jgs^^al^^^^I

^>pnopttc problem

88B K

£ft^^^^^j^^^^^jB^gi^^^^S1y^^£

\ ''V

"^

YALE
DIVINITY SCHOOL
LIBRARY

Gift of
Library of
Dean Charles R. Brown

THE
SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

BY
DOREMUS ALMY HAYES
Professor of
New Testament Interpretation in Garrett Biblical Institute

NEW YORK: EATON & MAINS
CINCINNATI: JENNINGS & GRAHAM

Copyright, 1912, by
DOREMUS ALMY HAYES

Ha
JHarcu* ©. JSuell
AN AUTHORITY IN THIS FIELD

CONTENTS PAGE
Foreword  7
I. Definitions  9
II. Resemblances  12
III. Differences  24
IV. Responsibilities  38
V. Aids  45
VI. Theories  52
VII. Conclusions  62
VIII. The Peculiar Value of Mark  70
IX. The Peculiar Value of Matthew. . 74
X. The Peculiar Value of Luke  79
XI. Bibliography  86

FOREWORD
This little book is an attempt to
boil down into briefest compass the
result of the reading of many thousands
of pages on this subject. It is written
for the benefit of those who cannot take
the time to master the voluminous lit
erature in this field, but who would like
to have some notion as to what it is all
about. The intelligent layman and
the busy pastor may find some of their
questions answered in these pages, and
if enough interest should be roused to
lead to the reading of any of the
books mentioned in the brief bibliog
raphy at the close, the time thus
given will be found to be well spent.
We have compiled these facts from
many sources. We have had the
original Greek before us at every
point. Some of the translations we
have made for ourselves.

8 FOREWORD
The Bible is the most interesting of
all the books. Its problems attract us
as well as its promises. It piques our
curiosity and stimulates our intellect,
as well as warms our heart and min
isters to our spiritual life. We are
interested in all the facts concerning
it. Some of them are set forth here.
It will do us good to know the facts,
and we are free to draw our own con
clusions from them. All the facts we
have found have helped us rather
than hindered us in the proper appre
ciation and reverence of the Book.
We are confident that with all others
who love the truth even as they love
the God of truth it will be just as it
has been with ourselves.

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
I. Definitions
It will be well to define our terms
first of all:
1. The Gospels are the four narra
tives of the life of Christ found in our
New Testament.
2. The synoptic Gospels are the
first three Gospels as distinguished
from the fourth. They are given this
title because they present the same
general view of the life of Christ.
According to the composition of the
Greek word ovvrnpi? they "view" that
life "together." They resemble each
other sufficiently to form a related
group. The fourth Gospel is so pe
culiar that it cannot be put into this
group. Expressed in homely phrase,
the synoptic Gospels are like birds of

10 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
a feather which flock together; the
fourth Gospel is like an eagle which
flies alone.
3. The problem of the synoptic
Gospels is furnished in the fact that
while they remarkably resemble each
other in general, they strangely differ
with each other in particulars. Writ
ten in parallel columns they are seen
to present curiously intermingled phe
nomena of apparent originality and
seeming plagiarism. At various points
each appears to be independent, while
in other places all appear to be inter
dependent. Their narratives of inci
dents and discourses now approach
each other, now coalesce, now sep
arate. They are now identical and
now different. Their relationship is
sometimes clear and sometimes ob
scure. It is like a series of dissolving
pictures in which one unexpectedly
replaces the other: and it is difficult to
define the beginning or the end of any
of them. There must be some reason

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 11
for these things. There must be
some explanation for these shifting
phenomena. Why are there these parallelisms and
these divergences ? Why are the Syn
optics so like each other and yet so
unlike? The problem of the synoptic
Gospels is to find a satisfactory and a
sufficient answer to these questions.
It is the most difficult problem of
present-day New Testament criticism.
Possibly as much has been written
about it as about any other problem
in the history of literature, but it has
not been solved as yet. It is the great
enigma of the beginning of our New
Testament canon, as the Apocalypse
is the great enigma of its close. All of
the solutions of the synoptic problem
thus far offered are largely guesses in
the dark. None of them is absolutely
satisfactory. None of them may be
more than partly right.
In some places the Synoptics are
identical in their statements; in other

12 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
places they are like each other 5 in
still other places they differ with each
other; in a few instances they contra
dict each other. These are the facts.
What theory of their origin will ac
count for these facts? That is our
problem. We will look at it a little
more closely now.
II. Resemblances
The resemblances in the Synoptics
consist :
1. In absolute identity of language.
This is never very extensive, but it is
sufficiently striking when it occurs.
(1) In one quotation from the Old
Testament, found in all the synop-
tists, the identity of language reaches
in the original through fifteen con
secutive words. Here Matthew and
Mark agree in saying, "The Lord
said to my Lord, Sit upon my right
hand, until I may place thy enemies
under thy feet," and Luke agrees with

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 13
them for fifteen words, but diverges
from them in the end in order to
agree with the Septuagint which reads,
"until I may place thy enemies as the
footstool of thy feet" (Matt. 22. 44;
Mark 12. 36; Luke 20. 42, 43).
Another striking instance of agree
ment between the three synoptists
through fourteen consecutive words
is in the quotation from Isaiah, "A
voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Prepare the way of the Lord, make
his paths straight," and it is remark
able that in this case they all agree in
misquoting the Septuagint which reads,
"Make straight the paths of our God,"
and this is the correct rendering of the
Hebrew original (Matt. 3. 3; Mark
1. 3; Luke 3. 4).
(2) In one case in the narrative por
tion of the synoptists absolute identity,
including the order of the words in the
original Greek, extends through the
twelve words, "the five loaves, and the
two fishes, having looked up to heaven,

14. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
he blessed" (Matt. 14. 19; Mark 6. 41 j
Luke 9. 16). In no case in the narra
tives does such agreement extend
through more than twelve words, and
it seldom goes beyond four or six
words. (3) In reporting the sayings of
Jesus the synoptists will sometimes
agree in as many as eight successive
words, but there are not half a dozen
instances where absolute agreement is
maintained through five consecutive
words! If they all quoted from the
Old Testament the same text and the
same passage, and if they all quoted
correctly, we would have an absolute
agreement at these points. Such ab
solute agreement is never found
through more than fifteen words. If
they all reported the same words of
Jesus, and reported them exactly, we
would have perfect agreement in these
portions of their narratives. Such
agreement never occurs extending
through more than eight consecutive

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 15
words. This is a strange fact. How
can we account for these resemblances
in absolute identity of phraseology, ex
tending for a short measure only and
then ceasing suddenly and for no
apparent good reason ?
2. There are certain very peculiar
words found in our New Testament.
Possibly the most puzzling of them all
is the word translated "daily" in the
so-called Lord's Prayer, in the peti
tion, "Give us this day our daily
bread." No one has ever been certain
that that word was rightly translated.
No one is sure of its meaning to-day.
Scholarship has always been divided
on the question. No sufficient data
exist upon the basis of which one
may come to any final conclusion. The
word is not found in ancient literature
before the time of the New Testament.
It occurs in only this one connection
in the New Testament. It is never
found in later literature, except in
quotations from this source. The

16 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
Greek and Latin fathers never could
agree upon its meaning, and modern
scholars have no reason to agree which
they had not.
Now, if such a rare and absolutely
unique expression as this were found
in only one of our synoptists, we
might think that he had coined it for
his own use; but, strangely enough,
this strange word is found in both
Matthew and Luke. How can we ac
count for that fact? Did Jesus use
some Aramaic term which had been
translated into this unusual and un
couth Greek expression by some one
not well acquainted with the language,
and did both Matthew and Luke re
peat this oral or written translation?
At many other points we come upon
peculiarities of language which are
common to two or to three of the
synoptists, and suggest a common
source and raise the same question.
3. Sometimes a narrative is told in
the same method by the three synop-

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 17
tists, when that method is not one
which would naturally occur to three
independent writers. Take the ac
count of the healing of the paralytic
at Capernaum for an example. The
synoptists all tell us how Jesus turned
upon the scribes on that occasion, and
how in the midst of his address to
them he suddenly halted in the mid
dle of a sentence and commanded the
paralytic to rise and go home. At the
same point they all insert the same
parenthesis, "Then saith he to the sick
of the palsy," "He saith to the sick of
the palsy," "He said unto him that was
palsied" (Matt. 9. 65 Mark 2. 11; Luke
5. 24). It is remarkable that the three
should insert the parenthesis at ex
actly the same place in the broken
narrative. That one writer should in
dependently choose this method of tell
ing the story would be possible. That
two should agree in it independently
would seem improbable. That three
should do so is next to impossible.

18 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
In the account of the cure of the
Gerasene demoniac there is a similar
parenthesis, thrown in to explain what
has gone before. First we have the
demoniac's plea, "I adjure thee by
God, torment me not," and then the
reason for that adjuration is appended:
"For he said unto him, Come forth,
thou unclean spirit, out of the man."
In Mark and in Luke we have the same
inverted order; first the remonstrance
and then the command (Mark 5.
7, 8; Luke 8. 28, 29). The natural
order of narration would have been to
give the command first and the re
sulting remonstrance afterward. That
one should choose to invert the order
would seem strange. That two should
agree in doing it independently would
seem most improbable. Other such
instances might be given. They all go
to prove that these stories, for some
reason or another, had taken a stereo
typed form, which is reproduced by
each narrator.

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 19
4. In the main the synoptists follow
the same order of events. They re
semble each other in the chronological
arrangement of their material. Some
times we have a series of events in one
of them, leading up to a crisis in the
career of Jesus, and then suddenly
we seem to lose the thread of the
narrative; and we turn to another of
the synoptists to see what happened
next, only to find that he has failed
us at the very same point. Then we
turn to the third, sure that one at
least will tell us what we so much
would hke to know, and we find that
the same period of silence intervenes
in his narrative at exactly the same
juncture of events. Then, after a cer
tain interval of days and months, the
three will take up the story again at
exactly the same point. That is what
we mean by saying that the synop
tists in general have the same order.
That order would seem to be fixed in
the Gospel according to Mark. Fre-

20 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
quently when Matthew diverges from
the order of Mark, Luke will be found
to agree with Mark; and, on the other
hand, when Luke diverges from Mark's
order at any point, Matthew fre
quently will follow Mark in that place.
Matthew and Luke never agree in
transposing the order of Mark.
5. What has just been said leads us
to the next statement. The syn
optists strangely agree in the selec
tion of their material. The life of
Jesus was the most interesting and the
most remarkable life ever known to
the race. It was only thirty-three
years in length; but out of those
superlatively important years our Gos
pels possibly give us incidents from
only forty days. There must have
been many other days just as full of
interest and excitement as those which
they recorded. Out of the multitudes
of the days why have they decided to
tell us about only forty of them ? If
one had chosen these forty days for

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 21
his record, why did not another choose
forty other days just as wonderful,
and the third enrich our knowledge
with the account of still new and
equally marvelous material? It is a
strange fact that they should choose,
for the most part, to tell us about the
same things. They all mention the
fact that there were numberless unre
corded miracles, and yet each of the
synoptists tells about much the same
list of miracles that is to be found in
the others. When we turn from the
synoptists to John we find a new list
of miracles there and we see at once
that these new miracles were just as
important, or, possibly in some cases,
even more important than any to be
found in the synoptists. The greatest
of all the miracles, the raising of
Lazarus from the dead, is found in the
fourth Gospel alone. No one of ourj
synoptists has mentioned it.
The closing statement in the fourth
Gospel is to the effect that there are

22 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
also many other things which Jesus
did, the which if they should be writ
ten every one, it might be supposed
that even the world itself would not
contain the books that should be
written. There was an abundance of
material known to the eyewitnesses of
the ministry of the Lord which is now
lost forever. Why did not our synop
tists do as the author of the fourth
Gospel did, and each of them give us
an original and fresh putting of the
life of Jesus, with fresh material chosen
from this inexhaustible abundance of
supply, instead of telling the same
story over in much the same way ?
We know so little of what Jesus did.
We should like to know so much more.
We know so little of what Jesus said.
We would esteem every added word
that we could be assured fell from his
lips as an invaluable treasure. Yet
all the recorded sayings of Jesus could
be spoken in six hours. What a
meager measure of the words of life

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 23
that is! Six hours of golden speech,
and over all the rest of the life a pall
of perfect silence! We have learned
to content ourselves with what we
have, and yet why did our synoptists
choose to give us so much material
common to all when each of them
might have added so much that would
have been peculiar to them and made us
so much the richer in our possession of
the facts concerning the life and the
truths enunciated in the teachings of
Jesus ?
The synoptists resemble each other,
sometimes in absolute identity of ex
pression, sometimes in peculiarities of
language, sometimes in the method fol
lowed in an individual narration, in
general in the order of their chronicles,
and in the selection of their facts.
What reason is there for these like
nesses? Evidently, the individuality
of each of these evangelists has been
overruled by some external norm to
produce these conformities to one

24 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
model and these uniformities of
result. III. Differences
To get the synoptic problem clearly
before us we must also look at the
differences between them, lit would
be comparatively easy to account for
their resemblances on the ground of
the influence of an external and con
trolling norm, but the problem be
comes more complicated when we take
their differences into consideration.
The question at once arises, If there
were any such controlling norm as
their resemblances would indicate, why
has it not controlled more completely?
What reason can be suggested for such
divergences as we shall now consider ?
1. They differ in the transposition of
sentences and paragraphs in the ac
count both of incidents and of sayings
in the life of Jesus. For example,
Matthew gives the order of the temp
tations of Jesus in the wilderness as,

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 25
first, the turning of stones into bread;
and, second, the casting of himself
down from the pinnacle of the temple;
and, third, the worshiping of Satan for
the kingdoms of the world. Luke
gives us the same story of the tempta
tions, but he puts the third of Mat
thew's list second, and the second he
puts last. There is no apparent reason
for such a transposition. If this nar
rative were intended to be taken as a
literal narrative of facts, then, of
course, both Matthew and Luke could
not be correct in their order of the
events. In Matthew's narrative Jesus proph
esies that the men of Nineveh shall
condemn the men of his generation
and then goes on to say the same
thing of the queen of the south.
Luke repeats these sayings, but re
verses their order. , In the account of
the Last Supper Mark and Matthew
tell about the giving of the bread and
then the giving of the cup to the

26 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
disciples. Luke introduces a giving of
the cup before the breaking of the
bread, and connects with it some of
the language assigned by the other
synoptists to the cup given after the
Supper. These seem to be strange and
unexpected and unaccountable diver
gences. Can anyone give any suffi
cient and satisfactory explanation of
them? 2. There are strange omissions in
each of the synoptists. If they were
following a common source, how are
we to account for them ? We are told
that Luke was a Gentile, and that he
took every opportunity to emphasize
any portion of the teaching of Jesus
which made clear the fact that his
gospel was a gospel for the Gentiles
as well as for the Jews. If that be
true, how does it happen that Mark
tells us that Jesus taught the people
in the temple, saying, "Is it not writ
ten, My house shall be called a house
of prayer for all the Gentiles" (Mark

