NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

COURSE CODE: CTH213

COURSE TITLE: Synoptic Gospels

1
Course Guide

Course Code CTH213

Course Title Synoptic Gospels

Course Developer/Writer Dr. A. O. Dairo

Olabisi Onabanjo University,
Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State

Course Editor Dr. Olubiyi Adeniyi Adewale

National Open University of Nigeria
Victoria Island, Lagos

Course Coordinator Dr. Jacob A. Owolabi

National Open University of Nigeria
Victoria Island, Lagos

Programme Leader Dr. Olubiyi Adeniyi Adewale

National Open University of Nigeria
Victoria Island, Lagos

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

2
National Open University of Nigeria
Headquarters
14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way
Victoria Island
Lagos

Abuja Annex
5, Dar es Salaam Street
Off Aminu Kano Crescent
Wuse II, Abuja
Nigeria

e-mail: centralinfo@[Link]
URL: [Link]

National Open University of Nigeria 2009

Printed 2009

ISBN: -------------------------------------

All Rights Reserved

Printed by ---------------------------------
For
National Open University of Nigeria

3
Content
Page

Introduction 4
What you will learn in this Course 4
Course Aims 4-5
Course Objectives 5-6
Working through this Course 6
Course Materials 6
Study Units 6-7
Set Textbooks 7-8

Assignment File 8
Presentation Schedule 8
Assessment 8
Tutor-Marked Assignments 8
Final Examination and Grading 9
Course Marking Scheme 9
Course Overview 10
How to get the Best from this Course 11-
12
Tutors and Tutorials 12
Summary 13

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This course is CTH 213: The Synoptic Gospels. It is a two hour credit
course offered in the second year, first semester, to the undergraduate
students, of Christian Theology. This course has fifteen student units.
You are not required to take other courses before you study for this
course. The course has been developed with appropriate examples
suitable for the Nigerian audience.
The course guide is for distance learners enrolled in the Undergraduate
Programme of Christian Theology of the National Open University of
Nigeria. This guide is one of the several resource tools available to you
to help you successfully complete this course and ultimately your
programme.
This study guide provides you with very useful information about the
entire course, such as the aims and objectives, course material and
structure, available services to support your learning, information on
assignment and examination. You will also be guided on how to plan
your time for study; the amount of time you should spend on each study
unit and your tutor-marked assignments.

4
Go through this course study guide carefully. Before you begin the study
of this course, complete the feedback form at the end. You must return
the feedback to your tutorial facilitator along with your first assignment.
It is my hope that this study guide will answer most of your questions. I
advise you to contact your study centre if you have further questions.
I wish you all the best in your learning experience and successful
completion of this course.
2.0 COURSE AIMS
This course aims at helping you gain more knowledge about the first
three gospels of the New Testament. You will have a full grasp of why
the first three gospels are being referred to as the synoptic gospels, as
well as what constitute the synoptic problems and their solution. The
course will guide you on the authorship, date, sources, purposes and
special features of these gospels among others.
The approach adopted in this course acknowledges the import of biblical
context and contents to our understanding of the gospels. It is hoped that
this approach will properly situate you in the world of the gospel
writers; help you avoid over spiritualization of the gospel messages and
treating the gospel out of context.
The above aims of the course shall be achieved by:
- Introducing you to the concept of the Gospel, the Synoptic
Gospels and the Synoptic problems and proposed solutions.
- Exposing you to the worlds of the gospel writers, their
personalities, date, purpose and special features of each
gospel.
- Leading you to analyse the different approaches and methods
of studying the Synoptic Gospels through the efforts of
various scholars.
- Identifying the unity and interconnection of the Synoptic
gospels and the purpose of atoning death of Jesus Christ.
- Explain the universalism of the gospel message as presented
by the Synoptic writers.

COURSE OBJECTIVES
To achieve the aims enumerated above, this course has the following
overall objectives. This course is designed in such a way that each unit
has specific objectives which you will find at the beginning of each unit.
Before you start each unit read them carefully and study the unit with
these objectives in mind. After you have completed each unit go back to
the objectives again to make sure you have achieved the objectives of
that unit.

5
Below are the over all objectives of the course. If you meet these
objectives then you have achieved the overall aims of this course.
When you have successfully completed this course you should be able
to:
- Define and explain the subject matter of Gospel and the
Synoptic Gospels.
- Analyze the different approaches and methods to the study of
the Synoptic Gospels.
- Trace the history and development of the sources of the
Synoptic Gospels.
- Identify the influence of Jewish as well as Graeco–Roman
practices on the Synoptic Gospels.
- Explain why differences occur in the narration of the Synoptic
writers.
- Give account of the extent of universalism in the synoptic
gospels.
- Compare different accounts of various schools of taught on
the synoptic problems and solutions.

WORKING THROUGH THE COURSE

To successfully complete this course, you must read all the study units
and the other materials provided by the National Open University of
Nigeria. There are self-assessment exercise for each section of the unit
and tutor-marked assignments at the end of each unit. Make sure you do
all your home work and submit them when required. These are very
important for your course assessment. There is also going to be a final
examination at the end of the course.
COURSE MATERIALS
The major components of the course are:
1. Course Guide
2. Study Units
3. Textbooks
4. Assignment File
5. Presentation

Study Units

This course has three modules and fourteen study units as can be seen
below:

6
MODULE 1: General Introduction and the Gospel of Mark

UNIT 1 Preliminaries
UNIT 2 The Synoptic Problem
UNIT 3 The Composition of St. Mark
UNIT 4 The Purpose of the Gospel of St. Mark
UNIT 5 Special Features of Mark.
MODULE 2: The Gospel of St. Matthew
UNIT 1 Preliminaries
UNIT 2 The Sources of Matthew
UNIT 3 The Purposes of Matthew
UNIT 4 Special Features of Matthew’s Writing
MODULE 3: The Gospel of St. Luke
UNIT 1 Preliminaries
UNIT 2 The Sources of Luke’s Gospel
UNIT 3 The Purposes
UNIT 4 Major Themes in St. Luke
UNIT 5 The Universalism of Luke’s Gospel
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS
Bauckham, R.(2006) Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans.

Carson, D.A.; Moo, Douglas J. (1992). An Introduction to the New

Testament. Morris, Leon. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

David Aune, (1987). The New Testament in Its Literary Environment

(Philadelphia: Westminster.
Donald Guthrie, (1990). New Testament Introduction Leicester: Apollos.

Dunn D. G. James, (1977). Unity and Diversity in the New Testament

Philadelphia: Westminster.

7
Martin, Ralph P. (1975). New Testament Foundations: A Guide for
Christian Students. Volume One and Two. Grand Rapids:
William Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Tenney, Merrill. C. (1972). New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids:

William Eerdmans Publishing Company.

William David. (1969). Invitation to the New Testament. Garden City:.

Doubleday.

Wood, D. R. W , (1996) New Bible Dictionary Leicester: Inter Varsity

Press.

Walton John, H. (1989). Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural

Context: A Survey of Parallels between Biblical and Ancient
Near Eastern Texts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

ASSIGNMENT FILE
One of the components of this course is the Assignment File which will
be mailed to you later from the office of the national Open University of
Nigeria. The file contains assignment that you must submit to your tutor
for making. These assignments will be marked and recorded. The marks
you obtain from these assignments will count towards your final grade.
The entire course has more than thirty assignments. These assignments
cover every unit.
ASSESSMENT
This course has two aspects of assessment. The first one is the Tutor-
Marked Assignment, while the second is a written examination. These
assessments are based on the information, knowledge, and experience
you gathered during the course which you should apply when attempting
these assessments. All of these must be submitted to your tutor in
accordance with the deadline stated in your Assignment File. All of
these will be 30% of your total course marks. At the end of the course
there will be a two hour final examination.
TUTOR – MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAS)
There are fifteen tutor-marked assignments for this course. You must do
all and submit them to your tutor. At the end of the course the best [i.e.
the highest three] will be counted. Each assignment is worth 10 marks
when the three assignments are put together then the tutor-marked
assignment will be 30% of your total course marks.
SUMMARY OF THE UNITS
As could be seen from above, this course has fourteen units.
8
Module 1 introduces you to the Synoptic Gospels in general and the
gospel of Mark as the acclaimed first gospel to be written. Module 2
deals with Matthew as the second gospel to the written. It analyzes the
sources, purpose as well as special features of the gospel. Module 3
looks at Luke’s gospel, his sources, purposes, major themes and its
universal concept.
Each study unit consists of one week’s work and should take you about
three hours to complete. It included specific objectives, guidance for
study, reading materials, self-assessment exercises, and tutor-marked
assignments. All these are to assist you achieve the stated learning
objectives of the individual study units of the course.

COURSE OVERVIEW
This course is designed to cover 15 weeks. You are expected to
complete the assignment for the unit at the end of every week and
submit to your tutorial facilitator. See the table below for the study plan.

UNIT TITLE OF THE STUDY WEEKS ASSIGNMENT

UNIT ACTIVITY
COURSE GUIDE 1 Course Guide
Form
Module 1 General Introduction and the
Gospel of Mark
1 Preliminaries 2 Assignment
2 The Synoptic Problem 3 Assignment
3 The Composition of St. Mark 4 Assignment
4 The Purpose of the Gospel of 5 Assignment
St. Mark
5 Special Features of Mark. 6 TMA to be
submitted
Module 2 The Gospel of Matthew
1 Preliminaries 7 Assignment
2 The Sources of Matthew 8 Assignment
3 The Purposes of Matthew 9 Assignment
4 Special Features of Matthew’s 10 TMA t o be
Writing submitted
Module 3 The Gospel of Luke
1 Preliminaries 11 Assignment
2 The Sources of Luke’s Gospel 12 Assignment
3 The Purposes 13 Assignment
4 The Universalism of Luke’s 14 Assignment
Gospel

9
 5 The Universalism of Luke’s 15 TMA to be
Gospel submitted
Revision 16
Examination 17
Total 17

How to Get the Best from this Course

In distance learning the study units replace the university Lecturer. This
is one of the great advantages of the distance learning system. You can
read and work through specially designed study materials at your own
pace.

Each of the study units follows a common format. The first item is an
introduction to the subject matter of the unit and how a particular unit is
integrated with the other units and the course as a whole. Following this
is a set of learning objectives. These objectives enable you know what
you should be able to do by the time you have completed the unit. The
objectives should guide your study. After studying the units must cross
check whether you have achieved the objectives. If you adhere strictly to
this art of checking whether the objective is achieved or not, you will
definitely improve your chances of passing the course.

The main body of the unit guides you through the required reading from
other sources. This will usually be either from your set books or from a
“Reading” section. Whenever you need help, don’t hesitate to call and
ask your tutor to provide it.

1. Read through this Course Guide thoroughly.

2. Plan your study schedule. You should refer to the ‘course

overview’ for more details. Find out the time you are expected to
spend on each unit and when and how to turn in your
assignments.

3. Stick to your study schedule. Don’t allow anything to get you

distracted from your study schedule.

4. Turn to Unit 1 and read the introduction and objectives for the
unit.

5. Gather the study material you need. All you need or a unit is
given in the ‘Overview’ at the beginning of each unit. The study

10
 unit you are working on and one of your set books should be on
your desk at the same time.

6. Work through the unit. The content of the unit has been arranged
in a sequential order. Instructions would be given on where to
read from your set books or other articles. Use the unit to guide
your reading.

7. Review the objectives for each study unit to confirm you have
achieved them.

8. Don’t proceed to the next unit, until you are sure you have
achieved the objectives of the unit you are working on.

9. Don’t wait until your assignment is returned before working on

the next unit. Keep to your schedule.

10. When you complete the last unit, you can be preparing for exams.
Be sure that you have achieved the unit objectives (listed at the
beginning of each unit) and the course objectives (listed in this
Course Guide).

Tutors and Tutorials

There are 8 hours of tutorials provided in support of this course. The

dates, times and location of these tutorials, together with the name and
phone number of your tutor will be communicated to you. This will be
done as you are allocated to a tutorial group.

Your tutor will mark and comment on your assignments, keep a close
watch on your progress and on any difficulties you might encounter and
provide assistance to you during the course. You must mail your tutor
marked assignments to your tutor well before the due date (at least two
working days are required). They will be marked by your tutor and
returned to you as soon as possible. Do not hesitate to contact our tutor
by telephone, e-mail or discussion board if you need help. The following
might be the circumstances in which you will find help necessary.
Contact your tutor if:

• You do not understand any part of the study units or the assigned
readings.
• You have difficulty with the self-tests or exercises, and

11
• You have a question or problem with an assignment, with your
tutor’s comment on an assignment or with the grading of an
assignment.

You should try your best to attend the tutorials. This is the only chance
to interact with your tutor by asking questions which are answered
instantly. You can raise any problem encountered in the course of your
study. To maximize the benefits of the course tutorials, it is advisable
that you prepare a question list before attending them. When you
participate in the discussions your intellectually life will be deeply
enriched.

Summary of the Course

This course is designed to help you understand the gospel in general and
the synoptic gospels in particular, under selected topics. In the course of
your study, you will be exposed to the origin of the gospels, the synoptic
gospels as well as the emergence of Christian Writings.
Your will also see the literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and
Luke. The Materials of this course cover the personalities and
authorship of the Synoptists, the date, the purpose of writing as well as
the special features of each synoptic writer, the universal aspect together
with the effects of Graeco-Romans and Jewish Cultures on the Synoptic
gospels shall equally be examined. The course will attempt to motivate
you by relating the there and then to the here and now.
On successful completion of this course, you will be able to answer
questions such as:

1. What bring about the synoptic problem?

2. What are the original sources for the gospels?
3. Which of the gospels is the first to be written?
4. What are the sources available to Matthew and Luke?
5. What is the full rendering of the source called Q?
6. What aspects of the Synoptic Gospels would Q explain?
7. What is the type of history reflected in the synoptic gospels?
8. Who is usually adopted as the author of the Gospel of Luke?

The questions you will able to answer should not be limited to the ones
above. The Synoptic Gospels is a course you will find revealing and
invigorating.

12
Course Code CTH213

Course Title The Synoptic Gospels

Course Developer/Writer Dr. A. O. Dairo

Olabisi Onabanjo University
Ago-Iwoye

Course Editor Dr. Olubiyi A. Adewale

National Open University of Nigeria
Lagos

Course Coordinator Dr. Jacob A. Owolabi

National Open University of Nigeria
Lagos

Programme Leader Dr. Olubiyi A. Adewale

National Open University of Nigeria
Lagos

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

13
National Open University of Nigeria
Headquarters
14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way
Victoria Island
Lagos

Abuja Annex
5, Dar es Salaam Street
Off Aminu Kano Crescent
Wuse II, Abuja
Nigeria

e-mail: centralinfo@[Link]
URL: [Link]

National Open University of Nigeria 2009

Printed 2009

ISBN: -------------------------------------

All Rights Reserved

Printed by ---------------------------------
For
National Open University of Nigeria

14
CONTENTS PAGES

Module 1 General Introduction and the Gospel of Mark

Unit 1 Preliminaries
Unit 2 The Synoptic Problem
Unit 3 The Composition of St. Mark
Unit 4 The Purpose of the Gospel of St Mark
Unit 5 Special Features of Mark

Module 2 The Gospel of Matthew

Unit 1 Preliminaries
Unit 2 The Sources of Matthew
Unit 3 The Purposes of Matthew
Unit 4 Special Features of Matthew’s Writings.

Module 3 The Gospel of Mark

Unit 1 Preliminaries
Unit 2 The Sources of Luke’s Gospel
Unit 3 Luke’s Purposes
Unit 4 Major Themes in St Luke
Unit 5 The Universalism of Luke’s Gospel

15
MODULE 1 General Introduction and the Gospel of Mark

UNIT 1 Preliminaries
UNIT 2 The Synoptic Problem
Unit 3 The Composition of St. Mark
Unit 4 The Purpose of the Gospel of St Mark
Unit 5 Special Features of Mark.

UNIT 1 PRELIMINARIES
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 The Meaning of the Gospel
3.2 Origin of the Gospels
3.3 The Synoptic Gospels
3.4 The Emergence of Christian Writings.
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction
The course, Synoptic Gospels introduces the students to the first three
gospels of the New Testament of the Bible. The word "synoptic" is
derived from two Greek words so and optonomia which means "with the
same eye" or "seeing together." Matthew, Mark, and Luke present the
basic story of Jesus in similar ways, including the order of the material,
the stories told, the sayings of Jesus, even using many of the same words
in parallel accounts. For this reason they are called the Synoptic
Gospels. The course equally examines the Synoptic Problem which is
not really a "problem" in the normal sense of the term. It is simply a way
to refer to questions and possible explanations about the literary
relationships between the first three New Testament Gospels.
In this unit, we shall examine what the gospel is all about, the primary
sense of the gospel and its use in early Christianity. We will equally
explore the origin of the Gospels as preserved in oral tradition and as

16
used by the gospellers. The concept of our course ‘’synoptic gospels’’ is
also analysed in order to know the appropriate well of the title from the
outset. Finally in this unit, we look at what brought about the emergence
of Christian writings during the 2nd half of the 1st century A.D.

2.0 Objectives
By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Define the word ‘gospel’

• Discuss the origin of the gospels
• Explain what the synoptic gospels is all about,
• Examine what brought about the emergence of Christian
writings.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 The Meaning of the Gospel
We have used the term "gospel" mainly to refer to a type of written
document, such as the first four books of the New Testament. But this is
really an extended meaning of the term. That use became prevalent in
the church only during the latter part of the second century. The primary
sense of "gospel" was "to proclaim good news." The term conveyed
sacred meanings in first century Greek vocabulary because it was used
in the Imperial cult, (a Greco-Roman pagan religion which worshiped
Caesar) to refer to the birth of an emperor god.

It means '"to bring good news" and was used in the Jewish scriptures to
refer to the naming of a king (1 Kings 1:42), the birth of a son (Jer.
20:15), and victory in battle (1 Sam. 31:8-10). The servant songs of
Isaiah celebrated the anticipation of the coming of the Servant of God
who would "proclaim the good news" of deliverance and of the
introduction of the new age, the restoration of the kingly rule of God
(Isa. 40: 1-5; 52:7-10).
With this background the implications were very profound and far-
reaching when early Christians used the term "gospel" to summarize the
preaching of Jesus.

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came

into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,
and saying. '"The time is fulfilled, and the
kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and
believe in the gospel "(Mark 1:14-16 ;)

In other words, the concept appears to have had its origin in the
public ministry of Jesus. But the early Christians expanded,
interpreted reapplied, and adapted the Jesus traditions. They did not

17
intend to confuse or deceive anyone. Although they changed the
stories, they were faithful to what they regarded as their Spirit-
endowed perception of how those traditions interacted with their
specific needs and problems. ·Even when they engaged in the Spirit-
inspired formulation of new words of the Lord it was not intended as
a subterfuge. It was a legitimate expression of their continuing
response to the living Lord of the church.

In the process of the transmission and development of the oral

tradition it was neither practically possible, nor appropriate for the
first Christians to maintain careful distinctions between Spirit-
inspired community constructions and authentic historical
reminiscence. It is unfair and insensitive for us to expect early
Christians to have valued and passed on exactly those traditions
which are of special interest to our contemporary curiosity. It is
equally unfair for us to expect them to have preserved classifications
of Jesus traditions governed by criteria which had not been defined
until the post-Enlightenment development of modern historiography.
Yet that is exactly what we demand when we want to know of a
particular tradition: "Did Jesus really say this?"

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1

Explain the term Gospel and when its use became prevalent in the
Church.

3.2 Origin of the Gospels

The authors of the Gospels in our New Testament drew heavily on
the fund of anecdotes about Jesus which had been preserved in oral
traditions. They used these stories as building blocks to construct
written narratives spanning the entire career of Jesus. The oral tradi-
tions they used still retained some of their features as oral forms.
They also frequently display evidence of some of the changes and
adaptations that took place in the process of oral transmission.

The stories about' Jesus were adapted yet once more. As the Gospel
writers included the traditions in their narratives they also introduced
changes. Some of the changes were literary changes. They were
necessary to incorporate the story smoothly into the flow of the
extended narrative. The evangelists introduced other changes" so that
the traditions in their Gospel narratives would explicitly support
theological ideas they thought were important. They also made some
alterations so that the stories of Jesus clearly spoke to the
troublesome issues with which the evangelists' own communities
were struggling.

18
Once these oral traditions were committed to writing they became
relatively stabilized. They were "fixed" in written form, which is not
nearly so susceptible to changes as verbal materials.. Yet, we need to
note two qualifications registered against that observation. First, the
oral stories continued to be used after the Gospels were written. They
continued to be adapted to other new life situations and to develop
concurrently with the use of the written Gospels. Second, the
stabilization of the oral traditions in written form was not so rigid or
immediately so sacrosanct that Matthew and Luke hesitated to
change Mark. To that extent we must still reckon with continued
change in the stories the church told about Jesus. That change
stopped only when the four Gospels in our New Testament came to
be regarded by they church as authoritative and normative.

A major task which confronted Mark as the first evangelist was the
construction of a continuous story out of the many single stories and
brief blocks of Jesus traditions which were in circulation. Here it is
clear that "gospel" does not mean a book nor even does it mean the life,
death, and resurrection of Jesus. It means the announcement of the in
breaking of the new age of God's rule. '

The early Christian community did not materially change the content of
that announcement when, on the conviction of its Easter faith, Christians
proclaimed Jesus as the mediator sent by God to establish that new age.
But they broadened the term significantly. It referred specifically now to
the death and resurrection of Jesus. The message of Jesus raised from
the dead was "gospel." Words about Jesus as living Savior were
"gospel". To preach the gospel meant to testify that Jesus was the
Messiah whom God had vindicated by raising him from the dead and
through whom he was continuing to work salvifically. It was "good
news" that in Jesus' death and resurrection the inbreaking of the new age
of God's rule had begun.

The gospel of the early church focused primarily on the proclamation of

the death and resurrection of Jesus. It urged the hearer to believe the
claim of God. If the listener received it faithfully and trustingly, it
accomplished salvation. This is the dominant sense in which Paul used
the term "gospel" It occurs some sixty times in the literature of the
Pauline corpus (see especially Rom. 1:1-5, 16; 1 Cor. 1: 17-24; 15: 1-5).
But later Christian writers also frequently used it in this sense (see Mark
13:10; 14:9).

Mark, however, also used the term, "gospel" in another way. He

introduced his composition with the words, "the beginning of the gospel
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1, italics added). In that
instance he used the term to refer not just to Jesus' death and

19
resurrection, but to the entire public ministry of Jesus which culminated
in the Passion narrative.

Mark shared Paul's conviction that the cross event was the central focus
of the Easter faith. His use of the term "gospel" to refer to the whole of
his narrative implied that in his view the earthly ministry traditions were
to be understood in a subordinate position to the Passion narrative. What
does that mean? Mark felt that the stories out of the ministry of Jesus
were not comprehensible unless they were heard on the presupposition
of the crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. "The earthly work of Jesus
is narrated as illustration of the message of Christ”. It may be identified
with the term "gospel" in so far as it illumines and clarifies that central
"gospel" content.

