Drawing parallels

Goal
A parallel analysis technique
Applying this technique to the English translation text
1. Identical words in Greek
2. Partially identical words in Greek
General comments on parallel analysis

Goal

Parallels between gospel accounts are sought when there are passages referring to similar scenes or similar words by Jesus. The aim is to identify the close touches of each evangelist in relation to the similar story, and thereby identify elements of his theology or literary style that are peculiar to him.

The analysis of parallels is marked by the two-source theory. According to this theory, Mark was the first to publish a gospel around the years 65 to 70, and Matthew, who would have published his around the years 80-85, and Luke, around the years 85-90, would both have used Mark's gospel as their primary source and basic canvas, while enriching it with a source, called Q (from the German Quelle = source), a source written around the years 50 or 60 and containing mainly sayings of Jesus; Matthew and Luke also had a number of sources of their own. Finally, the Gospel of John, written between 90 and 100, completely ignores the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and uses a source of its own.

We take this theory into account in drawing parallels, which leads us to three different situations.
1. Mark
  
  Passages from Mark are also found in a similar way in one or other of the evangelists.
  
  Since Matthew and Luke follow Mark's framework (i.e., Jesus' ministry only in Galilee and his ascent to Jerusalem at the end of his ministry to die there) and use its content as a source, the aim in drawing parallels is to show how Matthew and Luke edited what they received from Mark. We then note the accents of their theology and literary style.
2. Matthew and Luke
  
  Matthew and Luke present similar passages, mostly absent from Mark.
  
  From the perspective of the two-source theory, this means that Matthew and Luke take up a source known only to them, called Q. Let's remember that this source is not a complete Gospel, but a binder of Jesus' sayings from which Matthew and Luke have drawn and placed at various points in their Gospel according to their theological needs. The study of parallels here involves certain difficulties, as there is no original copy of this source. It is accepted that Matthew and Luke, when they take up this source, may have modified it, but a detailed study shows that Luke seems more often than not to respect its formulation. The analysis of parallels attempts, on the one hand, to identify the earliest, and therefore most original, elements through an analysis of detail, and on the other hand, to show what role each evangelist gives to this source, above all through the place where he inserts it in his Gospel. Note that when there is a parallel between the Q Document and Mark, this indicates that we are dealing with two variants of a very ancient tradition that could go back to the historical Jesus.
3. John
  
  John sometimes presents passages similar to those found in Mark, Matthew and Luke.
  
  It is generally accepted among biblical scholars that John did not know any of the other evangelists, which explains why he presents us with a framework very different from the other Gospels (i.e. Jesus makes several return trips between Galilee and Judea). Nevertheless, there are some similar passages in the Synoptics (Mark, Matthew and Luke), such as the intervention of John the Baptist, the walking on the waters, the sellers driven out of the temple, the multiplication of the loaves and the miraculous catch of fish. This situation can be explained by the fact that John's source is a variant of an ancient tradition that Mark also knew, but which had a different course. Certain parallels can also be drawn between John and Luke, such as the miraculous fishing, which would imply that John and Luke had access to a similar tradition. The aim of drawing parallels is then to show both the elements that are different, a possible reflection of each evangelist's theology, and the elements common to this ancient tradition that could date back to the period of the historical Jesus.

When analyzing parallels, we try to place similar verses side by side. As far as possible, we try to respect the sequence intended by the evangelist. But for the sake of comparison, we may sometimes double a verse or part of a verse to establish a comparison within the sequence of the reference gospel. In this case, the displaced verse is enclosed in square brackets. For example, in the scene of the walk on the waters, John places Jesus' departure for the mountain in the preceding scene, whereas in Mark and Matthew this departure occurs after the mention that Jesus has dismissed the crowd. If Mark is our Gospel of reference, then we copy John's verse and place it opposite Mark's verse, but enclose it in square brackets. In the following example, Jn 6:15b, out of sequence, is enclosed in square brackets.

Mk 6: 46 “he went to the mountain to pray” and Mt 14: 23 “he went up the mountain by himself to pray” and [Jn 6: 15b “he withdrew again to the mountain”.]

I propose three types of notation for establishing parallels using the three previous situations:

Underlining of words: this is used to indicate words or parts of words from Mark that are also present in the other evangelists; in this case, Mark's text is the reference text and we look to see which other evangelist presents the same words.
Blue coloring of words: this is used to indicate words or forms of words common only to Matthew and Luke.
Red coloring: used to indicate words or forms of words in John that are also found in either Matthew or Luke.

We present this technique in two stages, first in the presentation of the Greek text, then in the presentation of the English translation.

Mark's passages in the other Gospels are underlined

Let's start with Mark's gospel, where similar words in the other gospels are underlined.
1. Identical words
  
  One technique is to underline words or sets of words in Mark's gospel that are found identically in another evangelist's. For example, the expression embēnai eis to ploion (to get into the boat) in Mk 6:45 is also found identically in Mt 14:22, so the expression will be underlined in both Mark and Matthew. Of course, if the expression appears in several Gospels, all occurrences of the expression will be underlined. It may happen that an expression in Mark appears identically in one evangelist, but not in a third, where it undergoes a variation. In this case, the expression is underlined in its entirety in Mark and in the other evangelist where it is identical, and partially in the evangelist where the expression is partially identical.
  - Mk 11: 17: ho oikos mou oikos proseuchēs (the house of me a house of prayer) and Mt 21: 13: ho oikos mou oikos proseuchēs and Lk 19: 46: ho oikos mou oikos proseuchēs
  - Mk 9: 2: Kai meta hēmeras hex paralambanei ho Iēsous ton Petron kai ton Iakōbon kai ton Iōannēn kai anapherei autous eis oros hypsēlon katʼ idian monous (and after six days the Jesus takes with him the Peter and the James and the John and leads them up to a high mountain apart alone) and Mt 17: 1: Kai methʼ hēmeras hex paralambanei ho Iēsous ton Petron kai Iakōbon kai Iōannēn ton adelphon autou kai anapherei autous eis oros hypsēlon katʼ idian (and after six days the Jesus takes with him the Peter and James and John the brother of him and leads them up to a high mountain apart) and Lk 9: 28: Egeneto de meta tous logous toutous hōsei hēmerai oktō [kai] paralabōn Petron kai Iōannēn kai Iakōbon anebē eis to oros proseuxasthai (then, it came to pass after this words about eight days [and] he took with him Peter and John and James, went up to the mountain to pray)
2. In the Greek text, when the words are partially identical: only identical characters are underlined.
  1. Mark's Greek terms are only partially similar to those of another evangelist.
    
    In this case, only identical characters are underlined. Sometimes, it's a variation on a word that has the same meaning. This is the case, for example, with the adverb euthys (immediately), which Mark loves (41 occurrences), but Matthew prefers its synonym eutheōs. In this case, I suggest underlining only the identical letters: this makes it clear that the words are similar, but not identical.
    - Mk 6: 45: euthys et Mt 14: 22: eutheōs
  2. Greek verbs are often similar, but not identical
    
    A first situation is that of verbs that are identical in the evangelists, but not in the same tense. For example, the verb apolyō (to untie) is in the present indicative in Mk 6:45 (apolyei) and in the aorist subjunctive in Mt 14:22 (apolysē). By underlining only the identical characters, we obtain the following:
    - Mk 6: 45: apolyei (he unties) et Mt 14: 22: apolysē (he might untie)
  3. A number of irregular verbs in Greek take such a different form that it is impossible to find a sequence of identical letters.
    
    For example, legei (he says: present indicative) becomes eipen (he said: aorist), or erchetai (he came: present indicative) becomes ēlthen (he came: aorist). In this case, I suggest underlining a few characters at the beginning to indicate that it's the same verb, but in different tenses.
    - Mk 6: 48: erchetai (he comes) and Mt 14: 25: ēlthen (he came)
  4. Greek verbs have many compound forms.
    
    For example, the verbs embainō, anabainō, katabainō and parabainō are similar verbs around the root bainō to which prepositions have been added as prefixes: en-, ana-, kata-, para-. Underlining similar letters indicates that we're looking at a synonym, the result of an evangelist's literary preference.
    - Mk 6: 41: kateklasen (he broke) and Mt 14: 19: klasas (he broke)
    - Mk 6: 49: anekraxan (he cried out) and Mt 14: 26: ekraxan (they cried)
  5. The Greek terms are the same, but not in the same gender or case.
    
    Sometimes an evangelist uses the same word as Mark, but the case or number is different. In such cases, only the identical letters are underlined. This indicates that the word is identical, but not the case or number.
    - Mk 6: 48: epi tēs thalassēs (epi + genitive : epi then has a static meaning and Mark's emphasis is on the fact that Jesus is on the water, dominating it) and Mt 14: 25: epi tēn thalassan (epi + accusative epi then has a dynamic meaning and Matthew's emphasis on Jesus “moving forward” on the water).
    - Mk 6: 45: ton ochlon (the crowd) et Mt 14: 22: tous ochlous (the crowds)
  6. The case of Greek words with an article or a personal pronoun
    
    It's important to point out the differences between a word with or without a definite article or personal pronoun.
    - Mk 6: 45: tous mathētas autou (the disciples of him, i.e. his disciples) and Mt 14: 22: tous mathētas (the disciples)
    - Mk 6: 45: eis to ploion (in the boat) and Jn 6: 17: eis ploion (in a boat)

The parallels between Matthew and Luke are marked by the color blue.

Matthew and Luke sometimes present similar narratives, but these are absent from Mark's Gospel. Biblical scholars consider that Matthew and Luke are drawing their narratives from the Q Document, a source made up mainly of the words of Jesus (see this page for all the texts that biblical scholars consider to come from the Q Document). In analyzing these parallels, I propose the same method as for the parallels with Mark, except that this time we use the color blue to underline similar words or parts of words. For example, this passage from Jesus' temptations.

Mt 4: 4	Lk 4: 4
ho de apokritheis eipen• gegraptai• ouk epʼ artō monō zēsetai ho anthrōpos, allʼ epi panti rhēmati ekporeuomenō dia stomatos theou.	kai apekrithē pros auton ho Iēsous• gegraptai hoti ouk epʼ artō monō zēsetai ho anthrōpos.

It also happens that a story belongs to Q Document according to the biblical scholars, but that Mark also knows this story from another source. In these situations, we apply both methods, i.e. we underline words or parts of words in Mark that are also found in Matthew and Luke, and we highlight in blue similar words or parts of words in Matthew and Luke. This makes it easier to understand what the two sources have in common. For example, the commissioning speech.

Mk 6: 11	Mt 10: 14	Lk 10: 10-11a
kai hos an topos mē dexētai hymas mēde akousōsin hymōn, ekporeuomenoi ekeithen ektinaxate ton choun ton hypokatō tōn podōn hymōn eis martyrion autois.	kai hos an mē dexētai hymas mēde akousē tous logous hymōn, exerchomenoi exō tēs oikias ē tēs poleōs ekeinēs ektinaxate ton koniorton tōn podōn hymōn.	eis hēn dʼ an polin eiselthēte kai mē dechōntai hymas, exelthontes eis tas plateias autēs eipate• kai ton koniorton ton kollēthenta hēmin ek tēs poleōs hymōn eis tous podas apomassometha hymin•

However, apart from references to the Q Document, Matthew and Luke sometimes have similar words that are absent from Mark. In this case, the similarities between Matthew and Luke are purely accidental, the two evangelists having coincidentally made the same lexical choices. Nevertheless, it's worth pointing out these similarities with the color blue.

Mc 2, 21	Mt 9, 16	Lc 5, 36
Oudeis epiblēma rhakous agnaphou epiraptei epi himation palaion• ei de mē, airei to plērōma apʼ autou to kainon tou palaiou kai cheiron schisma ginetai.	oudeis de epiballei epiblēma rhakous agnaphou epi himatiō palaiō• airei gar to plērōma autou apo tou himatiou kai cheiron schisma ginetai.	Elegen de kai parabolēn pros autous hoti oudeis epiblēma apo himatiou kainou schisas epiballei epi himation palaion• ei de mē ge, kai to kainon schisei kai tō palaiō ou symphōnēsei to epiblēma to apo tou kainou.

For the application of this technique to all texts attributed to the Q Document source, see this page dedicated to the Q Document

Parallels between John and the other Gospels are marked in red.

According to biblical scholars, John did not know the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. However, when we study the parallels with John, we sometimes find words or parts of words from Matthew and Luke that do not come from Mark. How can we explain this?

The first explanation is pure chance. Sometimes, when editing a scene, different authors, without knowing each other, use similar literary devices. These are words from John that also appear in either Matthew or Luke, but not in Mark. This is the case with the Greek particle de (then, but), which the authors constantly use to connect the different moments of a narrative: thus, in the account of the walk on the waters, while Mark (6:47) writes: kai opsias genomenēs (And an evening having come), John (6:16) writes: hōs de opsia egeneto (Then, as an evening came) and Mt (14:23) writes: opsias de genomenēs (Then, an evening having come). Clearly, Matthew is copying Mark's account here, but takes the liberty of modifying Mark's kai (and) with the particle de (then), and it's fortuitous that in this his text resembles John's, which also uses the particle de.

A second explanation is much more complex. For example, how can we explain the fact that the word "stadia" (Jn 6:10) is also found in Mt 14:24, and that the word "fear" (Jn 6:19) also appears in Mt 14:26? Is this pure chance? Many biblical scholars doubt this, and opt for the hypothesis that several sources circulated on this story. This is the case of M.E. Boismard (see Synopse des quatre évangiles, t. 2, p. 225-227 on walking on the waters), for whom Mark's Gospel combined two different accounts, called Document A and Document B, that John used Document B, that Matthew used an intermediate edition of Mark before his final edition, to which a Lucan author would have given a final touch.

Without entering into a theory as complex as Boismard's, marking parallels between John and Luke/Matthew in red allows us to identify the similarity between various ancient traditions to which the Gospels had access, in particular to spot a number of traditions common to John and Luke, such as the miraculous fishing (Lk 5 || Jn 21), and above all a great deal of literary kinship, i.e. many particular words or expressions peculiar to both of them: geitonas (neighbors), met' ou pollas hēmeras (after not many days), kai ekei (and there), boskein (to graze), panta ta ema sa estin (all things mine yours is), en hēmin (among us), peri autou (about him), meta tauta (after these things), etc.

