What do you think?
Rate this book
The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (The Biblical Seminar, 80) by Mark Goodacre
Possibly the greatest literary enigma in history, the Synoptic Problem has fascinated generations of scholars who have puzzled over the agreements, the disagreements, the variations, and the peculiarities of the relationship between the first three of our canonical Gospels. Yet the Synoptic Problem remains inaccessible to students, soon tangled up in its apparent complexities. But now Mark Goodacre offers a way through the maze, with the promise of emergence at the end, explaining in a lively and refreshing style what study of the Synoptic Problem involves, why it is important and how it might be solved. This is a readable, balanced and up-to-date guide, ideal for undergraduate students and the general reader.
Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
4 people are currently reading
136 people want to read
About the author
Mark Goodacre
10 books24 followersMark Goodacre is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins in the Department of Religious Studies, Duke University, North Carolina, USA. He earned his MA, M.Phil and DPhil at the University of Oxford. His research interests include the Synoptic Gospels, the Historical Jesus and the Gospel of Thomas. Goodacre is the author of four books including The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002) and Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Synoptics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) and he is a former editor of the Library of New Testament Studies book series. He is well known for The New Testament Gateway, the web directory of academic New Testament resources, and he has his own regular podcast on the New Testament, the NT Pod. Goodacre has acted as consultant for several TV and radio programs including The Passion (BBC / HBO, 2008) and The Bible: A History (Channel 4, 2010)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
September 13, 2025
I am lowkey obsessed with the synoptic problem, I just think it’s SO interesting and I wanna know everything there is to know about it. The author’s podcast was really good background information going into this read, and between my pre-existing knowledge and the accessibility at which this book is written, I could easily understand the examples and points being made.
July 31, 2014
This is an excellent overview of the Synoptic Problem with a proposed solution which bypasses the need for a Q document. Goodacre is intrigued by this mystery, stating that the “Synoptic Problem is probably the most fascinating literary enigma of all time.” He provides a fair analysis of why scholars tend to favor Q as a solution, but then dismantles the arguments in favor the Farrer Theory.
The Synoptic Problem seeks to explain the similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are simply too similar to have been written indepently. But what is the relationship between the three? Which gospel(s) copied from which, why did portions of the gospel story get left out in the copying, and where did any new material come from?
While Q is the assumed missing link in the Two-Source Theory (which states that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and an as-yet unfound sayings gospel known as Q), the Farrer Theory also assumes Markan priority but then goes in a different direction. It proposes that Luke actually relied on Matthew and Mark, with no need for another source. The idea is that Luke found Matthew’s work largely unacceptable and picked over those additions to Mark that he found in line with his own emphasis while discarding other material. After admitting that the solution is far from proven, Goodacre appeals to Occam’s Razor, choosing what he feels is the less complex solution. If you’re familiar with the divisions titled Mark, Q, M and L, the idea here is that M and Q are Matthew’s additions to Mark, but Q doesn’t derive from an earlier source … it merely represents that portion of Matthew’s additions that Luke chose to retain in his own rewrite.
Written with clarity and numerous examples, but without digging deeper than necessary to portray the issues, this is the best book I’ve read yet about the Synoptic Problem.
Originally published in 2001 by T&T Clark International, this book is now placed in the public domain and made available by the Internet Archive.
T&T Clark International, © 2011
ISBN: 0-567-080-560
The Synoptic Problem seeks to explain the similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are simply too similar to have been written indepently. But what is the relationship between the three? Which gospel(s) copied from which, why did portions of the gospel story get left out in the copying, and where did any new material come from?
While Q is the assumed missing link in the Two-Source Theory (which states that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and an as-yet unfound sayings gospel known as Q), the Farrer Theory also assumes Markan priority but then goes in a different direction. It proposes that Luke actually relied on Matthew and Mark, with no need for another source. The idea is that Luke found Matthew’s work largely unacceptable and picked over those additions to Mark that he found in line with his own emphasis while discarding other material. After admitting that the solution is far from proven, Goodacre appeals to Occam’s Razor, choosing what he feels is the less complex solution. If you’re familiar with the divisions titled Mark, Q, M and L, the idea here is that M and Q are Matthew’s additions to Mark, but Q doesn’t derive from an earlier source … it merely represents that portion of Matthew’s additions that Luke chose to retain in his own rewrite.
Written with clarity and numerous examples, but without digging deeper than necessary to portray the issues, this is the best book I’ve read yet about the Synoptic Problem.
Originally published in 2001 by T&T Clark International, this book is now placed in the public domain and made available by the Internet Archive.
T&T Clark International, © 2011
ISBN: 0-567-080-560
October 6, 2025
The synoptic problem (as a concept) focuses on the alignment and discrepancies between the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. From overlapping passages in all three of these books, the "synoptic problem" presents itself: the question of the relationship between these books and their authors. The common answer to the synoptic problem is that Mark was written first, and with knowledge of that, and another source, Q, Matthew and Luke were written. This is known as the Q hypothesis. However, Goodacre challenges the Q hypothesis and throughout his career proposed the Farrer theory. This theory says there is no Q, and Matthew knew Mark, and Luke knew both Matthew and Mark. The Farrer theory has grown in prominence over the past decade.
Goodacre's book breaks down arguments in very digestible ways. He spends a fair amount of time in the beginning setting the stage and explaining why the synoptic problem is so fascinating while breaking down the evidence. The latter half of the book is spent discussing Q and "the case against Q". Although he spearheaded and believes the Farrer theory, the book can still be read for its informative background on the synoptic problem for those who do not accept Farrer.
Quite an interesting read, and he adds summaries at the end of every chapter, which I think all authors of scholarly books should start doing.
Goodacre's book breaks down arguments in very digestible ways. He spends a fair amount of time in the beginning setting the stage and explaining why the synoptic problem is so fascinating while breaking down the evidence. The latter half of the book is spent discussing Q and "the case against Q". Although he spearheaded and believes the Farrer theory, the book can still be read for its informative background on the synoptic problem for those who do not accept Farrer.
Quite an interesting read, and he adds summaries at the end of every chapter, which I think all authors of scholarly books should start doing.
April 16, 2024
So… the “synoptic gospels” are Matthew Mark and Luke. “Synoptic” means “seen together”, these three stories are extremely similar to the point that there is certainly a literary relationship. (John is totally different.)
Church tradition is the order Matthew - Mark - Luke, with the assumption that each was familiar with what preceded it.
Biblical scholars don’t believe that. For example, it’s unlikely that Mark would be familiar with birth stories but then choose to skip over them. So the assumption is that Mark came first.
Due to the specific nature of the overlapping material in Matthew and Luke, but the fact that there are also major differences, scholars have postulated a common second source (in addition to Mark) which no longer exists. They refer to this postulated source as “Q” (“quelle” is German for “source”).
Mark Goodacre proposes a simpler solution, which is just Mark - Matthew - Luke. He gives reasons for some sharp deviations in plot, and also identifies spots in Luke that appear to be secondary to Matthew (hard to explain succinctly but for example if you remember the Office episode where Michael replaced “Dwight” in his script but because it was misspelled once you could detect the sequence well it’s kind of like that but here the issue is Luke referring to a group of people because he forgot he had actually changed the story to make it two people so the word “group” was mistakenly carried over from Matthew if you’re getting all that).
Anyhow that’s the theory.
Church tradition is the order Matthew - Mark - Luke, with the assumption that each was familiar with what preceded it.
Biblical scholars don’t believe that. For example, it’s unlikely that Mark would be familiar with birth stories but then choose to skip over them. So the assumption is that Mark came first.
Due to the specific nature of the overlapping material in Matthew and Luke, but the fact that there are also major differences, scholars have postulated a common second source (in addition to Mark) which no longer exists. They refer to this postulated source as “Q” (“quelle” is German for “source”).
Mark Goodacre proposes a simpler solution, which is just Mark - Matthew - Luke. He gives reasons for some sharp deviations in plot, and also identifies spots in Luke that appear to be secondary to Matthew (hard to explain succinctly but for example if you remember the Office episode where Michael replaced “Dwight” in his script but because it was misspelled once you could detect the sequence well it’s kind of like that but here the issue is Luke referring to a group of people because he forgot he had actually changed the story to make it two people so the word “group” was mistakenly carried over from Matthew if you’re getting all that).
Anyhow that’s the theory.
February 26, 2015
A good argument for why there does not necessarily have to a be a "Q" source for Matthew and Luke. Goodacre does not convince me that Luke used Matthew when writing his gospel, but he does demonstrate pretty well that a lot of Bible scholarship is based on guesses--educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless.
August 16, 2018
Didactically this is a great book. It is written in a clear, accessible style, with lots of well-chosen examples, summaries and conclusions.
After a discussion of the Synoptic problem itself in the first chapters, the book mainly focuses on three subjects: Markan priority (was the gospel of Mark the first gospel to be written?), the Q hypothesis (which states the existence of a hypothetical written source behind the common material in Matthew and Luke), and the Farrer theory (Mark as the first gospel, followed by Matthew, and Luke used these two existing texts).
I believe Goodacre is right in adhering to Markan priority and in rejecting Q, but his defense of the Farrer theory is much less convincing. Although the interesting ‘editorial fatigue’ concept seems to support this theory, Goodacre’s most extensively discussed textual examples, the sermon on the mount/plain and the parable of the ten talents/pounds, in my opinion do not point in the direction of Luke using Matthew.
In the gospel of Luke Jesus starts his speech saying ‘Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God’, and, knowing that Jesus is an Essene priest and that ‘the poor’ is a self-designation of the Essenes, Luke is simply blessing his audience (and himself) at the beginning of his speech. When Matthew has ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’ instead, this seems to be the unnatural start of a theoretical explanation.
The parable of the ten pounds/talents is even more weighty. Luke’s version tells the story of a king (or an emperor), while in Matthew any hint to a political reality is missing. These hints in Luke are numerous: ‘nobleman’, ‘far country’, ‘kingdom’ (or ‘empire’ - twice), ‘ten servants’ (Roman provinces?), ‘hated by his citizens’, ‘to reign’, ‘to give authority over cities’ (2 mentions, the first ‘over ten cities’, the second ‘over five cities’), ‘his enemies to be killed in front of him’. Did Luke add all these elements to Matthew’s politically neutral story to realize a consistent political account with the Roman emperor Vespasian as its protagonist? Or did Matthew eliminate all these subversive political elements to retain a harmless apolitical story?
I believe that in both examples Matthew has defused the politically loaded, subversive text of Luke, the first time by adding a few words, the second time by eliminating any political reference from the original text.
Although this is a highly informative book, I don’t believe the Farrer theory that Goodacre strongly defends in this work is strong enough to guide us out of the Synoptic maze. Maybe the early history of the gospels is more complex than this theory about the unilateral dependency of the gospel of Luke on the gospel of Matthew is claiming.
After a discussion of the Synoptic problem itself in the first chapters, the book mainly focuses on three subjects: Markan priority (was the gospel of Mark the first gospel to be written?), the Q hypothesis (which states the existence of a hypothetical written source behind the common material in Matthew and Luke), and the Farrer theory (Mark as the first gospel, followed by Matthew, and Luke used these two existing texts).
I believe Goodacre is right in adhering to Markan priority and in rejecting Q, but his defense of the Farrer theory is much less convincing. Although the interesting ‘editorial fatigue’ concept seems to support this theory, Goodacre’s most extensively discussed textual examples, the sermon on the mount/plain and the parable of the ten talents/pounds, in my opinion do not point in the direction of Luke using Matthew.
In the gospel of Luke Jesus starts his speech saying ‘Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God’, and, knowing that Jesus is an Essene priest and that ‘the poor’ is a self-designation of the Essenes, Luke is simply blessing his audience (and himself) at the beginning of his speech. When Matthew has ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’ instead, this seems to be the unnatural start of a theoretical explanation.
The parable of the ten pounds/talents is even more weighty. Luke’s version tells the story of a king (or an emperor), while in Matthew any hint to a political reality is missing. These hints in Luke are numerous: ‘nobleman’, ‘far country’, ‘kingdom’ (or ‘empire’ - twice), ‘ten servants’ (Roman provinces?), ‘hated by his citizens’, ‘to reign’, ‘to give authority over cities’ (2 mentions, the first ‘over ten cities’, the second ‘over five cities’), ‘his enemies to be killed in front of him’. Did Luke add all these elements to Matthew’s politically neutral story to realize a consistent political account with the Roman emperor Vespasian as its protagonist? Or did Matthew eliminate all these subversive political elements to retain a harmless apolitical story?
I believe that in both examples Matthew has defused the politically loaded, subversive text of Luke, the first time by adding a few words, the second time by eliminating any political reference from the original text.
Although this is a highly informative book, I don’t believe the Farrer theory that Goodacre strongly defends in this work is strong enough to guide us out of the Synoptic maze. Maybe the early history of the gospels is more complex than this theory about the unilateral dependency of the gospel of Luke on the gospel of Matthew is claiming.
May 14, 2021
Dr. Mark Goodacre clearly presents and argues for a solution to the Synoptic Problem that does not require a hypothetical "Q" gospel. Written as an introduction to the subject of Gospel origins, it is accessible to anyone with a mind open to rational critical thinking.
I was a fan of the Q hypothesis since my college years in the early 1980s, and found the "But wait! There's more!" nature of the quest to refine the content of Q to be a fascinating journey of discovery. Unfortunately, the once-upon-a-time existence of a long lost Q document has become an article of faith rather than a scholarly hypothesis. Those whose honest inquiry into gospel origins question this new orthodoxy are subject to Inquisition and re-education or excommunication from the increasingly peevish followers of Q Theory (no longer the Q hypothesis).
Mark Goodacre is a good-natured scholar, and "The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze" is not a strident expose of the circular reasoning and self-contradictions to be found in Q studies today. The pros and cons of each alternative solution to the Synoptic Problem are laid out. The priority of the Gospel of Mark, as opposed to Q, makes good literary and historical sense. With apologies - "First comes Mark, then comes Matthew, then comes Luke in a baby carriage". There need not be a secret lover named Q to complicate the family tree. Is that a spoiler? I pray not.
I was a fan of the Q hypothesis since my college years in the early 1980s, and found the "But wait! There's more!" nature of the quest to refine the content of Q to be a fascinating journey of discovery. Unfortunately, the once-upon-a-time existence of a long lost Q document has become an article of faith rather than a scholarly hypothesis. Those whose honest inquiry into gospel origins question this new orthodoxy are subject to Inquisition and re-education or excommunication from the increasingly peevish followers of Q Theory (no longer the Q hypothesis).
Mark Goodacre is a good-natured scholar, and "The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze" is not a strident expose of the circular reasoning and self-contradictions to be found in Q studies today. The pros and cons of each alternative solution to the Synoptic Problem are laid out. The priority of the Gospel of Mark, as opposed to Q, makes good literary and historical sense. With apologies - "First comes Mark, then comes Matthew, then comes Luke in a baby carriage". There need not be a secret lover named Q to complicate the family tree. Is that a spoiler? I pray not.
September 27, 2023
A concise, readable, and well-organized introduction to the synoptic problem that manages not to be dry or boring! Goodacre argues for Markan priority but dissents from the current scholarly consensus view, the two-source theory. He makes a fairly persuasive case against the existence of a "Q"-source, opting instead for the Farrer theory that Matthew used Mark and Luke used both. He raises some compelling points: in particular the evidence of "editorial fatigue" in the Lukan version of some double tradition texts, and the existence of minor and major agreements between Luke and Matthew against Mark in some triple tradition texts. Taken together, these suggest that Luke had read Matthew and was using it as a source for his own Gospel. One of the benefits of the Farrer theory is that it helps us appreciate the literary artistry of the Gospel writers, instead of seeing them as boring copy-and-paste editors who mechanically stitched pre-existing texts together. Goodacre points out that, whichever theory we ultimately adopt, seeing the Gospels synoptically rather than trying to force a harmonization allows us to see where they agree and where they differ. When each Gospel is allowed to speak in its own voice and stand out in its individuality, this is immensely fruitful for New Testament scholarship and theology overall.
January 21, 2020
Very much enjoyed this well-organized book favoring Markan priority and Lukan dependence on Matthew, throwing of need for Q. Validate is systematic in his approach, yielding some overlap, and a longer text than maybe necessary. But the repeated summaries offer a great opportunity to pause and mentally regroup. There is little chance of getting lost in the argument. One could disagree with the outcome (not I, as I am sympathetic to both arguments), but it would not be a complaint against the argument itself!
