INTRODUCTION to the GOSPELS

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS:

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, AND JOHN

First of all we should distinguish between “the gospel” and “the Gospels.” The first is God’s message to men. It is the Godspell, the spell or story that tells us what God, by means of the incarnation, earthly sojourn, mighty acts, suffering, death, and resurrection of his only Son, has done to save sinners. It is the evangel or “message of good tidings,” the glad news of salvation addressed to a world lost in sin. This is the meaning of the term in biblical usage.¹ Not what we must do but what God in Christ has done for us is the most prominent part of this good news. Nevertheless, what men must do to be saved and thus to live their lives to the benefit of their neighbors and to the glory of God is also definitely included (Matt. 5:16; 11:25–30; Mark 2:17; 8:34; Luke 5:32; John 3:14–18).

According to the second and later (post-biblical) usage of the term, a Gospel—often capitalized to mark the distinction in meaning between this and the first usage—is one of the four books in which this good news is authoritatively set forth.

From the very early days of the recorded history of the New Testament church there have been four, and only four, widely recognized Gospels. To emphasize the fact that they set forth one and the same gospel, the term “fourfold Gospel” or “evangelical instrument” is at times ascribed to them. Thus Tertullian, in his work Against Marcion (begun about a.d. 207), states:

“We posit as our first principle that the evangelical instrument has apostles as its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord himself this duty of publishing the gospel.… Of these apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us, while the apostolic men, Luke and Mark, renew it” (IV. 2).

Even somewhat earlier, in a work dating from about a.d. 182–188, the great theologian and traveler Irenaeus, sums up what was apparently the consensus of the entire church of his day, in these words:

“It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer than they are” (Against Heresies III.xi.8). We may not be able to accept the validity of some of the grounds upon which he bases this conclusion, namely, that the world is divided into four zones, that there are four principal winds, and that the cherubim are described in Scripture as four-faced; we can, nevertheless, find in this statement confirmation of the position already expressed, namely, that from very early days there have been four, and only four widely recognized Gospels.

The superscriptions of the Gospels, as found in the old Greek manuscripts, point in the same direction. Though these headings cannot be dated with absolute certainty and are not part of the original document but were subsequently added by copyists, they do show that probably as early as a.d. 125 the four books under discussion were assembled into a collection for use in the churches, and were given the titles: “According to Matthew,” “According to Mark,” etc. Strictly speaking, such an “according to” ascription does not necessarily indicate authorship. The meaning “drawn up in harmony with the teaching of” satisfies the wording. Yet, there is abundant evidence to show that the early Christians gave a broader connotation to the title, and regarded the person named in it as the actual author. They believed in one gospel, proclaimed in written form by four authors in four books.

Now according to tradition it was the apostle John who wrote the last of the four. Says Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200):

“Last of all John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospels, being urged by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.”²

Now in this fourth Gospel the general framework as found in the other three is retained; that is, in all four the coming of Jesus is described in connection with the work and witness of John the Baptist; there follow reports of Christ’s entrance into Galilee, the enthusiasm of the crowds and the growing opposition, the miraculous feeding of the multitude, Peter’s confession, the departure to Jerusalem, the triumphal entry into the city, a supper of the Lord with his disciples, the experiences in the garden (though the account of the agony in the garden is not found in John), the capture, trial and denial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection.

The first three Gospels, taken as a group, and the last (John’s) supplement each other. Each requires the other, to be fully understood. Thus it is in the light of Matt. 10:5 (“in the direction of the Gentiles do not proceed”) that we can explain Philip’s hesitancy in bringing the Greeks to Jesus (John 12:20–22); and it is in the light of John 1:15, 29, 30; 3:30 (“He must increase, but I must decrease”) that we can understand what Jesus says with reference to the Baptist’s “greatness” (Matt. 11:11). The reason for the trip to Jerusalem (Mark 10:32), though explained even in the Synoptics (for example, the very next verse, 10:33), is made even clearer by John 11:1ff. Peter’s presence in the courtroom of the highpriest’s palace (Matt. 26:58, 69 ff.) is explained by John 18:15, 16. Christ’s lamentation, so filled with pathos, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered your children together, …” (Matt. 23:37–39), and also his defense “I was daily with you in the temple, teaching” (Mark 14:49), when the Synoptics have said very little about this Jerusalem and temple ministry of Jesus, becomes clear when we study John 2:14; 5:14; 7:14, 28 [8:2]; and 10:22, 23. The accusation against Jesus, Matt. 26:6 (cf. Mark 14:58), “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days,’ ” becomes clear when read in connection with John 2:19. Moreover, the tone of the reported words and speeches of Jesus as recorded in John’s Gospel is not at all inconsistent with the tone of those given in the Synoptics (John 3:3, cf. Matt. 18:3; John 4:35, cf. Matt. 9:37; John 3:35; 10:15; 14:6, cf. Matt. 11:27, 28; etc.).³

In spite of allegations to the contrary,⁴ no real contradictions between John, on the one hand, and Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the other, have ever been proved to exist. Yet, both in style and contents the fourth differs in many respects from the three. Thus, John’s Gospel describes, with few exceptions, Christ’s work in Judea rather than in Galilee, and devotes much space to the Lord’s teaching in the form not of parables but of elaborate discourses to—or discussions with—friends and/or enemies. But it is the same Lord who is speaking in all four.

II. INTRODUCTION TO THE THREE GOSPELS:

MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE (THE SYNOPTICS)

A. Their Origin (The Synoptic Problem)

The first three Gospels present the same general view of the life and teachings of our Lord; hence are called The Synoptics (a viewing together). They are similar, yet also different. As revealed by a detailed study of these Gospels, how extensive is this similarity? This dissimilarity? What problem does the result of our study create? Can it be solved? In accordance with these questions the four main headings will be: 1. Their Similarity, pp. 6–16; 2. Their Dissimilarity, pp. 17–32; 3. The Resulting Problem, p. 32; and 4. Elements Entering into a Solution, pp. 32–54.

1. Their Similarity

a. In material content or subject matter

One finds, upon examination, that Matthew’s Gospel contains, in substance, almost all of the Gospel according to Mark; in fact, of Mark’s 661 verses as many as 606 (= about eleven-twelfths) are paralleled in Matthew. Also, slightly more than half of Mark (350 verses - about 53%) is reproduced in Luke.

Stating it differently, the Marcan material that is found also in Matthew is compressed into about 500 of the latter’s 1,068 verses; hence, amounts to a little less than one-half of that Gospel. Luke’s 1,149 verses have ample room for Mark’s 350 verses; in fact, fully two-thirds of Luke’s Gospel contains no Marcan material.

It will have become clear that of Mark’s 661 verses only 55 are without parallel in Matthew. However, of these 55 not less than 24 are represented in Luke’s Gospel. Hence, the resemblance in material content is so great that Mark has only 31 verses which it can call strictly its own. As to contents these 31 verses are as follows:

1:1:	regarding the beginning of the gospel
2:27:	the sabbath made for man, not vice versa
3:20, 21:	the opinion of some that Jesus was beside himself
4:26–29:	the parable of The Good Seed Growing Secretly
7:3, 4:	the parenthetical explanation of Pharisaic ceremonial cleansings
7:32–37:	the cure of the deaf-mute
8:22–26:	the cure of the blind man at Bethsaida
9:29:	the saying, “This kind can come out by nothing save by prayer”
9:48, 49:	the reference to fire that is not quenched and to being salted with fire
13:33–37:	the (not altogether unparalleled) exhortation to watch
14:51, 52:	the story of the young man who ran away naked.

The following diagrams are added to impress these facts more firmly upon the mind:

A = Matthew’s Gospel

B = Mark’s Gospel

C = portion of Mark’s Gospel that is paralleled in Matthew

D = portion of Mark’s Gospel that is without parallel in Matthew

E = portion of Matthew’s Gospel that is without parallel in Mark

A = Luke’s Gospel

B = Mark’s Gospel

C = portion of Mark’s Gospel that is paralleled in Luke

D = portion of Mark’s Gospel that is without parallel in Luke

E = portion of Luke’s Gospel that is without parallel in Mark

Now the statement that the three Synoptics have much in common must not be misunderstood. It does not mean that in each Gospel equal space is accorded to each topic. On the contrary, the different accounts of the works and words of our Savior are reported with widely varying degrees of fulness. For example, the record of our Lord’s temptation is far more detailed in Matthew and in Luke than it is in Mark. The latter simply informs us that the Spirit “drove” Jesus into the wilderness; that he spent forty days there, during which he was tempted by Satan; that he was with the wild beasts; and that angels were waiting on him (1:12, 13). Matthew and Luke, on the other hand, give us a detailed story of three separate temptations (Matt. 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13). On the other hand, frequently it is Mark’s account that is the most detailed. Read, for example, the story of the healing of a demoniac, as recorded in Mark 5:1–20; and compare this with the more condensed coverage in Matt. 8:28–34 and in Luke 8:26–39. Another illustration is Mark 5:21–43; cf. Matt. 9:18–26; Luke 8:40–56.

With this reservation we can affirm that all three present, each in his own way, the story of Christ’s earthly sojourn; that is, of his ministry particularly in Galilee and its surroundings (in distinction from the Gospel according to John, which places the emphasis on the ministry of Jesus in Judea, as already indicated). Each of the three describes the beginning or inauguration, the progress or continuation, and the climax or culmination of the great task which the Mediator accomplished.

(1) Its Beginning or Inauguration. The material common to all three and referring to this opening period of Christ’s work on earth is included in Mark 1:1–13; Matt. 1:1–4:11; Luke 3:1–4:13. Purposely we have phrased it “is included in,” which means that the indicated references designate the extent of the period. It does not mean that everything within the limits of these references as common to all three Gospels, for that would not be true. But we are dealing now with what, in the three accounts, is common territory. The differences will be studied later on.

All three accounts, accordingly, with greater or lesser array of details, describe the coming, preaching, and mode of life of Christ’s forerunner, John the Baptist, his reception by the crowds, and his testimony concerning Jesus. Also recorded in all three is the story of the baptism of Jesus by John, as well as that of the temptation(s) endured by the Lord in the desert. However, it is but fair to say even at this point that the difference between the space that is devoted to these topics in Mark, on the one hand, and respectively in Matthew and Luke, on the other, is so great that this material can also be considered to belong to the non-Marcan area that is common to Matthew and Luke; see p. 21.

(2) Its Progress or Continuation. According to all three accounts Jesus makes Galilee—particularly Capernaum (Mark 1:21; 2:1; Cf. Matt. 4:13; 8:5; 11:23; Luke 4:23, 31; 7:1)—his headquarters. Hence, the first phase of this period is often called the Great Galilean Ministry, covered in Mark 1:14–7:23; Matt. 4:12–15:20; and Luke 4:14–9:17. All three relate that Jesus bids certain fishermen to be his followers, performs many miracles of healing, stills a tempest, expels demons, and even restores to life a daughter of the ruler of Capernaum’s synagogue. He addresses the multitudes in parables, a few of which are common to all three Gospels, sends forth The Twelve as his ambassadors, and miraculously feeds the “five thousand.” But he has already been rejected by his own people (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:57; Luke 4:28, 29)⁵

The emphasis now shifts from the multitudes to the disciples; from the city to the villages, the countryside, and the mountain. Since Jesus frequently retires to regions outside of Galilee proper and to places where he can be alone with his disciples, this second phase can be designated the Ministry of the Retirement. It is, however, only a shift in emphasis, for even now the Lord never loses interest in the people as a whole (Mark 8:1; 9:14; etc.) nor in Capernaum (Mark 9:33). But it is especially The Twelve who are being gradually prepared for the strange events that are going to happen: the Messiah’s suffering, death, and resurrection. The place where, or the day when, any of this teaching is imparted, or where and when a miracle occurs, is often but vaguely indicated: eg., “the villages of Caesarea Philippi” (Mark 8:27; Matt. 6:13; cf. Luke 9:18), “a high mountain” (Mark 9:2; Matt. 17:1; cf. Luke 9:28), “as they were coming down from the mountain” (Mark 9:9; Matt. 17:9; cf. Luke 9:37).

The final phase of this lengthy period, as described in the Synoptics, finds Jesus going from Galilee to the region beyond the Jordan; i.e., to Perea (see Mark 10:1; Matt. 19:1). It is not strange, therefore, that the term Perean Ministry has been used to describe the locale of Christ’s activities and travels at this time. The little band with Jesus as its Leader is heading southward. Next, Christ’s wonder-working power is displayed in or near Jericho. Because of the indefinite nature of many of the references to time and place, or at times their complete omission, it is not always possible to tell during which phase (the second or the third) of the long period a saying was uttered or an event occurred. The Gospel writers are not writing a diary. They are far more interested in telling us what Jesus did and taught than in giving us a day-by-day continuous chronicle.⁶

What is common to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, in describing Christ’s activities during the second and third phases (the Retirement plus Perean Ministries) is included in Mark 7:24–10:52; Matt. 15:21–20:34; and Luke 9:18–19:28. However, Luke’s section differs so remarkably from the other two that it deserves special treatment; see p. 18. Nevertheless, recorded in all the three indicated sections are such matters as the following: Christ’s question addressed to the disciples: “Who do men say that I am?,” and his predictions and lessons concerning the cross and the resurrection, imparted on three separate occasions (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33, 34; Matt. 16:21; 17:22, 23; 20:17–19; Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31–34). The stories of the Lord’s transfiguration on the mountain and of the cure of the demon-possessed boy in the valley, an epileptic whom the disciples had not been able to cure, are also found here in all three Gospels. So are also Christ’s dramatically illustrated answer to the disciples’ question, “Who among us is the greatest?,” and the very comforting saying, “Let the little children come to me, and do not try to prevent them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

In the story of “the rich young ruler” whose wealth held him captive so that he refused to comply with Christ’s demand, the peril of riches is brought vividly to the attention of the disciples. And so the journey, some of whose unforgettable incidents, as here noted, are recorded by all three but never necessarily in complete chronological order, advances toward its dramatic conclusion. In Jericho Jesus once again reveals his power to perform miracles, including that of restoring sight. Thus toward Jerusalem and the cross moves the little company with Jesus as the Leader.

(3) Its Climax or Culmination. The events reported by all are found in Mark 11–16; Matthew 21–28; and Luke 19:29–24:53. These large sections describe the happenings that transpired during the week of the Passion, followed by the Resurrection. Luke adds an account of the Ascension. Almost a fifth of Luke’s Gospel is devoted to the theme of the Savior’s bitter suffering from Gethsemane to Golgotha,⁷ and to the events that immediately preceded it. In Mark and Matthew the proportion is even greater, about one-third of each of these Gospels having to do with these happenings. Moreover, what is true with respect to the Synoptics holds no less for John. All four are “Passion Gospels with extended introduction.”⁸ It is true, indeed, that “Jesus from his throne on high came into this world to die.” Accordingly, over against various erring views it cannot be emphasized too strongly that we are not dealing here with Lives of Christ but with evangels, books containing good tidings of salvation for men lost in sin and misery.

It is especially in these closing chapters that the three parallel each other most strikingly. Reported by all three are the following events: Jesus enters Jerusalem in triumph, as Prince of Peace. Multitudes, their minds filled with anticipations of earthly glory, welcome him with wild enthusiasm. Arrived in the temple and noticing that its great outer court has been turned into a market-place, a hideout for racketeers, Jesus cleanses it. When his authority is challenged, he very appropriately asks his critics to tell him whether John’s baptism—the baptizing practiced by that very John who had borne testimony to the One who just now has driven out the merchants—was of divine or of merely human origin. For good measure he adds the parable of the wicked tenants. He answers the catch-questions of his opponents, and by means of a question addressed to them he clearly implies that David’s Son is no less than David’s Lord.

In a public discourse—brief in Mark and Luke, but greatly expanded in Matthew—he warns the multitudes against the scribes and Pharisees, denouncing their hypocrisy. This is followed by his discourse about Jerusalem’s fall and the end of the world.

The rulers plot his death. For a sum of money Judas agrees to deliver him into their hands. Jesus now sends disciples—according to Mark “two”; according to Luke “Peter and John”—to make preparations for the Passover. At the Passover supper the betrayer is exposed. The Master predicts that he will be deserted by all his disciples, including Peter. In spite of the latter’s vehement protest Jesus clings to this prediction. The institution of the Lord’s Supper is followed by the agonies in Gethsemane. With a kiss Judas betrays Jesus. The latter allows himself to be seized. He is brought to the house of the highpriest where he is ill-treated and mocked. The story of Peter’s three denials follows. Very early in the morning the Sanhedrin condemns Jesus. He is brought before the Roman governor Pilate, who questions him concerning his kingship. Given a choice, the mob asks for the release of the dangerous criminal Barabbas, in preference to Jesus; and, instigated by the chief priests and elders, demands that Jesus be crucified. Pilate at last gives in. On the way to the place of execution Simon of Cyrene is compelled to bear Christ’s cross. In all tree Gospels something is now said about the superscription, the scoffing that Jesus endured, and the three hours of darkness. With a loud cry Jesus dies. The veil in the temple is rent. The centurion gives his testimony. Women who had been following Jesus in and from Galilee witness all these things and afterward keep vigil at the tomb. It was a new tomb and belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, one of Christ’s followers, who had obtained permission from Pilate to remove the body from the cross and to bury it.

On the morning of the first day of the week the women, arriving very early, notice that the tomb-stone has been rolled away. From a heavenly messenger—or: from heavenly messengers (“two men in dazzling apparel,” Luke)—they receive the astonishing news, “He is risen.”

b. In the identical or almost identical Greek words employed in parallel accounts

It is striking how often not only the thought content but even the very words used in the original and reflected in the translation are the same or almost the same in all three accounts. Anyone can see this for himself by placing next to each other the three places in which the story of the cleansing of a leper is told (Mark 1:40–44; Matt. 8:2–4; and Luke 5:12–14); or the parallels in which Jesus defends his disciples for feasting instead of fasting (Mark 2:18–22; Matt. 9:14–17; and Luke 5:33–39); or the triple coverage of the feeding of the five thousand (see especially Mark 6:35–37; Matt. 14:15, 16; and Luke 9:12, 13; also Mark 6:41–43; Matt. 14:19b, 20; and Luke 9:16, 17). These are only a few of the examples that could be given.⁹

c. In the order of events as recorded in these three Gospels

This similarity in sequence is already implied in the summary of the contents of the three, as given above under point 1: a, (1), (2), (3). It has been shown that in a very general sense the sequence is the same in all three Gospels. This is clear, for example, to anyone who compares the order in Matthew and in Mark, and notes that with respect to the former allowance must be made for his thematic method and for the six discourses. See pp. 26–31. It is especially with respect to Luke’s Gospel, however, that some see a difficulty.¹⁰ One author who made a study of the Synoptic problem says, “In Luke, as everybody who has tried it knows, it is distinctly harder than in the other evangels to remember the arrangement and order of events and sections.”¹¹ Now it is true that for many people it is indeed difficult to store—and especially to retain—in the memory the exact order in which the various events in the recorded early sojourn of our Lord, and his many sayings, follow one another in this Gospel, the longest of the four.¹² What makes it all the harder is the circumstance that “twice in this Gospel, in one case for two chapters, and in another for more than eight, he [Luke] turns away from his sources, and then equally neatly and equally unperceived, returns again to his Marcan thread.”¹³ Last but not least, the order of events and the arrangement of the sayings in Luke’s middle section is so loose that it is frequently hard to determine exactly when or where this particular incident occurred or that specific oracle was uttered.

However, when all of this is readily admitted, it is still possible to see a remarkable degree of similarity in the order of events as recorded by Mark and by Luke. Virtually all one has to do is a. to commit to memory the general order of Mark’s great events; b. to bear in mind that chapter 7 and chapters 10 through 17 in Luke contain little Marcan material; and c. to concentrate on the figures 3 and 8. With certain modifications, to be mentioned in a moment, one can then say that in order to find where in Luke’s Gospel a certain topic is treated, for the earlier chapters 3 must be added to the number of the chapter in Mark; for the later 8 must be added. It is not claimed that everything that occurs in Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Luke, nor is it implied that when the figures 3 and 8 are used the exact chapter is always immediately found. At times one may have to look a little farther in the next chapter. But it remains true that slightly more than 1/3 of what is found in Mark 1 occurs also in Luke 4 (1+3=4); about 3/4 of Mark 2 is reflected in Luke 5 (2+3=5). Now for a few examples where 8 instead of 3 must be added: more than half of Mark 10 is reproduced in Luke 18 (10+8=18); about 2/3 of Mark 11 is echoed in Luke 19 (11+8=19); etc.

Similarity in the order of events even as between Mark and Luke can thus be illustrated as follows:¹⁴

Parallel between Mark and Luke

Knowing that a subject is treated in	the subject being	add	and find its parallel in
MARK Chapter			LUKE Chapter
1	Jesus vanquishes the tempter. He performs miracles in Capernaum: healing a demoniac, Simon’s mother-in-law, many others at eventide. He departs to a desert place. All seek him. He preaches in the synagogues of Galilee.	3	4
2	He heals a paralytic, calls Levi (=Matthew), and is criticized for associating with publicans. He answers a question about fasting.	3	5
3	He heals a man with a withered hand and choses The Twelve.	3	6
			(No Marcan material in Luke 7!)¹⁵
4	He tells the parable of The Sower and stills a storm.	4	8
5	He heals the “Gerasene” demoniac, raises the daugher of Jairus, and cures the woman who suffered from hemorrhages.	3	8
6	He sends The Twelve on a preaching and healing mission. Herod’s perplexity. The Twelve return from their mission. The feeding of the five thousand.	3	9¹⁶
10	Jesus welcomes the little children. The story of “the rich young ruler” and its application. Jesus predicts what will happen to him at Jerusalem, and imparts sight to a blind man.	8	18
11	Jesus enters Jerusalem in triumph and cleanses the temple. The leaders try to destroy him.	8	19¹⁷
12	He tells the parable of The Wicked Tenants (or: “The Vineyard”), answers captious questions, and by means of a counter-question affirms that David’s Son is no less than David’s Lord.	8	20
13	Signs of the end and exhortation to watch.	8	21
14	At the approach of the passover, the leaders plot Christ’s death. Preparations are made for the passover. Institution of “The Lord’s Supper.” The betrayal and denial foretold. The little company departs to the Mt. of Olives (i.e., to Gethsemane). The betrayal, arrest, trial before the Jewish council, and the denial by Peter.	8	22
15	Trial before Pilate. The people ask for the release of Barabbas in preference to Jesus. They demand that Jesus be crucified. Simon of Cyrene. Calvary scenes: the superscription, scoffing, three hours of darkness, loud cry, death, tearing of the temple-veil, centurion’s testimony, interest shown by the women, and Joseph of Arimathea’s part in taking down the body and placing it in his own tomb.	8	23
16	The women see that the tomb-stone has been rolled away. Explanation: “He is risen.”	8	24¹⁸

The similarity that characterizes the Synoptics has thus been established. In addition, finding one’s way in these three Gospels has been made a little easier. For Mark this is clear immediately. As to Luke, the fact that chapters 1 and 2 contain the nativity narratives and chapter 3 the story about John the Baptist plus a genealogy of Jesus is well-known. Memorization of the themes of Luke’s parables (see p. 23) plus frequent reading of Luke 9:51–18:14 will facilitate mastery of the contents of that Gospel’s middle section. For the entire Gospel add the information given in the table above. As to Matthew, see pp. 25–30.