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 27
11. 17), and Luke repeats the saying,
"My house shall be a house of prayer,"
but omits the significjant phrase "for
aU the Gentiles"? (Luke 19. 46.)
We would have supposed that Luke
would be sure to put that in, yet he
omits it.
In Mark we read, "The gospel must
first be preached unto all the Gentiles"
(Mark 13. 10), and in Matthew we
read the same statement: "This gos
pel of the kingdom shall be preached
in the whole world for a testimony
unto all the Gentiles" (Matt. 24. 14).
Then we turn to Luke and we find that
he gives the same discourse of Jesus
concerning the last things, and Luke's
account parallels that of Mark and
Matthew at almost every point, and
yet, strangely enough, when we come
to this statement concerning the
preaching of the gospel to all of the
Gentiles we find that Luke omits it.
We would have thought that there
was no saying in that discourse which

28 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
Luke would have been so eager to
record as that one. How can we ex
plain such an omission? In Mark
7. 31 we are told that Jesus made a
journey through the Gentile cities of
Decapolis, and Mark gives some ac
count of the things that happened
there. Luke omits all mention of this
journey and of these things. How
strange that is! He must have been
interested in these happenings in a
very special degree. Why does he
make no mention of them, Gentile as
he probably was?
Compare what Matthew calls the
Sermon on the Mount with what
Luke calls the Sermon on the Plain.
They seem to be the same discourse.
Yet Matthew says that Jesus went up
into the mountain and sat down to
preach that sermon (Matt. 5. 1), and
Luke says that Jesus came down and
stood on a level place while he talked
(Luke 6. 17). In Matthew the sermon
begins with eight beatitudes. In

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 29
Luke there are but four, correspond
ing to Matthew's first, second, fourth,
and eighth; and the first three of these
seem to be so materially changed that
we can scarcely recognize their spirit
ual character. Then Luke adds four
woes corresponding to his four beati
tudes, which have no parallel in Mat
thew. What seems to be a single dis
course in Matthew we find to be
scattered in fragments throughout
Luke's narrative from the sixth to the
sixteenth chapters. Following the
order of the discourse in Matthew, we
find the corresponding sayings in Luke
first in the sixth chapter, then in the
sixteenth, then in the twelfth, then in
the sixth, then in the eleventh, then in
the twelfth, then in the eleventh, then
in the sixteenth, then in the twelfth,
then in the sixth, then in the eleventh,
then in the sixth, then in the thirteenth,
then in the sixth, then in the thir
teenth, then in the sixth again. Has
Luke given us the proper setting for

30 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
these several fragments of discourse,
or did Jesus repeat himself and gather
up into one discourse what he had
said on several other occasions ? Shall
we trust Matthew alone, or Luke
alone, or both ?
3. A third difference is in the inser
tion of long narratives. The best
example is to be found in what is usually
called "the greater insertion" in Luke.
In the middle of his narrative Luke
has given us a large section, 9. 45 to
18. 30, the most of the material in
which is peculiar to him. The other
Gospels pass over these events in
silence, and yet some of them are
among the most remarkable in our
Lord's ministry. Altogether, about
three fifths of the contents of Luke
are not to be found in the other
Gospels. Stroud made a mathemati
cal presentation of the facts in his
familiar table. If the contents of the
several Gospels be represented by 100,
then Mark has 7 peculiarities and 93

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 31
coincidences. Matthew has 42 peculiar
ities and 58 coincidences. Luke has 59
peculiarities and 41 coincidences. This
table shows that in Mark there is very
little which is not paralleled in the
other Gospels, while more than half of
the contents of Matthew is repeated in
the other Synoptics, and more than
two fifths of the contents of Luke.
Nevertheless, it remains true that in
each of the Gospels there are inser
tions of narratives and discourses not
to be found in the others.
4. There are puzzling differences in
the report of the same incident or the
same saying. In the storm on the
lake the disciples wake Jesus with a
cry of terror. Mark reports it, "Mas
ter, carest thou not that we perish?"
(Mark 4. 38.) Matthew records that
they said, "Save, Lord, we perish"
(Matt. 8. 25), and Luke changes the
speech again, recording it, "Master,
master, we perish" (Luke 8. 24).
These are not important differences.

32 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
We note them simply as examples of
the slight changes in the narratives
found on every page. In the saying
of Jesus, "It is easier for a camel to
go through the eye of a needle," we
find one word for "eye" in Mark and
another in Matthew and Luke; and
we find one word for "needle" in Luke
and another in Matthew and Mark.
In Matthew and Mark we read that
Herod said to others, "This is John
the Baptist: he is risen from the
dead." In Luke we read that others
said this to Herod. In the account of
the crucifixion Mark says that one
ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar,
and put it on a reed, and gave it to
Jesus to drink, saying, "Let be; let
us see whether Elijah cometh to take
him down" (Mark 15. 36). In Mat
thew we find the same account, but
this speech, "Let be: let us see whether
Elijah cometh to save him," is put
into the mouth of the bystanders
(Matt. 27. 49). Examples of such

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 33
differences could be multiplied in
definitely. 5. Sometimes statements are made
by one of the synoptists which would
lead us to mistaken conclusions if
another of the synoptists did not set
us right in the matter. For example,
if we had only Matthew's account of
the birth and infancy of Jesus, we would
suppose that Joseph and Mary went to
Nazareth only after the return from
Egypt and in consequence of a divine
warning in a dream. However, from
Luke we learn that Nazareth was the
home city of the parents of Jesus, that
they left it and went to Bethlehem only
for the census, and that after the
presentation in the temple they re
turned to Nazareth again. If we had
Luke's account of the resurrection ap
pearances of Jesus, and no other, we
would have supposed that all of these
were in the neighborhood of Jerusa
lem; but Matthew tells us plainly of
an appearance in Galilee as well.

34 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
6. The synoptists sometimes con
tradict each other. In Luke 3. 3 we
read that John the Baptist came into
all the region round about Jordan.
In Matt. 3. 5 the statement is that all
the region round about Jordan went
out unto John. In Mark 6. 8, 9 Jesus
expressly permits the twelve to carry
staves and to go shod with sandals.
In Matt. 10. 10 Jesus just as ex
pressly prohibits these things to the
twelve. It is evidently the same dis
course, and it is seemingly impossible
for both evangelists to be correct.
Jesus either permitted or prohibited
these things. He could not have done
both at one and the same time. Mark
tells us that Herodias desired to kill
John, but she could not because Herod
feared him. Matthew says that
Herod desired to kill John and did
not, because he feared the multitude.
These statements are not necessarily
contradictory, although they are ap
parently so.

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 35
Matthew and Mark both say that
the transfiguration took place six days
after the events just recorded by
them. Luke explicitly says that it
took place eight days after these
things. Matthew says that Jesus com
manded his disciples to pray after the
manner which he records in his Ser
mon on the Mount. Luke records this
prayer upon another occasion and not
at all after that manner. He omits
two of the petitions found in Matthew
and changes two of the others. Mat
thew would have us pray after one
manner, Luke would have us pray
differently; and, as a matter of fact,
most of us repeat the prayer in a
manner different from that prescribed
by either of them.
In Mark Jairus tells Jesus that his
daughter is at the point of death
(Mark 5. 23). In Matthew Jairus
says that she is already dead (Matt.
9. 18). In Matt. 8. 5 we read that
the centurion himself came to Jesus.

