In the early 20th century, this theory had become prominent in the historical and literary criticism of New Testament; however, the supporters of the "theory of the two sources hypothesis” in chronological primacy make hypotheses about the lost collection. According to this theory, Mark and Quelle were basic and the main sources for Matthew and Luke. Many scholars have concluded that the evangelists Matthew and Luke had to use a single source. The existence of so-called duplicates in Matthew and Luke are also considered as a confirmation of the hypothesis Q. Sometimes similarities in Matthew and Luke are expressed in unusual words and expressions or grammatical features (Sim 313–319).
Stylistic and Theological Differences between the Three Synoptic Gospels
During 18th century, the synoptic problem received very little attention, although its existence is known from ancient times. Great influence of the Diatessaron (c 160–175) is convincing proof of desire to solve this problem by harmonizing. Despite the harmony of Tatian, some of the Gospel were adopted in the Eastern Church and were recognized as the undisputed in West; however, this was done by connecting without any attempts to resolve the problem of the origin and connection of the Gospels. In fact, these issues have begun to give serious consideration only with the advent of rationalism in the 18th century (Poirier 315–322).
The first solution to the problem was assumed that Gospels are different translations or extracts from the Aramaic Gospel of Nazareth, which was used according to the testimony of Jerome in the sect of the Nazarenes. This theory was then developed quite complex and artificially, according to which not only the nine Gospels descended from the original Aramaic Gospel, but also the Synoptic Gospels was the final stage of the literary process (Pringle 454–454).
Between the appearances of the need to study, the New Testament G. Herder hypothesized that the basis of synoptic material laid oral tradition. Shortly thereafter, in 1818, J. Geissler proposed a kind of prototype of the oral theory, according to which the apostolic preaching took the form of the same oral tradition, which then amounted to basic oral Gospel. It is an oral gospel preserved in Aramaic, but the needs of the mission to the Gentiles demanded translation into Greek. It is the main original Aramaic Gospel, and its Greek translation turned the primary source for the three Gospelers, each of which used it in his own way. Literary distinction between them caused literary possibilities and capabilities of each writer. Subsequent oral theory has some similarities, but here we must note one important difference between them. Gieseler challenged the possibility of systematic learning on memory, on which Westcott, for example, laid special emphasis (Poirier 315–322).
They begin with the baptism and temptation of Jesus; they describe, differing only in detail, the public ministry in Galilee; they all represent the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi as a turning point in the ministry; they all describe the last journey to Jerusalem, the court, the crucifixion and resurrection. In addition, most of the Gospel material is identical in all three Gospels.
Similarity of style and language in many sections of the Gospels are not only the similarity of content, but also vocabulary. Examples of such lexical similarity can be found in the following episodes: healing the leper (Matt. 8.1 and more, Mark. 1.40 ff; Lk. 5.12 and later), the question of the authority of Jesus (Matt. 21:23 ff; Mk. 11.27 and further, Luke. 20.1 and later) of the eschatological teachings (Matt. 24.4 and below 15 and below, Mk. 13.5 and then 14 and then, Luke. 21.8 and below 20 and below), and Joseph of Arimathea, please give him the body of Jesus ( Matt. 27.58, Mk. 15.43, Luke. 23.50).
The similarity between only two Gospels is as follows:
Sometimes topics available in all three Gospels show a closer resemblance to the style and language of the two gospels over the third, and it is important to determine their origin and communication. (Elliott 97)
Especially it concerns the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, who comprise a significant portion of the total for both material omitted from Mark. Much of this material is the teaching of Jesus and very little narrative-As for the total material in all three Gospels, the similarity to Matthew and Luke often regard formulations (cf. Mt. 3.7-10, Luke. 3.7-9 where we are talking about the preaching of John the Baptist, Matt. 6:24, Luke. 16.13, about serving two masters, Matt. 11.4 and beyond, Luke. 7.22 and further containing Jesus' answer to the question of John the Baptist, Matt. 23.37-39, Luke. 13.34- 35, describes Jesus weeping over Jerusalem).
Differences in this problem would be easier to resolve, if not a significant difference in the arrangement of the material details and vocabulary. In some sections, containing the same material, lexical similarity is very small, while others reflect a completely different historical situation. Healing the centurion's servant, for example, (Matt. 8.5 and below, Luke. 7.1 and below), not only stands in a different sequence in the two Gospels, but his descriptions differ from each other. Narrative of the Passion in the first three Gospels, though in one sequence are nonetheless very different in detail and the wording (Poirier 315–322).
Besides these differences, each of the three Synoptic Gospels has sections that are unique to him, and it applies especially to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The first and third Gospels narrative about Christmas is completely different and almost unrelated to each other. In Luke, there is a long section, commonly called the "narrative of travel" (9.51-18.14), which contains mostly his own material. Matthew tells us the details such as Peter walking on the water and four drachmas in the fish's mouth, which is not present in the other Gospels. Sermon on the Mount in Matthew only in general reminds sermon "out of the blue" in Luke, which is much shorter, though some part of the material has dropped Luke in other contexts. Other details will be discussed later, when we come to consider the theory of sources. Sections available in three Gospels frequently vary in Matthew and Mark Luke, Luke and Mark and Matthew, although hardly ever, in Matthew and Luke Mark. (Elliott 97)
Synoptic problem remains controversial, but in the end, years of modern scientific Bible study debate identified several literary and historical propositions that are verifiable and reliable solutions to the problem. According to modern biblical studies, written sources available to forecasters, the number of documentary sources and the number of their list was small, and that led to their loss. These sources could be as small periscopes, and provide texts that are more extensive. Forecasters were biographers, but they wrote about the gospel for confirming the brethren in the faith, and, therefore, do not set a goal to give a strictly chronological sequence of events and speeches. By the end of the first century, the formation of the Synoptic Gospels was already completed; however, during its creation, biographers were still alive, witnessed the Gospel events, and maintained direct contact with the primary Palestinian tradition. Features of each of the Synoptic due of not only each of the Synoptic due of not only each of the Synoptic due of not only each of the Synoptic due not only to the Church’s Tradition and sources, but also features theology of each of the evangelists. The oldest of the forecasters is the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Matthew in its current form is not identical to the original Hebrew, which he wrote Bishop Papias of Hierapolis. If the weather forecasters and used versions of each other, they were not limited to this, and attracted other, no extant documents and stories. Semitic base (oral and written) of the first three Gospels securely connects them with the traditions of Jerusalem, kept the memory of Christ's earthly life (Pringle 454–454). The compound of oral traditions, literature and mutual evangelists and created a complex picture of the "synoptic phenomenon." Most of these theories not only excludes, as they complement each other (Poirier 315–322). The study "synoptic problem" is important theological significance. Through a variety of sources that are included in the Gospel, we see in them the face of Christ is not one-sided, and through a holistic tradition of the Church and through the peculiar perception of evangelicals and their interpretation of sources.
Works Cited
Elliott, J. K., and Bruce M. Metzger. “The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration.” Novum Testamentum 36 (1994): 97.
Pringle, L. T. “The New Testament:: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.” Theology 1997 : 454–454.
Poirier, John C. “Memory, Written Sources, and the Synoptic Problem: A Response to Robert K. McIver and Marie Carroll.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 315–322.
Sim, D. C. “The Synoptic Gospels.” The Expository Times 2008 : 313–319.
