"The Synoptic Problem"?

[MarcR]

Scholars often talk of the "synoptic problem" when studying the synoptic Gospels. I understand the basics of what they are saying, but the majority of their studies reek of a heavily secularist bias, so I am a bit skeptical of their conclusions.

That being said, I do think there is some evidence that the writers of Matthew and Luke had access to the Gospel of Mark. (This is not necessarily a bad thing.)

Has anyone here ever attempted to study the synoptic Gospels (or even all 4) side by side? If so, do you have any advice, recommendations, or insights on this?

Since more than 90% of Mark is contained in either Matthew or Luke it is fairly certain that either Mark relied on both Matthew and Luke (as I believe), or both Matthew and Luke quoted extensively from Mark. It really shouldn't matter who quoted whom; since the only important fact is that all three were inspired writings.

All three of the synoptics and John were each written from a different perspective with a unique intent.

Matthew portrays Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah's prophesy.

Mark portrays Jesus as righteous and rightful King.

Luke portrays Jesus as Anointed Savior.

John focuses on the Deity of Jesus.

They are intended to be complimentary not contradictory.

There is no real synoptic problem. Slight variations in the recollections of the four writers attest more to their genuinity that to any defect. Even the testimony of four eyewitnesses to an accident that just happened will bear minor or even major variations. An absence of such variations would suggest collusion.

 

[tanakh]

If the story is being told that someone came to town, and one person remembers a red car, another remembers a grey car, and a third remember a green car, is the point that someone arrived in town in question?

Look at all the stuff we swear John wrote down as he was in the spirit one afternoon. It takes us that long to even read the letter. You know it took him months to write by hand with ink and quill on parchment, even if he didn't have to slowly and carefully dictate it to someone?

Your car example is a good one. The Gospels aim at the spiritual meaning behind Christs teachings. They are what is inerrant about the Bible. Jewish understanding of how to read and interpret Scripture is different to the western way of looking at it. Here we tend to fixate on whether some part of it is true or false where the Jewish way puts the emphasis on what a passage means and the message being conveyed to the reader. The Jewish method of interpretation known as Midrash is used in the interpretation of the Torah and the rest of the OT.

 

[jb]

"The Synoptic Problem"?

There is NO problem!

Try reading "A Harmony Of The Gospels" by Loraine Boettner

 

[Johnny_B]

Scholars often talk of the "synoptic problem" when studying the synoptic Gospels. I understand the basics of what they are saying, but the majority of their studies reek of a heavily secularist bias, so I am a bit skeptical of their conclusions.

That being said, I do think there is some evidence that the writers of Matthew and Luke had access to the Gospel of Mark. (This is not necessarily a bad thing.)

Has anyone here ever attempted to study the synoptic Gospels (or even all 4) side by side? If so, do you have any advice, recommendations, or insights on this?

Yes, get the New Testament book "Synopsis of the Four Gospels" Edited by Kurt Aland, english edition. Kurt is one of the editers of the fourth edition of the Greek New Testament, this book has the four Gospels side by side where one leaves off and the others picks up, if one Gospel did not say anything it does not have anything. I love it when studying the Olivate Discourse because it fulls in where Matthew, Mark or Luke does not speak if one of the other evangelists do it is brought out.

Go to Matthew 1:1, Mark 1:1, Luke 1:1 and John 1:1 in the "look inside" by clicking on the book on the left and you will see what I am talking about. This book will change how you view the Gospels and give you more context to the teachings of Jesus by combining the four Gospels.

It is a must have/read for any serious student of the Gospels of Jesus' teachings.

https://www.amazon.com/Synopsis-Four-Gospels-Quattuor-Evangeliorum/dp/3438054051/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510915622&sr=1-3&keywords=kurt+aland+synopsis+of+the+four+gospels&dpID=41qj8eOmA3L&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

 

[trofimus]

Given the fact that Jesus earthly ministry is supposed to have lasted about three years, there is an extraordinarily high chance that He repeated Himself often, saying the same thing in different ways at various times, which could very easily explain some of the synoptic differences.

Even though this is logically possible, I do not think that Jesus did everything 3x. I do not think its probable.

For me, this is just an explanation to get rid of problem, but not a good one.

For example, I do not think that his disciples asked him 3x with the same question "teach us how to pray".

 

[trofimus]

Even though this is logically possible, I do not think that Jesus did everything 3x. I do not think its probable.

For me, this is just an explanation to get rid of problem, but not a good one.

For example, I do not think that his disciples asked him 3x with the same question "teach us how to pray".

Or, that for example the voice from heaven became 2x:

Matthew 3:17 "This is My beloved Son."

Mark 1:11 "You are My beloved Son."

 

[Kavik]

I am familiar with the Q-source hypothesis.

I've also read about the Greek epic theory, but to be honest, isn't it a bit on the short side? And I thought Greek epics were written in poetry not prose.


Not sure what you mean by 'on the short side' -

The template goes more or less like this:

The birth of a divine hero is supernaturally predicted, and he is conceived in a supernatural way. As an infant, he escapes attempts to kill him. As a child, he shows precocious wisdom. As a young man, he is given a mission. He defeats monsters and/or demons (however defined) and is hailed as a king. His success is short lived--he is betrayed, falls out of favor, and is executed, often on a hilltop. Finally, he is vindicated after his death and taken up to the heavens (usually) to join the gods.

Countless myths tell this story in various cultures throughout time with slight variations. It's sort of the "Mythic Hero Archetype"

The three synoptic Gospels, as well as the so-called Q Gospel all seem to follow this template to a tee in the telling of the “Jesus Story”.

Conversely, if one strips down the Odyssey and Iliad to their bare bones, down to their template form, the template is virtually identical to the synoptic Gospels.

Understand that I am not suggesting similarity between Homer’s works and the Gospels, but rather that the same template (as summarized further above) was used for both – big difference; the stories are obviously not the same, but the underlying literary form/template is.

The original author(s) of Mark and possibly the Q Gospel would have been individuals intimately familiar with Greek literature with respect to the concept of the “prose epic” hero story and its literary form/template.

They would have been writing exclusively for a Greek audience who were very familiar with this type of epic story and would have easily recognized it as such. The apostles were trying to spread the ‘Good News’ and what better way to do it than in a style that their audience was very familiar with. The story of Jesus was told in the form and style of a Greek “hero epic” to a Greek audience.

As sort of an interesting aside, the first half of the Odyssey and Mark’s Gospel deal with adventures at sea and places near the sea where boats/ships are prominent.

The fact that this same template was used as a vehicle for telling the story of Jesus’s life and message, I don’t think diminishes the Gospels in any way or somehow makes them seem less than what they are. In fact, the use of the vehicle of the ‘hero epic’ can be seen as not only a brilliant way to spread the message, but may also speak to just how Hellenized Jewish culture had become by the first century AD. One has to wonder if a more traditional Jewish template were used, if the spreading of the message would have been as successful as it was.


As far as “divinely inspired” is concerned – I don’t think the fact that the written form followed a particular literary style negates a divinely inspired text. Indeed, perhaps part of the inspiration was to use this literary style because it was so well known by the audience and more likely to spread than if presented in a more typical Jewish literary format/style.

Typically, yes, they were written in a more poetic form rather than prose.

 

[MarcR]

Since more than 90% of Mark is contained in either Matthew or Luke it is fairly certain that either Mark relied on both Matthew and Luke (as I believe), or both Matthew and Luke quoted extensively from Mark. It really shouldn't matter who quoted whom; since the only important fact is that all three were inspired writings.

All three of the synoptics and John were each written from a different perspective with a unique intent.

Matthew portrays Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah's prophesy.

Mark portrays Jesus as righteous and rightful King.

Luke portrays Jesus as Anointed Savior.

John focuses on the Deity of Jesus.

They are intended to be complimentary not contradictory.

There is no real synoptic problem. Slight variations in the recollections of the four writers attest more to their genuinity that to any defect. Even the testimony of four eyewitnesses to an accident that just happened will bear minor or even major variations. An absence of such variations would suggest collusion.

Here is a different perspective which I like:

Eze 1:4-10
4 And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.
5 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.
6 And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.
7 And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.
8 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.
9 Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.
10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.
KJV

Verses 5-10: This vision is very similar to that in Rv 4:6-8. See also Is 6:2-3
Ezekiel’s vision is of four-winged cherubim; while Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 speak of
six-winged seraphim. The four faces (all on each cherub here; but one on each seraph in Revelation 4) may represent the four gospels. Matthew focuses on Jesus as King; represented by the Lion. Mark focuses on Jesus as a servant; represented by the ox. Luke focuses on Jesus’ humanity; represented by the man. John focuses on Jesus as God; represented by the Eagle.(See Rv 4:6-7.) The eagle as a figure of God occurs at least three times in Scripture:
Ex 19:4, Dt 32:9-12, Jer 48:40.

 

[pottersclay]

4 gospels
4 different perspectives
4 different authors

ALL inspired and equally the word of God in truth...........

.

By the same spirit......got ya d...

 

[JairCrawford]

Great replies so far. I put the title in quotes because I don't necessarily believe that it is a problem. So take it with a grain of salt.

 

[mcubed]

They are four eyewitness testimonies. No more no less. Something's repet other things don't. It really is that simple.

 

[Bladerunner]

Since more than 90% of Mark is contained in either Matthew or Luke it is fairly certain that either Mark relied on both Matthew and Luke (as I believe), or both Matthew and Luke quoted extensively from Mark. It really shouldn't matter who quoted whom; since the only important fact is that all three were inspired writings.

All three of the synoptics and John were each written from a different perspective with a unique intent.

Matthew portrays Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah's prophesy.

Mark portrays Jesus as righteous and rightful King.

Luke portrays Jesus as Anointed Savior.

John focuses on the Deity of Jesus.

They are intended to be complimentary not contradictory.

There is no real synoptic problem. Slight variations in the recollections of the four writers attest more to their genuinity that to any defect. Even the testimony of four eyewitnesses to an accident that just happened will bear minor or even major variations. An absence of such variations would suggest collusion.

I found this and it may shed some light on the subject or just raise more questions?

"Structural Discoveries

It was through the amazing efforts of Dr. Ivan Panin (1855-1942) that the "heptadic" (seven-fold) structure of the Biblical text was revealed.

Of the many remarkable discoveries, perhaps the most provocative is that the vocabulary that is unique to Matthew's Gospel (i.e., words that are not used elsewhere in the New Testament) is an exact multiple of 7.7But how could this feature have been deliberately organized? Only by one of two ways: either all of the other writers of the New Testament had to agree, in advance, not to use these particular words (which is highly unlikely!); or, Matthew would have had to compose his gospel last. Think about it: this is a strange property to "engineer" into the text.

Employing the argument that this proves that Matthew's Gospel was, thus, the last to be composed is a bit treacherous, however, since the same feature is true of the Gospel of Mark: the vocabulary which is unique to Mark's is also an exact multiple of 7. And so is Luke's. And John's. And also the writings of Paul, James, Peter, and Jude! Each, thus, appears to have been "written last."

This strange design feature seems clearly to be a "fingerprint" of the supernatural Author Himself."



Reference: Koinonia House, " A Most Provocative Study"