The Synoptic Problem: Four Views

by Stanley E. Porter (Editor), Bryan R. Dyer (Editor)

Leading Scholars Debate a Key New Testament Topic

The relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is one of the most contested topics in Gospel studies. How do we account for the close similarities--and differences--in the Synoptic Gospels? In the last few decades, the standard answers to the typical questions regarding the Synoptic Problem have come under fire, while new approaches have surfaced. This up-to-date introduction articulates and debates the four major views. Following an overview of the issues, leading proponents of each view set forth their positions and respond to each of the other views. A concluding chapter summarizes the discussion and charts a direction for further study.

Genres: Biblical Studies, Nonfiction, Christianity

208 pages, Paperback

Published July 19, 2016

About the author

Stanley E. Porter (PhD, University of Sheffield) is president, dean, and professor of New Testament, and Roy A. Hope Chair in Christian Wolrdview at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. He has authored or edited dozens of books, including How We Got the New Testament and Fundamentals of New Testament Greek.

Reviews

[Shane Williamson · Rating 3 out of 5]

2023 reads: 18

Rating: 3.5 stars (Evans: 3 stars; Goodacre: 4 stars; Peabody: 2 stars; Riesner: 4.5 stars)

The Synoptic Problem: Four Views, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer, is a short volume published by Baker Academic in 2016. This collection of essays and responses brings together four authors: Craig A. Evans, Mark Goodacre, David B. Peabody, and Rainer Riesner. The church is blessed with a four-fold gospel; four perspectives from which to see the glory and light of Jesus, God’s Messiah. This pluriform reality is however met with complexity and issues in respect to the material, wording, order, and parenthetical comments of each. (6) Questions naturally arise: what accounts for the Gospel’s–especially the synoptics’ (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)–diversity? How do we reconcile their testimony, especially in light of the transcendent claims they make (Luke 1:4)? More to the point, however, is the question of sources: what is the precise relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke? The Synoptic Problem presents four views that address this question of relationship. First, Craig A. Evans presents his case for the Two Source Hypothesis. In short, Matthew and Luke–independent of each other–utilized two sources: Mark and Q, a collections of sayings of Jesus. Second, Mark Goodacre offers a defense of the Farrer Hypothesis, positing Markan priority, along with Matthew using Mark and Luke utilizing both (167). “Q” is necessarily excluded from this formulation. Third, David B. Peabody describes the Two Gospel Hypothesis, which understands Mark to have used Matthew and Luke, suggesting that it was in fact the third Gospel to be written. Finally, Rainer Riesner proposes the Orality and Memory Hypothesis, which accentuates a multiplicity of intermediate sources prior to a “Proto-Mark,” and an ever-growing network of materials which eventually become the synoptic Gospels as we understand them to be.

The above authors all believe that their views best account for the data. For Evans, it is the differences between Matthew and Luke (and their use of Mark) that necessitate the existence of Q. (29) For Goodacre, these differences are explained by Luke’s redaction of Matthew, thus excluding the need for Q. Yet, for Peabody, the differences are best explained not by Luke’s dependence on Matthew–for, in fact, they wrote independently–but in Mark’s conflation of Matthew and Luke–what Peabody refers to as the “Markan Overlay.” (68) Arguing that the above literary relationships are all too simple, Riesner’s Orality and Memory Hypothesis accounts for the data through a complex array of intermediate sources. Anyone who is no stranger to NT studies will be aware of the diverse opinions. Now, the four views all have strengths, and certainly, if a Venn diagram were to be drawn, there would be some considerable overlap. I think I would have enjoyed a section on why this is important, or a section developing the significance or implications of each view. However, given the somewhat “stalemate” situation (176), I am at a loss as to why the discussion of John’s Gospel remains almost untouched. In agreement with Porter and Dyer (177), as well as Riesner (156), I think that a fresh gust of Johannine perspective would put wind into the sails of the current discussion.

Personally, my interest in this subject has always been meagre. This volume did not fundamentally change that fact. My interests lie more in the theological and literary message of each Gospel. If I were to lay my cards on a table, I would argue for a hybrid between the Farrer Hypothesis (Goodacre), and the Orality and Memory Hypothesis (Riesner). The Two Gospel Hypothesis (Peabody) is the weakest, in my opinion. The only substance of this position worth considering is the witness of church history. Of course, this is debated, but I do believe that Riesner’s proposal might account for the historical witness with a “Proto-Mark.” (106) What seems apparent is Luke’s use of Matthew (plus a host of other sources, written or oral), and this is where I think the Farrer Hypothesis is correct. The Two Source Hypothesis’ infatuation with Q is bizarre. The idea of intermediate sources is not, but attempting to construct said sources into a known (yet ultimately unknown) document is puzzling. For this reason, Riesner’s proposal hints at the complexity and thorny nature of texts and testimony that I think is more in accord with the nature of communication, the early Christian movement, and the culture at the time. In this way, the other literary-dependent hypotheses are largely too simple and idealistic. As such, I am much more inclined to want to look into the nature, history, and practice of oral tradition and transmission than I am to look into any one of the other three hypotheses.

[Read for the Gospels & Acts Doctoral Seminar with Dr Pennington, Summer 2023]

[Sanjuro · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read a few introductions to the Synoptic Problem, and this is one of the better ones, insofar as it allows each view to be presented and sifted through by leading scholars who hold each view (as opposed to one scholar trying to convincingly portray all the views, including those they do not hold). I think each scholar did well with their limited space, so that this serves as a simple, easy, and concise introduction to the topic. My one critique is that, at the end, when each scholar is given space to respond to the other views, they are a bit too selective. Seldom did they respond to what I consider the best argument of the opposition. Overall, a good introduction.

[Nathan Bozeman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely loved this book. It gives a great introduction to the Synoptic Problem if you're unfamiliar with the debate in the beginning.

Each scholar gave a formidable defense of their hypothesis, and their subsequent responses to the other entries were an excellent addition to the book.

It helps us to see the strengths and weaknesses of each position, and I walked away from the book feeling much more equipped to discuss this issue with believers and unbelievers alike.

I recommend this book to anyone wanting to look into the Synoptic Problem.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very helpful introduction to this classic issue in gospel studies. This format continues to be fruitful and stimulating, and the contributors were well chosen. The editor's essays were also helpful in putting it all together. I definitely lean towards Goodacre's Markan priority without Q, but it was also good to learn more about oral tradition and hear pushback to all of the views.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great introduction to the Synoptic Problem! Porter and Dryer serve as bookends to the four other authors who discuss the four major views on this topic. Certainly not an exhuastive discussion on each topic, but informative and enlightening.

[Zach Waldis · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thorough, if uninspiring, overview of theories regarding the composition of the Synoptic Gospel tradition.

[John Kight · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are few resources more helpful for the eager student than multi-view resource. This is especially the case for complex or contested topics such as the Synoptic Problem. The Synoptic Problem: Four Views edited by Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer brings together four well-known and capable minds to establish an up-to-date exploration of an age old debate.

The volume begins with a well-written introduction to the Synoptic Problem. Porter and Dyer usher the reader through much of the “need-to-know” background information to the discussion, introducing key figures and theories, and set the stage for the discussion that follows. If the reader has had little exposure to the Synoptic Problem, the introduction will offer an appropriate starting point.

Craig A. Evans starts the volume with a positive presentation of the Two Source Hypothesis. This was an excellent choice by the editors, as “the Two Source Hypothesis, and its two tenets—Markan priority and Q—is probably still the majority view among New Testament scholars” (p. 26). As such, Evans sets the pace for the essays that follow.

Mark Goodacre follows Evans with a positive presentation of the Farrer Hypothesis. Goodacre shares Evans’ conviction concerning Markan priority. But, where Goodacre differs from Evans is in the acceptance of Q. Goodacre argues that Mark wrote first, then Matthew influenced by Mark, followed by Luke influenced by both Mark and Matthew.

David Barrett Peabody follows Goodacre with a positive presentation of the Two Gospel Hypothesis. It is here that significant distance between Evans is beginning to be observed. Peabody aligns with Goodacre together against Evans in that both deny the necessity and existence of Q. However, Goodacre and Peabody depart at the chronology of composition. Peabody argues that Matthew wrote first, then Luke influenced by Matthew, followed by Mark influenced by both Matthew and Luke.

Rainer Riesner follows Peabody with a presentation of the Oral and Memory Hypothesis. Riesner’s essay is by far the most distinct of the four essays, although the reader will surely discover some overlap with the other essays. Readers will find Riesner’s presentation well-written and clearly argued and uniquely positioned in the volume.

Similar to other multi-view resources on the market, The Synoptic Problem: Four Views includes response essays from each contributor. It is here that the value of the book is most readily available. Each contributor interacts with the other three contributors and further defends their position. That said, unlike other multi-view resources, the response essays do not immediately follow the positive presentation of each hypothesis. The editors have instead sought to allow the readers to interact with the positive presentation before having the contributors respond to each hypothesis in a single essay.

The organization of this volume was a bit of a hurdle for me to start. I’m familiar with the traditional layout of “positive presentation” followed by “response essays,” and I generally prefer such order. That said, after working through the four positive presentations, I began to see the benefit of the editors’ decision here and was actually more prepared to interact alongside of the response essays.

The Synoptic Problem: Four Views edited by Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer is a much needed volume in an ongoing conversation that shows little sign of slowing down. It deserves wholehearted welcome and will prove immensely useful for teachers and students of the New Testament. If you are looking for an up-to-date and balanced examination of the Synoptic Problem for classroom or casual reading, then look no further. This volume comes highly recommended!