NT Gateway Weblog

Getting the Gospels in order is one of the fundamental issues in the dating the crucial sources in early Christianity. Before attempting to work out whether we can locate the Gospels in any particular decade, there is preliminary work to be done, to see whether we can get them into sequence in relation to one another. The issue is separable into several separate questions, all of them controversial, all of them interesting, (1) the Synoptic Problem, (2) the question of John's knowledge of the Synoptics, (3) the question of Thomas's knowledge of the Synoptics. There are still other additional questions that we could add, like the relationship of the Gospel of Peter or the Didache to the others, but to make the task manageable, at least in an introductory discussion, it is worth focusing on the texts generally regarded in the scholarship as crucial to the task at hand.

Let us begin with the Synoptic Problem. I have written a couple of books on this topic and it is pointless for me to pretend that I am beginning fresh here so let me instead summarize my conclusions and then offer a special illustration of how I think we can stack up the Synoptic Gospels in sequence.

(1) Mark is the first Gospel and it was used as primary source by both Matthew and Luke. The Priority of Mark is rightly the consensus view in Gospel scholarship. Its major contemporary competitor, the Griesbach (Two-Gospel) Hypothesis does not adequately account for much of the Synoptic data, especially the combination of Mark's alleged omissions from and additions to the combined witness of Matthew and Luke, which generate a curious profile for Mark the redactor. (See further The Case Against Q, Chapter 2 and The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, Chapters 3-4).

(2) Luke is dependent on Matthew as well as Mark. This theory (the Farrer theory) dispenses with the need to posit a hypothetical document, Q, to explain the extensive verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke that is not mediated by Mark. This is the thesis of my Case Against Q, summarized also for introductory students in the last chapter of The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (see also the Case Against Q website). It is an argument against a major element in what is currently the majority view in Gospels scholarship, the Two-Source Theory, which argues that Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one another, which necessitates Q. Arguments for Luke's independence of Matthew are unconvincing, and evidence of Luke's familiarity with Matthew needs to be taken seriously. To take just one area, it is commonly said that Luke's re-ordering of Matthew's discourses is inexplicable, but it makes good sense when one pays attention to Luke's redactional habits with respect to Mark, and his narrative habits overall.

The direction Mark > Matthew > Luke can be observed by paying attention to an important but underestimated indicator of the genealogy of documents, the phenomenon of editorial fatigue. I have argued (Fatigue in the Synoptics) that Matthew's and Luke's dependence on Mark, and Luke's dependence on Matthew, can be seen in the way in which each evangelist will, on occasion, begin by making changes to a pericope, only to lapse into the wording of the source as time goes on, creating minor contradictions. Thus we can see Matthew using Mark in the story of the death of John the Baptist (Mark 6.14-29 // Matt 14.1-12), beginning the pericope by changing Mark's Herod "the king" to his own more accurate "Herod the tetrarch", only to lapse into calling him "king", with Mark, half-way through the passage. Moreover, he adjusts the plot of the story. Where in Mark, Herodias wants John killed, Matthew has Herod himself desiring to kill John, but then Matthew retains Mark's notice that Herod grieved John's death.

Luke appears secondary to Mark in the Feeding of the Five Thousand story (Matt 14.13-21 // Mark 6.30-44 // Luke 9.10-17), which he begins by resetting it in "a city called Bethsaida", which causes an inconcinnity when he later repeats, with Mark, "we are in a desert place here" (Luke 9.12).

The same phenomenon of editorial fatigue also shows Luke to be secondary to Matthew. In the Parable of the Talents / Pounds, Luke, who loves the 10:1 ratio, begins with a major change: ten servants, not three; and with one pound each. Yet as the story progresses, Luke gets drawn back to the plot of the Matthean parable, with three servants, "the first", "the second" and "the other". The wording moves steadily closer to Matthew's as the parable progresses.

I offer these brief examples of the phenomenon of fatigue to draw attention to the possibilities for using literary criticism to theorize about the direction of dependence among related documents. What will be of interest next will be to explore the still more vexed questions of the relationships between the Synoptics, John and Thomas.

Labels: Dating, SBL Boston, Synoptic Problem

---

Thanks to John Kloppenborg for this picture of participants at the recent Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem (my travel diary here). It was taken by my friend Q who happened to be in Oxford that day (travel diary III). Getting all the names here is not going to be easy but I will try. Let's do the front row first because that is easiest: Paul Buckley, Stephen Patterson, J. Samuel Subramanian, Peter Head, Robert Derrenbacker, Richard Ounsworth, John Kloppenborg. Back two rows: Alex Damm, Eugene Boring, Steph Fisher (below him), ???, William Loader, Eric Eve, me, Paul Foster, ??? (three people behind him), F. Gerald Downing, Dennis Macdonald, Andrew Gregory, Seamus O'Connor, David Dungan, Thomas Brodie (behind him, I think, obscured), David Lincicum, Joseph Verheyden, Christopher Hays, David Peabody, Dieter Roth, ???, Mary Marshall, ???, Duncan Reid, ???, Maurice Casey. Sorry for the ???s, especially those who are in clear view but whose names I have forgotten. Can anyone fill in the gaps for me?

Updated: Wednesday, 8.35, with help from Christopher Hays, Dieter Roth and Steph Fisher.

Labels: conferences, Kloppenborg, Oxford, Synoptic Problem

---

Thursday, Heathrow Airport, 15.34: Checked out of Lincoln College this morning, after a nice breakfast which featured two slices of British back bacon. Last time I will get any of that until August. I was disappointed to have to miss the last couple of sessions, the first of which featured Christoph Heil on Reconstructing Q, Stephen Patterson on Thomas and Eric Eve on the Synoptic Problem without Q. Heil's paper was not online before the conference, so it was a particular shame to miss his. Eve's was so full of good sense that I doubt I would have had any comments of my own to throw in. Patterson's was one of the papers I would have particularly liked to have discussed -- the subject is one of great interest to me in my current research. There was also a plenary scheduled for people to reflect on future directions. But I was already on the coach to Heathrow, listening to the Russell Brand podcast and reading the latest Doctor Who Magazine. I met up with the family, who had come down from Peterborough, and we are about to fly. There is no wireless here, so I will upload this post when I get back to Raleigh. It will be pretty late because we are flying into DC and driving down from there.

This conference has been excellent. It was very well organized and ran very smoothly; congratulations to Andrew Gregory, Paul Foster, John Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden for a job very well done. The catering at Lincoln College was excellent, and the location ideal -- bang in the centre of Oxford (and right next to my old college). In spite of the number of papers, the programme did not feel crammed, and I appreciated the free time on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, and the free time again after 9pm or so. The number present, forty or so, was about right to ensure good discussion after each paper and set of papers. Any more, and it would have become unwieldy. By the end of the conference, one had the feeling of having got to know almost everyone.

Each session worked very well, with a general theme and three or so presentations followed by discussion. The only one that did not quite work, in my opinion, was the session that paired David Peabody with Kathleen Corley -- these were such very different papers that the discussion was less focused than it was for the other sessions where things were more naturally related.

The academic quality of the papers and the discussion was very high. I have to admit that I was initially a bit sceptical about the decision not to invite "position papers", or to have individuals arguing in favour of given theories, but it turned out that this was a brilliant decision. The encouragement to all presenters to be as balanced and fair as possible, and the invitations to read papers on specific themes, led to pretty helpful discussions with a marked lack of polemic; there was more light than heat, to use the cliché.

All in all, an excellent conference and a very enjoyable few days away. Congratulations to all involved!

[Actual time of upload, Friday, 15.25, back in Raleigh, North Carolina.]

Labels: conferences, Oxford, Synoptic Problem, Travel diaries

---

Oxford, Thursday, 00:47; last full day of the Synoptic Problem conference. First session, 9a.m.: Andrew Gregory chaired what was perhaps the meatiest section yet, four papers on issues relating to compositional issues and the Synoptic Problem. Three of the presenters were present and Gregory summarised the fourth paper, Kirk's, on "Memory, scribal media and the synoptic problem". Alex Damm spoke first on "Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem"; then Robert Derrenbacker talked about "Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem"; then Gerald Downing on "Writers' use or abuse of written sources". Discussion was wide ranging and enthusiastic. There was perhaps most discussion on Gerald Downing's paper, and some comment on his claim that the minor agreements are in fact problematic for all synoptic theories. Several of us have picked up the feeling that this session provided a good indication of where the debate is likely to develop in the coming years -- compositional issues are clearly going to be key in future discussion of the Synoptic Problem.

After morning coffee, the next section was chaired by John Kloppenborg and featured two main papers, Eugene Boring on "The 'Minor Agreements' and Their Bearing on the Synoptic Problem" and Peter Head on "Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem". John Kloppenborg also read out a summary of Robert Stein's paper, "Duplicate Expressions in Mark". The discussion focused mainly on Gene Boring and Peter Head's papers. I attempted to make my point, with respect to Eugene Boring's paper, that the postulation of a "Revised Mark" may not actually aid the Two Source Theory with respect to the Minor Agreements since a Revised Mark might, in fact, have been less like our Matthew and Luke than our Mark is. On such a scenario, there might in fact have been more minor agreements in the earliest texts, and not less. I had only limited success articulating this point, however, and it may be that I need to think carefully about how to articulate it more clearly on future occasions -- or to drop it.

Before lunch, there was a group photograph. Just as we were gathering, I had a phone call from Q; we had planned to get together today, as we usually do when I am in the UK. Someone suggested that Q take the group photograph, which he was delighted to do. I hope that some kind person will email me one of the photographs taken so that I can upload it to the blog. After the photograph, Q and I wandered to the covered market, as we used to do when we were students together, and enjoyed a splendid lunch in Mortons.

The next event on the schedule, after tea, was my paper, the third of the main papers, on "The Evangelists' Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem". I enjoyed speaking on the topic, and was honoured to have it chaired by my Doctorvater John Muddiman. I began my talk by sending Michael Goulder's greetings to the conference. (I had spent Sunday afternoon with him). The discussion after my paper was perhaps a little more subdued than some of the other discussions, and I hope that that was not a reflection on its quality or interest. Nevertheless, there were lots of useful and interesting questions, including from the chair.

Drinks were at 6.30; dinner was at 7. The main course was duck and it was excellent. Once again, the relatively early end to proceedings allowed a little time for additional socializing for those so inclined.

Alas, I have to miss the last morning of the conference. I need to get the coach to Heathrow to meet the family and get the plane back to DC, and I don't think I will be able to make it to any of the morning activities. Nevertheless, I hope to add concluding comments tomorrow. Needless to say, an excellent conference, intellectually stimulating and conducted in a generous, positive spirit. Congratulations and thanks to the convenors, John Kloppenborg, Andrew Gregory, Paul Foster and Joseph Verheyden, who have done a superb job.

Labels: conferences, Oxford, Synoptic Problem, Travel diaries

---

Oxford, 01:02: second day of the Oxford conference on the Synoptic Problem at Lincoln College. One of the participants here teased me about whether or not I might blog what I had for breakfast today. So in his honour: breakfast today was sausage, egg and tinned tomatoes; it was perfectly fine but to have been perfect it would have needed (at least) good British back bacon and black pudding. But of course the catering people here don't know how much the British ex-pats present hanker for such things, and the breakfast was very nice.

Today was the first full day of the conference. The sessions all take place in the same room, a very Oxford kind of conference room, in which we all sit around the table rather than in rows. There were two separate sessions this morning, separated by coffee, and each with a series of three papers summarized. In session 1, Paul Foster chaired. William Loader talked about Synoptic Perspectives on Jesus and the Law, and his summary was in fact an interesting supplement to the paper he had uploaded, with reflections on how the evidence appeared from the perspectives of the Two-Source Theory, the Griesbach Theory and the Farrer Theory. This has become something of a pattern here -- these are the three theories mainly on the table and which receive the attention from most presenters. Duncan Reid then talked about the miracles from the perspective of differing Synoptic theories. Duncan is one of John Kloppenborg's students in Toronto. Charles Hedrick was not able to be present, so Paul Foster read a 15 minute summary of his paper. There was a broad discussion afterwards.

The second session was chaired by Joseph Verheyden. Kathleen Corley spoke about White Male dominance of Synoptic research, and David Peabody talked about Reading the Synoptic Gospels from the perspective of different source hypotheses, though he focused, inevitably, on the Two-Gospel Theory. I found Kathleen Corley's paper a bit disappointing, not least because it did not engage with the Synoptic Problem at all, so we did not get any closer to an answer to the question posed. I also doubt her thesis, that men are inclined towards Synoptic research because they identify with the historical Jesus. The third paper in the session was from Udo Schnelle, who was not present, and a summary was read, in German, by the chair.

After lunch, it was free time, and then tea. The second main paper was John Kloppenborg on Synopses and the Synoptic Problem. This was perhaps the paper that I found the most engaging in the conference so far, and it generated lengthy and helpful discussion afterwards. Dinner is finished in good time each evening, allowing plenty of time for a bit of socializing afterwards.

The way in which the discussion is being conducted at this conference is excellent. There are a few agenda-heavy questions, with repetitions of the protagonist's particular theories or perspectives, but on the whole, the discussions are tending to air issues of interest to all present, and across a range of areas.

Labels: conferences, Oxford, Synoptic Problem, Travel diaries

---

Oxford, England, 00:22: caught the train down from Birmingham to Oxford this morning, a journey that I did many times as a student; tried to finish reading one of the conference papers that I hadn't yet read and fell into a deep sleep. Walked up to Lincoln College, the location for a conference on the Synoptic Problem to celebrate the centenary (forthcoming) of the Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem of 1911. The idea is that the essays written for this conference will be revised for the volume to be published in time for that centenary.

I am enjoying being back in Oxford. I spent ten years here, nine of them as a student. I met my wife here and we had our first daughter here. The conference location, Lincoln College, is next door to my old college, Exeter, and I have already enjoyed walking around favourite old locations. Oxford does not change much, and the only major difference about the kind of student accommodation we are in is the addition of en-suite facilities to make the place more conducive to conferences like this. Back in my day, I had to walk down four flights of stairs to the basement to the shared, stone showers. Students today have it easy.

The conference began with lunch in the hall and then the first session of summarized papers. There are forty-three people in attendance, and most of these are presenting papers, most in summarized format. The essential idea is that the papers are written in advance and uploaded to the web (Papers), allowing plenty of time for discussion in each of the sessions, though not all have actually written their papers in advance, so some of the summaries are first-time presentations.

Eugene Boring chaired the first session and there were three papers, all from conference conveners, Andrew Gregory on Literary Dependence and the Synoptic Problem, Paul Foster on the History and Demise of M and Joseph Verheyden on Proto-Luke. Each one spoke for 15-20 minutes and the discussion was then another 45 minutes or so. Perhaps the majority of questions went to Paul Foster on his M paper, including my own on the question of "legendary" elements in M narrative material and John Kloppenborg's on the modelling of the theory. There were also comments from F. Gerald Downing, William Loader, Stephen Patterson and David Peabody.

One of the nice things about a British conference is that one breaks for tea at the proper time; I have been in America long enough to have forgotten what a pleasure it is to have a tea break at a conference. There were large, metal pots of tea of the old-fashioned catering variety.

We went from tea to the first main paper, Christopher Tuckett on "The Current State of the Synoptic Problem". The paper was ideal for the context. It was generally regarded as fair, rigorous, thorough and balanced, even if some would disagree with particular arguments, or particular selections of material covered. I was honoured that Prof. Tuckett referred to my work several times when discussing the Farrer Theory, and afterwards David Catchpole, who was chairing the session, offered "the oppressed minorities" a right to reply, me first on Farrer and then David Dungan on Griesbach. The discussion ranged to a variety of other topics, with comments and questions from, among others, Bob Derrenbacker, F. Gerald Downing, Dennis Macdonald, Maurice Casey (about the absence of Aramaic Q the survey), Paul Foster (why is Luke's use of Matthew more popular than Matthew's use of Luke?), Joseph Verheyden (are the 2ST crowd more introspective and prone to questioning their hypothesis than advocates of other theories?), William Loader (concerning the regular usage of the Synoptics in sabbath-by-sabbath worship, asking whether this distinguished them from other Graeco-Roman texts with which they are regularly compared) and others.

One general question that has already begun to raise its head is the one relating to oral tradition, literary dependency and modes of contact between documents and traditions. My guess, at this stage, is that that the issues here will recur over the coming days.

After Prof. Tuckett's paper, there were drinks. At this drinks reception, David Catchpole announced that the purpose of the volume for which we are writing is the celebration of the work of Christopher Tuckett. Prof. Catchpole spoke and Prof. Tuckett responded, thanking those assembled, but offering special thanks to David Catchpole, Bob Morgan and Christopher Rowland, all of whom were present.

From the drinks reception, we went to the hall for dinner. It was an excellent dinner -- fish course with a nice white wine; chicken for the main course with an acceptable red, and some kind of cakey pudding that I forget because of the arrival of the port.

Labels: conferences, Oxford, Synoptic Problem, Travel diaries

---

The new series (the fourth) of the new Doctor Who starts on BBC1 tonight (6.20pm) and we have flown over to England specially to see it. While here, I am planning to attend the Synoptic Problem Conference in Oxford (my paper). It gets underway on Monday at Lincoln College, Oxford and I must admit that I am looking forward to it very much. I have read most of the papers that are already online (see link above) and there is clearly going to be a lot of interest to talk about. I have brought the blogging machine with me and I am hoping to blog the conference as we go through, but it will depend a bit on whether there is wireless at Lincoln College. If there isn't, I will still write notes as I go through, but won't be able to upload until the end of the week. For now, I am enjoying some time at my parents' place in Derbyshire.

Labels: Doctor Who, Synoptic Problem, Travel diaries

---

There is a conference in Oxford next week to celebrate the forthcoming centenary of Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem. The conference has a website and many of the papers have been uploaded already:

Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem

Although not yet on the site, my paper is available, and I have uploaded it here:

The Evangelists' Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem (MS Word)

The Evangelists' Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem (PDF)

Labels: conferences, Oxford, Synoptic Problem

---

The story of the Centurion is commonly supposed to have been derived by St Matthew from Q. But surely the moral to be drawn from the extraordinary neatness with which the story nestles into its Matthaean context is that it was cast into written form for the first time by the man who placed it in that context, that is, by St Matthew himself. St Luke re-shapes the story somewhat, but even so it has no such vital or manifold connexions with the context in which he places it. The same is true of several other pieces of the so-called Q tradition: they appear to be made for their Matthaean place, and adjusted to their Lucan place. The fact is admitted by the friends of the Q hypothesis and actually twisted into an argument in support of it. St Luke, they say, could never have found his material in St Matthew, or he would not have dreamt tearing it from the perfect setting it there has, to place it less happily in his own Gospel. It is wiser to say: St Luke, wishing to write his own book in his own way, re-arranged his material he found in his authors. He did it skilfully, but no amount of skill could make an adapted context fit as tight as the context for which the material was composed.

Austin Farrer, St Matthew and St Mark (The Edward Cadbury Lectures, 1953-4; Westminster: Dacre Press, 1954), 46-7, n.2

Labels: Farrer, Q, Synoptic Problem

---

I have previously posted on the forthcoming Oxford Synoptic Problem conference and I have received this message today from Andrew Gregory:

--
Some places are still available at the Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem, which will take place at Lincoln College, Oxford, 7-10 April 2008. Since participants are required to pay at the time of booking, anyone who wishes to attend should contact Dr Andrew Gregory (andrew.gregory@theology.ox.ac.uk) before submitting a booking form and payment.

More information about the conference is available here:

Oxford Conference in the Synoptic Problem (MS Word)
--

Labels: conferences, Synoptic Problem

---

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.

Labels: Mark-Q overlaps, Synoptic Problem

Permalink | posted by Mark Goodacre @ 3:20 PM | (5) Comments |

---

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:

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

---

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:

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

---

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:

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

---

The Q biblioblogging weekend is continuing apace. For whoever is doing the next Biblical Studies Carnival, here is a quick guide to the posts so far:

The Difference Makes Q (James McGrath)
Does the Difference Make Q (Mark Goodacre)
Spoiling Christmas vs Spoiling Q (James McGrath)
Christmas Still Looks Good, Q Not so Much (Rick Sumner)
Can Matthew Count to Fourteen? (Stephen Carlson)
There's no Q in Christmas (Doug Chaplin)

I don't have a lot to say in response to James's second post that I have not already said in The Case Against Q (54-9) or to add to what Rick, Stephen and Doug say in their excellent responses above. As I mentioned in my previous post, James's argument is a form of the classic argument from Luke's lack of M material. The key thing that James is trying to stress is that Matthew's and Luke's Birth and Infancy narratives are "incompatible". It is an argument that is only convincing if one thinks that no evangelist would deliberately contradict the work of a predecessor. But we know that that is not the case given Luke's departures from Mark's narrative, with similar "incompatible" elements.

When it comes to the details of the Birth and Infancy Narratives, I would like to make a couple of additional comments. First, one of the examples James provides of an "incompatible" detail is Luke's dating of the birth of Jesus. He says that "Matthew places Jesus' birth before the death of Herod in 4 BCE, Luke connects it with the census under Quirinius in 6 CE". But the disagreement over dates is no argument for Luke's independence from Matthew. Luke dates the birth of John in the time of Herod the Great (Luke 1.5) so unless we are to imagine Elizabeth having a ten year pregnancy, Luke's dating of the birth of Jesus is also "incompatible" with what he has previously told us.

Second, while we can only speculate as to why Luke prefers his own genealogy to Matthew's, my own guess would be that he prefers it for Christological reasons. Isaiah 11.1 speaks of a future ruler who will come up from the "stump of Jesse". The image here is of the great Davidic tree as having been cut down, as Judah goes into exile, and the monarchy is at an end. It is now a stump. But a shoot will rise from that stump, and there will be a restoration in which the king will be of David's line, but not descended from the line of all those kings who came after him, whose disobedience led to exile. Matthew's genealogy traces Jesus' lineage through all those kings who, in Luke's mind, are a felled tree. For Luke, Jesus' Davidic heritage is expressed in the genealogy in bypassing those kings, and tracing his lineage through Nathan rather than Solomon. Luke's genealogy is of a messiah who emerges from the stump of Jesse. If one is in any doubt about how important Isaiah 11 is in Luke's thinking, it is worth reading it again and comparing its imagery and language with Luke's.

Labels: Q, Synoptic Problem

---

Well, it seems to be the weekend for activity on Q on the biblioblogs. On Singing in the Reign, Evans on "Retrieving" Q, Michael Barber points to an article by Craig Evans, "Authenticating the Words of Jesus," in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds., Authenticating the Words of Jesus (Boston: Brill, 2002): 3-14, specifically the section dealing with the difficulty of reconstructing Q when one imagines a scenario according to which one tried to reconstruct Mark from Matthew and Luke. Michael and others may not be familiar with a subsequent article that takes Evans's project further, Eric Eve, "Reconstructing Mark: A Thought Experiment" in Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (eds.), Questioning Q (London: SPCK and Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 2004): 89-114. Eric also provides bibliography there of others, like Cyril Rodd, who have engaged in the same thought experiment with respect to Mark. The value of Eve's piece is that it is able to conduct the experiment from the perspective of someone who is sceptical of the existence of Q, thus avoiding some of the tension inevitable in those who accept the existence of Q but resist attempts to reconstruct it.

Labels: Q, Synoptic Problem

---

I will take a temporary break from my Mark-Q overlap series to comment a post from James McGrath on Exploring Our Matrix headed The Difference Makes Q, which argues that "While the similarities constitute the substance of Q, the differences between Matthew and Luke provide the strongest argument for the existence of Q" (emphasis original). There are, I think, a couple of difficulties with James's interesting post. James writes:

If it were simply a question of similarities, one could account for them reasonably in any number of ways - as evidence that Matthew used Luke (or vice versa), that both knew a common written source, that both knew the same oral traditions, that both heard Jesus say the same things, and so on.

No, I don't think so. The high levels of verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke in many double tradition passages is too great for this material to be derived from oral tradition. Indeed, I would argue that it is also too great for it to be derived from a shared written source. We have an idea of the degree of verbatim agreement that they exhibit when they share a written source, in the triple tradition material, and it is not as high as the degree of agreement we see between them in double tradition material. The link between Matthew and Luke is a direct one. I will be explaining this point in a little more detail in a forthcoming blog post related to my forthcoming paper at the SBL Annual Meeting Q Section.

James goes on:

It is the differences that make it unlikely that Matthew used Luke or vice versa. It is hard, on the supposition of such a literary link, to understand how they could end up with incompatible genealogies, incompatible infancy narratives, and incompatible accounts of the death of Judas. Differences and alterations could certainly be explained in terms of the hypothesis of direct literary dependence. But agreement on large segments, with variations that make sense in terms of the alteration of a saying for particular reasons, and yet disagreement on narrative and geneological [sic] details without any obvious reason for those differences, suggests that we are not dealing with direct literary dependence and redactional alterations.

This is a form of one of the classic arguments for Q, viz. Luke's lack of M material, on which I have commented extensively in The Case Against Q. In the form in which James states it, the notion that the disagreements between Matthew and Luke have no obvious reason simply begs the question. I would want to add, moreover, that on the assumption of Marcan Priority, both Matthew and Luke make major changes to their source which result in what one might call "incompatible accounts". Did the resurrected Jesus appear in Galilee (Mark) or Jerusalem (Luke)? Was Jesus anointed by a sinner in Simon the Pharisee's house early in his ministry (Luke) or by an anonymous woman in Simon the Leper's house just before Passover (Mark)? The differences between Matthew and Luke no more witness to their independence than the differences between Mark and Luke witness to theirs.

Labels: Q, Synoptic Problem

---

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).

Labels: Mark-Q overlaps, Q, Synoptic Problem

---

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.

Labels: Mark-Q overlaps, Q, Synoptic Problem

---

I have enjoyed reading some of April DeConick's questions and reflections on Luke and History in The Forbidden Gospels Blog. In particular, a post headed Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian? asks:

Why is Acts written off today as a Lukan myth with little or no historical value? Why do scholars who wish to argue for the historicity of elements of Acts have to go through an inordinate amount of justification before doing so?

and there are a series of interesting points that focus the question, and I would like to comment on these points, even though doing so takes me off at tangents from April's main points.

1. When Luke uses Mark, he does not rework Mark as much as Matthew.

I did a double take when I first read this, thinking that perhaps April had joined us in the Q sceptical camp, but then I realized that I was reading it incorrectly! It is "he does not rework Mark as much as Matthew (reworks Mark)" and not "he does not rework Mark as much as (he reworks) Matthew". Nevertheless, I think the comment is debatable and for several reasons. First, Matthew features much more of Mark than Luke does; or, to put it another way, Luke omits much more of Mark than Matthew does. Second, the perception that Luke generally retains Mark's order more carefully than Matthew does is problematic. Matthew's rearrangement of Mark is primarily limited to Matt. 8-12. After Matthew 13 // Mark 4, Matthew follows Mark's order very closely. Luke is radical in some of his treatment of Mark, especially drawing forward the Rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4.16-30) from a much later point in Mark, and drawing forward the Anointing (Luke 7.36-50) from a later point still. (I have more on this in The Case Against Q, 86-90). Third, I would draw special attention to the Passion Narratives in the three Synoptics. Luke departs far more from Mark here than does Matthew. It is worth reminding ourselves that B. H. Streeter and Vincent Taylor conceived the Proto-Luke theory on the basis of Luke's massive departures from Mark in material like that.

2. When Luke uses Q, Q-scholars tell us that he retains Q better in terms of verbage and order than Matthew. In fact, our reconstructed Q is versed according to Luke.

From my reading of Q scholarship, I think this overstates the standard view. It is consensus in Q scholarship that Luke retains the order of Q better than does Matthew, but opinions are divided on how far Matthew and how far Luke retains Q's wording and there is no real tendency in either direction, at least if we are to go on the work of the IQP. With respect to the Lucan chapter and verses getting used for referring to Q, a practice I have criticized (e.g. in Case Against Q, 8), it is important to note that it has always been said that this is done for convenience and without prejudice to decisions about whether or not the order of a given pericope is better reflected in Luke or Matthew.

3. Luke tells us in the beginning of his gospel that he relied on older sources to rewrite the Christian narrative which we apparently trust given our hypothesis that Luke is a second edition of Mark.
4. If we think that Luke used Mark and Q as literary sources, wouldn't the best assumption be that he also used older traditional sources for the composition of Acts?
5. If 4 is valid, then shouldn't we be trying to figure out what those older traditions are and what they tell us about Christianity earlier than Luke?

These are interesting points. One thing that is worth taking seriously is to find out what we can about Luke's compositional and redactional habits from an analysis of his Gospel sources Mark and (I would say) Matthew and to learn from them in working out how he is writing in Acts. I argued on this blog a while ago (A Chronological Clue in Acts 9.25, The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15 and The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15: Response to Critics) and one day I will publish on this, that where Luke has Paul visiting Jerusalem in Acts 9, clearly out of sequence when we look at Galatians 1, he has brought the account forward in his narrative from its natural location three years later, just as he draws forward the Rejection at Nazareth in his Gospel from its Marcan location later in the ministry. My own feeling is that the more familiar one gets with Luke from studying his use of sources in the Gospel, the more light it sheds on the way he behaves in Acts, where we have Paul's letters as a useful point of comparison.

Labels: Acts, Forbidden Gospels, Luke, Q, Synoptic Problem

---

Over on Hypotyposeis, Kloppenborg Nixes an Oral Q, Stephen Carlson draws attention to a new article: John S. Kloppenborg, “Variation in the Reproduction of the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?”, ETL 83 (2007): 53-80. As it happens, I have just read the same article myself and I was mighty impressed with it. Kloppenborg's primary targets are James D. G. Dunn and Terence Mournet, though there is surprisingly no reference to Jimmy Dunn's huge Jesus Remembered. What particularly impressed me about the article was its focus on a feature that is not often remarked upon in Synoptic studies, viz. the remarkable degree of verbatim agreement in some double tradition passages, drawing attention to the relative paucity of parallels to this high proportion of agreement among similar kinds of documents. Because of our familiarity with the Synoptics, we often assume that this kind of agreement among dependent texts is the norm, and not unusual.

Perhaps given Kloppenborg's own extensive work on the Synoptic Problem, and given the article's focus specifically on Q, it is churlish of me to make the following remark, but I will make it all the same. A lot of the data gathered here is of interest and relevance more broadly in studies of the Synoptic Problem, and I find it a bit disappointing that the double tradition material is discussed solely in relation to the Q hypothesis, without any mention of competing theories. The issue is particularly focused in relation to verbatim agreement in the double tradition, where one is looking at the coincidence of independent close copying of a hypothetical document by both Matthew and Luke. In other words, it is even more remarkable that Matthew and Luke agree so closely in this double tradition material if they are both doing this independently of one another in relation to another entity (unseen by us). Kloppenborg is right to problematize the high proportion of verbatim agreement in double tradition material with respect to theories about an oral Q; I would like to take it a stage further and problematize the high proportion of verbatim agreement in double tradition material with respect to a written Q.

Those comments, though, require some further teasing out, and I hope to publish on the issue in due course. (I discussed this a bit in my paper in Baltimore in March, and I'll be touching on it in my paper at the SBL Annual Meeting Q Section (abstract here, see number 1). In this blog post, I just wanted to register my opinion on what a fine and valuable article this is, compulsory reading for those researching the Synoptic Gospels.

Labels: Kloppenborg, Q, Synoptic Problem

---

One of the benefits of larger classes at Duke appears to be that you get a nicer, more modern classroom. Instead of Gray Building, where we in the Department of Religion normally teach, I am teaching my New Testament Introduction class in one of the classes in Westbrook, which belongs to the Divinity School. If A/V equipment is easier to use, and the class arrangement more congenial to its use, I find myself illustrating classes much more regularly. Today I wanted a little something to introduce the topic of editorial fatigue in the Synoptics. I was going through the arguments for Marcan Priority, and saving fatigue for the end. In my 1998 NTS article, I wrote:

Like continuity errors in film and television, examples of fatigue will be unconscious mistakes, small errors of detail which naturally arise in the course of constructing a narrative. (46)

It occurred to me that I could illustrate the point by pointing to a couple of continuity errors in one of my favourite TV series, Columbo. Anyone who has watched the series as often as I have will have noticed the lieutenant's cigar shrink and expand between shots, and a site rather inelegantly entitled Columbo Goofs lists dozens of similar continuity errors, including William Shatner's changing moustache. Continuity errors like these are "seams" in the film that point to the history of the construction of that film, revealing evidence of shooting schedules that we might otherwise have been ignorant of. I found it an enjoyable way of illustrating some of the seams in the Synoptics in the category of "editorial fatigue", which seem to point to Marcan Priority.

Labels: Synoptic Problem, Teaching Notes

---

I received this announcement from Andrew Gregory this morning:

--
Oxford Conference in the Synoptic Problem
Lincoln College, Oxford
7 - 10 April 2008

Convenors: PAUL FOSTER (Edinburgh), ANDREW GREGORY (Oxford), JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG (Toronto), JOSEPH VERHEYDEN (Leuven)

This conference is designed to mark the centenary of the landmark conversations that occurred in Oxford and led to Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. William Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911). The purpose of the 2008 Conference is both to give a comprehensive assessment of the state of research into the synoptic problem over the last hundred years and to indicate potential ways in which discussion may be advanced. It will also highlight and critically examine key methodological issues that shape the way in which the discussion is conducted. The conference papers, together with other commissioned essays, will be published by Peeters of Leuven. Participants in the conference and/or contributors to the book are as follows:

RICHARD BAUCKHAM (St. Andrew’s) John and the Synoptic Problem; EUGENE BORING (Brite Divinity School) The minor agreements and the synoptic problem; SCOTT G. BROWN (Toronto) The Longer Gospel of Mark and other evidence for the Deutero-Markus hypothesis; DAVID CATCHPOLE(Salisbury) The infancy narratives and the synoptic problem; KATHLEEN CORLEY (University of Wisconsin) Why is the synoptic problem the preserve of white European and North American men?; ALEX DAMM (Toronto) Ancient rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem; HENK DE JONGE (Leiden) The synoptic problem and the fourfold gospel; ROBERT DERRENBACKER (Regent College) Compositional habits and the synoptic problem; F. GERALD DOWNING (Manchester), Ancient analogies to the synoptic problem; ERIC EVE (Oxford), The synoptic problem without Q?; PAUL FOSTER (Edinburgh) What happened to the M source?; TIMOTHY FRIEDRICHSEN (Catholic University of America) Deutero-Marcus; MARK GOODACRE (Duke), The evangelists' use of the Old Testament; ANDREW GREGORY (Oxford) What is literary dependence?; PETER HEAD (Cambridge), Textual criticism and the synoptic problem; CHARLES W. HEDRICK (Southwest Missouri State University) The Parables and the synoptic problem; CHRISTOPH HEIL (Gräz) Reconstructing Q; RUDOLF HOPPE (Bonn), Roman Catholic biblical scholarship on the synoptic problem; ALAN KIRK (James Madison University), Orality, Scribality and Memory; JOHN S. KLOPPENBORG (Toronto) The creation of a synopsis; ANDREAS LINDEMANN (Bethel), The Apostolic Fathers and the synoptic problem; WILLIAM LOADER (Perth), Attitudes to Judaism and the Law; DIETER LÜHRMANN (Marburg) Other non-canonical gospels and the synoptic problem; ULRICH LUZ (Bern) Matthew and Q; DANIEL MARGUERAT (Lausanne), Reading Acts and the synoptic problem; ROBERT MORGAN (Oxford), Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem: an assessment of its contribution to the study of the synoptic problem; JOHN MUDDIMAN, The date of Luke-Acts and the synoptic problem; STEPHEN PATTERSON (Eden Theological Seminary) Thomas and the synoptic problem; DAVID PEABODY (Nebraska Wesleyan University), Reading the Gospels on different synoptic theories; RON PIPER (St. Andrew’s) Q: From hypothesis to entity?; DUNCAN REID (Toronto) Miracles and the synoptic problem; CHRISTOPHER ROWLAND (Oxford), The reception history of the gospels and the synoptic problem; UDO SCHNELLE (Halle-Wittenberg), Protestant biblical scholarship on the synoptic problem; JENS SCHRÖTER (Leipzig) The historical Jesus and the synoptic problem; ROBERT STEIN (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), Duplicate expressions in Mark; CHRISTOPHER TUCKETT (Oxford) The Current State of the Synoptic Problem; JOSEPH VERHEYDEN (Leuven) Proto-Luke

Booking information
The conference begins with lunch on Monday 7 April at 1pm (registration from 11.30am) and finishes after lunch (served at 1pm) on Thursday 10 April. Places are strictly limited to a maximum of 80 delegates, and ensuite accommodation in Lincoln College is available for 60 delegates. Full board will cost £435.00. A non-resident rate, including lunch and dinner, is available for £255.00. Some bed and breakfast accommodation may also be available in college before and after the conference. All payments must be made at the time of booking.

If you wish to attend the conference, please contact Andrew Gregory (andrew.gregory@theology.ox.ac.uk, or Dr Andrew Gregory, University College, Oxford, OX1 4BH, UK) by 1 October 2007. You will then be notified by 1 November 2007 if a place is available and (if applicable) sent a booking form. Please note that we will require booking and payment before 1 December 2007 to secure your place at the conference.

Further information about Lincoln College is available here: www.lincoln.ox.ac.uk

Information about other accommodation in Oxford is available here:
www.oxford.gov.uk/tourism/where-to-stay.cfm
www.oxfordcity.co.uk/oxford/home_accommodation.html
www.oxfordshortlets.co.uk/
www.dailyinfo.co.uk/venues.php?cat=hotel

Information about travelling to Oxford is available here:
www.oxford.gov.uk/tourism/how-to-get-to-oxford.cfm

Labels: conferences, Synoptic Problem

---

Today's post on Jesus Creed, Knowing the Currents 2 was one of those useful reality checks for Q sceptics like me. In summarising the "basic streams that flowed into this current", i.e. "Gospel Criticism", Scot McKnight summarizes source criticism and writes that "The basic theories are what I call the Oxford hypothesis [= the Two-Source Theory] and then also the Griesbach hypothesis." So the Farrer Theory fails to get a look in. Perhaps Scot is right that the Two-Source Theory and Griesbach deserve to be listed side by side as the basics, but I would want to add several brief comments: (1) Griesbach has had no real currency in the UK since Farmer revived it in the US; (2) An adherent of the Griesbach theory recently told me that he thought Farrer had now edged ahead of Griesbach in the US, and it clearly gave him no pleasure to say this; (3) Curiously, the Farrer Theory is itself an "Oxford hypothesis" since it originated there and was dominant for a long time (though not since Christopher Tuckett arrived in Oxford in the 90s); (4) One of the three books Scot recommends for exploring the currents, Sanders and Davies's Studying the Synoptic Gospels, in fact advocates the Farrer Theory.

Labels: Scot McKnight, Synoptic Problem

---

Back in March, I wrote In Defence of Wikipedia and followed it with In Defence of Wikipedia Response, specifically to criticize the trendiness of academic sneering at a resource that students are using more and more. I offered a range of reasons to suggest that our reaction to Wikipedia should be more nuanced. Putting our fingers in our ears and closing our eyes is not a realistic option. As always, the academic's best option is critical engagement. Inevitably, some misread the posts; others disagreed. It is encouraging to see John Hobbins writing intelligently about Wikipedia, Bible Study and the SBL, from which this is an excerpt:

How might Wikipedia’s presentation of biblical and related literature be improved? Let me count the ways. Coverage is spotty and sometimes amateurish. Links are not always top-notch. Bibliographies often seem slanted.

But, as I said before, improvement over time is noticeable.

Wikipedia does not adhere to the shameful practice of much scholarship in the humanities, whereby essays published decades ago are republished unchanged with nary a nod to developments in the field since original publication.

Wikipedia is a community effort. It is up to scholars to stop griping, roll up their electronic sleeves, and improve it themselves.

The ever reasonable and always interesting Doug Chaplin has a nice follow-up on Metacatholic headed Wikipedia or Wickedpedia? with the message "Wikipedia is here. Deal with it." One of the most important ways of embracing this challenge is the one suggested by John, echoing my own earlier suggestions of getting involved. If one is serious about rigorous academic life, then one should be serious about being a critical participant rather than a critical outsider.

Jim West criticized my earlier piece and he now does the same again. As Doug mentions, I earlier suggested that a way out of the impasse would be to test Jim's claims by means of the Wikipedia article on Zwingli. I would be interested to know if Jim has taken up that challenge and how he feels about the resulting product. Jim suggested that I too test things by working on the Wikipedia article on the Q document, which I have been doing, just every now and then. So far, I've been pleased with what I have seen. The article is looking OK, though with some work still necessary, but when I make changes, they usually stay. To be honest, the real challenge would have been the Synoptic Problem article, which is a bit of a mess and needs some serious work. But I've recently written a lengthy encyclopaedia article for a print volume (which therefore will get far less exposure than Wikipedia) on that topic, so I am loathe to end up duplicating my work there, all the more so as I already have something of a web presence on this topic. So perhaps others would enjoy taking up this challenge?

One last thing: I was shocked to see that there was no Wikipedia article on Michael Goulder, so I have added one. At the moment it's just a skeleton, but I hope to add to it in due course, or perhaps you would like to?

Labels: Michael Goulder, Q, Synoptic Problem, Wikipedia