SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. - Title given to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke because, transcribed in parallel columns, they can easily be taken in with a single comprehensive glance (σύνοψις); the term "synopsis" for this form of transcription of the Gospels was used for the first time by J. J. Griesbach (v.) in 1774. The study of the "synoptic question" aims to give the reasons for the similarities and differences that are noted among the three S.
I. THE FACTS
The similarities and differences can easily be verified in the Greek Synopses of W. Larfeld,
M.-J. Lagrange, P. Vannutelli, and also in the Synopse of the Gospels in Italian by P. Vannutelli (Rome 1938).
1. Similarities in content
The Synoptics, unlike John, follow a common general plan in narrating the public life of Jesus: the preaching of the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, the fast and the temptations, a ministry predominantly in Galilee, the journey toward Judea, the last week in Jerusalem, the Passion, Death, Resurrection, apparitions. Within this common framework the Synoptics include almost the same miracles, the same discourses. It is calculated that, dividing the material of the three Synoptics into 100 parts, Mark has 93% in common with one or with 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 mutua relatione, Rome 1928, p. 9, which cites the calculations of W. Strond and A. Norton).
2. Similarities in the order of the sections
Besides the generic similarities of plan and of common content, many sections follow one another in the same order, especially in Matthew and Luke; even the order of Mt. 14-28 frequently corresponds to that of Mk. 6:14 - 16:8. Certain groups of episodes, not linked to one another by any chronological or logical connection, 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 = Lk. 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 the hemorrhage (Mt. 8:23 - 9:26 = Mk. 4:35 - 5:43 = Lk. 8:22-56); the confession of Peter, the first prediction of the Passion, the transfiguration, the lunatic, the second prediction of the Passion (Mt. 16:13 - 17:22 = Mk. 8:27 - 9:32 = Lk. 9:18-45).
3. Similarities in literary form
Unlike John, the Synoptic Gospels have a simple, popular, anecdotal style; in certain passages the same Greek words are found following one another in the same order. This occurs not only in the discourses of Jesus or of others who, it should be noted, had spoken in Aramaic, but in the very narration of the facts. The small variants reflect the literary tastes of the individual authors, but the common foundation is evident. There is transcribed here from the Synopse of P. Vannutelli, which reflects the Greek well, a sample in which the three Synoptic Gospels agree even in an anacoluthon:
5. For what indeed
is more feasible, to say:
Thy sins are forgiven, or to say: Rise,
and walk?
6. That you may know therefore that the son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, then he says to the paralytic: Rise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.
See also the account of the Transfiguration (Mt. 17:1-13 = Mk. 9:1-12 = Lk. 9:28-36). Also worthy of note are certain uniformities in rare constructions, such as ἀπεκρίμενο instead of the more common ἀπεκρίθη (Mt. 27:12 = Mk. 14:61 = Lk. 23:9), in citations of the Old Testament uniform in the Synoptics but different both from the Hebrew and from the Greek of the Septuagint (cf. Mt. 3:3 = Mk. 1:3 = Lk. 3:4; Mt. 26:31 = Mk. 14:27).
4. Differences in content
The percentages indicated above show that Matthew and Luke have a notable quantity of material of their own. Matthew has as his own the anxiety of St. Joseph (1:18-25), the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, the return (ch. 2), the parables of the tares (13:24-30, 36-43), of the treasure, of the pearl, of the great net (13:44-50), of the servant (18:23-35), of the virgins (25:1-13), the miracle of Peter walking on the water (15:28-31), the promise of the primacy (16:17-19). Mark has only three sections of his own: the deaf stammerer of the Decapolis (7:31-37), the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26), the little parable of the seed that grows by its own power (4:26-29). Luke has much of his own in the infancy narratives (chapters 1-2); furthermore: the episode of Martha and Mary (10:38-42), the conversion of Zacchaeus (19:1-29), and many other features in chapters 9-19 (travel narratives). In the story of the Passion he has as his own the episodes of Herod (23:6-12), of the good thief (23:40-43), etc.
5. Differences in order
Inversions of the common sections or of particulars within the same sections are frequent. For example, Lk. 4:1-13 inverts the last two temptations reported by Mt. 4:1-11. Sometimes in a series of common sections there appear episodes proper to some Synoptic Gospel (cf. Mt. 8-13 with Mk. 1:29-6:13; the sermon on the mount of Mt. 5-7 with Lk. 6:20-49; etc.).
6. Difference in the choice of Greek words and in their order
Even in the passages where greater similarities of content are noted, different words (synonyms) are sometimes found, inversions of clauses. Normally the same facts are reported more succinctly by Matthew than by Mark, who is instead briefer in the accounts of the discourses. Stranger still are the differences among the Synoptics even in the points where the greatest verbal consonance would be expected; for example, in the genealogies (v.) of Jesus (Mt. 1:1-17 and Lk. 3:23-38), in the Pater noster (Mt. 6:9-13 and Lk. 11:2-4), in the words of the consecration where Matthew (26:26-28; cf. Mk. 14:22-24) diverges from Luke (22:19-20); in the title of the Cross (Mt. 27:37; Mk. 15:26; cf. Lk. 23:38 and Jn. 19:19).
II. ATTEMPTS AT A SOLUTION
The difficulties raised by these facts have given rise to a great number of hypotheses that attempt to give a sufficient reason for this concordia discors. Since some of these are opposed to the traditional data on the origin of the Gospels, as well as to their historical value, the Pontifical Biblical Commission intervened with two responses of 26 June 1912 (Denz-U, 2164 ff.).
a) In treating the question one must safeguard the authen-
9. Which is easier, to say to the paralytic: Your sins are forgiven you, or to say: Arise, take up your pallet and walk?
10. But that you may know that the Son of man has power
to forgive sins on earth, he says to the paralytic: I say to you, arise, take up your pallet, and go to your house.
23. Which is easier, to say: Your sins are forgiven you, or to say: Arise, and walk?
24. But that you may know that the Son of man has power
on earth to forgive sins, he said to the paralyzed man: I say to you, arise, and taking up your little bed, go to your house.
ticity and integrity of the three Synoptic Gospels, the substantial identity between the Greek version of Matthew and the primitive original, the order of time (Matthew, Mark, Luke); it is lawful to dispute freely, having recourse either to the hypothesis of oral or written tradition, or to mutual dependence. b) Such requirements are not safeguarded by the supporters of the "two-source" hypothesis, who derive Matthew and Luke from Mark and from a so-called collection of the Lord's discourses.
The ancient ecclesiastical writers sought to harmonize the Gospels by composing concordances (diatessaron [v.]) or by dividing them into sections (canons of Ammonius and of Eusebius) so as to be able to compare them easily.
They did not confront the question from the literary point of view. Only St. Augustine envisaged the hypothesis of a mutual dependence, affirming that Mark was "pedissequus, breviator Matthaei" (De consensu Ev., 1, 2: PL 34, 1044). Only in the 18th century, with G. E. Lessing, did the scientific treatment of the synoptic question begin.
1. Hypothesis of a single common written source
It was proposed for the first time by G. E. Lessing (Neue Hypothese über die Evangelien, Berlin 1784, p. 45 ff.): from a primitive Gospel written in Hebrew (analogous to the one that was later found by St. Jerome among the Nazarenes [v.]), the present ones would depend as versions or as recensions; Matthew would have extracted his Gospel (in Greek) from it, and likewise Mark and Luke. According to J. G. Eichhorn (in Allgemeine Bibliothek der bibl. Lit., 3 [1794], p. 353 ff.) the primitive Gospel would have been written in Aramaic around the year 35 A.D.; by elaborating this outline with additions from other sources, with omissions and inversions, Matthew would have composed his in Aramaic; the Greek version of Matthew would have added many particulars, for example the infancy (chapters 1-2). The hypothesis of the common written source was then set forth in various other forms and recently renewed in Italy by P. Vannutelli, who likewise supposes that the same Matthew later gave the Greek redaction of his Gospel (translation in the broad sense) and does not exclude that Mark followed the Petrine catechesis in order to give liveliness to his narrative and that, in their own proper parts, the individual evangelists followed other written or oral sources worthy of faith. The hypothesis of the single common source, understood with these qualifications, is not opposed to the traditional data; it falls within the eclectic solution preferred by many moderns.
2. Hypothesis of two written sources
Although set forth with many variants among different critics, it admits that the three Synoptics depend, for the facts, predominantly on Mark (or on a Proto-Mark), and, for the discourses, on a collection of lóghia which Papias (v.) attributes to Matthew and which German critics indicate with the symbol 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 set forth by H. J. Holtzmann (Einleitung in das N. Test., Freiburg 1892, p. 345 ff.), the subsequent history by Goguel, Wernle (1899), Bultmann (1925-31). Although diverging among themselves in determining the content and the dates of the two sources, the supporters of this hypothesis agree in holding that Mark would be the oldest of the Synoptics, because more primitive in its more lively style and in its less evolved theology, and in affirming that the other source (lóghia, Q) would be postulated by the similarities between Matthew and Luke in the discourses.
Against this hypothesis it is pointed out that it does not agree with the most ancient tradition on the origin of the Gospels. This places Matthew in the first position in chronological order. It is possible, however, to admit that the Greek Matthew that has come down to us made use, in translating and in editing, of the Gospel of Mark. The style of Mark, which seems more primitive, can also be explained by taking into account the "visual" character of his informant (St. Peter [v.]); likewise the less evolved theology of Mark is justified by taking into account the purpose and the recipients of the second Gospel. Furthermore, it does not appear from the testimony of Papias, or from other sources, that there existed a collection of lóghia or discourses of Jesus different from the Gospel of Matthew that has come down to us. As can be seen, the cornerstones of this hypothesis have no foundation in historical tradition; indeed they are opposed to it.
Catholics favorable to the two-source hypothesis modify it in a sense consonant with tradition, holding that the Gospel of Mark and the lóghia (to be identified with the Aramaic work of Matthew) were common sources of Greek Matthew and of Luke. Thus (with accessory variants) think J. Sickenberger, H. Vogels, M.-J. Lagrange, Camerlynck and others. L. Tondelli (Gesù Cristo, Turin 1936, p. 115) thinks that Matthew "first formed a collection of more limited material, especially of sentences of the Lord, as Papias had knowledge of; and then, later, 'while Peter and Paul were founding the Church of Rome', according to the words of St. Irenaeus, using the text of Mark already appeared, he grafted the discourses he had himself collected into the narrative of the life of Christ, giving to the account that aspect of messianic demonstration that a Gospel for Hebrews required. This second work he would have completed in Aramaic and it would then have been, later, at an unspecified time, turned into the Greek language." Understood in this sense, the two-source hypothesis would not be in contrast with the traditional data on the origin of the Synoptics and on the substantial identity between Aramaic Matthew and Greek Matthew.
3. Hypothesis of several written sources
B. H. Streeter (The four Gospels, Oxford 1924, pp. 151-260) proposed four sources; he was followed by many Anglicans. The sources would be Mark, Q (= lóghia), a Proto-Mark (M) and a Proto-Luke (L). Others speak of many written sources, Aramaic and Greek, supposing them alluded to in the term δῆλγαις used by Luke 1:1, where he alludes to his sources. This hypothesis too, although containing some positive element of solution, by itself does not give a sufficient reason for the similarities and differences among the Synoptics.
The so-called "form-history theory (v.)" could also enter into this orbit, which places at the origin many small literary units that arose under the impulse of the community and were then fixed in the Gospels. But the supporters of this theory, subject to many reservations, do not propose it as a function of the solution of the synoptic question.
4. Hypothesis of oral catechesis – J. C. L. Gieseler (Historisch-kritischer Versuch..., Leipzig 1818, p. 53) maintained that Matthew, Mark and Luke committed to writing the preaching, or apostolic catechesis (v. CATECHESI), without making use of written documents; this catechesis would have been fixed from the outset, almost stereotyped, orally, in a uniform type. He admitted, however, variants, according to the diversity of places and recipients. Matthew would have committed to writing the type of Palestinian catechesis intended for the Hebrews, Mark the type of the Roman catechesis preached by Peter, Luke the type of the Antiochene catechesis preached by Paul. This hypothesis had 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, besides the principal oral source, also some written source. In fact the oral catechesis, however much attested by the sources in different types (Paul spoke of his «ways»: I Cor. 4, 17; of his «gospel» and «type of doctrine»: Rom. 2, 16; 6, 17), was not bound to be so stereotyped as to preserve unaltered in secondary matters certain expressions, and to allow itself so many liberties in certain others, where a closer agreement would be expected. This hypothesis, by itself, explains neither the fundamental divergences nor the parts proper to Matthew and to Luke. Nor should the strength of the «Oriental» memory be exaggerated. Nevertheless this hypothesis provides a fundamental element for the solution of the synoptic question.
5. Hypothesis of mutual dependence
It was 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), others instead invert that order, especially those that maintain the priority of Mark. Many hold that the Greek Matthew made use of the Gospel of Mark (thus J. L. Hug, F. S. Patrizi, Cladder, etc.). Few, however, are those who believe they can resolve the synoptic question solely by the mutual dependence of the Gospels, also because, if 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 modern scholars incline toward eclectic solutions, while giving greater or lesser importance to certain elements.
The hypothesis of a primitive oral catechesis, fundamentally uniform and partially different according to the different recipients, is certainly one of the positive elements that must be placed at the origin of the Gospels. It may be admitted that this catechesis, intended for the Hebrews, 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 still preserving its fundamental uniformity, necessarily underwent adaptations suited to the needs of the different hearers. 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 of the solution.
Furthermore, 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 down in writing" what they knew by memory (this is the sense of ἀνατάξασθαι) and whom the investigator Luke used, one may also list the two preceding Gospels of Matthew and of Mark. The former seems to have been used by Luke especially for the discourses, the latter especially for the narratives. Among those "many" one could also place other brief writings containing, for example, the infancy narratives (v.), which in Luke have a strong Semitic coloring, quite different from the style of the prologue, and which could derive from a "Marian" source. Other oral and written sources (besides the preaching and the writings of St. Paul) may be supposed especially in his own sections (the travel narratives, chs. 9-19). For Matthew too one may think of his own sources, especially for the infancy story, which seems to be drawn from traditions coming, even if only indirectly, from St. Joseph, who appears there as the protagonist.
By supposing at the origin of the Synoptics the influence of these various sources, written and oral, emphasizing now one and now another according as similarities or differences predominate, and also taking into account the literary taste proper to the individual authors who, even when they depend on other sources, like to "invert" (as Tacitus writes, Annales, XV, 63) or to retouch, one reaches a relatively satisfactory solution of the synoptic question. Taking into account also the possible influences of the various pre-canonical Greek versions of Matthew's original work, to which Papias alludes, the elements of the preferable solution may be summarized in the following schema:
APOSTOLIC CATECHESIS FUNDAMENTALLY UNIFORM
Not all these elements can have the same degree of certainty; nor can it be said that all of them influenced all the parts of the Synoptics. In various cases one will have to choose between the influence of common sources or of proper sources, oral or written.
Bibliography9 works
Vangeli, Monza 1904; L. Méchineau, I Vangeli di s. Marco e di s. Luca e la questione sinottica, Rome 1913; P. Vannutelli, Questiones de synopticis Evangelii, ibid. 1935; id., in Synoptica, 1-3 (1936-39), see indexes; G. Ricciotti, Vita di Gesù Cristo, Milan 1940, nos. 148-55. The most notable synopses are: W. Larfeld, Griechische Synopse der vier neutest. Evangelien, Tübingen 1911; P. Vannutelli, Evangelii in sinossi, Turin 1931; id., Evangelie synoptice secundum textum Graecum disposita, ibid. 1936; id., Sinossi degli evangeli, Rome 1938. The Greek synopsis of M.-J. Lagrange (Paris 1925) was adapted and translated into French by C. Laverne (ibid. 1927), and into Italian by an anonymous author under the title: Sinossi dei quattro Evangelii secondo la sinossi greca del p. M.-J. Lagrange (Brescia 1931 augmented); in Latin A. Brassac, Nova evangeliorum synopsis, 2nd ed., Paris 1922, is very well known.
Pietro De Ambroggi