How did the Synoptic Gospels come to be so similar?

A. General Statement of the Problem

THE first three Gospels, those of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, are commonly known as the Synoptic Gospels, not because as is sometimes supposed they present us with a synopsis of our Lord's life, but because they present the facts from the same point of view.[1] The Synoptic Problem is the name by which the intricate question of the precise relationship subsisting between these three Gospels is generally known.

This problem may be briefly stated as follows:

These three Gospels proceed on lines which are so extraordinarily alike that it becomes impossible to suppose that they are three completely independent narratives. In what, then, does this mutual interdependence precisely consist? Will it suffice to say that Mark is similar to Matthew because he "abbreviated" him, as seems to be suggested by St. Augustine? Similarly, that Luke resembles both Matthew and Mark because he wrote subsequent to them and had their Gospels before him as he wrote? Or is it a tenable hypothesis that this similarity is due to the dependence of all three on the same common oral tradition? Or once more, that they had certain written documents in their possession from which all alike drew? Or yet again, that the similarity is due to their common dependence on a tradition which was both oral and written? And lastly, that since nearly all that is found in Mark is to be found also in Matthew and Luke, and many things not in Mark are to be found in both Matthew and Luke, can we say that Mark wrote first and that Matthew and Luke made use of his Gospel, but supplemented it from some source whence they derived the material which they have in common and which is not to be found in Mark? This latter theory is that generally held at the present time by many critics.

B. The Likeness and Unlikeness of the Synoptic Narratives

Nothing but a first-hand acquaintance with the actual facts of the case will enable a student to arrive at any sane conclusion when comparing these conflicting theories.

First of all, then, for the general order followed by the three Evangelists:

Events	Matthew	Mark	Luke
1. The Infancy	1 thru 2	--	1 thru 2
2. The mission of the Baptist	3:1-12	1:1-8	3:1-20
3. The Baptism of Christ	3:13-17	1:9-11	3:21-38
4. The Temptation	4:1-11	1:12-13	4:1-13
5. The Galilean ministry	4:12 thru 18:35	1:14 thru 9:49	4:14 thru 9:50
6. The Jerusalem ministry	19:1 thru 25	10:1 thru 13:37	18:31 thru 21:38
7. The Passion	26 thru 27	14 thru 15	22 thru 23
8. The Resurrection	28	16	24

The above is the general order of the narratives; it is in the main that briefly sketched by St. Peter himself, Acts 10:37-40. But though it will thus be evident that the three Evangelists follow in general the same order, it will also be evident that each of them provides certain remarkable exceptions to this rule. Thus Mark altogether omits the narrative of the Infancy. The account of the Infancy, too, which is given by Luke might at first sight be regarded as a supplement to that found in Matthew; different details are furnished by both Evangelists. Similarly the account of the ministry of the Baptist in Luke is much fuller than that found in Matthew and Mark; moreover Luke puts the genealogy of Christ after the Baptism. The Temptation is comprised in two verses in Mark; the order of the temptations is transposed in Matthew and Luke. Most noticeable of all, however, is the addition of a Samaritan or Per碮 ministry by Luke 9:51-18:30, as well as the omission of the events recorded in Mark 6:45-8:26, i.e. Christ's walking on the sea; His rebuke of the Pharisees for their blind adherence to traditions; the cure of the Syro-phoenician woman's daughter; the cure of one deaf and dumb; the multiplication of bread for four thousand men; the cure of a blind man. In the narrative of the Passion we note Luke's addition of details regarding Herod; in the Resurrection narrative we note especially the journey to Emmaus. Further, we find that each Evangelist has a series of miracles and parables which are peculiar to himself; and finally that even where the same events are recorded there are occasional striking changes of order, e.g. the place assigned by Luke to the visit to Nazareth, 4:14-30.

At the same time these differences must not blind us to the fact that these three Evangelists do in the main adhere rigidly to the same march of events and to the same facts; a point which becomes the more noticeable when we compare their narratives with that of St. John and bear in mind the immense crowd of facts and details which would equally well have served their purpose, cf. John 20:30, 21:25.

C. A more Detailed Examination of the Facts

We may now pass to the consideration of certain details. If we take certain "blocks," as we may term them, in the Gospel narrative, we shall find that the various sections composing them follow one another in precisely the same order in all three Gospels, thus in the "block," Matt. 16:13 - 18:5; Mark 8:27-9:39; Luke 9:18-50, we have the following sections:

Events	Matthew	Mark	Luke
1. Peter's confession	Matt. 16:13-20	Mark 8:27-33	Luke 9:18-21
2. The preaching of the Cross	Matt. 16:21-28	Mark 8:34-39	Luke 9:22-27
3. The Transfiguration	Matt. 17:1-13	Mark 9:1-12	Luke 9:28-36
4. The cure of the "Lunatic" boy	Matt. 17:14-20	Mark 9:13-28	Luke 9:37-43
5. The prediction of the Passion	Matt. 17:21-22	Mark 9:29-31	Luke 9:44-45
6. The Stater	Matt. 17:23-26	--	--
7. Lessons in humility	Matt. 18:1-5	Mark 9:32-36	Luke 9:46-48

It will be noticed that each section follows the other in precisely the same order in each Gospel, save that Matthew alone has the miraculous discovery of the stater. An examination of another "block," Mark 1:21-3:19, reveals some curious facts. Thus the whole of it appears in Luke 4:31-6:16, where, however, we have in addition the story of the miraculous draught of fishes, 5:1-11. But in Matthew the sections composing this "block" are broken up and appear in quite a different order, with the exception of the three sections containing the cure of the palsied man, the call of Levi and the message to John. These three sections form a consecutive whole in Matt. 9:2-17; Mark 2:1-22; Luke 5:17-39. Yet in Matthew they are not in the same connection as in Mark and Luke.

Minor similarities and dissimilarities will for the most part be sufficiently apparent in any English version, but the student will realize them most vividly in the Greek text. He will find that in passage after passage the Greek text of all three Gospels is almost verbatim the same. Thus let him compare, for example, Matt. 19:19-20 with Mark 6:41-42 and Luke 9:16-17; or again, Matt. 3:7-10, 12 with Luke 3:7-9; or once more, Matt. 20:21-23 with Mark 10:37-40. An especially interesting study is afforded by the parable of the Sower with the explanation of it given by our Lord Himself, Matt. 13:4-12, 19-22; Mark 4:3-12, 15-21; Luke 8:5-15. Here it will be seen that the Greek of Matthew and Mark is almost exactly the same, so that a single verse of twenty words in Matt. 13:5 is represented by the same twenty words in Mark 4:5, with but one change of number, where Mark has the singular, Matthew the plural. But when we examine the parallels in Luke we find that the number of words is appreciably less and the whole narrative is essentially abbreviated, so that one verse, 8:5, presents in fourteen words what Matthew and Mark each took thirty-one words to express. Yet some of these words are the same, though construction and cases and number differ considerably. Moreover the story is the same. It differs in no essential particular.

We are so habituated to this particular feature of the Gospel narratives that perhaps we hardly realize what an extraordinary problem is here presented to us. For Matthew wrote in Aramaic; we have no idea who translated his Gospel into Greek. Mark wrote in Greek; he has the same order as Matthew and the same Greek. Yet he perpetually wanders away from both order and vocabulary, only, however, to return to the most remarkable similarity if not identity of expression. To complicate the problem, Luke, who wrote in Greek of a far more polished and literary type than that to be found in the Second and First Gospels, has in the main the same order as they and adheres substantially to the Greek found in Matthew and Mark, Luke merely changing the construction from time to time and presenting the phrases in a more truly Greek dress.

D. Some Modern Solutions with the Difficulties besetting them

Is it possible, then, to say that the translator of Matthew used the Greek Gospel of Mark which was already in existence, and that Luke had both before his eyes? This hypothesis is attractive, but it fails to solve one riddle: if the Greek translator of Matthew used Mark, how comes it that he has allowed himself to leave the latter's Greek text so constantly, and in a countless series of small details? Those who hold that Mark's was the first Gospel[2] and that even the original Matthew in Aramaic followed him, have to explain how it came about that Matthew has, so to speak, "bowdlerized" Mark's long and picturesque narratives, e.g. the story of the cure of the "lunatic" boy in Mark 9:13-28, as compared with the same story in Matt. 17:14-20. If Matthew had Mark's story before him, then he must be declared guilty of a very anemic rendering of what is a most vivid story in Mark. Similarly, those who hold that the Greek translator of Matthew not Matthew in its original Aramaic dress is dependent on Mark, must explain the pains the translator has apparently taken to vary Mark's Greek in small details whenever he could. An examination of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves for five thousand men will bring out this remarkable feature of the two Gospels. We choose this miracle for examination because the first impression of a student who takes the pains to underline all the words which are common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke will be that the three accounts are almost identical; and he will be apt to jump to conclusions which a further examination will not justify. But if a student will examine this narrative more closely he will find that in passages parallel to Mark, Matthew has five times a synonymous and not an identical word; that he has no less than ten changes of construction; that he has, once at least, changed a tense; that twice he abbreviates the narrative; that he has a different context for the whole story; has, moreover, four clauses not to be found in Mark; has omitted twelve or thirteen clauses peculiar to Mark and all this in the space of eleven verses! The same features present themselves when we pass to Luke's narrative. He has seven synonyms instead of the identical words used by Mark; twenty times he changes the construction; he has seven clauses of his own; there are eight transpositions; he omits the twelve or thirteen clauses which are peculiar to Mark and which of course are omitted by Matthew as well; and in addition to these he has nine smaller omissions. Similar facts will appear if we examine any passages which are parallel in the three Gospels. The similarity is so great as to be overwhelming at first sight; the small differences are so extraordinary that they compel us to repudiate a theory which suggests that any Evangelist had the text of another before him as he wrote. If any one would convince himself of this let him take a column from a newspaper and try to reproduce it in the same space; but let him at the same time vary the construction perpetually, use synonymous rather than identical terms, add details of his own, omit many details given by the text before him even the most strikingly picturesque ones; let him, too, change the context when ever it suits him. And when he he has done this let him do the same with the entire newspaper; he will then have some idea of what is demanded of the Evangelists by many modern critics.

E. Lines along which the Problem may find its Solution

But if we reject the views sketched above, what are we to put in their stead? We need some hypothesis which shall cover equally all the factors in the case. Various theories have been put forward. It has been suggested that the similarities and dissimilarities may be explained by the hypothesis that the Evangelists were translating from a common Aramaic narrative. But why should they have so constantly lit upon the same Greek words? And how came they to omit or add in such independent fashion? Recourse has also been had to oral tradition. The sayings of Christ were, it has been supposed, retained in the exceptional memories of Eastern folk. But then it is not question solely of sayings of Christ but of His miracles, His journeys, His daily life as well. The hypothesis which seems most calculated to cover all the factors in the case is that of an oral tradition partly in Greek, partly in Aramaic, and handed down not simply by word of mouth in unwritten form, but as part of the daily instruction in the essentials of the Gospel as taught by the Apostles. This may well have been the work of the catechists whose duty it was to instruct the new converts. This hypothesis would, it is thought, go far to explain the stereotyped form in which the Gospel facts and the discourses of Christ have been preserved to us. It would also explain perhaps the divergences in the narratives; for each would preserve what he himself remembered, while adhering faithfully to the general plan.

Students should note that in treatises by modern writers there is a tendency after having established the broad lines of agreement and divergence to proceed immediately to an explanation of them by means of theories into which the smaller facts have to fit. A student will do well, then, to acquire a first-hand acquaintance with some of these smaller details viz. by working out for himself the instances given above or some similar ones. Only then will he be in a position to control theories which are at times too hastily put forward and much too easily accepted.

F. Bibliography

The most useful Harmonies are those published by Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangelica, 5th ed. Leipsic, 1898; by Huck, Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien, Tubingen, 4th ed., 1910; by Cammerlynck and Coppieters, Evangeliorum sec. Matt. Marcum et Lucam, 2nd ed. Bruges, 1910. But in no department of Biblical study can the personal spade-work of the student be dispensed with, and this is especially true of the Synoptic Problem. The labor of making one's own harmony of the Greek text will be amply repaid by the first-hand knowledge it produces. No one who wishes seriously to attack this problem can afford to despise St. Augustine's De Consensu Evangelistarum, P.L. XXXIV. He is often accused of a tendency towards excessive harmonization, but whoever makes a careful study of his treatise will find that while insisting on the principle, distingue tempora et omnia conciliabuntur, he enunciates principles the breadth and far-reaching consequences of which can hardly be exaggerated, see, for example, De Consensu II. 27-29, 67, 121, and Contra Faustum, XXIII. 8; see an Article by the present writer in the "Catholic University Bulletin" (Washington) for October, 1912, Principles of Gospel-Harmony. Few books have exercised greater influence on modern writers than Hawkins, Horœ Synopticœ, Clarendon Press, 2nd ed. 1909; but the principles invoked must be carefully examined, they have been ruthlessly applied by Allen, International Critical Commentary, St. Matthew, 2nd ed. 1907, and they are taken for granted in the Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, ed. by Sanday, Clarendon Press, 1911. The most dispassionate and thorough treatment of the question will be found in Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, Vol. I., 1903, Vol. II., 1909, Cambridge University Press. A brief resume of the present state of the question is given by Latimer Jackson, The Present State of the Synoptic Problem, in Cambridge Biblical Essays, Macmillan, 1909.

For the Logia Fragments recently discovered see R.B. 1892, p. 321; October, 1904; also April and October, 1908. General articles and reviews on the subject will be found in R.B. 1892, 520-559 (Semeria); 1897, January and April (Ermoni); a discussion of the views held by Wright, January, 1897, October, 1900, October, 1904; for the views held by Jacquier, Histoire des Livres du N.T., Lecoffre, see R.B. January, 1903, July, 1905, For a review of Loisy's position see R.B. October, 1908; for Hawkins Hora, April, 1910; for Allen's St. Matthew, July, 1907; for Stanton's Gospels, April, 1910; for the Oxford Studies, July, 1911; for general articles see July and October, 1889, July and October, 1898, April, 1901, October, 1907, July and October, 1911. For further discussions see J.T.S. July and October, 1910, the "Irish Theological Quarterly" for July, 1910 a review of Stanton's Gospels, and July, 1913; also the "Expositor" for May, 1911, June and October, 1915.

See also The Composition of the Four Gospels, A. Wright, 1890. The Common Tradition of the Synpotic Gospels, Abbott and Rushbrooke, 1884. Criticism of the New Testament, St. Margaret's Lectures, 1902, Murray. Fillion, Synopsis Evangelica, Paris, 1896, also, Introduction Generale aux Evangiles, Paris, 1896.

_______________________________
1 This is confessedly an abnormal use of the word συνοράω, for both it and the verb σύνοψις express rather the action of one mind taking a comprehensive view of many factors than that of many minds envisaging a common subject-matter from one and the same standpoint.

2 This is the prevailing theory; see R.B. October, 1909, p. 650, January, 1911.


By Very Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M.
Doctor in Sacred Scripture,
Member of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and
late Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Collegio Angelico, Rome.