The Synoptic Problem

Source Criticism

1
Source Criticism
 The Synoptic Problem

How do we account for the

similarities
as well as the
differences
between the three synoptic Gospels?

2
Source Criticism
 Early Solutions to the
Problem
Papias (2nd c.) mentions two sources:
Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter
Logia--a collection of sayings composed
by Matthew in a Hebrew dialect

Clement of Alexandria (2nd c.)

Matthew and Luke were written first.

3
Source Criticism
 Augustine (5th c.)
Each wrote with knowledge of the
previous Gospel.
Successive Dependence, following
canonical order: Matthew, then Mark,
then Luke.

4
Source Criticism
 18th Century Solutions
 Lessing (1778) proposed that an Aramaic
Ur-Gospel (Gospel of the Nazarenes) was
used independently by Matthew, Mark, and
Luke.

 Griesbach (1783) argued that there was

successive dependence: Matthew, then
Luke, then Mark. Mark was a conflation of
Matthew and Luke.

5
Source Criticism
 An Important Tool!
In 1776 Griesbach published the first synopsis.

A Synopsis places the three (or more) Gospels

in parallel columns for ease of comparison. 6
Source Criticism
 Three Factors
to Consider

Content
Order
Style

7
Source Criticism
 Some Statistics on Content
First, the verse count --

Matthew Mark Luke

verses 1068 661 1098

scenes 117 98 120

sayings 225 80 182

8
Source Criticism
 Comparisons -- in verses
80% of Mark’s verses are reproduced
in Matthew.
65% of Mark’s verses are reproduced
in Luke.
Matthew and Luke share 220-235
verses of material that is not found in
Mark.

9
Source Criticism
 Comparisons -- in scenes and sayings

to Mt
Unique to Matt to Mark to Luke
+ Lk
verses 396 89 530 218
scenes 35 10 48 5
sayings 38 1 39 77

10
Source Criticism
 Observations on Content --
 Mark presents most of the narrative
common to the synoptics but less than
half of the sayings.
The material shared by Matthew and
Luke (not in Mark) consists primarily
of sayings.
Almost all of Mark is found in either
Matthew or Luke.
11
Source Criticism
 Order (Chronology)
The clearest evidence of literary
dependence among the synoptic
gospels
--is the fact that Matthew,
Mark, and Luke present their
common material in the same
basic sequence.
12
Source Criticism
 Outline Common to
Synoptics
 John the Baptist’s appearance & message
 Jesus baptized
 Jesus tested
 Jesus preaches in Galilee
 Cures & Exorcisms
 Social controversies
 Interpretation of parables
 5000 fed
 Peter identifies Jesus as Messiah

13
Source Criticism
Outline continued...
 1st Passion prediction
 Transfiguration
 Exorcism
 2nd Passion prediction
 Jesus goes to Judea
 Jesus summons children
 Call to abandon possessions and follow Jesus
 3rd Passion prediction
 Blind cured
 Jesus enters Jerusalem Note: Orange indicates
 Temple purged Passion Narrative.
 Jesus questioned by Jerusalem authorities
14
Source Criticism
Outline continued...
 Destruction of temple predicted
 Judas Iscariot cooperates with temple authorities
 Jesus celebrates Passover meal
 Jesus arrested at Gethsemane
 Trial by Sanhedrin
 Peter denies Jesus
 Trial by Pontius Pilate
 Crucifixion
 Burial by Joseph of Arimathea
 Women discover empty tomb (told to report to
disciples)

15
Source Criticism
 Observations on Order --
There is no agreement in the order
of Matthew & Luke against Mark.

The non-Marcan sayings common to

Matthew & Luke are presented at
different points in their narratives

16
Source Criticism
 Observations on Style --
 Mark is least polished and most oral.
 Matthew has better grammar and
smoother literary transitions.
 Luke’s Greek is most literate Greek
in the New Testament.
 Luke’s transitions and rhetoric are
never the same as the transitions in
Matthew.
17
Source Criticism
 Conclusions --
The material that Matthew and Luke
share with Mark is referred to as
the TRIPLE TRADITION.
The material that Matthew and Luke
have in common that is not included
in Mark is referred to as the
DOUBLE TRADITION.

18
Source Criticism
 Conclusions --
 Mark was probably the first Gospel
written.
 Matthew and Luke used Mark as a
source.
This hypothesis is referred to as
MARKAN PRIORITY.

 This “explains” the Triple Tradition.

19
Source Criticism
 A Graphic of
Markan Priority

Mark

Matthew Luke

20
Source Criticism
But . . .
 Matthew and Luke share material
that is not found in Mark.
 This material is referred to as the
Double Tradition.
Hence, Matthew and Luke must have
shared a source in addition to Mark.

21
Source Criticism
 The Two-Source Hypothesis
 In 1838 Weisse proposed that
Matthew and Luke combined Mark
and the logia.
In 1863, Holtzmann proposed a
similar thesis.
This was the first formulation of the
Two-Source Hypothesis = 2SH
22
Source Criticism
 The Two-Source Hypothesis
Accepts Markan Priority
Posits a second source
Shared by Matthew and Luke
primarily sayings material
perhaps related to the logia source
mentioned by Papias
eventually called Q, possibly from the
German word “Quelle,” which means
“source.”
23
Source Criticism
2SH -- The Two-Source Hypothesis
Mark Q

Matthew Luke

24
Source Criticism
Q -- A Hypothetical Text
includes . . .
 oracles of John the Baptist
 a dialogue between Jesus and Satan
 a sermon encouraging the oppressed
 sayings about Jesus’ relationship to John
 a list of instructions to missionaries
 an exorcism leading to debate over Jesus’ authority
 oracles against cities in Galilee and Jerusalem
 prayer instructions
 oracles against the scribes and Pharisees
 several parables
 predictions of the appearance of the son of man
25
Source Criticism
 Elaboration by
B. H. Streeter (1924)
Streeter accepts that Matthew and
Luke are dependent upon the
canonical Mark.
 Mark did not know Q.
Streeter’s “Fundamental Solution”
expanded the 2SH by adding a
“special Matthean” and a “special
Lukan” source.
HENCE --
26
Source Criticism
 Four-Source Hypothesis
4SH
Mark Q
M L

Matthew Luke

27
Source Criticism
 Further Developments
 Revival of the Griesbach
Hypothesis
 Elaboration of Q
 Discovery of the Gospel of
Thomas

28
Source Criticism
 Griesbach Revisited
In 1964 Farmer revives the
Griesbach Hypothesis and Matthean
priority --
Griesbach (1783) argued that there was
successive dependence: Matthew, then
Luke, then Mark. Mark was a conflation
of Matthew and Luke.
Farmer rejects reliance on
hypothetical sources such as Q.
29
Source Criticism
 Elaboration of Q
 John Kloppenborg (1987) identifies
three layers in the (hypothetical) Q
source.
 Q1 = a sapiential (wisdom) layer
 Q2 = a judgmental (eschatological)
layer
 Q3 = includes temptation narrative
 NOTE: Kloppenborg’s thesis is important, but
has not received widespread approval.
30
Source Criticism
 The Gospel of Thomas
 Discovered in 1948
 Nag Hammadi, Egypt
 Coptic version
published in 1957
 Greek papyrus
fragments identified
 Among the oldest
manuscripts of early
Christian literature

31
Source Criticism
 Contents of the
Gospel of Thomas
114 sayings of Jesus
 Introduction: “These are the secret sayings that
the living Jesus spoke & Didymus Judas
Thomas recorded.”
More than half of the material is
paralleled in the canonical gospels
 27 sayings in Triple Tradition
 46 parallels in Double Tradition
 12 echo special Matthean material
 1 is in Luke alone

32
Source Criticism
 Summary of Source Criticism
 The Synoptic Problem
 Early solutions
 Three factors to consider: Content, Order,
and Style
 Conclusions
 Markan Priority
 2SH
 4SH
 Further Developments
 Griesbach Revisited
 Elaboration of Q
 Gospel of Thomas
33
Source Criticism
 Words and Concepts
 Synoptic Problem  Markan Priority
 Papias  Two-Source
 Logia Hypothesis (2SH)
 Four-Source
 Griesbach
Hypothesis (4SH)
 Three factors Q
 Triple Tradition  Gospel of Thomas
 Double Tradition
34
Source Criticism
 35
Source Criticism
 More to Learn . . .

Source Criticism

Form Criticism

Redaction Criticism

36
Source Criticism