The Synoptic Problem! A Proposal for Handling both Internal & External Evidence -- By: Robert C. Newman

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 43:1 (Fall 1980)
Article: The Synoptic Problem! A Proposal for Handling both Internal & External Evidence
Author: Robert C. Newman


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 literarily 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 Gospels 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 seems to 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

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 had advocates for all possible sequences of the synoptic Gospels. Others saw the Gospels as dependent on one or more hypothetical written sources which have not survived. The sources postulated ranged from a single written Gospel, on which all three synoptics depended, 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 a hypothetical document usually called Q. This theory, ...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()