Abstract

In the Two Document Hypothesis (2DH) the Mark-Q Overlaps are a hypothetical representation of a textual phenomenon that suggests the existence of a non-synoptic written source for the Double Tradition. The Overlaps (Imperfectly and incompletely described by H. T. Fleddermann in ‘Mark and Q’) have at their hearts approximately half of the doublets in Matthew and/or Luke that have a parallel in Mark.

In almost all these doublets the halves in a Markan context (i.e. those with a close parallel to Mark) are in Markan order in their respective gospel, so suggesting they have Mark as their source. In contrast, the order of the doublet halves in a non-Markan context (i.e. those without a close parallel in Mark) does not follow any known extant source, so suggesting a non-synoptic source for these doublet halves. In addition, on the 2DH only 40% of those in a non-Markan context are in Q, while irrespective of the hypothesis 75% are in the Great Insertion (which contains much of the Lukan Sondergut).

In his analysis Fleddermann assumes Q as on the 2DH before analyzing just those overlaps relevant to Q (so ignoring much of the data), and compounds this issue by inventing a small number of ‘condensed overlaps’ that are actually a subset of a much larger number of ‘condensed overlaps’ that would be the death knell of the 2DH if all were included. 

While it is the case that the ‘overlaps’ point to the existence of a non-synoptic source, by BEGINNING with hypothesizing Q as the source of the Double Tradition there has been a failure to recognize that the doublets are at the heart of more than just the Double Tradition. Consequently, the above strongly suggests that a non-synoptic source (But not Q as on the 2DH) was the source of the majority of the Great Insertion in addition to the Double Tradition.

Introduction

Apologies: Quotes below attributed to Evan Powell may not appear in the location suggested, or may be in a different form, as it appears that since the time of writing Powell has created a new web page The Synoptic Problem in which he gathers together material that was previously elsewhere. At the present time the writer is unsure whether Powel's text where quoted below still exists in the form used here.

There are several hypotheses as to the order in which the synoptic (meaning seeing together) gospels Mark, Matthew and Luke were written. All the hypotheses assume a particular order and that later authors made used of the earlier gospel(s), and some hypotheses include one or more additional (also hypothetical) sources that may have been used by the gospel authors, with the most well-known being referred to as Q (from Quelle, the German for ‘source’), being the source of material common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark that is commonly referred to as the Double Tradition. Towards the end of Chapter 1 of ‘The Synoptic Problem and the Non-existence of Q,’ Hidden Synoptic Patterns, Powell wrote:

Advocates of the 2DH [the Two Document Hypothesis, also the Mark-Q Hypothesis] propose that Matthew and Luke each wrote their respective Gospels independently of one another while drawing upon Mark and Q.

In other words, on the 2DH it is proposed that Mark and a second (non-extant) document, Q, are the only sources of the material in Matthew and Luke, but with the stipulation that neither aMatthew (the author of Matthew) nor aLuke (the author of Luke) used the gospel of the other (Whether either knew but did not use the gospel of the other is a different issue). A corollary of this is that Q is, at a minimum, the source of all the Double Tradition material. This stipulation is important, because it begs the question: How would Q be affected if either aMatthew or aLuke did use the gospel of the other as well?

If that was the case then aMatthew and aLuke could draw upon both Mark and a common second source (SS) whether they were independent or not. However, if either used the gospel of the other this non-Markan second source would then not be Q as defined in the 2DH (because at least some of the Double Tradition text could be the result of aMatthew using Luke or aLuke using Matthew), with SS then only being required to contain whatever Double Tradition material was not created by either aMatthew or aLuke using the other's gospel. Under these circumstances the Double Tradition would be the result of two different mechanisms, and so in general could not have the same content as Q.

In his introduction to Order in the Double Tradition and the Existence of Q Jeffery Peterson states that:

 John Kloppenborg notes that postulating Luke’s use of Matthew as an alternative to Q ‘require[s] one to suppose that Luke rather aggressively dislocated sayings from the context in which he found them in Matthew, often transporting them to contexts in which their function and significance is far less clear than it was in Matthew.

Not surprisingly, the reverse is also the case, as “postulating [Matthew’s] use of [Luke] as an alternative to Q ‘require[s] one to suppose that [Matthew] rather aggressively dislocated sayings from the context in which he found them in [Luke.]” Essentially, If EITHER aMatthew or aLuke used the other’s gospel the later author “rather aggressively dislocated” material written by the other. However, the same applies to Q. On the assumption that Luke did not reorder Q then Matthew “rather aggressively dislocated” material from Q. Peterson also comments that Robert Gundry:

... abandons a fundamental postulate of the Two-Source Hypothesis, that Matthew and Luke were written independently of one another, but continues to maintain the existence of Q because of diverging order in the double tradition. Surveying the Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, Gundry finds more than three dozen details of narrative or wording that comport with Matthew’s Gospel but not with Luke’s. From these ‘Matthean foreign bodies’ lodged in the text of Luke Gundry concludes that Luke was acquainted with Matthew. Yet Gundry, inhibited by ‘the disarrangement of Matthean material’ that must be posited if Luke used Matthew as one of his ‘primary sources’ rather than as a secondary ‘overlay’, does not follow Austin Farrer and Michael Goulder in dispensing with Q. He accounts for his Matthaean foreign bodies by positing Luke’s use of Matthew but for the arrangement of double tradition in Luke by retaining the evangelists ’common use of Q’ The argument from double tradition order thus constitutes Gundry’s sole reason for continuing to assert the existence of Q. The present essay examines the logic of the argument from order in the double tradition and questions whether it affords such clear grounds for the existence of Q.

The great difference in the orders of text in Matthew and Luke with no parallel in Mark (i.e. the Double Tradition text) is well known and exists whatever the synoptic hypothesis. This contrasts with the text that (assuming Markan priority) either or both got from Mark, in particular where Matthew and/or Luke both have Markan parallels, and even more so where either or both have a doublet. In this case the orders of the text in the non-Markan doublet halves varies greatly from the Markan order, and varies greatly between Matthew and Luke, in what is of course Double Tradition text.

As identified in detail below, this phenomenon regarding the connections between Mark and the doublets in Matthew and/or Luke exists whether aMatthew and aLuke were independent or not (while the 2DH requires that they were independent). Consequently, the non-Markan second source can below be referred to as SS instead of Q, except in reference to quotes and other work from Powell, Fleddermann et al. in which Matthew and Luke are defined as or assumed to be independent.

In addition, although Q is generally assumed to have been a single document there is no requirement that SS should also be a single document, and so should be taken to refer to one or more pieces of information to which both aMatthew and aLuke had access, whether oral or written. However, it is likely that the portion of SS that was the source of what we see as Double Tradition text was written, as also was Luke’s Great Insertion, containing as it does the majority of the Lukan half of the Double Tradition text.

What is a Doublet?

Powell defines doublets as follows: 

Matthew and Luke both contain replications of certain sayings in either identical or similar form. When a particular saying appears twice in a given Gospel, it is referred to as a doublet. This phenomenon occurs with more frequency in Matthew than it does in Luke, and in some instances Matthew and Luke contain the same sets of doublets.

(Although Powell does not state it he here assumes that there are no doublets in Mark, and while technically this is correct there are a very small number of repetitions in Mark that might be thought of as doublets, as discussed later.)

The doublets are not a manifestation of a particular synoptic hypothesis as they exist whatever the assumed hypothesis, instead differing in the mechanism by which they were created given the hypothesis. In Introduction to Doublets the writer identifies a number of possible synoptic hypotheses and how, on those hypotheses, doublets might have been created, noting in particular the distinction between respectively redactional and source doublets:

Whatever the exact definition of a doublet, on the assumption that the contents of the synoptic gospels are not just pure invention by their respective authors (i.e. they had sources of some kind, whether oral, written, a tradition, their own experience of an event, or something else) a doublet can in general be created in two different ways: 

1. A gospel author had a single source for the doublet text, and after having placed that text (or a close copy) in one location in his gospel, he placed an identical or close copy of that text at a different location in the same gospel; 

2. A gospel author had two or more sources (possibly including either one or both of the other two synoptic gospels), with two of them containing similar pieces of text, and he included parallels of those two pieces of text in different locations in his gospel.

The details matter: The location of the doublet halves in both Matthew and Luke; whether the half of a doublet with a parallel in Mark is located before or after the other half in either Matthew or Luke; whether aMatthew and aLuke appear to know anything about the doublets in the other’s gospel; etc. Although these issues are not typically considered, they are important and bear heavily on the issue of how the doublets were formed.

When discussing ‘Traditional Arguments in Support of the 2DH’ (the Two Document Hypothesis) Powell wrote as follows regarding the actions of aMatthew and aLuke (but not aMark):

Do the doublets constitute evidence of Q’s existence? No. Let us first acknowledge that it is not often evident why the authors chose to duplicate certain sayings. On occasion they may have been duplicated for special emphasis, or to create a literary frame or set of “parentheses” in the text for interpretive purposes. Some appear to represent two slightly different forms of the sayings that the authors may have wished to document. Perhaps they wanted to present them in two different contexts. It is also possible that on occasion, given the vast inventory of raw material, they were simply duplicated in error. Given the array of sources available to the authors, the simple fact that doublets are present in both Gospels is not particularly surprising. What is more noteworthy is that both authors duplicate a number of the same sayings. What might be the most logical accounting of this phenomenon?

Despite some conceivable rationales, it does not seem probable that both authors would independently duplicate the same sayings no matter what reason they may have had to do so. The circumstances under which this may have occurred are worth pondering. The 2DH argues that the two authors, either by design or error, independently drew common sets of doublets, one each from Mark and Q respectively. Practically speaking, this does not have much intuitive appeal.

Consider, then, that Matthew drew upon both Mark and Luke. In this situation, Luke would have created a set of doublets in his own Gospel by drawing one saying from Mark, and another from one of the many oral and written sources he had at his disposal. Whether this was done by design or error is immaterial. In either case, this produces an interesting scenario: Matthew was using two sources in which a number of sayings appeared three times—once in Mark and twice in Luke. If Matthew compiled his Gospel using these two sources, the odds of duplicating some of the sayings that appeared in triplicate, either intentionally or erroneously, would have been increased to some degree. Under this scenario it would not be surprising to find that Matthew would produce a greater array of doublets than does Luke, with the Lukan doublets comprising a subset of those found in Matthew. Such is indeed the case. Since the phenomenon of the doublets can be explained by assuming Matthew’s direct use of Luke, it cannot be cited as evidence for the existence of Q.

Indeed, such is the case, but Powell does not comment on the context in which each half of a doublet is located, i.e. Markan (being a close parallel to Mark) or non-Markan (being a much looser parallel to Mark), nor the fact that many of the doublets in Matthew do not have a parallel in Mark (so are in a non-Markan context) and are simply repetitions of short phrases, while in Luke they almost all have one half in a Markan context and the other in a non-Markan context. Taking these into account means that instead “the phenomenon of the doublets” cannot “be explained by assuming Matthew’s direct use of Luke."

In the 2DH Mark and the hypothetical source Q are sources used by both aMatthew and aLuke, with neither Matthew nor Luke being a source for the other, even if either author knew of the other author’s gospel. In this hypothesis there are places where Mark and Q have related text (so ‘overlapping’ in what is conventionally referred to as a Mark-Q Overlap) with aMatthew and aLuke differing in which ‘half’ of the overlap (i.e. which of the Mark or Q versions) they chose to use in their respective gospel. Where they chose both sources (i.e. one from Mark and the other from Q) we see two versions of the text in the same gospel in what is generally referred to as a doublet (in some places incorrectly a 'repetition’ unless the two ‘versions’ are identical), typically no more than a few of our ‘verses’ in length (although of course verse divisions did not exist when Matthew and Luke were written) but with no specific upper limit. In Mark-Q Overlaps II: Major Agreements Between Matthew and Luke, Mark Goodacre states:

Mark Q Overlaps are more appropriately designated "major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark". The value of this term is that it is neutral, and describes this particular set of interesting data. This set of data might also be described as triple tradition material in which Mark is not the middle term, or triple tradition material in which there is extensive agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark…  However, there are many places where this normal pattern of agreement is not the case, and where Mark ceases to be the middle term. These are the passages under discussion here, the so-called Mark Q overlap passages, where there is substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark.

Goodacre does not suggest how small a “major agreement” is allowed to be, nor does he suggest that there could be disagreements, e.g. “between Matthew OR Luke against Mark” although clearly they could exist, with Matthew choosing one source (Mark or Q) and Luke choosing the other (Q or Mark respectively). Goodacre also obscures the issue by referring to “triple tradition material,” because the whole point is that in an overlap Mark differs significantly from Matthew and/or Luke. The text in Matthew and/or Luke is related to that in Mark, but at least one is NOT a close parallel to Mark, because if it were it would simply be Triple Tradition text with no overlap. Goodacre does record that there is a continuum of agreements, but here is referring to “degrees of agreement between Matthew and Luke” rather than degrees of agreement with Mark.

Conceptually, the term 'overlap' refers to places where both Mark and a hypothetical ‘second’ source (whether 'Q' or something else) contain versions of an incident, saying, etc. that we see in Mark (i.e. their text 'overlaps' in these places), so that either of both may have parallels in either or both Matthew or Luke, and there are 15 different configurations of text or no text in Matthew and/or Luke that (in the case of Q) could be a Mark-Q overlap. There is also the point that a hypothetical 'overlap' may not have text in both Matthew and Luke, giving rise to a total of 16 combinations, as shown in detail in the Appendix. There is a ‘sliding scale’ here in terms of the degree of ‘overlap,’ from trivial changes to a word or two (tenses, etc.), to apparent complete re-writes, precis, expansions, etc. of the text in Mark, and hence the dividing line between Mark and 'similar' text in Matthew/Luke is fuzzy, and so open to interpretation.

The term “Mark-Q Overlap” has become common currency when discussing the synoptic problem even though it presupposes the existence of a particular source (Q) that was the source of the Double Tradition text. Of course, we could instead refer to Mark-Double Tradition overlaps, but even here the terminology restricts the overlap to just the text of the Double Tradition, does not define what an ‘overlap’ is or how we would recognize it, and pre-supposes text in both Matthew and Luke. There are other problems with this designation, for example that Q only exists as a hypothetical source of the Double Tradition in the 2DH, and so Mark-Double Tradition overlaps might indeed be better, but only those in which “there is 'substantial' agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark” (Goodacre).

However, even this is not sufficient to correctly describe the agreements because, under the 2DH, in every instance but one in which there is a generally recognized Mark-Q overlap there is a doublet in Matthew and/or Luke in which one half of the doublet(s) has(have) a close parallel in Mark (so being in a Markan context), with the other half having no parallel in Mark, so together appearing as being text in a Triple Tradition context (i.e. with Matthew and/or Luke having text parallel to that in Mark) with parallel (but ‘overlapping’) text in a Double Tradition context.

Note 1: Despite the possible complexity the term 'Mark-Q overlap' is used below due to its familiarity, even though in its fullest form the 'overlap' consists of Triple Tradition text (Mark, Matthew and/or Luke) with parallels in Double Tradition text (Matthew and Luke), as discussed later.

Note 2: Strictly speaking there are three 'double traditions,' meaning places where the text of two of the synoptic gospels agree while the third has no parallel text: Mark v.s. Matthew-Luke, Mark-Matthew vs. Luke, and Mark-Luke vs. Matthew. Here the use of the term 'double tradition' without additional qualification refers to agreements in Matthew and Luke against Mark.

The Mark-Q Overlaps: Source Doublets in Disguise?

The following is the abstract to Wolfgang Grünstäudl’s Luke's Doublets and the Synoptic Problem :

The Synoptic Gospels contain a significant number of so-called doublets, i.e. sayings or narratives which appear twice in one and the same Gospel. Since the nineteenth century these doublets have functioned as a classical argument in favour of the existence of Q. Focusing on treatments of Luke's doublets within the contemporary rivalry between the Farrer hypothesis and the two-document hypothesis, the present article contributes to a not-Q-biased discussion of the evidence. While adherents of the two-document hypothesis should not overestimate the force of doublet-based arguments, defenders of the Farrer hypothesis should pay greater attention to the creation and elimination of doublets as part of Luke's alleged redactional activity.

As the abstract suggests the existence of the doublets in Luke (also those in Matthew) presents a forceful argument in favor of the existence of Q – or, rather, a hypothetical non-extant source used by both Matthew and Luke (Whether this source was Q as on the 2DH is another matter). Given this it may then appear surprising how seemingly unimportant the doublets are to H.T. Fleddermann in his studies of Mark and Q below. However, this is largely due to Fleddermann assuming Q and being more concerned with the relationship between Mark and Q and the details of Q itself than whether the evidence, in particular that of the doublets, actually supports the existence of Q. 

The list of ‘overlaps’ below is derived from Fleddermann’s 1995 book  Mark and Q. A Study of the Overlap Texts This is due to the convenient format of his table of contents in which the overlaps are ordered according to their Markan parallels, rather than being thematically grouped according to their location in the hypothetical document Q as in his 2005 Q A Reconstruction and Commentary. In Chapter 1 of ‘Mark and Q’ Fleddermann writes:

Proponents of the two source theory point to the large number of doublets in Matthew and, to a lesser extent, in Luke as one of the several arguments for the existence of Q. The doublets, though, do not just help establish the existence of Q. They show further that the two sources – Mark and Q – overlap, and they raise the question of the relationship these sources to each other.

Given this statement it is surprising that nowhere does Fleddermann actually list or otherwise identify the doublets in one place, nor does he attempt to establish that the doublets do actually have two sources because his book is predicated on that proposition. Instead, he concentrates on the Mark-Q overlaps without in many places directly identifying the doublets ‘behind’ the overlaps to which he refers. However, it is possible to identify at least some of the doublets by the way he records the overlap texts, even though he only directly shows the presence of a doublet in his overlap nos. 3, 7 and 10. In his table of contents he identifies the overlap texts as follows:

Mark 1,2 (Matt 11,10 par. Luke 7,27)                                                    1. The Messenger

Mark 1,7-8 (Matt 3,11-12 par. Luke 3,16-17) 2. John and the Coming One

Mark 3.22-27 (Matt 12,22-30.43-45 par. Luke 11,14-15.17-26)                   3. The Beelzebul Controversy

Mark 3:28-30 (Matt 12,32 par. Luke 12,10)                                                  4. The Unforgiveable Sin

Mark 4,21 (Matt 5,15 par. Luke 11,33)                                                    5. The Lamp

Mark 4,22 (Matt 10,26 par. Luke 12,2)                                                    6. What is Hidden will be Revealed

Mark 4,24cd (Matt 7,2b par. Luke 6,38c; Matt 6,33b par. Luke 12,31b)      7. The Measure

Mark 4,25     (Matt 25,29 par. Luke 19,26)                                                  8. To One Who Has Will be Given

Mark 4,30-32 (Matt 13,31-32 par. Luke 13,18-19) 9. The Mustard Seed

Mark 6,7-13     (Matt 9,37-38; 10,7-16; 11,21-23; 10,40 par. Luke 10,2-16) 10. The Mission Discourse

Mark 8,11-13   (Matt 12,38-42 par. Luke 11,16.29-32)                                  11. Demand for a Sign

Mark 8,34b      (Matt 10,38 par. Luke 14,27)                                                 12. The Cross Saying

Mark 8,35        (Matt 10,39 par. Luke 17,33)                                                 13. Losing One’s Life

Mark 8,38        (Matt 10,32-33 par. Luke 12,8-9)                                           14. Jesus and the Son of Man

Mark 9,37        (Matt 10,40 par. Luke 10,16)                                                 15. On Accepting

Mark 9,40      (Matt 12,30 par. Luke 11,23)                                                 16. On Tolerance

Mark 9,42            (Matt 18,6-7 par. Luke 17,1b-2) 17. On Scandal

Mark 9,50a (Matt 5,13 par. Luke 14,34-35a) 18. On Salt

Mark 10,11-12 (Matt 5,32 par. Luke 16,18)                                                    19. On Divorce

Mark 10,31     (Matt 20,16 par. Luke 13,30)                                                 20. The First and the Last

Mark 11,22-23 (Matt 17,20 par. Luke 17,6)                                                   21. On Faith

Mark 11,24     (Matt 7,8 par. Luke 11,10)                                                     22. On Asking and Receiving

Mark 12.38-39 (Matt 23,6-7 par. Luke 11,43)                                                 23. First Places

Mark 13,11      (Matt 10,19-20 par. Luke 12,11-12)                                       24. On Confessing

Mark 13,12     (Matt 10,34-36 par. Luke 12,51-53)                                       25. Family Division

Mark 13,21     (Matt 24,26 par. Luke 17,23)                                                 26. Rumors of the Coming

Mark 13,31     (Matt 5,18 par. Luke 16,17)                                                   27. Jesus’ Words

Mark 13,35     (Matt 24,44 par. Luke 12,40)                                                 28. Uncertainty of the Hour

Mark 14,21     (Matt 18,6-7 par. Luke 17,1b-2)                                            17a. The Son of Man and That Man

Almost all of Fleddermann’s list of Mark-Q overlaps correspond directly to entries in this author’s below list of doublets in Matthew and/or Luke and the corresponding Markan parallels with which they ‘overlap’, although he does record as an overlap a very few not present in this author’s list. Fleddermann comments on differences such as this in lists of overlaps from other authors in comparison with his own (Emphasis added): 

No consensus exists on the number of overlap texts. Nor will one emerge as long as the extent of Q itself remains uncertain. The various lists of overlap texts, though, do converge around a group of certain texts that are always included. Laufen counts twenty-five overlap texts. However, he splits the Beelzebul Controversy into two texts, separating the Parable of the Strong Man (Mark 3,27) from the first part of Mark’s pericope (Mark 3,22-26), so his list really contains twenty-four Marcan texts. The list that I propose contains all twenty-four texts in Laufen’s list, but it adds five other Marcan texts for a total of twenty-nine overlap texts.

Here Fleddermann predicates knowledge of the ‘overlap texts’ on knowing the extent of Q, whereas because the ‘overlap texts’ exist (in the form of doublets, as shown in detail below) regardless of the extent (or even existence) of the hypothetical Q, Fleddermann's initial sentence is more accurately re-written as:

No consensus exists on the extent of Q. Nor will one emerge as long as the number of overlap texts remains uncertain.

Fleddermann’s acknowledged purpose in his study is to promote Q as a source used by all the synoptic gospel authors, and to that aim he does not need to analyze every possible ‘overlap text,’ but instead just those that can most forcefully support his hypothesis, while this author is instead attempting to use the evidence presented by as many of the doublets in Matthew and/or Luke as possible to determine what text in Matthew and/or Luke (i.e. whether Double Tradition text or not) has its origin in a non-synoptic source, whether Q or not.

Given these differences it is to be expected that this author’s below lists of doublets / possible ‘overlaps’ would not be identical to Fleddermann’s, for example by splitting the Beelzebul Controversy into four sections, and adding many others that Fleddermann does not have. Fleddermann also has four Mark-Q overlaps (highlighted in the table below) that do not directly correspond to any of the Markan/non-Markan doublets identified by this author, in all of which there are no doublets, so just potential overlaps:

2. John and the Coming One: A potential triple tradition passage.

9. The Mustard Seed. A potential triple tradition passage.

17. On Scandal: Should be removed because the only actual overlap here is in Fleddermann's 17a. The Son of Man and That Man.

18. On salt: Does appear to have text in two different contexts, with Mark 9,50a in one context and (Matt 5,13 par. Luke 14,34-35a) in another, so being an overlap even though there are no doublets here.

Overall this author notes more than double the number of ‘overlap’ passages than Fleddermann, so it does appear that his list is very conservative, possibly due to Fleddermann apparently not understanding (or at least, not noting) that doublets are at the heart of almost all the ‘overlaps,’ and as a result not having a single comprehensive format in which to display his overlap texts in their fullest form.

With three exceptions (as in the above list) Fleddermann identifies his Mark-Q overlaps using the format ‘Mark a,b  (Matt c,d par. Luke e,f),’ i.e. as text in Mark that ‘overlaps’ with parallels in Matthew and Luke that (as assumed by Fleddermann) have Q as their source, so not showing or otherwise identifying the doublets at the heart of the overlaps. However, in the three exceptions Fleddermann uses extended formats including two groups of verses in Matthew and/or Luke that does indicate the existence of doublets in Matthew and Luke:

Mark 3.22-27      (Matt 12,22-30. 43-45 par. Luke 11,14-15. 17-26)                     3. The Beelzebul Controversy

Mark 6,7-13         (Matt 9,37-38; 19,7-16; 11,21-23; 10,40 par. Luke 10,2-16) 10. The Mission Discourse

Mark 4,24cd       (Matt 7,2b par. Luke 6,38c; Matt 6,33b par. Luke 12,31b)    7. The Measure

In the first two of these examples Fleddermann uses this extended format to record parallels that span two disjoint groups of verses, while in the third he uses a different format that also has two disjoint groups of parallels in both Matthew and Luke for what appears to be a similar overlap. Also, in his Chapter 1 Fleddermann states that “The clearest examples [of source doublets] appear twice in both Matthew and Luke, once in the triple tradition and once in the double tradition” and later uses ‘The Cross Saying’ as an example, noting these five parallels and using the second extended format mentioned above to record the doublets in both Matthew and Luke:

Mark 8,34          (Matt 16,24 par. Luke 9.23; Matt 10,38 par. Luke 14,27)

The use of these different formats without comment appears to suggest that Fleddermann has not understood the common basis of these ‘overlaps,’ but with respect to the immediately preceding doublet at Mt 10:37 par. Lk 14:26 he does comment that:

The doublet points to two forms of the saying, one in Mark and one in Q, and it shows clearly that Matthew and Luke drew the sayings from two sources.

Fleddermann’s point about two sources (also applying to Mt 10:38 // Lk 14:27) is correct, but it does not require that the ‘second source’ is Q (and here SS is used where it is necessary to make this point). He then continues, introducing the double doublets:

Doublets like the Cross Saying that appear twice in Matthew and Luke are called “double doublets,” and they are not common.

However, in a footnote at this point he identifies five more such double doublets, all of which include overlaps that he lists (above) and later analyses, again without there being any sign that he recognizes any particular connection between these double doublets and the overlap texts:

Mark 4,25 (par. Matt 13,12; Luke 8,18)     Matt 25,29 par. Luke 19,26           To One Who has Will be Given

Mark 8,35 (par. Matt 16,25; Luke 9,24)        Matt 10,39 par. Luke 17,33                   Losing One’s Life

Mark 8,38 (par. Matt 16,27; Luke 9,26)        Matt 10,32-33 par. Luke 12,8-9           Jesus and the Son of Man

Mark 9,37 (par. Matt 18,5; Luke 9,48)     Matt 10,40 par. Luke 10,16                 On Accepting

Mark 13,12 (par. Matt 10,21, Luke 21,16)       Matt 10,34-36 par. Luke 12,51-53)     Family Division

These double doublets all have text in Luke’s Great Insertion, and all five are present in the writer’s initial large table below, from which it is clear that double doublets are more common than Fleddermann suggests. Unfortunately, Fleddermann then uses the shorter format shown above (e.g. with ‘Matt 16,24 par. Luke 9,23’ omitted from the Cross Saying) in almost all other examples (so ignoring further double doublets in Matthew and/or Luke), except that he then does use the extended form (showing all five parallels and hence the doublets in both Matthew and Luke) when analyzing ‘The Measure.’

In his later ‘The Existence of Q’ Fleddermann adds the following two double doublets (here re-formatted to match those from ‘Mark and Q’):

Mark 8,34 (par. Matt 16,24, Luke 9,23) Matt 10,38 par. Luke 14,27) The Cross Saying

Mark 13,31 (par. Matt 24,35, Luke 21,33) Matt 5,18 par. Luke 16,17) Jesus’ Words

Again, these double doublets have text in Luke’s Great Insertion, and their addition here begs the question: Are there yet more double doublets that Fleddermann has not identified. He writes:

The number of double doublets would be much larger if Matthew and Luke had taken over more of Mark. Matthew, and Luke frequently, chose to pass over the Marcan saying when there was a comparable saying from the double tradition. As a result many doublets appear as a doublet in only one gospel.

This comment is curious as it suggests that Matthew and Luke could somehow recognize double tradition text, which of course by their actions both were creating, even though by definition on the 2DH neither was in any way capable of being influenced by the other. Consequently, on the 2DH neither could be influenced by “the double tradition.” Then, as shown above Fleddermann notes the following overlap:

Mark 8,35 (Matt 10,39 par. Luke 17,33) 13. Losing One’s Life

Fleddermann apparently fails to notice that Mk 8:35 also has parallels at Mt 16:25 par. Lk 9:24, i.e. that here is another double doublet. These above points suggest that Fleddermann may have failed to identify other double doublets, and indeed the writer identifies nine more double doublets to which Fleddermann does not in any way refer, even where they include Q text.

On page 6 of Mark and Q  Fleddermann records: ‘6. What is Hidden will be Revealed’ as consisting of Mark 4,22 (Luke 8,17; Matt 10,26 par. Luke 12,2), although later he omits Luke 8,17 when referring to this overlap. However, with the four exceptions noted above (Nos. 2, 9, 17, 18) every single one of the Mark-Q overlaps that Fleddermann examines in detail has a parallel to Matthew and/or Luke in a Markan context in addition to the Matthew - Luke parallels in non-Markan contexts that he does consistently record. This means that (again with the same four exceptions) Fleddermann’s Mark-Q overlaps all have doublets in Matthew and/or Luke that ‘connect’ Mark (and the Matthean and/or Lukan parallels in the Markan context) with the parallels in non-Markan contexts that he does record.

As noted earlier, in addition to 'The Strong Man' four of Fleddermann’s other overlap passages do not contain any doublets. Three of them are shown here, with the fourth below:

Mark 1,7-8 (Matt 3,11-12 par. Luke 3,16-17) 2. John and the Coming One

Mark 4,30-32 (Matt 13,31-32 par. Luke 13,18-19) 9. The Mustard Seed

Mark 9,50a (Matt 5,13 par. Luke 14,34-35a) 18. On Salt

None of these overlaps (as identified by Fleddermsann) have doublets in either Matthew or Luke, in contrast to the great majority of the other overlaps listed above that together present a strong argument for the existence of a second source (SS, not specifically Q) for the Double Tradition ‘overlap’ verses. Consequently, even if there was a second source for the Double Tradition text in other overlap passages, in these three the text in Matthew and Luke could potentially be in the same context as their Markan parallels. However, there are a number of differences that suggest that here two of the three gospels have a source that the third does not, i.e. they nevertheless are in different contexts.

In the beginning of ‘Mark and Q’ Fleddermann states the following about doublets: ”We can define a doublet as the repetition in one gospel of the same or closely similar sections at least a verse in length.” However, as noted below the use of ‘repetition’ to characterize a doublet is incorrect unless the two halves are the same, as in various places in Matthew. This author also takes issue with Fleddermann’s ‘verse length’ limitation because our verse divisions were of course not known to the authors of the gospels, and hence there is no reason why ‘repetitions’ could not be less than a verse in length or spanning multiple verses. Despite what his later text suggests, in Mark and Q Fleddermann continues:

Doublets, of course, need not point to the use of separate sources. Writers can, and frequently do, repeat themselves, and the gospel writers do not refrain from the practice. Matthew, for example, uses the sayings on scandal twice (Matt 5,29-30; 18,8-9). Although some scholars want to attribute the first instance to Q and the second to Mark, Luke has no parallel to either so a better explanation sees Matthew repeating the Markan sayings in the Sermon on the Mount. We need to distinguish these editorial repetitions or “redactional doublets” from other doublets, the “source doublets,” that point to the use of sources. The clearest examples appear twice in both Matthew and Luke, once in the triple tradition and once in the double tradition. 

Fleddermann then uses his 'No. 12. the Cross Saying' as an example, which in his detailed analysis of this saying he records as Mark 8,34b (Matt 10,38 par. Luke 14,27), as shown above. However, in his earlier discussion on doublets he shows this as instead being Matt 16,24 // 10.38, Mark 8,34, Luke 9,23 // 14,27, i.e. with the addition of Matt 10,38 / Luke 14,27 forming the ‘double tradition’ (more accurately 'non-Markan context') half of the overlap. He then continues with an example in which there is a doublet in Luke but not Matthew.

Fleddermann uses the Salt Saying as an example of a “condensed doublet” that he records as Mark 9,50a (Matt 5,13 par. Luke 14,34-35a). Here there is no doublet in either Matthew or Luke, so appearing to simply be triple tradition text, but with the text in either Matthew or Luke (in this case Matthew) close to that in Mark, while (again in this case) Luke has significant differences. Fleddermann’s explanation for referring to this as a form of doublet is that here “the Markan and Q forms are combined in either Matthew or Luke.” However, by definition all doublet halves in any overlap have similarities as they have common subject matter. Therefore, it is natural for “the Markan and Q forms” to be combined in any ostensibly “triple tradition” passage in which Matthew and/or Luke (either or both) are based on a source other than Mark, and hence have significant differences from Mark.

As there is no requirement that either Matthew or Luke have a doublet in these circumstances this should not be referred to as a “condensed doublet,” but perhaps instead as a “condensed overlap.” In contrast, in John and the Coming One Mt 3:11-12 / Lk 3:16-17 are close parallels while Mk 1:7-8 is significantly different. Here not only does Mk 1:8a have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke, but Mt 3:11a,d, 12 / Lk 3:16b,e, 17 have no parallel in Mark, and so appear to be additions unknown to aMark.

Although these differences do not rule out the above all being triple-tradition passages they each do allow for two different sources, with John and the Coming One and On Salt actually suggesting two sources, and with Mark and Matthew largely agreeing against Luke in The Mustard Seed. The fact that none of these passages contain doublets but are still identified by Fleddermann as providing support for the 2DH indicates that it is worth considering which other ostensibly ‘triple tradition’ passages in which (a) both Matthew and Luke are obviously related to Mark, and (b) one is a close parallel to Mark while the other is a much looser Markan parallel, are actually ‘condensed overlaps’ having two sources, namely Mark and a 'second source' for Matthew or Luke but not both.

As stated earlier the fourth of Fleddermann’s potential overlap passages is different:

Mark 9,42 (Matt 18,6-7 par. Luke 17,1b-2) 17. On Scandal

Although Fleddermann records the overlap as shown here, it only differs from ‘17a. The Son of Man and That Man’ in the location of the Markan parallel, and this authors' examination of this potential overlap in Other Doublets in Matthew with Parallels in Mark shows that it would be more accurate to record it as:

Mark 9,42 par. 14:21b (Matt 18,6. 26:24b par. Luke 17,2)

Fleddermann notes: "Mark has a second overlap with the Q Scandal Saying in the passion narrative. Laufen does not even mention this text in his discussion of the extent of the Mark-Q overlap." This author agrees with Laufen's position. Because of the additional parallel in Mark there are no Double Tradition verses here, and instead this is just two sets of Markan parallels. A small number of these overlaps do not even contain a doublet (so appearing to be Triple Tradition text), and yet Fleddermann identifies them as Mark-Q overlaps, implying that here both Matthew and/or Luke are in a non-Markan context, i.e. they may have Q as their source and so may be 'condensed doublets:'

  Mark 1,7-8         (Matt 3,11-12 par. Luke 3,16-17) 2. John and the Coming One

(Mark 3.22-27 (Matt 12,22-30.43-45 par. Luke 11,14-15.17-26) 3. The Beelzebul Controversy)

  Mark 3:27         (Matt 12:29 par. Luke 11:21-22 3c The Strong Man: Part of The Beelzebul Controversy

  Mark 4,30-32 (Matt 13,31-32 par. Luke 13,18-19) 9. The Mustard Seed

  Mark 9,42         (Matt 18,6-7 par. Luke 17,1b-2) 17. On Scandal

In the immediately above examples the text of either Matthew or Luke (but not both) is significantly different from that in Mark, and so while Fleddermann is correct regarding the existence of another source, that source may not be the ‘Q’ that is the source of the Double Tradition on the 2DH. The problem is that Fleddermann only takes into consideration 28 of the much greater number of overlaps that the large table (below) shows is just 40% of the relevant data, and he doesn’t appear to recognize that everywhere there is an overlap there is a doublet in Matthew and/or Luke, except for Nos. 2, 9, 17 and 19 (as shown above) in which there is actually NO doublet present.

In total Fleddermann records the following in ‘The Existence of Q:’ Double Doublets: 8, and Single Doublets: 9 in Matthew and 6 in Luke. However, he records “The Mission Discourse” as a single doublet having four distinct portions of text in Matthew (9:37-38, 10:7-16, 11:21-23, 10:40) and two in Luke: (9:1-6 , 10:2-26). As both Matthew and Luke here have parallels in two chapters this strongly suggests more than one doublet. Overall Fleddermann identifies “twenty-nine examples of doublets (that) show that Matthew and Luke had continuous access to two different versions of Jesus’ sayings” and that “there are no triplets.” In general, the writer agrees with this assessment, but as shown below identifies a significantly greater number of doublets.

The above analysis of Fleddermann’s overlap texts shows that he recognizes that many of those that he records as text in Mark ‘overlapping’ with Matthew and/or Luke do contain a doublet in Matthew and/or Luke. However, a deeper analysis of his overlaps shows that almost ALL of them have at least one doublet, with just under half containing doublets in both Matthew and Luke, i.e. Double Doublets, as is shown in the large table below. How and why this is important requires an understanding of what the doublets represent, in particular taking into account both the relative locations of both halves of a doublet and the ‘order’ in which they appear in Matthew or Luke.

The Significance Of The Doublets In Matthew And Luke

Why not doublets in Mark, Matthew and Luke? Indeed, doublets in Mark are very significant, but this is because there are so few, while this author counts around 50 in Matthew and 40 in Luke (There are no definitive numbers of doublets because there is no overall agreement over how textually close to each other two portions of text in the same gospel must be to count as a doublet). However, the much larger issue is why there are almost none in Mark. 

There are a small number of places where the synoptic gospels essentially repeat an action, event, or saying involving Jesus that takes place in all three gospels, where there is nothing to suggest which (if any) is the original:

      Mk 1:11    / Mt 3:17           /  Lk 3:22b      and    Mk 9:7b     /  Mt 17:5b    / Lk 9:35      (This is / thou art my beloved son)  

Mk 9:31    / Mt 17:22-23  /  Lk 9:44        and    Mk 10:33   /  Mt 20:18        / Lk 18:31-33     (Delivering/Betraying The Son of man)

Mk 6:37-44  /  Mt 14:16-21  /  Lk 9:13-17    and    Mk 8:1-9   /  Mt 15:32-38    (No Luke) (Feeding the 5000 and 4000)

In these instances there is no one gospel that appears to be the source for the other two, and instead it appears that all three synoptics contain doublets, with the ‘source’ being something else. In the first example 2 Peter 1:17 is arguably the source, while the second could be one or more references to “the son of man” in the OT, for example Eze 3:25. In the third case arguably aLuke knew of either or both feeding stories and simply chose not to include them. Although these examples do have doublets in Matthew and (in two cases) in Luke, it is not possible to identify a single source for any of them within the synoptic gospels, unlike those discussed below.

The writer uses the term 'Markan/non-Markan Doublet' to refer to a doublet (sometimes identified by Hawkins as a 'formula') in Matthew or Luke in which one half of the doublet/formula is in text in a Markan context (i.e. has a close parallel in Mark) and the other half is in a non-Markan context (i.e. has a significantly looser parallel in Mark). The term 'Double Tradition Doublet,' used in some other places referenced here, should be taken to mean the same as Markan/non-Markan doublet.

Terminology

Beginning in Doublets the writer analyses all the doublets, formulas, and similarities identified by Hawkins in Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem, plus additional doublets identified by the writer and others. Hawkins overall reports that Matthew contains approximately double the number of doublets etc. than those in Luke, while this is not the case with those doublets with both Markan and non-Markan halves, in which the numbers of doublets in Matthew and Luke are similar. The term “double doublets” is also used here, for example as referred to (above) by Fleddermann, and by Bobby Welch Jr.in Repetitive prophetical and interpretative formulations in Luke's Gospel of Codex Bezae: an analysis of readings in D:, where he describes them in this manner:

Double doublets are where a repetition exists in two of the Synoptics but because of different contexts of the repeated sayings in the other writers they reveal two distinct sources, e.g. Matt 16:24 and 10:38 are paralleled by Luke 9:23 and 14:27 but show only once in Mark at 8:34.

Welch is correct insofar as he states that double doublets exist where Matthew and Luke both have two parallels to text in Mark, but he goes too far when stating that they are “repetitions” (they are not identical) and/or that “they reveal two distinct sources,” because he is then assuming a particular source hypothesis. The example he gives (above) can be represented as a Triple Tradition parallel and a related Double Tradition parallel, in which Mt 16:24 // 10.38 and Lk 9:23 // 14:27 are the doublets, and can be recorded as:

Mk 8:34 / Mt 16:24 / Lk 9:23 and Mt 10:38 / Lk 14:27

On the 2DH this is referred to as a Mark-Q overlap (where Mt 10:38 / Lk 14:27 have a parallel in Q instead of Mark), but clearly it is possible for Matthew and Luke to have chosen to write two different versions (i.e. a doublet) of something they saw only once in Mark. The problem then is: How do you tell which of these possibilities is correct – at every place where this occurs? This problem only becomes greater in the many places where there is only one parallel in either Matthew or Luke, and hence only one doublet instead of two.

In Luke's Doublets and the Synoptic Problem Wolfgang Grünstäudl makes the following observations:

According to Paul Foster, it ‘is certainly true that by themselves the doublets are incapable of providing definitive proof of either the existence of Q, or the veracity of the two-source theory’. Christopher Tuckett even calls the argument from doublets ‘perhaps one of the weakest arguments for the existence of a Q source’… John Kloppenborg Verbin’s Excavating Q from 2000 (probably the most detailed and balanced defence of the two-document hypothesis ever published) mentions the argument from doublets only in a single footnote and describes it ‘as an instructive subset of the argument from order’. Nevertheless, such an important study as Harry T. Fleddermann’s reconstruction of and commentary on Q still uses the doublets as one out of four basic arguments for the existence of Q …

Even some scholars who remain unconvinced by the postulate of Luke’s and Matthew’s complete independence stop short of dispensing with Q precisely because of the doublets. Paul Foster, too, complements his statement quoted above with an assessment clearly in favour of the two-document hypothesis: ‘However, on balance, it appears that the two-source theory explains the presence of doublets in the synoptic tradition in the most plausible manner.’ Robert Morgenthaler formulates the doublets’ role within competing synoptic hypotheses in a much less diplomatic way: ‘Any comprehensive and detailed analysis of the phenomenon of doublets is given a wide berth by opponents of the Q-hypothesis (Butler, Farrer, Farmer). They do have good reasons for doing so.

Grünstäudl later states that:

… On a methodological level this argumentative fuzziness points to a crucial aspect of any discussion of the phenomenon of doublets: in order to clarify the synoptic relationships, it is extremely desirable to distinguish ‘source doublets’ from ‘redactional doublets’ – but it is very difficult to draw this distinction without implicitly presupposing a certain solution to the Synoptic problem.

Here Grünstäudl suggests something that appears largely impossible, because you often cannot tell a ‘source doublet’ from a ‘redactional doublet’ by just looking at it. Instead, in reality the two terms simply indicate two different ways in how a doublet might have been created: either from two different sources; or duplication (redaction) within a single source, and there are many doublets for which the identification of 'source’ or ‘redactional’ depends on the assumed source hypothesis. What is needed is some characteristic ‘feature’ that is ‘natural’ on one hypothesis but very difficult to explain on the other.

Welch connects a phenomenon of related doublets in two of the synoptic gospels (in practice only Matthew and Luke) with the observation that “they reveal two distinct sources,” whereas here the writer is simply describing the phenomenon of doublets with halves in different contexts, a point that Welch assumes, but does not state, when he refers to them revealing “two distinct sources.” For example, in the above example Welch does not make it clear that Matt 10:38 and Luke 14:27 are parallels in a non-Markan context, i.e. they are Double Tradition parallels, while Matt 16:24 and Luke 9:23 are parallel to and in the same context as Mark 8:34 (and so are Triple Tradition parallels), a fact that is crucial to understanding why they might “reveal two distinct sources.” In this example the half of the doublet in Matthew (Mt 10:38) that is in the non-Markan context is located before the half (Mt 16:24) in the Markan context, whereas in Luke the reverse is the case, an oddity that bears heavily on the issue of how the doublets were created.

Doublets - The Raw Data

Taken together the summaries in the writer's detailed analyses of doublets in Double Tradition Doublets in the Mission of the Twelve, Double Tradition Doublets in the Main Sequence, and Other Double Tradition Doublets highlight the fact that there are many places at which parallel verses in Matthew and Luke but not Mark (so in a non-Markan context, and often in a larger section of Double Tradition text) are connected to parallel verses in a Markan context (possibly omitting some text in either Matthew or Luke) via the doublets in the corresponding verses in Matthew and/or Luke in each context. Depending on the assumed synoptic hypothesis these commonalities suggest either that aMatthew and aLuke each created two different versions of a passage in their respective gospels, or that they included different versions of the passage from two sources, one of which is Mark while the other is unknown, with Q being just one hypothetical instance of that unknown 'second source' (SS).

On the 2DH the two sources are Mark and Q, with Q having parallels to some of the text in Mark, i.e. there are places where Mark and Q ‘overlap’ that on the 2DH are known as Mark-Q overlaps, with Q being the second source for Matthew ad Luke. However, the 2DH is not the only possible hypothesis in which a second source (SS) exists, and while that SS could still overlap with Mark it would not be Q, instead overlapping with Mark to either a greater or lesser extent than Q (Here 'overlap' is used as a convenience that allows a direct comparison between what is being argued and the 2DH). There is a ‘sliding scale’ of overlaps in which (assuming Markan priority, as here) at one end trivial differences between Mark and Matthew and/or Luke are simply due to aMatthew and/or aLuke having made minor changes to something they saw in Mark; to at the other end Matthew and/or Luke using a second source significantly different to Mark. Consequently, even within supporters of the 2DH there is no one set of overlaps on which there is overall agreement, leaving a ‘grey area’ in the middle in which the identification of an overlap is at least partially subjective.

The large table below shows the doublets in Matthew and/or Luke discussed in the above linked web-pages in which (as seen in the table) the left half of each doublet (where it exists) is in a Markan context and the right half (where it exists) is in a non-Markan context and (typically) is a significantly looser parallel to Mark. Where applicable the identifier given in ‘Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts’ by which H. T. Fleddermann records the doublet as being part of an ‘overlap text’ is shown, although as overlaps can exist whether Matthew and Luke were independent or not they later may be referred to as Mark-SS overlaps, except where Q is specifically being identified as the non-Markan (i.e. second) source. As noted above there are a small number of instances of Mark having a doublet in addition to one in either or both Matthew and Luke, and these are not shown in the table because any 'doublet' could then simply be two separate parallels, e.g. two pieces of triple-tradition text.

The table includes several examples in which there is only one parallel to the Markan text in either Matthew or Luke (hence there is no doublet at those points in that gospel), and in a few instances it is not clear whether the parallel that does exist should be considered to be in a Markan or a non-Markan context. Sometimes the location of a verse with respect to others in the same gospel makes this clear, but not always. For example, in the Strong Man (Mk 3:27 / Mt 12:29 / Lk 11:21-22), the parallels at Mt 12:29 and Lk 11:21-22 are located both before and after other Double Tradition parallels, and textually Mk 3:27 / Mt 12:29 are much closer to each other than to Lk 11:21-22.

There are also seventeen doublets in Matthew and two in Luke that do not have any parallel in Mark, and these are not shown below or taken into consideration because they have no bearing on the issue of what the ‘overlaps’ represent, and are typically considered to be 'redactional' doublets, i.e. where the author (almost always Matthew) 'redacted' (edited) his own text to create another version, for example: "when Jesus had finished" and "into outer darkness" (three times each). This does mean that some of the potential evidence of doublets is ‘missing’ here, a point that Wolfgang Grünstäudl raises in Luke's Doublets and the Synoptic Problem when discussing other studies of the doublets. However, of the doublets in Luke with no parallel in Mark only one has a doublet in both Matthew and Luke (Mt 6:21 // 12:35, Lk 6:45 // 12:34), while the other has a doublet only in Luke (Mt 23:12, Lk 14:11 // 18:14b). Both are (by definition) in Double Tradition text and therefore could be the result of either Matthew or Luke knowing the text of the other, or both using a second source.

In a few places the writer splits into multiple overlaps a passage identified by Fleddermann as a single entity. For example, ‘The Beelzebul Controversy’ (No. 3, spanning Mt 12:22-30, 43-45 according to Fleddermann) contains a number of distinct overlaps but is analyzed by Fleddermann as a continuous passage, while the writer splits it into three components. Similarly, ‘The Mission Discourse’ is here split into three components and ‘The Demand for a Sign’ is split into two, and in these cases some of the components do not have Markan / non-Markan doublet pairs in both Matthew and Luke. Four of Fleddermann’s overlap passages are shown in the table below but (per Fleddermann) they do not include a doublet, instead appearing to be unusual triple-tradition passages, and these are discussed later under the heading ‘Other Possible Mark-Second Source Overlaps.’ They are:

Mark 1,7-8 (Matt 3,11-12 par. Luke 3,16-17) 2. John and the Coming One

Mark 4,30-32 (Matt 13,31-32 par. Luke 13,18-19) 9. The Mustard Seed

Mark 9,42 (Matt 18,6-7 par. Luke 17,1b-2) 17. On Scandal (But see 17a below)

Mark 9,50a (Matt 5,13 par. Luke 14,34-35a) 18. On Salt

In total the table immediately below records 69 Markan parallels in Matthew and Luke in which either or both have doublets, 28 of which Fleddermann identifies as Mark-Q Overlaps (two of which are here spilt into three sections each). Fleddermann refers to five others as "condensed doublets" because they do not actually contain a doublet, and (as discussed above) for which the term "condensed overlap" is more accurate. There are also many 'overlap passages' (marked with "--" in the "Fl'mann' column) that Fleddermann does not record as being Mark-Q Overlaps, but as they all follow the same ‘pattern’ as those he does so record (i.e. with either one or two doublets and parallels in both Markan and non-Markan contexts) on the Mark-Q hypothesis) they do also denote overlaps. They should therefore be added to the “lists of overlap texts” that Fleddermann mentions above.

In every instance the format of these ‘overlap texts’ is the same as in those identified by Fleddermann as denoting Mark-Q overlaps, with these additional ‘overlaps’ containing many Matthean and Lukan doublets that he does not mention. In all essentials they are the same as the overlaps that Fleddermann does acknowledge, and hence they are simply additional overlaps, although more accurately they are Markan context – non-Markan context (or Triple Tradition – Double Tradition) overlaps and all exist whatever the synoptic hypothesis.

In each doublet (i.e. in both 'Matthew' columns and/or both 'Luke' columns), the Markan context half is on the left side of the pair, e.g. Mt 3:3, and the non-Markan context half is on the right, e.g. Mt 11:10). Where there is only one Markan parallel in either Matthew or Luke there is no doublet. The doublets (where they exist) are both ordered by and grouped according to their Markan parallels, and where applicable the type (Doublet, Formula, Peculiar to, or Similarity) and possibly number by which Hawkins identifies this 'overlap' is given:

Blue verse numbers denote doublets in which the half in a Markan context is located before the half in a non-Markan context, and Red verse numbers denote those doublets in which the reverse is the case. Where there is only one parallel in either Matthew or Luke there is no doublet and hence no identifiable order.

Green Markan verse numbers denote verses having corresponding doublets in both Matthew and Luke (i.e. they are double doublets), in which there are five parallel pieces of text: Mark and the left-side pair of the doublets in both Matthew and Luke constitute Triple Tradition text, while the right-side Matthew and Luke pair are Double Tradition text.

Magenta Lukan verse numbers denote verses in Luke's Great Insertion, all of which are in a non-Markan context. In the table this is given as Lk 9:51 – 18:14 (350 verses) but is sometimes taken to extend to Lk 19:44. However, there is a clean 'break' in Luke after Lk 18:14, with an extensive mainly triple-tradition section following at Lk 18:15-18:43 that is typically taken to be part of the overall Lukan ‘travel narrative.’

The 'Type' column categorizes the doublets/overlaps according to the 'security' of the identification of a possible overlap on the Mark-Q or similar hypothesis (See later for the specifics of the characteristics of the various overlap 'types'): 

Type 1 is the most 'secure' as it has doublets in Matthew AND Luke (Double Doublets). Types 2-7 have a doublet in Matthew OR Luke, and Types 8-10 are those referred to by Fleddermann as 'condensed doublets,.' Types 11-12 are only likely to be considered as overlaps if there is other supporting evidence, also Types 13-15 if the text in Matthew and/or Luke is significantly different from that in Mark.

Mark       Matthew: Vv      Hawkins       Luke: Vv         Hawkins Type    Fleddermann

1:2-3 3:3 11:10 - 3:4 7:27 - 1 1. The Messenger

1:7-8 ---- 3:11-12 - ---- 3:16-17 - 10 2 John and the Coming One

1:15 4:17 10:7 D 19 9:2 10:9b - 1 -- The kingdom of God/Heaven is

1:28 ---- 9:26 - 4:37 4:14b - 6 -- Jesus' fame everywhere

1:39 4:23 9:35 D 15 4:44 13:22 - 1 -- Teaching/Preaching in synagogues

1:41 8:3a 14:31 F 5 5:13a ---- - 2 -- Stretched/Put forth his hand

--------------------------------------------------------

2:5-7 9:2b-3 ---- - 5:20-21 7:48-49 F1 3 -- Your sins are forgiven

2:8 9:4 12:25a FP4 5:22 11:17a - 1 3a. Knowing their thoughts (Beelzebul)

2:15b-16 9:10b-11 11:19a - 5:29b-30 7:34 S 1 -- Eating/drinking – publicans & sinners

--------------------------------------------------------

3:1b-6 12:10-14 ----            - 6:6b-11 14:2-4 - 3 -- The man with the withered hand / dropsy

3:21-23 9:32-34 12:22-24 D 17 ----            11:14-15 - 4 3b. Casting out devils (Beelzebul)

3:27 12:29 ---- - ---- 11:21-22 - 8 3c. The strong man (Beelezbul)

3:28-29 12:31 12:32 D ---- 12:10 - 4 4. The Unforgiveable Sin

3:35 12:50 ---- - 8:21b 11:28 - 3 -- Doing / keeping the word of God

--------------------------------------------------------

4:21 ---- 5:15 - 8:16 11:33 D 1 6 5. The Lamp…

4:22-24a ---- 10:26-27 - 8:17-18a 12:2-3 D 2 6 6. What is Hidden Will be Revealed

4:24b 7:2b 6:33b D 6:38c 12:31b D 1 7. The Measure

4:25 13:12 25:29 D 10 8:18b 19:26 D 3 1 8. To One Who Has Will be Given

4:30-32 13:31-32 ---- - ---- 13:18-19 - 8 9. The mustard seed

4:40 8:26a 6:30b - 8:35a 12:28b - 1 -- Oh ye of little faith

---------------------------------------------------------

5:34 9:22b 15:28 - 8:48 ---- - 2 -- Faith saved you / made you whole

5:35 ---- 8:8 - 8:49 7:6 F 4 6 -- Troubling the master

---------------------------------------------------------

6:8-10 ---- 10:8-13 - 9:3-4 10:4-9a D 4 6 10a. The missions of the 12 and 70

6:11a 10:14         ----    - 9:5 10:10            -       3 10b. … not receiving you … dust

6:11b 10:15         11:24 D 4 ----            10:12         D 4 10c. Sodom (Mk: & Gomorrah)

6:12-13 4:23 9:35a - 9:6 8:1 - 1 -- Teaching, preaching, healing

6:14-30 14:1-12 ---- - 9:7-10a 3:19-20 - 3 -- Herod and John

6:35a 14:15a ---- - 9:12a 24:29 P4 3 -- At the end of the day

---------------- --   Luke's Great Omission   ------------------- 

8:11 16:1 12:38 ---- 11:16 - 4 11a. Demand for a Sign

8:12-13 16:2-4 12:39 D 18 ---- 11:29 F 4 11b. No sign will be given

       8:31-32       16:21       17:22-23     -       9:22       17:25       -       1       --       The 1st passion prediction

8:33 16:23 4:10a - ---- [4:8] - 4 -- Get thee behind me Satan

8:34 16:24b 10:38 D 7 9:23b 14:27 D 5 1 12. The Cross Saying

8:35 16:25 10:39 D 8 9:24 17:33 D 6 1 13. Losing one's Life

8:38a ---- 10:32-33 - 9:26a 12:8-9 D 7 6 14. Jesus and the son of man

8:38b-9:1 16:27-28 25:31 - 9:26b-27 ---- -- 2 -- The son of man coming in glory

----------------------------------------------------------

9:32 ---- ---- - 9:45 18:34 -- 7 -- The hidden saying

9:34 18:1 ---- - 9:46 22:24 -- 3 -- Who is the greatest?

9:37 18:5 10:40 - 9:48 10:16 D 1 15. On Accepting

9:40 ---- 12:30 - 9:50b 11:23 S 6 16. On Tolerance

9:42 18:6-7 ---- - ---- 17:1b-2 -- 8 17. On Scandal (See also 17a below)

9:43 18:8 5:30 D1a ---- ---- -- 5 -- Offensive hands (On Scandal 2)

9:47 18:9 5:29 D1b ---- ---- -- 5 -- Offensive eyes (On Scandal 3)

9:50a ---- 5:13 ---- 14:34-35a -- 10 18 On salt

       ------------------ Luke's Great Insertion : 9:51 - 18:14 -----------   

10:11-12 19:9 5:32 D 2 ---- 16:18 - 4 19. On Divorce

10:17b 19:16 ---- -- 18:18 10:25 F6 3 -- Inheriting eternal life

10:29b 19:29a 10:37 F 18:29b 14:26 P 5 1 -- Leaving / hating family

10:31 19:30 20:16 D 12 ---- 13:30 - 4 20. The First and the last

10:42-45 20:25-28 23:11-12 D13 22:25-27 ---- - 2 -- Greatest shall be servant

10:46-52 20:29-34 9:27-30 F 10 18:38-39 ---- - 2 -- Have mercy on me / us

---------------------------------------------------------

11:22-23 21:21 17:20 D 11 ---- 17:6 - 4 21. On Faith

11:24 21:22 7:7-8 D ---- 11:9b-10 - 4 22. On Asking and Receiving

11:25b-26 6:14-15 6:12 D ---- 11:4a - 4 -- Forgiving debts / transgressions

---------------------------------------------------------

12:2-5 21:34-36 22:4-6 - 20:11-12 ---- - 2 -- Sending the servants

12:9b 21:41a 22:7 - 20:16 ---- - 2 -- Destroying the husbandmen

12:31 22:39 19:9 - 10:27 ---- - 2 -- Love thy neighbour as thyself

12:38b-39 23:5-7 ---- - 20:46 11:43 D 8 3 23 Greetings and first places

---------------------------------------------------------

13:1-2 24:2 ---- - 21:5-6 19:41-44 - 3 -- The time of the visitation

13:9-11 10:17-20 ---- - 21:12-15 12:11-12 F, D 9 3 24. On Confessing

13:12 10:21 10:35 D 21:16 12:53 D 1 25. Family Division

13:13a 10:22a 24:9b D 5 21:17 ---- - 2 -- Hated of all men / nations

13:13b 10:22b 24:13 D 6 21:19 ---- - 2 -- Enduring to the end

13:14-16 24:15-18 ---- - 21:21 17:31-32 - 3 -- The abomination of desolation

13:21-23 24:23-25 24:26-27 D ---- 17:23-24a - 4 26. Rumors of the Coming

13:31 24:35 5:18 D 21:33 16:17 D 1 27. Heaven and Earth

13:35-57 25:13 24:44 D 14 21:36 12:40 D 1 28. Uncertainty of the Hour

---------------------------------------------------------

14:21 26.24 18:7 D 22:22 17:1 D 1 17a. The Son of Man and That Man

14:36 26:39b 6:9b-10 D 22:42 11:2b D 1 -- Our father … your will

14:38 26:41 6:13a D 22:46b 11:4b D 1 -- Lead us not into temptation …

NOTE: This table is also shown below in re-ordered form to highlight features revelant to the issues discused here.

There are many doublets in the above table to which Fleddermann does not refer in either Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts or Q A Reconstruction and Commentary: In particular, he does not mention any of the ten Matthean doublets without a non-Markan (Q on the 2DH) parallel in Luke (Type 2), nor nine of the twelve Lukan doublets without a Q parallel in Matthew (Type 3), and in total he only notes 28 (40%) of the 69 doublets identified in the above table. This is not in any way surprising given that he is only interested in the overlaps (with their consequent doublets) that support Q as being the source of the Double Tradition. By so doing he ignores the evidence that strongly suggests that, if the doublets that he recognizes support Q, then taking all the doublets into account they support one or more sources containing much more than Q, so being the source of significantly more than just the source of the Double Tradition, for example possibily the Great Insertion. However, there still remains the question of the nature of the doublets themselves. 

Doublets: Source or Redaction?

As the above table shows, there are no doublets in either of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, with the first doublet (in both) paralleling Mk 1:2-3. Thereafter there are doublets in both Matthew and Luke with parallels in all chapters of Mark except Mk 7, 15 and 16, with the last paralleling Mk 14:38. The doublets exist whatever synoptic hypothesis is assumed, and individually they do not appear to suggest any ‘structure’ or ‘organization.’ As indicated above any of these doublets could potentially be 'redactional,' i.e. the author of the gospel wrote two different versions of something that has a parallel in Mark, or be a 'source' doublet, i.e. one half is a close parallel of the text in Mark while the other is a looser parallel from a different source. Because all doublets could potentially be redactional (so not requiring a non-synoptic source), while even a single source doublet would require such a source, it is necessary to consider all the doublets together to see if a pattern immerges that demonstrates that only one of the potential explanations (source vs. redaction) can explain what we actually see, in particular:

1) With few exceptions, the doublet halves in a Markan context in both Matthew and Luke (shown above in the left side ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’ columns respectively, e.g. Mt 3:3 and Lk 3:4) are in Markan order. Assuming Markan priority this strongly suggests that (for at least these portions of their respective gospels) both aMatthew and aLuke were using Mark directly as their source. In contrast, the doublet halves in a non-Markan (Q on the 2DH) context in both Matthew and Luke (shown above in the right-side ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’ columns respectively, e.g. Mt 11:10 and Lk 7:27) do not follow any apparent organization relative to Mark.

2) There are no doublets in either Matthew or Luke parallel to Mk 6:36 - 8:10. As Luke has no parallels to Mk 6:18-29 and 6:45 – 8:10 there cannot be doublets here in Luke, and neither Matthew nor Luke has doublets in the feeding of the five thousand (but see 5 below). The lack of doublets here is strongly connected to Luke’s Great Omission, although there is no obvious reason why that should affect Matthew (unless perhaps if Matthew used either Luke or another source related to Luke).

3) In Luke the doublet halves in a Markan context do largely follow the Markan order, but there is a large ‘jump’ following Lk 9:50 (par Mk 9:40) to Lk 18:18 (par Mk 10:17), i.e. where verses in Luke’s Great Insertion might be expected. Instead, the great majority of the ‘missing’ Lukan doublet halves that we might expect to see in the Great Insertion are present in non-Markan contexts in Luke, in no obvious order, with their ‘looser’ Markan parallels spread from Mk 1:15 to 14:38, i.e. the great majority of the non-Markan context doublet halves in Luke are in the Great Insertion.

4) The Lukan doublet halves in a non-Markan context that are NOT in the Great Insertion are also in no obvious order relative to their Markan parallels: Lk 7:27, 3:16-17, 4:14b, 7:48-49, 7:34, 19:26, 7:6, 8:1, 3:19-20, 4:8, 18:34, 22:24, 11:4a, 19:41-44, 21:14-15, except that there is a small degree of clustering, with four in Lk 7 and two in Lk 19. There are none prior to the messengers from John, nor any following the triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

5) There are no doublets in either Matthew or Luke with parallels at Mk 6:36-56, 7, 8:1-10, i.e. the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus walking on the water, what defiles a man, the Greek woman’s faith, the deaf-mute healed, and the feeding of the four thousand, with the two feedings themselves being a unique doublet in Mark (with an unknown source or sources) with parallels to both in Matthew but no parallel in Luke for the feeding of the four thousand.

The most significant point here is the location of the non-Markan doublet halves in Luke’s Great Insertion. On the Mark-Q hypothesis there are 152 verses with Q parallels that are in the Great Insertion, i.e. 42% of the 359 verses in Q, while there are also 69 parallel Q verses before the Great Insertion and only 4 after it. In other words 65% of the 230-235 (the numbers vary slightly) verses in Luke with parallels in Q are in the Great Insertion. In addition, every chapter of Mark except Mk 5, 7, 12, 15 and 16 has at least one doublet in Luke with a non-Markan parallel in the Great Insertion. Essentially, the majority of the Double Tradition (and hence also of Q) is in the Great Insertion. All but four of Fleddermann’s Mark-Q overlaps (Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9) have their non-Markan (Q) parallel in the Great Insertion, while the Great Insertion has four non-Markan parallels that are not in his overlaps.

The Doublets in Matthew

In Matthew the doublet halves in a non-Markan context are in no obvious order relative to Mark, and cover multiple topics in Mt 4-7, 9-12, 16-18, 20, 22-25 (see below) with the first at Mt 4:10a (par Mk 8:33) and the last at Mt 25:29 (par Mk 4:25). In almost exactly half of these doublets the half with the close parallel in Mark is located before that with the looser parallel (above shown in blue), with the reverse being the case in the other half (above in red). They are listed below, shown with the chapter(s) in Matthew that contain the Markan context halves (those with close parallels in Mark), with the chapters marked in red if they follow the non-Markan context halves, i.e. if the looser parallel to Mark is earlier than the close parallel. They are almost all short, pithy, sayings, instructions, etc. that would not be out of place in several locations in Matthew. There is little to no indication of them being specific to one particular part of the whole narrative, with their location bearing no obvious relation to the order of their parallels in either Mark or Luke. There are none in Mt 1-3, 8, 13-14, 16, 19, 21:

Mt 4:10a The temptation (Mt 16)

Mt 5:30, 29, 32, 18: Individual sayings from the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 11, 18, 19, 13). 

Mt 6:33b, 30b, 9b-10, 12, 13a: Prayer instructions and exhortations (Mt 7, 8, 6, 26)

Mt 7:7-8 Instructions on asking/seeking and receiving/ finding (Mt 21)

Mt 9:26, 27, 35a Fame spreading. Blind men following. Jesus healing (Mt 4, 20, 4)

Mt 10:7, 32-33, 35, 37-40 Instructions to the twelve (Mt 4, 16, 19, 16, 18)

Mt 11:10, 19a, 24 Messenger. Son of Man. Sodom/Day of judgment (Mt 3, 9, 10)

Mt 12:22-25, 32, 38-39 Beelzebub. Unforgiveable sin. Seeking a sign (Mt 9, 12, 16)

Mt 15:28 Great faith (Mt 9)

Mt 17:5b, 20, 22-23 Voice from heaven/cloud. Power of faith. Betrayal and death (Mt 3, 21, 16)

Mt 18:7 Woe. That man (Mt 26)

Mt 20:16 First and last (Mt 19)

Mt 22:4-7 The trouble with servants (Mt 21)

Mt 23:6-7, 11-12, 27 Chief seats, greetings, exalting, Hypocrites (Mt 23)

Mt 24:9b, 13, 17-18, 26, 44 Hated, enduring, Lot's wife, rumors, be ready / watch out (Mt 10, 24, 24)

Mt 25:29 Having and giving (Mt 13)

As would be expected, the earlier in Matthew one half of a doublet is, the more likely it is that the other half will be later (and vice versa) as seen above. However, what is surprising here is just how far apart the locations of some of the doublets halves are, with Mt 4:10 (the first doublet half in Matthew) and Mt 16:23 being a good example, with the locations suggesting there were two versions of the same saying (The Lukan parallel is also shown below because it is clearly related, having close parallels at Mk 8:33 / Mt 16:23 and Lk 4:8 / Mt 4:10):

Mk 8:33 But when He had turned about and looked on His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get thee behind

 Me, Satan; for thou savorest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.”

Mt 16:23 But He turned and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind Me, Satan! Thou art an offense unto Me;

for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

Mt 4:10 Then said Jesus unto him, “Get thee hence, Satan!

For it is written: ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’”

Lk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan:

 For it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Mt 16:23 is a much closer parallel to Mk 8:33 than to Mt 4:10, with Mt 4:10 rebuking Satan directly rather than suggesting that Peter is acting like Satan. This is partly the result of Mark having no parallel to most of the temptation, but also because:

• Either aMark or aMatthew added a much later version of what we see in Mt 4:10 that applied to Peter rather than Satan (because one saw what the other had written and slightly modified it), or:

• Both saw a close version in another source.

The further apart the two halves of a doublet are in any of the gospels the harder it is to believe that the author simply re-used a phrase, saying, etc. on a whim, i.e. that another factor was not involved. On the assumption that the doublets listed above are source doublets, where we see a doublet in Matthew or Luke with one half having a close parallel to Mark and the other half having a looser parallel it is generally considered that the author of that gospel used Mark as the basis for the parallel in the Markan context, while the half in the non-Markan context is a looser parallel from a different source. Depending on the hypothesis that source might respectively have been Luke or Matthew, or another (non-synoptic) source (SS), with the most often assumed such source being Q.

Whatever the source, it is reasonable to assume that the location of the looser doublet half in that source would affect its location in its destination gospel, and while that is the case to some extent what we actually see is more complicated. For example, from the writer's Double Tradition Doublets in the 'Main Sequence' :

On the MwQH aMatthew either included an edited version of Mk 8:33 at Mt 4:10 and later added a more faithful version at Mt 16:23, or backtracked in order to add Mt 4:10 after having already written Mt 16:23. In either case aLuke ignored Mt 16:23 and may not have seen any reference to Satan in Mt 4:10.

On the 2DH both aMatthew and aLuke included a version of Q 4:8, and aMatthew then later included a version of Mk 8:33 in his first passion prediction, while aLuke did not. On this hypothesis it is likely that Q 4:8 (like Lk 4:8) did not include any mention of Satan, and that both Mt 4:10b and Lk 4:8b were later added to match Mt 16:23.

In either case aMatthew placed his version of Mk 8:33 at Mt 16:23, with aLuke not showing knowledge of either.  A similar analysis can be performed on the other doublets in Matthew with parallels in Mark, and on the assumption that Matthew wrote close parallels to text he saw in Mark this leads to the following questions:

• Why did aMatthew chose to write so many looser parallels of the same Markan text – in a different order?

• Why is there is no sign of organization in the order of the Matthean doublet halves in a non-Markan (e.g. Q) context?

• If the doublets are ‘redactional’ how did Matthew choose what to ‘repeat’ (so creating the doublet) and what not to repeat?

In his conclusion to Order in the Double Tradition and the Existence of Q  Jefffrey Peterson writes:

… we return to Lummis, who again states a fundamental point at issue with remarkable clarity:

Agreement in order, extensive enough to exclude mere coincidence is a much stronger argument for community than disagreement in order against community. The inference: ‘Lk. departs from the order of Mt.; therefore he cannot have known Mt.’ implies the major premiss ‘No writer who uses a document ever for any reason rearranges the matter which he borrows’; and this is plainly false. On the other hand the difference in order is by no means insignificant, and must not be ignored. No dependence-theory, for instance, can be considered satisfactory unless it either accounts for the order in the dependent gospel or at least discloses some reason for the disturbance of order, and indicates some principle of arrangement in the secondary document.

Kloppenborg has agreed with David Catchpole that ‘if it could be shown in a systematic fashion that Luke could be derived from Matthew (and Mark), Q would become a superfluous supposition’. A full presentation of the case that Luke derived his double tradition material from Matthew rather than Q would take the form of a commentary on the Gospel that first exhibited the literary strategy of Luke’s two volumes and then accounted for his use of his extant sources (i.e., Mark and Matthew). My aim here has been the more modest one of identifying some principles of Luke’s arrangement that may aid in accounting for his arrangement of the double tradition and so call into question both the Lucan Order Axiom and the hypothesis of Q.

Since Streeter, it has been common to answer objections raised to the independence of Matthew and Luke (and therefore to the necessity of Q) by a strategy of divide et impera: the various forms of agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark are sorted into separate bins (Minor Agreements, Mark/Q overlaps, double tradition) and accounted for in different ways. This strategy obscures the very range of Matthew’s agreement with Luke that is not mediated by Mark. For the Two-Source Hypothesis to retain its plausibility, this category must remain in the background. The Farrer hypothesis accounts for all these agreements by positing Luke’s use of Matthew as well as Mark. In recasting the story of Jesus previously told by these two predecessors in writing (and perhaps others as well), Luke creates his narrative via three broad compositional methods: (1) he follows Mark, with echoes of Matthew small (whence the Minor Agreements) or great (whence the overlaps); (2) he follows Matthew, sometimes closely (in verbatim double tradition), sometimes more distantly (in double tradition with divergent wording); and (3) he passes on or composes material uniquely his.

The point that Lummis makes is essentially this: The chances of Matthew and Luke agreeing in order without one knowing the gospel of the other or both knowing another source are tiny. However, even if one knew the other’s gospel or they used a common source it would be perfectly reasonable for one to deviate (perhaps significantly so) from the other for various reasons. However, the greater the deviation the less likely the use of a common source. In How Was The Double Tradition Created? the writer posed the following questions:

If Mark was the last of the synoptic gospels to be written the Double Tradition would be material common to Matthew and Luke that aMark (the author of Mark) chose not include in his gospel. While we have no knowledge regarding why aMark might have done this, it would be something that he certainly could have chosen to do, and on this hypothesis there is no problem regarding how the Double Tradition was created. If instead Mark was the first synoptic gospel to be written (so assuming what is generally known as Markan priority) then the Double Tradition is material not in Mark that both aMatthew and aLuke chose to put in their respective gospels. The questions that then arise are how did they both come to include the same material and what was its source, the answers to which are highly dependent on the assumed synoptic hypothesis.

concluding:

On the assumption that there was a non-Markan second source for Matthew and Luke and that aLuke used Matthew, there may have been agreements in order in the Double Tradition resulting from aMatthew and aLuke both selecting the same text from the second source and placing that text in the same order, but that aLuke later re-arranged when adding additional text from Matthew, including possibly more of the text from the second source that he saw was also in Matthew, and that he had not previously used himself.

In addition, because on the 2DH the order of the Double Tradition in Luke is largely the same as the order of the same material in Q, then it is obvious that the same could apply to any other second source containing the Double Tradition. Consequently exactly the same arguments can be made regarding the order of the Double Tradition text in that second source, whether it is Q, an expanded version of Q (see What Exactly is Q?), an early version of Luke, or any other source containing some or all of the Double Tradition text.

The question then is: How does the order of the Double Tradition in Matthew compare with that in Luke, and (consequently) that assumed to have been in Q? Given that the majority of the Mark-Q Overlaps identified by Fledderman feature doublets in Luke and even more also feature doublets in Matthew it is worth comparing (in both), whether the Markan half of a doublet is located either before or after the non-Markan (i.e. Q) half. What we find is that 63% of those doublets in Luke have the non-Markan (Q) half following the Markan half, whereas in Matthew the opposite is the case, with 62% having the Markan half following the non-Markan (Q) half. If that is taken as a ‘proxy’ for how both Matthew and Luke viewed their sources, then on the 2DH Matthew prioritized the non-Markan (Q) material over that from Mark while Luke did the opposite, with most of his ‘Q’ text being found in the Great Insertion. Of course, if either Matthew or Luke used the gospel of the other then this cannot explain why this difference in the orders exists.

The Doublets in Luke

There is a different issue in Luke, because here the great majority of the non-Markan (Q on the 2DH) doublet halves are located in a largely unique section of Luke – the Great Insertion, so (not surprisingly) also are the great majority of Fleddermann’s Mark-Q overlap texts (Only Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 24 are not). Unlike in Matthew, in 24 (nearly 2/3) of the doublets in Luke the Markan halves precede the non-Markan halves, with only 14 (nearly 1/3) having the non-Markan halves before the Markan halves.

In Luke the doublet halves in a Markan context do largely follow the Markan order, but there is a large ‘jump’ following Lk 9:50 (par Mk 9:40) to Lk 18:18 (par Mk 10:17), i.e. where verses in Luke’s Great Insertion might be expected. Instead, the great majority of the ‘missing’ Lukan doublet halves that we see in the Great Insertion are present in non-Markan contexts in Luke, in no obvious order, with their ‘looser’ Markan parallels spread from Mk 1:15 to 14:38, i.e. the great majority of the non-Markan context doublet halves in Luke are in the Great Insertion.

The Lukan doublet halves in a non-Markan context that are NOT in the Great Insertion are also in no obvious order relative to their Markan parallels: Lk 7:27, 3:16-17, 4:14b, 7:48-49, 7:34, 19:26, 7:6, 8:1, 3:19-20, 4:8, 18:34, 22:24, 11:4a, 19:41-44, 21:14-15, except that there is a small degree of clustering, with four in Lk 7 and two in Lk 19. There are none prior to the messengers from John, and only two following the triumphal entry into Jerusalem in Lk 19.

On the Mark-Q hypothesis the Great Insertion includes 152 verses that have parallels in Q, i.e. 42% of the 359 Q verses, while there are also 69 parallel Q verses before the Great Insertion and only 4 after it. In other words 65% of the 230-235 (the numbers vary slightly) verses in Luke with parallels in Q are in the Great Insertion. In addition, every chapter of Mark except Mk 5, 7, 12, 15 and 16 has at least one doublet in Luke with a non-Markan parallel in the Great Insertion. Essentially, the majority of the Double Tradition (and hence also of Q) is in the Great Insertion. All but four of Fleddermann’s Mark-Q overlaps (Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9) have their non-Markan (Q) parallel in the Great Insertion, while the Great Insertion has four non-Markan parallels that are not in his overlaps.

While it is just conceivable that aLuke, in the middle of writing his gospel, could break off nearly half way through and insert a highly cut-down and completely re-ordered version of the Markan parallels he had just written (and some he had yet to write!) – BEFORE then continuing to write the final section of his gospel using much closer parallels to Mark, it seems much more likely that he had available another document containing much of what we see as Lk 9:51 – 18:14, or perhaps something close to it - a 'second source' or SS. Grünstäudl records that:

As for the third characteristic (‘non-Markan half with parallel in Luke’), Morgenthaler emphasises [sic] that these non-Markan halves ‘never’ appear in the same context as in Matthew, that all of them can be found within the great insertion Luke 9.51–18.14 (with the sole exception of Luke 19.26) and that all of them fit snugly within their immediate contexts. Taken together, these observations form an impressive pattern leading to the conclusion that the non-Markan halves of these eight doublets stem from a common source (‘Q’) used by Matthew and Luke besides Mark. According to Morgenthaler, ‘no other explanation makes sense’.

