantly blurs the basic distinction between Triple and Double Traditions, thus more than anything else preventing the easy classification of everything into clear-cut, convenient categories that would otherwise be possible.

A good representative of this phenomenon can be found the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19). where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in places.

Matthew: “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

Mark: “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.”

Luke: “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”

One would notice some clear agreement between all three Synoptics (“like a grain of mustard seed;” “the birds of the air”), some agreement between Matthew and Mark (“smallest of all the seeds…larger than all the garden plants”) and between Mark and Luke (“What is the kingdom of God like?”). What is striking however is that there is also agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark (“which a man took and sowed…becomes a tree…in its branches”).

Also interesting is the placement of this parable. As we’ve mentioned countless times, Mark is usually the common element which means that one tends to not to find agreements in order between Matthew and Luke. Matters are different here, however, since both Matt and Luke pair this with the Parable of the Leaven (Matthew 13;33; Luke 13:20-21), which does not appear at all in Mark’s Gospel.

Passages like this in which Mark is not the middle term appear in all three Synoptics and feature substantial agreement, either (or sometimes, both) in order and wording, between Matthew and Luke. Such are not very common and isolating them is not always straightforward, not least because the matter of agreement between Matthew and Luke is simply a question of degree. Every Triple Tradition passage features some agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark; what one has to decide is whether to consider the agreement major, as in the passages we are now discussing, or minor, as in the majority of Triple Tradition material. Other passages which people have taken the agreement to be major include John the Baptist (Matthew 3:11-12; Luke 3:15-17; cf. Mark 1:7-8), the Temptation in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf. Mark 1:12-13), the Beelzebub controversy (Matthew 12:22-37; Luke 11:14-23; cf. Mark 3:22-30) and the mission of the disciples (Matthew 10:1-15; Luke 9:1-6, 10:1-12; cf. Mark 6:6b-13).​

 

[patrick457]

We’ll only deal briefly with Special Mark here. Compared to M and L, there is very little material unique to Mark’s Gospel; one would notice that the graph at the OP gives a rather measly estimate of only 3%, compared to Special Matthew’s 20% and Special Luke’s 35%. The three main examples of Special Mark include the healing of a deaf and mute man (7:31-37), the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-25), and the naked young man in Gethsemane (14:51-52).

In conclusion, yet another review of the various material and in-betweens:

1.) Triple Tradition: Found in all three Synoptics. The order of this material is similar across the three Gospels.
2.) Double Tradition: Found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. The order tends to vary between the two Gospels.
3.) Special Matthew (M): Found in Matthew alone.
4.) Special Luke (L): Found in Luke alone.
5.) M in Triple Tradition: Material unique to Matthew embedded in Triple Tradition material and would make no sense outside of context.
6.) Lukan Triple Tradition: Three pericopes which have parallels in Matthew and Mark and might be described as Lukan versions of Triple Tradition material.
7.) Not Quite Triple Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke or in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew. These are not, strictly speaking, Triple Tradition pericopes since they occur in only two Gospels, but they are akin to Triple Tradition because they appear in the Markan order.
8.) When Mark is not the middle term: Some material halfway between Triple and Double Tradition. Appears in all three Synoptics but unlike Triple Tradition, features substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark.

Final repetition: Mark is often, but not always, the ‘middle term’. Reason for this is, in Triple Tradition, there are usually substantial agreements between Matthew, Mark and Luke, between Matthew and Mark, and between Mark and Luke. There are only minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. The order of Triple Tradition passages and those which are not quite it is usually similar to the Markan order. Matthew and Luke less often agree together in order against Mark.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png/350px-Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png​

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ionship_between_synoptic_gospels.png[/INDENT]

 

[steve53]

Great post as usual, Patrick.

“Y’all…”…???..east Japan, right?

Taking a step back, you have to assume that Luke was inspired, and probably commissioned, in his writings by someone called Theophilis. Possibly, Luke was a wealthy man, and could afford to travel the eastern Mediterranean area. At some point, he became a Christian, and dedicated his life to finding out the real story about Jesus. Eventually, he met and became a “disciple” of Paul the Apostle, and traveled with him. A case can be made that he was executed along with Paul, Peter, and other Church leaders in Rome in late A.D. 64. (Hagan, “Roman Fires”

Luke admits he was not an eyewitness, but took his information from many sources. A lot he took from Mark, Matthew, and “Q”. Luke visited many of the early Christian centers and did the best he could at getting best information. But he made mistakes, as has been contentiously discussed on this board. Certainly, thirty years after his crucifixion, Jesus was a famous man, and even today how many people claim to know famous people but are, in fact, deliberately lying? No reason to think that wasn’t the case in Luke’s time as well. Considering what was included in his writings, imagine how much garbage he had to leave out from obviously false testimony? It is difficult to imagine some powerful Angel traveling with Luke, forcing local historians to tell the absolute truth when questioned by Luke.

But in dealing with ancient history, you can’t be more accurate than your sources. So all this is speculation.

Take a lesson from math. Divide 3.0 by 2.0 and what do you get? .6666666666666666…?

No. The answer is .67 (or .7 for the purist). The answer can’t be more precise than the numbers used to get it.

 

[gkrohm]

Liked your very detailed post on source theories. Great graph at the end. Even if the percentages are somewhat judgmental, it illustrates the sharing of sources very well.

I am very attracted to Luke as an evangelist. His theological outlook shines uniquely and without very much study. Among his unique messages that I like:
o emphasis on the powerful faith and testimony of women (supporting his mission and during the crucifixion.
o merit of being really poor for the sake of the gospel message, and the preference for the poor.
o the faithfulness of God to his ancient covenant with Israel through the “New Israel”.
o the forgiveness and healing power of God.

In addition to the personal attributes Steve just listed I would add:
o remarkable command of scripture and ability to weave echoes and references to scripture into narrative
o excellent command of classical Greek and rhetoric.

 

[Mintaka]

The St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology has some good talks about John’s Gospel, both under an audio course about that specifically, and under the “Feasts of Faith” audio course about the fulfillment of Jewish Temple holidays in the Gospels.

Basically, John tells the Gospel in terms of sacred chronology: a recap of the first week of Creation in Genesis, a recap of the Jewish liturgical year, and a push forward to the Eighth Day in both.

He’s not ignoring history, but he’s more interested in the application of theologically illuminating facts than in just the bare relation of facts. But that’s true of all four Gospels. John’s just the most visibly arty about it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why would the identity of Q be lost if Q really existed?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Why would the identity of Q be lost if Q really existed?

First, let me disabuse you of a common misconception.
Moses is reputed to have inscribed the Decalog on ‘Tablets of Stone’, and come staggering down the mountain with a pair of granite slabs that would do credit to a soldier’s grave.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Tablets were common scratch-pads, they came in two principle varieties, Tablets of Wax, which were the common Roman military scratch pad, and Tablets of Stone, slate actually, with a slate ‘pencil’.
The wax tablet was a fancy hard-wood assembly, comprizing two or more panels, folded into a book form with a cord threaded through the gutter edge. Two panels were the commonest, and when opened, there was a recess on the inner faces of the panel, and that was filled with bees’ wax. A bronze stylus was used to lock the panels closed when not in use, and the back end of the stylus was spoon shaped, designed to re-smothe the wax surface after the message had been used. This was a craftsman built unit, and was not cheap.
The poor man’s equivalent was a linen bag, which contained a number of rectangular sheets of thin slate. If more than one slate was carried, then a rag of linen was placed between them to prevent them from fretting against each other. The size was typically about 4" x 6", or 100mm x 150mm. Pocket size.
The slate is erazed by washing, or wiping with a moist rag.
It is written with a slate pencil, which leavs a trail of slate dust on the slate surface, which, if not washed of, is remarkably permanent. In a linen pouch, if not handled roughly, a day’s notes could be safely stored.
Now
Matthew was a Tax Collector, thus, also, an accountant, and scribe.
He would probably have used slate tablets, and may even have kept the tablets, pcking up replacement as and when, from the way-side.
Friends may have seen the tablets, or copies might have been circulated, but this was not a unified document, just a collection of notes, some ultimately inscribed on paper, and some on the hearts of men.
This essentially is what “Q” was.
Don’t expect to find a copy. As such, it never existed.
How many people have seen the cigarette packet on which Eintein inscribed “E = MCxC”?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Are you telling me that the christians of the Early church would not have known who had scribbled those notes?

What kind of sense does that make?

And are you going to tell me that OPPONENTS of the christian faith would not have attacked the sources of the gospels if the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had not written them?

And with the gospels being thus attacked do you really believe that the early chrisitan churches would not have demanded to know about the sources of those gosples?

Neither the early christian church or their opponents would have allowed Q to happen!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Are you telling me that the christians of the Early church would not have known who had scribbled those notes?

What kind of sense does that make?

And are you going to tell me that OPPONENTS of the christian faith would not have attacked the sources of the gospels if the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had not written them?

And with the gospels being thus attacked do you really believe that the early chrisitan churches would not have demanded to know about the sources of those gosples?

Neither the early christian church or their opponents would have allowed Q to happen!

Actually, prior to AD 200, there is NOwritten evidence of the exiatance of COMPLETE gospels.
Yes, so-called ‘fragments’ have been found, but there exists no definitive proof that these ‘fragments’ were ever part of a whole.

You belief in the literality of authorship is touching.
However, we know that the ‘cigarette packet’ which Einstein scribbled his revelatory notes on was actually a restaurant knapkin, slightly more kosher, but I defy you to produce it.
Barely a century has passed since then, and the place was not crawling with Roman Gestapo. Evidence which was not vitally important was destroyed for safety’s sake. To be caught with a Christian relic was death, and not a pleasant one.
Lack of evidence of existance is NOT evidence of nonexistance.

Actually, the structure of the Gospels is STRONG, if circumstancial evidence of existance. No-one living now has seen dynasaurs walking in the mud, but from the fosilized footprints found, most of us are content to believe that they did.

 

[SGWessells]

Are you telling me that the christians of the Early church would not have known who had scribbled those notes?

What kind of sense does that make?

And are you going to tell me that OPPONENTS of the christian faith would not have attacked the sources of the gospels if the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had not written them?

And with the gospels being thus attacked do you really believe that the early chrisitan churches would not have demanded to know about the sources of those gosples?

Neither the early christian church or their opponents would have allowed Q to happen!

Opponents of the Christian church, like Porphyry, did attack the sources of the Gospels, but only quotations in books written to refute them have survived. The actual copies were, of course, destroyed. The earliest copies of the Gospels, as I understand, were anonymous; they were attributed to their currently accepted authors later.
Some early Christians themselves disputed the authenticity of several canonical letters, including 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, and James. It didn’t just start with modern critics.

We can’t always judge what people in ancient cultures, that differ vastly from ours in knowledge, outlook, and technology, would have done. Most people were illiterate, and those who could read books could rarely afford them. Our perspective is skewed because we have, for the most part, only the writings of those who could write, so the tiny minority of literate people provide the vast majority of our knowledge. Without immersing ourselves in the culture of late antiquity, we can’t really be so dogmatic about what they would or would not have done.