One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the other? Or I'll give you a little hint. It's the golf jar.
The Synoptic Problem, that discussion, and more coming up right now in the Peer V Day Show. Uh You're listening to Clearview Today with Dr. Abadan Shah, the daily show that engages mind and heart for the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm Ryan Hill. I'm John Galantis.
I realized I might have had a little bit of heresy there. I should clarify that the Gospel of John absolutely does belong, but that's what we're talking about today, why a lot of people notice some similarities, some differences. You know what? I'm getting ahead of myself. We want to introduce our host, Dr.
Abadan Shah, who's a PhD in New Testament textual criticism, professor at Carolina University, author, full-time pastor, and the host of today's show. Dr. Shah, welcome. I'm looking forward to being here today. It's going to be a great discussion.
The Gospel of John does belong, and we're not talking about the gospel written by this child. No, there's no gospel written by me. No, that would also be heretical. Yeah, it would be written in crayon if I wrote it. Backwards art.
Everything that we do here on the Clear View Today show, from producing the show to sharing the word online, is all about getting the gospel out on the airwaves. And it's all because of faithful listeners just like you. That's right.
So we want to ask you to do. This. If you've been blessed by the Clearview Today Show, we hope that you have. We trust that you have, otherwise, you wouldn't be listening today. And you want to help us keep reaching more people with the gospel, consider supporting us, partnering with us financially.
When you give, you're not just funding a radio show. You're partnering with us to share the gospel, to engage minds and hearts for the gospel of Jesus Christ. And it's easy. Just visit Abadanshah.com forward slash give and click on that give button. You can make a one-time gift or you can set up a recurring donation, whatever works best for you.
But just know that every single dollar that you give goes to making a difference, and every gift helps keep us spreading the word of God's, the word of truth through God's word. That's right.
And if you're already watching us on pray.com, you can actually do the exact same thing right through there by subscribing to pray.com through Abaddon Shah's page. It will actually benefit us as well because it spreads that to our ministry as well.
So we want you to know there's lots of different avenues to give, just like Ryan said. It's very, very easy and it's very impactful. Like he said, we're sharing the gospel of Christ to the nations. And, you know, Dr. Shah, today's conversation is coming in from another faithful listener of the Clearview Today show.
This is what the check-in we got in our phone number, by the way. That number, if you've got potential topics you want us to talk about, is 252-581. 25028. It'll be in the show notes. This is coming in from someone in Chicago.
You know, we are really blowing up in Chicago right now. Chicago has become, I think, our number one or our number two most listened to city. It's in the top three at least. I can't remember if it's the one. I think it was number one.
I think you're right. I think Chicago, a lot of people are loving Clearme today. Yeah, that's right. Hey, Dr. Shah, I've been reading through the gospels lately in my quiet time, and I noticed something interesting that's been bugging me a little bit.
Why doesn't the Gospel of John mention Peter walking on the water? John was there, and he includes so many personal and detailed moments that the other Gospels don't include, so it feels intentional that he left that out. Did Jesus actually walk on water twice? And John's describing a separate event altogether? Or did John have some beef with Peter?
Everything.
Sorry, that's really funny. Just the idea of John just like writing it down and crossing it out. Did John have some beef with Peter and left it out on purpose? That is a great question. This is known as the synoptic problem.
The whole issue is known as a synoptic problem. Synoptic means seen together. And Matthew, Mark, Luke. They seem to be seeing things together. And then there is John.
Who Is uh has a different way of presenting the life of Jesus. All four of them are presenting the life of Jesus Christ, they are biographies on Christ. But uh the way they present it is different. And then there is a different issue, which is what about the differences and the similarities between those synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke? That's another issue.
So we have to sort of start from the ground up to help Uh educated people. in what this issue is all about. Where has scholarship been on this matter? Where is it to day? And then how does it impact our faith in the Bible.
Because people have used this to say There are problems in the Bible. That's what I was going to ask: do people use this, capitalize on it, to say, see, they're talking about the same issue. They're talking about the same point in history. They're all about Jesus' life. There's so many discrepancies.
Obviously, the Bible has. Do you think that the discrepancies are enough to where this is a legitimate problem? Lord, is synoptic problem like a misnomer? Do you think this is a legitimate concern? These differences between John and the other three?
I would say there is no synoptic problem. I would say there are differences that we can explain, but problem that word implies that that contradiction.
Okay, so so it it this whole uh idea this this this topic came about almost To discredit the Bible, to discredit the gospels, to discredit the life of. uh the historical Jesus. And so I don't like that term. I do know what they're talking about. Yeah.
Christian evangelical scholars. who use that term, but they don't Mean by that, that there are problems in the Bible, but originally it began with the idea that there are problems.
Well, yeah, because a problem needs a solution, right? But we can't like solve the differences between John and the other gospels. Yeah, and if something is termed a problem, it means that there has not yet been provided a solution. Like, if it still exists as a problem, it hasn't been solved. Are the differences really that extreme?
Just as a scholar, are the differences that extreme to where it's like we should take notice of this? Yes, the differences are there. I just want to stay away from calling it a problem, even though we will call it a synoptic problem. But the problem implies that we have a situation here. But When you come from The viewpoint that the Bible is the word of God, Genesis to Revelation.
The New Testament Of course, the Old Testament, but also the New Testament is the Word of God. Then he will look for a solution rather than say, There's a problem here. There's a problem here. Yes, there are differences, there are similarities. And Between those three gospels.
And then, of course, what do we do with the Gospel of John? When did people start noticing that these differences were. There, like, is this like a centuries-old? Oh, goodness, it goes back way to the to the first century. Wow, yeah, right from the get-go, people were talking about this: that uh, these uh four gospels are are like.
Four winds, or something like that. You know, one of the church fathers said that, you know, it's like presenting Christ from different angles, hence the differences. But they did not question the veracity of scripture. They did not say that there's a synoptic problem. They didn't do it like that.
But of course, they recognize it right away. Gotcha.
So I think it goes back to what you talked about on the show before: is the perspective or the lens at which you're viewing these quote-unquote issues, it matters. Because if I come to this issue of the gospels disagreeing on different accounts or information and I don't have a biblical foundation, I don't stand upon the truth that God's word is truth and I'm going to come to a solution, my faith is going to be, if I can use the word faith, my faith is going to be shaken by that. But if I operate from the assumption like God's word is true, it doesn't contain errors. If I perceive an error, the error is in my understanding and I need to correct that. That changes the way that we engage in this whole process.
Given time and information, you will do it. Right. And that problem is not a problem. Right, exactly. The Babel does not a problem.
And then somebody may take issue with me and there are people will, who will say, no, there is a problem. You're just dancing around the issue. Right. No, I I know the issue that is there. But I don't consider that to be a problem.
So what are their claims? If someone were to say these are the specific aspects of this synoptic problem that that I take issue with or that need to be solved, what are the what are their what is their beef essentially with John?
Well, before we even talk about John, I think we need to spend at least an episode or two just talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke.
Okay. And once you understand what's happening there, then we can tackle John to see how John fits in. with the other three Gospels.
So looking at the synoptic gospels themselves. First. It's sort of a it is sort of backwards a little bit because I hear the synoptic problem and I think that, okay, well, John's the problem, but Matthew, Mark, Luke are the synoptic gospels. Right. This is a synoptic problem really does not Include John primarily.
Gotcha.
Yeah, that's a whole different nation.
So let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. Is the synoptic problem differences between these three and we're leaving John out? Yes.
So the synoptic problem.
Okay, so I've even up till right now, I've misunderstood it. The synoptic problem isn't that John's very different. The synoptic problem is the differences between Matthew, Mark, and Luke that are supposed to be three gospels who see together.
Okay, that is actually new stuff. I didn't know that. Yeah, like sin. S-Y-N, not S-I-N. S-I-N, of course, we know is sin as in things we do against God or His Word.
But S-Y-N, like synonym. Synoptic is Together. Optic is Vision. Synoptic is Seeing together.
So, John is actually excluded from the synoptic problem. Has nothing to do with him? Yes.
Yes, and no. There were times that he was included, then he was excluded. Got it.
Now he's being included again. He got thrown out of the party, then they let him back in. Poor John. He's been exiled multiple times. Out of here.
Yeah, he was in, he was out.
Now he's back in. But some people still don't want him. Poor guy. Poor guy. But definitely Augustine.
Augustine was the one who gave us the order in which these gospels were written. written. And how they were dependent on each other.
So, again, we're talking about synoptic, which means only Matthew, Mark, and Luke, not John included. He said that Matthew was written first. Then came Mark. And then Luke used Matthew and Mark. Do you agree with that?
I mean and I guess what I should say is is that considered canon? Is that not necessarily?
Okay. Yeah. There are people out there who will say that every one of them were written independently. Maybe Luke u utilized Matthew and Mark, but They were all written independently.
So there you have It's known as the Augustinian hypothesis, which is a mutual dependence theory. Matthew first. Then Mark used Matthew, and then Luke of course, Luke talks about it in the opening to his Gospels, that many have undertaken this task to put the life of Jesus together. Having seen that, I decided to do the same thing for you, O Theophilus, and he's looking at some of these eyewitnesses. Of course, Matthew was an eyewitness.
And according to tradition, Mark Um got his inf information from Peter, and Peter was an eyewitness. Luke wasn't, but Luke utilized two eyewitnesses: one directly, one indirectly. Matthew directly. Luke, Mark, indirectly through Peter.
So it's self-evident that Luke used Matthew and Mark to put his gospel together because he says it himself. Oh, absolutely. He says that right in the beginning. Got it.
So. Because he says that, now we have to start thinking of gospel. Gospels using gospels to create themselves. That's a good point. Or gospel writers using gospel.
Other gospels to create because Luke says it. And we're also considering them all the word of God. Right. Yeah. So it's like, okay, well, this is the word of God, but you used.
Someone else's gospel to create. Is there any issue with that? I mean, I know we probably. Because, I mean, Luke says it. Right.
And Luke is, we consider Luke to be. The inerrant-inspired word of God. And so this triangle of Matthew, Mark, Luke, with Mark using Matthew and Luke using Matthew and Mark, sort of held sway with some dissidence here and there until I would say coming up to maybe the 17th century. You know, that's when you hear about the 17th, 18th century, you hear about J.J. Griesbach, a German.
Scholar who said that Matthew, Mark, Luke are synoptic gospels. And then after that, uh other scholars began to like Griesbach Chose this description of synoptic and others to put. The three gospels together based on similarities. And they began this. This scholarly work on Putting these gospels side by side and saying, oh, wait, there's a similarity here, but then this gospel goes on its own.
Oh, wait, they're all three together. But wait, now it's well, this one is gone.
So, what we talked about the Augustinian hypothesis where you have Matthew and you have Mark, who wrote based on Matthew, and then Luke based on Matthew and Mark. Right. What. Are there any other hypotheses out there as to how these are Configured and how they're based on one another. Absolutely.
I mean, there's many.
So you had the oral tradition, which is simply that everybody got their account from people sharing the story Of Jesus.
Okay, so there was this whole school. uh Scandinavian school with names like Burger Uh Gerhardsson. And up until recently, even Rainer Eisner, these are people who believed in this independent use. Like they are these gospel writers used Um These Eyewitness accounts and orality and memory was very. much a part of ancient cultures.
They examine other Cultures where Where passing down traditions orally was a big deal, and based on that. They examined the text of the Gospels. to make a case that these gospel writers Got their account. Directly from the mouths of people who walked with Jesus and saw him and heard him and touched him. But does that open the door for Does that open the door for people to say, well, okay, that's how you know the Bible is not really reliable because they got it from all these different sources and they wrote things that clearly conflict?
Or is the oral tradition more secure? No, I mean, it has its pros and cons, and we can look at that too in a little bit. But it's not that easy to dismiss the arguments of the oral tradition proponents. Right. Because when you really read their their Their works, whether it's books or articles, it is done very well.
So it's not like a giant, like centuries-long telephone game. No, not even close. Not even close. I think our frame of reference is probably off for an oral tradition, too, because we, I mean, we're, we're, what are we? We would be a literary person.
Yeah, we're a literary society. I mean, we don't pass down stories. I mean, at the most, our stories may be. John Bunyan, not John. Was it not Bunyan?
Paul Bunyan. Paul Bunyan. John Bunyan is a Pilgrim Progress. Paul Bunyan's type stuff. But even then, how much do we do that?
Yeah, we don't.
So we don't quite pay attention to spoken word and spoken stories the way that the same way that a society based on oral tradition would. I mean, if that was the primary way that information was passed, people are paying attention and they're hinging on words much more so than we would be.
Well, that's why I think that we, like as a society, we when we hear, like even me, when I hear that, oh yeah, well, they just passed all these traditions down orally, my first thought is, well, that's pretty easy to mess up. Right. But their society probably was much more different and they took that much more seriously than.
Well that's what uh The school, the Scandinavian school, would hold to is that they turn to rabbinic writers. And how they passed down information to make their case that the Gospels also could be patterned after these rabbinic writings, how the rabbis would speak and their disciples would write, and things got repeated in different sources, and they got the same information because they were oral cultures, and memory was a big part of passing down religious tradition.
So that's one way to look at it. Then there are other people who will say, no, they independently worked. At their gospels some oral, some literary traditions. Oral We don't have I mean, unless you can bring those people back, there's no way you can justify it. Um So, also the literary tradition.
Where are the sources? I can't find them. Nobody can. There are no scraps of papyri found somewhere in the deserts. Or in Egypt or in some monastery somewhere in Israel or Greece or Turkey.
We don't have anything like that, like this extra source. Where we can say, Ah, that's where they they got all their information. We don't have that.
So Oral tradition view is one view. Then the Oral Plus Literary.
Sources view is another view. The drawback of those two views is that we don't have any hardcore proof in our hands. You just kind of have to trust that they did it correctly. Yeah, we just have to believe that based on their arguments and based on their supporting. Evidence from other cultures and other writings, and how this phenomenon took place of.
It never Writing a story or a biography based on Oral traditions or literary sources, we sort of make a cla camp case for the Gospels. But again, we don't have oral tradition. There's people are dead and gone. We don't have any literary sources from ancient times either.
So it is still a legitimate argument. But it comes up short because there's no evidence or proof. Yeah, because I'm giving you about the pros and cons. Right, right.
So, yeah, it definitely comes up short. And you have to go, Hm. You can't argue. I mean, you kind of can't argue it because there's nothing to argue. I like the second one, which is oral plus literary sources.
Mm-hmm. Because I think more than likely it took place like that. I mean, Matthew, he was there the whole time with Jesus. Right. He could have easily written some things down.
So, some of the literary sources were his own.
Some he may have called up Peter and said, Hey, remember the time when you wrote down those words of Jesus at Philippi? Can I have that? Because I want to put that in this thing. Reading back those minutes, Peter. Yeah, can you then send the message back to Matthew?
He's like, Yeah, so Jesus said, Who do you say that I am? And then he called me Satan. He said, get behind me. I didn't like that part. I didn't like that part, but I figured I should include it for accuracy's sake.
And then he said, flesh. Yeah, he said flesh and blood. Flesh and blood hasn't revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.
Okay, that's what he said, Matthew.
Okay, great. Thank you.
So I think More than likely took place like that. But again, I have no proof because nobody left their notes to say this is when I called on Peter, and Peter gave me this information. And then I also interviewed Thomas, and Thomas gave me we don't have anything. Just objectively, that feels like it makes the most sense. It doesn't make sense.
And I prefer it. I just don't have hardcore proof to say that's how it happened. And then to defend it, you would say that because the oral tradition comes in. That this is a culture that's very different from ours. They committed these things to memory because their culture promoted them to do that.
Whereas, like with us, we would say, well, that.
Well, I'm I'm Let's say Ryan and I had a conversation a couple of years ago, and then I call up David and I said, What did Ryan say that day? For him to be like, oh, it was something like this, but it might not be that. We live in a different culture than they would. Is that how you would kind of argue for the dependency, like the veracity of what it was that Jesus actually said? If you're going to use the oral tradition as your source.
Yeah, plus literary.
Well. Yeah, literally I explain the best I could. Oral again. Was the Hebrew culture or the Jewish people in the time of Jesus really operating by this oral memory culture? Who knows?
I I don't know because we have writings from them. Right. So, how they shifted away from an oral tradition? Can we really say because a few rabbis. Passed down verbal information and people wrote it down that now we are sold out.
So, if you've got these three gospels, and I didn't mean to cut you off, but if we've got these three gospels, you got Matthew, you got Mark, and you got Luke, and they're so similar. that they're s grouped together. Why is it now a problem that they have small contradictions in them? Or not contradictions, but differences, I should say.
Well, I mean, it's not a problem for me. Right, right.
But it became a problem because there are. places it seems like they are disagreeing. That there are some differences. Uh and then for Scholar you know, studying's sake. We wanna know what did they do?
How did they get it so Much Similar. I can understand a few words here and there, but there are places where it's verbatim. Yeah. So Obviously you have to say Is that just chance? Is that just chance?
Like I said, Hey, uh John, can you hand me that pen? How many different ways can I say that? Yeah. Give me the pen. Give me the pen.
Give me that pen. Let me have that pen. Let me have the pen. Pass me that pen. Throw that pen at me.
Yeah, yeah. I don't know how many ways you could do that. Yeah. So Many times. When you compare these synoptic gospels, They're word for word the same.
Mm-hmm. Which is evidence that there's veracity between there's there's there's some borrowing. Yeah. So before we dive into more about Who got what from who.
Some of the Some of the issues here under the synoptic problem are similarity of arrangement. Similarity of arrangement. Again, we're only talking about Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Luke. We're not bringing in John right now.
So, based on the same historical structure, first comes John the Baptist. Then there's baptism of Jesus. Then there's a temptation of Jesus. then his ministry in Galilee, Than the last public ministry in Jerusalem. This is the pattern.
In Matthew, Mark and Luke. That's essentially the story of Jesus' life. And it's all the basic big moments. Yes, and the structure is the same all throughout all through them. Gotcha.
Then if you read between Mark 19, 14 through 20, Mark 10, 14 through 20, and Luke 18, 16 through 21, there are a lot of similarities in style and wording. In those specific passages? In those three passages. And there are others too. Sure, sure.
It's known as the triple tradition. Mm. When Matthew, Mark, and Luke Agree, like almost verbatim, that's known as a triple tradition. But it's only Matthew and Luke. It's known as a double tradition.
Okay. So the agreements between it's, I think I see what you're saying. Like, there are places where they seem like they disagree, but when they agree, it's almost word for word. It's like. Yeah, I mean, we can look at one if you want to.
Sure.
So let's go to. Matthew chapter 19, verse 14 through 20, John. Sure.
And um Ryan, if you want to take Mark chapter 10, 14 through 20, and I will take Luke chapter 18, verses 16 through 21. All right. Let's do it. That's fine. James.
So, John, you want to kick us off with Matthew 19:14 through 20? Yes, I do.
So, it says, But Jesus said, Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them and departed from there.
Now, behold, one came and said to him, Good teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?
So he said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments. He said to him, Which ones? Jesus said, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness.
Honor your father and your mother, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. The young man said to him, All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?
Okay, so that's verse 21. Is that where it ends? That's verse 20.
So 21 says, Jesus said to him, If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. And come, follow me.
Okay. Well, you want to hit Mark? Mark 10, starting in verse 14. When Jesus saw it, he was greatly displeased and said to them, Let the little children come to you. Wait a minute, wait a minute.
So Matthew said, What again? Matthew said, But Jesus said, Let the little children come to me. And what did Mark say? But when Jesus saw it, he was greatly displeased and said to them, This is still New King James, right? New King James.
I want to make sure the same translation. Not that it matters. And then in Luke chapter 18, verse 16 is, but Jesus called them to him and said, Let the little children come to me.
So. The way they are Introducing the words of Jesus are definitely distinct. They're not verbatim. When they give the words of Jesus. John, you first.
Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Okay. Kingdom of? Kingdom of heaven.
Okay. Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God. Here's Luke. Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God. So the question is: Did Jesus say kingdom of heaven or kingdom of God?
Matthew's Jesus said what? Matthew's Jesus says, For such is the kingdom of heaven. But Mark and Luke are saying kingdom of God.
So who is right? I mean, could I mean, they can all be right. I mean, can they all be right? Or is it, let me ask you this: is it like who's right as in who's telling the truth, or what did Jesus? Say that's the question.
That's the question. What did Jesus say? Got it.
Did he say, For such is the kingdom of God, or did he say, of such is the kingdom of heaven. If you take a vote, then of course, Mark and Luke are saying God, and Matthew's saying heaven.
So we can vote Matthew out and say it should be God across the board. But we can't do that. Here's the synoptic problem. This is where you have to go, wait, what just happened? Yeah.
Oh, I didn't realize we were completely out of time, but is this. It doesn't make a huge difference, in your opinion, whether he said God or heaven? No, it doesn't, but we need to understand. How can we give a defense to somebody like, say, say, Bart Ehrman, who says, you see, there's a problem there, and you guys believe in inerrancy? Verbal plenary inspiration of the word of God.
How do you explain that? Two different words. I guess so. I guess to me, it's like if I turn something in, I say, Hey, Dr. Sha, here's something I made.
And he said, Hey, that's really good. And then later I say, oh yeah, he said it was very good and not really good. It doesn't really change what was said. I agree, but your words and my words are not the word of God. Fair enough.
Fair enough. That's true.
So it does matter. But I think the point here is, and we got to let you know. Yeah, I can't believe we do. There are answers. There are answers to those apparent discrepancies.
And we're going to talk about that next time on the Clear View Today. That's right.
That's right.
Guys, make sure you join us next time. We're going to dig further into this topic.
So interesting and what goes behind the English Bibles that we hold in our hands. Thanks again to our sponsors for making today's episode possible. And if today was your first time listening to us, buckle up. We've got a lot more content like this. We love you.
We're glad you're here. And we want to talk to you again next time on our show. And you can always support us financially at Abadanshah.com forward slash give. We love you guys. We'll see you next time on Clearview Today.
