It was intentional, not accidental. I consolidated earlier material because the substantive points weren’t being addressed directly and were instead being met with repeated appeals to alternative possibilities (Q, Farrer, scribal fluidity, multiple Markan recensions) without committing to any one of them or showing how it actually accounts for the specific patterns I outlined.
That said, I’m happy to adjust format going forward. To keep things focused, I suggest we fix one model and one pericope and test it concretely. For example: how does a single explanatory model account for the Mark-aware narrative relocation and Matthew–Luke agreement in the John the Baptist messengers material or the mission instructions, without shifting assumptions mid-argument?
I’m not trying to multiply text; I’m trying to get clarity on how the data are being explained.
- There’s nothing unusual about my use of replacement. When you replace something, you replace it. Replacement does not normally involve preserving large portions of the original, intertwining them structurally with the new work, and retaining the original narrative skeleton.
If you replace the galley on the Ship of Theseus, it’s still the Ship of Theseus. If you buy a new ship and stop using the Ship of Theseus altogether, that is replacement. Matthew and Luke do the former, not the latter. They preserve Mark’s narrative framework, pericope sequence, and even its awkward transitions, while revising and supplementing it. That is constrained redaction, not replacement.
Matthew and Luke may not have expected Mark to remain necessary after their Gospels circulated, but Mark becoming unnecessary is not the result of being replaced — it is the result of being preserved. Mark’s words and narrative logic live on inside Matthew and Luke. Redundancy through incorporation is not replacement by substitution.
So if the objection is that a second Mark-dependent narrative “would have replaced Mark and therefore Mark wouldn’t still be around,” that objection is conceptually broken. It assumes texts behave like software upgrades rather than layered compositions. By that logic, a redactor would have no need of E because J already exists — which is obviously false. Redaction does not eliminate sources; it absorbs them.
In short: replacement means discarding and substituting a narrative framework. Matthew and Luke do not discard Mark’s framework. Therefore Mark was not replaced — by them or by any hypothetical second narrative. That objection fails at the level of basic definition, not evidence.
- You did, in fact, make that claim. Earlier in this thread you wrote:
- “The most likely historical context of the composition of the gospel of Mark was post–70 CE.”
That is an explicit dating claim. My response addressed the standard assumptions normally used to justify that position. If you are relying on a different set of assumptions, then you need to state them; calling this a “strawman” does not engage the claim you actually made.
For the record, I keep offline copies of the thread, so there’s no confusion about what was said or when.
Robert, that’s not a strawman.
You yourself raised the issue by asking, in your own words:
“What is your evidence that the Transfiguration was a later addition to the gospel of Mark?”
So I gave the evidence and explained what follows from it. That is responding to the question you asked.
Calling it a strawman only works if I claimed you were using the Transfiguration to prove a “late reflective Mark.” I didn’t. I was addressing the interpretive stakes of the pericope and why secondary insertion is a better explanation of its tensions than authorial composition.
You can’t raise a question, invite an inference (“give your evidence this is secondary”), and then cry “strawman” when I answer by discussing what that evidence implies about how the passage functions in arguments about Mark. If you just want the evidence without any interpretive consequences drawn out, say so—but then don’t label the fuller response a strawman.
- Your objection misunderstands what counts as evidence in historical analysis.
Appeals to what an author would or would not do are not arbitrary assertions; they are grounded in social, religious, and historical context. As Dale Martin (Yale) puts it, religion cannot be divorced from its social, political, and historical context. First-century Jewish authors do not write in a vacuum, and they do not casually contradict the symbolic systems they are actively constructing.
In first-century Judaism there is no concept of reincarnation, avatars, or the reappearance of prophetic figures as independent heavenly beings walking around on mountains. Elijah’s “return” was understood typologically and eschatologically, not as a literal reappearance alongside Moses. Mark himself spends significant narrative capital constructing John the Baptist as Elijah returned—through clothing, wilderness setting, prophetic role, and finally Jesus’ explicit identification in Mark 9:11–13.
Against that backdrop, staging Elijah as a separate, visible figure on a mountain while simultaneously insisting Elijah has already come is not subtle theology; it is narrative dissonance. That tension demands explanation.
And the explanation cannot be “Mark liked contradictions,” because Mark demonstrably does not waste ink resolving or explaining far simpler matters. He does not explain who Levi bar Alphaeus is. He does not explain Salome. He does not explain James the Younger. He does not clean up his scriptural attributions. He does not even give his Gospel a proper ending. This is an author writing under constraint, not one luxuriating in speculative symbolism.
So the claim is not “Mark would never contradict himself because authors are perfect.”
The claim is: Mark would not spend scarce time, ink, and material resources introducing a theologically incoherent scene that undermines a major narrative investment, while leaving far more basic issues untouched.
Invoking “assumptions” here misses the point. Historical criticism necessarily reasons from what is culturally intelligible and what is not. Suggesting that Mark deliberately introduced something functionally indistinguishable from pagan or reincarnation motifs into a Jewish apocalyptic framework—without explanation, justification, or payoff—is not cautious skepticism; it is special pleading.
If one wants to deny secondary insertion, then one must explain why Mark undermines his own Elijah typology at the climax of that theme. Simply dismissing contextual reasoning as “assumptions” is not an argument.
- Heaping bad-faith arguments and regurgitating consensus positions, it’s beginning to look like you’re unable to recognize evidence when it’s actually presented.
I am not changing my position. I am doing what compositional and redaction criticism routinely does: distinguishing between a narrative core and later expansions layered onto it. Treating that distinction as a “retreat” or “shift” is a misunderstanding of the method, not a flaw in the argument.
Nothing in Mark 9 requires that the original mountain scene included Moses and Elijah at all. The inner-circle ascent, the divine voice, and the descent dialogue are narratively coherent without a literal encounter with Moses and Elijah. In fact, the descent question — “Why do the scribes say Elijah must come first?” — makes better narrative sense if Elijah has not just visibly appeared. As the text now stands, the question is oddly redundant.
That is not conjecture; it is a straightforward narrative diagnosis. The Moses–Elijah apparition is the element that introduces tension with Mark’s sustained identification of John the Baptist as Elijah and creates a problem the text itself never resolves. Identifying which component generates that strain is not “heaping assumptions,” it is isolating the source of the inconsistency.
Appealing to the long ending of Mark is not piling speculation on speculation; it establishes a control case. Mark demonstrably underwent later supplementation. Once that is conceded — and it must be — it becomes methodologically reasonable to ask whether other passages showing similar seams and tensions may reflect the same process. That is how historical inference works.
Dismissing contextual reasoning as “assumptions about what an author would do” effectively rejects historical criticism altogether. Authors write within symbolic, theological, and cultural constraints. If we are not allowed to reason from those constraints, then no claims about intention, coherence, redaction, or composition are possible — including the consensus positions you keep invoking.
If you want to deny secondary expansion here, then the burden is on you to explain why Mark undermines his own Elijah typology, introduces narrative redundancy, and expends scarce narrative capital resolving none of it. Simply labeling this analysis “conjecture” does not address the problem; it avoids it.
- Historical argument does not work without reasoning from constraint, incentive, and context. If you dismiss that as illegitimate, then you’ve just undercut redaction criticism, source criticism, and the criterion of embarrassment—methods you rely on everywhere else when it suits you.
You are asking me to believe that an author writing after 70 CE, with knowledge of the Siege of Jerusalem, the Bar Giora revolt, the collapse of Jewish leadership, and decades of theological reflection, would write under the same constraints as someone writing around the time Peter was killed under Nero. That’s absurd.
A post-70 author would have:
•safety,
•time,
•access to materials,
•peers to review his work,
•and every incentive to clean up theology and embarrassment.
Yet Mark preserves:
•Jesus’ family thinking he’s insane,
•rejection at Nazareth,
•narrative ambiguity around Jesus’ birth,
•Jesus as a carpenter (which Luke clearly suppresses),
•disciples who consistently fail and misunderstand,
•unresolved scriptural errors,
•and an abrupt, unfinished ending.
You’re telling me an author writing comfortably after 70—after the trauma, after the dust settled—had no incentive to fix any of this? That he deliberately kept material later evangelists felt compelled to correct? That he chose to preserve embarrassment, incoherence, and unfinished narrative while having the leisure and resources to improve it?
That’s not skepticism. That’s special pleading.
This has nothing to do with “mixing in arguments about dating.” Dating follows from the evidence. Constraint leaves fingerprints. Embarrassment leaves fingerprints. Narrative roughness leaves fingerprints. Mark is covered in them.
And stop hiding behind “critical consensus.” Consensus is not evidence—it’s a conclusion. If you’re going to appeal to it, then you need to engage the actual reasons scholars give for it. Simply repeating the conclusion while dismissing the counter-evidence as “assumptions” isn’t argument; it’s regurgitation.
All the evidence points in one direction: Mark reads like a text produced early, under pressure, with no opportunity for refinement—not like a post-70 theological composition written with hindsight, safety, and time. If you’re going to deny that, then you need to explain why Mark looks exactly like a constrained, early text and not like the kind of document a post-70 author would actually produce.
- Robert, this has already been addressed — in detail — and pretending otherwise doesn’t make the evidence disappear.
I laid out the duplication/consolidation pattern explicitly: Luke preserves both Mark’s Jairus’s Daughter and a clear Mark-template alternative in the Widow’s Son (mirroring structure while reversing elements). Matthew, by contrast, does not preserve both. He consolidates: he folds the Widow’s Son’s resolution logic into his Jairus account, just as he does elsewhere by merging blind-healing stories, collapsing demon traditions, and stacking logia into unified discourses. That is not assertion; it is observable redactional behavior.
So when you now say “dare I ask for evidence,” that’s not a request — it’s a refusal to acknowledge what’s already been put on the table.
What makes this especially disingenuous is that you yourself said earlier:
“Up until now, my questions have only been directed toward clarifying your views… There’s certainly no need to repeat your points.”
- Yet here you are demanding “evidence” for a point that has already been argued, illustrated, and situated within a broader, consistent redactional model.
You don’t get to complain about repetition while simultaneously ignoring the substance and then asking for it again as if it were never given.
At this point, the issue is not whether evidence has been supplied — it has. The issue is whether you are willing to recognize pattern-based evidence at all, or whether anything short of a footnote that already agrees with the critical consensus will be dismissed out of hand.
And yes — invoking the consensus again does nothing here. I’m fully aware of it. My entire model was tested against it. Repeating it as if it were an argument does not engage the data I’ve presented, and it certainly doesn’t refute it.
You have Brandolini’s law on your side, it’s only fair you address what you have failed to acknowledge or address.
I have already laid out pericope-level evidence in detail: duplication vs. consolidation behavior, Mark-template substitution narratives, shared narrative sequencing, redistribution of blocks across divergent frames, and Mark-aware remodeling that cannot be reduced to verbal coincidence. You have not engaged that evidence. You have repeatedly ignored it and then asked for it again.
The fact that you continue to call these phenomena “minor agreements” tells me everything I need to know. That terminology only works if you refuse to actually read the texts side by side. These are not minor verbal overlaps; they are large-scale narrative correspondences and redactional patterns. Anyone willing to open a New Testament and use a highlighter can see that.
What’s preventing engagement here is not lack of clarity on my part. It’s a prior commitment to the idea that the critical consensus cannot be wrong. That commitment is so strong that you won’t even slow down and look at the pericopes themselves without filtering them through inherited categories.
I am not asking you to accept my model. I am asking you to do the work:
take one pericope, read Matthew and Luke carefully, and explain—step by step—how your preferred model accounts for the shared narrative logic, block redistribution, and Mark-dependent remodeling I’ve already described.
Until you do that, repeatedly invoking “minor agreements,” “Q,” or “the consensus” is not engagement. It’s avoidance.
I’ve done the analytical labor. If you want to continue this discussion, the burden is now on you to demonstrate that you’re willing to actually look at the texts rather than defend conclusions you learned in coursework.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
- Both Matthew and Luke’s The Parable of the Wicked Tenants starts off as Jesus starting to tell a new parable onto of other parables he just told the crowd, whereas Mark’s version makes it seem like “The Parable of the Tenants” was the first parable he tells the crow.
- Both Matthew and Luke neglect to pluralize “Parable” like in Mark’s version.
- After Mark’s version states “They will respect my son” it is then followed up by “But those tenants said to one another…” Where as Matthew and Luke’s version follows the son being respected line with “But when the tenants saw…they said to themselves”
- Both Matthew and Luke omit the line: “But those tenants said to one another”, keep the words “but” and “tenants” and incorporate them into the replacing line: “But when the tenants saw the son/him they said to themselves…”
- Mark’s version has a line that goes “and they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.” Matthew and Luke’s version is inverse “threw him out of the vineyard and killed him”
- Matthew and Luke’s version share this statement, “who falls on… stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” Which is left out of Mark’s version.
- Mark’s version doesn’t have audience interaction after Jesus asking “What will the owner of the vineyard do?” Matthew and Luke’s version has the audience replying to Jesus questions about the vineyard owners following actions.
- Mark’s version ends with Jesus being hunted by “they” in the general sense. Both Matthew and Luke’s version mentions “the chief priests”
- Mark’s version has “but” precede “feared the people” (but feared the people); while Matthew and Luke’s version has “they feared the crowds/people”
- “It is very peculiar that Matthew expands the Isaiah 5 passage Mark used in the Tenants pericope in a manner closely analogous to how Luke expands the Isaiah 40 passage Mark used in the ‘John the Baptist Prepares the Way’ scene, another passage suspected of deriving from a second narrative layer. Given this pattern, it is at least plausible that the expansion of these Isaiah texts predates both Matthew and Luke and may belong to the same secondary narrative tradition rather than representing independent redaction by each evangelist.”
