A summary by Jorge Céspedes

I-            Introduction

The Gospels of Mathew, Luke and Mark are also called the synoptic gospels. It is evident that they have many things in common. It is very frequent that some histories presented in one gospel are also described in the other with big similarities. Which is the most ancient of the three gospels? Or is it the possible that one of the gospels was the source for the others? Questions such as these are just the beginning of one big discussion, the so called “the synoptic problem”.

When we read the New Testament it is easy to be aware of the fact that there are many inconsistencies between Mathew, Mark and Luke.  The study of the synoptic problem tries to give satisfactory explanations to such differences. These are several hypotheses as to where differences might be explained.

II-          Antiquity of Mathew

ST. Augustine proposed that the first gospel in be written was Mathew. The theory accepted for centuries is that Mathew was the source of Mark and Luke.  This theory was replaced by Grieschbach, he suggest the order Mt, Lk, Mk.

III-        Mark as a source

The predominant theory today said that Mark was the primary source; this is the “markan theory” and it was suggested at the end of the 18^th century. When is made a careful study of the text it is easy to discover that there are dissimilarities in Mathew that are supported by Luke.

IV-         Two source theory

This is what is called the double tradition, which said that Mk was written first.  Some scholars propose the idea of Mk written between the redaction of Lk and Mt; others scholars propose the possibility of a proto gospel, a proto MK that was the inspiration to all the others.

V-           The Markan order in Mathew

 When we compare Mk and Mt is possible to discover three kinds of movements: a) Some chapters have not change in the pericopes b) some chapters have few changes within the pericopes c) some changes in pericopes but with a movement that is anticipated.  Lk follows the same order than MK. This order is interrupted only to ad some material that does not come from MK. There is the possibility that also Lk used another source different that the one that he used in common with MT. There is a special passage that is call the “great omission” in LK this is found in LK 9: 17/18 and the correspondence is with the text of MK is 6: 45 – 8: 26. One of the explanations that are given by scholars consist of the possibility that Lk used a version of MK where this verses were lost.  May be possible that Lk in was avoiding the presence of doublets. There are different explanations for this omission but not one is completely satisfactory.  

VI-         Editorial intentions as source of differences in the redaction of the gospels

The argument for order is the main reason to give priority to Mark and put this gospel before Lk and MT in time. This was developed by K. Lachmann in 1835. This possibility deserves further studies and cannot be decided a priori. It is important to note that different insertions noted in Mark can be explained as intentional by the author. Some examples of these deliberated changes in order can be found in Mt who put in a different place the mission of Jesus in relation with his main discourses. Mt 8: 2-4 is found in Mk 1: 40-45 and Mt 8; 14-16 is found in Mk 1:29 -34. The explanation to this change can be that this author had a different pedagogical intentionality. It is in this same direction that the inversions in the text can be explained by the own editorial work of the author who tried to give a different message or meaning to the same passage according to his own experience.

Mathew shows a deliberated expansion of the beatitudes, this is a classical example of the alteration of one text responding to a specific editorial intention of the author. It is important to note that there is a possible influence in the gospels from a sourced called Q. This is source used in the development of Mathew and Luke but not in Mark. Some repetitions or phrases that are noted only in the Gospel of Mt can be a clear influenced of the Q sourced. An example of this situation is the phrase “broad of vipers” (Mt 3: 7) this expression is typical of the Gospel of Mt. It is possible to find in the Gospel of Lk some other phrases that are located in this Gospel of Matthew. This is a clear influenced of Mt in the process of redaction of LK. The same situation happen with the expression “from that time” which is very frequent in the gospel of Mt, but it is also found in the Gospel of Lk. This peculiarity can be seeing as a clear influenced of the Q source.

Another issue is the repetition of certain passages, the so called doublets in the same gospel. But it is noted that this only happen two times in the double sourced and one time in the three source.One example is Mk 4:22 happens in Mt 10:26 and  in Lk 8: 17 and 12: 2. Special attention deserves the uses by Luke of this call “Q source”. Some passages in the Gospel of Lk seem to be unique. This is the case of LK 6: 20-8:3 and 9:51- 18:14. This can be a sign that Lk in some way uses the material of the Q source by himself. The style in which Luke presents the life of Jesus has their own peculiarities, but in some moments this narrations seems to be simple duplications of Mark.

VII-       The originality of Mark

When dating the gospels we can use different criteria, Sanders suggest these:  a) The first criterion is the increasing in the length of the Gospel b) the second criterion is the progressive diminishing of Semitism c) and the third, is the use of discourse. With these three criteria Mark has defined as the most ancient of the three gospels. But  these criteria, also  have their own critics. For this reason modern scholars agree that the most important factor to study which one is the most ancient of the gospels is to look in the different editorial tendencies. What this means is that the study must be centered in the identification of glosas, interruptions and other actions that are valuable for this study.

The Synoptic problem goes beyond the fact of determining whether Mk and Q are the authentic sources of Mathew and Luke. If this is the confirmed solution, we must ask a new question: which were the sources of Mark and the Q source? It is here that we enter to a complete new world, which the pre synoptic tradition.

D) Another criterion to define dependency as their source of one Gospel by other is the appearing of material of one gospel in this other. Typical criteria used by scholars to define the antiquity of Mk and which was offered by Streeter are: 1- phrases which causes a direct offense to persons or groups. These phrases disappear gradually in the others gospels. 2- Roughness of style and grammar 3- preservation of Aramaic words. But even in the theory of the antiquity of Mark, and the possibility that this was the source of Mathew and Luke, we can find problems. There are passages where we can find agreement between Luke and Mathew but nor with Mark. One of the possible solutions is that Luke uses a different version of Mark that the one that we know. This would be “proto Mark” source.  Or that he used a kind of deutero Mark with a text lightly different as source than this that we know today.  Some scholars continue looking for other satisfactory explanations of redaction to this kind of disagreements.  Other possibility is that what was attractive to one author was not attractive to other. One problem in this study is that we can end in what is called atomization, which means that scholars focus all their attention in just one passage and we need to be aware that it is not possible to find an explanation to each passage in which exists some doubt, this concept was explained by Neirynck.  

VIII- Oral tradition

In the modern time is a tendency to return to the recognition of oral tradition as the possible source of the variants. This is a very important concept especially in the Catholic Church. Tradition which started in the oral way is very important in the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures with a catholic sense. Some scholars give especial attention to the process of corruptions and harmonization suffered by the gospels, however, caution must be exercised lest we yield into misunderstandings to the correct interpretation of the gospels. All the different possibilities do not modify this general synoptic hypothesis.

IX- Special attention to Mark

 These are some of the redundancies noted in Mark which have their own parallels in Mathew. From this arises a possible explanation given by some scholars who say that it is possible that Mark used Luke and Mathew as sources, thus they argue that Mark was not the first gospel. Northerlies probable it is Luke and Mathew who made each one an independent use of Mark as source and for this reason there exist some divergences. It is also clear that the “two source theory” has problems. Not all the explanations given to this theory are completely satisfactory. Even today, there is not a consensus about the existence of a proto Mark. It is necessary to continue with further Studies. There could be still a different solution: the theory of the modified two sources. It is possible the existence of one primitive Gospel that is not known for us today. This primitive gospel could be the source of the three Gospels. This process could work in combination with the theory already explained.  Another theory is the possible existence of a primary Q source that gives origin to a proto Mark and to other proto gospels.

X- Luke dependence on Mathew

 There are also some difficulties with the explanation of this situation. B. Buttler explains the probability that Mark was reluctant in reproduce the duplications that we note in the Gospel of Mathew but not in the Gospel of Luke. It is possible that despite the fact that Mathew is the principal source of Luke, he also used Mark.

Final Remarks

It is important to note that there seems to be no possibility in discovering some relationship between the process of redaction of John and that of the Synoptics. If this process already existed, it is not evident in the final redaction of the Gospels. For this reason the study of the Gospel of John can tell us little about the composition of the Synoptics. It is problematic the theory that put John as witness in the elaboration of the Q source. The apocryphal gospels, which were composed in the second century or later, had not a similar process of evolution that this studied in the synoptic. It is possible that the only influence of the synoptic gospels was in the Gospel of Thomas.  But it is important to note that this is an open field of study. Not a single one of the explanations given are completely satisfactory.