The Synoptic Gospels

1.What is the “Synoptic Problem”

The synoptic problem is the question of how to account for the literary relationships between Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is the attempt to explain the similarities and differences in the compositional structure, contents, and sequence of materials, theological developments and verbal agreements of the three Gospels. It is an attempt to describe how Matthew, Mark and Luke agree, yet disagree in content, wording and order. Synoptic problem is the term that has been used to describe the task in determining the precise relationship between the first three gospels. Scholars wonder why there is an alternating array of agreements and disagreements among the three gospels. Why, on one hand, do the Synoptic Gospels have so much material in common? About 94% of Mark’s material is found in Matthew, while about 46% of Mark is found in Luke. The word “synoptic” means “with the same eye” or “seeing together.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke present the basic story of Jesus in similar ways, including the order of the material, the stories told, the sayings of Jesus, even using many of the same words in parallel accounts. For this reason they are called the Synoptic Gospels. On the other hand, while the Gospel of John sometimes resembles the other three Gospels, it tells the story of Jesus in significantly different ways, including a different order of events, different perspectives and points of emphasis, and with its own unique vocabulary and style. Those differences can be understood in terms other than literary relationships between the Gospels, which is the reason John is not included in the Synoptic Problem. On the other hand, we need honestly to concede at the beginning that there is no final answer to this "problem." There are various perspectives, hypotheses, and theories based on the evidence of the biblical text as well as what we know about the process of writing. But there is not a "correct" answer. That simply suggests that while we need to take this issue seriously as part of what we see in the biblical text as we have it, it is not a matter of faith one way or the other. Rather, it is simply being honest with the biblical text and not trying to make it say or be what it is not.

Scholars are struggling with the Synoptic problem, the question of how to account for the literary relationships between Matthew, Mark and Luke. The Synoptic problem hinges on several interrelated points of controversy: Which gospel was written first? Did each of the synoptic gospels draw from each of its predecessors? Did any of the gospels draw from some earlier document that was lost? To what extent did each evangelist draw from personal knowledge, eye witness accounts, liturgy, or other oral traditions?, Who performed the translation of the original texts? And why and how did those who redacted the gospels put them in the final form?  Scholars have proposed solutions to the Synoptic problem namely the two-document hypothesis and the two Gospel Hypothesis.[i]According to the two document hypothesis, the similarities in all three Synoptic Gospels shows that Mark appeared first and the authors of Matthew and Luke used it independently in creating their own works.[ii]The two Gospel Hypothesis asserts that Matthew was first; Luke drew upon Matthew and, Mark Drew upon both.[iii] Patristic fathers generally ascribed the four Gospels to four authors; two of the witnesses are apostles, and namely Matthew and John.[iv]Two are followers of the apostles, Mark and Luke.[v]

2. Define the Two Gospel Hypothesis and the Two document Hypothesis.

The Griesbach or Two Gospel Hypothesis, states that Matthew was written, first then Luke copied from Matthew and Mark copied both Luke and Matthew. Mark most often followed Matthew as his guide, but from time to time, he did part with Matthew and took Luke as his guide. Mark aimed to produce a shorter Gospel. Because of this he left out elements belonging to what our Lord taught in public. Mark omitted several long speeches of Christ. Mark’s selection of passages indicates that he was considering in audience outside of Palestine, which was unfamiliar with dogmas and custom. Mark added some small stories omitted by Matthew and Luke. This is known as the Two Gospel Hypothesis following the original proposal by Augustine and expanded by Johann Griesbach and developed by William R.Farmer in North America and currently argued by David Barret Peaboy. It relies primarily on internal evidence. The proposal suggests that the apostle Matthew wrote the book of Matthew. Matthew wrote his account in order to show that Jesus was actually the fulfillment of Jewish scripture and prophecy. It proposes that Matthew was written first when Christianity was still centered in Jerusalem, to calm hostility between Jews and Christians. The church expanded beyond Jerusalem and Luke was written as the gospel to the Gentiles. Luke and Paul were not eyewitnesses so Peter gave the book apostolic authority through his validation.

The Two Source Hypothesis, which states that Mark was written first then both Matthew and Luke copied Mark independently. Matthew and Luke also used a saying source called ‘Q’ (German Quelle) which was lost. The Two-source hypothesis emerged in the 19^th century through B.H Streeter, adding that two other sources, referred to as M and L, lie behind the material in Matthew and Luke respectively. The Two Source Hypothesis commands the support of most biblical scholars. The Two Source Hypothesis attempts to solve the synoptic problem by advancing two propositions, Markian priority explain the triple tradition and the existence of a lost Q to solve the double tradition. The Two Source Hypothesis explains the features of the triple tradition by proposing that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Mark appears more ‘primitive’: his diction and grammar are less literary that Matthew and Luke, his language is more prone to redundancy and obscurity, his Christology is less supernatural, and he makes more frequent use of Aramaic.

3.Compare and Contrast the Resurrection narratives in the Synoptic Gospels.

Matthew and Luke have the almost the same beginning, “After the Sabbath was over” but Luke does not have this beginning. They all agree that it was the first day of the week.In Matthew 28: 1 there are two women Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, Mark 16:1 has Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James it also has more information about spices they had carried to anoint Jesus’s body. Both Mark and Luke have information about the women carrying spices. In Matthew the women go to “look at” the tomb. In Mark and Luke they bring spices to anoint Jesus’s body. Matthew seems to omit the spices story because he believed that Jesus would have risen so there was no need to embalm his body. For Matthew’s audience they already expect Jesus to resurrect. Matthew is highly Christological. Only in Matthew is the indication of a great earth quake an angel of the Lord descending from heaven to roll back the stone.It reveals that the angel was like lightning and his clothing white as snow. The guards shook with fear and they were numbed like dead men. It is highly likely Matthew added this portion of power and the angelic from the Markian source to depict the high Christology of Jesus and to confirm that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah who had angels at his disposal and as his servants. Since Matthew was appealing to the Jewish community the story of angelic intervention would resonate with them because the Torah is full of angelic visitations to important men and women. Moses had numerous angelic encounters and fathers like Isaac and Jacob had angelic visitations. Mark and Matthew have the women contemplating who would roll the stone away they do not have the same narrative as that found in Mary. The similarities between Mark and Luke further strengthen the fact that Matthew added the supernatural angelic rolling of the stone on the tomb. In Matthew and Mark one angel appears, in Luke two angels appear. In fact in Mark it is a young man who appears whilst in Luke there are two men in dazzling clothes.

Both Matthew and Mark have the same narration of the angel asking the women why they were looking for Jesus among the dead. The angel tells the women that Jesus has resurrected and they must go and tell the disciples. Luke does not have this part showing that he had a different source probably called L described in the Two Document Hypothesis. Mark is the only one, which calls Peter by name. Luke also has a portion reminding the women that Jesus was going to be handed over to sinners and be crucified but rise on the third day. It states that the women remembered. This reveals that Luke had a different source probably L. Only Matthew and Mark state that the women left the tomb with fear and amazement or Joy, Luke has a different narrative altogether. It reveals that the women told what they had seen and heard to all the eleven and to all the rest.Matthew is the only one that has a story of the resurrected Jesus revealing himself to the women and being touched by the women and Jesus commands them to tell their brothers. Matthew is highly Christological and  he has to show that Jesus really resurrected, so he adds to the Markian source a narration of Jesus showing the women that he had resurrected. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus is wrapped in a large linen shroud. In Luke Jesus is wrapped in strips of linen. In Matthew and Mark Jesus’ resurrection appearances are in Galilee, while Luke only records in the vicinity of Jerusalem. In Luke Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and the other women with them tell the disciples but they did not believe. Peter runs to the tomb and finds it empty and he only saw the linen clothes by themselves and was amazed. This reveals that Luke had a different source.

4. What relevance does the Synoptic Problem have for the teaching ministry of the Church?

One thing I have discovered that has relevance for the church and society is that there are differences between the Greek texts and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.[vi]I realized that in the early third century the language of Western Christianity had changed from Greek to Latin.[vii] After Jerome there was no interest in copies of the Greek Bible for over a millennium.[viii]When Jerome translated the Greek Bible into Latin he made his own interpretations too. Erasmus in the sixteenth century lacked Greek manuscripts for the New Testament.[ix] He also corrected errors in the Greek manuscript. Calvin, Theodore Beza, King James and Luther further translated the New Testament.[x] I realized that our reception of the Gospels involved multiple problems of translation. There were language barriers because the language of Plato and Homer was significantly different from that of the Roman Empire New Testament. It is therefore vital for the modern church and society not to read the Gospels anachronistically. The need to understand historical context is pertinent in order to have a more accurate interpretation of the Gospels. Historical criticism of the Gospels does not lock us in antiquity but helps provide an interface between two worlds. Perkins affirms that the language of the Septuagint provided by the evangelists with religious meaning that words and phrases did not have in ordinary Greek usage.[xi] The Septuagint then was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was translated with people with a Christian agenda.[xii]

I do understand how the first century Christians help spread the Gospels and help the Gospel texts come down to us. The fact that a few Christians were able to spread copies of the Gospels quite widely is believable, But how did anti-Christian polemics help spread the Gospels? If they were negative about the Gospels how did they help spread the transmission of the Gospels to us? Perkins states that, “ perhaps even more remarkable, the Gospels were known to outsiders who wrote against Christian by the middle of the second century.”[xiii]

---

[i] Ibid, 16.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid, 17.

[iv] Ibid, 13.

[v]  Ibid.

[vi] Ibid, 42.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Ibid, 49.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid, 41.

Bibliography

Perkins, P. (2007). Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: William.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.