THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

A THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOLUTION

INTRODUCTION

For centuries even the most adept biblical scholars have struggled with the idiosyncratic variations between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke known as the Synoptic Problem which have, at best, encouraged the pursuit of godly scholarship and, at worst, eroded the confidence of seminarians in the character of their Creator. An overview of the Synoptic Problem, its history, and an explanation of proposed solutions will demonstrate that the Augustinian Proposal is the most reasonable solution to the Synoptic Problem. The forthcoming study will provide a brief overview of the Synoptic Problem, a history of the investigation into the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels, a summarization of the similarities and differences of the Synoptics, proposed solutions to the Synoptic Problem emphasizing the dependent and independent hypotheses as well as a further exploration and defense of the Augustinian Proposal.

SYNOPTIC PROBLEM OVERVIEW

Even a cursory examination of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke quickly reveals distinct similarities and apparent inexplicable differences.[1] The attempt to reconcile these similarities and differences has emerged as the foundation for the Synoptic Problem, and originally generated the innocuous “question of whether and how” the Synoptic Gospels may be literarily dependent.[2] The Synoptic Problem quickly morphed into “the study of the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels in an attempt to explain their literary relationship” assuming the fundamental hypothesis that a literary relationship had been corroborated.[3] Consequently, a myriad of fascinating hypotheses have been proposed in an attempt to prove literary dependence between the Synoptic Gospels,[4] culminating in a plethora of research which has potentially surpassed any other biblical issue in modern scholarship.[5] The scholarly pursuit of reconciling the Synoptic Gospels may have begun with a curious comment by a bishop of Hierapolis.[6]

SYNOPTIC PROBLEM HISTORY

Church Father Eusebius provides the oldest explanation on how the Gospels were produced referring to the irretrievable records of the bishop, Papius (ca. 75-140), who explained that Mark became the interpreter of Peter’s memory.[7] The prolific work of Origen (ca. 185-253) continued the analysis by advocating an interpretation that neither guessed nor imposed meaning on the text; instead, it encouraged the interpreter to actively participate with the Holy Spirit by requesting revelation as Scripture was read while ignoring the order of composition.[8] A few centuries later, Augustine’s (ca. 354-430) On the Harmony of the Evangelists was written to address the false accusation that the Gospels lacked agreement.[9] The comprehensive Augustinian work systematically confronted canonical reliability by utilizing Greek manuscripts and Latin translations, blending the actual words of the Gospels which anticipated Griesbach, and similar to Origen, purporting a Holy Spirit led composition.[10] Augustine’s analysis abruptly ended the debate regarding the Synoptic Problem for over one thousand years.[11]

Attention to the gospel’s similarities and differences gained momentum once again during the Protestant Reformation as Martin Luther (1483-1546) adhered to Augustine’s harmonistic approach[12] and John Calvin (1509-1564) diverged.[13] Calvin stripped away the spiritual interpretation of Origen and Augustine and claimed the Evangelists wrote the literal truth.[14] Calvin’s claim would soon have catastrophic ramifications.[15] During the seventeenth century a Dutch philosopher, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), who is “widely regarded as the father of modern historical criticism of the Bible” took Calvin’s claim forward another step by determining that “one cannot be sure of the theological meaning of any passage of the Bible until one has first answered certain historical questions,” and then proceeded to identify an infinitely expanding  list of necessary questions to be answered regarding the physical history of the Bible and its writers in order for meaningful interpretation to be established[16] with the destructive intent to “disembowel the Bible” and “render it useless as a weapon in the arsenal of traditional monarchist politics and state religion.”[17] The influence of Spinoza spread through Germany and, in particular, into the work of G.E. Lessing (1729-1781)[18] who, as an influential German philosopher and poet,[19] conceived what is considered by some, the most powerful idea ever conjectured “in the entire history of the Synoptic Problem”—a hypothetical Ur-gospel written by the Nazarenes in Aramaic.[20] The proposition of an Ur-gospel led to the re-interpretation of Church Fathers, historians, and Augustine, and culminated in becoming the foundation for “almost every subsequent development in the history of the Synoptic Problem.”[21] Accordingly, a brief summary of the general similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels will be investigated prior to further exploration of the continued development and proposed solutions for Synoptic Problem.

