Monday, November 19, 2007
Mark-Q Overlaps VI: The Direction of Dependence
This is the sixth and final post in my current series on the Mark-Q Overlaps (so-called), in which I would like to build on the issue of the high verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke in the pericope under discussion in the Q Section where I will be presenting, Matt. 3.7-12 // Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17 (John's Preaching).
6. What is the direction of dependence?
If the extraordinarily high verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke points to a direct link between them here, we should not bypass the all important question of the direction of dependence. Paul Foster has recently made the point with force -- why Luke's use of Matthew? Why is this almost always the direction of dependence favoured by Q sceptics? In this pericope there is a strong presumption in favour of Matthew's redaction expansion of Mark, and Luke's copying of Matthew. The language, imagery and rhythm of the new material is Matthean through and through, and to the extent that we would not hesitate to ascribe it to Matthew if it were in Matthew alone. Let me give two representative examples:
(1) Matt. 3.7 // Luke 3.7: γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς; ("Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"). Matthew will use this offensive vocative + rhetorical question (labelled an echidnic by Michael Goulder) twice again in remarkably similar forms, 12.34, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν πονηροὶ ὄντες ("Brood of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil?") and 23.33, ὄφεις, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, πῶς φύγητε ἀπὸ τῆς κρίσεως τῆς γεέννης ("Snakes, brood of vipers! How can you flee from the judgement of gehenna?"). I think we should resist the temptation to play these links down. We are not dealing with everyday phrases. The imagery (snakes' offspring), the rhythm (echidnic) and language (wrath / judgement / gehenna) is strikingly Matthean and tells us in which direction the borrowing is going.
(2) 3.10: πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται ("Therefore every tree not producing good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire"). Virtually the identical sentence occurs again in 7.19. Once again it is not just the language but also the imagery that is Matthean. Even my introductory New Testament class knows that Matthew's is the Gospel that exploits harvest imagery to the tell the story of judgement and hell-fire. The Matthean apocalyptic scenario, here appearing for the first time in the Gospel, will be repeated at regular intervals: (a) Demand for good fruits / good works; (b) Separation at the Eschaton; (c) Burning of those whose deeds are evil.
Summary
What we have, then in this pericope, is agreement between Matthew and Luke that is far too close to be mediated via a third source. The strong indication of direct borrowing encourages us to ask the question about direction of dependence, and we are helped by the pervasive presence of Matthean language, imagery, rhythm and thought. These major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are at the high end of the spectrum of agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark, and we should avoid the tendency to group together such passages and treat them as a different category of agreement, so missing the fact that Matthew and Luke agree in major ways against Mark, something that contradicts the case for their independence. It is time to take the evidence for Luke's use of Matthew seriously. It is time to take our leave of Mark Q Overlaps.
6. What is the direction of dependence?
If the extraordinarily high verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke points to a direct link between them here, we should not bypass the all important question of the direction of dependence. Paul Foster has recently made the point with force -- why Luke's use of Matthew? Why is this almost always the direction of dependence favoured by Q sceptics? In this pericope there is a strong presumption in favour of Matthew's redaction expansion of Mark, and Luke's copying of Matthew. The language, imagery and rhythm of the new material is Matthean through and through, and to the extent that we would not hesitate to ascribe it to Matthew if it were in Matthew alone. Let me give two representative examples:
(1) Matt. 3.7 // Luke 3.7: γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς; ("Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"). Matthew will use this offensive vocative + rhetorical question (labelled an echidnic by Michael Goulder) twice again in remarkably similar forms, 12.34, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν πονηροὶ ὄντες ("Brood of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil?") and 23.33, ὄφεις, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, πῶς φύγητε ἀπὸ τῆς κρίσεως τῆς γεέννης ("Snakes, brood of vipers! How can you flee from the judgement of gehenna?"). I think we should resist the temptation to play these links down. We are not dealing with everyday phrases. The imagery (snakes' offspring), the rhythm (echidnic) and language (wrath / judgement / gehenna) is strikingly Matthean and tells us in which direction the borrowing is going.
(2) 3.10: πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται ("Therefore every tree not producing good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire"). Virtually the identical sentence occurs again in 7.19. Once again it is not just the language but also the imagery that is Matthean. Even my introductory New Testament class knows that Matthew's is the Gospel that exploits harvest imagery to the tell the story of judgement and hell-fire. The Matthean apocalyptic scenario, here appearing for the first time in the Gospel, will be repeated at regular intervals: (a) Demand for good fruits / good works; (b) Separation at the Eschaton; (c) Burning of those whose deeds are evil.
Summary
What we have, then in this pericope, is agreement between Matthew and Luke that is far too close to be mediated via a third source. The strong indication of direct borrowing encourages us to ask the question about direction of dependence, and we are helped by the pervasive presence of Matthean language, imagery, rhythm and thought. These major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are at the high end of the spectrum of agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark, and we should avoid the tendency to group together such passages and treat them as a different category of agreement, so missing the fact that Matthew and Luke agree in major ways against Mark, something that contradicts the case for their independence. It is time to take the evidence for Luke's use of Matthew seriously. It is time to take our leave of Mark Q Overlaps.
Labels: Mark-Q overlaps, Synoptic Problem
Friday, November 16, 2007
Mark-Q Overlaps V: the degree of verbatim agreement
This is the fifth in my current series of posts on the Mark-Q Overlaps (so-called), in which I would like to make a new point about the degree of verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke in the pericope under discussion in the Q Section where I will be presenting, Matt. 3.7-12 // Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17 (John's Preaching).
5. The Degree of Verbatim Agreement
The point here is a simple one, but it is one that I have not seen anyone else make in discussion of the Synoptic Problem. The degree of agreement between Matthew and Luke in double tradition material is often too high for them to have been copying from another source. John Kloppenborg helpfully draws attention to this "extremely high verbal correspondence . . . in a significant number of instances" (John S. Kloppenborg, "Variation in the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?", ETL 83 (2007), 53-80, 53) including the one currently under discussion:
In the handout that I have produced for the SBL session on Mark-Q overlaps where I will present my paper on this, I have produced a synopsis of Matthew, Q (IQP) and Luke on this so that one can see quickly and easily just how much verbatim agreement there is in this passage. Indeed, what is remarkable is how little disagreement there is. I have coloured all the agreement grey, and there is very little white left. One of the reasons for doing this in three columns is to remind ourselves of the fact that on the Q theory, what we have here are triple agreements. We get so used to thinking about this material as "double tradition", in the sense that it is present only in Matthew and Luke among the extant texts, that we can easily forget that for Q theorists, the agreements here are triple agreements, between Matthew, Q and Luke.
This leads us to an interesting question about the degree of verbatim agreement here between Matthew, Q and Luke. Does one ever see this kind of agreement between Matthew, Mark and Luke? Are the triple agreements in Matthew, Mark and Luke similar in extent to the triple agreements between Matthew, Q and Luke? The question that I am asking here is, I think, a new one. If anyone else has asked this question, then I have missed it. The question itself is an important one, so let me take a little time asking it in another way so that we can be clear about what is at stake.
According to the Two-Source Theory, Matthew and Luke are both independently using Mark and Q. We have access to Mark, so we have an idea what Matthew and Luke look like when they are working from a shared source. We know the degree of verbatim agreement to expect. Our question, then, is whether the degree of verbatim agreement is similar when they are using Q. In his recent ETL article, Kloppenborg reproduces a chart from Charles E. Carlston and Dennis Norlin, "Once More -- Statistics and Q", HTR 64 (1971): 59-78 (71):
For those who find figures instantly off-putting, let me express this in words. Matthew and Luke show consistently higher degrees of verbatim agreement in double tradition than they do in triple tradition. One cannot say in response to this, "But this is because double tradition is primarily sayings material" because the pattern is the same with respect to triple tradition sayings vs. double tradition sayings as it is with respect to triple tradition narrative vs. double tradition narrative and so on. Carlston and Norlin sum this up by noting that "the use of 'Q' is even more conservative than the use of Mark, possibly something like 27 per cent. more conservative" (Carlston and Norlin, 1971, 77). This is an anomaly on the Two-Source Theory. Why should Matthew and Luke apparently be so much more conservative in their use of Q, not least given their known respect for Mark's order?
The point of interest here is that the statistics make sense on the assumption that Luke is borrowing directly from Matthew in the double tradition (and Mark-Q overlap) material. They cohere with a scenario in which the double tradition is due to direct borrowing, Matthew to Luke, rather than mutual use of a shared source.
James Robinson once hinted that the all important clues to Q's existence might show up early in the document. I think Robinson was right. The remarkably high degree of verbatim agreement that shows up right at the beginning of Q is an important clue to the identity of the material as a whole. Here, as often elsewhere in Matthew and Luke, the agreement points to direct borrowing by Luke from Matthew, and not mediation via an unknown, hypothetical source.
Note: Carlston and Norlin's figures were criticized by Sharon Lea Mattila and subsequently revised downwards by them, but with the same relative degrees of agreement. Moreover, Carlston and Norlin noted that the same observations hold true with respect to the figures produced by Honore in 1968. (The issue relates to how one counts. Does one count only identical lexical forms, in the same number, case etc.? Can one count synonyms, etc.?). Mattila's 2004 article further criticizes the Carlston and Norlin case, but there are some difficulties with Mattila's re-count which I hope to outline on another occasion.
5. The Degree of Verbatim Agreement
The point here is a simple one, but it is one that I have not seen anyone else make in discussion of the Synoptic Problem. The degree of agreement between Matthew and Luke in double tradition material is often too high for them to have been copying from another source. John Kloppenborg helpfully draws attention to this "extremely high verbal correspondence . . . in a significant number of instances" (John S. Kloppenborg, "Variation in the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?", ETL 83 (2007), 53-80, 53) including the one currently under discussion:
Matt 6.24 // Luke 16.13 (98%), Matt 12.43-45 // Luke 11.24-26 (93%), Matt 11.20-24 // Luke 10.13-15 (90%), Matt. 3.12 // Luke 3.17 (88%), Matt. 12.27-32 // Luke 11.19-23 (88%), Matt 23.37-39 // Luke 13.34-35 (85%), Matt. 3.7-10 // Luke 3.7-9 (85%).These figures "are based on the number of common words divided by the total number of Lukan words" (53, n. 1). Kloppenborg helpfully draws special attention to our pericope:
In the last named pericope, Matthew has 76 words in Greek, 61 or 80% of which are identical with Luke in lexical form and inflection. This would rise to 63 or 83% if καρπόν and ἄξιον are included as agreements. Luke's version has 72 words in Greek, 61 or 85% are identical with Matthew, 63 or 87.5% if καρπούς and ἀξίους are counted as agreements. (53)As Kloppenborg rightly makes clear, "the extraordinarily high degree of verbatim agreement" here makes theories of an oral mediation of such material impossible. And one might add that there are some striking verbatim strings of agreement here, of 12, 12.5, 20 and 24 words. The latter string, of 24 words, is Matt. 3.9-10 // Luke 3.7b-9.
In the handout that I have produced for the SBL session on Mark-Q overlaps where I will present my paper on this, I have produced a synopsis of Matthew, Q (IQP) and Luke on this so that one can see quickly and easily just how much verbatim agreement there is in this passage. Indeed, what is remarkable is how little disagreement there is. I have coloured all the agreement grey, and there is very little white left. One of the reasons for doing this in three columns is to remind ourselves of the fact that on the Q theory, what we have here are triple agreements. We get so used to thinking about this material as "double tradition", in the sense that it is present only in Matthew and Luke among the extant texts, that we can easily forget that for Q theorists, the agreements here are triple agreements, between Matthew, Q and Luke.
This leads us to an interesting question about the degree of verbatim agreement here between Matthew, Q and Luke. Does one ever see this kind of agreement between Matthew, Mark and Luke? Are the triple agreements in Matthew, Mark and Luke similar in extent to the triple agreements between Matthew, Q and Luke? The question that I am asking here is, I think, a new one. If anyone else has asked this question, then I have missed it. The question itself is an important one, so let me take a little time asking it in another way so that we can be clear about what is at stake.
According to the Two-Source Theory, Matthew and Luke are both independently using Mark and Q. We have access to Mark, so we have an idea what Matthew and Luke look like when they are working from a shared source. We know the degree of verbatim agreement to expect. Our question, then, is whether the degree of verbatim agreement is similar when they are using Q. In his recent ETL article, Kloppenborg reproduces a chart from Charles E. Carlston and Dennis Norlin, "Once More -- Statistics and Q", HTR 64 (1971): 59-78 (71):
| Triple Tradition | Matt | Luke | Avg. | Double Tradition | Matt | Luke | Avg. |
| Narrative | 50.2% | 46.9% | 48.5% | 55.7% | 51.8% | 53.7% | |
| Words of Jesus | 63.5% | 68.3% | 65.8% | 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% |
For those who find figures instantly off-putting, let me express this in words. Matthew and Luke show consistently higher degrees of verbatim agreement in double tradition than they do in triple tradition. One cannot say in response to this, "But this is because double tradition is primarily sayings material" because the pattern is the same with respect to triple tradition sayings vs. double tradition sayings as it is with respect to triple tradition narrative vs. double tradition narrative and so on. Carlston and Norlin sum this up by noting that "the use of 'Q' is even more conservative than the use of Mark, possibly something like 27 per cent. more conservative" (Carlston and Norlin, 1971, 77). This is an anomaly on the Two-Source Theory. Why should Matthew and Luke apparently be so much more conservative in their use of Q, not least given their known respect for Mark's order?
The point of interest here is that the statistics make sense on the assumption that Luke is borrowing directly from Matthew in the double tradition (and Mark-Q overlap) material. They cohere with a scenario in which the double tradition is due to direct borrowing, Matthew to Luke, rather than mutual use of a shared source.
James Robinson once hinted that the all important clues to Q's existence might show up early in the document. I think Robinson was right. The remarkably high degree of verbatim agreement that shows up right at the beginning of Q is an important clue to the identity of the material as a whole. Here, as often elsewhere in Matthew and Luke, the agreement points to direct borrowing by Luke from Matthew, and not mediation via an unknown, hypothetical source.
Note: Carlston and Norlin's figures were criticized by Sharon Lea Mattila and subsequently revised downwards by them, but with the same relative degrees of agreement. Moreover, Carlston and Norlin noted that the same observations hold true with respect to the figures produced by Honore in 1968. (The issue relates to how one counts. Does one count only identical lexical forms, in the same number, case etc.? Can one count synonyms, etc.?). Mattila's 2004 article further criticizes the Carlston and Norlin case, but there are some difficulties with Mattila's re-count which I hope to outline on another occasion.
Labels: Mark-Q overlaps, Q, Synoptic Problem
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Mark-Q Overlaps IV: Back to the Continuum
This is the fourth in my current series of posts on the Mark-Q Overlaps (so-called). In this post, I respond to a second point of critique in Tuckett's review of my Case Against Q (see previous post for bibliographical details).
4. Is there really a continuum?
Tuckett (402) writes:
The two ends of the spectrum are straightforward. The presence of triple tradition passages featuring only a handful of minor agreements hardly needs mentioning. It is worth pointing out only that what I previously called "pure triple tradition" is in fact very difficult to come by, i.e. there are very few pericopae that feature no minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. There are several passages, though, that have only one or two minor agreements. The other end of the spectrum, pure double tradition, where Mark is not present at all, is also straightforward. But what about all the material in between?
Let us take a look at the degree of agreement between Matthew and Luke in so-called Mark-Q overlap passages. The following figures are from E. P. Sanders (see previous post for bibliographical details, 457-8):
(1) Matt. 3.1-12 // Mark 1.1-8 // Luke 3.1-18 (John the Baptist): 94 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 345 words in Luke (27%).
(2) Matt. 3.13-17 // Mark 1.9-11 // Luke 3.21-2 (Baptism of Jesus): 3 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 43 words in Luke (7%).
(3) Matt. 4.1-11 // Mark 1.12-13 // Luke 4.1-13 (Temptation): 114 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 203 words in Luke (56%).
(4) Matt. 3.23-30 // Matt. 12.25-32 // Luke 11.17-23, 12.10 (Beelzebub): 65 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 146 words in Luke (45%).
(5) Matt. 4.30-32 // Mark 4.30-2 // Luke 13.18-19 (Mustard Seed): 11 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 40 words in Luke (28%).
So in this selection of key Mark-Q overlap passages, we have Matt-Luke agreement ranging from 7% of Luke's words in a given pericope to 56% in a given pericope, with agreement levels well spaced between that range, at 27% and 28% and 45%. If we were to sample particular sub-pericopae within the larger pericopae, we will sometimes see a remarkably high degree of agreement. In Matt. 3.12 // Luke 3.17, for example, 88% of Luke's words agree with Matthew; in Matt. 3.7-10 // Luke 3.7-9, 85% of Luke's words agree with Matthew's. To place this in context, this kind of agreement is as high as one sometimes sees in the pure double tradition material.
What, though, of the Minor Agreements? Given that there are plenty of pericopae with just a handful of Minor Agreements, clearly there are plenty of pericopae that have a percentage lower than the 7% we see in the Baptism. To take just a few examples to make the point about pericopae like this:
(6) Matt. 8.1-4 // Mark 1.40-45 // Luke 5.12-16 (Leper): 5 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 98 words in Luke (5%).
(7) Matt. 9.1-8 // Mark 2.1-12 // Luke 5.17-26 (Paralytic): 12 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 212 words in Luke (6%).
(8) Matt. 9.9-13 // Mark 2.13-17 // Luke 5.27-32 (Levi): 5 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 94 words in Luke (5%).
Given that the lowest level of agreement in a Mark-Q overlap pericope is 7%, in the Baptism, it seems that we already have evidence of a range of agreement, from low to high, across Minor Agreements, through Mark-Q overlaps, through pure double tradition. But it is worth asking whether there are any (non Mark-Q overlap) triple tradition pericopae in which the number of Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark are as great as 7% of the total Lucan words in the pericope. If so, we will be able to see that this continuum is one in which the supposedly different categories in fact overlap with one another. It is interesting to note that there are indeed such pericopae:
(9) Matt. 14.13-21 // Mark 6.30-44 // Luke 9.10-17 (Five Thousand): 15 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 164 words in Luke (9%).
(10) Matt. 21.1-9 // Mark 11.1-10 // Luke 19.28-38 (Entry into Jerusalem): 12 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 167 words in Luke (7%).
(11) Matt. 21.23-27 // Mark 11.27-33 // Luke 20.1-8 (Question About Authority): 10 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 118 words in Luke (8%).
(12) Matt. 22.34-40 // Matt. 12.28-34 // Luke 10.25-28 (Great Commandment): 18 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 73 words in Luke (25%).
(13) Matt. 26.57-75 // Mark 14.53-72 // Luke 22.54-71 (Trial and Peter's Denial): 25 Matt-Mark agreements against Mark out of 263 words in Luke (9.5%).
These examples show the degree of agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark is sometimes higher in passages with "Minor Agreements" than it is in passages that are labelled "Mark-Q overlap". In other words, it is clear that there is not only a continuum with different degrees of agreement from low (triple tradition passages with few Minor Agreements) to high (Mark-Q overlap passages with many Major Agreements), but there is also some overlapping between the degree of agreement between Matthew and Mark in passages normally designated Mark-Q overlap and passages normally designated triple tradition.
Note 1: the figures for the triple tradition passages are extrapolated from A. M. Honore, "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem", NovT 10 (1968): 95-147. There are some minor differences here with the Sanders figures for Mark-Q overlap passages above (though none that affect the conclusion), and I will correlate these in due course.
Note 2: Passage (12) has sometimes been assigned to Q, and so it would be another Mark-Q overlap. Passage (2) is sometimes not assigned to Q, so it would not be a Mark-Q overlap. In order to avoid subjectivity, I have simply taken as Mark-Q overlaps triple tradition passages that are included in Q by the International Q Project. There are other Mark-Q overlap passages that I have not included here because of difficulties in pericope division and counting.
4. Is there really a continuum?
Tuckett (402) writes:
Goodacre contents himself with the general point about Luke's using Matthew's additions to Mark, and/or referring to different levels of "agreements" against Mark here; he talks about a "broad spectrum" and a "sliding scale" (p. 161) or a "continuum" (p. 163) of the level of Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark. However, he never analyses any of these "overlap" passages in any detail. And in terms of any "broad spectrum", the trouble is that there is not much by way of a "continuum": there are examples at both ends of the spectrum but not much in between.Is Tuckett right? Is there really the kind of continuum of influence of Matthew on Luke that I claim? In retrospect, I should perhaps have spelled out the range of agreement between Matthew and Luke by giving examples, so I will fill in that gap here.
The two ends of the spectrum are straightforward. The presence of triple tradition passages featuring only a handful of minor agreements hardly needs mentioning. It is worth pointing out only that what I previously called "pure triple tradition" is in fact very difficult to come by, i.e. there are very few pericopae that feature no minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. There are several passages, though, that have only one or two minor agreements. The other end of the spectrum, pure double tradition, where Mark is not present at all, is also straightforward. But what about all the material in between?
Let us take a look at the degree of agreement between Matthew and Luke in so-called Mark-Q overlap passages. The following figures are from E. P. Sanders (see previous post for bibliographical details, 457-8):
(1) Matt. 3.1-12 // Mark 1.1-8 // Luke 3.1-18 (John the Baptist): 94 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 345 words in Luke (27%).
(2) Matt. 3.13-17 // Mark 1.9-11 // Luke 3.21-2 (Baptism of Jesus): 3 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 43 words in Luke (7%).
(3) Matt. 4.1-11 // Mark 1.12-13 // Luke 4.1-13 (Temptation): 114 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 203 words in Luke (56%).
(4) Matt. 3.23-30 // Matt. 12.25-32 // Luke 11.17-23, 12.10 (Beelzebub): 65 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 146 words in Luke (45%).
(5) Matt. 4.30-32 // Mark 4.30-2 // Luke 13.18-19 (Mustard Seed): 11 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 40 words in Luke (28%).
So in this selection of key Mark-Q overlap passages, we have Matt-Luke agreement ranging from 7% of Luke's words in a given pericope to 56% in a given pericope, with agreement levels well spaced between that range, at 27% and 28% and 45%. If we were to sample particular sub-pericopae within the larger pericopae, we will sometimes see a remarkably high degree of agreement. In Matt. 3.12 // Luke 3.17, for example, 88% of Luke's words agree with Matthew; in Matt. 3.7-10 // Luke 3.7-9, 85% of Luke's words agree with Matthew's. To place this in context, this kind of agreement is as high as one sometimes sees in the pure double tradition material.
What, though, of the Minor Agreements? Given that there are plenty of pericopae with just a handful of Minor Agreements, clearly there are plenty of pericopae that have a percentage lower than the 7% we see in the Baptism. To take just a few examples to make the point about pericopae like this:
(6) Matt. 8.1-4 // Mark 1.40-45 // Luke 5.12-16 (Leper): 5 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 98 words in Luke (5%).
(7) Matt. 9.1-8 // Mark 2.1-12 // Luke 5.17-26 (Paralytic): 12 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 212 words in Luke (6%).
(8) Matt. 9.9-13 // Mark 2.13-17 // Luke 5.27-32 (Levi): 5 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 94 words in Luke (5%).
Given that the lowest level of agreement in a Mark-Q overlap pericope is 7%, in the Baptism, it seems that we already have evidence of a range of agreement, from low to high, across Minor Agreements, through Mark-Q overlaps, through pure double tradition. But it is worth asking whether there are any (non Mark-Q overlap) triple tradition pericopae in which the number of Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark are as great as 7% of the total Lucan words in the pericope. If so, we will be able to see that this continuum is one in which the supposedly different categories in fact overlap with one another. It is interesting to note that there are indeed such pericopae:
(9) Matt. 14.13-21 // Mark 6.30-44 // Luke 9.10-17 (Five Thousand): 15 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 164 words in Luke (9%).
(10) Matt. 21.1-9 // Mark 11.1-10 // Luke 19.28-38 (Entry into Jerusalem): 12 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 167 words in Luke (7%).
(11) Matt. 21.23-27 // Mark 11.27-33 // Luke 20.1-8 (Question About Authority): 10 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 118 words in Luke (8%).
(12) Matt. 22.34-40 // Matt. 12.28-34 // Luke 10.25-28 (Great Commandment): 18 Matt-Luke agreements against Mark out of 73 words in Luke (25%).
(13) Matt. 26.57-75 // Mark 14.53-72 // Luke 22.54-71 (Trial and Peter's Denial): 25 Matt-Mark agreements against Mark out of 263 words in Luke (9.5%).
These examples show the degree of agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark is sometimes higher in passages with "Minor Agreements" than it is in passages that are labelled "Mark-Q overlap". In other words, it is clear that there is not only a continuum with different degrees of agreement from low (triple tradition passages with few Minor Agreements) to high (Mark-Q overlap passages with many Major Agreements), but there is also some overlapping between the degree of agreement between Matthew and Mark in passages normally designated Mark-Q overlap and passages normally designated triple tradition.
Note 1: the figures for the triple tradition passages are extrapolated from A. M. Honore, "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem", NovT 10 (1968): 95-147. There are some minor differences here with the Sanders figures for Mark-Q overlap passages above (though none that affect the conclusion), and I will correlate these in due course.
Note 2: Passage (12) has sometimes been assigned to Q, and so it would be another Mark-Q overlap. Passage (2) is sometimes not assigned to Q, so it would not be a Mark-Q overlap. In order to avoid subjectivity, I have simply taken as Mark-Q overlaps triple tradition passages that are included in Q by the International Q Project. There are other Mark-Q overlap passages that I have not included here because of difficulties in pericope division and counting.
Labels: Mark-Q overlaps, Q, Synoptic Problem
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mark-Q Overlaps III: Minor Agreements between Mark and Luke
This is now the third post in the current series on Mark-Q Overlaps, in which I would like to respond to comments from Christopher Tuckett in a review of my book.
3. Major Agreements between Matthew and Luke; Minor Agreements between Mark and Luke
Christopher Tuckett (Review of The Case Against Q, NovT 46 (2004): 401-403) acknowledges my points concerning Mark-Q overlap passages summarized in the previous post and comments:
Let us be clear about how the situation is explained on the Farrer Theory. It is quite straightforward. On occasions like this, where Matthew is the middle term among the Synoptics, Luke is working with Matthew as his primary source and not Mark. The usual triple tradition situation, where there are major agreements with Mark and minor agreements with Matthew, is reversed and, instead, there are major agreements with Matthew and minor agreements with Mark. If Luke is working with both Matthew and Mark, it is not surprising that on occasions Luke turns to Matthew as his primary source, even in triple tradition material. It is interesting to see how often this happens where Matthew has a fuller account than Mark, in the John the Baptist material, the Temptations, Beelzebub, the Mission discourse.
The article to which Tuckett refers, by F. Gerald Downing, has now been answered persuasively by Ken Olson, "Unpicking on the Farrer Theory" in Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (eds.), Questioning Q (London: SPCK, 2004): 127-50.
3. Major Agreements between Matthew and Luke; Minor Agreements between Mark and Luke
Christopher Tuckett (Review of The Case Against Q, NovT 46 (2004): 401-403) acknowledges my points concerning Mark-Q overlap passages summarized in the previous post and comments:
In these passages [viz. Mark-Q overlaps], one can indeed refer to Luke’s use of Matthew’s additions to Mark, and/or to extensive non-trivial Matthew-Luke agreements. However, any non-Q theory has to explain Luke’s apparently almost pathological refusal in some of these texts to use any Markan material at all (e.g. the Beelzebul controversy, or the Mustard Seed). As Gerald Downing argued many years ago, Luke’s procedure on the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre model appears totally at odds with his procedure elsewhere (where, according to Goodacre and others, Luke knows Mark far better than Matthew and uses Mark in preference to Matthew). In these passages, Luke must have studiously avoided all the points where Matthew and Mark agree and reproduced only Matthew’s additions to Mark. (402).The description of the data here is inaccurate. It is not the case that Luke lacks Marcan material in these passages. Both of the specific examples given by Tuckett, the Beelzebub pericope (Matt. 12.25-32 // Mark 3.23-30 // Luke 11.17-23, 12.10) and the Mustard seed (Matt. 13.31-2 // Mark 4.30-32 // Luke 13.18-19), feature several triple agreements, as well as minor agreements between Mark and Luke. On Sanders's count (E. P. Sanders, "Mark-Q Overlaps and the Synoptic Problem", NTS (1973): 453-65, 458), the Beelzebub Controversy features 31 triple agreements, 35 Matthew-Mark agreements, 5 Mark-Luke agreements and 65 Matthew-Luke agreements. Similarly, the Mustard Seed, on Sanders's count, features 14 triple agreements, 11 Matthew-Mark agreements, 6 Mark-Luke agreements and 11 Matthew-Luke agreements. There is no "almost pathological refusal" to include Marcan material here. It is true, of course, that there is a substantial degree of agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark in these passages, and it is this that forces Q theorists to view these as "Mark-Q overlap"; there are far too many Matthew-Luke agreements for these to be the result of independent redaction.
Let us be clear about how the situation is explained on the Farrer Theory. It is quite straightforward. On occasions like this, where Matthew is the middle term among the Synoptics, Luke is working with Matthew as his primary source and not Mark. The usual triple tradition situation, where there are major agreements with Mark and minor agreements with Matthew, is reversed and, instead, there are major agreements with Matthew and minor agreements with Mark. If Luke is working with both Matthew and Mark, it is not surprising that on occasions Luke turns to Matthew as his primary source, even in triple tradition material. It is interesting to see how often this happens where Matthew has a fuller account than Mark, in the John the Baptist material, the Temptations, Beelzebub, the Mission discourse.
The article to which Tuckett refers, by F. Gerald Downing, has now been answered persuasively by Ken Olson, "Unpicking on the Farrer Theory" in Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (eds.), Questioning Q (London: SPCK, 2004): 127-50.
Labels: E. P. Sanders, Mark-Q overlaps, Q, Synoptic Problem
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Mark-Q Overlaps II: Major Agreements Between Matthew and Luke
In my first post on this topic, I suggested that the term "Mark Q Overlap" is problematic because it names the data set by using a proposed solution to the problem apparently posed by that data set. I would now like to begin to explore why alleged "Mark Q overlaps" cause problems for the Two-Source Theory that are not often noticed.
In comments to an earlier related post, an anonymous commenter (please sign your name) criticized me for speaking too in-house, for not writing for "non-specialists". There is, of course, a lot of truth in that. I can't re-introduce the Synoptic Problem for non-specialists every time I blog about it. But I value the reminder of the importance of being as clear as possible, so in what follows, I will try to state things as clearly as possible, trying to lay out steps along the way. Inevitably, though, the discussion will make more sense the more familiar one is with Synoptic discussions.
2. Major Agreements between Matthew and Luke: the Continuum
Mark Q Overlaps are more appropriately designated "major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark". The value of this term is that it is neutral, and describes this particular set of interesting data. This set of data might also be described as triple tradition material in which Mark is not the middle term, or triple tradition material in which there is extensive agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. Why is this set of data interesting or important?
Normally speaking, the pattern in triple tradition material (Matthew // Mark // Luke) is that there is a lot of agreement between Matthew and Mark alone, a lot of agreement between Mark and Luke alone, a lot of agreement between all three, but only minimal agreement between Matthew and Luke. In other words, Mark is usually the middle term. Marcan Priorists explain this by suggesting that Matthew and Luke were both reliant on Mark for this material. So far the Two Source Theory and the Farrer Theory, both Marcan Priority theories, are united.
However, there are many places where this normal pattern of agreement is not the case, and where Mark ceases to be the middle term. These are the passages under discussion here, the so-called Mark Q overlap passages, where there is substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. For the Farrer theory, according to which Luke is familiar with Matthew as well as Mark, these passages present no difficulty. They are places where Luke is primarily dependent on Matthew, where he turns to Matthew's account rather than Mark's, generating much higher levels of agreement with Matthew than with Mark. For the Two-Source Theory, according to which Matthew and Luke are independent of one another, these passages might, at first glance, appear problematic. How can Matthew and Luke be agreeing so extensively against Mark when they are dependent on Mark for their triple tradition material?
The Two-Source Theory solves the problem presented by these passages by suggesting that the two sources of Matthew and Luke occasionally overlapped. On such occasions, Matthew and Luke turned to the hypothetical source Q instead of or as well as Mark, thereby generating major agreements between one another and against Mark. That two sources should have overlapped in this way is, in itself, quite plausible. Perhaps both Mark and Q each told similar versions of the same events, recording similar versions of the same speeches. This tidy solution, however, masks some serious problems for the Two-Source Theory that often go unnoticed.
One of these problems has to do with the reasons offered for postulating Q in the first place. One of the standard arguments offered for the existence of Q is that Matthew and Luke never agree with one another against Mark in any substantial way. It is said that the agreements between Matthew and Luke are "too minor" to show any direct link between them. The existence of these major agreements, the so-called Mark Q overlaps, contradicts these kinds of assertions. And this is why the naming of sets of data is so important. When this material is categorized as "Mark Q overlap", it effectively hides it from view when scholars look at the triple tradition overall. They only see the triple tradition that features minor agreements, and regard the minor agreements as not significant enough to make the case for a direct link between Matthew and Luke. (The many, many Minor Agreements are significant enough to make the case too, but that is another story).
There is a related problem that the categorization here causes. By boxing the different degrees of agreement between Matthew and Luke into separate categories, we fail to see that there is in fact a spectrum of agreement between Matthew and Luke which can be crudely illustrated like this:
Here the horizontal axis represents the influence of Mark on Luke and the vertical axis represents the influence of Matthew on Luke. What we have is a continuum, from lesser to greater degrees of agreement between Matthew and Luke. The continuum ranges from pure triple tradition to pure double tradition, with varying degrees of agreement along the way, from relatively minor to quite major agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. It is a pattern that makes good sense on the assumption that Luke uses Mark, but supplements his use of Mark with his use of Matthew, sometimes in minor ways, sometimes in major ways. The Mark Q overlaps are not a separate category of data to be separated off and explained in a unique way. They are, rather, points that one can plot on a graph, mid points in a spectrum.
(See further my Fallacies at the Heart of Q and, in greater detail, my article A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q; see too The Case Against Q, chapter 3).
In comments to an earlier related post, an anonymous commenter (please sign your name) criticized me for speaking too in-house, for not writing for "non-specialists". There is, of course, a lot of truth in that. I can't re-introduce the Synoptic Problem for non-specialists every time I blog about it. But I value the reminder of the importance of being as clear as possible, so in what follows, I will try to state things as clearly as possible, trying to lay out steps along the way. Inevitably, though, the discussion will make more sense the more familiar one is with Synoptic discussions.
2. Major Agreements between Matthew and Luke: the Continuum
Mark Q Overlaps are more appropriately designated "major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark". The value of this term is that it is neutral, and describes this particular set of interesting data. This set of data might also be described as triple tradition material in which Mark is not the middle term, or triple tradition material in which there is extensive agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. Why is this set of data interesting or important?
Normally speaking, the pattern in triple tradition material (Matthew // Mark // Luke) is that there is a lot of agreement between Matthew and Mark alone, a lot of agreement between Mark and Luke alone, a lot of agreement between all three, but only minimal agreement between Matthew and Luke. In other words, Mark is usually the middle term. Marcan Priorists explain this by suggesting that Matthew and Luke were both reliant on Mark for this material. So far the Two Source Theory and the Farrer Theory, both Marcan Priority theories, are united.
However, there are many places where this normal pattern of agreement is not the case, and where Mark ceases to be the middle term. These are the passages under discussion here, the so-called Mark Q overlap passages, where there is substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. For the Farrer theory, according to which Luke is familiar with Matthew as well as Mark, these passages present no difficulty. They are places where Luke is primarily dependent on Matthew, where he turns to Matthew's account rather than Mark's, generating much higher levels of agreement with Matthew than with Mark. For the Two-Source Theory, according to which Matthew and Luke are independent of one another, these passages might, at first glance, appear problematic. How can Matthew and Luke be agreeing so extensively against Mark when they are dependent on Mark for their triple tradition material?
The Two-Source Theory solves the problem presented by these passages by suggesting that the two sources of Matthew and Luke occasionally overlapped. On such occasions, Matthew and Luke turned to the hypothetical source Q instead of or as well as Mark, thereby generating major agreements between one another and against Mark. That two sources should have overlapped in this way is, in itself, quite plausible. Perhaps both Mark and Q each told similar versions of the same events, recording similar versions of the same speeches. This tidy solution, however, masks some serious problems for the Two-Source Theory that often go unnoticed.
One of these problems has to do with the reasons offered for postulating Q in the first place. One of the standard arguments offered for the existence of Q is that Matthew and Luke never agree with one another against Mark in any substantial way. It is said that the agreements between Matthew and Luke are "too minor" to show any direct link between them. The existence of these major agreements, the so-called Mark Q overlaps, contradicts these kinds of assertions. And this is why the naming of sets of data is so important. When this material is categorized as "Mark Q overlap", it effectively hides it from view when scholars look at the triple tradition overall. They only see the triple tradition that features minor agreements, and regard the minor agreements as not significant enough to make the case for a direct link between Matthew and Luke. (The many, many Minor Agreements are significant enough to make the case too, but that is another story).
There is a related problem that the categorization here causes. By boxing the different degrees of agreement between Matthew and Luke into separate categories, we fail to see that there is in fact a spectrum of agreement between Matthew and Luke which can be crudely illustrated like this:
Here the horizontal axis represents the influence of Mark on Luke and the vertical axis represents the influence of Matthew on Luke. What we have is a continuum, from lesser to greater degrees of agreement between Matthew and Luke. The continuum ranges from pure triple tradition to pure double tradition, with varying degrees of agreement along the way, from relatively minor to quite major agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. It is a pattern that makes good sense on the assumption that Luke uses Mark, but supplements his use of Mark with his use of Matthew, sometimes in minor ways, sometimes in major ways. The Mark Q overlaps are not a separate category of data to be separated off and explained in a unique way. They are, rather, points that one can plot on a graph, mid points in a spectrum.
(See further my Fallacies at the Heart of Q and, in greater detail, my article A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q; see too The Case Against Q, chapter 3).
Labels: Mark-Q overlaps, Q, Synoptic Problem
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Mark Q Overlaps I: Terminology
At this year's SBL Annual Meeting I am speaking in the Q Section. The topic of the session in question is the Mark Q Overlaps, and there is a special focus on Matthew 3.7-12 // Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17. It's an honour to be invited to speak in the section, and I would like to blog some thoughts about my paper over the next two weeks before the conference begins.
1. Taking our Leave of Mark-Q Overlaps
The title of my paper is "Taking our Leave of Mark-Q Overlaps: Major Agreements in Matthew 3.7-12 // Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17". I would like to begin my thoughts here by explaining my concerns about the terminology of "Mark-Q Overlaps". I would like to propose "mandatory retirement" for this term, to use the term Paula Fredriksen has applied to other ideas recently. The problem with the term is that it describes the phenomenon of major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark using terminology of the Two-Source Theory. It labels the group of data with one potential solution to this group of data. I do not think that this is acceptable if we are to have a level playing field for studying the phenomenon. Imagine if I were to call the Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark something along the lines of "Luke's minor borrowing from Matthew in triple tradition". People would rightly point out that my description of the set of data was influenced by my explanation of the data. In order to encourage an open and reasonable discussion, therefore, I think we should take our leave of the terminology of Mark-Q overlaps and instead describe the phenomenon neutrally as "Major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark", or, if one prefers, "triple tradition pericopae where Mark is not the middle term".
Update (16.19): In comments, Rick Sumner points to the problem of succinctness. "Mark-Q overlaps" is succinct and memorable. I agree. Perhaps "Major agreements" as a shorthand will prove helpful, on the analogy of "Minor Agreements". After all, "minor agreements" is a shorthand for a specific group of minor agreements, viz. those between Matthew and Luke against Mark.
1. Taking our Leave of Mark-Q Overlaps
The title of my paper is "Taking our Leave of Mark-Q Overlaps: Major Agreements in Matthew 3.7-12 // Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17". I would like to begin my thoughts here by explaining my concerns about the terminology of "Mark-Q Overlaps". I would like to propose "mandatory retirement" for this term, to use the term Paula Fredriksen has applied to other ideas recently. The problem with the term is that it describes the phenomenon of major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark using terminology of the Two-Source Theory. It labels the group of data with one potential solution to this group of data. I do not think that this is acceptable if we are to have a level playing field for studying the phenomenon. Imagine if I were to call the Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark something along the lines of "Luke's minor borrowing from Matthew in triple tradition". People would rightly point out that my description of the set of data was influenced by my explanation of the data. In order to encourage an open and reasonable discussion, therefore, I think we should take our leave of the terminology of Mark-Q overlaps and instead describe the phenomenon neutrally as "Major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark", or, if one prefers, "triple tradition pericopae where Mark is not the middle term".
Update (16.19): In comments, Rick Sumner points to the problem of succinctness. "Mark-Q overlaps" is succinct and memorable. I agree. Perhaps "Major agreements" as a shorthand will prove helpful, on the analogy of "Minor Agreements". After all, "minor agreements" is a shorthand for a specific group of minor agreements, viz. those between Matthew and Luke against Mark.
Labels: Mark-Q overlaps, Q, Synoptic Problem
Thursday, August 23, 2007
SBL Annual Meeting: My Papers
Several have noted that the SBL Annual Meeting 2007 Program Book is now online. I have two papers this year, and it's a case of out with the new and in with the old for me, with some internet stuff and some Synoptic problem stuff, but I was delighted to receive an invitation to speak in the Q section, not something that happens every year. First, in Computer Assisted Research (18 November 2007, 1pm, "Pedagogical Resources for Teaching the Bible"):
The Future of the New Testament GatewayThe Q section I am speaking in is dealing with "The Mark Q overlaps" (19 November, 4-6.30pm):When academic subject gateway sites began to emerge in the mid 1990s, it was possible for every major internet resource on the site’s subject area to be covered. It was also possible for one enthusiastic and energetic individual to do all the work, designing the site, researching content, adding links, writing annotations and correcting ever-changing URLs. The massive growth of the internet has now made it impossible for one individual to do all the necessary work and gateway sites are beginning to suffer. While newer technologies like blogging have opened up new possibilities, and dealt with some of the difficulties of maintaining a gateway site, the larger questions of effort and workload remain. It is now essential for gateway sites to embrace new technologies and different models that aid collaboration if they are to avoid becoming moribund. This presentation explores the future for subject gateways by focusing on The New Testament Gateway (http://NTGateway.com), which is now ten years old, and demonstrates a new collaborative model which will enable it to build on existing strengths and to adapt to the future.
Taking Leave of Mark-Q Overlaps: Major Agreements in Matthew 3.7-12 // Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17Matt. 3.7-12 // Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17 (John's Preaching) features substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. The Two-Source Theory explains this by appeal to the overlapping of Mark and Q while the Farrer Theory suggests that Luke was dependent on Matthew as well as Mark. This paper argues that Luke's use of Matthew is the preferable option because (1) the degree of verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark is too high for it to have been mediated by a shared source; (2) the agreement here represents a mid point in a continuum of influence of Matthew on Luke, which spans triple tradition to Mark-Q overlap passages to double tradition; and (3) the theory of Mark-Q overlap necessitates major contacts between the structure and thought of Mark and Q, which causes problems for the architecture of the Two-Source Theory.
Labels: CARG, Mark-Q overlaps, NT Gateway future, Q, SBL
![[Valid Atom]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed"){kind=small}
