The Synoptic Gospels and Acts

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have much in common, but because the first three share a particularly strong resemblance, they are called the “Synoptic Gospels” (literally, Gospels with a common vision). The differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John are as interesting as they are significant. For example, where the Synoptics have numerous parables focusing on the kingdom of God, the Fourth Gospel rarely includes parables, and the term “kingdom” is used sparingly (John 3:3, 5; 18:36). Likewise, in the Synoptic Gospels Jesus is declared to be Messiah at Caesarea Philippi in the middle of the narrative (Matt 16:13–16; Mark 8:27–30; Luke 9:18–20); in John’s account, Jesus’ messiahship is announced at the beginning of the text (John 1:35, 49).

The considerable overlap (in terms of plot, wording, and substance) between the Synoptic Gospels suggests that the three texts are related—one or more of the evangelists used or was aware of the work of the others. According to the traditional view of the early church fathers, Matthew was the first Gospel written. Mark, who used Matthew as a reference, was written second, and Luke, who used both Matthew and Mark, was written last. Although this view prevailed for centuries, other solutions have been put forward to explain the relation between the Synoptic Gospels.

The most common theory today claims that Mark was the earliest Gospel, composed independently of another early—but lost—source. Both Mark and this hypothesized “lost source” supposedly provided the basis for Matthew and Luke, who worked independently of each other. This view eventually came to be called the “Two-Source Hypothesis.” The hypothetical lost source is called “Q” for “Quelle,” the German word for “source.” A variation of this view argues that Mark was, in fact, the first Gospel, but that there was no “Q”—Matthew used Mark as a source, and Luke used both Matthew and Mark.

The Gospel of Mark

If the Gospel of Mark was indeed written first, its likely author was not the most illustrious among the evangelists. According to church tradition, John Mark (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37; 2 Tim 4:11) authored the Gospel, and there is little reason to think otherwise. Church tradition also reports that he worked under the auspices of the Apostle Peter. Exactly when the author of Mark’s Gospel completed his work is less certain. Depending on a variety of considerations, scholars date this Gospel anywhere between the 40s and the 70s ad. A composition in the mid-60s or just after ad 70 are the most widely accepted options.

Mark’s Gospel was most likely written in Rome, though Alexandria and Palestine are also possibilities. A Roman setting is suggested by the various Latinisms in the text and by the author’s numerous attempts to translate events into Roman terms (Mark 12:42; 15:16). The church fathers Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1) and Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.15.6–7) affirm the likelihood of Rome as the place of composition.

The author of the Gospel of Mark seems to have been particularly interested in issues of theodicy (the vindication of God and His ways)—more specifically, why the followers of a supposedly risen and triumphant Messiah should experience suffering and rejection. Mark seems to suggest that the answer lies in the fact that Jesus has redefined the terms of messiahship altogether. In the first half of the Gospel, prior to the revelation of Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27–30), the evangelist seeks to establish Jesus as the promised Messiah. In the second half of the narrative, he conveys the surprising things that messianic identity entails. The reason why so many do not accept the Messiah is because only some are “good soil” (Mark 4:1–20), receptive to the claims of Jesus. Mark’s Gospel, with its twin focus on Christ’s compelling character and suffering, serves as an unparalleled charter document for Christian discipleship.

The Gospel of Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew is often assigned a date much later than that of Mark. This is primarily a consequence not only of the Two-Source Hypothesis, but also of the sense that the author of Matthew’s Gospel is addressing concerns relevant to the late first century ad (e.g., Christians’ conflicts with the synagogue and issues of church order). Moreover, the twice-used phrase “to this day” (Matt 27:8; 28:15) seems to imply some historical distance between Matthew’s recording of the events and the events themselves. These factors may suggest an authorship date in the late first-century ad, although other factors suggest an earlier date; the dating of Matthew remains open to discussion.

Antioch in Syria is the most probable place of origin for Matthew’s Gospel. Other suggested locations include Caesarea Maritima, Alexandria, and the territory east of the Jordan. The Gospel has an obvious concern for the Gentiles, and Syrian Antioch was a cosmopolitan mix of Jewish and Gentile cultures during the first century ad. The earliest attestations of Matthew’s Gospel stemming from the church father Ignatius of Antioch (e.g., To the Smyrnaeans 1.1, To the Ephesians 19.1–3) also suggest a Syrian origin for the Gospel.

The first Gospel seems to have been written with a Jewish audience foremost in mind. Matthew’s modeling of Jesus on the figure of Moses, the polemic against institutional Judaism, and the various “fulfillment citations” (referencing an Old Testament passage as being fulfilled in the New Testament, especially how Jesus personally fulfills Old Testament Scriptures; e.g., Matt 1:22–23; 2:15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16) all seem to presuppose an attempt to legitimize a fledgling Christian movement within an established Jewish culture. Matthew shows Jesus as the true teacher of Torah, indeed as the embodiment of Torah itself, and as the culmination of the history of God’s redeeming purposes through Israel.

The Gospel of Luke and Book of Acts

The Gospel of Luke, the latest of the Synoptic Gospels, has traditionally been credited to Luke, a Gentile physician and companion of the Apostle Paul (Col 4:11, 14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 24). The book of Acts (or Acts of the Apostles) is also traditionally attributed to Luke since the prologue presents it as a sequel to the Gospel (Acts 1:1–2). There are also four “we passages” in Acts, which appear as if the author was present for the events being narrated (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). This would make sense if Luke was indeed the author.

Assuming that Luke and Acts were written together as one piece (the two works show striking structural parallels that make it hard to believe otherwise), the dating of Luke—Acts is closely connected with prior judgments relating not only to the authorship of Mark (on whom Luke presumably depends) but also to the events narrated in Acts. The earliest that Luke-Acts could have been completed would have been just after Paul’s Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:11–31) in the early 60s. Another view dates the writing of Luke—Acts to the 80s or 90s. This possibility rests mainly on the belief that its author was aware of the destruction of Jerusalem (ad 70). Moreover, Luke’s Gospel appears to be an attempt to address early Christian anxieties over the so-called delay of the Parousia, or second coming of Christ (see Matt 24:27). On the assumption that such anxieties presented themselves (a debated issue), they must have done so measurably later than the writing of Mark or even Matthew.

Luke—Acts have their own distinctive style and offer their own unique contribution to the New Testament. The texts contain very polished Greek; their rich allusiveness (to both pagan and Jewish sources) and attention to historical detail (such as in the travelogue of Paul’s journey to Rome in Acts 27–28) betray a well-educated author writing for a well-educated audience. Judging by the prologues (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–2), which are modeled on the prologues of other serious Greek historical works, it can be concluded that the author wished to be understood as an equally serious historian. Addressing both the Gospel and Acts to one Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1), Luke announces his intention of rooting the story of Jesus and the early church firmly within history. Thus, Luke—Acts as a whole not only carries out an apologetic function—confirming the factual validity of the church’s proclamation—but also offers a founding account of the identity of an expanding and increasingly diversified movement. The outworking of that story is consistently tied back to the sovereign purposes of God, the reign of the risen Christ, the activity of the Holy Spirit, and the character and mission of the church. In addition to these themes, the author of Luke—Acts maintains a distinctive interest in prayer, hospitality, the poor, and salvation (Luke 2:11; 4:21; 19:10; 23:43; Acts 1:14; 2:42–47; 4:12, 32–35; 28:28).

Three Gospels, One Portrait

Together, the Synoptic Gospels offer a compelling and mutually enriching portrait of Jesus. Although readers have not always agreed on the meaning of the Gospels, all can agree that were it not for Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we would know very little about the historical Jesus or His kingdom message. It is thus hardly by chance that the earliest compilers of the New Testament canon chose to begin not with the earliest-written books, but with those books that tell the lead story: the Synoptic Gospels.

Nicholas Perrin

Further Reading

Q CLBD

Textual Criticism of the New Testament CLBD

Jesus, Historical, Quest for The CLBD

Jesus, Canonical CLBD

Jesus and Qumran CLBD

The Formation of the New Testament

How to Study the Bible

Biblical Theology