What is the Synoptic Problem? Part Two

 Two-Gospel Hypothesis

The Two-Gospel Hypothesis theory states that one Gospel author wrote first, then another copied, and then the third author copied from both. This seeks to explain why sometimes two accounts have similar details or events that another may leave out, or that potentially all three have. This theory suggests that agreement in wording demands that one must be copied from at minimum one other. Caldwell wrote, 

An altogether different theory formulated by an eighteenth-century German scholar named Johann Griesbach and developed by William Farmer in his book The Synoptic Problem, posits a “Two-Gospel Hypothesis.” It proposes that Luke used Matthew’s Gospel as a source and that Mark used both Matthew and Luke in formulating his narrative after they wrote. (Caldwell, xxv). 

This theory, though evidently popular, does not hold merit if one holds to the fact that God selected every word of Scripture. If the Holy Spirit is the source of all three synoptic accounts, which are telling similar events, we would certainly expect consistencies to occur. The Old Testament includes a similar situation when you compare the Books of Kings and Chronicles. Similar events and individuals with some variances. Does this mean that they are interdependent? No, it is a historical record of real events divinely recorded through inspired human writers. 

The Fragmentary Theory

The third theory of consideration suggests that the original Matthew and Mark were a sample of Jesus' teaching. The present accounts that we currently have are additions composed of written and oral traditions (Cain). This theory keys in on the prologue to Luke,  

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. (Luke 1:1-4). 

Based on these introductory comments, the fragmentary theorist would suggest that because there were fragments and incomplete writings, and oral traditions present at the time of Luke's writing, it was necessary for him to give a documented, thorough Gospel account. Liddell suggests, 

What Luke actually did (1:1-2) was to acknowledge his determination to set forth the Truth with certainty, completeness and order, not as an uninspired compilation of the words of others, but in addition to what others had done, and, if needed, in correction of them, and in agreement with all those who were truthful eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. (Liddell, 436). 

We affirm that just because there were oral and written traditions before Luke’s writing, it does not mean that Luke’s Gospel account is the result of mere oral or even noninspired written accounts. The Holy Spirit is fully capable of inspiring Luke, a Greek individual, to record the Gospel account to a Greek by the name of Theophilus. The same Spirit of God did so with intent and preserved that account in its entirety to continue to teach the world of the Savior. 

The Two-Document Theory

The final theory for consideration is the Two-Document Theory. This theory suggests that there is a missing document known as Q that is partially responsible for Matthew and Luke. Caldwell explains, 

The basic assumption of the majority of source critics is a “Two-Source Hypothesis” of the origin of Luke (and Matthew). According to one theory, Mark and a non-extant work identified as “Q” are the two most common sources used by the other synoptic writers. The critics assume that “Q” was a written document but that is uncertain. (Caldwell, xxv)

Thus, the entire theory is dependent on a source that is not available, and its format is uncertain. This missing source is also responsible for a large amount of Scripture.

The Q material is thought to be primarily contained in two blocks: Luke 9:51-18:14 called the “big interpolation” and Luke 6:20-8:3 containing the Sermon on the Plain and called the “little interpolation because they seem to interrupt the flow of Luke's material which corresponds with Mark (3:1-6:19; 8:4-9:50; and 18:15-24:11). (Caldwell, xxvi). 

Is this necessarily a problem? It is not when you consider that Luke's account is significantly longer than Matthew's or Mark's. Again, the Spirit has the right to add where He sees fit in the entirety of Scripture. To assume that there must be a mysterious source because Luke is not exactly the same in all areas is a significant and unwarranted jump. 

Works Cited: 

Cain, Scott. Class One. New Testament Introduction, Memphis School of Preaching, September, 11,2025. 

Caldwell, C.G. Truth Commentaries: The Gospel According to Luke. Edited by Mike Willis, Guardian of Truth Foundation, 2011. 

Liddell, Bobby. Studies in Luke: The Schertz Lectures, Formerly the Annual Denton Lectures. Edited by Dub McClish, The Gospel Journal, Inc., 2003.