Synoptic Gospels


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia.
Related to Synoptic Gospels: Gospel of John

Synoptic Gospels

(sĭnŏp`tĭk) [Gr. synopsis=view together], the first three GospelsGospel
[M.E.,=good news; evangel from Gr.,= good news], a written account of the life of Jesus. Though the Gospels of the New Testament are all anonymous, since the 2d cent. they have been named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
..... Click the link for more information.
 (MatthewMatthew, Gospel according to,
1st book of the New Testament. Scholars conjecture that it was written for the church at Antioch toward the end of the 1st cent. Traditonally regarded as the earliest Gospel, it is now generally accepted that it postdates the Gospel of St.
..... Click the link for more information.
, MarkMark, Gospel according to,
2d book of the New Testament. The shortest of the four Gospels and probably the earliest, it is usually thought to have been composed shortly before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Tradition claims St. Mark as the author and St.
..... Click the link for more information.
, and LukeLuke, Gospel according to Saint,
third book of the New Testament. It was composed in the second half of the 1st cent. Since the 2d cent. it and the Acts of the Apostles have been ascribed to St. Luke; Acts is sometimes considered a sequel to the Gospel.
..... Click the link for more information.
), considered as a unit. They bear greater similarity to each other than any of them does to JohnJohn, Gospel according to Saint,
fourth book of the New Testament. This account of Jesus' life is clearly set off from the other three Gospels (see Synoptic Gospels), although it is probable that John knew and used both Mark and Luke as sources.
..... Click the link for more information.
, which differs from them also in purpose. The question of the relations between the three is called the Synoptic problem. Most Protestant and some Roman Catholic scholars agree that Matthew and Luke were written later than Mark, which they followed closely. Matthew then divided Mark into five portions and used them in order, separating them by other material. Luke divided the book only in two, nine chapters being inserted between. Mark, however, only accounts for half of the other two Gospels. Matthew and Luke each have about 100 verses in common, most of them sayings (notably the BeatitudesBeatitudes
[Lat.,=blessing], in the Gospel of St. Matthew, eight blessings uttered by Jesus at the opening of the Sermon on the Mount. Some, counting verses differently, say there are nine. In a parallel passage in the Gospel of St.
..... Click the link for more information.
); to explain this agreement, scholars assume that there was a primitive document, which they call Q. It consisted largely of sayings of Jesus and was circulated in forms varying from place to place. Matthew and Luke are said to have used different versions of Q. This leaves a good third each in Matthew and Luke that cannot be explained by a common origin; there is no one widely accepted theory on the source or sources for these portions. The traditional Roman Catholic view is that Matthew (in an Aramaic version) preceded Mark and Luke, but that Matthew's Greek translation of his Aramaic Gospel may have come after Mark and Luke.

Bibliography

See R. K. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (tr. rev. ed. 1968); R. C. Briggs, Interpreting the Gospels (1969).

References in periodicals archive ?
Flusser's analysis of the synoptic gospels, however, did not lead him to embrace the theory of Markan priority; rather, he wanted to suggest that "the Synoptic Gospels are based upon one or more non-extant early documents composed by Jesus' disciples and the early church in Jerusalem.
Its level of detail and the fact that it is included in all three synoptic gospels are signs that its message contains important implications for our own discipleship.
Eddy and Boyd work step by step through the disciplines and perspectives that seek to discern whether the synoptic gospels are accurate in their account of Jesus of Nazareth.
I do not see Schleiermacher's 'Johanneism' as potentially anti-Semitic (it is surely the Romantic desire for the 'Urtext' as opposed to the synoptic Gospels).
When Orthodox Christians contemplate the transforming grace of God, we bring to mind the illuminating scene on Mount Tabor, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. There, our Lord Jesus Christ was transfigured in the presence of his disciples, offering unique insights into a world transformed by the power of grace.
The Jesus of the synoptic gospels and of John lives and dies for the life of this world as well as the next.
In its sixth printing, the collection includes sections on Paul's writings, the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, the general epistles and John's writings, including the Book of Revelation.
As I see it, the pressing historical question is not "Why did Huxley write about the Synoptic Problem?" but is instead "Why did Huxley believe all three Synoptic Gospels were dependent upon a single Ur-Marcus?"
SOMEONE described the three Synoptic Gospels, those of Matthew, Mark and Luke, as being like photographs of the life and ministry of Jesus.
The synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke clearly indicate that the Jewish multitude enthusiastically endorsed the seditious sermons of "the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." It was Jesus' maverick preaching that caused the elders to conspire against him.
Jesus asked his first followers, "Who do people say that I am?" With slight variation the question is asked in all three synoptic gospels and the answers given reveal the popular perceptions of Jesus in his own day.
This first volume of Erasmus' annotations on the New Testament (first to be published but also first in the series of volumes on the annotations) is comprised of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).