Calling these agreements “minor” does not resolve the problem; it re-labels it. The issue is not the size of individual verbal overlaps in isolation, but the cumulative pattern of coordinated redaction. Matthew and Luke repeatedly agree against Mark at multiple narrative levels—framing, sequencing, inversion, supplementation, and clarification—while simultaneously diverging from one another in surface wording. This is precisely the sort of phenomenon that resists explanation by coincidence or by independent, ad hoc smoothing.
Nor can this pattern be dismissed as Matthew and Luke independently “fixing” Mark in the same way. Independent redactors do not repeatedly select the same points of intervention, preserve the same Markan lexical anchors, embed non-Markan material at the same structural junctures, and arrive at the same narrative solutions while differing only in stylistic execution. That degree of alignment requires either direct literary dependence or a shared intermediary.
Direct dependence of Matthew on Luke or Luke on Matthew does not resolve the difficulty. If one evangelist simply copied the other, the question immediately reappears: where did the non-Markan material that generates tension with Mark originate? Appealing to creative invention only relocates the problem, since it would require a Jewish author to fabricate substantial Jesus material and then weave it reverently into Mark’s wording—an approach that sharply contradicts how later gospel writers treat earlier texts. When authors invent freely, they allude; they do not interleave.
This brings the respect objection into focus. Matthew and Luke treat what they regard as Mark’s wording as inviolable. They do not paraphrase loosely, summarize broadly, or replace wholesale. They preserve Mark’s phrasing even when awkward, embedding supplementary material mid-sentence rather than overwriting it. That is not how authors treat a casual or derivative source, nor how they treat a text they regard as inferior or merely convenient. Gospel of Peter does not treat Mark this way. John does not treat Luke this way. Matthew and Luke do.
Because of this, the suggestion that Matthew and Luke independently selected the same sayings from a hypothetical sayings collection (Q or otherwise) and coincidentally chose to insert them at the same narrative seams, in the same order, while preserving the same Markan scaffolding, strains credibility. Coincidence does not explain coordinated interweaving. A sayings source, by definition, does not supply narrative architecture, yet the agreements here are architectural.
If the response is that Matthew and Luke each “just happened” to combine Mark with the same additional material in the same places, then coincidence is being asked to do explanatory work it cannot plausibly perform. And if the response is that one evangelist copied the other, the problem of source respect and origin reasserts itself unchanged.
What the data actually show is a layered compositional process: Mark, and a second Mark-dependent narrative that already incorporated non-Markan material. Matthew and Luke then redacted that layered tradition, preserving what they believed to be authoritative wording while adapting and supplementing it according to their own theological and literary aims. That model explains both the agreements and the divergences without reducing them to coincidence, invention, or terminological dismissal.
The next pericope is gonna be posted soon, so no need to copy and paste “minor agreement” yet.
Mark is blue, Matthew is green, Luke is orange, and the second narrative is yellow
Matthew 3:1-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Luke 3:1-22 John the Baptist Prepares the Way
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Q1: Why do I suspect some of, if not all of Matthew 3:7–12 came from the Second Narrative?
A1: Because “Messengers from John” implies that John did not baptize Jesus. If John did not baptize Jesus, then who did? Was Jesus baptized in whatever source “Messengers from John” originated from? If Jesus wasn’t baptized, then how did he become God’s son? Unless, of course, this Second Narrative is the origin of Jesus being sired by God.
A2: Luke has a version of “John the Baptist Prepares the Way” just like Matthew’s, and both versions omit Mark’s “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,” which is a composite of Malachi 3:1 with Exodus 23:20.
A3: Both Luke and Matthew have a version of “Messengers from John the Baptist” that incorporates Mark’s “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way” (Matthew 11:10 / Luke 7:27).
A4: Both Luke and Matthew incorporate the following dialogue in their baptism scene:
“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 3:7–10 / Luke 3:7–9)
Both Matthew and Luke have “and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” come immediately after “Holy Spirit.” No such logion exists in Mark.
Both Matthew and Luke omit “have” between “I” and “baptized you with water,” and both change Mark’s “baptized” from past tense to present tense, “baptize.”
In Mark’s version, the sentence “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie” precedes the “I have baptized you” line. In Matthew and Luke, “I baptize you with water” comes before the “mightier than I” line.
Mark uses the word “comes” when describing the one mightier than him. Matthew and Luke say “is coming.”
Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark’s “stoop down and” from the sandal sentence.
Both Matthew and Luke have “he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” directly after the verb describing what John is unworthy to do to Jesus’ sandals.
A5: It is highly unlikely that both authors took Mark, decided to omit “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way” (Mark 1), attached it to “Messengers from John” (Matthew 11:10 / Luke 7:27), and combined matching batches of logia in near-identical orders with the rest of Mark’s baptism scene while making identical omissions and rearrangements. Clearly both authors are using a shared narrative source that itself used Mark as a source. This could not possibly be Q because it is narrative and directly quotes Mark. Also, why would a Jesus sayings gospel contain John the Baptist logia? What, are we expected to buy the notion that this make-believe fairytale author of the easy to disprove old outdated Q source followed John around before he became Jesus personal stenographer? As if Jesus just gave one sermon ever with all his greatest hits and Matthew and Luke just so happened to pick the same sayings gospel and none of the other 1000’s of transcribed sources floating around, cause why would anyone but Q care what the most famous man in all of history has to say?
As for passages exclusive to either Matthew or Luke that I believe came from the Second Narrative, I would include:
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah.”
The reason I believe some form of Luke 3:1–2 was in the Second Narrative’s “John the Baptist Prepares the Way” is because of the detailed information about the world in which Jesus started his ministry. One reason I believe the Second Narrative was so coveted as a source is that it contained highly detailed information that Mark excluded — Perhaps this second narrative is the source of
Luke 3:1–2 is also a proper introduction to a gospel. As noted in my comments on Matthew’s genealogy, it begins with “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ,” which suggests the genealogy was separate from the main narrative body that the Second Narrative belonged to, if Matthew’s genealogy came from it at all.
Matthew’s “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them” also seems like material that would derive from the Second Narrative.
Mark’s Isaiah quotation beginning with Isaiah 40:3 and combined with Malachi 3:1 and Exodus 23:20 may have been corrected and expanded to Isaiah 40:5 in the Second Narrative. The Isaiah 5 passage in Matthew’s version of Parable of the Tenants is treated the same way, but from the opposite author. Combine that fact along with all the obvious major agreements that in no-way-shape or form can be chalked up to coincidence and you have a strong case for a second Mark dependent narrative. The notion that both authors just so happened to have copies of the same saying source pick the same sayings and pick the same pericope and interweave the material the way it’s interwoven and by coincidence looking like they are copying would be akin to a tornado in a junkyard assembling the ultimate Boeing 747.
As for why Matthew did not incorporate this correction into his “John the Baptist Prepares the Way,” I suspect it is because the expanded quotation is awkward, and Matthew frequently misquotes or recontextualizes Old Testament passages. Matthew is likely not trying to recruit highly educated Pharisees. His audience is more plausibly Jews with limited access to scrolls, who know Scripture generally but would be unlikely to challenge misquotation or creative reuse.
Hallmarks shared with other suspected Second Narrative passages include:
- Old Testament references
- Public chastisement of authority figures or groups
- “Brood of vipers” / “brood” language
- Fire imagery (“burn,” “burning,” “fire,” hell/hades)
- Themes of separating the righteous from the wicked
- Themes of condemning the evil for rejecting what is good or being unprepared
- Material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark
- Delegitimization of Simeon bar Clopas as second bishop of Jerusalem and/or as Jesus’ bloodline (“God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham”)
- Material from Mark intertwined with non Markian Material that meets the other criteria on the list
Suspected Second Narrative passages and their commonalities
- Old Testament references:
- Matthew 1:1-17 The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Matthew 3:1-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Matthew 4:1-11 The Temptation of Jesus, Matthew 4:12-17 Jesus Begins His Ministry, Matthew 8:5-13 The Faith of a Centurion, Matthew 11:1-19 Messengers from John the Baptist, Matthew 11:20-24 Woe to Unrepentant Cities, Matthew 12:38-42 The Sign of Jonah, Matthew 21:33-46 The Parable of the Tenants, Matthew 23:1-36 Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 24:36-51 No One Knows That Day and Hour; Luke 7:18-35 Messengers from John the Baptist, Luke 11:29-36 The Sign of Jonah, Luke 13:22-30 The Narrow Door, Luke 17:20-37 The Coming of the Kingdom, Luke 20:9-18 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants
- Chastisement of Authority figures/Groups in Public:
- Matthew 1:1-17 The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Matthew 3:1-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Matthew 4:1-11 The Temptation of Jesus, Matthew 11:20-24 Woe to Unrepentant Cities, Matthew 12:38-42 The Sign of Jonah, Matthew 23:1-36 Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees; Luke 10:13-16 Woe to the Unrepentant Cities, Luke 11:29-36 The Sign of Jonah, Luke 13:31-36 Lament over Jerusalem
- “Weeping and gnashing of teeth”:
- Matthew 8:5-13 The Faith of a Centurion, Matthew 13:36-43 The Parable of the Weeds Explained, Matthew 13:47-50 The Parable of the Net, Matthew 22:1-14 The Parable of the Wedding Feast, Matthew 24:36-51 No One knows That Day and Hour, Matthew 25:14-30 The Parable of the Talents; Luke 13:22-30 The Narrow Door
- “Reap”/“Reaping” and “Sow”/“Sowed”/“Sowing”:
- Matthew 13:24-30 The Parable of the Weeds, Matthew 13:36-43 The Parable of the Weeds Explained, Matthew 25:14-30 The Parable of the Talents; Luke 19:11-27 The Parable of the Ten Minas,
- “Tyre and Sidon”
- Matthew 11:20-24 Woe to Unrepentant Cities;Matthew 12:33-37 A Tree is Known By Its Fruit; Luke 10:13-16 Woe to the Unrepentant Cities, Luke 6:17-19 Jesus Ministers to a Great Multitude
- “Brood of Vipers”/“Brood”
- Matthew 3:1-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Matthew 12:33-37 A Tree Is Known By Its Fruit, Matthew 23:1-36 Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 23:37-39 Lament Over Jerusalem; Luke 3:1-22 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Luke 13:31-36 Lament over Jerusalem
- Alludes to fire (“Burn”/“burning”/“burned” and “fire”/“fiery” and hell/hades):
- Matthew 3:1-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Matthew 11:20-24 Woe to Unrepentant Cities, Matthew 13:24-30 The Parable of the Weeds, Matthew 13:36-43 The Parable of the Weeds Explained, Matthew 13:47-50 The Parable of the Net, Matthew 22:1-14 The Parable of the Wedding Feast, Matthew 25:31-46 The Final Judgement, Matthew 3:7-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way; Luke 3:1-22 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Luke 17:20-37 The Coming of the Kingdom, Luke 10:13-16 Woe to the Unrepentant Cities, Luke 13:22-30 The Narrow Door,
- Themes of separating the righteous from the evil/Desired and Undesired/Prepared and Unprepared:
- Matthew 3:1-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Matthew 8:5-13 The Faith of a Centurion, Matthew 12:33-37 A Tree is Known By It’s Fruit, Matthew 13:24-30 The Parable of the Weeds, Matthew 13:36-43 The Parable of the Weeds Explained, Matthew 13:47-50 The Parable of the Net, Matthew 22:1-14 The Parable of the Wedding Feast, Matthew 25:1-13 The Parable of the Ten Virgins, Luke 13:22-30 The Narrow Door,
- Themes of condemning the evil for rejecting what’s good/ rejecting Jesus/ Not being prepared/ being wicked:
- Matthew 3:1-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Matthew 8:5-13 The Faith of a Centurion, Matthew 11:20-24 Woe to Unrepentant Cities, Matthew 12:33-37 A Tree is Known by its Fruit, Matthew 12:38-42 The Sign of Jonah, Matthew 13:24-30 The Parable of the Weeds, Matthew 13:36-43 The Parable of the Weeds Explained, Matthew 13:47-50 The Parable of the Net, Matthew 21:33-46 The Parable of the Tenants, Matthew 23:1-36 Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 22:1-14 The Parable of the Wedding Feast, Matthew 23:1-36 Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 23:37-39 Lament Over Jerusalem Matthew 24:36-51 No One knows the Day and Hour, Matthew 25:1-13 The Parable of the Ten Virgins, Matthew 25:14-30 The Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25:31-46 The Final Judgement; Luke 3:1-22 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Luke 10:13-16 Woe to the Unrepentant Cities, Luke 13:22-30 The Narrow Door, Luke 19:11-27 The Parable of the Ten Minas, Luke 11:29-36 The Sign of Jonah, Luke 13:31-36 Lament over Jerusalem
- 10.Comes off as a bastardized passage from Mark:
- Matthew 8:5-13 The Faith of a Centurion/Luke 7:1-10 Jesus Heals a Centurion’s Servant BASTARDIZES Mark 7:24-30 The Syrophonenician Woman’s Faith; Matthew 13:24-30 The Parable of the Weeds BASTARDIZES Mark 4:1-9 The Parable of the Sower; Matthew 13:36-43 The Parable of the Weeds Explained BASTARDIZES Mark 4:10-20 The Purpose of the Parables; Matthew 23:1-36 Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees/Luke 11:37-54 Woes to the Pharisees and Lawyers BASTARDIZES Mark 7:1-13 Tradition and Commandments; Matthew 12:38-42 The Sign of Jonah/Luke 11:29-36 The Sign of Jonah BASTARDIZES Mark8:11-13 The Pharisees Demand a Sign; Luke 13:10-17 A Woman with a Disabling Spirit BASTARDIZES Mark 3:1-6 A Man with a Withered Hand
- 11.Contains material shared between Matthew and Luke, but not Mark:
- Matthew 3:1-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way/Luke 3:1-22 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Matthew 4:1-11 The Temptation of Jesus/Luke 4:1-13 The Temptation of Jesus; Matthew 6:25-34 Do Not Be Anxious/Luke 12:22-31 Do Not Be Anxious; Matthew 8:5-13 The Faith of a Centurion/Luke 7:1-10 Jesus Heals a Centurion’s Servant; Matthew 11:1-19 Messengers from John the Baptist/Luke 7:18-35 Messengers from John the Baptist; Matthew 12:38-42 The Sign of Jonah/Luke 11:29-36 The Sign of Jonah; Matthew 11:20-24 Woe to Unrepentant Cities/Luke 10:13-16 Woe to the Unrepentant Cities, Matthew 21:33-46 The Parable of the Tenants/Luke 20:9-18 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants Matthew 23:1-36 Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees/Luke 11:37-54 Woes to the Pharisees and Lawyers; Matthew 23:37-39 Lament Over Jerusalem/Luke 13:31-36 Lament over Jerusalem Matthew 25:14-30 The Parable of the Talents/Luke 19:11-27 The Parable of the Ten Minas;
- 12.Delegitimizes Simeon Bar Clopas as The 2nd Bishop of The Jerusalem Church and/or as Jesus blood:
- Matthew 1:1-17 The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Matthew 1:18-19 The Birth of Jesus Christ, Matthew 3:1-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way; Luke 24:13-35 On the Road to Emmaus
- 13.Apologetic
- Matthew 1:18-19 The Birth of Jesus Christ, Matthew 4:1-11 The Temptation of Jesus, Matthew 4:12-17 Jesus Begins His Ministry, Matthew 11:1-19 Messengers from John the Baptist, Matthew 11:20-24 Woe to Unrepentant Cities, Matthew 12:38-42 The Sign of Jonah; Luke 4:1-13 The Temptation of Jesus, Luke 4:16-30 Jesus Rejected at Nazareth, Luke 7:18-35 Messengers from John the Baptist, Luke 10:13-16 Woe to the Unrepentant Cities, Luke 11:29-32 The Sign of Jonah,
- 14.Mentions of a king in the general sense
- Matthew 11:1-19 Messengers from John the Baptist,Matthew 22:1-14 The Parable of the Wedding Feast; Luke 7:18-35 Messengers from John the Baptist, Luke 19:11-27 The Parable of the Ten Minas
- 15.Servant/Master Dynamic
- Matthew 8:5-13 The Faith of a Centurion, Matthew 13:24-30 The Parable of the Weeds, Matthew 21:33-46 The Parable of the Tenants, Matthew 22:1-14 The Parable of the Wedding Feast, Matthew 24:36-51 No One Knows That Day and Hour, Matthew 25:14-30 The Parable of the Talents; Luke 7:1-10 Jesus Heals a Centurion’s Servant, Luke 19:11-27 The Parable of the Ten Minas
- 16.Material from Mark intertwined with non Markian Material that meets the other criteria on the list
- Matthew 3:1-12 John the Baptist Prepares the Way, Matthew 4:1-11 The Temptation of Jesus/Luke 4:1-13 The Temptation of Jesus, Matthew 4:12-17 Jesus Begins His Ministry, Matthew 11:1-19 Messengers from John the Baptist, Matthew 12:38-42 The Sign of Jonah/Luke 11:29-36 The Sign of Jonah, Matthew 23:1-36 Seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees/Luke 11:37-54 Woes to the Pharisees and Lawyers, Matthew 24:36-51 No One Knows That Day and Hour, Matthew 21:33-46 The Parable of the Tenants/Luke 20:9-18 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Luke 4:16-30 Jesus Rejected at Nazareth
- 17.Dialogue similar to logia found in Thomas
- Matthew 11:1-19 Messengers from John the Baptist/Luke 7:18-35 Messengers from John the Baptist has similar logia to Thomas 46 and Thomas 78; Matthew 13:24-30 The Parable of the Weeds has similar logia to Thomas 57; Matthew 13:47-50 The Parable of the Net has similar logia to Thomas 8; Matthew 22:1-14 The Parable of the Wedding has similar logia to Thomas 64; Luke 16:1-9 The Parable of the Dishonest Manager has similar logia to Thomas 47; Luke 4:16-30 Jesus Rejected at Nazareth has similar logia to Thomas 31
- 18.Jesus is unapologetically and openly The Christ
- Matthew 11:1-19 Messengers from John the Baptist, Matthew 11:20-24 Woe to Unrepentant Cities; Luke 4:16-30 Jesus Rejected at Nazareth, Luke 7:18-35 Messengers from John the Baptist, Luke 13:31-36 Lament over Jerusalem, Luke 10:13-16 Woe to the Unrepentant Cities[Image Can Not Be Found]
Eratosthenes24601 said
To Bruce:
1. Why “fragmentation” doesn’t explain the data
In all of this, you grant me too much credit. While I am a social scientist, I am certainly no biblical scholar, so you shouldn’t read what I wrote as being informed by an existing line of argument within biblical scholarship which you take issue with, unless my language makes clear that I have, in fact, come across that line of argument. Specifically, what I sketched would be bifurcation, rather than fragmentation.
If Matthew and Luke were independently choosing among competing narrative traditions—some upstream of Mark, some downstream—we should expect them to reproduce different alternatives to Mark. Instead, we repeatedly find them agreeing against Mark in ways that presuppose Mark’s redactional decisions: smoothing Mark’s phrasing, relocating Markan material, re-sequencing Markan scenes, and integrating additional material into Mark’s narrative framework.
Yes, but if we have a bifurcation, and both versions survive to Matthew’s composition and to the early composition of the Luke material or else to the canonical Luke reworking / Acts composition (to refrain from taking a position on the Marcion priority of canonical Luke thesis), but only one survived to the 3rd century, that doesn’t pin down all of the details of that bifurcation event. You argue one form of bifurcation, I was asking about the weight of evidence in favor of that form versus the various other ones.
…
2. Mark cannot be a freely evolving draft
There is also a basic logistical problem with the “evolving editions of Mark” model that rarely gets confronted. Mark is not merely rough; it is unfinished. It ends abruptly, lacks resurrection appearances, preserves unresolved narrative seams, and contains scriptural problems later evangelists routinely correct.
I mean, I do get annoyed when people refer to social evolution and ignore evidence regarding the way that social evolution progresses. There is drift, to be sure, which can over a long enough period smooth out rough edges and embarrassments and anchors to “gotcha” moments in debates with advocates of competing faith communities, but the form of evolution that would be involved here would be like the addition of verses to a folk song … they do not enter the corpus a line at a time, presumably sung first with one line and humming for the rest of the verse, then with two lines and humming, and so on … but as an entire verse, and then, especially if passed orally, will often drift from there.
So I was not trying to think through whether the thesis you present is the right kind of evolution of the Markan … the right genera of evolution … but whether it is the right species of that genera.
If the bifurcation is an elaboration, extension, or incorporation of another source … where the last would be particularly interesting, as the other source might have apostolic authority due to another apostle to justify the incorporation … then the question is whether the surviving Mark that we have (with later interpolations) is the prior or the elaboration. That was my arrow of time question.
But it occurs to me now that there is an alternate bifurcation where there is incorporation of another source which gains acceptance in one or more communities but arouses a reaction in others that lead to the conclusion that they bungled the incorporation and their editorial champion sets out how the incorporation should have been done, in which case it is both Mark version 1 that is lost alongside one of Mark version 2A (provacateur) and Mark version 2B (provoqué), where the arrow of time is whether it is the provocative revision which survives or the provoked revision.
…
3. The historical bottleneck matters
By 64 CE, the Petrine–Pauline–Apollos network was catastrophically compromised under Nero. Peter and Paul are dead; Apollos disappears from the record. That matters, because it constrains who could plausibly produce and circulate a Mark-aware narrative with enough authority to be taken seriously.
Once that network collapses, the number of known, named, contemporary leadership figures narrows dramatically. As far as our sources allow us to see, the remaining major network heads contemporaneous with Mark are those associated with Simeon (the Jerusalem succession after James) and Thebutis as a rival claimant. Figures like Timothy or Titus are agents, not network heads.
Whether one thinks Thebutis himself authored anything is secondary. What matters is that only a very small number of identifiable networks remain capable of producing a narrative that could circulate as Markan without replacing Mark itself. That sharply limits the plausibility of diffuse, anonymous, uncontrolled narrative evolution.
This is wonderful stuff. However, we should be cautious to not argue from silence … even if we have evidence of a winnowing of networks, we should not presume that the known, named contemporary leadership figures is a comprehensive list of leaders.
Indeed, the notion of a single coherent Petrine-Pauline-Apollos network prior to 64 CE seems to be a convenient rather than embarrassing premise for proto-orthodox strands in the later 2nd century CE and on, and a second or third generation co-option of an earlier network based more on the network building capacities of successor leaders, including a success at smoothing over earlier points of contention.
4. Luke’s behavior fixes the time arrow …
This wasn’t the time arrow I was asking about. You do provide a piece of evidence on the time arrow I was asking about, but it was in a reply to Robert, so I will highlight that in reply to that one.
5. Why Q (even loosely defined) doesn’t work
I’m not denying sayings traditions or even sayings collections. I’m denying that a single, stable sayings gospel does the explanatory work here. …
Yeah, I haven’t yet come across the evidence for common source material that explicitly distinguishes between it being a single source and it being multiple sources that Luke and Matthew have in common. I mean, canonical Luke seems to have a distinct source of noticeably long-winded parables, but not all of “L” is material that seems to need to be contained in a source of long winded parables. And if part of the evidence for existence of common source material, referred to as Q, is the way that Matthew and Luke place them in different locations on the Markan narrative “frame”, and that is as easy if not easier to explain my that material being distributed across multiples documents which Matthew and Luke both posses, and the two authors incorporating the distinct documents in different locations because they are different authors with different opinions of what fits best where.
One of those documents could be a single sayings gospel, similar to Thomas. Another could be a traveling prophet gospel, with teachings highlighted by the settings in which they are place. Etc.
…
6. Celsus confirms the direction of development
Celsus complains that the Gospels contradict one another and accuses Christians of revising their narratives apologetically. That matters because it implies that the Gospels were less harmonized in his time than they later became.
If Mark had always been freely fluid, …
Yeah, I’m not in the “freely fluid” camp, I’m in the “punctuated equilibrium” camp. But, as I noted above, I am surely a novice in these biblical scholarship debates, so I am not going to pretend on the internet that I have a comprehensive overview of the break points which trigger speciation, extinctions, slow growth, explosive growth, or slow decline.
Eratosthenes24601 said
…
If Matthew and Luke were independently choosing among competing narrative traditions—some upstream of Mark, some downstream—we should expect them to reproduce different alternatives to Mark. Instead, we repeatedly find them agreeing against Mark in ways that presuppose Mark’s redactional decisions: smoothing Mark’s phrasing, relocating Markan material, re-sequencing Markan scenes, and integrating additional material into Mark’s narrative framework.
I will surely need to chew a bit more on the relocation of Markan material argument and the re-sequencing of Markan scenes argument, but receiving joint smoothing of Mark’s phrasing and receiving additional material integrated into Mark’s narrative in the same way does constitute evidence regarding the arrow of time that I previously asked about, between our received Mark and the hypothetical distinctive second Markan narrative.
It is methodologically reasonable to treat the Transfiguration in its current form as another case where later tradition was added to Mark rather than composed by him. This is especially plausible if the tradition originated in Luke or in a shared source Luke and Matthew used, and was later harmonized into Mark’s framework.
In the context of Mark’s gospel as a whole this seems unlikely. The episode is the center of gravity of the entire work. It simultaneously points back to Jesus’ baptism and forward to the resurrection. This one episode encapsulates almost every theme in the entirety of Mark. It draws on antecedents in the Hebrew scripture and the pseudopigraphic literature The Transfiguration strikes me as a quintessentially Markan creative literary composition. This episode is one reason why I wondered about the “oral community” gospel source idea long before I heard of Robyn Faith Walsh. The story doesn’t make sense as an oral tradition but it makes perfect sense as a literary construction.
Stephen said
It is methodologically reasonable to treat the Transfiguration in its current form as another case where later tradition was added to Mark rather than composed by him. This is especially plausible if the tradition originated in Luke or in a shared source Luke and Matthew used, and was later harmonized into Mark’s framework.
In the context of Mark’s gospel as a whole this seems unlikely. The episode is the center of gravity of the entire work. It simultaneously points back to Jesus’ baptism and forward to the resurrection. This one episode encapsulates almost every theme in the entirety of Mark. It draws on antecedents in the Hebrew scripture and the pseudopigraphic literature The Transfiguration strikes me as a quintessentially Markan creative literary composition. This episode is one reason why I wondered about the “oral community” gospel source idea long before I heard of Robyn Faith Walsh. The story doesn’t make sense as an oral tradition but it makes perfect sense as a literary construction.
One could argue that the fact it is, in a literary sense, the Act One climax in a two-act piece is exactly why it would be likely to attract a later interpolation to harmonize it with canonical Luke … it’s pivotal position within the Markan narrative would act to highlight and underline any discrepancies between it and other synoptic gospels.
Robert said
Hi, BruceRMcF. I’m impressed by your knowledge of the social sciences and am unfamiliar with some of the terminology you’re using. Could you translate some of your insights shared here with some concrete examples of how you see the likely development of these inter-related literary texts? In other words, how specifically, if at all, might social sciences contribute to a resolution of the synoptic problem?
I mean, I’m not 100% sure that it can … it’s quite plausible that before it gets to the point of making a contribution, it stops and says, “oh, and here, at this point, more evidence must be collected”, only to find out, “sorry, that’s the evidence that has survived”.
So while I am going to keep coming back to that exact question in my own time, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend any social scientist to do so with any of their publish or perish research time.
And some of the more useful stuff is already being used … that’s why I like April DeConnick, she makes good use of anthropology and the study of the evolution of oral traditions in her work on the Gospel of Thomas.
In Reply to Robert’s first reply to my last response:
“The term used in the English-language scholarly discussion goes back at least as far as 1901, but similar phraseology can be seen in the German literature from the previous century.”
The age of a term is not an argument for its adequacy. There are plenty of terms and categories that were standard in 1901 — and even earlier in German scholarship — that we no longer regard as analytically sound, let alone sufficient. Longevity explains persistence, not correctness.
Invoking the historical pedigree of “minor agreements” does not address the issue I’m raising. The problem is not whether the term has been used for over a century; it’s whether it actually explains the cumulative, coordinated redactional patterns under discussion. Repeating an inherited label does not substitute for analysis.
If a term functions primarily to bracket phenomena rather than to account for them, then its age only underscores the need to reassess it, not to defer to it.
“You’ve yet to illustrate or explain a pattern of supposedly important…”
I’ve illustrated plenty and explained plenty. Sorry your pattern recognition isn’t on par with mine, but I’ve been more than generous with the evidence. Crying “fake news” isn’t going to negate the facts. As for my response to your errors and corrections: in your 50 years of doing this, you never once noticed that Matthew and Luke start off their Parable of the Tenants as if they were continuing from a series of parables, whereas Mark starts his off with him beginning the series of parables. So one has to wonder what other things someone as astute as yourself has failed to notice.
“Why not? “
Because you are not taking into account the author’s beliefs, habits, and compositional tendencies. You are not taking into account the tension those sources create with the author’s other material. You are not taking into account the material in Luke’s version that most likely belonged to the original pericope, nor the material in Matthew that most likely reflects what was originally there. And you are not taking into account the Markan pericopes with no agreements against Mark, and how those same pericopes just so happen to have altered counterparts elsewhere—such as the Widow’s Son in relation to Jairus’s Daughter, or the Rich Fool in relation to the Rich Young Man.
“It would either be created or included by the evangelist being copied, typically Matthean redaction or inclusion from another source.”
The claim that Matthew simply “made this up” runs headlong into multiple constraints that Matthew himself consistently observes.
First, it ignores the rule of testimony. A Jewish author operating within Second Temple norms does not establish claims without multiple witnesses. Matthew’s Gospel repeatedly reflects this logic: he preserves parallel traditions rather than eliminating them, tolerates tension between sources, and stacks attestations even when it creates narrative awkwardness. To suggest that Matthew fabricated substantial narrative material is to suggest that he casually violated one of the most basic evidentiary principles of his culture.
Second, this problem is especially acute in the Galilee pericope (Matt 4:12–17). That passage attempts to justify Jesus’s Galilean location using Isaiah 9—a text about the Hezekian period, not messianic expectation. This directly conflicts with Matthew’s own Bethlehem birth narrative, which already resolves the Davidic problem. If Matthew were inventing freely, this is exactly the sort of tension he would avoid, not introduce. The pericope reads far more naturally as inherited Galilean-apologetic material preserved despite its friction with Matthew’s infancy narrative—material Luke likely omits precisely because its exegetical footing is weak and vulnerable to educated critique.
Third—and most importantly—Matthew’s redactional technique itself argues against invention. Matthew does not replace Mark wholesale, nor does he paraphrase loosely. He interweaves his material into Mark’s wording, preserving Markan phrasing even mid-sentence, adjusting minimally, and embedding supplementary material rather than overwriting it. That behavior signals reverence, not creativity. Matthew treats Mark not as a disposable draft, but as authoritative testimony.
And that authority matters. Matthew clearly understands Mark’s Gospel as the living testimony of Peter. Interweaving one’s own words into Petrine testimony is not a neutral literary act; it is a claim of continuity and corroboration. A Jewish author who believed he was transmitting Peter’s witness would not lace it with fabricated material while failing to supply additional credible attestation. That would not be redaction—it would be falsification.
So when it is said that Matthew “just created” this material, what is really being claimed is that Matthew knowingly violated Jewish evidentiary norms, disrespected Petrine testimony, and introduced internal tensions he otherwise works hard to preserve rather than generate. That is not the parsimonious explanation. Inheritance and constrained redaction explain the data far better than free invention.
What keeps getting assumed here is a modern model of authorship—one in which an evangelist feels free to invent material and weave it into inherited testimony without corroboration. That is a 21st-century, largely Gentile way of thinking about texts, not a Second Temple Jewish one.
Matthew writes as a Jewish scribe operating under evidentiary, communal, and testimonial constraints. He treats sources as witnesses, not drafts, and preserves tension as attestation rather than harmonizing it away. Explaining his behavior by appealing to unconstrained invention projects modern authorial values onto an ancient Jewish context and bypasses the very cultural logic we’re supposed to be reconstructing.
“The “messengers from John” material does indeed seem to disagree with…”
Messengers from John presupposes that John does not know Jesus personally at all, not merely that he has doubts about how a baptism occurred. The entire scene is written as if John’s knowledge of Jesus is second-hand and report-based. If John had any prior relationship with Jesus—mentor, disciple, or even acquaintance—the question “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” is narratively incoherent.
Jesus’ response makes this unavoidable. He does not appeal to shared history, does not say “you baptized me,” does not reference any prior encounter, and does not remind John of anything John would have witnessed firsthand. Instead, Jesus responds with a public evidentiary catalogue of deeds. That catalogue closely tracks the Resurrection Fragment from 4Q521: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the dead are raised, and good news is preached to the poor. Jesus is not reminding John who he is; he is presenting scriptural signs to someone who does not know him personally and is evaluating claims by report.
