A Comparison of Doubly and Triply Attested Synoptic Tradition (Part 1)

At the bottom of this post, the extant traditions and a reconstructed source are given in extenso. This post covers Mark 1:16-18 // Matthew 4:18-20.

(1)

S*        Καὶ παράγων παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας
Mark    Καὶ παράγων παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας
Matt    Περιπατῶν δὲ παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας

S*        And while passing along the sea of Galilee,
Mark    And while passing along the sea of Galilee,
Matt    * * While walking along the sea of Galilee,

The most straightforward explanation: Matthew adjusted the paratactic style of his source to a higher stylistic register.

(2)

S*        εἶδέν με καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφόν μου
 Mark    εἶδεν Σίμωνα καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν Σίμωνος
 Matt    εἶδεν δύο ἀδελφούς, Σίμωνα τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ,

S*        he saw me and my brother Andrew
Mark    he saw Simon and Simon’s brother Andrew
Matt    he saw two brothers, Simon known as Peter and his brother Andrew,

Matthew’s added δύο ἀδελφούς in reference to Simon and Andrew paves the way for the correlate addition of ἄλλους δύο ἀδελφούς in reference to James and John later on. The mention of Simon’s future appellation paves for the way for the pivotal episode in the narrative in which the appellation is given. Matthew’s τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ is a reflex, ex hypothesi, of τὸν ἀδελφόν μου. 

The lemma is not probative: τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ might be an abbreviation of τὸν ἀδελφὸν Σίμωνος. On the other hand, it stands to reason that if an Urtext in the first person had a bare “me and my brother Andrew,” it would have been natural for subsequent tradition to highlight Simon’s pre-eminence in the life of the church by various means, by repetition of the name (Mark) or reference to his future appellation (Matthew). In short, the most economic thesis is that Matthew’s source read εἶδεν Σίμωνα καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, to which he added δύο ἀδελφούς and τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον.

 (3)

S*       ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ
 Mark    ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ
 Matt    βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν

S*        trap-throwing at sea,
Mark    trap-throwing at sea,
Matt    throwing a trap net into the sea,

Matthew’s diction is less colloquial in style, more suitable to retrospective historical narrative. 

(4)

S*        ἤμεθα γὰρ ἁλιεῖς
 Mark    ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλιεῖς
 Matt   ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλιεῖς

S*        for we were fishermen,
Mark    for they were fishermen,
Matt    for they were fishermen,

(5)

S*        καὶ λέγει  ἡμῖν
Mark    καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
Matt    καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς

S*        and he says to us,
Mark    and Jesus said to them,
Matt    and he says to them,

Matthew’s diction is lower register, the kind of thing we expect in Mark. What is going on? The economical solution, it seems to me, is to assume that in this instance it is Mark that upgraded S* stylistically by using εἶπεν instead of λέγει. The addition of ὁ Ἰησοῦς is likewise consistent with a slightly fuller and more polished presentation.

(6)

S*         Δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων.
Mark    Δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων.
Matt    Δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων.

S*         “Come, after me, and I’ll make you fishers of men.”
Mark    “Come, after me, and I’ll make you to be fishers of men.”
Matt    “Come, after me, and I’ll make you fishers of men.”

It’s possible that Matthew had γενέσθαι in his source, and chose to omit it. But it seems more likely, in light of (5), that Mark’s ποιήσω γενέσθαι, with the addition of γενέσθαι, is an attempt at attaining more exactitude. 

(7)

S*       καὶ εὐθὺς ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.
Mark    καὶ εὐθὺς ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.
Matt    οἱ δὲ εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.

S*       And leaving the nets right then we followed him.
Mark   And leaving the nets right then they followed him.
Matt    * * Leaving the nets right then, they followed him.

As in (1), a plausible analysis is that Matthew adjusted the paratactic style of S* to a higher stylistic register, whereas Mark, per the usual, retains it. It is usually supposed that Matthew and Luke tended to eliminate εὐθὺς from a common source they depended on, - Mark or Ur-Markus as the case may be - but did not do so consistently. To my knowledge, a better explanation has not been forthcoming.

Summary

Those who think that Mark is an abridgement are welcome to illustrate their hypothesis based on this text-unit. I don’t see it. But I also don’t see why anyone would suggest on the basis of this unit that Matthew had Mark before him and made modifications to suit. I don’t see that either.

The Reconstructed Common Source

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

Mark 1:16-18

Καὶ παράγων παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας εἶδεν Σίμωνα καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν Σίμωνος ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ· ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλιεῖς. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.

Matthew 4:18-20

Περιπατῶν δὲ παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας εἶδεν δύο ἀδελφούς, Σίμωνα τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν· ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλιεῖς. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων. οἱ δὲ εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.

Comments

[J. K. Gayle]

very cool, John! and compelling indeed

[JohnFH]

It's a lot of fun, I think, to work through the data. Comparative analysis provides a window into the particular emphases and concerns of the single works.

[Bill]

John, please forgive my ignorance as usual, but who else has done anything similiar to this? I can barely follow the textual analysis, but I'm very curious about the "Reconstructed common source".

You may or may not know my hypothesis that Matthew wrote first AND last, modifying his own early source (which would have been something like a Journal) into a much more sophisticated document only after Mark & Luke had taken their turns relying on his original. Would that fit what you're working on here?

[JohnFH]

The hypothesis of an Ur-Markus is an old one, but I'm not read up in the secondary literature, so I don't know how my arguments compare with those who previously arrived at the same conclusion. I should send off a note to Goodacre and Carlson asking for some direction in this sense.

I didn't know you have the hypothesis you do. Very interesting. In the case of the material treated in this 6-part series, what do you posit the original of Matthew on which Mark and Luke relied looked like? I am having a hard time imagining how your thesis works out in practice in the case of the material I here review.

[Bill]

I'm completely ignorant about 99% of the textual challenges, *but*...

The IVP DoJ&tG's says the reconstruction of Ur-Markus (late 1700's) started to look more and more like the Cannonical Mark, which led them to just start from Mark. I suppose that means scholars found it easier to imagine Synoptic writers adding to rather than subtracting from. (Not sure if that's accurate.) But IMHO, shouldn't the actual process have included BOTH adding to AND taking away from, if there really were source documents?

I'm thinking the simplest theory is a 'proto-Matthew' (pM) that contained all material shared by at least two Synoptic writers. Anything unique to Mt, Mk or Lk *could* have come from pM, but it's simpler to assume unique material was discovered uniquely.

[Bill]

I should add: Likewise, Luke seems to have been the most avid researcher, so it's likely some 'double tradition' material was actually gathered by Luke, but not knowing how to judge which was which, we might err on the side of Occam in assuming all non-unique material was in pM.

[JohnFH]

I'm certainly willing to watch a proponent of a pM hypothesis take a set of data through its paces from that point of view. It would be instructive.

[Bill]

I only wish I could. Maybe in 20 years. Till then, I hope someone who reads this will try.

Thanks again. :-)

[Bob MacDonald]

John - your approach is delightful. It puts flesh on the characters. I have stopped thinking about the synoptic problem as such - I am just too busy trying to learn Hebrew and keep my business afloat. But at least after learning Hebrew a bit, I find reading Greek a piece of cake!

[JohnFH]

Hi Bob,

I'm delighted that you find it easy to follow. That's the whole idea, to take the mystery out of the subject. So much of the scholarly discussion is theory-heavy in the extreme.