Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/446

 SYNOPTICS

390

SYNOPTICS

(o-iJi/o^ij) the numerous passages which are common to them, and also the portions which are pecuUar either to only two, or even to only one, of them.

I. Differences and Resemblances. — Turning over the pages of an ordinary harmony of the four, or of a synopsis of the first three, Gospels, which show in parallel columns the coincident parts of the evangeli- cal narratives, the reader will at once notice the large amount of matter which is common to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. Brief as these three sketches of Christ's life actually are, they run parallel to one another in no less than 330-370 verses or about one-third of their whole account of Christ's words and deeds, while, with the exception of a few incidents (68 verses), the whole contents of St. Mark are practically found in St. Matthew and in St. Luke. This agreement in the facts related appears all the more striking, because of the great amount of his- torical material which must have been at the disposal of each Synoptical writer. The Synoptists are, each and all, fully aware that Jesus healed vast numbers of various diseases; they nevertheless agree in selecting the same eases of healing for fuller record; and while they distinctly speak of His unceasing and extensive teaching, yet they usually concur in reporting the same discourses. A no less wonderful similarity may be observed between the first three Gospels with regard to the general conception and the order of the whole narrative. In all three, Christ's public life is distinctly connected with the preaching of St. John the Baptist, is chiefly confined to Galilee, and is set forth in certain epochs, as the early Gahlean ministry, the crisis in Galilee, the ministry in Perea and Jerusa- lem, and the tragic end in the Holy City followed by a glorious Resurrection. In constructing their several records, the Synoptists adopt the same general method of presentation, giving not a consecutive nar- rative that would result from a fusing of the material employed, but a series of little accounts which are iso- lated by peculiar introductoiy and concluding for- mulae, and which rejieatedly agree in details and in order even where a deviation from the chronological sequence is manifest. Together with all these resem- blances, there is throughout the Synoptics a remark- able agreement in words and phrases, which can be more particularly realized by means of a Greek har- mony or a close translation of the original text. This verbal agreement in the Greek Gospels is all the more surprising, as Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and as in most cases, it is plain that the verbal resemblances cannot be referred to an accidental similarity, since they are due to the common use of verj' peculiar terms and ex- pressions, of identical variations from either the He- brew or the Septuagint in quotations from the Old Testament.

"The interconnexion of the Synoptics is not, how- ever, simply one of close resemblance, it is also one of striking difference. When compared attentively, the three records appear distinct as well as similar in inci- dents, plan, and language. Each Synoptical writer introduces into his narrative fragments more or less extensive, at times entire episodes which are not re- lated by the other two Evangelists. St. Mark says nothing of the infancy and the early life of Christ, while St. Matthew and St, Luke, who speak of them, do not as a rule narrate the same facts. St. Mark does not even allude to the Sermon on the Mount, and St. Luke alone narrates in detail the last journey of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem. On the other hand, Matt., xiv, 22 — xvi, 12 and Mark, vi, 45 — viii, 2(>, recspitehis obvious concisriiess, St. Mark has two miriirlcs and two jKinililcs wliolly peculiar lo himself. St. Matthew, whii ajiijarcntly does not aim at brevity, makes no reference to the Ascension. Moreover, in the very passages which in- dicate a close relation of the three, or of at least two,

Synoptics, in their sources, minor differences in the events recorded continually appear, which can be fully reaUzed only through a diligent study of the parallel passages, or through the perusal of larger commentaries in which such constant differences are distinctly pointed out. At times the divergences are so great as to appear, at first, actual contradictions. Of this description are the differences noticeable be- tween the genealogies of Jesus (Matt., i, 1-17; Luke, iii, 23-38), the accounts of the episode of the demoni- acs of Gerasa (Matt., viii, 28-34; Mark, v, 1-20; Luke, viii, 26-39), of the miraculous healing con- nected with Jericho (Matt., xx, 29-34; Mark, x, 46- 52; Luke, xviii, 35-43), of the petition of the mother of James and John (Matt., xx, 20-28; Mark, x, 35- 45), of the incidents relative to the Resurrection, etc. The general disposition of the events narrated betrays also considerable differences. Thus while St. Mat- thew devotes three successive chapters to the Sermon on the Mount (v-vii) and gives together the parables of the kingdom in one chapter (xiii), St. Luke divides this twofold topic into several portions which he con- nects with distinct circumstances. It is well known too, that St. Matthew very often gathers together topics which are similar, while St. Mark and St. Luke follow more closely the chronological order, whence arise numerous transpositions which affect the general arrangement of the narrative.

Numerous variations can likewise be noticed in the particular arrangement of facts and words, for the elements of the one and the same episode often occupy a different place in one or other of the Sj'noptics, or either Evangelist suppresses or adds a detail which modifies the incident. Finally, the verbal differences between the first three Gospels are hardlj' less numer- ous and striking than their verbal resemblances. Each Synoptist has his peculiar and favourite words and expressions, which have been carefully tabulated by recent BibUcal scholars (Hawkins, "Horjesynop- tica;"; Allen, on St. Matthew; Swete, on St. Mark; Plummer, on St. Luke). The verbal differences ap- pear in the very passages which abound in verbal co- incidences (cf. for instance, Matt., xviii, 2, 3; Mark, ix, 47, 48), the identity of expression never extending through passages of any length, and unless in re- ported discourses of Christ rarely beyond a few words at a time. This is often due to the use of synony- mous terms, or of different tenses, or of different prop- ositions, or of short glosses which either Synoptist adds to the same name or detail. We find for in- stance, in Matt., ix, 6, K\lvri, in Mark, ii, 11, Kpdpparos, in Luke, v, 24, KXivtSiov; in Matt., iii, 16, "Spirit of God", in Mark, i, 10, "Spirit", in Luke, iii, 22, "the Holy Ghost"; etc. And what is of particular signifi- cance in this connexion, is the fact that the verbal differences occur when one should most naturally ex- pect an absolute identity of expressions, as for in- stance, in the words of the institution of the Holy Eucharist, in the record of the title on the Cross, etc.

II. The Synoptic Problem. — These resemblances and differences, the extent and complexity of which grow upon the student who compares carefully the Synoptic Gospels and contrasts them with St. John's narrative, constitute a unique phenomenon in ancient and modern literature. They are facts which no one can refer either to mere chance, or to the direct influ- ence of inspiration. On the one hand, the resem- blances are too numerous and too striking to be re- garded as exphcable on the hypothesis that the first three Evangelists wrote in(le])endently of one an- other. On the other, the differences are at times so significant as to imply that they are due to the use of ditTerent documents by the Evangelists, as for cx- amiile in the case of the two genealogies of Jesus Christ. The harmony and the variety, the resem- blances and the differences must be both accounted