The Synoptic Gospels Sermon

Margaret Massey 13th March 2011

To tie in with our Lent, ‘You’ve Got the Time’ initiative we are beginning a sermon series on the New Testament. This morning I will be giving a brief introduction to the ‘Synoptic Gospels’.

The word ‘synoptic’ comes from the Greek term ‘sunopsis’, meaning seeing together or a collective view. The word ‘gospel’ is derived from two Anglo-Saxon words: ‘God’, meaning good; and ‘spell’, meaning tidings.

The term “Synoptic Gospels’ is applied to the first three Gospels in the New Testament—Matthew, Mark, and Luke because, as the term synoptic suggests, each of them records the good news of Jesus Christ from the same general perspective as the other two.

The fourth Gospel, John, offers a different, but not conflicting, perspective of Jesus Christ. For instance the Synoptics narrate Jesus’ ministry chiefly in Galilee, but John tells of Jesus’ ministry in Judea. The Synoptics narrate his miracles, parables and addresses to the multitudes; John presents deeper and more abstract discourses, Jesus’ conversations and prayers. The Synoptics portray Christ in action; John portrays him in meditation and communion.

Because Matthew, Mark and Luke contain similar elements, most scholars conclude that they come from the same literary source. However, the interesting point about these Gospels is not where they agree, but where they differ. Simple differences include the lack of the birth narrative in Mark and the descriptions of Jesus as a child in Luke. The difficulty of explaining both the similarities and differences between the accounts is known as the ‘Synoptic Problem’.

From early church times it was thought that the gospel material was passed along by word of mouth before being written down. This oral Gospel originated with the disciples and was then passed along throughout Palestine before spreading to other parts of the Roman Empire. When the Apostles began to age and ‘die off’ the need to secure an accurate, eyewitness account of Jesus’ teachings became apparent. The oral tradition was transcribed into written form and subsequently published.

Until modern times this was the accepted view throughout the history of the church. Today, however, several theories exist about the origin of the Synoptic Gospels.

Currently the most popular of these theories is the ‘Two-source Theory’. This view concludes that Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke then relied on Mark’s document along with another source document called Q. Document Q has subsequently been lost!

The main argument to support this view is that about 90% of the material in Mark is found in Matthew; and about 50% in Luke. It is argued that it is more likely that Matthew and Luke would have expanded Mark, rather than Mark abbreviating the others. Despite years of research the actual circumstances of the writing of the Gospels remain shrouded in mystery.

Whatever the Synoptic Problem poses for scholars and theologians, as readers and listeners, we should recognise that the separate Gospels enable diverse groups of people to identify with the story of Jesus Christ. And that the overall unity of the accounts produces confidence that the story is true.

When we explore in more detail, we can find the distinctive characteristics of each Synoptic Gospel.

The Gospel According to Matthew is the first document presented in modern forms of the Christian Bible. Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels, but also the most hostile to Judaism. This Gospel is noted for its use of the Old Testament Scriptures.

In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a strict and conservative man whose life, from birth to death, is the fulfilment of fourteen prophetic sayings from books in the Old Testament.

These sayings are quoted throughout the text and Jesus’ movements and actions are portrayed as being directed by the prophecies. Matthew is, however, the only Gospel to include the word ‘Church’. Matthew believes that the Church is the true Israel, the fulfilment of scriptural promises; and Jews who do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah forfeit the claim to be God's people Israel.

Unique parts of Matthew include: Jesus’ birth story, his genealogy, the Wise men, Herod's slaughter of the innocents and the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew the disciples are characterised as understanding Jesus and his identity.

Matthew's Gospel appears to be written in a setting that required explanation of Jesus as both Jewish and Christian. It is also thought that Matthew's Gospel functioned as a manual of church instruction.

The Gospel According to Mark is commonly believed to be the earliest written of the three Synoptic Gospels. Mark is the least Jewish and most Roman in perspective. Mark’s narrative is somewhat disjointed, he presents only a bare bones tradition of Jesus.

Mark’s presentation includes short, quick events as the core of the book. Mark ignores the birth story and begins with Jesus as an adult and ready for ministry. (The Roman world had little place for genealogy.)

His account of the resurrection is also succinct – even abrupt with some scholars claiming it finishes mid–sentence. Mark translates some Aramaic phrases, presumably because they are foreign to the readers, and he alone includes Latin phrases.

In Mark, Jesus seems to be less the storyteller and teacher, and more the activist. His power over the difficulties people face provides a needed understanding of his person; Jesus' suffering defines what it is to be the Messiah.

Mark’s disciples are depicted as ignorant or confused. Mark’s presentation of Jesus is written to connect with a non-Jewish audience, to explain why Christians were suffering; to offer hope for redemption through suffering.

The Gospel According to Luke is considered the most "literary" of the Gospels with the best style. It contains more dialogue than the other gospels and places the story within an ordered framework of Jesus’ life from birth to death.

Luke’s presentation acknowledges the universal appeal of Jesus, the perfect human. His presentation stresses the logical extension of Jesus’ work beyond its Jewish packaging to the whole world; to outcasts, to women, and to non-Jews.

Theologically Luke gives great emphasis to the Holy Spirit. He attributes the work of Jesus and his Apostles to God through the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

The unique parts of Luke include: Jesus’ birth, the shepherds, the centrality of Mary, parallels with the birth of John the Baptist, Simeon's prophecy, Jesus as a youth in the temple, and genealogy that goes back to Adam.

In Luke the disciples are not characterised as ignorant. The twelve are specially denoted "Apostles". Their understanding unfolds as the narrative proceeds. At first, understanding is concealed from them, but it is later revealed, as Jesus explains the Old Testament Scriptures to them.

Luke’s presentation appears to be to demonstrate to non-Jews that the gospel was applicable to everyone, although some scholars disagree and believe it has a Jewish orientation.

Many of the differences in the Gospel narratives can be readily explained in terms of theological objectives. A good example of how differences between the Gospels can be understood is the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ passages, a short section of which we heard this morning.

Matthew (ch.5 -7) has grouped material together to present Jesus as a new lawgiver, re-creating the Sinai event, highly relevant to his Jewish readers. However, Luke (6:17–49) has no such concerns and, ironically, presents a similar but more succinct ‘Sermon’ on the plains around Tyre and Sidon.

This brief overview has hopefully shown that in the four Gospels we have four different narratives that tell the one story of Jesus Christ. Viewed historically, they are like overhead projector transparencies layered on top of each other, enabling us to view all layers simultaneously.

When we look at the Gospels we should not lose sight of their overall intention; they are good news and this good news centres on Jesus Christ. The Gospels are directed to believers, they try to teach who Jesus is and the importance of his teachings, each in its own way. If we bear this in mind it can help us to learn and grow as we study them.

I’d like to finish by adding that the Gospels are different from the usual biography, ancient or modern. The Gospels were not written like a book to be circulated and sold in bookstores. They were written to be read aloud in the worship services of early Christian communities. They were intended to be heard as one continuous reading!

The good news is that the ‘YGTT’ bible tracts have been edited to enable us to more or less hear the Gospels as one continuous reading. So happy listening!!

QUESTIONS

1. Which Gospel do you feel most drawn toward and why? Who do you feel would be drawn to the other Gospels?

2. Why do you think that the early church kept and authorised four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ? Would you prefer one consolidated account?

3. What makes John’s Gospel so different?

4. Gospel means “good news.” How are the Gospels “good news” today?