The Synoptic Problem

What is the Synoptic Problem?

The synoptic problem concerns the problem of knowing the kind of literary
interrelationships responsible for the similarities existing between the
Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The majority of scholars believe that
between these three Gospels (the three 'synoptic' Gospels, or 'look-alike'
Gospels) there are many more 'agreements' in terms of their
shared content, order and wording than should be expected amongst
independently written accounts (compare the fourth Gospel 'According to
John' which shares very little overlapping content, order or wording with
the 'synoptics') and so it is that these similarities require some kind of
literary explanation.

Increasingly since the seventeenth century various scholars have sought to

find the most plausible explanation for the kind of similarities between
Matthew, Mark and Luke. Such explanations are known as Gospel 'source
theories' (or 'hypotheses'). However, admitting the existence of the
synoptic problem is controversial in certain conservative quarters because,
for theological reasons, some Christians do not believe that any kind of
literary relationship could exist amongst the Gospels, as though such would
be to charge the Gospel authors with plagiarism, or even potentially
undermine the perceived historical reliability of the Gospels as supposed
independent compositions (i.e. independent historical witnesses). However
no such independence is claimed by the Gospels themselves. In fact the
first verse of Luke refers to many others already having put together a
written account (Lk 1:1) which probably suggests the author had either
read other accounts, or at least heard them read out.

Early History of the Synoptic Problem

Gospel source theories have only been developed since the seventeenth
century, probably in parallel with changing conceptions of (1) what an
'author' is, (2) perceptions of what 'history' is and (3) the type of literature
the Gospels represent. Consequently 'literary dependence' (one Gospel
author utilizing another Gospel as a source), is a relatively modern notion.
For most of Church history the four Gospels were perceived as having been
written somewhat independently of one another. Church theologians gave
little thought to the kinds of written sources available to the Gospel
authors or the kinds of writing procedures such 'authors' would have used
in the composition of their respective Gospels. When the fourth century
theologian Augustine acknowledged that Mark reads like an abbreviated
version of Matthew, it is not clear whether he was implying anything about
the use of Matthew by the author of Mark, or whether he is simply stating
the obvious point that there is much in common between the two and that
Mark is the briefer of the two.

Tatian in the late-second century solved the 'problem' of having four

different Gospel accounts by combining them into one long account. This
'mixed' Gospel was especially popular in the Syriac version until about the
fourth century.

Origen in the third century saw that the differences between the Gospels
were due to the different ways the Evangelists modified their narration of
historical events for spiritual reasons, at the expense of historical accuracy.

Until the seventeenth century it is difficult to find any discussion of Gospel

interrelations beyond the superficial observation of when in time each was
written, i.e. the likely order of composition.

Prior to the seventeenth century the problem was thought to be the

differences between the four Gospels (the similarities were not considered
to be the problem). So Church theologians thought they needed to explain
the differences so as to defend the unity of 'the Gospel' and to explain
away the differences (or to 'harmonize' apparent discrepancies) between
the Gospels, as such differences were thought to present a theological
vulnerability to the validity of the Church's teachings as though the 'truth'
of the Gospels depended on all four Gospels being in total agreement in all
details. The 'problem of difference' had often been dealt with in various
ways, with the problem of 'chronology of events' gaining much attention.
For example, in the sixteenth century Calvin's general solution to the
problem of different chronologies between the Gospels was stated in this
way:

No fixed and distinct order of dates was observed by the Evangelists in

composing their narratives. The consequence is, that they disregard the
order of time, and satisfy themselves with presenting, in a summary
manner, the leading transactions in the life of Christ. They attended, no
doubt, to the years, so as to make it plain to their readers, in what manner
Christ was employed, during the course of three years, from the
commencement of his preaching till his death. But miracles, which took
place nearly about the same time, are freely intermixed.

Calvin disregarded the extreme approach of Ossiander whose harmony

(1537) had Jesus tested by Satan three times, with three healings of blind
men near Jericho, three centurions’ sons healed, three anointings of Jesus
by three different women, three cleansings of the temple, and had Jesus
betrayed by Judas twice.

So Calvin decided that only one Gospel at any given time need have given
the correct order of events. 

Similarly, Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) believed that only when more than
one gospel agreed in their order of episodes, could we suppose that this
indicated the actual chronology of events. Chemnitz believed that the
Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew and the Sermon on Plain found in
Luke were actually two versions of the same sermon. 

The Critical Approach

Radical Proposal: Abandonment of the Harmonistic Approach
Prior to the seventeenth century the Christian scholar's task had been to
'harmonize' the Gospel accounts so as to remove the notion of
discrepancies  among the Gospels. Luther was not at all interested in the
problem differences posed, and thought that people should just ignore such
inconsistencies:

If one account in Holy Writ is at variance with another, and it is impossible

to solve the difficulty, just dismiss it from your mind.   

The Gospels increasingly were no longer read by all scholars with the
primary purpose to reconcile ('harmonize') differences. Certain scholars
began considering the kind of history lying behind the Gospels which
actually differed to that indicated by each of the four Gospels--thereby
prioritizing history above the traditional theologicalapproach. In other words
certain scholars within the church began doubting that the Gospels could be
perfectly reconciled in all their details.

Admitting to the synoptic problem was, at first, akin to a heresy. The earliest
proponents of literary dependence were considered quite radical in their
time, and so the works of Hugo Grotius, John Mill, and J. J. Wettstein were
rather controversial. It was not until the late eighteenth century that the
textual critic Griesbach could safely admit to believing the 'heresy' that
different Gospel details could not all be 'harmonized.'

Just prior to Griesbach (in Germany), Henry Owen (in England) published his
theory of Gospel composition in 1764 which accepted the notion that
Grotius, Mill and Wettstein had earlier advocated, namely that:

...the Evangelists not only perused, but also transcribed, each others
Writings.

In the same vein in 1774-1776 the textual critic Griesbach published the first
real 'synopsis' for 'looking-together' at the Gospels with the intention to
help discover the 'history' of their composition. Griesbach held the same
'source theory' as Owen, i.e. that the Gospel of Luke utilized Matthew whilst
Mark had utilized both Matthew and Luke. Griesbach presumed that
'Matthew' could not have depended on Mark or Luke because the author of
Matthew was the disciple Matthew who would not have needed to use as
sources the Gospels written by non-apostles ('Mark' and 'Luke' who
Griesbach considered less 'inspired').