Mark was not disassociating the term "gospel" from the core content of
the Easter proclamation. By redefining the boundaries of what the term
encompassed he was refocusing the term and inviting further
development. Others were quick to take advantage of that. So Matthew's
phrase "the gospel of the kingdom" refers primarily to the collected
teachings of Jesus (Matt. 4:23; 24: 14). In Luke it is not Jesus' death but
his life and ministry which provide the pattern for Christian discipleship.
In his second volume, Acts, pivotal components of the ministry of Jesus
were duplicated in the missionary careers of Peter and Paul.

It was not until the second century gave way to the third that we find the
use of "gospel" as a designation for a book (Clement of Alexandria,
Stromata [Link]). Other evidence of the technical use of the term as a
designation for a type of literature is found in the numerous apocryphal
(literally "hidden," but then the word came to mean "non-canonical")
gospels produced by second, third, and fourth Century Christianity.
These include such works as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter,
the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the
Twelve, to name only a few.

We should note that when each of the canonical Gospels were written
the author meant for his document to be used by itself, and not
supplemented by other gospels. ''The formation of the four-gospel
Canon is an historical and theological development of the second
century which was neither intended nor foreseen by any of the Evan-
gelists".

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 2

Trace the history behind the origin of the Gospel.

20
3.3 The Synoptic Gospels

The synoptic Gospels are the first three Gospels in the New Testament:
The Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke.
They display a high degree of similarity in content, narrative
arrangement, language, and structure both in sentence and passage.
These gospels are also considered by Biblical scholars to share the same
point of view. The fourth canonical Gospel, the Gospel of John, differs
greatly from these three, as do the Apocryphal gospels. There is
interrelatedness between the first three Gospels that John does not share.
That interrelatedness is due partly to similar theological views and
beliefs. The similarity between the three is Gospels so pronounced that
scholars have grouped Matthew, Mark and Luke together as the
"Synoptic" Gospels. They may be set side by side and ''viewed together"
(that's what "synoptic" means) in a comparative way. These three
Gospels are the primary concern of this study.

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 3

Explain the concept of the synoptic gospels

3.4 The Emergence of Christian Writings

Christianity began in a culture which was predominantly oral. People
ordinarily communicated with one another verbally. This being the case,
Christians were more inclined to pass the stories about Jesus on by word
of mouth rather than to record them in writing. Other factors helped to
retard the production of documents about Jesus. Hand-written books
composed on hand-made paper were very expensive to produce. So
were duplicate volumes of the same work. Scribes tediously copied
them by hand. Apart from this during the early years of the church most
Christians were convinced that Jesus was going to return from heaven in
a very short while. They thought they were living in the last days of the
present order. The world as they know it would shortly come to an end.
They had more pressing work to do in the brief span of time left; such as
preaching, rather than writing books that soon no one would need
anyway.

We should not imagine, however, that no writing was being done by

Christians. Paul, of course, wrote frequent letters to Christian
communities with whom he had worked as a Christian missionary. At
least thirteen of his letters have been preserved in the New Testament.
But Paul did not intend to write "Scripture" that Christians would read
for centuries when he wrote those letters. He meant for them to
substitute for his own presence as he gave advice for problems in those
communities. He would have preferred to be with them himself. But

21
since he could not be there, writing a letter was the next best thing. Even
then, since it was an oral culture, Paul anticipated that his letters would
be read aloud so that the whole community could hear them. Other early
Christian missionaries such as Philip or Barnabas may have written
similar documents.

Some pressing short term needs prompted the composition of brief

collections of the stories of Jesus. Christians wrote them to use in
worship, or teaching, or missionary preaching, and so on. But, so far as
we' know, no one before Mark tried to compose a continuous account of
the entire career of Jesus. Circumstances were changing in early
Christianity which caused Christians to begin writing down the Jesus
traditions in these brief collections. Those same changing circumstances
eventually worked to encourage Mark and the other evangelists to
compose their Gospels.

The group of apostles and eyewitnesses who had accompanied Jesus

during his ministry was diminishing. They were the primary suppliers of
the stories about Jesus. They were also the only dependable authorities
to correct distortions. If there was uncertainty about a story or even a
detail of a story people could ask them. “What really happened?" But in
just a few years some were already dead and others were getting old. If
scholars are correct in dating the composition of the Gospel of Mark in
the late sixties then at least two and possibly more of "the Twelve" were
dead by then (Peter, James, the son of Zebedee, maybe his brother) as
well as the Apostle Paul.

At first most Christians expected Jesus to return quickly. As time went

on and he did not, their anticipation of the Parousia (his second coming)
lost its preoccupying vividness. Accordingly the Christian Community
became much more interested in preserving the' Jesus traditions. By
recording them they were more readily available as a resource to assist
the church. It used them to re-examine its own life in the light of the
postponement of Jesus' return. Collections of Jesus stories also were
consolidated and preserved for use in instructing new Christians. As
Christian missionaries succeeded in persuading new adherents to the
Christian faith, the converts required training in its beliefs and practices.
Collections of Jesus traditions served as resources for that educational
task. The church also had to begin to reckon with the need to
indoctrinate the next generations of Christians.

The worship requirements of early Christian communities had

stimulated the' writing of some traditions for liturgical use. Early
Christians read and reread the same stories during worship, and
particularly at major cult rituals and festivals. Christians do something
very similar today when they, for example, read and reread the nativity

22
stories during the Christmas season. Or, they return again and again to
Paul's account of the institution of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26)
when they observe that worship ritual. The growth and expansion of
Christianity produced differing versions of Christian belief and
behavior. Such diversities of religious opinion could lead to serious
disagreement and even open conflict. At first the apostles and the elders
of the Jerusalem Christian church served as authorities to whom appeal
for resolution of arguments could be made. As Christianity spread into
new areas the Jerusalem authorities were less accessible. When the size
of that ground dwindled Christians began to feel the need for some
alternate standard for determining acceptable Christian faith and
practice.

Some stories of Jesus proved particularly supportive and encouraging to

Christians who were being persecuted. As the incidents of persecution
increased in number and in severity Christians circulated tracts relating
stories to sustain those who were suffering. Anecdotes in which Jesus
was remembered to have target about steadfastness in the face of
persecution served this purpose So did the recollections of Jesus'
submissive obedience to the will of God as he suffered his own
martyrdom.

Early Christians were concerned with resolving the problem of their

relationship to Judaism. Christianity began as a sect within Judaism. At
that stage, its appeal to Jewish religious traditions, its use of the Jewish
Scriptures, and its adoption of certain Jewish: religious customs and
practices were understandable. As the distance between Christianity and
Judaism widened and the rift between them became more obvious,
Christians were challenged by their use of element of the Jewish
religion. As the church worked out its self-identity, written collections
of relevant Jesus traditions were helpful In some stories Jesus scolded
Jewish religious leaders for being hypocritical. In others he urged a
deeper and fuller grasp of the real significance of Judaism than his
religious Jewish contemporaries had attained. Such stories helped early
Christians both to understand and to explain to others the relationship
between Christianity and Judaism.

There is yet another reason why the writing down of the stories about
Jesus became imperative in early Christianity. As much as early
Christians loved those stories which they had heard and told so often,
that very love began to corrupt the Jesus traditions. For all of the stories
that were handed down about Jesus there were still gaps in his life
which those stories did not cover. Further, some of the stories ·were too
short to fully satisfy the eager curiosity of early believers. These led to
the additions to the traditions.

23
As fascinating as those additions to the more ancient stories about Jesus
were, early Christians soon became concerned that they not be accorded
the same authority as the older apostolic stories. As long as the stories of
Jesus were deposited only in the oral traditions it was difficult to
distinguish between early recollections and recent accounts. By
recording the earliest stories about Jesus in writing, the· early church
was then able to set them in a class apart from the other popular pious
stories. It thereby provided the means for protecting them from
distortion and addition.

Being influenced by the general changes occurring in early Christianity

each evangelist had his own special reasons for writing a Gospel. Each
author had his own particular theological interests and insights. Each
was influenced by the specific needs and troublesome problems which
were disturbing his own community. Each was concerned to advance
the spiritual well-being of his community by helping to speak to those
needs and those problems. It was these burning issues and these
theological insights which make each Gospel distinct.

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 4

What necessitated the writing of the gospels?

4.0 Conclusion
The factors we have just considered above stimulated early Christians to
gather some Jesus traditions into brief collections. The authors of the
Synoptic Gospels undoubtedly were affected by many of these
considerations. They drew on those abbreviated collections as sources
for their longer documents. They also included other Jesus stories which
they obtained from the oral tradition.
In order to appropriate what synoptic gospels is all about, there is the
need to fully understand the terms: gospels, its origin, synoptic gospels
and what brought about the written gospels. This is done in this unit
with the intention that such understanding will aid the student in critical
appreciation of the course.

5.0 Summary
The following are the major lessons learnt in this unit:

• "Gospel" has been used mainly to refer to “good news about

Jesus Christ” as contained in the first four books of the New
Testament.
• The gospels originated from oral tradition.

24
 • The synoptic gospel is about the interrelationship between the
first three gospels.

• Writing down the gospels provided the means for protecting them
from distortion and addition.

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. Why do we call the first three gospels synoptic?
2. Evaluate the reasons for the emergence of the written gospels.

7.0 References/Further Readings

Achtemeier, Paul J. (1991-). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible

Dictonary. 4. New York: Doubleday.

"Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark" available on

[Link] Retrieved
2008-01-15.

Helms, Randel. (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels? Altadena: Millennium

Press.

Keith F. Nickle. (1980). The Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: John Knox.

Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. New York: Doubleday.

Schelle, U. (1998). The History and Theology of the New Testament

Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress.

25
UNIT 2 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The Literary Relationship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke
3.2 The Problem
3.3 Proposed Solution
3.4 The Early Church Approach
3.5 The Priority of Mark
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

In the last unit, we were introduced to the title of our course. We equally
looked at the emergence of Christian writings. This unit is now taking us
to the heart of our course title-the synoptic gospels. Having been
familiar with what the synoptic gospels are in unit one, we shall now see
what really constituted the so called synoptic problem which is not
really a problem that could not be solved. In this unit, we shall examine
the relationship between the first three gospels that is, what made them
synoptic, look at the problems as well as the solution to the synoptic
gospels.

2.0 Objectives

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Relate the interrelationship between the first three gospels.

• Critically evaluate the synoptic problem,
• Identify the proposed solutions to the synoptic problem.
• Examine early Church’s solution to the problem.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 The Literary Relationship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke

The Synoptic Problem is not really a "problem" in the normal sense of

the term. It is simply a way to refer to questions and possible
explanations about the literary relationships between the first three New
Testament Gospels. The word "synoptic" means "with the same eye" or
"seeing together." Matthew, Mark, and Luke present the basic story of

26
Jesus in similar ways, including the order of the material, the stories
told, the sayings of Jesus, even using many of the same words in parallel
accounts. For this reason they are called the Synoptic Gospels. On the
other hand, while the Gospel of John sometimes resembles the other
three Gospels, it tells the story of Jesus in significantly different ways,
including a different order of events, different perspectives and points of
emphasis, and with its own unique vocabulary and style. Those
differences can be understood in no terms other than literary
relationships between the Gospels, this account for the omission of John
which is the reason John is not included in the Synoptic Problem.

To someone who has never studied the Gospels closely, or who has
assumed certain logically constructed theories about the nature of
Scripture apart from looking at the actual biblical text questions about
the literary relationship between the Gospels may be unnerving at first.
It is easy simply to reject them as scholarly speculations and academic
conjecture. Yet, these questions arise from the biblical text itself
questions obvious to anyone who takes the time to examine the biblical
text closely. If we are honestly to hear and understand Scripture on its
own terms, we will have to come to terms with this issue in ways that go
beyond simply denying that there is any issue because of a certain
theology or ideology about Scripture.

On the other hand, we need to concede at the beginning that there is no

final answer to this "problem." There are various perspectives,
hypotheses, and theories based on the evidence of biblical texts as well
as what we know about the process of writing. But there is none
"correct" answer. That simply suggests that while we need to take this
issue seriously as part of what we see in the biblical text as we have it, it
is not a matter of faith one way and academic on the other. Rather, it is
simply being honest with the biblical text and not trying to make it say
what it did not say or be what it is not. It is also acknowledging that we
do not have the answers to our logical questions before we can accept
the Bible as Scripture for the Church. The issue is not a matter of
believing or not believing the Bible; it is a matter of believing, and then
seeking to understand as best as we can that which we believe. It is
("faith seeking understanding.

So, you may ask why you should bother with the issue at all if there is
no "correct" solution to a "problem" that is not an essential matter of
Christian Faith. Here we return to a simple principle that grew out of the
Protestant reformation, the principle of sola scriptura, "only Scripture."
This principle, as one of the cornerstones of the Reformation, held that
Scripture should be the first and final authority for the faith and practice
of the Church, and that it should be allowed to stand in judgement over
all human creeds, doctrines, and traditions.

27
As that principle worked out in the history of the church in the centuries
following the Reformation, it meant a rigorous honesty with how
Scripture was studied. The goal was to hear the Bible as Scripture for
the church, neither in isolation from the traditions of the faith nor
captive to them. This allowed the development of critical methodologies
for the investigation of Scripture that included a careful and detailed
reading of the biblical texts for what they actually said apart from the
doctrines that told people what they should mean. This did not deny the
authority of the Bible as the inspired word of God. In fact, it affirmed it
even more strongly. But it did allow the biblical text to be seen as
something more than a repository of timeless and unchanging truths
written by the finger of God.

While not always as successful in objectivity as envisioned, these

critical methods allowed the tremendous diversity of the biblical text to
emerge, a diversity that had been masked for many centuries by
dogmatic and doctrinal approaches that sought to harmonize any
differences in the biblical text. The rich texture of the biblical traditions
emerged as the witness of various communities of faith over many
centuries to God's self-revelation in their history came to light. Like an
elegant tapestry, the Bible could be viewed on a broad scale as a
marvelous record of God's dealing with humanity, the story of God in
striking panorama. Yet, on closer inspection, the tremendous complexity
of the fabric and the threads that created the larger picture could now be
seen. Biblical study then turned to the careful examination of these
strands as a way to help understand the larger picture.

SELF ASSESMENT EXERCISE 1

Explain in details the reasons for calling the first three gospels synoptic

3.2 The Problem

The Synoptic Gospels share a great deal of material and features. There
are differences between them in many areas, some more pronounced
than others. Yet, all the questions about the differences arise precisely
because of the otherwise close parallels between the Synoptics. While
we might be able to answer some of these questions about differences as
a matter of context, culture, personality, or purpose, the parallels are not
as easily explained. The questions that arise about the literary
relationships between the Synoptic Gospels concern both the differences
as well as the similarities, although the similarities really focus the
questions. So, the Synoptic Problem is the way that serious students of
the Gospels attempt to understand the origins and interrelationships of
the first three Gospels that will explain both the similarities and the
differences between them.

28
So, an understanding of the "synoptic problem" is a crucial first step in
any detailed study of the Gospels and their testimony to Jesus the Christ,
simply because it allows us to begin with the witness of the biblical text
itself. That will not assure a student of the New Testament that
everything s/he concludes will be unbiased and objective. But it will
encourage us to listen to the text, to take it seriously even in all its
diversity, and will constantly warn us against a too easy and perhaps
unconscious manipulation of Scripture for any particular theological
agenda.

SELF ASSESMENT EXERCISE 2

What constituted the problem of the synoptic gospels?

3.3 Proposed Solutions

There are many suggestions and still more variations that attempt to
explain the relationship between the Gospels. Even with these, ranging
from simple to complex, they can basically be seen in terms of four
basic approaches. These are not specific proposals, but categories under
which the various proposals can be grouped for convenience. (Since the
issues are complex, specific textual evidence will not be given for any of
the proposals; consult a good book on New Testament Introduction,
such as Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament,
Doubleday, 1997).

3.3.1 Oral Tradition

This approach suggests that all of the differences in the Gospel tradition
can be explained in terms of a pre-existing Aramaic oral tradition. The
early preaching of the gospel was quickly reduced to a selected set of
core traditions that soon evolved into a rather fixed form in the church
because it was repeated so often. The differences arose because the core
tradition was preached in different circumstances that required
adaptation of the tradition.

While this reflects the second stage of the formation of the Gospel
tradition outlined above, it does not take seriously enough the specific
similarities and parallels of the written Gospel accounts in Greek. A
preexisting oral Aramaic tradition simply does not explain how the lrst
documentary hypothesis is a proposed solutions here and write briefly
on them indicate that they would be discussed fully under the sub-
sectors in which they later [Link] could be so similar in the
Greek text, This weakness probably explains why few people hold this
position today.

29
3.3.2 Interdependent

This approach suggests that in some way the later Gospels are more or
less dependent on one or more of the previous Gospels. That is, there is
some sort of sharing of material between the Gospels. While there are
many variations of the specifics of this approach, usually it assumes that
Mark was the first Gospel written, and that Matthew and Luke used the
written form of Mark. This also generally assumes that Matthew and
Luke wrote independently of each other for their own purposes.

3.3.3 Proto-Gospel

This approach generally assumes that the Gospels were composed from
a hypothetical written source that no longer exists. Again, there are
variations of this approach, but they generally revolve around two basic
suggestions, either that all of the Gospels were dependant on a posited
original Aramaic Gospel, perhaps an Aramaic version of Matthew, or
that they used a proposed collection of sayings (logia) of Jesus.

3.3.4 Fragmentary

This approach suggests that the Gospels used various hypothetical

sources that were available to them in the early church. These would
have been various collections or summaries or short accounts of Jesus'
actions and teachings that were preserved in various forms and places in
the church. For example, there may have been a collection of miracle
stories, or parables, or accounts of the crucifixion, or even a collection
of the sayings of Jesus. The various Gospel writers, who could have had
access to different documents or different versions of the collections,
then used these to compile their accounts

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 3

Examine various attempts to explain the relationship between the

Gospels.

3.4 The Early Church Approach

3.4.1 The Priority of Matthew

The specific formulation and study of these issues as "the Synoptic

Problem" is a relatively recent endeavor, dating to the 18th century and
the rise of the analytical study of Scripture as a result of the
Enlightenment. Yet, there had been previous observations about the
relationship of the Gospels and "traditional" conclusions had been
reached about them.

30
One of the earliest traditions comes from Papias around AD 125,
preserved in the writing of Eusebius. Papias concluded that the Gospel
of Mark was an interpretation (or perhaps translation) of the preaching
of Peter. He also observed that Mark was not a follower of Jesus but of
Peter, and that he wrote accurately but not in order. Only slightly later,
Justin in the mid second century referred to Mark as "Peter's memoirs."

Papias also observed that Matthew was written in a Hebrew style

(dialektô). Some have taken that comment to mean that Matthew was
originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and only secondarily translated
into Greek, a theory that persists to date.

From the order in which Papias treated the Gospels, we could infer that
he thought Mark was written before Matthew. Clement of Alexandria
writing around AD 200, also preserved in the writing of Eusebius,
commented that the Gospels with genealogies, presumably Matthew and
Luke, were written first. By the fifth century, the traditional order of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke had been established. Augustine writing
around AD 400 asserted that each Gospel was dependent on those
previous, with Mark simply an abbreviation of Matthew, Luke drawing
on both Matthew and Mark, and John using all three.

There have been some modifications to this basic view, such as J.

Griesbach's suggestion that the order should be Matthew, Luke, and then
Mark (called the Griesbach Hypothesis, 1783). This was an attempt to
explain some of the unique features of Luke as well as to explain why
Luke should be written at all if after Mark's abridgement of the tradition.
He also concluded that Mark was not just an abridgement of Matthew,
but actually a conflation of both Matthew and Luke. Strauss and Baur (c.
1835) continued to support a variation of the Griesbach Hypothesis,
only proposing a late date for the writing of all the Gospels (early to
mid-second century) and assuming that they were non-historical.

This basic view of the priority of Matthew as the first Gospel written has
remained the popular traditional view well into the 20th century. It still
has defenders among scholars who have posited a very complex matrix
of sources to explain the relationships between the Gospels based on the
assumption of Matthew's priority. Still, the main argument for the
priority of Matthew is the almost unanimous voice of the early church
tradition that places Matthew first.

3.4.2 The Rise of Analytical Study: A Proto-Gospel

However, with the rise of more analytical investigation of Scripture in

the 18th century, the problems with the traditional order of the Gospels
as well as their relationship became more apparent. Without as many

31
constraints of dogma and tradition concerning authorship and the order
of the Gospels, historians and biblical scholars of the late 18th and early
19th century began to look more closely at the Gospels themselves.
They began to discover the features that pointed to a more complex
relationship between the Gospels.

The first attempt to address this issue was to posit a primitive version of
the gospel traditions. There are two basic directions in which this
proposal developed: early proposals that saw a no longer extant Aramaic
original, and much more recent variations that propose various non-
canonical (apocryphal) gospels that have been discovered as the original
source.

3.4.3 An Aramaic Original

In some ways, Augustine's idea of the priority of Matthew used as a

source by the Gospels written later was the first formulation of the idea
of an original Gospel. But the first real analytical proposal that
attempted to trace sources beyond the canonical Gospels was toward the
end of the 18th century. G. Lessing (1784) proposed that all of the
Gospels were dependant on an original proto-gospel (Urevangelium,
original or primitive gospel). He thought that this pre-canonical gospel
was likely written in Aramaic and was used by the Synoptic writers. J.
Eichorn (1794) refined Lessing's proposal and suggested that the
original Aramaic Gospel was a full account of the life of Jesus, and
existed in four slightly different versions, which would explain the
differences between the Synoptics.

There is still discussion today of the possibility that the Gospel of

Matthew might have been originally written in Aramaic. However, the
idea that the entire gospel tradition originated from a "master" Aramaic
original has few supporters.

3.4.4 Apocryphal Gospel

With the explosion of interest in the Ancient Near East in the 19th
century, there were many new archaeological discoveries that included
hoards of ancient manuscripts. Some of these proved to be various early
Christian writings that included epistles and Gospels that were not
accepted into the canon of the New Testament. At first these apocryphal
or pseudigraphical Gospels (pseudipigraph = a document written under
the name of a well-known person, such as The Gospel of Thomas), were
viewed as interesting historical documents, but were obviously different
from the canonical Gospels.

32
However, in recent years, there has been renewed interest in the
apocryphal gospels as a source of information about the formation of the
gospel tradition. M. Smith (1973) and H. Koester (1983) have proposed
that Secret Mark, a second century writing preserved in only small
fragments, was actually the original written form of the gospel tradition.
J. D. Crossan (1985) has suggested that both Secret Mark and an early
version of the Gospel of Peter were the original sources of all four
canonical Gospels. These are all variations of the idea of a proto-gospel,
although none of these proposals has gained acceptance.

A much more popular suggestion revolves around the idea of "Q" (from
the German word quelle, "source," J. Weiss, 1890). This is a designation
given to a hypothetical document thought to be a collection of various
sayings of Jesus from which the Gospel writers compiled at least parts
of their Gospels. There are various proposals for both the content of Q
and how it fits into the formation of the Gospels with some suggesting a
larger role than others. Some scholars have attempted a reconstruction
of what Q might have contained, although there is disagreement on the
details

The discovery of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas in 1945 lent support to

the idea of a Q document. Thomas is a collection of various sayings of
Jesus without any connecting narrative. About one-half of the 114
verses of Thomas have no parallel in the canonical Gospels, and another
one-third only appear in rough correspondence. Yet the number of
similarities between Thomas and the Synoptics gives some support to
the idea of an independent collection of sayings of Jesus that could have
been a source document for the Gospels. Of course, the date of writing
of Thomas is an important consideration. Some suggest that Thomas was
written much later than any of the Gospels, which would suggest that it
used the Gospels as sources rather than being a source for any of the
Gospels.

3.5 The Priority of Mark

3.5.1 The Two Document Hypothesis

As scholars worked more with the Gospels, the complexity of the

Gospel traditions became more apparent. Many scholars concluded that
the questions raised about the relationship for the Synoptics could not be
adequately explained by assuming that Matthew was the first Gospel
written.

As a result, a new proposal for Gospel formation emerged based on the

view that Mark, or some early form of Mark (Urmarkus), was the first
Gospel written. Weiss, in a series of proposals in which he gradually

33
refined his view (1838-1856), concluded that both Matthew and Luke
were written independently from each other using two basic sources.
The early form of Mark that contained material shared by all three
Synoptics was supplemented by a separate collection of the sayings of
Jesus (logia) that contained material shared by Matthew and Luke but
not by Mark (the Double Tradition). This became known as the Two
Source Hypothesis.

This understanding of Gospel formation continued to be refined and

challenged throughout the 19th and early 20th century. The major
debates about this theory revolved around how much the posited early
form of Mark (Urmarkus) differed from the canonical Mark. Hawkins
(1899) and Burkitt (1906) concluded that they were virtually identical,
while Abbott (1901) argued for a later edited version of the canonical
Mark (recension) that was used by the other Synoptic writers. Others
modified other aspects of the hypotheses, for example R. Gundry (1979;
earlier proposed by Holtzmann, 1880) who suggested that Luke also
used some material from Matthew, which would functionally yield a
three-source hypothesis.

These ongoing debates reveal that not all the details had been addressed,
and that the Two-Source Hypothesis could not explain all the features of
the Gospels. Still, it remains today the simplest and one of the most
widely accepted ways to understand the literary relationship of the
Synoptics.

3.5.2 The Four Source Hypothesis

Scholars kept trying to refine the theories to explain more of both the
similarities and differences in the Synoptics. That search led B. Streeter
(1924) to modify the Two Source Hypothesis by expanding the number
of posited sources. He rejected the idea of an early form of Mark, and
saw Matthew and Luke using the canonical Mark as a source. Yet, for
the material unique to each of those two Gospels, he also posited a
separate source that he labeled M for Matthew and L for Luke. In other
words, Matthew had access not only to Mark but also to his own M
source, while Luke also had access to Mark but also to his own L
source. Both Matthew and Luke depended on Mark, but were written
independently of each other. He agreed with the earlier Two Document
theory that both Matthew and Luke had access to a sayings collection
(logia or Q) unavailable to Mark, but also posited that the L and Q
sources were combined first into an early version of Luke that was later
combined with the material from Mark to produce the canonical Luke.

This became known as the Four Source Hypothesis. The four original
sources were Mark, L, M, and Q, with Matthew using Mark, M, and Q

34
while Luke used Mark, L, and Q. Through the remainder of the 20th
century there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's
hypothesis, such as Parker (1953) who posited an early version of
Matthew (proto-Matthew) as the primary source of both Matthew and
Mark, and a Q source used by Matthew and Luke, with Mark also
providing material for Luke.

4.0 Conclusion

What is clear from this brief survey of the Synoptic tradition is that there
is no certain picture of how the Gospels were formed in terms of
sources. There is no single theory of documents or sources that
definitively demonstrate how all the similarities and differences in the
Synoptic tradition can be explained. Today, most people accept either
the Two Document or Four Source Hypotheses as being most
reasonable, probably with the majority leaning to the Four Source
Hypotheses. Today most allow a role for some form of a Q document,
although there remains little agreement on the details of how it was used
or what it contained.

But this should not be taken as saying that there is no value in any of
this research. What Synoptic studies have shown us is that the Gospel
traditions were truly living traditions passed on by a living community
of Faith and used in that community. This has tremendous implications
not only for how we study the Gospels, but also how we formulate our
view of the nature of Scripture. In addition, the Gospels writers did not
change the basic truth of the tradition in its testimony to Jesus as the
Christ and God's self-revelation of Himself in Jesus. But they did treat
its message as a living tradition that could be applied and reapplied in
the life of the community of Faith to call people to faithful response to
that revelation, and to God. That may be the greatest insight we can
learn from the study of the Synoptic Problem, because finally, for most
of us, that is still our task today and is the purpose for which we study
Scripture

5.0 Summary
The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• That there is close affinity between the gospels’

• That the problem of the synoptic gospels is on their relationship
• That there is no permanent acceptable solution to the synoptic
problem; inspite of various suggestions and approaches.
• That the research is valuable in showing us that the Gospel
traditions were truly living traditions.
• Two document hypothesis and four document hypothesis are the
most acceptable today.

35
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
1. Explain four various solutions proposed to solve the synoptic
problem.

2. Account for the priority of Mark.

7.0 References/Further Readings

Harris, Stephen L. (1985). Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto:

Mayfield.

Keith F. Nickle (1980). The Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: John Knox.

McNeile, A.H. (1927). An Introduction to the Study of the New

Testament. Oxford: University Press. also available on
[Link] Retrieved 10th
July, 2009.

Schelle, U. (1998). The History and Theology of the New Testament

Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress.

36
UNIT 3 THE COMPOSITION OF MARK
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3. 1 Authorship of St. Mark
3.2 Mark’s Literary Characteristics
3.3 Mark’s Literary Accomplishment.
3.4 The Literary Unity of Mark
3.5 Persecution and the End of the World
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction
In the last unit, we examined the interrelationship between the synoptic
gospels, evaluated the synoptic problems with the proposed solutions.
Now that you have a full grasp of what synoptic gospel is all about you
will now be introduced to what the book of Mark is, starting with the
authorship, John Mark (the acclaimed interpreter of St. Peter). His
literary characteristics, accomplishment and unity shall be examined.
We shall discover as well that Mark combined many stories about Jesus
into a connected narrative to produce a composite Jesus. He composed
his gospel of Jesus with a narrative- simplicity marked by a vivid and
refreshing sense of realism. Mark's major literary achievement was that
of taking the various types of Jesus traditions and welding them to the
church's, preaching. No doubt, having gone through this unit you will be
able to situate Mark appropriately.

2.0 Objectives

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Relate the argument surrounding the authorship of Mark

• List Mark’s Literary Characteristics
• Evaluate Mark’s Literary Accomplishment
• Discuss the literary unity of Mark and
• Explain Mark’s theological understanding of the end of the
world.

37
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Authorship of Mark
The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd
century, a text was attributed to Mark, a cousin of Barnabas., who was
said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Papias' authority in this
was John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it
was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea: “This, too, the presbyter used to
say. ‘Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but
not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings.
For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers.” Peter used
to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic
arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in
writing down some of the things as he remembered them. For he had
one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make
no mis-statement about it.
Irenaeus concurred with this tradition, as did Origen of Alexandria,
Tertullian and others. Clement of Alexandria, writing at the end of the
2nd century, reported an ancient tradition that Mark was urged by those
who had heard Peter's speeches in Rome to write what the apostle had
said. Following this tradition, scholars have generally thought that this
gospel was written at Rome. Among recent alternate suggestions are
Syria, Alexandria, or more broadly any area within the Roman Empire.
In any case, many scholars do not accept the Papias citation as a reliable
representation of the Gospel's history, pointing out that there is no
distinctive Petrine tradition in Mark. It has been argued that there is an
impending sense of persecution in the Gospel, and that this could
indicate it being written to sustain the faith of a community under such a
threat. As the main Christian persecution at that time was in Rome under
Nero, this has been used to place the writing of the Gospel in Rome.
Furthermore, it has been argued that the Latinized vocabulary employed
in Mark (and in neither Matthew nor Luke) shows that the Gospel was
written in Rome. Also cited in support is a passage in First Peter: "The
chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son"
(1Pet.5:13). In citing this quotation, Babylon is interpreted as a
derogatory or code name for Rome, as the famous ancient city of
Babylon ceased to exist in 275 BC.
Self-Assessment Exercise 1
Who wrote the book of Mark?

3.2 Mark's Literary Characteristics

Mark wrote with a simple, popular literary style. We do not have list of
his sources. (They ordinarily did not add bibliographies to the end of

38
literary works in those days.) We assume that he had access some brief
collections of Jesus traditions. Perhaps he drew from those already in
use in his community. Presumably he supplemented those stories with
others still being told as independent, self-contained anecdotes.

Mark bound the stories of Jesus which he collected from a variety

sources into one continuous, extended narrative. He established the
sequence of the stories, often, by the very simple device of using
indefinite connectives such as "and, "again." "then, "immediately," "in
those days," "then going out" and so on (see Mark 1:9; '13; 3:1, 13, 19,
31, etc.). Since the connectives which Mark used frequently are vague
and nonspecific, his narrative sometimes seems tied together.

Mark supplied additional "narrative glue" (what held his account

together) by using narrative anticipation. When a major new develop-
ment or event was impending Mark provided advance preparation for
hearers. For instance, in Mark 3:9 the disciples are instructed to a boat
in anticipation of Mark 4: 1 when Jesus instructed a large crowd from
the boat. Or again, in Mark 11: 11 Jesus briefly visited the temple in
Jerusalem in advance of the "cleansing of the Temple" (Mark 11:15-19).
A third example: Mark described Peter's attitude in the courtyard of the
high priest (Mark 14:54) in anticipation of the "three-fold denial"
anecdote (Mark 14:66-72).

When Mark combined many stories about Jesus into a connected

narrative he produced a composite of Jesus. Mark composed his gospel
of Jesus with a narrative- simplicity marked by a vivid and refreshing
sense of realism.

Though acknowledging Jesus as Son of God, Mark is quite candid about

his human nature. The moods and emotions which he ascribed to Jesus
are richer and more varied than in any of the other canonical Gospels.
Jesus becomes angry, tires, hungers, groans, pities, wonders and so on.

Another feature which is characteristic of Mark's Gospel is his

preference for the miracle stories. Compared with the content of the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark recorded a smaller amount of the
teaching traditions of Jesus. He stressed those traditions which described
Jesus' extraordinary deeds. We will return to this observation when we
consider the purposes for which Mark wrote. The prominence of the
miraculous in the Gospel of Mark has prompted some scholars to
suggest that there may have been an earlier version of Mark. That
version, which has not survived supposedly, contained mostly miracle
stories. This suggestion of a more primitive version behind the Gospel
of Mark in the New Testament has not won wide acceptance.

39
We can find abundant evidence in the Gospel of Mark that indicates he
wrote his Gospel for the benefit of a Gentile Christian community.
When he included Aramaic words or alluded to Jewish customs he
thoughtfully provided explanations for these foreign elements (Mark
5:41; 7:3-4, 11, 34; 15:22). On the other hand he simply transliterated
Latin words into Greek without any clarification (Mark 4:21; 5:9, 15;
12:15; 15:16, 39). Nor did he explain references to Roman coins (Mark
6:37; 12:42; 14:5) or facets of Roman law, even when it contradicted
accepted Jewish custom (Mark 10:12). Apparently Mark could count on
his community's prior acquaintance with those things.

But even if they were Gentile, how do we know that Mark's intended
hearers were Christian? The cumulative effect of several observations
seems to leave their Christian identity beyond doubt. Mark used the term
"gospel" as a technical term which he assumed his audience knew
(Mark 1:1, 14-15, 10:29; 13:10, 14:9). He introduced unidentified
characters into his narrative (John the Baptist in Mark 1:4; Simon and
Andrew in 1:16, and frequently elsewhere), expecting his readers to
recognize them on their own. In addition, he assumed throughout his
entire work that his readers already knew the stories and teachings of
Jesus.

Self-Assessment Exercise 2
Account for the literary style of St. Mark.

3.3 Mark's Literary Accomplishment

During the early stages of form criticism some scholars badly

undervalued Mark's literary achievement. They simplistically described
him as being little more than a collector of the oral traditions about
Jesus. His contribution as editor was thought of as mainly that of
stringing the beads of the oral tradition into a narrative necklace.
Scholars now generally recognize that view to be a serious
underestimation of the literary ingenuity and theological investment
which Mark brought to his task. As is true with each one of the Gospels
the Gospel of Mark must be granted its own autonomy as a theologically
informed and motivated religious work. Our acknowledgement and
appreciation of the integrity of the composition for its own sake is
essential for our interpretive understanding. We misuse the Gospels if
we regard them simply as colorless source documents from which we
may draw information to construct a composite reproduction of the
"real" Jesus. Each Gospel is a distinct, theologically formed portrait of
the same' Lord of the church.

Mark's recording of the earlier oral tradition material was not motivated

40
solely by antiquarian interest. He did not record the stories of Jesus in an
extended narrative form just to preserve old folk tales. When he wrote
those traditions down he wanted to update, adapt, and apply them to the
needs of his community. This observation has both negative and positive
implications. Negatively, Mark did not write "his Gospel to "do history."
That does not mean he was not interested in Jesus as a historical person.
It does suggest that he wrote the Gospel for purposes other than simply
passing on informational data.

On the basis of the nature of the pre-Markan forms of the Jesus

traditions, it follows that the order of events in the Markan narrative is
not a very reliable guide for the chronological reconstruction of Jesus'
public ministry except in the broadest, most general terms. Though a
few segments of the sequence may have been .established in some of the
brief pre-Markan collections the order of the narrative is mainly the
product of Mark's own redaction.

With this recognition we discover important clues to Mark's special

theological interests. It is in the ordering of the units of the tradition and
in the editorial connectives which Mark provided to join them into
narrative sequence that we discern most clearly his special theological
emphases. For example, geographical references and "messianic secret"
motifs, occur mainly in the connective links. The cumulative
interpretive effect which the ordering of accounts together can have may
be observed in Mark 2:1-3:6. Mark accumulated individual conflict
traditions into an extended series of controversies, one following the
other. This produced the effect of intensifying the hostility which Jesus'
enemies directed toward him. Mark explicitly confirmed his purpose in
this section with the concluding verse: Jesus' enemies plot to destroy
him (Mark 3:6).

Positively, Mark's major literary achievement was that of taking the

various types of Jesus traditions and welding them to the church's."
preaching of the crucified and risen Christ. He thereby established
controls and set limits for the interpretation of the traditions. He also
firmly anchored the church's cross-event proclamation in the history of
the earthly Jesus. He was employing the Jesus traditions to provide a
broad narrational history which embodied a saving event of eternal
dimensions. He described that saving event in the climax to his work the
Passion narrative.

We are thereby forced to regard all of the episodes in the public ministry
of Jesus as anticipatory prefigurements of the passion. That is, each
incident is obscure (and even misleading and deceptive) until it is
interpreted from the controlling perspective of the crucifixion and
resurrection. We cannot fully understand what Jesus' call of the first

41
disciples meant (Mark 1:16-20), or his feeding of the five thousand
(Mark 6:3-44), or his being anointed with expensive oil (Mark 14:3-9)
until we hear these stories in the light of Good Friday and Easter. This is
why Mark’s as passion narrative is described as a ‘’passion with an
extended introduction’’.

Self-Assessment Exercise 3

Why was Mark’s literary achievement grossly undervalued in the early

days of form criticism?

3.4 The Literary Unity of Mark

Mark composed his Gospel as a single literary work. It was not a

collection of stories about Jesus. It was the story of Jesus, the Son of
God. Mark intended that it be read in its entirety. When we fail to do so
we miss perceiving important features of his story which he developed
over extended sections of the narrative. Yet regularly in contemporary
worship services Christians read and hear expounded only individual
sections from Mark's Gospel. When that occurs they are really being
confronted by forms of Jesus stories from the pre-Markan tradition
(though they have perhaps been modified by Mark). But they are not
hearing the Gospel of Mark.

For example, only when we read the Gospel of Mark straight through,
as a single story, do we notice the development of the major groups of
characters, the "actors," in the Markan narrative drama. Unless we read
the Gospel in its entirety we miss the movement of roles Mark assigned
to the religious leaders, the crowds, most important of all, the disciples.
The Jewish religious leaders (Pharisees, scribes, priests, etc.) are the
enemies of Jesus throughout. Mark took care to picture them as those
whose hostility intensifies from hypercritical resentment (Mark 2:7) to
murderous antipathy (Mark 11:18; 14:1-2) and who, finally, are
responsible for his unjust execution.

The crowds of people provide sharp contrast to the animosity of the

religious leaders (Mark juxtaposes both reactions numerous times: Mark
2:12; 3:1-12; 3:20-22; etc.). They embody popular unreflective
enthusiasm, and flock to Jesus, eager for his teaching and captivated by
his miracles. The few instances when they respond negatively (5:17;
6:2) anticipate the time when their fickle allegiance shifts to the enemies
of Jesus, the religious leaders (14:43; 15:8, 11). The disciples, especially
the Twelve, are that part of the crowd who enter into a closer
relationship with Jesus. Their initial imperceptiveness about who he
really is, and 'what his work is really about deteriorates into purposeful,
intentional misunderstanding that culminates in abandonment of the

42
Gospel at a time. But there is no doubt that Mark must have had
compelling reasons which moved him to compose his Gospel. He did
not write it simply as a hobby to entertain himself in his idle moments.
Neither was he solely interested in gathering together as many facts as
possible about the earthly career of Jesus so others who read his work
would know more about him. Mark wrote to be of service to his own
community.

Self-Assessment Exercise 4

Evaluate Mark’s literary unity.

4.0 Conclusion
From this unit we have been able to establish the authorship of Mark
through the support of both internal and external evidences. The style of
his writing through the sequence of the stories, often, by the very simple
device of using indefinite connectives were highlighted. We were able
to see as well that Mark composed his Gospel as a single literary work.
It was not a collection of stories about Jesus. It was the story of Jesus,
the Son of God which he intended that it be read in its entirety. The
belief in the nearness of the end of the world provided him with the
perspective to help his community cope with the sufferings which
threatened them.

5.0 Summary
The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• That the author of St. Mark was John Mark

• That the literary characters of Mark was simple style
• That Mark did not write his gospel to do history.
• That there is unity in Mark’s gospel

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. Why was Mark misunderstood in the early days of Form Criticism?
2. Evaluate Mark’s literary style.

7.0 References/Further Readings

Harris, Stephen L. (1985). Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto:
Mayfield.

McNeile, A.H. (1927). An Introduction to the Study of the New

Testament. Oxford: University Press. Chap. available on
[Link] Retrieved 10th
july,2009’
43
Schelle, U. (1998). The History and Theology of the New Testament
Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress.

44
UNIT 4 THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL OF ST MARK.
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 Increase Faith
3.2 The Doctrine of Christ.
3.3 Jesus the Agent of God.
3.4 Persecution and the end of the World
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

In the previous last unit we examined the authorship of Mark, his

literary characteristics as well as Mark’s literary accomplishment. In this
unit the purpose of Mark’s gospel is treated in detail. Mark came out to
strengthen his community's faith in Jesus as the Christ, the resurrected
Son of God. Earlier, salvation was being presented as something
.belonging to the past. Mark's major editorial task was to counteract that
effect He did so by presenting Jesus in the narrative as the Saviour. In
this unit as well we shall look at Mark’s believe in the nearness of the
end of the world which provided him the opportunity of helping his
community cope with the sufferings which threatened them.

2.0 Objectives

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Relate in clear terms the purpose of writing St. Mark
• Critically examine the doctrine of Christ as contained in Mark
• Evaluate Mark’s concept of Jesus as the Agent of God.
• Explain Mark’s view of persecution and the end of the World

3.0 Main content

3.1 Increase Faith
Mark's primary purpose in writing his Gospel was to strengthen his
community's faith in Jesus as the Christ, the resurrected Son of God. He
composed his connected story of Jesus out of well-known independent
stories about Jesus to evoke a more intense commitment. We should
therefore think of the Gospel of Mark in its entirety as one proclamation.
It is not a collection of anecdotes about Jesus. It is a unified presentation

45
of Mark's own faith, whose reading, Mark fervently hoped would call
forth strong belief from the reader. As Willi Marxsen has described it,
“The evangelist proclaims the One who once appeared as the One who
is to come, and who ... is present now and on whom the proclamation is
made”.
It is interesting to note that Mark's very act of writing the story of Jesus
tended to work against this primary goal when early Christians told
stories of Jesus to illustrate their gospel preaching. Mark collected the
stories and used them as part of his written story about Jesus. In so
doing he removed from them that atmosphere of urgency. He his-
toricized those stories. That is, potentially, salvation was being
presented as something .belonging to the past. One of Mark's major
editorial tasks was to counteract that effect He did so by presenting
Jesus in the narrative as the Saviour who presents God's claim to the
reader (or hearer) in the act of reading the work itself.

Self-Assessment Exercise 1
Why did Mark need to increase the Faith of the people of his
community.

3.2 The Doctrine of Christ

Mark's understanding of who Jesus was is reflected in the titles which he

used to refer to Jesus in his Gospel. The titles which appear most
frequently are "Rabbi," "Christ," "Son of man," "Son of God." In spite
of the fact that the title "Rabbi" or "Teacher" occurs often, these titles
did not carry great theological meaning for Mark. The titles were terms
of respect used to address learned persons (in the case of "Rabbi," great
teachers of the Jewish law). They did not necessarily indicate any
unique, messianic concept. The terms probably appeared frequently as
forms of respectful address in the oral stories about Jesus' teachings.
Although Mark had great respect for the teaching traditions he preferred
to emphasize those stories which described Jesus' miraculous deeds.
We'll see why later.

The title, "Christ," is, of course; derived from the Greek translation of
the Hebrew "Messiah." A curious thing occurs in Mark with regard to
this title. Mark included three traditions in which Jesus was described as
speaking the title (Mark 9:41; 12:35; 13:21). But in none of them does
he explicitly apply it to himself. Twice when others applied the title to
him in his hearing (Mark 8:29; 14:61) Jesus responded with a saying
referring to the "Son of man" which appears to be offered as a corrective
to the use of the title "Christ." Mark considered the title to be perfectly
appropriate when applied to Jesus (Mark 1:1). Mark even seemed to be
used to others calling him and his fellow Christians by that name (Mark

46
9:41). This strongly suggests that though Mark believed that Jesus was
the Messiah promised in the Jewish Scriptures: he used the messianic
title "Christ" guardedly as against how it was being misunderstood by
some in his community.

The title "Son of man'" plays a prominent role in the Gospel of Mark.
The title had its roots in the Jewish religious traditions, though scholars
are uncertain about the precise stages in its pre-Christian development.
Its Jewish heritage made it readily expressive of a more than human
figure who will come in power and glory at the end of the world. Mark
was familiar with that significance (Mark 8:38;' 13:26; 14:62). But he
balanced that meaning of "Son of man" with another “which was very
important for him. He used it prominently in the middle section of his
Gospel.

Three times Jesus used Son of man sayings not to portray end-time glory
but to predict his fate (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34). The Son of man must
be rejected, delivered up, must suffer, be killed, and rise again. In
Mark's use of "Son of man" the themes of glory and authority converge
with the necessity for suffering. Mark wanted it understood that no view
of Christ is complete unless both dimensions are present.

