The Synoptic Problem

The synoptic problem concerns the literary relationship between the first three gospels of the New Testament. They share a great number of parallel accounts, arranged in a similar order and often containing similar wording. This is even more striking when it is realised that Jesus would have spoken these words in Aramaic but the agreements are in Greek. What is the likelihood that all three evangelists wrote their accounts very similar without sharing some sources or even reading each other's Gospels? Very unlikely! Think about it in terms of a schoolteacher marking his or her student's work and noticing very similar work, as if one had copied another or they had worked together.

Equally, there are some marked differences. Order changes to suit the author's purpose and each gospel has material unique to itself (as expected - you wouldn't write an account exactly the same or else there would be little point in writing it).

Therefore, the synoptic problem is that of determining the inter-relationship between the first three gospels that explains both their similarities and differences.

You might wonder, what is the point of this? Isn't the message what is important?
The message is ultimately what's important but this is a useful process as it enables us to see how the gospels writers have manipulated their written sources. Their use of sources will have questions about authenticity, and ultimately what sort of message is being portrayed.

SO what theories have been suggested by theologians?

Oral Source: This is an early attempt at explaining the nature of the literary relationship focused on an oral rather than written source. This was proposed by J.G von Herder, who argued for a common oral tradition used by all three synoptic gospel-writers. However, this does not adequately explain the close wording, which implied there was some sort of written link between the gospels. Although this had been generally sidelined by scholars, it makes sense that there would have been common information circulating about Jesus and through conversation the evangelists would have acquired some information about Jesus. Herder goes some way to explain their relationship.

One-Source Solution: This theory was proposed by Griesbach in the 18th century. It claims that Matthew was the first gospel to be written. Luke, then used Matthew, and Mark used both Matthew and Luke. This coincides with the traditional Church view which also claimed that Matthew's gospel was written first.  This view also follows the fact that where Matthew and Luke have different versions of a story, Mark uses both. Additionally, no other sources are needed to explain their literary interdependence. Finally, since Matthew's gospel is seen to be written for Jews much more explicitly than any other gospel, and given that it was Jews who formed the first bulk of the Early Church membership, it seems more likely that Matthew wrote his first.

Two-Source Solution: This is the most popular and widely accepted theory. This claims that Mark was written first, but also that there was another source called 'Q' that existed of the sayings and teachings of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke used this source.

What evidence supports Mark's priority?

- Mark is the shortest gospel it makes sense that he wrote his gospel first and the other gospels added to his information. It is hard to see why Mark would omit material.

- Mark has the poorest command of Greek, suggesting that Luke and Matthew improved on him.

- As far as order is concerned, Matthew and Luke generally follow Mark.

- Luke and Matthew rarely agree against Mark, suggesting that Matthew and Luke had independently relied on Mark.

What evidence supports the 'Q' hypothesis?

- The source explains the similar wording between Matthew and Luke

- It accounts for the existence of doublets (sayings that occur twice in Matthew and Luke). It is argued that one is from Mark and one is from Q.

Four-source Solution: This hypothesis is accredited to Streeter. He simply extends the two source theory but adds two additional sources, M (Matthew's Source) + L (Luke's Source). These two sources, according to Streeter, represent the traditions of the Christian communities in Caesarea  (L) and Jerusalem (M). Luke was influenced by traditions in Caesarea while Matthew used those in Jerusalem. This theory explains the unique material in Matthew and Luke, that 'Q' doesn't account for. (I.e. there are more similarities than can be taken from a 'sayings of Jesus' source).

----------------------------

It is impossible to know which theory is the correct one, if any. Perhaps the answer is a more fluid inter-relationship between the gospels. Within a short space of time after Jesus' death, there would have been a multitude of information circulating about him, and therefore it may be impossible to disentangle the sources of any of the synoptic gospels as they were collected from a vast array of data.