The Synoptic Problem and Johannine Distinctiveness

Introduction

One of the most fascinating aspects of studying the Gospels is how they are at once remarkably similar and profoundly different. Matthew, Mark, and Luke often tell the same stories, sometimes using identical words, and they share a general outline of Jesus’ ministry that begins in Galilee and culminates in Jerusalem. Because of these similarities, they are called the Synoptic Gospels (from the Greek syn = “together” and opsis = “seeing”), since they can be “seen together” in parallel columns.

John’s Gospel, however, presents a strikingly different portrait of Jesus. Instead of short parables and exorcisms, John gives long discourses and symbolic “signs.” Instead of concealing Jesus’ identity, John has him declare openly, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). Scholars refer to these contrasts as Johannine distinctiveness.

In this lesson, we will take a deep dive into these two interrelated issues:

1. The Synoptic Problem: Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke so similar, and yet different? What theories have been developed to explain their literary relationship?

2. The Distinctiveness of John: Why does John look so unlike the Synoptics, and what theological contributions emerge from its differences?

Understanding these issues is foundational for serious study of the New Testament. They remind us that the Gospels are not interchangeable but are theological portraits shaped for different purposes and audiences.

Part 1: The Synoptic Problem

1. The Evidence for Similarity

When scholars lay the Synoptic Gospels side by side in a “synopsis,” the overlaps become obvious.

• Shared content: Roughly 76% of Mark is found in Matthew; about 47% of Mark is found in Luke (Ehrman, 2000). All three record Jesus’ baptism, temptation, Galilean ministry, miracles, parables, passion, and resurrection.

• Shared wording: In many places, the Greek is virtually identical. For example, the words of institution at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22–24; Matthew 26:26–28; Luke 22:19–20) are nearly word-for-word.

• Shared order: The general sequence of events is often the same, especially between Mark and Matthew.

This degree of overlap suggests that the evangelists were not simply relying on oral tradition; there is literary dependence at work.

2. The Evidence for Difference

At the same time, important differences exist.

• Unique material: Matthew alone has the visit of the Magi (Matthew 2:1–12) and the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7). Luke alone has the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) and Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32). Mark uniquely includes the parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26–29).

• Different details: Where Mark has Jesus heal one blind man near Jericho (Mark 10:46–52), Matthew reports two (Matthew 20:29–34).

• Stylistic differences: Mark’s Greek is simple and colloquial; Luke’s is polished and literary.

• Theological emphases: Matthew stresses fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (“This was to fulfill what was spoken …”), while Luke emphasizes God’s concern for the marginalized.

The Synoptic Problem arises from trying to explain both the similarities and the differences.

3. Early Explanations

The early church did not ignore these issues, but their solutions were simple.

• Augustine (354–430 CE) proposed that Matthew was written first, Mark abbreviated Matthew, and Luke used both (the Augustinian hypothesis).

• Others suggested that each evangelist wrote independently using oral tradition.

These views dominated for centuries but did not fully explain the precise verbal agreements or the pattern of shared and unique material.

4. Modern Theories

Beginning in the 18th and 19th centuries, scholars began analyzing the Gospels more systematically. Three major theories emerged:

a. The Two-Source Hypothesis

This is the dominant theory today. It argues:

• Markan Priority: Mark was written first (~65–70 CE). Matthew and Luke used Mark as a framework.

• Q Source: Matthew and Luke share about 230 verses not found in Mark, including the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3–12; Luke 6:20–23) and the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9–13; Luke 11:2–4). Scholars posit that they drew from a second common source, dubbed Q (Quelle, German for “source”).

• M and L material: Matthew and Luke also had unique material (designated M and L).

This theory explains why Matthew and Luke often agree with each other against Mark (because of Q) and why they each contain unique stories.

b. The Farrer Hypothesis

This theory rejects Q. It argues that:

• Mark wrote first.

• Matthew used Mark.

• Luke used both Mark and Matthew.

This eliminates the need for a hypothetical document never discovered. Advocates argue that Luke’s use of Matthew makes sense of the “double tradition” (Matthew-Luke overlaps). Critics, however, find it hard to explain Luke’s different order compared to Matthew.

c. The Griesbach (Two-Gospel) Hypothesis

First proposed in the 18th century by Johann Jakob Griesbach and later defended by William Farmer:

• Matthew was first.

• Luke used Matthew.

• Mark later abbreviated both Matthew and Luke.

This restores Matthew’s traditional priority but struggles with why Mark’s Gospel is more primitive in style and theology than Matthew or Luke.

5. The Ongoing Debate

Most scholars hold to the Two-Source Hypothesis, but there is no universal agreement. Some argue Q never existed; others stress oral tradition and community memory alongside literary dependence (Bauckham, 2006). The debate remains lively because no single theory accounts for every detail.

Part 2: Johannine Distinctiveness

If Matthew, Mark, and Luke resemble each other, John stands apart.

1. Content Differences

• No birth narrative: John begins with a cosmic prologue (“In the beginning was the Word,” John 1:1), not Bethlehem.

• Different miracles: John narrates the turning of water into wine (John 2:1–11) and raising of Lazarus (John 11), absent from the Synoptics.

• No exorcisms: Unlike the Synoptics, John records no casting out of demons.

• Different chronology: In John, Jesus cleanses the temple at the start (John 2:13–22), while in the Synoptics it occurs near the end.

• Passion narrative differences: In John, Jesus dies on the day of preparation for Passover (John 19:14), aligning him with the slaughter of the lambs, while in the Synoptics he eats the Passover meal with his disciples.

2. Theological Distinctiveness

• High Christology: John emphasizes Jesus’ divinity from the start: “the Word was God” (John 1:1).

• “I Am” statements: John presents Jesus as using the divine name (“I am”) in key metaphors: “I am the bread of life” (6:35), “I am the light of the world” (8:12), “I am the good shepherd” (10:11), “I am the resurrection and the life” (11:25).

• Faith and eternal life: John stresses present belief and life: “Whoever believes has eternal life” (John 6:47).

• Holy Spirit: The Spirit is described as the “Paraclete” (helper/advocate), unique to John (14:16, 26).

3. Style and Tone

• Symbolism: John uses dualistic imagery—light/darkness, truth/falsehood, above/below.

• Long discourses: Instead of parables, John has extended theological conversations (e.g., with Nicodemus in John 3, the Samaritan woman in John 4).

• Narrative structure: Scholars often divide John into the “Book of Signs” (ch. 1–12), focusing on miracles, and the “Book of Glory” (ch. 13–20), focusing on Jesus’ passion and resurrection.

4. The Purpose of John’s Gospel

John states his purpose explicitly: “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). Its distinctiveness serves this evangelistic and theological purpose.

Part 3: Theological Implications

1. Unity and diversity: The Synoptic Gospels present Jesus with consistent themes but from distinct perspectives; John adds a theologically rich layer. Together they form a multifaceted witness.

2. Historical reconstruction: By studying the Synoptic relationships, scholars attempt to trace back to earlier traditions about Jesus. John illustrates how theology can deepen as communities reflect on Jesus’ significance.

3. Hermeneutical responsibility: Readers must honor both the similarities and the differences. Harmonizing the Gospels too quickly risks erasing their unique voices.

Suggested Assignments

1. Parallel Comparison Exercise

• Task: Using a synopsis or online parallel, compare the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, and John 1.

• Deliverable: A chart plus a 750-word analysis of how the accounts differ in wording, order, and theology.

2. Synoptic Theory Essay

• Task: Write a 1200-word paper evaluating the Two-Source Hypothesis against one alternative (Farrer or Griesbach).

• Purpose: Demonstrate ability to engage critically with scholarly debate.

3. Johannine Reflection

• Task: Read John 11 (raising of Lazarus) alongside Mark 5 (raising Jairus’ daughter).

• Deliverable: A 1000-word reflection comparing the theological emphases of John and the Synoptics on life, death, and faith.

4. Patristic Source Study

• Task: Research how early church fathers (Augustine, Irenaeus, Origen) explained Gospel similarities.

• Deliverable: A 500–750 word summary, noting how their perspectives differ from modern critical scholarship.

5. Creative Application

• Task: Compose a short modern “sign” story in Johannine style (e.g., Jesus at a modern event, turning it into a lesson of eternal life).

• Purpose: To internalize Johannine symbolism through creative practice.

References

Bauckham, R. (2006). Jesus and the eyewitnesses: The Gospels as eyewitness testimony. Eerdmans.

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

Dunn, J. D. G. (2003). Jesus remembered. Eerdmans.

Ehrman, B. D. (2000). The New Testament: A historical introduction to the early Christian writings (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Keener, C. S. (2012). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament (2nd ed.). IVP Academic.

Stanton, G. N. (2002). The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Wright, N. T. (2012). How God became king: The forgotten story of the Gospels. HarperOne.