Anyone reading the four Gospels one after the other notices something quickly: three of them feel like variations on a shared script, while the fourth reads like a different kind of book altogether. Matthew, Mark and Luke tell many of the same episodes in a similar order and sometimes in nearly identical wording. John does not. That observation is the starting point of one of the oldest and most discussed questions in biblical studies.
What “synoptic” means
The word comes from Greek roots meaning “seen together”. Scholars call Matthew, Mark and Luke the Synoptic Gospels because their contents can be laid out in three parallel columns and compared line by line. Books that do this are called synopses, and they made the similarities impossible to ignore once printing allowed side-by-side layouts.
The overlap is not vague. It includes shared sequences of events, shared parables, and in some passages the same unusual Greek phrasing. That last detail matters: two authors describing the same event independently would be unlikely to choose identical rare wording.
How John stands apart
The Gospel of John covers much of the same life but with a distinct structure, vocabulary and emphasis.
| Feature | Synoptics | John |
|---|---|---|
| Main geography | Largely Galilee, one journey to Jerusalem | Repeated visits to Jerusalem |
| Teaching style | Short sayings and parables | Long discourses |
| Central image | The kingdom of God | Eternal life, light and truth |
| Miracles | Many, described as acts of power | Fewer, presented as “signs” |
These differences are why John is normally studied separately. The synoptic question concerns only the relationship among the first three.
Three kinds of material
Comparing the three texts produces a useful classification of their contents:
- Triple tradition: passages found in all three, such as the baptism of Jesus, the calming of the storm and the passion narrative.
- Double tradition: passages shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark, mostly sayings and teaching material.
- Special material: content unique to a single Gospel — Matthew’s account of the visit of the magi, for example, or Luke’s parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.
Almost every proposed solution to the synoptic problem is an attempt to explain how those three categories came to exist.
The main proposed solutions
No single answer is universally accepted, but a few models dominate the discussion.
Markan priority. The widely held view among modern scholars is that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke used it as a source. Several observations support this: Mark is the shortest, and its distinctive material is almost entirely reproduced by the other two; its Greek is rougher, and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke often smooth it out; and when Matthew and Luke differ from each other in order, one of them usually still agrees with Mark.
The two-source hypothesis. Markan priority alone does not explain the double tradition — the material Matthew and Luke share but Mark lacks. The most common proposal adds a second source, conventionally called Q (from the German Quelle, “source”), understood as a collection of sayings. In this model Matthew and Luke each drew independently on Mark and on Q, plus their own unique material. No manuscript of Q has ever been found; it is a hypothesis inferred from the pattern of the texts.
The Farrer hypothesis. This model keeps Markan priority but dispenses with Q. It proposes that Luke knew and used both Mark and Matthew directly. Supporters argue that this explains the double tradition without inventing a lost document; critics reply that it is hard to explain why Luke would rearrange Matthew’s well-organised material the way he does.
The Griesbach hypothesis. An older proposal, still defended by a minority, reverses the order: Matthew came first, Luke used Matthew, and Mark abbreviated both. It has the advantage of matching early church tradition, which generally placed Matthew first, but it must explain why Mark would omit so much valuable material.
Why the question matters
The synoptic problem is not merely a puzzle for specialists. Deciding which text came first shapes how you read the differences between accounts. If Matthew is expanding Mark, then the additions tell you something about Matthew’s particular concerns and audience. If Mark is condensing Matthew, the omissions carry the meaning instead.
This is the core of what scholars call redaction criticism: studying how each author selected, arranged and phrased material to communicate a specific emphasis. Matthew’s frequent references to Hebrew scripture, Luke’s attention to the poor and to outsiders, and Mark’s brisk, urgent pace all become visible once you compare the parallels closely.
How to study the Synoptics yourself
- Choose one episode present in all three Gospels and read the three versions in sequence.
- Mark what is identical, what is added and what is missing in each account.
- Ask what each difference might emphasise for that author’s intended readers.
- Repeat with a passage from the double tradition, then with material unique to one Gospel.
A printed synopsis or a parallel-column app makes this far easier, but the exercise works with any Bible and a little patience. What usually surprises first-time readers is how much of the meaning lives in small editorial choices rather than in dramatic contradictions.
Conclusion
The similarities among Matthew, Mark and Luke are close enough to demand an explanation, and the explanations proposed over the centuries have shaped the whole field of Gospel study. Whether or not you find one hypothesis more convincing than another, learning to read the three side by side changes how the texts sound.
If you would like a structured introduction to biblical studies, theology and the history of early Christianity, Cursa offers free courses that cover these topics step by step.
