The Synoptic Problem

[*** This web page is replaced by the Synoptic Problem FAQ. Please adjust your links and bookmarks. ***]

I. Introduction

The Synoptic Problem concerns the literary relationship between and among the first three canonical gospels, or the "synoptic gospels." Specifically, a solution to the Synoptic Problem must account for the similarities and differences in content, order, and wording. The literary relation may be either direct (one Evangelist possessed one of the gospels) or indirect (two Evangelists having access to a shared source). The sources may be written or oral; one or a multitude.

II. Literary Phenomena in the Synoptic Gospels

A. Content

Almost all of Mark's content is found in Matthew. About two-thirds of Mark is found in Luke. This constitutes the "Triple Tradition." The Triple Tradition is largely narrative but contains some sayings material. Since so much of Mark is Triple Tradition; some scholars combine it the rest of Mark and talk about a "Marcan Tradition."

In addition to the Triple Tradition, Matthew and Luke share content not found in Mark, called the "Double Tradition." This content is mainly saying material (mostly of Jesus, but some by John the Baptist) but includes at least one miracle story (the Centurion's Servant) as well.

B. Order

Agreement in the order of the content is the strongest indication of a documentary dependence. Therefore, pure oral theories, like the Oral Gospel Theory, are not plausible. The pattern of order is quite different between the Triple and Double traditions.

1. Triple Tradition

In the Triple Tradition, the order (or arrangement) of the pericopes is largely shared between Matthew & Mark or Luke & Mark or between all three. It is rarely the case that Matthew & Luke agree against Mark in arranging the Triple Tradition.

This formal property has been extensively studied by scholars since Lachmann in 1832 and has its best treatment by Butler in 1951. Basically, the fact that Matthew & Luke rarely agree against Mark in order shows that Mark is a "middle term." Specifically, only the following scenarios are logically possible:

a. Indirect Relationship

If Matthew, Mark & Luke are independent revisions of an Ur-Gospel, then this Ur-Gospel in order is best represented in Mark. In fact, this Ur-Gospel can be thought of as an Ur-Marcus. (Lachmann)

b. Direct Relationship

Butler showed that Lachmann's conclusion does not hold up if any gospel is directly related to another. He found that only three (later expanded to four by Farmer) situations were possible:

(1)  K     (2) M   (3) L   (4) M   L
    / \        K       K        \ /
   M   L       L       M         K

(1) Matthew and Luke copied Mark in Triple Tradition. (Two-Source, Farrer/Goulder).

(2) Luke copied Mark who copied Matthew who was first (Augustinian).

(3) Matthew copied Mark who copied Luke who was first (Few adherents).

(4) Mark conflated Matthew and Luke (Griesbach/Farmer).

Scenario (1) is called "Marcan Priority." Scenarios (2) and (4) [if Luke is adjudged to be secondary of Matthew] are "Matthean Priority." Scenarios (2) and (3) are "successive dependence."

There is an additional fact about the arrangements of the Triple Tradition: Mark's order is almost always supported by either Matthew or Luke. This lends strength to the Griesbach Hypothesis [scenario b(4)], but that is attenuated by Tuckett's mathematical observation that the relatively rare deviations of either Matthew or Luke from Mark's order means that this observation is not statistically significant. Tuckett's model may be criticized for assuming randomness on part the later redactors (departures from a source are equally likely), but since Matthew's deviations are toward the beginning and Luke's are towards the end, it is not surprising that both Matthew and Luke rarely re-ordered the same Marcan pericope.

2. Double Tradition

The agreement in order within the Double Tradition is much weaker, mostly in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, leading scholars to favor an indirect relationship for the Double Tradition. Thus, Matthew and Luke copied independently a sayings source called "Q." On the other hand, there is enough order for Kloppenborg to argue that Q is a documentary source. Those other theories which do not hypothesize a shared sayings source usually assume that Luke copied the Double Tradition from Matthew (see Goulder).

C. Wording

A close comparison of the wording within the Triple Tradition shows that Matthew and Mark are usually quite close, with Luke being somewhat further. To the extent that Luke agrees in wording at all with the other two, it usually is with both or with Mark. Luke's agreements with Matthew against Mark, the "minor agreements," are less frequent but not insignificant.

The role of the "minor agreements" is important because it addresses how independent are Matthew and Luke between each other. Culminating in 1924, Streeter was able to show to the satisfaction of most of the scholars, that these minor agreements are largely irrelevant, coincidental, or attributable to textual corruption. Streeter's work allowed the Oxford School to replace the Ur-Marcus of Holtzmann's 1863 Two-Source Hypothesis with the canonical Mark.

Griesbach's explanation of Mark's redactional procedure predicts that Mark should more agree with the Evangelist he currently is copying. At a gross level this is pretty much the case, but often Mark prefers Matthew in areas he should be more like Luke.

Another important phenomenon is that Mark's wording is usually fuller than either Matthew's or Luke's. This fact has been used to argue against the notion that Mark is an abridgement, but others see it as indicating that Mark is secondary.

A final issue with wording is that Mark is felt to be more "primitive" than either Matthew or Luke and thus prior. This is of course quite subjective, and there are equally compelling reasons for Matthew to be first (more Jewish, etc.). This area of the Synoptic Problem has been riddled with reversible and inconclusive arguments. Basically, such redactional arguments can provide equally compelling reasons for an addition or for a deletion.

III. Synoptic Theories

This is a brief overview of the solutions to the Synoptic Problem, starting from the most widely held, near-consensus theory and its major challenger.

A. The Two-Source Hypothesis (Marcan Priority; Sayings Source)

  K  Q
  |\/|
  |/\|
  M  L

This theory states that Matthew and Luke independently copied Mark for its narrative framework (the Triple Tradition) and independently added discourse material from a non-extant sayings source called "Q." Much work has gone into the extent and wording of Q, particularly since the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas which attests to the sayings gospel genre. Many problems remain. The International Q Project is currently engaged to this task.

Holtzmann's 1863 theory posited an Ur-Marcus in the place of our Mark, with our Mark being a later revision. Some scholars occasionally propose an unattested revision of Mark, a deutero-Mark, being the base of what Matthew and Luke used.

Streeter further refined the Two-Source Hypothesis into a four-source theory, with M and L being a unique source to Matthew and Luke respectively, with Q and L combined into a Proto-Luke before Luke added Mark. While unique sources, such as M, L, or Semitic first editions, are interesting for form-critical purposes, they are quite peripheral to the Synoptic Problem as to how the canonical gospels are interrelated.

B. The Griesbach Hypothesis (Matthean Priority; Marcan Conflation)

The Griesbach hypothesis holds that Matthew was written first, and Luke used it in preparing his gospel. Then, Mark conflated the two in a procedure that mostly followed where Matthew and Luke agree in order except for discourse material. Thus, the Triple Tradition is a result of Mark's editorial choices of what to include. The Double Tradition is that material which Luke liked in Matthew but not copied by Mark.

Riley has recently argued for a Proto-Matthew used by Mark and Luke, but later augmented to our canonical Matthew.

C. The Augustinian Hypothesis (Matthean Priority; Successive Dependence)

This theory holds that Matthew was written first, then Mark, then Luke, and each Evangelist depended on those who preceded him (successive dependence). This position is in the closest agreement with the patristic testimony to the gospels origins. Notable twentieth-century defenders have been Jameson, Chapman, Butler, and Wenham (who argues for more consideration of oral transmissions of particular pericopes). But they have not been able to command serious attention.

D. The Farrer Hypothesis (Marcan Priority; Successive Dependence)

Successive dependence with Marcan priority: Mark - Matthew - Luke. The Double Tradition is explained by an elaborate procedure on the part of Luke, thus dispensing with Q.

E. Lessing's Ur-Gospel Theory (Independent Derivation)

Lessing's Ur-Gospel Theory is important for historical reasons (it is one of the first theories of the modern era) but has no adherents today.

F. Other Theories

These theories usually posit more hypothetical and proto-sources. Generally their plausibility is in inverse relation to the number of additional sources. For example, Parker (1953) argued for a proto-Matthew in addition to Q. Boismard calls for seven hypothetical documents, one of them a form of Q.

IV. Conclusion

The most dominant theory by far is the Two-Source Hypothesis, which has been accepted and is being used for other fields such as Text Criticism (e.g., Metzger), Form Criticism (e.g., Bultmann), and early Church history. Recent challenges to it, if sustained, would call many of the twentieth century's fruits of Gospel scholarship into question.

The largest obstacle to a decisive solution has been the inconclusive nature of the formal argument from order, as shown by Butler. Therefore, the argument from order must be supplemented by compositional and redactional considerations. Unfortunately many of the compositional arguments are subjective and reversible. If more objective arguments can be determined, then a decisive solution can be found.