The Synoptic Problem
The Synoptic Problem
Does anyone know if Steve has done anything on the synoptic problem - how the Gospels interact in terms of literary dependency?
Re: The Synoptic Problem
Please remove this post from the board.
Last edited by WGP on Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: The Synoptic Problem
I usually give some brief treatment of the problem in my introduction to the four gospels, though I don't know if any of the lectures presently posted include it. The essence of the problem is that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) have differences from each other, which suggest independence of the authors from one another, and yet, at many points, their respective selections of material—and even their exact wording—are identical to each other, suggesting literary dependence upon one another, or upon common sources.
The modern solution most often suggested is that Mark was the first gospel written, which was then used as a source by the writers of Matthew and Luke. These latter two contain some material common to each other, but not found in Mark. It is therefore suggested that Matthew and Luke had an additional (entirely hypothetical) common source for this material—usually called "Q" (for the German word "Quelle"—meaning "source"). There are things about this solution that have never set well with me (like the matter of why Matthew, an eye witness, would need to use the writings of Mark, who was not an eye witness).
My own (tentative) solution is as follows:
1. I do not necessarily buy into the priority of Mark's gospel. It does not seem to agree with the opinion of the church fathers, who said that Matthew's early draft in Aramaic came first. Also, every early list of the gospels placed Matthew first, though the other three gospels are not always arranged in the same order;
2. The verbal similarities among the Synoptics can, I believe, be explained by the fact that the stories of Jesus were told and re-told by the early witnesses so that they took on a standardized verbal form long before any of the gospels came to be written. Where the gospels are word-for-word identical in their respective pericopes, this reflects the standardized verbal form in which the stories had come to be repeated for decades after Pentecost;
3. Where the wording or details of parallel pericopes differ, these reflect the independent knowledge of each of the writers from the eye-witness testimony of themselves or of their sources. That is, they followed, to a large degree, the verbal form of the oral preaching, except when their own knowledge of certain pertinent details enabled them to add, to subtract, or to re-word.
The "Synoptic Problem" is, (by all reports) a complex issue, but I am not aware of any detail that cannot be explained by the relatively simple expedient suggested above.
WGP—
Why don't you simply post your information somewhere on the web, and post a link to it here?
The modern solution most often suggested is that Mark was the first gospel written, which was then used as a source by the writers of Matthew and Luke. These latter two contain some material common to each other, but not found in Mark. It is therefore suggested that Matthew and Luke had an additional (entirely hypothetical) common source for this material—usually called "Q" (for the German word "Quelle"—meaning "source"). There are things about this solution that have never set well with me (like the matter of why Matthew, an eye witness, would need to use the writings of Mark, who was not an eye witness).
My own (tentative) solution is as follows:
1. I do not necessarily buy into the priority of Mark's gospel. It does not seem to agree with the opinion of the church fathers, who said that Matthew's early draft in Aramaic came first. Also, every early list of the gospels placed Matthew first, though the other three gospels are not always arranged in the same order;
2. The verbal similarities among the Synoptics can, I believe, be explained by the fact that the stories of Jesus were told and re-told by the early witnesses so that they took on a standardized verbal form long before any of the gospels came to be written. Where the gospels are word-for-word identical in their respective pericopes, this reflects the standardized verbal form in which the stories had come to be repeated for decades after Pentecost;
3. Where the wording or details of parallel pericopes differ, these reflect the independent knowledge of each of the writers from the eye-witness testimony of themselves or of their sources. That is, they followed, to a large degree, the verbal form of the oral preaching, except when their own knowledge of certain pertinent details enabled them to add, to subtract, or to re-word.
The "Synoptic Problem" is, (by all reports) a complex issue, but I am not aware of any detail that cannot be explained by the relatively simple expedient suggested above.
WGP—
Why don't you simply post your information somewhere on the web, and post a link to it here?
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: The Synoptic Problem
perhaps he has: http://www.thechurchattroutdale.com/doc ... 10.pdf.zipsteve wrote:WGP—
Why don't you simply post your information somewhere on the web, and post a link to it here?
Re: The Synoptic Problem
Thanks for your thoughts on this.steve wrote: The modern solution most often suggested is that Mark was the first gospel written, which was then used as a source by the writers of Matthew and Luke. These latter two contain some material common to each other, but not found in Mark. It is therefore suggested that Matthew and Luke had an additional (entirely hypothetical) common source for this material—usually called "Q" (for the German word "Quelle"—meaning "source"). There are things about this solution that have never set well with me (like the matter of why Matthew, an eye witness, would need to use the writings of Mark, who was not an eye witness).
Last edited by Apollos on Mon May 03, 2010 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Synoptic Problem
Introducing The Restoration Of The Gospel OF Christ
I have solved the synoptic problem by first reconstructing the declaration mentioned in Luke 1:1 which I entitled "The Declaration of the Apostles according to william".
The 'Dec' is a perfect four column harmony of the four gospel accounts, the order of all scripture based on dramatic unities of time, distance, and movement. The chronology of the four gospel accounts could then be determined which I have accomplished.
Knowing that I had determined the exact order of all scripture in the four gospel accounts, I then restored the gospel of Christ by conflating the four columns of M-M-L-J from the Declaration into one column of text . The restored gospel is entitled "The Gospel Of Christ according to william".
Luke's Prologue introduces three distinct and separate documents: The gospel account according to Luke; The Declaration of the Apostles according to the william; and The Gospel Of Christ according to the william.
"Wiliam" is a contraction of the phrase "will of the I am" meaning that this work is according to the will of God, even my Lord Jesus Christ.
Now is the appointed time. The restoration of the gospel of Christ heralds the coming to the end of the times of the Gentiles. Grace and honor to all.
PDF files of all my writings are free downloads from the TCAT website.
http://www.thechurchattroutdale.com
All files may be printed and all pdf files may be shared. "Freely have we received and freely do we give."
WGP
4.28.10
I have solved the synoptic problem by first reconstructing the declaration mentioned in Luke 1:1 which I entitled "The Declaration of the Apostles according to william".
The 'Dec' is a perfect four column harmony of the four gospel accounts, the order of all scripture based on dramatic unities of time, distance, and movement. The chronology of the four gospel accounts could then be determined which I have accomplished.
Knowing that I had determined the exact order of all scripture in the four gospel accounts, I then restored the gospel of Christ by conflating the four columns of M-M-L-J from the Declaration into one column of text . The restored gospel is entitled "The Gospel Of Christ according to william".
Luke's Prologue introduces three distinct and separate documents: The gospel account according to Luke; The Declaration of the Apostles according to the william; and The Gospel Of Christ according to the william.
"Wiliam" is a contraction of the phrase "will of the I am" meaning that this work is according to the will of God, even my Lord Jesus Christ.
Now is the appointed time. The restoration of the gospel of Christ heralds the coming to the end of the times of the Gentiles. Grace and honor to all.
PDF files of all my writings are free downloads from the TCAT website.
http://www.thechurchattroutdale.com
All files may be printed and all pdf files may be shared. "Freely have we received and freely do we give."
WGP
4.28.10
-
SteveF
Re: The Synoptic Problem
Steve wrote:
The verbal similarities among the Synoptics can, I believe, be explained by the fact that the stories of Jesus were told and re-told by the early witnesses so that they took on a standardized verbal form long before any of the gospels came to be written. Where the gospels are word-for-word identical in their respective pericopes, this reflects the standardized verbal form in which the stories had come to be repeated for decades after Pentecost;
Steve,
I was wondering how you would respond to this argument from Robert Stein and Daniel Wallace.
“One of the most persuasive arguments for the literary interdependence of the synoptic Gospels is the presence of identical parenthetical material, for it is highly unlikely that two or three writers would by coincidence insert into their accounts exactly the same editorial comment at exactly the same place.”5 One of the most striking of these demonstrates, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the use of written documents: “When you see the desolating sacrilege . . . (let the reader understand) . . . ” (Matt 24:15/Mark 13:14). It is obvious that this editorial comment could not be due to a common oral heritage, for it does not say, “let the hearer understand.” Cf. also Matt 9:6/Mark 2:10/Luke 5:24; Matt 27:18/Mark 15:10.
If you want to see the entire article it can be found here:
http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem/
Thanks,
SteveF
The verbal similarities among the Synoptics can, I believe, be explained by the fact that the stories of Jesus were told and re-told by the early witnesses so that they took on a standardized verbal form long before any of the gospels came to be written. Where the gospels are word-for-word identical in their respective pericopes, this reflects the standardized verbal form in which the stories had come to be repeated for decades after Pentecost;
Steve,
I was wondering how you would respond to this argument from Robert Stein and Daniel Wallace.
“One of the most persuasive arguments for the literary interdependence of the synoptic Gospels is the presence of identical parenthetical material, for it is highly unlikely that two or three writers would by coincidence insert into their accounts exactly the same editorial comment at exactly the same place.”5 One of the most striking of these demonstrates, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the use of written documents: “When you see the desolating sacrilege . . . (let the reader understand) . . . ” (Matt 24:15/Mark 13:14). It is obvious that this editorial comment could not be due to a common oral heritage, for it does not say, “let the hearer understand.” Cf. also Matt 9:6/Mark 2:10/Luke 5:24; Matt 27:18/Mark 15:10.
If you want to see the entire article it can be found here:
http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem/
Thanks,
SteveF