The study of a Synoptic Gospel in depth – David Hampshire

It is clear from the curriculum and examination reforms of the government that religious education and religious studies should be more academically credible. This credibility has, in part, focussed on the study of text. What is also clear is that we have a generation of RE teachers who have no background in the teaching of ‘religious texts’. Ofsted (2013) have rightly criticised the lack of knowledge pupils demonstrate and their poor levels of religious literacy. What Ofsted does not really tackle is the lack of religious literacy among many RE teachers themselves.

In response to this situation the Cornwall Agreed Syllabus 2014 requires a study of one synoptic Gospel in depth. This arose for a number of reasons in the Cornish context. Firstly, this is an area that has been effectively neglected since the 1995 Agreed Syllabus for Cornwall, although the study of text was required in some form – usually through encountering stories. At Key Stage 3 pupils would often read small passages that were used as ‘proof texts’ and this was compounded by the way texts were used in GCSE Short Course textbooks and examinations. The question arose in the Agreed Syllabus Conference: can you be considered to be religiously educated without having had the opportunity to study one whole religious text in depth? Secondly, as RS GCSE criteria are going to focus more on text than previously: how do we best prepare pupils at Key Stage 3 to be able to study a Biblical text when they are doing GCSE? This is non-problematic in English due to the way that curriculum builds over the four key stages but it is a problem in RE as there is no clear link between the writing of syllabuses and the requirements of GCSE specifications. As a result of these questions the Conference decided to specify the study of a synoptic Gospel in depth.

Why study a Gospel in depth at all?

It is clear from Ofsted (Ofsted, 2007, Ofsted, 2013) and from academic research (Conroy, 2013, Copley et al., 2002, Hampshire, 2011) that pupils have little knowledge or understanding of Biblical literature as a result of its neglect in many religious education programmes of study. This is seen by the research to negatively impact on examination candidates when responding to GCSE questions (Conroy, 2013, Ofsted, 2013) and a broader disengagement with sources of religion which are culturally significant  (Barnes, 2014, Copley, 2005).

It has also been an expectation that pupils would encounter religious text in depth as part of the religious education at a national level for some time (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2004) and this has been recently reasserted (REC, 2013). In terms of Cornwall’s Agreed Syllabus this has been a requirement since 2005 and was strengthened in 2011, although the encounter with text was relatively non-specific, leaving this to the judgement of teachers. Hence, in the light of evidence the prescription of one synoptic Gospel was introduced in 2014.

In the end it comes down to the question: could pupils be considered to be religiously educated if they had not had the opportunity to study a Gospel in depth? In the context of English religious education as set out in the 1988 Education Reform Act, and subsequent legislation, and that required by the government of Academies and Free Schools, the answer would have to be a resounding no.

Choosing a Gospel

Choosing which Gospel to study can become over complicated. It may be that you want to ensure that pupils have a resource which best fits to the GCSE they are likely to go on and study. On the other hand you may just want them to experience this particular genre of Biblical literature. There will be many reasons for studying a specific Gospel and often that choice will come down to teachers’ own preferences. What matters is that they get a view of what the whole Gospel is seeking to achieve. There will also be opportunities to cross reference with the other Synoptic Gospels.

Choosing Mark

Mark is the shortest of Gospels and scholars are generally agreed that it is the first Gospel. It has no birth narratives and tells you nothing about Jesus’ childhood. Similarly it has no resurrection narratives proper to itself, although it does have the Easter proclamation. It is contained in Luke’s and Matthew’s Gospels almost in its entirety. One third of the Gospel is dedicated to the last week of Jesus’ life. It is also considered to be an ‘urgent’ Gospel in that it uses the phrase: and immediately so often. As a text it can be read from beginning to end in about one hour. A fascinating feature of the Gospel is the mystery of Jesus and the Messianic Secret.

Choosing Matthew

Matthew has often been regarded as ‘the Church’s Gospel’ (it is the only Gospel that uses the Greek word ecclesia that we translate as ‘church’). For many centuries it was thought to be the first Gospel, due to its heavily Jewish character, and it was held that it existed in an Aramaic form before being translated into Greek. The Gospel is structured in such a way as to have seven distinct sections and is seen to mirror the Heptateuch (Genesis to Judges in the Hebrew Bible). The birth narratives focus around Joseph, who parallels Joseph in the book of Genesis, and Jesus ‘recapitulates’ the history of Israel by being exiled in Egypt. Interestingly, there is no Ascension narrative in Matthew but there is the Trinitarian baptismal formula.

Choosing Luke

In many ways Luke is the most widely known Gospel culturally as it contains the most extensive collections of birth narratives, the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan and the story of the Road to Emmaus. As with Matthew there are seven sections but the flow is towards Jerusalem and then to Rome (in the Acts of the Apostles). Hence, Luke’s Gospel is part of a larger work not a Gospel that stands alone. An interesting feature of the Gospel is its focus on ‘the poor and dispossessed’; in the beatitudes in Matthew it is the poor in spirit who are blessed but in Luke it is simply the poor. Luke provides the early Church with a concept of salvation history culminating in the second coming of Jesus in power with the church itself forming part of that history.

Where to start

There is an interesting question as to why there are only four Gospels in the New Testament. The earliest source for this is Irenaeus of Lyon in the second century. He recognised that there were many competing gospels in circulation and he taught that only four were authentic witnesses. Those were the four Gospels accepted as authentic by the major Christian churches – Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria – and were of an age to be considered closest to the events. A further question has to be: why four and not one? In fact there were attempts to make one Gospel from the existing texts, the most famous being the Diatessaron. The Fathers of the Council of Nicea (325 AD) rejected this idea and chose the ‘four witnesses’ as the four Gospels to be seen as Scripture. They knew that the Gospels did not always agree but that didn’t worry them.

A useful place to start is with the genre. In one sense the Gospels are a genre to themselves but draw on a larger set of literary traditions in the Greco-Roman world (Burridge, 1992). As such they are not intended to be ‘histories’ but a proclamation of theological truths for the Christian communities for which they were written. From there is also useful to have an opportunity to compare the Gospel you have chosen with the other Synoptic Gospels. Here the concept of ‘synoptic’ is key. Noting the similarities and differences between the Gospels can enable the pupil to grasp that different authors were writing for communities in different contexts, with different histories and with their own theological concerns. Hence, exploring the ‘synoptic problem’ is a useful exercise.

When pupils have grasp of the genre there is no better way forward than encountering the text. In terms of their ability to read the text this should be presumed on the basis of their English literature experience. They will have read books already and they should understand concepts such as genre and audience. They may need to learn that parable and miracle stories are genres in their own right if that has not already been covered. What teachers shouldn’t presume is no knowledge or experience of text or of the Gospel being studied.

Points to note

As a genre the Gospels were designed to be read in believing communities. Hence, they are not seeking to prove things – they are not works of systematic theology – but they are seeking to inform their audiences. The main theme of all the Gospels is the work of God in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Hence, the preaching is focussed on the Kingdom of God, as are the majority of the parables. The miracles are a sign that the Kingdom has arrived in Jesus and as such are eschatological statements. Jesus doesn’t perform wonders simply because he can but because with Him the end times (eschaton) have broken in (Cunningham and Theokritoff, 2008, Evdokimov and Clément, 2011). Therefore, the Gospels should be seen as essentially as theological in nature.

To highlight the particular theological concerns of the evangelist you have chosen it is useful to select some passages to compare and contrast. One might be Peter’s confession of faith and the resulting reaction of Peter to Jesus’ prediction of his death and resurrection:

Comparing and contrasting this common passage (which also occurs in John 6: 67 – 71 but in a very different context and with the devil being associated with Judas) can highlight some of the issues that the reader of the Gospels has to come to terms with. Here are some questions:

• If we only had one or two of these Gospels, would it matter?
• Matthew is the only Gospel to use the word ‘church’ (here and in 18:17), is that significant?
• Does Matthew’s use of the name Simon for Peter have any significance?
• Luke’s Gospel does not have the story about Jesus rebuking Peter, calling Peter ‘Satan’. Does this show that Luke has a different approach to the Apostles from Matthew and Mark?
• How can we account for Jesus’ remarks to Peter in Matthew, from highly positive to highly negative?
• How does Luke’s insertion of the word ‘daily’ in the command to take up the cross change the meaning of the passage in Mark’s Gospel?
• Why has this passage in Matthew’s Gospel caused significant controversy among different Christian denominations? Does the meaning of this passage change in the light of Matthew 18:18?

Which translation?

The standard academic translation is the New Revised Standard Version (Anglicised), as used above. There are more informative Bibles, though, and one of those is The CTS New Catholic Bible – Standard Edition (2007), which replaces the New Jerusalem Bible (DLT 1985). This edition has useful notes in the introductions to the Gospels as well as explanatory notes on the text. It also has notes on the use of the Gospels in the Roman Catholic Church’s services – helping teachers to see how Scripture is used in one denomination.

The use of Scripture in the life of churches and individuals

One opportunity that the study of a Gospel in depth affords is to explore how the Gospel being studied is used by individual churches in their liturgical life. Hence, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church and Anglican Church there is a three-year lectionary that means the Synoptic Gospels are read in sequence during those years; John’s Gospel is read at specific times of the year. Other churches, such as the Orthodox Churches have a yearly cycle of readings, which includes readings from all of the Synoptic Gospels. Yet other churches, such as Free Evangelical churches do not have a specified pattern of reading  – so when might a local church have a focus on a specific Gospel?

Similarly, how and when do individual members of particular churches read these Gospels? How would a Gospel inform the life of a particular Christian? This could include specific forms of engagement with the text, such as Liberation Theology where appropriate.

Standards

What does ‘in depth’ mean? Firstly, pupils will be able to recall sections of the text in detail and context. Secondly, they will understand the major themes of the Gospel being studied and how we know that those are the major themes by reference to the text. Thirdly, they will be able to talk or write about the context in which the Gospel may have been written, including the audience that scholars think the Gospel was originally aimed at. Fourthly, they will be able to compare and contrast the Gospel they have studied with the other two Synoptic Gospels and draw conclusions from those comparisons. Finally, they will be able to relate what they have studied to the ‘ecclesial’ contexts in which their Gospel is used.

Pupils should know that these texts have been commented on for centuries, and continue to be commented on. Christians and others find in these Gospels real inspiration and new discoveries throw new light on these ancient texts in every generation of scholarship.

Within all of this there will be an acquisition of language, key words being:

Conclusion

The study of a Synoptic Gospel was once the ‘bread and butter’ of religious education but since the 1980s this became much less so. There is a challenge to introducing the study of a Synoptic Gospel into the Key Stage 3 programme of study, not least because teachers are no longer used to teaching a Gospel as a text.

There are, though, great benefits to the study of a Synoptic Gospel in RE. Firstly, it is difficult to understand the religious imagination without the study of a religious text in depth. Secondly, because these texts have been foundational to the way we as a people have thought about and constructed our responses to the world they are worthy of serious study. Similarly, much of the literature, art and culture of our nations on these islands have their inspiration in these texts. Finally, these are texts that inspire millions around the world and for that reason alone they are worthy of in depth study in the formative years of a young person’s schooling.

Bibliography

Barnes, P. (2014). Education, religion and diversity : developing a new model of religious education, London, Routledge.

Burridge, R. A. (1992). What are the Gospels? : a comparison with Graeco-Roman biography, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Conroy, J. C., Lundie, David, Davis, Robert A., Baumfield, Vivienne, Barnes L. Philip, Gallagher, Tony., Lowden, Kevin, Bourque, Nicole, and Wenell, Karen (2013). Does religious education work? : a multi-dimensional investigation, London, Bloomsbury.

Copley, T. (2005). Indoctrination, education, and God : the struggle for the mind, London, SPCK.

Copley, T., Walshe, K. & University of Exeter. School of Education and Lifelong Learning. (2002). The figure of Jesus in religious education : the report of the Teaching about Jesus in Religious Education Project, Exeter, University of Exeter, School of Education and Lifelong Learning.

Cunningham, M. & Theokritoff, E. (2008). The Cambridge companion to Orthodox Christian theology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Evdokimov, P. & Clément, O. (2011). Orthodoxy, Hyde Park, NY, New City.

Hampshire, P. D. G. (2011). Does it matter by degrees? The impact of the academic backgrounds of teachers on their teaching of religious education. Coventry, University of Warwick.

Ofsted (2007). Making sense of religion. A report on religious education in schools and the impact of locally agreed syllabuses. London.

Ofsted (2013). Religious Education, realising the potential. London: TSO.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2004). Religious education : the non-statutory national framework, London, QCA.

REC (2013). A Review of Religious Education in England. London: Religious Education Council of England and Wales.