The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, offer the reader an intimate yet incomplete look at the early life and later ministry of Jesus. While the Book of John is easily compared to the three Gospels, it must be noted that while each provide a similar recollection of the life of Jesus it is also very clear that each gives a very different narrative to the events that have become some of the most important views in the Christian religion.
Therein lies the issue with faith. Are the Gospels accurate and to be accepted with their differences and attributed to artistic freedom? Or are they misleading and deliberately vague due to the different cultural and religious backgrounds and political agendas of the writers? Are the Gospels to retain the title and authority of Scripture or will an examination of them give cause to the questioning of their authenticity and reliability and to the very foundation of the single most powerful religious movement that has spanned nearly two millennia?
Known as the “Synoptic Gospels,” it is important to understand the definition of the term synoptic. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines synoptic as “1. affording a general view of a whole; 2. manifesting or characterized by comprehensiveness or breadth of view; 3. presenting or taking the same or common view; specifically often capitalized : of or relating to the first three Gospels of the New Testament; 4. relating to or displaying conditions (as of the atmosphere or weather) as they exist simultaneously over a broad area” (1).
Essentially, what the Synoptic Gospels give us is an “overview” of Jesus’ life from birth to twelve years and then from the age of thirty until his death, resurrection, and ascension. The problem however, lies in the inconsistencies that lead to the questionable authenticity of at least two of these Gospels, specifically Matthew and Luke, as well as the question of who wrote which book first and who copied what information and rewrote it from whom.
Although Matthew and Luke are listed first and third in the New Testament, it is widely believed and accepted that Mark was the first account written of the life of Jesus. Known as the Markan Theory, this is based upon the minor errors found in the Book of Mark, such as incorrect timelines, geographical locations, and historical events, which the Books of Matthew and Luke correct (2). Had either Matthew or Luke been written first, it would seem obvious that Mark would have taken the time to make these corrections to preserve the continuity and assumed validity of the information presented.
With yet another theory to the corrections found in Matthew and Luke, we introduce “Q” or “Quelle,” a hypothetical source of writings, teachings, and sayings of Jesus that Matthew and Luke used to, in effect, fill in the blanks and elaborate on certain events, causing Jesus to appear even more divine and powerful in his ministry and claims of being the prophesied Messiah. Although the assumed writings of “Q” have been long lost, the idea of this author has become the most widely accepted theory for scholars and teachers alike, as it gives a commonality to Matthew and Luke that cannot otherwise be explained.
In his introduction, Luke instructs the reader in chapter 1 verses 1-4 that, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (3).
In reading this, we can assume that not only is Luke aware that others had written of Jesus but that oral tradition also played a large role in what he planned to commit to writing. In a sense, he is stating that although others had made written accounts, he felt it necessary since he had investigated everything from the beginning, that it was he who could provide the most accurate account of the life of Jesus.
As a well educated man and physician, it is easy to see why Luke would believe that he was more than capable of giving the most exact and dependable history of Jesus. As a Greek and the only Gentile author in the New Testament, it is understandable that he would pen his account in Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic, the language which Jesus most likely spoke, yet we must still ask the question of whether or not the teachings of Jesus were adequately translated in the way that he spoke them (4).
Matthew begins his writings with the genealogy of Jesus through the line of King David until he reached Abraham (5), thus proving his “royal” lineage. Luke, however, lists the genealogy of Jesus down through Adam (6), both of which are interesting as Jewish genealogy is traced through the matriarchal lines in order to give validity to the Hebrew ancestry, which may or may not come from the father. It’s also interesting to note that Luke ends his genealogy of Jesus with “the Son of God” before Adam.
The problem with both of these genealogies is that only direct bloodlines were considered authentic and, assuming the story of the virgin birth is true, Jesus cannot be considered a descendant of King David. One genealogy is traced through King David’s son Solomon and the other through his son
Nathan. Matthew shows the royal line and Luke the natural line.
Perhaps what Matthew and Luke were attempting to do was show both the divine and human nature of Jesus, corroborating the idea that he was both God and man combined (7). It is feasible to assume that Matthew embellished a bit more than Luke and Mark, as his reputation as a tax collector preceded him and those who knew of his profession were less than likely to believe anything he had to say without Scriptural basis and comparison.
Mark though was very simplistic and basic in his representation of the life and ministry of Christ. He began his writings with the short note, “The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (8). Mark relied on the teachings of Isaiah to present the prophesies of the upcoming Messiah. His purpose was to present Jesus in a human aspect as a teacher and identify his work and miracles (9).
Although not one of the original twelve disciples, Mark (also known as John Mark) was an avid follower and companion of Saul of Tarsus, later known as Paul the Apostle, with whom he accompanied on his first missionary trip. In his writings, which are thought to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 65, Mark focuses on the miracles of Jesus and records more than Matthew and Luke. It is also worthy to note that both Matthew and Luke cite all but 31 verses in the Book of Mark, and that Mark portrays Jesus as a servant of the people rather than “King of the Jews” (9).
Meanwhile, Matthew, set out to prove the divinity of Jesus that he was, in fact, the Messiah and the Savior of the world. His writings, believed to have been written between A.D. 60 and 65, focused on fulfillment of the Scripture rather than the miracles or humanity of Jesus. Although Matthew mentions the miracles of Jesus, he points out numerous times that Jesus is the “Son of David” (9).
Luke, on the other hand, wrote his account sometime around A.D. 60 and centered his writings to show Jesus as the perfect human as well as the Savior. Luke wrote about the relationship Jesus had with the public and is one of the few who even bothers to mention the role of women in the ministry of Jesus.
Given these accounts, both with the similarities and diversities, we see three very different men with very different agendas portraying the person that Jesus was, yet all firmly believing that he was the one begotten Son of God to whom the responsibility fell for bringing about salvation of the world.
With the citations of Mark within the books of Matthew and Luke , we must also give credence to the idea that each were written after Mark’s version, thus giving even more credibility that both Matthew and Luke borrowed the words of Mark as well as those of “Q.”
While many set out to solve the Synoptic Problem, many also may ask why the problem requires solving. As a matter of faith, the Synoptic Gospels simply give differing versions from different men who are telling the same story long after the death and resurrection of Christ. While some may argue that Mark’s account has no validity, it is still widely accepted that his words were penned first and those of Matthew and Luke merely corroborated them and gave further detail to the birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.
They are not seen as inconsistencies or contradictions, but rather as oral accounts set to paper in order to preserve their existence for fear that the tradition of oral accountability would lose its place in the culture, and these historical and miraculous events of the life of Christ would be lost forever.
More controversially, there are many who believe that the differences in the Synoptic Gospels are a deliberate misrepresentation in order to confuse those with little faith or little education in the Scriptures or history of Christianity. It is for those that the “problem” exists and continues to perpetuate a reason to research and find the legitimacy that seems to evade mankind throughout the centuries, of who and what the man Jesus Christ may or may not have been.
For those with faith, the details and differences are mundane, senseless, and meaningless. To live their lives as the Christ commanded and spread his word of unconditional love, salvation, kindness, and humility is enough, and there is no need to further explore his persona. Yet for those who look into the life and ministry of Jesus, the proverbial mustard seed, will always feel as the splinter in the bottom of the foot; always irritating, always elusive, and always, not quite within sight or reach.
Is there a solution to the Synoptic Problem? With the writings of “Q” long lost and the enigma of wording lost in translation, it would seem that the only solution is to continue to examine the literature surrounding the controversy or simply accept the Gospels in faith that whatever the “Word” may be, it has been and will be revealed in the love and salvation of Christ himself.
References
1. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. “Synoptic.” Accessed 03 February 2008.
< http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin
2. The Synoptic Problem. Felix Just, S.J., Ph. D. Accessed 03 February 2008.
< http://catholic-resources.
3. BibleGateway.com. “Luke 1 (New International Version). Accessed 03 February 2008. <http://www.biblegateway.co
4. About.Com: Christianity. “Luke.” Mary Fairchild. Accessed 03 February 2008. <http://christianity.about.
5. BibleGateway.com. “Matthew 1:1-16.” Accessed 03 February 2008.
< http://www.biblegateway.co
6. BibleGateway.com. “Luke 3:23-37.” Accessed 03 February 2008.
<<http://www.biblegateway.co
7. Response to the Fabulous Prophesies of the Messiah. Part IV: Problems in the Genealogies of Jesus [Revised: July 2006]. Accessed 03 February 2008.
< http://www.christian-think
8. BibleGateway.Com. “Mark 1:1.” Accessed 03 February 2008.
< http://www.biblegateway.co
9. Life Application Bible (The Living Bible). Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. and Youth for Christ/USA. Copyright 1988. Pgs. 1398-1400, 1316-1317, & 1460-1463.
No comments:
Post a Comment