Example: applying this technique to walking on water:

Mark	Matthew	John
6, 45 Kai euthys ēnankasen tous mathētas autou embēnai eis to ploion kai proagein eis to peran pros Bēthsaidan, heōs autos apolyei ton ochlon.	14, 22 Kai eutheōs ēnankasen tous mathētas embēnai eis to ploion kai proagein auton eis to peran, heōs hou apolysē toys ochloys.	6, 16-17a Hōs de opsia egeneto katebēsan ohi mathētai autou epi tēn thalassan. kai embantes eis ploion ērchonto peran tēs thalassēs eis Kapharnaoum. kai skotia ēdē egegonei kai oupō elēlythei pros autous ho Iēsous,
6, 46 kai apotaxamenos autois apēlthen eis to oros proseuxasthai.	14, 23a kai apolysas tous ochlous anebē eis to oros katʼ idian proseuxasthai.	[6, 15b anechōrēsen palin eis to oros]
6, 47 kai opsias genomenēs ēn to ploion en mesō tēs thalassēs, kai autos monos epi tēs gēs. kai idōn autous basanizomenoys en tō elaunein, ēn gar ho anemos enantios autois,	14, 23b-24 opsias de genomenēs monos ēn ekei. to de ploion ēdē stadious pollous apo tēs gēs apeichen basanizomenon hypo tōn kymatōn, ēn gar enantios ho anemos.	[6, 15c autos monos.] [6, 16a Hōs de opsia egeneto] 6, 18-19a hē te thalassa anemoy megalou pneontos diegeireto. elēlakotes oun hōs stadious eikosi pente ē triakonta
6, 48 peri tetartēn phylakēn tēs nyktos erchetai pros autous peripatōn epi tēs thalassēs kai ēthelen parelthein autous.	14, 25 tetartē de phylakē tēs nyktos ēlthen pros autous peripatōn epi tēn thalassan.	6, 19a theōrousin ton Iēsoun peripatoynta epi tēs thalassēs kai engys tou ploiou ginomenon,
6, 49-50a hoi de idontes auton epi tēs thalassēs peripatounta edoxan hoti phantasma estin, kai anekraxan• pantes gar auton eidon kai etarachthēsan.	14, 26 hoi de mathētai idontes auton epi tēs thalassēs peripatounta etarachthēsan legontes hoti phantasma estin, kai apo tou phobou ekraxan.	6, 19b kai ephobēthēsan.
6, 50b ho de euthys elalēsen metʼ autōn, kai legei autois• tharseite, egō eimi• mē phobeisthe.	14, 27 euthys de elalēsen [o Iēsous] autois legōn• tharseite, egō eimi• mē phobeisthe.	6, 20 ho de legei autois• egō eimi• mē phobeisthe.
	14, 28 apokritheis de autō ho Petros eipen• kyrie, ei sy ei, keleuson me elthein pros se epi ta hydata.
	14, 29 ho de eipen• elthe. kai katabas apo tou ploiou [ho] Petros periepatēsen epi ta hydata kai ēlthen pros ton Iēsoun.
	14, 30 blepōn de ton anemon [ischyron] ephobēthē, kai arxamenos katapontizesthai ekraxen legōn• kyrie, sōson me.
	14, 31 eutheōs de ho Iēsous ekteinas tēn cheira epelabeto autou kai legei autō• oligopiste, eis ti edistasas;
6, 51-52 kai anebē pros autous eis to ploion kai ekopasen ho anemos, kai lian [ek perissou] en heautois existanto• ou gar synēkan epi tois artois, allʼ ēn autōn hē kardia pepōrōmenē.	14, 32-33 kai anabantōn autōn eis to ploion ekopasen ho anemos. hoi de en tō ploiō prosekynēsan autō legontes• alēthōs theou huios ei.	6, 21 ēthelon oun labein auton eis to ploion, kai eutheōs egeneto to ploion epi tēs gēs eis hēn hypēgon.

Applying this technique to the English translation text

When the parallels between the Gospels are presented not in Greek, but in translation, particular difficulties arise. While respecting the three types of notation we have proposed, they sometimes need to be adapted to the specific configurations of a given language. Note that, despite the most literal translations possible, there are nuances in Greek that cannot be reproduced in English. Conversely, English sometimes offers possibilities not available in Greek, for example with the present participle: in English, the present participle of two different verbs can be underlined by the auxiliary (having, being), whereas in Greek this is not possible due to the different forms. It's also worth noting that certain words may need to be added to a translation, words that are not present in Greek but are necessary in English to understand the sentence; in this case, any additions are placed in brackets.

Identical words in Greek

When presenting the parallels in their English version, the same principles apply. But to achieve this, you need to produce the most literal translation possible. For example, avoid translating ho oikos mou oikos proseuchēs as: “my house a house of prayer”, but rather by: “the house of me a house of prayer”, to emphasize the definite article ‘the’ (ho).
- Mk 11: 17: the house of me a house of prayer et Mt 21: 13: the house of me a house of prayer et Lk 19: 46: the house of me a house of prayer
However, every translation has its limits. So it won't be possible to really make out a difference in cases, for example, where one evangelist uses oikos to designate the house, and another oikia.

Partially identical words in Greek

The Greek words are virtually identical, but with different spellings.

We suggested that, for almost identical words in Greek with only a variation in spelling, similar letters should be underlined. This was the case, for example, with the adverb euthys (immediately) in Mark, eutheōs in Matthew. In English, the difference can be highlighted by partially underlining the word.
- Mk 6: 45: immediately et Mt 14: 22: immediately
Greek verbs in different tenses.

For identical verbs in different tenses, simply underline the identical letters.
- Mk 6: 45: he unties (apolyei: present indicative tense) and Mt 14: 22: he might untie (apolysē: aorist subjunctive)
But English doesn't always allow you to reproduce a difference in verb tenses. For example, the verb “to put” becomes “they put” in the present indicative, and also “they put” in the preterite, whereas in Greek we have ballousin in the present indicative and ebalan in the aorist. You can opt for partial underlining to highlight the difference. This may happpen for irregular verbs that do not change like: to cost, cut, hit, put, shut, spread, set, etc.

Conversely, English sometimes allows underlining different verbs in the same tense, which is not possible in Greek.
- Mk 6: 46: "having sent away [the crowd]" (apotaxamenos: aorist participle) and Mt 14: 23: "having untied [the crowd]" (apolysas: aorist participle)
Greek compound verbs

With verbs made up using prepositions as prefixes: en-, ana-, kata-, para-, it's often impossible to render their Greek nuance in English, so we translate them with the same verb, whereas in Greek one of the evangelists uses the verb with the prefix, and the other doesn't, or uses a different prefix. My suggestion is to partially underline the verb to make it clear that it's not exactly the same verb. This is sometimes a challenge when the Greek verb with a prefix and the one without a prefix don't translate the same way; nevertheless, the word is partially underlined to convey the similarity and the difference.
- Mk 6: 41: he broke (kateklasen) and Mt 14: 19: breaking (klasas)
- Mk 6: 49: they cried out (anekraxan) and Mt 14: 26: they cried (ekraxan)
Number in Greek words

In English, it's easy to represent the singular or plural and show the differences by underlining only the identical letters. For example:
- Mk 6: 45: "crowd" and Mt 14: 22: "crowds"
Cases in Greek words

Unlike Greek, where the form of the word varies according to the case, words in English don't vary according to the role they play in the sentence. In this case, you can opt for partial underlining to highlight the difference.
- Mk 6: 48: "upon the sea (epi + genitive)" and Mt 14: 25: "upon the sea (epi + accusative)"
Articles and possessive adjectives

There are a number of differences between Greek and English. In Greek, there is no indefinite article as such, as in English “a”, which is rather expressed by the absence of an article. If, for example, Mark and another evangelist associate a definite article with one word, and not a third, then in English the definite article is underlined in the first two evangelists, and the “a” is not underlined in the third. As for the personal pronoun autos (he, she, they), usually translated by a possessive adjective, I think it's important to opt for a literal translation of the Greek. For example, the expression tous mathētas autou is translated by our Bibles as: his disciples. But in doing so, they obliterate the Greek article (tous). I prefer to translate it literally as: the disciples of him, which brings out both the article and the personal pronoun.
- Mk 6: 45: "the disciples of him" and Mt 14: 22: "the disciples"
- Mk 6: 45: into the boat (eis to ploion) and Jn 6: 17: into a boat (eis ploion)

Example: applying this technique to walking on water:

Mark	Matthew	John
6:45 And immediately he compelled the disciples of him to embark into the boat and to go before to the other side, toward Bethsaida, until he himself unties the crowd.	14:22 And immediately he compelled the disciples to embark into the boat and to go before him to the other side, until he would untie the crowds	6:16-17 Then, when evening came, the disciples of him went down upon the sea, and, embarking into a boat, they were going to the other side of the sea, to Capernaum. And already it had become dark and Jesus had not come to them.
6:46 And having taken leave of them, he came away to the mountain to pray	14:23a And having untied the crowds he went up to the mountain by himself to pray;	[6:15b he withdrew again to the mountain,]
6:47 And, evening having come, was the boat in the midst of the sea and himself alone upon the land. And having seen them being tormented to row, because was the wind adverse was adverse to them.	14:23b-24 then, evening having come, alone he was there. Then, the boat already several stadia from the land it was far, being tormented by the waves, because the wind was adverse.	[6:15c himself alone.] [6:16a Then, as evening came] 6:18-19a and the sea by great wind blowing was agitated. Therefore having rowed about stadia twenty or thirty,
6:48 Around a fourth watch of the night, he comes towards them walking upon the sea and he was wishing to pass by them.	14:25 Then, (at) fourth watch of the night, he came towards them walking upon the sea.	6:19b They observe the Jesus walking upon the sea and near the boat coming.
6:49-50a Then, them, having seen him upon the sea walking, they thought that a ghost it is, and they cried out; for all saw him and were troubled.	14:26 Then, the disciples having seen him walking upon the sea, they were troubled saying that a ghost it is, and from the fear they cried.	6:19c and they feared.
6:50b Then, him, immediately he spoke with them, and says to them: Take courage! Me, I am! Don't be afraid!	14:27 Then, immediately he spoke [the Jesus] to them saying, Take courage! Me, I am! Don't be afraid!	16:20 Then, him, he says to them: Me, I am! Don't be afraid!
	14:28 Then, having answered him, Peter said, Lord, if it is you, command me to come towards you on the waters.
	14:29 Then, him, he said, Come. And having descended from the boat, Peter walked upon the waters and came to Jesus.
	14:30 Then, then looking at the [mighty] wind, and he feared, and began to be submerged in the sea, and cried, saying, "Lord, save me
	14:31 Then, immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?
6:51-52 and he went up towards them into the boat and the wind ceased, and extremely [beyond measure] they were stunned, for they had not understood about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.	14:32-33 and them, having gone up into the boat, the wind ceased. Then those in the boat prostrated [before] him, saying, "Truly, of God, son, you are	6:21 So, they were willing to receive him into the boat and immediately it came to pass the boat upon the land to which they were going.

General comments on parallel analysis

Parallel analysis is most often applied to the Synoptic narratives, since these are the Gospels that offer the most similar scenes. It also applies to John insofar as there are certain scenes he shares with the Synoptics. Note that two passages from the same gospel can be compared.

Identifying literary changes

Within the framework of the two-source theory, parallel analysis enables us to identify what Matthew and Luke have copied from Mark, what modifications they have made to their source, or what they have added either on their own or using a source of their own. These modifications may be a question of style or theology.

Let's start with the changes for literary reasons.

For example, Mark's style is rough and cluttered to the point of obscurity. Matthew, on the other hand, likes things clear and well-structured. So, when he takes up Mark's text, he regularly brings some order to it. Compare Mk 7:6-13 (discussion of the tradition of the elders) with Mt 15:3-9. We have assigned a letter (a, b, c, d) to Mark's ideas. Pay attention to how Matthew changed Mark's order.

Mark 7: 6-13

Mt 15: 3-9

Then he said to them: “ a) It was well prophesied Isaiah concerning you hypocrites, as it was written that this people with their lips they honor me, then the heart of them stands far from me. b) Then, in vain they worship me, teaching teachings [which are] commandments of men, having left the precept of God, you retain the tradition of men. c) And he said to them: “Well, you violate God's commandment in order to keep your tradition. d) For Moses said: ”Honor your father and your mother (Ex 20:12), and whoever curses father or mother, let him be punished by death (Ex 21:17). But you, you say: “If a man says to his father or mother: ‘(It is) Corban, i.e. offering, by which you could be helped from me’,” you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother, annulling the word of God by your tradition that you transmit. And such things as this, you (do) many.”

c) He, answering, said to them: “Why do you also transgress God's commandment by your tradition? d) For God has said: ”Honor your father and your mother (Ex 20:12), and whoever curses father or mother, let him be punished by death (Ex 21:17). But you, you say: “Whoever says to his father or mother: ‘(It is) an offering that by which you could be helped from me, will no longer have to honor his father or mother.’” And you have nullified the word of God because of your tradition. a) Hypocrites, Isaiah prophesied well of you saying: the people this one with their lips they honor me, then the heart of them stands far from me. b) Then in vain they worship me, teaching teachings [that are] commandments of men,

Note that when we read Mark's text, which begins by calling the Pharisees hypocrites (v. 6), people who teach only human precepts, we are surprised by such harshness and we fail to understand the reason, and it's only at the end that an explanation is given. What does Matthew do? He takes up the same ideas, but reorganizes them differently. We've assigned a letter (a, b, c, d) to Mark's ideas so that we can see how Matthew rearranges them for greater clarity; from the outset Matthew identifies the problem (transgression of God's law) and the attribute “hypocrite” only comes at the end after a lengthy explanation. Note the conciseness of Matthew's text compared to Mark's.

The healing of an epileptic child offers us a fine example of modifications for reasons of literary style. Let's begin by comparing the text of the Synoptics.

Mark 9	Matthieu 17	Luc 9
14 And having come toward the disciples, they saw a crowd large around them and scribes discussing toward them.	14 And having come toward the crowd	37 Then, it came to pass the next day, them having come down from the mountain, met him a crowd large.
15 And immediately all the crowd having seen him, they were struck with stupor and running forward they were greeting him.
16 And he questioned them, "What are you discussing with them?"
17-18a And answered to him one of the crowd: "Teacher, I brought the son of me toward you, having a spirit mute. And whenever if it might catch him, it dashes him and he foams and he gnashes the teeth and he is withered.	15 they approached him a man kneeling to him and saying: "Lord, have mercy on the son of me, for he is epileptic and badly suffers. For often he falls into the fire and often into the water.	38-39 And behold a male from the crowd cried out saying, "Teacher, I implore you to look upon the son of me, for only son to me he is, and behold a spirit takes him and suddenly it cries and it convulses him with foam and with difficulty it go away from him breaking him.
18b And I said to the disciples of you in order they might cast it out, and they did not have strength.	16 And I brought him to the disciples of you and they were not able to treat him.	40 And implored the disciples of you in order that they might cast out it, and they were not able.
19 Then, him, having answered to them he says, "O generation faithless, until when toward you will I be? Until when will I bear with you? Bring him toward me."	17 Then, having answered, the Jesus said: "O generations faithless and having been perverted, until when with you will I be? Until when will I bear with you? Bring him to me here."	41 Then, having answered, the Jesus said, "O generations faithless and having been perverted, until when will I be toward you and will I bear with you? Lead toward [me] here the son of you.
20 And they brought him toward him. And having seen him, the spirit immediately convulsed him, and having fallen upon the ground he was rolling foaming.		42a Then, when him approaching, it dashed him the demon and it convulsed.
And he questioned the father of him, "How much time it is like this has been happening to him?" Then, him he said, "Out of childhood.
22 And often and into the fire him he threw and into water, in order it might destroy him. But if anything you are able to, help us having been with compassion over us."	[15b For often he falls into the fire and often into the water.]
23 Then, the Jesus said to him, "The [word] if I am able, all [things are] possible to the [one] believing.
24 Immediately having cried the father of the child said, "I believe. Help me in the unbelief.
25 Then, having seen the Jesus that running together a crowd, he rebuked the spirit the unclean saying to him, "the mute and deaf spirit, I, order you, come out from him, and no longer enter into him."	18a And he rebuked him the Jesus	42b Then, the Jesus rebuked the spirit the unclean
26-27 And having cried and having convulse a lot, it came out. And he became like dead, so that the many [of them] would say that he died. Then, the Jesus seized the hand of him, he rose him up, and he stood up.	18b and it came out from him the demon and was treated the child from this hour.	42c and was healed the child and he gave back him to the father of him.

When Matthew saw Mark's account, he was certainly taken aback by its ambiguous, imprecise, pompous and redundant style. Let's take a closer look at the beginning of Mark's account (9:14): “And coming to the disciples, they saw a large crowd around them, and scribes discussing with them”. First of all, what does “they” mean in the phrase “they saw a crowd”, this “they” that we also imagine to be the subject of the action “having come toward the disciples”. Now, in the previous verse (v. 13), it was Jesus who was speaking in response to Peter, John and James. We must therefore imagine that the subject is no longer the same as in the previous verse, and that “they” refers to Peter, John and James. But now we find ourselves with “[Peter, John, James] having come toward the disciples.” Which disciples are we talking about, since Peter, John and James are disciples? So we have to assume that we're talking about the other disciples of Jesus who weren't with him on the mount of transfiguration. And we understand that the “them” (“around them”, “discussing with them”) refers to these other disciples. Given these ambiguities, what does Matthew do? He eliminates Mark's lengthy introduction with the other disciples, the crowd's reaction and Jesus' questioning of the subject under discussion, and gets straight to the point of the story: they (Peter, John, James and Jesus) move towards the crowd, and from this crowd approaches an individual asking Jesus to have mercy on his son. Luke makes similar changes: first of all, he keeps the same subject as in the previous verse, i.e. Jesus, and he too goes straight to the point with the intervention of a man from the crowd.

When we look at what Matthew and Luke have eliminated from Mark's account, we see that they have kept only the essentials: a man's request to intervene on behalf of his son, a very brief description of the illness (a case of epilepsy), the mention of the disciples' inability to heal, Jesus' intervention, which simply rebukes the source of the evil, and finally the mention of the healing. Luke adds the crowd's reaction to complete the 5th stage of a miracle story (on the stages of a miracle story, see the structure of miracle stories).

All this highlights the particularities of Mark's style. First and foremost, he is a great storyteller. Like all great storytellers, he lengthens his narrative to include a host of dramatic details. He doesn't just like to mention things, he wants us to see them. Thus, in Mk 9:16, Jesus asks the crowd a question: “What were you discussing with them?” What does “them” mean? The other disciples, the scribes? Instead of a simple answer, Mark offers a long narrative. He multiplies the details of the child who is thrown to the ground, who foams, gnashes his teeth, rolls on the ground, is shaken violently, thrown into fire and water, becomes stiff. He sometimes dares to repeat himself, or probably he merges two stories; twice he mentions that the child is thrown to the ground and foams. He introduces anecdotal details: these phenomena have been happening since childhood. Even when Jesus commands the unclean spirit to come out of the child, the latter becomes as if dead, and in the description of Jesus' gesture of raising him, Mark uses two words used for Jesus' resurrection of the dead: to raise up, to stand up. Even in Jesus' words, there is something solemn and dramatic: “I order you... go out... enter no longer”. Mark's text is worthy of a film script.

Identifying theological changes

An evangelist may make changes not only for literary reasons, but also for theological reasons.

For example, Matthew's disciples act as intermediaries between Jesus and the crowd, a likely echo of the role played by preachers or missionaries in his community. Compare Mt 15:22-25 and Mk 7:25: in Matthew, it is the disciples who urge Jesus to act.

Mark 7	Matthew 15
25a But a woman, immediately having heard about it, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit,	22 And behold a woman Canaanite from these boundaries having come out, was crying out saying, "Have mercy on me, lord, son of David; the daughter of me badly is possessed by a demon".
	23 Then him he did not answer her a word. And having come near the disciples of him were asking him saying: "Dismiss her, because she cries out from behind us".
	24 Then him, having answered he said: I was not sent, if not towards the sheep the having been lost of house of Israel.
25b having come, fell prostrate at his feet. 26 Then, the woman was Greek, Syrophoenician by race, was asking him that he should cast forth the demon out of her daughter.	25 Then her, having come, was paying homage to him saying: master, come to the aid of me.

Matthew emphasizes the disciples' role as intermediaries when Jesus feeds the crowd. Compare Mk 6:41b with Mt 14:19b; note that Mt uses the word “disciple” twice.

Mark 6 Matthew 14

41b: and he was giving to his disciples so that they might set before [the loaves] before them 19b: and having broken, to the disciples the loaves, then disciples to the crowds

Another example. In the account of the walk upon the sea, Mark and Matthew present two different situations: for Mark it is the disciples who are tormented, no doubt an echo of the Christians persecuted by Nero in Rome; for Matthew, it is the boat that is tormented, no doubt an echo of the Church of Antioch harassed by the Jewish community.

Mark 6	Matthiew 14
47 And, evening having come, was the boat in the midst of the sea and himself alone upon the land. And having seen them being tormented to row, because was the wind adverse was adverse to them.	23b-24 then, evening having come, alone he was there. Then, the boat already several stadia from the land it was far, being tormented by the waves, because the wind was adverse.

An interesting example of the power of parallel analysis is given by the pericope of the salt that loses its flavor.

Mark 9: 50	Mattew 5: 13	Luke 14: 34 - 35
Good [is] the salt. Then, if the salt has become without salt, with what will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.	You, you are the salt of the earth. Then, if the salt has become crazy, with what will it be salted? For nothing it is strong, except it should be thrown out, to be trampled by men.	Therefore, good [is] the salt. Then, if the salt has become crazy, with what will it be seasoned? Neither for [the] earth nor for [the] manure it is appropriate, out they throw it. Let anyone with ears to hear listen.

As we can see, Jesus' words on salt have come down to us in two traditions, Mark's (reflected by the underlined words), and the Q Document's (the words colored blue). Luke makes the greatest effort to integrate the two traditions. According to M.E. Boismard, the Q Document would have taken the following form: "If the salt becomes foolish, what will it be salted with? Neither for the earth, nor for the manure it is suitable: outside it is thrown away." So, Luke is the one who most respects the Q Document. Note that this refers to two things: an agricultural practice attested in Egypt and Palestine as early as the first century, in which salt was added to manure to make it more suitable for fertilizing the earth; then, according to the OT (e.g. Isa 19:11-12b or Jer 10:14) becoming fooliing or going mad always appears in a context where wisdom is spoken of. But in this comparative analysis, we want to emphasize above all that Matthew, by placing this pericope immediately after the Beatitudes, intends to remind Christians of their mission: to make known to the world the wisdom of the Beatitudes, which will enable the world to bear all its fruit. Note that Matthew has omitted the word “manure”, either because he was uncomfortable with it, or because he felt it detracted from his point. Luke placed this pericope in a sequence of words about the conditions for following Jesus, and if the disciple doesn't take this path, he loses his identity, like salt unable to season.

Analysis of the parallels allows us to observe the theological evolution of the place of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus.

Mark 1	Matthew 3	Luke 3	John 1
9b-10 and was baptized into the Jordan by John. And immediately ascending out of the water, he saw being split the heavens and the spirit like a dove descending into him.	16 Then, having been baptized, the Jesus immediately ascended from the water; and behold were opened [to him] the heavens and he saw [the] spirit of [the] God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him.	21b-22a and Jesus having been baptized and being praying, to be opened the heaven, and to descend the spirit the holy in bodily appearance like a dove upon him	32-33 And John bore witness saying, I have observed the spirit descending like a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him. And I did not know him; but the (one) having sent me to baptize in water, that one said to me, upon whom perchance you would see the spirit descending and remaining upon him, this one is the (one) baptizing in spirit holy.

Mark alone describes the event of Jesus' baptism: “Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan”. But this baptism posed a problem for Christians: how could Jesus have been baptized by someone inferior to him? Ten years later, around the year 80, Matthew expresses this uneasiness with the scene (which precedes our pericope) in which John the Baptist objects to Jesus' visit to be baptized. From then on, he simply refers to Jesus' baptism as a past event (“having been baptized”). As for Luke (c. 85), not only is Jesus' baptism a past event, but he hides it within the group of the baptism of all the people (“once all the people had been baptized and at the time when Jesus, too, was baptized”). Finally, John (circa 90 or 95) completely obliterates this baptism, making John a witness to Jesus' reception of the Holy Spirit.

Another example of modifications for theological reasons is given by the following passage:

Mark 10:17b	Matthew 19:16b	Luke 18:18b
"Good teacher, what shall I do that I might inherit eternal life?"	"Teacher, what good shall I do that I might have eternal life?"	"Good teacher, having done what will I inherit eternal life?"

While Luke adopts Mark's text almost exactly as it is, Matthew makes two changes for theological reasons:

He has not retained Mark's expression “Good teacher” for a reason that is easy to guess, as it leads to a remark by Jesus that finds the title “good” inappropriate in his regard, which is a little shocking for a Matthew who insists on the contrary on Jesus' sovereignty. He transforms the discussion by turning it to the question of what is good (what good shall I do?).

Another transformation effected by Matthew concerns eternal life, which is no longer something future, promised beyond death and final judgment. Indeed, Mark uses the verb “to inherit”, which refers to something that will happen later. For Matthew, on the other hand, eternal life is something present, something we can “possess”.

An interesting example of Luke's theology is the account of Jesus' temptations from the Q Document.

Matthew 4	Luke 4
8-9 Again the devil takes him with him to an exeedingly high mountain and he shows to him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them and said to him, all these I give to you, if having fall down (to my feet) you might bow low to me.	5-7 And having led up him, he showed to him all the kingdoms of the universe in moment of time and said to him the devil, to you I will give the authority all this and the glory of them, because to me it has been given over and to whomever I want I give it. Therefore, you if you might bow low before me, it will be to you all.

Luke has a rather negative view of political power, as he takes the trouble to make a little development that this power is entirely in the hands of opposing forces, by God's own will (for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will). This sheds some light on his bias in favor of the poor from the moment of Jesus' birth (the shepherds will be the ones to hear the good news).

A revealing passage with different theological emphases is that of the Lord's Prayer, which Matthew and Luke take from the Q Document source.

Matthew 6	Luke 11
9 "Thus therefore pray yourselves, 'Father of us the (one) in the heavens, may be hallowed the name of you.	2a Then, he said to them, "When you might pray, say: 'Father, may be hallowed the name of you.
10 May come the kingdom of you. May happen the will of you, as in heaven also on earth.	2b May come the kingdom of you.
11 The bread of us the sufficient give us today.	3 The bread of us the sufficient give us the by day.
12 And remit us the debts of us, as also, us, we remit to the debtors of us.	4a And remit us the sins of us, for also we, we remit to all having debts with us.
13 And you should not bring us into trial, but deliver us from the evil.'"	4b And you should not bring us into trial'"

Let's make a few observations.

Firstly, Luke's way of addressing God is direct and more intimate: Father / dad; whereas Matthew's “Father of us the (one) in the heavens” is more ritualized and presupposes a community.
Matthew adds: “May happen the will of you, as in heaven also on earth”. We have here a typical touch of Matthew who, as a good Jew, insists on action or orthopraxis. It's his way of taking up the Jewish Law, but Christianizing it. This insistence recurs throughout his Gospel: “It is not by saying to me, Lord, Lord, that one will enter the kingdom of heaven, but by doing the will of my Father who is in heaven”. (Mt 7: 21); “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mt 12: 50); “Which of the two has done the will of the Father” (Mt 21: 31: parable of the two sons). Speaking to Greeks, Luke feels no need to take up the idea of a new Law.
By modifying the request for bread “today” to say “every day” instead, Luke insists on the idea that the Christian life is a long journey that requires a lot of perseverance, as he does several times in his Gospel: “And he said to everyone: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Lk 9:23); “And what is in the good soil are those who, having heard the Word with a noble and generous heart, retain it and bear fruit by their perseverance” (Lk 8:15); “It is by your perseverance that you will save your lives!" (Lk 21:19).
Rather than saying “remit us the debts of us”, as the Q Document probably indicated, and which Matthew took up unchanged, Luke writes: “remit us the sins of us”. Why is this? Probably because the notion of fault as debt, typical of the Jewish milieu, was more difficult to understand in its Greek counterpart, and speaking of sin was probably clearer.

Identifying the evangelist's sources

Analysis of the parallels highlights the various sources from which the evangelists drew, and their art of weaving them together into a continuous narrative.

This is the case with the sending out of the Twelve on mission, as described by Mark (7: 10), but also found in the Q Document. What do Matthew and Luke, who know both Mark and the Q Document, do? They merge the two accounts (see parallels Mk 6 || Mt 10 || Lk 9 || Lk 10). What's more, to the account of the sending out of the Twelve (ch. 9), Luke adds a sending out of 72 disciples (ch. 10), copied on the model of the sending out of the Twelve. Why is this? Since his gospel was addressed to Greek converts to the Christian faith, he felt it important to have, in addition to a sending out to the Jews (the Twelve), a sending out to the rest of the world (it was believed that there were 72 nations in the world). This parallel clearly shows what is probably Luke's composition (absence of parallels with the other Gospels in section 10: 17-20).

Another example is the parable of the mustard seed.

Mark 4	Matthew 13	Luke
30 And he was saying, "How should I compare the kingdom of God or in what parable I should put it?	31a Another parable he put before to them saying,	18 Therefore he was saying, "To what comparable is the kingdom of God and to what will I compare it?
31-32 As a grain of mustard, that when it would be sown upon the earth, smallest being of all the seeds the ones upon the earth, and when it would be sown, it goes up and becomes greater of all the garden plants and it makes branches large, so as it is able under the shade of it the birds of the sky to dwell.	31b-32 "Comparable is the kingdom of heavens to a grain of mustard that having taken a man he sowed in the field of him. On the one hand, the smallest it is of all the seeds, on the other hand when it is grown greater of the garden plants it is and it becomes a tree, so as to come the birds of the sky and to dwell in the branches of it."	19 Comparable it is to a grain of mustard that having taken a man he cast into a garden of him, and it grew and became into a tree, and the birds of the sky dwelt in the branches of it."

This parallel reveals that Matthew and Luke had before them the parable of the mustard seed from two different sources, Mark and the Q Document. Rather than choosing one version and abandoning the other, they opted to integrate them into a single narrative. Note that the meaning of both versions is the same: the kingdom of God, despite its humble and almost invisible beginning, will have a dazzling end; it is therefore a call to confidence that the kingdom of God, despite appearances, is making its way and will succeed. But each version has its own particular accent.

In the Q Document, the emphasis is on the contrast between the seed and the tree it has become, where birds take shelter in its branches, an expression inspired by Dan 4:10-12 (according to the LXX), i.e. in the end, all mankind will have a place in this kingdom. In Mark's version, the evangelist takes the trouble to explain to a non-agricultural audience that the mustard seed is the smallest of vegetable plants, he describes its growth until it becomes the largest of vegetable plants, and in the end the birds take shelter under its shade, an expression inspired by Ezek 17:22-24, i.e. the peoples of the earth will be able to find protection under the shade of the kingdom of God. The advantage of identifying two independent sources in this way is that the parable has multiple attestation and probably dates back to the historical Jesus (on this subject, see Meier).

The art of Matthew and Luke was to lose nothing of the two versions, but to weave them together into a coherent narrative. And each has given them a different role by inserting them into different contexts. Matthew inserted it into his discourse in parables (ch. 13), which contains most of Jesus' parables. It comes after the parable of the tares, where an enemy disrupts the farmer's work, and thus introduces a note of optimism: nothing will prevent the kingdom from unfolding in all its splendor. Luke, for his part, inserted it into the sequence in which Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem, after healing a woman bent over in a synagogue on the Sabbath (Lk 13:10-17), which gives rise to a dispute: Jesus' opponents are shamed by Jesus' reply to their protests, while the crowd rejoices at the wonders they see. He coupled it with the parable of the leaven in the dough. In this context, the two parables of the mustard seed and the leaven in the dough reveal the mystery at work: what was observed in the synagogue is a sign that the dynamism of the kingdom is at work and will soon reach its full stature.

The story of the multiplication of the loaves is one of the most complex in terms of sources. Not only does Mark present us with two versions of the multiplication of the loaves, both copied by Matthew, with Luke copying only one, but John also offers his own version. This leaves us with three possible sources: Mark, Q and John. Here, the six narratives are placed in parallel. Because of the length of the story, we have divided it into several stages. And we've adopted the following notation: words from Mark's first account that are also found in the other parallel columns are underlined; words specific to Matthew and Luke alone are in blue; words from John that are found only in Matthew's or Luke's first account, or only in the second account, are in red; finally, words from Mark's 2nd account of the multiplication of the loaves that are also found in Matthew's 2nd account of the multiplication of the loaves are in green.

Mk 6: 32-44	Mt 14: 13-21	Lk 9: 10b-17	Jn 6: 1-13	Mk 8: 1-10	Mt 15: 32-39
Introduction: geographical location
32 And they went away in the boat into wilderness place by himself.	13a Then, having heard, the Jesus withdrew from there in boat into wilderness place by himself.	10b And having taken along them, he withdrew by himself into a town called Bethsaida	1 After these things, he went away the Jesus over the sea of Galilee of Tiberias.
Action from the crowd
33 And they saw them departing and many knew exactly and on foot from all the towns they ran together there and they came before them.	13b And having the crowds followed him on foot from the towns.	11a Then the crowds having known followed him.	2 Then, was following him a great crowd, for they were observing the signs which he was doing over those being sick.
Reaction of Jesus and the disciples
34-36 And having come out he saw a great crowd and was moved by compassion over them, for they were like sheep not having a shepherd, and he began to teach them many things. And already much hour having become, having come towards him the disciples of him, they were saying that desolate is the place and already much hour. Dismiss them, in order that having come away into the surrounding countryside and villages, they might buy themselves something they might eat.	14-15 And having come out he saw a great crowd and was moved over them and healed the disabled persons of them. Then, evening having become, having come towards him the disciples saying, desolate is the place and the hour already has come by. Dismiss the crowds, in order that having come away into the villages they might buy themselves food.	11b-12 And having welcomed them, he was speaking to them concerning the kingdom of God. And the having need of healing, he was healing. Then, the day began to decline. Then, having come towards the twelve, they said to him, dismiss the crowd in order that, having gone into the surrounding villages and the countryside they might lodge and they might find provisions for here in a desolate place we are.	3-5a Then, Jesus went up into the mountain and there he was sitting with the disciples of him. Then it was near the Easter, the feast of the Jews. So having lift up the eyes the Jesus and having notices that a great crowd is coming towards him,	1-3 In these days again a large crowd being and having not something they might eat, having summoned the disciples, he says to them, I am move with compassion upon the crowd, for already three days they remain with me and don’t have something they might eat. And if I would release them hungry into their house, they will faint on the road. And some of them from afar have come.	32 Then, the Jesus having summoned the disciples of him said, I am move with compassion upon the crowd, for already three days they remain with me and don’t have something they might eat. And to release them hungry, I am not willing, lest that they would faint on the road.
Jesus' request
37a Then, him, having answered, he said to them, Give them yourself to eat.	16 Then, him, [Jesus] said to them, no need they have to come away, give them yourself to eat.	13a Then, he said towards them, give them yourself to eat.	5b-6 he says towards Philip, from where might we buy breads in order that they might eat these? Then, this he was saying testing him; for himself he knew what he was about to do.
Disciples' objection
37b And they say to him, having come away, would we buy two hundred denarii of bread and will we give them to eat?	17 Then, them, they say to him, we have not here if not five breads and two fish (ichthys).	13b-14a Then, them they said, there are not to us more than five breads and two fish (ichthys). Unless having gone ourselves, we would buy food for all this people. For they were about five thousand men.	7-9 He answered to him [the] Phillip, breads (for) two hundred denarii do not suffice for them in order that each a little [one] he might receive. He says to him one of the disciples of him, Andrew the brother of Simon Peter, there is a little boy here who has five breads of barley and two fish (opsarion). But these how are they into so many?	4 And they answered him the disciples of him that from where these will be able anyone here to satisfy of breads upon desolate place?	33 And they say to him the disciples, from where to us in a desolate place so many breads so as to satisfy a crowd so great.
Survey of provisions
38 Then, him, he says to them, 'how many breads have you? Go, see.' And having known, they say, 'Five, and two fish (ichthys)'.				5 And he was questioning them, How many breads you have? Then, them they said, Seven.	34 And he says to them the Jesus, How many breads you have? Then, them they said, Seven and a few little fish.
Jesus organizes logistics
39-40 And he called upon them to recline all companies (by) companies over the green grass. And they lied down ranks (by) ranks by a hundred and by fifty.	18-19a Then, him, he said, bring to me here them. And having command the crowds to recline over the grass,	14b-15 Then, he said towards the disciples of him, have them reclined groups of about up to fifty. And they did in this way and had them reclined all.	10 He said the Jesus, Make the men to lie down. Then, there was much grass in the place. So the men lied down, the number about five thousand.	6a And he directs the crowd to lie down upon the ground.	35 And having directed the crowd to lie down upon the ground
Jesus breaks the bread and distributes it
41 And having taken the five breads and the two fish, having looked up into the heaven, he blessed and broke up the bread and he was giving to the disciples [of him], in order that they would set before them, and the two fish (ichthys) he divided among all.	19b having taken the five breads and the two fish, having looked up into the heaven, he blessed and broke, he gave to the disciples the breads, then the disciples to the crowds.	16 Then, having taken the five breads and the two fish, having looked up into the heaven, he blessed them and broke up and was giving to the disciples to set before the crowd.	11 So he took the breads the Jesus and having given thanks, distributed to those reclining, likewise also out of the fish (opsarion) as mush as they were wishing.	6b-7 and having taken the seven breads, having given thanks, he broke and was giving to the disciples of him, in order that they set before the crowd. And they were having a few little fish. And having blessed them, he said also to set these before (them).	36 He took the seven breads and the fish and, having given thanks, he broke and he was giving to the disciples, then the disciples to the crowds.
Result of Jesus' action
42-44 And they ate all and were satisfied, and they took up fullness of fragments, twelve hand-baskets and from the fish. And there were those having eaten [the bread] five thousand men.	20-21 And they ate all and were satisfied, and they took up the being abounding of fragments, twelve full hand-baskets. Then, those eating were men, about five thousand besides women and children.	17 And they ate and they were satisfied all. And was taken up the fragments having been abounding to them, twelve hand-baskets.	12-13 Then, as they were filled, he says to the disciples of him, gather together fragments those having been a abounding, in order that anything would not be lost. So they gathered together and filled twelve hand-baskets of fragments out of the five breads of barley which were abounding to those having taken food.	8-9 And they ate and they were satisfied and they took up abundance of fragments, seven hampers. Then, they were about four thousand.	37-38 And they ate all and they were satisfied and the being abounding of the fragments they took up, seven hampers full. Then, the eating, they were four thousand men besides women and children.

Let's make a few observations.

Geographical location. For the first multiplication of loaves, Mk 6:32 and Mt 14:13 place the scene near Capernaum, in the western part of the Lake of Galilee, while in Lk 9:10b and Jn 6:1 everything takes place on the eastern side, in the region of Bethsaida (see the geography of Galilee). For the second multiplication of the loaves, Mark 8 places the scene in the Decapolis, i.e. in the eastern part of the lake (like Luke and John), while in Matthew Jesus seems to have returned to the Capernaum region. Note that geography has a certain importance in Mark: the Jews live mainly in the western part of the lake, while the Greek-speaking people inhabit the eastern part.

A single word, similar in Matthew and Luke, appears in blue: “to withdraw”. In fact, the Greek verb is not quite the same: ana-choreō in Matthew, hypo-choreō, which in English is translated by the same verb: “to withdraw”. Is the use of a similar word in the two evangelists due to chance, or can we speak of a reference to the Q Document? Difficult to answer with so few elements.
Action from the crowd. In Mark 6, the crowds are looking for Jesus, who has left in a boat to isolate himself with his disciples. The evangelist seems to suggest that Jesus wanted to use the boat as a means of transport to cover his tracks. For the boat was not the fastest means of transport, since he adds that the people understood the subterfuge and went ahead of him on foot wherever he went. Luke and John seem to use another source they seem to have in common (what M.E. Boismard calls “proto-Luke”), which tells of a crowd following Jesus; John's addition that the crowd observed the signs Jesus was operating reflects his own language and editorial work. Luke's only echo of Mark is the verb “having known” (ginoskō), which echoes “they understood” (epigignōskō). Matthew, for his part, seems to weave together this source common to Luke and John and that of Mark.

Reaction of Jesus and the disciples. The difference between the six stories is significant. Here's a diagram of the similarities and differences.

Mark 6	Matthew 14	Luke 9	John 6	Mark 8	Matthew 15
Jesus is moved with compassion before a crowd without a shepherd, and begins to teach them.	Jesus is moved with compassion in front of a crowd and begins to heal.	Jesus is moved with compassion in front of a crowd and begins to heal.	Jesus sits as he does when teaching and observes the crowd.	Jesus is moved with compassion by a crowd that has been with him for three days without eating, and eliminates the solution of sending them away fasting.	Jesus is moved with compassion by a crowd that has been with him for three days without eating, and eliminates the solution of sending them away fasting.
Time and place: it's the end of the day and we're in a secluded spot	Time and place: it's already evening, when there's nobody travelling on the roads, and we're in an isolated spot	Time and place: it's the end of the day, sunset, and we're in an isolated spot	Time and place: no mention of time, other than that the Jewish Passover is approaching, and for the place, a simple reference to the mountain.	Time and place: There's no indication in the story itself, but what follows assumes that it's the middle of the day, as Jesus can then leave in a boat.	Time and place: There's no indication in the story itself, but what follows assumes that it's the middle of the day, as Jesus can then leave in a boat.
Intervention by the disciples: they ask Jesus to send the crowd away to buy something to eat in the surrounding farms and villages	Intervention by the disciples: they ask Jesus to send the crowd away to buy something to eat in the villages	Intervention by the disciples: they ask Jesus to send the crowd away to stay and eat in the surrounding farms and villages	Intervention by the disciples: none, because Jesus knows what he's going to do.	Intervention by the disciples: none, because Jesus knows the problem.	Intervention by the disciples: none, because Jesus knows the problem.

When we examine Jesus' attitude, we come across four different accounts.

Mark's account is unique: he alone tells of Jesus who sees that the crowd is like sheep without a shepherd, and his reaction is to guide them with his teaching.
In John, Jesus, on his way to the mountain and sitting down with his disciples, seems to be preparing to teach in the context of the approaching Passover. The crowd follows him because of the signs he has performed, in particular the healing of the man at the pool of Bethzatha.
Matthew and Luke, in their account of the first multiplication of the loaves, even though they have Mark's Gospel in front of them, do not take up the image of the sheep without a shepherd, but consider that Jesus is moved by compassion in the face of people's sickness, and so begins to heal. Only Luke offers an echo of Mark's Jesus who teaches with his Jesus who speaks of the kingdom of God. Of course, Matthew and Luke echo Mark's expression of a Jesus moved by compassion, even if the object of compassion is not the same.
In Mark's and Matthew's account of the 2nd multiplication of the loaves, the focus is immediately on the hungry crowd, and Jesus himself, not the disciples, takes note. The only difference between Mark and Matthew is the role of the disciples in Matthew, to whom Jesus confides his concern, and the fact that in Matthew Jesus has already made up his mind not to send the crowd away.

Time and place are identical in Mark, Matthew and Luke's first multiplication of the loaves: the hour is late, it's evening, and we're in the middle of nowhere. In John, time and place play no role. In Mark's and John's 2nd multiplication of the loaves, time plays no role, so the question of sending the crowd away as quickly as possible does not arise. The place, on the other hand, seems similar from what follows.

Finally, the question of the disciples' intervention allows us to group the four stories into two groups: those in which the disciples bring Jesus back to the reality of a hungry crowd (first multiplication of the loaves: Mark, Matthew, Luke), and those in which the disciples don't have to intervene (John, and Mark and Matthew of the 2nd multiplication of the loaves).

What can we conclude? We are faced with four different traditions. Yet all four traditions refer to the same event: on this subject, see the conclusions of J. Meier, whose simplest argument, over and above literary arguments, is the fact that during the 2nd multiplication of the loaves, the disciples have no memory of a previous multiplication.

First, there's the tradition reflected by Mark of a Jesus moved by compassion before the shepherdless crowd to whom he gives his teaching, but who is called to order by the disciples on the concrete situation of this starving crowd.
Then there's the tradition reflected by Matthew and Luke (an echo of the Q Document?) of a Jesus who intervenes to heal and who is also called to order by the disciples on the concrete situation of this starving crowd.
John represents an independent tradition that plunges us into a different universe: at the outset, Jesus knows what he will do, in the context of the upcoming Jewish Passover and a teaching to the crowd; there is no pressure to send the crowd away because of the late hour.
Finally, there's the tradition of the 2nd multiplication of the loaves, a modified reworking of the first multiplication in a Greek context: the symbolism of the first multiplication is Jewish (5 loaves an echo of Elisha's 20 loaves, a crowd of 5,000 = 5 loaves x myriad; the 12 baskets left over for the 12 tribes of Israel), the symbolism of the second multiplication is Greek (the number 7, e.g. the 7 loaves and 7 baskets of leftovers, is an important Greek symbol, as is the choice of 7 Hellenistic deacons in Acts, and a crowd of 4,000 = 4 points of the compass x myriad); thus, the tradition of the 2nd multiplication of the loaves circulated in Greek circles, and Mark inserted it into his Gospel, taken up by Matthew. Note the evolution in the figure of Jesus between the first and 2nd multiplication of the loaves in Mark: it has been enhanced, because in the latter case Jesus no longer needs to be informed, he knows what is happening; this is a clue that the story of the 2nd multiplication of the loaves appeared much later, when Christology had evolved.

Jesus' request. This section reflects three different traditions. In Mark's tradition, Jesus asks his disciples to feed the crowd themselves. This may seem a surprising request: why ask the disciples to feed the crowd? Do they have more skills for this task than Jesus? One might think that the author of the story, who is addressing Christian communities, intends to challenge the believer: it's your responsibility and your mandate to feed your brothers and sisters. The second tradition is reflected in John, where Jesus does not ask the disciples to feed the crowd, but rather formulates a question to put Philip to the test. Why does this happen? The author intends the story to be a formation in the Christian faith. Finally, in the tradition of the 2nd multiplication of the loaves, Jesus does not formulate any request, because according to what precedes and follows, the disciples are inseparable from their master in solving the problem, and after Jesus mentions the dramatic situation, the disciples know that it is up to them to find a solution.
Disciples' objection. This section plays an important role in understanding the extraordinary nature of the meal that follows: feeding this crowd is humanly impossible. Four different traditions can be identified.
- The tradition reflected by Mark emphasizes the cost of feeding this vast crowd, not the how. The sum of two hundred denarii corresponds to two hundred days' wages for a farm worker, and it's obvious that the disciples don't have that kind of money. So the objection means: it's impossible, we can't afford it.
- The tradition reflected by Matthew and Luke of the first multiplication of the loaves makes no mention of a sum of money, but focuses instead on the stock of food at their disposal: five loaves and two fish; the emphasis is on how little food there is to feed a whole crowd. It's easy to see that this tradition is independent of Mark. But Luke, who has Mark's Gospel in front of him, makes a point of incorporating some of its elements, such as the purchase of food, without directly mentioning a sum, other than by alluding to the size of the crowd: 5,000 men.
- The tradition reflected by John, independent of the others, nevertheless includes similar elements, such as the sum of two hundred denarii and the presence of five loaves and two fish. The emphasis is on the enormity of the challenge: even with the required sum, each person will have only a small morsel; even the five loaves and two fish are radically insufficient to feed a large crowd. Note the presence together of Philip and Andrew, both from Bethsaida, a town in the Greek Decapolis, who will enter the scene when Greeks want to see Jesus in ch. 12. Note also that the word for fish in John is not the same as in the Synoptics: opsarion rather than ichthys; opsarion, the diminutive of opson, is a fish rather small in size.
- Finally, the tradition reflected in the 2nd multiplication of the loaves doesn't talk about the amount of money or the little food at their disposal. Rather, the challenge is to find all the food they need in the middle of nowhere. Since the disciples are associated with their master, their objection comes from the fact that they themselves are incapable of meeting this challenge; it's humanly impossible.
Survey on provisions. This section has a few surprises in store for us. First of all, we know that the first and second multiplication of the loaves belong to two different traditions. Yet the wording of the inquiry is very similar: “He (Jesus) said to them, ‘How many loaves do you have’”. Of course, the number varies: five loaves for one, seven loaves for the other. The second surprise is related to the fact that there is no survey of provisions in the first multiplication of loaves in Matthew and Luke. In a way, this is understandable: in the tradition they share on the disciples' objection, the latter have already mentioned that they had only five loaves and two fish, so there's no need for Jesus to inquire. In John's case, it's not surprising that there's no inquiry about provisions, since John's Jesus already participates in divine transcendence and therefore knows what's going on and what he'll do. As for the account of the 2nd multiplication of the loaves, Matthew takes the trouble to add the little fish to Mark's account: he likes to improve on Mark's somewhat disheveled account, which does not mention fish here, but will later describe a Jesus who first presents the bread, and then the fish, which arrive as a surprise; Matthew always keeps the mention of the loaves and the fish well welded together. Note that Matthew no longer speaks of two fish, but of “some” fish.

Jesus organizes logistics. Mark's tradition of the first multiplication of the loaves is astonishing for its multiple symbols, starting with that expressed by the Greek word symposion, in the plural, which we have translated as “group of guests”. In the first instance, the term refers to a banquet, and should have been translated literally as: “Jesus commanded them all to spread out banquets on the green grass”. From the rest of the text, we understand that Mark intends to describe groups that form at a banquet, hence our translation: groups of guests. Why speak of a banquet? It's most likely an allusion to the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of God. Another symbol is that expressed by the Greek word prasia, which designates the square for gardening, and which we have translated as: square. Why these squares of one hundred and fifty? It's likely that we're dealing here with an allusion to the Jewish people during their exodus in the desert and the way they organized themselves, as expressed for example in Deut 1:15: “To lead you, I then gathered together the wise men of good repute who already had responsibilities in your tribes; I appointed some as leaders of groups of a thousand, a hundred, fifty or ten people. I gave the others supervisory duties in each tribe”. Perhaps there is also an allusion to the organization of the first Christian communities, especially in reference to the Eucharistic gathering. Finally, let's mention the symbol of green grass, perhaps a reference to Ps 23:1b-2a: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He gives me rest in green pastures”; this would be a reference to the beginning of the story, where Jesus complains that the crowd seems like sheep without a shepherd.

As for the logistics of this first multiplication of the loaves, Matthew has considerably abridged Mark's text, unless he's using another source. It's as if he completely ignored the symbolism of the eschatological banquet and the Israelite organization in the desert, as well as the allusion to Ps 23. He retains only the succinct command to lie down on the grass; and here he prefers the verb kaleuō (to command), which is part of his vocabulary, to Mark's verb epitassō (to order), which is not. Luke also seems to ignore Mark's symbolism to keep only the reference to groups of fifty, perhaps a reference to early Church logistics. Moreover, the emphasis is on the disciples, who are in charge of logistics and implement the mandate received from Jesus.

John's tradition is independent of the others, but retains certain similarities: Jesus' request that the people lie down and that there was grass there. Between the different traditions, two verbs are used: to recline (anaklinō), to lie down (anapiptō); John and the account of the 2nd multiplication of the loaves use “to lie down”, while “to recline” is used for the first multiplication of the loaves in the Synoptics, with the exception of Mark who uses both verbs.

In the account of the 2nd multiplication of the loaves, the text is even more concise than Matthew's for the first multiplication of the loaves: there's not even any mention of grass, just of lying down on the ground. There is therefore a certain kinship between this source and the one perhaps used by Matthew and Luke for the first multiplication of the loaves. We get the impression from these traditions that the act of lying down is merely a formality to enable us to move on quickly to what follows.

Jesus takes the five loaves and two fish
Jesus raises his eyes to heaven
Jesus blesses
Jesus breaks the bread
Jesus gives to the disciples
The disciples give to the crowd

The only major difference is that Mark sets aside the distribution of the two fish, which Matthew and Luke do not. In fact, the fish do not fit in well with the gestures surrounding the bread, such as the breaking of the bread. There is a kind of imbalance in Mark's narration, for at the beginning Jesus takes both the five loaves and the two fish, but the fish disappear, only to return at the end. It's clear then that the narrator wants to emphasize the bread, and the fish appear cumbersome. Why is this? The author of the story probably intends to draw a parallel with the Eucharistic gathering of the Christian community, which is centered on bread, and so the fish appear to be too much.

John's version is very particular. Firstly, he describes only three actions: taking the loaves, giving thanks and then distributing the loaves; the distribution of the loaves is a separate gesture. Secondly, there is no mention of there being only five loaves, or two fish; for the fish, it even says: “as many as they wanted were distributed”. What's more, Jesus doesn't break the bread. Why did he do this? The simplest answer is that, unlike the Synoptics, Jesus has no Eucharistic scene at his last supper, and therefore no need to allude to it; all references to the significance of Jesus' death will appear in the long discourse that follows this meal. It's also worth noting that, unlike the Synoptic Jesus, who gives the bread to the disciples for distribution, John's Jesus distributes the food himself; all this is in keeping with the transcendent figure of John's Jesus, who does everything by himself. Finally, it's worth noting that instead of using the verb “to bless”, John uses “to give thanks”. Why does he do this? We'll come back to this below.

The story of the 2nd multiplication of the loaves features the same actions as the first, except for the 2nd action of raising the eyes to heaven, no doubt deemed superfluous. Obviously, instead of the five loaves, we have the number seven, characteristic of a Greek milieu. The major difference between Mark's text and Matthew's is that the latter, rather than following Mark in separating the actions around the bread from those around the fish, integrates them together. Finally, in this second multiplication of the loaves, rather than “blessing”, Jesus “gives thanks”. It's time to clarify this point.

We have said that Mark's accounts of the multiplication of the loaves are intended to refer to Jesus' last meal before dying. We have four versions of Jesus' Eucharistic words at this last meal: Mark, Matthew, Luke and Paul's words in his first letter to the Corinthians. Let's compare each version. We've underlined the words from Mark that are also found in the other versions. We've highlighted in green the words common to Luke and 1 Corinthians.

Mark 14	Matthew 26	Luke 22	1 Corinthians 11
22a And them they were eating, having taken bread,	26a Then, them they were eating, having taken the Jesus bread,	19a And having taken bread,	23b The Lord Jesus, in the night he was betrayed, he took bread.
22b having blessing, he broke and gave to them and said : "Take, this is the body of me".	26b having blessing, he broke and having given to the disciples, he said: "Take, eat, this is the body of me".	19b having given thanks, he broke and gave to them saying: "This the body of me the [one] for you being given. Do this in the remembrance of me.	24 and having given thanks, he broke and said: "This is the body of me the [one] for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
23 And having taken a cup, having given thanks, he gave to them and they drank of it all.	27 And having taken a cup and having given thanks, he gave to them saying: "Drink of it all.	20a And the cup likewise after the supping,	25a Likewise also the cup after the supping,
24 And he said to them : "This is the blood of me of the covenant the [one] being poured out for many".	28 For this is the blood of me of the covenant that [is] being poured out with regard to many towards forgiveness of sins.	20b saying: "This the cup of the new covenant in the blood of me the [one] for you having poured out.	25b saying: "This is the cup of the new covenant in the blood of me. Do this as often as you might drink [it] in the remembrance of me.
25 Amen, I say to you that I will drink no more of the product of the vine until that day when I will drink it anew in the kingdom of the God."	29 Then, I say to you : I will not drink from now on of this, the product of the vine, until that day when I will drink it with you anew in the kingdom of the Father of me"		26 For as often as you might eat this bread and you might drink this cup, the death of the Lord you proclaim the [day] he might come.

Let's make a few observations:

In the Synoptics' account, we find four of the six actions identified in the multiplication of the loaves: taking the bread, blessing/thanking, breaking the bread and giving it to the disciples; the actions of raising the eyes to heaven and the disciples distributing the food to the crowd have been eliminated.
In place of the action of distributing the fish, at least in Mark's multiplication of the loaves, we have the actions over the cup: taking the cup, giving thanks and giving it to the disciples; the action of breaking has obviously been eliminated.
The big difference with the multiplication of the loaves is the meaning given to eating the bread or drinking from the cup. To eat the bread is to eat the body of Jesus, i.e. his whole life is given as food. The meaning of drinking from the blood-coloured wine cup is given by the reference to Deut 24:8: “Then Moses took the blood from the vessels, sprinkled it over the Israelites and said, ‘This blood confirms the covenant which the Lord made with you, giving you all these commandments’”. Blood, the Jewish principle of life, refers to the life that unites the community, and according to Mark's account, to drink the blood is to enter into a community of life with Jesus. At the same time, the blood recalls the tragic end of Jesus, whose blood was shed, and thus a life that was totally given.
One difference from the multiplication of the loaves: we are now faced with a farewell meal in which the disciples will see Jesus no more, except in the new world beyond: “I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until the day I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”
Matthew copies Mark's text almost literally. The most important difference is the addition of the phrase “forgiveness of sins” to the meaning of Jesus' shed blood. Why is this? In the Jewish world, it was customary to offer an animal as a holocaust to ask God for forgiveness of one's sins, since the vital dynamism of blood restored one's relationship with God. In Matthew's community, made up largely of Jewish Christians, it was easy to understand that Jesus' shed blood restored humanity's relationship with God, just as the animal did in Jewish tradition. Finally, we should mention the addition of the word “disciple” in the reference to the bread given (26b), a customary addition in Matthew, who constantly emphasizes the disciples' role as mediators.
Luke's text differs slightly from Mark's. In fact, it amalgamates two traditions, one handed down by Mark, the other by Paul. The following changes can be noted:
- Instead of four actions (taking the bread, blessing/thanking, breaking the bread and giving it), there are only three: taking the bread, giving thanks, breaking the bread. Why is this? Because we're squarely within the community's current liturgical framework; whereas Mark's account plunges us into the time of Jesus, when he shared bread with his disciples, the text of Luke/Paul introduces us into the present of the Eucharistic celebration of the first Christian communities.
- We notice that we're no longer talking about the blessing around the bread, but about thanksgiving. What does this mean? While Jewish Christians continued to use the Jewish expression of blessing around the bread in the Eucharistic gathering, Greek Christians preferred the more familiar expression of “giving thanks”. Luke and Paul's audience is Greek. We may have noticed that in John's account of the multiplication of the loaves, Jesus also uses the expression “to give thanks” with the bread: this should come as no surprise, since tradition places the author of the 4th Gospel's last stay in Ephesus, a Greek environment. Finally, the two expressions “bless” and “give thanks” are virtually synonymous. Please refer to the Glossary for an analysis of the word “to bless” in the Old Testament. Let's just say that, in the Jewish tradition, God alone can bless by spreading his benefits, and that when the verb has a human being as subject, it can only bless in God's name, being simply the mediator of God's action; and in this case, it is synonymous with praising God who gives his benefits through the human being. The question remains: why does Mark use the verb “bless” for the bread, but “give thanks” for the cup? Perhaps he wanted to take into account his hybrid community of Jews and Greeks.
- The Luke/Paul tradition, instead of inviting us to eat the bread and drink from the cup, invites us to remember Jesus' gesture. Why is this? It's possible that in Greek circles, the invitation to eat the body and blood was seen as anthropophagy. What is clear is that, by emphasizing the memorial, we have put the accent on the cross and the death of Jesus; as Paul says: “you proclaim his death whenever you eat of this bread and drink of this cup” (1 Cor 11:26).

The result of Jesus' action. We have the impression of four traditions: that of Mark's first multiplication of the loaves, that reflected by the small variations in Matthew and Luke, that of John, and that of Mark's second multiplication of the loaves.
- Mark's account of the first multiplication of the loaves contains three statements: 1) the people were satisfied (a verb used repeatedly in the psalms to speak of God satisfying his people: see Ps 81:17; 107:9; and especially 132:15), 2) of what remained, twelve baskets of loaves and fishes were taken away (so that the twelve apostles could feed the twelve tribes of Israel), 3) and there were five thousand men at this banquet (5 loaves x myriad). Clearly, the story is intended to give catechetical value to these three statements.
- Matthew's account repeats Mark's three statements. But it takes the liberty of adding a note on the number of guests: “separately from women and children”. Why is this? No doubt it adds to the number of guests, and therefore to the feat that was achieved. He will also add this note during the 2nd multiplication of the loaves. Moreover, Matthew insists that the twelve baskets were “full”. Now, how to explain the use of the verb “to abound” (perisseuō), which he also uses in the 2nd multiplication of the loaves, and which does not appear in Mark, but does appear in Luke and John. Pure chance? It's possible that Matthew and Luke knew of a tradition similar to Mark's that used this verb, and that John knew of a variant of this tradition that also used this verb.
- Luke's version contains only two statements: the people are filled and twelve baskets are taken away. The statement about the five thousand men came earlier in his narrative, when the disciples objected to the request to feed the crowd. As usual, John presents us with an original version of the narrative, with a vocabulary that has little in common with Mark's: the people are not “satiated” (chortazō), but “replete” or “filled” (empiplēmi); it is Jesus who commands the leftovers to be gathered up, which the disciples do exactly as instructed; it is Jesus who wants nothing to go to waste, no doubt to emphasize that this food is precious; twice the word “to abound” is used, no doubt to emphasize the abundance of what has been offered; again, John speaks of barley bread, the same bread as in the account of Elisha (2 Kings 4:42-44).
- The second multiplication of loaves in Mark and Matthew repeats the three statements of the first multiplication, except that the numbers have changed: it's no longer five loaves, but seven; it's no longer five thousand men, but four thousand. We explained the reason for this change in numbers above. A minor detail: we no longer speak of baskets (kophinos), but of hampers (spyris). Note that Matthew makes the same changes to Mark's text as he did for the first multiplication of the loaves: what was “abundant” was taken away, the baskets were “full”, and there were 4,000 people “separately from women and children”.
- When we consider the final outcome, we are struck by this: nobody seems surprised by what happened, neither the disciples nor the crowd. Yet the disciples insisted that it was impossible to feed this crowd. Why now, faced with the final result, are there no words of wonder or amazement? It's as everything went as scheduled, so much so that the table is simply cleared away after the meal. This is one reason why some biblical scholars do not classify this story as a miracle. We don't know exactly what happened, and many elements of our story are colored by Elisha's account and by the setting of the Eucharistic celebrations. J.P. Meier, in his analysis of this story, acknowledges that the narrative probably dates back to the historical Jesus, but at the same time speaks simply of a “memorable meal”.

Identifying the target audience of the evangelist

Analysis of the parallels allows us to identify the milieu the evangelist is addressing.

For example, the dispute over the Jewish tradition of ritual ablutions before eating.

Mark 7	Matthew 15	Luke
1 And are gathered together toward him, the Pharisees and some scribes having come from Jerusalem.	1 Then, they come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes
2 And they have seen some of the disciples that with some common hands, these are unwashed, they eat the breads.
3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews, if not to fist they might wash the hands, they do not eat, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And from the market, if they might not wash, they do not eat, and other many [things] are that they welcome with them to hold, washing of cups and pots and bronze vessels and beds.
5 And they questioned him the Pharisees and the scribes, "For why they do not walk the disciples of you according to the tradition of the elders, but with common hands they eat the bread.	saying, 2 "For why the disciples of you turn aside the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash the hands of them they would eat bread.

The difference between Mark, Matthew and Luke is striking. In this dispute, Mark gives a lengthy introduction to the Jewish ritual of ablutions, while Matthew goes straight to the Pharisees' question, and Luke ignores this account. How can these different approaches be explained? Mark, who is probably addressing the Christian community in Rome, many of whom seem to know nothing about this tradition, has to explain it. Matthew, on the other hand, while taking up this story for his community, which is largely made up of Jewish Christians, finds it unnecessary to explain this tradition, which is well known in his milieu. Luke, on the other hand, who is addressing Greek Christians for whom this dispute does not apply, ignores Mark's account altogether.

Another example comes from the question of divorce (Mk 10:2-9 || Mt 19:6); note that Luke did not see fit to include in his Gospel this Jewish question of the divorce bill, which did not apply in his Greek milieu. In Mark's version, after answering the Pharisees, Jesus returns home, where the disciples question him again on the subject. The symbolism of the house is that of the Church and the way it has interpreted Jesus' words and applied them to everyday life. We have drawn a parallel between the rules in force in Mark's community, those of Matthew (who twice presents the rules of his milieu), and those of Luke.

Mark 10	Matthew 19	Matthew 5	Luke 16
11 And he said to them, "Whoever releases (from a marriage bond) his woman and marries another, he is an adulterer to her;	9 Then, I say to you that " Whoever releases (from a marriage bond) his woman, apart from sexual immorality, and marries another, he is an adulterer	5: 32a Then, I, I say to you that everyone releasing (from a marriage bond) his woman, except for on account for sexual immorality, makes her to be adulteress,	16: 18a Everyone releasing (from a marriage bond) his woman and marrying a different commits adultery.
		and whoever shall marry her having been released (from a marriage bond), he is an adulterer.	16: 18b and who marrying her having been released (from a marriage bond) by a husband commits adultery.
12 And if she, having released (from a marriage bond) her husband, marries another, she is an adulteress.

There are two traditions on divorce rules, Mark's and the Q Document's (in blue).

Marcan tradition and the Q Document agree that if a man repudiates his wife and marries another, he is committing adultery.
The Q Document adds that a man who marries a divorced woman is also committing adultery.
Matthew mentions an exception to the indissolubility of marriage, a case of porneia. In Greek, porneia means any sexual derangement, debauchery, fornication, prostitution - in short, any illicit sexual relationship according to the standards of the time, including homosexuality and incest (what if it's the man who's guilty of porneia?). And so we must assume that for Matthew a man can repudiate his wife if she is guilty of sexual immorality. Another peculiarity of Matthew is the expression “made her an adulteress” (5: 32a). What does this mean? A woman without a husband means she's without a breadwinner, and so must look for another man who will support and protect her; in this sense divorce forces her to commit adultery.
Then, Mark is the only one to present the case of a woman who repudiates her husband (v. 12).

What does that mean? The Marcan tradition reflects the Roman community, where both men and women could initiate divorce. The Q Document reflects a Jewish environment in which only the man could initiate divorce; this environment extends adultery to the person who marries a divorced woman. Matthew, who adopts both the Marcan tradition and the Q Document, adds in both cases the exception of porneia, no doubt an exception in his community. As for Luke, he simply repeats the Q Document without modifying it; the question does not seem of great interest to him, and he inserts it in a series of references to various laws.

Another typical example of modifications for sociological reasons comes from the story of the man who asked Jesus about how to inherit eternal life. Let's consider Jesus' answer according to the evangelists.

Mark 10 Matthew 19 Luke 18

19 You know the commandments 17b If you want to enter into the life, keep the commandments. » 18 He says to him: "Which?" 20a You know the commandments:

What do we see? Mark and Luke assume that these are the Ten Commandments; in fact, Jesus lists six. But Matthew knows that in the Jewish world, the commandments were not limited to the decalogue given at Sinai, but included a set of laws which, according to the Talmud, amounted to 613 commandments: 248 positive commandments (“do”) and 365 negative commandments (“do not”). Hence Matthew's question: “Which ones?

Another interesting example of an evangelist modifying a story to suit the interests of his community is when a scribe questions Jesus.

Mark 12	Matthew 22	Luke 10
28b Et having approached one of the scribes, having heard them discussing, having seen that he answered well to them, he questioned him: "Which commandment is first of all?"	34 Them, the Pharisees, having heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, gathered together on the same [place], 35 aond one of them, [a lawyer] questioned him, testing him : 36 "Teacher, which commandement great in the law?"	25 And behold a certain lawyer stood up, testing him, saying: Teacher, what having done will I inherit eternal life?"

A question about the most important commandment is typically Jewish. What do we find in Luke? This typically Jewish question is of no interest to his community in Greece. So he replaces it with a more universal question about inheriting eternal life.

The comparison between Matthew and Luke on their version of the lost sheep is very revealing of their community perspective.

Matthew	Luke
12 What to you it seems? If it should happen to a certain man hundred sheep and might go astray one out of them, will he not leave the ninety-nine upon the mountains and having gone he seeks the (one) being astray?	4 What man of you, having a hundred sheep and having lost out of them one, will he not leave behind the ninety-nine in the wilderness and goes upon the having been lost until he might find it?
[13a] And if he should find it,	5 And having found he lays upon the shoulder of him rejoicing,
	6 and having come into the house he calls together the friends and the neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the sheep of me the having been lost.
13b-14 amen, I say to you that he rejoices upon it more than upon the ninety-nine the not having gone astray. Thus it is not a will in front of the father of you the (one) in heavens, that should perish one of the little (ones) these.	7 I say to you that thus joy in the heaven will be upon one sinner changing his mind than upon ninety-nine righteous who does not have a need of a change of mind.

We can see that the sheep's situation is not the same in the two versions.

In Matthew, the sheep goes astray (planaō), while in Luke it is lost (apollymi). Going astray has a specific meaning in Matthew, which we observe when the disciples ask about the end of the world and Jesus replies: “Take heed lest you be led astray (planaō). For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray (planaō) (24:4-5).... False prophets will arise in great numbers and will lead many astray (planaō)” (24: 11; see also 24: 24). Matthew thus places us in the Christian community, where some have gone astray, giving in to false prophets and various gurus. These are the “little ones”, for whom Matthew's Jesus has this to say: avoid scandalizing any of these little ones who believe in me (18:6). Since Matthew's community seems to have been made up of many Jewish Christians, we can assume that the scandal came from certain tenors who attacked certain Jewish practices or distanced themselves from them, troubling some of the more conservative and weaker members, even driving them away from the community (an interesting example is the consumption of butcher's meat that had previously been offered to idols: see 1 Cor. 8:1-13).
In Luke, the sheep is lost (apollymi). Unlike Matthew, there is no sense of a community perspective, i.e. no Christian who has drifted away from the community. A typical example of the lost is Zacchaeus, whose story ends as follows: For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost (to apolōlos) (Lk 19:10). The perspective is much more universal, i.e. all those not yet reached by Jesus' word and not yet committed to a new orientation in life.

Stories without parallel

When a story has no parallel in the other evangelists, the parallel analysis allows us to ask the question: where does this story come from? From a source specific to the evangelist? Or did he compose it himself?

For example, consider the finale of the story about walking on the waters.

Mark 6	Matthew 14	John 6
50b Then, him, immediately he spoke with them, and says to them: Take courage! Me, I am! Don't be afraid!	27 Then, immediately he spoke [the Jesus] to them saying, Take courage! Me, I am! Don't be afraid!	20 Then, him, he says to them: Me, I am! Don't be afraid!
	28 Then, having answered him, Peter said, Lord, if it is you, command me to come towards you on the waters.
	29 Then, him, he said, Come. And having descended from the boat, Peter walked upon the waters and came to Jesus.
	30 Then, then looking at the [mighty] wind, and he feared, and began to be submerged in the sea, and cried, saying, "Lord, save me
	31 Then, immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?
51-52 and he went up towards them into the boat and the wind ceased, and extremely [beyond measure] they were stunned, for they had not understood about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.	32-33 and them, having gone up into the boat, the wind ceased. Then those in the boat prostrated [before] him, saying, "Truly, of God, son, you are	21 So, they were willing to receive him into the boat and immediately it came to pass the boat upon the land to which they were going.

As we can see, Matthew sets himself apart from the other evangelists by inserting at the end of this scene the narrative around Peter asking Jesus to give him the order to accompany him on the water. This is a purely theological addition because of the role Peter plays in his gospel (see in particular 16:18; 17:24; 18:21), since Peter was an important member of the Antioch community from which his gospel is probably written. For Matthew, faith is a fundamental dimension of the Christian life, and more than any other, his leader must demonstrate it. It's worth noting that Luke, who has a copy of Mark's Gospel with the story of the walk on the waters, has seen fit to omit it altogether. Why did he do this? Did he find the scene too fantastical for his usually skeptical Greek audience? Or was the scene's catechetical value less than obvious? Perhaps both.

Take, for example, the disciples' reaction to Jesus' arrest in Gethsemane.

Mark 14 Matthew 26 Luke 22

50 And having left him, they fled all. 56 Then all the disciples, having left him, fled.

What does Mark say, followed by Matthew: the disciples abandon Jesus and flee. What does Luke say, even though he has Mark's Gospel in front of him? Nothing. He completely omits this passage. Why does he do this? He wants to preserve a positive image of the disciples, as he does throughout his Gospel.

Matthew's account of Judas' suicide is interesting because it has no Gospel parallel.

Matthew 27

Acts 1

3 Then Judas, the one who gave him over, having seen that he [Jesus] was judged against, having changed with remorse, returned the thirty silver pieces to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, “I sinned in having given over innocent blood”. But they said, “What is that to us? You must see to it”. 5 And having cast the silver pieces into the sanctuary, he departed; and having gone away, he hanged himself.

6 But having taken the silver pieces, the chief priests said, “It is not permitted to throw these into the treasury since it is the price for blood”. 7 Having taken a decision, they bought with them the potter’s field for a burial ground of strangers. 8 Therefore that field has been called “Field of Blood” to this day.

9 Then there was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet saying, “And they took the thirty silver pieces, the prices of the one priced, whom the sons of Israel priced. 10 And they gave them for the potter’s field, according to what the Lord directed me”.

(Excerpt from Peter’s speech in Acts 1 :15-26, place between Jesus’ ascension forty days after the resurrection, and before the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost [fifty days after Passover] ; Peter addresses the men of the community whom he calls brothers) :

16 “It was necessary that the Scripture be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David concerning Judas who was the leader of those who took Jesus, 17 because he was numbered among us and was allotted a share of this ministry. (18 Accordingly this man acquired acreage with the wages of his wickedness; and laid prostrate, he burst open in the middle, and all his entrails poured out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with the results that his acreage was called in their language Hakeldamach, that is ’Acreage of Blood’.) 20 It is written in the book of Psalms: ’Let his habitation become a desert, and let there be no dweller in it’ and ’Let another take his superintendency’”.

(There follows in 1:21-26 the account of the choice of Matthias “to take the place of the service and apostolate from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place [v.25].)

Let's make a few observations.

Matthew is the only one to offer us this scene, which the other three Gospels ignore: Judas is said to have been overcome with remorse, brought the 30 pieces of silver back to the temple, threw them into the sanctuary and then went off to hang himself, while the chief priests took the money to buy a field for the burial of foreigners.
Matthew inserts this scene somewhat awkwardly, since the chief priests, who have just condemned Jesus and taken him to Pilate, are at the same time in the temple talking with Judas.
One might think that Matthew had created this story from scratch, were it not for the testimony of the Acts of the Apostles, a completely independent story with a number of common elements: Judas' death takes place around the same time as Jesus', his death was violent, the purchase of land is associated with this death, this land bears the name “of the Blood”, and there are references to the fact that the story seems ancient.
We have to conclude that Matthew may have had an ancient account on hand that spoke in general terms of Judas's violent death. But in keeping with his habit of introducing glosses, he has amplified this account by adding a number of details taken from Scripture, such as the thirty pieces of silver, the throwing of them into the sanctuary, the suicide by hanging, the clarification that this was a field that had been acquired and the reference to the potter. Although we can guess at many of his references to Scripture, we have to admit that he uses it quite freely to support his religious vision (see a summary of R.E. Brown's analysis).

Parallels within the same gospel

Sometimes, parallel analysis applies to stories within the same gospel.

A first example is given in Luke's infancy narrative.

	John the Baptist		Jesus
1:5-25	Annunciation to Zacharias by the angel Gabriel	1:26-28	Annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel
1:41-45	Elizabeth proclaims her blessing and beatitude over Mary	1:46-56	Mary proclaims her thanksgiving
1:57-58	Birth of Jean-Baptiste and a visit from the neighbors	2:1-20	Birth of Jesus and visit from the shepherds
1:59-63	Circumcision on the eighth day	2:21-28	Circumcision on the eighth day and presentation at the temple
1:64-79	Zechariah's prophecy	2:29-38	Prophecies of Simeon and Anna
1:80	The hidden life of John the Baptist	2:39-52	Jesus' hidden life in Nazareth and anticipation of his service of the word at the age of twelve

What can we observe?

Luke clearly wanted to draw a parallel picture of Jesus and John the Baptist.
Both mothers are portrayed as women of faith: Elizabeth recognizes Mary as the mother of her Lord, and Mary welcomes the angel's words.
Both pictures follow a similar structure:
1. Announcement of the birth of a child by the angel Gabriel when it seems impossible, and determination of their name by God
2. Song of bliss from both mothers
3. Mention of the birth of two boys, and a visit from the locals
4. Mention of the circumcision of the two boys on the 8th day
5. Prophecy about the boys' future
6. A summary of the boys' childhood
Both “miraculous” births presented as God's work
Both births are presented as a source of joy for all.
Both births provide an opportunity to praise God for visiting his people
Both narratives are replete with excerpts from the Old Testament

So, by bringing Jesus and John the Baptist together through the parallel of their birth, Luke is showing the greatness of John the Baptist: he too is part of God's plan.

Another example comes from two parables in Luke.

Luke 11:5-8: the cheeky friend

Luke 18:5-8: the persevering widow

5 And he said towards them, someone out of you will have a friend and will go towards him at midnight and would say to him,"Friend, lend me three breads, 6 since a friend of me arrive out of road towards me and I do not have what I will set before him." 7 And this one from within having answered, would say,

2 saying, a certain judge was in a certain city. The God he (was) not fearing and man not respecting. 3 Then, a widow there was in that city, and she was coming towards him saying, Avenge me from the adversary of me. 4 And he did not want upon a time. Then after these things he said in himself,

"do not present to me trouble (Greek : parechein moi kopon); already the door has been shut and the children of me with me into the bed are; I am not able, having risen up, to give you." 8 I say to you, if even (Greek: ei kai) he will not give to him, having risen up, because to be friend of him, yet because (Greek: dia ge) of the shamelessness of him, having woken up, he will give to him as much as he needs.

if even (Greek: ei kai) the God I do not fear nor a man I respect, 5 yet because (Greek: dia ge) the (fact) to present to me trouble (Greek: parechein moi kopon) this widow, I will avenge her in order that into end, coming, she would not wear me out.

Apart from the three identical expressions, both parables involve a similar reality: a person wants to obtain something under difficult circumstances (in the middle of the night from someone asleep with his family in the first case, from a judge who has no interest in justice in the second). Both parables are used by Jesus to establish an a fortiori argument: if human beings eventually succumb to demand, how much more will God answer believers in prayer.
Luke's twin parables probably come from the same source. Both support the importance of praying, and praying boldly, without growing weary. The evangelist inserted these two parables at two different points in Jesus' journey to Jerusalem. In the first case (11:5-8), the emphasis is on prayer as listening to the word of God (scene of Martha and Mary which precedes, beatitude “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and observe it!” which follows), in the second case (18:1-8) the emphasis is on prayer as support in waiting for the return of the Son of Man and in reorienting one's life to prepare for the coming Reign of God.

As John's Gospel has few parallels with the Synoptics, the analysis of parallels will often be done by comparing pericopes within the same Gospel, or with its letters that reflect the same theology. In the following texts, we have highlighted in red the words of Jn 3 that are also found in Jn 12 and 1 Jn 4.

John 3: 16-18	John 12: 46-48	1 Jean 4: 9
16 For God (theos) so loved (agapao) the world (kosmos) that he gave his Son (huios) only begotten (monogenes), so that everyone who believes (pisteuo) in him shall not perish, but have life (zoe) eternal.	46 I, the light, have come into the world (kosmos), so that whoever believes (pisteuo) in me shall not abide in darkness.	In this was manifested the love (agape) of God (theos) for us: God has sent (apostello) his Son (huios) only begotten (monogenes) in the world (kosmos) so that we live (zao) through him.
17 For God (theos) did not send (apostello) his Son (huios) into the world (kosmos) to judge (krino ) the world (kosmos), but that the world (kosmos) may be saved (sozo) by him.	47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge (krino) him, for I have not come to judge (krino ) the world (kosmos), but to save (sozo) the world.
18 Who believes (pisteuo) in him is not judged (krino); who does not believe (pisteuo) is already judged (krino ), because he has not believed (pisteuo) in the Name of the Son (huios) one (monogenes) of God (theos).	48 Whoever rejects me and does not receive not my words has his judge (krino): the word which I have spoken, it is that which will judge him (krino) at the last day;

Let's limit our observations here to the parallel between Jn 3:16 and 1 Jn 4:9, where we find the same idea: God showed his love for the world by sending his only son so that we might find life through him.

In both cases, Jesus' existence is presented as an action of God's love, an action described as a sending in the first case, a giving in the second. And the purpose of this action is the same: to give life to mankind.
The greatest difference is that our Jn 3:16 specifies the condition for accessing this life, i.e. believing, and what is at stake in faith, i.e. not perishing. It's clear that the author of the letter was familiar with our passage from John's gospel, for he uses some of its vocabulary and expressions: God's action motivated by love (agapaō), centered on sending the only son (huios) (monogenēs), an infrequent expression found nowhere else except in this letter and in John's gospel, whose purpose is to give life (zōē), or rather that we live through him (diʼ autou).

John's parallels with the other Gospels

Parallels between John and the other Gospels are rare, but they do exist. This means that certain traditions have circulated under different variations.

One example is this passage concerning the testimony of John the Baptist. The underlined words refer to those in Mark, which are also found in the other Gospels. The words in blue are specific to Matthew and Luke and probably come from the Q Document. Words in red are John's own words, found in one or other of the gospels, but not in Mark or the Q Document. So we have three traditions for the same event.

Mark 1	Matthew 3	Luke 3	John 1
7-8 And he was preaching saying, he comes the mightier than me after me, of whom I am not sufficient having stooped down to untie the strap of the sandals of him. I, I baptized you with water, then him he will baptize you in holy spirit.	11 I indeed I baptize you in water concerning repentance. Then, the (one) after me coming mightier than me he is, of whom I am not sufficient to carry the sandals. Him, he will baptize you in holy spirit and fire.	16 He did answer saying to all the John, I indeed, with water I baptize you; then, he comes the mightier than me, of whom I am not sufficient to untie the strap of the sandals of him. Him, he will baptize you in holy spirit and fire,	26-27 He answered them the John saying, I, I baptize in water, in the midst of you has stood whom you, you do not know, the (one) after me coming, of whom I, I am not worthy that I should untie of him the strap of the sandal.

The great similarity in all the versions can be observed. As we have no copy of the Q Document, it is difficult to make an exact comparison between Mark's tradition and that of the Q Document, which must have been quite similar. But if a word is found in both John and Matthew or Luke, it's likely that it was part of the Q Document, and that one of the evangelists preferred it to Mark's; this is the case of “in” the water in Matthew and John, while Luke preferred “with” the water in Mark. On the other hand, it's easy to establish that the expressions “holy spirit” and “fire” come from the Q Document.

Another example is provide by the miraculous catch Luke 5: 1-11 || Jn 21: 1-19.

Identical words or parts of words are underlined. Verses in square brackets are out of sequence for comparison purposes. We have eliminated Jn 21:9-18 from the comparison, as these verses present a different sequence to the narrative.

Luke 5	John 21
1 Then, it came to pass in the to press him the crowd and to hear to word of God, and him, he was has been standing by the lake of Gennesaret,	1 After these things he made visible himself again the Jesus to the disciples over the sea of Tiberias. Then, he made visible (himself) in this way.
2-4a and he saw two boats have been standing by the lake. Then, the fishermen from them, having stepped out, were washing the nets. Then, having got up into one of the boats, which was to Simon, he asked him from the land to put off a little. Then, having sat down, out of the boat he was teaching the crowds. Then, as he stopped speaking,	2-3a They were together Simon Peter and Thomas, the (one) being said Didymus and Nathanel the (one) from Cana of the Galilee and those of Zebedee and others out of the disciples of him two. He says to them Simon Peter, I am going to fish. They say to him, we are coming also, us, with you. They came out and got up into the boat
[5 And having answered Simon, he said, Master, through whole night having toiled we have taken nothing, Then, upon the word of you, I will let down the nets.]	3b, and in that night they caught nothing.
	4 Then morning already happened he stood Jesus into the shore; however they didn't know the disciples that Jesus it is.
	5 So says to them the Jesus, children, are you not having any fish? They answered to him, no.
[4b he said towards Simon, put off into the (water) depth and let down the nets of you for a catch.]	6a Then, him, he said to them, cast into the right side of the boat the net, and you will find.
6 And this having done, they enclosed a great multitude of fishes. Then, were breaking the nets of them.	6b So they cast and they were no longer able to draw it from the multitude of the fish.
[8-10a Then, having seen Simon Peter fell at the knees of Jesus saying, Get out from me, for a sinful man I am, Lord. For amazement surrounded him and those with him upon the catch of the fish which they have taken with them. Then, likewise James and John sons of Zebedee who were partners with Simon.]	7 So says the disciples that one whom was loving the Jesus to Peter, the Lord it is. So Simon Peter having heard the Lord it is, the outer tunic he wrapped around, for he was naked, and he cast himself into the sea.
7 And they beckoned to the partners in the other boat to take part with them, having come, and they came and they filled both the boats to the point to sink, them	8 Then, the other disciples in the little boat came, for they were not far from the land, but as long as from two hundred cubits. Drawing the net of the fish.
10b And he said towards the Simon the Jesus, Do not fear, from the now men you will be catching. 11 And having brought down the boats upon the land, having left all, they followed him.	19 Then, this he said signifying of what sort of death he will glorify the God. And this having said, he says to him, Follow me.

Let's recall Luke's account. This is the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. After getting into Peter's boat on the shores of Lake Tiberias and preaching to the crowds, he asks him to go out into deep water and spread the nets, even though he has toiled all night without catching anything. The fish caught are so numerous that Peter asks the other fishermen in their boat for help, and then gets so scared that he asks Jesus to move away because he's a sinner.

In contrast, John's story takes place after the resurrection, after Jesus has already appeared twice to his disciples in Jerusalem, and the gospel has come to a conclusion. In chapter 21, Jesus is on the shore of Lake Tiberias, while his disciples are fishing without recognizing him. After he invites the fishermen to cast their nets to the right, they catch a multitude of fish; Peter, with the help of the beloved disciple, recognizes him, jumps into the water to join him, and finally, when they are all with Jesus, he mysteriously gives them bread and fish that were already cooking on the wood fire.

But behind these differences, which can be explained by particular editorial and theological contexts, we can clearly discern the same story.

A group of fishermen led by Peter had spent the night without catching anything.
With supernatural knowledge, Jesus invites them to spread their nets again
Peter and his associates obey, and haul in a huge quantity of fish
The impact on the net, which could break, is mentioned.
Peter is the only one to react strongly
The narrator calls Jesus by name, while Peter alone says: “Lord”.
The other disciples remain silent
Jesus invites Peter to follow him
The symbolism of the story is clear, and is linked to missionary action: without Jesus, Peter and the other disciples can achieve nothing, but with Jesus they will be very successful.
Luke's and John's narratives contain many words in common: go up [in the boat], follow, net, fish, boat, night, sons of Zebedee.
When Peter reacts to the miraculous catch, he is called Simon Peter. This is all the more remarkable as it is the only mention in Luke.

In short, we have two different versions of the same story. (For a detailed analysis, see Meier on Luke 5: 1-11 || Jn 21: 1-19)

The story of the sellers driven from the temple, which is found in all four Gospels, offers us another example of parallels with John's Gospel.

Mark 11	Matthieu 21	Luc 19	Jean 2
15b-16 And having entered into the temple, he began to cast out those selling and those buying in the temple, and the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling the doves he overturned. And he was not letting that anyone would carry an object through the temple.	12 And he entered Jesus into the temple and he cast out all those selling and buying in the temple and the tables of the money changers he overturned, and the seats of those selling the doves.	45 And having entered into the temple, he began to cast out those selling,	14-16a And he found in the temple those selling oxen and sheep and doves and the money-brokers sitting, and having made a whip of cords, he cast out all from the temple, both the sheep and the oxen and the money changers; he poured out the coins and the tables he turned, and to those selling the doves
17 And he was teaching and was saying to them : "Has it not been written that the house of me a house of prayer will be called for all the nations? But, you, you have made it a den of robbers.	13 And he says to them: "It has been written : 'the house of me a house of prayer will be called', but you, you make it a den of robbers."	20 saying to them: "It has been written: 'And will be the house of me a house of prayer', but you, you made it a den of robbers."	16b he said : "Take away these things from here, do not make the house of the father of me a house of trade.

What do these parallels reveal?

Mark's account is in two parts: first an action, followed by an explanation. Note that the day before, Jesus had entered the temple, “and looking around (him), as the hour was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve” Mk 11:11. Then, the next day, leaving Bethany on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus puts the curse on an unfruitful fig tree, the symbol of the temple, which has not borne the expected fruit. Here we have a typical Marcan sandwich or chiasm structure: one narrative begins, interrupted by another, then the end of the initial narrative. Thus, Jesus goes to the temple to observe the situation, the story of the fig tree symbolizes the barrenness of the temple, and the sellers driven out of the temple follows Jesus' initial observation and is justified by what is revealed through the fig tree.

What are the money-changers doing in the temple? The Roman and Greek currency displayed pagan figures, which was not allowed to pay the temple tax (the equivalent of two drachmas or denarii, which corresponded to two days' wages for a day laborer), and so people were needed to exchange this currency for the legal tender of Tyre, which bore no pagan figures. And, of course, the money-changers made a small profit.

Finally, Mark's account puts two Scripture quotations from the Greek Septuagint into Jesus' mouth, first Isa 56:7 (“the house of me a house of prayer it shall be called for all nations”), then Jer 7:11 (“a den of robbers”).
Matthew repeats Mark's account almost in its entirety, except on two points. He completely ignores Mark's phrase: “and he left no one to carry objects here and there through the temple”. Why was this? It's not clear that he understood the exact meaning of this sentence. First of all, what was being carried? Why would Jesus have objected to this action? It's likely that this action was not related to buying or selling. The only other activity in the temple open to the public was the burnt offering. It's also likely that the transport we're talking about was for the wood used to cook the animals offered. If this is Matthew's understanding, he may have found the image of Jesus opposing the temple burnt offerings shocking.

Similarly, in the reference to the house of prayer, Matthew eliminated the phrase “for all nations” from Mark. Why? We can guess that Matthew, even if he recognized here the quotation from Isaiah and his universalist vision of the future where Israel would become a light for the whole world, knew very well that Jesus' death represented a failure of this vision.
Luke is the most concise: he simply mentions those who sell, without any details. There are two obvious reasons for this. Firstly, the detail of the temple trade was probably of little interest to his Greek audience. But more importantly, Luke has immense respect for the temple: his gospel begins in the temple with the revelation to Zechariah, and ends in the temple where the disciples continually stand in praise of God; for him, there is a beautiful continuity between the Old and New Covenants. He was probably uncomfortable with Mark's account of the vendors being driven out of the temple, especially after recounting in his infancy story that Joseph and Mary offered two young doves for Jesus' presentation in the temple, doves they had most likely bought in the temple.
John's account comes from a source independent of Mark. The only points it has in common with Mark are that Jesus chases away the sellers, particularly the dove sellers, and the money-changers, and overturns the tables. But John's account lacks the quotations from Isaiah and Jeremiah. On the other hand, we have more details on what was being sold: not only doves, but also oxen and sheep for burnt offerings. This is all the more plausible given that, if someone wanted to make an animal offering for a burnt offering, he didn't leave home with the animal; he simply had to buy it at the temple. So we understand much more clearly that Jesus is opposed to the whole ritual of temple sacrifices. And there's more violence in John's account than in Mark's: not only does Jesus overturn the tables, but he uses a whip and spills the coins, and drives out not only the people, but all the animals too.

We've colored in red two words from John that are also found in Matthew. It's probably accidental that the two evangelists used the same verb in the same tense.

Despite the differences between the Synoptics and John, we are looking at the same source, which over time has given rise to two different traditions. However, Mark places this scene at the end of Jesus' ministry, during his last week in Jerusalem before dying, while John places it at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Which chronology is more plausible? Biblical scholar R.E. Brown opts for Mark's chronology for the following reasons:

The affront to temple worship is so significant that it would have forced the religious authorities to intervene swiftly, and this is what happens in Mark.
To intervene with such force, Jesus must have had the status of a prophet and a certain number of followers (this scene follows the triumphal entry into Jerusalem).
John is said to have moved this story to the beginning of his Gospel to give full prominence to the raising of Lazarus, making it the motive for Jesus' death, rather than an affront to temple worship.

The use of the Old Testament in parallels

When analyzing parallels, it is sometimes necessary to turn to the Old Testament, which often inspired certain passages in the Gospels.

This is the case with the story of the widow of Nain, inspired by the book of Kings. We have highlighted in green words that are similar between Luke's text and the Greek Septuagint.

Luke 7	1 Kings 17 (LXX : 3 Kings)
11-12 And it happened in the next (day) he went into a town called Nain and were going with him the disciples of him and a crowd great. Then as he drew near to the gate of the town, and behold was also carried out a having died only begotten son of the mother of him and her she was a widow. And a crowd of the town, large, was with her.	[10 And he arose and went into Sarepta, and came to the gate of the town: and behold, a widow-woman was there gathering sticks; and Eliu cried after her, and said to her, Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.] 17 And it happened afterward, that the son of the woman the mistress of the house was sick; and his sickness was very severe, until there was no spirit left in him.
13 And having seen her the Lord was move with compassion upon her and said to her, Do not weep.	18 And she said to Eliu, What have I to do with thee, O man of God? hast thou came in towards me to bring my sins to remembrance, and to put to death my son?
14 And having come near, he touched the coffin. Then those bearing (it) stood (still), and he said to the young man, to you I say, wake up.	19 And Eliu said to the woman, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and took him up to the chamber in which he himself lodged, and laid him on the bed.
	20 And Eliu cried aloud, and said, Alas, O Lord, the witness of the widow with whom I sojourn, thou hast wrought evil for her in putting to death her son.
	21 And he breathed on the little boy thrice, and called on the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, let, I pray thee, the soul of this little boy return to him.
	22 And it happened this way, and the little boy cried out,
15 And sat up the dead (man) and he began to speak, and he gave him back to the mother of him.	23 and he brought him down from the upper chamber into the house, and gave him back to the mother of him; and Eliu said, See, thy son lives.
16-17 Then fear seized all and they were glorifying the God saying that a great prophet woke up among us and that the God has visited the people of him. And came out this word in whole of Judea concerning him and all the surrounding region.	24 And the woman said to Eliu, Behold, I know that thou art a man of God, and the word of the Lord in thy mouth is true.

When we compare the scene in Nain with the one in the book of Kings, we note elements of similarity. A prophet meets a widow for the first time at the city gate. This widow has a son, whom Luke specifies to be unique, but who also appears to be unique from the text of the Book of Kings. This son dies, and it is the prophet who brings him back to life. The son of the widow of Zarephath is risen up by his loud cry, and that of the widow of Nain by his word. A striking point is that Luke uses the same words as in the book of Kings: and he gave him back to his mother; so the focus is on the mother, not the son. It's pretty clear, then, that Luke had this story in mind when he wrote the scene at Nain, and when he writes that a great prophet has arisen among us, he's affirming that a new Elijah is among us. On the other hand, we can't overlook a few differences: the widow of Zarephath blames Elijah for her son's death, and Elijah responds, whereas the widow of Nain asks for nothing, and everything comes from Jesus' initiative; Elijah has to pray to God and lie on the child to bring him back to life, Jesus only needs a word.

On several occasions, the evangelists quote passages from the Old Testament. It's worth comparing these quotations with the Old Testament passage to determine whether they are referring to the Septuagint or another version, or how they have modified their source. Take, for example, Jesus' inaugural discourse in the synagogue of Nazareth, where Luke puts into Jesus' mouth a passage from Isa 61:1-2. This quotation is divided into seven parts, and we have paralleled the Greek version of the Septuagint with the Hebrew version of the Massoretic text. As the order of the statements in Luke's text and the Septuagint is not identical, we have colored the sentences that diverge so that they can be found in the parallel columns.

Luke 4: 18-19	Isaiah 61: 1-2 Greek Text (LXX)	Isaiah 61: 1-2 Hebrew Text (MT)
1. The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me	1. The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me	1. The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because Yahweh has anointed me
2. He sent me to bring good news to the poor	2. He sent me to bring good news to the poor	2. To bring a joyful message to the poor,
3. To proclaim liberation to captives	3. To heal those having been broken in the heart	3. To heal broken hearts
4. And to the blind the return of sight	4. To proclaim liberation to captives	4. To proclaim freedom to the captives
5. To send the broken ones out for liberation	5. And to the blind the return of sight	5. Those who have been tied the opening [of the eyes]
6. To proclaim an acceptable year of the Lord	6. To proclaim a year acceptable to Yahweh	6. To proclaim a year acceptable to Yahweh

What do we see?

It's clear that Luke is referring to the Greek text of the Septuagint, almost word for word.
However, he makes a slight change in their order. He relegates to fifth place the reference to the broken people mentioned in third place in the Septuagint, thus promoting to 3rd and 4th place what was 4th and 5th place in the Septuagint. Why did this happen? Did Luke's version of the Septuagint differ from ours?
Four groups are identified: the poor, the captives (of war), the blind (i.e. beggars) and the broken. Who are these broken people? Luke seems to be referring here to Isa 58:6: “I have not chosen such a fast, says the Lord; but break all your ties with injustice; untie the knots of violent contracts; set at liberty those who have been broken; tear up every unjust obligation.” So, broken people are people caught in the net of social injustice, prisoners of unjust contracts; they therefore refer to people exploited, oppressed, crushed by life.
What do we offer these people? Let's start with the poor. They are offered good news. What good news is that? Not that they will become rich. Luke's Gospel simply says that the kingdom of God is for them, i.e., that they are great before God, contrary to social perception. What are the captives offered? Release from captivity. This is easy to understand for captives of war: this release allowed them to return home and put an end to their slavery. For the blind, we offer a return to sight. For the broken, Luke's text offers liberation: if we refer to how Isa 58:6 defined them, it means that they are freed from unjust contracts, and thus the end of their situation as exploited and oppressed. Here, Luke makes a change from the Septuagint text, and hence from the Hebrew Bible. Both the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible speak of “healing” broken hearts. What does this mean? When Ezekiel (21:12) speaks, for example, of “broken hearts” (And if they say to you: Why do you groan? Answer: Because of the news, because the enemy is coming; and every heart will be broken, and every hand will be angry; and every flesh, every breath will fail), he refers to those who lose heart in the face of adversity; we are then in a moral context. Luke, however, has opted for a social context in which an individual suffers injustice. Finally, Luke's Jesus offers everyone a jubilee or sabbatical year, called “acceptable of the Lord”, i.e. a year of God's favor. Among the Jews, slaves were to be freed every seven years, and people were to be freed of their debts every 50 years.
You may have noticed that the 5th affirmation of the Septuagint (“And to the blind the return of sight”) does not repeat the 5th affirmation of the Hebrew text (“Those who have been tied the opening [of their eyes]”). Why not? First of all, the Hebrew text refers to people in prison (those who have been tied). And what is offered is curiously formulated: the opening. We have here in the Hebrew text a term (peqaḥ-qôaḥ) unique in the whole Bible, which designates opening, in particular of the eyes. Now, we're faced with the situation where someone, having been in a dark dungeon for a long time, is finally freed and sees the light for the first time; this is a release from prison. It's impossible to know which Hebrew text the translator of the Septuagint had in front of him. If it was indeed this text, he probably thought that, since we had spoken earlier of “captives”, speaking of “prisoners” would become redundant. So he kept the image of regaining the light, but replaced “prisoner” with “blind”.

A third example comes from Mt 1:23, which quotes Isa 7:14.

Matthew 1	Isaiah 7: Septuagint (LXX)	Isaiah 7: Hebrew (MT)
23 Behold the virgin (parthenos) will be with child (en gastri hexei) and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel	14 Behold the virgin (parthenos) will conceive (en gastri lēpsetai), and will give birth to a son, and you (sing.) will call his name Emmanuel	14 Behold the young girl (ʿalmâ) is (will be) with child and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Emmanuel

Here are a few comments on each version.

The Hebrew Massoretic text
- Isaiah's oracle is addressed to the wicked king Akhaz (circa 735 to 715 BC) to give a sign to the skeptical monarch of a contemporary event
- The child to be born is not the Messiah, but a Davidic prince who will deliver Judah from its enemies.
- The word almâ designates a young girl who has reached puberty and is therefore available for marriage. There is in itself no connotation of virginity, except by the very fact that she is not married.
- The presence of the definite article “the” girl makes it likely that Isaiah is referring to someone whose identity was known to the prophet or King Akhaz.
- In short, the sign given by the prophet points to the imminent birth of a naturally conceived child of Davidic lineage who will illustrate God's providential care for his people.
The Septuagint text
- The translator of the Septuagint (circa 140 BC) opted for parthenos to translate the Hebrew ʿalmâ, whereas this Greek word was usually used to translate the Hebrew betûlâ, which means virgin. Other Greek translations (Aquila, Symmache, Theodotion) after the Septuagint opted instead for neanis (maiden) to translate the Hebrew ʿalmâ.
- With the term parthenos, the Septuagint translator simply intended to say that a woman, who is for the moment a virgin, will naturally conceive a child the day she is united to a man. At most, he meant that it would be a first-born child.
Matthew's text
- Matthew uses hexei en gastri (lit.: will have in the belly), rather than the Septuagint's lēpsetai en gastri (lit.: will receive in the belly). Why is this? Matthew intends to follow the standard structure of birth narratives for great people used by the Septuagint, where it says: "have in the belly", not: "receive in the belly".
- Matthew writes “they will call him” rather than the Septuagint's “you will call him”. Why is this? The simplest explanation is that Matthew deliberately altered the Septuagint text of Isaiah to fit his narrative: quoting the prophet Isaiah, he could not put in his mouth “you (Joseph) will call him by the name of Emmanuel”. By having “they will call him”, Matthew changes the subject to a much wider audience, the “they” possibly referring to the people he spoke of in v. 21, the people whose sins Jesus will save, a people that seems to include the Gentiles; if, then, it is this great universal people who will call him “Emmanuel”, then Jesus may truly be the son of Abraham, the one in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed.
- Matthew gives us the meaning of the name “Emmanuel”, which the Septuagint does not. It is an addition on his part to the quotation from Isaiah. For the meaning of the name must have escaped those who did not know Hebrew. This meaning is suggested to him by Isaiah 8:10, a passage that follows 8:8, where the mention of Emmanuel appears for the second time: “whatever your words may be, they will not be fulfilled; for the Lord is with us”. It is this interpretation that interests him more than the name Emmanuel itself: it allows him to support Jesus' divine filiation in addition to his Davidic one, and it allows him to include the last words of his gospel: “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age”. And this inclusion reflects Matthew's vision of the messiah, which he sees as a presence that makes itself felt eschatologically, i.e. the final, once-and-for-all manifestation of God's presence.
- Matthew begins his Gospel with a mathematically structured genealogy, consisting of three sets of fourteen generations. He sees in all this a plan meticulously prepared by God to produce a “son of David”, then the voice of the prophet Isaiah who not only announces a “son of David”, but also an Emmanuel, a “God with us”. For Matthew, to accuse Jesus of illegitimacy was downright slanderous.

In short, Matthew makes many references to the OT in his Gospel, but he often modifies and adapts it to support his theology.

As we have seen throughout this presentation, the analysis of parallels is an important step in biblical analysis, as it allows us to grasp the particular emphases of an evangelist. It is at this point that his theology and pastoral perspective begin to emerge, while highlighting the features of his prose.

-André Gilbert, April 2025

All chapters