The Synoptic Gospels

[The Liturgist]

Actually, there are many very good reasons for thinking Mark was written first and quite early by traditional standards, my analysis places Mark at around 40 CE (vs 70+ CE) based on commentary by Mark in Chapter 13. This is a good thing for those who believe MArk is essentially accurate as it places the text within the lifetime of many eyewitnesses who would have ensured its accuracy. I also believe John was written last which is in accordance with the early Church.

Well to be clear I believe Mark is older than Greek Matthew. I simply believe there was an earlier Aramaic Matthew, which possibly was the same document as the Gospel According to the Hebrews, but probably wasn’t.

Also given how it is largely synoptic, I am inclined to believe the “Gospel” According to Thomas was an authentic list of the sayings of our Lord which was later corrupted by a Syrian Gnostic cult; ancient remarks condemning a Gospel of Thomas as written by Thomas the disciple of Mani, who was responsible for spreading the false faith in Syria and Mesopotamia* (his counterparts were Hermes in Egypt, for this was the third century and Hermeticism was still a thing, indeed there are Hermetic texts in the Nag Hammadi Library, and someone Mani named Buddha in India...original eh?) refers to the vile Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is among the most blasphemous of apocrypha. Indeed since Syriac fragments have been found, it is possible this list was even compiled by St. Thomas as a preaching or catechtical reference pending the completion of a Syriac Aramaic translation, which initially came in the form of a boring Gospel harmony, the Diatessaron, by Tatian, who later apostasized and formed his own heretical sect.

*In this region, St. Thomas was celebrated as the local Apostle, for indeed, he and his disciples Saints Addai and Mari built what is now the Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Malankara Orthodox Church, the Syro Malabar Catholic Church and the Maronite, Malankara and Syriac Orthodox Church, among others. The Church of tne East itself was once the largest Christian church, streching from Socotra off the south coast of Yemen to Tehran and Mary on the Silk Road, from the East Syria and the Nineveh Plans to Mongolia, and from Kochin to Tibet, until the Muslim warlord Tamerlane killed off most of them in a genocide in the 12th century.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well the author of the Gospel of Matthew, whoever he was, was not an eye-witness. Obviously, disciple Matthew was an eye-witness.

Well, we don’t know that with certainty; it is possible that he did compose the surviving Greek Gospel of Matthew, but I suspect he composed the lost Aramaic original that numerous Church Fathers say existed.

 

[The Liturgist]

Neither of the schools I attended was strong in OT instruction. My first instructor of OT was a female Pentecostal apostle who was primarily concerned with the chronology of the material. The main project for her class was to compile a Bp. Usshur style timeline of the OT. She was openly hostile to the deutero-canon and shaved 15 points off of a defense I wrote for those books because she disagreed with my position.

The president of the seminary I attended had a difficult time with the OT, concluded it was confusing to lay people and largely irrelevant to preaching, and did not encourage a robust curriculum on the subject. Also notable was that the Septuagint was given preference over the Hebrew text at the school in those days. In fact, when I attended I don't recall there being a Hebrew instructor. His tenure ended several years ago and the school has since reworked the entire academic catalogue and changed most of the faculty.

That sounds horrible. Now to be fair, I myself prefer the Septuagint, but having someone knowledgeable in Hebrew and OT Aramaic, and ideally Syriac, so the Syriac Fathers can be taught, is a must. And tne idea that the OT is irrelevant for preaching gives me a headache. It basically is the proof that the events of the New Testament were prophesized! It is of reduced relevance only if one interprets it solely using the Antiochene literal-historical method, poorly (but Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted it that way, and was interesting, as was Origen in using a purely Alexandrian typological-mystical-prophetic exegesis, however, the most important Church Fathers like the Cappadocians seem to use both techniques in a manner proportionate to each book, for example, for Christians, Esther would be unimportant were it not for the element of divine salvation, especially evident in the longer version (I agree with Martin Luther and St. Athanasius that the shorter version is not worth keeping in the canon, except to the extent it is of great relevance to Jews due to the holiday of Purim, and I suppose Christians could celebrate that Haman’s genocide was foiled, since had he succeeded, our Lord and the Holy Apostles would never have been born, not to mention millions and millions of people we all really love; Jews who lived since that attempt at Genocide have made a hugely positive impact on my life, from St. John the Baptist to Maimonides to William Shatner.

 

[Vap841]

Since Mark is a pastiche of oral tellings from Peter it tends to be episodic, confused and in error at times. John, writing much later, and after hearing that Peter had been killed in Rome, wanted to provide the missing sections to Jesus story, so he composed a much more integrated and thoughtful account, so I find John to be the fullest account of Jesus.

Can you elaborate on the errors in Mark’s gospel?

 

[jd01]

Every gospel is unique in it's own way but still in harmony w/ each other. I don't buy the 'synoptic Gospels vs John' argument & am distraught that even churches teach it. IMO it's a ploy to get people to think John doesn't count or counts less.

Well, Mark tells Jesus' Galilean mission while John fills in the rest. Actually of the Four Gospels, John is the most complete and compelling as it was the only one written by an eyewitness, I consider it the best of the four.

 

[jd01]

Can you elaborate on the errors in Mark’s gospel?

Sure, the date of the census, the timing of the cleansing of the temple, making the Last Supper a Passover meal, geographical errors, the error about ceremonial washing, implying Jesus' mission is only a year and his fabricated Chapter 13. These are blatant errors on Mark's part, they do not include mistaken interpretations by him or Peter (eg demon healings).

 

[jd01]

Well, we don’t know that with certainty; it is possible that he did compose the surviving Greek Gospel of Matthew, but I suspect he composed the lost Aramaic original that numerous Church Fathers say existed.

Well, if the author is just copying other sources and replicating the errors in the sources it hardly seems reasonable to assume they were an eye-witness.

And yes it is interesting to speculate about the "Hebrew oracles" he is supposed to have written.

 

[jd01]

Matthew was not an eye-witnesses? News to me.

If the author was an eye-witness then he/she would not have copied and embellished someone else's account, and including the errors without correcting them. They would have created their version of events.

 

[The Liturgist]

If the author was an eye-witness then he/she would not have copied and embellished someone else's account, and including the errors without correcting them. They would have created their version of events.

Respectfully, thats a gross mischaracterization of Matthew, which historically was my favorite Gospel (now I love all four equally).

 

[disciple Clint]

If the author was an eye-witness then he/she would not have copied and embellished someone else's account, and including the errors without correcting them. They would have created their version of events.

So, did Matthew the tax collector write the Gospel of Matthew?
Unfortunately, there isn’t enough evidence to prove or disprove Matthew’s authorship. The church has always attributed this gospel to him, but without a direct claim in the text, that attribution comes from tradition, not Scripture. This isn’t to say tradition is wrong by any means, we just don’t know for sure either way. Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for… | Zondervan Academic

 

[Vap841]

Sure, the date of the census, the timing of the cleansing of the temple, making the Last Supper a Passover meal, geographical errors, the error about ceremonial washing, implying Jesus' mission is only a year and his fabricated Chapter 13. These are blatant errors on Mark's part, they do not include mistaken interpretations by him or Peter (eg demon healings).

Timing “Errors” don’t do much for me because it’s hard to get a definitive answer for the complex literary idiosyncrasies that each gospel writer may have been going for, although the timing of the census does look like a concrete problem. I could see theological reasons behind combining the Last Supper and Passover, and I think that Paul implies a early tradition that combines the two (but I’m rusty on that so don’t quote me, I have to look it over again). Geographical errors seem more definitive. Although sometimes there are interesting explanations, like a place name that was fuzzy around the edges for where people referred to it (in my own life people differ on calling a location by its borough or township but they’re both correct), or places that have been called by an older name for style, etc. But sometimes people that I know just get it wrong but they are close (like the bordering town), do you consider any of these Mark geographical errors to be wrong yet close? It could also be a clear cut transmission error by a scribe (which interestingly shines light on the idea that if some errors kept passing down then the gospels don’t look like perennially redacted documents).

 

[roman2819]

What key points stand out to you in the Gospel of John in comparison to the Synoptic Gospels?

-- Gospel of John gives a more personal account of Jesus and more description of events such as The Last Supper..

-- Verses such as " I am the way, the truth and the life" or "I am the bread of life" are only found in John Gospel

-- John gospel describe more conversations between Jesus and people

-- Incidents such as Nicodemus talking to Jesus, and woman at the well are only in John Gospel.

How would you explain the impact that the Gospel of John has had on you in your studies?

-- John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son..." John gospel had many impressionable quotes such as this.

Romans 24:19 Let us pursue the things which make for peace
and the things by which one may edify another. [/QUOTE]

 

[roman2819]

@Minister Monardo

The following is from the book "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's Will"

The Gospels and Letters

The New Testament contains the Gospels and Letters written by the apostles. Matthew, Luke and John wrote the Gospels to record Jesus’ teachings and ministries for the purpose of passing them to the future generations, especially when they realized that the Lord’s Second Coming was not imminent and might not happen during their lifetime. The four Gospels portray Jesus as the messiah, but each with a different approach. Mark was the first gospel to be written, followed by Matthew and Luke later. They might have used Mark gospel as a reference and depicted most of the events that he did. Hence, these three gospels are known as synoptic (similar) gospels. Would it be more interesting or informative if Matthew, Mark and Luke had provided different accounts of Jesus’s work and words? In this aspect, the Gospel of John differs by narrating some events that are not found in the other three books, such as how Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding feast.

In Mark’s Gospel, the author portrayed Jesus as the Son of God, who did many miracles. The apostle wrote briskly, beginning with Isaiah’s words, and speaking of John the Baptist as the messenger that prepared the way for Jesus, who then called the twelve to be His disciples. With a focus on the Lord’s work, he related the miracles one after another, moving along briskly. The last chapter reported that Jesus appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, told them to preach the gospel and endowed them with power to drive out demons, heal the sick and speak in new tongues – without mentioning any conversations between Jesus and the eleven apostles. Wrapping up, Mark said that the signs were confirmed as the disciples did God’s work. Writing about the miracles was his way of saying that Jesus was the Son of God. It is not surprising that the first Gospel would do that.

Matthew expanded on Mark’s Gospel and depicted Jesus as a messiah for the Jews, with the purpose of reaching out to believers of Judaism who had not turned to the Lord. Beginning with the genealogy from Abraham and David, then to Joseph (husband of Mary), the apostle wrote, “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ” [Matthew 1:17], purpose being to affirm that Jesus was a Jew.

The third synoptic Gospel was by Luke, a physician who investigated everything and verified events with witnesses. When Jesus was recognized as the Son of God after the resurrection, quite a few people were eager to claim that they knew Him or were associated with His family. Some would exaggerate and tell tall tales about friendships and incidents that never happened. Wanting to establish the truth accurately, Luke spoke to eyewitnesses, gathered reliable information, and separated facts from fiction. He addressed the Gospel to “most excellent Theophilus”, a title usually reserved for people with official appointments in the government. Luke also travelled with the apostle Paul and some of the apostles, recording their work in the book of Acts, which is am account of how the disciples proclaimed the Gospel and set up Christian communities that became churches later.

While the three synoptic gospels present identical events in a chronological manner and focus on Jesus’ work in Galilee, John used a topical approach to portray Jesus’ life and teaching, focusing on His ministry in Judea. The Gospel of John consists of numerous events that are not found in the other writings, such as how Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding feast, and what He said to various people, including Nicodemus (a Jewish teacher), the Samaritan woman, and the apostles. Jesus also said He was the bread of life, which was not recorded in the other gospels. John also provided more livid descriptions of the hostile conversations between Jesus and the religious teachers that opposed Him.

In contrast to the Gospels, which were written with a post historical perspective, however, the Letters were penned by the apostles to Christians that were living in places such as Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi and Thessalonica. Unlike today, most people were not literate at that time, and without mass printing, the Tanakh was limited edition, so to speak. Unable to comprehend the Letters, they gathered in a group to hear someone read aloud to them. A few Letters were written to individuals like Timothy, Jude and Philemon. Timothy was a disciple and Paul exhorted him to be a good soldier for Christ. Philemon was friend of the apostle, who asked him to be lenient towards a runaway slave, who was returning to him. The Letter of Jude spoke about judgment.