The Historical Critical Method - Part 2 Synoptic Problem

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM & THE TWO SOURCE THEORY

Before returning to the question of the development of the solution to the "synoptic problem," I wish to digress for a moment to mention a scholar whose work will have profound implications only many years after his death. That scholar is David Friedrich Strauss who published his Life of Jesus Critically Examined in 1835. Strauss challenged the idea that the Gospels had a reliable historical framework to them, even though they contained some supernatural elements which might not be credible to the modern mind. Strauss maintained that not only the obviously supernatural elements (such as the miracles, the birth of Jesus and his resurrection) have no claim to be historical facts, even the supposedly historical material is "mythical."

Strauss' stark historical critical stance is that the whole story of Jesus' life was told by pious believers who were more interested in using the Gospels to demonstrate the messiahship and divine sonship of Jesus than to produce an unbiased historical report. Therefore, pious exaggeration should be suspected, and the dividing line between the historical and the unhistorical is impossible to discern. Furthermore, Strauss interpreted the unique character of the Gospel of John as being most likely due to the theological creativity of the author and having little historical value. These ideas were not well received in their time. But they got much traction in the 20th century, and Ehrman follows in his footsteps.

Back to the "Synoptic Problem." After Griesbach produced his "Synopsis" and when the furor over the publication of Strauss' Life of Jesus had died down in Germany, it was Heinrich Holtzmann who came up with a proposed solution to explain the literary interrelationships of the first three Gospels. In 1863 Holtzmann published his book, The Synoptic Gospels, in which he argued for the priority of Mark. That is, that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel in the composition of their own Gospels. Furthermore, to explain the similarities (parallels) between Matthew and Luke, Holtzmann proposed a common written source used by both of them, but unknown to Mark. This source was simply called the "source," which is the word "Quelle" in German, and has been known ever after simply by its first letter, "Q."

Holtzmann also proposed that scholars not look for written sources behind Mark Gospel, but that they look for oral traditions that lie behind the stories of Jesus recounted in Mark's Gospel. This latter suggestion became the impetus for significant developments in the historical critical method in the first half of the 20th century. This move also (by implication) moves away from traditional notions of Gospel authorship, and by placing several layers of development between Jesus and the written Gospels, removes any likelihood that someone who knew Jesus had a direct hand in the composition of any of the Gospels.

Holtzmann's basic proposal of a two source theory with Mark and Q has become an accepted truth in modern critical biblical scholarship. The theory of "Markan priority" is rarely questioned in modern scholarship. Those who do question it are dismissed as unenlightened cranks. This is true even though there are other ways to construe the relationship between the Gospels. But alternative theories do not get much attention from modern scholars.

What (I think) really sealed the deal for the Two Source Theory was that Holtzmann commissioned a studious pastor by the name of Albert Huck to compose a new synopsis of the first three Gospels in which Markan priority was assumed and Mark was the framework for the organization of the order of the Gospel episodes and passages, according to the way that Holtzmann had divided and arranged them in Holtzmann's book. So in Huck's synopsis (sometimes called a "Gospel Parallels") the Gospel of Mark is placed in its original order, with the corresponding passages from Matthew and Luke placed in parallel columns on either side of Mark, so they can be compared at a glance. Huck's synopsis quickly became the academic standard and was reprinted in its original form until the middle of the 20th century.