The Synoptic Problem explained

[Nazaroo]

We expect that this thread will be rather long, so we are setting up a Table of Contents and Linked Index for it here in the first post:



Table of Contents



Page 1: messages #1-10

Synoptic Problem Explained/Luke & Mark - msg 2
How Luke Uses Mark - msgs 3 -7
Mark & Luke the Big Picture - msg 8
Phenomena of order discussed (JohnDB) - msg 9
objections to Luke using Mark - msg 10
​

Page 2: messages #11-20

Evidence for Priority of Mark - msg 11
An Observation re: John (Steve Petersen) - msg 12
Mark & Matthew: Block Copying msgs 13 - 14
Mark/Matthew Omissions & Insertions discussed - msg 15
Dislocations of Material - msg 16
Mark/Matthew Final Chart - msg 17
Mark as Base for Luke/Matthew - msg 20
​

Page 3: messages #21-30

Luke/Matthew: Markan sections - msg 21
Luke/Matthew: Special sections - msg 22
Mark/Luke/Matthew: Full Picture - msg 23
Special Matthew Examined - msg 25
Detailed outline for Mark - msg 26
Detailed outline for Luke - msg 28
​

Page 4: messages #31-40

Matthew/Luke: the Markan sections - msg 31
Matt/Luke: Markan sections - Big Diagram 1
Excursion on Primacy of Gospels - msg #36-38
Sectional Outline for John #40

​

Page 5: messages #41-50

John: Sectional Outline examined msg #41
John & the Synoptic Problem #42
Constructing a Timeline #43
John and Mark #44
John and Luke & the PA #45
​

...more to come!​

__________________________________

External Links:

Special Synoptic Problem & John 8:1-11 Page <-- Click here!

 

[Nazaroo]

What is the "Synoptic Problem"?

Many Christians are bewildered by the complexity of the so-called "Synoptic Problem".

Briefly stated, the first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, & Luke) contain largely the same material, in the same order. In fact, many sections share almost a word-for-word match in these gospels. In contrast, John's Gospel is quite different in both content and expression. So the first three gospels are called the "Synoptic Gospels" ("syn - optic" meaning 'same eye-view').

On the one hand, the matching between the Synoptic gospels is far too extensive to be mere coincidence. (Even eyewitnesses don't copy each other's figures of speech.)
On the other hand, the Synoptic gospels often differ significantly in their recounting of incidents and speechs.

It seems obvious that sometimes they either copied one another or some unknown previous document, and at other times attempted to 'correct', enlarge or suppliment certain stories.

The "inspiration of the Holy Spirit" alone is also inadequate to fully describe or explain the situation. For if they were meant to be identical, then which evangelist should be taken as most accurate where they differ? And why have three or more gospels at all? Why not just have one gospel?

The partial answer is that these gospels were addressed to specific audiences, were composed in different times and places, and were written to meet the changing needs of the different Christian communities they served. (Originally the gospels circulated as separate books.)

But if as Christians we admit this, then it is also important to study those gospels, to illuminate the meaning and context behind their similarities and differences.

Establishing the order in which the gospels were written, and who copied who, is what the Synoptic Problem is all about.

We do this to help assist in establishing the truth of the gospels, their date of composition, and the history of the early church.

Some critics and so-called scholars may have alterior motives in studying the Synoptic Problem, but that should not discourage us from pursuing the truth in the historical circumstance and story behind the gospels.

The Berean Christians (Acts 17:11) searched the Old Testament to see if Paul spoke the truth. In the O.T. we are told that:

'It is the priviledge of kings to search out a mystery.' (Prov. 25:2)​

Christians need not fear the truth about the gospels, and Jesus Himself in the gospels tells us that whatever is said privately will eventually be shouted from the housetops.


__________________________________

Mark and Luke



As we have said, some critics have used the Synoptic Problem to attack the New Testament.

But when we actually examine the way that NT writers used their sources, we find that they were very careful to respect those sources, copying meticulously the words where they knew them to be accurate in both order and content.


Luke carefully copies Mark

Luke is a case in point.

After about 200 years of analysis and theories concerning the Synoptic Problem, one of the more modest and reliable results of the study has been that Luke used Mark as the basis for his own gospel.

From the Christian point of view, there is nothing wrong with this. Paul, James, Peter, and even Jesus all quote previous Holy Scripture.

And more importantly, the Apostles and even Jesus also correct, expand and interpret O.T. Scripture, to bring out its meaning and intent more clearly. This is part of the legitimate duty of a prophet, or even a teacher of Holy Scripture.

So when we see Luke virtually reproducing all of Mark and supplimenting this with another significant body of Jesus' sayings from His earthly ministry, we understand exactly what Luke is doing.

He wants to make a more complete and enlightening gospel, and provide fellow Christians with important and valuable teaching from the Lord.

And Luke doesn't do this secretly, or to gain personal credit.




In the first 4 verses Luke explains his plan in advance:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,​

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;​

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,​

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)​

So Luke intends the Christian reader to understand that he has used previous written sources, but used them honestly and faithfully in composing his "super-gospel", or simply his more complete gospel.

 

[Nazaroo]

Now lets have a look in detail how Luke has made use of his predecessor in composing his new gospel:

 

[Nazaroo]

Block Copying

If Luke used Mark as a base in composing his own gospel, then his basic method is quite simple and easily understood. He wanted to blend Mark with his other sources, so he looked for appropriate points in Mark to insert his new materials.

Luke places his Nativity material (stories of Jesus' origins) in a block at the beginning, to act as a preface to Jesus' public ministry. He then inserts another block between chapter 3 and 4 of Mark, and finally he places a third very large block of sayings and other material between Mark chapter 9 and 10.

Essentially then, Luke cuts Mark into three blocks, and combines them alternately with three blocks of new material of his own, one block on Jesus' origins, and two blocks of essentially sayings material with a few more stories.

In doing this, it seems clear that Luke wants to disturb Mark's basic gospel as little as possible. He does not drastically rearrange Mark, and he reproduces the bulk of Mark's Gospel without serious alteration. His purpose is basically to suppliment Mark's gospel with new material from other sources, especially Jesus' teachings.



A Strange Omission

There is one apparent exception to Luke's strategy of reproducing and supplimenting Mark. He appears to omit a large contiguous block of Mark, namely Mark 6:45 - 8:25. This seems strange, for normally Luke is careful to include almost everything in Mark. Of some 678 verses, Luke preserves over 600 of them in one form or another.

It is possible that the copy of Mark that Luke used simply lacked these verses for some reason, or that they were inserted into Mark after Luke wrote. However, Luke is not reluctant to make minor rearrangements and even some small substitutions in Mark's account.

Some feel that Mark 6:45 - 8:25 in part seems to be an alternate account of the Feeding of the 5000 (Mark 6:33-45 = 8:1-10?), and was included by Mark to prevent its loss, as has happened elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. Isa. 36:1-39:8 = 2nd Kings 18:13-20:21, etc.). ( It is interesting to observe that some of the apparent 'Johannine' material in Mark is in this very section. )




Luke's Block Outline


Whatever the case may be, it does not affect the basic observation that Luke used Mark as one of his sources, and as the base for his more complete Gospel account. It is also clear that Luke used Mark in a very simple and straightforward way:

Luke's Block Outline​

Luke block 1: Luke 1 - 2 (Nativity etc.) ​

Mark block 1: Mark ch 1 - 3 (with suppliments) ​

Luke block 2: Luke 6:20 - 8:3 (Sermon on Plain etc.) ​

Mark block 2: Mark ch 4 - 9 (but Luke skips 6:45 - 8:25) ​

Luke block 3: Luke 10:1 - 18:14 (including Johannine material) ​

Mark block 3: Mark ch 10 - 16 (with minor edits, suppliments)​

 

[Nazaroo]

Now lets look at Luke's use of Mark in a little more detail:

Here we show with the black horizontal lines, each of the sections that Luke copies over from Mark. Luke copies about 67 out of 72 sections, near verbatum, and only leaves out 5 (see below).

These are the sections that are left pretty much as is, and in the same order that Mark gave them:

Luke's Additions to Mark's Account:

On the right you can see small horizontal lines in light green, that represent some supplimental material that Luke has inserted. The first is an additional note giving details of John' imprisonment, which Mark perhaps did not know, but was of concern to Luke's readers.

The second small line is the insertion of the Genealogy of Jesus.

These additions obviously don't detract from Mark, but make it more complete and useful from the ongoing view of Christians coming subsequently.

Further down, just before Luke's 3rd Block, he inserts a story about Jesus' rejection in a Samaritan village (Luke 9:51-56).

After the third massive Block, Luke is pretty much done adding, although he again makes about seven small insertions in the last part of Mark.

Two involve the story of Zacchaeus, and the parable of the Minas.

The third is the substitution of Mark's story of the Fig Tree with a Lamentation for Jerusalem. Of course the Fig Tree was the the national symbol of the Southern Kingdom of Judaea, and was actually minted on coins in Jesus' time.

Luke makes the dark and threatening prophecy concerning the "Fig Tree" explicit and understandable to non-Jews.

The last four minor insertions in the Passion Narrative involve a petty dispute between the apostles at the Last Supper, the ironic remark of Jesus to "buy a sword", Jesus' confrontation with Herod, and Jesus' final sermon on His way to the cross.


Luke's Omissions of Mark's material:

The sections of Mark on the left that Luke omits (in bright yellow) are equally understandable:

The omission of the Fig Tree is self-explanatory, when you see what Luke has put in its place.

The last three skipped items are:

The prophecy concerning False Prophets, which for non-Jewish readers may be unclear.

The Annointing at Bethany, which may have meaning (however controversial) for Jews, but is perhaps obscurantist for Gentiles.

Luke makes up for this omission with an 'annointing story' of his own (Luke 7:36-50), perhaps more useful from a Christian preacher's perspective.

Finally, Luke leaves out the short remark about the man who lost his clothes escaping the authorities and who fled naked.

Probably to save embarrassment for that apostle, or even just for decorum, Luke makes a sensible choice for his Gentile readers.

And that's the worst of it. All of it reasonable and understandable in view of Luke's purpose of producing a universal gospel for everyone.

Jewish elements that might be obscure are minimized and important supplimentary material is added.

 

[Nazaroo]

Is the relationship between Mark and Luke really that simple? Of course not.

Luke also makes about five slight rearrangments of his material.

Moved sections are in BLUE.
Lets have a look:


Minor Displacements in Luke:

Why does Luke move these five sections around?

Partly its to tell the story with a little more care to the sequential order of events, and make the story flow more sensibly.

The early Call of the Disciples is put in its context both historically and geographically (Mark 1:16-20 / Luke 5:1-11).

Luke places the general notice of many healings and exorcisms at the end of the Markan Block, to make a more suitable ending and better bridge between Mark's material and the 2nd Block of Lukan material about to be inserted. (Mark 3:7-12 / Luke 6:17-19)

The incident with Jesus' relatives (Mark 3:31-34 / Luke 8:19-21) is moved into a better context so that it may be contrasted with Jesus' amazing climate control (an ironic touch).

Jesus' teaching on divorce finds a place among other sayings from Luke's 3rd Block:
(Mark 10:1-12 / Luke's notice: Luke 16:14-18).

Peter's denial is moved slightly to make a more coherent storyline, and allow for some incoming supplimentary material (Jesus & Herod).

And that's the extent of the five small relocations of Markan material.

 

[Nazaroo]

There are also five sections which can be said to have been dislocated quite far from their original position.

These we have marked in red.

Passages Greatly Moved:

These again, aren't that numerous or surprising once examined.

The Dispute about Baalzebul (Mark 3:20-30)is moved into the new 3rd Block, which is a 'super-section' containing the core of Jesus' teaching and disputes. (Luke 10:1-18:14).

Likewise, Luke picks up the Leaven of the Pharisees (Mark 8:14-21), and even the Warnings (Mark 12:38-40) against the scribes (lawyers) who devour widow's houses.

The Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth (His home town is put back to the beginning of His Galilean ministry, probably where it belongs, Mark 6:1-6a / Luke 4:16-30)

And perhaps not so oddly, the elaborate and embarrassing recounting of the bad behaviour of the apostles in Mark 10:35-45 is toned down and placed (or replaced) with a story about them during the Last Supper.

That's all Luke dared to do to the gospel of Mark as he found it. Some editing was inevitable in the incorporation of three large blocks of material, but it appears that Luke did as little as possible to disturb the original order of Mark.

Equally important, Luke includes almost all of Mark, except for one problematic section, and a few anecdotes that have little relevance to Gentile Christians.

We have to take off our hats at Luke's restraint, and courage in producing for us a gospel that is universally recognized as superior to Mark on a number of fronts:

(1) It is a more complete account.

(2) It is infused with real understanding and explanatory power, where Mark is often obscure (now if someone could do that for Paul's letters!).

(3) It is tailored for Gentile Christians, and has a minimum of redundant or boring material for those readers.

(4) It is a virtual encyclopedia of Jesus' teachings, something that Mark is notably deficient in supplying.

(5) It is an inspired and reverent treatment of Mark, building upon what has been before, without in any way disparaging his predecessors.

Final Verdict: Luke is awesome!

Luke has given us an invaluable inspired and virtually complete and self-contained 'super-gospel'.

The only thing is, he leaves us wanting more. And of course Luke rises again to the challenge of meeting those needs, in his sequel, the Book of Acts.

Luke is not superhuman, let alone perfect. But he is one of the early Christian heroes, without which the Christian New Testament would be greatly impoverished.

 

[Nazaroo]

Having now hopefully a basic understanding of the components in this relationship, we can now put it all together to present the overview.

Naturally its a bit more messy than each part taken in isolation, but thats how you get down to the nuts and bolts. You have to pop the hood and take a look.

If our readers have followed this thread so far, they should be able to look at the big picture with some real understanding of the relation between Luke and Mark:


Mark and Luke: Overview

Next, Lord willing, we'll tackle either Matthew or John.

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[JohnDB]

Some of the displacing of the order of events (all contain some unchronological events linked together) is due to the themes of coordinating and contrasting stories that were told. These tales together along with place and time of their telling as well as the culture of the day thrown in make the strings of stories understandable...and that the audience of the intended books also makes some of the manner in which the tales were told understandable.

Mark was Peter's cousin and was asked by someone to write the stories that Peter told. Some of the things like the sermons were told exactly the same as they were easily rememberable. The Sermon on the Mount doesn't appear to be very rememberable in Greek at all but in Aramaic it is a poem and completely lyrical in nature. That would make it rememberable...ever have a song stuck in your head? This sermon stuck and stuck well...of course it is going to be remembered and retold in exactly the same fashion. Jesus often spoke in ryhme and verse.

Luke however likely talked to many people to get the gospel account that he did...he said he spoke to many reliable witnesses...one of which was likely Mary, the mother of Jesus...he has the story of boy Jesus in the Temple with the Rabbis discussing things. Mark likely wouldn't neccesarily know this story...Luke must have been associating with the group of believers in Jerusalem and later traveled with Paul. Luke wrote to an audience of Greeks that wouldn't neccesarily understand or view some of the incidents in the same fashion as a person of Jewish heritage would.

A prime example of this is the tale about the Faith of the Centurion. IN that story we see that Jesus did not talk directly to the Centurion but only to a messenger of the Centurion. A true Greek citizen would know already that the Rabbis did not speak to "gentiles" as it would make them ceremonially unclean. IN this tale we see that in the other Gospel account of this it is written and almost believed that Jesus spoke directly, face to face, with this gentile. That idiom of speech was understood by a Jewish audience but not by the Roman/Greek society.

I like the "disharmony" of the Gospels...in how they are different explains much more than the original stories do in and of themselves. The sending of the 12 has something different in Mark than Luke and Matthew due to the perspective of Peter in the telling...(the staff carrying was symbolic of leadership).

 

[Nazaroo]

Right about now, we are probably going to get some objections from both sides on our presentation.


Objections from Synoptic scholars

On the one hand, scholars are going to object that we haven't examined the details of Luke's treatment of Mark (or vise versa), which provide critical (and perhaps conflicting) evidence, and paint a much more complex picture of how these books were composed. Furthermore, they will object that we haven't taken into account the other gospels, which, depending upon where they are placed chronologically, in a 'dependance' tree, might have more to say on who copied what and when.


Objections from Fundamentalist Believers

On the other hand, our Christian brothers and sisters are going to demand some sort of explanation of how Divine Inspiration, Preservation, and Biblical Inerrancy are supposed to fit into this picture.

Since those who are first will be last, and those last first, we will deal with scholarly objections first (hoping they will end up last! - a small joke).


Scholarly Objections Discussed

Have we really adequately and fully explained the relationship between Mark and Luke?

Of course not.

To do so would require a minute analysis of both gospels (and indeed all the others etc.) section by section, and verse by verse.

But we have not here 'glossed over' the details. We have simply taken on the more modest goal of presenting the basic outline of correspondence and positioning of the main sections of each gospel.

A complete analysis would take 20 volumes of discussion, and a lifetime to compose.

But there is a much more reasonable objection which can be addressed in the here and now:


Who Copied Who

How do we know that Luke copied Mark, and not vice versa (the other way round)?​

This is a fair question, and one that we can apply some evidence and arguments to.

Along with the two possible scenarios, we also have two possible motivations and purposes to explain:

(1) If Luke copied Mark: In this case, we can easily account for Luke's purpose, because he has important new material, namely a collection of Jesus' teachings to incorporate into Mark and share. As well, it is an opportunity to make the gospel more universal and useful to non-Jewish Christians and potential converts.​

(2) If Mark copied Luke: What possible motive could Mark have for deleting twelve whole chapters of Luke? Well, we could suppose he wanted to produce a "Reader's Digest" version of the gospel, a kind of "Luke for Dummies". ​

But against this idea of Mark stripping down Luke into a kind of newspaper synopsis are the following facts:

(a) Mark's version of each incident is usually bloated with unimportant incidental details that add little to the story. If Mark's goal was to shorten Luke, it would counter-productive to expand every remaining section to make it longer, without any new insight or even improvement in sense. On the other hand, Luke appears to have cleaned up Mark's diction immensely, deleting the irrelevant and making for an efficient telling of the story. Where Luke does add glosses (i.e., Luke adds 19:14, 22, 27 to the Parable of the Minas/Talents: Luke 19:11-27 = Matt. 25:14-30) they are plainly explanatory. Mark just appears wordy.​

(b) Most of the deletions, substitutions and insertions in Luke have simple explanations if Luke copied Mark. But it would be difficult to explain why Mark would remove the milder dispute at the Last Supper (Luke 22:24-30) and replace it with the harsh bickering over princely thrones (Mark 10:35-45), or why Mark would delete the 2nd Lamentation of Jesus (Luke 19:41-44) and replace it with the cryptic Fig Tree lesson (Mark 11:12-14, 20-26). ​

(c) Luke tells us he is fully aware of those who have written previous accounts, and about his goal of making a more complete account. Since the evidence from Mark also fully supports Luke's claims, it is the obvious, most reasonable interpretation of the facts. Luke used something that looks almost identical to Mark as a base, and we might as well admit it was in fact Mark that Luke used.​

These considerations are equally convincing for believers and unbelievers, scholars and fundamentalists. That is why a majority of scholars believe Mark came first, not Luke.

It makes no sense to insist that Mark copied and mutilated Luke, and besides flying in the face of the plain evidence, it cannot be a satisfactory position to take for fundamentalists either, since it would paint Mark as either an idiot or a vicious satirist intent on spoofing or attacking the gospel of Luke.

Common sense, scholarship, and faith work together to support our view that Mark came first, and Luke used him reverently as a basis for his own gospel.

EDIT:
Mr. Scrivener has turned the first page of posts here into an html file, and created a special section on our website which will relate the Synoptic Problem to the question of the Authenticity of John 8:1-11. You can download a more convenient form of the material there:

Part I: Mark and Luke <-- Click Here.

 

[Nazaroo]

Yuri on TC-Alt List has offered a couple of links to fill out the question of Markan Priority and the relationship of Luke to other gospels.

(He himself holds out for the priority of Luke, but the reader can judge for themselves the grounds for his position here:

Yuri Kuchinsky on Lukan Priority <-- Click Here.

Vincent Sapone offers a good discussion on Mark here:

Vincent Sapone on Mark <--- Click Here.

_____________________


Also, at the Synoptic Problem Website Stephen Carlson offers a Synoptic FAQ page.

Peter Kirby gives a good discussion of the argument for Markan Priority here:

Peter Kirby on Markan Priority <-- Click here.

On the exact version of Mark available to Luke, Koester's summary argument for a 'proto-Mark' can be consulted here:

Koester on Proto-Mark <-- Click Here.

Stephen Carlson's summary of the argument for Markan Priority is probably the best all around brief explanation:

S. Carlson on Markan Priority <-- Click Here.

We will look at Carlson's evidence, and add two more previously unconsidered points to it:

Priority of Mark

The contemporary argument for the priority of Mark is cumulative. It rests not on the strength of any one argument but on the cumulation of many arguments. (Stein 1987: 88; Tuckett 1992: 264) These arguments supporting Markan priority include:

1. Argument from Omission. Easier to see certain material (infancy accounts, Sermon on the Mount) being added to Mark by Matthew and Luke than Mark's omitting them from Matthew and Luke. (Stein 1987: 48-49; Tuckett 1992: 264)
2. Argument from Length. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's compressing the text of Mark to add their own material rather than Mark's abridging the content and expanding the words of one or both of the others. (Stein 1987: 49-51; Tuckett 1992: 264)
3. Argument from Diction. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's improving Mark's colloquialisms in vocabulary rather than Mark's intentionally or incompetently being less literary. (Stein 1987: 52-53)
4. Argument from Grammar. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's improving Mark's grammar rather than Mark's "dumbing down" one or both of the others. (Stein 1987: 54)
5. Argument from Aramaic Expressions. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's removal of Aramaicisms for their Greek-speaking audience than Mark's addition of them to his source(s). (Stein 1987: 55-58)
6. Argument from Redundancy. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's eliminating Mark's redundancies. (Stein 1987: 58-62; Tuckett 1992: 267)
7. Argument from Difficulty. Easier to see both Matthew's and Luke's modifying certain "harder readings" of Mark rather than vice versa. (Stein 1987: 62-67; Tuckett 1992: 265-66)
8. Argument from Order. Easier to understand reasons for the specific divergences of Matthew's and Luke's order from that of Mark's than vice versa. (Tuckett 1992: 264-65)
9. Argument from Literary Agreements. Easier to explain how Matthew and Luke seem to occasionally refer to omitted explanatory material in Mark. (Stein 1987: 70-76)
10. Argument from Redaction. Easier to see Matthew's adding his theological emphases than Mark's removing them. (Stein 1987: 77-81) Easier to account for an uneven distribution of Mark's stylistic features in Matthew. (Stein 1987: 81-83)
11. Argument from Theology. Easier to see Matthew's and Luke's more frequent use of "Lord" being later developed than Mark's one use. (Stein 1987: 84-86)

The two additional points of evidence are these:

12. The blatant evidence of "block-copying" of Mark by Luke, which unmistakably shows that Luke is using Mark, and not Matthew for his backbone. Reversing this (Mark block-copies Luke) would give Mark an absurd agenda (eliminating the Nativity, majority of parables, and especially the entire social Gospel carefully provided by Luke, while adding some redundant miracles [feeding 4000 etc.]).

13. The fact that in spite of using Mark, Luke also reproduces 95% of Matthew in some form or other, allowing for some programmed substitutions. This can really only be explained by positing that the Greek Matthew as we have it is based on Luke, and not vice versa. We will examine the details of this argument later.

When all these arguments are considered, and the only seriously proposed alternative is the Priority of Matthew, we can see why Markan Priority is considered well established.

The evidence for Priority of Matthew is all 'external' that is, vague historical testimonies and claims by early Christian fathers and other writers. However, some of this evidence cannot be shown to unambiguously support the version of Matthew that we have now in Greek.

It is easy to suppose a Hebrew (or Aramaic) "Matthew" with much of the content of the Greek Matthew, that would make sense of the early testimony about a 'Hebrew Matthew' without needing to assume that such a document is identical to Greek Matthew.

On the contrary, it appears that the Greek Matthew (our canonical Matthew) is based on Luke, in spite of some minor 'counter-evidence' .

Although placing Matthew last in the chain also creates some problems concerning Matthew's agenda, these have plausible motivations in terms of the historical situation, and more importantly, the relative priority of Matthew to Luke does not affect the case for Markan priority.

Finally, although Matthew's purposes are problematic, there are counter considerations that make Matthew's actions plausible and justifiable. There would be no convincing purpose or need that we could assign for Mark if we placed him after Luke.

Looked at another way, the same reasons by which we could explain Mark would also explain Matthew. If Mark were producing a 'less controversial' gospel in terms of Luke's "social gospel", then we should assign the same purpose to Matthew, and more convincingly. If Mark were producing a "Reader's Digest" gospel out of Matthew or Luke, then he did a lousy job of it, making a bloated and de-focussed account out of something grand (Matt. or Luke).

Thus putting Mark last does not 'save' Matthew from the same charges of 'editing out the social gospel', or make more convincing Matthean Priority. If Mark did so, then all the more reason to believe Matthew would have similar motives.


Mark --> Luke --> Matthew.

But there is a better solution available, that does not strain credulity, and which takes into account new internal evidence regarding the dependancy of (Greek) Matthew upon Luke.

This leaves all three gospel writers addressing real historical needs, and leaves their motivations and integrity more or less intact.

Luke copied Mark, incorporating new and important material and a uniquely high vision of the gospel, based upon his experience with the early Church (the social gospel is experienced, learned, and shared!).

Matthew copied Luke, rearranging the material for his vision of Jesus as the new 'Moses', editing it for public worship, avoiding potential clashes with Roman and Jewish authorities. Matthew also forges together the previous visions of James and Paul to provide a new unity of vision for the Church, and avoid heresy and schism.

We will examine these details shortly.


In both cases, real needs were addressed and a new vision was granted the early Church.

Luke shows us how to apply the Gospel of Love in real terms as a social gospel. He takes the experience of love in the early church and its manifestation as personal responsibility to one's brother/neighbour and the poor, and carries it to the whole world.

Matthew shows us how to understand Jesus as the Prophet that Moses foresaw, and how the Law (Torah) can be amplified and honoured, by melding together Jesus, Paul and James, removing the main stumbling-block to the Gospel for Jews of the diaspora, and ending petty disputes within the Church.

 

[Steve Petersen]

John seems to be later than the others and contains elements of proto-gnosticism.

In John, Jesus message 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand' is missing. It is present in the other three gospels.

Also, John contains no parables.

 

[Nazaroo]

John seems to be later than the others and contains elements of proto-gnosticism.

In John, Jesus message 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand' is missing. It is present in the other three gospels.

Also, John contains no parables.

John is an interesting case, but we will have to discuss John last. Your points are good, but not adequate to establish the date of composition relative to the synoptics. We will get to it when we discuss John 8:1-11.

Matthew also uses Mark as a Base


In analyzing Matthew, we find a very similar, and even simpler situation:

Matthew also uses Mark as a base, breaks it up into relatively few pieces, and inserts his material in bulk in three large blocks (in slightly different places than Luke inserts his).

In addition however, Matthew also inserts several small sections each made up of four parables or pericopes.


The phenomonon of 'block-copying' again indicates either one or the other of the Evangelists directly used the other, in a very simple and straightforward manner.

Once again, however, we can be fairly confident about the direction of the dependance, because many of the same arguments and evidence that explain Luke also apply to Matthew.

The main argument is that it is obvious what Matthew's purpose is in expanding Mark, but there is no adequate explanation for what Mark would have had to have done if he wrote after Matthew, and used him as a base.

We have also shown the section that Luke omitted in making his own outline. It is clear from Matthew's result that he knew of this section and treated it like every other section of Mark.

Although Matthew makes some insertions and does some minor editing to the section, his method here is no different than his treatment of the rest of Mark. This clearly indicates that Matthew found the section in its normal place.


Matthew Uses the Lukan Blueprint

One thing rather apparent, is that Matthew and Luke both use the same basic approach. Each inserts 3 large blocks of material, but keep the Markan material more or less together, and use it to form the backbone of their gospels. This is why both Luke and Matthew agree strongly with Mark's order of events, even though they differ drastically between themselves (we will see this later when we compare Matthew and Luke).

Matthew makes some modifications to Luke's plan however. He places the Genealogy at the beginning, in his First Block. This is an organizational choice, since its not part of the chronology.

Matthew's First Block is also a set of Nativity stories, however, there is no real overlap. This Nativity theme is no coincidence however, and shows an awareness of Luke's comparable section. Clearly both Luke and Matthew are meeting a real need, that is inquiries about the origin of Jesus. At the same time, Matthew is not replacing or superceding Luke's account, but supplimenting and expanding it. Right from the start then, there is strong evidence that one of the two knows the other, and that their goals are not competing, exclusive, or incompatible.

Matthew also inserts his Second Block (The Sermon on the Mount, Matt. ch. 5 - 7) closer to the beginning of Jesus' ministry, and has enlarged Luke's original "Sermon on the Plain" (Luke 6:20-49) significantly.

Whether one regards these as two separate literal events, or literary 'versions' of the same essential event, it is clear that Matthew knows of Luke's version, and intends his own as an 'alternate' super-sermon, meant to capture a large essence of Jesus' teaching, and perform the same function as Luke's speech does in Luke. There are significant differences in Matthew's expansion, but interestingly, a large part of Matthew's added material is actually drawn from other parts of Luke.

Matthew's Third Section is likewise a large body of Teaching from Jesus, and drawn at least in part from either Luke or the same source that Luke used (Some have called this hypothetical source "Q").

Everything we see in Matthew is consistent with his awareness of both Mark and Luke, and his respect for both previous evangelists. The key observations here are that Matthew 'semi-independantly' uses Mark as a base just like Luke does. Both Luke and Matthew expand Mark with important supplimental material (much of it the same, or similar), and at least one of them shows an awareness of the other's methods. Finally, Luke and Matthew are not simple competators, but probably Luke is unaware of Matthew, while Matthew does not intend to directly supercede Luke's gospel.

Instead, Matthew gives both Mark and Luke respect, using one as a basic outline, and the other as a methodological blueprint.

 

[Nazaroo]

We can see the basic plan by just looking at pericopes that Matthew copies straight over (again represented by straight black lines).

Matthew appears to use less of Mark than Luke, but in fact a few sections of Mark have been moved to other locations. Other sections have been replaced by suitable substitutions. (see below).

 

[Nazaroo]

Next we can look at those sections in Mark that Matthew omits (in yellow), and the new sections that Matthew adds (in bright green).

Matthew does make many more substitutions and additions than Luke, another indication of a continuing process in gospel metamorphosis.

Again as in Luke's case, a great many of these substitutions are easily understood as retellings, summaries, and generalizations meant to give a better overview of Jesus' ministry.

The demon cast out in Mark 1:21-28 is replaced with a general description of such incidents in Matthew 4:23-25. This makes for a better summary of events leading up to the next section, the Sermon on the Mount.

A leper's cleansing (Mark 1:40-45) and healing for a Centurion's servant (Luke 7:1-10) is grouped and used as an intro to the next section of events and miracles. At the same time, the Lukan story is adjusted to remove a potential controversy.

A pep-talk on the cost of discipleship is inserted (Matt. 8:18-22), and combined with Jesus' controlling the weather and the healing of the demon-possessed man.

The reference to "LEGION" is quietly removed, to avoid any dangerous allegorical interpretation of the incident that would apply it to the Roman Occupation of Palestine (Matt. 8:27-31 compare the original: Mark 5:1-20...)

The dispute over the shewbread, which involves difficulties for disputing with Jews is dropped (Mark 2:23-28), perhaps due to Jewish polemics.

Another particular healing is dropped (Mark 3:1-6). Matthew prefers summaries and generalizations for these incidents. In its place he inserts a quick note of two blind-man healings.

Matthew expands the call of the Twelve Apostles (Mark 3:13-19) and uses it as a starting-point for his large Third Block of material (Matt. 10:1-12:42).

Further down he begins inserting a few Parables and discussions:

Parable of "Wheat & Weeds" - Matt. 13:24-29
Parable of the Leaven Matt. 13:33
​

and finally a block of four:

Parable of Wheat & Weeds explained (Matt. 13:36-43)
Parable of Hidden Treasure (Matt. 13:44)
Parable of Pearl of Great Price (Matt. 13:45-46)
Parable of the Dragnet (Matt. 13:47-52)
​

This uniquely Matthean material seems rather less exciting and of a different quality than the parables of Luke, and probably indicate something of Matthew's unique talent and viewpoint.

Although Matthew reproduces the remarkable 'Lukan Omission' (Mark 6:45-8:25), he edits it and injects it with some uniquely Matthean material (another explanation of the 'Wheat & Weeds? - Matt. 15:12-13) and a reference to the 'blind leading the blind' (Matt. 15:14 - John 9?)

Matthew also injects some teaching on fasting (Matt. 17:19-21), and a remarkable story about Jesus paying taxes! (Matt. 17:24-26). This appears to be early apologetic material and church teaching.

Then follows another block of four parables/teachings (Matt. 18:10-19:2)

Parable of the Lost Sheep (Matt. 18:10-14 = John 10:1-14?)
Dealing with a Sinning Brother (Matt. 18:15-20, from Paul?)
Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matt. 18:21-35, cf. Luke 12:57-59)
A Multitude Healed (6th time! Matt. 19:1-2)
​

Again, what appears to be a later church teaching on celibacy is inserted by Matthew (Matt. 19:11-12), which appears to be apologetic in purpose.

The Parable of the Vineyard Workers (Equal Pay question) (Matt. 20:1-16) is another story apparently motivated by church issues.

The Fig Tree story is retained but generalized and simplified (Matt. 21:18:22)

Then follows the parable of the Two Sons (Matt. 21:28-32) and the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matt. 22:1-14), which appears to be a toned-down version of Luke's Parable of the Great Supper (Luke 14:15-24).

Matthew substitutes a Lamentation over Jerusalem (from Luke 19:41-44?) for the important story of the Widow's Penny (Mark 12:41-44) a clear piece of evidence that Matthew is systematically avoiding all of the Social Gospel material.

We will see later that Matthew deletes almost all the Social gospel material entirely, and its not simply because he 'didn't know of Luke's Gospel'. Examples like that above show Matthew knows Luke's material quite well, but deliberately removes it.

The reason is probably not because he is hostile to this teaching, but that his purpose is to compose a gospel for Public Reading that will pass the scrutiny of non-Christian listeners and spies.

Matthew also inserts another four parables, and this pattern seems to indicate he has a document containing a list of perhaps a dozen, that are all unique to his sources, or composed by himself.

Parable of the Faithful and Bad Servants (Matt. 24:45-51)
Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)
Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30)
Parable of the Sheep & Goats (Matt. 25:31-46)
​

Matthew also adds the story about the guards appointed over Jesus' grave, and the bribery by the Jewish authorities. (Matt. 27:62-66, 28:11-15).

Matthew skips the story of the young man fleeing naked (Mark 14:51-52), following the example of Luke.

For the rest, Matthew mostly inserts short glosses and makes minor improvements to the grammar and diction of Mark, but otherwise follows Mark rather closely in the sections where he relies upon Mark.

 

[Nazaroo]

Next, we can look at the sections that Matthew rearranges. He does less shuffling than Luke does, and so we can put both minor and major dislocations on the same chart.
This again indicates that Matthew is relying directly upon Mark rather than indirectly through Luke, for these sections, even though in his non-Markan sections he appears heavily dependant upon Luke in most cases.


There are a total of only five significant dislocations:

(1) Matthew pulls back the healing of the leper (Mark 1:40-45) to Matt. 8:1-4, to serve as an intro to his following section.

(2) He pulls back the Wind & Waves (Mk 4:35-41) to Matt. 8:23-27 and

(3) The Exorcism of "Legion" (Mk 5:1-20) to Matt. 8:27-31.

(4) The Bleeding Woman & Jairus' Daughter Raised (Mk 5:21-43) are also pulled back to Matt. 8:18:26.

(5) The Sending of the Disciples (Mk 6:6b-13) is combined with the Calling of the Twelve in Matt. 10:1-5a.

Matthew rearranges the Markan material very little, partly because there is no need. The bulk of the large dislocations in Matthew are really a rearrangement of Luke's material (mostly sayings and parables) and that is Matthew's real agenda.

 

[Nazaroo]

For comparison purposes, we can add a box around the section that Luke (see previous posts on last page) omitted when copying Mark.

It can be seen that Matthew treats this section no differently than he treats every other section of Mark. This suggests that the section was found in the copy of Mark that Matthew used in composing his gospel.

If so, this would place the composition of Matthew somewhat later than Luke, as expected.

We will look at the evidence for relative dating between Luke and Matthew later, when we compare the two.

Here is our final chart for Mark / Matthew:

 

[Nazaroo]

We have added the 2nd page, on Mark and Matthew to the Synoptics section of our site:

Synoptics & John 8:1-11 <--Click Here

Mark and Matthew <-- Click Here.

Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[FreezBee]

Very nice analysis, Nazaroo -- unfortunately I don't have the time right now for a closer inspection, but it does look good this far

- FreezBee

 

[Nazaroo]

The Synoptic Charts we have been using so far cannot show all the linguistic details that a section by section comparison can.

However, these Synoptic Charts are ideal for quickly and easily presenting the facts regarding both the basic content by section, and also the phenomena of the order of sections themselves. Lastly, the charts make clear just how strong the evidence for 'block-copying' between the evangelists is.

Remarkably, if we simply compare Luke to Matthew, and attempt to understand the alterations in the order of materials, we will quickly become dismayed. Even though Luke and Matthew virtually duplicate one another's material (even showing relationships in their substitution of materials), a one-to-one correspondance between them will quickly begin to look like spagetti, or the inside of a Bell telephone exchange.

Yet when Mark is admitted as the base used for both Luke and Matthew, it is stunning just how simple and organized the basic procedures of each later evangelist was.

(We will comment and explain the differences in order of materials between Luke and Matthew shortly).

First lets have a look at the block-copying between the Synoptics:

The method of Matthew is even simpler than Luke (Matthew appears less creative, both in his organization of materials, and in his own special and unique sections.)

Yet is is obvious that both Luke and Matthew had a very similar plan, and one must have known of the other's method and agreed to use the same basic template.