This is an interactive exploration based on the Wikipedia article concerning the Synoptic Gospels. Read the full source article here. (opens in new tab)

The Synoptic Tapestry

Weaving together the narratives of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, exploring their unique relationships and the enduring scholarly quest to understand their origins.

What are Synoptics? 👇 Explore Theories 🤔

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!


When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Defining the Synoptic Gospels

Shared Perspectives

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are collectively known as the Synoptic Gospels. This designation arises from their significant overlap in content, narrative sequence, and specific wording, allowing them to be viewed together, or "in synopsis."[3] This shared perspective contrasts sharply with the Gospel of John, which presents largely distinct material and narrative focus.[2]

Linguistic and Genre Context

All three synoptic gospels are composed in Koine Greek, the common Greek vernacular of the Hellenistic period. They share a similar length and were completed within a century of Jesus' death. Crucially, they align with the ancient genre of biography, presenting an orderly account that includes Jesus' origins, ministry, miracles, teachings, Passion, and Resurrection, distinguishing them from non-canonical sources.[10][11]

Quantitative Overlap

The degree of textual similarity is remarkable. Over three-quarters of Mark's content is found in both Matthew and Luke. Furthermore, approximately 97% of Mark's material appears in at least one of the other two synoptic gospels. Matthew and Luke also share about 24% and 23% of their content, respectively, which is not present in Mark.[1] This extensive parallelism strongly suggests literary interdependence among the Gospels.[3]

Structural Similarities and Differences

The Triple Tradition

The material common to all three synoptic gospels is termed the triple tradition. This core narrative includes numerous key events and teachings, such as the ministry of John the Baptist, Jesus' baptism and temptation, the calling of the first disciples, various healing accounts (e.g., the leper, the paralytic), the commissioning of the Twelve Apostles, the feeding miracles, the confession of Peter, the Transfiguration, and the Passion narrative.[17] The arrangement of these pericopae generally follows a similar order across the three Gospels.

The Double Tradition

An extensive body of material, comprising roughly half the length of the triple tradition, is shared exclusively between Matthew and Luke, but absent in Mark. This is known as the double tradition. It predominantly features parables and sayings of Jesus, but also includes narrative elements like the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, the Centurion's servant, and messengers from John the Baptist.[34] The ordering of this material often differs significantly between Matthew and Luke, suggesting distinct editorial approaches.[36]

Unique Material (M & L Sources)

Each synoptic gospel also contains material unique to itself, often referred to as "Special Matthew" (or M source) and "Special Luke" (or L source). These unique sections include distinct infancy narratives and post-resurrection accounts. Special Matthew primarily contains parables, while Special Luke includes both parables and healings. Special Luke is particularly noted for its higher concentration of Semitic linguistic features.[43][44]

Parallel Passage Example: Healing the Leper

Synoptic Accounts of Healing the Leper
Matthew 8:2–3 Mark 1:40–42 Luke 5:12–13

And behold,
a leper came
and worships
him, saying:
Lord, if you wish,
I can be cleansed.
And he stretched out his
hand and touched him,
saying:
I wish it; be cleansed.
And immediately
his leprosy
was cleansed.

And, calling out to him,
there comes to him a leper
and kneeling and
saying to him:
If you wish,
I can be cleansed.
And, moved with compassion,
he stretched out his
hand and touched him
and says to him:
I wish it; be cleansed.
And immediately
the leprosy
left him,
and he was cleansed.

And behold,
a man full of leprosy.
But, upon seeing Jesus,
he fell upon his face
and requested
him, saying:
Lord, if you wish,
I can be cleansed.
And he stretched out his
hand and touched him,
saying:
I wish it; be cleansed.
And immediately
the leprosy
left him.

Note the substantial verbatim agreement, particularly in the dialogue, highlighting the close relationship between these texts.[17]

The Synoptic Problem

Defining the Enigma

The "Synoptic Problem" refers to the scholarly inquiry into the literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Specifically, it seeks to understand the sources and dependencies that led to their striking similarities in content, order, and wording, as well as their divergences.[48] This complex question has been described as "the most fascinating literary enigma of all time."[6]

Key Areas of Debate

The Synoptic Problem encompasses several critical areas of scholarly contention:

  • Priority: Which Gospel was written first?
  • Dependence: Did the Gospels draw directly or indirectly from one another?
  • Lost Sources: Did the evangelists utilize other, now-lost written documents (e.g., the hypothetical "Q" source)?
  • Oral Traditions: What role did eyewitness accounts and oral storytelling play?
  • Translation Issues: How were Aramaic sayings translated into Greek?
  • Redactional Processes: How were sources edited and arranged into the final Gospels?

