The Synoptic Problem: A Brief Survey

By David P. Diaz, Ed.D.

Many years ago, I came across a quote from the late expository preacher Donald Grey Barnhouse (1895–1960). One thing he said has stayed with me ever since I first heard it (I’m paraphrasing): “If you are going to be a successful teacher or preacher, you’ve gotta get the hay off the loft and down onto the barn floor where the cows can get at it.” In other words, learn to make difficult concepts simpler. From his many experiences in the pulpit and on his radio program (The Bible Study Hour), Barnhouse learned that numerous hard-to-understand problems would invariably present themselves whenever one studies the Bible in depth. Fortunately, Barnhouse was a master at simplifying complex themes so that the kernels of truth would shine through, often changing and enhancing the lives of those who listened.

This brief essay will attempt to simplify what many have considered an “intractable problem.”^[1] I will introduce readers to an area of biblical study unfamiliar to most churchgoers. It’s known as the “synoptic problem.” Unfortunately, I’m no Barnhouse. So, whether I succeed in moving enough hay off the loft will ultimately be up to the reader to decide.

The Synoptic Problem

The term “synoptic” is derived from two Greek words: syn (with) and opsis (see).^[2] As one studies the New Testament, it doesn’t take long to see that three of the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—are synoptic because they can be viewed together. In other words, these three “synoptic Gospels” (hereafter Synoptics) have enough stories and sayings in common that they can be placed side-by-side and studied together.

The Synoptics exhibit extensive overlap in their textual material. According to historian Bart Ehrman: “There are passages shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke that are verbatim.” And, the only way to explain this phenomenon, says Ehrman, is if all three Gospels “drew these accounts from a common [written] source.”^[3] Many historians agree with Ehrman that the wording between these three Gospels is similar and, in some cases, identical. Furthermore, the Synoptics resemble each other in the ordering of the material (i.e., chronology), which suggests that the authors were either acquainted with each other’s work or shared a common source. Those who read each Gospel vertically (i.e., from beginning to end) might overlook the similarities and differences. However, it is hard to miss the parallels when you read the Gospels side-by-side (i.e., horizontally).^[4]

Some think that the common subject matter of the Gospels may account for the similarities. For example, all four Gospels are about the same person (Jesus) and, for the most part, cover the same major events. Moreover, since first-century Jewish Palestine was an oral culture, oral tradition might explain some instances of similar or verbatim content.^[5] However, when faced with the fact that the Synoptics often display the exact same wording, one may view the similarities as the product of at least some shared written sources rather than assuming that the authors memorized all the sayings and narratives precisely and in the same order.

Because of the many similarities and notable differences between the Synoptics, the following questions seem pivotal: Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke so alike and yet, in some places, so different? What solution best explains the relationship between the Synoptics? Did the Synoptic authors borrow from one another, share a common source(s), or both? And what about the seeming contradictions, which are sometimes minor but at other times significant? Can these questions be reasonably answered?

Proposed Solutions for the Synoptic Problem

There are several proposed solutions to the synoptic problem. Some are more complex than others, and there is plenty of disagreement about which one represents the most credible explanation. Since none of the currently proposed explanations represent a view held by all, we will examine a few commonly held views.

First, I would like to suggest something that may seem rather obvious. My working assumption about ancient authors is that they relied on source material to produce their works. In other words, their writings were based on information gathering. They wrote after consulting available documents or after conducting interviews. Collecting background information before writing a biography or a work of history was a typical practice, and it is unlikely that the Gospel authors deviated from this custom.

In the sections below, we will examine the following questions: Did the Gospel authors share sources in common? And if so, what was the nature and number of these sources? How did these sources influence what we see today in the New Testament Gospels?

The Oral Tradition Hypothesis (Figure 1). Oral tradition—the ancient practice of committing the words of teachers, sages, and communities to memory—may explain the close relationships between the Synoptics. In this view, the Gospels were written independently, with access only to oral sources. According to Gundry, the similarities between the Gospels may be explained by the “rapid crystallization of the tradition about Jesus in a more or less fixed oral form, which later came to be written down.”^[6] Furthermore, Mark Goodacre notes that the agreements between Synoptics are not limited to the sayings of Jesus, but “there is agreement in both narrative material and in sayings material.”^[7] To be responsible for the resemblances between the Synoptics, oral tradition must have come about early, been highly accurate, and quickly produced a stable oral form with limited dependency on written sources.

Although the Oral Tradition Hypothesis has experienced a revival since the 1970s, Anglican Bible scholar John Wenham has pointed out that this hypothesis most likely cannot guarantee complete authorial independence. He cited three reasons: (1) Such a theory requires the memorization of very long passages, (2) it requires that the three synoptic Gospels were published almost simultaneously, and (3) it appears to be contrary to the tradition of the early church.^[8]

The Two-Gospel Hypothesis. This hypothesis affirms that Matthew was the first of the four canonical (i.e., authentic) Gospels written. The hypothesis comes in two flavors; the first is called the Griesbach Hypothesis (Figure 2), which contends that Luke and Mark (in that order) followed Matthew. In other words, Matthew was written first, Luke was written with knowledge of Matthew, while Mark used both Matthew and Luke as sources.

A second modified view is similar to the Griesbach Hypothesis. It is known as the Augustinian Theory (after St. Augustine). This position also proposes that Matthew was written first but that it was followed by Mark instead of Luke. The Church Fathers traditionally accepted the Augustinian chronology as the correct order. Although both Griesbach and Augustinian views argue that Matthew was written first, they differ on whether Mark or Luke was written second. In either case, the similarities between the Synoptics are due to the sharing of written sources.

The Two-Source Hypothesis (Figure 3). Today, the most popular position among historical and biblical scholars is the Two-Source Hypothesis. In this view, the Gospel of Mark was written first (Markan priority). Matthew and Luke had two predominant sources; one was Mark, and the other was a hypothetical written source named “Q” (after the German Quelle or “source”). According to this theory, the Q document was a source of the sayings of Jesus.^[9] Mark and Q served as independent sources for Matthew and Luke, however, Mark and Q were unavailable to each other.^[10]

Markan priority means that Mark was likely written first and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source.^[11] Mark’s brevity, redundancy, Aramaic expressions, difficult readings,^[12] and “rough” or unpolished style all suggest that Matthew and Luke improved upon Mark’s primitive Greek.^[13]

Besides being the shortest of the Gospels (11,103 words),* only three percent of Mark’s content is unique to Mark. Matthew (18,347 words) includes ninety percent of Mark, while Luke (19,463 words) contains about fifty percent.^[14] This confirms that Matthew and Luke were probably dependent on Mark. Moreover, Mark seems to supply the chronological order of Matthew and Luke, who routinely follow the ordering of Mark except when they write independent material.^[15]

One of the most persistent problems regarding the Two-Source Hypothesis is that a copy of the Q source does not exist. Instead, modern scholars have inferred the existence of Q. However, none of the early Church Fathers ever mentioned the existence of such a document. While it may have existed, there is currently no direct manuscript evidence. This unlikely absence begs the following questions: Why did a written account that allegedly played an essential role in constructing the Gospels not survive?^[16] Should this omission instill distrust that the Q source ever existed?

The Farrer Hypothesis (Figure 4). This hypothesis places Mark as the first of the three Synoptics written and Matthew ahead of Luke in chronology. Since Luke came after the other two Synoptics, it could have retained some of Matthew’s substance while omitting or redistributing the rest. Goodacre states: “Luke is making clear that he is critical of his predecessors’ work and that his radical reordering of Matthew is in Theophilus’s [Luke’s patron] best interests.”^[17] The benefit of this hypothesis (for those who lack confidence in a source that may not exist) is that it eliminates the need to propose the existence of Q.^[18]

Rethinking Oral Tradition

There has been a resurgence of interest in the literary independence of the Gospels.^[19] Indeed, oral tradition may explain more instances of similar or verbatim material than previously believed. John Wenham has pointed out that many Christians can still recite long Scripture passages from memory, even in an era where we depend on the printed page.^[20] Says Wenham, “There is no reason … why sayings of dozens of words in length should not occasionally be found in identical or nearly identical form and yet have no literary connection.”^[21] If the authors shared common knowledge of a fixed oral tradition, they may have utilized less written material than is commonly assumed. In other words, there may be good reasons to believe that the Gospel authors were not as dependent on external written sources as is often thought.

New Testament scholar Michael Licona has suggested that Jesus’s skilled teaching methods promoted memorization of his words: “He often spoke in parables and used hyperbolic language [i.e., employing exaggeration for emphasis or effect], making his teachings more easily remembered.”^[22] Furthermore, Jesus’s disciples traveled with him from town to town, hearing him teach, most likely daily. So, it should be no surprise that the disciples listened to the same essential stories over and over, countless times, and could easily recite these stories from memory. And all this took place while Jesus was still alive so that facts could be confirmed and remembered.

Kenneth E. Bailey, who lived among Middle Eastern tribes for nearly 30 years, described the ancient process of memorizing traditions as an informal and controlled practice.^[23] Informal because there was no set teacher and no specified student; controlled because the community members enforced rules. According to Bailey, when it came to teaching/learning parables, historical events, recollections of historical people, and other information vital to the community, the central core of the story could not be changed, although flexibility in detail was allowed.^[24] Bailey confirmed that these methods produced a high level of accuracy, which he said extended as far back as the fourth century and beyond.^[25]

Since the Scriptures were central to the Jewish faith and culture, Jewish parents most likely educated their children in the Scriptures from an early age.^[26] Therefore, the earliest Christians were already well-practiced in the art of oral instruction. They were accustomed to listening to (as opposed to reading) the sayings of Scripture and learned, taught, and passed on the words and deeds of Jesus through a well-developed practice of oral tradition.^[27]

Conclusion

So, which of the solutions to the synoptic problem did you choose? If you were expecting me to provide an air-tight, bulletproof solution to the synoptic problem, I’m sorry to disappoint you. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. Too many great minds have thought about this for too long without arriving at a consensus. But don’t worry; I won’t leave you completely stranded but will offer a few possibilities below.

If you often cast your vote along with the majority, the Two-Source Hypothesis may be your preferred choice to explain the synoptic problem. This hypothesis is currently the most popular position among historical scholars. The Two-Source view provides two sources (Mark and the hypothetical Q) that add input to and align with Matthew and Luke.

On the other hand, if you don’t like depending on a view that places significant faith in a document that may not even exist (i.e., Q), then perhaps the Farrer hypothesis will suit your fancy. This hypothesis supports Markan priority but shuns the missing document (Q) in favor of depending on Luke’s meticulous reworking or redistributing of Matthew’s content.

Perhaps you would prefer a more “traditional” approach. After the death of the original disciples of Jesus and whenever heresies threatened to fracture the church, the Patristic Fathers^[28] looked to the earliest traditions for direction. Therefore, if one seeks a solution to the synoptic problem that takes the historic position of the Apostles and Church Fathers seriously, one may step in line with the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, specifically the Augustinian Hypothesis. This view supports the early church tradition of Matthean priority and keeps the traditional order of the Synoptics (i.e., Matthew, Mark, and then Luke). The Griesbach Hypothesis also supports Matthean priority but accepts Luke as second and Mark as third in chronological order.

Next, if you agree that first-century Jews in Palestine were highly adept at learning and teaching by word of mouth, then the Oral Tradition Hypothesis may meet your requirements. This view acknowledges that the ancient Jewish authors were well-equipped to memorize and repeat specific stories and sayings solely from memory and did not need to lean heavily on outside written sources.

Finally, you may want to hedge your bets and opt for a combination of oral tradition and written sources. In my opinion, there is too much similarity in the wording and order of events to think that the Synoptics’s authors didn’t have some written sources in common. What written sources, you ask? Well, I would assume that at least a few of Jesus’s extended group of disciples were literate and chose (or were asked) to keep notes on the sayings and deeds of their Teacher. Between these assorted notes and the reservoir of oral tradition that began during the lifetime of Jesus, there could have been more than enough early and relatively fixed sources for the Gospel’s authors to draw from. Such notes could have existed before the Gospels were written or could have served as early drafts of the Gospels. Unfortunately, as with Q, we don’t have any examples of such writings, even if it makes sense to assume they existed.

(*) Word statistics for the Synoptic Gospels are based on The Greek New Testament, produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge (Wheaton, IL: Crossway; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), omitting Mark 16:9–20. As cited in Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), p. 30.

---

About the Author

David P. Diaz, Ed.D., is an independent researcher and retired college professor. His writings have ranged from peer-reviewed technical articles to his memoir, which won the 2006 American Book Award. Dr. Diaz holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science Degree from California Polytechnic State University, a Master of Arts in Philosophical Apologetics from Houston Christian University, and a Doctor of Education Degree specializing in Computing and Information Technology from Nova Southeastern University. [back to top]

---

Notes

[1] John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Eugene, OR: WIPF & Stock Publishers, 2020), 1–10.

[2] Mike Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017), Kindle Location 2494.

[3] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020), 121.

[4] Reading horizontally means placing the passages side-by-side in columns to be examined simultaneously. One example of a side-by-side synopsis of the Gospels is Kurt Aland ed., Synopsis of the Four Gospels, Revised Standard Version (American Bible Society, 2010).

[5] Oral tradition is the generational practice of memorizing and repeating stories and sayings by spoken words. The next generation would continue the process and convey the material to subsequent generations either orally or in writing, and so on throughout history.

[6] Robert H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 118.

[7] Mark S. Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T & T Clark International, 2005), 17.

[8] Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, 1.

[9] John S. Kloppenborg, Q, The Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 2–3.

[10] The Two-Source Hypothesis also affirms that Matthew and Luke each penned unique and independent material, often referred to as “M” (for Matthew) and “L” (for Luke), respectively. The Two-Source Hypothesis—sometimes referred to as the “Q Hypothesis” for the role played by the Q source—is also known as the “Four-Source Hypothesis” because of the independent contributions of Mark, Q, Matthew, and Luke.

[11] Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 122.

[12] Difficult readings suggest a text is more primitive since ancient scribes tended to change complex readings to make them less complicated. See Robert H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels Origin and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), Kindle location 445.

[13] Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, Kindle locations 325–458.

[14] Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 119.

[15] Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 119.

[16] Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 120.

[17] Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem,127.

[18] N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians (London: SPCK, 2019), 692.

[19] Wenham, Redating, 4–9. Wenham specifically cites the works of J. M. Rist, B. Reicke, J. W. Scott, and B. Chilton.

[20] Wenham, Redating, 5.

[21] Wenham, Redating, 5.

[22] Michael Licona, “Gospel Authorship,” Course handout in APOL 6380: Scripture and Apologetics Implications (Houston Christian University, Houston, TX), 35.

[23] Kenneth E. Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Themelios 20.2 (January 1995).

[24] Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition,” 7.

[25] Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition,” 10.

[26] Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Remains of His Day Studies in Jesus and the Evidence of Material Culture (Peabody, MA: Endrickson Publishers Marketing, 2015), 69.

[27] Michael J. Kruger, Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2018) 169–72.

[28] The Patristic Fathers were early Christian theologians who led the development of Christian doctrine and practice during the Patristic Age (from the end of the 1^st century to the 8^th century CE).