Synoptic problem?
Comments
-
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. "
With respect, this statement attributed to Origen has little to do with the "synoptic problem". I won't comment on his hermeneutic method, just that the "synoptic problem" is on a higher order, a "meta-hermeneutic problem" if you will.
That is why this issue is hotly contested in some academic and clerical circles. One could caricature people involved in this inquiry as idle scholars. Maybe, for some of them, the hat fits. But actually for some an inquiry into this "problem" is a moral obligation. There are different camps as well as different motivations.
A word to the wise.
0 -
Josh said: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:
Not being cheeky, but I don't consider any of these reasons to be worthy of attention.
The last one is false...there are numerous other Bible enigmas that are far more fascinating because they have eternal consequences. Solving the "synoptic problem" won't even get you a cookie (not to mention it can't be solved).
The one above that is deadly dangerous--a kind of WMD that has and will result in billions of eternal deaths.
The second is a red herring...the differences between the synoptics do generate theological reflection, but determining which came first and what additional sources "might" have existed is a fruitless endeavor, a poster child of pointless vanity.
The first "reason" is a swing and a miss, primarily because both the ball and the bat are imaginary. The so-called "oral tohraah" is rooted in the mechanism of the Great Assembly, an institution for which zero evidence exists and which is generally acknowledged to have been a fiction of collective imagination. It's ideological provenance was an effort to give ancient historical credence to the decisions that the Pharisees cum Rabbis were fabricating before and after the temple's demise. The synoptic problem is in a similar vein. It is imagined to be a Christian "elixir for what ails you" when in reality it is mainly a colossal waste of time.
Study and meditation on the similarities and differences between the synoptics can produce fruit. Trying to unravel the unravelable is vanity. The text-as-it-is is what we are supposed to engage, and even as such much of the "historical" context that is considered so sacrosanct is prophetically irrelevant.
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 ... I truly hate to admit it, but I suspect your equating of the jewish semantic 'prophesy' with the greek 'mystic' is correct (with the emphasis on prophetic).
I'm reading a book currently (actually many, so I don't remember which). But the author connects the period from late Isaiah through the final days of Jerusalem, using the phrase 'jewish charismatic'. Initially I thought 'ok, here we go again'. But he was using a greek word to describe a semitic concept.
I really don't think the 'synoptic problem' can be solved absent the more ancient way of looking at it.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Josh said:
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".
I don't think I'd agree with your narrow definition of the problem, but I'll assume it anyway. Goodacre argues that certain parables were modified by LUke from Matthew, accounting for their differences in points like numbers. In other words, Luke redactionally altered the material (translated: made them up for his own purposes).
An example which I think makes it difficult to narrow the definition as you have done is the account of the Baptist's preaching in Luke and Mattew. If Luke has used Matthew, as Goodacre argues, then how is it that Luke's account is twice as long? Did he redactionally make up the remainder? Or was there a common source which Luke utilized more than Matthew (aka Q)? Again, to return to my original question, I'm finding it hard to understand how a theory that must posit that Luke basically modified and made up stuff is superior to Q?
0 -
Denise said:
David ... I truly hate to admit it, but
Every now and then I suffer the same dilemma. I find David Paul has posted a profound and irrefutable statement. And I, too, "truly hate to admit it."
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
You know you're on the right track when people hate to agree with you. [:P]
With such ringing endorsements, I just might have to consider running for office! [I] [Y]
Anyone have any spare babies that need kissing?
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:
I don't think I'd agree with your narrow definition of the problem, but I'll assume it anyway. Goodacre argues that certain parables were modified by LUke from Matthew, accounting for their differences in points like numbers. In other words, Luke redactionally altered the material (translated: made them up for his own purposes).
An example which I think makes it difficult to narrow the definition as you have done is the account of the Baptist's preaching in Luke and Mattew. If Luke has used Matthew, as Goodacre argues, then how is it that Luke's account is twice as long? Did he redactionally make up the remainder? Or was there a common source which Luke utilized more than Matthew (aka Q)? Again, to return to my original question, I'm finding it hard to understand how a theory that must posit that Luke basically modified and made up stuff is superior to Q?
There is no doubt that Luke used other sources. No one is assuming he simply "made up" material.
0 -
I should clarify here: Goodacre believes that the majority of the material found in Luke's column in the Double Tradition, came primarily from Matthew's gospel directly. The Q hypothesis states that these two authors were working completely independent of each other. Basically, it is assumed Luke had no access (and was most likely ignorant) to Matthew's work. However, this is an assumption that is typically argued for using negative arguments. And ones I don't find convincing when peeled back to expose their insides. [H]
0 -
But again, what of the places in the double tradition where the details differ? Why does Matthew say 'good gifts' and Luke 'Holy Spirit'? I would say that Jesus said both on different occasions, Goodacre that Matthew has the original, not Luke (p. 134). Same with the sermon on the Mount--for Goodacre, Luke has re-ordered it and inserted the sayings artificially into different occasions. Now you can argue that Luke had access to other sources at this point, but my original question was why Goodacre's theories were preferred to Q. It seems clear to me that you qualify Goodacre's views to such an extent that they can't be said to be his views. Goodacre explains the differences in terms of Luke's 'creative' use of the tradition (i.e. he makes it up). You, like I, that Luke has used other sources. Why couldn't one of those sources have been shared by Matthew?
