The Synoptic Problem: What is it and can it be solved?
The first three (3) books of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are commonly called the Synoptic Gospels. They have gained this title because they are very similar to each other yet commonly different from John's Gospel. In fact, their similarities and relation to each other have created one of the most debated subjects in the realm of New Testament Studies. This area of scholarship has adopted the name The Synoptic Problem. Determining the dependence or interdependence of each Gospel then attempts to conclude, which Gospel was written first, and subsequently, which Gospel then used the other as a primary source, and if not what source was then used to compile the gospel in question.
“Mark's Gospel is the shortest of the three, yet large portions of it are also found in Matthew and Luke. Additionally, Matthew and Luke share a significant amount of verses (more than 200) that are not found in Mark. The similarities include subject matter, exact wording, and even order of events. When material is found in all three Synoptic Gospels, it is referred to as triple tradition. The material that is only found in Matthew and Luke is called double tradition, or Q. Also, the material that distinctively belongs to Matthew is called the M tradition, while that which belongs to Luke is called the L tradition” (The) The content of M suggests that the community for which this gospel was written, as stricter than the others in its attitude to keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and Pharisees in “righteousness (adherence to Jewish Law); and the three M refers to a church, an organized group with rules for keeping order. Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c.70 and 100” (Gospels). “Historically, two (2) basic solutions to the Synoptic Problem have surfaced. First popular from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries, theories known as the “Dependence theories” had begun to arise in scholarly circles. In their most basic form, Dependence theories generally claim that each Synoptic Gospel was written independently of the other two Synoptic Gospels, but dependent on either, one, a single original Gospel, sometimes named Ur-Gospel, two, relatively fixed “oral sources,” or three, a dependence on “gradually developed written fragments,” all of which have now been well researched. Most of the Dependence theories have since ceased to be argued for except perhaps the “oral sources” theory. Rist, in On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, argues, for example, that “both Matthew and Mark are heirs of a common tradition,” independent of each other, on the basis of a “large number of parallel passages.” While the “oral sources” view was most popular in the nineteenth century, scholars, such as Rist, still support their arguments today, though, for many good reason, they are not commonly held as the practical solution to the Synoptic Problem” (Filler).
“The second solution to the Synoptic Problem, and the most commonly accepted among scholars today, is called the Interdependence theories (or hypothesis), which focus, at least partly, on source criticism. Source criticism asks, “What written sources, if any, did the evangelists use in compiling their Gospels” and then investigates these sources to see how they were used in completing the synoptic Gospels. Most scholars recognize within the Interdependence argument several commonly held theories or solutions, which are still argued for today. Among the many solutions, there are at least four to five prevailing schools of thought, each of which has several well-known “hybrids” or spin-offs originating from their basic parent theory of literary interdependence. These hybrids often share a common name with the interdependence hybrid theory it supports, but for the most part these theories are part of a main school of thought with some variant to make it unique. These variants include theories such as the Independent Hypothesis, the Traditional or Augustinian Hypothesis, the Griesbach or Two-Gospel Hypothesis, the Farrer Hypothesis, and the Two-Source Hypothesis (which also includes the Four-Source and Markan Priority theories)” (Filler).
“The Synoptic Problem has examined not directly by name for more than 1,500 years, going back to the great theologian of North American, Augustine of Hippo. Although the scholarly advances to the Synoptic Problem over the history of its study has moved slow at times, volumes have written detailing the finer points of the Synoptic Problem. Arguments comparing parallel passages, word for word Greek studies, examinations of minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, doublets in Matthew and Luke, dating and placement of the Q material, exacting ways in which literary dependencies can exist, countless charts, diagrams, and a desire of some to craft scripture into an yet tested hypothesis, leaves an overview of the solutions begging the question, what has been left of the discussion” (Filler).
“Christians believe that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written by those whose names appear in the title of the books. Most also believe that they were written in the same order as they appear in the Bible. The truth is that even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they were in fact written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other gospels and was written after the fall of the second template which occurred in 70 CE. The Gospel of Mark is the most important of the synoptic gospels because it is the primary source for Matthew and Luke. Seventy- six percent of Mark is reproduced almost word-for-word in both Matthew and Luke. An additional 18% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew but not in Luke, and further 3% of Mark is in Luke but not in Matthew. This means that 97% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew and/or Luke” (Gospels).
“Christians can attest to the complexity of the Synoptic Problem. Can one single solution to the Synoptic Problem suffice to answer all the questions as to the origins of the Gospels? Each hypothesis provides a piece, which Christians could take as one possible overall conclusion, but to choose any one hypothesis in total over another, would be to overlook the weakness of one and exclude the seemingly correct analysis of another. A proper conclusion might be obtained by examining only the commonly accepted conclusions of each hypothesis, while excluding the weakness, to form the basis for an overall solution, but even this approach would be flawed to some extent. Was there no literary dependence between the synoptic Gospels as the Independence Theory argues? Can all the similarities be explained as coming from oral sources? With the number of passages common in all three Gospels, especially when examining the exact content and order, it would seem unlikely that the evangelists would not have had at least some literary collusion between them, which was common in their day. Did the disciples and the apostles not read from each other’s work and if so, in what order?” (Filler).
“The process by which the Gospels come into existence certainly had some dated order, but must still be seen as extremely complex. A process so complex that not source critical hypothesis, however detailed, can hope to provide a complete explanation of the situation, yet a study that should not be abandoned out of the cultural boredom, or its vast complexity, not one open to new ideas and arguments that seek to know the origins of the Gospels (Filler)”.

Works Cited

Filler, Scott. “The Synoptic Problem: A Brief Overview into the Synoptic Problem”.11 October 2009. Web. 11 May 2014.
“Gospels Not Written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John”. 14 May 2014. Web. 14 May 2014.
“The Synoptic Problem”. Blueletterbible.org. N.d. Web. 12 May 2014.