In my previous post I gave a simplified illustration to show why it is problematic to get rid of the Q source (the hypothetical  collection of sayings found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark).  Having this hypothetical source does not actually complicate the solution of the Synoptic Problem, it makes the solution simpler.  Supposing there was a Q is not a perfect solution, but it is better than the alternatives, in my opinion.  As my Doktorvater Bruce Metzger used to say (about Q and other things), "It is the least problematic solution." The reason it makes simplest and best sense is because of the sequence of the sayings of these "double traditions" (the technical term for the sayings materials in the TWO Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in Mark).  Unlike many of the narratives of these texts, these double-tradition sayings invariably occur in different places in the two Gospels.  Why is that? It would make sense if both of them have a source with a collection of Jesus' sayings of [...]

Why should we think there was a Q, the hypothetical document that contained principally sayings of Jesus, that was (according to this hypothesis) used by Matthew and Luke (but not by Mark) in constructing their Gospels? It is an issue because if Matthew and Luke both used Mark, as almost everyone agrees (for reasons I laid out in my earlier post), then one has to explain why they have so many other materials (mainly sayings) in common that are *not* found in Mark.  They didn’t get them from Mark!  Where then? In my earlier post I claimed that Matthew does not seem to have gotten those sayings from Luke or Luke from Matthew, and so they both most have gotten them from some other one-time-existing source.  That is a source commonly called Q (for the German word Quelle: Source). But some readers have asked exactly why it is unlikely that Matthew got these sayings from Luke or Luke from Matthew?  In particular, isn’t the best theory the one that has the least hypotheticals?  Why invent [...]

In my previous post I indicated that one of the reasons for thinking that Matthew copied Mark instead of the other way around is that there are passages in Mark that can be read in ways (or maybe even were meant in ways) that could be seen as problematic -- they might be worded in an awkward way, for example, or they might say something that cold be seen as confusing or just wrong -- but that in Matthew are worded differently so that there is no longer a problem. That would make sense if Matthew was copying Mark and just reworded something to "correct" it or at least to get rid of the problem.  It would be harder to explain why Mark would create a problem that wasn't in the story he was copying.  If that's right, it would suggest Mark is the source of Matthew. Here's one example to consider out of many.  I choose this one because, well, it's one of my favorites! It comes in the opening of the story [...]

Why couldn't Matthew, Mark, and Luke just have the same stories?  Why do we have to assume someone was copying someone else's? In yesterday’s post,  I simply stated that copying must have been going on to explain the literary relationship among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Synoptic Gospels, since they have so many similarities: they tell many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes – lots of times – in the very same words.  That is to say, someone must be copying someone else, or they are all using the same written sources. But some of my students have trouble seeing that if two documents are word-for-word the same, one must be copying the other (or they both are copying a third source).  Many older adults don’t seem to have any problem seeing that, right off the bat.  But younger adults need to be convinced.  And so I do a little experiment with them that more or less proves it.  I do this every year in my New Testament class, which [...]

If Luke is the most "gentile" Gospel, is it also "anti-Jewish"? In my earlier post on "The Gospel of Luke in a Nutshell," I argued that Luke, more than the other Gospels, went out of its way to portray Jesus as a great prophet (like Samuel, like Elijah, etc.).  In part, in Luke’s understanding, that is why Jesus had to die.  The Jewish people, in his view, always reject their own prophets sent from God.  Jesus was the last of the great prophets.  He too had to be rejected and killed at the hands of the Jewish people (see Luke 13:33-35). Some scholars have argued that because of this denigration of the Jewish people for always rejecting the prophets and Jesus, Luke is probably to be seen as an “anti-Jewish” Gospel.  In my judgment there is a lot to be said for this view.  The only Jews that the Gospel appears to approve of are the ones who recognize Jesus as a great prophet and son of God (his mother, Symeon and Anna, John the [...]

Now that I’ve devoted two posts to the major sine qua non of Luke's Gospel – one that lays out its major themes and emphases, the other that deals with who wrote it, when, and why, I can provide some suggestions for further reading, important works written by scholars for non-scholars.   I have given brief annotations for each book a mention, to give you a sense of what it’s about and so help you decide which, if any, might be worth your while. I have divided the list into three sections: Books that provide important discussion of Luke in general or with respect to a particularly key topic Commentaries that give lengthy introductions to all matters of importance about the Gospel and then go passage by passage to provide more detailed interpretation (that’s where you can dig more deeply into “what does this particular word actually mean?”; “what is the real point of this passage”; how does this passage relate to what Luke says elsewhere in his Gospel or to what we can find in [...]

