Is the Synoptic Problem Really a Problem?

[CatholicIllini]

For the most part, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain the same stories, in the same order, often using the same wording. Supposedly, this can only be accounted for by assuming that the Gospels copied from each other. The hypothesis for the Priority of Mark states that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied directly from Mark and then added in their own embellishments. Many also believed that there was a separate, unkown “Q” source that accounts for the passages that are similar to Matthew and Luke, but not to Mark. Huh? Isn’t the simple explanation that the Gospels were indeed divinely inspired and that is why they contain the same passages in the same order and wording? Isn’t the “Synoptic Problem” just a secular explanation for the seeming “impossibility” of independent authors recording the same story?

 

[thistle]

For the most part, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain the same stories, in the same order, often using the same wording. Supposedly, this can only be accounted for by assuming that the Gospels copied from each other. The hypothesis for the Priority of Mark states that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied directly from Mark and then added in their own embellishments. Many also believed that there was a separate, unkown “Q” source that accounts for the passages that are similar to Matthew and Luke, but not to Mark. Huh? Isn’t the simple explanation that the Gospels were indeed divinely inspired and that is why they contain the same passages in the same order and wording? Isn’t the “Synoptic Problem” just a secular explanation for the seeming “impossibility” of independent authors recording the same story?

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm

 

[Warrenton]

There was indeed a “Q Gospel.” It was the life of Christ, as he actually lived it.

The Gospels were “copied” from what people recalled after the fact. The writers knew each other, and since they were evangelizing, it is reasonable to conclude they spoke about their Lord.

It is rare that three witnesses would recall an event in exactly the same way. However, if the witnesses have the opportunity to compare notes, so to speak, similiarities will emerge as the witnesses confirm each other’s recollection.

 

[patrick457]

If it could be of any assistance: I once built a thread about what the supposed problem exactly is. Rather than copypaste all that, I’d just give a link to it.

 

[patrick457]

There was indeed a “Q Gospel.” It was the life of Christ, as he actually lived it.

The Gospels were “copied” from what people recalled after the fact. The writers knew each other, and since they were evangelizing, it is reasonable to conclude they spoke about their Lord.

It is rare that three witnesses would recall an event in exactly the same way. However, if the witnesses have the opportunity to compare notes, so to speak, similiarities will emerge as the witnesses confirm each other’s recollection.

Actually, the Logienquelle (Sayings-source) aka Q, as the name implies, is supposed to be a collection of sayings by Jesus, with no narrative material. And no, we don’t have any external evidence for it. The existence of Q as it is formulated today rests mainly on the assumption that Matthew and Luke could not have known each other’s Gospels: Q then ostensibly provides a solution for those parts which Matthew and Luke have but not Mark.

 

[patrick457]

To explain the data:

The material shared by Matthew, Mark and Luke is known as Triple Tradition, which largely consists of narratives (miracles, healings, and a huge chunk of the Passion narratives) but also some sayings material. The order and wording of this material is generally the same across all three Gospels. One of its characteristics is that it has a lot to do with Mark, i.e. Mark is often (but not always) the so-called ‘middle term’. In other words, in those materials where all three Synoptics agree, you usually have an agreement between all three Gospels, or between Matthew and Mark against Luke, or between Luke and Mark against Matthew. In contrast, agreements between Matthew and Luke versus Mark are far fewer.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3347/63594641.png

Triple Tradition broadly has the same order across all three Gospels, and this order tends to be identical with Mark’s, to the point that if you were to isolate Triple Tradition material in Matthew and Luke you’d end up with a complete Gospel generally similar to Mark in structure, beginning with John the Baptist and ending with the Resurrection.

Now Luke may occasionally place an incident differently: for example, the pericope about Jesus’ mother and brothers occurs before the Parable of the Sower in Matthew (12:46-50) and Mark (3:31-35), but a little after that in Luke (8:19-21). On other occasions Matthew tends to do the same: the story about Jairus’ daughter and the haemorrhaging woman is placed just after the question about fasting in Matthew (9:14-17), but it comes earlier in Mark (2:18-22) and Luke (5:33-39). The striking thing about this material, however, is that it is rare for both Matthew and Luke to place the same incident differently. Where Matthew and Luke apparently depart from Mark’s narrative order, they don’t usually keep up long; very often both of them revert into agreeing with Mark.

The material that is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, meanwhile, are known as Double Tradition or Q Material, at least among supporters of the Two-Source hypothesis. Like the hypothetical Q Document, Double Tradition is mainly made up of sayings material, though there are a few narratives (which are then again themselves mostly comprised of sayings). It is made up overall of somewhere between 200 and 250 verses of material, usually Jesus’ own speech.

One matter of interest is the range of agreement between Matt and Luke in this material. Whereas in the preaching of John the Baptist and the Log and the Speck (Matthew 7:3-5; Luke 6:41-43), the two Gospels are very close, in the case of accounts such as the parables of the Talents and the Wedding Feast (Matthew) or the Pounds and the Great Supper (Luke) the agreement is much more slight that one even has to give different names for the parallel accounts in each Gospel.

Whereas in Triple Tradition material there is substantial similarity in narrative order, in Double Tradition there is more variation. There are some similarities, such as placing the healing of the centurion’s boy/son after the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (though Matthew does insert the story of the leper in 8:1-4), but there are also big differences. For instance, the parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant occurs halfway through in Luke (12:39-46), but near the end in Matthew (24:45-51). The same is true for the lament over Jerusalem, the woes against the scribes and Pharisees, and the parable of the Wedding Feast/Great Supper. Much of the material found in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount is located differently in Luke: “consider the lilies” is in the middle of Matthew’s sermon, but much later on in Luke (12:22-34). Likewise the Our Father, also located midway through the Sermon in Matthew, is found in a different context, at the beginning of Luke 11.

 

[patrick457]

The material which is specific to the Gospel of Matthew is called Special Matthew (M material). You have, for example, the Matthean birth narratives (1-2; we’ll classify this as M material here because while Matthew and Luke do agree in the basics, namely that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that His parents were named Mary and Joseph, the two Gospels give two different accounts), a good deal of Matthew-only parables such as the Parable of the Weeds (13:24-30, 36-43), the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl of Great Price (13:44-46), the Dragnet (13:47-50), the Unmerciful Servant (18:23-25), the Laborers in the Vineyard (20:1-16), the Two Sons (21:28-32), the Ten Virgins (25:1-13, but cf. Luke 12:35-36), and the Sheep and the Goats (25:31-46), Judas’ death (27:3-10), and the soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus (27:62-66, 28:11-15).

It could also be considered that a part of the Sermon on the Mount, especially the first half of chapter 6, constitutes M material. However, it should also be kept in mind that it is often difficult to distinguish between what is called M material and what might be regarded as simply fuller versions of Triple Tradition pericopes. You have, for instance, Matthew 3:14-15, where Jesus comes to ask baptism from John. On the one hand, these are two whole verses’ worth of what would be Special Matthew. On the other hand, though, these verses only make sense in the narrative context provided by Triple Tradition material (verses which have parallels with Mark and Luke). Much of the special material is in this fashion - unique to Matthew yet sandwiched in a Triple Tradition context. Other examples include Peter trying to walk on water (14:28-31), “Thou art Peter and upon this rock…” (16:17-19), the infirm and the children in the Temple (21:14-16), the dream of Pilate’s wife (27:19), and the earthquake and other supernatural events at the death of Jesus (27:51b-53). All in all, one would notice that like Double Tradition, Special Matthew is rich in sayings material, especially parables. It also has narrative, though one would notice that M Material has a more greater emphasis towards the supernatural: i.e. the coin in the fish’s mouth and the resurrection of the saints.

This feature is another element which needs to be considered when trying to solve the Synoptic Problem. The question that arise is: has Matthew ‘added’ these materials to an already existing account in Mark (or Luke, or both of the two), or did Mark (or Luke, or both) excise them away?

Moving on: material specific to Luke is called Special Luke or L Material. Some of the most prominent representatives of this are the Lukan birth narratives (1-2), the boy Jesus in the Temple (2:41-52), the raising of the widow of Nain’s son (7:11-17), the Samaritan villages (9:51-56), the return of the seventy-two disciples (10:17-20), the Good Samaritan (10:29-37), Mary and Martha (10:38-42), the friend at midnight (11:5-8), the rich fool (12:13-21), the murder of the Galileans (13:1-5), the fig tree (13:6-9), the fig tree (13:6-9), the healing of the bent woman (13:10-17) and the man with dropsy (14:1-6), the invitation to feasts and dinners (14:7-14), the lost coin (15:8-10), the Prodigal Son (15:11-32), the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31),the servant of all work (17:7-10), the healing of ten lepers (17:11-19), the Unjust Judge (18:1-8), the Pharisee and the Publican (18:9-14), Zacchaeus the tax collector (19:1-10), the two swords (23:6-12), the trial before Herod Antipas (23:6-12), and the road to Emmaus (24:13-35).

L shares one of the complications of M material: sometimes, though less often than in Matthew, it appears in a Triple Tradition context, for example the women of Jerusalem (23:27-32) and the conversation with the two crucified criminals (23:40-43). In addition, L has another complication shared hardly at all by Special Matthew. It is sometimes difficult to judge whether one should ascribe a piece to L or whether one should call it a different version of Triple Tradition material. Examples of this include Luke’s version of the rejection in Nazareth (4:16-30; cf. Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6a), the calling of the first disciples (5:1-11; cf. Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20, also cf. John 21:1-11), and the anointing of Jesus (7:36-50; cf. Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9, also cf. John 12:1-8). In each case the incident is placed differently from its (partial) parallel in Matthew and Mark and in each case the account is a much fuller one. In both the pericopes about the calling of the disciples and the anointing one can also see a few parallels with the Gospel of John.

Out of all materials we’ve discussed, L Material is the most famous. Here you will find some of the most-loved parables - the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Rich Man and Lazarus to name three. In addition, one can find in the non-parable materials some of the most three-dimensional, human touches in the Gospels.

 

[patrick457]

We have so far discussed four kinds of material: Triple Tradition, Double Tradition, Special Matthew, and Special Luke (there is only relatively little Special Markan material in contrast). Triple Tradition material revolves largely around Mark, its ‘middle term’; Double Tradition seems to be largely sayings material, often with near-verbatim agreement, and not so similar in its order as Triple Tradition. These four make up the bulk of the Synoptics and each pericope will, in some measure, fall into one of these four categories.

However, when looking at both M and L, we can see that some difficulties would arise in classifying material. For instance, does Jesus’ encounter with John the Baptist in Matthew 3:14-15 fit into M Material, or are they, rather, a special Matthean element embedded in the midst of Triple Tradition? Further, do Lukan pericopes like the rejection at Nazareth sit more easily in the Special Luke category or should they really be regarded as distinctive Lukan versions of material that also occurs in the other two Synoptics? We thus notice that categories are not so clear-cut and that there is some blurring between categories. It is usually straightforward to classify a pericope into one type of material or the other, but sometimes the categories are shown not to be water-tight. In addition to the issues connected with M and L, one should also be aware of two further matters concerning Triple and Double Tradition.

The first of the two would be material that is not, strictly speaking, Triple Tradition, but which is, nevertheless, very closely related to it. We have seen before how a great deal of Mark is covered in the general category of Triple Tradition; i.e. most of his material is paralleled in both Matthew and Luke. We now add to this the fact that some of Mark is paralleled in Matthew but not in Luke and some (but less) of Mark is found in Luke but not in Matthew. An example of Matthew-Mark material would be Jesus entering Gennesaret (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-56); the story of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4), meanwhile, is a specimen of Mark-Luke material.

Now why is this material related to Triple Tradition instead of Double Tradition? Double Tradition, as we saw above, is the technical term used to describe the body of material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Here, by contrast, we see that Mark is the common element, like pure Triple Tradition. Furthermore, this material always appears in Markan order in Matthew and the Markan sequence in Luke: the common thread throughout is Mark.

This same pattern is repeated regularly in the Synoptics. Some have attempted to crystallize this phenomenon into a formula, saying that whenever Matthew departs from Mark’s order, Luke keeps to it (and vice versa). There has, however, been a great deal of debate about the use of such formulas. For one, it is difficult to state them without assuming one of the solutions to the Synoptic Problem, namely Markan priority. Further, all too often they tend towards an unhelpful oversimplification of the data. It is much more helpful if one simply continues to remember the rule that Mark tends to be the middle term in the Synoptics.

 

[patrick457]

To the rule of Mark being middle term there are important exceptions: there are a handful of instances where Mark is clearly not the middle term. These passages where Mark is not the middle term constitute the most difficult phenomenon in the Synoptic Problem, because it so blatantly blurs the basic distinction between Triple and Double Traditions, thus more than anything else preventing the easy classification of everything into clear-cut, convenient categories that would otherwise be possible.

A good representative of this phenomenon can be found the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19). where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in places.

Matthew: “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

Mark: “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.”

Luke: “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”

One would notice some clear agreement between all three Synoptics (“like a grain of mustard seed;” “the birds of the air”), some agreement between Matthew and Mark (“smallest of all the seeds…larger than all the garden plants”) and between Mark and Luke (“What is the kingdom of God like?”). What is striking however is that there is also agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark (“which a man took and sowed…becomes a tree…in its branches”).

Also interesting is the placement of this parable. As we’ve mentioned countless times, Mark is usually the common element which means that one tends to not to find agreements in order between Matthew and Luke. Matters are different here, however, since both Matthew and Luke pair this with the Parable of the Leaven (Matthew 13;33; Luke 13:20-21), which does not appear at all in Mark.

Passages like this in which Mark is not the middle term appear in all three Synoptics and feature substantial agreement, either (or sometimes, both) in order and wording, between Matthew and Luke. Such are not very common and isolating them is not always straightforward, not least because the matter of agreement between Matthew and Luke is simply a question of degree. Every Triple Tradition passage features some agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark; what one has to decide is whether to consider the agreement major, as in the passages we are now discussing, or minor, as in the majority of Triple Tradition material. Other passages which people have taken the agreement to be major include John the Baptist (Matthew 3:11-12; Luke 3:15-17; cf. Mark 1:7-8), the Testing in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf. Mark 1:12-13), the Beelzebub controversy (Matthew 12:22-37; Luke 11:14-23; cf. Mark 3:22-30) and the mission of the disciples (Matthew 10:1-15; Luke 9:1-6, 10:1-12; cf. Mark 6:6b-13).

To sum, a review of the various data which comprise the Synoptic Problem.

1.) Triple Tradition: Found in all three Synoptics. The order of this material is similar across the three Gospels.
2.) Double Tradition: Found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. The order tends to vary between the two Gospels.
3.) Special Matthew (M): Found in Matthew alone.
4.) Special Luke (L): Found in Luke alone.
5.) M in Triple Tradition: Material unique to Matthew embedded in Triple Tradition material and would make no sense outside of context.
6.) Lukan Triple Tradition: Three pericopes which have parallels in Matthew and Mark and might be described as Lukan versions of Triple Tradition material.
7.) Not Quite Triple Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke or in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew. These are not, strictly speaking, Triple Tradition pericopes since they occur in only two Gospels, but they are akin to Triple Tradition because they appear in the Markan order.
8.) Mark being not the middle term: Some material halfway between Triple and Double Tradition. Appears in all three Synoptics but unlike Triple Tradition, features substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark.

 

[patrick457]

Actually, the Logienquelle (Sayings-source) aka Q, as the name implies, is supposed to be a collection of sayings by Jesus, with no narrative material. And no, we don’t have any external evidence for it. The existence of Q as it is formulated today rests mainly on the assumption that Matthew and Luke could not have known each other’s Gospels: Q then ostensibly provides a solution for those parts which Matthew and Luke have but not Mark.

By the way, Q is not as crucial as some think it is.