Chapter 1

ENTERING THE MAZE:

STUDYING THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

1. Harmonies and Synopses

The traditional Nativity Play is a familiar part of Christmas—little girls dressed as angels with tinsel halos,
shepherds with head-dresses made from tea-towels, kings with glittering crowns made of foil, the Virgin
Mary dressed in blue holding a doll, and Joseph, in his dressing gown, looking on. What all such plays
have in common is that they are harmonies of the biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus. They take some
details from Matthew and others from Luke. It is Matthew who stresses the role of Joseph and Luke who
concentrates on Mary. It is Matthew who has the magi, Luke the shepherds and angels. Only Matthew
has the star in the east; only Luke has the census and the manger. In the Nativity Plays, and for that
matter on Christmas cards and advent calendars too, the distinction between Matthew’s Gospel and
Luke’s is an irrelevance. There is one story of the birth of Jesus, and that story is produced by
harmonizing the details of each account together.

This is the popular way to read the Gospels. The interest is in the story of Jesus and not in the
peculiarities of each of our four canonical Gospels. Most of the Jesus films adopt the same course—they
harmonize the events recorded in the Gospels in the attempt to produce a coherent, dramatic narrative.
King of Kings (1961), The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), Jesus of
Nazareth (1977) and The Miracle Maker (2000) all, alike, carefully combine events and details from
different Gospels in the service of their narrative. To take just one example, Jesus Christ Superstar
features a scene in which Mary Magdalene, who is characterized as a prostitute, anoints Jesus not long
before his death, and Judas complains about the cost. This draws together several elements from all
four Gospels, an anonymous woman anointing Jesus in Mark 14 and Matthew 27; an anonymous ‘sinner’
woman anointing Jesus in Luke 7; a mention of ‘Mary, called Magdalene’ just afterwards in Lk. 8:2; Mary
of Bethany anointing Jesus in John 12; and Judas complaining about the cost in the same chapter. In
watching the simple scene, one would hardly have guessed the extent to which the sources for its
several strands are scattered in our canonical Gospels.

This way of reading the Gospels is not simply a recent and popular development. It is the way in
which they have been read for most of their history. It proceeds in part from an embarrassment that
there should be four Gospels in the Bible and not one. If we are to think of ‘gospel truth’ and the
reliability of Scripture, there might seem to be a problem in the fact that the first four books in the New
Testament announce themselves as the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

This was a problem that was keenly felt from the earliest times and the Church Fathers, from the
second century onwards, often engaged in the attempt to ‘apologize’ for the difficulty. One such
character was the apologist Tatian, who dealt with the difficulty at the end of the second century by
composing a harmony of all four Gospels entitled the Diatessaron, in which details from all four Gospels
were woven together with painstaking care. This was the first of many down the centuries. Indeed the
heyday of such harmonies was probably the nineteenth century, when bookshelves were awash with
books that were, essentially, harmonies of the Gospel accounts presented as The Life of Jesus. Even
Charles Dickens wrote a pious Life of our Lord.

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
 But since the late eighteenth century, the harmonies have had a very important rival. For in 1776, a
German scholar, Johann Jakob Griesbach, produced the first Synopsis of the Gospels.1 A Synopsis is a
book in which parallel accounts in the Gospels are placed side by side for the sake of comparison, like
this:

Matthew 8:2 Mark 1:40 Luke 5:12

And behold, a leper having And a leper came to him, … And behold, a man full of
approached Jesus worshipped beseeching him and bending leprosy; and having seen
him, saying, his knee, saying, Jesus, he fell before his face,
saying,

‘Lord, if you will, you are able to to him, ‘If you will, you are ‘Lord, if you will, you are able
cleanse me’. able to cleanse me’. to cleanse me’.

Now, far from harmonizing the discrepancies, the Synopsis actually draws attention to them. One can
see at a glance here what is similar in Matthew, Mark and Luke and what is different. Whereas Matthew
and Mark talk about ‘a leper’, Luke refers to ‘a man full of leprosy’; whereas in Mark the leper
‘beseeches’ Jesus, ‘bending his knee’, in Matthew he ‘worshipped him’, and so on.

Summary

• The popular tendency when reading the Gospels is to harmonize them.

• The Gospels have been read in this way since the second century.

• The Gospels can be read in Synopsis, that is, in such a way that different accounts
can be compared and contrasted.

2. The Synoptics and John

Viewing the Gospels in Synopsis has had two key consequences. The first is the birth of the term
‘Synoptic Gospels’. The first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke can be arranged in columns so that
they might be ‘viewed together’ (syn = with; opsis = look at). The account of the healing of the Leper,
quoted above, is not in John. Indeed John features few of the incidents shared by the other three
Gospels, and when he does feature a parallel story, such as the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Jn 6), the
wording varies so greatly that setting up columns is a very complex matter.

1
J.J. Griesbach, Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae (Halle, 1776).

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
 Summary

• Viewing material in Synopsis involves Matthew, Mark and Luke but not John.
Matthew, Mark and Luke are therefore called ‘Synoptic Gospels’.

3. The Literary Relationship of the Synoptics

The second, related consequence of the appearance of the Synopsis is the birth of the Synoptic Problem
and it is no coincidence that J.J. Griesbach, the scholar who produced the first Synopsis, was also the
first to provide a critical solution to the Synoptic Problem.2 Before considering the solutions, however,
let us look at the problem. The Synoptic Problem might be defined as the study of the similarities and
differences of the Synoptic Gospels in an attempt to explain their literary relationship.

It is a fundamental assumption of the study of the Synoptic Problem that the first three Gospels
share some kind of literary relationship. In other words, there is some degree of dependence in some
direction at a literary level. Occasionally a dissenting voice will sound, but, on the whole, this is a firm
consensus in scholarship, and perhaps the last one in the subject—for after this, as we shall see,
opinions begin to diverge. This consensus is based on the fact that there is substantial agreement
between Matthew, Mark and Luke on matters of language and order. One sees the agreement in
language in the example of the leper (above). Often the agreement is close, as in our next example.3

Matthew 9:9 Mark 2:14 Luke 5:27

And having passed on from And having passed on he saw And he saw a tax-collector
there, Jesus saw a man Levi son of Alphaeus named Levi

seated in the tax-office, named seated in the tax-office, and he seated in the tax-office, and he
Matthew, and he says to him, says to him, ‘Follow me’. said to him, ‘Follow me’.
‘Follow me’.

And having arisen, he followed And having arisen, he followed And having left everything and
him. him. having arisen, he followed him.

2Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (A demonstration that Mark was
written after Matthew and Luke) (Jena, 1789–90), in Bernard Orchard and Thomas R.W. Longstaff (eds.), J.J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-
Critical Studies 1776–1976 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 103–35.

3
The term ‘says’ in both Matthew and Mark here is known as ‘the historic present’, a device whereby the evangelists (especially Mark) write
about past events in the present tense. I have preferred to keep the translation in the present tense in order that one can see differences
between use of tense in the synoptics.

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
Some have argued that the closeness in agreement between the Synoptics could be due to faithful
recording of the committed-to-memory words of Jesus, but significantly, in cases like this, close
agreement is not limited to the words of Jesus, and it will not do to argue on this basis that the Gospels
are linked only orally. There is agreement in both narrative material and in sayings material.

It is, nevertheless, worth noting just how close some of the agreement in records of speech is
among the Gospels—and records not just of Jesus’ words. This example comes from the preaching of
John the Baptist, this time found only in Matthew and Luke, and so in two columns:

Mt. 3:7–10 Lk. 3:7–9

‘Offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee ‘Offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee
from the coming wrath? Bear fruit therefore from the coming wrath? Bear fruit therefore
worthy of repentance and do not presume to worthy of repentance and do not begin to say in
say in yourselves, “We have Abraham as yourselves, “We have Abraham as father”; for I
father”; for I say to you that God is able from say to you that God is able from these stones to
these stones to raise up children to Abraham. raise up children to Abraham. Already the axe is
Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees; laid at the root of the trees; for every tree not
for every tree not producing good fruit is cut producing good fruit is cut down and cast into
down and cast into the fire’. the fire’.

The wording is virtually identical—only the word for ‘presume’ (Matthew) and ‘begin’ (Luke) differs. Nor
is this an isolated instance. The reader who picks up the Synopsis will quickly find at random plenty of
examples of close agreement between two or three of the synoptic parallel accounts of given instances.

The thesis that this agreement is due to some kind of literary dependence seems to be quickly
confirmed by the matter of order. It is striking that Matthew, Mark and Luke all have substantial
similarities in the way in which they structure their gospels. It is not just that they share the broad
framework of events, John the Baptist—Baptism—Temptation—Ministry in Galilee—journey to
Jerusalem—crucifixion—resurrection. What is noticeable is the extent to which incidents and sayings
follow in parallel across two, or sometimes all three Synoptics. Sometimes, these include events that are
not in an obvious chronological, cause-and-effect relationship. The following sequence illustrates the
point.4

Matthew Mark Luke Event

16:13–20 8:27–30 9:18–21 Peter’s Confession

4
Where a space is left, this means that the incident is not in parallel here in the Gospel concerned.

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
16:21–23 8:31–33 9:22 Prediction of the
Passion

16:24–28 8:34–9:1 9:23–27 On Discipleship

17:1–8 9:2–8 9:28–36 Transfiguration

17:9–13 9:9–13 Coming of Elijah

17:14–20 9:14–29 9:37–43a Healing of an Epileptic

17:22–23 9:30–32 9:43b–45 Second Passion

Prediction

17:24–27 Temple Tax

18:1–5 9:33–37 9:46–48 Dispute about

Greatness

9:38–41 9:49–50 Strange Exorcist

18:6–9 9:42–48 On Offences

This example, covering just over a chapter in Matthew and Mark, and a little less than a chapter in
Luke, is typical. In incident after incident, two or three of the Synoptics agree on order. There is
variation, of course. Luke’s account of the Rejection at Nazareth is earlier in his Gospel (4:16–30) than
the parallel account in Mark (6:1–6a) or Matthew (13:53–8). Matthew’s version of the Healing of the
Paralytic comes later on (9:1–8) than does that incident in Mark (2:1–12) or Luke (5:17–26). But the
order of accounts, or pericopae, always converges again after a while. It is usually held that this state of
affairs is simply too great either for coincidence or for an orally remembered record. The explanation
has to be, on some level, a literary one.

Some, no doubt, will feel that a firmly fixed oral tradition behind the Gospels could explain these
data, claiming perhaps that the obsession with written texts is a modern preoccupation. Here, though,

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
we need to notice that there are hints in all three Synoptic Gospels themselves that the connections
between them are of a direct, literary kind. First, both Matthew and Mark agree with each other on the
interesting narrator’s aside in the apocalyptic discourse, ‘Let the reader understand’ (Mt. 24:15//Mk
13:14, the same three words in Greek). This points clearly and self-consciously to texts that are read5
and to some kind literary relationship between these two Gospels.

Further, Luke’s Gospel begins with a literary preface in which he mentions the ‘narratives’ of his
predecessors, implying he sees his task ‘to write’ a Gospel as being influenced by and critical of their
attempts (Lk. 1:1–4). If there is one thing that seems clear, it is that there is some kind of literary
relationship among the Synoptic Gospels.

Summary

• Viewing material in Synopsis has given birth to the Synoptic Problem.

• The Synoptic Problem is the study of the similarities and differences of the Synoptic
Gospels in an attempt to explain their literary relationship.

• The Synoptics feature some very close agreement in both wording and order.

• The scholarly consensus is that this suggests a literary relationship between them.

4. The History of the Investigation

This literary relationship is what constitutes the Synoptic Problem. As soon as one has noticed the
similarities and the differences among the Synoptics, one is naturally eager to find an explanation. Why
the varieties in agreement in language and order among them? Could any of the evangelists have known
the work of one (or more) of the others? Are they dependent on older, now lost written sources? It is
the attempt to answer these questions that has been meat and drink to Synoptic scholars for the last
two hundred years or so. Indeed, it could be said that the history of the investigation of the Synoptic
Problem is the history of proposed solutions to it.

J.J. Griesbach, as we have already seen, not only produced the first Synopsis but also produced the
first real solution to the Synoptic Problem, the solution that bears his name6 and which has recently
been revived, as we will see in more detail later on. It is not his theory, though, that has dominated the
discipline. Rather, the history of the study of the Synoptic Problem is largely identical with the history of
the emergence of what came to be the dominant hypothesis, the Two-Source Theory.

