https://open.spotify.com/episode/2472lKUJ1MBguku6OGVi6w?si=IHP8niW9TxK47s10PLUidw

How the Synoptic Gospels Were Written: A Synthesis of Critical Approaches and Theological Perspectives

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes critical and theological perspectives on the composition of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The analysis reveals that these texts are not simple transcriptions of events but are the product of a complex process involving oral tradition, source materials, and intentional authorial editing. Modern biblical scholarship employs several methodologies—Source, Redaction, Narrative, and Textual Criticism—to deconstruct this process. Source Criticism posits that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a now-lost source (“Q”) as primary materials, supplementing them with their own unique sources (“M” and “L”). Redaction Criticism examines how each gospel writer selected, arranged, and adapted this material to serve distinct theological aims, such as Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus as a new Moses.

Parallel to these historical-critical methods is a robust theological argument for the trustworthiness of the Gospels. This perspective emphasizes that the 30-year period of oral tradition preceding the written texts was stabilized by the presence of eyewitnesses and a high regard for preserving Jesus’ teachings. A foundational concept is that divine revelation consists of both act and interpretation; the events of Jesus’ life are inseparable from the apostolic interpretation that gives them meaning. The gospel message is understood to have created the Church, which then became the faithful custodian of that message, preserving it in the written accounts. Consequently, accepting the Gospels is an acceptance of this apostolic testimony. While critical scholarship provides indispensable tools for understanding the mechanics of the Gospels’ creation, the theological perspective asserts that their ultimate authority rests on their faithful witness to the historical and risen Christ.

——————————————————————————–

I. The Composition of the Synoptic Gospels: From Oral Tradition to Written Text

Before the Synoptic Gospels were written, the teachings and stories of Jesus circulated for approximately 30 years in what scholars term the “Oral Tradition” period. This was not a period of uncontrolled invention but one guided by several factors that ensured the reliability of the tradition:

• The Presence of Eyewitnesses: Many who had known Jesus were still alive and active in the early church communities, providing a check against the creation of false traditions.
• Concern for True Teaching: The church leadership in Jerusalem was actively concerned with preserving the authentic teachings of Jesus.
• High View of Tradition: The early church held tradition in high regard, viewing the teachings of Jesus as authoritative commands (e.g., Romans 6:17, 1 Corinthians 7:10).
• Preservation of Difficult Sayings: The faithfulness of the church is evident in its preservation of challenging teachings of Jesus.
• Omission of Later Issues: The Gospels do not address many of the burning issues faced by the later church, suggesting they are rooted in an earlier period.
• Ancient Memory: The capacity for memorization in ancient, non-literate cultures was significantly greater than in modern times.

The writing of the Gospels began only after the Resurrection, Ascension, and Pentecost, as the early church started to formally compile the stories (“periscopae”) and teachings that were central to its preaching. This process involved collecting material on similar topics, such as healing miracles, which eventually formed the basis of the written texts.

II. Critical Methodologies for Gospel Analysis

Modern biblical scholarship utilizes several critical disciplines to understand how the Synoptic Gospels were written. These approaches, viewed from a conservative evangelical perspective, offer valuable insights into the text’s formation and literary character.

A. Tradition Criticism and Tests of Authenticity

Tradition Criticism is the discipline of uncovering authentic data about the historical Jesus by separating it from material that the early church may have added. This is necessary because the Gospels sometimes report the same incidents with different details. For example, Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi is worded differently in Mark 8:29, Matthew 16:16, and Luke 9:20. Similarly, the accounts of the women at the empty tomb vary on the number and description of the angelic beings present.

To determine the authenticity of a saying or tradition, critical scholars employ a set of criteria:

While these methods provide a scientific framework, they are not without limitations. They can lead to the false assumption that the Gospel writers were not interested in historical accuracy, creating a false dichotomy between the “Jesus of History” and the “Christ of the Faith.”

B. Source Criticism

Source Criticism seeks to identify the sources used by the Gospel writers. The dominant theory to explain the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels is the Four-Document Hypothesis. This theory is based on several observations:

• 90% of the material in Mark is also found in Matthew, and 53% appears in Luke.
• Matthew and Luke often follow Mark’s order of content and wording.
• When Matthew or Luke deviate from Mark’s order, they do not agree with each other.

This evidence supports the principle of Markan Priority, meaning Mark was the earliest Gospel and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke. The Four-Document Hypothesis identifies the following sources:

1. Mark: The earliest Gospel, likely based on the preaching of the apostle Peter.
2. Q (Quelle): A hypothetical source (either written or oral) containing material, primarily sayings of Jesus, found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.
3. M: Material unique to the Gospel of Matthew.
4. L: Material unique to the Gospel of Luke, gathered from his own investigations.

Understanding these sources helps readers “think horizontally”—comparing parallel accounts to appreciate the distinctive theological emphasis of each evangelist.

