7 - The Minor Agreements

Summary

The agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark constitute the greatest difficulty for proponents of the two-document theory and other related theories of the interrelationships of the Synoptic Gospels. The two-document hypothesis is dependent on the statement that Matthew and Luke do not agree together against Mark, and holders of that hypothesis are forced to explain away the existence of the actual agreements.

So comments Sanders, and the embarrassment which the so-called ‘minor agreements’ cause for the 2DH is well-known. Streeter put forward a variety of explanations to cover various cases, and this chapter of his book has often been heavily criticised. For any study of the Synoptic Problem, Streeter's arguments must be examined with care, especially in the light of the criticisms made by Farmer and others. However, the same texts must also be satisfactorily explained by another source hypothesis if that hypothesis is to command assent. Thus the problem raised by the minor agreements for the 2DH must be looked at in conjunction with the question of whether they constitute a problem on other hypotheses. In particular, one must see if the texts can be more satisfactorily explained by the GH, than by the 2DH, bearing in mind also that Streeter's treatment of the minor agreements is not the only way of explaining them on the assumption of Markan priority.

In Farmer's presentation of the GH, the minor agreements arise out of Mark's editorial method in conflating his sources.