Introduction
The synoptic problem has been a topic of debate for centuries, with numerous theories presented to explain the chronology and sources of the Gospels. Understanding the order of the gospels will aid us in understanding Jesus’ path. The more profound understanding of the Jesus of the Scriptures will safeguard us from misguidance. If left to ourselves, we can create a Jesus after our image, a disastrous move.
Several methods for critiquing and analyzing the Gospels need to be chosen; in this case, literary and source criticism are selected. It is essential to make a thorough analysis, as the likelihood of arriving at a sound conclusion depends on it, not forgetting the wisdom to be acquired in the process.
Summary
The Gospel texts of Matthew, Luke, and Mark share a substantial parallelism, resulting in their considerable similarity—the close similarities in arrangement and grammar use exhibit this. However, distinct differences emerge in each of the gospels, raising the question of the completeness of each text. The stark similarities and seemingly subsequent refinement may suggest that one of the gospels was used as a source for the other. This analogy needs to be completed, as it needs to address the sources of information for the events described in one or two books that are not present in the other.
From a broad perspective, the synoptic gospels have similarities with the Gospel of John. These are similar to all books completed before 100 AD and written in Greek. The chronological order of events, such as Jesus teachings, ministry, miracles, and resurrection, is similar in the texts. The credibility of the New Testament is generally good, and it is encouraged to read it in the context of the ancient doctrine of Scripture inspiration.
Although there is substantial parallelism, there are instances of unclear explanation of some events; for example, Luke reports the fig tree parable in a different point and context than Matthew and Mark. Discrepancies between parallel stories, coupled with modifications of source material, are a further reason to proceed with diligence. A clear illustration is the leper’s healing, as presented in Mark 1:39-42, Luke 5:11-13, and Matthew 8:2-4. Such occurrences strengthen the necessity of historical criticism.
However, many texts are not present in Mark, the shortest of the Gospels, but are present in Luke and Matthew. This suggests the occurrence of double tradition, suggesting the use of an unnamed source by the two writers. This hypothetical document, commonly referred to as Q, is widely accepted as a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon.
Despite the many similarities between the synoptic gospels, there are distinct events described in Matthew and Luke that cannot be found in any other gospels. This gives rise to the Marcan theory, in which Hermann Weiss proposes that Mark is the primary source. He supports his argument with the following points. There is a standard plan in Matthew and Luke, which is also partially present in Mark. In the standard parts, the agreement of Luke and Matthew is mediated using Mark.
Application
The first theory tried to solve the synoptic problem was the Augustine hypothesis. It treated Matthew as the primary source for the other two gospels, Luke and Mark. This theory is based on historical testimony rather than textual criticism. Due to the scientific shortcomings of this theory, the Marcan hypothesis was formulated. It treated Mark as a source and a hypothetical document Q as its complement for the writing of Luke and Matthew. This would explain the phenomenon of double tradition observed in the text above.
However, this theory only explains the source of material found in Luke (L) or Matthew (M), not the source of the material found in Mark (Mk). This challenge led to the formulation of the four-source hypothesis, which posits that there were at least four sources for Matthew and Luke: the book of Mark, M, L, and Q. This theory explains both the triple and double traditions, as well as the singular sources for the books of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
The four-source hypothesis method, which is the most plausible theory due to its ability to cover all possibilities and reasonably explain the source material, was formulated in 1924 by Streeter. His book The Four Gospels, A Study in Origins, treats the Gospel of Mark as the primary information source, with Q, L, and M being classified as secondary sources. Some examples of Q sources are the Beatitudes (Luke 6:21-22, Matt 5:3-12) and the Parable of the Lost Sheep (Lk 15:3-8, Matt 18:13-14, among others).
The use of Q source by the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Luke involves different wording and context, which supports the notion that the editors took the information from a source and modified it to fit their given situations; for example, the Parable of the Lost Sheep (Lk 15:3-8, Matt 18:9-14).In the book “The Quest for the Historical Jesus,” Albert Schweitzer warns against the effects of translation or authorial viewpoint that alter the true meaning of Scripture portions. Translation and the use of context can alter the true purpose of a parable, event, and even a teaching.
The M source is the hypothetical text source for the book of Matthew that is not available in the other two synoptic gospels. It describes events unique to the book of Matthew. If the hypothesis is correct, M would have a high probability of being a written source. Some notable examples of M material include the Parable of the Pearl (Matthew 13:45-46), the Parable of the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32), and the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13).
The L source is used for the book of Luke and is unavailable in the other synoptic gospels, Mark and Matthew. The four-source hypothesis suggests that the author used Q and L as secondary sources and Mark as the primary source. An example of L source material is the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:10-32), among others.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the four-source hypothesis provides the most comprehensive account of the information present in the synoptic Gospels. Despite the assumptions and challenges raised to its correctness, it remains the best option that comprehensively covers most of the foreseeable angles of thought and view. However, another approach, Form criticism, aims at those interested in more than the final written state of the Gospels, but rather the process the sources went through in their oral stage. In critiquing this approach, the focus has moved from Jesus to the community that kept his memory going. This should be different from, as the views it proposes are based on creative memory, subject to conflicts of interest, and thus distort the essence of Scripture.
As Christians, we seek to find Jesus in the Scripture, but one may wonder why, since all Scripture is divinely inspired. It is due to the distortions that history has imposed on the true meaning. These doubts have led many to question the authority of the Gospels.
The root cause of this is the unwillingness to allow God any significant role in the production and review of the Gospels as we know them. According to David Black, Christians need to acknowledge that there is a supernatural order and God’s intervention, as revealed through Scripture. Despite this indifference to Jesus’ lordship, Christians must stand in courage to uphold the final authority of God’s word, even when it has been criticized by men who want to turn it into a mere historical document.
Bibliography
Elwell, Walter A., and Robert W. Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament (Encountering Biblical Studies): A Historical and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013.
Foster, Paul. “The Minor Sources and Their Role in the Synoptic Problem.” The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels (2023): 27.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. London: A. and c. Black, 1910.
The Synoptic Problem. Learning Materials.
Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2020.
Wright, William M. The Bible and Catholic Ressourcement: Essays on Scripture and Theology. Steubenville: Emmaus Academic, 2019.