The Synoptic Problem Home Page

The Synoptic Problem concerns the literary relationship between the first three "synoptic" gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Synoptic Problem Home Page surveys proposed solutions and provides a clearing-house for materials related to its resolution.

• Introduction: Synoptic Problem FAQ; Annotated Bibliography; Chronology
• Tools: Detailed Bibliography; Table of Synoptic Parallels; Synopsis with case studies of § 89.
• External Evidence: Contents, I cen: Luke; II cen: Papias, Justin, Irenaeus; III cen: Clement Alex., Origen; IV cen: Ephraem, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine.
• Synoptic Theories: Two-Source, Griesbach, Farrer, enumeration of 1488 viable synoptic theories.
• Classic Texts and Reviews: Abbott & Rushbrooke 1884, Woods 1890, Hawkins 1899 (review), V. Taylor 1952 (review).

What's New? (November 14, 2003): See my Hypotyposeis weblog.

Questions and comments may be sent to Stephen C. Carlson, the Synoptic Problem Home Page's maintainer.

[ Theories | Web Sites & Mailing Lists | External Links ]

Synoptic Theories & Hypotheses

Two Source Hypothesis (2SH)

• Leading scholars: Christian Hermann Weisse (1838), Paul Wernle (1899), Burnett Hillman Streeter (1924); cf. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1863).
• The dominant source theory among scholars today, the 2SH holds that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and became the primary narrative source for Matthew and Luke (Markan priority). In addition, Matthew and Luke independently supplemented their Markan material with sayings of Jesus from a lost sayings collection, termed "Q".
• Related Models and variants:

  	4SH: Four Source Hypothesis (Streeter 1924). Matthew's and Luke's own special sources are postulated to be distinct, written sources.
  	Streeter: Proto-Luke (Streeter 1924), Vincent Taylor. Q and L constituted a proto-Luke before being incorporated into Luke.
  	MkH: Markan Hypothesis (Weisse 1856, Holtzmann 1963). In its original form, all three synoptics independently derive from a proto-Gospel, Ur-Markus, that is similar though not identical to Mark. Ur-Markus also included the narrative and Baptist material now assigned to Q. A less ambitious variant of Ur-Markus is found whenever it is proposed that our text of Mark is corrupt and that Matthew and Luke better reflect the original text in certain places.
  	dMk: Deutero-Mark (Abbott 1901). The anti-Markan agreements are explained by Matthew's and Luke's access to a "corrected" version of Mark that is no longer extant.
  	Koester (1983, 1990) modifies 2SH to account for the origin of "Secret Mark." Koester proposes that, after Matthew and Luke used the first version of Mark (pMk), which was revised into Secret Mark (dMk). Our Mark then comes an edited version of Secret Mark.
  	3SH: Three Source Hypothesis (Holtzmann 1878/1881, Simons 1880, Morgenthaler 1971, Gundry 1979, Price 1999 [ext. link]) posits three sources for Luke: Mark, Q, and to a lesser extent Matthew.
  	Pierson Parker I argued for a proto-Matthew called K, which is essentially Mark + the special Matthean "M" material of the 4SH (P. Parker 1953). This proto-Matthew is the source for Mark and Matthew, but was never available to Luke.
  	Pierson Parker II augmented his previous theory by adopting Streeter's suggestion for a proto-Luke that was the source of the Q and L material (P. Parker 1980), then adopted Griesbach by making Mark a conflation of proto-Matthew ("K") and proto-Luke (1983).

Griesbach Hypothesis: Two Gospel Hypothesis (2GH)

• Henry Owen (1764), Johann Jakob Griesbach (1783), William Reuben Farmer (1964).
  • Official Homepage: Longstaff's 2GH Homepage
  • Trowbridge's Summary of Farmer; see also Farmer's Argument at this site.
• The main challenger to the 2SH in America, the 2GH posits that Matthew was first and used by Luke and that Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke.
• Related Models:

  	Harold Riley (1992) argues that our Matthew is a revision of the proto-Matthew used by Mark and Luke.
  	Anton Büsching (1766) held that Mark conflated Matthew and Luke, but Luke was first.
  	dWH: W. M. L. de Wette (1842) and Friedrich Bleek (1862) held that Mark conflated Matthew and Luke, but both Matthew and Luke were dependent on an Ur-Gospel. This hypothesis was perceived as a concession to Q within the Griesbach camp.
  	Herbert Marsh (1801) viewed Mark as a conflation of an Aleph1 [= pMt] and Aleph2 [= pLk], both descended from an Ur-Gospel Aleph [= G]; for the double tradition, Marsh proposed a sayings source Beth [= Q], which merged with Aleph1 and Aleph2 to form Matthew and Mark, respectively. Pierre Rolland (1982) has a structurally similar hypothesis, identifying pMt as a Hellenist Gospel H, pLk as a Pauline Gospel P, and G as a Gospel of the Twelve D.

Farrer Hypothesis (FH)

• James Hardy Ropes (1934), Austin Marsden Farrer (1955), Michael Douglas Goulder (1974, 1989).
  • Homepage: Mark S. Goodacre's Case Against Q
  • Identified as a possible theory but not endorsed by Herbert Marsh (1801).
• The FH, the leading contender to the 2SH in England, accepts Markan Priority but dispenses with Q. For the Double Tradition, the FH appeals to Luke's use of Matthew as the explanation.
• Related Model:

  Christian Gottlieb Wilke (1838), Bruno Bauer (1841), Ronald V. Huggins (1992). Markan priority, but the Double Tradition material is the result of Matthew's copying Luke.

Traditional Augustinian Hypothesis (AH)

• Augustine (c. 400), Hugo Grotius (1641), H. G. Jameson (1922), Basil Christopher Butler (1951), John Wenham (1992).
• Matthew first, Mark second, Luke third, each successively dependent.
• Related Models:

  	John Chapman (1937) argued that Luke's first draft was written without knowing Matthew.
  	pMt: Proto-Matthew Hypothesis. Butler (1969) suggested that Luke is directly dependent on Greek Matthew and Mark as the AH and the FH hold, but Mark is dependent on Matthew's predecessor (proto-Matthew). Butler identified proto-Matthew as an Aramaic document that is substantially equivalent to the Greek Matthew.

Other Theories, Variations, & Hypothetical Documents

• Lukan Priority Models:

  	JSH: Jerusalem School Hypothesis (1973), a development of Robert Lindsey's hypothesis (1963). Lukan Priority with dependence of all three upon an "Anthology" and Luke upon a "First Reconstruction." Online publication: Jerusalem Perspective Overview by David Bivin Bibliography by David Bivin Brief discussion with Eric Hovee
  	Lindsey (1963): The original proposal by Robert Lindsey.
  	Lockton Hypothesis: W. Lockton (1922).
  	Anton Büsching (1766) held that Luke was a source for Matthew and Mark conflated Matthew and Luke.

• Miscellaneous Models

  	UrG: Ur-Gospel, Lessing (1778/84). All three gospels descend from a single (Aramaic) gospel.
  	LTH: The Logia Translation Hypothesis, Wilson (1998). All three gospels are dependent on Greek notes (the "Translation") which translated the Aramaic/Hebrew Logia of the Papias tradition. [LTH Home Page].

[ Theories | Web Sites & Mailing Lists | External Links ]

Web Sites & Mailing Lists

The following Web Sites and Mailing Lists are among the most relevant and informative:

Web Sites

Mailing Lists

A Synoptic Gospels Primer, from Mahlon Smith. Mainly from the perspective of the Two Source Hypothesis, this site "goes beyond the usual superficial discussion of the synoptic problem." Case Against Q, an exposition of the Farrer Hypothesis (FH) by Mark Goodacre. The Two Gospel Hypothesis, courtesy Thomas R.W. Longstaff. The Jerusalem Perspective Online is the Internet presence of the Jerusalem School. Ron Price (1999) has devoted a series of web pages to the 3SH, entitled, "The Origin of the Synoptic Gospels."

Synoptic-L is an academic list devoted to the critical, scholarly study of the Synoptic Problem and related topics. Knowledge of Greek is a plus. Xtalk, the successor to the former Crosstalk, is now a moderated list for academics and amateurs alike devoted to the Historical Jesus and the Origins of Christianity. Questions of the origins of the primary documentary sources for the life of Jesus have been been welcomed and debated. Ioudaios is dedicated mainly to the works of Philo and Josephus but includes discussions of various aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world, especially in the first century. The archived material contains a debate about Q. B-Greek: Although higher critical topics such as the Synoptic Problem are not the focus of this list, B-Greek is a helpful place for investigating the meaning of the Greek text of the Bible, including, of course, the synoptic Gospels.

[ Theories | Web Sites & Mailing Lists | External Links ]

Links

External Links

• The Synoptic Problem & Q: a selective list of links from the New Testament Gateway, by Mark Goodacre.

On-Line Texts and Articles (Peer Reviewed)

Edwin A. Abbott & W. G. Rushbrooke, The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels in the Text of the Revised Version (London: Macmillan and Co., 1884) pp. v-xi.

On-line, ed., Stephen C. Carlson, Synoptic Problem.

 

William R. Farmer, "The Present State of the Synoptic Problem" in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson, (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998) 11-36.

On-line, ed. Mark Goodacre, Synoptic-L.

On-line, ed. Thomas R. W. Longstaff, The Two Gospel Hypothesis.

 

A. M. Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q" in D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955).

On-line, ed. Mark Goodacre, Case Against Q.

 

Francis E. Gigot, "Synoptics" in Catholic Encyclopedia 14 (Robert Appleton, 1912).

On-line, ed. Douglas J. Potter, New Advent Catholic Web Site.

 

Mark Goodacre, "Fatigue in the Synoptics," New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 45-58.

On-line, idem, Case Against Q.

 

Michael D. Goulder, "Is Q a Juggernaut?" Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 667-81.

On-line, ed., Mark Goodacre, Case Against Q.

 

Edward C. Hobbs, "A Quarter-Century Without 'Q'", Perkins Journal (Summer 1980): 10-19.

On-line, ed. Mark Goodacre, Case Against Q.

F. H. Woods, "The Origin and Mutual Relation of the Synoptic Gospels" in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica: Essays Chiefly in Biblical and Patristic Criticism, by members of the University of Oxford 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890): 59-104.

On-line, ed., Stephen C. Carlson, Synoptic Problem.

[ Theories | Web Sites & Mailing Lists | External Links ]