Wallace notes that he is following Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction.
Wallace opens his thirty-page article stating that “Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as well as when he wrote.”
Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction1 summarizes well the issues involved in the synoptic problem—as well as its probable solution. For the most part, our discussion will follow his outline.
A. The Literary Interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels
(There are four arguments which prove literary interdependence)
1. Agreement in Wording
“The remarkable verbal agreement between the gospels suggests some kind of interdependence.” The argument that the Gospel writers were wrote independently falls short in two areas:
a. Historical Naivete
“First, it cannot explain the differences among the writers—unless it is assumed that verbal differences indicate different events. In that case, one would have to say that Jesus was tempted by the devil twice, that the Lord’s Supper was offered twice, and that Peter denied the Lord six to nine times! In fact, one might have to say that Christ was raised from the dead more than once if this were pressed!”
b. Naiveté Regarding Inspiration
“Since John’s Gospel is so dissimilar (92% unique), does this imply that he was not inspired by the Spirit in the writing of his gospel?”
2. Agreement in Order
“Matthew has furthermore arranged his entire Gospel so that collections of narratives alternate with collections of sayings” (Stein, Synoptic Problem, 37).
3. Agreement in Parenthetical Material
“One of the most striking of these demonstrates, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the use of written documents: “When you see the desolating sacrilege . . . (let the reader understand) . . . ” (Matt 24:15/Mark 13:14). It is obvious that this editorial comment could not be due to a common oral heritage, for it does not say, “let the hearer understand.”
4. Luke’s Preface
“In the least this implies two things: (1) Luke was aware of written (and oral) sources based on eyewitness accounts; (2) Luke used some of these sources in the composition of his gospel.”
5. Conclusion
“Luke explicitly mentions his own investigation of written sources” (Stein, Synoptic Problem, 43).
B. The Priority of Mark
“The majority of NT scholars hold to Markan priority (either the two-source hypothesis of Holtzmann or the four-source hypothesis of Streeter. This is the view adopted in this paper as well.” “Stein puts forth eight categories of reasons why Mark ought to be considered the first gospel.”
1. Mark’s Shortness: The Argument from Length
“Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. On the other hand, less than 60% of Matthew is duplicated in Mark, and only 47% of Luke is found in Mark.” There are two reasons usually given as to why Mark would omit so much material: (1) Mark wanted to provide an abridged gospel for use in the churches; (2) Mark only wanted to record material that was found in both Matthew and Luke, perhaps on the analogy of Deut 17:6-7/19:15 (the voice of at least two witnesses confirmed a truth). Both of these reasons seem inadequate, however, for the following reasons.
Mark was not an abridgment, because when he did use the stories of Matthew and Luke, he expanded them. If Mark were confirming the witness of Matthew and Luke, he left out some important truths such as the birth narratives and the Sermon on the Mount. “In sum, we could add the now famous statement of G. M. Styler: “Given Mk, it is easy to see why Matt. was written; given Matt., it is hard to see why Mk was needed.” (Footnote G. M. Styler, “The Priority of Mark,” in C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (New York: Harper, 1962, 231. Cited by Stein, Synoptic Problem, 52). This dictum reveals one of the great weaknesses of the Griesbach hypothesis: what was the reason Mark was written? “The Griesbach hypothesis (suggested by J. J. Griesbach in 1776): Matthew wrote first and was used by Luke, both of whom were used by Mark.
2. Mark’s Poorer Writing Style: The Argument from Grammar
a. Colloquialisms and Incorrect Grammar
For example, Mark uses κράβαττον in 2:4, a slang word for “mattress” which was banned by such literary writers of the period as Phrynichus and Moeris. The parallels in Matthew and Luke change the word to some form from the root κλιν- (κλίνη, κλινίδιος), which was an acceptable literary term. This argument gains strength when it is seen that neither Matthew nor Luke ever uses κράβαττον (though Mark on three occasions does use the correct word).
b. Aramaic Expressions
“In these seven illustrations, the Aramaic expression (in Mark) is missing in all five parallel accounts in Luke and in at least five of the seven parallel accounts in Matthew. . . . for Mark to have added into his Gospel all these Aramaisms, which were not in his source(s), is unexplainable.”
c. Redundancy
“Matthew and Luke tended to make such redundant expressions shorter. The redundancy of Mark is best explained on the basis of a Markan priority.”
3. Mark’s Harder Readings
Wallace gives six texts that are supposedly offensive and therefore altered by either Luke or Matthew. This is a very weak argument for Markan priority. Is Wallace saying Mark writing inspired Scripture was wrong? (5) Mark 8:24-26—the different stages of a particular healing story, omitted in Matthew and Luke. The blind man is partially healed the first time by Jesus, then fully the second time. This is the only healing story in the synoptic gospels which required two stages. Perhaps this was the reason for its omission in Matthew/Luke, or perhaps it was the fact that saliva was used as the means of healing.32 There is nothing offensive in this miracle when Jesus is illustrating the slow learning process of his disciples to know who he is which takes place in stages.
4. The Lack of Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark:
(1) Why at times Matthew and Mark agree against Luke—Luke diverges from his Markan source whereas Matthew does not.
(2) Why at times Mark and Luke agree against Matthew—Matthew diverges from his Markan source whereas Luke does not.
(3) Why Matthew and Luke seldom agree against Mark—this would require a coincidental change on the part of Matthew and Luke of their Markan source in exactly the same manner.
5. The Lack of Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark: The Argument from Order
“What has indisputably been considered to be the strongest argument for Markan priority is the argument from order…in the narratives common to all three, Matthew and Luke agree in sequence only when they agree with Mark; when they both diverge from Mark, they both go in different directions. What best accounts for this? Most NT scholars have assumed that Markan priority does.”
6. Literary Agreement
“There exist in the synoptic Gospels a number of literary agreements that can best be explained on the basis of a Markan priority. These involve certain omissions and wordings that make much more sense on the basis of Matthew and/or Luke having changed their Markan source than vice versa.”40 Wallace offered no examples.
7. The Argument from Redaction
Wallace compares Markan stylistic features with Matthew’s style.
1) “Immediately”
The word “immediately” (εὐθύς) is distinctively Markan, occurring over 40 times. Every time Matthew has the word, there is a parallel in Mark.
2) “For”
Mark uses an explanatory γάρ in an editorial comment 34 times (of his 66 uses of this conjunction). Matthew, on the other hand, uses γάρ 11 times in editorial comments (out of his 123 total uses), ten of which parallel Mark’s usage
3) Historical Present
Mark has 151 historical presents, compared to Matthew’s 78 and Luke’s nine. There was an aversion to the historical present by most literary authors, which well explains Luke’s usage (five of his historical presents are, in fact, found in the parables of Jesus and do not belong to his own narrative style). This consistent use of the historical present by one author vs. the inconsistent use by the other two argues not only that Mark was the first gospel but also that Luke, at least, felt some aversion to the use of the historical present, and consequently chose to alter it to a more literary tense.47
8. Mark’s More Primitive Theology
When one compares all three gospels in their triple tradition, it is evident that nowhere does Mark have “Lord” when either Matthew or Luke has a more primitive term (such as “Rabbi,” or “Teacher”), but on several occasions either Matthew or Luke changes Mark’s less colorful term to “Lord.”
There are still two questions which must be resolved if Markan priority is to be established as the most probable hypothesis. First, there are numerous places where Matthew and Luke have common material that is absent from Mark. This raises the question as to whether they both used a common source or whether one borrowed from the other. Markan prioritists would say that they both used a common source—given the title “Q”51 (whose nature and existence are disputed)—while Matthean prioritists would argue that Luke used Matthew. Second, there are minor agreements between Matthew and Luke in triple tradition passages which suggest some kind of literary borrowing between these two—if so, then Markan priority is thereby damaged (for Matthew and Luke, in this case, would not have used Mark independently of one another).
