The Synoptic Problem Solved? Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke to the Early Church (Ad Navseam Ep. 201)

Meta Description: Dr. David Noe and Dr. Jeff Winkle dig deep into John Wenham’s Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Discover why the “Q Source” might be a myth, how oral tradition explains the Gospels, and why a pre-55 AD dating changes everything.

Introduction: Autumnal Vibes and Powerful Initials

Welcome back to the “Vomitorium,” listeners! It is a distinctively autumnal day here in Grand Rapids, Michigan. We find ourselves in that dangerous, liminal space on the calendar—the transition zone between “Pumpkin Spice” and “Peppermint”. It is a season for introspection, hot coffee, and tackling the heavyweights of biblical scholarship.

In Episode 201 of the Ad Navseam Podcast, hosts Dr. Jeff Winkle (Jeffrey T. Winkle) and Dr. David Noe (David C. Noe) are in the bunker to discuss a book that challenges the consensus of the last century.

But before we get to the theology, we must address important matters of nomenclature. The hosts discuss the power of middle initials. Dr. Noe notes a theory that “J” is the most powerful middle initial (e.g., Donald J. Trump, J. Edgar Hoover), conveying a certain punch that other letters lack . Meanwhile, Dr. Winkle’s “T” and Dr. Noe’s “C” stand as silent sentinels of their own academic authority.

Today’s topic is The Synoptic Problem, based on the 1991 book by the conservative Anglican scholar John Wenham: Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem.

Defining the “Synoptic” Problem

First, a little language and Greek etymology for our philologists. Why are the first three Gospels called “Synoptic”? The term derives from the Greek verb horao (to see) combined with the prefix syn (together). Thus, synoptic means “seeing together” or “taking a common view”.

Unlike the Gospel of John, which stands apart in style and content, Matthew, Mark, and Luke share a massive amount of material—often verbatim. The “Problem” is explaining this literary relationship.

Did they copy each other?
Did they copy a common source?
Or is the similarity due to something else entirely?

As the 19th-century scholar Richard Claverhouse Jebb noted, the “Synoptic Problem” is one of the two great literary riddles of the Western world (the other being “Who was Homer?”).

The Status Quo: Marcan Priority and the “Q” Myth

To understand Wenham’s radical thesis, we must understand what he is attacking: the Two-Source Hypothesis. This theory has dominated New Testament scholarship for generations. It rests on two pillars:

Marcan Priority: The belief that Mark was the first Gospel written (c. 70 AD) and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a narrative framework .
The Q Source: For the material Matthew and Luke share that is not found in Mark (roughly 235 verses), scholars hypothesize a lost document called Q (from the German Quelle, meaning “Source”).

The Google Doc Analogy: Dr. Noe uses a modern analogy to explain this. Imagine if he and Dr. Winkle both wrote a history of the Ad Navseam podcast. If their accounts were nearly identical, future historians would assume they were both copying from a master “Google Doc” created by their producer, Mishka. However, if Dr. Winkle’s account differed significantly in order and wording 50% of the time, the theory falls apart.

This is the problem with Q. It is a hypothetical document that no one has ever seen, discovered, or cited in antiquity. It is a scholarly invention to explain the text, much like Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is reconstructed to explain linguistic similarities.

Wenham’s Radical Thesis: Pre-55 AD

John Wenham throws a hand grenade into this consensus. His thesis is stark:

“This book will argue that all three [Gospels] are probably to be dated before 55 AD.”

Most scholars place Mark around 70 AD and the others even later (80s or 90s).

The Implication: If the Gospels are late, they allow time for theology to evolve, myths to accrete, and the original history to be distorted.
Wenham’s View: If they are early (pre-55 AD), they are written by the eyewitnesses themselves or their immediate companions, locking in the historical truth before legends could develop.

**The Third Way: Oral Tradition (*Traditio***)

Wenham rejects the “copyist” model where the Evangelists are sitting with scrolls, slavishly copying Mark word-for-word. Instead, he proposes a mix of structural dependence and verbal independence.

The similarities in the sayings of Jesus (the Logia) are best explained by Oral Tradition in a culture with high memory retention. The disciples memorized Jesus’ sermons by rote. Therefore, similarities exist not because Luke is copying a written “Q” document, but because the oral tradition of the church was consistent.

Wenham vs. J.W. Scott (The “Oral Only” Theory)

Wenham interacts with a scholar named J.W. Scott, who argued that Luke’s preface (Luke 1:1-4) implies he used only oral traditions. Wenham disagrees, calling this “having one’s cake and eating it too”. He offers three reasons why purely oral independence is impossible:

The Order of Pericopes: The Gospels follow the same sequence even in the Galilean ministry, where there is no obvious chronological logic. This suggests some literary connection.
Mobility of the Church: The early Christians were constantly traveling (as seen in Acts and Romans). It is unlikely Matthew wrote a Gospel and Luke never saw it or heard of it. They would have shared resources.
Early Church Tradition: Ancient writers like Augustine believed the later Evangelists knew the earlier works. The idea of total isolation is a modern invention.

The Evidence of the Greek Text

The heart of Wenham’s argument lies in his analysis of the Greek text. He categorizes the material into two buckets:

1. Passages of Common Origin (52 Pericopes)

There are 52 sections where Luke and Mark clearly share a source.

Example: The Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10 vs. Luke 18)

Mark 10:21: “Jesus looked at him and loved him… Go, sell everything you have… and come, follow me.”
Luke 18:22: “When Jesus heard this… Sell everything you have… and come, follow me.” The phrase “deuro akolouthei moi” (Come, follow me) is identical in both. However, Mark uses the participle emblepsas (“looking at him”), while Luke uses akousas (“hearing”). The meaning is the same, but the vocabulary varies significantly, suggesting Luke knew Mark’s account but retold it in his own words rather than copying it directly.

2. Passages of Independent Origin (14 Pericopes)

There are roughly 14 sections where they cover the same event but with zero evidence of copying.

Example: The Call of Peter (Mark 1 vs. Luke 5)

Mark 1:16-20: Jesus walks by the sea, sees Simon and Andrew casting nets, and says, “Come, follow me.” They leave their nets and father immediately.
Luke 5:1-11: Jesus gets into Peter’s boat to teach. He tells Peter to let down the nets for a catch. They catch a miraculous amount of fish. Peter falls at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!”

The Greek Differences:

Mark uses halieis for fishermen; Luke uses it too, but the context is totally different.
Mark says they left their father (ton patera); Luke says they left “everything” (panta).
The story in Luke is rich, miraculous, and personal to Peter. Mark’s is a brief summary. Conclusion: Luke is not “redacting” Mark here. He has access to a completely different source—likely Peter himself—and is telling the full story that Mark only summarized.

Redaction Criticism vs. Reality

Wenham offers a critique of Redaction Criticism, the scholarly method that assumes every difference in the text is a deliberate theological change made by the author.

Wenham argues this is naive. In a society where learning was by rote, verbal likenesses would survive naturally. You don’t need to invoke a document like “Q” to explain why two people remember the Lord’s Prayer similarly.

“Only if it is assumed that Luke had little knowledge not obtained from literary sources will it appear probable that… all Matthew-Luke resemblances came from Q.”

**“Special Luke” (*Sondergut***)

Finally, Wenham points out the massive amount of material unique to Luke, known in German scholarship as Sondergut (“Special Good/Property”).

The Prodigal Son.
The Good Samaritan.
The Road to Emmaus.
A unique Passion narrative. Wenham argues Luke used Mark as a structural skeleton but fleshed it out with his own massive research (“Special Luke”) and perhaps some material from Matthew. He did not act as a copyist; he acted as a historian and an author.

Conclusion: A New Paradigm

If Wenham is right, the “Synoptic Problem” isn’t a problem of lost documents and cut-and-paste editing. It is a testament to the vibrant, accurate Oral Tradition of the early church and the historical integrity of the Evangelists. By redating the Gospels to the pre-55 AD era, we move them from the realm of late legend back to the realm of eyewitness history.

Latin Language SEO Spotlight

For our students of the Studia Biblica and Philologia, here are the key terms to furnish your mental library:

Synoptic: From Greek syn (together) + horao (to see). “Seeing together.”
Quelle: German for “Source.” The hypothetical “Q” document.
Logia: “Sayings” or “Oracles.” Specifically, the sayings of Jesus.
Pericope: From Greek peri (around) + kopto (to cut). A self-contained passage of Scripture.
Traditio: “Handing down.” The oral transmission of the Gospel.
Sondergut: “Special Property.” Material unique to one Gospel (e.g., Special Luke).
Evangelium: The Good News (Gospel).

The Gustatory Parting Shot

We leave you with a nugget of wisdom from Elaine Seiler’s book Your Multidimensional Workbook (a title Dr. Winkle would never buy because it contains the word “work”).

“Our bodies need a range of frequencies to support good health.”

We are told a carrot vibrates at 440 Hz. We can only speculate on the frequency of a Snickers bar—perhaps it requir