Over three-quarters of Mark's content is found in both Matthew and Luke, and 97% of Mark is found in at least one of the other two synoptic gospels. Additionally, Matthew (24%) and Luke (23%) have material in common that is not found in Mark.[1]Thecalming of the storm is recounted in each of the three synoptic gospels, but not inJohn.
Thegospels ofMatthew,Mark, andLuke are referred to as thesynoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. They stand in contrast toJohn, whose content is largely distinct. The termsynoptic (Latin:synopticus;Greek:συνοπτικός,romanized: synoptikós) comes via Latin from the Greekσύνοψις,synopsis, i.e. "(a) seeing all together, synopsis".[n 1] The modern sense of the word in English is of "giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect".[2] It is in this sense that it is applied to the synoptic gospels.
This strongparallelism among the three gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence,[3] though the role of orality and memorization of sources has also been explored by scholars.[4][5] Recent scholarship focuses on explaining the gospels' relationship in terms of ancient compositional practices and comparisons with other ancient historical biographers.[6][7] The question of the precise nature of their relationship is a topic of ongoing debate, and no conclusive solution has been found yet.[8] The majority view favorsMarcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, calledQ,[9] though alternative hypotheses that posit direct use of Matthew by Luke or vice versa without Q are increasing in popularity within scholarship.[10][11]
Broadly speaking, the synoptic gospels are similar to John: all are composed inKoine Greek, have a similar length, and were completed in less than a century after Jesus' death. They also differ from non-canonical sources, such as theGospel of Thomas, in that they belong to the ancient genre of biography,[12][13] collecting not only Jesus' teachings, but recounting in an orderly way his origins, ministry, Passion, miracles and Resurrection. The patterns of parallels and variations found in the gospels are typical of ancient biographies about real people and history.[14]
In content and in wording, though, the synoptics diverge widely from John but have a great deal in common with each other. Though each gospel includes some unique material, the majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim. This common material is termed thetriple tradition.
The triple tradition'spericopae (passages) tend to be arranged in much the same order in all three gospels. This stands in contrast to the material found in only two of the gospels, which is much more variable in order.[15][16]
The classification of text as belonging to the triple tradition (or for that matter, double tradition) is not always definitive, depending rather on the degree of similarity demanded. Matthew and Mark report thecursing of the fig tree,[17][18] a single incident, despite some substantial differences of wording and content. In Luke, the onlyparable of the barren fig tree[19] is in a different point of the narrative. Some would say that Luke has extensively adapted an element of the triple tradition, while others would regard it as a distinct pericope.
And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying: I wish it; be cleansed. And immediately hisleprosy
was cleansed.
And, calling out to him, there comes to hima leper
and kneeling and
saying tohim: If you wish, I can be cleansed. And, moved with compassion, he stretched out his hand and touched him andsays to him: I wish it; be cleansed. And immediately theleprosy left him, and he was cleansed.
And behold, a man full ofleprosy. But, upon seeing Jesus, he fell upon his face and requested him, saying: Lord,if you wish, I can be cleansed.
And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying: I wish it; be cleansed. And immediately theleprosy left him.
More than half the wording in this passage is identical. Each gospel includes words absent in the other two and omits something included by the other two.
Mark writinghis Gospel, from a medieval Armenian manuscript
The triple tradition itself constitutes a complete gospel quite similar to the shortest gospel, Mark.[15]
Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, adds little to the triple tradition. Pericopae unique to Mark are scarce, notably twohealings involvingsaliva[21] and thenaked runaway.[22] Mark'sadditions within the triple tradition tend to be explanatory elaborations (e.g., "the stone was rolled back,for it was very large"[23]) orAramaisms (e.g., "Talitha kum!"[24]). The pericopae Mark shares with only Luke are also quite few: theCapernaum exorcism[25] and departure from Capernaum,[26] thestrange exorcist,[27] and thewidow's mites.[28] A greater number, but still not many, are shared with only Matthew, most notably the so-called "Great Omission"[29] from Luke ofMk 6:45–8:26.
Most scholars take these observations as a strong clue to the literary relationship among the synoptics and Mark's special place in that relationship,[30] though various scholars suggest an entirely oral relationship or a dependence emphasizing memory and tradents in a tradition rather than simple copying.[4][5][31] The Gospels represent a Jesus tradition and were enveloped by oral storytelling and performances during the early years of Christianity, rather than being redactions or literary responses to each other.[32] The hypothesis favored by most experts isMarcan priority, whereby Mark was composed first, and Matthew and Luke each used Mark, incorporating much of it, with adaptations, into their own gospels. Alan Kirk praises Matthew in particular for his "scribal memory competence" and "his high esteem for and careful handling of both Mark and Q", which makes claims the latter two works are significantly different in terms of theology or historical reliability dubious.[33][34] A leading alternative hypothesis isMarcan posteriority, with Mark having been formed primarily by extracting what Matthew and Luke shared in common.[35]
The preaching of John the Baptist in Matthew and Luke, withdifferences rendered in black.[36] Here the two texts agree verbatim, with an isolated exception, for a span of over sixty words. Mark has no parallel.
An extensive set of material—some two hundred verses, or roughly half the length of the triple tradition—are the pericopae shared between Matthew and Luke, but absent in Mark. This is termed thedouble tradition.[37] Parables and other sayings predominate in the double tradition, but also included are narrative elements:[38]
Unlike triple tradition material, double tradition material is structured differently in the two gospels. Matthew's lengthySermon on the Mount, for example, is paralleled by Luke's shorterSermon on the Plain, with the remainder of its content scattered throughout Luke. This is consistent with the general pattern of Matthew collecting sayings into large blocks, while Luke does the opposite and intersperses them with narrative.[39]
Besides the double tradition proper, Matthew and Luke often agree against Mark within the triple tradition to varying extents, sometimes including several additional verses, sometimes differing by a single word. These are termed themajor and minor agreements (the distinction is imprecise[40][41]). One example is in the passion narrative, where Mark has simply, "Prophesy!"[42] while Matthew and Luke both add, "Who is it that struck you?"[43][44]
The double tradition's origin, with its major and minor agreements, is a key facet of the synoptic problem. The simplest hypothesis is Luke relied on Matthew's work or vice versa. But many experts, on various grounds, maintain that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other's work. If this is the case, they must have drawn from some common source, distinct from Mark, that provided the double-tradition material and overlapped with Mark's content where major agreements occur. This hypothetical document is termedQ, for the GermanQuelle, meaning "source".[45]
Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material found in no other gospel.[46] These materials are sometimes called "Special Matthew" orM and "Special Luke" orL.
Both Special Matthew and Special Luke include distinct openinginfancy narratives and post-resurrection conclusions (with Luke continuing the story in his second bookActs). In between, Special Matthew includes mostly parables, while Special Luke includes both parables and healings.
Special Luke is notable for containing a greater concentration ofSemitisms than any other gospel material.[47]
Luke gives some indication of how he composed his gospel in his prologue:[48][49]
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellentTheophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.[50]
The texts of the three synoptic gospels often agree very closely in wording and order, both in quotations and in narration. Most scholars ascribe this todocumentary dependence: the agreements among synoptic gospels are due to one gospel drawing from the text of another, or from some written source that another gospel also drew from.[51] Recent scholarship tends to explain the gospels' relationship in terms of ancient compositional practices and comparisons with other ancient historical biographers over the traditional emphasis on theological agendas.[52][7]
The synoptic problem hinges on several interrelated points of controversy:
Priority: Which gospel was written first? (If one text draws from another, the source must have been composed first.)
Successive dependence: Did each of the synoptic gospels draw from each of its predecessors? (If not, the frequent agreements between the two independent gospels against the third must originate elsewhere.)
Lost written sources: Did any of the gospels draw from some earlier document which has not been preserved (e.g., the hypothetical"Q", or from earlier editions of other gospels)?
Oral sources: To what extent did each evangelist or literary collaborator[53] draw from personal knowledge, eyewitness accounts, liturgy, or otheroral traditions to produce an original written account?
Translation: Jesus and others quoted in the gospels spoke primarily inAramaic, but the gospels themselves in their oldest available form are each written in Koine Greek. Who performed the translations, and at what point?
Redaction: How and why did those who put the gospels into their final form expand, abridge, alter, or rearrange their sources?
A page of Griesbach'sSynopsis Evangeliorum, which presents the texts of the synoptic gospels arranged in columns
Ancient sources virtually unanimously ascribe the synoptic gospels to the apostleMatthew, toMark, and toLuke—hence their respective canonical names.[54] The ancient authors, however, did not agree on which order the Gospels had been written. For example,Clement of Alexandria held that Matthew wrote first, Luke wrote second and Mark wrote third;[55] on the other hand,Origen argued that Matthew wrote first, Mark wrote second and Luke wrote third;[56]Tertullian states that John and Matthew were published first and that Mark and Luke came later;[57][58] and Irenaeus precedes all these and orders his famous 'four pillar story' by John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark.[59]
A remark byAugustine of Hippo at the beginning of the fifth century presents the gospels as composed in their canonical order (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), with each evangelist thoughtfully building upon and supplementing the work of his predecessors—theAugustinian hypothesis (Matthew–Mark).[60]
This view (when any model of dependence was considered at all) seldom came into question until the late eighteenth century, whenJohann Jakob Griesbach published in 1776 asynopsis of the synoptic gospels. Instead ofharmonizing them, he displayed their texts side by side, making both similarities and divergences apparent. Griesbach, noticing the special place of Mark in the synopsis, hypothesized Marcan posteriority and advanced (asHenry Owen had a few years earlier[61]) thetwo-gospel hypothesis (Matthew–Luke).
In the nineteenth century, researchers applied the tools ofliterary criticism to the synoptic problem in earnest, especially in German scholarship. Early work revolved around a hypotheticalproto-gospel (Ur-Gospel), possibly inAramaic, underlying the synoptics. From this line of inquiry, however, a consensus emerged that Mark itself served as the principal source for the other two gospels—Marcan priority.
In a theory first proposed byChristian Hermann Weisse in 1838, the double tradition was explained by Matthew and Luke independently using two sources—thus, thetwo-source (Mark–Q) theory—which supplemented Mark with another hypothetical source consisting mostly of sayings. This additional source was at first seen as thelogia (sayings) spoken of byPapias and thus called "Λ",[n 2] but later it became more generally known as"Q", from the GermanQuelle, meaningsource.[62] This two-source theory eventually won wide acceptance and was seldom questioned until the late twentieth century; most scholars simply took this new orthodoxy for granted and directed their efforts toward Q itself, and this is still[update] largely the case.[citation needed]
The theory is also well known in a more elaborate form set forth byBurnett Hillman Streeter in 1924, which additionally hypothesized written sources"M" and"L" (for "Special Matthew" and "Special Luke" respectively)—hence the influentialfour-document hypothesis. This exemplifies the prevailing scholarship of the time, which saw the canonical gospels as late products, dating from well into the second century, composed by unsophisticated cut-and-paste redactors out of a progression of written sources, and derived in turn from oral traditions and fromfolklore that hadevolved in various communities.[63]
In recent decades, weaknesses of the two-source theory have been more widely recognized,[by whom?] and debate has reignited. Many have independently argued that Luke did make some use of Matthew after all. British scholars went further and dispensed with Q entirely, ascribing the double tradition to Luke's direct use of Matthew—theFarrer hypothesis of 1955-which is enjoying growing popularity within scholarship today.[64][65] The rise of the Matthaean posteriority hypothesis, which dispenses with Q but ascribes the double tradition to Matthew's direct use of Luke, has been one of the defining trends of Synoptic studies during the 2010s, and the theory has entered the mainstream of scholarship.[66] Meanwhile, the Augustinian hypothesis has also made a comeback, especially in American scholarship. TheJerusalem school hypothesis has also attracted fresh advocates, as has theIndependence hypothesis, which denies documentary relationships altogether.[citation needed]
On this collapse of consensus, Wenham observed: "I found myself in the Synoptic Problem Seminar of the Society for New Testament Studies, whose members were in disagreement over every aspect of the subject. When this international group disbanded in 1982 they had sadly to confess that after twelve years' work they had not reached a common mind on a single issue."[67]
More recently, Andris Abakuks applied astatistical time series approach to the Greek texts to determine the relative likelihood of these proposals. Models without Q fit reasonably well. Matthew and Luke were statistically dependent on their borrowings from Mark. This suggests at least one of Matthew and Luke had access to the other's work. The most likely synoptic gospel to be the last was Luke. The least likely was Mark. While this weighs against the Griesbach proposal and favors the Farrer, he does not claim any proposals are ruled out.[68]
No definitive solution to the Synoptic Problem has been found yet. Thetwo-source hypothesis, which was dominant throughout the 20th century, still enjoys the support of most New Testament scholars; however, it has come under substantial attack in recent years by a number of biblical scholars, who have attempted to relaunch theAugustinian hypothesis,[69] theGriesbach hypothesis[70] and theFarrer hypothesis.[71]
In particular, the existence of theQ source has received strong criticism in the first two decades of the 21st century: scholars such asMark Goodacre andBrant Pitre have pointed out that no manuscript of Q has ever been found, nor is any reference to Q ever made in the writings of theChurch Fathers (or any ancient writings, in fact).[72][73][74] This has promptedE. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies to write that the Two-sources hypothesis, while still dominant, "is least satisfactory"[75] and Fr.Joseph FitzmyerSJ to state that the Synoptic Problem is "practically insoluble".[76]
The oldest known view, still advocated by some. Mark's special place is neither priority nor posteriority, but as the intermediate between the other two synoptic gospels. Canonical order is based on this view having been assumed (at the time when New Testament Canon was finalized).
A Greekanthology (A), translated literally from a Hebrew original, was used by each gospel. Luke also drew from an earlier lost gospel, a reconstruction (R) of the life of Jesus reconciling the anthology with yet another narrative work. Matthew has not used Luke directly.
^Both Greek words,synoptikos andsynopsis, derive fromσύνsyn (prep.), meaning "together, with", and etymologically related words pertaining to sight, vision, appearance, i.e.ὀπτικόςoptikos (adj.;cf. Englishoptic), meaning "ofor for sight", andὄψιςopsis (n.), meaning "appearance, sight, vision, view".[2]
^The capital form of the Greek letter lambda λ, corresponding tol, used here to abbreviatelogia (Greek:λόγια).
^abDerico, Travis (2018).Oral Tradition and Synoptic Verbal Agreement: Evaluating the Empirical Evidence for Literary Dependence. Pickwick Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 368–369.ISBN978-1620320907.
^abKirk, Alan (2019).Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition. T&T Clark. pp. 148–183.ISBN978-0567686541.
^Barker, James (2021).The Cambridge Companion to the New Testament. Cambridge University Press. pp. 355–56.ISBN978-1108437707.
^Stein, Robert H. (1992).Luke: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. B&H Publishing. pp. 29–30.ISBN0805401245.
^Kloppenborg, John S. (2000).Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Fortress Press. pp. 20–28.ISBN1451411553.
^Rodriguez, Rafael (2017). "Matthew as Performer, Tradent, Scribe".Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.15 (2–3):192–212.doi:10.1163/17455197-01502003.
^Rodriguez, Rafael (2010).Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text. T&T Clark. p. 5.ISBN978-0567264206.
^Kirk, Alan (2019).Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition. T&T Clark. pp. 298–306.ISBN978-0567686541.
^Rodriguez, Rafael (2017). "Matthew as Performer, Tradent, Scribe".Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.15 (2–3): 203.doi:10.1163/17455197-01502003.
^Goodacre, Mark (2013)."Synoptic Problem". In McKenzie, Steven L. (ed.).Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0199832262.
^Barker, James (2021).The Cambridge Companion to the New Testament. Cambridge University Press. pp. 355–56.ISBN978-1108437707.
^Hengel, Martin (2000).The four Gospels and the one Gospel of Jesus Christ: an investigation of the collection and origin of the Canonical Gospels. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 34–115.ISBN1563383004.
^Lührmann, Dieter (1995). "Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?". In Piper, Ronald Allen (ed.).The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. BRILL. pp. 97–102.ISBN9004097376.
^Farrer, A. M. (1955). "On Dispensing With Q". In Nineham, D. E. (ed.).Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 55–88. Retrieved2018-10-13.The literary history of the Gospels will turn out to be a simpler matter than we had supposed. St. Matthew will be seen to be an amplified version of St. Mark, based on a decade of habitual preaching, and incorporating oral material, but presupposing no other literary source beside St. Mark himself. St. Luke, in turn, will be found to presuppose St. Matthew and St. Mark, and St. John to presuppose the three others. The whole literary history of the canonical Gospel tradition will be found to be contained in the fourfold canon itself, except in so far as it lies in the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, and the other New Testament writings. [...] Once rid of Q, we are rid of a progeny of nameless chimaeras, and free to let St. Matthew write as he is moved.
^Runesson, Anders (2021).Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins. Eerdmans.ISBN9780802868923.
^The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference. Peeters Pub and Booksellers. 2023.ISBN9789042950344.
^Carlson (September 2004)."Synoptic Problem".Hypotyposeis.org. Archived from the original on December 20, 2004. Carlson lists over twenty of the major ones, with citations of the literature.
^Though eponymous and some haphazard structural names are prevalent in the literature, a systematic structural nomenclature is advocated byCarlson andSmith, and these names are also provided. The exception is the hypothesis of the priority of the Gospel of Marcion which is not part of their nomenclatures.
_-_James_Tissot_-_overall.jpg)
_theory.svg)
