Results of the Synoptic Problem

For the last 12 blogs I have discussed the Synoptic Problem.  After reading them, you may have said, “So what?”.  Perhaps the synoptic problem seemed like useless information.  You may have asked, “How is this going to affect the way I read the gospels?”, “At the end of the day, will this really help me study the Bible?”.

I believe the answer to that question is “yes”.  The synoptic problem is the foundation for a practice called redaction criticism.  Norman Perrin defines redaction criticism as “studying the theological motivation of an author as this is revealed in the collection, arrangement, editing, and modification of traditional material.”  In other words, when we see how the authors of the gospels used the material they copied, we can notice particular theological emphases.  This is made especially clear by M material and L material in Matthew and Luke.  We can tell much of the emphasis of Matthew and Luke by this practice.

For example, we can see a strong emphasis of the Holy Spirit in Luke by the L material in it (see 1:15, 35, 41, 67, 2:25-26, 4:1, 10:21, etc).  We can see a strong emphasis of Jesus’ fulfillment of the Old Testament in the M material of Matthew (see 1:22, 2:15, 23, 3:15, 4:14, 5:17, etc).  The practice of redaction criticism has come to the fore in the study of the gospels over the last several decades.

I hope that this blog will help you in your study of Scripture.

Conclusion of the Synoptic Problem

Finally! After all these blogs we arrive at an answer to the Synoptic Problem.  Obviously, this is only a theory.  So we can’t say this with absolute certainty.  However, the majority of scholars agree with this theory. 

1. Matthew, Mark and Luke share a literary relationship.
2. Mark was copied by Matthew and Luke.
3. Matthew and Luke also copied a source called Q, which is an unknown source.
4. Matthew and Luke also have material that is unique to them, which scholars call M material and L material respectively.    

This theory is called the Two Source Hypothesis.   It can be seen visually on the chart below.    

Q

In my last blog I gave evidence for the existence of Q, a source shared by Matthew and Luke.  The question now is: What is Q? 

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is unknowable.  Q could be individual oral traditions, a single oral tradition, a literary source, or a combination of these.  It is difficult to say anything about Q with certainty.  Really, the only thing we can say with certainty about Q is that it exists.

Some have suggested that Q is a literary source.  However, Q does not seem to show a similarity of order as the other written sources do.  A lack of ability to show this similarity is evidence that Q was not only a literary source.  Some believe that it was a combination of a literary source and oral tradition.  But we will never know for certain.

Matthew and Luke (Part 2)

The evidence for Matthew and Luke not knowing each other is the following:

1. The Matthean additions to Mark are never found in Luke, and the Lukan additions to Mark are never found in Matthew.  In other words, whenever Matthew or Luke add something to Mark, it is never found in the other gospel.  If Mathew and Luke knew each other, one of them would probably have copied the other’s additions to Mark.  However, this never happens.   
2. The material that is shared in common by Matthew and Luke is in a different order in each gospel.  For example, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is found in one section (ch. 5-7).  However, Luke spreads that material all over his gospel.  Similar examples could be shown.  If Matthew or Luke knew each other, one would think that they would agree in order somewhere.  But this doesn’t happen.  
3. In some cases, Matthew’s material seems more primitive.  But in other cases, Luke’s material seems more primitive.  By “primitive” I mean less theological developed.  For example, Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer is much more intricate than Luke’s version.  In this case Luke is more primitive than Matthew.  However, Matthew 7:9-11 says that the Father will give “good things” while the Lukan parallel has “Holy Spirit” (11:11-13).  In this case, Matthew is more primitive than Luke.  If Matthew and Luke knew each other, one would be consistently more primitive. 
4. Luke and Matthew do not copy the material that is unique to the other, even if it contains an emphasis of his gospel.  There is material that is unique to Matthew and Luke (about 20% of Matthew and 35% of Luke).  For a visual representation see the chart on my previous blog.  It is striking that Matthew or Luke didn’t copy any of this material from each other, even when it serves their emphasis.  For example, Luke-Acts has an emphasis on the Gentiles.  However, he does not copy the story of the Magi from Matthew.  Surely if Luke were copying Matthew, he would have included this story.    

It seems then that Matthew and Luke did not know each other.  So they must have copied a common source.  Q must exist.

Matthew and Luke (Part 1)

In my last several blogs I gave evidence for Markan priority, that is, Matthew and Luke copying Mark.  With this in mind, I now want to turn to discuss the relationship between Matthew and Luke. 

Matthew and Luke share a fair amount of material in common that is not found in Mark.  This material makes up about 25% of Matthew and 23% of Luke.  Refer to the chart in my previous blog to see a visual representation of this.

Why do Matthew and Luke have material in common that is not found in Mark?  How do we explain this relationship between Matthew and Luke?  Two possible options exist.  First, one of the authors copied the other.  Scholars refer to this as Matthew and Luke “knowing” each other.  Second, they share a common source, which scholars call Q (Q is short for the German word for “source”).          

The first option  is a simpler theory.  Unless there is good reason not to believe the simpler option, we should believe it.  In other words, we don’t need to complicate things beyond what is necessary.  If Q isn’t necessary, don’t assume it exists.

However, if there is a good reason to doubt that Matthew and Luke knew each other, we need to consider Q.  The evidence, which I will show in my next blog, seems to point towards Matthew and Luke not knowing each other.  If this is true, then Q is necessary.

Markan Priority (Part 3)

(List Continued)

4.  Mark has potential theological difficulties that Matthew and Luke seem to say clearer.  For example, Mark 10:18 says, “So Jesus said to Him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.’”  This could potentially be interpreted to mean that Jesus is claiming not to be divine.  Mark of course doesn’t mean this, but it is still potentially confusing.  Matthew corrects this by saying, “Why do you ask me about what is good?”.

5.  There is a lack of Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark.  This happens in both wording and ordering of pericopes.  It makes sense to conclude that Matthew and Luke copied Mark independently of each other.  As they copied Mark independently, they chose to disagree with him in places. 

6.  Matthew and Luke show consistent redactions of Mark’s material and not vise versa.  “Redaction” means that the author (Matthew or Luke) added something to the gospel to fit there particular emphasis.  We see this often in Matthew and Luke’s use of Mark.  However, if Mark copied Matthew or Luke, we would see almost none of this happening.

All of this evidence makes a strong case that Mark did not copy Matthew or Luke, but rather Matthew and Luke copied Mark.  Assuming that this is true, I will not move on to discuss the relationship between Matthew and Luke.

Markan Priority (Part 2)

The evidence for Markan priority is the following:

1.  If Mark copied Matthew or Luke, why did he leave out so much of the material in these two gospels?  He would have left out the birth narratives, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s Prayer, resurrection appearances, and many other important stories.  It doesn’t seem likely that Mark would choose to copy one of these gospels and leave out that much material.

One of Mark’s emphases throughout his gospel is Jesus as the “Teacher” (see 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2; 8:31; 12:35, 38, and more).  However, Mark has a far less percentage of Jesus’ teachings in his gospel than does Matthew or Luke.  It doesn’t make sense that Mark would omit key passages of teaching such as the Sermon on the Mount.      

One could perhaps argue that Mark wanted to create an abbreviated version of Matthew or Luke.  However, this is highly unlikely.  Though Mark is a shorter gospel, its pericopes (stories) are longer than those of Matthew and Luke.  If Mark were abbreviating, he wouldn’t add extra length to the pericopes.

2.  Mark has an inferior writing style.  Although Mark’s writing was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is still grammatically awkward in a few places.  It is easier to think of Matthew or Luke correcting grammatically awkward sentences in Mark than vise versa. 

For example, Mark has redundant expressions such as, “At evening, when the sun had set, they brought to him all who were sick . . .”, Mark 1:32.  He doesn’t need to say both “at evening” and “when the sun had set”.  The parallel in Matthew only says, “When evening had come” (8:16), and Luke only says, “When the sun was setting” (4:40).  

Mark also tends to use the historical present when writing.  Matthew and Luke tend use the aorist, which is less grammatically awkward. 

Mark also uses slang expressions such as such as, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”  The word Mark uses for “bed” is somewhat slag.  Matthew and Luke use a better term for “bed”.

Mark also uses Aramaic expressions throughout his gospel (5:41, 7:11, 14:36).  After using them, he has to explain them to his audience.  Matthew and Luke avoid this and simply use Greek.

Mark also uses an aorist middle in 10:20, which is somewhat grammatically awkward.  Matthew and Luke correct this and use an aorist active.      

I will continue this list in the next blog.

Markan Priority

In my previous blogs I discussed evidence for a literary relationship between the synoptic gospels.  I want to spend the next few blogs discussing what that literary relationship is. 

Scholars who have studied the synoptic problem believe there is interdependence between the gospels.  In other words, the authors of the gospels copied one another.  So for instance, Mark could have copied Matthew, Matthew could have copied Luke, Luke could have copied Mark, etc.  Altogether there are 18 possible combinations. 

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Mark did not copy Matthew or Luke.  Rather, it seems that Matthew and Luke copied Mark.  Scholars call this Markan priority. 

Mark is the shortest gospel with 11,025 words.  Matthew has 18,293 words, and Luke has 19,376 words.  Of the 11,025 words in Mark, only 132 have no parallel in Matthew or Luke.  So 97% of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke. 

Matthew has 94% of Mark duplicated in his gospel and Luke has 88% of Mark duplicated in his gospel.  However, only 55% of Matthew is duplicated in Mark, and 42% of Luke is duplicated in Mark.  See the chart below for a visual representation of this.

 

In my next blog, I will continue discussing evidence for Markan priority.

Picture of Text

I was searching around on the Internet the other day and found this picture of a Greek text from Matthew and Luke.  This passage is Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9.  All of the words in red are where these two gospels show perfect agreement. 

This much agreement in the text is strong evidence for the synoptic gospels sharing a common source.  Agreement this close couldn’t have come by just chance.  The authors had to copy from the same source.  Many other passages in the synoptic gospels also share this kind of similarity. 

Passages that share this much agreement in their wording are also evidence for the authors using more than just an oral source.  It is evidence for a written source.  There is the possibility of an oral tradition changing over the years.  However, once a tradition is written down, it is unchangeable.  Therefore, if there is a close agreement in the wording (such as this text), then there is greater the evidence for a literary source.

I feel that this along with the other arguments I have shared are a strong evidence for a literary relationship between the gospels.

Argument for a Literary Source

In my last blog I discussed oral tradition and its place in the gospel accounts.  It is clear that the authors of the gospels used the oral tradition of that time in their composition of the gospels.  However, there also seems to be something more involved in the writing of the gospels than oral tradition.  It seems that there is also a literary source that the gospels share in common.  In other words, the authors of the gospels copied material from the same written source.

One of the signs of this in the gospels is the editorial comments that the gospels share in common.  I have already discussed these editorial comments in my previous blogs.  These interruptions in the stories seem to indicate that an author was involved in the tradition and not just a speaker.  Consider, for example, the editorial comment found in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14—“let the reader understand.”  This editorial comment is addressed to a “reader”, not a hearer.  If the authors of the gospels were copying from an oral tradition they would have said “let the hearer understand.”  Thus, there is a literary source that is being copied.  I believe that the other editorial comments shared by the authors point the evidence in the same direction.

Other evidence for a literary source is the similarity of order shared by the gospels.  In other words, the gospels share a similar order of events (for examples see my previous blog).  I will perhaps argue in a later blog that the oral traditions were not memorized in an order.  But for now, I will just say that scholars who study the period of oral tradition (i.e. form critics) believe that oral traditions were not memorized in an order.  So because the gospels show a similarity of order, this indicates a literary source was involved.  In order for the gospels to show a similarity of order, they would have to copy a written source that had that order.

Other evidence for a literary source is the similarity of misquotations of the Old Testament in the gospels.  In some cases, the authors will quote a verse from the Old Testament that slightly disagrees with the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke will all agree in their quotation against both of these Old Testament texts.  In an oral tradition, someone would have fixed the misquotation.  Once it is written down, the misquotation gets “concreted.”  So the misquotation must have come from a literary source.  Thus, Matthew, Mark and Luke copied from a literary source.  For examples of this see Mark 1:3 and parallels, and Mark 12:30 and parallels. 

So it seems from this evidence that the similarities between the synoptic gospels come from the authors copying a common literary source.  In the next few blogs I will discuss the nature of this literary source.