In case there are one or two here who don’t know about the ‘Synoptic Problem’ (henceforth SP) and ‘Q’, here’s a brief summary of the issues:

First, as good an introduction as you’ll find: in the online Wikipedia Encyclopedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

Very briefly (from an online Catholic Encyclopedia): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14389b.htm

‘Turning over the pages of an ordinary harmony of the four, or of a synopsis of the first three, Gospels, which show in parallel columns the coincident parts of the evangelical narratives, the reader will at once notice the large amount of matter which is common to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. Brief as these three sketches of Christ’s life actually are, they run parallel to one another in no less than 330-370 verses or about one-third of their whole account of Christ’s words and deeds, while, with the exception of a few incidents (68 verses), the whole contents of St. Mark are practically found in St. Matthew and in St. Luke. This agreement in the facts related appears all the more striking, because of the great amount of historical material which must have been at the disposal of each Synoptical writer.’

Now read this page for a brilliant expansion of the problem: http://www.cbhs.org/rmartin/synoptic_problem_outline65100.htm

So how do we begin to resolve all this?

The only way really to study the SP is to print off parallel passages from the Synoptic Gospels or look at them side by side. Here’s a site which helps here: http://www.ntgateway.com/maze/synopses.htm

Then, jumping to a generalized conclusion it might look like this (what I might call a ‘rational conservative’ appraisal): 1.. Having followed the course of both reasonable and odd methods of studying the issue, I’ve recognized that the available facts do not provide a clear answer to the Synoptic Problem. Someday, if anyone is interested, I may explain why I don’t buy into any of the Markan priority based answers or any of those answers which suggest a literary dependence of one New Testament gospel upon any one or more of the other New Testament gospels. But that is beyond the scope of this article. For now, I’m saying that I can live with the facts and appreciate the Synoptic Problem without being certain that any of the proposed answers, even the one I lean toward, is well established or proven. 2.. After reading a few Christian authors who lean toward any of the Markan priority based literary dependence theories, I can appreciate these theories and understand why the priority of Mark is a popularly held idea. Although I don’t agree that it is the best solution, if the priority of Mark was proven to be true, I wouldn’t see that as a strong basis for what many Bible critics make of the theory. The conservative Christian authors and scholars who maintain a Markan priority based answer also believe that Mark’s gospel (along with the other three) is based on an apostolic tradition that predates the written work of the author of Mark. 3.. Although a thorough study of the gospels can hardly avoid the Synoptic Problem and all of the proposed answers to it, such is an issue that is fairly unimportant in the overall scheme of life. The contents of the gospels that make up the issue are far more valuable and can be overlooked by those examining the gospels only under academic microscopes. I acknowledge the value of studying academic issues like this, but I also realize that what is most valuable can be missed if one is not careful to keep the right balance. (See the rest of this interestingly written article for a wonderfully ‘irenic’ (there’s that word again) approach to the pros and cons of the priority of Mark – http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/synoptic_problem_study.htm )

Here’s an approach to the issues by a Jesuit scholar – http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm

Here’s a post where Able, a former inhabitant of the newsgroup aus.religion.christian is dialoguing with Gordon Coleman and Nigel Mitchell on this issue (you can chase up the whole thread in Google): http://jmm.org.au/articles/756.htm

Here’s another post where Nigel and Peter West dialogue about SP and Q: http://jmm.org.au/articles/9096.htm . which includes a link to a fascinating site, ‘The Synoptic Problem Home Page’ (http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ ). If you’re tantalized by the whole concept, you’ll need to cancel a day of your life to plough through all that’s there 🙂

Finally a bibliography suggested by scholar Mark Goodacre of the University of Birmingham – http://www.ntgateway.com/synoptic/Q.htm

A bibliography citing authors well-respected across the theological continuum: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/09/annotated-bibliography.html.

Have fun: gotta go and time my grand-daughter for a walk…

Shalom! Rowland Croucher