SYNOPTIC GOSPEL'S SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

The similarities among the Synoptic Gospels can be classified into three general categories including agreement in wording, agreement in order, and agreement in parenthetical material.[22] Agreement in wording can be observed, for example, in all three Gospel accounts of the healing of the leper,[23] the questioning of Jesus regarding the resurrection by the Sadducees,[24] and the calling of Levi as a disciple.[25] However, even within similar passages many differences coexist including word order, usage, syntax, and style as well as additions, omissions, and even the language utilized. [26] Furthermore, the similarity between the historical ordering of events in the Synoptics is impressive including, for instance, Jesus’ baptism, temptation, Galilean ministry, Jerusalem journey, arrest, trial, crucifixion and resurrection.[27] Again, however, the differences are also evident including, for example, the location of Jesus when healing of Bartimaeus, the cohesive Sermon on the Mount presentation in Matthew versus the dispersion of sayings throughout Mark and Luke, and the disparate narrative locations of the Evangelists, including the example of Jesus calling his disciples prior to the Capernaum preaching in Mark but after the discourse in Luke.[28] Finally, the existence of identical parenthetical material within the Synoptics is considered by Stein as “one of the most persuasive arguments for literary interdependence” as he points out the usage of indistinguishable editorial comments such as “let the reader understand” and “he said to the paralytic” as inexplicable by an oral tradition.[29] Additionally, even more significant differences exist, including entire sections of unique content added to certain Gospels and omitted from others, as in the conspicuous differences of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke alongside the complete omission of the narrative by Mark.[30] The perplexing similarities and differences have spawned innumerable hypotheses during the last half millennium to be traversed in an endeavor to reconcile the potentially irreconcilable.

SYNOPTIC PROBLEM'S PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

According to Carson, two broad categories of dependence and interdependence have been utilized to classify proposed solutions to the Synoptic Problem. The dependent hypotheses include common dependence on one original gospel, oral sources, and gradually developing written fragments. The interdependent hypotheses receiving scholarly support include the Augustinian Proposal, “Two-Gospel” Hypothesis, and “Two-Source” Hypothesis.[31]

Dependent Hypotheses

As mentioned earlier, the hypothesis of common dependence on one original gospel, an Ur-Gospel, originated from G. E. Lessing who significantly influenced almost all subsequent developments of Synoptic Problem solutions.[32] Lessing’s proposal suggested the Evangelists used various revisions of a Greek translation of an Aramaic Gospel to complete their compositions, unfortunately, “no trace of such an Ur-gospel exists.”[33] However, in 1794 J. G. Eichhorn furthered the imaginative proposal of Lessing by arguing for a complex plurality of sources to support the Gospel texts all based on a single, currently non-existent, Aramaic gospel.[34]

The hypothesis of common dependence on oral sources, in essence, builds on the Lessing and Eichhorn hypothesis with J. G. Herder proposing the formulation of an orally fixed original gospel in Aramaic prior to being documented by Mark who eventually published it in Greek while an extended version was simultaneously being published in Aramaic.[35] Although Herder effectively established the ideological origin of Marcan priority which would soon gain popularity,[36] and J. K. L. Gieseler in 1818 attempted to continue to develop Herder’s hypothesis,[37] others continued to believe Herder’s hypothesis was as unstable as the merely hypothetical Ur-gospel upon which it was based.[38]

