source criticism 1 the synoptic problem source criticism

36
Source Criticism 1 The Synoptic Problem Source Criticism

Upload: brice-ray

Post on 17-Dec-2015

257 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Source Criticism1

The Synoptic Problem

Source Criticism

Source Criticism2

The Synoptic Problem

How do we account for the

similarities

as well as the

differences

between the three synoptic Gospels?

Source Criticism3

Early Solutions to the Problem

Papias (2nd c.) mentions two sources:

Mark, who was the interpreter of PeterLogia--a collection of sayings composed

by Matthew in a Hebrew dialect

Clement of Alexandria (2nd c.)Matthew and Luke were written first.

Source Criticism4

Augustine (5th c.)

Each wrote with knowledge of the

previous Gospel.

Successive Dependence, following

canonical order: Matthew, then Mark,

then Luke.

Source Criticism5

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 Criticism6

An Important Tool!In 1776 Griesbach published the first synopsis.

A Synopsis places the three (or more) Gospelsin parallel columns for ease of comparison.

Source Criticism7

Three Factorsto Consider

ContentOrderStyle

Source Criticism8

Some Statistics on Content

Matthew Mark Luke

verses 1068 661 1098

scenes 117 98 120

sayings 225 80 182

First, the verse count --

Source Criticism9

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.

Comparisons -- in verses

Source Criticism10

Comparisons -- in scenes and sayings

Unique to Matt to Mark to Luketo Mt+ Lk

verses 396 89 530 218

scenes 35 10 48 5

sayings 38 1 39 77

Source Criticism11

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 Criticism12

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 Criticism13

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 Criticism14

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 indicatesPassion Narrative.

Source Criticism15

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 Criticism16

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 Criticism17

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 Criticism18

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 Criticism19

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 Criticism20

A Graphic of Markan Priority

Mark

Matthew Luke

Source Criticism21

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 Criticism22

The Two-Source HypothesisThe 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 Criticism23

The Two-Source HypothesisAccepts Markan PriorityPosits a second source

Shared by Matthew and Lukeprimarily sayings materialperhaps related to the logia source

mentioned by Papiaseventually called Q, possibly from the

German word “Quelle,” which means “source.”

Source Criticism24

2SH -- The Two-Source Hypothesis

Mark Q

Matthew Luke

Source Criticism25

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 Criticism26

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 Criticism27

Four-Source Hypothesis

4SH

Mark Q

Matthew Luke

M L

Source Criticism28

Further Developments

Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis

Elaboration of Q

Discovery of the Gospel of

Thomas

Source Criticism29

Griesbach RevisitedIn 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 Criticism30

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 Criticism31

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 Criticism32

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 gospels27 sayings in Triple Tradition46 parallels in Double Tradition12 echo special Matthean material1 is in Luke alone

Source Criticism33

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 Criticism34

Words and Concepts

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

Source Criticism35

Source Criticism36

More to Learn . . .

Source Criticism

Form Criticism

Redaction Criticism