36 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
In Luke 7. 3 we read that he sent
unto Jesus some of the Jews. Mat
thew seems to put the profaning of
the Sabbath by plucking and eating
ears of corn and by curing the man
with the withered hand on the same
Sabbath. Luke explicitly says that the
miracle of the cure was performed on
another Sabbath. In Mark Peter's
denial follows the trial before the
Sanhedrin, while in Luke it precedes
it. Mark says that the women came
to the tomb when the Sabbath was
past. Matthew says that they came
late on the Sabbath. Luke says that
they came on the first day of the
week, at early dawn.
Mark tells us that as Jesus went out
from Jericho the blind beggar, Barti-
mseus, was healed. Matthew says that
as they went out from Jericho two
blind men were healed. Luke says
that as Jesus drew nigh unto Jericho a
certain blind man was healed, and
from his account we conclude that it

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 37
was the man whom Mark called Bar-
timaeus. Why does Matthew say there
were two blind men, while Mark and
Luke mention only one? Why do
Mark and Matthew locate the healing
at the time of leaving Jericho, while
Luke puts it at the time of entering
the city ? This list of apparent and
real contradictions might be increased.
However, none of the other cases are
of any greater importance than these
we have instanced; and all will agree
that particulars like these are not
essential to the conception of the life
and work of Christ. The important
fact in the last example, for instance,
is the fact of the healing and not the
exact spot at which it took place.
We have now seen that the synop
tists follow the same general order of
narration, repeat each other in much
or most of their material, sometimes
follow the same strange method of
telling their story, sometimes repro
duce certain peculiarities of language,

38 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
and sometimes are not merely parallel
but absolutely identical in their ex
pressions. On the other hand, we
have seen that they do not always
follow the same order in their narra
tives, and each of them adds to the
narratives of the others, and each of
them omits portions of the narratives
of the others, and each of them trans
poses the narratives of the others, and
they give different accounts of the
same event or the same saying, and
they apparently and really contradict
each other at certain minor points.
How are we to explain these strange
phenomena? That is the problem.
IV. Responsibilities
1. Let us say, first of all, that Jesus
is not directly responsible for the
record found in our Synoptics or for
the form in which that record has
been made. He never interested him
self in such things. He himself never
wrote anything while he was upon

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 39
the earth, as far as we know, except
upon one occasion when he wrote with
his finger in the dust upon the temple
floor something or other of great mo
ment to those who were looking on;
but we can only guess what it was,
and we know that that writing was
obliterated and lost long ago. Jesus
never dictated anything to anyone for
later publication. We do not know
that anyone ever thought of taking
notes of any of his sayings or doings
while he was still with them. We read
in one place that his disciples remem
bered that he had said certain things
only after his resurrection from the
dead. Evidently, they had no written
notes from which to refresh their
memories of these things.
We do not gather from our records
that Jesus ever took any special pains
to impress any particular phraseology
upon the minds of his followers. Pos
sibly the formulation of the so-called
Lord's Prayer might stand as a single

40 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
example of that sort; and we have seen
how in that case we have very dif
ferent versions handed down to us.
Then, if Jesus never dictated any
thing, nor wrote anything, nor taught
anything with patient repetitions until
he was sure that the disciples had it
committed with verbal exactness which
would insure absolute integrity in its
preservation, it would seem that he
was not convinced of the necessity of
any such thing, and was willing that
the record of his life and words should
be left to the chances of imperfect
remembrance and something less than
infallible accuracy of preservation. At
any rate, his evident negligence to
provide any written memorials in his
lifetime will clear him of all responsi
bility for our synoptic Gospels in the
exact form in which we have them
to-day. They were produced after his
death. The responsibility for them
must lie in other hands.
2. Let us say, in the second place,

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 41
that the Holy Spirit is not respon
sible for the exact form in which
any one of our Synoptics appears.
The doctrine of literal verbal inspira
tion must surely go to pieces in any
candid mind before the parallel col
umns of Rushbrooke's Synopticon, or
Wright's Synopsis of the Gospels in
Greek, or Thompson's The Synoptic
Gospels. The minute and meaningless
variations in these parallel columns
would convict any man of irreverence
and irrationality if he could be proven
to be individually responsible for all
of them. The purposelessness and the
frivolity of these almost numberless
and wholly insignificant changes from
one tense to another, and from one
mood to another, and from one num
ber to another, and from one case to
another would be just as apparent if
the responsibility for them was thrown
back upon the Holy Spirit. We find
one order of words in one synoptist,
and we find another order of the same

42 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
words in another synoptist. No pos
sible reason can be assigned for the
change in the order. The meaning is
not changed; the emphasis is not
changed. It seems to be a purely
arbitrary choice on the part of each
writer. That is an explanation of the
change; but if a single personality
were made responsible for both forms,
we would at once challenge the sense
or the use of it. We have too much
reverence for the Holy Spirit to say
he is responsible for these textual,
verbal, literal, minute, and unimpor
tant and arbitrary changes.
3. We conclude, then, in the third
place, that these phenomena both of
resemblance and of divergence in the
synoptists must rest, in the last analy
sis, upon the responsibility and the
personality of the individual authors
or compilers. In the Royal Art Mu
seum in Berlin there is a picture of
Matthew writing his Gospel. He is
represented as an old man with a

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 43
flowing beard, seated at a desk upon
which there is a roll. Behind him
stands an angel who reaches over his
shoulder and guides his pen. There is
a look of intense surprise on Matthew's
face, as he sees what his own hand
guided by the angel has written. The
picture represents a once common con
ception of inspiration; the arbitrary,
mechanical guidance of a pen rather
than the inspiration of a man. God
guides no man's pen as the mechanical
instrument of his will. He moves
some man's heart, and the man, heart-
stirred, moves his own pen with active
brain and willing hand. God does not
send messages through human tele
phones. His words are not repeated
by human phonographs. His messen
gers are not impassive instruments,
but active, able, free-will agents, called,
and responsive to the call.
Holy men of old were moved by the
Holy Spirit not as the primitive chaos
was moved by that same Spirit, not

44 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
arbitrarily but voluntarily. The evo
lution and the realization of God's
designs in them were conditioned by
their human intelligence and by their
human receptivity. God's inspiration
always took on the stamp of the indi
viduality, of the human personality
which appropriated it. God's mes
sengers who dwelt among men have
been men like other men. His greatest
message was sent through his Son as
a man. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Paul, Jesus were not abnormally ap
propriated to the proclamation of
God's will. They were not moved in
spite of themselves by the Holy Spirit,
and they were not moved out of them
selves. The Holy Spirit moved them,
and in their own personalities they
worked out the designs of God.
Human individuality is apparent on
every page of our New Testament, and
nowhere more so than in the pages of
the synoptists. These men differed in
mental equipment and literary style,

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 45
and in personal prejudices and prefer
ences, and in spiritual insight, and in
sources of information; and these differ
ences appear in their books, while the
essential purpose is the same in all.
Having concluded that the phe
nomena which constitute the synoptic
problem must find their ultimate ex
planation in the individualities of the
authors or compilers of the synoptic
Gospels, we are still far from having
disposed of our difficulties. The next
question is, How does it happen that
these individuals have composed or
compiled Gospels in which these
strange resemblances and differences
exist ? V. Aids
1. Luke's Preface. Matthew and
Mark have told us nothing at all
about the method of their procedure
in writing their books. Luke, how
ever, has written a preface to his
narrative, in which he makes some

46 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
statements concerning the sources of
information upon which he has drawn
in its composition. He was not an
eyewitness of the events in the gospel
history. He does not say that any
special revelation had been given him
concerning these things. He does not
write at the direction of any heavenly
voice or at the dictation of any super
natural visitant. He does not assert
that he had any direct or peculiar in
spiration of the Holy Spirit. He is
anxious to authenticate his narrative
and to establish its trustworthiness,
and he gives to Theophilus the best
reasons he has for believing that he
has written the certain truth. What
does he say ?
He says that he writes of his own
accord, and the only credential he
presents is that of painstaking inves
tigation of all the sources of informa
tion at his command. He certifies,
however, that the result of this inves
tigation is, in his judgment, a fuller,

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 47
more accurate, and more orderly ac
count of the life of Jesus than any of
which he knew. He divides the chief
sources of the facts he has written into
documentary material and oral testi
mony. There had been many at
tempts at narrative of which in their
manuscript form he was able to avail
himself and upon which he felt he had
been able to improve. There were
also many eyewitnesses still living
whom he was able to interview and
who delivered to him their first-hand
information concerning many things.
Upon the basis of his documents and
the careful recording of apostolic tra
dition as given to himself, Luke assures
Theophilus that he may rely upon the
certainty of the things he here finds
recorded. Luke has thus given all the
human elements that make for his
trustworthiness. It goes without say
ing that he also received the spiritual
illumination common to all writers of
the Sacred Scriptures. This is all of

48 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
the gratuitous information furnished
us in the synoptic Gospels concerning
their composition. If we learn any
thing more, it must be by the study
of their internal characteristics and
peculiarities. 2. Minute Research. An immense
amount of work has been done in this
field. As a single example we might
cite the Seminar formed in the Uni
versity of Oxford for the study of the
synoptic problem. It met nine times a
year for sixteen years. In 1910 the
results of the patient and united
efforts of these scholars were pub
lished in the volume entitled Studies
in the Synoptic Problem. Other vol
umes, like Sir J. C. Hawkins's Horse
Synopticae, are marvels of minute re
search, and represent a lifetime of
labor. It would seem safe to say that
every possible scrap of evidence has
been accumulated through the succes
sive generations of ungrudging drudg
ery at the task.

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 49
Possibly the minute pedantry of the
ancient rabbis has been more nearly
reproduced in the study of the synop
tic problem than in any other part of
our Scriptures. Those ancient scribes
and masters of the law knew how
many verses and how many words
and how many letters there were in
every book of their Bible. They knew
how many times certain words oc
curred at the beginning of a verse and
how many times at the end of a verse.
They knew all the petty phenomena as
well as the weightier matters in the
law. The same thing has come to be
true of the three synoptic Gospels.
They have been subjected to micro
scopic investigation. Every last detail
has been considered in its bearing
upon the solution of their relationship.
We have sometimes thought that
the erudition displayed in the study
of the synoptic problem is like that
of the scholastics of the Dark Ages.
Milman says of these, "Latin Chris-

50 TilE, SYJN OPTIC PROBLEM
tianity raised up those vast monu
ments of theology which amaze and
appall the mind with the enormous
accumulation of intellectual industry,
ingenuity, and toil, but of which the
sole result to posterity is this barren
amazement." An amazing amount of
scholarship has been expended upon
the synoptic problem in the last two
centuries, and he would be a very
hopeful man who would think that the
final word on the question was within
sight or hearing to-day. Eminently
learned and ingenious men have had
their say about it. They have been
eminently critical too. Their investi
gations have rivaled those of the
schoolmen in their painstaking mi
nuteness. They have been thorough in
their research and have accumulated
and assorted vast quantities of facts.
Many of them have been very assured
in the announcement of their results.
They have held opposing and mu
tually destructive theories, and they

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 51
have fought, bled, and died in their
behalf. Each generation has quietly
buried the combatants of the pre
ceding generation, and in many cases
their theories have been quietly laid to
rest with them. Probably some of
these theories are dead beyond all
hope of a resurrection.
We th'nk that some things are
pretty generally agreed upon in our
day, yet there are very strenuous ad
vocates of rival hypotheses still in the
field. No man who volunteers to set
tle the whole question for us can
command the universal suffrage of
scholars. Frequently he represents no
one but himself. Any new discovery
of manuscripts may revolutionize the
whole aspect of things at any time.
Under such circumstances no one can
prophesy with any degree of assurance
what the verdict of the next genera
tion or the next century will be.

52 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
VI. Theories
At present the problem of the syn
optic Gospels has resolved itself into
the problem of the sources from which
the synoptists draw the material for
their books. The two main sources
are those suggested in that preface to
the Gospel according to Luke, oral
testimony, and written documents;
and the two most active differing
schools of thought on the subject
to-day are, first, the one which pins
its faith largely, if not wholly, upon
the oral tradition as accounting for the
resemblances and the differences in
the synoptic Gospels, and, second,
the one which pins its faith largely, if
not wholly, upon a single original
document, or a series of such, as an
adequate explanation for all the puz
zling features which the Synoptics
present. 1. Oral Tradition. Gieseler, West-
cott, and Wright have been the pro
tagonists for the oral tradition theory.

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 53
It is not always easy to assign the
critics to one school rather than
another, since each is apt to hold an
attitude more or less mediating or
more or less independent, but pos
sibly Credner, Lachmann, Lange, Eb-
rard, Thiersch, Afford, Renan, Farrar,
Schaff,Wendt, Godet, Gould, and Weiss
might be classed together here.
(1) Authoritative Teaching. These
critics do not rule out the use of all
documents, of course, but they main
tain that before any documents came
into existence the general form of the
gospel narrative had become fixed in
a cycle of authoritative oral teaching.
The apostles were the chief authori
ties for the facts of the life of Jesus at
first. They did not immediately set
about the writing of books. They did
begin their preaching at once, and in the
beginning they confined themselves
largely to the telling of the historical
facts in the life of the Redeemer. As
they went from place to place by dint

54 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
of repetition the order of the narra
tive tended to become fixed, and even
the form in which particular incidents
were repeated would gradually estab
lish itself in the minds and on the
tongues of both the hearers and the
speakers. At the same time slightly
different forms of reminiscence might
go back to different apostles for their
original authority.
(2) Oriental Memory. In addition to
this unquestioned fact that the preach
ing of the gospel must have preceded
the writing of any Gospels, we are
asked to remember that the Oriental
memory was trained to a much higher
degree than we are apt to conceive
possible here in the West. It was the
habit in the schools of the rabbis for
the disciples to retain all of the teach
ing imparted to them without the
aid of text-books or notes. They
were expected to attend closely, to re
member fully, and to repeat accu
rately. The traditions were handed

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 55
down from generation to generation in
that way. It has also been suggested
that there were catechetical schools
among the Christians from a very
early day, and that systematic in
struction was imparted to all converts
in such schools. It is stated in Luke's
preface that Theophilus had been in
structed in this catechetical fashion.
If there were several such schools and
a slightly different tradition were pre
served, and reproduced in each, that
would go far to help toward the ex
planation of the synoptic phenomena.
(3) Fragments of Writing. ' Remem
bering that the preaching of the apos
tles was largely historical in the
beginning, and that they were the
chief authorities for the account of
the words and the works of the Lord,
and remembering the Oriental reten-
tiveness of memory which would tend
to fix the form, not only of the story
as told, but as repeated by others, we
have the basis for a belief that a par-

56 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
ticular selection of incidents and say
ings and a particular form for their
presentation would establish itself in
Christian circles before anyone would
attempt to put any of these things
into writing. Such attempts would
surely be made in time. In all proba
bility some of the briefer sayings
would be written first, then some
collection of these sayings would be
made, then some account of the mir
acles would be committed to writing,
then the longer discourses, and last
among these the eschatological proph
ecies. These fragments would then be
united by some hand or by several
hands into the first attempts at a
continuous sketch of the life of Jesus.
The best of these would be used by
our evangelists.
The parallels in the Synoptics would
thus be explained by the more or less
fluid, while yet more or less fixed,
form of the primitive oral tradition,
and the minute or more important

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 57
variations would be explained by the
fact that the most credible witnesses
will differ more or less in giving the
account of the same matters, and the
best-trained memories will be imper
fect at some points, while, at the same
time, having made due allowance for
the differences in the oral or written
sources of information open to each
evangelist, we must still leave room
for his personal preferences and tastes
in the selection and the shaping of the
material. It was the patent superi
ority of our synoptic Gospels to all
of their predecessors which insured
their preservation and supremacy in
the Church while their models, or
forerunners, perished.
Stated generally, this seems like a
very satisfactory theory of the com
position of the synoptic Gospels. It
is only when we come to the applica
tion of it in detail that doubts arise in
the minds of many scholars as to
whether we can rely upon it as an

58 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
adequate hypothesis. If it is to be
trusted at all, why does it not go
farther? If retentive memories ac
count for much, why do they not
account for more ? If oral tradition be
supposed to fix some things, why did
it not fix others ? The present genera
tion of critics seems to be swinging
away from any rigid adherence to the
oral tradition theory and to be con
cluding that the more hopeful line of
research will be that of the recon
struction of original documents. Har-
nack is at present leading the way
in this direction.
2. Documentary Sources. Lessing and
Eichhorn made the first investigation
into the Urkunden, or original docu
ments, lying back of our synoptic
Gospels. Eichhorn began by positing
a single Ur-evanyelium, or primitive
Gospel, written in Aramaic about the
time of the stoning of Stephen; but,
having embarked upon the high seas
of adventure along this line, he kept

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 59
discovering new sources until the very
profusion and wantonness and arbi
trariness of his inventions discredited
the whole performance. He made a
great sensation in his day, even more
than Harnack has made in our day;
but no one gives much heed to his
conjectures now. Schleiermacher sug
gested the Logia, a collection of the
sayings of Jesus, and a series of more
or less extensive compilations of nar
ratives, leading up to a proto-Mark
and then to our Synoptics. Weisse was
content to presuppose the Logia with
our canonical Mark as the basis of
the other two Synoptics. All of the
Tubingen school were disposed to be
lieve in a primitive Aramaic source of
our Gospels, and they usually de
clared that our Matthew was a com
bination of a more liberal document
with this source, and Luke was a
Pauline protest supplemented from
Ebionite sources, and Mark compiled
his narrative from both of these. The

60 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
general positions of the Tubingen
school have been relegated to the
theological scrap-heap by this time,
and their contributions to the discus
sion of the synoptic problem carry as
little weight as any of them.
We will put down in a single para
graph some sample conclusions of
some modern authorities as to the
sources of the synoptic Gospels and
the order of their composition. Holtz-
mann believes that there was: (1) A
proto-Mark, the original form of
Mark's Gospel. (2) The Logia, a col
lection of the sayings of Jesus. (3)
Our canonical Mark. (4) Matthew.
(5) Luke. He thinks that the last
two were founded upon the first and
the second, and used additional ma
terials. Weiss posits the order as
follows: (1) The Logia. (2) An orig
inal Gospel according to Matthew,
made up of the Logia and added in
cidents. (3) Mark, a recollection of
Peter's preaching and as much of

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 61
Matthew's discourses as would har
monize with his plans. (4) Our canon
ical Matthew, founded on Mark and
the Logia. (5) Luke, founded on
Mark, the Logia, and other sources.
Zahn makes the order: (1) Matthew
in Hebrew. (2) Mark. (3) Luke.
(4) Matthew in Greek. Julicher
thinks that the earliest sources were
our Mark and the Logia of Matthew,
and that our Matthew and Luke use
these two and also other sources.
Harnack has carried his researches
into the history of the early Church
back into the time of the composition
of the Gospels, and he has chosen to
use the term Quelle (Source) or its
abbreviation, Q, instead of the old
term Logia: and he thinks that Mark
and Q are the two and the only two
common sources for Matthew and
Luke. He has undertaken to recon
struct Q with genuine German thor
oughness and the usual German
subjective arbitrariness. Our Wes-

62 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
leyan James Hope Moulton and our
American Benjamin Wisner Bacon
have shown good reason why we
should hesitate to accept without ques
tion his conclusions along this line.
Wellhausen and Weiss have offered
pertinent objections to Harnack's gen
eralizations, and have gone into still
more minute and even microscopic
investigation of supposable sources.
The dominant interest at present
seems to lie in work along these lines.
In our judgment, the farther it is
carried the less confidence it will
command in both the expert and the
lay mind. VII. Conclusions
What may we conclude on the
basis of the facts now presented ?
1. The synoptic problem is no nearer
a solution to-day than *t has been at
any previous time in the history of
the Church. We have more facts in

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 63
hand than scholarship has been able
to accumulate before this generation,
but these facts only serve to increase
the intricacies of the problem, and
they do not seem to insure any greater
unanimity of conclusion on the part of
the scholarly world. Without some
added discoveries of documents in
Egypt or elsewhere — a rather remote
possibility — there is little or no reason
to think that any sufficient solution of
the synoptic problem is possible. In
details the history of the composition
of our synoptic Gospels is likely to re
main a mystery forever. However,
there are some general conclusions
upon which a majority of the critics
may now be said to agree.
2. The oral hypothesis has much of
truth in it. Oral narratives came
first in order, and they would have a
tendency to take a fixed form. How
ever, this hypothesis alone can never
give more than general help in the
consideration of the problem. It fails

64 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
in adequacy whenever we try to apply
it to the minute details of variations
in the Synoptics. In the Encyclo
pedia Biblica Schmiedel brands it as
an asylum ignorantice and an asylum
orthodoxio3, and his feeling is shared
by most students of the subject to-day.
The facts must be faced, and the
facts point to written sources as well
as an oral tradition.
3. If we feel ourselves forced to as
sume that written documents lie be
hind our canonical Gospels, and either
that any of them borrowed from others
or that they borrowed from any com
mon sources, we must still face the
facts. These seem to compel us to
the conclusion that our synoptists felt
free to add to or omit from or trans
pose or otherwise change their sources
as they thought best. If this seem to
anyone irreverent or impossible, we
can simply appeal to the facts. The
phenomena point to written sources,
yet the synoptists give us different

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 65
genealogies of Jesus, different forms
for the so-called Lord's Prayer, dif
ferent accounts of the institution of
the Lord's Supper, different forms of
the inscription on the cross, and differ
ent reports of the same discourses.
These differences are found on every
page and in every part of their narra
tives. How far they are due to differ
ent documents or to individual prefer
ences in dealing with the same docu
ment who will be able to decide for us ?
4. The Gospel according to Mark is
probably the oldest of the Synoptics,
and both Matthew and Luke may
have made use of it in the composition
of their Gospels. If we grant this,
let us suppose for a moment that our
canonical Mark had not been pre
served to our time, and that, never
theless, ninety-three per cent of its
contents had been incorporated into
our canonical Matthew and Luke, and
that modern critics had decided that
Matthew and Luke must have had a

66 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
common source from which they had
drawn this common material and some
of the more adventurous among them
had undertaken to reconstruct Mark
out of Matthew and Luke, what de
gree of success could we expect to
attend their efforts ? They might at
tain to some general approximation to
the appearance of our canonical Mark,
but in multitudes of details their con
jectures would differ with each other;
and that any one of them would repro
duce our Mark as it really is, with per
fect exactness of chronology and phrase
ology, would be beyond the wildest
reaches of possibility. Yet Harnack
and others have attempted the some
what similar task of the reconstruction
of Q, and whatever conclusions they
may publish to the world will be inter
esting and instructive and yet always
unsatisfactory. Q in its entirety will no
more be attainable by any critic among
us than Mark would have been under
the suppositions we have suggested.

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 67
5. There may have been an original
collection of the sayings of Jesus, the
so-called Logia, and it may have
been extant both in an Aramaic form
and in a Greek translation. Then, if
one or both of these versions were used
by our synoptists the two versions
would help to account for some of the
verbal identities and some of the varia
tions of translation. The exact form
and extent and content of this original
Quelle, or Source, will be open to con
jecture and never can be assured with
our present sources of information.
6. There may have been, and there
probably were, many fragments of
material used by our synoptists, the
exact number and nature of which no
man can determine for us now.
7. Mark may have known and used
the Logia, or Q.
8. Matthew probably did not know
or use the Gospel written by Luke,
and Luke probably did not know or
use our canonical Matthew.

68 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
9. In our synoptic Gospels we have
no literally inerrant or infallible record
of the details either of the teachings
or the doings of Jesus. They do give
us a substantially accurate and suffi
cient account of these things. Their
purpose was practical rather than pe
dantic; it was religious rather than
rigidly historical. They did not care
fully copy texts. They were not par
ticular about minute details. They
intended to give, and they did give,
a faithful and serviceable picture of
the man Jesus, his words and his
works. In all the great essentials of
the narrative they agree. The per
sonality they set forth is the same and
is unmistakable in each of their books.
They were not punctilious about little
matters of time and place. They pos
sibly had no ideal in their thought of
verbal accuracy. They did have the
Ideal Personality in mind and they
sought to interpret that Personality to
their generation with all the aids they

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 69
could summon, and their success was
such that it drove all competitors from
the field; and it has satisfied the re
ligious needs of the world from their
day to our own.
We have a fourth Gospel, and we
are thankful that it is so different from
the synoptists that it may be consid
ered a wholly independent attempt at
the portraiture of the personality of
Jesus; and it suggests how inexhaust
ible that personality was, and what
different impressions it must have
made on different men. We are thank
ful for all the differences there are in
the synoptists, as far as these bear
testimony to this same multiform im-
pressiveness. We are thankful to be
lieve that the substantial historicity of
the synoptic narratives has not been
shaken by any research, and that it
has approved itself through all the
Christian centuries.

70 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
VIII. The Peculiar Value of Mark
All of the gospel writers have the
same story to tell. Yet how differently
they tell it! We have seen that the
reason for the difference in their
narratives is to be found, not in the
Subject whom they portray, nor in the
inspiration which they received from
him and his words and his life, but in
themselves. It is the same white
light refracted through many prisms.
It is the same white life reflected
through different minds. Each writer
has his individual idiosyncrasies. Each
man has his personal prejudices and
preferences. Each man has his par
ticular impressions and his peculiar
experiences. All of these things in
fluence his thought and his writing.
Modern scholars are pretty well
agreed that among the Synoptics Mark
comes first in order of time. The
second Gospel represents most nearly
the primitive evangelic tradition. It
gives us the most simple and direct

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 71
and living impression of the words and
the works of the Lord. It has the
vividness of personal portraiture. It
gives us a sense of reality such as
Peter's own reminiscences could not
have failed to have. If the authority
of the great apostle stands behind this
narrative, we are not surprised to find
that it has all the self-evidencing ver
ity of life itself.
Any comparison between Matthew
and Mark will bring out this charac
teristic of Mark very clearly. The
second Gospel mentions the natural
human emotions in the experience of
Jesus in such descriptive phrases as
Mark 3. 5, having looked round about
on them with anger, being grieved;
and 1. 41, having been moved with
compassion; and 1. 43, having sternly
charged him; and 3. 21, they said, He
is beside himself; and 6. 6, he mar
veled; and 8. 12, having groaned in
spirit; and 10. 14, he was moved with
indignation; and 10. 21, having looked

72 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
upon him, he loved him; and many
others like them. All of these emo
tional experiences of Jesus are omitted
in Matthew's account. It has been
suggested that a growing sense of
reverence for Jesus caused Matthew
to hesitate to chronicle the fact that
Jesus had shown the same emotions
with ordinary humanity upon these
occasions. At any rate, we feel that
in Mark's narrative we come closer
to the real Jesus, and that we see him
as he is.
Alexander Balmain Bruce would
seem to be justified, therefore, in his
statement: "The realism of Mark
makes for its historicity. It is a
guarantee of first-hand reports such as
one might expect from Peter. Peter
reverences his risen Lord as much as
Luke or any other man; but he is one
of the men who have been with Jesus,
and he speaks from indelible impres
sions made on his eye and ear, while
Luke reports at second-hand from

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 73
written accounts for the most part.
. . . Mark is the archaic Gospel, writ
ten under the inspiration, not of
prophecy, like Matthew, or of present
reverence, like Luke, but of fondly
cherished past memories. In it we
get nearest to the human personality
of Jesus in all its originality and power,
and as colored by the time and place.
And the character of Jesus loses noth
ing by the realistic representation.
Nothing is told that needed to be hid.
The homeliest facts recorded by the
evangelist only increase our interest
and our admiration. One who desires
to see the Jesus of history truly should
con well the pages of Mark first, then
pass on to Matthew and Luke."
As the earliest Gospel, written when
the facts were yet fresh in Peter's
memory; as the Gospel resting upon
Peter's authority, the authority of an
eyewitness; as the Gospel which seems
freest from all philosophical and theo
logical prepossessions, the second Gos-

74 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
pel is generally recognized by modern
scholarship as the most authentic and
the most authoritative of the evan
gelical narratives. There was a time
when it was the most neglected and the
least valued of all the Gospels. Now it
ranks before all others as an historical
source and a reliable basis for all
further study.

IX. The Peculiar Value op
Matthew
Renan said that the Gospel accord
ing to Matthew was the most im
portant book of Christendom, the
most important book which has ever
been written. We find this estimate
repeated in more recent authorities.
Julicher in his Introduction to the
New Testament says: "Certainly, Mat
thew has become the most important
book ever written. ... It has exerted
its important influence upon the

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 75
Church because it was written by a
man who bore within himself the
spirit of the growing Church universal,
and who, free from all party interests,
knew how to write a catholic Gospel;
that is to say, a Gospel destined and
fitted for all manner of believers."
It is this Catholicism of spirit which
has impressed a still more recent
writer, and has led him to a similar
conclusion concerning the relative im
portance of this Gospel. Von Soden
in his History of Early Christian
Literature says of it: "It points on
ward to the development toward
Catholicism; hence it became the chief
Gospel, the work which took the lead
in guiding this development, and in so
far no book ever written is of greater
historical importance." Others have
spoken in equally unmeasured terms of
praise of this great Gospel. Keim, in
his Jesus of Nazara, after calling this
Gospel "a grand old granitic book,"
says that we find in it "the simple

76 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
grandeur of monumental writing, an
tique history, immeasurably effective
because it is nature itself, because it
does not aim at being effective."
Dean Farrar repeats this in a para
graph of characteristic eloquence. He
declares that "the book carries with
it internal evidence of its own sacred-
ness. How could the unlettered Gali
lean publican have written unaided a
book so 'immeasurably effective'? How
could he have sketched out a Tragedy
which, by the simple divineness of its
theme, dwarfs the greatest of all
earthly tragedies ? How could he have
composed a Passion-music which, from
the flutelike strains of its sweet over
ture to the 'multitudinous chorale' of
its close, accumulates with unflagging
power the mightiest elements of pathos
and of grandeur? Why would the
world lose less from the loss of Hamlet,
and the Divina Commedia, and the
Paradise Lost together, than from the
loss of this brief book of the despised

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 77
Galilaean? Because this book is due
not to genius, but to revelation; not
to art, but to truth. The words of the
man are nothing, save as they are
the record of the manifestation of
God. The greatness of the work lay,
not in the writer, but in Him of whom
he wrote; and in this, that without art,
without style, without rhetoric, in
perfect and unconscious simplicity, he
sets forth the facts as they were. He is
'immeasurably effective' because he
nowhere aims at effectiveness. He
thought of nothing less. Though we
find in his book 'the simple grandeur
of monumental writing,' he brought to
his work but three intellectual endow
ments: the love of truth, an exquisite
sensibility to the mercy of God and
the misery of man, and a deep sense
of that increasing purpose which runs
through the ages. And thus endowed
by the Holy Spirit of God, he has
given us this unique history, so gen
uinely human, and therefore, in all its

78 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
parts, so genuinely divine: a mighty,
because a simply truthful, record of
the words and deeds of Him who was
both God and man."
The Gospel according to Matthew
is the fitting link between the Old and
the New Testaments in our canon.
It is the Gospel of Fulfilment. It
builds upon Old Testament founda
tions. At every turn it introduces the
Old Testament prophecies. It shows
how the historical and the ritual and
the legal types have all been fulfilled
in Jesus. It proves that Jesus was the
promised Messias and the rightful
King of the Jews. At the same time
it is the Gospel of hope for the Gen
tiles, and its universal outlook has led
the authorities from whom we have
quoted to declare that it more than
any other book prepared the way for
the catholic, the united Jewish-Gentile
Church. The systematic arrangement
of its material has given us the great
miracle groups and the great parable

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 79
groups and some of the great dis
courses of Jesus. The world could not
spare the Sermon on the Mount, as
Matthew alone has recorded it. We
prize the birth and infancy history of
the first chapters, and the parables of
the tares, the hid treasure, the pearl
of great price, and the ten virgins and
the talents, and the two sons, and
other peculiar portions of this narra
tive. The Gospel has been of incal
culable blessing to all the nations, and
it will be such to the end of time.

X. The Peculiar Value
of Luke
In all probability Luke was a Gen
tile. Then the third Gospel is a
Gospel for the Gentiles, written by a
Gentile. Luke also wrote the book of
Acts; but all the other books in our
Bible, both in the Old Testament and
in the New Testament, were written

80 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
by Jews. Its authors were all of the
Hebrew race, and they all had more or
less of the Hebrew prejudice and point
of view. Jesus was a Jew. All of the
twelve apostles were Jews. All of the
first churches were composed wholly of
Jews. Even Paul, the champion of
the Gentiles, was himself a Jew; and
he never wholly freed himself from the
results of his rabbinical training and
thought. If Luke had not written his
books, all of Gentile Christendom
would have been dependent forever
upon Jewish sources for the whole of
its record of the revelation of God
unto men. In the third Gospel and
in the book of Acts we see how the
life of Jesus and the fortunes of the
early Christian Church appear from a
Gentile point of view. We Gentiles
will always be glad that we have one
Gospel written for us by one of
ourselves. What a Gospel of grace it is
throughout! In that first sermon in

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 81
the synagogue at Nazareth Jesus read
for his text from the prophet Isaiah,
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
Because he anointed me to preach good tid
ings to the poor:
He hath sent me to proclaim release to the
captives,
And recovering of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty them that are bruised,
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.
At that point we read that Jesus closed
the book and gave it back to the
attendant. It was a strange place to
quit in his reading. He was in the
middle of a sentence. He did not
read the whole of the prophecy. He
did not even finish the paragraph.
He did not even read to a period.
There was much of comfort and of
good news and of blessing in the re
mainder of the sentence and of the
paragraph and of the prophecy. Jesus
stopped short at that point. Surely,
it must have been with conscious in
tention. Surely it must have been with
some good reason. We look for that

82 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
reason, and we find that the next follow
ing words were, "And to proclaim the
day of vengeance of our God." When
the eyes of Jesus fell upon those words
he closed the book. He would not
read them. His message was a mes
sage of grace and not a proclamation
of vengeance. He would rather leave
the sentence unfinished than to leave
any doubt in any mind as to that fact.
He went on to preach his good tidings,
and we read that all bare him witness,
and wondered at the words of grace
which proceeded out of his mouth
(4. 22).
Luke does not wonder. He seems to
think that only words of grace would
be natural to Jesus. He pictures the
Master as the gracious Redeemer,
gracious both in matter of speech and
in manner of life. How gracious Jesus
was to that woman who was a sinner!
He was even more gracious to her
than she was grateful to him. Was
the grace of God ever set forth with

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 83
such pathetic impressiveness as in
that pearl of all the parables, where
we read that while the returning
prodigal was yet a great way off his
father saw him and ran to meet him,
and then celebrated his return with
the best robe and a fitting feast and
music and dancing ? The grace of the
dancers was only the faintest symbol
of the grace in that father's heart.
No gracious act on earth can do more
than typify the heavenly Father's ex-
haustless grace. Can we imagine the
grace in the manner of Jesus and in
his tone as he spoke that parable ?
How gracious he was to the ten
lepers, although one of them was an
alien Samaritan! How gracious he
was to Zacchseus, promising salvation
to his house, although he had been
a defrauding and despicable publican,
as little and mean in his spirit as he
was little and mean in his stature.
How gracious he was to Mary when
Martha's short temper had snapped

84 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
and she was ready to ask the Master
to join her in scolding the remissness
of the younger girl! Jesus was as
gracious to her as her sister was in
dignant with her. How gracious he
was to that dying thief! He made
response to that thief's faith with the
promise, "To-day shalt thou be with
me in paradise." Bossuet comments
upon this promise as follows: "To-day
— what speed!— with me — what com
panionship! — in paradise. . . . what
rest!" Jesus had consorted with all
classes of people here upon the earth.
He had been no respecter of persons
during his ministry. He went into
paradise hand in hand with a crucified
thief. His graciousness will be his
characteristic through all eternity to
come. As it was manifest to all
alike in the days of his ministry, it
will be manifest to all alike for-
evermore. All of these incidents to which we
have referred are recorded by Luke

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 85
alone. He has eighteen parables not
found in the other Gospels. Some of
them — the good Samaritan, the prod
igal son, the Pharisee and the publican
— we could ill afford to lose. Those
wonderful first chapters are unparal
leled too. There are narratives like
that of the walk to Emmaus which are
among the most precious portions of
Gospel history to us. We have more
information concerning the prayer life
of Jesus in this Gospel than in any
other, and it has more of the spirit
of praise. We think that the Gospel
according to John is the greatest of
all the Gospels; but if we had to
choose among the Synoptics, we would
prefer the Gospel according to Luke.
We need not make such a choice,
since we have them all. Each has its
peculiar value, and all together furnish
us with an adequate and satisfying
portrait of the Christ.
Matthew gives us the marvelous
words of Jesus. Mark records the

86 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
marvelous works of Jesus. Luke re
veals the secret depths of his human
heart. John reveals the secret heights
of his divine communion and life.
Matthew pictures the king, Mark the
servant, Luke the brother-man, and
John the eternal Lord. Goethe said
of them, "I hold the Gospels genuine
through and through, for there is
apparent in them the reflected glory
of the majesty which went out from
the person of Christ, and which is
divine in its nature, as the divine only
once was manifested here upon earth."
XL Bibliography
For more detailed study those in
terested should consult Rushbrooke's
Synopticon, Wright's A Synopsis of
the Gospels in Greek, Thompson's The
Synoptic Gospels, Westcott's Intro
duction to the Study of the Gospels,
Wright's Composition of the Four
Gospels, Carpenter's The First Three

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 87
Gospels, Their Origin and Relations,
Jolley's The Synoptic Problem for
English Readers, Burkitt's The Gospel
History and Its Transmission, Robin
son's The Study of the Gospels, Pe-
trie's The Growth of the Gospels, Sir
John C. Hawkins's Horse Synoptical,
the Studies in the Synoptic Problem
by Members of the University of
Oxford, the articles on The Gospels by
Stanton in Hastings's Dictionary of
the Bible and by Schmiedel in Cheyne's
Encyclopaedia Biblica, Harnack's Say
ings of Jesus and Luke the Physician,
and the Date of the Acts and of the
Synoptic Gospels, and the Introduc
tions of Holtzmann, Julicher, Weiss,
Zahn, and others.