Summary
The Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, share many similarities not found in
the Gospel of John. This was a problem hence the name “Synoptic,” which means “to see
together” in Greek. This problem has been around since the 18th Century when scholars noticed
that the first three Gospels, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, were alike in ways that John was
different.1 The scholars started looking at the gospel a little closer as well as skeptics started
coming in to investigate the gospels a little closer.1 George E. Ladd defined criticism as “making
intelligent judgments about historical, literary, textual, and philological questions which one
must face in dealing with the Bible, in the light of all the available evidence, when one
recognizes that the Word of God has come to men through the words of men in given historical
situations.1
In the lecture “The Synoptic Problem,” Dr. Robert Wayne Stacy explains that the similarities and
differences of the synoptic Gospel accounts are often explained in simple terms as if three people
witnessed the same traffic accident and were asked to testify about what happened.2 The
illustration showed that different testimonies in which many similarities and differences was just
like the Synoptic Gospels. Furthermore, this may give any account of why the explanation of the
Gospels has the same outlook but does not account for both the significant differences and
similarities what are found.
1 Elwell, Walter A., and Robert W. Yarbrough. 2013. Encountering the New Testament: A
Historical and Theological Survey. Third Edition. Encountering Biblical Studies. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic.
2 Stacy, Robert W., “The Synoptic Problem,” Video Lecture in NBST 515 at Liberty University,
Lynchburg, VA, May 12, 2024.
Thus, the puzzle of trying to see how the gospel agree with one another, even though there are
many notable differences in each gospel is where the Synoptic Problem appears.1 Scholars
noticed that there was some parenthetical material inside the stories that were being told to the
audience. Dr. Stacy noted that this wasn’t a surprise for the Gospel writer to do this
occasionally, but to use the same exact words for the same scene in three different Gospels
seems noteworthy at best and would require more attention.3
There are three different theories that may explain the similarities and differences in the Synoptic
Gospels: oral tradition, the Gospel theory, and literary interdependence. Out of the three literary
interdependence seem to best explain the similarities found in the Gospels. Also, the Scholars
identified five different theories regarding the order in which they believe that the Synoptic
Gospels were written. The first theory, the Augustinian hypothesis, suggests that Matthew was
the first Gospel written, followed by Mark and Luke. Another theory, proposed by J.J. Griesbach,
agrees with Augustine that Mark came after Matthew, but suggests that Mark's information came
from Luke instead of the other way around.42The next three theories prioritize Mark as the first
written Gospel, with Matthew and Luke using Mark as their source. In 1863, H. J. Holtzmann
introduced the "Q" source, a collection of around 230 verses that Matthew and Luke have in
common but are not found in Mark. The theory, known as the two-source hypothesis, states that
Mark and "Q" are used as sources for Matthew and Luke while adding their unique material.53
232 Elwell, Walter A., and Robert W. Yarbrough. 2013. Encountering the New
Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey. Third Edition. Encountering Biblical
Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
4 Ibid.
35 Elwell, Walter A., and Robert W. Yarbrough. 2013. Encountering the New
Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey. Third Edition. Encountering Biblical
Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
6 Ibid.
B.H. Streeter presented The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins in 1924, suggesting a theory
known as the four-document hypothesis. According to this theory, four distinct documents -
Mark, Q, L (material unique to Luke), and M (material unique to Matthew) - contribute to the
Gospels. While Matthew and Luke still draw on Mark as a source, they also incorporate material
from the three other sources to explain the similarities and differences in their Gospels.6 Finaly,
Austin Farrer's theory, known as the Farrer Hypothesis, suggests that Mark is the first Gospel,
followed by Matthew and Luke, eliminating the need for the "Q" document.7
Application
Farrer Hypothesis (Mark, Matthew, Luke)
Farrer Hypothesis is based on the fact that Mark was the first book written of the
Synoptic Gospels and this view was also named Markan Priority. The Markan Priority points to
a large amount of parallel material that is found in Matthew and Luke that suggests Mark was
written ahead of them.8 The understanding of the Farrer Theory is that Mark was written first,
Matthew was written second with Mark as a source, and Last Luke was written with both
Matthew and Mark as a source.
This theory does not go without some push back as the scholars seem to suggest that the order
could be the other way around. Mark could have gathered material from Matthew and/or Luke
to complete his Gospel but it seems more plausible that the evidence points to Mark being
7 Stacy, Robert W., “The Synoptic Problem,” Video Lecture in NBST 515 at Liberty University,
Lynchburg, VA, May 12, 2024.
8 Ibid.
written first and Matthew and Luke using his book to sure up their Gospel account.9 beginning to
argue for the virtual independence of4
The first argument for Markian Priority is that Matthew and Luke agree on the order of the
sequence of events in Mark.10 Also Mark was not an eyewitness to Jesus, nor worked closely
with Peter and recorded his experience with Jesus. Mark's emphasis was on the precision of
events, which were frequently lengthier than the descriptions provided by Matthew and Luke. It
is believed that Matthew and Luke didn’t add to the story in Mark account because the
considered the information to be sufficient.
The second argument for Markian Priority is that Matthew and Luke regularly attested Mark’s
Greek in their accounts, and there is evidence of theological reworking and clarification. Greek
was Mark’s second language, and his grammar and syntax were often clumsy. In Mark chapter
ten, he records, “As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to
him, knelt down, and asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘Why do you
call me good?’1Jesus asked.1‘Only God is truly good.” (Mk. 10:17-18, NLT). Seeing the potential
for misunderstanding, Matthew rewords the conversation: “Someone came to Jesus with this
question: “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”!“Why ask me about what is
good?”1Jesus replied.1“There is only One who is good. But to answer your question—if you want
to receive eternal life, keep the commandments. (Matthew 19:16-17, NLT)”
Finally, Markian Priority is that Mark did not have a source “Q” even if source “Q” did exist,
there would be no reason for Mark to exclude information found in Matthew and Luke. For that
reason, he does not include information that is believed to have derived from source “Q” such as
49 Elwell, Walter A., and Robert W. Yarbrough. 2013. Encountering the New
Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey. Third Edition. Encountering Biblical
Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
10 Ibid.
Bibliography
Elwell, Walter A., and Robert W. Yarbrough. 2013. Encountering the New Testament: A
Historical and Theological Survey. Third Edition. Encountering Biblical Studies. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Stacy, Robert W., “The Synoptic Problem,” Video Lecture in NBST 515 at Liberty University,
Lynchburg, VA, May 12, 2024.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
