V. SOURCES
V. SOURCES
Most of the content of Mark is also found in this Gospel, though generally in a shorter form.51 Most scholars have concluded that our author was apparently glad to use the earlier Gospel, but did not appreciate the length at which Mark wrote his stories. It is also clear that he shared with Luke a source with a good deal of information that we do not find in Mark.52 There is a problem in the fact that sometimes Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, and when they differ from one another sometimes one and sometimes the other agrees with Mark. In my opinion critics generally have paid too little attention to Luke’s express statement that “many” have taken it on themselves to write on this subject (Luke 1:1). While not everybody could read and write in the first century, many people could, and the Pauline correspondence, for example, is evidence that Paul knew that in every congregation there were people who could read what he wrote. It is in the highest degree likely that others than our four Evangelists and the authors of such sources as Q wrote about the life and teaching of Jesus. But since their writings have perished we have no way of knowing what was in them. We should not presume that everything that has come down to us was originally in Mark, Q, M (Matthew’s special source), and L (Luke’s special source). There must have been many other writings about Jesus, and we have no way of knowing whether Matthew used any of them or not.
Critical orthodoxy works on the “Two Document” theory, the view that Matthew and Luke had before them two documents, Mark and Q.53 Sometimes this is expressed as a “Four Document” theory, adding M (the source of what Matthew alone has) and L (what Luke alone has). A good deal can be accounted for on this basis, but there are some difficulties, such as the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. How could this happen if there were no more than four sources and the final two Evangelists followed their sources reasonably closely? Such problems have caused some scholars to rethink the process, and in recent years there has been a revival of the hypothesis of J. J. Griesbach. This view dispenses with Q and takes Matthew to be the first Gospel to have been written, followed by Luke and then Mark.54 On this view Mark was produced by reworking some of the material in the two longer Gospels. Perhaps there was some rivalry between supporters of Matthew and Luke, and this Gospel was produced to take up a mediating position.55 More can be accounted for on this hypothesis than a good number of critics have conceded, but it still remains unsatisfactory.56 It is not easy to understand why Mark in abbreviating Matthew should so consistently come up with narratives that are longer as well as more lifelike.
It appears that many writers are all too ready to ignore Luke’s express statement (to which we have already referred) that “many” had written before him. In the first century literacy was reasonably widespread, and the New Testament gives ample evidence that writing was congenial to the early Christians. Why should we limit the accounts of Jesus’ teaching to the four Gospels plus three hypothetical sources? It seems much more likely that many did write about Jesus but that in time most of their works perished. When the four Gospels were produced they evidently were so superior to the other writings about Jesus in circulation that in time they drove the rest out of business. Why go to all the trouble of copying a source when you could have it incorporated with other material in a satisfying Gospel? It seems to me not only that have we not solved the Synoptic Problem, but also that we are not likely ever to solve it. Too much of the writing of the early church has perished.57
It is suggested that Matthew’s infancy narratives give evidence of a Hebrew source. Thus there is a play on the words “Jesus” and “Savior” in 1:21, 58 which is natural in Hebrew but impossible in Aramaic. This suggestion may be supported by some of the quotations from the Old Testament. Many come from LXX, but there is a group of quotations introduced by “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet” or similar words (1:22–23; 2:5–6, etc.). Except for 3:3 all are found in Matthew only. These are not as close to LXX as other quotations in this Gospel and may be independent translations from the Hebrew. Some differ from our Hebrew text (as 1:23; 2:6; 4:15; 13:35). Such considerations may point us to a source or sources. But we can scarcely say more.
I cannot leave this section on sources without drawing attention to a point made so well by Patte: “Some may be surprised that I do not pay more attention to Matthew’s sources and to the way in which he modifies them. I simply take seriously the fact that when an author duplicates a source and makes it part of his or her own discourse, he or she has appropriated that source. In other words, even when Matthew duplicates exactly what one of his sources says, the passage has to be viewed as expressing Matthew’s convictions and views.”59 Many commentaries spend a good deal of time on what Matthew has done to his sources. While I concede that much can be learned from such exercises, I agree with Patte that when Matthew incorporates a source it is because he has made it his own and wants to express what that source is saying. It is more important to understand what the words mean in their new situation than to engage in scholarly niceties about how they came to be there.60