What are the differences in the synoptic gospels?

Answer 1

A:Theologians have traditionally believed that differences in the gospel accounts result from the different evangelists seeing or learning of different events in the mission of Jesus, or of having different interests in what they paid most attention to, in communicating to their audiences. Yet the Church Fathers, by means of parallel readings in the original Greek language, had already realised in the second century that there was a literary dependency among the three synoptic gospels. The gospels were originally anonymous and the Church Fathers attributed the gospel now known as Matthew's Gospel to the disciple Matthew, believing it to have been the source used by the authors of Mark and Luke. Modern biblical scholars agree that there is a literary dependency, but say that Mark's Gospel was the original, and that Matthew and Luke were based largely on that Gospel. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) assumes that Mark seems to depend on traditions (and perhaps already shaped sources) received in Greek.

The authors of Matthew and Luke elaborated some of Mark's material or, in other cases, corrected apparent errors in their original. They also relied on the hypothetical 'Q' document for further sayings material attributed to Jesus. However, Q does not provide the context in which Jesus spoke those sayings, so each author, of Matthew and Luke, added his own context. The author of Mark appears to have been unaware of Q, so included none of that material in his gospel.

Matthew was written before Luke, but the author of Luke was unaware of Matthew's Gospel and could not harmonise his own gospel with it. Both authors wished to write a story of the birth of Jesus, but Matthew sought to make the Old Testament appear to prefigure the story of Jesus, and drew parallels between Jesus and Moses. Luke appears to have relied on material from the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus, to add authenticity to his story. Thus, he added the census of Quirinius, but was either unaware or unconcerned that Quirinius was governor of Syria too late for his story. Brown say the best explanation is that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately.

The authors of Matthew and Luke wished to provide evidence that Jesus really had risen, but Mark's Gospel, in its original form, ended at verse 16:8, with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they told no one. Each author had to create his own ending, and each ending is entirely different to the other. The "Long Ending" (verses 16:9-20) was added to Mark's Gospel long afterwards to provide the necessary resurrection appearances and to more or less harmonise it with Matthewand Luke.

Answer 2

A:The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because, when placed side by side, many passages can be seen to have been copied verbatim from an original text - hence synoptic, with 'the same eye'. They are moderately similar in their accounts of the life and mission of Jesus, giving another explanation for the term.

The gospels were originally anonymous and only attributed to the apostles whose names they now bear, later in the second century. Mark's Gospel was the first to be written, and the authors of Matthew and Luke are known to have relied on Mark for everything they knew about the life and mission of Jesus, with Matthew including some 600 of the 666 verses in Mark. Luke includes a somewhat lower number of verses in Mark, because of the 'Missing Block', a sequential block of text that probably amounted to exactly thirteen pages missing from the copy of Mark that its author used. Whenever Matthew and Luke agree with Mark, they use the same sequence and often exactly the same words in the Greek language as Mark, something that could only be explained by a literary dependence.

There is further agreement between Matthew and Luke in many of the sayings or parables attributed to Jesus. These are believed to have come from the hypothetical 'Q' document, which was a list of sayings attributed to Jesus, but without any information as to when or where Jesus spoke these sayings. As a result, the two authors each had to improvise his own context for the sayings. The sayings from Q are not in Mark because its author was probably unaware of them.

Although much of the material in Matthew and Lukecomes from Mark, their authors elaborated some of Mark's material or, in other cases, corrected apparent errors in their original.

Matthew was written before Luke, but the author of Luke was unaware of Matthew's Gospel and could not harmonise his own gospel with it. Both authors wished to write a story of the birth of Jesus, but Matthew sought to make the Old Testament appear to prefigure the birth of Jesus, and drew parallels between Jesus and Moses. Luke appears to have relied on material from the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus, to add authenticity to his story, adding the census of Quirinius, but was either unaware or unconcerned that Quirinius was governor of Syria too late for his story. Matthew's genealogy has Jacob as the father of Joseph, just as Jacob was the father of Joseph in the Old Testament, thus supporting the parallels the author was drawing between Jesus and Moses. Luke's genealogy was unconcerned with drawing this parallel, and it has Heli as the father of Joseph, with many other differences all the way back to Abraham.

The authors of Matthew and Luke wished to provide evidence that Jesus really had risen, but Mark's Gospel, in its original form, ended at verse 16:8, with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they told no one. Each author had to create his own ending, and each ending is entirely different to the other. The "Long Ending" (verses 16:9-20) was added to Mark's Gospel long afterwards to provide the necessary resurrection appearances and to more or less harmonise it with Matthewand Luke.

Answer 3

AnswerAccounting for the similarities among the synoptic gospels is easier and less controversial than accounting for the differences. Theologians have traditionally believed that differences in the gospel accounts result from the different evangelists seeing or learning of different events in the mission of Jesus, or of having different interests in what they paid most attention to, in communicating to their audiences. However, biblical scholars say that the New Testament gospels were not really written by the apostles to whom they have been attributed, and could not even have been written by eyewitnesses to the events they portray. The gospels were originally anonymous and only attributed to the apostles whose names they now bear, later in the second century.

Mark's Gospel was the first to be written, and Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) assumes that Mark seems to depend on traditions (and perhaps already shaped sources) received in Greek. The authors of Matthewand Luke are known to have relied on Mark for everything they knew about the life and mission of Jesus, with Matthew including some 600 of the 666 verses in Mark. Luke includes a somewhat lower number of verses in Mark, because of the 'Missing Block', a sequential block of text that probably amounted to exactly thirteen pages missing from the copy of Mark that its author used. Whenever Matthew and Luke agree with Mark, they use the same sequence and often exactly the same words in the Greek language as Mark, something that could only be explained by a literary dependence.

There is further agreement between Matthew and Luke in many of the sayings or parables attributed to Jesus. These are believed to have come from the hypothetical 'Q' document, which was a list of sayings attributed to Jesus, but without any information as to when or where Jesus spoke these sayings. As a result, the two authors each had to improvise his own context for the sayings. The sayings from Q are not in Mark because its author was probably unaware of them.

Although much of the material in Matthew and Lukecomes from Mark, their authors elaborated some of Mark's material or, in other cases, corrected apparent errors in their original.

Matthew was written before Luke, but the author of Luke was unaware of Matthew's Gospel and could not harmonise his own gospel with it. Both authors wished to write a story of the birth of Jesus, but Matthew sought to make the Old Testament appear to prefigure the story of Jesus, and drew parallels between Jesus and Moses. John Shelby Spong (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus) calls Matthew's story Christian midrash. Luke appears to have relied on material from the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus, to add authenticity to his story. Thus, he added the census of Quirinius, but was either unaware or unconcerned that Quirinius was governor of Syria too late for his story. Brown say the best explanation is that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately.

The authors of Matthew and Luke wished to provide evidence that Jesus really had risen, but Mark's Gospel, in its original form, ended at verse 16:8, with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they told no one. Each author had to create his own ending, and each ending is entirely different to the other. The "Long Ending" (verses 16:9-20) was added to Mark's Gospel long afterwards to provide the necessary resurrection appearances and to more or less harmonise it with Matthewand Luke.

Answer 4

A:What make the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) similar is that they were all written in Greek and Matthew and Luke were based on Mark's Gospel, and therefore share much of the same material. Matthew and Luke also share a second source, the hypothetical 'Q' document, as a source of sayings attributed to Jesus.

It is to be remembered that the four gospels were originally anonymous and were only attributed to the disciples whose names they now bear later in the second century.What makes them different is much more complex than the reasons for their similarities:

• Matthew's Gospel contains some 600 of the 666 verses in Mark, but Luke's Gospel does not incorporate any material from Mark 6:47 to Mark 8:27a, a total of 74.5 verses that were probably on exactly 13 pages of Greek text missing from the copy of Mark's Gospel relied on by the author of Luke. This 'Missing Block' results in the curious conjunction found in Luke 9:18 "And it came to pass as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them ..." These clauses are more meaningful when found in Mark at the start and end of the Missing Block.
• Mark's Gospel contains none of the material from Q.
• Mark's Gospel contains no information on the birth and early childhood of Jesus. Without a guide from Mark, the authors of Matthew and Luke had to write nativity accounts that they believed could have been correct, with neither author even aware of the other. As a result, Matthew has Bethlehem as the home town of Mary and Joseph, has them flee from Bethlehem to Egypt for fear of Herod, begin the return journey to Bethlehem but, being warned in a dream, turn aside and travel to Nazareth instead. Luke has Nazareth as the home town of Mary and Joseph, has them travel to Bethlehem for a census, travel to Jerusalem a few days after the birth of Jesus and then return peacefully to Nazareth in Galilee.
• Mark's Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8, with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen, and the fled in terror, telling no one. The authors of Matthew and Luke had to write accounts of the risen Jesus without any guide from Mark, and so they differ almost completely. The 'Long Ending' (verses 16:9-20), added to Mark much later, and to some extent harmonises the accounts in Matthew and Luke.
• The author of Matthew sought to demonstrate the antiquity of Christianity by frequent references to the Old Testament. The author of Luke sought to demonstrate the historicity of the gospel account by linking it to events from the past. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately.

A:It was the same story but a different perspective, just as eye witnesses each give a different account of what they saw. A:Although the three books are similar, Matthew wrote with a Hebrew slant and Luke wrote with a gentile slant and both of these followed, according to tradition, Mark's gospel.

Answer 5

A:To some extent, the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Markand Luke) look different when read in an English translation, although the contents are often remarkably similar. When read synoptically ('with the same eye') in the original Greek language, along side each other, it becomes clear that the three books are closely related as copies from one original source. The Church Fathers in the second century believed that Matthewwas the original gospel and that Mark and Luke were copied from it.

Modern New Testament scholars agree there is a literary relationship among the synoptic gospels but say that Markwas the original and that Matthew and Luke were based on Mark's Gospel. They have also identified a second source used by the authors of Matthew and Luke for sayings material, but not used by the author of Mark. They now refer to this source as the hypothetical 'Q' document.

John is not a synoptic gospel because its main source was Luke and it is therefore further removed from the original, and the author was not as concerned with staying close to his sources.

Answer 6

Similarities

The overall structure and content of the four passion narratives are similar, being based directly or indirectly on the original account in Mark's Gospel according to most biblical scholars.

Mark's Gospel gives us the chronology of the last twenty four hours in the life of Jesus, breaking them up into eight segments each of exactly three hours, and the other gospels follow this pattern more or less faithfully:

• The story begins "when it was evening" (Mark 14:17), or when the sun went down: approximately 6 pm.
• Mark knew that the duration of the Passover meal was three hours and that it concluded with the singing of a hymn, so at the end of his segment he says, "And when they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives". It was about 9 p.m.
• Mark then has Jesus and the disciples go to the Garden of Gethsemane, where his disciples, Peter, James and John, were not able to remain awake. "Could you not watch one hour?" Jesus asked. The process was repeated two more times. The disciples could not watch one, two or three hours. It was now midnight.
• The act of betrayal, the darkest deed in human history, came next, occurring at the stroke of midnight.
• Jesus was led away for a trial before the high priest and other senior priests and elders. This governing body then judged him, on the basis of his messianic claim, to be worthy of death. It was 3:00 a.m.
• The watch of the night between 3 am and 6 am was called cockcrow. Peter's threefold denial of Jesus, once each hour until the cock crowed, marked the end of that phase of the night. That makes it 6 am.
• "As soon as it was morning", which would be 6 am, Jesus was led by the chief priests, scribes and elders to Pontius Pilate for judgement. Pilate was reluctant to execute Jesus and offerred to free either Jesus or Barabas, but the crowd chose Barabas to be freed.
• "It was the third hour when they crucified him," that is, 9 o'clock.
• When "the sixth hour had come" (12 noon), darkness covered the whole earth, reflecting the betrayal at 12 midnight.
• After three hours of darkness, at 3 pm, Jesus cried out and gave up the ghost.
• Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, so that he could be buried before the Sabbath began. Jesus was buried in the final period from 3 to 6 pm, before the sun went down.
• That brings us to 6 pm on Friday evening, reflecting the beginning of the passion on 6 pm on Thursday evening.

Differences

Where the gospels differ is generally where each author saw a reason to elaborate on his source.

A key difference, that is not readily apparent without reading the gospels carefully, is that the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) place the crucifixion on the day of the Passover, thus setting the scene for the Last Supper the evening before, while John says that the crucifixion took place on the day of Preparation for the Passover. This allowed the author to place more emphasis on Jesus as the paschal lamb. It is also the reason for John replacing the important episode of the Last Supper, which took place as the Jewish feast of the Passover, with the simple ritual of washing the feet of the disciples.

Luke's arrest of Jesus takes place on the Mount of Olives, perhaps the location of the Garden of Gethsemene. In this gospel, an angel appears to Jesus as he prays, strengthening his resolve. Jesus' sweat is like great drops of blood as it falls to the ground.

Among the synoptics, only Luke has Jesus heal the servant's severed ear. This is copied in John, which actually tells us that it was Simon Peter who cut off his ear.

Only Mark has the elusive young man run naked from the scene of the arrest.

In Mark, Jesus was presumably being held in a cell, while others warm themselves by a fire, when Peter denied Jesus three times. In Luke, Jesus was present and looked at Peter as he denied him.

The author of John knew that the Sanhedrin would never meet in judgement during the hours of darkness. While the synoptic gospels have Jesus brought before the Sanhedrin at 3 AM, John has Jesus brought to Annas, then separately to the house of his son-in-law, Caiaphas. The author of John was wary of offending the Romans, but also sought to portray Jesus as divine. When Jesus was taken to Pontius Pilate in the morning, Johnhas Pilate tell the priests to try Jesus according to their own law, but they responded that they could not put a man to death. After Jesus was scouged, John again has Pilate say that he found no wrong with Jesus. The Jews said that Jesus had called himself the Son of God, which made Pilate afraid of divine retribution against him, and he sought yet again to free Jesus.

In Matthew, Pontius Pilate delivered Jesus to be crucified, and washed his hands. In Luke, he gave Herod of Galilee the responsibility of deciding Jesus' fate, and so did not wash his hands.
The synoptic gospels have Simon of Cyrene carry the cross for Jesus, but John 19:17 has Jesus carry the cross all the way to Golgotha.

Only John has Pilate accompany Jesus to the crucifixion and then argue with the Jews about the wording of the sign placed above the cross.

In Mark, Jesus is offerred a drink containing wine and the valuable healing resin, myrrh, just before he is placed on the cross. Luke omits this, possibly because of its improbability, but has the soldiers mock him on the cross and offer him a drink of vinegar.

On the cross, Matthew and Mark says that Jesus said, "My God, My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" and then died. Luke says that Jesus talked to the two criminals who were crucified with him; then when he was about to die, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Neither of these was appropriate for the Son of God, so John has Jesus calmly utter the final words, "It is finished."
At the moment of Jesus' death, Matthew says that there was an earthquake and that dead people rose up out of the graves. Although Matthew says that the walking dead were seen by many in Jerusalem, the other gospels recorded no earthquake or resurrection of the dead and buried.

Mark is clear in that none of the disciples was at the crucifixion, but women looked from afar off: among them, Mary. Luke says that those of his acquaintance stood afar off with the women. John has the mother of Jesus, her sister Mary, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene at the foot of the cross, along with the "disciple whom Jesus loved". This provided the opportunity for Jesus to tell the disciple to look after his mother as if she were his, John's, own.

In Mark, when the centurion sees that Jesus had died, just like any other man crucified, he mockingly says, "Truly this man was the Son of God." This is elaborated in Luke, which has the pagan centurion glorify God, saying this truly was a righteous man.