The synoptic problem
The first three books of the New Testament which are Matthew, Mark and Luke are compared, and it is discovered that they look similar to one another in content and expression. As a result they a referred to as the synoptic gospels. The word “synoptic” basically means “to see together with a common view”. This raises the question of why they are similar to one another in these respects. This is known as the synoptic problem.

The many similarities between the synoptic gospels have led some to wonder if the gospel authors had a common source, another written account of Christ’s birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection from which they obtained the material for their gospels. Some argue that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar that they must have used each other’s gospels, or another common source. This supposed “source” has been given the title “Q” from the German word “quell” which means “source.”

Another problem is that there is no evidence for the “Q” document or even a portion or fragment which has been discovered. “Q” is just the invention of liberal scholars who deny the inspiration of the Bible and they believe it to be nothing more than a work of literature, subject to some criticism given to other works of literature. This in turn renders the source very much unreliable because there is also no evidence for a “Q” document biblically, theologically or historically.

If there is no “Q” document, then why are they similar? It is possible that whichever document was written first, most likely Mark, the other Gospels had access to it. Luke in Luke 1:4 say, “Many have undertaken the draw up account of the things that have been fulfilled among us just as they were handed down to us from those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the Lord. Therefore since I myself have carefully investigated everything it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus so that u may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”
In this the reason of their similarities is that they are inspired by the same Holy Spirit and all written by people who witnessed or who were told about some events. As seen in the Bible in 2 Timothy 2: 16 and 2 Peter 1:20 to 21.

It all starts from the time of Augustine at about 8430AD, when Christian scholars noted the differences and similarities on the Gospels. Some scholars have heard those that the passages are nearly not identical and are a result of Matthew, Mark and Luke all having used Matthew as their Aromatic source. And many scholars have distorted that because o e nature of the parallel passages, they came from Greek and not Aromatic source.

They have a common use of outline. The synoptic Gospels introduce us to the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism and the temptation of Jesus Christ. They all talk about the great Galileans ministry, journey and ministry through Samaria, Perea and Judea. They also introduce us to the Passion Week, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They record the same emphasis in the teachings of Jesus. The synoptic Gospels also record the presence, nature and implementation of the kingdom of God.

Matthew and Luke have a considerable common material which is not found in Mark; which saves for the healing of the Centurion’s slave and is composed exclusively of words and teachings of Jesus. The rich diversity within the synoptic unity, which provides portrayals of Jesus from a variety of viewpoints. Matthew emphasises Jesus’ Jewishness and continuity of his person and work with the Old Testament.

Mark`s fast moving account presents Jesus as a man of action, the son of God who was a servant among men. Luke is in inquisitive Greek literary style, seems to address cultured Gentiles and shows Jesus as a friend of disadvantaged groups. Attempts to account for both similarities and differences within the three Gospels constitute the synoptic problem.

Matthew is the author of the first Gospel and is an eye witness to the events that occurred during approximately the last half of Jesus` ministry. He was one of the twelve apostles who followed Jesus and was commissioned by him. His account is second to that only of Luke. He groups events in topical order and as a result his account often deviates from a strict chronological order. He is pre-eminently the reporter of Jesus` sermons and other discourses such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), the instruction given to the twelve apostles (Matthew 16), the sermon on the sea (Matthew 13) and the last preaching in the temple (Matthew 21).
Mark is not an eye witness of the events he describes in his writings and he even quotes Isaiah and is also a close associate of the apostle Peter one of the twelve. He narrates what he heard from the lips of Peter the apostle. His purpose was to report what Jesus did and not what he said and therefore teaches that Jesus is a man of action. He called it, “a brief of our Lord`s biography” because of lack of the exact term. He follows much of a chronological precise than that of Matthew. Mark is much more common with Luke, but Matthew resembles Luke less than it does Mark.

Luke specifically states that he was not an eyewitness (Luke 1:4), he was a close associate of the apostle Paul who gave him the information. He is longer and more complete than others. Luke is concerned mostly in the infancy and childhood of Jesus (chapters 1; 2) an with the period of his Perean ministry (chapters 9:51 to 18: 34) to which Luke devotes 31% of his space. His order is more nearly chronological than that of Matthew but not as much as that of Mark. It is full and complete than either of the two.

The Seventh Day Adventist Bible Commentary Volume 5, also show these different a way in which that there are some events that appear in Matthew and Luke only. This above information results in raised questions about the literal origin of the Synoptic Gospels .The insistence on the diversity among the gospels and the presence of many kerygmata have eroded the earlier view of a single kermatic intention common to all of the gospels.

Against the approach in the fact that the Gospel tradition throughout its entire life was under the control of an eyewitness who had seen and heard Jesus (1 Corinthians 15: 6). The Gospels assumed written from about a generation after Jesus` death when eyewitnesses were still in the church. Their controlling influence is altogether ignored by the form critics in the famous words of Vincent Taylor. If the form critics are right, the disciples must have been translated to heaven immediately after the resurrection.
The Augustinian hypothesis concerns the origins of the Gospels of the New Testament. It holds that Matthew was written first by Matthew the evangelist, followed by Marl the evangelist, who wrote Mark and used Matthew as a source. Luke then wrote the Gospel of Luke and was aware of the two Gospels that preceded him. Then the question is. Who wrote first and who copied from whom?

Attempts to account for both the similarities and differences within the three Gospels constitute to the synoptic problem. In that attempts were made by different scholars to try and solve the problem though some went to an extent of going out of their way, in criticising the Bible which is the Holy book which was a result of the authors being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Titan combined all the accounts into one additional harmony of the Gospel accounts and have been continually been produced in the early second century. Since the seventeenth century scholars have examined the stages through which the Gospels` material is assumed to have passed before coming to its present form.

Form criticism by Martin Dibelius (1919) came as an approach to a synoptic problem. It has since been elaborated by Rudolph Bultmann. It attempts to identify the influences from the period of oral transmission source or literally criticism. It considers the alleged written documents from which the evangelist drew information. Reduction or editorial criticism seeks to determine the nature of purpose and personalities between the synoptic accounts of Jesus, teachings and parallel accounts of those of the Jewish Rabbis on the Talmud.

It believes that the stories before the crucifixion of Jesus were held orally and that the church only preserved the best and what they thought would be useful in worship. In this they preserved various types of literature such as parables, miracles, narratives and a passion story. These are believed to have circulated and have attained fixed literary forms. In this he believed that when the evangelists wrote, they gathered various fragments or previously written collections.

The theory of Torrey which is also known as the theory of Aromatic Originals is similar to the theory of one aromatic Gospel. It was discovered by Charles C. Torrey in 1912 an was published in elaborate form in 1933. He holds that all Gospels were originally written in aromatic form. He also argues that there are many miss-translations in Greek Gospels that can be solved only by putting them to Aromatic from which language he believed they are originally translated. Moreover his hypothesis has not been believed and accepted by many scholars.

Those who believe in this view have difficulties in agreeing what the exact miss-translations are and it seems most likely these miss-translations would have been tolerated by the early church during the time when both the Greek and the Aromatic were used. Another difficulty is the fact that there is scarcely any Palestinian Aromatic from the first century to serve as a model of language in which Torrey states the Gospels have been originally written.

There is also the four document theory which was invented by B.H. Streeter (1924). He proposed for the amplification of the two document theory that seeks to account for materials in Matthew and Luke than those thought to be in Mark and Luke. He identified four sources he believes came from centres of early Christians. Which are Mark from Rome, Luke from Antioch, Luke “L” from Caesarea and Matthew “M” from Jerusalem.

However scholars have not accepted the whole of Streeters` hypothesis but there is a wide agreement that form bodies of materials may be designated in the synoptic Gospels although their places of origin may not be accepted.

The two documentary theories is a basic view to all most all the thinking of the synoptic Gospel of the present time. It states that there are two basic documents upon which the synoptic writers drew for their information. That is the Gospel of Mark which held the earliest Canonical Gospels. Then the second is made up of material found in Mark which are both common in Matthew and Luke. This was previously preferred to as the “logia Coracles”.

In conclusion, one may state that the authors of the Gospels were moved by the Holy Spirit, who also gave them knowledge of events by direct revelation. In this the Gospels are unique as compared to other books and therefore they should not be treated or approached like any other books. Another thing is that they were not detected to by the Holy Spirit but, it moved men to write their level of liability using their own languages and personalities.

SOLUSI UNIVERSITY Faculty of theology and religious studies Department of Theology

What is the synoptic problem? Discuss (briefly) their history and attempted solutions and suggestions to this problem. A mid semester exam presented in partial fulfilment of the course Studies in the Gospels RELB 180

ID# 2011050067 Name: Usher Mgwili

Lecturer P. C. Thebe

May-August

Bibliography * The Seventh Day Adventist Bible Commentary. Volume 5 by Millan L. Andersen, William H. Hyde (Review and Herald Publishing Association) Hagerstown MD 21740 * Theology of the New Testament. By George Eldom Ladd (William B. Erdmann’s Publishing company) * Barker Encyclopaedia of the Bible. Volume 2 J-Z. By Walter A. Elwell (Barker Book House Grand Rapids) Michigan 49516 * Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown (1997) * The Holy Bible New International Version * A Study of origins by B.H Steeter