LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. CAROL A. THOMAS
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE COURST NBST 525

LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY

LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA
, 2013

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1
EXPLORATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS........................................................................1
ORAL THEORY.............................................................................................................................2
THE TWO-SOURCE HYPOTHESIS.............................................................................................3
THE GREISBACH HYPOSTHESIS..............................................................................................4
THE FARRER-GOULDER HYPOTHESIS...................................................................................5
THE AUGUSTINE HYPOSTHESIS..............................................................................................6
DEFENSE OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM................................................................................6
CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................7
BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION
At first, one reads the words “Synoptic Problem” and assumes the worst. The expression problem summons the question, “is there a hindrance within the Gospel accounts?” However, the “Synoptic Problem” is more of a variation of elucidations to its literary interrelationship among the Gospels. This quandary cultivated through the exertions of J. J. Griesbach. Griesbach coined the expression Synoptic to signify the three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The word Synoptic according to Merriam-Webster suggests, “Affording a general view of a whole, presenting or taking the same or common view.” Therefore, the “Synoptic Problem” is an investigation of the universal assessment of the first three Gospels. It is an instrument to discover the resemblances and differentiations within the first three Gospels. These similarities involve, “the language, arrangement, and details within the Gospels.” The Synoptic Gospels, unlike the Gospel of John communicate a great number of equivalent accounts, and parables. Therefore, the “Synoptic Problem” proposes the endeavors of assorted explanations to the literary resemblances among these Gospels. These endeavors encompass the oral tradition theory, two-source hypothesis, the Griesbach hypothesis, the Farrer hypothesis, and the Augustinian hypothesis. Each hypothesis or theory is an attempt to disband the questions or issues within the “Synoptic Problem.” Throughout this assignment, the effort will emphasize the historicity of the exploration into the association among the Synoptic Gospels, explain the overall resemblances and divergences between the Gospels circumscribe each recommended elucidation to the Synoptic Problem, and finally accomplish a solution and defense to the Synoptic Problem.
THE EXPLORATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
The historicity of the Synoptic Problem began through the efforts of non-evangelical scholars concern about the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. Through these exertions, multiple opinions emerged. Consequently, evangelical scholars began to restudy the origins of the Synoptic Gospels. These individuals began to research the multiple questions. These scholars investigated where the authors of the Synoptic Gospels obtained their evidence, and whether they consulted one another or did they compose each Gospel autonomously. Lastly, these scholars recognized Matthew as an eyewitness to his interpretations; equally, they catechized how Mark and Luke obtained their testimony about Jesus. The evangelical scholars stimulated these several quandaries within their bids about the Synoptic Problem.
THE ORAL THEORY
First, Scholars strive to resolve the Synoptic Problem with the declaration known as the oral theory. The oral theory claims the early Christian population pursued a spoken ritual, which obviously enabled the Gospel authors to generate likenesses within the Gospel manuscript. The authors of Rethinking the Synoptic Problem contend, “The amazing similarities between the Synoptic Gospels appear to stand as a strong testimony to the tenacity of these traditions.” According to David Aune, “The phrase ‘oral tradition’ refers to fixed, standard forms which are orally or verbally communicated to members of a particular group.” Oral tradition is a variety of memorized homily, and the orator is accountable for conserving an untouched narration of the pre-literary environment. Among the pre-literary culture, there is no certified degree for sustaining the spoken text rationality apart from additional individuals who have remembered the same masterpiece. One must understand within an oral tradition culture-reasoning inclines to be situational rather than definite tangible rather than hypothetical. This concept is difficult for an individual within the literary society to comprehend. Therefore, when one ruminates about the manuscripts of ancient Gospel authors he or she needs to understand the existence of pre-literary oral form. The complete understanding of the Oral theory offers a tremendous defense for the similarities among the three Gospels. Therefore, one must conclude each individual author of the three Gospels understood the importance of maintaining the authenticity of oral tradition.
THE TWO-SOURCE HYPOTHESIS
Second, scholars expounded the proposition known as the two-source hypothesis, also recognized as the Oxford hypothesis. Scholars deem the two-source hypothesis the most prominent apology representing the synoptic problem. Its preeminence among academics assisted alternate arenas of enquiries, comprising textual criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and early church history. The Two-Source hypothesis testifies Mark was the original Gospel. In addition, together Matthew and Luke self-sufficiently intensified Mark. This process is supported by a lost; sayings collection called Q. Q represents the largest controversy among the two-source hypothesis. According to Craig Blomberg, Q is the representation of the German word Quelle that means source. Consequently, scholars within the Two-Source hypothesis claim Matthew and Mark employed both Q and Mark as their source for the material within their manuscripts. However, there is sufficient proof to suggest these Gospels contain both similarities and differences. First, one must understand that the two-document hypothesis demands that Mark was the original Gospel. Therefore, these scholars believe that both Matthew and Luke scribed their manuscripts separately, but relied greatly on both Mark and Q for their substance. Nevertheless, the similarities among these Gospels are not as simple as one might believer. First, similarities within the Gospels do not continuously concur. One Gospel may enhance the content of the Gospel account, while the other Gospels neglected to correspond the literal details. If the Gospels were duplicates the writers would not have excluded information, instead occurrences that imitate both the similarities and divergences generate a legitimate dispute for the synoptic problem.
THE GRIESBACH HYPOTHESIS Third, one must consider the Griesbach hypothesis or the Two-Gospel hypothesis. This theory presents the major challenge against the Two-Source hypothesis for more than forty years. According to the late eighteenth century German scholar, Johann Jakob Griesbach, the Gospel of Mark attains the position of the closing scripted synoptic. Griesbach implores that Matthew is the original Gospel. Later, he imagines Luke exploited Matthew to evolve his Gospel. Finally the German scholar petitions, Mark is a permutation of both Matthew and Luke. William R. Farmer states, “The Griesbach hypothesis, with a Mark who abridges rather than a Matthew and Luke who embellish, is more amenable to conservative theology.” Unfortunately, according to Craig Blomberg, “The major weaknesses in the Griesbach theory to date are that its proponents have not demonstrated how Markan style and theology emerge more consistently and coherently on their hypothesis than on the alternatives.” Evidently, Griesbach is unable to demonstrate the proof for his position.
THE FARRER-GOULDER HYPOTHESIS Fourth, is a hypothesis, which Austin Farrer created around 1955 at what time he contended that Luke certainly manipulates both Matthew and Mark Gospels. Further, he concludes that the source known as Q is pointless. According to Farrer Luke used both Mark and Matthew as his resources. Similar to the Two-Source hypothesis Frareer holds to the Markan priority. However, John Poirier claims, “The Farrer hypothesis, especially as defended by Michael Goulder, has often been faulted for its supposed reliance on an anachronistic and technically impracticable understanding of Luke’s compositional practices.” In addition, Michael Goulder’s representation of Luke reversing to utilize Matthew continues to be the most unlikely constituent in his proposal on Luke’s utilization of Matthew. Unfortunately, Farrer and his scholar Goulder were unsuccessful signifying an adequate philosophy to resolve the Synoptic Problem. These exertions were radical, and the scholars were reaching to generate any significant supposition. It occurs these individuals overlook the similarities and differences among the Gospels and determine their hypothesis without completely understanding how they determined the significance of the Markan priority. However, Farrer’s hypothesis is a leading contender among scholars within Great Britain.
THE AUGUSTINIAN HYPOTHESIS Lastly, the Augustinian View contends the canonical Gospels positions within the canon are in the order they were composed. Simply understood, the Augustine hypothesis maintains, Matthew first, Mark second, and then Luke. This hypothesis claims each Gospel is successively dependent of the other. Augustine began this hypothesis around the fourth century, and therefore known as the Traditional Hypothesis. Obviously one is capable of concluding scholars claim this to be the traditional theory because it is the efforts of an early church father. Some consider this significant because the early church contains the ability to determine the role of the Gospels within the synoptic problem because of their relation to the source. The early church obviously developed these theories within a few generations of the scribing of the original manuscripts.
THE DEFENSE OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM It is obvious after studying the several suggested Synoptic Problem hypotheses among scholars; the most efficient is the Two-Source Hypothesis. Primarily because it asserts that Markan Priority is proficient in clarifying the special relationship with Matthew and Luke. In addition, Mark shares more similarities with Matthew and Luke, than Matthew and Luke share with one another. However, it is understandable how one is capable of considering Matthew as the first Gospel. First, an individual who obviously represented an eyewitness account authors the Gospel of Matthew. Second, one must consider the fact that Matthew was scribed in the historic language of the Jewish people, Hebrew. These facts offer a valid response for why there is a need to dismantle the synoptic problem. Another strong position within the Two-Source Hypothesis is the attempt made by the Gospel writers to enhance separately their own Markan data with dictums of Jesus from the misplaced compilations designated Q. The Two-Source hypothesis offers an explanation of the Synoptic Problem while utilizing multiple outside sources.
CONCLUSION
The Synoptic Problem continues to be problematic throughout many generations. It is a difficultly the early church discovered within the fourth century. The traditional synoptic problem or Augustine Hypothesis was an effort made by Augustine to prioritize the Gospels. Strangely, Augustine's efforts were incorrect. Augustine asserts that Matthew is the first Gospel, Mark the second, and Luke is the third. Obviously, one can understand the intentions of Augustine. In addition, one can also understand why he could make these conclusions. Often other scholars have asked why Matthew is not the first Gospel. Matthew does contain the content offered by an eyewitness and the manuscripts are scribed in Hebrew. Augustine’s efforts are not completely in vain, however it is obvious he is incorrect due to the efforts of multiple scholars. Eventually, the church has seen multiple attempts to resolve the Synoptic Problem. There have been attempts by individual like Farrer and Goulder to develop a solid hypothesis and create an understanding of how both Mark and Matthew were utilized to create Luke. However none have been completely successful, but one has been the most prominent of the entire hypothesis. According to most scholars, the most effective of all the approaches is the Two-Source hypothesis. One can assert this hypothesis has been most effective due to its efforts to highlight the Markan priority. Aside from these efforts, the Two-Source hypothesis gives credit to the efforts of the author of both Matthew and Luke and their individuality. The reality is the Synoptic Problem is a non-issue. The Scriptures clearly state, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” John MacArthur adds, “Sometimes God told the Bible writers the exact words to say but more often he used their mind, vocabularies, and experiences to produce his own perfect infallible, inerrant word.” God inspired the Gospel writers, therefore the Gospels are a source for an individual to teach, reproof, correct, and train individuals in righteousness. The Synoptic Problem is not a problem but an assertion of the existence of God to represent biblical facts with similarities and dissimilarities. The Gospel record illustrates the historicity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the similarities among the Gospels relay the authenticity of the manuscripts.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
David Alan Black, and Beck, eds. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001.
“Synoptic”. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synoptic?show=0&t=1373799050 (accessed July 14, 2013).
Aune, David E. “Prolegomena to the Study of Oral Tradition in the Hellenistic World.” Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (1991).
Farmer, William R. The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Publishers, 1994.
Farrer, A.M., and D.E. Nineham, eds. Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Blackwell, United Kingdom: Oxford, 1957.
Goodacre, Mark. The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze. http://www.markgoodacre.org/maze/ (accessed July 14, 2013).
Kostenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown. Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Publishing Group, 2009.
MacArthur, John. MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005.
Newman, Robert C. The Synoptic Problem: A Proposal for Handling both Internal & External Evidence. http://www.newmanlib.ibri.org/RRs/RR002/02synop.htm (accessed July 14, 2013).
———. The Synoptic Problem: A Proposal for Handling both Internal & External Evidence. http://www.newmanlib.ibri.org/RRs/RR002/02synop.htm (accessed July 14, 2013).
Poirier, John C. The Roll, the Codex, the Wax Tablet and the Synoptic Problem. jnt.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/content/35/1/3 (accessed July 14, 2013).
Priorier, John. “The Synoptic Problem and the Field of New Testament Introduction.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (2009).
Smith, Mahlon H. A Synoptic Gospels Primer: Parallel Texts in Matthew, Mark, & Luke. virtualreligion.net/primer/ (accessed July 14, 2013).
———. A Synoptic Gospels Primer: Parallel Texts in Matthew, Mark, & Luke. virtualreligion.net/primer/ (accessed July 14, 2013).
Thomas, Robert L., ed. Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Academic, 2002.
Wansboroug, Henry, ed. Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. New York, London: T & T Clark International, 2004.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. . David Alan Black, and Beck, eds., Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001), 11.
[ 2 ]. . Synoptic, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synoptic?show=0&t=1373799050 (accessed July 14, 2013).
[ 3 ]. . David Alan Black, and Beck, Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, 11.
[ 4 ]. . Robert L. Thomas, ed., Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Academic, 2002), 8.
[ 5 ]. . David Alan Black, and Beck, Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, 12.
[ 6 ]. . Ibid.
[ 7 ]. . David E. Aune, “Prolegomena to the Study of Oral Tradition in the Hellenistic World,” Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (1991): 63.
[ 8 ]. . Ibid., 65.
[ 9 ]. . Henry Wansboroug, ed., Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (New York, London: T & T Clark International, 2004), 21.
[ 10 ]. . Aune, “Prolegomena to the Study of Oral Tradition in the Hellenistic World, 61.
[ 11 ]. . David Alan Black, and Beck, Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, 12.
[ 12 ]. . Mahlon H. Smith, A Synoptic Gospels Primer: Parallel Texts in Matthew, Mark, & Luke, virtualreligion.net/primer/ (accessed July 14, 2013).
[ 13 ]. . David Alan Black, and Beck, Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, 17.
[ 14 ]. . Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Publishing Group, 2009), 170.
[ 15 ]. . William R. Farmer, The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Publishers, 1994).
[ 16 ]. . David Alan Black, and Beck, Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, 31.
[ 17 ]. . John Priorier, “The Synoptic Problem and the Field of New Testament Introduction,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (2009): 184.
[ 18 ]. . David Alan Black, and Beck, Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, 32.
[ 19 ]. . A.M. Farrer and D.E. Nineham, eds., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Blackwell, United Kingdom: Oxford, 1957), 55-88.
[ 20 ]. . John C. Poirier, The Roll, the Codex, the Wax Tablet and the Synoptic Problem, jnt.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/content/35/1/3 (accessed July 14, 2013).
[ 21 ]. . Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, http://www.markgoodacre.org/maze/ (accessed July 14, 2013).
[ 22 ]. . Kostenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 173.
[ 23 ]. . Ibid., 165.
[ 24 ]. . Robert C. Newman, The Synoptic Problem: A Proposal for Handling both Internal & External Evidence, http://www.newmanlib.ibri.org/RRs/RR002/02synop.htm (accessed July 14, 2013).
[ 25 ]. . Kostenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 168.
[ 26 ]. . Mahlon H. Smith, A Synoptic Gospels Primer: Parallel Texts in Matthew, Mark, & Luke, virtualreligion.net/primer/ (accessed July 14, 2013).
[ 27 ]. . Newman, The Synoptic Problem: A Proposal for Handling Both Internal & External Evidence.
[ 28 ]. . Farrer and Nineham, Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, 55-88.
[ 29 ]. . David Alan Black, and Beck, Rethinking the Synoptic Problem.
[ 30 ]. . John MacArthur, MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005).