The Evidence We Have To Consider
Synoptic Problem: Markan Priority Defies Logic (Part 5/13)
What’s the Evidence?
While it would be impossible to account for every observation, theory, or speculative consideration, and thus the evidence for them, the following table summarizes the most commonly referenced pieces of evidence we have for the Synoptic Problem. As we will see, some of this evidence has more probative value than others, and so inclusion on Table 1 below is not meant to indicate equal weight.
However, there is a golden rule. And it’s one that all too often is ignored by Synoptic Problem scholars. That is we must account for all evidence. No matter what hypothesis is advanced, we cannot simply pick the evidence we like and pretend the conflicting evidence is not there. No. If there is evidence that contradicts our position, we must provide reasonable, satisfactory explanations accounting for it. We cannot ignore evidence. We.Cannot.Ignore.Evidence.
We’ve already covered some of this evidence previously (e.g. triple and double tradition). In due course, we’ll address everything in Table 1, with some in more detail. For now, we’ll touch on some key pieces of evidence we need to understand as background.
Triple Tradition
The triple tradition concerns material that appears in all three Synoptic Gospels. A pericope (plural pericopae) is a unit of written text that belongs together as part of a saying, story, or account. You can think of a pericope as a self-contained story unit or snippet. We will be using this word throughout, so it’s important to have a concept of what it refers to. For example, “Jesus Blesses the Children” is a pericope that contains the following:
13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 After laying His hands on them, He departed from there. Matthew 19:13–15 (NASB95)
All three Synoptic Gospels contain this pericope. That is, in addition to Matthew 19:13–15, Luke (at 18:15–17) and Mark (at 10:13–16) also contain this same pericope. And often in the triple tradition, the pericopae appear in the same order, use the same words, and use those words in the same order. There are numerous examples of this throughout the Synoptic Gospels. As such, the significance of the triple tradition is that it’s our best evidence of a literary relationship between the three Synoptic Gospels.
Although we’ll cover this is much greater detail when we get to the Arguments From Order discussion, it’s worthwhile to mention that nothing in the triple tradition logically argues for the priority of any Synoptic Gospel over another. In other words, there is absolutely no logical (mathematical) way to argue priority from the fact that three items share identical characteristics. I cannot emphasize this enough. If you encounter any argument that takes a premise such as “90%+ of Mark is found in Matthew, therefore Mark was first,” you can immediately and confidently dismiss it as fallacious. All this can tell us there is a relationship of some kind, implying copying, but that’s it. We can’t tell from this who copied whom. Figure 1 below helps illustrate.
As you can see from Figure 1, all three examples share snippet “D.” The fact that “100% of Source 3 is present in Sources 1 and 2” tells us absolutely nothing about priority. Bupkis. Source 3 could have come last and just copied snippet “D.” Or Source 3 could have been first, and then Sources 1 and 2 could have added content (e.g. double tradition above). Or Source 3 could have come second after either Source 1 or Source 2. All are equally possible and there is absolutely nothing we can learn about priority from these percentages. I harp on this point because this simple misunderstanding has confused a large number of scholars for over two centuries.
Double Tradition
The double tradition refers to that material that is only found in Matthew and Luke, and is absent from Mark. Some 230+ verses are found in Matthew and Luke that are not in Mark. While these mostly include sayings of Jesus (including, e.g. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount/Plain), there is narrative information (e.g. including passion narrative) in the double tradition as well.¹
The significance of the double tradition is that it indicates one of two things: a) either Matthew or Luke copied from one or the other, or b) Matthew and Luke independently (i.e. without knowledge of the other) copied from a third party source.² Since no extant third party source has ever been found or referenced that reflects this double tradition, scholars have constructed a hypothetical (non-extant) source called “Q” (German “quelle” for “source”) to account for it. It’s crucial to understand that there are only two logical options here. So if the double tradition cannot be explained by Matthew or Luke copying from one another then a hypothetical source is necessary and must be presumed to have existed.
It is worth noting that, in general, the agreements in the double tradition in word order, word usage, and pericope order tend to be less than those in the triple tradition.² However, as with the triple tradition, we learn absolutely nothing at all about priority based on percentages of commonality in the double tradition.
The Minor Agreements
There are portions within the triple tradition where Luke and Matthew agree with one another against Mark. That is, Luke and Matthew will add or omit material in the exact same places, and where Mark does not. In the image copied above, the last phrase “and on the third day he raised” is the key. Because the Gospels were translated in Koine Greek (which as I understand does not mandate word order), and this phrase is identical in both Matthew and Luke, it is difficult to argue that it could have come from both Matthew and Luke independently editing Mark.³ It is estimated that there are over 1,000 minor agreements in the Synoptic Gospels. Some are more significant than others.⁴ Still, there are too many to be accounted for by chance.
These minor agreements pose a real challenge for advocates of “Q.” Two-Source theorists acknowledge that this is the most “vulnerable” part of their hypothesis.⁵ Explanations given have ranged from textual corruption, to scribal harmonization (although actual evidence supporting these theories is lacking). The minor agreements are admittedly less troublesome for Farrer and Two Gospel Hypothesists, who argue that Luke copied from Matthew (and in these cases, against Mark).
We’ll touch a bit more on “Q” later, but it bears mentioning here that the entire reason there is a theory of “Q” is because of the development of: a) the theory of Markan Priority and b) the assumption that Luke and Matthew acted independently. Remove either of these assumptions, and “Q” necessarily disappears.
“Idioscyncratic” or Lost Common Sources
As we’ve stated previously, we must assume that the authors of each of the Synoptic Gospels had access to traditions and stories unique to them, or perhaps even shared sources, either from eyewitnesses, “proto-gospels,” local tradition, oral tradition, etc. This must be presumed. Still, none of this eliminates the necessary presumption of copying between the Synoptics.
Other Evidence and Patristic Evidence
We’ll cover the other evidence in Table 1 in greater detail in the sections relevant to that evidence. Due to the large amount of church father (“Patristic”) evidence we will be reviewing, we will deal with that in its own section next (Part 6/13). For now, we’ll note that this evidentiary record is unanimous in favor of Matthew being first — without dissent, and across multiple traditions.
[1]: Four Views pp. 7–8
[2]: See, e.g., Four Views p. 157
[2]: For completeness, Matthew and Luke could have copied from a shared source AND from one another. But algebraically, and with Occam’s Razor, that collapses out the shared source.
[3]: Four Views p. 20
[4]: “10 Reasons to Question ‘Q’” — Mark Goodacre
[5]: Four Views p. 40
