The problem of the relationship between the three ‘Synoptic Gospels’ (Mt., Mk., Lk.) posed by the amount of subject matter which they share and the many similarities in wording and order. In modern times most scholars have held (1) that Mk. was the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels and that it was used as a source by Mt. and Lk., and (2) that for the non-Marcan material common to Mt. and Lk., their authors drew independently on a lost common source (or sources) known as ‘Q’ (q.v.). This ‘two-source’ hypothesis (that Mt. and Lk. are based on Mk. and ‘Q’) was developed mainly in Germany in the 19th cent., was given classic expression by B. H. Streeter, and came to be almost universally accepted. In the second half of the 20th cent. a few scholars challenged the priority of Mk. and several denied the existence of ‘Q’.
(1) that Mk. was the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels and that it was used as a source by Mt. and Lk., and (2) that for the non-Marcan material common to Mt. and Lk., their authors drew independently on a lost common source (or sources) known as ‘Q’ (q.v.). This ‘two-source’ hypothesis (that Mt. and Lk. are based on Mk. and ‘Q’) was developed mainly in Germany in the 19th cent., was given classic expression by B. H. Streeter, and came to be almost universally accepted. In the second half of the 20th cent. a few scholars challenged the priority of Mk. and several denied the existence of ‘Q’.
