The Synoptic problem and John

Program / Course 16: Historical Defense / Lesson 3.3

What you will learn

• Explain what the Synoptic problem is and why it exists.
• Describe the two-source hypothesis and the main alternatives.
• Summarize the main differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels.
• Explain what these literary relationships imply and do not imply for historical reliability.

The big idea

Matthew, Mark and Luke share a great deal of material, sometimes word for word, and yet also differ. The Synoptic problem asks how they are related. Most scholars hold that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke used it, together with another source of sayings. Other scholars propose different solutions. John is strikingly different in structure and style. These literary facts show that the evangelists used sources and shaped them. That is neither a refutation nor a proof of reliability, and the question of what the differences mean divides scholars.

Key terms

Synoptic problem

The puzzle of the literary relationship among Matthew, Mark and Luke, which share much text but also differ.

Markan priority

The view that Mark was written first and was used by Matthew and Luke.

Q

A hypothetical collection of sayings of Jesus, from the German Quelle, meaning source, used by Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. No copy has been found.

Two-source hypothesis

The view that Matthew and Luke each used Mark and Q.

Triple and double tradition

Triple tradition is material found in all three Synoptics. Double tradition is material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark.

Johannine tradition

The Gospel of John, together with the three letters of John, which share a distinctive vocabulary and outlook.

Background

Anyone who places Matthew, Mark and Luke in parallel columns sees that many stories appear in the same order and sometimes in almost identical words. Yet there are also places where the accounts disagree or where one adds material the others lack. The Gospel of John tells many different stories in a different way. These facts have been studied for more than two hundred years.

The Synoptic problem is not an attack on the Gospels. It is a question about how the authors worked. The answer shapes how the Gospels are used as historical sources, because if Matthew and Luke used Mark, they are not three independent witnesses but dependent witnesses for much of their material. At the same time it shows that the authors treated their sources with care and with freedom, which was normal in antiquity.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: The evidence of agreement

About 90 percent of Mark’s content appears in Matthew, and more than half of it in Luke, often with matching wording. In the double tradition, about 230 verses of teaching, including the Lord’s Prayer and the Beatitudes in different forms, appear in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Each of Matthew and Luke also has material found only in his own Gospel.

Scholars look at the order of events, the wording and the pattern of changes. When Matthew and Luke agree in order, they usually follow Mark. When they differ, one of them usually agrees with Mark. This pattern is a major reason for believing that Mark was first.

Step 2: The two-source hypothesis

The most widely accepted solution is that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke each used Mark and a second source, Q, that contained the sayings they share. In this view, Matthew and Luke wrote independently of one another. The strengths of the theory are its simplicity and its accounting for the order of events.

Its weakness is that Q does not survive. Critics ask whether a document that nobody mentions in antiquity can be assumed. Supporters answer that other ancient documents are known only from their use by later authors, and that the evidence points to a source of some kind.

Step 3: Alternatives

The Farrer hypothesis, supported by scholars such as Mark Goodacre, accepts Markan priority but holds that Luke used Matthew, so no Q is needed. The Two-Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis holds that Matthew was first, Luke used Matthew, and Mark abbreviated both. The Augustinian view, the oldest, holds that Matthew was first and Mark used Matthew, which fits the old church tradition that Matthew’s was the first Gospel.

Catholic and Orthodox tradition has long said that Matthew came first. Many Catholic scholars today accept Markan priority as a hypothesis while stating that this is a question for scholars and not for doctrine.

Step 4: John and the Synoptics

John differs sharply from the Synoptics. In John, Jesus makes several trips to Jerusalem and the ministry lasts across at least three Passovers, whereas the Synoptics show one journey to Jerusalem. John has no parables, no exorcisms and no Sermon on the Mount, but contains long discourses and sayings with the words I am. The Temple cleansing is placed at the start of the ministry, not at the end. The Last Supper is not clearly a Passover meal in John.

Yet John has features that seem to preserve independent knowledge of events, including details about Jerusalem and the chronology of the final week. Scholars disagree about whether John knew the Synoptics. Some say he did and reworked them. Others say he wrote independently from a separate tradition. The question is open.

Step 5: What follows for reliability

If Matthew and Luke copied Mark, one cannot count the three as independent witnesses for a story they all share. That is a cost to the historian. But the benefit is that where Matthew and Luke change Mark, the changes show the editors at work and make it possible to see their aims. Their use of a prior source also shows that they were not creating the story from nothing.

The differences among the Gospels trouble some readers. Historians point out that ancient writers regularly paraphrased and arranged material and that even eyewitnesses disagree on details. Others argue that the differences are larger than that and show the shaping of the tradition. Which view fits better depends on particular cases, treated in the next lessons.

1. Are these Gospels independent witnesses, or does one depend on another?
2. What does a change made by Matthew or Luke to Mark reveal about the editor’s aims?
3. Is the hypothesis of a lost source reasonable, or does it add something unseen?
4. How should the differences between John and the Synoptics be explained?
5. Which differences are about details and which are about the meaning of Jesus?
6. What does the use of sources show about how the evangelists understood their task?

Examples

Different perspectives

Majority critical scholarship

Most scholars accept Markan priority and the two-source hypothesis, while acknowledging its difficulties. They regard John as largely independent of the Synoptics or as a late reflection on them.

Catholic

The Catholic Church has taught that the Gospels are rooted in apostolic tradition and has left the Synoptic problem to scholars. Catholic biblical scholarship generally works with the two-source hypothesis, while the older tradition that Matthew was first is also respected.

Orthodox

Orthodox tradition has generally held the order given by the early church, with Matthew first. Orthodox theologians read the four Gospels as one witness to Christ in four forms, and they are less concerned with reconstructing sources.

Conservative Protestant scholars

Many accept Markan priority, and some accept Q, while insisting that the use of sources does not undermine reliability. Others favor the Augustinian solution or alternatives with no Q, and a few hold to inerrancy as a reason to harmonize the differences.

Skeptical scholars

Some argue that the editorial changes show that the Gospels are theological interpretation and not neutral history, and that John in particular is a theological work with a limited historical core.

Why it matters

Readers often hear that the Gospels contradict each other, or that they agree perfectly. Neither is accurate. Understanding how they are related helps a student read parallel passages with care, avoid the error of counting copies as independent witnesses, and see why the differences exist.

Common misunderstandings

Knowledge check

Think it through

1. Does it bother you that the evangelists used earlier sources? Why or why not?
2. How would you explain two accounts of the same event that differ in detail?
3. What would be lost if the church had kept only one Gospel? What would be gained?
4. How might a believer and a skeptic read the same difference between Mark and Matthew?

Independent assignment

Reading a parallel passage

In your own notebook, write 300 to 500 words. Read one story that appears in all three Synoptics (for example the healing of the paralytic) side by side. List the agreements and differences, and say which differences look like editing and which like separate memory. State what you conclude about the relation of the three. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study

• Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament Read for how the church received four Gospels and not one harmonized account.
• Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Read for an argument that the relationship among the Gospels is compatible with eyewitness testimony.
• Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies See Irenaeus on the four Gospels as one fourfold witness.
• Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth Read the chapter on the Gospels for a practical guide to reading parallel accounts.
• Mark 2:3 The healing of the paralytic, found in all three Synoptics.
• John 2:14 John places the Temple cleansing early.