Paul Dexter

2-10-18

2:00 PM

Interpretation Paper #1

The Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) all tell the story

of the life and death of Jesus Christ. However, while each gospel tells the same story, all of them

tell the story slightly differently. All three gospels have similarities and differences between their

settings, characters, literary devices, and other story details. This poses a question for Bible

scholars: Where did these differences come from? Differences in the same story may indicate

that the gospels were edits of a known story, or that different authors created these alternate

versions. Biblical scholars refer to this dilemma as the “Synoptic Problem” (NOAB 2286). To

answer the Synoptic Problem, a comparison of these variations is necessary to understand the

literary and theological implications of a story retold by multiple authors.

While scholars do not know the exact authorship of the gospels, evidence provides a

rough insight on the time frames at which the gospels were written. Literary evidence suggests

that the gospel of Mark was written around 66-70 CE, since the gospel makes references to the

destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (NOAB 1791). Scholars refer to this as “Markan Priority”

(Ehrman 61). Scholars estimate Matthew and Luke to have been written between 80-85 CE

(Ehrman 93, 110). Based on the content of the gospels, as well as these time frames, two theories

are agreed upon by most scholars: The Two-Source Hypothesis and the Farrer Hypothesis. Both

hypotheses accept Markan priority, and that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark as a main

source (Rollens). However, while Matthew and Luke share most of their content with Mark,

there are some sections of Matthew and Luke that do not appear in Mark at all (Rollens). Each of

the two main theories provide two different answers to this question.
 The Two-Source Hypothesis proposes that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark, but also

drew from a source designated “Q” (Ehrman 61). This is sometimes called the Four-Source

Hypothesis, since Matthew and Luke also had sources and content unique to them (Ehrman 61).

The Q source may have been responsible for the similarities that exist between Matthew and

Luke that do not appear in Mark. This Q source, however, has no physical evidence to suggest its

existence. If it existed, its oral or written tradition has either never been found or has been lost to

history (Ehrman 61). Alternatively, scholars often agree upon the Farrer Hypothesis, which states

that the author of Luke drew upon the content of Matthew (Rollens). This theory would also

explain why Matthew and Luke share content that is not found in Mark. Furthermore, the Farrer

Hypothesis helps to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke (Rollens).

To illustrate the logic behind these hypotheses, one can compare the endings of the

gospels. The gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke all have similar endings. However, each of

these endings is slightly different, and these differences between the endings highlight the

intricacies of the Synoptic Problem. For example, each of the three gospels states that after Jesus

dies, a Roman Centurion comments on the death of Jesus. In addition, all three gospels state that

the death of Jesus causes the “curtain of the temple” to split in two (Mk 15:38, Mt 27:51, Lk

23:45); this curtain, of course, being the curtain in the Jerusalem Temple that separates and

protects the people from God (NOAB Mk 15:37-38 Notes). Crucially, each gospel has a slightly

different line and/or turn of events. In Mark, the Centurion sees Jesus die, and says, “Truly this

man was God’s Son!” (Mk 15:39). In Matthew, the line remains the same: “Truly this man was

God’s Son!” (Mt 27:54). But in Matthew, the author adds several details prior to the Centurion’s

exclamation. Not only does the death of Jesus split the curtain, but it also prompts an earthquake

that smashes open tombs and raises the bodies of saints from the dead (Mt 27:50-54). In Luke,
such a dramatic event does not occur; however, the line the Centurion says is changed:

“Certainly this man was innocent.” (Lk 23:47). Based on these differences, one can understand

the reasoning for the Two-Source Hypothesis. Since Mark was the first gospel written, it is

reasonable that any content shared between all three gospels had to be derived from Mark. Due

to the large amount of shared content between all three gospels, evidence suggests that the

“Mark” source existed as inspiration for Matthew and Luke. Additionally, both Matthew and

Luke modify the original story from Mark. Matthew chooses to shock the reader by granting

further supernatural power to Jesus as he dies. In Matthew, this change fixes a literary problem

with Mark by giving the Centurion a legitimate reason to proclaim the powerful, superhuman

nature of Jesus. In Luke, the author takes a different approach; the Centurion’s line is changed so

that the Roman Centurion has a deeper sympathy for Jesus. It demonstrates to the reader that

even the hard, pagan, cruel Romans love Jesus enough to proclaim his innocence from

wrongdoing. Since these unique, radical, non-Markan literary appeals are made in Matthew and

Luke, evidence suggests that the existence of the “Matthew” and “Luke” sources (as per the

Four-Source Hypothesis) are supported as well.

However, in other sections of the gospels, some content shared between Matthew and

Luke is not found within Mark. The Lord’s Prayer is a key example. These passages in Matthew

and Luke are not present anywhere in Mark. However, each individual form of the Lord’s Prayer

is slightly different between Matthew and Luke. In Matthew, the Lord’s Prayer goes as follows:

“Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on

earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive our debts, as we also have

forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.”

(Mt 6:9-13). In Luke, the lines are modified. The third sentence is omitted entirely, and the final
section goes as follows: “And forgive our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.

And do not bring us to the time of trial.” (Lk 11:4). From these differences, support for both

hypotheses can be drawn. Both versions of the Lord’s Prayer share several lines, suggesting that

Matthew and Luke drew from another source to write the Lord’s Prayer. This correlates with the

Two-Source Hypothesis, since a non-Markan source is traditionally classified as part of the

hypothetical Q source. In addition, the Farrer Hypothesis can be supported as well; if the Q

source does not exist, then the only logical possibility is that Matthew or Luke invented the

Lord’s Prayer. Both versions contain the prayer, suggesting that either Matthew wrote it and

Luke changed it, or that Luke wrote it and Matthew changed it. The former of these possibilities

provides evidence that the Farrer Hypothesis holds true.

Ultimately, while compelling evidence suggests the truthfulness of both the Two-Source

and Farrer Hypotheses, it is not possible to ever know which theory is correct. The oral and

written traditions of these texts are more than centuries old, so much of the physical or oral

evidence that supports any theory has been lost to history. However, from the evidence that

biblical scholars have, it is highly likely that:

 Mark, Matthew, and Luke had individual sources unique to them.

 Matthew and Luke drew content and inspiration from Mark.

 A non-Markan source was used in the writing of Matthew and Luke.

In any case, the Synoptic Gospels are brilliantly composed to suit different audiences

from ancient times, and they all provide modern scholars and readers with a glimpse of ancient

near-eastern culture, as well as early Christianity.