1.

0Introduction
The relationships between the Synoptic are interesting and the study of this relationship is very
rewarding. It should lead us to a clear understanding of how God used men to create His written
Word.
1.1 Definitions of Synoptic Gospels
The first three gospel accounts, as previously stated, are called the Synoptic Gospels. They were
first called the Synoptic Gospels at the end of the eighteenth century by J. J. Griesbach, a
German Biblical Scholar. This word “synoptic” comes from a Greek word that means “a seeing
together”. This word was chosen by Griesbach due to the striking similarities between Matthew,
Mark and Luke. The synoptic gospels, in general, share chronology. They begin the baptism of
Jesus, reach a defining moment at the confession of Peter and conclude with the Passion. The
synoptic gospels also have similarities in the words and word order1.
1.2 Synoptic Problem
Goodacre stated a clear definition of the synoptic problem: “the study of the
similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels in an attempt to explain
their literary relationship.” The argument is not whether a so-called problem
exists but to what degree does that problem change the understanding of
the Gospel narrative.
1.2.1 Unity of the Synoptic Gospel Accounts
According to Kostenberger, there is a strong relationship found between the gospels of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke. He states that using a tool called Gospel Synopsis, scholars place Scripture
verses “side by side in parallel columns so scholars can compare them more easily”. He
continues to describe the process called “Source Criticism” by demonstrating the four areas
where the Synoptic are similar. The first area in which this similarity is found is in wording2. The
words of Jesus used by the writers are either identical or almost identical. The second area is in
their similar order. The Gospels contain many periscopes, which are “self-contained units of
narrative such as Jesus’ healing of the leper in Mark 1:40-45.” These periscopes are located
generally in the same order within each of the Synoptic. The third area of similarity is in
parenthetical and explanatory material. This principle describes the usage of the same type of

1
Springer, J.F. “The Synoptic Problem.” Bibliotheca Sacra no. 320(1923): 545
2
González, Justo L.. The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Vol. 1 of The Story of
Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 1984

1
wording for “editorial comments”. The fourth issue of similarity refers to the Gospel’s quotation
of the Old Testament Scripture3. The wording that is used seems to quote directly from different
sources of the Old Testament.
The obvious conclusion one can draw from the similarities of the Synoptic, is an almost certain
probability for some form of developmental connection. Yet these have found continuity through
an age of harsh climate, little communication opportunities, and most surely the onslaught of
Satan himself. However, the similarities mixed with the differences are the strange enigma.
1.2.2 Disharmony of the Synoptic Gospel Accounts
The differences between the Synoptic Gospel accounts is truly what creates this synoptic
problem because, if they all recorded each event in the exact same way using the exact same
wording, there would be no debate. This is simply not the case. There are, in fact, differences in
the detail of same events recorded. In the account of the centurion whose servant was healed, the
details differ greatly. These stories are told in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew’s
narrative, the centurion asks Jesus personally; in Luke’s, he sends some Jewish elders. Then
there are many differences in the narratives: Jesus responds with different words in the two
accounts. Even in the Synoptic Gospels’ accounts of the birth and passion: what narrative
information they share remains different in wording 4. Another overarching difference is the
uniqueness of material which only appears in one gospel account. For instance, only Matthew
records Peter’s walking on the water. As indicated previously, the birth narratives have different
detail and wording but Luke’s account has the following sections not found in the other gospels:
the promised birth of John the Baptizer, the announcement to Mary of her conception, Mary’s
visit to Elizabeth, the birth of John the Baptizer, and the circumcision and presentation of Jesus
at the temple5.
1.3 The Historical Development of the Questions
The true essence of the synoptic problem concerns itself with the task of dealing with the areas
that are similar between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as giving forth some possible
explanations for the supposed conflicts. Since the days of Augustine in the fifth century, some

3
Lea, Thomas D., The New Testament Its Background and Message. Nashville: Broad man & Holman, 2003.
4
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, “Critical and Exegetical Hand-book of the Gospel of Matthew” (New
York, Funk and Wagnall’s, 1890). 20.
5
William Farmer. The Case for the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Ch.4 of Rethinking the Synoptic Problem.
Baker Academic, 2001.

2
have wondered about the origins of the first three Gospels, known today as the Synoptic
Gospels6. J.F. Springer quoted the comments of Augustine concerning the order of the synoptic
issue:
“And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to
himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of
what his predecessor had done, or left out as matters about which there was no information,
things which another nevertheless discovered to have recorded. But the fact is, that just as they
received each of them the gift of inspiration they abstained from adding to their several labors
any superfluous conjoint composition.” History does not record much written material
concerning the synoptic problem until the time of the Reformation. The fact that this issue has
for so long been debated and researched gives strong validity of the interesting nature of the
question at hand. These three books were written many years apart, distributed by hand copying,
without the use of publication services 7. These reasons draw many to seek which one was first,
and which gospel drew information from the others.
1.4 The three major positions on possible solutions to Synoptic problem
The difference between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke can be readily explained via
emphasis. Matthew was showing Jesus’ genealogy through Abraham since his audience was
primarily Jews. Luke, on the other hand, was writing to mainly Gentiles. As such, he saw the
need to trace Jesus all way to Adam and ultimately, the reminder that Jesus is, in fact, the Son of
God8. There are many differences which are not so easily explained and there are several
prevailing theories to help explain these and other situations further as below;
1.4.1 Theories of Literary Dependence of the Synoptic Gospels
This chart simplifies the major players of consideration of this synoptic issue. The first, the
oldest and lest adhered to, is Augustine’s view. It assumes the order of the New Testament
synoptic in the Canon is the order in which they were written. So that Matthew, as an eyewitness,
wrote first then each successive Gospel was written with the benefit of its predecessor. The
majority of scholars hold to three general hypotheses.
1.4.2 The Two-Gospel Hypothesis.

6
Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Qurales. The Cradle, The Cross, and
TheCrown: (Nashville, Broadman-Holman. 2009). 159.
7
Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy, editors. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive
Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 175.
8
Lea and Black, 121.

3
This view also called the “Griesbach Hypothesis”. This differs with Augustine in the order of
when Luke was written9. The Two-Gospel priority states that Matthew wrote his Gospel first,
and then Luke was second with Mark using both in his Gospel narrative. One of the strongest
supportive points of this view is that the early church believed that Matthew was the first Gospel
written.
1.4.3 Two-Document Hypothesis.
The theory holds that the Gospel of Mark was the first to be written. It was penned independently
of the other Synoptic. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as source
material. However, the interesting point is this theory claims another source document other than
Mark. J. Eichhorn first referenced the idea of a pre-synoptic document in [Link] source is
now called Q, from the German word for "source," Quelle10. This unverified document is
believed to have contained various quotes from the Lord Jesus during His ministry. Although
entire books have been written on this allusive document, it has never been found. This theory
shows that some of the similarities between Matthew and Luke come from their referencing of
Mark, yet when they combined are different than Mark it is supposed they collectively
referenced the “Q” document.
1.4.4 The Markan Priority
A careful analysis of the similarities between the Synoptic Gospels indicates that Mark has a
special relationship to both Matthew and Luke. Mark shares more material and verbatim
agreement with Matthew and Luke than they share with each other. The special relationship of
Mark to Matthew and Luke has commonly been explained in two opposite ways. Some assert
that the similarity results from Mark’s using both Matthew and Luke in his Gospel. The Markan
priority hypothesis suggests that Mark served as a primary source for both Matthew and Luke.
Because of Mark’s brevity, it would seem that the other Synoptic expanded what he wrote. Mark
was not attempting to condense the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This idea brings Mark as the
foundation of the other two Gospels that each wrote independently of the other. Therefore, the
Gospel of Mark would be the only major written source used by Matthew and Luke. The Farrer-
Goulder Hypothesis is a relatively new theory conceived mainly with the concept that Mark was

9
Tuckett, C.M. “The Griesbach Hypothesis in the 19th Century” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (May 1979): 29.
10
Paul Foster, 2003. "Is it possible to dispense with Q?" Novum testamentum 45, no. 4: 313-337. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 22, 2009), 315-317

4
written and used by both Matthew and Luke, but the similarities unique to Matthew and Luke
was from Luke using the Gospel of Matthew as additional source material11.
1.5 General Conclusion
The above explanations are showing the problem of the Synoptic Gospel and the theories that
attempt to explain the Gospel that was first penned down.

11
John C. Poirier, “The Synoptic Problem and the Field of New Testament Introduction,” Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 32, no.2 (December 2009): 179-190