Instructions For Reading Gospel Parallels Gordon Fee And Dou

Instructions For Reading Gospel Parallelsgordon Fee And Douglas Stuart

Instructions for Reading Gospel Parallels Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart wrote, “Almost all the difficulties one encounters in [ reading and ] interpreting the Gospels stem from two obvious facts: (1) Jesus himself did not write a gospel; they came from others, not him. (2) There are four gospels.†Thus, the need of strategy for reading gospel parallels that takes into account the selection, arrangement, and adaptation of the narratives about Jesus and the teachings of Jesus in the composition of the gospels ( How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth , 127-48). The proposed strategy seeks to address difficulties encountered in reading and interpreting parallel accounts in the gospels. Because of the unique nature of the Gospels, the reader/interpreter must do two things – read vertically and horizontally.

Reading of the gospels vertically and horizontally helps to understand how the authors selected, arranged, and adapted the narratives, miracle stories, parables, etc. to address the concerns of their respective audiences. Furthermore, vertical and horizontal reading allows the reader to understand how the author used the material to introduce and support the major and minor themes.

Paper For Above instruction

Vertical Reading: This entails analyzing the gospels from beginning to end, considering the historical context of Jesus, the authors, and their circumstances. It involves understanding the outlines of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, noting similarities and differences, and recognizing the plotlines being developed. For example, examining the outlines in biblical commentaries or dictionaries reveals structural similarities and distinctions, which contribute to understanding each author's particular emphasis.

Horizontal Reading: This approach involves comparing parallel passages across the synoptic gospels to highlight distinctive features and contextual differences. It helps prevent harmonization or filling gaps but instead emphasizes their thematic and contextual nuances. For example, by examining the temptation of Jesus as depicted in Mark (1:12-13), Matthew (4:1-11), and Luke (4:1-13), a reader can identify core elements and detailed differences.

In the temptation narratives, the core elements that appear in all three accounts include Jesus being led into the wilderness, fasting for forty days, and being tempted by Satan. The detailed differences involve the order of temptations, the specific wording, and the framing of each account. For instance, Mark presents a concise version emphasizing Jesus' immediate response to Satan, while Matthew and Luke provide more details, including specific scriptural quotations and the sequence of temptations.

These differences reflect the evangelists’ thematic emphases. Mark’s account highlights Jesus’ authority and immediacy, focusing on the authority of Jesus and his role as the Son of God. Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ obedience to scripture and his role as the Messiah who fulfills Old Testament prophecy, as evidenced by the quotations used. Luke, on the other hand, underscores Jesus' faithfulness and the universal scope of his mission, emphasizing the temptation narrative within the broader context of the Holy Spirit's leading and Jesus' devotion (Blomberg, 2016).

Analyzing the significance of these differences reveals that some are crucial for understanding each evangelist's theological priorities. For example, Matthew’s inclusion of the scriptural quotations demonstrates his aim to portray Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, and his structured sequence of temptations emphasizes obedience and sovereignty. Mark’s streamlined narrative reduces details but emphasizes Jesus’ authority and the hostile environment of wilderness temptation. Luke’s account integrates the story into his broader theological themes of the Spirit's guidance and universal salvation (Streit, 2014).

In conclusion, horizontal reading of the temptation stories exposes the distinctive theological emphases of each evangelist, while vertical reading emphasizes the historical and narrative structure. The differences—such as wording, sequence, and emphasis—are significant because they serve the particular theological messages each evangelist aims to communicate. Collectively, these accounts enrich the understanding of Jesus’ temptation and highlight the diversity within the canonical gospels, illustrating the multifaceted portrayal of Jesus’ ministry and mission (Keener, 2014; Morris, 1987).

References

• Blomberg, C. (2016). The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. IVP Academic.
• Keener, C. S. (2014). The Jesus Journals, Volume 1: What the Gospels Mean. Eerdmans.
• Morris, L. (1987). The Gospel According to Matthew. Eerdmans.
• Streit, K. (2014). “The Temptation of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 133(4), 745-758.
• Fee, G., & Stuart, D. (2002). How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Zondervan.
• Carson, D. A. (1984). The Sermon on the Mount. Baker Academic.
• Guelich, R. A. (1989). The Temptation of Jesus. Word Books.
• Wright, N. T. (2012). How God Became King. HarperOne.
• Hagner, D. A. (1993). The Gospel of Matthew. B&H Publishing Group.
• Schweizer, E. (1983). The Good News According to Matthew. Augsburg.