ODD WAYS OF STUDYING THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
The Reason For, and Method To, My Madness

-by Brian Lawson

Introduction:

This article is, in part, an attempt to provide a list of resources for studying the Synoptic Problem. But my hope is that readers will find this presentation more interesting and informative than if I simply provided a list titled, "The Synoptic Problem – a Bibliography". What follows will reveal my own course through the complex issue, explain why I bothered to be concerned with the "problem", and identify some of the "odd" paths of study that I followed in order to try to understand the mystery known as the Synoptic Problem.

The Beginnings of Madness

Looking back, a madness, or an insanity of sorts, started on the day that a man told me, without any reservation or lack of certainty, that the gospel of Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke copied, edited, and added to that first written gospel. In that statement, the "Synoptic Problem" was solved in his mind and not to be doubted. It wasn’t as if I had never heard of the "Synoptic Problem" (which is the "problem" or mystery why the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke look so much, but not exactly, alike). I had certainly heard the "answer" that this person suggested, but I had never thoroughly studied the issue. Therefore, if someone could be so confident that one particular theory was "The Answer" to the Synoptic Problem, I needed to find out if such confidence was warranted.

Perhaps my intense concern over all of this is due to the fact that after this person (a critic of Christianity) stated his unwavering confidence in one idea, I went on to find the same boldly held conclusion by many who are critical of Christianity and the Bible. In fact, most critics referred to the "priority of Mark" as if it is established to the point of little or no contest. Just read the following quotations, and you’ll see what I mean:

James Still – "The Gospel of Mark is the first written gospel. This is referred to as the priority of Mark because Luke and Matthew used Mark as a reference in composing their own gospels some twenty or so years later." (What is a Gospel?; http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/gospel.html)

– "The Gospel of Mark is the first written gospel. This is referred to as the of Mark because Luke and Matthew used Mark as a reference in composing their own gospels some twenty or so years later." (?; )

Frank Zindler – "It is clear that the gospels of Matthew and Luke could not possibly have been written by an eye-witness of the tales they tell. Both writers plagiarize (largely word-for-word) up to 90% of the gospel of Mark, to which they add sayings of Jesus and would-be historical details….But what about the gospel of Mark, the oldest surviving gospel? " (Did Jesus Exist? The American Atheist, Summer 1998 http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html)

– "It is clear that the gospels of Matthew and Luke could not possibly have been written by an eye-witness of the tales they tell. Both writers plagiarize (largely word-for-word) up to 90% of the gospel of Mark, to which they add sayings of Jesus and would-be historical details….But what about the gospel of Mark, the oldest surviving gospel? " ( , Summer 1998 )

Earl Doherty – "That "Mark" wrote first and was reworked by "Matthew" and "Luke," with other material added, is now an accepted principle by a majority of scholars. Some of the problems which called Markan priority into question, such as those passages in which Matthew and Luke agree in wording but differ from that of similar passages in Mark, have been solved by another telling realization: that each of the canonical Gospels is the end result of an early history of writing and re-writing, including additions and excisions. …We owe the most enduring tale Western culture has produced to the literary genius of Mark." (The Evolution of Jesus of Nazareth; http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partthre.htm)

– "That "Mark" wrote first and was reworked by "Matthew" and "Luke," with other material added, is now an accepted principle by a majority of scholars. Some of the problems which called Markan priority into question, such as those passages in which Matthew and Luke agree in wording but differ from that of similar passages in Mark, have been solved by another telling realization: that each of the canonical Gospels is the end result of an early history of writing and re-writing, including additions and excisions. …We owe the most enduring tale Western culture has produced to the literary genius of Mark." (; )

Steven Carr – "As a result of these textual comparisons, it was noticed that Matthew and Luke seemed to be written after Mark and to use Mark as a written source…Many Biblical scholars argue that , for these verses, Matthew and Luke must have used another written source, which is usually called "Q". The existence of Q is disputed, however it is almost universally agreed that Matthew and Luke knew of, and used, Mark." (Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts?; http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm)

– "As a result of these textual comparisons, it was noticed that Matthew and Luke seemed to be written after Mark and to use Mark as a written source…Many Biblical scholars argue that , for these verses, Matthew and Luke must have used another written source, which is usually called "Q". The existence of Q is disputed, however it is almost universally agreed that Matthew and Luke knew of, and used, Mark." (?; )

All of these secular critics are referring to "the priority of Mark" with great certainty that it is an essential part of "The Answer" to the Synoptic Problem. (I say "part" because the "priority of Mark" is an essential part of several theories that include this idea as an answer to the Synoptic Problem.) Also, I noticed that critics refer to the priority of Mark as a basis to further criticize the origins of the New Testament gospels. So I realized that I needed to look into the matter as much as possible in order to find out if these critics had any warrant to build more theories on the one theory that they were accepting as if some sort of well-established fact. I also wanted to know what Christians thought of the Synoptic Problem and any of the proposed answers.

The Mild, Reasonable Reactions

Although the stage had been set for my insanity over the Synoptic Problem, I started off my investigation with reasonable methods of study. First, I began to read the arguments and opinions of those that I regarded as having a "scholarly opinion" in the matter.

As far as "free" reading materials on the internet, the most helpful resource for general information and definitions on the Synoptic Problem was found at: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/index.html. This is one of the best places to begin a study of the "problem" and all of the proposed "answers". Carlson’s website is one of the few resources that does not appear to openly promote any one theoretical answer over another, but simply provides the facts. Another free resource for studying the basics is found at: http://www.cresourcei.org/synoptic.html. This link is also free of attempts to persuade readers of any one answer.

The reading materials that I found helpful were not all uncommitted to any one solution, but that was no surprise. Helpful, but definitely arguing against the Two Source Theory (that Mark and another document "Q" were written first and used/edited by Matthew and Luke for the writing of their gospels), are two books that I had from my Bible college days. Conservative scholars R.C. Foster¹ and H.C. Theissen² argued for a common oral tradition and perhaps some common written tradition (but only portions of the gospel materials) as an answer to the Synoptic Problem³. This was the "answer" that I had always leaned toward probably due to the influence of reading these books back in 1986 (but with little concern, understanding, and concentration when I first encountered the issue). Also I found that R.V.G. Tasker⁴, and R. Alan Cole⁵ were, in their respective commentaries, proposing a different theory than any (like the Two Source Theory) which suppose that Mark was written first. So, at least as far as Christian scholarship is concerned, I was finding out that there were some respectable scholars with good reasons to disagree with the favorite theory of the critics.

However, I soon found out that some of those that I consider "conservative" Christians have the same favorite "answer" to the Synoptic Problem as the secular critics that I mentioned above. Daniel Wallace, of the Dallas Theological Seminary, shows his support of the Two Source Theory (hence the priority of Mark) at the following: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm. Also at http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/synop.htm, Wallace explains the theological ramifications of his position to someone concerned about his view of the inspiration of the gospels in light of accepting the Two Source Theory (or any other literary interdependence theory) as an answer to the Synoptic Problem. Nevertheless, in the first link, Wallace utilizes Robert H. Stein’s outline of argumentation found in, Studying the Synoptic Gospels⁶. Stein’s book is a very valuable resource for studying the Synoptic Problem, and is written from (what I consider) a conservative Christian viewpoint. To my own momentary confusion, I read from these Christians, and others, who accepted the Two Source Theory, or at least the Markan Priority aspect. Some of my favorites, Leon Morris⁷, Gordon D. Fee⁸, and ITW’s own Mark McFall⁹, were either leaning in that direction, or fairly confident that such is the best answer.

Other respectable authors that I read came out both for a Marcan Priority based answer, and against. As far as what I read, Goodacre¹⁰ shares some interesting points for Markan Priority in his article Fatigue in the Synoptics found at: http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/fatigue.htm . Very much against the Markan Priority based "answers" was an article by William R. Farmer – The Present State of the Synoptic Problem that I found at http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/farmer.htm. Looking into any of the references that I’ve mentioned so far, you can see that there are endless books and articles on the subject of the Synoptic Problem¹¹. I must admit that I have read very few resources in proportion to what has been written on the subject.

Perhaps you’ve guessed already that I was becoming filled with all sorts of theoretical answers with arguments for each, all because I was trying to figure out why anyone could be so confident about any one theoretical answer. Even touching just the "tip of the iceberg" in studying this issue, I was also feeling mixed up in all of the complexity of the Synoptic Problem. And so madness came over me, and I turned to stranger behaviors in my desire to clear up the confusion in my mind.

