SINOTTICI, VANGELI - Enciclopedia Cattolica, Vol. XI, p. 428

Machine translation of the 1948–1954 Italian original. The original text is authoritative.

SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. — This title is given to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke because, when transcribed in parallel columns, they can easily be taken in at a single glance (σύνοψις); the term “synopsis” for this form of Gospel transcription was first used by J. J. Griesbach (q.v.) in 1774. The study of the “synoptic question” aims to explain the reasons for the similarities and differences observed among the three Gospels.

I. THE SYNOPTICS

The similarities and differences can easily be observed in the Greek Synopses by W. Larfeld,

Article illustration — (from Bulletin de correspondants hellenique, 33 [1809], p. 352, 89, 56)
Shimaha of Phrygia - Stone reliquary of St. Trypho (4th cent.) - Broussa, Ottoman Museum.

M.-J. Lagrange, P. Vannutelli, and also in the Italian Synopsis of the Evangelists by P. Vannutelli (Rome 1938).

1. Similarities in Content

The Synoptics, unlike John, follow a common general plan in recounting the public life of Jesus: the preaching of the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, fasting and temptations, ministry mainly in Galilee, journey to Judea, the final week in Jerusalem, Passion, Death, Resurrection, appearances. Within this common framework, the Synoptics include almost the same miracles and the same discourses. It is calculated that, dividing into 100 parts the material of the three Synoptics, Mark has 93% in common with one or both of the others (and only 7% of his own), Matthew has only 42% of his own, Luke 59% (cf. J. M. Vosté, De synopticorum multa relatione, Rome 1928, p. 9, which cites the calculations of W. Strodt and A. Norton).

2. Similarities in the Order of Sections

In addition to the general similarities of plan and common content, many sections follow in the same order, especially in Matthew and Luke; even the order of Mt 1:4-28 frequently corresponds to that of Mk 6:14-16, 18. Certain groups of episodes, not connected by any chronological or logical link, are found reported in the same order. For example: the preaching of the Baptist, the Baptism and the temptations (Mt 3:1-4:12 = Mk 1:1-14 = Lc 3:1-4:14); the calming of the storm, the Gerasene demoniacs, the healing of the paralytic, the call of Matthew-Levi, the dispute over fasting, the daughter of Jairus and the woman with a hemorrhage (Mt 8:23-9:26 = Mk 4:35-5:43 = Lc 8:22-56); the confession of Peter, the first prediction of the Passion, the Transfiguration, the epileptic boy, the second prediction of the Passion (Mt 16:13-17:22 = Mk 8:27-9:32 = Lc 9:18-45).

3. Similarities in Literary Form

Unlike John, the Synoptics have a simple, popular, anecdotal style; in certain places the same Greek words are found in the same order. This occurs not only in the discourses of Jesus or others—note that they had spoken in Aramaic—but in the narrative of the facts themselves. The minor variants reflect the literary tastes of the individual authors, but the common basis is evident. Here is transcribed from the Synopsis of P. Vannutelli, which well reflects the Greek, a passage in which the three Synoptics even agree in an anacoluthon:

Mt 9:5-6.
5. Which indeed is easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Rise, and walk”?

Mt. 9, 5-6.
6. Therefore, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, he then says to the paralytic: "Rise, take up your bed, and go to your house."

Mt. 9, 5-6.

Mt. 9, 5-7.

Mt. 9, 5-8.

Mt. 9, 5-9.

Mt. 9, 5-10.

Mt. 9, 5-11.

Mt. 9, 5-12.

Mt. 9, 5-13.

Mt. 9, 5-14.

Mt. 9, 5-15.

Mt. 9, 5-16.

Mt. 9, 5-17.

Mt. 9, 5-18.

Mt. 9, 5-19.

Mt. 9, 5-20.

Mt. 9, 5-21.

Mt. 9, 5-22.

Mt. 9, 5-23.

Mt. 9, 5-24.

Mt. 9, 5-25.

Mt. 9, 5-26.

Mt. 9, 5-27.

Mt. 9, 7-28.

Mt. 9, 5-29.

Mt. 9, 5-30.

Mt. 9, 5-31.

Mt. 9, 5-32.

Mt. 9, 5-33.

Mt. 9, 5-34.

Mt. 9, 5-35.

Mt. 9, 5-36.

Mt. 9, 5-37.

Mt. 9, 5-38.

Mt. 9, 5-39.

Mt. 9, 5-40.

Mt. 9, 5-41.

Mt. 9, 5-42.

Mt. 9, 5-43.

Mt. 9, 5-44.

Mt. 9, 5-45.

Mt. 9, 5-46.

Mt. 9, 5-47.

Mt. 9, 5-48.

Mt. 9, 5-49.

Mt. 9, 5-50.

Mt. 9, 5-51.

Mt. 9, 5-52.

Mt. 9, 5-53.

Mt. 9, 5-54.

Mt. 9, 5-55.

Mt. 9, 5-56.

Mt. 9, 5-57.

Mt. 9, 5-58.

Mt. 9, 5-59.

Mt. 9, 5-60.

Mt. 9, 5-61.

Mt. 9, 5-62.

Mt. 9, 9-63.

Mt. 9, 5-64.

Mt. 9, 5-65.

Mt. 9, 5-66.

Mt. 9, 5-67.

Mt. 9, 5-68.

Mt. 9, 5-69.

Mt. 9, 5-70.

Mt. 9, 5-71.

Mt. 9, 5-72.

Mt. 9, 5-73.

Mt. 9, 5-74.

Mt. 9, 5-75.

Mt. 9, 5-76.

Mt. 9, 5-77.

Mt. 9, 5-78.

Mt. 9, 5-79.

Mt. 9, 5-80.

Mt. 9, 5-81.

Mt. 9, 5-82.

Mt. 9, 5-83.

Mt. 9, 5-84.

Mt. 9, 5-85.

Mt. 9, 5-86.

Mt. 9, 5-87.

Mt. 9, 5-88.

Mt. 9, 5-89.

Mt. 9, 5-90.

Mt. 9, 5-91.

Mt. 9, 5-92.

Mt. 9, 5-93.

Mt. 9, 5-94.

Mt. 9, 5-95.

Mt. 9, 5-96.

Mt. 9, 5-97.

Mt. 9, 5-98.

Mt. 9, 5-99.

Mt. 9, 5-100.

Mt. 9, 5-101.

Mt. 9, 5-102.

Mt. 9, 5-103.

Mt. 9, 5-104.

Mt. 9, 5-105.

Mt. 9, 5-106.

Mt. 9, 5-107.

Mt. 9, 5-108.

Mt. 9, 5-109.

Mt. 9, 5-110.

Mt. 9, 5-111.

Mt. 9, 5-112.

Mt. 9, 5-113.

Mt. 9, 5-114.

Mt. 9, 5-115.

Mt. 9, 5-116.

Mt. 9, 5-117.

Mt. 9, 5-118.

Mt. 9, 5-119.

Mt. 9, 5-120.

Mt. 9, 5-121.

Mt. 9, 5-122.

Mt. 9, 5-123.

Mt. 9, 5-124.

Mt. 9, 5-125.

Mt. 9, 5-126.

Mt. 9, 5-127.

Mt. 9, 5-128.

Mt. 9, 5-129.

Mt. 9, 5-130.

Mt. 9, 5-131.

Mt. 9, 5-132.

Mt. 9, 5-133.

Mt. 9, 5-134.

Mt. 9, 5-135.

Mt. 9, 5-136.

Mt. 9, 5-137.

Mt. 9, 5-138.

Mt. 9, 5-139.

Mt. 9, 5-140.

Mt. 9, 5-141.

Mt. 9, 5-142.

Mt. 9, 5-143.

Mt. 9, 5-144.

Mt. 9, 5-145.

Mt. 9, 5-146.

Mt. 9, 5-147.

Mt. 9, 5-148.

Mt. 9, 5-149.

Mt. 9, 5-150.

Mt. 9, 5-151.

Mt. 9, 5-152.

Mt. 9, 5-153.

Mt. 9, 5-154.

Mt. 9, 5-155.

Mt. 9, 5-156.

Mt. 9, 5-157.

Mt. 9, 5-158.

Mt. 9, 5-159.

Mt. 9, 5-160.

Mt. 9, 5-161.

Mt. 9, 5-162.

Mt. 9, 5-163.

Mt. 9, 5-164.

Mt. 9, 5-165.

Mt. 9, 5-166.

Mt. 9, 5-167.

Mt. 9, 5-168.

Mt. 9, 5-169.

Mt. 9, 5-170.

Mt. 9, 5-171.

Mt. 9, 5-172.

Mt. 9, 5-173.

Mt. 9, 5-174.

Mt. 9, 5-175.

Mt. 9, 5-176.

Mt. 9, 5-177.

Mt. 9, 5-178.

Mt. 9, 5-179.

Mt. 9, 5-180.

Mt. 9, 5-181.

Mt. 9, 5-182.

Mt. 9, 5-183.

Mt. 9, 5-184.

Mt. 9, 5-185.

Mt. 9, 5-186.

Mt. 9, 5-187.

Mt. 9, 5-188.

Mt. 9, 5-189.

Mt. 9, 5-190.

Mt. 9, 5-191.

Mt. 9, 5-192.

Mt. 9, 5-193.

Mt. 9, 5-194.

Mt. 9, 5-195.

Mt. 9, 5-196.

Mt. 9, 5-197.

Mt. 9, 5-198.

Mt. 9, 5-199.

Mt. 9, 5-200.

Mt. 9, 5-201.

Mt. 9, 5-202.

Mt. 9, 5-203.

Mt. 9, 5-204.

Mt. 9, 5-205.

Mt. 9, 5-206.

Mt. 9, 5-207.

Sinfonietta. They did not address the question from a literary standpoint. Only St. Augustine proposed the hypothesis of a mutual dependence, asserting that Mark was “pedissequus, breviator Matthaei” (De consensu Ev., 1, 2: PL 34, 1044). It was only in the 18th century, with G. E. Lessing, that the synoptic question began to be treated scientifically.

4. Hypothesis of a single common written source

This was first proposed by G. E. Lessing (Neue Hypothese über die Evangelien, Berlin 1784, p. 45 ff.): from a primitive Gospel written in Hebrew (similar to the one later found by St. Jerome among the Nazarenes [q.v.]), the present Gospels would derive as versions or recensions; Matthew would have extracted his Gospel (in Greek) from it, as would Mark and Luke. According to J. G. Eichhorn (in Allgemeine Bibliothek der bibl. Lit., 5 [1794], p. 353 ff.), the primitive Gospel would have been written in Aramaic around the year 35 A.D.; elaborating with additions from other sources, omissions, and inversions, Matthew would have composed his in Aramaic; the Greek version of Matthew would have added many details, such as the infancy narratives (chapters 1–2). The hypothesis of a common written source was later presented in various other forms and recently revived in Italy by P. Vannutelli, who also supposes that Matthew himself later provided the Greek redaction of his Gospel (in a broad sense of the term) and does not exclude the possibility that Mark followed Peter’s catechesis to enliven his narrative, and that in their distinctive sections the individual evangelists drew on other written and oral sources deemed reliable. The hypothesis of a single common source, understood with these qualifications, does not conflict with traditional data; it fits within the eclectic solution preferred by many modern scholars.

5. Hypothesis of Two Written Sources

Although presented in many variants by different critics, this hypothesis admits that the three Synoptics depend, for the facts, mainly on Mark (or on a Proto-Mark), and, for the discourses, on a collection of *logia* which Papias (q.v.) attributes to Matthew and which German critics denote by the siglum Q (*Quelle*, “source”). The two-source hypothesis, proposed by Schleiermacher (*Über die Zeugnisse des Papias*, in *Theol. Studien und Kritiken*, 5 [1832], pp. 735–68), was accepted by the vast majority of non-Catholic critics, especially German ones. The history of the hypothesis up to 1892 was outlined by H. J. Holtzmann (*Einleitung in das N. Test.*, Freiburg 1892, p. 345 sqq.), and the subsequent development by Goguel, Wernle (1899), Bultmann (1925–31). Though differing among themselves as to the content and dates of the two sources, the supporters of this hypothesis agree in holding that Mark would be the oldest of the Synoptics because of its more primitive style, its livelier narrative, and its less developed theology, and in affirming that the other source (*logia*, Q) is inferred from the similarities between Matthew and Luke in the discourses.

Against this hypothesis it is objected that it does not accord with the most ancient tradition regarding the origin of the Gospels. This tradition places Matthew first in chronological order. It is possible, however, to admit that the Greek Matthew, which has come down to us, made use, in its translation and composition, of the Gospel of Mark. The style of Mark, which seems more primitive, can also be explained by taking into account the “living” character of its informant (St. Peter [q.v.]); likewise, the less developed theology of Mark is justified by considering the purpose and the recipients of the Second Gospel. Moreover, there is no evidence in the testimony of Papias or in other sources of the existence of a collection of *logia* or discourses of Jesus distinct from the Gospel of Matthew that has come down to us. As can be seen, the main points of this hypothesis lack foundation in historical tradition; indeed, they are opposed to II.
Catholics who favor the two-source hypothesis modify it in a way that aligns with tradition, holding that the Gospel of Mark and the *Logia* (to be identified with the Aramaic work of Matthew) were common sources for both the Greek Matthew and Luke. In this form (with minor variations) the view is shared by J. Sickenberger, H. Vogels, M.-J. Lagrange, Camerlynck, and others. L. Tondelli (*Gesù Cristo*, Turin 1936, p. 115) suggests that Matthew “first compiled a more limited collection, especially of the Lord’s sayings, as Papias knew; and later, ‘while Peter and Paul were founding the Church of Rome,’ in the words of St. Irenaeus, drawing on the already published text of Mark, he wove in the discourses he had gathered into the narrative of Christ’s life, giving the account that messianic demonstration which a Gospel for the Hebrews required. This second work he would have done in Aramaic, and it would later have been translated into Greek at an unspecified time.” Understood in this sense, the two-source hypothesis would not conflict with traditional data on the origin of the Gospels or on the substantial identity between the Aramaic Matthew and the Greek Matthew.

6. Hypothesis of multiple written sources

B. H. Streeter (*The Four Gospels*, Oxford 1924, pp. 151–206) proposes four sources: Mark, Q (= *Logia*), a Proto-Matthew (M), and a Proto-Luke (L). He has been followed by many Anglicans. Others speak of numerous written sources, both Aramaic and Greek, hinted at by the term διήγησις used in Lk 1:1, where Luke refers to his sources. Even this hypothesis, though containing some positive elements, does not by itself adequately account for the similarities and differences among the Synoptics.

The so-called “form-criticism theory (v.)” might also be placed within this framework, since it posits at the origin many small literary units arising from the impulse of the community and later fixed in the Gospels. Yet the advocates of this theory, which is subject to many reservations, do not propose it as a solution to the Synoptic problem.

7. Hypothesis of oral catechesis

J. C. L. Gieseler (*Historisch-kritischer Versuch...*, Leipzig 1818, p. 53) argued that Matthew, Mark, and Luke committed the apostolic preaching, or catechesis (v. CATECHESI), to writing without relying on written sources; this catechesis would initially have been fixed, almost stereotyped, in an oral form, in a uniform type. He nevertheless admitted variants according to the diversity of places and recipients. Matthew would have written down the type of Palestinian catechesis intended for the Jews, Mark the type of that Roman preaching delivered by Peter, and Luke the type of that early Church preaching proclaimed by Paul. This hypothesis found many supporters, especially among Catholics (R. Cornely, J. Knabenbauer, L. C. Fillion, C. Fouard, J. Felten, L. Murillo, etc.) and several among Protestants (Westcott, de Wette, Godet, etc.). Almost all, however, admit, alongside the principal oral source, some written sources as well. Indeed, oral catechesis, although attested in different types by the sources (Paul spoke of his “ways”: 1 Cor 4:17; of his “gospel” and “pattern of teaching”: Rom 2:16; 6:17), could not have been so stereotyped as to preserve unaltered in secondary matters certain expressions and to allow so many liberties in others, where one would expect closer agreement. This hypothesis alone does not explain either the fundamental divergences or the special material of Matthew and Luke. Nor should the strength of “Oriental” memory be overestimated. Nevertheless, this hypothesis provides a fundamental element for the solution of the Synoptic question.

8. Hypothesis of mutual dependence

This has been set forth in various forms. Some of these preserve the traditional data on the chronological order of the Gospels (admitting that Luke depends on Mark, and perhaps on Matthew, and that Mark depends on Matthew), while others reject such an order, especially those who uphold the priority of Mark. Many hold that the Greek Matthew made use of the Gospel of Mark (thus J. L. Hug, F. S. Patrizi, Cladler, etc.). Few, however, believe that the Synoptic question can be resolved solely by the mutual dependence of the Gospels, since while this hypothesis explains the similarities well, it does not by itself resolve the problem of the divergences.

III. THE MOST PROBABLE SOLUTION

None of the various hypotheses proposed resolves the question by itself. For this reason, many moderns lean toward eclectic solutions, assigning greater or lesser importance to certain elements.

The hypothesis of primitive oral catechesis, fundamentally uniform and partially varying according to the different recipients, is certainly one of the positive elements that must be placed at the origin of the Gospels. It can be admitted that this catechesis, intended for the Jews, had a certain uniformity in Palestine, where it was fixed, both in Aramaic and in Greek, for the Hellenistic Jews. This catechesis certainly flowed into the Gospel of Matthew. As it spread into the pagan world, the primitive catechesis, while preserving its fundamental uniformity, necessarily underwent adaptations in conformity with the needs of different audiences. Tradition informs us that Mark wrote according to the catechesis of Peter, and Luke according to that of Paul. This too is a positive element in the solution.

In addition, Luke himself declares in his prologue (1:1-4) that he made use of many oral and written sources. Among the “many” (πολλοί) who “set in order” in writing what they knew by memory (this is the sense of ἀνατάξασθαι),ε-ε-ε-η-ε-η-ε-η-ε-η- eta-ETA-eta- **ETA**

The Greek letter **H** (eta), seventh of the alphabet, corresponds to the long open *e* (ē) of the classical pronunciation. In the Ionic alphabet it was the seventh letter, while in the Chalcidian and Cretan alphabets it was the sixth. The Phoenician letter from which it derives is *hēth*, which in the Semitic languages represented a voiceless pharyngeal fricative. The Greeks used it to represent the sound *ē* (long open *e*), which in the Ionic dialect had replaced the older *ā* (long *a*) in many positions (e.g., Ionic *mētēr* for Attic *mātēr*). In the Ionic alphabet, eta was also used to represent the sound *h* in some dialects, but this usage was later abandoned in favor of the spiritus asper.

In the Greek numeral system, eta had the value of 8. In the classical period, it was written in the form **Η**, but in the Hellenistic period, it began to take on the form **Η** with a horizontal stroke, which later evolved into the modern form **H**.

In the Greek language, eta was used to represent the long open *e* sound, which was distinct from the short open *e* (represented by epsilon, **Ε**). This distinction was important in the pronunciation of classical Greek, as it helped to differentiate between words that would otherwise be homophonous.

In the New Testament, eta is used to represent the long open *e* sound in many words, such as *mētēr* (mother) and *adelphē* (sister). The use of eta in the New Testament reflects the pronunciation of the time, which was likely similar to the classical pronunciation.

In the Latin alphabet, the letter **H** was borrowed from the Greek eta to represent the voiceless glottal fricative sound in Latin. This sound was not present in the original Latin language, but it was used in loanwords from Greek. Over time, the sound represented by **H** in Latin became silent in many Romance languages, including Italian and French.

**ETÀ**

Age, in the sense of a period of time in the life of an individual or a community, marked by certain characteristics. In anthropology and ethnology, the term is used to describe a stage in the development of a culture or society. In theology, it is used to refer to a period in the history of salvation, such as the "Old Testament age" or the "New Testament age."

In the Bible, the term "age" (Greek *aiōn*) is used to refer to a long period of time, often with a theological significance. For example, in Ephesians 2:7, the "ages to come" (*tois aiōsin tois epichōrious*) refers to the future periods of God's plan for salvation.

In philosophy, the term "age" is used to describe a period in the history of thought, such as the "age of enlightenment" or the "age of reason." In this sense, it refers to a time characterized by certain intellectual or cultural trends.

In common usage, "age" refers to the length of time that a person or thing has existed. It can also refer to a particular period in the life of a person, such as childhood, youth, adulthood, or old age.

**ETA**

See **H** (letter).

**ETÀ**

See **AGE**.

**ETA**

The abbreviation for *estimated time of arrival*, used in navigation and transportation to indicate the time at which a vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle is expected to reach its destination.

**ETÀ**

See **AGE**.

**ETA**

The abbreviation for *Euskadi Ta Askatasuna*, a Basque nationalist and separatist organization founded in 1959. The group is designated as a terrorist organization by Spain, the European Union, and the United States. It is known for its armed struggle against the Spanish state, seeking independence for the Basque Country.

**ETÀ**

Synthesis: V. ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS.