Gospels and Chronicles

While I don't agree completely with the thesis of Why Four Gospels, I'm enjoying reading it because a) I found it cheap and b) it is stimulating my thoughts on the subject of the so-called "Synoptic Problem" in a good way. My Old Testament Survey course also shed some light on Matthew, in particular. In fact, the parallels between Matthew and 1&2 Chronicles are stunning, and I haven't taken the time to trace them in depth yet. However, I would consider sub-titling Matthew as "3 Chronicles." Not persuaded? Compare Matthew 28:18-20 to 2 Chronicles 36:22-23:

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

2 Chronicles 36:22 "Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him. Let him go up.'"

I think this has some implications for the theory of how the Synoptic Gospels were written. My current theory is as follows:

1) Matthew is written, immediately after Pentecost as the fulfillment of the Old Testament in Jesus. This would serve as an apologetic tool and as a consolidated form of the teaching of the Apostles, and is patterned after the Jewish literature of the Old Testament, possibly with an eye to the books of Chronicles in particular. This exposition of the meaning of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is extremely Jewish in orientation, which we ought to expect of the 1st "Jesus account," since that would have been the "native" view of the Gospel. No adaptation needs to take place, just an ordered account proving that Jesus was the Christ (the easiest thing for Jesus' first followers to produce).

2) Mark is written as the first adaptation or translation of the Gospel. It probably has some dependence on Matthew (which set the precedent) and is a conscious recasting of the Gospel in the form of a Roman "gospel" account, such as accompanied the birth of a new emperor or a decisive military victory (a "gospel" declares important good news to the general populace). One reason I think it fits this form is that Mark is the only one of the "gospels" that labels itself a gospel and seems to conform to the "gospel" style (though I need to research that), though the others do refer to "good news." It does not supercede Matthew in any way because it isn't meant to- it retells key parts of Matthew as an evangelistic tool for the Gentiles ( it is, consequently, much shorter and punchier than Matthew and Luke). It was probably delivered by Peter (according to tradition) as a set of sermons. If you take the shorter ending of Mark as the original, it pointedly challenges the reader to consider what stand they are going to take with Jesus.

3) Luke is written to supplement Mark. In his introduction, Luke writes, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." This could well be in response to a Gentile who came to faith through the proclamation of Mark's gospel (in written or verbal form, in part or whole), who then studied Mark's account and desired to know more. Matthew's account wouldn't help this Gentile much, at least not for a while, because it is, in a sense, "too Jewish." A new Gentile believer would not be able to make much of Matthew's claims, nor would he catch Matthew's Old Testament references and proofs. Luke caters to the Gentile audience by relating the events and details that would most matter to them, while telling the same story as the other gospels. For example, Luke doesn't tell of the Magi (the believer will eventually read Matthew's account and learn of them anyway) because why would a Gentile care about Jewish astrologers from Babylon (the Jewish reader would care a great deal about these people!)? Instead, he tells a more "human interest" account of people the non-Jews can still relate to, Mary and the shepherds among them.

This is a very literary approach to the "Synoptic Problem," and would need to be backed up with more detailed examination. However, it is a simple approach (other approaches I've seen need a good deal of gymnastics and improbable events/practices in order to make them work), if not conclusive. The informed reader will deduce that I do not consider the gospels to be a special and unique form of literature, at least as originally conceived: Matthew is a continuation of Chronicles, Mark is a Roman announcement of "good news," and Luke is in the form of a Greek/Roman biography (though all three do focus tremendously on the Passion narrative, making them distinctive in their respective genres). However you slice it, the Synoptics are not a problem, but a blessing.