+

The Synoptic “Problem”

Dr. Matthew R. Anderson

+In a nutshell

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke share a literary relationship

Synoptic = syn + optic Synoptic = together + see (seen together)

+Shared Gospel Material

Many of the same words Much the same vocabulary (identical often) Often the same order of pericopes or text units (ie the

healing of the man will follow the walking on the water etc).

the same way of telling the Jesus story (ie Jesus speaks in parables and aphorisms, conducts healings, and goes to Jerusalem only at the end of his life)

The Gospel of John, on the other hand, uses an entirely different approach, with little account of Jesus’ teachings and few parables, but many more long speeches

+Conclusion: someone was “cribbing”! The three Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are so

close to each other in subject, in words and even in word order, that there is NO doubt that one or two of the writers were copying from another

Thus = literary relationship

+“problem” = “puzzle”

The so-called synoptic problem is really only a problem for those who examine the canonical Gospels critically and from a literary-historical point of view.

Which came first: Matthew, Mark, or Luke? And who copied from whom?

It’s not a problem so much as a “synoptic puzzle”!

+The Synoptic Puzzle and Source Criticism The synoptic puzzle depends on the fact (not a theory, but a fact, as Luke’s

prologue 1:1-4 indicates) that the Gospel writers used sources.

“source criticism” is the attempt to determine from the final version of a document what were the sources that went into it.

We know:

1/ that there were oral traditions that circulated about Jesus right from the beginning; and

2/ that the first written Gospels, or theologically motivated and written accounts of Jesus’ life and significance did not appear until about 40 years after his death (in other words, well after the letters of Paul); and

3/ that like all biographies ancient and modern, some material will be left out (see John’s statement at John 21:25); and

4/ all gospels had a theological and evangelical purpose (see Mark’s opening statement) rather more than an historical one; and

5/ of the synoptic Gospels of Mt, Mk, and Lk, that at last one and probably two of them used another as a source.

+Theories of literary dependence There were, and remain, a large number of different theories

that can be used to explain the literary relationships between Mt, Mk and Luke.

Most of the older, 18th and 19th century theories have been largely abandoned and the “Two-Source/Four Source” theory of Markan priority is the most commonly held

However, in recent years there are several new attempts to explain the relationship. The “Farrer Theory”, for instance, dispenses with Q by stating that Luke used both Mt and Mk as sources.

For a good web-based introduction, see: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/

+The Two Source/Four Source Theory Characteristics: Priority of Mark (meaning, Mt and Lk copied Mark) Existence of a common Mt-Lk written source called “Q”

(from German for “Quelle”, or “source” Why? Because Mt and Lk share material that Mark

doesn’t have.

+Arguments for Markan priority

Argument from order: When Mt and Lk disagree with the order of pericopes (text

units) in Mark, they almost never agree with each other. In other words, either Mt or Lk, and often both, agree with the Markan order, but they never differ from that order in agreement with each other.

Argument from the length of the individual units. Mark is the shortest Gospel but only because it has the

fewest accounts/stories. When each individual story is itself examined, Mark’s is usually longer than either Matthew’s or Luke’s, evidence perhaps of their editing Mark “down”

+Arguments for Markan priority(continued) Argument from Mark’s language

Mark’s Greek style and language are poorer than either Mt or Lk. While it’s easy to imagine Mt and Lk improving on Mark while editing his Gospel, it’s hard to imagine Mk editing something and making it worse

Argument from sheer content 95 % of the Gospel of Mark appears in either or both of Mt

or Lk, meaning there are fewer than 30 verses that appear in Mk alone. Neither Mt or Lk have this much overlap.

Mark’s use of Aramaic terms (ie Mk 5:41) by itself is weak evidence for his priority, but perhaps indicates that he is closer in time to the Aramaic original, oral Gospel

+What is “Q”?

A hypothetical written source that Mt and Lk used. Hypothetical because no one has ever seen it apart from the common material in Mt and Lk.

Why written? Identical wording in both Mt and Lk in many cases Identical order of sayings in some cases in Mt and Lk

Characteristics of “Q”: About 200 verses of material Almost all of this material consists of sayings, not stories

That there could have been this kind of genre received a boost as a theory when Gospel of Thomas discovered in 1945

+The two source and “four source” theories

Because there is material in both Mt and Lk that cannot be traced back to either Mark or “Q”, scholars have now made the “two source theory” somewhat more complicated

Depending on the scholar there are now “4” source and other theories

Other scholars will agree with Markan priority but will not be so hopeful or presume as much about “Q” (see “Farrer Theory” above)

+Conclusion

But for this class the most important things to remember are:

Most modern scholarship presumes Markan priority Most scholars accept some form of “Q” even while

knowing that it cannot be completely defined Most scholars believe that there were other sources,

certainly oral and perhaps written, that went into the writing of the synoptic Gospels

Many scholars believe that there were both oral and written sources that went into Mark as well