1 / 36

The Synoptic Problem

The Synoptic Problem. Source Criticism. The Synoptic Problem. How do we account for the similarities as well as the differences between the three synoptic Gospels?. Early Solutions to the Problem. Papias (2nd c.) mentions two sources: Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter

august-lester
Download Presentation

The Synoptic Problem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Synoptic Problem Source Criticism Source Criticism

  2. The Synoptic Problem How do we account for the similarities as well as the differences between the three synoptic Gospels? Source Criticism

  3. Early Solutions to the Problem • Papias (2nd c.) mentions two sources: • Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter • Logia--a collection of sayings composed by Matthew in a Hebrew dialect • Clement of Alexandria (2nd c.) • Matthew and Luke were written first. Source Criticism

  4. Augustine (5th c.) • Each wrote with knowledge of the previous Gospel. • Successive Dependence, following canonical order: Matthew, then Mark, then Luke. Source Criticism

  5. 18th Century Solutions • Lessing (1778) proposed that an Aramaic Ur-Gospel (Gospel of the Nazarenes) was used independently by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. • Griesbach (1783) argued that there was successive dependence: Matthew, then Luke, then Mark. Mark was a conflation of Matthew and Luke. Source Criticism

  6. An Important Tool! In 1776 Griesbach published the first synopsis. A Synopsis places the three (or more) Gospels in parallel columns for ease of comparison. Source Criticism

  7. Three Factorsto Consider • Content • Order • Style Source Criticism

  8. Some Statistics on Content First, the verse count -- Source Criticism

  9. Comparisons -- in verses • 80% of Mark’s verses are reproduced in Matthew. • 65% of Mark’s verses are reproduced in Luke. • Matthew and Luke share 220-235 verses of material that is not found in Mark. Source Criticism

  10. Comparisons --in scenes and sayings Source Criticism

  11. Observations on Content -- • Mark presents most of the narrative common to the synoptics but less than half of the sayings. • The material shared by Matthew and Luke (not in Mark) consists primarily of sayings. • Almost all of Mark is found in either Matthew or Luke. Source Criticism

  12. Order (Chronology) The clearest evidence of literary dependence among the synoptic gospels --is the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke present their common material in the same basic sequence. Source Criticism

  13. Outline Common to Synoptics • John the Baptist’s appearance & message • Jesus baptized • Jesus tested • Jesus preaches in Galilee • Cures & Exorcisms • Social controversies • Interpretation of parables • 5000 fed • Peter identifies Jesus as Messiah Source Criticism

  14. Outline continued... • 1st Passion prediction • Transfiguration • Exorcism • 2nd Passion prediction • Jesus goes to Judea • Jesus summons children • Call to abandon possessions and follow Jesus • 3rd Passion prediction • Blind cured • Jesus enters Jerusalem • Temple purged • Jesus questioned by Jerusalem authorities Note: Orange indicates Passion Narrative. Source Criticism

  15. Outline continued... • Destruction of temple predicted • Judas Iscariot cooperates with temple authorities • Jesus celebrates Passover meal • Jesus arrested at Gethsemane • Trial by Sanhedrin • Peter denies Jesus • Trial by Pontius Pilate • Crucifixion • Burial by Joseph of Arimathea • Women discover empty tomb (told to report to disciples) Source Criticism

  16. Observations on Order -- • There is no agreement in the order of Matthew & Luke against Mark. • The non-Marcan sayings common to Matthew & Luke are presented at different points in their narratives Source Criticism

  17. Observations on Style -- • Mark is least polished and most oral. • Matthew has better grammar and smoother literary transitions. • Luke’s Greek is most literate Greek in the New Testament. • Luke’s transitions and rhetoric are never the same as the transitions in Matthew. Source Criticism

  18. Conclusions -- • The material that Matthew and Luke share with Mark is referred to asthe TRIPLE TRADITION. • The material that Matthew and Luke have in common that is not included in Mark is referred to as the DOUBLE TRADITION. Source Criticism

  19. Conclusions -- • Mark was probably the first Gospel written. • Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. • This “explains” the Triple Tradition. This hypothesis is referred to as MARKAN PRIORITY. Source Criticism

  20. A Graphic of Markan Priority Mark Matthew Luke Source Criticism

  21. But . . . • Matthew and Luke share material that is not found in Mark. • This material is referred to as the Double Tradition. • Hence, Matthew and Luke must have shared a source in addition to Mark. Source Criticism

  22. The Two-Source Hypothesis • In 1838 Weisse proposed that Matthew and Luke combined Mark and the logia. • In 1863, Holtzmann proposed a similar thesis. • This was the first formulation of the Two-Source Hypothesis = 2SH Source Criticism

  23. The Two-Source Hypothesis • Accepts Markan Priority • Posits a second source • Shared by Matthew and Luke • primarily sayings material • perhaps related to the logia source mentioned by Papias • eventually called Q, possibly from the German word “Quelle,” which means “source.” Source Criticism

  24. 2SH -- The Two-Source Hypothesis Q Mark Matthew Luke Source Criticism

  25. Q-- A Hypothetical Textincludes . . . • oracles of John the Baptist • a dialogue between Jesus and Satan • a sermon encouraging the oppressed • sayings about Jesus’ relationship to John • a list of instructions to missionaries • an exorcism leading to debate over Jesus’ authority • oracles against cities in Galilee and Jerusalem • prayer instructions • oracles against the scribes and Pharisees • several parables • predictions of the appearance of the son of man Source Criticism

  26. Elaboration by B. H. Streeter (1924) • Streeter accepts that Matthew and Luke are dependent upon the canonical Mark. • Mark did not know Q. • Streeter’s “Fundamental Solution” expanded the 2SH by adding a “special Matthean” and a “special Lukan” source. HENCE -- Source Criticism

  27. Four-Source Hypothesis4SH Q Mark M L Matthew Luke Source Criticism

  28. Further Developments • Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis • Elaboration of Q • Discovery of the Gospel of Thomas Source Criticism

  29. Griesbach Revisited • In 1964 Farmer revives the Griesbach Hypothesis and Matthean priority -- • Griesbach (1783) argued that there was successive dependence: Matthew, then Luke, then Mark. Mark was a conflation of Matthew and Luke. • Farmer rejects reliance on hypothetical sources such as Q. Source Criticism

  30. Elaboration of Q • John Kloppenborg (1987) identifies three layers in the (hypothetical) Q source. • Q1 = a sapiential (wisdom) layer • Q2 = a judgmental (eschatological) layer • Q3 = includes temptation narrative • NOTE: Kloppenborg’s thesis is important, but has not received widespread approval. Source Criticism

  31. The Gospel of Thomas • Discovered in 1948 • Nag Hammadi, Egypt • Coptic version published in 1957 • Greek papyrus fragments identified • Among the oldest manuscripts of early Christian literature Source Criticism

  32. Contents of theGospel of Thomas • 114 sayings of Jesus • Introduction: “These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke & Didymus Judas Thomas recorded.” • More than half of the material is paralleled in the canonical gospels • 27 sayings in Triple Tradition • 46 parallels in Double Tradition • 12 echo special Matthean material • 1 is in Luke alone Source Criticism

  33. Summary of Source Criticism • The Synoptic Problem • Early solutions • Three factors to consider: Content, Order, and Style • Conclusions • Markan Priority • 2SH • 4SH • Further Developments • Griesbach Revisited • Elaboration of Q • Gospel of Thomas Source Criticism

  34. Synoptic Problem Papias Logia Griesbach Three factors Triple Tradition Double Tradition Markan Priority Two-Source Hypothesis (2SH) Four-Source Hypothesis (4SH) Q Gospel of Thomas Words and Concepts Source Criticism

  35. Source Criticism

  36. More to Learn . . . • Source Criticism • Form Criticism • Redaction Criticism Source Criticism

More Related