Sources of the Synoptic Gospels — Inside the Classic

The Two-Recension Hypothesis in Action

Patton's central argument emerges clearly in his treatment of the parable of the house built on rock and sand. He contends that Matthew's version is more primary, citing its greater simplicity and its recurrent use of kai at sentence beginnings as evidence of Aramaic influence. Luke's version, he argues, shows reinterpretation and rewording too extensive to be explained by Luke's own editorial hand working from an identical source. The shared position of the saying—as a conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain—strengthens the case for inclusion in some form of Q. Patton assigns the Matthean form to QMt and the Lucan form to QLk, illustrating his method of positing two distinct recensions.

Word Statistics as a Diagnostic Tool

In analyzing the centurion's son narrative, Patton deploys detailed word counts to assess whether Luke's divergences stem from his own style or from a special source. He identifies five Lucan words in the messenger section (e.g., entimos, spoudaios) and three more in the parallel verses. By tracking each word's frequency across the Gospels and Acts, he tests whether these terms are characteristic of Luke or appear only here. For instance, spoudaios occurs only in this passage in the Gospels and not in Acts, while axioo appears only in Luke among the Gospels. Patton concludes that the evidence does not clearly settle whether Luke invented the messengers or drew from a special source, but he leans toward the latter, noting that the conversation itself presupposes the centurion's personal presence.

The Limits of Inference from Incomplete Evidence

Patton repeatedly acknowledges when the data do not permit a firm conclusion. Regarding the centurion story, he notes that even the presence of Lucan words does not prove Lucan invention, since they might come from a special source. He also observes that the word counts “cannot be said to throw much light” on the question. This caution is characteristic of the work: Patton is willing to advance a hypothesis—such as Luke importing the messenger detail from oral tradition—but he marks it as tentative. The reader should expect arguments that are meticulously qualified, with Patton often weighing competing explanations before stating his own preference.

Patton's Method of Comparative Analysis

Throughout the excerpts, Patton's method is to juxtapose parallel passages, identify differences in wording and structure, and then test whether those differences can be attributed to the evangelist's redaction or to a divergent source. He uses linguistic criteria (e.g., Aramaic features, characteristic vocabulary) alongside literary observations (e.g., narrative logic, position within a discourse). His analysis of the centurion story exemplifies this: he notes that Matthew has the centurion come in person, while Luke has him send messengers, but the dialogue in Luke still assumes the centurion made the request himself. This internal inconsistency, Patton argues, points to Luke's insertion of the messenger motif into a source that originally had the centurion present.

Patton's study rewards readers who attend to his careful distinctions between what the evidence supports and what it merely suggests. His two-recension hypothesis offers a fresh lens for comparing Matthew and Luke, but he never overstates his case. For those new to Synoptic criticism, the preface and early chapters provide a clear entry point; for specialists, the detailed word counts and source assignments invite further testing. Keep a synopsis of the Gospels at hand as you read—Patton assumes you will.

Sometimes a book stays with you because it slows down what you thought was settled. That feeling came back reading this study of the gospels, how patiently it weighs each shared phrase. It reminded me of Studies in the Epistle of James — A Closer Reading, which has that same quiet care for words. I found myself just sitting with the care itself.