A teacher or student sits down and reads the Gospel of Matthew. After reading Matthew’s supernal narrative, that same teacher or student begins to read the Gospel of Mark. Soon, the reader notices something odd about the two narratives. “A lot of this material is familiar,” the reader remarks. At last, the individual arrives at Luke’s Gospel. After passing through the first two chapters, which are unique to Luke, the reader declares, “This is the same story!” Exactly. It does not require a lot of concentration to quickly grasp that these three Gospel accounts are connected to each other in some fashion because they share many narratives, or what scholars call pericopes. The questions are: What is the nature of that connection? Did the Gospel writers borrow from each other? Did they draw from a common reservoir of information about Jesus’ life and ministry? Let us take a brief look to see the possibilities.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote to different audiences and, rested their work on their individual perspectives. These synoptic Gospels (Greek “viewing [things] together”)1 contain remarkable similarities between their portrayals of chronology, content, and even quotations from Jesus, especially when compared to the unique Gospel of John. Considering the striking parallels between these three synoptic Gospels, students have long questioned what literary relationship existed between them when they were composed.
Unfortunately, during the last two-plus centuries, no consensus has emerged as to what this relationship was. Although scholars have proposed many theories about this intriguing intertextual relationship, their inability to satisfactorily answer the synoptic question has often become a point of considerable contention. This creates a related pressing problem in New Testament studies of exactly who Jesus was, since his identity is bound most closely to the earliest of the Gospel accounts. One scholar called the synoptic problem “the most fascinating literary enigma of all time.”2 Answers to this enigma could provide clarity about many biblical details as well as potentially provide more information about Jesus, his ministry, his earliest disciples, and the organization of his followers.
The synoptic question has at times introduced a crisis of faith for the studious believer, especially those traditional Protestants who see the Bible as authoritative and absolute. Appealing to “scripture alone” (sola scriptura) seems insufficient because it is incomplete. Unbelievers who challenge Jesus’ historicity commonly assert that all the synoptic Gospels are unreliable because they are all written very late.3 While at times admittedly perplexing, the synoptic problem does not present significant obstacles for Latter-day Saints because of the Restoration. In addition to the text of the New Testament, members find faith-affirming details about Jesus’ character and ministry from the scriptures of the Restoration, modern prophets, and—most importantly—continuing revelation. Therefore, a final resolution to the synoptic problem is unnecessary for a Latter-day Saint to be confident regarding the basic realities of Jesus’ nature, life, mission, and sacrifice.
For example, Latter-day Saints are blessed with a second witness of the general accuracy of the Sermon on the Mount discourse as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew 5–7. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus, as a resurrected being, faithfully rehearses most of this text. As further evidence, some of the forty-day literature, which consists of apocryphal documents that describe what Jesus taught for the forty days between his Resurrection and his Ascension (Acts 1:3), offers intriguing sources to explore.4 With a second written witness, apocryphal clues, and modern revelation, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can affirm the accuracy of the Sermon on the Mount and use it as a reliable witness to sustain their faith in Christ and his teachings.
Modern disciples should not be jarred when these synoptic texts often contradict each other regarding less-than-noteworthy details of Jesus’ mortal ministry. In fact, Joseph Smith remarkably titled some of the synoptic Gospels as the “Testimony of Matthew” or the “Testimony of John.” This is precisely the language the Lord uses when referring to John’s Gospel in a revelation to Joseph Smith as “the testimony of John,”5 demonstrating that differences found in the Gospels can be attributed to individual perspective, just as one person’s recollection of a spiritual event will differ from the recollection of another who shares that same event. In contrast, the additions of the term “gospel” to the titles of later medieval Bible manuscripts, which form the origin of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, may subtly convey an erroneous sense of authority and uniformity present in the words sola scriptura.
To illustrate, the earliest Greek manuscripts only contain the phrase “according to” Matthew, Mark, or Luke, suggesting that these writers were only presenting their point of view and their testimony about Jesus’ life and ministry. It is very likely that the “Gospel of” headings were not added until the second century AD “on a basis to which we no longer have access.”6 Joseph Smith’s insight about the nature of the synoptics and John as “testimonies” suggests that similarities or differences between them over details should not undercut one’s confidence in the factuality of the narratives.
Matthean Priority
What chronological order were these synoptic Gospels written in? The answer is still heavily debated. Ancient extrabiblical sources hold that, first, Matthew produced a work in Aramaic on the life of the Savior.7 If this is correct, Matthew’s work likely consisted of notes on important events such as the Sermon on the Mount, which assumption is the reason many scholars consider that Matthew’s Gospel was written first. These purported notes probably included Jesus’ invitation to enter into his new temple-centered covenant, as found in the Sermon on the Mount text,8 and an outline of some of Jesus’ other teachings in Aramaic. Linguistic evidence from Paul in 1 and 2 Thessalonians (dated to no later than AD 52) seemingly imitates Matthew’s eschatological teachings, metaphors, similes, and keywords found in Matthew 23–25.9 Further, quotations by early church fathers contain many verbal echoes of Matthew’s Gospel and thereby provide subtle evidence that his Gospel was written first.10 Finally, the Didache, an early Christian document dated by some to the first century, refers to “the gospel.”11 The gospel quoted therein contains Jesus’ teachings found in Matthew 6:9–1312 and 7:6,13 not from the Gospels of Luke or Mark. An early form of Matthew’s Gospel must then predate the Didache and thus must date sometime before Acts 15 at the latest, which puts its composition before the Gospel of Mark. It also “preserves the injunction of Jesus to his apostles not to preach to the Gentiles [Matt. 10:5–6]. Such prohibitions are absent from Luke and Mark, which were written after the permission to preach to the Gentiles. Thus, Matthew must have been written before the prohibition was lifted in Acts 9–10. This detail would place the writing of Matthew’s initial draft within a few years of the resurrection.”14
Mark may have utilized Matthew’s Aramaic notes, Peter’s recollections, testimonies of other disciples, first-hand accounts of Jesus’ family members, and other oral material in his Greek Gospel (most likely composed in the AD 60s).15 Later, probably making use of his own early Aramaic material and Mark’s completed Greek Gospel, Matthew seems to have written his own lengthy Greek Gospel (which most scholars date to around the time of the fall of the Jerusalem temple in c. AD 70), borrowing and tweaking Mark’s earlier writing in many places. Luke’s later Gospel, written before AD 80, may have drawn from Matthew’s and Mark’s writing, while also incorporating oral witnesses, as he plainly noted in Luke 1:1–3.16
Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430) probably came to his conclusion of Matthaean priority because it traditionally was accepted in his era as the first Gospel among the New Testament accounts. Augustine believed that Matthew had personally witnessed Jesus’ ministry, which made his Gospel more valid for learning and preaching.17 He likewise asserted that Mark, whom he believed was not an original disciple, only expanded on Matthew’s Aramaic writing when he composed his short Gospel in Greek.18 Augustine may have had information about some of these authorial details that unfortunately are now lost, if they ever existed. There are many examples of Mark expanding Matthew’s short periscopes—a phenomenon that needs explanation—that possibly rest on original Aramaic notes.19 It is likely that these Aramaic original notes and outlines, if they existed, would have been memorized by many in the early community, whose members were mostly illiterate. Such an act would have formed an oral tradition that tied directly back to Jesus’ ministry, thus providing a common template for the Greek synoptic Gospels.
Additional evidence for Matthean priority is found in the Muratorian Canon, a Latin list of books considered canonical in about AD 180. It lists the traditional composition order of the Gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.20 This is the order of authorship found in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and in the writings of Irenaeus and Origen, an order that was accepted until the early nineteenth century.21
Markan Priority
Although some early Christian writers believed that Matthew’s Aramaic work about Jesus’ ministry was the first composed,22 many scholars find evidence that the extant Greek Gospels of Matthew and Luke utilized Mark’s Greek Gospel as their main source. The Gospel of Mark reveals the least acquaintance with the Roman conflict in Palestine in AD 66–70, from which many scholars conclude that Mark was written prior to that conflict and the other synoptic Gospels were written afterward. This theory is called “Markan priority.”23 Some scholars have demonstrated that Matthew’s Greek Gospel text contains ninety percent of Mark, much of it verbatim.24 In fact, Mark has only about fifty unique verses.25 Matthew utilized 600 of Mark’s 660 verses, streamlining and enriching Mark’s narrative with dialogue.26 If Mark had written his shorter Gospel after Matthew, as the accounts stand, he would have preserved almost nothing new. Thus most scholars hold that Matthew produced a revision of Mark’s Gospel and included additional material.27
Moreover, many scholars generally believe that, in addition to following Mark’s Gospel, both Matthew and Luke utilized an oral tradition or written document that has not survived, commonly referred to as “Q” (from the German Quelle, meaning “source”), to write their Gospels. This Q theory asserts that Matthew and Luke expanded Mark’s Gospel with additional material from this hypothetical Q source. According to this generally accepted theory, there were about two hundred verses common to Matthew and Luke that formed the entirety of this purported document.28
This document or reconstructed Q begins with the ministry of John the Baptist, describes Jesus’ baptism, and ends before Jesus’ death.29 The fact that the central aspects of Christ’s death and Resurrection are missing from this theoretical source stands in stark contrast with Tacitus, a Roman historian with no ties to Christianity, who referred to key points of Jesus’ death. This observation suggests that Q was incomplete, if it ever existed.30 Nevertheless, Q may represent the earliest Christians’ remembrances of Jesus’ preserved words and deeds that spoke to their needs (for example, solutions to poverty, social ostracism, family challenges, or oppressive officials).
While Matthew’s Greek work as it has been preserved runs parallel to the other synoptic Gospels of Mark and Luke in many respects, there are major divergences that point to Matthew drawing on earlier notes or from other oral or written materials usually known as “M.”31 Certainly,
Matthew includes some of the most exclusive texts in all of the Gospels. Only he inserts Jesus’ sayings in 10:5–6 and 15:24 about Jesus and his disciples going only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Only he anticipates a perennially incomplete Jewish mission (10:23). On the other hand, Matthew just as uniquely presents some of the most inclusive texts imaginable. Only he has Gentile Magi come and worship the Christ child (2:1–12). Only he speaks of Israel being judged and replaced by a new “people” (21:43). Only he includes the Great Commission, in which Jesus sends his followers to make disciples from every ethnic group on the face of the globe (28:19).32
In like manner, Luke’s narrative of Christ’s extended family and birth demonstrates his utilization of other source material known as “L.”33 Luke’s unique material, or L, includes the parable of the good Samaritan (10:25–37), the story of Martha and Mary attending to Jesus (10:38–42), the parables of the prodigal son (15:11–32) and the unjust judge (18:1–8), and the risen Christ’s journeying with the two travelers to Emmaus (24:13–35).
It should be noted that Eusebius, an early fourth-century historian (AD 263–339), provides evidence based on quotes from Papias that show Mark’s authorship of the first Greek Gospel. Papias is said to have heard the Apostle John himself and was an associate of Polycarp of Smyrna (c. AD 69–135), a disciple of the Apostle John.34 Eusebius wrote that Mark, who he believed was a later disciple and long served as Peter’s interpreter, set down in writing Peter’s oral stories about Jesus after Peter’s death.35 Because Peter was one of Jesus’ Apostles, Mark’s Gospel essentially contained Peter’s witness, an observation borne out in Mark’s large number of accounts that feature Peter. Eusebius seems to suggest that Mark wrote his Greek Gospel first, and because his work carried the authority of Peter, other Gospel writers drew from and quoted it.
Ancient oral histories were commonly passed down from generation to generation and were highly regarded. As a general practice, only much later were they written down.36 The importance of developing one’s memory for many ancient elites led to the notion that word-of-mouth accounts were often considered more accurate than written sources. Papias admitted that he preferred oral communications about Jesus rather than written ones. According to Eusebius, Papias said, “I did not suppose that information from books would help me so much as the word of a living and surviving voice.”37
Character of the Sources
Understanding first-century realities of how the ancients used and quoted sources is helpful in comprehending why there is no academic consensus about a solution to the synoptic problem. As previously mentioned, ancient cultures placed a lot of weight on oral tradition, often considering a personal account passed on through word of mouth to be more accurate than written sources. One scripture-based solution to the relationship between the synoptic Gospels is found in Luke. According to the King James Version of Luke 1:1–3, Luke wrote to Theophilus, likely a Roman official, that he had carefully consulted “those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word.” To clarify, the Greek arrangement of this sentence makes it clear that those who “delivered . . . [the stories about Jesus] unto us [were the] . . . eyewitnesses, and ministers.” Who were these witnesses that Luke’s testimony mentioned? Can Luke’s claim be trusted? Did Luke interview Peter, James, John, and some of the women who had experiences with Jesus during his ministry?38 Was Mary, Jesus’ mother, one of these witnesses? It is likely that she was. But why would Luke not specifically mention her? Responsible ancient historians often cited their oral sources, but not all did.
Concerning Luke’s report of Jesus’ birth, he does not specifically mention Mary in this passage, although she certainly would have been the best eyewitness of special and unique events that occurred before her son’s birth. Although Luke certainly mentions Mary’s faithfulness, he places particular emphasis on the special circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth and the beginning of his ministry. It is important to remember that in antiquity men and women had specific and rigid gender roles. Women had indoor duties, and men had outdoor responsibilities. These Mediterranean societies were patriarchal in public, but women dictated the domestic sphere of life. While fame was considered proper for men’s out-of-house responsibilities, it was generally deemed improper for women’s domestic roles. Ancient women’s names are usually mentioned as sparingly as possible to bring them honor. Being commonly talked about by men was consistently considered to be dishonorable.39 Luke must have been influenced by these gender conventions that were commonly held throughout the Mediterranean world. Though he sometimes described how Jesus lovingly transcended these gender roles, Luke did not identify his sources, many of whom must have been women. Because he kept silent about the origin of certain accounts in his Gospel, he shut out details that would have provided answers to the synoptic question.
Ancients held many different assumptions about historical resources that make it especially difficult to answer modern questions about those sources. Unfortunately, fragmentary and incomplete quotations of Papias and questionable assertions of Eusebius and Augustine, while very limited by modern standards, are the best and only extant ancient sources that touch on the origins of synoptic Gospel authorship. Their writings are not as early as we would need in order to conclusively answer the synoptic question, but their witnesses support the most likely scenario: Matthew probably composed notes and outlines of Jesus’ teachings in Aramaic, including the Sermon on the Mount; Mark was the first to write a lengthy Greek Gospel seemingly dependent on some of Matthew’s notes, on Peter’s witness, and on many other oral witnesses and traditions; and later, Matthew and Luke composed their Gospels as we now know them based on all the writings, first-hand accounts, and oral remembrances that were available at the time.
In sum, for Latter-day Saints, it is extremely helpful to remember that these synoptic Gospels are truly testimonies, with each Gospel being written for a specific Jewish or Gentile audience. As testimonies, they present basic facts of Jesus’ ministry that fit together nicely. Although these testimonies are often in agreement about specific items, in other instances they may be contradictory about certain details. Their agreement or disagreement about certain aspects of Jesus’ ministry does not detract from their grand purpose in teaching that Jesus is the Messiah or Christ. John’s later testimony cemented the most important details of Jesus’ suffering, death, and Resurrection as described by the synoptic Gospels in varying ways.
