The Double Tradition

I. Conclusions from the Triple Tradition

A. Matthew and Luke tend to agree when Mark is present

B. They start or stop agreeing when Mark starts or stops

1. Example: prologues to gospels, endings after the empty tomb

C. Hypothesis: Matthew and Luke copied Mark

II. The Double Tradition: Common material in Matthew and Luke that isn't in Mark

A. Example: Gospel Parallels #167: Lament over Jerusalem

1. Material arranged differently: in Luke, comes before the entry to Jerusalem; Matthew has it after

B. Matthew's arrangements are logical, but Luke doesn't use them

1. Example: GP 221, 224, 225: Matthew has them all together, Luke puts them in 3 different places

C. Hypothesis 1: Matthew and Luke did not know each other

1. Otherwise the material would be placed together more, as in the Marcan material

D. Hypothesis 2: This material itself was not connected

1. The material had no set arrangement, so each writer could combine it with Mark as he chose

E. Hypothesis 3: Mark did not know this material (Q)

1. Otherwise, why would he leave it out?

III. The nature of the Q material

A. Disconnected sayings; no narrative

1. Perhaps topically rather than chronologically arranged

2. Lacks a passion narrative or theology of the cross

B. Intensification of ethical norms

1. Many of these sayings make no sense as rules for life

C. Eschatological statements throughout

1. Teaching statements make sense if read in the light of eschatology: sayings about the morrow, for example

D. Concern about the demonic

1. Temptations; references to casting out demons, term "son of man"

E. Looks forward to Last Judgment

1. Not interested in resurrection

IV. Conclusions that might be drawn from the Double Tradition

A. Jesus as a cynic sage: going against the grain

B. Jesus as eschatological prophet: the world is going to end soon; last judgment is at hand

C. Jesus as bringer of secret wisdom

D. Did any of these views of Jesus consider his death and resurrection important?