LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: AN OVERVIEW

A BOOK SUMMARY SUBMITTED TO DR. RONALD FAY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NBST 510-D05

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY ONLINE

BY RANDY KEITH WILSON JR.

L22077557

NOVEMBER 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM A LOOK INTO THE SYNOPTIC RELATIONSHIPS PROBABLE INTERDEPENDENT SOLUTIONS THE AUGUSTINE PROPOSAL THE TWO-GOSPEL HYPOTHESIS THE TWO-SOURCE SOLUTION/MARKAN PRIORITY CONCLUSION 9 2 2 3 5 5 6 7

INTRODUCTION It will be the purpose of this paper to discover the proposed solutions and which is the most probable one of the list. The solutions can be broken into three general categories, which are independence, common dependence, and interdependence. Independence follows the thought process that is very evangelical, which affords that all Scripture is God breathed and was Gods will to be the words that each prophet and apostle were to write. (2 Tim. 3:16 & 2 Pet. 1:21) The concept of independence is the authors belief. Common dependence is the process where all the gospels used the same source whether it is oral sources or one written source. The one area that this paper will focus on is the interdependence hypotheses. There are many hypotheses; however for constraints only three will be touched upon, Augustine Proposal, two-source hypothesis/Markan Priority, and two-gospel hypothesis. Therefore, this paper will propose the position of the two-source hypothesis/Markan Priority as it relates to the best solution to the interdependence hypotheses and the synoptic problem. This paper will not exhaust the all the research that is out there and nor will the defense be one that could settle all debates. This is simply an overview of a very intriguing and confusing study. OVERVIEW OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM In New Testament studies the synoptic problem is concerned with hypotheses about the relationships between the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.1 The Synoptic Problem, a concept derived by J. J. Griesbach, is one of much debate and discussion for many scholars. The term Synoptic Problem refers to the discussion and the relationship to the interdependence of the synoptic gospels, or how they relate to each other in form, literature,
Abakuks, Andris. "The synoptic problem: on Matthew's and Luke's use of Mark." Journal of the Royal Statistics in Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 175, no. 4 (2012): 959 - 975.
1

and style seen through textual criticism. There is no doubt that the synoptic gospels are similar and share many commonalities in text; Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all harmonize with one another and no scholar can suggest otherwise. However, the solution we use to understand how these gospels came to be is a conundrum that is not yet solved. It is understandable that this can be a complex subject and an exertion of effort that can be monotonous. Goodacre states, it is a commonly held view that study of the Synoptic Problem is complex, irrelevant and boring.2 This is probably not a concept that is to far from most people. It can be considered a wasted pursuit. However, the author, as Goodacre believes that the study is still relevant and important to the broader issues of New Testament [study] and [to the understanding of] Christian origins itself.3 It is even more apparent for scholars to continue these studies on the synoptic problem. As the turn of a new century has come the dichotomy of solutions has been convoluted even more since the 1960s. Blomberg states, there is today considerably greater diversity of scholarly opinion that there was forty years ago today.4 It would seem that scholars could narrow the solutions needed to solve this issue that should be solved with an answer of holy and divine inspiration. A LOOK INTO THE SYNOPTIC RELATIONSHIPS While searching for the truth in which solution is the most viable in the differences between each solution. However, the gospels are synoptic, which means there are similarities. Categorizing the similarities are done in these three groups; (1) wording (vocabulary), order

Goodacre, Mark S.. The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2002, 105. 3 Ibid, 187. 4 Black, David Alan, and David R. Beck. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001, 17.

4 (structure), and parenthetical material.5 Looking at these relationships cannot be the sole reasoning to attest to why this paper defends two-source hyposthesis/Markan Priority. It may be amiss to say that these finding could be used alone to find any relevance to choose one solution over another. However, it does serve to show the reader how one could escape the theology of independence between the synoptic gospels and search for a more logical answer to understanding how the synoptic gospels were created. Andris Abakuks has done some specific research to the formulation of the verbal relationship between the synoptic gospels. His work is complex and Abakuks even alludes to the testament that the complex patterns of similarities and dissimilarities between the synoptic gospels, the problem of how to account for the relationships between the gospels is a notoriously difficult one in New Testament studies.6 It makes it even harder to understand who copied from whom?7
Table 1: Counts of words in the triple and double by Andris Abakuks8

Matthew 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

Mark 1 1 0 1 0 1 0

Luke 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

Count 1852 2735 2386 1165 7231 5269 7588

Stein, Robert H.. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press,

1988, 29.
6 7

Abakuks, Andris. "The Synoptic Problem And Statistics." Significance 3, no. 4 (2006): 155. Ibid. 8 Ibid.

The table that is seen here is one that Abakuks put together to show the verbal agreement between two or all three of the gospels. 9 Verbal agreements, in the same context, are the common occurrences in either two or all three gospels with same grammatical form using the same Greek word.10 When it seems that one could make a case for one hypotheses or the other based on this model; one would then see another set of similarities that turn the thought process in another direction. Where most analytical thinkers would suggest numbers and scientific data would be the best way to form a solution; however, staying in touch with the authors and the contextual structure of what they wrote needs to be factored as well. PROBABLE INTERDEPENDENT SOLUTIONS As stated in the introduction, the author holds on to the notion of divine inspiration. In this belief, the author feels no need to rationalize through other solutions for the sake of his faith. However, in dealing with the general Christian public, this paper will continue to look into the interdependent solutions specifically. Christians are looking for an ideal solution that is able to explain the origin and nature of the synoptics, while still holding to the accuracy of the Gospels.11 Therefore, The most prominent hypotheses will be looked at with a general description with a turn to focus more on the Two-Source Hypothesis/Markan Priority in the next section. THE AUGUSTINE PROPOSAL Augustines solution follows a simple solution to the synoptic problem. He merely suggest that there were written in canonical order as first Matthew, then Mark, Luke, and
Ibid. Ibid. 11 Goodacre, Mark S.. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. London: T & T Clark International, 2001, 164.
10 9

6 John. Matthew was considered the source material since he was an eyewitness, wrote the first Gospel.12 Augustine, being one of the early church fathers, initially inserts his name to this proposal, since this was the consensus of the early church. However, this only lasted a time until Augustine decided to change the order he believe they were written in. After extensive research and formulating the alternating agreement patterns in the three gospels, he then changed his mind to the order of the second and third accounts of the synoptics.13 He proposed that Luke was written second and Mark third. This change of thought opened the doors for a new hypotheses to formulate which Griesbach and Farmer champion, the twogospel solution. THE TWO-GOSPEL HYPOTHESIS The two-gospel solution was developed by J.J. Griesbach stating that Matthew wrote first then Luke wrote second using Matthew as his source. Finally, Mark was the last to be composed using Matthew and Luke as a source. This hypothesis is covered in great detail by Griesbach in his book Treatise (1789) and was revived by William Farmer in his book The Synoptic Problem (1964).14 Since, tradition still placed high value on Matthew being the first gospel this helped in supporting this solution. However, Griesbach also attained that it made more sense to explain that Matthew, an apostle, was used as the source instead of Mark being a non-apostle. It also offers a good explanation for the similarities between Matthew and Luke and where they differ between Mark.15 Some proponents of this hypothesis revolve around the
K stenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. uarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Academic, 2009, 165. 13 Thomas, Robert L.. Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2002, 145. 14 Goodacre, Mark S.. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. London: T & T Clark International, 2001, 22. 15 K stenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. uarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Academic, 2009, 166.
12

fact that it does not hold to church tradition being that Mark was written third instead of second. Also, most of the agreements are better seen through the Markan priority.16 Although Carson and Moo may hold the two-gospel approach simple as well as compatible with the highest view of Scripture,17 many scholars may hold serious questions to this theory based on the light of Markan redundancies. THE TWO-SOURCE SOLUTION/MARKAN PRIORITY The two-source theory holds a very close school of thought to the Markan Priority. This is by far the most probable and accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem. The twosource solution and the Markan Priority hold both that Mark was written first as and Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source. However, the two-source hypothesis also states that Q is a source as well. The author is more of a proponent to the Markan priority due to the lack of evidence convincing that even exists. Bock says that, one is tempted simply to say that this

document does not exist and move on,18 and it may be easier to do just that one thing. However, he makes a counter question about that holds logical value, why it was ever

proposed to existed as all.19 It is not the purpose of this paper to prove or disprove Q. Markan Priority holds the best explanation for the layout of the synoptics. The outline of Mark, well at least the overall structure, is followed pretty closely by the other two. It seems as if the unique areas of Matthew and Luke are added in different from one another and

K stenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. uarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Academic, 2009, 167. 17 Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An introduction to the New Testament. 2nd Edition ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005, 103. 18 Black, David Alan, and David R. Beck. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001, 41. 19 Ibid.

16

8 added at different places.20 Also, the light that Mark is much shorter or concise that the other two attest that Mark was written first giving Markan Priority the most plausible solution. The overarching research that assured the authors mind on Mark being written first was the reasoning of Blomberg. First, Mark contains vivid accounts that Matthew (M) and Luke (L) leave out. Noting that if these very intense moments in the ministry of Jesus are only mentioned in Mark, why then would one suggest that the other two would come first. Second, Mark has a coarse grammatical structure as to the very slickness of M and L. It appears almost that M and L were able to edit the source material to be more presentable to their audiences where Mark was writing as he gathered his information. Thirdly, M and L leave out things that cold potentially mislead. M and L seem to break out things that may cause questions or even controversial ideas that could possibly harm the messages of Jesus. Fourth, Mark had much more detail in the individual selections that M and L use, while his is the shorter of the Gospels. This does allude to the possible abbreviation of those events. Fifth, looking back to the previous statement, why would Marks pericopaes be longer when less than 10 percent of his gospel is non-paralleled. Sixth, M and L do not differ much from Mark at the same time and way. Seventh, Mark contains way more idioms of Aramaic than M and L. This was very proving as that why would Mark be the non-original and contain expressions that are specific to Aramaic than that of Matthew. Eighth, the omission of choice teaching of Jesus in Mark seems illogical if he was using other sources such as M and L.21 Blomberg had one more point but it was not needed in the concluding the assurance of what is to be believed here the most probable solution.
Decker, R. J.. "The Synoptic Problem." dftsmith. http://dfsmith.com/classes/bil303/handouts/Synoptic-Problem.pdf (accessed October 29, 2013). 21 Black, David Alan, and David R. Beck. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001, 20.
20

CONCLUSION The Synoptic Problem is and one that will always be of much debate. It will hold high theological discussion that of Calvinism-Armenianism debate, Millennialism debate and so forth. It is attested that the synoptic gospels hold similarities and differences. Their similarities, of course, out weigh the differences, hence the use of the word synoptic. Synoptic, meaning basically to have the same viewpoint or outlook, is why the problem has arisen. Particularly to say why are they so close in every aspect yet different in many ways that raises questions. This instated the synoptic problem discussion. The questions of, Who wrote first? and Who used who for sourcing? were now more important than just the simplicity of understanding the messages of Jesus and his life. No longer was independent writing divinely inspired good enough to satisfy the minds of the people. In turn many solutions or hypotheses were developed to counter the questions that have risen. Solutions such as Augustines Proposal, the two-gospel solution, two-source hypothesis, and the Markan Priority have been used, debated, rejected and accepted since the early church. Tradition would lead people to believe that Matthew was the first to be written through the argument of Augustine and the two-gospel solution. However, the arguments of the two-source hypothesis and Markan Priority provide that Mark was the first to be penned. It was the stance of this paper that the two-source hypothesis/Markan Priority was the more probable solution of the ones listed. The paper in its constraints may have fell short of the mark (no pun meant). It is a comprehensive study and defense that may be foolishly taken on my amateurs such as the author here. In return, Mark must be the first written in reference to style, coincidences that cannot be explained by other theories. Mark must be a source for M and L due to the agreement that M and L share with Mark and Not with each other. It would

10

be foolish to assume that one theory can be totally accurate over the other, while not being there in the first century to have the actual proof. So to close, the author will stand that God is the divine inspirer of all Scripture. No one needs to honestly look farther than that idea. Yes, one could say that the study of the Synoptic Problem brings a deeper understanding of God and how he interacts with humankind. However, this study is no different than humans looking towards symbols and signs for the same purpose. Man holds Gods diary in his hands and yet they are not totally satisfied with his word. The author with much prayer and deliberation, through this paper and study will stop all further education when this class closes. This is in fact due to the overwhelming nature that there has been placed more emphasis on trying to learn Gods will through studies than to learn about Gods will in intimate one on one time. This paper has brought clarity and it is appreciated. So, whatever the final solution to the problem is, this man will not need the answer now.

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abakuks, Andris. "The Synoptic Problem And Statistics." Significance 3, no. 4 (2006): 153157. Abakuks, Andris. "The synoptic problem: on Matthew's and Luke's use of Mark." Journal of the Royal Statistics in Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 175, no. 4 (2012): 959 975. Black, David Alan, and David R. Beck. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001. Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An introduction to the New Testament. 2nd Edition ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005. Decker, R. J.. "The Synoptic Problem." dftsmith. http://dfsmith.com/classes/bil303/handouts/Synoptic-Problem.pdf (accessed October 29, 2013). Goodacre, Mark S.. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. London: T & T Clark International, 2001. Goodacre, Mark S.. The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2002. K stenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. uarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Academic, 2009. Stein, Robert H.. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity

12

Press, 1988. Thomas, Robert L.. Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2002.