The Synoptic Problem

"The Synoptic problem is the problem of stating what the literary relationship among the Synoptics is in such a way that their similarities and differences are explained"(Moreland 152). The problem is that there are not only points of comparison in the Synoptic Gospel accounts, but there are also many differences. There are places within the records that on the surface appear to be contradictory. How are these differences accounted for? Why does one account present a different order of events from another? Why do they give different details? Why do they contain some of the very same material, but then also contain unique material? This particular problem raises the question concerning the origin of the accounts. This problem is also one that Bible critics have long latched onto to argue that the Bible is merely a product of man. It is not within the scope or possibility of this study to answer all of the supposed problems. The purpose is to suggest some principles that are important for a solution to the problems.

When Does A Contradiction Exist?

Before looking at some factors important for solving the Synoptic problem, it would be good to ask, "When does a contradiction exist?" It seems that some are quick to charge that there are contradictions without fully examining the context or situation in which statements are given. Just because there are differences in the accounts does not mean that these differences are irreconcilable. Granted, there are difficulties within the accounts, but difficulties are not the same as contradictions. Warfield observed that:

"... so long as the proper evidence by which a proposition is established remains unrefuted, all so-called objections brought against it pass out of the category of objections to its truth into the category of difficulties to be adjusted to." (174)

Bringing up a difficulty does not establish untrustworthiness, for difficulties are not the same as errors. If there is a plausible explanation, then there is no contradiction.

Suggested Solutions

Various Theories. There have been several ways that people have attempted to account for the differences in the Synoptics. Unfortunately, many of these attempts have been efforts to explain them in such a way that makes them completely the product of men. One theory suggests that after one of the accounts was first written, the second account was dependent upon it, and the third account depended upon the first two. This does not adequately account for the differences. Another theory says that all of the material was in fragments, and that the writers simply edited and compiled these fragments. One well accepted view is called "The Two-Document Theory," which says that there were two sources from which the accounts were written. The first source was much like, if not identical to, the Gospel of Mark. The second source is called "Q," and supposedly accounts for the material common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. McDowell comments about "Q":

"The existence of this literary document is presumed so strongly by some, that you would think we possess it in hand. In fact, all that we really possess is a collection of various verses from Matthew and Luke which are said to make up the Q document based on present literary criticism." (78)

The existence of Q is far from established. Furthermore, all of these theories, which are more numerous that can be examined here, are insufficient to deal with the fundamental questions of the reliability of Scripture. They are woefully inadequate on the subject of inspiration, which one will have to ultimately face when dealing with Scripture. Consider now some factors that are important for solving the Synoptic Problem.

The Target Audience. It is important to consider the audience to whom the author was writing. The inclusion or exclusion of certain events and teachings may have been based upon the audience. Sometimes similar events are described within different contexts. This seems to be the case due to the interests and needs of those who were the target audience. One states:

"Therefore, whereas we find no contradiction of historical details within the Gospel accounts, we will find various rearrangements of the material which helped each gospel writer communicate the life of Christ to the particular audience which he had targeted." (McDowell 78)

Since the accounts were not written chronologically, but topically, then this should not be a problem. Differences are thus accounted for based upon the audience to whom the record was written.

Eyewitnesses. One important factor is that there were eyewitnesses who could verify the truthfulness of the accounts. Matthew was himself a firsthand witness of Jesus. It would seem rather strange that he would have had to rely upon other material for events that he himself witnessed. Mark was apparently a witness to some of the events, and evidence suggests that he wrote his account based upon the testimony of Peter. Luke explicitly claims to have gathered information from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4). Therefore, the direct knowledge obtained by the writers refutes the notion that they needed to rely upon each other for their material.

Oral Teaching and Written Accounts. The Gospel was first spread orally. During the time that the apostles were in Jerusalem, Christians learned the Gospel and repeated what they learned in much the same way. There was a great amount of similarity in how the Gospel was taught. This must be factored into the similarities in the Gospel accounts. Luke also verifies that there were some other written accounts of the life of Jesus, but they were inadequate for Luke’s purposes. Priority seems to be given to the oral accounts. Luke says, "just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed them down to us" (Luke 1:2). He knew of earlier sources, but he asserts that he relied upon eyewitness testimony. These "eyewitnesses" most likely included the apostles themselves.

Different Facts and Proper Interpretation. Keeping in mind that a contradiction does not exist if there is a plausible explanation, there still may be a question about different facts that differ in the accounts. Much of this can be solved through proper hermeneutical methods. For example, Matthew records that a centurion came to Jesus (Matthew 8:5-13), whereas Luke reports that the centurion sent others to Jesus (Luke 7:2-10). Matthew’s account does not exclude what Luke says. It is possible that the centurion sent others, then anxiously went himself. It is also possible that this could be explained on the principle that one who does something through another does it himself. In either case, a plausible explanation exists, and one cannot sustain the charge of contradiction. This one example is typical of many other cases in the Gospel accounts. The point is that proper interpretation goes a long way in solving the Synoptic Problem. Simply because we do not have all of the information of a specific event does not mean it is an error.

The Historical Context. Each account not only has a different audience, but also has a message well-suited to the audience. Thiessen states:

"We believe that modern Synoptic criticism has too largely ignored the historical situations out of which our Gospels grew. The Book of Acts indicates that the Church was at first Jewish and that persecutions caused the Christians to scatter to various parts of Palestine and other countries. It indicates that the Gospel was then carried to the Greeks at Antioch; after that through Asia Minor and Macedonia, and on to Greece. It indicates further that the Gospel was taken to Rome and to the uttermost parts of the earth. At each of these new steps in the progress of Christianity a written Gospel seems historically necessary. That is, the historical situations gave rise to our four Gospels." (128-129)

Factoring In God

God is ultimately responsible for the Gospel. One cannot be neutral about the Bible, since it claims to be inspired of God. Just because a particularly passage was not written the way we think it should have been written is not adequate grounds to charge that the Bible contradicts itself. God knew what was best for the people and the situation at that given time. We may not have as much information as we would like. We may not fully understand why God chose to include or exclude certain facts. Those answers ultimately rest with Him. It is foolish to charge the Bible with errors based upon our limited knowledge.

One fallacy of modern criticism is that it is impossible for those so far removed from the events to know more about the Biblical situation than those who saw and heard firsthand the events being described. Modern criticism must assume that those who called themselves eyewitnesses were really liars, or at least deluded. Where is the objective evidence for this? Unless this evidence is forthcoming, we must still give the Biblical writers the benefit of the doubt.

Conclusion

McDowell, Josh. A Ready Defense. San Bernadino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, 1988.

Moreland, J. P. Scaling The Secular City. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction To The New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943.