On the Synoptic Problem

The synoptic problem of duplication of material in some of the gospels basically is not a problem; it is an advantage to have one gospel viewed in different perspectives. The apostles were individuals with individual points of view-they weren’t a collective issuing a manifesto from an international convention. The gospel writers wrote to different audiences of readers and used differing styles in accord with their writing talents, selecting features to accentuate according to best interests of the reading public. There was quite a lot of difference between disparate civic audiences back-in-the-day; they weren’t all tuned in to the World Cup or Jihad Today.

There was evidently a lost gospel-one written to the Hebrews that one hopes will turn up one day in excavations of Jerusalem. The lost gospel to the Hebrews is not the existing book of Hebrews probably written by Paul’s friend from Corinth, Apollyon.  It is not surprising that the gospel of the Hebrews was lost perhaps during the destructive trashing of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Roman soldiers were so bored crucifying thousands of Jews that they invented new positions to nail ‘em down.

It probably would have had similar material perhaps written in Aramaic or Hebrew instead of Greek. I would think that Peter could have been the author of that. Maybe it was sent to Jerusalem from Rome. Maybe archaeologists will resurrect it one day from an ossuary box deep below Jerusalem.

The Diatessaron by Tatian  published about 150 A.D. was a harmonization of the four gospels books into one. One loses some nuance of the authors in combining them. If one took the testimony of four witnesses to a legal issue and reduced it to one harmonized account one would probably lose some material. If one took for points of view of physical cosmologists and harmonized them into one account a meaningless theory might result. I like the idea of combining a holographic Universe theory with inflation theory, super-string theory, quantum gravity, variable speed of light and quantum time theories into a feature-length movie for review in Physics Today.

The Syriac Diatessaron  perhaps had a purpose for-itself that made it worthwhile even so. With the different thematic development of each of the four gospels it might have required a theologian of a later era to appreciate the differences and intentions of the authors. That might have made it less easy for people not in the target audience to understand.

I didn’t write that well. Syrians getting a gospel account such as Matthew’s designed to make point important to Jews might have had points not understood by the Syrians-especially if translated into another language. Then again, if Tatian was translating the gospels instead of picking one to translate into Syriac he pragmatically brought material from all four.

John’s gospel language is Greek that notably uses Hebrew style expressions that would have been perhaps lost translating in to Syriac. Tatian may have had practical language and cultural considerations in bringing the gist of the gospels to his readers.