Luke clearly recognized the tension this creates and deliberately avoided resolving it. Luke places John in prison before Jesus is baptized, never explicitly says John baptized Jesus, and avoids identifying John as Elijah. This is not accidental. Luke’s redactional habit, when faced with conflicting sources, is to leave matters ambiguous rather than adjudicate them.
This same strategy appears elsewhere, and I am introducing this example here deliberately. Mark says Jesus was clothed in purple. Matthew says scarlet. Luke omits the color entirely. The most plausible explanation is that the second narrative specified scarlet, Matthew chose that reading, and Luke—faced with conflicting traditions—refused to choose. Luke’s omission is not dependence on Matthew; it is source-conflict management.
The Gospel of John confirms this trajectory and does not represent an independent rediscovery of the problem. John clearly used Luke as a source and recognized the same fault lines Luke saw. John’s Gospel explicitly denies John’s prior knowledge of Jesus (“I myself did not know him”), refuses to identify John as Elijah, and constructs recognition as delayed and sign-based. That is not coincidence. John is responding to Luke’s handling of John the Baptist and pushing it further, not inventing a new solution.
So no—this is not Matthean invention, and it is not independent convergence. Messengers from John comes from a tradition in which John neither baptized Jesus nor knew who he was. Luke avoids the contradiction through ambiguity, Matthew preserves the tension by stacking traditions, and John—using Luke—explicitly acknowledges the non-acquaintance and attempts to repair it theologically. That pattern only makes sense if the tension is inherited from an earlier source, not created by Matthew.
“Are you assuming…”
Yes. In my model the Exodus 23:20 / Malachi 3:1 composite originates with Mark. There is no evidence for such a composite circulating independently prior to Mark, and this kind of seamless citation-splicing is not characteristic of pre-Christian Jewish exegesis. It looks like oral conflation, not inherited tradition.
Mark’s Gospel repeatedly shows scriptural saturation without textual control — the Abiathar confusion, the camel/rope saying, and this composite all point in the same direction. That is exactly what we would expect if Mark is recording Petrine preaching from memory rather than consulting scrolls or written sources.
Crucially, Matthew and Luke do not treat the composite as authoritative tradition. Both remove it from the baptism scene and relocate it to the “Messengers from John” pericope, modifying it in the process. That behavior only makes sense if the composite entered the tradition through Mark and was later recognized as problematic. If it were older than Mark or derived from a shared source, there is no reason both authors would independently demote and reassign it.
Appeals to an older Q-based composite simply assume the existence of Q in order to explain the data. My model does not require that assumption and accounts for the textual behavior more economically.
“You are still avoiding the question of whether or not Mark could be dependent upon Q or vice-versa…”
I’m not avoiding the question of Mark–Q dependence. I’m rejecting Q altogether as a historical source. So asking whether Mark depends on Q or vice versa already presupposes what I deny: that a discrete document called Q ever existed.
My rejection of Q is not based on a rigid claim that “sayings sources can’t contain narrative.” It’s based on historical behavior and evidence. Q is a modern abstraction inferred from Matthew–Luke agreement, but unlike Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, or even Thomas, it has no external attestation, no named author, no ancient community claiming it, no manuscript tradition, no fragment, and no ancient writer ever referring to it as a document. That absence matters. We do have traditions—sometimes late, sometimes unreliable, but still existent—for many early Christian texts. We have nothing comparable for Q. If Q existed as a document doing the massive explanatory work assigned to it, we would expect at least some trace of it as a thing people knew about.
“Who wrote Q?” is therefore not a rhetorical flourish; it’s a pressure test. If Q was written by a prominent figure—an apostle, James, Mary Magdalene, Joseph of Arimathea—we would expect some memory of it. If Q was written by a nobody, then why would Mark use it at all? Mark’s Gospel is widely understood, on the basis of Papias, to derive from Peter’s preaching. Mark reads like constrained oral dictation, not literary compilation. Mark shows no signs of consulting written sources other than remembered Scripture. On the contrary, he repeatedly displays scriptural saturation without textual control: the Abiathar confusion, the camel/rope saying, and the Isaiah–Malachi–Exodus composite citation all point to oral conflation, not scroll-based exegesis. An author working from written sources does not make these kinds of errors. Mark had no incentive to subordinate living Petrine testimony to an anonymous sayings document.
This bears directly on the Exodus 23:20 / Malachi 3:1 composite. In my model, that composite originates with Mark. There is no evidence that such a seamless composite citation circulated independently prior to Mark, and this kind of citation-splicing is not characteristic of pre-Christian Jewish exegesis. It looks like oral conflation by someone steeped in Scripture but not consulting texts—exactly what we expect from Petrine preaching preserved by Mark under constraint. Matthew and Luke’s behavior confirms this: both remove the composite from the baptism scene and relocate it to the “Messengers from John” pericope, modifying it slightly in the process. That only makes sense if the composite entered the tradition through Mark and was later recognized as awkward or problematic. If it were older than Mark or derived from an authoritative shared source, there is no reason both authors would independently demote and reassign it.
Appeals to Q to explain this simply assume the existence of Q in order to explain the data. That is circular. My model does not require that assumption and explains the textual behavior more economically: Mark first, then a second Mark-dependent narrative, then Matthew and Luke redacting layered tradition.
If we want a real historical analogy for sayings traditions, Confucius is the obvious control case. Confucius did not write, taught orally, and his sayings circulated for generations before being collected. Those collections took centuries to stabilize, exist in multiple recensions, show layering and contradiction, and are attached to named disciples and schools. That is how sayings traditions actually behave in history. Q behaves nothing like this. Q is hypothesized to emerge within a few decades, in a politically dangerous context, as a single stable document with high verbal agreement, used independently by Matthew and Luke, yet leaving no author, no community, no manuscript, no quotation, and no transmission history. Even marginal, non-canonical sayings collections like Thomas—hardly a mass-circulation text and only rediscovered in the modern period—leave material traces. Confucian sayings certainly did. Q does not.
Finally, taking social conditions seriously weakens the case for Q rather than strengthening it. Jesus was executed for insurrection. Written collections of politically dangerous sayings are exactly the kind of material we should expect to be localized, fragmented, and disposable—not a single stable document with continent-wide circulation used independently by multiple evangelists and then vanishing without a trace. That social reality fits dispersed logia traditions and layered narrative transmission. It does not fit Q.
In short: Q is not how sayings traditions behave in history. It is how modern source criticism behaves when it tries to rescue a model.
I’m not arguing for literary dependence in either direction. The logia are similar, but not close enough in wording, structure, or function to suggest that Messengers from John depends on Thomas or that Thomas depends on Messengers. Instead, both most plausibly draw on independent oral tradition tied to the living Jesus.
“Why do you think that Thomas 46 & 78 are independent?”
The overlap is thematic and conceptual, not textual. That is exactly what we would expect if multiple communities preserved remembered sayings without direct literary borrowing. Similarity here points to a shared oral substrate, not dependence.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert