From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan “Pick-ups” and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists

Updated: 15-December-2020

The first article I wrote on the interrelationships of Matthew, Mark and Luke to each other and to other canonical and non-canonical sources appeared in the journal Novum Testamentum.^[43] The article discusses the conclusions I reached concerning the “Synoptic Problem” over several years spent translating the Gospel of Mark into Modern Hebrew.

The basic solution offered in that article includes the suggestion that the line of interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels runs from Luke to Mark to Matthew. At the time, I supposed that the three Synoptic Gospels were not merely interrelated, but that each had access to a shared non-canonical Hebraic-Greek source. Luke, I supposed, had utilized this source when composing his Gospel. Mark utilized Luke and the non-canonical Hebraic-Greek source, and finally Matthew had based his Gospel on Mark and that same Hebraic-Greek Source. This hypothesis allowed me to account for the Hebraic style of much of Luke’s material, the apparent rewriting of Luke’s material by Mark, and the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the Triple Tradition, since Matthew and Luke used the same non-canonical Hebraic-Greek text as one of their sources. Mark’s middle position allowed me to account for the common pericope order, but at the time I still believed that the Double Tradition, that is, the shared Matthean and Lukan pericopae not paralleled by Mark, derived from a separate source generally referred to as Q.

With further research, however, I refined my hypothesis. I reached the conclusion that Luke depended heavily on not one, but two earlier sources, which I term the Anthology and the First Reconstruction. I will describe the distinctive characteristics of these two sources below. For now, however, let me continue to describe my conclusions regarding the line of synoptic interdependence. I still maintain that Mark followed Luke, but I now believe that Mark had access to the Anthology as a separate text, whereas his knowledge of the First Reconstruction is derived solely from Luke. Nevertheless, by comparing Luke to the Anthology, Mark was able to detect the presence of the First Reconstruction, for he observed Luke departing from the Anthology’s order and wording. This observation inspired Mark to do editing and rewriting of his own, according to his peculiar and unique style. Matthew still comes in the third position. Like Mark, Matthew also consulted the Anthology, the first of Luke’s two sources, and the only source known independently to all three Synoptists. But although Matthew utilized the Anthology, he followed Mark as his principal source for pericope order and phraseology in the stories he held in common with Mark. Thus, both of Luke’s sources exerted their influence on all three of the Synoptic Gospels, although in different ways. The Anthology was known directly to Luke, Mark and Matthew. The First Reconstruction, on the other hand, was known directly only to Luke. Mark was influenced by the First Reconstruction via Luke, and Matthew, who depended on Mark, was likewise influenced by the First Reconstruction at a third remove.

• ^[1] A Lukan Doublet is a saying of Jesus appearing twice in the Gospel of Luke, apparently the result of Luke’s copying from two sources, each of which had a different version of the saying. ↩
• ^[2] For more on the Lukan Doublets, see the section "Lukan Doublets" in Robert L. Lindsey, "Unlocking the Synoptic Problem: Four Keys for Better Understanding Jesus." ↩
• ^[3] Matthew and Luke, here in a Double Tradition pericope, preserve a beautiful Hebrew parallelism in almost identical wording: οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστιν κεκαλυμμένον ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται ("for nothing is covered up that will not be revealed") = καὶ κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ γνωσθήσεται ("and [nothing is] hidden that will not be known"). The parallelism is "covered up | revealed; hidden | known." Luke's compound verb συγκεκαλυμμένον (L2) is a Greek improvement of Matthew's κεκαλυμμένον. We may assume that this Greek improvement was carried out by the author of Luke since we view the First Reconstruction's less-Hebraic reading, ἐστιν κρυπτόν, in the doublet of Luke 8:17 (L2). ↩
• ^[4] Franz Delitzsch rendered Luke 12:2 (and Matthew 10:26) as: אֵין דָּבָר מְכֻסֶּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִגָּלֶה וְלֹא סָתוּם [וְאֵין נֶעְלָם] אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִוָּדֵעַ. ↩
• ^[5] In Demands of Discipleship, L11-14, David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton have proposed the following reconstruction: מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶת צְלָבוֹ וּבָא אַחֲרַי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִהְיוֹת תַּלְמִידִי. Brad Young reconstructed this verse in the following manner: מי שלא יטען את צלבו ויבוא אחרי אינו יכול להיות תלמידי (Brad H. Young, "A Fresh Examination of the Cross, Jesus and the Jewish People," in Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels 1 [JCP 11; ed. R. Steven Notley, Marc Turnage and Brian Becker; Leiden: Brill, 2006], 202.). ↩
• ^[6] E.g., Luke 13:34-35 = Matt. 23:37-39; Luke 3:7b-9 = Matt. 3:7b-10; Luke 11:29-32 = Matt. 12:39-42. ↩
• ^[7] E.g., Luke 6:20-23 = Matt. 5:3-12; Luke 6:27, 28, 32-36 = Matt. 5:43-48; Luke 6:43-45 = Matt. 7:16-19. ↩
• ^[8] The phrase οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν appears only in Luke 5:31 and Luke 15:7 in Luke's Gospel. ↩
• ^[9] See David N. Bivin, "Discovering Longer Gospel Stories." ↩
• ^[10] For full Greek and Hebrew reconstructions of this literary complex, along with a detailed commentary, see David N. Bivin, "Counting the Cost of Discipleship." ↩
• ^[11] It is clear that in both instances of Matthew’s preservation of Double Tradition his text is shorter and less complete than Luke's (cf. Matthew's version of the Parable of the Lost Sheep in Matt. 18:12-14 and his version of the Conditions of Discipleship in Matt. 10:37-38 with their Lukan parallels: Luke 15:4-7 and Luke 14:26-27, respectively). ↩
• ^[12] Some scholars have claimed that it was later tradition that added the second parable in an unoriginal imitation of the first parable. But there is no basis for this suggestion. Joseph had double dreams (Gen. 37:5-9), and he made the point that the doubling of Pharaoh's dream meant that God would cause its certain fulfillment (Gen. 41:32). Gideon put out not one fleece, but two (Judg. 6:36-40), and the Torah lays down the principle that by the mouth of two or more witnesses evidence is corroborated (Deut. 19:15). Thus, there is ample cultural and literary precedent for Jesus' practice of buttressing his argument by the use of twin parables. ↩
• ^[13] Cf. Papyrus 45 and other manuscript evidence. ↩
• ^[14] For a full explanation of the words in common that tie the fragments of this complex together, see Robert L. Lindsey, Jesus, Rabbi and Lord: A Lifetime's Search for the Meaning of Jesus' Words, 101-105; David N. Bivin, "Mary and Martha: The Rest of the Story." ↩
• ^[15] Verses 18 and 19 appear to be inconsistent with this prophecy and may be the result of Luke's editorial activity. Verse 18 is a promise of survival, despite Jesus' having said in verse 16 that some will be put to death. The promise in verse 18 appears to have been based on Luke 12:7, which is not a promise of survival. Verse 19 is also a promise of survival with Hebraic overtones. For example, "you will acquire τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν" (tas psychas hymon, "your souls"; no doubt reflecting the idiomatic Hebrew נֶפֶשׁ [nephesh, "soul" in the sense of "life"]), that is, "you will save your lives." This verse may have been derived from the teaching context dealing with flight from Jerusalem. ↩
• ^[16] I.e., the non-signs of verses 10 and 11, as well as the appearances before kings and governors, being hated, soldiers around Jerusalem, Jerusalem's fall and the heavenly portents at the Advent. ↩
• ^[17] The First Reconstructor's secondary usage of "the kingdom of God" as though it means "the Return of Jesus" can also be observed in the Parable of the Pounds/Talents, which appears in Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27. The parable has nothing to do with the kingdom of God in the Matthean version, but in the Lukan version it is introduced by the idea that some people thought “the kingdom of God was about to appear.” Another example of this secondary usage of "the kingdom of God" appears in the introduction to the long passage on the Day of the Son of Man in Luke 17:22-37. The introduction (Luke 17:20) suggests that the Pharisees were interested in the coming of the kingdom of God, a truly unrabbinic way of talking about this subject, and which makes sense only if we understand that the First Reconstructor confused the Second Coming with the kingdom of God. Jesus' answer to the Pharisees' question likewise illustrates the First Reconstructor's conflation of the Second Coming (a future event) with the kingdom of God (a present reality): “The kingdom of God [as if it meant “the Coming of the Son of Man”] is not coming with observation [by watching out for it/him]. They will not [are not going to be able to] say, 'Here it is,' or, 'There it is,' for behold the kingdom of God is among you” (Luke 17:20-21). According to this rephrasing by the First Reconstructor, Jesus is merely saying the same thing he says when he tells his disciples (in Luke 17:23) not to follow anyone who says, “Here he is!" or "There he is!” Modern New Testament translators were led astray by supposing that Jesus first quoted those who would say, “Behold here or there,” then turned and spoke directly to the disciples as he added, "For behold the kingdom of God is among you,” an idea often bandied about today by teachers and preachers as a prooftext that Jesus said his kingdom was in us. Luke 17:20-21, where the expression "the kingdom of God" is made the equivalent of the "Coming of the Son of Man," is secondary: it is simply a rephrasing of what Jesus says in Luke 17:22-37 concerning his Second Coming. ↩
• ^[18] In Luke the speaker mentions stones in conjunction with gifts. Both Song of Songs Rabbah and Ecclesiastes Rabbah open with the story of Hanina ben Dosa who presented a stone as a gift to the Temple. The speaker in Luke also emphasizes that the stones are "beautiful." Rabbinic literature, likewise, records the impression the Temple's beauty made on those who saw it:

  It used to be said: "He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building." Of what did he build it? Rabbah said: "Of yellow and white marble." Some say, of blue, yellow and white marble. Alternate rows [of the stones] projected, so as to leave a place for cement. He originally intended to cover it with gold, but the Rabbis advised him not to, since it was more beautiful as it was, looking like the waves of the sea. (b. Bava Batra 4^a; cf. b. Sukkah 51^b)

  This tradition places emphasis on the beauty of the Temple's stones. ↩

• ^[19] Compare Jesus' cleansing of the Temple (Matt. 21:12-16; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-48) and his words to the “daughters of Jerusalem” as they followed him on the way to his crucifixion (Luke 23:28-32). ↩
• ^[20] See Randall Buth, "Matthew's Aramaic Glue." ↩
• ^[21] On Luke's misunderstanding of his source, see David Flusser, "The Times of the Gentiles and the Redemption of Jerusalem" under the subheading "Lindsey's Hypothesis and Jesus' Prophecy." ↩
• ^[22] Is "gospel of the kingdom" an echo of the testimony before kings in Mark 13:9? ↩
• ^[23] Ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης (Ekeinē hē hēmera thlipseōs hoia ouk egenēthē af’ hou egenēthēsan heōs tēs hēmeras ekeinēs, "That is a day of affliction, which will be such as has not occurred since they were born until that day" [NETS]). ↩
• ^[24] A comparison of Luke 17:22-37 with Matthew 24:26-28, 37-39 shows that Luke's version is more complete and comprehensible than the verses Matthew selected from this portion of the Anthology:

  	Luke 17:22-37	Matthew 24:26-28	Matthew 24:37-39
  L1	22 Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς· Ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι ὅτε ἐπιθυμήσετε μίαν τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἰδεῖν καὶ οὐκ ὄψεσθε.
  L2	23 καὶ ἐροῦσιν ὑμῖν· Ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ· Ἰδοὺ ὧδε· μὴ ἀπέλθητε μηδὲ διώξητε.	26 ἐὰν οὖν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν· Ἰδοὺ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐστίν, μὴ ἐξέλθητε· Ἰδοὺ ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις, μὴ πιστεύσητε·
  L3	24 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἀστραπὴ ἀστράπτουσα ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰς τὴν ὑπ’ οὐρανὸν λάμπει, οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ.	27 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἀστραπὴ ἐξέρχεται ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ φαίνεται ἕως δυσμῶν, οὕτως ἔσται ἡ παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου·
  L4	25 πρῶτον δὲ δεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης.
  L5	26 καὶ καθὼς ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Νῶε, οὕτως ἔσται καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου·		37 ὥσπερ γὰρ αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ Νῶε, οὕτως ἔσται ἡ παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου·
  L6	27 ἤσθιον, ἔπινον, ἐγάμουν, ἐγαμίζοντο, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν,		38 ὡς γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες, γαμοῦντες καὶ γαμίζοντες, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν,
  L7	καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμὸς καὶ ἀπώλεσεν πάντας.		39 καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἕως ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμὸς καὶ ἦρεν ἅπαντας,
  L8	28 ὁμοίως καθὼς ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Λώτ· ἤσθιον, ἔπινον, ἠγόραζον, ἐπώλουν, ἐφύτευον, ᾠκοδόμουν·
  L9	29 ᾗ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ ἐξῆλθεν Λὼτ ἀπὸ Σοδόμων, ἔβρεξεν πῦρ καὶ θεῖον ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἀπώλεσεν πάντας.
  L10	30 κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔσται ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀποκαλύπτεται.		οὕτως ἔσται καὶ ἡ παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
  L11	31 ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὃς ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, μὴ καταβάτω ἆραι αὐτά, καὶ ὁ ἐν ἀγρῷ ὁμοίως μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω.
  L12	32 μνημονεύετε τῆς γυναικὸς Λώτ.
  L13	33 ὃς ἐὰν ζητήσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ περιποιήσασθαι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν, ὃς δ’ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ ζῳογονήσει αὐτήν.
  L14	34 λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται·
  L15	35 ἔσονται δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, ἡ μία παραλημφθήσεται ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα ἀφεθήσεται.
  L16	[36 Omitted in the best manuscripts.]δύο ἔσονται ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ· εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται		40 τότε δύο ἔσονται ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, εἷς παραλαμβάνεται καὶ εἷς ἀφίεται·
  L17	37 καὶ ἀποκριθέντες λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· Ποῦ, κύριε; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·
  L18	Ὅπου τὸ σῶμα, ἐκεῖ καὶ οἱ ἀετοὶ ἐπισυναχθήσονται.	28 ὅπου ἐὰν ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί.

  The most telling detail in this comparison is Matthew's treatment of the word ἡμέρα (hēmera, "day"). In the Lukan column above, the word hēmera appears ten times. The repeated use of "day" in Luke makes sense, because here Jesus compares the days of Noah and the days of Lot to the day of the Son of Man. Matthew, by contrast, is willing to mention the days of Noah (twice, L5-6), but he consistently replaces "day of the Son of Man" with "Coming of the Son of Man" (L3, L5, L10). We have already noted above that Matthew introduced the idea of the παρουσία (parousia, "coming; advent") into the disciples' question that prompts Jesus' prophesy (Matt. 24:3), a strong indication that "Coming of the Son of Man" is also secondary in this context (Matt. 24:26-28, 37-39).

  Matthew's use of tote at Matt. 24:40 (L16) to start a new sentence is also noteworthy. This use of tote may be an indication of Matthew's reworking of his sources (see the comments on L34 of Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple).

  Finally, we note that whereas Matthew's saying about the gathering of vultures (Matt. 24:28; L18) is nearly incomprehensible, in Luke it comes as a natural response to the disciples' question, "Where, Lord [will they be taken]?" (Luke 17:37; L17). This question refers to Jesus' warning that "two will be in one bed, one will be taken...." In Luke's context, "being taken" is clearly an undesirable possibility, comparable to those who "were taken" (i.e., drowned) in Noah's flood, or those who "were taken" (i.e., perished) in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Those who are "taken" on the Day of the Son of Man will likewise come to an unpleasant end. Where will they be taken? Jesus offers a cryptic response: "Where a body [is], there the vultures will gather on it." Apparently, those who are taken on the Day of the Son of Man will be taken to a place of death.

  These observations indicate that Luke has preserved his source material (whether taken from the First Reconstruction or from the Anthology) about the "Day of the Son of Man" more completely and faithfully than Matthew, who redacted the Anthology to suit his purposes. Matthew's method was to splice excerpts of the Anthology into Mark's prophecy, whereas Luke quoted his sources en bloc. ↩

• ^[25] See R. Steven Notley, "Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree," in Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels 1 (JCP 11; ed. R. Steven Notley, Marc Turnage and Brian Becker; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 107-120. ↩
• ^[26] Matthew followed Mark’s allusion to James about the “doors” (Matt. 24:33). Mark picked up other words from James. For example, Mark wrote, in contrast to Luke and Matthew, that during their famous "Sending Out" the disciples "anointed with oil many that were sick" (Mark 6:13; cf. James 5:14). ↩
• ^[27] R. Steven Notley, "The Season of Redemption." ↩
• ^[28] A total of 38 lines excluding the verses from Matt. 10, or 45 lines if the verses from Matt. 10 are included. ↩
• ^[29] If the verses from Matt. 10 are included, the number grows to 58 out of 114 lines. ↩
• ^[30] 21 of the 46 lines that show Markan-Matthean agreements against Luke are in lines that also have agreements with Luke. (The number rises to 28 out of 58 lines if the verses from Matt. 10 are included.) ↩
• ^[31] The one exception is L15 where Luke and Mark agree for a short phrase. ↩
• ^[32] There are two exceptions: in L4 there is Lukan-Markan verbal agreement, but not Lukan-Markan-Matthean verbal agreement; in L37 Luke and Mark agree where there is no parallel in Matt. 24, but there is a parallel in Matt. 10. ↩
• ^[33] Two additional lines (L61, L75) show verbal agreement between Luke and the other synoptists, but without sharing parallel ideas. In L61 Luke speaks of the desolation of Jerusalem whereas Mark and Matthew write about the abomination of desolation. In L75 Luke writes about great distress on the earth, whereas Matthew speaks about great tribulation. Therefore, these lines could still be considered unique Lukan material. ↩
• ^[34] There is no parallel to this Markan story (Mark 7:31-37) in Luke. Matthew's parallel, Matt. 15:29-31, mentions Jesus' healing of deaf mutes along with other types of disabled and injured, but does not record the healing of this deaf mute. ↩
• ^[35] Compare, for example, πᾶσαν τὴν περίχωρον τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (pasan tēn perichōron tou Iordanou, "the entire circle of the Jordan"; Luke 3:3; cf. Matt. 3:5), which is obviously a translation of כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן (kikar hayardēn), as in Genesis 13:10. ↩
• ^[36] John’s preaching shows affinity with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which makes it seem unlikely that he would have used rabbinic terminology such as malchūt shāmayim ("kingdom of Heaven"), given the Essenes' hatred of the Pharisees. ↩
• ^[37] Claude G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels: Edited with an Introduction and a Commentary (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1927), 1:9. ↩
• ^[38] The Hebrew idiom is קָרַב (qārav, "come up to; arrive"). ↩
• ^[39] "Invents," rather than "chooses," may be the correct word here, since Mark is the earliest witness for the toponym "Sea of Galilee." See R. Steven Notley's discussion under the subheading, "The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym," in Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 352ff. However, in his article, "The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym," JBL 128 (2009): 187, Notley states that "The place-name was not the creation of any of the evangelists. Instead, the Gospels are a repository of a pre-Synoptic development." ↩
• ^[40] One of the ways to study Mark's method of replacement is to note words such as “lake” in Luke, and their Markan equivalents in parallel. Mark changed Luke’s λίμνη (limnē, "lake"; Luke 5:1) to θάλασσα (thalassa, "sea"; Mark 1:16). When Mark copied opposite Luke two further uses of “lake” (in Luke 8:22, 23), he deftly avoided all mention of the body of water (Mark 4:35-37). Mark replaced Luke's final occurrence of "lake" (Luke 8:33) by using “sea" (Mark 5:13). Typical, too, of Mark’s method is his refusal of the word "Gennesaret" in Mark 1:16, yet in a passage with no parallel in Luke (Mark 6:53, parallel to Matthew 14:34), Mark describes Jesus’ coming to “Gennesaret.” This practice of skipping a word to choose a synonym for his text at one place only to bring the word back as a replacement in another place is easily traceable in Mark's Gospel. In a similar manner, Mark made note of Luke’s unique use of the word πλοιάριον (ploiarion, "small boat") in Luke 5:2, but refused to use the word until Mark 3:9 (against both Matthew and Luke). ↩
• ^[41] Compare Mark 1:20 and 2:17 with Matt. 4:21 and 9:13. ↩
• ^[42] I am indebted to David Flusser for this analysis. ↩
• ^[43] R. L. Lindsey, “A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence,” Novum Testamentum 6 (1963): 239-263. The article was emended and updated by Lauren S. Asperschlager, David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton and published on Jan. 20, 2014 as “A New Two-source Solution to the Synoptic Problem.” ↩