In NT studies, “Synoptic” refers to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which, due to their similarities, can be compared side by side (synoptic = seeing together). Although coined earlier, the term “Synoptic” did not become the commonly used reference to the first three Gospels until the nineteenth century.

Synoptical comparisons reveal texts that are similar in wording (e.g., Matt. 19:13–18 // Mark 10:13–16 // Luke 18:15–17), order (e.g., Matt. 12:46–13:58 // Mark 3:31–6:6a // Luke 8:19–56), and parenthetical material (e.g., Matt. 9:6 // Mark 2:10 // Luke 5:20). Most interestingly, the Synoptics agree in their quotation of the OT even when they differ from the Hebrew OT text itself (compare Matt. 3:3 // Mark 1:3 // Luke 3:4 to Isa. 40:3). Beyond such similarities, significant differences prevail that raise difficult questions. How, for example, could Mark escape any reference to the Sermon on the Mount (including the Lord’s Prayer), which holds such a prominent position in Matthew?

Relationships among the three Gospels. Due to these and other factors, multiple theories on the Synoptic Gospels’ relationship to one another have arisen. Yet none have found universal acceptance. Historically, based primarily on Augustine’s claim, the church affirmed Matthew as the first Gospel, with Mark as his abridgment and Luke as employing both. The German text critic J. J. Griesbach developed this thesis of Matthean priority in his 1774 Synopsis, arguing that Luke was the first to use Matthew, and Mark was drawing from both. The Griesbach Hypothesis continues to have advocates.

Matthew covers the substance of 97.2 percent of Mark’s 661 verses, while 88.4 percent reappear in Luke. Although such statistics could be explained as Mark’s combination and abbreviation of Matthew and Luke, in fact Matthew generally shortens Mark where they cover the same material. In search of explanations that better validate the evidence, NT scholars proposed the Two Source Hypothesis, arguing that Mark wrote first, and that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark and from another, unknown source (which scholars call “Q,” from German Quelle, meaning “source”). H. J. Holzmann gave significant credence to this theory in 1863, and after B. H. Streeter’s persuasive publication in 1924 it became the leading theory. Rather than the reverse, it seems easier to understand Matthew and Luke as expansions of Mark’s narrative, just as evidence suggests that they “cleaned up” Mark’s poorer Greek and more difficult readings. Furthermore, although Matthew and Luke often disagree with each other both verbally and in their order of events, they rarely agree with one another against Mark. This suggests that in the triple tradition (passages in all three Synoptic Gospels), Matthew and Luke are not borrowing from each other but are independently using Mark.

The suggestion of the unknown source Q (which could be either written or oral) proved necessary to make sense of the significant agreements between Matthew and Luke in material not covered by Mark. Streeter suggested further that the material that was unique to Matthew and Luke respectively came from sources designated as “M” and “L.”

Although the Two Source Hypothesis remains the working theory preferred by most scholars, others claim that the issue is far from unresolved. To reconstruct the precise development of the Synoptic Gospels has proven extremely difficult. Each Gospel may have been influenced by a variety of sources. Rather than being well defined, the process likely was fluid, bringing together commonly known and accepted memorizations of specific Jesus sayings, repeated retellings of specific sequences of events (shorter and longer) that had turned into strings of established tradition among early churches, written records made by disciples such as Matthew, oral preaching of apostles such as Peter, accounts possibly from Mary the mother of Jesus (cf. Luke 2:19), and other things.

Mark’s Gospel has historically been considered a written condensation of Peter’s preaching, but as C. H. Dodd showed in his 1936 Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, Mark shaped his Gospel according to a common apostolic pattern observable in the speeches in Acts. Except for a few parables and the action-filled apocalypse in chapter 13, Mark’s Gospel consists almost exclusively of descriptive narrative that delineates the power and purpose of Jesus, the Son of God. Mark is kerygma, preaching about Jesus. Q, or the material common to Matthew and Luke absent in Mark, consists almost exclusively of teaching material, Jesus sayings. It is didachē, teaching from Jesus.

Distinctives of each Gospel. Griesbach’s “synoptic” approach of placing these three Gospels side by side for comparison has prompted new scholarly approaches such as redaction criticism and has provided beginning students with a helpful way to recognize specific emphases of each Gospel. As noted above, Mark is a fast-paced narrative (“immediately” occurs nine times in chap. 1 alone) with vivid picturesque detail (e.g., 14:51–52). Matthew writes for a Jewish audience. He weaves his narrative around five major teaching discourses (chaps. 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 24–25) while highlighting Jesus’ relationship to Abraham (chap. 1), his mission to “the lost sheep of Israel” (chaps. 10; 15), and his birth and death as the “King of the Jews” (chaps. 2; 27) and using the Jewish expression “kingdom of heaven.” Luke, while portraying the comprehensive scope of Jesus’ mission by relating Jesus directly to Adam and God (3:38) and placing the events in secular history (chap. 2), reveals a special interest in the downtrodden (women, poor, children, Samaritans), prayer (nine prayers), the Holy Spirit, and joyfulness.