OT Texts in the Gospel Triple Tradition
OT Texts in the Gospel Triple Tradition
(avg. read time: 16–33 mins.)
A great deal of modern Gospel scholarship has been taken up with comparative analyses of the Synoptic Gospels for purposes of source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and so on. One aspect that I have not seen a proper, focused exploration of is the quotation of OT texts—not including allusions like Jesus’s combined allusion to Ps 110 and Dan 7 in the trial narrative—in the Synoptic Triple Tradition, signifying those stories of events and sayings that are shared between all the Synoptic Gospels. That is precisely what I will be focusing on today, along with bringing John in for comparison where applicable.
Matt 3:1–6 // Mark 1:2–6 // Luke 3:1–6 // John 1:19–23
All of the Synoptic descriptions John the Baptist’s preparatory ministry reference Mal 3:1 (with some resonance of Exod 23:20 as well) and all of them follow the same wording—except for the addition Matthew and Luke make, distinct from the LXX, in adding “before you” at the end—and this wording differs from the LXX/OG and other Greek versions in the verbs used for sending and preparing. However, only Mark references this text in his introduction of John (1:2), while Jesus does not reference this text until much later in Matthew when John is nearing his death (11:10). Jesus also does not reference this text until the parallel point in Luke (7:27).
As for the other Scripture citation, all the Synoptics agree, along with John, in quoting some portion of Isa 40:3 (Matt 3:3 // Mark 1:3 // Luke 3:4 // John 1:23). The Synoptics generally agree with the LXX/OG, but they all differ at the same point at the end of v. 3 in referring to “his paths” as opposed to “the paths of our God.” John quotes only quotes a portion of v. 3 and uses a different construction (1:23). Whereas the Synoptics use the verb ποιέω for “make” preceded by the adjective for “straight,” John conveys this more directly with a single verb that carries the sense of “make straight” (εὐθύνω). This also fits with the fact that this quote from John himself (rather than the narrator) combines the latter clauses of v. 3, so that instead of saying “prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths,” he says, “make straight the way of the Lord.” It is also notable that Luke uniquely extends the quotation of Isa 40 to v. 5 (3:5–6).
The Synoptics make clear that Mal 3:1 was associated with John the Baptist, but Mark fronts this reference in his introduction to John while Matthew and Luke attribute the linkage to a comment Jesus made about John. While the particular episode in which Jesus makes this comment after John’s messengers arrive and talk with Jesus clearly left an impression, it is unclear if this particular moment was so closely tied with this text that it drove the memorization of the text and Mark simply transposed it in his narration as a way of framing John. It could be that this was not the only time Jesus used this text in reference to John as something of a supplement to John’s self-description according to the terms of Isa 40. John may have even used it in reference to himself, but there is no direct evidence for this. But all the Synoptics nevertheless recognize it as a text characteristically linked with John and it is plausible that this is because Jesus made this link on more than one occasion, but this one instance was especially noteworthy and reaffirmed how the disciples saw John.
All four Gospels attest to Isa 40 being associated with John the Baptist and all in the same kind of episode in which John’s ministry is described before Jesus arrives on the scene. In the Synoptics, it is narration that links this text to him, while the Fourth Gospel attributes the text to John’s own self-description. This is a plausible explanation for why this text is associated with him and thus why all the Synoptic narrators use it to frame John, as the use of this text has its roots in John’s own teaching. Furthermore, since John seems to be providing something of a composite picture here, it is not unlikely that John described himself in this way on multiple occasions. This alone may account for why the text is quoted in all of the Synoptics. It is unclear from examining this case alone if one Gospel using another or others as a source suffices to explain why the same extent of text is quoted in Matthew and Mark and why this plus extra text is quoted in Luke. This is something that could be incorporated into larger debates about Synoptic relationships, which I will not be getting into the details of here. But the fact that Luke quotes more of the text may be an indication that John invoked more than v. 3 in his self-description and that Matthew and Mark may be evoking more of the text than what is explicitly cited. At the same time, the rest of the text that Luke explicitly quotes also fits with Luke’s themes of salvation, God’s universal outreach, and the anticipated mission that will be described in Acts.
Matt 4:1–11 // Mark 1:12–13 // Luke 4:1–13
I am somewhat reaching in including this in my scope. Yes, all Synoptic authors include reference to Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness. But Mark’s story is extremely abbreviated and naturally includes no Scripture quotations. Matthew and Luke’s stories tell of the same temptations, but in a different order. Much attention has been given to the explanation for these variances, but here I am only focusing on the use of Scripture.
The first temptation in both Matthew and Luke, where Satan tempts Jesus to take a stone and turn it into bread, features Jesus’s response in quoting Deut 8:3 (Matt 4:4 // Luke 4:4). The text they quote is identical to the extent that Luke quotes it, but Matthew’s use of the quotation is more extensive as he continues with the contrast that humans will live “by every word that comes out through the mouth of God.” Both stories thus show that this text was linked with the story early, but it is difficult to assign too much significance to the addition or omission beyond committing oneself to a larger position. If one assumes, per the most popular Two-Source Hypothesis, that Matthew and Luke use the common source of Q here, it would not only be unclear why they have different arrangements, but also (in details like this one) why there is this difference of extent. We have already seen one example in which Luke provides a more extensive quote of Scripture than Matthew. But while one could argue there that this was at least partially due to Luke wanting to bring to the fore aspects of the text that connect to his themes, such an explanation does not work as well here. The thrust of the point remains the same whether one uses the shorter or longer quotation; the latter simply makes the point more explicit.
Interestingly, Luke provides the fuller quotation of Ps 91:11–12 in the case of his third and Matthew’s second temptation (Matt 4:6 // Luke 4:10–11; he even adds an extra ὅτι [“that”] to signify a content clause in 4:11). The only difference is that Luke retains the infinitive purpose clause “to protect you,” but both omit “in all your ways” that is present in the LXX. Again, both texts commonly attest that this psalm is linked with this event and neither is more obviously preserving an earlier version in comparison to the other. Just as both omit “in all your ways,” perhaps because this point is well enough implied, Matthew may simply omit the infinitive clause because the quote of v. 12 conveys the point well enough.
For contrasts to both of these examples, we can look to Jesus’s response to this temptation, as well as his response Matthew’s third temptation and Luke’s second temptation (Matt 4:7 // Luke 4:12; Matt 4:10 // Luke 4:8). The first instance is a quote of Deut 6:16 and the second instance is a quote of Deut 6:13. In both cases, the wording completely agrees in both texts, maintaining the future tense verbs translated from Hebrew that have the sense of imperatives. In the latter instance, both texts agree on the first verb in opposition to the LXX, using a verb for “worship” or “bowing down” rather than “fear.” However, this verb in this form does appear in the Ten Commandments in Deut 5:9, so it may be that these texts have merged in this quotation in light of their common subject matter.
Matt 4:13–17 // Mark 1:14–15 // Luke 4:14–15 // John 4:43–46
At the point where all four Gospels mention Jesus going to Capernaum early in his ministry, only Matthew adds a quote from Scripture as framing for this ministry. Namely, he cites Isa 9:1–2 in 4:13b–16. This addition fits with a tendency that manifests early in Matthew’s work of connecting places to the fulfillment of Scripture. As interesting as this feature is, it is something that we will need to return to another time. For now, it is simply noteworthy that this is a case where Matthew uniquely cites a text in narration. It is also noteworthy that the vocabulary for this quote differs at several points from the LXX, overlapping mainly in the place names and the language connected with light and darkness.
Matt 8:16–17 // Mark 1:32–34 // Luke 4:40–41
As with the previous text, here Matthew uniquely adds a reference to Isa 53:4 as a way of framing Jesus’s healing and exorcism as a fulfillment of Scripture (8:17). For as important as Isa 53 was to early Christians and many others since then, it is interesting that this is the only direct quotation of Isa 53 in the Synoptic Gospels. His quotation in Greek agrees with 1QIsa[a], the MT, and the Vulgate, but not with the LXX (or Targum). It appears that Matthew is either appealing to a Greek translation that better matches the Hebrew or he has done the translation himself. Either way, it is possible that he was aware of this sense of the statement in contrast to the other Synoptic authors, and thus only he saw its applicability to this specific aspect of Jesus’s life. This last possibility is speculative, of course, but it could explain the presence of the reference in narration here as being in line with Matthew’s tendency thus far in making Scripture references via narration where there is a lexical link, whether of a place name or otherwise.
Matt 12:15–21 // Mark 3:7–12 // Luke 6:17–19
Similar to the previous two cases is yet another Isaianic citation in Matt 12:18–21 of Isa 42:1–4. This comes from the first Servant Song and further conveys Matthew’s purpose in establishing that Jesus is the fulfillment of the character of the servant, in line with what we see from ch. 8. Unlike what one can find in Matt 2 and the aforementioned examples, there is no lexical link for this text, but it is thematically appropriate, given how the last time Matthew summarized Jesus’s healing ministry he also evoked the servant in Isaiah. This citation is also notable for how significantly different it is from the LXX, as it matches the Hebrew more closely and has different vocabulary from the LXX even where they overlap.
Matt 13:13–15 // Mark 4:12 // Luke 8:10
This parallel supplies an interesting case in which Matthew alone provides the direct citation of Isa 6:9–10 (13:14–15), including with an introductory formula, while each of the Synoptics quote Jesus as using the language of this text in a more allusive fashion (Matt 13:13 // Mark 4:12 // Luke 8:10). In the former case, Matthew’s Greek text matches the LXX/OG. In the latter case, the Greek of Luke is the most abbreviated, matching the subjunctive mood of the purpose clause that is also reflected in Mark. Mark’s quote of Jesus borrows the most vocabulary from the Isaiah text, but it also is condensed, and the grammatical mood is subjunctive for a purpose clause. But Matthew maintains indicatives in place of the purpose clause, since he attaches the purpose more directly to the fulfillment of the words of Isaiah.
Matt 13:53–58 // Mark 6:1–6 // Luke 4:16–30
The story of Jesus’s rejection at Nazareth is placed differently in the narrative schema of each of the Synoptic Gospels. But one other point that is remarkable about this parallel is that Luke is the only source to feature a Scripture quote, this time from an indirect quote of Jesus rather than simply Luke’s own narration. The quote is from Isa 61:1–2 (with one line replaced with a line of Isa 58:6 that is adjusted grammatically to fit the rest of the quote) that has some differences with the LXX in its vocabulary and it appears in Luke 4:18–21. The use of Scripture here fits with Luke’s overall portrayal of Jesus—not least considering that it is Luke who draws the most attention to the notion that Jesus’s resurrection fulfills Scripture at the end of this volume—and this specific Scripture is crucial as a framing device for Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’s ministry/mission and the effects thereof as a whole.
Matt 18:6–9 // Mark 9:42–48 // Luke 17:1–2
What is remarkable about this case of Jesus’s warning against temptation and the vivid imagery he uses in cutting off what leads one to sin is that Mark is the only version that quotes Scripture (9:48). Furthermore, Jesus is the one specifically cited as saying it, the citation is not the narrator’s input. The quote is from the last verse of Isa 66:24, describing the shameful spectacle of demise for the wicked in the new creation, here applied more directly as an image of hell (and, as such, the future tense of the LXX is made the present tense for Mark).
Matt 21:1–9 // Mark 11:1–10 // Luke 19:28–40 // John 12:12–19
The story of Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem appears in all four Gospels. Naturally, John tells the story in his own fashion, but he fascinatingly shares a commonality with Matthew in that only these texts cite Zech 9:9. The action is clearly formed by this text, but only Matthew and John explicitly cite the text as an explanation for it. John’s is a more condensed quotation than Matthew’s, but neither of them quite follow the LXX (nor any of the other Greek versions). Matthew’s is either a personal translation from the Hebrew or a translation that is simply otherwise not attested in which the donkey and the colt are distinguished, as is possible in the parallel structure in the Hebrew. John’s citation is akin to John the Baptist’s reference to Isa 40:3 in its condensation and merging of clauses.
However, one textual quote in which all Gospel authors agree almost completely in wording is the crowd’s invocation of Ps 118:26 (Matt 21:9 // Mark 11:9 // Luke 19:38 // John 12:13), with the variation of reference to the King added to the invocation. This is a unique case in that neither the Gospel narrator nor Jesus (nor John the Baptist) uses the language of Scripture, but the crowds do in this case. This line fits with how all of the Gospel authors describe Jesus, but at another level it also fits with Jewish traditions of reciting the (Egyptian) Hallel of Pss 113–118 during the pilgrimage festivals. As such, the tradition and the historical occurrence explain the presence of this scriptural language here, without need of positing any particular relationship of source between these texts.
Matt 21:12–13 // Mark 11:15–17 // Luke 19:45–46 // John 2:14–17
This is something of a complicated case. I will present my arguments another time for why I am inclined to think that this parallel in fact concerns two distinct events, rather than either the Synoptics or John transposing the event in their narrations. Indeed, one of the factors that suggests this is the different Scriptures referenced here. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all quote Jesus as referring to differing extents of Isa 56:7 with a phrase taken from Jer 7:11 (texts which are linked by God speaking of “my house,” the temple). By contrast, John references in narration Ps 69:9 as an explanation for what Jesus is doing here.
Matthew and Mark match the LXX phrasing, but Mark quotes more extensively, further describing the temple as a house of prayer “for all the nations.” Luke differs from the LXX in that he does not use the verb “will be called,” but simply “will be,” and he cuts off the quote at the same point as Matthew. All of them also use the same phrasing for “den of robbers” from Jer 7:11. The major difference between John 2:17 and the LXX of Ps 68:10 [69:9] is that the verb is a future middle befitting the prophetic framing, rather than the aorist active that describes a “perfective” state for the speaker.
Matt 21:42 // Mark 12:10–11 // Luke 20:17–18
The next instance in which Jesus quotes Scripture that is present in all Synoptic Gospels comes with the exposition on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Matt 21:33–46 // Mark 12:1–12 // Luke 20:9–19. The quote comes from Ps 118. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus quotes vv. 22–23, while Luke only features a quote of v. 22. All quotes agree in wording with each other on the quote of v. 22 and with the LXX overall. As such, we seem to have a fixed point of tradition in associating Ps 118 with this parable, although the extent quoted varies. This association was further reinforced by the early tradition using Ps 118 as a framework for the gospel story in Acts 4:10–11 and 1 Pet 2:7, ensuring that this connection was maintained throughout multiple streams of tradition.
It should be noted that Luke’s version also contains a paraphrase of Isa 8:15 that is unique to his version. There is not enough overlap in the wording nor an introductory formula to indicate a quote, but this is clearly drawing language from Isaiah. Indeed, the link between this text and Ps 118 also appears in 1 Pet 2:7–8. Thus, Luke’s version probably attests an early association of these texts with each other and with Jesus, but he is the only one of the Gospel authors who does so in this context.
Matt 22:32 // Mark 12:26 // Luke 20:37
In Jesus’s response to the Sadducees’ question about the resurrection, he quotes Exod 3:6. At least, he does so in Matthew and Mark’s versions, whereas Luke features a paraphrase. The quote in Matthew matches the LXX, except that the Greek article before “God” in each case is used in Matthew, but not in the LXX. Mark’s quote has a more disputed textual history in which multiple early manuscripts lack the articles, presumably to be in greater conformity with the LXX. More importantly, Mark’s version lacks the vowel “am,” which is well enough inferred from the context (the verb most likely to be gapped in this fashion is the copula “I am” [εἰμί] and its various forms). The verb is also omitted from Luke’s version, which also omits the article in each case but the first (although some manuscripts include the article). For this reason, and others that I will explore another time, the significance that people attach to the “I am” as a present-tense expression is vastly overstated. Otherwise, one would have to wonder why the verb, being apparently such a key hinge in the argument, is only present in Matthew.
Matt 22:34–40 // Mark 12:28–34 // Luke 10:25–28
This case is more of a stretch to parallel in that we are dealing with two events here, one that Matthew and Mark agree on the placement of in the final controversies leading up to Jesus’s trial, and one that Luke places in the middle of Jesus’s ministry, though still reflecting controversy with Jewish teachers and leaders (as well as serving as a lead-in for the Parable of the Good Samaritan). Furthermore, Luke’s case features a composite quote from the lawyer who put Jesus to the test (10:27), rather than from Jesus himself. Luke’s version is a composite in that the verb for “love” is not repeated in the reference to the second commandment (Lev 19:18) but is carried over from the quote of the other commandment. Luke’s quote largely matches Mark’s quote of Jesus (12:30–31) in terms of basic wording. The most significant differences in the case of the first commandment (Deut 6:5), besides the fact that Mark also includes Deut 6:4 (12:29), are the order of clauses referring to “strength” and “mind,” as well as the use of different prepositions after the first one, which is connected to the use of different cases (genitive in Mark rather than dative in Luke) for the nouns (ἐξ ὅλης ... in Mark and ἐν ὅλῃ ... in Luke). This is simply a stylistic difference as both constructions have the same sense of “with all,” or more literally, “with the whole.” Matthew more closely resembles Luke in his rendition (22:37), except that he uses the ἐν preposition from the start and he does not use refer to “all your strength/your whole strength.” Notably, none of the Gospels follow the majority LXX tradition in referring to “power/might/strength” in terms of δυνἀμεῶς, although the translation “mind” (διανοία) at least roughly resembles the former in terms of its sound.
The complex variation in grammar, order, and number of clauses (as well as Mark’s explicit inclusion of the Shema) indicates freer rendition than a case of using one or even two sources as the basis for writing these texts. It is clearly a fixed point of tradition that these are the two greatest commandments, but the precise wording and grammar thereof has some fluidity to it (not so fluid that anything could be included in this list, but fluid in terms of a simple variety). Matthew follows the traditional threefold structure, whereas Mark and Luke provide “fuller” translations in assigning two translations to one of the terms.
Matt 22:41–46 // Mark 12:35–37 // Luke 20:41–44
Jesus’s own question to his interlocutors about the Christ being the son of David revolves around his quote of Ps 110:1. All three versions agree rather closely, including in the omission of the article before the first “Lord,” although some manuscripts of each version include the article, presumably out of a sense that it should be there and/or to conform it to the LXX. This is one of only two areas of disagreement with the LXX, the other being that Matthew and Mark use “beneath” (Matt 22:44 // Mark 12:36) instead of “footstool,” unlike Luke does in agreement with the LXX (20:43; cf. Acts 2:35; Heb 1:13; 10:13). Of course, while vocabulary is distinct, the thrust remains the same.
Matt 26:31–32 // Mark 14:27–28 // Luke 22:31–32 // John 16:32
This is another case in the more questionable category as to if it fits within our scope. The key statement in which the Scripture is cited is omitted from Luke, while the text that has a similar function is simply a warning directed specifically to Simon Peter. John 16:32 uses the language of scattering to refer to what is going to happen to the disciples soon, but that is as much as it overlaps with the text that drives Matthew and Mark. The text these Gospel authors reference Jesus as quoting is Zech 13:7. One of the major differences between these texts and the LXX is that they use a different verb referring to the sheep being scattered after the shepherd is struck. Their use of this verb does agree with a minority reading among LXX manuscripts, however. Another difference is that the opening verb is a simple future, whereas the LXX presents it as an imperative. Matthew also provides a more elaborate description of the “sheep of the flock,” whereas Mark only refers to the “sheep,” which is in agreement with the LXX. There is also a different word order in Matthew and Mark. It is unclear if Matthew is simply attesting to another version present in his own day, or if this is an addition made by him or possibly by Jesus. In any case, it is only a stylistic variation.
Observations
This survey has provided results that are not completely consistent with any sweeping declarations one might wish to make about the authors or about the sources they used. I organize the observations drawn from this survey by tendencies, rather than by authors, as the review of the tendencies will be broken down by authors.
First, we have seen several examples where authors completely agree in wording.
In two cases, Matthew, Mark, and Luke quote the same text and agree in wording, but only differ in the extent covered (Matt 3:3 // Mark 1:3 // Luke 3:4–6; Matt 21:42 // Mark 12:10–11 // Luke 20:17–18), in which Matthew has the longest text once (Matt 21:42) and Luke has the longest text once (Luke 3:4–6).
The crowd’s invocation completely matches Ps 118:26 to the extent that the wording is used in Matthew and Mark (as well as John; Matt 21:9 // Mark 11:9 // John 12:13).
The references to Mal 3:1 in different locations represents a more complicated example of this same tendency, not only because of the different locations between Mark on one hand and Matthew and Luke on the other, but also because of the addition made by Matthew and Luke, as well as because of the fact that there are notable differences from the LXX that put the quotations in agreement with each other.
Matthew and Luke agree completely where their wording overlaps in the temptation narrative outside of the quotation Ps 91:11–12 (i.e., in three out of the four Scriptures quoted, all from Deuteronomy).
In each of these cases, we seem to be dealing with more fixed tradition. In some cases, despite the differences in placement or extent, the indication is that there was an early fixed association of a text with an event or person. This is particularly notable in the citations of Mal 3:1 and the temptation narrative, in the latter of which the order of temptations is different between Matthew and Luke, but all the citations of Deuteronomy have the same wording. In the two cases noted in the first bullet point, we see a remarkable fixture of wording, despite all other factors that can contribute to variation. These observations attest to how strongly Isa 40:3 (as well as Mal 3:1) was associated with John the Baptist. Likewise, the consistency in wording for Ps 118:26 attests to how early and widely this text became a framework for the gospel events and was particularly associated with this episode of Jesus’s confrontation with the Jewish leaders.
Second, there is a significant variety of results when one compares the Synoptics with the LXX versions of the Scripture quotes.
Where all three authors quote Mal 3:1, they agree more with each other than with the LXX (in fact, besides the addition in Matthew and Luke, the quotes agree completely), including in making the reference to the servant being sent “before you” rather than “before me” (which is one reason why people tend to see the influence of Exod 23:20 here)
Another case in which all Synoptic authors agree with each other’s wording, but not with the LXX, is in the quotation of Isa 40:3.
In the temptation narrative, Matthew and Luke agree in wording in the quotation of Deut 8:3, as far as both authors quote the same extent of the text (Matt 4:4 // Luke 4:4), again in contrast to the LXX.
The same point applies to the second temptation (Ps 91:11–12), although there is slightly more difference in that case between Matthew and Luke (Matt 4:6 // Luke 4:10–11), as well as the other texts cited in the temptation narrative from Deut 6:13 and 16.
All texts agree with each other and with the LXX in the case of the exposition on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants in the citation of Ps 118:22.
By contrast, all texts differ in some fashion with each other and with the LXX in the case of quoting Deut 6:5 (Matt 22:37 // Mark 12:29–30 // Luke 10:27).
In the case of Jesus’s action at the temple, Matthew and Mark agree with the LXX of Isa 56:7, although they quote to different extents, while Luke is slightly different in using the simple copula rather than “will be called.” All agree in the phrase taken from Jer 7:11.
Matthew and Mark also largely agree with the LXX of Exod 3:6, except on the matter of whether or not the articles are present and the lack of the explicit verb in Mark’s version.
The case is complicated in the quotation of Ps 110:1 (Matt 22:44 // Mark 12:36 // Luke 20:43), as all Gospels agree on omitting an initial article in contrast to the LXX, but Luke agrees with the LXX in distinction from Matthew and Mark in using “footstool” rather than “underneath.”
Matthew and Mark differ from each other in terms of elaboration of expression and word order, and both differ from the LXX of Zech 13:7 in tense and verb (Matt 26:31 // Mark 14:27).
In addition to these instances, Matthew shows agreement with the LXX two times (Isa 6:9–10; Ps 118:23) and more pronounced independence from it four times (Isa 9:1–2; 42:1–4; 53:4; Zech 9:9).
Mark completely matches the LXX in the case of the Shema of Deut 6:4 and Ps 118:23. Mark largely matches the LXX in the one case where he uniquely features a Scripture quote (Isa 66:24), the only differences being that Mark features future-tense verbs while the LXX features present-tense verbs.
Luke diverges significantly from the LXX in the one case where he uniquely quotes Scriptures (Isa 61:1–2 with Isa 58:6).
These results indicate that the LXX as it has been preserved today was not the chief source of Scripture quotations for the Synoptic authors, although it appears to have been a source (assuming the cases where they agree are not cases where translations independently coincide, which is possible). More often, where the Gospels are not independent either in citation of Scripture or in the Greek rendering of texts that they share, the Gospel authors are more likely to agree with the wording in each other’s citations than with the LXX (for the agreements in contrast to the LXX, see the citations of Isa 40:3; Mal 3:1; Deut 6:13, 16; 8:3 for the agreements with the LXX in contrast to another Gospel, see the citations of Ps 110:1; for agreement with the LXX, see the citations of Exod 3:6; Ps 118:22–23; Jer 7:11). The notable exception in which all Synoptics agree in wording with each other and the LXX is the citation of Ps 118:22. Among those cases where there is agreement with the LXX, no author shows a particular propensity towards agreement with the LXX in contrast to the others. The authors may have been working with alternative translations more widely available at the time (or at least available in their particular areas), translations that had some purchase amongst the earliest Christians, and/or they may have done their own translations.
Third, there are occasions where Synoptic authors provide composite quotations or paraphrases of texts in distinction from the parallels.
In the temple action, all Synoptics feature a composite reference to Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11.
Mark’s Gospel actually opens with one after the introduction of v. 1 with a composite quote of Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3 in 1:2–3.
Likewise, when Jesus preaches in Nazareth in an episode that frames his mission, Luke features a composite quote of Isa 61:1–2 and 58:6 in 4:18–20.
After the common citation of Ps 118:22 as a frame for the gospel events, Luke uniquely quotes Jesus as paraphrasing Isa 8:15.
Luke also features a paraphrase of Exod 3:6 in a text where he parallels a quote from Matthew and Mark (20:37; cf. Matt 22:32 // Mark 12:26).
Finally, Luke features a composite quote in 10:27 of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 as containing the two greatest commandments.
Composite quotes and paraphrases most frequently appear in Luke, but in light of the number of texts we are dealing with here, we cannot necessarily say it is “characteristic” of him. There are many other texts in which he does not engage in either practice. Still, the possible explanations for these things being in Luke more often than the other Gospels would be something interesting to explore in more depth than I can manage here. In some cases, he appears to be streamlining. In others, he may be reflecting something else of traditional associations of texts among early Christians than either Matthew or Mark.
Fourth, all the Synoptic Gospels have cases in which they present the longest version of a Scripture quote.
Matthew has the longest quotation once (of Deut 8:3).
Mark has the longest quotation twice (of Deut 6:4–5 and Isa 56:7).
Luke has the longest quotation twice (of Ps 91:11–12 and Isa 40:3–5).
Fifth, each Synoptic Gospel has at least one case in which the author—either in narration or a character quotation—uses a Scripture quotation that does not appear in the other parallel texts of the Synoptics (there is one case of quoting Zech 9:9 where Matthew and John quote the text, but John is not being reviewed in these observations concerning the Triple Tradition).
Matthew does this four times with quotes of Isa 9:1–2 (4:13b–16); 42:1–4 (12:18–21); 53:4 (8:17); and Zech 9:9 (21:5). One could technically include a fifth case in this category of Isa 6:9–10 (13:14–15), but that is a case where only Matthew introduces the citation, but all versions use the language of the text (Matt 13:13 // Mark 4:12 // Luke 8:10).
Mark does this once with a quote of Isa 66:24 (9:48).
Luke does this once with a composite quote of Isa 61:1–2 and 58:6 (4:18–19).
Given Matthew’s more general thematic emphasis on the fulfillment of Scripture, it is unsurprising that he adds Scripture quotes more often than the other authors. Four of the cases are additions by the narrator, as no one within the story cites them. But it is notable that the other authors do so as well. It is also notable that Matthew does not have a pronounced tendency to add on more from the context of Scripture quotes compared to his fellow Synoptic authors. All of them have two occasions each—one minor extension and one more significant one—in which they have the longest version of a Scripture quote.
Finally, and most complicatedly, we should note the various Scriptures that appear in these Triple Tradition pericopes.
All three Synoptics quote (or, in one case, paraphrase) Exod 3:6; Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5; Pss 110:1; 118:22, 26; Isa 40:3; 56:7; Jer 7:11; and Mal 3:1.
Matthew and Mark quote Zech 13:7 at the same point in the story with the same follow-up promise of Jesus’s resurrection.
The quotes that Matthew and Luke distinctly share all come from the temptation narrative: Deut 6:13, 16; 8:3; Ps 91:11–12.
Matthew adds quotes from Ps 118:23 (namely, to a quote of Ps 118:22); Isa 6:9–10 (though note that the parallels borrow language); 9:1–2; 42:1–4; 53:4; and Zech 9:9 (though note that the parallels are clearly shaped by this text).
Mark adds quotes from Deut 6:4 (namely, to a quote of Deut 6:5); Ps 118:23 (namely, to a quote of Ps 118:22); and Isa 66:24.
Luke adds quotes from Isa 40:4–5 (namely, to a quote of Isa 40:3); 58:6; and 61:1–2. He also adds a paraphrase of Isa 8:15.
We can break these points down in a few ways. One, we can see some interesting patterns by a basic book breakdown. One could break this down by word count, since that is more apt for the ancient context without verses and chapters, but for simplicity we will break this down by verses and chapters referenced (rather than the number of times they are cumulatively referenced by the Gospel authors). Isaiah is quoted the most across all Gospels with seventeen verses from nine chapters quoted (plus one verse from another chapter that is paraphrased in Luke). The Psalms appear the second-most with six verses quoted from three chapters. Deuteronomy is third with five verses quoted from two chapters. Then it is Zechariah with two verses quoted from two chapters. Exodus, Leviticus, Jeremiah, and Malachi each have one verse quoted.
Two, it is interesting to note what texts appear where. The ones that appear in all three Synoptics clearly became attached early to their various events. Among these, Isaiah is represented by two texts, and the Psalms are represented by three texts that come from the two most frequently quoted (and even alluded to) OT chapters in the NT: Pss 110 and 118. All but one of the Deuteronomy texts come from ch. 6 and three of the five verses appear in both versions of the temptation narrative. Every author adds quotes from Isaiah, and this is the only book they all share additions from. Clearly, the authors thought it crucial for the narrator of the story and the speech within the story should highlight how Isaiah provides a crucial hermeneutical framework for understanding the Christ.
Three, one can note how these texts cluster. Some of these texts appear in the opening chapters of Matthew (3–4), Mark (1), and Luke (3–4), as they are attached to John the Baptist or the temptation narrative. This is also where many of the more fixed texts (in terms of wording, not extent) appear. But most of the rest appear in the lead-up to the Passion, beginning with Jesus’s arrival at Jerusalem. Texts in this section are not observably dependent on the appearance of the text in another source. In fact, while the associations of the texts with the events in these chapters are fixed, the wording is surprisingly fluid at points, even where the overall structure of the narratives in these Gospels are highly similar. The quote of Deut 6:5 is the most noteworthy demonstration of this fluidity, but it is not the only one, as every quote in this portion features some degree of variation from parallels. This fits with the characteristics of this portion of the Synoptic Gospels in general of having a common overarching structure, but with remarkable fluidity about the sayings and details given therein.