Due to the high degree of similarity; Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been labeled as the Synoptic Gospels

(Carson and Moo, 77). German biblical scholar J.J.Greisbach coined the first New Testament books as Synoptic, meaning a seeing together. This term is adapted from the Greek word synopsis. These inspired books serve as a vivid representation of the ministry of Jesus Christ. Theologic and scholarly study of the books of the bible, namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been under heavy scrutiny for some time now where in question, and the is the similar nature of the gospels, the validity of authorship, and the order in which the gospels may been written. The separate accounts place emphasis on Jesus birth, life, ministry, and death. These similarities being so profound, have been argued that there must have been a common source utilized for study or general public literary source that to compile the gospel works. This source document was titled as Q, derived from the word quelle, as in the above quotated definition. The aforementioned problems with the Gospels are also an ongoing quest to the origins of how the Gospel writers constructed the books in this synonymous way. Investigative stages are the underlying approaches that give way to the probabilities of how these works were constructed, their audiences for which they were written, and the position from which Jesus was portrayed according to the many criticisms. Each proposed solution have proven to some extent to be logical and substantial in attempting to resolve the coextending synoptic problem. It is also likely that the simplicity in repetition could have been the ultimate ambition of cocreation of the gospel stories of Jesus Christ, though, highly unlikely, time spent in finding circumstantiated evidence is a far from being embarked upon. The Synoptic Gospels give a recount of the story of Jesus Christ which give a little more, and a little less detail, and follow the same sequence of adages. The problem concerns itself with the kinship of how this union came to pass, in essence the relation of all three. Speculations of how it came about is either by direct relationship, and evangelist may have possessed one of the gospel, or indirectly two evangelist may have shared access to a source. The first three evangelist give narrative of the same events which highlight Jesus healings, exorcisms, and parable teachings (Carson & Moo 2005, 77). John, the fourth gospel, which is set apart from the other three gospels much, have largely much fewer narratives. Jesus, in the Gospel of John, has a concise overarching message unlike those in the other three gospels, escapes the epigrammatic and allegories (Carson and Moo, 77). The last Synoptic Gospel, Luke, collectively and historically was written to the supposed converted Roman official, Theophilus. Luke sternly believes that Jesus is the Son of Man and dedicates as proof of his faith. Theophilus, biblically meaning, lover of God, can be addressed as anyone who fits that description. Lukes purpose is to illustrate to his audience his account of Jesus, with facts backed up by proof, and which Jesus is the savior for all believers. Lukes literary work references back to the days of Adam (Luke 3:23-28). Lukes gospel also emphasizes the gracious forgiveness of God and how merciful and loving God is. Jesus humility toward the lowly and lost, the negative attitude towards greed, money, worldly things; the active role the Holy Spirit would play in our lives, the importance of prayer, and the compassion we should have for one another, are all re,occurring themes the Gospels expound upon, and what God hopes to engraft in his believers. Dying to ourselves, rejecting the flesh, and

staying connected to Gods will for our lives, fulfill Jesus mission as the Messiah. According to Luke there are three recognized stages in the development of his work (Lea & Black, 114-115). Original eye witnesses, a description of the writers who had drawn up an account of things that had occurred, and giving an orderly account was of his own highest priority (Lea & Black, 115). Denotations of these three consecutive periods which are of the oral tradition (Form Criticism), the period of written sources (Source Criticism), the period of final composition (Redaction Criticism), and Literary Criticism (Lea & Black 115-125). Form Criticism Form Criticism is considered to be the period before there were any written copies of the Gospels (Lea & Black, 115). Stories relative to Jesus Christ and his works traveled primarily by word of mouth. This study focuses on transmission of the good news, as there was a minute presence of written material (Lea & Black, 115). Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius , and Rudolf Bultmann instituted the source critical approach, which is pioneered by six assumptions and beliefs to undergird its basis as follows: 1). Jesus stories and parables were possibly circulated in small tracts with the exception of the passion narrative (Carson and Moo, 80). 2). Folk and religious traditions can be compared to the conveyance of the gospel elements of the community, and how it is passed down. 3).Certain standardized forms are visible in the gospel stories and sayings of Jesus, hence form criticisms. 4). A premise of situational life according to the early church draw from the probability and how it affects the writing of that time. 5). These stories may have been created and modified depending upon the climate of the church, which causes some skepticism historically, and 6). Form critics have declared that certain passages based on laws of transmission for orally transmitted material (Carson & Moo, 82). In these so-called laws, people have elaborated the stories, fabrications, tailoring the to their own language, and preserving what accommodates their needs and beliefs. However, the early curch has had an influence on these writings according to these laws. Form critics are skeptical of the trustworthiness of the Gospels (Lea & Black, 117). It is valid due to orality as a sure source for historical data relative to Jesus. Use and compilation of the literature that spoke to the lifestyle and beliefs of the church at that time, and the mediums used to relate those messages. It has also been said that stories may have provided more entertainment than instruction. The apocryphal childhood miracles in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was noted for showing Jesus as having super powers (Perkins 2008, 254). Source Criticism

The most popular elucidation of the synoptic issue is the interrelationship approach. This is the probability that two of the Gospel authors used one or more of the Gospels, along with supplementary document in the preparation of their material (Lea & Black, 120). One critic, Augustine, and African ttheologian suggested that the first Gospel that was written was Matthew, then Mark, and finally Luke (Lea & Black, 120). This is the canon order that is published as complete in the Holy Bible and its translations today.

The two-source hypothesis is the most commonly, critically viewed , as Mark being the first and earliest Gospel (Lea and black, 120). This theory also consists of the Q, or source document. This work, now lost, may have been the reference of construct in the compilation of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, due to vast similarities, of which this information is unavailable in Mark (Lea & Black, 121). The hypotheses is still very widely accepted as Mark being the first. Four indicators suggest this as Matthew and Luke are opposing in the order of events, Matthew and Luke often repeat the same words of Mark, i.e. (Matt. 8:1-3; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 5:12-13). Luke contains half the literary material of Matthew and Mark, and verbage used in Matthew and Luke are implemented for the sake of clarification of grammatical clumsiness in Mark. For example, Mark states that Jesu family viewed him as mad. Luke and Matthew do not contain this statement. (Mark 3:21; Matt. 12:22-32; Luke 8:19-21). Respectively, as this source is runner up in hypothetical organization of the Gospels, there is by no means any evidence that could fully ex