Reading the Synoptic Gospels: Basic Methods for Interpreting Matthew, Mark, and Luke

Allen, O. Wesley, Jr. Reading the SynopticGospels: Basic Methods for Interpreting Matthew, Mark, and Luke. St. Louis, MO, Chalice Press, 2013.

This book has a good explanation about the term of biblical theology. So I could easily understand, because the author’s general writing is simple and easy. I like the author who write an easy sentence even though he has great knowledge. This book is really helpful to me, I think not only to me also to the word lover who desire to dig well the meaning of the word of God.  First of all, it was very helpful to know how to establish the pericope, because it was very difficult to build the text for me especially the books of the Gospel.

And I can sense that the author really wants to help his readers to be prepared well for the exegesis of God’s word. He suggests that we need to understand all the vocabulary, references in the periscope, and also the historical, social background of course. For this, he gives us good advice that the Gospels are historical bound and it contains historical elements, but we need to know, the Gospels are not the history books. Their goal is not giving historical information, but it is in the preaching the gospel of Christ. Therefore, it is good to focus on the type of social and historical question rather than to know every detail of the social and historical background.

The author’s explanation about that Matthew and Luke how they used Mark’s information also very easily understandable. He said, Matthew and Luke independently used the Gospel of Mark as their primary source for composing their own narratives. So that they followed some of Mark’s outline, modified parts, and radically departed from it in some sections of their narratives. I like this explanation. This is because I can know that, they didn’t just use the gospel of Mark, but for their emphasis on the Jesus Christ, they used some from Mark or depart from it very dynamic in the freedom of the Spirit. It helps me to

understand about the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

In facts, my understanding of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is that almost passive form. I thought that the author of the Bible has no freedom to use their own expression, or the theology, thoughts. They must write right word what they heard from God. Because of this idea, for me, it was very difficult to understand that the author’s of the Bible omitting, adding, put in their theological emphasis. Now, I can adjust those things through this book.

But still, there are some that difficult to understand. Allen says that, in this situation we can see that Matthew and Luke valued Mark enough to depend on it greatly, however, changed it, because they ultimately found it inadequate theologically. Well, then, how can we accept or treat the gospel of Mark. If they found it ultimately inadequate theologically?

Though the author of this book, I could understand what is redaction criticism, because his explanation is so good. But, the editorial work of the gospel writers, the redaction criticism that the person who stands behind the text change this word, or why did he add/omit that phrasing, periscope, or section, what is the theological reason for his editorial work, is still challengeable for me to accept it.

In any way, it is important to catch up the intention of the editorial work, we have to study every significant vocabulary, topic, character, and place in our passage. And for this Allen gives us tip that even small things become significant when it used repeatedly. And he suggests that we need to, have to read the entire gospel through to discover editorial patterns are more linked to themes than to vocabulary. This suggestion that the author gives us is very practical and important point I think. Therefore, for the serious digging the word of God, especially, the Synoptic, we have to read through Matthew, Mark, or Luke quickly in one sitting.

            About the genre of Synoptic, Allen examines as narrative. He also says that the gospel share historical but are not history, more focus on Jesus but more than biographies. And they proclaim the good news of the Christ, but they are not sermons. Also, Gospel share theological, but the Gospels are not theological treatises. Therefore, the author’s conclusion about the Gospels’ genre as narrative.

            But as the author’s logic, the Gospel contains stories, but it is difficult to see the genre of the Gospels as narrative. This is because there are many things in the Gospels as Allen says. It contains sermon, history, narratives, commandments, lessons. I think it is unique. So, as my understanding, it is more reasonable to know the genre as the Gospel itself as some scholars suggest rather than narrative.  

            The last question that “what this Scripture passage means to me?” to answer this question, not only for the sermon, but also for the personal reflection, we need to exegesis. And we have to try to get right answer for this question. But more I study the word, especially, the Synoptic passage which has layers meaning, I can see more my limitation. Especially, it is very hard to reset my mindset to understand fully about what the scholars argue or determine about it. But I believe that I am in the process to extend my understanding for that, as long as, I do not stop to study about it. 

Written by Sue