C. The Existence of Q
Matthew and Luke have in common about 235 verses not found in Mark.52 The verbal agreements between these two is often as striking as it is between Matthew and Mark, Mark and Luke, or Matthew and Mark and Luke. Cf., e.g., Matt 6:24/Luke 16:13; Matt 7:7-11/Luke 11:9-13. Only two viable reasons for such parallels can be given: either one gospel writer knew and used the gospel of the other, or both used a common source. Lukan priority is virtually excluded on the basis of a number of considerations (not the least of which is his improved grammar, as well as the major gap in his use of Mark),53 leaving Matthean priority as the only viable option for intra-gospel borrowing. There are a number of considerations against this, however, as well as a number of arguments in favor of the existence of Q.
1. Did Luke Not Know Matthew?
a. Luke’s Lack of Matthean Additions to the Triple Tradition
“One of the strongest arguments against the use of Matthew by Luke is the fact that when Matthew has additional material in the triple tradition (‘Matthean additions to the narrative’), it is ‘never’ found in Luke.”54 In particular, one ought to note the fulfillment motif of Matthew which is not duplicated in Luke (cf. Matt 8:16-17/Mark 1:32-34/Luke 4:40-41). There is a double problem for the Griesbach school in passages of this sort: (1) Why would Luke omit such rich material, especially since it would well serve the purpose of his gospel? (2) How can we account for the fact that both Luke and Mark omit this material? In the Holtzmann/Streeter hypothesis, however, Luke copied Mark as he had it, while Matthew added material. “If Matthew and Luke both used Mark.
independently, we would expect that their editorial additions to the account would seldom, if ever, agree with one another. Rather, they would appear as ‘Matthean additions’ and ‘Lukan additions’ to the narratives. And this is exactly what we find.”
b. Matthew’s and Luke’s Lack of Agreement in Order
Although (as it has been pointed out) Matthew’s and Luke’s complete lack of agreement in order whenever they disagree with Mark does not prove Markan priority, if Markan priority is assumed, this does establish that Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one another. Thus, at least one permutation is negated by this evidence, viz., that either Matthew used Luke or Luke used Matthew as a secondary source.
c. Luke’s Lack of M Material
Finally, the fact that Luke lacks the ‘M’ material (material unique to Matthew) and, conversely, the fact that Matthew lacks the ‘L’ material, argues that neither knew the other…… Luke lacks the coming of the magi to Jesus after his birth (Matt 2:1-12)—yet these are Gentiles (a key motif in Luke-Acts). The flight to Egypt, the Great Commission (again, picking up a motif relevant to a Gentile audience) are also missing. In fact, Luke has almost no narrative (as opposed to didactic) material that is not found in Mark.
2. Was “Q” a Written Source?
Scholars have presented four primary arguments that Q was a single, written document.
To sum up, that Q existed is a necessary postulate of Markan priority. For many scholars, this is the very weakness of that hypothesis. But given the severe problems of the other approaches to the interdependence of the gospels, Markan priority stands out as by far the most plausible. If it is true, then Q existed. But what shape did it take? I am inclined to think that Q represented both a written source and oral traditions. I do not think that it has been proved that Q was only a written source. This can especially be measured when one compares the use of Mark in Matthew-Luke with that of Q. If Q was a single written source, it was used in a way that is quite different from how Mark was used.
3. Conclusion
By way of conclusion, we want to address the arguments against the existence of Q (regardless of what kind of source Q really was).
There are three principle arguments against the existence of Q.
(1) Why was it not preserved?
Why was Q not preserved? As we have suggested, it may well have been preserved in part—either as part of Matthew (who may have authored some of it in the first place), or in the agrapha found in the gospel MSS and among patristic citations. But beyond this are three other considerations. (1) First, in light of Luke’s preface, he apparently used a lot of materials which were not preserve.
(2) If it existed, it apparently consisted almost exclusively of dominical sayings, lacking the birth narrative, the resurrection, etc. Is it conceivable that such a document could have been produced. As strange as it may sound to modern ears to think that a document simply of sayings of Jesus might have existed at some time—and would have been meaningful to the early Christians—there are parallels to this.
First, and most important, is the Gospel of Thomas which comprises 114 sayings of Jesus without any connection between them. Although this was a heretical document written at a later date, the analogy is not disturbed: a book of Jesus’ sayings had meaning in the early church.
