How would you explain the verbal overlap between passages in Matthew and Luke not found in Mark?

I would explain the verbal overlap between passages in Matthew and Luke which are absent from Mark as follows: Matthew and Luke both made use of another source to which Mark either did not have access or chose not to utilize.[1] This explanation is in line with the 4-Source Hypothesis. This additional source, now lost to us, is commonly referred to as “Q” for the German quelle (“source”). This collection of Jesus traditions was not necessarily a written document but may have simply been a set of familiar teachings which were part of the oral traditions about Jesus circulated in the early Church. Matthew and Luke sometimes have sections of this source material in the same order with a high degree verbal overlap. Other times they share the source material but use it in different places in their presentation.

Because of the length and precision in some of these instances of verbal overlap, it seems probable that there may have been a written source to which Matthew and Luke had access, though it is possible that it was common oral tradition which they both incorporated. Just as the verbal parallels between Mark and the other two Synoptics suggests a literary dependence, so too the verbal parallels between Matthew and Luke which are not found in Mark suggests that they both were dependent on an additional shared source.

For example, in the case of the Temptation narrative preserved in Mark 1:12-13 // Matthew 4:1-11 // Luke 4:1-13, Mark gives the temptation only the briefest mention, whereas Matthew and Luke devote quite a bit of space in presenting more fully the exchange between Jesus and Satan. Matthew and Luke are very similar in their presentations (in fact, nearly half of their wording overlaps), although they do place the temptations in a different order. Since Mark includes none of the extra material it is plausible that Luke and Matthew are relying on some other source to which they had access in common.

There are many other instances in which Matthew and Luke display verbal overlap in describing traditions which are not preserved in Mark. When Jesus teaches the people concerning John the Baptist in Matthew 11:2-29 // Luke 7:18-35, both accounts report His teaching with a great deal of overlap. While some have argued that this overlap results from either Matthew depending on Luke or Luke depending on Matthew, the slight variation in the specific wording and details suggests to me that both were relying on a third source independent of one another.

---

[1]Yes, Brian: utilize. UTILIZE!

pleonasm, n.

The use of more words than are necessary to express an idea; as, "I saw it with my own eyes."


I fear that 95% of the things I say fit this definition.

Ironically, the word of the day is well-matched to the quote of the day:

"The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending, then having the two as close together as possible." - George Burns

My friend John Mitchell is giving me an opportunity to teach at Poeima Church (www.poiemachurch.com) at the start of July. I promise to avoid being pleonastic, though I may still be sesquipedalian.

How would you explain the verbal overlap between the Synoptic Gospels?

I would explain the verbal overlap between the Synoptic Gospels as follows: Mark composed his Gospel first, and Matthew and Luke are inspired revisions of or reflections upon Mark’s composition. That Matthew and Luke incorporate so much of Mark’s presentation is itself an affirmation of Mark’s authenticity rather than an undermining of it. Despite the inclusion of differing materials and variations in wording, the Jesus they present is congruent with Jesus as He is presented in Mark. This view, more formally known as the 4-Source Hypothesis, makes the best sense of the available data and is the dominant explanation for good reason.

According to one variation of this view, the Gospel of Mark originated as a collection of Peter’s remembrances of Jesus which were recorded by Mark (Peter’s interpreter). This tradition finds early support in Papias. Mark’s Gospel was quickly embraced by the early Church and was accepted as authoritative because it contained apostolic tradition. It would have made little sense for Matthew and Luke to start from scratch in their accounts of the life and works of Jesus. For this reason, Matthew and Luke incorporated the vast majority of Mark’s materials because they agreed that Peter’s recollections accurately reflected both who Jesus was and what He did.

Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke had the freedom to nuance details and reorder the sequence of events in whatever manner best fit the intended aims of their Gospels, since Mark made not attempt at a chronological presentation. They also shortened some sections of Mark and expanded others, as well as adding their own material.

The 4-Source Hypothesis is more plausible to me than the theory that Matthew, Mark, and Luke just happened to have precise verbal overlap on many occasions and that they arrived at that overlap in complete ignorance of one another. Luke opens his Gospel by acknowledging that “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us” and that he “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:1-3). With this acknowledgement it should not surprise us to find he embraced Mark. Additionally, though Matthew was himself an eyewitness of many of the events recorded in his Gospel, why should we object against his utilizing Mark’s record? There is no known 1st Century Handbook for Gospel Writers which prohibits making use of another’s work. The fact is that 85% of Mark shows up in Luke and 95% of Mark shows up in Matthew. Moreover, we sometimes find that where there is verbal agreement there is even agreement in the chronology of the presentation in two or even all three of the Synoptics, further suggesting that Matthew and Luke were both dependant upon Mark.

For example, in the case of the common tradition preserved in Mark 2:1-12 // Matthew 9:1-8 // and Luke 5:17-26, Luke uses 35% of Mark and Matthew uses 33% of Mark. It’s evident that there is some form of dependence occurring here. Matthew seems to have taken up Mark’s tradition and conflated it, excising some of the details while retaining other sections word for word. Luke, on the other hand, retains more of Mark’s details and even adds further elaborations (i.e., in 5:26 where he adds that the people were not only amazed and glorifying God but were also “filled by fear”). Were there only a handful of rare occasions when verbal overlap occurred between Mark and the other two Synoptics, perhaps we could argue it was the mere result of chance, or that all three Gospel writers had a general familiarity with preceding oral traditions. But the number of instances where these overlaps occur makes far more plausible that Matthew and Luke were familiar with Mark’s Gospel and were consciously embracing some components of his presentation.

So, what are your thoughts on this? Do you think this is reasonable or unreasonable, and are there any implications to this if it's accurate? Does this in any way impact our definition of inerrancy or our understanding of the inspiration of Scripture?

N.T. Wright

Are any of you familiar with him? Derek loaned me a copy of The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus Was and Is yesterday and I've already finished it. I always feel like I'm standing on a precipice when I read N.T. Wright, like I'm about to discover something wonderful. Between that and the reading I've been doing for Church History I've been very much benefited and challenged over the last few days.

Here's something that is maybe not revolutionary but still just plain good stuff (in commenting on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15):

"If you build on the foundation in the present time with gold, silver, and precious stones, your work will last. In the Lord your labor is not in vain. You are not oiling the wheels of a machine that is soon going over a cliff. Nor, however, are you constructing the kingdom of God by your own efforts. You are following Jesus and shaping our world in the power of the Spirit; and when the final consummation comes, the work that you have done, whether in Bible study or biochemistry, whether in preaching or in pure mathematics, whether in digging ditches or in composing symphonies, will stand, will last." (80-81)

All the stuff we do matters. In Christ our work, whatever it might be, has eternal significance. The sacred and the secular are not separated: in Christ each one of us is a royal priest, period.

Caption Contest

Why is this underlined? I don't know. This is a photo I just came across of Tom Dauber, me, Matt Smith, and Todd Laderer at Chad & Heidi's wedding a few years back. Can you come up with the most amusing caption?

A Thought

Sometimes we emphasize Jesus as Teacher so much that we forget He is also the Savior;
other times we emphasize Jesus as Savior so much that we forget He is also the Teacher.