I highly recommend this book, which Goodacre himself recently made freely available as a downloadable PDF. The free version does have some spelling issues, maybe a feature of OCR or other tech? In any case, it is not hugely distracting. Get it, and enjoy!
I highly recommend this book, which Goodacre himself recently made freely available as a downloadable PDF. The free version does have some spelling issues, maybe a feature of OCR or other tech? In any case, it is not hugely distracting. Get it, and enjoy!
September 28, 2023
Enlightening. The Farrer Theory advocated here largely matches my own musings on the subject and certainly seems the most convincing option. The author does well to combat the absurd idea of the incompetence of the Biblical authors that many scholars assume but he still often stops short of offering the full honor they deserve as geniuses. I was also frustrated that the traditional authorship of the Gospels is written off out of hand as, in the vein of Hamilton’s argumentation, they seem the most likely authors to create such compositions. I do very much want to see a similar sort of conversation around the writing of John.
May 16, 2018
This book offers a succinct overview of the Synoptic problem, convincingly arguing for both the primacy of the Gospel of Mark and the Farrer hypothesis. I'm only a beginner (and a bad one at that) in the field of biblical studies, but his arguments have been much better argued those espoused by the defenders of Deuteromark et al.
April 1, 2024
Happy Easter Monday, guess I'm a Farrer truther now
In all seriousness, a lucid and concise introduction to the Synoptic problem. That Goodacre does not believe in the existence of Q, yet manages to argue the points of the two-source hypothesis in good faith is a major point in his and the book's favor.
In all seriousness, a lucid and concise introduction to the Synoptic problem. That Goodacre does not believe in the existence of Q, yet manages to argue the points of the two-source hypothesis in good faith is a major point in his and the book's favor.
October 12, 2017
I only give this book 4 stars (as opposed to 5) because it is my personal introduction to the Synoptic Problem. Its arguments, as presented, appear sound and logical. However, for the sake of my own education, I might also like to read a more pro-Q source.
February 22, 2022
A bit dry but a fascinating treatment of the Synoptic Problem which after looking at the evidence concludes, using Occam's Razor among other things, that the Farrer Theory of Markan Priority and that Luke knew and used Matthew, rather than the hypothetical "Q" in the composition of his Gospel.
May 1, 2023
Mark Goodacre does a wonderful job of concisely explaining the Synoptic Problem to a novice such as myself. I was able to get the many theories outlined and have a good idea why they are important. A quick and informative read.
August 30, 2023
read for my gospels class- goodacre makes a compelling argument for markian priority and against the existence of ‘Q’. there’s strong bias at certain points but overall a good read!
September 10, 2024
An amazing book. My biggest gripe is that the final 1/3 of the book is much denser than the first 2/3. But working through it is very rewarding.
May 17, 2025
A great case against Q, albeit technical.
May 21, 2011
This is a highly accessible introductory text about the synoptic problem. He makes an airtight case for markan priority, clearly details the major arguments in favor for it and brings up good examples ending with the clincher, editorial fatigue. The only fault I can think of is the book is actually aimed at advancing the minority Farrer theory, which states that there is no Q and rather that Luke utilized Matthew. I think Goodacre's book would be nice if used in conjunction with another book which argued for the majority Q position as a way to initiate student debate.
Overall he does a nice job of defending his position and makes clear even for beginners the outline of the argument. If anything his minority view might provoke more interest in the synoptic problem.
Overall he does a nice job of defending his position and makes clear even for beginners the outline of the argument. If anything his minority view might provoke more interest in the synoptic problem.
September 3, 2016
This accessible and extremely clear explanation of why the Farrer thesis (that Luke relies on both Mark and Matthew, as opposed to Matthew and Luke writing independently using the hypothetical Q document) is a viable one for modern New Testament scholars to utilize, was a wonderful read and was shared free on Mark Goodacre's blog by the author himself.
September 9, 2013
An interesting (and, from my perspective, pretty persuasive) take on the existence of Q as a hypothetical source/the Synoptic problem in general. You should definitely read this if you are interested in the compositional history of the Gospels, whether you subscribe to the Q hypothesis or not.
July 4, 2011
An excellent introductory text for anyone interested in learning about the Synoptic Problem (i.e.; the literary relationship between the first three gospels--Matthew, Mark and Luke).
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews