# Synoptic Gospels

> Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Synoptic_Gospels
> Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Synoptic_Gospels.md
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
> Source revision: 1346879945
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke

The [calming of the storm](/source/Calming_the_storm) is recounted in each of the three synoptic gospels, but not in [John](/source/Gospel_of_John).

Part of a series on the Bible Canons and books Tanakh Torah Nevi'im Ketuvim Old Testament (OT) New Testament (NT) Deuterocanon Antilegomena Chapters and verses Apocrypha Jewish OT NT Authorship and development Authorship Dating Hebrew canon Old Testament canon New Testament canon Composition of the Torah Mosaic authorship Pauline epistles Petrine epistles Johannine works Translations and manuscripts Dead Sea Scrolls Masoretic Text Samaritan Pentateuch Targumim Septuagint Peshitta Vetus Latina Vulgate Gothic Bible Luther Bible English Bibles by language Biblical studies Archeology Artifacts Dating Historicity Internal consistency People Places Names Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Rahlfs' Septuagint Novum Testamentum Graece Documentary hypothesis Synoptic problem NT textual categories Biblical criticism Historical Textual Source Form Redaction Canonical Interpretation Hermeneutics Pesher Midrash Pardes Allegorical interpretation Historical-grammatical method Inspiration Literalism Alcohol Conspiracy theory Ethics Capital punishment Homosexuality Humor Incest Muhammad Prophecy Rape Serpents Sex Slavery Violence Warfare Women Perspectives Gnostic Islamic Quranic Inerrancy Infallibility Criticism of the Bible Biblical authority Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal v t e

The [gospels](/source/Gospel) of [Matthew](/source/Gospel_of_Matthew), [Mark](/source/Gospel_of_Mark), and [Luke](/source/Gospel_of_Luke) are referred to as the **synoptic Gospels** because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. They stand in contrast to [John](/source/Gospel_of_John), whose content is largely distinct. The term *synoptic* ([Latin](/source/Latin_language): *synopticus*; [Greek](/source/Greek_language): συνοπτικός, [romanized](/source/Romanization_of_Greek): *synoptikós*) comes via Latin from the Greek σύνοψις, *synopsis*, i.e. "(a) seeing all together, synopsis".[n 1] The modern sense of the word in English is of "giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect".[1] It is in this sense that it is applied to the synoptic gospels.

This strong [parallelism](/source/Parallel_passage) among the three gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence,[2] though the role of orality and memorization of sources has also been explored by scholars.[3][4] Recent scholarship focuses on explaining the gospels' relationship in terms of ancient compositional practices and comparisons with other ancient historical biographers.[5][6] The question of the precise nature of their relationship is a topic of ongoing debate, and no conclusive solution has been found yet.[7] The majority view favors [Marcan priority](/source/Marcan_priority), in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, called *[Q](/source/Q_source)*,*[8]* though alternative hypotheses that posit direct use of Matthew by Luke or vice versa without Q are increasing in popularity within scholarship.[9][10]

## Structure

### Common features

Common text between the synoptic gospels, as measured by A. M. Honoré[11]

Broadly speaking, the synoptic gospels are similar to John: all are composed in [Koine Greek](/source/Koine_Greek), have a similar length, and were completed in less than a century after Jesus' death. They also differ from non-canonical sources, such as the [Gospel of Thomas](/source/Gospel_of_Thomas), in that they belong to the ancient genre of biography,[12][13] collecting not only Jesus' teachings, but recounting in an orderly way his origins, ministry, Passion, miracles and Resurrection. The patterns of parallels and variations found in the gospels are typical of ancient biographies about real people and history.[14] A. M. Honoré offers a statistical classification of the number of words in the single, double, and triple traditions.[11]

In content and in wording, though, the synoptics diverge widely from John but have a great deal in common with each other. Though each gospel includes some unique material, the majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim. This common material is termed the *triple tradition*.

### Triple tradition

The triple tradition, the material included by all three synoptic gospels, includes many stories and teachings:

- [John the Baptist](/source/John_the_Baptist)

- [Baptism](/source/Baptism_of_Jesus) and [temptation](/source/Temptation_of_Jesus) of Jesus

- [First disciples of Jesus](/source/First_disciples_of_Jesus)

- [Hometown rejection of Jesus](/source/Hometown_rejection_of_Jesus)

- Healing of [Peter's mother-in-law](/source/Healing_the_mother_of_Peter's_wife), [demoniacs](/source/Exorcising_at_sunset), a [leper](/source/Cleansing_a_leper), and a [paralytic](/source/Paralytic_at_Capernaum)

- [Call of the tax collector](/source/Calling_of_Matthew)

- [New Wine into Old Wineskins](/source/New_Wine_into_Old_Wineskins)

- [Man with withered hand](/source/Man_with_withered_hand)

- [Commissioning the Twelve Apostles](/source/Commissioning_the_Twelve_Apostles)

- [The Beelzebul controversy](/source/Exorcising_the_blind_and_mute_man)

- Teachings on the [parable of the strong man](/source/Parable_of_the_strong_man), [eternal sin](/source/Eternal_sin), [His true relatives](/source/Jesus'_True_Relatives), the [parable of the sower](/source/Parable_of_the_sower), the [lamp under a bushel](/source/Lamp_under_a_bushel), and the [parable of the mustard seed](/source/Parable_of_the_mustard_seed)

- [Calming the storm](/source/Calming_the_storm)

- [The Gerasene demoniac](/source/Exorcism_of_the_Gerasene_demoniac)

- The [daughter of Jairus](/source/Daughter_of_Jairus) and the [bleeding woman](/source/Jesus_healing_the_bleeding_woman)

- [Feeding the 5000](/source/Feeding_the_5000)

- [Confession of Peter](/source/Confession_of_Peter)

- [Transfiguration](/source/Transfiguration_of_Jesus)

- [The demoniac boy](/source/Exorcising_a_boy_possessed_by_a_demon)

- [The little children](/source/The_Little_Children)

- [The rich young man](/source/Jesus_and_the_rich_young_man)

- [Jesus predicts his death](/source/Jesus_predicts_his_death)

- [Blind near Jericho](/source/Blind_near_Jericho)

- [Palm Sunday](/source/Palm_Sunday)

- [Casting out the money changers](/source/Cleansing_of_the_Temple)

- [Render unto Caesar](/source/Render_unto_Caesar)

- [Woes of the Pharisees](/source/Woes_of_the_Pharisees)

