Class VI: Class VI: NT Source Criticism: NT Source Criticism: The Synoptic ProblemThe Synoptic Problem

ApologeticsApologetics

December, 2009December, 2009

Glenn GilesGlenn Giles

Source CriticismSource Criticism

A. Definition:A. Definition:1. 1. Source Criticism, with respect to literary Source Criticism, with respect to literary

documents, is the science of documents, is the science of investigating investigating the source or origin the source or origin (whether oral, written, (whether oral, written, or communication or communication in some other manner) in some other manner) of the material of the material found in a written found in a written document. document. 2. With respect to the Old Testament it 2. With respect to the Old Testament it focuses focuses on the sources of the Pentateuch on the sources of the Pentateuch

(Documentary hypothesis) and Kings (Documentary hypothesis) and Kings and and Chronicles.Chronicles.

Source Criticism of the NTSource Criticism of the NT

3. With respect to the New Testament, Source Criticism is the 3. With respect to the New Testament, Source Criticism is the investigation of the sources behind the investigation of the sources behind the first three first three GospelsGospels. . --The issues surrounding this investigation are called --The issues surrounding this investigation are called

“ “The Synoptic ProblemThe Synoptic Problem.” .”

--Simiarities:--Simiarities: The term “synoptic” refers to the first three The term “synoptic” refers to the first three gospels, gospels,

Matthew, Mark, and Luke and means “see the same.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke and means “see the same.” ----Dissonance with John:Dissonance with John: John’s gospel is quite different from John’s gospel is quite different from

the synoptics (note for instance the dissonance in the synoptics (note for instance the dissonance in placement of the cleansing of the Temple in Matthew placement of the cleansing of the Temple in Matthew (21:12-16), Mark (11:15-18), and Luke (19:45-46) at the (21:12-16), Mark (11:15-18), and Luke (19:45-46) at the end of Jesus’ ministry and John’s account of it seemingly at end of Jesus’ ministry and John’s account of it seemingly at the beginning of his ministry (Jn. 2:13-16)).the beginning of his ministry (Jn. 2:13-16)).

The Synoptic ProblemThe Synoptic Problem

1.1. ““The ‘Synoptic Problem’ is the name that The ‘Synoptic Problem’ is the name that has been given to the problem of why has been given to the problem of why the Gospels of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Matthew, Mark and Luke look so much alike.Luke look so much alike. Why are they Why are they so similar in content, in wording, and in so similar in content, in wording, and in the order of events?” the order of events?”

2.2. The first three gospels have The first three gospels have many many words in commonwords in common with each other, with each other, sometimes words in common with both sometimes words in common with both the other two and other times words in the other two and other times words in common with only one of the other two common with only one of the other two

3.3. (R. H. Stein s.v. “Synoptic Problem” in (R. H. Stein s.v. “Synoptic Problem” in Dictionary of Jesus and the GospelsDictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshal, eds. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992))., Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshal, eds. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992)).

The Synoptic SimilaritiesThe Synoptic Similarities

a. Similar words:a. Similar words: e.g., Mt 19:13-15, Mk. 10:13-16, e.g., Mt 19:13-15, Mk. 10:13-16, Lk. 18:15-17 “Let the little children come to me, Lk. 18:15-17 “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of (God, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of (God, Heaven in Matthew) belongs to such as these”Heaven in Matthew) belongs to such as these”

b. Similar order:b. Similar order: Mt. 26:47-28:10; Mark 14:44- Mt. 26:47-28:10; Mark 14:44-16:8; Lk. 16:8; Lk. 22:47-24:12, Jesus’ Passion: Arrest, Peter disowns 22:47-24:12, Jesus’ Passion: Arrest, Peter disowns Jesus, Jesus before Pilate, Crucifixion, Tomb, Jesus, Jesus before Pilate, Crucifixion, Tomb, Resurrection (my observation).Resurrection (my observation).

c. Similar “parenthetical” materialc. Similar “parenthetical” material: note the : note the terms “he then said to the paralytic” in Mt. 9:6, terms “he then said to the paralytic” in Mt. 9:6, Mark 2:10, and Lk. 5:24 Mark 2:10, and Lk. 5:24

Synoptic SimilaritiesSynoptic Similarities

d. Similar biblical quotations:d. Similar biblical quotations: Some of the Some of the OT quotations are identical between the OT quotations are identical between the synoptics yet are different from both the synoptics yet are different from both the OT Greek and the OT Hebrew: Compare OT Greek and the OT Hebrew: Compare Mk. 1:2 with Mt. 3:3 and Lk. 3:4; and Mk. Mk. 1:2 with Mt. 3:3 and Lk. 3:4; and Mk. 7:7 with Mt. 15:9.7:7 with Mt. 15:9.

e.e. “Matthew has “Matthew has 51%51% of Mark’s actual words. of Mark’s actual words. Luke has . . . Luke has . . . 53%53% of Marks actual words . of Marks actual words . . . of Mark’s 661 verses . . of Mark’s 661 verses only 31only 31 do not do not appear somewhere in Matthew or Luke” appear somewhere in Matthew or Luke” (William Barclay, (William Barclay, Introduction to the First Three Gospels,Introduction to the First Three Gospels, Revised ed., (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), 86). Revised ed., (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), 86).

Synoptic DissonanceSynoptic Dissonance

3. Apologetic issue: The dissonance.3. Apologetic issue: The dissonance. Indeed Indeed there is much in common between the gospel there is much in common between the gospel accounts but why the differences and accounts but why the differences and divergences? How can they be explained? divergences? How can they be explained? --E.g., how can it be explained that Mt 10:10 --E.g., how can it be explained that Mt 10:10 and Lk. 9:3 say not to take a long a “staff” and Lk. 9:3 say not to take a long a “staff” while Mk. 6:8 says to indeed take along a while Mk. 6:8 says to indeed take along a staff? staff?

--One of the huge questions is “What actually --One of the huge questions is “What actually happened historically?”happened historically?”--This is one of the reasons why we have --This is one of the reasons why we have a class on Apologetics: We too are a class on Apologetics: We too are searching for answers.searching for answers.

Historical Explanation of Historical Explanation of DissonanceDissonance

1.1. First 1800 years: First 1800 years: Focus=HarmonizationFocus=Harmonization but this has not always been satisfying. but this has not always been satisfying.

2.2. Last 200 years: It is not felt necessary Last 200 years: It is not felt necessary among among liberal liberal scholars because the scholars because the Gospels were not inspired, not Gospels were not inspired, not grounded in history, and were largely grounded in history, and were largely mythicalmythical

Discussion:Discussion: Is there a middle ground or Is there a middle ground or another way to view it?another way to view it?

Two Major Theories of Two Major Theories of Literary Dependence Literary Dependence

1. The Griesbach Hypothesis:1. The Griesbach Hypothesis:--Matthew was written first in Greek. --Matthew was written first in Greek. --Luke then used Matthew to write his --Luke then used Matthew to write his gospel. ---Finally Mark used Matthew and gospel. ---Finally Mark used Matthew and Luke to write Luke to write his gospel. his gospel. --This is also called the “two gospel --This is also called the “two gospel hypothesis” hypothesis” following the Hegelian following the Hegelian concept of Matthew concept of Matthew as Thesis, Luke as as Thesis, Luke as Antithesis, and Mark as Antithesis, and Mark as Synthesis. This Synthesis. This hypothesis of Matthean hypothesis of Matthean priority was first priority was first suggested by H. Own in suggested by H. Own in 1764, 1764, advocated by J. J. Griesbach in 1789 advocated by J. J. Griesbach in 1789 (Stein, “Synoptic Problem”). Also see class notes for strengthens and weaknesses of these views.(Stein, “Synoptic Problem”). Also see class notes for strengthens and weaknesses of these views.

Problems With GriesbachProblems With Griesbach

1. Disagrees with church tradition as it 1. Disagrees with church tradition as it says says

Matthew was written in Aramaic not Matthew was written in Aramaic not Greek. Also Papius says that Mark Greek. Also Papius says that Mark wrote his gospel using Peter as his wrote his gospel using Peter as his source and it was independent of source and it was independent of Matthew.Matthew.

2. This theory attempts to see Mark as a 2. This theory attempts to see Mark as a “conflation” of Matthew and Luke yet it “conflation” of Matthew and Luke yet it is the shortest gospel.is the shortest gospel.

Two Source HypothesisTwo Source Hypothesis

2. The Two-Source/Two-Document2. The Two-Source/Two-Document HypothesisHypothesisThis hypothesis argues that: This hypothesis argues that: -- Mark was written first and -- Mark was written first and -- Matthew and Luke used Mark and -- Matthew and Luke used Mark and another another source “Q” to write their gospels. source “Q” to write their gospels. -- “Q” (German Quelle, meaning “source”) -- “Q” (German Quelle, meaning “source”) is a is a hypothetical lost source consisting hypothetical lost source consisting mainly of mainly of Jesus’ sayings. Its content is Jesus’ sayings. Its content is determined by determined by finding the finding the passages passages with words common to with words common to Luke and Matthew Luke and Matthew and not found in Mark and not found in Mark

(See Athanasius Polag, (See Athanasius Polag, Fragmentta Q: Textheft zur LogienquelleFragmentta Q: Textheft zur Logienquelle (Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982)). (Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982)).

Hypothetical “Q”Hypothetical “Q”

““Q” example: ESV Mt. 9:37-38 and Lk. 10:2 (Not Q” example: ESV Mt. 9:37-38 and Lk. 10:2 (Not found in Mark) found in Mark) Italics=the differenceItalics=the difference

Mt. 9:37-38Mt. 9:37-38ThenThen he said to he said to his discipleshis disciples, “The harvest , “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”harvest.”

Lk. 10:2Lk. 10:2AndAnd he said tohe said to themthem,, “The harvest is “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”send out laborers into his harvest.”

Two Source Hypothesis ExpandedTwo Source Hypothesis Expanded

3.3. Expanded by B. H. Streeter in 1924 Expanded by B. H. Streeter in 1924 to to “The Four Document “The Four Document Hypothesis”Hypothesis” which included which included

--“Q” (material common to Matthew --“Q” (material common to Matthew and and Luke and not found in Mark), Luke and not found in Mark),

--Mark, --Mark,

--L (material unique to Luke) and --L (material unique to Luke) and

--M (material unique to Matthew).--M (material unique to Matthew).

ReferenceReference

The preceding slide is from:The preceding slide is from:

Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; and The Jesus Seminar, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five The Five Gospels: The Search for the Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: New York: Macmillan, 1993Macmillan, 1993

Problems With Two SourceProblems With Two Source

(a) Not supported by church father (a) Not supported by church father traditiontradition

(b) No “Q” source has ever been (b) No “Q” source has ever been discovered.discovered.

(c) No “M” or “L” sources ever (c) No “M” or “L” sources ever discovered discovered

Greisbach or Two SourceGreisbach or Two Source

See Handout for the strengths and See Handout for the strengths and weaknesses of the Two Source and weaknesses of the Two Source and Griesbach hypothesesGriesbach hypotheses

Apologetic NoteApologetic Note

1.1. ““The two-source hypothesis The two-source hypothesis provides the best overall provides the best overall explanation for the relationships explanation for the relationships among the Synoptic Gospels” among the Synoptic Gospels” (D. A. Carson and (D. A. Carson and

Douglas J. Moo, Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New TestamentAn Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 103). (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 103).

2.2. Discussion: Discussion: If the Four Document Hypothesis is If the Four Document Hypothesis is true would that affect your view of true would that affect your view of Biblical Inspiration? If so how? If not Biblical Inspiration? If so how? If not why or why not?why or why not?

Apologetic ConclusionApologetic Conclusion

3. That the gospel writers used “sources” to write 3. That the gospel writers used “sources” to write their gospels should their gospels should notnot be a cause of concern be a cause of concern for Christians. for Christians. --It should --It should notnot be concluded that the gospels be concluded that the gospels cannot be trusted or were not Spirit-inspired . . . cannot be trusted or were not Spirit-inspired . . . Source criticism cannot demonstrate that the Source criticism cannot demonstrate that the first accounts of the various portions of Jesus’ first accounts of the various portions of Jesus’ life were entirely trustworthy, but it can suggest life were entirely trustworthy, but it can suggest that those accounts arose in a time and place in that those accounts arose in a time and place in which many who had personally known Jesus which many who had personally known Jesus still lived. The possibility of preserving reliable still lived. The possibility of preserving reliable information was certainly present” information was certainly present” (Craig Blomberg, (Craig Blomberg, The Historical The Historical

Reliability of the GospelsReliability of the Gospels (Downer’s Grove: IVP Academic, 1987), 18). (Downer’s Grove: IVP Academic, 1987), 18).