The Synoptic Problem?

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16)

The “Synoptic Gospels” are Matthew, Mark, and Luke, called this because of their similarities (taking the same point of view) as opposed to being quite different from John. A long-held general view has thought chronologically of the four Gospels in the order they stand in the New Testament – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Synoptic Problem.

This “problem” concerns the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and their relationships to one another – in the sense of dependence, independence, or interdependence. A human explanation is sought. For simple Bible believers, the “problem” is not a problem because God is behind all of these Gospels and they are the way they are because of his divine choice. For many of the rest, the “problem” is resolved by settling on two sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke – the Gospel of Mark and an imaginary document called “Q.”

Markan Priority.

Liberal New Testament scholars in the 19th century began to reject the priority of Matthew’s Gospel in favor of Mark’s Gospel. “Markan Priority” theorizes that the authors of Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels drew from or depended on the Gospel of Mark as a source of information in their own writings. This “resolves” the parts of these three Gospels that are similar. Since not all of the material that Matthew and Luke have in common is found in the Gospel of Mark, “Markan Priority” only resolves part of the “problem.” This necessitates another source for the parts that Matthew and Luke have in common with each other, but not with Mark.

“Q” or “Q source”.[i]

“Q” (aka “Logia Source Q”) is therefore the hypothetical document imagined as a “solution” to the so-called “Synoptic Problem,” when combined with “Markan Priority.” According to this hypothesis, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and also a second source for the material they have in common that is not found in Mark.[ii] This source does not exist, but it has been created in the imaginations of unbelieving scholars. Usually the “Q” material is a single theoretical lost written source, though some may include oral resources as well.[iii]

The real problem.

The real problem is the havoc caused among Bible believers who read so-called conservative commentators who spread the virus of unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Thomas Ross illustrates this in “Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible.” John Nolland, author of The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), who passes for a conservative in evangelical circles, writes:

“On the basis of the tensions and difficulties in the account [in Matthew 25:31-46, rlv] many scholars have held that Matthew has cobbled this account together out of traditional fragments and OT resources…the adjustment is likely to be pre-Matthean, but this time it may be Matthew himself who is responsible for the change…With some brief, now-lost beginning to introduce the king, the restored parable is free of the tensions and difficulties that have been identified in the Matthean account.”[iv] 

A brief summary of what Nolland thinks is this. He posits that whatever Jesus Christ actually said got changed to something different than what Jesus said! This kind of talk is replicated in far too many “conservative” evangelical commentaries, sermons, etc.

The solution to the problem.

The solution to the “Synoptic Problem” begins with “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” That is, I understand that the Synoptic Gospels are inspired by God, and I believe this even in light of the things I do not understand. “Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

My objection to “Markan Priority” and “Q” starts at a the most basic level – the inspiration of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). “Markan Priority” and “Q” theory emphasizes the human element in the writing of the Gospels. It essentially removes the divine element. Men imagine these Gospels rising from three authors without due emphasis on these three Gospels rising from one author using three inspired penmen. Since the human element is overemphasized, a need to fix the “problems” lends to the imagining of writers (particularly Matthew and Luke) copying their Gospels from Mark and an artfully invented fictional source – in order to explain why these books are the way they are. However, if God wrote the Gospels, that in itself explains why they are the way they are. They are how he wants them. This view may not suit our human curiosity in explaining all we think we want to know. Nevertheless, that must be the beginning point for the Bible believer.

Ultimately, we have gotten ourselves into this mess by rejecting the older view of inspiration that is closer to dictation than superintendence. “Dictation” has been pooh-poohed by modern evangelicals. Good people have rejected the term and preferred superintendence instead. Certainly, there is a human element to the writing of Scripture. That said, we cannot resolve “problems” by rejecting God as the divine author of Scripture. The majority of evangelicals in the United States may be emphasizing the human element to the removing of the divine element – while still giving lip service to inspiration. “Markan Priority” and “Q” are symptoms of the sickness of overemphasizing the “humanness” of the Gospels.

Considering the human standpoint of the authors, the Synoptic Gospels are independent accounts by three independent witnesses. That is, they do not need to depend on one another or any fictional sources. “Q” source is an inspiration-denying view, even if some of those who repeat it do not themselves deny inspiration.

There is one original ultimate source of the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, and the whole of Scripture (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) are pure words from one source – God who gave the word. Believe it. Lord, help thou mine unbelief.

---

[i] “Q” is an abbreviation of the German word “Quelle”, meaning “source.” This should give the reader the hint that these doubts arise in large part from German higher criticism, which is an unbelief in the supernatural element of Christianity.
[ii] In addition to the Two Document (or Two Source) Hypothesis, there also exist hypotheses for three sources or four sources. When you start making this stuff up, there is no limit to how many sources there could be.
[iii] “Q” does not exist. There is no proof it ever existed. It exists only in the minds of those who need it to resolve their problems.
[iv] To read a long excerpt of John Nolland, with Thomas Ross’s comments, see “Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible.”