We've been talking about the synoptic problem for days now, and we want to finally dive into some of the actual differences between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. What do they say that the others don't say? What are some of them leaving out? What are some of them maybe adding? What's getting switched around?
Join us for the conversation coming up right now. 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.
Welcome to the Clearview Today Studio. We got a great show for you guys. We've been talking about the synoptic problem for almost a week now, and we have been just diving in, learning more and more and more. And you know what's funny? Every time we get to the end of the episode, it feels like we're just getting started.
Man, it's like they go by like a snap. It's been a really, really fun conversation. I want to say a big thank you to, I did not look up this person's name. I should have looked it up, but whoever it was from Chicago, please write back in and send us your name because I would really love to give you a shout out. This has been some of the coolest conversations we've ever had.
We want to welcome 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. It's good to see you.
Thank you to you guys. Dr. Shah, I have a question for you as we're getting ready to get started and dive into the episode today. We've said on the past several episodes that we don't like calling it a synoptic problem because that Uh, gives the assumption that there's an issue out there that we need to meet that we need to solve. If you could rename it.
What would you name it? This interaction between these synoptic gospels, the synoptic, you could call it the synoptic. Think about this, man. Boogie. If your answer catches on, we could be done.
How crazy would it be if we suggest something and it actually replaces the terminology synoptic? I mean, crazy. That would be crazy. Crazy. Crazy.
I don't know. The synoptic line dance. The synoptic mamba. You're being silly, man. You're being silly.
Yeah, but I mean, if it's not a problem, Okay.
Okay. Excuse me. I was just joking.
So sorry. I was just joking.
What would you call it? The synoptic? Just the synoptic. I mean, if you want to lean on the side of there is complexity here, so like a synoptic conundrum, it could be the synoptic observance. The synoptic observance?
Observance. Yeah, like I'm just a sci-fi novel. Yeah, yeah, I know. It's something like that James Corey would write.
Something like, I'm just observing that there's differences, but I ain't got a problem with them. Right. But you need to do more than observe. You need to understand.
Okay, okay. The synoptic. Uh synergy. No. No, silly.
That's so 1990s. You probably remember synergy. You remember when the people were saying synergy unironically? Oh, yeah. That was one time this gentleman who was in our charge, he's since passed away years ago.
And he. I was uh visiting with him at his home. And he said, you know, one of the words that I came across that I think is very important as we move forward, you know, in the generation is. Synergy. Oh.
And this was like. This was like in the late 2000s, like 2011 or something. And I was like, synergy. Like, synergy has been a thing for a decade. Yeah, it's like two decades now.
And you're telling me that now that you just came across this? Like, okay. If there's someone Gen Z listening, they're like, what in the world is Synergy? Do you even do you guys even remember what Synergy is? Isn't it like two or three organizations?
I think coming together and the coming together is just so. Revolutionary, it just changes things and it's it kind of uh is a catalyst for some other things to happen. Yeah, I have no clue the synoptic opportunity. How about that? The synoptic, I like that, yeah.
It's not bad. I would definitely choose that over the synoptic synergy. Yeah, there's got to be something write in and let us know what you would rename it to because I don't know if we got to call it the synoptic problem. That's synoptic opportunity is not bad. Yeah, synoptic opportunity is okay.
Yeah, the synoptic, there's got to be something, the synoptic situation. Yep. Yeah. Hey, that's like a big bang theory episode, doesn't it? The synoptic situation.
Yeah, I like that. I like that. Dr. Shaw, for someone listening for the very first time, what is the synoptic situation? Synoptic situation.
Listen, I'm capitalizing on this. I think we can really if you start using it unironically, it will catch on. I think if you seriously, if you present papers presenting this, I think it'll catch on.
Well, synoptic situation is where you have those three Gospels that are synoptics, which are they they see things together, Matthew, Mark, Luke. The question is, did they depend on each other? And if they did depend on each other. Then who came first? Who copied from who?
And if they did copy from each other, why did they make the changes that they made? And so this is the whole synoptic situation. You're actually writing a, I'm just going to find ways to use it. You're actually writing a review right now on a book for the synoptic situation.
Well, actually, it's a book that brings in John. Oh, like that's where you messed up on Friday's episode. Yeah. Yeah. When you began our episode, like maybe three episodes ago and you said synoptic problem with John, why does John go separate?
I was like, oh, that's not a synoptic issue. But A new theory. Has entered the ring or has a new contender has entered the ring. Super Smash Brothers style, new challenger approaching. Yes.
It takes the Farrar. Golder-Goodacre hypothesis. where it is mark first. Matthew second, Luke third. No need for Q.
Definitely no need for Mario and Luigi. No M source and L source happening here. Right out. Definitely still very dedicated to the market priority. Mm-hmm.
Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this thesis. But the Farrar-Golder-Goodecker hypothesis claims that Mark came first, Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Matthew and Mark. Yeah. What the new theory suggests is that John was not out here doing his own thing. That John also is part of this situation.
Where John Used These other synoptics in the same pattern with mark Matthew, Luke He used them. to craft his gospel, but for a whole different reason. And there are several books out there that I wanted to mention. One is called Writing and Rewriting the Gospels or the Gospel of John. It's John and the Synoptics by James W.
Barker. And I am actually reviewing this book right now for a theological journal. Another one that came out by Mark Goodaker. We should mention that, by the way, this is not like a Yelp, like an Amazon review. This is like a theological theological journal, yeah.
And this is by Mark Goodeker himself. It's called The Fourth Synoptic Gospel. Wow.
So, John, you were not that far away. You were just ahead of the research. Mark Goodacre would have agreed with me, even though I was not positing a scholarly opinion. I just thought that's what it was. That was the situation.
John's knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. You were on the bleeding edge.
So, yeah, yeah.
So, these books, this one, both of them came out in 2025. I believe this one did come out in 2025. Yep. Both of them came out in 2025. This one first, I think back in January or so.
And this one just came out in September or October. Compelling arguments? Like, do you think he's on something? Um.
Well, so we have to begin by The Farrar Golder Gudakera hypothesis. Does it work? We have to first decide that. Does that whole thing with Mark first, Matthew second, Luke using Matthew and Mark? Does it really work?
Because then we can go and talk about how does John fit into this.
Now, what Barker does in his work, and Gudaker also does, but takes the researcher a little further, is that they claim that. Riding Rewriting ancient texts was a common practice. that when you read Ancient literature, classical literature, what you find is that authors often used other literature and they enhanced it. Very few times they came up with works from scratch. And that's what they're claiming about John: that John does not need to be from scratch because that's how we see it, right?
Synoptic, meaning Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John over here does his whole thing from scratch. Because if you read John's gospel, it's very different. I think that makes a lot of sense because you know, I think about writing in the sense of like 21st-century Western civilization, we're writing for like profit and for entertainment.
So we want everything to be original as possible because we don't want someone to catch us using someone else's literature. Right. But them, who are their goal, is to preserve information and to like to convey an event. It makes perfect sense that they're yeah, I'm gonna use what happens to To further the credibility of my story. Right.
Yeah. But when we read it, definitely we can see that the synoptic gospels go one way, and I'm using that in the traditional definition, not the way Good Aker now is calling John as a fourth synoptic, but I'm using it in the traditional sense of just Matthew, Mark, Luke. When you read them and then you read John, definitely there are major differences. For example, in the synoptics, you have Jesus' baptism. Right?
Matthew talks about it, Mark talks about it, Luke talks about it. John does not mention Jesus' baptism. Is that so so maybe this is maybe this is a conversation for another day? Because I don't want to there's so many different conversational paths we could take. But is that a difference Like, for instance, only two of them have the genealogy.
Right. So, but we wouldn't say that Mark is now not a synoptic gospel because it doesn't ha it doesn't have that. Yeah, because you still have to deal with the triple triple tradition passages where definitely they all connect.
So, is that the thing that John just doesn't have that connective tissue at all?
Well, What Barker and Goodacre are doing are they are Taking that uh that that claim apart and saying not true.
So I just mentioned to you about Jesus' baptism, right? Matthew, Mark, Luke, talk about the baptism. John doesn't mention anything about Jesus entering into the water. Oh, I can't baptize you. Yes, permit it to be so.
Okay, I'll do it. And then the Holy Spirit comes down, heaven's open, here's my beloved Son, and all that stuff. But In the very first chapter You see John the Baptist telling his disciples. Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Hmm.
So what Barker and Goodacre will say is, even though You don't have the baptismal account. You definitely do have John the Baptist there in the beginning of this, John's Gospel. And and he is a prominent figure in pointing his disciples to follow Jesus.
So, even if the event of the baptism is not explicitly stated, the overall trajectory of the story. Exactly. How both of these people are now saying that John is. Literally literarily Connected to the synoptics. Even if you don't come to the same conclusion or agree with their conclusion, do you think that these are good arguments?
They're worth considering.
Okay. That they are worth considering.
Okay. So I'm not opposed to gospels using other gospels, although I. Many times I can also see an alternate reason. Is that something? This is kind of an aside, but like as a scholar, is that something you've had to do?
Is like someone asks you, hey, we want you to review this book? And then you have to, like, if you disagree with it, you just have to say that you disagree with it in the review. Yeah. So, yeah, but reviewers are not told to give it a positive review.
So, I can give it a negative review. Is it usually asked? Are you usually approached by the author or by someone else? No, someone else.
So the author didn't ask you, hey, could you please review my book? No. An editor of a theological journal. If they did, would you be more inclined to give it a positive? Or would that be like a cause for suspicion?
No, they will do that if they want to publish your, like a little blip on the back of their book. Like on the back of Barker's book, you have Christopher Skinner, James McGrath, Greg Carey, who are saying, oh, this is a great work. Like, let's see, I'll pick one. James McGrath. He says, a thought-provoking read for anyone interested in the interrelationship of gospels and how they came to be written.
So, is that something you could do? Like, let's say that Goodacre contacted you and he's like, I want you to put a little blurb on the back of my book, but let's just say you fundamentally disagree. Would you just say, This is really interesting and thought-provoking? Yep. But I think McGrath probably agrees.
I would think so. I would say most of the time you want to find people who will be positive to yourself. You don't want to have someone write, like, this is a horribly researched book. This is terrible. It stinks.
You should put it back on the shelf. A lot of begging the question happening here. A lot of straw man, a lot of bandwagon going on. That's not the kind of review you want on the back. No, not on the back of the book.
Do you typically I don't know where you're getting away from it, but this is kind of fun. Do you typically write positive, negative, or kind of in the middle reviews? I haven't done a lot of book reviews and it's not uh um Not because I don't want to, it's just time.
So I try not to. I have a lot of friends who are journal editors and book review editors, and I can ask them. I did recently, I was like, hey, just let you know I can do one. He's like, really?
Well, here you go. Sure. I was like, okay, oh boy.
Now I got to really work on this one. Gotcha. Because it takes time. Because the book reviews that go into theological journals are not just, hey, this is a great book, guys. Yeah, 10 out of 10 would recommend.
Yeah, or this book stinks. You have to understand. The flow of scholarship, where does that book fit in the flow of scholarship? And if it fits in the flow of scholarship, has the author done an adequate job in defending his thesis? And Again, this is scholarly work.
These are not fictions. These are not just. Average books.
So you have to then say: does the book spark further research? Is it worth your time to read it? And then also, I have to write any Any mistakes? Any Uh Uh faulty research. Any arguments that are Not You know, not not strong already.
Have you submitted this particular review yet? No, not yet. I'm writing it for you. Still, I got you.
So let's say he's. What was the Good Acre? And who was the other author? James Barker. Are you writing a review for both?
No, I'm just writing for one. For one.
Okay. So. their proposition is that John is much more of a synoptic gospel than we give it credit for. Yes. I would I would I would assume, though I could be wrong, that you disagree with their with that premise, that John is not a synoptic gospel.
Um that's that's tough. I like their thesis because I like the fact that they are bringing these gospels together rather than just relegating John to a whole different thing.
So I like something there. But then their thesis, which is the Farrar hypothesis or the Farrar Golden, Golder Goodacre hypothesis, where Marcus Forest, Matthew. use Mark and Luke use Matthew and Mark. Is it really A good hypothesis. That's a different issue.
Because this This theory that they are positing here, because both of them are basically saying the same thing, except I think. From different angles. It's a good one, but it is hinged on. This hypothesis, I want to make sure. that are totally agree with it.
So we're talking about the synoptic gospels and John being seen together, John being seen as the fourth. Possibly that's what the the theory behind this book is. Doesn't that then just make them the gospels? Like, if all four of them go away, it probably will go away. At that point, it will go away.
We just patented the synoptic situation, so I really don't want that. I really can't get behind that. I literally just sent the email off to the patent office. What do we gain by maintaining the distinction between the three synoptic gospels and the gospel of John? Wow.
So there are definitely differences between those three gospels and John, between Matthew, Mark, Luke. the traditional Traditionally designated Synoptics and John. Let's talk about those because I we mentioned one already, John Jesus' baptism at the hands of John. Right. Synoptics talk about it, but John doesn't.
But we sort of jumped ahead and I said, But John does. Talk about John the Baptist, but in a different way. And Barker and Goodacre would claim: there you go. They are, he is depending on them. That's what These two guys will say Barker and Good Acre will say yes, John.
The apostle is depending on Matthew, Mark, Luke for his content.
Now that strikes me as weird because John is a first-hand eyewitness.
Well, so is uh Matthew. But if Matthew came first, well, I I guess they would In their thesis, Mark came first.
Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. Yeah. In their thesis, Mark came first.
And Mark. depended on Peter according to ancient tradition.
So it is plausible that John would rely on other gospels, I guess.
Well, that's what they say. That's what they would say. That's what they will say, and they will give example after example to prove that.
Okay. Okay. Now, just to go a little further into the distinctions between these two. Groups. Where really is the one group and the other individual.
Matthew, Mark, Luke is a group. And John is the individual. You have other things like in the synoptics, we have the calling of the twelve. Mm-hmm. nothing like that in In John's Gospel, there is casting out of demons.
nothing of s such Nothing like that in John's Gospel parables. In the synoptics, but not in John. No parables in John? No. Wow.
Transfiguration. Not in John. The Lord's Supper. Not in John. Okay, I didn't realize all this.
This long discussion by Jesus. Yeah, discourse. It is in the upper room and let us go, but then they don't go. And then they finally go. And then they stop and then discuss on and on and on.
So a lot of discussion. Right. A lot of chit-chat and monologuing and dialogue. Yes, we covered that. If you remember, maybe two, three years ago in a sermon series where I talked about the true vine.
Yeah, I do remember that. When Jesus was in the upper room, he's talking about this, then, the other, washing the feet of the disciples. He said, let us go from here. But then next thing you know, they're still talking. We actually, I remember that sermon because we wrote a song and it never saw the light of day.
Maybe we'll dust it off and bring it out. We wrote a song based on that sermon. Really? Yeah, worship song. And then he is, I believe, he stopped by.
The temple. And on the temple, the front facade of the temple had these beautiful golden vines that wrapped around the pillars and all of that.
So when Jesus stood there, imagine the light of either the fires around or the moon hitting the gold vine and that's really just shining like it's on fire. And Jesus says, I am the true vine. And my father is the vine dresser. Maybe Jesus stood there and said that before he went down into the Kidron Valley, headed towards the Garden of Gethsemane. Maybe.
This object lesson. Yeah. As he's walking past, he can point out this. See how that vine shining? I'm the true vine.
Yeah, Israel was the true vine, but I am the true vine. Does not mean that Israel is no longer the vine of God. If we read Romans 9, those branches are coming back, so the vine is still there. But in a sense, Jesus is the true vine. That doesn't mean that they are now useless vines.
No, they still have a purpose, but he is the true vine. That's right.
So there's a difference there. How about John? John has things like the miracle of water into wine. the synoptics don't have. John talks about the resurrection of Lazarus.
The synoptics don't have that. Early ministry in Judea and Samaria. our visits to Jerusalem. Visits Not just the final week, they're all in Jerusalem now. j like the synoptics, but no, he's back and forth.
and then long discourses. Long discourses. I mean, of course, we know John 17. But other parts you also find long discourses by Jesus, only in the Gospel of John. And this is just, this is just like.
Content differences, not to mention just like other things that are going on in John. Yeah, not like wording or phrases. This is just full accounts that are different. Yeah, I mean, in John, it's high, high Christology. Whereas in the synoptics, Matthew, Mark, Luke, it's almost like they're like, huh?
I don't know. What do you say? Yeah. Like you're like you're sort of building the story where you're discovering along with. The quote-unquote characters that Jesus is the Christ.
Right. John is the Christian. They're slow to understand, but in John, I mean, he's talking deep, deep Christology and they are they seem to be getting it. He pretty much tells you right off the bat Jesus is God. Like when the in the beginning there's the word, the word was God.
Yeah. Synoptics mostly said in Galilee. And then moved to Jerusalem. But John depicts Jesus traveling to Jerusalem almost every year because they're like three times. That's how we know that he.
His ministry was three and a half years based on John.
So that's some of the things. The opponents that we find in the synoptics are the Pharisees, the scribes, the Sadducees, the chief priests, all of them. In John's Gospel, it's more about the Jews. As in the common people? No, he doesn't distinguish between Pharisees, scribes, but think about it.
If John's Gospel was written after The temple was destroyed. Eighty, seventy. then those categories don't make Mm-hmm. I'm sure they make some sense, but not as much anymore. Sadducees were very much connected to the temple.
Right, and so if the temple's gone, John is writing not like this is what I remember, he's writing for future readers. And so, like, how are they going to know what Sadducees were or Pharisees? They may know, but it's not that significant anymore. They're all lumped together in one. Time has passed where to try to.
To distinguish them doesn't really serve much of a purpose for John. Because where are they going to find Pharisees? People are scattered. Pharisees are not walking around because AD 70 things have changed. By the time John is writing his gospel, based on the best evidence, Maybe 80 80?
Eight zero And by AD 135, Jewish people are kicked out of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is renamed Aealia Capitalina.
So. Things are already headed in that direction where There's no sense in talking about all these various categories. And if you want to, you can always read Matthew, Mark, Luke. Yeah, if the temple was gone, then John probably saw that maybe he saw the writing on the wall and saw Jerusalem might not be a thing for a while. Yeah, he's seeing that probably that in maybe very soon Rome is going to destroy or kick Jewish people.
and Christians definitely out of Jerusalem. Because we don't want any more of this. And boy, were the Romans successful? Very much so. For 2,000 years, gone.
I mean, that's a lot. That is. Two thousand years You've lost your home. I'm just speculating. I mean, I'm just pure conjecture, but maybe he's like by calling them the Jews instead of the Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, stuff like that, he's preserving.
Like in case like in case this comes to pass and Rome kicks us out of here. This is our way of preserving who we were as a whole. Could be. Could be. It makes sense.
Identity beyond these little distinctions that were made.
So these are some of the ways we know that. Synoptics and John's Gospel are distinct, are different. And um The new theory that is now coming. on the scene, which is that John borrowed From the Synoptic Gospels, Is going to be one that will be discussed over the next few years. You put it this way one time during an Easter sermon that has always stuck with me: is that it is truly like an Easter egg hunt where God likes to watch us hunt for the truth.
Yeah. And it's fun for us because, like me, I love that there's always something new to discover. Like that moment of learning something new. To me, that's like a little hit of joy. I really love that.
And so I think the Bible is the perfect book for that because there's always, always something new to discover and to fall in love with. People have been studying it for across the pages of history, and we're still to this day discovering new information and clarifying our understanding on things.
So who's to say in a thousand years that we won't still be doing that?
So even if I don't ascribe to, say, Barker and Good Acre or Good Acre and Barker's hypothesis based on the Farrar Golder hypothesis, even if I may not subscribe to how they are presenting John's gospel in connection to the synoptics. Mm-hmm. I think I can still learn from this. and it'll help me bring John a little closer to Matthew, Mark, Luke when I study it. Like the whole John the Baptist thing.
I didn't know that. Until I read it and I was like, because typically that's what I believe. The synoptics talk about Jesus' baptism? John doesn't. I'm talking about John the Apostle in his gospel.
But now reading this, I was like, oh yeah, he does talk about it, and he does talk about it right from the beginning.
So could it be that John the apostle, the disciple, was not that far off? He was still following the same basic outline.
So, John the Baptist is very important to the Jesus story, even for John the Apostle, even for the fourth gospel, even for the non-synoptic gospel. It is very important.
So, John the Baptist should be important to me. That's right.
So now the question is, why is he important to me? Why should John the Baptist Should be important to me, yeah. Maybe that's a conversation for next time. Maybe it should be. I love it.
For the synoptic situation. There you go. That is patented. It has been trademarked. We did that while we were recording the show.
Hashtag down with the synoptic problem. Up with the synoptic situation. I love it. Guys, make sure you join us next time. Same time, same station.
We're going to be diving into another great topic here on the Clearview Today show. Thanks again to our sponsors for supporting today's episode. And if today was your first time listening to us, one time we love you and we're glad that you joined us. Hope you enjoyed us for the conversation again tomorrow. You can always support us financially at Abhidhanshah.com forward slash give.
That's right.
And always remember that when you give to the Clearview Today Show, you're not funding a fun radio program. You are helping us spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, I would say you are participating actively in the spreading of the gospel. And that is worth celebrating. We want you to know that we appreciate you.
We love you. If you did decide to give to the Clearview Today Show today, make sure you let us know. We want to send you a little gift to say thank you. That's right.
We love you guys. We'll see you tomorrow on Clearview Today.
