The Synoptic Problem The Case for Q

What does “synoptic” mean?  From Greek meaning “to see altogether”

Which Came First? Gospel of Matthew The Magadlen papyrus was purchased in Luxor, Egypt in 1901 by Rev Charles Huleatt; dated ca 200 CE; Some scholars point to Matthew 24:2 as evidence that Matthew was originally written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE: …but he said to them, “Behold, do you not see all of these? Truly I say to you, Not a stone whall be left here upon another stone, which will not be torn down”… The presumption is of course that, if he had known, Matthew would have inserted a “he-told-you-so”. So we can generously date matthew from CE

Gospel of Mark Mark 13:1-2 corresponds to Matthew 24:2; so by the same logic we can date Mark before 70 CE. Eusebius (ca CE) tells us that Mark served as the interpreter for Simon- Peter, who was crucified in 67 CE. So we can date Mark from < CE

Gospel of Luke Luke 1:1-3 claims to have referenced other works that claim to be eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus Bodmer XV papyrus is the earliest manuscript containing Luke; is dated ca CE Thus, we can date Luke from ca CE, but sometime after Matthew and Mark

Matthew or Mark Matthew writes 607 of the 661 verses contained in Mark (92% of Mark) Mark contains only 4 of the 18 parables attributed to Jesus Mark pays attention to detail, using the exact words spoken, gestures, places, and numbers Mark uses “then” as a introduction over 30 times in his first chapter; compared to the combined 10 in the entire gospels of Matthew and Luke Matthew spends much of his writing correcting errors in Mark, and adding scenes which were not included, such as Infancy scenes, the Magi, the Flight to Egypt, the Sermon on the Mount, and a Jesus genealogy Thus, either Mark is a bit of a bumbling idiot (except for his attention to detail), or Matthew used Mark as a literary source which he felt he could improve upon and embellish

Markan Priority Mark Matthew

Matthew and Luke Independent? Luke has a different, and more sparse, account of the Sermon on the Mount (compare Matthew 5:3-7:29 and Luke 6:21-49) Luke doesn’t contain instructions for ministry (as does Matthew 9:35-11:30) Luke has an entirely different genealogy for Jesus Luke doesn’t refer to the same infancy scenes or resurrection account Luke attributes to Jesus 7 miracles not in either Matthew or Mark It is easier to assume that Luke and Matthew differ because Luke did not source Matthew, than it is to believe that Luke intentionally omitted scenes However, because of their similarities, ie. The Sermon on the Mount, additional parables added to Mark, it is reasonable to assume that they shared a same source that was not Mark--leading us to assume a Q-document, which has yet to be found

MarkQ-doc MatthewLuke