THE RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO ONE ANOTHER

IN the previous chapters the first three gospels have been separately examined, with only brief and incidental reference to their relation to one another. But no attentive reader of these gospels can have failed to observe that they are in many respects alike, and even a cursory comparison of them on the one side, with one another and, on the other, with the fourth gospel will serve to set this fact of the mutual resemblance of the first three gospels in clearer light. The fact is by no means a modern discovery. Tatian's treatment of the several gospels in the construction of his Diatessaron in the latter part of the second century, shows clearly that he had observed the practical equivalence of many of the narratives in the several gospels; and Augustine, at the beginning of the fifth century, proposed a theory to account for a part of the facts.

In modern times, the fact that the first three gospels present to so large a degree the same view of the facts of the life of Jesus has led to the common application to them of the title the "Synoptic Gospels," and the problem of discovering how this resemblance came about, which soon resolves itself into the problem how these gospels arose, is called the "Synoptic Problem."

I. THE ELEMENTS OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

The chief elements of the problem are five:

1. The similarity of these gospels to one another.—(a) They are all built upon the same general historical framework. Thus they all contain, after an account of the preaching of John the Baptist, and of the baptism and temptation of Jesus, a narrative of Jesus Galilean ministry, of a journey to Jerusalem, of the last week in Jerusalem, and of the post-resurrection story, all omitting the early Judean ministry of which the fourth gospel contains an account, (b) They record in considerable part the same events in these periods, a fact the significance of which will be better appreciated if it be remembered how small a fraction of the events of Jesus ministry must be included in the narratives, and if it be noticed to how large an extent the fourth gospel records a different series of events, (c) They resemble one another in the order of events, the resemblance between Mark and Luke being especially close, (d) Finally, there is very close verbal resemblance in the record of the events narrated in common by two or by all three of the synoptists. This verbal resemblance, though of differing degrees, is unlike the resemblance in order, in that it is apparently unaffected by the particular combination of authorities at the point at which it appears. The nature and extent of this resemblance may be seen in the following examples:

It will be observed that in the first instance the resemblance of all three is shown; in the second, that of Matthew and Mark; in the third, that of Matthew and Luke; and in the fourth, that of Mark and Luke.

Such verbal similarity as is indicated above extends also to the quotations from the Old Testament, even where the quotation departs both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint version. Illustration of this may be seen in Matt. 3:3 compared with Mark 1:3 and Luke 3:4, and in Matt. 1 1:10 compared with Mark 1:2 and Luke 7:27.

2. The differences between these gospels.—(a) Despite the marked resemblances enumerated above, each gospel has its own distinct motive, as has been pointed out in the preceding chapters. (b) Events recorded by two or all three of the gospels are treated differently in the several gospels in accordance with the specific purpose of each. Thus the healing of the paralytic stands in Mark (2:1-12) as one of a series of events illustrating the growing hostility of the scribes and Pharisees to Jesus. In Matthew (9:1-8) it is recorded in nearly the same words, but is one of a series of events which either illustrate or attest the authority which Jesus has assumed in the sermon on the mount, to which the whole group is appended. This particular incident seems clearly intended to serve as an instance of a deed of power attesting the authority of a word, and the evangelist adds the comment, " when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God which had given such authority to men." (c) In a few cases there are wholly independent accounts of what is evidently the same event. Thus of the call of the four fishermen, Matthew and Mark have practically the same account (Matt. 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20), but Luke quite a different one (Luke 5:1-11). (d) Each evangelist narrates some events not recorded by the others, and omits some recorded by the others. Thus Luke has in 9:51-18:34, constituting nearly one-third of his gospel, a series of events and discourses for which there is no parallel at the corresponding place in the other gospels, and most of which do not appear in the other gospels at all. To the story of the public ministry of Jesus, which Mark also records, Matthew and Luke each prefix a story of the birth and infancy of Jesus, yet not at all the same story.

3. The preface of Luke.—This as already pointed out in chap, iii, furnishes most important data for determining in general how written gospels arose, and in particular what material, both oral and written, was in existence when Luke was written. It demands careful attention, as unquestionably the oldest and most valuable testimony on these points that we have received from antiquity. It reads as follows:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.

From this statement we are enabled to glean the following facts of interest and significance: (a) When the evangelist wrote there were already in existence several narratives of the life of Jesus, more or less complete. b) These narratives were based, at least in the intention of their writers, on the oral narratives of the life of Jesus which proceeded from the personal companions of Jesus, men who had witnessed the events from the beginning, and from the beginning had been ministers of the word, servants of the gospel. It is suggested at least that there was a somewhat definite body of such oral narrative, (c) In its scope this oral gospel was coincident with the public life of Jesus. "They who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the word " are one class, not two; this phrase cannot mean, "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses " and " those who were ministers of the word." From the beginning must therefore mean from the beginning of Jesus ministry, not of his life, and the implication is that that which these transmitted was that which they knew.¹ (d) These previous gospels nevertheless left something to be desired in respect of completeness or accuracy; our author recognizes a need for a book different from those of his predecessors, (e) Our evangelist does not himself belong to the circle of eye witnesses, but to those to whom the eyewitnesses transmitted their testimony (vs. 2). (f) Yet neither is he far removed from them; though others have preceded him in writing, he classes himself with those to whom the testimony of the eyewitnesses was delivered, and even associates himself under the pronoun " us " (vs. 1) with those among whom the events of Jesus life occurred, thus intimating that these events fell within his own time, (g) He had access, therefore, not only to these other writings, but to that living oral testimony from which these other writers drew. (h) He had made painstaking investigation respecting the material of his narrative, having searched all things out from the beginning, (i) He had in view in writing, not those to whom the history of Jesus was unknown, but those who had already been taught orally. Observe the significant testimony thus indirectly borne that it was the habit of the church, even at this early day, to teach the life of Christ, and the clear indication that this gospel at least was not for unbelievers, but for believers. (j) His object in writing is to furnish his reader an entirely trustworthy record of the life of Jesus, an historical basis of faith.

4. Statements of early Christian writers concerning the authorship of the several gospels.—These reflect the opinions held by Christians in the early part of the second century. Some of the most important of these statements have already been quoted in the preceding chapters. Of special significance for the problem with which this chapter deals are the statements of Papias concerning Matthew and Mark, transmitted by Eusebius.

But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he [Papias] gives in regard to Mark the author of the gospel. It is in the following words:" This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses [λόγων or λσγὶων], so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows:" So then Matthew wrote the oracles [or sayings, λόγια] in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able."² (EUSEBIUS, H. E., iii, 39.)

Though these statements directly prove what was believed in the second century rather than what took place in the first, and though they are subject to correction by internal evidence, they furnish when confirmed by internal evidence, a much stronger basis of judgment than is given by either alone.

5. The literary method of the age.—This furnishes an important datum for the solution of our problem. There is a strong presumption that the methods by which the gospels were produced were not radically different from those which were common in that age, and that, if the phenomena which are discovered by a careful comparison of the gospels are paralleled in other literature of that age, the processes by which they were produced were also similar. That such literary methods are or are not in vogue today is of little significance. It is the common methods of the time in which the gospels arose with which we are concerned. In this connection two facts are important to observe.

a) Narratives and teachings were often preserved and transmitted for a considerable period in oral form before being put into writing. The Targums—i. e., paraphrases of the Old Testament books in the vernacular—existed orally for a century or more before assuming definite written form. The " tradition of the elders " was in the time of Jesus already somewhat definitely fixed, but it was not till the second century that it was put into fixed written form. The epistles of Paul and the preface of Luke's gospel bear witness that the story of the life of Jesus was told by word of mouth and made the subject of instruction before the rise of written gospels, at least of any written gospels of which we have definite knowledge.

b) The construction of a book by the piecing together of other books already written and published was a common practice of that day. The book of Enoch, as we possess it in the Ethiopic text, is composed of smaller books by different authors, and of different dates, perhaps three in number. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles contains imbedded in it the "Two Ways," which appears in a similar form in the ecclesiastical canons and in an independent Latin translation. But the most instructive example in its bearing upon the problem of the rise of our gospels is the Diatessaron of Tatian, prepared by an Assyrian Christian about 175 A. D. From our four gospels, substantially as we now have them, Tatian with scissors and paste constructed a new gospel, to which either lie or others after him gave the name Diatessaron, " com posed of four." This composite gospel came into common use in the churches of Syria, and largely displaced the separate gospels, till Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, in the fifth century, removed them from some two hundred churches, putting in their place the separate gospels.

The inference from these facts is, of course, neither that the gospels were necessarily the product of oral tradition, nor that they were certainly produced from older written gospels, but that both the reduction to writing of matter for a time transmitted orally, and the employment of written works in the composition of new books being common phenomena of that time, neither is to be denied as a priori impossible in the case of the gospels, and either is to be readily admitted, if suitable evidence of it appears.

II. THEORIES PROPOSED FOR THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM

As long ago as Augustine, as already mentioned, the resemblances of the gospels were noticed, and the suggestion was put forth by him that Mark had condensed his narrative from Matthew. Jerome discussed the question of the relation between the original Hebrew Matthew and the Greek Matthew then and now current in the church. Serious and thorough investigation of the whole problem, however, dates from the latter part of the eighteenth century, since which time many theories have been proposed. To set forth these theories in detail lies beyond the scope of this short introduction to the gospels. It will, however, be useful to indicate in broad outline the classes of theories which have been proposed.

1. The theory of a common document from which all three of our synoptic gospels drew was proposed by Eichhorn in 1794, and for a time commended itself to many scholars. But to account for the differences of the gospels as well as the resemblances, it was necessary to suppose that this document existed in several recensions. Of these Eichhorn made four, which number Bishop Marsh found it necessary to raise to eight. And when it was pointed out that even this large number of documents, for none of which there was definite objective evidence, failed fully to account for the facts, the theory broke down under its own weight and complexity, and today probably has no advocates.

2. The theory of an oral gospel regards the oral teaching and preaching of the apostles and early missionaries and catechists as the direct source of our synoptic gospels. This teaching, it is held, naturally assumed, while the apostles were still living, a somewhat fixed and definite form, or perhaps several such forms resembling one another, yet having each its own peculiarities. The differences between the several synoptic gospels are due to the flexible character of this living oral tradition, or to the variant forms which it assumed; the resemblances to its fixed element. Gieseler gave definite form to this view in his work, Entstehung der Evangelien, 1818, and it still has zealous defenders. Like the tradition in which it finds the source of our gospels, it is very flexible and has taken on many variant forms. Thus Edwin A. Abbott, making the oral gospel to contain only what is strictly common to all three synoptists, reduced it to little more than a series of detached and fragmentary notes.³ Arthur Wright, on the other hand, making large use of the intimations that there existed in the early church a class of catechetical evangelists, constructs several cycles of tradition out of which by varied combination he supposes our gospels to have arisen.⁴

The serious question concerning this general theory is not whether an oral gospel in fact existed, nor whether it is the source of our gospels—both these things are generally admitted, and are almost directly affirmed in Luke's preface—but whether it is the direct source of the present gospels. The close resemblances of the gospels to one another in certain parts and respects, as well as the peculiar and uneven distribution of these resemblances, lead many scholars to believe that between the oral gospel and the present gospels there must have been written gospels, and also 1 that there must have been some direct dependence of our present gospels on one another. Thus there has arisen another class of theories, which admit the existence and influence of the oral gospel, but do not find in it the immediate and sole source of our present gospels. They may be grouped under the head of—

3. The theory of an original document or documents supplemented by that of the interdependence of our present gospels. It is evident that this view naturally takes on many forms according to the document or documents assumed to be original and the order of dependence which is predicated. It must suffice to mention the views of a few well-known scholars.

Meyer regarded the original Hebrew gospel of Matthew, the oracles spoken of by Papias, as the oldest document. This was used by Mark, who had as his other chief source his personal recollection of the preaching of Peter. Our present gospel of Matthew grew out of the original Hebrew gospel of Matthew largely under the influence of Mark, and under this influence was translated into Greek. Luke used Mark and the Greek Matthew as we still have it.

Bernhard Weiss holds a similar view, differing most conspicuously in holding that Luke used, not our present Matthew, but a Greek translation of the original Matthew.

Holtzmann, Bruce, Wendt, and others while recognizing the use both of Mark and of the original Matthew by the first and third evangelists, regard Mark itself as an independent work. According to this view, there lie at the basis of our gospels two original and independent documents, the original Matthew and Mark, the latter identical, or nearly so, with our present second gospel. This is known as the two-document theory.

Wernle finds the two chief sources of our Matthew and Luke in the gospel of Mark and a collection of discourses, but supposes that each of them had besides these two another source or sources, that of Matthew consisting of discourse material only, that of Luke containing both narrative and discourse material.

It is beyond the scope of this brief chapter to under take a full exposition either of the principles by which the solution of the problem must be reached, or of the facts which an attentive study of the gospels discovers, or of the conclusions to which an interpretation of these facts lead. It must suffice to state a little more fully than has been done under the " Elements of the Problem " some of the more important facts, and to indicate very briefly the limits within which the solution probably lies.

III. FACTS RESPECTING THE RELATION OF THE GOSPELS TO ONE ANOTHER

I. In material common to all three gospels Mark's gospel resembles each of the others, both in order of events and in content of sections, much more closely than these two resemble each other. Indeed, there are no instances of Matthew and Luke agreeing in order against Mark, and their agreements against Mark in content of sections common to all three are confined to an occasional brief phrase and the occasional common omission of material found in Mark. This indicates that Mark is in some sense the middle term between Matthew and Luke, but does not determine in precisely what sense it is such.

2. Matthew and Luke have in common a considerable amount of material not found in Mark. The verbal resemblance of this material in the two gospels is often very close; but in its location there is scarcely any agreement between them. This marked difference between the treatment of the material which both share with Mark and that which they share with one another but not with Mark, must evidently be taken into account in explaining their method of procedure.

3. Matthew has a considerable amount of discourse material peculiar to himself. This material is mainly contained in long discourses in which, with the exception of the sermon on the mount, the narrative introduction and the beginning of the discourse are found in Mark. Matthew has no narratives peculiar to himself, except in the infancy sections, and the story of the guards at the sepulcher of Jesus (27:62-66).⁵

4. Luke has a number of narratives and a consider able amount of discourse material peculiar to himself. The great Perean section (9:57-18:14; 19:1-28), practically made up of discourses with brief narrative introductions, has no parallel at this point in either of the other gospels. Of the discourse material proper, a part is peculiar to Luke, a part is found also in Matthew differently located, the two elements being closely interwoven.

5. The resemblances of parallel passages in the gospels, especially in discourse material, are often very close; closer, e. g., than is usual in quotations of the New Testament from the Old Testament. These latter were made, of course, from a written source, but usually, no doubt, from memory. The relation of the synoptic gospels to one another and to the sources which, as we must in view of their resemblances infer, lay behind them, closely resemble those which are discovered between Tatian and his sources; these latter being our four gospels, which he possessed in substantially their present form. While Tatian's resemblance to his sources perhaps exceeds that of the gospels in some respects, for which there are special reasons, in other respects he has used his sources with greater freedom than the evangelists have apparently allowed themselves in reference to theirs.⁶

IV. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

While the above statement of facts is very far from complete, it is perhaps sufficient to prepare the way for a tentative statement of conclusions for which a high degree of probability may be claimed.

1. The gospels are not independent documents, but have some literary relationship.

2. That relationship is documentary, i. e., due not solely to the use of a common tradition, but mediated in part by written gospels.

3. Mark's gospel, or a nearly equivalent document, was used by both the others, furnishing them their general framework and the material common to all three.

4. There was another source, or other sources, also written, which Matthew and Luke possessed in common, but which one or both of them used in a very different way from that in which they used Mark; in particular, in that this source or these sources did not control the arrangement and order of material.

5. Since the first and third gospels each have a considerable amount of material in common, yet each has also much that is not used by the other, it is evident, either that neither of them used all that was in their common source, or that one at least of them had also a source not possessed by the other. If they had only a common source, that source was in all probability the Logia of Matthew mentioned by Papias. If in addition to this common source the first evangelist had a peculiar source, this latter was probably the Logia spoken of by Papias. The hypothesis of a source or sources used in common by both, plus a source peculiar to Matthew, seems better to account for the facts than that of a common source only. Even the common source must have been used quite differently by the two evangelists.

6. Behind all our present gospels and their written sources there doubtless lay, as Luke's preface indicates, an oral tradition ultimately derived from the eyewitnesses. Being, as Luke's preface also suggests, still in existence when he wrote, this tradition was not only a probable source of the oldest documents, but probably contributed something directly also to the latest gospels.

7. Our present gospels of Matthew and Luke exceed somewhat, as Luke's preface indicates, the scope of this tradition and of the documents based directly on it. Alike the comparison of our gospels and the testimony of Luke's preface indicate that for the infancy narratives, and probably for some other portions of the gospels, minor sources additional to those named above must be supposed.

8. There is nothing in the facts respecting the relation of the gospels to one another to disprove the earliest statements of tradition respecting the authorship of these gospels. But the statement of Papias respecting the Logia of Matthew must be supposed to refer, not to our present first gospel, but to one of its sources.

1) Incidentally, therefore, this preface reflects the same conception of the limits of the gospel narrative that appears in Mark and is expressed in Acts 1:21, 22, " Of the men therefore which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection." This agreement with Mark and Acts in reference to the limits of the gospel story is all the more interesting that it occurs in a book which includes a narrative of the birth and its associated events. The phrase " from the first " in vs. 3 seems to go back of what the evangelist here calls the beginning, to the source of the stream of events, so to speak, in the facts that led up to the ministry of Jesus. It is, in any case, notable that by his inclusion of a narrative of events preceding the public ministry of Jesus, the evangelist exceeds the limits which he implies to have been those of that tradition and those written works which preceded his.

2) McGIFFERT'S translation.

3) See ABBOTT, The Common Tradition.

4) See WRIGHT, Composition of the Gospels and Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek.

5) To these should perhaps be added 9:27-31, a variant account of 20:29-34, as 9:32-34 is clearly a duplicate of 12:22-24.

6) See HOBSON, The Synoptic Problem in the Light of Tatian's Diatessaron (Chicago, 1904).