The Synoptic Problem

26 he wrote his gospel, and apparently had access to Matthew’s gospel, I would prefer to keep the date for Mark somewhere within the range of AD 41-44. That is after the latest likely date for Matthew (AD 38), and before Mark went to Antioch with Barnabas and Paul in AD 44. It also was after the first Gentiles had come into the Church (AD 38) and after the Caligula crisis (AD 39-41). This harmonizes perfectly with Parker Voll’s independent analysis in his paper presentation at the 2008 Evangelical Theological Society entitled, “Utilizing Acts to Help Us Through the Synoptic Maze,” where he dates Matthew “during the first decade of the church” (AD 30-40), with Mark written soon after “in the early to mid- 40’s”. Those who compare the three gospels will notice that Mark has additional material that Matthew does not have, suggesting that Mark was written later. And Luke clearly borrowed from both Matthew and Mark, plus has some unique material that was not borrowed from either of them, suggesting that Luke was written after Matthew and Mark, and based on additional research. Luke and Acts appear to have been written after Paul and Luke reached Rome in AD 61, where they had access to both Matthew and Mark. Thus the similarities and differences between Mark and both Matthew and Luke seem best explained by a Matthean original, especially in those sections where Mark appears to be reflecting Peter’s perspective.

That implies that Mark was still in Jerusalem at the time of writing, in order to closely consult with Peter. Peter and Mark had seen Matthew’s gospel, and added some things to it from Peter’s perspective, which are not found in Matthew. After doing most of my study of the synoptic gospels and formulating my conclusions for the priority of Matthew and the early dates of Matthew (AD 31-38) and Mark (AD 38-44), I got a copy of John Wenham’s excellent book, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem, where he assigns very similar dates to Matthew (AD 40) and Mark (AD 45). It was gratifying to see that his conclusions were close to mine, even though his process of arriving at those dates was significantly different. Another book that was helpful in terms of presuppositions and methodology was Restoring the Original Bible by Ernest L.

Martin. He argues for the theory of Apostolic Canonization, which dates almost all of the New Testament writings before AD 70, except for John’s writings. R. Alan Cole, in the Tyndale Commentary on Mark, had this to say about the order in which the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were written: “For a spirited defense of Matthean priority, see, among modern scholars, Butler [Butler, B. C., The Originality of St. Matthew (Cambridge: 1951).] and Farmer [Farmer, W. R., The Synoptic Problem (1964).]. Their main arguments are that Matthew’s Gospel, which is of course far longer than Mark, contains all of Mark’s material but for some forty verses, in addition to much extra material: that Matthew and Luke share numerous agreements as against Mark: that Matthew retains Palestinian touches, as against Mark’s alleged signs of Pauline influence, and his adaptations of the tradition to Graeco-Roman readers.” The introduction to Mark in the NIGTC commentary commented on which gospel was first written: “C. S. Mann’s Anchor Bible commentary of 1986 [says that he] believes in the priority of Matthew, and so interprets Mark as a deliberate revision of the material earlier recorded by Matthew.” For a thorough survey of the history of the study of the Synoptic Problem throughout church history, from a conservative evangelical perspective, see David Laird Dungan’s book, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels. New York: Doubleday, a division of Random House. First Edition 1999.

The Synoptic Problem

This author takes the position that Matthew was the first of the synoptic gospel accounts to be written, with Mark next, and Luke last. There are others who share the Matthean priority, but insert Luke as the second gospel instead of Mark.

Many different theories have been developed over the last five hundred years to explain the

27 similarities and differences between the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). All of those theories have strengths and weaknesses, with none of them resolving all the difficulties. Some theories suggest that there may have been earlier editions of some of the gospels (e.g.,

a proto-Mark or proto-Luke), which were later revised, expanded, or contracted to produce

a second finalized edition. That might explain some of the anomalies in the synoptics that are otherwise inexplicable.

For instance, it might explain why there are three or more different endings to the gospel of Mark, and why various copies of the same gospel differ from one another in what they include and exclude, as well as in the amount of localization and standardization that they exhibit. It is certainly possible that the gospel writers edited their earlier versions and produced another edition several years later (after some of the other gospels had appeared in the mean time). This might explain why a later edition of Mark could include some material from Luke, even though Luke was not yet available when Mark originally wrote his first edition. This is a possibility that needs serious consideration.

While studying the Synoptic problem, much of my attention was focused on Luke-Acts. I was under the impression that Luke and a proto-Acts (chapters 1-24 only) may have been written while Paul was in prison in Caesarea (AD 58-60). But after more careful analysis of the target audience for Luke (and Acts especially), it seems more likely that Luke-Acts were not put in their present form until AD 61-62. All the trials and court-cases that are mentioned in the book of Acts would have set good legal precedents for a Roman court, especially the dismissal of Paul’s case by Gallio in Corinth (Acts 18), who was the brother of Seneca (the childhood tutor of Nero, and Nero’s chief advisor at the time of Paul’s trial in Rome (AD 62-63). Those court cases mentioned in Acts would have had little value in a Judean courtroom, but they would weigh heavy in the scales of Nero’s court in Rome.

Philo of Alexandria, an older contemporary of Paul, went to Rome to plead the case of the Alexandrian Jews before Caligula (AD 40). At least two books were written in connection with his trip to Rome: Flaccus (AD 40) and Embassy to Gaius (not long after AD 40). Luke and Paul may have been aware of those writings and used their style (especially the treatise on Flaccus) to compose Luke-Acts, which was addressed to a Gentile audience in Rome. If there are any comparison studies of Philo and Paul, they would be worth reading. It might provide additional external support for an AD 61-62 date for Luke and Acts.

Following are some helpful resources (articles and books) from other advocates of Matthean Priority, which take a little different approach to the Synoptic Problem, but are worth reading nevertheless:

Traditional Augustinian Hypothesis [Matthew-Mark-Luke model]

Matthew first, Mark second, Luke third, each successively dependent (Augustine;

Grotius 1640; Jameson 1922; Butler 1951; Wenham 1992). Augustine, De consensu evangelistarum (c. 400); H. Grotius, Annotationes in libros evangeliorum (Amsterdam, 1641); H. G. Jameson, The Origin of the Synoptic Gospels (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1922);

B. C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew (Cambridge: UP, 1951); J. Wenham, Redating

Matthew, Mark & Luke (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1992). This bibliographic info found here: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/09/overview-of- proposed-solutions. html#Butler%201951

Matthean Priority by Daniel L. Akin:

[Article written by Dr. Daniel L. Akin. “The Order of the Gospels (The Synoptic Problem),

Accounts of the Resurrection.” Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville: Holman, 1992)] Found here: https://www.truelife.org/articles/the-synoptic-problem “What are the arguments in favor of Matthean Priority?” By Frank Luke [From an article entitled: “What are the arguments in favor of Matthean Priority?” By Frank