Ancient Words

Are the synoptic gospels independent eyewitness accounts? A contrast of Matthew 19:7-8 and Mark 10:3-5 tell us that they are not.

In these two passages, Jesus and the Pharisees debated the meaning of Moses’ statement that a man could give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away. Presumably, their debate revolved around the text of Deuteronomy 24:1ff.

In the Matthew account, Jesus said that Moses “permitted” divorce, and the Pharisees said Moses “commanded” it. Mark, however, reports the opposite: Jesus said “commanded” divorce and the Pharisees said Moses “permitted” it.

In case you’re wondering, the Greek words used here are consistent between the two accounts — i.e., the word for “command” is the same in both passages, and the word for “permit” is the same in both.

There is clearly some dissonance here between the two accounts, as the two parties seem to be saying different (and opposing) things depending on the account. How might people try to resolve it?

An Unsatisfactory Explanation: Both Accounts are Accurate as Recorded

This attempt to resolve the dissonance says that both accounts are strictly historical, accurate, and precise — and both come from eyewitnesses. In this scenario, you could cut the verses out of Mark and place them in Matthew to get a complete sense of the dialogue.

There are a couple of things to say about this resolution. First, would this not create a thoroughly bizarre conversation? Jesus would be saying that Moses both permitted and commanded divorce, and then the Pharisees would say the exact same thing, just in a different order! Ironically, if we accept this new verbal exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees, both parties would be in full agreement with one another!

A second difficulty here is that this resolution creates a theological landmine. If Jesus really said that Moses’ statement both commanded and permitted divorce, then we have Jesus on record saying that permission is equivalent to command. Think about the ramifications of a doctrine that says, by definition, a thing permitted is also a thing commanded.

A Less Unsatisfactory Explanation: Over Time, the Tradition Diverged

This explanation says that the attribution of “commanded” and “permitted” diverged over time. We can never know for sure who said what during the actual debate between Jesus and the Pharisees, but the memory of it in Matthew’s received tradition had Jesus saying “permitted” and the Pharisees saying “commanded”. Conversely, Mark’s received tradition had the opposite. This explanation would apply whether the traditions were oral or written.

We are in the world of speculation here of course. About all we can say is that this is a possibility.

A More Satisfactory Explanation: Matthew Changed His Source

This explanation is more satisfactory to me simply because it is more interesting and because it has a place in the bigger debate about “Q” and the synoptic problem.

This explanation says that Matthew changed his source, whether that source be “Q” or Mark or something else. For example, maybe Matthew would have been offended that Jesus would say Moses commanded divorce, which would contradict the spirit of Micah 2:16 where god hates divorce. Or, perhaps, Matthew’s theology would not accept Moses’ statement in Deut 24:1 to be equivalent to a command.

Whatever the reason, something again we could never know, for this explanation Matthew would have a specific reason or reasons to use the terms he did. We have to admit that “commanded” is the more difficult reading here. It would be one thing for the Pharisees to claim Deut 24:1 is a command to divorce, but it’s a different thing entirely for Jesus to say it is. Hence, it is the more difficult reading and more likely to be changed for theological purposes by Matthew.