THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM!

A PROPOSAL FOR HANDLING

BOTH INTERNAL & EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

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

they resumed after the Reformation with the production of

several multi-column Gospel harmonies. During the nineteenth
century many competing theories arose to explain the origin of
the Gospels on the basis of similarities and differences in content,
order and wording. Some of these theories saw the Gospels as
dependent entirely on oral sources; others, entirely on written
sources; others, on almost any combination of the two. Some
saw the earlier canonical Gospels as sources of the later ones;
such theories of successive dependence bad advocates for all
possible sequences of the synoptic Gospels. Others saw the
Gospels as dependent on one or more hypothetical written
sources which have not survived. The sources postulated ranged
from a single written Gospel, on which all three synoptics de-
pended, to a multitude of written fragments, some of which
were used by all the canonical Gospels, others by three, two or
only one.4
By the beginning of this century a consensus had developed in
favor of the so-called two-document theory. In this view, the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke were largely secondary accounts
which relied heavily on their independent use of Mark and a
hypothetical document usually called Q. This theory, occasion-
ally elaborated by postulating additional non-extant documents,
renounced the external evidence of tradition, especially that Mat-
thew was the first Gospel to be written, in favor of internal evi-
dence which seemed to point to Mark as the more primitive
account. Material common to both Matthew and Luke but lack-
ing in Mark was thought to be evidence for Q, an early collection
of Jesus' sayings. Some found external evidence for Q in the
"logia" mentioned by Papias (c. 130), whose statement, it was
supposed, later church fathers had misunderstood as referring
to the Gospel of Matthew.
The two-document theory has dominated Protestant New
Testament studies so far this century, both in liberal and (to a

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

(1976). 17 While about half of these are Catholics, many are

liberal Protestants. Only Butler favors Augustine's form of the
successive dependence theory (Matthew first, then Mark, then
Luke). Several (Farmer, Longstaff, Dungan, Orchard) favor
Griesbach's form (Matthew first, then Luke, then Mark), which
is experiencing a strong revival.
Generally, those attacking the priority of Mark also doubt the
existence of Q. But there are also those who accept Mark's
priority but see no evidence for Q. These include Austin Farrer
(1955), 18 A. W. Argyle (1964), 19 R. T. Simpson (1966), 20
and Nigel Turner (1969). 21 It is doubtful that the two-document
theory has been overthrown as yet, though George W. Buchanan
seems to think so.22 It is certainly safe to say no alternative has
replaced it.
In this study, we would like to examine both the internal
evidence, or phenomena, of the synoptic problem and the external
evidence, largely the traditions about the Gospels given by the
early church fathers. We will seek to evaluate various synoptic
theories in the light of this evidence and make some proposals
regarding a possible solution.

The Internal Evidence

The internal evidence relating to the synoptic problem is
complex and confusing. There is consequently a great temptation
to make oversimplified generalizations, construct one's theory,
and then ignore or beat into submission any recalcitrant facts.
Having said this, we only have space to sketch the data !
17
Bernard Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark (Manchester: Koinonia,
1976).
18
Austin Ferrar, "On Dispensing with Q," Studies in the Gospels, ed.
D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), pp. 55-86.
19
A. W. Argyle, "Evidence for the View that St. Luke Used St.
Matthew's Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964), 390-396.
20
R. T. Simpson, "The Major Agreements of Matthew and Luke
Against Mark," New Testament Studies 12 (1966), 273-284.
21
Nigel Turner, "Q in Recent Thought," Expository Times 88 (1969),
324-328.
22
George W. Buchanan, "Current Synoptic Studies: Orchard, the
Griesbach Hypothesis and Other Alternatives," Religion in Life 46
(1977), 415-425.
136 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Basically this data can be divided into three categories, in

each of which the synoptic Gospels show both similarities and
differences. These areas are: (1) content, both main incidents
and details; (2) order, both between and within incidents; and
(3) wording, both vocabulary and particular grammatical forms.
Alford well summarized the situation a century ago: 23
The phenomena presented will be much as follows: first, per-
haps, we shall have three, five or more words identical ; then
as many wholly distinct ; then two clauses or more, expressed
in the same words but differing order ; then a clause contained
in one or two and not in the third ; then several words identi-
cal; then a clause not only wholly distinct, but apparently
inconsistent ; and so forth, with recurrences of the same arbi-
trary and anomalous alterations, coincidences and transposi-
tions. Nor does this description apply to verbal and sentential
arrangement only; but also, with slight modification, to that
of the larger portions of the narrative.
Let us consider content first. In view of the fact that John
speaks of the enormous number of events during Jesus' ministry
(20:30; 21:25), it is rather surprising how much overlap there
is between the three synoptic Gospels. Of course, we would
expect overlap on the unique and crucial incidents of Jesus'
ministry, such as his baptism and temptation, the feeding of
the five thousand, Peter's confession, the transfiguration, tri-
umphal entry, trial, death and resurrection. We would also ex-
pect overlap in general features such as Jesus' popularity,
miraculous works, parabolic teaching and the growing opposition
from the leaders. What is surprising is the synoptics' unanimous
presentation of such specific miracles as the healing of Peter's
mother-in-law ( 13,47),24 a certain leper (45), the paralytic
(52), the man with a withered hand (70), and blind Bartimaeus
(193), since Jesus must have performed hundreds or thousands
of healings during several years of ministry. All three Gospels
also give the parable of the sower (90), with Jesus' reasons for
23
Henry C. Alford, The Greek New Testament, revised by E. F. Har-
rison (Chicago: Moody, 1958), 1:5].
24
Numbers are sections in the Greek synopsis of Albert Huck and
Hans Lietzmann, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, 9th ed. (New
York: American Bible Society, 1936) ; the same sections are used in the
English synopsis of Burton H. Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels, 3rd ed.
(Nashville: Nelson, 1967).
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 137

teaching in parables (91) and the interpretation of the sower

(93), the parables of the wicked tenants (204) and the fig tree
budding (220), the question about fasting (54), plucking grain
on the Sabbath (69), the dispute about greatness (129), blessing
the little children (188), the rich young ruler (189), and three
predictions of Jesus' death (122,127,191), not to mention other
incidents. There are in addition many more incidents duplicated
in two of the three Gospels. This is in striking contrast with the
much smaller overlap with John, which is more like one would
antecedently expect. This close similarity of content naturally
suggests that the synoptic Gospels depend upon one of them-
selves or upon some common source, which Gospel or source
made a definite selection from far more numerous materials.
If we try to visualize this content overlap by the number of
verses involved (the numbers are approximate since parallel
passages do not necessarily have the same number of verses),
we can present the situation in a diagram using three overlapping

circles; each of which represents one Gospel.25 The shaded sec-

tion is material shared by all three synoptics, about 480 verses
in each. In addition, there are roughly 300 verses shared by two
of the three — most by Matthew and Luke, somewhat less by
Matthew and Mark, little by Mark and Luke. Most notable is
the fact that, although Matthew and Luke have considerable
material peculiar to each, Mark has very litttle not found in one
of the others. Some have interpreted this as evidence that Mat-

25
Estimates are from Joseph B. Tyson, A Study of Early Christianity
(New York: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 184-185.
138 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

thew and Luke used Mark (two-document theory), but others

that Mark used Matthew and Luke, concentrating on their over-
lapping material (Griesbach hypothesis). Both are consistent
with this data, but neither is required by it.
A discussion of details related to content is beyond the scope
of this paper. Only a careful examination of the Gospels in
parallel columns will suffice to get a feel for the data. It ranges
from striking similarity on some points {e.g., the parentheses:
"he said to the paralytic" (52) and "let the reader understand"
(216)) to sharp differences on others {e.g., the number of:
demoniacs (51,106), blind men (193), crowings (241) and
angels (253)). The former cases exert pressure against oral
source theories, the latter against written source theories.
Next let us consider the evidence of order, both in main inci-
dents (pericopes) and details within an incident. Several papers
have dealt with this matter in recent years by Porúbcan (1964), 26
Honoré (1968), 27 Sanders (1969) 28 and Tyson (1976). 29 The
synoptic Gospels agree in the general order of events in Jesus'
ministry: that it began (1) during John the Baptist's ministry,
(2) moved into Galilee, (3) then to Judea, (4) finally to Jeru-
salem, where Jesus suffered, died and rose from the deaf!. But
there is much more agreement than this ; let us look at the order
in more detail.
Nothing can be said about order where a Gospel has incidents
not mentioned in the others. The 480 verses where Matthew,
Mark and Luke all overlap (often called the Triple Tradition)
consist of 72 pericopes. Porúbcan notes that 42 pericopes in-
cluded in the periods (1), (3) and (4), above, occur in the
same order in all three Gospels. The 30 pericopes of (2), the
Galilean ministry, are also in basically the same order, though
there are a few places where either Matthew or Luke individu-

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

11 of Matthew vs. Luke, none of Mark vs. Luke, 6 of Matthew

and Mark vs. Luke, 2 of Mark and Luke vs. Matthew, and one
of Matthew and Luke vs. Mark. However, Sanders32 finds
several more examples where Matthew and Luke agree against
Mark. If valid, these are troublesome for the two-document
hypothesis. Of Sanders' four "clear cases," one is Hawkins'
(above) and another is equally strong, both involving the order
of materials within a pericope. The two other cases have nearly
identical statements located in different pericopes. A proponent
of the two-document theory would presumably explain these
as examples of similar material in Mark and Q, where both
Matthew and Luke happened to follow Q. Sanders also gives
three additional cases, which seem quite weak to me.
The argument from order has generally been one of the
strongest for the two-document theory, yet Sanders notes many
other cases where either: (1) passages are differently placed
in all three Gospels; (2) Mark differs from one Gospel when
the other has no parallel; or (3) Matthew and Luke put the
same "Q" material in the same place relative to Mark. To the
extent these examples are valid, the proponent of the two-
document theory must either expand the size of Q until it begins
to look like Matthew (moving toward Augustine's or Griesbach's
theories) or concede that Luke and Matthew did not use their
material independently (alleviating any need for Q).
Let us now consider the verbal evidence related to the synoptic
problem. According to Honoré33 there are somewhat over
10,000 words in Mark and somewhat under 20,000 each in
Matthew and Luke. All three Gospels overlap in passages con-
taining about 8,000 words. If we define verbal agreement as the
use of the same vocabulary word in the same grammatical form
in a.common passage, then the Triple Tradition has over 1800
verbal agreements between all three Gospels. In addition, there
are nearly 2000 double verbal agreements between Matthew
and Mark, over 600 between Matthew and Luke and over 1000
between Mark and Luke. The exact figures he gives are included
in the chart on the following page:

32
Sanders, "Argument from Order," section III.
33
Honoré, "Statistical Study" ; he gives exact figures.
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 141

Triple Total Non- %

Agree- Double Agreements Agree- Agree- Total Agree-
ments Mt Mk Lk ments ments Words ments
Matthew 1852 — 1908 637 4397 3939 8336 52.7
Mark 1852 1908 — 1039 4799 3831 8630 55.6
Luke 1852 637 1039 — 3528 4356 7884 44.7

Although we are only looking at the so-called Triple Tradition

(similar material in all three synoptics), it is clear that there
is considerable verbal identity, at least in this part of the Gospel
material. It is certainly more than casual memory is likely to
preserve; therefore, oral source theories must postulate some
enhancement, either through direct revelation, divine aid in recall
{cp. John 14:26), ór memorization (either intentional or due to
repeated use). On the other hand, this is pretty substantial
divergence for copying, so written source theories must include
substantial editing. Neither alternative can be ruled out by the
verbal evidence, since ancient society depended much more on
memory than we do; 34 but it was also a common practice in
writing histpries to epitomize and edit existing written sources.35
Looking at the details above, notice that Mark has somewhat
more agreements than either Matthew or Luke. Honoré does
a statistical analysis of this phenomenon and of the order of
incidents. He concludes that both favor Mark as the intermediary
between Matthew and Luke, on the assumption that two Gospels
used the other or others. Mark is intermediary in three schemes:

(i) Mk (2) Mt (3) Lk

/ \ I
Mt Lk Mk Mk

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

Here (2) and (3) have two alternatives, depending on whether

or not there is also direct borrowing between the first and third
Gospel. Of these schemes, (1) is the two-document theory (with
Q ignored) and (2) is Augustine's form of the successive de-
pendence theory. Notice that Griesbach's form is definitely not
favored by this analysis, though no assumptions were made
against it in making the analysis.
If we accept ( 1 ) on this basis, however, the 637 cases where
Matthew and Luke agree verbally against Mark must be ex-
plained, as (according to the two-document view) neither Mat-
thew nor Luke is supposed to be dependent on the other. As
the number of these agreements is more than 1/3 the number of
the triple agreements, it seems hazardous to explain them away,
whether as places where Q and Mark overlap but both Matthew
and Luke prefer Q, or as cases where Matthew and Luke im-
prove Mark's style in exactly the same way, or where later
textual corruption has assimilated Luke (say) to Matthew.
Honoré's further statistical studies, which favor the priority of
Mark and the existence of Q, do not deal with this problem.
We have now surveyed the more basic material which func-
tions as internal evidence for the synoptic problem. We have
not considered arguments that certain material in one Gospel is
"more primitive" than that in another. Such arguments fre-
quently depend on debatable interpretations of the passages
involved, and they always depend on definitions of "develop-
ment" (such as increase in: refinement, respect for Jesus,
miraculous elements; and loss of picturesque details). Sanders36
has shown these tests to be unreliable in comparing the canoni-
cal Gospels (early) with apocryphal ones (late). Such tenden-
cies as seem to be reliable by this comparison show no more
evidence of primitivity in Mark than in Matthew.
Before we move on to external evidence, let us review the
status of various theories in the light of the internal evidence we
have considered. The Ur-Gospel and Griesbach theories are able
to explain the similar order in the synoptics satisfactorily by
means of borrowing. In the first, all follow the order of the
hypothetical original Gospel pretty closely, though Mark's order
is closest. The Griesbach theory sees Mark following the order

36
Sanders, Tendencies.
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 143

of Matthew and Luke alternatively, therefore always agreeing

with at least one of them. The Augustinian model seems more
strained here: basically Mark follows Matthew with occasional
divergence ; Luke always prefers Mark's order to Matthew's, but
does not always follow Mark himself !
The most serious problem for the Ur-Gospel, Griesbach and
Augustinian views is the lack of agreement between Matthew
and Luke in the order of what we will call the "Q" material.
This must have had some order in the original Gospel (whether
Ur- or Matthew). Why does Luke or Matthew depart from
this order when they pretty well follow the order of their original
otherwise? This problem seems to be nearly insurmountable at
present. The burden of proof is certainly upon proponents of
such views to come up with a reasonable explanation.
The two-document theory has a natural explanation for the
fact that Matthew and Luke never agree against Mark in order
of pericopes: they have followed his order pretty closely. It
also naturally explains the divergent order in the "Q" material,
though the shadow this casts on the historical reliability of
Matthew and Luke (who disagree in inserting saying into
various contexts) should give evangelicals pause about adopting
it wholeheartedly. Statistical study of the verbal similarities also
favors this view, though not to the exclusion of the Augustinian.
The main problems for the two-document theory involve
details. Can we really get rid of 637 cases of verbal identity
(where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark) by expanding
Q, invoking stylistic improvements or later textual assimilation?
If we expand Q, it begins to pick up more narrative elements,
which then undercut the usual explanation why the material
was located differently by Matthew and Luke in the first place.
If we allow much textual corruption, statistical arguments like
Honoré's go down the drain, since many of his values on which
he draws conclusions do not differ by much.
The oral theory is quite flexible but also quite vague. It makes
few predictions, but is not so easily attacked. Unless further
developed, it does not offer an explanation why there should be
so much overlap in the content of the synoptics. The verbal dis-
similarities fit oral transmission well enough, but the verbal
agreements and striking parallels in content require a substan-
tially memorized body of material. The striking divergences in
144 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

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.

The External Evidence

Let us now turn to external evidence related to the synoptic
problem. The first matter to consider, though it does not neces-
sarily bear on the question, is the authorship of the Gospels.
The text of the Gospels (setting aside the titles for the moment)
is anonymous, in that none says "I, Matthew, wrote this," or
something of the sort. Yet the prologue of Luke suggests that
its author was known to Theophilus, its recipient and patron;
Luke, at least, was not anonymous at first. This is significant in
view of the fact that early Christian tradition is unanimous in
assigning these Gospels to Matthew, Mark and Luke, and that
the earliest surviving manuscripts have titles also, all of which
give the traditional authors only. This is most easily explained
if indeed these were the authors and it was common knowledge
in the early church. Otherwise one must explain both the com-
plete loss of the correct information and its complete replace-
ment by a single set of spurious names — none of which is
otherwise particularly prominent.
If one accepts both the two-document theory and the tradi-
tional authors {e.g., if one is a two-document evangelical),
there is the anomalous situation that Matthew, an apostle and
eyewitness, copied a substantial fraction of his work from Mark,
a mere assistant with little first-hand knowledge of Jesus' min-
istry. This is not impossible, but it certainly requires a special
explanation.
Let us next look at the order in which the Gospels were
written. Tradition definitely favors Matthew's priority over
Mark's. It is true that our earliest witness Papias (c. 130), in
the few fragments presently known from his writings, does not
make any explicit statements about order. Yet his remark about
Matthew's "logia" —
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 145

Then Matthew wrote the oracles (τα λόγια) in the Hebrew

87
dialect, but everyone interpreted them as he was able

— 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

Now Matthew published a book of the Gospel among the

Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were
preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church. After
their departure (έξοδος) Mark, the disciple and interpreter
of Peter, also handed down to us in writing the things
preached by Peter.

Clement of Alexandria, a younger contemporary of Irenaeus,

repeats a "tradition of the early presbyters" that the "Gospels
which contain the genealogies" {i.e., Matthew and Luke) "were
written first."39 Neither Irenaeus nor Clement seem to depend
directly on Papias, unless one has decided that Papias must be
the sole source of all tradition on Matthew and Mark! Later
testimony by Origen,40 Eusebius,41 and Jerome42 also puts Mat­
thew first, though these are writing long after the events and
probably depend on earlier writers.
There is disagreement on the relative order of Mark and Luke
in tradition. Clement explicitly puts Mark third,43 but Origen
37
Papias, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord ; only scattered frag­
ments remain, this one quoted in Eusebius, Church History 3.39.16. The
traditional materials on the Gospels are conveniently presented in both
the original Greek or Latin and an English translation in Daniel J.
Theron, Evidence of Tradition (London: Bowes and Bowes, 1957),
recently reprinted by Baker Book House.
38
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.2, now extant only in Latin transla­
tion; this passage is quoted in the original Greek by Eusebius, Church
History 5.8.2.
39
Clement, Outlines, cited in Eusebius, Church History 6.14.5.
40
Origen, Commentary on Matthew, cited in Eusebius, Church His­
tory, 6.25.3.
41
Eusebius, Church History 3.24.5.
42
Jerome, Commentary on Matthew ; Illustrious Men 3.
43
Clement, loc. cit.
146 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

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

at all, but to Q. 47 This allows the order Q, Mark, Matthew,

Luke or Q, Mark, Luke, Matthew — but only at the price of
rejecting the testimony of Irenaeus and Clement. They are dis­
missed as (1) dependent on Papias alone, and (2) misunder­
standing him. This is a rather precarious position, as Irenaeus
is more likely to have gotten his information from Polycarp
than Papias, and Clement claims to depend on several "early
presbyters."48 In addition, the common claim that Papias' term
λόγια better describes a sayings-source like Q than a Gospel like
Matthew49 ignores Papias' own usage: λόγια are what Papias
himself is expounding, yet he includes Jesus' actions as well as
his words; 50 he applies the term in speaking of Mark, which
involves "things either said or done by the Lord."51
We should consider two other significant points in the tradi­
tion on the synoptic Gospels: the language of Matthew and the
connection of Mark with Peter. The citations of Papias and
Irenaeus, above, sufficiently illustrate the former, which is a
regular feature of the tradition. The natural understanding is
that Matthew wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew. The suggestion that
this refers to a Hebraistic form of Greek seems unlikely: it
assumes Papias is the sole source and (again) misunderstood;
it does not fit very well with Papias' remark that "everyone
interpreted them as he was able." On the other hand, the extant
Greek text of Matthew is not generally considered to be "transla­
tion Greek"52 — the kind of Greek seen in the Septuagint trans­
lation of the Hebrew Old Testament.
The connection between Mark's Gospel and Peter is seen in
Papias: 53
And this the Presbyter used to say: Mark, indeed, since he
was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in
47
V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents (Cambridge:
University Press, 1923) ; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London:
SCM, 1949).
48
Clement, loc. cit.
49
Stanton, Gospels, pp. 53ff; Manson, Sayings, pp. 18-19.
50
According to Eusebius, Church History 3.39.16, who says Papias
narrated a story of "a woman accused of many sins before the Lord."
51
Eusebius, Church History 3.39.15.
52
Harrison, Introduction to the N.T., p. 169; see discussion in Guthrie,
N.T. Introduction, pp. 46-47.
53
Eusebius, Church History 3.39.15.
148 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

order the things either said or done by the Lord as much as

he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed
him, but afterwards, as I have said, Peter, who fitted his dis-
courses to the needs but not as if making a narrative of the
Lord's oracles ; consequently, Mark, writing some things just
as he remembered, erred in nothing ; for he was careful of one
thing — not to omit anything of the things he had heard or
to falsify anything in them.
That Mark's Gospel is Peter's preaching is quite clear, in spite
of obscurities regarding some other matters. Justin Martyr
(c. 150), in referring to material which only occurs in Mark,
appears to speak of Peter's "memoirs,"54 though possibly he
means Christ's memoirs. Irenaeus definitely connects Mark's
Gospel to Peter, as noted above. Clement's testimony should
also be noted:55

. . . the Gospel according to Mark had this occasion: When

Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome and had de-
clared the Gospel by the Spirit, those who were present — they
were many — besought Mark, since he had followed him for
a long time and remembered the things that had been spoken,
to write out the things that had been said ; and when he had
done this, he gave the Gospel to those who had asked him.
When Peter learned of it later, he neither obstructed nor
encouraged it.
To summarize the external evidence relevant to the synoptic
problem, we note that a substantial tradition indicates all three
Gospels were written no later than the sixties ; that Matthew was
written first, apparently in Aramaic or Hebrew; that Mark or
Luke was second; and that Mark preserves the testimony of
Peter. This evidence is unfavorable to the Ur-Gospel theory
unless the original Gospel is taken to be the Semitic form of
Matthew. It gives a very different order for the writing of the
Gospels than does the two-document theory. The orders given
fit either the Augustinian or Griesbach models, but tradition
does not have Mark using either of the other written Gospels
as these theories do.

54
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 106.
55
Clement, loc. cit.
 T H E SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 149

Some Suggestions for a Synthesis

The data of the synoptic problem presents a puzzle. Internal
evidence generally favors the two-document theory, or at least
Markan priority; external evidence favors Matthean priority.
How is this to be resolved? It has been common practice to
dismiss the external evidence, since the church fathers can no
longer be cross-examined, while we can still examine all the in-
ternal evidence. This is true, but it should be balanced by the
observation that the interpretation of internal evidence can be
rather subjective, and it does not exactly fit any of the simple
documentary theories anyway.
Suppose that, instead of ignoring the external evidence and
constructing the simplest model that (almost) fits.the internal
data, we try to give both a fair shake. Our biggest problem is
the question of the relative priority of Matthew and Mark. Here
let us note that the internal evidence and the external evidence
are not necessarily looking at the same thing. Internal evidence
suggests that the content of Mark is (generally) prior to
Matthew ; external evidence that the writing of Matthew is prior
to Mark.
Tradition tells us that Mark preserves the preaching of Peter.
The New Testament indicates (without papal overtones) the
pre-eminence of Peter among the apostles, especially in his ac-
tivity as principal spokesman during those early years when
all the apostles remained together. If we suppose that Peter or
the apostles in concert made a selection of materials from the
life of Christ to form their basic Gospel presentation, then the
common part of the synoptics may be explained as the apostolic
testimony. This would be an oral Gospel very much like Mark,
though perhaps lacking certain features of Peter's vivid person-
ality— a sort of proto-Mark.
Matthew would naturally use this oral Gospel in composing a
written one, though he has supplemented it with some of the
detailed teaching of Jesus as well as information on his birth.
Luke, too, would use the apostolic testimony (so he claims,
Luke 1:2), but he has done independent research to supplement
it (Luke 1:3). Much of the verbal similarity shared by Matthew
and Luke but not Mark is in this view due to repetition in
150 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Jesus' teaching, not guesswork in dividing up a sayings-source

Q. The relative shortness of Mark compared with Matthew and
Luke is then seen as a reflection of Peter's own action-oriented
personality: his additions to the apostolic testimony were largely
matters of color rather than additional incidents or discourses.
This view naturally explains how sometimes Matthew (and
even Luke) will seem more primitive, since they do not depend
on our written Mark; how they may on occasion agree against
Mark in wording or order, though they generally seem to follow
him. The rougher style of Mark is explained by its being a
transcript of oral presentation, rather than a literary work. The
fine Hebrew poetic structure seen regularly in Matthew is then
the creation of Jesus rather than of some unknown (Semitic)
genius in the early church.
Two problems come to mind with this proposal. The first is
the tradition of an Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew. Could the
synoptics be as close together verbally as they are if Matthew
was not originally in Greek? Could our present Matthew be
a translation of a Semitic original? If there was such a docu-
ment, why would it disappear? We only have room to sketch
an answer to each of these. In reverse order: any document will
tend to disappear if it is preserved only by copying and there is
no one who knows its language who is interested in copying it.
The original Aramaic of Josephus has disappeared to this day.
The Hebrew Bible disappeared from Christian circles and the
Greek Bible from Western Europe, only to be recovered in
modern times because there were other groups who continued
to copy them. Our present Matthew could easily be a trans-
lation if the translation technique was more like that used on
Josephus' works (translated by the author) than that used by
the translators of the Septuagint. Lastly, if the apostolic testi-
mony existed in both a Greek and Semitic oral form (as the
church was bilingual from the start), then Matthew may have
used the Greek form in preparing his later Greek version of the
Gospel.
The other problem is Irenaeus' dating of the Gospel of
Matthew in the sixties. Here I would suggest that perhaps
Irenaeus confused two traditions, putting the fact of its original
Semitic form together with the date of its later publication in
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 151

Greek. I propose an early date for the Semitic Matthew (forties

or fifties), followed by Luke in the late fifties or early sixties,
then by the Greek Matthew while Peter and Paul were preach-
ing in Rome, and finally by Mark in the mid-sixties.
This proposal, I think does reasonable justice to both in-
ternal and external evidence, though I stand ready to be cor-
rected. It is also consistent with the New Testament picture of
the history and character of the apostolic period and with the
biblical doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

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 ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.