The Synoptic Problem (2)

The Synoptic Problem concerns the literary relationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which share substantial subject matter and wording patterns yet display significant variations.[1] While shared oral traditions might explain some similarities, the close parallels in Greek suggest direct literary dependence.[1]

The dominant scholarly solution for over a century has been the Two-Source Theory. This approach proposes that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark’s Gospel, while also drawing on a lost document scholars call ‘Q’ to explain passages where Matthew and Luke agree but Mark does not.[2] The term ‘Q’ derives from the German word Quelle, meaning “source.”[2] Mark’s priority fits well with his comparative brevity, vivid narrative style, unpolished language, and the fact that Marcan material appears in substantially the same order in Matthew and Luke.[1]

However, the scholarly consensus has fractured in recent decades. The existence and nature of ‘Q’ has incurred sustained criticism in the 21st century from scholars including Mark Goodacre and Francis Watson.[1] An increasingly popular alternative, pioneered by Austin Farrer, proposes that Matthew used Mark while Luke used both Mark and Matthew, restructuring the latter to suit his preferred sequential arrangement.[1] This approach’s appeal lies in its simplicity—it eliminates the need for the unattested hypothetical source ‘Q’ and the requirement that neither Luke nor Matthew knew the other.[1]

The debate today is more open and diverse than throughout much of the 20th century, with many scholars accepting that no single ‘solution’ may account neatly for a composition history involving hybrid written and oral traditions.[1]

[1] Markus Bockmuehl, “Synoptic Problem,” in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. Andrew Louth (Oxford, United Kingdom; New York: Oxford University Press, 2022), 1877–1878.
[2] Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 20–21.