Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ROBERT C. NEWMAN
ABSTRACT
OTH in liberal and conservative circles the Gospels of
B Matthew and Luke are commonly viewed as being literar-
ily dependent on Mark, even though this involves dismissing
substantial traditions regarding their origin. On the other hand,
it is difficult to see how these traditions square with the internal
evidence on which the dominant two-document theory has been
erected. Some suggestions for a synthesis are here proposed.
Introduction
Questions regarding relationships between the canonical Gos-
pels have been a concern since early in church history. Already
in the second century Tatian (c. 170) constructed a harmony
which combined the four Gospels into a single narrative.1 In
the fourth century, Eusebius drew up tables by which one could
see if any given passage in the Gospels had parallels, which
could then be quickly located.2 The first attempt to postulate a
literary relationship between the three synoptic Gospels seems
to have been that of Augustine (c. 400), who suggested that
Mark abridged Matthew, and that Luke used both Matthew and
Mark in composing his own Gospel.3
The fall of the Roman Empire interrupted such studies, but
1
Tatian, Diatessaron. A fragment has survived in Greek, as well as
more extensive materials in translation. See Edgar J. Goodspeed and
Robert M. Grant, A History of Early Christian Literature, rev. ed.
(Chicago: Phoenix Books, 1966), pp. 107-108.
2
Eusebius, Letter to Carpianus. Greek text with tables in Eberhard
Nestle, Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece,
25th ed. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1963), pp. 32*-37*.
3
Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum.
132
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 133
4
Surveys of the history of synoptic criticism may be found in Donald
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, 111.:
Inter-Varsity, 1970), pp. 123-132; W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the
New Testament (London: S CM, 1966), pp. 37-42; Willi Marxsen, Intro-
duction to the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), pp. 113—
119; Henry C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943), pp. 101-121.
134 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
5
lesser extent) conservative circles. It has even penetrated
6
Catholic circles, in spite of their greater regard for tradition.
That Mark's Gospel was written first has often been considered
7
one of the "assured results" of Gospel research.
Recently, however, there has been renewed debate over the
synoptic problem in which both the priority of Mark and the
existence of Q have frequently come under attack. Denial of
8
Mark's priority has come from Basil C. Butler (1951), Pierson
9 10
Parker (1953), William R. Farmer (1964), Thomas Long-
11 12
staff (1967), Xavier Leon-Dufour (1968), Edward P. San
13 14
ders (1969), A. Gaboury (1970), Robert L. Lindsey
15 16
(1970), David Dungan (197S), and Bernard Orchard
5
See, e.g., A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospel for Students of
the Life of Christ (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), pp. 255-256;
Ned B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1963); Guthrie, N.T. Introduction, pp. 234-236; Everett F.
Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 146-154.
β
See, e.g., J. A. Fitzmeyer, "The Priority of Mark and the Q Source
in Luke," Perspective 11 (1970), 131-170; F. J. McCool, "Synoptic Prob
lem," in New Catholic Encyclopedia 13:886-891.
7
See, e.g., A. T. Robertson, The Christ of the Logia (New York:
Doran, 1924), p. 17; H. G. Wood, "The Priority of Mark," Expository
Times 65 (1953), 17; Hugo Meynell, "The Synoptic Problem: Some
Unorthodox Solutions," Theology 70 (1967), 386.
8
Basil C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew (Cambridge: Uni
versity Press, 1951).
9
Pierson Parker, The Gospel Before Mark (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1953).
10
William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (New York: Macmillan,
1964).
11
Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark (Missoula,
Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1967).
12
Xavier Leon-Dufour, The Gospels and Jesus of History (New York:
Descleé/Collins, 1968).
13
Edward P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cam-
bridge: University Press, 1969).
14
A. Gaboury, La structure des évangiles synoptiques (Leiden: Brill,
1970).
15
Robert L. Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark
(Jerusalem: Dugith, 1969).
16
David Dungan, "Reactionary Trends in the Gospel-Producing Activ-
ity of the Early Church ? Marcion, Tatian, Mark," Bibliotheca Ephemeri-
dum Theol. Lovaniensium 34 (1974), 179-202.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 135
25
Estimates are from Joseph B. Tyson, A Study of Early Christianity
(New York: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 184-185.
138 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
26
Stefan Porúbcan, "Form Criticism and the Synoptic Problem,"
Novum Testamentum 7 (1964), 81-118.
2
? A. M. Honoré, "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem,"
Novum Testamentum 10 (1968), 95-147.
28
E. P. Sanders, "The Argument from Order and the Relationship
Between Matthew and Luke," New Testament Studies 15 (1969), 249-
261.
29
Joseph B. Tyson, "Sequential Parallelism in the Synoptic Gospels,"
New Testament Studies 22 (1976), 276-308.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 139
ally departs from the order of Mark and the other synoptic.
Using Robertson30 I find four places where Matthew diverges
and three where Luke does. It is noteworthy that, at the level of
pericopes, Matthew and Luke never agree against Mark in
following a different order. This has usually been taken to in-
dicate that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark (two-
document theory), but according to the Griesbach hypothesis
Mark got his order by alternately following Matthew and Luke.
Taking the Gospels two at a time, Tyson notes that there are
no order divergences in pericopes shared by Matthew and Mark
alone nor in those shared by Mark and Luke alone. By contrast,
most of the material common to Matthew and Luke alone (Q
in the two-document theory) is located differently in each.
This is rather hard on the so-called Ur-Gospel theory, in which
each of the three Gospels got its material independently from
the same written source. In this theory, one is hard-pressed to
explain how it is that Matthew or Luke just happens to handle
the material he used but Mark did not in such a different way
than the material they share with Mark. Those who think Luke
used Matthew or vice versa {e.g., Augustine's and Griesbach's
versions of the successive dependence theory) are also in trouble
here, as they must explain why one Gospel relocated so much
material already positioned in the other. The two-document
theory, on the other hand, handles this phenomenon rather easily,
since the pericopes shared by Matthew and Luke alone come
from another source Q. Because Q is mostly Jesus' discourse
rather than narrative, it is claimed that Matthew and Luke had
no information on where to locate it, so they independently fit
it into their own narratives, thus producing the differences in
order. However, this conclusion is not necessary to explain the
material. Since Jesus was an itinerant teacher, it is likely that
much of his discourse was given on several occasions. Matthew,
and Luke may well record similar statements made at different
times.
Turning to consider the matter of order within pericopes,
there are many minor cases of divergence. Of more significant
transpositions, Hawkins31 finds 23: 3 of Matthew vs. Mark,
30
Robertson, Harmony.
31
John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon,
1909), pp. 77-80; a classic work on synoptic problem data.
140 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
32
Sanders, "Argument from Order," section III.
33
Honoré, "Statistical Study" ; he gives exact figures.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 141
I I
Lk Mt
84
See especially Harald Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition (Philadel-
phia: Fortress, 1970) ; and Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manu-
script (Lund: Gleerup, 1961).
35
Consider, e.g., Josephus and Eusebius, Arrian and Plutarch.
142 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
36
Sanders, Tendencies.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 143
detailed content and the lack of order in the "Q" material can
be explained in various ways by oral theories, either consistent
or inconsistent with the historical reliability of the material.
In summary, on the basis of internal evidence, the two-
document theory seems to be significantly favored among the
simpler written-source theories. Oral source theories cannot be
judged against it without further specification of their details.
— rather suggests that for some time nothing else was available.
If Papias was referring to Matthew's Gospel, he at least hints
it was first.
Irenaeus (c. 170), who studied with Polycarp, a student of
the apostle John, is quite explicit in saying that Mark wrote
after Matthew:38
44
puts him second and Luke third. Earlier sources are not de
cisive: the fragments of Papias do not mention Luke; Irenaeus
gives the Gospels in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, but
45
Luke alone lacks a chronological connector:
Now Matthew published . . . while Peter and Paul were
preaching the Gospel in Rome . . . . After their departure,
Mark . . . handed down . . . the things preached by Peter.
Luke also, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel
preached by that one. Afterwards John . . . .
Some indirect information relevant to this question can be
extracted from the New Testament and the church fathers.
If one takes Irenaeus' statement that Mark was written after the
έξοδος of Peter and Paul to mean after their departure from
Rome rather than after their death (the word can mean either),
then his testimony is consistent with Clement's, where Peter is
seen reacting to Mark's Gospel after its writing.46 This would
date Mark in the mid-sixties, after Paul leaves Rome (c. 63)
but before Peter and Paul are martyred under Nero (64—68).
Luke, however, was written before Acts {cp. Luke 1:3 with
Acts 1:1), and Acts is most naturally dated before the death
of Paul or the outbreak of the Roman persecution (c. 64). Thus
it appears that Luke precedes Mark, being written in the early
sixties while Paul was in Rome or perhaps even during the two
years Luke was in Palestine and Paul in prison at Caesarea
(c. 58-60).
The traditional evidence thus gives the order Matthew, Mark,
Luke or Matthew, Luke, Mark, which fit either the Augustinian
or Griesbach models but not the two document theory. Irenaeus'
testimony to the date of Matthew is a problem, though, as he
puts it in the early sixties too, "while Peter and Paul were
preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church." This
would crowd the writing of all three synoptics into just a few
years, which seems to conflict with Papias' picture of some time
during which only Matthew was available.
Proponents of a two-document theory who do not reject
Papias altogether have often sought to solve these problems by
postulating that Papias is not referring to our canonical Matthew
44
Origen, loe. cit.
45
Irenaeus, loe. cit.
46
Clement, loe. cit.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 147
54
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 106.
55
Clement, loc. cit.
T H E SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 149
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.