Literature
Comparisons and Contrasts in the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke
Comparisons and Contrasts in the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are collectively known as the Synoptic Gospels, a term derived from the Greek word synoptikos, meaning seeing in synch. This collective term is apt because these gospels narrate the life and teachings of Jesus with a remarkably similar narrative style. However, the similarities and differences between these gospels reveal a rich tapestry of divergent perspectives and additional material that sheds light on the evolution of early Christian writings.
Similarities and Differences
The Synoptic Gospels share numerous commonalities but also exhibit significant divergences. The first basis for these similarities is that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were substantially based on Mark’s Gospel, incorporating much of the same material in the same sequence and often using the same Greek words. This dependency is a cornerstone of the synoptic tradition and underpins a high degree of consistency in storytelling between Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
The second basis for similarities between Matthew and Luke involves the use of a hypothetical document known as the Q source, which provided additional sayings of Jesus. However, this source is not referenced in Mark. The interplay of these sources and their influence on the other Gospels is a subject of significant scholarly inquiry and debate.
The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus
Mark's Gospel portrays Jesus as an ordinary human adopted by God as his son at the time of his baptism. After the baptism, Jesus is led into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit to be tempted by Satan. Mark presents this as a straightforward test to establish Jesus' worthiness, though the connection is not explicitly made. In contrast, Matthew and Luke retain the scene of Jesus being tempted by the devil but interpret it differently. In these accounts, Satan is not presented as testing Jesus but rather as attempting to divert Him from His prophetic mission.
The Nativity and Early Life of Jesus
A common feature of these gospels is the inclusion of Christmas stories and genealogies, despite Mark’s absence of such details. Matthew and Luke felt that these elements were essential for the narrative, leading to two distinct nativity stories and genealogies.
In Matthew, Jesus is born during the reign of King Herod, who died in April 4 BCE, while in Luke, Jesus is born during a census instituted by Quirinius, governor of Syria, in 6 CE, more than a decade after Herod’s death. This divergence presents a significant challenge in historical synchronization. Matthew details a journey of wise men to Jerusalem, prompting a flight to Egypt and subsequent return to Nazareth, while Luke emphasizes a journey to Bethlehem due to a census and the arrival of shepherds. Both gospels agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and to a virginal Mary, fulfilling first-century Jewish expectations.
The Resurrection and Post-Resurrection Apparitions
Mark’s Gospel concludes abruptly at 16:8, with the young man’s cryptic message and the fleeing women, providing no account of the risen Jesus. Matthew and Luke, lacking this guidance, developed their own unique accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances and interactions with his disciples.
Matthew includes the post-earthquake scene with an angel moving the stone, confirming the resurrection to the women and sending them to tell the disciples. The disciples, however, do not initially believe the women. Luke presents a more private and somber farewell, with Jesus meeting the disciples at a meal in Jerusalem and then ascending to heaven on the same day. Both narratives, while divergent, aim to authenticate the resurrection, but through distinct theological and narrative approaches.
Conclusion
The Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, while sharing a common narrative thread, reveal their unique personalities through divergent details, reflecting the diverse intentions and interpretations of their respective authors. The interplay of the Markan tradition and the hypothetical Q source offers a fascinating glimpse into the evolving Christian narrative.