Essay Sample on The Synoptic Problem: Exploring the Interrelationships of Mark, Matthew, and Luke

Introduction

The Synoptic Problem is not considered a "challenge" in the typical sense of the terminology. It is a simple way to refer to arguments and possible explanations concerning the literary interrelationships among Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Fundamentally, the term "Synoptic" means "having a similar opinion" or "with the same eye" (Lecture notes, 2020) Mark, Matthew, and Luke present Jesus' story in similar ways, including the saying of Jesus, the order of the materials, or even using related terminologies in distinct ways. A comprehensive description of the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the term Synoptic Gospels.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Bible historians agree that the remarkable agreement between the gospels suggests that some kind of interdependence. However, there are several different hypotheses, perspectives, and theories based on biblical evidence as well as the basic knowledge of writing that leads to the synoptic problem. For instance, the Gospel book of Mark is considered a summation to both the Gospel of Matthew and Luke. However, this assumption raises questions such as why are there longer storylines of particular events in the Gospel book of Mark when it is supposed to be a summation of the Gospel of Luke and Matthew? The paper will provide an exposition of literary interrelationships among Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

The Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark is not an abridgment, but an expansion of the Synoptic books. Mark is considered relatively shorter in total length when compared to Luke and Matthew. Various commentaries have shown that the abrupt endings can be found in the other ancient Greek, Roman, and Hebrew writings. There are other examples of the unexpected endings in scripture, like in the book of Jonah that ends with a question being asked to a pouting prophet to which to answer is provided. The abrupt conclusions were accepted and understood by the ancient writers as well as readers.

In alternative words, although Mark's Gospel is parallels to Luke and Matthew, it is not a summation, but an enlargement of the books. For instance, in Mark 4:1-2, Mark mentions that Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that surrounded him was so huge that he decided to go into a boat and sit on it to enlighten the people that were along the shore at the water's edges. While it is evident that the same story is captured in the other gospel books, the descriptions of the events given in Mark are comprehensive and offer readers a better understanding of the occurrence of the events. Mark attempts to emphasize Jesus's role as a teacher (cf. 12:35, 2:13, 8:31, 4:1-2, 6:2, etc.). The best analysis of this is that he was unaccustomed with some of Jesus' parables rather than intentionally omitting them- expressly, the Sermon on the Mount. A summarized assignment becomes shorter by both abbreviating the accounts retained and eliminating various materials. In that regard, the Gospel of Mark was the first-inscribed among the three Synoptic Gospel and used as a source of material to both Matthew and Luke. Consequently, the longer and shorter ending provide a description that later reading felt that the Gospel was incomplete. Thus, Matthew and Luke needed some resolution and decided to write their gospel book.

The Argument Base on Three-Fold Challenge

There is a threefold challenge that Mark purportedly recorded materials that were only found in both Matthew and Luke. Firstly, it is not definite that Mark intended to write the Gospel in a manner that conformed to material found in both Matthew and Luke. There is insufficient evidence in his Gospel that this was a significant motif. Instead, if any gospel writer employed this kind of belief, it was Matthew, not Mark. For example, when one compares the sequential order in regards to the parallel pericopes among the three Synoptic Gospels, there is variation in the arrangement; however, one observes the emergence of a general pattern. Mark always follows Matthew and Luke when they are an agreement with the other. On the contrary, there is a double tradition pericope shared between Luke and Matthew that depicts little understanding in order. The sequential order supports the evidence that Matthew and Luke arranged their storyline patterns upon Mark.

Additionally, Mark portrays a unique fondness for "dualism" of different kinds. It involves the repetition of necessarily the same thing in two adjacent phrases. On most occasions, parallel passages in Luke and Matthew, if any, mimics only one of the two, and it happens when Matthew chooses one, and Luke decides on the other.

Secondly, there is significant material that is found in both Matthew and Luke that is missing in Mark. Specifically, the Sermon on the Mount, the birth narrative, resurrection appearances, and Lord's Prayer. In that perspective, if Mark only abridged materials found in both Matthew and Luke, why did he omit such substantial passages which are highlighted by these other two gospels? Therefore, it imperative to ascertain that Mark was an independent author that inscribed his writing based on his understanding of Jesus Christ and his teachings. Consequently, there are "hard readings" found in the Gospel of Mark, which seems to depict Jesus Christ or the apostles in a bad light or a manner that a later redactor would likely find unsuitable.

The Marcan priority ascertains that these firm beliefs were more probably original to Mark and then omitted or smoothed out when Luke and Matthew encountered them, therefore rather than added by Mark to account deficient of them. An excellent example of hard reading that is only special to Mark include "James and John ask to sit beside Jesus in his kingdom (Mk 10:35), vs. their mother making the request (Mt 20:20)." The example mentioned above indicates that Mark is an original writer that did not depend on either Matthew or since the latter writers tried to merely the words in their writings. For example, the story of Jesus' suffering occupies a significant part of the Gospel of Mark, especially when compared to other gospels that have more chapters of Jesus' saying (particularly from Q) and actions.

Thirdly, it is an overstatement to ascertain that Mark that abridged material found in either Matthew or Luke. On the contrary, much of Mark's Gospel includes pericopes is found in only one of the other Gospel. For instance of Mark-Luke parallels, one observes the following: the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mark 1:23-28/Luke 4:33-37); the widow's mite (Mark 12:41-44/Luke 21:1-4). Additionally, there are examples of Mark-Matthew parallels such as the details about the death of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:3-12/Mark 6:17-29) or the healing of the deaf-mute (Matt 15:29-31/Mark 7:31-37). The evidence indicated in the double-gospels parallels depicts two critical things.

Firstly, Mark did not adhere to the fundamental of exclusivity. The reason being is that he includes a lot of material that is only found in one of the other Gospel. Secondly, Mark parallels Matthew extensively than he does Luke (there are two pericopes as compared to ten in Mark-Matthew). The accounts, as mentioned earlier, depict that Mark was an independent writer that did not depend on either Matthew or Luke to write the Gospel book of Mark because his Gospel includes pericopes found in only one of the other Gospel. It is therefore imperative that Mark was not a summation of either Matthew or Luke, and his writing depended on his understanding of Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Mark as Counter-Narrative

The colloquialisms and poor grammar observed in the Gospel book of Mark is an indication that it was not a summation of either Matthew or Luke. Mark utilizes slang words such as kravatton in 2:4 to mean "mattress." The use of slang words as a form of literary analysis was banned in the period of Moeris and Phrynichus. However, the parallels in both Luke and Matthew alters the expression to klin- (klini, klinidios), which at the time was an acceptable literary terminology. Henceforth, given that Mark utilizes kravatton on three occasions, and Matthew and Luke neither utilize it, is an indication that the latter wrote his gospel book before both Matthew and Luke.

Additionally, Mark uses Aramaic expressions as part of his grammatical style. For instance, in Mark 3:17, John and James are referred to as "Boanerges," a phrase that is absent in the parallels of Luke and Matthew. Similarly, Mark talks about the "Corban" in Mark 7:11, Aramaic expressions that are not found in Lukan parallels. Likewise, Mark regularly employed theological language to depict Jesus, rather than Caiaphas, Herod, Caesar, and Pilate, as the rightful leader and the bringer of God's salvation to the Universe- (E.g., Son of God. Mark 1.1). As a result, it is difficult to argue that Mark is a summation of either Matthew or Luke when the Aramaic expressions are missing in approximately six of the seven parallel accounts in Luke or all parallel accounts in Matthew.

Mark has redundant terminologies on different events where both Luke and Matthew avoid unnecessary concepts. For instance, in Matthew 27:35, one reads that the soldiers "partitioned his clothes among them by casting lots"; Luke 12:35 parallels with this by mentioning that "they cast lots to partition his clothes." Mark, on the contrary, suggests that "Soldiers partitioned his clothes among them, casting lots for them so that each could decide what to take" (Mark 23:19).

Messianic Secrets

The historical events observed in Mark is an indication that the book was not a summation of either Matthew or Luke. Mark has 160 past events when compared to Matthew's 80 and Luke's 9. The consistent use of historical present by Mark compared to the inconsistent use of past present by both Luke and Matthew is an indication that Mark was the first Gospel. Additionally, Luke seems to have some aversion to the use of past, present tense and therefore decided to change it to a more literal dimension. In simple terms, the edition and revision argument gains weight on a cumulative sense. This rationale behind this is based on the fact that the emergence of similar grammar, reduction, and stylistic characteristics in one gospel but limited in the other calls for proper research to unmask the underlying concepts.

Based on the fact that different authors wrote the gospels, the probability of omitting or adding specific phrases can be perceived deliberate. It is easy to understand a writer would add such expression than omit them. Repeatedly in Mark, Jesus performs miracles, and the followers are intrigued, but he tells the people not to tell anyone about it (e.g., Mark 1:25). Although this phenomenon happens in other gospels, it is more evident in the gospel book of Mark. In comparison, the Gospel of Mark is portrayed as a foundation for the writing of Matthew. As a result, it is challenging to argue that Mark is a summation of either Matthew or Luke based on its short version. Their points mentioned above contradict the argument, suggesting that Mark was the first gospel author and later followed by both Matthew and Luke.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is becoming evident that the Gospel of Mark is not a summation of either Matthew or Luke. Although Mark's Gospel is relatively shorter when compared to the other two gospels, it is not an abridgment. The Gospel of Mark has a pericope that parallels Matthew and Luke since some of the Marks' stories are usually the longest. Similarly, if Mark is an abridgment of either Matthew or Luke, then it is difficult to explain why significant material such as the Lord's Prayer was left out as this makes it less comprehensive. In terms of grammar, both Matthew and Luke use a better authentic style and better grammar, which suggests that both Matthew and Luke used Marks' material but e...