- SYNOPTICS
sə'nɑp.tɪks plural noun. The synoptic gospels.
- SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
sə'nɑp.tɪk 'ɡɑs.pəls plural noun. The gospels which show a great deal of similarity in stories, wording, structure, order, viewpoint, and purpose. Namely Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
You’ll notice
John is an obvious exception. I can sync it up from time to time, but nowhere near as well. Its author was clearly telling his own stories.
There’s a rather obvious explanation for why the synoptics line up: Mark was written first. The authors of Matthew and Luke simply quoted Mark as they put together their own gospels. Sometimes they quoted Mark word-for-word; sometimes not. The author of Luke admitted other such sources existed—
Luke 1.1-4 KWL - 1 Since many people have decided to arrange a narrative about the acts we accomplished,
- 2 just as they were given to us by the first eyewitnesses who served the Word,
- 3 it occurred to me to help write out everything accurately from the beginning to you, honorable Theófilus,
- 4 so you might know with certainty about the word you were taught.
—and it turns out he availed himself of those sources. Mark included.
But—no surprise—there are Christians who have a big problem with the idea the gospels’ authors quoted one another. Including some scholars.
Some are bugged by the idea of anybody quoting anybody. What they’d much rather believe is that each of the gospels’ authors wrote independently of one another… and all their stories happen to match. Miraculously. Which would definitely convince them the gospels are reliable… but nobody else. Y’see, talk to any police detective and they’ll tell you: When every witness’s story lines up too perfectly, they colluded. No question.
A more reasonable problem, which bugs a lot of Christians, is the idea of Matthew quoting Mark. Because the apostle Matthew was
So these Christians’ theory goes like yea: ’Twasn’t Mark, but Matthew, who wrote his gospel first. (Maybe even in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and Matthew’s homeland, instead of Greek.) Then Mark later published an abridged Greek version of Matthew. And Luke later quoted Mark… or Matthew; whichever.
Meh; it’s not entirely outside the realm of possibility. But we’ve no proof there’s an Aramaic original of Matthew, and we don’t know why Mark would want to write a shorter gospel instead of including every Matthew story.
But the more important thing to remember is the names we attached to the gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John—were attached there
We think we know who wrote the gospels, and it’s entirely possible we got the right guys. There’s some hints in Luke/Acts that Luke’s the author, and many more hints in John that John bar Zebedee wrote it. But Mark actually has no such hints. Nor Matthew. Matthew might not have written Matthew. Or it was some other guy named Matthew who wrote it, who’s not the same Matthew in the Twelve.