The Synoptic Problem
I thought it’d be fun to post my translation from German class of a chapter out of Gerhard Lohfink’s The Synoptic Problem.
——————————————————————
We come after (have addressed) the treatment of translation problems and, after [that], the problem of textual-transmission; now to the work of the evangelists themselves.
It can at present be shown, that each Evangelist has their own style, that–for example–Mark seemingly has poor Greek writing with many speech-blunders, as it would be spoken by simple and literarily uneducated people; however, Luke can express very educated and elegantly. Also, each evangelist writes thus (in such a way), that it corresponds to to his environment and his people’s tendencies. Therefore–with a word–each personal style of the evangelists displays the humanity of the word of God.
We want, however, for us to turn to the issues, which are important and interesting, namely the relationship among the four standing with one another. Each, once the four Gospels are read one after another, [one] must realize, that the first three Gospels are very similar and clearly are related. However, the Gospel of John differs strongly from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. One can easily see from the outer frame (structure) of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke begin the public ministry of Jesus with his Baptism and forty day stay in the wilderness. Then comes the ministry of Jesus in Galilee and the neighboring areas. It ends with: his trip towards Jerusalem to the Jewish passover and his last days working in the city. At the end, we hear the passion story of Jesus and of the appearances of the risen Christ. Matthew, Mark, and Luke know, therefore, only a trip of Jesus to Jerusalem, and they give the impression that they have his entire public ministry within a single year.
It is completely different in John. He does not follow the simple order: first Galilee, then Jerusalem. In fact, with him he changes the stage between Galilee and Jerusalem, back and forth. John knows three Passover Feasts within the public ministry of Jesus. He therefore presupposes a public ministry of three years.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree in comparison with John, except for their grand scheme (structure), but they have much common material that one can write these three gospels on-going, next to one another, as they compare with one another. A Gospel-version, that applies this principle, (is) to be called Synoptic, and because one can squeeze the first three Gospels next to one another in this method, one calls them, in contrast to John’s Gospel, Synoptic Gospels.
Now, how is this great similarity and agreement (among) the first three or Synoptic Gospels explained?
Now, the answer presents itself if the different Synoptic Gospels, perhaps or possibly, are dependent on another Gospel (E), which is (now) lost, that Matthew, Mark and Luke all knew and have used:
Thus, they left the conspicuous commonalities well-explained. Perhaps they have directly depended on one another?
Matthew>Mark>Luke?
Mat>Luke>Mark?
etc.
There remains many further possible alternative-combinations. One names this whole Problem the “Synoptic Problem.” Much sweat has been poured over this question, already many books have been written about it, and the research had to go in many directions, until a solution was found, which explained all question in the best and simplest way, and which is accepted by the majority of biblical scholars today. This solution looks like the following:
The oldest of the synoptic Gospels is our Gospel of Mark. Luke and Matthew are, in fact, both independent stand independent of one another, they have both used Mark as a source. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke must have used, besides Mark, another common written-Gospel. It has, in fact, been lost., but we can reconstruct it at least in part from the material which Matthew and Luke have in common compared to Mark. One describes this lost written-Gospel with the abbreviation “Q.”
Whether John had known the Synoptic Gospels is disputed. Maybe the Gospel of John is dependent on other traditions. In favor of this, for those who don’t want to directly deal in scholarly form with the Gospels, is it is enough to say: The Gospel of John is the latest of our four gospels and offers us material in wholly independent form and structure; Mark is our oldest gospel, Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark.
When one is correctly understanding and does not allow the influence of memories from your school-days, one can easily say: Matthew and Luke have copied Mark. But that is the humanity of the word of God.