The Odd Behaviors

I never stripped naked and ran through the streets screaming that the sky was falling. If you saw someone doing that, it wasn’t me. But, I pursued two other methods of research that had others wondering about me. So, as embarrassing as this is, let me identify and explain what those crazy behaviors included.

Not meaning to stall here, but before I explain my "odd behaviors", I should mention that others thought I was strange for studying the issue much to any degree. My own wife was wondering about me for just reading books about the Synoptic Problem. "Another one of your nerd books," she’d say. Well, I’ll explain more about that comment a few paragraphs from here as well as the whole group that views one’s interest in the Synoptic Problem as something strange. But I should get on with my confession.

Odd Behavior #1

The first "odd behavior" was to put together my own gospel synopses in the New American Standard Updated (NASU) version, and color-code the similar words in some fashion. I committed to make a complete set of color-coded synopses and not merely start a few and stop. Starting in the fall of 2001, and finishing in the summer of 2003, I am guilty of creating the ITW Gospel Synopses. [By the way, if you are wondering what a gospel synopsis is, it is simply an arrangement made to "see together", in a side by side format, any one narrative or teaching (or information) that two or more gospels share in common for the sake of comparison. A complete set of gospel synopses attempts to provide a synopsis for each apparent similarity between gospels.]

The very act of putting gospel synopses together and comparing them is nothing strange in itself. As a matter of fact, gospel scholars have been doing things like this for centuries¹². Color-coding such comparisons is also recommended among teachers of gospel material¹³. One may purchase or access other sets of gospel synopses¹⁴.

Nevertheless, taking on a project to create a full set of synopses and study them seemed out of line with some who said they had studied the issue enough to be sure of one particular answer. These said that the arguments for the priority of Mark are enough – why bother with synopses, and to such an extent? Well, I was mad, nuts, insane…right? And though I believe that the end result of the ITW color-coded gospel synopses in the NASU translation is beneficial for studying various items in the gospels, they have not served to persuade me that any of the proposed answers to the Synoptic Problem are clearly demonstrated as proven. Having made the effort, I see the Synoptic "Problem" for what it is, but not the clear answer. Perhaps I should have produced the synopses in Greek, but that is beyond my capabilities. Even among those who are capable of such, there is still disagreement on what answers the problem.

Odd Behavior #2

In addition to creating a complete set of coded synopses, I decided to develop and distribute a set of questions about the Synoptic Problem. The purpose of this questionnaire was to simply find out what various Bible students think is the "answer" to the "problem" and what degree of interest or study effort they’ve put into the issue. I posed this as a sort of survey, or poll, since I had already become aware that the responses would vary. So, here are the questions that I asked:

1. Identify if you are a non-Christian or Christian. Be more specific if you want (denomination, etc).
2. Yes or no (or no opinion) - Is it your opinion or belief that the gospel of Mark was written first and used by the authors of Matthew & Luke as a written source for their gospels?
3. If "Yes" to "b", is your position also that the authors of Matthew & Luke used a written source which people refer to as "Q" (Yes or no, or no opinion)?
4. If you have an opinion or position other than "Yes" to either "b" or "c", please specify if you can. (Such as another known theory for the Synoptic Problem).
5. How certain are you in your position regarding questions b, c, (& d) (leaning that direction, fairly certain, very sure, just wanted to participate in the poll)?
6. *option* To what degree do you believe that you have studied the issue (not at all, a little, enough, much)?
   

I asked several informed individuals, entire e-mail discussion lists, and various friends, to fill out my questionnaire. The total group of potential responders was about 300-400 people. However, only about 50 people responded! Embarrassing… So let me say that I do not have enough responses to offer any statistical data on what the general opinions are regarding the Synoptic Problem and/or the questions that I asked.

Certain factors indicated that asking any more people to participate would not be fruitful. Such identifies the first thing that I learned from this questionnaire. In today’s world of crazy scams and e-mail spams, people don’t want to say much to someone they don’t know and trust. I suppose I should have known better. But this factor was one reason that kept one very informed e-mail list (one dedicated specifically to discussion of the synoptic gospels) from participating.

The second thing that I learned from the questionnaire is that few people know enough of what the Synoptic Problem is to even have an opinion. This is something that I guessed all along, but the reactions and comments confirmed that in comparison to all of the world’s problems, that the Synoptic Problem is probably one of the least thought about. In comparison to any other Bible related issue and concern, this one rates near the bottom in interest. One who filled out the questionnaire remarked, "In college and seminary, that was the only place it was made an issue of. Ask "John Doe" about [the Synoptic Problem] and he will suppose you are discussing some new fiber optic cable." All of this indicated to me that even if I was able to get many people to respond, that very few know the issue well enough for an informed opinion.

It was never my intent to use the questionnaire to validate any of the proposed "answers" by popular opinion. One who reacted to my questionnaire stated well that, "things like this are not settled by polls or majority rule. They are determined by scholarship and the analysis of the best evidence, not what the most popular belief is." This person thought my behavior was odd for applying a poll to an academic / scholarly issue. However, the same person also said, "The question…is, why do you, or would you, think Markan priority is false? What evidence do you have that shows the opposite of what scholars have determined and known for years?" Examining his statement carefully, we can see that he might have contradicted himself when making an appeal to what he must be thinking is the majority opinion among scholars. However, this person may have meant to make the point that I’ve wished to make about opinions among scholars regarding the Synoptic Problem – that any majority of opinion on this issue is irrelevant. It’s not that scholarly opinion and analysis is irrelevant. Unfortunately, proponents of Markan priority are often guilty of appealing to what they say is the majority opinion among scholars as if the number of scholarly proponents makes for a meaningful argument. For that matter, I know of no reliable survey that has determined a majority opinion among scholars, irrelevant as that may be.

Although it was not my purpose to determine truth by means of an opinion poll, I sincerely wanted to find out if there are any trends for prevailing opinions within various groups regarding the Synoptic Problem. The only clear trend among groups was that secular non-Christian respondents were 19 out of 20 (95%) in favor of a Markan priority based "answer", where 1 out of 20 had no opinion. Although 20 respondents (the actual number) can hardly be representative for all secular non-Christian persons informed on the issue, it is a trend of opinion that I still suspect is representative for that group. Otherwise, I did not gather enough responses to my questionnaire to really know anything about what various Christian and non-Christian groups think about the issue. Such an opinion survey needs to be performed by a trustworthy and experienced organization for gathering such data – not me. I’m just a person who attempted some odd methods of studying the Synoptic Problem.

A Cure for My Madness

Gradually I was healed of my temporary insanity over the Synoptic Problem. Several realizations produced a calming of my mind and heart over the issue, forming a perspective that allows me to deal with the "problem" rationally. Those realizations are as follows:

1. Having followed the course of both reasonable and odd methods of studying the issue, I’ve recognized that the available facts do not provide a clear answer to the Synoptic Problem. Someday, if anyone is interested, I may explain why I don’t buy into any of the Markan priority based answers or any of those answers which suggest a literary dependence of one New Testament gospel upon any one or more of the other New Testament gospels. But that is beyond the scope of this article. For now, I’m saying that I can live with the facts and appreciate the Synoptic Problem without being certain that any of the proposed answers, even the one I lean toward, is well established or proven¹⁵.
2. After reading a few Christian authors who lean toward any of the Markan priority based literary dependence theories, I can appreciate these theories and understand why the priority of Mark is a popularly held idea. Although I don’t agree that it is the best solution, if the priority of Mark was proven to be true, I wouldn’t see that as a strong basis for what many Bible critics make of the theory. The conservative Christian authors and scholars who maintain a Markan priority based answer also believe that Mark’s gospel (along with the other three) is based on an apostolic tradition that predates the written work of the author of Mark.
3. Although a thorough study of the gospels can hardly avoid the Synoptic Problem and all of the proposed answers to it, such is an issue that is fairly unimportant in the overall scheme of life. The contents of the gospels that make up the issue are far more valuable and can be overlooked by those examining the gospels only under academic microscopes. I acknowledge the value of studying academic issues like this, but I also realize that what is most valuable can be missed if one is not careful to keep the right balance.

I hope that readers of this article will find the resources, mentioned throughout, helpful in their study of the Synoptic Problem¹⁶. Any who follow some course of study on the issue might benefit from analyzing my reasonable and odd courses through the complex subject. I encourage anyone to study the Synoptic Problem to some degree as long as they don’t go insane over it. Just avoid taking the word of those who seem to be the most certain that any one theoretical answer is just short of being fact.

---------Footnotes---------

1 Foster, R.C., Studies in the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971)

2 Thiessen, Henry C., Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955).

Thiessen, Henry C., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955).

3 Foster appears not to agree with Thiessen’s notion of any sort of common written sources.

Foster appears not to agree with Thiessen’s notion of any sort of common written sources.

4 Tasker, RVG, Tyndale New Testament Commentary on Matthew, (Eerdmans, 1962)

Tasker, RVG, , (Eerdmans, 1962)

5 Cole, R. Alan, Tyndale New Testament Commentary on Mark, (Eerdmans, 1990)

Cole, R. Alan, , (Eerdmans, 1990)

6 Stein, Robert H., Studying the Synoptic Gospels – Origin and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2001)

Stein, Robert H., (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2001)

7 Morris, Leon, Tyndale New Testament Commentary on Luke, (Eerdmans, 1974)

Morris, Leon, , (Eerdmans, 1974)

8 Gordon D. Fee refers to aspects of the 2ST in passing as if accepted in NewTestament Exegesis (Westminster / John Knox) and How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Zondervan).

Gordon D. Fee refers to aspects of the 2ST in passing as if accepted in (Westminster / John Knox) and (Zondervan).

9 According to my own e-mail interaction with Mark McFall (of ITW), he identified his position that the 2ST seems to be the most reasonable solution.

According to my own e-mail interaction with Mark McFall (of ITW), he identified his position that the 2ST seems to be the most reasonable solution.

10 Goodacre, Mark, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002) & The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (Biblical Seminar, 80; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press / Continuum, 2001).

Goodacre, Mark, (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002) & (Biblical Seminar, 80; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press / Continuum, 2001).

11 Please notice the footnotes and bibliographies found in any of the articles and books referenced throughout this article.

Please notice the footnotes and bibliographies found in any of the articles and books referenced throughout this article.

12 Stein, (Studying the Synoptic Gospels, p. 18-25) notes attempts at "harmonizing" gospels as early as the 2^nd century (Diatessaron). However, side by side comparisons of gospels are not known prior to the 16^th century.

Stein, (, p. 18-25) notes attempts at "harmonizing" gospels as early as the 2 century (Diatessaron). However, side by side comparisons of gospels are not known prior to the 16 century.

13 See color coding samples on the following pages:
A Synoptic Gospels Primer by Mahlon Smith - (http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer)
Four Color Synopsis (in Greek) by Steven Carlson (http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/harmony/)
See also instruction for one way of coloring synopses at http://ntgateway.com/maze/synopses.htm.

See color coding samples on the following pages: by Mahlon Smith - () (in Greek) by Steven Carlson ()See also instruction for one way of coloring synopses at .

14 Stein, (Studying the Synoptic Gospels, p. 25) recommends, among others, Kurt Aland’s, Synopsis of the Four Gospels, a 1982 translation of Aland’s Greek, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, published in 1963. See also:
Four Color Synopsis (in Greek) by Steven Carlson (http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/harmony/)
The Five Gospels Parallels (in English – RSV) by John W. Marshall (http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/)
See also references at: http://cranfordville.com/BiblioGospelSynopses.html

Stein, (, p. 25) recommends, among others, Kurt Aland’s, , a 1982 translation of Aland’s Greek, , published in 1963. See also: (in Greek) by Steven Carlson () (in English – RSV) by John W. Marshall ()See also references at:

15 My current position about what "answers" the Synoptic Problem is something similar to that of H.C. Theissen (Introduction to the New Testament, pg 106, 121-128): common oral tradition (Greek) with some circulating pre-gospel written works. However, I’ve stated very little about it because the purpose of this article is not to support my own favorite theory nor argue too much against any other.

My current position about what "answers" the Synoptic Problem is something similar to that of H.C. Theissen (, pg 106, 121-128): common oral tradition (Greek) with some circulating pre-gospel written works. However, I’ve stated very little about it because the purpose of this article is not to support my own favorite theory nor argue too much against any other.

16 Additional references: [See also note #11 (above).]
Books:
Bailey, Kenneth E., Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels, Expository Times 106 (1995).
Gerhardsson, Birger, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001).
Reicke, Bo Ivar. The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels. (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1986).
Links:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html
http://www.tektonics.org/qm/qmhub.html
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html
http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main

Additional references: [See also note # (above).]:Bailey, Kenneth E., , Expository Times 106 (1995).Gerhardsson, Birger, . (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001).Reicke, Bo Ivar. . (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1986).:

---

END                    Updated: 10/18/04       Originally Posted: 9/13/04