Everyone says that the Gospel of Luke was written by … Luke!  Do we know if that’s true?  Whether Luke or not, do we know when he wrote it?  And why did he want/need to do so?  Now that I’ve summarized the major themes and emphases of the Gospel we can delve into these equally interesting and important historical questions. For as long as anyone has named an author of this Gospel, it has been Luke, a gentile traveling companion of Paul thought to be a medical doctor.  I’ll continue calling him “Luke” for the sake of convenience, even though I don’t think we can know who he was. Years ago on the blog (in January 2020) I devoted a series of posts to the question:  Was Luke Luke (so to say)?  There are a lot of issues to consider, including seemingly unrelated things, such as whether Paul actually wrote Colossians (!).  The series ended with my wrap-up overview posted on January 19: So: Was Luke Luke?, in case you’re interested in digging deeper. I [...]

If you already have Matthew and Mark, why would you need Luke?  Aren't they all the same? Nope. Next question:  do you know these Gospels very well?  If not, AOK:  Keep reading!  If so – see if you can summarize the themes and emphases of Luke in one sentence (say, 50 words) in a way that both highlights what it’s about and shows what is distinctive about its portrayal of Jesus. How’d that go for you? Here’s what I would come up with as a first go (I’ve never tried this before!) The Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus both as a Greco-Roman “divine man” – shown by his supernatural birth, astounding miracles, death, and exaltation – and as the final prophet sent by God to the Jewish people, who rejected him, fulfilling God’s plan for salvation to go to all the peoples of earth. It would take volumes to fill out this brief summary (many such volumes have been written!  I’ll give suggestions for reading in a future post on Luke).  Here I will try [...]

In my previous posts I have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark  (unlike the other Gospels) portrays Jesus as trying to keep his messiahship a secret.  He doesn’t allow the demons to identify him when he casts them out; when he heals people he strictly instructs them not to tell anyone; he teaches his disciples the “secret of the Kingdom” privately when no one else is around; he teaches the crowds only using parables precisely (Mark indicates) so no one can understand what he means.  And he never publicly teaches about his own identity. This last point should be emphasized. Unlike other Gospels (see John 4:25-26!) Jesus never tells anyone publicly that he is the messiah.  When he is acknowledged as the messiah by Peter in a private conversation with the disciples in Mark 8:29-30, Jesus orders them not to let anyone know.  And then he starts teaching that as the messiah he has to be rejected and executed.  That seems to be a complete contradiction of terms for Peter, who has just made [...]

Are you familiar with the Gospel of Matthew?  If not, read on! If so, try to summarize its distinctive portrayal of Jesus in one sentence. (of say, 50 words or so max).  If you really can’t, then again, read on!  If you give it a try, check to see that you have both described it accurately and shown how it is distinctive among the other Gospels. Here’s a sentence that I might try if I were given the assignment: Matthew portrays Jesus as the miracle-working messiah who fulfilled the predictions of Scripture, taught the correct understanding of the Law of Moses, insisted his followers keep it by living lives of love, came to be rejected by his own people, but died for others before being raised from the dead. Hey, that’s exactly 50 words!   Now let me expound a bit by discussing the most important aspects of Matthew’s Gospel.  Matthew is often considered the “most Jewish” of the Gospels because of its repeated emphasis that Jesus is the Jewish messiah, sent from [...]

Scholars almost always say that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke were both copying it.  But why should anyone think so?  Is there any evidence or is it just one of those scholarly whims that everyone repeats because it's what they've always heard? I continue here with my explanation of the evidence from my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th ed. (Oxford University Press).  I am using the 7th edition instead of the more recent 8th that was co-authored with my colleague Hugo Mendez because he and I disagree on some things connected with the Synoptic Problem  and the chapter was rewritten significantly as we compromised over our differences.  But we're still talking to each other!  :-) **************************** For the past century or so, three arguments have proved widely convincing for establishing Mark’s priority to Matthew and Luke. Patterns of Agreement. Since the main reason for thinking that the Gospels share a common source is their frequent verbatim agreement, it makes sense to examine the [...]