What most critics appear to agree on when examining these principles is the fact that there must be some sort of literary interdependence among the Synoptic Gospels.
The verbal agreement among the Gospels is one very strong indicator of such interdependence. Wallace regards both the independence theory and the Spirit Inspired hypothesis, generally held by laypeople, as naive from a scholarly viewpoint. Had the three Gospels simply been eye witness accounts of the same event, for example, there could not have been such very specific and frequent verbal agreements among them. Furthermore, the sequence and interpretation of events would likely have differed far more significantly.
The inspiration of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is regarded as naive for its lack of critical focus; providing a reasons for the similarities among the texts, but not for the differences. For Wallace, the most persuasive argument for literary interdependence is offered by the identical nature of parenthetical material such as "let the reader understand" in Matthew 24: 15 and Mark 13:14. The identical nature of these and other verbal utterances suggests that the authors must have seen each other's work at some point. The question remains what the precise relationship is among these Gospels.
It is perhaps easiest to briefly review the hypotheses that have been disproved or at least proved unlikely in the light of research done and the knowledge accumulated now. First, eye-witness accouns seem highly unlikely, since there could not have been such verbal agreement without some sense of text as well. Being inspired by the Spirit is also fallacious, since, it suggests that the texts should have only similarities, being flawlessly inspired, with no or very little difference.
The most convincing arguments, for me, have been the priority of Mark in terms of chronology, as well as the interpretation that there must have been some original text the authors used for their work. These would explain both the similarities and differences in the texts, as seen above.
According to Sanchez,
a significant point against the idea of the "Q" gospel or "Ur-Gospel" is the fact that no such text has been discovered. While the proponents of this idea hold that it is indeed no longer in existence, it does appear quite possible that there might have been such a common text from which to work. In this light, it could be more likely that the authors worked from surviving fragments, which would explain not only the similarities, but also the differences as the authors worked to fill the gaps in their knowledge.
In my view, the final theory seems to be most likely. It is more unlikely for fragments of information to vanish in the mists of time than for an entire and important script to do so, especially if this contains the direct words and actions of Christ. Also, the unlikely nature of
These hypotheses are the ones that make the most compelling arguments from a critical point-of-view.
In conclusion, it appears most likely that the Synoptic Gospel writers did so with the benefit of at least parts of surviving text. This seems to be the most likely explanation for the similarities in the texts. On the other hand, the differences appear to be explained by the same thing. Being human, each Gospel writer would have embellished or added some information to fill the story and provide logical pathways among the episodes.
References
Bratcher, Dennis. 2011. The Gospels and the Synoptic Problem: The Literary Relationship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Voice. Web: http://www.crivoice.org/synoptic.html
Carlson, Stephen C. 2004. Synoptic Problem. Dec. 22. Web: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/faq.htm
Farnell, F. David. 2002. How Views of Inspiration have Impacted Synoptic Problem Discussions. The Master's Seminary Journal, Spring. Web: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj13b.pdf
Just, Felix. 2007. The Synoptic Problem. June 12. Web: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm
McGough, Richard Amiel. 2009. Solution of the Synoptic Problem. Web: http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/SynopticSolution.asp
Sanchez, Chris. 2010. Solutions to the Synoptic Problem. Web: http://www.chris-sanchez.com/2010/02/synoptic-problem-part-4-solutions-to.html
Wallace, Daniel B. 2011. The Synopitc problem. Web: http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem
Just, Felix. 2007. The Synoptic Problem. June 12. Web: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm
Carlson, Stephen C. 2004. Synoptic Problem. Dec. 22. Web: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/faq.htm
Irenaeus published his views at around 185 AD (Carlson).
Some years later, in 1783, Griesbach proposed a chronology among the Gospel writers, placing Matthew first, followed by Luke and finally Mark.
Ewals proposed this theory in 1848 (Carlson).
Carlson, Stephen C. 2004. Synoptic Problem. Dec. 22. Web: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/faq.htm
Just, Felix. 2007. The Synoptic Problem. June 12. Web: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm
Farnell, F. David. 2002. How Views of Inspiration have Impacted Synoptic Problem Discussions. The Master's Seminary Journal, Spring. Web: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj13b.pdf
Farnell, p. 36.
Carlson, Stephen C. 2004. Synoptic Problem. Dec. 22. Web: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/faq.htm
The first being held most widely in the United States and the second in Britain.
McGough, Richard Amiel. 2009. Solution of the Synoptic Problem. Web: http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/SynopticSolution.asp
Wallace, Daniel B. 2011. The Synoptic Problem. Web: http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem
Sanchez, Chris. 2010. Solutions to the Synoptic Problem. Web: http://www.chris-sanchez.com/2010/02/synoptic-problem-part-4-solutions-to.html
Introduction While the Gospel of John bears some similarities to the Synoptic Gospels, as Barrett (1974) points out, it also sets itself apart in several unique ways by focusing on the mystical nature of Christ and the importance of the Church. Even the Synoptic Gospels offer differing details of the life and teachings of Christ, and in many instances, John agrees or is more in line with Mark, while Mark differs
Scholars have repeatedly stated that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are linked together by various similarities. As such, the three writings have been united under the entitlement Synoptic Gospels. The majority of literary investigations rely on equivalences in content, style, and order of events being similar and frequent in the Synoptic Gospels to such extend that they appear vastly separated from John's. Cursive analyses of the gospels have
Synoptic Problem: The Gospel mainly consists of the first four New Testament books in the bible but it's only the first three that are considered to have synoptic problem i.e. Matthew, Mark and Luke. These books literally relate the story of Jesus in similar ways including the order of material, the stories told, sayings of Jesus, and using the same words in similar accounts resulting in the fact that they
synoptic problem" and explain how the 2-source theory provides a solution for it. The synoptic problem refers to the differences and similarities that exist between the synoptic gospels, those being the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. While there are marked similarities between the three books, there are also very significant differences. The differences with John, the one gospel book that is not synoptic, are even starker. Thus, this is
Much literary criticism assumes that the gospels are not necessarily historical or else it plays down theological or religious context. However, these assumptions are not inherent in the method; a well-crafted piece of historical writing also promotes certain ideological concerns in an artistic and aesthetically pleasing (Bloomberg)." Now that we have garnered a greater understanding of the climate of Israel at the time of Jesus Christ and the criticisms that
There are seven letters by Paul and it is accepted that they were written by Paul, but no one knows clearly who wrote the rest. A critical enquiry into all this started only in the 18th century as there was no critical study of the matter. The accepted authorship of Paul is regarding the Epistles to Romans, First to Corinthians, Second to Corinthians, to Philippians, to Galatians, to Thessalonians
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now