A brief overview of the generally accepted views on the Synoptic Problem are given in these links.
If you have little understanding of the problem it would pay to look at these sites first
I answer below briefly what is written in the first link. Unfortunately, the listing in this article in not very
clear, but I had to follow the same listing for reference purposes. I have not commented upon the other link but
the whole of this site will answer it.
A. Stein believes in the Literary interdependence (copying) of the Gospels but it is rubbish.
The argument against this is that only John witnesses the trials before the religious leaders, yet
the other Gospel writers all record them. How men highly trained in the Scriptures do not see this, I do not know.
- Agreement in wording.
a. Historical Naiveté
b. Naiveté regarding inspiration.
- The fact that there is dialogue. That dialogue indicates a divine first source.
- No history has ever been written that records dialogue. It is impossible to comprehensively do so
- By what authority does he say that Jesus taught in Aramaic. There is no evidence.
- John’s Gospel records primarily what happened in Jerusalem.
- Verbal dissonance is to be expected. Repetition is one of the tools of the orator. Jesus was an orator.
Verbal dissonance easily occurs when an orator repeats the same idea in different words.
- Stein and others ignore the obvious other source for the Gospels and that is Jesus himself. For forty days
before his ascension he was able to instruct the Gospel writers on what they should say. He alone had the
ability to remember word for word what everyone said.
- Stein and others neglect the fact that there are events where no followers of Jesus were present yet
dialogue was recorded. How, could it be done, except by Divinity?
- Agreement in Order.
This work shows that there is a chronological order within the Gospels. If the original source was oral.
There would be virtually no chronological indicators, except in intense events such as the crucifixion and
resurrection. He uses a heretic as his authority, The term “one day” does not occur in the Gospels.
- Agreement of Parenthetical material.
Stein says, (let the reader understand) is added by an editor. But it is not. The correct way to read it is,
“when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not,
(let him that readeth The Scriptures i.e. Daniel) understand”.
- Luke’s Preface.
many have taken in hand to set forth IN ORDER, …, It seemed good to me also, HAVING HAD PERFECT
UNDERSTANDING OF ALL THINGS FROM THE VERY FIRST, to write unto thee IN ORDER, ..“ (Lu 1:3) indicates that both
Luke and the others wrote in chronological order .Luke having perfect understanding from the beginning did not
need oral sources.
Most of this is therefore wrong and is answered throughout this work. One notable thing to remember is that
an accurate oral record cannot exist without there first being a written record. And if there is a written
record, why use an oral record as your source? Moreover, if there was a written record it must have the
status of Scripture, why then was it not even preserved one century.
THE SIMILARITIES AND THE DISSIMILARITIES OF THE GOSPELS
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
The Synoptic Problem stems from ignorance of the Scriptures and
The Synoptic Problem begins with two ancient historical
figures: PAPIAS and TATIAN
PAPIAS was the first to say that there was an oral collection of
sayings of Jesus before the Gospels were written. This implies that
the Gospels could not be chronogically written, nor accurately
transmitted. This assumed collection of sayings on Papias'
testimony, whether in written or oral form is the basis for the
assumption that there is a
Q source. (German quelle -source)
IT IS NOT GOOD TO BE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE