Many scholars and students of the Bible have observed how similar the gospels are to each other in the episodes they narrate and in the sayings of Jesus they report. These scholars and students have also noticed how the very same passages are also starkly different from each other in various details.
Over the last three hundred years, the world of Biblical scholarship has exercised its collective mind in solving the riddle of why the gospels are so similar and yet so different. The result of this laborious scholarly enquiry has resulted in the discovery that Matthew and Luke were dependent upon Mark and an additional source, termed “Q”, as the basis for their own gospels.
The two source hypothesis is generally accepted as the fundamental solution to the synoptic problem. It remains the majority position within contemporary New Testament scholarship.
The late protestant evangelical scholar F. F. Bruce writes:
“The conclusion usually and I think rightly drawn from their comparative study is that the Gospel of Mark or something very similar like it, served as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke…”[1]
Mark’s gospel has been dated between 65-70 C.E. There is a general consensus on this dating, agreed upon by conservatives as well as skeptics, and found in most introductions to the New Testament.
F. F. Bruce corroborating this dating writes:
“Mark probably wrote his gospel in the first instance, for the Christians of Rome, in the aftermath of the persecution which overtook them without warning under Nero, as a sequel to the great fire in July, AD 64”.[2]
When studying these gospels, it is quite apparent that Mark is more primitive in style, theology and diction. More importantly, in Mark’s gospel the human Jesus stands out more visibly than the later gospels. Scholars argue that the depiction of Jesus in Mark represents a far more historical and real Jesus.
In Mark’s gospel, there are a plethora of passages which describe Jesus as a mere human being. Such passages would later on become stumbling blocks in the way of weak believers, traditions which “ran against the grain”, and were therefore omitted from the later gospels.
When one scrutinizes the same narratives of Jesus reported in Mark and Matthew, one quickly realizes that the latter has altered Mark’s gospel due to an increasing feeling of reverence for the person of Christ. Passages which show the inability, weakness and humanness of Jesus were omitted by Matthew and replaced with a much better Christology.
Of course, not all of the changes were Christological in nature. Factual inaccuracies, grammatical mistakes and other minor errors were also omitted by Matthew and Luke. Matthew’s redaction of Mark often appears at first to involve incidental details, but a closer study reveals that it is part of a consistent and thoroughgoing redevelopment of Mark.
Through the passing of time, there was a clear change in Christology from the earlier gospel to the later ones. The development was from lesser to greater. There was an enhancing of feelings of reverence and an increase in the position and status of Jesus.
Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes:
“Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”.
He explains further, that:
“The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3]
Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus.
In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement.
Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83)
It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions.
It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version.
Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.
In the beginning, each gospel was circulated independently in the community it had been written. Mark was probably composed in Rome, Matthew in Antioch, Luke in Ceaserea and John in Ephesus. None of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses to life of Jesus, and very little if anything is known about them.
Now that the gospels are gathered together in the Bible, they can all be studied together. Yet most readers today often forget or ignore what is in Mark and concentrate only on the “improved” version in Matthew, Luke and more specifically John.
When we turn our attention to John, the last gospel to be written, it is not surprising to note that Jesus is magnified and transformed into someone very different to the person found in Mark. John’s Jesus is a powerful being, occupying a position somewhere between God and Man. He is the logos, the Word of God, through whom God created everything. He is no longer just a Prophet and Messenger of God, but rather God’s only begotten Son!
Although none of the gospels teach that Jesus is God, some of the statements found in the fourth gospel place Jesus so high above humanity that many readers deem this as enough proof of the later Christian claim to Jesus’ divinity.
For example, it is ONLY in the gospel of John, that we find the following statements:
· “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him, might not perish, but might have eternal life”. (John 3:16)
· “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, He was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1)
· “I and my Father are One”. (John 10:30)
· “He that has seen me has seen the Father”. (John 14: 8-9)
· “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. (John 14:6)
· “…Before Abraham came to be, I AM”. (John 8: 58)
Another striking fact is that whilst in the earlier gospels Jesus is seen preaching about the Kingdom of God, in John, Jesus is occupied preaching about himself.
In Mark, the word “kingdom” appears on the lips of Jesus 18 times, whilst in John it is drastically reduced to five. Moreover, in Mark Jesus uses “I” in self-reference, nine times, whilst in John and whopping 118 times!
When we read the earlier gospels, the impression is that the “Kingdom of God” was Jesus’ main preaching and teaching, whilst in John’s gospel, Jesus is rarely heard preaching the “Kingdom of God”. His gospel is substituted with profound and staggering claims by Jesus about himself.
· “I am the bread of life”. (John 6:35)
· “I am the light of the world”. (John 8:12)
· “I am the door of the sheep”. (John 10:7)
· “I am the good shepherd”. (John 10:11)
· “I am the resurrection and the life”. (John 11:25)
· “I am the way, the truth and the life”. (John 14:6)
· “I am the true vine”. (John 15:1)
It is of no surprise that evangelists and Christian apologists, when asked for textual proof for the divinity of Jesus, quickly rush to John’s gospel, since none of the above powerful self-testimonies are to be found in any of the other gospels. Surely, if these words were part and parcel of the original words of Jesus, every gospel writer would have mentioned them. It is implausible to believe that the writers neglected all of these core and fundamental teachings and busied themselves with lesser details in Jesus’ life.
Moreover, why was it that the term “father” or “the father” referring to God is only used four times in Mark, but a mammoth 173 times in John? The most obvious deduction to be drawn from these statistics is that over the period spanned by Mark and John, there was an evolution and development of the traditions. In Mark’s gospel, Jesus spoke of God as “God”, whilst after 30 years when John wrote his gospel, Jesus in the very same episodes calls “God” his “Father”.
In the earliest of the four gospels, Jesus appears very human and very much a prophet. In the last gospel, however, he appears much more divine, and much more like an icon.
It is for this reason that Mark’s gospel was rather neglected by the early church. It was less frequently copied by scribes, preachers rarely referred to it and it was read only occasionally in church congregations and services.
As stated earlier, the author of John’s gospel was not the only one guilty of changing the words of Jesus, Matthew and Luke also not satisfied with the depiction of Jesus in Mark set out to magnify the position of Jesus in a number of ways. When we line up the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke (synoptic gospels) together, and compare them with one another, we will notice that the events and speeches are modified as we go from one gospel to another.
Using Matthew as a case in point, we notice that the writers who came after Mark repeatedly changed the story line, in the following ways:
1) They often inserted the title “Son of God” for Jesus.
2) They often inserted the title “Father” for God.
3) They magnified the miracles of Jesus.
4) They covered up the limitations of Jesus.
5) They called Jesus “Lord”.
6) They represented people praying to Jesus.
7) They portrayed Jesus with more knowledge.
8) The blurred the distinction between Jesus and God.
To illustrate the type of changes that occurred, I will show how individual episodes in the gospels of Matthew and Mark are similar and yet significantly different. The differences have been noted by Biblical scholars and explained as modifications introduced by Matthew.
The Greatest Commandment (Mark 12: 28-35, Matthew 22:34-40)
* All quotes are from The New International Version.
In Mark’s gospel, a teacher of the law asks Jesus as to what is the greatest commandment. Jesus replied that the greatest commandment was that God is one. Hearing Jesus’ response, than man agrees with Jesus, that to believe that God is One is the greatest commandment. Jesus realizes that the man had answered wisely and tells him that he is not far from the Kingdom of God.
In Matthew, loving God becomes the greatest commandment and no mention of God being one is made.
The Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10: 17-19, Matthew 19: 16-20)
Hearing the two together, you do not detect any difference and this is what happens. By the time you finish reading Matthew, then Mark and then Luke. One does not remember what he read in which gospel. The reader thinks that all three gospels say exactly the same thing. Yet, when we study them together closely, we realize that the gospel writers were able to use the information to their advantage, to teach the precise point they wanted to preach.
In the above passage, the opening exchange between the man and Jesus has been altered by Matthew. In Mark, the man addresses Jesus as “good teacher”. Jesus replies with a mild rebuke, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” Once again, Matthew tries to change the passage. First he alters the man’s initial question by moving the word “good” from the address and putting it as the object of the sentence.
Mark: “Good teacher, what must I do…?”
Matthew: “Teacher, what good deed must I do…?”
Finally, embarrassed by the fact that Jesus had reprimand the man for calling him good, Matthew changes Mark’s second sentence, hence leaving Jesus no chance to refuse that address and protecting him from the implicit suggestion that he was not good. Yet in doing so, Matthew has made his version lack coherency, indicating as though Jesus did not understand the question.
The Withered Fig Tree (Mark 11: 12-25, Matthew 21: 12-22)
In Mark’s version, Jesus seeing in a distance a fig tree went over to looking for fruit. Since it was still not the right season, no food was found on the tree. Jesus after making this understandable human error still curses the good tree. As for Matthew, he deletes the information about it not being the right season, since this would imply that Jesus destroyed a tree for no justifiable reason. Matthew leaves the reader to think that the tree was barren and therefore deserved to be destroyed.
Furthermore, in Mark the disciples notice that the tree has withered away the following day. Yet, in Matthew, the tree withers away immediately demonstrating the power of Jesus and the amazement of the disciples. Moreover, Matthew makes other significant changes to the passage, so for example, where Mark mentions “a house of prayer for all nations”, Matthew omits “all nation” to satisfy his Jewish readership.
Sick Woman (Mark 5: 24-35, Matthew 9:20-23)
In Mark, the woman touches Jesus’ cloak and is cured. Jesus felt the power going out of him and realized that someone had touched him but he did not know where the power went and who had touched him. Whilst the woman was already cured, in Mark, Jesus was still trying to figure out what had happened.
In Matthew, Jesus is far more powerful. He immediately knew who touched him and the woman was healed only after Jesus spoke, as if the healing power awaited Jesus’ command.
