The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (38 page)

A similar example is the quotation of Isa 29:13 in Mark 7:6–7 and Matt 15:8–9. The renderings in Mark and Matthew are identical except for a minor variation in word order in the first clause. Their quotations seem to follow the Septuagint, although they differ from it at several important points. Matthew and Mark use a singular verb in the first clause although the Septuagint uses a plural form. Moreover, in the Septuagint, the last line of the quotation reads “teaching commandments and doctrines of men” rather than “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men,” which appears in Matthew and Mark. The fact that Matthew and Mark deviate from the Septuagint at precisely the same points and in precisely the same way seems to be more than a coincidence. It appears that either Matthew was aware of Mark's translation of Isa 29:13 or that Mark was aware of Matthew's translation.

Explanations of the Similarities Between the Gospels

The similarities in wording, order, editorial comments, and OT references described above have been explained in several different ways in the history of NT scholarship.

Literary Independence
Some scholars argue that these similarities are products of the divine inspiration of the Synoptic Gospels rather than indicating the use of one Gospel by another. They argue that since these three Gospels share the same divine author, the Holy Spirit, readers should not be surprised by the remarkable similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But if divine inspiration alone accounts for the similarities between the Synoptics, it is difficult to account for the differences between the Synoptics and especially the differences between the Synoptics and John.

Similarly, other scholars argue that the similarities between the Gospels simply reflect history. Similarities are a byproduct of the Gospel writers' faithful reporting of what actually happened. Although this explanation could account for the similar reporting of events and sayings in the Gospels, it is not an adequate explanation of other remarkable similarities. This explanation does not account for the parallels in parenthetical references, editorial comments, or the similarities in OT quotations described earlier.
²¹⁶

Literary Interdependence—
The most commonly accepted explanation of the similarities between the Synoptic Gospels is that the later Synoptic writers used the earlier Synoptic
Gospel(s). Theories of literary dependence between the Gospels can be traced back to as early as the fifth century.
²¹⁷
For example, Augustine suggested that the canonical order of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) was the order in which the Gospels were written. The later writers used the material of the earlier writers: “Each of them is found not to have desired to write in ignorance of his predecessor” (Augustine,
De Consensu Evangelistarum
1.4).
²¹⁸
According to this theory Matthew, an eyewitness, wrote the first Gospel, Mark used Matthew in the compilation of his Gospel, and Luke used Matthew (and Mark) in the compilation of his Gospel.

Illustration 3.1: Augustinian View

Although Augustine's solution to the Synoptic Problem has a few modern supporters, most scholars support one of the following two theories.
²¹⁹

The Two-Gospel Hypothesis
In 1783 J. J. Griesbach proposed that Matthew wrote his Gospel first. In contrast to Augustine, Griesbach argued that Luke was the second Gospel and Mark the third. Griesbach's view regarding Luke's possible usage of Matthew is unclear. But modern supporters of Griesbach's view, known today as the two-Gospel hypothesis, generally argue that Luke used Matthew in writing his own Gospel. More
importantly, Griesbach argued that Mark was the last of the Synoptics and that he used both Matthew and Luke in writing his Gospel.

Several factors support the two-Gospel hypothesis. First, early church tradition was all but unanimous that Matthew's Gospel was the first to be written. Matthew's placement in the canon is probably due to the opinion of the early church that his Gospel was the first. As Griesbach noted, it is easier to explain (at least to the minds of some) why a non-apostle, Mark, would use the Gospel of an apostle than to explain why an apostle like Matthew would use a Gospel written by someone who was not an apostle.
²²⁰

Second, the two-Gospel hypothesis offers a reasonable explanation for those texts in which Matthew and Luke are identical or similar but differ from Mark. W. Farmer, the most influential proponent of the two-Gospel hypothesis in recent years, argued that these Matthean-Lukan agreements are consistently of minor importance and “do not seriously affect the literary purpose or theological intention of the passages concerned.”
²²¹
Mark's policy was to copy the text of his predecessor when they were identical with the exception of these minor elements that did not affect the sense of the passage.

Third, the hypothesis offers a reasonable explanation for the so-called Markan redundancies. Mark contains 213 “redundancies” in which a statement is made and then followed by a nearly equivalent but unnecessary statement. Mark 1:32 says, “When evening came, after the sun had set.” If Mark used both Matthew and Luke, the redundancy can be easily explained, since Matt 8:16 says, “When evening came,” and Luke 4:40 says, “When the sun was setting.”

Finally, unlike the two-document hypothesis, the two-Gospel hypothesis does not require hypothetical sources such as “Q” (probably from the German word
Quelle
meaning “source”).
²²²

Proponents of alternative hypotheses point to several problems with the two-Gospel hypothesis. First, despite its claim to honor church tradition, the hypothesis conflicts with an important element of church tradition regarding the composition of the Gospels. The two-Gospel hypothesis states that Mark wrote his Gospel last and used Matthew and Luke. But early church testimony insists that Mark wrote his Gospel independently of the other Gospels based on the memoirs of Peter (as stated by Papias) and that Luke's Gospel was the last Gospel to be written, not the second (as stated by Origen, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, and Augustine).
²²³

Second, most agreements of two-Gospels readings are best explained by Markan priority. Redaction critics who seek to explain why a later evangelist adapted the wording of his source have been able to offer reasonable explanations for Matthew or Luke changing Mark's wording. But it is often more difficult to explain why Mark would have adapted readings from Matthew or Luke in accordance with the two-Gospel hypothesis. Many of the differences between Mark and the other two Synoptics can be easily explained as Matthew and Luke making grammatical or stylistic improvements or theological clarifications to Mark. Often the differences between Mark and the other two Synoptics so particularly suit the emphases of Matthew and Luke that they appear to be a product of Matthew's or Luke's revision of Mark.
²²⁴

Third, although the explanation of the Markan redundancies by the two-Gospel hypothesis may initially appear compelling, closer examination raises serious questions. There are only 17 clear redundancies in Mark where Matthew has one and Luke the other. In many more instances of Markan redundancy, Matthew or Luke share the same element of the redundancy and Mark adds another or Matthew and Luke have neither. This suggests that the redundancies were more a product of Markan style than a result of his sources.
²²⁵

Fourth, alternative views do not require hypothetical sources. One variation of the Markan priority view eliminates the need for hypothetical documents by asserting that Luke used Matthew's Gospel in writing his own Gospel.

Illustration 3.2: Two-Gospel Hypothesis

Markan Priority
Careful analysis of the similarities between the Synoptic Gospels indicates that Mark has a special relationship to both Matthew and Luke. Mark shares more material and verbatim agreement with Matthew and Luke than they share with each other. The special relationship of Mark to Matthew and Luke has commonly been explained in two opposite ways. Some assert that the similarity results from Mark's using both Matthew and Luke in his Gospel. The Markan priority hypothesis suggests that Mark served as a primary source for both Matthew and Luke.

Several lines of evidence support Markan priority. First, Mark's Gospel is the shortest of the three Synoptic Gospels. Contrary to the two-Gospel hypothesis, Mark's brevity does not appear to be due to his effort to abbreviate or summarize the other two Gospels. A comparison of the length of the individual pericopes in the Synoptics shows that Mark's version of pericopes shared by Matthew and Luke tend to be longer and more detailed than those in the other two Gospels. Mark's Gospel is shorter than the other two Synoptics not because individual pericopes were abbreviated but because Mark lacks large blocks of material in the other Gospels such as the narratives of Jesus' birth and the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. It is difficult to explain why Mark would lengthen individual pericopes from the other two Gospels and then eliminate such important material. It is easier to explain Matthew and Luke expanding Mark than Mark abbreviating Matthew and Luke at the expense of such significant testimonies to Jesus.

Additional evidence for Markan priority comes from Mark's Aramaic expressions. Mark frequently transliterates Aramaic words into Greek characters. Generally, Matthew and Luke either omit these words altogether or give a Greek translation in place of Mark's transliteration. Many scholars believe that it is more probable that Matthew and Luke translated the lesser-known Aramaic into Greek than that Mark reverted from the better-known Greek to the lesser-known Aramaic. Similarly, Mark's Greek is less refined than that of the other two Synoptic Gospels. Many scholars reason that it is more likely that Matthew and Luke improved Mark's Greek than that Mark diminished the quality of the grammar and style of the other Synoptics.
²²⁶

Third, Mark has more difficult readings. For instance, Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One—God” (Mark 10:18). This could be taken as a denial of Jesus' deity. Matthew's reading carefully avoids confusion by rendering the statement, “Why do you ask Me about what is good? There is only One who is good” (19: 17). Scholars reason that it makes more sense for Matthew to have attempted to clarify an important theological statement than for Mark to have muddled it.
²²⁷

Fourth, Matthew and Luke seldom agree against Mark in wording or in order. In 1835 K. Lachmann observed that the order of pericopes in Matthew and Luke is very similar when Mark also contains the pericope and that the order of pericopes in Matthew and Luke is often different if Mark does not contain the pericope. Lachmann also noted that
Matthew and Luke never agree in order against Mark. Moreover, when Matthew and Mark agree in order against Luke or Luke and Mark agree in order against Matthew, the deviation from Markan order can be explained plausibly. But if one presumes that Mark changed the order of pericopes that he found in his sources, Matthew or Luke, such changes by Mark are much more difficult to explain.
²²⁸

Moreover, as explained earlier, redaction critics who seek to explain why a later evangelist adapted the wording of his source have been able to offer reasonable explanations for Matthew or Luke changing Mark's wording. But it is often more difficult to explain why Mark would have adapted readings from Matthew or Luke in accordance with the two-Gospel hypothesis. Many of the differences between Mark and the other two Synoptics can be easily explained in one of three ways: (1) Matthew's and Luke's improvements of grammar or style; (2) Matthew's and Luke's theological clarifications to Mark; and (3) Matthew's and Luke's adaptation of Mark's text in a way that heightens the themes and emphases that permeate the materials in their Gospels that are not paralleled by Mark.
²²⁹

Generally, differences between the Synoptics can be more reasonably explained when one assumes Markan priority. For example, Matthew and Luke place greater emphasis on high Christology than Mark does. They both apply the title “Lord” to Jesus far more frequently than Mark. It seems more likely for Matthew and Luke to adapt Mark in order to highlight Jesus' deity than for Mark to edit such material out.
²³⁰