C. Redaction Criticism

Redaction Criticism focuses on how the final authors, or “redactors,” edited the material from their sources to fit their specific theological aims. This method explains many of the differences between the Gospels. For example, in the narrative of the Transfiguration:

• Matthew (17:1-8) adds details that portray Jesus as a new Moses. He describes Jesus’ face shining “like the sun,” places Moses before Elijah, calls the cloud “bright” (evoking the Shekinah glory), and adds the phrase “with whom I am well pleased” to the voice from heaven, echoing Isaiah 42, which speaks of the Servant bringing law to the nations—a key interest for Matthew’s Jewish audience.
• Luke (9:28-36) adds details consistent with his own theological interests. He notes that Jesus went up the mountain “to pray” and was transfigured while praying. He states that Moses and Elijah discussed Jesus’ “departure (exodus),” linking Jesus’ coming death to the Old Testament deliverance.

This editing does not imply fabrication. From an evangelical standpoint, the Holy Spirit guided the authors to emphasize different true aspects of the event to communicate their unique theological message without altering the core story.

D. Narrative Criticism

In contrast to historical methods that look “through” the text to uncover its origins, Narrative Criticism looks “at” the text in its finished form, analyzing it as a piece of literature. The narrative critic asks about plot, character, and the story’s effect on the reader. Key concepts include:

• Implied Author and Reader: Hypothetical constructs of the author and audience that the text itself presupposes.
• Story vs. Discourse: The “what” of a narrative (its content) versus the “how” it is told.
• Characterization: Characters are revealed through “telling” (direct description) or “showing” (their actions and words).
• Setting: The context of events, which can be spatial (location), temporal (time references), or social (cultural customs and distinctions).

While this approach helps counter the fragmentation of other methods by emphasizing the unity of each Gospel, its limitations include a potential disinterest in historical questions and its reliance on analytical models derived from modern fiction.

E. Textual Criticism

Textual Criticism is the science of recovering the original text of the New Testament by studying the thousands of surviving manuscript copies. Since no original manuscripts exist, scholars must sift through variants that arose during the copying process. Errors entered the textual tradition in several ways:

• Unintentional Errors: Mistakes of the eye (skipping lines), ear (mishearing during dictation), or hand (slight alteration of letters).
• Intentional Changes: Scribes sometimes made deliberate alterations to:
  • Add clarifying marginal notes into the main text (e.g., “without a cause” in Matthew 5:22).
  • Harmonize one Gospel account with another (e.g., adding the superscription over the cross in Luke 23:38 to align with John 19:20).
  • Combine two different variant readings into one longer reading.

To reconstruct the most likely original text, textual critics follow several guiding principles, including:

1. The more difficult reading is preferred (scribes tend to clarify, not confuse).
2. The shorter reading is preferred (scribes tend to add, not omit).
3. The reading that best explains how the other variants arose is preferred.

III. The Theological Foundation of Gospel Trustworthiness

Beyond the mechanics of composition, a crucial theological question concerns the reliability of the Gospels as a witness to Christ. This perspective argues that the Gospels are not merely human literary products but are the divinely preserved testimony of the early Church.

A. The Gospel: A Living Word Before a Written Book

The term “gospel” (from the Anglo-Saxon “Godspell,” or “good news”) originally referred to the preached, oral message about Jesus. The existence of the Church is itself evidence of the power of this spoken word. The Gospel created and molded the Church; the Church did not create the gospel. The written Gospels became necessary as the first generation of eyewitnesses began to pass away, crystallizing the living apostolic testimony into a permanent form. The Church, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, became the custodian of this message, recognizing only four Gospels as consistent with the true historical Jesus.

B. Revelation: The Inseparability of Act and Interpretation

A central argument for the Gospels’ reliability is that divine revelation is not merely a series of unexplained events. Rather, act + interpretation = revelation. God is the “God who speaks” as well as the “God who acts.” The events of Christ’s life and ministry are the “acts,” while the apostolic preaching and the Gospels themselves provide the divinely-guided “interpretation.”

Therefore, any attempt to separate the “facts” of Jesus’ life from the biblical interpretation of those facts is fundamentally flawed. The stories were preserved by the early Christian community precisely because of their interpretive significance. There is no such thing as an “unbiased” picture of Christ, because the very selection of material is an act of interpretation. To accept the Gospels is to accept the apostolic testimony—both the events they report and the meaning they ascribe to them.

C. The Existential Proof: The Creation of the Church

The argument that the Church created the gospel stories to teach abstract truths fails on several grounds. The timeline is too short for such fabrications to occur while eyewitnesses were still alive. More fundamentally, it presents a philosophical problem akin to the paradox of who made the first pair of tongs. As the Talmud puts it, God must have made “The Tongs made with Tongs.” In the same way, if the Church created the Gospels, who or what created the Church? The New Testament’s answer is clear: the Church was formed by the “word of the gospel.” The explosive emergence and unique character of the early Christian community demands a cause equal to its effect—the transformative power of the authentic message about Jesus Christ.