We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Although the sequence of parallel material in the Synoptic Gospels has been regarded as an important factor in the solution to the Synoptic problem, there exists no neutral statement of the phenomenon. In general, descriptions of the phenomenon of sequential parallelism are drafted after one has reached a solution to the problem. B. H. Streeter, for example, assumed the priority of Mark in a statement which was apparently intended to support it: ‘ The order of incidents in Mark is clearly the more original; for wherever Matthew departs from Mark's order Luke supports Mark, and whenever Luke departs from Mark, Matthew agrees with Mark.’1 Streeter observes that only Mark 3:31–5 appears in a different context in each gospel and that Matthew adheres more strictly to Mark's order in the latter part of his gospel than he does in the earlier part. He also says that Luke rearranges Mark's sequence only in ‘trifling ways’. These observations may, indeed, support the hypothesis of Markan priority, if one has reason to accept the hypothesis on other grounds. They do not serve as descriptions of the phenomenon, and they demonstrate the need for a description which makes no presuppositions about the literary relationships among the Synoptic Gospels.
page 276 note 1 Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (London, 1924), p. 161.Google Scholar
page 276 note 2 (Zurich, 1971).
page 276 note 3 Nov.T. X (1968), 95–147.Google Scholar
page 276 note 4 Ibid. p. 107.
page 277 note 1 See also the critical analysis of Honoré's position by David Wenham, ‘The Synoptic problem revisited: some new suggestions about the composition of Mark 4: 1–34’,Tyndale Bulletin (1971), PP. 3–38.
page 277 note 2 Seventh edition (Stuttgart, 1971).
page 278 note 1 The general procedure here has been to start with the pericopes which Aland has regarded as parallel. In most cases, Aland's judgement has been followed, as can be seen from the appendix. In a few places, however, it seemed necessary to question or abandon his parallelization. For example, his numbers 33 and 139 suggest parallelism between Matthew 13: 53–8, Mark 6: 1–6a and Luke 4: 16–30. Although there is a similar statement in all three about Jesus' entrance into the synagogue, Luke's version contains a relatively long Old Testament quotation and an application of the quotation to Jesus. Neither Matthew nor Mark has this. In Aland's number 74 (Matthew 7: 21–3, Luke 13: 25–7), the similarity extends only to the use of the phrase ‘Lord, Lord’. Morgenthaler estimates the verbal similarity in this passage as 7–13%. Similarly, Luke 11: 37–41 does not appear to be parallel to Matthew 15: 1–20 and Mark 7: 1–23 (number 150). Number 152 is also rejected, because Matthew 15: 29–31 has a general, probably editorial, note about healings in Galilee, while Mark 7: 31–7 includes a more detailed narrative about the healing of a deaf mute. The parable of the great supper (number 279: Matthew 22: 1–4, Luke 14: 15–24) presents more serious difficulties. The formal similarities are apparent, but there is little identity in wording. Morgenthaler estimates it at 10–14%, not enough to suggest literary parallelism. The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke (numbers 7, 8 and 11) are alike only in terms of subject matter. In most of the other cases, Aland has been followed. In the appendix to this paper, those passages which Aland has set side by side but which are rejected have been indicated by the use of brackets or parentheses.
page 279 note 1 For the purposes of this paper, it seemed best to exclude the disputed ending of Mark.
page 291 note 1 Split pericopes may cause confusion at this point. The pericopes which Mark took over from his two sources amount to 98 in Matthew and 90 in Luke. In Mark's version, however, they form 90 pericopes. Mark omitted 33–6 pericopes which were contained in both sources.
page 295 note 1 Morgenthaler uses a different pericope count, but some of his proportionate figures are comparable to the ones here. According to his count, Mark had 128 pericopes, and Matthew used 118 of them, 106 in the same sequence. Similarly, he calculates that Luke used 96 pericopes from Mark, 82 in sequence. If we translate these figures to percentages, they may be compared with mine. Morgenthaler: Matthew used 92% of the pericopes in Mark, 90% of them in sequence. Luke used 75% of Mark's pericopes, 85% of them in sequence. Tyson: Matthew used 91% of Mark's pericopes, 81% in sequence. Luke used 83% of Mark's pericopes, 75% in sequence. See Morgenthaler, op. cit. p. 232.
page 295 note 2 Matthew and Luke actually show sequential parallelism in the case of six pericopes not found in TSP, but two of the six are also found in Mark.
page 296 note 1 Streeter, op. cit. p. 161.
page 296 note 2 See below, p. 297.
