Synoptic problem?
Could someone enlighten me on the problem. As I understand the synoptics, each was written for a different purpose. There is no problem.
http://www.logos.com/product/34088/classic-studies-on-the-synoptic-problem
Comments
-
The issue has to do with the similarities of Matthew mark and Luke where there are times when they use the same language and order of events but then how they also have major differences. How do you account for this? That's very simple explanation. Usually this gets into ideas of literary dependence. So the questions are asked "did Matthew copy Luke or did Luke copy Matthew or did Mark copy matthew, ect. if Matthew copied mark why did he change things or add things ect.
Carson and Moo deal with this issue in their New Testament survey.
0 -
That Matthew, Mark and Luke share some literary material is not much in doubt (but notably Eta Linnemann disputes this). The question is: why, and so what? There are a number of Logos resources dealing with this, from commentaries and "introductions" to specialised works.
Personally, I don't see much of a problem.
0 -
There is also the issue of which gospel came first. Most (but not all) modern scholars would say Mark, with Matthew and Luke being dependent on Mark. However, Eusebius quotes Papias, second-century bishop of Hieropolis, saying that Matthew was first and that he wrote in a Hebrew dialect (the exact meaning of the phrase is disputed) not Greek. Was he right? Was the gospel he refers to the Matthew that we have? Was it earlier source material for Matthew? Does he refer to a Hebrew style rather than Hebrew or Aramaic language? How does all this fit with the Greek text that we have? The questions go on.0
-
I found this a good introduction to the subject.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906
Not yet available in Logos, but should be.
0 -
Evan ... it's kind of like the media today. Some write for one group while other media writes to another group. Then there's a third group that complains the two approaches don't match. You're probably not in the third group.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Actually spot-on parallel, with the so-called 'communities'.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Lee said:
Your analogy is somewhat off. It confuses rather than enlightens. If it is given in jest, may I suggest some jest markers.
I think Denise nailed it and the sarcasm is greatly appreciated. If you pick up any three newspapers this morning and read about the same story in each, you will get three different reports. And if you are ignorant enough you will claim that two must have copied the third because of the similarities. You may then proceed to question the honesty of each because of the differences.they report. And, of course, the articles were not penned at exactly the same moment so two of the reporters are plagiarising.
Wow. When you think of it, no wonder there is so much garbage being published out of seminaries. If anyone writes something similar to another writer, they must have copied his work. Heaven help the truth-seekers.
Notice there are no jesting smilies?
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
[quote]Then there's a third group that complains the two approaches don't match. You're probably not in the third group.
Way off. I can only think of it as an attempt at humour.
[quote]If you pick up any three newspapers this morning and read about the same story in each, you will get three different reports. And if you are ignorant enough you will claim that two must have copied the third because of the similarities. You may then proceed to question the honesty of each because of the differences.they report. And, of course, the articles were not penned at exactly the same moment so two of the reporters are plagiarising.
Wow. When you think of it, no wonder there is so much garbage being published out of seminaries. If anyone writes something similar to another writer, they must have copied his work. Heaven help the truth-seekers.
Comparing modern newspapers with ancient manuscript provenance and transmission. And seminaries with garbage places. I'm no supporter of Ehrman & Co, but how much "light" are you shedding on the matter?
Again, I can only think of it as an attempt at humour.
0 -
Lee said:
Comparing modern newspapers with ancient manuscript provenance and transmission. And seminaries with garbage places. I'm no supporter of Ehrman & Co, but how much "light" are you shedding on the matter?
Let us ponder... Will you be convinced any greater if the garbage can were in a monastery? (Oh wait, it was.) Or if today's three newspapers are compared in the year 4013? (That would make them "ancient.") Would you trust a detective's assessment 2000 years from now over the findings of today's investigator? (How would that fly on "The First 48?")
If the synoptic Gospels were copied off each other and fraught with error and folklore they belong in an ash can wrapped in yesterday's newspaper like a dead fish. It is either the inspired, inerrant Word of God or it isn't. The joke is on Bart Ehrman & Co. They are spending all their time studying a fake, according to them. <insert smiley: [:)]>
Lots of light: [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I] [I]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Actually, Bart has ratcheted up the nomenclature; 'forgery' per his latest opus. It's an interesting argument, since he now places the motivation for the majority of NT writers a step BELOW normal expectations in the greek/roman world.
His forgery-ish list includes Acts, 2Th, Eph/Col, Jam, 1/2Pe and of course Jude. I was surprised at Acts (and forgot Heb doesn't claim authorship). None of the gospels were able to achieve 'forged' status, since none claim authorship.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
@ST:
You're just not getting it.Manuscript provenance and transmission are not like newspapers today. That is exactly why they are reliable. If manuscripts were produced and transmitted in the manner that they are today, and be in the state that we find them (not just physically, but textually) then something is certainly wrong. But, given the conditions then, what we have today are perfectly reasonable and expected.
Likening seminaries to garbage places, are we? Is that light?
Substance, not smileys, please, if you are not genuinely attempting humour.
@Denise
It is no use countering the likes of Ehrman with ill-formed conjectures of "our own". Anyway, if you want to help the OP, you could feed him information. Or refer him to it.0 -
I think we've narrowed down the issue: 'they [newspapers] are reliable'
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Lee said:
It is no use countering the likes of Ehrman with ill-formed conjectures of "our own".
Everybody bow to the fella' whose life work contradicts himself! Bart's beliefs have changed more in his short lifespan than the synoptic Gospels have in 2000 years. You really can not impress me with his "findings."
The "garbage" I refer to emanating from seminaries is the incessant "new found truth" of a bunch of fresh graduates. Isn't it curious how God only reveals "new truth" to someone whose sheepskin is still dripping blood ink?
The reliability question gets interesting when you discard 99% of the extant manuscripts in favour of the 1%. So do we go with the Majority Text or Sinaiticus? At least the monk that threw it in the garbage knew it was worthless. And apparently Logos does too. It is FREE here.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Before I bow out before this tag-team of Denise and ST, let me clarify one point: I certainly don't think Ehrman and scholars like him are right. Never said I did, never will.
But it would not be to my advantage to counter his conjectures with my own. "Third group complaining about inconsistencies". "Manuscripts are like newspapers". Think for a moment about what you are saying.
While I am sad about some aspects of seminary today, I would never generalize that seminaries publish garbage for output. I am not that intemperate.
0 -
Evan Boardman said:
Could someone enlighten me on the problem. As I understand the synoptics, each was written for a different purpose. There is no problem.
http://www.logos.com/product/34088/classic-studies-on-the-synoptic-problem
There are at least two main views on this. The most popular view, which is false, is called Markan Priority or Q-theory.
The least popular view, which is true, is called the two gospel Hypothesis.
It states that in short, Matthew was written first. This is what the early church tradition tells us, and this is why it is placed first in the canon. Some believe it may have been written in Hebrew and later translated.
Luke was then written, which was primarily a translation of Matthew into Greek, some material was reworded or changed in order to make sense to a Gentile or Greek speaking audience (like the genealogy), and also had some additional material added.
Mark was a record of Peters public reading of the two gospels, which was taken down in shorthand.
In acts it tells us that after the day of Pentecost there was a period of time when the apostles remained in Jerusalem (Acts 4:32-33). It was during this time that Matthew was written (Acts 6:4). Although penned by Matthew, it was the joint work of the apostles and the Holy Spirit, who Jesus had promised would come and aid them in accurately recalling all of the events which were recorded (John 14:26).
A short article on Wikipedia covers it a bit more.
David Allan Black writes on the topic, giving a lot more detail and historical evidence in Why Four Gospels? which is a very good read on the topic but is not available on Logos.
Logos does offer Rethinking the Synoptic Problem which may cover some of the same ground.
0 -
Super Tramp said:
I think Denise nailed it and the sarcasm is greatly appreciated.
I think so too. Actually sarcasm is a tool that Denise uses with great skill on many occasions.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Lee said:
Likening seminaries to garbage places, are we? Is that light?
It's at least a glimmer of recognition...
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
[:D] David, you surpass!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Lee said:
Thank you. You state your view. You back it up. You refer to (Logos) resources. Exemplary!
- It is my view the Synoptic Gospels are inspired and inerrant.
- God backs it up. 2 Timothy 3:16
- Since the vast majority of Logos resources all differ from each other the vast majority of them contain error. There can be only one truth and it is very hard to find it in academia. Especially when you are not looking for it.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Great. You can take that line too.
So, instead of this:
Q: Hey, what's the "synoptic problem" that others are writing about?
A: You see, it's like newspapers. Group A likes their newspaper. Group B likes their particular marque. Group C thinks that Group A and Group B haven't got it all together....One could have helped the OP by going straight to the heart of the matter:
Q: Hey, what's the "synoptic problem" that others are writing about?
A: Just read your bible, brother/sister. The "vast majority" of academic stuff contain error. God says the bible is true so that's it. Seminaries bad. Seminaries churn out garbage. Logos resources differ from each other, they are fallible. Bible is inerrant, bible is pure truth, bible good.Denise and ST "win" their battle of opinion (which is what this is all about, judging from the tone). I "lose". Notice the abject lack of smilies.
0 -
Lee said:
Notice the abject lack of smilies.
I did not mean to hurt your feelings, Lee. [U] [:'(]
Lee said:You could have helped the OP by going straight to the heart of the matter
OK. This is for the OP:
Check out this Community Pricing resource: Classic Studies on the Synoptic Problem
Check out this Community Pricing resource: Recensio Synoptica Annotationis Sacrae
Check out this website: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm
And for my view: http://www.gotquestions.org/synoptic-problem.html
And for Lee: [W]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
I did not mean to hurt your feelings, Lee.
Feelings don't come into the picture at all.0 -
Lee said:
Feelings don't come into the picture at all.
Good. Then you won't be mad at me for harping on this line:
Lee said:Seminaries bad. Seminaries churn out garbage.
I have to strain very hard to think of any heresy that did NOT birth from a seminary. That is not saying most who attend seminary are heretics, only that most heretics attended a seminary.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Evan Boardman said:
As I understand the synoptics, each was written for a different purpose. There is no problem.
I couldn't have said it better myself. [:-*]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Ah, shucks. Maybe one last opinion.
That Matthew, Mark and Luke share some literary material is not much in doubt ... The question is: why, and so what? ... Personally, I don't see much of a problem.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Sarcasm? Compliment? Who knows? And at this point, who cares. But again, if you have any counter-opinion or think there is anything factually wrong with that, you (and any forum user) would be most welcome to point it out directly.
--"I have to strain very hard to think of any heresy that did NOT birth from a seminary." Yeah, right. I also have to strain very hard of any major heretic who did not read the bible or quote from it. I guess I should stay away from that dangerous stuff (in fact I've heard some non-Christians actually say that).
0 -
Lee said:
I also have to strain very hard of any major heretic who did not read the bible or quote from it.
We finally have a point to agree on. So let us be careful what preachers and professors we harken to. [C]
Or we can just read the Bible ourselves. Spurgeon thought it a worthy goal.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
The way I read it, the only opinions I should accept without question come from ST and Denise.
0 -
Lee said:
The way I read it, the only opinions I should accept without question come from ST and Denise.
No. You should also accept (without question [:P] ) the brilliance put forth by Martin Mosse in this resource:
The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
-
Darwin was at one point a seminarian if I remember right.Super Tramp said:Lee said:Feelings don't come into the picture at all.
Good. Then you won't be mad at me for harping on this line:
Lee said:Seminaries bad. Seminaries churn out garbage.
I have to strain very hard to think of any heresy that did NOT birth from a seminary. That is not saying most who attend seminary are heretics, only that most heretics attended a seminary.
L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
I was only agreeing for the sake of argument that heresies sprouted from seminaries. I know of many that started in which the leaders involved had no seminary background or formal training in the scriptures.
Of course, that's not conclusive either.
The point being that anybody who insinuates that all seminaries are good, or that all seminaries are bad, probably speaks from ignorance. Naturally, many who complain about seminaries haven't been in places where there is a lack of them. It sounds funny and makes a great punchline for personalities on this forum, but I think this extreme is not sanctioned by scripture either.
0 -
It has been pointed out by many that, well, you have to know what you are talking about in order to be a heretic. Their truth is both their strength and their danger. If there were nothing behind it, it would have no appeal to anyone.
SDG
Ken McGuire
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
You can be a rather magnetic heretic, just by (mis)quoting scripture. No need to go to seminary for that! Just a few bible studies and a few short courses are more than ample.
When personality trumps truth, any seminarian or non-seminarian can attract a following.
0 -
Lee said:
I was only agreeing for the sake of argument that heresies sprouted from seminaries. I know of many that started in which the leaders involved had no seminary background or formal training in the scriptures.
There have always been heretics. But Seminaries gave us higher educated and more intelligent heretics [:D]
0 -
[Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y]
http://www.logos.com/product/7491/the-synoptic-problem-a-way-through-the-maze
[Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y]
0 -
Josh said:
Why do the arguments in that book appeal to you? Why his explanation and not the dominant Q hypothesis?
0 -
Dean053 said:
Why do the arguments in that book appeal to you? Why his explanation and not the dominant Q hypothesis?
Personally they make logical sense to me.
"If it can be shown to be plausible that Luke knew Matthew as well as Mark, then the Q theory becomes superfluous to requirements—one can ‘dispense’ with Q."
0 -
Josh said:
Personally they make logical sense to me.
"If it can be shown to be plausible that Luke knew Matthew as well as Mark, then the Q theory becomes superfluous to requirements—one can ‘dispense’ with Q."
I think you've hit the nail on the head. But Luke doesn't limit his material to what is in Matthew and Mark, as Goodacre himself acknowledges (though not all realize it). To me it's not superfluous as I don't believe I have the option of attributing unique Lucan material to Luke's overactive imagination (though I'm sure Goodacre would term it "redactional tendencies" or something). If Luke has unique material, I'd deduce that he found it in another source rather than thinking that he made it all up. I think people don't generally appreciate the implications of his thesis.
0 -
Key word to all this nonsense: "Theory" - much like evolution is just a theory...LOL Anyway, I love how some love to stress over a theory. I've studied the "synoptic problem" enough to not even worry about it. In fact, people and their faith are better off not knowing about it; much like the argument about "why do we have so many translations and some read different that others." It's just not helpful at times.
DAL
Ps. Anyway, not arguing, just saying [;)]
0 -
I think almost all of the issues discussed in this thread were earlier solved by Origen in his well regarded commentary on John.
10.4. SCRIPTURE CONTAINS MANY CONTRADICTIONS, AND MANY STATEMENTS WHICH ARE NOT LITERALLY TRUE, BUT MUST BE READ SPIRITUALLY AND MYSTICALLY
" ... They proposed to speak the truth where it was possible both materially and spiritually, and where this was not possible it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood. "
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
I think almost all of the issues discussed in this thread were earlier solved by Origen in his well regarded commentary on John.
10.4. SCRIPTURE CONTAINS MANY CONTRADICTIONS, AND MANY STATEMENTS WHICH ARE NOT LITERALLY TRUE, BUT MUST BE READ SPIRITUALLY AND MYSTICALLY
" ... They proposed to speak the truth where it was possible both materially and spiritually, and where this was not possible it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood. "
Origen is often considered a heretic for a variety of reasons, none of which I care to dispute. These days, what you just quoted as a methodological approach is usually poo-pooed as quaint at best, potentially blasphemous at worst--in general, it is just considered false. However, without lauding Origen, and if allowed to change the word "mystically" to the word "prophetically", I pretty much agree with the statement.
The literal-historical methodology has strangled the life out of the Bible.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Denise said:
I think almost all of the issues discussed in this thread were earlier solved by Origen in his well regarded commentary on John.
10.4. SCRIPTURE CONTAINS MANY CONTRADICTIONS, AND MANY STATEMENTS WHICH ARE NOT LITERALLY TRUE, BUT MUST BE READ SPIRITUALLY AND MYSTICALLY
" ... They proposed to speak the truth where it was possible both materially and spiritually, and where this was not possible it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood. "
How did Origen know which parts were literally true and which parts were not? This seems like a very dangerous (and unproductive) way of looking at God's Word.
0 -
Which is the precise fear which leads lemmings to dismiss the only intended way for the Bible to be properly understood--prophetically. The allegorical method of Augustine and his ilk was somewhat similar, but it suffered the setback which you address. I admit that it is a difficult consideration...but the solution is itself prophetical.
Prophecy predicts a mass failure of proper comprehension among those who handle the Scriptures.
Ironically, it is the only Bible prophecy which won't come true.
[^o)]
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Dean053 said:Josh said:
Personally they make logical sense to me.
"If it can be shown to be plausible that Luke knew Matthew as well as Mark, then the Q theory becomes superfluous to requirements—one can ‘dispense’ with Q."
I think you've hit the nail on the head. But Luke doesn't limit his material to what is in Matthew and Mark, as Goodacre himself acknowledges (though not all realize it). To me it's not superfluous as I don't believe I have the option of attributing unique Lucan material to Luke's overactive imagination (though I'm sure Goodacre would term it "redactional tendencies" or something). If Luke has unique material, I'd deduce that he found it in another source rather than thinking that he made it all up. I think people don't generally appreciate the implications of his thesis.
I am not sure if you understand my comment. The Q hypothesis is an attempt to discover the source that is supposedly behind the Double Tradition (synoptic material that is found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark). It is this supposed "source" I am calling superfluous. This material can easily be attributed to the idea that Luke used Matthew and Mark as two of his sources. The material you are talking about here - Special Luke and Special Matthew, has nothing to do with the Q hypothesis. Strictly speaking this material isn't even "synoptic".
0 -
Q: What is gained by solving this "problem"?
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Q: What is gained by solving this "problem"?
Goodacre attempts to answer this question in his book. Here is his brief summary:
0