2. Their Dissimilarity

a. In material content or subject matter

For parables see below, under point (7), p. 21–25.

Though, as has been shown, in a general way the material content is the same for all three Gospels, yet certain stories and sayings are found only in Matthew, some only in Mark, some only in Luke, some only in Matthew and Mark, some only in Mark and Luke, and, last but not least, some only in Matthew and Luke, thus exhausting the possibilities.

(1) Only in Matthew. Passages and narratives that are peculiar to Matthew are: the line of descent (i.e., the one recorded in 1:1–17; contrast Luke 3:23–38); the birth of Jesus, as Matthew tells it, and the visit of the wise men (1:18–2:23); the Baptist’s reluctance to baptize Jesus (3:14, 15); Jesus’ settlement in Capernaum in fulfilment of prophecy (4:13–16); his teaching and healing in Galilee (4:23–25 in part); The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–8:1), as far as it is not paralleled in Luke and, to a far lesser extent in Mark; a quotation from Isa. 53:4 (8:17); the healing of two blind men and of a demoniac (9:27–34); the sending forth of The Twelve (9:35–10:42), to the extent in which the phrases are not reflected in Mark and Luke; the reference to the Baptist as “Elijah” (11:14); preface to woes on impenitent cities (11:20); the invitation, “Come unto me” (11:27–30; but see also Luke 10:22); “I will have mercy and not sacrifice” (12:5–7); the implication that works of mercy are allowed on the sabbath (12:11, 12; see, however, Luke 14:5); a miracle leading to the exclamation, “Could this be the Son of David?” (12:22, 23 in part); “out of his treasures things new and old” (13:51–53); Peter’s behavior during a storm (14:28–31); “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted” (15:12, 13); “Send her away … Lord, help me!” (15:23–25); the healing of great multitudes (15:30, 31); “Can you not discern the signs of the times?” (16:2, 3); the leaven of the … Saduccees (16:11, 12); “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona” (16:17–19); “This shall never happen to thee” (16:22); the disciples’ fear in connection with Christ’s transfiguration (17:6, 7); their discovery that “Elijah” is John the Baptist (17:13); the temple tax (17:24–27); Jesus and the Father’s attitude toward the little ones (18:3, 4, 10, 14); exhortation to forgive an erring brother, including rules of discipline (18:15–20); remarks with respect to eunuchs (19:10–12); a quotation from Zech. 9:9 in connection with the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (21:4, 5); “This is Jesus the prophet” (21:10, 11); children’s praises (21:14–16); “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you” (21:43); Christ’s final temple discourse, in part (chap. 23); certain passages of his discourse on the last things (chap. 24); “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (26:52–54; cf. John 18:11); the remorse and suicide of Judas the traitor (27:3–10; cf. Acts 1:18, 19); the dream and message of Pilate’s wife (27:19); Pilate’s attempted self-vindication, including the people’s assumption of responsibility for Jesus’ death (27:24, 25); the enemies’ unwitting quotation of Ps. 22:8 (27:43); several “miracles of Calvary” (27:51–53); Christ’s appearance to the women (28:9, 10); the guard posted, scattered, and bribed (27:62–66; 28:2–4, 11–15); and finally, the departure of the disciples to Galilee, where Jesus meets them (28:16–18, 20).

(2) Only in Mark. See above, p. 6.

(3) Only in Luke. The third Gospel, in its opening section, contains the following important distinctive accounts: the preamble (1:1–4); the birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus, and the latter’s boyhood (1:5–2:52); a chronological note with respect to John’s ministry (3:1, 2); questions of various groups (“What must we do?”) answered by John (3:10–14); a line of Messianic descent (3:23–38); the return of Jesus to Galilee (4:14, 15; but see Mark 1:14, 15; Matt. 4:17); a miraculous catch of fishes, peculiar to Luke, mostly (5:1–11); Christ’s sayings concerning the rich, the famous, and the lenders (6:24–26, 34); the raising of the widow’s son at Nain (7:11–17); attitude toward Jesus on the part of those baptized by John, and of those not baptized by him (7:29, 30); the anointing of Jesus’ feet by a sinful woman at the home of Simon the Pharisee (7:36–39); the company around Jesus (8:1–3); and the sleepy condition of the disciples that were with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration (9:31, 32).

The central section of this Gospel is rich in parables; see (7), pp. 23, 24. Aside from these, it has the following unduplicated narratives or sayings: an example of Samaritan inhospitality (9:51–56); “no man who looks back is fit for the kingdom” (9:61, 62); the mission of the seventy (10:1–24), to the extent in which its phrases are not paralleled elsewhere; Jesus entertained at the home of Martha and Mary (10:38–42); “Blessed is the womb that bare thee”—“Blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it” (11:27, 28); Pharisees and lawyers denounced at the home of a Pharisee (11:37–54; but cf. Mark 7:1 ff., and various passages in Matt. 23); “Fear not, little flock” (12:32, 33; but see also Matt. 6:20; 19:21; Mark 10:21); Jesus the divider (12:49–53; but cf. Matt. 10:34–36); rebuke administered to sky-interpreters who cannot interpret the time in which they are living (12:54–59; cf. Matt. 16:1–3); sabbath healings (13:11–17; 14:1–6); “Lord, are those who are being saved only few in number?” (13:22, 23); the warning that once the door has been shut, it will not be reopened (13:25–27; cf. Matt. 25:11, 12); denunciation of “that fox,” Herod Antipas (13:31–33); the deriders rebuked (16:14, 15); the cleansing of ten lepers, only one of whom returned to give thanks (17:11–19); and Christ’s answer to the question, “When will the kingdom of God come?” (17:20–22, 28, 29, 32, 34). Much of 17:20–37 is duplicated in Matt. 24.

Exclusively—or, in some cases, almost exclusively—reported by Luke in the closing section of his Gospel are the following: the call of Zacchaeus (19:1–10); the request of the Pharisees that Jesus rebuke his disciples, and his answer (19:39, 40); Christ’s weeping over Jerusalem, and his prediction of its destruction (19:41–44); and several passages of his discourse on “the last things” (21:19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 34–38). Much of chapter 21 is, however, reflected elsewhere, especially in Mark 13 and Matt. 24. Words spoken at the Lord’s Table and reported exclusively (or almost so) by the third evangelist are found in 22:15–18 (but see Matt. 26:29); 22:28–32, and 35–38. Luke’s distinctive account of Christ’s experiences in the garden is found in 22:43, 44, 48, 49, 51, and 53. The look that rang the bell of Peter’s memory and melted his heart is reported in 22:61. For Luke’s version of Christ’s confession before the council, see 22:68, 70. In the morning Jesus was brought first before Pilate, then before Herod (23:2, 4–12). He was returned to Pilate (23:13–19; see also Mark 15:6–9). Other mainly Lucan accounts in chapter 23 refer to: Christ’s admonition addressed to “the daughters of Jerusalem” (verses 27–36; cf. Mark 15:22, 24; Matt. 27:33–35); the impenitent versus the penitent thief (verses 39–41); the latter’s prayer and Christ’s answer (verses 42, 43); the seventh “word from the cross” (verse 46); and the crowds going home, beating their breasts (verse 48). There is also a description of Joseph of Arimathea (verse 51); a report on his deed of kindness (verse 53; but see Mark 15:46; Matt. 27:59, 60); a note specifying the exact week-day when Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in Joseph’s tomb (verse 54); and a reference to the women preparing aromatic spices and perfumes (verse 56). Luke’s final chapter has the following contents peculiar to that Gospel among the Synoptics: the effect of the women’s resurrection message upon the apostles (verses 10, 11); Peter’s visit to the tomb (verse 12; cf. John 20:2–10); the risen One’s interview with Cleopas and his companion (24:13, 25; cf., however, Mark 16:12, 13); the appearance to the disciples on Sunday evening (24:36–49; but cf. Mark 16:14; John 20:19–25); and the ascension (24:50–53; cf., however, Mark 16:19 and Acts 1:9–12).

(4) Only in Matthew and Mark. There is, first of all, the reference to the Baptist’s audience, food, and clothing (Mark 1:5, 6; Matt. 3:4, 5). According to both Mark 3:7–12 and Matt. 12:15–21 Jesus heals a great many people but forbids publicity. This paragraph, too, is largely confined to Matthew and Mark; see, however, Luke 4:41. Mark’s detailed account seems, however, to be merely summarized in Matt. 12:15, 16. On the other hand, Matthew (in verses 17–21) adds the prophecy found in Isa. 12:1–4, which addition can therefore also be subsumed under (1) above. There is, next, a reference to Christ’s many parables (Mark 4:33, 34; Matt. 13:34). A well-known narrative which belongs under this exclusive Matthew-Mark heading is that which recounts Herod’s wicked birthday party and, in connection with it, the Baptist’s gruesome death (Mark 6:17–29; shorter in Matt. 14:3–12).

Attention has already been called to the fact that Mark 6:45–8:26 is “Luke’s great omission” (see p. 14). With the exception of two miracles of gradual healing (Mark 7:32–37 and 8:22–26; for which see p. 6) all of this material also belongs to the Matthew-Mark parallel. It begins with the vivid and comforting story of Jesus walking on the sea (Mark 6:45–56; Matt. 14:22–36). But not all of this is parallel; for example, Matt. 14:28–31 belongs under (1). Then there is Christ’s teaching concerning ceremonial defilement (Mark 7:1–23; Matt. 15:1–20); the healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (Mark 7:24–31; Matt. 15:21–29); the feeding of the four thousand (Mark 8:1–9; Matt. 15:30–38); the request for a sign (Mark 8:10–12; Matt. 15:39–16:4); and the warning against the leaven of the Pharisees (Mark 8:13–21; Matt. 16:5–12).

The propriety of placing Mark 9:28, 29 (cf. Matt. 17:19) under the present heading¹⁹ is doubtful, but it is true that the question of the disciples “Why could we not cast it out?” (Mark 9:28) is reproduced in Matt. 17:19. In connection with Christ’s prediction that the Son of man would rise again, the disciples ask Jesus a question with respect to Elijah (Mark 9:10–13; Matt. 17:10–13). Jesus’ teaching regarding divorce and remarriage is also almost completely confined to Mark (10:1–12) and Matthew (19:1–12); see, however, Luke 16:18. Then, there is the request of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:35–45; cf. Matt. 20:20–28, but see also Luke 9:48 and 22:25); and the cursing of the barren fig tree (Mark 11:12–14:20-25; cf. Matt. 21:18–22; but see also Luke 11:9; 17:6). Though it is true that Christ’s eschatological discourse is found in all three, this statement should be qualified; for example, the prediction concerning false Christs and false prophets is confined to the first two Gospels (Mark 13:21–23; Matt. 24:23–25); so is also that respecting the unpredictability of the day of Christ’s second coming (Mark 13:32; Matt. 24:36).

For the anointing in Bethany one consults Luke’s Gospel in vain. It is not found in Luke 7:36 ff., though many seem to think that it is. As far as the Synoptics are concerned, the story occurs only in Mark 14:3–9 and Matt. 26:6–13. Outside of the Synoptics it occurs also in John 12:1–8. The departure for the Mount of Olives, together with a significant prediction, is also found only in Mark 14:26–28; Matt. 26:30–32.²⁰ The trial in the highpriest’s palace, immediately after the arrest, is largely confined to the first two Gospels (Mark 14:55–65; Matt. 26:59–66), though Luke, as well as the others, report the ill-treatment Jesus received there. On the subject of Christ’s silence before Pilate (Mark 15:2–5; Matt. 27:11–14) Luke remains silent! The people’s choice of Barabbas, in preference to Jesus, though reported in all three Gospels, is found in fuller detail in the first two (Mark 15:6–11; Matt. 27:15–21) than in Luke. Two other important details of the crucifixion story are confined to Mark and Matthew; namely, the crown of thorns (Mark 15:17–20; Matt. 27:29–31) and Christ’s cry of agony (Mark 15:34–36; Matt. 27:46–49). Finally, except for Luke 24:47, the Great Commission is confined to the first two Gospels. Though essentially the same, the two statements differ in certain details (Mark 16:15, 16; Matt. 28:19–21).

(5) Only in Mark and Luke. Mark’s 24 verses that are paralleled only in Luke’s Gospel are as follows: a demon-expulsion at Capernaum (Mark 1:23–28; Luke 4:33–37); Christ’s purpose to preach (Mark 1:35–38; Luke 4:42, 43); lamps should shine, ears should hear (Mark 4:21–24; Luke 8:16–18); the return of The Twelve (Mark 6:30; Luke 9:10); the strange exorcist (Mark 9:38–41; Luke 9:45, 50); “widows’ houses” and “a poor widow’s two mites” (Mark 12:40–44; Luke 20:47; 21:1–4).

(6) Only in Matthew and Luke. It is estimated that there are about 200 verses common to both. Here are a few examples:

MATTHEW	LUKE	SUBJECT
3:7–10, 12	3:7–9, 17	Specimen of the Baptist’s preaching
4:1–11	4:1–13	The story of Christ’s temptations
5:3, 4, 6, 11, 12	6:20–23	Some of the Beatitudes
5:18	6:17	Concerning the law
5:39–48 (for the greater part)	6:27–36 (mostly)	Love your enemies, for also God is kind to evil men
6:9–13	11:2–4	The Lord’s Prayer
6:19–21, 25–33	12:22–34	Be not anxious
7:7–11	11:9–13	Encouragement to prayer
8:5–13	7:1–10	The story of the centurion’s faith
8:19–22	9:57–60	The implications of discipleship
9:37, 38	10:2	Prayer for laborers urged
10:26–33	12:2–9	“You are of more value than many sparrows”
11:2–11, 16–19	7:18–20, 22–28, 31–35	The story of the doubt of John the Baptist, and Christ’s testimony concerning John

For the passion and Resurrection narratives there are no parallels peculiar to Matthew-Luke.

(7) Parables. Our Lord’s parables have been classified in various ways. Also, they have been counted differently. In part this is due to the fact that “The Marriage of the King’s Son” (Matt. 22:1–14) and “The Great Supper” (Luke 14:15–24) are by some regarded as variants of what was originally one parable. The older text of this parable, so runs the theory, is found in Luke. According to this view Matthew’s revision presupposes the destruction of the city of Jerusalem (a.d. 70).²¹ Similarly, the parable of The Pounds (Luke 19:11–27) is by some called a variation of that of The Talents (Matt. 25:14–30).²²

In both of these instances, however, the differences outweigh the resemblances to such an extent that there would seem to be no justification for regarding as one that which in the text is presented as two.

As to Matt. 22:1–14 and Luke 14:15–24, we are on safe ground when we desist from every effort to “reconstruct,” and in both cases take the Greek text as it is presented to us in the best editions of the Greek New Testament. When we do so we notice that there is, indeed, a considerable area of resemblance between the two parables. In both a banquet is prepared, guests are invited, invitations are left unheeded, the underprivileged are then invited, and the house is finally filled with guests. But are not the differences even more striking? The parable of The Marriage—or Marriage Feast—of the King’s Son (Matt. 22:1–14) consists of three distinct parts (see on that passage), the last of which is totally lacking from the parable of The Great Supper. In the first of these two parables we are told about a king who prepares a feast for his son’s wedding; in the second about a man who prepared a big dinner party. In the first the invited guests simply “make light” of the invitation; in the second they offer excuses. In the first some of the invited guests maltreat and even kill the servants that are sent to them with the invitation; this detail is entirely lacking in the second. So also, naturally, in Luke’s parable there is nothing that corresponds to the destruction of the murderers and of their city, an action mentioned in Matthew’s parable. Besides all this the historical setting of the two parables differs widely. Jesus told the parable of The Great Supper when he himself was reclining at table as a guest. The parable of The Marriage Feast belongs to a later date, to Christ’s activity in Jerusalem during the week of The Passion.

The situation with respect to the parable of The Pounds as compared with that of The Talents is similar. It is hard to see how the story of a nobleman who gives each of his servants a small and equal sum can have anything to do with that of a man who entrusts incomparably larger amounts to his servants, to each of them a widely different amount!

Another reason for the difference in the final tally, in counting parables, is the fact that as yet no answer on which all can agree has been given to the question, “What is a parable?” Even when it is agreed that “a parable is an extended simile,” in distinction from an allegory which is “an extended metaphor”—a helpful but perhaps not altogether correct distinction—unanimous agreement is not attained. The difference of opinion is, however, not very important, and touches only a few of the items included in the following list:

(a) Peculiar to Matthew.

The Tares (13:24–30, 36–43)

The Hidden Treasure (13:44)

The Pearl of Great Price (13:45, 46)

The Dragnet (13:47–50)

The Unmerciful Servant (18:23–35)

The Laborers in the Vineyard (20:1–16)

The Two Sons (21:28–32)

The Marriage Feast of the King’s Son (or The Marriage of the King’s Son, The Marriage Feast, The Royal Marriage, 22:1–14)

The Five Sensible and The Five Foolish Girls (25:1–13)

The Talents (25:14–30)

(b) Peculiar to Mark.

The Seed Growing in Secret (4:26–29)

The Two Debtors (7:40–50)

The Good Samaritan (10:29–37)

The Embarrassed Host (or The Friend at Midnight, 11:5–13)

The Rich Fool (12:13–21)

The Watchful Servants (12:35–40)

The Barren Fig Tree (13:1–9)

The Chief Seats (14:7–11)

The Great Supper (or The Slighted Invitation, 14:15–24)

The Rash Builder (14:28–30)

The Reckless King (14:31–33)

The Lost Coin (15:8–10). In reality it is the parable of A Woman’s Search for Her Lost Coin, and Her Joy in Finding It.

The Lost (Prodigal) Son (including his Elder Brother, 15:11–32). Actually it is the parable of The Father’s Yearning Love.

The Steward with Foresight (or The Unrighteous Steward, 16:1–13)

The Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19–31)

The Plowing (Unprofitable) Servant (17:7–10)

The Persevering Widow (or The Unrighteous Judge, 18:1–8)

The Pharisee and the Publican (18:9–14)

The Pounds (19:11–27)

(d) Peculiar to Matthew and Luke.

The Two Builders (Matt. 7:24–27; Luke 6:47–49)

Children Sitting in the Market Places (Matt. 11:16–19; Luke 7:31–35)

The Return of the Unclean Spirit (Matt. 12:43–45; Luke 11:24–26)

The Leaven (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20)

The Lost Sheep (Matt. 18:12–14; Luke 15:1–7). It is, of course, the parable of The Shepherd’s Search for His Lost Sheep, and His Joy in Finding It.

The Faithful versus the Unfaithful Servant (Matt. 24:45–51; Luke 12:42–48)

(e) Common to All Three.

The Sower (or The Four Kinds of Soil, Mark 4:3–9, 14–20; Matt. 13:3–9, 18–23; Luke 8:4–15)

The Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30–32; Matt. 13:31, 32; Luke 13:18, 19)

The Wicked Tenants (or The Wicked Sharecroppers, or The Vineyard, or, to use the old title, The Wicked Husbandmen, Mark 12:1–9; Matt. 21:33–41; Luke 20:9–16)

It is clear from all this that, as was true with respect to other elements constituting the material content or subject matter of the first three Gospels, so also with respect to the parables, there is considerable variety in distribution. Mark has only one parable that it can call strictly its own, Matthew has 10, Luke 18, ²³ and there are nine that appear in more than one Gospel. Thus, as here listed, there are thirty-eight in all. By broadening the concept “parable” some would add several others; such as that of A Lamp under the Peck-measure (Matt. 5:14–16 and parallels), A Piece of Unshrunk Cloth on an Old Garment (Matt. 9:16, etc.), New Wine in Old Wineskins (Matt. 9:17, etc.), and many others. While this usage of the term “parable” is entirely legitimate, so that the total number given by some authors is sixty or even eighty, the more general definition of a parable as a story-illustration is here followed.

b. In vocabulary and style

Though it is true that often not only the thought content but even the very words used in the original and reflected in the translations are the same or almost the same in all three, this is by no means always the case. Where the accounts are parallel and record the deeds, rather than the sayings, of Jesus, Mark is generally (not always!) the most diffuse. Thus, in the story of the stilling of the storm (the one recorded in Mark 4:35–41; Matt. 8:18, 23–27; Luke 8:22–25) Mark, in the original, uses 118 words, Luke 94, Matthew 85. The corresponding figures in the A.R.V. are 151, 135, and 115. As remarked earlier (see p. 6), 606 of Mark’s verses (out of a total of 661) are compressed into 500 of Matthew’s.

This matter of words easily shifts into that of style. However, since with respect to Mark and Matthew this subject will come up again,²⁴ it is necessary in the present connection to point out only this, by way of summarizing, that Mark’s style is not only the most diffuse but also the most vivid; Matthew’s is more succinct and polished; and Luke’s is the most versatile of the three.

c. In “arrangement” and recorded order of events

It was pointed out earlier that in a very general sense the sequence in which the great happenings in Christ’s earthly sojourn follow one another is the same in all three Gospels (see pp. 8–11). Nevertheless, there are important differences. These come to light when one traces first the course of Mark’s narrative, and then, having carefully done this, compares it with the story as it unfolds itself in Matthew and Luke. An illustration will make this clear. The three Gospels can be viewed under the symbolism of three rivers.

The first river is a swiftly flowing stream. Its current rolls on turbulently through rugged terrain. It churns and twists, making sharp turns now to the right, then to the left. Its borders exhibit ever changing scenery. Such is Mark’s Gospel. Read the first five chapters. Note how quickly the action changes, though, of course, Jesus Christ, mighty in word and deed, is ever in the center of it. The colorful panorama shifts rapidly from one inspiring landscape to another. We catch a glimpse of John the Baptist, clothed with a garment of camel’s hair. He is preaching and baptizing. He even baptizes the One whom he confesses to be infinitely greater than himself. The picture changes and we are shown a desert in which Satan is defeated by the Seed of the woman. This scene, too, is gone almost as quickly as it is introduced. We now see the Lord proclaiming “the gospel of the kingdom.” Four fishermen appear. They are called to become “fishers of men.” There follow scenes in which the Great Physician’s might is strikingly revealed, to the amazement of the spectators: a man with an unclean spirit is instantly healed; so is Simon’s mother-in-law. And now the sun sets, and this not only on the physical horizon but for many also on their days of grief and misery: “And in the evening, at sundown, they brought to him all that were sick or possessed with demons.… And he healed many that were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons.” A beautiful sunset indeed! Next we see “a solitary place,” where “a great while before day” the Healer is pouring out his heart in prayer. Praying is followed by preaching, and this once more by healing. Now it is a demoniac from whom the evil spirit is expelled; next a leper who is cleansed; and then a paralytic. Merciful deeds are followed by merciful sayings: regarding publicans, or in defense of the proposition that the sabbath is made for man, not vice versa. Additional miracles are followed swiftly by the calling of The Twelve, a brief exposition of “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” a few parables, the stilling of a storm, and additional exhibitions of healing power, including even a raising of the dead. Thus Mark’s Gospel, like a turbulent but scenic river, rushes on and on, until in chapter 16 it reaches the tomb, its huge stone rolled back. Some women, friends of Jesus, are fleeing away after they had been told that the tomb’s Occupant had left it, having risen from the dead!

The second river is much calmer. It does not twist and swirl nearly as much as the first but flows rather smoothly and majestically. At times it even takes a rest, as it were, by creating a lake, lingering there for a while, and then flowing on once more until it again broadens out into a similar expanse of water. This action it repeats several times before it reaches its goal. Such is Matthew’s Gospel.

That truly beautiful composition, from first to last, is in the habit of dwelling for a while on an important theme, while Mark is already rushing ahead, flashing before our eyes now this scene, then that. Thus, Mark introduces John the Baptist (1:1–6). So does Matthew (3:1–6; cf. Luke 3:1–6). But then, while Mark devotes only two verses to John’s preaching, Matthew expatiates upon this theme in no less than six verses; Luke even more, in twelve verses. After a brief account of Jesus’ own baptism by John, Mark summarizes the temptation (1:12, 13: again just two verses). Matthew, however, pauses a while, using eleven verses to relate the three separate temptations (4:1–11; cf. Luke 4:1–13). Mark makes mention of the fact that Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of (the kingdom of) God (1:14, 15). But Matthew, having introduced this subject (4:17, 23), devotes three chapters to it, giving us a specimen of this preaching (The Sermon on the Mount; 5:1–8:1). Mark, in his vivid account of Jesus, proceeds from miracle to prayer to preaching to the calling of a disciple, etc., as has already been shown, ever shifting from one kind of topic to another. Matthew, on the other hand, groups his early miracle stories in one almost continuous account that spans sixty-eight verses (8:1–9:34), with two brief interruptions comprising in all only thirteen verses (8:19–22; 9:9–17). It is evident that Matthew has again discovered a theme and dwells on it. The following parallel columns will make this clear. Starting with Matthew, in column 1 notice how this evangelist has bunched together several of the miracles which in Mark are spread over parts of four chapters. He adds one that is also found in Luke (the healing of the centurion’s servant), and two others. The second and third columns show that in such cases where Luke parallels Mark, the parallel is generally rather close, so that the rule mentioned earlier (see pp. 13, 14) holds; i.e., here Mark’s chapter +3—sometimes +4—equals Luke’s chapter.

Theme	Matthew	Mark	Luke
A leper	8:1–4	1:40–45	5:12–16
The centurion’s servant	8:5–13		7:1–10
Peter’s mother-in-law	8:14, 15	1:29–31	4:38, 39
Many sick at eventide	8:16, 17	1:32–34	4:40, 41
A tempest	8:18, 23–27	4:35–41	8:22–25
Gadarene demoniacs	8:28–9:1	5:1–20	8:26–39
A paralytic	9:1–8	2:1–12	5:17–26
The woman with an issue of blood	9:20–22	5:25–34	8:43–48
Jairus’ daughter	9:18, 19, 23–26	5:22–24, 35–43	8:40–42, 49–56
Two blind men	9:27–31
A dumb demoniac	9:32–34

This same thematic trait is evident also in Matt. 9:36–38, where the need of laborers is emphasized, followed by chapter 10 which contains the detailed charge to the laborers. Contrast this with the very few verses used by Mark (6:7 f.) in this connection. Jesus is introduced as speaking in parables (Mark 4:1, 2; cf. Matt. 13:1–3a). For a while even Mark becomes thematic, as it were, and actually relates a few of these parables (4:3–32), but he is far too impetuous a story-teller to linger too long. In general it is especially the deeds of Jesus, rather than his words, on which he loves to dwell. Hence, to his brief reproduction of a few of these parables he quickly appends the summarizing conclusion, “And with many such parables he [Jesus] spoke the word to them” (4:33). Then he returns to the subject of the miracle-working Jesus in action, stilling a violent storm and healing an equally violent demoniac. Matthew’s parable account, by contrast, is much longer (13:3–53). Similarly in Matt. 18 the question of greatness becomes the occasion for a lengthy discourse on kindness to Christ’s little ones, and in general, on the virtue of compassion and the exercise of the forgiving spirit. Here, too, the treatment in Mark 9 and Luke 9 is more compressed. The denunciation of scribes and Pharisees is very briefly summarized in Mark (12:38–40), but again Matthew devotes a whole chapter to it (chap. 23). And even Christ’s eschatological discourse is about two and one-half times as long in Matthew (chaps. 24 and 25) as in Mark (chap. 13). When Matthew discovers a theme, he dwells on it. When Mark discovers action he portrays it, and this in a most interesting manner and with great detail, so that, as already indicated, in several such instances it is his account that is the lengthiest. The contrast is, however, by no means absolute. Mark, too, has the highest regard for the words of Jesus, and reports many of them. But his emphasis is on action, Matthew’s on discourse.

When the basic structure or system of Matthew is grasped—river, lake; river, lake; etc.—it will greatly assist one in finding his way in that Gospel, once the main drift of Mark has been comitted to memory. To begin with, it is a well-known fact that the genealogy and the nativity story are not found in Mark’s Gospel, but respectively in Matt. 1:1–17 (cf. Luke 3:23–38) and 1:18–2:23 (cf. Luke 1, 2). Mark begins at once with the account of John the Baptist, which, accordingly, is found in Mark 1 and in Matt. 3. It has already been shown that Matthew, in his characteristic way, stops to give us a rather extensive specimen of John’s preaching, while Mark devotes only a couple verses to this subject. It is not surprising, therefore, that Mark’s first chapter also has room for the story of Christ’s temptation; while, on the contrary, in Matthew’s Gospel we must look for this in chapter 4. Similarly, the call of the first four disciples is found in both Mark 1 and Matt. 4. Matt. 5–7, as almost everyone knows, contains the Sermon on the Mount, with its theme: the gospel of the kingdom. This discourse, the first of the six, is represented in Mark by scattered verses only. The contents of Matt. 8 and 9 have just been noted. By means of these wondrous works Jesus reveals his kingly power over the physical universe, over evil spirits, and over the realm of sickness and death. It is not surprising that the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom together with the exhibition of kingdom miracles is followed in Matt. 10 by the sending forth of the twelve as kingdom ambassadors, the second great discourse; in chapter 11 by Christ’s words of tribute to the herald of the kingdom, namely, John the Baptist; in chapter 12 by the condemnation of the enemies of the kingdom²⁵; and finally, in Matt. 13 by the third great discourse, the one containing the parables of the kingdom.

This brings us to the fourteenth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. Speaking in general terms—hence, allowing for exceptions—from Matt. 14:13 (cf. Mark 6:32) on, Matthew’s account parallels that of Mark rather closely. It will be recalled that in the closing section of Luke’s Gospel the key to finding one’s way is “Mark +8.” See pp. 15–16. In order to find our way in Matthew we now begin with this same formula. However, as has been pointed out, Matthew stops every once in a while in order to record a discourse of Jesus (the river widens and becomes a lake). He does this far more often and extensively than either Mark or Luke. Accordingly, with reference to Matthew, the formula “Mark +8” must gradually be increased to “Mark +9, ” “Mark +10, ” etc. Note, therefore, the following, in which for each chapter only one main event is here indicated:

Knowing that the subject is treated in	the subject being	add	and find its parallel in
MARK Chapter			MATTHEW Chapter
6	The feeding of the five thousand²⁶	8	14
7	The healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter	8	15
8	“Who do men say that I am?”	8	16
9	The transfiguration	8	17

As has been shown—and is generally known—Matt.’s 18th chapter is the fourth of the six discourses in that Gospel. In it Jesus emphasizes the necessity of showing kindness to his “little ones,” and the forgiving spirit to all. The chapter ends with the parable of The Unmerciful Servant. Certain passages in this chapter are paralleled in Mark and in Luke, but as a single unit it is peculiar to Matthew.

This means, of course, that, beginning with Mark 10, to locate Mark’s parallel in Matthew, we will have to use the formula “Mark +9” instead of “Mark +8.” In fact, because Mark 10 is a very lengthy chapter (52 verses), while Matt. 19 is relatively short (30 verses), we do well to treat Mark 10 as if it were two chapters (Mark 10a: verses 1–31; and Mark 10b: verses 32–52).²⁷ To locate Mark 10b’s material in Matthew the formula will then be “Mark +10.”

The list, accordingly, continues as follows:

Knowing that a subject is treated in	the subject being	add	and find its parallel in
MARK Chapter			MATTHEW Chapter
10a	Christ’s teaching on divorce, little children, and earthly riches (“the rich young ruler”)	9	19
10b	Christ’s self-sacrifice (“A ransom for many”) versus the sons of Zebedee’s request for positions of glory	10	20
11	Triumphal entry into Jerusalem and its temple (the latter’s cleansing)	10	21
12	Captious questions and authoritative answers	10	22

Matthew 23 contains Christ’s fifth great discourse: The Seven Woes, ending with the stirring climax, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem.” This material, for the greater part, is absent from Mark (see however, Mark 12:38–40). Accordingly, with Mark’s Gospel as a starting-point, the formula for locating Matthew’s parallel to Mark’s next chapter (the thirteenth) now becomes “Mark +11.” This yields the following:

Signs of the end and exhortation to watch

In Matthew, however, this general theme of watchfulness—that is, of faithfulness in the exercise of one’s duty, with a view to the coming of Christ as Judge and Rewarder—is continued in the next chapter, so that together these two chapters (24 and 25) contain Christ’s sixth great discourse. The contents of chapter 25 (the parables of The Ten Virgins and of The Talents plus the majestic portrayal of The Grand Assize) are not paralleled either in Mark or in Luke. This means that for the contents of Mark 14, 15, and 16, as reflected in Matthew, the formula now becomes “Mark +12.” The result is as follows:

14	Gethsemane	12	26
15	Calvary	12	27
16	“He is risen”	12	28

The third river is also a most interesting one. It consists of parts that alternate, so that the section that is above ground issues in one that is underground, which, let us suppose, in turn rises to the surface, forming still another section; which then descends again, and so forth. The fact that some of the sections are underground does not make them any less interesting than those above the surface. Nor does it necessarily render them invisible. Do not some of our caverns contain softly illumined streams equipped for boating amid picturesque surroundings?

This river, with its alternating sections, describes Luke’s Gospel with its interchanging blocks of material. In this respect Luke differs from Matthew. The latter seems never completely able to forget Mark. It is as if the erstwhile publican, in a manner peculiar to himself, is filling in, or broadening out on, the Marcan outline. With Luke, however, it is different. By and large we can say that his Gospel consists of alternating Marcan and non-Marcan blocks. A Marcan block of considerable extent²⁸ is Luke 5:12–6:16. It tells us about a leper, a paralytic, Levi, fasting, the disciples in a grainfield on the sabbath, a man with a withered hand, and the calling of the twelve. All of this material is also found in Mark 1:40–3:19, and mainly in that same order.²⁹ There follows a non-Marcan block (Luke 6:17–8:3); then again a Marcan (Luke 8:4–9:50; cf. Mark 3:31–6:44; 8:27–9:40). Next comes a very lengthy largely non-Marcan section (Luke 9:51–18:14), which in turn introduces a Marcan block (Luke 18:15–43; cf. Mark 10:13–34, 46–52). Luke 19:1–28 (Zacchaeus and the parable of The Pounds) is non-Marcan. Much (by no means all!) of what follows in Luke’s closing chapters is paralleled in Mark, but Luke 24:13–52 (the interview on the way to Emmaus, etc., concluding with Christ’s ascension) is peculiar to Luke’s Gospel (see, however, its very brief summary in Mark 16:12, 13).

Much more could be said about variation in the order in which various events are reported in the Synoptics. But with a view to pointing up the problem it will not be necessary to go into all the details. The following must suffice. Already in Mark 2:23–28 that evangelist relates the incident of the plucking of the ears of grain on the sabbath. Matthew makes no mention of this until he has almost reached the middle of his Gospel (12:1–8; cf. Luke 6:1–5). Similarly, the healing of the withered hand is reported in Mark 3:1–6, but in Matthew not until 12:10–13 (cf. Luke 6:6–10). Christ’s rejection at Nazareth is recorded in Luke 4:16–30, but in Matthew not until 13:54–58 (cf. Mark 6:1–6). In Matthew the three temptations are listed in the order: “Tell these stones to turn into bread,” “Throw yourself down (from the pinnacle of the temple),” and “Fall down and worship me” (4:3, 6, 9). In Luke, however, the order of the second and the third is reversed (4:7, 9). And as to the sequence in reported sayings of Jesus, it should be noted that while in Matt. 5–7 and Luke 6:20–49 The Sermon on the Mount is presented as a unit, Luke also scatters its inspired maxims over several of his chapters; e.g., with Matt. 5:13 cf. Luke 14:34; with Matt. 5:15 cf. Luke 8:16; with Matt. 6:22 cf. Luke 11:34; and with Matt. 7:7 cf. Luke 11:9. Something similar happens in connection with Matt. 10; e.g., with Matt. 10:17 cf. Luke 12:11; with Matt. 10:21 cf. Luke 21:16; with Matt. 10:26 cf. Luke 12:2; with Matt. 10:24 cf. Luke 6:40; and with Matt. 10:39 cf. Luke 17:33. Also, in connection with Matt. 18; e.g., with Matt. 18:5 cf. Luke 9:48; and with Matt. 18:6, 7 cf. Luke 17:1, 2. And so it frequently happens that where Matthew gathers (groups together) Luke scatters (separates). Both were fully justified in doing so. As everyone knows, speakers, especially those who travel, repeat some of the things they have said earlier.

3. The Resulting Problem

The facts having now been stated, it will be evident that the Synoptic Problem consists in this, that as to contents, wording, and arrangement there is considerable similarity; yet also noticeable difference. If the resemblance were distant there would be no problem. Again, if the divergence were minimal, there would be a ready answer. But now that neither is true, and both the unity and the diversity stand out, the problem is real.

The aforegoing summary has also shown:

First, that each Gospel has its own distinctive structure

Secondly, that when the distinctive structure of each Gospel is grasped, finding one’s way in the Synoptics will have become far less difficult. What is found on the preceding pages can be helpful to this end. The repeated reading and diligent study of the Synoptics is, of course, even more necessary

Thirdly, that those who wrote these Gospels were not mere compilers but composers, not mere copyists but authors.

4. Elements Entering into a Solution

Note the wording of this heading: not “The Solution,” as if a complete solution were possible, but “Elements Entering into a Solution.” A detailed answer to the question, “How did these Gospels originate?” is impossible for the simple reason that none of the writers has given us a list of his sources, oral and written. Even Luke in his prologue (1:1–4) did not do this. But this is no cause for despair. Whoever approaches these sacred writings with a believing heart, convinced that they were composed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and reveal to us the Jesus of history who is at the same time the Christ of faith, begins to see that what these books teach is far more important than exactly how they came into existence. This approach of faith will make it possible to discover at least a broad solution, one that, though leaving many questions unanswered, will supply answers to others, thereby considerably limiting the scope of the unknown and unknowable.³⁰

a. Theory of Mutual Dependence

Traditionally it was assumed that the author of what was regarded as the second written Gospel used the first written Gospel, and that the author of the third used the first and the second. Thus, in his work The Harmony of the Gospels I.ii.4, Augustine, having first made some comments about Matthew continues, “Mark follows him closely, and looks like his attendant and abbreviator.”

Evaluation: In general, this theory fails to account for the presence of that material in the new Gospel which was lacking in the older one(s). Specifically, as to the relation between Mark and Matthew, if it had been Mark’s purpose to give us a summary of Matthew, why would he have left so much beautiful Matthew-material entirely untouched? Besides, is there not a strong early tradition that makes Mark dependent on Peter’s preaching rather than on Matthew’s written Gospel?³¹ Finally, it has already been pointed out (p. 7) that in those paragraphs where Matthew and Mark run parallel it is often Mark which contains the more detailed account. Calvin was aware of this. He states, “Mark’s narrative of the same event is sometimes more detailed. It is more probable, in my opinion … that he had not seen Matthew’s book when he wrote his own; so far is he from having expressly intended to make an abridgment.”³²

But though in the form in which the theory of Mutual Dependence was proposed by Augustine and others it is unacceptable, nevertheless in some other form it might be acceptable. For example, unless one is irrevocably committed to the belief that since Matthew was one of The Twelve, and Mark did not belong to that inner circle, therefore Matthew’s Gospel must have preceded Mark’s, he might well ask, “If Mark did not make use of Matthew’s Gospel, could it be that Matthew used Mark’s?” Also, could not Luke have used both Matthew’s Gospel and Mark’s?

b. Early Gospel Hypothesis

G. E. Lessing (in 1776 and 1778) and J. G. Eichhorn (in 1794) argued that all three independently utilized an early Aramaic Gospel, now lost.

Evaluation: This theory, too, may contain an element of value. Yet, whatever may be the truth with respect to an early Aramaic Gospel,³³ and its possible effect on a later Greek revision, the proposed solution is not a complete answer. It does not explain the wide variety in contents, vocabulary, and arrangement, that obtains among the three.

c. Fragments theory

F. Schleiermacher (in 1832) called attention to what he considered the artificial links by which the separate units of the Gospels, such units as sayings, discourses, stones, etc., are connected. From this he drew the conclusion that the sources used by the evangelists consisted of ever so many fragments. The Gospel writers had access to a mass of flyleaves on each of which a few items with reference to Jesus were recorded. The different ways in which these fragments were combined resulted in the three widely different Gospels. Due to the fact that many copies were made of the same material, scattered far and wide, and used by all three, these Gospels would, nevertheless reveal a measure of unity amid diversity.

Evaluation: Also this view may be true in part. It is possible, probable even, that Matthew, the publican, had taken notes on sayings and deeds of Jesus, and that before any Gospels were written these notes had been translated from Matthew’s Aramaic into Greek, copied, and distributed in both languages. Or Matthew himself may have written them in both tongues. Did he also distribute in note-form his own Greek paraphrase of Old Testament passages fulfilled in Christ? And were such early notes used by all three evangelists? Is not a literary connection between the three records evident from the fact that there are quotations from the Old Testament in a form which, though identical in the three Synoptics, differs both from the literally rendered Hebrew Old Testament and from the Greek translation (LXX)? An illustration is Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; and Luke 3:4. The quotation is from Isa. 40:3. As found in all three New Testament passages the quoted words are:

A voice of one crying in the wilderness:

Make ready the way of the Lord,

Make straight his paths.

Parallelism (see lines 2 and 3) favors the following translation of the Hebrew text:

A voice (is) crying:

In the wilderness make ready the way of the Lord [YHWH],

Make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

And now the LXX:

A voice of one crying in the wilderness,

Make ready the way of the Lord,

Make straight the paths of our God.

But though the literary fragment theory may be true in part, it cannot be considered a complete solution of the Synoptic Problem. It is by no means adequate as an explanation. For, first of all, the theory rests upon a gratuitous assumption, namely, that “the links” are artificial. If a saying of Jesus is reported in more than one connection, does this necessarily mean that the words that introduce such a saying or those that connect it with the following passage or paragraph were, for at least one of the reports, created and inserted at a later time? Is it not more natural to suppose that Jesus repeated himself, as is done by many traveling speakers even today? Similar events, too, may well have occurred in different time-and-place settings. The links, therefore, are not at all necessarily unnatural and artificial. Besides, as has been shown, with all their differences, the three Synoptics nevertheless present one story, a narrative of Christ’s earthly sojourn in which the main sequence of events is the same for all. Would this have been true if the Gospel-writers had nothing but loose fragments to work with?

d. The Double Source Hypothesis and Its Modifications

(1) Brief Description. This theory was developed by K. Lachmann (in 1835) and H. H. J. Holzmann (in 1863). As they and others after them saw it, Mark was the first to write a canonical Gospel. Matthew and Luke, each independent of the other, made use of Mark for the narrative portion of their Gospels. For the discourse or sayings material Matthew and Luke used another document. This was known at first as L (=Logia). It was described as containing all such non-Marcan material that is common to Matthew and Luke.

Of course, there can be no question about the fact that there is, indeed, such non-Marcan Matthew-Luke material. See the partial list given above, on p. 21. There can be no objection, therefore, to the use of L as an algebraic symbol. However, the Double Source Hypothesis, by changing the symbol L to Q (=Quelle, a German word meaning Source), affirms that the material in question was, in some form, an actual written source used by Matthew and Luke in composing their Gospels. It may have been written in Aramaic at first, but if so, in revised form it developed into a very important Greek source underlying the Greek Gospels of Matthew and Luke as we now know them. Such is the theory. This Double Source Hypothesis, with many revisions and modifications, has been accepted by many. Its two elements a. priority of Mark and b. “Q” deserve to be discussed separately.

(2) The Priority of Mark. The conviction that Matthew and Luke, each independently, used Mark is shared by scholars all over the world.³⁴

In a qualified sense (see pp. 43, 51–54), as concerns the three Synoptics as we have them in Greek, this priority of Mark theory may well be correct. This need not mean that all the arguments that have been advanced in support of this view are valid.³⁵ But even after subtracting whatever is questionable, that which remains provides rather solid evidence; as follows:

(a) Agreement in subject matter. As has been indicated earlier (see pp. 6, 7), almost all of Mark is paralleled in Matthew; slightly more than half of Mark is found also in Luke. It has been shown that neither the Early Gospel Hypothesis nor the Mutual Dependence Theory in the form that would make Mark dependent on Matthew adequately explains this agreement. Besides, as concerns a book taken as a whole, would not subsequent expansion be more probable than contraction?³⁶ Now all this would certainly seem to point in the direction of Mark’s priority. Yet, taken by itself, this argument may not amount to actual proof. One could, for example, argue that the remarkable agreement in subject matter is due not to literary dependence of one document upon another but rather to memorized stereotyped oral tradition. However, as the evidence multiples—see points (b), (c) and (d)—that solution becomes increasingly improbable, and the priority of Mark theory becomes increasingly credible.

(b) Vocabulary agreement. With respect to the words that are used note the striking agreement between Mark 1:16–20 and Matt. 4:18–22; also between Mark 2:18–22 and Matt. 9:14–17. Comparing Mark and Luke, see how closely Luke 4:31–37 parallels Mark 1:21–28; and Luke 19:29–35 resembles Mark 11:1–7. These are but a few examples. This does not mean that Matthew and Luke simply copy Mark. On the contrary, amid remarkable agreement one detects certain characteristic stylistic differences.³⁷ Each evangelist has his own way of writing and his own plan. But in parallel sections, except for these stylistic differences, either a. both Matthew and Luke sedulously parallel Mark, or else b. Matthew or Luke closely resembles that shortest Gospel. The two never essentially support each other against Mark. This would seem to be another rather strong argument in favor of the proposition that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark.

(c) Agreement in order. This is, indeed, one of the strongest arguments in favor of the priority of Mark. In order to appreciate it one should see the facts for himself by carefully comparing the Synoptics. It will then become evident that immediately after the description of the preaching of John (Mark 1:3–8; Matt. 3:3–12; Luke 3:4–18), a description which in each of these three Gospels starts with a quotation from Isa. 40:3 but otherwise reveals considerable variation, Luke’s order of narration begins to differ from that of Mark and Matthew. While the latter two first tell the story of Jesus’ baptism by John (Mark 1:9–11; Matt. 3:13–17), Luke immediately relates John’s imprisonment (3:19, 20). His brief account of Christ’s baptism follows (3:21, 22). As to the theme, Mark and Matthew thereupon continue to parallel each other, for both now present the story of Jesus’ temptation. It has already been pointed out, however, that, viewed from a material aspect, the “parallel” is questionable, since breadth of treatment of this temptation narrative differs strikingly. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that the sequence in which the narrative is presented is the same for Mark and Matthew. Luke, however, departs from the order followed by the other two, and next presents his Genealogy of Jesus (3:23–38). After this he joins the others with his unique coverage of the temptation (4:1–13; cf. Mark 1:12, 13; Matt. 4:1–11). After a brief triple introduction to the story of The Great Galilean Ministry (Mark 1:14, 15; Matt. 4:12 ff.; Luke 4:14, 15) Luke swerves away once more from the sequence found in Mark and Matthew, and relates the rejection at Nazareth (4:16–30). The sequence of narration in Mark and Matthew continues in parallel fashion. Both tell the story of the calling of four fishermen (Mark 1:16–20; Matt. 4:18–22). This may be compared with Luke 5:1–11, which is actually the account of a miraculous catch (see p. 246). When we reach Luke 4:31–37 (cf. Mark 1:21–28) we notice that Mark and Luke are together again, and that this time it is Matthew who is following a different sequence. But when we arrive at Mark 1:39—Christ’s preaching throughout Galilee and casting out demons—we observe that Matthew, in an expanded account (4:23–25) is with Mark again. Next, Matthew presents The Sermon on the Mount (chaps 5–7). Very strikingly, immediately afterward he returns to the very point where he had left Mark; so that both Mark 1:40–45 and Matt. 8:1–4 tell the story of the healing of a leper. This is also found in Luke 5:12–16. In both Mark and Luke this is followed by the account of the healing of a paralytic (Mark 2:1–12; Luke 5:17–26), but it is again Matthew who here follows a different sequence of narration. He now tells the story of the commended centurion (8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10).

The point to note, therefore, is this: Mark seems to be “the man in the middle.” When Luke departs from him, Matthew generally stays with him; when Matthew leaves him, Luke nearly always remains at his side.

Significance: In The Fourfold Gospel, Introduction, Cambridge, 1913, pp. 11, 12, E. A. Abbott, who at one time had been a headmaster, relates how at times three students—whom he calls Primus, Secundus, and Tertius—would hand in papers that resembled each other closely enough to awaken suspicion. Had one of the students furnished help to the others; and if so, which one had done so? Abbott’s unfailing experience showed that the answer was not hard to discover. When P and T were in substantial agreement with each other, they also agreed with S. Whenever P and T differed, one of them—sometimes P, sometimes T—would still agree with S. The latter, accordingly, was “the boy in the middle,” the one who had furnished help to the other two. Similarly, careful literary comparison would seem to indicate that Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, for his own purpose, with the retention of his own style, and in harmony with his own Gospel-plan, as shown previously, made use of Mark’s book.

(d) The matter of style. For the facts regarding Mark’s style, see p. 39, footnote 37. These facts prove that Mark’s manner of writing was the most vivid and sparkling of them all. It was also the most primitive, even repetitious at times, though never to the point of becoming labored, coarse, unmeaningful. Mark wrote as if he had been cupping his ear to the well-nigh breathless report of an enthusiastic eye-witness of Christ’s glorious deeds. And he had indeed been listening, namely, to the apostle Peter. Early tradition—as represented by Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius and others³⁸ —agrees that there was a very close connection between Peter and Mark.

“And so great a light of religion shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation [kerygma], but with all kinds of entreaties urged Mark, whose Gospel is extant, seeing that he was a follower of Peter, to leave them, in writing, a record of the teaching transmitted to them orally [by word]; nor did they cease until they had prevailed upon the man; and so they became responsible for the Scripture that is called the Gospel according to Mark” (Eusebius, op. cit., II.xv.1).

There are those who think that in his second epistle (1:15) Peter promised that he would provide a Gospel. They are of the opinion that Mark’s book was the one that redeemed this promise. Other interpreters, however, reject this view. For our purpose it is not necessary to try to decide this question.

The “father-son” relation between Peter and Mark is clear from Scripture (I Peter 5:13; cf. Acts 12:12). In the first of these two passages Peter calls Mark “my son.” All the early testimonies assert that Mark, in writing his Gospel, was dependent on Peter, though these sources disagree with respect to the extent of this dependence. It is probably safe to say (with Papias and others) that Mark was “Peter’s interpreter.” In his Gospel he sets forth the gist of Peter’s preaching. Peter and Mark had much in common. Both were men of action, fervor, and enthusiasm. Temporary deviation from the straight and narrow path is recorded in the case of both (Peter’s denial, Mark’s desertion), but both also experienced the wonderful (restoring and transforming) grace of their loving Lord (for Peter see John 21:15–17; for Mark Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; and II Tim. 4:11). Thus, the reader of the Gospel according to Mark feels throughout that he is being brought very close to the scene of action, for back of Mark stands Peter, and back of Peter stands Jesus Christ himself in all his power, wisdom, and love.

This closeness to the original scene is accentuated by one more significant fact; namely, that in several cases Mark has preserved for us the words of Jesus in the very language spoken, whether Hebrew or Aramaic. The contrast in this respect between Mark, on the one hand, and Matthew and Luke, on the other, is striking, especially when in each case its which there is a nearly parallel passage the latter is also examined. Note, accordingly, the following:

Mark	Matthew	Luke
boanerges
(3:17), interpreted “sons of thunder”	10:2	6:14
talitha cumi
(5:41), interpreted “little girl … arise”	9:25	8:54
corban
(7:11), interpreted “an offering”	15:5
ephphatha
(7:34), interpreted “be opened”
Abba
(14:36), interpreted “Father”	26:39	22:42

It is not surprising, therefore, that the priority of Mark theory has found such wide acceptance. From the point of view of literary comparison the evidence in its favor would seem to be conclusive. Nevertheless, objections have arisen. The theory, though now accepted by most scholars, has not convinced all. The main objections, together with my answers, are as follows:

(a) If Matthew and Luke both used our present Greek Gospel, why did they omit certain Marcan material? Also, how can it be explained that at times Matthew and Luke, in their phraseology, agree with each other, against Mark? Do not these facts warrant the conclusion that they were not using our present Mark but an earlier edition (“Ur-Marcus”)?

Answer: In Matthew the non-used Marcan material is very small indeed, as has already been shown, certainly insufficient as a basis for the postulation of an earlier Mark. And as to Luke’s far more extensive “omissions,” the idea that the author of the third Gospel intentionally avoids certain Marcan sections in order to leave room, within the compass of a single papyrus roll, for other important material—for example, many beautiful parables which he alone reports—impresses me as far more credible than the supposition of an Ur-Marcus. For the latter there is no historical evidence whatever. As to the so-called “agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark,” when “stylistic variation” is no real solution, could Luke have used Matthew’s Gospel?³⁹

(b) This theory “degrades Matthew and Luke to the position of slavish compilers, not to say plagiarists.”⁴⁰

Answer: Not at all; for, as has been noted repeatedly, Matthew and Luke do not copy Mark but use his Gospel. As has been shown, the style, purpose, reason for inclusion or exclusion of material, and the basic plan are still their own.

And as to “plagiarism” or literary theft, it should be remembered that today’s rules of copyright did not then exist. Besides, if we bear in mind that Mark was Peter’s interpreter, the next question would be, “And where did Peter get his material?” Did he depend entirely on his memory? Is it not possible—perhaps even probable—that to a limited extent he also made use of notes that had been taken during Christ’s life on earth? Who was the logical person to take these notes and to have copies made of them both in Aramaic and in Greek? Was it not Matthew? See pp. 34, 53, 90, 96. If this be kept in mind, it will be seen that judged even by modern standards, the charge of plagiarism would be hard to maintain throughout against Matthew. In some of that which Matthew read from the Gospel according to Mark, the former publican may well have detected an echo of his own notes. Accordingly, when we speak of Mark’s priority we should ever bear in mind that this priority is probably not absolute. In comparing the Gospels viewed as a whole, especially as to arrangement of material, that priority, as was shown is rather convincing, particularly for parallel portions. However, when we enquire more thoroughly into the origin of a particular saying, report, or quotation (often in modified form) of an Old Testament passage, we shall have to leave room for the theory that to a limited extent the priority belongs to Matthew! This, as is clear, by no means cancels the use Matthew made of Mark’s Gospel.

Matthew, by utilizing Mark, may well have been aiming to present a united front to the world, for the confirmation of the faith. We should really rejoice in the fact that the Gospels spring from a common tradition and therefore have so much in common. Was it not rather a tribute to Mark, a real honor conferred upon him, that Matthew and Luke were able to make such good use of his earlier Greek Gospel?

(c) This theory fails to do justice to the work of the Holy Spirit who infallibly guided the authors to write whatever had to be written.

Answer: Could not the Holy Spirit have guided them also in the selection and use of oral and literary sources? Is this excluded by what we read in Luke 1:1–4? Is it not true that already in the Old Testament we are repeatedly reminded that the inspired authors were at least acquainted with written materials other than their own? Read Num. 21:14; Josh. 10:13; II Sam. 1:18; I Kings 11:41; 14:19, 29; I Chron. 29:29; II Chron. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 20:34; 32:32. Daniel certainly made good use of his written source (Dan. 9:1, 2). Is it not probable that the apostle John had read the Synoptics and that he made use of this fact in the selection of his own material? (See N.T.C. on The Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 32.) And does not II Peter 3:16 assume acquaintance with all those letters of Paul that were then in circulation? Certainly, just as predestination by no means excludes human effort and exertion (Phil. 2:12, 13; II Thess. 2:13), so also inspiration by no means bars intelligent research.

(d) In our English (German, French, etc.) Bibles the Gospels follow each other in the order: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In general, the Greek manuscripts and the ancient versions bear testimony to this same sequence. The fathers, as represented, for example, by Irenaeus and Origen, definitely support it.⁴¹ In fact, until comparatively recent times the priority of Matthew was accepted, with very few exceptions, throughout the Christian church. If we regard this order as valid, Matthew cannot have used Mark’s Gospel.

Answer: First of all, we find no fault with the arrangement: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, in our Bibles. It is excellent. However, order of arrangement is not necessarily identical with order of origin. If it were, we would have to conclude that Isaiah wrote before Amos, Daniel before Hosea, and that Romans was composed before the letters to the Corinthians. Are there any scholars today who would seriously defend this order of origin or composition?

Secondly, the quoted fathers, taken literally, are referring to a Gospel of Matthew written in the language of the Hebrews. On this see the next chapter, pp. 87–91. When we here defend the priority of Mark, the reference is to our Greek Gospels.

Thirdly, even upon the assumption that the Gospels to which Irenaeus, Origen and others refer are substantially the same as our present Greek Gospels and their faithful modern translations, the question would still be in order: “Was the opinion that in order of composition Matthew’s Gospel preceded that of Mark based upon thorough literary comparison? If not, is it of much importance in settling the question at hand?”⁴²

Fourthly, the order of arrangement referred to—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John—is by no means unanimous. Tertullian’s statement, quoted on p. 3, presupposes a different sequence. According to Eusebius (op. cit., VI.xiv. 5, 6) Clement of Alexandria was of the opinion that not only Matthew but also Luke was written before Mark. Whether, in Clement’s view Matthew preceded Luke or vice versa is not clear. Codex Bezae has the sequence Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark. In some ancient documents the priority among the four is given to John.

It is clear, therefore, that there is no unanimous tradition defending the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Moreover, the fathers were not primarily interested in this subject. They were concerned rather with questions touching authorship, apostolic authority, and doctrinal significance. Therefore objection (d) also is of very little value as a ground for the rejection of Mark’s priority.

(e) Is it not unnatural to suppose that for information which Matthew, as one of The Twelve, had already received firsthand he would resort to a book written by Mark, a man who did not even belong to the inner circle of disciples?

Answer: This is a kind of two-edged sword. It is used as a premise in two syllogisms, with widely opposite conclusions:

Syllogism 1

a. The apostle Matthew, eye-witness of Christ’s deeds and ear-witness of his words, wrote the Gospel that bears his name.

b. A close witness, in composing a Gospel, would not have felt any need to borrow from—or use— a Gospel written by a man whose relation to Christ was not nearly as close.

c. Therefore Matthew did not use Mark.⁴³

Syllogism 2

a. Literary comparison proves that the Gospel which is by tradition ascribed to “Matthew” depends on Mark for a considerable portion of its contents.

b. A close witness, in composing a Gospel, would not have felt the need to borrow from—or use—a Gospel written by a man whose relation to Christ was not nearly as close.

c. Therefore the apostle Matthew, eye-witness of Christ’s deeds and ear-witness of his words, cannot have written the Gospel that by tradition is ascribed to him.⁴⁴

It is my belief that in both cases the conclusion is unwarranted, the reason being that the second premise is faulty. It does not do justice to the fact, corroborated by a strong and consistent tradition, that Mark was “the interpreter” of the very apostle whose name is mentioned first in every Biblical list of The Twelve, and for whom Matthew, too, must have had high regard. Moreover, does not Mark’s Gospel truly reflect Christ, his person, deeds, and words? And does it not do so in a very lively, interesting manner? E. J. Goodspeed imagines that when a copy of Mark’s book fell into the hands of the aged Matthew, the latter, like everybody else, was fascinated with it.⁴⁵ It is not hard to believe, therefore, that Matthew, in harmony with his own distinctive plan, used it, enlarged on it, and added much material, both from his own experience and from other sources. And should we not be grateful that such unity of spirit was present among the Gospel writers that both Matthew and Luke were delighted to use Mark’s Gospel, each of these two using it in his own way?

It is clear, therefore, that none of the arguments advanced against Mark’s priority has succeeded in overthrowing the weight of evidence in its favor.

The qualified endorsement of this theory would seem to be reasonable. This endorsement of Mark’s priority might receive support also from a world-shaking event that occurred very recently. I refer, of course, to the deciphering by Father O’Callighan of a fragment of Mark’s Gospel (part of 6:52, 53). It is one of the “7Q” scraps, that is, scraps found in cave 7 near the Qumran community. At the time of its discovery (1955) the Mark fragment had been dated approximately a.d. 50. If this date is correct, then about two decades after Christ’s death and resurrection a copy (!) of Mark’s Gospel already existed, therefore, the original would have been written even earlier.

(3) “Q”. The theory that Matthew and Luke had, in addition to Mark, a second definable source has not met with general approval. Even by some of those who have accepted Mark as a written source for a portion of the contents of Matthew and Luke, “Q” has been rejected or is at least seriously questioned.⁴⁶ The reason for this coolness toward “Q” is not that anything in Scripture or in the conservative position would rule out the idea that additional written sources were used by the evangelists. It rests, instead, on reasons such as the following:

(a) We have Mark, but we do not have any independent—separately existing—document containing non-Marcan Matthew-Luke material. Neither has any historical reference to it ever been found.⁴⁷

(b) “Q” is difficult to delineate. For example, does The Lord’s Prayer belong to it? But if so, which version: Matthew’s (6:9 ff.) or Luke’s (11:2 ff.)? Do The Beatitudes belong to it? But again, in which form: Matthew’s (5:3 ff.) or Luke’s (6:20 ff.)? Many similar illustrations could be given. To reconstruct “Q” is simply impossible.⁴⁸

(c) Turning now to the partial list (on p. 21) of passages representing non-Marcan Matthew-Luke material, if it be claimed that “Q” consists of “sayings of Jesus,” how is it that narrative material is also included (Matt. 4:1–11, cf. Luke 4:1–13; Matt. 8:5–13, cf. Luke 7:1–10; and at least in part also Matt. 11:2 ff., cf. Luke 7:18 ff.)?

(d) Again, consulting the same list, how is it to be explained that the order in which the passages were recorded varies so widely in Matthew and Luke that, for example, what in Matthew is found consecutively in chapters 6, 7, and 8 (respectively, “Be not anxious,” Encouragement to prayer, and the story of the centurion’s faith) occurs in Luke in the reverse order, chapters 12, 11, and 7?

(e) If “Q” is conceived of—as it often is—as having been an early Gospel, we may well ask, “What kind of Gospel is this, one that lacks the most essential part of all, namely, the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection?” Streeter’s⁴⁹ two answers to this objection are certainly very weak: a. the Passion story could readily be taught in oral tradition, but ethical teaching necessitated a written document; and b. to the apostles, except Paul, the cross was a difficulty. One might counter these answers by saying: a. Evidently the composers—or, according to others “editors”—of the Gospels in their present form did not think that a written account of Christ’s death and resurrection was superfluous; why should the author of “Q” have thought so? Would he not have been shocked by the observation that his product resembled a body without a head, a tree that never bears fruit? And as to b. Whatever may have been the degree of difference between Paul and the others in the amount of elaboration which they severally bestowed upon the doctrine of the cross and the resurrection, is it not clear that these others as well as Paul gloried in Christ’s accomplished mediatorial work as the sole basis for the sinner’s hope (Acts 4:12; I Peter 1:3; 2:24; I John 1:7; Rev. 5:9; 7:14; cf. Heb. 9:22)?

It is understandable, therefore, that so-called document “Q” has not been generally accepted. In order to rescue it, attempts have been made to supplement it by adding other similar sources or modifications. For example, in answer to the objections mentioned above—see especially those under (b) and (d)—, it is claimed that there must have been more than one recension of “Q.” Hence, some speak of “Q^M.” and “Q^Lk.” Or else, before the Gospel according to Luke was written in the form in which we now have it, “Q” had already been combined with “L” into “proto-Luke.” Therefore, whoever it was that wrote the Gospel known to us as the one “according to Matthew” had before him one form of “Q,” and the writer of Luke made use of another form. In fact each Christian center possessed a different recension of “Q.”⁵⁰

But superimposing one uncertainty upon another is no solution. The introduction of hypothetical source-units opens the gateway to the trackless and arid wilderness of unverifiable and often even unlikely hypotheses. It should be freely admitted, therefore, that for more than half of Matthew’s Gospel and for considerably more of Luke’s—that is, for all such material as is not paralleled in Mark—the theory of definable literary sources has offered no solution. As Ropes says (op. cit., p. 93), this is, indeed, “a little mortifying to scholarship.” the one-sided emphasis on the literary analysis of the Gospels has produced what some would call “trivial rewards.”

The result has been that of late the interest of scholarship has turned in a different, we might even say in the opposite, direction; that is, away from written sources to oral tradition. What the result has been in non-conservative circles will be shown in the next chapter. It is known that among conservatives emphasis on “verbal inspiration” and in connection with it on the words and deeds of Jesus heralded by faithful witnesses and by their associates—that is, “by apostles and apostolic men”—has always been marked. Of late this interest in the spoken word has not diminished. Accordingly, in our attempt to find a solution to The Synoptic Problem we turn next to:

e. Oral Tradition

J. C. L. Gieseler (1818) and J. C. Herder (1796, 1797) ascribed the similarities between the Synoptics to oral tradition; that is, they assumed that at a very early date the oral reports concerning the words and works of Jesus had assumed a definitely fixed form. They have had many followers even among those who do not share some of the basic religious convictions of these two men. Thus even today the argument in certain conservative circles runs somewhat as follows: Was not the earliest teaching by word of mouth? Did not Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would bring to the remembrance of the apostles all the words which their Master had spoken (John 14:26)? Is it any wonder, then, that the Synoptics show such striking similarity? If it be true that there are Jewish scholars who know the Talmud throughout and Christian scholars who have committed to memory the entire New Testament, why should it be accounted strange that the earliest witnesses and their immediate followers have transmitted to us these verbally memorized sayings and reports? Is it not true that Matthew was able to record from personal observation almost all of the memorable words and deeds of Jesus which he records in his Gospel, and that he had probably gained from other primary witnesses a knowledge of those vital matters that antedated his own conversion? Is it not true that the apostle Paul treasured very highly the oral teaching of Jesus (Acts 20:35; I Cor. 7:10; 9:14; 11:23–25; and I Thess. 4:15)? And is it not also true that among the earliest disciples of the apostles this interest in the words of Jesus and of his immediate followers was continued, so that, for example, Papias, who according to Irenaeus was a disciple of John, is by Eusebius reported to have written:

“And I shall not hesitate to append to the interpretations all that I ever learned well from the elders and recall well, being confident of their truth. For, unlike most, I did not take pleasure in those who say much, but in those who teach the truth, nor in those who recount the commandments of others, but in those who repeated the commandments given to the faith by the Lord and derived from truth itself. But if ever anyone came who had followed the elders, I enquired into the words of the elders, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples had said, and what Aristion and the elder John,⁵¹ the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not suppose that information from books would help me so much as the word of a living and abiding voice” (op. cit., III.xxxix.3, 4).

On the basis of all this, so runs the theory, while it is admitted that Matthew, Mark, and Luke may have used short written documents—for example, Matthew may have had access to an early collection of Old Testament prooftexts—there is no reason to believe that any one of the three evangelists used either of the other two Gospels.⁵²

Evaluation: That there is a great deal of truth in this view cannot be denied. Personal observation (on the part of Matthew and John), memorization, verbal transmission of that which was seen and heard, such factors as these must have played a very important role in the formation of the Gospels. Already during the old dispensation Jehovah demanded that the children should be taught Jehovah’s statutes. A definite body of truth had to be handed down from generation to generation. The Israelites were not afflicted with memorization-phobia. When Moses wrote, “Give ear you heavens, and I will speak,” he taught this song to the children of Israel (Deut. 31:22). Similarly, the children of Judah were taught The Song of the Bow, the dirge over Saul and Jonathan (II Sam. 1:18). The things which the fathers had taught their children were not hidden from the grandchildren (Ps. 78:1 ff.; see also Exod. 13:8; Deut. 6:7, 20–25; 11:19; Josh. 24:26–28).⁵³

It must be admitted, therefore, that the Synoptic Problem is not solved by placing all the emphasis on literary relationships between the Synoptics. As far as we know Jesus never wrote down any of his teachings. He spoke to the people. In turn, he appointed The Twelve, and others too, to proclaim the glad tidings of salvation far and wide. Naturally, at first this transmission was chiefly oral in character (Luke 6:12–16; 9:1, 2). After his resurrection Jesus again addressed his disciples. He told them to be his witnesses to the people by teaching them (Matt. 28:16–20; Acts 1:1–3, 8). That great emphasis was placed on the fulfilment of this task appears from the account of the choosing of Matthias to take the place of Judas (Acts 1:21–26). Other passages which stress the necessity of bearing witness, and the great value of keeping the traditions are Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39–43; 13:31; 22:15; 26:16; Rom. 6:17; Gal. 1:9; I Cor. 11:2, 23, 24; 15:8–11, 15; Phil. 4:9; I Thess. 4:1; II Thess. 2:15; II Tim. 2:1, 2; 4:1–5; Heb. 13:7, 8; Rev. 1:20 (the churches are light-bearers); 6:9; 11:1–13 (the two witnesses); and 20:4. Matthew was himself an eye-witness (so was John). According to all accounts, Mark had received his information from an eye-witness, Peter.⁵⁴ Luke also had eye-witnesses as his informants (1:2). He spent some time in Caesarea and in Jerusalem (Acts 21:8 ff.). Therefore he must have enjoyed abundant opportunities to make careful investigations. It should not be forgotten that Luke was living at a time when many of the personal followers of Jesus were still alive (I Cor. 15:6).

The eye-witnesses, in turn, had obtained their message from no one less than Jesus Christ himself. It was he who had spoken the words of life and beauty, and had illustrated them by means of his own earthly sojourn, death, resurrection, and ascension. He had proclaimed the same good news in different parts of the country, varying the wording as he saw fit. It was from him as “the Light of the world,” that light shone forth kaleidoscopically. His disciples, each with a somewhat different purpose and in a different style, and each endowed with a different personality, proclaimed this same message to the world. It is clear that this factor of personal observation (on the part of some) and oral transmission (on the part of all) must be taken into consideration in explaining the unity amid variety that is found in the Gospels, in all four, but for our purpose especially in the Synoptics.

All this can be granted, but it offers no excuse for driving the Oral Tradition theory to extremes. It is clear from Luke 1:1–4 that he recognizes both oral and written narrative materials. The results of careful literary comparison should not be ignored. The argument that Matthew and Luke may have used written sources that were small in compass, but that had they used a larger account—say, an entire Gospel—this would have reduced their stature to that of mere compilers, and that this view conflicts with the doctrine of inspiration, is certainly weak. Also, we have shown that the evangelists, each according to his own plan, continually interrupt their main narrative, and afterward resume it again at the very point where they broke off. “The oral theory cannot possibly account for this freedom with which the evangelists vary the order of their record.”⁵⁵ Moreover, the promise found in John 14:26 by no means implies that miracle memories would be given to the Gospel-writers.⁵⁶

In accounting for the manner in which the Synoptics originated we should never place oral tradition over against written sources, as if this were an either-or matter. Rather, in a manner suited to each one’s own purpose and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, each Gospel-writer made the wisest use of the best sources, both oral and written. Accordingly, is there not much wisdom in the following quotations?

“It seems then all but necessary to allow for the influence of both of these modes of transmission, even though we may be unable to apportion the amount of influence which is to be ascribed to each” (J. C. Hawkins, op. cit., p. 217).

“Very likely the sources were literary in part (Luke 1:1–4), and in part also oral.… These Gospels are not the product of a rather arbitrary compilation of already existing literary pieces, but the purposeful compositions of a richly variegated tradition with respect to the words and works of Jesus, his death, and his resurrection” (Herman Ridderbos, in the article to which reference has already been made).

In the final analysis the question, “Which came first, Matthew’s Gospel or Mark’s?” is not nearly as important as that other question, namely, “Where did the Synoptists get their material?” Today the apostolic origin of this material is becoming more and more clearly evident.

As to Matthew, he himself was an apostle, and probably obtained the information regarding the events that preceded his “call” from those apostles that had been called earlier and/or from Jesus himself. This by no means excludes his use of Mark’s Gospel.

As to Mark, as has been indicated, tradition is unanimous in its testimony that he was Peter’s interpreter. Evidence also indicates that for some of his material he was dependent on Matthew’s notes. Both Peter and Matthew were among the twelve apostles.

As to Luke, there is good reason to believe that he, in addition to being indirectly dependent on the apostles—the material he presents having traveled from Peter to Mark to Luke—, also, like Mark, received help from Matthew’s notes. As some see it, he even received help (cf. footnote 39 on p. 43) from Matthew’s Gospel. F. L. Cribbs, “St. Luke and the Johannine Tradition,” JBL, 90 (Dec. 1971), pp. 422–450, and earlier G. W. Broomfield, J. V. Bartlet, J. A. Findlay, and others, have pointed out verbal parallels between Luke and John, another apostle. However that may be, there can be no doubt about the fact that Luke obtained his material, whether oral, written or both, from those who “from the beginning were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:2); that is, from apostles—including John—and other witnesses.

Upon this fact the emphasis should rest: the material that is found in the Gospels can be traced to the earliest witnesses. All the evidence, including the character of the language that is used, the customs that are described or implied, the places that are named, the vividness of the presentation, points to the fact that we are dealing here with very early material (see also pp. 46, 47). In fact, we can go one step farther: via these earliest witnesses all the evidence points back to the Living Lord, Jesus Christ, himself. It is to him and his Spirit that these writings owe their origin.

f. Concluding Summary

On the basis of literary comparison, Luke 1:1–4, and ancient tradition (for example, with reference to the relation between Mark and Peter), the following would seem to be a fair statement embodying a partial solution of the Synoptic Problem:

(1) Why are the three so similar?. (a) Because the same Primary Author, the Holy Spirit, inspired them all, and they all record the words and deeds of the same Lord Jesus Christ.

(b) Because the three are based on observation of many of the same facts.

(c) Because the observed facts were transmitted accurately, so that the three Gospels rest upon a thoroughly harmonious oral tradition.

(d) In part also because of literary relationship, both Matthew and Luke having probably used Mark’s Gospel; all three having utilized Matthew’s earlier notes; Luke perhaps also Matthew’s Gospel.

(2) Why are the three so different?. (a) Because Jesus himself proclaimed the “gospel of the kingdom” in different ways at different places, and because he performed similar deeds in various places.

(b) Because different witnesses of the works and words of Jesus made different observations. When three intelligent and honest men see the same miracle or hear the same sermon, what they see and hear will generally not be exactly the same thing, but will vary in accordance with the respective personality of each of the three witnesses.

(d) Because more or less extensive use could be made of Matthew’s notes (see pp. 34, 53, 90, 96), and their contents could be inserted in various places, according to the judgment of the individual evangelist.

(e) Because in the use of sources, whether oral or written, each evangelist exercised his Spirit-guided judgment, in accordance with his own character, education and general background, and with a view to the realization of his own distinct plan and purpose.

B. Their Reliability

1. Faith and Optimism

Believers are filled with deep reverence whenever they are confronted with the Word of God, whether oral or written. Instructive in this connection is II Kings 22:8, 10b–13; 23:1–3: “And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of Jehovah.… And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest … saying: Go, inquire of Jehovah for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found; for great is the wrath of Jehovah that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according to all that which is written concerning us.… And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. And the king went up to the house of Jehovah and all the men of Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of Jehovah, to walk after Jehovah, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and all his soul, to confirm the words of this covenant that were written in this book: and all the people stood to the covenant.”

Another very impressive service is recorded in Neh. 8:1 ff., beginning as follows:

“Now when the seventh month had arrived, the children of Israel were in their cities. And all the people gathered as one man into the square that was before the Water Gate. And they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which Jehovah had given Israel. And on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly (consisting of) both men and women and all who were able to understand what they heard. And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate, from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and women, all who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law. And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden platform that had been made for the purpose, and beside him stood, on his right [there follow six names], and on his left [seven names]. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood.…”

Note that in these accounts the audience stands while Scripture is being read, just as is done in many churches even today. The people stand out of reverence for God and his inspired Word. This indicates that one’s attitude to this divine message, whether oral or written, is largely determinative of the blessing he receives or fails to receive.

Whether or not Scripture—and this includes the Gospels—is the very Word of God is a question that has been decided by God himself: Exod. 20:1; II Sam. 23:2; Isa. 8:20; Mal. 4:4; Matt. 1:22; Acts 1:16; 7:38; 13:34; Rom. 1:2; 3:2; 4:23; 15:4; I Cor. 2:4–10; 6:16; 9:10; 14:37; Gal. 1:11, 12; 3:8, 16, 22; 4:30; I Thess. 1:5; 2:13; Heb. 1:1, 2; 3:7; 9:8; 10:15; II Peter 1:21; 3:16; I John 4:6; Rev. 22:19; and last but not least II Tim. 3:16, 17: “All Scripture (is) God-breathed and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be equipped, for every good work thoroughly equipped.” The men who wrote the sacred writings were “carried along” by the Holy Spirit. That same Spirit bears witness by and with the Word whenever the latter is accepted by believing hearts. It is thus that they become convinced of Scripture’s authority. Cf. Westminster Confession, Chapter I, article V.⁵⁷

The fact that a person’s basic attitude toward the Word of God—whether spoken or written—determines, in large measure, the effect which the confrontation with that Word will have upon him is very clear from Luke’s account of Christ’s preaching at Nazareth. The attitude of the audience was one of wonder and … disbelief (4:22). The end-result was an attempt to assassinate the One who had spoken the words of life (4:28, 29). So also, throughout history, the prior conviction that the Gospels cannot be true leads one to look for errors and discrepancies. Whoever approaches these books with that inner disposition of heart and mind will cry “Contradiction!” whenever in two parallel accounts he sees something which on the surface looks like a discrepancy. Often he finds contradictions because he is looking for them. An honest attempt to harmonize the two accounts, without interpreting either in a forced or unnatural manner, is simply dismissed as being unscholarly. Writes Dr. J. Murray, “Frequently the doctrine of verbal inspiration is dismissed with supercilious scorn as but a remnant of that mediaeval or post-Reformation scholasticism that has tended to petrify Christianity.” He calls attention to the fact that this doctrine is often erroneously interpreted as if it involved the theory of mechanical dictation and consequently as if it left no room for “the diversity … in those that were the human instruments in the production of Scripture.”⁵⁸ He concludes by stating: “The rejection of the inerrancy of Scripture means the rejection of Christ’s own witness to Scripture. Finally and most pointedly, then, the very integrity of Our Lord’s witness is the crucial issue in this battle of the faith.”⁵⁹ Anyone who will take the time to examine Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 10:34, 35; 14:26; 16:13, as to the nature and contents of Christ’s witness to Scripture, will see that Dr. Murray had every right to make this statement.

Unbelief, moreover, breeds despair. Faith, on the other hand, produces optimism. The Gospels proclaim a Christ who arose from the dead and lives forevermore as the believer’s Savior and Friend. Faith is indeed the victory that overcomes the world (I John 5:4).

On the part of those who reject God’s Word, oral or written, it has been made the object of destruction (Jer. 36:22, 23), distortion (Mark 14:57, 58; Rom. 3:8; 6:1; Gal. 1:8, 9), and disdain (II Kings 7:1, 2; II Peter 3:4). This was true in Bible times and has continued to the present. Sometimes, however, the rejection seems to be only partial and/or is presented in a refined manner by men of great learning who, in the process of discarding what has long been accepted as true, will here and there even come forth with ideas that are of some value toward the advance of the scientific understanding of the Bible, but whose basic approach, nevertheless, leads them to accept untenable main conclusions. What happens in such cases is this, that what is so confidently affirmed by one famous critic, usually in a setting of seemingly irrefutable arguments, is denounced by the next one, who similarly presents his own theory as the well-established result of scholarly enquiry. When, in turn, this second individual also passes on—or sometimes even while he is still alive!—there follows a third, who with great enthusiasm advocates still another critical view, which for a while enjoys great popularity, and then, after a brief period of incandescence, streaks meteorlike to its doom.

Since the book you are reading is a Commentary and not a work in Gospel Criticism there is room for only a few illustrations of what the writer has in mind. The main thesis will, I trust be clear, however. It is expressed beautifully in Isaiah 40:6–8, ending with the words, “The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God shall stand forever.”

2. Harnack and Liberalism

a. Description

There was, for example, Karl Gustav Adolf Harnack, German Lutheran (1851–1930). Famous as a professor of church history, as librarian (director of the Royal Library in Berlin), and as author, his brilliant lectures delivered at the University of Berlin during the winter semester 1899–1900, attracted a vast audience of students, and were subsequently published, first in German (Das Wesen des Christentums) and later in English (What Is Christianity?, London, 1901). The amazing effectiveness of these and other lectures, and also many facts about the life and talents of Harnack, are most interestingly, though at times perhaps too sympathetically, portrayed by Wilhelm Pauck, in his book Harnack and Troeltsch: Two Historical Theologians, Oxford, 1968. Harnack wrote many other works,⁶⁰ including The Origin of the New Testament (translation of Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments), London, 1925, and, the most famous of them all, History of Dogma (translation of Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte), 7 volumes, London, 1895–1900.

Now what did this world-renowned scholar teach with reference to Jesus and the trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts? The answer is that Harnack was the “Mr. Liberal” of his day. According to the Liberal view, in the time covered by the Gospels nothing really happened that is incapable of purely scientific explanation. Jesus was a man, definitely not “the Son of God” in the confessional sense. He was, however, a most wonderful man, the pure and humble teacher of righteousness, the very embodiment of simple trust in the heavenly Father with whom he was united in spirit. What is needed by everyone, therefore, is not the faith in Jesus as Redeemer and resurrected Lord, but the faith of Jesus, that is, the faith which he exercised, for he proclaimed not himself but the Father. Said Harnack, “The gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it, has to do with the Father only and not with the Son.”⁶¹ According to this view it is men’s task, by pondering and especially by taking to heart the example and words of Jesus, to capture his very spirit and, thus ennobled, to reach intimate fellowship with God. It is, accordingly, not the Easter message, the report of Jesus’ actual, physical resurrection from the grave, that we should be concerned about, but the Easter faith. That faith of Jesus must become the dominant power in our lives.

As to the reliability of the Gospel accounts? As Harnack sees it, the entire New Testament, including the Gospels, is already a tradition that overlies and obscures the actual historical facts.⁶² The natural interest in the words and deeds of Jesus and especially in the striking manner of his death, followed by reports of his resurrection, was one of several factors which led the early church to assign a saving significance to that death. However, by doing this it was departing from the central emphasis of Jesus’ own teaching. Of course, this new development, according to which the gospel came to mean the good news of the divine plan of salvation, which in fulfillment of prophecy was accomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ, did not arise all at once. It developed gradually. It was pushed to the fore with peculiar force by Paul. Historically the farther the early church was separated from the earthly life of Jesus, the more error began to eclipse the truth.

Now, according to the Liberal view, it is in the Gospel of Mark, which echoes the preaching of Peter, that we catch the most true and vivid glimpse of the life and teaching of the purely human Jesus. Not as if everything recorded in that Gospel is reliable, but it enables us to penetrate beyond the husk to the kernel of truth regarding the historical Jesus and the faith he lived by. Mark’s Gospel, therefore, is mainly historical instead of doctrinal. It pictures Jesus as being himself a believer, not an object of faith.

b. Evaluation

The dubious character of Liberalism’s reconstruction of sacred history is today admitted on every side. But since its chief weakness pertains not only to it but even to those schools of thought that have risen in opposition to certain of its tenets, a discussion of that basic flaw will be postponed until also these conflicting theories have been summarized and evaluated. One serious defect can, however, be mentioned at once; namely this, that the Liberal reconstruction grossly misinterprets Mark; for that Gospel, far from portraying Jesus as if he were merely human, describes him as being, in very truth, the Son of God, the object of adoration and worship. In fact, Mark’s Christology is essentially the same as that of Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul! It is not denied, of course, that in Mark the human side of Christ is throughout clearly taught and presupposed (2:16; 3:9, 31; 4:38; 6:5; 13:32; 15:37). But according to this evangelist the two natures, human and divine (to use later terminology), are in perfect harmony. This is a fact which, in studying certain passages, one can hardly fail to detect (4:38, 39; 6:34, 41–43; 8:1–10; 14:32–41; etc.). And the opinion according to which Mark’s Gospel stresses the human side of Jesus at the expense of the divine is certainly erroneous. This evangelist pictures Jesus as being, in truth, the Son of God. Moreover, this designation is applied to him not only by Mark himself (1:1),⁶³ but also, according to Mark, by the demons (3:11; 5:7), the centurion (15:39),⁶⁴ the heavenly Father—and this in connection both with the Son’s baptism (1:11) and his transfiguration (9:7)⁶⁵ —and even by Jesus himself (14:61, 62), and that in a sense so exalted that those who rejected him considered this claim to be nothing less than blasphemy (14:63, 64).

But in order to reach a conclusion regarding Mark’s opinion of Jesus we should not limit ourselves to a consideration of the titles which this evangelist ascribes to him who is both “Son of God” and “Son of man.” Mark’s narrative of the words and deeds of this exalted person must also be studied. When this is done it becomes apparent that sonship in the highest sense is indicated here. According to Mark the one whom he describes reigns supreme in the realm of disease, demons, and death. As such he heals diseases of every variety, casts out demons (1:32–34), cures the blind, the deaf, etc. (8:22–26; 10:46–52), cleanses the leper (1:40–45), and even raises the dead (5:21–24, 35–43). He exercises power over the domain of nature in general; for he stills winds and waves (4:35–41), walks on water (6:48), causes a fig tree to wither (11:13, 14, 20), and multiplies a few rolls so that they suffice to satisfy the hunger of thousands (6:30–44; 8:1–10). His knowledge of the future is so detailed and comprehensive that he predicts what will happen to Jerusalem, to the world, to his disciples (chap. 13), and to himself (9:9, 31; 10:32–34; 14:17–21). His authority is so outstanding that he pronounces pardon in a manner befitting God and no one else (2:1–12, especially verses 5 and 6). The climax of his majesty is revealed in this that when he is put to death he rises again (16:6)!

As to whether Mark pictures this Jesus as the object of faith, this question, too, must be answered with a vigorous affirmative, really already implied in the foregoing. “Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” is immediately introduced as the Lord whose coming, in accordance with prophecy, demands a herald or way-preparer (1:1–3). He is the One to whom the angels minister (1:13). He baptizes with the Holy Spirit (1:8), is Lord even of the sabbath (2:28), appoints his own ambassadors (3:13–19), has a right to be accepted in faith even by those of “his own country,” (implied in 6:6), has authority to bid men follow and receive him (8:34; 9:37), is the very One whom David called “Lord” (implied in 12:37), and as “Son of man” is coming again in clouds with power and great glory, when he will send forth the angels to gather his elect (13:26, 27).⁶⁶

3. Wrede and Skepticism

a. Description

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Liberal view of Mark was unable to maintain itself. Even during the lifetime of its chief advocates it was already being attacked. One of its main opponents was the German New Testament scholar William Wrede.⁶⁷ In his brief life (1859–1906) he emphasized again and again that the view according to which Mark’s Gospel is mainly historical instead of doctrinal, and fails to present Jesus as an object of worship, is an error. Wrede exposes this error in his well-known book Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, published in 1901; also in his posthumous publication The Origin of the New Testament (translation of Die Entstehung der Schriften des Neuen Testaments), London and New York, 1909. This book contains a series of lectures originally delivered to laymen. The style is crisp and lucid. Wrede had the rare gift of expressing himself in language that everyone was able to understand. He defends the view that not only Matthew and Luke but also Mark describes Jesus Christ as the object of faith (pp. 52, 73, etc.).

Now if Wrede had stopped here he might have rendered an outstanding service to the cause of Christian scholarship. He went farther, however, He argued that although it is true that the Gospels picture Jesus as the object of faith, they are wrong in doing this. These Gospels, he believed, give us a picture of the subjective opinions of the early Christian community. They do not contain the actual history of Jesus. In The Origin of the New Testament (p. 73) he says: “Even our Gospel of Mark, sad as it may seem to us to say, in no way simply depicts the life of Jesus as it was.” In his Messiasgeheimnis (Messianic Secret) he describes Mark’s book as being self-contradictory and unreliable. It tells us that Jesus performed the most stupendous miracles, yet forbids people to make these known. To the disciples he reveals himself as the Messiah, yet forbids them to divulge this. Why? Wrede’s solution: In the beginning—that is, during Jesus’ lifetime—the latter had never been regarded as the Messiah, neither had he himself made this claim. The early Christian community believed, however, that by means of the resurrection Jesus had been made the Messiah, a belief reflected, according to Wrede, in Acts 2:36; Rom. 1:4. So now, looking back, as it were, from the vantage point of belief in Jesus’ Messiahship, the church reasoned that if the Jesus who before his death had walked among men was at that time the prospective Messiah, then even during this earlier period he must already have been aware of, and must have given some evidence of, his future dignity. Thus by Mark (and to a degree also by the other evangelists) Messiahship was read back into those pre-crucifixion days, but in such a manner that by order of Jesus himself it had to he kept a secret at that time. After the resurrection it could be publicly revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that according to Wrede the Gospels are manipulations. They are not reliable.

b. Evaluation

Wrede was in the habit of presenting his conclusions as being the result of earnest study and research, uncontaminated by mere theological opinion or prejudice. See his Origin of the New Testament, p. 4. Having thus created an attitude of trust on the part of the listeners and/or readers, he proceeds to state a good many mere opinions, presenting them as if they were established facts; for example, (1) that Paul was a man who did not see the brighter side of things, p. 16; (2) that Paul’s reasoning in Gal. 3:16 is pure rabbinism, p. 20; (3) that there is a striking difference between the teaching of Jesus and of Paul, p. 23; (4) that Paul wrote a letter to the Laodiceans that has disappeared, p. 26; and (5) that Ephesians, not written by Paul, is merely an extension of Colossians, pp. 40, 43.⁶⁸

When therefore in the same book, in discussing the origin and reliability of the Gospels, he states: (6) that the histories of Jesus’ childhood in Matthew and Mark [did he mean Matthew and Luke?] are to be regarded throughout as myth, p. 61; and (7) that all human tradition implies alteration, p. 70, giving this as one of the reasons why our Gospels, including Mark and his Messianic Secret, cannot be regarded as reliable, we have the right to question the value of such unproved assertions.

4. Schweitzer and Pessimism

a. Description

Wrede’s thoroughgoing skepticism, generally expressed with characteristic clarity and vigor, could not remain unnoticed. There were reactions; some unfavorable, some favorable. A sample of each will now be given.

First of all, then, let us look at what may be regarded as being to a considerable extent an unfavorable reaction; namely, that of a Protestant theologian who was born at Kayserburg, in the Rhenish province of Upper Alsace, Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965). He is not a stranger to our times. Again and again newspaper and magazine articles have brought his name to the attention of the general public. While those whose specialty is music will always remember him as the author of a great biography and commentary on Johann Sebastian Bach, a work that is still considered a classic, most people knew him especially as a philanthropist, a Nobel Prize winner, the missionary-surgeon who virtually sacrificed himself for the cause of the poor and distressed in Africa. It was in the year 1913 that he left his pastorate and professorship to establish the famous hospital at Lambarene, Gabon, (formerly French Equatorial Africa). Except for some lecture and concert tours to raise money for this hospital, he remained among the Africans until the day of his death at the age of 90. The value of the services which he rendered to the distressed of almost every description—including those afflicted with sleeping sickness, malaria, elephantiasis, and leprosy—can hardly be over-estimated. He greatly endeared himself to thousands of Africans, his creed being that every person should sacrifice a portion of his own time for others. In fact, the sacredness not only of human but of all life was one of the points on which he placed great stress, even to such an extent, it was said, that at the hospital mosquitoes must not be swatted!

For our purpose, however, it is especially Schweitzer the theologian who demands investigation. His brief treatise, The Secret of the Messiahship and the Passion, appeared in print in the year 1901, on the very day that Wrede’s Messianic Secret in the Gospels was also published. Schweitzer’s shorter work was subsequently expanded into The Quest of the Historical Jesus (translation of Von Reimarus zu Wrede), 1906. Among his many other writings of special interest to the theologian are: Paul and His Interpreters, 1912; The Mystery of the Kingdom, 1914; and Christianity and the Religions of the World, 1923.⁶⁹

Now, in a sense Schweitzer’s forerunner was Wrede. This is true in at least two respects: (1) Both rejected the Liberal reconstruction of the personality of Jesus, described earlier. That Jesus of Nazareth, said Schweitzer, “is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by a modern theology in a historical garb.”⁷⁰ (2) Both emphasized the eschatological element in the Gospels; that is, both stressed the fact that, according to the Gospels, the mind of Jesus was occupied with dramatic events that were yet to be. The difference between the two was, however, this, that while Wrede regarded this prominence of the eschatological element in the thinking of Jesus as unhistorical, Schweitzer viewed it as historical. Or, phrasing it differently, what Wrede regarded as Mark’s dogma, that of the Messianic secret, Schweitzer himself viewed as Jesus’ own belief.

Schweitzer, in other words, had no patience with Wrede’s thoroughgoing skepticism. Though he himself rejected the miracles, he saw no justification whatever for Wrede’s refusal to accept the Gospels as being, in the main, historical. What if Jesus was represented by Mark as pre-occupied with what was going to be, was not the very atmosphere of the times saturated with eschatology? Why, then, would it have been so strange for Jesus to speak of his coming greatness and of the future kingdom? What good reason is there, after all, for regarding Mark’s description of the ardent hopes of Jesus as being nothing more than a distortion created by the early Christian community and particularly by Mark?

However, lest we begin to think that Schweitzer’s own views regarding Jesus and God’s kingdom are more nearly in line with conservative theology than those of Wrede, let it be stated at once that were we to shift our allegiance from Wrede to Schweitzer we would merely be shifting the responsibility for error from Mark to Jesus himself! According to Schweitzer not so much Mark but Jesus himself was committing a tragic error. It was Jesus who was deluded.

From Schweitzer’s theological writings—especially from The Mystery of the Kingdom—we derive the following summary of the life of Jesus, according to the Gospels as interpreted by the surgeon-musician-theologian (or-philosopher):

The public ministry of Jesus covered but a brief period. He began his ministry at the season of the summer seed-sowing and ended it upon the cross at Passover-time of the following year. At his baptism he became aware of the fact that he was going to be the Messiah. However, as such he must remain unrecognized until the new era dawns. In the Sermon on the Mount he teaches that the meek, the peacemakers, etc., are blessed, in the sense that they are destined for the kingdom-to-be. Though, according to Schweitzer, the spirit of this sermon is valuable for all time, for ethics is the very essence of religion,

nevertheless, it was not at all the purpose of Jesus to establish a new morality on earth, a gradually developing stable, ethical society. On the contrary, the kingdom of which Jesus was thinking was to arrive very soon, suddenly, supernaturally, and by means of a catastrophic cosmic upheaval through which evil was to be completely overcome. Accordingly, the ethics which Jesus proclaimed was really “interim ethics,” that is, ethics with a view to the state of perfection which was to be supernaturally brought in. Jesus taught the people to repent as a preparation for this eschatological kingdom, to be divinely established. Its arrival would,

however, be preceded by a brief season of affliction in which believers must share. This affliction was to be not only a probation but an atonement, a satisfaction for the sins committed in the present era. Jesus sends his disciples on a mission tour, and expects the sudden, catastrophic dawn of the kingdom before their return. By means of a so-called miraculous feeding he consecrates the multitudes for entrance into this kingdom. On the Mount of Transfiguration he reveals to three of his disciples the secret of his Messiahship. Some had regarded him as the Forerunner. Jesus, however, now indicates that the kingdom is much closer: he himself is the Messiah; the Forerunner was John the Baptist. Through the reading of deutero-Isaiah Jesus discovers that the kingdom will be established without a preceding general tribulation, and that, instead, he himself will suffer for many. By and large Christ’s followers, however, are not aware of the secret of the Messiahship. Hence, the entrance into Jerusalem is an ovation to one whom the multitude reveres not as the Messiah, but as the Forerunner. Judas learns the secret of Jesus’ claim to Messiahship, and reveals it to the chief priests. They plot his death. “On the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan, as they ate the Pascal lamb at even, he uttered a loud cry and died.” He died “despairing of bringing in the new heaven and the new earth.” His life ended in tragedy, in utter pessimism and disillusionment, for the kingdom had not arrived.

b. Evaluation

Now in this presentation there are some items that are worthy of a degree of appreciation: (1) Schweitzer regards as historical many of the Gospel accounts which Wrede rejects. (2) He emphasizes that it is God, not man, who establishes the kingdom; it is “the kingdom of God” (cf. Matt. 6:10). And (3) he rightly perceives that in the teaching of Jesus “the kingdom of God” is ultimately an eschatological entity, a future state of bliss in which the will of the entire redeemed society will be in complete harmony with God’s will (cf. Matt. 13:40–43; 19:28, 29; 25:34; Mark 9:47; Luke 12:32; 13:28, 29; 21:31; cf. I Cor. 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; II Thess. 1:5; etc.).

Having said this, however, the erroneous elements should also be pointed out: (1) For the climactic ending of the Gospels Schweitzer has substituted his own thoroughly pessimistic anticlimax; for victory, tragedy. (2) He has failed to show how his eschatological Jesus can be reconciled with his Liberal Jesus. (3) It is a question whether Jesus, as he pictures him, tortured from beginning almost to the very end by an obsession, can even be regarded as being completely sane. It is not surprising, therefore, that for his medical degree Schweitzer wrote a dissertation on the theme, The Psychiatric Estimate of Jesus (translation of Die psychiatrische Beurteilung Jesu), Boston, 1948. And (4) Schweitzer’s one-sided emphasis on the eschatological aspect of the kingdom, as if that is all there is to it, ignores an entire chain of passages in which Jesus stresses the fact that the kingdom (or kingship, royal rule) is a present and continually developing, spiritual reality (Matt. 12:28; 19:14; Mark 4:26 ff.; 10:15; 12:34; Luke 7:28; 17:20, 21).

Like the theory of Harnack and that of Wrede, so also that of Schweitzer has been weighed and, in the light of Scripture, has been found wanting. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, what is probably the chief weakness of this and the preceding views is reserved for later discussion.

5. Bultmann and Radicalism

a. Description

Soon after World War I some German scholars began to concentrate their attention on the word of mouth transmission of Christ’s words and of the reports concerning his actions. They began to study the manner in which the teachings of Jesus and the narratives respecting him had been circulated during the period between his death and the time when the Gospels were written. They were encouraged in this pursuit by the fact that the one-sided emphasis on the literary analysis of the Gospels had produced such “trivial rewards,” as has been shown in Chapter II A. Among the scholars who undertook this new task two names stand out prominently, Martin Dibelius⁷² and Rudolf Bultmann. If Wrede was a skeptic or agnostic, Bultmann may not unjustly be called a radical.

He was born Aug. 20, 1884, in Wiefelstede, in what was then the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, Germany. Being the oldest son of an evangelical Lutheran minister, he studied theology at Tübingen, Berlin, and Marburg. Among those who strongly influenced him were: at Tübingen Karl Müller, the church historian, and at Berlin the famous Adolf Harnack (discussed earlier) and Herman Gunkel, the renowned Old Testament scholar (1862–1932). It was Gunkel who, in association with J. F. W. Bousset, developed the “history of religion” approach to Biblical literature, as is clear from his writings; in which, for example, he treats Genesis as a collection of sagas or legends. This approach led to what came to be known as Form Criticism, a term which today is by many immediately associated with Dibelius and Bultmann. At Marburg it was Johannes Weiss whose eschatological emphasis is reflected in Bultmann’s writings, and who encouraged him to continue his studies toward the doctorate. Other Marburg professors to whom Bultmann himself acknowledges indebtedness were Adolf Jülicher and Wilhelm Hermann.

Preparatory study was followed by teaching. It was while teaching at Breslau that Bultmann wrote the book that deeply stirred the theological world, namely, The History of the Synoptic Tradition.⁷³ A popular abridgment of this work is The Study of the Synoptic Gospels.⁷⁴ It is in these books that Bultmann sets forth his ideas regarding Form Criticism.

From 1921 to his retirement in 1951 Bultmann was professor of New Testament and Early Christian History at Marburg. While there he accepted an invitation to deliver an address at Alpirsbach, Germany, before the Society of Evangelical Theology. His article, “New Testament and Mythology,” is based on this address.⁷⁵ It is with this article (and later writings) that Bultmann’s second approach to the New Testament, namely, Demythologization, is generally linked. The two approaches—Form Criticism and Demythologization—are, however, closely related. In fact, in the opinion of several writers the gist of the second approach is already implied in the first.⁷⁶

What, then, is Bultmann’s attitude toward the New Testament, particularly toward the Gospels? Revealing is the fact that he calls Wrede’s Messianic Secret in the Gospels “undoubtedly the most important work in the field of gospel research in the generation now past.”⁷⁷ In his writings on Form Criticism he develops his own argument as follows. He is convinced that the original tradition consisted for the most part of brief single units, fixed forms; such as, miracle stories (and other stories about Jesus), apothegms (short stories that reach their climax in pointed sayings), parables, proverbs, prophecies, sayings about the law, and legends. There is also a more extended Passion Narrative, followed by a Resurrection Account. Further, he believes that many of these units were derived from outside sources; that is, not from the actual, historical words and works of Jesus, but from Jewish apocalyptic and rabbinic originals and from Hellenism. Indications of time and place and other interesting touches were added. The story grew. Thus Mark (9:17) relates that a father brought his demon-possessed son to Jesus. Luke (9:38) adds that this was an only son. Again, Mark (3:1) speaks about a withered hand that was healed. Luke (6:6) tells us that this was the right hand.

Discussing the units one by one, there are, first of all, the miracle stories. Bultmann mentions them in connection with Hellenistic tales, according to one of which an exorcist expels a demon by placing a ring in front of the demoniac’s nose so that he might smell a potent root that had been set in that ring; and, according to another, a snake-bitten foot is cured by means of a chip from a virgin’s gravestone.

Apothegms may be divided into two classes: (1) those that have been formulated in a Jewish environment, and (2) those that belong to the later Hellenistic period. Those of the first class often consist of a question and a counter-question or brief parable (or both at once). See Mark 2:19; 3:4, 24–26; etc. Those of the second class are introduced by such words as, “When he was asked by” (Luke 17:20, 21). However, at times the loose connection between pointed saying and framework shows that only the saying is a word of Jesus, while the context was supplied at a later time (Mark 2:15–17; 7:1–23; 10:2–12).

Parables, too, according to Bultmann, owe their origin to the later situation, at least in part. At times what was originally a very brief, real parable, with a single central lesson (“third of comparison”), was changed into an allegory, an extended metaphor in which each of several symbols has a separate meaning. An interpretation, not originating with Jesus, was even added, to suit the needs of the early church. See the parables of The Sower (Mark 4:1–20) and of The Tares (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43).

Similarly, many a proverb is attributed to Jesus; for example, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt. 12:34b). See also Matt. 6:34b; 24:28; Luke 12:2, 3; 16–20; etc. As Bultmann sees it, we must reckon with the possibility that many of these, too, were not authentic. They may have been derived from Jewish proverbial lore (wisdom literature).

As to prophecies, so the German scholar continues, while some were no doubt authentic words of Jesus, others were probably uttered by Christian prophets that arose in the early church after Christ’s death. To the latter type belong such sayings as, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” (Rev. 3:20); “Behold, I come as a thief” (Rev. 16:15); and thus also in the Gospels, “Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves” (Matt. 10:16a).

Then there are sayings about the law; such as, words concerning purity (Mark 7:15) and divorce (Mark 10:11, 12); the antitheses (“You have heard … but I say,” Matt. 5:21, 22; etc.); and utterances concerning almsgiving, prayer, and fasting (Matt. 6:2–18). Even though also many of these may have originated not with Jesus but with the community, yet their spirit is that of Jesus. According to Bultmann, products of the community and not derived from Jesus were also: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17); rules of discipline (Matt. 16:18, 19; 18:15–22); and mission regulations (Matt. 10:5–16), including even The Great Commission (Matt. 28:19, 20; cf. Luke 24:49).

Legends are said to abound in The Passion and Resurrection Narratives. Jesus really died on the cross but physically he never rose again, says Bultmann. According to him products of pious fancy and apologetic interest are also the story of the weeping women (Luke 23:27–31), that of the death of Judas (Matt. 27:3–10), and that of the watch at the grave (Matt. 27:63–66). Other legends are said to be those concerning Jesus’ temptation and transfiguration. The record of his baptism is also not regarded as free from legendary elements.

From all this it appears that for Bultmann the Gospels are not to any great extent a witness to the words and works of Jesus. Rather, they bear testimony to the faith of the early Christian community. They must be viewed as the outgrowth of its “situation-in-life”; particularly, of the needs resulting from its missionary endeavors, discipline, liturgy, and catechetical instruction. By and large, therefore, the historical facts about Jesus himself are beyond our reach. With respect to not a single word of Jesus, says Bultmann, is it possible to produce positive evidence of its authenticity.⁷⁸ Nevertheless, he holds that the historical message of Jesus is evident from a consistent series of passages; for example, “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life [for my sake and the gospel’s], the same shall save it” (Mark 8:35). See also Luke 9:60, 62; 11:31, 32; 12:54–56; 14:26, 27; etc.

Bultmann’s Form Criticism implies, therefore, that in order to discover what can really be attributed to Jesus himself—the original strands of his teaching, both ethical and eschatological—we must remove from the record not only the editorial elaborations or augmentations but also whatever reflects situations that arose after the crucifixion. A substantial portion of the Gospels is said to have had its origin outside of Palestine.

To reach authenticity—the actual words and deeds of Jesus—the Gospels would have to be drastically reduced, therefore. The indicated pruning must be accomplished in accordance with the established laws of folklore and of literary and historical development. It will then become evident that Jesus taught that in the sight of God man is thoroughly unworthy. It is as a little child that he must receive forgiveness and salvation from his Father. God is the final Reality before whom everything fades into nothingness. It is the future alone that can bring salvation to man. In view of this future, man must now make a decision for the world or for God.

From Bultmann’s writings on Form Criticism to his “New Testament and Mythology” is but a small step. According to this article and several of his later writings, the New Testament expresses itself in mythological terminology. Its myths, moreover, are drawn from Jewish apocalyptic literature and from Gnostic redemption-legends. In harmony with the times in which the New Testament writers were living and the ideas by which they were being influenced, they accept a three-level view of the universe: a heaven above, an earth beneath, and a hell under the earth. Human life on earth, as well as nature itself, is regarded by them as being under the influence of supernatural agents; such as, God, angels, Satan, and demons. A heavenly being is sent to earth to bring about man’s salvation. This glorious person, Christ, performs miracles and by rendering atonement for man’s sin conquers the evil spirits. Then this Christ, though killed and buried, rises again. He even ascends to heaven, is honored by being exalted to the Father’s right hand, from which position of power and authority he governs the universe until he returns in majesty to judge the living and the dead.

Bultmann believes that today it is impossible to regard such items as history. Instructed by science, modern man knows that this program runs contrary to the chain of cause and effect. The German scholar is convinced, therefore, that a physical resurrection never took place, and that such a belief probably had its origin in Greek notions about dying and rising gods. To reach historical reality, therefore, it is necessary to penetrate to the kernel of New Testament teaching by stripping off the husk; that is, by eliminating whatever is mythological; hence, the name demythologization. Liberalism, to be sure, started to do this. However, according to Bultmann, it did not go nearly far enough. It was of the opinion that by pruning a little here and there it would be able to arrive at the real “Life of Jesus.” That, however, is entirely impossible.

What has been said so far could easily lead to misinterpretation of Bultmann’s real position, however, unless two qualifying facts are borne in mind:

(1) Demythologization, as Bultmann views it, is not an entirely new discovery. Some of the ancient philosophers already applied it to their own religions. Moreover, it is really not an exegetical tool applied to Scripture “from the outside.” On the contrary, the New Testament authors themselves lead the way. Paul makes use of it. So, even more thoroughly, does John.

(2) When we understand the distinction between mere “Historie,” the dead past, and “Geschichte,” the living present, we see that although the mythological form in which the Gospels are cast fails to recover the past (“Historie”) for us, it is of vital importance when it addresses us in this present moment (“Geschichte”), and confronts us with the necessity of making a decision. For, when it proclaims to us the supernatural birth, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, it is really telling us what must happen in our own case. It is we who must experience the new birth, must be crucified with Christ, and must rise again with him. It is we who must by God’s grace and power yield our whole being, our entire existence, to him. Theology (the doctrine of God) is therefore really Anthropology (the doctrine of man).

At this point we see the influence upon Bultmann of two men whose names have not as yet been mentioned: Sören Kierkegaard⁷⁹ and Martin Heidegger. The last-named taught at Marburg from 1922 to 1928; hence, during part of the period when Bultmann himself was professor there (1921–1951). The philosophical movement or thought system which, among others, these two (Kierkegaard and Heidegger) developed and promoted, is called Existentialism. It emphasizes that human existence goes beyond that which can be described in purely scientific or in philosophical terms. It stresses such intensely real phenomena as anxiety, suffering, the feeling of guilt, etc., in order to show the need of making a decision or choice into which one enters with his whole existence. For example, when we decide whether or not to emigrate, or whether or not to marry a particular person, or how to face death, or what answer to give to the gospel call, in all such cases our thinking is on a different, a higher, plane than when we try to solve a merely theoretical mathematical puzzle. In other words, existential thinking ranks higher than speculative.

Accordingly, thus influenced, Bultmann teaches that true faith is possible only by means of an existential response, an encounter with God. The moment of that encounter is filled with eternity. The salvation-event takes place, as a constantly recurring experience, whenever the Word reaches the heart, and the hearer, by power from above, turns from self to God, from sin to holiness. As Bultmann sees it, this reaveals the great importance of public worship, during which again and again God confronts man with the necessity of making a decision, a choice with eschatological import; that is, with significance for the chooser’s entire future. It is thus that the Gospels, even in their mythological form, properly interpreted, confront the listeners and attain real meaning. It is thus that, in the life of the church, men die with Christ and rise again with him.⁸⁰

b. Evaluation

On the positive side the following can be said:

(1) Concentration, within non-conservative circles, of attention upon oral tradition during the period preceding Gospel formation was long overdue. Mouth to mouth transmission is, indeed, deserving of this renewed emphasis, as has always been the conservative position.

(2) Classification of Gospel materials into types or forms, besides being an aid in the study of the possible course of oral tradition, facilitates comparison with “resemblances” in other literature both sacred and secular.

(3) The idea according to which the Gospels are not a tape-recording of all the words of Jesus nor a photographic reproduction of all his mighty acts, but rather a summary composed according to the needs of the church, and with a definite purpose in mind, is confirmed by John 20:30, 31; 21:25.

(4) The statement that true faith is an attitude and activity in which the entire personality is involved, that it is accordingly a complete self-surrender resulting from a decision, reminds one of Josh. 24:15 and of the words of Jesus recorded in Mark 12:29–31.

Had matters such as these been combined with true, childlike faith in God’s entire objective revelation in Jesus Christ, as revealed in Scripture, they would have constituted a highly valuable contribution. Alas for the movement under discussion, the words in italics reveal what was lacking. Basically, therefore, our evaluation must be sharply negative:

(1) Similarity does not prove descent. Discovery of surface-parallels in the folklore and literature of surrounding nations does not prove that Gospel units were derived from these outside sources or were the same in essence. A certain amount of surface resemblance is altogether natural, for the simple reason that Gospel writers were men of their time. Their writings did not originate in a vacuum. On the other hand, as soon as we penetrate to the inner essence, we begin to see a striking contrast: the miracles performed by Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, were not acts of magic. The very parallels to which Bultmann refers—such as, a cure brought about by a chip from a virgin’s gravestone—refute his theory. It is clear that Bultmann has allowed himself to become unduly influenced by the history of religion school.

(2) Separating a text from its given context without presenting a solid reason for doing this, and then placing it in a new context, is entirely inexcusable. It violates one of the most important rules of sound exegesis.

(3) It is not true that the inclusion in—or exclusion from—the Gospels of certain materials according to the needs of the early church implies distortion. Also, varied application does not necessarily imply essential alteration. On the contrary, the inclusion of so many passages that expose the weaknesses of some of the church’s greatest leaders (Mark 8:31–33; 9:34; 10:35–41; 14:37, 66–72; and parallels in the other Gospels) emphasizes the honesty and objectivity of the Gospel writers. The Holy Spirit is in control!

(4) Luke’s additions to Mark’s account (for example, “only son, right hand”) by no means necessarily indicate legendary snowballing of Mark’s simple narrative. According to many interpreters these additions derive from the fact that Luke was a man with a very sympathetic heart and a physician; hence, a person who, more than others, would take note of such details and would report them. There may have been other reasons. What especially reduces the value of Bultmann’s remark is the fact that so often it is Mark who gives the more detailed account.

(5) Bultmann fails to present any solid reason for his theory that parables (as well as miracles) were expanded far beyond their originals. Also, he fails to see that even a parable with allegorical traits—a separate meaning for each symbol—can have a single central lesson. See Mark 4:9; cf. Luke 8:8, 18.

(6) Expelling “myths” by the front door and allowing them to re-enter by the back door is strange procedure, indeed!

(7) The idea that the universe is virtually a closed system in which everything is governed by natural law, so that miracles are impossible, is hardly even up-to-date Science. The marked progress in scientific discovery, rather than having reduced the area that must still be explained, is making the realm of mystery, pointing to the Living, omnipotent God, ever greater. The real man of science knows that there are things that are apprehended only by faith in God’s infallible special revelation.

(8) After eliminating well-nigh everything that belongs to the supernatural sphere, including the biblical view of God as the sovereign Creator⁸¹ and Redeemer, what is there left of God? Is an “encounter” with such a God meaningful? Is it even possible? Moreover, as for the true element in such terms as “constantly repeated decision,” “encounter,” etc., has not the church throughout the centuries, inasfar as it was truly alive, always emphasized the necessity of both basic and daily conversion, of living faith, of the constant application of Christ’s merits to the hearts and lives of believers; or, changing the phraseology, of the continuous appropriation of the death and resurrection of Christ? Also, this living church did not destroy the validity of this emphasis by rejecting the very God to whom the commitment must be made; that is, God as revealed in Christ according to the inspired record.

(9) According to the Gospels (in fact, according to the entire New Testament) “the Christ of faith” is “the Jesus of history,” and vice versa (John 20:31). By what right does Bultmann separate these two?

(10) A philosophy that refuses to render homage to the sinless Christ (John 8:46), who came from heaven (John 6:38); who gave himself as a ransom for sin (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45); who rose from the dead on the third day (Mark 16:6), and ascended to the Father’s right hand in heaven (Luke 24:51; Acts 2:34), from which position he governs the universe in the interest of his church (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22); and who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead (Acts 1:11; Phil. 3:20, 21; I Thess. 4:13–18; II Thess. 1:7 ff.; Titus 2:13; Rev. 1:7; 20:11–15), a philosophy that refuses to render homage to this Christ does not deserve the name Christian (philosophy, theology, or religion). Basically Bultmannism and Christianity are opposites.

6. The Basic Weakness

We come now to the basic reason for rejecting all the four theories that have been summarized, beginning with Harnack and Liberalism, and ending with Bultmann and Radicalism. None of them offers a satisfactory explanation of the following facts:

a. The testimony of eye and ear witnesses and their disciples, to the effect that Jesus Christ is really the risen, living Lord.

b. The fact that this testimony is very early, far too early for folklore to have done its work or for pagan myths to have influenced the preaching of those who proclaimed the risen Christ. We have, for example, the four Gospels. The first of the four is by tradition unanimously ascribed to Matthew, one of Christ’s twelve disciples.⁸² By a host of early witnesses Mark, with whose name the second Gospel is linked, is described as “the interpreter of Peter,” an apostle and witness. Peter’s name is mentioned first in every list of the twelve apostles (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:14–16; Acts 1:13). Luke, though himself not an eye witness of the story of Jesus, makes special mention of the fact that he belongs to the number of men who received their information from those “who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:1, 2). And even the last of the four Gospels, that according to John, was evidently written by a Palestinian Jew, an eye witness, one who possessed a detailed knowledge of Palestinian topography; particularly of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity and of the temple. The early character of this Gospel has been confirmed by archaeological discoveries. See N.T.C. on this Gospel, Vol. I, pp. 18, 19, 190. Moreover, the Aramaisms present in all four Gospels create a presumption in favor of their early origin.⁸³ All four proclaim the risen Christ! Accordingly, before anyone has the right to reject what these Gospels tell us concerning Jesus Christ—his origin, exalted being, miracles, atoning death, resurrection, etc.—he will have to present proof that the testimony of the earliest witnesses is not reflected in them.

Besides, in complete agreement with the information regarding the risen and ever-living Savior is the testimony of the apostle Paul; for example, that which is found in I Cor. 15. It is commonly agreed that it was indeed the apostle Paul who wrote I Corinthians. In all likelihood this epistle was composed sometime during the period a.d. 53–57; that is, only about a quarter of a century after Christ’s death. Nevertheless, even as early as this the apostle already bears emphatic testimony to his faith in the risen Savior (I Cor. 15:20). Not only that, but he refers to a visit to Corinth made earlier still (probably sometime during the period 51–53⁸⁴), at which time the Corinthians had accepted this risen Christ as their own Savior and Lord (15:1). Even more telling is the fact that Paul in this chapter (15:6) informs us that the “appearances” of the risen Christ, of which he mentions several, included also that “to more than five hundred brothers at one time.” He adds, “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.”

c. The additional fact that, according to all the evidence which we possess, none of the earliest witnesses had been expecting Christ’s resurrection. At the death of their Master they had all been filled with fear and utter hopelessness. See N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, pp. 468–471. Yet, a few days later they boldly proclaim the risen Lord.

d. The sudden rise, dramatic growth, and world-shaking power and influence of the church, Christ’s body (Matt. 28:19; John 11:48; 12:19; Acts 1:8; 17:6; Eph. 3:9; I Thess. 1:8–10; and I John 5:4).

Now all this clearly points to the one cause that is able adequately to account for such astonishing results. It points to the fact that there was—and is—actually such a person as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who came from heaven to seek and to save the lost, and who sent forth his ambassadors, the apostles and those who immediately followed them, to bear witness to the glorious redemption accomplished by God through the suffering and death of his Beloved. It tallies with the fact that it was, indeed, this Christ “who presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs” (Acts 1:3).

Of course, in the final analysis it is entirely true that one must proceed from the assumption of faith. If one refuses to accept the “proofs” of which Acts speaks, their validity cannot be forced upon him. So, too, he who rejects the supernatural—including Christ’s deity, wonder-working power, and resurrection—proceeds from a definite assumption; namely, that of unbelief. There is, however, a vast difference between these two assumptions. On the presupposition of faith the reports concerning Jesus Christ and the church which he established make sense. The story is coherent: the Son of God performs acts in which his divinity is displayed. He even conquers death. With divine power, wisdom, and love he establishes a church, and guides it to its predestined goal. On the other hand, on the basis of unbelief the supernatural is ruled out. Accordingly, Jesus, if he lived on earth at all, did not perform a single miracle and did not rise again from the dead. Further, according to this theory, the many witnesses painted a picture of Jesus that was a mixture of history and mythology. The “more than five hundred brothers” who are said to have seen the risen Christ were the victims of mass hallucination or of some other form of mass deception. The sudden rise, dramatic growth, and world-shaking power of the church is left completely unexplained.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the various systems of skepticism and unbelief have vanished one by one. The facts defy the theories. This applies also to Bultmannism. It, too, has had its day. In a most interesting and instructive article⁸⁵ Carl F. H. Henry speaks of “the growing disagreement among post-Bultmannians over the significance of the historical Jesus.” As he sees it, “classical modernism reigned over the influential formative centers of theological thought from 1900 to 1930, dialectical theology from 1930–1950, and existential theology from 1950 to 1960.” God’s Word is an anvil that cannot be crushed. On a monument to the Huguenots these words are inscribed:

“Hammer away, ye hostile hands; Your hammers break; God’s anvil stands.”

But is it not true that the Gospels contain many “discrepancies,” instances in which one Gospel contradicts another or is in conflict with this or that other Old or New Testament passage? How must we deal with such cases? There are those who say that we should never try to harmonize the Gospels. They maintain that “harmonization is harmful.” I answer as follows: harmonization may, indeed, be bad, but it need not be. It is wrong at times, but perfectly natural and legitimate at other times. We must not generalize. If four reliable friends of mine, men with a reputation for integrity, intelligence, and good judgment, have witnessed the same incident, and each brings me his independent report, and I discover that these reports contain items which, on the surface, seem to contradict each other, what is my natural reaction? Do I then immediately charge my friends with error? Do I not, almost instinctively, make an attempt to harmonize the four reports? If, therefore, I consider my friends to be entitled to such deference, shall I treat the inspired documents with less respect? To be sure, harmonization is harmful if it be done in a forced, unnatural manner, without due regard for the respective contexts of the individual passages. The harmonizer is in error if he is never willing to say, “A real solution to this difficult problem has not yet been found.” In other cases an honest attempt to seek solutions and to harmonize may well be exactly the proper procedure. The infallibility of the Word must not be rejected, not even by implication.

¹ For a word-study of the concept “gospel” see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 81–85.

² Quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VI.xiv.7.

³ The subject of the relation between the Synoptics and John receives fuller treatment in my N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, pp. 12–18, 31–33. See also the discussion devoted to it in F. C. Grant, The Gospel of St. John, New York and London, 1956; B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, Grand Rapids, 1954; and J. E. Davey, The Jesus of St. John, London, 1958. The most recent and very thorough elucidation is found in Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, 1969; see especially pp. 15–63.

⁴

See, for example, the recent attempt by TJ. Baarda, De Betrouwbaarheid van de Evangeliën, Kampen, 1967, pp. 12 ff., where, by means of a map (p. 13), he treats the earlier chapters of John’s Gospel as if they described consecutive journeys, and states that according to Mark it is from Galilee that Jesus travels to the east side of the Jordan (to feed the five thousand), but according to John it was from Jerusalem (p. 16). Is not Baarda setting up an unfair antithesis between John’s Gospel and the Synoptics? He surely knows that John selects certain important events which show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that this evangelist is not giving us a Life of Christ (see John 20:30, 31). Specifically, John introduces the narrative of the miraculous feeding as follows, “After these things,” meaning simply, “At a later time,” a very indefinite expression, with no specific chronological or geographical implications. See N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, pp. 187, 188.

The same holds with respect to the so-called contradiction between the Synoptics and John touching the day of Christ’s crucifixion. That there is a real conflict here has never been proved. See same work, Vol. II, p. 400–404.

⁵ In Luke the story of Christ’s rejection at Nazareth occurs at the beginning (4:16–31); in Mark and Matthew toward the end of this section (Mark 6:1–6; Matt. 13:53–58). In view of John 1:11, Luke’s arrangement here does not seem so strange.

⁶ For that very reason it will never be possible to prove the existence of a chronological contradiction between the Gospel according to John, on the one hand, and the Synoptics on the other. There is room for a Later Judean Ministry (for which see John 7:2–10:39 and perhaps also Luke 9:51–13:21 as a whole or in part) intervening between the Retirement Ministry and the Perean, just as there is room for an Early Judean Ministry between the Ministry of the Inauguration and the Great Galilean Ministry. See the brief summary in N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 36; and see again what was said above, in footnote 4.

⁷ The name “Gethsemane” occurs only in Mark 14:32 and Matt. 26:36, not in Luke. Similarly, “Golgotha” is found only in Mark 15:22 and Matt. 27:33.

⁸ M. Kähler, Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus, Munich, 1956, p. 591.

⁹ B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, pp. 160, 161, says that a proportion varying between 30% and 60% of the words in Mark is also found in Matthew and Luke, while many of the remaining Marcan words are common either to Mark and Matthew, or to Mark and Luke. De Solages, in his mammoth work, A Greek Synopsis of the Gospels (1,129 pages!), Leiden, 1959, provides detailed lists plus many Tables and Diagrams. See also W. G. Rushbrook’s Synopticon and A. Huck’s Synopsis of the First Three Gospels.

¹⁰ Contrast, however, the remark of E. J. Goodspeed, who calls Luke “the delight of the harmonist,” but Matthew “his despair,” Matthew Apostle and Evangelist, Philadelphia and Toronto, 1959, p. 116. (From here on when this author’s name is mentioned followed by op. cit., the reference is to this book.)

¹¹ J. H. Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels, Cambridge, 1960, p. 72.

¹² Though in our Bibles Matthew has 28 chapters, Luke only 24, yet, in the English Bible on my desk as I write this, Matthew covers only 37 pages, Luke 39½. Also, as remarked earlier, Matthew has 1,068 verses, Luke 1,149. Here, however, room must be left for the fact that one’s decision with respect to variant readings may alter the count very slightly.

¹³ Same, p. 73. Ropes refers undoubtedly to Luke 6:17–8:3 and 9:51–18:14.

¹⁴ Naturally column 2 must not be regarded as a complete outline of Mark’s Gospel. Certain subjects have been purposely omitted because the rule (“Mark+3” or “Mark+8”) does not apply to them, since they are paralleled elsewhere in Luke’s Gospel, or are omitted from it. In the former case the parallel sometimes occurs in the very neighborhood of the chapter whose numerical indication is the sum of Mark’s chapter +3 or +8; for example, Mark 4:1–20 is paralleled not in Luke 7, according to the rule 4+3=7, but in Luke 8:4–15; Mark 11:27–33 is paralleled not in Luke 19 (11+8=19) but in Luke 20:1–8. It is clear, therefore, that had the chapter-division in our Bibles been more consistent, finding one’s way in Luke, once Mark is known, would have been even easier, and the full extent of the Synoptics’ similarity in material content and in arrangement would have been even more perspicuous. But who will dispute the fact that on the whole Stephen Langton, to whom the credit for the chapter-divisions is usually given, performed an excellent and useful task? Who would wish to criticize too severely this very busy man, this champion of law and order, valiant supporter of the Magna Carta? Besides, even as it is, the table will, I trust, perform two useful services: a. it will achieve the primary purpose of proving that the Synoptics—in this case Mark and Luke—are indeed very similar in recording the general order of events; and b. it will aid one in finding his way in the Gospels.

¹⁵ In the third Gospel, after 6:12–16 (the appointment of The Twelve; cf. Mark 3:13–19) Luke ceases for a while to parallel Mark. At this point the non-Marcan material extends from Luke 6:17–8:3 (or as some see it, from Luke 6:20–8:3). Luke introduces what is popularly known as “The Sermon on the Mount” (6:17–19; cf. Matt. 5:1, 2). Compare, however, Matt. 5:1 (“the mountain”) with Luke 6:17 (“on level ground”). He gives his version of the Beatitudes (6:20–26; cf. Matt. 5:3–12), and of the sections whose central themes are “Love your enemies” (6:27–36; cf. Matt. 5:43–48); “Judge not” (6:37–42; cf. Matt. 7:1–6); and “A tree is known by its fruit” (6:43–49; cf. Matt. 7:13–29). Luke 7:1–10 contains that evangelist’s account of the healing of the centurion’s servant (cf. Matt. 8:5–13); 7:11–17, that of the raising of the widow’s son; 7:18–35, that of John the Baptist’s question and Christ’s answer (cf. Matt. 11:2–19); 7:36–50, that of the anointing of Christ’s feet by a sinful woman; and 8:1–3, that of a tour made by Jesus, the twelve, and certain women, “through cities and villages.” At 8:4 ff. (the parable of The Sower) the parallel between Luke and Mark is resumed once more. In fact, this “earthly story with heavenly meaning” is found in all three (cf. Mark 4:1 ff. and Matt. 13:1 ff.).

¹⁶

In Luke’s Gospel that which follows 9:18 (cf. Mark 6:43; and for Mark 6:44 see Luke 9:14) does not parallel Mark 6:45 ff., but “jumps” to the subject discussed in Mark 8:27 ff.: “Who do men say that I am?,” etc. In the ninth chapter of both Mark and Luke such subjects as the following are treated: Christ’s transfiguration, the healing of the epileptic boy, “Who is the greatest,” and the unknown exorcist. At Luke 9:51 the section peculiar to Luke begins in earnest and extends through 18:14.

Thus Mark’s narratives found in 6:45–8:26—Jesus walks on the sea; he answers a question concerning unwashed hands, heals the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, cures a deaf-mute, answers the Pharisees’ request for a sign from heaven, and cures a blind man at Bethsaida—are not duplicated in Luke’s Gospel. Easy to remember is this: Mark 7 is not paralleled in Luke, neither is Luke 7 in Mark.

¹⁷ More than half of Luke 19 is non-Marcan material (story of Zacchaeus and parable of The Pounds).

¹⁸ Luke 24:9–53 (Jesus’ interview with Cleopas and his companion, appearance at Jerusalem, and ascension) contains very little material that is paralleled in the other Synoptics.

¹⁹ As is done by B. H. Streeter, op. cit., p. 196; but on the preceding page he includes Mark 9:29 in the list of Marcan passages “which are absent from both Matthew and Luke.”

²⁰ It is assumed here that Luke 22:39 has its proper parallel in Mark 14:32 and Matt. 26:36.

²¹ See G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Oxford, 1946, p. 6. Somewhat similar is the view of G. Bornkamm, Jesus von Nazareth, Stuttgart, 1956, pp. 18 ff., and of C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, London, 1935, p. 121. R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), pp. 206, 207 joins them to the extent that he regards their theory as a possibility. Though he himself considers the two parable theory more probable, he views Matt. 22:5, 6 as a marginal addition or gloss which after the fall of Jerusalem was made part of the text.

²²

S. MacLean Gilmour has, in fact, produced a narrative which, so he says, “was basic to both versions,” The Gospel according to St. Luke (The Interpreter’s Bible), New York and Nashville, 1952, Vol. VIII, p. 327. This view, in one form or another, is shared by many others, among whom are Jülicher-Fascher, Weiss, H. Holzmann, Bultmann, and Klostermann.

A. Plummer, on the contrary, remarks, “It is probable that this [the parable of The Pounds] is distinct from the parable of The Talents.… It is more likely that Jesus should utter somewhat similar parables on different occasions than that Matthew or Luke should have made very serious confusion as to the details of the parable as well as regards the time and place of its delivery,” The Gospel according to St. Luke (International Critical Commentary), New York, 1910, p. 437.

²³ Luke also has six miracles not recorded in the other Synoptics; Matthew has only three peculiar to his Gospel; Mark only two. Luke’s six are: a miraculous catch of fishes (5:1–11), the raising of the widow’s son at Nain (7:11–17), two Sabbath healings (the healing of the woman “bowed together,” and of the man afflicted with dropsy, respectively 13:11–17 and 14:1–6), the cleansing of the ten lepers (17:11–19), and the restoration of Malchus’ ear (22:51). Cf. (3) above.

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

²⁴ For Mark’s style see p. 39, for Matthew’s pp. 39, 83. As to Luke’s style consult commentaries on that Gospel.

²⁵ In Matt. 16:1–12 (cf. Mark 8:11–21) this theme is continued.

²⁶ In Mark the feeding of the five thousand and that of the four thousand are found, respectively, in chapters 6 and 8; in Matthew, respectively, in chapters 14 and 15.

²⁷ Note the close similarity between Matt. 19 and Mark 10a: Matt. 19:1–6 cf. Mark 10:1–9; Matt. 19:7–12 cf. Mark 10:11, 12; Matt. 19:13–15 cf. Mark 10:13–16; Matt. 19:16–22 cf. Mark 10:17–22; Matt. 19:23–26 cf. Mark 10:23–27; and Matt. 19:27–30 cf. Mark 10:28–31. Matt. 20:1–16 contains the parable, peculiar to Matthew, of The Laborers in the Vineyard. From that point on the close parallel continues, now between Matt. 19 and Mark 10b, as follows: Matt. 20:17–19 cf. Mark 10:32–34; Matt. 20:20–28 cf. Mark 10:35–45; and Matt. 20:29–34 cf. Mark 10:46–52.

²⁸ As to Luke’s earlier chapters, a definite and consistently carried out pattern of relationship between Mark and Luke is not in evidence. Luke 1:1–3:2 (nativity of Jesus and chronology of the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry) has no parallel in the other Gospels. In Luke 3:3–22 (the Baptist’s ministry) those passages which are not peculiar to Luke resemble Matthew as much as—sometimes even more than—Mark. Luke’s genealogy of Jesus has no true parallel in the other Gospels (but cf. Matt. 1:1–17). Luke 4:1–15 (Jesus tempted) is but faintly reflected in Mark, far more extensively in Matthew, but to a large extent peculiar to Luke in phraseology and arrangement. Luke 4:16–30 (rejection at Nazareth) is again predominantly peculiar to Luke (though paralleled to some extent in Mark 6:1–6 and Matt. 13:53–58). Luke 4:31–44 (early miracles in Capernaum) has a definite parallel in Mark 1:21–39. It is followed by largely non-Marcan Luke 5:1–11 (miraculous catch and “fishers of men”).

²⁹ It is true, however, that Mark 1:40–3:19 contains even more material; especially a report about a healing mission (3:7–12; cf. Matt. 12:15, 16), interspersed between the account of the withered hand and the calling of the twelve. It is also true that such a passage as Mark 3:11 is reflected rather in Luke 4:41 than anywhere in Luke 5:12–6:16. But it should be borne in mind that we are here asking the question, “How is Luke reflected in Mark?” rather than, “How is Mark duplicated in Luke?”

³⁰ Of the same opinion is S. Greijdanus, who in Bijbelsch Handboek, Vol. II, p. 97 (Kampen, 1935) states: “If what is narrated in the Gospels is accepted as being true, the questions regarding the possible relations between the Synoptics not only assume secondary significance but also diminish in number and become easier to unravel.”

³¹ See pp. 41, 42, 44.

³² Quoted from the Argumentum of Commentarius in Harmoniam Evangelicam, Opera Omnia (Brunswick, 1891), XLV.3; English translation (Grand Rapids, 1949) I.xxxviii.

³³ See p. 87.

³⁴

From an almost endless list of titles I select only the following:

W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (International Critical Commentary), New York, 1910, see especially p. xxxv.

B. De Solages, A Greek Synopsis of the Gospels, Leiden, 1959. In this work of 1128 pages the renowned Roman Catholic scholar, by a mathematical process, arrives at the conclusion that Matthew and Luke did indeed use Mark. He states this in spite of the affirmation by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (June 19, 1911) that “Matthew wrote before the other evangelists.” However, it should be borne in mind that Roman Catholic leaders draw a distinction between such decrees as are connected with matters of faith and morals, on the one hand, and those that lie outside of that realm, on the other.

F. F. Filson, “Gospel and Gospels” in S.H.E.R.K.; Vol. I of The Twentieth Century supplement, Grand Rapids, p. 470.

E. J. Goodspeed, Matthew Apostle and Evangelist, Philadelphia and Toronto, 1959; see especially pp. 86, 87, 108, 109.

E. P. Groenewald, Die Evangelie volgens Markus (Kommentaar op die Bybel, Nuwe Testament II), Pretoria, 1948. On p. 13 he calls Mark’s Gospel “grondslag en bron vir Mt. en Lk.” (basis and source for Matthew and Luke).

J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, Oxford, 1909.

A. M. Perry, The Growth of the Gospels, a chapter in The Interpreter’s Bible, New York and Nashville, 1951; Vol VII, p. 63.

Herman Ridderbos, “Synoptische Kwestie,” Christelijke Encyclopedie, Kampen, 1961; Vol. 6, pp. 305, 306.

A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, New York and London, 1930; Vol. I. p. 249.

J. H. Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels, London, 1934, pp. 92, 93.

N. B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, Grand Rapids, 1963; see especially pp. 73, 76, 115.

B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, New York, 1925, p. 151.

H. G. Wood, “The Priority of Mark,” ET (October, 1953).

Among those who do not share this view are the following:

B. C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew, Cambridge, 1951.

J. Chapman, Matthew, Mark and Luke, London, 1937. Contrary to all tradition this writer considers Peter “the real author” of Mark’s Gospel. He defends the priority of Matthew by imagining that Peter read from Matthew’s Gospel.

John H. Ludlum, Jr., “More Light on the Synoptic Problem” and “Are We Sure of Mark’s Priority?” articles in Christianity Today; respectively Nov. 10 & 24, 1958; and Sept. 14 & 28, 1959.

To H. Mulder, an ardent proponent of the oral tradition theory, with emphasis on the preaching of Peter, must be given the credit that he treats the priority of Mark theory objectively and regards it as being at least more creditable than the Q hypothesis. In addition to his work Het Synoptisch Vraagstuk, Delft, 1952, see his Gids voor het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen, 1962, pp. 71–74.

³⁵

In his valuable work The New Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content, New York and Nashville, 1965, pp. 80–83, B. M. Metzger summarizes the arguments that are found also in the books of earlier writers. It would be hard to find any fault with what he says about this subject on p. 80 or on p. 81 under (a). As to arguments (b) to (h) note the following. He maintains that the view according to which Mark’s Gospel is the most primitive of the Synoptics is correct, because:

(b) Mark is decidedly less polished than Matthew and Luke.

Evaluation: That depends upon exactly what is meant by “decidedly less polished.” If it means more simple in style I agree. I also agree, however, with Cecil S. Emden, who in his instructive article “St. Mark’s Use of the Imperfect Tense” Bible Translator, Vol. V, Number 3 (July 1954), presents evidence in support of his contention that Mark’s style is by no means inelegant and lacking in literary skill and polish. According to J. H. Ropes, op. cit., p. 98, Mark “is in command of an excellent and large Greek vocabulary, and knows how to use the right word in the right place,” yet at times his syntax is “most peculiar,” manifesting a “barbarous Greek style.” On Mark’s style see below, p. 39, footnote 37. For an attempt at a solution in a somewhat similar situation see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, p. 64.

(c) Matthew and Luke, in passages that parallel Mark, have omitted such difficult phrases as Mark 2:26, contrast I Sam. 21:1–7; and Mark 10:19, contrast Matt. 19:18, 19; Luke 18:20.

Evaluation: Are these Marcan phrases really so difficult that they were omitted by Matthew and Luke for this reason? For Mark 2:26 see on Matt. 12:3; for Mark 10:19 see on Matt. 19:18, 19.

(d) The gradual increase of respect for the apostles is reflected in Matthew and Luke, as compared with Mark. The latter’s blunt statements with reference to the church’s leaders are no longer found in the other two Synoptics.

Evaluation: Is it true that Mark’s statement about the dispute among the apostles as to who was the greatest is entirely omitted by Matthew? Are not such unsavory quarrels clearly implied in Matt. 18:1–6; 23:1–11? Also, since it cannot be denied that Luke does indeed record these lamentable clashes (9:46–48; 22:24–30), would not the reasoning implied in this argument lead to the conclusion that also Luke’s Gospel preceded that of Matthew? Again, when it is said that Mark’s reference (9:32) to the inability on the part of the disciples to understand Jesus’ teaching reveals a lower degree of respect for the leaders than is found in Matthew and Luke, is not the answer that the disciples’ lack of perception is clearly taught in such passages as Matt. 16:5–12, 22, 23; 19:23–26; 26:8, 9; and not only lack of perception but also lack of fully developed faith (14:31; 16:8) and sympathy (15:23; 19:13; 20:24; 26:8, 9)? It is said that Luke omits Mark’s reference to Peter as “Satan” (8:33). That reference is, however, also found in Matthew (16:23). To be sure, Luke omits Mark’s remark (14:71) about Peter’s vigorous cursing, but Matthew has it (26:74). Peter’s impudence in rebuking Jesus is recorded in Matt. 16:22; the readiness of “the sons of thunder” (James and John) to call down fire from heaven upon the inhospitable Samaritans, in Luke 9:54, 55. Accordingly, is not this argument in support of the view that Mark’s Gospel is the most primitive rather weak?

(e) When Mark’s Gospel was written reverence for Jesus was not as yet as high as it became later on when Matthew and Luke, respectively, composed their books.

Evaluation: see the next chapter, pp. 58–60.

(f) The later Gospels omit statements that might be interpreted to imply that Jesus lacked omnipotence (Mark 1:45; others add 6:5) or omniscience (Mark 6:38; 9:16, 21, 33).

Evaluation: Matthew records other questions that can similarly be construed as implying ignorance on the part of Jesus (13:51; 15:34; 16:13, 15). Some questions (Mark 5:9, 30; 14:14), though absent from Matthew, are paralled in Luke (respectively 8:30, 45; and 22:11). Moreover, if it were true that references to ignorance on the part of Jesus were consciously omitted by Matthew, why do both N.N. and Grk.N.T. (A-B-M-W) still include in the text of Matt 24:36 the words “neither the Son,” implying that Jesus did not know the exact moment of his own return? Is not the reason for the inclusion the fact that the variant in support of the omission lacks sufficient textual support? But then this argument for the priority of Mark, as if he referred to Christ’s ignorance but Matthew did not, collapses.

As to passages according to which man’s unbelief is represented as an impediment to the progress of the work of grace, so that humanly speaking he cannot receive a blessing, is Mark 6:5 any more surprising than Matt. 23:37? Moreover, does not the fact that Jesus voluntarily accepted the conditions that attended his humiliation imply that he frequently permitted obstacles to be thrown into his path? Thus, instead of asserting his almighty power to suppress the city-multitude’s sinful preference for miracles above words, he simply avoided the city (Mark 1:45); just as, instead of miraculously causing the crowds to recede when they pressed upon him, he simply entered into a boat and from that convenient position began to teach the people (Luke 5:1–3). Therefore, when in the presence of certain circumstances Jesus cannot do something, it is because he does not will to do it. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are in full agreement here.

(g) Matthew is later than Mark, for he heightens the majesty of Jesus’ person by more than once insisting that the Master not only healed people but healed them instantly.

Evaluation: Though it is true that in Matt. 15:28 and 17:18 we are told that those who had been healed were cured “from that hour,” and though the very word “instantly” or “immediately” is used by Matthew in comparable connections (8:3; 20:34), Mark frequently employs a similar adverb in connection with miraculous cures (1:42; 2:12; 5:29, 42; 10:52). It is impossible to base any argument for the priority of Mark on such passages, therefore.

(h) The change in the sequence of clauses—from “killed him and cast him out of the vineyard” (Mark 12:8) to “cast him out of the vineyard and killed him” (Matt. 21:39; Luke 20:15)—reflects a later stage of theological understanding in Matthew and Luke than in Mark.

Evaluation: See on Matt. 21:39.

It will have become clear that not all the arguments in support of Mark’s priority are equally valid.

³⁶ Cf. what E. J. Goodspeed says about this, op. cit., p. 142.

³⁷

Important among these are the following:

a. Mark frequently uses a tense that differs from the one found in Matthew and/or Luke. Examples: ἐγγίζουσιν (they approach, Mark 11:1) versus ἤγγισεν (they approached, Luke 19:29; in the same verse ἀποστέλλει (he sends) versus ἀπέστειλεν (he sent). So also φέρουσιν (they bring, Mark 11:7) versus ἤγαγον (they brought, Luke 19:35); in the same verse ἐπιβάλλοσιν (they throw on) versus ἐπιρίψαντες (a synonym: having thrown on). In general it may be said that in many instances where Mark uses the present tense Matthew and Luke use the aorist or the imperfect. See J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 143–153.

b. Another striking difference between Mark, on the one hand, and Matthew and Luke, on the other, is the latter two’s preference for the particle δέ over against Mark’s strong leaning toward the use of καί. Thus, in the paragraph from which examples showing difference in tense were just cited (Mark 11:1–7 compared with Luke 19:29–35) Luke uses καί five times to introduce a clause or phrase, Mark a dozen times. In these same seven verses Luke uses δέ three times (also once in verse 36 and once in verse 37); Mark only once (also once in verse 8).

c. In connection with Mark’s generous use of καί it should also be mentioned that it is characteristic of Matthew and Luke that they frequently substitute a participle for Mark’s finite verb with καί. In other words, in such cases the two favor subordination where Mark co-ordinates.

d. Both Matthew and Luke often independently abbreviate Mark’s account. They do this by omitting those words, phrases, and (at times) entire sentences from Mark that can be omitted without destroying the main idea that is being conveyed. This, however, must not be interpreted as if Mark’s additional words, etc. were superfluous or redundant. The Holy Spirit had his good reason for guiding Mark in the use of words. But this certainly does not mean that Mark’s every syllable had to be repeated by Matthew and Luke. These two, under the guidance of that same Spirit, intended to write lengthy Gospels. It was their aim to record many things (stories, discourses, parables, etc.) that are not found, or not as fully represented, in Mark. In order to carry out their ambitious plans in the limited space at their disposal the two very properly compressed the Marcan account. See also B. H. Streeter, op. cit., pp. 179–181.

³⁸ The patristic evidence is given in several encyclopaedias and commentaries; see, for example, J. H. Farmer, “Mark, The Gospel According to,” article in I.S.B.E., Vol. III; especially pp. 1989–1991.

³⁹ On the subject of “stylistic variation” see the discussion in B. H. Streeter, op. cit., pp. 179–181; and N. B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 60, 61. On the possibility that Luke used Matthew, see A. W. Argyle’s “Evidence” in favor, JBL (Dec. 1964), pp. 390–396).

⁴⁰ See John H. Kerr, An Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, Chicago, New York, Toronto, 1892, p. 11.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

⁴¹

“Matthew issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and establishing the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. And Luke also, Paul’s companion, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who had also leaned upon his breast, himself also published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus of Asia” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.i.1).

“In the first of his [Commentaries] on the Gospel according to Matthew, defending the canon of the church, he [Origen] gives his testimony that he knows only four Gospels, writing somewhat as follows: ‘… having learned by tradition concerning the four Gospels which alone are indisputable in the church of God under heaven, that first was written the one according to the former tax-collector, later apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew; who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language; secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter’s instructions, whom also Peter in his general epistle acknowledged as his son, saying, She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you, as does Mark my son. And thirdly that according to Luke, who wrote for those who from the Gentiles [had come to believe], the Gospel that was praised by Paul. After them all, that according to John’ ” (Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VI.xxv.3–6).

⁴² Tradition should be carefully sifted. It should neither be accepted uncritically nor rejected hastily. Cf. N. B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, p. 56.

⁴³ Cf. H. C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 122. My disagreement with Thiessen on this particular point does not detract from my high regard for his book. Even in the treatment of The Synoptic Problem the material with which I am in hearty accord exceeds by far that which I cannot completely endorse.

⁴⁴ Cf. J. H. Ropes, op. cit., pp. 37, 38.

⁴⁵ Op. cit., p. 110.

⁴⁶ “In the present state of knowledge, whether such a document ever existed must be regarded as uncertain” (J. H. Ropes, op cit., p. 68; cf. his similar appraisal on p. 93). “There is far less evidence for the second postulate of the double source theory, the existence of ‘Q’ ” (Herman Ridderbos, “Synoptische Kwestie,” article in Christelijke Encyclopedie, Vol. VI, pp. 305, 306).

⁴⁷ As regards “historical reference” the situation re “Hebrew” Matthew is different. See pp. 87–89, 96.

⁴⁸

Thus also A. M. Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q,” in D. E. Nineham (ed.) Studies in the Gospels, Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, Oxford, 1955, p. 57.

“The very elusive nature of its bounds and the silence of antiquity contribute to the uncertainty of its existence.” Thus Lewis Foster, “The ‘Q’ Myth in Synoptic Studies,” in The Seminary Review, published by The Cincinnati Bible Seminary, Vol. X, No. 4 (Summer 1964), p. 74. In this excellent article Foster points out that the disharmony regarding Luke’s presumed debt to “Q” is so great that among five believers in “Q” there was agreement on less than half the verses that are claimed for “Q.”

⁴⁹ Op. cit., p. 292.

⁵⁰ According to B. H. Streeter’s theory someone, perhaps Luke himself, gathered into one document (“L”) previously unrecorded materials, especially some narratives and many parables. After Luke had combined “L” and “Q” into “Proto-Luke,” he inserted into this document large sections of Mark. Thus arose our third Gospel. Further, a document of Jewish-Christian origin, “M,” became one of the sources of our Matthew. The latter’s other sources were Mark and “Q.” Briefly, therefore, Streeter’s theory amounts to this, that back of Matthew and Luke are four documents: “M,” connected with—i.e., embodying the traditions of—Jerusalem, Mark with Rome, “Q” with Antioch, and “L” with Caesarea. The first three—“M,” Mark, and “Q”—give rise to Matthew; the last three—Mark, “Q,” and “L”—to Luke, but only after “Q” and “L” had already been combined into “Proto-Luke.” For the sake of completeness it should be added that according to Streeter’s theory, the first two chapters of Matthew were probably derived from oral sources, and the source of Luke 1 and 2 was probably a written document, possibly Hebrew. There is much in Streeter’s book that is of value and can be endorsed by even the most conservative scholar. The Four Document Theory itself, however, has been vigorously opposed, as being too speculative. With this judgment I agree. Though Streeter’s entire book can be read with profit, I would refer especially to pp. 150, 199–201, 207, 208, 218, 219, and 223–272, as containing the essence of his theory, in summary. In this connection F. V. Filson’s article “Gospel and Gospels” in S.H.E.R.K.; Vol. I of The Twentieth Century supplement, pp. 469–472, is also very instructive, and ends with an excellent Bibliography.

⁵¹ Or “the John already mentioned,” see C. S. Petrie, “The Authorship of ‘The Gospel according to Matthew’: a Reconsideration of the External Evidence,” NTStud 14 (Jan., 1967), pp. 15–32.

⁵² An excellent summary of this oral tradition theory, together with quotations from those who have accepted it, is found in H. C. Thiessen, op. cit., pp. 121–129.

⁵³ For a brief summary of education among the Jews, with bibliography, see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 296–299.

⁵⁴ See above, pp. 41, 42, 44.

⁵⁵ E. F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, p. 28.

⁵⁶ It is interesting to observe that while many opponents of the Priority of Mark theory emphasize Matthew’s memory, there is at least one who explains the absence from Mark of the lengthy discourses of Matthew by appealing to the inadequacy of Peter’s memory! See J. Chapman, op. cit., p. 38.

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

⁵⁷ See S. E. Anderson, Our Dependable Bible, Grand Rapids, 1960, pp. 129–143; also The Infallible Word, edited by N. B. Stonehouse and Paul Woolley, Grand Rapids, fourth printing, 1958, pp. 43, 44.

⁵⁸ The Infallible Word, p. 39, including footnote 12. That this attack and misrepresentation is still continuing is evident from the otherwise excellent article by Warren Weaver, “Can a Scientist Believe in God?” Reader’s Digest, May, 1968, p. 131.

⁵⁹ Op. cit., p. 40.

⁶⁰ For an enumeration of titles see S.H.E.R.K., Vol. V, pp. 157, 158, and its Extension, Twentieth Century Encyclopaedia, Grand Rapids, p. 492.

⁶¹ What is Christianity?, p. 144.

⁶² The Origin of the New Testament, pp. 43, 44.

⁶³ Discussion of the authenticity of the words υἱοῦ Θεοῦ in this passage will be found in commentaries on Mark. Suffice it to say at this point that Grk.N.T. (A-B-M-W) includes these words in the text, though between brackets.

⁶⁴ Though it would be wrong to read into this title as uttered by the centurion the full meaning which Christians see in it—as if he were thinking of eternal, essential, co-equal sonship—would it not be equally wrong to interpret it as if his exclamation meant no more than this, “To be sure, there was a spark of divinity in this man”? The latter explanation disregards both the context (Mark 15:39 in full) and the Matthew 27:54 parallel. Did the centurion really think that one who is not even super-human could cause the earth to quake, rocks to split, tombs to be opened, etc.?

⁶⁵ The Father, moreover, did not declare that by means of baptism or transfiguration Jesus had now become the Son of God. On the contrary, the Father declared him to be “my beloved Son,” his Son, therefore, in a unique sense.

⁶⁶ Note also the expression “little ones who believe on me” (9:42), though in connection with this there is a textual question with respect to the phrase “on [or “in”] me.”

⁶⁷ For a list of all of Wrede’s principal works see S.H.E.R.K., Vol. XII, Grand Rapids, p. 444. In his Paul (translation of Paulus), London, 1907, Wrede draws a sharp contrast between Jesus and Paul. The latter, as Wrede saw it, was not a disciple of Jesus but the second founder of Christianity. J. Gresham Machen has refuted this position in his excellent book, The Origin of Paul’s Religion, Grand Rapids, 1947.

⁶⁸ I have discussed all these matters in the volumes of N.T.C. Thus, on (1) see the volume on Philippians, pp. 20, 21; on (2) the one on Galatians, pp. 134–137; on (3), same volume, pp. 94, 192; on (4) the one on Colossians and Philemon, pp. 194–197; and on (5) the one on Ephesians, pp. 5–32.

⁶⁹ Fascinating and not without theological interest are his books on more general themes; such as, On the Edge of the Primeval Forest, 1922; The Decay and Restoration of Civilization, 1923; Out of My Life and Thought, 1933; and Indian Thought and Its Development, 1936.

⁷⁰ The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 396.

⁷¹ Although Schweitzer combated the Liberal view, he remained, nevertheless, in some respects a Liberal at heart, as is evident especially from The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 397; and from My Life and Thought, pp. 73 ff.

⁷² Dibelius was a Lutheran theologian (1883–1947), born in Dresden, Saxony. After teaching at Berlin (1908–1915), he accepted an appointment as professor of New Testament in Heidelberg (1915), where he remained until his death. He has been called “the founder of the School of Form Criticism.” In addition to Commentaries on the smaller epistles of Paul, books on Jesus and on Paul, and several other volumes, he wrote From Tradition to Gospel (translation of Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums), New York, 1935.

⁷³ German title: Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, first published in Göttingen, 1921 (third edition 1957). The English translation was published in New York and Evanston, 1963.

⁷⁴ This is found on pp. 5–75 of a volume whose title-page reads: “Form Criticism, A New Method of New Testament Research, including The Study of the Synoptic Gospels by Rudolf Bultmann, and Primitive Christianity in the Light of Gospel Research by Karl Kundsin, Translated by Frederick C. Grant.” It was published in Chicago and New York, 1934. The German original of Bultmann’s part bears the title: Die Erforschung der Synoptischen Evangelien.

⁷⁵ The article appeared first in 1941, and was republished in Hans-Werner Bartsch (ed.), Kerygma und Mythos I, 1948; English translation Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, London, 1953.

⁷⁶ For the titles of his other books, for works relating to Bultmann, and for other excellent material on Bultmann, both descriptive and critical, I would refer to R. D. Knudson’s contribution in P. E. Hughes (ed.), Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1966, pp. 131–159, with Bibliography on pp. 160–162. See also N. B. Stonehouse’s valuable accounts in Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 168–175; and in Paul before the Areopagus, Grand Rapids, 1957, Chapter 5. For periodical literature see Bruce M. Metzger (compiler), Index to Periodical Literature on Christ and the Gospels, Grand Rapids, 1962, pp. 171–177; 188–191, and see Index, p. 559 under Bultmann; and for the most recent literature (both books and articles) see the continuing issues of New Testament Abstracts.

⁷⁷ The Study of the Synoptic Gospels, p. 22.

⁷⁸ Not only the words of Jesus but also his life is to Bultmann a question mark. He expressed his doubt in these words, “We can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus” (Jesus and the Word, p. 8).

⁷⁹

He was an influential Danish philosopher who, during his brief and sorrow-filled life (1813–1855), was afflicted with melancholy, the tendency toward which is said to have been inherited from his father. Sören Kierkegaard attacked formal Christendom. In this attack he went to the extreme of not only rejecting dead orthodoxy but every creed as well. Moreover, he wanted to have nothing to do with organized Christianity. He described the so-called Christianity of his day as being nothing more than refined epicureanism. Genuine faith as he saw it was inwardness, the proper inner relation of the individual toward his God. In a moment of crisis a person chooses for or against God. This decision must be constantly repeated. A true Christian’s life is one of unrest, anxiety.

The enormous strain brought about by Kierkegaard’s attack on the organized Christianity of his day, and particularly on its leaders, left him physically weak and hastened his death. To the extent in which his attack was directed against whatever in religion is merely formal (for example, a prayer that is merely a matter of the lips; a sermon that has no heart in it but is a mere recitation; a church that has lost its love and has become a mere organization; etc.), and to the extent in which he stressed the religion of the heart, his emphasis arouses a sympathetic response. However, when we begin to realize that he subjectivized the objective, and made light of the body of truth as it is revealed in Scripture and summarized in the great creeds of Christendom, we see that he was steering in a dangerous direction; for what is subjective religion without the truly objective? See F. Nielsen’s article, Kierkegaard, Sören Aaby in S.H.E.R.K., Vol. VI, pp. 330, 331; and also V. Hepp’s in Christelijke Encyclopaedie, Vol. III, pp. 383–387.

⁸⁰ As to Bultmann’s relation to Karl Barth, the two agree in viewing true faith as the proper response to (what they consider) the Word of God. Nevertheless, with the passing of time the thinking of the two began to diverge. Knudsen (op. cit., p. 133) calls attention to the fact that a visit of Barth to Marburg would stir up excited discussion. See also Herman Ridderbos, “Rudolf Bultmann,” Torch and Trumpet, Vol. XV, No. 9 (November, 1965), pp. 12–15.

⁸¹ On this point see N. B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, p. 174.

⁸² For greater detail see pp. 92–97.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

⁸³ This is beginning to be recognized more and more. See, for example, R. H. Gundry, “The Language Milieu of First Century Palestine. Its Bearing on the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition,” JBL 83 (April, 1964), pp. 404–408.

⁸⁴ For verification of this chronology see my Bible Survey, pp. 62, 63.

⁸⁵ “Where Is Modern Theology Going?” Christianity Today, Vol. XII, Number 11 (March 1, 1968), pp. 3–7.

↑ Back to top