5I do not think, however, that we should rule out the possibility, even likelihood, that the Gospels were primarily designed to be read aloud to
groups of people, in which case the reference here to ‘the reader’ is a direct address to the one reading aloud to the people, perhaps
encouraging him or her to place special stress on this part of the text. The point about these being texts with a literary relationship of course
remains even if these texts were read aloud. We are still talking about text to text relationship rather than about oral tradition to text
relationship.

6See n. 2 above. But to complicate matters, it is now thought that the ‘Griesbach Theory’ was actually conceived first by Henry Owen,
Observations on the Four Gospels (London: T. Payne, 1764).

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
a. The Two-Source Theory

The Two-Source Theory has two facets: the Priority of Mark and the Q hypothesis. It solves the Synoptic
Problem by postulating independent use of Mark’s Gospel by both Matthew and Luke, who are also held
to have had independent access to a now lost document that scholars call ‘Q’. Roughly speaking,
Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark in all those passages where there is agreement between
Matthew, Mark and Luke; and they are dependent on Q in all those passages where there is agreement
between just Matthew and Luke. It is represented diagrammatically like this:

Fig. 1. The Two-Source Theory

The two facets of this theory, Markan Priority and Q, both emerged relatively early in the history of
the discipline. That is, they were already well established by the beginning of the twentieth century.
Although Markan Priority is really the older of the two, advocated already at the end of the eighteenth
century, Q was well established by the end of the nineteenth century and often at this stage called
‘Logia’ (Sayings), in German Logienquelle (Sayings Source). Indeed the term ‘Q’ is thought to have
originated as the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning source.7

Right down to the present, this has remained the most popular way to solve the Synoptic Problem. It
has been finely tuned, has been given many variations, and has been challenged from many quarters,
but this basic two-pronged hypothesis has remained fairly effectively intact. In Germany it is still very
much what one might call ‘critical orthodoxy’. Famously, in the mid 1960s, one biblical critic spoke about
abandoning use of the term ‘hypothesis’ to describe it altogether. ‘We can in fact regard it as an assured
finding’, he said.8

Summary

• The Two-Source Theory is the most popular way of solving the Synoptic Problem,
especially among German scholars

• According to the Two-Source Theory, Matthew and Luke independently used two
sources, Mark and an hypothetical source called Q.

7Those interested in pursuing the history of the investigation of the problem in more detail might find W.G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New
Testament (ET; London: SCM Press, 1966), pp. 37–42, a good starting-point. For the pre-history of the Synoptic Problem broadly conceived, see
David L. Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition and the Interpretation of the Gospels (New York:
Doubleday, 1999).
8
Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to its Problems (ET; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968), p. 118.

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
b. The Farrer Theory

The Two-Source Theory has had a rougher ride, though, in Great Britain and the United States. In Great
Britain a steady challenge has been mounted over the last half century or so from those who, while
accepting Markan Priority, are doubtful about Q. For this group, Luke reads not only Mark but also
Matthew:

Fig. 2. The Farrer Theory

This movement began with the Oxford scholar Austin Farrer, whose seminal article ‘On Dispensing
with Q’ appeared in 1955.9 Farrer claims that if it can be shown to be plausible that Luke knew Matthew
as well as Mark, then the Q theory becomes superfluous to requirements—one can ‘dispense’ with Q.
But Farrer only wrote the one article on this topic. Michael Goulder, originally a pupil of Austin Farrer,
has become the key advocate for this theory, devoting two books and many articles to arguing the case
with vigour.10 Over the years, the theory has gathered a handful of prominent supporters. In Great
Britain it is this thesis that has become the Two-Source Theory’s greatest rival.

c. The Griesbach Theory

In the United States, the main contemporary challenger to the Two-Source Theory is currently the
Griesbach Theory, already mentioned, which was revived by William Fanner in his book The Synoptic
Problem in 1964.11 This theory dispenses with both facets of the Two-Source Theory, not only Q but also
Markan Priority. Mark therefore comes third and uses both Matthew, written first, and Luke, who read
Matthew. It might be represented diagrammatically like this:

9Austin Farrer, ‘On Dispensing With Q’, in D.E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1955), pp. 55–88 (reproduced on-line at Mark Goodacre [ed.], The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site,
http://NTGateway.com/Q).

10Michael D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974) and Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup, 20; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1989). For further bibliography on the Farrer Theory, see Goodacre, The Case Against Q (previous note).
11
W.R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2nd edn, 1976).

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
 Fig. 3. The Griesbach Theory

A weighty and vocal minority continue to advocate this hypothesis with energy and application.

Summary

• The two most important rivals to the Two-Source Theory are the Farrer Theory and
the Griesbach Theory.

• The Farrer Theory advocates Markan Priority but dispenses with Q by postulating
Luke’s knowledge of Matthew as well as Mark.

• The Griesbach Theory advocates neither Markan Priority nor Q, but postulates
Matthean Priority, Luke’s use of Matthew and Mark’s use of both.

d. The Contemporary Situation

It is worth stressing, though, that however vocal the minorities are that present these alternative
hypotheses, these do nevertheless remain minority theories. Even in Great Britain and the United
States, where the Synoptic Problem is still often openly discussed, the Two-Source Theory is accepted
without question by the vast majority of scholars in the discipline. If one were to take off the shelf at
random almost any contemporary book on the Gospels, that book is likely to assume the correctness of
the Two-Source Theory. It is a matter that is simply taken for granted in much of the scholarship, a mind
set that does not often get suspended, even for a moment.

There is actually an interesting phenomenon in contemporary Gospel scholarship, a division

between those who have written books and articles directly dealing with the Synoptic Problem and
those who have not. Among those who might be called experts on the Synoptic Problem, there is a
variety of opinion—a good proportion believe in the Two-Source Theory but an equally high proportion
question at least some aspect of it. On the other hand, among those who write books on the Gospels
not dealing directly with the Synoptic Problem, there tends to be a kind of blithe confidence, almost a
complacency over the correctness of the Two-Source Theory. It is a interesting state of affairs. It will be
exciting to see whether in this new century the dissenting voices will be stilled by the weight of an
overwhelming consensus opinion, or whether the doubters’ views will steadily impinge on, and
gradually transform their opponents’ determined stance.

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
 Summary

• The vast majority of New Testament scholars accept the Two-Source Theory.

• Among experts on the Synoptic Problem, the Two-Source Theory is still

controversial.

5. Why Study the Synoptic Problem?

The thought that this kind of question will continue to rage on for many years may of course fill some
with horror. Surely, after all this time, a final solution ought to have been settled upon? Or, since a
solution that satisfies everyone has not been found, it might be said that it is time to surrender the hope
of achieving a complete consensus and to devote one’s labour to more profitable enterprises. But the
Synoptic Problem will not go away. It continues to exert a fascination and an importance like nothing
else in biblical studies. One might say that there are, broadly, four reasons—historical, theological,
cultural and literary—that make the study of the Synoptic Problem worthwhile.

a. History

One of the main reasons for the continued interest is undoubtedly the matter of historical enquiry. For
most New Testament scholars, in spite of the rise of new, sometimes profitable ways of reading texts,
historical questions remain important and interesting. How historically accurate are our Gospels? Is one
more reliable or authentic than any of the others? Is there any way of locating traditions within the
Gospels that may represent a more dependable strand than others? Questions like this, whether
consciously or otherwise, have always been at the heart of study of the Synoptic Problem.

Many have used the Synoptic Problem as a means to help in the quest of the historical Jesus. First
one finds the most reliable sources and then one uses them to reconstruct Jesus’ life. This has been
particularly the case in relation to the Two-Source Theory. In much of the older scholarship, for example,
Mark’s Gospel was stressed as a valuable, primitive historical source. More recently, in some American
scholarship there has been a great stress on Q as the most primitive ‘lost gospel’, reconstructions of
which provide an especially valuable source of information on the historical Jesus.

It does need to be noticed, though, that there are difficulties with this quest. Its basic assumption,
that earliest is best, is open to challenge. A truer word may be spoken by one who long post-dates the
events he or she is describing than by one who writes closer to those same events. Further, given the
variety of opinion on the Synoptic Problem, one is really walking across a minefield if one relies on one
particular theory, whether the Two-Source Theory or another, in reconstructing the life of the historical
Jesus. Some recent studies on Jesus thus avoid committing themselves on synoptic theories altogether.

Nevertheless, doing historical study of the New Testament period is not simply a matter of looking
at the historical Jesus. There are other historical questions that are interesting. The issue of whether or
not Mark preceded Matthew is itself a fascinating question. Let us illustrate this with another example,
an example that, incidentally, illustrates nicely the way in which different evangelists produce different

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
information on the same character—all say that the man in this story is rich, Matthew alone says that he
is young and Luke alone says that he is a ruler:

Matthew 19:16–17 Mark 10:17–18 Luke 18:18–19

And behold, one having And as he was setting out on And a certain ruler asked him,
approached him said, ‘Teacher, the way, one having run and ‘Good teacher, what having
what good shall I do in order knelt before him asked him, done shall I inherit eternal
that I might have eternal life?’ ‘Good teacher, what shall I do life?’ And Jesus said to him,
And he said to him, ‘Why do in order that I might inherit ‘Why do you call me good?
you ask me concerning good? eternal life? And Jesus said to No-one is good except God
one there is who is good’ him, ‘Why do you call me alone’.
good? No-one is good except
God alone’.

What is interesting is the position of the first ‘good’ in Matthew on the one hand and Mark and Luke
on the other. Most believe that Matthew is using Mark here and that he is troubled by the implication of
the question ‘Why do you call me good?’ Matthew therefore rephrases (very slightly) in such a way as to
change the question and avoid the difficult implication that Jesus might be admitting to not being wholly
‘good’. Here, perhaps, we witness an interesting moment in the development of Christian doctrine, for
in the change from the unembarrassed brashness of Mark to the more measured, reverential Matthew,
we see perceptions of Jesus’ identity subtly changing.12

But then if one believes instead in Matthaean Priority, the matter is reversed—Mark (or Luke and
then Mark) makes the earlier, reverential Matthew more ‘gritty’ and realistic. The move from one form
of words to another, though perhaps more surprising, remains just as interesting. And there are many
such striking differences between the Synoptics. Let us take another illustration:

Matthew 8:25–26 Mark 4:38–39 Luke 8:24–25

And the disciples, having And they And having approached him
approached him, they

awoke him saying, ‘Lord, save! awake him and say to him, awoke him saying, ‘Master
We are perishing!’ ‘Teacher, do you not care that Master, we are perishing!’
we are perishing?’

12For an excellent discussion of these issues, see Peter Head, Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority (SNTSMS,
94; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
*
Then, having got up, he And having awoken, he And having awoken, he
rebuked the winds and the sea, rebuked the wind and said to rebuked the wind and the
and there was a great calm’ the sea, ‘Be silent! Be muzzled! raging of the water. And they
And the wind ceased, and there ceased, and there was a calm.
was a great calm.

*
And he says to them, ‘Why are And he said to them, ‘Why are And he said to them, ‘Where
you afraid ye of little faith?’ you so afraid? Have you still no is your faith?’
faith?’

One cannot help noticing a contrast here between Mark on the one hand and Matthew and Luke on
the other. Mark’s Jesus shows no respect for the disciples: ‘Have you still no faith?’ And the disciples,
apparently, show no respect for Jesus: ‘Do you not care …?’ In both Matthew and Luke there is more
reverence. In Matthew they have ‘little faith’, not none, and in Luke the question is, ‘Where is your
faith?’, as if this is but a temporary lapse. Likewise, in neither Matthew nor Luke do they ask the
insulting question, ‘Do you not care …?’

Again, then, one finds significant differences revealed as soon as parallel accounts are placed in
Synopsis. It is seeing the accounts in parallel that focuses important issues. And one inevitably finds
oneself asking interesting historical questions: Why are Matthew and Luke more reverential in their
portrait of Jesus? Why does Mark apparently paint the disciples of Jesus in such a negative light?

Summary

• Scholars use the Synoptic Problem in an attempt to solve historical puzzles.

• The Two-Source Theory is sometimes used to help in the quest of the historical
Jesus.

• The Synoptic Problem asks interesting historical questions about the Gospels and
their place in the development of Christianity.

b. Theology

Such questions are not, of course, only of historical interest, for clearly they have important theological
dimensions. Indeed synoptic study, by accentuating the differences between the Gospels, can help to
sharpen important theological questions. To follow on from the above examples, what does synoptic
study tell us about shades of first-century Christology? What does it tell us about the way the disciples,
some of whom became the leaders of the Church, were viewed?

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
 The way in which the Synoptic Problem can help to focus theological issues might be illustrated from
a famous synoptic comparison. The institution of the Eucharist is found not only in the Synoptics but
also in Paul (1 Cor. 11). This is an excerpt:

Matthew 26:27–28 Mark 14:23–24 Luke 22:20 1 Corinthians 11:25

And after he had taken And after he had taken And likewise (he took) And likewise (he took)
the cup and given the cup and given the cup after supper, the cup after supper
thanks he gave it to thanks, he gave it to
them them

saying, ‘Drink from it, and they all drank from saying saying
all. it. And he said to them,

For this is my blood of ‘This is my blood of the ‘This cup is the new ‘This cup is the new
the covenant which is covenant which is shed covenant in my blood, covenant in my blood.
shed for many for the for many’. which is shed for you’. Do this, as often as you
forgiveness of sins’. drink, in my memory’.

There is a complex web of interrelated material here, perhaps largely because we are dealing with a
liturgical text, something that has been repeated over and over again, with variations, in different
locations, from the thirties onwards. The comparison between the four accounts draws attention to
several interesting theological points. Matthew alone has ‘for the forgiveness of sins’. Luke and Paul
alone have ‘new covenant’ and Paul alone here has ‘in my memory’. It is the analysis of this kind of
passage, and the attempt to explain both the similarities and the differences, that gives the study of the
Synoptic Problem one of its great attractions.

At the very least, one notices that there is not one unanimous picture of ‘the Eucharist’ or
‘Christology’ in early Christianity. The agreements and disagreements draw attention to the fact that
there was a dialogue going on in the first century, a dialogue that spawned the controversies of future
years, and which, more importantly, can help us to focus some of our own theological questions.

Thus the use of the Synopsis is potentially a powerful tool for aiding proper theological reflection.
The harmonizing of texts can be a damaging means of interweaving subtle personal agendas into the
rephrasing of disparate elements—and robbing the texts of their vitality. What is exciting about studying
texts in Synopsis is the matter of stressing the differences between them, and asking how one might
react theologically to them.

Summary

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
 • The Synoptic Problem draws attention to historical questions that in turn give rise to
theological questions.

• The Synoptic Problem, by drawing attention to differences between parallel texts,

can stimulate theological reflection.

c. Cultural Factors

The difficulty with such perspectives, however, is that they will appear somewhat old-fashioned to the
reader interested in contemporary, post-modern ways of reading the Gospels. Recent years have seen
the rise, for example, of reader-response criticism, which tends to place stress on the recipient of the
text (the contemporary reader) rather than the originator of the text (the author). Does the Synoptic
Problem have anything to offer to such readers? Or is it only for those still stuck in the antiquated
enterprise of doing historical-critical work on the New Testament?

The answer to this question is that as traditionally defined, the Synoptic Problem has very little to
offer to those interested in contemporary approaches. In other words, those writing on the Synoptic
Problem tend to focus on historical-critical questions. For them the goal is to provide a perfect solution
to the problem of who wrote first, who copied from whom, and whether there are any lost documents.

But this need not remain the status quo. Contemporary, culturally relevant study of the Synoptic
Problem may take off in other directions, and it is may be that this is where the future of the discipline
lies. It is worth noting, for example, that, in spite of the proliferation of narrative-critical, reader-
response and literary-critical readings of each of our Gospels, at present there is little that attempts to
apply such methods to parallel texts in Synopsis. This is a weakness of the current scene, in which
scholars have become so besotted with responding to texts in isolation from one another that they have
forgotten that the texts have, and have always been perceived as having, an intimate interrelationship.

Of course, at this stage it is difficult to know what study of the Synoptic Problem that is sympathetic
to contemporary methodologies might look like. For those interested in the way that the Bible is used in
culture one obvious starting point might be the realization with which we began this chapter, that the
popular perception of the Gospels still involves a tendency towards the harmonizing of different texts.
The writing of harmonies of the Gospels did not, after all, die a death as soon as Griesbach produced the
first Synopsis. On the contrary, one only needs a passing acquaintance with contemporary
representations of ‘the Jesus story’ to notice that harmonizing is alive and well. In such circumstances,
there is a wealth of research waiting to be done on the way in which Jesus films, for example, have
combined and conflated synoptic (and Johannine) data, study that will no doubt prove not only to be
generated by awareness of the Synoptic Problem, but which may also, in turn, shed fresh light on it.

The application of newer approaches to the Synoptic Problem may be the best hope for its future,
particularly if we are to avoid the endless repetition of some mistakes, going round in the same circles,
investigating the same texts in the same way. This is a challenge for the new century, and we will return
to the question in the Conclusion below.

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
 Summary

• Scholars of the Synoptic Problem rarely engage with new methods of reading the
Gospels, like narrative-criticism.

• The application of contemporary critical methods to the Synoptic Problem is

potentially exciting and challenging.

d. The Literary Puzzle

But if the historical dimension of the Synoptic Problem is what has exercised the minds of scholars for
the last two hundred years, it is worth noting that this study is worth doing for its own sake, and needs
no other reason than that it is enormously good fun. In other words, the Synoptic Problem is an
intriguing phenomenon for study in its own right—and it is a form of study that needs no apology. For in
the Synoptic Problem one has, without doubt, one of the most fascinating literary puzzles in world
history. There are plenty of examples in literature from all cultures of different accounts of similar
events, of complex interweaving of sources and of uncertainties about origin and dependence. Indeed,
there are good examples of these phenomena elsewhere in the Bible, as in the overlap in the Old
Testament between Kings and Chronicles, or between Isaiah 36–39 and 2 Kings 18–20. Yet there is
nothing to match the Synoptic Problem for the sheer contours, variations, depths and shape of the
discipline. Those who think that they have mastered it regularly discover fresh complications. Those who
believe that they can explain all the data then come across an argument that appears more plausible
than their own.

Summary

• Above all, the Synoptic Problem is interesting in its own right as a fascinating literary
enigma.

6. Summary and Conclusion

At the end of each chapter in this book there is a summary in which all the most important elements in
the discussion will be underlined. So far, we have discovered the following:

(a) The popular way to read the Gospels has been to harmonize them with one another. However,
for the last two hundred years, Gospel harmonies have been rivalled by Synopses of the Gospels,
in which the Gospels are placed side by side for the purposes of careful comparison.

• The Synopsis gives birth to the term Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. This is
because there are extensive agreements between Matthew, Mark and Luke, but much
less agreement between these Gospels and John.

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
 • The Synopsis also gives birth to the Synoptic Problem, an enterprise that studies the
similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels in a bid to find an explanation
for their interrelationship.

(b) The dominant solution to the Synoptic Problem is the Two-Source Theory, which supposes that
Matthew and Luke both used Mark (the Priority of Mark), but that they also used an
hypothetical source, ‘Q’.

• The two major alternatives are the Farrer Theory, which affirms Markan Priority but
dispenses with Q, and the Griesbach Theory, which rejects both Markan Priority and Q.

(c) Several reasons might be given for engaging in the study of the Synoptic Problem:

• Historical: solving the Synoptic Problem helps one to answer historical questions,
questions about reliable sources of information on the historical Jesus and questions
about the development of early Christianity.

• Theological: examining the Synoptic Problem encourages theological reflection about

the interaction between the Gospel texts.

• Contemporary: although not currently popular, there are ways in which the Synoptic
Problem might profitably interact with contemporary approaches to the New
Testament, like narrative-criticism.

• The Literary Puzzle: the Synoptic Problem is probably the most fascinating literary
enigma of all time.

Let us, then, having entered the maze, begin to explore it. Before doing this, though, readers should
be warned. They should not be under any illusions. Study of the Synoptic Problem sometimes feels like
walking through a maze that is in a constant state of change. Workers are busy constructing new walls
even as one is finding the way through. But despite this, entering the maze is more than worthwhile. It is
a challenging yet rewarding academic puzzle. And that this most fascinating of literary enigmas should
happen to concern accounts of one of the most important historical figures ever to have lived gives the
Synoptic Problem, to say the least, an added thrilling dimension.

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2005).