1. What is the Synoptic Problem?

   Through careful study scholars have found that the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are very similar in their accounts of Jesus’ life. In fact in many instances the accounts are almost word for word the same. In the majority of events are compiled in the same chronological order. Yet for all their similarity there are also differences. At times the three place certain events in a different chronological order from each other. In other cases there are differing details supplied or omitted in a description of the same event. This raises legitimate questions about the three gospels.

    

2. What are the proposals?

   There are four main options given to solve the “synoptic problem.” First, G.E. Lessing proposed that all three depended upon one source, which is now lost. Second, J.G. Herder proposed that all three depended on oral history. Third, F. Schleirmacher proposed that all three depended on earlier written fragments. Fourth, many have proposed that the three were interdependent. There are variations of this proposal of which three are worth mentioning: a) the Augustinian view, which holds to Matthean priority, from whom Mark borrowed, and then Luke borrowed from both; b) the “two gospel” hypothesis which holds to Matthean priority, from whom Luke borrowed, and then Mark borrowed from both; c) the “two source” hypothesis which holds to Markan priority and unknown collection termed “Q” with Matthew and Luke borrowing from both.

    

3. What is the preference?

   Most commonly, scholars hold to the “two source” hypothesis. I am not yet sure that I hold to this view unwaveringly. This view seems viable. Taking into account the strong oral tradition I think that a possible option to the synoptic problem is Markan priority supplemented with oral tradition. There is significant historical and biblical evidence of oral tradition being used to pass on important details (Heb. 2:1-4). In essence I am somewhere between Markan priority

   supplemented with “Q”, and Markan priority supplemented with oral tradition.

    

4. Why is it the preference?

   Markan priority supplemented with “Q” is preferred by most because of the agreement between Mark and Matthew, Mark and Luke, but disagreement between Matthew and Luke concerning order and certain details. Also the style and theology of Mark appears more primitive which is taken by scholars to be evidence of Markan priority. This leads them to believe that Matthew and Luke are revisions which have been refined.

Scholars have found that there are about 250 verses that Matthew and Luke share which are not in Mark. There is a lack of verbal correspondence and a difference in order. It is pointed out that most of this common material is teaching of Jesus. This common material has been referred to as “Q.” Scholars believe that Markan priority supplemented by “Q” is the best option considering the evidence.

The Ending of Mark

1. What is the problem?

   The problem is that Mark 16:9-20 is not included in two of the most reliable early manuscripts. This ending also seems to cause an unnatural transition in the narrative. Mary Magdalene is mentioned in verse one of the chapter, and then in verse nine she is introduced as though she was previously unmentioned. The external evidence and the internal evidence point to the authenticity of this section being doubtful.

2. What are the proposals?

   Some believe that Mark was unable to finish the gospel and as a result someone else added the extended section. Others believe that the original ending of Mark was separated from the rest of the gospel and subsequently lost. Finally, others believe that Mark intended for his gospel to close with verse eight. There are very few, if any, who would claim that verses 9-20 were original.

3. What is the consensus?

   The preference among most scholars recently is that Mark intended to close the gospel with verse eight.¹

4. Why is it the consensus?

   In evaluating Mark’s writing scholars have found that in the majority of cases Mark presents the information and provides very few editorial comments.² As a result of this pattern, Mark intentionally ending with verse eight seems fitting.

5. What is your preference?

   Upon considering the evidence, I believe that the consensus view provides the most likely option. It is very hard to believe verses 9-20 are original. It is also very difficult to substantiate either of the alternative proposals. Those seem to be more “guesses” than based on hard evidence. It seems that the pattern of Mark’s writing would validate verse eight being the intended closing to the gospel.