The Synoptic Problem and Literary Relationships (Matthew–Mark–Luke)

Why this matters

Before we compare the portraits of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we need to understand how these Gospels are literarily related. They frequently tell the same stories in similar words and similar order, yet with distinctive emphases. This overlap creates what scholars call the Synoptic Problem: How do we account for the striking agreements and the meaningful differences among the first three Gospels?

In this article you will: (1) learn the main data any solution must explain, (2) survey the leading hypotheses (Markan priority and the Two-Source Hypothesis, Farrer, and Griesbach), (3) practice tools for reading synoptically (triple/double tradition, editorial fatigue, redactional tendencies), and (4) see why the answer is not mere trivia but changes how you interpret pericopes, compare Christologies, and evaluate theological intent (Brown, 1997; Stein, 2001; Sanders & Davies, 1989).

Learning outcomes (with brief explanations)

• Define the Synoptic Problem and the core data.
  You’ll be able to describe triple tradition (material shared by all three), double tradition (Matthew–Luke without Mark), and each evangelist’s special material (M, L), plus the phenomena of verbal agreement and order (Sanders & Davies, 1989).

• Explain the rationale for Markan priority.
  You’ll know why most scholars think Mark was written first and used by Matthew and Luke (brevity, rougher Greek, harder readings, patterns of dependence), and what “editorial fatigue” reveals (Stein, 2001; Goodacre, 1998, 2002).

• Compare major hypotheses.
  Two-Source (Mark + Q), Farrer (Mark → Matthew → Luke), and Griesbach (Matthean priority) each address the data differently (Streeter, 1924; Goodacre, 2002; Dungan, 1999).

• Use synoptic tools in exegesis.
  You’ll consult a synopsis, recognize redactional moves (additions, omissions, recontextualizations), and name how literary relationships inform theological reading (Brown, 1997; Sanders & Davies, 1989).

1) The Synoptic “Problem”: What must we explain?

1.1 The basic overlap and difference

• Triple tradition: A substantial core (e.g., John the Baptist, baptism/temptation, Galilean ministry, passion narrative) appears in all three Gospels, often in similar sequence and similar phrasing.

• Double tradition: Around 200–250 verses occur in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark (e.g., the Lord’s Prayer, Beatitudes/Woes, many sayings), usually with high verbal agreement yet placed in different narrative settings (Sanders & Davies, 1989).

• Special material: Matthew’s M (e.g., Magi, Peter walking on water), Luke’s L (e.g., Good Samaritan, Prodigal Son) (Brown, 1997).

These facts imply some kind of literary relationship (direct use or shared sources). The question is which direction(s) and what sources.

1.2 Kinds of agreement

• Agreement in wording: Sometimes the Greek is nearly identical across Gospels, far beyond what independent oral tradition would likely yield.

• Agreement in order: The sequence of episodes is often (not always) similar, suggesting one or more writers followed the narrative arrangement of another.

• Agreement in parenthetical asides: Small editorial notes (e.g., explanations of Aramaic, geography) show patterns of borrowing (Stein, 2001; Sanders & Davies, 1989).

1.3 Kinds of difference

• Omission/condensation: Matthew/Luke often shorten or smooth Markan stories.

• Expansion: Matthew adds teaching blocks; Luke adds hymnic material and travel narrative.

• Theological/Christological framing: Matthew emphasizes fulfillment and ecclesial concerns; Luke accentuates the Spirit, prayer, and the marginalized; Mark highlights secrecy, conflict, and costly discipleship (Brown, 1997; Stein, 2001).

Takeaway: Any good solution must explain why the agreements are so specific and how the differences arise systematically.

2) Markan Priority: Why most scholars think Mark wrote first

2.1 The brevity and roughness of Mark

Mark is the shortest Gospel. Where parallel stories exist, Matthew and/or Luke often expand Mark with additional dialogue, Scripture citations, or narrative smoothing (e.g., the healing of the paralytic, the Gerasene demoniac). Mark’s Greek is rougher (more Semitic turns of phrase, historical presents, redundancies); Matthew/Luke usually improve the style (Stein, 2001). If Matthew wrote first, it is harder to explain why Mark would abbreviate Matthean sermons while adding awkward wording (Stein, 2001; Sanders & Davies, 1989).

2.2 The principle of the “harder reading”

Mark often presents the more difficult version (e.g., Jesus’s emotion as anger/indignation in Mark 1:41; the puzzling comment about Jesus and his family in 3:21; the enigmatic ending at 16:8). Matthew and Luke tend to soften or clarify. On standard text-critical logic, the harder form is more likely earlier, with later writers smoothing or harmonizing (Stein, 2001; Brown, 1997).

2.3 Editorial fatigue (a key diagnostic)

“Editorial fatigue” occurs when a later evangelist begins to adapt a source but reverts to the source’s details partway through—evidence of dependence.

• Example (Matthew on Mark 6:14–29 // Matt 14:1–12): Matthew reworks Mark’s Herod “king”/“tetrarch” usage, initially calling him “tetrarch,” but later slips into “king,” reflecting Mark’s wording—a sign Matthew used Mark (Goodacre, 1998).

• Example (Luke on Mark 8:27–30 // Luke 9:18–21): Luke omits Mark’s setting at Caesarea Philippi, yet later alludes to details that only make best sense if Mark’s locale stands in the background (Goodacre, 1998).

These and similar instances accumulate to a strong case that Matthew and Luke used Mark (Stein, 2001; Goodacre, 1998, 2002).

Interim conclusion: Markan priority best explains the pattern of expansions, stylistic improvements, harmonizations, and editorial fatigue (Stein, 2001; Sanders & Davies, 1989).

3) What about Matthew–Luke overlap without Mark? (The “Q” question)

3.1 The Two-Source Hypothesis (2SH)

The most widely taught model is the Two-Source Hypothesis:

• Step 1: Matthew and Luke independently used Mark.

• Step 2: For the double tradition (Matthew/Luke but not Mark), they drew on a shared sayings source called Q (from Quelle, “source”).

• Step 3: Each also used special material (M or L) (Streeter, 1924; Sanders & Davies, 1989).

Why propose Q? Because many Matt–Luke sayings agree closely in Greek wording but appear in different contexts, suggesting shared written material rather than mutual copying (Kloppenborg, 1987; Tuckett, 1996).

3.2 What is Q supposed to be?

In mainstream reconstructions, Q is a collection of sayings (and some narrative frames like the temptation) focused on Jesus’s teaching—kingdom, discipleship, wisdom, eschatology—largely without passion narrative. Scholars like Kloppenborg argue Q likely developed in layers (sapiential core; apocalyptic additions) reflecting the community’s teaching needs (Kloppenborg, 1987; Tuckett, 1996).

3.3 Strengths and questions

• Strengths:

  • Explains high verbal agreement in double tradition without requiring Luke to know Matthew directly.

  • Accounts for different placements of the same sayings (Sermon on the Mount vs. Plain; mission discourse) by supposing each evangelist arranged Q material to fit his narrative theology (Streeter, 1924; Sanders & Davies, 1989).

• Questions:

  • No manuscript of Q has been found; reconstructions vary.

  • Some minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark within triple tradition suggest at least some Matthew–Luke knowledge (Goodacre, 2002).

  • The coherence of a sayings-only Q without passion narrative is debated (Dungan, 1999; Goodacre, 2002).

Balanced view: Q remains a plausible scholarly construct that parsimoniously explains much double tradition, even though it is hypothetical (Kloppenborg, 1987; Tuckett, 1996; Brown, 1997).

4) Alternatives to Q

4.1 The Farrer Hypothesis (Mark → Matthew → Luke)

The Farrer (or Mark-without-Q) model argues that Luke used both Mark and Matthew, eliminating the need for a hypothetical Q. Key arguments:

• Minor agreements: Dozens of places where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in triple-tradition passages (e.g., small word choices during the passion narrative) suggest Luke sometimes had Matthew’s text in view.

• Compositional economy: Luke, as a skilled compiler (cf. Luke 1:1–4), could have merged Matthew’s discourses and Mark’s narrative, rearranging to fit his theology (Goodacre, 2002).

• Editorial fatigue patterns: Cases where Luke seems to begin with Matthew’s wording and then revert toward Mark (or vice versa) can be read as signs of dual dependence (Goodacre, 1998, 2002).

Strength: Avoids positing a lost document and explains minor agreements directly.
Question: Can Luke’s non-Matthean order (e.g., dispersing Sermon on the Mount material) be fully explained if he had Matthew on his desk? Advocates say yes: Luke’s travel narrative (Luke 9:51–19:27) functions as a theological frame for redistributed sayings (Goodacre, 2002).

4.2 The Griesbach (Two-Gospel) Hypothesis (Matthew → Luke → Mark)

An older minority view holding Matthew first, Luke uses Matthew, and Mark abbreviates both. Proponents appeal to the majesty of Matthew’s discourse structure and to patristic hints of Matthean priority. Critics reply that Mark’s rougher style and harder readings make it unlikely he contracted Matthew and Luke while creating difficulty and losing beloved Matthean material like the infancy narratives and Sermon on the Mount (Stein, 2001; Dungan, 1999).

5) Data in motion: Worked examples you can test

5.1 The healing of Jairus’s daughter and the hemorrhaging woman (Mark 5:21–43 // Matt 9:18–26 // Luke 8:40–56)

• Mark’s hallmark “sandwich.” Mark intercalates stories (Jairus → hemorrhaging woman → Jairus). Matthew condenses, reducing detail, and drops Mark’s vivid touches (e.g., many physicians, long suffering). Luke keeps more detail but improves style and clarifies chronology (Brown, 1997; Stein, 2001).

• Interpretive payoff: If Matthew/Luke used Mark, their redaction highlights distinct emphases: Matthew concentrates on authority and faith, Luke foregrounds social restoration and the value of women within Jesus’s ministry.

5.2 The Beelzebul controversy (Mark 3:20–30 // Matt 12:22–32 // Luke 11:14–23)

• Order and wording: Matthew and Luke share common sayings (double tradition) but use Mark’s framework in different places. Compare Matt 12 and Luke 11: Luke detaches the controversy from the earlier Markan sequence and later adds Q-like sayings (if one posits Q), or he may be reshaping Matthew (if one adopts Farrer) (Sanders & Davies, 1989; Goodacre, 2002).

• Interpretive payoff: Recognizing re-location cautions us not to over-theologize geography; the point of the pericope (kingdom conflict; unity of Christ’s work) remains central in each redaction.

5.3 The eschatological discourse (Mark 13 // Matt 24–25 // Luke 21)

• Mark’s dark, urgent frame is elaborated by Matthew into two chapters with parables (ten virgins; talents) and final judgment. Luke historicizes some elements (e.g., Jerusalem’s siege) and pastoralizes the exhortations for his audience (Brown, 1997; Stein, 2001).

• Interpretive payoff: If Matthew builds on Mark, his eschatology of vigilance and ethical accountability is a theological expansion rather than a contradiction.

6) Sources and memory: Where written and oral tradition meet

Even if Matthew and Luke used Mark and perhaps other written sources, they also drew from living oral tradition—stories told, taught, and remembered in churches (Dunn, 2003). This helps explain:

• Variant settings for sayings: Oral tradition often recontextualizes wise maxims for new teaching moments.

• Blocks of teaching: Matthew’s discourses may collect scattered sayings into pedagogical units (Sermon on the Mount), akin to rabbinic anthologizing.

• Stability + flexibility: Core stories remain stable; surface features show adaptation for audience and purpose (Dunn, 2003; Brown, 1997).

Student note: Literary dependence and oral tradition are both at work. Avoid false either/ors.

7) Patristic voices: What did early Christians think?

Papias (early second century, known through Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39) reports that Mark wrote from Peter’s preaching “not in order,” while Matthew composed the sayings (logia) “in the Hebrew dialect.” Interpreting Papias is complex: “not in order” may mean rhetorical rather than chronological ordering; “Hebrew” could mean Hebrew or Aramaic; and the “sayings” could refer to a Matthew-like source or to Matthew’s Gospel itself (Eusebius, trans. 1999; Brown, 1997; Dungan, 1999). Patristic data inform but do not settle the question; they remind us that the Synoptics grew from apostolic testimony and catechetical use.

8) How literary relationships shape interpretation (why this isn’t mere trivia)

• Historical confidence with theological nuance.
  If Mark is earliest and Matthew/Luke develop Mark, then we can track how Christological titles, fulfillment formulas, and ethical instruction are framed by each evangelist. Differences often reflect theological aims, not contradictions (Brown, 1997; Stein, 2001).

• Reading sequences and settings.
  Double-tradition sayings appear in different narrative contexts. If Luke relocates Matthean material (Farrer) or both draw on Q and arrange differently (2SH), either way your exegesis should ask: How does this evangelist’s setting shape the meaning? (Sanders & Davies, 1989; Goodacre, 2002; Kloppenborg, 1987).

• Respect for each Gospel’s voice.
  A synopsis is a tool, not a blender. After comparing parallels, return to the final form of each Gospel and let its structure speak (e.g., Matthew’s five discourses, Luke’s travel narrative, Mark’s apocalyptic tension) (Stein, 2001).

9) Practical toolbox: How to work with the Synoptics week-to-week

• Use a synopsis.
  Read the pericope in three columns. Mark verbal agreements in bold, differences in italics. Note order changes. Ask, “Which direction of dependence best explains these patterns?” (Sanders & Davies, 1989).

• Spot redactional tendencies.

  • Matthew: fulfillment citations (“that it might be fulfilled”), kingdom ethics, ecclesial concerns, Peter’s prominence.

  • Luke: the poor/outcast, prayer, the Spirit, universal scope, table fellowship.

  • Mark: urgency (euthys), secrecy motif, conflict, apocalyptic edge (Stein, 2001; Brown, 1997).

• Watch for editorial fatigue.
  When an evangelist begins changing a detail but later reverts to the source’s version, mark it. It’s a clue to literary dependence (Goodacre, 1998).

• Classify the tradition type.
  Is this triple, double, or special material? If double, decide whether your exegesis assumes Q (and reconstructs its voice) or assumes Luke knew Matthew (and comments on Luke’s reshaping) (Kloppenborg, 1987; Goodacre, 2002).

• Keep oral tradition in view.
  Leave room for flexible performance—some differences may reflect how sayings were retold (Dunn, 2003).

10) Guided recap (bulleted with short explanations)

• The Synoptic Problem is about literary dependence, not “who copied homework.”
  The Gospels are theological biographies that responsibly shaped inherited tradition for distinct audiences (Burridge’s genre insight supports this framing, even if not central to the problem) (Brown, 1997; Stein, 2001).

• Markan priority best explains rougher style, harder readings, and fatigue.
  Matthew/Luke tend to expand and smooth Mark; where they diverge, you can often detect editorial fingerprints (Stein, 2001; Goodacre, 1998, 2002).

• Two-Source vs. Farrer is a live debate.
  2SH posits a Q source to explain double tradition; Farrer posits Luke’s knowledge of Matthew to avoid hypothetical documents. Both explain much of the data, and each faces trade-offs (Streeter, 1924; Kloppenborg, 1987; Goodacre, 2002).

• Griesbach has elegant simplicity but struggles with Mark’s profile.
  Explaining why Mark would contract Matthew/Luke and create harder readings is difficult (Stein, 2001; Dungan, 1999).

• Interpretive payoff:
  Knowing who depends on whom clarifies why an evangelist adds a fulfillment citation, reorders sayings, or frames eschatology differently. It pushes you to read each Gospel’s final form with historical sensitivity and theological depth (Brown, 1997; Sanders & Davies, 1989).

11) Practice exercises (apply and argue)

1. Beatitudes/Plain vs. Mount (Matt 5:1–12 // Luke 6:20–26).
   Classify the tradition (double). Construct a brief argument for either (a) Q arranged differently by each evangelist (Streeter/Kloppenborg) or (b) Luke abbreviating and reframing Matthew (Farrer/Goodacre). Cite one redactional motive per evangelist.

2. Call of Levi/Matthew (Mark 2:13–17 // Matt 9:9–13 // Luke 5:27–32).
   Note wording/order agreements. Where might editorial fatigue appear? How does each evangelist’s setting amplify his theological priorities?

3. Temptation narrative (Mark 1:12–13 // Matt 4:1–11 // Luke 4:1–13).
   Compare order of temptations in Matthew and Luke. If Luke used Matthew, why might he reorder the last two? If both used Q, what does the reordering say about each Gospel’s narrative geography and theology?

4. Eschatological discourse.
   Identify one Markan harder reading that Matthew or Luke clarify. Explain how the change serves pastoral concerns for their communities.

Aim for 200–300 words per exercise with 1–2 citations.

12) Conclusion

The Synoptic Problem is not an arcane puzzle; it is a map for reading the Gospels well. Recognizing Mark’s priority and then choosing a defensible account of Matthew–Luke overlap (Q or Farrer) allows you to track editorial strategy with clarity: Matthew’s didactic structuring and fulfillment motif, Luke’s universal horizon and pastoral exhortation, Mark’s stark discipleship and apocalyptic urgency. Mastering these relationships equips you to move beyond harmonization into genuine comparison, hearing how three inspired witnesses converge on Jesus and diverge in theological accent (Brown, 1997; Stein, 2001; Sanders & Davies, 1989; Goodacre, 2002).

References (APA)

Brown, R. E. (1997). An introduction to the New Testament. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Dungan, D. L. (1999). A history of the synoptic problem: The canon, the text, the composition, and the interpretation of the Gospels. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Dunn, J. D. G. (2003). Jesus remembered. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Eusebius. (1999). The Church history (P. L. Maier, Trans.). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel. (Original work published 4th century; Papias fragments at 3.39)

Goodacre, M. (1998). Fatigue in the synoptics. Novum Testamentum, 41(1), 45–58.

Goodacre, M. (2002). The case against Q: Studies in Markan priority and the synoptic problem. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Kloppenborg, J. S. (1987). The formation of Q: Trajectories in ancient wisdom collections. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Sanders, E. P., & Davies, M. (1989). Studying the synoptic gospels. London, UK: SCM Press.

Stein, R. H. (2001). Studying the synoptic gospels: Origin and interpretation (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Streeter, B. H. (1924). The four gospels: A study of origins. London, UK: Macmillan.

Tuckett, C. (1996). Q and the history of early Christianity: Studies on Q. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.