Synoptic Problem | The Mustard Seed Parable (#1)

In this sample Synoptic comparison, the three parallel texts of the Parable are arranged in columns, line by line. We then ask: How similar are the three? To make the answer obvious, we mark in red elements which are the same (or substantially the same) in all three; in green, elements in which only Mark and Matthew agree; in blue, elements in which only Mark and Luke agree; and in brown, those in which only Matthew and Luke agree. Notice that in some points of agreement, the two members are not on the same line (such as the first of them, the word parable).

Matthew 13	Mark 4	Luke 13
[31] Another parable	[30] And he said,	[18] He said therefore,
he put before them, saying,	With what can we compare	What is
The Kingdom of Heaven	the Kingdom of God,	the Kingdom of God like?
	or what parable	And to what
	shall we use for it?	shall I compare it?
is like	[31] It is like	[19] It is like
a grain of mustard seed	a grain of mustard seed,	a grain of mustard seed,
which a man took	which,	which a man took
and sowed in his field.	when sown upon the ground,	and sowed in his garden,
[32] It is the smallest	is the smallest
of all seeds,	of all the seeds on earth,
but when it has grown	[32] yet when it is sown it grows up	and it grew
it is	and becomes
the greatest of shrubs	the greatest of all shrubs
and becomes a tree,	and puts forth large branches,	and became a tree,
so that the birds of the air	so that the birds of the air	and the birds of the air
come and make nests	can make nests	made nests
in its branches.	in its shade.	in its branches.

Mt = Mk = Lk (12 elements)

Mt = Mk (6 elements)

Mt = Lk (3 elements)

Mk = Lk (4 elements)

The three texts are obviously related; they are in some way derived from each other. The unique material, the material appearing in only one of the texts and not the others, is extremely little. The question is to detect the nature of the relationship. Which is derived from which? In terms of the symbolism used on the Synoptic Theories page, if the sequence was

or one of its two variants, where two of the texts (here, B and C) derived from the third (A) but had no knowledge of each other, then we would expect to find no agreements between B and C except where they both followed A. But this is not the case, since no matter which two texts we make B and C, those two texts have material in common which is not shared with A. An additional relationship between them and A must be posited.

or one of its six variants, where B derives from A and then C derives from B (but where C does not know A apart from its preservation in B), then again we would expect to find no agreements between C and A except where B also agreed, since C does not know A except through B. But this is not the case, since no matter which two texts we make B and C, the third of them, C, has material in common with A which is not also found in the intervening B. Thus, there cannot be a single linear line of transmission. The third text, whichever one it may be, must be aware of both of the other two.

If we continue to reason as above, it emerges that the only relationship which will accommodate the evidence before us is one in which the last text in sequence has knowledge of both the preceding texts; that is, a cumulative relationship of the type:

We know that there are six possible theories of this type, so that from a theoretically available 25 Synoptic theories, we have only to choose among the surviving 6; that is, to discover which texts occupy the first, second, and third positions in this formula. It is further obvious that placing two of those texts will also determine the third, for which only one position remains available. Then in addition to the information derived above from the Mustard Seed parable, which tells us that relations exist among all three Synoptics, and gives the general type of the true relationship, and always assuming that the evidence itself is consistent, we need only two more pieces of information to solve the Synoptic Problem.