Gospel Sources
Gospel Sources
As nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century scholars sought to test the historical reliability of the Gospels, their attention naturally turned to source criticism. 57 Source criticism asks the question: What written sources might the author of a Gospel have used? During some early forays into this question critics overindulged their imaginations, overconfidently but arbitrarily assigning various elements to numerous, speculative source layers. Scholars who study Greco-Roman literature have increasingly recognized the excesses of traditional source criticism,58 and other literary disciplines have likewise rejected this often speculative nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century approach to uncovering sources.59
Nevertheless, the criteria appear somewhat more objective in Matthew and Luke, where we probably retain evidence for at least two of their sources. Although various source theories have come and gone, the majority of scholars today agree that Matthew and Luke used Mark, “Q” (i.e., a source Matthew and Luke shared), and some other material not employed by our other extant Gospels. 60 Scholars commonly call this view the “Two-Source Hypothesis.”
While this remains the general consensus, however, scholars are no more unanimous on this subject than on most others. Some able scholars have made a defensible case for the older view that Mark used Matthew rather than the reverse, and their case merits fair consideration.61 But for several reasons, and especially because so much of Mark appears in Matthew and Luke (and Mark lacks many useful sayings found in these Gospels), most scholars remain convinced that Matthew and Luke both used Mark and at least one other source that they shared in common.62 Further, consistent patterns appear in Matthew’s abbreviation of Mark,63 and Matthew uses an eclectic text-type for his Old Testament quotations except where he overlaps with Mark, where he tends to follow Mark in employing the most common Greek version.64
Most scholars also agree that Matthew and Luke shared another source,65 which is nicknamed “Q”66 for lack of a better name. On this point, too (even more than on the use of Mark), scholarship lacks complete unanimity. Although some write as if fairly certain concerning the substance and extent of “Q,”67 most scholars express skepticism to what degree of certainty it can be reconstructed. 68 Given questions about its precise extent and other factors, “Q” certainly should not be used to “reconstruct the whole theological outlook” of its community.69 That Galilee (including Capernaum) is central in “Q” could reflect the milieu in which it was transmitted,70 but could also simply reflect the milieu of Jesus whose sayings it contains.71
Still others have debated even “Q”’s existence as a concrete document.72 Some envision it as purely oral tradition,73 and still others as a composite of sources.74 By contrast, most scholars do view “Q” as a whole document, which is in my opinion likely, given the common sequence of Q in Matthew and Luke.75 (This does not, of course, require that all points shared by Matthew and Luke belong to this document. Further, we lack any parts of “Q” that one or both of these authors failed to use.)76 “Q” was probably originally in Aramaic, and various translations of it into Greek may account for some of the variants between Matthew and Luke.77
Scholarship has become increasingly polarized between those who reconstruct “Q” in excessive detail and those who deny it altogether, although I think that the range of options between these positions remains the majority position. Some are able to dispense with a Q hypothesis altogether, suggesting that Luke (a smaller number here add Mark) simply used Matthew.78 This final view, while more defensible than a collocation of different traditions, remains a distinctly minority (though respectable) position.79 (A very few scholars deny even literary dependence among the extant Gospels.)80 Nevertheless, I concur with the majority position that Matthew and Luke used a common source in addition to Mark. Because the point of this book is historical Jesus research rather than literary dependence among the Gospels, I am using this position (as opposed to the possibility that Luke used Matthew) as a default position, rather than expending space arguing for it.81
“Q” probably represents more than simply a tapestry of oral traditions. Since Matthew and Luke often follow their shared material in the same sequence, we concur with the most common theory about Q: it (or most of it) probably represents a single prominent written source. Although we acknowledge weaknesses in this position (and probably interaction with continuing oral tradition at every stage of writing), I will work here from the basic two-source hypothesis. Because the Q collection was probably edited in the 40s, less than two decades after the events it describes,82 we may assume a high degree of reliability for its traditions.
Because Matthew and Luke follow Mark and Q closely (by ancient literary standards) where we can check them, the assumption held by many scholars that they simply invent material where we cannot check them83 seems simply imagination run amuck.84 Their basically conservative editing at most points will impress one if one begins with neither a thoroughgoing skepticism nor a naive fundamentalism, but the standards of ancient texts in general. As Ben Witherington puts it (1994: 214), Matthew
takes over more than 90% of his Markan source (606 out of 661 Markan verses), while Luke takes over only a little over 50%. The difference in degree of word for word appropriation of Mark in the pericopes and sayings that Matthew and Luke take over is minimal. Luke uses about 53% of Mark’s exact words in the material culled from that source, while the First Evangelist uses about 51% of Mark’s exact words of the 606 verses he appropriates. This means that Luke and the First Evangelist are about equally likely to preserve the exact wording of their source, and they do so about half the time.
So “conservative” is Matthew’s editing by ancient standards that Witherington suspects that Matthew “very likely saw himself as primarily an editor or redactor, not an author.”85 This suggestion surely overstates the case (Matthew edited his Gospel so tightly that it functions as a unified whole);86 nevertheless, many changes that Matthew makes in some of his sources could depend on information his other sources supply.87 Thus Matthew sometimes “corrects” ambiguities in Mark (e.g., Matt 12:3-4//Mk 2:25-26; Matt 3:3//Mk 1:2-3; Matt 14:1//Mk 6:14); sometimes “rejudaizes” his language (Matt 19:3, 9//Mk 10:2, 11-12; passim for “kingdom of heaven//God”;); and at least on some occasions, Matthew makes his changes because of early tradition older than Mark (Matt 12:28//Lk 11:20; missing in Mk 3:23-29).
At the same time, these authors’ relative conservatism need not render all of their sources of equal historical worth; and where the sources were oral, they might, for all we know, have exercised greater freedom in their retelling.88 At any rate, Matthew’s circle certainly had other Palestinian traditions beside Mark and Q, and these traditions had undoubtedly been interacting with Mark and Q long before he wrote his Gospel.89 From the earliest period, Mediterranean storytellers regularly drew on a much larger body of oral traditions.90
Since Matthew and Luke depend on Mark, it is important whether or not Mark preserves some reliable information. Tradition from perhaps within half a century of Mark does in fact claim his dependence on Peter,91 a claim that from the standpoint of the putative dates of the sources is not implausible.92 We should remember that Luke believes that many written accounts as well as the oral material on which he depends reflect material passed down from eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2). Given his frequent use of Mark, Luke presumably believes that Mark depends on significant eyewitness material. Because (as we have suggested earlier) Luke may have earlier been in Judea for up to two years near 60 CE, Luke presumably had good reason to form this favorable opinion of Mark’s substance and to confirm what Theophilus had heard (Lk 1:4), probably sources including such widely disseminated works as Mark’s.