The 25 Possible Theories
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 A = Matthew, B = Mark, and C = 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 Texts Related
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:
A | B | C (1 variant)
The formula B | A | C would convey exactly the same information, so there is really only one version of this possibility. The parenthesized (1) symbolizes this fact.
- Theory #1. A | B | C [the Early 19th Century Consensus]
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 authenticity (in parallel to the situation which is said to have obtained in Roman law).
Theories #2-7: Two Texts Related
If one text is unrelated, and one of the remaining texts is derived from the other (in addition to any material taken from other sources, or invented by that author), we have
A | B > C (6 variants)
For each unrelated text A, there are two variants for the related texts, either B > C or C > B. Also, there are three options as to which text is unrelated. With two variants for each of three options, we arrive at a total of six possibilities of this type. They are:
- Theory #2. A | B > C
- Theory #3. A | C > B
- Theory #4. B | A > C
- Theory #5. B | C > A
- Theory #6. C | A > B
- Theory #7. C | B > A
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 consider only the following eighteen theories, which do meet this criterion.
Theories #8-10: Two Unrelated Derivative Texts
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):
A > B, C (3 variants)
The information conveyed by A > B, C is the same as that conveyed by A > C, B. 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 of a serious Synoptic hypothesis:
- Theory #8. A > B, C
- Theory #9. B > A, C [core of the Weisse or Two Source Hypothesis; see below]
- Theory #10. C > A, B
Theories #11-13: Two Unrelated Source Texts
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, then we would have a theory of the type:
A, B > C (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.
- Theory #11. A, B > C
- Theory #12. A, C > B
- Theory #13. B, C > A
Theories #14-19: Linear
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
A > B > C (6 variants)
Any of the three texts might be A, and once A is chosen, the only unknown is which of the remaining two shall be B. The total of theories of this type is thus six. None has any standing in contemporary scholarship as a seriously proposed Synoptic hypothesis.
- Theory #14. A > B > C
- Theory #15. A > C > B
- Theory #16. B > A > C
- Theory #17. B > C > A
- Theory #18. C > A > B
- Theory #19. C > B > A
This type differs from the previous one in that each is assumed to be aware of all its precursors. Symbolizing that cumulative knowledge by a double arrow, we have
A > B >> C (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.
- Theory #20. A > B >> C [Augustinian Hypothesis c400: Canonical order; Luke used both]
- Theory #21. A > C >> B [Griesbach Hypothesis 1783: Matthew first; Mark conflated both]
- Theory #22. B > A >> C [Farrer Hypothesis 1955: Mark first; Luke drew from both]
- Theory #23. B > C >> A [Wilke Hypothesis 1838: Mark first; Matthew drew from both]
- Theory #24. C > A >> B [Büsching Hypothesis 1766: Luke first; Mark conflated both]
- Theory #25. C > B >> A [Lockton Hypothesis 1922: Luke first; Matthew drew from both]
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, the Sayings Source) which is supposed to be of equal age and authority with Mark; it holds that both Matthew and Luke drew independently on both Mark and Q. This constitutes a variant of Theory #9, and diagrams as follows:
- Theory #9a. B, Q > A, C [Weisse 1838 or Two Source Hypothesis, 2SH]
25 basic theories may seem like a lot; even 18 theories may seem like a lot. But it is remarkable how little hard information is required to narrow the theoretically possible theories down to 1 theory.
One possible first step in winnowing the pile is to consider the Parable of the Mustard Seed:
25 Sept 2005 / Contact The Project / Exit to Synoptica Page
