The Synoptic Problem
Summary
The Synoptic Problem is the issue that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are very similar while still having noticeable differences. There are many theories that have been presented to try to explain how these Gospels can be so similar in some regards while being very different in other regards.
According to Augustine, Matthew wrote first followed by Mark who shortened his gospel. Luke either used both Matthew and Mark as sources or wrote independently from Matthew and Mark. It is unlikely that Luke wrote independently from Matthew and Mark since their accounts are so similar, Luke even shares 230 verses with Matthew that are not found in Mark. This indicates that either Matthew used Luke as a source or Luke used Matthew. Perhaps the biggest objection to this theory is that many scholars believe Mark was written first in what is known as the “Markan Hypothesis” or “Markan Priority.”
The Griesbach Hypothesis states that Matthew wrote first followed by Luke who used Matthew as a source. Mark wrote last and summarized both Matthew and Luke. Again, the biggest objection to this theory occurs because many scholars believe Mark was written first and used as a source for the other two Synoptic Gospels.
The Two-Source Hypothesis theorizes that Mark wrote his gospel first which was used by Matthew and Luke as a source. Since Matthew and Luke are so similar in material which is not found in Mark, they would have needed another source to draw from to account for these similarities. This document has never been found, therefore it is only a theory. It is called Q based on the word quelle which means source. One objection to this theory is that there is no evidence that this Q source exists.
The Four-Source Hypothesis states that Mark wrote his gospel independently and the Q source was also written independently. Matthew and Luke both used Mark’s gospel along with Q to explain the similarities they share that can be found in Mark’s gospel as well as the similarities they share that cannot be found in Mark’s gospel. As for the differences between Matthew and Luke, additional sources are looked to. Matthew had his own source called “M” that Luke did not have access to and Luke had his own source called “L” that Matthew did not have access to. Again, this hypothesis requires one to believe in the Q source that has never been found nor alluded to by ancient sources along with at least two more sources.
The Farrer Hypothesis theorizes that there is no Q source. Instead, Mark wrote his gospel first, followed by Matthew who used Mark as a source, and then finally Luke wrote his gospel using both Mark and Matthew as sources. This would explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke which are found in Mark as well as those not found in Mark.
Defense of the Farrer Hypothesis
The Farrer Hypothesis appears to be the most likely theory to resolve the Synoptic Problem. The main benefit of this hypothesis is that it does not rely on theoretical sources, such as Q, to resolve the Synoptic Problem. It makes sense that Matthew could have used Mark’s Gospel as a source for his Gospel and then Luke could have used Matthew and Mark’s Gospels for his Gospel. If there is an explanation for this problem without relying on theoretical sources, it should be explored more seriously.
Markan Priority has evidence due to how Matthew and Luke “fix” some of Mark’s details. For example, Mark’s account of Jesus calming the storm states that the disciples were existēmi which means “amazed” or “astounded.” Matthew and Luke both use the word fobeō which means “afraid” or “to fear” to describe the disciples’ response. This has led some scholars to believe that Mark’s first language was Aramaic and Greek was a second language to him. His Greek tends to be less sophisticated than Matthew and Luke’s. If Mark used another Gospel as one of his sources, he would have had an easier time making his Greek appear more sophisticated.
Matthew has nearly identical language to Mark on a number of occasions. For example, if one compares Mark 9:30-32 with Matthew 17:22-23, one finds that Matthew kept most of Mark’s words. This can be found in Luke’s Gospel as well. In Luke 9:43-45, Luke recounts this same event in nearly identical language. This implies that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source.
But how can someone know that Matthew was used as a source for Luke? As was already noted, Luke and Matthew have a great amount of content in their Gospels that is similar which is not found in Mark’s Gospel. One example is the Sermon on the Mount which is found in Matthew’s Gospel but not in Mark’s. Luke shares many of the same teachings in his Gospel, although shortened the sermon, such as the Beatitudes which are found in Matthew 5:3-12 and Luke 6:20-23.
The main problem with the Farrer Hypothesis is that Matthew’s gospel is highly organized and Luke’s gospel is less organized. Some have a problem accepting that Luke would have used the highly organized gospel of Matthew as a source if his gospel is less organized. These critics sometimes argue that the correct order of the Synoptic Gospels is Mark, Luke, and then Matthew who used the information from Mark and Luke but organized it better. While this appears to be possible, it is also possible that Luke used Matthew’s highly organized Gospel as a source even while writing a less organized Gospel. It is also worth noting that Luke’s Gospel is far from disorganized since he split it into a few organized sections based on Jesus’ earthly ministry.
At best, one can only theorize about what truly happened. The main appeal of the Augustinian, Griesbach, and Farrer Hypotheses is the absence of the Q source in their theories. While Q is possible and does not pose a problem for Christians who believe in the divine inspiration of the Gospels, there is no evidence that it existed. The Farrer Hypothesis stands above the Augustinian and Griesbach Hypotheses due to its position of Markan Priority. While the early church stated that Matthew’s Gospel was the first, scholars have recently come to the conclusion that Mark’s Gospel was the first. The main takeaway from this is that the Gospel writers appear to have had access to previous Gospels that were written. They used these Gospels as sources for their own Gospels while adding their own stories, phrases, and themes into the text. Each Gospel is valuable to everyone today for learning about Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection.