Synoptics

Conceptual Framework

The term synoptic is applied to those gospels which appear to have been created from the same traditional sources: Mark, Matthew and Luke. The interconnection of the "Synoptics" is not, however, simply one of close resemblance, it is also one of striking difference. When compared attentively, the three records appear distinct as well as similar in incidents, plan, and language. The harmony and the variety, the resemblance's and the differences in their portrayal of Jesus, must be both accounted for. They form together a literary problem that is commonly referred to as the Synoptic Problem.

Introduction

The Synoptics is the name given since Griesbach's time (about 1790) to the first three canonical Gospels. It is derived from the fact that these Gospels admit -- differently from the evangelical narrative of St. John, of being arranged and harmonized section by section, so as to allow the eye to realize at a glance (synopsis) the numerous passages which are common to them, and also the portions which are peculiar either to only two, or even to only one, of them.

By definition the " Synoptics" are those gospels that report the same general outline for the story of Jesus. There is enough sustained agreement between the sequence of sayings & deeds that Matthew, Mark & Luke ascribe to Jesus to convince most scholars that the story-line of these gospels comes from the same text. Determining which text is probably the basis of the others is the work of source criticism.

Within this common synoptic narrative framework, however, there is considerable variation in the sequence of items reported by Matthew, Mark & Luke. Some pericopes included by two are missing in the third. Others are unique to one gospel. Even pericopes shared by two or more gospels are not always reported in the same sequence.

Since self-contained sayings may be recalled in virtually any sequence & be repeated almost anywhere, it is not surprising to find that one of the major differences between the synoptic gospels is in the logical syntax between the aphorisms & parables they ascribe Jesus. The fact that 2 or 3 gospels repeat several blocks of stories or sayings in the same order is evidence of the dependence of the author of one text on another. So when one or two gospels diverge from the sequence of material in the third, it is evident that some author(s) deliberately edited the original source by inserting, omitting or transposing certain items. Such changes account for the fact that the segments of the synoptic outlines indicated in the table above vary in length according to gospel.

Even if these differences in sequence do not alter the interpretation of the passages themselves, they are important indications of the viewpoint & logic of a particular author (Matthew, Mark or Luke). For an editor would only bother to alter a text he was copying to improve it for some purpose -- adding things he thought important, omitting distractions & rearranging items to make a more persuasive presentation. Analysis of the patterns of changes that one author made in a text composed by another is the work of redaction criticism.

All attempts at assigning the cause of the similarities and differences of the first three Gospels can generally be classified under three general heads, according to the relationships of the Synoptics: A, oral tradition; B, mutual dependence; or C, earlier documents.

Harmony / Disharmony of the Gospels

There is considerable historical evidence external to the Gospels for the traditional authors. (168) Papias, bishop of the church at Hierapolis in Asia Minor and an old man by A.D. 130, name Matthew and Mark as Gospel writers, indicating that Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic and describing Mark as one who recorded Peter's reminiscences. Papias was himself a student of the Apostle John. (169)

Justin Martyr, after studying many contemporary Greek philosophies, converted to Christianity sometime before AD 130. He speaks of the Gospels as "memoirs of the apostles. (170) He says they were written "by apostles and those who followed them, (171) which matches the traditional ascription to two apostles (Matthew and John) and two followers (Mark of Peter, Luke of Paul). He quotes from or mentions matters found in each of the four Gospels, and apparently alludes to Mark's Gospel as Peter's memoirs. (172) It is generally agreed that the Gospels were written between 60 and 90 AD. Most scholars place the writing of John around 85 AD. They also believe that Mark was written before the other two gospels, Matthew and Luke, and the latter had access to Mark's writing before they wrote their own gospels in the early 60's A.D. This Triple Tradition was based on the material that was common between these three gospels.

It would appear from the "harmony of the Gospels" that the gospel authors had access to the same document or oral teaching.

We know from Scripture that Jesus taught the disciples "in all things." In John 14:26 Jesus informs us:

"the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Through this promise of Jesus, each disciple had access to all that he was taught. It has been postulated that they may have had a common input, a "Q" source. The "Q" terminology being derived from the German word "Quelle" meaning source. The initial or common input information could have come from either a spiritual, an unknown written or an oral source, or more likely, a combination of all three.

The Griesbach Hypothesis was that Matthew was the first Gospel written, that Luke used Matthew, and that Mark used both Matthew and Luke. This seems highly unlikely, since all of Mark is contained in Matthew and Luke. Mark did have the longest discussion on 30 percent of the topics listed in Table I, but why would Mark omit the many topics given in Matthew and Luke which are critical for a full picture of Jesus and His work.

Griesbach's assumption that Matthew would not have used a document supplied by Mark, a non-apostle. However, if Peter was the driving force as postulated above, Matthew would have used Mark. Griesbach's argument that the agreement between Matthew and Luke also discounts the idea of Mark writing first, but the argument above also defuses that objection. The