not a theist

This is something that puzzles me.

For any here who don't know, the <a href="http://www.ntgateway.com/synoptic/" target="_blank">Synoptic Problem</a> is the issue of the interdependence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In brief, these three gospels have extreme similarities in grammar, content, and structure that makes it virtually certain that some of them used the others as direct sources (i.e. copied) or that they mutually used other written documents. This is a relatively uncontroversial position among modern Biblical scholars from virtually all backgrounds religious or irreligious. Ultra-conservatives like <a href="http://www.netbible.org/docs/soapbox/synoptic.htm" target="_blank">Daniel Wallace</a> from Dallas Theological Seminary understand this as does a conservative institution like <a href="http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/synoptic.htm" target="_blank">Atlantic Baptist University</a>. Nearly every book on the historical Jesus and every reputable commentary on the Gospels from whatever orientation accept this as a fact. There really is no liberal/conservative split in the scholarly community about this.

There are disagreements about the order and extent of copying and various solutions have been proposed with versions of the Two-Source Hypothesis being most widely accepted. And really, I don't expect them to know the ins and outs of the proposed solutions; but I do think that they should at least know of the existence of the Synoptic Problem.

So why do I find on the various boards that I post on that almost no Christians are aware of the Synoptic Problem????

<a href="http://cafe.planetwisdom.com/tc/ikonboard.cgi?s=3dd7e1aa2a2effff;act=ST;f=4;t=3919 " target="_blank">Here's</a> an example of what I mean. I've posted this list to various boards that I frequent and almost always receive a similar response. This is completely new to them; they treat it as an off-the-wall idea.

Don't their pastors tell them about this?

Their Sunday School teachers?

Their pastors, if they went to seminary, must know about this.

Are they deliberately keeping this from their congregations?

Why???

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

Zadok001

Ok, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I'm confused. Whence cometh "problem?" I see that there was copying involved, I already knew that (though definately not at this level of detail). But why is that a 'problem,' per se?

leonarde

Here's my (theist) take on it:

1)The passages read at religious services tend to
be from one Gospel on a given Sunday and fairly
short at that. Therefore there's no ready basis for comparison for believers who merely HEAR the Gospels read.

2)The scholarly field of Biblical criticism is,
relative to the almost 2000 years of Christianity,
newish and fairly involved.

3)Because of 2) going into such Biblical criticism
isn't an integral part of church services (the preachers would have to jettison some other subject for such a homily).

4)Also because of 2) there are some (the illiterate for sure but probably others of limited
educational background/intellectual horizons) who
would only be confused by such (hypothesized)disquisitions on the "Synoptic Problem" and other controversies within the field
of Biblical criticism.

5)There's a tendency (encouraged by the above points but free-standing as well) to emphasize
what the Evangelists agree on (ie the core of the
Faith) and excursions for 15 or 20 minutes on a Sunday on discrepancies might cause more confusion
than anything.

6)[added via edit]Even those who read the Gospels
on their own tend to do so one at a time (ie not
in parallel)so the discrepancies/similarities/dis-
similarities are not so obvious.

Cheers!

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

not a theist

It's not a problem in the sense that I think you're asking. The "problem" element is how to account for the similarities. The solution is the theory of dependence (copying). For whatever reason, the whole issue has acquired the name "The Synoptic Problem".

not a theist

You may well be right. I hope that the motives are as innocent as you suggest.

At the same time, I think that by not discussing it, churches do a grave disservice to their members' understanding of the Gospels.
If not in the Worship Service, at least in Sunday School, I would think they would want to educate their members.
I can even think of some homilies that I've heard where such discussion would be appropriate.

Celsus

The reason Christians aren't taught about the Synoptic problem is simply that it will open a whole can of worms that only seminary-trained people should tackle. Anyway, the Strobel/McDowell school of apologetics need their multiple-witness theory too much. Best leave obvious problems to the pastors.

Family Man

I have no doubt that Leonarde's take is correct. The function of church is to promote belief, not to look critically at a rather difficult text. Nevertheless, as someone who values an educated point of view, it is still apalling that Christians who wish to claim that the Bible is an accurate portrayal of events that happened more than 2000 years are unaware of the basics of Biblical Criticism. How many times have we heard Radoth ridicule the notion of "blatant copying" when in fact it one of the basics of modern scholarly thinking about the Gospels?

NOGO

In the analysis of the synoptic gospels is the possibility ever considered that one or more gospels were modified after they were copied (or used) by the other writers?

One arguement for Markan priority is the fact that it is the smallest gospel. Why would Mark use Luke or Matthew or both and remove so much material?

On the other hand there are some cases which do point to Matthew or Luke priority.

So could it be that GMark was modified after Luke and Matthew wrote theirs?

Kosh

Don't forget that Mathew (and Luke) improve on and "correct" the grammar in Mark...why would a copier go in the opposite direction?

Amos

Matthew is the Jewish perspective, Mark is pagan, Luke is omniscient and John is Catholic. Nobody borrowed, nobody copied, and nobody stole anything from anybody. Those were upright goat herders and they would never do such things.

Based on the above all inconsistencies can be explained and the entire gospels can be explicated to become crystal clear to anyone.

Would this be wise or is it best to let the scholarly community wander in the dark? Having said this, is it wise to lead the faith community further into the dark?