Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The Synoptic Problem is a term often used to describe the similarities and differences between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The issue has captivated the attention of biblical scholars for centuries, with the central question being: how can we account for the striking similarities between these three Gospels while also recognizing their distinct differences? This problem has led some to suggest theories of literary dependence between the Gospels, with particular emphasis on the so-called “Q document.”

In this analysis, we will explore the Synoptic Problem from a conservative Evangelical perspective, rejecting higher criticism and theories that undermine the reliability of the Gospels. Instead, we will focus on the traditional and faithful understanding of the Synoptic Gospels as independent accounts, inspired by God and preserved as part of the New Testament canon.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Why Are the Synoptic Gospels So Similar?

The term “synoptic” comes from the Greek words “syn,” meaning “together,” and “opsis,” meaning “view.” Thus, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because they offer a similar view of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. The similarities between these Gospels are undeniable, with many passages containing identical or nearly identical wording. This has led some scholars to question whether the Gospel writers copied from one another or relied on a common source.

The theory that the Gospel writers relied on each other is not new. The idea that Mark was the first Gospel written, followed by Matthew and Luke, has been around since the 19th century and is referred to as the “Markan priority” theory. According to this view, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for their Gospels and supplemented it with material from another hypothetical document known as “Q” (from the German word “Quelle,” meaning “source”).

However, this theory of literary dependence overlooks several important factors, including the divine inspiration of Scripture. Jesus promised His disciples that the Holy Spirit would guide them and “bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26). The similarities between the Gospels can be attributed to the work of the Holy Spirit, who ensured that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded the life and teachings of Jesus. Furthermore, the early church never questioned the reliability of the Gospels, nor did they suggest that the writers were plagiarists or mere compilers of stories.

What Are the Distinctive Features of Each Gospel?

While the Synoptic Gospels share much in common, each Gospel also contains unique material that reflects the particular emphasis of its author. For example, the Gospel of Matthew focuses on presenting Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah of the Jewish people. This is evident in Matthew’s frequent use of Old Testament quotations and his emphasis on Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 1:22-23, 2:15, 2:17-18, etc.).

On the other hand, Mark’s Gospel is shorter and more action-oriented, often using the word “immediately” to describe the rapid pace of Jesus’ ministry (Mark 1:12, 1:18, 1:20, 1:21, 1:28, etc.). Mark also provides vivid details that are not found in the other Gospels, such as Jesus’ emotions (Mark 3:5, 10:21) and specific actions (Mark 7:33, 8:23).

Luke’s Gospel, by contrast, emphasizes Jesus’ compassion for the marginalized and the inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom of God. Luke records several parables and events that are not found in Matthew or Mark, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and the healing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19). Luke also provides more historical details, including the names of Roman officials and specific locations, demonstrating his concern for historical accuracy (Luke 1:1-4).

These differences highlight the individuality of each Gospel writer and demonstrate that the Gospels were not merely copied from one another. Each writer was inspired by the Holy Spirit to present a unique perspective on the life of Jesus, while still maintaining the overall unity of the Gospel message.

What Is the Q Document, and Is It Necessary?

The so-called “Q document” is a hypothetical source that some scholars believe was used by both Matthew and Luke in addition to Mark. According to this theory, Q contained a collection of Jesus’ sayings that were not included in Mark’s Gospel, and Matthew and Luke both drew from this source when composing their Gospels. The Q hypothesis is part of the broader “two-source” theory, which suggests that Mark and Q were the primary sources for Matthew and Luke.

However, there is no manuscript evidence for the existence of Q. No early Christian writer ever mentions such a document, and no fragments of Q have ever been discovered. The theory of Q is purely speculative and is based on the assumption that Matthew and Luke could not have independently recorded similar material. This assumption, however, ignores the possibility that Matthew and Luke, as inspired writers, could have received their information through independent means, either from eyewitnesses or from their own personal knowledge of Jesus’ teachings.

Furthermore, the Q hypothesis has been criticized for its failure to account for the differences between Matthew and Luke. If both writers relied on the same source, why do they present Jesus’ teachings in such different ways? For example, Matthew’s version of the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12) differs significantly from Luke’s version (Luke 6:20-23). These differences suggest that Matthew and Luke were not simply copying from a common source but were independently composing their accounts based on their own understanding and perspective.

As conservative scholars, we reject the theory of Q and affirm the traditional view that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those closely associated with the apostles. Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not rely on a lost document, but were guided by the Holy Spirit to record the life and teachings of Jesus.

What Is the Grammatical-Historical Method of Interpretation?

The grammatical-historical method of interpretation is the approach that conservative scholars use to understand the meaning of biblical texts. This method seeks to uncover the meaning that the original author intended by examining the grammar, syntax, and historical context of the text. The grammatical-historical method stands in contrast to the historical-critical method, which often assumes that the Bible contains errors and contradictions.

The grammatical-historical method is grounded in the belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that its meaning can be understood by examining the text in its original context. This approach requires careful attention to the meaning of words, the structure of sentences, and the broader historical and cultural background in which the text was written.

For example, when interpreting the Gospel accounts, the grammatical-historical method would examine the original Greek words used by the Gospel writers, the literary structure of each passage, and the historical context of first-century Judea. This method allows us to understand the meaning of the text as it would have been understood by its original audience.

The grammatical-historical method is also based on the principle that each biblical text has one single meaning—the meaning that the original author intended. This principle is essential for maintaining the integrity of Scripture, as it prevents interpreters from imposing multiple or contradictory meanings onto the text. As Milton S. Terry writes, “The words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection” (Terry, 1883). This principle guards against speculative interpretations that undermine the authority of the Bible.

How Do Conservative Scholars Defend the Independence of the Gospels?

Conservative scholars have long defended the independence of the Gospels, rejecting the theories of literary dependence and the Q document. One of the most prominent defenders of the independence view is Eta Linnemann, a former proponent of higher criticism who later renounced the historical-critical method. In her book Is There a Synoptic Problem? Linnemann argues that the similarities between the Synoptic Gospels can be explained without resorting to the theory of literary dependence. She provides extensive evidence to show that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written independently of each other, based on eyewitness testimony and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Linnemann’s findings are supported by other conservative scholars, such as Louis Berkhof, Henry C. Thiessen, and Merrill C. Tenney. These scholars have carefully examined the evidence and concluded that the Synoptic Gospels were composed independently, without reliance on a hypothetical Q document or literary dependence on each other. They argue that the similarities between the Gospels are the result of the shared oral tradition and the work of the Holy Spirit, not literary copying.

Moreover, the early church consistently affirmed the independence of the Gospels. The writings of the Church Fathers, such as Papias, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria, testify to the belief that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those closely associated with the apostles. These early Christian leaders never suggested that the Gospel writers relied on a lost document like Q or copied from one another. Instead, they affirmed the reliability and divine inspiration of the Gospels as independent accounts of the life of Jesus.

Can the Synoptic Problem Be Solved Without Undermining the Reliability of the Gospels?

The Synoptic Problem has been the subject of much debate among scholars, but it can be addressed without undermining the reliability of the Gospels. The similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke can be explained by the shared oral tradition of the early church, as well as the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Gospel writers. The differences between the Gospels reflect the individuality of each writer and their particular emphasis, but these differences do not detract from the overall unity of the Gospel message.

The theory of literary dependence and the hypothetical Q document are unnecessary and speculative. They are based on assumptions that undermine the divine inspiration of Scripture and the eyewitness testimony of the Gospel writers. As conservative scholars, we reject these theories and affirm the independence and reliability of the Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels, along with the Gospel of John, provide a complete and trustworthy account of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In conclusion, the Synoptic Problem does not pose a threat to the reliability of the Gospels. The similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke can be explained by the shared oral tradition and the work of the Holy Spirit, while the differences reflect the unique perspective of each writer. The Gospels are not the product of mythmaking or plagiarism but are the inspired and trustworthy Word of God. The Synoptic Problem, when understood correctly, only serves to deepen our appreciation for the divine inspiration and historical reliability of the Gospels.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).