And again, if Luke and Matthew are virtually identical for much of the Baptist's preaching, yet Luke contains much more material, why can't both accounts be based upon the same source? What is it inherently less probable about that?
0 -
Dean053 said:
But again, what of the places in the double tradition where the details differ? Why does Matthew say 'good gifts' and Luke 'Holy Spirit'? I would say that Jesus said both on different occasions, Goodacre that Matthew has the original, not Luke (p. 134). Same with the sermon on the Mount--for Goodacre, Luke has re-ordered it and inserted the sayings artificially into different occasions. Now you can argue that Luke had access to other sources at this point, but my original question was why Goodacre's theories were preferred to Q. It seems clear to me that you qualify Goodacre's views to such an extent that they can't be said to be his views. Goodacre explains the differences in terms of Luke's 'creative' use of the tradition (i.e. he makes it up). You, like I, that Luke has used other sources. Why couldn't one of those sources have been shared by Matthew?
And again, if Luke and Matthew are virtually identical for much of the Baptist's preaching, yet Luke contains much more material, why can't both accounts be based upon the same source? What is it inherently less probable about that?
I guess what is convincing to some is not always convincing to others. I wont debate you on this forum. Allow people to read Goodacre's book and come to their own conclusions. I personally feel that Goodacre provided rational rebuttals to your concerns.
0 -
uh, yeah, okay, if you say so. Sure.
0 -
I was inspired to enter this thread against my better judgment, as at least half of it goes against the policy set forth by Logos, but to see words like "heretical" bandied about concerning a subject that has logical reasoning on both sides, yet cannot be proven one way or the other, is not helpful.
First of all, you will be hard pressed to find any "conservative" scholar who does not hold to some form of Markan priority. This includes Witherington, Keener, Blomberg, etc... To argue that this is some "liberal" conspiracy is ignorant, unless you consider all Bible scholars "liberal," which would then have you arguing that all men and women who choose to study the Word of God as their life's work are somehow bad.
Second, you may not be interested in how the gospel writers chose to nuance their messages by word choice and such, even when using a previous gospel as a source, which both theories argue happened, but there are many who are. I teach a Bible as literature course in a public high school, and this is very interesting to me and my students, as these nuances provide endless conversation about why this or that word or sentence was chosen as opposed to another word or sentence to convey a message.
If you want to bring this thread around to be more in line with the policy of Logos' forums, why don't you provide more evidence from Logos books to support your claims? This is much better than name calling. I only looked quickly, so I would be interest to see what more commentators think. Also, even though most did choose Markan priority, R. T. France seemed to be skeptical in NICNT concerning Q, but I think he still agreed that Mark was first. I don't remember. Some of the others argued that Q was probably an oral source, and not necessarily a written document.
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0 -
Joseph Turner said:
I was inspired to enter this thread against my better judgment, as at least half of it goes against the policy set forth by Logos, but to see words like "heretical" bandied about concerning a subject that has logical reasoning on both sides, yet cannot be proven one way or the other, is not helpful.
First of all, you will be hard pressed to find any "conservative" scholar who does not hold to some form of Markan priority. This includes Witherington, Keener, Blomberg, etc... To argue that this is some "liberal" conspiracy is ignorant, unless you consider all Bible scholars "liberal," which would then have you arguing that all men and women who choose to study the Word of God as their life's work are somehow bad.
Second, you may not be interested in how the gospel writers chose to nuance their messages by word choice and such, even when using a previous gospel as a source, which both theories argue happened, but there are many who are. I teach a Bible as literature course in a public high school, and this is very interesting to me and my students, as these nuances provide endless conversation about why this or that word or sentence was chosen as opposed to another word or sentence to convey a message.
If you want to bring this thread around to be more in line with the policy of Logos' forums, why don't you provide more evidence from Logos books to support your claims? This is much better than name calling. I only looked quickly, so I would be interest to see what more commentators think. Also, even though most did choose Markan priority, R. T. France seemed to be skeptical in NICNT concerning Q, but I think he still agreed that Mark was first. I don't remember. Some of the others argued that Q was probably an oral source, and not necessarily a written document.
Well said.
1. I doubt if this thread has been of much use at all to the original poster, who asked a simple question about what the synoptic problem is.
2. I made my own small contribution to this thread hoping to answer the original question.
3. I subscribed to the thread hoping to learn a little too.
4. Since then I have been dismayed by the closed vision of almost every post.
5. I felt it pointless to try and respond to such closed opinions.
6. The thread has been way off of forum guidelines, prompting me to report it as abuse. I have not had any response to this.
7. Much of the thread has been led by one of the MVPs, who ought to know better.
8. All of the threads that I have subscribed to over the past week or so have degenerated in the same way.
9. Last night I contemplated starting a new thread headed "Is everyone welcome here?". Recently, each time I have tried to make small contributions from my non-conservative viewpoint, they have been dismissed out of hand by contributions in a similar vein to those in this thread. I feel that I am no longer welcome on the forums. Logos is used by people with a huge variety of points of view: Jews, all types of Christians and others. With Noet, this may expand further. I come to the forums for advice and discussion regarding Logos Bible Software. I don't see why I should conform to unscholarly fundamentalism to do so.
10. I might start that thread after all.
0 -
Jonathan, of course you are welcome here. I will also say that I do not see this thread as a liberal/conservative argument, as I don't believe those who argue one way or the other split that way. The problem is people who refuse to play by the forum rules. People on here see being right as more important than following the rules, and I am sure I have been guilty of the same in the past. You just have to understand that inherently the subjects considered on the forums are going to have passionate viewpoints on both sides, and in recognition of this fact, Logos has asked that people not choose their forums as a place for debate.
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0 -
Actually the OP asked a question, and then maybe 30 characters later answered himself.
But by that time, it was too late and he had to hit the Post button.
He reminds me of me.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Deleted in a hope that we can regain some unity.
Sorry to those I may have offended.
I'm ok with you even if we have different opinions. Peace brothers.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Denise said:
Actually the OP asked a question, and then maybe 30 characters later answered himself.
The OP was only using rhetoric to chuckle at the notion of a synoptic "problem." The result is a thread full of information (some relative, some not.) The only faux pas the OP committed was asking about a debatable theological subject. I will pardon him for that since we were enlightened by many folk. Thanks Evan!
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Jonathan Pitts said:Joseph Turner said:
I was inspired to enter this thread against my better judgment, as at least half of it goes against the policy set forth by Logos, but to see words like "heretical" bandied about concerning a subject that has logical reasoning on both sides, yet cannot be proven one way or the other, is not helpful.
First of all, you will be hard pressed to find any "conservative" scholar who does not hold to some form of Markan priority. This includes Witherington, Keener, Blomberg, etc... To argue that this is some "liberal" conspiracy is ignorant, unless you consider all Bible scholars "liberal," which would then have you arguing that all men and women who choose to study the Word of God as their life's work are somehow bad.
Second, you may not be interested in how the gospel writers chose to nuance their messages by word choice and such, even when using a previous gospel as a source, which both theories argue happened, but there are many who are. I teach a Bible as literature course in a public high school, and this is very interesting to me and my students, as these nuances provide endless conversation about why this or that word or sentence was chosen as opposed to another word or sentence to convey a message.
If you want to bring this thread around to be more in line with the policy of Logos' forums, why don't you provide more evidence from Logos books to support your claims? This is much better than name calling. I only looked quickly, so I would be interest to see what more commentators think. Also, even though most did choose Markan priority, R. T. France seemed to be skeptical in NICNT concerning Q, but I think he still agreed that Mark was first. I don't remember. Some of the others argued that Q was probably an oral source, and not necessarily a written document.
Well said.
1. I doubt if this thread has been of much use at all to the original poster, who asked a simple question about what the synoptic problem is.
2. I made my own small contribution to this thread hoping to answer the original question.
3. I subscribed to the thread hoping to learn a little too.
4. Since then I have been dismayed by the closed vision of almost every post.
5. I felt it pointless to try and respond to such closed opinions.
6. The thread has been way off of forum guidelines, prompting me to report it as abuse. I have not had any response to this.
7. Much of the thread has been led by one of the MVPs, who ought to know better.
8. All of the threads that I have subscribed to over the past week or so have degenerated in the same way.
9. Last night I contemplated starting a new thread headed "Is everyone welcome here?". Recently, each time I have tried to make small contributions from my non-conservative viewpoint, they have been dismissed out of hand by contributions in a similar vein to those in this thread. I feel that I am no longer welcome on the forums. Logos is used by people with a huge variety of points of view: Jews, all types of Christians and others. With Noet, this may expand further. I come to the forums for advice and discussion regarding Logos Bible Software. I don't see why I should conform to unscholarly fundamentalism to do so.
10. I might start that thread after all.
Sorry to hear you find this forum so irritating. Maybe you should try Desitin. It's what my mom used on me.
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:
uh, yeah, okay, if you say so. Sure.
uh, yeah, okay, I do say so. [:)]
I just finished reading Goodacre's book again. I was impressed with the simplicity and conciseness of his conclusions. I highly recommend it. [Y]
I, also, wanted to post the website he promotes: NT Gateway. It has a lot of good resources on the NT, including the Synoptic Problem.
0 -
I've locked this thread because it deviates from the forum guidelines specifically the first and third points which respectively state:
- "Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
- "Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together."
Disagreement is fine. Ad hominem is not.
In the future, if you're concerned about the direction of a thread, feel free to email me directly (ray.deck@logos.com).
RD3
Logos Marketing | ray.deck@logos.com
0