Another title far Jesus which Mark emphasized was "Son of God." That
it was particularly meaningful for Mark is indicated by his use of it both
at the beginning (Mark 1:1) and at the end (15:39) of his Gospel. Again
we find the roots for the title firmly embedded in Jewish religious
traditions as reflected in the Jewish Scriptures. For Mark the title
expressed Jesus' unique relationship to God. The identity of Jesus as Son
of God was incontestable. The demons whom Jesus cast out recognized
him (Mark 3:11). God himself acclaimed Jesus as his Son at his baptism
(Mark 1: 11) and again at the transfiguration (Mark 9:7). Even a non-
believer who was present at the crucifixion perceived Jesus' true identity
(15:39). The purpose of Mart's Gospel is to argue how much more those
confronted with the good news of the resurrection (i.e., Mark's own
community) ought to acknowledge Jesus as Son of God-just as Mark
does himself (Mark 1:1)

Self-Assessment Exercise 2

Explain different titles being used for Jesus as contained in Mark.

3.3 Jesus, the Agent of God

As we saw earlier Mark placed great emphasis on the miracle stories. He

stressed the miracle traditions to present Jesus as the special agent of

47
God. Behind this aspect of Mark's "Jesus portrait" was the belief
common to early Christians (and others) that God and Satan were locked
in a massive cosmic struggle. Satan had usurped God's right to rule in
his creation. God willed to win it back.

Mark portrayed Jesus as the special agent of God. He was endowed with
supernatural power and authority. His mission was to inaugurate God’s
reclamation of his creation. Through Jesus God was restoring his right to
rule over the whole of his created order. When Jesus calmed the storm
(Mark 6:47-52), he was· replacing the chaos characteristic of Satan's role
with that order which God had once established over the chaotically
stormy waters at creation. When Jesus healed or restored to 'life (Mark
5:21-43) he was restoring life-force where there was death or its
potential, on behalf of God who created life. When Jesus cast out
demons (Mark 1:23-28) he was routing agents of Satan in order that God
might once again rule in human hearts. Though Satan did his worst
through those over whom he ruled by causing them to kill Jesus. God
vindicated him as his agent by raising him from the dead. In Jesus' deeds
and in his ultimate fate God showed himself to be the life-giver. He won
the cosmic struggle with Satan and his forces of death.

Self-Assessment Exercise3

Highlight Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as the special agent of God.

3.4 Persecution and the End of the World

Mark's community was living in turbulent times and Mark wanted them
to understand the turmoil theologically. The political unrest stirred by
the insurrection of Jewish nationalists against Rome was increasing in
intensity. Recently a savage persecution of Christians in Rome had been
ordered by the Emperor Nero (Tacitus Annals XV:44). News of the
martyrdoms of both Peter and Paul was probably fresh in their minds.
Now Mark's own community was facing the prospect of persecution.
They may have already suffered its initial onslaughts.

Apparently the community was encountering opposition from two

fronts. People were not responding with faith to their preaching. Mark
pointed out repeatedly that unbelief and hardness of heart in response to
their preaching. To him this was extremely serious and would be re-
compensed. It was especially true of the leaders of a Judaism which had
rejected the gospel and had become more intense in its enmity toward
Christianity. Mark's community was also facing (and perhaps already
experiencing) persecution from pagan authorities, and Mark was eager
to strengthen them in their resolve to stand fast against such suffering.

48
Mark related the realities of his community's situation to their belief that
Jesus would return soon and the world would end. Unrest and wars and
persecutions were signs or the impending end (Mark 13:7-9). Mark's
community was living in a time impregnated with the quality of end-
time urgency (Mark 4:29; 9:1; 12:1-11). But Mark did not want them to
go overboard with end-of-the-world fanaticism. Though, the time was
near, the end had not actually already begun (Mark 13:6-7, 10, 21-23).
No one should allow extreme expectations to disillusion and disappoint
them when Jesus' second coming was delayed yet a little while. There
was still an interim time before Jesus' return when Christians must
remain faithful and alert.

This belief in the nearness of the end of the work provided Mark with
the perspective to help his community cope with the sufferings which
threatened them. Persecution was one sign of the approach of Jesus'
second coming. Christians were to undergo suffering and distress as a
prelude to his return. As Jesus had fulfilled his mission through
suffering so were they to be supported and strengthened by his example.
The first disciples had faced the same perils and hatred which Jesus had
known. So must the Christians of Mark's community conduct
themselves (Mark 13:9-13). Suffering Son of man set the· model for
suffering discipleship (Mark 8:31, 34-38; 10:33-34, 3&-40). Perhaps
Mark emphasized the denial of Peter (Mark 14:29-31, 53-72) to
encourage some in his own community who had already denied their
faith during persecution.

In all of this Mark was not simply hoping that his fellow-Christians
would become more accurately informed about what Jesus did before he
was killed,' or where he did it, or to whom. "Mark was concerned to
teach that the theological meaning of the cross can best be understood
by one who has humbly prepared himself for a renunciation of self, for a
life of service and, if need be, of suffering and martyrdom.

Self-Assessment Exercise 4
How did Mark illustrate the imminent end of the world in his theology?

4.0 Conclusion

Mark as could be seen from this unit did not just write for writing sake,
he wrote because he had a message. The gospel narrates the life of Jesus
of Nazareth from his baptism by John the Baptist to the resurrection (or
to the empty tomb in the shorter recension), but it concentrates
particularly on the last week of his life (chapters 11-16, the trip to
Jerusalem), to show him as the special agent of God. Its swift narrative
portrays Jesus as a heroic man of action, an exorcist, a healer and

49
miracle worker. It calls him the Son of Man, the Son of God, and the
Christ (the Greek translation of Messiah).

5.0 Summary

The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• Mark used various titles such as ‘’Son of man’’ to express his

concept of Jesus.

• Mark wrote to increase the faith of the people of his community.

• Mark showed Jesus as special agent of God.

• Mark’s understanding of the end of the world gave meaning to
the turmoil in his community.

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. Write notes on the following titles of Jesus:

(a) Son of Man.

(b) Son of God.
(c) The Messiah.
2. Highlight and discuss Mark’s understanding of the end of the world.

7.0 References/Further Readings

Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (1993). The
five Gospels: The search for the authentic words of Jesus: New
translation and commentary. New York: University Press
Millard, A. R. (2000). Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. New
York: University Press.
McNeile, A.H. (1927). An Introduction to the Study of the New
Testament. Oxford: University Press.
Marcus, Joel (2004). The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of
the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. New York: Continuum
International Publishing.
Hermann (2000). "The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 par): A
document from the time of Bar Kokhba". Journal of Higher
Criticism 7 (2): 161–210.
[Link] Retrieved 2008-01-
14.

50
UNIT 5 SPECIAL FATURES OF MARK
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 The messianic Secrecy.
3.2. The Audience of Mark.
3.3. Characteristic Features of Mark.
3.4. The Ending of Mark
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

Having looked at the purpose of Mark’s gospel in the last unit as well as
his concept of Christ, the theology of Mark’s gospel is examined in this
unit The Gospel of Mark is the second of the four canonical gospels in
the New Testament but is believed by most modern scholars to be the
first gospel written, on which the other two synoptic gospels, Matthew
and Luke, were partially based. This is what actually made for the
uniqueness which we shall see in this unit. To him, the personality of
Jesus should not be disclosed until he has accomplished his mission. He
made his gospel simple for his non-Jewish audience. A controversial
aspect of the gospel shall be studied in this unit.

2.0 Objectives

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Unravel the mysteries behind the issue of Messianic Secret in

Mark.
• Relate the distinctive features of Mark
• Explain the reason for the simplicity of Mark.
• Discuss the problems relating to the ending of Mark

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Messianic Secret

A famous feature of Markan narrative which is only alluded to until now

is the “messianic Secret” motif. This motif runs through most of Mark's
Gospel Scholars have pointed out a number of traits in the Gospel of
Mark through which the recognition or the messianic Identity of Jesus as
51
the Christ, the Son of God actually seems to be suppressed. For
Instance, Jesus repeatedly imposed commands to silence demons and
unclean spirits which he exorcised (Mark 1:23-25, 34; 3:11-12). Mark
described Jesus as forbidding people whom he had healed from telling
others about their good fortune (Mark 1:43-44; 5:43; 7:36). He even
prohibited his disciples from telling others about him (Mark 8:30; 9:9).
He tried to conceal his presence from others (Mark 7:24; 9:30). Some
scholars also point to the private teaching which Jesus limited to his
disciples (Mark 4:33-34; 7:17-23; 13:3-37).

These features almost always occur in the redactional material, the

narrative connectors with which Mark bound his story together. That
would suggest .that most of them were not included in the independent
stories of the oral tradition. Mark himself was the one largely
responsible for the prominence which the "messianic secret" motif had
in his Gospel. Further, the secrecy theme abruptly disappeared when
Jesus stood as the accused on trial before the high priest (14:61-62).

The "messianic secret" feature helped Mark deal further with the
problem which members of his community were having when they tried
to use the stones on Jesus. It was an additional antidote to the potential
danger that Gentiles might misunderstand those stories as picturing
Jesus as a Hellenistic "divine man."

Through the secrecy motif Mark insisted that the identity of Jesus was
not resolved with just one story. A healing did not define the richness of
his messiahship. Neither did an exorcism. Not even a heavenly epiphany
(The manifestation of the presence of God) such as the transfiguration
(Mark 9:2-10) was enough. Only when the portrait of Jesus was
completed by including his suffering and crucifixion was he seen to be
both Christ of glory and power and suffering Son of man.

The stories about Jesus are partial by themselves. Only when they are
heard and interpreted in terms of the cross event do they correctly show
his messiahship. Mark was restoring the functional usability of those
stories to clarify the gospel preaching.

Self-Assessment Exercise 1

What was Mark indicating with his emphasis on secrecy about Jesus'
identity as Messiah (Christ) before the passion?

3.2 The Audience of Mark

The general theory is that Mark is a Hellenistic gospel, written primarily

for an audience of Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire.

52
Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews.
Aramaic words and phrases are also expanded upon by the author, for
example, talitha kum, Mark 5:41; Corban, Mark 7:11; abba, Mark
14:36.
Alongside these Hellenistic influences, Mark makes use of the Old
Testament in the form in which it had been translated into Greek, the
Septuagint.
Those who seek to show the non-Hellenistic side of Mark note passages
such as "Son of the Most High God"; Mark 7:27; and Mark 8:27–30.
They also indicate that the audience of Mark has kept at least some of its
Jewish heritage, and also that the gospel might not be as Hellenistic as it
first seems.
The gospel of Mark contains many literary genres. Paul's letters were
already surfacing around 40–60 and the Gospel of Mark came at a time
when Christian faith was rising. This is why Dennis R MacDonald
writes:
…the author of the Gospel of Mark recast
traditional materials into a dramatic narrative,
climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear
precisely what kind of book the author set out
to compose, insofar as no document written
prior to Mark exactly conforms to its literary
properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with
supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy
resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek
romantic novels. Its focus on the character,
identity, and death of a single individual
reminds one of ancient biographies. Its
dialogues, tragic outcome, and peculiar
ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have
suggested that the author created a new,
mixed genre for narrating the life and death
of Jesus.
Self-Assessment Exercise 2
Who were the audience of Mark’s gospel?

3.3 Characteristic Features of Mark.

The Gospel of Mark differs from the other gospels in content, language,
and detail.
The narrative can be divided into three sections: the Galilean ministry,
including the surrounding regions of Phoenicia, Decapolis, and Cæsarea

53
Philippi (1-9); the Journey to Jerusalem (10); and the Events in
Jerusalem (11-16).
• Unlike both Matthew and Luke, Mark does not offer any
information about the life of Jesus before his baptism and
ministry, that is why he did not include the nativity and
genealogy.
• Jesus' baptism is understated, with John not identifying Jesus as
the Son of God, nor initially declining to baptize him, nor sharing
Jesus' vision of the dove and the Father's voice.
• Son of Man is the major title used of Jesus in Mark. Many people
who have seen that this title is a very important one within
Mark’s Gospel, and it has important implications for Mark’s
Christology. Jesus raises a question that demonstrates the
association in Mark between "Son of Man" (cf. Dan 7:13–14) and
the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12."How then is it written
about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings
and be treated with contempt?" (9:12b NRSV). Yet this
comparison is not explicit; Mark's Gospel creates this link
between Daniel and Isaiah, and applies it to Christ. It is
postulated that this is because of the persecution of Christians;
thus, Mark's Gospel encourages believers to stand firm (Mark
13:13) in the face of troubles.

Jesus "explained everything in private to his disciples" while only

speaking in parables to the crowds. His use of parables obscures his
message and fulfils prophecy (Mark 4:10-12).
The Messianic Secret, Jesus' command to unclean spirits and to his
disciples that they not reveal his identity, is stronger in Mark.
Mark is the only gospel that has Jesus explicitly admit that he does not
know when the end of the world will be (Mark 13:32). The equivalent
verse in the Byzantine manuscripts of Matthew does not contain the
words "nor the Son" (Matthew 24:36) (but it is present in most
Alexandrian and Western text-type).
In addition, the language of Mark is equally characteristic of him. For
instance, the phrase "and immediately" occurs nearly forty times in
Mark; while in Luke, which is much longer, it is used only seven times,
and in John only four times. The word Greek: νοµος law is never used,
while it appears 8 times in Matthew, 9 times in Luke, 15 times in John,
19 times in Acts, many times in Romans.
Latin loan words are often used: speculator, sextarius, centurion, legion,
quadrans, praetorium, caesar, census, flagello, modius, denarius. Mark
has only a few direct Old Testament quotations:. Mark makes frequent
use of the narrative present; Luke changes about 150 of these verbs to
54
past tense. Mark frequently links sentences with Greek: και (and);
Matthew and Luke replace most of these with subordinate clauses.
Further more, the Gospel of Mark makes extensive use of literary
allusion to the Tanakh, or commentary on the Old Testament. In some
cases these allusions exist in the other synoptic gospels as well, but this
is generally due to the synoptic gospels sharing a significant amount of
text. According to the two-source hypothesis, Mark was used as a source
for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Under this hypothesis, some
literary allusions in the Gospel of Mark were lost when the scenes were
copied by the other gospel writers. One case of literary allusion in the
Gospel of Mark comes from the crucifixion scene, which is crafted from
literary allusions to Psalm 22 and Amos 8.
Some Christians consider these to be cases of prophecy fulfillment.
Scholars, however, consider these to be cases of literary allusion, where
the author used existing passages from the Jewish scriptures to craft the
details of the scene and provide sub-textual meaning to the events. The
passage from Amos 8 would be relevant after the destruction of
Jerusalem in 70 and implies that the meaning of the crucifixion
according to the author is a justification for the destruction of the Jewish
people by the Romans during the Jewish war of 67-72 To a large extent,
the narrative of the Gospel of Mark is a running series of literary
allusions to the Jewish scriptures.
Self-Assessment Exercise 3
Account for the main characteristics of Mark’s gospel.

3.3 The Ending of Mark

Starting from the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted
that Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the
resurrected Jesus, was a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at
the empty tomb without further explanation. The last twelve verses are
missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel. The style of
these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later
addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after
16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the
earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least
four different endings have been attested.
Most likely, the Long Ending (16:9-20) started as a summary of
evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based
on other gospels. It was likely composed early in the second century and
incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the second century.
Mark might have originally ended abruptly at verse 8, the gospel might
be unfinished, or (most likely) the original ending might be lost.

55
Presumably, the ending would have featured Jesus' appearance to his
disciples in Galilee.
Irenaeus, c. 180, quoted from the long ending, specifically as part of
Mark's gospel. The 3rd-century theologian Origen of Alexandria quoted
the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John but failed to quote
anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped
there. Eusebius and Jerome both mention the majority of texts available
to them omitted the longer ending. Critics are divided over whether the
original ending at 16:8 was intentional, whether it resulted from
accidental loss, or even the author's death. Those who believe that 16:8
was not the intended ending argue that it would be very unusual syntax
for the text to end with the conjunction gar (γάρ), as does Mark 16:8,
and that thematically it would be strange for a book of good news to end
with a note of "for they were afraid". Some of those who believe that the
16:8 ending was intentional suggest a connection to the theme of the
"Messianic Secret". This abrupt ending is also used to support the
identification of this book as an example of closet drama, which
characteristically ended without resolution and often with a tragic or
shocking event that prevents closure.

Self-Assessment Exercise 4

What made the ending of Mark controversial?

4.0 Conclusion

Important themes of Mark were examined in this unit .e.g. the Messianic
secret and the obtuseness of the disciples. In Mark, Jesus often
commands secrecy regarding aspects of his identity and certain actions.
Jesus uses parables to explain his message and fulfill prophecy. At
times, the disciples have trouble understanding the parables, but Jesus
explains what they mean, in secret. They also fail to understand the
implication of the miracles that he performs before them. It could be
seen here too that Mark is believed to be a Hellenistic gospel written for
the Greeks. This explains why most of the foreign words were
simplified. The question of later interpolation of the ending of Mark was
treated in details.

5.0 Summary

The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• Mark maintained the secrecy of the messiah until the passion.

• Mark is a Hellenistic gospel written for the Greeks.
• Mark explained all the foreign words used for his non Jewish
readers.
56
 • The ending of Mark is believed to be a later addition.

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. Account for why Mark is being referred to as Hellenistic Gospel

2. Enumerate the main characteristics of Mark’s gospel.

7.0 References/Further Readings

Bultmann, R.. (1963). History of the Synoptic Tradition. San Francisco:

Harper & Row, 1963.
Dewey, J. (2004). "The Survival of Mark’s Gospel: A Good Story?"
Journal of Biblical Literature 123.3 (2004) 495-507.
Grant, Robert (1963). A Historical Introduction to the New Testament.
New York: Harper and Row.
Guy, Harold A. (1954). The Origin of the Gospel of Mark, London:
Hodder & Stoughton.

Holmes, M. W. (2001). "To Be Continued... The Many Endings of

Mark", Bible Review 17.4.

Ladd, George Eldon. (1987). A Theology of the New Testament Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.

Mack, Burton L. (1993). The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian
Origins. San Francisco: Harper and Row

57
MODULE 2 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
INTRODUCTION
In this second module you shall be introduced into the first New
Testament book. The gospel of Matthew is going to be fully treated here
bearing in mind the author of the book, date of writing. You shall also
be taught the special features of the gospel that is what distinguishes
Mathew from other synoptic writers.
This module will inform you of how Mathew made use of his Jewish
background to better his theology. Consult the book and journals
recommended at the end of each unit for further reading. You can as
well make use of bible dictionaries, encyclopaedia and internet
materials.
Unit 1 Preliminaries
Unit 2 The Sources of Matthew
Unit 3 The Purposes of Matthew
Unit 4 Special Features of Matthew’s Writings.

58
UNIT 1 PRELIMINARIES
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 The Author of Matthew
3.2 The Origin of the Gospel
3.3 The Date of Writing
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

This module is on the book of Matthew the first book in the New
Testament. This unit introduces you to the book. You shall find out here
that the authorship of Matthew is controversial in view of evidences in
support and against Matthew. The traditional view is now being
criticised. As regards the place of origin, Syria is still the most likely
possibility. On the one hand, an association with Palestinian Judaism
and its interpretation of the Law is clearly discernable. One of the
concerns within the Matthew text is a conservative approach to the
Torah which again accords well with Antioch as well as Palestine The
composition of Matthew's Gospel must be dated after 70 C.E. since it
presumes, the Jewish defeat by Rome (Matt. 21:41-45; 2?:7; 24:15;
27:25).

2.0 Objectives
By the end of this unit you should be able to:
• Explain who the author of Matthew is.
• Identify the place of origin of the book
• Argue convincingly on the possible date of composition

3.0 Main Content

3.1 The Author of Matthew

The author of the: first Gospel was an anonymous Jewish-Christian

whose community was engaged in the Hellenistic Jewish Christian
mission. He was well educated and literarily capable. He possessed
considerable knowledge of rabbinic traditions and methods.

59
The identification of the author with Matthew, one of the Twelve is
problematic. Only in the first Gospel is the tax collector whom Jesus
called to be a disciple named 'Matthew" (Matt. 9:9-13). Both Mark and
Luke call him Levi" (Mark 2:13--17; Luke 5:27-32). Nevertheless all
three evangelists include a Matthew" in their lists of the Twelve (Matt.
10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; cf. Acts 1:13). Another Matthew'· joined
the Twelve after the resurrection according to Luke' (Acts 1:15-26).

There are evidences both in support and against Matthew authorship of

the gospel by various scholars according to Herman N. Ridderbos,
(1963).
We can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's
authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First,
the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic
writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not
allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an
Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an
eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made
such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two
Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to
the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel
surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in
vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would
expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke
had been among those who had followed Jesus from the
beginning of His public ministry.
To J. C. Fenton, it is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written
about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles
nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel.
Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the
production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a
second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he
makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which
an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an
eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one
remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove
further still.
Francis Beare notes also that the dependence of the book upon
documentary sources is so great as to forbid us from looking upon it as
the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are
clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian
generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern
discussion only for convenience.

60
The author is an anonymous Jewish-Christian. Eduard Schweizer writes
about him,
The Jewish background is plain. Jewish
customs are familiar to everyone. The debate
about the law is a central question and the
Sabbath is still observed. The dispute with the
Pharisees serves primarily as a warning to the
community (cf. chapters 24-25); but a
reference to leading representatives of the
Synagogue is not far below the surface.
Above all, the method of learned
interpretation of the Law, which "looses" and
"binds," was still central for Matthew and his
community. Preservation of sayings, such as
23:2-3, which support the continued authority
of Pharisaic teaching, and above all the
special emphasis placed on the requirement
not to offend those who still think in legalistic
terms (see the discussion of 17:24-27), shows
that dialogue with the Jewish Synagogue had
not broken off. On the other hand, a saying
like 27:25 shows that the Christian
community had conclusively split with the
Synagogues, even though hope for the
conversion of Jews was not yet totally dead.
Self-Assessment Exercise 1

Who wrote the book of Matthew?

3.2 Place of Origin

Schweizer joins most scholars in favour of a Syrian provenance for the
Gospel of Matthew As to the place of origin; Syria is still the most likely
possibility. On the one hand, an association with Palestinian Judaism
and its interpretation of the Law is clearly discernable; on the other
hand, a full recognition of the gentile world and the admission of pagans
into the post-Easter community are accepted facts. The destruction of
Jerusalem plays some role; but it was not experienced firsthand, and the
exodus of Christians from Jerusalem is perceptible only in the tradition
borrowed from Mark, not in Matthew himself. . . But Syria is suggested
by the major role assigned to Peter, especially his authoritative
interpretation of Jesus' commands as referring to new situations (cf.
16:9); for according to Acts 12:17 Peter had left Jerusalem. He was
certainly in Syrian Antioch, as we know from Galatians 2:1 ff.

61
Larry Swain has summarized the evidence by which we locate Matthew
in Antioch:
Patristic testimony reads Jerusalem, to doubt it has a negative value of
demonstrating that Matthew came from no where else except the East. It
is doubtful that it would have been accepted so early and so widely
unless one of the larger, more important churches sponsored it. Since
Rome, Ephesus, Alexandria, and Jerusalem all have very important
reasons against them that leave Antioch. Peter's status in Matthew
accords with his standing in Antioch, as the first bishop there. Not a
strong argument on its own, but it fits the pattern. Antioch had both a
large Jewish population as well as being the site of the earliest Gentile
mission; Matthew more than the other gospels reflects this duality.
The two texts which seem to refer to Matthean tradition (in the one case
to the text of Matthew in the other case possibly to the text, but more
likely to M material) are the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and
the Didache whose provenance is also Syria or northern Palestine thus
placing Matthew fairly firmly in those areas at the end of the first
century.
We know that in the third century there was a school in Antioch which
claimed to go back to ancient times which had several OT textual
traditions available, if the tradition is true, then this accords with both
the Matthean citations of the OT as well as the "Matthean School"
tradition; particularly since members of this Antioch school are said to
have known Hebrew and Greek, which again points out a strong parallel
with the author of Matthew. There are some strong similarities between
the Lucianic text of the Hebrew Bible and Matthew's citations of OT
texts in some instances. Lucian lived and worked in Antioch and is
believed to have worked with an Ur-Lucianic text, i. e. one of the above
mentioned OT traditions to which author Matthew had access. One of
the concerns within the Matthean text is a conservative approach to the
Torah which again accords well with Antioch as well as Palestine
The text also seems to be concerned to react against some of the
material coming out of Yamnah, which again places it in an area which
Yamnah had some influence, thus northern Palestine and Syria, and
Antioch. The community described in Matthew has usually been
understood as a wealthy one, which rules out Palestine after the war of
70. To set the terminus ad quem, Ignatius of Antioch and other early
writers show dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. Dependence on
Mark sets a terminus a quo for the dating of Matthew, which should be
assumed to have been written at least a decade after the gospel upon
which it relies. Several indications in the text also confirm that Matthew
was written c. 80 CE or later.

62
Self-Assessment Exercise 2
Trace the place of origin of St. Matthew.

3.3 The Date of Matthew

The earliest evidence which connects the name of Matthew with· a
written gospel is the quotation in Eusebius (a fourth century Christian
historian) from Papias, who was bishop of Hieropolis in Asia (today's
Turkey) around 150 C.E. Papias was quoted as writing, 'Matthew
collected the logia [words of Jesus] in the Hebrew language and
everybody interpreted them as he could" (H. E. III 29:16). It is unlikely
that Papias was referring to the First Gospel since it was written in
Greek by someone who was not an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus
but had to depend on Greek documents as sources for the Jesus
traditions he used. The composition of Matthew's Gospel must be
dated after 70 C.E. since it presumes the Jewish defeat by Rome (Matt.
21:41-45; 24:15; 27:25). If the Gospel of Mark was written around 65
c.f. time must be allowed for it to have been distributed and to be in
popular use. Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote a series of letters in 110 C.
E. used the earliest existing quotations from the Gospel of Matthew. It
must have been written enough earlier to allow time not only for
acceptance in Antioch but probably also for it to have become known by
those to whom Ignatius wrote. As close an approximation of the dating
of Matthew as we can now establish is 85-90 C.E.
J. C. Fenton summarizes the evidence for the dating of Matthew as
follows. The earliest surviving writings which quote this Gospel are
probably the letters of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, who, while being
taken as prisoner from the East to Rome about A.D. 110, wrote to
various churches in Asia in Asia Minor and to the church at Rome.
Ignatius refers to the star which appeared at the time of the birth of
Jesus, the answer of Jesus to John the Baptist, when he was baptized,
and several sayings of Jesus which are recorded only in this Gospel
(12:33, 15:13, 19:12). It seems almost certain that Ignatius, and possibly
the recipients of his letters also, knew this Gospel, and thus that it was
written before A.D. 110.
Here we cannot be so certain. But it is possible that we can find
evidence that Matthew was writing after the war between the Romans
and the Jews which ended in the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem
in A.D. 70. See, for example, [Link] The king was angry, and he sent his
troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city; and
compare also 21:41, 27:25. Similarly, Matthew's Gospel contains a
strongly anti-Jewish note running through it, from the teaching not to do
as the hypocrites do in Chapter 6, to the Woes on the scribes and
Pharisees in Chapter 23; and this may point to a date after c. A.D. 85
when the Christians were excluded from the Jewish synagogues. It is

63
worth noting here that Matthew often speaks of their synagogues (4:23,
9:35, 10:17, 12:9, 13:54), as if to distinguish Christian meetings and
meeting places from those of the Jews, from which the Christians had
now been turned out.
Beare offers the following to date the Gospel of Matthew:
It is generally agreed that it was written
after the fall of Jerusalem to the armies of
Titus (AD 70), and the widespread
acquaintance with it which is exhibited in
all the Christian literature of the second
century makes it difficult to place its
composition any later than the opening
decade of that century. If the Sermon on
the Mount can be regarded in any sense as
'the Christian answer to Jamnia, a kind of
Christian mishnaic counterpart to the
formulation taking place there, this would
indicate a date a few years before or after
the turn of the century.
Thus, Kummel argues to date the Gospel of Matthew in the last two
decades of the first century "Even if, indeed, Mark and Matthew
originated in different regions, precisely in his reworking of Mark
Matthew shows so clear a development of community relationships and
theological reflection that a date of writing shortly after Mark seems less
likely than a time between 80 and 100. A date of origin after 100 is
excluded by Matthew having been used by Ignatius."
Self-Assessment Exercise 3
How do we arrive at a date between 80 and 100 A.D. for Matthew?

4.0 Conclusion
We could see from this unit that the consensus position on authorship is
that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based
on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by
Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the
oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted
them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew
also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect
while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations
of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most
likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That
statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the
Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark,

64
not the author's first-hand experience, Syria is still the most likely
possibility on place of origin and likely date of writing is between 80
and 100 A.D.

5.0 Summary
The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:
• The traditional position of Matthew authorship may not be
tenable.
• Syria is mostly favoured place of wring; and
• The likely date of writing is between 80 and 100 A.D.

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. Argue in support of the traditional view of Matthew authorship.
2. How was the issue of the place of origin of Matthew resolved?

7.0 References/Further Readings

Bultmann, R.. (1963). History of the Synoptic Tradition. San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1963.
Dewey, J. (2004). "The Survival of Mark’s Gospel: A Good Story?"
Journal of Biblical Literature 123.3 (2004) 495-507.
Grant, Robert (1963). A Historical Introduction to the New Testament.
San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Keith F. Nickle (1980). The Synoptic Gospels, Atlanta: John Knox.
Kirby, Peter. (2006) "Gospel of Matthew." Early Christian Writings.
[Link] retrieved
18th July, 2009.

McNeile, A.H. (1927). An Introduction to the Study of the New

Testament. Oxford: University Press.

65
UNIT 2 THE SOURCES OF MATTHEW
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 Matthew's Use of Mark
3.2 Matthew's Use of “Q”
3.3 Matthew's Use of “M”
3.4 The use of Jewish Scriptures
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

In the last unit you were introduced to the gospel of Mathew. The author
of the gospel, its origin and the date of writing were examined. It is the
near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is
dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether
one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead
prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis. It is equally an accepted rule that
there are some other materials made use of by Matthew, like: ‘’Q’’ and
‘’M’’ the material peculiar to both Matthew and Mark and the material
peculiar to Matthew only. Even though it is not possible to establish that
Matthew drew his special material from a single document none of these
traditions fully represent the gospel of Matthew.

2.0 Objectives
By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Identify the various sources of St. Matthew.

• Explain how Matthew made use of the Markan source.
• Explain what ‘’Q’’ source is all about
• State the content of ‘’M’’ source.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Matthew's Use of Mark

An assumption of the two-source hypothesis is that Matthew had a copy

of Mark before him which he used to compose his Gospel. As an
extension of that assumption, most scholars simply presume that Mark's
Gospel was also known by the Christian community to which Matthew
belonged. It had used the Gospel of Mark in its worship, its· catechetical

66
teaching (its oral religious instruction) and its missionary preaching. It
had used Mark's Gospel for a long enough period of time to know well
the value of that document. But Matthew had also recognized some of
its inadequacies in helping his community to respond to the challenges,
opportunities, and attacks with which it was trying to cope. The burning
issues with which Matthew and his community were struggling were
simply not identical with those which had concerned Mark and his
church.

When Matthew .is compared with Mark, many of the changes which
Matthew made in Mark's narrative are obvious. Those changes provide
important clues to help identify the differences in the historical life
settings of the Markan and Matthean communities. They also disclose
some of the unique qualities which Matthew possessed as an [Link]
artistry with which Matthew combined and organized the traditions
which he gathered from a number of different sources was
extraordinary. In the process he also molded that traditional material so
that it strengthened the faith of the Christian community to which he
belonged, supporting it as it struggled with specific issues related to its
life and work. The Gospel of Mark provided the basic narrative
framework for Matthew. But he expanded it and reworked it. Matthew's
revisions of Mark included alterations in details, condensations and new
formulations. The result was both abbreviation and improvement of the
literary quality of Mark's narrative. What was subtracted in narrative
content was more than replaced by the extensive additions of traditions
about Jesus which Matthew included beyond what Mark had used.

Matthew corrected Mark's Greek considerably. Mark was addicted to

the use of the present tense. (He wrote the story of Jesus as a child talks:
"He comes to the house and gets us and we go to school.") Matthew
usually altered such "historical present tenses" (130 of 151 times). In the
account of the healing of the paralytic, Matthew replaced Mark's rather
crude Greek word for "pallet" (Mark 2:4) with the more polished word
for "bed" (Matt. 9:2). Mark's imprecise reference to "King Herod",
(Mark 6:14) was corrected by Matthew to "Herod, the tetrarch" (Matt.
14:1).

Where Mark was unnecessarily repetitious in the story of healing many

people, Matthew was more concise and vivid. Compare the two
passages below:

That evening, at sundown they brought to

him all who were sick ' or possessed with
demons .... And he healed many who were
sick with various diseases, and cast out
many demons. (Mark 1:37-34a)

67
 That evening they brought to him many who
were possessed with demons; and he cast out
the spirits with a word, and healed all who
were sick. (Matt. 8:16).

By altering the connective links between scenes in the story of Jesus,

Matthew considerably improved the narrative flow, increasing the sense
of chronological sequence and spatial relation. Matthew's "While he was
still speaking to the people” (Matt. 12:46) is much more effective than
Mark's "And ... "(Mark 3:31). So is "That same day Jesus went out of
the house and sat beside the sea ..." (Matt. 13: 1) in place of "Again he
began to teach beside the sea" (Mark 4:1).

Self-Assessment Exercise 1

Why did Matthew make use of Markan source in his gospel?

3.2 Matthew's Use of “Q”

The Gospel of Mark was not the only source which Matthew used in
writing his Gospel. He also drew upon those traditions about Jesus
which had been collected in the source or sources commonly designated
"Q" which is the abbreviation of the Greek word Quelle meaning
‘sayings’. It is so designated because it is full of the sayings of Jesus
Christ. As we noted earlier it is impossible to reconstruct the contents of
that source in precise detail) Nevertheless we may assume that Matthew
reworked, revised, corrected, and adapted the material he selected from
Q in a manner similar to the way he made use of Mark's traditions. It is
interesting to note that the author of Matthew was not the only one who
valued the material in Q. Luke also saw its importance and made
extensive use of it when he revised Mark's Gospel, too. It is strange that
a document such as Q which was so highly esteemed by early Christians
did not survive except for its traces discernible in Matthew and in Luke.

Self-Assessment Exercise 2

How do you understand the ‘’Q’’ source?

3.3 Matthew's Use of ‘’M’’

When the material from Mark and the Q traditions are combined they
still don't produce the Gospel of Matthew in its entirety. There are
around 400 verses or verse fragments in Matthew that are not present in
either Mark or Q. They are exclusive to Matthew and are not found
anywhere else in the New Testament. Where did they come from?

68
Although some scholars have wanted to propose a third written
document they have not been able to agree on what out of Matthew's
special material should be included in it. The evidence and, the controls
which govern any theory of literary dependency simply aren't present.
With the possible exceptions of the genealogy (Matt. 1:2-17) and the
"testimony traditions,'" it is more probable that Matthew's special
material was drawn from the oral traditions still circulating among early
Christians. The possibility that Matthew occasionally may have
composed an entire periscope can be either excluded or established.

Besides the genealogy Matthew's special material includes the birth and
infancy stories (Matt. 1-2). Unlike Luke's nativity narratives which
stress the dimension of the miraculous in the conception and birth of
Jesus, Matthew's infancy narratives emphasize the identity of Jesus.
That is particularly evident with the description of the name given to
him by God (Matt. 1:21-25). It also is implied in the journey narrative
from Bethlehem to Nazareth by way of Egypt (Matt. 2:1-23; this
passage includes the tradition of the "Wise Men" so familiar to us during
the Christmas and Epiphany seasons).

Other special Matthean material includes the appearances of Jesus after

the resurrection (Mate 28), a notable number of quotations from the
Jewish Scriptures which he understood as referring to incidents in Jesus
life, and a large amount of the sayings and teachings of Jesus, most
which are included the five great discourses. Also some narrative
accounts such as the coin in the fish’s mouth (Matt. 17:24-27), the
suicide of Judas (Matt. 27:3-10), the dream of Pilate’s wife (Matt.
27:19), the guard at the tomb (Matt. 27:62-66, 23:4).
Even though it is not possible to establish that Matthew drew his special
material from a single document these traditions are usually represented
by the letter "M." In '.this way we can refer to them as a group and more
easily distinguish them from the traditions Matthew adapted from Mark
and Q. The diagram showing the literary relationships of the Synoptic
Gospels and the sources they used,, may be completed for Matthew as
follows:

M Mark Q

Matthew

It is worth repeating again that neither M nor Q necessarily represents a

single document.

69
Self-Assessment Exercise 3

How do you trace ‘’M’’ materials in Matthew?

4.0 Conclusion
From this unit we have discovered that, when Matthew .is compared
with Mark, many of the changes which Matthew made in Mark's
narrative are obvious. Those changes provide important clues to help
identify the differences in the historical life settings of the Markan and
Matthean communities. They also disclose some of the unique qualities
which Matthew possessed as an author. The artistry with which he
combined and organized the traditions which he gathered from a
number of different sources was extraordinary. In the process he also
moulded that traditional material so that it strengthened the faith of the
Christian community to which he belonged, supporting it as it struggled
with specific issues related to its life and work.

5.0 Summary
The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• That the gospel of Matthew comprises of many sources.

• That Markan material is the ‘’back bone’’ of St. Matthew.
• That ‘’Q’’ is the material common to Luke and Matthew and
• That the original material of Matthew is called ‘’M’’.

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. Justify the assertion that without Mark there will be no Matthew.
2. Highlight and discuss the content of ‘’M’’ in Matthew.

7.0 References/Further Readings

Bultmann, R.. (1963). History of the Synoptic Tradition. San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1963.
Dewey, J. (2004). "The Survival of Mark’s Gospel: A Good Story?"
Journal of Biblical Literature 123.3 (2004) 495-507.
Grant, Robert (1963). A Historical Introduction to the New Testament.
San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Keith F. Nickle (1980). The Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: John Knox.
Kirby, Peter.(2006) "Gospel of Matthew." Early Christian Writings.
[Link] retrieved
18th July, 2009.

70
McNeile, A.H. (1927). An Introduction to the Study of the New
Testament. Oxford: University Press.

71
UNIT 3 THE PURPOSES OF MATTHEW
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 The Purposes of the Gospel
3.1.1 The Law
3.1.2 Matthew’s Christology.
3.2 The Church and Israel.
3.3 Universal Scope of the Gospel
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

You were taught in the last unit the various sources of Mathew and his
stylistic use of Markan materials and other sources for his write ups.
This unit will describe some characteristic features of the Gospel of
Matthew; search out the purposes which evidently motivated Matthew's
writing. The main ideas concern the interpretation of the law, his
Christology, the church and the community, as well as the universal
scope of the gospel. No doubt, Mathew was sensitive to the problem of
the application of the law to everyday life. The law has been recorded a
long time ago and since then many changes had taken place because
people were uncertain about how the will of God as it was made known
through the Torah should be applied to their lives. The need for
authoritative interpretation had long been recognized in Judaism.
Mathew agreed. But he was convinced that Judaism had not provided it.
The Jewish leaders simply were not capable to interpret the law, only
Jesus was (Matt. 7:28-29) according to Matthew’s Christology.

2.0 Objectives
By the end of this unit you should be able to:
• Evaluate Matthew’s purpose of writing.
• State Matthew’s understanding of the law.
• Discuss Matthew’s Christology.
• State the relationship between the church and Israel and
• Discuss Matthew’s universal scope of the gospel.

72
3.0 Main content
3.1 The Purposes of the Gospel

Matthew intended for his version of the story of Jesus to serve two
functions. The first was apologetic. By apologetic we don't mean he was
trying to apologize in the sense of expressing regret or remorse for
Christianity. Rather ''apologetic'' being used in a special sense to
indicate a defense of the Christian faith from those who are indifferent
or hostile to its claims. Matthew designed his Gospel as an apology
against a hostile militant Judaism. He wanted to help his community to
explain and to defend its conviction that Jesus is the Messiah in and
through whom the fulfillment of God's purposes was accomplished. His
Gospel was intended to be an aid in his community's debate with non
Christian Judaism. The second purpose of Matthew's Gospel was
directed more to the internal' life of his community. He wanted to teach
his fellow Christians. His Gospel helped Christians understand the
Jewish origins of their faith and advised them concerning the shape of
that disciplined community life which was in harmony with their faith.
So it instructed about the ethical implications of Christianity.

3.1.1 The Law

The Mosaic Law had long played a central role in the faith of Judaism.
After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the end of the
cultic sacrifice, the law assumed an even more fundamental importance.
It was reverenced as the inspired revelation of the will of God the heart
of Judaism. Matthew agreed with that view of the law. Jesus' teachings
were neither corrective nor substitute for the Jewish law. That law had
an unconditional validity which was enduring (Matt. 5:17-20). The fault
of the Jewish leaders was not in their promotion and defense of the law
but, paradoxically, in their refusal to live by it (Matt. 23:1-3).

Mathew was sensitive to the problem of the application of the law to

everyday life. The law has been recorded a long time ago. Many
changes had taken place since people were uncertain about how the will
of God as it was made known through the Torah should be applied to
their lives. The need for authoritative interpretation had long been
recognized in Judaism. Mathew agreed. But he was convinced that
Judaism had not provided it. The Jewish leaders simply were not
capable to interpret the law, only Jesus was (Matt. 7:28-29).
The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5) did mot replace the law but rather
radically restated its demands in the light of establishment of God’s
kingly rule (“the kingdom of heaven”). Matthew believed that Jesus
understood the real nature of the Law of Moses better than the rabbis.
He had exposed the heart of the law when he taught that its most

73
perfects expression was unconditioned love (Matt: 22:36-40 of 5:43-48).
Actually the rabbis understood the essence of Torah as love, too as
Matthew probably knew. The basic difference between Jesus and the
rabbis, as Matthew understood them, was that Jesus embodied as heart
of the law by the way he lived and they did not.

Just as Jesus teachings did not replace the law but went beyond it and
completed it, so Matthew did not consider Jesus as an opponent to
Moses. He had not come to replace Moses but to complete what God
began with Moses. His authority surpassed that of Moses; naturally, his
teachings were a superior interpretation of the Law of Moses to the
teachings of the rabbis. Professor Norman Perrin has well expressed the
contrast between Jesus and the rabbis as Matthew saw it. “The rabbis
saw the Torah further developed by the teaching of the Mishnah and
brought to completion by the Talmud. They saw the Torah fulfilled and
redefined in the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 5:17-20) and completed in the
teaching function of the church (Matt. 28:16-20, especially verse 20).”
The disciplines are charged to continue to provide authoritative
interpretation (Matt. 38:20). They, and those in continuity with them
(including Matthew and his colleagues) are true scribes trained for the
Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13:52). As counterpoint to his high view of
the law, Matthew developed a sharp polemic against rabbinic Judaism.
Wherever he refers to “scribes and Pharisees” he has the rabbinic
Judaism of his own day in mind.

Judaism was forced to recover and restore itself after its defeat by Titus
at the hand of the Roman legions and the catastrophe of the destruction
of the Temple in Jerusalem (70, C.E). With Jerusalem in ruins the new
core around which Judaism was reorganized was a confederation of
rabbinical scholars centered in Jamnia, a small town west of Jerusalem
near the Mediterranean coast. The fever of nationalistic fervor had
burned fiercely for many Jew during the war with Rome. Naturally they
were severely disappointed at the complete defeat, which the Romans
had inflicted on there. The strain of survival and the stress of radical
readjustments in the period, which followed, produced a new air of
caution and awareness within Judaism. This affected Jewish attitudes
toward Christianity.

Previously, Jewish indifference toward and even tolerance of the

Christian movement had fostered confusion in the minds of many
outsiders. Christianity appeared to be another one of the numerous sects
within Judaism and redefinition provoked a more sharply defensive
intolerance in some segments of Judaism. Matthew and his community
were struggling to cope with that kind of hostile confrontation.

74
Matthew addressed the problem of Jewish enmity in his Gospel. He
portrayed Jesus as being very sympathetic toward the Pharisees.
Because the Pharisees were so devoted to the study of the law they had
the potential for great faith (Matt. 23:1-3; of 13:52). All they had to do
was understand what the law really was saying about God and how he
chose to relate to his human creation. If the Pharisees could be brought
to acknowledge God’s saving presence in Jesus then it was likely that
the rest of Israel would also respond in faith.

Jesus’ public ministry was limited by and large to Israel (Matt. 15:24; of
105-7, 23). The Pharisees were that segment of Israel most concerned,
with understanding and correctly interpreting the real meaning of the
law. They were the experts in Torah. But Jesus was the real meaning of
the law. The law was exactly what Jesus bad come to fulfill The
Pharisees should therefore be those most openly receptive of him. They
should be his greatest supporters. Instead they regularly resent him and
are suspicious of him (Matt. 9:34; 12:24), accuse, him (Matt. 9:11; 12;
2; 15:1-2), try to trap him (Matt 19:3; 22:15), and plot against him
(Matt. 12:14; 21:45-46; 27:62-63). Accordingly Jesus warns his
disciples to beware of them (Matt. 16:6, 11-12). The disciples should
heed their teachings but not follow their example (Matt. 23:1-3). Even
with their teachings caution must be exercised (Matt. 15:3-9, 12-14).
True disciples are to be more righteous than they (Matt. 5:20). Their
hypocrisy is obvious (Matt. 3:7-10). Terrible judgment shall be their
final lot (Matt. 23).

Although' the Pharisees seemed for a time' to succeed (Matt. 27: 1-2, 20,
41~3), God accomplished his purposes ultimately through the
resurrection of Jesus in spite of their opposition. The submissive
humility of Jesus in contrast to the vengeful arrogance of the Pharisees
provided a model to guide Matthew's church in its struggles with hostile
rabbinic Judaism. It should be noted that Matthew's portrayal of the
Pharisees was colored by several factors. He must have been influenced
by the stereotyped role of opposition which the Jewish religious leaders
played in the Gospel of Mark, one of his sources. Undoubtedly his
description reflects a Christian prejudice nurtured by repeated
experiences of hostility and rejection by Jews. Similar recent
experiences resulting from his own community's contacts with rabbinic
Judaism reinforced that bias. From a literary standpoint the unrelieved
opposition of the Pharisees served as a foil to throw in sharp contrast the
acceptance of Jesus by his disciples.

Self-Assessment Exercise 1

How did Matthew address the problem of Jewish enmity in his Gospel?

75
3.1.2 Matthew’s Christology

Who do men say that the Son of man is?" (Matt. 16:13)
"You are the Christ, the Son, of the living God. (Matt.
16:16)

In his account of Peter's confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi and the

event following it (Matt. 16: 13-28) Matthew gave the climactic
expression, to his, own conviction of the person of Jesus. He is the
Messiah,("the Christ") in whom the Jewish figure of the Son of God (cf.
Matt. 3:13-17; 4:1-11; 17:1-5; etc.) and the Daniel 7:13-14 prophecy of
the end-time Son of man (Matt. 9:6; 10:23; 16;27-28, etc.) are fulfilled.
As was frequently the case in early Christianity Matthew expressed his
understanding of Christ in terms of functions. What Jesus did revealed,
who he was. His marvelous deeds, but above all his authoritative
teaching and his suffering martyrdom disclosed his messiahship. God
confirmed his identity repeatedly, finally by raising him from the dead.
Precisely this Jesus, divinely confirmed and exalted, continues to be
present and. to function authoritatively through his church. "All
authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me with you always,
to the close of the age" (Matt 28:18-20).

Self-Assessment Exercise 2

Examine Matthew’s concept of Christ.

3.2 The Church and Israel

The question of continuity between the Christian church and the people
of God described in the Jewish Scriptures gravely concerned Matthew
and his community. Why did the historical Israel reject Jesus? Why is it
so hostile to the church? Why was Christianity becoming an
increasingly Gentile movement?

Matthew sought to respond to these issues by redefining "Israel." Since

historical Israel willfully misunderstood its function as God's chosen
people it had lost the priority which had been implied in its election. Its
aggressive resistance to the unfolding of God's saving purposes resulted
in its condemnation. God' has transferred tenancy of the vineyard to
others-the Gentiles (Matt. 21:3-3). The historical Israel is no longer the
religious Israel.

The church is the true Israel. It does not replace historical Israel but
neither are they identical Since Jesus is Messiah, the fulfillment and
completion of God's revelation in the Jewish Scriptures, those who
believe him to be Messiah are true Israelites. That can include Jews

76
(e.g., Peter, etc.) but docs not necessarily do so. Jesus defines true Israel.
Belonging to Israel is not an accident of birth but the consequence of
faith in Jesus the Messiah. Those who accept him as the Son of God are
the holy people of God.

Matthew did not make the mistake that he felt historical Israel had
made. He did not automatically identify “Israel” with the people of the
kingdom. The church is never equated with the kingly rule of God,
which is to come. It also will face end-time judgment (Matt.16: 25-27;
19:23-30; 20:16, 24-25). The church is Israel so long as it responds
obediently to the abiding presence of its rise and exalted Lord, Jesus the
Messiah (Matt, 18:20; 28:30).
Self-Assessment Exercise 3
Why did historical Israel reject Jesus and became so hostile to the
church?

3.3 Universal Scope of the Gospel

Since historical Israel is not identical with the people of God, the
inclusion of believing persons other than Jews becomes possible even
necessary. The Great Commission (Matt28: 18-20) expressed so clearly
the universal validity of the work of Jesus and therefore of the gospel
preached by the church. It confirms a motif occurring frequently in
Matthew’s Gospel.
The strong faith of the Canaanite woman gains her across to Jesus
healing power (Matt 15:24-26). Gentiles are capable of greater faith than
the Jews (Matt 8:10). When they demonstrate superior faith they are
representative of the vast geographical area from which will come all of
those patriarchs (Matt 8:11). Their admittance to this religious table
fellowship will frequently be in place of Jews who should have priority
but would not believe (Matt, 8:12). Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of
Isaiah, which had anticipated the salvation of the Gentiles (Matt, 12:18,
21; of also Matt, 13:38; 22:9; 24:14; 25; 32; 26:13).
If the gospel was not restricted to the Jews, did it exclude them either?
The ‘all nations” of the Great Commission included the Jews, too (Matt
28:39 of 25:32). Matthew portrayed Jesus as anticipating that some of
Israel would confess him as Messiah at the second coming (Matt 23:39).
The in breaking of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Jesus has
dissolved the religious distinction between Jew and Gentile. They are on
humanity. The significant distinction is no longer ethnic, but is defined
in terms of discipleship, which faithfully observes the teaching of Jesus
(Matt 28: 19-20;of Matt 13:52; 19: 16-22).

77
The Jesus traditions, which Matthew included in his Gospel, reflected
the widespread Christian expectation of Christ’s return, end of the world
in its present form (Matt 4:17; 10:23; 16:28; 24:33-34). Matthew was
sympathetic to that belief, since he believed that the promises in the
Jewish Scriptures concerning the end-time were already being fulfilled.
He held this belief in version with the view that the exact time when the
second coming will be delayed for a considerable interval (Matt 24:3-8,
26-27,36-44;25:1-12). There is still missionary work for the church to
do (matt 12:36-43; 24; 14 28:16-20). Expectancy may not be abandoned
or dolled (Matt: 24:27,42-44; 25:13). But in the interim, advice and rules
for regulating the life of the community and the conduct of individual
Christians are needed (Matt. 18 of the teaching of Jesus generally,
throughout the Gospel). While not contesting a vivid end- time
expectation Matthew does redirect concern away from anxiety about
when Jesus will return and toward interest in the quality of the Christian
life in the interim.
Self-Assessment Exercise
How universal is the gospel of Matthew?

4.0 Conclusion
Matthew believed that Jesus understood the real nature of the Law of
Moses better than the rabbis and he tried to show this clearly in his
Christology. He had exposed the heart of the law when he taught that its
most perfects expression was unconditioned love (Matt: 22:36-40 of
5:43-48). Actually the rabbis understood the essence of Torah as love,
too as Matthew probably knew. The basic difference between Jesus and
the rabbis, as Matthew understood them, was that Jesus embodied as
heart of the law by the way he lived and they did not. Matthew sought to
respond to this issue by redefining "Israel." Since historical Israel
willfully misunderstood its function as God's chosen people it had lost
the priority which had been implied in its election. However, Matthew
showed that inspite of their failure, they are not totally caught off in his
universalism of the gospel.

5.0 Summary
The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• Matthew wanted to help his community explain and defend its

conviction that Jesus is the Messiah and through him the
fulfilment of God's purposes was accomplished.
• Matthew re interpreted the law contrary to traditional Jewish
believe.

78
 • That historical Israel wilfully misunderstood its function as God's
chosen people and lost the priority which had been implied in its
election and
• That the gospel does not exclude anyone.

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. Evaluate Matthew’s purpose of writing his gospel.
2. How do you understand of Matthew’s Christology?

7.0 References/Further Readings

Bultmann, R.. (1963). History of the Synoptic Tradition. San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1963.
Dewey, J. (2004). "The Survival of Mark’s Gospel: A Good Story?"
Journal of Biblical Literature 123.3 (2004) 495-507.
Grant, Robert (1963). A Historical Introduction to the New Testament.
San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Keith F. Nickle (1980). The Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: John Knox.
Kirby, Peter.(2006) "Gospel of Matthew." Early Christian Writings.
[Link] retrieved
18th July, 2009.
McNeile, A.H. (1927). An Introduction to the Study of the New
Testament. Oxford: University Press.

79
UNIT 4 SPECIAL FEATURES OF MATTHEW’S WRITINGS
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 The Use of Citations.
3.2 The Use of Miracles.
3.3 Distinctive Jewish Features.
3.4 Matthew’s Idealized Portraits.
3.5 The Use of Numbers.
3.6 The Use of Church.
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

We saw in the last unit Mathew’s purpose of writing his understanding

of the law and his Christology which is very unique. In this unit you are
you are about to study what distinguishes Matthew from other synoptic
gospels. In this unit, we shall see how Matthew made extensive use of
citations and allusions to the traditions recorded in the Jewish
Scriptures. He assumed that his audience was familiar with the Jewish
Scriptures. He also assumed familiarity with Jewish customs and
expressions. This called for his free use of these. The way he modified
the miracle stories he collected should be noted. His humane treatments
of concepts and ideas are equally exemplified. His stylistic use of
number and his concept of the church should be read with special
interest.

2.0 Objectives
By the end of this unit you should be able to:
• Describe what made Matthew different from other synoptic
gospels.
• Analyse Matthew’s system of relating the miracle stories.
• Account for Matthew’s humane treatment of issues.
• Explain the use of numbers in Matthew and
• Examine Matthew’s concept of the church.

80
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The Use of Citations
A conspicuous feature of Matthew's Gospel is his extensive use of
citations and allusions to the traditions recorded in the Jewish
Scriptures. That is not to imply that Mark was not dependent on Old
Testament traditions, too. He was. However, even in proportion to the
greater length of his Gospel, Matthew employed them much more
frequently. He creatively combined two major religious traditions which
were valued by early Christians: the Jewish Scripture and the stories
about Jesus.

It is likely that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek. Matthew's use of

Mark and the written portions of Q, both of which were in the Greek
Language, indicate this. Although he frequently cited texts from the
Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures (the Septuagint), he knew
them in the original Hebrew, and on occasion preferred his own
translation. The fact that Matthew knew Greek does not imply that he
was not a Jewish Christian. Remember that Paul wrote in Greek and
quoted from the Septuagint yet he was certainly a Jew.

Matthew assumed that his audience was familiar with the Jewish
Scriptures. (He also assumed familiarity with Jewish customs and
expressions, Jewish oral tradition, and rabbinical interpretation.) His
argument sometimes depended on the ability of his hearers to consider
the broader Old Testament context in which the texts he cited originally
appeared. The methods Matthew applied to accommodate incidents in
the Jesus story to Old Testament texts sometimes perplex and even trou-
ble us. His search for an appropriate passage that would conform to an
event in the Jesus tradition sometimes led him to quote a passage
without regard for its context. "Out of Egypt have I called my son,"
which Matthew (2:15) applied to the flight of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus to
Egypt described originally, in Hosea the Exodus deliverance of Israel
from Egyptian slavery (Hosea 11:1).

Jeremiah's lament for Israel which headed to exile (Jer. 31:15) is

converted into anticipation of the grief caused by Herod's murder of the
male children of Bethlehem (Matt. 2: 16-18). Occasionally Matthew
appeals to a Jewish tradition text in such a vague way that the Scripture
he had in mind is uncertain, at least to us. "And he went and dwelt in a
city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be
fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene' (Matt. 2:2). The text that
Matthew was citing in that instance shows that he intended a word-play
on the Hebrew word in Isaiah 11: 1. It could also mean that he was
alluding to: "the boy shall be a Nazarene of Judges 13:5.

81
There are instances where Matthew modified a particular Jesus tradition
so that it conformed to a text from the Hebrew Scriptures. He added
additional travel itinerary to Mark's version of Jesus' arrival in Galilee in
order to make the trip correspond to a prophecy from Isaiah (Matt. 4:12-
16; compare Mark 1:14). Similarly the general term the money" which
Judas received from the Temple officials for betraying Jesus becomes
exactly "thirty pieces of silver" only in Matthew (Matt. 26:14-15;
compare Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-5) so that the conformity of the
amount of money to Zechariah 11:12-13 is precise (Matt. 27:9).

In contrast to the freedom with which Matthew often combined the

narrative of Jesus and the Jewish traditions he occasionally went to the
opposite extreme. A bent toward literalism produced Matthew's strange
alteration of Mark's description of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Matthew
described Jesus as riding on two animals (Matt. 21: 7; compare Mark
11:7) because of the double expression in the Old Testament text:

Lo, your king comes to you;

humble and riding on an ass,
on a colt the foal of an ass. (Zech. 9:9, italics added)

Such a flagrant disregard of typical Hebrew parallelism (the same thing

being said with two different expressions) has caused skepticism about
Matthew's Jewish background. Yet rabbinical literature amply testifies
that not only extreme literalism but also all of the other interpretive
methods Matthew employed with Jewish Scripture were common
rabbinic exegetical devices. Such methods were devised to restore
interpretive flexibility to ancient texts which had been relevant when
they were first written but whose significance had become remote.

Self-Assessment Exercise 1

Why did Matthew make extensive use of Jewish tradition in his gospel?

3.2 The Use of Miracle Stories

Matthew gathered together the miracle stories he found in Mark and his
other sources and concentrated many of them in one section of his
Gospel (Matt. 8 – 9). In the process he usually altered the Markan
versions by making them shorter and more compact. A comparison of
the two versions of the exorcising of the demoniac(s) (Matt. 8:28-34 and
Mark 5:1-17) or of the healing of the paralytic (Matt. 9:1-8 and Mark
2:1-12) vividly demonstrates Matthew’s fondness for eliminating
unnecessary words. His version usually sounds more dramatic and lively
as a consequence.

82
The different ways that Matthew and Mark include miracle stories of
Jesus in their narratives are interesting. Mark stressed miracle stories
because they proclaimed the present establishment of God’s kingly rule
in the person of Jesus. He began his account of Jesus’ ministry with
several miracle stories (Mark 1:21 – 2:12). Matthew, however, was
more interested in the portrait of Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of
the will of God. He gathered together ten miracle stories into one section
(Matt. 8 – 9). But he placed an extended section of teaching by Jesus
before the collection of miracle stories – the Sermon on the Mount, the
first major discourse (Matt. 5 – 7). By this means he subordinated the
miracles to the teaching traditions. They were dramatic actualizations of
those mighty supernatural deeds anticipated at the end of the world by
the Jewish Scriptures (cf. Matt. 8:17). As Jesus’ teachings
authoritatively interpret the will of God so his deeds miraculously
confirm his teachings.
The miracle collections in Matthew conform to the miraculous mighty
acts which were expected at the end of time, the end of the world in its
present form: “the blind receive their sight (Matt. 9:27-30) and the deaf
hear [this one is lacking], and the dead are raised up [cf. Matt. 9:18-19,
23-25), and the poor have good news preached to them [by Jesus, Matt.
5 – 7; by the disciples, Matt. 10]” (Matt. 11:5; cf. Isa. 29:18-19; 35:5-9).
Miracles play the role for Matthew of supporting and substantiating
doctrine.
Self-Assessment Exercise 2

Explain how Matthew made use of the miracle stories collected.

3.3 Distinctive Jewish Features

Matthew was confident that his community was well-informed about
distinctively Jewish features in the Jesus traditions. This observation
implies that a large part of the community either were Jewish Christians
or had been exposed to Jewish culture and traditions for an extended
period. Whereas Mark gave lengthy explanation about the Jewish cultic
requirements for ritual washings (mark 7:3-4), Matthew eliminated the
explanation (Matt. 15:1-2). Apparently he felt most of his hearers would
understand that. References to cultic cleansing (Matt. 23.25-26), to the
Temple tax (Matt. 17:24-27), to phylacteries (leather cubes containing
scripture, worn during prayer) and to fringes on prayer shawis (Matt.
23:5) appear without further clarification. Matthew took it for granted
that his hearers were familiar with excessive Pharisaic scrupulosity in
observing the commandment to tithe (Matt. 23:23), and with the
caricatures of ostentatious, arrogant, Jewish piety (Matt. 6:1-8; 23:6).
The sharp sarcasm of Matthew 23:24 is clear only to those who know
that both insects and camels were ritually unclean and therefore

83
forbidden as food (cf. Lev. 14:4, 42-43). He assumed that a reference to
the exaggerated eagerness of rabbinical Jews to win gentile converts was
clear (Matt. 23.15).
The way Mark described Jesus’ teaching about divorce (Mark 10:1-12)
was modified by Matthew to reflect the Jewish opinion that in the case
of adultery only was divorce justified (Matt. 19:3-9). His version also
conformed to the Jewish view that only the male partner could divorce.
(Mark 10:12, reflecting the more liberal divorce customs of Greco-
Roman society, was suppressed). Furthermore, a very high valuation
was placed by Matthew on the enduring validity of the Torah, the
Jewish religious law (Matt. [Link]; 23:2-3).
Matthew’s language also reflects a sympathetic awareness of Jewish
practice. His modifications of the Lord’s Prayer tradition (Matt. 6:9-15,
cf. Luke 11:2-4) include typical Jewish liturgical features. Of the many
times that the phrase “the kingdom of God” appeared in his sources
Matthew changed all but four (Matt. 12:28; 24: 21-31,43) to the phrase
“the kingdom of heaven.” Barclay (1990) called the phrase “a
reverential periphrasis” which conforms to Jewish reluctance to use the
actual name of God.

Self-Assessment Exercise 3
Enumerate the Jewish features in Matthew.

3.4 Matthew’s Idealized Portraits

Matthew's reverent opinion of the person of Jesus and the role of the
first disciples induced him to retouch some of the more human details in
Mark's portrait of those persons. He intentionally altered Mark's
description of Jesus. He suppressed details that suggested that Jesus was
subject to human emotions. He also eliminated those parts of the
traditions which expressed opinions about Jesus which Matthew
considered insulting.

For example, in the account of the healing of a leper, Matthew omitted

the note that Jesus was moved by pity (Matt. 8:2-3; cf. Mark 1:41). In
the story in which the disciples prevented the children from being
brought to Jesus. Matthew followed Mark's version in describing how
Jesus blessed the children but avoided mentioning that Jesus was
indignant at his disciples (Matt. 19:14; cf. Mark 10:14). Mark's report
that some of Jesus' friends thought that he was crazy (Mark 3:21) was
dropped by Matthew.

Similarly, some details of Mark's Gospel which showed the disciples in

an unfavorable light were altered by Matthew to give a more

84
complimentary impression. He softened Mark's suggestion that Jesus
thought the disciples were dense (Matt. 13:16-18; cf. Mark 4:13; 1 Matt.
14:33; cf. Mark 6:51-52). Matthew preferred to ascribe unseemly
ambition to the mother of James and John rather than to the J disciples
themselves (Matt. 20:20; cf. Mark 10:35). These modifications are
examples of Matthew's interest in idealizing the portrayals of his Gospel
characters. Careful comparison of the two narratives will uncover other
similar instances of Matthew's "corrective" revisions.

Self-Assessment Exercise 4

Describe Matthew's interest in idealizing the portrayals of his Gospel

characters.

3.4 Use of Numbers

An intriguing feature of the Gospel of Matthew is' its use of numbers.

Matthew often arranged things numerically in twos, threes, fives and
sevens. There are two demoniacs (Matt. 8:28), two blind men (Matt.
9:27; 20:30), two false witnesses (Matt. 26:60). Threefold groupings
include the temptations (Matt. 4:111), examples of righteousness (Matt.
6:1-18), prohibitions (Matt. 6:19-7:6), commands (Matt. 7:7-20),
miraculous healings (Matt. 8:1-15), miracles of power (Matt. 8:23-9:8),
parables on sowing (Matt. 13:1-32), and frequently elsewhere. Besides
the five major discourses, there are five illustrations of law fulfillment
(Matt. 5:21-48). There are seven demons (Matt. 12:45), seven loaves
and seven baskets (Matt. 15:34, 37), the sevenfold pardon (Matt. 18:21-
22), seven brethren (Matt. 22:25), and seven "woes" (Matt. 23:13-30).
The genealogy of Jesus divides into three groups of fourteen, or two
times seven names each (Matt. 1:2-17, see especially v. 17). Such use of
numbers corresponds to the use of numerical devices in Jewish
Scriptures and rabbinical traditions. It served a dual purpose: mnemonic-
arranging of items in conveniently memorized groups, and aesthetic-
incorporating pleasing symmetrical patterns into the narrative.

3.5 Use of "Church"

The Gospel of Matthew is the only Gospel in the Bible to make explicit
use of the term "church" (Matt. 16:18; 18:17). The Hebrew equivalent
for the term in the Jewish Scriptures referred to Israel who was the
people of God. By his use of the term in his Gospel Matthew testified to
his conviction that those whom Jesus saved (Matt. 1:21) now composed
true Israel. It was distinct from Judaism though not necessarily exclusive
of it.

Matthew clearly had a great amount of admiration for what Mark had

85
accomplished in writing his Gospel or he would not have used it as the
basis for his own. He also shared that same strong conviction in the
Easter faith which led Mark to compose his Gospel. Matthew had much
in common with Mark.

Matthew would not have changed Mark's version of a particular

tradition unless he thought that the changes improved the tradition and
made it more effective. Neither would he have added more traditions to
Mark unless he felt they enhanced and made more useful the Gospel
narrative. It is to the changes and additions which Matthew made to
Mark's Gospel that we look first in trying to discover what was of
particular concern to him. There we discover indications of major
interests and concerns Matthew had which he felt needed to be
addressed more directly than the Gospel of Mark had done. We, also
discover that some Concerns which seemed vital to Mark did not appear
to be so critical for Matthew.

Self-Assessment Exercise 5

How is ‘’the church’’ conceived in Matthew?

4.0 Conclusion
Matthew has his own peculiar way of writing. This has been identified
in this unit. He cited extensively from the Jewish scriptures to buttress
his points. The miracles collection in Matthew conforms to the
miraculous mighty acts which were expected at the end of time. He
suppressed details that suggested that Jesus was subject to human
emotions. He also eliminated those parts of the traditions which
expressed opinions about Jesus which Matthew considered insulting.
His language also reflects a sympathetic awareness of Jewish practice.
His use of numbers corresponds to the use of numerical devices in
Jewish Scriptures and rabbinical traditions. Matthew is the only Gospel
in the 'Bible to make explicit use of the term "church" and he would not
change Mark's version of any particular tradition unless he thought that
the changes improved the tradition and made it more effective.

5.0 Summary
The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:
• Matthew cited extensively from the Jewish scriptures to buttress
his points.
• He adopted the miracle stories to conform with his own format of
writing.
• He suppressed details that suggested that Jesus was subject to
human emotions.

86
 • His use of numbers corresponds to the use of numerical devices
in Jewish Scriptures and rabbinical traditions.
• It is only in Matthew that the word church is explicitly explained.

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. Justify Matthew’s extensive use of the Jewish scriptures.
2. What made the difference between Matthew’s account of the miracle
stories and that of Mark?

7.0 References/Further Readings

Burton L. Mack (1996). Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of
the Christian Myth. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Dale C. Allison (1989). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Gospel According to Saint Matthew. New York: T&T Clark.
Keith F. Nickle (1980). The Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: John Knox.
Raymond Edward Brown (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament
New York: Doubleday.
Udo Schnelle, (1998). The History and Theology of the New Testament,
translated by M. Eugene Boring Writings Minneapolis: Fortress
Press.

87
MODULE 3 THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE
INTRODUCTION
This module is on the third and longest of the synoptic gospels. It will
introduce you to the gospel of Luke who was acclaimed a gentile. You
shall be taught of the authorship, sources and date of writing the gospel.
No doubt, Luke had a purpose for writing; you shall be acquainted with
this. Major theological themes of the gospel shall be examined so as to
know the extent of universalism of the gospel.
The writer of this gospel, Luke is said to be a historian because of the
beautiful presentation of the narrative history. You cannot but enjoy the
whole module. The book and journals recommended at the end of each
unit should be consulted for further reading.
Unit 1 Preliminaries
Unit 2 The Sources of Luke’s Gospel
Unit 3 Luke’s Purposes
Unit 4 Major Themes in Luke
Unit 5 The Universalism of Luke

88
UNIT 1 PRELIMINARIES
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 Authorship of St. Luke.
3.2 The Date of Luke.
3.3 The Audience of Luke.
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

This module introduces students to the gospel of Luke. The Gospel of

Luke is one of the Synoptic Gospels, and is the third and longest of the
four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. The text narrates the life
of Jesus of Nazareth. The author, traditionally identified as Luke the
Evangelist, is characteristically concerned with social ethics, the poor,
women, and other oppressed groups. Certain popular stories on these
themes, such as the prodigal son and the good Samaritan, are found only
in this gospel. This gospel also has a special emphasis on prayer, the
activity of the Holy Spirit, and joyfulness. Donald Guthrie claimed, “it is
full of superb stories and leaves the reader with a deep impression of the
personality and teachings of Jesus." The author intended to write a
historical account bringing out the theological significance of the
history. The author's purpose was to portray Christianity as divine,
respectable, law-abiding, and international.
This unit looks at the preliminaries of the gospel with special emphasis
on the author, the date as well as the audience. With these, students
would be familiar from the outset, with a general overview of the
gospel.

2.0 Objectives
By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Identify the person of Luke.

• Explain who the author of Luke was.
• Relate the date of St. Luke.
• Identify the differences between the audience of Luke and Mark.

89
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Authorship of Luke
The author of the Gospel of Luke has been identified traditionally as a
missionary colleague of the Apostle Paul. The author of Luke was
probably a Gentile Christian. Tradition identifies the author as Luke, the
companion of Paul, but current opinion is ‘about evenly divided’. Early
tradition, witnessed by the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus (c. 170),
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, held that the Gospel of
Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by Luke, a
companion of Paul. The oldest manuscript of the gospel (ca. 200) carries
the attribution “the Gospel according to Luke’’ Early Christian
testimony concerning the gospel's authorship is in full agreement,
although "some scholars attach little importance to it". The Gospel of
Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author. The
most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both
prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, possibly although not certainly the
author's patron, and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former
book" about the life of Jesus. Furthermore, there are linguistic and
theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they
have a common author. Both books also contain common interests.
Linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the
books indicate that they are from the same author. Those biblical
scholars who consider the two books a single, two-volume work often
refer to both together as Luke-Acts. It should be noted that Acts of the
Apostles (1:1-2) says:
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that
Jesus began to do and teach until the day He was taken up
to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit
to the apostles He had chosen.

The text is internally anonymous and equally contentious. The

contention about the text can be attributed to the attestation of two
manuscripts of the book. One of the two oldest surviving manuscripts
P75 (circa 200), has the attribution according to Luke while P4 which 'is
probably to be dated earlier than P75 has no such (surviving) attribution.
Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul
but scholars are divided on this issue as said earlier.
Given this, the internal evidence of the Acts of the Apostles concerning
its author pertains to the authorship of the Gospel. This evidence,
especially passages in the narrative where the first person plural is used,
points to the author being a companion of Paul. As D. Guthrie put it, of
the known companions of Paul, Luke is “as good as any... [and] since
this is the traditional ascription there seems no reason to conjecture any

90
other.” There is further evidence from the Pauline Epistles. Paul
described Luke as “the beloved physician”, and some scholars have seen
evidence of medical terminology used in both the Gospel and Acts. The
traditional view of Lukan authorship is “widely held as the view which
most satisfactorily explains all the data.” The list of scholars
maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents
scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. But there is no
consensus, and the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship has
been described as ‘about evenly divided’. on who the author was.
Nevertheless whoever wrote the Third Gospel made the largest
Contribution to the composition of the New Testament of any of its
authors. When this Gospel is joined by its companion volume, the Acts
of the Apostles, they together make up about twenty-seven percent or a
little better than one-fourth of the New Testament. That is more than the
entire Pauline corpus.

Self-Assessment Exercise1

Who wrote St. Luke?

3.2 Date of Luke

Some scholars place the date as about 80-90. The terminus ad quem, or
latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts
that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century) and the mid
to late 2nd century writings that quote or refer to Luke. The work is
reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and
Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was
used by Marcion. Donald Guthrie(1992) claims that the Gospel was
likely widely known before the end of the first century, and was fully
recognized by the early part of the second, while Helmut Koester states
that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage,"
prior to ca. 150.
3.2.1 A Date After 70 A.D.
Many contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke. If it
is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of
Jerusalem, around 70AD, they theorize that Luke would not have been
written before 70. This view also believes that Luke's prediction of the
destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus miraculously
predicting the future but must have been written with knowledge of
these events after the fact. They believe that the discussion in Luke
21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that
a date after 70 seems necessary, if disputed. These scholars have
suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes
from a number of reasons. The universalization of the message of Luke
91
is believed to reflect a theology that took time to develop. Differences of
chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts
was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing
a decade or more after his death, which point to significant
harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity,
had occurred. Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Christology,
eschatology, and soteriology that are similar to those found in Pastoral
epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than
the undisputed Pauline Epistles. The birth narratives of Luke and
Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus. Luke
might have originally started at 3:1, with John the Baptist. Marcion circa
144, appears to have used this gospel, but he called it the Gospel of the
Lord.
3.2.2 A Date between AD 37 and AD 70
Some scholars have posited earlier dates for Luke's composition.
Arguments for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel note
that Luke is addressed to "Most Excellent Theophilus," possibly a
reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37
and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus. This reference would date the
original copy of Luke to within 4 to 8 years after the death of Jesus.
Some think that Luke collected much of his unique material during the
imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea, when Luke attended to him. Paul
mentions Luke, in passing, several times as travelling with Paul.
However Guthrie notes that much of the evidence for dating the Gospel
at any point is based upon conjecture.
Carson, Moo and Morris opt for a date prior to AD 70 based upon 6
factors. Most prominent in their view is that no event beyond AD 62 is
mentioned in the book including the death of church leaders such as
Paul or James. They note that there is no mention of the Neronian
persecution in the early 60's or of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Self Assessment Exercise 2

Argue in support of different dates for the writing of St. Luke.

3.3 The Audience of Luke
Like Mark (but unlike Matthew), the intended audience is Gentile, and it
assures readers that Christianity is an international religion, not an
exclusively Jewish sect. Luke portrays his subject in a positive light
regarding Roman authorities. For example, the Jews are said to be
responsible for Jesus' crucifixion, with Pontius Pilate finding no wrong
in him. The consensus is that Luke was written by a Greek or Syrian for
gentile or non-Jewish Christians. The Gospel is addressed to the author's
patron, Theophilus, which in Greek simply means friend of God or
92
(be)loved by God or loving God, and may not be a name but a generic
term for any Christian. The Gospel is clearly directed at Christians, or at
those who already knew about Early Christianity, rather than a general
audience, since the ascription goes on to state that the Gospel was
written "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been
taught" (Luke 1:3–4).
Self-Assessment Exercise 3

To whom were the gospel of Luke addressed?

4.0 Conclusion
We could see from this unit that the author of Luke was probably a
Gentile Christian. Tradition identifies the author as Luke, the companion
of Paul, but current opinion is ‘about evenly divided’.Like the rest of the
New Testament, the gospel was written in Greek. Like Mark (but unlike
Matthew), the intended audience is Gentile, and it assures readers that
Christianity is an international religion, not an exclusively Jewish sect.
On the date, scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100.
Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. For the
audience, the intended audience is generally believed to be Gentiles. The
universalization of the message of Luke is equally said to reflect a
theology that took time to develop.

5.0 Summary
The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• That Luke was a missionary colleague of the Apostle Paul

• That traditional believe was that Luke wrote St. Luke but now
there are diverse opinions on it.
• That between 80 and 100 A.D. has been set as possible date of
writing St. Luke.
• That like Mark (but unlike Matthew), the intended audience is
Gentile.

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. Why the controversy on the authorship of St. Luke?
2. What makes the difference between the audience of St. Luke and S.
Mark?

7.0 References/Further Readings

Bauckham, R. (2006) Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. London: Eerdmans.

93
Carson, D. A. and Moo, Douglas J. (1992). An Introduction to the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Wood, D. R. W. (1996). New Bible Dictionary. Leicester: Inter Varsity

Press.

David Aune, (1987). The New Testament in Its Literary Environment

Philadelphia: Westminster.

Donald Guthrie, (1990). New Testament Introduction. Leicester:

Apollos.

Funk, Robert W. and Roy W. Hoover. (1993). The Five Gospels.

SanFrancisco: Harper.

Harris, Stephen L., (1985).Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto:

Mayfield.

The Books of The Bible (2007). Colorado Springs: International Bible

Society.

The Original New Testament (1985). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

94
UNIT 2 THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S GOSPEL
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Mark as a Source
3.2 The Use of ‘’Q’’
3.3 The Use of "L"
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Mark Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

We examined in the last unit the authorship of Luke, bearing in mind the
date of writing and the audience of the gospel. In this unit we shall see
how Luke wrote fine Greek of all of the authors of the New Testament
literature. Only the author of the epistle to the Hebrews was in his class
as a literary artist and crafts man. The preface of Luke’s Gospel contains
the best Greek in the entire New Testament. That is not to suggest that
Luke revived the polished style of composition characteristic of the
authors of the Greek classical period such as Homer or Sophocles.
Rather Luke wrote in the popular, non-literary Greek in common use in
the first century, C.E But he had flair for style and a well developed
sense of rhetorical sentence proficient in the art of Greek composition. A
fascinating aspect of Luke’s style was his ability to adopt a Septuagintal
(scriptural) tone when it suited his purpose. In effect he was consciously
casting his composition into “Bible language”. All these were reflected
in his use of the various sources available to him as presented in this
unit.

2.0 Objectives
By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Account for the sources of Luke.

• Explain how Luke made use of Mark.
• Relate what source ‘’Q’’ is all about.
• Discuss Lukan use of ‘’L’’ materials.

95
3.0 Main Content

3.1 Mark as a Source

According to the two-source hypothesis we considered earlier, Luke had

a copy of the Gospel of Mark before him. He used it as a major source
of material when he composed his own Gospel. It seems reasonable to
assume as we assumed with Matthew, that Luke's community was also
familiar with Mark's Gospel. If that is correct it suggests that they
probably would have made frequent and repeated use of Mark in
preaching the gospel to non-Christians, in teaching, and in the worship
of their community. They would likely be aware therefore of many of
the changes Luke made to Mark's narrative. They would also be alert for
any new ideas which Luke invested in his revision of Mark.

Luke incorporated most of Mark-almost seventy percent-into his

Gospel. That is less, however, than Matthew who used around ninety
percent of Mark. In these Markan sections Luke preserved Mark's
narrative sequence with exceptional exactness. However, he did insert
some non-Markan traditions. Omitted from Luke's Gospel was the
material in Mark [Link]. Some scholars think that Luke's copy of
Mark lacked that section. Others believe Luke purposely left it out
because it contradicted his understanding of the geography of Jesus'
ministry. No satisfactory explanation for this omission has been given.

Although Luke adopted Mark's outline as the basic framework for his
own Gospel he expanded Mark considerably. He added extensive birth
and infancy stories to the beginning, and post-resurrection appearance
account to the end. In addition to the brief insertions he made into the
blocks of Markan material he included two extensive sections of non-
Markan traditions. Luke 6:20-8:3 and 9:51-18:14. These are sometimes
called the small interpolation and the great interpolation. You will note
that the great interpolation accounts for most of Luke's expanded
material (Luke 9:51-19:40) and it is usually called the travel narrative.
This block surprisingly is the point where Luke diverged from Mark's is
on the Passion narrative.

Luke may have had another version of the Passion story from one of his
other sources that he preferred to Mark's version. Equally possible is the
suggestion that he used Mark's Passion narrative but thoroughly
reworked it by changing the sequence of some events and. adding
additional features from other sources. No doubt, Luke wrote
exceptionally fine Greek. Since Mark's Greek was rather primitive we
are not surprised to discover that Luke frequently improved Mark's
style. He simplified constructions removed unnecessary repetitions,
corrected grammar, and replaced colloquialisms.

96
Self-Assessment Exercise 1

How did Luke make use of Mark’s materials?

3.2 The Use of “Q”

The Gospel of Mark was not the only source, which Luke had in
common with Matthew. Both Matthew and Luke also drew on Q for
additional Jesus traditions to those they found in Mark. Since Luke
incorporated material from the Gospel of Mark in large blocks we would
expect him to do something similar with ‘’Q’’. Most of the material
Luke took from Q is concentrated in two large sections, Luke 6:20-8:3
and 9:51-18:14. The latter section is, of course, the bulk of Luke's
expanded version of the journey of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem.

When scholars compare the Q traditions in Matthew and Luke they

usually assume that the order of the material in Luke conforms more
nearly to that of Q than does Matthew's order. Since Luke preserved the
order of Mark's Gospel more carefully than Matthew. It is a likely
presumption that he did the same with Q. We have no way to test the
extent to which Luke reworked the language and style of the Q material
he borrowed Grammatical corrections, linguistic refinement, and
stylistic improvement may only be suspected. On the analogy of the
manner in which he revised Mark, however, we may suppose that he
dealt similarly with the traditions he took from Q.

Self-Assessment Exercise 2

Explain your understanding of ‘’Q’’ tradition.

3.3 The Use of "L"

The Gospel of Luke is much longer than the sum of the combined
materials which Luke adopted from Mark and from Q. Over one-third of
the third Gospel relates traditions which are in Luke alone. Neither
Matthew nor Mark tell of the "shepherds out in the field, keeping watch
over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8-20), a scene so evocative of the
Christmas celebration. Nor do the first two Gospels know of the Parable
of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11-32). Nor do they relate the story of the
resurrected Christ walking with two discouraged disciples along the
road to Emmaus, who did not recognize their traveling companion until
the moment when he broke bread with them (Luke 3-35).
The infancy traditions with which Luke began his Gospel (Luke 1 and
2) are peculiar to him. So also is his genealogy (Luke 3:23-38).
(Matthew also recorded a genealogy but it differs from Luke's [Link].

97
1:1-11). The special material found in the main body of Luke's Gospel
greatly enriches our knowledge of ancient Jesus traditions treasured by
the early church.

Scholars frequently refer to all of the special traditions which are found
only in the Gospel of Luke with the symbol "L." As was the case with
"M" (Matthew's special traditions) and with "Q" (traditions common to
both Matthew and Luke) we cannot be certain that "L" was only one
document. Probably it was not. It is very doubtful that Luke derived all
of his special traditions from just one additional written source. Rather
he may have gathered some of the "L" material from several other
documents. Very likely much of it was borrowed by him from the
common fund of oral traditions. The designation "L" is simply a symbol
of convenience to indicate traditions unique to the Third Gospel.

The chart for the interrelationship of the Synoptic Gospels for Luke can
be completed as follows:

Mark Q L

Luke

Self-Assessment Exercise 3
1. Analyse the content of ‘L’ material.

4.0 Conclusion
Luke employed a large variety or literary devices to join together the
materials he had gathered from his sources. Predictions, which
anticipated, summaries, reviewed, and cross references which connected
several traditions together all contributed to integrate the separate parts
into a whole. Luke was much more thorough in shaping his sources into
a literary unity than Mark did.

5.0 Summary
The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• That Luke used about70% of St Mark in his gospel

• That the literary style of Luke is unique.
• That Luke used another source called “Q”-a material peculiar to
him and Matthew.
• That Luke has his own special source called “L” which he used to
expand his gospel.

98
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
1. Account for the various source which made up St. Luke.
2. Assess the place of ‘’L’’ in Luke’s gospel.

7.0 References/Further Readings

Bauckham, R. (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses London: Eerdmans.

Carson, D.A., Morris, Leon and Moo, Douglas J. (1992). An

Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

David Aune (1987). The New Testament in Its Literary Environment.

Philadelphia: Westminster.

Donald Guthrie, (1990). New Testament Introduction. Leicester:

Apollos.

Dunn G., James, (1977). Unity and Diversity in the New Testament.
Philadelphia: Westminster.

Funk, Robert W. and Roy W. Hoover. (1993). The Five Gospels. San
Francisco: Harper.

Harris, Stephen L. (1985).Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield.

Keith F. Nickle (1980). The Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: John Knox.

Nils A. (1976). The Purpose of Luke Acts: Jesus in the Memory of the
Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press.

The Books of the Bible (2007). Colorado Springs: International Bible

Society.

The Original New Testament. (1985). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

William David.(1969). Invitation to the New Testament. New York:

Doubleday.

Wood, D. R. W. (1996). New Bible Dictionary. Leicester: Inter Varsity

Press.

99
UNIT 3 LUKE’S PURPOSES
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 Accuracy
3.2 Persuasiveness
3.3 Apologetic
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

You were taught in unit 2 about the sources of Luke. We related his use
of Markan materials, ‘’Q’’ and ‘’L’’. Having known his sources, we
shall now move to why he wrote his gospel Clearly, Luke had some
specific reasons for going to the trouble of writing his two-volume
work. As with the Gospel of Matthew, the changes which Luke made as
he revised Mark’s Gospel provide helpful clues for us as we try to
discern what his reasons were. Unlike either Matthew or Mark, Luke
announced right at the beginning of his Gospel what he was intending to
do. “Many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which
have been accomplished among us… it seems good to me… to write an
orderly account… that you may know the truth” (Luke 1:1-4). Luke
knew of other accounts already written but, much as he admired them
and had learned from them, he considered them to be inadequate. That is
implied by his resolve “to write an orderly account” even though many
had already “undertaken to compile a narrative.” He wanted to do better
than they had.

Luke was determined to write better Gospel than any he knew. He

intended for his literary composition to replace those other accounts
rather than to be used along with them. It is an interesting irony that
later the church clustered Luke's Gospel together with several others as
complements to each other. At least one in that group of Gospels was
one that Luke had intended to supersede-the Gospel of Mark. In what
ways did he try to improve on what had been done?

2.0 Objectives
By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Assess the extent of accuracy in St. Luke.

100
 • Explain how Luke achieved his purpose of persuasiveness.
• Examine the currency of Luke for his community.
• Relate the historicity of Luke’s records.
• Analyse how Luke moulded his gospel as an apologia

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Accuracy

Luke sought to make his Gospel more accurate. He considered himself

to be competent to compose "a narrative of the things which have been
accomplished. Having followed all things closely for some time past, he
wrote an orderly account" (Luke 1:1, 3). Luke was a first century
Christian historian. He wanted to write a history of the life of Jesus, the
Savior. In his second volume, Acts, he wrote a; history of how the
salvation God realized in Jesus was preached by his church in
expanding' waves after the resurrection.

Luke did the best he could to write accurate history. Yet by the criteria
of modern historical study he fell short of his intent. Before we judge his
achievement too harshly, however, there are a couple of moderating
observations which are very important for us to consider.

Luke assumed his sources were historical records which contained

accurate information. They were at least only one stage removed from
the dependable testimony of those who had been present and observed
the events which the traditions described. They had been "delivered to
us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of
the word" (Luke 1:2).

Unfortunately the confidence Luke invested in his sources was

excessive. Since Luke used large portions of Mark and adopted the
narrative sequence of that Gospel as the framework for his own he
apparently regarded Mark as an accurate historical record. The major
way he sought to improve Mark was not to correct him (with the
possible exception of the Passion narrative). He tried to complete Mark's
account by enriching it with important Jesus traditions which Mark
lacked. We now are quite certain, however that Mark was not an
eyewitness, himself nor was he trying to write a history of Jesus. Many
of his geographical designations and much of the chronological
sequence of events in his narrative were governed by theological and
literary interests are similar historical inaccuracies were likely present in
the other sources upon which Luke depended.

The second excusing observation is the difference between what is

meant by "history" today and what it meant in the first century. Since

101
the Enlightenment (a philosophical movement of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries which stressed the power of human reason),
historical inquiry has developed a stringent methodology which controls
certainty about factual accuracy. It is wrong to think historians of the
first century were not concerned for accurate information. They were.
But that was not the chief goal of history. History was a branch of
rhetoric whose usefulness lay in its interpretation of past occurrences for
the illumination they could provide to enrich the meaning of the present
and the future. Facts about the past, in and of themselves were not
important. What those facts signified were. If the meaning discerned in
events could be made more vivid by adding details to the accounts the
historian had at his disposal then it was not only acceptable, it was his
duty as a historian to provide them.

That was the kind of historian Luke was. He wrote the history of Jesus
and of the early church not just to report what had occurred. The history
of Jesus and the church was significant because it was a continuation of
the biblical history recorded in the Jewish Scriptures, and extended into
the present of Luke and Ills community. Luke, the historian, was also
Luke, the Christian. His account was at the service of his faith.

Self Assessment Exercise 1

How historical were the records of St. Luke?

3.2 Persuasiveness

Luke hoped his Gospel would be more persuasive than the other
narratives which had been composed before his. He hoped to call forth
from his hearer confident conviction in the content of Christian
preaching by accumulating and attractively presenting a narrative of the
Jesus traditions.

He wishes to recover and reformulate the

roots of Christian faith So that the certainty
and continuity of Christian faith from the
beginning up to the present can be
established: from Israel through Jesus to the
church.

Luke also sought to make his Gospel more current for his hearers. He
wanted to provide his Christian community with resources and counsel
which addressed the critical issues with which they were struggling. It
wasn't that Mark was wrong. It was just that he had written his Gospel to
meet the needs of his community. Those concerns and the concerns of
Luke's community did not exactly correspond. Luke made the Jesus

102
traditions more relevant to the situation of his own community.

It is true that in the preface Luke addressed his Gospel to Theaphilus

(Luke 1:3), an unknown Roman official who had already been instructed
in the Christian faith. But Theophilus was not the sole intended reader.
Luke was addressing himself primarily to his Christian community. He
intended that they not just have more accurate knowledge about
Christianity: Even more, he was eager for them "to know the truth
concerning the things of which [they] have been informed" (Luke I :4).
As the result of their hearing the contents of his two-volume work they
"should be strengthened in their faith, praise God for the salvation sent
to them and take courage, so that the number of believers might
continue to increase.

Self-Assessment Exercise 2

Examine the level of persuasiveness in St. Luke.

3.3 Apologetic

Luke moulded his literature to serve as an apologia a defense of

Christianity, trained in two directions. In the event that portions of his
audience were indifferent to the full claims of Christianity he hoped to
commend it to their acceptance. He explained the basis of the Christian
faith and promoted the truth of its claims.

That does not mean that Luke anticipated that pagans would read his
writing simply out of curiosity. Rather he was looking beyond the
internal concerns of his community to its involvement in Christian
missionary preaching and teaching. He wanted his work to be a helpful
resource to the other Christians as they preached Christianity.

The name of Luke's patron, Theophilus (literally "God-lover"), and it

calls to mind a special segment of people in first century Greek society.
They were Gentiles who were attracted to the Jewish religion. They
associated themselves with the synagogue participated, in its worship
and festivals, and adopted many Jewish customs and practices. But
without becoming full converts to Judaism. The Jews called them
"devout ones," "God-fearers," "God-lovers." Luke may have had that
group in mind also. They were a group likely to be receptive to the
gospel since they were acquainted already with Jewish traditions about
the Messiah.

The second direction in which Luke pointed his apologetic was toward
Imperial Rome. The term with which he addressed Theophilus, "most

103
excellent," was a term commonly used to address high government
officials (cf. Acts 23:26; 24:2; 26:25). Possibly, Luke was concerned to
correct any misunderstandings Theophilus had about the nature and
intent of the Christian movement. Further, Luke was the only New
Testament author to name Roman emperors in his writings (Luke 2:1;
3:1; cf. also Acts 11:28; 18:2). He seems to have been sensitive to that
segment of the society in which his community lived.

Luke made a considerable effort to exonerate the Roman Empire from

any direct guilt for the execution of Jesus (Luke 23:4, 7, 13-16, 22, 47)
and for the persecution of the Christian church (a frequent motif in
Acts), He was concerned to portray Christianity as an apolitical
movement. It was not a subversive sect of revolutionaries intent on
overthrowing Imperial Rome. Luke even hinted that since God was at
work in the Christian church, governmental authority was incapable
ultimately of suppressing the Christian faith.

Self-Assessment exercise 3

Examine the efforts of St. Luke in exonerating the Roman Empire from
any direct guilt for the execution of Jesus.

4.0 Conclusion
From the above, we could see that the author of St. Luke intended to
write a historical account bringing out the theological significance of the
history. The author's purpose was to portray Christianity as divine,
respectable, law-abiding, and international. Scholarship is in wide
agreement that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles. In
fact, "the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originally
constituted a two-volume work." In some editions of the Bible, Luke-
Acts has been presented as a single book. Both Luke and Acts are
addressed to Theophilus, and there are several theories concerning why
as reflected above.

5.0 Summary

The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• That Luke tried as much as possible to write an accurate report.

• That persuasiveness is a major concern of St. Luke in writing his
gospel.
• That Luke was apologetic in his approach.

104
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. With the contemporary understanding of history, how historical is St.

Luke?
2. Discuss how Luke achieved his purpose of persuasiveness.

7.0 References/Further Readings

Bauckham, R. (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses London: Eerdmans.

Carson, D.A., Morris, Leon and Moo, Douglas J. (1992). An

Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

David Aune (1987). The New Testament in Its Literary Environment.

Philadelphia: Westminster.

Donald Guthrie, (1990). New Testament Introduction. Leicester:

Apollos.

Dunn G., James, (1977). Unity and Diversity in the New Testament.
Philadelphia: Westminster.

Funk, Robert W. and Roy W. Hoover. (1993). The Five Gospels. San
Francisco: Harper.

Harris, Stephen L. (1985).Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield.

Keith F. Nickle (1980). The Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: John Knox.

Nils A. (1976). The Purpose of Luke Acts: Jesus in the Memory of the
Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press.

The Books of the Bible (2007). Colorado Springs: International Bible

Society.

The Original New Testament. (1985). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

William David.(1969). Invitation to the New Testament. New York:

Doubleday.

Wood, D. R. W. (1996). New Bible Dictionary. Leicester: Inter Varsity

Press.

105
UNIT 4 MAJOR THEMES IN LUKE

Contents

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 Doctrine of Christ
3.2 The Holy Spirit in Luke
3.3 Delay of Jesus' Return
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

You saw in the last unit the accuracy of Luke’s writing and how he was
able to achieve his purpose of persuasiveness. He equally show his
currency on the contemporary issues of his day and eventually, he
moulded his gospel as an apologia This unit deals mainly with the
theology of Luke. He starts from Luke’s conception of Christ as the
expected Messiah. This concept was moulded in his knowledge of the
Jewish scriptures. He equally emphasized the works of the Holy Spirit.
He envisioned Jesus as been anointed by the Holy Spirit. In fact the
Holy Spirit is an important personality in Luke’s gospel. In his
understanding of Jesus return he modified the current Christian
expectation and relaxed the note of urgent immediacy.

2.0 Objectives
By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Discuss the theology of St. Luke’s gospel.

• Evaluate Luke’s conception of Christ as the expected messiah.
• Assess the place of the Holy Spirit in Luke’s gospel.
• Analyse Luke’s modification of the return of Christ.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Doctrine of Christ

Luke's understanding of the person and work of Jesus was moulded by

his knowledge of the Jewish Scripture traditions about the expected
Messiah. Jesus is the anointed one sent by God. All three Synoptic
authors recorded the tradition of Jesus' teaching in the synagogue at
Nazareth (Matt. 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-; Luke 4:16-30). But only Luke
106
included the text from Jewish Scriptures which Jesus read. It was from
the prophet Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed

me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to
proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to
the blind; to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to
proclaim the adaptable year of the Lord (Luke 4:18-19;
from Isaiah 61:1-2; 58:6)

Then, in Luke's version, Jesus explicitly applied the lection to himself.

"Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21).
The importance of this passage for Luke's view of Christ is indicated by
the prominence he gives it in his narrative. The preaching in Nazareth is
the first public act of ministry which Jesus did after he had been
anointed with the Spirit of God at his baptism. It follows immediately
after the account of his temptation in the wilderness. This is one of the
few places where Luke diverged from the order of events Mark followed
in his Gospel. Mark's version of the tradition of Jesus' preaching in the
synagogue is briefer, less specific, and appears only after Jesus has been
engaged in ministry for some time (Mark 6: 1-6).

If Jesus was the Messiah toward which the Jewish Scriptures pointed
why wasn't he recognized as such during his life? That was a problem
'With which the early church continually struggled. In Luke's Gospel,
even the disciples were able to recognize that Jesus was the promised
Messiah of the Jewish Scriptures only after the resurrection when the
risen Christ opened their minds to finally comprehend who he was
(Luke 24:26-27, 28). Professor Dahl rightly observed, "Luke has
retained and even sharpened the idea of the 'messianic secret' which is
otherwise much more prominent in Mark.

In one particular instance, Luke takes a markedly different position from

the other Gospel writers. The crucifixion of Jesus is not a saving act. It
is not a ransom for human sm. It is a murder perpetrated by the Jews.
The saving event was the life and work of Jesus, the Messiah of God.
God confirmed Jesus' messianic identity and vindicated him over his
enemies with the resurrection. Jesus, 'the building stone rejected by the
Jewish leaders, was used by God. (The image is from Psalm 118:22, a
favorite text of Luke's.) The person of Jesus is unique. His life and work,
however, is a model by which the church is to be guided. In Jesus the
church sees how it must live now that it also is filled with the Spirit of
God.

107
Self-Assessment Exercise

How did Luke conceive Christ in his gospel?

3.2 The Holy Spirit in Luke

Luke emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit in his Gospel. The nativity
and infancy stories which precede Jesus' public ministry contain
numerous references to the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67, 80; 2:25-
27). Just after the baptism of Jesus the Holy Spirit descended upon him
(Luke 3:21-22) and filled him (Luke 4:1). This same Spirit led him into
the wilderness to undergo the ordeal of the temptation (Luke 4; 1-13). It
caused him to return to Galilee to begin his public ministry (Luke 4: 14-
15). As we have seen, the inaugural event of that ministry was his
appearance in the synagogue at Nazareth. There he identified himself as
the One anointed with the Spirit of the Lord whom the prophet, Isaiah,
had described (Luke 4:16-21).

Luke seems to have envisioned Jesus as anointed with the Holy Spirit in
a special way. During the narration of his public ministry he is the only
one Luke described as filled with the Holy Spirit. After his baptism
Jesus is the sole bearer of the Spirit. John the Baptist anticipated that
Jesus would communicate the Holy Spirit to his followers (Luke 3: 16),
an anticipation that Jesus himself confirmed (Acts 1:5, 8), and that
happened at Pentecost (Acts 2: 1-4). The rest of the book of Acts is
filled with references to the activity of the Holy Spirit among the first
Christians. But there is an important distinction between the way the
Holy Spirit filled Jesus and the way the disciples were filled. Although
Jesus was led by the Spirit he had control over the Spirit. The disciples
and other early Christians were controlled by the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was an important factor providing continuity within

Luke's understanding of holy history (that is. history by means of which
God accomplishes his saving purposes). The leaders of Israel
particularly the prophets and the other authors of Jewish Scripture were
inspired by the Holy Spirit to testify to the coming of the Savior
Messiah. It was by means of the Holy Spirit that Jesus, that expected
Messiah, was incarnate, taught and did miraculous works.

The early disciples and later Christians were able by the empowering of
the Holy Spirit to testify persuasively and do miraculous deeds. The
Holy Spirit guided the church in its missionary expansion.

108
Self-Assessment Exercise 2

How important is the person of the Holy Spirit in St. Luke’s gospel?

3.3 Delay of Jesus' Return

During the first stages of the formation of the Christian community the
expectation that Jesus would return right away was very common. But
as months became years and even decades the anticipation that he would
return soon was shaken. After all, it is very difficult breathlessly to await
an event for an extended period of time.

Luke modified the current Christian expectation of the return of Christ.

He relaxed the note of urgent immediacy. When Jesus will come again is
less important than the conviction that he is coming again. The moment
of his return bas receded into the indefinite future. Breathless
expectation has been muffled.

Luke's modifications of the emphasis on an early return of Jesus served

two purposes. First it helped him to cope with the crisis which
disappointed expectations fostered. Since the expectation of an imme-
diate return of Jesus was so prominent in early Christianity the truth of
the whole gospel message was jeopardized when it did not occur. If
Christ's return had not occurred, perhaps the rest of the Christian faith
was also wrong. By muting the emphasis on the nearness of the second
coming of Jesus Luke helped avert that challenge to the truth of the
gospel. Second, the extension of the interim period between the earthly
ministry of Jesus and his second coming invited theological reflection. If
the return of Jesus was not to be looked for right away, the time prior to
his return possibly was more significant than just a lull in salvation
history. Luke described it as the time of the church's work and witness in
the world. It was an interval in which the spirit empowered agents of
God, the church was accomplishing a task which was an integral part of
God's saving purpose. Luke was the first of the Gospel writers to
develop an extensive theology of the church.

Self-Assessment Exercise 3

How did Luke explain the delay in Jesus return?

4.0 Conclusion
From the above we could see Luke’s theological masterpiece in his
treatment of main ideas in his gospel. His conception of Christ was born
out of his Jewish scriptures makes it unique. Hardly, could anything be
achieved without the assistance of the Holy Spirit which was present in

109
virtually all activities in the gospel. He deviated from the popular
acclamation for the urgency of Christ return and made the people more
responsive. This made his gospel different from others in both literary
and the theological approaches.

5.0 Summary
The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• That Luke’s theology is distinct from that of Mark and Matthew.

• That his presentation of Christ as messiah is the product of his
knowledge of Jewish scriptures.
• That Holy Spirit occupies central position in St. Luke.
• And his understanding of Jesus return lacks the urgency attached
to it in other gospels.

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. Account for the uniqueness of the theology of St. Luke.

2. Why did Luke modify the contemporary expectation of Christ’s
return?

7.0 References/Further Readings

Bauckham, R. (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses London: Eerdmans.

Carson, D.A., Morris, Leon and Moo, Douglas J. (1992). An

Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

David Aune (1987). The New Testament in Its Literary Environment.

Philadelphia: Westminster.

Donald Guthrie, (1990). New Testament Introduction. Leicester:

Apollos.

Dunn G., James, (1977). Unity and Diversity in the New Testament.
Philadelphia: Westminster.

Funk, Robert W. and Roy W. Hoover. (1993). The Five Gospels. San
Francisco: Harper.

Harris, Stephen L. (1985).Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield.

Keith F. Nickle (1980). The Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: John Knox.

110
Nils A. (1976). The Purpose of Luke Acts: Jesus in the Memory of the
Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press.

The Books of the Bible (2007). Colorado Springs: International Bible

Society.

The Original New Testament. (1985). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

William David.(1969). Invitation to the New Testament. New York:

Doubleday.

Wood, D. R. W. (1996). New Bible Dictionary. Leicester: Inter Varsity

Press.

111
UNIT 5 THE UNIVERSALISM OF LUKE’S GOSPEL

Contents

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main content
3.1 Salvation History
3.2 Gospel to the Gentiles
3.3 Lesser Interests
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Further Readings

1.0 Introduction

You can easily notice how this module progresses from authorship to
sources and to purposes. In the last unit you studied major themes in
Luke. These were the distinguishing features of the gospel. In this last
unit we shall look at the extent of universalism in the gospel of Luke.
Luke was a Christian historian. In the first century, C.E., history was
considered important for the meaning it was able to discover in human
events. The meaning that interested Luke most was what history
disclosed about God's plan to save and restore his creation. That was a
theological perspective of history which Luke found affirmed in
Judaism's understanding of its history as holy history. The Jewish
Scriptures amply testified to that view. Human history, rightly
understood, reveals God at work to save 'his creation. This is so because
God has chosen to make himself known through human events and
historical persons. Salvation history is not identical with secular history.
It is possible to know the data of history-people, places, dates, events-
and still be ignorant (or even hostile to) God's design of redemption. But
secular history provides the context into which God inserts his saving
presence. Luke wanted to integrate the story of Jesus' life and the history
of the church into comprehensive understanding of God’s redemptive
history, unfold in secular history. The gospel of Luke is in the forefront
among the synoptic gospels on the universal proclamation of the gospel
as shown in this unit.

2.0 Objectives

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Evaluate the extent of universalism in the gospel of Luke.

• Understand how Luke used his knowledge of History to write

112
 an orderly account of Jesus tradition.
• Show how Luke’s writing reflects salvation that is restricted
to the Jews.
• Discuss Luke’s concern especially for the poor, the outcast
and women.

3.0 Main Content

3.1 Salvation History

Luke conceived of salvation history as divided into three major parts:

the period of Israel, the period of Jesus and the period of the church. Of
course, Luke's community was living in the third period, the period of
the church. The period of Israel was in the remote past. It stretched all
the way to creation (note. that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes back to
Adam whereas the earliest figure in Matthew’s genealogy is Abraham
Luke 3:23-38 compare Matt. 1:2-16). It was the time of the revelation of
God's purposes that John the Baptist appeared. He belonged to this
period (Luke 16: 16). His function was that the prophet who prepared
the way for the Messiah (Luke 1:76-77). In that sense, he was "filled
with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 56-l7). But when the period of Jesus was
ready to begin John the Baptist receded into the background (Luke 3:19-
20). The period of Jesus also belonged to a time back in the past. His
history was not the end of history in the sense of cessation of God’s
revelation. But it was the end of history in the sense that it was the
unique, decisive period for the realization of God's saving purpose.

The second period extended from the descent of the Holy Spirit upon
Jesus at his baptism (Luke 3:22) until the return of the Spirit to God at
Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:46). During this period Jesus was the only
one Luke described as filled with the Holy Spirit. At its beginning Satan
was repulsed (Luke 4: 1-13) and retired from the scene, inactive (Luke
4: 13b). Only near the end of the period of Jesus when the hostility of
the Jewish leaders had intensified into a conspiracy to murder him did
Satan find "the opportune time" in the person of Judas Iscariot to renew
his assault on the Spirit-empowered Messiah (Luke 22:3-6).
This second period was the time of the fulfillment of the promises
anticipated in the first period (Luke 4:21; 24:44; and frequently in
between). It was the time for preaching the kingly rule of God not as
expectation but a least as reality (Luke 16:16). It was the middle point of
human time, "the hinge of history in which both the meaning of the past
and the course of the future are revealed.
The third period is the epoch of the church. The first and second periods
the times of Israel and of Jesus were in the distant past. The period of
the church embraces the recent past the present and the future. It began
113
with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on believers at Pentecost (Acts
2:1-4; cf. Luke 3:16; 24:49; Acts 1:5. 8) and extends to the second
coming of Jesus and the end of the world. It is the time for mission for
proclaiming the good news of what God had revealed as his intent in the
first period and has realized in the second period. It is the time to
witness to people everywhere in God's creation concerning salvation
accomplished (Luke 24:47-48; Acts 1:8). The church is commissioned
and empowered to issue the call to repentance, announce the forgiveness
of sins, and affirm the promised gift of the Holy Spirit to those who
believe (Acts 2:38-39).
It is interesting that Luke described a forty-day period of preparation at
the outset of both the second and third periods of salvation history. The
period of Jesus began with the forty-day temptation experience in the
wilderness (Luke 4: 1-13). The prelude- to the period of the church was
a forty-day association of the disciples with Jesus. This interval includes
the resurrection and the post-resurrection appearances, a time of
instruction, and the ascension of Jesus into heaven (Luke 24; Acts 1:1-
11). Is it merely coincidence that the figure "forty" occurs so often in the
inaugural traditions of the first period, the period of Israel, as recorded
in the Jewish Scriptures (the flood of Noah lasted forty days-Genesis
7:4; Israel wandered in the wilderness forty years-Exodus 16:35; Moses
waited on Mount Sinai forty days-Exodus 24: 18)? In Jewish religious
symbolism "forty" was a sacred number frequently used to indicate a
period of preparation and testing prior to the introduction of a significant
new event or stage in salvation history.
Self-Assessment Exercise 1
How do you understand Luke’s division of: the period of Israel, the
period of Jesus and the period of the church?

3.2 Gospel to the Gentiles

As far as we can tell, Luke was a Gentile Christian whose Christian

community was composed predominantly of Gentile Christians. It is not
surprising, therefore, to discover a strong interest in the universal scope
of the gospel pervading his writings. God intended to save all of his
creation including Gentiles. Redemption was not limited just to the
Jews. That had an immediate interest for Luke and his community as
well as affecting the enthusiasm with which they did missionary
preaching.

We encounter specific reference to the Gentiles early in the Gospel.

Simeon recognized the infant Jesus as the embodiment of that salvation
of God which was both "a glory to thy people Israel" and "a light for
revelation to the Gentiles" (Luke 2:32). Luke's genealogy of Jesus did
not stop with Abraham, the Father of Israel, but extended on to include

114
Adam, the Father of all humanity (Luke 3:23-38). Following the first
incident Luke described in Jesus' public ministry, the preaching at
Nazareth (Luke 4:16-22), Jesus drew an analogy to the significance of
his own ministry by referring the prophets Elijah and Elisha whom God
sent to minister to non-Jews (Luke 4:24-27).
Jesus' home-town folk, angered by his analogy, sought to kill him (Luke
4:28-29). That anticipated the rejection by the Jews which culminated in
his execution: It was precisely their rejection which gave Gentiles access
to gospel salvation. The pattern was repeated often in the second
volume. That shift in direction was not simply an "ad hoc"
accommodation. The Holy Spirit compelled the universalistic
perspective. The church had superseded the Jewish people as true Israel.
It was through the disciples and the Jerusalem church that continuity
with the salvation history of Israel was maintained unbroken.

Self-Assessment Exercise 2

Why do we refer to the gospel of Luke as the gospel to the Gentiles?

3.3 Lesser Interests

Several other concepts, while not being as important as the ones listed
above, figure prominently in Luke's writings.

• Prayer - Luke was fond of describing Jesus and, in imitation of

him, also the disciples, in the posture of prayer. He included
many more prayer traditions than did the other evangelists.
• Sympathy for the Poor - one of the nativity hymns at the
beginning of Luke's Gospel anticipated Jesus' concern for the
dispossessed (Luke 1:52-53). Twice Jesus appealed to the
preaching of good news to the poor as evidence of his messianic
identity (Luke 4:18; 7:22). The parables of the rich fool (Luke
12:16-21), of the dishonest steward (Luke 16: 1-9), of the rich
man and Lazarus (Luke 16: 19-31), and the story of Zaccheus
(Luke 19:2-10), all express sympathy for the plight of the poor.
• Women-Luke included several traditions about women that
appear in neither Matthew nor Mark. Besides their obvious
importance in the birth and infancy stories (Luke 1-2), women
are main actors in several stories from Jesus' public ministry (cf.
Luke 7:11-17, 36-50; 8:2, 42-48; 10:38-42; 21:1~; 23:27-31;
23:55-24:11). The result is that women playa more prominent
role in Luke's version of the life of Jesus than they do in the other
Gospels.
• Outcast and Sinners - Luke emphasized the compassion Jesus
exhibited toward those whom. Tax collectors, being unscrupulous

115
 exploiters of the people of God were popularly hated as enemies
of God. But Jesus not only chose Levi, a tax collector, to be his
close associate (Luke 5:27-32), he stayed as guest in Zacchaeus'
house in religious Judaism regarded as impious and unacceptable
to God Jericho (Luke 19:2-10) and told the story of a tax
collector who was more acceptable to God than a "religious"
Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14). Similarly Jesus told stories in which
hated Samaritans played exemplary roles which faithful Jews
should emulate (Luke 10:29-37; 17:11-19).

The force of Luke's emphasis on Jesus' ministry to the despised was to

further show the extraordinary mercy of God.

Self-Assessment Exercise 3

Account for Luke’s concern for lesser interest in his gospel.

4.0 Conclusion
Luke was determined to write better Gospel than any he knew. He
intended his literary composition to replace those other accounts rather
than to be used along with them. It is an interesting irony that later the
church clustered Luke's Gospel together with several others as
complements to each other.
Luke's style is the most literary of these books, ahead of Saint Paul's
epistles. Compared to the other canonical gospels, Luke devotes
significantly more attention to women. The Gospel of Luke features
more female characters, features a female prophet. Even those whom
religious Judaism regarded as impious and unacceptable to God had
placement in St. Luke. As could been seen from above, the church had
superseded the Jewish people as true Israel. It was through the disciples
and the Jerusalem church that continuity with the salvation history of
Israel was maintained unbroken.

5.0 Summary

The following are the lessons you have learnt in this unit:

• That Luke was an historian who used his knowledge for the
propagation of the gospel
• That universalism of the gospel is a major concern of St. Luke.
• That Luke divided the salvation history into three viz: the period
of Israel, the period of Jesus and the period of the church.
• That lesser interest groups had placement in St. Luke.

116
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignments

1. How universal is the gospel of .Luke?

2. Write note on the following concept in St. Luke:
-the poor
-the outcast
-women

7.0 References/Further Readings

Bauckham, R. (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses London: Eerdmans.

Carson, D.A., Morris, Leon and Moo, Douglas J. (1992). An

Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

David Aune (1987). The New Testament in Its Literary Environment.

Philadelphia: Westminster.

Donald Guthrie, (1990). New Testament Introduction. Leicester:

Apollos.

Dunn G., James, (1977). Unity and Diversity in the New Testament.
Philadelphia: Westminster.

Funk, Robert W. and Roy W. Hoover. (1993). The Five Gospels. San
Francisco: Harper.

Harris, Stephen L. (1985).Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield.

Keith F. Nickle (1980). The Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: John Knox.

Nils A. (1976). The Purpose of Luke Acts: Jesus in the Memory of the
Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press.

The Books of the Bible (2007). Colorado Springs: International Bible

Society.

The Original New Testament. (1985). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

William David.(1969). Invitation to the New Testament. New York:

Doubleday.

117
Wood, D. R. W. (1996). New Bible Dictionary. Leicester: Inter Varsity
Press.

118