1.

0 INTRODUCTION
The materials found in the first three gospels; Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the authors have
included several similar stories in their narratives - these are called the Synoptic Gospels.
Their narratives are similar enough that scholars have grouped them together under the title
of “Synoptic Gospels.” In essence, the word synoptic conveys a harmonious or similar feel.1

Did these three writers have an issue with plagiarism? Did they have the same source
material that they all referred to? Or did divine intervention play a role in all of their texts?
The synoptic Gospels are called synoptic from a Latin word, which means “seen together,”
because the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell many of the same stories,
often in the same words, frequently following the same order.2

2.0 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS THEORIES

First, we have no evidence of a Q source. What may have happened is Mark or Matthew
(depending on which scholar you asked) wrote their gospel first, and the other two had access
to it. We can point to the verse in Luke that mentions that others had written accounts of
Jesus (Luke 1:1).

Second, we do have enough differences between the three gospels that the authors didn’t
copy each other word for word. Even if they did use some Q source, which we have no
evidence to back up that theory, they were either eyewitnesses (Matthew) or spent a great
deal of time compiling eyewitness accounts to provide an accurate gospel narrative (Luke
1:2).

Third, we also see some seemingly conflicting details in these accounts. For example, the
women who witness the resurrection go immediately to tell the disciples in Matthew 28:8, but
they don’t seem to tell anyone in Mark 16:8. The article linked above shows how these aren’t
contradictions, but each writer gave different details about the events. Hence, showing how
the gospel writers did not copy each other word for word. Fourth, we can’t altogether rule out
divine intervention if Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not have access to each other’s gospels.3
The gospel of Mark is different, because it begins with Jesus as an adult. But from there on,
the stories have very similar outlines. Jesus gets baptized by John the Baptist; he goes into the
1
McKnight, Scot, and Williams, Matthew C. 2000. The Synoptic Gospels: An Annotated
Bibliography. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Studies on the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 37-46.
2
Abakuks, Andris. 2006. "A Statistical Study of the Triple-Link Model in the Synoptic
Problem." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society no. 169:49-60
3
———. 2007. "A Modification of Honoré’s Triple-link Model in the Synoptic
Problem." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society no. 170:841-850.

1
wilderness to be tempted by the Devil; he comes back; and he begins proclaiming the coming
of the Kingdom of God. He teaches the crowds in parables; he performs many miracles,
including casting out demons. Halfway through his ministry, he goes up onto a mountain in
the presence of three of his disciples and he is transfigured before them, the Mount of
Transfiguration. He predicts that he needs to go to Jerusalem to be betrayed and denied, and
to be put on trial and then executed, but that then he will rise from the dead.
Some argue that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar that they must have used each
other’s Gospels or another common source. This supposed “source” has been given the title
“Q” from the German word quelle, which means “source.” Is there any evidence for a “Q”
document? No, there is not. No portion or fragment of a “Q” document has ever been
discovered. None of the early church fathers ever mentioned a Gospel “source” in their
writings. “Q” is the invention of liberal “scholars” who deny the inspiration of the Bible.
They believe the Bible to be nothing more than a work of literature, subject to the same
criticism given to other works of literature. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not use a “Q”
document, why are their Gospels so similar? There are several possible explanations. There is
absolutely no problem with the idea that Matthew and/or Luke copied some text from Mark’s
Gospel and used it in their Gospels.4

3.0 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOSPELS

The similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so numerous and so close, not just in
the order of the material presented but also in the exact wording of long stretches of text, that
it is not sufficient to explain these similarities on the basis of common oral tradition alone. 
Rather, some type of literary dependence must be assumed as well.  That is, someone copied
from someone else's previously written text; several of the evangelists must have used one or
more of the earlier Gospels as sources for their own compositions.  Moreover, the common
material is not always presented in the same order in the various Gospels.  So, the question
remains, who wrote first, and who copied from whom?5

3.1 Markan Priority

4
B. Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. p.37
5
———. 2012. "The Synoptic Problem: on Matthew’s and Luke’s Use of Mark." Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society no. 175:959-975.

2
 For most of Christian history, people thought that Matthew was the first and oldest Gospel,
and that Mark was a later, shorter version of the same basic message. From the mid-19th
century until today, however, most scholars are convinced that Mark is the first and oldest
Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke are later expansions of Mark. Why? Mark's Gospel
contains several grammatical, literary, historical, and geographical difficulties (minor errors)
that are not found in Matthew and/or Luke. If Matthew was first, it is harder to understand
how Mark could have introduced these errors; but if Mark was first, it is easy to see how
Matthew or Luke wanted to and were able to correct Mark's minor mistakes.6

Mark's Gospel contains several episodes that are obscure (4:26-29; 14:51-52) or make Jesus
look radical (3:19-21), magical (7:32-37), or weak (8:22-26). If Matthew was first, it is harder
to explain why Mark added these strange episodes; but if Mark was first, it is easy to
understand why both Matthew and Luke omitted them. 7 Mark's basic
chronological/geographical structure is the same as in the other two Synoptics; but the
material found in both Matthew and Luke (but not in Mark) is in very different orders in
these two Gospels. If Matthew was first and Mark second, it is hard to understand why Luke
would have kept the same order for all the material found in both Matthew and Mark, but
substantially rearranged all the other material found in Matthew but not in Mark. If Mark was
first, however, then it is easy to explain how Matthew and Luke inserted the extra material
they have in common (from the Q source?) into Mark's overall outline, although in
significantly different ways.8

4.0. THE ARGUMENT FROM REDACTION

4.1. “Son of David”

This phrase occurs eleven times in Matthew, four in Mark and Luke. Sheer numbers do not
do this justice. Matthew begins his gospel with this phrase (1:1). Further, when a comparison
is made, pericope by pericope, it can be seen that this is truly a Matthean emphasis. Cf.,
e.g., Matt 12:22-24/Mark 3:22/Luke 11:14-15. If Matthew were the first gospel, why would
Mark and Luke omit this phrase seven times? That they have no aversion to it is seen from
6
Abbott, Edwin. 1901. The Corrections of Mark Adopted by Matthew and Luke. London: Adam and Charles
Black.
7
Batovici, Dan. 2009. "The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem." Currents in Biblical Research no.
7:245-271.
8
———. 2014. "Gospels before Normativization: A Critique of Francis Watson’s Gospel
Writing." Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 37:185-200.

3
the four references. Further, the four references in Mark match the four in Luke, suggesting
that Luke used Mark but was unaware of Matthew.9

4.2 Fulfillment Motif

Matthew’s ten (or eleven) introductory formulae are not duplicated exactly in either Mark or
Luke. Since both Mark and Luke use other introductory formulae, this shows that they too
were interested in linking the life of Jesus to the OT. But would they omit all of Matthew’s
formulae? It is easier to believe that Matthew added them to his copy of Mark, in order to
show to Jewish Christians that Jesus truly was the Christ. “That the formula quotations are
secondary additions to the text is evident in Matthew 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17;
13:35; 21:4; and 27:9. These passages could all be simply excised from their context, and
although we would be much poorer as a result, their omission would never be noticed.” 10

5.0 MARKAN STYLISTIC FEATURES COMPARED WITH MATTHEW

The word “immediately” is distinctively Markan, occurring over 40 times. Every time
Matthew has the word, there is a parallel in Mark. Further, the alternate spelling, is almost
always paralleled in Mark. “Of the 18,293 words found in Matthew, 10,901 have Markan
parallels. In these 10,901 words, ‘immediately’ occurs seventeen times, but in the 7,392
words in Matthew that do not have a Markan parallel, it occurs only once.” 45 On the
Griesbach hypothesis, we would expect to see twelve instances of “immediately” in the
material which finds no parallel with Mark. In other words, Mark’s usage is consistent
throughout, while Matthew’s increases only in parallels with Mark. This strongly suggests
that Matthew used Mark.11
Mark uses an explanatory in an editorial comment 34 times (of his 66 uses of this
conjunction). Matthew, on the other hand, uses γάρ 11 times in editorial comments (out of his
123 total uses), ten of which parallel Mark’s usage. “Statistically [assuming Matthean
priority], one would expect approximately seven such clauses in Matthew’s non-parallel
material. On the other hand, on the basis of Markan priority, one would expect a greater

9
Bauer, David R. 2019. "Streeter Versus Farmer: The Present State of the Synoptic Problem as Argument for a
Synchronic Emphasis in Gospel Interpretation." The Journal of Inductive BiblicalStudies no. 6:7-28.
10
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. 1985. "Q: A Re-examination." In The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical
Appraisal, edited by Bellinzoni Jr., Arthur J., 259-268. Macon: Mercer University
Press. Reprint from The Expository Times, 54, 1942-43, pp. 320-323.
11
Book II: The principal corrections of Mark, pp. 61-300; § 80. Minor agreements of Matthew and Luke,
pp- 300-304.

4
occurrence of the Markan stylistic feature in the sections of Matthew that have parallels to
Mark than in the other sections, and this is exactly what we find.”12
Markan priority, the following eight arguments have been given

The argument from length. Although Mark’s Gospel is shorter, it is not an abridgment, nor a
gospel built exclusively on Matthew-Luke agreement. In fact, where its pericope parallel
Matthew and/or Luke, Mark’s story is usually the longest. The rich material left out of his
gospel is inexplicable on the Griesbach hypothesis.

The argument from grammar. Matthew and especially Luke use better grammar and literary
style than Mark, suggesting that they used Mark, but improved on it.
The argument from harder readings. On the analogy of early scribal habits, Luke and
Matthew apparently removed difficulties from Mark’s Gospel in making their own. If
Matthean priority is assumed, then what is inexplicable is why Mark would have introduced
such difficulties.
The argument from verbal agreement. There are fewer Matthew-Luke verbal agreements than
any other two-gospel verbal agreements.13
The argument from agreement in order. Not only do Luke and Matthew never agree with
each other when they depart from Mark’s order, but the reasons for this on the assumption of
Markan priority are readily available while on Matthean priority they are not.
The argument from literary agreements. Very close to the redactional argument, this point
stresses that on literary analysis, it is easier to see Matthew’s use of Mark than vice versa.14
The argument from Mark’s more primitive theology. On many fronts Mark seems to display a
more primitive theology than either Luke or Matthew. This suggests that Matthew and Luke
used Mark, altering the text to suit their purposes.
There are still two questions which must be resolved if Markan priority is to be established as
the most probable hypothesis. First, there are numerous places where Matthew and Luke have
common material that is absent from Mark. This raises the question as to whether they both

12
Ibidem.
13
Abbott, Edwin. 1901. The Corrections of Mark Adopted by Matthew and Luke. London: Adam and Charles
Black.
14
Bauer, David R. 2019. "Streeter Versus Farmer: The Present State of the Synoptic Problem as Argument
for a Synchronic Emphasis in Gospel Interpretation." The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies no. 6:7-
28

5
used a common source or whether one borrowed from the other. Markan prioritists would say
that they both used a common source—given the title “Q”.15

6.0 SCHOLARLY ARGUMENTS AND SOLUTIONS

It was caused by inspiration from God: The reason why there are similarities in the three
gospels is because they were inspired by God to write down the things they wrote down.
Scholars who put forward this argument have been criticized on the ground that it does not
explain the differences that are found in the three gospels. 16 Oral tradition: This theory
acknowledges that there were some oral traditions in existence before the people started
writing. Since the gospel writers relied on the same oral tradition, there are bound to be
similarities in the accounts. This theory too has been shot down on the grounds that the oral
tradition circulated as distinct episodes and not as on complete story. Also, if they wrote from
the same source, why should there be differences in some of the accounts.17

First documentary hypothesis

The theory of first documentary hypothesis, which was propounded by St. Augustine, stated
that Matthew was the first of the gospels to be written before the other two copied from his
work. This theory was also denounced because it shows Mark as copying from Matthew
when the facts do not show it to be so. Where Matthew and Mark write about the same issue,
Mark’s account sounds more vivid and detailed. This could not have been the case if Mark
was the one that copied from Matthew.18

The theory of a primitive gospel

This theory states that there was a primitive gospel that circulated in the early church so the
gospel writers may just have copied from that primitive gospel. This has also been disproved
by scholars who say there is no historical trace of the existence of that primitive gospel. Also,
it only explains the similarities; it does not explain the differences.19

15
McKnight, Scot, and Williams, Matthew C. 2000. The Synoptic Gospels: An Annotated
Bibliography. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Studies on the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 37-46.
16
Bauer, David R. 2019. "Streeter Versus Farmer: The Present State of the Synoptic Problem as Argument
for a Synchronic Emphasis in Gospel Interpretation." The Journal of Inductive Biblical
Studies no. 6:7-28.
17
Ibidem
18
———. 2014. "Gospels before Normativization: A Critique of Francis Watson’s Gospel
Writing." Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 37:185-200.
19
Black, David Alan. 1988. "Some Dissenting Notes on R. Stein's The Synoptic Problem and Markan
"Errors"." Filología neotestamentaria no. 1:95-101.

6
Two documentary hypothesis

This theory postulates that there were two sources that the gospel writers used. That is, the
Mark and the “Q” Source. According to Lachmann, who put forward the theory, this explains
the similarities in the gospels and even the matters that are found in both Matthew and Luke.
The reason why this does not completely the solution to the problem is that it does not
explain the stories that can be seen only in Matthew and those that can be seen only in Luke.

7.0 CONCLUSION
Conclusively the theory, which was propounded by B.H. Streeter, states that Mark was the
first gospel to be written and Luke and Matthew copied from him. The theory continues that
apart from using Mark as their source, both Matthew and Luke also used a common source
which can be termed the “Q” source. Finally, there were some stories that were peculiar to
Matthew so the theory states that Matthew got those stories from the “M” source and for the
stories peculiar to Luke, he must have gotten the materials for those stories from the “L”
source.20 The theory of four documentary hypothesis is the only one of all the theories that
has been able to explain the similarities, differences and the peculiarities found in the three
synoptic gospels.

20
Arnal, William E. 2007. "The Q Document." In Jewish Christianity Reconsidered, Rethinking Ancient
Groups and Texts, edited by Jackson-McCabe, Matt, 119-154. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

7
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

B. Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. P.37

McKnight, Scot, and Williams, Matthew C. 2000. The Synoptic Gospels: An Annotated

Bibliography. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Studies on the Synoptic Gospels,

Longstaff, Thomas Richmond Willis, and Thomas, Page Allison, eds. 1989. The Synoptic
Problem. A Bibliography, 1716-1988. Macon: Mercer University Press.
Abakuks, Andris. 2006. "A Statistical Study of the Triple-Link Model in the Synoptic
Problem." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society no. 169:49-60
———. 2007. "A Modification of Honoré’s Triple-link Model in the Synoptic
Problem." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society no. 170:841-850.
———. 2012. "The Synoptic Problem: on Matthew’s and Luke’s Use of Mark." Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society no. 175:959-975.
Abbott, Edwin. 1901. The Corrections of Mark Adopted by Matthew and Luke. London:
Adam and Charles Black.
Book II: The principal corrections of Mark, pp. 61-300; § 80. Minor agreements of Matthew
and Luke, pp- 300-304.

Agnew, Peter W. 1983. "The “Two-Gospel” Hypothesis and a Biographical Genre for the
Gospels." In New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond,
edited by Farmer, William R., 481-499. Macon: Mercer University Press.
Arnal, William E. 2007. "The Q Document." In Jewish Christianity Reconsidered,
Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, edited by Jackson-McCabe, Matt, 119-154.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. 1985. "Q: A Reexamination." In The Two-Source Hypothesis: A
Critical Appraisal, edited by Bellinzoni Jr., Arthur J., 259-268. Macon: Mercer
University Press.Reprint from The Expository Times, 54, 1942-43, pp. 320-323.

Batovici, Dan. 2009. "The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem." Currents in

Biblical Research no. 7:245-271.
———. 2014. "Gospels before Normativization: A Critique of Francis Watson’s Gospel
Writing." Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 37:185-200.

Bauer, David R. 2019. "Streeter Versus Farmer: The Present State of the Synoptic Problem as
Argument for a Synchronic Emphasis in Gospel Interpretation." The Journal of
Inductive Biblical Studies no. 6:7-28.
Bellinzoni Jr., Arthur J., ed. 1985. The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal. Macon:
Mercer University Press.

8
Black, David Alan. 1988. "Some Dissenting Notes on R. Stein's The Synoptic Problem and
Markan "Errors"." Filología neotestamentaria no. 1:95-101.

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
2.0 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS THEORIES...............................................................................................1
3.0 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOSPELS...........................................2
3.1 Markan Priority............................................................................................................................3

9
4.0. THE ARGUMENT FROM REDACTION.....................................................................................3
4.1. “Son of David”............................................................................................................................3
4.2 Fulfillment Motif..........................................................................................................................4
5.0 MARKAN STYLISTIC FEATURES COMPARED WITH MATTHEW.......................................4
6.0 SCHOLARLY ARGUMENTS AND SOLUTIONS....................................................................6
7.0 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................7
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................8

10