Sources of the Synoptic Gospels

by Carl S. Patton

It may be observed also that the insertion of here and there a few verses that are elsewhere paralleled in Matthew interrupts the otherwise good connection of Luke’s peculiar account. Thus the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is introduced, as just remarked, as a rebuke to the Pharisees, who loved money and “justified themselves in the sight of men.” If it were allowed to follow immediately upon this, the setting would be appropriate. But between this introduction, which is peculiar to Luke, and the story itself, also peculiar to him, there are inserted three verses (xvi, 16-18) in regard to law and divorce, which quite break the connection. These interrupting verses, however, are not peculiar to Luke, but are found in Matthew also.

When all these facts are taken into account it is not surprising that the hypothesis has risen that the great interpolation, exclusive of the Q material contained in it, came from a special source.

But the unity of this source is much harder to demonstrate than is the unity of Q. A considerable amount of the material, aside from the Q material, in these sections is more or less closely duplicated by Matthew, and the Perean source or its equivalent in parts must therefore have been used by him also. Matthew’s demonstrated faithfulness to his sources raises serious doubt as to whether he could have known this Perean source and have omitted so much of it. The assumption that he did so, and the assignment of the double tradition thruout this portion of Luke, would require also an entire rearrangement of Q. Burton accepts this requirement, and, instead of Q, goes back to the Logia as a special source of Matthew. The fact that some of this material in the so-called Perean section of Luke may easily be assigned to his own invention, and that in the larger part of it where he is not duplicated by Matthew his own hand can be clearly seen in additions and rearrangements, would seem to tell against the unity of the Perean source, or against the assumption of any Perean source properly so called, and common to Matthew and Luke. On the whole the hypothesis of a Perean source does not seem to the writer to have been substantiated.

OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCES FOR MATERIAL PECULIAR TO LUKE

Suggestion has been made in connection with a few of the passages considered on pp. 193-206 as to a possible Jerusalem source. Nothing can perhaps be said in support of such a hypothesis, except what is suggested in the analysis on those pages and lies upon the surface of the passages. Another possible clew to the determination of one of Luke’s sources lies in the material that has to do particularly with women. Compare the raising of the widow’s son and the speech of Jesus referring to the Old Testament widow; the ministering women, Mary and Martha, and the speech of the woman about the mother of Jesus. The writer does not consider this (or the preceding) to be anything more than a suggestion.

CONCLUSIONS REGARDING Q MATERIAL IN THE SINGLE TRADITIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

The preceding investigations represent the recension of Q used by Matthew as containing about two hundred and sixty-seven verses, or parts of verses. Of these ninety-eight are so closely parallel to Luke as to be marked simply Q. Eighty-nine, paralleled in Luke, but with divergences such as to indicate a different wording in the source that lay before Matthew and Luke and eighty without any parallels in Luke, are assigned to QMt. The recension of Q used by Luke, according to our analysis, contained about two hundred and thirty-eight verses or parts of verses. Of these, ninety-four are closely enough paralleled in Matthew to be assigned simply to Q; eighty-one are paralleled in Matthew, but with such differences as to suggest different wording in the source; and sixty-three are peculiar to Luke.

It is not to be assumed that all of Q is reproduced in either Matthew or Luke. But from the treatment accorded to Mark by Matthew and Luke, respectively, it is to be expected that Matthew would omit less of the Q material that lay before him than would Luke; and this presumption is confirmed by the results obtained. The examination of Luke’s material indicates his command of a larger number of sources aside from Mark and Q than are apparent in Matthew, and this again agrees with Luke’s statement in his preface. Luke’s Gospel is longer than Matthew’s, and approaches the limit apparently convenient in ancient documents.[126] This fact, together with the greater amount of material he wished to incorporate from other sources, would further account for Luke’s greater omissions from his Q. Yet there is nothing to prove that Luke’s Q, as it was certainly different in some of its contents, was not also briefer than Matthew’s.

It is possible to limit Q strictly to the sections of Matthew and Luke in which the correspondences are extremely close, to leave the remainder of their double tradition to unidentified sources, and to make no claims for Q (QMt and QLk) in the single traditions of Matthew and Luke. This indeed is the procedure of most scholars. But it has the disadvantages of ignoring much material in the single traditions which is extremely similar to the Q material and often stands, in one or both Gospels, in closest connection with it, and of leaving without explanation the material which is nearly enough alike to require some common basis but not near enough alike to indicate the use of the same recension of the same document. The assumption of QMt and QLk, going back to two different translations, from different copies of the Aramaic original, and undergoing the process of alteration and accretion in different surroundings before falling into the hands of Matthew and Luke, best accounts for the agreements, the divergences, and the peculiar but strongly similar material.

Thus far we may claim that the facts of two hundred and sixty-seven verses in one source against two hundred and thirty-eight in the other, ninety-eight in one extremely close in wording (with many verses absolutely identical) to ninety-four in the other, and eighty verses in one against sixty-three in the other, unduplicated, but strongly suggesting by form and content their relationship with the rest, do not throw any discredit upon the assumption of two recensions (translations) of one document, but are what would be expected. If the date for the original Q is to be set as early as the year 60, or even earlier, and its use by Matthew and Luke be put as late as 85 to 95, the divergences between Matthew’s and Luke’s recensions will be further justified.