Farmer's Synoptic Solution

Below, Farmer's headings of the arguments are presented in italics for his Synoptic solution along the lines of the Griesbach Hypothesis (that Matthew was first, Luke used Matthew, and Mark conflated both). In normal type, since the headings can be sketchy, are my explanatory notes.[Farmer 1964: 199-232.]

For a more detailed summary of his arguments, please see Trowbridge's Summary of Farmer.

1. The similarity between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is such as to justify the assertion that they stand in some kind of literary relation to each other.

   Farmer shows extensive agreement in word order in Mt15:32-39 // Mk8:1-10; Mk1:21-28 // Lk4:32-37; Mt8:7-10 // Mk7:6-9; and Mt8:2-4 // Mk1:40-45 // Lk5:12-16.

2. There are eighteen and only eighteen fundamental ways in which three documents, among which there exists some kind of direct literary dependence, may be related to each other.

   The eighteen fundamental ways are: serial dependence (6 ways), conflation of independent works (3 ways), independent copying (3 ways), and conflation of dependent works (6 ways).

3. While it is possible to conceive of an infinite number of variations of the eighteen basic relations by positing additional hypothetical document, these eighteen should be given first consideration.

   This is a key premise (Occam's Razor) in Farmer's argument.

4. Only six out of the eighteen basic hypothetical arrangements are viable.

   There are agreements of any two against the other, so one gospel must know both of the others, and one of the others must know the other one.

5. There are isolable and objectively definable categories of literary phenomena which have played a prominent role in the history of the Synoptic Problem which properly understood are more readily explicable when Mark is placed third than when either Matthew or Luke is placed third.

   Farmer refers to the phenomena in the three following headings.

6. The phenomena of agreement and disagreement in the respective order and content of material in each of the Synoptic Gospels constitute a category of literary phenomenon which is more readily explicable on a hypothesis which places Mark third with Matthew and Luke before him than on any alternative hypothesis.

   This is the pattern of Mark's alternating agreement in order between Matthew and Luke. See the parallel synoptic table for the pattern.

7. The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark constitute a second category of literary phenomena which is readily explicable on a hypothesis where Mark is the regarded as third with Matthew and Luke before him than on any alternative hypothesis.

   Farmer's argues that there are too many of them for the 2SH..

8. There exists a positive correlation between agreement in order and agreement in wording among the Synoptic Gospels which is most readily explicable on the hypothesis that Mark was written after Matthew and Luke and is the result of a redactional procedure in which Mark made use of both Matthew and Luke.

   In short, Farmer argues that Mark is more like Matthew when following Matthew and more like Luke when following Luke.

9. The most probable explanation for the extensive agreement between Matthew and Luke is that the author of one made use of the work of other.

   Farmer still does not resort to a hypothetical source.

10. The hypothesis that Luke made use of Matthew in accord with Luke's declaration in the prologue to his gospel concerning his purpose in writing.

    Luke's prologue suggests that Luke is not first.

11. Assuming that there is direct literary dependence between Matthew and Luke, internal evidence indicates that the direction of that of Luke upon Matthew.

    Matthew is more Jewish; Luke is more Gentile.

12. The weight of external evidence is against the hypothesis that Matthew was written after Luke.

    Unanimous testimony that Matthew is first.

13. The weight of external evidence is against the hypothesis that Matthew was written after Mark.

    Unanimous testimony that Matthew is first.

14. That Mark was written after both Matthew and Luke is in accord with the earliest and best external evidence on the question.

    This is Clement of Alexandria's testimony.

15. A historic-critical analysis of the Synoptic tradition, utilizing both literary-historical and form critical canons of criticism, supports a hypothesis which recognizes that Matthew is in many respects secondary to the life situation of Jesus, and the primitive Palestinian community, but that this Gospel was nonetheless copied by Luke, and that Mark was secondary to both Matthew and Luke, and frequently combined their respective texts.

    See the page on the canons of criticism.