Arguments about the Synoptic Problem are of little help in trying to understand the teachings of the gospels. Discuss

    Although providing us with a greater insight into the gospels from many sources, this can be taken too far and begin trying to understand each detail when sometimes faith is needed. We have to remember that these are only theories to try and solve the synoptic problem which is why being open to criticism could be more useful than rejecting the synoptic problem. Another point to mention is that the gospels were not written till 30-35yrs later than Jesus’ resurrection therefore some of it may have turned into ‘Chinese whispers’. Over time the stories may have changed, become more or less significant to the time when they were written which could account for some of Luke’s great omissions such as Jesus walking on the water Mk 6 V 45 or even death of John the Baptist Mk 6 V 14, stories which people would have believed were very significant to not be left out. Some people may not like the synoptic problem because it although it states many differences it also shows a lot of similarities which spoil some people’s view of the bible and that it is better that the gospel writer’s don’t agree. By trying to match the stories with each other the real differences may be lost. An example of this is the Christmas story. Until reading the different accounts of the Christmas story I was unaware that the story which most people know is not just from one gospel, but a collection of them all into one.

      Advantages of having the synoptic problem are that they show a great comparison between the writers despite them writing for different audiences. There may be differences in the finer detail but the outline of the event is very similar in each one leading us to believe these stories are true. The data from the synoptic problem has many sources again indicating that not all these sources could be lying and they must be accurate. By having the synoptic problem it allows the writer to be creative with what he is writing, making the gospel his own and not just compiled sources of the same material. It also accounts for any data that is missed out of one or two gospels because it explains it by using another source.

    One thing the synoptic problem does not account for is the ability to believe in something which is lost. Scholars are trying to reconstruct the lost sources of Ur-Markus and Q particularly which in time could account for the differences between the gospels even further. It could even be possible that there is another source that we are unaware of, or that parts of the gospels are made up or created to satisfy the audience they were writing for, all of which are just theories we are unsure about, a lot like the question of the synoptic problem.