There is a traditional teaching among some, if not many Christian scholars that the New Testament Gospels MATTHEW and MARK are more closely related to each other than LUKE or JOHN. In fact, it is believed that MARK is the earliest written, and is the source material found in MATTHEW. It is therefore prudent as well as necessary to make a side by side comparison using biblical references to ascertain the facts as the internal evidence brings to light. A compilation of the significant events during the earthly ministry and life of Jesus Christ the Nazarene are utilized as a challenge to or confirmation of the accepted viewpoint.
After a rather exhaustive examination of the Christian Bible, some surprising new findings are postulated. The first thing which comes to mind is the Old Testament Messianic prophecies which find their fulfillment in the New Testament Gospels. NOTE: Only the ‘Synoptic Gospels’ (MATTHEW, MARK, and LUKE are included in this study. Also, the parables are excluded as it was deemed unnecessary.
In the book of MATTHEW there are 31 Messianic references; MARK has 8 references; and LUKE has 12 references. Next, the significant events in the life and earthly ministry of Jesus Christ from His Nativity to the Resurrection are catalogued. MATTHEW cites 63 references; MARK cites 54 references; and LUKE cites 69 references.
ADDITIONALLY:
a) Scriptural references found in MATTHEW but omitted in MARK=13
b) Scriptural references found in MARK but omitted in MATTHEW=7
c) Scriptural references found in MATTHEW but omitted in LUKE=3
d) Scriptural references found in MARK but omitted in LUKE=3
e) Scriptural references found in LUKE but omitted in MATTHEW=9
f) Scriptural references found in LUKE but omitted in MARK=16
g) Scriptural references included in both MATTHEW and MARK=47
h) Scriptural references included in both MATTHEW and LUKE=58
i) Scriptural references included in both MARK and LUKE=50
j) Scriptural references included in MATTHEW, MARK, and LUKE=43
This study is very interesting and clearly shows that there are certain discrepancies and possibly the gospel of LUKE is the source material for MATTHEW and/or MARK. LUKE has more information than any of the gospel authors and if MARK was the source, then why does the book contain fewer references that are contained in the others (MATTHEW, LUKE)? Not only that, but as item i) indicates, 50 references of the total number of 54 listed in MARK are found in LUKE. In fact, as item h) shows, 58 significant events of the total 63 in MATTHEW are found in LUKE also; this coincides quite nicely with items c) and d).
As far as MARK being the source for MATTHEW, items a) and b) would seem to refute that because nearly twice as many citations found in MATTHEW are absent in MARK, which if MARK were the source, it should be the opposite. How relevant or significant all this information is, remains undecided at this point, but as the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (Cp. II Timothy 2: 15)
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 19 2008
pbks@hotmail.com
