synoptic gospels

Name: Stephen T. AdairStudent ID Number: 2060329784Email Address: [email protected] Name: The Synoptic GospelsCourse Number: NT-547-ISR303Assignment Number: Assignment 2Audio Number: N/AProject Number: N/ADate of seminar (if applicable): N/ACourse instructor for seminar (if applicable): Location of seminar (if applicable): N/A**The Module Number, Audio Number (if applicable), and Project Number (if applicable) must be accurate in order to process the lesson and record the grade. The correct information is stated in the Course Study Guide.---------------------------------------------------------------Study Guide Code/Date/Versionfound on the first page of the Study Guide: 20110726Degree Program: MA in Biblical StudiesAddress: PO Box 2132City: Mossel BayState: Western CapeZip: 6500Country: South AfricaTelephone: +27 44 690 5133--------------------End of Coversheet--------------------

PLEASE TYPE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS LESSON SUBMISSION AS THEY APPEAR IN YOUR STUDY GUIDE HERE

Read Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (2001) and write a critical review of 2500 words

in which you:

1. summarize the most important data about the Synoptic agreements and disagreements (ca. 750 words);

2. describe Stein’s solution to the phenomena, including his strongest arguments (ca. 750 words); and

3. evaluate strengths and weaknesses of Stein’s arguments, including his use of source criticism, form criticism and redaction criticism (ca. 1000 words).

For the last point, use an additional three (3) secondary resources, located through the ATLA Religion database available through the Hunter Theological Library.

INTRODUCTION

Stein’s “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”1 is a revised edition of a

highly regarded book originally published in 1987 under the title “The Synoptic Problem” 2.

The main focus of the book to is to explain the very significant similarity that exists between

the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke as well as their differences; an issue frequently

referred to as “the Synoptic Problem”.

Stein divides the book into three parts, which in turn discuss the literary relationship of the

Synoptic Gospels, their preliterary history and the inscripturation of the gospel traditions.

These three parts employ three different academic evaluation methods to explore the synoptic

gospels, namely literary or source criticism, form criticism and redaction criticism.

This paper seeks to review the main concepts described by the book and to evaluate the

strengths and weaknesses of its main thesis.

1 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, 2001.2 Stein, R. H., “The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction”, Baker Academic, 1987.

of 24

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

Stein opens the first chapter with a summary of the Synoptic problem, noting that despite the

differences in size between Matthew (1,086 verses), Mark (661 verses), and Luke (1,149

verses), there is a remarkable similarity that exists between these three Gospels3. Such

similarities include:

Similarity of wording4,

The order of events5,

Agreement of parenthetical material6 (kl 248 to 265) e.g. “let the reader understand”

in Matt & Mark (kl 258),

Literary agreements (kl 269 to 280) – noting that Matt 22:37, Mark 12:30 & Luke

10:27 agree with each other but none agree with the Masoretic text or the Targums.

Similarity in Wording

Stein advocates system of colour coding and underlining to compare the texts of the Synoptic

Gospels, and notes that this system reveals the presence of numerous unbroken lines of exact

agreements, demonstrating the degree of exact agreement in wording between two and often

all three of the Synoptics7. Stein notes that this degree of agreement demands an explanation,

noting that:

It cannot be argued that the level of agreement is due to the fact that each author

independently used exactly the same words as there no need to anticipate that exact

3 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, Kindle Location (kl) 204.4 Ibid, kl 204 to 224.5 Ibid, kl 224 to 248.6 Ibid , kl 248 to 265.7 Ibid, kl 217.

of 24

historical reproduction requires exact wording. Moreover, differences in wording also

do not reflect inexact historical reproduction.

The agreement in wording extends to quoted speech, which is likely to have been in

Aramaic, although the Gospel accounts are all worded in Greek. It is very unlikely

that each author would translate the Aramaic in exactly the same way.

Stein concludes that there is strong evidence of a common written source rather than oral

tradition (kl 280 to 293).