Whether the source that Grünstäudl refers to was Q as in the 2DH or something else (SS), this does suggest that these doublets are all connected in some way. Also notable in the table above is that, with few exceptions, in the parallels to verses in the early chapters of Mark both aMatthew and aLuke locate their doublets so that the half in a Markan context is located before the half in a non-Markan context – often with several chapters of that gospel separating the two halves of the doublet. Then, between Mk 6:35 and 8:11 there is a large gap with no corresponding 'overlaps' in either Matthew or Luke, that corresponds closely to the majority of the Great Omission in Luke. Following this is the Great Insertion, after which aLuke largely reverses the order of his doublet halves, so that the Lukan halves in Markan contexts are located before those in non-Markan contexts, in this respect following Matthew who, much earlier, had largely changed from Markan context first to non-Markan context first.

What perhaps is most puzzling is that, assuming Markan priority, both Matthew and Luke appear to have taken many of the same small pieces of text in Mark and incorporated them (or versions thereof) into their own gospels, often in two different places that we refer to as doublets. In both gospels those pieces of text that are close to the Markan text (so in a Markan context) closely follow the Markan order (which suggests that they both knew Mark), while the much looser parallels of the same Markan text (so in a non-Markan context) are in different orders in the two gospels. Those in Matthew are spread throughout that gospel in no obvious order, but the great majority of those in Luke are gathered together in The Great Insertion, in what we see as their own unique order. The different orderings of the non-Markan doublet halves in Matthew and Luke strongly suggest that something other than respectively Luke and Matthew has influenced those orders.

The Doublets Grouped by Type

Assuming Markan priority, then where both Matthew and Luke have a close parallel to text in Mark (so in a Markan context) and both also have a looser parallel to the same text in Mark (in a non-Markan context) there is both triple tradition and Double Tradition text, i.e. Mk / Mt1 / Lk1 and Mt2 / Lk2, which could be expressed as Mk  /  Mt1 // Mt2  /  Lk1 // Lk2, where ‘/’ denotes a parallel in the same context, and ‘//’ denotes a parallel in a different context, i.e. a doublet. So, Mk / Mt1 / Lk1 are triple tradition (TT) parallels, Mt2 / Lk2 are Double Tradition parallels, and Mt1 // Mt2 and Lk1 // Lk2 are both doublets.

However, what would be the situation if any of the Matthean or Lukan portions of text did not exist? Suppose we had Mk  /  xxx // Mt2  /  Lk1 // Lk2, i.e. Mk / Lk1 had no parallel in Matthew. We would then have a Mark / Luke parallel at Mk / Lk1 instead of a Triple Tradition parallel, but still have the Double Tradition parallel Mt2 / Lk2, and there would only be one doublet, at Lk1 // Lk2. This is just one example where part of a potential doublet or a parallel does not exist, and the table below shows all possible combinations of Markan parallels and/or doublets in Matthew and Luke.

In the table blue denotes text in a Markan context, and red denotes text in a non-Markan context (so possibly parallel to text in another source, e.g. Q or SS), with all doublets having text in both, with a shaded background identifying the doublets. Only twelve of the fifteen combinations contain doublets and/or parallels in a non-Markan context. Seven contain doublets, and twelve contain parallels in a non-Markan context.

Of course, if the doublets were due to there being another source there would also be parallels and doublets involving that source, together with a second ‘triple tradition,’ none of which we can see (because we don’t know the other source), but can imagine. However, by categorizing all the doublets and overlaps according to how they appear using the patterns in the table below we may be able to tell whether the numbers of parallels and doublets point to a non-extant source or not.

Only one combination (Type 1) contains double doublets, with Types 2-7 each containing one doublet, in either Matthew or Luke. All 7 of these types (if they exist) can be identified because they have unique patterns of parallels and doublets. Only Types 1, 4, 6, and 10 contain non-Markan context (i.e. Double Tradition) parallels that on the 2DH could be in Q.

While Types 8 and 9 do contain either a Matthean or Lukan parallel in a non-Markan context, there is no doublet by which the non-Markan text can be identified, and hence it may appear to be Triple Tradition text, being only identifiable by the similarity to Mark in either Matthew or Luke (but not both), with Luke or Matthew (respectively) instead being significantly different. One of the most well known of this type of (possible) ‘overlap’ between two sources is The Strong Man (Mk 3:27 / Mt 12:29 / Lk 11:21-22), in which Mark and Matthew are similar but Luke is significantly different.

Types 10-12 are similar to types 8 and 9 in that there are no doublets, but here both Matthew and Luke are in a non-Markan context, i.e. both saw the version in Mark but for whatever reason either one or both chose to use a different version (e.g. from another source) in their respective gospels. However, unless copying between Matthew and Luke is ruled out Type 10 instead could be due to one using the non-Markan version written by the other.

Type 13-15 appear to be simply Markan context parallels. However, there is the possibility of there being two sources with similar text, which could be identified if it appears there is a small portion of Triple Tradition (TT) text embedded a larger portion of Double Tradition (DT) text.

The great majority of the doublets are of Types 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, with Fleddermann not reporting any of Type 2, 5 and 7. 

Mark     Matthew Luke TT Parallels DT Parallels Doublets     Type

Mk     Mt1 Mt2 Lk1 Lk2 Mk / Mt1 / Lk1   Mt2 / Lk2 Mt1 // Mt2 and Lk1 // Lk2 1

Mk   Mt1 Mt2 Lk1   - Mk / Mt1 / Lk1 - Mt1 // Mt2 2

Mk   Mt1   - Lk1 Lk2 Mk / Mt1 / Lk1 - Lk1 // Lk2 3

Mk    Mt1 Mt2   - Lk2     - Mt2 / Lk2 Mt1 // Mt2 4

Mk   Mt1 Mt2   -   -     - - Mt1 // Mt2 5

Mk     - Mt2 Lk1 Lk2     - Mt2 / Lk2               Lk1 // Lk2 6

Mk     -     - Lk1 Lk2     -         -         Lk1 // Lk2 7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mk  Mt1   -   - Lk2     - -   ‘Condensed Doublet’         8

Mk     - Mt2 Lk1   -     - - ‘Condensed Doublet'         9

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mk     - Mt2   - Lk2     - Mt2 / Lk2 ‘Condensed Doublet’       10

Mk     - Mt2   -   -     - -     -       11

Mk     -   -     - Lk2     - -     -       12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mk  Mt1   - Lk1   - Mk / Mt1 / Lk1           - Triple Tradition               13

Mk   Mt1   -   -   -     -           - Mk - Mt parallel       14

Mk     -     - Lk1   -     - - Mk - Lk parallel       15

SMk     -     -   -   -     - - Sondergut Mark       16

Because of the significant differences between the writer’s list of doublets and Fledderman’s overlapping but much shorter list of ‘overlap texts,’ it is necessary to highlight both the similarities and differences based on the format of the overlap texts according to the doublet types, as shown below in the ‘Type’ column of this re-ordered version of the initial table. As previously the left-side verses in both Matthew and Luke are direct parallels to Mark, and the right-side verses have no direct parallel and so are in a non-Markan (Q on the 2DH) context, and again verses in Luke's Great Insertion are  highlighted. Each group of doublets is followed by a comment on that group.

Mark       Matthew: Vv      Hawkins       Luke: Vv         Hawkins Type    Fleddermann

1:2-3 3:3 11:10 - 3:4 7:27 - 1 1. The Messenger

1:15 4:17 10:7 D 19 9:2 10:9b - 1 -- The kingdom of God/Heaven is

1:39 4:23-24 9:35 D 15 4:44 13:22 - 1 -- Teaching/Preaching in synagogues

2:8 9:4 12:25a FP4 5:22 11:17a - 1 3a. Knowing their thoughts (Beelzebul)

2:15b-16 9:10b-11 11:19a - 5:29b-30 7:34 S 1 -- Eating/drinking – publicans & sinners

4:24b 7:2b 6:33b D 6:38c 12:31b D 1 7. The Measure

4:25 13:12 25:29 D 10 8:18b 19:26 D 3 1 8. To One Who Has Will be Given

4:40 8:26a 6:30b - 8:35a 12:28b - 1 -- Oh ye of little faith

6:12-13 4:23 9:35a - 9:6 8:1 - 1 -- Teaching, preaching, healing

       8:31-32       16:21       17:22-23     -       9:22       17:25       -       1       --       The 3rd passion prediction

8:34b 16:24 10:38 D 7 9:23b 14:27 D 5 1 12. The Cross Saying

8:35 16:25 10:39 D 8 9:24 17:33 D 6 1 13. Losing one's Life

9:37 18:5 10:40 - 9:48 10:16 D 1 15. On Accepting

10:29b 19:29a 10:37a F 18:29b 14:26 P 5 1 -- Leaving / hating family

13:12 10:21 10:35 D 21:16 12:53 D 1 25. Family Division

13:31 24:35 5:18 D 21:33 16:17 D 1 27. Jesus' Words

13:35-37 25:13 24:44 D 14 21:36 12:40 D 1 28. Uncertainty of the Hour

14:21 26.24 18:7 D 22:22 17:1 D 1 17a. The Son of Man and That Man

14:36 26:39b 6:9b-10 D 22:42 11:2b D 1 -- Our father … your will

14:38 26:41 6:13a D 22:46b 11:4b D 1 -- Lead us not into temptation …

All the immediately above doublets in both Matthew and Luke (double doublets) contain text in both Markan and non-Markan contexts, hence on the assumption of a source SS (Q on the 2DH) they all represent Mark-SS overlaps, including the nine that Fleddermann does not mention nor identify as such (Lk/Q 7:34, 8:1, 10:9b, 11:2, 13:22, 19:26) even though they ‘fit’ within the bounds of Q.

Mark       Matthew: Vv      Hawkins       Luke: Vv         Hawkins Type    Fleddermann

3:21-23 9:32-34 12:22-24 D 17 ----            11:14-15 - 4 3b. The Beelzebul Controversy 

3:28-29 12:31 12:32 D ---- 12:10 - 4 4. The Unforgiveable Sin

6:11b 10:15         11:24 D 4 ----            10:12         D 4 10c. Sodom (Mk: & Gomorrah)

8:11 16:1 12:38 ---- 11:16 - 4 11a. Demand for a Sign

8:12-13 16:2-4 12:39 D 18 ---- 11:29 F 4 11b. No sign will be given

8:33 16:23 4:10a - ---- [4:8] - 4 -- Get thee behind me Satan

10:11-12 19:9 5:32 D 2 ---- 16:18 - 4 19. On Divorce

10:31 19:30 20:16 D 12 ---- 13:30 - 4 20. The First and the last

11:22-23 21:21 17:20 D 11 ---- 17:6 - 4 21. On Faith

11:24 21:22 7:7-8 D ---- 11:9b-10 - 4 22. On Asking and Rreceiving

11:25b-26 6:14-15 6:12 D ---- 11:4a - 4 -- Forgiving debts / transgressions

13:21-23 24:23-25 24:26-27 D ---- 17:23-24a - 4 26. Rumors of the Coming …

Although here there are doublets in Matthew only, the parallels in non-Markan contexts in both Matthew and Luke mean that on the 2DH they should all be present in Q, although again there are some that on the 2DH are not identified by Fleddermann as Mark-Q overlaps.

Mark       Matthew: Vv      Hawkins       Luke: Vv         Hawkins Type    Fleddermann

1:28 ---- 9:26 - 4:37 4:14b - 6 -- Jesus' fame everywhere