Module Nine

The Gospels and the Synoptic Problem

9.1 Introduction

Fig. 9.1: 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.

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.

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. 

9.2 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.

9.2.1 Roman Uses of “Gospel”

Fig. 9.2: 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.

9.2.2 Early Jewish Uses of “Gospel”

Fig. 9.3: 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.

Fig. 9.4: Emperor Tiberius depicted as a god, perhaps Jupiter, 1st century CE. Museo Chiaramonti, Vatican.

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. 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. 

9.2.3 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.

Fig. 9.5: 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.

Fig. 9.6: 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.

Fig. 9.7: 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.

9.3 What are the Gospels?

9.3.1 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.

Fig. 9.8: 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.

Fig. 9.9: 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.

9.3.2 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).

Fig. 9.10: 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.

Consequently, 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.

9.3.3 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.

Fig. 9.11: 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.

Fig. 9.12: 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.

Fig. 9.13: 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.

Fig. 9.14: 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.

Fig. 9.15: 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.

Fig. 9.16: Peter Paul Rubens, “The Four Evangelists,” c. 1614. Sanssouci Picture Gallery, Potsdam, Germany.

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. 

9.3.4 The Dual Perspective of the Evangelists

Fig. 9.17: 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. 

9.4 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.

9.4.1 The Stage of Oral Traditions: Form Criticism

Definition and Aim

Fig. 9.18: 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.

Fig. 9.19: 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. 

9.4.2 The Stage of Written Sources: Source Criticism

Definition and Aim

Fig. 9.20: Icon of Luke the Evangelist using a scroll as a source for the writing of his Gospel. Stavronikita Monastery, Mount Athos, Greece. 10th century.

Given the abundance of both similarities and differences, Christians have wrestled with the literary relationship of the Synoptic Gospels since they started circulating together in the second century. Questions about the origins of the Gospels are very old because they naturally emerge out of their common content. Similarities are everywhere. The Synoptic Gospels share a one-year chronology, sequence of events, emphasize the kingdom of God as the focus of Jesus teaching, and contain numerous common stories and sayings. A helpful tool for comparing the Synoptics is a Gospels Synopsis because it sets the accounts in parallel columns. Luke even tells his audience that he used prior sources in the construction of his own narrative (Luke 1:1-4), which may have included one or both of the other Gospels. 

Since the rise of modern biblical studies, the investigation into the literary relationship of the Synoptic Gospels has been called source criticism. Fundamentally, source critics ask the question: What written sources, if any, did the evangelists use in compiling their Gospels? Given the quantity and the closeness of the similarities, students of the Gospels naturally want to know how we can account for these. Consider the example of the “The Healing of the Paralytic.”

Fig. 9.21: Click on the box to enlarge

Since the time of the early church, the Synoptic Gospels have been viewed as interdependent. It was the primary way in which Christians explained the numerous similarities. In other words, one Gospel writer served as a literary source for the other two. Up until the middle of the nineteenth century, Matthew was considered to be the first Gospel written and thus viewed as the source for the other two. Today, most Gospel scholars see the interdependence differently. The quest for the literary relationship of these three Gospels has traditionally been called the “Synoptic Problem.”

Info Box 9.5: Were the Evangelists Eyewitnesses?
In some popular Christian circles it is believed that the Gospels are similar because the evangelists were eyewitness of the same events. This idea has rarely surfaced in the history of the Church.  The problem with saying that each is an eyewitness account is that (1) this does not explain the differences of wording and events when the same account is recorded; (2) Jesus largely spoke in Aramaic, yet these agreements are in Greek, and it is highly unlikely that each evangelist translated the sayings in exactly the same way; (3) John’s accounts of similar incidents and sayings differ substantially; and (4) we have very little information about the identities of the evangelists. We know that Mark was a follower of Peter, and not an eyewitness. Luke used other narrative sources (1:1-4), and also was not an eyewitness. The writer of Matthew may have been Jesus’ disciple, but it is not certain, as we will explore in the chapter on Matthew’s Gospel. The writer of John is identified as the “beloved disciples,” but not named.

Theories of Interdependence 

The search for the source Gospel and its relationship to the other two is not simple because alongside their agreements, a theory of literary relationship also has to account for the many disagreements. In the chapter on early Christianities, we have already encountered, albeit briefly, some of these, but they are worth reiterating here. Each evangelist omits material found in the other two. Each contains unique incidents. Some of the shared events are put in different order, such as the last two temptations of Jesus in Matt 4:5-11 and Luke 4:5-13. Also some sayings of Jesus are placed in entirely different contexts. 

Over the last 150 years, numerous theories of interdependence have been proposed. Some are very complicated and have not caught on, whereas others are convoluted and implausible. For introductory purposes, our description is limited to two of the most common theories today.

The Griesbach Hypothesis

Fig. 9.22: Griesbach Hypothesis

The first theory is named The Griesbach Hypothesis, after the eminent German biblical scholar Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812) who argued, on the basis of the previous work of others, that Matthew wrote first. Luke then used Matthew as a source. Finally, Mark used both Matthew and Luke. 

The publication of his theory in 1776, in a work entitled A Synopsis of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, launched the modern critical study of the Gospels. More recently, this theory has been revived by its chief proponent, William Farmer, and has come to be known as the “Two-Gospel Hypothesis.” This theory has two major strengths: (1) It can account for all of the agreements among the Gospels. In agreements between Matthew and Mark against Luke, Mark follows Matthew, but Luke does not. In agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, Luke follows Matthew, but Mark does not. And, in agreements between Mark and Luke against Matthew, Luke deviates from Matthew, and Mark follows Luke. (2) This theory can also account for some of the literary redundancies found in Mark. Take for example Mark 1:32: “And when evening had come, after the sun had set.” Luke’s parallel account reads, “And while the sun was setting” (4:40). Matthew’s parallel account reads, “And when evening had come” (8:16). The Griesbach hypothesis explains that Mark, in typical scribal fashion, harmonized his two sources, Matthew and Luke.

Fig. 9.23: Johann Jacob Griesbach. Scanned from Theo Piana, Friedrich Schiller: Bild—Urkunden zu seinem Leben und Schaffen (Weimar: Volksverlag, 1957).

Most scholars today, however, reject this theory for several reasons. (1) It has become increasingly difficult to argue that Luke used Matthew. In all of the triple tradition accounts (i.e. where all three Gospels agree), Matthew’s additional material is never found in Luke (Matt 8:17; 12:5-7; 13:14-15). If Luke used Matthew, why would he not include this material? Conversely, Matthew never uses Luke’s additions to the triple tradition accounts. (2) While the Griesbach hypothesis can account for many of the similarities on a very general level, detailed exegetical analyses of parallel passages has resulted in the majority of Gospel scholars questioning (and consequently rejecting) its viability. (3) While Griesbach’s hypothesis may account for some of the Markan redundancies, it cannot explain most of them. 

The Two-Source Hypothesis

Fig. 9.24: The Two-Source Hypothesis

The most widely held theory among New Testament scholars today is the “Two-Source Hypothesis.” It was initially developed by H. J. Holtzmann in 1863 and later critically defended in 1924 by B. H. Streeter, who is often credited for a paradigm shift in Synoptic Gospels studies. According to this hypothesis, Mark wrote first. Matthew and Luke used Mark independently as a source. This theory is also associated with what scholars call “Markan Priority.” So, if Mark is the first source, what constitutes the second source in this so-called “Two-Source Hypothesis”? The second source has traditionally been called Q, which stands for the German term Quelle, meaning “source.” We encountered this document earlier in Chapter Five, when we explored early Christianities. To review, it is a hypothetical document that has never been found, but it serves as the best explanation for the shared material in Matthew and Luke. An example of a Q source is Jesus’ saying in Matt 7:7-8: “Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened.” This saying is found verbatim in Luke 11:9-10, but it does not exist in Mark. 

If there were such a written document (sometimes called the Q Gospel), as opposed to an oral one, it would have consisted of a list of Jesus’ sayings and would have included neither the infancy nor the resurrection accounts. As it was suggested earlier in Chapter Five, the Q document may have been associated with an early Jewish Christian group of missionaries active in Palestine during the forties and fifties CE. In the end, the Q source is still a hypothesis, but it is one that has fewer problems associated with it than the alternatives.

Some scholars have revised the Two-Source Hypothesis into a Four-Source Hypothesis. It is essentially the same, except for the addition of material that is unique to Matthew and unique to Luke. It is argued that along with Mark and Q, Matthew used a source, unknown to Luke, which scholars call “M.” Correspondingly, Luke used a source, not know to Matthew, which scholars call “L.”

Arguments for Markan Priority

The vast majority of New Testament scholars are convinced that Mark is the literary source of both Matthew and Luke because the arguments for this view have been more persuasive than those of the alternate theories. The following are the most important arguments that have been proposed by advocates of Markan priority. 

Mark’s Inferior Writing Style

Fig. 9.25: Guido Reni, Mark the evangelist, c 1621. Bob Jones University, Greenville, S. C.

The writing style used in the Gospel of Mark often lacks the refinement and sophistication that is regularly found in Matthew and Luke. In comparison to the other Gospels, Mark contains many more abnormal terms, grammatical irregularities, and unnecessary constructions. It makes less sense to say that Mark intentionally deteriorated the writing styles of Matthew and Luke than to say that Matthew and Luke polished and improved upon Mark’s writing style. Most scholars believe that later writers tend toward improving their sources, rather than toward degrading them. In addition, Mark preserves Aramaic expressions that are neither found nor translated in the parallel accounts of Matthew and Luke. Once again, it is easier to imagine a later writer translating Aramaic expressions into Greek if his audience is Greek-speaking. Consider a few examples.

• In Mark 2:4, the paralytic is described as lying on a “pallet” (Greek krabatton), which is a slang term equivalent to the English term “pad.” In the same account, Matthew (9:2) and Luke (5:18) change this term to the more appropriate “bed” (Greek klineis)

• In Mark 1:12, after Jesus’ baptism, the spirit “drove” him into the wilderness. In Matthew’s parallel account (Matt 4:1), “Jesus was led up by the Spirit” and in Luke’s account (4:1), “Jesus was led by the Spirit.”

• In the list of the disciples, only Mark uses Aramaic in Jesus’ reference to James and John (sons of Zebedee) as Boanerges, meaning “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17). In the parallel account the Aramaic reference is omitted (Matt 10:2; Luke 6:14)

• The final example, below, demonstrates Mark’s awkward grammatical construction, which contains a complex oscillation between the singular and plural. Luke’s account (in the Greek) is a literary improvement. Here is an English reconstruction:

Fig. 9.26: Click on the box to enlarge

Mark’s Potential Embarrassments 

When comparing parallel accounts in the Synoptic Gospels, sometimes Matthew and Luke edit Mark’s versions because they may have posed a potential embarrassment to the early church in its missionary efforts. In the first set of examples, Mark’s portrayal of the disciples tends to be more negative. Matthew and Luke’s parallel accounts tend to be more developed, forgiving, and positive. In Mark the disciples lack humility, have less faith (and sometimes none at all), and lack understanding. There are enough parallels like this to say that this is a pattern or even a theme. Again, we are not concerned here with the historicity of the account—namely, whose version is more accurate, for that is another matter—but the literary relationship of these Gospels. Is it more reasonable to say that Matthew and Luke enhanced the portrayal of the disciples, or that Mark intentionally portrayed them in a dimmer light? In the following examples, read Matthew and Luke prior to Mark and note the pattern.

Fig. 9.27: Click on the box to enlarge

Fig. 9.28: Click on the box to enlarge

Fig. 9.29: Click on the box to enlarge

Fig. 9.30: Click on the box to enlarge

Examples like these abound. Consider one more. In Mark 10:35-37, James and John ask Jesus if they might sit beside him in glory. This could be taken as an audacious request if the account had no parallel. When we compare this request to the one in Matthew, it dispels all doubt. In Matt 20:20-21, it is not the disciples who ask, but it is their mother who asks on their behalf, implying more humility on the part of the disciples. 

The suggestion by most scholars that Matthew and Luke tried to eliminate or smooth over Mark’s potential embarrassment is strengthened when parallel accounts about Jesus’ abilities are compared. In Mark there appears to be a limitation of Jesus’ power or influence. Consider the following examples.

Fig. 9.31: Click on the box to enlarge

Fig. 9.32: Click on the box to enlarge

Fig. 9.33: Click on the box to enlarge

There are many other instances where Matthew and Luke omit sections of Mark that could be explained likewise as an attempt to eliminate potential embarrassments. As mentioned earlier, only Mark has Jesus undergo a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Also, only Mark contains expressions of emotion by Jesus. Jesus is angry in 3:5, has “lost his sense” in 3:21, and has a potentially unflattering exchange with his mother in 3:31-35. 

For most scholars, it makes more sense to say that Matthew and Luke removed the potential embarrassments rather than saying that Mark added them. It also makes more sense to postulate that Matthew and Luke elevated the status of both Jesus and the disciples, rather than Mark intentionally lowering them. Here we could also include the infancy accounts and the extensive resurrection appearances in Matthew and Luke. If Mark used Matthew and Luke, it is unlikely that he would have intentionally removed these if he was trying show that Jesus was the son of God and the messiah.

Mark’s References to Scripture

Fig. 9.34: Michelangelo Buonarroti, “Isaiah,” 1509. Sistine Chapel, Vatican City.

In at least two cases, Mark’s references to scripture are problematic and appear to be corrected by Matthew and Luke. If Mark were a later writing, it is much more difficult to explain why the author would have included material that was problematic. In the first example, Mark introduces his Gospel with a quotation from scripture that he reports as having come from Isaiah (Isa 40:3). The problem is that the Isaiah quotation in Mark 1:3 is preceded by a conflation of two other scripture texts (Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1), neither of which are from Isaiah. In the parallel account neither Matthew nor Luke include the previous conflated quotation, preserving only the Isaiah quote. In so doing Matthew and Luke align the quotation with its introduction that it comes from “Isaiah the prophet.”

Fig. 9.35: Click on the box to enlarge

In the second example, Matthew and Luke remove Mark’s reference to Abiather the high priest in 2:25-26. This is at first curious, until one reads the account in 1 Sam 21:1-6 to which Mark is referring. In that account it is Ahimelech, the father of Abiather, who holds the office of High Priest at the time of this incident. Abiather enters the narrative a chapter later. The most reasonable explanation is that Matthew and Luke knew this and removed the text.

Fig. 9.36: Click on the box to enlarge

Markan Redundancies

We have already made mention of Markan redundancies in the explanation of the Griesbach Hypothesis. Griesbach’s theory could only account for the redundancies by postulating that Mark, in scribal fashion, harmonized Matthew and Luke’s accounts. Unfortunately many of the 213 redundancies in Mark do not exhibit an intentional scribal harmonization. If Mark were already in the process of abridging Matthew and Luke, leaving out substantial material that would benefit his portrayal of Jesus, there is no known reason why he would also preserve the relatively insignificant material. The redundancies are better explained by the Two-Source hypothesis, that Matthew and Luke improved upon or smoothed out Mark’s unnecessary literary construction. Here are two examples.

Fig. 9.37: Click on the box to enlarge

Fig. 9.38: Click on the box to enlarge

Matthew and Luke’s Divergence

This final argument is weighty. Matthew and Luke sometimes contain common material that is not in Mark; this is attributed to their use of Q as a second source. In most instances when they differ from Mark, however, they diverge. In other words, where there is no Markan source to follow, Matthew and Luke usually go in different directions. 

We find this kind of divergence in the infancy narratives and the resurrection accounts. It is also seen in the sayings of Jesus. Matthew and Luke occasionally contain the same sayings, but they are placed in different contexts. This is exactly what one would expect if Mark were their source. A clear example is the saying “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” In Matthew, the saying is found in the context of the Sermon on the Mount (6:24), but in Luke, it appears verbatim in the context of kingdom parables, much later in the story (16:13).

Fig. 9.39: Cosimo Rosselli, “Sermon on the Mount,” 1482. Sistine Chapel, Vatican City.

Markan Theology

Overall, Mark’s theological terminology and concepts are much less developed than those in Matthew and Luke. It has already been mentioned that Mark neither has an infancy narrative nor resurrection appearances. Mark employs very little mention of the Holy Spirit compared to Luke, and a much less developed use of scripture, in contrast to Matthew’s frequent appeal to its “fulfillment.” It is also telling that the designation “Lord” is applied to Jesus only six times in Mark, whereas in Matthew it appears twenty four times. Matthew retains Mark’s six occurrences, but adds another fifteen of them to parallel accounts. In Luke the occurrences of  “Lord” are even more frequent. The same observations apply also to the title “Christ.”

Mark’s Length

Mark is considerably shorter than the two other Gospels. When the word count of the three Gospels is compared, Mark contains approximately 11,000 words, Matthew contains almost 18,300, and Luke contain almost 19,400. The argument that Mark is an abridgment is problematic because many of the parallel accounts in all three Gospels are longer in Mark. It makes little sense to say that, while omitting the infancy account, the birth of the Baptist, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s Prayer, the three temptations, and the resurrection narratives, Mark intentionally expanded the episodes they had in common. Over 40 percent of the words in Matthew and 53 percent of the words in Luke have no parallel in Mark. The abridgment hypothesis may apply to the overall length, but once individual passages are compared, the evidence in its favor weakens considerably.

9.4.3 The Stage of Final Composition: Redaction Criticism

When the insights and conclusions of the early New Testament form critics began to circulate, they were not received with as much enthusiasm as was hoped. In fact, many of the proposals were viewed with considerable skepticism, largely because form critics were in disagreement with each other. They could not agree on the shape and function of oral Christian traditions about Jesus prior to their collection by the evangelists. In addition, the idea that the evangelists were simply collectors of oral material about Jesus began to be questioned. The Gospels began to be studied as unified narratives that were more than the sum of all their parts, and the evangelists themselves began to be viewed as creative writers, even theologians, who shaped the Gospels according to their own interests. This was the beginning of redaction criticism. 

Definition and Aim

The term “redaction” refers to the process of editing a previously written work. More common is the word “redactor” which simply means “editor.” In contrast to the aims of form and source critics, who were concerned with the source materials that lay behind the Gospels, redaction critics were interested in the final stage of the composition of the Gospels. They were particularly interested in how the evangelists creatively shaped (redacted) their sources, with an aim to discover how each writer theologically understood and interpreted the tradition that was received. Redaction critics read the parallel Gospel accounts comparatively, carefully examining the individual comments of the evangelists, their editorial links and summaries, and their selection and modification of the material.

The goal of redaction criticism is to discover patterns in editing that uncover the theological beliefs and agendas of the evangelists. Since most redaction critics subscribe to the Two- (or Four-) Source hypothesis, much of their attention has focused on Matthew and Luke’s reshaping and editing of Mark and Q. 

Insights

The insights that emerged, and are still emerging, from redaction criticism have forever changed the way we understand and interpret the Synoptic Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke. 

Starting from the vantage point that the evangelists were creative writers and that the Gospels were unified narratives, redaction critics have concentrated on the theological emphases of the writings. From these observations redaction critics have been able to extrapolate the purpose of each Gospel, the audience to which each wrote, and the underlying issues that were addressed by each evangelist. Redaction critics have also pointed to the varied themes in the Gospels, most notably their portrayals of Jesus. In Mark, for instance, Jesus appears as the concealed messiah. In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a new Moses who brings the correct interpretation of the Law. In Luke, Jesus is portrayed as a rejected prophet who is concerned with the welfare of social minorities and outcasts.

An Example: The Transfiguration Accounts
A comparison of the transfiguration accounts is helpful for understanding the practice and value of redaction criticism. While all three accounts are found in the same narrative context, share the same content and sequence, and convey the same meaning, they also contain differences. When the three accounts are read sequentially (i.e. vertically), beginning with Matthew and ending with Luke, the differences are not easily noticed. When the accounts are read alongside each other (i.e. horizontally), however, the divergences become clear.

Assuming that Mark is the literary source, attention in the following table is given to Matthew’s redaction of Mark. Apart from the omission of definite articles before names, changes in style (which are noticeable in the Greek), changes of prepositions, and the addition and omission of words and phrases, note particularly the underlined material.

Fig. 9.40: Click on the box to enlarge

Although both accounts have clear connections with Moses’ experience on Mount Sinai, Matthew’s version makes this more emphatic. Matthew describes that Jesus’ “face shone like the sun,” which closely resembles the description of Moses’ face in Exod 34:29-34 after his encounter with God. Mark says nothing about his face. Unlike Mark’s rendering, “And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses,” Matthew reverses the order, writing, “there appeared to them Moses and Elijah.” Placing Moses in the initial position may imply prominence. Matthew also changes Mark’s “cloud” out of which the voice speaks to a “bright cloud.” This change reflects Exod 40:35, when Moses encounters God in the form of a bright cloud, which symbolizes the glorious presence of God. 

The overall point of Matthew’s redaction is to show that Jesus is a Moses-like figure who brings to completion the revelation of God. The redactional pattern is found throughout Matthew, such as Jesus’ birth under a tyrant who wants to kill him, and infancy accounts where God calls him out of Egypt, and the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus goes up a mountain to deliver a new law.

Fig. 9.41: Giovanni Bellini, “Transfiguration,” 1480-1485. Museo di Capodimonte, Naples. Moses Moses is on Jesus’ right and Elijah is on his left.

The search for parallels between Jesus and biblical figures like Moses should extend beyond the Old Testament. Early Christian writers, saturated in Jewish tradition, would have been influenced by later Jewish interpretations of Moses. In first-century Judaism, Moses was commonly praised for his exalted position in the heavens, perhaps even as a deified figure. In Philo’s Life of Moses (2.288-291), for example, Moses is hailed as king, lawgiver, High Priest, and prophet, and exalted by God just before his death. In another Jewish writing called the Testament of Moses, he is loftily portrayed as “that sacred spirit, worthy of the Lord, manifold and incomprehensible, master of leaders, faithful in all things, the divine prophet for the whole earth, the perfect teacher in the whole world” (11:16). Later retellings like these must also be considered when exploring Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus as a Moses-like figure.

Try the Quiz

 Bibliography

Allison, Jr., D. C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Aune, D. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987.

Burridge, R. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Cartlidge, D. R. and D. L. Dungan, eds. Documents for the Study of the Gospels. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994.

Crossan, J. D. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus. New York: HarperCollins, 1989.

Farmer, W. R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1964.

Goodacre, M. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

McKnight, E. V. What is Form Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

Nickle, K. F. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. 2nd edn. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Perkins, P. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Perrin, N. What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

Sanders, E. P. and M. Davis. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.

Stanton, G. N. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Stein, R. H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987. 

Talbert, C. What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.