LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. ADARKWA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE COURSE NBST 521

LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY

JOEL DORMAN

LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA

AUGUST 9, 2009
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1

Definitions........................................................................................................................................2

Synoptic Gospels .................................................................................................................2

Synoptic Problem .................................................................................................................2

History of the Synoptic Problem......................................................................................................3

Period of Oral Transmission ................................................................................................4

Period of Written Transmission ...........................................................................................5

Final Version ........................................................................................................................6

Similarities of the Synoptic Gospel Accounts .................................................................................7

Differences of the Synoptic Gospel Accounts .................................................................................9

Possible Solutions for the Synoptic Problem .................................................................................10

Dependence on One Original Gospel ................................................................................10

Dependence on Oral Sources .............................................................................................11

Dependence on Written Fragments ....................................................................................11

Interdependence .................................................................................................................11

Augustinian Proposal and the Two-Gospel Hypothesis ........................................12

Markan Priority ......................................................................................................12

Two-Source Hypothesis .........................................................................................13

Final Thoughts ...............................................................................................................................14

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................17

i.
 1

The narratives of the life of Jesus Christ are captured in the four accounts at the

beginning of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These four books, although

written about the same Man and in some cases, the same event, tell the stories in different ways.

This difference has caused concern with Christians down through the centuries. In a writing

called Diatessaron, the second-century Christian Tatian wrote what is considered the first

combination of all four gospels into one cohesive account.1 Although such similar writings

continue to this day, the underlying issue remains the same: the four accounts are different. At

times, they are very different. The issue for this paper and the one of greatest debate and intrigue

is the connection between Matthew, Mark, and Luke: the “Synoptic Gospels”. Note the

dissimilarity between the three accounts of the rich man coming to Jesus asking about eternal

life. The details are different in each account and the use of the word “good” glaringly changes

the meaning in Matthew’s account (table 1).

Matthew 19:16-17 Mark 10:17-18 Luke 18:18-19

Now a man came up to Jesus
and asked, “Teacher, what
good thing must I do to get
eternal life?” “Why do you
ask me about what is good?”
Jesus replied. “There is only
One who is good. If you want
to enter life, obey the
commandments.”
Table 1. Comparison of Matthew 19:16-17, Mark 10:17-18, and Luke 18:18-19
As Jesus started on his way, a
man ran up to him and fell on
his knees before him. “Good
teacher,” he asked, “what must
I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?”
Jesus answered. “No one is
good—except God alone.
A certain ruler asked him,
“Good teacher, what must I do
to inherit eternal life?” “Why
do you call me good?” Jesus
answered. “No one is good—
except God alone.

How are differences reconciled? Which one is the “correct” eye witness testimony of

what occurred? These are the questions and concerns that form the basis for the “synoptic

problem”. Consequently, the goal of this research is the present the definition, history, and

proposed solutions to this synoptic “problem” while concurrently keeping perspective with the

1
D.A. Carson, and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005), 78.
 2

issues of inspiration and canonization. This research will also include some of the differences

and similarities of the synoptic gospel accounts.

Definitions

To understand accurately the issues surrounding the Gospel narratives, a few definitions

are required. These definitions will be basis for their respective word use and exploration in this

research.

Synoptic Gospels

The first three gospel accounts, as previously stated, are called the Synoptic Gospels.

They were first called the Synoptic Gospels at the end of the eighteenth century by J. J.

Griesbach, a German Biblical Scholar. This word “synoptic” comes from a Greek word that

means “a seeing together”. This word was chosen by Griesbach due to the striking similarities

between Matthew, Mark and Luke. The synoptic gospels, in general, share chronology. They

begin the baptism of Jesus, reach a defining moment at the confession of Peter (“Simon Peter

answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’”2), and conclude with the Passion.

The synoptic gospels also have similarities in the words and word order (cf. Matthew 8:1-14,

Mark 1:40-45, and Luke 5:12-16).3

Synoptic Problem

Goodacre stated a clear definition of the synoptic problem: “the study of the similarities

and differences of the Synoptic Gospels in an attempt to explain their literary relationship.”4 The

argument is not whether a so-called problem exists but to what degree does that problem change

the understanding of the Gospel narrative.

2
Matthew 16:16, NIV.
3
Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament Its Background and Message (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 2003), 113.
4
Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 16.
 3

History of the Synoptic Problem

As noted in the introduction, early Christians were busy harmonizing these differences

while these letters were in their initial circulation. They sought answers to the disturbing

differences between three writers who claimed accuracy. In order to understand the history of

the problem, one must look to the history of the text itself. Carson and Moo suggest Luke, in his

introduction, sheds light on this murky issue of the origins of the texts5:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled
among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were
eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully
investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an
orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the
certainty of the things you have been taught.6

Luke informs us a great deal in these few short sentences. He refers to “eyewitness and

servants of the word” who passed on to the early Christians what they saw. This statement is of

incredible and often understated significance. These people were there with the Master. As the

Apostle John wrote:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we
proclaim concerning the Word of life.”7

Luke also writes that “many” have written the record of what was done by Christ. Luke

was not alone in his writing of an account.8 Luke professes his own research into these matters

and now in his prologue he proclaims it “an orderly account”. Citing a need to explain a

purpose, Luke states he writes so “you may know the certainty of the things you have been

taught” (emphasis added). It is important to note, even at the beginning of this research, that the

5
Carson and Moo, 79. The idea is from this resource but the “fleshing out” is the author’s own.
6
Luke 1:1-4, NIV.
7
1 John 1:1, NIV, emphasis added.
8
The debate, on which will be elaborated briefly later in this research, begins here. The question can
logically be raised: was Luke referring to Matthew, Mark, and John (although John was, most likely, not yet written)
or was he referring to other Christians—maybe even Apostles—who wrote gospel narratives?
 4

church accepted the four gospel accounts in their current form very early in the canonization

process. They apparently did not find as much “trouble” with this issue as much as modern

scholarship does. It was the differences in the accounts which caused them to include all four of

them. Instead of fearing the differences, they embraced it!9

Period of Oral Transmission

As Luke stated (and the Apostle John echoed), the message was given to early Christians

from those who witnessed it. It is believed these early Christians distributed the words of Jesus

by word of mouth, not primarily written information. This form of oral transmission existed in

the first two decades of the early church. This is not to say the first two decades were void of

written sources. Some of the “core elements” of the Gospel (sayings of Jesus, Passion story, etc)

might have been written to some degree very early on (ca. 50-65) but there is no information to

suggest this was the primary avenue to spreading the Gospel. Even into the second century, the

church entrusted this eyewitness testimony from Apostle to teachers, from teachers to students,

and from all believers to all believers.10

The method of evaluating and examining this oral tradition is called form criticism. It is

important since it is this method of criticism that spotlights this early stage of development of the

Gospels.11 1 Corinthians 15:3, for example, refers to Paul’s receipt of the message of Christ via

this oral heritage.12 In addition, since the church of the first few decades had oral tradition as

their primary method of retelling the Gospel, this methodology proves a worthwhile endeavor.

Biblical scholars find themselves in almost universal agreement: the written Gospel accounts

9
Justo L. González, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Vol. 1 of The Story of Christianity.
(New York: HarperCollins, 1984), 62-63.
10
Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd ed. (Peabody:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 246-247.
11
Carson and Moo, 79.
12
Lea and Black, 115.
 5

Christians treasure today are a product of their use as teaching materials while still in the period

of oral transmission.13 Form critics, then, attempt to ascertain what specifically shaped and

formed what modern Christians know as the Gospels. The advocates of form criticism (in

regards to studying the oral transmission of the Gospels) share five broad assumptions:

1. The stories and sayings of Jesus first appeared in small self-contained units.
2. The stories and sayings of Jesus assumed the standard forms or structures that appear in
the Gospels.
3. The form of a story or saying allowed a critic to discover its place in the life of the early
church, due to the assumption that the existence of the story sprang out of a definite need
or condition in the early church.
4. As members of the Christian community passed along the sayings, they put the material
into forms and also modified the content to meet community needs.
5. Some form critics developed criteria for determining the age and historical
trustworthiness of particular stories. They named the criteria laws of transmission.14

These assumptions, unfortunately, lead to a mistrust of the historical accuracy of the

gospel accounts by entrenched form critics. They would contend that the amount of intentional

and unintentional editing would alter the accuracy of the historical information since historical

precision was not the purpose. This does not mean, however, that form criticism is all negative.

Indeed, its focus on the period of oral transmission does help the reader of the gospel to see the

purposes and destinations of the gospel accounts more clearly.15

Period of Written Transmission

Within forty years of the death and resurrection of Christ, the Gospel had spread across

the Roman Empire as thousands accepted the message of salvation. As powerful as oral

transmission can be, it would prove too weak in the ultimate spread of Christianity and the

pressing need of accurate and easily distributed information about Jesus. Apostles and trained

teachers and pastors could no longer consistently travel the great distances between believers

13
McDonald, 250.
14
Lea and Black, 116.
15
Ibid, 117.
 6

teaching them. Moreover, the eyewitnesses were getting older or had already died (both as

martyrs and of natural causes). A compilation was needed of these teachings before the witness

of the Apostles died with them.16 This compiling period is that of written transmission and the

discipline that focuses on studying this period is called source criticism. This method of

investigation seeks to ascertain what written sources, if in reality any were used, the writers of

the Gospels used when compiling the books Christians now know. Some of these sources could

be as innocuous as the Apostles referencing their own written record of the sayings of Jesus.

Taken in context of the previously mentioned oral stage of transmission, this is where the

synoptic problem dispute truly gets intense.17 This stage presents the questions and challenges of

source criticism which led to final version Christians have of the Gospels.

Final Version

The disciples of form and source criticism focus on the text itself and what factors could

have caused it to read as it does. When viewed from a holistic approach, the writers themselves

come into view. In its completed form, “redaction criticism seeks to describe the theological

purposes of the evangelists by analyzing the way they use their sources.”18 Redaction criticism,

then, seeks to bring to fore the authors themselves. These men were shaped by certain

conventions, communities and circumstances and their writings would reflect this.

It is also assumed by redaction critics that is possible to discriminate the traditions each

writer of the Gospels used and the aforementioned conventions, communities and circumstances

which led them to use that source is that way. Furthermore, redaction critics explain the

differences in the Gospel accounts as purposeful adjustments to the text in order to reveal

16
Walter A. Elwell and Robert W. Yarbrough, Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and
Theological Survey. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 74.
17
Carson and Moo, 85-86.
18
Ibid, 103-104.
 7

something they considered to be significant. It could be a particular theological idea or simply a

perspective. Due to the similarities of Matthew and Luke, it is easier to see these issues than

with Mark (and John). Luke, for instance, places a great emphasis on prayer by including more

of this information (cf. Mark 3:7-19 with Luke 6:12-19) than Mark (whose writing he appears to

be quoting).19 Redaction criticism, as one of many methods of study of the Gospels in the

current form, rests on four areas of interest:

1. The choice to include or exclude material.

2. The arrangement of material.
3. Additions to the document.
4. Alteration of words.20

Redaction criticism, if kept in proper perspective can offer great help to the modern

student of the New Testament. For instance, evaluating the entire Gospel narrative gives a

balance to the source-specific approach of form and source criticism. This methodology also

serves to remind modern reader that these authors were writing with more in mind than merely

telling historical facts. Lastly, this process helps modern readers appreciate the four-fold

approach to the presentation of the Gospels.21 This approach should not create doubt in the

historical accuracy of the Gospel narratives. Redaction criticism does not approach the text in

order to disprove it but merely to see the perspective from which it is coming.22

Similarities of the Synoptic Gospel Accounts

As stated in the definition of “Synoptic Gospels”, these accounts share an overarching

chronology. There are also narratives common to all the synoptic gospels. Some of the common

narratives are the ministry of John the Baptizer, the calling of the Apostles, ministry in Galilee,

19
John William Drane, Introducing the New Testament, Completely rev. and updated. (Oxford: Lion
Publishing plc, 2000), 217.
20
Lea and Black, 123.
21
Carson and Moo, 106.
22
Lea and Black, 124-125.
 8

sermon on the mountainside, sermon on the plain, healing of the leper, and the passion story are

a few examples. Furthermore, there are similarities in the style and wording of stories (tables 2

and 3).23

Matthew 8:1-2 Mark 1:40 Luke 5:12

When he came down from the A man with leprosy came to While Jesus was in one of the
mountainside, large crowds him and begged him on his towns, a man came along who
followed him. A man with knees, “If you are willing, you was covered with leprosy.
leprosy came and knelt before can make me clean.” When he saw Jesus, he fell
him and said, “Lord, if you are with his face to the ground and
willing, you can make me begged him, “Lord, if you are
clean.” willing, you can make me
clean.”
Table 2. Similarities of Matthew 8:1-2, Mark 1:40, and Luke 5:12

Matthew 27:58 Mark 15:43 Luke 23:52

Going to Pilate, he asked for Joseph of Arimathea, a Going to Pilate, he asked for
Jesus’ body, and Pilate prominent member of the Jesus’ body.
ordered that it be given to him. Council, who was himself
waiting for the kingdom of
God, went boldly to Pilate and
asked for Jesus’ body.
Table 3. Similarities of Matthew 8:1-2, Mark 1:40, and Luke 5:12

At times, there are greater similarities between two of the accounts while the third stands

dissimilar. Typically, this relationship is seen between Matthew and Luke. These two accounts

will include many of the same events while they are omitted from Mark. This omitted material

constitutes some of the teachings of Jesus along with some of the narrative. The similarity

between Matthew and Luke even extends to the word usage (Table 4).24

Matthew 3:7-10 Luke 3:7-9

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing,
he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who
warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And
do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We
John said to the crowds coming out to be
baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who
warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And
do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have
Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out

23
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction. 4th rev. ed. The master reference collection. (Downers
Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 136.
24
Guthrie, 137.
 9

have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out
of these stones God can raise up children for
Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the
trees, and every tree that does not produce
good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the
fire.
Table 4. Similarities between Matthew and Luke
of these stones God can raise up children for
Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the
trees, and every tree that does not produce
good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the
fire.”

Where all three gospel accounts are congruent, they are very analogous. At times,

Matthew and Mark are in parallel agreement against Luke. Luke and Mark are sometimes paired

against Matthew, and on occasion (although rare), Matthew and Luke stand in agreement against

Mark.25 The term “synoptic” accurately fits the accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Differences of the Synoptic Gospel Accounts

The differences between the Synoptic Gospel accounts is truly what creates this synoptic

problem because, most obviously, if they all recorded each event in the exact same way using the

exact same wording, there would be no debate. This is simply not the case.

There are, in fact, differences in the detail of same events recorded. In the account of the

centurion whose servant was healed, the details differ greatly. These stories are told in Matthew

8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew’s narrative, the centurion asks Jesus personally; in Luke’s,

he sends some Jewish elders. Then there are many differences in the narratives: Jesus responds

with different words in the two accounts. Even in the Synoptic Gospels’ accounts of the birth

and passion: what narrative information they share remains different in wording.26

Another overarching difference is the uniqueness of material which only appears in one

gospel account. For instance, only Matthew records Peter’s walking on the water. As indicated

previously, the birth narratives have different detail and wording but Luke’s account has the

following sections not found in the other gospels: the promised birth of John the Baptizer, the

25
Ibid, 138.
26
Guthrie, 137.
 10

announcement to Mary of her conception, Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, the birth of John the

Baptizer, and the circumcision and presentation of Jesus at the temple. Matthew’s account only

includes the flight to Egypt and the visit of the Magi.

Possible Solutions for the Synoptic Problem

Some of the differences are easily explainable. For instance, the difference between the

genealogies of Matthew and Luke can be readily explained via emphasis. Matthew was

showing Jesus’ genealogy through Abraham since his audience was primarily Jews. Luke, on

the other hand, was writing to mainly Gentiles. As such, he saw the need to trace Jesus all way

to Adam and ultimately, the reminder that Jesus is, in fact, the Son of God.27 There are many

differences which are not so easily explained and there are several prevailing theories to help

explain these and other situations further.

As these theories are evaluated, it is important to note the Bible is the Word of God as

revealed to humanity. The Bible, although penned by humans with a past, perspective, and

purpose, it is still, fundamentally, a spiritual document. Modern scholarship’s dependence on the

Word of God as the rule of faith can serve to safeguard the modern church from straying into

heresy. If this perspective is commuted, a student of the Gospels is only left with attempting to

reproduce history instead of focusing on the true meaning of the text in telling us how to live.28

Dependence on One Original Gospel

Although not viewed highly in modern scholarship, this theory holds that the Synoptic

Gospels were written from a source in Hebrew or Aramaic. Created in its original form by G. E.

27
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, et al., A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments, On Spine: Critical and Explanatory Commentary. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research
Systems, Inc., 1997), Luke 3:23.
28
Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy, editors. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive
Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 175.
 11

Lessing, it was modified by other scholars in the nineteenth century to hypothesize the Synoptic

Gospels were compilations from several lost Hebrew or Aramaic Gospels.29

Dependence on Oral Sources

This theory was a response to the mysterious lost Hebrew/Aramaic Gospels use in

compiling the Gospels and stated that the best explanation of the differences and similarities in

the Synoptic Gospels is better related to the tradition of oral sources. Proposed by J. G. Herder,

and expanded by J. K. L. Gieseler in 1818, its support mostly ended in the nineteenth century as

well.30 This theory assumed it explained the differences in the Synoptic Gospels because of the

problems associated with memory: people can “misremember”.31

Dependence on Written Fragments

This theory, while taken with the aforementioned theories, begin to form the basis of the

theories modern scholars present to this issue. Proposed by F. Schleiermacher, the “written

fragments” refer to, in essence, notes and scraps of sayings of Jesus and narratives that were

compiled and expanded to form the Synoptic Gospels. This theory is no longer presented in this

form although it is, as mentioned, echoed in the theories of today.32

Interdependence

The theories of interdependence are the theories debated and presented today as the

solutions to the synoptic problem. As stated, there are echoes of these earlier theories found in

the modern ones. Interdependence theories rest on the presupposition that two of the gospel

accounts used one or more “other gospel accounts” as references to construct theirs. This

29
Carson and Moo, 89-90.
30
Ibid, 90.
31
John C. Poirier, 2004. "Memory, written sources, and the synoptic problem: a response to Robert K
McIver and Marie Carroll." Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 2: 315-322. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 22, 2009), 318-319.
32
Carson and Moo, 90.
 12

quotation and borrowing explains, according to these theorists, the similarities (and by extension

the differences) between the Synoptic Gospels. As theories, they are ever-evolving and growing;

therefore, at best, this research is a snapshot of where some of these theories are today. In these

theories, however, there can be such a microscopic view of the Gospels that the overall arching

purpose and perspective of the author and the gospel writer himself can be overlooked. In other

words, in the course of explaining interdependence it is quite possible to not see the “big

picture”.33

Augustinian Proposal and the Two-Gospel Hypothesis

Augustine, while not a modern scholar, proposed a theory which came back into the

forefront in twentieth century. He proposed Matthew was written first. Following Matthew,

Mark was written and lastly Luke was written. The modern scholars who follow this theory

assume each Gospel was originally intended to replace the preceding. Modifying this slightly

was J. J. Griesbach in 1789 who wrote that the order was Matthew, Luke, and then Mark.34 Like

