The Synoptic Problem and Markan Priority? (Part 2 of 2)

     Those who advocate the Markan Priority (MP) theory as a feasible solution to the Synoptic Problem tend to highlight the similarities among the Synoptics while minimizing the differences. To get an accurate sense of the relationship of these accounts, it is necessary to analyze the texts as they appear in the Greek New Testament rather than in English translations (see W. R. Farmer, Synopticon [1969]). Consider this sample comparison of Matthew 16:24-28, Mark 8:34–9:1, and Luke 9:23-27: fifty-five words (27%) are identical in all three accounts, eighteen words (9%) are identical in only Matthew and Mark, nine words (4%) are identical in only Matthew and Luke, fourteen words (7%) are identical in only Mark and Luke, thirty-five words (17%) are unique to Matthew, forty-eight words (23%) are unique to Mark, and twenty-seven words (13%) are unique to Luke.

     At the risk of over-simplifying the complexities of the debate, the Synoptic Problem, as daunting as it may seem, is only a problem if one begins with the assumption of literary dependency. While Matthew, Mark and Luke admittedly share a number of striking parallels, the glaring differences must also be accounted for, and each writer’s distinctiveness clearly argues for independence. The similarities are readily explained by a combination of the following.
     First, all of the Gospels share the same subject matter. The authors did not base their works strictly on literary sources but on actual people and events. Second, they all share a common background of information. Eyewitness testimony undergirds all three accounts. Matthew himself was an eyewitness and had first-hand knowledge of much of what he records (see Authorship of NT Gospels). Even though he did not personally see or experience everything that is reported (e.g. 1:1–4:11; 17:1-9; 26:3-5; 28:1-15), he was associated with those who did. Mark and Luke were also personally acquainted with eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2; 1 Peter 5:13). Furthermore, in addition to written accounts that may have been available (cf. Luke 1:1), the oral transmission of information would have been quite accurate and consistent in the context of ancient oral cultures (see Oral Transmission).¹ The eyewitnesses were still around as these accounts circulated and would surely have guarded against significant variation.
     It is of interest to note that the highest percentage of literary agreement among the Synoptics is in sections where sayings of Jesus are recorded, demonstrating the extreme care of the early church to preserve the Lord’s teachings. Granted, Jesus and his immediate followers spoke Aramaic, but from Pentecost onwards the oral transmission of the gospel message was not limited to this language (Acts 2:4-11; 8:4; 11:19-20). Since these teachings came to be recorded in Greek, it is only natural to conclude that they had also been verbally communicated in Greek, particularly among the Hellenists, the Greeks, and the bilingual populace of the Roman Empire. In fact, one of the Gospel writers implicitly places himself outside the circle of Aramaic speakers (Acts 1:19).²
     Finally, notwithstanding anti-supernaturalist objections, the influence of the Holy Spirit is a significant factor. There would have been divine assistance provided through revelation (Matthew 10:19-20; John 16:13; Ephesians 3:5) and inspiration (1 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Peter 1:21), along with sharpening the memories of eyewitnesses (John 14:25-26) (see Biblical Inspiration in Perspective).
     The best solution to the Synoptic Problem appears to be the simplest. Although the Independence Proposal is not very popular among the majority of contemporary New Testament scholars (perhaps because it is not complicated enough!), it seems to make the most sense in light of a straightforward evaluation of the available evidence.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The hypothetical Q source, an attempt to explain the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, fails to account for the fact that "the degree of agreement between Matthew and Luke varies widely in the Q material," making it necessary to "postulate a variety of sources, some written, some oral, some in Greek, some in Aramaic, rather than one single written document.... a number of passages where the verbal dissimilarity between the two Gospels is so great that the hypothesis of a common source is less likely ..." (I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian 60-61; cf. also M. Black, Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts 186-96).
     ² The parallels between Luke and John cannot be reasonably explained by literary dependency (see C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel).

Related Posts: Synoptic Problem/Markan Priority 1, Biblical Authorship (Part 1), Biblical Authorship (Part 2), Dating of Luke-Acts, Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel

The Synoptic Problem and Markan Priority? (Part 1 of 2)

via Wikipedia

     The term "synoptic," derived from the Greek sunopsis ("seeing together"), is applied to the first three New Testament Gospels because of the high degree of similarities among them in relation to structure, arrangement, content, style, and vocabulary. Where did Matthew, Mark and Luke get the information that comprises their respective accounts? If they are entirely independent of one other, why are they so much alike? If they all share a literary relationship, how are the striking differences to be explained and how can they serve as three separate witnesses to the life and teachings of Christ? This, briefly stated, is the so-called "Synoptic Problem."
     What is currently regarded in scholarly circles as the most viable option is that the similarities among these documents can only be accounted for on the basis of literary dependence. This basic premise has led to what has become the prevailing method of synoptic analysis known as Redaction Criticism, i.e., the study of how authors have created a literary work by editing and modifying their sources of information. And the foundation of the whole theory is the presumption of Markan priority (MP), i.e., Mark’s Gospel is believed to have been produced first and was then utilized by both Matthew and Luke in compiling their corresponding works. It has been estimated that about 90% of Mark’s material is found in Matthew and about 55% in Luke (see B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels 151, 159-60).
     This popular theory is based on the following observations: (a) Mark is the shortest (the supposition being that Matthew and Luke expanded the material); (b) Mark’s writing style tends to be more awkward (thus Matthew and Luke supposedly smoothed it out); and (c) purportedly Matthew and Luke do not often agree against Mark, while the materials they share in common (not found in Mark) are usually located in a different sequence (see Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: Historical Introduction [4th ed.] 93-96).
     However, contrary to the confident assertions of MP theorists, this artful proposal is neither a proven fact nor a satisfactory explanation. It does not account for the approximately 230 agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark,¹ which has compelled critics to surmise yet another source, viz. a hypothetical document designated Q (from the German Quelle, meaning "source"). Despite the fact that there is no tangible evidence that this Q source ever existed, its presumption does not explain the unique content of Matthew and the unique content of Luke not shared with Mark or with each other.² Nevertheless, rather than abandon the theory, scholars have simply contrived two more hypothetical sources, viz. "M" for the information peculiar to Matthew and "L" for the distinct material in Luke.
     Lest we become too enamored with the imaginative world of hypotheticals, we ought to concentrate on what is verifiable and determine how the MP theory holds up under the scrutiny of the biblical texts themselves. While the information in over 250 verses in Matthew is not duplicated elsewhere, and 500 verses appear only in Luke, the material in almost fifty verses is unique to Mark. If literary dependence is the sole option, how do MP theorists account for the fifty-five verses of Mark not found in Matthew, or the striking omission in Luke of the material in Mark 6:45–8:26 and 9:41–10:12? What about the curious absence in both Matthew and Luke of the following sections of Mark: 1:1; 2:27; 3:20-22a; 4:26-29; 7:2-4, 32-37; 8:22-26; 9:29, 48-49; 13:33-37; 14:51-52?
     There are also interesting details in Mark that do not appear in the parallel accounts of Matthew and Luke.³ It is not without significance that Luke places a great deal of emphasis on prayer (cf. 3:21; 6:12; 9:18, 28-29; 11:1-8; 18:1-14; 21:36; 22:32, 40-46; 24:53), yet the prayer of Jesus in Mark 1:35 is not found in Luke. Notice how MP theorists respond: "It is possible that the reference to prayer here is a later addition . . . the statement was not included in the version of Mark known to [Luke]" (D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark 84). If the absence of empirical proof does not subvert this hallowed theory, and if speculative assumptions and circular reasoning are needed to bolster it, one must wonder why it has retained its status for so long as the coveted badge of critical scholarship!
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The approximately 230 agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, when viewed collectively, require a more reasonable explanation than the “insignificant” or “accidental” assertions that MP theorists tend to offer. See esp. Robert L. Thomas, “An Investigation of the Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark,” in JETS 19 (Spring 1976): 103-112. Thomas concludes: “For too long New Testament scholars have been bound to the assumption of direct literary dependence among the writers. Perhaps this has been a blindfold rather than a help in supplying answers. At least the option should be entertained that the three synoptists worked in relative independence of one another in producing their gospels” (112). See also Robert L. Thomas, “Redaction Criticism,” in The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship, eds. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998): 233-66.
     ² A. Wikenhauser observes that out of 1,149 verses in Luke's Gospel, almost half are unique to him (NT Introduction 548). I. H. Marshall, a MP proponent, admits that many attempted explanations "do not seem adequate and sometimes give the impression of being desperate attempts to iron out the difficulties at any cost," and the Marcan priority hypothesis "must be judged insufficient to account for all the evidence .... the evidence is not completely in its favour" (Luke: Historian and Theologian [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970]: 57-62).

     ³ See, e.g., Mark 1:13b, 20b, 35; 2:26b; 3:17b, 20-22a; 4:3a, 36b, 38a; 5:13b, 26, 41b; 6:3a, 8b, 9a, 39b, 48b; 7:30; 8:35b; 9:3b, 41b; 10:11b-12, 30b, 45b, 46b; 11:10a, 17b; 12:29b, 32-34; 14:30b, 36a, 15:21b, 47a.

Related Posts: Synoptic Problem/Markan Priority 2, Authorship of NT Gospels, Biblical Authorship (Part 1), Biblical Authorship (Part 2), Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel