A Hypothetical Common Source of Matthew, Mark, and Luke

The Synoptic Problem is to New Testament studies what the problem of the sources and composition of the Primary History (Genesis through 2 Kings) is to the study of the Hebrew Bible: an intellectual adventure of the first order. If you are unable to describe the theories for sale and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, if concepts like the Covenant Code, D, P and H Torah; the double tradition, the triple tradition, the Minor Agreements, and Q are unknown quantities to you, you cannot claim to be a specialist in the fields.

To be sure, a proper understanding of the nature of evidence in hand means that one will be aware that such problems can only be addressed in a tentative and heuristic fashion. In terms of the relationship of tentative conclusions on such matters to the grand scheme of things, it needs to be remembered that knowledge of world-making proportions inevitably derives for the most part from elsewhere. The idea that higher criticism is by definition a finishing school for apostates says more about the inability of many to think historically without fainting from a sense of the cultural determinedness of all knowledge, including religious knowledge, than anything else.¹

With that in mind, it is possible to think about the sources and composition of the Primary History or the Synoptic problem with unflappable serenity. If you are a geek of the right kind, this kind of thought is a perfect pastime. I have already sketched my answer to the question of the Primary History. So far as I know, the most plausible way to account for the web of textual agreements and disagreements across Matthew, Mark, and Luke is to assume that all three depended on a common source, hereafter S*.What might be called Minor Disagreements (between two or three texts which largely agree) need to be satisfactorily explained on a global hypothesis. For a large part of the synoptic tradition, the simplest way to do this, it seems to me, is to posit of a sort of Ur-Markus.  

Below I present S* as I would reconstruct it, as far as Mark 1:16-28; Matthew 4:18-22; 7:28-29; and Luke 4:31-37 are concerned. The first-person narrative I hypothesize is a nod to a tradition handed down by Papias. It is non-essential to my thesis. Substitute Simon, his, they, and them if you wish. Note on the English translation: it is deliberately stilted where necessary for the purposes of synoptic analysis. In a follow-up post, I will go through things line by line. It’s great fun if you ask me.

S* → Mark 1:16-28; Matthew 4:18-22; 7:28-29; Luke 4:31-37

Καὶ παράγων παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας εἶδέν με καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφόν μου ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ·· ἤμεθα γὰρ ἁλιεῖς. καὶ εἶπεν ἡμῖν Δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολουθήσαμεν αὐτῷ.

And while passing along the sea of Galilee, he saw me and my brother Andrew trap- throwing at sea, for we were fishermen. He says to us, “Come, after me, and I’ll make you fishers of men.” And leaving the nets right then, we followed him.

Καὶ προβὰς ὀλίγον εἶδεν Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ καταρτίζοντας τὰ δίκτυα, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκάλεσεν αὐτούς. καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ ἀπῆλθον ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ.

And when he’d gone on a bit, he saw James of Zebedee and his brother John, and they on boat repairing nets, and right then he called them. And leaving their father on boat, they went off after him.

Καὶ εἰσπορευόμεθα εἰς Καφαρναούμ· καὶ εὐθὺς τοῖς σάββασιν εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐδίδασκεν. καὶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς.

And we enter Capernaum, and right then on the Sabbath, he went into the synagogue and taught. And they were taken aback by his teaching, because he was teaching them as one with authority, not like the scribes.

καὶ εὐθὺς ἦν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ καὶ ἀνέκραξεν, Τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων, Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ. καὶ σπαράξαν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον καὶ φωνῆσαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐξῆλθεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ.

And right then there in the synagogue was a man with a defiled spirit. And he cried out, “What have you with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are: the Holy One of God.” And Jesus rebuked it saying, "Silence! Come out of him!" And the defiled spirit jerking him about and crying with a loud voice came out of him.

καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες καὶ συνελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες, Τί ἐστιν τοῦτο ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ἐξέρχονται; καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ εὐθὺς πανταχοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν περίχωρον.

And they were all amazed and were conversing with one another saying, “What is this, that he commands even defiled spirits with authority, and they come out?” And news of him went out right then all around to the whole surrounding territory.

¹ See my next post for an explanation of this claim. 

Comments

[Bill]

Ah. Scrolling down helps. ;-)

One point. It seems to me you have to posit either one or two callings of the fishermen in the S*. If one, then have away. If two, there is no fun to be had on this point. But if you posit one and it was actually two (in the actualy event sequence hypothetically recorded by S*) the evidence gained from looking at them in this exercise would be entirely false. I suggest only it might be weighed with this consideration in mind. If the S* actually existed, there is every chance it recorded two callings, if not more chance (the two accounts seem vastly different to me).

Same point for the Synagogue homecomings, which you've not come to yet.

[JohnFH]

Hi Bill,

I'm not sure what you mean by one versus two callings of fishermen. It's possible that Simon and Andrew were called on one occasion, and James and John on a separate occasion, and that already in S* the discrete occasions were run together. If so, that would fall within the narrative license I think we must concede to the gospel writers. But in this instance I don't know of any reason to posit two discrete occasions.

[Bill]

You really don't know what I mean? The event sequence in Mark 1-2 agrees with that of Luke 4-5 except for the callings. But assume these callings are two totally different occasions. In-between them, Simon Peter finds Jesus in a secluded place and wants Jesus to come back into his hometown. Then Jesus says, "Let US go..." (Mk1:38) Then it says, "And HE went..." (Mk1:39).

I know the leading theory is that Mark or Luke fudged things on purpose for some reason, but I think it makes more sense to think each writer knew both stories but only told one, to avoid what redundancy there was.

[JohnFH]

Now I get it. But I don't find your proposal convincing. First of all, it's not possible to build anything on the fact that Jesus says "let us go" but the narrative following says "he went." That is a purely apparent discrepancy. It's just a narrative device to highlight the pre-eminent role of Jesus.

For the rest, I'm fuddy-duddy normal in thinking that it's Luke who reorders and sometimes conflates tradition he inherited.

Already in his prologue he insists on order. But the order he has in mind is logical, dramatic order. At the micro-level, strictly chronological order was not a concern and could be trumped by logical, theological, and/or dramatic requirements.

This is part of a larger irksome fact: the gospel writers are not interested in chronology in the same sense that we might be. If it were not for the gospel of John, we wouldn't even be in the position to surmise that Jesus' ministry lasted for two or three years. The years blur together in the Synoptics.

[Bill]

All good points and fair enough. But in Luke we see Simon still needing to get called after Jesus' day of healings in Capernaum. So this particular point isn't even about chronology. It's just event sequence.

The calling Mark describes is a simple, "Follow me". They go across the river to Capernaum and back. The second calling (Luke's) is much more complex. In Luke, Peter's confession has a context because he wasn't willing to go before. In Mark, it's glossed over, but the "let's" and the "he" is a wisp of agreement with Luke's sequence.

Anyway, I'm not actually trying to convince you that I'm right. I'm trying to say you've assumed it's one event instead of two (in the hypothetical original source). I don't think the general irksomeness you is enough justification for that assumption. Judging from the structure of both passages, the "original" might have told of two separate events.

[JohnFH]

You keep at it, Bill. It's a fascinating topic, and you have a supple enough intelligence to make progress with it.