Synoptic Gospels vs John

[Hugo Drax]

My turn to ask a question. Apologies in advance if it seems heretical. Please don't think I reject the synoptic gospels.

Why do the synoptic gospels put key parts of the narrative, for example, the Feeding of the Five Thousand in different places on the timeline?

As one of the Pharisees (a lawyer), this has always troubled me. If I were selecting eyewitnesses to put on the witness stand knowing that they would be subject to cross-examination, I would select John.

Some of this is probably stylistic preference. John fell in love from the first paragraph and never wavers. But part is also the fact that he clearly comes across as the eyewitness relating what he saw but could not explain rather than attempting to explain what he saw.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke read like they're emphasizing what they think of as the key parts and I know that a good lawyer could have them tripping up over the fact that their fellow witnesses don't testify to the same version of events.

Help. I have the barest knowledge regarding the hypothesis of the Q Document, but I don't think it explains what I'm seeing.

[ChildOfGod]

I was really disappointed not to find some WWF Smackdown type content!

I would encourage you to seek out theological sources on this. It has received good treatment/coverage from the best.

Just a couple simple thoughts from moi…

I recall (and will never forget) a sermon by Charles Stanley where he said something like, “You may say ‘there are some differences or inconsistencies in the Gospels’, but if they all aligned perfectly you’d say ‘they’re just copies of each other’”

Truly, no one on Earth will know the answer for certain. We will know when we get to talk to John (something I really look forward to) but that paraphrase/quote from Chuck can really be unpacked - it’s quite suggestive. God didn’t make any mistakes with His perfect Word: the differences are known, planned and a gift.

[FredS]

I see John as an outlier who's wired differently than Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who likely 'copied' some of their Gospels from a common source. I don't think it's coincidence that John is the one who introduces us to 'doubting' Thomas. I can relate to both guys. They're the ones who ask why. Why did He say this? Why did He go there? Why did this or that happen? They may not find the answer, but they're not afraid to wonder. In my immediate family, there are three that are perfectly content to just go along with the narrative and there are two who say "Wait a minute. Why? Let's look deeper." Saints John and Thomas give us permission to do that.

[EDIT] A re-read of the OP makes me realize this is more about differences within the synoptic Gospels than it is about John being different than the others. If, as many suspect, Mark was the first Gospel writer, and he himself relied on some written source material, and then Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and probably some other written material, I can see how differences creep in. Like the telephone game. Each writer probably interviewed different witness' and they certainly had different teachers.

[jmg]

I think it is important to remember that the various Gospels were written by different people. I don't mean that in jest, or to poke fun. Just as you and I are different folks, so were they. Just as you and I, with unique personalities, would write about our shared experiences (assuming we had any...and I wish we did) differently, due to the fact that we, quite possibly, are vastly different people, so would they. So many things shape the way we "see" things. No two people, even those that grow up in the same household, experience things in the same way. Certain things that stand out to one person, may be of little consequence to another. Personally, I think that is a beautiful thing about the multiple accounts of the Gospels.

Side note: I genuinely hope you and I get to have a shared experience some day.

[Hugo Drax]

I think it is important to remember that the various Gospels were written by different people. I don't mean that in jest, or to poke fun. Just as you and I are different folks, so were they. Just as you and I, with unique personalities, would write about our shared experiences (assuming we had any...and I wish we did) differently, due to the fact that we, quite possibly, are vastly different people, so would they. So many things shape the way we "see" things. No two people, even those that grow up in the same household, experience things in the same way. Certain things that stand out to one person, may be of little consequence to another. Personally, I think that is a beautiful thing about the multiple accounts of the Gospels.

Side note: I genuinely hope you and I get to have a shared experience some day.

Yes. I agree with that...different authors will be inspired differently in their interpretations of events. I don't think this can ever explain why they placed the same event at different times during Christ's ministry, however, unless truly the lost Q document was corrupted over time or had missing parts by the time scribes sat down, pen in hand, to retrace what had been lost. Or, perhaps, old men simply recalled the events of decades before differently--easily believable if the customers in my lounge are any indication.

Thanks, JMG, and all who responded here. Some things, I suppose, must remain mysteries on this side of death and that's ok.

Oh, and John Michael? Meeting up with you has always been a goal of mine. You're a hero in my book. But even if it doesn't happen on this earth, I've a pretty good notion we're still going to meet one of these days.

[Del]

Help. I have the barest knowledge regarding the hypothesis of the Q Document, but I don't think it explains what I'm seeing.

Hey, Paul.... I can't answer your question definitively. But I can give you a data dump of what I remember of Bible history classes.

You can disregard the Q Source theory. It was invented in 1900, in order to fill the gaps in the also-new Markan Priority theory. This was the result of German protestant research commissioned by Bismark, who really wanted an academic excuse to say that Mt. 16 "You are the Rock upon which I will build My Church. I give you the Keys to My Kingdom, etc." was "added later."

The Early Church Fathers (especially St. Irenaeus) recalled the Gospels thus:

Matthew was written first, in Aramaic. His audience was the first Jewish Christians. The Aramaic is lost, but we have the Greek. Matthew was an Apostle, an actual eye-witness.

Luke was second. It is primarily the Gospel stories that Paul preached. Neither Luke nor Paul were actual eye-witnesses. But Paul was a precise student... He spent several years learning from the Apostles (just as he had studied brilliantly under the greatest Rabbis) before he started his mission work. Luke, likewise, was a precise historian. He certainly interviewed Mary at length in order to record the Infancy Narratives.

As a lawyer yourself, you may appreciate the proposed view that the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles were written for an actual man named Theophilus, one who was some sort of magistrate official related to Paul's trial.

Mark was the last synoptic written. He was recording St. Peter's preaching. Neither Peter nor Mark were especially precise about it. Mark collected Peter's anecdotes from his time with Christ and wrote them down, with little regard for chronological order. His audience was the Roman mob. His direct and concise delivery suited their short attention span (much like internet news articles today).

It is very likely that Mark had a copy of Matthew available to assist him, and possibly Luke as well.

The synoptic Gospels are full of signs and miracles.... stories to persuade Jews and pagans that Jesus was the Messiah/Son of God.
=====================================
John, of course, was written much later. His audience was a large mass of believing Christians who wanted to know more about what Jesus said and taught, so that they could understand more deeply.