Getting the Gospels: Intro 3
The last background issue I’d like to discuss briefly is what scholars call “The Synoptic Problem.”
Here’s the deal: three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, all read very closely in terms of content (hence, “Synoptic”—“same view”—compared to John [which reads quite differently]). Each Gospel is a Greek translation of Jesus’ Aramaic, since Jesus, as a first-century Palestinian Jew would have spoken Aramaic. 80% of Mark’s verses are in Matthew; 65% of Mark’s verses are in Luke (this material is called the “Triple Tradition”); and these verses often appear word-for-word. Additionally, approx. 230 verses appear in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark (this material is called the “Double Tradition”); and these verses in the Double Tradition are often word-for-word. The question is, how do you explain this phenomenon? In other words, what is the literary relationship between the three Gospels?
While Gospel scholars have advanced a number of different theories throughout the course of the history of biblical studies, the consensus theory (which I too advocate) has two parts to it. First, Mark was written first (ca. AD 60-70) and was used by Matthew and Luke. Remember a bunch of blog entries back I mentioned that the canonical order of the Gospels was based on the assumption that Matthew wrote first, then Mark, then Luke? Now we’re very sure that Mark wrote first. How do we know? Well for starters, Matthew and Luke often improve Mark’s literary awkwardness. For example (and there are many!), compare Mark 1:32a with the parallel in Matt 8:16a: Mark has “When evening had come after the sun had set”; but this is redundant; hence Matthew removes this awkwardness by simply writing, “When evening had come.” That Matthew does this to Mark is understandable; but why would Mark do this to Matthew? The point is, he didn’t: Mark wrote first.
Sometimes Mark uses Greek that is clumsy or grammatically suspect (to put it kindly), so Matthew and Luke will clean up Mark’s syntactical “mess.” 1 example among many: in the Greek of Mark 4:41, the verb for “obey” doesn’t agree in number with the subject (the verb is singular); but Matthew “fixes” this and makes the verb plural (Matt 8:27). Again, that Matthew does this to Mark is understandable; but why would Mark intentionally butcher good grammar? He didn’t b/c he wrote first.
At times Matthew and Luke will clarify Mark’s obscurity; that is to say, Mark’s version will seem unclear or a tad confusing, so Matthew and Luke will clarify Mark; for example, compare Mark 13:14 and Matt 24:15: Matthew clarifies what “abomination of desolation” means. Mark’s readings are often difficult theologically, so Matthew and Luke will soften this difficulty: compare Mark 10:17-18 and Matt 19:16-17; it’s easier to explain why Matthew changes Mark than vice versa. So all of the internal evidence suggests that Mark wrote his Gospel first, and Matthew and Luke used it, meaning, when they wrote their own Gospels they basically had a copy of Mark in front of them. That would explain their similar wording (it’s not just coincidence).
But not only did Matthew and Luke use Mark’s Gospel, they did so independently. That means that Matthew and Luke did not work in cahoots—they used Mark independent of each other. Why do we think they wrote independently? Some of the evidence of their independence includes the different beginning and ending of their Gospels. Another piece of evidence is that Matthew and Luke are similar in what they say when they follow Mark’s narrative but different when they don’t. Furthermore, Luke explicitly mentions other works or sources in his prologue (Luke 1:1-4).
The second part of the consensus theory holds that Matthew and Luke both used a lost document that scholars refer to as “Q”. “Q” stands for “Quelle,” which is German for “source.” Up until the 19th century, most biblical scholars were German (thanks, in large part, to the Protestant Reformation); hence, the initial “Q” (rather than “S” for “source”). This hypothetical document would account for the approximately 230 verses in the Double Tradition.
OK, nuff said about background! We’ll get into the text next.