Dargo

I learned about the synoptic problem at a college Sunday school class in a fundie church. My teacher was a seminary student, so he knew a little more about the Bible that most Christians. He admited that Mathew and Luke copied Mark. However, he glossed over the more embarassing points. I've never heard a sermon preached about the synoptic problem, and apologists prefer to pretend it doesn't exist.

thebeave

For some churches, I suspect its for some of the same reasons why pastors don't read to their congregation some of the more embarrassing, blatantly wrong and/or contradictory passages in the OT (e.g. in Leviticus or Deuteronomy). They know those passages are there, but they don't want their sheep to question their faith, or perhaps the pastor doesn't want to be asked a lot of questions afterwards that he can't possibly answer in a way that makes sense. And much of the congregation is eager to accept anything the pastor says, and are too lazy to read or research the Bible for themselves (Let's face it: the Bible can be pretty frickin' boring and confusing to just sit down and read).

not a theist

Luke and John parallel eachother at other points also. For example, placing the prediction of Peter's Denial at the Last Supper. I'm starting to wonder if Luke actually knew John's gospel.

If the original ending of Mark was John 21, it would have profound exegetical implications for Mark as a whole. The cross would no longer be interpretable as Ascension/Exaltation and the silence of the Women would have a much different meaning.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

not a theist

I suppose that you're right. And I guess I can sort of understand this.

What I can't understand is why they resist it so strongly when presented with some of the evidence since it's not an intrinsic threat to faith.

I've worn myself out arguing with them. For every example I give, they come up with a mini-theory that is completely ad hoc and designed only to avoid the obvious conclusion of copying. They actually end up putting tremendous effort into this and seem oblivious to the fact that they're just making shit up. They seem not to value parsimony at all. The same ones that reject the idea of "Q" since it's "just hypothetical" don't hesitate to invent an entire hypothetical version of the Old Testament just to account for one shared verse in the Synoptics!

I'm kicking myself for ever starting the discussion over there. One of them comes up with an implausible explanation for each example and the others jump in "That coulda happened. See, there didn't have to be copying." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

abe smith

*Thebeave*'s post, (one or two previous here @ this thread) puts it succinctly: sect-bosses (nearly-all selfappointed) DO NOT WANT their sheep to learn that there ARE dubitable scriptures & dogmata; and DO NOT WANT their mindless groupies to begin to think for themselves & to entertain doubts. That way lies apostasy; and who will pay the money when the boobs have left?
Sects, including the Big Fat Mother*ing RC sect, are about MONEY. Um, Intelligence/thinking and Money/Income (into sects) are probably reciprocal. Hey what an insight! I love it!

Wave Man

First I should introduce myself and my background. I am a Christian, and study theology at a university here in Sweden. I do not find that what I learn contradicts anything in my faith; if anything, it only makes me feel more comfortable knowing about the history, literature and theology of my faith.

The synoptic is a very basic thing, and most people who have read anything about interpretation of the Bible know about it. And, it is not really a problem, unless you want to claim that the writers of the gospels were divinely inspired writers who just sat down and wrote everything just like that, by what God told them. Maybe it would be better named “The Gospel Situation”

Here are some facts about this, from one of my course books.

Mark is believed to be the oldest gospel, followed by Matthew, Luke and John, in that order.
Neither of them were apostles, but a criteria to end up in the NT canon that was set over the first few centuries AD was that your gospel had eyewitness information in it, so apparently they have that. There are a number of other gospels, the gospel of the egyptians, etc. They are however, largely gnostic.

Mark is believed to be a young man of jewish background working as a translator for the apostle Peter. He is mentioned several times in Acts and the Letters. He writes not only for jews, but for everyone; for example, he explains jewish words and customs, and uses latin expressions in a few places. No one knows who Matthew was, but most find it beyond doubt that it isn’t Matthew the apostle. Whoever he is, he seems to write mainly to convince jews that Christ is the Messiah. This is believed since he doesn’t explain any jewish expressions or customs, and the fact that he bases so much of his argumentation on scripture. Why base something on the scripture of a certain people if you’re writing to convince a people who doesn’t believe in that particular scripture? Luke was greek, a second generation Christian, and a physician, and is also mentioned in acts and the letters. He is more global and doesn’t write for any specific people, the Good News are for everyone. John is slightly apart from the others, he is not one of the synoptics and while there are many things that he has in common with them, he also has several miracles and content that doesn’t appear in any of the other gospels. Many believe this is the apostle John, many believe it is not, and no one knows for sure.

The two source theory is that Matthew and Luke base their gospels partly Mark, but apart from the Markian material they also have other things in common that do not appear in Mark; therefore they must have had a common source apart from Mark, a source we do not have access to. This source is called Q, after Quelle meaning “source” in German. And apart from these two sources, Matthew and Luke also have material unique to themselves. For example, the story of the prodigal son and the merciful samaritan only appears on the gospel of Luke.

This is stuff that is accepted quite widely among most serious theologians I believe, be they Christians or non-Christians. And really, I cannot see how any of this contradicts Christianity. The gospels were put in writing on paper by physical, human men using what sources were available to them.

Thank you.
Ronin

CX

Well now let's be honest. Don't you think that a faith which is predicated on the truth of a specific religious text is going to be threatened if it turns out that said text is not what it purports to be? If there was copying (which I agree there most certainly was) and if the some variation of 2SH is the correct solutions (which I think it is) then suddenly we have Matthew and alleged apostle cribbing from Mark who was not even there. If you fully accept the synoptic problem and some documentary hypothesis as a solution does that not make the entire gospel narrative suspect? Of course. We who are not philsophically tied to the literal truth of the bible have no problem with this but surely you can understand why someone for whom the literal truth of the NT is important (and how can it not be if you profess to be Xian with all that that entails) would be uncomfortable with the idea.

The biggest mistake made by dilletantes (among which I include myself) with regard to "Q" is stating that it is hypothetical. It is not. "Q" is simply a convenient shorthand for "the material that GMt and GLk have in common which is not in GMk". As such "Q" is, by definition, not hypothetical. GLk and GMt have numerous verbatim agreements that are not in GMk. They had to come from somewhere. It is inconceivable, barring supernatural intervention the admission of which puts and end to critical study and rational discussion, that two authors would come up with identical editorial material and verbatim agreements to the extent the AMt and ALk do without some written source material in common. What is hypothetical, and often scholars themselves fall into this trap, is whether or not "Q" was a single written document. It is simply the most parsimonious and convenient to assume that it was since it adds nothing to the discussion to speculate that "Q" was actually a proto-mark or that it was several written sources or that it was perfectly maintained oral history or that it was Matthean material used by ALk (at which point it is usually not referred to as "Q") or some combination. Nonetheless, the nature of "Q" is an entirely different issue from its existence as an actual phenomenon in the gospel texts. GMt and GLk do have material in common that is not found in GMk and which cannot be attributed to two authors describing the same event.

CX

Greetings and welcome to II.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people we come across in the U.S. who actively profess their faith are also those who hold to the literal truth of the bible upon which their faith is predicated. The majority of these are completely ignorant of text critical issues including the synoptic problem and are highly resistant to such discussions. They invariably refer to such scholarship as "atheistic" or "liberal Christian" and not "True Christian". Your own position would be deemed heretical. I cannot say that I quite understand the rationality of someone who accepts that Christ is lord and savior yet willingly acknowledges that the gospel stories are theological myth rather than historico-biographical in nature and content, but at least I can have a reasonable discussion with sucha person whereas I cannot with those I've described above.

In any case, welcome again to II and in particular to BC&A. I look forward to your contributions.

CX - BC&A Moderator

not a theist

This is exactly what many Christians believe in my country. They, for whatever bizarre reason, tend to favor a theory of mechanical inspiration.
I try to explain that to Christians all the time. Maybe you should come over <a href="http://cafe.planetwisdom.com/tc/ikonboard.cgi?s=3de4f28a056bffff;act=ST;f=4;t=3919 " target="_blank">here</a> and try to explain it to them. They just told me that it doesn't matter what Biblical scholars think about it.

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

CX

Two words, "Give up." Your debate over there is completely pointless. 'There wasn't copying there was editing.' Jumping Jesus on Pogo Stick it's enough to drive someone completely insane. Incidentally, do you realize that "Godsword" is our own "Douglas J. Bender"? I wonder if that handle means "God's Word" or "God Sword"?