The Order of Events

Stein highlights three specific series where the synoptic gospels show agreement in the order

of events. Stein’s tables are reproduced in Appendix A, and cover the following passages:

Matt. 4:23 – 12:16; Mark 1:21 – 3:19; Luke 4:31 – 6:16

Matt. 16:13 – 20:34; 8:27 – 10:52; Luke 9:18 – 18:43

Matt. 8:23 – 13:58; Mark 3:31 – 6:6; Luke 4:16 – 13:21

Noting that the order of events is not always identical, Stein argues that much of the material

is organised in topical, rather than chronological, order to suit the preference of the individual

author8. This notwithstanding, Stein argues that the degree of agreement is sufficiently

impressive to suggest some form of common source9.

8 Ibid, kl. 250.9 Ibid.

of 24

Agreement of Parenthetical Material

Listing eight examples (reproduced in Appendix B), Stein suggests that one of the most

persuasive arguments for the literary interdependence of the synoptic gospels is the use of

similar parenthetic material10. Moreover, Stein combines this evidence with the reference to

written source materials within the Lukan prologue to leverage his view that these similarities

are due to the use of common, written source material11.

Literary Agreements

Stein sites two instances of unusual quotes from Old Testament scripture, arguing that these

references provide strong evidence of a common written source12. The first occurs in Matthew

3:3, Mark 1:3 and Luke 3:4, which all use the same quote from the Old Testament “A voice of

one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”. Stein

notes that this quotation is unusual because it does not conform to the wording used in either

the Septuagint or Masoretic Text. Thus, the fact that all three synoptic gospels use exactly the

same words is strong evidence of common source material.

The second instance occurs in Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27, which read:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your

mind (Matthew 22:37)


mind and with all your strength (Mark 12:30)


strength and with all your mind (Luke 10:27)

10 Ibid, kl. 248.11 Ibid, kl. 265.12 Ibid, kl. 269.

of 24

Stein notes that the wording of these quotations agrees neither with the Masoretic Text nor the

Targums, neither of which mentions “mind”13, and the use of both “heart” and “mind” has no

known precedence in the Septuagint texts, some of which use the former and some of which

use the latter but none of which use both terms14.

Conclusions

Following his analyses of the similarities in the synoptic gospels, Stein argues in favour of a

common written source utilised by the three gospel writers. This argument is predicated

primarily on the precision of the agreement in wording used by the authors15. Secondly, Stein

asserts that the agreement in parenthetical material cannot be adequately explained by means

of oral tradition16. Thirdly, Stein argues that the agreement in order of events can only be

explained in terms of a written tradition as it is unlikely that an oral tradition, which would

rely on memorisation of vast details, could produce such level of agreement17.

STEIN’S SOLUTION TO THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

Having concluded the existence of a literary source that was available to each of the gospel

authors, Stein investigates three forms of hypothesis concerning the nature of this literary

interdependence, including:

“The Fragmentary Hypothesis” which assumes the existence of numerous

fragments of written memorabilia recorded by the disciples. Stein dismisses the

credibility of this hypothesis as it is unable to explain the close agreement in the order

of events shared by the synoptic gospels18.

13 Ibid, kl. 280.14 Ibid.15 Ibid, kl. 293.16 Ibid.17 Ibid.18 Ibid, kl. 303.

of 24

“The Ur-Gospel Hypothesis” which asserts the existence of an earlier, independent

gospel, frequently referred to as the “Ur Gospel”. This hypothesis assumes that

several different versions of the Ur-Gospel existed, as it was redacted and extended

with time. This variation in the original document is said to account for the variations

in the synoptic gospels. Stein points out that no trace of this Ur-Gospel has ever been

found, but also notes that no trace of Q has ever been found either. Stein notes that

the most significant difficulty with this hypothesis is that the reconstructed Ur-Gospel

began to look increasingly like Mark’s Gospel, which then obviated the hypothesis as

a simpler, more plausible hypothesis would be that Mark’s Gospel was written first

and served as a literary source for both Matthew and Luke19.

“The Interdependence/Utilisation Hypothesis” which asserts that there is an

interdependence between the synoptic gospels, with one being the first to be written

and the other two having access to at least one or even both of the other two. Stein

notes that there are eighteen different connotations to this theory, with just three

finding support in the academic argument20. These three possibilities are as follows:

o Stein first examines the theory that Matthew wrote first, and was used by

Mark, and then in turn by Luke; a theory which dates back to Augustine.

o The second theory examined is that Matthew wrote first, was used by Luke

and then in turn by Mark. This theory is commonly known as the Griesbach

Hypothesis.

o The third hypothesis, frequently referred to as the Holtzman / Streeter

Hypothesis, holds that Mark wrote first and was independently used by both

Mark and Luke.

Stein argues in favour of the priority of Mark based on the fact the following factors:

19 Ibid, kl. 317.20 Ibid, kl. 303-318.

of 24

Mark’s shortness: Mark’s Gospel is considerably shorter than those of Matthew or

Luke when considering either the number of verses21 or the number of words22. It is

unlikely that Mark would have omitted so much of the material within Matthew or

Luke had either of these gospels been his source23. Moreover, it is unlikely that Mark

consciously sought to provide an abridged version of the other Gospels as in many

cases the individual periscopes within Mark are frequently longer than their parallel

periscopes in the other Gospels.

Mark’s Poorer Writing Style. Mark’s writing style, in terms of grammar,

vocabulary, style idiom and sentence, is inferior to that of Matthew or Luke. It is

unlikely that Mark would change good Greek in his source material and replace it

with inferior Greek; it is far more logical that Matthew and Luke would improve on

the writing style of their source24.Additionally Mark is frequently overly wordy, using

unnecessary material25. Stein dismisses the notion that this could be a result of Mark’s

conflation of Matthew and Luke as this is only possible in 17 of the 213 cases of

redundancy, in the gospel of Mark26.

Mark’s Harder Readings. In a number of cases, Mark’s Gospel presents difficult

passages which may appear to weaken Jesus’ power or influence27, present the

disciples in a negative way28, or present clumsy theology29. Stein argues that it is more

credible that Matthew and Luke would tend to modify such difficulties in the Markan

21 Mark contains 661 verses, Matthew contains 1,068 and Luke contains 1,149.22 Mark contains 11,025 words, Matthew contains 18,293 and Luke contains 19,376.23 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 333.24 Ibid, kl. 371.25 An example is contained in Mark 1:32, where Mark reads “The evening at sundown…”, whereas the parallel in Matthew 8:16 simply reads “That evening”, and that in Luke 4:40 reads (Now when the sun was setting…”26Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 428.27 An example is in Mark 1:32-43, where many sick were brought to Jesus, Mark says that Jesus healed “many”, whereas Matthew and Luke say that Jesus healed “all”.28 An example is Mark 4:13, which reads “Then Jesus said to them, ‘Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?’”. In both Matthew and Luke Jesus merely explains the parable, without questioning the disciples.29 An example is Mark 3:5 where Jesus looked around [at those questioning His right to heal on the Sabbath] “with anger”. The parallel passages in both Matthew and Luke omit “with anger”.

of 24

text to avoid such difficulties, than for Mark to create such difficulties from a less

controversial source.

Lack of Matthew-Luke Agreements against Mark. There are very few instances

where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, either in the use of words30, or in order

of events31.

Literary Agreements. The omission of specific words in Matthew and Luke are best

explained in their modification of the Mark account than vice versa32.

The Argument from Redaction. Stein notes that redaction criticism favours

Matthean and Lukan redaction of Mark rather than Markan redaction of either

Matthew or Luke33.

Mark’s More Primitive Theology. Stein notes Mark’s more primitive theology is a

good indicator of its priority in time, with later accounts exhibiting a more refined

theology34.

30 Occasions when Matthew and Mark agree against Luke in use of words are best explained by Luke having diverged from the Markan account; similarly, in instances where Mark and Luke agree against Matthew, it is most credible that Matthew diverged from the Markan account. There are very few instances where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark. See: Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 47231 Stein refers to Lachmann’s observation that there are no occasions where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in order of events. Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 479.32 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 497-524.33 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 524-59734 One example is the limited use of the title “Lord” in Mark’s Gospel (6 times in the triple tradition) compared to either Matthew (14 times) or Luke (14 times). See: Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 605-622.

of 24

Stein also notes that Matthew and Luke contain a significant amount of common material

that is not found in Mark. However, this “double Tradition” material is arranged differently in

Matthew35and Luke, indicating that whilst both relied on similar source material, it is unlikely

that either Matthew or Luke used each other as the source for this material, and thus there

must have been additional source material available to both36. This source material is

commonly referred to as “Q”.

Noting difficulties in the “Q” hypothesis, Stein argues that alternative hypotheses have even

more difficulties37, and hence supports the priority of Mark and the existence of “Q”.

Moreover, Stein favours the notion that “Q” was a written source due to the exactness of

wording and agreements in the order of events within the “Q” material38.

DISCUSSION

Targeted at theological students, rather than seasoned academics, “Studying the Synoptic

Gospels: Origin and Interpretation” provides a very useful introduction and methodology for

first hand study of the synoptic gospels. Its contribution to the academic debate may be

evaluated under the following categories:

Layout & Structure

The approach taken is very practical, with suggested colour coding of the synoptic gospel

accounts to identify areas of agreement within the triple and the double traditions, as well as

those areas which are unique to a specific author.

35 Who arranges the material very artistically into five distinct “books”.36 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 738.37 Ibid, kl.831.38 Stein concedes that the nature of “Q” is not conclusion, noting: “Whether Q was a single written source, a collection of several different written fragments, a combination of written and oral traditions, various oral traditions, or even a single, unified oral tradition are questions unlikely to be resolved in the immediate future”, Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 831.

of 24

A major strength is the presentation in tabular form of material demonstrating the various

relationships between the texts of each of the gospel accounts.

Academic Approach

Use of Source Criticism

By analysing the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Source Criticism seeks to identify the

original source material employed by each of the authors. This form of analysis is necessary

to explain the striking agreement within the synoptic gospels, as well as their distinct

variations.

Source Criticism is a primary tool employed by Stein in his evaluation of the Synoptic

Gospels39, and is used to demonstrate his conclusions concerning Markan priority and the

existence of Q.

Stein notes that if Source Criticism can isolate a more primitive form of a text, or even the

ipissima verba of Jesus, then it is possible to better understand how each evangelist

understood and interpreted each specific event40. Moreover, by comparing how each

individual author interpreted various texts provides a better understanding of the true meaning

and exegetical limits of each text41.

Form Criticism

Whilst source criticism seeks to identify the earliest written text, Form Criticism seeks to

reconstruct the preliterary tradition by analysing the “form”42 of the various textual

39 This is clearly demonstrated in his colour coding methodology.40 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl.1248.41 Ibid, kl. 1248-1268.42 Martin Dibelius described five distinct textual “Forms” including: Paradigms, Tales, Legends, Myths and Exhortations. See: Travis, S. H., “Form Criticism”, in: Marshall, H. I., “New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods”, Paternoster Press, 1977, pp155–157.

of 24

components within each individual gospel text and how they emerged from the period of oral

transmission43.

Stein reviews the development of Form Criticism, providing an analysis of its basic

presuppositions, strengths and weaknesses in order to demonstrate the innate value of the

discipline. Noting negative views from certain academic circles44, Stein concludes that Form

Criticism is a neutral tool that may be used either positively or negatively45.

Using insights gained through Form Criticism, Stein concludes that the Gospels are not

chorological biographies46, and that their current form points to materials which were

persevered for their religious value47 and circulated as independent, self-contained entities

during the oral period48. Straus notes that the most important function of the early Church was

to proclaim the good news of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus49, which requires robust

preservation of the oral tradition.

Better understanding of the nature of the pre-existing oral tradition helps to identify the

editorial work of each Evangelist with greater precision50, and may be employed to identify

with greater reliability the ipsissima verba51 of Jesus52. These outcomes allow greater

interpretive insights to be derived from the Gospel accounts53, leading to useful homiletical

and didactic Insights that enhance the proclamation of the Gospel message54.

43 Black D. A., Dockery D. S., “New Testament Criticism and Interpretation”, Zondervan, 1991, p176.44 For instance: Collins, J. J., “Form Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels”, Theogical Studies, 1941, pp388-400.45 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 2026.46 Ibid, kl. 2031.47 Ibid kl. 2061.48 Ibid, kl. 2039.49 Strauss, M. L., “ Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels”, Zondervan, 2007, p58.50 Ibid, kl. 2101.51 Actual words of Jesus.52 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 2117.53 Ibid, kl. 2124.54 Ibid, kl. 2155.

of 24

Redaction Criticism

Redaction Criticism seeks to examine the final stage in the composition of the Gospels

accounts55. In other words, it is the study of the process of “inscripturation of the Gospel

Traditions”, which seeks to identify the specific emphasis and interpretation that each Gospel

author placed on the events recorded. Stein notes that Redaction Criticism has limitation,

particularly because it is more concerned with the differences between the Synoptic Gospels

than with their similarities56. This notwithstanding, Stein utilises Redaction Criticism in

drawing his conclusion of Markan priority as he refers to the later authors redacting factors

such as Mark’s poorer Greek and his harder sayings. Goodacre57 and Thomas58 make similar

observations, whilst Straus notes that Redaction Criticism confirms that the writers of the

Synoptic Gospels were purposeful authors and not mere compilers59.

It may be concluded that Source, Form and Redaction Criticism are necessary in the quest for

sound exegesis of the Gospels as it is necessary to trace the literary history of the traditions as

far back as possible before speculating about the oral period or drawing reliable conclusion

regarding a specific author’s editorial tendencies60. Stein’s use of these techniques, together

with his appraisal of their relative strengths and weaknesses is robust.

55 Smalley, S. S., “Redaction Criticism”, in: Marshall, H. I., “New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods”, Paternoster Press, 1977, pp179–181.56 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl 2588.57 Goodacre, M., “The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze”, T & T Clark, 2001, p87.58 Thomas, R. L., “Redaction Criticism” in: Thomas, R. L., Farnell, F. D., “The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism Into Evangelical Scholarship”, Kregel Academic, 1998, p254.59 Strauss, M. L., “ Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels”, Zondervan, 2007, p62.60 Wenham, D., “Source Criticism”, in: Marshall, H. I., “New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods”, Paternoster press, 1977, pp137–140.

of 24

Markan Priority

Stein’s conclusion that Markan priority best explains the available evidence is robust and

follows the consensus view61. This view assumes that Matthew and Luke were unaware if

each other’s work, and thus necessitates the need for additional source material, commonly

referred to as “Q”62. Stein’s conclusion could have been strengthened further by observations

such as why Mark, who emphasised Jesus’ role as teacher63, would omit so much of the

discourse material set out in Matthew’s Gospel had he used this as a primary source64.

One weakness in Stein’s conclusion is his discussion of the minor agreements of Matthew and

Luke against Mark. Such agreements constitute an Achilles heel for the two document

hypothesis as they could indicate that Matthew and Luke knew of each other’s work and

copied from one another, obviating the need for Q65.

Stein acknowledges the difficulty of such agreements, but dismisses their significance purely

because he assumes that the weight of this evidence is not sufficient to counter balance the

remaining evidence for Markan priority66. Stein’s conclusion would have been better

supported had he engaged in the academic debate more fully, evaluating theories such as the

use of a proto-Mark, such as Ur-Markus, or even Matthew and Luke’s use of different

redacted versions of Mark67.

61 Strauss, M. L., “ Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels”, Zondervan, 2007, p54.62 The combination of Markan priority and the existence of Q is commonly referred to as the “Two Source Hypothesis”.63 Mark uses the word “teacher” 12 times in 678 verses in direct reference to Jesus; Matthew uses the term 13 times in 1071 verses, but in only 8 instances is the term used directly of Jesus; Luke uses the term 15 times in 1171 verses, 12 of which are direct references to Jesus.64 Dunn, J. D. G., “Christianity in the Making, Volume 1: Jesus Remembered”, William B, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003, p145.65 Walters, P., “The Synoptic Problem”, in: Aune, D. E., “The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament”, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. P244.66 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl 1039.67 Walters, P., “The Synoptic Problem”, in: Aune, D. E., “The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament”, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. P245.

of 24

Q Material

Stein notes that the existence of Q is not an isolated hypothesis but has always been

predicated upon Markan priority and the independence of Matthew of Luke, as other

hypotheses have no need of Q68. Stein also concedes that the existence of Q is entirely

hypothetical as there is no extant Q material69.

Stein’s support of Q and, in particular, his conclusion that Q was a written document rather

than oral tradition is open to debate, and it is disappointing that Stein did not defend his

conclusions rather more robustly. Clearly there were several stages in the development of the

Gospel texts, starting with the life of Jesus and the actual events that the Gospels record,

which would be followed by a period of oral tradition where key events and specific words of

Jesus would retained and passed on primarily through the spoken word; these memories

would then be recorded in a written format, most likely constituting several individual

fragments which may then have been included in a number of literary collections which

served as written sources for the Gospel authors70. Indeed, Luke clearly states that many

written accounts of Jesus life were extant at the time of his writing71.

Dunn notes that the agreement in wording in the Q material in Matthew and Luke varies from

100% to around 8%, and argues that this strongly suggests that Q was most likely to be a

collection of oral tradition, rather than written record72. Luke’s reference to “many” written

accounts strongly suggests that there were several written sources available, which would

have supplemented a strong oral tradition, and so Q is probably best regarded a general term

referring to any source material, either oral or written, which was available at the time the

individual Gospels were written. Recognising that this material is not a distinct, definable

68 Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, Kindle, Edition, 2001, kl. 805.69 Ibid.70 Strauss, M. L., “Four portraits, one Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels”, Zondervan, 2007, p44.71 Luke 1:1-4.72 Dunn, J. D. G., “Christianity in the Making, Volume 1: Jesus Remembered”, William B, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003, pp148-9.

of 24

work leads to the likelihood that both Matthew and Luke would have had a different

collection of Q material, with some overlaps and other unique material and so some scholars

have referred to Q (source material common to Matthew and Luke), M (source material

available only to Matthew) and L (source material only available to Luke73.

Thus, Q remains a purely hypothetical document, with no extant documentary evidence to

support its existence. Thus some hold that Q was a collection of both oral and written material

that could explain both the close agreement and the wide divergence of the Synoptic

Gospels74 whilst others have cast doubt on the existence of Q altogether, preferring the

argument that Luke knew and utilised Matthew’s Gospel75.

CONCLUSION

“Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation” provides an excellent introduction

to the study of the synoptic gospels. The book is very practical, describing a simple colour

coding methodology for the study of the Synoptic Gospels and very useful tabulated

comparisons of the Gospel texts.

Stein employs source, form and redaction criticism discerningly in his quest to navigate

through the “Synoptic Problem”. Using these tools, Stein concludes that the majority of data

supports Markan priority and the existence of Q in written format.

Whilst Stein’s approach is generally robust, his evaluation of the minor agreements between

Matthew and Luke against Mark is rather too superficial, and alternative theories such as the

use of a proto-Mark, such as Ur-Markus, or even Matthew and Luke’s use of different

redacted versions of Mark are not adequately explored.

73 Strauss, M. L., “Four portraits, one Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels”, Zondervan, 2007, p51.74 Thomas, R., L., “An Investigation of the Agreements Between Matthew and Luke Against Mark”, Journal of Evangelical Theology, Spring 1976, pp103-112.75 Goodacre, M., “The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze”, T & T Clark, 2001, pp156-161.

of 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GENERAL REFERENCES

The Holy Bible, New International Version, Zondervan Bible Publishers, International Bible Society, 1984.

REFERENCES

Aune, D. E., “The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament”, John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Black D. A., Dockery D. S., “New Testament Criticism and Interpretation”, Zondervan, 1991.

Collins, J. J., “Form Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels”, Theological Studies, 1941, pp388-400.

Dunn, J. D. G., “Christianity in the Making, Volume 1: Jesus Remembered”, William B, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.

Goodacre, M., “The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze”, T & T Clark, 2001.

Marshall, H. I., “New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods”, Paternoster Press, 1977.

Stein, R. H., “Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation”, Second Edition, Baker Academic, 2001.

Stein, R. H., “The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction”, Baker Academic, 1987.

Strauss, M. L., “Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels”, Zondervan, 2007.

Thomas, R. L., Farnell, F. D., “The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism Into Evangelical Scholarship”, Kregel Academic, 1998.

Thomas, R., L., “An Investigation of the Agreements Between Matthew and Luke Against Mark”, Journal of Evangelical Theology, Spring 1976, pp103-112.

of 24

Appendix A: Agreements in the Order of Events

Table A1: First Series of Agreements in Order of Events

Event Matthew Mark Luke

a) Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum 1:21-22 4:31-32

b) Jesus’ healing of the demoniac in Capernaum 1:23-28 4:33-37

c) Jesus’ healing of Peter’s mother-in-law 8:14-15 1:29-31 4:38-39

d) Jesus’ healing in the evening 8:16-17 1:32-34 4:40-41

e) Jesus leaves Capernaum 1:35-38 4:42-43

f) Jesus’ preaching in Galilee 4:23 1:39 4:44

g) The miraculous catch of fish 5:1-11

h) Jesus heals a leper 8:1-4 1:40-45 5:12-16

i) Jesus heals a paralytic 9:1-8 1:40-45 5:17-26

j) The calling of Levi 9:9-13 2:1-12 5:27-32

k) Controversy over fasting 9:14-17 2:13-17 5:33-39

l) Controversy over plucking grain 12:1-8 2:23-28 6:1-5

m) Controversy over healing on the Sabbath 12:9-14 3:1-6 6:6-11

n) Healing by the sea4:2-2512:15-16 3:7-12 6:17-19

o) The choosing of the twelve 10:1-4 3:13-19 6:12-16

Red text denotes events verses where agreement in order is not realised.

of 24

Table A2: Second Series of Agreements in Order of Events


a) Peter’s confession of Christ 16:13-20 8:27-30 9:18-21

b) First Passion prediction 16:21-23 8:31-33 9:22

c) Teaching on discipleship 16:24-28 8:34-9:1 9:23-27

d) The Transfiguration 17:1-9 9:2-10 9:28-36

e) Concerning the return of Elijah 17:10-13 9:11-13

f) Jesus heals a demon possessed boy 17:14-21 9:14-29 9:37-43a

g) Second Passion prediction 17:22-23 9:30-32 9:43b-45

h) The temple tax 17:24-27

i) Teaching on true greatness 18:1-5 9:33-37 9:46-48

j) Concerning the use of Jesus’ name 9:38-41 9:49-50

k) Teaching on temptation 18:6-9 9:42-5017:1-214:34-35

l) Parable of the lost sheep 18:10-14 15:3-7

m) Teaching on reproving a brother 18:15-18

n) Teaching on the presence of Jesus 18:19-20

o) Teaching on reconciliation with a brother 18:21-22 17:4

p) Parable of the unforgiving servant 18:23-35

q) Departure to Judea 19:1-2 10:1 9:51*

r) Teaching on divorce 19:3-12 10:2-12

of 24


s) Jesus blesses the children 19:13-15 10:13-16 18:15-17

t) The rich young man 19:16-22 10:17-22 18:18-23

u) Teaching on the danger of riches 19:23-30 10:23-31 18:24-30

v) Parable of the labourers in the vineyard 20:1-16

w) Third passion prediction 20:17-29 10:32-34 18:31-34

x) The requests of the sons of Zebedee 20:20-28 10:35-45

y) The healing of the blind man 20:29-34 10:46-52 18:35-43

Red text denotes events verses where agreement in order is not realised.

* Following this verse is the largest block of unique Lukan material (9:51-18:14).

of 24

Table A3: Third Series of Agreements in Order of Events


a) The mother and brother of Jesus 12:46-50 3:31-35 8:19-21

b) Parable of the sower 13:1-9 4:1-9 8:4-8

c) Why Jesus taught in parables 13-10-17 4:10-12 8:9-10

d) The interpretation of the parable of the sower 13:18-23 4:13-20 8:11-15

e)Parables of lamp on a stand and “measure upon measure” 4:21-25 8:16-18

f) Parable of the growing seed. 4:26-29

g) Parable of the weeds 13:24-30

h) Parable of the mustard seed 13:31-32 4:30-32 13:18-19

i) Parable of the leaven 13:33 13:20-21

j) Jesus’ use of parables 13:34-35 4:33-34

k) The interpretation of the parable of the weeds 13:36-43

l) Parables of hidden treasure and pearl 13:44-46

m) Parable of the net 13:47-50

n) Parable of the householder 13:51-52

o) Jesus calms the storm 8:23-27 4:35-41 8:22-25

p) Jesus heals the Gerasene demoniac 8:28-34 5:1-20 8:26-39

q) Jesus heals Jairus’ daughter 9:18-26 5:21-43 (4:16-30)

r) Jesus rejected at Nazareth 13:53-58 6:1-6a

Red text denotes events verses where agreement in order is not realised. of 24

Appendix B: Agreements in Parenthetical Material

Table B1: Agreements in Parenthetical Material

Matthew Mark Luke Parenthetical Material Notes

24:15-18 13:14-16 “Let the reader understand”

9:1-8 2:1-12 5:17-26“Then he said to the paralytic”*ᵻ

“He said to the paralysed man” ǂ

5:1-8 8:26-29

“For Jesus had said to him, ‘Come out of this man, you evil spirit!’” ᵻ

“For Jesus had commanded the evil spirit to come out of the man. Many times it had seized him, and though he was chained hand and foot and kept under guard, he had broken his chains and had been driven by the demon into solitary places.” ǂ

Stein implies that the parenthetical material is similar in all three synoptic gospels. However, Matthew does not include the parenthetical material.

Moreover, Matthew records two demoniacs, whilst the Mark and Luke record just one.

Luke has much more parenthetical material than Mark.

This appears to be very weak evidence of any written form of interdependence.

27:15-18 15:6-10

“For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.” *

“knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him.” ᵻ

26:5 14:2 22:2

"But not during the Feast," they said, "or there may be a riot among the people." *

"But not during the Feast," they said, "or the people may riot." ᵻ

“…for they were afraid of the people.”ǂ

of 24

Matthew Mark Luke Parenthetical Material Notes

26:14 14:10 22:3

“Then one of the Twelve--the one called Judas Iscariot--went to the chief priests” *

“Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them.” ᵻ

"Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve." ǂ

It is not clear that these sentences actually constitute parenthesis at all; in fact only Matthew includes any form of parenthesis; In Mark and Luke the reference to Judas Iscariot is part of the main narrative.

26:47 14:43 22:47 “Judas, one of the twelve”

9:21 5:28

“She said to herself, ‘If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed.’"*

“…because she thought, "If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed." ᵻ

* Matthew

ᵻ Mark

ǂ Luke

of 24

Appendix C: Relationships Between the Synoptic Gospels

of 24

synoptic gospels

Documents

synoptic gospelscourse

synoptic agreements

synoptic problemstein

audio number

naproject number

isr303assignment number

module number

redaction criticism