Define the “Synoptic Problem” and describe the development of the Gospels according to the text. Give an overview of the top four solutions that scholars have offered to this “problem.” Why is Markan priority the most common scholarly solution? Which arguments both for and against it seem strongest? Which solution to the Synoptic Problem do you support, and why?
Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black may best define the synoptic problem by asking how it is possible to account for the numerous similarities and differences between the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Lea and Black, 114). The Gospel of Luke suggests that eyewitnesses, ancient sources, and the evangelist’s own role provide a strong foundation for the development of his work (Luke 1:1-4). Lea and Black explain that Luke’s first stage of development, the original eyewitnesses, refers to an oral tradition that “involves the discipline of form criticism” (115). Luke’s second stage pertaining to the written sources utilized by the evangelists, involves the discipline of source criticism (Lea and Black, 119). Luke’s third stage concerning the author’s activity in the work involves the discipline of redaction criticism (Lea and Black, 122). Finally, D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo suggest that tradition criticism is the simultaneous utilization of all three critical methods (79).
Carson and Moo also suggest four primary solutions to the synoptic problem. First, the authors propose the solution of a “common dependence on one original gospel” (Carson and Moo, 89). In other words, an assumption that all the Synoptics emerged from an original specific work utilized by the respective evangelists. The second proposal hypothesizes a “common dependence on oral sources” (Carson and Moo, 90). The oral source argument assumes that an oral tradition developed over a period of years and underpinned the development of the Synoptics. A third argument asserts the “common dependence on gradually developing written fragments” (Carson and Moo, 90). In particular, Friedrich Schleiermacher first introduced the idea that the evangelist’s writings developed from a “collection of sayings of Jesus” (Carson and Moo, 91). A fourth explanation suggests a solution of interdependence (Carson and Moo, 91). The concept of interdependence assumes the evangelists utilized each other’s work in the development of their own (Carson and Moo, 91).
Carson and Moo identify a number of arguments that explain why Markan priority is the most common scholarly solution to the synoptic problem. First, the brief nature of Mark in conjunction with the overlapping content with Matthew and Luke supports a rationale that the latter employed the former (Carson and Moo, 96). The argument of brevity appears quite strong. Next, Matthew and Luke have less in common with each other than Mark has with the other two both verbally and chronologically, which is also a relatively strong argument for Markan priority (Carson and Moo, 96). Finally, the primitive style and theology of the Second Gospel supports Markan priority due to the assumption that Matthew and Luke later polished Mark’s work (Carson and Moo, 97-98). The latter assumption provides the weakest argument as other reasons may adequately explain Mark’s style and theology.
Two arguments specifically oppose Markan priority. First, certain agreements between Luke and Matthew exist, which suggests a Lukan priority. (Carson and Moo, 100) Second, and possibly the strongest argument against Markan priority, is the strong agreement of Matthean priority espoused by Augustine and the church fathers (Carson and Moo, 92). I personally support an interdependent theory with Markan priority due to the strength of the arguments above regarding brevity, overlapping content, and the verbal and chronological commonality between Mark and the other two evangelists.
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.
Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament Its Background and Message. 2nd ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.
