4. The Imaginary Q
There are two
fundamental errors responsible for the seemingly futile quest for the historical
Jesus. The first, discussed at length thus far, is the failure to recognize the
central historical value of John’s underlying narrative. The second is the widespread
belief that Matthew and Luke both used a hypothetical sayings gospel Q. To be
sure, the notion that Q existed as a primitive collection of sayings is a
popular belief among many scholars, so to suggest that it did not exist may
appear at first to be somewhat reckless. Nevertheless, an important objective
of this chapter will be to illustrate that there is no evidence that Q ever
existed, and no logical reason to assume that it ever did. As an appeal to Q is
frequently used to establish the authenticity of particular sayings of Jesus,
it has had substantial influence in the historical Jesus quest. It is certainly
true that if Q did exist as a primitive collection of sayings, there would be
good reason to imagine that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet as Bart Erhman and
many others have alleged. Yet there would also be good evidence to argue that
he was a wandering Cynic sage as per John Dominic Crossan, or a Galilean rabbi
as per Bruce Chilton. For the fact is, the Q sayings (or more accurately, the
double tradition sayings common to Luke and Matthew) are remarkably
accommodating in their ability to support any number of Jesus reconstructions
that might appeal to the historian. When the existence and priority of Q is
assumed as a foundational starting point in the quest, a variety of plausible
interpreta-tions of Jesus are the inevitable result.
As the Q theory is so
central to modern Jesus studies and so muddling in its effect, its defeat is
required if there is to be any hope for progress in the Jesus quest. Yet the
existence of Q is considered to be beyond doubt by many scholars, so the bar is
set extremely high for anyone wishing to challenge the credibility of the
theory. The burden falls to challengers of the theory to prove that Q did not exist, rather than to advocates to
prove that it did. Unfortunately one cannot disprove the existence of Q anymore
than one can disprove the existence of unicorns. However, once we dismantle the
arguments commonly alleged to support Q’s existence we can establish that (a)
there are no reasons to believe Q ever existed, (b) the Q theory fails to
explain the Synoptic data that it is purported to explain, and (c) there is a
simpler and more comprehensive solution to the Synoptic Problem.
Lack of historical evidence
Within academic
literature the Q theory is conventionally referred to by either of two more
formal titles, either the Two-Document
Hypothesis (2DH) or the Two-Source Hypothesis
(2SH). In both cases they refer to the proposition that the authors of
Matthew and Luke each independently relied upon Mark and Q as their two primary
source documents. The 2DH is currently the most popular of several hypotheses
offers as solutions to the Synoptic
Problem, which is the field of study that addresses questions of the
temporal sequence in which the Synoptics were composed, and which of the later
authors may have relied upon the earlier gospels as literary sources. Herein we
will use the Two-Document Hypothesis, or 2DH, and the less formal “Q theory”
interchangeably.
Despite the
widespread popularity of the 2DH, all scholars concede that there is no
historical evidence for the existence of Q. No full or partial manuscripts have
ever been found, nor are there any obvious references in early church writings
to a sayings gospel that circulated prior to the publication of the NT gospels.
Q theorists rationalize the disappearance of Q from the historical record on
the grounds that the replication of the entire document by both Luke and
Matthew rendered Q’s continued existence as a discrete publication superfluous.
Yet it is just at this point that we encounter the first of many improbable
assumptions that undergird the Q theory. The only evidence we have of editorial
behavior on the part of Luke and Matthew is their respective use of Mark. Matthew
replicates over 90% of the material in Mark, and Luke over 40%. Neither one
reproduces Mark in its entirety, and the Markan materials taken over by Luke
and Matthew are only occasionally copied verbatim; both authors applied
numerous edits, corrections, and expansions to their Markan source. On what
grounds, then, would we assume that either
of these authors, writing independently, would choose to replicate the
entire Q collection without applying their own omissions and edits to it? And
if there were portions of the Q document that were omitted or noticeably edited
by Matthew and Luke, why would Q have been regarded as superfluous? Indeed, why
would a discrete collection of Jesus’ sayings that was widely regarded by the
movement as an authentic record of his teachings have been unceremoniously
expunged from the movement’s traditions, even if Luke and Matthew had folded
the entire collection into their own more extensive accounts? The movement
appears to have gone to great lengths to preserve the writings of John, even
when it was clearly against its political interests. Why would it have retired
a unique collection of Jesus’ sayings that was, according to Q theorists,
revered by the faithful at least to the degree that Mark must have been? Thus, at
the outset of the inquiry, the Q theory requires that we accept two highly
improbable assumptions: One, that the movement discontinued and successfully
removed all trace of a document that had been held in high regard, and two,
that the editorial behavior of Matthew and Luke with respect to Q was entirely
inconsistent with their use of Mark.
An Absurd Foundational Premise
Once we move past
this improbable prelude, we encounter another implausible premise upon which
the entire apparatus of Q scholarship is dependent: the author of the later of Luke or Matthew was not aware that the
earlier of the two gospels had been published. This has been repeated so
often that we have become desensitized to the extreme improbability of the
claim. Yet on the face of it, this premise is difficult to believe. Matthew and
Luke are the two most extensive collections of Jesus traditions known to have
been published in the first century. According to the Q theory, both authors
were involved with outwardly focused evangelical Jesus communities with a world
mission in view. Both of these communities held Mark and Q in high regard as
their two primary documents of faith. Since they were an oppressed minority
sharing common beliefs and common documents of faith, the most obvious
inference would be that there must have been at least some communication
between them. Moreover, Luke and Matthew each conducted extensive research,
collecting, and organizing the evolving traditions. Both produced masterful
conflations of Mark and the double tradition sayings, and to them added a
variety of other similar materials including infancy narratives, genealogies,
the great sermon format, and a final call to take the gospel to all nations. At
the time that the first of either Matthew or Luke was published, it would have
been the greatest compendium of Jesus traditions yet assembled. So it seems
unlikely in the extreme that the publication of either Matthew or Luke in one
community would have remained unknown to the other. Yet it is upon this
proposition that the edifice of Q scholarship has been precariously erected.
The Q theorist insists, “Neither Matthew nor Luke could have been aware of and
dependent upon the other’s work, therefore we must posit the existence of Q as
the source of the double tradition.”
In order to sustain the
2DH it must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Luke cannot have known
and copied from Matthew, and that
Matthew cannot have known and copied from Luke. The fact that at least one of
them did not know the other is a given since the earlier writer could not have
known the latter. However, since the publication dates of Luke and Matthew are
unknown, it is necessary to demonstrate the improbability of dependence in both directions in order to justify
the leap to a hypothetical solution. Nevertheless, in the scholarly works on Q
there is an overwhelming preoccupation with the notion that Luke cannot have
known and copied from Matthew, whereas there is mostly silence on whether Matthew
could have known Luke. And while we may readily acknowledge that Q theorists
have marshaled an impressive array of compelling arguments to demonstrate
Luke’s unawareness of Matthew, if Luke was the earlier of the two then all of
these arguments are beside the point. In this case, the only relevant inquiry
would be whether Matthew knew Luke, and on this possible direction of
dependence, Q theorists fall surprisingly silent. This is a remarkable
oversight, for if Matthew postdated Luke and there are no compelling arguments
that he could not have known and copied Luke, the rationale for assuming the
existence of Q collapses.
In point of fact, the
Synoptic Problem is easily resolved by assuming that Matthew was the last of
the three, and that the author composed his gospel with Mark and Luke in front
of him. No eccentric editorial behavior is suggested by his editing. He appears
to have scanned and recompiled sayings material from Luke in precisely the same
manner that Q theorists allege that he scanned Q. He tightened up Luke’s
verbose redundancies. He refocused the Jesus story as a fulfillment of Jewish
heritage. And he cleaned up a number of loose ends that were left dangling in
the earlier gospels. Matthew’s rational use of both Mark and Luke obviates the
need to imagine a hypothetical Q.
This simple solution
notwithstanding, Q advocates often write as if Matthew’s use of Luke is not
worthy of mention even as a theoretical possibility. John Kloppenborg, the best
known contemporary proponent of the Two-Document
Hypothesis, excludes Matthew’s use of Luke from his summary of potential
Synoptic solutions:
...
several solutions to the Synoptic Problem are logically possible: those in
which Mark is medial. Each of the major hypotheses—the 2DH, Griesbach, Farrer-Goulder,
and “Augustinian” hypotheses—offer logically possible accountings for the
Synoptic data. The real point of disagreement among Synoptic Problem
specialists is not what is logically possible, but which hypotheses imply
plausible editorial procedures on the part of the evangelists. In my view, it
is far easier to accommodate the few significant minor agreements against Mark,
for which various, if not completely satisfying explanations have been
proposed, than it is to accept a Luke who drastically rearranged Matthew, or a
Mark who conflated and abbreviated Matthew and Luke and in doing so darkened
the portrait of Jesus’ family and disciples. Advocates of the other hypotheses,
all fair-minded and careful scholars, evidently do not sense these difficulties
so acutely and hence the Synoptic Problem remains a problem.[1]
Kloppenborg correctly
identifies the essential issue as plausible
editorial procedure. Do the writings of any given Synoptic author make
coherent sense as edits to the text(s) he was allegedly dependent upon? The
problem is that in all of the hypotheses cited by Kloppenborg the answer is no. The 2DH, Griesbach, Farrer-Goulder,
and Augustine, are all improbable solutions to the Synoptic Problem in that
they each in different ways posit absurd editorial behavior. Scholars find
themselves debating which among these hypotheses is the least logically
problematic, and though the 2DH is the most popular thesis, no ultimate consensus
has yet been achieved. The Q theory’s popularity is not due to its logical
integrity or intrinsic resolving power, but rather due to the greater
improbability of the hypotheses alleged to compete against it. In short, Q
tends to win by default as the least offensive of poorly conceived solutions. We
will argue here that Synoptic Problem remains a problem because the actual
solution has not been admitted into the arena of possible alternatives.
Kloppenborg’s assessment is that the Q hypothesis is logically preferable to
the theories arguing for Luke’s use of Matthew, which is true as far as it
goes. The same argument appears in Helmut Koester’s commentary:
All attempts to disprove the two-source
hypothesis favor the priority of Matthew… This is a very problematic position,
burdened with great difficulties, especially with regard to the sayings
materials of Matthew’s Gospel. In most instances, very good arguments can be
brought forward to show that the Gospel of Luke has preserved more original
forms of the sayings shared by Matthew and Luke; thus Matthew cannot have been
the source of these Lukan sayings. Moreover, if there was no common sayings
source shared by Matthew and Luke, an explanation of the source or sources, of
Matthew’s sayings must still work with the assumption of some earlier
document(s) through which these sayings came to the author of the First Gospel.
Scholars who deny the existence of a Synoptic Sayings Source [Q] still have to
find a theory by which the transmission of the sayings to the author of
Matthew’s Gospel can be explained. In other words, the rejection of the
two-source hypothesis solves nothing and creates new riddles for which even
more complex and more improbable hypotheses have to be proposed.[2]
Since in Koester’s
view there are “good arguments” to show that Luke could not have been dependent
on Matthew, he concludes that the double tradition material must have been
transmitted to Matthew’s Gospel via access to a common Q source. As with Kloppenborg,
Koester does not discuss the possibility that Matthew may have known Luke. The
result is that contemporary dialogue on the Synoptic Problem is reduced to an
odd spectacle in which nothing but highly improbable hypotheses are brought to
the table for discussion.
The Peculiar Case for
the Existence of Q
On what grounds are
people led to believe that Q existed? The quotation from Helmut Koester above
is an opening preamble for his review of evidence that he believes justifies
the assumption. He follows that statement with three observations that he
alleges “argue strongly for the existence of a Synoptic Sayings Source and its
use by Matthew and Luke.” The first of them is as follows:
What
Matthew and Luke share in addition to their common Markan pericopes consists
almost exclusively of sayings. The only exceptions are: one miracle story (Matt
8:5-13 = Luke 7:1-10), materials about John the Baptist and Jesus’ baptism
(parts of Matt. 3:1-17 = Luke 3:2-9, 16-17, 21-22), and the story of Jesus’
temptation (Matt 4:1-11 = Luke 4:1-13). This requires the assumption of a
common source which consisted mostly of sayings of Jesus and probably of some
other shared non-Markan materials.[3]
The first portion of
this observation is a simple statement of fact—the double tradition (material
appearing in Matthew and Luke but not Mark) does indeed consist primarily of
Jesus’ sayings. However, in the last sentence, Koester makes a leap without
justification, claiming that the fact that the double tradition consists mostly
of sayings requires “the assumption of a common source which consisted mostly
of sayings of Jesus.” Logically, it does not. It requires the assumption that
either (a) Matthew or Luke copied from the other, or (b) both copied from a
common source. Koester’s previous statement argues against Luke’s use of
Matthew, but remains silent on Matthew’s use of Luke. Unless one can dismiss
the possibility of dependence in both directions, the leap to the conclusion
that Q is the only viable solution is premature.
Koester’s second
observation favoring the existence of Q is this:
The
numerous verbal agreements of these parallel passages cannot be explained as
dependence of either Matthew upon Luke or dependence of Luke upon Matthew
because in numerous instances Luke’s version is evidently the more original
one. But there are also passages in which Matthew rather than Luke has
preserved words and phrases which cannot be explained as the product of
Matthew’s editorial work.[4]
Here Koester
acknowledges that Matthew’s potential use of Luke must be dismissed in order
for the Q theory to stand. To argue this point he notes that there are
occasional elements in Matthew’s double tradition material that cannot have
been derived from Matthew’s editing of Luke. Once again, the factual
observation is correct but the inference is not. There are indeed instances in
which Matthew records a more original form, and Luke appears to have recorded a
later edited version. However Koester’s inference from this that Matthew did
not know Luke is another unjustified leap.
To illustrate, let us
consider the distinctive Semitic parallelisms that exist in Matthew such as The House Built upon the Rock (Luke 6:46-49
= Matt 7:21-27), and Treasures of Heaven
(Luke 12:33-34 = Matt 6:19-21). Matthew’s versions of these sayings are
presented in the form of a structured parallelism, whereas Luke renders them in
prose. The parallelisms are regarded as the earlier forms of the sayings due to
the advantage of their structure in oral transmission. The assumption is
certainly reasonable. Does this indicate that Matthew could not have been using
Luke as a source? Not at all. For it is evident that Matthew would have known
various forms of numerous sayings, one version appearing in Luke and another in
a different oral or written source. That he would sometimes opt for variants he
may have considered more authentic, or more poetic, or more popular in his
community than those recorded by Luke is to be expected. Perhaps he was
motivated to distinguish his work from Luke’s by presenting the different
variation. Thus Matthew may easily have been aware of both the parallel form of
these sayings and Luke’s prose rendering of them, and opted to include the
parallel form for any of several reasons. In short, Matthew’s occasional use of
an alternative form of a saying that has a later counterpart in Luke indicates
nothing about Matthew’s awareness of Luke. On the other hand, Matthew’s direct
editing of Luke would create a body of double tradition sayings in which, as
Koester admits, “in numerous instances Luke’s version is evidently the more
original one.” Koester presents this observation as one that “argues
strongly for the existence of a Synoptic Saying Source and its use by Matthew
and Luke.” In reality, it does not.
Koester continues:
Indeed,
in some instances what is certainly original in a particular saying may occur
partially in Luke and partially in Matthew. A striking example of this is
[Matthew 7:23 = Luke 13:27] The second half of this saying is a quotation
of Psalm 6:8. But while the first words of the sentence from this psalm are
accurately preserved only in Luke, the last words of the quotation have an
exact parallel only in Matthew. One must assume that there was a common source
used by both authors and that this common source quotes the sentence exactly as
it occurred in Ps. 6:8.[5]
If one presupposes
the existence of Q, one may assume that Q must have been the source used by
both authors that contained the sentence exactly as it occurred in Psalms 6:8.
On the other hand, those unconvinced of Q’s existence might suppose the common
source was the Septuagint, which was used by both Matthew and Luke. Here we
might imagine that Matthew sees the quotation in Luke, and in cross-referencing
the Psalm in the Septuagint, finds a preferred way to present the saying. Yet
Koester interprets the citation of Ps 6:8 as evidence that Matthew and Luke must
necessarily have drawn from Q. On what grounds would one assume that Q was the
only source available to Matthew and Luke that could have contained the exact
wording of the Psalm?
The third of
Koester’s arguments for the existence of Q is this:
The
sequence in which certain groups of sayings occur in the Gospel of Luke often
reveals an association and composition of sayings that is more directly related
to the process of the collection of oral materials, while Matthew interrupts or
disturbs such sequences whenever his motivations as an author of literature are
evident. In his version of Jesus’ speech for the “sending of the disciples”
(Matt 9:37-11:1), Matthew parallels Luke in the reproduction of a series of
sayings which instruct missionaries with respect to their conduct. But he
repeatedly interpolates materials which belong to other contexts and often do
not fit the genre of an older collection of originally oral sayings.
Q/Luke
10:2-12 exhibits all the features of an early collection of rules for the
conduct of the missionary. Its composition most likely took place in the oral
transmission of such regulations, and Q still reflects the loose connection of
such a unit of tradition. That Matthew’s text is the result of a
secondary redaction, revealing the use of written sources, is evident in the
manner of his composition. He employed one primary source, i.e.,
Q, still intact in Luke’s version, in which he included additional materials
which were mostly drawn from his other major source, i.e., Mark, then
adding materials drawn from other contexts of both sources. In the case of
Mark, the materials which Matthew used from his collection of rules about
missionaries appear in the same sequence. But in the case of Q, Matthew changed
their original order.[6]
Once again, the
missing logical element is that which would require us to presume that Matthew
used Q instead of Luke. For there would have been no difference in Matthew’s
results had he drawn from Q, or from the Gospel of Luke in which Q allegedly
remains “intact.” The fact is that Koester describes precisely the process by
which Matthew conflated Mark and Luke, reorganizing and editing Luke’s
materials to contextualize them into a Markan framework. Absent a proof that
Matthew did not know Luke, this description of Matthew’s editorial procedure
lends no weight to the theory that the authors drew from Q. Koester presupposes
the existence of Q in order to make the case for its existence.
In summary, Koester’s
observations that are alleged to argue for the existence of Q do not do so.
Each of his observations can be interpreted and resolved within the context of
the simpler alternative that Matthew conflated Mark and Luke, without
attributing to Matthew any unusual or eccentric editorial behavior. Koester is
by no means unusual in this. Many Q advocates exhibit the same tendency to
seize upon questionable data and ascribe to them decisive evidentiary value
that does not hold up under critical examination. Consider the claim by Arland
Jacobson that appears at the beginning of his discussion on the literary unity
of Q:
…we
may note one small but very striking example of the distinctive usage of Q over
against that of Mark. In Q, the quotation formula, “I say to you,” never occurs
with the word “truly” ….. In fact, the word “truly” does not occur anywhere in
Q; at least, there is no double attestation of it. But Mark has fourteen
instances of the “I say to you” formula, and in all but two he has
“truly.” In at least one case the absence of “truly” is easily explained:
it is used in the previous verse. The consistency of Markan usage is as
dramatic as the fact that “truly” is never found in Q, even though it occurs
often in Matthew and six times in Luke. Not only does this illustrate the
difference in usage between Mark and Q, but it is also a potent argument
for the Two-document hypothesis.[7]
Is this really a
potent argument for the Q theory? Once again, the argument is on thin ice.
First, the claim that “truly” does not occur anywhere in Q is not well-founded.
In the double tradition saying Luke 12:44 = Matt 24:47, Matthew uses “amen (truly) I say to you,” whereas Luke
uses “alethos (of a truth) I say to
you.” Based upon this, Q theorists claim that it is doubtful that amen was in the original Q text.
However, in the saying concerning the poor widow’s contribution which Luke
takes over from Mark, Luke sees amen
in Mark 12:43, and changes it to alethos
in Luke 21:3. Similarly, amen appears
in Mark 9:1, and Luke changes it to alethos
in his reproduction of this saying (Luke 9:27). So Luke’s propensity to
substitute alethos for amen is demonstrable. Moreover, 9:27,
12:44, and 21:3 are the only three occurrences of alethos in the Gospel of Luke. On what grounds would one argue that he changed amen to alethos twice in his use of Mark, but he must have found and
reproduced alethos as it was in his Q
source? It is more likely that Luke had a source for this saying that included
the formal amen, and that he altered
it to alethos just as he did Mark.
Let us consider
further Luke’s redactional use of Mark. Of the thirteen instances of the phrase
“Truly (amen), I say to you” that are found in Mark, only three are
duplicated by Luke with the amen
intact (18:17, 18:29, 21:32). Other than these three, Luke draws three more
sayings from Mark in which he either deletes the amen itself, or the entire phrase amen I say to you. On two occasions just noted, he switches amen to alethos. The five remaining amen
sayings in Mark are not taken over by Luke at all. It is evident that Luke does
not appear to favor the use of this phrase. He typically either deletes it or
modifies it when he is drawing a saying from a Markan text in which it appears,
or ignores the saying altogether. There is one anomalous instance in which Luke
adds the amen quotation formula to a
Markan saying where it does not exist in Mark (Mark 6:4=Luke 4:24). However,
Luke most frequently omits truly as part of the quotation formula, if
not the formula altogether.
How might this data
be explained? It is possible that the phrase “truly I say to you” was a
uniquely popular quotation formula within the community behind the Markan
tradition, and that the non-Markan sources that Luke collected and edited did
not feature it, at least with the same frequency. Furthermore, on those
occasions in which it may have appeared in his non-Markan sources, Luke would
have tended to edit or omit it as he often did with his Markan source. If this
was the case the fact that truly appears only six times in Luke is
unremarkable.
Moreover, of the
three instances of amen that Luke
draws from Mark, Matthew reproduces all three, thereby rendering them by
definition part of the triple tradition. So by the logic of Q theory they
cannot have been in Q. A fourth occurrence in Luke 4:24 is the anomalous triple
tradition saying in which Luke inserts the amen
where it does not exist in either Mark or Matthew. This leaves only two
remaining uses of amen in the Gospel
of Luke, one in a long parable that Matthew understandably does not replicate
(12:37) and the other in the conversation which Jesus has with the criminal
crucified with him (23:43), also a scene which does not appear in Mark or
Matthew. Thus if Matthew drew his double tradition material directly from Luke
rather than Q, there is no mystery in the fact that the material he copied over
from Luke did not contain the word truly—for it is rare in Luke to begin with. This would have produced a
double tradition in which truly does not appear by double attestation—causing
Q theorists to declare that Q did not feature it.
Nevertheless, on
numerous occasions as Matthew copied over Lukan sayings he inserted the formal Truly I say to you quotation formula in
place of Luke’s less formal “I tell you” (examples include Matt 5:18 =
Luke 16:17, Matt 5:26 = Luke 12:59, Matt 8:10 = Luke 7:9, Matt 11:11 = Luke
7:28, Matt 13:17 = Luke 10:24). Matthew ended up producing a gospel that
features Truly I say to you about
thirty times compared to Luke’s six, so it is evident that the formality of the
amen saying tradition appealed to
Matthew much more than it did Luke. All of this is perfectly coherent under
theory that Matthew used both Mark and Luke. A hypothetical Q is not required
to explain anything. There is nothing dramatic or even
puzzling about the fact that truly
does not exist by double attestation in the double tradition (or in the
rhetoric of the Q theorist, “truly is
never found in Q.”) This observation that Jacobson heralds as a “potent argument”
for the 2DH in the end has no logical foundation.
The Affinity of Q with Luke
One of the remarkable
aspects of the debate on the Synoptic Problem is that scholars already
recognize that the Q Gospel as they envision it and Luke’s version of the double
tradition are practically identical. As Koester notes above, there is general
accord among Q theorists that Luke best preserves the sequence of the Q sayings
as they originally appeared in Q, while Matthew liberally reorganizes the
material. Kloppenborg observes:
Matthew has clusters of double tradition materials that in
Luke are scattered, but nonetheless, Matthew presents the sayings in Lukan
order, as if he had scanned Q, lifting out and collecting sayings as he found
them in Q.”[8]
No imagination is
required to conclude that Matthew could as easily have scanned Luke directly to
achieve the same result. There is also a general academic consensus that Luke
far more frequently records an earlier version of a Q saying than does Matthew.
So it is an extremely small step from the position that Luke retained the more authentic version of Q to the position
that Luke contains the exact original
wording and order of the double tradition as found and defined by Matthew.
The Q theorist’s adopted convention of referring to the Q materials as Q/Luke
is consistent with the theory that Matthew was drawing directly from
Luke.
Moreover, if the
author of Matthew used Luke, then by definition he was the final redactor of
“Q” as it is defined in modern scholarship. Matthew’s editorial decisions to
reproduce some portions of Luke’s non-Markan text and exclude others would have
defined the boundaries of the double tradition. Under this scenario the “Q
gospel” should have a perceptible Matthean bias. Thus Burton Mack’s observation
is intriguing:
If
one were to ask which of the narrative gospels most nearly represents an ethos
toward which the community of Q may have tended, it would be the Gospel of
Matthew.”[9]
Under the Q theory a
unique ideological affinity between Q and Matthew as opposed to Luke is quite
an oddity since Luke is alleged to have preserved the original order and text
of Q more faithfully. However if Matthew used and edited Luke, then Matthew’s
editorial decisions defined the content of Q as imagined by Q theorists and its
“ethos” toward the Gospel of Matthew would have been unavoidable.
Traditional Arguments
in Support of the 2DH
Is there a compelling
argument for the existence of Q? If we could identify any textual phenomena
that are resolvable by the Q theory, but inexplicable under Matthean posteriority,[10]
it might render the Q theory more credible. Yet no such data exist. To the
contrary, though many observations have been made that appear to support the
existence of Q, in each instance Matthean posteriority is at least equally
compelling, and on occasion more comprehensive, in its ability to resolve the
data. Once the critical reader becomes aware that Matthew’s use of Mark and
Luke can generally resolve the data with equal or better satisfaction, any
argument for Q can be turned on its head in the same manner as the claim that truly does not exist in Q. This can be
demonstrated with a review of the conventional arguments made in favor of the
2DH.
The arguments used to
buttress the Q theory tend to (a) illustrate the superior resolving power of
the Q theory as compared to theories promoting Luke’s use of Matthew, or (b) argue
for the status of Q as a written document rather than an oral source. Since
Matthean posteriority has not been viewed as a viable competing theory it has
gone unnoticed that the textual
phenomena advanced in support of the Q theory can always be resolved by
Matthean posteriority. The case for the existence of Q consists of a
random assortment of anecdotal observations that individually and collectively
are insufficient to support the theory, for they beg the fundamental question
of Matthew’s knowledge of Luke. Other than the arguments reviewed thus far, the
common arguments for Q’s existence are these:
Peculiar phrases in
common. It has been observed that Matthew and
Luke on occasion use certain phrases in common in the double tradition that
constitute unusual grammatical constructs. It is argued that both Matthew and
Luke reproduced these phrases from Q. However, if Matthew had a propensity to
copy unusual constructs from Q, he would have had an equal propensity to copy
them from Luke. Indeed, Matthew tends to reproduce his sources fairly close to
verbatim unless there is a specific reason to correct them, to alter them for
ideological reasons, or to eliminate extraneous language. He does not
paraphrase simply to render material in different language as Luke so often
does. If Luke had incorporated peculiar grammatical constructs that were
present in written sources he had before him, or if he had created them himself
in the process of transcribing oral traditions, it is not unlikely that Matthew
would have taken them over directly. The result would be a double tradition
that featured unusual phrases introduced into the Gospel record by Luke and
subsequently copied by Matthew.
Common sequence of
double tradition pericopae. Many of
the double tradition sayings appear in the same sequence in both Gospels. It is
often alleged that this indicates the use of a common written source by both
evangelists. However, this is only true if it can otherwise be proven that Luke
and Matthew were written independently of one another. Absent such a proof, if
we are to imagine that both authors achieved a similar sequence of sayings by
progressively scanning and copying from Q, then it is obvious that Matthew
would have achieved the same result by progressively scanning and copying from
Luke. This argument, like those of frequent verbal agreements and the presence
of peculiar phrases, could be relevant in establishing the “written” nature of
the Q source if and only if the independence of Matthew and Luke could be
established on other grounds.
The presence of the
doublets. An intriguing feature of Matthew and
Luke is that they sometimes record variations of the same sayings twice,
creating a “doublet.” There are nineteen sets of doublets in Matthew and twelve
in Luke. Moreover, six of the twelve in Luke are also replicated in Matthew.
Under the Q theory, it is supposed that Matthew and Luke each drew one version
of the saying from Mark and the other from Q or some other sayings source, so
the phenomenon is offered as evidence of the existence of Q. The problem, once
again, is that the phenomenon can be as easily resolved by assuming Matthew
drew one saying from Mark and another from Luke rather than Q. In fact, the
doublets are not evidence of Q, but rather evidence of direct awareness between
the authors, so this will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.
Luke is never aware
of the modifications and expansions that Matthew makes to his Markan source. This statement of fact is a compelling argument against the
proposal that Luke knew Matthew. Hence, it is among the important observations
that favor the Q theory over Griesbach, Farrer-Goulder, Augustine—all theories
that argue for Luke’s dependence upon Matthew. However, it is irrelevant in
weighing the Q theory against Matthean posteriority. Clearly, if Matthew was
the last of the three Synoptics to be written, Luke would have had no awareness
of Matthean expansions to Mark. This is one of the solid arguments against
Luke’s awareness of Matthew that only work in one direction; it has no bearing
on whether Matthew knew Luke.
Luke would have
removed all Q sayings from their Markan context in Matthew. Q theorists point to several phenomena that suggest
eccentric editorial behavior on the part of Luke, were he to have relied upon
Matthew as a source. The notion that Luke would have methodically removed all Q
sayings from their Markan context in Matthew is one of them. However, this
argument like the previous one only casts doubt upon one direction of potential dependence between Matthew and Luke,
that of Luke upon Matthew. There is no difficulty in supposing that Matthew
used Luke as a source and in so doing, intentionally resituated Luke’s
non-Markan sayings into Markan contexts. Indeed, based upon several
observations already discussed, this is precisely what he did.
Literary unity in the
double tradition. Among the circular
arguments used to sustain the Q theory is the presumption and assertion of its
literary unity: If Q was indeed a distinct Gospel in its own right, then it
must have been compiled within some coherent ideological context. Thus the text
should thus bear signs of literary unity. Therefore the discovery of apparent
“unities” in the double tradition may in turn be used to confirm Q’s existence.
Thus, we find arguments such as the absence of truly in the double tradition being cited as evidence for the 2DH.
The logical fallacy is always the failure to ask if there are other means by
which evidence of literary cohesion may have come to exist in the double tradition
other than by its alleged origin in Q.
A fundamental observation
must be made at this point: The double tradition is clearly not a random
collection of miscellaneous pericopae, regardless of its literary origin. If Q
did not exist, Luke would have selected his non-Markan materials from a wider
assortment of collected oral traditions and written notes that consisted of
smaller collections of sayings and/or activities of Jesus. The process of
selecting, organizing and editing this material would have imparted some degree
of ideological and grammatical form to the material. If Matthew were then to
have used Luke as a source, his subsequent scanning, selection, and editing of
the non-Markan materials in Luke would have added further contours and definition
to a double tradition that would eventually be interpreted as Q. It is not
realistic to assume that the double tradition, having gone through two
editorial filters under this scenario, would not manifest any characteristics
of literary and ideological unity except those that might be attributable to an
origin in Q.
Thus, Q theorists
face a daunting task. In order to cite literary unity in the double tradition
as evidence of the existence of Q, it must be demonstrated that ideological
and/or grammatical content is present that cannot have been the result of the
material passing through two successive editorial filters. The data do not
support such a long reach. To the contrary, scholars have found it necessary to
posit three successive recensions of the Q document in order to adequately
explain the diversity of its content. Nevertheless, Q theorists persist in the
attempt to identify alleged unities in the text. Jacobson believes he has
identified a deuteronomistic motif in the double tradition:
The
suggestion is at hand that it is the deuteronomistic tradition which provides
the theological framework for the redaction of Q, and thus is the theological
basis for its literary unity.[11]
Kloppenborg attempts
to mitigate this claim while at the same time affirming Jacobson’s conclusion:
It
will be noticed that deuteronomistic influence is in fact restricted to a
relatively few passages; large portions of Q (including 6:20b-49 and 10:2-12,
16, notwithstanding Jacobson’s attempt to label either a “call to repentance”)
lack this motif. Nevertheless, Jacobson’s observations are of utmost
significance since they are coupled with a redaction-critical judgment that
this theology dominated one stage of Q redaction. Hence, although he has not
attempted to prove that deuteronomistic theology pervades the whole of Q,
Jacobson successfully demonstrates that at one point in its literary evolution,
Q was organized and redacted from a coherent theological perspective. This
redaction lends to the collection an important theological unity.[12]
Notice that when Q’s
existence is presupposed, the data must be resolvable under the Q
hypothesis. If Q existed as a discrete literary document, one must assume that
it was created within some coherent
ideological context. Q theorists thus reach to identify that context, being
tethered by the reality of the data at hand. In Kloppenborg’s statement the
tension between observable fact and desired outcome is palpable. The facts as
acknowledged by Kloppenborg are that “large portions of Q lack [the
deuteronomistic] motif” and “deuteronomistic influence is restricted to
a relatively few passages.” It is assumed that these relatively few passages
were compiled at a particular redactional stage in Q’s chronological
development. Yet, it is the obvious lack of literary unity in the double
tradition that requires the assumption of multiple recensions to begin with.
From the premise that one subset of the Q corpus was redacted under the
influence of deuteronomistic thought, Kloppenborg makes an unwarranted leap to
the conclusion that this “lends to the collection an important theological
unity.” In fact it does not. There is no connection between the data and
this conclusion. Even Kloppenborg’s reference to the double tradition as a collection
is rhetorically unjustified as there is no evidence that it ever existed as an
independent collection. What scholars view as Q is merely the subset of the
non-Markan material compiled by Luke that Matthew subsequently deemed worthy of
reproduction in his own gospel. Yet to those already convinced of Q’s
existence, a literary unity must exist—it cannot be otherwise. Thus, it is
simply declared to exist, the paucity of evidence and frailty of logic
notwithstanding.
Within the context of
Matthean posteriority, the data that suggest literary unities can be resolved
by assuming that Luke assembled and edited a variety of oral and written
traditions that had evolved independently over time, bearing no literary
association with one another until being incorporated into Luke’s Gospel. The
signs of deuteronomistic thought in some of this material are likely products
of post-70 creative reinterpretation prompted by the movement’s need to
rationalize the holocaust of 70 CE. Matthew’s subsequent application of, among
other things, an “anti-universalist” editorial filter to Luke resulted in a
double tradition that, as an imagined collection of sayings, is comparatively
provincial in outlook.
The Gospel of Thomas. Many scholars have argued that the discovery of Thomas
increases the likelihood of Q’s existence. In fact it was the discovery of
Thomas that ignited the inferno of academic fervor for the 2DH in the last
fifty years. However, the enthusiastic claims made of Thomas—that it must have
been composed in the mid-first century, that it is likely just one example of a
whole genre of Jesus sayings literature that may have existed at the time, that
Q must therefore be another example of the same genre—are not adequately
founded. The primary difficulty is that Thomas cannot be dated with any certainty
to the first century. Though some scholars including Crossan argue for a date
of the earliest edition around 50 CE, others see Thomas as a mid- to late-second
century work. In Fabricating Jesus,
Craig Evans includes a lengthy discussion on the dating of Thomas that argues
convincingly for a date in the late second century.[13]
Evans’ observations include the fact that Thomas knows many of the NT writings,
either quoting or alluding to material in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts,
Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1
Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Revelation. Thus, “Thomas seems to be a collage of NT
and apocryphal materials that have been interpreted, often allegorically, in
such a way as to advance late-second-century Gnostic ideas.”[14]
Another observation
by Evans is that Thomas contains fourteen sayings that have parallels in Special
Matthew (M), five sayings drawn from Special Luke (L), and five sayings from
the Gospel of John. Of the five taken from John, three are located in text
identified herein as late first century editorial expansions (John 1:9=Thom 24,
John 1:14=Thom 28, John 8:12; 9:5=Thom 77), and two are in the present Ur-John
reconstruction (John 4:13-15=Thom 13, John 7:32-36=Thom 38). The author of
Thomas’ familiarity with materials widely presumed to be late first century
writings argues against a composition in the mid-first century.
However, beyond the
author’s evident familiarity with a variety of late NT writings, Evans cites
the work of Nicholas Perrin in which he translates the Coptic version of Thomas
into Syriac and Greek, and in so doing reveals over five hundred catchwords in
the Syriac translation that tie almost all of the 114 units together into a
literary whole. It appears that Thomas was not originally composed in Greek as
is conventionally presumed, but rather Syriac. Evans points to many contacts
between the Syraic edition of Thomas, the Syriac Matthew, and Tatian’s Diatessaron (written circa 170 CE),
noting that where Thomas disagrees with the NT gospels it agrees with Syriac
versions. All of this evidence collectively leads Evans to conclude that
arguments for a mid-first century composition date have been decisively
undermined, and that Thomas could not have been written prior to the late
second century.
Though the discovery
of Thomas inspired speculation regarding the existence of a first century
“sayings gospel genre,” the only potential examples of such a genre are Thomas
and Q. Since Thomas appears to be a late second century work and there is no
evidence that Q ever existed, there is no actual evidence that a sayings gospel
genre existed during or prior to the composition of the narrative Gospels. This
is not to suggest that there were no written records of Jesus’ sayings; to the
contrary it is quite likely that there were innumerable informal written notes
being produced by movement leaders and traveling evangelists that contained
lists of the sayings and activities of Jesus. It is likely that Matthew and
Luke collected many such writings and used them as sources. The Q theory is not
problematic because it suggests the existence of written sources behind the NT
gospels; rather it is problematic because it advances the notion that the
entire double tradition is derived from a discrete primitive collection that
provides a unique window in to the teachings of the historical Jesus.
Where is the evidence that Matthew did not know Luke?
In order to remain
standing, the Q hypothesis requires a decisive argument that Matthew could not
have known and copied from Luke. Yet it is precisely on this point that the
debate goes silent. For though Q advocates are accustomed to defending the 2DH
against challengers arguing for Luke’s use of Matthew, there is no perceived
need to address the reverse. No formal school ever evolved among Bible scholars
to argue that the most elegant and comprehensive gospel in the NT, and the one
that the Church heralded as the First Gospel, was in fact the last. Thus it is
commonly assumed that there is no need to demonstrate Matthew’s unawareness of
Luke. With Matthean posteriority off the table, the working assumption among
scholars is that since the many arguments against Luke’s use of Matthew are
sufficient to dismiss Farrer-Goulder, Griesbach, and Augustine, the 2DH wins by
default as the last man standing. It is on this point that the Q theory will
ultimately meet its demise, for there is no compelling evidence that Matthew
could not have known Luke and there are several surprisingly strong indications
that he did.
Nevertheless, on
those infrequent occasions when the possibility of Matthean posteriority is
raised, two initial observations are made to call Matthew’s awareness of Luke
into doubt. The first is that Matthew and Luke contain conflicting genealogies
and infancy narratives; the second is that they present incompatible
resurrection narratives. It is sometimes suggested that the later author would
not have intentionally introduced conflicting traditions into the gospel
record, and thus the later author must not have been aware of the earlier work.
These two arguments warrant discussion.
It is obvious that
Matthew and Luke contain incompatible genealogies and infancy narratives that
were produced by two different camps within the movement. However, from the
fact that these two camps were intent upon creating both an extensive genealogy
and a virgin birth story that resolved the Bethlehem/Nazareth problem we may
presume that there was an active debate underway between them—these ideas are
unlikely to have evolved independently in two mutually isolated communities. 1
Timothy, an epistle that appears to have been finalized within the same general
timeframe as Luke and Matthew, complains of those occupying themselves with
“myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations” (1Tim 1:4). The two
conflicting sets of genealogies and miraculous birth narratives in Matthew and
Luke are evidently the products of the creative debates to which the author of
1 Timothy was objecting. The fact that there was disagreement between the communities
of Matthew and Luke over these traditions is not surprising. In this event,
each Gospel writer would have been expected to document the traditions favored
within his own community. Moreover, the genealogies and birth narratives have
quite different theological agendas that support the unique theological outlook
of each evangelist. For example, Luke’s genealogy goes back to Adam without
highlighting any key events in the history of Judaism, thus laying the
groundwork for a universal interpretation of the Jesus story. Conversely,
Matthew’s genealogy goes back to Abraham and segments Jewish history into
fourteen generations each between Abraham and David, David and the deportation,
and the deportation to the Christ. Matthew’s genealogy is intended to portray
the Christ event as the ultimate fulfillment of Jewish history. Thus, on
ideological grounds there is little chance Matthew would have abandoned his
theology-driven genealogy in favor of Luke’s simply because he had been aware
of it. So the fact that the
Gospels are in conflict as they stand is no indication that the later author
did not know the earlier work.
In addition to the
incompatible opening materials, Matthew and Luke contain different resurrection
narratives. Their storylines diverge significantly beyond the point where their
Markan source was truncated at 16:8. The argument here is similar to that of
the infancy narratives and genealogies—since Matthew shows no awareness of the
resurrection appearances in Luke, he must not have been using Luke as a source.
At issue is the relative authority of Mark over Luke as perceived by the author
of Matthew. Mark clearly predicts in 14:28 and 16:7 that after the
resurrection, Jesus will first appear to his disciples in Galilee. Matthew,
using Mark as a source, affirms and reproduces this Markan tradition and also
twice records the prediction (Matt 26:32, 28:7). In order to show these
predictions fulfilled, Matthew is committed to reporting a primary resurrection
appearance in Galilee. On the other hand, Luke does not commit himself to
Mark’s foreshadowing. Mark’s predictions of a first resurrection appearance in
Galilee are simply omitted by Luke. Without this constraint, Luke is free to
offer his reports of Jesus appearing to two persons on the road to Emmaus, and
subsequently to others in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Thus, Luke’s account is in
fundamental disharmony with Mark.
There is no reason to
assume Matthew did not know Luke simply because he opted to follow Mark instead
of Luke in the resurrection account. From the fact that Luke does not record
Mark’s predictions of a primary resurrection appearance in Galilee, few would
claim that Luke was not aware of Mark. Just as Luke’s diversion from Mark has
no bearing on his awareness of Mark, Matthew’s choice to follow Mark over Luke
in the resurrection tradition has no probative value in determining his
awareness of Luke.
Q theorists have
always been able to assemble numerous compelling arguments to illustrate that
Luke could not have used Matthew. These arguments typically focus on the
exceedingly implausible editorial behavior of Luke implied by his alleged use
of Matthew. For most scholars these arguments comprise a formidable case
against Luke’s awareness of Matthew. Accordingly, Q advocates have never needed
to resort to the tenuous claim that conflicting genealogies and resurrection
narratives indicate that Luke did not know Matthew. That this argument is
drafted into service only when debating Matthean posteriority is itself an
indication of how feeble the case against it is.
Q advocates have
never compiled a collection of arguments against Matthew’s awareness of Luke
that rivals the power of their arguments against Luke’s use of Matthew, largely
because they have never had to. However, the fact is that it is not possible;
the data simply do not exist to make a case against Matthew’s awareness of
Luke. When we examine the Gospels side-by-side while trying to imagine that
Luke used and edited Matthew, Luke’s editorial decisions routinely look
suspicious, logically tenuous, and on occasion outright nonsensical.
Conversely, when we compare these texts and imagine that Matthew used Luke,
Matthew’s editorial decisions most frequently appear to be rational—it is easy
to infer why Matthew would have made the modifications that he did to Luke’s
text. Furthermore, and perhaps just as importantly, Matthew’s editorial use of
Luke is consistent with his use of Mark; we see similar changes being applied
to both sources, which is what we would expect if Matthew had used both Mark
and Luke.
Evidence
of Matthew’s awareness of Luke
If Matthew was indeed using Luke as a source, we should be able to locate
compelling evidence to that effect. It would be unusual indeed if Matthew had
relied upon both Mark and Luke but ended up leaving no evidence that he had
done so. There are four phenomena in the Synoptic texts that indicate the
direct awareness between Matthew and Luke, and two of them specifically
indicate that the direction of dependence is that of Matthew upon Luke. The
first of these is that Matthew’s narrative often looks like a conflation of
elements from Mark and Luke, but Luke’s narrative never looks like a conflation
of elements from Mark and Matthew. The second is that the distribution of
doublets in Luke and Matthew is most easily explained by Matthew’s dependence
upon Luke. The third is that Matthew and Luke each follow Mark closely only
when the other does not, a strong indication that one knew what the other was
doing with Mark. Finally, the dozens of minor agreements between Matthew and
Luke against Mark indicates a direct dependence that Q theorists have never
fully explained. We will examine each of these phenomena in turn.
1. Matthew’s
conflation of Mark and Luke. Matthew
contains a great deal of material that exists in either Mark or Luke or both,
and it is evident that his objective was to conflate these two sources along
with other materials into a more comprehensive Gospel. One of the important
indications that the direct dependence between Matthew and Luke was that of
Matthew’s use of Luke rather than the reverse is that in numerous passages it
is apparent that Matthew collected elements from both Mark and Luke in order to
create his narrative. Conversely, we never find passages in Luke that are
constructed from elements in Mark and Matthew. One example is found in The Calling of the Twelve (Fig. 4.1
below). This sequence of eight verses in Matthew 9:35-10:4 has been assembled
from material found in chapters 3 and 6 of Mark, and chapters 6, 8, 9, and 10
of Luke.
Q proponents allege
that Luke 10:2 and its Matthean parallel were drawn from Q. However the larger
Matthean text looks like a direct conflation of Mark and Luke that is difficult
to interpret as a conflation of Mark and Q due to subtle interleaved phrases that
have no alleged parallels in Q. Matthew 10:1 contains “gave them authority
over” demons or unclean spirits which appears in Luke but not in Mark; it also
contains the concept of casting out
demons which appears in Mark but not in Luke; it incorporates curing/healing of
disease, which appears in Luke but not in Mark. Immediately following this is
the conflation of Mark and Luke’s account of the twelve: the first portion of
the list is from Luke, the last is from Mark. One can imagine any number of hypothetical
sources that Matthew had to draw from to account for this phenomenon, but the
simple solution is that Matthew created his text by combining elements from the
Gospels of Mark and Luke that were in front of him at the time.
4.1: The Calling of the Twelve
Mark 6:6b
And he went
about the villages teaching.
Mark 6:34
As he went ashore
he saw a great throng, and he had compassion on them, because they
were like sheep without a shepherd.
Mark 3:14-19
14 And he appointed twelve to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and
have authority to cast out demons:
Simon, who he surnamed Peter James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James, whom
he surnamed Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder, Andrew, and Philip and
Bartholomew; Matthew and Thomas and James
the son of
Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; and 4 Simon the
Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
|
Luke 8:1
Soon afterward he
went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news
of the kingdom of God
Luke 10:2
And he said to
them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray
therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”
Luke 9:1b
And he called the
twelve together and gave them power and authority over all
demons and to cure diseases.
Luke 6:13-16
And when it was
day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named
apostles; Simon, who he named Peter, and Andrew his brother; James and
John and Philip and Bartholomew; and Matthew and
Thomas and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,
and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
|
Matt
9:35-10:4
35And Jesus went
about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and
preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every
infirmity. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them,
because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.
37 Then he said to his disciples,
“The harvest is
plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 pray therefore the Lord of the
harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”
10:1 And he called
to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean
spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.
2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is
called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his
brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the tax collector;
James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas
Iscariot, who betrayed him.
|
The Calling of the Twelve
is a dramatic but by no means isolated example of Matthew’s tendency to compose
his text using fragments from Mark and Luke. The same creative process is
evident in The Beelzebul Controversy
(Fig. 4.2), wherein Matthew’s version consists of a combination of elements
found in Mark and Luke. Meanwhile Luke’s text is a blend of edited Markan
elements with several complementary expansions woven into it. Note that in the
Beelzebul Controversy there is very little verbatim duplication between Mark
and Luke. Matthew’s text, on the other hand, has been assembled from elements
that are virtual verbatim duplications from both Mark and Luke. This is not
unusual. The fact that Luke tends to paraphrase Mark while Matthew tends to
replicate Mark and Luke is a recurring pattern.
4.2: The Beelzebul Controversy
Mark 3:22-27
22 And the
scribes who came down from Jerusalem said,
“He is possessed by
Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out demons.” 23 And he
called them to him and said to them in parables,
“How can Satan
cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom
cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house
will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and
is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.
27 But no one can enter
a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the
strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.
|
Luke 11:14-23
14 Now he was
casting out a demon that was dumb; when the demon had gone out, the
dumb man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said,
“He casts out
demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons”; 16 while others, to test
him, sought from him a sign from heaven.
17 But he, knowing
their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is
laid waste, and a divided household falls. 18 And if Satan also is divided
against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I
cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by
whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 20 But
if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom
of God has come upon you.
23 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather
with me scatters.
|
Matt 12:22-30
22 Then a blind and
dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man
spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be
the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only
by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.”
25 Knowing
their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself
is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will
stand; 26 and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against
himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27
And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them
out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the
kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 Or how can one enter
a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the
strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. 30 He who is
not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
|
Matthew’s version of The Beelzebul Controversy is a
straightforward integration of elements existing in Mark and Luke. How is this
phenomenon to be explained if we are to assume Matthew was not aware of Luke?
Advocates of the 2DH propose that two parallel traditions of The Beelzebul Controversy existed in
Mark and Q respectively. Faced with these variant traditions in his two
sources, Luke then did a remarkable thing: He freely paraphrased the material
that appeared in Mark, while he copied
verbatim just those elements in Q that had no Markan parallels. Meanwhile,
the Q theory continues, though it appears that Matthew drew portions of his
text from Luke, he actually took them from Q. Thus, we see verbatim
replications between Matthew and Luke because both authors independently
chose to reproduce this material from Q verbatim. Though this explanation is
not impossible it is extremely unlikely, and it does highlight an unspoken
presupposition upon which the Q theory rests: Luke routinely paraphrases his
Markan source; however, when he turns to his Q source he transforms himself
into a copyist, duplicating Q for the most part without change. This “Jekyll
and Hyde” editorial behavior of Luke is woven into the fabric of the Q
hypothesis, for there is no other way to explain the high verbal agreements in
the double tradition. The Beelzebul
Controversy is a glaring example of this editorial dichotomy. Other
examples include On Riches and Rewards of
Discipleship (Fig. 4.3), The Parable
of the Mustard Seed (4.4), False
Christs and False Prophets (Fig. 4.5), Sin
against the Holy Spirit (Fig. 4.6), and the Question about Fasting (Fig 4.7).
4.3: Riches and Rewards of Discipleship
Mark
10:23-31
23
And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for
those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples
were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard
it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 And
they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then
who can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said,
“With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things
are possible with God.” Peter began to say to him, “Lo, we have left
everything and followed you.”
29 Jesus said,
“Truly
I say to you,
there
is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or
children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not
receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and
mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come
eternal life. 31 But many that are first will be last, and the
last first.”
|
Luke
18:24-29a:
24
Jesus looking at him said,
“How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom
of God!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for
a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
26
Those who heard it said,
“Then
who can be saved?”
28 And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed
you.”
29
And he said to them,
Luke
22:29-30:
I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and
sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke
18:29b-30:
“…there
is no man who has left his house or wife or brothers or parents or children,
for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive manifold more in
this time, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and in the age to come eternal life.”
|
Matthew
19:23-30
23
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a
rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again I tell you, it is easier for
a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of God.” 25 When his disciples heard this they were greatly
astonished, saying,
“Who
then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With
men this is impossible, but with
God
all things are possible.”
27
Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” 28
Jesus said to them,
“Truly, I say to you, in the new
world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have
followed me will also
sit on twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29
And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or
mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will
receive a hundredfold, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and inherit eternal life. 30
But
many that are first will be last, and the last first.”
|
Figure 4.3, Riches and Rewards of Discipleship, is a
particularly striking amalgam of Markan and Lukan influence in Matthew. As one
studies these texts side by side one can read Matthew’s mind as he follows
Luke’s lead in deleting irrelevant Markan material; these common omissions are
of a kind with the dozens of recognized minor agreements between Matthew and
Luke against Mark. Q theorists argue that these common omissions are editorial
decisions arrived at independently by two authors working with Mark who had no
idea of each other’s edits. While this is possible, it is more likely that the
power of suggestion was at work; Matthew was aware of Luke’s deletions of
Mark’s extraneous verbiage and he simply carried them forward. One can also
understand Matthew’s discomfort with Luke’s notion that the disciples will be
inheriting separate kingdoms and eating and drinking on the thrones, so he
edits those suggestions out.
4.4: Parable of the Mustard Seed
Mark 4:30-32
And he said, “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 upon the ground is the smallest of all the seeds
on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all
shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can
make nests in its shade.”
|
Luke 13:18-19
He said therefore “What is the kingdom of God and what is
it like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like
the grain of mustard seed
which 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.
|
Matthew 13:31-32
Another parable he put before them, saying, "The Kingdom of heaven is like
a grain of mustard seed
which a man took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has
grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the
birds of the air come and make
nests in its branches."
|
4.5: False Christs and False Prophets
Mark
13:21-23
21
“And then if any one says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or
‘There he is!’ do not believe it.
24 False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders,
to lead
astray, if possible,
the elect. 23 But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.”
|
Luke
17:23-24
23
“And they will say to you, ‘Lo, there!’ or ‘Lo, here!’ Do not go, do not
follow them.
24 For as the lightening flashes and lights up the sky from one
side to the other, so will the Son of man be in his day.
Luke 17:37b:
“Where the body is, there the eagles
will be gathered together.”
|
Matthew
24:23-28
23
“And then if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’
do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and
show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if
possible, even the elect. 25 Lo, I have told you beforehand. 26
So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; if they
say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as the
lightening comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be
the coming of the Son of man.
Wherever
the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.
|
4.6: Sin against the Holy Spirit
Mark
3:28-29
“Truly,
I say to you, all sins
will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever
blasphemies they utter;
but
whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is
guilty of an eternal sin.
|
Luke
12:10
And
every one who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven;
but
he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”
|
Matthew
12:31-32
“Therefore
I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy
against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
And
whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven;
but
whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be
forgiven
|
4.7: Question about Fasting
Mark
2:18-22
18
Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came
and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the
Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” 19 And Jesus said
to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with
them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20
The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then
they will fast in that day.
21
No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he
does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a
worse tear is made.
22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the
wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins;
but
new wine is for
fresh skins.”
|
Luke
5:33-38
33
And they said to him,
“The
disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of
the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink.”
34
And Jesus said to them, “Can you make wedding guests fast while
the bridegroom is with them?
35
The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then
they will fast in those days.” 36 He told them a parable also: “No one
tears a piece from a new garment and puts it upon an old garment; if he does,
he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old 37
and no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the new wine
will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be
destroyed.38 But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.”
|
Matthew
9:14-17
14
Then the disciples of John came to him, saying
“Why
do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”
15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the
wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?
The
days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they
will fast.
16
And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment,
for
the patch tears away
from the garment,
and a worse tear is
made.
17 Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the
skins will burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins
are destroyed;
but
new wine is put into
fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.”
|
John Kloppenborg
provides an outstanding description of the process by which Matthew assembled
his narratives by conflating components of Mark and Luke, although he does so
under the presumption of Q’s existence:
The
mission speeches in Matthew and Luke begin with a cluster of Q sayings... At
10:16 Luke finished his speech and turns to other subjects. But Matthew
continues, employing diverse materials, some drawn from Mark (13:9-13) and some
from Q passages which are scattered throughout Luke. What is striking is that
Matt 10:24-39, comprising ten Q sayings, reproduces these sayings in Lucan order
… even though they do not appear together in Luke.
After
reproducing and rearranging the Q mission speech, and after interpolating part
of Mark 13, Matthew scanned Q and removed, in
the original Q (= Lucan) order, 11 sayings appropriate to the theme of
mission and used these as the balance of his mission speech. Only in the case
of Q 17:33 (Matt 10:39), which occurs with a cluster of discipleship sayings (Q
14:26, 27 // Matt 10:37, 38), is it likely that the Matthean order is primary.
Otherwise, it is the most economical and intelligible solution to suppose that
Matthew scanned Q and collected these sayings than to argue that Luke
distributed them in a capricious fashion.[15]
Kloppenborg’s intent
in this passage is to illustrate the potency of the Q theory over the notion
that Luke had used Matthew, for it makes more sense for Matthew to have scanned
Q and assembled the sayings in the Lukan order in which they existed in Q
rather than to imagine Luke disassembling the Matthean text and scattering the
sayings while retaining their essential order. And this is true as long as one
limits the discussion to the Q theory versus any solution that proposes Luke
used Matthew. Yet it is obvious that if Matthew had scanned Luke directly he
would have achieved the same result.
In each of these
comparisons, if the Q theory did not exist and there were no preconceived
notions about composition dates, scholars would look at these patterns and
universally agree that Matthew had composed his gospel by methodically
evaluating and conflating elements from Mark and Luke. The theory is fully
sufficient to resolve the data. Furthermore, the phenomenon of Matthew
appearing to be a conflation of Mark and Luke is exclusive to Matthew. We never
find a passage in Luke that appears to be a conflation of elements from Mark
and Matthew. If Matthew and Luke had each independently used Mark and Q without
knowledge of the other’s work, one would imagine that at some point Luke would
have accidentally compiled a sequence that would look as if it had been drawn
from Mark and Matthew, in the same way that Matthew routinely does the reverse.
The Q theory is at a loss to explain why this pattern of apparent dependence of
Matthew upon Luke only exists in one direction.
2. The Doublets. An intriguing feature of Matthew and Luke is that they
sometimes record variations of the same sayings twice, creating a “doublet.”
There are nineteen sets of doublets in Matthew and twelve in Luke. Of
particular interest is that six of the twelve sets of doublets in Luke are also
replicated in Matthew. Under the Q theory, it is supposed that Matthew and Luke
each typically drew one version of the saying from Mark and the other from Q,
so the phenomenon is offered as evidence of the existence of Q. The problem,
once again, is that the phenomenon can as easily be resolved by assuming
Matthew drew one saying from Mark and another from Luke rather than Q.
Let us first consider
that it is not clear why the authors chose to duplicate certain sayings. On
occasion they may have been duplicated for special emphasis, or to create a
literary frame or set of “parentheses” in the text for interpretive purposes.
Some may represent two variant forms of the sayings that the authors may have
wished to document. Perhaps they wanted to present them in two different
contexts (not unlike the rationale for reproducing the previous paragraph twice
in this chapter). It is also probable that, given the vast inventory of raw
material, some (perhaps most of them) were simply duplicated in error. Given
the array of sources available to the authors, unintentional replications are
to be expected. What is more noteworthy is that (a) there are more doublets in
Matthew than there are in Luke, and (b) half of the doublets in Luke are
reproduced by Matthew. What might be the most logical accounting of this
phenomenon? Despite some conceivable rationales, it does not seem probable that
both authors would independently duplicate the same sayings no
matter what reason they may have had to do so. The circumstances under which
this may have occurred are worth pondering. The Q theory argues that the two
authors, either by design or error, independently drew six common sets of doublets, one each from Mark and Q respectively.
Practically speaking, the odds of this occurring would seem to be quite low.
Consider then the
alternative that Matthew drew upon both Mark and Luke. In this situation, Luke
would have created twelve sets of doublets in his own Gospel by drawing one
saying from Mark, and another from one of the many oral and written sources he
had at his disposal. Whether this was done by design or error is immaterial. In
either case, this produces an interesting scenario: Matthew was using two
sources in which twelve sets of sayings appeared three times—once in Mark and
twice in Luke. If Matthew compiled his Gospel using these two primary sources,
the odds of duplicating some of the sayings that appeared in triplicate, either
intentionally or erroneously, would have been increased just from the power of
suggestion. Under this scenario it would not be surprising to find that Matthew
would replicate many of the same doublets that appeared in Luke; so the fact
that he reproduced six of the twelve is not remarkable. The Q theory has a
difficult time explaining how half of the doublets in Luke were also reproduced
by Matthew if both authors were working independently. Since the doublets can
be more rationally explained by assuming Matthew’s direct use of Luke, they
comprise evidence against the
existence of Q rather than in favor of it.
3. The Alternating Use of Mark by Matthew and Luke. A third key pattern in the Synoptic texts is that Matthew
tends to follow Mark closely when Luke does not, and diverge from Mark when
Luke follows him closely. Practically speaking, this can only be explained by
assuming a direct literary dependence between Matthew and Luke. William Farmer
describes it well, and draws attention to this phenomenon as evidence that
Matthew and Luke could not have used Mark independently:
When
Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not all three agree in order…..either Matthew and
Mark will agree, or Luke and Mark will agree. The point is that when Matthew
and Mark are following the same order, but Luke exhibits a different order, the
texts of Matthew and Mark tend to be very close to one another. And when Luke
and Mark are following the same order, but Matthew exhibits a different order,
the texts of Luke and Mark tend to be very close to one another. This is quite
noticeable in the first half of Mark, and requires an explanation.
This
phenomenon is especially difficult to explain on any hypothesis which
presupposes Matthew and Luke independently copied Mark…. For since Matthew had
no knowledge of Luke’s redactional use of Mark, there is no way he could have
known to begin copying the text of Mark more closely where Luke’s order was
different from that of Mark. Conversely, there is no way in which Luke could
have known to begin copying the text of Mark more closely at the point where
Mark’s order and that of Matthew departed from one another.[16]
It is as if Matthew and Luke each knew what the other was
doing, and that each had agreed to support Mark whenever the other departed
from Mark.[17]
Farmer holds the
logical high ground in highlighting this evidence of direct literary dependence
among the authors. Unfortunately, Farmer goes on to argue that the direction of
dependence is that of Luke upon Matthew, and that Mark was composed third as an
epitomized edition, as per Griesbach’s hypothesis. Very few scholars accept
this theory for a host of good reasons, so Farmer’s devastating observation
tends to be ignored along with the rest of his arguments. However, Kloppenborg
acknowledges in a footnote the difficulty posed by this phenomenon as it
relates to Markan priority and the 2DH:
Farmer
(1964:213) first formulated this argument as a corrective to Streeter’s
assertion that “[t]he relative order of incidents and sections in Mark is in
general supported by both Matthew and Luke; where either of them deserts Mark,
the other is usually found supporting him” (1924:151). Focusing only on the
second half of Streeter’s statement, Farmer correctly argues that alternating
agreement with Mark constitutes a problem, not a support for Markan priority,
since one would have to explain how Matthew could (nearly) always agree with
Mark when Luke disagreed and vice versa.”[18]
To suggest that
alternating agreement with Mark “constitutes a problem” is an understatement,
however it is not a problem for Markan priority as Kloppenborg suggests. Rather
it is a problem exclusively for the Q theory. For under Markan priority, the
textual pattern simply indicates that the later of Matthew or Luke must have
been aware of the earlier author’s use of Mark. If this was not the case as the
Q theory alleges, it is a mystery as to how each could have departed from Mark
only when the other did not. On the other hand, in the case of Farmer’s theory
of Markan posteriority, we must visualize Mark following Matthew and Luke when
they were in agreement, and randomly alternating between the two when they
diverged to no apparent purpose. Though this procedure is not inconceivable it
is at least peculiar. The larger difficulty with Mark’s alleged used of Matthew
and Luke is that he would have edited out major traditions such as the Lord’s
Prayer, the Beatitudes, and many other compelling moral teachings of Jesus
while at the same time adding darker references to hostility between Jesus and
his family. Most scholars understandably reject this as highly improbable.
In the case of Markan
priority, we must envision the third evangelist examining the second’s use of
Mark, and using it as an excuse either to follow or to stray from Mark. Rather
than sweeping this very significant pattern under the rug, we must explore what
possible motives the authors may have had that would have produced such a
phenomenon. As always, the central issue is that of plausible editorial
procedure as Kloppenborg has indicated. Within the context of Matthean
posteriority, not much speculation is required. Let us presume that Matthew did
indeed set out to write a new gospel, and that he embraced Mark and Luke as his
two primary sources. What would have been his prime objectives? With respect to
Mark, he would have intended to produce a far more comprehensive gospel with a
much wider array of Jesus traditions. In so doing he would have planned to
incorporate the large majority of Mark, correcting several of its errors,
eliminating its darker references, and resolving the predicted resurrection
appearance in Galilee. In essence, Mark was a gospel in need of a makeover and
expansion; by taking over more than 90% of Mark in improved form, it is likely
that Matthew anticipated that his gospel would render Mark obsolete.
Matthew wrote with
the intent to correct and improve Luke as well. Based upon what he
accomplished, it is evident that one of Matthew’s objectives was to correct
Luke’s failure to emphasize the entire Jesus story as a preordained, prophetic
fulfillment of Judaism. Another of his objectives would have been to edit down
Luke’s many redundancies, while at the same time adding new moral, theological
and eschatological components that did not exist in Luke. A third would have
been to replace Luke’s remedial renderings of important traditions with
enhanced versions (Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount supersedes Luke’s Sermon on
the Plain; his discourses are more refined, and his enhanced renderings of the
Beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Great Commission overshadow those in
Luke). Finally, Matthew displays a desire to tie up disconcerting loose ends in
the gospel accounts that are left dangling in Mark and Luke (to be discussed in
detail later in this book). In the end, Matthew successfully packed a more
extensive collection of Jesus traditions into a more tightly composed
presentation that is about 7% shorter than Luke in total word length. It is
likely that Matthew wrote with the objective of producing the most
comprehensive gospel that had yet been composed, one that would supersede both
Mark and Luke. The fact that it has been featured ever since as the First
Gospel in the NT canon testifies to his success.
It is clear that
Matthew held Mark in higher regard than did Luke, for he incorporated over 90%
of Mark compared to the less than 50% of Mark that Luke adapted. It is also
clear that he respected the scope and depth of Luke’s work; not only did he
copy 230+ verses from Luke that did not exist in Mark, he also followed Luke’s
lead by incorporating an infancy narrative, genealogy, great sermon, and great
commission. Matthew composed a gospel of the same scope as Luke, but at the
same time making it as original and unlike Luke as possible. When taking over
Lukan sayings he rarely reproduced the Lukan context but rather resituated them
within a Markan context. He followed Mark by reproducing his predictions that
the first resurrection appearances would be in Galilee, and depicted those
predictions fulfilled while ignoring Luke’s resurrection account that were
incompatible with Mark. Thus Matthew’s general preference for the Markan
narrative is palpable.
With this as
background, it is easy to imagine how Matthew may have evaluated and responded
to Luke’s use of Mark. Whenever Luke diverged from Mark, Matthew was free to
follow Mark closely without concern that his gospel would look like a
reproduction of Luke. He would have been carrying forward material from an
early source that he had every reason to assume his gospel would supplant. On
the other hand, on the occasions when Luke followed Mark, Matthew saw no reason
to follow Mark for two reasons: it would create a third superfluous record, and
it would cause his gospel to look like a replication of Luke. If for these
reasons Matthew sought creative ways to diverge from Markan elements that Luke
had followed closely, this would have produced the textual pattern that both
Farmer and Kloppenborg acknowledge exists, but which neither is able to
successfully resolve within their preferred solutions to the Synoptic Problem. In
the end, once we see that Matthew was using both Mark and Luke and was
motivated to create a new and original gospel that rivaled the scope of Luke,
but which at the same time looked as unlike Luke as possible, there is no
mystery why Matthew tended to agree with Mark when Luke disagreed, and vice
versa.
4. The Minor Agreements. The
fourth phenomenon in the Synoptic texts that indicates direct awareness between
Matthew and Luke are the many editorial agreements between Matthew and Luke
against Mark, collectively referred to as the minor agreements. The
question is this: If Matthew and Luke used Mark independently, how did they
come to make so many identical changes to Mark’s text? Some of the minor
agreements are the result of common deletions by Matthew and Luke from Mark’s
text; others occur when Matthew and Luke make the same additions or changes.
There are dozens of examples of this phenomenon as the following samples
illustrate:
4.7:
Salt of the Earth
Mark
9:50
Salt
is good; but if the salt has lost its saltness, how will you season it?
|
Luke
14:34-35
Salt
is good; but
if the salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored?
|
Matthew
5:13
You
are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has lost its taste, how shall
its saltness be restored?
|
4.8:
The Cleansing of the Leper
Mark
1:40-41
“If
you will, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, he stretched
out his hand and touched him, and said to him, “I will, be clean”
|
Luke
5:12-13
“Lord,
if you will, you can make me clean.” ------ And he stretched out his
hand and touched him, saying, ----------------- “I will, be
clean.”
|
Matthew
8:2-3
“Lord,
if you will, you can make me clean.” ----- And he stretched out his
hand and touched him, saying, ----------------- “I will, be clean.”
|
4.9:
Plucking Grain on the Sabbath
Mark
2:25
he
said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and
was hungry, he and those who were with him; how he entered the house of God, when
Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence . . .
|
Luke
6:3
Jesus
answered, “Have you not read what David did when he was -----------------------hungry,
he and those who were with him; how he entered the house of God --------------------------------and
took and ate the bread of the Presence . . .
|
Matthew
12:3
He
said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was
-----------------------hungry,
he and those who were with him; how he entered the house of God
------------------------------------------ and ate the bread of the Presence
. . .
|
4.11:
New Wine in Old Wineskins
Mark
2:22
And
no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst
the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but
new wine is
for fresh skins.
|
Luke
5:37-38
And
no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does the new wine will burst
the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed.
But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.
|
Matthew
9:17
Neither
is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is the skins burst and the
wine
is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is
put into fresh wineskins.
|
The minor agreements
have been flogged incessantly in literature on the Synoptic Problem. Those who
hold any theory but the 2DH argue that the minor agreements are persuasive evidence
that the later of Luke or Matthew was aware of the earlier writer’s use of Mark—how
could so many common edits to Mark be explained otherwise? And all scholars
regardless of persuasion agree that the minor agreements are most easily
explained by any theory that assumes a direct dependence between Matthew and
Luke. However, though the minor agreements are a strong indication that either
Matthew or Luke was aware of the other’s use of Mark, advocates of the Q theory
argue that this evidence is not conclusive. They are acutely aware of the minor
agreements and have developed ideas about how they could have occurred without
Luke and Matthew being aware of each other's work. Helmut Koester identifies
the possibilities:
I
shall argue . . . that many of the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke
result from the fact that both Matthew and Luke used a text of Mark that was
different from the text which is preserved in the manuscript tradition of the
canonical Gospel of Mark.[19]
It
is hardly possible to argue that all these minor agreements can be explained by
the assumption that Matthew and Luke used a Markan text that differed from the
one preserved in the canonical manuscript tradition. A large number of the
minor agreements are due to common stylistic or grammatical corrections of the
sometimes awkward Markan text or are caused by accidental common omissions.
There is also the possibility that later scribes altered the text of Luke under
the influence of the better-known text of Matthew, thus creating secondary
agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark.[20]
Thus, in Koester’s
view, the minor agreements exist due to a variety of factors including obvious
edits to Mark that both authors might have made independently, accidental
common omissions, and the use by Matthew and Luke of a different edition
of the Gospel of Mark than the one we find in the NT. His last speculation that
later scribes altered the text of Luke
is a subtle way to suggest a modified edition of Luke as well. These rationalizations
are not impossible, but they are speculations mandated by the need to explain
away evidence that otherwise dooms the Q theory. In essence, the minor agreements
are dismissed by Q theorists as an odd array of coincidences and the use of one
or more additional hypothetical sources. In the end, any textual replication
can be explained by appeal to a common hypothetical source; to posit that
Matthew and Luke each used a lost Q source and an unknown edition of Mark
and an altered edition of Luke is lot
of pure conjecture, quite unnecessary in light of the fact that a simple
solution is at hand that is at once more obvious and more comprehensive—Matthew
saw Luke’s numerous incidental edits to Mark and copied over those he agreed
made sense.
Statistical
Analysis of Verbal Agreements
No
argument against the existence of Q is complete without addressing the
statistical data often submitted as evidence in its favor. John Kloppenborg
presents data developed by C.E. Carlston and D. Norlin.[21]
This chart appears in both The Formation of Q[22]
and Excavating Q[23], and is
an important set of data bearing upon the Synoptic Problem:
Verbal Agreement between Matthew and Luke
by Source
(C.E. Carlston and D. Norlin)
Triple
Tradition
Double Tradition
Content
type
|
Matt
|
Luke
|
Avg.
|
|
Matt
|
Luke
|
Avg.
|
Narrative
|
50.2
|
46.9
|
48.5
|
|
55.7
|
51.8
|
53.7
|
Words of
Jesus
|
63.5
|
68.3
|
65.9
|
|
69.5
|
73.6
|
71.5
|
Misc. words
|
56.7
|
60.6
|
58.5
|
|
87.5
|
80.9
|
84.1
|
Average
|
56.0
|
56.0
|
56.0
|
|
69.8
|
72.2
|
71.0
|
This
table presents the percentage of agreement between Matthew and Luke relative to
their two presumed sources, Mark and Q, by types of material. Kloppenborg notes
that the definition of “agreement” is “the use of approximately the same word
in both Matthew and Luke…expressed...as a percentage of the total words used by
either author.”
Carlston
and Norlin draw the following conclusion from their data:
[Our
samplings] are surely large enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
Matthew and Luke used Q, as far as the wording of their material is concerned,
at least as conservatively as they used Mark. There seems to us to be no
reasonable explanation for this phenomenon except a second written source for
Matthew and Luke.”
If
one assumes that the double tradition was drawn from Q independently by Matthew
and Luke, then at face value the data indicate that both authors used Q not “at
least as conservatively” but rather noticeably more conservatively than they
did Mark. The striking difference between the average 56% agreement in the
triple tradition versus 71% in the double tradition suggests that both authors
must have replicated Q with greater fidelity than they did Mark. If the
existence of Q as the source behind the double tradition can be established on
other grounds, then these data indicate that Q was afforded greater respect as
a source than was Mark. It is not surprising that those already convinced of
Q’s existence would see further evidence of it in these numbers. However, not
only can the data be easily resolved without any appeal to the Q theory, they
actually point decidedly toward direct literary dependency between Matthew and
Luke.
To
illustrate, consider that the data do not conform to the predictions we would
normally make assuming Matthew and Luke’s common use of both Mark and Q. It is
understandable that the authors would both record the words of Jesus with higher
fidelity than narrative text as we see that they have done. However, we would
not anticipate that either, much less both authors would record the words of
Jesus in Q with higher fidelity than they would the words of Jesus in Mark.
Furthermore, since they both selected Mark to provide the fundamental narrative
structure for their own Gospels, it is counterintuitive to imagine that both
would reproduce Q’s narrative text with greater fidelity than Mark’s narrative
text. To the contrary, if Matthew and Luke had each independently used Mark and
Q as primary sources, we would expect the data in the double tradition to look
similar to the data in the triple tradition, with the sayings of Jesus and the
narrative material respectively being recorded with relatively equal fidelity
from both sources. The fact that both authors independently chose to
reproduce sayings material and narrative material with greater fidelity
from Q constitutes an unexpected result.
However,
this is only the beginning of the mystery. Let us consider Matthew’s usage of
both sources more closely. In the triple tradition he intersects with Luke on
50.2% of the narrative text and 63.5% of the sayings material. The ratio of
50.2 to 63.5 is .79. Meanwhile, in the double tradition we find that Matthew
intersects with Luke on 55.7% of the narrative and 69.5% of the sayings. The
ratio of 55.7 to 69.5 is .80. Thus Matthew, writing independently, manages to
achieve a statistically identical ratio of intersection (.79 vs. .80) with Luke
in narrative and sayings matter.
Moreover,
this pattern exists in Luke’s data as well. Luke intersects with Matthew on
46.9% of narrative and 68.3% of sayings material in Mark. The ratio of these
(46.9/68.3) is .69. Luke’s double tradition statistics are 51.8% narrative and
73.6% sayings. The ratio of the two, 51.8/73.6, is .70. In summary:
Matthew
Luke
|
Triple
|
Double
|
|
Triple
|
Double
|
Narrative
|
50.2
|
55.7
|
|
46.9
|
51.8
|
Words of Jesus
|
63.5
|
69.5
|
|
68.3
|
73.6
|
Ratios
|
.79
|
.80
|
|
.69
|
.70
|
The
statistical equality of these ratios should raise red flags. For within the
context of the Q theory, the data indicate that Matthew and Luke both used Q
with precisely the same percentage increase in their fidelity of replication
of both narrative and sayings material. The odds are slim that two
different authors independently using the same two texts would increase their accuracy
of reproduction of Q’s narrative material and
Q’s sayings material in identical proportions relative to Mark. To the
contrary, we might expect them to have held Mark and Q in equal regard, drawing
from them both with equal fidelity, in which case the rate of verbal agreement
under the double tradition would have looked the same as those under the triple
tradition. Barring that, if Matthew and Luke did not regard Mark and Q as equal
authorities, we might imagine that one or both of them would have held Mark in
higher regard at least as a narrative source, just as they might have perceived
Q as a higher authority for sayings material. We would then expect them to each
interpret their sources differently according to their respective editorial
instincts and biases. This would have produced a lower incidence of agreement
between the two. The last thing we would anticipate is that they would both
view Q as a greater authority in both sayings and narrative material, and
thereby increase their fidelity of reproduction of Q over Mark in both sayings
and narrative by close to identical percentages.
Since
these data do not correspond to results we would anticipate from two autonomous
writers, the question is by what other means could these results have been
achieved? Though Carlston and Norlin’s data do not reflect the anticipated
behavior of two independent authors, they are very much in harmony with what we
would predict from one author’s direct dependence upon the other. To
illustrate, let us assume that Q did not exist, and that Matthew drew the
double tradition material directly from Luke. If Matthew relied upon Luke and
maintained a 69.8% verbal replication of Luke’s double tradition material, it
would account for that number appearing in the chart. Luke’s corresponding
value of 72.2% makes sense since the actual statistics would vary only by the
total number of words used by both authors in the double tradition.
Furthermore,
Matthew’s reproduction of Luke’s sayings and narrative material at an average
of about 70% is consistent with his reproduction of Mark. In order for Matthew
to achieve a subset of 56% verbal intersection with Luke in their respective
use of Mark, both authors would individually have had to replicate Mark at the
rate of about 75% (75% x 75% = 56%). This of course is an average; one might
have replicated Mark at a rate of 80% and the other at 70% and still achieved a
56% intersection. Furthermore, there are other factors such as the frequency of
keywords in each pericope that would influence these numbers. So no exactitude
is suggested in citing these figures. The point is that in order to achieve a
subset of 56% verbal agreement in the triple tradition, each author would have
needed to replicate Mark at a rate higher than 56%, and a range of 70% to 75%
would be consistent with the end result.
Furthermore,
Matthew’s direct use of Luke would necessarily produce data showing
increases in fidelity in the double tradition across all content types. By
defining Luke’s editorial variances from Q as zero (Luke “reproduces Q” with
100% fidelity) the data would inevitably appear
to show equivalent increases in the replication of Q in both sayings and
narrative material by both authors. Mathematically, it cannot be otherwise.
If Matthew “drew from Q” with 70% verbal reproduction and Luke “replicated Q”
with 100% accuracy, then both authors would appear to have achieved a subset of
verbal agreement of 70% (70% x 100% = 70%). Thus Carlston and Norlin’s findings are quite in line with
what the data should look like if Matthew used Luke directly.
In
the end we have two possible scenarios. Either Matthew and Luke both used Mark
and Q, and through unexpected editorial behavior produced statistical results
that look quite peculiar. Or one author was dependent upon the other, thereby
producing statistical verbal agreements that are entirely within the bounds of
normal expectations. The latter resolves the data efficiently and must be
considered the preferred solution absent a demonstration on other grounds that there cannot have been literary dependence
between Matthew and Luke. The irony is that Carlston and Norlin’s statistics
are alleged to confirm the use of Q by both Matthew and Luke. In point of fact,
as with several other arguments for the existence of Q, the data are more
easily resolved by assuming Matthew’s direct use of Luke.
A Final Incongruity: Luke’s Editorial Behavior
The double tradition
material contains more verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke than does the
triple tradition, as is clear from Carlston and Norlin’s data. Not only is there quite a bit of
verbatim reproduction, when there is a difference in wording, it most
frequently appears that Matthew’s version is the later, or edited version, or
as Koester says, that Luke’s is evidently the more original. As an example:
Luke 6:41-42
41
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the
log that is in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, “Brother,
let me take out the speck that is in your eye,” when you yourself do not see
the log that is in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the long out of your own eye, and then you
will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.
|
Matt 7:3-5
3
Why do you see the speck that is
in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4
Or how can you say to your brother, “
Let me take the
speck out of your eye,” when there
is the log
in your
own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the long out of your own eye, and then
you will see clearly to take the speck out of your
brother’s eye.
|
In this pericope
there is a great deal of verbal agreement but they are noticeable different;
Matthew’s version is obviously the more refined. Anyone looking at these two
texts without any preconceived notions as to how they evolved would presume
that Matthew had edited the account in Luke directly. He has made no change to
the meaning of the saying as it exists in Luke, but has simply rendered it in
more concise language. However,
this is not always the case. On some occasions Matthew appears to edit Luke in
ways that make material changes to the account. In the following table, Luke
depicts the Baptist’s vitriolic tirade as directed toward the masses who had
come to him for baptism. In Matthew, this has been corrected to show John’s
venom being directed at the Pharisees and Sadducees:
Luke 3:7-9
7
He said therefore to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him,
“You
brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits that befit 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 to Abraham. Even now the ax 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.
|
Matt 3:7-10
7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he
said to them,
“You
brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit that befits 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 to Abraham. Even now the ax 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.
|
Other than this, the
passage is largely a verbatim reproduction with the exception of two small
edits. The singular and plural forms of fruits
and befit are switched, and the word begin is changed to presume. This latter edit is particularly noteworthy, for Matthew
has a demonstrable aversion to the verb to
begin as it is used in Mark and Luke. It appears 23 times in Mark, and as
Matthew draws from Mark he routinely rewrites any phrasing in which he feels begin has been used inappropriately.
Matthew’s Gospel ends up with only eleven uses of begin, despite it being well over half again as long as Mark. With
respect to the above pericope, the fact that begin has been replaced with presume
is strong evidence that Matthew is the later edited version.
The essential point,
however, is that all of this has significant ramifications for the Q theory.
For the fact that Matthew frequently appears to be either copying Luke verbatim
or editing/correcting Luke is nothing but an illusion according to the 2DH
which insists Matthew and Luke did not know one another—the reason that Matthew
appears to be copying/editing Luke is
that Luke copied his Q source verbatim,
while Matthew copied and edited from the same Q source; this is the only way to explain
the fact that Matthew frequently appears to be copying or editing Luke directly.
Since the 2DH is
wholly dependent upon this assumption, one must ask whether it is reasonable to
assume Luke would have used Q in this manner? If Luke’s use of Mark is any
guide to his editorial proclivities, the evidence suggests not. Luke routinely
exhibits a propensity to paraphrase Mark. Though he often follows the storyline
of Mark, he has a need to render Mark’s text in his own words. The following
comparison illustrates Luke’s typical paraphrasing of Mark:
Mark
1:35-38
35
And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose and went out to a
lonely place, and there he prayed. 36 And Simon and those who were with
him pursued him, 37 and they found him and said to him, “Everyone is
searching for you.” 38 And he said to them, “Let us go on to the next
towns, that I may preach there also; for that is why I came out.”
|
Luke
4:42-43
42
And when it was day, he departed and went into a lonely place. And the people
sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them;
43
but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to
the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose.”
|
Here the basic story that
Luke tells is similar to that of Mark, but the wording is remarkably different.
In particular, the saying of Jesus is entirely rewritten; the meaning is
essentially the same but the wording is different. It is as if Luke resists any
opportunity to replicate Mark, and instead actively seeks a different way to
say the same thing.
The same tendency can
be observed in Stilling the Storm
(Fig. 4.12). There are numerous incidental reproductions of verbiage that are
sufficient to justify an inference that Luke is using Mark as a source. Yet,
Luke renders the story in his own language while remaining essentially true to
the content and meaning of Mark’s version:
4.12:
Stilling the Storm
Mark
4: 35-41
35
On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across
to the other side.” 36 And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the
boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. 37 And a
great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat
was already filling. 38 but he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion;
and they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care if we
perish?” 39 And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea,
“Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
40 He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” 41 And they were
filled with awe, and said to one another, “Who then is this,
that even wind and sea obey him?”
|
Luke
8:22-25
22
One day he got into a boat with his disciples, and he said to them, “Let us
go across to the other side of the lake.” So they set out, 23 and as
they sailed he fell asleep. And a storm of wind came down on the lake,
and they were filling with water, and were in danger. 24 And they went
and woke him, saying, Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he awoke
and rebuked the wind and the raging waves; and they ceased, and there was a
calm. 25 He said to them, “Where is your faith?” And they were
afraid, and they marveled, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that he
commands even the wind and water, and they obey him?”
|
The comparisons above
illustrate Luke’s practice of rewriting Mark in his own words. While there are
occasional verbatim reproductions, they are incidental. Indeed, lengthy
reproductions of Mark by Luke are rare. The underlined text in The Healing of the Demoniac (Fig 4.13,
Luke 4:34-35a below) is the longest continuous duplication of Mark found in the
Gospel of Luke—a duplication consisting of 26 words in the Greek text. There
are no other verbatim duplications which rival the length of this passage, and
there are only a few which exceed half its length. Hence, it stands out as a
remarkable anomaly when Luke and Mark are compared:
4.13:
The Healing of the Demoniac
Mark
1:23-28
23
And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean
spirit; 24 and he cried out,
“What have you to do
with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know
who you are, the Holy One of God.” But Jesus rebuked him saying, “Be
silent and come out of him!” 26 And the unclean spirit,
convulsing him and crying with a loud voice came out of him. 27
And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying,
“What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the
unclean spirits, and they obey him.” 28 And at once his fame spread
everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.
|
Luke
4:33-37
33
And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon;
and he cried out with a loud voice, 34 “Ah! What have you to do with us,
Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you
are, the Holy One of God.” 35 But Jesus rebuked him saying, “Be silent and come
out of him!”
And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of
him, having done him no harm. 36 And they were all amazed, and said to one
another,
“What is this word? For with
authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come
out.” 37 And reports of him went out into every place in the
surrounding region.
|
In these examples
there is no discernible motive on Luke's part to change the essential meaning
of the stories. Rather, he appears to render his source in his own words with
colorful embellishments. In Fig 4.13, Mark's unclean spirit becomes the
spirit of an unclean demon in Luke. In Mark, the man cries out; in
Luke, the man cries out with a loud voice. Again in Mark, Jesus commands
with authority; in Luke he commands with authority and power.
These additions have no purpose other than to amplify the drama without
changing its meaning.
Therefore, there is
an obvious disconnect between theory and observed evidence at the heart of the
2DH. The theory requires one to believe that Luke manifested two different
editorial styles, letting his creative side run free in paraphrasing Mark while
slavishly reproducing Q as a mere copyist. Advocates of the 2DH have proposed
that the resolution of this dilemma lies in the fact that Q consists mainly of
Jesus’ sayings, whereas Mark is primarily narrative. And indeed Carlston and
Norlin’s data confirm that Jesus’ sayings were reproduced with higher fidelity
than narrative text.
However, even with
the sayings material that Luke finds in Mark, he shows a tendency to change
wording for no apparent reason other than to create an original version. In the
Stilling of the Storm (Fig. 4.12),
Mark has Jesus say, “Why are you
afraid? Have you no faith?” Luke alters the saying to read “Where is your faith?” And in Jesus Departs from Capernaum, Mark
reports Jesus as saying, “Let us go on
to the next towns, that I may preach there also; for that is why I came out.”
Here, Luke renders a thorough rewrite: “I
must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I
was sent for this purpose.” Thus there is no sign that Luke feels
obligated to render the words of Jesus in his Markan source accurately.
The next step would
be to consider whether there are two generic types of Jesus’ sayings material
that Luke might have treated differently—conversational speech on the one hand
versus more highly structured parables and aphorisms on the other. Does Luke
exhibit a tendency to reproduce parables and aphorisms of Jesus with greater
accuracy than conversational speech? The
Question About Fasting (Fig. 4.7, p. 22) which we examined previously
offers excellent insight into this, as it provides evidence of Luke’s typical
use of Mark, and Matthew’s use of both Mark and Luke.
First consider Luke’s
use of Mark. Notice that Mark opens the story with a premise, then repeats the
premise in the question. Luke evidently sees this as unnecessary, and rephrases
the opening question to eliminate the redundancy. He adds the comment about
offering prayers, and changes the accusation from your disciples do not fast,
to yours eat and drink. Luke has not made any material change to
the scenario, as prayer and fasting go hand in hand. He has simply rewritten
the text in his own style and added some color, as we have seen him do
previously.
Luke reproduces the
first half of Jesus’ statement in v. 19 very close to verbatim. However, the
second half of Jesus’ statement is considered by Luke to be extraneous, and he
drops it entirely. He then replicates Mark 2:20 verbatim until the end of the
sentence, where he pluralizes those days to match the plural days
with which Mark had opened v. 20. Once the subject switches to the parable of
the patched garment, Luke moves into a thorough paraphrasing, showing no sense
of obligation to accurately reproduce the words of Jesus in Mark. Finally, in
the new wine saying, Luke blends verbatim phrasing with his own original
constructions. Overall, an examination of The
Question About Fasting reveals that Luke felt no duty to record the words
of Jesus as he found them in Mark. While he had no aversion to copying some
sayings verbatim, he viewed them as being subject to rearranging, correcting,
deleting, and embellishing.
