Why Do Matthew, Mark, and Luke Sound So Similar? | Synoptic Problem Explained | ABS EP 7

Three gospels tell the same story, but they don’t tell it the same way and once you see the differences, you can’t unsee them. We put Mark, Matthew, and Luke side by side through the John the Baptist scene and watch the Synoptic Problem come alive in real time: near-identical lines, shared structure, and the places where one writer adds a detail that changes the whole feel of the moment. If you’ve ever wondered why the Synoptic Gospels sometimes sound like they’re quoting each other, this is the kind of slow, text-first Bible study that makes the question concrete. 

We start with what each author chooses to foreground. Mark moves fast and gives the shortest setup. Matthew stays close to Mark but turns up the volume on John’s preaching, including the kingdom of heaven theme and sharper warning imagery. Luke zooms out like a historian, anchoring John in the reign of Tiberius Caesar and naming political leaders before John even appears, then adds unique dialogue about what repentance looks like for crowds, tax collectors, and soldiers. Along the way we also notice what Luke leaves out, like John’s camel hair and leather belt, and what that might signal about Luke’s priorities. 

Then we step back and ask the big question: how do scholars explain these patterns? We walk through shared memory and oral tradition, Markan priority, the idea of “double tradition,” the debated Q source, and the Farrer hypothesis where Luke may have used both Mark and Matthew. No pressure to pick a camp, the point is learning how to read with open eyes and honest questions. If this helped you think more clearly about the Bible and its origins, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review so more curious readers can find the show.

Transcript

Welcome And The Synoptic Problem

SPEAKER_00 0:00

What's going on? It's Joe Teal, and this is episode seven of the Agnostic Bible study. Today it is Thursday, so we are doing an explainer episode and we are focusing on the synoptic problem. And like always, we'll be approaching the Bible with a neutral, curious perspective. It's not about trying to convert anybody or deconvert anybody, it's about slowing down, opening up the text, and asking honest questions. So, whether you believe or you don't believe, or you don't know what to believe, you are welcome here at the Agnostic Bible Study. Let's get into it. Alright, y'all, at the end of Tuesday's episode, I told you I wanted to spend a little more time comparing these passages side by side. And that is exactly what we are going to do today. In the last episode, we walked through Mark's description of John the Baptist. But when we start laying Mark, Matthew, and Luke next to each other, some really interesting patterns start to appear. Sometimes the wording is almost identical. Other times, one gospel adds details that other gospels do not include. And sometimes two of the gospels will have details that one doesn't. And once you start seeing those patterns, it raises some really interesting questions about how these texts relate to each other. So today we're going to slow down and do something a little bit more academic. We're going to walk through these passages together, compare what each gospel says, and then look at a few of the major theories scholars have proposed to explain what we're seeing. All right, the first thing we're going to do is compare the setting in all three of the stories. So first I'll be in Mark chapter 1, verse 4 and 5. So John the Baptizer appeared in the wilderness proclaiming a baptism of the repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And the whole Judean region and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him and were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins. Right off the jump, we see that Mark introduces John very quickly. John appears in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance, and crowds begin coming out to him from Judea and Jerusalem. Mark typically moves fast, and this is an example of that. He drops John into the story and immediately shows the movement forming around him. Now listen to Matthew's version. I'm in Matthew chapter 3, and I'm going to read the relevant verses for the setting. Verse 1. And then, just like in Mark, we get this call back to the Old Testament in Isaiah with the voice in the wilderness. We're going to skip down to verse 5. Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan were going out to him, and they were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Notice how close Matthew is to Mark here. John is still in the wilderness. People are still coming out from Jerusalem and Judea. But Matthew adds something important to John's message. Matthew records John saying, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near. That phrase, kingdom of heaven, becomes one of the major themes throughout Matthew's gospel. So Matthew keeps Mark's basic structure, but highlights the message John is preaching. Now let's look at Luke. Alright, I'm in Luke chapter three. I will read the relevant verses concerning the setting. Chapter three, verse one says, In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod was the ruler of Galilee. And we could keep going, but it's just more rulers and more leaders. So we're going to skip down to verse three. He went out into the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of the repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as it is written in the book and the words of the prophet Isaiah, and we get the flashback to Isaiah in the Old Testament, just like Mark and Matthew. Luke's introduction is very different. Before John even appears, Luke anchors the story in history. He names several rulers, including Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, and Herod. Luke is the only gospel writer who does this here. It almost reads like the opening of a historical record. Then John appears in the wilderness just like the other accounts. So when we compare the three, we start to see a pattern. Mark gives us the shortest version. Matthew follows Mark closely but emphasizes the message. And Luke zooms out and places the event inside a broader historical setting. But all three agree on the core picture. John is in the wilderness, and people are coming out from Jerusalem and the surrounding region to hear him. The next thing we're going to compare is John's appearance. I'm in Mark chapter 1, verse 6. Now John was clothed with camel's hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locust and wild honey. Matthew includes almost the exact same description. Let's look at it. I'm in Matthew chapter 3, verse 4. Now John wore clothing of camel's hair with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locust and wild honey. That is insanely close. The clothing, the leather belt, the locust, and the wild honey? Matthew is preserving almost the exact same picture of John. This description likely echoes imagery associated with the prophet Elijah. In 2 Kings, we are told Elijah was a man with a garment of hair and a leather belt around his waist. So when ancient readers heard this description, it may have immediately reminded them of Elijah. And Luke actually leaves this description out entirely. Luke focuses more on John's message and the crowds coming out to hear him rather than describing what John looked like. But Mark and Matthew both preserve this striking picture of John living in the wilderness, dressed simply, and eating food that would have been available in that environment. All right, the next thing we're going to compare is John's message. Now listen to Mark's version of John's message. I'm in Mark chapter 1, verses 7 through 8. He proclaimed, The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me. I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the strap of his sandals. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. Mark keeps the message short and focused. John announces that someone more powerful is coming after him. I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the strap of his sandals. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. In Mark's account, the emphasis is simple. John is preparing the way for someone greater who is about to appear. Now let's listen to Matthew's version. I'm in Matthew chapter three, verses eleven through twelve. I baptize you with water for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is more powerful than I, and I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire, his winnowing fork in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. Notice how close the main structure is to Mark. Someone stronger is coming after John. John says he is not worthy in relation to that person. And John contrasts water baptism with the baptism in the Holy Spirit. If you place the passages side by side, you can see how closely Matthew follows the same structure Mark used. But Matthew does shift some details. Instead of untying sandals like Mark, Matthew says he's not worthy to carry his sandals. And Matthew expands the warning imagery with the winnowing fork and the judgment scene. And he says he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Mark does not have and fire. We'll start with Luke chapter 3, verses 15 through 17. As the people were filled with expectation and all were questioning their hearts concerning John whether he might be the Messiah, John answered all of them by saying, I baptize you with water, but the one who is more powerful than I is coming. I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire, his winnowing fork in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. And notice how close Luke is to the overall shape of the message, too. Luke keeps the same water versus spirit contrast, but adds fire like Matthew does, and Luke returns the sandal detail in a way that sounds closer to Mark. Luke says he is not worthy to untie the strap of the sandals. Luke also includes the winnowing fork and the wheat and the chaff imagery, like Matthew. But Luke adds one more detail. Luke tells us that people were wondering whether John himself might be the Messiah. So when we compare these three accounts, we can start to see a pattern. Mark gives the shortest version of the message. Matthew expands and slightly edits the details. Luke shares much of that expanded warning material, but also adds his own narrative context. So the next thing we're going to compare is the warning sermon, and we'll have to start in Matthew because Mark doesn't have it. I'm in Matthew chapter 3, 7 through 10. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for his baptism, he said to them, You brood of vipers, who warns you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore, bear fruit worthy of repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our ancestor, for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. Here John addresses the Pharisees and Sadducees with a very, very sharp warning. You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? He calls them to bear fruit worthy of repentance, and he warns them the axe is already lying at the root of the trees. This language paints a vivid picture of judgment that is already close. Now let's listen to Luke's version. I'm in Luke chapter three, verses seven through nine. John said to the crowds, You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore, bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our ancestor. For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. Notice how familiar that sounds. Luke also records John saying, You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Luke also includes the warning about the axe laying at the root of the trees. In fact, large parts of this warning sound almost identical between Matthew and Luke. Instead of focusing specifically on the Pharisees and the Sadducees, Luke describes John speaking to the crowds coming out to be baptized. So when we compare these passages side by side, we notice something interesting. Matthew and Luke share this material, but Mark does not include it. That becomes important later when scholars begin asking how these gospel accounts might be related to each other. Because man, that one was super close. The next thing we're going to look at is what then should we do? What am I talking about? It's an extra part of this story that only happens in Luke. Luke continues the scene in a way that neither Mark nor Matthew record. After hearing John's warnings, the crowd began asking a question. Let's read it. I'm in Luke chapter three, verses ten through fourteen. And the crowds asked him, What then should we do? In reply he said to them, Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none, and whoever has food must do likewise. Even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, Teacher, what should we do? He said to them, Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you. Soldiers also asked him, and we, what shall we do? He said to them, Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages. Mark never records this conversation. Matthew doesn't include it either. Luke adds it. This is a good example of what scholars sometimes call Lucan material, details or traditions that appear specifically in Luke's gospel. Here, Luke emphasizes how repentance should show up in everyday behavior, sharing resources, acting honestly, avoiding abuse of power. So Luke doesn't just give us another extremely similar story. He expands the story with new dialogue and practical instructions. Now, before we talk about some theories and explanations scholars have proposed, let's pause for a moment and summarize what we have just seen. Mark gives us the shortest version of the story. John appears in the wilderness calling people to repentance and announcing that someone greater is coming. Matthew includes everything Mark says, but expands the message with stronger warning imagery, including lines like Brood of Vipers and the warning that the axe is already laying at the root of the trees. Luke includes the same core message we see in Mark, but Luke also shares some of the expanded warning material we heard in Matthew. And then Luke adds some detail of his own, including the conversation where people ask John what they should do, and John gives practical instructions to crowds, tax collectors, and soldiers. This is the fun of placing these same stories from different gospels beside each other. Patterns begin to appear. Some material shows up in all three Gospels. Some material appears in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark. And sometimes a gospel writer includes detail that appear only in their own account. Once you start to notice patterns like that, a few natural questions begin to arise. Are Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source? Are they using some other tradition that Mark did not include? Or are these similarities simply the result of multiple witnesses describing the same event? These questions are what lead scholars into theories about how the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, might be related. So now we move into some possible explanations. So how do scholars explain these patterns? Over time, several different explanations have been proposed. One view reflects what many Christians naturally assume when they read the Gospels. In this view, the similarities between the stories simply exist because the writers are describing the same real events. If John preached in the wilderness, then multiple witnesses might remember that. If John warned the people to repent, then several people might recall those same words. From that perspective, the overlap between the gospels is simply the result of shared memories and eyewitness testimony. Some people also believe that several of the gospel writers were themselves eyewitnesses. Matthew is traditionally understood to have been one of Jesus' disciples. John is traditionally connected to the beloved disciple, and Mark and Luke are often thought to have written down traditions connected to apostles like Peter and Paul. But at the same time, even if some of those traditions ultimately go back to eyewitnesses, not every scene in the Gospels could have been personally witnessed by the authors themselves. For example, moments like Jesus praying alone in the garden, private meetings with King Herod, or passages that describe people's thoughts and dreams would still have required the writers to rely on some type of tradition or sources they received. And in the case of this particular story, there's no evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John were present for John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness. In fact, the scene appears to take place before Jesus even begins calling his disciples, which makes it unlikely that any of the gospel writers themselves would have been there to witness it. John, son of Zebedee, would likely still be a fisherman. Matthew would likely still be a tax collector, and Mark and Luke likely were not even a part of the movement yet. So from that perspective, the similarities between the Gospels could reflect the mixture of shared memories, oral traditions, and possibly written sources. But when scholars began comparing the text very closely, they noticed something interesting. Sometimes the wording between the Gospels is extremely similar, even outside of direct quotations. Sometimes entire stories appear in the same order. And sometimes Matthew and Luke share material that does not appear in Mark at all. Because of patterns like that, many scholars began exploring the possibility that the gospel writers might also be using written sources. And that is where we start to encounter theories like Mark and Priority, the idea of a possible source sometimes called Q, and another explanation known as the Fair hypothesis. In the next couple sections, we're going to take a closer look at those ideas and see how each one attempts to explain the patterns we just observed. First, let's discuss Mark and Priority. One of the most widely discussed ideas in modern scholarship is something called Mark and Priority. Mark and priority is the idea that the Gospel of Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke use Mark as one of their sources. In other words, instead of all three writers independently recording the same stories, Matthew and Luke may have had a copy of Mark in front of them while writing their own accounts. So if you want a deeper dive into this idea, episode five of this series is an explainer episode dedicated entirely to Mark and Priority. But for now, let's focus on how the idea connects to what we just saw in these passages, what we just read earlier. You could see why many scholars think this. Mark gives us the shortest, simplest version of the story. Matthew often includes the same material but expands it, and Luke frequently includes the same chord structure while also adding new details. Another reason scholars consider this possibility is the wording. Sometimes the Greek wording between Mark and the other gospels is extremely close, even in places where the words are not direct quotations. And scholars have also noticed something interesting about the style of Greek itself. Mark's Greek is often a little rougher and simpler. Matthew and Luke frequently smooth out the wording or polish the language when they tell the same stories. If Matthew and Luke were using Mark as a source, that kind of pattern would make sense. Later writers often improve the grammar or style of a source they are working from. We can also see this in the overall structure of the story. The sequence of events often appears in the same order. John appears in the wilderness. He calls people to repentance. He describes someone more powerful who is coming after him. And then the narrative moves towards the baptism of Jesus. If Matthew and Luke were using Mark as a source, that would explain why those structural elements line up so closely. Another reason many scholars think Mark was written first has to do with the material that Mark doesn't include. And for me, this was huge. If Mark were written second or third, literary dependency would still need to be explained. Why are the words so similar? Why is the structure so similar? But in that case, we would have to ask why Mark would remove major material that appears in the other gospel. For example, Mark doesn't include the virgin birth narratives found in Matthew and Luke. Mark does not include large teaching sections like the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount. And the earliest ending of Mark ends without the extended resurrection appearances found in the other gospels. If Mark came later and there was some type of literary dependency going on, we would need an explanation for why those major sections were left out. Can you imagine Mark looking at Matthew and seeing the Sermon on a Mount and going, eh, not good enough? I'm not writing that. For many scholars, it makes more sense that Matthew and Luke expanded Mark rather than Mark cutting out large portions of their material. But Mark and priority alone does not explain everything. Because as we noticed earlier, Matthew and Luke sometimes share material that does not appear in Mark at all. And that leads us to the next idea scholars have proposed. Alright, y'all, now it's time to talk about Q and double tradition. Let's get into it. If Matthew and Luke both use Mark as a source, that helps us explain why all three Gospels often follow the same basic structure. But it does not explain everything that we saw earlier when we were reading the passages. Because in several places, Matthew and Luke share material that does not appear in Mark at all. Scholars often refer to this shared Matthew-Luke material as double tradition. One well-known example appears in the passage we already examined. Both Matthew and Luke include John calling people a brood of vipers. Both include the warning about the axe lying at the root of the trees, and both include the imagery of the winnowing fork separating the wheat from the chaff. But none of that material appears in Mark's version of the story. So how do scholars explain that? One proposal is that Matthew and Luke may have had access to another source in addition to Mark. Scholars often refer to this hypothetical source as Q, which comes from a German word meaning source. According to this theory, Matthew and Luke both use Mark as one source, and they also use this second collection of traditions. Many scholars think Q may have been a collection of teachings or sayings. If something like that existed, it could explain why Matthew and Luke sometimes include the same teaching even when those teachings do not appear in Mark. In that scenario, Mark provides the basic narrative framework, and Q would provide some of the shared sayings material that Matthew and Luke both include. But it is important to remember something. No physical copy of Q has ever been discovered. The idea of Q is a reconstruction. Scholars propose it as a way to explain patterns we see when comparing the gospels. And that means not everybody agrees that Q existed. Some scholars think there might be another explanation entirely, and that brings us to our next theory. So if not all scholars believe a source like Q ever existed, there has to be another explanation. And one explanation is known as the Fair Hypothesis. This theory agrees with the idea discussed earlier that Mark was written first, but instead of suggesting that Matthew and Luke both used a second source like Q, this view proposes something simpler. According to the Fair Hypothesis, Luke may have used both Mark and Matthew while writing his gospel. In that scenario, Mark would write first, then Matthew would write second using Mark as a source. Then Luke would write later using both Mark and Matthew. If Luke had access to Matthew's gospel, that could explain why Matthew and Luke sometimes share material that does not appear in Mark. One interesting detail appears at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke itself. In Luke chapter 1, verse 1 through 4, Luke explains that many people had already attempted to write narratives about these events. He says he investigated these traditions carefully and decided to write an orderly account for his reader. So from that perspective, the Bible might be telling us Luke may have had access to both Mark and Matthew while writing his gospel. And while we can't know that for sure, if it were the case, it would naturally explain something we noticed earlier in this episode. Sometimes Luke seems to follow Mark closely. Other times, Luke includes material that sounds very similar to Matthew. In other words, Luke may simply be weaving together material from both sources while shaping the story in his own way. This theory avoids the need to propose a source like Q that we have never actually discovered. But, like the other theories, the fair hypothesis also has questions that scholars continue to debate. And that brings us to an important point. But it's an important point that you can only get to when you lay out these stories side by side. These texts are deeply connected to one another. Understanding those connections can help us see how the authors shape their stories, organize their material, and emphasize different themes. So what do we do with all this? We just walk through three gospel accounts that are clearly connected to each other, but also clearly different in certain places. Scholars have spent generations trying to explain the patterns that we looked at today. Some believe the similarities come from shared eyewitness memory. Others believe that the authors were using earlier written sources. Others think the writers may have been reading and editing each other's work. And as we saw today, there are several different models that attempt to explain how that might have happened. But the goal of this episode was not to prove one theory. The goal was simply to slow down and look carefully at the text. Because once you start comparing these passages side by side, you begin to notice things that are easy to miss when reading each gospel on its own. Imagine if we just read Mark by itself, how would our understanding be of that same story that we've examined today? And that is really the heart of this series. We slow down, we open the text, and we ask honest questions. And next episode, we'll be back for a Tuesday verse-by-verse breakdown episode. Jesus will be baptized in the Jordan River. You don't want to miss it. Thank you so much for tapping in. I just want to tell y'all, this was the most fun episode that I have done yet. The researching, the script writing, the comparing, this was the funnest one yet. I hope you really thought about some of these theories. It's fun. And yes, we're in hypothetical land. We can't know for sure. We have to work through these models, we have to create theories. We are trying to explain how these three documents from the first century relate to each other. None of us know exactly what happened in the first century, and that is the fun of this. We get to pretend to be historians, look at the evidence, and come up with our own conclusions. Thank you so much for watching this episode. If you want to get ahead, you can get ahead for free on Patreon. Come hang out with me there. But if not, like, share, subscribe, do all the stuff that helps the podcast. And we will see y'all next week. We love you. Never stop learning.