The synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain an abundance of similarities, especially when contrasted with the fourth Gospel, John. The word, “synoptic” means “seen together”. Many of the stories these three Gospels contain are nearly identical, even down to the wording, found in the same order in each Gospel. And, at the same time, they each also contain their own stories, in different orders and phrasing. The probability that three different authors would happen to write the same story with the same wording is very low. When three people tell one story, they all tell it from their perspectives, emphasizing what is important to them individually. So, when three Gospels have the same wording for one story, it appears that they had the same source, from which they copied. However, the three Synoptic Gospels do not agree all the time. Some stories are seen in only one or two of the Gospels. Nor, are the stories across all three Gospels worded identically all the time. This is what has come to be termed the Synoptic Problem (Ehrman, 121).
Scholars have tried to solve the Synoptic Problem in various ways, the most notable of which is called the Four-Source Hypothesis. This hypothesis states that Mark is the earliest Gospel and that Matthew and Luke copy Mark, explaining the identical wording in many of the stories. Then, to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke that differ from Mark, many scholars argue that another source must have existed which we call Quelle, or Q for short. Finally, to explain the differences among the three Gospels, Matthew and Luke are assumed to each have their sources, which we call M and L. These sources could be oral traditions or written works from which they took as they desired (Ehrman, 121-122).
Though this is the majority position by many scholars, it is not without its faults. First, no one has ever found Q, M, or L, so the assumption that these sources existed at one point though not impossible, is highly speculative. If Q were a source used by two different authors in different communities, one would expect that this document would be well respected and that there would be many copies made. Therefore, the fact that no one has ever found even a fragment of Q is unlikely. Next, many Biblical scholars assume that the Gospels are not true or reliable. Therefore, any hint of supernatural ability is immediately labeled as impossible. For example, a majority of scholars assume Mark’s Gospel was written around 70 AD because, in Mark, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. Historically, it is well established that the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in 70 AD. Therefore, Mark could not be written too much before that, unless Jesus can predict the future. When studying a person who performs miracles and claims to be God, predicting the future would be no problem. So, in deciding on the date for the Gospel of Mark, the assumption is that Mark is not reliable. This assumption is fair, but the late date cannot be used to argue for its unreliability without using circular reasoning. Assumptions such as this and the opposite that the Gospels are true are impossible to avoid because every scholar will enter believing that the Gospels are accurate or inaccurate.
However, it is not fair to only consider possibilities from one assumption or the other. The Four-Source Hypothesis is a possible solution to the synoptic problem. According to Ehrman, it is the “one that most scholars have come to accept as the least problematic (p. 121)”. However, it is not without its faults. There are other theories for solving the Synoptic Problem as well, most notably the idea of viewing the Gospels through the lens of testimony. The view of the Gospels as testimony, though it does not solve every problem, is also a valid option and should be considered in Biblical and Religious Studies.
The idea of the Synoptic Gospels being testimony does not necessarily indicate that they were eyewitnesses who wrote them, though it includes that possibility as well. However, it does mean that the authors wrote the Gospels at a time when eyewitnesses were still alive, which allows scholars to read them as both history and theology, knowing that the writers intended to write what occurred with the intention of teaching about the way of Jesus. Seeing the Gospels as testimony means that they were either written by eyewitnesses who saw what happened or based on their teachings during or towards the close of their lifetimes (Bauckham, 5-7).
Papias, an early leader in the Church, gives us some context to the early Christian beliefs about the Gospels and the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. Though scholars debate the exact time in which Papias wrote, many believe him to have written around 110 C.E., some arguing as late as 140 C.E. (Ehrman, 91). However, the time about which Papias is explaining is earlier on, because two of Jesus’ disciples were still living, Aristion, who was one of the 72, and John the Elder, also referred to as “The Disciple whom Jesus Loved”. Papias claims that the oral traditions of the Gospels are all attached to specific eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus’ life. He emphasizes the importance of learning from eyewitnesses themselves or teachings that can be attached to them. This indicates that the eyewitnesses of Jesus were active in their teaching after Jesus’ death. Also, this can give a glimpse into the perspective of the early Church, less than 100 years after Jesus’ death. The Church emphasized the importance of eyewitness accounts, and it would have been unlikely to accept the Gospels if they believed they were written contrary to eyewitness teachings. From then on, this has generally been the position of the Church, believing that the Gospels were either eyewitness accounts themselves or closely tied to the accounts of the eyewitnesses (Ehrman, 91).
The early Church taught that Matthew was the first Gospel to be written, in contrast to Mark which is the view of the Four-Source Hypothesis. The people closest to the events of Jesus’ life and the writing of the Gospels are the ones most trustworthy to determine the source of the Gospels, so their opinion is important. In contrast, the Four-Source Hypothesis is a relatively new idea, stemming from the early 1900s (Blomberg, 38). Though the duration of time people have believed the Gospels to be testimonies written soon after the events of Jesus’ life is not sufficient to prove it, the longest-lived ideas should not be neglected (Stewart, 2020).
Reading the Gospels, there are a variety of reasons to assume that the category of testimony is the best way to read them. First, one can look at the names found in the Gospels. Scholars from nearly every view agree that the Gospels were not written in the exact area where Jesus lived. Due to a lack of technology and general contact among cities, the common names varied drastically among the different areas and also changed drastically over time. Scholars have recently studied Jewish names, finding that Palestinian names differ drastically from the names outside of Palestine. The names in the Gospels match surprisingly well with the common names in Palestine. The top nine male names in Israel make up about 41.5% of the men in Israel from outside studies and 40.3% of the men in the Gospels and Acts. In contrast, in Egypt, where many Jews also lived, the pattern of names varied drastically from those inside Palestine (Bauckham, 73). People tend to forget the names of characters in stories quicker than any other component, so if the Gospels were written based on long lines of accounts from people distant from the events, the names would likely change or be taken out entirely. Therefore, the names in the Gospel indicate that the stories stem from detailed testimonies of what occurred, either written by eyewitnesses themselves or by someone close to eyewitnesses (Williams, 2023).
In addition, the knowledge of geography in the Gospels indicates that the authors knew the place. The authors do not only mention large cities but also little villages. The authors know the time required to travel from place to place and details about the land. People who have not visited an area do not know much about the geography of the land. In certain cases, for big cities, geography may be common knowledge, but to know details about small towns, especially during the time in which the Gospels were written, would require that the authors were either eyewitnesses or were using detailed eyewitness accounts. Therefore, the specificities of the geography in the Gospels indicate that they were from eyewitnesses (Williams, 2023).
Luke is the only one of the three authors who claims to not be an eyewitness himself. Traditionally, Luke is thought to be the companion of Paul, meaning that many of the events in Acts may be eyewitness accounts, or heard directly from Paul. However, Luke claims that his work is in line with eyewitness accounts, indicating that he heard the events from an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). Though scholars debate the date on which Luke was written, there is reason to believe that he finished Luke-Acts during Paul’s house arrest in Rome, since it would make sense for him to mention his release or death if he wrote it afterward. Therefore, many people believe Luke-Acts to have been completed sometime between 63 and 70 C.E. when eyewitnesses were still living and active. In Acts, Luke speaks about Jesus’ apostles, so assuming Luke to be Paul’s assistant, it appears that he writes second-hand testimony accounts of the Gospels and a mixture of first and second-hand testimony in Acts. This allows the Gospel according to Luke to still fall under the category of testimony even though he was not an eyewitness (Sproul, 1774-1775).
Viewing the synoptic Gospels through the lens of testimony gives a possible solution to the synoptic problem. It easily accounts for many of the differences among the three Gospels, as testimonies are generally expected to differ among different witnesses. If each Gospel included all of the same stories in the same way, it would be clear that they were not testimonies. Different people remember events in their own ways as they each see them from their individual perspectives. Different details will stand out to different individuals as well, making the way they share a story emphasize what is important to that person. In addition, they will each choose to tell the stories in the order in which they best remember them and in which they think it makes the most sense.
The lens of testimony also accounts for the similar stories contained in all three Gospels or also those contained in two of the three Gospels. Because none of the witnesses is trying to give a complete account of everything Jesus did, there would be some overlap in the stories they think most important to mention and the ones they choose to leave out. Therefore, they each choose what is most important in their opinion to describe. For that reason, all three include certain big events such as the Passion Narrative but the other stories and teachings vary among them.
Entering the realm of explaining the exact wording between the Gospels leads to some speculation because it would be expected that different eyewitnesses would share the stories in their own words. It is possible that at the time of writing the Gospels, some oral traditions were circulating and that at points the witnesses stated them word for word. Also, some of them may have known each other and collaborated on parts of their works. In the case of Jesus’ teachings, they may have written them down at the moment, so they agree on his actual words. In any case, the idea is not to prove that testimony is the only solution to the synoptic problem but rather to give reasons that it is probable, especially in light of the problems with the Four-Source Hypothesis.
Therefore, seeing the Gospels as testimony is not a new view, and there are reasons to believe it to be valid. Viewing the Gospels as testimonies can shed some light on why the Synoptic Gospels are so similar in some ways and so different in others. The particular solution to the Synoptic Problem does not affect how Christians view the New Testament, as many ascribe to the Four-Source Hypothesis as well. Christians believe that the New Testament is the inspired Word of God, so whether He used testimonies of eyewitnesses to tell the stories of Jesus or used Mark, Q, M, and L, it does not affect Christian beliefs.
Bibliography:
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.
Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. IVP Academic, 2007.
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings,
Seventh ed., Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2000.
Sproul, R. C. The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version. Ligonier Ministries, 2015.
Stewart, Don. “Did the Gospel Writers Use Previous Written Documents to Compile Their
Accounts?” Blue Letter Bible, Blue Letter Bible, 9 June 2020, www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/which-written-records-about-jesus-are-trustworthy/11-did-the-gospel-writers-use-previous-written-documents-to-compile-their-accounts.cfm.
Wenham, David. “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” JESUS
AND THE EYEWITNESSES: THE GOSPELS AS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, The Gospel Coalition, www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-testimony/. Accessed 21 Oct. 2023.
Williams, Peter. “TGC Course: Evidence for the Reliability of the Gospels.” The Gospel
Coalition, 2023, www.thegospelcoalition.org/course/evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-gospels/#the-gospels-and-eyewitness-testimony.