Part II: A

There are many theological differences between the three synoptic gospels. Each book has
their own themes that allow them to independently stand as biblical texts, but are similar in such
a way that they create continuity for a presentation of the story of Jesus in the Bible. In each of
the synoptic gospels, there is written an account of Jesus statement about the leaven of the
Pharisees. These accounts can be compared and contrasted in each of the synoptic gospels by
first understanding the synoptic problem inherent in these gospels, the impact these words had
on the disciples, and the meaning of these words in present-day culture. The synoptic gospels
are collectively our best approach to understanding many stories of Jesusthe perspectives
garnered from each of the books is uncompromising.
Scholars today define the synoptic problem as an answer to a question posed by early
Christians reading the text of Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Why are these gospels similar and how
does this add continuity to the story of Jesus? The similarity between these texts comes from
independent study of each gospel author and their understanding of previously written texts.
Generally, it is assumed that Mark was the first gospel written. Soon thereafter, Matthew was
written and this author had access to Mark. When Luke was written, the author had access to the
work of Mark and Matthew. The hierarchical structure of these texts allows for subtle changes in
texts to be broadly understood. In the story about the the leaven of the Pharisees, each gospel
account is slightly different. In Mark, the tone of the text is rather blunt toward disbelief of the
disciples. In Mark 8: 17-21, Jesus has conversation with the disciples about the meaning of
bread. In this text, Jesus tries to explain the importance of shying away from the leaven of the
Pharisees and the leaven of Herodhowever; the disciples seem to be clueless to the importance
of what Jesus is telling them. Interestingly, the same conversation told in Mark is told in

Matthew; however there is an explanation within the text that encourages the disciples to
understand the symbolism of the leaven bread. In this account, Luke is rather blunt in his
approach to telling this story. Rather than discuss the nature of the disciples, Luke is the first to
define the leaven of the Pharisees as hypocrisy.
Generally, the disciples are considered foolish in Mark, they are more competent in Matthew
and seem to be more understanding of Jesus parables, and they are very perceptive in Luke.
This can be seen in the context of this text. In Mark, the text goes on to explain the importance
of the leaven of the Pharisees as being more than a statement about the nature of rising bread.
Sadly, after careful articulation by Jesus, the Twelve Disciples seem to be incapable of
understanding that the importance of His description of the Pharisees. This story changes in
Matthew where Jesus describes the story and the disciples come to understand the importance of
Jesus statements. Interestingly, the author of Luke does not go into detail about the lack of
understanding in the disciples. In my mind, because Luke is generally written with an attitude
crediting the disciples with understanding, it could be assumed that the author carefully
articulates the meaning behind the leaven of the Pharisees to imply knowledge by the
disciples.
In each of these texts, the point of the story is the same. The heightened egotism displayed by
the Pharisees is a form of hypocrisy. This picture is painted in many other areas of the synoptic
gospels but this this the most direct statement giving credence to this position. Historically, this
story occurs after Jesus has fed the four thousand. Systematically, it makes sense that the
disciples would think Jesus was referring to the rising of bread in his parabolic discussion with
them. It is not until after this discussion is more defined by Jesus statements that the disciples
understand the true meaning of the story. Jesus makes important claims to the impacts of

egotism with the Pharisees in these gospels. He is encouraging the Pharisees to become less
enthralled with the message they wish to convey and more confident in the gospel message.
Sadly, the implications of this text are dramatic even in present-culture. In some ways, Christian
believers are like the Pharisees in that many of us have a position on theology which we are
uninterested in changing. People who are new to the faith could be turned off by our lack of
adjustment as new facts arise. This is what Jesus warns about.
In conclusion, the story about the leaven of the Pharisees is impactful on a number of
levels. Because there are many differences between the gospel texts, the information garnered
from each independently is of great importance. In this case, the gospel message is carried
through conversation with the disciples about a previous run-in with the Pharisees. This
conversation has ramifications presently as it did during the time it was written. Each of the
books are written to augment each other and tell the story from distinct perspectives allowing us
to gain a more full account of how Jesus addressed the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

Part II: B
The gospels are written to be more than a historical account of Jesus life. According to
Platcher (pg 27), gospels are history-like witnesses to truths both historical and transcendent.
He goes on to describe the gospels as being more than works of fiction or myth. Platcher even
goes so far as to say that these texts are not a historical account by modern definition. However,
he does say that a gospel is a collection of texts that describes the life of Jesus and transcends our
common understanding of biblical texts. For these reasons, it is important to understand these
implications.

A gospel is translated to Greek as euangelion. It literally means good news and was generally
spoken and passed down by oral tradition until they were written out. These gospels generally
have seven main themes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

All 4 gospels use the Old Testament as a source

All authors had access to oral traditions
Mark is the earliest gospel
Matthew uses Mark and adapts for writing
Luke uses Matthew, Mark, and oral tradition
John uses oral tradition and other work to complete the picture of Jesus
They are written to be theological narratives of Jesusthey are designed to cultivate
a relationship between readers and Him.

Each of these themes is represented in the gospel text. They synoptic problem develops out of
this list as the gospels play off each other in the biblical text. Farrer and Goodacre describe Mark
as being the first written gospel. Matthew is described as the second written gospel and uses
much of the text from Mark. Luke is written third and uses information from both previously
written gospels. The most impactful, and I would argue, important reasons to place Mark as the
first written text comes from its use in the other gospels so drastically. Matthew uses Mark for a
lot of his writing; it makes sense that Mark would be written first.

Luke actually makes a

comment (Luke 1:1) about the previous writers of gospels which makes me believe that Luke is
written third and uses information provided in Matthew and Mark for writing. John is a little bit
different in the way his gospel is written. He tends to rely more on oral tradition than other
gospels directly, although he does rely on more works that indirectly references the synoptic
gospels.
The impact of these four gospels is that we now have four different stories of Jesus from
different perspectives. These gospels do two things for current readers: they stop us from
creating a form of Jesus that is what we want (without referencing the big picture) and also
allows us to walk with other believers where we can understand their witness and allow it to

support us through our lives. By creating four different perspectives, the story of Jesus is
unfolded and we are graced with multiple ideas which we can synthesize to build a deeper
relationship with Christ. These four gospels are individually canonized because they all have
important implications on our lives. They teach us different themes of Jesus life and allow us to
grow as Christians. Strauss describes the themes of each gospel. Mark is a gospel of the
suffering God. Matthew is of the Messiah and Luke is based on Jesus being the savior of all
people. John is written to reveal the Father through the Son. These themes play a role in our
understanding of our Savior and the role the Messiah has played in our lives.
By having multiple gospel perspectives, we are able to develop our understanding of the Life
of Christ and His desire for our lives. If we created one gospel, we would lose the nuances
implicit in each of the texts and lose characteristics that are prevalent in each gospel. By
defining a list of characters of these gospels, we are able to understand the qualities of a true
gospel and the reason there are only four canonized texts. If we lost these four individual
accounts, we would be unable to see the true nature of Christ among us. We would have a hard
time truly understanding that the Life of Christ is transcending time and we as Christians are part
of the Kingdom of God.