Explain what is meant by “Synoptic Problem”. What sort of answers have been proposed to you? What sort of answers would you give, using examples from the texts of the gospels?
According to Raymond E. Brown, the Synoptic Problem refers to further stage of development in the gospel to explain the interrelationship of the first three Gospels, called “Synoptic” because they can be reviewed side by side (syn-optically). The issue is that these Gospels have much in common that there must have been some dependence of one or two on the other or on a common written source.
Statistics and terminologies: Mk=661vv; Matt=1068 and Lk=1149. Eighty percent of Mk is reproduced in Matt and 65 percent in Lk. The Marcan material found both in the other two is called the “Triple Tradition”. The approximate 220-235vv (in whole or in part) of non Marcan material that Matt and Lk have in common is called the “Double Tradition”. In both, Triple or Double traditions, the way the material is presented and the wording in which it is phrased are the same that dependence was based more of a written rather than simply at an oral. Some proposals to explain this statistics:
I. Solutions that posit one or more Protogospels: This explains the relationships of the Synoptics by positing a gospel that existed before they were written. In the 18th c G. E. Lessing suggested that all the three Synoptic Gospels drew on a no-longer-existant Aramaic Gospel, a theory developed by J. Eichhorn, who thought of this source as a full life of Christ among the Apocryphal gospels. Here we have the gospel of St Thomas in relation to the Q hypothesis. Some talk of the Secret Mark known to Clement of Alexandria and thought by many to have been composed in the early 2nd c before the canonical Mark. (This is not much accepted). In addition to the Secret Mark, J.D. Crossan posits the priority of a shorter form of the Gospel of Peter from which the four Gospels drew their passion account. Again the majority says that the GPet is dependent on the canonical gospels.
In a more traditional research for a protogospel, some would invoke Papias(=Matthew arranged in order of the sayings in the Hebrew) and contend that he was speaking not about the Matthew we know but about an earlier collection (at times designated M) on which Mark drew and also canonical Matt (whether directly or through Mark). Other scholars find a more complex multidocument theory. The source was not simply Aramaic M but a Greek translation of M, plus an Aramaic collection of sayings translated into Greek. Oral sources along the written are also posited.
In a three volume French synopsis produced in 1970 Boismard and Lamouille detect four source documents for the Synoptics not directly but by pregospel level:
Ø Document A: of Palestinian and Jewish Christian origin (50AD).
Ø Document B: a reinterpretation of A for Gentiles christens before 58AD.
Ø Document C: an independent Palestinian tradition in Aramaic. Very archaic; it is perhaps the memoirs of Peter used also in John.
Ø Document Q: containing material common to Matt and Luke.
II. Solutions in Which Mk was the first gospel, and Luke used Matt:
This hypothesis dating back to Augustine in the 4th c. is the oldest explanation; it was generally accepted by Roman Catholics up to the mid-20th c. and still has respectable advocates. In this Augustinian approach the canonical order is also the order of dependence: Matt was written first, Mark severely abbreviated Matt, and then came Luke and John, with each drawing on the predecessors. In this Augustinian hypothesis, what was Mark’s logic in omitting so much of Matt’ account? The Griesbach hypothesis in which Matt was first the Luke and Mark attempts to meet that difficulty by placing Mark last and evaluating it mostly as a digest that reports material where Matt and Luke agree. Yet Mark omits the whole Double Tradition where they do agree.
The main support for the thesis that Luke used Matt lies in passages in the Triple Tradition where Luke and Matt agree, over against Mark. i.e. the “the minor agreements”. For instance, in the Jewish mockery of Jesus both Matt and Luke have Jesus being asked an identically worded question absent from Mark: “who s it that struck you?” – a question that makes sense of the challenge to prophesy (Matt26:68; Lk22:64Mark14:65). If Matt and Luke wrote independently from each other could this agreement come about by pure coincidence? Is it not more plausible that Luke copied the question from Matt?
Yet there are major arguments against Lucan dependence on Matt (see Fizmyer, Lk1:73-75). Where Luke and Matt have almost contradictory accounts, why did Luke not make some effort to reconcile the difficulty? For example, Luke’s infancy narrative is not only massively different from Matt’s, but also in detail it is virtually irreconcilable with it, e.g. about Joseph and Mary’s home (in Bethlehem in Matt2:11; in Nazareth in Luke2:4-7, with no home in Bethlehem) and abouth their travel after the birth of Jesus (to Egypt in Matt2:14; to Jerusalem and Nazareth in Luke2:22, 39). Or again, Luke’s account of the death of Judas in Acts 1:18-19 is scarcely reconcilable with Matt27:3-10. As for, Luke used Matt, why does Luke placing of the Q material differ so greatly from Matt’s (except for the words of JBap and the temptation story. That argument becomes stronger f Luke used Mark as well (Augustinian thesis), for Luke follows Mark’s order closely.
III. Solutions based on Mark’s priority: Mark was written first and both Matt and Luke drew on it. There is a form of this approach that goes on to Luke that Luke drew on Matt as well, but it faces the difficulties recounted in the last paragraph. The most common thesis, therefore, posits that Matt and Luke depended on Mark and wrote independently of each other. What they have in common and did not derive from Mark (the Double Tradition) s explained by positing Q (a source reconstructed entirely from Matt and Luke). Thus, this is known as the Two Source Theory. We may compare is to the Griesbech hypothesis:
The Griesbach hypothesis the Two-Source-Hypothesis
Matt Luke
Mark
The basic argument for Marcan priority is that it solves more problems than any other theory. It offers the best explanation for why Matt and Luke so often agree with Mark in order and wording, and allows reasonable surmises for why Matt and Luke differ from Mark when they do so independently. For instance, neither evangelist liked Mark’s redundancies, awkward Greek expressions, uncomplimentary presentation of the disciples, and Mary, and embracing statement about Jesus. When using Mark, both expanded Marcan accounts in the light of postresurrectional faith. The basic argument against Marcan priority rests on the Minor Agreement in reference to the Griesbach hypothesis. Good explanations can be offered for many of them, but some remain difficult.
A realistic conclusion is that no solution to the Synoptic Problem solves all difficulties. If one cannot resolve all the enigmas, it is realistic to accept and work with a relatively simple solution to the Synoptic Problem that is largely satisfactory. That is the sprit in which the theory of Marcan priority (as part of the Two-source-Theory) is recommended to Gospel readers. Even though it remains a hypothesis, one should be aware that important consequences flow from accepting it. These are some points to be kept in mind when working with Marcan priority:
1. Even when Mark was written, the remembrance of oral tradition about Jesus did not cease. Papias is a witness to continued interest in oral tradition in the 2nd c. but scholars differ on how much oral tradition was memorized (on a rabbinic model) as distinct from repeated word-mouth-transmission. Many think that some problems not solved by the Two-Source-Theory can be met bringing in the picture and influence of orally transmitted remembrances.
2. If both Matt and Luke used Mark, their theology can at times be studies by the changes they have made in Mark’s report.
3. If one has decided that Matt or Luke has added material to what was taken from Mark, that addition, sometimes, coming from the special material peculiar to either of those evangelists, need not be dating later than the Marcan material. The sensitive example is Matt16:17-19 added between material borrowed from Mark8:29 and 8:30 this material may well be early.
c) What answer would I give?
Am not a biblical scholar and I would only go by what scholars have found out. What appeals to me is the multiple-documentary theory that takes into account a continuing oral tradition and its influence until the final crystallization of our present canonical gospel.
The authors of the gospels were not simply editors or compilers who passed on what they had heard without comment. They took an active role in trying to bring the gospel tradition alive within a certain context and for a certain purpose and likely for a certain audience e.g., on Beatitudes Mt says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Mt 5:13) while Lk says, “Blessed are you who are poor” (Lk 6:20). It is obvious that Lk used the tradition to focus on physical needs, while Mt used it to focus on spiritual needs. They applied and reapplied the tradition I the life of the community of faith without changing the basic truth and this is what we are called to do
Book
Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament.
No comments:
Post a Comment