What do you think of the synoptic problem?

What do you think of the synoptic problem? [∞]

Looking purely at the internal evidence, They were written Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Jesus taught the men on the road to Emmaus how to red the scripture (OT) so that they would see Jesus rather than Adam and Noah. They went to Jerusalem and told the disciples.

They realized that Jesus had taught them that prior to the the cross but they neither understood, nor remembered the teaching. They started to read the OT to unpack "the mystery hidden from the beginning". They taught what they learned in the Jewish churches.

Meanwhile the Gentile churches didn't want to read Hebrew so they had no chance to unpack it. So the doctrine of Peter was collected and thrown over the wall to the Gentiles. Mark starts with the preaching of John the Baptist. It is the most pedantic in the handling of the mystery, keeping mostly to action based narrative and references to fairly obvious prophecies.

As they continued to study, they discovered that Israel was a shadow of Christ as the Son of God. They were not attempting to tell the story of Jesus in the gospels, but telling the Story of Israel as the Son of God fulfilled in Christ. Scoffers complain that left to memory alone, they would get shorter and less reliable. But they were seeing Christ in the scripture and developing more doctrine as they then remember, aided by the Holy Spirit, of what Christ taught before. Matthew, begins with Abraham, since he is the beginning of 'Israel'.

There was a problem with the Greeks. he long ending of Mark is a good teaching but it uses teh genre of prophetic riddle. It says that you will be tempted (serpents) and learn bad things (drink poison) but will not be harmed. The Greeks insisted on reading it literally and put themselves in harms way, so some churches removed it out of love, and Matthew, Mark version 2 did not include it.

Then in the next interval they discovered that the guys before Abe were also shadows of Christ, So Luke started with Adam. His commentary focuses on including all men in the message, and seeing Adam as the Federal head. But there was another problem. Matthew taught the Yeshua-Emmanuel thing. It seemed silly to the Greeks because they are two different names. To understand it, you must know Hebrew well enough to do puns and word formations in Hebrew. They had no interest. 'Yeshua' means 'God in the flesh with a marriage in his heart' and by pun means' God humbled' as a hint of his incarnation. So Luke did not include it in his book Mark version 3.

John leaned to read the mystery well through the word-play, riddles and puns and started his own book. Rather than try to teach Greeks Hebrew, he just told the story of the OT without bothering to give the OT sources in the Hebrew language. He began his book, john 1:1-4 with the first three words of Gen 1:1. Not 'in the beginning' but בראשית ברא אלהים.

The gospels, when originally delivered likely had the messenger preach the OT from them as outlines. The Greeks became less interested in the preaching.

If anyone is interested, I will address the top 5 examples used to illustrate 'the problem' then continue in a study of the parallel gospels to illustrate the proposal even in minutiae. Maybe I'll do a podcast or series of YouTubes. I'd have to spin up all that mechanism unless someone wants to host me.