Welcome to the Synoptic Tradition
Welcome to your study notes for Unit A2 1: Themes in the Synoptic Gospels. If you have ever opened the New Testament and wondered why the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke sound remarkably similar in some places yet completely different in others, you have already stumbled upon one of the most fascinating puzzles in biblical scholarship: The Synoptic Problem.
Don't worry if these critical terms and theories feel intimidating at first. We will break down every concept into straightforward, bite-sized pieces so that you can approach your A2 exam with confidence.
Did you know? The word synoptic comes from two Greek words: syn (meaning 'together') and opsis (meaning 'view' or 'sight'). When placed side by side, Matthew, Mark, and Luke can literally be 'viewed together' because of their shared story structure, wording, and order of events.
1. What is the Synoptic Problem?
The Synoptic Problem is the academic term for the literary relationship among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Scholars ask a central question: Why are these three Gospels so strikingly similar in their arrangement and exact Greek wording, while at the same time containing clear differences and unique stories?
Consider an everyday analogy: Imagine three students in your class submit an essay on the life of a historical figure. Large paragraphs are almost identical word-for-word, but some sections appear only in one or two of the essays. As a teacher, you would immediately ask: Did they copy from one another? Did two of them share a set of rough revision notes? Or did they all rely on a single master source?
The Two Main Observations:
• Agreements: The three Gospels frequently agree on the chronological sequence of Jesus' ministry, quote Old Testament passages in the exact same translated words, and share unique phrases.
• Disagreements: Each Gospel includes unique material (for example, distinct parables or infancy narratives), alters the order of specific episodes, and changes phrasing to fit different theological themes.
Key Takeaway: The Synoptic Problem explores whether the Gospel writers copied from each other, shared written documents, or adapted oral traditions independently.
2. The Three Methods of Biblical Criticism
To investigate the Gospels, scholars apply three primary critical methods. Knowing the exact difference between these tools is vital for scoring top marks in your CCEA examination.
A. Source Criticism (Investigating the Written Roots)
• What it is: The study of the written sources used by the Gospel writers.
• The Key Question: What written documents or eyewitness texts were in front of the authors when they sat down to write?
• Focus: Identifying whether Matthew and Luke used Mark, or whether they drew upon a lost collection of sayings.
B. Form Criticism (Investigating the Oral Tradition)
• What it is: The study of the period before the Gospels were written down, when the stories of Jesus circulated by word of mouth.
• The Key Question: How were individual units of tradition (parables, miracle stories, sayings) shaped and preserved by the early Christian community to meet practical needs (such as preaching, worship, or teaching)?
• Focus: Classifying the literary 'forms' or genres of isolated passages.
C. Redaction Criticism (Investigating the Theological Editor)
• What it is: The study of how the Gospel authors edited, arranged, and adapted their source materials.
• The Key Question: Why did an author alter a phrase, omit a detail, or arrange a story in a specific sequence?
• Focus: Uncovering the unique theological intentions and perspectives of each individual evangelist.
Memory Trick:
• Source = The Ingredients (What materials were gathered?)
• Form = The Packaging (How were individual stories shaped during the oral phase?)
• Redaction = The Master Chef (Why did the author blend the ingredients in their own distinct way?)
Key Takeaway: Never confuse Source Criticism (which asks 'what written texts were used?') with Redaction Criticism (which explains the author's personal theological purpose behind editing those texts).
3. Core Hypotheses and Theories
Scholars have proposed several solutions to explain the literary relationship among the Synoptic Gospels. The CCEA specification requires you to know four major hypotheses and their key scholars.
Theory 1: The Priority of Mark
The Priority of Mark proposes that the Gospel of Mark was the earliest Gospel written, and that both Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as their primary historical framework and source.
Arguments supporting Markan Priority:
• Brevity: Mark is by far the shortest Gospel. It is far more probable that Matthew and Luke expanded Mark's narrative by adding extra teachings and birth stories than that Mark stripped away major sections of Matthew or Luke.
• Rougher Style and Greek: Mark uses colloquial expressions, simpler Greek grammar, and harsh phrasing. Matthew and Luke frequently smooth out Mark's grammar and polish his language.
• The Order of Events: Wherever Matthew departs from Mark's chronological order, Luke supports Mark; whenever Luke departs from Mark's order, Matthew supports Mark. Matthew and Luke almost never agree against Mark in their overall sequence.
Theory 2: The Two-Source Hypothesis & Streeter's Four-Source Theory
While Markan priority explains why Matthew and Luke share so much Markan narrative, it does not explain why Matthew and Luke share roughly 200–230 verses of Jesus' sayings that are completely absent from Mark (such as the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes).
• The Two-Source Hypothesis (H.J. Holtzmann): Proposes that Matthew and Luke independently used two foundational sources: Mark AND a lost collection of Jesus' sayings known as 'Q' (from the German word Quelle, meaning 'source').
• The Four-Source Theory (B.H. Streeter): Expanded the Two-Source model to account for materials unique to Matthew and Luke. Streeter argued for four main sources:
1. Mark: Provided the basic chronological and narrative framework.
2. Q: Provided the shared sayings material found in both Matthew and Luke.
3. M: Material unique exclusively to Matthew (e.g., specific parables like the Sheep and the Goats).
4. L: Material unique exclusively to Luke (e.g., the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son).
Theory 3: The Farrer Hypothesis (Austin Farrer & Michael Goulder)
Some scholars find the idea of an undiscovered, hypothetical document like 'Q' unnecessary. The Farrer Hypothesis maintains Markan Priority but removes 'Q' from the equation entirely.
• The Argument: Mark was written first. Matthew read Mark and expanded it. Later, Luke sat down with both Mark and Matthew in front of him.
• Why it matters: It explains the shared material between Matthew and Luke very simply: Luke simply copied directly from Matthew! This eliminates the need to invent a missing 'Q' source.
Theory 4: The Augustinian Hypothesis (Traditional View)
Named after St. Augustine of Hippo, this traditional view preserves the historical order found in ancient church tradition.
• The Sequence: Matthew was written first, Mark was written second (as an abridgement or summary of Matthew), and Luke was written third (drawing upon both Matthew and Mark).
• Key Feature: It rejects Markan priority, placing Matthew as the foundational eyewitness document of the early church.
Quick Comparison Guide:
• Two-Source / Streeter: Mark + Q (+ M & L) \(\rightarrow\) Matthew & Luke written independently.
• Farrer: Mark \(\rightarrow\) Matthew \(\rightarrow\) Luke (No Q needed).
• Augustinian: Matthew \(\rightarrow\) Mark \(\rightarrow\) Luke (Matthew written first).
Key Takeaway: The Two-Source Hypothesis (Mark + Q) remains the most widely accepted solution among modern critics, but the Farrer Hypothesis provides a strong counter-argument by suggesting Luke directly used Matthew.
4. Avoiding Common Exam Pitfalls
CCEA Chief Examiner Reports regularly point out areas where candidates lose easy marks. Keep these tips in mind:
• Do not confuse Source and Redaction criticism: If a question asks about why Matthew portrays Jesus as the new Moses fulfilling the Jewish Law, this is Redaction Criticism (theology and authorial intention). If a question asks about where Matthew found a story, this is Source Criticism.
• Avoid vague summaries of passages: Always identify which specific Gospel author you are discussing. Do not write 'Jesus taught the Beatitudes'; specify whether you are evaluating Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) or Luke's Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17–49).
• Balanced Evaluation in Part (b) Synoptic Assessment: Always present multiple perspectives. For example, if evaluating whether 'Q' actually existed, discuss both the strengths of Streeter's Two/Four-Source Theory and the counter-arguments offered by Farrer and Goulder.
Quick Review Checklist
Can you confidently explain each of the following to a classmate?
• The definition of the Synoptic Problem.
• The difference between Source, Form, and Redaction criticism.
• Three main arguments in favor of the Priority of Mark.
• The four components of B.H. Streeter's Four-Source Theory (Mark, Q, M, L).
• Why Austin Farrer and Michael Goulder argued against the existence of 'Q'.
• The traditional sequence of the Augustinian Hypothesis.