Originally Posted by
pjohns
One problem that has long plagued theologians is the so-called "Synoptic Problem." In a nutshell, it is this:
The three Synoptists (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) use almost identical language in places. (In fact, a "harmony of the gospels" is sometimes useful, in this regard.)
Just how to resolve this?
One way, I suppose, would be to adopt the so-called "Dictation Theory": According to this, God just dictated the words to be used, verbatim; so the Synoptists wound up with the very same words in many places.
But I reject this theory--as do most serious theologians nowadays.
One problem with it is this: It does not explain the vast differences in style between, say, the Synoptists and John; or between Peter and Paul; or between any of the above.
Almost 100 years ago, B.H. Streeter devised a theory (known as "The Four-Source 'Q' Theory) that may work, however.
It essentially goes like this:
Mark--not Matthew, as had long been supposed--is the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels.
Matthew used Mark as a base.
He supplemented it with a Caesarean source document, known as "Q" (for the first letter of the German word, quelle: meaning source).
He further supplemented it with a Jerusalem source document, known as "M" (which gives Matthew its distinctively Jewish flavor).
Already, we have accounted for three of the four sources.
Moreover, Luke is believed to have used an Antiochene source document, known as "L." This, in addition to Mark and "Q."
The theory is, admittedly, not perfect; its most glaring problem is the fact that no such source documents have yet been discovered.
Still, I can see no better alternative.
Thoughts?