Task 1: Some common biometric techniques include: Fingerprint recognition Signature dynamics Iris scanning Retina scanning Voice prints Face recognitionSelect one of these biometric techniques a
Sara Willis
Discussion Board 2 
Collapse
Top of Form
The Synoptic Problem is an interesting dissection of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The overall question is why are these three Gospels so alike, yet so different? Did two of them use the third as a source to write their own? Taking a deeper look into each of these Gospels proved just that. With only three choices to choose from in the Literary Interdependence Theory, I lean toward the Two Source Hypothesis Theory due to the findings of the Synoptic Exercises 1&2. Though there is zero proof that “Q” every existed this theory makes the most sense according to the results from these exercises. The Markan Priority did seem to stand out with my findings.
In Synoptic Exercise #1 I found quite the similarities between Matthew and Luke. Almost verbatim in many cases. The Triple Tradition didn’t leave as many black words as I had expected. What I did find was an undeniable pattern of Matthew and Luke’s use of words that are also found in Mark. Though all three Gospels share the same story, there are many differences in words used by all three but similar between at least two of them. According to the coloring I did, I found that indeed it seems that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as an additional source to their own Gospels. According to the passages used I found the following:
Mark had 27 words that were his own out of 110 words
Matthew had 62 words of his own of 125 words.
Luke had 57 words of his own out of 140 words.
Mark and Matthew shared 16 words.
Mark and Luke shared 28 words.
Matthew and Luke shared 12 words.
All 3 shared 38 words.
I see that Mark’s low number of his own words compared to the higher numbers of Luke and Matthew, which seem to mirror each other, leads me to believe that both Matthew and Luke both consulted Mark’s words. The evidence above shows this conclusion. Here we ask how are there so many similarities between Matthew a Mark, and Luke and Mark? Why are there so little similarities between Matthew and Luke? The evidence shows that both Matthew and Luke would have both relied on Mark’s Gospel while adding just a few words of their own.
In Synoptic Exercise 2, the Double Tradition, we see just Matthew and Luke’s words. Out of a total of 190 words, 77 of them were shared between Matthew and Luke making it 154 out of 190 words the same. So, what does that show us? Out of the three options Matthew and Luke both used a third source while adding some of their own words of their own.
It is also to be noted that there are a few stories that appear in Matthew and Luke that do not appear in Mark. If Matthew and Luke were written before Mark, why wouldn’t Mark’s Gospel include these? Why would there be such a greater similarity between Matthew and Luke? Taking both of those Gospels and then comparing them to Mark we see that Mark was written prior and used as source to both Matthew and Luke.
In the evidence above, I came to the conclusion that I support the two-source hypothesis with a focus on the Markan Priority. Even though there is no physical proof for the source of “Q”, with the evidence provided above we see that indeed there had to be a source outside of the three Gospels that Matthew and Luke referred to in addition to the Gospel of Mark. In the second synopsis exercise were Mark wasn’t noted, we must understand that “Q” had to exist for the similarities between Matthew and Luke. With 154 words out of 190 in the second synopsis proves to have needed an outside source.
The most common source is indeed the Two Source Hypothesis with the Markan Priority. According to Dr. Stacy’s PointeCast Presentation in Module 4, I agree with slide 7 that the Synoptic Problem is best explained by the Two Source Hypothesis using the Gospel of Mark and the outsource of “Q” with the Markan Priority. The evidence shown as above and also the percentages below:
Mark’s Gospel was just 25%.
Matthew’s Gospel was 49%.
Luke’s Gospel was 41%.
These numbers confirm that Matthew and Luke allude to relying on the Gospel of Mark as their source.
Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament: Its Background and Message. 2nd ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003.
Stacy, R. Wayne. “The Synoptic Problem.” PointeCast Presentation, Module/Week 4.
Bottom of Form
William Jackson
Synoptic Exercise...or "Exorcism"
Collapse
Top of Form
For the Triple Tradition exercise, Luke is the longest based on word count and also has the most unique words (70), compared to Matthew (63) and Mark (28). As such, Matthew and Luke have the same unique words, compared to total words, at 50% each. Marks account is not only shorter, at 110 words, but also has the least unique words (28).
In terms of shared words, Mark shares more words with Luke (27), as compared to his words with Matthew at 18. Most interesting is the lack of shared words between Matthew and Luke at 7, or 5% of each writer’s total word count.
In explaining the Markan Priority, Dr. Robert Wayne Stacy notes, “90% of Mark’s gospel is found in Matthew; 50% of Mark is found in Luke…600 of Marks 665 verses are found in Matthew and Luke, 85 of 88 periscope are found in Matthew and Luke; and there are 36 periscope unique to Matthew or Luke.”[1] Taking just these stats into consideration for this exercise, one would argue against the Markan Priority because in this passage Mark has very little unique content. However, this passage only consists of 17% of Mark’s total gospel. So, more analysis would need to be done to deny it entirely.
One might argue that analyzing the periscope is more valuable that the actual words, because depending on one’s style of communication, the word usage would not be as pertinent as the “units” when trying to determine if a source was used.
For the Double Tradition, the Markan Priority is certainly debated given that Mark is silent on this event entirely. This also supports the need to analyze based on periscope more than word count; and is further supported by Stacy when he notes, “Matthew and Luke have 36 periscopes not found in Mark.” In this exercise, there are 76 words common among Matthew and Luke, making up 81% of Matthew’s gospel, and 80% of Luke. In this case, one could argue the Oral Tradition is the most credible hypothesis given the nearly exact word usage, but doesn’t rule out the Griesbach Hypothesis, that argues the order as, Matthew, then Luke, then Mark, as the correct written order (assuming Mark chose to be silent on this account).
The Oral Tradition has merit with Exercise Two, but it is not a valid theory for Exercise One. Additionally, the Ur-gospel and Literary Interdependence Theories could be considered but given the uniqueness of the account in Exercise One, these theories would need more work; and Griesbach’ s Theory works for Exercise One, but not for Two.
There are a couple of notable deductions to be gathered at this point. First, just based on these two passages, the Markan Priority could clearly be debated as the most viable theory, but this is inconclusive based on such a small sample size. Secondly, and most importantly, one might be able to eliminate a couple of theories based on these two passages, but for many of the theories, Markan included, a review of all passages from the Gospels would need to be formulated for certainty.
In closing, I supported the Markan Priority for a long time, but one issue that I could never resolve, mentally or academically, was the fact that this was not the view of the earliest church fathers. The early church tradition is quite unanimous that Matthew was the primary Gospel (i.e. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Augustine). Virtually no early support can be found to favor Mark as the initial Gospel writer. As Lea and Black posit, “Moreover, however popular Markan priority may be today, it seems to fly in the face of the statements of the earliest church fathers, who are almost unanimous in asserting that Matthew predated both Mark and Luke. Indeed, Matthaean priority makes sense in light of the fact that the earliest church existed in Palestine.”[2] As such, if we trust the early church tradition as a primary means to justify the New Testament canon, then likewise, we should trust their view on the source of the gospels.
Therefore, I feel the Augustinian hypothesis has the most merit for both these Exercises, as well as, the most accurate solution for the Synoptic Problem. The hypothesis holds that Matthew was written first. Mark then used Matthews writings, but also the preaching of Peter as sources; and finally, Luke used both Matthew and Mark as some of his sources. Unlike other hypotheses, the Augustinian hypothesis not does need, or argue for, a “Q” document for support.
Lastly, for what it is worth, I disregard any theory that relies on the mysterious “Q” document. These hypotheses imply that “Q” is so important that the four gospels would be deficient without it. As if the canon should feel privileged this "Q" existed, even though it is now lost. So, if “Q” was so important, why didn’t God allow it to be preserved throughout history in the same way He allowed the Gospels to be preserved? The creation of "Q" is just an attempt to create an answer when there is no other logical one available.
Bibliography
Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament: Its Background and Message. 2nd ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003
.
Stacy, Robert Wayne, “The Synoptic Problem,” PointeCast presentation.
[1] Robert Wayne Stacy, "The Synoptic Problem,” PointeCast presentation.
[2] Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message, (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group. 2003), 121.
Bottom of Form
