Three voices tell the story of Jesus with a striking unity of spirit and a bewildering diversity of form. Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak in concert and yet independently, their Gospels echoing each other in harmonies and dissonances that have fascinated and challenged readers for centuries. This phenomenon, known as the Synoptic Problem, invites us into a literary and theological mystery whose solution reaches deep into the heart of apostolic witness and the historical memory of the early Church.
The Synoptic Problem
The fourth Gospel, that of John, stands in splendid isolation—soaring in its spiritual elevation, differing in structure and style, and composed at a later date. Its author, almost certainly acquainted with the earlier Gospels, forged a unique testimony to the Word made flesh. In contrast, the first three Gospels—those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke—present a remarkable blend of convergence and divergence. Their shared material and sequence of events give rise to the term “Synoptic Gospels”—from the Greek syn (together) and opsis (view)—and to their authors, the name Synoptists.
The Synoptic Gospels often echo each other verbatim, suggesting either shared sources or interdependence; yet their differences are just as pronounced, at times bordering on contradiction. Despite these variations, the essential unity of their testimony remains unshaken, allowing for a harmony in substance, even if a perfect synthesis in detail remains elusive. Their mutual relationship constitutes one of the most intricate and enduring puzzles in the field of biblical criticism—a literary enigma that continues to summon the most rigorous scholarship and theological reflection.
The Relationship
The shared character of the Synoptists manifests in three primary ways:
1. The Consistent Portrait of Christ: Across all three narratives, Jesus emerges as both Son of Man and Son of God, the promised Messiah and Redeemer. He teaches divine truth with unparalleled authority, lives in sinless holiness, performs miracles, suffers and dies for the sins of humanity, and rises in triumph to inaugurate His kingdom. This unanimity in presenting His person and mission has no parallel in the annals of human biography or sacred literature and serves as a compelling witness to the authenticity of their collective vision.
2. The Broad Unity of Structure, with Characteristic Distinctions: While each Gospel presents a coherent narrative arc, they also bear unique emphases:
- Matthew and Luke open with the genealogy and birth of Christ, though from different sources and angles. Mark, in sharp contrast, begins with John the Baptist’s proclamation, while John reaches back to the eternal Logos.
- The baptism and temptation of Christ are recounted with slight variations among the Synoptists, while John provides the Baptist’s testimony but omits the temptation entirely.
- The public ministry in Galilee is the central narrative body for all three, but Luke includes unique parables and teachings in his “travel narrative” section (Luke 9:51–18:14) not found in Matthew or Mark.
- The final journey to Jerusalem, His triumphal entry, temple controversies, passion, crucifixion, and resurrection are presented in parallel fashion but with noticeable variations, especially regarding Peter’s denial and the resurrection accounts.
Remarkably, nearly one-quarter of each Synoptic Gospel is devoted to the events of Passion Week, underscoring the centrality of Christ’s suffering and resurrection to the evangelists’ purpose.
3. Verbal Parallels and Shared Vocabulary: The Synoptists often preserve identical or nearly identical wording, especially in the sayings of Jesus. These coincidences are all the more remarkable given that Christ taught in Aramaic, while the Gospels are composed in Greek. Such striking alignment in unusual terms, like epiousios (“daily” in the Lord’s Prayer), hints at a deeply rooted oral tradition or possibly shared written sources.
Nevertheless, while the words of Jesus are most often preserved with uniformity, the narrative portions exhibit more freedom and individuality. This asymmetry suggests reverent fidelity in quoting the Master and independent judgment in recounting His deeds.
Numerical Analysis of Agreement and Divergence
The degree of similarity among the Synoptists can be quantified with impressive precision:
- Sections: Of 124 total sections, 47 are common to all three; 12 are shared by Matthew and Mark; 2 by Matthew and Luke; 6 by Mark and Luke. Matthew contains 17 unique sections; Mark, 2; and Luke, 38.
- Verses: Matthew includes 330 unique verses; Mark, 68; Luke, 541. Only 330–370 verses are common to all three.
- Words: Of the nearly 49,000 words in the Synoptics, roughly 16% are common to all three; over half are unique to one Gospel. Luke diverges most, with 67% of his words unique, while Mark has the highest percentage of shared content.
Comparative estimates show that Matthew and Mark are closest in content, whereas Matthew and Luke differ the most. About half of Mark is found in Matthew; one-fourth of Luke appears in Matthew; and one-third of Mark is found in Luke. These patterns form the basis of the current scholarly consensus on the relationships between the Gospels.
Theories of Synoptic Origins
The enduring question remains: how do we explain these patterns of similarity and difference? Three main avenues of explanation have emerged:
- Interdependence: One Gospel writer used the others as a source.
- Common Sources: All drew from earlier written or oral traditions.
- Combination: A hybrid of the two above.
Yet the evidence resists simple conclusions. There is no direct reference by any Synoptist to the work of the others. The divergences are not easily explained if they had each other’s texts at hand. Furthermore, the omissions of key events—such as Mark’s silence on the Sermon on the Mount or Matthew’s omission of some of Luke’s most distinctive parables—speak against dependency theories. The hypothesis of deliberate variation to mask copying collapses under moral scrutiny; the evangelists’ integrity forbids such deception.
The Primacy of Apostolic Tradition
Luke’s prologue offers the most compelling insight into the Synoptic origin. He identifies two key sources: the oral testimony of eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, and earlier narrative attempts by others. Papias’ statement on Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel and Mark’s relation to Peter further supports the conclusion that apostolic preaching formed the living core from which the Gospels sprang.
This oral tradition—delivered by apostles to diverse audiences—was more than informal reminiscence. It was a reverently preserved proclamation, centered on the passion and resurrection of Jesus. Like the later Jewish Mishnah, which remained unwritten for centuries, the gospel tradition was guarded by trained memories and hallowed repetition. Variation in detail arose naturally from differences in recollection, theological emphasis, and audience, but the substance remained faithful.
Thus, the Synoptic Gospels represent apostolic preaching crystallized in written form. Mark offers the earliest and most concise record, closely aligned with Peter’s proclamation. Matthew and Luke, writing later and to different communities, enriched the tradition with infancy narratives, expanded discourses, and broader theological perspectives—Hebrew-Christian in Matthew, Gentile-Christian in Luke.
Written Sources and Early Memoranda
Although rooted in oral proclamation, the composition of the Gospels was not extemporaneous. During the decades between Jesus’ ministry and the Gospels’ composition, written notes, sermons, and collections of sayings likely circulated. Luke alludes to these fragmentary records in his preface. These lost writings were not apocryphal inventions, but authentic, if incomplete, accounts from eyewitnesses and early preachers. Luke’s Gospel, methodically composed, appears to be the fruit of such documents, enriched by his own investigation.
Matthew and Mark, drawing primarily from their memories and apostolic association, may also have composed preliminary notes before finalizing their Gospels. Such labor implies long gestation, not spontaneous dictation. Great books are rarely forged in haste—they grow in silence and contemplation, like oaks from acorns.
Independent Yet United Witnesses
All evidence points to the conclusion that the Synoptists wrote independently, between AD 60 and 69, in different locales, drawing from apostolic teaching and written fragments. Their remarkable agreement and carefully preserved differences attest to their sincerity and the authenticity of their sources. These Gospels are not the result of editorial harmonization or doctrinal collusion. Rather, they reflect the richness of Christ’s life as seen from three different yet converging perspectives, tailored for diverse communities: Jewish Christians, Gentile believers, and the wider Greco-Roman world.
The Order of Composition
The traditional sequence—Matthew, Mark, Luke—is strongly supported by early Christian testimony. Matthew, an apostle, wrote first in Aramaic for a Jewish audience. Mark, Peter’s interpreter, wrote next in Rome. Luke, the companion of Paul, composed his Gospel last, drawing on previous accounts and oral history. Though Mark’s Gospel is now often considered the earliest in terms of textual development, the traditional order remains plausible when understood as a chronology of apostolic witness rather than literary dependence.
The Fourth Gospel and the Inner Circle
While the Synoptics preserve the public tradition of Christ’s ministry—His Galilean teaching, miracles, and parables—the fourth Gospel offers an esoteric glimpse into His deeper, private revelations. John, the beloved disciple, alone records the high priestly prayer, the farewell discourses, and the most intimate insights into Jesus’ relationship with the Father. When the Church was ready, he unveiled the mysteries he had long cherished in silence, thereby completing the fourfold Gospel witness.
Notes
For a full classification of the many critical theories proposed regarding Synoptic origins—from the borrowing hypothesis to the tradition hypothesis and the Tendenz theory—see the original scholarly footnotes. The historical evolution of these theories, from Augustine to Holtzmann and beyond, reveals not only the complexities of the Synoptic problem but the richness of the evangelical tradition that gave rise to the Gospels.
