The Synoptic Problem and the status of Q

Matthew, Mark, and Luke share extensive verbal agreement, especially in narrative material. This is too close to be coincidence, but the pattern of agreements is irregular enough to require explanation. Roughly 90 percent of Mark's content appears in Matthew, ~50 percent in Luke. Matthew and Luke share an additional ~235 verses of mostly sayings material absent from Mark.

The two source hypothesis (still the majority view): Matthew and Luke independently used Mark plus a hypothetical sayings source called Q (from German Quelle, "source"). The Farrer hypothesis (gaining ground): Mark Goodacre and others argue Q is unnecessary; Luke used Mark and Matthew directly. The Griesbach hypothesis (minority): Matthew first, Luke second, Mark a conflation.

Why this matters for the site. The Synoptic Problem has been used by skeptics to suggest the Gospels are derivative literary constructions disconnected from eyewitness memory. This argument fails in three ways.

First, the literary relationship between Mark, Matthew, and Luke is expected if they all draw on shared early tradition (Bauckham would say: shared eyewitness testimony) and then redact for their respective communities. Literary dependence does not equal late legendary development.

Second, John, written independently of the Synoptics, attests to many of the same events by an independent route. Independent multiple attestation is what historians look for.

Third, the minimal facts case does not depend on any particular Synoptic Problem solution. It rests on Pauline material plus Mark plus the independent traditions, on data points all four Gospels share, and on what can be cross attested.

Bauckham's contribution: regardless of which literary dependence theory is right, the sources of the tradition were named eyewitnesses. Mark draws on Peter; the Beloved Disciple stands behind John; Luke explicitly states he investigated the eyewitness testimony. The Q debate is a debate about literary documents; the eyewitness debate is about people. Both can be true.

Reading

• Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 2002.
• Robert Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 2nd ed., 2001.
• John S. Kloppenborg, Q, the Earliest Gospel, 2008.
• Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2nd ed., 2017.