Click on each underlined theory to see how scholars think the Synoptic Gospel writers may have used sources in their Gospel composition.
- By the nineteenth century, the view that Mark was written first had gained widespread acceptance. Chief among the early proponents of this view were K. Lachmann and H. J. Holtzmann. In addition to positing Mark as a source for Matthew and Luke, Holtzmann proposed a second source, the sayings material that has come to be known as Q. In addition, Matthew and Luke incorporated a variety of other materials into their Gospels; this material is commonly designated M and L respectively, but those labels are not meant to designate discrete, single sources.
- In the early twentieth century, B. H. Streeter proposed a variation on the Two-Source Hypothesis known as the Four-Source Hypothesis. According to this view, M and L were actual written documents that (like Q) had been lost. This part of the theory has been rejected; almost all modern scholars recognize that the material in M and L may have derived from multiple sources, both oral and written. One potential point of confusion: modern scholars sometimes use “Four-Source Hypothesis” to refer to what is described as the Two-Source Hypothesis.
- Proposed in 1955 by Austin Farrer, this theory holds that Mark’s Gospel was written first, Matthew used Mark as a source, and then Luke used both Mark and Matthew as sources. The theory is essentially a revision of the Two-Source Hypothesis that preserves Markan priority but dispenses with the need for positing a hypothetical Q source to explain the material Matthew and Luke have in common but that is not found in Mark.
- Proposed by J. J. Griesbach in 1789, this solution also posits that Matthew was written first, but it departs from Augustine in suggesting that Luke wrote second (making use of Matthew) and Mark wrote last, producing a digest of Matthew and Luke. The Two-Gospel Hypothesis is also known as the Griesbach Hypothesis.