The Problem Never Completely Resolves
We cannot say much about what exactly the sources looked like that preceded the synoptic Gospels, only that that direct dependence does play a large part in the end result. Even if we do conclude that Mark is the earlier written Gospel it seems that Mark is still somewhat secondary to earlier sources. Mk 13 for instance looks to be older material very unlikely to have been freshly penned by the Gospel author. Also I have previously indicated my own theorizing that most of the healing stories apparently predate our written Gospels, although in these cases they would likely have existed only in oral form. So Mark is not necessarily the oldest 'source' of shared material.

So students should be aware that hypothesizing a chronology for dating Matthew, Mark and Luke still does not completely (re)solve the problem of Gospel sources. It merely gives us a simplified ‘working hypothesis’ for supposing how a particular Gospel author may have put their own stamp on the material which we suppose to have been already available to the author (and in many cases material likely already known by the audience).

I'm perpetually agnostic concerning 'Q.' How is it that the material in Matthew and Luke concerning John the Baptizer is written virtually word-for-word? This would be the result of someone copying slavishly from a written source. So if the text in Matthew is not being copied here into Luke (or theoretically from Luke into Matthew) whether by a secondary Gospel author (or inserted by a scribe within the first hundred years of copying) we must suppose that both have here accessed the same written source concerning John the Baptizer. Yet the other shared material in Matthew and Luke (and not found in Mark) is less likely to be from the same shared written source since everywhere else the doubly-shared material in Mt-Lk is phrased independently by both authors making it impossible to know much about the immediate source of such traditions or whether these traditions originated from the very same source as the John-Baptizer material. How can we conclude the same way (all stems from a singular written source?) with this differing evidence?

So the precise sources of all the triply and doubly shared traditions are still largely unknown even after having ‘solved’ the problem of the likely order the Gospels were published. There will always remain the problem of whether an earlier version of Mark, or Matthew or Luke was known or accessed by any of the other Gospel authors (aurally or in written form) on top of the problem of other pre-Gospel traditions.

Tim's Eight Synoptic Problem Affirmations

I was recently asked (by Keith Dyer) whether I could put together a more positive counterpart to my Eight Synoptic Problem Myths/Misassumptions. So I have converted my negatives into positives to counterbalance those Myths/Misassumptions posted here in November. Myths 6, 7 & 8 were already negating negatives, but now here they are all eight in positive form!

Affirmation 1: Differences between Source Theory solutions are due in large part to differing definitions of what exactly is the Synoptic Problem (i.e. what kind of task is involved? how should we legitimately go about 'accounting for' the presence of similar synoptic data) and these differing conceptions determine whether solutions are either Intra-Gospel or Extra-Gospel solutions. Those source theories which attempt to explain the presence of (virtually) all literary data within the three synoptic Gospels by recourse only to the three synoptic Gospels (without bringing other 'external' sources into the question) might be classed as 'intra-Gospel solutions.' These solutions perceive the parameters of the problem as a literary problem similar to the problem of having to decide which of three student essays have been plagiarised of out three suspiciously similar-looking essays. Thus the Farrer theory, for example, has Luke dependent on the other two (i.e. a Mk-Mt hypothesis) in order to account for the presence of (virtually) all of the synoptic agreements whilst remaining agnostic about Matthew's non-Markan sources (and Mark's sources).
   The second category of solutions suppose that the problem is identical to the larger task of source criticism and so involves imagining the other 'non-Gospel' sources which might have played a part in the construction of the three synoptic Gospels, thereby defining the task entirely differently. Some source theories, in line with this larger conception/definition of the problem, may thus include some hypothesising about how the composition of fourth Gospel relates to the composition of the other three synoptics (and will in effect dilute the definition of the labels 'synoptic problem' and 'synoptic Gospels'). This second category of solutions can be categorised as offering 'extra-(synoptic)-Gospel solutions'. Hence a theorist presupposing the second definition of the synoptic problem may suppose that it be completely legitimate to draw conclusions about Matthew's use of various 'sources' or he or she might perhaps differentiate between non-Markan and non-Matthean source material utilised in the Gospel of Luke (see for example Ron Price's Three Source Hypothesis).
   These two differing presuppositions largely account for the inability to agree on whether one can legitimately speak about Matthew's different 'sources' and whether such hypothesising makes one's source theory any more or less 'plausible.' 'Two-Source' theorists (postulating a Mk-Q hypothesis) suppose that the increased specificity of the theory makes for a more plausible theory since it gives account of two major sources behind both Matthew and Luke (i.e. it 'accounts' for more of Matthew's data than does the Farrer theory). The perceived superiority or perceived plausibility of any particular source theory is thus directly related to the perceived definition of what is the task and problem under investigation. In my blog posts I presuppose the second category of the synoptic problem but only after attempting to begin with the first category for as long as the first category will allow. Thus I would agree in beginning with the task as defined by Farrer (“On Dispensing with Q”):

• “…our first supposition is not that both draw upon a lost document for which there is no independent evidence, but that one draws upon the other. It is only when the latter supposition has proved untenable that we have recourse to the postulation of a hypothetical source.”
  

Affirmation 2: The kind of story, the purpose, audience and 'genre' of each Gospel should help determine something about synoptic sources used. Mark appears to have been written to be performed orally. Matthew may have been rather familiar with Mark in this mode (in a 'performed oral mode' i.e. in secondary orality). Matthew's 'church instruction manual' displays some fondness for oral teaching whereas Luke does not appear to be written in such fashion. I suppose that Mark's Gospel uses popular stories about Jesus to tell a challenging story of God's kingdom/empire enacted on earth, in the figure of Jesus, as an alternative non-violent kingdom/empire in conflict with the current notions of kingdom/empire. I see that Mark's first audience was likely in Caesarea Philipi and had suffered the violent tortures of gladiatorial sports and being thrown to wild animals (after 70 CE -- thus Jesus is meant to be taken as an anti-war voice against both Rome's violence and those who seek to fight Rome's violence). Matthew utilises many of the same stories, because of their increasingly popularity, in order to guide and instruct the new community of believers who have become suspect of rejecting the Judaism of the time and who must redefine what true righteousness is (Matthew is composed in a slightly later time period than Mark, further away from the threat of Rome's war against Judaism and its persecuting powers -- the real enemies in Matthew are the Jewish leaders in whom Matthew's audience have lost faith i.e. they are the ones to whom people should have been able to, but can no longer, depend on to provide true leadership and in Matthew they are blamed for all sorts of things). This Jesus has even more to say concerning his true followers and promises an end to those who are false believers. Luke's story provides a real biblical drama written in an even more 'biblical style' in an attempt to provide even more historical perspective on the early Jesus movement. Luke's Jesus does not distance himself from many sectors of society and appears as an inspirational spiritual leader for all but the self centred greedy minded folk to follow. Theoretically there is no initial reason why Luke cannot have utilised Matthew given Luke's larger perspective and longer length would naturally put Luke later in time.

Affirmation 3: Matthew's sources appear mainly to have been of an oral nature. Even many of Matthew's biblical quotations may have been made indirectly (again secondary orality). Excepting the John Baptist traditions and the use of (or oral familiarity with) something resembling canonical Mark, there is little reason to postulate other written sources for Matthew, this leaves little room for 'Q' other than being a bunch of various traditions (without designating anything unified like a 'set' of traditions or a single document).

Affirmation 4: Some remnants of Markan vocabulary, genre, theology and structure can be seen in both Matthew and Luke, suggesting that Mark (or similar to Mark) was known and utilised in the composition of both Matthew and Luke.

Affirmation 5: The Farrer theory, though initially theoretically superior, breaks down upon examination. The author of Luke's Gospel appears to be a more competent writer so that the notion that Luke copied verbatim from Matthew the John Baptist sayings contradicts Luke's use of the remainder of the shared (allegedly) 'Matthean' sayings material elsewhere which is highly rewritten. Each time I have expected to see evidence of Matthean vocabulary in Luke, I have been disappointed. For one example, see synoptic-l message 9923 (Nov 17, 2004) where I looked at Luke's non-use of Matthew's favourite 'Judgment Day' expression. Once in Matthew (12:41-42) Luke's preferred Judgment Day expression appears to be used by Matthew (a shared source?) whereas Matthew's most used expression (Mt 10:15; 11:22 , 24; 12:36) is not found at all in Luke, thereby suggesting against the idea that Matthew is Luke's source. See also my follow-up post (on Luke's mission sending passage). See also my attempt here on this blog to find remains of Matthean theology in Luke's alleged rejection of Matthew's law theme parts 1, 2, & 3.

Affirmation 6: A large proportion of the overlapping (and likely some of the singularly attested) synoptic sayings material already existed prior to Jesus' use of such sayings (and also of the evangelists claimed used by Jesus). Jesus of course would have put his own spin on traditional wisdom material but it is overly naive to expect that Jesus would have invented from scratch all of his sayings as brand new sayings (and that these were then all handed down verbatim from disciple to disciple and to finally to evangelist). So far I think Dunn comes close to expressing how Jesus was remembered (in terms of his impact) in a similar fashion but does not as far as I know emphasise the presence of similar sayings material already predating Jesus.

Affirmation 7: More knowledge of ancient compositional techniques will assist in evaluating how each Gospel was likely composed. I suppose that an author would consulted a written source more sparingly then modern authors. Also I suppose that the notion of an 'author' was entirely different. An ancient author such as a Gospel author was 'a community voice' utilising the common knowledge of the community in a context that spoke loudly and would be appealing to that community. Hence all knowledge utilised was 'traditional' to some degree (it being very difficult and unlikely to say something entirely new and unheard of). Luke need not have depended on Matthew for information about Jesus (as though his knowledge and sources were running low!)

Affirmation 8: Form criticism should not be thrown out. I suggest that the notion of seeing 'individual units of traditions' stems from the fact that many of the sayings already existed in various forms prior to Jesus' and the evangelists' use of them. Categorising sayings into their various 'forms' does not necessarily indicate only something about their later use (by Jesus and the evangelists and those in between) but also those beforehand who already made use of something similar.

Hopefully the above affirmations are in line with this blog's purpose in encouraging students to think for themselves and to look at the assumptions for how a theory resolves a problem (and the type of problem being solved).

My blog in a nutshell: Eight Synoptic Problem Myths and Misassumptions

Given that my first year of posts largely attempted to dispel certain myths and misassumptions concerning synoptic source theories which might otherwise cloud students from clear thinking and since it is not clear how often I will be able to keep postings going here I thought to dot-point the following myths (and comments):

1. Certain synoptic source theories are more theologically and/or pastorally superior than others. Actually whether one solution could be is very difficult to demonstrate without at the same time maintaining several assumptions about what one already considers theologically/pastorally ‘superior’ or ‘inferior.’
2. Matthew, Mark and Luke are of the same genre. Actually each author, though employing many similar traditions (and narrative additions), tells a slightly different kind of story.
3. There is a consensus concerning what the ‘Q hypothesis’ is. Actually the Q hypothesis is taken to mean different things by different people.
4. ‘Markan redaction’ is prevalent in both Matthew and Luke. Actually the presence of Markan style and vocabulary in Matthew and Luke is not so prevalent (is it a case of deliberate avoidance or evidence against Mark as source?)
5. The closest verbal agreements between Matthew and Luke indicate a common written source which, for example may mean that Luke copied either Matthew’s Q source or Matthew. Actually the high verbal agreements in the John Baptizer speeches are simply anomalous for all the major source theories—i.e. how it is that Luke and/or Matthew suddenly turn into slavish scribes? Such agreement is rather unexpected even if Luke has utilized Matthew.
6. There was a distinct ‘oral period’ of transmission where the synoptic material was transmitted (and by implication derived from/translated from Jesus’ own words). Actually most of the synoptic traditions (besides the shared healing stories) appear as further ‘takes’ on already traditional materials (i.e. common debates and sayings/teachings not necessarily initiated first by Jesus—cf. the teachings in James).
7. Unlike in literary dependence, there are no layers in the handing down of oral traditions (a point made by Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). Actually research on oral traditioning has still a long way to go before deciding for or against this one.
8. Form criticism got things completely wrong. Actually even if the authors of Luke and Mark believed (and/or wanted readers to believe) that the Jesus traditions stemmed from the authority of eye-witnesses (viz. Bauckham’s thesis), one need not dispense with the whole form critical enterprise (especially if we grant recognition to the comment on 6 above).
   

A Year of Source Theory Blogging - Part One

In less than two weeks this blog will be a year old so for the next couple of weeks I will present a series of posts bringing together the previous year's blogging.

This blog has intended to focus on "Introducing the Synoptic Problem to students" as "A blog on the synoptic problem aimed at furthering student thought and participation." There are already websites around introducing the synoptic problem (see sidebar) and many of these are certainly more helpful and informative than most introductions available in print. Yet students need to be encouraged to see and understand the types of arguments being used. We should be seeing more students (and eventually more scholars) agnostic as to the 'best' source theory rather than settling for what one's lecturers espouse (e.g. 2ST, Farrer, Griesbach).

Students should be encouraged to look at the assumptions for how a theory resolves a problem (and the type of problem being solved). My own experience with the Gospel pericopes does not yet indicate the nature of the non-Markan sources appearing in Luke (granting that Luke depended on something almost identical to Mark). I can now see this agnosticism present throughout my past year's blogging. OK, now for a year's recapping and distillation of thoughts part one...

This blog began when I posted my lecture notes for BN101 held at Whitley College August 2006. Here I used the terminology look-alike gospels as a student-friendly description for the 'Synoptic Gospels.' The lecture emphasised the three kinds of similarities:
similar CONTENT (displayed in a Venn diagram),
simliar PHRASING (displayed in a Synopsis), and
similar ORDER of passages/pericopes (as displayed in Allan Barr's diagram/chart).
It is these three features (and the lack of these three features held in common with the fourth Gospel) which suggests evidence of a literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels. The 'problem' (or type) of this relationship is more so a modern problem arising as a historical enterprise to explain the use of 'sources' though pre-modern responses demonstrate some awareness of a concern with the problem of Gospel differences (thought to potentially undermine the historicity or veracity of the Gospel accounts). Ironically, it is not now the differences but the similarities in CONTENT, PHRASING and ORDER which present reason to suspect direct copying and often thought to be potentially more devastating (in terms of historicity).
My initial lecture notes helpfully grouped arguments for Markan priority into three categories:
Flawed Arguments (order of pericopes; length of pericopes; lower/higher Christology);
Inconclusive Arguments (difficult passages-Mark has more of them; vocab statistics); and
Substantial Arguments (editorial fatigue; tight plotting of Mark).

What I could have made clearer is that those who oppose Markan priority are basically correct that Markan priority is more of a belief (or 'working hypothesis') than a scientific fact given the current tests and results are rather tentative and often reversable. Assuming Mark to be a source of both Matthew and Luke makes reasonable sense of all three Synoptic Gospels (but so do other source theories).

My initial interest in the synoptic problem is mentioned briefly in my third post and in the latter part of my sixth post. Basically as an undergraduate student I found the introductions to the synoptic problem available in print very disapointing and unhelpful so I wrote an essay demonstrating this(part A evaluating six standard intros; part B looking at arguments for and against Matthean posteriority). The essay is made available in the side-bar (Solving the Synoptic Problem for Students?).

Thanks to Stephen Carlson in January I had to correct my earlier assertion that Henry Owen (1764) was the first to suggest direct literary dependence (interrelationship) since it appears that the notion might be dated even earlier (e.g. Hugo Grotius, John Mill, J.J. Wettstein). However I concluded that we still need to distinguish between:

(a) those who believe that the later Gospel compositions were written with some knowledge of the predecessors work (Augustine’s position); and
(b) those who believe that an author fully ‘depends’ on an earlier work for the material (without which they would probably lack the material).

The latter category has produced various models all claiming some notion of 'dependence' but due to the belief that certain material would have (or could have) been available in more than one document or in the form of oral traditions (rendered even more complex by secondary and tertiary orality--i.e. as a written work develops an oral life of its own) it is impossible to know whether Luke's Gospel depends on the text/document of Matthew's Gospel for all the overlapping material (and/)or whether Matthew and Luke shared a common source or whether Matthew's Gospel (or portions of it) had entered into a second level of orality and could be recalled/remembered by the author of Luke.

To update on an older exchange between Carlson and myself (see link in sidebar) which debated whether Luke's dependence on Matthew should be seen as any more plausible than the two's dependence on shared source/s (i.e. Mk-Mt-Lk vs. Mk-Q-Lk). I think our definitions of plausibility were not identical. What is it that would make us perceive that the Mt-Lk double tradition (1) originated with Matthew's text and/or (2) was only available to Luke via Matthew? So neither the Mk-Q or Mk-Mt theory should be presupposed as more logically plausible since even though the Mk-Q theory demands a common hypothetical source (Q) the Mk-Mt theory demands that Luke owes all of its 'Q' material solely to the text of Matthew making the Farrer theory less agnostic about the material, which could actually represent multiple traditions/sources. Only at a basic mathematical/logical level does Farrer hold the advantage by simplifying the Mt-Lk overlap. Yet only the John Baptist traditions share a close enough verbal similarity (phrasing) to demand literary dependence for this material (which would either indicate very little direct borrowing from Matthew or give us an extremely small Q!)

My next post will review my posts on Dunn's source theory and attempt to bring some clarity to my earlier disorganized posts.