The Solution to the Synoptic Problem A Paper Submitted to the Faculty of the Seminary & Graduate School of Religion Bob Jones University in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Divinity By Kent Hobi Greenville, South Carolina April 2022 The Solution to the Synoptic Problem Importance of the Synoptic Problem “The synoptic problem” is the name given to a puzzle which has not only entered the thoughts of many laypeople but has divided the opinions of many New Testament scholars as well. The question posed by the synoptic problem is this: Is there any literary relationship among the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Meaning, did one or more of these gospel writers use others as sources while compiling their own gospels? If so, which gospels used which as sources? This study is important for one primary reason: it shapes how we interpret each synoptic gospel. If we hold the view that Matthew was written first, we will be shocked by the things Mark leaves out. If we hold the view that Mark was written first, we will note especially the things that Matthew and Luke add to his narrative. And if we hold literary independence—that is, that no gospel writer used another as a source—we will be shocked at the Holy Spirit’s word-for-word dictation in certain passages. In this case, answering this issue correctly is crucial to having a correct view of the doctrine of inspiration. Proposed Solutions Historically, there have been many solutions proposed to the synoptic problem, some not as widely held as others. Augustine and possibly other church fathers believed that the canonical order (Matthew, Mark, Luke) also indicated the order in which these gospels were written.1 Modern scholarship, however, has largely favored the “two-source hypothesis” proposed by B.H. Streeter. Two major tenets of this hypothesis are indicated by the term “two-source”: one source is Mark, which proponents believe to be the first of the 1 David Alan Black and David R. Beck, eds., Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 12. 1 2 three written, and the other is Q, a hypothetical source purportedly used by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark. Streeter himself proposed two other hypothetical sources, M—a source unique to Matthew—and L—a source unique to Luke. This refinement of the twosource hypothesis is called Streeter’s four-source hypothesis. A third view which has gained traction in recent years is the two-gospel hypothesis, argued most fully by William Farmer, which argues that Matthew was written first, then Luke, then Peter combined the two for his own purposes and Mark transcripted what Peter said. A fourth solution has been proposed throughout church history, but much of modern scholarship sees it as a nonsolution: literary independence. Literary independence is the theory that the gospels were written in complete isolation from one another. Although the gospel writers may have known of one another’s works—and although they were likely drawing from the same oral tradition—the gospels are not dependent on one another at a literary level. Much modern scholarship sees this view as defective due to the great amount of verbal parallelism among the gospels that unwritten oral tradition would probably not have maintained, even in a culture with high oral transmission abilities. Vast portions of Mark are reiterated in Matthew and Luke, sometimes with accuracy so precise that these records are a few words from verbatim. Evaluation of Proposed Solutions Augustine’s argument for the canonical order indicating chronology is not widely held today. Although it may seem pleasing that the gospels were placed in chronological order, there is no reason why this necessarily must be the case. There could be other reasons why the gospels were placed in this order; namely, that Matthew best bridges the gap between the Old Testament and the synoptics and that Luke best bridges the gap between the synoptics and the rest of the New Testament (John’s gospel, Acts, and the Epistles). 3 That being said, this reasoning does not prove that the canonical order is not the chronological order for the epistles, so Augustine’s theory remains valid. But modern scholarship has largely favored Streeter’s two-source hypothesis as truer to the evidence than earlier solutions. The major strength of the two-source hypothesis is that it follows the most important rule of textual criticism: the reading which best explains other readings is the oldest. In other words, if Mark is the first gospel written, it is understandable why Matthew and Luke would add their perspectives to what already existed. However, if Matthew was written before Mark—or, if Matthew and Luke were written before Mark—it is difficult to see why Mark would write his gospel, since Mark has so little material that is unique to his gospel. Streeter’s two-source hypothesis proposed a strong prima facie case, which is why it has dominated modern scholarship for so long. The challenge that our third perspective, William Farmer’s perspective, is presented with is why Mark felt the need to produce his gospel if, as Farmer argues, both Matthew and Luke already existed. A satisfying answer is proposed by David Black, who quotes Clement of Alexandria: “Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter.”2 From other church fathers, Black makes a strong case that Matthew was written first for a primarily Jewish audience, the Luke was written to adapt the gospel to a Gentile audience. Peter preached an action-packed gospel to Rome, using Matthew and Luke as his core material, leaving out long dialogues, and occasionally adding vivid detail as only an eyewitness could.3 2 Clement of Alexandria, Adumbrationes in epistolas canonicas on 1 Peter 5:13 (ca. 150-215). In Black, David Alan. Why Four Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001), 38. 3 Black, David Alan. Why Four Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001), 29. 4 According to this argument, so little of Mark is original because Mark was originally Peter’s preaching, not an orderly written record of Jesus’ words and acts. In the end, the two most viable views seem to be Streeter’s two-source hypothesis, which makes a strong prima facie case, and William Farmer’s two-gospel hypothesis, which answers objections effectively and better accounts for the patristic testimony. Much recent scholarship has shifted in favor of Farmer’s hypothesis, for good reason, as it seems to be the strongest position for those in favor of the patristic testimony over and above textual methodology. Streeter’s hypothesis remains well-known, however, and will probably continue to be a strong player in synoptic scholarship in the days to come.
