Introduction to Luke and the Synoptic Gospels
The introduction to Luke is identical to the introductions for Matthew and Mark, because these three gospel
accounts are together called the synoptic gospels. First, this introduction defines and discusses the synoptic
gospels generally. Then, a part of this introduction focuses on the unique authorship and intentions of these
three accounts – those elements that makes each of the synoptic accounts unique outside of the text itself.
The remainder of the introduction notes the textual similarities and differences (inclusions and omissions)
between the accounts. This commentary on Mark repeatedly references parallel accounts in Matthew, Luke, and
even John. There is some attempt to consider the synoptic accounts in chronological order, for the sake of
studying them in the order that the detailed events of Jesus’ life and ministry, death and burial, and
resurrection occurred.
The word “synoptic” literally means “same eye.” So the three synoptic gospel accounts see Jesus of Nazareth from
the same vantage point, with similar purposes, whereas the Gospel of John views the account of Jesus from a
different perspective and with a very different intention. The three synoptic gospels contain main verbatim
accounts, many similar accounts with a few differences, perhaps based on perspective or intent, and a number
of accounts not mentioned in the others. This is exactly what we’d expect from eyewitnesses revealing the same
historical account in their own terms. Their stories do not contradict each other, contrary to what some critics
and skeptics believe; rather their stories compliment each other, especially when including the Gospel of John,
adding to our understanding of the revelation of Jesus’ life and ministry.
However, the vast number of word-for-word sections within the synoptic gospels have caused some scholars believe
there had to be a lost or unknown literary source used by all of them, for they claim that oral tradition alone
could not account for the lengthy verbatim sections. Scholars call this literary source “Q,” and wonder why it
went unpreserved. The general answer given is that Matthew and Luke preserve Q in a more useful manner than Q would
have been on its own. Perhaps a better question relates to the preservation of Mark’s account, which is 97%
duplicated in Matthew and/or Luke. Scholars answer this by making two important points: First is the fact that
Mark likely recorded the words of Peter. Since Mark’s account is actually the Gospel according to Peter, then
it deserves preservation even though it is significantly less complete an account of Jesus’ ministry than Matthew,
Luke, or John. Second, Mark was likely written from Rome and to Roman people. The importance of the intended audience
and source point adds to the inherent worthiness of the account. So the thought is that Mark was written first, and
then Mark and Q and perhaps even another literary source were used by Matthew and Luke to record their accounts, all
in the 50’s and early 60’s AD.
The chart below shows the literary relationship between the synoptic gospels
(http://www.free-online-bible-study.org/synoptic-gospels.html). 76% of Mark is reproduced almost word-for-word
in both Matthew and Luke. An additional 18% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew but not in Luke, and a further 3% of
Mark is in Luke but not in Matthew. This means that 97% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew and/or Luke. Only 3% of
Mark’s material is unique to Mark and not found in Matthew or Luke. Matthew contains 606 of Mark’s 661 verses.
Luke contains 320 of Mark’s 661 verses. Of the 55 verses of Mark that Matthew does not reproduce, Luke reproduces
31; therefore there are only 24 verses in all of Mark not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke. The chart also
shows that 23% of Luke is word-for-word identical to 25% of Matthew, but this is material unique to these gospels
and not found in Mark. This suggests another literary source in independent of Mark used by Matthew and Luke in the
evolution of the synoptic gospels tradition.
We have seen that the honor of the first account to be recorded belongs to Mark, but the first account we come to
in our New Testament is Matthew. Why? First, Matthew’s audience is primarily Jewish, and he presents Jesus as
Messiah, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Also, Matthew proves that the Church is the consummation
and continuation of the saving purposes of God begun with Abraham in the Old Testament. Early church fathers, such
as Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Jerome attribute this gospel to Matthew, or Levi,
the tax-collector disciple of Jesus. The nature of Matthew’s witness to the gospel as well as later references to
Matthew in the Letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, suggests to scholars that Matthew, using Mark’s account, Q,
and perhaps other Jewish materials, probably wrote from Antioch-in-Syria in the 60’s or 70’s AD.
Next, we come to Mark’s gospel account, which was written first among the gospels, likely in the late 50’s or early
60’s AD. As noted above, the preservation of Mark’s account may be due to the fact that he recorded the honorable
Peter’s perspective and wrote from Rome (as implied from 1 Peter 5:13 where Mark was certainly with Peter in Rome)
– then the capital of the known world – to the most prominent audience at the time – Romans. Though Mark doesn’t
include many details, which would have been critical for a Jewish audience like Matthew’s but insignificant to a
Roman readership, he moves quickly through the timeline of Jesus’ life, pointing to Jesus as King and Son of God,
both of which also would have appealed to his Roman audience. Numerous early church fathers acknowledge Mark’s
authorship, and Papias offered an explanation: “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately
all that he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord, but not, however, in order. For neither did he hear
the Lord, nor did he follow Him, but afterward, as I said, Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs (of the
hearers), but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake
in thus recording of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake in thus recording some things just as he
remembered them, for he made it his one care to omit nothing that he had heard and to make no false statement therein.”
Finally, among the synoptic gospel accounts, we come to Luke. The only Gentile author represented in Scripture, Luke
wrote, not surprisingly, to a Gentile audience, and focused on the humanity of Jesus. He may have had a benefactor,
a sponsor for his writing and ministry, named Theophilus, literally “lover of God,” to whom he addressed both his
gospel account and its sequel, the Book of Acts. As a physician, Luke used medical terminology, very specific research
confirmation, and elements Gentiles would have appreciated, such as miracles, sorcery, and even the appreciation of
women. As with the other gospel writers, early church fathers acknowledged Luke’s authorship, with one such leader
saying, “At the age of eighty-four [Luke] died in Boeotia, full of the Holy Spirit. Although gospels already existed
– the one according to Matthew written in Judea, the one according to Mark in Italy – he was impelled by the Holy
Spirit to write this whole gospel among those dwelling about Achaea, making clear in his preface the fact that other
gospels were written before his, and that it was necessary to set forth the accurate narrative of the Dispensation to
gentile believers, so that they should not be distracted by Jewish fables nor, deceived by heretical and empty fancies,
miss the mark of the truth. And afterward the same Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles.” Luke wrote in the late 60’s
or 70’s AD, just after Matthew, using both his and Mark’s accounts, as well as Q and perhaps other written testimony.
Luke undoubtedly conducted numerous personal interviews, even with the likes of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, to verify
his account through not only oral tradition but eyewitness testimony as well.
So three very different authors wrote to three very different audiences at three different times from three different
places, but they wrote the same story – the truth about Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Man, the Messiah who was to come
according to Jewish prophecy, the Son of God and conquering King who reigns over all, and the perfect Man who revealed
the love of God for all kinds of people – even Gentiles. If we add John’s account to this summary, we also have a
picture of Jesus, God who became Man, the word of God who became flesh and dwelled among His people to fulfill
everything planned before the foundation of the world. (For those interested in John’s gospel account, see the
commentary on John, accessible from the previous page.) And in these accounts, we have an inerrant and infallible
word-picture of the life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The final chore to take in this introduction is layout the harmony of the synoptic gospels. It’s worth including John
here, just to paint a total picture of what we have in the four gospel accounts. Generally speaking, all four accounts
include the same basic literary formula: an introduction (Matthew 1:1-2:23; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:1-2:52; John 1:1-18),
preparatory episodes (Matthew 3:1-4:11; Mark 1:2-13; Luke 3:1-4:13; John 1:19-36), Jesus’ early ministry (Matthew
4:12-16:12; Mark 1:14-8:21; Luke 4:14-9:17; John 1:35-51; 2A; 4; 6), Jesus en route to Jerusalem (Matthew 16:13-20:34;
Mark 8:22-10:52; Luke 9:18-19:27; John 2:13; 5:1; 7:1-10), Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-25:46; Mark
11:1-13:37; Luke 19:28-21:38; John 2B; 3; 5; 7-12), details of the Passion Week (Matthew 26:1-27:66; Mark 14:1-15:47;
Luke 22:1-23:56; John 13:1-19:42), and a narrative highlighting Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 28:1-20; Mark 16:1-8;
Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-21:25). All of these segments can be broken down further, but their existence reveals enough
of the parallel nature to call them gospel accounts. Let’s take a look at Mark.