M09a
The Gospels and the Synoptic Problem
Introduction
​
In this chapter we will tackle two major interrelated issues which have been the topic of debate for a very long time. The first issue concerns the literary genre of a Gospel, which was unique to Christianity, but was patterned after Jewish and Pagan literature. What kind of writing is it, and how would it have been understood in the ancient world? The second major issue concerns the close relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are called the Synoptic Gospels. The similarities among these three Gospels suggest that they borrowed from each other. But who used whom? This is known as the Synoptic problem.
​
Folio 27v of The Book of Kells depicting the four evangelists. Starting from the top left in clockwise order: Matthew as the man, Mark as a lion, John as an eagle, and Luke as an ox, c. 800. Trinity College, Dublin.
​
​
Before entering into the nature of the Gospels and their literary interrelationships, it is important to give attention to the meaning of the word “gospel” in the ancient world. It is surprising to many students that the word conveyed several nuances and was even used outside of Christianity. The term comes from the Greek word euangelion, which simply meant “glad tidings,” “joyful tidings,” or “good news,” but the news to which it referred was not always the same.
Definitions of “Gospel”
In today’s Christian context, the word “gospel” is frequently used to refer to a radically summarized version of the salvation story about Jesus atoning for the sins of the world and reconciling humanity back to God. Sometimes it is so abbreviated that it takes the form of a slogan, such as “God loves you, and sent his son to die for you.” Some summaries include emphases on the afterlife, specifically that those who accept the saving grace of God through Christ will eternally reside in Heaven, and those who do not will eternally reside in Hell. Other summaries focus on a personal relationship with Jesus. Whichever form the gospel message takes, it usually includes the importance of belief in and acceptance of Jesus (the Christ) as the savior of humanity. Thus, it is most often used in the context of evangelism, whereby the believer attempts to explain and convince the unbeliever that his or her message is true and worthy of acceptance.
Roman Uses of “Gospel”
​
Priene Inscription or, as it is sometimes called, the Calendar Inscription, 9 BCE. Image taken from A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1927) 366.
​
​
In the ancient world, the term “gospel” also conveyed good news, but the content of that news depended on the context. In the Roman world, the term had both political and religious connotations since it was used in the context of the Cult of the Emperor. In the case of Augustus, for example, his accession to power was celebrated as good news, because he brought peace to the empire and saved it from political divisions and economic ruin. The good news of Augustus was celebrated as a festival for the world, held annually on the emperor’s birthday. Commemorations were also found on Imperial inscriptions, called “evangels.” One of the most noted inscriptions was written on a white marble slab situated in the market at Priene, in Asia Minor. It is called the Priene inscription and dated to 9 BCE. In addition to the designations of the emperor as a “god” and “saviour,” this inscription refers to emperor Octavian’s (Augustus’) investiture as “the beginning of the good news.” It reads:
​
Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good news for the world that came by reason of him.
Early Jewish Uses of “Gospel”
​
On the Ishtar Gate, the Babylonian gods were depicted as various animals. This “snake dragon” represents the god Marduk, 6th century BCE. Pergamon Museum, Berlin.
​
​
In the Jewish context, the word appears in the LXX as a reference to the hope of God’s coming in strength and power. In Isaiah (e.g. 40:9; 52:7-10; 60:6; 61:1), the hope is that God will deliver his people from the exile of the Babylonians. The good news is that since Yahweh is mightier than the Babylonian gods, he is able to defeat the enemy and rescue his people. The enactment of the good news is contingent upon Israel’s successful payment for the sins that initially led to the punishment of exile.
​
In the context of the historical Jesus, the late 20s in rural Galilee before the emergence of Christianity and the writing of the Gospels, the good news was the announcement of the coming of the kingdom of God. This usage is best understood as a political and religious challenge to both the Jewish and Roman authorities. For Jesus, the kingdom of God was a direct challenge to the kingdom of Caesar and the underlying spiritual kingdom of Satan (Mark 1:15). Scholars have long debated what Jesus actually meant by this term. Some see it as an eschatological (end of the age) category that refers to the imminent end of the current religious and political systems, in much the same way that the prophets criticized the authorities in their day.
​
Emperor Tiberius depicted as a god, perhaps Jupiter, 1st century CE. Museo Chiaramonti, Vatican.
Others argue that the kingdom of God has nothing to do with eschatology, but should be understood exclusively as a social criticism of the establishment, with an aim toward reform. In this sense the kingdom of God is viewed as a symbol that points to the ongoing reality of God in whom we all participate.
​
​
Early Christian Uses of “Gospel”
​
In early Christian contexts, the meaning of the gospel was shaped by the belief that Jesus is the messiah and that he rose from the dead. For Paul, the gospel was the preaching of salvation and its content was the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus. It seemed to have been a fixed message that circulated in Christian evangelism (e.g. Rom 1:3-4; 15:16; 1 Thess 2:2, 8, 9; 2 Cor 11:7).
​
In Romans, for example, the good news is that God has been faithful to his promises, despite the failure of the Jews who were supposed to bring salvation to the world. Even though Israel failed in her vocation as the elect people, God nevertheless fulfilled his promise to save the world through Israel’s representative, Jesus the messiah. For other Christian writers, like Luke, the good news is associated more with the motif of Jesus, as the savior of the world, the second Adam who does not give in to temptation and sins. John takes a different route still. He associates the gospel not primarily with Jesus’ teachings, but with Jesus himself, who is described as the Word made flesh. Here the gospel message is embodied. For Mark, the parallel between “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” in the opening line and “the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good news” in the Priene inscription strongly implies that the character of Jesus is meant to subvert the Roman gospel. Still other Christians connected the gospel more with the abolition of death and the hope of eternal life.
​
Fra Angelico’s fresco, “Resurrection of Christ and the Women at the Tomb,” Convent of San Marco, Florence, 1440.
​
​
In the early Christian context, the term “gospel” was also applied to writings that contained the sayings and deeds of Jesus. The four Gospels in the New Testament (called “canonical Gospels”) are all narratives about Jesus that emphasize the last week of his life, particularly his suffering, death and, with the exception of Mark, his resurrection. The final chapter of Mark occurs both in longer and shorter versions. In the widely accepted shorter ending of Mark (16:8), the women arrive at the tomb, are confronted by a man who seems to be an angel, and flee the burial site in fear.
As narratives, the four Gospels share a number of similarities. In all the Gospels, Jesus is the main protagonist and the Jewish religious authorities are the main antagonists. All of the Gospels contain Jesus’ teachings about social justice, God, the scriptures, discipleship, his own mission, faith, hope, and love, to mention a few. All of the Gospel writers portray Jesus as the messiah who knew about his impending suffering, death, and resurrection. All of them see Jesus as the messiah who was prophesied in the scriptures. And in all of the Gospels, Jesus is a miracle worker, healer, and exceptional teacher.
​
​
Jacob Jordaens, “Four Evangelists,” c. 1630. Louvre Museum, Paris.
​
​
Alongside these and other similarities, are numerous differences. One of the immediate observations drawn from a casual reading of the four Gospels is that John is very different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In John, for example, there are no parables, no exorcisms, no temptation, no transfiguration, and no Lord’s Supper. In contrast to the other three Gospels, Jesus speaks in long discourses, identifies himself metaphorically through the “I am” sayings, gives primacy to the Beloved Disciple instead of Peter, and performs different miracles. Only in John is Jesus identified as the Word who became flesh, and only in John do we read the story as a three-year ministry, instead of just one.
​
Matthew, Mark, and Luke have their differences as well—and we will discuss these below—but they are much closer to each other than they are to John. They contain the same general chronology and geography, with Jesus beginning his ministry in Galilee and, less than a year later, ending up in Jerusalem at Passover. They contain the same events, such as exorcisms, the Olivet Discourse, the sending out of the Twelve, the temptation, the transfiguration, and the Lord’s Supper. They contain the same focus on Jesus’ teaching of the kingdom of God, and they all have Jesus teaching in parables.
Although this use of the term “gospel” well represents our four canonical narratives about Jesus, it is incomplete. There were many other Gospels that emerged in the first three centuries of Christianity that were never recognized as being authoritative by early Christians leaders, those who eventually became associated with the concept of orthodoxy. Many of these Gospels, which we encountered in earlier chapters, contain apocryphal accounts of Jesus’ life and the lives of the Apostles, such as the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of the Nazoraeans, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Gospel of Peter. Some, like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, were highly imaginative. Others were not even narratives, like the Gospel of Thomas, which is a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus. A few have even inspired sensationalist novels and films, like The Da Vinci Code. The main point to be considered is that since they were all called “gospels,” the historical definition of the term should be extended to include even these writings.
​
​
Part of the Gospel of Judas, which contains a conversation between Jesus and Judas Iscariot. In this Gnostic Gospel, Jesus instructs Judas (who alone possesses the true teachings of Jesus) to deliver him to the authorities. Codex Tchacos page 39, 2nd-3rd century CE. Courtesy of Kenneth Garrett, National Geographic.
​
​
What are the Gospels?
​
The Importance of Genre
​
One of the first topics that should attend the study of any writing is genre. The word “genre” is French for “sort” or “kind,” and is often used to describe categories of literature (and many other art forms) based on their stylistic features. A genre functions like an unspoken contract or understanding between the author and reader, indicating how the writing is to be read. Genres form expectations in the reader, often unconsciously. Genres are identified by a comparison of similar types or styles of literature. There cannot be a unique genre, otherwise no one would understand it. A particular genre like a fairy tale will include stylistic indicators such as a familiar introduction. When we read “Once upon a time…” we know exactly what kind of story we are reading and we have certain expectations.
​
Published in the US by Doubleday in 2003.
A fairy tale is easily identified, but not all genres are as clear. Some confusion of genres occurred when The Da Vinci Code was released. Some read it as history, causing outcry especially among conservative Christians, whereas others read it as fiction. Some authors even employ ostensive attributes of one genre, while actually writing another, such as George Orwell’s Animal Farm, in which what appears to be a children’s story about farm animals is actually a political satire. The field of genre criticism can be very complex, but attention to it is indispensable to the study of any document, be it sacred or secular.
​
When we approach the canonical Gospels, what are our expectations? Do we come to them with a prior (often theological) assumption that they are much like journalism or travel logs that convey only facts? On the other end of the spectrum, do we see them as fiction or fairy tales? There is no doubt that genres on both ends of the spectrum can convey deep meanings, but our assumptions can often change the meanings we glean from written works.
​
​
Abraham Bloemaert, “The Four Evangelists writing their Gospels,” 1612. Princeton University Art Museum.
​
​
These assumptions are guided by a host of factors that have shaped readers over their entire lifetimes, but these do not necessarily accurately identify a genre. Assumptions and beliefs are not always true, or identical with those of the writer. In most cases, the average reader of the Gospels has never considered their genre. When they are read as (the genre of) the Word of God, literary and historical contexts do not play a role since they become the direct message from God that transcends time and culture.
Instead of an ancient Mediterranean context, the Gospels might be read in the context of the Church, personal experience, or the spiritual realm. In this case, the Gospels along with the other writings of the Bible blend into a single communiqué from God. When we try to understand the gospels historically, namely how they would have been understood in their original settings by their authors and audience, we need to identify their genre(s).
​
What were the expectations of the first readers or hearers of the Gospels? Did they assume that they were biographies, histories, myths, travel tales, or religious propaganda? In attempting to answer such questions, the historian needs to compare the Gospels with similar writings within the same time frame. When this is done, one quickly notices that the Gospels do not neatly fit into a single genre classification. It is sometimes remarked that the readers of Paul would have approached his letters with clearer expectations than the readers of the Gospels, because they were familiar with letter-writing genres. Even the first readers of Revelation would have been more at home with that genre than they probably were with the Gospels.
​
​
History of Gospel Genre
​
Over the past century, the search for the identity of the Gospel genre has come full circle in a sense. In the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century, it was fashionable to write biographies about Jesus, called “Lives of Jesus.” The Gospels were viewed as biographies and thus legitimate sources for reconstructions. The problem is that the ancient biographies were not distinguished from modern ones. Genre was not subjected to careful comparative analysis.
​
With the rise of form criticism (discussed below) in the nineteen twenties and thirties, the Gospels came to be seen as collections of traditions about Jesus that had been shaped by the faith of the early Christian communities. There was still very little interest in gospel genre. The Gospels were simply called “unique.” The main interest during this time was in the oral traditions about Jesus circulating prior to the writing of the Gospels. The Gospel writers, called the evangelists, were viewed as collectors or organizers of oral traditions. Following World War II, the evangelists began to be appreciated also as editors and theologians, who shaped and created the Gospels as new literary forms. This was the rise of redaction criticism (discussed below).
​
​
Mosaic of dialogues in Plato’s Academy from Pompeii in the 1st century CE. Are Jesus’ discussions with the disciples and the religious leaders similar to the discussions depicted here? Museo Nazionale, Naples.
​
​
onsequently, since the Gospels were now viewed as new literary creations, interest in genre quickly grew. A vast array of ancient literature was consulted to find the best parallels. A range of proposals were offered, such as Jewish novels, lectionaries designed for worship, Jewish midrash, Socratic dialogues, Greek tragedies, and dramatic histories. One of the inherent problems for Gospel scholars researching genre is that they have to traverse the enormous amount of literature in three disciplines: biblical studies, literary theory, and the writings of the Greco-Roman world.
Greco-Roman Biography
​
Of all the options that have been proposed (and the debate over these shows no sign of waning), the majority of scholars argue that the canonical Gospels are closest to Greco-Roman biographies, called Lives (bioi in Greek). Similar writings from the ancient world include Plutarch, Lives; Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana; Tacitus, Agricola; and Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars. What are ancient Greco-Roman biographies and how do they differ from modern biographies? Ancient biographies were stories about the lives of great men and their teachings. Since writing supplies were expensive and very few people knew how to read, many of the biographies were written for the elite. Much like modern biographies, the lives of these great figures were intended to both entertain and instruct their readers, but the way this was done was very different from modern approaches. Ancient biographies differ from modern biographies in several ways.
​
​
Replica of the bust of Plutarch (c. 46-120 CE), Chaeronia, Greece. Plutarch was one of the most well-known biographers in the Roman period.
​
​
For the Greeks and Romans, biography was never included in categories of historical writing. For the Romans, historical writing included (1) genealogy, (2) ethnography (explanations of new lands controlled by Rome), (3) universal history (e.g. military conquests), (4) horography (recording of daily events, literally the “hours”), and (5) chronography (chronological study of past events). This does not mean that ancient biographies did not contain historical or factual material. It also does not mean that the ancient readers considered them devoid of historical content. What it did mean was that biography was viewed as a genre that solely focused on the character of its main subject. All of the historical incidents, events, dialogues, and locations were selected and interpreted to develop the life and philosophical ideas of the biographer’s subject. These may have been factual, but did not need to be if some alteration suited the literary purpose.
​
Since the European Enlightenment (c.1650-1800), biographical writing has tended to focus on the psychological development of the subject. Biographers became more interested in how the character and personality of their subjects had changed as a result of their experiences. In modern biographies, significant life events, be they tragedies, misfortunes, or joys, can serve to highlight changes in each subject’s character, personality, or life goals. In Greco-Roman biographies, it is the reverse. Changes in character and personality were not viewed positively, and so were not highlighted or perhaps not even depicted. A desirable subject, worthy of emulating, was one who did not change in the face of adversity. A resolute and persistent character was held in high esteem because this supported the assumption that greatness was inherent. In other words, one was deemed “great” because one was born that way. Biographers selected experiences and major life events, especially tragedies and misfortunes, not only to demonstrate their subjects’ enviable traits, but also to show how each subject persevered through the trials with no modifying effect to his character. Dialogues with peers and antagonists served the same purpose. No matter what the argument or rhetoric, the subject of the biography always held the upper hand and held his views consistently. Readers would have been impressed by the subject’s behavior, deeds, and choice of words.
​
​
Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars (c. 121 CE) is a series of biographies of Julius Caesar and the first eleven emperors of the Roman Empire. In addition to being one of the greatest biographical works from the Roman period, it is a significant primary source for the study of Roman history.
Figure and English translation can be found at: http://freeread.com.au/@RGLibrary/Suetonius/12Caesars.html
​
​
Since Greco-Roman biographers wanted to entertain their readers intellectually, they emphasized the philosophy and virtue of their subjects. Modern biographies do this as well, but not to the same degree. Quite often in ancient biographies the ideas and behaviors of the subject were presented as a challenge to a social norm, thus creating an anticipated challenge or riddle for the readers. For this reason, some scholars have identified Greco-Roman biography as intersecting with history, moral philosophy, fiction, encomium (literature that exaggerates and praises a character), politics, and polemic. Richard Burridge offers a helpful diagram that illustrates how Greco-Roman biography should be viewed as a genre situated on a continuum between history on one end and encomium on the other.
​
​
History«——— Gospels ———»Encomium
​
​
For ancient biographers, research methods exploring the past were also vastly different from what they are today. Although ancient biographers wrote with various degrees of historical intent, their access to sources was often inconsistent and sporadic. Sources available to biographers included prior writings, circulating oral traditions, and personal testimonies. By modern standards, however, the critical evaluation of sources (which would not happen for seventeen centuries) was nonexistent. Therefore, historical accuracy at times was not possible, nor was it even the usual goal. The main concern of ancient historical writers and biographers was not reconstruction; it was meaning. Consider two examples from Luke’s two volumes.
​
​
Mosaic of the census of Quirinius, Chora Church, 1315. Istanbul.
​
​
(1) Gospel scholars often point to the infancy account in Luke, which records that the birth of Jesus occurred in connection with a census that was taken “while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (2:2). Yet, elsewhere Luke implies that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great or, at the latest, within a year after his death. Herod died in 4 BCE; Quirinius was not governor or legate of Syria until 6 CE. Although the historical details are problematic, the meaning of Jesus’ birth and his identity at the general time of Herod and Quirinius is the main concern of the Gospel. From a theological and literary perspective the accuracy resides in the meaning of the events.
​
1st century Roman copy of 4th century BCE Greek bust of Thucydides. Holkham Hall, Norfolk, UK.
​
​
(2) Select speeches in the book of Acts have often been viewed as either literary creations or emendations. This kind of literary license was normal. Creating or altering speeches and sayings of great figures was common practice among historical works and biographies. Since written records of speeches or sayings were not available decades after they were delivered, and since oral traditions were not fixed, writers had little option other than drafting material that was deemed fitting for their subject.
Thucydides, a scrupulous Greek historian of the fifth century BCE, often serves as a touchstone for modern historians and biblical scholars. In relation to the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides writes,
​
With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one’s memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said
(History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.1). For the full text, see http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html
​
It is examples like this that have given rise to the question of genre in the last half-century or so. In light of such literary techniques by ancient writers, what kind of writing is Luke’s Gospel and what was the author trying to communicate?
​
​
Info Box 9.1: Aims of Ancient Historians
Ancient historians usually had other aims than simply to record data, like speeches. Their goal was to convey meaning. In other words, their primary interest was what the speech meant, not what the speechmaker originally said. The point was to add insight into the broader situations and into the character of the speaker. Like Thucydides, the 5th century BCE historian, Luke may have also taken certain liberties in his writing of Luke-Acts. Biblical scholars have often drawn parallels between the speeches in Acts and those of Thucydides. If this was the case, then like other ancient historians and biographers, Luke’s primary concern was the meaning of speeches, sayings, and events, not their reconstruction.
​
​
Unlike modern biographies, Greco-Roman biographies contain what we might call supernatural events, whereby the divine world makes contact with the human world in dramatic ways. This is often seen in the birth stories of the subject person. In several biographies that predate the life of Jesus, great figures are described as semi-divine beings, having a human mother and a divine father. For example, in the birth stories of both Alexander the Great and Augustus, a god takes the form of a snake and impregnates the human mother while she sleeps. Great figures also shared incredible wisdom and maturity in their youth. When reading these biographies, one is struck how the supernatural events are interspersed with non-supernatural historical and political prose. Matthew and Luke are the only writings in the New Testament that contain similar accounts of Jesus’ birth, and only Luke contains a similar account of Jesus’ youth. The parallels between the early Christian and pagan birth narratives have been the subject of much comparison and controversy for over a century.
​
​
​
Leonardo da Vinci, “Annunciation,” c. 1472. Ufizzi Museum, Florence. In this scene from Luke 1, the angel comes to announce that Mary will be made pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Birth stories containing unions between the divine and a human mother were familiar in Greco-Roman culture.
​
​
​
Info Box 9.2: Supernatural Birth Stories in Roman Literature
​
The story of the birth of Alexander the Great is found in Plutarch’s “Life of Alexander” 2-3, which is part of The Parallel Lives, written approximately 100 CE. The account can be found at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alexander*/3.html.
​
The story of the birth of Caesar Augustus is found in Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars, “Augustus” 92, written approximately 120 CE. The account can be found at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Suet.%20Aug.%2092&lang=original.
​
For further reading on miraculous birth stories in the ancient world, see the article by Charles H. Talbert, “Miraculous Conceptions and Births in Mediterranean Antiquity,” in The Historical Jesus in Context (A. J. Levine, D. C. Allison and J. D. Crossan, eds.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006) 79-86. It can be found at http://moses.creighton.edu/malina/ntstudy/Miraculous%20Births.htm.
​
​
​
In the end, while Greco-Roman biography appears to be the closest parallel genre to the Gospels, it is only on a general level since there is no literature prior to the Gospels that corresponds precisely. There are still many differences between ancient biographies and the Gospels. For example, unlike Greco-Roman biographies, the Gospels are silent about Jesus’ home life, how he spent his childhood, his personality traits, and physical appearance. The Gospels omit large sections of Jesus’ life and concentrate on select events, especially his last week.
​
​
Peter Paul Rubens, “The Four Evangelists,” c. 1614. Sanssouci Picture Gallery, Potsdam, Germany.
​
​
​
The Dual Perspective of the Evangelists
​
Domenico Ghirlandaio, “Adoration of the Magi,” 1488. Ospedale degli Innocenti, Florence. This painting well represents a dual perspective of time in art. Jesus is adored by the Magi as described in the Gospel of Matthew, but he is also adored by an adult John the Baptist (kneeling on the left with a cross) and John the evangelist (kneeling on the right with a child). The artist and his patrons are also included in the scene. Notice that the landscape represents the artist’s setting and not that of first-century Palestine.
​
​
In addition to genre, it is important for modern readers to understand that the Gospels convey a dual perspective. On one level, the evangelists write their narratives about Jesus in the context of Jewish life set in Palestine during the late twenties of the first century. This is the setting in which the plot unfolds and the interactions among the characters takes place. On another level, the narratives are intended to speak to audiences who live outside of Palestine decades later (approximately 70-95 CE). The Gospel audiences are Christian, living in a post-resurrection setting, and have as their main opponents Jews who do not believe that Jesus is the messiah. This is the level of significance.
​
It is the contexts of the evangelists, who were not simply trying to reconstruct the life of Jesus (which would have been atypical for that day), that give the historical plot meaning. The evangelists edited and shaped their individual accounts in order to relay the meaning of Jesus’ identity, teachings and mission to their own communities in the face of crises. In short, on the one hand the evangelists tell the story of Jesus, yet on the other hand their primary concern is the significance of that story for their own time and place.
​
In light of this dual perspective, it has been customary for biblical scholars in the last two centuries to argue that the concerns and theological interests of the evangelists shaped the narratives about Jesus. The big questions which are still posed include: “How does one determine what material in the Gospels goes back to Jesus?” “How much of the Gospel story is adapted to the needs of the evangelists’ communities?” and “How can we determine which parts are historical and which are theological?” The quests go on.
The Development of the Synoptic Gospels
One of the most interesting and rewarding topics in the study of the New Testament is the development and comparison of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The word “synoptic” conveys comparison, literarily a “seeing together.” It is derived from the prefix “syn” which conveys togetherness and “optic” which refers to sight or vision. These Gospels are called “Synoptic” because when they are read alongside one another, or “horizontally,” they share a vast amount of material. Most Christians today do not read them this way. Instead, they read them “vertically,” which is a natural way to read most books. One begins with Matthew, continues with Mark, and ends with Luke. When all three are read, the events that are distinct to each are commonly rolled into one grand story. Christmas cards with nativity scenes are often a reflection of this. They contain, for example, shepherds (which only appear in Luke) and the Magi (which only appear in Matthew).
​
​
​
Info Box 9.3: How similar are the Synoptic Gospels?
Statistically, the Synoptic Gospels have so much material in common that they must have been dependent on one another. When we compare Mark’s 661 verses with the other two Gospels, we notice that 606 parallel verses are found in Matthew and 308 are found in Luke. Only 31 verses in Mark are unique. This translates to approximately 92 percent of Mark in Matthew and Luke, 58 percent of Matthew in Mark and Luke, and 41 percent of Luke in Mark and Matthew.
​
The close relationship among these three Gospels has generated several major questions that have been vigorously pursued since the rise of modern biblical studies in the late eighteenth century.
These include:
​
• How are the Synoptic Gospels related?
• Which Gospel(s) may have served as a source for the others?
• What kind of sources did the evangelists use in the composition of their Gospels?
• How did the evangelists compose their information about Jesus?
• Why are the three Gospels so similar in some places and yet so different in others?
• To what extent did the evangelists incorporate their own viewpoints into the writings?
In this section of the chapter we will trace three major stages in the development of the Synoptic Gospels. Each is associated with a critical school of thought that has played a significant role in contemporary Gospel study. The first stage is the period of oral transmission or communication, during which early Christians preserved and handed down the oral traditions about Jesus. This stage is identified with a school of thought called form criticism. The second stage concerns the written sources that may have been used by the evangelists. This stage is identified with a school of thought called source criticism. The third stage is the final editing of the evangelists and is identified with a school of thought called redaction criticism.
The Stage of Oral Traditions: Form Criticism
​
Definition and Aim
​
James Tissot “God Renews His Promises to Abraham,” c. 1898. Jewish Museum, New York. Since the story of Abraham is much older than the writing of the Pentateuch, form critics want to know its origin and how it functioned in the religious life of Israel before it was written down in the form that we have today.
At the turn of the twentieth century, in the field of Old Testament studies, German scholars began to study the pre-literary history of the Old Testament. That is, they wanted to know what traditions (or sources) the author(s) of the Pentateuch used. In particular, they wanted to get back at the oral history of these traditions. For example, form critics asked: What did the creation story in Genesis look like when it circulated as an oral tradition in the religious life of ancient Israel long before it was embedded in a written work? Did the creation story take different forms (hence “form” criticism) when it circulated in different oral contexts? How did the oral tradition function in the worship life of Israel? When would it have been recited?
​
After World War I, similar questions began to be raised in the field of New Testament studies. Once again German scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann and Martin Dibelius, led the way. Form critics wanted to uncover the oral traditions that supposedly lay behind the Gospels and were later collected by the evangelists and embedded in their narratives.
​
Interest turned mostly to the sayings of Jesus. Since the Gospels were viewed as collections of traditions, much like pearls on a string, and not as unified narratives, they functioned as windows through which critics could access Jesus traditions that circulated in the first few decades of Christianity. Like their Old Testament counterparts, New Testament form critics wanted to know what the traditions looked like and how they functioned in the religious life of the early church, particularly between the death of Jesus (c. 30 CE) and the writing of the first Gospel (c. 70 CE).
Consider, for example, the “Parable of the Sower” (Mark 4:1-12; Matt 13:1-15; Luke 8:4-10). Long before it was incorporated into the Gospels, and thus fixed forever, form critics argued that the parable had a life of its own. Thus, they wanted to know how the parable functioned in the ministry of Jesus and particularly in the life of the early church. They asked questions such as: “When was the parable recited?” “Did it look the same as it does in the Gospels?” “Was it used in the context of worship and/or mission?”
​
Insights
​
One of the main insights that emerged out of form criticism was that individual narratives and sayings, called pericopes (Greek for “sections” or “passages”), circulated as independent units during the oral period of the early church. As early Christian teachers, missionaries, and prophets communicated their faith, they would have included sayings and acts of Jesus in support of their message, much like Peter’s speeches in the book of Acts. We also find a “floating” saying of Jesus without a context in Acts 20:35 (“Once Jesus said, it is more blessed to give than to receive”) and a reference to the “Lord’s’ saying” in 1Cor 7:10.
​
​
Fresco of Jesus in the Capernaum synagogue, 11th century. Church of the Benedictine Monastery, Stift Lambach, Austria. This scene represents an episode from Mark 1:21-28, which could have circulated orally in various forms before it was written.
​
​
In the Gospel of Mark, many of the pericopes are joined together in non-chronological ways. Some scholars have even argued that they were inserted into the narrative in random fashion. For form critics, these were at one time independent vignettes that were part of the early preaching of the church. One can easily imagine an early Christian missionary using these vignettes as part of his preaching about Jesus. While persuading a crowd that Jesus is the messiah, he would have added one or more of the vignettes that we now find in Mark. For example, instead of beginning the vignette with “Once upon a time, Jesus…” the early missionary would have begun by saying one of the following:
​
• Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and people came and said to him... (2:18)
• And he began to teach beside the sea… (4:1)
• And he said to them... (4:21)
• Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, they saw... (7:1)
• In those days when again a great crowd had gathered and they had nothing to eat... (8:1)
​
Limitations
Form criticism was not without its problems. One of the enduring difficulties has been its assumption about the first four decades of Christianity. That there was an oral period between the ministry of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels is not doubted, but that the period was solely oral is not certain. Scholars have argued that some early Christians collected select scripture (Old Testament) texts, arranged them thematically, and then used them in debates with Jewish opponents long before they were embedded in the New Testament writings. We know that similar lists were used in early Judaism. Some early Christians drafted lists of Jesus’ sayings. If the Gospel source Q was an actual list of Jesus’ sayings, as many claim, then it is estimated that it was drafted in the 40s of the first century. The Gospel of Thomas is also a list of Jesus’ sayings, but it dates most likely to the early part of the second century.
​
​
​
Info Box 9.4: 4Q176 Tanhumim and Lists of Scripture Texts
Much like early Christian lists of Jesus’ sayings in Q and the Gospel of Thomas, some Jews compiled lists of scripture texts. One such document, found at Qumran, is entitled 4Q176 Tanhumim (“consolations”). Except for the possible reference to Ps 79:2-3 at the beginning of the first fragment, all of the quotations are taken from Isaiah (40:1-5; 41:8-10; 43:1-7; 49:7, 13-18; 51:22-23b; 51:23c-52:3; 54:4-10a). The quotations are arranged sequentially and preserved accurately, which suggests that the compiler read progressively through Isaiah 40-55 and recorded certain texts for future use. While the fragmentary condition of the document prevents us from understanding the broader significance of the quotations for the Qumran community, an informed inference can be made on the basis of a common theme running through the quotations. In every quotation Yahweh offers words of consolation or comfort to his people Israel by assuring them that he is a faithful and loving God who will soon bring restoration to those in despair. Although Isaiah 40-55 was originally concerned with the release of the Israelites from Babylonian exile, the Qumran community interpreted these texts as prophecies relevant to their own day.
​
​
​
Another assumption that circulated among many form critics was that oral traditions always develop from a simple state to a more complex one. Thus, most of Jesus’ sayings and deeds in the Gospels were regarded as developed Christian traditions that did not go back to the historical Jesus. As a general principle, traditions tend to develop over time within a sympathetic context, but it is not always the case. Traditions can also remain unchanged or even tend toward simplification when they are passed down, as was evident in early Jewish and Christian literature.
​
​