How We Got the Gospels

Sorry about the long hiatus. I'll explain it all later.

This post, while self-contained, builds upon my previous one and from here everything will start coming together.  

This post will deal primarily with the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The term "synoptic" means "common-view" (according to Stuart and Fee's How to Read the Bible for all it's Worth). It comes from two Greek words which literally mean "seeing together." These Gospels are called synoptics due to their great similarities.  

The Gospels are not biographies. They obviously omit a good portion of the life of Jesus and they aren't always chronological. Nor are they simply collections of sayings (i.e., teachings) because they also include narratives. The Gospels are unique collections of sayings of Jesus and narratives about Jesus.

How can we explain the coming together of these stories and sayings in a way that recognizes the striking similarities and subtle (or not so subtle) differences among the three books? First, we consider similarities. The synoptics are similar in that they record many of the same stories and sayings. For example, common stories among the three include the temptations of Jesus (Mark 1:12-13; Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13), the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6:30-44; Matt. 14:13-21; Luke 9:10-17), and the triumphal entry (Mark 11:1-11; Matt. 21:1-11; Luke 19:28-44). Common sayings among all three include the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1-20; Matt. 13:1-23; Luke 8:1-15) and Jesus' Olivet Discourse (Mark 13; Matt. 24; Luke 21:5-38). This is not an exhaustive list. Other stories and sayings may only appear in one or two of the synoptics. Some of these are reworked either subtly or considerably from one Gospel account to another.

What explanation can account for both the similarities and differences among these Gospels, especially in light of the fact that the first one was probably not written until anywhere from 35 to 50 years after the crucifixion of Jesus? How were the stories and sayings preserved and why weren't they reported identically in the Gospels?

The most logical explanation of how the Gospels came to be, given the oral culture of learning in the first century, is that the stories and sayings were handed down verbally through the decades until they were finally written down. Each individual story or saying, like those cited above, is called a "per-i-co-pe" (a four-syllable word that does not rhyme with periscope, has a short "o" and a long "e" on the end). 

Each pericope, whether we're talking about the story of Jesus' temptations or a saying like the Parable of the Sower, likely circulated orally and independent of a particular context until the Gospel authors began to assemble these memories about Jesus into their respective books. Material is sometimes arranged chronologically, but other times it is arranged topically. The literary context of each Gospel is arranged with the needs of each Gospel's original readers in mind. This accounts for some of the differences in wording, ordering of pericopes, and emphases.

The similarities of the Gospels is likely the result of literary dependence among the authors. It's likely that Matthew had Mark in front of him when he wrote his Gospel and that Luke had access to both Matthew and Mark. Each subsequent author made additions and omissions that were pertinent to his particular readership. Each author shaped and arranged his material according to the particular needs of his readers. The author's individual writing style, personality, background, and education also comes to bear upon the differences among each Gospel. 

Some might argue that this is a very "earthy" way of explaining Gospel origins. Where does inspiration come in? I don't think this explanation rules out the notion that God was behind all of this every step of the way. But noting the differences among the Gospels it is highly unlikely that God mechanically dictated word-for-word what each author was to write. God's method of operation has always been to deliver the gospel through earthen vessels. The gospel is always heralded through personality and individuality. Why should we think that the written account of the gospel should be any different?       

Comments

[Frank]

Thanks for another good post, Wade.

I've argued with myself about whether to introduce these sorts of questions to my first-year New Testament classes at Amarillo College. I do it (for now) because I think these observations can be helpful to students of the Gospels.

However, at first it creates a good bit of confusion that my students and I have a hard time handling. Most of them have never considered the human dimension of the Bible. I have come to expect two initial reactions when the synoptic evidence is laid out:

1. The Holy Spirit did it. I.e., synoptic similarities are the result of divine inspiration.

So I ask, taking a hint from Robert Stein, "Okay, if inspiration accounts for the similarities, how do we account for the differences? And do we think the Gospel of John was inspired? It's VERY different." This usually prompts of bunch of confused looks. Sometimes a student will then begin to talk about the different intentions of the authors. And, of course, at that point we've hit upon the human side of the Gospels.

2. The similarities are the result of eye-witnesses all writing what they saw and heard.

Little do they know that any number of people think that none of the Synoptics was written by an eye-witness. I just go with it and ask them to turn their handouts over and write a paragraph or two about what's happened in class that day so far. The sharper ones know where I'm going with this. I then ask for volunteers to read to the class their descriptions. Of course, none of them are even close to each other in content or expression. So who would think that, decades after the facts, first-century writers would do much better? At that point, they don't need much more convincing. For good measure and more insight, we go to Luke's prologue and the rest, so to speak, is history.

It never comes off quite as simple and easy as that. But this is the best classroom method I've come up with so far.

[Wade Tannehill]

Frank,

Thank you for taking the time to share your approach and the student responses on this topic. I think it is definately worth teaching first year NT students. I was a freshman in college when first exposed to these concepts, but I had already studied the "synoptic problem" on my own by just systematically comparing the parallel passages. So I wasn't completely blown away since I already suspected that something was up.

I think where we preachers have really failed is by not teaching this to our churches. It can revolutionize the way we read the Gospels helping us to pick up on the unique emphases and literary context of each one.

