The Synoptic Problem: Source Criticism

The Synoptic Problem Source Criticism

Source Criticism

1

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

Source Criticism

2

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

3

Augustine (5th c.) Each wrote with knowledge of the previous Gospel. Successive Dependence, following

canonical order: Matthew, then Mark, then Luke.

Source Criticism

4

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

5

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

6

Three Factors to Consider Content Order Style

Source Criticism

7

Some Statistics on Content First, the verse count -Matthew Mark Luke verses

1068

661

1098

scenes

117

98

120

sayings 225

80

182

Source Criticism

8

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

9

Comparisons -- in scenes and sayings to Mt Unique to Matt to Mark to Luke + Lk verses 396 89 530 218 scenes

35

sayings 38

Source Criticism

10

48

5

1

39

77

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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 Note: Orange indicates Passion Narrative. Temple purged Jesus questioned by Jerusalem authorities

Source Criticism

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Conclusions -The material that Matthew and Luke share with Mark is referred to as the 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

18

Conclusions - Mark was probably the first Gospel written.  Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. This hypothesis is referred to as

MARKAN PRIORITY.  This “explains” the Triple Tradition. Source Criticism

19

A Graphic of Markan Priority Mark

Matthew

Source Criticism

Luke

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

2SH -- The Two-Source Hypothesis Mark

Matthew

Source Criticism

Q

Luke

24

Q -- A Hypothetical Text includes . . .           

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

25

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

26

Four-Source Hypothesis

4SH Mark

Q

M

L Matthew

Source Criticism

Luke

27

Further Developments  Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis

 Elaboration of Q  Discovery of the Gospel of

Thomas

Source Criticism

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

Contents of the Gospel 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

32

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

33

Words and Concepts  Synoptic Problem

 Markan Priority

 Papias

 Two-Source Hypothesis (2SH)

 Logia  Griesbach  Three factors

 Triple Tradition

 Four-Source Hypothesis (4SH) Q  Gospel of Thomas

 Double Tradition Source Criticism

34

Source Criticism

35

More to Learn . . . Source Criticism Form Criticism Redaction Criticism Source Criticism

36