The Synoptic Problem --> effect on theology

[paul_c]

I find the " Synoptic Problem", the question of the chronology and interrelationship of the synoptic gospels, to have interesting theological ramifications. I would like to discuss the theories and the ramifications.

Here’s what I know:

The traditions of the Church through around 1850 placed Matthew as the first gospel, written originally in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Jerome said that he had access to the original Aramaic version for his translations but they seem to have disappeared. The theory was that the Apostle Matthew wrote his gospel in the late 30s or early 40s before he left Judea. The traditions follow that Mark followed Matthew and that Luke used both as a source for his gospel, probably writing before 67 AD since he doesn’t mention the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Acts, the companion work to his Gospel. Hence the ordering of the Gospels in the Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which is generally agreed to be written in the 90s by St. John.

Many modern bible scholars, however, tend to favor a view with Mark being the first gospel. There are a couple of reasons for this. The main ones are that Mark has the shortest gospel and that 94% of its content is consistent with Matthew’s and so its easy to assume that Matthew took Mark’s gospel and embellished it. The theory continues that to explain the roughly 25% of the verses that are common between Matthew and Luke but not in Matthew is that there is a second source, called Q, that both Matthew and Luke had access to. This is the essence of the two source theory. The biggest difficulty with this view is that the Q source was never discussed prior to the 1850s and no evidence of its existence has ever been found.

The theological and ecclesiastical implications of the 2 source theory versus the traditional view are not insignificant. In the traditional view, Matthew the apostle was relating his eyewitness testimony very shortly after the events, enhancing their credibility and he had Jesus prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem decades before it occurred.

In the new 2 source view, the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel by the Apostle Matthew is called into question by the fact that an Apostle would be unlikely to copy the account of a non- apostle (Mark). This is used to reduce the credibility of Matthew’s gospel, particularly by some protestants who question the naming of Peter as head of the church in Matthew 16. Further, most scholars who espouse a 2 source view tend to place the gospel writings into the 70s or later, after the destruction of Jerusalem. This then makes the prophesy of Jesus less impressive because it was written down after the events happened rather than a couple of decades before it happened.

It is my opinion that the thrust of these recent views of the synoptic problem is to undermine the credibility of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts by the Apostles and even to undermine the divinity of Jesus (by mitigating the prophetic value of his discussion on the destruction of Jerusalem by placing its reporting after the events rather than before them). I also don’t buy the credibility of a two source theory where there is no physical or historical evidence of the second source (dubbed Q). Surely, if there was such an important source of the life of Jesus that it was used by two of the evangelists, then that source would have been preserved in some fashion or at least commented on by the church fathers.

I’d appreciate the comments and views of others on this question.

 

[Threep]

In regards to the Q source:

One of the marks of a great teacher in those days was whether or not his students memorised what he taught. If this theory is true, then that’s where the source was located - in the minds of His followers.

I find the biggest problem with this theory is that it brings into question the authorship of the gospels. However, it is hard for me (and many others) to believe that the faithful in the early church would have accepted the writings of those who weren’t Apostles or in direct contact with them.

I wish I could comment more on this topic though. I only did one semester of study on it 4 years ago, and hardly any on the church teaching, so I don’t think I’ll be able to contribute much. I am keen on reading any other posts in this thread though.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I believe in a theory that the authors wrote more than one copy of their accounts, and probably wrote the same account in more than one language such as Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. If I was going to record such an important document to be circulated I would have written multiple copies, and would have written it in the languages that were in that area.

With that in mind, I can imagine that all those manuscripts that have portions added or omitted, such as the end of the Gospel of Mark, Mark may have very well made that interpolation himself after writing another copy. I think that many places where scholars have assumed were additions and omitions by scribes could actually be by the original author.

 

[Crumpy]

from the fly on the wall point of view:

I think these are interesting theories about the origins of the gospels. In my readings of Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew scriptures, there are many intriguing ideas about the conflicts and contradictions in that body of writing. My point is, join the club. The problems are not limited to the synoptic gospels. The date, location, and authorship of the writings of the NT is in question, also.

There are theories (or hypotheses) about all this. There are modern Christian Bible scholars who have lost their faith over, e.g. the discrepancies of the resurrection accounts, just as there are rabbinic scholars here and there who have done the same, over problems in the OT.

When I read Leviticus, it seems to me that the priests stacked the deck so that they didn’t have to work or fight, and they had people bringing them all these “gifts” all the time – a skeptic could have a field day questioning their motives and the rules in Leviticus.

What sways me in the other direction, is that all these canonical writings fit together so well.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

I have been particularly interested in the chronology of the Bible and the order of the events in the gospels was always an area I struggled with. Luke says he wrote an ordered account so it is logical to believe that the order is a chronological order. The problem is that the order of the events in Matthew is different from the order in Mark or Luke. John and Matthew are the only to evangelists who were present for most of the events in the gospels, so it is not unreasonable to conclude that they are chronological, but Mark and Luke agree together against Matthew. Papias said that Mark wrote after the death of Peter and he wrote accurately what Peter taught, but not in order. If Luke used the chronological order of the events from Mark, then it is logical to conclude that the order of the gospels is Matthew, Mark, Luke and then John. I discovered that using Matthew as the chronological gospel resulted in a well ordered chronology where nearly every event in Jesus ministry can be dated. I also did a chronological harmony (Douay) of the gospels with the assumption that Matthew and John are in chronological order. The conclusion is that the entire recorded ministry of Jesus is tied to the Passovers (official and solar, in the first and second month). I am convinced that the traditional order of the gospels is the correct order. See www.scripturescholar.com
Grace and peace,
Bruce

 

[paul_c]

In regards to the Q source:

One of the marks of a great teacher in those days was whether or not his students memorised what he taught. If this theory is true, then that’s where the source was located - in the minds of His followers.

well, I’m sure that they did memorize what Jesus taught. The son of God would undoubtedly make an impression. What you are proposing is that Jesus was the ultimate source of all three gospels and that the evangelists simply remembered the same things. This is fine theory but its inconsistent with the new scholarship in that they believe that there were ultimately two written sources that Matthew and Luke drew from: mark and Q. and of course, there are no records surviving that support Q.

I find the biggest problem with this theory is that it brings into question the authorship of the gospels. However, it is hard for me (and many others) to believe that the faithful in the early church would have accepted the writings of those who weren’t Apostles or in direct contact with them.

I think you are right… The 4 Gospels were universally accepted for a reason. and they most certainly wouldn’t have attained that level of acceptance if authorship was in question.
This is what Eusebius says in book 2, chapter 15 of his history of the church on the Gospel of Mark:
Chapter 15. The Gospel according to Mark.

1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.
2. And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son.”

and this is what he has to say about the order of the Gospels in book 5 chapter 8

Chapter 8. The Statements of Irenæus in regard to the Divine Scriptures.

1. Since, in the beginning of this work, we promised to give, when needful, the words of the ancient presbyters and writers of the Church, in which they have declared those traditions which came down to them concerning the canonical books, and since Irenæus was one of them, we will now give his words and, first, what he says of the sacred Gospels:
2. Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.
3. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared.
4. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia.

I have read in other places that Papias’ description of the genesis of Mark’s gospel is that Peter was asked to give a lecture on the gospel Of Matthew. He did so, embellishing some areas while ignoring others. Mark, who was his secretary, transcribed this lecture in notes, which were published as Mark’s gospel. This make’s sense to me

 

[patrick457]

Okay, since this discussion is cropping up again I might as well dig the following up. Be reminded that the following is a repost of earlier material.

If ya’ll will allow me a little rant here: nowadays almost no one really teaches the Synoptic Problem per se. What people get taught in schools and most books and webpages is actually the problem pre-refracted through a preferred solution, which is almost always invariably the Q hypothesis. The downside of this is, one would get to learn the answer first even before one even knows what the problem actually is. So for a change, let’s look at the problem itself before we get into further discussion.

To start off, what does Synoptic mean? It is derived from the Greek words syn (‘together’) and 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 exactly the same wording (usually 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 four main categories: triple tradition, double tradition, special Matthew (M), and special Luke (L).

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.

 

[patrick457]

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.

Part of John the Baptist’s preaching in Matthew and Luke (“You brood of vipers,” etc.) is a good example of Double Tradition material. A few other specimens include the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matthew 5-7; Luke 6:20-49); the centurion’s boy/servant (8:5-13; 7:1-10); the messengers from John the Baptist (11:2-29; 7:18-35); the parables of the lost sheep (18:10-14; 15:3-7), the marriage feast/great supper (22:1-14; 14:15-24), and the talents/pounds (25:14-30; 19:11-27); the discourse against the scribes and the Pharisees (23:1-36; 11:37-54), and the lament over Jerusalem (23:37-39; 13:34-35).

We’ve noted that Double Tradition material does have a few narrative material, 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.

One matter of interest is the range of agreement between Matthew 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.

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.

I’ll resume later.

 

[paul_c]

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.

Part of John the Baptist’s preaching in Matthew and Luke (“You brood of vipers,” etc.) is a good example of Double Tradition material. A few other specimens include the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matthew 5-7; Luke 6:20-49); the centurion’s boy/servant (8:5-13; 7:1-10); the messengers from John the Baptist (11:2-29; 7:18-35); the parables of the lost sheep (18:10-14; 15:3-7), the marriage feast/great supper (22:1-14; 14:15-24), and the talents/pounds (25:14-30; 19:11-27); the discourse against the scribes and the Pharisees (23:1-36; 11:37-54), and the lament over Jerusalem (23:37-39; 13:34-35).

We’ve noted that Double Tradition material does have a few narrative material, 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.

One matter of interest is the range of agreement between Matthew 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.

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.

I’ll resume later.

you’ve obviously done a lot of research on the question. Hard to see where you are leading with this.