- [Second Coming Prophecy](/source/Second_Coming_Prophecy)

- The [Last Supper](/source/Last_Supper), [passion](/source/Passion_of_Christ), [crucifixion](/source/Crucifixion_of_Jesus), and [entombment](/source/Entombment_of_Christ)

- [The empty tomb and resurrected Jesus](/source/Empty_tomb)

- [Great Commission](/source/Great_Commission)

The triple tradition's [pericopae](/source/Pericopae) (passages) tend to be arranged in much the same order in all three gospels. This stands in contrast to the material found in only two of the gospels, which is much more variable in order.[15][16]

The classification of text as belonging to the triple tradition (or for that matter, double tradition) is not always definitive, depending rather on the degree of similarity demanded. Matthew and Mark report the [cursing of the fig tree](/source/Cursing_the_fig_tree),[17][18] a single incident, despite some substantial differences of wording and content. In Luke, the only [parable of the barren fig tree](/source/Parable_of_the_barren_fig_tree)[19] is in a different point of the narrative. Some would say that Luke has extensively adapted an element of the triple tradition, while others would regard it as a distinct pericope.

#### Example

Christ cleansing a leper by Jean-Marie Melchior Doze, 1864

An illustrative example of the three texts in parallel is the [healing of the leper](/source/Cleansing_a_leper):[20]

Mt 8:2–3 Mk 1:40–42 Lk 5:12–13 Καὶ ἰδοὺ, λεπρὸς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων· Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἥψατο αὐτοῦ λέγων· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· καὶ εὐθέως ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα. Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν καὶ γονυπετῶν καὶ λέγων αὐτῷ ὅτι, Ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· καὶ εὐθὺς ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη. Καὶ ἰδοὺ, ἀνὴρ πλήρης λέπρας· ἰδὼν δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ἐδεήθη αὐτοῦ λέγων· Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἥψατο αὐτοῦ λέγων· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· καὶ εὐθέως ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. And behold, a leper came and worships him, saying: Lord, if you wish, I can be cleansed. And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying: I wish it; be cleansed. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And, calling out to him, there comes to him a leper and kneeling and saying to him: If you wish, I can be cleansed. And, moved with compassion, he stretched out his hand and touched him and says to him: I wish it; be cleansed. And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was cleansed. And behold, a man full of leprosy. But, upon seeing Jesus, he fell upon his face and requested him, saying: Lord, if you wish, I can be cleansed. And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying: I wish it; be cleansed. And immediately the leprosy left him.

More than half the wording in this passage is identical. Each gospel includes words absent in the other two and omits something included by the other two.

### Relation to Mark

[Mark](/source/Mark_the_Evangelist) writing [his Gospel](/source/Gospel_of_Mark), from a medieval Armenian manuscript

The triple tradition itself constitutes a complete gospel quite similar to the shortest gospel, Mark.[15]

Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, adds little to the triple tradition. Pericopae unique to Mark are scarce, notably two [healings](/source/Deaf_mute_of_Decapolis) involving [saliva](/source/Blind_man_of_Bethsaida)[21] and the [naked runaway](/source/Naked_fugitive).[22] Mark's [additions](/source/Gospel_of_Mark#Content_unique_to_Mark) within the triple tradition tend to be explanatory elaborations (e.g., "the stone was rolled back, *for it was very large*"[23]) or [Aramaisms](/source/Aramaic_of_Jesus) (e.g., "[*Talitha kum*!](/source/Language_of_Jesus#Talitha_kum_(Ταλιθὰ_κούμ))"[24]). The pericopae Mark shares with only Luke are also quite few: the [Capernaum exorcism](/source/Exorcism_at_the_Synagogue_in_Capernaum)[25] and departure from Capernaum,[26] the [strange exorcist](/source/Strange_exorcist),[27] and the [widow's mites](/source/Widow's_mite).[28] A greater number, but still not many, are shared with only Matthew, most notably the so-called "Great Omission"[29] from Luke of [Mk 6:45–8:26](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark%206:45–8:26&version=nrsv).

Most scholars take these observations as a strong clue to the literary relationship among the synoptics and Mark's special place in that relationship,[30] though various scholars suggest an entirely oral relationship or a dependence emphasizing memory and tradents in a tradition rather than simple copying.[3][4][31] The Gospels represent a Jesus tradition and were enveloped by oral storytelling and performances during the early years of Christianity, rather than being redactions or literary responses to each other.[32] The hypothesis favored by most experts is *[Marcan priority](/source/Marcan_priority)*, whereby Mark was composed first, and Matthew and Luke each used Mark, incorporating much of it, with adaptations, into their own gospels. Alan Kirk praises Matthew in particular for his "scribal memory competence" and "his high esteem for and careful handling of both Mark and Q", which makes claims the latter two works are significantly different in terms of theology or historical reliability dubious.[33][34] A leading alternative hypothesis is *[Marcan posteriority](/source/Marcan_posteriority)*, with Mark having been formed primarily by extracting what Matthew and Luke shared in common.[35]

### Double tradition

The preaching of John the Baptist in Matthew and Luke, with **differences** rendered in black.[36] Here the two texts agree verbatim, with an isolated exception, for a span of over sixty words. Mark has no parallel.

An extensive set of material—some two hundred verses, or roughly half the length of the triple tradition—are the pericopae shared between Matthew and Luke, but absent in Mark. This is termed the *double tradition*.[37] Parables and other sayings predominate in the double tradition, but also included are narrative elements:[38]

- Preaching of [John the Baptist](/source/John_the_Baptist)

- [Temptation of Jesus](/source/Temptation_of_Jesus) (which Mark summarizes in two verses)

- The [Sermon on the Mount](/source/Sermon_on_the_Mount) (Matthew) or [Plain](/source/Sermon_on_the_Plain) (Luke)

- The [Centurion's servant](/source/Centurion's_servant)

- [Messengers from John the Baptist](/source/Messengers_from_John_the_Baptist)

- [Woes to the unrepentant cities](/source/Woes_to_the_unrepentant_cities)

- Jesus thanks his Father

- Return of the unclean spirit

- Parables of [the leaven](/source/The_Leaven), the [lost sheep](/source/The_Lost_Sheep), the [great banquet](/source/The_Great_Banquet), the [talents](/source/Parable_of_the_talents), and the [faithful servant](/source/Parable_of_the_Faithful_Servant)

- [Discourse against the scribes and Pharisees](/source/Woes_of_the_Pharisees)

- Lament over Jerusalem

Unlike triple tradition material, double tradition material is structured differently in the two gospels. Matthew's lengthy [Sermon on the Mount](/source/Sermon_on_the_Mount), for example, is paralleled by Luke's shorter [Sermon on the Plain](/source/Sermon_on_the_Plain), with the remainder of its content scattered throughout Luke. This is consistent with the general pattern of Matthew collecting sayings into large blocks, while Luke does the opposite and intersperses them with narrative.[39]

Besides the double tradition proper, Matthew and Luke often agree against Mark within the triple tradition to varying extents, sometimes including several additional verses, sometimes differing by a single word. These are termed the *major and minor agreements* (the distinction is imprecise[40][41]). One example is in the passion narrative, where Mark has simply, "Prophesy!"[42] while Matthew and Luke both add, "Who is it that struck you?"[43][44]

The double tradition's origin, with its major and minor agreements, is a key facet of the synoptic problem. The simplest hypothesis is Luke relied on Matthew's work or vice versa. But many experts, on various grounds, maintain that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other's work. If this is the case, they must have drawn from some common source, distinct from Mark, that provided the double-tradition material and overlapped with Mark's content where major agreements occur. This hypothetical document is termed *[Q](/source/Q_source)*, for the German *Quelle*, meaning "source".[45]

### Special Matthew and Special Luke

Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material found in no other gospel.[46] These materials are sometimes called "Special Matthew" or *[M](/source/M_source)* and "Special Luke" or *[L](/source/L_source)*.

Both Special Matthew and Special Luke include distinct opening [infancy narratives](/source/Nativity_of_Jesus) and post-resurrection conclusions (with Luke continuing the story in his second book [Acts](/source/Acts)). In between, Special Matthew includes mostly parables, while Special Luke includes both parables and healings.

Special Luke is notable for containing a greater concentration of [Semitisms](/source/Semitism_(linguistics)) than any other gospel material.[47]

Luke gives some indication of how he composed his gospel in his prologue:[48][49]

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent [Theophilus](/source/Theophilus_(biblical)), so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.[50]

## Synoptic problem

This section needs more citations. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The texts of the three synoptic gospels often agree very closely in wording and order, both in quotations and in narration. Most scholars ascribe this to *documentary dependence*: the agreements among synoptic gospels are due to one gospel drawing from the text of another, or from some written source that another gospel also drew from.[51] Recent scholarship tends to explain the gospels' relationship in terms of ancient compositional practices and comparisons with other ancient historical biographers over the traditional emphasis on theological agendas.[52][6]

### Controversies

The synoptic problem hinges on several interrelated points of controversy:

- **Priority:** Which gospel was written first? (If one text draws from another, the source must have been composed first.)

- **Successive dependence:** Did each of the synoptic gospels draw from each of its predecessors? (If not, the frequent agreements between the two independent gospels against the third must originate elsewhere.)

- **Lost written sources:** Did any of the gospels draw from some earlier document which has not been preserved (e.g., the hypothetical ["Q"](/source/Q_source), or from earlier editions of other gospels)?

- **Oral sources:** To what extent did each evangelist or literary collaborator[53] draw from personal knowledge, eyewitness accounts, liturgy, or other [oral traditions](/source/Oral_gospel_traditions) to produce an original written account?

- **Translation:** Jesus and others quoted in the gospels spoke primarily in [Aramaic](/source/Aramaic_of_Jesus), but the gospels themselves in their oldest available form are each written in Koine Greek. Who performed the translations, and at what point?

- **Redaction:** How and why did those who put the gospels into their final form expand, abridge, alter, or rearrange their sources?

Some[*[which?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)*] theories try to explain the relation of the synoptic gospels to [John](/source/Gospel_of_John); to non-canonical gospels such as [Thomas](/source/Gospel_of_Thomas), [Peter](/source/Gospel_of_Peter), and [Egerton](/source/Egerton_Gospel); to the [Didache](/source/Didache); and to lost documents such as the [Jewish–Christian gospels](/source/Jewish%E2%80%93Christian_gospels) and the [Gospel of Marcion](/source/Gospel_of_Marcion).[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

### History

A page of Griesbach's *Synopsis Evangeliorum*, which presents the texts of the synoptic gospels arranged in columns

Ancient sources virtually unanimously ascribe the synoptic gospels to the apostle [Matthew](/source/Matthew_the_Apostle), to [Mark](/source/Mark_the_Evangelist), and to [Luke](/source/Luke_the_Evangelist)—hence their respective canonical names.[54] The ancient authors, however, did not agree on which order the Gospels had been written. For example, [Clement of Alexandria](/source/Clement_of_Alexandria) held that Matthew wrote first, Luke wrote second and Mark wrote third;[55] on the other hand, [Origen](/source/Origen) argued that Matthew wrote first, Mark wrote second and Luke wrote third;[56] [Tertullian](/source/Tertullian) states that John and Matthew were published first and that Mark and Luke came later;[57][58] and Irenaeus precedes all these and orders his famous 'four pillar story' by John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark.[59]

A remark by [Augustine of Hippo](/source/Augustine_of_Hippo) at the beginning of the fifth century presents the gospels as composed in their canonical order (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), with each evangelist thoughtfully building upon and supplementing the work of his predecessors—the [Augustinian hypothesis](/source/Augustinian_hypothesis) (Matthew–Mark).[60]

This view (when any model of dependence was considered at all) seldom came into question until the late eighteenth century, when [Johann Jakob Griesbach](/source/Johann_Jakob_Griesbach) published in 1776 a [*synopsis*](/source/Johann_Jakob_Griesbach#Gospel_Synopsis) of the synoptic gospels. Instead of [harmonizing](/source/Gospel_harmony) them, he displayed their texts side by side, making both similarities and divergences apparent. Griesbach, noticing the special place of Mark in the synopsis, hypothesized Marcan posteriority and advanced (as [Henry Owen](/source/Henry_Owen) had a few years earlier[61]) the [two-gospel hypothesis](/source/Two-gospel_hypothesis) (Matthew–Luke).

In the nineteenth century, researchers applied the tools of [literary criticism](/source/Literary_criticism) to the synoptic problem in earnest, especially in German scholarship. Early work revolved around a hypothetical [proto-gospel](/source/Proto-Gospel_hypothesis) (*Ur-Gospel*), possibly in [Aramaic](/source/Aramaic), underlying the synoptics. From this line of inquiry, however, a consensus emerged that Mark itself served as the principal source for the other two gospels—[Marcan priority](/source/Marcan_priority).

In a theory first proposed by [Christian Hermann Weisse](/source/Christian_Hermann_Weisse) in 1838, the double tradition was explained by Matthew and Luke independently using two sources—thus, the [two-source (Mark–Q) theory](/source/Two-source_theory)—which supplemented Mark with another hypothetical source consisting mostly of sayings. This additional source was at first seen as the *[logia](/source/Logia)* (sayings) spoken of by [Papias](/source/Papias_of_Hierapolis) and thus called "Λ",[n 2] but later it became more generally known as ["Q"](/source/Q_source), from the German *Quelle*, meaning *source*.[62] This two-source theory eventually won wide acceptance and was seldom questioned until the late twentieth century; most scholars simply took this new orthodoxy for granted and directed their efforts toward Q itself, and this is still[\[update\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synoptic_Gospels&action=edit) largely the case.[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

The theory is also well known in a more elaborate form set forth by [Burnett Hillman Streeter](/source/Burnett_Hillman_Streeter) in 1924, which additionally hypothesized written sources ["M"](/source/M_source) and ["L"](/source/L_source) (for "Special Matthew" and "Special Luke" respectively)—hence the influential [four-document hypothesis](/source/Four-document_hypothesis). This exemplifies the prevailing scholarship of the time, which saw the canonical gospels as late products, dating from well into the second century, composed by unsophisticated cut-and-paste redactors out of a progression of written sources, and derived in turn from oral traditions and from [folklore](/source/Folklore) that had [evolved](/source/Evolutionary_literary_criticism) in various communities.[63]

In recent decades, weaknesses of the two-source theory have been more widely recognized,[*[by whom?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions)*] and debate has reignited. Many have independently argued that Luke did make some use of Matthew after all. British scholars went further and dispensed with Q entirely, ascribing the double tradition to Luke's direct use of Matthew—the [Farrer hypothesis](/source/Farrer_hypothesis) of 1955-which is enjoying growing popularity within scholarship today.[64][65] The rise of the Matthaean posteriority hypothesis, which dispenses with Q but ascribes the double tradition to Matthew's direct use of Luke, has been one of the defining trends of Synoptic studies during the 2010s, and the theory has entered the mainstream of scholarship.[66] Meanwhile, the Augustinian hypothesis has also made a comeback, especially in American scholarship. The [Jerusalem school hypothesis](/source/Jerusalem_school_hypothesis) has also attracted fresh advocates, as has the [Independence hypothesis](/source/Independence_hypothesis), which denies documentary relationships altogether.[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

On this collapse of consensus, Wenham observed: "I found myself in the Synoptic Problem Seminar of the Society for New Testament Studies, whose members were in disagreement over every aspect of the subject. When this international group disbanded in 1982 they had sadly to confess that after twelve years' work they had not reached a common mind on a single issue."[67]

More recently, Andris Abakuks applied a [statistical time series approach](/source/Hidden_Markov_model) to the Greek texts to determine the relative likelihood of these proposals. Models without Q fit reasonably well. Matthew and Luke were statistically dependent on their borrowings from Mark. This suggests at least one of Matthew and Luke had access to the other's work. The most likely synoptic gospel to be the last was Luke. The least likely was Mark. While this weighs against the Griesbach proposal and favors the Farrer, he does not claim any proposals are ruled out.[68]

### Conclusions

No definitive solution to the Synoptic Problem has been found yet. The [two-source hypothesis](/source/Two-source_hypothesis), which was dominant throughout the 20th century, still enjoys the support of most New Testament scholars; however, it has come under substantial attack in recent years by a number of biblical scholars, who have attempted to relaunch the [Augustinian hypothesis](/source/Augustinian_hypothesis),[69] the [Griesbach hypothesis](/source/Two-gospel_hypothesis)[70] and the [Farrer hypothesis](/source/Farrer_hypothesis).[71]

In particular, the existence of the [Q source](/source/Q_source) has received strong criticism in the first two decades of the 21st century: scholars such as [Mark Goodacre](/source/Mark_Goodacre) and [Brant Pitre](/source/Brant_Pitre) have pointed out that no manuscript of Q has ever been found, nor is any reference to Q ever made in the writings of the [Church Fathers](/source/Church_Fathers) (or any ancient writings, in fact).[72][73][74] This has prompted [E. P. Sanders](/source/E._P._Sanders) and Margaret Davies to write that the Two-sources hypothesis, while still dominant, "is least satisfactory"[75] and Fr. [Joseph Fitzmyer](/source/Joseph_Fitzmyer) [SJ](/source/Society_of_Jesus) to state that the Synoptic Problem is "practically insoluble".[76]

### Theories

Nearly every conceivable theory has been advanced as a solution to the synoptic problem.[77] The most notable theories include:

Notable synoptic theories Priority Theory[78] Diagram Notes Marcan priority Two‑source (Mark–Q) Most widely accepted theory. Matthew and Luke independently used Q, taken to be a Greek document with sayings and narrative. Farrer (Mark–Matthew) Double tradition explained entirely by Luke's use of Matthew. Three‑source (Mark–Q/Matthew) A hybrid of Two-source and Farrer. Q may be limited to sayings, may be in Aramaic, and may also be a source for Mark. Wilke (Mark–Luke) Double tradition explained entirely by Matthew's use of Luke. Four-source (Mark–Q/M/L) Matthew and Luke used Q. Only Matthew used M and only Luke used L. Matthaean priority Two‑gospel (Griesbach) (Matthew–Luke) Mark primarily has collected what Matthew and Luke share in common (Marcan posteriority). Augustinian (Matthew–Mark) The oldest known view, still advocated by some. Mark's special place is neither priority nor posteriority, but as the intermediate between the other two synoptic gospels. Canonical order is based on this view having been assumed (at the time when New Testament Canon was finalized). Lucan priority Jerusalem school (Luke–Q) A Greek anthology (A), translated literally from a Hebrew original, was used by each gospel. Luke also drew from an earlier lost gospel, a reconstruction (R) of the life of Jesus reconciling the anthology with yet another narrative work. Matthew has not used Luke directly. Marcion priority Priority of the Gospel of Marcion All gospels directly used the gospel of Marcion as their source, and have been influenced heavily by it. Others or none Multi‑source Each gospel drew from a different combination of hypothetical earlier documents. Proto‑gospel The gospels each derive, all or some of, its material from a common proto-gospel (Ur-Gospel), possibly in Hebrew or Aramaic. Q+/Papias (Mark–Q/Matthew) Each document drew from each of its predecessors, including Logoi (Q+) and Papias' Exposition. Independence Each gospel is an independent and original composition based upon oral history.

## See also

- [Bible portal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Bible)

- [Aramaic primacy](/source/Aramaic_primacy)

- [Authorship of the Gospels](/source/Authorship_of_the_Gospels)

- [Biblical criticism](/source/Biblical_criticism)

- [Gospel harmony](/source/Gospel_harmony)

- [List of Gospels](/source/List_of_Gospels)

- [List of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels](/source/List_of_key_episodes_in_the_Canonical_Gospels)

- [Source criticism](/source/Source_criticism)

## Notes

1. **[^](#cite_ref-2)** Both Greek words, *synoptikos* and *synopsis*, derive from σύν *syn* ([prep.](/source/Preposition)), meaning "together, with", and etymologically related words pertaining to sight, vision, appearance, i.e. ὀπτικός *optikos* ([adj.](/source/Adjective); [cf.](/source/Cf.) English *optic*), meaning "of *or* for sight", and ὄψις *opsis* ([n.](/source/Noun)), meaning "appearance, sight, vision, view".[1]

1. **[^](#cite_ref-63)** The capital form of the Greek letter lambda λ, corresponding to *l*, used here to abbreviate *logia* ([Greek](/source/Greek_language): λόγια).

## References

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-etymology_1-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-etymology_1-1) ["synoptic"](https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?q=synoptic). *[Oxford English Dictionary](/source/Oxford_English_Dictionary)* (online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or [participating institution membership](https://www.oed.com/public/login/loggingin#withyourlibrary) required.) Harper, Douglas. ["synoptic"](https://www.etymonline.com/word/synoptic). *[Online Etymology Dictionary](/source/Etymonline)*. Harper, Douglas. ["synopsis"](https://www.etymonline.com/word/synopsis). *[Online Etymology Dictionary](/source/Etymonline)*. Harper, Douglas. ["optic"](https://www.etymonline.com/word/optic). *[Online Etymology Dictionary](/source/Etymonline)*. [σύν](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=su/n), [ὄπτός](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)pto/s2), [ὀπτικός](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)ptiko/s), [ὄψις](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)/yis), [συνοπτικός](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=sunoptiko/s), [σύνοψις](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=su/noyis). [Liddell, Henry George](/source/Henry_Liddell); [Scott, Robert](/source/Robert_Scott_(philologist)); *[A Greek–English Lexicon](/source/A_Greek%E2%80%93English_Lexicon)* at the [Perseus Project](/source/Perseus_Project).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-3)** [Goodacre, Mark](/source/Mark_Goodacre) (2001). [*The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze*](https://archive.org/details/synopticproblemw00good). A&C Black. p. [16](https://archive.org/details/synopticproblemw00good/page/16). [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [0567080560](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0567080560).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Derico_2018_368–369_4-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Derico_2018_368–369_4-1) Derico, Travis (2018). *Oral Tradition and Synoptic Verbal Agreement: Evaluating the Empirical Evidence for Literary Dependence*. Pickwick Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 368–369. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1620320907](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1620320907).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Kirk_2019_148–183_5-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Kirk_2019_148–183_5-1) Kirk, Alan (2019). *Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition*. T&T Clark. pp. 148–183. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0567686541](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0567686541).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-6)** Barker, James (2021). *The Cambridge Companion to the New Testament*. Cambridge University Press. pp. 355–56. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1108437707](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1108437707).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEKeener2019261_7-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEKeener2019261_7-1) [Keener 2019](#CITEREFKeener2019), pp. 261.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre200132_8-0)** [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), p. 32.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre200120–21_9-0)** [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), pp. 20–21.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-:02_10-0)** Runesson, Anders (2021). *Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins*. Eerdmans. p. 80. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9780802868923](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780802868923).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-TSP20222_11-0)** *The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference*. Peeters Pub and Booksellers. 2023. p. 5. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9789042950344](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9789042950344).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Honoré_12-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Honoré_12-1) Honoré, A. M. (1968). "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem". *Novum Testamentum*. **10** (2/3): 95–147. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.2307/1560364](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1560364). [JSTOR](/source/JSTOR_(identifier)) [1560364](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560364).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-13)** [Bauckham, Richard](/source/Richard_Bauckham) (2006). [*Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony*](https://archive.org/details/jesuseyewitnesse00bauc_771). p. [220](https://archive.org/details/jesuseyewitnesse00bauc_771/page/n374). [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [0802831621](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0802831621).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-14)** [Perkins, Pheme](/source/Pheme_Perkins) (2009). *Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels*. Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 2–11. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0802865533](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0802865533).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-Keener_20192_15-0)** [Keener, Craig](/source/Craig_Keener) (2019). *Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels*. Eerdmans. p. 261. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0802876751](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0802876751).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre200138_16-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre200138_16-1) [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), p. 38.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-17)** Neville, David (2002). *Mark's Gospel – Prior Or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order*. A&C Black. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [1841272655](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1841272655).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-18)** [Mt 21:18–22](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew%2021:18–22&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-19)** [Mk 11:12–24](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark%2011:12–24&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-20)** [Lk 13:6–9](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%2013:6–9&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-21)** Smith, Ben C. (2009). ["The healing of a leper"](https://web.archive.org/web/20060501115751/http://www.textexcavation.com/synhealleper.html). *TextExcavation*. Archived from the original on May 1, 2006. Retrieved 2013-11-24.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-22)** [Mk 7:33–36; 8:22–26](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark%207:33–36:8&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-23)** [Mk 14:51–52](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark%2014:51–52&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-24)** [Mk 16:4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16:4&version=nasb)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-25)** [Mk 5:41](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5:41&version=nasb)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-26)** [Mk 1:23–28](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark%201:23–28&version=nrsv), [Lk 4:33–37](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%204:33–37&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-27)** [Mk 1:35–38](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark%201:35–38&version=nrsv), [Lk 4:42–43](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%204:42–43&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-28)** [Mk 9:38–41](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark%209:38–41&version=nrsv), [Lk 9:49–50](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%209:49–50&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-29)** [Mk 12:41–44](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark%2012:41–44&version=nrsv), [Lk 21:1–4](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%2021:1–4&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-30)** Stein, Robert H. (1992). *Luke: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture*. B&H Publishing. pp. 29–30. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [0805401245](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0805401245).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-31)** Kloppenborg, John S. (2000). *Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel*. Fortress Press. pp. 20–28. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [1451411553](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1451411553).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-32)** Rodriguez, Rafael (2017). "Matthew as Performer, Tradent, Scribe". *Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus*. **15** (2–3): 192–212. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1163/17455197-01502003](https://doi.org/10.1163%2F17455197-01502003).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-33)** Rodriguez, Rafael (2010). *Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text*. T&T Clark. p. 5. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0567264206](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0567264206).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-34)** Kirk, Alan (2019). *Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition*. T&T Clark. pp. 298–306. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0567686541](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0567686541).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-35)** Rodriguez, Rafael (2017). "Matthew as Performer, Tradent, Scribe". *Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus*. **15** (2–3): 203. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1163/17455197-01502003](https://doi.org/10.1163%2F17455197-01502003).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre200181_36-0)** [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), p. 81.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-37)** [Mt 3:7–10](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew%203:7–10&version=nrsv) & [Lk 3:7–9](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%203:7–9&version=nrsv). Text from 1894 Scrivener New Testament.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre200139_ff_38-0)** [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), pp. 39 ff.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre200140–41,_151–52_39-0)** [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), pp. 40–41, 151–52.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre2001124–26_40-0)** [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), pp. 124–26.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre2001148–51_41-0)** [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), pp. 148–51.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-42)** Goodacre, Mark (2007-11-14). ["Mark-Q Overlaps IV: Back to the Continuum"](https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/mark-q-overlaps-iv-back-to-continuum.html). *NT Blog*. Retrieved 2013-11-24.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-43)** [Mk 14:65](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark%2014:65&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-44)** [Mt 26:68](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew%2026:68&version=nrsv), [Lk 22:64](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%2022:64&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre2001145–46_45-0)** [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), pp. 145–46.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre2001108_46-0)** [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), p. 108.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-47)** Lace, O. Jessie (1965). [*Understanding the New Testament*](https://books.google.com/books?id=PeY3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA78). The Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge University Press. pp. 78–79. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9780521092814](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780521092814).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-48)** [Edwards, James R.](/source/James_R._Edwards) (2009). *The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition*. Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 141–48. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0802862341](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0802862341).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBauckham200665–66_49-0)** [Bauckham (2006)](#CITEREFBauckham2006), pp. 65–66.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-50)** Alexander, Loveday (2005). *The Preface to Luke's Gospel*. Cambridge University Press. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [0521018811](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0521018811).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-51)** [Lk 1:1–4 (NRSV)](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%201:1–4&version=nrsv)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-52)** Goodacre, Mark (2013). ["Synoptic Problem"](http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t373/e86). In McKenzie, Steven L. (ed.). *Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation*. Oxford University Press. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0199832262](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0199832262).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-53)** Barker, James (2021). *The Cambridge Companion to the New Testament*. Cambridge University Press. pp. 355–56. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1108437707](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1108437707).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-54)** Compare: Watts, John (1860). [*Who Were the Writers of the New Testament?: The "evidence" Shown to be Untrustworthy Both as to the Time and Authors of the Several Gospels*](https://books.google.com/books?id=g5VhAAAAcAAJ). London: George Abington. p. 9. Retrieved 29 May 2020. [Hennell](/source/Charles_Christian_Hennell), in his 'Origin of Christianity,' says that:- 'Some one after Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel which has come down to us, incorporating part of the Hebrew one, whence it was called the Gospel *according* to Matthew, and, in the second century, came to be considered as the work of the Apostle.'

1. **[^](#cite_ref-55)** [Hengel, Martin](/source/Martin_Hengel) (2000). *The four Gospels and the one Gospel of Jesus Christ: an investigation of the collection and origin of the Canonical Gospels*. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 34–115. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [1563383004](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1563383004).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-56)** [Eusebius](/source/Eusebius), *[Church History](/source/Church_History_(Eusebius))*, Book 6, Chapter 14, Paragraphs 6–10

1. **[^](#cite_ref-57)** Eusebius, *Church History*, Book 6, Chapter 25, Paragraphs 3–6

1. **[^](#cite_ref-58)** Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, Book 4, Chapter 5

1. **[^](#cite_ref-59)** Pitre, Brant (2016). [*The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ*](https://books.google.com/books?id=i9LvCAAAQBAJ). [Crown Publishing Group](/source/Crown_Publishing_Group). pp. 95–96. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0770435493](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0770435493).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-60)** Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, Book 3, Chapter 11, Paragraph 8

1. **[^](#cite_ref-61)** [Dungan, David L.](/source/David_Laird_Dungan) (1999). [*A history of the synoptic problem: the canon, the text, the composition and the interpretation of the Gospels*](https://archive.org/details/faithinsports00stev/page/112). Doubleday. pp. [112–144](https://archive.org/details/faithinsports00stev/page/112). [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [0385471920](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0385471920).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-62)** [Owen, Henry](/source/Henry_Owen) (1764). [*Observations on the Four Gospels, tending chiefly to ascertain the time of their Publication, and to illustrate the form and manner of their Composition*](https://books.google.com/books?id=Op5bAAAAQAAJ). London: T. Payne. Retrieved 2018-10-13.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-64)** Lührmann, Dieter (1995). "Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?". In Piper, Ronald Allen (ed.). *The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q*. BRILL. pp. 97–102. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9004097376](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9004097376).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEGoodacre2001160–161_65-0)** [Goodacre (2001)](#CITEREFGoodacre2001), pp. 160–161.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-66)** [Farrer, A. M.](/source/Austin_Farrer) (1955). "On Dispensing With Q". In Nineham, D. E. (ed.). [*Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot*](https://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/farrer.htm). Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 55–88. Retrieved 2018-10-13. The literary history of the Gospels will turn out to be a simpler matter than we had supposed. St. Matthew will be seen to be an amplified version of St. Mark, based on a decade of habitual preaching, and incorporating oral material, but presupposing no other literary source beside St. Mark himself. St. Luke, in turn, will be found to presuppose St. Matthew and St. Mark, and St. John to presuppose the three others. The whole literary history of the canonical Gospel tradition will be found to be contained in the fourfold canon itself, except in so far as it lies in the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, and the other New Testament writings. [...] Once rid of Q, we are rid of a progeny of nameless chimaeras, and free to let St. Matthew write as he is moved.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-67)** Runesson, Anders (2021). *Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins*. Eerdmans. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9780802868923](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780802868923).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-TSP2022_68-0)** *The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference*. Peeters Pub and Booksellers. 2023. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9789042950344](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9789042950344).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-69)** [Wenham, John](/source/John_Wenham) (1992). *Redating Matthew, Mark, & Luke*. InterVarsity Press. p. xxi. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [0830817603](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0830817603).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-70)** Abakuks, Andris (2014). *The Synoptic Problem and Statistics* (1 ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1466572010](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1466572010).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-71)** Wenham, John (1992). [*Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem*](https://books.google.com/books?id=qin4DwAAQBAJ). [Wipf and Stock Publishers](/source/Wipf_and_Stock_Publishers). [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1725276642](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1725276642).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-72)** Black, David Alan (2010). [*Why Four Gospels?*](https://books.google.com/books?id=fjAiDAAAQBAJ). Energion Publications. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1631992506](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1631992506).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-73)** Poirier, John C.; Peterson, Jeffrey (2015). [*Marcan Priority Without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis*](https://books.google.com/books?id=WQ90BgAAQBAJ). [Bloomsbury Publishing](/source/Bloomsbury_Publishing). [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0567367563](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0567367563).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-74)** Goodacre, Mark (2002). [*The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem*](https://books.google.com/books?id=MPfBso3TwGkC). [A&C Black](/source/A%26C_Black). [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1563383342](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1563383342).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-75)** Goodacre, Mark S.; Perrin, Nicholas (2004). [*Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique*](https://books.google.com/books?id=opMRAQAAIAAJ). [InterVarsity Press](/source/InterVarsity_Press). [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0281056132](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0281056132).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-76)** Pitre, Brant (2016). [*The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ*](https://books.google.com/books?id=i9LvCAAAQBAJ). [Crown Publishing Group](/source/Crown_Publishing_Group). p. 97. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0770435493](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0770435493).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-77)** Sanders, E. P.; Davies, Margaret (1989). [*Studying the Synoptic Gospels*](https://books.google.com/books?id=J9TYAAAAMAAJ). [SCM Press](/source/SCM_Press). p. 117. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-0334023425](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0334023425).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-78)** Buttrick, David G. (1970). [*Jesus and Man's Hope*](https://books.google.com/books?id=v9HGzQEACAAJ). [Pittsburgh](/source/Pittsburgh): [Pittsburgh Theological Seminary](/source/Pittsburgh_Theological_Seminary). p. 132.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-79)** Carlson (September 2004). ["Synoptic Problem"](https://web.archive.org/web/20041220232246/http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/09/overview-of-proposed-solutions.html). *Hypotyposeis.org*. Archived from the original on December 20, 2004. Carlson lists over twenty of the major ones, with citations of the literature.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-80)** Though eponymous and some haphazard structural names are prevalent in the literature, a systematic structural nomenclature is advocated by [Carlson](https://web.archive.org/web/20101009002917/http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2003/11/naming-the-synoptic-theories.html) and [Smith](https://web.archive.org/web/20060518000332/http://www.textexcavation.com/synopticnomenclature.html), and these names are also provided. The exception is the hypothesis of the priority of the Gospel of Marcion which is not part of their nomenclatures.

## External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to [Synoptic Gospels](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Synoptic_Gospels).

- [Catholic Encyclopedia: Synoptics](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14389b.htm)

- [Hypotyposeis: Synoptic Problem Website](https://web.archive.org/web/20041013182006/http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/)

- [Synoptic Problem: Bibliography of the main studies in English](https://www.bibliographia.co/nt-synoptic-problem.htm)

- [TextExcavation: The Synoptic Project](https://web.archive.org/web/20180616071315/http://www.textexcavation.com/synopticproject.html)

- [Synoptic Gospels Primer](https://virtualreligion.net/primer/)

- [NT Gateway: Synoptic Problem Web Sites](https://web.archive.org/web/20191001012211/http://www.ntgateway.com/synoptic-problem-and-q/websites/) (archived 1 October 2019)

- [The Synoptic Problem and its Solution](https://web.archive.org/web/20201020004840/http://synoptic-problem.com/) (archived 20 October 2020)

- [Matthew Conflator (Wilke) Hypothesis](https://www.alangarrow.com/mch.html/)

- [Synoptic Hypotheses and Authors](https://web.archive.org/web/20200905231556/https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem/synoptic-hypotheses-and-authors) (archived 5 September 2020)

v t e Synoptic problem The Synoptic Gospels Gospel of Matthew Gospel of Mark Gospel of Luke Matthaean priority Two-gospel hypothesis Augustinian hypothesis Marcan priority Two-source hypothesis Farrer hypothesis Three-source hypothesis Matthean Posteriority hypothesis Four-document hypothesis Lucan priority Jerusalem school hypothesis Other or no priority Multi-source hypothesis Hebrew Gospel hypothesis Priority of the Gospel of Marcion Q+/Papias hypothesis Independence hypothesis Possible sources Q source M source L source

v t e Books of the Bible Old Testament Hebrew Bible (protocanon) Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Deuterocanon or apocrypha Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & others Tobit Judith Additions to Esther 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Wisdom Sirach Baruch / Letter of Jeremiah Additions to Daniel Susanna Song of the Three Children Bel and the Dragon Eastern Orthodox & others 1 Esdras 2 Esdras Prayer of Manasseh Psalm 151 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Orthodox Tewahedo Enoch Jubilees 1, 2, and 3 Meqabyan Paralipomena of Baruch Broader canon Syriac Peshitta Psalms 152–155 2 Baruch Beta Israel Testaments of the Three Patriarchs Abraham Isaac Jacob New Testament Canon Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation Antilegomena Acts of Paul Apocalypse of Peter Didache Gospel of the Hebrews Epistle of Barnabas 1 Clement 2 Clement 3 Corinthians Shepherd of Hermas Subdivisions Chapters and verses Sedarim Pentateuch Historical books Wisdom books (Poetic Books) Prophetic books Major prophets Minor prophets Gospels List Synoptic Epistles Pauline Johannine Pastoral Catholic Apocalyptic literature Development Authorship Jewish canon Intertestamental period Christian canon Old Testament canon New Testament canon Antilegomena Apocrypha Jewish Old Testament New Testament Pseudepigrapha Old Testament Dating the Bible Manuscripts Dead Sea Scrolls Samaritan Pentateuch Septuagint Targum Diatessaron Muratorian fragment Peshitta Vetus Latina Vulgate Masoretic Text New Testament manuscript categories New Testament papyri New Testament uncials Related Bible version debate English Bible translations Other books referenced in the Bible Additional Scriptures Studies Biblical and Quranic narratives Synod of Hippo Textual criticism Category Portal WikiProject

v t e Gospel of Mark Bible chapters (New Testament) Mark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Events Baptism of Jesus Temptation Galilean ministry Parable of the Growing Seed Calming the storm Feeding the multitude Walking on water Cleansing a leper Transfiguration Great Commandment Olivet Discourse Anointing Passion Last Supper Pilate's court Crucifixion Entombment/Burial Empty tomb Resurrection Phrases Naked fugitive Sayings of Jesus on the cross People Andrew Bartholomew Caiaphas Herod Antipas James the Great James, son of Alphaeus Jesus Christ John the Baptist John Joseph of Arimathea Judas Iscariot Jude Mary, mother of James Mary, mother of Jesus Mary Magdalene Mary, sister of Martha Matthew Philip Pontius Pilate Rufus Salome Simon of Cyrene Simon the Zealot Simon Peter Thomas Zebedee Groups Pharisees Sadducees Samaritans Sanhedrin Places Bethany Bethsaida Capernaum Dalmanutha Galilee Jerusalem Jordan River Judea Nazareth Samaria Sea of Galilee Related Mark the Evangelist John Mark Textual variants Marcan priority two-source hypothesis three-source hypothesis Intertextual production Messianic Secret Secret Gospel of Mark In music St Mark Passion (attributed to Keiser) St Mark Passion, BWV 247 (J. S. Bach) La Pasión según San Marcos (Golijov) St Mark Passion (N. Matthes) Manuscripts Papyrus 45 84 88 137 Fayyum Fragment Minuscule 2427 (forgery) 7Q5 (disputed) Sources Greek Text Latin Vulgate Wycliffe Version King James Version American Standard Version World English Version

v t e Gospel of Matthew Bible (New Testament) Chapters Matthew 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Verses Matthew 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16:2b–3,19 27:1–12; 52–66 28 Events and phrases Jesus' birth Star of Bethlehem Magi Flight into Egypt Massacre of the Innocents Return to Nazareth Kingdom of heaven Baptism Temptation Galilean ministry Fishers of men Behold the bridegroom Sermon on the Mount Beatitudes Lord's Prayer Golden Rule Jesus preaches in a ship Calming the storm Feeding the multitude Walking on water Transfiguration Great Commandment Olivet Discourse Ten Virgins Anointing Passion of Jesus Last Supper Crucifixion of Jesus Burial Empty tomb Resurrection Great Commission People Andrew Bartholomew Caiaphas Herod James James, son of Alphaeus Jeremiah Jesus Christ John John the Baptist Joseph Judas Iscariot Jude Mary Mary Magdalene Mary, sister of Martha Matthew Philip Pontius Pilate Rachel Simon Peter Simon the Zealot Thomas Zebedee Groups Angels Pharisees Sadducees Sanhedrin Places Bethany Bethlehem Bethsaida Capernaum Egypt Galilee Jerusalem Jordan River Judea Samaria Sea of Galilee Related Q source M source Gospel of Mark Textual variants Augustinian hypothesis Two-gospel hypothesis Matthean Posteriority Genealogy of Jesus Five Discourses of Matthew Calling of Matthew Kingdom of heaven Immanuel Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew Rabbinical translations Shem Tob Joseph Smith–Matthew In culture St Matthew Passion (Bach, 1727/29) Structure The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964 film) Godspell (1971 musical) Godspell (1973 film) The Visual Bible: Matthew (1993 film) Manuscripts Papyrus 1 4 19 21 25 35 37 44 45 53 62 70 71 73 77 83 86 96 101 102 103 104 105 110 Magdalen papyrus Sources Greek Text Latin Vulgate Wycliffe Version King James Version American Standard Version World English Version

v t e Gospel of Luke Bible (New Testament) Chapters Luke 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Verses Luke 22:43–44 Events Annunciation to Mary, Elizabeth, and the shepherds Adoration of shepherds John the Baptist's Birth Census of Quirinius Jesus' Birth Circumcision and Presentation at the Temple Finding in the Temple Genealogy Baptism Temptation Calling of Matthew Counting the cost Sermon on the Plain Beatitudes Calming the storm Feeding the 5000 Transfiguration Great Commandment Lord's Prayer Prodigal son Olivet Discourse Passion of Jesus Last Supper Pilate's court Crucifixion Burial Empty tomb Resurrection Road to Emmaus appearance Ascension Phrases Benedictus Fishers of men Magnificat New Wine into Old Wineskins Nunc dimittis (Song of Simeon) Parable of the Unjust Steward Rich man and Lazarus The four woes of Jesus People Abijah Andrew Anna Annas Augustus Bartholomew Caiaphas David Elisha Elizabeth Gabriel Herod Antipas Herod the Great James, son of Alphaeus James the Great Jesus Christ John John the Baptist Joseph Joseph of Arimathea Judas Iscariot Jude Lazarus Lysanias Martha Mary, mother of Jesus Mary Magdalene Mary, sister of Martha Matthew Naaman Philip (apostle) Philip (tetrarch) Pontius Pilate Quirinius Simeon Simon the Zealot Simon Peter Theophilus Thomas Tiberius Caesar Zebedee Zechariah Groups Angels Pharisees Sadducees Samaritans Sanhedrin Seventy disciples Places Abilene Bethany Bethsaida Capernaum Decapolis Emmaus Galilee Iturea Jerusalem Jordan River Judea Nain Samaria Sea of Galilee Trachonitis Related Luke the Evangelist Luke–Acts Authorship of Luke–Acts Synoptic Gospels Gospel of Mark Q source L source Two-gospel hypothesis Jerusalem school hypothesis Textual variants Gospel of Marcion Jiizas: di Buk We Luuk Rait bout Im Adaptations St Luke Passion, BWV 246 (1730) St Luke Passion (Penderecki, 1966) Jesus (1979 film) Witness: Five Plays from the Gospel of Luke (2007, radio) The Savior (2014 film) Manuscripts Papyrus 2 3 4 7 42 45 69 75 82 97 111 Codex Nitriensis Ohrid Glagolitic fragments Sources Greek Text Latin Vulgate Wycliffe Version King James Version American Standard Version World English Version

Authority control databases: National Czech Republic

---
Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Synoptic Gospels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.