The Synoptic Problem

Question 1

What is it?

Answer 1

Similarity between MML. Synoptic means ‘seen together’ and when passages are placed side by side they are very similar

Question 2

How is it supported by agreement in wording

Answer 2

When they describe the same episode they share 50% of the same Greek words used to describe it but this is only 10% with John

In introducing JTB, M and M share 90% of their Greek words, including very precise terms such as with Mark 1:6 and Matthew 3:4

Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, so it is unlikely that M and M would use exactly the same words and phrases in Greek to translate the original Aramaic description of JTB

Question 3

How does is it supported by parenthetical material

Answer 3

All Gs contain this and John contains the most. Parenthetical material in the S are often identical

Parenthesis is something used in writing, not in speech, so this can’t be due to the evangelists being eyewitnesses to the same conversations. For instance, both Mark 13:14 and Matthew 24:15 say (let the reader understand) and this parenthetical statement is clearly and deliberately addressed to the reader and not the listener, so has clearly been composed by the author, not some earlier eyewitnesses. The odds are low that M and M would use the exact same phrase to make the exact same point in writing their story

This use of identical parenthetical material is good evidence that one text had copied another rather than coming up with the same passage independently

Question 4

How is it supported by Luke’s Prologue

Answer 4

Begins by saying it has taken material from other sources…

‘just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses’ (Luke 1:2)

Luke admits right at the start that he’s using material that was handed down rather than creating a gospel from scratch

Question 5

Evaluate the solution that they are independent versions of the same story

Answer 5

Some Christians argue MML all independently came up with their own gospels, either as eyewitnesses or reporting on oral tradition

They explain S similarities like this

Evangelists were describing the same historical events so they obviously describe them in the same ways

OR… The evangelists were inspired by the holy spirit so write in the same way

First solution is historically naive, even though they describe some things in similar ways, they describe other things in different ways. Why would they do this? John’s wording doesn’t match the wording of the Synoptics (it is 92% unique) does this mean that John describes completely different events from the Synoptics? We need a different explanation for why the S are so similar

The notion of divine inspiration faces the same problem, why would the paraclete inspire the evangelists to use the same language and describe the same details sometimes but not others. Why would it inspire John to write things differently – or is John not inspired by the holy spirit

Question 6

How has the Church traditionally attempted to explain the Synoptic Problem

Answer 6

A popular solution to the Synoptic problem is that they are interdependent: they have copied from one another. Church tradition states Matthew was the first to be written and Mark and Luke then copied passages from Matthew (with Mark cutting out details and Luke adding more in) This is the theory of Matthean Priority

Question 7

Explain and evaluate the idea that it can be explained by a proto gospel

Answer 7

A different solution would be the existence of another proto-gospel. This is an early original gospel that the S are copying passages from. If they use the same proto gospel then this would explain the similarities. If John does not use this proto gospel for its material, then this would explain the differences in language and style

The issue is that no trace of a proto gospel can be found by archaeologists and there is no mention of the proto gospel by any early Christian writers like Irenaeus, Jerome and Augustine. Who all describe Matthew, mark and Luke as the earliest gospels

Question 8

The Synoptic Problem is a problem for believing in the Bible

Answer 8

Christians claim the gospels are ‘inspired texts’ - they are revelation from God. The Synoptic problem suggests a more straightforward origin: they are copied from a lost proto gospel

If there was a lost proto gospel, then this would have been closer to the historical Jesus than the current gospels. This makes the Bible unreliable. Shows the NT books are ordinary literary texts, products of human error and judgement

Question 9

The Synoptic Problem is not a problem for believing in the Bible

Answer 9

The Gospels are still inspired even if parts are copied. Luke clearly states it has used sources in its prologue. The S copied each other or Matthew was copied by Mark and Luke

If the NT writers were inspired by the holy spirit, then you would expect coherance and unity in writings and this is what you find

No evidence for a proto gospel; therefore more likely the S are a product of different eyewitness accounts

Question 10

Explain what a proto gospel would have been like

Answer 10

A proto gospel is an early written version of the gospels that the S copy from. Says MML all had this in front of them; they all copied it and made some changes, adding details or ignoring passages that didn’t suit them

They would have been written in Aramaic but perhaps the evangelists had a Greek translation

Probably just included sayings (logia) of Jesus and the evangelists added in situations and settings

Represented the original preaching (kerygma) of Jesus and his disciples before it was altered by later generations of Christians

Question 11

Strongest evidence for the proto gospel theory…

Answer 11

The strongest evidence for this is that Luke’s Prologue clearly states that people before him have ‘drawn up an account’ of Jesus’ ministry and that these people were ‘eyewitnesses’ but that that he is merely ‘writing an orderly account’ of this source

Question 12

Biggest issue…

Answer 12

Biggest problem is that none of the earliest Christian writers refer to this proto gospel. Around 130 CE, Marcion of Sinope lists his personal canon of NT scripture but does not mention the proto gospel. Irenaeus refers to the canonical 4 gospels (the Tetramorph) in 180 CE, with no mention of any proto gospel. Early Christian writers mention several texts which have now been lost to us (such as the Gospel of the Ebionites) and some that were lost for centuries but have now been discovered by archaelogists (Gospel of Thomas) but they never mention the proto gospel or anything that sounds like it

Question 13

Is the Gospel of Thomas the proto gospel?

Answer 13

Discovered in Nag Hammadi in 1945. Scholars suggested it could be the missing proto gospel. Does consist entirely of logica (sayings of Jesus) with no narrative or story to give them context and about half of these logica appear in the S

Thomas might have inspired John’s gospel more indirectly. Elaine Pagels points out that John seems to have passages that specifically contradict the logia in Thomas, as if he was trying to prove Thomas wrong. For instance, a logion in Thomas says that the light of God is born from within, but John says that the world does not recognise the light. Thomas appears as a character in John: he doubts the resurrection and is proven wrong. Suggests that Thomas was around before John

Doesn’t seem early enough to be a proto gospel. The copy discovered at Nag Hammadi dates from the 4th century CE and is translated from an original in the 2nd century CE, but a proto gospels would have to have been from the 50s or 60s CE

Question 14

Could Matthew be the proto gospel

Answer 14

The earliest Church writers thought Matthew was the earliest gospel, with Mark and Luke copying. Also known as the Augustinian Hypothesis

According to this view Matthew was one of the 12 disciples and wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew. It was translated into Greek and this version was used by Mark and Luke, with Mark abbreviating Matthew to create a shorter Gospel but adding in some material based on the preaching of Peter and Luke using Matthew and Mark to create an expanded gospel

Theory makes sense and explains why the earliest Christian writers regard Matthew as the earliest gospel and why there’s no mention of an earlier proto-gospel. This is still the view taken by the Catholic Church

The main problem with this is that Mark misses out so much material from Matthew, such as the virgin birth, the lord’s prayer and the sermon on the mount. Seems illogical Mark would miss out such important details if he knew about them from Matthew. The earliest versions of Mark do not even contain descriptions about the resurrection. This has led to the alternative view of Marcan priority which instead suggests that Mark was the proto gospel

Question 15

Implications of the proto gospel theory

Answer 15

If there is a lost proto gospel or if this is Thomas, then the NT is fundamentally unreliable. This is because this proto gospel would be a much more authentic version of Jesus’ sayings and teachings, which have been added to and distorted by the S

For instance, there is no apocalyptic element in Thomas – no teachings about the imminent end of the world, and this is present in the S. Also no crucifixion in Thomas. If Thomas is the proto gospel, then Jesus never taught that the world was going to end or predicted that he was going to be crucified. Instead his followers added these teachings to their gospels after the crucifixion, creating a religion very difficult to the one Jesus taught. However, the development of Christian ideas seems to be the opposite way around. Bart Ehrman points out that as time passes Christian writing becomes progressively less apocalyptic and more reconciled to the fact that there will not be an imminent parousia/apocalypse. If there is a proto gospel it is likely that it would be apocalyptic

Question 16

Proto gospel theory solves the Synoptic problem…

Answer 16

Must have gotten their testimony about Jesus from somewhere and the similarities suggest they did not all come up with it independently. A lost proto gospel would explain the similarity in language and structure between the S

A proto gospel is a stepping stone between the word of mouth preaching of Jesus and his disciples and the eventual composition of the S. Since the Gs were written decades after Jesus the authors would need a source to base their stories on

Question 17

It doesn’t…

Answer 17

No proto gospel that matches the S has been discovered: pure theory. The Gospel of Thomas doesn’t fit the bill and Matthew can’t be the proto gospel because Matthew misses out too much stuff

Liberal scholars date that Gospels late in the 1st century CE but traditionalists date them much earlier. If the S are independent eyewitness account of events in Jesus life, they don’t require an intermediate source. There is therefore no need for a proto gospel as the real gospel was written straight away

Question 18

Priority of Mark…

Answer 18

Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus claimed that Matthew was the first gospel in the 2nd century and this was supported by detailed arguement from Augustine. However, since the 18th century, the majority of biblical scholars have come round to the view that Mark is the earliest

Several issues with the Augustinian Hypothesis, which states that Mark is a shortened version of Matthew…

Mark does not feature important parts that are in Matthew

Mark has very poor Greek grammar and uses a lot of slang words, whereas Matthew and Luke are written in much better Greek. Why would Mark deliberately mess up Matthew’s good Greek

Mark contains a number of aramaic words and expressions that aren’t in Matthew. Mark 7:11 uses the aramaic word ‘corban’ to mean a ritual dedicated to God. Why would Mark deliberately add aramaic expressions into Matthew’s narrative then explain them all in Greek?

If Mark is the first gospel and was copied by Matthew and Luke, these puzzles disappear…

Mark missed out important parts in Matthew because he didn’t know about them, they were added by Matthew and Luke to fill out the story Mark tells

Makes sense that Matthew and Luke would correct Mark’s bad Greek

Mark uses aramaic expressions because he’s translating from the original aramaic that Jesus and his disciples spoke, Matthew and Luke are writing for a Greek speaking audience that wouldn’t understand these expressions so they take them out

One of the most powerful arguements for Markan Priority is the presence of hard readings in Mark. These are passages which describe Jesus in unflattering ways or which go against later Christian beliefs about him. In every case, Matthew and Luke cut out or tone down these passages, making them less difficult for Christians to accept

‘Jesus looked around at them in anger’ (Mark 3:5). Suggests Jesus has a temper. Matthew misses out this verse, but Luke changes it to suggest something less problematic: ‘Jesus looked around at them all’ (Luke 6:10)

Mark was writing when there was still a memory of the historical Jesus who did get angry sometimes; Matthew and Luke describe a less historical but more perfect person who never loses his cool

A similar arguement is based on Christology. Mark seems to have a low ‘exaltatation Christology’ (Ehrman). Mark begins his story with Jesus being baptised by JTB (Mark 1: 9-11) and suggests that this is the moment where Jesus becomes God’s son. Matthew and Luke present JC as being God’s Son from the moment of his conception. Most scholars think low christology comes earlier in Christian tradition than a high christology, the high incarnation christology we see in John is in the latest gospel

Question 19

Implications of Markan Priority

Answer 19

If these arguements are correct, and the majority of biblical scholars think they are, then Mark is the earliest gospel, perhaps the proto gospel and Matthew and Luke both had copies of Mark infront of them when they wrote their gospels. Matthew kept alot of Mark’s text (around 90%) and Luke kept less (around 50%)

Also makes sense of Luke’s prologue, which claims to ‘write an orderly account’ from an earlier source: ‘Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things thatr have been fulfilled among us’ (Luke 1:1). This passage could refer to Mark and/or the Q source and special Luke

Question 20

Markan Priority makes the Bible more trustworthy

Answer 20

Mark was the secretary/translator of Peter, the leader of the disciples, his gospel is therefore based on the best possible eyewitness. This is why Mark uses aramaic expressions and preserves some hard readings – its authentic history

Markan Priority is essential for the 2 source and 4 source solutions to the Synoptic Problem. Explains the similarity between the gospels (and if we take the Q source into account) the differences as well

Question 21

Does not make the Bible more trustworthy

Answer 21

By presenting Matthew and Luke as simply copying chunks of Mark and making their own changes, this theory presents the Bible as the creation of flawed humans rather than a set of independent eyewitnesses inspired by the holy spirit

These solutions break up the unity and coherance of the Gs by presenting them as collages made up of different sources stitched together rather than eyewitnesses

Question 22

Explain the Q source hypothesis

Answer 22

If we accept the Markan Priority the Synoptic Problem does not go away completely. Still lots of material shared by Matthew and Luke which is not in Mark. This is explained by the Q source theory

230 very similar passages in Matthew and Luke which are not in Mark. These include…

Jesus being tempted by the devil: Matthew 4: 1-11 and Luke 4: 1-13

The Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount): Matthew 5: 3-12 and Luke 6: 20-23

The Lord’s Prayer: Matthew 6: 9-13 and Luke 11: 1-4

A theory to explain this is that Matthew and Luke both had access to the same source – a sort of proto gospel that originally contained these passages

Q would have been a collection of logia of Jesus – although the story of Jesus’ temptation and the healing of the Centurion’s Servant seem to be from Q too, so perhaps it had narratives in it as well as sayings. There is debate over whether Q was originally written down or whether it was a memorised list of logia that was recited in churches. Luke seems to preserve more of the original order of Q than Matthew, who spreads the various logia throughout his gospel

No copy of Q ever discovered. No mention of it existing by any of the early church writers who discuss the background of the Gs. However, there is this quote from Papias of Hieropolis (125 CE): Matthew complied the logia of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech, and everyone translated them as well as he could’. This is used to confuse scholars because Matthew was written in Greek. But perhaps this is a reference to the original person could Matthew (perhaps Jesus’ disciple) creating Q in Hebrew or Aramaic which Matthew and Luke translated as well as they could into Greek. This would make sense of Luke 1:1. Luke admits to basing his gospel on previous sources, and he could be referring to Q here

Question 23

Implications of the Q theory

Answer 23

The Q source hypothesis is accepted by most biblical scholars, but not everyone. The lack of any clear reference to it in any ancient Christian writings is confusing, because a book containing the authentic logia of Jesus would have been a treasured possession of early Christians. However, maybe once Q was incorporated into Matthew and Luke, Christian readers preferred them to a dry list of sayings and the original was forgotten about

The Q hypothesis has been developed into the 2 source and 4 source solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Some Christian fundamentalists object to the Q hypothesis. They believe that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts written by the original Matthew, Mark (Peter’s secretary) and Luke (Paul’s travelling companion. The Q hypothesis suggests that Matthew and Luke were actually written by people who had no personal link to Jesus or his disciples. Instead they cobbled their gospels together using a collection of old sayings, perhaps inventing situations to give these sayings context. Some Christians are suspicious the Q hypothesis is just another attempt by atheists to make the Bible seem like a flawed human document rather than scripture inspired by God

Question 24

Counters to Q

Answer 24

There is no evidence for Q – either physical evidence or literary evidence; as they refer to the 4 canonical gospels as the earliest accounts. Q is a theory that supports the late dating of the gospels, which is supported by atheists

If the canonical gospels are what they have always claimed to be – independent eyewitness account of Jesus’ ministry, crucifixion and resurrection – then there’s no need for Q. If the Gs were written in the 60s CE then there’s no need for a logia gospel since this is within the lifetime of the historical Matthew, Luke and Mark

Question 25

Arguements in favour

Answer 25

No copies of Q are known – but then no copies of the Gospel of Thomas were known until 1945. Thomas is another collection of logia, so this makes the existence of Q more likely, as do references by Papias and in Luke’s prologue

Question 26

Does Q make the Bible more trustworthy?

Answer 26

Supports of the late dating favoured by atheists

On the other hand, provides a link between gospels written in the 80s back to the events of Jesus’ lifetime. Matthew and Luke are written after the destruction of the temple and the Jewish Revolt but draw upon on materials like Q from before that important event