The Synoptic Problem

The Synoptic Problem stands as one of the most enduring and complex puzzles in biblical scholarship, described by leading scholar Mark Goodacre as “possibly the greatest literary enigma in history”¹. This examination explores the historical development of this fascinating biblical conundrum, from ancient observations to modern scholarly debate, analyzing the various proposed solutions and their implications for our understanding of the New Testament.

Before delving into the details, it’s important to note that the Synoptic Problem fundamentally concerns the literary relationships among the first three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke which display remarkable similarities in content, sequence, and wording alongside significant differences that have challenged scholars for centuries. Despite extensive research, no definitive solution has yet achieved universal acceptance, with various competing theories continuing to attract scholarly support.

Defining the Synoptic Problem

The term “synoptic” derives from Greek roots ((σύν), meaning “together” and (ὄψις), meaning “view” or “sight”) So “synoptic” essentially means “seeing together” or “viewing together.” meaning “seeing together” or “viewing together,” reflecting how these three Gospels can be arranged side by side for comparative study. The “problem” emerges from the striking patterns of agreement and divergence observed when they are examined in parallel.

The Synoptic Gospels include many of the same stories, often in similar sequence and sometimes with nearly identical wording². This pattern raises fundamental questions: Why do these three Gospels share so much material while John’s Gospel differs significantly? Did the Gospel writers draw from one another, from common written sources, from oral traditions, or some combination of these possibilities?

The scholarly investigation into these questions constitutes “the study of the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels in an attempt to explain their literary relationship”³.

This examination encompasses several interconnected issues of controversy, including priority (which Gospel came first), successive dependence (whether each Gospel drew from predecessors), lost written sources, oral traditions, translation processes, and redaction (how writers may have expanded, abbreviated, or altered their sources)².

Historical Development of the Synoptic Problem

Early Observations and Augustine’s View

While the systematic study of the Synoptic Problem as a defined scholarly discipline emerged much later, observations about Gospel similarities date back to the early Church Fathers. Most notably, Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) addressed the relationships between the Gospels, proposing what would later be called the “Augustinian hypothesis”—that Matthew was written first, followed by Mark, then Luke⁴⁵.

Augustine’s view represented not a response to a “problem” as such, but rather an explanatory framework that was largely accepted by the Church for centuries. His perspective held that Mark essentially abbreviated Matthew, while Luke built upon both preceding works⁴.

Papias and Early Gospel Testimony

Some of the earliest commentary on Gospel origins comes from Papias of Hierapolis in the early second century. According to Eusebius’s quotation of Papias, “Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord”⁶. Regarding Matthew, Papias stated: “Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could”⁶.

These statements from Papias have been the subject of extensive scholarly debate. His reference to Matthew writing in “Hebrew” (which could mean either Hebrew or Aramaic) has proven particularly challenging to reconcile with the apparent Greek composition of the canonical Gospel of Matthew⁷. Additionally, scholars have questioned whether Papias was even referring to the canonical Gospels as we know them today⁸.

Emergence as a Formal Scholarly Problem

The systematic study of the Synoptic Problem as a defined scholarly endeavor did not emerge in earnest until the 18th century. The advent of Enlightenment critical methods applied to biblical texts brought new approaches to understanding the relationships between these ancient documents⁹.

G.E. Lessing and J.G. Eichhorn popularized the “Urevangelium Theory” in the late 18th century, suggesting an original Gospel of the Nazarenes, composed by Matthew, as the source for the Synoptic writers⁹. This represents one of the first formal attempts to solve what was increasingly viewed as a literary problem.

The 19th century saw the application of literary criticism to the Synoptic Problem “in earnest, especially in German scholarship”². Early work revolved around hypothetical proto-gospels, but gradually a consensus emerged favoring Marcan priority—the view that Mark’s Gospel served as the principal source for the other two synoptics².

Major Proposed Solutions

Numerous solutions have been proposed to explain the complex patterns of similarity and difference among the Synoptic Gospels. These can be broadly categorized into dependent hypotheses and interdependent hypotheses³.

The Two-Source Hypothesis

The Two-Source Hypothesis (also called the Two-Document Hypothesis) has dominated scholarly discourse throughout much of the 20th century. First proposed by Christian Hermann Weisse in 1838, this theory holds that Mark was written first, and both Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and another source—designated “Q” (from German Quelle, meaning “source”)—containing primarily sayings of Jesus²¹⁰.

B.H. Streeter elaborated this theory in 1924 into the “Four-Document Hypothesis,” adding hypothetical sources “M” and “L” to account for material unique to Matthew and Luke respectively².

The Q document represents one of the most contentious aspects of this hypothesis. Despite its widespread acceptance in scholarly circles, critics point out that “no manuscript of Q has ever been found, nor is any reference to Q ever made in the writings of the Church Fathers (or any ancient writings, in fact)”². The discovery of the Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi in 1945 provided an example of a “sayings gospel” that some scholars suggest might be similar to what Q would have been¹¹.

The Augustinian Hypothesis

The traditional Augustinian Hypothesis represents the oldest formal solution to the Synoptic Problem, proposing that Matthew was written first, followed by Mark, and then Luke⁴¹⁰. Unlike some competing hypotheses, “this hypothesis does not rely on, nor does it argue for, the existence of any document that is not explicitly mentioned in historical testimony”⁴.

A modern defense of this position involves addressing criticisms about Marcan priority by suggesting that “Mark’s Gospel is not simpler but more focused, and that Mark could have intentionally removed certain elements from Matthew’s Gospel”¹².

The Griesbach/Two-Gospel Hypothesis

The Griesbach Hypothesis (also known as the Two-Gospel Hypothesis) contends that Matthew was written first, followed by Luke who used Matthew, and then Mark who combined and condensed both¹⁰¹³. This view was revived in the modern era by William Farmer in 1964¹⁴.

The Farrer Hypothesis

The Farrer Hypothesis, associated with Austin Farrer, accepts Marcan priority but rejects the need for a hypothetical Q document¹⁰. It proposes that Mark was written first, Matthew used Mark, and Luke used both Mark and Matthew¹³. Mark Goodacre has been a prominent modern proponent of this view¹.

Other Proposed Solutions

• Oral Tradition Theory: Suggests that similarities exist due to the stability of oral storytelling in early Christian communities⁹¹³.
• Independence Hypothesis: Proposes that the three Gospels were written independently using similar oral or written sources¹¹³.
• Ur-Gospel Theory: Posits an original lost Gospel used by all three Synoptic writers⁹.

Current Scholarly Debates

The Two-Source Hypothesis, while once dominant, has come under increasing scrutiny. Scholars like Goodacre and Brant Pitre have challenged the historical plausibility of Q². E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies have called the theory “least satisfactory,” while Joseph Fitzmyer has declared the Synoptic Problem “practically insoluble”².

Alternative theories, including the Farrer, Augustinian, and Griesbach hypotheses, have gained renewed interest. Rainer Riesner’s “Orality and Memory Hypothesis” emphasizes the role of memorized oral traditions¹. Critics of the Independence Hypothesis note its heavy reliance on improbable memorization and its incompatibility with early church testimony¹³.

Conclusion

The Synoptic Problem remains a vibrant field of scholarly inquiry. While no single theory commands universal assent, each proposed solution contributes to a richer understanding of early Christian literature. As Dennis R. MacDonald put it, the task involves “speculation tethered to the rocks of data”¹⁵.

Further Reading

For readers interested in exploring the Synoptic Problem further, the following resources offer high-quality, scholarly insights into its historical, literary, and theoretical dimensions:

• The Synoptic Gospels - BYU: An academic overview of the Synoptic Gospels’ historical context and literary relationships from a Latter-day Saint perspective.
• The Synoptic Gospels Primer - Virtual Religion Network: A detailed scholarly introduction to the Synoptic Problem, focusing on early sources like Papias and textual evidence.
• Bart Ehrman on the Synoptic Problem: An expert analysis by a leading New Testament scholar, explaining key issues like Marcan priority and the Two-Source Hypothesis.
• The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis by Robert H. Stein: A seminal book offering rigorous analysis of source theories, particularly the Two-Source Hypothesis.
• The Synoptic Problem and Statistics by Andris Abakuks: A unique statistical approach to analyzing literary relationships among the Synoptic Gospels.

Sources