Matthew and Luke as Interpreters of Mark

In the transition from oral tradition to written narratives about Jesus, the Gospel of Mark established the basic plot of the story followed by Mathew and Luke. Together, these three Gospels are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. The term synoptic comes from two Greek words, syn (“with”) and optikos (“seeing”), and denotes the literary relationship between them. There is an ongoing debate about whether the Gospel of John also used Mark as a source or is an independent Gospel tradition. All four Gospels were likely written in last third of the first century, though some scholars would date Luke and John early in the second century. The earliest traditions about the four canonical Gospels stem from the second century and are reflected in the titles prefaced to the Gospels. Matthew and John were attributed to apostles, and Mark and Luke were attributed to companions of the apostles. However, the names of the apostles were attached to the Gospel manuscripts much later. The oldest witness is Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who is quoted by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.39.3–4). Papias’s writings are dated between 100 and 150 CE. Helmut Koester makes three important observations about the Papias tradition. First, Papias does not use the term “Gospel,” but says that Matthew composed “the sayings.” Second, in their written form, these traditions about Jesus do not carry any greater authority for Papias than what was transmitted orally: in other words, these texts are not regarded as Scripture. Third, Papias shows that these written documents came with the names of apostolic authors, or of men who had followed the apostles, which guaranteed the trustworthiness first of the oral tradition and then of the written documents (Koester, 33).

A close reading of the Synoptic Gospels side by side in a Gospel parallel shows that while they have a great deal in common, there are also a number of inconsistencies and contradictions in details. The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, for example, are completely different, as are the resurrection narratives. The tendency throughout church history was to harmonize the differences, which had the consequence of minimizing the distinctiveness of each Gospel. In the second century, an early Christian apologist by the name of Tatian combined the four Gospels into a single narrative called the Diatesseron. But as scholars began to compare the four Gospels and study them critically, it became evident that the authors were not eyewitnesses. New theories about the interrelationship of the Gospels emerged.

In the eighteenth century, scholars realized that the parallels in the Gospels are so similar in wording that one of the three Synoptic Gospels must have been the basis for the others. Since Luke states in the preface to his Gospel that he made use of other narrative accounts (Luke 1:1–4), this Gospel must have been dependent on either Matthew or Mark. From the time of Augustine in the fourth century, the canonical order of the Gospels was regarded as the order of dependence, so Matthew was thought to have been written first. According to Papias, the Greek version of Matthew was a translation of an earlier Hebrew edition. So, for centuries, the common view was that Mark abbreviated Matthew. Toward the end of the eighteenth century, however, J. J. Griesbach proposed a theory, based on the early view that Matthew was the first Gospel, which claimed that Mark used both Matthew and Luke for his abbreviated version. The main problem with the Griesbach hypothesis is that it is difficult to account for why Mark would omit material in the double tradition common to Matthew and Luke. Therefore, the theory that is most widely accepted by scholars is the two-source theory, which posits that Matthew and Luke depended on Mark and wrote independently of each other. The other main source used by both Matthew and Luke was Q. The distinctive material in Matthew and Luke is designated “M” and “L” respectively. Although the theory posits four sources, it is called the two-source theory because Matthew and Luke both use Mark and Q as primary sources. The two-source theory is illustrated in figure 3.

There is no one solution that solves all the difficulties, but since 80 percent of Mark is reproduced in Matthew and 65 percent in Luke, Markan priority is seldom questioned. The existence of Q, however, continues to be debated, with the majority of scholars who question the existence of Q maintaining that Luke used both Mark and Matthew.

One of the main benefits of the study of the relationships among the Gospels is that it led to a deeper appreciation for the distinctive narrative vision of each Gospel. Although the study of the use of sources in the Gospels involves a certain amount of conjecture, it has also put more emphasis on how the evangelists redacted and shaped the Jesus tradition to address particular contextual and theological issues. In using Mark as a source, Matthew and Luke can be read as the first interpreters of Mark, or better, as performances of Mark. A close analysis of how Matthew and Luke modify Mark’s narrative provides some insight into their respective narrative strategies. This, along with an examination of the material unique to Matthew and Luke and the distinct themes and uses of Israel’s Scriptures, suggests how Matthew and Luke adapted Mark’s story of Jesus to shape the convictions and practices of audiences negotiating particular concerns and circumstances. While there is no external information outside the Gospels themselves that would make it possible to situate them geographically, the overarching perspective and key emphases of each Gospel can be inferred from the narrative itself.

FIGURE 3. The Two-Source Hypothesis

Matthew and Luke both follow the basic framework of Mark’s Gospel, and both also add infancy narratives to set the stage and introduce the story. Since it is only possible to touch on the broad contours of their narratives in this essay, the main point to be inferred from the divergent accounts of Jesus’ birth, including irreconcilable genealogies, is that in different ways they are at the outset connecting their respective stories of Jesus to the history of Israel. Matthew establishes that Joseph belongs to the house of David so as to depict Jesus as the Davidic Messiah. Throughout the Gospel, Matthew makes a point to show that Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection were a fulfillment of Israel’s Scriptures. Luke’s genealogy goes back to Adam to underline the universal scope of Jesus’ mission. The main themes of Luke’s Gospel are set out in the canticles of Mary (Luke 1:46–56) and Simeon (Luke 2:25–35), and the prophecy of Zechariah (Luke 1:67–80). The focus in all three passages is on the redemption of Israel, in particular the restoration of Israel that includes the nations. This central theme of the restoration of Israel is woven throughout the narrative and expressly highlighted in the final scene as two disciples, walking on the road to Emmaus with the risen Jesus whom they do not yet recognize, say, “we had hoped he was the one to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). This theme is then carried over into Acts, the only sequel to a Gospel in which the mission of Jesus is continued by his followers.

In each Gospel, there are key passages vital for understanding the narrative as a whole, and that also provide a window on the communal context of the Gospel. Matthew’s Gospel is organized around five major discourses that include the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), the discourse on mission (Matthew 10), parables of the kingdom (Matthew 13), discourse on community life (Matthew 18), and an eschatological discourse (Matthew 24–25). The Sermon on the Mount contains material that is also in Luke, but Matthew’s Jesus is portrayed as the authoritative interpreter of Torah who teaches and models a righteousness characterized by “meekness” (Matt. 5:5; 11:29; 21:5) and “mercy” (Matt. 5:7; 9:13; 12:7; 23:23). Since Jesus tells his followers, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.… For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:17, 20), a number of scholars have inferred that the setting for this Gospel was a Torah-observant community of Jesus’ followers that was involved in a dispute with scribes and Pharisees (who are likely represented by the religious authorities in Matthew’s context). The vitriolic diatribe against scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 acknowledges their authority but criticizes them because they “do not practice what they teach” (Matt. 23:3). Matthew’s story of Jesus can be read as a narrative portrayal of a righteousness, a central theme in Torah, that can be practiced by all. Hence the final authoritative command of the risen Jesus to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” (see Matt. 28:19–20).

Luke’s story of Jesus tells of God fulfilling promises of salvation for Israel and the nations. Only Luke’s account of John the Baptist includes the phrase from Isaiah 40, “and all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6). This vision of salvation is given more specific definition in Jesus’ programmatic first speech at his hometown synagogue in Nazareth, where he reads from the Isaiah scroll.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

because he has anointed me

to bring good news to the poor [Isa. 61:1].

He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives

and recovery of sight to the blind,

to let the oppressed go free [Isa. 58:6],

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. (Luke 4:18–19)

This passage signals to the audience that Jesus’ ministry will engage various forms of oppression and injustice. There is more material on economic relations in Luke than any other Gospel, so issues of poverty and marginalization were specific contextual issues facing the author (e.g., Luke 6:20–21, 27–36; 12:13–21, 32–34; 14:15–33; 16:1–13, 19–31). The hope of salvation in Luke is defined as deliverance from social ills, and so Jesus is cast in the role of prophet on the model of Elijah, who was engaged in renewing society. However, the offer of salvation requires a human response of “repentance” that entails participation in Jesus’ mission. Luke’s story of Jesus offers an alternative vision of life and practice. This vision promises God’s deliverance from the dehumanizing effects of imperial society for the covenant community that hears Jesus’ words and does them (see Luke 6:46–49).