Program / Course 7: New Testament Theology and History / Lesson 3.3
What you will learn
- Define the synoptic gospels and the synoptic problem.
- Describe the three kinds of material: triple tradition, double tradition and special material.
- Explain why agreements in wording and order require an explanation.
- Explain why differences between the gospels are also part of the evidence.
The big idea
Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because they can be read side by side and share a common view. They agree so closely, in order, in wording and sometimes in odd details, that they cannot have been written fully independently. Yet they also differ in ways that show each writer’s own aims. The synoptic problem asks how the three are related. Before considering solutions, a student has to look at the evidence itself: where the gospels agree, where they differ, and what pattern results.
Key terms
- Synoptic
- From Greek words meaning seeing together. The synoptic gospels are Matthew, Mark and Luke, which can be set in parallel columns.
- Synopsis
- A book that sets the text of the gospels in parallel columns so that the parallels can be compared.
- Triple tradition
- Material found in all three synoptic gospels, most of it in Mark.
- Double tradition
- Material found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, mostly sayings of Jesus.
- Special material
- Material found in only one gospel. Scholars sometimes call that of Matthew ‘M’ and that of Luke ‘L’.
- Minor agreements
- Small points of wording where Matthew and Luke agree with each other against Mark in the triple tradition.
- Literary dependence
- The relationship that exists when one writer has used the written text of another.
Background
Anyone who reads Matthew, Mark and Luke in sequence notices that they share many stories: the baptism, the temptation, the healing of the paralytic, the feeding of the five thousand, the transfiguration, the entry into Jerusalem and the passion. John tells a story with a different shape and different material, and is not usually included in the synoptic problem, though he shares some stories with them.
The question is not new. Augustine, around 400 AD, proposed that Mark abbreviated Matthew. The modern debate began in the late eighteenth century with scholars who compared the texts in detail. The study is a matter of evidence and inference. The evidence described here is widely agreed. The solutions are discussed in the next lesson.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: The pattern of material
Mark has about 660 verses. Roughly 90 percent of its content appears in Matthew and roughly half appears in Luke, in some form. Matthew and Luke share about 230 verses that are not in Mark, mostly sayings, such as the Lord’s Prayer in its fuller form, parts of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, and teaching on John the Baptist. Matthew has material that appears nowhere else, such as the visit of the magi and the parable of the sheep and the goats. Luke has his own, such as the parables of the good Samaritan and the prodigal son.
These figures are approximate, and counts differ depending on method. What is clear is the overall pattern: a large block common to all three, a large block shared by two, and some unique to each.
Step 2: Agreement in wording
Sometimes the agreement is word for word in Greek. John the Baptist’s warning to the crowds, ‘O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?’ appears in nearly identical Greek in Matthew 3:7 to 10 and Luke 3:7 to 9, though not in Mark. In the story of the paralytic (Mark 2:10, Matthew 9:6 and Luke 5:24), all three break off Jesus’ words to say ‘he saith to the sick of the palsy,’ an awkward interruption that is repeated in all three.
Agreement of this kind is hard to explain if each writer worked from memory of oral tradition alone. Two or three people rarely retell a story in exactly the same Greek words. Most scholars therefore conclude that the writers used common written sources, or that some of them used the written work of another. Some scholars, however, argue that the oral tradition in a culture of memory could produce a great deal of stability.
Step 3: Agreement in order
Where Matthew and Luke tell the same stories as Mark, they mostly keep Mark’s sequence. When Matthew departs from Mark’s order, Luke tends to follow Mark, and when Luke departs, Matthew follows Mark. The two rarely agree with each other against Mark. This pattern is one of the chief reasons many scholars see Mark as standing in the middle.
A second pattern concerns the double tradition. Matthew gathers the sayings into large blocks, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 to 7). Luke scatters similar sayings through his gospel, for example in the long journey section (Luke 9:51 to 18:14). Whichever way the use of sources went, one writer reorganized the material.
Step 4: Differences
The gospels also differ in telling details. Matthew and Luke give different birth stories and different genealogies for Jesus. They differ in the wording of the Lord’s Prayer and the Beatitudes. Matthew often shortens Mark’s stories and removes details that make the disciples look slow or Jesus look limited. Mark 6:5 says Jesus ‘could there do no mighty work,’ while Matthew 13:58 says he ‘did not many mighty works’ there.
The differences are evidence too. A good solution must explain why writers who used common material changed it as they did. This is the foundation of redaction criticism, which studies how each writer edited his sources. It also shows each writer’s theology, which the lesson on the four portraits discusses.
- Why would exact agreement in Greek wording be unlikely if three writers worked independently from memory?
- What does it mean that Matthew and Luke rarely agree in order against Mark?
- How would you explain the fact that Matthew groups sayings while Luke scatters them?
- Which differences between the gospels do you find most interesting, and why?
- How do the minor agreements complicate a simple picture of the sources?
- What are the limits of counting verses to describe the relationship between gospels?
Examples
The paralytic
All three gospels tell of a man let down through a roof. All three insert the same awkward phrase in the middle of Jesus’ statement to the scribes. Scholars treat the shared aside as a strong sign of a connection in the written texts.
The Beatitudes
Matthew has nine blessings (Matthew 5:3 to 12) spoken on a mountain, and Luke has four blessings and four woes (Luke 6:20 to 26) spoken on a level place. They share an opening and some sayings. They differ in length, wording and setting, though the overlap is real.
Mark’s difficult phrase
Mark 6:5 says Jesus ‘could there do no mighty work.’ Matthew softens it, and Luke tells the Nazareth story in a quite different form. Scholars use cases like this to see the direction of change.
Different perspectives
Scholarly consensus
All scholars who work on the question accept that the gospels agree in ways that call for literary explanation. They disagree over the best solution. Nearly all begin with the evidence described here.
Catholic view
The Church has no official solution to the synoptic problem. Earlier teaching of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, in the early twentieth century, preferred traditional views, but Catholic scholars now work freely with the leading hypotheses, encouraged by Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.
Orthodox view
The Orthodox churches likewise hold no required theory. Orthodox writers stress that the four gospels together present one gospel in four forms, as the early church spoke of it. Some Orthodox scholars use source criticism and some do not.
Protestant view
Protestant scholars hold several positions. Many accept Markan priority and the use of common sources, and others hold that Matthew came first or that the evangelists worked independently from oral tradition. The doctrine of Scripture in Protestant confessions does not decide the matter.
Why it matters
The synoptic problem is the place where the New Testament most plainly shows that the gospels are books written by people using sources. Understanding the evidence guards against two errors: assuming that each gospel simply records the same event in the same words, and assuming that differences prove that the stories are untrue.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The synoptic problem is a problem for faith.
Correction: It is a historical question about how the books were made. Christians of all traditions have studied it without giving up the creeds. The word problem is a technical term for a puzzle.
Misunderstanding: The gospels simply copy one another.
Correction: The writers who used sources changed them considerably and added material. The relationship is closer to editing and rewriting than to copying.
Misunderstanding: John is part of the synoptic problem.
Correction: John is independent in structure and most content. Scholars debate whether he knew one or more of the synoptics, but the usual synoptic problem concerns the first three.
Misunderstanding: Differences between the gospels show that someone is lying.
Correction: Ancient writers retold stories in their own words, rearranged material by theme and highlighted different points. Different tellings of the same event do not by themselves show that any of them is false.
Knowledge check
What are the triple tradition, the double tradition and special material?
The triple tradition is material in all three synoptic gospels, mostly from Mark. The double tradition is material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark, mostly sayings. Special material is found in only one gospel, such as the parable of the prodigal son in Luke.
Why do scholars say that the agreement in wording requires a literary explanation?
Because the three gospels sometimes use almost the same Greek words, including odd interruptions such as the aside in the story of the paralytic. Independent retelling from memory seldom produces exact agreement of this kind.
What is the pattern of agreement in order?
Where Matthew and Luke tell Mark’s stories, they mostly keep Mark’s order. When one departs from Mark’s order, the other usually stays with it. Matthew and Luke seldom agree with each other against Mark.
Why do the differences count as evidence?
Because any proposed solution must explain why writers using common material changed it as they did. The changes show each writer’s habits and purposes, and they help show which direction the borrowing most plausibly went.
Why is John usually left out of the synoptic problem?
John has a different structure, mostly different stories and a different style of teaching. Though he shares a few episodes with the synoptics, the relationship is not close enough to fall under the same pattern.
Think it through
- Does the evidence of literary dependence change the way you read the gospels? How?
- Why might a writer change a story he received?
- What differences between the gospels have you noticed in your own reading?
- How would you explain this lesson to a friend who worries it undermines the Bible?
Independent assignment
A three-column comparison
In your own notebook, write 300 to 450 words. Choose one short story told in all three synoptic gospels, such as the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1 to 12, Matthew 9:1 to 8, Luke 5:17 to 26) or the stilling of the storm. Make three columns and list differences in detail and wording. Then note two agreements and write a paragraph on what the pattern suggests. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Read the discussion of the relation of the gospels.
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Read selectively on the argument about oral tradition and written sources.
- Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth Read the chapter on the gospels for practical ways to compare parallel passages.
- Mark 2:10 The healing of the paralytic.
- Matthew 3:7 John the Baptist’s warning, closely parallel to Luke.
- Luke 6:20 Luke’s blessings and woes.