Synoptic problem

Synoptic problem [∞]

Discussion

The first three gospels contain much similar material leading 'scholars' to wonder about their interdependence. Some go so far to say it is a taint on the reliability of scripture when they differ. The standard answer is that if three people witness the same traffic accident, you will get three slightly different stories. Some speculate that the three derived content from a fourth document called 'Q'. Even with the speculation of Q, they are hard pressed to explain the source of new material, the farther away from the events. The traffic accident theory adds nothing to assist in the interpretation of scripture. It is an excuse to ignore differences as unimportant. This cast doubt on the reliability of scripture. The Q speculation is a direct challenge to Jesus who said that not a jot or tittle would disappear. If the Q document did exist, it certainly was not scripture. There is a solution suggested from scripture itself. Here is a summary. Can you find the scriptures that suggest it?
    1. Two men were shown that all the scriptures spoke of Christ on the road to Emaus.
    2. They returned to Jerusalem and told the disciples.
    3. The disciples wished to reproduce the sermon on the road.
    4. They studied the scriptures (OT) for that purpose.
    5. They were given the Holy Spirit to remind them of what they were taught, and lead them in truth.
    6. As they studied the OT, the Spirit correlated scripture with what Jesus did and said.
    7. They taught what they learned in the Jewish church, not the Gentile church.
    8. From time to time, they collected the teaching in the Jewish church, and threw it over the wall at the Greek church, which did not wish to learn Hebrew.
    9. Mark was the first record, which was updated by Matthew and Luke. (and John)
    10. Each revision added new things they discovered, and removed things that, though true, caused teaching problems in the church that was being Hellenized and has even less interest in Hebrew scriptures.
    11. The differences between them can be reverse engineered to confirm the first century hermeneutic.

Thank you for your addition. Here's the updated thesis that incorporates the discussion of the long ending of Mark: Thesis: A Theological and Linguistic Approach to the Synoptic Problem: Understanding the Gradual Unveiling of Christ in the Gospels Abstract

The Synoptic Problem, which addresses the relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, has generated many scholarly theories. This paper proposes an alternative solution that emphasizes the Hebrew word formations and sensus plenior in the development of early Christian theology. It argues that the Gospel writers were not simply dependent on each other chronologically but that each Gospel reflects a deepening theological understanding of Christ. The paper suggests that Luke’s omission of the Yeshua/Emmanuel prophecy (Matthew 1:22-23) was because the Greek-speaking Christian communities were not sufficiently interested in learning Hebrew to appreciate the linguistic nuances and word-play inherent in the prophecy. Additionally, the paper proposes that after hearing the sermon on the road to Emmaus, the disciples applied Christ-centered methods to their own studies of the Old Testament, leading to the writing of Scripture.

The thesis also posits that the long ending of Mark was originally part of the Gospel but was initially removed due to its use of riddle-like language, which could have led to misinterpretations if taken literally. Later, someone who did not understand why it was removed added it back into the Gospel, giving the impression of a later addition. Introduction

The Synoptic Problem has long puzzled biblical scholars, seeking to explain the literary relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. While various theories—such as Markan priority and the Two-Source Hypothesis—offer explanations for the textual similarities and differences, many fail to account for the theological and linguistic processes at play in the early Christian community. This paper offers an alternative solution, arguing that the Gospel writers were not simply dependent on one another but were involved in a process of progressive revelation, shaped by their growing understanding of the Old Testament and its fulfillment in Christ.

The key to this development was the disciples' encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, where He explained how the Scriptures pointed to Himself (Luke 24:25-27). This sermon triggered the disciples to begin applying these Christ-centered interpretative methods to their own studies of the Old Testament. They then wrote the Gospels with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, which helped them recall and recognize Christ in the Scriptures. This process led to the writing of the New Testament and the gradual revelation of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Thus, everything in the Gospels has an Old Testament source in sensus plenior, if not literally. The Role of Hebrew Word Formations in Early Christian Thought

A critical aspect of this thesis is the role of Hebrew word formations in understanding Old Testament prophecy. Names such as Yeshua (salvation) and Emmanuel (God with us) carry deep theological significance when understood in their original Hebrew context. These names, rich in linguistic and prophetic meaning, were central to the disciples’ understanding of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

However, the early Christian community, especially those in predominantly Greek-speaking areas, often lacked the Hebrew language skills to appreciate the full depth of these word-play connections. While sensus plenior—the deeper, Christ-centered meaning of the Scriptures—was accessible to those with a foundational understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Greek-speaking Christians were at a disadvantage. As a result, Luke’s omission of the Yeshua/Emmanuel prophecy reflects the limited linguistic engagement of his intended audience with the Hebrew Scriptures. Luke’s Omission of the Yeshua/Emmanuel Prophecy

One of the most significant aspects of this thesis is the understanding of why Luke omitted the Yeshua/Emmanuel prophecy found in Matthew 1:22-23. This prophecy, which connects Jesus’ birth to the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, hinges on a deep understanding of Hebrew word forms and their prophetic implications. The names Yeshua and Emmanuel are rich in linguistic meaning that would have been immediately apparent to those familiar with Hebrew.

However, the Greek-speaking Christians—Luke’s primary audience—were less likely to be familiar with the nuances of the Hebrew language, particularly the word-play involved in understanding these names. As a result, Luke chose not to include the prophecy, recognizing that its significance would not be clear to his audience without the necessary linguistic understanding. This omission was not a theological denial of the prophecy’s importance but rather a recognition of the limitations of the Greek-speaking Church's understanding at the time. The Disciples' Experience on the Road to Emmaus and the Trigger for the Gospels

A pivotal moment in the disciples' theological development occurred on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), when Jesus opened their understanding of how the Old Testament pointed to Him. After the resurrection, Jesus revealed to the disciples that the Scriptures—both the Law and the Prophets—spoke of His life, death, and resurrection. This Christ-centered approach to interpreting the Old Testament became the foundation for the disciples’ theological reflection and ultimately led to the writing of the Gospels.

Following this experience, the disciples began to apply these newly acquired interpretative methods to their own studies of the Hebrew Scriptures, with the Holy Spirit reminding them of Jesus’ teachings and their fulfillment in the Scriptures. This theological breakthrough prompted the disciples to write the Gospels, drawing from their understanding of the Old Testament in light of Christ. The Holy Spirit empowered them to recall Christ’s words and actions and to see the Old Testament as a Christ-centered narrative, filled with shadows and types pointing to Jesus as the fulfillment of God's redemptive plan.

Thus, the process of writing Scripture was not merely about recording historical events but about interpreting those events through the lens of the Old Testament, which was now seen as a preparation for Christ’s coming. This understanding of the Scriptures became the foundation for the early Christian teachings and writings, including the Synoptic Gospels. The Long Ending of Mark: A Riddle Misunderstood

The long ending of Mark 16:9-20, which includes the passage about handling serpents and drinking poison without harm, has long been debated due to its absence in some early manuscripts. This thesis suggests that the long ending was originally part of Mark’s Gospel but was removed early on because it was written in riddle-like language that could have led to dangerous misinterpretations if taken literally.

The passage contains symbolic teachings about temptation (serpents) and learning (eating and drinking as metaphors for gaining knowledge). The true meaning of the passage was that believers would be tempted and exposed to harmful or erroneous teachings but would not be spiritually harmed. This teaching was not meant to be taken as a literal directive to handle serpents or drink poison but as a theological insight into the spiritual dangers of false teachings.

Early Christians, recognizing the potential for harm in a literal interpretation, may have decided to remove the passage to prevent misapplications. Later, however, someone who did not understand the original reason for the omission found the passage and added it back, giving the impression of a later addition. This misunderstanding of the riddle-like nature of the passage likely explains why it appeared in some later manuscripts but was not present in the earliest copies of Mark’s Gospel. The Gradual Unveiling of Christ in the Gospels

As the disciples’ understanding of the Old Testament deepened, their writings progressively revealed the fulfillment of prophecies concerning the Messiah. Each Gospel represents a stage in this theological development:

   Mark: Mark’s Gospel is the most concise and action-oriented. It focuses on Jesus' works and teachings, emphasizing His identity as the Messiah, but it does not delve deeply into the Old Testament typology. Mark serves as the foundational narrative for understanding Jesus' mission but is less concerned with theological exposition.

   Matthew: Matthew’s Gospel builds upon Mark, placing greater emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy back to Abraham and highlights key Old Testament prophecies that point to Jesus as the Messiah. The understanding of Jesus’ fulfillment of Israel’s role is central to Matthew’s Gospel.

   Luke: Luke’s Gospel emphasizes the universality of Christ’s mission, presenting Jesus as the Savior for all people. Luke integrates a Christ-centered reading of the Old Testament, reflecting a more developed understanding of how Jesus’ life and ministry fulfilled God’s redemptive plan for humanity. However, Luke’s focus is more on the global mission of Jesus than on the linguistic depth found in later Gospels.

   John: John’s Gospel represents the culmination of the theological understanding of Christ. It presents Jesus not only as the Messiah but as the Logos, the eternal Word of God who was present at creation. John’s profound insights into Hebrew word formations and Old Testament typology provide a deeper Christology that reveals the full significance of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s plan.

Conclusion

This thesis suggests that the Synoptic Problem should be understood as a reflection of the early Church’s progressive revelation of Christ, facilitated by the Holy Spirit and based on a growing understanding of the Old Testament in light of Christ. The omission of the Yeshua/Emmanuel prophecy in Luke’s Gospel is not a denial of its importance but rather a recognition of the Greek-speaking Church’s lack of interest or ability to engage with Hebrew word forms. Following the disciples’ You said: Here is a recapitulation of the ideas. Does it help reformulate a response? ChatGPT said: ChatGPT

Yes, the recapitulation of the ideas you've provided helps to clarify and organize the response in a more cohesive way. Here's a reformulated response that incorporates the key points you've outlined: Reformulated Thesis on the Synoptic Problem Introduction

The Synoptic Problem, which examines the interrelationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is traditionally approached through various scholarly theories, such as Markan priority and the Two-Source Hypothesis. However, a deeper understanding of the theological development in the early Christian community, coupled with an appreciation of Hebrew word formations and sensus plenior (the fuller meaning of Old Testament prophecies revealed in Christ), offers an alternative solution to the problem. This thesis argues that the Synoptic Gospels represent a progressive revelation of Christ, with each Gospel reflecting a deeper understanding of His identity and mission. The Disciples' Theological Development: Triggered by the Road to Emmaus

A pivotal moment in the theological development of the disciples occurred on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), when Jesus explained how the Scriptures pointed to Him. The disciples' hearts burned within them as they realized that Jesus Himself was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. This encounter triggered the disciples to begin studying the Scriptures through a Christ-centered lens, interpreting the Old Testament as pointing toward the Messiah. The Holy Spirit reminded them of Jesus’ teachings and empowered them You said: Here is the recapitualtion: The first three gospels contain much similar material leading 'scholars' to wonder about their interdependence. Some go so far to say it is a taint on the reliability of scripture when they differ. The standard answer is that if three people witness the same traffic accident, you will get three slightly different stories. Some speculate that the three derived content from a fourth document called 'Q'. Even with the speculation of Q, they are hard pressed to explain the source of new material, the farther away from the events. The traffic accident theory adds nothing to assist in the interpretation of scripture. It is an excuse to ignore differences as unimportant. This cast doubt on the reliability of scripture. The Q speculation is a direct challenge to Jesus who said that not a jot or tittle would disappear. If the Q document did exist, it certainly was not scripture. There is a solution suggested from scripture itself. Here is a summary. Can you find the scriptures that suggest it?

   1. Two men were shown that all the scriptures spoke of Christ on the road to Emaus.
   2. They returned to Jerusalem and told the disciples.
   3. The disciples wished to reproduce the sermon on the road.
   4. They studied the scriptures (OT) for that purpose.
   5. They were given the Holy Spirit to remind them of what they were taught, and lead them in truth.
   6. As they studied the OT, the Spirit correlated scripture with what Jesus did and said.
   7. They taught what they learned in the Jewish church, not the Gentile church.
   8. From time to time, they collected the teaching in the Jewish church, and threw it over the wall at the Greek church, which did not wish to learn Hebrew.
   9. Mark was the first record, which was updated by Matthew and Luke. (and John)
   10. Each revision added new things they discovered, and removed things that, though true, caused teaching problems in the church that was being Hellenized and has even less interest in Hebrew scriptures.
   11. The differences between them can be reverse engineered to confirm the first century hermeneutic.

ChatGPT said: ChatGPT

This recapitulation outlines a theological and historical approach to understanding the relationships between the Synoptic Gospels and their development in the early church, particularly in the context of sensus plenior and the deepening revelation of Christ in the Old Testament. Here's an attempt to find scriptures that align with each of the points you mentioned: Scriptures Supporting the Proposed Solution

   Two men were shown that all the Scriptures spoke of Christ on the road to Emmaus.
       Luke 24:25-27: "And he said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
       Luke 24:44-47: "Then he said to them, 'These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead.'"

   They returned to Jerusalem and told the disciples.
       Luke 24:33: "And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together."
       Luke 24:35: "Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread."

   The disciples wished to reproduce the sermon on the road.
       Luke 24:45: "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures."
       This verse suggests that the disciples were actively studying and learning to understand the Scriptures, likely with the aim of teaching others, as they were instructed by Christ.

   They studied the Scriptures (OT) for that purpose.
       Acts 17:11: "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."
       2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
       This points to the importance of the Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, in the disciples’ study and teaching.

   They were given the Holy Spirit to remind them of what they were taught, and lead them in truth.
       John 14:26: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
       John 16:13: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth..."

   As they studied the OT, the Spirit correlated Scripture with what Jesus did and said.
       Luke 24:45: "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures."
       John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me."
       Acts 2:25-36: Peter uses Old Testament Scripture to explain that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were the fulfillment of what had been prophesied.

   They taught what they learned in the Jewish church, not the Gentile church.
       Acts 2:42-47: "And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers... And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts."
       This is an early indication of the Jewish community’s focus on the apostles’ teachings within a Jewish context before the wider Gentile mission.

   From time to time, they collected the teaching in the Jewish church, and threw it over the wall at the Greek church, which did not wish to learn Hebrew.
       Matthew 15:24: "He answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'"
       Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
       This shows a priority for the Jewish context, and later, teachings were made accessible to the Gentiles, though they often struggled with understanding the full depth of Jewish Scriptures.

   Mark was the first record, which was updated by Matthew and Luke. (and John)
       Mark 1:1: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
       Matthew 1:1: "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
       Luke 1:1-4: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us... it seemed good to me also... to write an orderly account."
       These verses suggest a progression of Gospel writing, with each author adding new layers of understanding, context, and revelation.

   Each revision added new things they discovered, and removed things that, though true, caused teaching problems in the church that was being Hellenized and had even less interest in Hebrew scriptures.

   Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
   Luke 2:39-40: Luke’s account focuses on more universal aspects of Christ’s ministry, possibly reflecting the growing interest in the Gentile mission.
   This suggests a process of refining and adjusting the Gospel message to address both Jewish and Greek audiences.

   The differences between them can be reverse-engineered to confirm the first-century hermeneutic.

   Matthew 13:51-52: "Have you understood all these things?" They said to him, "Yes." And he said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old."
   The differences in the Gospels reveal the dynamic, unfolding understanding of the Scriptures, confirming that the apostles' teachings were based on a hermeneutic that progressively revealed Christ.

Conclusion

This scriptural examination shows that the development of the Synoptic Gospels is consistent with a progressive revelation of Christ, which began with the disciples' encounter on the road to Emmaus. The Gospel writers, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, continually revisited and refined their understanding of the Old Testament in light of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The differences between the Gospels reflect this process, and their revisions were shaped by the evolving theological needs of both the Jewish and Greek-speaking Christian communities. This approach offers a theological solution to the Synoptic Problem, demonstrating that the Scriptures were not simply collected from external sources (like the hypothetical Q document), but were the result of a deepening theological and linguistic engagement with the Old Testament.