| Kirby's blog and sundry essays about early Christianity. |
Christian Origins is dedicated to publishing articles distinguished by their attention to detail and reasoned approach. A gamut of viewpoints are presented in essays by laymen and scholars. Send an e-mail to Peter Kirby with ideas for an article or book review. Thanks! |
The Present Position of the
Synoptical Problem
Originally appeared in The Theosophical Review 28 (June 1901): 324-335.
by G. R. S. Mead
The question of "tendency" in the Synoptic writers is of first importance,
for, as Professor Schmiedel says, "tendencies of one kind or another"
are acknowledged by even the most conservative critics. Especially to be noticed
is Mt.'s repeated appeals to Jews to prove from the O.T. the Messiahship of
the Christ, prefaced by the words "in order that it might be fulfilled
as it is written." Equally remarkable is the polemic carried on in Mt.
against the Scribes and Pharisees; while in Lk., in striking contrast to Mt.,
many of these speeches are addressed to the people in general. This and numerous
other points show that Lk. had Gentile interests in view. But what is the special
tendency of Mk.? From the small number of discourses of Jesus incorporated by
Mk., it is concluded that he attaches less importance to the teaching than to
the person of Jesus. We would rather say that the peculiarity of Mk. (or rather
of the "embedded" document in Mk.) is the story of a designed
life.
Further, "each evangelist in his own way is influenced by, and seeks by
his narrative to serve, the apologetic interest"; already much was disputed.
Another strong tendency, manifested by all three writers, is the political—"the
desire to make the Roman authority as little responsible as possible for the
death of Jesus."
Now, as we have seen in our last paper, the traditional view regards Lk. as
being of a specifically Pauline character, but this "widely accepted view"
can be maintained "only in a very limited sense."
It is true that in Lk. we find the rejection of the Jewish nation, but beyond
this general position, no distinctly Pauline doctrine; on the other hand Lk.
preserves and favours a distinctly Ebionitic tradition. The poor are blessed
simply because of their poverty, the rich condemned simply because of their
riches; other sayings and parables also breathe the same atmosphere. Now the
Ebionim (or Poor Men) were the most ignorant of the earliest followers of the
public teaching, who, it would seem, saw in the Master a sort of socialist leader;
for we cannot really believe that He taught so crude and immoral a doctrine
as here represented. The Ebionim formed one wing of the Judaising party with
whom Paul contended. It is, therefore, exceedingly difficult to understand why
if Lk. were a follower of Paul, he should have selected part of the most pronounced
tradition of the opposing party to incorporate in his Gospel.
But more important than any special tendencies which may be detected in the individual writers, there is to be noticed a common tendency to set forth a document that should serve the interest of a nascent catholicity, that is to say, a view that might be accepted generally.
Passing next to a review of the principal hypotheses which have been put forward
as tentative solutions of the synoptical problem, Professor Schmiedel characterises
the very simple hypothesis of "a primitive gospel handed down solely by
oral tradition"—so that eventually there came to be formed a "fixed
type of narrative" in Aramaic, the vernacular tongue of the contemporaries
of Jesus—as an "asylum ignorantiae," contradicting all the
facts of criticism, if it be held to account for all the facts. Nevertheless
the hypothesis of oral tradition, or rather oral traditions, as one of the factors
to be taken into account, must be held to contain "an essential element
of truth."
The next most simple hypothesis is that of borrowing, where we have
to "put aside all idea of any other written sources than the canonical,
and must keep out of account as far as possible the idea of any oral sources."
Of the six imaginable orders only three continue to be seriously argued for:
Mt., Mk., Lk.; Mk., Mt., Lk.; Mk.,Lk., Mt. It is, however, to be remarked "that
every assertion, no matter how evident, as to the priority of one evangelist
and the posteriority of another in any given passage will be found to have been
turned the other way round by quite a number of scholars of repute."
Summing up the evidence, Professor Schmiedel concludes that "the borrowing
hypothesis, unless with the assistance of other assumptions, is unworkable."
The result of this investigation into the labours of criticism seems to us to
indicate that the three Synoptic writers were contemporaries and familiar with
one another's design, but did not borrow one from another, the "borrowing"
was from other written sources of which they made use.
We next come to the hypothesis of a single original written gospel; this is
open to the same objection as a single original oral tradition, only that "it
explains the agreements in our gospels better, their divergences in the same
proportion worse."
The next hypothesis to be considered is that Mt. and Lk. use an original Mk., that is to say a Mk. in one and the same form, but different from the one we now possess.
It is very evident that Mt. and Lk. do not use our Mk., though they use much
material contained in our Mk.; but we could never understand why this phenomenon
could be explained by postulating an original Mk. There is certainly in Mk.
an "embedded" document; but the embedded document, so far from being
an original Mk., is used freely in common by Mt. and Mk. and Lk., and may, therefore,
be said to be equally embedded in all three. Whether this embedded document
can be the Mark-gospel of Papias is impossible to determine, but our Mk. is
in all probability not Papias's Mk., though the misunderstood statement of Papias
probably brought about its christening.
We pass next to the theory of the Logia (spoken of by Papias) as a probable
source for Mt. and Lk., that is to say of the common material (discourses and
parables) used by Mt. and Lk., but not found in Mk., for in this they cannot
be said to borrow from each other, seeing that in addition to general agreement
"the passages exhibit quite characteristic divergences."
Now it is first of all quite conjectural whether by Logia Papias meant simply
Sayings or Sayings mixed with Acts-narrative. In the second place, although
Professor Schmiedel thinks that Papias was acquainted with our canonical Mt.,
there is absolutely no proof of this, and, on the contrary, Papias's statement
as to his Matthew makes it as certain as anything can be in this vexed question
that it was not our Mt., for the Logia-collection of his Matthew was
a single document and written in Hebrew. It is absolutely certain that our Mt.
as it stands was not written in Hebrew, though some of its sources may possibly
have been originally written in the classical language of the Jews (Hebrew),
or in the vernacular (Aramaic). But upon this point there is a great divergence
of critical opinion.
Indeed in this connection nothing can be proved as to Papias's Matthew-Logia;
all that is stated at present is that demonstrably there was another source
common to Mt. and Lk. besides the source common to all three Synoptists. This
so-called theory of two sources, we are told, "ranks among those results
of Gospel criticism which have met with most general acceptance."
But the more advanced critics are not satisfied with the assumption of only
one source for the matter common to Mt. and Lk. but absent in Mk., for the divergences
between them are so great, that if there were only one source, then one or other
of these evangelists, or both, must have treated the source with "drastic
freedom." This is especially evidenced by the Ebionitic tinge of the Logia
in Lk. A close consideration of this phenomenon leads to the conclusion that
other sources, at any rate as far as Lk. is concerned, have to be postulated.
Moreover the "original Mk." or the "embedded document"
theory no longer stands in its original simplicity; for sources are being searched
for in this and not without success, and the belief is fast gaining ground that
in Mt. 24, Mk. 13, and Lk. 21, for instance, there are the remains of an ancient
fragment of an apocalyptic character. The passage is quite alien from Jesus'
teaching as recorded elsewhere, but closely related to other apocalypses of
the time. "It will, accordingly, not be unsafe to assume that an apocalypse
which originally had a separate existence has here been put into the mouth of
Jesus." This fragment is known to criticism as the "Little Apocalypse."
Other minor sources, also, have been conjectured, of which we may specially
mention Scholten's so-called anonymous Gospel found in certain passages of Mt.
and Lk., and the book which is held to be cited by Lk. under the title of "Wisdom."
The parallels also adduced by Seydel from the life of the Buddha "are
in many places very striking, at least so far as the story of the childhood
of Jesus is concerned, and his proof that the Buddhistic sources are older than
the Christian must be regarded as irrefragable."
We do not, however, believe that in this matter there was any outward borrowing
or use of any written or oral sources, but that the outer similarities were
produced from inner causes.
But "the synoptical problem is so complicated, that but few students,
if any, will now be found who believe a solution possible by means of any one
of the hypotheses described above, without other aids. The need for combining
several of them is felt more and more." Professor Schmiedel then proceeds
to give some interesting "graphic representations," or diagrams, of
some of these combinations, which are not too complicated, as put forward by
some of the best known critics, and then proceeds to test their sufficiency
to explain the problem, finding that they all break down on some points.
He then proceeds to an investigation of the very complicated subject of "sources
of sources." This investigation points to so many new phenomena to be taken
into consideration, that it practically puts out of court most of the hypotheses
hitherto put forward as to origin, and leads to far-reaching consequences. We
cannot, therefore, do better than append some of the most striking inferences
which Professor Schmiedel draws from the present position of advanced gospel
criticism:
"The first impression one derives from the new situation created is, that
by it the solution of the synoptical problem, which appeared after so much toil
to have been brought so near, seems suddenly removed to an immeasurable distance.
For science, however, it is not altogether amiss, if from time to time it is
compelled to dispense with the lights it had previously considered clear enough,
and to accustom itself to a new investigation of its objects in the dark. Possibly
it may then find that it has got rid of certain false appearances under which
things had formerly been viewed. In this particular instance, it finds itself
no longer under compulsion to assign a given passage to no other source than
either the logia, or to original Mk., or to some other of the few sources with
which it had hitherto been accustomed to deal. The great danger of any hypothesis
lies in this, that it sets up a number of quite general propositions on the
basis of a limited number of observations, and then has to find these propositions
justified, come what may.
"On the other hand, signs have for some considerable time not been wanting
that scholars were on the way to recognition of the new situation just described"—as,
for instance, the hypothesis of a Proto-, Deutero-, Trito-Mk., and the like.
And even those critics who are satisfied with the simpler hypotheses have to
reckon with the probability " that writings like original Mk., or the logia,
whether in the course of transcription, or at the hands of individual owners,
may have received additions or alterations whenever any one believed himself
to be acquainted with a better tradition upon any point. The possibility is
taken into account, in like manner, that canonical Mk. in particular does not
lie before us in the form in which it lay before those who came immediately
after him; possible corruptions of the text, glosses and the like, have to be
considered. Another element in the reckoning is that already our oldest MSS.
of the gospels have latent in them many examples of transference from the text
of one gospel into that of another, examples similar to those which we can quite
distinctly observe in many instances when the T.R. [our present received text]
is confronted with these same witnesses. . .
"Lastly, scholars are beginning to remember that the evangelists did not
need to draw their material from books alone." There was a large mass of
oral tradition and legend floating about which they could each utilise according
to their pleasure. From this most interesting and instructive sketch of the
present position of the synoptical problem we pass to the consideration of the
credibility of the Synoptics.
At the outset Professor Schmiedel laments the unscientific way in which this
question is for the most part handled. "Thus, many still think themselves
entitled to accept as historically true everything written in the gospels which
cannot be shown by explicit testimony to be false. Others pay deference at least
to the opinion that a narrative gains in credibility if found in all three gospels
(as if in such a case all were not drawing from one source); and with very few
exceptions all critics fall into the very grave error of immediately accepting
a thing as true as soon as they have found themselves able to trace it to a
'source.' "
From such fallacies we have to free ourselves in the outset of any independent
historical investigation. Two opposite points of view should guide us in treating
the leading points in the synoptic gospels. "On the one hand, we must set
on one side everything which for any reason, arising either from the substance
or from literary criticism, has to be regarded as doubtful or wrong; on the
other hand, one must make search for all such data as, from the nature of their
contents, cannot possibly on any account be regarded as inventions."
According to this canon of judgment the two great facts that we are bound to recognise are that Jesus had compassion on the multitude and taught with authority.
On the other hand, the chronological frame-work "must be classed among
the most untrustworthy elements in the gospels"; nor is the case any better
with the order of the narratives.
Again "the alleged situations in which the recorded utterances of Jesus
were spoken can by no means be implicitly accepted."
As to places, "in the case of an eye-witness the recollection of an event
associates itself readily with that of a definite place"; this is not borne
out by our gospels. As for persons, "neither the names of the women at
the cross, nor the names of the twelve disciples, are given in two places alike."
Again, "several of the reported sayings of Jesus clearly bear the impress
of a time he did not live to see."
As to the important question of miracles, even the stoutest believer in miracle
must have some doubt as to the accuracy of the accounts. After adducing the
evidence, as he does in every case for every one of his assertions, Professor
Schmiedel writes: "Taken as a whole the facts brought forward in the immediately
preceding paragraphs show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical
precision the evangelists write. The conclusion is inevitable that even the
one evangelist whose story in any particular case involves less of the supernatural
than that of the others, is still very far from being entitled on that account
to claim implicit acceptance of his narrative. Just in the same degree in which
those who came after him have gone beyond him, it is easily conceivable that
he himself may have gone beyond those who went before him."
As to the very contradictory accounts of the resurrection, the controlling
view of the whole matter is the fact "that in no description of any appearances
of the risen Lord did Paul perceive anything by which they were distinguished
from his own, received at Damascus." As to the conclusion of Mk. 16, 9-20,
it is admittedly not genuine, and should it be found that, according to the
lately discovered Armenian superscription to this appendix, it was written by
Aristion, "a very unfavourable light would be thrown on this 'disciple
of the Lord,' " as Papias calls him.
We come next to what Professor Schmiedel considers absolutely credible passages as to Jesus.
There are five passages about Jesus in general, and four on the miracles of
Jesus, which the Professor takes as the "foundation pillars for a truly
scientific life." The first five are as follows: "Why callest thou
me good? none is good save God only"; that blasphemy against the "son
of man" can be forgiven; that his relatives held him to be beside himself;
"Of that day and of that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven,
neither the Son but the Father"; and "My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?"
Professor Schmiedel thinks that these passages prove "not only that in
the person of Jesus we have to do with a completely human being, and that the
divine is to be sought in him only in the form in which it is capable of being
found in man; they also prove that he really did exist, and that the gospels
contain some absolutely trustworthy facts concerning him."
The four selected passages from the miracles are as follows: Jesus emphatically
refused to work a "sign" before the eyes of his contemporaries; Jesus
was able to do no mighty work (save healing a few sick folk) in Nazareth and
marvelled at the unbelief of the people; the feeding of the 4,000 and 5,000
is to be interpreted spiritually, for Jesus refers to this in a rebuke to the
disciples concerning their little understanding ("How is it that ye do
not perceive that I spake not to you concerning bread?"); so also
in the answer to the Baptist that "the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers
are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the poor have the gospel preached to them,"
the same spiritual sense is implied.
On these selected passages Professor Schmiedel bases his view of Jesus; but
if we are not content with so limited a view of miracle-possibility, and would
accept miracles of healing as well, then "it is permissable for us to regard
as historical only those of the class which even at the present day physicians
are able to effect by psychical methods—as, more especially, cures of mental
maladies."
But even if we grant (as we are quite willing to do) that the origin of some
miraculous narratives is to be traced to figurative speech and of others to
the influence of O.T. prophetical passages, we are no more prepared to seek
their whole origin in misunderstood metaphor or interpretations of prophecy
than to call mythology merely a disease of language. Nor are we prepared to
admit Professor Schmiedel's selection of test-passages as the "foundation-pillars
of a truly scientific life" of Jesus, unless by "scientific"
we are to understand solely the present limited field of scientific research,
which notoriously has nothing to tell us of the soul and its possibilities.
But it is just the facts of the soul (its nature and powers) which constitute
the facts of religion, and which alone can throw any real light on the inner
side of the origins, or explain the standpoint of the writers of the Gospels.
It is here, then, that the "higher criticism" breaks down; it is invaluable
in its own domain, but it is as yet utterly incapable of explaining the inner
side—the most important side—of the evolution of Christianity.
Professor Schmiedel applies his view of Jesus also as a test of the Sayings,
and after pointing out the historical and critical difficulties which surround
every other class of sayings, continues: "It is when the purely religious-ethical
utterances of Jesus come under consideration that we are most advantageously
placed. Here especially applies the maxim that we may accept as credible everything
that harmonises with the idea of Jesus which has been derived from what we have
called the 'foundation pillars' and is not otherwise open to fatal objection."
It must be confessed that this is a poor result of all our investigations,
to reduce the grandiose conception of the Master to such bourgeois proportions.
It is almost as paltry as the "cher maitre" of Renan. Still
this is the general tone of mind of the present advanced critic, and so long
as he will look at the "facts about religion" solely through the eyes
of modern scientific limitations so long will he exclude many of the most important
"facts of religion."
But to return to the safer ground of a further consideration of the authors
and dates of the Synoptic writings and their most important sources. Professor
Schmiedel is of the opinion that it was not till the middle of the second century
that the word "gospel" came to mean a book. Linguistically considered,
the traditional titles "Gospel according to Matthew," etc., so far
from meaning "the written Gospel of Matthew" (or still less the "
written Gospel based on communications by Matthew"), mean simply "Gospel
history in the form in which Matthew put it into writing," etc. The original
writings bore no superscription at all.
Reviewing the evidence as to the attribution of the substance of the Lk. document
to Paul, Professor Schmiedel comes to the conclusion that "it is only an
expedient which the church fathers adopted to enable them to assign a quasi-apostolic
origin to the work of one who was not himself an apostle."
Equally so suspicion attaches to the statement that the gospel of Mk. rested
on communications of Peter. "In short, all that can be said to be certain
is this, that it is in vain to look to the church fathers for trustworthy information
on the subject of the origin of the gospels."
Moreover, as to whether the Mark of Papias was the author of "original
Mk.," this is a pure matter of opinion, for we do not possess original
Mk. "Should original Mk. have been written in Aramaic, then the author
cannot be held to be the author of canonical Mk." But we may suggest that
there is a high probability that the original common document in Mt., Mk. and
Lk. may have been written in Hebrew, and not Aramaic, and this irrespective
of the question of its sources.
As to the First Gospel, the authorship of the apostle Matthew "must be
given up" for many weighty reasons. "All the more strenuously is the
effort made to preserve for Matthew" the authorship of the Logia. But even
here there are many difficulties to contend with, as we have seen before.
As to dates. Certain passages strongly tend to establish an early date for the Logia as found in Mt. By early date is meant prior to A.D. 70 (the destruction of Jerusalem), the only means we have at all of establishing a criterion. But even this claim for the early date of certain Logia preserved by Mt. cannot be definitely established.
With regard to the story of the Magi, a Syriac writing ascribed to Eusebius
of Caesarea "makes the statement, which can hardly have been invented,
that this narrative, committed to writing in the interior of Persia, was in
119 A.D., during the episcopate of Xystus of Rome, made search for, discovered
and written in the language of those who were interested in it (that is to say
in Greek)." Those who would assign an earlier date to Mt. than 119 A.D.
accordingly suppose the late addition of an "appendix" referring to
the Magi. But the simplest hypothesis we should think, and the most natural
one, is to make A.D. 119 the terminus a quo of canonical Mt.
With regard to canonical Mk. we have no data whatever for fixing its date,
except the deduction from the contradictory results of critical research on
the borrowing-hypothesis, which to our mind clearly indicate that the Synoptic
writers were contemporaries.
As it is "quite certain" that the author of Lk. was also the author
of Acts, and as the author of Acts "cannot have been Luke, the companion
of Paul," Luke cannot have been the author of the Third Gospel.
Now, the author of Lk. is definitely proved to have been acquainted with the
writings of Josephus, and this would assign the superior limit, terminus
a quo, or earliest possible date of Lk., to 100 A.D. There is, however,
nothing certain in all this, and nothing to prevent a far later date. In brief,
in our opinion, the statement that all three Synoptics were written somewhere
in the reign of Hadrian (117-138 A.D.), seems to be the safest conclusion.
Now, it is generally assumed that the credibility of the gospels would be increased
if they could be shown to have been written at an earlier date, but this is
a mistake. "Uncertainty on the chronological question by no means carries
with it any uncertainty in the judgment we are to form of the gospels themselves.
. . . Indeed, even if our gospels could be shown to have been written from 50
A.D. onwards, or even earlier, we should not be under any necessity to withdraw
our conclusions as to their contents; we should, on the contrary, only have
to say that the indubitable transformation in the original traditions had taken
place much more rapidly than we might have been ready to suppose."
Thus does Professor Schmiedel shatter the false hopes of those who imagined that because Professor Harnack had recently modified his opinion on some points of hypothetical document chronology, all the old positions were restored to them intact!
Our next paper will be devoted to the Fourth Gospel.
|
