Synoptic Gospels: An Overview and its Problems - Research Paper Example

The Synoptic Gospels: An Overview and its Problems By (Module and number) The Holy Bible is the sacred book of the Christians. It has two testaments, the Old Testament and the New Testament. Sixty-six books compose these two testaments. In the Old Testament, there are 39 books while 27 books form the New Testament. So how would one know if a book belongs to the Old or the New Testament? It is quite simple. The Old Testament is the collection of books which were written before Jesus of Nazareth was born. On the other hand, the New Testament is composed of books that contain the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.1 In the New Testament, one can find 4 Gospels, Acts, 21 Epistles, and the book of Revelation.2 This paper will focus on the four gospels. These gospels are the written by Jesus’ apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However, among the four, the gospel according to John has a different chronology, pattern and wording. This is unlike the other 3 remaining gospels. The gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke are also known as the Synoptic Gospels. What is the meaning of the Synoptic? The dictionary meaning of the word is “presenting or taking the same or common view, specifically often relating to the first three Gospels of the New Testament.”3 It is quite redundant that the term synoptic gospels are being used with reference to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke when just by the term synoptic one can already refer to the gospels. The 3 gospels have a sense of parallelism with regard to structure, language, chronology, and even some points of arguments.4 Through times and further studies of the books of the Bible, especially the gospels, the questions arise in regard to the similarities that these gospels have. According to E. A. Livingstone: “The problem of the relationship between the three ‘Synoptic Gospels’ (Mt., Mk., Lk.) posed by the amount of subject matter which they share and the many similarities in wording and order. In modern times most scholars have held (1). that Mk. was the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels and that it was used as a source by Mt. and Lk., and (2). that for the non-Marcan material common to Mt. and Lk., their authors drew independently on a lost common source (or sources) known as ‘Q’ (q.v.). This ‘two-document hypothesis’ (that Mt. and Lk. are based on Mk. and ‘Q’) was developed mainly in Germany in the 19th cent., was given classic expression by B. H. Streeter, and came to be almost universally accepted. In the second half of the 20th century, a few scholars challenged the priority of Mk. and several denied the existence of ‘Q’.”5 When analyzing this statement by Livingstone, the term “problem” being used is actually not much of a problem. It is more of a clarification of the earlier analysis and teachings of the life of Jesus. On the other hand, other authors do believe otherwise. This was evident in the statement of Mark Goodacre; according to the writer: “This way of reading the Gospel is not simply a recent and popular development. It is the way in which they have been read for most of their history. It proceeds in part from an embarrassment that there should be four Gospels in the Bible and not one. If we are to think of ‘gospel truth’ and the reliability of Scripture, there might seem to be a problem in the fact that the first four books in the New Testament announce themselves as the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”6 The problems that other scholars are pertaining to are just in reference to the possible questions and emerging explanations between the relationships of the gospels. When thoroughly analyzing the three gospels, they are not similar word per word. They also tell the stories or the events of the life of Jesus in different ways. Since there are 3 different gospels written by 3 different apostles, it is not impossible that, though they see the same things and write about it, there are interpretations and terminologies which would not synch in one way or the other. Even if the gospels are said to be synoptic, or are seen as similar, its writers do have different ways of telling and conveying a story to future readers. Another point that should be considered when analyzing the synoptic gospels is the fact that there have been numerous versions of the Bible available to the present generation of scholars. Moreover, the Bible was written in a different language as compared to the languages of today’s Bibles (the translations).7 The differences and discrepancies found in the synoptic gospels are further backed up by various scholars who believe that these variations are just facts which do not affect the reliability and credibility of the Scriptures. As Bratcher detailed: This allowed the development of critical methodologies for the investigation of Scripture that included a careful and detailed reading of the biblical texts for what they actually said apart from the doctrines that told people what they should mean. This did not deny the authority of the Bible as the inspired word of God. In fact, it affirmed it even more strongly. But it did allow the biblical text to be seen as something more than a repository of timeless and unchanging truths written by the finger of God.8 The more the scriptures are being questioned, the more these scholars believe that what was written in the text is true. Others would still want to see proofs or tangible evidence; however, are these Gospels not enough evidence of what has happened? Non-believers will continuously question the validity of these texts. Examining these scriptures also considered to be holy texts makes non-believers convert, as evidences do point out to reality and not just hoax. Gathering possible solutions for this synoptic problem, Farmer credited the works of Griesbach. Farmer stated: Holding the Augustine’s view that no one of the Evangelists did his work in ignorance of that of his predecessor or predecessors but taking into account that Mark could not be understood simply as an “epitomizer” of Matthew, Griesbach proposed that Mark was written later than Luke and was dependent on both Matthew and Luke.9 However, as time passes by scholars are still digging up into the texts to figure out what another problem they can submit and further criticize. For the long time, the Bible has been the book widely criticized by scholars worldwide. It is not because of the text it contained but because of the validity of the scriptures which it possesses. The Bible is also being questioned because of the fact that there is not enough tangible evidence that can be gathered to prove these scriptures are true. Moreover, in these synoptic gospels, 3 apostles, though they have witnessed the same events, interpret and describe them in different ways. Such problem will arise, as the problem is attempted to be solved through the use of scientific methods. However, there has always been a consideration that science and religion cannot be mixed together, just like water and oil. Science needs to have tangible evidence before one idea can be proven as true. This cannot be applied to religion or theology, as the events that have happened have dates and places which are changed within time, and that makes the texts inconsistent with what is seen at present by scholars. The fact that there are verses in one gospel which may not appear in the others is just a proof that there are things which are not seen together by the three and, even though these gospels are said to be synoptic, there are still areas where the individuality of each apostle shows.10 The Bible is evidence that the field of religion is a very vast field of wonders and miracles. Reading a particular gospel or scripture is not enough to say that a particular event or miracle did occur. The places mentioned in the Bible have a different name today. It is not enough for one to say that a person has memorized each verse and knows how to interpret them to proclaim himself or herself as a Bible scholar. What is written in the Bible should be studied not only by mind but also by heart. Another way to put it is that one should practice what is being preached and not just preach what is written. The synoptic gospels are just proofs that people or scholars who may be non-believers read sacred texts. Another solution was offered by Marsh. For Marsh, omission may be the solution. A question, however, arises: if things are omitted from these gospels, how accurate will the Bible be compared to the “truth” that it holds and wants to convey to its readers. This was also pointed out by Farmer in the following: The Augustinian hypothesis had also involved Mark in omitting large parts of Matthew. But the Augustinian hypothesis enjoyed an important advantage which compensated for this difficulty. For alongside the notion that each Evangelist attempted to give as full and complete a report of matter concerning Jesus as he was able...was the idea that each succeeding Evangelist wrote in order to supplement the work of his predecessor.11 This statement defended the differences that the synoptic gospels have. It is quite true that one should not follow the others’ way of conveying the story, as redundancy may give rise to suspicion. Also, the more one knows about Jesus, the one understands Him. Scholars who dubbed the discrepancies as a problem strictly follow the literal meaning of synoptic gospels. Actually, they are just different visions of the same events, and the word of God has never indicated they should have been written or interpreted in the same way. If one analyzes or studies the synoptic gospels, one should open his or her eyes and heart, as sticking to certain operating procedures and guidelines would not be helpful. Of course, one is aware that different people do have different ways of analyzing what they see. Matthew, Mark and Luke are not exemptions. They are also human beings who have the freedom to express what they think, see and feel. These expressions can be dependent on the opinions or expressions of others, as they are individuals. Even if they do believe in the same risen Christ, there are differences in the way they would think. Being followers of Jesus Christ, Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote the gospels about the life of Christ as they saw the events happened. One may be doing something else than the other and saw a different angle of the story. This does not make the gospel untrue or suspicious. It is just evidence that the life of Jesus of Nazareth is too broad and filled with miracles, and that one may write about miracles that others may have just heard of and not witnessed. This could happen the other way around. Omissions of some contexts can also be an option, as there are too many events that also needed to be conveyed. This does not make one evangelist or apostle to be lesser or greater than the others. It is just a proof that there are more miracles and sermons that Jesus performed or said and which also need to be learned or studied by scholars. The Bible is the most published book of all times. There are numerous versions and translations into different languages. The synoptic problem is actually not a problem for believers; this is more of a study for non-believers in their attempt to prove what they want to see and believe, as they know within themselves that there is a higher power guiding mankind in the attainment of happiness, serenity and unity. Bibliography Bratcher, Dennis. The Gospels and the Synoptic Problem: The Literary Relationship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. CRI/Voice, Institute, 2005. Farmer, William Reuben. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. USA: Mercer University Press, 1976. Goodacre, Mark, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through The Maze. London, England: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001. Halley .Henry H. Halleys Bible Handbook. 24th ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965. Livingstone, E. A. "Synoptic Problem." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2000. Encyclopedia.com. (July 12, 2012). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O95-SynopticProblem.html. Morris, Leon. New Testament Theology. Zondervan, 1990. “Synoptic.” Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed. Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2008. Unger, Merrill F. and Gary Larson. The New Ungers Bible Handbook. Singapore: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 2005. Read More