The Synoptic Problem and the Formation of the Gospels

The puzzling literary relationship between the first three gospels---the well-know puzzle often known as the Synoptic Problem---is part of the larger difficulty concerning the formation of all four gospels.

An account of how the how the gospels were formed, including a solution to the essence of the Synoptic Problem, may be found in Thomas L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament. The Intertextual Developemt of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004).

The general summary of The Birthing is as follows:

Background

Two features of recent research are particularly important to this study. The first is the publication of a critical edition of Q—the hypothetical sayings-source thought to have been used by Matthew and Luke. The new clarity concerning the hypothesis provides an improved opportunity for judging whether it should be retained or replaced. Rather than engaging Q directly, this study generally concentrates on offering an alternative hypothesis, one that in the long term is hopefully more verifiable and more encompassing.

The second feature is the new awareness of intertextuality. There is increasing evidence that writings, especially ancient writings, depend on earlier texts. This applies also to the NT, to the ways NT books are connected to one another and to other writings, especially the OT/Septuagint. Criteria now exist for judging literary dependence and for tracing literary relationships and developments.
The purpose of The Birthing is to apply these criteria to the NT writings.

The Thesis

The volume’s central thesis is that within Luke-Acts lies a stream of passages, a total of about 25 chapters, that stands apart. Three reasons indicate this apartness. (1) These passages have a distinctive intertextual dependence on the Septuagint, a dependence indicated by a wide range of verifiable connections. (2) The passages form a specific unity, coherent and complete, with a clear structure that is modelled precisely on one of the great prophetic histories of the OT, the Elijah-Elisha narrative (1 Kings 16:29-2 Kings 13). (3) When this specific unity is seen on its own, it explains other NT data, especially about the gospels.

The stream of passages may be summarized under the following headings:

Jesus’ infancy narrative: Luke 1-2
Jesus’ early ministry: 3:1-4:22a (except 3:7-9; 4:1-13); 7:1-8:3
Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem: 9:51-10:20; 16:1-9,19-31; 17:11-18:8; 19:1-10
Jesus’ death and resurrection: chaps. 22-24 (except 22:31-65)

The church’s beginnings: Acts 1:1-2:42
The church’s early ministry: 2:43-5:42
The church’s move away from Jerusalem: 6:1-9:30
The church’s transformation, integrating the Gentiles: 9:31-15:35

The simplest, best explanation for this OT-related phenomenon is that it is the long-sought first version of Luke-Acts, what some scholars call Proto-Luke. The central thesis, therefore, is that Proto-Luke, with its heavy dependence on the OT, underlies the development of the gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels.

The volume’s auxiliary thesis is that Proto-Luke, apart from using the OT directly, also presupposed an arrangement of logia, “sayings,” and used at least one major epistle—1 Corinthians. The logia, now found within Matthew 5 and 11, are largely based on Deuteronomy. These auxiliary sources clarify the nature of Proto-Luke, and they also clarify its influence—its foundational role in the development of the other gospels.
Once Proto-Luke is in place, it becomes relatively easy to understand how the other gospels emerged, each building on all that preceded: first, Mark; then Matthew; next John; and finally Luke-Acts. This relationship between the gospels makes the Q hypothesis unnecessary. The systematic relationship of Proto-Luke to the Septuagint gives it a verifiability which Q does not have.
The overall picture is of a central line of scriptural dependence running from the foundation of OT narrative (Genesis-Kings) into the heart of the NT:

Logia

Epistles, esp.1 Corinthians

Proto-Luke

Mark

Matthew

John

Luke-Acts

This is the literary backbone. The full pattern of dependence is far more complex, with influences from other writings and from the intense social and historical events of the first century. Matthew’s Logia, for instance, does not rely on Deuteronomy alone; it colors the sayings with wisdom from Ben Sirach. Others do something similar; they use Genesis-Kings, but they combine it with something else, and they improve the wording through echoes or quotes from the prophets or Psalms—poetic language which, through its universal nature, tends to open out the sometimes-restricted language of prose.

But the literary backbone has advantages: it is simple; it is subject to verification; and it provides an anchor for other NT discussions, including discussions of history.

The key background scriptural texts—Deuteronomy and the Elijah-Elisha narrative—are themselves complementary. Deuteronomy consists of the climactic discourses of the greatest prophet. The Elijah-Elisha narrative tells of prophets who sometimes echoed Moses. Within the Bible’s foundational narrative (Genesis-Kings), Deuteronomy and Elijah-Elisha constitute respectively the centre and the final prophetic interlude. Deuteronomy, at the centre, is like the peak of a pyramid (David N. Freedman, 1991), and the use of Deuteronomy opens the way to the incorporation of material from the whole corpus of Genesis-2 Kings.

Demonstrating the Thesis

The General Introduction (Chapters 1-9)
The General Introduction sets the scene. The opening chapters (1-4) highlight key aspects of ancient writing, especially the pervasive practice of reworking existing texts, and the presence of a central quality of artistry. However, detecting sources is often difficult, so it is necessary to set out criteria for judging literary dependence (Chapter 5). The criteria fall under three headings: external plausibility; significant similarities; and the intelligibility of the differences.
Chapter 6 distinguishes between orality—a central quality of ancient writing—and dependence on oral tradition. Concerning oral tradition, this chapter also distinguishes between history and myth—between oral tradition for which there is historical evidence, and oral tradition that fits into the background of the Jewish myth of an oral tradition reaching back to Moses.
Chapters 7-8 survey institutions and conditions that suggest that writers worked in communication with one another, not in isolation. Finally, Chapter 9 indicates aspects of the early Christian community: on the one hand, their unique spiritual experience; on the other, their continuity with older institutions, including the older scriptures.

The Central Thesis: Proto-Luke (Chapters 10-14)
Chapters 10-14 are pivotal to the whole volume. They set forth both the central thesis, based on Proto-Luke’s use of the OT (10-11), and the auxiliary thesis, concerning Proto-Luke’s relationship to some NT texts, namely Matthew’s Logia, and 1 Corinthians (12-14).
Chapter 10 lays the foundation for discussing Proto-Luke. First, it surveys the step-by-step process of the investigation, from initial observations about Luke-Acts’ general connection with the Septuagint, to the final conclusion about the distinctive connection between the Septuagint and part of Luke-Acts—a part to be named Proto-Luke. Second, the chapter zeroes in on some of Proto-Luke’s methods of adaptation. And finally, Chapter 10 summarizes the three key arguments supporting the Proto-Luke hypothesis:
Argument1. Distinctive dependence on the Septuagint
Argument 2. Unity of content and structure
Argument 3. Subsequent verification: the hypothesis works; it clarifies gospel origins
Argument 1, being very extensive, receives a special space: Chapters 27-54 (Book Two ). These chapters are an episode-by-episode demonstration of dependence on the OT.
Chapter 11 presents Argument 2.
Before proceeding to Argument 3—Proto-Luke’s role in the development of the gospels—it is useful to take account of further elements underlying Proto-Luke itself, particularly Matthew’s Logia and at least one epistle, 1 Corinthians (Chapters 12-14).
The arguments establishing Matthew’s Logia (Chapter 12) are of the same nature as those for Proto-Luke: 1. Distinctive dependence on the OT, in this case Deuteronomy. 2. Coherence of content and structure. 3. Subsequent verification.
Chapter 13 indicates that what is true of Matthew’s Logia is also true of 1 Corinthians: it depends hugely on Deuteronomy, though in a different way; and there are initial indications that 1 Corinthians depends also on Matthew’s Logia. In other words, the epistle used both a text (Matthew’s Logia) and the source behind the text (Deuteronomy).
Chapter 14 develops the sequence. On the basis of the supper texts (1 Cor 11:16-34; Luke 22;14-30), the chapter shows that Proto-Luke transformed the written text of 1 Corinthians. (Other evidence corroborates this. See Appendix 2).
These chapters (12-14) reveal something of the complexity of Proto-Luke, its blending of OT sources and NT writings. They also show, through Proto-Luke’s reworking of 1 Corinthians, that it is not only OT texts that are transformed; so are those belonging to the NT.

From Proto-Luke to the Four Gospels and Acts (Chapters 15-25)
Chapters 15-25 outline how the process of transforming continued. Proto-Luke, and the transforming of Proto-Luke, provide an entry to the other gospels and Acts (Argument 3).
Chapters 15-18: The gospel that is most immediately indebted to Proto-Luke is Mark. Mark obviously has it own distinct sources, genre, and theology. But is also draws heavily on Proto-Luke and on Proto-Luke’s sources. Instead of two parts centred on an assumption into heaven, Mark gives a text that is centered on a transfiguration. Instead of a second part that is largely concerned with the disciples (much of Acts 1:1-15:35), Mark reshapes the Acts episodes concerning the disciples, and places them in the life of Jesus (there are abundant connecting details). Instead of using the Elijah-Elisha narrative as a basis for a form of historiography, he uses it for a genre that is closer to biography (again there are numerous connections). And there are indications of Mark’s use of at least one epistle (1 Peter).
Chapters 19-23: Matthew expanded Mark, partly by using Mark’s sources, including Proto-Luke, but especially by deuteronomizing Mark—by using Deuteronomy and its discourses as a model for a new form of gospel. The influence of the Mosaic book is extensive. Canonical Matthew also incorporated the Logia, and used at least one epistle (Romans).
Chapter 24: Matthew’s discourses in turn provided a partial model for John, and John also used Matthew’s sources, especially Mark.
Chapter 25: Finally, canonical Luke-Acts expanded Proto-Luke in a way that developed and synthesized earlier accounts of Jesus. In the course of this synthesizing, canonical Luke-Acts reshaped the Sermon on the Mount into the Sermon on the Plain—a bold act, but perfectly understandable in the context of ancient intertextuality. The relationship between Matthew and Luke—Matthew adapted Proto-Luke, and Matthew in turn was reshaped by canonical Luke—explains most of the similarities that give rise to the theory of Q.

The Appendices consider other aspects of NT intertextuality, especially in the epistles.

Overall Summary and Conclusion (Chapter 26)

The volume does not deal with issues of history and theology, not even with trying to decide whether the author of Luke-Acts is also the author of Proto-Luke. Such issues are important, but they would need a whole other volume. It is not practical to attempt to discuss them fully now. The only thing given here, in the overall summary and conclusion (Chapter 26), is a minuscule sketch of some of the possible categories of response to the intertextual nature of the NT.