The Synoptic Problem hinges on several interrelated points of controversy:

  • Priority: Which gospel was written first? (If one text draws from another, the source must have been composed first.)
  • Successive dependence: Did each of the synoptic gospels draw from each of its predecessors? (If not, the frequent agreements between the two independent gospels against the third must originate elsewhere.)
  • Lost written sources: Did any of the gospels draw from some earlier document which has not been preserved (e.g., the hypothetical "Q", or from earlier editions of other gospels)?
  • Oral sources: To what extent did each evangelist or literary collaborator draw from personal knowledge, eyewitness accounts, liturgy, or other oral traditions to produce an original written account?
  • Translation: Jesus and others quoted in the gospels spoke primarily in Aramaic, but the gospels themselves in their oldest available form are each written in Koine Greek. Who performed the translations, and at what point?
  • Redaction: How and why did those who put the gospels into their final form expand, abridge, alter, or rearrange their sources?

Theories also address relationships with John, non-canonical gospels, and lost documents like the Hebrew logia mentioned by Papias.[49]

Historical Development

Ancient tradition generally attributed the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but disagreed on the order of composition. Clement of Alexandria suggested Matthew first, Luke second, Mark third. Origen favored Matthew, Mark, Luke. Tertullian placed John and Matthew first, followed by Mark and Luke. Irenaeus proposed John, Luke, Matthew, Mark.[51][52][53][54][55]

Augustine of Hippo, in the 5th century, proposed a sequential model (Matthew -> Mark -> Luke), where each evangelist built upon the previous ones (the Augustinian hypothesis). This view dominated for centuries until Johann Jakob Griesbach's 1776 synopsis highlighted the close parallels and suggested Mark was derived from Matthew and Luke (Marcan posteriority, Two-Gospel hypothesis).[56][57]

In the 19th century, German scholarship increasingly favored Marcan priority, leading to the influential Two-Source Hypothesis (Mark + Q source for Matthew and Luke).[n 2][58] While dominant for much of the 20th century, this theory has faced significant challenges in recent decades, reviving debate on alternative hypotheses.[60][61]

Major Synoptic Theories

Numerous hypotheses attempt to explain the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels. The following table summarizes prominent theories:

Notable Synoptic Theories
Priority Basis Theory Name Diagram Key Features
Marcan Priority Two-Source (Mark–Q) Diagram of Two-Source Hypothesis Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and a hypothetical sayings document (Q).
Farrer (Mark–Matthew) Diagram of Farrer Hypothesis Luke used Matthew, who used Mark. No Q needed.
Wilke (Mark–Luke) Diagram of Wilke Hypothesis Matthew used Luke, who used Mark.
Four-Source (Mark–Q/M/L) Diagram of Four-Source Hypothesis Matthew used Mark, Q, and M; Luke used Mark, Q, and L.
Three-Source (Mark–Q/Matthew) Diagram of Three-Source Hypothesis Hybrid; Q might also source Mark, or be Aramaic.
Matthaean Priority Two-Gospel (Griesbach) (Matthew–Luke) Diagram of Griesbach Hypothesis Mark derived from common material in Matthew and Luke (Marcan posteriority).
Augustinian (Matthew–Mark) Diagram of Augustinian Hypothesis Oldest view; Mark is intermediate between Matthew and Luke.
Lucan Priority Jerusalem School (Luke–Q) Diagram of Jerusalem School Hypothesis Gospels used a common anthology (A) and other sources (R); Luke used R.
Marcion Priority Priority of Marcion's Gospel Diagram of Marcion Hypothesis All canonical Gospels derived from Marcion's Gospel.
Others/None Multi-Source Diagram of Multi-Source Hypothesis Each Gospel drew from a unique combination of sources.
Proto-Gospel Diagram of Proto-Gospel Hypothesis Gospels derived material from a common proto-gospel (possibly Hebrew/Aramaic).
Independence Diagram of Independence Hypothesis Each Gospel is an independent composition based on oral history.

The lack of consensus highlights the complexity and ongoing nature of Synoptic studies.[63]

Historical Perspectives on the Problem

Ancient Views

Early Church Fathers consistently attributed the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but differed on the sequence of composition. Clement of Alexandria placed Matthew first, followed by Luke and then Mark. Origen agreed Matthew was first, but placed Mark second and Luke third. Tertullian suggested Matthew and John preceded Mark and Luke. Irenaeus proposed a sequence of John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark.[50][51][52][53][54][55]

Enlightenment and Modern Scholarship

The modern academic study of the Synoptic Problem gained momentum in the late 18th century with Johann Jakob Griesbach's synopsis, which facilitated comparative analysis. The 19th century saw the rise of critical methods, leading to widespread acceptance of Marcan priority and the Two-Source Hypothesis (Mark + Q).[56][n 2][58]

Contemporary scholarship continues to debate these models, with renewed interest in the Augustinian, Farrer, and Griesbach hypotheses, and critical examination of the evidence for the Q source.[68][69][70] Statistical analyses have also been applied to explore the likelihood of different dependency models.[64]

Ongoing Debate

Despite extensive research, a definitive consensus on the Synoptic Problem remains elusive. Scholars continue to propose and refine theories, utilizing textual analysis, historical context, and even statistical methods. The debate reflects the intricate nature of textual transmission and the challenges of reconstructing the earliest stages of the Gospel tradition.[71][72]

Further Study Resources

Related Topics

Explore related areas of Biblical scholarship:

  • Aramaic primacy
  • Authorship of the Gospels
  • Biblical criticism
  • Gospel harmony
  • List of Gospels
  • Source criticism

External Resources

Access curated collections and scholarly discussions:

  • Wikimedia Commons: Synoptic Gospels Media
  • Catholic Encyclopedia: Synoptics
  • Synoptic Problem Bibliography
  • Synoptic Gospels Primer

Scholarly Hypotheses

Detailed comparisons and analyses of proposed solutions:

  • Overview of Synoptic Theories
  • Two-Source Hypothesis
  • Farrer Hypothesis
  • Griesbach Hypothesis
  • Q Source Research

Scholarly References

Source Citations

This content is derived from scholarly works and foundational texts. The following list provides specific references used in generating this overview:

  1. ^ a b Greek words synoptikos and synopsis derive from Greek syn ("together") and sight-related terms.[2]
  2. ^ Harper, Douglas. "synoptic". Online Etymology Dictionary.
  3. ^ Honoré, A. M. (1968). "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem". Novum Testamentum. 10 (2/3): 95–147.
  4. ^ Goodacre, Mark (2001). The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. A&C Black. p. 16.
  5. ^ a b Derico, Travis (2018). Oral Tradition and Synoptic Verbal Agreement. Pickwick Publications. pp. 368–369.
  6. ^ a b Kirk, Alan (2019). Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission. T&T Clark. pp. 148–183.
  7. ^ Goodacre (2001), p. 32.
  8. ^ Goodacre (2001), pp. 20–21.
  9. ^ Runesson, Anders (2021). Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins. Eerdmans.
  10. ^ The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference. Peeters Pub and Booksellers. 2023.
  11. ^ Bauckham, Richard (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. p. 220.
  12. ^ Perkins, Pheme (2009). Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 2–11.
  13. ^ a b Goodacre (2001), p. 38.
  14. ^ Neville, David (2002). Mark's Gospel – Prior Or Posterior?. A&C Black.
  15. ^ Matthew 21:18–22
  16. ^ Mark 11:12–24
  17. ^ Luke 13:6–9
  18. ^ Smith, Ben C. (2009). "The healing of a leper". TextExcavation.
  19. ^ Mark 7:33–36; 8:22–26
  20. ^ Mark 14:51–52
  21. ^ Mark 16:4
  22. ^ Mark 5:41
  23. ^ Mark 1:23–28, Luke 4:33–37
  24. ^ Mark 1:35–38, Luke 4:42–43
  25. ^ Mark 9:38–41, Luke 9:49–50
  26. ^ Mark 12:41–44, Luke 21:1–4
  27. ^ Stein, Robert H. (1992). Luke: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition. B&H Publishing. pp. 29–30.
  28. ^ Kloppenborg, John S. (2000). Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Fortress Press. pp. 20–28.
  29. ^ Rodriguez, Rafael (2017). "Matthew as Performer, Tradent, Scribe". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (15(2-3)): 192–212.
  30. ^ Rodriguez, Rafael (2010). Structuring Early Christian Memory. T&T Clark. p. 5.
  31. ^ Kirk, Alan (2019). Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission. T&T Clark. pp. 298–306.
  32. ^ Rodriguez, Rafael (2017). "Matthew as Performer, Tradent, Scribe". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (15(2-3)): 203.
  33. ^ Goodacre (2001), p. 81.
  34. ^ Matthew 3:7–10 & Luke 3:7–9.
  35. ^ Goodacre (2001), pp. 39 ff.
  36. ^ Goodacre (2001), pp. 40–41, 151–52.
  37. ^ Goodacre (2001), pp. 124–26.
  38. ^ Goodacre (2001), pp. 148–51.
  39. ^ Goodacre, Mark (2007-11-14). "Mark-Q Overlaps IV: Back to the Continuum". NT Blog.
  40. ^ Mark 14:65
  41. ^ Matthew 26:68, Luke 22:64
  42. ^ Goodacre (2001), pp. 145–46.
  43. ^ Goodacre (2001), p. 108.
  44. ^ Lace, O. Jessie (1965). Understanding the New Testament. Cambridge University Press. pp. 78–79.
  45. ^ Edwards, James R. (2009). The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 141–48.
  46. ^ Bauckham (2006), pp. 65–66.
  47. ^ Alexander, Loveday (2005). The Preface to Luke's Gospel. Cambridge University Press.
  48. ^ Luke 1:1–4 (NRSV)
  49. ^ Goodacre (2013). "Synoptic Problem". In McKenzie, Steven L. (ed.). Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation.
  50. ^ Compare Hennell, quoted in Watts, John (1860). Who Were the Writers of the New Testament?.
  51. ^ Hengel, Martin (2000). The four Gospels and the one Gospel of Jesus Christ. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 34–115.
  52. ^ Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 14.
  53. ^ Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25.
  54. ^ Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 5.
  55. ^ Pitre, Brant (2016). The Case for Jesus. Crown Publishing Group. pp. 95–96.
  56. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 11.
  57. ^ Dungan, David L. (1999). A history of the synoptic problem. pp. 112–144.
  58. ^ Owen, Henry (1764). Observations on the Four Gospels.
  59. ^ n 2 The abbreviation "Q" comes from German Quelle ("source").
  60. ^ Lührmann, Dieter (1995). "Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?". In Piper, Ronald Allen (ed.). The Gospel Behind the Gospels.
  61. ^ Goodacre (2001), pp. 160–161.
  62. ^ Farrer, A. M. (1955). "On Dispensing With Q". In Nineham, D. E. (ed.). Studies in the Gospels. Blackwell.
  63. ^ Runesson, Anders (2021). Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins. Eerdmans.
  64. ^ The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference. Peeters Pub and Booksellers. 2023.
  65. ^ Wenham, John (1992). Redating Matthew, Mark, & Luke. InterVarsity Press. p. xxi.
  66. ^ Abakuks, Andris (2014). The Synoptic Problem and Statistics. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  67. ^ Wenham, John (1992). Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
  68. ^ Black, David Alan (2010). Why Four Gospels?. Energion Publications.
  69. ^ Poirier, John C.; Peterson, Jeffrey (2015). Marcan Priority Without Q. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  70. ^ Goodacre, Mark S. (2002). The Case Against Q. A&C Black.
  71. ^ Goodacre, Mark S.; Perrin, Nicholas (2004). Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique. InterVarsity Press.
  72. ^ Pitre, Brant (2016). The Case for Jesus. Crown Publishing Group. p. 97.
  73. ^ Sanders, E. P.; Davies, Margaret (1989). Studying the Synoptic Gospels. SCM Press. p. 117.
  74. ^ Buttrick, David G. (1970). Jesus and Man's Hope. Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. p. 132.
  75. ^ Carlson (September 2004). "Synoptic Problem". Hypotyposeis.org.
  76. ^ Carlson and Smith proposed systematic nomenclature for Synoptic theories.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio
Click here to open the "Synoptic Gospels" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about synoptic_gospels while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.
Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

zirconium diboride
    
jazzy and the pussycats
    
indigofera tsiangiana
    
vincenzo bellini
    
fort defiance arizona
    
united church of christ
    
bp pulse live
    
kingdom of montenegro
    
bury f.c.
    
witi tv
    

References

References

  1.  The capital form of the Greek letter lambda λ, corresponding to l, used here to abbreviate logia (Greek: λόγια).
  2.  Mt 21:18–22
  3.  Mk 11:12–24
  4.  Lk 13:6–9
  5.  Mk 7:33–36; 8:22–26
  6.  Mk 14:51–52
  7.  Mk 16:4
  8.  Mk 5:41
  9.  Mk 14:65
  10.  Lk 1:1–4 (NRSV)
  11.  Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 14, Paragraphs 6–10
A full list of references for this article are available at the Synoptic Gospels Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Scholarly Disclaimer

Important Notice

This page presents an overview of the Synoptic Gospels and the Synoptic Problem, generated by an AI based on scholarly sources. While striving for accuracy and adherence to the provided source material, it is intended for informational and educational purposes only.

This is not theological doctrine or definitive historical pronouncement. The information provided is not a substitute for rigorous academic study, personal faith reflection, or consultation with theological and historical experts. Interpretations and theories regarding the Gospels are complex and subject to ongoing scholarly debate.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any interpretations, omissions, or actions taken based on the information presented herein.