Summary
The goal of the Synoptic Problem is to analyze the literary connections between the first three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—collectively referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. There is a search for the honest Jesus, an attempt to distinguish the Jesus of the Gospels from another possible historical person. Walter notes the shift from traditional beliefs to critical methods since the Enlightenment and examines the philosophical and historical contexts that shape understanding of the New Testament. This covers form criticism, hermeneutics, textual and redaction criticism, and more recent theories like structuralism. Walter discusses the skepticism of supernatural components and the search for the honest Jesus.
In exploring the Synoptic Problem, Wayne draws attention to the remarkable linguistic agreements and structural similarities among the Synoptic Gospels. It is particularly noticeable when contrasted with the original Greek—these parallels prompt questions about the sources’ reliability and the writers’ collaboration. Wayne examines several theories put forward to explain these connections. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are suggested to be read in order under the Augustinian Hypothesis.
According to the Griesbach or Two-Gospel Hypothesis, Mark was written after Matthew and Luke; the Two-Source Hypothesis suggests Mark and a possible “Q” source. The Farrer Hypothesis looks at Mark first, then Matthew and Luke, while the Four-Source Hypothesis includes particular sources for Matthew (‘M’) and Luke (‘L’). Every theory aims to explain the distinctive combination of parallels and divergences found in the Synoptic Gospels. The difficulty is in elucidating the differences and similarities between the content and organization of each Gospel. The intricacy of biblical texts and the variety of approaches scholars take to decipher their meanings and origins are reflected in this ongoing dispute.
Application
The Farrer Hypothesis, which holds that Mark’s Gospel was written first, followed by Matthew and Luke, is the theory I have chosen to apply the Synoptic Problem ideas. According to this theory, Matthew and Luke each used Mark as a source, with Luke also using Matthew. Unlike other hypotheses, the Farrer Hypothesis does not depend on a fictitious “Q” document, which makes it a more straightforward and economical explanation. To test this hypothesis, specific instances from the Synoptic Gospels will be scrutinized, with an emphasis on their narrative, thematic organization, and textual content.
First of all, the Synoptics’ chronological account and thematic presentations offer important supporting evidence. Jesus’ baptism is one famous instance. Mark provides a clear and concise account. Although the stories are similar, Matthew’s version goes beyond Mark’s account by emphasizing Jesus’ goodness and including details such as John the Baptist’s initial refusal to baptize him.
While Luke’s story is identical to Mark’s, it omits the dialogue Matthew includes—possibly to make the story flow more smoothly. According to the Farrer Hypothesis, this trajectory from Mark through Matthew to Luke illustrates how later Gospel writers altered earlier narratives for narrative or theological reasons.
An additional noteworthy occurrence is the feeding of the 5000. Mark’s story establishes a succinct and unambiguous standard. The striking similarity between Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts points to a direct dependence. While following the same fundamental scenario, Luke’s narrative provides distinctive elements, such as the location (Bethsaida), not in Mark but keeping with Luke’s greater geographical emphasis. This sequence of events indicates once more that Luke consulted Mark and Matthew.
Additionally, the way Old Testament allusions and citations are handled lends credence to the Farrer Hypothesis. For example, all three of the Synoptics mention Zechariah 9:9 in the story of Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem. Mark provides less context when introducing the quotation.
By clearly declaring the fulfillment of prophecy, Matthew builds upon this and strengthens the messianic theme. Luke, though employing similar phrasing, omits the exact quote, perhaps to focus on the current story. This divergence in the application of Old Testament allusions is consistent with Matthew and Luke building on Mark’s outline separately.
The Farrer Hypothesis is further illustrated by how Jesus’ teachings are handled. The Sermon on the Plain, alongside the Sermon on the Mount, has comparable substance, but they are presented and placed differently. Building on Mark’s more direct instructions, Matthew’s version is longer and more organized, indicating a more intentional writing effort. Luke quotes Matthew’s beatitudes but places them in a new context and makes some changes, indicating that he used both Mark and Matthew as sources while making his own editorial choices.
The literary connections between the Synoptic Gospels are explained in a clear and cogent manner by the Farrer Hypothesis. The idea of literary dependence in the sequence of Mark, Matthew, and Luke is supported by the progression from Mark’s more condensed accounts to Matthew’s extended versions, and finally to Luke’s distinctive adaptations. This idea explains the similarities and differences between the Synoptic Gospels without requiring the existence of a hypothetical “Q” text. The examples given show how this theory provides a convincing framework for comprehending the interdependence of the evidence found in the Synoptic texts and effectively explains it.
Bibliography
Elwell, Walter A., and Robert W. Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament (Encountering Biblical Studies): A Historical and Theological Survey. 3rd ed. Baker Books, 2013.
The University of Iowa. “Jesus’s Triumphal Entry: A Well-Orchestrated Mock Coronation.” Bible & Archaeology, 2022.
Wayne Stacy, Robert. “The Synoptic Problem.” Video. Liberty University Canvas, 2024.
Wayne Stacy, Robert. “Which Jesus?.” Video. Liberty University Canvas, 2024.