What if Q were to be found: in the canon or not?

[patrick457]

From The Authors of the Gospels:
There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that Q or its author ever existed. If Q had existed, it would have been the most precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of The Our Father and The Beatitudes to Q. Mark did not bother to record them. If Q had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been treasured, copied and passed from hand to hand and read at Services.

Markan priorists want us to believe that the community that produced Q later lost it, although it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of Q and these just happened to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

Those who hold the Markan theory demand the most stringent proof for the historicity of the Gospels, for which we have much historical evidence. Yet they accept conjectures and theories about Q, based on further conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality Q was created in the 19th century, out of nothing, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory.

Nope. It’s a common misconception that Markan priority and the Q theory are dependent on one another and are often treated as one and the same both by supporters and opponents, but in reality the two are not as intertwined as is commonly assumed. For one, the two theories originally developed as two separate ideas. Gottlob Christian Storr in 1786 was the first to think that Mark was the first to be written; in 1801 Herbert Marsh proposed that all three Synoptics could have drawn from a lost source which he dubbed with the Hebrew letter beth. Both ideas were originally largely ignored, scholars preferring either the Augustinian (Matthew is followed by Mark and then followed by Luke), the Griesbach (Matthew is followed by Luke who is followed by Mark who summarized Matthew and Luke) or the fragmentary theory (where individual pericopes of the Jesus story which originally circulated in the form of independent, unconnected notes were pieced and linked together differently by each Evangelist).

It was Christian Hermann Weisse and Christian Gottlob Wilke in 1838 who first joined together the idea of Markan priority and the theory of a source document, thereby developing the Two-source hypothesis as we know it today. This was a development from Karl Lachmann’s idea (1835): Lachmann, working from within the fragmentary theory, noted the phenomenon of Mark being the ‘middle term’ among the Synoptics upon comparison and inferred from this that Mark best preserved a relatively fixed order of episodes in Jesus’ ministry. Weisse and Wilke took it a step further, thinking that Mark is not just a representative of Matthew and Luke’s source but was (one of) the sources itself. Now their theory was also ignored at first until Heinrich Julius Holtzmann in 1863 gave it a new lease of life.

 

[Ignatius]

Let’s assume that a) there was a document, Q, which was a source for the sayings quoted from Jesus by the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; and b) that there was nothing in Q which contradicted the Gospels or tradition.

If Q were to be discovered in a buried jar in a cave, would it then be added to the canon accepted by the Church? If it were to be added, how would this be done?

Q is a pure hypothesis without a shread of actual evidence for it’s existance. It is a complete fabrication. No one in the time when the Gospels were written nor within living memory of that time nor for 1800 years after that ever said that there was any such thing.

 

[karebear92]

Q is a pure hypothesis without a shread of actual evidence for it’s existance. It is a complete fabrication. No one in the time when the Gospels were written nor within living memory of that time nor for 1800 years after that ever said that there was any such thing.

I am not promoting either way, but none of the Gospels mention that there were other Gospels.

 

[bmonk]

For the benefit of all of us, can you go into detail as to why it would be unlikely that, say, Luke used Matthew? I’ll formulate a response when I get my hands on a decent computer.

We see from comparing Mark and Luke that Luke tends to use his material in large chunks, editing details he thinks need to be changed, dropping sections that seem repetitive or not useful to his community, but generally leaving the order intact. Thus the material from Mark comes mostly in three big sections, Lk 3:1–6:19, 8:4–9:50, and 18:15–24:11. However, when we compare the sections that would be from Q–that Luke and Matthew have but not Mark, again we find it comes in large chunks–the “small insertion” of Lk 6:20-8:3, and the “large insertion” of 9:51–18:14, (which is most of the “Journey to Jerusalem”). However, that same material is not found together in Matthew–it is widely scattered, often in different order and with different associations.

Thus it doesn’t seem likely that Luke was using Matthew–unless the version he had of Matthew was already very heavily edited, virtually unrecognizable as the Gospel we have today. For example, it would mean that the “five discourses” of Matthew were not yet gathered together. Oddly, the first one, the “Sermon on the Mount” does come across more or less recognizable in the “Sermon on the Plain”, again treated much as the Markan material was: edited, but still in one big chunk. (Here Luke seems to have dropped the stuff on the Law, as not pertinent to his mostly Gentile community, and changed “You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48) to “Be merciful, just as [also] your Father is merciful.” (Lk 6:36).)

By the way, karebear92, one Gospel does mention others: Luke’s prologue says that, “Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us. . . .” These other narratives would be Gospels, or something like them–possibly including Q, or teaching works like the later Gospel of Thomas.

 

[steve53]

“These other narratives would be Gospels, or something like them–possibly including Q, or teaching works like the later Gospel of Thomas.”

Had to sneak Thomas in there, didn’t you?

 

[Erich]

Thus it doesn’t seem likely that Luke was using Matthew

The basic structure of Matthew is chronological-biographical. But within that frame, Matthew frequently arranges his details non-chronologically. He tells miracle stories in clusters of two or three, often based on what kind of miracles they are. Jesus will heal the blind and the mute back to back, or calm a storm and then cast out demons, not because the events happened in that order but because the miracles are on the same topic, so to speak.

On the other hand, Luke himself tells us, at the very beginning of his gospel,
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke show clear signs of borrowing. The dispute as to who borrowed from whom, and therefore in what order they were written, is the key to the debate regarding authorship.

According to the Markan priority theory, when Matthew ceases to follow the order of Mark, Luke continues in it until, when Luke ceases, Matthew takes over, and this continues throughout the Gospels. This could only have been accomplished if Matthew and Luke co-ordinated their work very closely. But, according to the Markan priority theory, these Gospels were created in separate communities that were out of touch with one another. This is an insoluble difficulty for the Markan theory.

This difficulty also applies to individual phrases. Matthew and Luke use exactly the same five Greek words to form a phrase concerning Peter`s denial. Mark uses three different words conveying the same meaning (Mark 14: 72). If Markan priority is correct, how could Matthew and Luke have arrived at the same phrase without having been in contact with one another?

There is much internal and external evidence indicating that Mark borrowed from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke… much more than I can summarize here. I highly recommend reading The Authors of the Gospels.

 

[Julia_Mae]

There is much internal and external evidence indicating that Mark borrowed from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke… much more than I can summarize here. I highly recommend reading The Authors of the Gospels.

I don’t think there’s much evidence at all that Mark is derived from Matthew or Luke. I have no idea who Dennis Barton is, but he’s not a recognized Scripture scholar so I think I’ll skip his book which seems to have been written with an agenda other than objectively evaluating the available information.

Erich wrote:

On the other hand, Luke himself tells us, at the very beginning of his gospel,
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The best evidence we have in a direct statement for the existence of other writings. “Many” is not 2. Any of those “many” or even more than one could be what is called “Q.” The GTh is derived from somewhere. A large part of it is either very similar or identical to the synoptics but… then we ask where did the rest come from and why are the “similar” parts only similar and not the same?

More to the point, once you have removed everything in the three synoptics that are shared by at least two of them, where did the rest of the material come from that is independent to each?

Many wrote. Like, whoever was following Jesus and writing letters home about it that comprise most of Mark couldn’t have been the only one writing letters home, surely?

I was just reading about how they would make copies of everything Popes wrote, all the little letters and orders, just everything, and store them. 90% of that material is lost, it is only from the 13th century on that we have managed to retain most of what they wrote.

Now, these are things intended to be retained for all time through history. And they got lost. The idea that we have no copies of single letters or sources from a time when folks were just sending each other the news seems to me to be normal.

 

[drforjc]

From newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
Pseudo-Epistles of St. Paul; Correspondence with the Corinthians
The ancient Syrian (Edessene) Church revered as canonical a Third Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, which is accompanied by a letter from the pastors of that Church, to which it is an answer. But about the beginning of the fifth century the Syrian Church fell under the influence of the Greek, and in consequence the spurious letter gradually lost its canonical status. It was taken up by the neighbouring Armenians and for centuries has formed a part of the Armenian New Testament. Latin and Greek writers are completely silent about this pseudograph, although Greek and Latin copies have been found. It was obviously suggested by the lost genuine Pauline letter referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:9 and 7:1. It was composed by a Catholic presbyter about 160-170, and is a disguised attack on some of the leading errors of Gnosticism. This correspondence long had an independent circulation, but recently it has been proved that the document was incorporated into the Acts of St. Paul (q.v.).
Here’s the letter, if you want to read it for yourself.

That’s hardly being used and accepted by the universal Church… still does not meet the criterion.

 

[BrianH]

Probably would start off in some versions in an appendix. Over time, it is hard to say. It really depends on what, if it exists of course, it said. Thomas was too Gnostic (so the argument goes). If Q was orthodox in doctrine, I think it could begin to carry some weight.

 

[Erich]

I have no idea who Dennis Barton is, but he’s not a recognized Scripture scholar so I think I’ll skip his book which seems to have been written with an agenda other than objectively evaluating the available information.

If you had bothered to read past the title page, you’d have seen the following:This publication brings together the Synoptic researches of many, especially the following pioneers:

Dr. Henry Owen (1716-1795). Anglican priest, Scripture scholar and Boyle Lecturer. First pioneer in modern times to propose the Matthew-Luke-Mark order of the Gospels.

Johann Griesbach (1745-1812). Lutheran University professor who spread knowledge of the Matthew-Luke-Mark order in Germany and beyond.

Pontifical Biblical Commission (1902 -1971). Firmly opposed the Markan Priority theory.

John Chapman OSB. (1865-1933). Considered the greatest Patristic scholar of his time, pointed out weakness of the Markan priority theory. Upheld the priority of Matthew’s gospel.

Abbot Christopher Butler OSB (1902-86). Leading English-speaking contributor at Vatican II.
Influential in forming the open attitude to research, to be found in Dei Verbum.
Lifelong active defender of the priority of Matthew’s Gospel.
Auxiliary bishop of Westminster, London.

William R. Farmer (died in 2000). Methodist professor. He showed how Markan Priority was established in Germany, by Government imposed, ‘political correctness.’
Promoted the Matthew-Luke-Mark order throughout America.
Editor of the International Bible Commentary (1998).

Harold Riley. Anglican priest and Scripture scholar. Close co-operator with Bernard Orchard.

Dom Bernard Orchard OSB (1910-2006).
Editor of:
The Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture (1953).
The New Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture (1969).
Catholic Edition of The Revised Standard Version of the Bible. (1966).
I assume you’ll find several “recognized Scripture scholars” more to your liking in this list – and in the three (single-spaced) pages of references at the end of the booklet (in which Barton does nothing except objectively evaluating the available information!)

 

[Erich]

I don’t think there’s much evidence at all that Mark is derived from Matthew or Luke.

After Peter’s death, Mark founded a bishopric at Alexandria. When Clement succeeded to this diocese he inherited its traditions and archives.

The meaning of Clement of Alexandria’s statement: “the first written of the gospels were those having the genealogies”, could not have been clearer. But some people hesitate to accept it because they have been told that other sources outweigh Clement’s evidence. This objection shows a misunderstanding of the argument being put forward in the booklet. While the booklet asserts that Luke wrote before Mark, it acknowledges that Mark published before Luke.

We know from Clement that a large audience begged Mark to publish his notes of Peter’s talk(s). He did so and, because it was a short treatise and being urgently requested, its publication prior to Luke’s gospel is easy to understand.

This would have led to its filing in Church libraries ahead of Luke’s gospel and so helping to form the familiar sequence of Matthew-Mark-Luke. In the future, when sermons were delivered, or treatise written, it was natural to utilise this order. It is not therefore surprising to find this order in some manuscripts.

But a number of people would have had knowledge of an old tradition regarding the sequence in which the gospels had been written. This would have lead to debates and have provoked Clement to specifically intervene so as to clarify the issue.

We should also not forget that when using the gospels in disputes, explaining teachings and comparing gospels, the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence was used frequently (see Irenaeus, Tertullian, Jerome, Ambrosiaster and Augustine of Hippo).

For centuries it was universally presumed that the sequence of Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, enshrined in the New Testament as translated by St. Jerome, was the sequence in which they had been written. Henry Owen’s suggestion, in 1764, that Luke wrote prior to Mark, was seen by academics as revolutionary. But, as his idea did not threaten the historical reliability of the Gospels, Christians were not perturbed. It was when the Markan priority theory asserted that Mark had written before Matthew, and that Matthew and John were not eyewitnesses of the life of Christ, that Christians became concerned.

The supporters of the Jerome sequence appealed to the authority of Augustine of Hippo, who had said ‘the received tradition’ was Matthew-Mark-Luke-John. They often refer to this order as: ‘The Augustinian Tradition’. But, as pointed out in chapter II of the booklet, Augustine in his fourth book followed Clement of Alexandria’s order of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John

In the early church the Gospels were read in church in continuous order. The Epistle and Gospel read on a Sunday would continue from where it had been left the previous week. Signs of this pattern, with interruptions for feasts, may be found in many of the Eastern Churches today. The Byzantine Church in her Sunday gospel readings begin immediately after Pentecost with Matthew. Luke follows from September, Mark begins in or before Lent and John is read following Easter. The Syrian church has the same arrangement (evidently originating in Antioch).

This pattern, together with the use of this sequence by Irenaeus, points to at least some of the early church using the gospels in the Matthew-Luke-Mark-John order.

The evidence for Mark being derived from Matthew and Luke – and even the probable scenario as to how this occurred (which, by the way, also accounts for the “poor Greek” of Mark) is spelled out in the booklet.

For example, consider the duplications of Mark, which are a feature of his style. These are usually referred to as his redundant clauses or dualities. To take just one example:

Matthew: “That evening they brought to him“ (Mt. 8: 16-17).
Luke: “Now when the sun was setting, …they …brought them to him “ (Luke 4: 40-41).

The gospel of Mark (1: 32), conflates the material together as:

“That evening, when the sun was setting, [or sundown] they brought to him …”.

By using evening and sundown, Mark is duplicating himself. For those who accept that Mark is conflating, there is no difficulty as it is just part of the style of Mark. But for Markan priorists duality is a serious problem. If there were only a few instances of duality, they could be ignored. It could be said that Matthew just happened to use half of the duality and Luke happened to use the other half. But there are many dualities and where both halves are of equal importance, they never chose the same half. Matthew and Luke would have had to divide up Mark`s dualities between them in a consistent manner to avoid them using the same half. The only way this division could have been achieved would be for them to have worked closely together. The problem is, according to Markan priority theory, Matthew and Luke did not know one another.

I was taught Markan priority in high school, but the more I looked into it – and saw that it conflicted with the two-millennia-old tradition of the Church – the less I liked it.

 

[Erich]

Here’s the letter

, if you want to read it for yourself.That’s hardly being used and accepted by the universal Church… still does not meet the criterion.

If you follow the “Here’s the letter” link you’ll understand that the previous paragraph was just a set-up.

I will grant that the particular letter I linked was definitely not used and accepted by the universal Church That said, it’s also clear from the two letters we do have, that there *was *a third letter to the Corinthians.

 

[Julia_Mae]

If you had bothered to read past the title page,…

I did. Saw the list. Scholars argue. When one is promoting a POV, they cite the authors who support their POV. Esp when one is not a scholar themselves.

This is also, BTW, why if “Q” is found in some form, it will not become part of the Canon. Whatever may be in it is: A.) already part of the Canon and so would be redundant and/or B.) has material not considered worthy of inclusion by those much closer to the original events than we are. Substituting modern judgement for theirs seems ill-advised.

Possibly there could be worthy material that neither author felt necessary to include in their narratives, bu then, why should we?

 

[Julia_Mae]

After Peter’s death, Mark founded a bishopric at Alexandria. When Clement succeeded to this diocese he inherited its traditions and archives. .

You are assuming that the entire book we call “Mark” was written by this same person. Hardly likely. Was there a “gospel” of John Mark that was the basis what came to be Mark in the form we have it? Yes, I believe there was. Is there evidence it derived from the Gospels that followed it? No, I don’t think so.

None of us will ever know the facts of these matters in this life and in the next we will not care.

 

[patrick457]

The basic structure of Matthew is chronological-biographical. But within that frame, Matthew frequently arranges his details non-chronologically. He tells miracle stories in clusters of two or three, often based on what kind of miracles they are. Jesus will heal the blind and the mute back to back, or calm a storm and then cast out demons, not because the events happened in that order but because the miracles are on the same topic, so to speak.

On the other hand, Luke himself tells us, at the very beginning of his gospel,
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke show clear signs of borrowing. The dispute as to who borrowed from whom, and therefore in what order they were written, is the key to the debate regarding authorship.

According to the Markan priority theory, when Matthew ceases to follow the order of Mark, Luke continues in it until, when Luke ceases, Matthew takes over, and this continues throughout the Gospels. This could only have been accomplished if Matthew and Luke co-ordinated their work very closely. But, according to the Markan priority theory, these Gospels were created in separate communities that were out of touch with one another. This is an insoluble difficulty for the Markan theory.

This difficulty also applies to individual phrases. Matthew and Luke use exactly the same five Greek words to form a phrase concerning Peter`s denial. Mark uses three different words conveying the same meaning (Mark 14: 72). If Markan priority is correct, how could Matthew and Luke have arrived at the same phrase without having been in contact with one another?

There is much internal and external evidence indicating that Mark borrowed from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke… much more than I can summarize here. I highly recommend reading The Authors of the Gospels.

Again, the problem with how this theory is presented is that it uses ‘Markan priority’ to mean ‘Two-source Hypothesis’ and assumes that to deconstruct the priority of Mark is to deconstruct Q, which is wrong; I think the author should have made a distinction at least. The Farrer-Goulder theory (one I personally hold) assumes priority of Mark and knowledge of Luke by Matthew, and with it rejection of Q. The fact that such a theory (even an obscure and not-so-unpublicized one) can even exist shows that Q and Markan priority are not so reliant on one another, contrary to popular wisdom.

 

[patrick457]

From newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

Pseudo-Epistles of St. Paul; Correspondence with the Corinthians
The ancient Syrian (Edessene) Church revered as canonical a Third Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, which is accompanied by a letter from the pastors of that Church, to which it is an answer. But about the beginning of the fifth century the Syrian Church fell under the influence of the Greek, and in consequence the spurious letter gradually lost its canonical status. It was taken up by the neighbouring Armenians and for centuries has formed a part of the Armenian New Testament. Latin and Greek writers are completely silent about this pseudograph, although Greek and Latin copies have been found. It was obviously suggested by the lost genuine Pauline letter referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:9 and 7:1. It was composed by a Catholic presbyter about 160-170, and is a disguised attack on some of the leading errors of Gnosticism. This correspondence long had an independent circulation, but recently it has been proved that the document was incorporated into the Acts of St. Paul (q.v.).
Here’s the letter, if you want to read it for yourself.

My Dear Corinthians:

I, Paul, by the will of God an Apostle, having written twice to you on several matters of great importance now find myself compelled to write a third time.

I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more.

SHAPE UP!

Nice test!

 

[patrick457]

Again, the problem with how this theory is presented is that it uses ‘Markan priority’ to mean ‘Two-source Hypothesis’ and assumes that to deconstruct the priority of Mark is to deconstruct Q, which is wrong; I think the author should have made a distinction at least. The Farrer-Goulder theory (one I personally hold) assumes priority of Mark and knowledge of Luke by Matthew, and with it rejection of Q. The fact that such a theory (even an obscure and not-so-unpublicized one) can even exist shows that Q and Markan priority are not so reliant on one another, contrary to popular wisdom.

I meant ‘knowledge of Matthew by Luke’. D’oh!

 

[patrick457]

We see from comparing Mark and Luke that Luke tends to use his material in large chunks, editing details he thinks need to be changed, dropping sections that seem repetitive or not useful to his community, but generally leaving the order intact. Thus the material from Mark comes mostly in three big sections, Lk 3:1–6:19, 8:4–9:50, and 18:15–24:11. However, when we compare the sections that would be from Q–that Luke and Matthew have but not Mark, again we find it comes in large chunks–the “small insertion” of Lk 6:20-8:3, and the “large insertion” of 9:51–18:14, (which is most of the “Journey to Jerusalem”). However, that same material is not found together in Matthew–it is widely scattered, often in different order and with different associations.

Thus it doesn’t seem likely that Luke was using Matthew–unless the version he had of Matthew was already very heavily edited, virtually unrecognizable as the Gospel we have today. For example, it would mean that the “five discourses” of Matthew were not yet gathered together. Oddly, the first one, the “Sermon on the Mount” does come across more or less recognizable in the “Sermon on the Plain”, again treated much as the Markan material was: edited, but still in one big chunk. (Here Luke seems to have dropped the stuff on the Law, as not pertinent to his mostly Gentile community, and changed “You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48) to “Be merciful, just as [also] your Father is merciful.” (Lk 6:36).)

By the way, karebear92, one Gospel does mention others: Luke’s prologue says that, “Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us. . . .” These other narratives would be Gospels, or something like them–possibly including Q, or teaching works like the later Gospel of Thomas.

Okay. I’ll dig up what I wrote on an earlier thread weighing arguments both for and against Q, partly because I didn’t finish it back then.

 

[patrick457]

As I am wont to do, let’s see what the problem actually is before we go further.

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), and other subcategories besides.

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. 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.