The best explanation of the synoptic relationships seems to me to involve a Proto Marcan gospel account that developed into a Proto Mark A and Proto Mark B. Matthew, Luke, and Mark (the final Marcan gospel evangelist) used these versions for their respective gospel accounts. Matthew and Luke used different Proto Mark versons. Mark had access to both versions of the earlier account.

This theory offers explanation for minor agreements (Mt and Lk against Mk), for Mark unique material, and for Markan conflations, where the best explanation is that Mark combined Lk and Mt.

The conflations cannot be explained easily if Mt and Lk used the same version of the same Mark gospel that we have today.

Some of the places in Mark where Mt and Lk apparently have both made the exact same editorial changes are easier to explain if Mt, Lk, and Mk had the same source for the passage and Mark made a change.

The Proto Mark hypothesis allows for this subsequent Marcan editing.

This also allows for development within the Markan gospel that might be perceptible through consideration of different verses. It certainly makes Mark more than a compiler of traditions.

A quick overview of Mark provided over 50 verses and/or details in Mark but not in Matthew or Luke. It will be interesting to look at these verses and consider whether this Proto Mark hypothesis seems to provide explanation and to offer any help and insights into the development of the teaching in Mark's gospel and into the community to which Mark wrote.

Message edited by its author, Oct 4, 2009, 2:10pm.

Considering the Rich Man pericope in Mk 10.17-31, in terms of the Proto Mark hypothesis.

Mark seems to use both versions where possible, to take the more descriptive version where needed, and to add detail where lacking.

Added detail:

17 setting out for a journey
17 knelt before Jesus
19 do not defraud (perhaps meaning do not covet)
24 disciples were perplexed
24 saying - "Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God."
30 adds - "with persecutions
30 adds second listing of the Mt itemization of things left

More detailed version:

20 Lk and Mk - since my youth, against Mt
21 Lk and Mk - lack one thing, against Mt
22 Mt and Mk - went away grieving
22 Mt and Mk - many possessions
24 Mt and Mk - Jesus repeats instruction, against Lk
29 Mt and Mk - same itemization of things left, against Lk
30 Lk and Mk - in this age, against Mt
31 Mt and Mk - add first will be last saying

Combines versions:
29 for my sake (with Mt) and for sake of good news (with Lk, good news (Mk) or kingdom of God (Lk )

Message edited by its author, Oct 7, 2009, 7:08am.

Some of the changes with the Matthean version may be explained better by editing from Matthew rather than relying of a different Proto Mark version.

Mt 19.16-17

Matthew changes "good teacher" to teacher and "why do you call me good" to "why do you ask me about what is good?"

This might be understood as an attempt to avoid the implications that Jesus was not good. It could have been changed in a Proto Mark A version or by Matthew. I tend to think that Matthew made this change.

Also adding "You shall love your neighbor..." in verse 19. It seems to me that Mark would have added that commandment if it were present in the Proto Mark A version that he was using.

Finally, it seems to me that Matthew added the Son of Man imagery in Mt 19.28.

Looking at the prediction of death in Mark 9:30ff.

Mk 9.31 The Son of Man is given into the hands of men
Mt 17.22 The Son of Man is about to be given over into the hands of men
Lk 9.44 For the Son of Man is about to be given over into the hands of men

Either Mt and Lk both changed Mark to add "about to" or Mark changed the Proto-Mark sources to fit his style using the historical present to enhance the effect on the reader.

Mk 9.31 and they will kill him and when he is killed after 3 days he will be raised
Mt 17.23 and they will kill him and on the third day he will be lifted up

Either Luke omitted this reference to the death and resurrection or he used a Proto Mark source that did not have the reference or Mark uses the Proto Mark-A source that Matthew used that had the reference to the death and resurrection.

In each prediction Mark refers to "after 3 days," and Matthew and Luke refer to "on the third day." Either both Matthew and Luke made the same change to Mark, or Mark corrects the Proto-Mark versions to fit his understanding of the time frame from death to resurrection.

Message edited by its author, Oct 17, 2009, 4:17pm.

Continuing the prediction of death in Mark 9.

Mk 9:32 But they did not understand the word
Lk 9:45 But they did not understand this word

Either Matthew omitted this reference to the lack of understanding, or Mark used the reference from the Proto Mark B source that Luke had. (This is assuming that Matthew had Proto-Mark A source and Luke had Proto-Mark B source. Mark had access to both and combined them sometimes and selected between them sometimes.)

Lk 9:45 And it was hidden from them so that they did not perceive it

The best explanation is that this phrasing is a Lukan addition. Neither Matthew nor Mark have this phrase.

Mt 17:23 and they grieved exceedingly.

Matthew has the disciples grieving, which is not in the Mark and Luke account because the disciples do not apparently understand sufficiently to grieve.

Mk 9:32 And they were afraid to ask him
Lk 9:45 And they were afraid to ask him concerning this word

Luke either adds the reference "concerning this word" or Mark drops it.

It seems to me that the better explanation of these differences is that there was a Proto Mark A (used by Matthew) and Proto Mark B (used by Luke). And Mark used both. This synoptic passage is a good illustration of the issues in understanding the relationship between the synoptics.

Looking at Mk 12.38-44.

These verses are in Luke with very similar language. Matthew incorporates the substance of 12.38-39 into Matthean woes. The woes are Q material that Luke places separately from the Markan criticism of the scribes. Lukan woes are prior to the entry into Jerusalem.

Matthew does not have verses 39-44 at all.

The best explanation for me is that Mark and Luke accessed a proto Mark source that included verses. Matthew's source did not have these verses.

Slight differences between Mark and Luke seem to be Markan added detail - location of the scene, the crowd putting in money, explaining to the disciples alone, repetitive emphasis in the last verse.

Message edited by its author, Nov 7, 2009, 11:38am.