The Synoptic Problem
Definition
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the Gospels which are similar enough in narrative outline that it is possible in principle to line them up side by side and view them at one glance, hence "Synoptically." They tell much the same story, but with important differences. The Synoptic Problem, as defined for subsequent scholarship by Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's 1863 work on the tradition of the Gospels, is to determine the nature and direction of literary relationships among the three Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. We retain that definition for present purposes.
In deciding on a theory of Synoptic relations, it helps to know what the possibilities are. We thus begin by listing the 25 possible Synoptic Theories:
In narrowing the possibilities among the 25 Synoptic theories, it helps to know the relative age, the chronological order, of the texts. The overall tendencies among them are probably our best guide to that order. Here are some of those tendencies. The examples sometimes include Acts and the non-Synoptic Gospel of John.
All these trajectories identify Mark as the oldest Gospel, with Matthew and Luke (in that order) occupying a second tier, and John coming last of all. (Where differences exist between Luke and Acts, it seems that Acts is likely to be the later of the two). The time sequence Mark > Matthew > Luke eliminates all but two of the theoretically possible Synoptic theories, the survivors being
16. Mk > Mt > Lk
22. Mk > Mt >> Lkand the only remaining issue would seem to be whether Luke knew Matthew.
We now consider the small dimension: the seeming relationships between cognate passages in two or three of the Synoptic Gospels. We start with one passage shared among the three, continue with a three-way contrast cited by William Farmer, note an important cluster analyzed by John Hawkins, and conclude with what we believe to be other clear examples of directionality:
- First Example: The Parable of the Mustard Seed
- Second Example: The Healing of a Leper
- Hawkins on Markan Passages Omitted by Matthew and Luke
- Other Directional Passages
All so far are consistent with the Trajectory order Mk > Mt > Lk, and in addition imply that Lk, coming last, used both Mk and Mt. This eliminates all Synoptic possibilities except:
22. Mk > Mt >> Lk (Farrer Hypothesis)
which, at this point, we will tentatively regard as established. (Note that this theory merely explains the relationships between the final versions of the three Synoptics, and does not preclude the existence of other texts as part of a larger situation). We next consider objections:
It has been claimed that there are directionality relationships which contradict the ones considered above, and that these counterexamples prove either that Mark is not the earliest Gospel, or that Luke is sometimes earlier than Matthew. We here sample three of these groups of objections, in order to see if our tentative hypothesis holds universally, or if some supplementary explanation will be required before we can regard the Synoptic Problem as solved. These are:
- The Sanders 1969 List (Matthew or Luke earlier than Mark)
- The Jacobson 1992 List (Luke earlier than Matthew
- The Fleddermann 2000 List (Matthew or Luke earlier than Mark)
It emerges from these considerations that supplementary hypotheses are indeed required, and specifically these two: (1) Luke had access to the established prayer and blessing forms used among the Christians of his day. Since Luke himself was probably a Christian of his day, and not merely an outside journalist, this is not a difficult assumption. (2) Luke was disposed to substitute those earlier forms for the elaborated versions which he found in Matthew. Since Luke has shown himself frequently willing to improve the accuracy of Matthew's quotes elsewhere, that too is not a difficult assumption.
Nothing so far seems to strongly suggest the existence of an outside text, whether one resembling the proposed Q or any other. But there exist other and more serious complications. These require that we reconsider the assumption that all the Synoptics are literarily integral texts, written at one time by one person. This proves not to be the case for Mark (which is accretional), or Luke (which was composed in two stages, the first without knowledge of Matthew), or for that matter John (which was revised once and later further supplemented). For these complications, we leave the Synoptic perplexity as such, and turn to the next part of the argument, which concerns the inner structure of the Gospels.
31 May 2008 / Contact The Project / Exit to Biblica Page
