Synoptic Gospels and Acts

By Johnson Lopez

February 22, 2008

SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (NJBC # 40)

The synoptic problem is an investigation about the existence and nature of the literary interrelationship among the so called synoptic gospels; Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in their similarities and dissimilarities.

The triple tradition: This hypothesis is based on the principle that there is a common material to all three of the synoptics. Almost all of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and about two-thirds of Mark is found in Luke. This approach consists in narrative material such as miracles, healings, and the passion, but also contains some sayings material. A fundamental observation of the triple tradition is that Mark is the middle term between Matthew and Luke, e.g.

The double tradition: The hypothesis studies the material (about 200 verses) that is shared between Matthew and Luke but is not found in Mark. Its content for the most part is a collection of saying material (mostly of Jesus, but some by John the Baptist). The double tradition exhibits some of the most striking verbatim agreements in some passages but quite divergent versions in other passages, e.g.

Arguments from others: This is the position of some scholar like K. Lachmann to set the priority of Mark over Matt and Luke. This position says that the argument from order explains Matt in relationship to Mark and Luke in relationship to Mark, but the relationship of the three Gospel is still unexplained. Mark, therefore, needs to be explained in relationship of both Matt and Luke.

   Three basic documentary approaches have been proposed to account for the double tradition: Q. hypothesis: Matthew and Luke copied the double tradition from a common written source usually named Q from German Quelle meaning source. The Q hypothesis is about the independence of Matthew and Luke and is framed in terms of the failure to prove that Luke is dependent upon Matthew or vice versa. If Matthew and Luke are independent, the double tradition must be explained by an indirect relationship upon common material, called Q.

Luke use of Q: Luke copied the double tradition from Matthew.

Matt’s use of Q: Matthew copied the double tradition from Luke. Matt 11: 2-6 has not been inserted into a Marcan context.

The originality of Mark: the discussion against the priority of Mark.

Source Critical Methodology: Sanders speaking about parallels traditions gives these criteria: Increasing length and detail, diminishing Semitism, and the use of direct discourse and conflation […]. His conclusion is that the tradition developed in opposite directions and therefore in dogmatic statements on the basics of this criteria are never justified” (Frans Neirynck, ‘Synoptic Problem’ in New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown. 592)

Tyson accepts the classic principles of literary criticism but find application of this principle difficult. He sees a solution of the synoptic problem in a kind of literary criticism that brackets the source questions. But a mere synchronic approach, in structural analysis and rhetorical criticism can hardly become an appropriate method for solving problems of method. Farmer found that the appearance of one Gospel relational material in another is probably a good criterion for determining interrelationship.

The five arguments of Street to accept the priority of Mark: the use of phrases likely to cause offence which are omitted in the other two synoptic Gospels, and roughness of style of grammar and the preservation of Aramaic words.

Minor Agreements: the question is: if both Matt and Luke depend on Mark in the triple tradition, how can they agree with each other and differ from Mark?

a.    Proto-Mark: Matt and Luke used the same earlier version of Mark shorten than our Mark and different in wording.

b.    Deutero-Mark: the Marcan text used by Matt and Luke is slightly different from our Mark because of textual corruption, revision or edition.

c.    Common source: both Matt and Luke depend on another source beside Mark.

d.    Luke’s dependence on Matt: Luke, who follows Mark, is also acquainted with and influence by Matt.

Duality in Mark: three observations; A) the Griesbach approach where Marcan style combines Matt and Luke. B) the dual expression on Mark is not a mechanical combination of two parts but a original stylistic unit with a progression to greater precision on the second half of the expression. C) the parallel to half expression in Matt and to half in Luke is not a selection made at random or by chance. In many cases this can be explained in the light of the redaction content.

Mark and Q: there is no consensus about the sources of Mark or about the existence of pre-Marcan collections.

Apocryphal Gospels: there is no consensus that this Gospels were written in the earlier time that the canonical Gospel does. These sorts of Gospels are date on the second century.