The Griesbach hypothesis is considered as a theory for solving the controversies surrounding the Synopsis Problem, which is the controversy existing over how the three Synoptic Gospels of Mathew, Luke, and Mark were written. The Synoptic Problem examines the literary relationships among the three “Synoptic” Gospels, which can be seen to contain many similarities in their narrative accounts and sayings in the life and teachings of Jesus.Important differences can, however, be identified in the relative sequence of events described in the three gospels, their wording of particular stories and sayings, and in the ordering of the literature materials comprising the overall extent of description in each gospel. The synopsis problem examines the degree of verbatim agreement or sequential agreement in the narratives themselves and the arrangement of episodes and teachings to enable theological understanding of the influence that each writer and their culture had on the account of the gospel. This further determines its relevance and interpretation in modern theology by establishing the literary relationship between the three accounts of the gospel and the direction of literary dependence in the development of each account (p. 62). The Griesbach hypothesis proposes that Matthew was written first and Luke was written second using Matthew as a source while Mark was written third using both Matthew and Luke as sources.

The Griesbach or Two-Gospel Hypothesis is among the theories that have been put forward as plausible and more simplified solutions to the Synoptic Problem. The theory was revived by the German scholarJohann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) in his first use of a synopsis approach to examining the gospel. Similar to the Traditional Augustinian Theory, the Griesbach Theory maintains Matthean prioritysuggesting that Luke is the second Gospel and Mark the third. This implies that in writing and interpretation into Greek, Luke used Matthew as a source and Mark used both Matthew and Luke as sources. Matthean priority finds support with the early founders of the church who inherited the synopsis from Christian antiquity that the three Gospels were written in that order with John being the fourth and last gospel.

Beginning from page 70, the reading provided on the Griesbach theory gives evidence of Matthean Priority citing internal evidence supporting the view that the gospel according to Mark is likely to have adopted, modified, and summarized parts of the first two gospels. Internal evidence unanimously identifies the book of Matthew as the first. The writings of Matthew have the most Jewish cultural orientation and show greater sensibility to Jewish-Christian concerns that does Luke and Mark, which fits in with the early context of the church as a primarily Gentile institution (p. 71). Matthew and Luke have a large amount of shared literature material with up to two-thirds of the texts showing overlap, which is simply explained that Luke used Matthew as a source. Almost all of the Gospel of Mark can be found in either Matthew or Luke or both texts, with two parallel instances identifiable where Mark is in agreement with either Matthew or Luke against the other, which suggests that Mark may have had two or more sources to use compared to the other two.

Similar to other contesting theories, the Griesbach Hypothesis recognizes that the synoptic problem has not yet been solved. This is in the sense that it is still not possible to fully explain both the content and the order of all parallels that occur in the literary relationships in the first three gospels based on any of the current synoptic hypotheses put forward thus far. The perceived similarities and differences observable in the Synoptic gospels create significant theological challenges about the expositions and inference of doctrines from the Gospel texts, which the church uses for nourishment spiritually and doctrinally. The reading identifies problems with the Matthean priority premise of the Griesbach theory, citing evidence that that Mark’s Gospel is the shortest with the majority of its material being contained in Matthew and Luke (p. 72).

The reading puts forward several suggestions as to why the first three Gospels show some significant level of disagreement in their accounts and wording. Redaction, which is combining two separate traditions into one, has been used extensively in Mark with added explanations, changed the setting of narratives and alterations aimed at avoiding misunderstanding in the reader (p.81). The text also suggests that besides the direct accounts of the three authors concerning Jesus, much of the narratives in the texts were developed as part of the cultural folklore with much influence from storytelling (p. 87). As such, understanding the Gospels should not only take into account the primitive narrative but should also allow for nuances arising from the sharing and passing down of stories before the Gospels were written. This has much implication for modern theology in the historical and apologetic sense in that the order of the writing the gospels gives context to the origins of the Christian story and doctrines. The apologetic controversy objecting that the Gospels contradict each other as observable in their synoptic variations is explained by tracking the literary relationship of the three gospels and how they follow into and are supported by later texts. The evangelical scholar must, therefore, approach the Synoptic Problem with the assumption that the observable dependence on similar sourceswas under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit despite the market differences in wording and chronology of narrative.