The Synoptic Problem

Introduction

The Synoptic Problem refers to questions about the literary relationship between the first three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—which share substantial similarities in content, order, and wording. These three are called "synoptic" (from Greek syn "together" and opsis "view") because they can be viewed side by side, revealing their striking parallels.

While many assume the Gospels were written independently, textual evidence strongly suggests direct literary dependence. This page explores the evidence for copying between the synoptic Gospels and explains the leading scholarly solution: that Mark was written first, with Matthew and Luke independently using Mark as a source, along with other shared material.

The Evidence

Shared Content and Order

The synoptic Gospels share remarkable similarities that cannot be explained by chance:

• Matthew contains about 90% of Mark's content Of Mark's 678 verses, approximately 600 appear in Matthew, often with the same wording and frequently in the same order.
• Luke contains about 50% of Mark's content Luke incorporates roughly 350 of Mark's verses, generally maintaining Mark's chronological structure despite adding significant unique material.
• The "Triple Tradition" (material in all three Gospels) follows the same basic sequence in all three
• Even when Matthew and Luke rearrange Mark's sequence, they rarely agree against Mark in their rearrangements This pattern (Matthew and Luke rarely agreeing when they diverge from Mark) strongly suggests they used Mark independently rather than each other.

Matthew	Mark	Luke	Event
8.1-4	1.40-45	5.12-16	Leper
9.1-8	2.1-12	5.17-26	Paralytic
9.9-13	2.13-17	5.27-32	Call of Levi/Matthew
9.14-17	2.18-22	5.33-39	Fasting, New Wine, Patches
12.1-8	2.23-28	6.1-5	Plucking Grain on the Sabbath
12.9-14	3.1-6	6.6-11	Man with Withered Hand
10.1-4	3.13-19	6.12-16	Choosing of the Twelve
12.46-50	3.31-35	8.19-21	Jesus' Mother and Brothers
13.1-23	4.1-20	8.4-15	Parable of the Sower
8.23-27	4.35-41	8.22-25	Calming of the Storm
8.28-34	5.1-20	8.26-39	Gerasene Demoniac
9.18-26	5.21-43	8.40-56	Jairus's Daughter and Woman
14.13-21	6.30-44	9.10-17	Feeding of Five Thousand
16.13-20	8.27-30	9.18-21	Peter's Confession
17.1-8	9.2-8	9.28-36	Transfiguration
17.14-20	9.14-29	9.37-43	Epileptic Boy
19.13-15	10.13-16	18.15-17	Little Children
19.16-30	10.17-31	18.18-30	Rich Young Ruler
20.29-34	10.46-52	18.35-43	Blind Bartimaeus
21.1-9	11.1-10	19.28-38	Triumphal Entry
21-28	11-16	20-24	Passion Narrative

This consistent sequence continues through approximately 70 pericopae through Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection. Such close sequential agreement is statistically impossible without literary dependence. Scholars have calculated that the probability of such sequential agreement occurring by chance is less than one in a billion, making literary dependence the only plausible explanation.

Verbatim Agreement

Perhaps the most compelling evidence comes from the exact Greek wording shared between Gospels:

• In multiple passages, the three Gospels use identical Greek phrases and sentences
• Even when translating Aramaic sayings of Jesus into Greek, they frequently use the same vocabulary and syntax
• The agreement often includes unusual or distinctive words or phrases unlikely to occur independently

The Two-Source Theory

Evidence for Markan Priority

• Mark is shorter (16 chapters vs. Matthew's 28 and Luke's 24)
• Mark's Greek is rougher with more Aramaic expressions (e.g., "Talitha koum" 5:41)
• Matthew and Luke improve Mark's style when copying (e.g., Mark's "evening came, when the sun had set" becomes "when evening came" in Matthew)
• Mark includes details that Matthew and Luke omit (e.g., Jesus' family thinking he was "out of his mind" in 3:21)
• When Matthew and Luke differ from Mark, they rarely agree with each other

The Q Source

Evidence for this lost document:

• Matthew and Luke share ~235 verses not found in Mark
• These passages show near-verbatim agreement in Greek
• Content is primarily teachings (Beatitudes, Lord's Prayer, etc.)

Content Type	Mark	Q
Narrative focus	Jesus' actions, miracles, passion	Jesus' teachings and sayings
Estimated date	65-70 CE	50-65 CE
Current status	Extant	Reconstructed from Matthew/Luke agreements

Detailed Examples of Literary Dependence

1. Editorial Asides

The Gospels sometimes contain editorial comments directed at readers. When these appear in identical places with the same wording, they demonstrate copying.

2. Triple Tradition with Minor Agreements

In triple tradition passages, Matthew and Luke occasionally share small changes to Mark's text, suggesting possible contact or a more complex relationship:

3. Identical Narrative Structure

The synoptic Gospels often follow exactly the same narrative structure in extended passages:

Alternative Theories

Theory	Sequence	Key Points	Main Weakness
Farrer Hypothesis	Mark → Matthew → Luke	Luke used both Mark and Matthew; eliminates need for Q	Why would Luke rearrange Matthew's order of material?
Griesbach (Two-Gospel) Hypothesis	Matthew → Luke → Mark	Mark abbreviated and combined Matthew and Luke	Why would Mark create rougher Greek from more polished sources?
Augustinian Hypothesis	Matthew → Mark → Luke	Traditional view; follows canonical order	Doesn't explain agreement patterns between gospels

Conclusion

The evidence for literary dependence among the synoptic Gospels is conclusive:

• Identical phrasing and sequence that cannot be explained by chance
• Editorial patterns showing later gospels improving earlier material
• Common patterns of addition, omission and modification

The Two-Source Theory (Mark written first, with Matthew and Luke independently using Mark and Q) best explains the evidence. Understanding these relationships reveals how the gospels were carefully crafted literary works developed within early Christian communities, each with distinct theological perspectives on Jesus.