Makenzie Griffin

Dr. James Platt

SRT 210 01 The Christian Scriptures

12 April 2022

Questions Behind the Synoptic Gospels

The gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke make up the Synoptic Gospels. Although all

three gospels covered many of the same themes, they vary on significant points within those

accounts. Moreover, several occurrences in Mark are not found in Matthew or Luke, and vice

versa. Many historians believe that Mark was the earliest of the three gospels to be written, and

that Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark. Because the Synoptic Gospels were written

in Greek initially, there may be some uncertainty in Mark, Matthew, and Luke owing to different

interpretations and translations of the Greek language. The synoptic gospels provide a complete

and authoritative portrayal of Jesus Christ. Unlike other biblical books, they provide a deeper

understanding of Christianity in addition to biographical material about Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit led the authors of these works to come up with an uncommon

viewpoint and account of Jesus. Similarly, each author was able to convey gospel themes that

were in line with Jesus Christ's teachings and worldview through the Holy Spirit. Many

questions arise when it comes to the Synoptic Gospels. Some examples include which of the

three Synoptics was written first? What is the similar composition between the gospels? How

should we understand matters of differing content between Matthew, Mark, or Luke? The

answers to these said questions hold many truths of timelines and matters discussed during the

Bible that us as readers must understand to know the walk of life.

 Mark was the first Gospel authored, according to most Bible scholars today. They claim

that Matthew and Luke both employed Mark along with other sources to answer the Synoptic

issue, which is the question of how three comparable Gospels came to be. Another hypothesis is

that Matthew authored his Gospel earlier, but in his native Semitic tongue, is underappreciated

(either Hebrew or Aramaic). These are all relative possibilities, but there can only be one true

answer and why it matters. In a paper titled “Did the Gospel of Matthew Come

First? An Historian’s View” by Jim Reiher, he states that “Mark has no virgin birth, no wise men

following a star. At the other end of the story, there is very little discussion of his resurrection.

Mark is a short and focused study of Christ’s life. Placing it first allows people to contend that

Matthew, Luke, and John embellished the life of the ‘historical Jesus’ to make him more divine.

According to this argument, the other three writers created stories or retold myths about Jesus

and inserted them into Mark’s purer, earliest version.” This all is very true and makes sense

when put into a timeline. Mark’s story had such large details and the others that followed him

copied those details but made them their own or did not add as much detail.

Along with the question of which of the three Synoptic gospels was written first, there is

also a question that arises on top of that which is, what is the similar composition of the gospels.

In an article titled “The History of the Synoptic Tradition” written by R.K. Bultmann, they state

that “Matthew and Luke, according to most Protestant and some Roman Catholic academics,

were written later than Mark, which they closely followed. Matthew then separated Mark into

five parts and utilized them in order, with other material dividing them. Luke merely splits the

book into two halves, with nine chapters in between. Mark, on the other hand, is only responsible

for half of the other two Gospels.” Researchers believe that Matthew and Luke had roughly 100

verses in common, the majority of which are sayings; to explain this agreement, scholars believe
that a primitive text known as Q existed. It was mostly made up of Jesus’ sayings and

disseminated in various forms from place to place. Different variants of Q are reported to have

been used by Matthew and Luke. This leaves a good third of Matthew and Luke that cannot be

explained by a single source; there is no commonly agreed idea on the source or sources for

these sections. Bultmann also states at the end of their illustration that “The traditional Roman

Catholic view is that Matthew (in an Aramaic version) preceded Mark and Luke, but that

Matthew’s Greek translation of his Aramaic Gospel may have come after Mark and Luke.” This

statement still backs up the argument that Mark was written first, but that the composition of the

gospels remains very similar. This complication is why so many researchers and scholars have

such a hard time distinguishing what is the truth between all three gospels; how are we to trust

which came first or who is basically plagiarizing off the other. This is something that infuriates

me as a reader and follower of Christ for many reasons. One being that we are to trust the words

of the bible because they are true and pave the world of Christianity today. If that is the case,

then why are there three writings, the gospels, that are basically the same. How are we supposed

to trust the words these men wrote, if they are different from each other but in a similar way.

Who really was the prime writer and why did the other two copy what the first one wrote. I

understand if they lived through the same situations as each other, but write from your feelings,

not from somebody else's. That way the world reads your story in the future, and not the words

of somebody else. I know personally, I want to know everyone's individual stories of Jesus and

their interaction with him, that way I have a better understanding of his place in the world during

his time of living and the effect he left on the world after he passed and was resurrected.

As was mentioned before, there is the use of Q and its hypothesis in the Synoptic gospels.

It is a key issue that arises as many scholars try to pick apart the gospels. In a scholarly paper
titled “Is Q a Juggernaut?” written by Michael D. Goulder, a scholar from the University of

Birmingham, United Kingdom, he states that “Q is supposed to be the same, going through

several additions, and with a theology different from Luke and Matthew. So, we might have

expected Q to be at least referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews was, if not preserved, as Mark

was, with its independent theology – especially as it is ex hypothesi order than the canonical

Gospels and must have enjoyed enormous prestige.” This statement here means that Q should

have stayed the same through all the gospels since they are very similar to each other, but it does

not. This imposes a problem to all theories created and answered about the Synoptic gospels. In

conclusion with all the problems Q creates, Michael Goulder imposes the answer that “Q is not

accepted because if Luke knew Mark in any example, he knew him everywhere, and he could

have taken all the Q material over from Matthew's gospel directly. The main reason for

postulating Q would have disappeared entirely.” This helps to put to rest the state of Q’s effect

on the gospels and the comparisons between them.

Finally, with the questions of which of the three Synoptics was written first and what is

the similar composition between the gospels answered, the last question imposed, how should we

understand matters of differing content between Matthew, Mark, or Luke, is to be answered. This

is knowledge I know in depth from studying the bible, being a true believer of Christ, and going

to church religiously since I was a little girl.

Anyway, first is the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew was writing to and for Jews, and his

work revolves on the premise that Jesus is the Jewish King. Readers know this because of the

scripture line: “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east

and have come to worship him.” (Matthew 2:2). With Matthew’s writing and gospel, we know

that his was written as a message of encouragement and strength for Jewish Christians. Even
though Jesus was crucified by Jews, Matthew’s first message is to encourage Jewish Christians

to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and this leads into his second reason for writing which was to

show the people that Jesus is the true Messiah. “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the

son of David, the son of Abraham:” (Matthew 1:1). This verse fulfills the prophecy from 2

Samuel 7:12-14 “When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your

offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.

He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom

forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son.”

Next is the Gospel of Mark. Mark emphasizes Jesus’ status as a servant. This is

evidenced by his omission of Jesus’ genealogy throughout his narrative. Despite being

persecuted for their religion, Mark’s art is aimed to encourage Christians across Rome.

Persecution is the price that Christians must pay for following Jesus, he continues. In the gospel

of Mark, Jesus says exactly that “Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and

said: ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the

gospel will save it.’” (Mark 8:34-35).

Finally, is the gospel of Luke and his story. Luke begins his writing by portraying Jesus

as the Son of Man. He demonstrates how Jesus was a real person who genuinely cared about

people from all walks of life. Luke devotes the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke to Jesus’

birth and boyhood. He also emphasizes Jesus’ human characteristics. Many of Luke’s other

verses portray a Jesus who was able to feel human emotions as well as express other human

traits. “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert,

where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the
end of them he was hungry” (Luke 4:1-2). Jesus is portrayed to have feelings such as pain and

sorrow. “He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt and prayed, ‘Father, if you are

willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.’ An angel from heaven

appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his

sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.” (Luke 22:41-44). Even though each gospel

was written at various times and in distinct historical contexts and regions, they all feature

comparable story arcs and concepts about Jesus’ life. These writings represent Jesus’ character

and history in diverse ways, yet they do not contradict one another. The many texts complement

one another and create a unified full account of Jesus’ life.

When it comes to the Synoptic Gospels, several questions arise. Which of the three

Synoptics was written first, for example? What is the similarity in the gospels’ composition?

How should we interpret differences in substance between Matthew, Mark, and Luke? The

answers to these questions include numerous facts about timeframes and topics mentioned in the

Bible that we, as readers, must comprehend to grasp the path of life.
 Work Cited

Bultmann, R.K. “Synoptic Gospels.” Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, Mar. 2021,

p. 1. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.setonhill.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=afh&AN=134497491&site=ehost-live

Goulder, Michael D. “Is Q a Juggernaut?” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 115, no. 4, Winter

1996, p. 667. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.setonhill.idm.oclc.org/10.2307/3266348.

Reiher, Jim. “Did the Gospel of Matthew Come First? An Historian’s View.” Evangelical

Review

of Theology, vol. 45, no. 1, Feb. 2021, pp. 78–89. EBSCOhost,

https://search-ebscohost-com.setonhill.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN

=148413623&site=ehost-live.