Open Matthew, Mark, and Luke side by side and something becomes obvious. They frequently tell the same stories in the same sequence, use strikingly similar wording, and sometimes differ in ways that look like one author has edited another.
This is the Synoptic Problem: how are Matthew, Mark, and Luke literarily related?
The question matters because the Gospels are not four independent stenographic transcripts. Understanding their relationships helps us read them more honestly.
Why “synoptic”?
The word means “seen together.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke can be placed in parallel columns because so much material overlaps.
Examples include:
- John the Baptist;
- Jesus' baptism and temptation;
- Galilean ministry;
- controversies with religious leaders;
- Peter's confession;
- passion and crucifixion narratives.
The overlap is too extensive to explain simply by saying three people remembered the same events independently. There are long stretches of similar Greek wording and common order.
Most scholars therefore infer literary dependence in addition to shared oral tradition.
Markan priority
The dominant modern view is that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke used Mark.
Several observations support this:
- Nearly all of Mark appears in Matthew, Luke, or both.
- Matthew and Luke often agree with Mark's sequence when all three overlap.
- Mark's Greek is frequently rougher; Matthew and Luke sometimes smooth style and grammar.
- Mark often has the more difficult or potentially awkward reading that Matthew or Luke appears to clarify.
- Matthew and Luke rarely agree together on a major sequence against Mark for extended stretches.
Markan priority is not universal dogma. It is a historical-literary hypothesis, albeit the majority position.
The double tradition
Markan priority creates a second question. Matthew and Luke share substantial sayings material that is not in Mark—for example versions of the Lord's Prayer and many teachings in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain.
How did both obtain this material?
The traditional Two-Source hypothesis answers: Matthew and Luke independently used Mark plus another source, conventionally called Q.
What is Q?
“Q” comes from the German Quelle, meaning “source.”
No manuscript of Q has ever been discovered. It is a hypothetical source reconstructed from material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark.
Some scholars envision a written sayings collection. Others think “Q” may represent layers of oral and written material. Detailed reconstructions of Q can become more speculative than the basic hypothesis itself.
This distinction matters. Saying “Matthew and Luke probably shared another source” is a more modest claim than saying we can reconstruct the exact edition, community, and theology of Q with confidence.
The Two-Source hypothesis
In its classic form:
- Mark wrote first.
- Matthew used Mark.
- Luke used Mark.
- Matthew and Luke independently used Q.
- Matthew and Luke also had unique sources or traditions, often labeled M and L.
This model explains a great deal efficiently, which is why it became dominant in modern scholarship.
But it has a vulnerable point: Q is required largely because Matthew and Luke are assumed not to have used one another.
If Luke knew Matthew, much of the reason for Q disappears.
The Farrer hypothesis
The Farrer hypothesis accepts Markan priority but rejects Q.
It proposes:
- Mark wrote first.
- Matthew used Mark.
- Luke used both Mark and Matthew.
On this model, Luke's knowledge of Matthew explains the double tradition without a lost sayings source.
The Farrer view has gained significant support, particularly in English-language scholarship, though the Two-Source hypothesis remains highly influential.
The Griesbach / Two-Gospel hypothesis
Another major alternative rejects Markan priority.
In the Two-Gospel or revived Griesbach model:
- Matthew wrote first.
- Luke used Matthew.
- Mark wrote later using both Matthew and Luke.
This explains Mark as a kind of conflating or mediating Gospel rather than the primitive source.
Its advocates challenge the standard arguments for Markan priority and point to places where Mark appears secondary.
It remains a minority position, but it prevents scholars from treating Markan priority as something one can simply assume without argument.
What about oral tradition?
All major models must leave room for oral tradition.
Jesus taught in an oral culture. Sayings, parables, controversies, and passion traditions circulated before the final Gospels. Early Christian teachers repeated and adapted material in worship, preaching, catechesis, and mission.
Literary dependence therefore does not mean every similarity comes from copying a scroll in front of the author.
Does copying undermine inspiration or reliability?
No.
Luke explicitly says he knew earlier accounts and investigated traditions. Ancient historiography normally used sources. Dependence is not plagiarism in the modern sense.
The more important historical question is how sources were selected, edited, and interpreted.
Matthew intensifies certain themes. Luke arranges material around Jerusalem and salvation history. Mark uses irony, secrecy, misunderstanding, and a fast-moving narrative. Their theological shaping is real.
That does not automatically imply fabrication.
Why differences matter
Source criticism helps explain why parallel accounts differ.
If Matthew and Luke use Mark, then a difference may reflect editorial purpose rather than two independent memories colliding. For example, relocating sayings, shortening scenes, or clarifying language can be literary choices.
That means Gospel differences should not automatically be harmonized as if every evangelist intended the same chronology and level of detail.
Final Verdict
The close verbal and structural relationship among Matthew, Mark, and Luke strongly supports some form of literary dependence.
Markan priority remains the majority position. The Two-Source hypothesis explains Matthew and Luke with Mark plus Q. The Farrer hypothesis keeps Markan priority but lets Luke use Matthew. The Two-Gospel/Griesbach model places Matthew first and Mark last.
No solution has eliminated every difficulty.
The Synoptic Problem should therefore make Christian reading more precise, not more anxious. The evangelists are ancient authors who inherit, arrange, and interpret tradition. Their literary relationships are part of how the Gospel tradition came to us.
Key Sources
Primary sources
- Parallel passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
- Luke 1:1–4.
Modern scholarship
- Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze.
- Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer, eds., The Synoptic Problem: Four Views.
- John S. Kloppenborg, works on Q.
- William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem.
- Christopher Tuckett, studies of Q and Synoptic relationships.