internal and external evidence 21 pages

8/8/2019 Internal and External Evidence 21 Pages

1/21

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM!

A PROPOSAL FOR HANDLING

BOTH INTERNAL & EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

ROBERT C. NEWMAN

ABSTRACT

BOTH in liberal and conservative circles the Gospels of

Matthew and Luke are commonly viewed as being literar-

ily dependent on Mark, even though this involves dismissing

substantial traditions regarding their origin. On the other hand,

it is difficult to see how these traditions square with the internal

evidence on which the dominant two-document theory has been

erected. Some suggestions for a synthesis are here proposed.

Introduction

Questions regarding relationships between the canonical Gos

pels have been a concern since early in church history. Already

in the second century Tatian (c. 170) constructed a harmony

which combined the four Gospels into a single narrative.1

In

the fourth century, Eusebius drew up tables by which one could

see if any given passage in the Gospels had parallels, which

could then be quickly located.2

The first attempt to postulate a

literary relationship between the three synoptic Gospels seemsto have been that of Augustine (c. 400), who suggested that

Mark abridged Matthew, and that Luke used both Matthew and

Mark in composing his own Gospel.3

The fall of the Roman Empire interrupted such studies, but

1Tatian, Diatessaron. A fragment has survived in Greek, as well as

more extensive materials in translation. See Edgar J. Goodspeed andRobert M. Grant, A History of Early Christian Literature, rev. ed.

(Chicago: Phoenix Books, 1966), pp. 107-108.2Eusebius, Letter to Carpianus. Greek text with tables in Eberhard

Nestle Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland Novum Testamentum Graece


2/21

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 133

they resumed after the Reformation with the production of

several multi-column Gospel harmonies. During the nineteenth

century many competing theories arose to explain the origin of

the Gospels on the basis of similarities and differences in content,

order and wording. Some of these theories saw the Gospels as

dependent entirely on oral sources; others, entirely on written

sources; others, on almost any combination of the two. Some

saw the earlier canonical Gospels as sources of the later ones;

such theories of successive dependence bad advocates for all

possible sequences of the synoptic Gospels. Others saw the

Gospels as dependent on one or more hypothetical writtensources which have not survived. The sources postulated ranged

from a single written Gospel, on which all three synoptics de

pended, to a multitude of written fragments, some of which

were used by all the canonical Gospels, others by three, two or

only one.4

By the beginning of this century a consensus had developed in

favor of the so-called two-document theory. In this view, the

Gospels of Matthew and Luke were largely secondary accounts

which relied heavily on their independent use of Mark and ahypothetical document usually called Q. This theory, occasion

ally elaborated by postulating additional non-extant documents,

renounced the external evidence of tradition, especially that Mat

thew was the first Gospel to be written, in favor of internal evi

dence which seemed to point to Mark as the more primitive

account. Material common to both Matthew and Luke but lack

ing in Mark was thought to be evidence for Q, an early collection

of Jesus' sayings. Some found external evidence for Q in the

"logia" mentioned by Papias (c. 130), whose statement, it was

supposed, later church fathers had misunderstood as referring

to the Gospel of Matthew.

The two-document theory has dominated Protestant New

Testament studies so far this century, both in liberal and (to a

4 Surveys of the history of synoptic criticism may be found in DonaldGuthrie, New Testament Introduction, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, 111.:Inter-Varsity, 1970), pp. 123-132; W. G. Kmmel, Introduction to the

New Testament (London: S CM, 1966), pp. 37-42; Willi Marxsen, Intro- duction to the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), pp. 113


3/21

134 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

lesser extent) conservative circles.5

It has even penetrated

Catholic circles,6

in spite of their greater regard for tradition.

That Mark's Gospel was written first has often been considered

one of the "assured results" of Gospel research.7

Recently, however, there has been renewed debate over the

synoptic problem in which both the priority of Mark and the

existence of Q have frequently come under attack. Denial of

Mark's priority has come from Basil C. Butler (1951),8

Pierson

Parker (1953),9

William R. Farmer (1964),1 0

Thomas Long-

staff (1967),1 1

Xavier Leon-Dufour (1968),1 2

Edward P. San

ders (1969),1 3

A. Gaboury (1970),1 4

Robert L. Lindsey

(1970),1 5

David Dungan (197S),16

and Bernard Orchard

5See, e.g., A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospelfor Students of

the Life ofChrist (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), pp. 255-256;Ned B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1963); Guthrie, N.T. Introduction, pp. 234-236; Everett F.Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 146-154.

See, e.g., J. A. Fitzmeyer, "The Priority of Mark and the Q Source

in Luke," Perspective 11 (1970), 131-170; F. J. McCool, "Synoptic Problem," in New Catholic Encyclopedia 13:886-891.7See, e.g., A. T. Robertson, The Christ of the Logia (New York:

Doran, 1924), p. 17; H. G. Wood, "The Priority ofMark," ExpositoryTimes 65 (1953), 17; Hugo Meynell, "The Synoptic Problem: SomeUnorthodox Solutions," Theology 70 (1967), 386.

8Basil C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew (Cambridge: Uni

versityPress, 1951).9

Pierson Parker, The Gospel Before Mark (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1953).

1 0William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (New York: Macmillan,

1964).1 1

Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Evidence ofConflation in Mark (Missoula,Mont.: SocietyofBiblical Literature, 1967).

1 2 Xavier Leon-Dufour, The GospelsandJesusofHistory (NewYork:Descle/Collins, 1968).

13Edward P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cam

bridge: University Press, 1969).14

A. Gaboury, La structure des vangiles synoptiques (Leiden: Brill,

1970).15

Robert L. Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel ofMark

(Jerusalem: Dugith, 1969).16 David Dungan, "Reactionary Trends in the Gospel-Producing Activ

it f th E l Ch h ? M i T ti M k " Bibli th E h i


4/21


(1976).17 While about half of these are Catholics, many are

liberal Protestants. Only Butler favors Augustine's form of the

successive dependence theory (Matthew first, then Mark, then

Luke). Several (Farmer, Longstaff, Dungan, Orchard) favor

Griesbach's form (Matthew first, then Luke, then Mark), which

is experiencing a strong revival.

Generally, those attacking the priority of Mark also doubt the

existence of Q. But there are also those who accept Mark's

priority but see no evidence for Q. These include Austin Farrer

(1955),18 A. W. Argyle (1964),19 R. T. Simpson (1966),20

and Nigel Turner (1969).21

It is doubtful that the two-documenttheory has been overthrown as yet, though George W. Buchanan

seems to think so.22 It is certainly safe to say no alternative has

replaced it.

In this study, we would like to examine both the internal

evidence, or phenomena, of the synoptic problem and the external

evidence, largely the traditions about the Gospels given by the

early church fathers. We will seek to evaluate various synoptic

theories in the light of this evidence and make some proposals

regarding a possible solution.

The Internal Evidence

The internal evidence relating to the synoptic problem is

complex and confusing. There is consequently a great temptation

to make oversimplified generalizations, construct one's theory,

and then ignore or beat into submission any recalcitrant facts.

Having said this, we only have space to sketch the data !

17 Bernard Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark (Manchester: Koinonia,1976).

18 Austin Ferrar, "On Dispensing with Q," Studies in the Gospels, ed.D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), pp. 55-86.

19A. W. Argyle, "Evidence for the View that St. Luke Used St.

Matthew's Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964), 390-396.2 0

R. T. Simpson, "The Major Agreements of Matthew and LukeAgainst Mark," New Testament Studies 12 (1966), 273-284.

2 1 Nigel Turner, "Q in Recent Thought," Expository Times 88 (1969),324-328.

22George W. Buchanan, "Current Synoptic Studies: Orchard, the


5/21


Basically this data can be divided into three categories, in

each of which the synoptic Gospels show both similarities and

differences. These areas are: (1) content, both main incidents

and details; (2) order, both between and within incidents; and

(3) wording, both vocabulary and particular grammatical forms.

Alford well summarized the situation a century ago:23

The phenomena presented will be much as follows: first, perhaps, we shall have three, five or more words identical; thenas many wholly distinct ; then two clauses or more, expressedin the same words but differing order ; then a clause contained

in one or two and not in the third; then several words identi-cal; then a clause not only wholly distinct, but apparentlyinconsistent ; and so forth, with recurrences of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences and transpositions. Nor does this description apply to verbal and sententialarrangement only; but also, with slight modification, to thatof the larger portions of the narrative.

Let us consider content first. In view of the fact that John

speaks of the enormous number of events during Jesus' ministry

(20:30; 21:25), it is rather surprising how much overlap there

is between the three synoptic Gospels. Of course, we would

expect overlap on the unique and crucial incidents of Jesus'

ministry, such as his baptism and temptation, the feeding of

the five thousand, Peter's confession, the transfiguration, tri

umphal entry, trial, death and resurrection. We would also ex

pect overlap in general features such as Jesus' popularity,

miraculous works, parabolic teaching and the growing opposition

from the leaders. What is surprising is the synoptics' unanimous

presentation of such specific miracles as the healing of Peter'smother-in-law ( 13,47),24 a certain leper (45), the paralytic

(52), the man with a withered hand (70), and blind Bartimaeus

(193), since Jesus must have performed hundreds or thousands

of healings during several years of ministry. All three Gospels

also give the parable of the sower (90), with Jesus' reasons for

2 3 Henry C. Alford, The Greek New Testament, revised by E. F. Harrison (Chicago: Moody, 1958), 1:5].

24 Numbers are sections in the Greek synopsis of Albert Huck andHans Lietzmann, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, 9th ed. (NewYork: American Bible Society, 1936) ; the same sections are used in the


6/21


teaching in parables (91) and the interpretation of the sower

(93), the parables of the wicked tenants (204) and the fig treebudding (220), the question about fasting (54), plucking grain

on the Sabbath (69), the dispute about greatness (129), blessing

the little children (188), the rich young ruler (189), and three

predictions of Jesus' death (122,127,191), not to mention other

incidents. There are in addition many more incidents duplicated

in two of the three Gospels. This is in striking contrast with the

much smaller overlap with John, which is more like one would

antecedently expect. This close similarity of content naturally

suggests that the synoptic Gospels depend upon one of themselves or upon some common source, which Gospel or source

made a definite selection from far more numerous materials.

If we try to visualize this content overlap by the number of

verses involved (the numbers are approximate since parallel

passages do not necessarily have the same number of verses),

we can present the situation in a diagram using three overlapping

circles; each of which represents one Gospel.25

The shaded sec

tion is material shared by all three synoptics, about 480 verses

in each. In addition, there are roughly 300 verses shared by two

of the three most by Matthew and Luke, somewhat less by

Matthew and Mark, little by Mark and Luke. Most notable is

the fact that, although Matthew and Luke have considerable

material peculiar to each, Mark has very litttle not found in one

of the others. Some have interpreted this as evidence that Mat-


7/21


thew and Luke used Mark (two-document theory), but others

that Mark used Matthew and Luke, concentrating on their overlapping material (Griesbach hypothesis). Both are consistent

with this data, but neither is required by it.

A discussion of details related to content is beyond the scope

of this paper. Only a careful examination of the Gospels in

parallel columns will suffice to get a feel for the data. It ranges

from striking similarity on some points {e.g., the parentheses:

"he said to the paralytic" (52) and "let the reader understand"

(216)) to sharp differences on others {e.g., the number of:

demoniacs (51,106), blind men (193), crowings (241) andangels (253)). The former cases exert pressure against oral

source theories, the latter against written source theories.

Next let us consider the evidence of order, both in main inci

dents (pericopes) and details within an incident. Several papers

have dealt with this matter in recent years by Porbcan (1964),26

Honor (1968),27

Sanders (1969)28

and Tyson (1976).29

The

synoptic Gospels agree in the general order of events in Jesus'

ministry: that it began (1) during John the Baptist's ministry,

(2) moved into Galilee, (3) then to Judea, (4) finally to Jerusalem, where Jesus suffered, died and rose from the deaf!. But

there is much more agreement than this ; let us look at the order

in more detail.

Nothing can be said about order where a Gospel has incidents

not mentioned in the others. The 480 verses where Matthew,

Mark and Luke all overlap (often called the Triple Tradition)

consist of 72 pericopes. Porbcan notes that 42 pericopes in

cluded in the periods (1), (3) and (4), above, occur in the

same order in all three Gospels. The 30 pericopes of (2), the

Galilean ministry, are also in basically the same order, though

there are a few places where either Matthew or Luke individu-

26Stefan Porbcan, "Form Criticism and the Synoptic Problem,"

Novum Testamentum 7(1964), 81-118.2? A. M. Honor, "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem,"

Novum Testamentum 10 (1968), 95-147.28

E. P. Sanders, "The Argument from Order and the RelationshipBetween Matthew and Luke," New Testament Studies 15 (1969), 249-261.


8/21


ally departs from the order of Mark and the other synoptic.

Using Robertson

30

I find four places where Matthew divergesand three where Luke does. It is noteworthy that, at the level of

pericopes, Matthew and Luke never agree against Mark in

following a different order. This has usually been taken to in

dicate that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark (two-

document theory), but according to the Griesbach hypothesis

Mark got his order by alternately following Matthew and Luke.

Taking the Gospels two at a time, Tyson notes that there are

no order divergences in pericopes shared by Matthew and Mark

alone nor in those shared by Mark and Luke alone. By contrast,most of the material common to Matthew and Luke alone (Q

in the two-document theory) is located differently in each.

This is rather hard on the so-called Ur-Gospel theory, in which

each of the three Gospels got its material independently from

the same written source. In this theory, one is hard-pressed to

explain how it is that Matthew or Luke just happens to handle

the material he used but Mark did not in such a different way

than the material they share with Mark. Those who think Luke

used Matthew or vice versa {e.g., Augustine's and Griesbach's

versions of the successive dependence theory) are also in trouble

here, as they must explain why one Gospel relocated so much

material already positioned in the other. The two-document

theory, on the other hand, handles this phenomenon rather easily,

since the pericopes shared by Matthew and Luke alone come

from another source Q. Because Q is mostly Jesus' discourse

rather than narrative, it is claimed that Matthew and Luke had

no information on where to locate it, so they independently fitit into their own narratives, thus producing the differences in

order. However, this conclusion is not necessary to explain the

material. Since Jesus was an itinerant teacher, it is likely that

much of his discourse was given on several occasions. Matthew,

and Luke may well record similar statements made at different

times.

Turning to consider the matter of order within pericopes,

there are many minor cases of divergence. Of more significant

transpositions, Hawkins31 finds 23: 3 of Matthew vs. Mark,

30 Robertson Harmony


9/21


11 of Matthew vs. Luke, none of Mark vs. Luke, 6 of Matthew

and Mark vs. Luke, 2 of Mark and Luke vs. Matthew, and oneof Matthew and Luke vs. Mark. However, Sanders32 finds

several more examples where Matthew and Luke agree against

Mark. If valid, these are troublesome for the two-document

hypothesis. Of Sanders' four "clear cases," one is Hawkins'

(above) and another is equally strong, both involving the order

of materials within a pericope. The two other cases have nearly

identical statements located in different pericopes. A proponent

of the two-document theory would presumably explain these

as examples of similar material in Mark and Q, where bothMatthew and Luke happened to follow Q. Sanders also gives

three additional cases, which seem quite weak to me.

The argument from order has generally been one of the

strongest for the two-document theory, yet Sanders notes many

other cases where either: (1) passages are differently placed

in all three Gospels; (2) Mark differs from one Gospel when

the other has no parallel; or (3) Matthew and Luke put the

same "Q" material in the same place relative to Mark. To the

extent these examples are valid, the proponent of the two-document theory must either expand the size of Q until it begins

to look like Matthew (moving toward Augustine's or Griesbach's

theories) or concede that Luke and Matthew did not use their

material independently (alleviating any need for Q).

Let us now consider the verbal evidence related to the synoptic

problem. According to Honor33 there are somewhat over

10,000 words in Mark and somewhat under 20,000 each in

Matthew and Luke. All three Gospels overlap in passages containing about 8,000 words. If we define verbal agreement as the

use of the same vocabulary word in the same grammatical form

in a.common passage, then the Triple Tradition has over 1800

verbal agreements between all three Gospels. In addition, there

are nearly 2000 double verbal agreements between Matthew

and Mark, over 600 between Matthew and Luke and over 1000

between Mark and Luke. The exact figures he gives are included

in the chart on the following page:

32Sanders, "Argument from Order," section III.


10/21


Triple Total Non- %Agree- Double Agreements Agree- Agree- Total Agreements Mt Mk Lk ments ments Words ments

Matthew 1852 1908 637 4397 3939 8336 52.7

Mark 1852 1908 1039 4799 3831 8630 55.6

Luke 1852 637 1039 3528 4356 7884 44.7

Although we are only looking at the so-called Triple Tradition

(similar material in all three synoptics), it is clear that there

is considerable verbal identity, at least in this part of the Gospelmaterial. It is certainly more than casual memory is likely to

preserve; therefore, oral source theories must postulate some

enhancement, either through direct revelation, divine aid in recall

{cp. John 14:26), r memorization (either intentional or due to

repeated use). On the other hand, this is pretty substantial

divergence for copying, so written source theories must include

substantial editing. Neither alternative can be ruled out by the

verbal evidence, since ancient society depended much more on

memory than we do;34 but it was also a common practice inwriting histpries to epitomize and edit existing written sources.35

Looking at the details above, notice that Mark has somewhat

more agreements than either Matthew or Luke. Honor does

a statistical analysis of this phenomenon and of the order of

incidents. He concludes that both favor Mark as the intermediary

between Matthew and Luke, on the assumption that two Gospels

used the other or others. Mark is intermediary in three schemes:

(3) Lk

IMk

IMt

84 See especially Harald Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) ; and Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manu-script (Lund: Gleerup, 1961).

( i ) Mk

/ \Mt Lk

(2) Mt

Mk

ILk


11/21


Here (2) and (3) have two alternatives, depending on whether

or not there is also direct borrowing between the first and third

Gospel. Of these schemes, (1) is the two-document theory (with

Q ignored) and (2) is Augustine's form of the successive de

pendence theory. Notice that Griesbach's form is definitely not

favored by this analysis, though no assumptions were made

against it in making the analysis.

If we accept ( 1 ) on this basis, however, the 637 cases where

Matthew and Luke agree verbally against Mark must be ex

plained, as (according to the two-document view) neither Mat

thew nor Luke is supposed to be dependent on the other. Asthe number of these agreements is more than 1/3 the number of

the triple agreements, it seems hazardous to explain them away,

whether as places where Q and Mark overlap but both Matthew

and Luke prefer Q, or as cases where Matthew and Luke im

prove Mark's style in exactly the same way, or where later

textual corruption has assimilated Luke (say) to Matthew.

Honor's further statistical studies, which favor the priority of

Mark and the existence of Q, do not deal with this problem.

We have now surveyed the more basic material which functions as internal evidence for the synoptic problem. We have

not considered arguments that certain material in one Gospel is

"more primitive" than that in another. Such arguments fre

quently depend on debatable interpretations of the passages

involved, and they always depend on definitions of "develop

ment" (such as increase in: refinement, respect for Jesus,

miraculous elements; and loss of picturesque details). Sanders36

has shown these tests to be unreliable in comparing the canoni

cal Gospels (early) with apocryphal ones (late). Such tenden

cies as seem to be reliable by this comparison show no more

evidence of primitivity in Mark than in Matthew.

Before we move on to external evidence, let us review the

status of various theories in the light of the internal evidence we

have considered. The Ur-Gospel and Griesbach theories are able

to explain the similar order in the synoptics satisfactorily by

means of borrowing. In the first, all follow the order of the

hypothetical original Gospel pretty closely, though Mark's orderis closest. The Griesbach theory sees Mark following the order


12/21


of Matthew and Luke alternatively, therefore always agreeing

with at least one of them. The Augustinian model seems more

strained here: basically Mark follows Matthew with occasional

divergence ; Luke always prefers Mark's order to Matthew's, but

does not always follow Mark himself!

The most serious problem for the Ur-Gospel, Griesbach and

Augustinian views is the lack of agreement between Matthew

and Luke in the order of what we will call the "Q" material.

This must have had some order in the original Gospel (whether

Ur- or Matthew). Why does Luke or Matthew depart from

this order when they pretty well follow the order of their originalotherwise? This problem seems to be nearly insurmountable at

present. The burden of proof is certainly upon proponents of

such views to come up with a reasonable explanation.

The two-document theory has a natural explanation for the

fact that Matthew and Luke never agree against Mark in order

of pericopes: they have followed his order pretty closely. It

also naturally explains the divergent order in the "Q" material,

though the shadow this casts on the historical reliability of

Matthew and Luke (who disagree in inserting saying intovarious contexts) should give evangelicals pause about adopting

it wholeheartedly. Statistical study of the verbal similarities also

favors this view, though not to the exclusion of the Augustinian.

The main problems for the two-document theory involve

details. Can we really get rid of 637 cases of verbal identity

(where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark) by expanding

Q, invoking stylistic improvements or later textual assimilation?

If we expand Q, it begins to pick up more narrative elements,which then undercut the usual explanation why the material

was located differently by Matthew and Luke in the first place.

If we allow much textual corruption, statistical arguments like

Honor's go down the drain, since many of his values on which

he draws conclusions do not differ by much.

The oral theory is quite flexible but also quite vague. It makes

few predictions, but is not so easily attacked. Unless further

developed, it does not offer an explanation why there should be

so much overlap in the content of the synoptics. The verbal dissimilarities fit oral transmission well enough, but the verbal


13/21


detailed content and the lack of order in the "Q" material can

be explained in various ways by oral theories, either consistent

or inconsistent with the historical reliability of the material.

In summary, on the basis of internal evidence, the two-

document theory seems to be significantly favored among the

simpler written-source theories. Oral source theories cannot be

judged against it without further specification of their details.

The External Evidence

Let us now turn to external evidence related to the synopticproblem. The first matter to consider, though it does not neces-

sarily bear on the question, is the authorship of the Gospels.

The text of the Gospels (setting aside the titles for the moment)

is anonymous, in that none says "I, Matthew, wrote this," or

something of the sort. Yet the prologue of Luke suggests that

its author was known to Theophilus, its recipient and patron;

Luke, at least, was not anonymous at first. This is significant in

view of the fact that early Christian tradition is unanimous in

assigning these Gospels to Matthew, Mark and Luke, and thatthe earliest surviving manuscripts have titles also, all of which

give the traditional authors only. This is most easily explained

if indeed these were the authors and it was common knowledge

in the early church. Otherwise one must explain both the com

plete loss of the correct information and its complete replace

ment by a single set of spurious names none of which is

otherwise particularly prominent.

If one accepts both the two-document theory and the traditional authors {e.g., if one is a two-document evangelical),

there is the anomalous situation that Matthew, an apostle and

eyewitness, copied a substantial fraction of his work from Mark,

a mere assistant with little first-hand knowledge of Jesus' min

istry. This is not impossible, but it certainly requires a special

explanation.

Let us next look at the order in which the Gospels were

written. Tradition definitely favors Matthew's priority over

Mark's. It is true that our earliest witness Papias (c. 130), inthe few fragments presently known from his writings, does not


14/21


Then Matthew wrote the oracles ( ) in the Hebrewdialect, but everyone interpreted them as he was able

87

rather suggests that for some time nothing else was available.

If Papias was referring to Matthew's Gospel, he at least hints

it was first.

Irenaeus (c. 170), who studied with Polycarp, a student of

the apostle John, is quite explicit in saying that Mark wrote

after Matthew:38

Now Matthew published a book of the Gospel among theHebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul werepreaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church. Aftertheir departure () Mark, the disciple and interpreterof Peter, also handed down to us in writing the thingspreached by Peter.

Clement of Alexandria, a younger contemporary of Irenaeus,

repeats a "tradition of the early presbyters" that the "Gospels

which contain the genealogies"{i.e., Matthew and Luke) "were

written first."39

Neither Irenaeus nor Clement seem to dependdirectly on Papias, unless one has decided that Papias must be

the sole source of all tradition on Matthew and Mark! Later

testimony by Origen,40

Eusebius,41

and Jerome42

also puts Mat

thew first, though these are writing long after the events and

probablydepend on earlier writers.

There is disagreement on the relative order of Mark and Luke

in tradition. Clement explicitly puts Mark third,43

but Origen

3 7

Papias, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord; only scattered fragments remain, this one quoted in Eusebius, Church History 3.39.16. Thetraditional materials on the Gospels are conveniently presented in boththe original Greek or Latin and an English translation in Daniel J.Theron, Evidence of Tradition (London: Bowes and Bowes, 1957),recentlyreprinted by Baker BookHouse.

3 8Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.2, now extant only in Latin transla

tion; this passage is quoted in the original Greek by Eusebius, ChurchHistory 5.8.2.

3 9Clement, Outlines, cited in Eusebius, Church History 6.14.5.

4 0

Origen, Commentary on Matthew, cited in Eusebius, Church His-tory, 6.25.3.4 1

Eusebius, Church History 3.24.5.


15/21


puts him second and Luke third.44

Earlier sources are not de

cisive: the fragments of Papias do not mention Luke; Irenaeus

gives the Gospels in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, but

Luke alone lacks a chronological connector:45

Now Matthew published . . . while Peter and Paul werepreaching the Gospel in Rome . . . . After their departure,Mark . . . handed down . . . the things preached by Peter.Luke also, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospelpreached by that one. Afterwards John . . . .

Some indirect information relevant to this question can be

extracted from the New Testament and the church fathers.If one takes Irenaeus' statement that Mark was written after the

of Peter and Paul to mean after their departure from

Rome rather than after their death (the word can mean either),

then his testimony is consistent with Clement's, where Peter is

seen reacting to Mark's Gospel after its writing.46

This would

date Mark in the mid-sixties, after Paul leaves Rome (c. 63)

but before Peter and Paul are martyred under Nero (6468).

Luke, however, was written before Acts {cp. Luke 1:3 with

Acts 1:1), and Acts is most naturally dated before the deathof Paul or the outbreak of the Roman persecution (c. 64). Thus

it appears that Luke precedes Mark, being written in the early

sixties while Paul was in Rome or perhaps even during the two

years Luke was in Palestine and Paul in prison at Caesarea

(c. 58-60).

The traditional evidence thus gives the order Matthew, Mark,

Luke or Matthew, Luke, Mark, which fit either the Augustinian

or Griesbach models but not the two document theory. Irenaeus'testimony to the date of Matthew is a problem, though, as he

puts it in the early sixties too, "while Peter and Paul were

preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church." This

would crowd the writing of all three synoptics into just a few

years, which seems to conflict with Papias' picture of some time

during which only Matthew was available.

Proponents of a two-document theory who do not reject

Papias altogether have often sought to solve these problems by

postulating that Papias is not referring to our canonical Matthew

4 4O i l it


16/21


at all, but to Q.47

This allows the order Q, Mark, Matthew,

Luke or Q, Mark, Luke, Matthew but only at the price of

rejecting the testimony of Irenaeus and Clement. They are dis

missed as ( 1) dependent on Papias alone, and (2) misunder

standing him. This is a rather precarious position, as Irenaeus

is more likely to have gotten his information from Polycarp

than Papias, and Clement claims to depend on several "early

presbyters."48

In addition, the common claim that Papias' term

better describes a sayings-source like Q than a Gospel like

Matthew49

ignores Papias' own usage: are what Papias

himself is expounding, yet he includes Jesus' actions as well ashis words;

50he applies the term in speaking of Mark, which

involves "things either said or done by the Lord."51

We should consider two other significant points in the tradi

tion on the synoptic Gospels: the language of Matthew and the

connection of Mark with Peter. The citations of Papias and

Irenaeus, above, sufficiently illustrate the former, which is a

regular feature of the tradition. The natural understanding is

that Matthew wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew. The suggestion that

this refers to a Hebraistic form of Greek seems unlikely: itassumes Papias is the sole source and (again) misunderstood;

it does not fit very well with Papias' remark that "everyone

interpreted them as he was able." On the other hand, the extant

Greektext of Matthew is not generally considered to be "transla

tion Greek"52

the kind of Greek seen in the Septuagint trans

lation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

The connection between Mark's Gospel and Peter is seen in

Papias:

53

And this the Presbyter used to say: Mark, indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in

4 7V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents (Cambridge:

University Press, 1923) ; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London:SCM, 1949).

4 8Clement, loc. cit.

4 9Stanton, Gospels, pp. 53ff; Manson, Sayings, pp. 18-19.

5 0According to Eusebius, Church History 3.39.16, who says Papias

narrated a story of "a woman accused of many sins before the Lord."5 1

Eusebius, Church History 3.39.15.


17/21


order the things either said or done by the Lord as much ashe remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed

him, but afterwards, as I have said, Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs but not as if making a narrative of theLord's oracles ; consequently, Mark, writing some things justas he remembered, erred in nothing ; for he was careful of onething not to omit anything of the things he had heard orto falsify anything in them.

That Mark's Gospel is Peter's preaching is quite clear, in spite

of obscurities regarding some other matters. Justin Martyr

(c. 150), in referring to material which only occurs in Mark,

appears to speak of Peter's "memoirs,"54 though possibly hemeans Christ's memoirs. Irenaeus definitely connects Mark's

Gospel to Peter, as noted above. Clement's testimony should

also be noted:55

. . . the Gospel according to Mark had this occasion: WhenPeter had preached the word publicly in Rome and had declared the Gospel by the Spirit, those who were present theywere many besought Mark, since he had followed him for

a long time and remembered the things that had been spoken,to write out the things that had been said ; and when he haddone this, he gave the Gospel to those who had asked him.When Peter learned of it later, he neither obstructed norencouraged it.

To summarize the external evidence relevant to the synoptic

problem, we note that a substantial tradition indicates all three

Gospels were written no later than the sixties ; that Matthew was

written first, apparently in Aramaic or Hebrew; that Mark or

Luke was second; and that Mark preserves the testimony ofPeter. This evidence is unfavorable to the Ur-Gospel theory

unless the original Gospel is taken to be the Semitic form of

Matthew. It gives a very different order for the writing of the

Gospels than does the two-document theory. The orders given

fit either the Augustinian or Griesbach models, but tradition

does not have Mark using either of the other written Gospels

as these theories do.

54Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 106.

55l


18/21


Some Suggestions for a Synthesis

The data of the synoptic problem presents a puzzle. Internalevidence generally favors the two-document theory, or at least

Markan priority; external evidence favors Matthean priority.

How is this to be resolved? It has been common practice to

dismiss the external evidence, since the church fathers can no

longer be cross-examined, while we can still examine all the in

ternal evidence. This is true, but it should be balanced by the

observation that the interpretation of internal evidence can be

rather subjective, and it does not exactly fit any of the simpledocumentary theories anyway.

Suppose that, instead of ignoring the external evidence and

constructing the simplest model that (almost) fits.the internal

data, we try to give both a fair shake. Our biggest problem is

the question of the relative priority of Matthew and Mark. Here

let us note that the internal evidence and the external evidence

are not necessarily looking at the same thing. Internal evidence

suggests that the content of Mark is (generally) prior to

Matthew ; external evidence that the writing of Matthew is priorto Mark.

Tradition tells us that Mark preserves the preaching of Peter.

The New Testament indicates (without papal overtones) the

pre-eminence of Peter among the apostles, especially in his ac

tivity as principal spokesman during those early years when

all the apostles remained together. If we suppose that Peter or

the apostles in concert made a selection of materials from the

life of Christ to form their basic Gospel presentation, then thecommon part of the synoptics may be explained as the apostolic

testimony. This would be an oral Gospel very much like Mark,

though perhaps lacking certain features of Peter's vivid person

ality a sort of proto-Mark.

Matthew would naturally use this oral Gospel in composing a

written one, though he has supplemented it with some of the

detailed teaching of Jesus as well as information on his birth.

Luke, too, would use the apostolic testimony (so he claims,

Luke 1:2), but he has done independent research to supplementit (Luke 1:3). Much of the verbal similarity shared by Matthew


19/21


Jesus' teaching, not guesswork in dividing up a sayings-source

Q. The relative shortness of Mark compared with Matthew andLuke is then seen as a reflection of Peter's own action-oriented

personality: his additions to the apostolic testimony were largely

matters of color rather than additional incidents or discourses.

This view naturally explains how sometimes Matthew (and

even Luke) will seem more primitive, since they do not depend

on our written Mark; how they may on occasion agree against

Mark in wording or order, though they generally seem to follow

him. The rougher style of Mark is explained by its being a

transcript of oral presentation, rather than a literary work. Thefine Hebrew poetic structure seen regularly in Matthew is then

the creation of Jesus rather than of some unknown (Semitic)

genius in the early church.

Two problems come to mind with this proposal. The first is

the tradition of an Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew. Could the

synoptics be as close together verbally as they are if Matthew

was not originally in Greek? Could our present Matthew be

a translation of a Semitic original? If there was such a docu

ment, why would it disappear? We only have room to sketchan answer to each of these. In reverse order: any document will

tend to disappear if it is preserved only by copying and there is

no one who knows its language who is interested in copying it.

The original Aramaic of Josephus has disappeared to this day.

The Hebrew Bible disappeared from Christian circles and the

Greek Bible from Western Europe, only to be recovered in

modern times because there were other groups who continued

to copy them. Our present Matthew could easily be a trans

lation if the translation technique was more like that used on

Josephus' works (translated by the author) than that used by

the translators of the Septuagint. Lastly, if the apostolic testi

mony existed in both a Greek and Semitic oral form (as the

church was bilingual from the start), then Matthew may have

used the Greek form in preparing his later Greek version of the

Gospel.

The other problem is Irenaeus' dating of the Gospel of

Matthew in the sixties. Here I would suggest that perhapsIrenaeus confused two traditions, putting the fact of its original

S iti f t th ith th d t f it l t bli ti i


20/21


Greek. I propose an early date for the Semitic Matthew (forties

or fifties), followed by Luke in the late fifties or early sixties,then by the Greek Matthew while Peter and Paul were preach

ing in Rome, and finally by Mark in the mid-sixties.

This proposal, I think does reasonable justice to both in

ternal and external evidence, though I stand ready to be cor

rected. It is also consistent with the New Testament picture of

the history and character of the apostolic period and with the

biblical doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.


21/21

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.