Augustine, he argued each gospel was designed to replace the preceding one. Although not

widely accepted, this theory has enjoyed recent popularity.35 Griesbach’s proposal has been

called the Two-Gospel Hypothesis since he also contended that Mark used Matthew and Luke in

writing.36

Markan Priority

Gaining an entire set of theories and presuppositions all of its own, the issue of Mark’s

priority has become prominent. The order of the Gospels in the New Testament was not a

33
John C. Poirier, 2004. "Memory, written sources, and the synoptic problem: a response to Robert K
McIver and Marie Carroll." Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 2: 315-322. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 22, 2009), 318-319.
34
This is the same Griesbach who coined the term “synoptic” to describe Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s
simialarities.
35
Lea and Black, 120.
36
Carson and Moo, 93-94.
 13

product of inspiration but of organization and convention. Until recent scholarship, this order

was considered historically accurate. Mark, now, is considered the “original gospel”. This is

based on two assumptions presented as questions: (one) does it make more sense that Mark

added to Matthew and Luke and (two) is the material not present in Mark (which is considerable

since it so much shorter) better explained as deleted from Matthew and Luke or addition by those

writers later? This is further bolstered by the nagging issue of just one of the “omitted” sections:

Jesus’ birth. If Mark was aware of it, why would he have not included it in his story? This

Markan Priority is one of the foundational issues for the most widely accepted theory of

interdependence.37 Furthermore, this view also uses the assumption that Papias mentioned

Mark, the Memoirs of Peter, by name before he mentions Matthew, which could indicate Mark

was written first. This assumption gains some support since Matthew was quoted more often by

these early church fathers giving rise that Matthew may have been the more popular account;

therefore, (as the assumption goes) Papias would have mentioned Matthew first if it had been

written first since it was a very popular text.38

Two-Source Hypothesis

The most accepted theory (although certainly not without exception) is the thought that

there were two sources which form the core of Matthew and Luke. The two sources, in this

hypothesis, is Mark and a now-lost source called “Q”. The term “Q” comes from the German

quelle which means “source”. Mark accounts for the information common to all the Synoptics.

Where Matthew and Luke offer different narratives, this would be where this hypothetical “Q’

was used. If “Q” existed, it was a collection of the sayings of Jesus. There would have been

37
Goodacre, 57.
38
McDonald, 384-385.
 14

very little narrative material in “Q”. 39 This generally accepted theory is built on the foundation

of the aforementioned Marcan Priority and on a source that no one has found in any Greek text

nor has ever been referenced outside of these hypothetical circles.

Further elaboration on this theory was presented by B. H. Streeter in 1924. He theorized

that two sources were used in addition to Mark and “Q”. He called these “M” and “L”

representing the special material accessible and utilized exclusively in Matthew or Luke,

respectively. These “M” and “L” sources would explain the differences in the Synoptics but

modern scholarship is extremely skeptical and doubtful of the special “M” and “L” sources.40

There are scholars in the two-source camp who do hold to Marcan priority but reject “Q”

(and “M” and “L”) in favor of an approach more resembling dependence theories on the others

Gospels. These scholars present Matthew using Mark and Luke using Matthew in addition to the

other sources Luke himself refers to.41 They would differentiate themselves from those

accepting “Q” since they would hold there was not a single written source but perhaps oral

sources. Regardless, this two-source theory using Mark and “Q” is accepted by most scholars as

the best solution to the synoptic problem.42

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, the Bible is not merely a human book. It stands infinitely above all other

books ever written. It has supernatural qualities: its conception and content. This is why the

Lord declares “…my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will

accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”43 The notion that mere

39
Lea and Black, 121.
40
Carson and Moo, 94.
41
Paul Foster, 2003. "Is it possible to dispense with Q?." Novum testamentum 45, no. 4: 313-337. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 22, 2009), 315-317.
42
Goodacre, 20.
43
Isaiah 55:11, NIV.
 15

mortals could hope to explain away every difference with anything remotely approaching perfect

accuracy is foolish at best and arrogance at worst. However, at some point in the discussion, the

fact that this discussion is about the Word of God has seemingly escaped most of modern

scholarship. As Farnell stated:

Not only was the Bible reduced to a "handbook of morality" divorced from its
claims of inspiration, but an inverse development between orthodox concepts of
inspiration and literary-dependence hypotheses occurred. Specifically stated, as
orthodox views of inspiration of the Gospels diminished, literary dependence
hypotheses increased to a point of dominance in synoptic discussion.44

Of the theories presented, this author holds to theory of interdependence mostly

resembling those scholars in the camp of the two-source theory who reject “Q”. One of the

arguments of logic is that one cannot make an argument from silence. There is no proof that “Q”

exists or ever existed. Considering the sheer volume of pseudo-Gospels and documents the early

church had, if a collection of Jesus’ sayings would have been discovered and passed the same

tests of canonicity all four Gospel accounts passed, “Q” would not be theory. Instead of theory,

Christians would have a book with title of “Sayings of Jesus”. Admittedly, without a “Q” there

are no easy answers to some of the discrepancies in the Synoptic Gospels. Most of these

differences, however, can be attributed difference purposes in the Synoptic Gospel narratives

themselves.

It stands to reason Mark was written first due to its brevity; however, this brevity is also

attributed to Mark’s intent to present “just the facts” in his gospel narrative. If this were the case,

it was not that Mark was unaware of this information. Indeed, if Mark is the memoirs of the

Apostle Peter, then certainly he knew it. However, the similarities of Mark with Matthew and

Luke make it reasonable that Mark was a source of the other two Synoptic Gospels.

44
Farnell, F David. 2002. "How views of inspiration have impacted synoptic problem discussions."
Master's Seminary Journal 13, no. 1: 33-64. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July
22, 2009), 34-35.
 16

Ultimately, there is a point where all must confess “I don’t know” due to the plain and

simple case that this is the Bible. As Fee and Stuart wrote in their How to Read the Bible for All

It’s Worth, “God gave us what we know about Jesus’ earthly ministry in this way, not in another

way that might better suit someone’s mechanistic, tape-recorder mentality”.45 When issues

surrounding the synoptic problem arise, the honest Christian scholar must remind themselves and

others: this is God’s Word and humans are not simply privy to everything the mind of God has

conceived. The prophet Isaiah prompts modern Christians as He did Judah:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways
higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 46

The alternative to admitting this reality is a truly frighteningly slippery slope. Void of

inspiration, the Gospels are reduced to merely human letters in which anonymous people freely

altered history to make a text say something that might not have happened. Is this the hope

modern scholarship leaves to their posterity? For this author, the answer is a resounding “no”.

45
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth: A Guide to Understanding
the Bible. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993. , 114.
46
Isaiah 55:8-9.
 17

Bibliography

Carson, D.A. and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005.

Corley, Bruce, Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy, editors. Biblical Hermeneutics: A
Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. Nashville: Broadman and Holman,
1996.

Drane, John William. Introducing the New Testament. Completely rev. and updated. Oxford:
Lion Publishing plc, 2000.

Elwell, Walter A. and Robert W. Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and
Theological Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Farnell, F David. 2002. "How views of inspiration have impacted synoptic problem discussions."
Master's Seminary Journal 13, no. 1: 33-64. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed July 22, 2009).

Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth: A Guide to
Understanding the Bible. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Foster, Paul. 2003. "Is it possible to dispense with Q?." Novum testamentum 45, no. 4: 313-337.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 22, 2009).

González, Justo L.. The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Vol. 1 of The Story of
Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 1984.

Goodacre, Mark. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze London: T&T Clark, 2005.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 4th rev. ed. The master reference collection.
Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, et al. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory,
on the Old and New Testaments, On Spine: Critical and Explanatory Commentary. Oak
Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament Its Background and Message.
Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003.

McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd ed.
Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.

Poirier, John C. 2004. "Memory, written sources, and the synoptic problem: a response to Robert
K McIver and Marie Carroll." Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 2: 315-322. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 22, 2009).