Anonymous Asks (388)

“What is the Synoptic Problem?”

The word ‘synoptic’ refers to the gospels written by Matthew, Mark and Luke, coming from the Latin synopticus, literally “seeing all together”. Wikipedia describes the Synoptic Problem this way:

“The ‘synoptic problem’ is … the question as to the source or sources upon which each synoptic gospel depended when it was written.”

You too may have noticed passages from the three gospels that are similar to one another. I’m not quite sure why commentators describe it as a problem. I think of it more as a curiosity.

If Any Two of You on Earth Agree

Wikipedia again:

“The texts of the three synoptic gospels often agree very closely in wording and order, both in quotations and in narration. Most scholars ascribe this to documentary dependence, direct or indirect, meaning the close agreements among synoptic gospels are due to one gospel’s drawing from the text of another, or from some written source that another gospel also drew from.”

I have written about the similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke here, here and here, for starters. If you find this subject interesting, you may enjoy those posts.

Let’s make it abundantly clear that those who observe similarities between the gospels are not pulling the idea out of thin air. Documentary dependence of some sort is unquestionably the case in the synoptics. If I were a schoolteacher marking essays, a few of the more obvious examples would have me running to the principal with concerns about how my students are either plagiarizing from their peers or else nicking material verbatim from a common source. The gospels have not just words and phrases in common, but lengthy strings of text in both Greek and English, in one of the above cases reaching seventeen straight words.

The Practice of Historians

I just don’t see why this poses a problem. Consider: Many of the Old Testament historical books were written — or at least finalized for publication — decades or centuries after the events they describe. Comments in the book of Judges, for example, show its editor was putting it together hundreds of years after Gideon, Jephthah or Samson fought their battles. Anytime you come upon a common phrase like “to this day” in a biblical historical account, it’s a reminder that most of the writers and editors of Holy Writ were not witnesses of the histories they recorded. By the way, that is true of many or most secular histories as well. Plutarch’s Lives is a compilation of many biographies of the Greek and Roman greats, all written years or centuries after the fact, and relying on existing source material to make them possible. Historians today do the same things. If you pick any three historians writing about the same subject matter, chances are they will draw from the same reliable sources. All this is nothing new, and we do not generally think of it as problematic.

Those who believe the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit understand there are a limited number of ways its histories may have come about. Either: (1) the Holy Spirit revealed this information directly to the writers just as he gave messages directly to the prophets; (2) the writers worked with existing (inspired or uninspired) texts, which the Holy Spirit edited through them to his satisfaction; (3) the writers relied on oral history, which the Holy Spirit edited through them to his satisfaction; or (4) some variation or combination of the first three.

Compiling the NT Histories

The New Testament historians (the writers of the Gospels and Acts) have this advantage over the majority of their Old Testament counterparts: that they were also able to rely on the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses still living when they published their accounts, and in some cases (at least Matthew and John, and possibly Mark), these eyewitnesses were the writers recounting personal experiences.

They also wrote decades after the events. The best calculations of Bible scholars date all three synoptic gospels to the late AD50s or early 60s, almost thirty years after the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. We should not be surprised to find that they refreshed their memories and filled in important blanks to do so, almost surely from some of the same sources. Luke describes the process by which he compiled his own gospel narrative:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.”

So then, at the time all three Gospel writers published their accounts, “many” written narratives were already in circulation from which they could draw. Luke also refers to the aforementioned “eyewitnesses”. He is quite frank about the fact that he is a historian drawing on existing materials and accounts to put events “in order” for his readers, and that he is doing so with the goal of strengthening the faith of converts to Christianity. Matthew and Mark do not describe their own writing processes, but it’s evident they did similar things, in Matthew’s case with the advantage of being able to supplement his own memories of the events with materials from reliable sources. Matthew’s genealogy, for example, was not original to him. He picked it up from an existing source.

Problems and Curiosities

Of course, none of this proves any of the synoptics were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is not our subject today, though I’m happy to set out that evidence if our readers are interested. The point here is that, given the timing and methods by which these historians assembled their accounts, the common text to be found in them gives us no greater reason to question their accuracy than those of any other histories in existence, biblical or secular. In fact, due to the number of eyewitnesses still living at the time they wrote, the likelihood they told their stories accurately is that much greater.

This is why I say the Synoptic Problem is not a problem but rather a matter of (mostly idle) curiosity. Of course the writers of scripture relied on other sources now lost to us, as did almost every historian everywhere. The Old Testament historians name something over twenty of these Israelite and Judean histories still available to readers at the time they produced their own.

So did two of the synoptics use the third as their source? Were all sourced from a single now-lost manuscript, like the phantasmagorical ‘Q’? Did all three synoptic writers rely on more than one written account from more than one source? (I lean toward the last of these, as that is most certainly what Luke did.)

In any case, these are questions impossible to answer with certainty. Those who dogmatize about them are speaking well beyond what they actually know. The similarities in the text of the three synoptic gospels are neither problematic, nor do they cast any doubt on the inspiration of scripture. That stands on other grounds.