The Synoptic Problem

[patrick457]

Yet another thread built for the purpose of self-gratification. I’m going to do a slight ripoff of Mark Goodacre here, so I’d like to apologize in advance.

As he points out, the problem with many introductions to the Synoptic Problem is that very often people go straight to the solutions instead of the actual problems themselves and then refract all the data through their preferred solution (which is very often invariably the Two-source Hypothesis ). Which is not too good: you must first consider the problem itself, and only then choose the solution which best solves the problem in your opinion.

To start off, what is Synoptic? 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 (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 now describe the data, grouping them into five types:

Triple Tradition: This refers to the material shared by all three Synoptics. It largely consists of narrative material (miracles, healings, and a huge chunk of the Passion narratives) but also contains some sayings. One of its characteristics is that it seems to have a lot to do with Mark, i.e. Mark is often (but not always) the mediating factor or the so-called ‘middle term’. In other words, where you get the Synoptics agreeing together, usually the agreements are between Matthew and Mark, or between Luke and Mark, or between all three. Taken altogether, they comprise the majority. Compared to this, agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are far fewer.

The agreement is not just evident in the wording, but also often in the narrative order. Where Matthew and Luke apparently depart from Mark’s order, they don’t keep up usually long; very often both of them revert into agreeing with Mark, and they very rarely depart from Mark together.

Double Tradition: Refers to the material shared by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark, comprising of about 200 verses. Not as numerous as triple tradition material, but still substantial to some extent. Its content is mainly sayings material (i.e. the Our Father, the Beatitudes) but includes some narratives such as the centurion’s servant and the testing of Jesus in the desert as well. The interesting thing about this material is that you don’t have much of it in a closely parallel order; there is some kind of parallel order, but not the same one you get with triple tradition.

Special Matthew (M): Material found only in Matthew. Like double tradition, much of it is sayings material (for instance, the parables in Matthew 25:1-13 and 25:31-46), with a few exceptions (i.e. the Temple tax in Matthew 17:24-27). Some of it can also be found embedded within triple tradition material; for instance, Judas’ death and the brief reference to Pilate’s wife in Matthew 27.

Special Luke (L): Material found only in Luke. You have narrative material like the announcement to Zechariah and John the Baptist’s birth, the Annunciation and Visitation, the boy Jesus in the Temple and the Road to Emmaus, and also saying materials like the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.

Special Mark: Material found only in Mark. Compared to Matthew and Luke, there is little ‘special Mark’ material. A few examples we can give here are: Jesus healing a deaf and mute man using His spittle and fingers (7:31-37), Jesus healing a blind man in Bethsaida (8:22-25), and the young man “clothed with a linen cloth over his naked body” in Gethsemane (14:51-52).



But here, we should mentioned that just about every category has some kind of difficulty. Everytime you think you’ve grasped all the key data, you’ll suddenly find that there is something else. Still, it is important to have an understanding of some of the key pieces of data before one moves on to the complications.

Also, it is important to see Mark as the man in the middle here, as we’ve mentioned, noting triple tradition and the extent how Mark mediates between Matthew and Luke as the common denominator.

 

[patrick457]

To this we add those things in Triple Tradition material where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark’s version (which really has no proper name; some label it as Mark-Q Overlap). Take for example, the pericopes about the preaching of John the Baptist:

Mark 1:7-8

Και εκηρυσσεν λεγων, Ερχεται ο ισχυροτερος μου οπισω μου, ου ουκ ειμι ικανος κυψας λυσαι τον ιμαντα των υποδηματων αυτου: εγω εβαπτισα υμας υδατι, αυτος δε βαπτισει υμας εν] πνευματι αγιω.

And he preached, saying, “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Matthew 3:7-12

Ιδων δε πολλους των Φαρισαιων και Σαδδουκαιων ερχομενους επι το βαπτισμα αυτου ειπεν αυτοις, Γεννηματα εχιδνων, τις υπεδειξεν υμιν φυγειν απο της μελλουσης οργης; ποιησατε ουν καρπον αξιον της μετανοιας: και μη δοξητε λεγειν εν εαυτοις, Πατερα εχομεν τον Αβρααμ, λεγω γαρ υμιν οτι δυναται ο Θεος εκ των λιθων τουτων εγειραι τεκνα τω Αβρααμ. Ηδη δε η αξινη προς την ριζαν των δενδρων κειται: παν ουν δενδρον μη ποιουν καρπον καλον εκκοπτεται και εις πυρ βαλλεται.
Εγω μεν υμας βαπτιζω εν υδατι εις μετανοιαν: ο δε οπισω μου ερχομενος ισχυροτερος μου εστιν, ου ουκ ειμι ικανος τα υποδηματα βαστασαι: αυτος υμας βαπτισει εν πνευματι αγιω και πυρι: ου το πτυον εν τη χειρι αυτου και διακαθαριει την αλωνα αυτου, και συναξει τον σιτον αυτου εις την αποθηκην, το δε αχυρον κατακαυσει πυρι ασβεστω.

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Luke (3:7-9, 15-17)

Ελεγεν ουν τοις εκπορευομενοις οχλοις βαπτισθηναι υπ’ αυτου, Γεννηματα εχιδνων, τις υπεδειξεν υμιν φυγειν απο της μελλουσης οργης; ποιησατε ουν καρπους αξιους της μετανοιας: και μη αρξησθε λεγειν εν εαυτοις, Πατερα εχομεν τον Αβρααμ, λεγω γαρ υμιν οτι δυναται ο Θεος εκ των λιθων τουτων εγειραι τεκνα τω Αβρααμ. Ηδη δε και η αξινη προς την ριζαν των δενδρων κειται: παν ουν δενδρον μη ποιουν καρπον εκκοπτεται και εις πυρ βαλλεται.
…] Προσδοκωντος δε του λαου και διαλογιζομενων παντων εν ταις καρδιαις αυτων περι του Ιωαννου, μηποτε αυτος ειη ο Χριστος, απεκρινατο λεγων πασιν ο Ιωαννης, Εγω μεν υδατι βαπτιζω υμας, ερχεται δε ο ισχυροτερος μου, ου ουκ ειμι ικανος λυσαιτον ιμαντα των υποδηματων αυτου: αυτος υμας βαπτισει εν πνευματι αγιω και πυρι: ου το πτυον εν τη χειρι αυτου διακαθαραι την αλωνα αυτου, και συναγαγειν τον σιτον εις την αποθηκην αυτου, το δε αχυρον κατακαυσει πυρι ασβεστω.

He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear [good] fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
…] As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”​

One could notice that, aside from slightly different choice of words, word orders and tenses, Matthew and Luke agree almost verbatim in the material which Mark does not have.

 

[NotWorthy]

Patrick,

That is very good information.

But what is the point at issue? Which came first? Whose is based off of who?

 

[patrick457]

Patrick,

That is very good information.

But what is the point at issue? Which came first? Whose is based off of who?

Uh oh, you’ve asked the most dangerous question of all.
We’ll get on the issues sooner or later. I’m holding it back on purpose so we can first look on the actual problem itself rather than the solutions to it.

 

[NotWorthy]

Uh oh, you’ve asked the most dangerous question of all.
We’ll get on the issues sooner or later. I’m holding it back on purpose so we can first look on the actual problem itself rather than the solutions to it.

But here’s the thing… I don’t see a problem. I don’t expect to read the exact same story from three different reporters, nor should I see the exact same Gospels from three authors.

 

[patrick457]

But here’s the thing… I don’t see a problem. I don’t expect to read the exact same story from three different reporters, nor should I see the exact same Gospels from three authors.

And THAT’s what is usually pointed out to be the problem: the Synoptics are at the same time, both alike and not alike. As mentioned, the similarities in content, narrative arrangement, language, and even sentence and word structures are such that under normal circumstances, you’d think that there’s been literary interdependence. Hence the problem is not so much their differences, but their (oftentimes very extreme) similarities.

Take the analogy of three different reporters. It’s like reading three different reports where in places, the reporters agree nearly verbatim, having the exact same choice of words and structure. Or take three different books written by three different authors. If you compare the three side-by-side, you’d notice that they’re so similar to one another (perhaps even down to the paragraph formatting! ) that you’d suspect a violation of copyright.

 

[patrick457]

Just to illustrate. Let’s say three different paragraphs penned by three different people contained the following:

After the unpleasant conversation, I went out, taking a bus ride downtown. It was already lunchtime, so I decided to drop by a fastfood chain and order a hamburger; besides, it was very hot outside. As I lined up to place my order, I looked at the pouting cashier, who already seemed very weary. He glared at me in return as if to say, “What are you looking at?” Just then, I felt a pat in my back, which made me freak out slightly. Fortunately, it only turned out to be another friend of mine. “Hey, what’re you doing here?” he asked. “I’m about to order a hamburger,” I said.

After the conversation, I took a bus ride downtown. It was already lunchtime, so I decided to drop by a certain fastfood chain. As I lined up to order a hamburger, I looked at the pouting cashier, who seemed very weary as if he had gone through three consecutive graveyard shifts (he even had heavy eyebags under his eyes). He glared at me in return as if to say, “What are you looking at?” so I averted my gaze. Another friend of mine happened to be behind me; he patted me in the back. “Hey, what’re you doing here?” he asked. “I’m about to order a hamburger,” I said.

After the unpleasant conversation, I went out and took a bus ride downtown. I decided to drop by a fastfood chain and order a hamburger, it being already lunchtime; besides, it was very hot outside. As I lined up to place my order, I looked at the pouting cashier with heavy eyebags under his eyes, who already seemed very weary. He glared at me in return as if to say, “What are you looking at?” I avoided looking at him. I felt someone pat my back; it turned out to be another friend of mine. “Hey, what’re you doing here?” he asked. “I’m about to order a hamburger,” I said.

Yeah, that’s a nonsensical paragraph, but that’s an approximation of how things run.

 

[christosdavid]

looks like youve really run with this, so can you get to the part where theres a problem? coz even with oral source material, Q, Mark, M, L, Matthew, Luke eventually the authors who edited their ‘theological histories’ must have determined under the Holy Spirit what focus they were going to take on Jesus’ spiritual biography.

Is the problem whether they were aware of each others writings? Theological reflection? style and order?

According to tradition, Mark wrote first and wrote Peter’s account though not in order. the differences between Matthew and Luke reflect both their own theological reflections as well as the audience which was receiving their gospels originally and then through that into the kerugma of the church.

The Christian community was not large or particularly widespread during their sourcing and final ‘redactions’ of the kerugmatic material.

If as we could very quickly find in the Synoptics, the differences such as Matthew’s genealogy occuring at the beginning and very much a statement that it is Scripture as its style points to Genesis’ toledot formulae. Luke’s “interdependence” is obviously not without his own theological reflection and his genealogy sourcing Jesus’ lineage back to Adam relects his own gentile audience and his own empahsis’ on the Holy Spirit.

please keep posting, im interested…

 

[NotWorthy]

To me, the similarities and differences are easy to explain.

Matthew first heard the Gospel in the form of a homily, probably at Pentecost, or shortly afterward. Who is the “Q source”? It’s Peter’s first homilies. It soon became Paul’s homilies. It was all of the Apostles homilies. At first, everybody’s homily was very, very close to being the same.

But Matthew, who concentrated his missionary efforts to a Jewish audience, would often be approached with questions regarding the prophecies of Jesus. And when he got the same question asked for the umpteenth time, he decided to simply put it into his homily. The end result was the Gospel of Matthew.

The same could be said of Luke’s Gospel and Mark’s, yet of course for different reasons.

 

[MorningSong51]

And THAT’s what is usually pointed out to be the problem: the Synoptics are at the same time, both alike and not alike. As mentioned, the similarities in content, narrative arrangement, language, and even sentence and word structures are such that under normal circumstances, you’d think that there’s been literary interdependence. Hence the problem is not so much their differences, but their (oftentimes very extreme) similarities.

Take the analogy of three different reporters. It’s like reading three different reports where in places, the reporters agree nearly verbatim, having the exact same choice of words and structure. Or take three different books written by three different authors. If you compare the three side-by-side, you’d notice that they’re so similar to one another (perhaps even down to the paragraph formatting! ) that you’d suspect a violation of copyright.

However, when we read the accounts of all three chapter, each book does give their similarities but each may give a more elaborate account on those particular events that took place. For example, and just for the sake of the argument, the birth of Jesus - Luke gives more information on both Elizabeth and Zacharias where Matthew may centralize on the account of the genealogy of Jesus Christ and also he makes a reference to the three wise men and also Jeremiah the prophet, and what was said as prophecy. As each book accounts for the Messiah.

John for example starts his account with Genesis and begins the verse that you pointed out with "“Who are you?”20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not. Are you the Prophet? And he answered, “No.” The way the questions are being asked, seems as if the prophet and Elijah were separate identities - and yet, they are one in the same. Looking into Mark’s account, he starts his book with John the Baptist but Matthew begins with the genealogy marking the beginning to Abraham begot Isaac.

The part of scripture, that I feel fits this idea and after the resurrection, is when Jesus had appeared to the two apostles who were conversing along the road to Emmaus. Jesus had made inquiries to both apostles (men) about the conversation, they both asked him if he was a stranger in Jerusalem (?). However, the idea of what the Messiah was to do, is written in scripture, “But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel” and Jesus replies back, "said; but Him they did not see.”
25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

{Then Jesus asked his followers,} “Do you understand all these things?” The followers said, “Yes, we understand.” Then Jesus said to the followers, “So every teacher of the law who has been taught {the new things} about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house. He has new things and old things saved in that house. And he brings out those new things with the old things.” Matthew 13:52

We must draw from all source - both the old and the new. All accounts of each book is important to the other. Similarly, each patriarch and matriarch is important for bringing us to the promise of Christ. When reading the Old Testament (Tanakh – Hebrew bible) our journey began (1st) with understanding the verses and then about the relationships that God had with each of the Major Prophets – and through those relationships He communicates to us. Establishing our relationship with God – is continuous with faith, trust, hope –belief, as these are virtues. These virtues carry longevity, it is something eternal – never ending. With our very limited experience and knowledge of God, the thought of being able to imagine how Christ knew Him.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.” There being that oneness with the Father that all of us realize and believe in but it’s the ability to understand the dynamic which is perplexing (“something to be grasped”). Also, as we read in Genesis, the terms “form of” in the verse “as being like” (Adam & Eve, in garden), or in the image of. Giving the example of: proceeded forth or came forth. I say that God brought Christ to us and Christ brought a “visible” God to all through his words, judgment, compassion, wisdom, healing, and foresight.

Peace
Mary

 

[patrick457]

I just noticed something in some of the replies that I just wanted to correct, folks: we haven’t even gotten around to talking about the Two-Source Hypothesis (or for that matter, all and any proposed solution to the Synoptic Problem) yet! We’re still in the problem; the solutions are still way far off.

But since y’all seem to like to race towards the solutions, so we’ll introduce them one-by-one in upcoming posts. I hope I present an accurate and unbiased picture of all of them.

 

[patrick457]

But before we get into them, let’s review again the different kinds of Synoptic material in slightly more depth (repetition is a good teaching tool, see; I’m not letting anybody out until they’ve a good grasp of these ), more comprehensively this time:

Triple Tradition: Material found in all three Synoptic Gospels, making up the majority. Its key feature is that Mark is very often the common element, the so-called ‘middle term’ among the Synoptics. The order and wording of this material is generally the same across all three Gospels.

Triple Tradition broadly has the same order across all three Gospels, and this order tends to be identical with Mark’s. Luke occasionally places 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 Matt and Luke to place the same incident differently. Hence, the patterns one can find here is: either a substantial agreement between all three, or an agreement between Matthew and Mark against Luke, or an agreement between Mark and Luke against Matthew. It is rare for Matthew and Luke to agree against Mark.

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

A corollary of this is if one were to isolate Triple Tradition material from all the rest, one would have something resembling a complete Gospel, and this Gospel would actually be similar to Mark in structure, starting from John the Baptist and ending with the Resurrection. The same would not hold true for the other kinds of material.

 

[patrick457]

Double Tradition: This is what supporters of the Two-Source Hypothesis like to call ‘Q Material’. This is the kind of material that is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Like the hypothetical Q Document, Double Tradition is mainly made up of sayings material, though there are a few narratives. It is made up overall of somewhere between 200 and 250 verses of material, usually Jesus’ own speech.

I’ve posted already the preaching of John the Baptist; part of that material (“You brood of vipers,” etc.) is a good example of Double Tradition material. A few other specimens of Double Tradition 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.

Another matter of interest is the range of agreement between Matt 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 the parables of the talents/pounds and the marriage feast/great supper the agreement is much more slight that one even has to give different names for the parallel accounts in each Gospel.

Further, whereas in Triple Tradition material there is substantial similarity in narrative order, here 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 in Luke (12:39-46), but near the end in Matthew (24:45-51). The same goes 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 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.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Patrick457, I really am taken by the diagram in your original post. Was this original to you, or did you find it in some other work? It clearly illustrates the interactions between the three Gospels. I will be watching this thread with interest. Thanks for doing this.

 

[razredge]

What’s the big problem with the Two source hypothesis?

Certainly makes sense to me and most priests and biblical scholars (including Catholic ones)

 

[patrick457]

What’s the big problem with the Two source hypothesis?

Certainly makes sense to me and most priests and biblical scholars (including Catholic ones)

Oh, I’ll get to that. Just wait.

I’m letting you in a secret, though: I’m willing to bet that the reason why most people ‘accept’ the Two-Source Hypothesis is because it is really the only solution to the Synoptic Problem most of us are regularly exposed to. Seriously, when was the last time you’ve heard something like the Griesbach Hypothesis or the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis actually being taught in schools and seminaries? In much of New Testament studies - both scholarly, religious and lay - the theory is introduced almost without any question, as if it is THE answer to the problem. (This is why I don’t like the notes to the NAB New Testament: it’s so biased towards the Two-Source Hypothesis. Yes, I know it’s the scholarly majority opinion, but I wish they’d kept off the talk about Q and whatnot off the sacred text and move it someplace else, if they so really want to keep it.) You’ll even find that most introductions to the New Testament and the Synoptic Problem out there are made from this hypothesis’ lens, hence all the problems have already been filtered through the solution - in this case, the Two-Source Hypothesis - when you learn it. Which is not a good teaching method. You first teach what the problem actually is, then you only go and consider the possible solutions.

End of rant.

 

[patrick457]

Patrick457, I really am taken by the diagram in your original post. Was this original to you, or did you find it in some other work? It clearly illustrates the interactions between the three Gospels. I will be watching this thread with interest. Thanks for doing this.

Uh, no, it’s not mine: I got it off wikipedia. Sorry. But you’re welcome!

 

[patrick457]

Special Matthew (M): As the name implies, material which is specific to the Gospel of Matthew. You have, for example, the Matthean birth narratives (1-2)*, 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 sidestory about the soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus (27:62-66, 28:11-15).

*Why are the birth narratives classified as Special Matthew material here, you may ask. This is because while Matthew and Luke do agree in the basics - that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that His parents were named Mary and Joseph - the two Gospels give two different stories from one another.

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, this (3:14-15):

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, here 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. You have as examples Peter trying to walk on water (14:28-31), the famous “Thou art Peter and upon this rock…” proclamation (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).

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 material to an already existing account in Mark (or Luke, or both of the two), or did Mark (or Luke, or both) ‘excise’ these material?

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 these Matthew-only narrative material has a more greater emphasis towards the supernatural that it could be said to have an almost ‘legendary’ (so Mark Goodacre) character than the bulk of narrative material elsewhere in the Synoptics: for example, the coin at the fish’s mouth or the resurrection of dead saints.​

 

[razredge]

Oh, I’ll get to that. Just wait.

Big rant

End of rant.

Yes, and? The pragmatic outcome of accepting the Two Source hypothesis is?
What is your proposed solution to the two source hypothesis?

 

[patrick457]

Yes, and? The pragmatic outcome of accepting the Two Source hypothesis is?
What is your proposed solution to the two source hypothesis?

Patience, my friend.