Previous page: Stylometric - Synoptic Results
The clearest result from this analysis is support for Markan priority. There is strong evidence pointing to the stylistic homogeneity of Mark as a whole, specifically in the sense that material in Mark common to Matthew and/or Luke is stylistically very similar to the unique Markan material. However, if Mark actually originated in multiple documents (e.g. notebooks) that were then edited by the author of Mark (aMark) so that the resulting whole was homogenous, this analysis cannot tell. In particular, the analysis cannot preclude some (limited) copying (e.g. harmonization) from either Matthew or Luke to Mark.The second result is not quite the same as the first, although it may appear so. This analysis provides strong evidence suggesting that the majority of the words common to Mark and Matthew and/or Luke came from Mark.
This analysis provides strong evidence suggesting that the words in the Matthew-Luke Double Tradition did not come from Luke. However, it is less clear whether they all came from Matthew, or some from another source. The most likely scenario suggested by the analysis is that both Matthew and Luke used some material from a written source, S, in addition to Mark. Material originally from both S and Matthew was then included in Luke when aLuke edited material he took from Matthew. aLuke also supplemented the material from Matthew with additional material that he also edited from S.
This analysis has no information regarding the size or content of S, in particular its relation (if any) to Q, therefore it cannot tell which parts of the Double Tradition originated in Matthew, and which in S. There is no indication that any part of S (not used by either aMatthew or aLuke) was used as a source by aMark, but the analysis cannot rule out this possibility.
This analysis does not provide strong evidence for the source of the words in the Triple Tradition agreements common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark. The evidence suggesting Matthew as the source is stronger than that suggesting Luke, but it is possible that some words came from changes made by aLuke.Overall, this analysis finds that Mark is most stylistically homogenous, followed by Matthew, and least so Luke, suggesting a general trajectory of Mark -> Matthew -> Luke. aMatthew made use of Mark, and aLuke made use of both Mark and Matthew. In addition, both aMatthew and aLuke appear to have had access to an additional common source (S) which was the source of some of the Double Tradition material. This scenario is similar to the Three Source Hypothesis (or Theory) (3SH or 3ST) as described on The Synoptic Problem Website, although the content of the additional source is not stated.
A stylistic analysis of the words in the synoptic gospels (such as this) may be able to uncover a lot of information regarding directionality, i.e. which parts of which synoptics contain material that originated in which other synoptics (and possibly from sources other than the synoptics). However, there are some things that this analysis cannot do:
For all these reasons this analysis (even if 100% correct in every detail) is not a ‘solution’ to the synoptic problem. However, it may be a solution to part of the problem.
If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc. regarding this topic please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Bigg, Howard C: The Present State of the Q Hypothesis, 1988
Bird, Michael F: The Holtzmann-Gundry Solution to the Synoptic Problem (Three Source Hypothesis). Also Goodacre, Mark: Mike Bird on Luke's use of Matthew and Q
Burkett, Delbert Royce: Rethinking the Gospel Sources: Volume 2: The unity or plurality of Q, SBL, 2009
Carlson, Stephen C: The Synoptic Problem Website
Derrenbacker, Robert A, Jr and Kloppenborg Verbin, John S: Self-Contradiction in the IQP? A Reply to Michael Goulder, 2001
Early Christian Writings: The Existence of Q
Farmer, William R: The Present State Of The Synoptic Problem, 1998
Foster, Paul: Is It Possible to Dispense with Q? , 2003
Gentile, David: A statistical approach to the synoptic problem
Godfrey, Neil: Blog post: “The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion”
Goodacre, Mark: The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem and The synoptic problem: a way through the maze. Online: The Case Against Q, Ten Reasons to Question Q, A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q. See also Mark Q Overlaps I: Terminology, II: Major Agreements Between Matthew and Luke, III: Minor Agreements between Mark and Luke, IV: Back to the Continuum, V: the degree of verbatim agreement, VI: The Direction of Dependence
Goulder, Michael: Luke: A New Paradigm
Head, Peter M: Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem, New Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Oxford Conference, Part 1, April 2008
Head, Peter M. and Williams P.J: Q Review, Tyndale Bulletin 54.1, 2003
Huggins, Ronald V: Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal, 1992
Just, Felix: The Synoptic Problem
Kelhoffer, James A: Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark, 2000
Kloppenborg, John S: On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew, 2003
Kok, Michael J.: Euangelion Kata Markon, The Case For and Against Q
McNicol, Allan J, (Ed) with Dungan, David L., and Peabody, David B: Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew, 1996
Powell, Mark Allen: What are They Saying about Luke?, 1989
Sanders E.P, and Davies, Margaret: Studying the synoptic Gospels
Smith, Barry D: The Synoptic Problem, Crandall University
Streeter, B.H: The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Dates
Text Excavation.com: The Synoptic Problem
Theopedia.com: The Synoptic Problem
Turton, Michael: Is Mark Q?
Wallace, Daniel B: The Synoptic Problem
Waltz, Robert: The Encyclopedia of New Testament Criticism (online) or in PDF form
West, H. Philip Jr.: A Primitive Version of Luke in the Composition of Matthew, 1967
Wikipedia.com: Synoptic Gospels