The Synoptic Problem

The “synoptic problem” is the question of the literary relationship among the first three Gospels — Matthew, Mark, and Luke — which can be set side by side and “seen together” (Greek synopsis) because they share so much material, often word for word. This file sets out the data of the problem (the triple and double tradition), the leading solutions (the two-source hypothesis with its hypothetical sayings-source Q, the Farrer hypothesis that dispenses with Q, and the Griesbach alternative), and the limits of certainty — all within the Orthodox reception of all four Gospels as canonical Scripture.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox (Apostle and Evangelist)

“Seen Together”: The Data

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because their content can be arranged in parallel columns and compared at a glance, so closely do they follow one another in incident, wording, and order. (John stands apart, with its own structure and discourses.) The synoptic problem arises from the pattern of their agreements and differences, which is too specific to be coincidence and too uneven to be simple copying. The data are usually sorted into:

• The triple tradition — material found in all three (e.g., the baptism, the feeding of the five thousand, the passion), where the agreement is often verbatim and in the same order.
• The double tradition — material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, consisting largely of sayings of Jesus (the Beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, much of the Sermon on the Mount / Plain), again often in close verbal agreement.
• The special material — found in only one Gospel: Matthew’s nativity and certain parables (often labeled “M”), Luke’s nativity, the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son (“L”), and Mark’s few unique pericopae.

Any solution to the synoptic problem must account for all three patterns at once, and it is the combination — especially the verbatim double tradition that Mark lacks — that drives the hypotheses (Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 2001).

The Two-Source Hypothesis and Q

The most widely held solution is the two-source hypothesis (or two-document hypothesis). It builds on Markan priority (see Markan Priority) and proposes that Matthew and Luke each drew on two main sources:

1. The Gospel of Mark, which supplied their narrative framework and most of the triple tradition.
2. Q (from German Quelle, “source”), a hypothetical lost collection of sayings of Jesus, which supplied the double tradition that Matthew and Luke share but Mark lacks.

Q is a reconstruction, not a surviving document: no manuscript of Q has ever been found, and its existence is inferred from the close verbal agreement of Matthew and Luke in non-Markan sayings material together with the assumption that the two evangelists did not know each other’s work (Streeter, The Four Gospels, 1924). Streeter elaborated the model into a four-source hypothesis, adding the special-material sources M and L. The two-source hypothesis remains the dominant framework in critical scholarship and underlies most synopses and commentaries.

The Rivals: Farrer and Griesbach

The two-source hypothesis is not the only solution, and its weakest point — the postulation of an otherwise unattested document — has been pressed by rivals:

• The Farrer hypothesis (after Austin Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q,” 1955; developed by Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre) accepts Markan priority but dispenses with Q. It holds that Luke knew and used both Mark and Matthew, so the double tradition is explained by Luke’s use of Matthew, and no hypothetical sayings-source is needed (Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 2002). This view has gained ground among scholars uneasy with an invisible document.

• The Griesbach / two-Gospel hypothesis rejects Markan priority altogether, holding that Matthew wrote first, Luke used Matthew, and Mark conflated and abridged both (Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, 1964). On this scheme there is no Q, and Mark is the last and shortest Gospel rather than the first.

• The Augustinian hypothesis (Matthew–Mark–Luke, each using the prior) is the oldest, articulated by Augustine (On the Harmony of the Evangelists 1.2.4).

These positions can be set against one another, but none commands universal assent, and the synoptic problem remains, in the words of more than one scholar, genuinely unsolved at the level of certainty.

The Limits of Certainty

The honest summary is that the existence of some literary relationship is nearly certain, that Markan priority is the majority view, and that the existence and shape of Q are probable on the dominant hypothesis but disputed:

[Disputed: the two-source hypothesis (Markan priority + Q) is the majority solution to the synoptic problem (Streeter 1924) but is contested by (1) the Farrer hypothesis, which keeps Markan priority but dispenses with Q by having Luke use Matthew (Farrer 1955; Goodacre 2002); and (2) the Griesbach/two-Gospel hypothesis, which denies Markan priority and Q alike (Farmer 1964). Q is a reconstructed, never-attested document; its existence is an inference, not a manuscript fact. No solution commands universal scholarly assent.]

The Orthodox Reception

The synoptic problem is a question of literary history, and the Orthodox Church has no dogmatic stake in its outcome. The Church received the four Gospels as canonical and inspired Scripture, attested already in the four-fold Gospel of Irenaeus, who likened the four Gospels to the four living creatures and the four winds (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.8; see Veneration and the Lion). The order in which the evangelists wrote, and the sources they may have drawn upon, do not touch the inspiration or authority of the resulting Gospels: the Holy Spirit is no less the author of a Gospel that used earlier written sources than of one composed freshly, just as Luke openly tells us he consulted “many” who had drawn up narratives before him (Luke 1:1–4). The Fathers harmonized the Gospels devotionally (as in Tatian’s Diatessaron and Augustine’s Harmony) without resolving the modern source-critical question, which had not yet been posed in its modern form. The Orthodox reader can therefore engage the synoptic problem with intellectual freedom, receiving its findings — including the priority of Mark — as illuminating the human means by which the Spirit gave the Church its four-fold Gospel, while confessing all four as the one Gospel of Jesus Christ (see Holy Scripture).

See Also

• Markan Priority — the thesis that Mark wrote first, foundation of the two-source hypothesis
• The Gospel of Mark — Mark within the synoptic relationship
• Veneration and the Lion — the four-fold Gospel and the four living creatures
• Holy Scripture — the canon of the four Gospels
• The Church Fathers — the patristic harmonizing of the Gospels

References

• Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1924 (the two- and four-source hypotheses).
• Farrer, Austin. “On Dispensing with Q.” In Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.
• Goodacre, Mark. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. London: T&T Clark, 2001; and The Case Against Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002.
• Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1964.
• Augustine. On the Harmony of the Evangelists 1.2.4. Trans. NPNF I/6.
• Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies 3.11.8. Trans. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1.
• The Holy Bible (Luke 1:1–4).