The Farrer Hypothesis: A Critical Analysis of an Alternative Solution to the Synoptic Problem

The Synoptic Problem, explaining the literary relationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, has long challenged scholars. While the Two-Source Hypothesis (Mark and a hypothetical Q as sources) dominates, the Farrer Hypothesis offers a compelling alternative. Here we examine the origins, evidence, scholarly reception, and current status of this increasingly influential theory.

Origins and Definition of the Farrer Hypothesis

The Farrer Hypothesis, introduced by Austin Farrer in his 1955 paper On Dispensing With Q and developed by Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre, posits that Mark was written first, Matthew used Mark, and Luke used both, eliminating the need for a hypothetical Q document.¹²³⁴ This framework explains the triple tradition (material in all three gospels) and double tradition (material shared by Matthew and Luke) through direct literary dependence, honoring Marcan priority.³⁴

Comparison of Farrer and Two-Source Hypotheses

This table highlights the Farrer Hypothesis’ simplicity and evidence-based approach compared to the Two-Source Hypothesis.

Evidence Supporting the Farrer Hypothesis

The Principle of Parsimony

Farrer advocates emphasize its simplicity, following Occam’s Razor by eliminating Q, for which no historical evidence exists.⁵ Mark Goodacre notes, “There are no textual witnesses, no fragments, no patristic citations—nothing. Q is purely a scholarly construct.”⁴

Editorial Fatigue

“Editorial fatigue,” where a later author slips back into a source’s wording, supports Luke’s dependence on Matthew.⁶⁴ For example, in the Passion narrative, Matthew 26:68 and Luke 22:64 share the Greek phrase “Who is it that struck you?” (τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε), absent in Mark. The rare word παίω (strike) suggests direct dependence.⁴

Inconsistencies in Luke’s Adaptation

The Parable of the Talents/Pounds shows Luke mentioning ten servants but addressing only three, an inconsistency suggesting adaptation of Matthew’s coherent three-servant account.⁶

Arguments Against the Farrer Hypothesis

The Problem of Lukan Omissions

Critics question why Luke omits Matthean material like the Lord’s Prayer or Beatitudes if he used Matthew.⁷ Farrer proponents argue Luke’s prologue implies he excluded material he deemed unreliable, seeking an orderly account.⁷

Primitive Nature of Luke’s Text

Some scholars argue Luke’s text is more primitive, suggesting Lukan priority over Farrer’s chronology.⁶ Luke’s shorter, less elaborated parables (using fewer Greek words than Matthew or Mark) may preserve an earlier tradition.⁶

Alternative Explanations for Minor Agreements

Two-Source theorists propose textual corruption, overlapping Q, or independent edits to explain minor agreements, alternatives Farrer proponents find strained.⁵

Scholarly Reception and Current Status

Growing Alternative to the Dominant Paradigm

While the Two-Source Hypothesis dominates, particularly in North America, the Farrer Hypothesis is a leading alternative, especially in the UK.⁵⁸ Scholars note it’s “the only real challenge” to the Two-Source model.⁸

Academic Divide and Advocacy

Mark Goodacre’s advocacy, through books like The Case Against Q (2002), has raised Farrer’s profile.⁸ Eric Eve’s Solving the Synoptic Puzzle (2021) underscores its growing recognition, arguing the Two-Source Hypothesis is no longer unassailable.²

Scholarly Neglect and Recent Recognition

Farrer is often overlooked in textbooks favoring Two-Source or Griesbach hypotheses.⁹ However, recent works signal increasing engagement with its merits.⁸

Competing Alternative Hypotheses

Other hypotheses include:

1. Griesbach Hypothesis: Matthew first, Luke used Matthew, Mark used both.⁸
2. Wilke Hypothesis: Matthew used Mark and Luke.³
3. Lukan Priority: Luke first, followed by Mark and Matthew.⁶

Jerusalem School scholars like Robert Lindsey advocate Lukan priority, viewing Mark as embellishing Luke’s primitive account.⁶

Conclusion

The Farrer Hypothesis challenges the Two-Source Hypothesis with a simpler model, gaining traction as a serious alternative. Its focus on literary dependence may reshape how scholars view the Synoptics’ historical and theological reliability.

Additional Reading

For readers interested in exploring the Farrer Hypothesis further, the following resources offer high-quality, scholarly insights into its origins, evidence, and reception:

• Relating the Gospels: Memory, Imitation and the Farrer Hypothesis by Eric Eve: A peer-reviewed book exploring the Farrer Hypothesis through memory and imitation, arguing for Luke’s use of Matthew.
• Solving the Synoptic Puzzle: Introducing the Case for the Farrer Hypothesis by Eric Eve: A scholarly introduction to the Farrer Hypothesis, detailing its evidence and challenges to Q.
• The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem by Mark Goodacre: A seminal, peer-reviewed defense of the Farrer Hypothesis, focusing on editorial fatigue and minor agreements.
• The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze by Mark Goodacre: An accessible, peer-reviewed introduction to the Synoptic Problem, advocating for the Farrer Hypothesis.
• The Synoptic Gospels: A Careful Comparison by Robert H. Stein: A peer-reviewed analysis of Synoptic literary relationships, engaging with the Farrer Hypothesis and textual evidence.
• The Synoptic Problem: Four Views edited by Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer: A peer-reviewed volume presenting four perspectives, including a defense of the Farrer Hypothesis.
• Q or Not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels by Bart D. Ehrman: A scholarly critique of the Q hypothesis, engaging with Farrer’s alternative model.
• The Synoptic Problem and Statistics by Andris Abakuks: A peer-reviewed statistical analysis of Synoptic relationships, supporting Farrer’s literary dependence.

Sources