What is the Synoptic Problem (Part One)

It is unquestionable that the Gospel accounts are similar in some ways and different in others. The similarities and differences have led many to question and become troubled by their existence. The adage, “Never let a crisis go to waste,” comes to mind as any perceived problem with the Biblical text is tirelessly exploited by the Adversary and those who would do his work. When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, Satan did not challenge Him to sin by appealing to Greek thought, such as Stoicism or Platonic thought. Rather, he tried to challenge the Word of God and appeal to it as a justification for sin. Jesus, our example, showed how we respond to problems of any nature. We must turn to the sound interpretation of the Scriptures. For this paper, we will evaluate the merits of four non-Biblical explanations of this problem, commonly known as the synoptic problem. After which, we will conclude with the Biblical doctrine of Divine Inspiration and why it is the only suitable answer to this problem. 

Defining the Synoptic Problem

It is essential to define our terms to properly evaluate the merit of this question and what potential answers there are to this problem. First, where does the word synoptic come from? Caldwell explains. 

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are more like historical narratives, while John is a book of evidences and does not really purport to be a biographical of the life of Christ. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are thus called synoptics (Greek: sun, together; opsis, seeing) gospels: i.e., they may be seen together. (Caldwell, xxiv)

If you were to look at a harmony of the Gospels, you would frequently be able to look at Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at times side by side, telling accounts of the same event. You could see them together and compare and contrast. So how does this become a problem for the student of God’s Word?  The Synoptic Problem presupposes that since the writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similar looking, they must have a common source. Goodacre defined the term as follows: “The study of the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels in an attempt to explain their literary relationship” (Goodacre, 172).  This problem has ancient roots, such as Augustine, who in the fourth century surmised that the language of the texts was so similar that they must have a common origin. 

The modern literary criticism theory has much newer roots. Coffman wrote, “The synoptic problem was invented shortly before the middle of the nineteenth century, and since has monopolized the time and activities of countless scholars, with utterly no concrete results.” (Coffman, 6). The theories that will be presented are either self-defeating at least or mutually destructive at best. Robert Taylor Jr. explains, 

The opening three books, often called the Synoptics, have become a battleground as they sought to determine which one was written first, and with the other two as mere copyists of what had already been written. They have jumbled them up into all kinds of combinations, which proves they do not know anything about the matter of the one-two-three order. Throwing in the elusive Q document just compounds the problem all that much more. (Taylor, 722).

Nevertheless, the New Testament Christian should be able to identify some of the various nuances of the Synoptic Problem and answer them with Biblical support.  There are times when the Christian will encounter an individual who has heard one or more of these theories from television programs, pulpits, or internet forums. Our basic familiarity may present an opportunity to reach that person with the Gospel of Christ. 

The Matthew Aramaic Gospel Theory

For our first consideration, we will test the Matthew Aramaic or Hebrew Gospel Theory, which states that Matthew wrote an Aramaic (or Hebrew) version of his Gospel. This theory suggests the Aramaic or Hebrew version is the full version and is lost.  This claim is largely based on Eusebius quoting Papias from A.D. 120.  Kok suggests, “Papias did not presuppose Matthew’s facility in Greek. Rather, he plainly states, “So Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language and each person interpreted them as best he could” (in Eusebius, h.e. 3.39.16) (Kok). 

This theory lacks merit because we cannot read Papias. We are only left to what Eusebius and Irenaeus have to say about what Papias alleged. In addition, neither Eusebius nor Papias were contemporaries of the New Testament writers. We cannot base bold theological stances on what someone said that someone else said. This is particularly true because there has never been a shred of physical evidence to support it. This theory has been proposed by Judaizers and Jehovah’s Witnesses to this author, both of whom have a vested interest in weakening the credibility of the New Testament. 

We must also confidently assert that if the missing Aramaic or Hebrew version of Matthew is the fuller true version, then the Bible is not complete, and thus it cannot be the perfect Word of God, and we need not follow what it says. Moreover, if this is the case, then God failed in delivering His Message to mankind. This is a theory that has dire consequences. 

Two-Gospel Hypothesis

The Two-Gospel Hypothesis theory states that one Gospel author wrote first, then another copied, and then the third author copied from both. This seeks to explain why sometimes two accounts have similar details or events that another may leave out, or that potentially all three have. This theory suggests that agreement in wording demands that one must be copied from at minimum one other. Caldwell wrote, 

An altogether different theory formulated by an eighteenth-century German scholar named Johann Griesbach and developed by William Farmer in his book The Synoptic Problem, posits a “Two-Gospel Hypothesis.”It proposes that Luke used Matthew’s Gospel as a source and that Mark used both Matthew and Luke in formulating his narrative after they wrote. (Caldwell, xxv). 

This theory, though evidently popular, does not hold merit if one holds to the fact that God selected every word of Scripture. If the Holy Spirit is the source of all three synoptic accounts, which are telling similar events, we would certainly expect consistencies to occur. The Old Testament includes a similar situation when you compare the Books of Kings and Chronicles. Similar events and individuals with some variances. Does this mean that they are interdependent? No, it is a historical record of real events divinely recorded through inspired human writers. 

Works Cited: 

Caldwell, C.G. Truth Commentaries: The Gospel According to Luke. Edited by Mike Willis, Guardian of Truth Foundation, 2011. 

Clarke, B. J., and Robert  R Taylor. Dangerous ’isms: The 1997 Power Lectures. 

Coffman, James  Burton. Commentary on Luke. Firm Foundation, 1976. 

Kok, Michael  J. “The Patristic Traditions about the Evangelist Matthew.”   bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/patristic-traditions-about-evangelist-matthew.Accessed 3 Dec. 2025.