A Very Brief Introduction to the Synoptic Problem

A Very Brief Introduction

 to the Synoptic Problem

James M. Leonard, PhD

The similarities and differences between the New Testament Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke indicate some sort of interrelationship or interdependency. At times, the wording of a story or a saying of Jesus is word for word, and sometimes the sequence of events is all the same between two or three of these gospels. On the other hand, subtle or major differences occur, sometimes unpredictably, but sometimes such changes seem to fit a pattern, or are consistent with a theological urgency, or fit an author’s stylistic tendencies. John’s Gospel does not share this interrelationship, but the interdependency of the other three gospels are sure and beg an explanation.

Pre-critical explanations assumed Matthew was written first, and that Mark and Luke copied and edited his material accordingly. This explanation has fallen out of favor, with most scholars concluding that, whatever else, Mark was written first, that Matthew used Mark, and that Luke used Mark or Mark and Matthew.

With great enthusiasm, many scholars in the last century or so have argued that Matthew and Luke used not only Mark’s Gospel, but also a lost document known as Q (usually explained as short for the German word Quelle, which means source). Q is and must remain for the time being a hypothetical document. We do not know of its existence from ancient references or from actual manuscript evidence. Despite this, Q advocates try very hard to conjure up its existence. Books on Q with over the top titles abound, titles such as Excavating Q and Q—the Earliest Gospel. Q scholars claim to have reconstructed its text, based upon a comparison of Matthew and Luke, and their stylistic and theological tendencies.

Enthusiasm for Q has waned in the last ten years, largely in response to arguments by Duke University scholar Mark Goodacre who argues that we can live in a world without Q. This last year, British scholar Francis Watson’s monumental work on the gospels dispenses with Q. The long-term future of Q may be in doubt.

Our knowledge of ancient persons is usually very sketchy, and dependent on very limited sources. In the case of Jesus, however, scholars are privileged to have multiple primary sources. Mark’s Gospel is the oldest, written within the living memory of the eyewitnesses to Jesus. Although Matthew incorporates much of Mark, Matthew has his own independent material which makes it a second primary source, likewise written within the living memory of the eyewitnesses to Jesus. Same also for Luke, which gives us a third primary source. If Matthew and Luke did indeed use Q (in whatever incarnation), our count of primary sources increases to four. Add to this the Gospel of John which was likely written toward the end of the first century, and the number of primary sources totals at five, if one includes Q. Such multiple attestation by contemporaries of Jesus is probably unprecedented for any ancient personality, and has implications for reconstructing the historical Jesus.

Synoptic interrelationships also allow for a comparison of the theological emphases of the specific gospel writer. An intensive analysis of an author’s style and theological tendencies may help ascertain why Matthew or Luke modified Mark’s account, or to accentuate interpretive differences between Matthew and Luke as they redacted their source. For example, both Matthew and Luke include the famous story of the 100 sheep, one of which was lost, prompting the shepherd to leave the 99 and to go search for the lost one. Luke puts this story into a context of God’s gracious forgiveness of notorious sinners (“Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.’ Then Jesus told them this parable...” [Luke 15:1-3]). In contrast, Matthew applies this story to the faithful community which seeks the restoration of one of its own members who had gone astray (“‘See that you do not despise one of these little ones [i.e., one of Jesus’ disciples]. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.’” Matt 18:10-14).

Given the historical benefits and theological insights of having four or five independent primary sources for the life of Jesus, we might rename this issue as the Synoptic Opportunity.

Historicity of the Magi Story in Matthew

One of my most awkward moments at Cambridge was at a formal occasion at St. Edmund's College. Over dinner, some very conversant older gentlemen, perhaps about 80 years old, inquired about my research, and became rather animated when he discovered that Matthew's Gospel was my subject.

I didn't know the man, and when at Cambridge, you must always be on your guard in case you discover afterward that you've been talking with the world's foremost leading expert in some subject. At St. Edmund's College, this was often the case in the field of astronomy.

So, my inquisitor, in a rather friendly way and in an uncharacteristically loud voice for a Brit, asked me what I thought about the historicity of the journey of the magi in Matthew 2. In a more or less British fashion, I tried to evade such a direct question. But my inquisitor would not allow my diversion, and he pressed his question more directly, and did so yet a third time.

By this time, his wife and others seemed also a bit embarrassed for me and tried to change the subject, but yet he pressed me. As a matter of fact, I really do believe that Magi from the East came to worship Christ, and I figured that this hostile scholar was about to reveal to everyone at Cambridge that I was an ignorant fool to believe such a myth.

So, not being ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, I said in my most scholarly voice that I figured there was enough evidence to make the case that Matthew at least met the standard of historiography for his time frame.

At this, the man laughed and congratulated me for my answer, and he declared to everyone that I was an upstanding young chap! (My wife disputes that he used the word "young" to describe me.)

As it turns out, the elderly gentleman was none other than world famous astronomical historian Michael Hoskin. His résumé is a mile long, and he belongs to whatever royal academies there are. He even has a planet named after him.

Hoskin the astronomy historian then explained to me the Matthew exegete that astrologers (i.e., Magi) probably witnessed an "heliacal rising" within a constellation of stars viewed as pertaining to the Jews. He then asserted that historically, such astrologers would have been motivated to make the kind of pilgrimage to Judea as described in Matthew. And in keeping with the Matthean account, the star of the heliacal rising would have appeared in the sky for a while, then disappear, and then reappear. Hoskin places this heliacal rising within the time-frame of Jesus' birth.

Of course, I cannot account for any of the astronomy stuff, so I'll defer the science to the experts. But the story I relate above is accurate and I'm glad to know that someone like Hoskin does think the story of the Magi is historically plausible, if not likely.

Here's Hoskin's CV: http://www.michaelhoskin.com/

Historicity of the Lucan Birth Narrative

Some scholars get a kick out of debunking our traditional understanding of Christmas. While our portrait of Christmas could sometimes be more accurate, the traditional essentials are true. And any historical improvements to the traditional understanding are likely to increase our appreciation of Christ’s birth, not diminish it.

Many efforts have been made to undermine the historicity of some elements of the Christmas story. One target in particular is the empire-wide census for the purpose of taxation. (For further reading, see the scholarly summation in I. Howard Marshall’s New International Greek Text Commentary on Luke.)

First, skeptics like to point out the fact that no independent record exists of an Augustan census (Luke 2:1-2). However, we are aware of the fact that Augustus brought major reforms to empire administration, that a major census would be an on-going enterprise of many years, and that local authorities sometimes would take a local census under the all-encompassing imperial mandate and under the emperor’s name. For example, our census in Luke may have been initiated locally, but the local governor would have his authority grounded ultimately in no one less than Caesar, and could rightfully claim he was doing so in Caesar’s name.

Second, skeptics reject the notion that a census would be done by requiring people to report to their hometowns, as Luke 2 indicates. However, we are aware of some censuses which required landowners to return to their hometowns for registration. Perhaps we are to assume that Joseph owned land in Bethlehem.

Third, skeptics question the presence of Mary on the journey. Two possibilities seem evident. First, we know that women of Syria—the geo-political region in which Herod’s kingdom was located, required women 12 years and older to register. Further, the delicate situation between a righteous man and the untimely pregnancy of his betrothed may have made it unwise for Mary to be left behind.

Perhaps the most difficult issue which remains is the date of the census. According to the biblical record, Jesus was born during the reigns of the Roman emperor Augustus and the Judean king Herod, while Quirinius was governor. The problem is that Herod the Great’s death is dated to about 4 B.C., and Quirinius’ rule is dated after Herod’s death, from A.D. 6-9, twelve years later or more. Biblical historian W.M. Ramsay argued from a famous Latin inscription that Quirinius also served as a military governor in Syria, alongside the civil governor during the conquest against rebels in northern Syria, and that this earlier governorship was dated prior to Herod’s death. Another explanation is that the census was initiated by the previous governor of Syria in 4 B.C., but only completed years later under Quirinius’ governorship. At any rate, we do not have to conclude that Luke was mistaken.

If a person approaches accords the biblical record with a modicum of respect, then the aforementioned moments of skepticism will be fleeting.