Don Bosco Center of Studies

An Affiliate of the Salesian Pontifical University

The Synoptic Problem

and the proposed solutions

A Research Paper submitted to Fr. Celestino Lingad, SDB, SSL,

SThD

Institute of Theological Formation

In partial fulfillment of the subject BS117: Luke and Acts

By

Bro. Gino Godinez, SDB

Synoptic Problem and the Proposed Solutions
2
June 29, 2009
I. INTRODUCTION

The three Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, popularly known as

the Synoptic Gospels, vividly narrate similar facts and materials as regards
the words and deeds of Jesus Christ.1 Much of the contents found in the
three inspired literary works are so analogous to each other such that they
can be considered as being viewed “with the same eye” (syn-optic)2.
These three are in contrast to the fourth Gospel or that of any other
Gospels that were not included in the Catholic Canon.
The problem arises when several details from the said Gospels are
investigated. There are parallels as well as dissimilarities between the
three texts. There is a substantial agreement of the three Gospels in
content and in form, but there are also several notable discrepancies when
it comes to details. In present or ancient literature, no such similar
problem has been found. For a period of about seventeen centuries,
Christians were able to solve by harmonizing these seemingly contrasting
texts by simply conflating the variant details. It was only in the 18 th
century and onwards that modern critics consider the problem in a more
systematic way. Several hypotheses offer different varying solutions,
based on research, speculation, intelligent guesses, and discoveries. The
purpose of such literary criticism is to better understand the Gospels. So
far, there has not been a general agreement among the scripture scholars,
whether Catholic or not, as to the solution of the said problem.3
To go on further, the problem will be that of interrelationship. In
narrating one particular episode of Christ’s ministry, there are obvious
differences that can be subject to scrutiny and questioning as far as
precision of words is concerned. Say for example the Our Father, in the
Gospel of Matthew there are seven petitions, while in Luke, only five. In
another instance, when Jesus was sending his disciples to preach to
different peoples, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke4, Jesus forbids His
disciples to take anything with them on their journey. But in that of Mark,
He permits the bringing of a staff. These are among the examples that
cannot be disregarded as nothing. One must give importance to these
differences because to the ordinary reader, it can mislead many different
readers, scholars, or interpreters as far as exegesis and proper
interpretation are concerned, especially because they are the very words
of Christ Himself.
With this, the following questions are but natural to arise: What
accounts for the similarities and differences? Are the texts actually
interdependent? If not, then how can we explain the numerous

1
A. Robert and A. Feuillet, Introduction to the Old Testament, translated from second French edition
by Patrick W. Skehan et. al. (New York: Desclee Company, 1959), 252.
2
Felix Just. “The Synoptic Problem” [online article], file accessed on June 18, 2009; available from
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm.
3
Cf. John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1976), s.v. “Synoptic
Question”.
4
Matt 10:10 and Luke 9:3 or 10:4, The New American Bible
Synoptic Problem and the Proposed Solutions
3
agreements? On the other hand, how do we account the additions,
omissions, and seemingly different narrations in the aforementioned
Gospels?5
II. AGREEMENTS AND DISAGREEMENTS
The Synoptic Gospels have general agreements in literary structure.
They agree inasmuch as they present quite similar frameworks6:
Matthew Mark Luke
Preliminaries 3:1 – 4:11 1:1-13 3:1 – 4:13
Galilean Ministry 4:12 – 18:35 1:14 – 9:50 4:14 – 9:50
Journey to 19 – 20 10 9:51 – 19:28
Jerusalem
Ministry in 21 – 25 11 – 13 19:29 – 21:38
Jerusalem
Passion 26 – 27 14 – 15 22 – 23
Resurrection 28 16 24
These agreements, however, are found amidst disagreements or
divergences. For example Luke places the call of the disciples after the
first preaching of Jesus at Capernaum (Lk 5:1-11), and Mark places it
before (1:16-20). In another instance, Mark places the rejection of Jesus at
Nazareth at the conclusion of the Galilean ministry (Mk 6:1-6), while Luke
situates it at the start (Lk 4:16-30).
Variations in texts found in the Synoptics can be classified into three
and scripture scholars agree on this.7 The first is the Triple Tradition, or
those that are commonly found in all three Gospels, or also known as
Marcan traditions. It is basic to note that Mark occupies a middle ground
between the other two Synoptics. Second, those found only in Matthew
and Luke are called the Double Tradition. Finally, those that are contained
in one of the three Synoptics are called Simple Traditions.

III. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS8

A. ORAL TRADITION
It is universally admitted that oral tradition is a significant factor in
the formation of the Gospels. This simply tells that before the Gospels
were written down, the stories were first proclaimed by the evangelists
and disciples by word of mouth. Somehow, this offers a simple explanation
as regards the divergences of the Gospel details since the evangelists,
understandably, preach to different audiences with different exigencies
and contexts. But it fails to account for the disagreements. Hence, this
cannot be a general solution to the Synoptic problem.
B. LITERARY INTERDEPENDENCE
5
Some of these questions are from A. Robert and A. Feuillet, Introduction to the Old Testament, 253.
6
Cf. table found in R. Brown, J. A. Fitzmayer, and R. E. Murphy, The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary, 588.
7
A. Robert and A. Feuillet, Introduction to the Old Testament, 252; and Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A.
Fitzmayer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.,
1990), 588.
8
The outline of this part is borrowed from McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “Synoptic Question”;
please refer to the illustrations of some of these solutions found in page 5 of this paper.
Synoptic Problem and the Proposed Solutions
4
Since the 18th century, among the classic hypotheses that belong to
this category are (a) the Augustinian hypothesis, (b) the Griesbach Theory,
or the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, and (c) the Farrer Theory, or that which
posits Markan Priority.
i. Augustinian hypothesis. This theory, which was espoused by the
Augustinians, follows the traditional chronological order of the
Gospels. It posits the idea that Matthew is the source of both
Luke and Mark, and Luke is dependent to both Matthew and
Mark.
ii. Two-Gospel Hypothesis or Griesbach Theory. This assumes the
priority of Matthew over the other Gospels; both Mark and Luke
depend on Matthew, and Mark depends on both.
iii. Farrer Theory and Markan Priority. This supports the idea that
Mark is independent of Matthew and Luke, and that the latter
use Mark as their source.
Aside from the abovementioned, there is also the theory of an original
written gospel (Protevangel)9, in Hebrew or Aramaic. This is supposedly a
primitive gospel that influenced the canonical Gospels and is not identical
with any of them. There was also Schleiermacher’s fragment hypothesis,
which came out in 1818: “…[it] explained the interrelationships of the
gospels as due to the use by the evangelists of similar and dissimilar
collections of material10.” However, both suggestions proved less
conclusive in that there was little help that they offered in explaining the
differences and similarities.
C. DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS
i. Two-Document Hypothesis
The most popular hypothesis in the 19th century has been the Two-
Document Hypothesis,” proposed by by J. Weiss. According to this, Mark
was the first Gospel and it came from the original oral gospel. Together
with Mark, there is a collection of sayings (Logia) of Jesus, already
mentioned by Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in 130 A.D., which is called
the Q–document.11 The principal sources of both Matthew and Luke were
Mark and Q. Modern biblical scholars, however, have never reached a
consensus as regards the existence of the Q–document.
ii. Four-Document Hypothesis
This is a modification of the Two-Document hypothesis of Weiss. The
scholar B. Streeter, in 1924, expanded the number of sources, instead of
only two. This theory states that the four original sources were Mark, M, L,
and Q. Matthew used Mark, M, and Q, while Luke used Mark, L, and Q.

IV. CONCLUSION

9
George Arthur Buttrick, et. al., eds, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated
Encylopedia, Vol. 4. (Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1962), s.v. “Synoptic problem”.
10
Buttrick, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “Synoptic problem”.
11
Q stands for the German word quelle, which means source; cf. Dennis Bratcher, “The Gospels and
the Synoptic Problem: The Literary Relationship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke”, article accessed from the
internet on June 18, 2009; available from http://www.crivoice.org/synoptic.html.; and Buttrick, The Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “Synoptic problem”.
Synoptic Problem and the Proposed Solutions
5
Since the start of the historical-critical method of trying to explain
and interpret Sacred Scripture, there has not been any success in arriving
at a consensus solution to the synoptic problem. Scholars could only do as
Mt
much as they can. These proposed solutions to the synoptic problem are
not supposed
Mk to blur theLktruth in the Sacred Scripture.
Mk Indeed,
Q there is
much promise and hope since the goal of such an endeavor is nothing but
to better understand and interpret the Word of God, the Sacred Scripture.
ILLUSTRATIONS Mt Lk
A. AugustinianMtHypothesis: C. Markan Priority
Mk Lk

D. Two-Document Hypothesis
M Mk Q L

B. Two-GospelMk
Hypothesis
Mt Lk Mt Lk

E. Four- Document Hypothesis

BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Jerusalem Bible

The New American Bible

Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels in The Jerusalem Bible.

Brown, Raymond E., Joseph A. Fitzmayer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds. The New Jerome
Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1990; reprint, Bangalore:
Theological Publications in India, 2007.

Buttrick, George Arthur, et. al., eds. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated
Encylopedia. Vol. 4. Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1962.

McKenzie, John L. Dictionary of the Bible. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1976; reprint,
Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1998.

Robert, A. and A. Feuillet. Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated from second French
edition by Patrick W. Skehan et. al. New York: Desclee Company, 1959.

Internet Sources:
Synoptic Problem and the Proposed Solutions
6
Bratcher, Dennis. “The Gospels and the Synoptic Problem: The Literary Relationship of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke”, article accessed from the internet on June 18, 2009;
available from http://www.crivoice.org/synoptic.html.

Just, Felix. “The Synoptic Problem” [online article], file accessed on June 18, 2009; available
from http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm.