4.

Evidence to Support the Two-Gospel

Hypothesis
The Synoptic Puzzle
Analysis of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels yields the following data:

• A large amount of parallel material is found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

• A large amount of parallel material is found in Matthew and Luke but not Mark.
• Some parallel material is found in Matthew and Mark but not Luke.
• A small amount of parallel material is found in Luke and Mark but not Matthew.

The question of how to explain these relationships is called the “Synoptic Puzzle”
(or the “Synoptic Problem”).

The Two-Gospel Hypothesis (a.k.a. Griesbach Hypothesis)

• Matthew was written first.
• Luke was written second, using Matthew as a source.
• Mark was written third, using Matthew and Luke as sources.

The following points are often cited by supporters of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis
as evidence for the validity of that theory:

Evidence for Matthean Priority

• The unanimous tradition of the church from (at least) Augustine until the
eighteenth century has been that Matthew’s Gospel was the earliest of the
four. This can only be challenged on the basis of so-called ”internal evidence”
(trying to make sense of which Gospel would be more likely to have made
changes from the others). But since the external evidence unanimously
identifies Matthew as first, that proposal should be the default position un-
less what follows from it can be shown to be improbable (which proponents
of this theory maintain is not the case).
• Matthew’s Gospel is the most Jewish, apparently expressive of Jewish-Chris-
tian sensibilities and attentive to Jewish-Christian concerns. This fits best
in a very early context, since the church rather quickly became a primarily
Gentile institution.
For example, Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus as insisting that all Jewish
laws should be kept by his followers (5:17–20; cf. 23:2) and in one instance
he even instructs his disciples not to go to Gentiles (10:5; 18:17 could also
be read as implying Gentiles are not currently part of the church).
Evidence That Luke Used Matthew
• Matthew and Luke have an enormous amount of material in common (about
two-thirds of each of these two Gospels overlap). If Matthew is presumed
to have written first (see above) the simplest and most logical explanation
for this common material would be that Luke used Matthew’s Gospel as
one of his sources.

Mark Allan Powell, Introducing the New Testament. Published by Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group.
Copyright © 2009. Used by permission.
Updated 9/2012

_Sidebars_website.indd 118 8/30/12 3:40 PM

118
 • Luke explicitly says in the prologue of his Gospel that “others” have already
written accounts of Jesus—if Matthew’s Gospel were written first, it would
likely have been one of the works to which he refers.
• Hypothetically, Luke could have derived some of the material that he has in
common with Matthew from the Gospel of Mark since much of that mate-
rial is also found in Mark. However, even if Luke had a copy of Mark’s Gospel
(which proponents of this theory deem unlikely), he still must have used
Matthew as a source because Luke often agrees with Matthew against Mark
in passages common to all three Gospels.
For example, in the parable of the mustard seed (Mark 4:30–32), both
Matthew and Luke contain the words “a person having taken it,”“becomes a
tree,” and “branches” (Matt. 13:31–32; Luke 13:18–19) although those words
are not found in Mark. Likewise, in the account of Jesus’ abuse by soldiers,
both Matthew and Luke have the soldiers ask Jesus, “Who is it that struck
you?” (Matt. 26:8; Luke 22:4), words not found in the Markan parallel (Mark
14:65).
• Hypothetically, Luke could have derived some of the material that he has in
common with Matthew from some other source to which both Matthew and
Luke had access (e.g., the so-called Q source proposed by some scholars).
But there is no external evidence for the existence of such a document or
reference to it in any church tradition.
• Hypothetically, the material that Luke and Matthew have in common could
be explained by Matthew having used Luke as a source rather than the other
way around. But this seems unlikely because (a) church tradition holds that
Matthew was written first; (b) Luke (but not Matthew) refers to previous ac-
counts being written; and (c) Luke’s editorial changes to what he would have
found in Matthew’s Gospel are held to be more explicable than the changes
Matthew would have to be supposed to have made in Lukan material if the
situation were reversed.
For example, Luke can be understood to have split up the long teaching
sections found in Matthew’s five great discourses and redistributed that
material throughout his narrative; this keeps the story with a more linear flow
and also serves his interest in presenting much of Jesus’ teaching with the
context of a journey. It seems unlikely, however, that Matthew would have
omitted many stories found only in Luke if he had known them (e.g., the
parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:9–14, which would
fit perfectly with Matthew’s frequent denunciation of Pharisees).
Evidence That Mark Used Matthew and Luke as Sources
• Almost all Mark’s Gospel (all but a handful of verses) overlaps with material
found in either Matthew or Luke or both. If Mark had a copy of both Matthew
and Luke, two distinctive types of parallels would be explained: instances in
which Mark agrees with Matthew against Luke and instances in which Mark
agrees with Luke against Matthew.
• Since Mark is much shorter than either Matthew or Luke, the assumption of
this theory is that Mark’s Gospel was produced as a simultaneous conflation
and condensation of the two. The desire to abbreviate would explain why
many stories in Matthew and Luke are not found in Mark.

Mark Allan Powell, Introducing the New Testament. Published by Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group.
Copyright © 2009. Used by permission.

_Sidebars_website.indd 119 8/30/12 3:40 PM

119