Synoptic Problem

The synoptic problem is the name under which one gathers the whole of the studies concerning the drafting of the three synoptic Gospels (Gospel according to Matthieu named MT thereafter, Gospel according to Marc named Mc thereafter and Gospel according to Luc named LLC thereafter). In front of the many similarities and divergences between the three texts, it is a question of determining which is their relation of anteriority and on which sources or traditions, communes or not, they were based.

With the search of the historical Jesus, the synoptic problem is one of those which allures more the exégètes. Most probable is that the Gospels which reached us were ever written to be joined together under the same cover.

As of the Antiquity, the question of the differences between these three texts holds the attention. For Augustin d' Hippone, they were explained by the writing order. In De Consensu Evangelistarum , in 400, he declares:

“Thus, these four evangelists, well-known through the whole world (and perhaps are four because the world has four parts (...) wrote in this order: initially Matthieu, then Marc, thirdly Luc, and in the Jean last”.

It is only later, in particular since Griesbach at the 18th century, that the question of the similarities , and not only of the divergences , was raised.

Today, 1488 viable theories are currently listed by a group of universities. They were worked out to describe the order and the composition of the Gospels.

These theories can be gathered in some groups.

Various parts of the problem

The theories claiming to solve the synoptic problem must be able to explain how the three synoptic Gospels were written. In particular they must explain:

triples it tradition, i.e. the passages identical, or almost identical, between the three texts;
the double tradition, i.e. passages common to MT and LLC, but non-existent in Mc;
semitisms of the text of Mc
minor convergences, i.e. identical proposals existing only in MT and LLC, the passages belonging to triple tradition.
the identical scheduling of the accounts between the various Gospels.

Triple tradition

Triple tradition can be explained by the anteriority of the one of the Gospels, used by the two others.

The double tradition

The double tradition can be explained by the use of two Gospels like source of the third text.

Models of derivation of a common model

Assumption of a primitive Gospel

This assumption, put forth initially at the 18th century by G.E. Lessing, postulates that the three Gospels were written by abbreviation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew proto-Gospel in . This idea comes from Origène bringing back the remarks of Papias.

What the assumption explains

major similarities
the order of the stories

What the assumption does not explain

why certain passages would have been cut
the corrected semitisms of Mc in an identical way in MT and LLC, or then introduced by Mc

Other weaknesses

this proto-Gospel was not found

For Lessing, the proto-Gospel, also called Ur-Gospel and sometimes shortened UrG one of the texts would be sometimes evoked by the ancient authors, l' Gospel of Hebrew or the Gospel of the nazoréens .

In order to explain the abbreviations of Mc, it is sometimes postulated that this last did not have of UrG but a shortened version.

Assumption of the fragments

Assumption of the oral tradition

Genealogical models

The model of the use

In this model, one of the Gospels is the first, the second re-using it and the third re-using the two precedents.

With three Gospels, there are six assumptions: all were seriously defended. Nevertheless those of Augustin, of Griesbach, partly for historical reasons, like that of Farrer, conceived in reaction to the dominant theory of the two sources, had more success than the three others.

The assumption of Augustin d' Hippone

The Gospels are classified in the editions of the New Testament according to the order of drafting affirmed by Augustin in De Consensu Evangelistarum (C. 400) (of the agreement of the Gospels), i.e. Matthieu, Marc, Luc each one depend on the precedent. The reasons that it gives some are not very clear and raise rather of the feeling only it in A.

The assumption of Griesbach

Griesbach modifies the assumption of Augustin d' Hippone: Matthieu would be the first Gospel whose Luc would have been inspired while Marc would have used Luc and Matthieu. This assumption is conceived in 1764 and is formulated in 1783. It was taken again by many exégètes until William Reuben Farmer 1964. More recent alternatives give the priority to Luc.

The assumption of Farrer

It was conceived in 1934 and was formulated by Austin Marsden Farrer in 1955. Its more shining current defender is Dr. Mark S. Goodacre with Birmingham. Its site Case Against Q gives the last developments of them. It is also a gate on all the sites of Exégèse of the New Testament. On the assumption of Farrer, Marc is the oldest Gospel, Matthieu is inspired some and Luc uses Marc and Matthieu

The assumption of Wilke

It is an alternative of the assumption of Farrer, above. It is developed by Christian Gottlieb Wilke (1838), and is supported by Bruno Bauer (1841). It exposes the priority of Marc; the material of the Double Tradition results from a copy of Matthieu on Luc.

Our day, it is supported by Ronald V. Huggins (1992).

The assumption of Büsching

Anton Büsching (1766) supports an alternative of the assumption of Griesbach according to which, Marc compiles the texts of Matthieu and Luc, with a priority of Luc.

The assumption of Lockton

It is supported by W. Lockton (1922). Like the assumption of Busching, it confers the priority on Luc but Matthieu is nourished of Luc and Marc.

The model of the two sources

Marc was the source of the writings of Matthieu and Luc which used moreover, an additional source. It was conceived in 1838 by Christian Hermann Weisse. It supposes the priority of Marc and the existence of a Source Q which one can identify the corpus of material included in according to Matthieu and according to Luc but one did not find such a source yet so far. The stage in progress is that of John S. Kloppenborg Verbin (2000) A more advanced talk of the theory of the two sources, presents in English his evolution, since his creation until our days. The assumption of the two sources is retained by Raymond E. Brown.

The assumption known as of the Philippe deacon

The “assumption of the Philippe deacon” is an installation of the model of the two sources. The Philippe deacon, one of the Seven, would be the real author of the first Gospel, after dialog with Luc, companion of Paul, at the time of the stay in Palestine of this last, towards 57-59 (cf ac 21,8 ---27,2).

Philippe, like Luc, would have inherited two sources: the Gospel of Marc, resulting from the testimony and preachings of the apostle Pierre, and the Logia of the Lord written in araméen by the apostle Matthieu, according to the tradition.

Philippe and Luc would have had all the time to carry out their personal survey.

The hellenist Philippe and Luc would have then composed independently one of the other, in Greek, their Gospel respective, one with maritime Césarée (Philippe) and the other with Rome (Luc).

It would not be impossible that Philippe as Luc had made use of a private of Marc, older version (the Urmarkus of the German exégètes), not published, and slightly different from that which we know.

The Philippe deacon would have left his Gospel under the patronage of Matthieu, the apostle, because it largely inserted his Logia there and that the name of an apostle was more prestigious.

This assumption with the advantage of remarkably reconciling the data of the tradition (critical external) with the textual data of the synoptic question (critical intern). It raises certain aporias of the Theory of the two sources.

Why Greek Matthieu (according to this assumption, Philippe) and Luc, though having worked independently one of the other, they despite everything the remarkable agreements know: even place of the Gospels of childhood, insertion at the same place in the screen of Marc (Mc 3,19) of the Blisses and the Sermon on the mountain (though in a very different form, and though Marc in this place speaks neither about blisses nor of sermon), use of two identical sources: Marc and the Logia (with very diverse methods), without speaking about certain agreements of details (against Marc) which generally pose problem with the exégètes.

This assumption arrives at the conclusion that there is not copy between them, but well prior cooperation, and even common reading of the same sources. It holds in addition as very probable that the first Gospel (Greek Matthieu) was composed in Palestine, because it indicates a precise knowledge of this country.

In addition, this theory regards as more than probable intensive testimony of the Philippe deacon for the drafting of the Acts of the Apostles.

See too

Evolution of the reading of the Bible at the XIXe century

References

Random links: