Journal Review: Do the Synoptics Depend on Each Other?
The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the Synoptic Gospels that share lots in common in their literary relationships and at the same time have numerous differences. The differences and resemblances among these Gospels constitute what is known as the Synoptic problem. The author’s purpose in writing this article, as he states, is to “examine the theories that have been proposed in an attempt to arrive at an acceptable solution to the question of literary dependence in the Synoptic Gospels” (Dyer, 1). John 14:25-26 says:
All these words I have spoken while still with you. But the counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all and remind you of everything I have said to you.
The author has made a remarkable effort to disprove the theories of the Synoptic problem proposed by critical scholars who struggle to believe in the Holy Spirit’s inspiration guiding the writing of the Gospels. This subject was important to the author because he did not doubt the divine inspiration that guided the Gospels’ writers.
By way of explanation, author Charles Dyer provides a summary of Guthrie’s four aspects of the problem. The first problem is the similarity of arrangement in which the three gospels harmonize in their general outlines. The second is the similarity between the style and wording wherein two or three of the Gospels show similarity in their accounts. The third arises in the presence of accounts only in two gospels, mainly in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. The last problem is in the divergences in accounting for the same material but at different settings.
Dyer then lays out solutions that other scholars have proposed to solve the Synoptic problem. The first proposition was accredited to the oral tradition in those days. The Apostles repeated Jesus’ words, which their followers then memorized, potentially establishing a fixed oral tradition. The mutual dependence theory refutes the then-dominant Marcan priority and puts Matthew as the first Gospel to be written, Luke as the second, and Mark as possibly having used both of the sources. The documentary hypothesis, the author mentions, is highly favored at the present time. This hypothesis has two schools of thought: the two-source theory and the four-source theory. The two-source theory accepted the Marcan priority in that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are dependent on the Gospel of Mark. The details unique to Matthew and Luke were postulated to come from a hypothetical source called source “Q.” In spite of its popularity, the theory failed to explain the extensive material that was unique to Matthew or Luke. Thus, Streeter came up with the four-source theory in which the similarities and distinctions between the Gospels are explained through the acceptance of Marcan priority and the three other hypothetic sources (Q, L, and M).
Dyer, in the article, has fleshed out each proposed solution to the Synoptic problem. The author believes that no solution is better than another. Every theory can be criticized, and not one theory has a valid foundation. The widely accepted Marcan priority is subject to criticism, according to the author. The Gospel of Mark is the main source because it is the most primitive and has “the least explicit account” (Dyer, 240). Thus, to say that the other two Gospels elaborated on Mark’s account is not strong enough to prove Mark’s Gospel to be the primary source. Where critical scholars think that certain accounts are similar, Dyer supports that it is so because of the nature of the narrative accounts. Where the accounts are of discourse material, all the Gospels tend to be different.
The author refuses to buy into the documentary and mutual dependence theories that critical scholars have provided. Critical scholars downplay the power of the Holy Spirit to lead the Gospel writers to bring the gospels as they are right now. The scholars’ mention of sources like Q, M, or L has never been found. Furthermore, they simply view the Gospel writers as skilled editors accumulating data from extensive writings and again deemphasize the presence of eyewitnesses or isolated records. The critical scholars see the present structure of the Gospels as a reproduction of one or the other gospel, which has no basis either. The Synoptic analysis conducted by Farmer indicates that the gospel writers would have needed to “perform literary gymnastics” (Dyer, 242) to create the current version of the texts. The author argues that the gospels are not mere reproductions because they lack consistency, except in vocabulary, which is essential for coherence. Thus, the Gospel writers did not merely reproduce but selectively gathered information from sources (eyewitnesses), and God guided them to finally write down the Gospels as they are now.
As to why there is so much verbal agreement about numerous events and why there was a need for literary dependence, the author explains that parallel accounts are bound to occur of the same events. Jesus had promised His disciples right before His crucifixion that He would send the counselor, the Holy Spirit, to teach them all and remind them of everything said to them. Thus, it was unequivocally the Holy Spirit’s leading to bring about verbal agreement among the Gospels, and the narratives appeared different in the Gospels when the writers described the events in their words.
The author agrees to a certain extent with the scholars’ proposition of the oral tradition theory. However, he emphasized that since Jesus, God incarnate, the Messiah that Jews had been so eagerly waiting for, had come, they might have been even more attentive to Jesus’ words, memorizing them and accurately recording them. The other objection scholars had was the variations within the sayings of Jesus, and sometimes the same saying but different settings. The author suggests that Jesus often repeated His message on different occasions, which accounts for the variation in settings while delivering the same message.
All the proposed solutions, as well as the author’s suggested solution to the Synoptic problem are hypothetical, yet the author’s work is a valuable contribution in disallowing the Word of God to be jeopardized in the hands of baseless hypotheses.
The New Testament has been such a powerful book in changing people’s lives. People have devoted their entire lives to serving God, leaving their comfort zones and being willing to face persecution. Above all, it is one book that is bringing people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. With such an enormous impact on mankind, one would only wonder how such a powerful tool came into being. To wonder about the subject is to be expected. Some Bible students accept the Bible as God’s Word without questioning its authenticity, while others, including skeptical Christians and non-Christians, seek to understand the Bible’s origins. God was not unaware of the kinds of readers the Bible would have. Nonetheless, the author of this article has tried to prove that skeptics who undermine the divine inspiration of the Bible will only find flaws in their theories.
Any New Testament scholar would be faced with the Synoptic problem and may even try to research the origin of the problem and identify solutions to it. Thus, the article would be very helpful to them because the author has done a thorough work of giving an overview of the Synoptic problem and also the proposed solutions of brilliant Bible scholars. The writer commendably disproved almost all theories that ignore the Holy Spirit’s guidance of Gospel writers. As New Testament students, it is critical to believe in what Jesus had promised just before the crucifixion in John 14:25-26. The whole basis of the New Testament is that the Bible is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) or inspired by God, which is essential for the origin of any book in the Bible. Excluding divine intervention when considering the events of Jesus’ days is akin to removing the very essence of the Bible.
The article provides solid arguments to refute the theories that mainly focus on the humanity of the Gospels, in which they hypothesize numerous sources. Certainly, the Gospels reflect their individual personalities in the respective Gospels, but that does not take away the major belief that God helped them to remember the facts accurately. Thus, the author has contributed another valuable addition to the library of New Testament studies, which could aid in addressing the synoptic problem.
Any ministry that does not seek God’s guidance and strength is like any other social work or welfare community that runs on human power. The author has emphasized that the Apostles and Gospel writers were capable of accurately gathering information and writing it down because the Holy Spirit was guiding them as Jesus promised. Thus, it is quite impossible to assume that any ministry can survive without seeking the Holy Spirit to work in the hearts of people.
This article encourages people involved in ministry to avoid taking responsibility for saving people. It is the Holy Spirit who can actually save a person and sustain a believer’s walk with God. The very nature of the Bible’s divinity would disappear if God had no involvement in the writing of the Gospels. Similarly, a ministry would merely be abiding by a humanistic book.
The foundation of the divine book, which guides a ministry, provides new hope. The article points out that God used normal people drudging through their daily lives to write the Gospels. This passage gives a whole new perspective—that we too are normal people, and extraordinary things can be done through us for God’s glory.
The Gospel writer chose material that worked best with the purpose of his book yet was under the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. It is fascinating that God still uses ministries in the same way. Every ministry is unique in its style, but eventually each works to attract the varied crowds out in the world. Like the synoptic gospels, which are similar yet different, not all ministries work the same way, but they all aim to win people to Jesus.
There are slim chances in evangelistic ministry that a new believer would wonder about the Synoptic problem. However, if the evangelist has any questions, the insight he might gain from this article would greatly benefit him. (Personally, I have been enriched by the author’s contribution to New Testament studies.)
People living in the world will not see the light because they love the darkness (John 3:19). Jesus came to show the Light, and in that has used Dyer to shed light into the Synoptic problem that skeptics pose as a downside of the Bible. Ministries will be blessed to have access to this article that has done much research to recapture the divinity as well as the humanity side of the Gospels. In Matthew 24:35 Jesus says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will not pass away.” His Word is flawless, and so are the Synoptic Gospels.
Works Cited
Dyer, Charles H. “Do the synoptics depend on each other?” Bibliotheca sacra 138.551 (1981): 230-245. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 22 Jan. 2011.
