New Testament Study Helps:     John's Gospel

John's Gospel

1. Characteristics

a. The Place of the Old Testament. So much emphasis has been placed on Hellenistic influences on John's gospel that the part played by Old testament ideas has not always been fully realized. There is much which bears on Jewish history. The gospel shows that Jesus was a part of that history, and that the Jews, in rejecting Christ, were rejecting the One who belonged to them (1:11). When he came to the Temple, he claimed a rightful authority over it (2:16). He charged his hearers with searching Scripture and yet not recognizing that it testified to him (5:39). He maintained that those who believed Moses would believe him (5:45f), implying that there was a clear continuity between them. As in Matthew the entry into Jerusalem on a donkey is viewed as a fulfillment of Old testament prophecy (12:14), while the unbelief of the Jews is illustrated from Isaiah (12:38-39). John alone records that at the crucifixion Jesus' legs were not broken, as a fulfillment of Scripture, and in this case the inviolability of Scripture is stressed. In John's gospel Jesus many times refers to Old testament figures, particularly Abraham. Appeal to Abrahamic descent forms the theme of the dialogue in chapter 8, reaching its climax in the claim that Abraham saw Christ's day (8:56). Nothing could express more clearly that there was a direct continuity between the Old and the New.

b. Teaching on the Spirit. There is more of the Lord's teaching about the Spirit in John's gospel than in any other. In the Nicodemus discourse, the work of the Spirit in regeneration is clearly brought out (chap 3). Jesus insists on the spiritual nature of God (4:24), which requires a spiritual method of worship. This was a definite advance on the limited conception of Judaism. The Spirit of God was promised after the glorification of Jesus (7:39), when he would come as streams of refreshing water on those who believe in Christ. It is in the farewell discourses (14 - 16) that the fullest exposition of the Spirit's work is found. His names, Paraclete and Spirit of Truth, reveal his character, the former meaning Counselor or Advocate or Comforter. 14:16-17 shows him as representative of Christ indwelling the believer. In 14:26 Jesus assures his disciples that the Holy Spirit will teach all things, recalling to their minds what Jesus had said. He will be a witness to Christ, which is to be his main function (15:26; 16:14). He is the one who will convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (16:8-11) and who will guide his own people into all truth (16:13). It is evident that on the eve of his death Jesus' thoughts were much concentrated on the Spirit's work, but John's gospel alone focuses attention upon this.

c. Prevalence of Great Themes. Unlike the teaching in the synoptics, the teaching in John tends to present abstract themes such as light, life, love, truth, abiding, which recur at intervals throughout the book. Some of these occur in the Prologue (1:1-18) which may be regarded as introductory to the whole, giving some indication of the type of themes to be presented in the following discourses.

d. Comparative Lack of Movement. It is often noted that John's record tends to be static, although this is largely due to the amount of discourse material he presents. The proportion of narrative to discourse is much less in this gospel than in the synoptics. John seems not concerned in movements but rather concentrates on their significance. This characteristic of John's Gospel emphasizes the weakness of attempting to regard the book as in any sense biographical. This absorbing interest in discourse material gives a particular coloring to the gospel as a whole.

e. The Portrait of Jesus. The title Son of man is less frequent in John than the other gospels, although where it does occur it is significant (eg: 1:51; 3:13-14). More often the title Son of God is used, or else the unqualified "Son". There is much stress on the filial relationship of Jesus to God and its significance for his relationship to believers. More on the inner consciousness of Jesus is revealed in this gospel than in the others and this reaches its climax in chapter 17, where he prays aloud. It is this special portrait of Jesus which is deeply impressive and makes the reader realize that the Person of Christ is beyond comprehension in its depths. Itis easier to trace the messianic idea in John than in the other three gospels. Right from its commencement Christ's Messianic office is recognized by some of his disciples (1:41). At an early stage it is also recognized by the Samaritan woman following a direct claim by Jesus that he is the Messiah (chap 4). Perhaps the most characteristic feature in John's gospel regarding the Person of Christ is the Logos doctrine which serves as an introduction to his gospel. It is evident that the Jesus to be presented in the body of the gospel is first portrayed as not only pre-existent but as possessing the nature of God himself.

2. Authorship

a. Personal allusions in the Gospel. In the Prologue of the gospel the author states "We have seen his glory" (1:14) and it is natural to suppose that this is an indication of eyewitnesses among whom the author is himself included. This interpretation is conformed by 1 John 1:1-4 where the first person plural performs a similar function. In 19:35 the author writes, "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true". The immediate context is the piercing of the Lord's side. The remaining passage is 21:24-25, which states, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true".

b. Palestinian Background. 1. Knowledge of the Jewish Customs.

Several times in the course of the gospel, the writer displays accurate and detailed knowledge of Jewish life in the period before the fall of Jerusalem. He knows about Jewish ritual scruples, as is palin from 2:6 (purification rites); 7:37; 8:12 (libation and illumination ritual at the feast of Tabernacles), and 18:28; 19:31-42 (pollution regulations regarding the Passover). He mentions several Jewish feasts and is acquainted with specific Jewish doctrines, as for instance, the inferiority of women (4:27), the laws concerning the Sabbath (5:10; 7:21-23; 9:14ff), and the ideas of hereditary sin (9:2).

2. Knowledge of Jewish History. The author possessed detailed knowledge about the time taken to build up the temple up to the time of Jesus' cleansing of

it, and as far as can be ascertained, his knowledge appears to be accurate. He is aware of the political attitudes of the Jewish people seen especially in the hatred of Samaritans (4:9). He knows of the Palestinian contempt for Jews of the Dispersion (7:35).

3. Knowledge of Palestinian Geography. The writer has clearly had first-hand acquaintance with Jerusalem. He knows the Hebrew name of a pool near the Sheep gate and knows that it has five porches. This detail was amazingly confirmed by excavations near the temple. He knows the Hebrew name of a paved area outside the Praetorium, another detail confirmed by archaeological discovery near the tower of Antonia. On numerous occasions topographical details are given in this gospel, sometimes in narratives where the synoptic gospels lack them.

c. Various Propositions Regarding Authorship.1. The Apostle John.

As has been seen, this is the traditional view, which has much support for it in internal evidence. It may be said that there is no evidence which conclusively disproves it, in spite of much opposition to it. A modification of this view is that the Apostle John was the witness and someone else was the author. A parallel to this solution may be found in the traditional relationship between Pater and Mark in the production of the second gospel. There is no fundamental objection to this approach, but it does involve a rather broad interpretation of what the author means by "writing" in 21:24.

2. John of Jerusalem. The existence of a John of Jerusalem was proposed by H. Delff. In this view the John of the tradition was this Jerusalem John who later became influential among the Asiatic churches. He was trained in rabbinism and was present at the last supper. However, no external evidence of any kind exists for such a person.

3. Non-Johannine Theories. Several hypotheses have been suggested which ignore the name John altogether.

i. John the Elder. A famous statement made by Papias has given rise to a widespread conviction among many scholars that there was another John who has associations with Ephesus and had some connection with the production of the fourth gospel. According to this view, John the elder became mixed up in the tradition with John the apostle. However, if it be granted that an elder John did exist, Papias gives no information regarding his location, nor does he give any hint of his literary ability. In fact, even if this elder's presence can be established within history due to Papias' ambiguous reference, there is no reason to believe that his pen could have produced the fourth gospel. The only tenuous connection is that he happens to possess the same name as that to which the fourth gospel was traditionally ascribed. And if the later Christian church thus mixed up the apostle and the elder, might not Papias have done the same, which in turn destroys the possibility of the existence of such an Elder John?

3. Purpose

a. The Author's Own Statement. John says "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (20:31). It is clear from this statement that the primary aim was to encourage faith. This must mean that the work was designed as an evangelistic instrument.

b. The View that John was Combating Gnosticism. This view is naturally closely tied to a near second-century dating for the gospel, when the movements generally classified as Gnosticism were flourishing. The particular form of Gnosticism which John is claimed to be combating is Docetism which maintained that Christ could never have been contaminated by the world which was essentially evil. This meant that Christ did not really become flesh. It may have seemed as if he had, but any contact with matter would have defiled him. Hence, he could not suffer, and it was not he who was nailed to the cross. His purpose was revelatory not redemptive. It is not difficult to see that John's Gospel would be a very useful instrument in combating this kind of error, for he places much stress on the truly human character of the incarnation and passion. He depicts Jesus as being tired and thirsty (4:6-7), as weeping at Lazarus' grave (11:35), as expressing thirst while on the cross (19:28), and possessing a real body from which flows blood (19:34).

4. Dating

Various suggestions have risen regarding the dating of John's Gospel, ranging from before the fall of Jerusalem to as late as the last quarter of the second century. The more extreme theories have since then been rejected and the majority of scholars are inclined to accept a date somewhere between 90 and 110 AD. The earliest certain evidence for the circulation of the gospel is found in the Rylands Papyrus 457, which is recognized as an early second-century manuscript. This is proof of the existence of the gospel at an early date and has, together with the Egerton Papyrus 2, effectively silenced the earlier radical dating of the gospel late in the second century.

Source: http://www.theologywebsite.com/nt/john.shtml

The Shape of the Gospel Story:The Synoptic Gospels

Dennis Bratcher

The Gospels of the New Testament tell us about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They tell us about Jesus’ birth, teachings, miracles, journeys, struggles, confrontations with religious leaders, as well as about his suffering, execution, and appearances after his resurrection. Since

the story is so familiar to many it is easy to assume that the Gospels all tell the same story in the same way. It is true that they are telling the same story. But the way they tell it is considerably different.

A closer examination of the Gospels reveals that each of the Gospels was written in a particular style with a great deal of freedom in what was selected to include or exclude and how what is included is presented. The first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke share more with each other in terms of material and arrangement of the material than they share with the Gospel of John. It is this general similarity between the first three Gospels even in light of their differences that has given them the name Synoptic Gospels (synoptic = "seeing together"). The content and structure of John’s Gospel is so different from these three that it is usually studied separately from the Synoptic Gospels (see Introduction to the Gospel of John).

A careful examination of the structure of the Synoptic Gospels reveals that even though they follow a similar structure of events (compared to John), there are differences, sometimes substantial differences, in the order in which material is placed. For example, the first five chapters of Mark contain material that is also recounted in Matthew and Luke. While Luke roughly follows the order of Mark, Matthew organizes that material in significantly different ways.

Mark Matthew Luke

1:21-45 7:28-8:15 4:31-5:16

2:1-22 9:1-17 5:17-39

2:23-3:12 12:1-16 6:1-6:11, 17-19

3:13-19 10:1-4 6:12-16

3:20-35 12:22-37 6:43-45

4:1-34 13:1-34 8:4-18

4:35-5:20 8:18-34 8:22-39

5:21-43 9:18-26 8:40-56

Biblical scholars have concluded that these differences between the Synoptic Gospels that include not only content and arrangement, but also chronology, significant themes, and theological motifs point to each Gospel having its own particular theological emphasis. Each Gospel was likely written for a different community (or communities) of Faith at a different time and location to bring the Gospel witness to bear on the needs of that particular community. The Gospel writers selectively edited and arranged the diverse traditions about Jesus that were widespread in the early church (Luke 1:1-3; cf. John 21:25) to emphasize different aspects of his life and teachings. That suggests that each Gospel has its own unique literary history as well as shares a great deal of the Jesus tradition with the others (see The Synoptic Problem).

In spite of their many differences, the Synoptic Gospels do share a similar outline in how the storyline unfolds. While each Gospel gives the story a particular personality, the Synoptics together share a general shape in recounting the events and significance of Jesus. We can see that shape in eight basic movements to the story. However, we have to keep in mind that these are divisions that help our modern minds follow the story and are really artificial and arbitrary in terms of the narrative itself.

(Note: Mark is listed first because it is the simplest version of the narrative, which most biblical scholars consider to be the first Gospel written).

1. Introduction

Mk 1:1 Mt 1:1-2:23 Lk 1:1-2:52

The Synoptics differ widely in how they begin the Gospel narratives.

Mark has only a one verse introduction that provides no information beyond labeling the Gospel a "beginning" (1:1)

Matthew’s two chapters include an introductory genealogy (1:1-17), Joseph’s dream about accepting Mary (1:18-25), the visit of the Magi (2:1-12), the flight of the family to Egypt (2:13-15), Herod’s murder of the infants in Bethlehem (2:16-18), and the family’s return to Nazareth (2:19-23).

Luke begins a much longer two chapter account with a four-verse dedication to Theophilus (1:1-4). He then tells us of Zachariah’s encounter with an angel in the temple (1:5-23), the conception of John the Baptist (1:24-25), the Annunciation of Jesus’ birth to Mary 1:26-38), the visit of Mary with Elizabeth climaxing with Mary’s song The Magnificat (1:39-56), the birth of John the Baptist and Zechariah’s response in the Benedictus (1:57-79), the birth of Jesus in a stable (2:1-7), the visit of the shepherds (2:8-20), the circumcision of Jesus and his presentation in the temple (2:21-24), the prophecies of Simeon and Anna (2:25-38), and the account of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (2:41-52).

2. Beginning of Jesus Ministry

Mk 1:2-13 Mt 3:1-4:11 Lk 3:1-4:13

The beginning of Jesus’ ministry is very similar in all three Synoptics. All include stories of John the Baptist, Jesus’ baptism, and his temptation, although they differ in specific content and arrangement.

Mark is typically much shorter taking only seven verses for John the Baptist (1:2-8), three verses for Jesus’ baptism (1:9-11), and presenting the Temptation narrative in only two verses (1:12-13), omitting any details of what the temptations were.

Matthew expands the account of John the Baptist, telling us about his appearance as well as the content of his message (3:1-12). Matthew adds the deference of John to Jesus at the baptism (3:14-15). Matthew also expands the temptation narrative to include the nature of the three temptations with biblical quotations by Jesus (4:1-11).

Luke follows Matthew closely here but adds historical details, as well as additional information about the preaching of John (3:10-14) and a genealogy of Jesus (3:23-38).

3. Jesus’ Galilean Ministry

Mk 1:14-8:26 Mt 4:12-16:12 Lk 4:14-9:17 [50]

This is the largest section of the Gospels and includes nearly half of Mark and Matthew and slightly less of Luke. There are many geographical markers but few indications of time. This combined with the fact that individual stories are placed in different contexts in the Gospels means that a reliable chronology of the material is virtually impossible. Once again there is a great deal of difference in how the material is arranged and used. Even with those differences, there are several features that are shared by all three Gospels.

a. While arranged differently, the teachings of Jesus figure prominently in this section of the Synoptics. This includes sayings associated with miracles and as responses to people and circumstances, teaching in parables, and teachings directed to the twelve disciples as well as larger group of followers and the crowds in general.

b. The calling of the twelve, their commissioning, and various narratives surrounding them are included in all three Synoptics.

c. Most of the miracle stories of the Gospels are in this section. About ten of these occur in all three Gospels, although they are given different contexts and points of emphasis. There are other accounts that occur in only one or two of the Synoptics.

d. Hostility and opposition from various representatives of Judaism to Jesus is interwoven in various ways throughout the narratives. Jesus’ interaction with the traditions of Judaism and its perspective on observance to the law creates opposition to his teachings and ministry.

Mark tends to follow a more straightforward narrative style in which incidents are connected with verbs of movement and place names. The teachings and sayings of Jesus occur in occasional settings scattered throughout the narrative. There are fewer parables in Mark than in the other two Synoptics, although the two major parables, the sower (4:1-9, 14-20) and the tenants (12:1-12) along with the short explanation of the purpose of parables (4:10-12), serve to call hearers to response.

Matthew expands this section by collecting together in blocks of material the sayings and teachings of Jesus that are in other contexts in Mark and Luke. The largest of these is the Sermon on the Mount (5-7), as well as the Mission of the Twelve (10), and the Parables of the Kingdom (13). Miracle stories also tend to be clustered together following the Sermon on the Mount, and controversies tend to dominate the later chapters.

Luke introduces the theme of Jesus’ mission at the beginning of this section (4:16-30) and then arranges the events, teachings, and healings to demonstrate the outworking of that mission. Luke has much shorter blocks of teaching material than in Matthew often with different settings. By not locating the following section (9:18-36) at Caesarea Philippi, Luke effectively extends the Galilean ministry through 9:50.

4. The Turning Point

Mk 8:27-9:8 Mt 16:13-17:8 Lk 9:18-36

In different ways, all three Gospels use Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi and Jesus’ response with the first prediction of his impending suffering and death (the Passion) to mark a turning point in Jesus’ ministry. In this sense, this section marks the hinge at which the Gospel story turns. Before this much of Jesus ministry was public, accompanied and acclaimed by crowds of followers. After this, Jesus is much more reclusive spending more time with the disciples and in prayer and not as willing to perform spectacular public miracles. The references to his coming death are accompanied by teachings on discipleship. This section also includes the account of the Transfiguration that is almost identical in all three Gospels. In this way three major themes of the Gospels are highlighted: the confession of Jesus as the Christ (Greek; Hebrew =

messiah); the suffering of Jesus and its relationship to following Jesus in discipleship; and the hidden glory of Jesus seen only through the eyes of faith.

Mark presents the disciples, represented by Peter, as confused and not really comprehending his teachings or believing his predictions about suffering and death. Jesus has harsh words for Peter ("Satan," Mk 8:33) after Peter rebukes him for talking about his death.

Matthew’s version is only slightly longer and presents the disciples in a better light. Only Matthew tells of Jesus first responding positively to Peter’s confession, blessing him by using a word play on his name ("rock," 16:17-19). Matthew also includes a short judgment saying (16:27).

Luke does not locate the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. He leaves it and the following events as part of Jesus’ Galilean ministry and places it much earlier than Matthew. Luke omits Peter’s rebuke and Jesus’ stern response.

5. The Journey toward Jerusalem

Mk 9:9-10:52 Mt 17:9-20:34 Lk 9:37-19:27

Mark and Matthew are very similar in this section, while Luke is considerably different. Basically all three chart a steady movement from Galilee to Jerusalem. Mark especially includes geographical references that help plot the movement of the story toward Jerusalem. But since there are few time references, and the chronology in John’s Gospel is considerably different, it is uncertain whether this journey is a physical one or a literary technique in which several trips are schematized into one. All three Gospels include the ironic accounts of the disciples arguing over who is the greatest and seeking positions of honor when Jesus comes into his Kingdom, in spite of Jesus’ continued predictions of his coming death.

Mark is once again the simplest version of the narrative with almost everything in Mark also included in the other two Synoptics. In terms of rhetorical structure, 8:1-10:52 form a larger narrative unit centering on the themes of discipleship and understanding its cost. In this section, that theme of discipleship is stressed as well as examples of faith that illustrate the nature of the Kingdom of God.

Matthew follows Mark’s structure but expands the narrative with questions about paying taxes (17:24-27) and issues of church discipline (18:15-20). Also included are two parables that occur only in Matthew, the Unmerciful Servant (18:23-35) and the Laborers in the Vineyard (20:1-16).

Luke shows the greatest divergence here and is considerably longer. The narrative is more obviously structured as a journey with an introductory statement marking its beginning (9:51). While both Mark and Matthew do not mention Samaria (cf. Matt 10:5), Luke recounts Jesus’ trip through Samaria (9:51-56, cf. John 4:5-9). Much of Luke’s expanded material in this section corresponds to material that Matthew presents in the Sermon on the Mount. Also included are a whole series of parables that are unique to Luke: the Good Samaritan (10:25-37), the Fried at Midnight (11:5-8), the Rich Fool (12:16-21), the Lost Coin (15:8-10), the Prodigal Son (15:11-32), the Unjust Steward (16:1-13), the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31), the Unjust Judge (18:1-8), the Pharisee and Tax Collector (18:10-14), and the Pounds (19:11-27; cf. Mt 25:14-30). Luke also includes an additional unique account, the story of the tax-collector Zacchaeus (19:1-10).

6. Holy Week

Mk 11:1-14:11 Mt 21:1-26:16 Lk 19:28-22:6

All three Synoptics share the same basic structure with differences in arrangement and content. Once again, most of Mark in included in the other Synoptics and Luke shows the most divergence but mostly in details. The final week begins with the triumphal entry into Jerusalem followed by the cleansing of the Temple (located differently in John), which precipitates open hostility from Jewish religious leaders. Jesus responds to questions about his authority, paying taxes to Caesar, and engages the debate about resurrection. Comments about the coming destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem lead into teachings on the end of the age, in different forms in each of the Synoptics. Mark and Matthew share several features not in Luke: the cursing of the fig tree, the question about the greatest commandment, and the anointing at Bethany. All three conclude with the betrayal by Judas, although presented from different perspectives.

Mark inserts the cursing of the fig tree before the cleansing of the Temple and follows later with the explanation of the action.

Matthew places the cursing of the fig tree after the cleansing of the Temple. Only Matthew mentions Jesus healing in the temple (21:14). There are several parables found only in Matthew: the Two Sons (21:28-32), the Marriage Feast (22:1-14; cf. Lk 14:15-24), the Ten Virgins (25:1-13), and the Talents (25:14-30; cf. Lk 19:11-27). Matthew also includes a short section on the Great Judgment (25:31-46), and omits the Widow’s Offering that is included in the other two Synoptics.

Luke omits the cursing of the fig tree and recounts Jesus weeping over Jerusalem (19:41-44). Luke attributes the betrayal by Judas to Satan entering into him (22:3).

7. The Passion Narratives

Mk 14:12-15:47 Mt 26:17-27:66 Lk 22:7-23:56

Again, with many differences in details the Synoptics follow basically the same outline in presenting the Passion or suffering of Jesus: the Last Supper/Passover, the Prayer in Gethsemane, Jesus’ Arrest, the Trial before Caiaphas, Peter’s denial, the Trial before Pilate, the Release of Barabbas, the Mocking and Scourging, and Jesus’ Crucifixion, Death, and Burial. Mark and Matthew share several details of the story that Luke omits or alters: a man carrying a jar of water who leads them to the place where they eat the Passover meal; the mention of the betrayal at the beginning of the meal (Luke places it after the meal), the singing of a hymn after the meal, the name Gethsemane, Jesus finding the disciples asleep three times (once in Luke), the disciples deserting Jesus after his arrest, Jesus Cry of Dereliction from the cross, and the tearing of the temple curtain at Jesus’ death.

Mark begins with a mention of the Passover lamb (14:12). Only Mark mentions a young man following Jesus after the other disciples had fled (14:51-52), but omits the mention of Peter following at a distance that is in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew follows Mark closely here with minor differences. Matthew includes Jesus saying that he could summon twelve legions of angels if it were his intention to fight. Matthew differs most in including several accounts surrounding Jesus’ death: the remorse of Judas (27:3-9), Pilate’s wife’s dream (27:19), Pilate’s hand washing (27:24-26), the earthquake and resurrection of the saints at Jesus’ death (27:51-53), and the guard at the tomb (27:62-66)

Luke differs in many details of the account, which leads some to conclude that Luke is working with a different tradition or source material here. Luke includes the breaking of bread as well as a second cup after the bread (22:19-20). Luke puts into this setting an account of a dispute between the disciples over who is greatest (22:24-27) that occurs in different settings in Mark and Matthew. Luke also includes a section of instruction to the disciples, including warnings and a promise of prayer for Peter (22:28-32). There is also an angel ministering to Jesus as he prayed, although now these verses (22:43-44) are considered to be later additions. Only Luke mentions the healing of the servant’s ear (22:51), Jesus turning to look at Peter after his denial (22:61), the appearance of Jesus before Herod Antipas (23:6-12), the words to the women of Jerusalem (23:27-31), and the repentance of one of the criminals (23:42-43). Luke omits the Cry of Dereliction but includes Jesus committing himself to God’s hands (23:46).

8. The Resurrection

Mk 16:1-8 [9-20] Mt 28:1-20 Lk 24:1-53

The resurrection accounts vary widely with each Gospel telling the story differently. The finding of the empty tomb by the women is shared by all three Synoptics, although the details of that account differ.

Mark is the shortest account, only eight verses. The longer ending of Mark (9-20) is generally considered to be a later addition to the book added to provide closure to the book by some who thought it ended too abruptly. There are many theories as to why the book would end so abruptly at 16:8: part of the book has been accidentally lost, the writer was not able to finish the book, etc. Some even argue that the book was intended to end at 16:8. In any case, the longer ending, or several shorter endings in various manuscripts, are usually rejected as not being part of the original Gospel. Mark differs is several small details from the other Synoptics.

Matthew mentions an earthquake and an angel rolling back the stone of the tomb and talking to the women (28:2-7). In Matthew, Jesus meets the women at the tomb and instructs them to tell the disciples (28:9-10). Also unique to Matthew is the Jewish leaders bribing the guards to lie (28:11-15), and the appearance of Jesus to the eleven and the Great Commission (28:16-20).

Luke has two men at the tomb to explain to the women (24:4-7). The rest of the account and the way it is told is unique in Luke: the women’s report to the disciples and their response (24:9-12), the two men on the road to Emmaus and their report to the disciples (24:13-35), the appearance to the eleven in Jerusalem and Jesus instructions to them (24:36-49), and the Ascension (24:50-53)

The content of the Gospels is adapted from W. D. Stacey, Groundwork of Biblical Studies, Epworth, 1979.

Source: http://www.crivoice.org/gospelshape.html

The Gospels and The Synoptic ProblemThe Literary Relationship ofMatthew, Mark, and Luke

Dennis Bratcher

Introduction

The Synoptic Problem is not really a "problem" in the normal sense of the term. It is simply a way to refer to questions and possible explanations about the literary relationships between the first three New Testament Gospels. The word "synoptic" means "with the same eye" or "seeing together." Matthew, Mark, and Luke present the basic story of Jesus in similar ways, including the order of the material, the stories told, the sayings of Jesus, even using many of the same words in parallel accounts. For this reason they are called the Synoptic Gospels. On the other hand, while the Gospel of John sometimes resembles the other three Gospels, it tells the story of Jesus in significantly different ways, including a different order of events, different perspectives and points of emphasis, and with its own unique vocabulary and style. Those differences can be understood in terms other than literary relationships between the Gospels, which is the reason John is not included in the Synoptic Problem.

To someone who has never studied the Gospels closely, or who has assumed certain logically constructed theories about the nature of Scripture apart from looking at the actual biblical text (e.g., the absolute inerrancy of Scripture), questions about the literary relationship between the Gospels may be unnerving at first. It is easy simply to reject them as so much scholarly speculation and academic conjecture. Yet, these questions arise from the biblical text itself, questions obvious to most anyone who takes the time to examine the biblical text closely. If we are honestly to hear and understand Scripture on its own terms, we will have to come to terms with this issue in ways that go beyond simply denying that there is any issue because of a certain theology or ideology about Scripture.

On the other hand, we need honestly to concede at the beginning that there is no final answer to this "problem." There are various perspectives, hypotheses, and theories based on the evidence of the biblical text as well as what we know about the process of writing. But there is not a "correct" answer. That simply suggests that while we need to take this issue seriously as part of what we see in the biblical text as we have it, it is not a matter of faith one way or the other. Rather, it is simply being honest with the biblical text and not trying to make it say or be what it is not. It is also acknowledging that we do not have to have all of the answers to our logical questions before we can accept the Bible as Scripture for the Church. The issue is not a matter of believing or not believing the Bible; it is a matter of believing, and then seeking to understand as best we can that which we believe ("faith seeking understanding").

So, one might ask why we should bother with the issue at all if there is no "correct" solution to a "problem" that is not an essential matter of Christian Faith. Here we return to a simple principle that grew out of the Protestant reformation, the principle of sola scriptura, "only Scripture." This principle, as one of the cornerstones of the Reformation, held that Scripture should be the first and final authority for the faith and practice of the Church, and that it should be allowed to stand in judgement over all human creeds, doctrines, and traditions.

As that principle worked out in the history of the church in the centuries following the Reformation, it meant a rigorous honesty with how Scripture was studied. The goal was to hear the Bible as Scripture for the church, neither in isolation from the traditions of the Faith nor captive to them. This allowed the development of critical methodologies for the investigation of Scripture that included a careful and detailed reading of the biblical texts for what they actually said apart from the doctrines that told people what they should mean. This did not deny the authority of the Bible as the inspired word of God. In fact, it affirmed it even more strongly. But it did allow the biblical text to be seen as something more than a repository of timeless and unchanging truths written by the finger of God.

While not always as successful in objectivity as envisioned, these critical methods allowed the tremendous diversity of the biblical text to emerge, a diversity that had been masked for many centuries by dogmatic and doctrinal approaches that sought to harmonize any differences in the biblical text. The rich texture of the biblical traditions emerged as the witness of various communities of faith over many centuries to God's self-revelation in their history came to light (see Revelation and Inspiration of Scripture). Like an elegant tapestry, the Bible could be viewed on a broad scale as a marvelous record of God's dealing with humanity, the story of God in striking panorama. Yet, on closer inspection, the tremendous complexity of the fabric and the threads that created the larger picture could now be seen. Biblical study then turned to the careful examination of these strands as a way to help understand the larger picture.

So, an understanding of the "synoptic problem" is a crucial first step in any detailed study of the Gospels and their testimony to Jesus the Christ, simply because it allows us to begin with the witness of the biblical text itself. That will not assure a student of the New Testament that everything s/he concludes will be unbiased and objective. But it will encourage us to listen to the text, to take it seriously even in all its diversity, and will constantly warn us against a too easy and perhaps unconscious manipulation of Scripture for any particular theological agenda.

The "Problem"

The Synoptic Gospels share a great deal of material and features. There are differences between them in many areas, some more pronounced than others. Yet, all the questions about the differences arise precisely because of the otherwise close parallels between the Synoptics. While we might be able to answer some of these questions about differences as a matter of context, culture, personality, or purpose, the parallels are not as easily explained. The questions that arise about the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels concern both the differences as well as the similarities, although the similarities really focus the questions. So, the Synoptic Problem is the way that serious students of the Gospels attempt to understand the origins and interrelationships of the first three Gospels that will explain both the similarities and the differences between them.

There are places where the Synoptic Gospels are closely parallel in their recounting of incidents from the life of Jesus. For example, in the account of the calling of Levi (Matthew):

Matthew (9:9-13) Mark (2:13-17) Luke (5:27-32)

  13 Jesus went out again beside the sea; the whole 27 After this he went out 

crowd gathered around him, and he taught them.

9 As Jesus was walking along, 14 As he was walking along,  

he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him.

he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him.

and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, “Follow me.” 28 And he got up, left everything, and followed him.

10 And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples.

15 And as he sat at dinner in Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples--for there were many who followed him.

29 Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house; and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at the table with them.

11 When the Pharisees saw this, 16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors,

30 The Pharisees and their scribes

they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

they said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 

were complaining to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

12 But when he heard this, 17 When Jesus heard this,  

he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.

he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick;

31 Jesus answered, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick;

13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’

   

For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners. ”

I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” 

32 I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.

How can we explain these very close parallels between the synoptic Gospels, especially considering that the Gospels were likely written in different places at different times? Were they using a common written source or a shared tradition in their writing? Did there exist a record of Jesus that was earlier than the Gospels that all the writers used in producing their own Gospel? If so, why were the Gospels themselves written if there already existed an earlier account? If either written sources or oral tradition were used in the compilation of the Gospels, were those sources reliable? Would the sources have to be inspired in order for the Gospels to be inspired? And exactly how were the sources used? Were the Gospel writers simply trying faithfully to reproduce those sources? Or did the Gospel writers feel free to interpret and apply the Jesus traditions as they wrote their Gospels? These are the questions that lie at the heart of the Synoptic Problem.

Yet, as similar as they are, there are still differences between the Gospels on many levels. Even in these very similar passages, there are minor differences of word order, words used, syntax and style of writing, and grammatical variations. There are also differences in other details between the Gospels, some of which can be seen above. Sometimes names are included or omitted, or are given in different forms, as in the illustration above where Matthew is called Levi in Mark and Luke. Sometimes additional details are added in one account, such as the quotation from Hosea added in Matthew's version above (v. 13). Sometimes a saying of Jesus is recorded in Aramaic, while the parallel passages record it in Hebrew, for example in Jesus' quotation of Psalm 22:1 from the cross, recorded in Aramaic in Mark (15:34) but in Hebrew in Matthew (27:46). Sometimes different but synonymous Greek words are used in an otherwise parallel passage. In most ways, these variations do not change much about the narrative. Yet, they are significant enough that they are not easily ignored.

Also there are differences in minor historical details. For example, the well-known story of the healing of the blind man Bartimaeus contains several such differences.

Matthew (20:29-34) Mark (10:46-52) Luke (18:35-43)

  46 They came to Jericho. 35 As he approached Jericho,

29 As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him.

As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho,

 

30 There were two blind men sitting by the roadside.

Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside

a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging.

When they heard that Jesus was passing by, 47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth,

36 When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was happening. 37 They told him, "Jesus of Nazareth is passing by."

they shouted, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!"

he began to shout out and say "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

38 Then he shouted, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

31 The crowd sternly ordered them to be quiet; but they shouted even more loudly, "Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!"

48 Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"

39 Those who were in front sternly ordered him to be quiet; but he shouted even more loudly, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"

32 Jesus stood still and called them, 49 Jesus stood still and said, "Call him here."

40 Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him;

  And they called the blind man, saying to him, "Take heart; get up, he is calling you." 50 So throwing off his cloak, 

 

  he sprang up and came to Jesus. and when he came near,

saying, "What do you want me to do for you?"

51 Then Jesus said to him, "What do you want me to do for you?"

he asked him, 41 "What do you want me to do for you?"

33 They said to him, "Lord, let our eyes be opened."

The blind man said to him, "My teacher, let me see again."

He said, "Lord, let me see again."

34 Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes

52 Jesus said to him, "Go; your faith has made you well."

42 Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has saved you."

Immediately they regained their sight and followed him.

Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way.

43 Immediately he regained his sight and followed him

    glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, praised God.

In Matthew and Mark, the incident happens as Jesus and the disciples were leaving Jericho (Matt. 20:29, Mk 10:46), while in Luke as they were entering the town (Lk. 18:35). In Matthew there are two unnamed blind men (20:30), in Luke a single unnamed blind man (18:35), while in Mark he is called Bartimaeus son of Timaues (10:46). In all three accounts the crowd is hostile to the blind man, but Mark tells us that some of the crowd encouraged him to respond to Jesus (10:49). In Matthew, Jesus simply calls to the two men, while in Mark and Luke he has the blind man brought to him. Other differences can be noted as well.

Again, while these differences can be understood in terms of writings styles or different purposes of telling the story within the Gospels, the fact that they are such variations on an incident reported in very similar ways in the Synoptics raises the question of the relationship between the accounts.

Other differences are even more substantial, although still variations of what seems like a common tradition. While the basic order of events is similar in the Synoptics, some sayings of Jesus occur in different settings in the various Gospels. For example, Matthew presents many of Jesus' sayings in a large block of teaching material delivered while he is seated on a mountain (the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5:1-7:27): "When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying . . .." However, many of these same sayings are scattered throughout the other two Gospels. Luke has a much shorter version of these collected sayings (Lk. 6:17-49), but the locale in which they are placed is different: "He came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon." Because of the location, Luke's version of Jesus' teachings is known as the Sermon on the Plain.

Other parables, teachings, or particular events in the Gospels are placed at different points in the narrative or in different literary contexts (see The Time of the Crucifixion). For example, Luke places Jesus' rejection at the synagogue in his hometown of Nazareth as one of the first events of his public ministry (Lk 4:16-30). However, Mark places it much later, about halfway through his Galilean ministry (Mark 6:1-6). Mark places Jesus' calling of the disciples before his Capernaum preaching (Mark 1:16-20), while Luke places it after (Lk 5:1-11).

These are not isolated examples. A careful examination of the structure of the Synoptic Gospels reveals that even though they follow a similar structure of events (compared to John), there are differences, sometimes substantial differences, in the order in which material is placed. For example, the first five chapters of Mark contain material that is also recounted in Matthew and Luke. While Luke roughly follows the order of Mark, Matthew organizes that material in significantly different ways.

Mark Matthew Luke1:21-45 7:28-8:15 4:31-5:162:1-22 9:1-17 5:17-39

2:23-3:12 12:1-16 6:1-6:11, 17-193:13-19 10:1-4 6:12-163:20-35 12:22-37 6:43-454:1-34 13:1-34 8:4-18

4:35-5:20 8:18-34 8:22-395:21-43 9:18-26 8:40-56

In some passages, the difference between the various Gospels is compounded. For example, Matthew and Luke give us different versions of the Lord's prayer, while Mark does not even record the prayer. Even within the same book there are a variety of different readings among various manuscripts (variant readings added in some manuscripts are indicated in red/brackets.)

Matthew 6:9-13 Luke 11:2-4

  He said to them,

"Pray then in this way:  "When you pray, say:

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come.

Father [in heaven], hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come.

   [Your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us.]

Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. [Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.]

Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.

And do not bring us to the time of trial,  And do not bring us to the time of trial." 

but rescue us from the evil one. [but rescue us from the evil one.]

[For the Kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours forever. Amen.]

 

Besides the obvious difference between the prayers, we can also note the different contexts in which they are presented in the two Gospels. Matthew includes the prayer in the concluding section of the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus taught the people about practical piety, how the people should live out a life of commitment to God. Yet Luke sets the prayer in a narrative context in which the disciples see Jesus praying and ask him to teach them to pray.

There are far more significant differences in many parallel accounts. These amount to more than just differences in words, but differences in how the story is used, details included or omitted, how a passage is related to the Old Testament, even in how the event itself is presented or how the writers understood the event. Take, for example, the report of the healing of Peter's mother-in law and the subsequent report about Jesus' healing miracles. Even apart from the differences in the narrative context in which the various writers place the stories, or where they place the stories in the chronology of Jesus’ ministry, there are significant differences between the accounts.

Matthew 8:14-17 Mark 1:29-34 Luke 4:38-41

  As soon as they left the synagogue, After leaving the synagogue

When Jesus entered Peter's house,  they entered the house of Simon and 

he entered Simon's house.

  Andrew, with James and John.   

he saw his mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever;

Now Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever,

Now Simon's mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever,

  and they told him about her at once.  and they asked him about her. 

he touched her hand, and the fever left her, 

He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up. Then the fever left her,

Then he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. 

and she got up and began to serve him.  and she began to serve them. Immediately she got up and began to serve them.

That evening they brought to him  That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick 

As the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various kinds of diseases brought them to him;

many who were possessed with demons; or possessed with demons.  

and he cast out the spirits with a word, [and cast out many demons; [Demons also came out of many, shouting, "You are the Son of God!"

  and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.]

But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah.]

  And the whole city was gathered around the door.

 

and cured all who were sick. And he cured many who were sick with various diseases,

and he laid his hands on each of them and cured them.

This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, "He took our infirmities and bore our diseases." 

   

  and cast out many demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him. 

Demons also came out of many, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah. 

And, of course, there are the sections of each of the Synoptic Gospels that do not have parallels in the other Gospels and are unique to that Gospel, or are recorded in only one other Gospel. For example, the accounts of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke are strikingly different. Luke includes an extended description of the events leading up to the birth, including the activities of Mary and the parents of John, as well as the later narratives about the visit of the shepherds, the speeches of Anna and Simeon, and the visit of the young boy Jesus to the Temple. None of these are included in Matthew or Mark. Mathew includes the visit of the Magi and the flight into Egypt that the other accounts omit, while Mark simply omits any narratives about Jesus' birth.

Are these differences a matter of the Gospel writers simply trying to clarify certain words or to interpret the meaning more clearly? Are they writing to different audiences and trying to adapt a common tradition into local contexts in different geographical regions? Are they writing for different cultural groups within the same area, and so feel the need or necessity to adapt the story of Jesus into that cultural context to communicate its message?

Are they working with only a rough outline of the Gospel traditions, perhaps an oral tradition, and filling in details to tell the story? Were there slightly different versions and traditions about Jesus that were circulating in the early church in different areas? If so, how do we know which one is accurate? Or is that kind of historical accuracy even important? If they are working with a common tradition, do the changes they make significantly alter the tradition in any way? If the writers changed the tradition, is it possible that it has been corrupted by other influences (the Gospel of Thomas is a good example of the Jesus tradition adapted in ways that significantly alter it)? How do we see the differences in terms of inspiration and the authority of Scripture?

The Nature of the Gospels

There are a range of opinions and suggestions offered to explain the literary relationship of the Synoptic Gospels that addresses these questions. But even before we examine these proposals, perhaps it would be helpful to consider an even more fundamental issue, that of the very nature of the Gospels as Scripture in light of the history of their formation.

Consideration of how the Gospels came to be and some of the implications of that process for understanding the nature of the Gospels as literature of the early church will provide some basis to evaluate the various proposals to address the Synoptic "problem." This is no way raises questions about the inspiration or authority of the Gospels as Scripture for the Church. It only asks that we look at the Gospels from the perspective of the history of their formation as well as their theology. While there are other methodological issues that are relevant here, such as the compilation, redaction, and canonization of the Gospels, here we will only survey very briefly the general outlines of the Gospels' formation.

Most biblical scholars recognize at least a three-stage process in the development of the Gospels:  the events themselves, reports or testimonies about the events either oral or written, and the collection of various reports (the traditions) into biblical books. The same process can be applied to most other biblical writings. The book of Amos, for example, can be seen rather easily in this perspective. In the case of much of the Old Testament including the prophets there is a fourth stage of development. Because of the long period of time involved, and the way the traditions were used in the community over that span of time, the material could be adapted into later historical contexts, even to the point of adding later material to the "original" writing (see JEDP: Sources in the Pentateuch). For example, the preaching of Amos to the Northern Kingdom of Israel during the Assyrian crisis of the eighth century BC was preserved in a tradition that could be reinterpreted and reapplied in the Southern Kingdom of Judah in the sixth century context of the Babylonian era (the post-exilic additions at the end of the book, Am. 9:11-15).

This fourth stage of development of Old Testament traditions, the re-application of traditions into new historical contexts, is different in the Gospels because of the shorter span of time involved.  Yet this dimension corresponds to the issues raised in discussing the Synoptic Problem. It reveals a dynamic and living tradition that could grow and be adapted into different historical contexts to address new needs within the community (see Revelation and Inspiration of Scripture). It was only later that these writings of both Testaments reached a fixed and unchanging form. This dynamic nature of a living tradition becomes the basis to understand the diversity of the Gospels.

1) The first stage in the formation of the Gospels was the life and teachings of Jesus (or of Amos). He traveled throughout the countryside speaking, teaching, performing miracles, and healing people. These events became the basis for what would later become the Gospels. We can note here that, contrary to the myths of the ancient Near Eastern religions or of the Greeks and Romans and in keeping with the faith confessions of the Old Testament, the Gospels are grounded in historical event rather than in cosmic stories about the gods (see The Enuma Elish : The Babylonian Creation Myth). This does not mean that the Gospels must be seen simply as historical data, or that their primary function was to record history. But it does mean that they are grounded in human history. From the perspective of faith confession, we would say that they are grounded in God's self-revelation in human history.

And here we must take seriously the fact that Jesus lived in a certain time and place, in a certain cultural and social context, and spoke a certain language. It is sometimes easy to forget across 2,000 years of Christian history that Jesus was not a Christian! He was a first century Jew, who most likely spoke Aramaic, could read Hebrew, and perhaps also knew Greek. He acted in accordance with first century ideas and customs, and taught in terms that first century people could understand. We are sometimes so concerned with seeing Jesus as the Christ, as the Incarnate Son of God that we forget the historical nature of the Incarnation. Of course, Jesus was all of that. But by definition, the Incarnation means that Jesus was a real human being who lived and died in real human history. What he did and taught was in the context of the time in which he lived. That does not make it irrelevant, or we would have no New Testament at all. But we must keep that historical dimension in mind as we study the Gospels.

2. In the course of Jesus' actions and travels, he attracted followers, including the twelve handpicked men who would become the Disciples and later Apostles. They listened and watched as he taught. In several places, the Gospels tell us that people spread the news of Jesus' teaching and action (Mk 3:7-8, 5:19-20, 7:36; Lk 5:15, etc.).

Soon after Jesus' death and resurrection, the Disciples and others began to witness of the resurrection. Early in the book of Acts, we read of the Apostles preaching to large crowds about Jesus (Acts 2:14-26), and that message was carried throughout the Roman world (Acts 1:8, 8:4, 11:19-20, etc.). So the second stage of Gospel formation was a Gospel tradition that grew out of the testimony and preaching of the followers of Jesus, as well as the practices of the church such as Eucharist and worship that grew out of that preaching. This tradition may have been oral, or written, or a combination of both. In any case, this tradition was the main vehicle for the Gospel message in the 30 or so years after the death of Jesus but before the actual writing of the Gospels.

And again here we need to remember the context of the message. With our modern concern with details, with data, with direct quotation, we sometimes expect the Gospel message to be repeated word for word just as Jesus spoke it. From our preoccupation with the written word, and now with video recording, we sometimes assume that Jesus' words were transcribed as he spoke them, and that people recorded his actions as if they were writing a script for an epic film of his life.

While there is no evidence of it in Scripture, it is entirely possible that written records or notes of Jesus' teaching were kept. Yet, here we need to do some reflection on the nature of the preaching of the Apostles. Their goal was not simply to preserve the details of Jesus life or to transcribe his sermons. They were far more concerned with proclaiming the significance of the events surrounding Jesus as a new revelatory act of God in human history. And that proclamation was primarily concerned with calling people to respond to that new revelation. This is why the apostolic preaching is referred to as the kerygma (Greek, "preaching"), the heart of Gospel message.

This has several implications in how we think about the Apostles' message and the emerging Gospel tradition. First, a concern with the significance of the coming of Jesus implies that they reflected on the events and teachings of Jesus in light, not only of past history, but of what they understood to be God's unfolding work in the world in light of the emerging church. Of course, we would want to say that God helped them understand the significance of Jesus' coming through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But that does not alter the fact that their preaching was aimed at communicating that significance. There is some indication that even within the Gospels this reflection on the meaning of Jesus' life continued throughout the first century.

For example, it is readily recognized by almost all biblical students that the Gospel of John was the last of the Gospels written, toward the end of the first century (c. AD 90). As would be expected, John presents the most deliberately reflective theological perspective of all the Gospels. If this is obvious in John, it is reasonable to conclude that the same process of reflecting on Jesus' teaching in terms of theological implication and

communication was already underway in the Synoptics as well, most of which were written in the last half of the first century some 30 to 50 years after Jesus' life (Mark, c. 60, Matthew and Luke c. 70-80; by contrast, the Pauline Epistles were likely all written c. 50-60).

Second, the Apostles had to communicate that message in language and terms that the people to whom they were speaking would understand. There were the basic issues of language. If we assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic, then the message had to be translated into Greek for Hellenistic Jews and Greeks, or Coptic for Egyptians. And that is more than a trivial matter, as anyone who has studied a foreign language can attest. Words in any language have meaning against a whole cultural and conceptual background. So it is not just a matter of finding equivalent words; the concepts that the words represent must be translated as well. That raises tremendous potential for misunderstanding (something we should always keep in mind when we read the biblical text in our own language and then assume that the message is clear because the words have obvious meaning to us!). The misunderstanding was not as great a danger for the Apostles since they were most likely both bilingual and bicultural. That was a necessity of the times and cultures in which they lived, just as it is for most Europeans or Asians today. But it remains a problem for most of us in the modern world since we are far removed both in time and place from the origins of the Gospel tradition.

But there were also the larger issues of cultural background. Even in the Gospels, there are places where the writers stop and explain Jewish customs (e.g., Mk 7:3), an indication that the people to whom they were writing were not familiar with them. Because of their cultural and religious background, Jews would need to hear the message in one way, while Greeks with different interests, background, and concerns would need to hear it in a different way. Even among Jews, traditional Palestinian Jews most likely needed to hear it in different terms than Hellenistic Jews (Jews who had adopted Greek culture).

All this simply suggests a diversity of the Gospel tradition even before it was ever written down. The demands of the growing and spreading church encouraged, not a change in the message itself, but certainly in how it was communicated. Even if there were "original" written records or notes of Jesus' preaching, or early written records of the kerygma of the Apostles, the reality of how that message was proclaimed was also a function of both the ongoing theological reflection of the early church as well as the practical demands of proclamation to widely scattered and diverse first century audiences.

3. The third stage of Gospel formation was the actual writing of the biblical texts. Most of what was noted above in the development of the Gospel tradition can also be applied to the writing of the Gospels. Just as the Apostles had to speak to certain audiences in their preaching and practice of worship, so also the Gospel writers had to translate the kerygma into the cultural and historical context of the audience for which it was written. While we do not know for certain who these audiences were or their location, the very fact that there were a variety of Gospels written in the first and early second centuries suggests that the Gospel message was being preserved in various locations (see The Gospel of Thomas).

Here also we need to consider the likelihood suggested above that the Gospels writers did not inherit a "master" copy of the Jesus tradition. Instead, they were heirs to a variety of ways that the Gospel message had been proclaimed for 30 or 40 to as much as 60 years before they wrote. The preface to Luke's Gospel confirms that at least this writer was aware of the diversity of the tradition even in written form (Lk. 1:1-4):

1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

This reveals that the writer of Luke's Gospel was aware of other Gospel writings (whether or not these were the canonical Gospels that we now have), that he was familiar with a larger Jesus tradition, and that he chose to write to a certain audience for a particular purpose.

While we might want to assume other things from this statement, we might notice what he does not say. He does not define exactly what was "handed on to us." The sentence construction tells us that "events" is the referent for the statement. However, that does not mean that he is writing only historical data since his own declaration of purpose, as well as the unfolding Gospel itself, says that he is writing for instruction about the "truth," in this context a reference to the larger Gospel message as it worked out in the early church. This is even more obvious if we conclude that this Gospel is the first volume of a two-volume work that included the Book of Acts (note Acts 1:1).

Also, he does not say precisely how this tradition was "handed on to us." This leaves open the possibility that he was using written documents, which might have included one of more of the other Gospels of Mark or Matthew. But it is equally possible that he is referring to a widely circulated oral tradition that had become central in the early church. Or it could have been a combination of an oral tradition supplemented by earlier documents. In other words, he is only concerned with acknowledging sources by which to ground his Gospel in the apostolic tradition, not in giving details about what the sources were. This suggests that his concern lay more with the content of the message than how it came to be, which should caution us against being too rigid in our conclusions about the whole process.

He also does not define what he means by "orderly." From our perspective, concerned as we are with time sequence, we easily assume that he means chronological order. However, the Greek word he used does not mean that specifically; it only refers to compiling or organizing without references to the method of organization. This allows the author to use whatever principle of organization fit his purpose in writing rather than trying to fit our modern expectations of what proper order would entail. From a comparison of the differences mentioned earlier between the Gospels, it is apparent that the Gospel material is arranged theologically according to what each writer wanted to emphasize about the tradition, not chronologically.

Finally, the writer does not claim to be an eyewitness of the events he relates, as many often assume about the Gospel writers. He does say that the tradition he is using comes from eyewitnesses. Likewise, this does not mean that his sources were eyewitnesses or written by eyewitnesses, only that the traditions he used were faithful to the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses.

While the other Synoptics do not give us any of these details about their writing, it is reasonable to conclude that what is true of Luke's Gospel would also be true of the other Gospels as well. This helps us understand that the Gospels were the result of a deliberate process of preserving an already existing tradition about the life and teachings of Jesus for use within the church. It is this understanding of the process in the formation of the Gospels that allows the following suggestions to address the Synoptic Problem.

Proposed Solutions

There are many suggestions and still more variations that attempt to explain the relationship between the Gospels. Even with these, ranging from simple to complex, they can basically be seen in terms of four basic approaches. These are not specific proposals, but categories under which the various proposals can be grouped for convenience. (Since the issues are complex, specific textual evidence will not be given for any of the proposals; consult a good New Testament introduction, such as Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, 1997).

1) Oral Tradition. This approach suggests that all of the differences in the Gospel tradition can be explained in terms of a pre-existing Aramaic oral tradition. The early preaching of the gospel was quickly reduced to a selected set of core traditions that soon evolved into a rather fixed form in the church because it was repeated so often. The differences arose because that core tradition was preached in different circumstances that required adaptation of the tradition.

While this reflects the second stage of the formation of the Gospel tradition outlined above, it does not take seriously enough the specific similarities and parallels of the written Gospel accounts in Greek. A preexisting oral Aramaic tradition simply does not explain how the Gospels could be so similar in the Greek text, which probably explains why few people hold this position today.

2) Interdependent. This approach suggests that in some way the later Gospels are more or less dependent on one or more of the previous Gospels. That is, there is some sort of sharing of material between the Gospels. While there are many variations of the specifics of this approach, usually it assumes that Mark was the first Gospel written, and that Matthew and Luke used the written form of Mark. This also generally assumes that Matthew and Luke wrote independently of each other for their own purposes.

3) Proto-Gospel. This approach generally assumes that the Gospels were composed from a hypothetical written source that no longer exists. Again, there are variations of this approach, but they generally revolve around two basic suggestions, either that all of the Gospels were dependant on a posited original Aramaic Gospel, perhaps an Aramaic version of Matthew, or that they used a proposed collection of sayings (logia) of Jesus.

4) Fragmentary. This approach suggests that the Gospels used various hypothetical sources that were available to them in the early church. These would have been various collections or summaries or short accounts of Jesus' actions and teachings that were preserved in various forms and places in the church. For example, there may have been a collection of miracle stories, or parables, or accounts of the crucifixion, or even a collection of the sayings of Jesus. The various Gospel writers, who could have had access to different documents or different versions of the collections, then used these to compile their accounts.

The Early Church: The Priority of Matthew

The specific formulation and study of these issues as "the Synoptic Problem" is a relatively recent endeavor, dating to the 18th century and the rise of the analytical study of Scripture as a result of the Enlightenment. Yet, there had been previous observations about the relationship of the Gospels and "traditional" conclusions had been reached about them.

One of the earliest traditions comes from Papias writing around AD 125, preserved in the writing of Eusebius. Papias concluded that the Gospel of Mark was an interpretation (or perhaps translation) of the preaching of Peter. He also observed that Mark was not a follower of Jesus but of Peter, and that he wrote accurately but not in order. Only slightly later, Justin in the mid second century referred to Mark as "Peter's memoirs."

Papias also observed that Matthew was written in a Hebrew style (dialektô) of writing. Some have taken that comment to mean that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and only secondarily translated into Greek, a theory that persists today.

From the order in which Papias treated the Gospels, we could infer that he thought Mark was written before Matthew. However Clement of Alexandria writing around AD 200, also preserved in the writing of Eusebius, commented that the Gospels with genealogies, presumably Matthew and Luke, were written first. By the fifth century, the traditional order of Matthew, Mark, and Luke had been established. Augustine writing around AD 400 asserted that each Gospel was dependent on those previous, with Mark simply an abbreviation of Matthew, Luke drawing on both Matthew and Mark, and John using all three.

There have been some modifications to this basic view, such as J. Griesbach's suggestion that the order should be Matthew, Luke, and then Mark (called the Griesbach Hypothesis, 1783). This was an attempt to explain some of the unique features of Luke as well as to explain why Luke should be written at all if after Mark's abridgement of the tradition. He also concluded that Mark was not just an abridgement of Matthew, but

actually a conflation of both Matthew and Luke. Strauss and Baur (c. 1835) continued to support a variation of the Griesbach Hypothesis, only proposing a late date for the writing of all the Gospels (early to mid-second century) and assuming that they were non-historical.

This basic view of the priority of Matthew as the first Gospel written has remained the popular traditional view well into the 20th century. It still has defenders among scholars who have posited a very complex matrix of sources to explain the relationships between the Gospels based on the assumption of Matthew's priority. Still, the main argument for the priority of Matthew is the almost unanimous voice of the early church tradition that places Matthew first.

The Rise of Analytical Study: A Proto-Gospel

However, with the rise of more analytical investigation of Scripture in the 18th century, the problems with the traditional order of the Gospels as well as their relationship became more apparent. Without as many constraints of dogma and tradition concerning authorship and the order of the Gospels, historians and biblical scholars of the late 18th and early 19th century began to look more closely at the Gospels themselves. They began to discover the features that pointed to a more complex relationship between the Gospels.

The first attempt to address this issue was to posit a primitive version of the gospel traditions. There are two basic directions in which this proposal developed: early proposals that saw a no longer extant Aramaic original, and much more recent variations that propose various non-canonical (apocryphal) gospels that have been discovered as the original source.

A. an Aramaic original

In some ways, Augustine's idea of the priority of Matthew used as a source by the Gospels written later was the first formulation of the idea of an original Gospel. But the first real analytical proposal that attempted to trace sources beyond the canonical Gospels was toward the end of the 18th century. G. Lessing (1784) proposed that all of the Gospels were dependant on an original proto-gospel (Urevangelium, original or primitive gospel). He thought that this pre-canonical gospel was likely written in Aramaic and was used by the Synoptic writers. J. Eichorn (1794) refined Lessing's proposal and suggested that the original Aramaic Gospel was a full account of the life of Jesus, and existed in four slightly different versions, which would explain the differences between the Synoptics.

There is still discussion today of the possibility that the Gospel of Matthew might have been originally written in Aramaic. However, the idea that the entire gospel tradition originated from a "master" Aramaic original has few supporters.

B. apocryphal gospels

With the explosion of interest in the Ancient Near East in the 19th century, there were many new archaeological discoveries that included hoards of ancient manuscripts. Some of these proved to be various early Christian writings that included epistles and Gospels that were not accepted into the canon of the New Testament. At first these apocryphal or pseudigraphical Gospels (pseudipigraph = a document written under the name of a well-known person, such as The Gospel of Thomas), were viewed as interesting historical documents, but were obviously different from the canonical Gospels.

However, in recent years, there has been renewed interest in the apocryphal gospels as a source of information about the formation of the gospel tradition. M. Smith (1973) and H. Koester (1983) have proposed that Secret Mark, a second century writing preserved in only small fragments, was actually the original written form of the gospel tradition. J. D. Crossan (1985) has suggested that both Secret Mark and an early version of the Gospel of Peter were the original sources of all four canonical Gospels. These are all variations of the idea of a proto-gospel, although none of these proposals has gained acceptance.

A much more popular suggestion revolves around the idea of "Q" (from the German word quelle, "source," J. Weiss, 1890). This is a designation given to a hypothetical document thought to be a collection of various sayings of Jesus from which the Gospel writers compiled at least parts of their Gospels. There are various proposals for both the content of Q and how it fits into the formation of the Gospels with some suggesting a larger role than others . Some scholars have attempted a reconstruction of what Q might have contained, although there is disagreement on the details (see A Proposed Reconstruction of "Q").

The discovery of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas in 1945 lent support to the idea of a Q document. Thomas is a collection of various sayings of Jesus without any connecting narrative (see The Gospel of Thomas). About one half of the 114 verses of Thomas have no parallel in the canonical Gospels, and another one third only appear in rough correspondence. Yet the number of similarities between Thomas and the Synoptics gives some support to the idea of an independent collection of sayings of Jesus that could have been a source document for the Gospels. Of course, the date of writing of Thomas is an important consideration. Some suggest that Thomas was written much later than any of the Gospels, which would suggest that it used the Gospels as sources rather than being a source for any of the Gospels.

The Priority of Mark: The Two Document Hypothesis

As scholars worked more with the Gospels, the complexity of the Gospel traditions became more apparent. Many scholars concluded that the questions raised about the relationship for the Synoptics could not be adequately explained by assuming that Matthew was the first Gospel written.

As a result, a new proposal for Gospel formation emerged based on the view that Mark, or some early form of Mark (Urmarkus), was the first Gospel written. Weiss, in a series of proposals in which he gradually refined his view (1838-1856), concluded that both Matthew and Luke were written independently from each other using two basic sources. The early form of Mark that contained material shared by all three Synoptics was supplemented by a separate collection of the sayings of Jesus (logia) that contained material shared by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark (the Double Tradition). This became known as the Two Source Hypothesis.

This understanding of Gospel formation continued to be refined and challenged throughout the 19th and early 20th century. The major debates about this theory revolved around how much the posited early form of Mark (Urmarkus) differed from the canonical Mark. Hawkins (1899) and Burkitt (1906) concluded that they were virtually identical, while Abbott (1901) argued for a later edited version of the canonical Mark (recension) that was used by the other Synoptic writers. Others modified other aspects of the hypotheses, for example R. Gundry (1979; earlier proposed by Holtzmann, 1880) who suggested that Luke also used some material from Matthew, which would functionally yield a three-source hypothesis.

These ongoing debates reveal that not all the details had been addressed, and that the Two-Source Hypothesis could not explain all the features of the Gospels. Still, it remains today the simplest and one of the most widely accepted ways to understand the literary relationship of the Synoptics.

The Priority of Mark: The Four Source Hypothesis

Scholars kept trying to refine the theories to explain more of both the similarities and differences in the Synoptics. That search led B. Streeter (1924) to modify the Two Source Hypothesis by expanding the number of posited sources. He rejected the idea of an early form of Mark, and saw Matthew and Luke using the canonical Mark as a source. Yet, for the material unique to each of those two Gospels, he also posited a separate source that he labeled M for Matthew and L for Luke. In other words, Matthew had access not only to Mark but also to his own M source, while Luke also had access to Mark but also to his own L source. Both Matthew and Luke depended on Mark, but were written independently of each other. He agreed with the earlier Two Document theory that both Matthew and Luke had access to a sayings collection (logia or Q) unavailable to Mark, but also posited that the L and Q sources were combined first into an early version of Luke that was later combined with the material from Mark to produce the canonical Luke.

This became known as the Four Source Hypothesis. The four original sources were Mark, L, M, and Q, with Matthew using Mark, M, and Q while Luke used Mark, L, and Q. Through the remainder of the 20th century there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis, such as Parker (1953) who posited an early version of Matthew (proto-Matthew) as the primary source of both Matthew and Mark, and a Q source used by Matthew and Luke, with Mark also providing material for Luke.

Summary and Prospect

What is clear from this brief survey of the Synoptic tradition is that there is no certain picture of how the Gospels were formed in terms of sources. There is no single theory of documents or sources that definitively demonstrates how all the similarities and differences in the Synoptic tradition can be explained. Today, most people accept either the Two Document or Four Source Hypotheses as being most reasonable, probably with the majority leaning to the Four Source Hypotheses. Today most allow a role for some form of a Q document, although there remains little agreement on the details of how it was used or what it contained.

But this should not be taken as saying that there is no value in any of this research. What Synoptic studies have shown us is that the Gospel traditions were truly living traditions passed on by a living community of Faith and used in that community. That has tremendous implications not only for how we study the Gospels, but also how we formulate our view of the nature of Scripture. For example, any view of the inspiration of Scripture must take into consideration the features of the biblical text that give rise to the Synoptic Problem. None of those proposals demand allegiance in the service of any particular theory of inspiration. But an honest formulation of any theory of inspiration that goes beyond dogma and ideology must consider the results of Synoptic research (see Revelation and Inspiration of Scripture).

A further implication of an examination of the Synoptic Problem yields one of the most important insights for the study of the Gospels. With this recognition of the complexity and interrelationship of the Synoptics, any detailed study of the Synoptics must consider the differences between the Gospels and the implications those differences have for interpretation. No matter which theory of composition we consider, since we are dealing with material that has identifiable sources, a major focus of exegesis must be how the individual authors have used, adapted, changed, or applied the material (redaction criticism or analysis).

For example, the differences between parallel accounts may reveal a particular theological emphasis as we examine what changes were made and what effect they have on the message. In one of the Beatitudes in Matthew's version of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Mt 5:3). Luke's version reads simply, "Blessed are you who are poor" (Lk 6:20). In a later Beatitude Matthew's version reads, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled" (5:6). Luke's version of the same saying is: "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled" (6:21). It is obvious that Luke used the tradition to focus on physical needs, while Matthew used it to focus on spiritual needs. 

At this point we might ask which version was the "original" version, and therefore which one was "true." But that makes some assumptions about the nature of the biblical material that leads us to ask the wrong questions of the text. That kind of question does not consider what closer examination of Synoptic sources suggests: that the individual authors were working with a living tradition and proclaiming it to a living community to meet the needs and concerns of that community. It was not a matter of which saying is "true." The better question is: "What was this author trying to say by telling us the tradition in this way?" 

This assumes that the Gospels with all their diversity are a faithful witness to the tradition, and then proceeds to try to understand the differences. The way particular authors omit or include material, place a saying into a certain context, add interpretative comments, or emphasize certain features of the tradition by expansion may reveal not only creativity in writing but a certain theological concern. Careful study of those features will enable astute students of Scripture to hear and understand the testimony of the Synoptics on a deeper level.

This emphasis on redaction analysis that grows out of study of the Synoptic Problem also allows us to see the various strands of the Gospel tradition in terms of different authors who were themselves each theologians in their own right rather than simply being static conduits of a tradition. They were not simply editors or compilers who passed on what they had heard without comment.  They took an active role in trying to bring the Gospel tradition alive within a certain context and for a certain purpose and likely for a certain audience.

We are compelled to see the Gospels, not as a single story that can be conflated into an epic script or harmonized into one story line (e.g., Tatian's Diatessaron), but as a living tradition, a testimony to God and his work in the world that is given to us out of the life of the early church. The various Gospels are each voices of that tradition, faithfully bearing witness to us of the truth that they had come to see in Jesus, as God had helped them understand that truth (inspiration). And, as John says, we believe their testimony is true!

But they are not the same voice no more than the church today speaks with a single voice. Of course, they bear witness to the same revelatory acts of God, but in a form that speaks of the same diversity of life and circumstances with which we are all familiar. That unity in diversity to which the Gospels so adequately bear witness might suggest that we not only hear the Gospel message in its own diversity, but that we also learn to do what the Gospel writers did and interpret that tradition amid the diversity of culture and history in our own world.

The Gospels writers did not change the basic truth of the tradition in its testimony to Jesus as the Christ and God's self-revelation of Himself in Jesus. But they did treat its message as a living tradition that could be applied and reapplied in the life of the community of Faith to call people to faithful response to that revelation, and to God. That may be the greatest insight we can learn from the study of the Synoptic Problem, because finally, for most of us, that is still our task today and is the purpose for which we study Scripture.

Source: http://www.crivoice.org/synoptic.html

The Gospels of Jesus: New Testament

An introduction to the books in the New Testament, the Gospels, and the arrangement.

The designation given to the second half of the King James Bible is “the New Testament,” which plainly means the “the New Covenant.” The word covenant is described in this manner: “an arrangement made by one party, which the other party involved, could accept or reject but could not alter.” The Old Testament primarily reports the beginning of humankind and God’s communication with Israel on the covenant given to Moses at Mt. Sinai.

Exodus 24:1-8: "And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off. And Moses alone shall come near the LORD: but they shall not come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him. And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words."

The New Testament illustrates the new creation of man through Christ Jesus based on the New Covenant:

Luke 22:14-20: "And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

2 Corinthians 3:6-11: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly

behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious."

The Old Covenant gives a detailed revealing of the holiness of God in the right standing of the Law and gave a picture and promise of the coming Messiah—the Redeemer of humankind. The New Covenant gives a picture of the holiness of God through the righteousness of His Glorious Son. Thus the New Testament includes the writings, which give us the New Covenant.

The significance of the New Testament Centers around:

1. The one who gave Himself for the remission of sins, Jesus Christ

2. The people (church) who have received the salvation of Christ.

Thus, the fundamental premise of the New Testament is salvation. The Gospels establish the Savior, Christ Jesus. The book, which is called the Acts of the Apostles, describes the spread of the good news concerning Christ’s gift of salvation, through a large part of the Mediterranean world during the first century A.D. The Epistles (letters) give particulars of the blessings salvation brings, and the Revelation gives a foretaste of the culmination of salvation.

The New Testament is an arrangement of 27 books written by nine authors going under the assumption that Paul did not write Hebrews. The writing of the New Testament books covers a period of about 50 years. The books of the New Testament logically fall into four categories:

1. The Gospels: In the Gospels we find the description of the life and times of Jesus Christ. The Gospels were written later than most of the New Testament books but since they speak mainly of the birth and life of Christ, they were properly placed at the beginning.

2. 2. The Acts of the Apostles is the account of the church and the spread of Christianity all over the Mediterranean world.

3. 3. The books from Romans through Jude (21 letters) detail mostly the life of Paul and his missionary trips to the churches.

4. 4. The Revelation describes the victorious triumph of Jesus.

The actual order of writing of the books of the New Testament according to time written is like this:

All dates are A.D.

1. James 45-50

2. Galatians 49

3. 1 and 2 Thessalonians 51

4. Mark 50’s

5. 1 Corinthians 56

6. 2 Corinthians 57

7. Romans 58

8. Luke 60

9. Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon 61

10. Acts 61

11. Matthew 60’s

12. 1 Timothy 63

13. 1 Peter 63

14. Titus 65

15. 2 Timothy 66

16. 2 Peter 66

17. Hebrews 64-68

18. Jude 70-80

19. John 85-90

20. 1,2,3 John 90

21. Revelation 90’s

The books of the New Testament were not collected as a book over a period of a few years instead it took over 350 years to gather the books of the New Testament. The church collected and scrutinized the books as to authorship, spiritual content, inspired by God and its reception by the churches. The Council of Carthage finally approved the canon of the New Testament in 327 A.D. No original canon of the New Testament remains today although more than 8,000 Latin manuscripts, 4,500 Greek manuscripts and around 1000 various manuscripts do exist from which we get our translations.

The beginning of the New Testament is similar in nature to the beginning of the Old Testament. It is a beginning of life. In the Old Testament God creates life:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

In the New Testament a life is born, that gives life:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

The Gospels begin the New Testament. The word Gospel means ‘good news.’ The good news contained in the Gospels is the news of the birth of a savior and the doorway to salvation for all humankind.

Christianity was quickly spreading across the Mediterranean countries leaving a need for written accounts of the life and ministry of the Messiah. Many of the first hand witnesses to the accounts of Christ’s life were getting old and death was imminent for them so written accounts of the events were recorded for future generations.

Although many other Gospels exist, only four of them were deemed holy. The four deemed worthy of inclusion in the New Testament were written earlier than the other Gospels. The basis for not including the other Gospels as holy Words of God is due to the whimsical and fêted

writing style. Many of the Gospels not included contain stories that differ greatly from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Many of the other Gospel writings contain references that promote sectarian and heretical viewpoints. Each of the included Gospels were written by Apostles and directed toward individual groups of people:

1. Matthew for the Jews

2. 2. Mark for the Romans

3. 3. Luke for the Gentiles

4. 4. John for the Christians

Three of the Gospels contain stories that are parallel to each other and these are called the Synoptic Gospels coming from the root word, synopsis, meaning viewing together. The events in these three books show the life and ministry of Christ with all but 31 verses of Mark having parallels in Luke or in Matthew. Most of the material in the Gospel of John is exclusive and formatted in discourses to the Christians. The four books of the Gospels are complimentary to each other and to the redemptive life and ministry of Christ.

Resources:

KJV Holy Bible

NIV Holy Bible, Thompson Chain Study Reference

New Jerusalem Bible

Matthew Henry Commentary

Darby Commentary

RSV Holy Bible

Barclay’s Commentary

Source: http://www.essortment.com/all/booksinthenew_rkgm.htm

Research Paper help

https://www.homeworkping.com/