Introduction

In this work we are going to discuss the synoptic problem. Defining the synoptic gospels,
mentioning the synoptic dilemmas and stating some of the theories advanced by scholars as a
solution to the synoptic problem.

Synoptic gospels

After the resurrection, the disciples of Jesus begun spreading his Word to the world, which first
was through oral preaching and then later with writings announced the message of salvation, the
Gospel, wishing to transmit what they had personally seen and experienced. 1 There are four
gospel narratives namely the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The gospels of Mark,
Matthew and Luke are collectively known as the synoptic gospels. “Synoptic” means “working
together” the first three gospels are very similar to one another as though looking at the life of
Jesus from the same perspective, yet they also have puzzling differences.

The Synoptic Gospels are so called because of the basic pattern they share. 2 Mark, Matthew, and
Luke, have much in common and are significantly different from John. Similarities and
dissimilarities among the Synoptics give rise to the question of interrelation, the so-called
synoptic problem.3

The synoptic problem

In modern biblical criticism the term Synoptic Problem designates the question which arises
from the relations of Mark-Matthew-Luke and leads to their origin. The problem arises from the
substantial agreement of Matthew-Mark-Luke in content and in form, and the numerous and
striking divergences in details. No satisfactory and universally accepted solution of the problem
has been proposed, and many critics feel that it is unlikely that such a solution will emerge. 4 But
there are hypotheses suggested which contain elements of solution to the Synoptic problem. The
hypothesis and theories about the Synoptic Gospels stand or fall because of the degree of
plausibility which scholars find in the argument5.

1
PIETO PRINCIPE, Essential guide to the holy bible, USCCB Publishing, Washington DC 2010, P.33
2
PATRICK HENRY, New Directions in New Testament Study, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia 1980, p.76.
3
FRANS NEIRYNCK, Synoptic Problem, in the New Jerome biblical commentary, p.587
4
JOHN L MCKENZIE, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, the Bruce publishing company, Milwaukee 1965, p.857
5
MARK GOODACRE, “Fatigue in the Synoptics” in the New Testament studies journal, Vol 44, p.45.

1
Similarities and differences in the synoptic gospels

On the whole the first three Gospels report the same words and deeds of Jesus. The miracles,
parables, discussions, and principal events in his life are the same.6 The course of the life of Jesus
and his activity are presented in a similar fashion. The Baptist appears; Jesus is baptized by him
and enters into the desert of temptation. After this he begins his public life. The greater part of
Jesus’ activity centers in Galilee and in the regions bordering it. His journey to Jerusalem and his
trials are told in similar fashion. All three accounts close with his crucifixion and resurrection. 7

Meanwhile also some events are recounted by only two evangelists, others are proper to only
one. Even then, the two accounts of the same event differ at times. For example, Matthew and
Luke give the history of Jesus’ infancy, whereas Mark does not; yet these two accounts of
Matthew and Luke differ considerably. This also holds true for the genealogies of Jesus that they
present (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-38). The same three temptations of Jesus are narrated by Matthew
and Luke, but the order is changed (Mt 4:3-12, Lk.4:3-12). Even the reports of the resurrection
present no uniform tradition.8

Theories and Hypothesis advanced as solution to the Synoptic problem

A Hypothesis is a theory to account for the known facts. Scientist prefer the hypothesis which is
the simplest one able to account for all the evidence.

Oral dependence

The hypothesis of oral tradition implies that before our Gospels arose there were no written
records of Christ’s ministry, or at least none which was used by the Synoptists. It asserts that
these Evangelists have drawn from narratives of sayings and deeds of Jesus which eye-witnesses
of His public life handed on by word of mouth, and which gradually assumed a greater or less
degree of fixity with constant repetition.9

Augustinian hypothesis

6
FREDERICK GAST, “synoptic problem” in the Jerome biblical commentary vol.ii, n.40.
7
Ibid.,
8
Ibid.,
9
FRANCIS E. GIGOT, “Synoptics” in the catholic encyclopedia, vol.14, p.391

2
The Augustinian hypothesis assumed the order to be Matthew, Mark, and Luke. ‘Augustine
suggest a theory known as “Successive dependence theory” in which he says Matt was written
first, and then Mark make use of it; and Luke make use of both Matt and Mark.’ 10 For a period
this was replaced as the leading theory by the Griesbach hypothesis (Matthew, Luke, Mark). 11
But at the end of the 18th century Marcan priority became the predominantly scholarly opinion.12

Fragmentary theory

Another 19th century theory was the so called “Fragmentary theory” proposed by Friedrich
Schleiermacher, who suggests that there were a lot of written fragments, a lot of written
anecdotes, floating around the early church, and Matthew, Mark, and Luke each independently
made collections of these and put them together into their Gospels.13

Marcan priority

Many believed in the priority of Mark. There is some data that points clearly to Marcan priority
and has the potential of solving the synoptic problem. This is evidence of what might be called
the ‘editorial fatigue’ or ‘docile reproduction’. 14 Editorial fatigue is a phenomena that will
inevitably occur when a writer is heavily dependent on another’s work. In telling the same story
as his predecessor, a writer makes changes in the early stages which he is unable to sustain
throughout. An example is the story of the death of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-29//Matthew
14:1-12). For Mark, Herod is always ‘King’, four times in the passage (vv. 22, 25, 26, and 27).
Matthew apparently corrects this to ‘tetrarch’ but lapses into calling Herod ‘the king’ halfway
through the story (Matt.14:9), in agreement with Mark (Mark 6:26). 15 Mark contains 661 verses,
of which some 80 percent are reproduced in Matthew and about 65 percent in Luke.16

The four-Document Hypothesis

10
New man,
11
FRANS NEIRYNCK, synoptic problem, in the new Jerome biblical commentary, p.587.
12
Ibid.,
13
New man
14
MARK GOODACRE, “Fatigue in the synoptics” in the new testament studies journal, vol 44, 45
15
Ibid., p.46
16
FRANS NEIRYNCK, ‘Synoptic problem’, in the new Jerome biblical commentary, p.589.

3
Certain facts emerges from the comparison of the synoptic gospels that Matthew and Luke seem
to have used a further common source in addition to Mark, which probably consisted of logia, or
sayings of Jesus. It is sometimes referred to as ‘Q’ from the German quelle, source. Since there is
no proof that ‘Q’ ever did exist as a written document, it is a hypothesis to account for the
relationship between Matthew and Luke. The symbol ‘M’ has been given to the information
which Mathew alone has, and ‘L’ to that exclusive to Luke. For many scholars today the four-
document hypothesis provides the most acceptable theory of the origins and relationships of the
synoptic gospels.17

Conclusion

The content of the Synoptics comprise two classes of parallel sections: the one consists of
narratives and events found in all three Gospels and the other consists of Christ’s teachings that
appears only in Matthew and Luke. As in selection of material, the arrangement, and language of
sections parallel in all three, Mathew constantly agrees with Mark against Luke, and Luke with
Mark against Matthew, but Matthew and Luke scarcely ever agree against Mark.18

From the various survey of attempts at solving the Synoptic Problem, it is plain that none of
them has been successful. The satisfactory hypothesis yet to be formulated must be a
combination hypothesis gathering and uniting in due proportions, all the truths presented by the
various opinions, and also a more thorough theory taking fully into account both the data of
Patristic tradition and those disclosed by literary analysis. Such theory, when framed, will
undoubtedly supply the fullest vindication of the historical value of our Synoptics.19

17
SISTER AUDREY, Jesus Christ in the synoptic Gospels, SCM Press, London 1972, p.18
18
FRANCIS E. GIGOT, “Synoptics” in the catholic encyclopedia, vol.14, p.394.
19
Ibid.,