A careful comparison of the four Gospels reveals that Matthew, Mark and Luke are noticeably similar, while John is quite different. The first three Gospels agree extensively in language, in the material they include, and in the order in which events and sayings from the life of Christ are recorded. (Chronological order does not appear to have been rigidly followed in any of the Gospels, however.) Because of this agreement, these three books are called the Synoptic Gospels (syn, "together with"; optic, "seeing"; thus "seeing together"). For an example of agreement in content see
Matt 9:2-8;
Mark 2:3-12;
Luke 5:18-26. An instance of verbatim agreement is found in
Matt 10:22a;
Mark 13:13a;
Luke 21:17. A mathematical comparison shows that 91 percent of Mark's Gospel is contained in Matthew, while 53 percent of Mark is found in Luke. Such agreement raises questions as to the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. Did the authors rely on a common source? Were they interdependent? Questions such as these constitute what is known as the Synoptic Problem. Several suggested solutions have been advanced.
The use of oral tradition. Some have thought that tradition had become so stereotyped that it provided a common source from which all Gospel writers drew.
The use of an early Gospel. Some have postulated that the Synoptic authors all had access to an earlier Gospel, now lost.
The use of written fragments. Some have assumed that written fragments had been composed concerning various events from the life of Christ and that these were used by the Synoptic authors.
Mutual dependence. Some have suggested that the Synoptic writers drew from each other with the result that what they wrote was often very similar.
The use of two major sources. The most common view currently is that the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document, called Quelle (German for "source") or Q, were used by Matthew and Luke as source for most of the materials included in their Gospels.
The priority and use of Matthew. Another view suggests that the other two Synoptics drew from Matthew as their main source.
A combination of most of the above. This theory assumes that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels made use of oral tradition, written fragments, mutual dependence on other Synoptic writers or on their Gospels, and the testimony of eyewitnesses.
(Taken from the NIV; The Reflecting God Study Bible Page1431)
Authors of the Synoptic Gospels
The Gospel of Matthew
The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was the author of this Gospel. However, the results of modern critical studies—in particular those that stress Matthew's alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel—have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eye witness to the events of our Lord's life, depend so heavily on Mark's account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony was not divided.
Matthew, whose name means "gift of the LORD," was a tax collector who left his work to follow Jesus (
9:9-13). In Mark and Luke, he is called by his other name, Levi.
Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. The most important evidence comes from Papias (c. A.D. 140), who quotes an even earlier source as saying: (1) Mark was a close associtate of Peter, from whom he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord; (2) this tradition did not come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of our Lord, but as the preaching of Peter—preaching directed to the needs of the early Christian communities; (3) Mark accurately preserved this material. The conclusion drawn from this tradition is that the Gospel of Mark largely consists of the preaching of Peter arranged and shaped by John Mark. (see note on Acts 10:37).
The Gospel of Luke
The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. This Gospel is a companion volume to the book of Acts, and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person. They are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, and the second volume refers to the first (
Acts 1:1). Certain sections in Acts use the pronoun "we" (
Acts 16:10-17;
20:5-15;
21:1-18;
27:1-28:16), indicating that the author was with Paul when the events described in these passages took place. By process of elimination, Paul's "dear friend Luke, the doctor" (
Col 4:14), and "fellow worker" (
Philemen 24) becomes the most likely candidate. His authorship is supported by the uniform testimony of early Christian writings (e.g., the Muratorian Canon, A.D. 170, and the works of Irenaeus, c. 180).
Luke was probably a Gentile by birth, well educated in Greek culture, a physician by profession, a companion of Paul at various times from his second missionary journey to his first imprisonment in Rome, and a loyal friend who remained with the apostle after others had deserted him (
2 Tim 4:11).
Antioch (of Syria) and Philippi are among the places suggested as his hometown.