Let us then turn to
Matthew’s use of Mark and Luke in this same text. At the outset, Matthew alters
the substance of the story for whatever reason he may have had—it is no longer
third-party bystanders who pose the question to Jesus as it is in Mark and
Luke; it is now the disciples of the Baptist themselves who challenge Jesus. It
is not unusual for Matthew to change the identity of characters in the story.
He replaces the multitudes with the religious leaders as those who were
inciting the wrath of John the Baptist. He reports that it was the mother of the sons of Zebedee, not the sons
themselves, who pleaded for their special status at the throne of Jesus. And
the apostle Matthew is substituted for Levi the tax collector. So here we find
another identity alteration of a similar kind.
A second observation
in Matthew’s text is that he accomplishes the same initial edits as Luke, in
that they both eliminate the redundant language in Mark 2:18 and 2:19b. Though
these two common omissions could have been autonomous edits by two authors
unaware of the other’s activity, if Matthew had seen this beneficial editing in
Luke he would have been likely to adopt it himself.
Perhaps the most
intriguing aspect of this comparison occurs in Matthew’s treatment of the
sayings pertaining to the patched garment and the new wine. Matthew uses Mark’s
version of the patched garment, rendering it in an epitomized form while
ignoring the language in Luke. He then turns to Luke for the new wine saying,
and compresses it in much the same way that he does the garment saying. Thus
Matthew’s text is an efficient fusion of elements drawn from both Mark and
Luke. In Alland’s Greek text of The
Question About Fasting, Mark’s version contains 129 words, and Luke’s has
141. By rewriting with more precision, Matthew compresses the same material
into 105 words. Writing for precision and efficiency is a hallmark of Matthew’s
style.
Matthew displays no
tendency to introduce new language simply to tell the story in his own words as
Luke often does. For the most part he uses the language he finds in his sources
and replicates it subject only to refinements for efficient presentation, or to
introduce material changes or expansions to the traditions. In The Question About Fasting, Matthew
maintains high verbatim agreement with either Mark or Luke, or on occasion
both. Other than putting the opening question into the mouths of the Baptist’s
disciples instead of bystanders, the only uniquely Matthean elements in the
entire passage are mourn in v.15, and the concluding phrase and so
both are preserved. The Question
about Fasting is an ideal illustration of (a) the use of Mark by both
Matthew and Luke, and (b) Matthew’s tendency to conflate elements he finds in
Mark and Luke.
Another demonstration
of Matthew and Luke’s respective use of sayings material in Mark is The Parable of the Fig Tree (Fig. 4.14).
In this pericope the entire text of Mark is copied almost without change by
Matthew, with several small exceptions. Meanwhile, Luke again rewrites the
opening portion of this text for no apparent purpose other than to render it in
different language. Furthermore he deletes the final statement of Mark’s v.32
entirely. The fact that this is a parable of Jesus that Luke sees recorded in
Mark does not inhibit him from performing these extensive edits.
4.14:
The Parable of the Fig Tree
Mark 13:28-32
28 From the fig tree learn its lesson:
as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know
that summer is near.
29
So also, when you see all these things taking
place, you know that he is
near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation
will not pass away before all these things take place. 31
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words
will not pass away. 32 But of that day or that hour no one knows, not
even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
|
Luke 21:29-33
29 And he told them a
parable:
“Look at the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 as soon as they come out in
leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near.
31
So also, when you
see these things taking
place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly,
I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all
has taken place. 33
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words
will not pass away.
|
Matthew 24:32-36
32 From the fig tree learn its lesson:
as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know
that summer is near. 33
So also, when you see all these things
you
know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you,
this generation will not pass away till all these
things take place.35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words
will not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the
angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the
Father only.
|
The Parable of the Fig Tree is a good illustration due to its length and the fact that
it consists exclusively of the words of Jesus. Though Matthew reproduces Mark
almost verbatim, there is no similar replication of Mark in Luke. The fact that
we can observe Matthew copying sayings of Jesus in Mark word for word indicates
that he may have had a similar tendency to copy the sayings in Luke’s double
tradition, resulting in the frequent verbatim duplication in that material. On
the other hand, Luke’s paraphrasing of the opening text, his alterations in
Mark’s v.29, and his deletion of Mark’s final phrase represent editorial
manipulations that are inconsistent with the editorial behavior needed to
sustain the Q theory, for if Luke routinely performed similar edits on Q it
becomes more difficult to explain the frequent duplications in the double
tradition.
The Signs Before the End
(Fig 4.15) is another example in which the same distinctive redactional
tendencies of Matthew and Luke are apparent. Luke shows an inclination to
embellish the story with colorful, even hyperbolic rhetoric. He changes the
word alarmed in Mark to terrified; Mark’s earthquakes
become great earthquakes in Luke; he renders the word famines to famines
and pestilences, and to ensure his readers get the point, Luke adds and
there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. Luke enthusiastically
embraces his role as creative storyteller, rewording the text to add drama and
originality.
4.15:
Signs Before the End
Mark 13:3-8
3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives
opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
saying, 4 “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the
sign when these things are all to be accomplished?” 5 And Jesus began to
say to them, “Take heed that no one leads you
astray.
6 Many will come in my name,
saying, 'I am
he,'
and they will lead many
astray.
7
And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not
be
alarmed; this
must take
place, but the end is not yet.
8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom;
there will be
earthquakes in various places, there will
be
famines; this is but the beginning of the
birth-pangs.
|
Luke 21:7-11
7 And they asked
him,
“Teacher, when will this be, and what will be
the sign when this is about to take
place?”
8 And
he
said,
“Take heed that you are not led astray'
for many will come in my name,
saying, 'I am he!' and 'The time is at hand!'
Do not go after them. 9 And when you hear of wars and
tumults,
do not be
terrified; for this must first take
place, but the end will not be at once.” 10 Then he said to them, 'Nation
will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; 11 there will be great
earthquakes, and in various places famines and
pestilences; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.
|
Matthew 24:3-8
3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives
the disciples came to
him privately,
saying, “Tell us, when will this be, and
what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the
age?”
4 And Jesus
answered them, “Take heed that no one leads you
astray. 5For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the
Christ,' and they will lead many
astray.
And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not
alarmed for this
must take place,
but the end is not yet.
7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there
will be famines and earthquakes in various places;
all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.
|
Conversely, Matthew
typically refines Mark's text without altering its dramatic intensity. When
Mark writes, And Jesus began to say to them, Matthew changes it to And
Jesus answered them (an example of
his removal of begin). Mark's cumbersome phrase there
will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines, is edited by
Matthew to read more concisely: there will be famines and earthquakes in
various places. Other than changes of this nature, Matthew stays close to
Mark, his alterations being both limited and motivated by a desire to clarify
or improve the precision of the text.
Matthew’s willingness
to reproduce his Markan source with limited change—and Luke’s evident need to
paraphrase it—undermines the credibility of the 2DH. The editorial behavior of
these two evangelists is markedly different, and the behavior of Luke does not
fit the requirements of the 2DH. The Q theory requires us to believe that Luke
adopted two different editorial persona—a creative reinterpreter of Mark and a
disengaged scribe/copyist of Q. Nevertheless, Q theorists insist that there is
no reason to preclude this scenario since the Q document was primarily a
collection of sayings. It has been suggested that Luke had reason to hold Q in
higher esteem as an authentic early collection of sayings. If this were the
case, it is argued, Luke would have reproduced the sayings of Jesus in Q with
higher fidelity than he did the sayings of Jesus in Mark.
However, there is
evidence that even this assumption is not warranted. Let us return to the
Semitic parallelisms previously discussed. As noted, Matthew contains several
sayings that are rendered in structured parallel form, whereas Luke’s versions
appear in free prose. Two such parallelisms are illustrated in The House Built Upon the Rock (Fig. 4.16)
and Treasures in Heaven (Fig. 4.17). It
is widely assumed that Matthew’s structured forms are closer to the original
oral traditions. In both cases, the International
Q Project (IQP) identifies the parallel forms in Matthew as the original
text of Q:
4.16:
The House Built Upon the Rock
Luke 6:47-49
47 Every one who comes to me and hears my
words and does them, I will show you what he is like; he is like a man
building a house, who dug deep, and laid the foundation upon the rock; and
when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake
it, because it had been well built.
But he who hears and does not do them is like
a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation; against which the
stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.
|
Matt. 7:24-27
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of
mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock;
25 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and
the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had
been founded on the rock.
26 And everyone who hears these words of mine
and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the
sand;
27 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and
the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the
fall of it.
|
|
|
4.17:
Treasures in Heaven
Luke 12:33-34
Sell your possessions and give alms; provide
yourselves with purses 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.
|
Matt. 6:19-21
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on
earth,
Where moth and rust consume and where thieves
break in and steal,
But lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven,
Where neither moth nor rust consumes and where
thieves do not break in and steal.
For where your treasure is,
there will your heart be also.
|
This is the end of
the line for the Two Document Hypothesis and the imaginary Q. For by declaring
the Matthean version of these sayings as the original wording of Q, the IQP has
painted itself into a corner. If it is true that Luke found Matthew’s versions
of these sayings in his Q source, then it is obvious that Luke was willing to
paraphrase Jesus’ sayings in Q just as freely as he did those in Mark. Once we
concede that Luke was paraphrasing some of his Q source, there is no
reason to imagine that he did not paraphrase it as liberally as he did Mark. At
this point, the fundamental premise underlying the Q theory becomes highly
problematic, for we are now required to imagine an absurd scenario: Luke
paraphrased just the Q material for which we have surviving comparative
evidence, while he ritually copied without change only those portions of Q
which are coincidentally lost to us today. In short, the Q theory requires us
to accept that Luke used his Q source in a manner contrary to all available
evidence.
Conclusion
In this chapter we
have examined four patterns in the Synoptic texts that are difficult to explain
under the Q theory’s proposition that Matthew did not know Luke: (1) Matthew often
compiles his narratives by conflating unrelated elements in Mark and Luke,
whereas Luke never assembles any text from elements in Mark and Matthew; (2)
six out of twelve of Luke’s doublets are reproduced in Matthew; (3) Matthew
follows Mark closely only when Luke does not, and diverges from Mark when Luke
stays with Mark; (4) there are dozens of minor agreements between Matthew and
Luke against Mark that indicate a direct awareness of one author upon the other.
The simplest explanation for all of this data is that Matthew did indeed rely
upon both Mark and Luke with the guiding editorial objective of producing a
grand synthesis that did not look suspiciously like a rehash of Luke’s use of
Mark.
In the final analysis,
the Q hypothesis will collapse as a house built upon sand. The critical
foundation—a compelling demonstration that Matthew could not have known
Luke—has never been laid. Belief in Q requires that one imagine that the author
of the later of Matthew or Luke, despite his extensive research into the
evolving Jesus traditions, was unable to discover that a gospel identical in
scope to the one he was contemplating had already been published. It requires a
belief that Luke copied Q verbatim, contrary to all evidence that exists for
Luke’s editorial predilections. Belief in Q requires one to argue that a highly
respected collection of Jesus sayings, heavily relied upon by both Matthew and
Luke as primary documents of faith, evaporated completely from the historical
record. Those who are willing to accept such premises still have all of their
work ahead of them, for the Q theory struggles in vain to explain the overwhelming
evidence that Matthew was indeed aware of Luke. At the end of the day, the
Two-Document Hypothesis is incapable of resolving the Synoptic data. There is
no reason to believe that Q as a discrete collection of sayings ever existed.
The theory should be discarded in light of the fact that a simpler and more
comprehensive solution to the Synoptic Problem is at hand.
[1] Kloppenborg, John, Excavating Q, p. 43
[2] Koester, Helmut, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 130
[3]
Ibid, p. 130-131
[4]
Ibid, p. 131
[5] Ibid, p. 131
[6] Ibid, p.132-133 (emphasis
added)
[7] Jacobson, Arland, The First Gospel, p. 61-2 (emphasis added)
[8] Kloppenborg, John, Excavating Q, p. 59
[9] Mack, Burton, The Lost Gospel, p. 173
[10] Matthean Posteriority is the formal academic term for the theory
that Matthew was the last of the three Synoptics to be composed, and that the
author relied upon both Mark and Luke as sources.
[11] Jacobson, Arland, The First Gospel, p. 72
[12] Kloppenborg, John, The Formation of Q, p. 93
[13] Evans, Craig, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars
Distort the Gospels, pp. 67-77
[14] Ibid, p. 68
[15] Kloppenborg, John, The Formation of Q, p. 78
[16] Farmer, William, The Synoptic Problem, p. 218
[17] Farmer, William, The Synoptic Problem, p. 213 (emphasis
added)
[18] Kloppenborg, John, Excavating Q, p. 27-8n
[19] Koester, Helmut, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 129
(emphasis added)
[20] Koester, Helmut, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 275
[21] Carlston and Norlin, Statistics
and Q, pp. 59-78
[22] Kloppenborg, Formation,
p. 44
[23] Kloppenborg, Excavating
Q, p. 58