Second, if Papias’ statement about Matthew writing the λογία of Jesus in Hebrew is authentic in any way, then even Matthew himself might have written a book or several pamphlets of dominical sayings. In the Fragments of Papias 2:16 (preserved by Eusebius, Papias says this about Matthew’s Gospel: “And concerning Matthew he said the following: ‘Instead [of writing in Greek]. Matthew arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each man interpreted them as he was able.”
τὰ λογία—if Papias had just spoken of Mark’s gospel, then the reference is to the same thing (i.e., oral tradition about the life of Jesus). But if Eusebius is merely quoting without giving us a proper context (i.e., if Eusebius has juxtaposed two statements by Papias about the gospel writers which, when originally written, were in different contexts), then τὰ λογία could refer to the sayings of Jesus. (The problem with seeing Papias’ statements as coming from different contexts is both the subject matter [composition of the gospels] and the connective μὲν οὖν).
Nevertheless, in light of the possibility that Papias was speaking about the sayings of Jesus, I suggest the following hypothesis about the composition of the first two gospels. Mark recorded Peter’s messages about Jesus while Peter was still alive. At about the same time, Matthew published isolated sayings of Jesus in Aramaic for his and other Jewish-Christian communities. He would, therefore, have been unaware of Mark’s work, just as Mark would have been unaware of Matthew’s. Over the next few years, the dominical material of Matthew would have been translated into Greek. At the same time, Matthew’s own community wanted a framework for these sayings, in light of the publication of Mark’s Gospel. Mark was at hand for the framework, and some of Mark’s material duplicated Matthew’s (e.g., the Olivet Discourse) and was already in Greek. Hence, Matthew used Mark as his basic framework, even where sermonic material was found in Mark. Then, Matthew reorganized these isolated sayings of Jesus into five great sermons (though one was already found in Mark—viz., the Olivet Discourse). For the rest, Matthew simply supplemented Mark with a fulfillment-motif, birth narrative, etc. This hypothesis both affirms Markan priority and Papias’ statement about Matthew’s ‘Hebrew.’ As well, it strongly affirms that Matthew implicitly recognized the reliability of Mark’s Gospel. Still, it does leave several questions open: (1) Does Papias really mean ‘sermons’ when he writes τὰ λογία for Matthew, but oral tradition or worse, historical narrative when he refers to Mark’s λογία? (See Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v., λογίον [806], for definitions of Papias’ usage as an argument for our hypothesis.) The quotation by Eusebius seems to imply that the same idea is meant for both authors. (2) If Papias really meant Jesus’ sermons for Matthew’s logiva, then he seems to be privy to a very short-lived tradition (i.e., from the time of the writing of the sermons to their packaging in a Greek gospel), without evidencing knowledge of the Greek gospel itself. (3) Internally, there are still problems between the two gospels: the overlap of the Olivet Discourse seems especially to abandon Ockham’s razor for our hypothesis. Still, if this hypothesis (or a modification of it) has validity, it satisfies not only Markan priority and Papias’ reliability, but also gives strong precedence for something like Q in that Matthew himself would originally have been interested only in the sayings of Jesus
(3) “It requires a certain overlapping with the materials in order to explain such Matthew-Luke agreements as we find in the baptismal accounts . . . ; the Beelzebul incident . . . ; the parable of the mustard seed . . . ; and the mission charge . . . on a purely theoretical basis, it would be most unusual if two sources concerning Jesus, such as Mark and Q, did not overlap in some way. After all, they do deal with the same person, with incidents in his life and sayings that he uttered, so that some overlap would be expected.
D. The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark
In this final section on the synoptic problem, we will consider what has been termed as “the major stumbling-block for acceptance of the two-source hypothesis”: Clearly the key question and major stumbling-block for acceptance of the two-source hypothesis . . . involves the issue of the various Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark. If these “require” that Luke knew (used) Matthew, then both the Q hypothesis and the priority of Mark become questionable. Q would then become unnecessary, for its existence is dependent on Matthew and Luke not knowing each other’s work. Also, although one could still argue for Markan priority if Luke used Matthew, many of the arguments for Markan priority would have been compromised and a Matthean priority would become more attractive.
To be more specific, there are, in the triple tradition pericopes, four different kinds of minor agreements between Matthew and Luke that are not shared by Mark:
1. Matthew-Luke Agreements in Omission
The great majority of Matthew-Luke agreements belong to this category (180 of the 272, according to Stoldt). This is quite significant, because “if Matthew and Luke omit respectively 6,593 and 8,038 words of Mark’s 11,025 words, there would have to be numerous agreements in omission as a matter of course!81 Not only this, but the argument cuts both ways: If Mark were the last gospel, what is to explain his 180 additions—especially if his was an “abridged” version?
2. Matthew-Luke Agreements in Grammar and Editing
a. Historical Present
Mark uses the historical present 151 times; Matthew, 78; Luke, 9. On the other hand, according to the Griesbach Hypothesis, we must explain two equally strong but opposite tendencies: Luke sought to avoid the historical present in his Matthean source, and Mark sought to add the historical present to his Matthean source, even though his Lukan source avoided it.
b. Coordinating Conjunction
In over 30 instances Matthew and Luke use δεv while Mark in the parallel passage uses και. Literary Greek tried to avoid simple paratactic constructions (especially the overuse of καί)—hence, a more literary author would tend to replace καιv with other conjunctions.
c. Verb Usage
As we have discussed earlier, Mark uses φέρω in the sense of “to lead” where Matthew and Luke use the more correct ἄγω. As we have discussed earlier, Mark uses φέρω in the sense of “to lead” where Matthew and Luke use the more correct ἄγω. This kind of agreement is, therefore, quite predictable, given Markan priority and given Luke’s and Matthew’s superior literary skills.
3. The Most Significant Matthew-Luke Agreement
Rather than discuss these passages one by one (this paper is already too long!), we will suggest a four-fold complex of reasons as to why such agreements could take place. What should be noted at the outset is two things: (1) since the synoptic problem is not really solved on a single issue, but is rather based on strong cumulative evidence, the very paucity of significant examples of Matthew-Luke agreements is very telling;86 (2) the most significant kind of significant problem will involve places where Matthew and Luke are perceived to be more primitive than Mark. Yet again, even if one or two examples could be produced (and they can), this does not overthrow both the quality and quantity of examples produced on the other side: on almost all fronts Mark’s Gospel appears more primitive.
4. Explanations for the Matthew-Luke Agreements
a. Coincidences Caused by their Redactional Treatment of Mark
As we have argued, many of the less significant agreements between Matthew and Luke can be explained this way (e.g., the omission of the historical present), although few, if any, of the most significant agreements can.
b. The Overlapping of Q
To elaborate on but one example given above: in John the Baptist’s preaching, after all three gospels record him as saying, “I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8), both Matthew and Luke add “and with fire” and then the threat about the winnowing fork (Matt 3:11-12/Luke 3:16-17). But in light of John the Baptist’s message being found in all four gospels, it is obvious that a common oral tradition was known to all four evangelists. There is, then, in this very pericope, evidence of the intermingling of Mark and oral tradition in Luke and Matthew. Whether Q was oral tradition or a written source in this instance, there should be no surprise about overlapping traditions.
E. Conclusion and Implications
Wallace states that his two-source hypothesis affects authorship, date, and purpose of the first three gospels. In particular, these areas are impacted once a fairly firm date for Acts can be established.
1. If Acts was written toward the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (c. 61-2 CE)
2. Then Luke must have preceded (C.61-62)
3. Mark must have preceded Luke (mid to late 50s seems most probable).
4. Further, if both Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one another, it is difficult to conceive of Matthew having been written much later than 62, even if he were cut off as it were from the literary fruits of the nascent Church. Mid-60s would seem to be the latest date for Matthew.
Once such a date is assigned for each of these books, then their traditional authorship becomes virtually unassailable. And the purpose for each book would need to be found within the framework of such a date. There is one more implication which can be made from all this, in regard to date: if neither Matthew nor Luke knew of each other’s work, but both knew and used Mark, how long would it take before someone such as John would become aware of any of these books? Since Gardner-Smith demonstrated long ago John’s independence of the Synoptic Gospels, such independence becomes increasingly incredible with every passing year. There is the very distinct possibility that John, too, was written in the mid-60s.