The Similarities and Differences of the Synoptic Gospels - Essay Example

The similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels. INTRODUCTION. The Synoptic Gospels is a term used by modern scholars for the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke of the New Testament in the Bible. They often recount the same stories about Jesus of Nazareth, though sometimes with substantial differences, but mostly following the same sequence and to a remarkable extent using the same words. The word "synoptic" means "with the same eye" or "seeing together." (The Gospel of John tells the story of Jesus in significantly different ways, which can be understood in terms other than literary relationships between the Gospels) EXAMPLES. The preface to Luke's Gospel confirms that at least this writer was aware of the diversity of the tradition even in written form (whether or not these were the canonical Gospels that we now have) (Lk. 1:1): "1. Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us" (Borg, 1999, p.65-8) Tatum (1999, p. 36) argues: "...Gospel origins highlight the theological focus peculiar to each Gospel. There appears to be an appropriate correspondence between the portrayal of Jesus in each Gospel and the social setting of that Gospel. Each writer, therefore, has edited information about Jesus so that the story of Jesus addresses the concerns of the intended readers. The Story of Jesus as the Universal Christ in the Gospel of Luke, for example, was appropriate in a way that the story of Jesus as the Teaching Christ in the Gospel of Matthew would not have been. Like us, the Gospel writers tended to make Jesus over in their own likenesses." The Synoptics vary considerably in length from Mark (the shortest) to Luke (the longest). There are 661 verses, 95 scenes and 80 sayings in Mark; 1068 verses, 117 scenes and 225 sayings in Matthew; as for Luke, it contains 1098 verses, 120 scenes and 182 sayings (Funk et al, 1993, p.45). There are places where the Synoptic Gospels are closely parallel in their recounting of incidents from the life of Jesus. For example, in the "Parable of the Sower" some words and constructions repeat in two or three Gospels: (Matthew 13) 3. " A sower went out to sow. 4. And as he sowed, some [seeds] fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. 5. Other [seeds] fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, 6. but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away. 7. Other [seeds] fell upon thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. 8. Other [seeds] fell on fine soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9. He who has ears [to hear] let him hear." (Mark 4) 3."Listen! A sower went out to sow. 4. And as he sowed, some [seed] fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. 5. Other [seed] fell on rocky ground, where it had not much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil; 6. and when the sun rose it was scorched, and since it had no root it withered away. 7. Other [seed] fell into thorns and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. 8 And other [seeds] fell into fine soil and brought forth grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold." 9. And he said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Luke 8) 5. "A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell along the path, and was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air devoured it. 6. And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns grew with it and choked it. 8. And some fell into good soil and grew, and yielded a hundredfold." As he said this, he called out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." At the same time there could be differences in historical details. For example, the story of the healing of the blind man Bartimaeus contains several such differences: in Matthew and Mark, the incident happens as Jesus and the disciples were leaving Jericho (Matt. 20:29, Mk 10:46), while in Luke as they were entering the town (Lk. 18:35). In Matthew there are two unnamed blind men (20:30), in Luke a single unnamed blind man (18:35), while in Mark he is called Bartimaeus, son of Timaues (10:46). In all three accounts the crowd is hostile to the blind man, but Mark tells us that some of the crowd encouraged him to respond to Jesus (10:49). In Matthew, Jesus simply calls to the two men, while in Mark and Luke he has the blind man brought to him (Ehrman, 1997, p.173). Other differences are even more substantial, although still variations of what seems like a common tradition. While the basic order of events is similar in the Synoptics, some sayings of Jesus occur in different settings in the various Gospels. For example, Matthew presents many of Jesus' sayings in a large block of teaching material delivered while he is seated on a mountain (the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5:1-7:27): "When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying..." However, many of these same sayings are scattered throughout the other two Gospels. Luke has a much shorter version of these collected sayings (Lk. 6:17-49), but the locale in which they are placed is different: "He came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon." Because of the location, Luke's version of Jesus' teachings is known as the Sermon on the Plain. Other parables, teachings, or particular events in the Gospels are placed at different points in the narrative or in different literary contexts. For example, Luke places Jesus' rejection at the synagogue in his hometown of Nazareth as one of the first events of his public ministry (Lk 4:16-30). However, Mark places it much later, about halfway through his Galilean ministry (Mark 6:1-6). Mark places Jesus' calling of the disciples before his Capernaum preaching (Mark 1:16-20), while Luke places it after (Lk 5:1-11). And, of course, there are the sections of each of the Synoptic Gospels that do not have parallels in the other Gospels and are unique to that Gospel, or are recorded in only one other Gospel. For example, the accounts of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke are strikingly different. Luke includes an extended description of the events leading up to the birth, including the activities of Mary and the parents of John, as well as the later narratives about the visit of the shepherds, the speeches of Anna and Simeon, and the visit of the young boy Jesus to the Temple. None of these are included in Matthew or Mark. Mathew includes the visit of the Magi and the flight into Egypt that the other accounts omit, while Mark simply omits any narratives about Jesus' birth (Funk et al, 1998, p.134, 145, 189-193). SOURCES' THEORIES. Since early Christian history, interpreters have been convinced that that two of these authors used the work of the third as a basic source for constructing their Gospels. Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor in the early 2nd century CE, claimed that he had heard that Matthew wrote first and that this work had been interpreted by others. This report was picked up and without being checked was simply echoed by other early Christian writers. It seemed to make sense, since Matthew was a name that was found on lists of Jesus' disciples in these three Gospels, while the names of Mark and Luke were not among known associates of Jesus. Thus, when the New Testament was formed, the Gospel of Matthew was put first. Later Christian writers, such as Origen and Augustine, like most modern readers, simply assumed that the Gospels were written in the order in which they appear in the New Testament. So, the similarities between the first three Gospels were explained as the result of first Mark and then Luke having plagiarized material from Matthew. By the middle of the 18th century, however, it became evident to some German scholars that this traditional explanation of the evident literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke made it difficult to explain the actual contents of these Gospels. For, if Mark was dependent on Matthew, then he simply discarded much of Matthew's information about Jesus - not just little details, but important large blocks of material such as the stories of Jesus' background and birth, the sermon on the Mount and the resurrection appearances. Moreover, Mark's Greek was less polished than Matthew's and many Markan passages posed more logical and theological difficulties than did parallel sections in Matthew. These difficulties became more obvious to scholars after 1766, when J. J. Griesbach designed a Gospel synopsis in which parallel portions of Matthew, Mark and Luke were printed in adjoining columns. Griesbach suggested that Luke first radically revised the material in Matthew and that Mark then wrote a summary of the material on which both Matthew and Luke agreed. This theory kept Matthew first, but inverted the traditional notion of the order of the composition of Mark and Luke. By the beginning of the 19th century several scholars were suggesting that Mark was the earliest Gospel, which was edited by both Matthew and Luke. The fact that Matthew and Luke offered different revisions of Mark indicated that they had worked independently of each other, without knowledge of each other's work. At least it was obvious that each chose not to use the other's revisions of most passages in Mark. The problem posed by the theory that Mark was the basic source of agreements between Matthew and Luke, however, was how to account for the substantial amount of non-Markan sayings material that was common to the other two Synoptics. Since most of these sayings had no equivalent in Mark, Matthew and Luke must have gotten them from some other source. The primary problem with thinking that Luke took these sayings from Matthew was that he almost invariably put these sayings at different points in Mark's narrative outline than Matthew had. But some scholars remembered that Papias had said that the earliest Gospel was a compilation of the sayings (logia) of Jesus. Thus, in 1838 C.H. Weisse proposed that Matthew and Luke were based on two documents: Mark and some sayings source (Redenquelle) that was no longer extant as a distinct document. This theory became known as the "Two Document" or "Two Source" hypothesis. In an 1890 essay another German scholar, J. Weiss, designated the document from which Matthew and Luke drew the non-Markan material that they shared "Q" (from the German word for "source": Quelle) (Funk et al, 1998, p.26-58). When in 1945 the Gospel of Thomas was found, it was claimed to have some connection to the Q: " the Gospel of Thomas can serve as a useful tool in trying to reconstruct the earliest form of the sayings that can be traced back to Q" (Funk et al, 1993, p.143). However, some scholars are completely against the Q-document theory, for example, Eta Linnemann is very resolute in the denial of the Q hypothesis: "Now we discover the truth: Q is the lever needed to pry the Christian faith out of its biblical moorings. Not the Gospels but Q must be faith's new anchor, since Q is earlier than the Gospels and does not agree with them. Q settles the matter." (Linnemann, 1996, p.5) The acceptance of the "Two Source" hypothesis by most leading synoptic scholars in the 20th century has made it the basis of most Gospel analysis for the past century. But this scholarly consensus has not been unanimous. In 1955 a British scholar, A. M. Farrer, proposed that one could dispense with the Q hypothesis simply by arguing that Luke revised both Mark and Matthew (Funk et al, 1993, p.59-65). "The facts are meaningless unless held in solution in some narrative or paradigm, some configuration that makes them hang together, cohere" (Funk, 1988, p.300). Thus, now it seems logical to look at the parallel extracts from the Gospels and try to analyze them in relation to the sources' theories. Matthew 12 46. While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside asking to speak to him. 47. [Someone told him "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak to you."] 48. But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers" 49. And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 50. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother." Mark 3 31. And his mother and his brothers came and, standing outside, they sent to him, him. 32. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." 33. And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers" 34. And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35. Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." Luke 8 19. [Then] his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. 20. [And] he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." 21. [But] he said to them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." As Smith writes (1990), here the synoptic Gospels present three performances of the same basic script, a script designed to let Jesus have the last word. The logical structure of the story is practically the same in each case. The only differences are stylistic (verb form, synonyms, transitional words, omission or repetition of phrases like "mother and brothers"). This story about kinship is a self-contained unit that could be told anywhere, since there are no clues in the narrative to indicate where or when it happened. Yet, all three synoptic writers present it right next to a block of material focused on the problem of understanding Jesus' parables: in Matthew and Mark it comes just before the parable segment; in Luke it comes just after. There are no internal logical links between the story of Jesus' kin and the parable segment. So, the connection between these pericopes is not likely to be a coincidence in the oral memory of writers working independently. Rather, it is one clue among many pieces of evidence that these Gospels shared a written source. If that source is not some unknown lost document, then two of these texts are based on the third. The bulk of the wording is duplicated in at least two texts. Except for the oft-repeated phrase "mother and brothers," there is practically no wording shared by all three texts. The pattern of verbal agreement between texts varies. One whole verse is in Mark and Luke but probably not Matthew. One whole verse is in Matthew and Mark but not Luke. In the focusing statement Matthew shares one verbal clause with Mark ("stand outside"), while Luke shares another ("came"). Matthew and Luke agree in wording only when they also agree with Mark. Therefore, the text of Mark is the middle term in the relationship between the texts of Matthew and Luke. Without Mark, Matthew and Luke would have practically no wording in common except the repeated reference to "mother and brothers." The only elements that Matthew and Luke's versions of this story share are the logical structure of the narrative and one oft-repeated stock phrase. Such a pattern usually points to a common oral source rather than to literary dependence of one text on another. So, without Mark, this passage alone does not demonstrate a literary link between Matthew and Luke. But with Mark in the middle a literary link becomes obvious. There are differences in the wording each synoptic writer uses to introduce this story. Transitions between pericopes are the creation of the person who combined them and reveal much about that author's characteristic style. Matthew opens with a temporal clause that leads the reader gradually from one scene to another. Mark and Luke have only vague single word links that make the reader jump from one scene to the next. Mark's opening word is the simple coordinating conjunction "and" (Greek: kai), which is usually used to add one item to another to form a string of parallel elements (as in "mother and brothers"). This is Mark's favorite transition word to link scenes (more than 70 times in 16 chapters; compared with about 30 times each in the longer Gospels of Matthew and Luke). Mark also regularly used it to link action statements (5 times in this pericope alone). Frequent dependence upon "and" to establish logical links between clauses may be acceptable in oral story telling, but it is not good literary style in Greek any more than in English. Mark's style is colloquial, Matthew's and Luke's more formal. Matthew and Luke wrote good Greek. They did not generally use "and" to link actions. Instead they preferred subordinate clauses, which is a more elegant, literate method of joining action statements. But note: in this pericope, at least, Luke never used the same transitions as either Matthew or Mark (here [and] is not "kai" but "de", a more subtle flexible conjunction preferred in polished Greek literary works. Which source hypothesis gives a simpler explanation of this data Let us take into consideration four major theories: that of Augustine (according to which Mark condensed Matthew, while Luke drew on both), Griesbach's (it says that Luke edited Matthew, while Mark condensed both), Farrer's (Matthew expanded Mark; Luke drew on both) and theory of "Two Sources" (it says that Matthew and Luke independently edited Mark and Q). Any hypothesis that Matthew is the basic source (Augustine and Griesbach) needs to explain why Mark and Luke both altered Matthew's literate Greek style, added a line not found in Matthew and changed Jesus' pronouncement. Any hypothesis that Mark is the basic source (Farrer and "Two Sources") has to explain why Matthew and Luke polished Mark's colloquial Semitic style, as well as why they edited Mark's text in different directions. A hypothesis that presupposes that Luke used Matthew as a secondary source (Farrer) must also explain why Luke used none of the editorial changes introduced by Matthew. A hypothesis that Matthew and Luke edited Mark independently ("Two Sources") needs to explain why Matthew and Luke thought it necessary to paraphrase Jesus' pronouncement. This passage does not support Augustine's theory that Mark abbreviated Matthew, since Mark's account is longer than Matthew's. Word counts are not as important as style, however, when it comes to the question of who edited whom. Editors generally improve texts by correcting grammar, polishing literary style, adding clarifying phrases and removing redundant wording. If Mark edited Matthew, he did just the opposite. Instead of refining his alleged source, he would have replaced Matthew's opening temporal clause with a colloquial "and"; butchered the rest of Matthew's opening sentence, by replacing a good Greek grammatical construction (main verb + participle + infinitive) with an awkward one (main verb + "and" + participle + main verb + participle); added a redundant verse (Mark 3:32) in which a "crowd" simply relays to Jesus the information the narrator gave in the previous verse and turned Jesus' clear graphic gesture towards his disciples in Matt 12:49 into a vague nod to anonymous bystanders. Mark's grammatical, stylistic and logical lapses in this pericope are understandable, if he is writing this story from oral memory, but they are practically impossible to explain with the hypothesis that he was editing a written text of Matthew. Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark conflated the texts of Matthew and Luke can account for parallels between Mark's and Luke's versions of this story, which the traditional Augustinian hypothesis cannot. Yet, from the perspective of redactional theory, it is just as problematic as the Augustinian. The theory that Mark omitted Matthew's opening temporal clause because he regularly suppressed Matthean material that is not in Luke just will not work here, because two verses later he presents an unnecessary rhetorical question that is in Matthew but not Luke; and also because his version of Jesus' final pronouncement is practically identical with Matthew's precisely in the wording that is not found in Luke. The theory that Mark composed his version of this story by alternately borrowing details from both Matthew and Luke is plausible only if he had the texts of both open before him. But that makes it virtually impossible to explain why he regularly ignores the good Greek grammatical constructions in both his alleged sources and prefers a colloquial Semitic style. If Mark could copy nouns from two Greek texts, he certainly could copy their verbs and conjunctions. Yet, the primary weakness of the Griesbach hypothesis is its difficulty in accounting for Luke's version of this pericope. Some of Luke's changes can be traced to his decision to move this story to a new location in the Gospel sequence, but others cannot. If Luke used Matthew, he has deliberately rewritten the whole story (including Jesus' pronouncement), keeping only the repeated words "his mother and his brothers" and even increasing the redundancy by inserting a repetitive report that probably was not originally in Matthew. Luke had no good reason to drop Matthew's opening temporal clause, since it works better in his narrative setting (where Jesus is speaking to the "people") than in Matthew's (where Jesus is debating with the Pharisees). As for Farrer's hypothesis, it not only fails to explain Luke's version of this passage, it introduces unnecessary redactional complications. The difference in wording between Luke's and Matthew's versions of this story is easy to explain on the basis of the hypothesis that Mark wrote first and both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a primary source. This pericope gives no evidence, however, to support the theory that Luke used Matthew as a secondary source, for he did not use any of Matthew's literary refinements of Mark. The varied wording patterns in these three versions of this pericope clearly favours two conclusions: Mark transcribed an oral chreia, for frequent repetition of key words ("mother and brothers") and use of "and" in transitions are normal in informal oral story-telling. Matthew and Luke independently edited Mark to make this story read more smoothly as a written text. Luke edited Mark's version of Jesus' pronouncement without any evident knowledge of Matthew's revisions. Note that Luke omitted Jesus' reference to the "will of God" while Matthew did not. Luke's deliberate omission cannot be credited to his dislike for the concept of doing God's will, since he includes this Gethsemane prayer that stresses the priority Jesus put upon it: 42. "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but yours be done." Luke could easily portray Jesus as recognizing God's will. But he probably saw a logical problem with Mark's version of Jesus' pronouncement: how were people other than Jesus to know God's will Luke apparently found an answer to this question in the parable segment that Mark placed immediately after this pronouncement. There Jesus explains the parable of the Sower as referring to spreading "the Word." So, to make it clear that Jesus regarded anyone who responded to his message as kin, Luke simply reversed the order of these pericopes and rephrased the pronouncement to refer to hearing and doing God's Word. He could feel justified in making this editorial change because the saying at the end of Jesus' sermon, which he had recorded just 7 pericopes earlier, stressed hearing and doing Jesus' words (Luke 6:47-49). For Matthew, on the other hand, the problem with Mark's version of Jesus' pronouncement was not its reference to the divine will. Matthew's version of the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples included the petition: "Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:10). What is important, in Matthew the pronouncement on kinship is likewise explicitly addressed to Jesus' disciples. CONCLUSION. What is clear from this brief survey of the Synoptic tradition is that there is no certain picture of how the Gospels were formed in terms of sources. There is no single theory of documents or sources, that definitively demonstrates how all the similarities and differences in the Synoptic tradition can be explained. A further implication of an examination of the Synoptic Problem yields one of the most important insights for the study of the Gospels. With this recognition of the complexity and interrelationship of the Synoptics, any detailed study of the Synoptics must consider the differences between the Gospels and the implications those differences have for interpretation. No matter which theory of composition we consider, since we are dealing with material that has identifiable sources, a major focus of exegesis must be how the individual authors have used, adapted, changed, or applied the material (redaction criticism or analysis) (Ehrman, 1997, p.199). "The assumption...is that writings are documents composed by persons out of, and for, specific historical situations." (Tatum, 1999, p.38). For example, the differences between parallel accounts may reveal a particular theological emphasis as we examine what changes were made and what effect they have on the message. In one of the Beatitudes in Matthew's version of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Mt 5:3). Luke's version reads simply, "Blessed are you who are poor" (Lk 6:20). In a later Beatitude Matthew's version reads, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled" (5:6). Luke's version of the same saying is: "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled" (6:21). It is obvious that Luke used the tradition to focus on physical needs, while Matthew used it to focus on spiritual needs (Funk, 1988, p.111-9). At this point we might ask which version was the "original" version, and therefore which one was "true." But that makes some assumptions about the nature of the biblical material that leads us to ask the wrong questions of the text. That kind of question does not consider what closer examination of Synoptic sources suggests: that the individual authors were working with a living tradition and proclaiming it to a living community to meet the needs and concerns of that community. It was not a matter of which saying is "true." The better question is: "What was this author trying to say by telling us the tradition in this way" There is no final answer to this "problem." There are various perspectives, hypotheses, and theories based on the evidence of the biblical text as well as what we know about the process of writing. But there is not a "correct" answer. Reference List. 1.Borg, M.J. (1999). The Lost Gospel Q: Original Sayings of Jesus. Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press. 2.Ehrman, B.D. (1997). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 3.Funk, R.W. (1988). The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Sonoma: Polebridge Press. 4.Funk, R.W., Hoover R. and the Jesus Seminar (eds.) (1993). The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Publishing. 5.Funk R.W., Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperCollins. 6.Linnemann, E. (1996). The Lost Gospel Of Q - Fact Or Fantasy Trinity Journal, 17 (1), p.3-18. 7.Smith, M.H. (1990). Kinship is Relative: Mark 3:31-35 and Parallels, Forum, 6, p.80-94. 8.Tatum, W.B. (1999). In Quest of Jesus. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Read More