Jesus is not just one more episode in a series of remark- able occurrences; for each of the four Gospels, it is treated as the climax of the story, the point to which everything has been moving all along. Indeed, each of the Gospels prepares its reader for this capstone event by having Jesus predict exactly what will occur (e.g., Mark 8:31–32; 9:31; 10:33–34) and/or offer vague al- lusions that the reader is expected to understand in a manner that characters in the story do not (see Mark 2:20; John 2:19–22; 3:14; 8:28; 12:32–34). More to the point, each Gospel tells the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection in a distinctive way that pulls together certain threads and fulfills important themes of that particular work. For example, in Matthew, Jesus dies as the Messiah of Israel, fulfilling prophecies that in- dicated that he would be the one to save his people from their sin (see 1:21); in Mark, he gives his life as a ransom for many, demonstrating the sacrificial way of self-denial that is to mark all of his followers (see 8:34–35; 10:43–45); in Luke, he dies as a noble martyr, a victim of injustice, who will overcome death in a way that promises an end to oppression (see 4:18);
in John, he dies triumphantly, as one who is glori- fied and exalted in an ultimate expression of God’s love (see 12:23; 15:13). In these and many other ways, each of the passion and resurrection stories serves as the narrative and theological climax of the Gospel in which it appears.
93 Composition of the Gospels: The Synoptic Puzzle ship assumes that the matter was a bit more complicated. The Gospel writers do not claim to have received any special guidance of this sort (cf. Rev. 1:10–11);
indeed, the author of the Gospel of Luke says that he has done some research and that his intent is to provide an orderly account of what has been handed on “from the beginning” (1:1–4). As this comment implies, the Gospel authors did not have to start from scratch. They had what scholars call “oral sources”
(nuggets of material that had been told from memory), and they probably also had written sources (materials that people had put into writing a generation before the Gospels themselves were produced).
A potentially complicating factor with regard to composition of the Gospels concerns the question of whether the evangelists operated independently of each other. Did each of the Gospel authors produce his biography of Jesus without any clue that others were doing (or had done) the same thing? Or did they consult each other? More to the point, did the ones who wrote last have copies of the Gospel or Gospels that were written first? Three of the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—are called the “Synoptic Gospels” because they appear to be related to each other in a way that the fourth one (John) is not. The word synoptic literally means “seeing together,” and it came to be applied to the first three Gospels because their contents could be set in parallel columns that al- lowed them to be read and interpreted side by side. The amount of overlapping material is remarkable, as are the similarities in structure, style, perspective, and overall tone. The question of exactly how these three Gospels should be related
Synoptic Gospels:
the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, so-called because their over- lapping content allows them to be viewed as books that offer parallel accounts.
Box 4.6
Sayings of Jesus
Some examples:
wisdom sayings provide insight into how life really works:
• “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:34).
• “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand” (Mark 3:24).
prophetic sayings proclaim the activity or judgment of God:
• “The kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe” (Mark 1:15).
eschatological sayings reflect the view that the future is of primary importance:
• “The Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done” (Matt. 16:27).
legal sayings interpret God’s will:
• “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt.
7:12).
“I” sayings are autobiographical:
• “I came not to call the righteous but sinners” (Mark 2:17).
• “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).
to each other is called the
“Synoptic Puzzle” (more commonly, “Synoptic Problem”).
To get an inkling of what this involves, let’s consider just one piece of the puzzle. Scholars have long noted that the Gos- pel of Matthew is twice as long as the Gospel of Mark and that about 90 percent of the material found in Mark is found in Matthew also. Why would this be? Augustine (fourth century) thought that Mark perhaps had a copy of Matthew’s Gospel and produced a “condensed version”
of it. But most modern scholars think that Au- gustine got it backward:
Matthew had a copy of Mark’s Gospel and produced an expanded version of it. Why do they think this? For one thing, it’s a little hard to imagine Mark deciding that some of this material wasn’t worthy of inclusion. For example, by Augustine’s reckoning, passages such as the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer ended up on Mark’s cutting-room floor, as did Matthew’s account of the virgin birth and reports of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. Furthermore, Mark’s Gospel is written in a rather rustic and casual style, while Matthew’s work follows more conventional rules of grammar and is more polished. Are we to imagine that Mark copied from a well-written work, changing passages that were grammatically correct to read in ways that are grammatically questionable?
Most interpreters think that we should assume the opposite: Matthew altered Mark’s material, editing it for grammar and style in order to produce a Gospel that would appeal to people who cared about such things. If this is correct, then the Gospel of Matthew is almost a “second edition” of the Gospel of Mark, a rewritten and greatly expanded version of that book presented in a different style for a different audience.
Fig. 4.4. Jesus Cruci- fied. (Bridgeman Art Library)
95 Composition of the Gospels: The Synoptic Puzzle As indicated, the theory that Matthew had a copy of Mark’s Gospel and expanded it is only one piece of what scholars ultimately mean when they talk about the Synoptic Puzzle. The full picture that emerges when all the pieces are in place is shown in the first of the two illustrations provided in fig. 4.6 on page 97. In a nutshell, the proposal is as follows: (1) Mark’s Gospel was written first, and Matthew and Luke had copies of Mark’s Gospel; (2) another early source, called “Q,” was also produced in the early church, and Matthew and Luke had copies of Q as well; (3) Matthew had some additional material that Luke did not have, which we call the “M” material; (4) Luke had some additional material that Matthew did not have, which we call the “L” material.
This construal is called the “Two-Source Hypothesis” (or, sometimes, the “Four- Source Hypothesis”) because Matthew and Luke each used two major sources (Mark and Q) in addition to other materials (M and L).
According to this widely accepted theory, there was a period in early church history (ca. 70–85) when Christians had two writings about Jesus: the Gospel of Mark and what we now call the Q source. Churches made copies of these two works and passed them around. It wasn’t long, however, before people began to think, “Why not combine them?” And Matthew and Luke did exactly that, each in his own way. Each of them appears to have done this independently, without either of them knowing what the other was doing, and they both wove other traditions about Jesus into the mix (the M material for Matthew, the L material for Luke) and edited everything to produce books that worked on their
hyperlink 4.5 Box 4.7
The Dying Words of Jesus
Jesus speaks seven times from the cross, but not seven times in any one Gospel. The Gospels relate three very different stories regarding Jesus’ dying words. In one story, Jesus speaks only once; in a second, he speaks three times; and in a third, he speaks another three times. However, there are no parallels between what is said in any one of these three stories and what is said in the other two stories.
Story A Story B Story C
Matthew and Mark luke John
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt.
27:46; Mark 15:34)
“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34)
“Woman, here is your son . . . Here is your mother.” (John 19:26–27)
“Truly, I tell you, today you will be with me in Para- dise.” (Luke 23:43)
“I am thirsty.” (John 19:28)
“Father, into your hands, I commend my spirit.” (Luke 23:46)
“It is finished.” (John 19:30)
own terms. As a result, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke turned out to be much more than just
“expanded versions of Mark” or even “Mark- Q hybrids.” They turned out to be truly distinctive biographies of Jesus that tell the story of Jesus from particular perspec- tives, works that would prove to be effective in dif- ferent ways for different people. This, of course, is why the Christian church chose to keep all three Synoptic Gospels in spite of the overlap in content.
We should note a bit more about the hypo- thetical Q source. No one remembers how it got its name. Our best guess (though it is only a guess) is that Q could be an abbreviation for Quelle, the German word for “source.” In any case, most scholars believe that both Matthew and Luke had access to such a document—
an early collection of material about Jesus that both evangelists thought was worthy of inclusion in their Gospels. The contents of Q can basically be identified with material that Matthew and Luke have in common but that is not found in the Gospel of Mark. A list of this material is provided in box 4.8 on page 98. It is evident from this list that Q was essentially a collection of sayings, as there are only two brief stories about Jesus (temptation in the wilderness; healing of centurion’s servant), while everything else recounts his teaching: parables, aphorisms, Beatitudes, and all sorts of pronouncements.
There are examples of every type of saying associated with Jesus: prophetic sayings, eschatological sayings, legal sayings, and wisdom sayings. Think of it this way: if Q had been published in a “red letter” edition (a Bible that prints the words of Jesus in red ink), almost all the text would be in red.
hyperlink 4.7 Fig. 4.5. Divine In- spiration. Matthew gets some help from an angel. (Bridge- man Art Library)
97 Composition of the Gospels: The Synoptic Puzzle We can only speculate as to the exact nature or origins of Q. It seems likely that one of Jesus’ disciples—possibly, but not necessarily, one of the Twelve—would have written down some favorite sayings of the Lord and that early Christians would have made copies of this “book of sayings” to pass around. Indeed, Papias, a second-century church leader, writes that Matthew the tax collector “collected the sayings in the Hebrew language and each one interpreted (or translated) them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39). Scholars usually have assumed that Papias was talking about the Gospel of Matthew and that his comments must be dis- missed as confused or ignorant because (1) the Gospel of Matthew is not a collection of sayings; (2) it was not written in Hebrew; (3) it almost certainly was not written or compiled by Matthew the tax collector. Recent scholars have wondered whether Papias might be referring to what we now call the Q source. Perhaps Matthew the tax collector was responsible for compiling the collection of sayings that we call “Q” and others (i.e., the authors of two of our Gospels) translated or interpreted these sayings by putting them into their Gospels.
But this is all speculation; there is much that we simply cannot know. In- deed, a few scholars think that Q might not have been a written source at all.
Fig. 4.6. Suggested Solutions to the Synoptic Puzzle. hyperlink4.6 The Two-Source Hypothesis
Two-Gospel Hypothesis
M Q
Luke
Luke Mark
Matthew
Mark Matthew
L
Perhaps it was simply a memorized collection of sayings—a summary of the teaching of Jesus that Christians (or Christian leaders) learned by heart. That would explain why we no longer have any copies of it: physical copies never existed. But, again, this is speculation. Most scholars think that Q was a writ- ten document and that the church did not preserve copies of it because such copies became unnecessary after both Matthew and Luke had included most or all of the Q material in their respective Gospels.
Box 4.8
Contents of Q: Material in Matthew and Luke but Not in Mark
Preaching of John the Baptist Luke 3:7–9 Matt. 3:7–10
Temptation of Jesus Luke 4:1–13 Matt. 4:1–11
Beatitudes Luke 6:20–23 Matt. 5:3–12
Love for enemies Luke 6:27–36 Matt. 5:39–48; 7:12
On judging others Luke 6:37–42 Matt. 7:1–5; 10:24; 15:14
On bearing fruit Luke 6:43–45 Matt. 7:15–20
Parable of two builders Luke 6:47–49 Matt. 7:24–27
Healing of a centurion’s servant Luke 7:1–10 Matt. 8:5–10, 13 John the Baptist questions Jesus Luke 7:18–35 Matt. 11:2–19
The would-be disciples Luke 9:57–60 Matt. 8:19–22
Jesus’ missionary discourse Luke 10:2–16 Matt. 9:37–38; 10:9–15; 11:21–23 Thanksgiving to the Father Luke 10:21–24 Matt. 11:25–27; 13:16–17
The Lord’s Prayer Luke 11:2–4 Matt. 6:9–13
Asking and receiving Luke 11:9–13 Matt. 7:7–11
Jesus identified with Beelzebul Luke 11:14–23 Matt. 12:22–30 Return of an evil spirit Luke 11:24–26 Matt. 12:43–45
The sign of Jonah Luke 11:29–32 Matt. 12:38–42
On light Luke 11:33–36 Matt. 5:15; 6:22–23
Woe to the Pharisees Luke 11:37–52 Matt. 23:4–7, 13–36
Fear of humans and God Luke 12:2–12 Matt. 10:19, 26–33; 12:32 Do not worry about life Luke 12:22–34 Matt. 6:19–21, 25–33 Be ready for the master’s return Luke 12:39–46 Matt. 24:43–51
Divisions in the family Luke 12:51–53 Matt. 10:34–36
Signs of the times Luke 12:54–56 Matt. 16:2–3
Settle out of court Luke 12:57–59 Matt. 5:25–26
Parable of leaven Luke 13:20–21 Matt. 13:33
The narrow door Luke 13:23–30 Matt. 7:13–14, 22–23; 8:11–12
Lament over Jerusalem Luke 13:34–35 Matt. 23:37–39
Parable of the banquet Luke 14:15–24 Matt. 22:1–14
Carrying the cross Luke 14:26–27 Matt. 10:37–38
Parable of the lost sheep Luke 15:1–7 Matt. 18:12–14
On serving two masters Luke 16:13 Matt. 6:24
Role of the law and prophets Luke 16:16–17 Matt. 5:18; 11:13 Rebuking and forgiving sin Luke 17:1–6 Matt. 18:6–7, 15, 20–22 The day of the Son of Man Luke 17:23–27, 33–37 Matt. 24:17–18, 26–28, 37–41
Parable of the talents Luke 19:11–27 Matt. 25:14–30
Adapted from Fortress Introduction to the Gospels (p. 18) by Mark Allan Powell copyright © 1998 Fortress Press.
Used by permission of Augsburg Fortress Publishers.
99 Conclusion Finally, we should note that some scholars reject the Two-Source Hypothesis altogether in favor of a different solution to the Synoptic Puzzle. One alterna- tive is the “Two-Gospel Hypothesis” or the “Griesbach Hypothesis,” according to which Matthew wrote his Gospel first, then Luke drew upon Matthew in creating his own compatible but distinctive work, and finally Mark had copies of both Matthew and Luke and produced a short, condensed Gospel using ma- terial from both of them. Another solution is the “Farrer Theory,” according to which Mark’s Gospel came first, Matthew modified Mark, and Luke drew upon both Mark and Matthew. Both of these proposals attempt to account for the parallels and differences between the three Gospels without having to posit the existence of a hypothetical, now lost source.
Conclusion
In the second century Tatian, a prominent Christian, decided that the church did not really need four Gospels; it was confusing to have four separate accounts of the life of Jesus, especially when they often reported the same events. Tatian set out to fix this by producing a synthesis of the four Gospels that combined their accounts into one extended narrative of Jesus’ life. He called his work the Diatessaron. It became very popular, especially among Eastern churches, and for more than two hundred years it replaced the four Gospels in Syrian Bibles and lectionaries.
Eventually, Christian churches rejected the Diatessaron. Today, most churches teach that God wanted four people to write four different Gospels and that
Griesbach Hypothesis: a minority proposal that offers one solution to the Synoptic Puzzle:
Matthew was written first, Luke used Matthew, and Mark used both Matthew and Luke.
For Further Reading
Burridge, Richard A.
» Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Nickle, Keith F.
» The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Perkins, Pheme.
» Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerd- mans, 2007.
Powell, Mark Allan.
» Fortress Introduction to the Gospels. Minneapolis: For- tress, 1998.
Puskas, Charles B., and David Crump.
» An Introduction to the Gospels and
Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Stein, Robert H.
» Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation.
2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
accepting the Bible as God’s word means understanding and appreciating the distinctive stories that each Gospel tells. Still, the Diatessaron approach has continued to be employed in unofficial ways. For example, most motion pictures about the life of Jesus present a composite story based on pieces from all of the Gospels, which is to say that the story of Jesus that they tell is not one that is related by any individual biblical author.
At a popular level, most Christians today have some knowledge of “the story of Jesus,” but what they know is usually a composite, Diatessaron-like story.
Fig. 4.7. Evangelical Collaboration. This illustration from a seventeenth-century “synopsis of the Gospels” shows Luke and John collaborating on what to write in their respective books. Modern scholars, however, do not believe that the authors of our four Gospels had any direct contact with each other. Similarities between the works may be explained through the use of common sources (including oral traditions), and the differences may be explained in light of the evangelists’ indi- vidual interests and tendencies. (HIP/Art Resource, NY)
101 Conclusion
Hyperlinks—www.IntroducingNT.com
4.1. The Gospel: Four Stages
4.2. Literary Characteristics of Parables 4.3. Parables as Allegories
4.4. What Happens When Jesus Dies
4.5. Proposed Solutions to the Synoptic Puzzle 4.6. Evidence to Support the Two-Source Hypothesis 4.7. The Q Source in Contemporary Scholarship 4.8. Bibliography: The Gospels (General) 4.9. Bibliography: Infancy Narratives 4.10. Bibliography: Parables
4.11. Bibliography: Miracle Stories 4.12. Bibliography: Passion Narratives 4.13. Bibliography: Resurrection Narratives 4.14. Bibliography: Individual Gospel Characters
Very few Christians are actually able to identify “the story of Jesus that Mat- thew wanted to tell,” or “the story of Jesus that Mark wanted to tell,” or that of Luke or John. Academic study of the New Testament works at remedying this in a manner that corresponds with the official interests of Christianity, even if those interests are not always evident in popular or practical expressions of the faith. As we turn now to look at each of the Gospels, we will seek to discern the portrait of Jesus that each evangelist offers. The goal is to appreciate the image of Jesus that each book offers and to understand the distinctive message that each author wanted to convey.