A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XY Z

Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary

SYNOPTIC GOSPELS*

Term (literally meaning “same view”) applied to Matthew, Mark, and Luke because they see the ministry of Jesus from generally the same point of view, which is quite different from John’s Gospel.

The similarities among these three Gospels include their use of a common outline: introduction; ministry of John the Baptist and the baptism and temptation of Jesus; Jesus’ greater Galilean ministry; his journey and ministry through Samaria, Perea, and rural Judea; and the Passion week, death, and resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem. The books also record the same emphasis in the teaching of Jesus—the presence, nature, and implementation of the kingdom of God. Furthermore, these three Gospels relate much of the same material, usually in the same order, and often with similar or identical words.

In addition to similarities, there are also striking differences among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These fall into the same general categories as do the similarities—outline, material, organization, and wording. Matthew and Luke also have considerable common material not found in Mark, which, except for the healing of the centurion’s slave, is composed exclusively of the words and teachings of Jesus. Each Gospel also contains accounts and teachings that are unique. The result is a rich diversity within the synoptic unity, each of which provides portrayals of Jesus from a variety of viewpoints. Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ Jewishness and the continuity of his person and work with the message of the OT. Mark’s fast-moving account presents Jesus as a man of action, the Son of Man who was a servant among men. Luke, in exquisite Greek literary style, seems to address cultured Gentiles and shows Jesus as a friend of disadvantaged groups.

Attempts to account for both the similarities and differences within these Gospels constitute the “synoptic problem.” Solutions have been sought in many ways. As early as the second century, Tatian combined the four accounts into one; additional “harmonies” of the Gospel accounts have been continually produced. Since the 17th century, scholars have attempted to account for the similarities and differences by examining the stages through which the Gospel material is assumed to have passed before coming into its present form. Form criticism attempts to identify the influences from the period of oral transmission; source or literary criticism considers the alleged written documents from which the Evangelists drew information; redaction (or editorial) criticism seeks to determine the nature or purposes and personalities of the final editor-authors upon the accounts of the activities and teachings of Jesus. Other suggestions have called attention to the adaptation of material for a specific audience, the similarities between the synoptic accounts of Jesus’ teachings and the parallel accounts of the Jewish rabbis in the Talmud, and more. No completely satisfactory solution to the synoptic problem is at hand. The fact remains that the Scriptures present Jesus in various perspectives; the conscientious reader must seek the divine purpose of both the similarities and the differences of these proclamations of “the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mk 1:1). See Gospel; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew, Gospel of.