Four Important Insights or Keys for Understanding
the Sources and the Interrelationship of the Synoptic Gospels

By Robert L. Lindsey, PhD

Introduction       Key 1     Key 2     Key 3     [ Key 4 ]

The Fourth Key: Unit Congruency and Restoration

As I mentioned earlier, the original Hebrew Life of Jesus and the Greek translation which followed, a discernable three-fold pattern could be seen in the narrative: 1) an incident in public, 2) Jesus’ teaching in the light of the incident, 3) and a pair of parables to reinforce the primary focus of the teaching. The compiler of the ANT disrupted this narrative pattern with his arrangement of the text into anthological categories. Those who worked after him, namely the writer of the RCT and the three synoptic evangelists, struggled with restoring a sense of continuity to the story, and they were partially successful.

I realized, while working with the synoptic gospels, that sometimes the three-fold pattern of a story unit could be restored. In other words, there is material which is now scattered throughout the synoptic gospels, but mainly in Matthew and Luke, that, when reassembled, demonstrates remarkable congruency. When something is congruent, it fits together properly. Thus, our fourth key is unit congruency and restoration.

Consider the Sermon on the Mount in Mathew’s gospel: it runs from Matthew, chapters 5 to 7. I remember years ago being distressed over the fact that in this sermon Jesus jumps from topic to topic. I tried to make sense of Jesus’ sermon, but only frustrated myself. Now I realize that Jesus did not preach such a scattered sermon. These three chapters of diverse teaching material stand as a faint testimony to the writer of the ANT. The Sermon on the Mount is actually a collection of teachings that Jesus gave in various places at various times. Copying from the ANT, Matthew transcribed material from its teaching section and used the literary device of presenting it as one extended sermon.

In like manner, Matthew chapter13 contains seven parables. If Jesus were as good a teacher as we claim, would he have taught, one after the other, seven parables on diverse topics? I hardly think so. Rather, Matthew 13 represents a section that Matthew copied from the ANT, specifically from its third section, which was a collection of parables.

Earlier I mentioned that Jesus sometimes told parables in pairs to emphasize the primary focus of a teaching. In places, these double parables are still together. For example, the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin appear together in Luke 25, and the parables of the mustard seed and leaven come one after the other in Matthew 13. The same is true of the parables of the hidden treasure and the costly pearl, which are also found in Matthew 13. In other places, however, pairs of parables have been separated. For example, the parables of the tares among the wheat and the dragnet, which were once taught as a pair, are no longer together. They both are found in Matthew 13, but not together as a pair. There are a few cases where one parable belonging to a pair appears in Matthew and the partner appears in Luke.

What stands out as being significant here, is that sometimes we can reunite pairs of parables. Moreover, since these parabolic pairs originally followed an incident and a teaching, the exciting possibility emerges that, by examining critically and intensively the synoptic gospels, we may build upon the success of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and restore larger incident-teaching-parable units that remain dislocated in their gospels (footnote 21).

Once a unit has been restored, we have approached as closely as possible this early Hebrew gospel about which Papias wrote. We have in our possession what is essentially eyewitness material about our Lord. I find this remarkable and regard it as the strongest possible evidence that our gospel materials have been providentially preserved, despite early attempts to adapt the continuous narrative of Jesus’ life to an anthological format. The fourth key of unit congruency and restoration assists us in converting the anthological format back to a continuous narrative.

Once, while teaching a class, I remarked, "I really do not understand why Jesus apparently ended his teaching with two parables." One student answered, "Well, maybe Jesus did this because it is written, ‘Every word may be confirmed at the mouth of two or three witnesses.’" The student had quoted from Deuteronomy 19:15, which is repeated in Matthew 18:16.

I believe that the student answered the question correctly. Consider Judges 6:36-40 where Gideon asked for a confirmation from God not once, but twice. Or in the story of Joseph, Pharaoh dreamed a double dream. When Joseph interpreted what Pharaoh saw, he said, "And the doubling of Pharaoh’s dream means that the thing is fixed by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass" (Genesis 41:32). Thus, Jesus’ double parables apparently served the same purpose; the doubling strengthened the message.

__________________________