Synoptic Problem
I thought I would give
an abbreviated version of my solution to the synoptic problem.
1. In theory, dictation
by God could explain extensive verbal similarity, but then what do we do with
the not so similar and downright different?
It defies any reason. And since
there is no faith problem with using sources (biblical authors sometimes quote
or mention sources), it is just far more reasonable to think sources were
involved. God's dictation, while
theoretically possible, seems a vastly unsatisfactory answer.
2. Also, the four
witnesses on four corners of an intersection doesn't
work very well at all either.
a. Mark and Luke were
not eyewitnesses.
b. As you look below you
will find that the verbal similarities are too close at some points to be
explained by the eyewitness approach.
The gospels are in Greek, not Aramaic.
The similarities are not just over the words of Jesus but in the story
framing and even at times story summaries.
Example 1:
Matthew 17:1: "And aft'r days six takes the Jesus the Peter and James and John
the brother of him and he brings them into a mountain high by themselves..."
Mark 9:2: "And after days six takes
the Jesus the Peter and the James and the John and he brings them
into a mountain high by themselves alone..."
Even eyewitness reports
aren't that similar, and oral traditions aren't either unless they have reached
a very standardized form. One gospel is either using the other as a written
source at this point or they are both using a common source.
Example 2:
Matthew 3:7-8: "Brood of vipers, who showed to
you to flee from the coming wrath? Make therefore fruit worthy of the
repentance."
Luke 3:7-8: "Brood of vipers, who showed to
you to flee from the coming wrath? Make therefore fruits worthy of the
repentance."
3. The above examples
should make it clear that either the gospels are using each other as literary
sources or are using common sources or some combination of these. Also, by any account we must include oral
tradition as a factor in the equation.
4. Mark is by far the
common denominator between Matthew and Luke.
This suggests either that Mark is a basic source (majority) or that Mark
is written last using both Matthew and Luke (Griesbach,
Farmer).
Example 3:
Matthew 12:15-16: "Now the Jesus, having known, withdrew
from there. And followed him crowds many and he healed
them all and he commanded them that they not visible him make..."
Mark 3:7: "And the Jesus with the disciples
of him withdrew to the sea, and great multitude from the Galilee followed and
from the Judea and from Jerusalem and from the Idumea
and across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon a multitude great... and much he commands them that
they not him visible make..."
Luke 6:17: "and crowd much of disciples of him
and crowd much of the people from all the Judea and
In this last example we
find that sometimes Matthew and Mark agree and sometimes Luke and Mark agree.
In no particular instance do Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (although it
can also happen sometimes).
The fact that all three
gospels summarize Jesus ministry with verbal similarities at the same
basic point in the story (i.e., right or soon after the sabbath
controversy story of Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11) points to common
literary sources.
5. Mark's Greek is more
Jewish and not as "good" Greek as either Matthew or Luke. It makes much more sense to say that Matthew
and Luke have "purtied" Mark's Greek than
that Mark deliberately messed their Greek up.
In my opinion, this makes Mark by far the most likely source behind
Matthew and Luke.
Mark also has more
Aramaic words than Matthew or Luke, and Mark is less theologically cautious
than Matthew or Luke.
By the way, it soon
becomes clear that the gospel writers had no squabbles with rewording Jesus'
teaching or slightly rearranging the order of things. Matthew, for example, has two in several
places where Mark only has one (demoniacs, blind men, donkeys). We apparently impose our squabbles into
the text when we insist these stories be precisely historical.
6. But if Mark is the
core source behind Matthew and Luke, then we must explain the common verbal
material between Matthew and Luke, as in example 2 above.
One suggestion is the Goulder-Goodacre approach that sees Mark first, Matthew
second and then Luke using both of these.
But do we really think
that Luke looked at Matthew's sermons and said, "Hey, I want to split up
this Sermon on the Mount material and partition it to the wind." And where then did Matthew get the material
in the first place?
At this point we might
note that the earliest tradition about Matthew is that he wrote the sayings
of Jesus in Aramaic. This is not our
current Matthew, which is in Greek. We
face the strong possibility that the current Matthew is based in some way on
the original Aramaic gospel of Matthew, while not the same exact gospel. In particular, it is difficult to explain why
the disciple Matthew would use Mark as a source since he was an eyewitness and
Mark wasn't? Also, if the disciple
Matthew's Greek was this good, why did he use Mark whose Greek was
inferior?
We conclude it unlikely
that the disciple Matthew put the Gospel of Matthew into its current Greek form
(it is, after all, anonymous. It nowhere
gives us its author's name). However,
since I take ancient traditions seriously, I have a hunch that the Aramaic
Matthew, a collection of Jesus' sayings, stands beside Mark as a primary source
in some way behind our current Greek gospel of Matthew.
7. You will notice that
we have just described something like what scholars have long referred to as
"Q," a hypothetical source primarily of sayings material found in
Matthew and Luke but not Mark.
I am now ready to
describe my current answer to the synoptic problem:
1. Jesus said and did
many things. Multiple oral traditions
arose during his earthly ministry.
Stories were told and retold in the villages of
2. These stories no
doubt existed in groups of related stories: things Jesus said about the
kingdom, miracles Jesus did, etc... The
most important of these oral traditions was no doubt the story of the events
leading up to his crucifixion.
3. At some point, Matthew
starts collecting the sayings of Jesus in Aramaic. There's nothing to keep this collection from
being somewhat fluid. In particular, we
might expect it to expand over time.
Some of these may make their way even into Mark.
4. Probably the passion
narrative was written down at a fairly early time.
5. Mark (or
whoever--it's technically anonymous) writes the first gospel, perhaps not long
after the death of Peter (so Papias), just before or
just after the destruction of
6. There are no doubt Greek
translations of Matthew's sayings collections, which may vary in scope (Papias says people translated them as they were able; Luke
mentions many before him having undertaken to write gospels).
7. Some scribe in the
vicinity of
8. At some later point,
someone starts with Mark again as well as one of the Greek translations of the
original Matthew. This author feels a
little less tied to the order of things in Mark, but may actually give the
material from original Matthew more in the order it appeared there. We call this gospel Luke, again
technically anonymous.
But the "we"
passages of Acts push us to see this author as a sometimes travelling
companion of Paul (although there are other explanations as well). But we should not thereby assume that this
person felt bound to historical precision in the relaying of events. From what little we know of his use of
sources, Luke-Acts felt free to rearrange and recast material to make valid theological
points and also to present the story in an efficient and pleasing way.
My solution as of the 12th of March, 2006