8
were addressed to several people, not just one single reader, as one way this transmission may
have taken place.27 For Goodacre, however, the greatest problem with the telephone analogy is
that it attempts to explain the differences in the Synoptic gospels as products of different oral
traditional pathways.28 This is problematic because there is evidence of a literary connection
between the Synoptic gospels and these variations cannot easily be attributed solely to
different versions of oral tradition.29
The Synoptic Problem Introduced
But if it is true that there is a concrete literary
connection between the Synoptic gospels, as
Goodacre asserts, then what is to be made of
oral tradition? What was its role in the
development of the gospels and how did it
interact with the literary tradition that
preceded their writing?
There is an undeniable literary connection between the Synoptic gospels. It is quite
obvious that Matthew, Mark, and Luke share some striking similarities when compared side by
side. By analyzing these gospels closely one notes the similarities in the pericopes that they
employ, the order (in some instances) that they are used, and the strikingly similar wording
between the three. These agreements in text are called the verbal agreements. The following
27
Ibid.
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
28