Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Other sources for Matthew and M and L and who Cares?
[00:00:07] Written by Bart Ehrman read by Ken Teutsch we have seen that most scholars agree that the problem of the close similarities and striking differences among our synoptic gospels. The synoptic problem is best solved by thinking that Mark was copied to a greater or lesser extent by both Matthew and Luke, the view called Markan priority. The majority continues to believe that there was a sayings source available independently as well to Matthew and Luke that gave them many of the sayings of Jesus that they record but are not found in Mark, the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, some of the parables, lots of his memorable one liners. Others, as I've said, maintain that Matthew copied Mark and that Luke copied both Matthew and Mark. Even if we agree that there was probably a Q source, and even if we don't, we are still left with the fact that a good number of Matthew's stories are not found in either Mark or Luke. Herod's slaughter of the innocents, the visit of the Magi, a bunch of his parables. Just as there are a number in Luke, not in the other two the trip to Bethlehem, Jesus as a 12 year old in the temple, the parable of the Good Samaritan, etc. That means both Matthew and Luke had to have other sources of information, either oral or written for their accounts. Unless they're just making stuff up, it's impossible to know how much they just made up. My view is that it was probably not a lot. That's because with Matthew and Luke we can tell that most of their stories came from other written sources since we have one or two of them, one for Matthew, two if he had Q, and two no matter what for Luke since he had either Mark and Q or Mark and Matthew. If we know with relative certainty they had written sources when more or less by sheer luck we are able to check, then it seems like they used sources when by sheer bad luck we cannot check. Their tendencies to use or not use sources would not have been determined by their knowing which stories later scholars would be able to check them on and which not. And so the presumption would be that they likely used sources even in places we can't check unless in individual cases there is really good evidence to suggest otherwise. Scholars have long called the other sources M for Matthew's special sources, that is one or more available only to Matthew and L for Luke's the M and L sources.
[00:02:49] We are obviously not well informed about these sources designated M and L since they would have provided material found in either Matthew or Luke alone. There is nothing to compare them with to determine their basic character. We do not know, for instance, whether M or L was only one source or a group of sources, or whether it was written or oral. It could represent a single document available to the author of Matthew or Luke or several documents, or a number of stories that were transmitted orally, or a combination of all these things. What is clear is that these stories came from somewhere, since it appears unlikely that the Gospel authors simply made them up. Included in these special sources are some of the most familiar passages of our New Testament Gospels. For example, the stories from M include the visit of the Magi, Matthew 2:1 12 the flight to Egypt, Matthew 2:13 23 Jesus instructions on almsgiving and prayer, Matthew 6:1 8 and his parables of the treasure hidden in the field, the pearl of Great Price, Matthew 13:45 46 the Dragnet, Matthew 13:47 50 the Unmerciful Servant, Matthew 18:23 35 and the Ten Virgins, Matthew 25:1 12. Among the stories drawn from EL are the Birth of John the Baptist and the annunciation to Mary, Luke 1:5 80 the shepherds visiting the infant Jesus, the presentation in the temple and Jesus as a twelve year old Luke 2:1 52 the raising of the widow's son at 9 Luke 7:11 17 the healing of the ten lepers, Luke 17:11 19 Zacchaeus in the sycamore tree, Luke 19:1 10 and the parables of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:29 37 and the prodigal son.
[00:05:01] The four source hypothesis in sum, argues that we can establish four sources lying behind the synoptic Gospels Mark, Q, M, and L. But who cares? Why would it matter? Let me explain why it would matter. Here is how I explained it in my textbook.
[00:05:22] As I intimated earlier, solving the synoptic problem is an important one, because if we have an author's source, we can determine how he has changed it. And knowing how he changed it can give us some clues as to his overriding emphases. If Matthew, for example, altered a story he found in Mark, we can assume that his changes tell us something about his own theology or interests. This is not to say that the changes that Matthew and Luke introduced into the stories of Mark are the only things that should concern us when trying to interpret their Gospels. Nor is it to say that redaction, criticism, the study of how these authors use their sources, is the only appropriate way to approach them. Quite the contrary, we could just as well study Matthew or Luke following the genre critical method that we used for Mark. If we undertook the study with sufficient care, we would uncover many of the same points that we found when we applied a redactional approach.
[00:06:22] In some sense, however, a redactional analysis provides a kind of shortcut to seeing what really matters to an author. It can, by no stretch of the imagination, indicate everything that is important to the authority, but it can help us to discern an author's overarching concerns and emphases.
[00:06:40] To sum up my entire discussion of the synoptic problem and its common solution for source hypothesis, I can give the concluding major bullet points found in my book the Synoptic Problem. The synoptic problem is how to explain all the similarities and differences between Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
[00:07:01] Most scholars solve the problem by arguing that Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke. Mark and Priority the key arguments involve the patterns of verbal agreement among Matthew, Mark, and Luke in stories. They all share the sequence of the traditions found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark.
[00:07:22] The differences between Matthew and Luke in Markan's stories that contain grammatical or historical problems.
[00:07:30] The source Q from the German quelle meaning source, provided Matthew and Luke with traditions, mainly sayings not found in Mark. Like the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes, Matthew and Luke each have stories found in no other gospel. These must have come from sources uniquely available to each m Matthew's source and Luke's source. This solution, the four source hypothesis, Mark, Q, M, and L, has a significant payoff. If Matthew and Luke both used Mark, we can see how they changed it in light of their ultimate interests. This is called redaction criticism.
