Introduction
So how long
have you been a Christian? Depending on how you answer that question will
determine how you might answer the next set of questions. How much have you
read your Bible? When reading through
the New Testament did you struggle with reading the first three gospel accounts
of Jesus’ life? If so it’s okay, and you are not alone. The first three gospels
are commonly referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. Now I know your staring at me
going “synoptic, what in the world does that mean?” “The term synoptic comes from the Greek word sunoptikos, “to see things together,”
and characterizes the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. They are studied
together because their view of the life of Christ is considered sufficiently
similar.”[1]
Similarities between the Gospels
Once we
acknowledge that these gospels contain a generous amount of similarities we have
to ask ourselves, “Did these authors know of each others work? And if so who
borrowed from whom?” This is generally referred to as the synoptic problem. Joel
Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall in their work, The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels,
list four common areas that these gospels are generally in agreement. Those
areas are similarity in wording, similarity in order, similarity in
parenthetical material, and similarity in biblical quotations.[2]
When looking at the different categories of similarities, scholars generally
prefer to reference the original Greek material as a way to perform a baseline
comparison. I would like to take a moment to quickly discuss each group of
similarities, starting with the similarities in wording. Green points out that
you can easily see the similarities when you compare a group of selected verses
found on page 784. Köstenberger points out, “The similarity in wording is
sufficiently close to suggest the possibility of a literary relationship, that
is, that one or more of the Gospel writers was familiar with one or more of the
other Gospels.”[3]
In looking
at the similarities in order Köstenberger, explains it in this
manner,
The Gospels
contain numerous periscopes, self-contained units of narrative such as the
account of Jesus’ healing of the leper in Mark 1:40-45. Although these
periscopes could be arranged in a number of different ways in the individual
Gospels—topically, chronologically, or geographically (based on the locations
in which they occurred)—the Gospels share a remarkable similarity in the order
of the periscopes.[4]
When we move
into the area of similarity in parenthetical material or explanatory material
as some call it, we notice that there becomes more of what people may call
coincidence. That being said the Greek words being used could have been
translated multiple ways. Köstenberger argues for some sort of
literary dependence between the authors because, “… Jesus’ original Aramaic
words could have been translated into Greek in a number of different ways and
thus not yielded the frequent verbatim agreements that exist between the
Gospels.”[5]
The last
area of recognized similarity is in biblical quotations. When you take the time
to examine the Greek manuscripts for each of the gospels and compare them side
by side you will notice that their quotations are almost exact. The problem
with that is they are not verbatim quotes from the text! Green points out that,
At times we
find the exact same form of an OT quotation (see Old Testament in the Gospels).
This would not be unusual if that form was identical either with the Hebrew OT
or the Greek translation of the OT known as the Septuagint, but when we find an
identical quotation of the OT which is different from the Hebrew OT and the
Greek OT, this similarity requires some sort of explanation (cf. Mk 1:2 par. Mt
3:3 and Lk 3:4, Mk 7:7 par. Mt 15:9).[6]
While there are numerous amounts of similarities between
these gospels as we have noted there are also several differences. When you
read the genealogies found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 you may ask yourself, “what
is wrong here, is the Bible contradicting itself?” The answer to that question
is no it is generally believed that one genealogy follows the line of Joseph
and the other Mary.
Proposed Solutions to the Synoptic Problem
Paul Enns in
The Moody Handbook of Theology lays
out a short list of six different approaches to the synoptic problem. The first
being the oral tradition theory,
which believed that the preaching about Jesus was fixed and there were no
written forms behind the Synoptic Gospels. The interdependence theory was credited to Griesbach in 1789. In this
theory, it is believed the first author had oral tradition and each subsequent
writer could use those that came before. The primitive gospel theory was introduced in 1778 by Lessing and it
taught that the gospel writers used a primitive source called the Urevangellim, which no longer exists. In
1817 Schleiermacher composed a theory known as the fragmentary theory in which the gospel writers composed their
gospels from numerous fragmentary writings about the life of Jesus. Then we
have the two-document theory which
holds to a Markan priority view (meaning Mark wrote his gospel first and the
others copied from him). And along with this view a hypothetical document
referred to as “Q” was used to supplement Matthew and Luke’s writings. An even
more recent development has been the four-document
theory and this theory builds on the two-document theory suggesting that
there is special material for Matthew called (M) and special material for Luke
called (L).[7]
Two Favored Solutions
Of all of
the theories mentioned above, two are highly favored now in scholastic circles;
the Griesbach hypothesis also known as the two-gospel hypothesis or the
interdependence theory and the two-document theory. “This hypothesis, which
argues that Matthew was the first Gospel written, that Luke used Matthew and
that Mark used both Matthew and Luke, was first proposed by H. Owen in 1764.”[8] This view is not the most popular view in our
current society; most scholars within the last hundred years have begun arguing
more for the two-document position.
The problem
that arises in my mind is that if Mark were the first one to write his gospel,
and the others used him and “Q”, why do we still have Mark’s gospel and no
evidence of “Q”? While Darrel Bock in
his article tries to articulate a good argument for “Q” in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, it just did not do a well enough
job to convince my logical mind that it was the best option. In dealing with
either of these stances, we are dealing with hypothetical situations; however,
I tend to think that the two-gospel hypothesis is best suited for me.
Defending the Two-Gospel (Griesbach) Hypothesis
It is not to
say that all things in history are correct or do not need to be changed, but I
believe that the early church had a better handle on the gospels than modern
scholars wish to give them credit for. According to Green, “…the priority of
Mark was unknown in the early church, the priority of Matthew was assumed.”[9]
There is argument made that the early church fathers are unreliable in all of
their facts. Köstenberger points out, “…early church
testimony insists that Mark wrote his Gospel independently of the other Gospels
based on the memoirs of Peter (as stated by Papias) and the Luke’s Gospel was
the last Gospel to be written, not the second (as stated by Origen, the
Anti-Marcionite Prologue, and Augustine).[10]
However, David
A. Black in his work Why Four Gospels?, lays
a great ground work for Matthean priority. Even though he argues from what he
calls the Four Gospel stance, it is along the same lines of the two-gospel
hypothesis; and he argued logically enough for me to think he was closest to
right. Black declares “Clement also connects this Gospel of Mark with the two
other Synoptic Gospels when he states that it was subsequent to those
‘containing the genealogies.”[11]
When arguing on behalf of a particular point we must look at it from all
angles, and the proponents of the Markan view often believe that Matthew and
Luke wrote their Gospels independently of the other. How do they explain the
agreements against Mark that Matthew and Luke make? The two-gospel hypothesis
“…can easily explain the Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark, whereas the
two-document hypothesis struggles with how Matthew and Luke can agree
independently against their Markan source when they did not know each other,
that is did not use the other.”[12]
One argument
that is often brought up against the two-gospel hypothesis is how do we deal
with the Markan redundancies? Most scholars are in agreement that there are
around 213 redundancies in the Gospel of Mark. While Köstenberger believes the redundancies are a part of Mark’s
writing style[13] Green claims that, “the
Griesbach hypothesis suggest that this can be best explained by understanding
that Mark tended to act with respect to his sources in the same way as the
early scribes and copyists of the NT. When they found two different readings in
their sources, they tended to harmonize them by including both.”[14]
Another
common argument that is brought against this view is why would Mark have
written his Gospel in such a way as to leave out so much material that is
covered by the other Gospel writers? Black responds to that question decisively by
asserting that,
The
fundamental flaw in this argument is precisely the baseless assumption that
Mark (or Peter) intended to write a Gospel like the other two. Mark is quite a
different kind of document. The Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis, in fact, asserts
that Mark’s account of the life of Jesus was never intended to be a rival
Gospel. Mark is not a book in the sense in which the ancient Greeks and Romans
understood the term; it is simply the spoken word directly captured and set down
on paper exactly as it was originally uttered.
Farmer in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem helps to
answer the question about our need to have a hypothetical source, when he says,
“Only after the investigator has been unable to understand the relationship
between Matthew, Mark, and Luke without appealing to unknown sources is there
justification in hypothecating the existence of such sources, in order to
explain phenomena otherwise inexplicable.”[15] Since many modern scholars believe that Mark
was the first to write his Gospel, would it have been impossible for Peter to
reference works of other Gospel writers? Since Black like many other Matthean
prioritist believe that Mark was merely a scribe of the words of Peter, there
is the chance that Peter read from the works of the other Gospel writers while
giving his presentations. While it is arguable that a scroll was used Black’s
statements do allow you to get a different view than the one that demands a
hypothetical source. He states:
It would
seem that the Gospel Book hat Luke brought with him to Rome must have been in
the normal format of that era, namely, the scroll. Matthew, slightly shorter
than Luke, must also originally have been in a scroll format. Peter’s plan was
to take the scroll of Luke and compare it with the scroll of Matthew in light
of his own eyewitness recollections of the ministry of Jesus….Our Gospel of
Mark is therefore the result of the combined effort of Peter and his disciple
Mark, who was at Peter’s side as he delivered his lectures and was the person
responsible for seeing that a true record was kept of what Peter said. We can
also infer that Peter switched between the two scrolls by Matthew and Luke and that
he naturally tended to follow the order of whichever scroll he had in his hand.[16]
Conclusion
While no stance
on this topic is perfect and they all have some flaws be willing to take a stance
until the proof can cause you to change it. We must also remember that just because
someone else may hold to a different view for the solution to the synoptic problem
that does not make them a heretic. When dealing with this material we have no room
for dogmatism because none of truly has the answer. We are all dealing off of speculation
and trying to formulate the best solution possible with the materials we have available.
It is my hope that this material has informed you, challenged you and most of all
drawn you to look closer to the Word.
Bibliography
Black, David Alan. Why
Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels. Gonzalez: Energion
Publications, 2010.
Black, David Alan,
David R. Beck, eds. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2001.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago:
Moody Publishers, 2008.
Gaebelien, Frank E.,
ed. The Expositor's Bible Commentary-General OT & NT. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1979.
Green, Joel B., Scot
McKnight, I. Howard Marshall. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.
Leicester, England: InterVarsity Christian Fellowship of the U.S.A., 1992.
Halley, Henry H. Halley's Bible Handbook. Zondervan:
Grand Rapids, 2007.
Kostenberger, Andreas
J., L. Scott Kellum, Charles L. Quarles. The Craddle, The Cross, and the
Crown. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009.
[1]
Paul Enns, (The Moody Handbook of Theology.
Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008)81.
[2]
Joel B Green,
Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.
Leicester, England: InterVarsity Christian Fellowship of the U.S.A., 1992)784-85.
[3]Andreas J. Kostenberger,
L. Scott Kellum, Charles L. Quarles. (The Craddle, The Cross, and the Crown.
Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009)160.
[4]
Ibid., 161. Also this page contains a great graph showing some of the
similarities between the periscopes.
[5]
Ibid. 162
[6]
Green, Dictionary of Jesus, 785.
[7]
Enns, Moody Handbook, 82.
[8]
Green, Dictionary of Jesus, 786.
[9]
Ibid, 786.
[10]
Kostenberger, The Cradle, 166.
[11]David Alan Black, (Why Four
Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels. Gonzalez: Energion
Publications, 2010)31.
[12]
Green, Dictionary of Jesus, 786,
[13]
Kostenberger, The Cradle, 167.
[14]
Green, Dictionary of Jesus, 786.
[15]
David Alan
Black, David R. Beck, eds. (Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001)109.
[16]
Black, Why Four Gospels, 61.
