Synoptic Confusion: Matthew’s “Two” vs. Mark and Luke’s “One”?

The Problem Stated

In the synoptic accounts of Jesus casting a legion of demons into a herd of swine, both Mark and Luke mention just one demon-possessed man (Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39), yet Matthew says there were two (8:28-34). Mark and Luke report the Lord’s healing of a blind man near Jericho (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43), whereas Matthew says there were two blind men (20:29-34). In the story of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the respective accounts of Mark and Luke make reference to a single donkey (Mark 11:2-7; Luke 19:30-35; also John 12:14-15), while Matthew’s version has two (21:2-7). 

Searching for a Reasonable Explanation

Critical scholars are quick to accuse Matthew of having altered these accounts with an apparent inclination to “double.”¹  However, Matthew shares a number of miracle stories with the other Gospels wherein this alleged doubling does not occur.² Matthew also reports a separate occasion when Jesus healed two blind men (9:27-31), unparalleled elsewhere.³  Matthew and Mark speak of a single angelic figure at Christ’s empty tomb (Matt. 28:2-7; Mark 16:5-7), while Luke mentions two (24:4-5). Matthew and Luke record the Lord’s prediction of the crowing of a rooster (Matt. 26:34; Luke 22:34; also John 13:38), while Mark alludes to the rooster crowing “twice” (14:30, 72). Obviously there is no consistent pattern of doubling in any of the Gospels. It is more likely that each author, according to his immediate purpose, has at times focused on certain details ignored by others, or has omitted particular elements highlighted by others.   

Neither Mark nor Luke uses the word “only” when speaking of the demoniac, blind man, or donkey, nor do Matthew and Mark use the word “only” when speaking of the angelic figure. If I were to say that my daughter fell off the trampoline and broke her arm, some might conclude that I have only one daughter. But if my wife adds that both our daughters were jumping on the trampoline when the accident occurred, surely no one would accuse us of contradicting each another.

Putting it in Perspective

When comparing synoptic accounts, it is helpful to remember that Matthew reports as an independent eyewitness. He mentions “two” because that is what he saw. He also writes as a former tax collector (Matt. 10:3). Not only do we find several financial transactions referenced in Matthew’s Gospel,⁴ we also see an affinity for numbering. In passages where Matthew employs cardinal numbers, the parallel Gospel accounts do not. Matthew alone reports that Jesus specifically called “two” brothers and “two” other brothers (Matt. 4:18, 21), disciples will sit on “twelve” thrones (Matt. 19:28), Zebedee’s “two” sons (Matt. 20:21; 26:37), “two” false witnesses (Matt. 26:60), and one of “two” prisoners (Matt. 27:21).

Only Matthew recounts a pair of demoniacs (8:28), while the particular one who responded to Jesus, sat at his feet, and subsequently became the Lord’s emissary is the singular focus of the parallel accounts (Mark 5:18-20; Luke 8:35, 38). There was no practical reason for Mark and Luke to have taken notice of the other man while giving attention to the character most relevant to the story. Matthew’s record is broader and more general, while Mark and Luke are singularly focused.

Only Matthew documents a couple of blind men near Jericho (20:30), yet again Mark and Luke offer a more targeted narrative. In fact, Mark provides a name (Bartimaeus), indicative of a prominent figure familiar to the local community and/or to Mark’s readers. If the identity of the other blind man was unknown at the time of writing or simply not pertinent to the story as presented by Mark and Luke, making reference to him would serve no useful purpose.

In Matthew’s version of the triumphal entry there are two animals: a young donkey and its mother (21:2-7); just one is alluded to by Mark and Luke (and John), again with precision of focus. Seeing that the colt had never been ridden (Mark 11:2), it would make sense for its mother to be brought along. That Jesus sat “on them” (Matt. 21:7) could refer to both animals alternatively but more likely to the “garments” [himátia] upon which he sat. 

Authorial Selectivity

Matthew develops the theme of Christ’s authority (cf. 7:29; 9:6-8; 21:23; etc.) and incorporates information supportive of this objective. Matthew’s tendency is to use quantity of elements to teach about Jesus, conveying the stories with brevity, while the other Gospels tend to highlight details. When Matthew reports the Lord healing many people inflicted with a variety of ailments (15:30-31), Mark focuses on just one of them (7:31-32). Mark and Luke record words spoken by a centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47), while Matthew includes “those with him” (Matt. 27:54).⁵

Brevity, omission, abridgment, emphasis, and focused precision are among the plethoric narrative options for any given author. The parallel accounts where Mark and Luke report “one” and Matthew “two” demonstrate authorial selectivity, with Mark and Luke having reduced the number rather than Matthew having doubled it. A sympathetic and fair appraisal of the passages in question confirms each as an independent witness, while supporting their collective integrity and deepening our appreciation for biblical variety, harmony, and accuracy.⁶

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition 316; C. S. Keener, Commentary on Matthew 282.

     2 For example, Matt. 8:1-4 (cp. Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16); Matt. 8:5-13 (cp. Luke 7:1-10); Matt. 9:1-8 (cp. Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26); et al.

     3 A lone blind man is healed in the respective accounts of Mark (8:22-26) and John (9:1-11) without further mention in the other Gospels.

     4 Matt. 17:24-27; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 26:15; 27:3-10; 28:11-15.

     ⁵ See What Did the Centurion Say? For similar distinctions between Matthew’s broader and Mark’s more focused descriptions (comparable also in Luke), compare Matt. 8:28/Mark 5:2; Matt. 21:2/Mark 11:2; Matt. 20:30/Mark 10:46; Matt. 21:34/Mark 12:2; Matt. 22:34/Mark 12:28; Matt. 26:40/Mark 14:37.

     ⁶ See Glenn Miller, “Did Matthew simply Double the people in his miracle stories?” Christian Think Tank (2010), <Link>.

Related Posts: Authorship of the Gospels, Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel, Matthew's Opened Graves and Resurrected Saints, What Did the Centurion Say?

Related articles: Eric Lyons, How Many at the Tomb?

Image credit: http://www.ajpinfo.com/6min/on-not-knowing/

The Uniqueness of Mark’s Gospel

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are collectively known as the Synoptic Gospels because of the high degree of similarities among them. The ongoing scholarly debate is whether the authors wrote independently, collaborated, or used common sources. The subtle and not-so-subtle differences argue for independence, representing separate and corroborating testimonies.¹ 

Absent from both Matthew and Luke are the following sections of Mark: 1:1; 2:27; 3:20-22a; 4:26-29; 7:2-4, 32-37; 8:22-26; 9:29, 48-49; 13:33-37; 14:51-52. Fifty-five verses of Mark are not found in Matthew, and there is the striking omission in Luke of the material in Mark 6:45–8:26 and 9:41–10:12. Literary-dependency theorists and Markan Priority advocates in particular are hard pressed to give a reasonable explanation of these phenomena.² 

Details in Mark that do not appear in the parallel accounts of Matthew and Luke include the following:

Mark 1:13b, Jesus in the wilderness “with the wild beasts.” 

Mark 1:20b, Zebedee’s “hired servants.”

Mark 1:35, Jesus’ praying “a long while before daylight.” 

Mark 2:26b, “Abiathar the high priest.”  

Mark 2:27, “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

Mark 3:17b, the nickname Jesus gave to Zebedee’s sons.

Mark 3:20-22a, too busy to eat, Christ’s own people trying to seize him, Jerusalem scribes.

Mark 4:3a, “Listen!”

Mark 4:36b, “other little boats.”

Mark 4:38a, “in the stern, asleep on a pillow.”

Mark 5:13b, the number of pigs.

Mark 5:26, “suffered from many physicians … grew worse.”   

Mark 5:41b, what Jesus said to the girl in Aramaic.

Mark 6:3a, “the carpenter, the Son of Mary.” 

Mark 6:8b, 9a, “except a staff … but to wear sandals.” 

Mark 6:39b, “on the green grass.” 

Mark 6:40b, “in hundreds.”

Mark 6:48b, “and would have passed them by.”

Mark 7:30, she came home, found the demon gone and her daughter lying on the bed.

Mark 8:3, “to their own houses … have come from afar.”

Mark 8:27, conversation on "the road" near Caesarea Philippi.

Mark 8:35b, “and the gospel’s.”

Mark 9:3b, “like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them.”

Mark 9:41b, “because you belong to Christ.”

Mark 10:11b-12, “against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries …”

Mark 10:30b, “with persecutions.” 

Mark 10:45b, “and to give his life a ransom for many.” 

Mark 10:46b, “Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus.”

Mark 11:10a, “Blessed is the kingdom of our father David.”

Mark 11:17b, “for all nations.”

Mark 12:29b, “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” 

Mark 12:32-34, the entire section. 

Mark 14:30b, 68-72, a rooster crowing “twice.”

Mark 14:36a, “Abba.” 

Mark 15:21b, “the father of Alexander and Rufus.” 

Mark 15:47a, “and Mary Magdalene and Mary [mother] of Joseph.”

Mark 16:18, “they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly …”

Biblical studies are enhanced when attention is given to these unique features in view of authorship, readership, accompanying background and circumstances, inferred applicability and purpose, as well as the fruits of comparative analysis. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “The Synoptic Problem and Markan Priority,” Part 1 <Link>, and Part 2 <Link>.

     ² I. H. Marshall, a Markan Priority advocate, admits that attempted explanations for the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark “do not seem adequate and sometimes give the impression of being desperate attempts to iron out the difficulties at any cost,” while the MP hypothesis “must be judged insufficient to account for all the evidence” (Luke: Historian and Theologian 58, cf. 59-63).

Related Posts: Mark's Audience, Authorship of Gospels, Ending of Mark Part 1 (and links to Parts 2-4), Biblical Inspiration in Perspective 

Image credit: http://hoodmemorial.org/2018/02/05/matthew-and-mark/

Understanding the Bible: the Study of Ancient Rhetoric

Pasquale Ottino’s Mark writes Gospel at Peter’s dictation

Rhetoric is the disciplined art of persuasion that “had an importance in Roman society equal to that of television or computers in our age…. All types of literature were affected by rhetorical techniques, and the writers of the New Testament did not escape the impact of this rhetorical education. It shaped the way they thought and the way they composed written material …” (A. A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the New Testament World 239-40). The questions that are sometimes raised about the literary education of New Testament writers do not largely affect this area of discussion, since formal training in rhetoric was not necessarily a prerequisite for making use of it. Rhetorical techniques were well known in the 1st-century Mediterranean world, “and one did not have to be formally trained in rhetoric to use them” (P. T. O’Brien, “Letters” 553). Rhetoric “was a pervasive social convention in Greco-Roman society and that rather than being the sole possession of an elite class, its customs, techniques, and practices had filtered down to all levels of society” (R. A. Ramsaran, Liberating Words 26, cf. 79-80, 147-48 nn. 13-15).  

Because the letter form in particular is more closely related to speech than narrative literature, rhetorical analysis can highlight the basic use of the letter as a substitute for the writer’s actual presence. While New Testament documents were composed in an age of letter writing, they were also produced in a largely oral and aural culture. The New Testament world was dominated by public speaking and rhetoric, and early Christianity placed much emphasis on preaching.¹ The written word was basically a tool of the oral culture, and letters were a substitute for face-to-face communication.

Paul’s writings, for example, were designed to create an “apostolic parousia,” using the letter, the public reader, and the apostle’s words to create the sense of an authoritative, personal communication as well as the anticipation of a future reunion (R. W. Funk, “Apostolic Parousia” 249-68).² Since New Testament writers like Paul understood their primary task to be the proclamation of the gospel,³ their writings were naturally composed (dictated) from the perspective of gospel preachers. The New Testament letters, having served as substitutes for the writer’s physical presence (cf. 1 Cor. 5:3-5; Col. 2:5; 1 Thess. 2:17), are comparable in many respects to oral speech, which encourages us to listen to the words as the original addressees would have heard them. 

Biblical documents were designed to be read aloud (Luke 4:16-17; 1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16; 1 Tim. 4:13), not just to be seen as persuasive but heard as persuasive. Since the spoken word was primary, and the written word was merely a surrogate for verbal communication, attention had to be given to its oral and aural features.⁴ These writings “functioned not only as means of communication but also as sophisticated instruments of persuasion and media for displaying literary skill” (D. E. Aune, NT Literary 160-61).  

Biblical writers, who lacked any other practical device to implement divine directives, were not detached from the rhetorical art of persuasion, and they used it to great advantage. Paul’s contemporaries recognized his rhetorical skill: “‘The letters [of Paul],’ it is said, ‘are weighty and powerful …” (2 Cor. 10:10). Modern scholars continue to recognize his rhetorical skill: “one cannot deny that the apostle did possess a certain rhetorical mastery” (R. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period 410-11). R. N. Longenecker comments: “Paul seems to have availed himself almost unconsciously of the rhetorical forms at hand, fitting them into his inherited epistolary structures and filling them out with such Jewish theological motifs and exegetical methods as would be particularly significant …” (Galatians cxix).

Seeking to understand the Bible within its original context requires us to place ourselves among the initial recipients of these inspired documents. Any careful examination of biblical literature should therefore be augmented with rhetorical analysis.⁵

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Acts 1:15 ff.; 2:14 ff.; 3:12 ff.; 4:29-31; 5:20-21, 25, 42; 7:2 ff.; 8:4-6, 12, 25, 40; 9:20, 27-29; 10:27 ff.; 11:26; 13:5, 15 ff., 42 ff.;14:1 ff., 7, 15, 21, 25; 15:32, 35, 36; 16:10, 13, 32; 17:2-3, 10-13, 17 ff.; 18:4-11, 19, 28; 19:8-10; 20:2, 7, 20; 21:40 ff.; 23:1; 26:1 ff.; 28:17 ff., 30-31.

     ² See also D. E. Aune, NT Literary 190-91; W. G. Doty, Letters 26-27; L. A. Jervis, Purpose 110-31; R. Jewett, “Discussion” 48; P. T. O’Brien, “Letters” 552; S. N. Olson, “Self-Confidence” 596; S. E. Porter, “Exegesis” 547-48; C. J. Roetzel, Letters 65; J. L. White,  Light 19.

     ³ Rom. 1:15; 15:20; 1 Cor. 1:17; 9:16-19; 15:1-4; Gal. 1:11-12, 15-16, 23; 4:13; Eph. 3:8; 1 Thess. 2:4.

     ⁴ A. C. Thiselton, First Corinthians 44; also W. G. Doty, Letters 2; B. Witherington III, Paul Quest 89-100. This would require not only the rhetorical acumen of the writer and/or his amanuensis, but also of the public reader and perhaps the listening audience as well.

     ⁵ P. T. O’Brien, “Letters” 553. See also K. L. Moore, “Rhetorical Criticism and the Pauline Writings,” in A Critical Introduction to the NT 256-63. For a brief analysis of Paul’s apparent use of the rhetorical device known as chiasmus in 1 Cor. 11:2-16, see K. L. Moore, We Have No Such Custom 27-30.

Related Posts: Study of Ancient History, Ancient Letter Writing, Public Reading

Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APasquale_Ottino_San_Marcos_escribe_sus_Evangelios_al_dictado_de_San_Pedro_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts%2C_Bordeaux.jpg