Timotheist’s Rules of Thumb regarding the Four Gospels
As it has been quite a few posts since I discussed my “rules of thumb”, I am repeating them here with a fourth step added:
1) When Mark and John agree on something, then that is as close to the truth as one can get.
2) When Mark and John differ on something, I tend to take John over Mark (the date of the crucifixion being a prime example,)
3) When it comes to Matthew and Luke, the additional material must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If contradictions are found between the additional material and the original material, then the new material is suspect.
4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it.
And why would I pick on Matthew and Luke? Both were written many years after Mark was written, and I have seen several examples where these authors took Mark’s gospel, added new material, and even modified some of Mark’s original text.
Analyzing the new material in Matthew and Luke
Unfortunately for the traditionalist view that the Synoptic gospels are harmonious and inerrant, there are many passages where Matthew’s and Luke’s added passages are not consistent with each other. The first example of this is seen when one compares the genealogies of Jesus that are recorded in Matthew and Luke.
Why the Genealogies?
Mark and John do not have genealogies for Jesus. Jesus’ parents are mentioned, but these authors did not spend much time on the subject. So why did the later authors add them? The answer is pretty simple: to show support that Jesus was the Messiah as promised in Old Testament passages.
Indeed, Matthew’s gospel opens with this: “The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” It was important to these authors to provide evidence that Jesus was of the lineage of David, of the tribe of Judah.
Matthew’s genealogy follows the kingly succession from David to Jeconiah. Luke’s version traces the genealogy back to David but does not follow the lineage of the kings.
Which one is correct? I do not accept the typical apologist’s (Witness Lee included) answer that they both are, that one is Joseph’s lineage and the other is Mary’s, for both of them claim to be citing Joseph’s lineage. If I had to vote I would probably side with Luke, for Matthew may have been a little over-zealous in trying to force the lineage down the line of the Kings of Judah. But in the end, it is not important to decide which is right.
What is important is to realize the motivation the authors had for introducing new material to Mark’s gospel: they wanted to show evidence that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies.