M09b
The Stage of Written Sources: Source Criticism
Definition and Aim
​
Given the abundance of both similarities and differences, Christians have wrestled with the literary relationship of the Synoptic Gospels since they started circulating together in the second century. Questions about the origins of the Gospels are very old because they naturally emerge out of their common content. Similarities are everywhere. The Synoptic Gospels share a one-year chronology, sequence of events, emphasize the kingdom of God as the focus of Jesus teaching, and contain numerous common stories and sayings. A helpful tool for comparing the Synoptics is a Gospels Synopsis because it sets the accounts in parallel columns. Luke even tells his audience that he used prior sources in the construction of his own narrative (Luke 1:1-4), which may have included one or both of the other Gospels.
​
​
Icon of Luke the Evangelist using a scroll as a source for the writing of his Gospel. Stavronikita Monastery, Mount Athos, Greece. 10th century.
​
​
Since the rise of modern biblical studies, the investigation into the literary relationship of the Synoptic Gospels has been called source criticism. Fundamentally, source critics ask the question: What written sources, if any, did the evangelists use in compiling their Gospels? Given the quantity and the closeness of the similarities, students of the Gospels naturally want to know how we can account for these. Consider the example of the “The Healing of the Paralytic.”
​
​
Since the time of the early church, the Synoptic Gospels have been viewed as interdependent. It was the primary way in which Christians explained the numerous similarities. In other words, one Gospel writer served as a literary source for the other two. Up until the middle of the nineteenth century, Matthew was considered to be the first Gospel written and thus viewed as the source for the other two. Today, most Gospel scholars see the interdependence differently. The quest for the literary relationship of these three Gospels has traditionally been called the “Synoptic Problem.”
​
Info Box 9.5: Were the Evangelists Eyewitnesses?
In some popular Christian circles it is believed that the Gospels are similar because the evangelists were eyewitness of the same events. This idea has rarely surfaced in the history of the Church. The problem with saying that each is an eyewitness account is that (1) this does not explain the differences of wording and events when the same account is recorded; (2) Jesus largely spoke in Aramaic, yet these agreements are in Greek, and it is highly unlikely that each evangelist translated the sayings in exactly the same way; (3) John’s accounts of similar incidents and sayings differ substantially; and (4) we have very little information about the identities of the evangelists. We know that Mark was a follower of Peter, and not an eyewitness. Luke used other narrative sources (1:1-4), and also was not an eyewitness. The writer of Matthew may have been Jesus’ disciple, but it is not certain, as we will explore in the chapter on Matthew’s Gospel. The writer of John is identified as the “beloved disciples,” but not named.
Theories of Interdependence
​
The search for the source Gospel and its relationship to the other two is not simple because alongside their agreements, a theory of literary relationship also has to account for the many disagreements. In the chapter on early Christianities, we have already encountered, albeit briefly, some of these, but they are worth reiterating here. Each evangelist omits material found in the other two. Each contains unique incidents. Some of the shared events are put in different order, such as the last two temptations of Jesus in Matt 4:5-11 and Luke 4:5-13. Also some sayings of Jesus are placed in entirely different contexts.
​
Over the last 150 years, numerous theories of interdependence have been proposed. Some are very complicated and have not caught on, whereas others are convoluted and implausible. For introductory purposes, our description is limited to two of the most common theories today.
​
​
​
The Griesbach Hypothesis
​
The first theory is named The Griesbach Hypothesis, after the eminent German biblical scholar Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812) who argued, on the basis of the previous work of others, that Matthew wrote first. Luke then used Matthew as a source. Finally, Mark used both Matthew and Luke.
​
The publication of his theory in 1776, in a work entitled A Synopsis of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, launched the modern critical study of the Gospels. More recently, this theory has been revived by its chief proponent, William Farmer, and has come to be known as the “Two-Gospel Hypothesis.” This theory has two major strengths: (1) It can account for all of the agreements among the Gospels. In agreements between Matthew and Mark against Luke, Mark follows Matthew, but Luke does not. In agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, Luke follows Matthew, but Mark does not. And, in agreements between Mark and Luke against Matthew, Luke deviates from Matthew, and Mark follows Luke. (2) This theory can also account for some of the literary redundancies found in Mark. Take for example Mark 1:32: “And when evening had come, after the sun had set.” Luke’s parallel account reads, “And while the sun was setting” (4:40). Matthew’s parallel account reads, “And when evening had come” (8:16). The Griesbach hypothesis explains that Mark, in typical scribal fashion, harmonized his two sources, Matthew and Luke.
​
Johann Jacob Griesbach. Scanned from Theo Piana, Friedrich Schiller: Bild—Urkunden zu seinem Leben und Schaffen (Weimar: Volksverlag, 1957).
Most scholars today, however, reject this theory for several reasons. (1) It has become increasingly difficult to argue that Luke used Matthew. In all of the triple tradition accounts (i.e. where all three Gospels agree), Matthew’s additional material is never found in Luke (Matt 8:17; 12:5-7; 13:14-15). If Luke used Matthew, why would he not include this material? Conversely, Matthew never uses Luke’s additions to the triple tradition accounts. (2) While the Griesbach hypothesis can account for many of the similarities on a very general level, detailed exegetical analyses of parallel passages has resulted in the majority of Gospel scholars questioning (and consequently rejecting) its viability. (3) While Griesbach’s hypothesis may account for some of the Markan redundancies, it cannot explain most of them.
​
​
​
The Two-Source Hypothesis
​
The most widely held theory among New Testament scholars today is the “Two-Source Hypothesis.” It was initially developed by H. J. Holtzmann in 1863 and later critically defended in 1924 by B. H. Streeter, who is often credited for a paradigm shift in Synoptic Gospels studies. According to this hypothesis, Mark wrote first. Matthew and Luke used Mark independently as a source. This theory is also associated with what scholars call “Markan Priority.”
​
So, if Mark is the first source, what constitutes the second source in this so-called “Two-Source Hypothesis”? The second source has traditionally been called Q, which stands for the German term Quelle, meaning “source.” We encountered this document earlier in Chapter Five, when we explored early Christianities. To review, it is a hypothetical document that has never been found, but it serves as the best explanation for the shared material in Matthew and Luke. An example of a Q source is Jesus’ saying in Matt 7:7-8: “Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened.” This saying is found verbatim in Luke 11:9-10, but it does not exist in Mark.
​
If there were such a written document (sometimes called the Q Gospel), as opposed to an oral one, it would have consisted of a list of Jesus’ sayings and would have included neither the infancy nor the resurrection accounts. As it was suggested earlier in Chapter Five, the Q document may have been associated with an early Jewish Christian group of missionaries active in Palestine during the forties and fifties CE. In the end, the Q source is still a hypothesis, but it is one that has fewer problems associated with it than the alternatives.
​
Some scholars have revised the Two-Source Hypothesis into a Four-Source Hypothesis. It is essentially the same, except for the addition of material that is unique to Matthew and unique to Luke. It is argued that along with Mark and Q, Matthew used a source, unknown to Luke, which scholars call “M.” Correspondingly, Luke used a source, not know to Matthew, which scholars call “L.”
​
​
​
Arguments for Markan Priority
The vast majority of New Testament scholars are convinced that Mark is the literary source of both Matthew and Luke because the arguments for this view have been more persuasive than those of the alternate theories. The following are the most important arguments that have been proposed by advocates of Markan priority.
​
Mark’s Inferior Writing Style
​
Guido Reni, Mark the evangelist, c 1621. Bob Jones University, Greenville, S. C.
The writing style used in the Gospel of Mark often lacks the refinement and sophistication that is regularly found in Matthew and Luke. In comparison to the other Gospels, Mark contains many more abnormal terms, grammatical irregularities, and unnecessary constructions. It makes less sense to say that Mark intentionally deteriorated the writing styles of Matthew and Luke than to say that Matthew and Luke polished and improved upon Mark’s writing style. Most scholars believe that later writers tend toward improving their sources, rather than toward degrading them. In addition, Mark preserves Aramaic expressions that are neither found nor translated in the parallel accounts of Matthew and Luke.
​
Once again, it is easier to imagine a later writer translating Aramaic expressions into Greek if his audience is Greek-speaking. Consider a few examples.
​
• In Mark 2:4, the paralytic is described as lying on a “pallet” (Greek krabatton), which is a slang term equivalent to the English term “pad.” In the same account, Matthew (9:2) and Luke (5:18) change this term to the more appropriate “bed” (Greek klineis)
​
• In Mark 1:12, after Jesus’ baptism, the spirit “drove” him into the wilderness. In Matthew’s parallel account (Matt 4:1), “Jesus was led up by the Spirit” and in Luke’s account (4:1), “Jesus was led by the Spirit.”
​
• In the list of the disciples, only Mark uses Aramaic in Jesus’ reference to James and John (sons of Zebedee) as Boanerges, meaning “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17). In the parallel account the Aramaic reference is omitted (Matt 10:2; Luke 6:14)
​
• The final example, below, demonstrates Mark’s awkward grammatical construction, which contains a complex oscillation between the singular and plural. Luke’s account (in the Greek) is a literary improvement. Here is an English reconstruction:
​
​
​
​
Mark’s Potential Embarrassments
​
When comparing parallel accounts in the Synoptic Gospels, sometimes Matthew and Luke edit Mark’s versions because they may have posed a potential embarrassment to the early church in its missionary efforts. In the first set of examples, Mark’s portrayal of the disciples tends to be more negative. Matthew and Luke’s parallel accounts tend to be more developed, forgiving, and positive. In Mark the disciples lack humility, have less faith (and sometimes none at all), and lack understanding. There are enough parallels like this to say that this is a pattern or even a theme. Again, we are not concerned here with the historicity of the account—namely, whose version is more accurate, for that is another matter—but the literary relationship of these Gospels. Is it more reasonable to say that Matthew and Luke enhanced the portrayal of the disciples, or that Mark intentionally portrayed them in a dimmer light? In the following examples, read Matthew and Luke prior to Mark and note the pattern.
​
​
​
​
Examples like these abound. Consider one more. In Mark 10:35-37, James and John ask Jesus if they might sit beside him in glory. This could be taken as an audacious request if the account had no parallel. When we compare this request to the one in Matthew, it dispels all doubt. In Matt 20:20-21, it is not the disciples who ask, but it is their mother who asks on their behalf, implying more humility on the part of the disciples.
​
The suggestion by most scholars that Matthew and Luke tried to eliminate or smooth over Mark’s potential embarrassment is strengthened when parallel accounts about Jesus’ abilities are compared. In Mark there appears to be a limitation of Jesus’ power or influence. Consider the following examples.
​
​
​
There are many other instances where Matthew and Luke omit sections of Mark that could be explained likewise as an attempt to eliminate potential embarrassments. As mentioned earlier, only Mark has Jesus undergo a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Also, only Mark contains expressions of emotion by Jesus. Jesus is angry in 3:5, has “lost his sense” in 3:21, and has a potentially unflattering exchange with his mother in 3:31-35.
​
For most scholars, it makes more sense to say that Matthew and Luke removed the potential embarrassments rather than saying that Mark added them. It also makes more sense to postulate that Matthew and Luke elevated the status of both Jesus and the disciples, rather than Mark intentionally lowering them. Here we could also include the infancy accounts and the extensive resurrection appearances in Matthew and Luke. If Mark used Matthew and Luke, it is unlikely that he would have intentionally removed these if he was trying show that Jesus was the son of God and the messiah.
​
​
Mark’s References to Scripture
​
In at least two cases, Mark’s references to scripture are problematic and appear to be corrected by Matthew and Luke. If Mark were a later writing, it is much more difficult to explain why the author would have included material that was problematic. In the first example, Mark introduces his Gospel with a quotation from scripture that he reports as having come from Isaiah (Isa 40:3). The problem is that the Isaiah quotation in Mark 1:3 is preceded by a conflation of two other scripture texts (Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1), neither of which are from Isaiah. In the parallel account neither Matthew nor Luke include the previous conflated quotation, preserving only the Isaiah quote. In so doing Matthew and Luke align the quotation with its introduction that it comes from “Isaiah the prophet.”
​
Michelangelo Buonarroti, “Isaiah,” 1509. Sistine Chapel, Vatican City.
​
In the second example, Matthew and Luke remove Mark’s reference to Abiather the high priest in 2:25-26. This is at first curious, until one reads the account in 1 Sam 21:1-6 to which Mark is referring. In that account it is Ahimelech, the father of Abiather, who holds the office of High Priest at the time of this incident. Abiather enters the narrative a chapter later. The most reasonable explanation is that Matthew and Luke knew this and removed the text.
​
​
​
​
Markan Redundancies
​
We have already made mention of Markan redundancies in the explanation of the Griesbach Hypothesis. Griesbach’s theory could only account for the redundancies by postulating that Mark, in scribal fashion, harmonized Matthew and Luke’s accounts. Unfortunately many of the 213 redundancies in Mark do not exhibit an intentional scribal harmonization. If Mark were already in the process of abridging Matthew and Luke, leaving out substantial material that would benefit his portrayal of Jesus, there is no known reason why he would also preserve the relatively insignificant material. The redundancies are better explained by the Two-Source hypothesis, that Matthew and Luke improved upon or smoothed out Mark’s unnecessary literary construction. Here are two examples.
​
​
​
​
Matthew and Luke’s Divergence
​
This final argument is weighty. Matthew and Luke sometimes contain common material that is not in Mark; this is attributed to their use of Q as a second source. In most instances when they differ from Mark, however, they diverge. In other words, where there is no Markan source to follow, Matthew and Luke usually go in different directions.
​
We find this kind of divergence in the infancy narratives and the resurrection accounts. It is also seen in the sayings of Jesus. Matthew and Luke occasionally contain the same sayings, but they are placed in different contexts. This is exactly what one would expect if Mark were their source. A clear example is the saying “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” In Matthew, the saying is found in the context of the Sermon on the Mount (6:24), but in Luke, it appears verbatim in the context of kingdom parables, much later in the story (16:13).
​
Cosimo Rosselli, “Sermon on the Mount,” 1482.
Sistine Chapel, Vatican City.
​
​
​
Markan Theology
​
Overall, Mark’s theological terminology and concepts are much less developed than those in Matthew and Luke. It has already been mentioned that Mark neither has an infancy narrative nor resurrection appearances. Mark employs very little mention of the Holy Spirit compared to Luke, and a much less developed use of scripture, in contrast to Matthew’s frequent appeal to its “fulfillment.” It is also telling that the designation “Lord” is applied to Jesus only six times in Mark, whereas in Matthew it appears twenty four times. Matthew retains Mark’s six occurrences, but adds another fifteen of them to parallel accounts. In Luke the occurrences of “Lord” are even more frequent. The same observations apply also to the title “Christ.”
​
Mark’s Length
Mark is considerably shorter than the two other Gospels. When the word count of the three Gospels is compared, Mark contains approximately 11,000 words, Matthew contains almost 18,300, and Luke contain almost 19,400. The argument that Mark is an abridgment is problematic because many of the parallel accounts in all three Gospels are longer in Mark. It makes little sense to say that, while omitting the infancy account, the birth of the Baptist, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s Prayer, the three temptations, and the resurrection narratives, Mark intentionally expanded the episodes they had in common. Over 40 percent of the words in Matthew and 53 percent of the words in Luke have no parallel in Mark. The abridgment hypothesis may apply to the overall length, but once individual passages are compared, the evidence in its favor weakens considerably.
The Stage of Final Composition: Redaction Criticism
​
When the insights and conclusions of the early New Testament form critics began to circulate, they were not received with as much enthusiasm as was hoped. In fact, many of the proposals were viewed with considerable skepticism, largely because form critics were in disagreement with each other. They could not agree on the shape and function of oral Christian traditions about Jesus prior to their collection by the evangelists. In addition, the idea that the evangelists were simply collectors of oral material about Jesus began to be questioned. The Gospels began to be studied as unified narratives that were more than the sum of all their parts, and the evangelists themselves began to be viewed as creative writers, even theologians, who shaped the Gospels according to their own interests. This was the beginning of redaction criticism.
Definition and Aim
​
The term “redaction” refers to the process of editing a previously written work. More common is the word “redactor” which simply means “editor.” In contrast to the aims of form and source critics, who were concerned with the source materials that lay behind the Gospels, redaction critics were interested in the final stage of the composition of the Gospels. They were particularly interested in how the evangelists creatively shaped (redacted) their sources, with an aim to discover how each writer theologically understood and interpreted the tradition that was received. Redaction critics read the parallel Gospel accounts comparatively, carefully examining the individual comments of the evangelists, their editorial links and summaries, and their selection and modification of the material.
​
The goal of redaction criticism is to discover patterns in editing that uncover the theological beliefs and agendas of the evangelists. Since most redaction critics subscribe to the Two- (or Four-) Source hypothesis, much of their attention has focused on Matthew and Luke’s reshaping and editing of Mark and Q.
​
Insights
​
The insights that emerged, and are still emerging, from redaction criticism have forever changed the way we understand and interpret the Synoptic Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke.
​
Starting from the vantage point that the evangelists were creative writers and that the Gospels were unified narratives, redaction critics have concentrated on the theological emphases of the writings. From these observations redaction critics have been able to extrapolate the purpose of each Gospel, the audience to which each wrote, and the underlying issues that were addressed by each evangelist. Redaction critics have also pointed to the varied themes in the Gospels, most notably their portrayals of Jesus. In Mark, for instance, Jesus appears as the concealed messiah. In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a new Moses who brings the correct interpretation of the Law. In Luke, Jesus is portrayed as a rejected prophet who is concerned with the welfare of social minorities and outcasts.
​
An Example: The Transfiguration Accounts
A comparison of the transfiguration accounts is helpful for understanding the practice and value of redaction criticism. While all three accounts are found in the same narrative context, share the same content and sequence, and convey the same meaning, they also contain differences. When the three accounts are read sequentially (i.e. vertically), beginning with Matthew and ending with Luke, the differences are not easily noticed. When the accounts are read alongside each other (i.e. horizontally), however, the divergences become clear.
​
Assuming that Mark is the literary source, attention in the following table is given to Matthew’s redaction of Mark. Apart from the omission of definite articles before names, changes in style (which are noticeable in the Greek), changes of prepositions, and the addition and omission of words and phrases, note particularly the underlined material.
​
​
​
Although both accounts have clear connections with Moses’ experience on Mount Sinai, Matthew’s version makes this more emphatic. Matthew describes that Jesus’ “face shone like the sun,” which closely resembles the description of Moses’ face in Exod 34:29-34 after his encounter with God. Mark says nothing about his face. Unlike Mark’s rendering, “And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses,” Matthew reverses the order, writing, “there appeared to them Moses and Elijah.” Placing Moses in the initial position may imply prominence. Matthew also changes Mark’s “cloud” out of which the voice speaks to a “bright cloud.” This change reflects Exod 40:35, when Moses encounters God in the form of a bright cloud, which symbolizes the glorious presence of God.
​
The overall point of Matthew’s redaction is to show that Jesus is a Moses-like figure who brings to completion the revelation of God. The redactional pattern is found throughout Matthew, such as Jesus’ birth under a tyrant who wants to kill him, and infancy accounts where God calls him out of Egypt, and the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus goes up a mountain to deliver a new law.
​
Giovanni Bellini, “Transfiguration,” 1480-1485. Museo di Capodimonte, Naples. Moses Moses is on Jesus’ right and Elijah is on his left.
The search for parallels between Jesus and biblical figures like Moses should extend beyond the Old Testament. Early Christian writers, saturated in Jewish tradition, would have been influenced by later Jewish interpretations of Moses. In first-century Judaism, Moses was commonly praised for his exalted position in the heavens, perhaps even as a deified figure. In Philo’s Life of Moses (2.288-291), for example, Moses is hailed as king, lawgiver, High Priest, and prophet, and exalted by God just before his death. In another Jewish writing called the Testament of Moses, he is loftily portrayed as “that sacred spirit, worthy of the Lord, manifold and incomprehensible, master of leaders, faithful in all things, the divine prophet for the whole earth, the perfect teacher in the whole world” (11:16). Later retellings like these must also be considered when exploring Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus as a Moses-like figure.
​
​
​
Try the Quiz
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Bibliography
Allison, Jr., D. C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
​
Aune, D. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987.
​
Burridge, R. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
​
Cartlidge, D. R. and D. L. Dungan, eds. Documents for the Study of the Gospels. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994.
​
Crossan, J. D. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus. New York: HarperCollins, 1989.
​
Farmer, W. R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1964.
Goodacre, M. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
​
McKnight, E. V. What is Form Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.
Nickle, K. F. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. 2nd edn. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
​
Perkins, P. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Perrin, N. What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.
Sanders, E. P. and M. Davis. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.
Stanton, G. N. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Stein, R. H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Talbert, C. What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
​
​
​