Synoptic Problem
The 25 Possible Theories

Austin Farrer (See Theory #22, Below)

The Synoptic Problem, as it is usually posed, is to determine the nature and direction of literary relationships among the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Ignoring any conjectural texts which a given Synoptic theory may also posit, there are only 25 ways in which the three entities themselves can be related. There are thus 25 fundamentally different Synoptic theories. We list all of them here. For compactness, we substitute Mt = Matthew, Mk = Mark, and Lk = Luke. For further information on which Synoptic theories have actually been advocated, and by whom, see the web page of Stephen Carlson.

Theory #1: No Gospels

This used to be the most widely held view of the Synoptics. If we wall off unrelated texts by a vertical line, we get this symbolism:

Mt | Mk | Lk (1 variant)

The formulas Mk | Mt | Lk and Mk | Lk | Mt (and so on) would convey exactly the same information, so there is really only one version of this possibility.

The dominant early 19th century view was that the Synoptics independently attested Jesus's career, hence the phrase "Triple Tradition" for the material common to all three. The implication was that three independent witnesses were sufficient to establish truth (in parallel to the situation which is said to have obtained in Roman law). That inherited supposition still underlies some NT thinking.

Theories #2-7: Only Two Gospels Related

If one text is unrelated, and one of the remaining texts is derived from the other (in addition to any material taken from additional sources, or invented by that author), we have the form:

Mt | Mk> Lk (6 variants)

There are three options for which text is unrelated to the others, and for each of those options, there are two ways in which the remaining texts can be ordered. There are thus six possibilities of this type:

None of these has ever been seriously proposed as a Synoptic hypothesis. For that matter, none of the first seven theories here presented fits the Synoptic Problem as usually defined, since that Problem assumes some connection of each Synoptic with at least one of the others. For this reason, most lists of Synoptic theories contain only the following eighteen theories, which do meet this criterion.

Theories #8-10: Two Derivative Gospels, Themselves Unrelated

If one of the three texts is early, and the other two both derive from it, but independently of each other, we have the following pattern (where the comma suggests "and" but does not imply any relation between the two texts which it separates):

Mt > Mk, Lk (3 variants)

The information conveyed by the formula Mt > Mk, Lk is the same as that conveyed by Mt > Lk, Mk. That is, once our early text is identified, all else is automatic. There are three choices for the early text, so that we have in all three possibilities of this type. One of them is the core, though not the entirety, of a serious Synoptic hypothesis:

Theories #11-13: Two Unrelated Early Gospels

Conversely, if there were two early texts, each unaware of the other, and a third text which was derived from both of them, whether by abridgement, conflation, or expansion, we would have a theory of the type:

Mt, Mk > Lk (3 variants)

Once we choose which text is last, the rest of the pattern is entirely determined. There are thus three distinctive theories of this type. None has been seriously proposed as a Synoptic hypothesis.

Theories #14-19: Linear Relation Among Three Gospels

We might have a situation where there is an early, a middle, and a late text, and where each text after the first is aware only of the one directly preceding it. This gives the linear arrangement

Mt> Mk > Lk (6 variants)

Any of the three texts might be first, and once that text is determined, the only unknown is which of the remaining two shall be second. The total number of theories of this type is thus six. None has any standing in contemporary scholarship as a seriously proposed Synoptic hypothesis.

Theories #20-25: Cumulative Relation Amont Three Gospels

This type differs from the previous one in that each Gospel is assumed to be aware of all its precursors. Symbolizing that cumulative knowledge by a double arrow (>>), we have

Mt > Mk >> Lk (6 variants)

All theories of this type have at one time or another been offered as possible Synoptic hypotheses. Of the six, only Theories #20-22 are significantly supported in current scholarship.

The Griesbach hypothesis is sometimes called the Two Gospel Hypothesis (2GH). It implicitly posits two Gospels, Matthew and Luke, as the earliest sources for the Historical Jesus.

This completes the survey of theoretically possible pure Synoptic theories; those involving no conjectural sources. The view most widely held at present posits a fourth source (Q or Quelle, sometimes called the Sayings Source) which is supposed to be of equal age and authority with Mark (some would say, of greater age and authority). It holds that Matthew and Luke drew independently on both Mark and Q. This constitutes a variant of Theory #9, and diagrams as follows:

The Weisse hypothesis implicitly posits two texts (not two Gospels), Mark and Q, as the earliest sources for the Historical Jesus. The recent tendency has been to date Q considerably before Mark, making it alone the primary source for the origins of Christianity.

Twenty-five basic theories may seem like a lot; even eighteen theories may seem like a lot. But it is remarkable how little hard information is required to narrow down the theoretical possibilities. For example, given that all three are literarily related, and thus excluding solutions #1-7, then if Matthew, the first canonically, is also the first historically, only the seven theories in the range #8-25 which have Mt in (or tied for) first position survive as tenable. Those theories are #8, 11-12, 14-15, and 20-21.

There are two paths that might be taken at this point. One is the large path: determining the time sequence of the Synoptic Gospels as whole texts, irrespective of any literary relationship among them. This is the Trajectory argument. The other is the small path: considering the directionality, and thus the literary relationship, of parallel passages. Results gained from either exploration must eventually be complemented or confirmed by results from the other. We consider that the large-scale Trajectory argument is the more reliable, and recommend starting there.

Back to the Synoptic Problem Index Page

25 Sept 2005 / Contact The Project / Exit to Biblica Page