What is the Synoptic Problem?

Understanding Luke 1:1-4; Matthew 1:1; Mark 1:1

The Synoptic Problem is one of the most important and enduring questions in New Testament scholarship: How do we explain the complex literary relationship between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? These three Gospels are called 'synoptic' (from the Greek synoptikos, meaning 'seeing together') because they share so much material — the same events, often in the same order, frequently with the same wording — that they can be laid out in parallel columns and compared side by side. Yet they also contain significant differences in content, arrangement, and detail.

The Synoptic Problem is not about whether the Gospels are true. It is about how they came to be written and what literary sources the authors used.

The Data

The statistical relationships between the Synoptic Gospels are striking:

• Mark contains approximately 661 verses. About 600 of these appear in some form in Matthew, and about 350 appear in Luke. Only about 31 verses of Mark have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke.

• Matthew and Luke share approximately 235 verses of material that is NOT found in Mark. This includes the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, John the Baptist's preaching, and numerous sayings of Jesus.

• Matthew has about 300 verses of unique material (found only in Matthew), including the parable of the wheat and tares, the parable of the ten virgins, and much of the Sermon on the Mount.

• Luke has about 500 verses of unique material (found only in Luke), including the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, the stories of Zacchaeus and the road to Emmaus, and the birth narratives of John the Baptist.

Beyond content, the verbal agreements are remarkable. In many parallel passages, Matthew, Mark, and Luke use identical Greek words and phrases — sometimes for extended stretches. This level of verbal agreement strongly suggests literary dependence (one author copying from another) rather than independent oral tradition.

The Major Solutions

1. The Two-Source Hypothesis (Markan Priority + Q)

The dominant theory since the late 19th century, held by the majority of New Testament scholars:

• Mark wrote first. His Gospel is the shortest, most vivid, and most linguistically rough. Matthew and Luke each independently used Mark as a primary source, improving his Greek, expanding his narratives, and adding material.

• Q (from German Quelle, meaning 'source'). The approximately 235 verses shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark come from a second source — a hypothetical document or oral tradition called Q. Q is believed to have been primarily a sayings collection (similar to the Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi), containing teachings of Jesus without a passion narrative.

• M and L. Matthew and Luke each had additional sources unique to themselves (called M and L respectively), which account for their unique material.

Evidence for Markan Priority:

• When Matthew and Mark agree against Luke, it is in material found in Mark. When Luke and Mark agree against Matthew, it is in material found in Mark. But Matthew and Luke almost never agree against Mark in triple tradition (passages found in all three). This pattern is most easily explained if both used Mark independently.
• Matthew and Luke often 'improve' Mark's rougher Greek, clarify his ambiguities, and smooth his transitions — the expected direction of editing.
• Mark includes vivid details (Jesus sleeping on a cushion, looking around in anger, sighing) that Matthew and Luke tend to omit — harder to explain if Mark was abbreviating Matthew.

Evidence for Q:

• The double tradition material (shared by Matthew and Luke, absent from Mark) sometimes has near-identical wording (suggesting a written source) and sometimes differs significantly (suggesting independent access to shared tradition).
• Matthew and Luke place this material in different locations in their Gospels, suggesting they did not get it from each other but from a common source they each integrated into their own narrative framework.

Criticism: Q has never been found. It remains entirely hypothetical — reconstructed from agreements between Matthew and Luke. Some scholars find it methodologically problematic to build theories on a document that may never have existed.

2. The Farrer Hypothesis (Markan Priority without Q)

Proposed by Austin Farrer (1955) and championed by Mark Goodacre:

• Mark wrote first (same as Two-Source).
• Matthew used Mark (same as Two-Source).
• Luke used both Mark AND Matthew. This eliminates the need for Q — Luke got the double tradition material directly from Matthew.

Advantage: Occam's razor — it explains the data with known documents (Mark and Matthew) rather than a hypothetical one (Q).

Challenge: If Luke used Matthew, why did he rearrange the Sermon on the Mount (scattering its material throughout his Gospel), change the birth narrative completely, and omit some of Matthew's most distinctive material?

3. The Augustinian Hypothesis

The traditional view held from the early church through the 18th century:

• Matthew wrote first (in Hebrew or Aramaic, later translated into Greek).
• Mark abbreviated Matthew.
• Luke used both.

This was the standard view from Augustine onward and remains held by some conservative scholars. It aligns with early church tradition (Papias, Irenaeus, Origen) that Matthew was the first Gospel written.

Challenge: If Mark abbreviated Matthew, why did he omit the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, the birth narrative, and the resurrection appearances? Why would an abbreviator add vivid details while removing major teachings?

4. The Griesbach Hypothesis (Two-Gospel Hypothesis)

Proposed by J.J. Griesbach (1789), revived by William Farmer (1964):

• Matthew wrote first.
• Luke used Matthew.
• Mark used both Matthew and Luke, conflating them into a shorter account.

This explains Mark's position as the shortest Gospel and his near-total overlap with Matthew and/or Luke. But it struggles to explain why Mark would omit so much significant material from both sources.

Why It Matters

The Synoptic Problem is not merely an academic puzzle. Its resolution affects how we read the Gospels:

1. Redaction criticism. If we know which source an author used, we can identify what he changed — and changes reveal theological emphasis. If Matthew used Mark, then every place Matthew alters Mark's wording reveals Matthew's distinctive theology. This is a powerful interpretive tool.

2. Historical Jesus research. Material attested in multiple independent sources (Mark, Q, M, L, John, Paul) is considered more likely to reflect historical events. The Synoptic Problem determines which sources are truly independent.

3. The nature of Gospel writing. Luke tells us explicitly that he investigated multiple sources: 'Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account' (Luke 1:1-3). The Synoptic Problem is, in part, the attempt to identify those sources.

4. Inspiration and human process. The existence of literary dependence among the Gospels means that divine inspiration worked through ordinary human processes — research, editing, selection, and arrangement. The Holy Spirit guided authors who used sources, made editorial choices, and wrote for specific audiences. This is not a challenge to inspiration but a description of how inspiration actually worked.

The Synoptic Problem reminds us that the Gospels are not identical photocopies of Jesus' life but four distinct portraits — each true, each inspired, each revealing different facets of who Jesus is and what his life, death, and resurrection mean.