Abstract:

If the Two-Source Hypothesis is endorsed by a majority in contemporary New Testament scholarship as being the best available solution to the so-called ‘Synoptic Problem’, then the Farrer Hypothesis enjoys the status of being its official opposition. Both views have their strengths and weaknesses, and in this paper, I will suggest a way beyond the current impasse through a synthesis of their strong points, as well as the inclusion of the oft-neglected gospel of John in understanding the literary relationships between the New Testament gospels. I aim to show that repeated examples of ambiguity in Luke’s version are best explained as attempts to harmonize conflicts between Mark and Matthew or Mark/Matthew and John.