Finally, in 1832 the hypothesis of common dependence on gradually developing written fragments ironically emerged from a German theologian and philosopher, F. D. E. Schleiermacher[39] who had unfortunately dismissed the Old Testament as “superfluous authority for (Christian) Dogmatics.”[40] Based on a reinterpretation of the Church Fathers regarding a statement from Papias, Schleiermacher assumed a collection of Jesus’ sayings existed[41] upon which the Synoptics were written.[42] However, the fragmentary hypothesis has not garnered significant support due to its inability to explain the vast agreement in the order of the Synoptics[43] and the inability to scientifically prove a fragmentary sayings-source ever actually existed.[44] Regardless, the aggregation of the dependent hypotheses effectively delivered the building blocks of a primitive Gospel, an argument for Marcan priority, and a sayings-source, which, in consolidation, provide the unsubstantiated proof necessary to support some of the independent hypotheses toward which modern scholarship has gravitated.[45]

Independent Hypotheses

The Augustinian Proposal was the independent hypothesis considered generally accepted until the nineteenth century.[46] The Proposal is based on Augustine’s De Consensu Evangelistarum, a four volume set commencing with an apologetic and continuing into a discussion of each of the Gospels with the purpose of harmonization, utilizing Matthew as the outline for Jesus’ life.[47] Ultimately, Augustine determined Mark borrowed from the first gospel, Matthew, and Luke borrowed from both Matthew and Mark[48] and professed the Gospels were written under the direction of the Holy Spirit.[49] However, at times Augustine’s explanations of harmonization were unconvincing to modern scholars.[50]

J. J. Griesbach, in agreement with Lessing’s conviction of the Gospel’s literary dependence,[51] published a synopsis of Matthew, Mark and Luke, from which the term “Synoptic Gospels” was coined.[52] Griesbach doubted the possibility of “harmonizing even the closely related but conflicting chronologies” of the Synoptics which opened the floodgates to Lessing’s Ur-gospel and simultaneously spurred his independent Two-Gospel Hypothesis.[53] The Two-Gospel hypothesis held to the Augustinian view that none of the Evangelists were ignorant of the other, but unlike Augustine, Mark was dependent on both Matthew and Luke.[54] The hypothesis gained significant scholarly support from Germany by explaining the peculiar agreements among the Synoptics, but critics immediately noticed its inability to adequately explain the necessity of Mark or reconcile the apparently irreconcilable chronological differences in Matthew and Luke.[55]

The highly acclaimed “Two-Source” Hypothesis debuted inconspicuously within the work of C. H. Weisse in 1838.[56] The hypothesis merged Lessing’s imaginative concept of an Ur-Gospel with Herder’s conjecture of Marcan priority.[57] The result was an Ur-Marcus utilizing the non-existent sayings-source of Schleiermacher, renamed Q, to support the foundation upon which the Synoptic Gospels were built. [58] In 1863, H. J. Holtzmann expanded the thesis[59] and was the first to unconvincingly regard the Marcan hypothesis as “scientifically established in connection with an Ur-gospel, on the one hand, and Papias’ Logia, on the other.”[60] Later, Austin Farrer, doubtful about the authenticity, dropped Q from the analysis.[61] However, B. H. Streeter in 1924 further advocated a written Q source[62] positing the existence of two additional potentially non-existent sources, namely, “L” and “M”[63] which, combined with Streeter’s “masterful rhetoric, succeeded in convincing generations of English-speaking scholars in Great Britain and North America that they should agree with their German colleagues and accept, as an ‘assured result of modern biblical science,’ the priority of Mark and Q.”[64] Unfortunately, according to Farmer, the historical problem that must be addressed was “how to account for the triumph of this hypothesis in the absence of any conclusive demonstration of its validity, and in spite of serious scientific objections which can be and have been raised against it.”[65] And although the elusiveness of a proven solution to the Synoptic Problem endures, defending a hypothesis which may support the resolution of the labyrinth of issues surrounding the Synoptic Problem has been the mainstay of academia for centuries and continues today.

Early in the fifth century Augustine completed his influential work, On the Harmony of the Evangelists,[66] which is considered both a “historical construct” by explaining the human dimension of the compositions and “a theological construct” in light of the activity of God inherent within the composition process.[67] Augustine’s comprehensive and seminal work addressed the Synoptic Problem by dividing the differences between the Gospels into two general categories which included variations in the order of events and variations in the descriptions of the same event.[68] Six basic principles were presented to explain the variations in the order of events.[69] First, the Evangelists knew the order of the events regardless what was written, wrote chronologically based on what they remembered and how they were prompted by the Holy Spirit, and utilized the order of events from other Gospels.[70] Additionally, the Evangelists frequently omitted certain content in order to eliminate unnecessary repetition, did not modify the composition they remembered from the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and finally, the Evangelist’s variation in order was due to a recollection of one while another proceeded based on historical progress.[71]

Four additional principles to explain the variations in the descriptions of the same events were documented by Augustine.[72] First, the variations at times were simply a flaw in the text or a careless copyist of one of the Gospels, were sometimes simply perceived due to an “unfamiliar cultural idiom,” were, at other times, a product of the Gospel writers using different words to express the same idea, or were intentionally produced by a Gospel writer to communicate a mystical meaning.[73] Finally, Augustine submitted corollary suggestions to readers in order to further enhance their scholarship.[74]

The polemical edges of the Synoptic Problem hinge on the precepts of literary dependence, whereby certain scholars have determined the Synoptic Gospels must have arisen in complete independence of each other[75] in order to comply with the mandate that Scripture was Holy Spirit directed[76] and “inspired by God.”[77] Others, however, conclude a comprehensive list of historical questions be unequivocally answered through explanations of literary dependence or meaningful interpretation is impossible.[78] Augustine, however, wisely avoids the precarious edges by espousing that none of “the Evangelists did his work in ignorance of that of his predecessor or predecessors”[79] while simultaneously purporting the “Gospels were written by men through the agency of the Holy Spirit.”[80] And although modern scholars question certain Augustinian explanations which attempt to solve the Synoptic Problem, no alternative explanations have proved valid without risking reliance on uncorroborated speculation or undermining the inspiration of Scripture by God. Augustine’s masterful solution to the Synoptic Problem rests in its ability to sagaciously combine the theological and historical constructs through the use of thoughtful and insightful principles to harmonize the gospels, rather than extending the process of bifurcation through a relentless pursuit of indeterminable priorities or currently non-existent sources.

CONCLUSION

Attempts to reconcile the apparent discrepancies between the Gospels began with a few comments from Papias which have been reinterpreted through history and extended into to the prolific work of Origen and seminal work of Augustine. Over a thousand years later, the Protestant Reformation ushered in a separation between the theological and historical constructs each striving to discover its independent space. During the seventeenth century, Spinoza, the father of modern historical Biblical criticism, allowed unanswered historical questions to take center stage and precipitated a myriad of proposed solutions to the inexplicable similarities and differences which comprise the Synoptic Problem. The more prominent proposals comprised of dependent hypotheses including Lessing’s Ur-Gospel, Herder’s fixed oral gospel, and Schleiermacher’s sayings-source, and independent hypotheses including the Augustinian Proposal, Griesbach’s “Two-Gospel” Hypothesis and Weisse’s popular “Two-Source” Hypothesis. Although all solutions appear to have merit, no hypothesis has been scientifically proven and the solutions are based primarily on unsubstantiated and potentially non-existent material.

An investigation of the history and proposed solutions of the Synoptic Problem provided absolutely no historically proven solution outside the scope of a Spirit led theological construct. However, enough evidence is provided to conclude that a Synoptic composition by the Holy Spirit without a historical construct of human intervention is beyond imagination. Accordingly, it appears Augustine’s solution which integrates both historical and theological constructs is the most reasonable solution to the Synoptic Problem based on the current body of substantiated scholarly knowledge.