Matthew, Mark, Luke, & Q, No John

The Synoptic Gospels are the first four books of the New Testament in the Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who depict the life of Jesus Christ. Each of these books explains and portrays Jesus Christ in different accounts but in similar ways. This has resulted in what is referred to as the synoptic problem, or rather phenomenon as the structure and language between primarily Matthew, Mark and Luke are strikingly similar. It is referred to as a problem because it has continually opened a discussion on the validity of these books. In discourse on the synoptic problem, the frequency of John being in the debate does not come up, as Matthew, Mark and Luke more or less attribute to the conundrum of the quandary that has arisen. 

The Problem

Farnell (2002) and Goulder (1996) both noted that the Synoptic problem is not a problem, but more or less a phenomenon that has to be taken apart and explored to understand. It is viewed as a problem because of what we have been told about each of the three writers, Matthew, Mark and Luke and how they wrote independently of each other, but yet there appears to be a relationship between them due to the similarities in content, language and structure (Farnell, Goulder). So then what is the relationship between the first three New Testament Gospels and where do the questions come from?  In the general context of the New Testament, it has been reasoned that the four Gospels are indeed anonymous writings that were written by four different individuals. We have no reason to believe otherwise as we do not have the original Gospel manuscripts to verify that fact. Thus, we have to in effect believe that when we are reading the New Testament that what we are indeed reading is Matthew's account of Jesus' life, the Gospel of Mark's account, Luke's account and John's. While this is the general belief, what has come under discussion is the similarity factor between the first three Gospels of the New Testament and why are they so similar? To diagnose this, it is important to diagnose and examine the structure and language. When looking at content and order, the first three Gospels have similar content, especially Matthew and Mark. 

While differences exist between them in several ways, the majority of the questions regarding their respective differences arise out of their close similarities. The Synoptic Problem then is a measure that allows intellectuals, scholars and students to understand the interrelationship between the first three Gospels in the hopes of understanding the similarities; for example, the calling of Levi in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Matthew 9:9-10 and Mark 2:14-15 essentially say the same thing. For the purposes of the example, the passage from Matthew will be noted first, then Mark. "As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him 'Follow me.' And he got up and followed him. And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples" (The Holy Bible: King James Version). In Mark 2:14-15, Mark states "as he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him 'Follow me.' And he got up and followed him. And as he sat at dinner in Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples - for there were many who followed him" (The Holy Bible: King James Version). The only difference between the two passages here is the mentioning of Levi by Mark and that Mark referred to Jesus as he rather than Jesus. This is just one of many examples of the sameness in content, structure and language between the first three Gospels. 

There are three theories that have been unveiled in an effort to explain the relationship between the gospels. Daniel B. Wallace in his article, "The Synoptic Problem" specified that "first Schleiermacher in 1817 held that the apostles have written down brief memorabilia which were later collected and arranged according to their particular type of genre. Second, G.E. Lessing in 1776, and J.G. Eichhorn in 1796 argued for an Ur-Gospel, which ultimately stood behind [what the] gospels [stated and then] third, the theory of interdependence, [which states that] one or more synoptic gospel used one or more synoptic gospel. There are [several] permutations of this theory, [but only] three have presented themselves as the most plausible: the Augustinian hypothesis: Matthew wrote first and was utilized by Mark whose gospel was used by Luke; the Griesbach hypothesis: Matthew wrote first and was used by Luke, both of whom were used by Mark and the Holtzmann/Street hypothesis [which rationalized that] Mark wrote first and was used independently by Matthew and Luke" (pg.3). 

These theories have come from the fact that when compared to each other, of the 11,025 words of Mark, only 132 of them do not appear in Matthew or Luke. Thus, 97% percent of the gospel according to Mark is also found in Matthew and 88% of it in Luke. When looked at another way, there is about 60% of Matthew is found in the book of Mark, and about 47% of gospel according to Luke found in Mark's account of Jesus' life (Stein 48). These parallels have often led to the argument that Mark is an abridgement of Matthew and Luke or rather an abridged version of Jesus' life because Mark is significantly shorter than the other two Synoptic Gospels. It has also caused much debate because it suggests that Mark "only wanted to record material found in both Matthew and Luke [and that] Mark had a poorer writing style [than the others]" (Wallace 5-6) which is not a viable argument to delineate from the historical record.

Another argument, which has frequently been presented, is the idea that there is in fact another gospel in existence known as the Gospel of Q. This particular gospel is what some biblical scholars have stated to be the document that was written prior to the writing of the gospels, which was used as a reference point for both Matthew and Luke, primarily. It is a hypothetical document that has not been proven to be in existence, but some scholars have rationalized that it is a viable document that was utilized because of the many identical accounts found in the three Synoptic Gospels (Kloppenborg 212-215). So given these existing theories and arguments that have been reasoned to shine light on the Synoptic problem, are there any solutions to them?

Synoptic Solutions

There are several prevailing solutions to the Synoptic problem such as the two source hypothesis, which stipulates that Mark was indeed the first Gospel writer and the primary source for both Matthew and Luke. In addition to Mark being the blueprint writer for the account of Jesus' life, this hypothesis also holds that both Matthew and Luke supplemented material into their books with the document referred to as the Gospel of Q (Stein 61-62). A question regarding that hypothesis has often been asked and that is if Mark was the blueprint, then why is it so short? Wallace (1998) argued that while some scholars have come to the conclusion that Mark is an abridged version of the Gospel, it is in fact not. It is actually longer when much redaction of Matthew and Luke take place. Hence, Mark only captured the key points in Jesus' life without the supplemental or additional tidbits of information that Matthew and Luke incorporated. In addition to this, while Mark had poorer grammar than the other two writers, these individuals improved on Mark's lack of eloquence. Finally, Wallace continued by saying that Mark had consistency in his writings, while Matthew and Luke often demonstrated sound reason in their writings but were often inconsistent with the accounts of what Jesus did and how he operated (pg.10). A four-source hypothesis has also been presented that comes to understand that Matthew and Luke each had their own separate sources in addition to Mark being the blueprint and the Q gospel being a source also. Additionally, a Mark-Q Theory with Proto Luke which denoted that Q was a mixture of Luke's special source, referred to as L as well as Mark with some materials that formed proto Luke (Goulder). Much of the support for such a theory has been rather terse and tepid. 

While the Gospel of Q has been a theory circulated across the theological spectrum, many people have ascertained that if we as believers of the Bible were to accept that theory, that it in effect invalidates the entire work of Matthew, Mark and Luke. But why would such a document invalidate what actually went into the Bible? The solution here is that the existence of the gospel of Q would in essence mean that the supposedly rationale that there is an inherent problem between Matthew, Mark and Luke in fact validates the accuracy of the gospels as it would shorten the time between when the actual events took place and the overall accountings by the three writers of the New Testament (Goulder). Essentially, each of the theories has their own merits and thus, while many solutions have been proposed to the Synoptic problem, the only one that has dominated the discussion is the aforementioned two-source hypothesis. 

Conclusion

In sum, those that worship God by and large reference the Bible for guidance and understanding the best course of operation in their daily lives on Earth. Understanding and rationale regarding the Synoptic problem has only been awakened due to the myriad of theories proposed on the similarities between the first three writings of the New Testament. The only valid rationale that one has is the fact that God’s people are to accept the Bible as fact and truth irrespective of the proposed Gospel of Q. Until such a document is produced, it is best to accept the overall New Testament writers as true and viable accounts of the life of Jesus regardless of their likeness and sameness in language, structure and content. While the proposed solutions are reasonable to be assumed as the best course of action in gaining a perspective on why the parallels exist, it only furthers the problem in that there are several vast opinions on the matter, so in trying to discover a proper solution, the process becomes muddied in the midst of so many. 

Works Cited

Farnell, F D. "How Views of Inspiration Have Impacted Synoptic Problem Discussions."The Master Seminary Journal 13.1 (2002): 33-64. Print.

Goulder, Michael D. "Is Q a Juggernaut?" Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 667-681. Web. 6 Sept. 2013. <http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/goulder.htm>.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010. Print.

Kloppenborg, John S. "On Dispensing with Q? Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew." New Testament Studies 49 (210-236): 210-236. Print.

Stein, Robert H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Reprint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Pub Group, 1994. Print.

Wallace, David B. "The Synoptic Problem." Bible.org (1998): 1-19. Web. 7 Sept. 2013. <https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem>.