The Synoptic Problem is the term used by New Testament scholars to describe the “study of the similarities and differences between” the three Synoptic Gospels “in an attempt to explain their literary relationships” (Goodacre 16). Of the four gospels contained in the New Testament, three, namely Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the Synoptics. This is because there appears to be a literary relationship between these three that is not shared by the fourth gospel, that of John. Johns differs from the Synoptics in style, form as in the chronology of Jesus’ life. The terms “Synoptic Problem” and “Synoptic Gospels” are comparatively recent. Until the eighteenth century, scholars focused on harmonizing the content of the gospels and even in the nineteenth century bookshops were full of books minimizing any differences between the gospels, according to Goodacre (14). Then a German scholar called Johan Jakob Griesbach wrote a book in which he compared Matthew, Mark and Luke by placing similar passages alongside each other comparing and contrasting accounts, which he called a “Synopsis”. A synopsis is a type of summary in which material is “viewed together” by placing parallel passages in colums. (Goodacre, 15) .
Griesbach showed that Matthew, Mark and Luke share a common framework and a great deal of content. They thus “appear to have a close literary relationship” (Harris 112). Why do scholars study the Synoptic problem? Most do so to gain a better understanding of how the gospels were shaped and to identify what can be considered original to Jesus and what may reflect the theology or faith of the early Church (Goodacre. 14) Goodacre describe the problem as a “puzzle” and compares it with working through a maze.
The Synoptic Problem involves working out how this relationship works, which Gospel writer wrote first and how the later writers used the earlier gospel and other sources. The Early Church tended to regard Matthew as the earliest gospel and assumed that Mark and Luke had access to this when they wrote their gospels. Incidentally, no one knows exactly who wrote the gospels and many scholars posit more than one writer or editors but by convention the Gospels are referred to by the names of their traditional authors. Harris thinks it disappointing that scholars have not been able to positively identify the gospel writers (Harris, 118). Earlier, scholars thought that Mark, the shortest of the three, was a summary of the longer gospels. However, if Mark had summarized the other two Synoptic gospels, he would almost certainly have summarized their entire content whereas in fact substantial material is lacking.
This includes such well know passages as the Lord Prayer and the Beattitudes and “some of Jesus’ best-known sayings” yet in Matthew and Luke this material is reproduced almost word for word (Harris 112). Mark does not contain the narratives about Jesus’ birth and childhood or his post-resurrection appearances, either. Harris also points out that if either Matthew or Luke deviates from Mark’s material, they never do so “in the same place” which suggests that Mark’s gospel forms the “basis for the other two” (112). In fact, Matthew reproduces almost 90 percent of Mark (Harris 118). There are passages where Mark gives greater detail, such as when he report Jesus’ “raising of Jairus’s daughter.” Here, Mark’s version is nearly doubly Matthew’s in length thus Harris suggests that here it was Matthew who summarized Mark, not vice versa (Harris 113). Mark merely alludes to Jesus’ temptation, which Matthew describes in detail. Almost all scholars now accept the priority of Mark, although both Harris and Goodacre refer to scholars who subscribe to the “Griesbach theory” who reject Mark’s priority (Harris 119; Goodacre 63).
Most New Testament scholars believe that the gospels contain several different types of material and all draw on earlier oral tradition, what people remembered about Jesus. Tradition has it that Mark was associated with Peter, who shared his memories with him (Cranfield 4). Different types of material included Jesus’ parables, stories of healings, Jesus’ preaching and teaching. Scholars believe that what they call the kerygma, or proclamation about Jesus, was the first genre to emerge. This was a summary of Jesus’ life and significance used in preaching and outreach (Harris 113). Units of material is known as a pericopes which form building blocks for the writing of the longer, more connected accounts of Jesus’ life. An example of this can be seen at Acts 2: 14-36, Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost. Later, this basic narrative was fleshed out with greater detail and more content. Mark may represent the first major fleshing out of the kerygma, perhaps as an aid to preaching or even as a precaution against losing Jesus’ words as the generation of those who had actually heard him died or were martyred. Many scholars believe that a document may have existed that simply preserved many of Jesus’ sayings without any accompanying biographical narrative and that both Matthew and Luke had access to this as well as to Mark when they wrote.
Known as the “two-document theory” this is taken to account for the additional sayings and teachings found in the two later gospels, which tend to follow Mark’s chronology. Mark’s gospel may have started as an oral composition and may still have been recited from memory even after it became a written text (Harris 116). The document which Matthew and Mark are said to have used is known by scholars a “Q” (from the German, Quelle, or source) and the Gospel of Thomas, part of the Nag Hammadi collection discovered in Egypt in 1945, may resemble this since it also contains no biographical material. A document listing Jesus’ signs may lie behind John’s gospels (Harris 116). Although the existence of Q is hypothetical and not universally accepted, several attempts have been made to replicate its content of about 200 verses. Supporters of the Griesbach Theory reject the existence of Q but the “majority of scholars” think that Q is the best explanation of “both similarities and differences in the Synoptic Gospels” (Harris, 119).
As well as Q, Matthew and Luke have material peculiar to their respective gospels, known as “Special Matthew” and “Special Luke” such as Matthews’s constant reference to Hebrew Bible material and Luke’s more detailed infancy narratives. Special L takes up approximately a third of Luke (Harris 119). Mark, here and there, actually shows signs of eye-witness recall, such as his reference to a cushion in stern of the boat at Mk 4: 38 and to Jesus taking children in the crook of his arm at Mk 9: 36. Mark is credited with inventing the gospel genre but Luke appears to want to locate his narrative historically, with his references to world events. He is, of course, also credited with writing Acts, which is also self-consciously historical in style. Matthew and Luke may have added explanations to the originally shorter and unexplained parables and pithy sayings of Jesus, which some scholars think reflects the Early Church’s need to interpret what Jesus said, perhaps in the context of Christian instruction. Referred to as the “life situation” or as the sitz-im-leben (Harris 116) sometimes making a hard saying softer, such as editing Jesus’ commendation of the poor to refer to spiritually poverty (Matt 5: 8), least offence be given to rich supporters of the Church.
Mark categorically condemns divorce (Mk 10: 2-12), Matthew glosses this with allowing this after adultery (Matt 5: 32). Mark merely tells the Parable of the Sower (Mk 4: 4-8), Matthew adds an explanation (Matt 13: 12-23). Matthew’s reference to Hebrew prophecy indicates a desire to convince Jews that Jesus is their expected Messiah, that they should accept Jesus as their Savior. Jesus, for Matthew, is the second or greater Moses (Harris, 118). Luke’s special concern to locate the Jesus narrative in the wider historical context appears aimed at convincing non-Jews that Jesus’ message has universal significance. For example, in Luke’s version of the parable of the lost sheep, the sheep represents those who are yet to respond to the gospel (Lk 15: 4-7) while for Matthew the lost sheep was a someone who had strayed from the faith and needed to be coaxed back (Matt 18: 12-14). Luke has a lot of material on Jesus’ interest in the poor, in women, in outcaste and in the poor. Harris comments that for Luke, the Church represented a multi-racial, international community thus he was concerned with communicating the meaning of Jesus’ more ethno-centric or rurally flavored teachings to this wider constituency, which was more urban. Sayings addressed to peasants had to be made intelligible to a different audience (Harris 113). Luke regarded the Church as the “successor” to and “extension of” Jesus, which suggests that when explanation or commentary was added to an originally shorter or blunter saying this was understood to be supervised by the Holy Spirit, whose coming Luke described in Acts (Harris, 119). There is general agreement that the pithier a saying and sayings found in more than one gospel are most likely to be original to Jesus and that glosses and explanatory comments are likely to be later editorial glosses.
Harris points out that neither Q nor Thomas have any interest in the theological significance of Jesus’ death, in contrast to Mark, which focuses on the passion (death of Jesus). Their Jesus was a “wisdom teacher” who possessed spiritual insight (Harris 116). Much of the above represents a broad consensus on solving the Synoptic problem and aims to shed light on how the gospels were composed and on how the interrelate.
Bibliography
Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge Greek testament commentary. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Goodacre, Mark S. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. The biblical seminar, 80. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Harris, Stephen L. The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction. NY: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
