ANN056

The Gospels in Numbers

The article analyzes the Gospels through a close exploration of the pericopes, discussing the priority and dependence of the accounts. Based on a recognized division, it examines how Matthew, Mark, Luke and John built their narratives and influenced one another.

7 min Gospels pericopes priority

Further information

You can consult:

Introduction

First, we will undertake to count the pericopes found in each of the four Gospels. This will help us determine the distinctive features and the information proper to each Gospel. We will identify the pericopes that are common to several texts and those mentioned by one author alone.

Our aim is to determine whether there is a relationship of dependence between these different accounts. This could show whether one of the Gospels served as a model for the others, or whether, on the contrary, the apostles had drawn up a common list of pericopes used by Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Thus, we seek to establish the priority of one of these texts over the others.

I. The List of Events

We have counted the various events related by each of the authors of the Gospels, based on a list of 178 distinct events. This list is inspired by the one drawn up by Cor Bruins in his work ‘The Harmony of the Gospels’. Indeed, depending on the division chosen, the number of events may vary. In our synopsis, we have subdivided some events, thereby substantially increasing their number. This approach aims to refine our analysis.

However, to simplify our study, we have adopted the division proposed by Cor Bruins, which is also followed by several exegetes. We will therefore consider that our four Gospels relate 178 different pericopes.

II. Analysis Assuming the Priority of Matthew

We start from the hypothesis that the Gospel of Matthew was the first to be written, and we use it as our reference. In our table, we have included all the events cited by each of the authors of the Gospels, following this order: Matthew, Mark, Luke, then John. For more details, please see appendix ANN059 entitled: The Developments of Mark.

We know that the Gospel of John, written later, introduces 29 new pericopes, which implies that the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) cited only 149 of the 178 in total (178 – 29 = 149).

In this context, Matthew mentions 103 new pericopes out of the 149 recorded in the Synoptics. Mark, who follows Matthew in chronological order, takes up 80 pericopes from Matthew and adds 9 new ones. Luke, for his part, takes up 74 pericopes from his predecessors and contributes 37 new events.

Thus, Mark takes up 90% of Matthew's information, bringing only 10% of new content.

Where does this new information come from?

In our chapter on the Gospels, we put forward the hypothesis of a list of pericopes drawn up by the apostles, intended to cover all of Jesus' miracles. Had the apostles limited themselves to the most spectacular miracles, we would have had mainly accounts of resurrections!

This list probably served as the basis for the writings of Matthew and Mark, and it is possible that Luke also had access to it.

III. Analysis Assuming the Priority of Mark

Under the hypothesis of the priority of Mark, it appears that 78% of the content of the Gospel of Matthew is derived from that of Mark, while 22% of the events presented by Matthew are unique additions.

Moreover, 90% of the content of the Gospel of Mark is taken up by Matthew. It is also noteworthy that all the information contained in the Gospel of Mark is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

This means that, among the Synoptic Gospels, Mark contributes no new event. This observation has led some exegetes to consider the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first to be written.

The ‘priority of Mark’ is a well-established hypothesis among Gospel scholars in biblical studies. Proposed at the beginning of the 19th century, this theory suggests that the Gospel according to Mark was the first of the four Gospels of the New Testament to be written. This idea challenges the traditionally accepted chronological order, which places Matthew first, followed by Mark, Luke and John. We will briefly examine five key arguments that support this theory, while adding our own observations on each point.

Simplicity and brevity of Mark: Mark's account is the shortest and seems less elaborate than those of Matthew and Luke. This simplicity suggests that Mark could be the original source.
Our observation: This brevity could result from a simplification of Matthew's text, intended for a non-Jewish audience.

Narrative structure: Matthew and Luke largely follow the order of events in Mark, while adding their own content.
Our observation: It is equally possible that Mark and Luke adapted the structure of Matthew, modifying the content for their own purposes.

Details and language: Mark's choice of words and his raw details are often improved in Matthew and Luke.
Our observation: The scholarly linguistic skills of Matthew and Luke are evident in their accounts, whereas Mark's account reflects a simpler approach, suited to an audience less familiar with Jewish customs.

Two-source theory: It suggests that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a hypothetical source ‘Q’ for their writing.
Our observation: We envisage instead a common list of pericopes drawn up by the apostles, with Matthew as the principal writer. Peter would then have simplified Matthew's text with the help of Mark in order to adapt it to a non-Jewish audience.

Literary and textual analyses: Comparative analyses of the texts show that Matthew and Luke often reproduce large portions of Mark word for word, which is less frequent in the other direction.
Our observation: The text of Luke was written well after Matthew and Mark, and should be analyzed separately. The close link between Matthew and Mark suggests that Mark is a simplified version of Matthew.

In conclusion, although the priority of Mark is widely debated, it is not universally accepted. Our analysis suggests that the priority of Matthew is also a viable option, which seems to us more in keeping with the pragmatism and the dynamics of the group of apostles.

Conclusion

The various conclusions concerning the writing of the Gospels remain hypotheses that fuel debates among scholars, often based on complex arguments. Since the beginning of the 19th century, we have also observed a systematic questioning of previously established conclusions, often going back to the Church Fathers.

In the face of these new proposals, it is essential to analyze carefully the reasons for the suggested changes. In our case, we lean in favor of the priority of the Gospel of Matthew, as we explained in the chapter: The Gospels. In our view, the political circumstances of the time support this hypothesis.

It seems crucial to us to take into account the realism and pragmatism of the apostles in their historical and social context when examining these questions.