Findings in the Coloring Exercise
In Synoptic Exercise 1, the color patterns showed that Mark and Luke shared most words. It was surprising that Matthew had most of the unique words, the unique words of Mathews make it appear as the unique source, but since the three gospels are talking about similar accounts, similarities should be more. Synoptic Exercise 1 shows that one Gospel was a source for the other two. The results show that Luke is not sharing much with Matthew. The conventional perception among most religious scholars is that Matthew is the first Gospel, and Mark simplified the account. However, synoptic problem solutions like Markian priority provide accounts and explanation showing that Matthew was an extension of Mark. From the coloring findings, it is evident that Luke consistently relies on the Mark reading instead of the Matthew accounts. The finding strongly proposes that Luke never had access to Matthew as one of the resources; however, Luke shared passages with Mark. Most of the passages match almost in a phrase-for-phrase scenario. Just as individuals who are reported as the ministers and eyewitnesses of the word presented in the Gospels, it seemed relevant to me to argue that the gospels relied on one source, Mark.
In the Synoptic Exercise 2, the most likely explanation is that “both Matthew and Luke used the third source and added their individual words to it.” The phrases are the same meaning the two authors used the same source; however, Mark does not have this passage. Therefore, Matthew and Luke could not have used Mark as the source. If they did not use Mark then, they had a common source whose documentary proof is missing.
Proposed Solution to the Synoptic Problem
The findings show that the passages are sourced from either Mark or another document without proof. The Synoptic Problem is just a means to tackle to challenges and potential clarifications regarding the mythical associations among the three Gospels. Mark, Luke, and Matthew give the fundamental narrative of Jesus Christ similarly using many of the similar phrases in corresponding accounts.
Based on the explanation, Synoptic Problem solution that seems to explain the coloring scheme finding is the "Q-Document" explanation. Many scholars accept as true that both Matthew and Luke but not Mark used a different document to write their Gospels. Despite the fact that the document is missing, the document seems to contain a compilation of parable, passages, and Jesus’ teachings. However, in the first scenario, the two-gospel writer also used Mark as a source of their compilation signifying Mark was the first written Gospel.
Scholars had explained that before the writing of the Gospels, a period of oral propagation of the message existed and many other writers could have compiled the gospel. It is apparent that oral custom encouraged not just the writing of the synoptic Gospels but the many other materials. The presumed existence of other writings can be because of the general concord between the three gospels that could not have been possible from oral sources. For the precision of the phrasing and wording in the synoptic Gospels could only be possible through written sources, not oral sources. In addition, the quotations and bracketing of same words in respective gospels are hardly explicable by oral concepts. In conclusion, it is evident that the three synoptic gospels were dependent on each other.
Bibliography
Bratcher, Dennis. “The Gospels and the Synoptic Problem the Literary Relationship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.” Last modified: March 25, 2013. http://www.crivoice.org/synoptic.html
Just, Felix. “The Synoptic Problem.” Last updated on October 17, 2015. http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm
Stack Exchange Inc. “Biblical Hermeneutics beta.” Accessed July 31, 2016, http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1443/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-existence-of-the-q-document
Wallace, Daniel B. “The Synoptic Problem.” June 2nd 2004. Accessed July 31, 2016, https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem
