The Interpretation of the Synoptic Problem
The Bible is one of the most holy, as well as the most popular, books in all of history; but the facts and the sources claimed to write it can be put into question and highly unknown. This state of the unknown has led scholars to look at the bible in a remarkably different way; instead of seeing the Bible in the eyes of a religious work, they use methods such as literary-historical and redaction criticism to make the literature piece easier to understand and to get at the deeper (true) meaning of the text (ER, 93). After years of researching and dissecting the text of the bible, scholars have tried to explain this notion and idea called the synoptic problem. It starts with the understanding of the synoptic gospels, which are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They are considered the synoptic gospels because “they have so many stories in common that they can be placed side by side in columns and “seen together”” (ER, 93). Statistically, the evidence also points to the synoptic gospels as being extremely similar, with Matthew using 90% of Mark, Luke using 35% of Mark, and the “three Synoptic [gospels] share in common, word for word agreement averages about 50%” (Handout 3 Synoptic Problem). The synoptic problem can then be explained as “the question of why it is that these three gospels look so much alike”. Understanding the Synoptic Problem, a reader can take a pericope such as the Infancy Narratives and dissect it using historical background to get a better understanding and historical sense of what the author is trying to explain.
The Synoptic Problem has been explained by scholars in many different ways and theories, but most have accepted that the 4-source hypothesis is the least problematic and highly probable. The four-source hypothesis can be broken down into four parts: Markan Priority, Q source, M source, L source. Markan Priority is explained by biblical scholars as Mark being the first gospel to be written, and...
