Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §7.3
of the Gospels, by far the most obvious explanation of the data is that Mark was a
primary source used by both Matthew and Luke. 13 Of the traditional three considerations
marshalled (§4.4b), the argument from order has proved least satisfactory.
14 But the stunning fact continues to be the extent of the overlap of material
particularly between Mark and Matthew. 15 So much so that there is hardly
anything distinctive in Mark which is not also in Matthew. 16 By itself this clearly
indicates literary interdependence, without revealing which way the line of dependence
ran. In the older views it had been assumed that Mark was some kind
G. M. Styler, 'The Priority of Mark', in C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (London:
Black, 1962, 3 1981) 285-316, have become classic restatements. The most resolute critic
of the two-source hypothesis has been W. R. Farmer, particularly in his The Synoptic Problem
(New York: Macmillan, 1964, 2 1976), who was able to demonstrate the question-begging form
of many of the by then traditional arguments (as formulated particularly by Streeter); see
Dungan's fuller account (History 371-90). Farmer's attack on the substance of the arguments
has been much less effective; see especially C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis:
An Analysis and Appraisal (SNTSMS 44; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983).
For a careful restatement of the case, which takes into account Farmer's criticisms, see
Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q ch. 1 (including a salutary reminder on the necessity of hypotheses
and on what constitutes a 'good hypothesis' — 50-54). See also R. H. Stein, The Synoptic
Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987) Part I.
13. See, e.g., the recent introductions by U. Schnelle, The History and Theology of the
New Testament Writings (1994; ET London: SCM, 1998) 166-72; Theissen and Merz, Historical
Jesus 25-27; R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday,
1997) 114-15. Farmer has won some support in North America for the 'Two-Gospel
(= Griesbach) hypothesis', as distinct from the 'Two-Source hypothesis', but hardly any elsewhere.
14. D. J. Neville, Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and
Critique (Macon: Mercer University, 1994); see also particularly C. M. Tuckett, 'Arguments
from Order: Definition and Evaluation', in C. M. Tuckett, ed., Synoptic Studies: The
Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983 (JSNTS 7; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984) 197-219.
15. On Holtzmann's reckoning, more than 95% of Mark appears also in either Matthew
or Luke (see above, §4.4b). Streeter made much of the fact that 90% of Mark's subject matter
reappears in Matthew 'in language very largely identical with that of Mark' {Four Gospels 151,
159). For examples of the closeness between the texts of Mark and Matthew in particular,
which can hardly be explained by other than literary dependence, see Mark 1.16-20/Matt. 4.18-
22; Mark 2.18-22/Matt. 9.14-17/Luke 5.33-39; Mark 8.1-10/Matt. 15.32-39; Mark 8.31-9.1/
Matt. 16.21-28/Luke 9.22-27; Mark 10.13-16/Matt. 19.13-15/Luke 18.15-17; Mark 10.32-34/
Matt. 20.17-19/Luke 18.31-34; Mark 11.27-33/Matt. 21.23-27/Luke 20.1-8; Mark 13.3-32/
Matt. 24.3-36/Luke 21.7-33. A similar degree of literary interdependence, but with significant
Matthean editing, is evident in Mark 2.23-3.6/Matt. 12.1-14; Mark 6.45-52/Matt. 14.22-33;
and Mark 8.27-30/Matt. 16.13-20.
16. The Markan material not in either Matthew or Luke consists of three short episodes
(4.26-29; 7.31-37; 8.22-26) and three quite short texts (3.20; 9.49; 14.51) (W. G. Kümmel, Introduction
to the New Testament [1973; ET Nashville: Abingdon/London: SCM, 1975] 56;
greater detail in Streeter, Four Gospels 195-96).
144