Synoptic problem?Closed
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 Closed
- 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.
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.
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.
Your analogy is somewhat off. It confuses rather than enlightens. If it is given in jest, may I suggest some jest markers. [:)]
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
[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.
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.
Thank you. You state your view. You back it up. You refer to (Logos) resources. Exemplary!
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
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.
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).
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
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.
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.