People in the pew are accustomed to either reading passages in isolation from their overall context or by cross referencing verses from various books in topical studies. But what people really need is to learn how to think about authorial intent and original audience.

[Vicki]

I enjoyed this post! Out of curiosity, and at the risk of sounding possibly ignorant, why didn't you include John?

[Wade Tannehill]

Vicki,

Thank you for your comment. Don't ever feel ignorant for asking a question. The truly ignorant people are those who never ask questions and never seek clarification.

I did not deal with John here because his Gospel is not considered one of the "Synoptic" Gospels, but is often referred to by itself as "The Fourth Gospel."

John is so different from the other three that his Gospel is in a category all by itself. While the other three Gospels are filled with short pericopes including miracles, parables, and sayings of Jesus--John consists largely of lengthy discourses
(speeches) of Jesus. John has a lot of speeches, but few parables.

With the notable exception of the Passion narratives and the Resurrection, most of the material in John's Gospel does not have a parallel in the other three. And even those final chapters about the crucifixion and the resurrected Lord emphasize much that is unique to John.

John omits a lot of the material that is in the other three, but there are some exceptions that appear in all four Gospels. These include the feeding of the five thousand and the triumphal entry.

John also includes a lot of material you won't find in any of the other three. For example, his conversations with Nicodemus and the woman at the well are only in John. The miracle of his turning water into wine is only in John. While the other three include stories that aren't in John, the Fourth Gospel includes much that is not found in the other three.

So John is very different. If you read the other three you will find many similarities and much repetition. But when you come to John there is a lot of new information.

I think there is evidence in John's Gospel that he knew about the other three, or at least was aware of the concepts presented in the Synoptics. But by the time he wrote he saw the need to fill in some gaps due to the historical situation that existed in his time and in his church.

Hope that adequately answers the question.

[preacherman]

A great post Wade!
I love the book by FF Bruce "How We Got The Bible".
I still from time to time wonder about scripture such as the gospel of Mary Magdelene isn't a part of scripture or the McAbee's in the Bible. Josephus.
Where is the letter that is missing to the Corinthian Church? Did the Early Church make some of the letter disapear? Destroy them? Could they have toss books written out because they didn't like what they said about women apostles and leaders perhaps?
I ponder this quite a bit.

Again great post brother.
You do a fantastic job on your blog.

[Vicki]

Wade,
I was always told that John was part of the "synoptic" gospels. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Your explanation was quite sufficient. Great job!

[Darin]

Wade,

The only question I would have is the idea that each writer had another in front of him. I understand that is how it might be today but I don’t see that in that time period.

Since everything was shared orally why wouldn’t everyone have many of the same oral traditions “in front of them” as they wrote? I don’t see any reason in an oral culture why they would need the actual document since many of the same stories would be told from church to church.

Throw in the differences and for me the explanation seems wanting. I can understand orally how one person might have a little different take on an actual event but I had trouble understanding how with the document in front of me I could change the story. It certainly is understandable from the point that they moved parts around, that was not uncommon, but to have different facts seems a stretch.

I do think this is important and I appreciate the reminder. For me it is often those who have turned from God who point to all of this and need a good education on where the Bible came from, etc. They unfortunately aren’t in class at church.

Equipping the members would be good in the hopes that they would be prepared when questions come.

I agree that a better understanding of the Bible is necessary if we are going to have a deeper faith.

Thanks for the post.

Frank,

Great thoughts on how to teach some of these ideas. I love the idea of having each person write their own experience that is shared.

Thanks for that nugget.

[Wade Tannehill]

Darin,

I appreciate your comment. The reason I say that some Gospels authors had other Gospels in front of them has less to do with the comparison of the individual pericopes (sayings and stories) but more to do with how one Gospel writer will follow the structure of another in his arrangement of the pericopes.

For example, Luke 5:12-6:16 follows the order of Mark 1:40-3:19 very closely.

Luke then inserts some non-Marcan material in 6:17-8:3, some of which may owe something to Matthew's Gospel.

Then Luke picks back up with Mark again in Luke 8:4-9:17 which parallels Mark 4:1-6:44.

Luke curiously omits material from Mark 6:45-8:26.

But Luke picks up again with Mark in Luke 9:18-50 which parallel Mark 8:27-9:41.

Luke inserts some non-Marcan material concerning Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem in Luke 9:51-18:14.

But Luke 18:15 picks up with Mark 10:13 continuing to the end of both books.

So when we see the ordering of pericopes in one Gospel closely following that of another, I think there is more going on than oral tradition.

Also, the prologue of Luke mentions the eye-witnesses who came before him. Claiming to have investigated everything, Luke says, "...it seemed good to me also...to write..." (Luke 1:2-3, ASV). This seems to acknowledge Luke's awareness of and probably dependence on some writers that had preceded him.

The notion of authors changing some details when they might have had earlier texts right in front of them is not out of the question for me. Each author knew what his particular audience needed, so he would omit or add as necessary.

I always find it humorous that in regard to the woman who touched the fringe of Jesus' garment, Mark 5:26 mentions that she had spent all she had on doctors. Luke conveniently omits this comment about doctors.

And while Mark feels compelled to explain some Jewish traditions, Matthew has no need to do so since he is likely writing to a Jewish audience. (See Mark 7:3, cf. Matt. 15:1ff).

I see the Gospel authors not only as inspired writers but as inspired editors.