The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (37 page)

This section explores the similarities between the Gospels and surveys various explanations that scholars have offered to account for those similarities. It also highlights the
strengths and weaknesses of the various ways in which the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels has been construed. It should be pointed out at the outset, however, that one's view on this issue should not be taken as a test of orthodoxy, especially since the available evidence does not allow for a definitive resolution of all the issues involved. This does not mean that it is illegitimate to attempt to construct a plausible hypothesis on the basis of all the available data. But it does mean that dogmatism should be avoided and that neither Matthean nor Markan priority, nor any other model should be disparaged as being incompatible with a high view of Scripture.

Similarities Between the Gospels

Scholars seek to identify the similarities and differences between the Gospels by using a tool called a Gospels Synopsis.
²¹⁰
This tool places similar accounts in the various Gospels side by side in parallel columns so scholars can compare them more easily. Scholars typically use a color-coding system to highlight the material shared by all four Gospels, by the Synoptic Gospels, or other combinations of the Gospels. They then analyze the common material to attempt to make decisions about the possible literary relationships between the Gospels. This comparison is best conducted using a Greek Synopsis since some similarities and differences in English versions may be due to the translator rather than the original authors of the Gospels. This quest to determine the literary relationships between the Gospels is called “source criticism.” Comparisons of the Synoptic Gospels highlight four major similarities: (1) in wording; (2) in order; (3) in parenthetical and explanatory material; and (4) in OT quotations.

Similarities in Wording
Some of the wording of the Synoptic Gospels, especially the wording of Jesus' sayings, is identical or almost identical, as seen in the following comparison of Jesus' first prediction of his sufferings (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33; Luke 9:22).

Table 3.5: Synoptic Comparison of Jesus' First Passion Prediction

In the example above, the HCSB translation has been slightly adapted to show agreements that exist in the Greek texts of the Gospels. Small caps indicate agreements in all three Synoptics; italics indicate exact agreements between Mark and Luke; bold italics indicate exact agreements between Matthew and Mark; underlines indicate exact agreements between Matthew and Luke. An examination of the parallels shows that the three Synoptics agree on the essence of Jesus' saying.

The similarity in wording is sufficiently close to suggest the possibility of a literary relationship, that is, that one or more of the Gospel writers was familiar with one or more of the other Gospels. Mark seems to have a special connection to the other two Gospels. Mark shares material with Matthew that Luke lacks, particularly the rebuke of Peter in which Mark and Matthew have extensive verbatim agreements.

On the other hand, Mark also shares important features with Luke that are absent in Matthew, such as the use of the title “Son of Man” and the reference to Jesus' rejection. The only material that Luke and Matthew share that differs from Mark is the phrase “be raised the third day” in contrast to Mark's “rise [a different Greek verb from the one used by Matthew and Luke] after three days.” This minor agreement may suggest that Matthew knew Luke or vice versa. However, the parallel is not extensive enough to require a literary dependence between Matthew and Luke. They may have both coincidentally adapted Mark in an identical fashion.

The only clear conclusion to be derived from these parallels is the special connection of Mark to Matthew and Luke. But this special connection may be explained in two different ways: (1) Mark wrote his Gospel first, and Matthew and Luke used Mark in writing
their own Gospels; (2) Matthew and Luke wrote first, and Mark used both of these earlier Gospels in writing his Gospel. These two possible interpretations of the parallels constitute the two major solutions to the Synoptic Problem. The view that Mark wrote first and was used by the other two synoptic writers is called “Markan priority.” The view that Matthew and Luke wrote first, and Mark used both of these earlier Gospels is called the “Griesbach (or Two Gospel) hypothesis.”

Similarities in Order
The Gospels contain numerous pericopes, self-contained units of narrative such as the account of Jesus' healing of the leper in Mark 1:40–45. Although these pericopes could be arranged in a number of different ways in the individual Gospels—topically, chronologically, or geographically (based on the locations in which they occurred)—the Gospels share a remarkable similarity in the order of the pericopes. The following chart shows how the Synoptic Gospels order pericopes describing the early ministry of Jesus.

Table 3.6: Synoptic Comparison of Early Ministry of Jesus

In this table, italics indicate pericopes Matthew or Luke place in an order different from Mark.
²¹¹
A close analysis of this table leads to several observations. First, a remarkable similarity in order exists between Mark and Luke. Luke differed from Mark in order in his
placement of only one pericope, the choosing of the Twelve. Although Luke included a pericope, the miraculous catch of fish, that both Matthew and Mark lack, this difference did not disrupt the order shared with Mark.

Second, Matthew follows the same order as Mark with only a few exceptions. Matthew gathered summary statements about Jesus' preaching and healing ministry in Galilee and placed them in an introduction positioned at the beginning of the Galilean ministry. However, he repeated the summary of Jesus' Galilean healing ministry in Matt 12:15–16 in keeping with the order in Mark and Luke. Matthew, like Luke, placed the choosing of the Twelve earlier than Mark did but positioned it even earlier than Luke.

The shared order of the pericopes suggests a literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels. But the similarities and differences in order can be explained according to either of the major theories of Gospel composition: Markan priority or the Griesbach (Two-Gospel) hypothesis. Analysis of the order of pericopes by itself cannot prove one theory over the other but must be used in conjunction with the study of other types of similarities and differences.

Similarities in Parenthetical and Explanatory Material
Similarities in the wording of Jesus' sayings in the Synoptic Gospels might be explained in terms of accuracy in reporting Jesus' words rather than literary dependence. Such explanations are not completely satisfactory, however, since Jesus' original Aramaic words could be translated into Greek in a number of different ways and thus not yield the frequent verbatim agreements that exist between the Gospels. But where the Gospels share identical editorial comments or parenthetical material, this strongly implies literary dependence between the Gospels.

One famous example of a shared parenthetical statement is “let the reader understand” (Matt 24:15–18; Mark 13:14–16; lacking in Luke 21:20–22). If this parenthetical statement is a note from the Gospel writer to the readers of the Gospel, the fact that both Matthew and Mark contain it would imply that one writer used the other's Gospel. But many scholars interpret the comment as Jesus' words to the readers of Daniel, in which case the statement shared by Matthew and Mark would demonstrate accuracy in reporting Jesus' words rather than literary dependence.

Those who argue that the statement is a note by the Gospel writer argue that Jesus typically referred to his audience “hearing” the OT rather than reading the OT. Since only wealthy first-century Jews had their own copies of the OT, most became familiar with the OT by hearing it read in synagogues rather than by reading it themselves (Luke 16:29, 31).
²¹²
But some scholars who affirm a literary dependence between the Gospels argue that Jesus himself uttered the words “let the reader understand” and that he addressed them to readers of Daniel. This seems confirmed by Jesus' rather frequent references to reading the OT (Matt 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31; Mark 12:10,26; Luke 10:26).
²¹³

Other shared editorial comments are not so easily dismissed. One such comment is Mark 15:10, “For he knew it was because of envy that the chief priests had handed him over.” The statement is closely paralleled by Matt 27:18, “For he knew it was because of envy that they handed him over.”
²¹⁴
Since these verses are editorial comments that describe Jesus' thoughts rather than transcriptions of his spoken words, the similarity in content and wording strongly suggests literary dependence. Similar examples are frequent in the Synoptics.

Similarities in Old Testament Quotations
Quotations of the OT in the NT assume a variety of forms. Sometimes the quotation seems to be a strict translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. Sometimes the quotation is a verbatim reproduction of the rendering in the Septuagint (LXX). Sometimes the quotation appears to be a verbatim translation of the rendering that appears in one of the Targums. Occasionally, the quotation appears to be the Gospel writer's own paraphrase. Sometimes NT quotations conflate or blend together references to several different texts. By examining the form of OT quotations used in the Gospels, scholars can better understand their literary relationships.
²¹⁵

Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2, and Luke 7:27 contain quotations of the OT that blend together Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1 in precisely the same way.

Table 3.7: Synoptic Comparison of Use of Old Testament

Several observations support the literary dependence of the Gospels. The Synoptics agree verbatim in the quotations with only two exceptions. Mark lacks the final words “before your presence” that appear in Matthew and Luke. Matthew, in agreement with the Septuagint, states the pronoun after “Behold,” making “I” mildly emphatic. This verbatim agreement is remarkable since it required all three evangelists to link the same two texts together at precisely the same point and to translate Mal 3:1 identically, even though their translations differ from both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint. The best explanation for the similarity in the OT quotations seems to be literary dependence between the Gospels.