The Evangelicals and the Synoptic Problem

← 12 | 13 → CHAPTER I: A Calvin(ist) and a Lutheran and the Synoptic Problem—Sixteenth Century⁵⁷

A. John Calvin (1509–1564): Using Parallel Columns to Compare the Synoptic Gospels

The first early orthodox Protestant scholar to address the SP was none other than John Calvin. The categorization of Calvin as an early orthodox Protestant is most clearly demonstrated in Sung Wook Chung’s John Calvin and Evangelical Theology: Legacy and Prospect.⁵⁸ Of all the immense volumes Calvin produced, he addressed the interrelated nature of the synoptics in only one, his Commentary on the Harmony of the First Three Gospels (Paris, 1551).⁵⁹ While the attempt to produce a harmony of the gospels was far from novel in Calvin’s day, the Reformation leader was the first to offer parallel columns to compare the three synoptic gospels without including the gospel of John. Calvin commented that for an interpreter to properly consider a synoptic passage, a comparison to the other two synoptic gospels must be made, and that his parallel columns would allow the reader to see “one unbroken chain, [even as] a single picture... the resemblance or diversity that exists.”⁶⁰ Calvin’s method stood in stark contrast to that of his fellow Protestant, Andreas Osiander, who published a harmony only thirteen years prior.⁶¹ Osiander’s harmony was a laboured volume based on the assumption that each evangelist kept chronological order. Thus, Osiander separated events in Christ’s life if any details, whether in chronology or information, ← 13 | 14 → varied in the slightest from one gospel to the next. Thus, Christ experienced three temptations, cleansed the temple three times, etc. Calvin rejected such an approach, and even mentioned Osiander’s strange method on his commentary on the healing of the blind man (men) in Mt 20:29–34 = Mk 10:46–52 = Lk 18:35–43. Osiander handled the differing accounts by positing that there were four blind men healed. Calvin remarked of Osiander’s explanation that, though it was clever, “nothing can be more frivolous than this supposition.”62

Instead of separating similar synoptic accounts (as Osiander had done) or merging them into one, Calvin preferred to leave them side-by-side in his harmony. He did not explain why he chose to omit a column for the gospel of John, though from his earlier comments in the Dedicatory before the commentary he stated his desire to honour “Christ riding magnificently in his royal chariot drawn by four horses.”⁶³ Whatever his reason for omitting John from his harmony, it was not because he considered it to be a contradictory witness to the other gospels. Though J.J. Griesbach popularised the term synopsis to denote his parallel comparison of the synoptic gospels,⁶⁴ Calvin produced a three-parallel-column harmony over two centuries earlier for the purpose of analysing the similarities and differences. While Calvin’s Latin harmony allowed for a side-by-side comparison of the synoptics, it did not allow the reader to compare in minute detail the verbal coincidences in Greek that Griesbach’s Synopsis afforded.

Though Calvin’s parallel comparison of the synoptic gospels may potentially have inspired Griesbach’s three-column synopsis, the two scholars held divergent opinions concerning the SP. In the Argumentum to his Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, Calvin, like most interpreters before him, was not terribly concerned with the sources of the gospels beyond the traditional explanations. He noted that Matthew’s first hand experience was well documented ← 14 | 15 → and sufficient to inform his gospel. Similarly, Mark most likely received his information from Peter, another apostle and eyewitness. However, Mark’s source of information was of little importance, because the Holy Spirit guided Mark’s pen. Calvin then offered some revealing remarks:

Thus, Calvin argued that the synoptic evangelists worked independently of one another, and that the Holy Spirit was the source of their agreements as well as their differences. Calvin did not offer a fuller explanation of the IH, but contented himself and his readers with the advice that, on the subject of the evangelists’ sources, “we need not give ourselves much trouble.”⁶⁷ Throughout the remainder of Harmony, Calvin failed to revisit the sources behind the synoptics. However, he was not the only early orthodox Protestant biblical scholar to offer a solution to the SP in the sixteenth century. If Calvinism’s earliest proponent of a solution to ← 15 | 16 → the SP could be considered an advocate of the IH, Lutheranism offered the first scholar to champion the Augustinian Hypothesis.

B. Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586): Nascent Redaction Criticism

An appropriate figure to consider next among the early orthodox Protestants who wrote about the SP is the Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz. Chemnitz studied at the feet of Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon from 1545–1547 at Wittenberg, where he would later serve as faculty member from 1554 until his death. His background as a conservative orthodox Lutheran is without blemish, as demonstrated by his extensive publications on church government, theology, and devotional literature,⁶⁸ as well as his formative role in constructing the Formula of Concord in 1577 and the Book of Concord in 1580, seminal documents outlining Lutheran doctrine.⁶⁹ It is not an overstatement to reckon Chemnitz as more than an orthodox Lutheran of the sixteenth century, but as one who defined Lutheran orthodoxy at that time.⁷⁰ As early as 1673 it was said, “if the second Martin [Chemnitz] had not come along the first Martin [Luther] would not remain.”⁷¹

The work of interest for this study from Chemnitz’s extensive list of publications is his Harmony of the Gospels.⁷² Chemnitz was only able to finish the first volume before his death, with the remaining two being taken up by Poly-carp Leyser and Johann Gerhard. Chemnitz’s volume was first published in 1593, some seven years after his death, and ended with the description of the ministry of John the Baptist in Matthew 3, Mark 1 and Luke 3. Because so much ← 16 | 17 → of Chemnitz’s approach in Harmony bears directly on the synoptic problem, his Harmony will receive more attention in this study than any others.

In the lengthy Prolegomena to his Harmony, Chemnitz explained his views on the gospels. Though the gospels contain no contradictions, quoting the argument of Jean Gerson,73 they do have a “very harmonious disharmony” in which the Spirit “was pleased to stir up the minds of the faithful to a more humble and more watchful investigation of the truth.” Like Chrysostom, Chemnitz felt the minor differences in the gospels reflected the fact that the four evangelists did not conspire (non mutua conspiratione) but were led by divine inspiration (sed divine inspiratione).⁷⁴

However, Chemnitz posited that it was appropriate to seek to reconcile the narratives in a gospel harmony for these primary reasons:⁷⁵

While not neglecting the former harmonies already published—Chemnitz discussed the Harmonies of Tatian (c.a 170 CE), Ammonius of Alexandria (c.a. 230 CE), Eusebius of Caesarea (c.a. 320 CE), Augustine (c.a. 400 CE), Victor of Capua (c.a. 450 CE), Peter Comestor (c.a. 1160), Ludolph the Carthusian (c.a. 1300), Jean Gerson (1420), and Andreas Osiander (1537)—Chemnitz sought to follow Augustine’s method, which was to be preferred over that of Osiander.⁸⁰ ← 17 | 18 → As discussed above, Osiander approached his harmony by assuming that each evangelist kept chronological order, so that even almost identical pericopae were deemed to describe different events if they were arranged differently. As Chemnitz remarked, Osiander’s plan seemed to be suitable because it preserved each evangelist’s order. There was, however, one major weakness to the his method, that Osiander was “forced to make into different episodes that which (by the consensus of all antiquity and by the circumstances bearing obvious witness of this) are the same episodes in different evangelists and to separate them by a long interval of time.”81 Though Osiander maintained that his arrangement could be explained by the fact that Christ repeated the same words at different times, Chemnitz judged that his comparison “nearly perishes” (ferme perit) by its implausibility.⁸²

Chemnitz rejected this approach, and instead agreed with Augustine that no single evangelist maintained strict chronological order, though there was a general sequence. The job of the harmonist was to take the clues purposely given by the evangelists and reconstruct one continuous narrative, and Chemnitz sought to perform this task in a disciplined way. In chapter five of his Prolegomena, Chemnitz provided a list of eighteen rules that guided his decisions vis-à-vis determining the true chronological order. Providing the entire list of rules here would be beyond the scope of this study, but it suffices to note that Chemnitz believed that there was almost always a way to deduce the correct chronological order. He did this by looking at the verbal cues, provided in phrases such as “in those days,” and “as He was going,” etc., to determine which evangelist was most specific at any given point, and by allowing that any time two evangelists agreed on a context apart from the third, the context of the two would be given preference.⁸³ Though he applied this latter principle only to chronology, Chemnitz recognised that “multiple attestation” was a good criterion for determining authenticity of the actual timing of the events recorded. His concern was not to be sceptical of the accounts, but a more positive conviction that when two evangelists agreed on timing and sequence, then there was a good indication that the genuine order was intended. Chemnitz believed that by his strict method almost all of the differences in the gospels could be reconciled, but he also admitted that ← 18 | 19 → there were times when his reckoning of events was only probable, and even rare occasions when his eighteen rules were unable to provide clarity.84

Chemnitz’s Solution to the Synoptic Problem

Chemnitz assumed a chronological sequence of the gospel events could be constructed because each evangelist worked with knowledge of the gospels that preceded his. Matthew wrote first with a “very special reckoning of matters” in which the order of events was sometimes specific. Chemnitz then explained the origin of the other gospels:

Chemnitz considered that these two early church fathers, Augustine and Epiphanius, ⁸⁶ had believed in a dependency hypothesis and used them to justify his own conclusions. Mark’s reason for writing was to reveal “the order of things done in the narrations of Matthew.”⁸⁷ Further, Luke wrote to “arrange his Gospel account in greater detail and put it together in some sort of formal arrangement.”⁸⁸

Chemnitz began the harmony with Luke’s preface and concluded that, in verses 1 and 4, Luke admitted to knowing the gospels of Matthew and Mark.

← 19 | 20 → Chemnitz used Luke’s preface to show that when an evangelist incorporated the material of his predecessors it added to the trustworthiness of those gospels. He stated that when he and his readers assumed Luke was speaking of Matthew and Mark as the “many” of Lk 1:1, “we canonize the writings of the prior evangelists.”90 Luke’s knowledge of Matthew and Mark validated both gospels as apostolic and eyewitness testimony. This conclusion was predicated on a positive interpretation of Luke’s language that did not disparage the “many” who had undertaken to write prior gospels.

Chemnitz’s Recognition of Double and Triple Tradition

To be able to construct a single continuous story from four separate accounts required the combination of the verbiage of all. But how could this be done in such a way that none of the individual evangelists’ voices were lost? Chemnitz devised a scheme that used letters of the alphabet to denote the various permutations of arrangements of gospel texts. They were:

Letter (f) is akin to “double tradition” in modern terminology, and (l) corresponds to “triple tradition.” The use of letters to denote the material of the evangelists had already been done by Jean Gerson, though his system used (M) for Matthew, (R) for Mark, (L) for Luke and (J) for John but failed to further distinguish the material.⁹¹ Chemnitz’s ingenious method allowed him to unify the accounts, yet keep them distinctive.

Chemnitz’s Nascent Redaction Criticism

By constructing a harmony that combined all of the synoptic accounts and, at the same time, preserved the wording of each evangelist, the additions and omissions of the subsequent evangelists were brought into sharp contrast. Though Chemnitz’s general tendency to reconcile discrepancies was to use traditional harmonizational methods, on at least two occasions he offered what might be described as a nascent form of redaction criticism. The first occurred in his handling ← 20 | 21 → of the introduction to Mark’s gospel (Mk 1:1), which Chemnitz placed after Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2. Chemnitz posited that Mark chose to begin his gospel by calling Jesus Christ “the son of God” to prevent misuse of Matthew’s gospel:

The notion that one evangelist might provide what another lacked was not original to Chemnitz,⁹³ but his explanation of Mark’s motive was new. Mark, having read Matthew, knew that preachers might misinterpret Matthew and thus sought to correct potential problems. To achieve this purpose, Mark began his narrative by proclaiming Jesus as “the Son of God” from the outset.

The second place where Chemnitz appeared to use a redaction-critical approach was in his comments on the preaching of John the Baptist. Chemnitz’s harmony had the following account:

As is clear in Chemnitz’s harmonized text, Matthew’s account has the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to John, while Luke includes crowds coming to be baptized. Likewise, Matthew and Luke give slightly different wording to John’s instructions, so that Chemnitz quoted “do not be of this mind” from Matthew (Mt 3:9) and added “that you begin” from Luke (Lk 3:8). He then quoted from both, “to say within yourselves.” But why did the evangelists attribute slightly different words to John the Baptist? Chemnitz explained: