The Synoptic Problem is a fascinating and complex issue that has intrigued biblical scholars for centuries. It revolves around the similarities and differences between the first three books of the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These three are referred to as the "Synoptic Gospels" because they can be viewed together ("synoptic" means "seen together") due to their similar content, order, and wording. The Synoptic Problem seeks to understand the literary relationship between these texts and how they came to be so alike while also exhibiting significant differences.
The heart of the Synoptic Problem lies in the observation that sometimes the Gospels agree verbatim, sometimes they differ slightly, and at other times they present unique material. For instance, the healing of the paralytic is recounted in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26), with striking similarities and some notable differences. This raises questions about the sources the Gospel writers used, the order in which the Gospels were written, and the reasons for their differences and agreements.
Proposed Solutions to the Synoptic Problem
Over the years, several theories have been proposed to explain the Synoptic Problem. Each theory attempts to account for the literary relationship between the Gospels, and while no single theory has been universally accepted, some have gained more traction than others.
1. The Two-Source Hypothesis
The most widely accepted solution among scholars today is the Two-Source Hypothesis. This theory posits that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were based on two main sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as "Q" (from the German word "Quelle," meaning "source"). According to this hypothesis, Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, which explains the material common to all three Synoptics.
The "Q" source is proposed to account for the material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, such as the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12; Luke 6:20-23). This hypothetical document is thought to have been a collection of Jesus' sayings and teachings. While no physical evidence of Q has been discovered, the theory suggests that it was an oral or written tradition circulating among early Christians.
2. The Farrer Hypothesis
The Farrer Hypothesis, also known as the Markan Priority without Q, challenges the necessity of the Q source. This theory posits that Mark was indeed the first Gospel written, and that Matthew used Mark as a source. However, it suggests that Luke subsequently used both Mark and Matthew as sources, thus negating the need for a separate Q document. This hypothesis accounts for the material common to Matthew and Luke by suggesting that Luke had direct access to Matthew's Gospel.
3. The Griesbach Hypothesis
The Griesbach Hypothesis, also known as the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, offers a different order of composition. It proposes that Matthew was the first Gospel written, followed by Luke, which used Matthew as a source. Mark, according to this theory, was the last to be written and used both Matthew and Luke as sources. This hypothesis attempts to explain why Mark sometimes appears to be a condensed version of Matthew and Luke.
4. The Augustinian Hypothesis
The Augustinian Hypothesis reflects a more traditional view, suggesting that the Gospels were written in the order they appear in the New Testament: Matthew first, then Mark, and finally Luke. This theory posits that Mark used Matthew as a source, and Luke used both Matthew and Mark. While this hypothesis aligns with the early church tradition, it does not account as effectively for the textual evidence as the other hypotheses mentioned.
Evaluating the Theories
Each of these proposed solutions has its strengths and weaknesses, and scholars continue to debate their merits. The Two-Source Hypothesis is favored for its ability to explain the triple tradition (material common to all three Gospels) and the double tradition (material common to Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark) without requiring a complex interdependence between Matthew and Luke. However, the lack of physical evidence for Q remains a significant challenge.
The Farrer Hypothesis is compelling in its simplicity, as it eliminates the need for a hypothetical document. It suggests a more straightforward literary relationship among the Synoptics. However, it must account for the possibility of Luke using Matthew in a way that sometimes seems indirect or selective.
The Griesbach Hypothesis, while intriguing, faces challenges in explaining the textual evidence that suggests Markan priority, such as Mark's more primitive language and the tendency for Matthew and Luke to smooth out Mark's rougher edges.
The Augustinian Hypothesis, while historically significant, is generally considered less plausible by modern scholars due to its inability to satisfactorily explain the textual phenomena observed in the Gospels.
Theological Implications
Beyond the academic intrigue, the Synoptic Problem has theological implications for understanding the nature of the Gospels and the inspiration of Scripture. For non-denominational Christians, it is essential to affirm that the Gospels, regardless of their literary relationships, are divinely inspired and authoritative. The Synoptic Problem invites believers to appreciate the diversity and unity within the Gospels, recognizing that each provides a unique perspective on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
The differences between the Synoptics can be seen as complementary rather than contradictory, offering a fuller picture of Jesus' teachings and actions. For instance, Matthew's Gospel emphasizes Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, presenting Him as the Jewish Messiah. Mark's Gospel, often considered the most straightforward and action-oriented, portrays Jesus as the suffering servant. Luke's Gospel highlights Jesus' compassion and concern for the marginalized, emphasizing His role as the Savior for all people.
Conclusion
The Synoptic Problem remains a captivating subject of study, reflecting the depth and richness of the biblical texts. While scholars may continue to debate the precise literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels, the enduring truth is that each Gospel contributes to the tapestry of the New Testament, revealing the life and message of Jesus Christ. For believers, the focus should remain on the transformative power of the Gospel message, which calls us to faith, repentance, and a life of discipleship. As we engage with the Synoptic Gospels, we are invited to encounter anew the living Word, who speaks to us through these ancient yet ever-relevant texts.
