Synoptic problems?

[Jim_Baur]

The historical-critical method uses several types of criticism or analysis; the chief types are textual criticism, form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, and historical criticism (see other entries about these terms). Through the historical-critical method, we have come to see that the Bible in no way contradicts the truths of reason or the facts of science.

I pulled this from a site on the web. I cannot recall where I got it.

 

[dronald]

Basically, if you’re not a Christian and the Bible makes a prediction and that prediction comes true, then the Bible must have been written after the time of prediction. It’s only logical.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Concerning Modern Scholars, I think the term is most misleading. It seems as if it is a synonym for the critical methods. Then by definition, most scholars agree, because they are in the same school. This does not mean most scholars, but only those in the critical method. They will not consider divine inspiration as a part of the writing of the Bible.

 

[thistle]

How to explain how St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke’s Gospel are similar and dissimilar. Most Modern Scholars (meaning a small branch of biblical scholars) believe this is a problem. They solve it by dating all four Gospel after the fall of Jerusalem because Jesus could not have foretold the fall. They reject the possibility of divine inspiration. Modern Scholars do not include all scholars but only those that reject divine inspiration of the Bible. They are not theologians but literary scholars.

That is my understanding of Modern Scholars.

churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/clem-trad/contents-clem-trad.htm

 

[Jim_Baur]

thistle

THANKS!

Have you had the chance to read it?

Again, THANKS!

 

[patrick457]

Maybe I’m just missing something here but I can’t see that anyone has explained what the Synoptic Problems are supposed to be. What problems are there?

The Synoptic Problem basically revolves around the high degree of similarity between Matthew, Mark and Luke. I’ll explain it in depth later.

 

[patrick457]

The main problem with most presentations of the Synoptic Problem nowadays is that very often, people do not so much explain the problem itself as one of its proposed solutions (which is usually invariably the Two-Source hypothesis). This of course is a bad way of teaching: you first consider the problem itself, and only then choose the solution which best solves the problem in your opinion.

What is synoptic? It is derived from the Greek words σύν (syn ‘together’) and ὄψις (opsis ‘view’). The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the synoptic gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes even exactly the same wording (down to word order), something that is much more evident if you read the original Greek. This degree of parallelism in content, narrative arrangement, language, and sentence structures can, it is said, normally only be accounted for by literary interdependence between the three authors.

We will group the data into five types:

Triple Tradition: This refers to the material shared by all three gospels. It largely consists of narrative material (miracles, healings, and a huge chunk of the Passion narratives) but also contains some sayings.

One of the characteristics of triple tradition is that it seems to have a lot to do with Mark, i.e. Mark is often (but not always) the mediating factor or the so-called ‘middle term’. Triple tradition material broadly has the same order across all three gospels, and this order tends to be identical with Mark’s. In other words, where you get the synoptics agreeing together, usually the agreements are between Matthew and Mark, or between Luke and Mark, or between all three. Taken altogether, they comprise the majority.

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. Hence, the patterns one can find here is: either a substantial agreement between all three, or an agreement between Matthew and Mark against Luke, or an agreement between Mark and Luke against Matthew. Compared to this, it is rare for Matthew and Luke to agree against Mark.

The agreement is not just evident in the wording, but also often in the narrative order. Where Matthew and Luke apparently depart from the order found in Mark, they don’t keep up usually long; very often both of them revert into agreeing with Mark, and they very rarely depart from Mark together.

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

A corollary of this is if one were to isolate triple tradition material from all the rest, one would have something resembling a complete gospel, and this gospel would actually be similar to Mark in structure, starting from John the Baptist and ending with the Resurrection. The same would not hold true for the other kinds of material.

 

[patrick457]

Double Tradition: This is what supporters of the two-source hypothesis like to call ‘Q material’. This is the kind of material that is found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Like the hypothetical Q document, double tradition is mainly made up of sayings material, though there are a few narratives. It is made up overall of somewhere between 200 and 250 verses of material, usually Jesus’ own speech.

A few specimens of double tradition material include John the Baptist’s rebuke (Matthew 3:7-12; Luke 3:7-9, 15-17), the temptation of Jesus (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13), the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matthew 5-7; Luke 6:20-49); the centurion’s boy/servant (Mt. 8:5-13; Lk. 7:1-10); the messengers from John the Baptist (Mt. 11:2-29; Lk. 7:18-35); the parables of the lost sheep (Mt. 18:10-14; Lk. 15:3-7), the marriage feast/great supper (Mt. 22:1-14; Lk. 14:15-24), and the talents/pounds (Mt. 25:14-30; Lk. 19:11-27); the discourse against the scribes and the Pharisees (Mt. 23:1-36; Lk. 11:37-54), and the lament over Jerusalem (Mt. 23:37-39; Lk. 13:34-35).

We’ve noted that double tradition material does have a few narratives, which are the exceptions - the most obvious of which are the healing of the centurion’s boy/servant and the messengers sent by John the Baptist. Nevertheless, though they have a narrative setting, even these pericopes are mainly made up of sayings.

Another matter of interest is the range of agreement between Matthew and Luke in this material. Whereas in the preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus’ saying about the log and the speck (Matthew 7:3-5; Luke 6:41-43), the two are very close, in the case of the parables of the talents/pounds and the marriage feast/great supper the agreement is much more slight that one even has to give different names for the parallel accounts in each gospel.

Further, whereas in triple tadition material there is substantial similarity in narrative order, here 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 in Luke (12:39-46), but near the end in Matthew (24:45-51). The same goes 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.

One of the key areas for the study of the synoptic problem is double tradition and why this material is placed so differently between Matthew and Luke; in fact, whole books have been written on this single subject alone. The problem becomes particularly intense when one asks about the placement of double tradition in relation to the placement of triple tradition in Matthew and Luke.

 

[patrick457]

Special Matthew (M): As the name implies, material which is specific to Matthew. You have, for example, the Matthaean birth narratives (1-2)*, 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).

*Why are the birth narratives classified as Special Matthew material here, you may ask. This is because while Matthew and Luke do agree in the basics - that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that His parents were named Mary and Joseph - the two gospels give two different stories from one another.

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, the dialogue between Jesus and John (3:14-15):

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him…

On the one hand, here 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. You have as examples Peter trying to walk on water (14:28-31), the famous “thou art Peter…” proclamation (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).

This feature is another element which needs to be considered when trying to solve the synoptic problem. The question that arises is: has Matthew added these material to an already existing account in Mark (or Luke, or both of the two), or did Mark (or Luke, or both) excise these material?

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 these Matthew-only narrative material has a more greater emphasis towards the supernatural that it could be said to have an almost ‘fantastic’ or ‘legendary’ character than the bulk of narrative material elsewhere in the synoptics: for example, the coin at the fish’s mouth or the resurrection of the saints at the Crucifixion.​

 

[patrick457]

Special Luke (L): Material specific to Luke. Out of the various materials, Special Luke is the most popular and the most well-known amongst many Christians. 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 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).

Special Lukan material 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 story of the good thief (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 parallels with the Gospel of John.

As we’ve mentioned, L material is famous among many people. 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. You have one of the ten lepers who returns in gratitude to Jesus (and a Samaritan at that); the widow of Nain, whose only son had died; the short Zacchaeus who makes the effort of climbing up a sycamore tree just to see Jesus; and the two travellers to Emmaus, who only come to realize who their anonymous companion was when He breaks bread with them.

 

[patrick457]

Special Mark: Material found only in Mark. Unlike M or L, there is little ‘special Mark’ material. A few examples we can give here are: Jesus healing a deaf and mute man using His spittle and fingers (7:31-37), Jesus healing a blind man in Bethsaida (8:22-25), and the young man “clothed with a linen cloth over his naked body” in Gethsemane (14:51-52).



We have so far discussed four kinds of material (excluding Special Mark): triple tradition, double tradition, Special Matthew, and Special Luke. 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 Special Matthew and Special Luke, 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 in the Special Matthew category, 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?

Thus, we notice that just about every category described above described has some kind of difficulty: they are not so clear-cut and there is some blurring between them. 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.

 

[patrick457]

1.) Not-quite Triple Tradition Material: 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.

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.

The 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 (i.e. the idea that Mark wrote first). 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.

2.) Mark not being the middle term: To the aforementioned rule there are several 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 an 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’s Gospel.

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 Temptation 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).​

 

[patrick457]

In conclusion, yet another review of the various material and in-betweens:

1.) Triple Tradition: Material found in all three synoptics. The order of this material is similar across the three gospels.
2.) Double Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Not as numerous as triple tradition material, but still substantial to some extent. Its content is mainly sayings material (i.e. the Our Father, the Beatitudes) but includes some narratives such as the centurion’s servant and the testing of Jesus in the desert as well. The interesting thing about this material is that you don’t have much of it in a closely parallel order; there is some kind of parallel order, but not the same one you get with triple tradition. The order tends to vary between the two gospels.
3.) Special Matthew (M): Material found in Matthew alone. Like double tradition, much of it is sayings material (for instance, the parables in Matthew 25:1-13 and 25:31-46), with a few exceptions (i.e. the Temple tax in Matthew 17:24-27). Some of it can also be found embedded within triple tradition material; for instance, Judas’ death and the brief reference to Pilate’s wife in Matthew 27.
4.) Special Luke (L): Material found in Luke alone, usually narrative material like the announcement to Zechariah and John the Baptist’s birth, the Annunciation and Visitation, the boy Jesus in the Temple and the Road to Emmaus, and also saying materials like the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.
5.) M Material 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.) When Mark is 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.

Once again, let me emphasize that Mark is often, but not always, the ‘middle term’. Reason for this is, in triple tradition, there are usually substantial agreements between Matthew, Mark and Luke, between Matthew and Mark, and between Mark and Luke. There are only minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. The order of triple tradition passages and those which are not quite it is usually similar to the Markan order. Matthew and Luke less often agree together in order against Mark.

How then do we account for this phenomenon, of Mark being the middle term? Would this mean that Mark is first and that Matthew and Luke copied from and added to his gospel, or that Mark is a summarization of Matthew and/or Luke? This is where the different proposed solutions for the problem come into play, and incidentally where I finish and leave all the thinking to others.

 

[Jim_Baur]

thistle

Thanks!

I have read about five chapters of the book you suggested. The chapters are short.

It makes sense!

THANKS!