The Synoptic Problem refers to the literary relationship between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which share significant similarities in content and structure. These three gospels are called "synoptic" from the Greek word "synoptikos," meaning "seen together," due to their parallel narratives1. The Two-Source Hypothesis (2SH) is a prominent explanation for this phenomenon, proposing that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and the hypothetical Q source as their primary sources12.

Key aspects of the Synoptic Problem include:

• The extensive verbal agreement between the three gospels, particularly in the order of events and phrasing

• The presence of "double tradition" material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark, which forms the basis for the Q hypothesis32

• The existence of material unique to each gospel, known as "special Matthew" and "special Luke"

• The challenge of explaining both the similarities and differences among the synoptic gospels within a coherent framework45

The ongoing debate surrounding the Synoptic Problem continues to shape our understanding of early Christian literature and the formation of the New Testament canon.

The hypothetical Q source, while not extant, is believed to have distinct characteristics based on scholarly analysis of the shared material in Matthew and Luke. Q is thought to be primarily a collection of Jesus' sayings and teachings, lacking a narrative framework or passion account1. It likely contained parables, apocalyptic pronouncements, and ethical instructions2. The material in Q is predominantly focused on Jesus' teachings rather than his actions or biographical details3.

Key features of Q include:

• Written in Greek, though possibly translated from Aramaic sources2

• Estimated to have been composed around 40-70 CE4

• Structured as a sayings gospel, similar to the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas5

• Reflects early Christian oral traditions and possibly eyewitness accounts1

• Contains minimal narrative elements, focusing instead on logia (sayings) of Jesus3

These characteristics have led scholars to view Q as a crucial early source for understanding the historical Jesus and the development of early Christian theology5.

The Q source hypothesis, while widely accepted, faces both supporting evidence and significant challenges. Proponents point to the "double tradition" material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark as strong evidence for Q's existence12. This shared content, primarily consisting of Jesus' sayings, exhibits remarkable verbal agreement, suggesting a common written source rather than oral tradition alone3.

However, the hypothesis is not without its critics. The lack of any surviving manuscripts or direct historical references to Q poses a significant challenge4. Additionally, some scholars argue that the similarities between Matthew and Luke could be explained by direct literary dependence rather than a shared source5. The ongoing debate highlights the complexity of early Christian textual traditions and the limitations of available evidence in reconstructing the origins of the Gospels6.

Modern scholarly views on the Q source hypothesis remain diverse and evolving. While many scholars accept the existence of Q as a fundamental aspect of the two-source theory1, debates continue over its precise nature and implications. Some researchers argue that Q may have existed in multiple versions or stages of development, reflecting the dynamic oral traditions of early Christianity2. Others propose alternative explanations for the synoptic relationships, such as the Farrer hypothesis, which suggests Luke used Matthew directly, eliminating the need for Q3.

Recent scholarship has also explored the potential theological and historical implications of Q. Some argue that if Q existed, it might represent one of the earliest written accounts of Jesus' teachings, potentially predating the Gospel of Mark4. This has led to increased interest in reconstructing Q's content and analyzing its portrayal of Jesus. However, the hypothetical nature of Q continues to challenge scholars, prompting ongoing discussions about methodology in New Testament studies and the limits of historical reconstruction in understanding early Christian texts5.