I have begun reading my way into the Synoptic debate, based on the great fun I had last year in comparing the meaningful differences between the gospels where there were double or triple traditions. But much like Rod Decker’s disappointment about the lack of grammatical discussion within Greek-based commentaries, I reached much the same conclusion about many Synoptic discussions. Interest focuses on whether a saying is present or not, and the rough percentage of overlap between the versions, ostensibly based on word count. What was especially surprising was the apparent disinterest in the narrative introduction of the saying. I plan on focusing my paper proposals in this area for the Fall conferences.

One of the passages that caught my eye was the transition from the Isa 40 quotation that John the Baptist is understood to have fulfilled to the narrative of his actual ministry. Following the quote in Mark’s version, there is a simple description of John’s activity:

ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν

In Matthew’s gospel, the quote only includes Isa 40:3 as in Mark, but includes a description of his preaching about repentance. Matthew departs from Mark’s content at 3:7, where he uses the connective δέ to signal the next development in the narrative: the arrival of the Pharisees and Sadducees from Jerusalem. They are introduced in a circumstantial participial clause that establishes the state-of-affairs for the speech that follows:

Ἰδὼν δὲ πολλοὺς τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων ἐρχομένους ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς.

Most English translations render this transition as contrastive using “but”, as though the Isa 40 quote and description of John and his ministry did not include calling his followers “broods of vipers.” It was the arrival of the religious elite that drew such a comment out of the Baptist. This raises the question of what the Isaiahnic figure was expected to be like. Was he a warm fuzzy shepherd or harsh bringer of change? The circumstantial clause in v 7a casts John’s words as though they are in direct response to seeing these leaders come out from Jerusalem, not as though this was his standard message to all.

Luke’s account has three notable changes which are not heavily emphasized. In my view, they render the portrait of the Baptist into quite a different figure than in Matthew or Mark. First, the Isaiah quote is longer, including vv 4-5. Second, the connective used to join v 7ff to the quote is οὖν, not δέ. Though both connectives signal a new development, οὖν implies a stronger connection to the preceding material, typically signaling either an inference or resumption of some kind. Levinsohn views it as resumptive, signaling the return to the mainline following the long quote. In either case, the particle calls the reader to see what follows as building closely on what precedes.

The third and I think greatest difference is the audience. In Luke’s account, there is no mention of Pharisees or Sadducees. John’s message of repentance is addressed to crowds, yet he still calls them “broods of vipers”. There is no circumstantial clause that implies that something set John off, his message is cast as though it were the normal fodder one would hear if you came to hear him. If you track Luke’s portrayal of John and the sayings he includes, you see a rather consistent picture painted. He was the original “maverick.”

Although these differences only involve a handful of words, the resulting differences are quite dramatic, in my opinion. I have found a number of similar examples but have not had the time to write them up. Hopefully I can focus such ideas into a coherent paper proposal to contribute to the Synoptic discussion.