by Bob Beanblossom
31 January 2017
It seems to me that, as Christians, we are sometimes troubled and even overwhelmed by what scholars and authorities have to say about the Bible. One part of the problem is that we read far more about the Bible than we do the Bible itself. Another part of the problem is that many scholars and experts are not Christians, but secularists. Just as being a Christian comes only from an experience and relationship with our Savior, understanding of His Word. This is an important fact that is often disregarded by even Christians: “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Ephesians 4:17-18). The paper below is a little different, but I trust that you will find it interesting. It addresses differences in the texts of the first three Gospels, first identified as a “problem” in the late eighteenth century–in other words, from the earliest times of Christianity, Christians recognized that there is no “problem.” See what you think–after reading the Gospels for your self.
The Synoptic Problem
The NT books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are called the Synoptic Gospels1 because of striking similarities in the content, the language, and the timeline covered by all three. Within the similarities, however, each presents the Gospel, or God’s Good News, in a uniquely individual way that perplexes scholars who deny divine inspiration and would have them to be rubber stamp clones of their own creation rather than separate books written to separate audiences under the auspices of the infinite God. Conservative biblical scholars have for many years compiled comparative lists of the Gospels with titles such as the “Practical Harmony of the Four Gospels” as did Joseph Muenscher, who, in 1828, described his efforts as intended to furnish English readers at a small expense with a Harmony of the Four Gospels adapted entirely to (be of) practical purposes. . . The fact that more than two hundred Harmonies of the Gospels have been written . . . since the middle of the second century proves that their importance and advantages have been duly appreciated.2
Liberal scholars, on the other hand, have also compiled detailed lists in Greek and English of the similarities and divergences, spending inordinate amounts of time on the study of the “problems” created with perceived disagreements, presenting varied opinions about those problems: their causes, and resultant impact on Christianity. Bart Ehrman, a respected biblical scholar, after noting that the Synoptics “tell many of the same stories,” with a note of perplexity continues: “they often do so using the very same words.”3 Apparently somewhat daunted by this two thousand year old problem, he continues: “This phenomenon is virtually inexplicable unless the stories are derived from a common literary source”.4 This is obviously enigmatic to those who will not believe that the God of creation is the Source of biblical inspiration, since the miraculous, in their opinion, cannot exist. These variations are known as The Synoptic Problem.
In some three and a half years of preaching, assuming 12-hour days, Jesus filled over 15 thousand hours with some sort of activities. Clearly, the Scriptures are not the moment-by-moment account of His life that we have grown used to with the profusion of videography, professional reporting, and social media rampant today. One aspect of this extreme coverage that we too often overlook is that even these reports, when presented, differ substantially with the perspective of the reporting agency. During the last election cycle and into this Administration we have heard a lot about media bias, that is, reporting from a perspective to create an opinion, not simply present facts. We have even noted substantial differences in content in current reporting in different editions of the same media. Ehrman, to his credit, also notes, “consider a modern-day parallel. You have no doubt noticed that when newspapers, magazines, and books all describe the same event, they do so differently.”5 We should not be surprised to find both similarities and differences in the Synoptics.
Another factor is the phenomena of personal or individual eyewitness reporting. The open-and-close crime programming on television often presents a wonderfully uniform case that establishes the guilt or innocence of the accused in a half-hour with twenty minutes of commercials. There are some exceptions that do a fair job of relating more realistic situations of honest witnesses reporting widely divergent testimony. Even unretouched video taken of an incident from different locations can present what appears to be conflicting information. In fact, investigators are immediately alerted to testimony that is too conforming, that is, missing natural variations, which upon scrutiny, proves contrived. Whether a victim or witness, student, or scholar, we all come to every situation with bias. Often we are unaware of it. When we are, if honest, we admit that our predispositions are impossible to fully overcome. It is who we are, what our worldview is. Our understanding of Jesus is colored by whether we are Protestant or Catholic, Muslim or Christian, atheist or one who has experienced the saving power of the Holy Spirit. Differences in perspective are natural and should be expected.
The honest, scholarly study of our Bible can be useful to the Christian layman. Christians should be comfortable that the books of the canon are, in fact, ordained by God, as are the very words, and therefore, the message. Scholarship at its best can only present a human view of that Divine creation that is every bit as miraculous and unique as its subject: the WORD (see John 1:1-2 KJV). H.C. Thiesson described a quandary faced by secular biblical scholars: “there seems to be no early attempt to deal with the literary problems presented by the Synoptics”6 As Muencher noted so many years ago, Christians saw the Word as the Source, not the object, in the search for their personal God. The best human attempts to create a god of the intellect are doomed to failure: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent” (1 Cor 1:19).
These considerations might be termed the Human Problem, factors that cause the apparent Synoptic Problem. With so many hours of ministry, there is a strong possibility that Jesus preached and taught the same or very similar messages several, if not many, times with variations, to address the needs of each particular crowd, thus adding to the possibilities of permutations and combinations of reporting as disciples and the curious told and re-told what they had heard. Every disciple did not hear every word of our Lord, as Jesus retired to pray (Mark 1:36 KJV) or as they were dispatched to take of various tasks (Matt 10:5). Outcomes of miracles were “as reported” since the recipients were often sent away to discover the results of their faith in Jesus’ abilities. Differences in reporting of the type we see are indications of authentic testimony as any law enforcement investigator would acknowledge.
There is some agreement that the Synoptics are written to different target audiences: Matthew to the Jews; Mark to the Romans; and Luke to the Greeks. This alone provides a clue that the material presented, even if of identical incidents, might well be stated differently. Each divinely inspired writer would present his material in such a way as to provide the best witness to that target audience, and at the same time, give future Christians leadership and inspiration. I strongly suspect that the papers we write for this course are different than what we might post on the social media on similar topics.
Lastly, for our purposes, is bias. Scholars sometimes seem to develop hypotheses with more vision than fact. Given the thousands of hours of Jesus’ ministry, repeated messages, oral combinations and permutations over time, lack of “unbiased” professional reporters or scribes to record every word, and authors writing to target audiences as inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is neither surprising nor disturbing that there are differences in the Synoptics. Since we have no autographs, we must use other means to determine the quality of extant manuscripts, keeping those proven consistent and discarding the rest as canon. These methods uphold the Scripture, the canon, and the inspiration of the Word preserved and continuously used for over two thousand years as the very Word of God. The efficacy of the Word attests its authenticity as does the persistence of its form. There is no Synoptic Problem and no threat to His inspired Word. For those who persist in a conviction that there is a Synoptic Problem, Kostenberger, et al., reminds us that, “one’s view on this issue should not be taken as a test of orthodoxy, especially since the available evidence does not allow for a definitive resolution of all of the issues involved.”7 David Alan Black, et al., concludes, “It must be said that scholarship, like all earthly endeavors, runs in fads, especially in the post-Enlightenment setting. Scholars are essentially Athenians at heart, always searching for some new thing (Acts 17:21)”8
____________________
1 Andreas J. Kostenberger, Scott L. Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2016), 205.
2 Joseph Muencher, Practical Harmony of the Four Gospels, Arranged According to the Most Approved Harmonies (NY: Elisha Turner, Publisher, 1828), i.
3 Bart D. Erhman, The New Testament; A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writing, 2nd ed., (NY: Oxford University Press, 2000), 76.
4 Ibid., 77.
5Ibid.
6 H.C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1943), 102.
7 Kostenberger, 175.
8 David Alan Black, and David R. Beck, ed., Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: 2001), 150.
Bibliography
Black, David Alan, and David R. Beck, ed. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: 2001, 150.
Erhman, Bart D. The New Testament; A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. NY: Oxford University Press 2000, 76-77.
Kostenberger, Andreas J., Scott L. Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2016, 175, 205.
Muencher, Joseph. Practical Harmony of the Four Gospels, Arranged According to the Most Approved Harmonies. NY: Elisha Turner, Publisher, 1828, i.
Thiessen, H. C. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1943, 102.
