An Overview of Gospel Critical Studies

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called “the Synoptic Gospels” since they present a similar narrative on Jesus’ life (“synoptic” is derived from a Greek term that means “sharing or presenting a common view”). The Synoptic Gospels have a remarkable agreement on wording, content, and order of events. This agreement has puzzled scholars for centuries, and how to account for it forms the basis of what is called the “Synoptic Problem” or “Gospel Critical Studies.” Three related disciplines have developed in an attempt to account for the similarities between the Synoptic Gospels: Source criticism, Form criticism, and Redaction criticism.

Source Criticism

This discipline attempts to determine the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels by identifying the written traditions that lie behind them. Source critics seek to determine what information the gospel writers received from the church, and what those individual writers may have added to what they received to fit their editorial, theological, and practical purposes. Gospel critical scholars look at the similarities between the Gospels and conclude that the agreements stem from some kind of literary dependence between them. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have considerable overlap (e.g., Mt 12:9-14 // Mk 3:1-6 // Lk 6:6-11). Most argue that Mark was the Gospel written first, and that Matthew and Luke utilized Mark when they wrote their own gospels. Hence there are similarities between all three. Sometimes, however, Matthew and Luke agree in wording that is not contained in Mark (e.g., Mt 13:16-17 // Lk 10:23-24). To account for these agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, source critics postulate that there was another source besides Mark that Matthew and Luke both used. That source is called “Q” (an abbreviation for the German term Quelle, “source”), and is theorized to have been a list of sayings by Jesus. However, there is no extant Q. It is a hypothetical source proposed by scholars to explain Matthew and Luke’s agreements against Mark. The proposed dependence of Matthew and Luke upon Mark and Q is called “The Two-Source Theory.” But sometimes Matthew and Luke contain material unique to their own gospels (for Matthew, see 19:10-12; for Luke, see 17:27-30). In these cases, scholars hypothesize that Matthew used a source (or many sources) unique to him, called the “M” source(s) not shared by Luke, and Luke’s unique content is derived from a hypothetical source called “L.” The proposal that Matthew and Luke used Mark, Q, M, and L, is called “The Four-Source Theory.” Many recent source critics reject the idea of the Four-Source Theory, though it was popular during the first quarter of the 20th century.

Source criticism can help one see the similarities between the Gospels and may give an indication of the individual emphasis of each gospel writer. Many evangelical scholars adopt the assumptions and engage in the practice of source criticism. But in the hands of more critical scholars, source criticism tends to diminish the credibility of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as independent witnesses and historians. The Two-Source Theory has come under attack for being illogical. For example, as it was mentioned above, source critics assert that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke, and that Matthew and Luke depend on Mark. They also point out (rightly) that Luke agrees with Mark’s order of events when Matthew departs from Mark’s order, and Matthew agrees with Mark’s order when Luke departs from it. Thus, they argue, Mark was written first. But it is possible that Mark’s gospel was written after Matthew and Luke, and depended upon both. When Matthew and Luke departed from each other, Mark may have chosen on one occasion to follow Matthew, on another to follow Luke. In addition, the fact that the Two-Source Theory requires an as-yet undiscovered hypothetical source called Q renders it hard (not impossible) to believe.

Form Criticism

This discipline seeks to determine the shape and content of oral traditions that circulated in the early church before they were written down. One of the goals of form critics is to provide a description of what the early church was like based upon what they believe can be determined about it from the oral traditions used by the gospel writers. Form criticism also seeks to categorize the kinds of features found in the Gospels, labeling some of its contents as “logia” (proverbial, prophetic, or “I am” sayings of Jesus in which He makes some statement of His identity), “pronouncement stories” (a short narrative that climaxes in Jesus making a profound statement on some topic), “parables,” and “miracle stories” (stories that include supernatural acts by Jesus). As an example of the methodology of form critics, they will look at a “miracle story” and postulate that the early church formulated this story to help it compete with miracle-working characters in Greco-Roman religions called theios aner.

Form criticism is grounded in several assumptions. First, the Gospels were not the work of one person. The stories in the Gospels evolved as they circulated throughout Christian communities, who adjusted them and embellished them to meet their own situational needs. Second, the stories about Jesus circulated for at least 20 years in oral form and in independent units. These units were retained or discarded based upon their helpfulness for the localized church. Third, Mark and Q (and perhaps M and L as well) were the first written records of these diverse oral traditions. Matthew and Luke depend upon these two (or four) sources.

Fourth, the sayings of Jesus are authentic only if they differ from the kinds of things said either in early (intertestamental) Judaism or in the early church, if they have multiple independent sources that attest to their authenticity, and if the sayings fit well with other sayings thought to be authentic.

There are numerous dangers with form criticism. First, because it assumes the validity of the Two (or Four-) Source Theory, it inherits the weaknesses of that approach to the Synoptic Gospels. Second, the more radical forms of Form Criticism (i.e., as espoused and practiced by non-evangelicals) tend to de-historicize Jesus and make Him an invention of the early church. Critical scholars say that the picture of Jesus in the Gospels largely does not square with the Jesus “of history.” Third, form criticism denies the presence of eyewitnesses and the biographical interest of the early church. If stories and sayings were fabricated and circulated in Christian communities, eyewitnesses to the events may well have challenged the validity of those inventions. Even Paul was careful to distinguish between what Jesus taught about divorce and what he taught (1Co 7:10, 12). If the more radical form critics are right, Paul would never have made such a distinction. Finally, so little is known about the first 30 years of the early church that the assumptions and conclusions of form critics rest upon speculation and subjective opinions.

Redaction Criticism

“Redaction” is drawn from the German term Redakteur, which means “editor.” Redaction criticism is the discipline that seeks to discover the editorial emphasis of each gospel writer. This emphasis is discerned by seeing how a writer adjusted the contents of the stories and sayings he received from the church, and how he arranged them into his larger narrative framework. Rather than seeking to determine how the contents of the Gospels were shaped by the early church (one of the goals of form criticism), redaction criticism seeks to determine the distinctive contributions by Matthew, Mark, and Luke by noting their differences from each other.

For example, Matthew arranges Jesus’ temptations in this order: bread, pinnacle of the temple, worship Satan (Mt 4:1-11). Luke’s order is bread, worship Satan, pinnacle of the temple (Lk 4:1-13). Why this change in the order? Matthew probably gives the more strictly chronological account (see his temporal marker “then” in Mt 4:5), and Luke has chosen to order the temptations to fit his emphasis on the temple. His gospel begins with the temple (Lk 1:8) and ends with the temple (Lk 24:53) and generally gives the temple a more prominent place than Matthew or Mark do.

Redaction criticism may have more to offer than source or form criticism, for it is demonstrable that one gospel writer draws attention to certain things that are not emphasized by the others, and vice versa. But it is better to say that their editorial work highlighted certain aspects of events that really happened, rather than to say that they adjusted the information they received from the church to fit their own theological purposes. For example, Matthew notes the exception clause regarding divorce because of adultery (Mt 19:9; see the comments there), a clause absent from Mark (Mk 10:11) and Luke (Lk 16:18) (see the comments there). Rather than say that Matthew added this material, or “changed Mark” (a phrase seen often in the commentaries of Two-Source scholars), it is preferable to maintain that Jesus really said “except for adultery,” and to propose why Matthew included it to suit his purposes, and why Mark and Luke omitted it to suit theirs.

There are several dangers associated with the more radical and critical approaches to redaction criticism (drawn from Robert L. Thomas, “Redaction Criticism,” The Jesus Crisis, 255-57). First, it inherits the weaknesses of the Two- and Four-Source Theories upon which it depends. Second, redaction criticism does not deal adequately with its chronological, evidential, and ethical questions. Chronologically, redaction critics maintain that the tradition about Jesus circulated through and was formed by the early church (Form Criticism), but that after this it was fashioned and shaped by the Evangelists—all in a span of 30–40 years. In a day when communications moved slowly, this is nigh unto impossible. Evidentially, form criticism does not deal adequately with the fact that there were eyewitnesses still alive whose word would challenge the “artistry” of the Evangelists. Ethically, the more radical redaction critics maintain that the Evangelists ascribed words and deeds to Jesus that did not originate with Him. Christianity is the mother of high morality and makes it somewhat unlikely that the writers would have done this.

So how does one account for the similarities and differences in the Gospels? The similarities are explained by recognizing that Jesus was an itinerant teacher. It was common for Jewish itinerant teachers to present much of the same material in the various places where they traveled. If Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount once, He probably gave it a dozen times in various locations to various crowds. The disciples, of course, would have heard it almost every time. When they wrote their Gospels as eyewitnesses (Matthew) or as church historians using primary sources (Mark and Luke), there would understandably be considerable similarity in the words they ascribed to Jesus. The differences in wording can be accounted for as they individually emphasized certain things Jesus said in any one setting.

What He taught about divorce (Mt 19:3-12) can be read slowly in about 60 seconds. But He almost certainly took considerably longer to interact with the Pharisees, and later His disciples, on the topic. Matthew thus chose to emphasize one aspect of that much longer discussion, Mark and Luke others. The differences in the order or location of events can also be explained by Jesus’ travels. In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:9-13) in Galilee early in His ministry (cf. Mt 4:23), but Luke (Lk 11:2-4) places it during Jesus’ trek from Galilee to Jerusalem much later, perhaps in Samaria (cf. Lk 9:51-52), possibly even in Bethany in the vicinity of Jerusalem (Lk 10:38-42, if Mary and Martha are the sisters from Bethany—a fair assumption). So which is it? Did Jesus teach the Lord’s Prayer in Galilee or much further south? Critical scholars maintain that this difference in location signals historical inaccuracies in the Synoptic Gospels. But as an itinerant teacher, He probably taught about prayer in both Galilee (the episode Matthew records) and elsewhere (Luke’s episode), just as any good traveling preacher does today, and did in Jesus’ day.

For evangelical discussions sympathetic to source, form, and redaction criticism, cf. the articles by Scot McKnight, Darrell L. Bock, and Grant R. Osborne, respectively, in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991). For an interesting interaction between evangelicals who differ on these disciplines, see Robert L. Thomas, ed., Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2002). For a capable critique of Gospel critical studies, see Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, eds., The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism Into Evangelical Scholarship (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1998), and Eta Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992).