Even a cursory reading of Matthew, Mark, and Luke reveals both striking similarities [2:3-12; Matt. 9:2-8; Luke 5:18-26] and significant differences, as each view the life, ministry, and teaching of Jesus. The question of how to explain those similarities and differences is known as the "Synoptic Problem" or translated means :"Together -seeing."
You can look up this subject that would help, but the modern solution- even among evangelicals--has been to assume that some form of literary dependence exists between the synoptic gospels. The most commonly accepted theory to explain such an alleged literary dependence is known as the "Two-Source" theory. According to that hypothesis, Mark was the first gospel written, and Matthew and Luke then used Mark as a source in writing their gospels. Proponents of this view, however, imagine a nonexistent, second source, labeled "Q" [from the German word "Quelle"], and argue that this allegedly is the source of the material in Mathew and Luke that does not appear in Mark. They advance several lines of evidence to support their scenario.
First, most of Mark is parallel in Matthew and Luke. Since it is much shorter than Matthew and Luke, the Latter must be expansions of Mark. Second, the 3 gospels follow the same general chronological outline, but when either Matthew or Luke departs from Mark's chronology, the other agrees with Mark. Put another way, Matthew and Luke do not both depart from Mark's chronology in the same places. That, it is argued, shows that Matthew and Luke used Mark for their historical framework. Third, in passages common to all 3 gospels, Matthew's and Luke's wording seldom agrees when it differs from Mark's. Proponents of the "Two-Source" theory see that as confirmation that Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospel as a source.
But those arguments do not prove that Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospels as a source. In fact, the weight of evidence is strongly against such a theory. I could pull those facts up I have looked at over time but the answers are also in the internet searches I'm sure.
The simplest solution to the Synoptic Problem from my research is that no such problem exists! Because critics cannot prove literary dependence between the gospel writers, there is no need to explain it. The traditional view that the gospel writers were inspired by God and wrote independently of each other--except that all 3 were moved by the same Spirit; the Holy Spirit. [ 2 Peter 1:20].--remains the only plausible view.
As you compare the various viewpoints in the gospels; Mark: "Slave Savior"...John: "God-Savior"...Matthew: "King-Savior"....Luke: "Man- Savior"...It becomes clear how well they harmonize and lead to a more complete picture of the whole event or message. The accounts are not contradictory, but complimentary, revealing a fuller understanding when brought together. The apparent difficulties are dealt with in the notes of each gospel.
You can look up this subject that would help, but the modern solution- even among evangelicals--has been to assume that some form of literary dependence exists between the synoptic gospels. The most commonly accepted theory to explain such an alleged literary dependence is known as the "Two-Source" theory. According to that hypothesis, Mark was the first gospel written, and Matthew and Luke then used Mark as a source in writing their gospels. Proponents of this view, however, imagine a nonexistent, second source, labeled "Q" [from the German word "Quelle"], and argue that this allegedly is the source of the material in Mathew and Luke that does not appear in Mark. They advance several lines of evidence to support their scenario.
First, most of Mark is parallel in Matthew and Luke. Since it is much shorter than Matthew and Luke, the Latter must be expansions of Mark. Second, the 3 gospels follow the same general chronological outline, but when either Matthew or Luke departs from Mark's chronology, the other agrees with Mark. Put another way, Matthew and Luke do not both depart from Mark's chronology in the same places. That, it is argued, shows that Matthew and Luke used Mark for their historical framework. Third, in passages common to all 3 gospels, Matthew's and Luke's wording seldom agrees when it differs from Mark's. Proponents of the "Two-Source" theory see that as confirmation that Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospel as a source.
But those arguments do not prove that Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospels as a source. In fact, the weight of evidence is strongly against such a theory. I could pull those facts up I have looked at over time but the answers are also in the internet searches I'm sure.
The simplest solution to the Synoptic Problem from my research is that no such problem exists! Because critics cannot prove literary dependence between the gospel writers, there is no need to explain it. The traditional view that the gospel writers were inspired by God and wrote independently of each other--except that all 3 were moved by the same Spirit; the Holy Spirit. [ 2 Peter 1:20].--remains the only plausible view.
As you compare the various viewpoints in the gospels; Mark: "Slave Savior"...John: "God-Savior"...Matthew: "King-Savior"....Luke: "Man- Savior"...It becomes clear how well they harmonize and lead to a more complete picture of the whole event or message. The accounts are not contradictory, but complimentary, revealing a fuller understanding when brought together. The apparent difficulties are dealt with in the notes of each gospel.
