What account for the differences in the synoptic Gospels?

Answer 1

There are numerous differences in the synoptic accounts of the resurrection, as indeed there are in many other parallel accounts throughout the synoptics.

Differences are entirely what would be expected where different people with different writing styles (and abilities), different perspectives and even different sources all write about the same events. Some writers even deliberately sought to put a slightly different view in order to present a uniform theme throughout their work. This is not altogether different to when newspaper reporters today write different reports about a significant event they all witnessed.

What results from the differences is not at all a contradictory view but a richer view than what we would have if they had all colluded to write exactly the same thing -in that case we might as well have had only one synoptic Gospel and not three.

Just as with newspapers, so with the synoptic writers, a different audience can sometimes be in mind which then has an impact on what is recorded and on how it is communicated. Matthew, clearly written for the Jews has much Old Testament prophecy and presents Jesus' as a teacher in the Jewish style. These differences are also then evident in the resurrection accounts which contain differences both in detail and in emphasis.

It is also necessary to bear in mind that omission of details from one Gospel account or inclusion in another has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the account. Sometimes it also helps to realise that there are gaps in terms of the time-frame reported, which are often not stated. There is nowhere an attempt to write a continuous and complete record - which is probably one reason why we have three accounts and not one, since each writer felt inspired to record what they new which contained similarities but also significant differences which added to the fullness of the picture that we have in the inspired scripture.

Answer 2

-----------------------

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 Tstament 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, but they 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 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.

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 3

The synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke posses significant differences. Explanations of this include:

(1) An Early Solution. Augustine (A.D.354-430) decided Matthew wrote first; Mark abridged Matthew; and Luke was dependent on both of them.

(2) Later Solutions after 1800. A single, original Gospel is now lost to us, perhaps an orally transmitted Gospel formalized through constant repetition or an actual document. Matthew, Mark and Luke individually selected material from this Gospel as they wrote their accounts.

Gospel writers used two documents: Mark and a collection of Jesus' teachings now appearing in both Matthew and Luke.

(3) The Four Document Hypothesis; Shortly after 1900, B.H. Streeter said the Synoptic writers used four documents:

• (a) Mark, whose order, vocabulary, and sentence structure is followed by both Matthew and Luke.
• (b) "Q", the common teachings source Matthew and Luke used, Q's significant contribution being the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and Luke 6:20-49).
• (c) "M," Matthew's body of material unknown to (or at least unused by) Mark and Luke, including Matthew's infancy story and Old Testament proof texts related to Jesus' role as Messiah.
• (d) "L," material exclusive to Luke containing at least an infancy story and many parables such as good Samaritan and Prodigal Son.

Whiles most contemporary scholars hold that Matthew and Luke used Mark and "Q" but no other written sources, one must recognize any solution to the synoptic problem is a theory and not a proven fact.

Answer 4

A:The three synoptic gospels are those of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Even three different eyewitnesses can be expected to give three somewhat different versions of events, and it is widely assumed that only one of these authors was an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus. However, we now know that even this was not the case.

The New Testament gospels were all written anonymously and only attributed to the apostles whose names they now bear later in the second century. However, scholars say that there are good reasons not to accept those attributions, including that none of the gospels could have been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed.

Mark's Gospel was written first, approximately 70 CE, and both Matthew and Luke were largely based on this original gospel. However the authors of Matthew and Lukesomtimes elaborated on the original account, but did so independently, not knowing what the other had written. Matthew and Luke also used sayings material from the hypothetical 'Q' document. As Mark does not contain material from Q, this brings about another difference of Matthew and Luke from that gospel. However, Q did not give a context in which Jesus might have spoken those sayings, so each evangelist had to create his own context, generally using parables. Thus, we have the beatitudes given in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, but in the Sermon on the Plain in Luke. Only four of the beatitudes came from Q, with the other four, that are in Matthew only, coming from other sources such as a Psalm. Differences in the beatitudes reflect the different theologies of the two evangelists (for example Matthew 5 gives the first beatitude as, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," but Luke 6 says the first beatitude is, "Blessed be the poor: for theirs is the kingdom of God." A subtle difference, but a telling one).

The two authors of Matthew and Luke felt the need to provide an account of the birth and childhood of Jesus, but had no guidance from Mark, other than Mary's name and a hint of Joseph's name. Writing independently of each other, Matthew says that the home town of Joseph and Mary was Bethlehem and that they fled from Bethlehem to Egypt while Jesus was a baby and only found their way to Nazareth years later, but Luke says that Nazareth was their home town and that they returned peacefully to that city via Jerusalem, just a few weeks after the birth of Jesus. Even their genealogies are unaccountably different.

Similarly, the authors of Matthew and Luke wanted to provide evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, but Markoriginally ended at verse 16:8 with the young man telling the women that Jesus had risen and they fled in terror, telling no one. Because of the 'Long Ending', added much later, it is generally assumed that Mark provided an account of the appearances of the risen Jesus. Again writing with no knowledge of each other, Matthew said that Jesus met the disciples in a mountain in Galilee and sent the disciples forth across the world to preach, while Luke says that Jesus met the two on the road to Emmaeus, then the disciples at ameal on the evening of his resurrection and was finally taken up bodily to heaven the same night. Luke's ending clearly precludes Matthew's meeting weeks later in a mountain in Galilee (as well as Luke's later story in Acts of the Apostles of Jesus remaining on earth for forty days).

Answer 5

Mark's Gospel is known to have been the first gospel to have been written, approximately 70 CE. The earliest manuscripts of Mark finished when the young man simply told the women that Jesus was risen, and they fled in fear, telling no one; the "Long Ending" (verses 16:9-25) were added much later. Thus, the gospel that all the later evangelists would rely on for their knowledge of the life and mission of Jesus, says nothing about the resurrection.

Matthew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel were based on Mark's Gospel. Whenever they agree with Mark, they follow the first gospel quite closely, even using almost identical words in the original Greek language. Each of them adds elaborate additional information such as that about the birth of Jesus and his resurrection, that could not possibly have come from Mark, and about which the author of Mark knew nothing.

Matthew's Gospel reports an earthquake that rolled away the stone. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw the angel who caused the earthquake sitting on the stone. The women saw Jesus later while on the way to tell the disciples of their experience. Finally, the eleven disciples went to a mountain in Galilee and saw Jesus. In Luke's Gospel, the stone had already been moved when a group of women arrived, but there is no mention of an earthquake. This time, two men appeared to the women in shining garments, apparently angels. Later, Jesus appeared to two men, Cleopas and (presumably) Peter, but they did not recognise him, even after conversing with him, inviting him home, and eating dinner with him. They only assumed that he was Jesus based on his words and behaviour, but then he vanished out of their sight. At his next appearance, Jesus went to some lengths to assure them that he really was Jesus, showing the disciples his wounds, and finally being drawn up into heaven. All this happened in and near Jerusalem, not in Galilee.

The accounts in Matthew and Luke are entirely incompatible and so different that they could never really be explained away as different recollections of a past event. The authors were simply writing Christian midrash to show what they thought could have happened.

Once the Christian community accepted that the risen Jesus had appeared to the disciples, it became desirable to reflect this belief in Mark's Gospel. Two or three different endings were tried, before what is now known as the "Long Ending" became universally accepted. This simply had Jesus appear to two of them on the road, without identifying whether these were the twowomen of Matthew or the two men of Luke. It thus elegantly harmonises with the two accounts of Matthew and Luke, but the remainder of the ending is closer to Luke than to Matthew.

Answer 6

The most significant differences of content among the synoptic gospels are:

• When Matthew and Luke agree, with content that is not found in Mark
• The 'Missing Block', wherein Luke omits material found in both Mark and Matthew
• The two nativity stories
• The account of the empty tomb
• The appearances of the risen Jesus

I have given Mark's Gospel priority in describing these differences, because New Testament scholars recognise that Matthew and Luke were based on Mark's Gospel. All the New Testament gospels were written anonymously and were only attributed to the apostles whose names they now bear during the second century. The use of Mark by the authors of Matthew and Luke can readily be demonstrated by a parallel reading in the original Greek language. Furthermore, Mark's use of particular literary devices means that it must have been the original, not Matthew or Luke.

Content that is not found in Mark
Scholars say that the authors of Matthew and Lukeused a second source common to both gospels. This is the hypothetical 'Q' document, sometimes known as the Synoptic Source Document.

The 'Missing Block'
A 'Missing Block', for a total of 74.5 verses from Mark 6:47 to Mark 8:27a, was omitted from Luke, resulting 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. A number of important stories were thereby omitted, including the story of Jesus walking on water. It has been estimated that the Missing Block probably corresponded to 13 pages that were missing or had been removed from the copy of Mark's Gospel that the author of Luke used as his source.

The two nativity stories
Not only does Mark not have a nativity story, Matthew and Luke provide two nativity stories which Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says are not only massively different, but also in details virtually irreconcilable: about Joseph and Mary's home (in Bethlehem in Matthew 2:11 [house]: in Nazareth in Luke 2:4-7, with no home in Bethlehem) and about their travels after the birth of Jesus (to Egypt in Matthew 2:14; to Jerusalem and Nazareth in Luke 2:22,39). Uta Ranke-Heinemann (Putting Away Childish Things) simply says the nativity accounts are both, with respect to time, place, and circumstances, a collection of legends.

The account of the empty tomb

This prompted Archbishop Peter Carnley to write: "The presence of discrepancies might be a sign of historicity if we had four clearly independent but slightly different versions of the story, if only for the reason that four witnesses are better than one. But, of course, it is now impossible to argue that what we have in the four gospel accounts of the empty tomb are four contemporaneous but independent accounts of the one event. Modern redactional studies of the traditions account for the discrepancies as literary developments at the hand of later redactors of what was originally one report of the empty tomb... There is no suggestion that the tomb was discovered by different witnesses on four different occasions, so it is in fact impossible to argue that the discrepancies were introduced by different witnesses of the one event; rather, they can be explained as four different redactions for apologetic and kerygmatic reasons of a single story originating from one source."

The appearances of the risen Jesus
Mark's Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8, with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they told no one. The "Long Ending" (verses 16:9-20) was added to Mark's Gospel long afterwards, but the version known to the authors of Matthew and Luke would certainly have ended at 16:8, with no mention of any resurrection appearances.

Each of them wanted to prove that Jesus really had risen from the dead, but each had to devise his own story of the resurrection and the subsequent appearances of the risen Jesus. And each of them wrote a different story. The Long Ending added to Mark does straddle the middle ground between the two, creating some appearance of harmony.

Answer 7

It was the same story but a different perspective, just as eye witnesses each give a different account of what they saw.