Revisiting the Two-Gospel Hypothesis

One of my major goals this week is to complete and submit my chapter on the Two-Gospel, or Griesbach, Hypothesis for the forthcoming T&T Clark Handbook to the Synoptic Gospels.

The Synoptic Problem remains one of the most important and enduring questions in New Testament scholarship. How are Matthew, Mark, and Luke literarily related? Which Gospel was written first? Did later ones use one or more of the earlier Gospels? How should we account for the substantial agreements among the Synoptics as well as their striking differences?

My chapter examines the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, which maintains that Matthew was written first, Luke made use of Matthew, and Mark subsequently composed his account of the Gospel with knowledge of both. This approach is often associated with Johann Jakob Griesbach and, in more recent scholarship, with William R. Farmer. Yet the position reflects a much older understanding of Gospel origins—one that deserves to be considered not only through modern source-critical models but also through careful engagement with the testimony of the early church.

One of the most rewarding dimensions of the project has been the opportunity for me to revisit the patristic evidence with fresh eyes. Discussions of the Church Fathers sometimes proceed by extracting a sentence from an early Christian writer and then assigning it to one side or another in the modern debate. A statement is cited as evidence for Matthean priority, Markan priority, apostolic authorship, or some particular sequence of Gospel composition. The conclusion is then repeated in subsequent scholarship, often without sustained attention to the larger discourse in which the statement originally appeared.

But patristic texts, like New Testament texts, must be interpreted too. The Fathers should not be treated merely as repositories of isolated quotations. Their statements belong to arguments, narratives, catalogues, apologetic settings, theological controversies, and broader accounts of Christian origins. They have historical and social backgrounds. Their words have lexical range of meaning. Individual sentences must therefore be considered in relation to their immediate literary setting, the author’s larger purpose, the terminology being employed, and the patterns of thought that emerge across the writer’s work.

In my chapter, I have tried to approach the patristic evidence with the same degree of linguistic and discourse sensitivity that I want to bring to the New Testament itself. That means paying close attention to language, context, progression of thought, and the relationship between individual statements and broader patterns of argumentation. The central question is not simply, “What conclusion has traditionally been drawn from this passage?” It is also, “What is this writer actually saying, why is he saying it here, and how does this statement function within the discourse?”

That shift in approach can clarify evidence that has sometimes been oversimplified or pressed too quickly into the service of a modern hypothesis. 

Patristic evidence is not always as simple or uniform as advocates of any particular Synoptic theory might prefer. And their testimony matters. These writers stood much closer than we do to the composition, circulation, and early reception of the Gospels. Their claims must be assessed critically, but they should not be dismissed merely because they do not fit comfortably within the dominant modern paradigm.

My chapter also seeks to move the discussion beyond some of the classic formulations of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Building on the work of scholars William R. Farmer and David Alan Black (and others), I explore more fully the literary relationship between Matthew and Luke. A theory of Synoptic relationships must do more than propose an order of composition. It must explain how one author engaged, reorganized, expanded, condensed, and interpreted material available in another Gospel.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the T&T Clark Handbook to the Synoptic Gospels and to participate in a scholarly conversation that has occupied interpreters of the New Testament for centuries.

More importantly, I remain convinced that these questions matter because the Gospel accounts themselves matter. Every effort to understand their origins, relationships, language, and distinctive theological contributions should ultimately lead us back to the person they proclaim: Jesus Christ.