(avg. read time: 8–16 mins.)
As of now, I have provided two examples of the type of synoptic analysis I plan to do more of in the future. Admittedly, I am still ironing out just how I want it to look in the finished product. To get a glimpse of what it could look like in its most complex form, over these next two entries I will look at stories that appear in all four Gospels, since I already composed comparisons for these cases in my work for my Historical Jesus class. The focus of today’s synoptic analysis is Jesus coming to the temple and cleansing it.
The following tables supply a textual comparison of each version of the pericope. The words in plain font are common between all four texts. The words in red font are common between three of the four texts. The words in orange fonts are common between two of the four texts. The words in bold font are unique to each Gospel. The words in italics are alternate forms of words that appear in multiple texts or synonyms. The words in single brackets are variants, while brief comments that do not fit easily elsewhere will be in double brackets. For each text, I will give two scores of similarity (which do not account for rearrangement) to each of the other Gospels: one will be cases of absolute matching and the other will be cases of “weighted” matching, not counting variants (assigning a value of 1 to perfect matches, 0.75 to alternate forms of the same word and 0.5 to synonyms). There is no easy way to account for variation in word order in these similarity scores, thus my only solution to make note of these variations is to put a < symbol next to scores to signify that the verbal similarity is actually less than the calculated score would indicate because of the difference in word order where the wording is otherwise similar. The Greek is taken from NA28.
1) Luke never directly narrates Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem; it is simply implied as Luke moves from narrating Jesus’s weeping over Jerusalem in 19:41–44 to Jesus’s entry into the temple.
While some of the differences between these accounts are stylistic—sometimes the evangelists use participles instead of simple verbs or explicitly refer to Jesus as the subject when clarification is needed—all of these accounts differ significantly in how they frame the introduction of this episode. Most obviously, this episode takes place near the beginning of John’s story and in explicit relation to the Passover, whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not reference the Passover until a few chapters later (ch. 26 in Matthew, ch. 14 in Mark, and ch. 22 in Luke). For the Synoptics, these references to the Passover are the first ones they make in the context of Jesus’s ministry and his death follows soon thereafter. John refers to the Passover for the first time here as well (and again in 2:23), but he will refer again to two distinct Passovers as both chronological and theological markers (6:4; 11:55). Furthermore, while all of the Synoptics use a variation of εἰσέρχομαι or ἔρχομαι to describe Jesus’s entrance (or, in Mark’s case, re-entrance) into Jerusalem or the temple complex, John uses his more characteristic verb ἀναβαίνω to refer to Jesus’s approach to Jerusalem as “going up” (cf. 5:1; 7:8, 10, 14; 11:55). Likewise, John does not narrate Jesus entering the temple, but rather refers to what he found there.
An old solution to reconciling these accounts is to posit two such events. This solution need not be regarded as implausible, considering how John portrays the interaction of Jesus with the Jewish authorities thereafter whenever Jesus is in the temple (5:14–18; 7:14–52; 8:12–59; 10:22–39; 11:55–57). Indeed, I think it is the most plausible solution, as we will see that there are too many details that do not match otherwise. By any of these accounts, Jesus had already had some contentious encounters with the Jewish authorities, but he was still able to come and go, even with direct threats on his life. Although the Synoptics portray the temple episode as a “last straw” act on Jesus’s part (and the subsequent interactions with the teachers certainly did not help), John portrays his temple episode as the opening salvo in this conflict. Both narratives portray a hostile relationship between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, but John—in line with his overall focus on Jesus’s Judean ministry—often sets this conflict in (or at least in relation to) the temple. As we will see in the rest of the story, the details of John’s account are also difficult to reconcile with how the Synoptics narrate them if these are supposed to be the same story.
Otherwise, it is unlikely that one can reconcile these accounts chronologically; hence, it is common to posit that John or the Synoptic authors have transposed the event to fit with a scheme of topical arrangement. This idea is difficult to maintain for the Synoptics because they all place it after Jesus’s triumphal entry and in close relationship to Jesus’s trial (cf. Matt 26:60–61; Mark 14:57–59). It is also difficult to maintain for John, whose chronological note about the forty-six years of temple construction (2:20) fits the likely date of the start of Jesus’s ministry (29 or 30 CE). Of course, there are also theological reasons for John to refer to a temple incident at this point in his story. On the one hand, his link of this episode to Passover fits with his theological schematization of references to Passover and other Jewish holy days, wherein he presents Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. On the other hand, he places it this early in his story because the Passover reference and Jesus’s concluding statement implying that he is the true temple of God (2:19–22), since he is God’s presence in person, provide important elements of the theological framework John supplies for his readers to understand the rest of his story about Jesus.
Even the Synoptic authors differ from each other in how they frame this episode. Matthew immediately juxtaposes the entry into Jerusalem to the temple episode, so that the question of identity looms over what happens in the temple just as it does with his entry. Mark intercalates the temple episode into the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree and causing it to wither. This intercalation more clearly frames Jesus’s action at the temple as one of condemnation (in the sense of consigning a building to destruction) because it has not borne fruit at the visitation of Jesus. Luke’s framing combines the themes of identity from Matthew and condemnation at visitation from Mark (with emphasis on the latter) as he uniquely narrates Jesus’s weeping over Jerusalem immediately before this episode and after the declaration of the crowds at Jesus’s approach. The differences thus seem to be results of theological presentation.
After the opening (which has been carried over from the previous section of the analysis), the only verbal elements that all four Gospels share are the reference to the sellers (τοὺς πωλοῦντας) and the use of different forms of ἐκβάλλω. In this particular segment Luke is entirely identical to Mark in what he preserves of the account, but he refers to the recipients of Jesus’s action only as the sellers. Unlike the other three Gospels, Luke contains no references to the tables, the moneychangers, or the seats. Matthew and Mark also list the buyers as the objects of Jesus’s zeal. John, on the other hand, indicates that the specific transactions taking place involved animals such as oxen, sheep, and doves, animals that would be sacrificed (cf. Lev 1:2, 10, 14; 5:6–7). Of these animals, Matthew and Mark only mention the doves. Luke’s abridged account is lacking in all such details. None of these accounts are more or less historically probable than the others; their differences are due in part to John narrating a similar but different episode with more detail, as well as to the different levels of detail in description the Synoptic authors provide in their distinct presentations.
Once Jesus starts driving out people, Matthew and Mark are almost identical, except that each account features one word not in the other. But then Mark features a unique note that Jesus did not permit anyone to carry a vessel through the temple complex. Mark thus presents Jesus as causing a more thorough disruption of temple proceedings than the more abridged accounts of Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke seem rather more interested in getting to the point of what Jesus says to the people in the temple.
Although John and Mark (as well as Matthew) use different verbs to describe what Jesus did to the tables (ἀνατρέπω vs. καταστρέφω), these verbs have overlapping senses. They are both verbs for overturning and the only possible distinction in these contexts is that John’s verb has a sense of “overthrow” as in an attack while Mark’s (and Matthew’s) verb has a sense of “overturn” as in “turn upside down.” But in this context, it is likely that this is a distinction without a significant difference.
For as many differences in language as John has with the Synoptic Gospels in this segment, the differences arise chiefly from John’s level of detail, as well as John’s use of unique vocabulary for synonymous terms (along with the aforementioned use of ἀνατρέπω instead of καταστρέφω, John uses both the typical κολλυβιστής and the unique κερματιστής as references to moneychangers). John mentions more animals, clarifies the instrumentality of Jesus’s “exorcising” action as involving him making a whip, and describes how Jesus poured out the coins in addition to overturning the tables. Even if, as I am inclined to think, John is narrating a different event, he is still narrating a similar temple event in terms of the progression and the parties involved. The particular differences in this segment are perhaps due less to the differences in the events themselves than to John’s particular method of narrating similar events.
1) Matthew continues the narrative from here by featuring Jesus healing the blind and lame, engaging with the chief priests and scribes over what he allows people to say about him, and then leaving to go to Bethany. The next episode is Jesus cursing the fig tree, which Mark has sandwiched around the temple episode. Afterwards, Jesus begins his battle with the authorities who challenge his authority.
2) Mark continues the narrative with the chief priests and scribes as the antagonists looking to destroy Jesus for what he had said and done, but they fear the crowd who favors him, and so Jesus is free to leave the city once more without challenge. The conclusion to the cursing of the fig tree then follows and Jesus proceeds to battle the authorities over his authority.
3) Luke continues the narrative with Jesus teaching and the same antagonism noted by Matthew and Mark. Luke does not feature the fig tree episode and so he proceeds directly into confrontation with the authorities in the next episode.
4) John continues the narrative with Jesus addressing the Jews who challenge what he has done in the temple. The sign he says he would give them to demonstrate his authority is to have them tear down the sanctuary and that he would raise it up in three days. John reveals that this is Jesus’s circumlocutory way of referring to his own resurrection, but the disciples would not realize this until after it happened. Jesus then continues to stay in Jerusalem for a time and eventually interacts with the Pharisee Nicodemus, who is a contrast to the authorities that Jesus will conflict with for much of the rest of John.
The common language of all four texts consists of three verbs—λέγω, γράφω, and ποιέω—as well as some form of reference to a house and the use of “my” (but in the Synoptics the Scripture reference makes clear that the subject of “my” is God, while Jesus’s speech makes this clear by referring to God as “my Father”). Interestingly, none of the Gospels have the exact same form of the first and third verbs (even in Matthew and John’s cases, where the forms look identical, Matthew’s is a present indicative while John’s is a present imperative). The second verb is consistently in the perfect form, as is typical for introducing scriptural quotations, although in John it is a participle due to its combination with another verb to render a periphrastic construction.
Apart from the differences-within-similarities noted above, the Synoptics are almost identical in their conclusion of this story with a few adaptations here and there. Mark’s quotation of Scripture is the closest to a combination of the LXX translations of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11 (with the latter foreshadowing what Jesus would say explicitly about the temple’s fate), while Matthew shortens the quotation by excising “for all the nations” (curiously taking out a phrase that would otherwise fit with an overarching theme: 2:1–12; 8:5–13; 12:15–21, 38–42; 15:21–28; 24:14; 25:32; 28:19). Another curious difference between Mark and Matthew is that Matthew does not refer to Jesus as teaching the people he rebukes, despite how Matthew’s story focuses much attention on Jesus as Teacher. Luke changes the verb from κληθήσεται to ἔσται, which alters the sense of the statement to being one of a matter of fact, rather than a declaration of what the place will be called. While these differences may be matters of style—or perhaps slightly variant traditions that used either more particular verbs or more general verbs to be more easily memorable, depending on the context—they are nonetheless interesting matters of style.
John’s narration adds more specificity to the group Jesus is speaking to as the sellers of doves, the one group that Jesus has not explicitly antagonized yet in the narrative. While the other Gospels leave Jesus’s declaration as a simple condemnation citing Scripture, John describes Jesus as instructing his opponents in this matter, telling them how to begin fixing this situation. Furthermore, Jesus himself does not quote Scripture here. Rather, at the point where one might expect the scriptural citation, Jesus foregoes scriptural mediation of his statement and speaks directly on behalf of the one he calls “my Father.” The quotation of Scripture here is not only of a different text (Ps 69:9), but it takes place at the level of narration describing what the disciples remembered, because Jesus does not rely on the authority of Scripture in this particular instance. As the subsequent narration shows, Jesus speaks here on his authority as the true temple-of-God-in-person (2:18–22).