Religion and Theology

The term gospel is the English translated version of the Greek word evangelion. Such term does not refer to any type of literature or book especially during the first century rather, it has more of a dynamic meaning that is a proclamation of a major event of great importance. The Greek translators of the Hebrew bible used the term evangelizesthai, a cognate verb that refers to the announcement of the impending deliverance of God. In short, gospel speaks of Gods news and definitive deeds of salvation through Jesus Christ, which can be considered as the delivery of good news.

As a designation to written works, gospel is used to refer to the secondary accounts of Jesus Christ, wherein first-century Christian authors presented him as the one who fulfilled the prophetic promises or the one who encompass the rules of God. Christian faith is said to have been shaped by the belief that Jesus is Gods Messiah, thereby giving recognition to the gospels. However, as each of the authors of every gospel made exercised considerable freedom to present the events in Jesus life and teachings, the absence of supporting documents that could explain the intent and the process by which these gospels are written fueled the advent of mysteries that have sustained throughout the rest of the Christian religious history. One of these mysteries is the case of the synoptic gospels.

Synoptic Gospels
Synoptic Gospels refer to the first three canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). Such namesake is derived from the fact that these three gospels display a high degree of similarities when it comes to content, narrative arrangements (as seen from there harmonized section by section arrangement), and even in paragraph structures. It is even inferred that these gospels share the same perspectives, but at the same time contain portions that are peculiar to only two of the gospels or even to only one of them.

Similarities and Differences
Turning over the pages of the first three canonical gospels, the reader will notice a large amount of commonality between the gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. To begin with, as brief as these three narratives of Christs life can actually be, each of the gospels run parallel with one another in terms of their less than 330 to 370 verses or about a third of their account about Christs words and deeds, with an exception of 68 verses that is, the whole contents found in St. Marks writings can also be found in the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Luke. More strikingly however, the historical materials of each synoptical writer complement one another. The three synoptists are aware that Jesus healed various diseases during different situations they also seem to agree in selecting the same cases of healing to be incorporated to their accounts and although they have distinctly identified the extensive teachings of Jesus, they usually appear to report the same discourses of such teachings.

More similarities can be derived in the three gospels with regard to the synoptists conception of the whole narrative order. In all three, the public life of Christ is deeply intertwined with St. John the Baptists preachings, is confined within Galilee, and set in epochs such as the early Galilean ministry, the Galilean crisis, the ministries in Perea and Jerusalem, and the Holy City tragic end, which is followed by the resurrection. Upon closer inspection, it can be noticed that the gospel synoptists adopted a generally similar method of presenting the narratives to an extent that no consecutive narratives would present an fusion of the materials employed. Rather, the narratives appear to be a series of little accounts that are peculiarly isolated from the introduction and the concluding formula but repetitively agree in many details and order. All these resemblances, along with the agreement in words and phrases, can further be realized through Greek harmony, a process of closely translating the original text. Considering that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, there is still a verbal agreement in the Greek gospels, which suggests that the verbal resemblances in all three gospels are not accidental as their common use of peculiar terms and expressions also shows identical variations either in Hebrew and Septuagint quotations found in the old testament.

Although the synoptic gospels exemplify close resemblances, their interconnection with each other is not entirely parallel but also one of striking difference. Upon comparing, it appears that the synoptic gospels are similar and at the same time distinct in areas of incidents, language, and plan. Each of the writers incorporated in his narratives fragments or at times episodes of extensive records that are not related to the other two evangelists. For instance, St. Mark did not write anything about Christs infancy and early life, and while St. Matthew and St. Luke both spoke of such events, they did not entirely narrate the same facts. St. Mark incorporated the sermon on the mount, while it was St. Luke alone who narrated the last journey of Christ from Galilee to Jerusalem. Although concise and brief in his narratives, St. Mark solely spoke of two miracles and two parables, while St. Matthew who did not aim for brevity did not make any reference to the ascension. Adding up to these, in the same passages where close relations can be found among the three or at least two of the involved synoptists, minor differences within their sources can be continually observed. This is only evident upon the close study of the parallel passages, or through the analysis of larger commentaries that directly point out the differences within the synoptic gospels. Of the aforementioned description, noted differences include Jesus genealogies, accounts pertaining to the demoniacs of Gerasa, the miraculous healing related with Jericho, the petition of St. James and Johns mother, and the incidents related to the resurrection, to name a few. Other than these, the general disposition of events also manifests considerable amount of differences while St. Matthew intentionally devoted three successive chapters about the sermon in the mount and allocated one whole chapter for the parables of the kingdom, St. Luke divided the same topics into several portions and connected them with distinct circumstances. It has also been noted that as St. Matthew consolidated similar topics, St. Mark and St. Luke adhered to a more chronological order of events that, when numerous transpositions arise, affects the general arrangement of the narratives.

The Synoptic Problem
While the resemblances and differences found in the synoptic gospels are what makes it interesting, these same characteristics is what also makes such narrative complex and a constant topic of Christian religious debate. Due to this, the synoptic gospels constitute a unique phenomenon in both ancient and modern literature. Both the differences and similarities within the synoptic gospels are contemplated as facts that cannot be referred to as chance or direct inspiration influence these then form together a literary problem called the  Synoptic Problem. In actuality, synoptic problem is not really a problem but a simple way to refer to the question and possible explanations involving the literary relationships of the three synoptic gospels. The resemblances and differences phenomenon gave birth to the question Among the synoptics, which is most likely the first one to emerge For it was and is still believed that by answering such inquiry that fundamentally objective clues that can be used for proper interpretation can be found. It should be noted that only St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine were the only ones who formulated views concerning the mutual relationship of the synoptic writers, and that St. Augustine contended that the order of the synoptics were chronologically written according to their canonical orders Matthew, Mark and Luke. Such assumption became the traditional position of the ancient church. However, leading scholars from the 18th century had little more than suspicion from this viewpoint, and it is only within this course that scientific examination of the synoptic problem actually began. Hence, since the last quarter of the said period, the discussion of the origin and relationship of the synoptic gospels has been carried on, and from there, various solutions have been proposed in order to understand and shed light to the synoptic problem.

Proposed Solutions for the Synoptic Problem
There are in fact many suggestions and a plethora of variations that attempt to synthesize the relation of the synoptic gospels. All of these attempts at assigning the similarities and differences of the first three gospels of the new testament can be classified in four basic approaches. However, it is worthy to note that the classifications are not specific proposals but categories where a myriad of proposed solutions can be grouped for easier reference. Proposed solutions can be classified as the relationships are found appealing to Oral tradition, Interdependent, Proto-Gospel, and Fragmentary.

Oral Tradition the hypothesis of this solution implies that all the differences within the synoptics can be best explained through the pre-existing Aramaic oral tradition. It simply asserts that the Evangelists drew their narratives of Christs life and deeds through word of mouth, which were quickly reduced to selected core traditions and soon evolved to a fixed form within the church as it was repeated so often. The differences occurred due to the different circumstances in which the core traditions were preached, thereby requiring adaptation. However, this hypothesis can hardly be considered as adequate as it does not seriously take into consideration the specific resemblances and differences of the Gospels written in Greek. Pre-existing oral Aramaic tradition does not explain how the gospels could be similar even in Greek text, which perhaps explains why only a handful of individuals currently hold this stand.

Interdependent this proposed solution assumes that the later synoptic gospels are dependent on one or more of the previous gospels. This approach contends that the authors of the synoptics had some sort of material sharing. Although many variations of this hypothesis exist, it is usually assumed that Mark was the first one to write a narrative about Christ, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from the earlier contributions of Mark. This proposal also assumes that both Matthew and Luke independently wrote their own accounts for their own purposes.

Proto-Gospel this particular approach to understanding the synoptic problem raises that the synoptic gospels were constructed out hypothetical written source that is no longer existent. While variations of this approach can be found, these approaches primarily revolve around two suggestions either the gospels were dependent on an original Aramaic Gospel, or they were based on a proposed collection of Jesus sayings (logia).
Fragmentary proposes that the authors of the synoptic gospels utilized various hypothetical sources made available by the church during the period they were written. These hypothetical sources may have been collections of miracle stories, parables, accounts that speak of the crucifixion, or the sayings of Jesus. The various gospel writers may have had access to these sources and they used these in order to compile their accounts. The two-documentary theory, which was advocated by prominent critics like G.C. Storr, H.J. Holtzmann, K. Lachmann to name a few, is one of the fragmentary approaches, and it is by far the most widely held theory of the origins of the synoptic gospels among non-Catholics.

Summary and Prospect
What is clear from this brief introduction to the study of synoptic gospels is that these narratives within the bible remain as one of the most complex fields in theological and scientific studies hence, they are yet to meet a general consensus. It is apparent that no single approach of documents or sources and can definitely explain the similarities and differences found in the synoptic gospels. However, while there is still no single solution developed in order to understand such phenomenon, it should not be taken that aforementioned proposals and studies have no value at all. Instead, the continuous quest of understanding the synoptic problem profoundly shows that the gospel tradition was a living tradition that has been passed down by a living community powered by faith. This perspective is extremely important as it does not only give emphasis to the value of faith and religion, but also implicates how people develop views about the sacred scripture.