Synoptic Gospels
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes the exact same wording. This degree of parallelism in content, narrative arrangement, language, and sentence structures can only be accounted for by literary interdependence. Scholars believe that these gospels share the same point of view and are clearly linked together. [1] The term synoptic comes from the Greek 'syn,' meaning "together," and 'optic,' meaning "seen". [2]
A possible fourth Synoptic Gospel is the Gospel of the Hebrews. It too has a degree of parallelism that can only be accounted for by literary interdependence. Some scholars believe that this Hebrew Gospel was composed by Matthew himself and was the basis of the Synoptic Gospels. [3] Others argue the Gospel of the Hebrews was derived from one or more of the Synoptic Gospels. [4]
The other Apocryphal gospels, as well as the canonical Gospel of John, differ greatly from the three Synoptic Gospels.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Composition
There is continuing debate among Biblical scholars regarding the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. Traditionally, the Gospel of Matthew was seen as the first Gospel written. The Gospel of Mark was directly dependent on Matthew, with Gospel of Luke then dependent on Matthew and Mark. [5] This is commonly referred to as Augustinian hypothesis.
Unlike some competing hypotheses, this hypothesis does not rely on, nor does it argue for, the existence of any document that is not explicitly mentioned in historical testimony. Adherents to the Augustinian Hypothesis view it as a simple, coherent approach to understanding to the Synoptic Gospels. However, textual criticism has shown serious flaws with this traditional approach and it has been largely abandoned by the Academic Community.
[edit] The Griesbach Hypothesis
The Griesbach Hypothesis states that the Gospel of Matthew was written first. The Gospel of Luke was written using Matthew as a source. Then the Gospel of Mark was written using both Matthew and Luke.
It was, therefore, one of direct literary dependence on and among the gospels of Matthew, Luke and Mark which came to be called a utilization hypothesis. According to Griesbach, the historical order of the gospels was, first, Matthew; second Luke , making use of Matthew and other non-Matthean tradition; and third, Mark, making use of both Matthew and Luke. In proposing this hypothesis, Griesbach maintained Matthean priority, as had Augustine. [6]
[edit] The Two-Source Hypothesis
The most popular view in modern scholarship is the two-source hypothesis, which speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, called Q (for the German Quelle, meaning "source").
For most scholars, the Q collection accounts for what Matthew and Luke share — sometimes in exactly the same words — but are not found in Mark. Examples of such material are the Devil's three temptations of Jesus, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer and many individual sayings[7] [8]
[edit] Four Source Hypothesis
There were difficulties with the Two Source Hypothesis, the most serious of which was that it could not account for all the material in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter refined the Two-source hypothesis into a Four-source hypothesis. It explained the relationship among the three Gospels and posits that there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark, and three lost sources: Q, M and L.
According to Streeter's analysis, the non-Marcan matter in Luke has to be distinguished into at least two sources, Q and L. In a similar way he argued that Matthew used a peculiar source, which we may style M, as well as Q. [9] [10]
[edit] Farrer Hypothesis
The Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis argues that the Gospel of Mark was written first, followed by the Gospel of Matthew and then by the Gospel of Luke.
Farrer's position has the advantage of simplicity, as there is no need for hypothetical sources to be created by academics. Instead, it states that the Gospel of Mark was used as source material by the author of Matthew. Lastly, Luke used both of the previous gospels as sources for his gospel.[11][12]
[edit] The Parker Hypothesis (Parker 1953)
The Pierson Parker and his followers argue that a Hebrew proto-Matthew was the first gospel to be written and it was the basis for later gospels.
[edit] Other Hypotheses
Other hypotheses that have been proffered in order to deal with the synoptic problem include, the Oral transmission (synoptic problem), the Lindsey hypothesis (1963), Jerusalem School hypothesis (1973), and the Logia Translation hypothesis (1998).[13][14][15]
[edit] The Problems With Q
Although most scholars accept the Two Source Hypothesis, many are not entirely happy with it. The difficulty tends to center around Q. The 2SH explains the double tradition by postulating the existence of a lost "sayings of Jesus" document known as Q. It is this, rather than Marcan priority, which forms the distinctive feature of the 2SH as against rival theories.
While the 2SH remains the most popular explanation for the origins of the synoptic gospels, the existence of the "minor agreements" have raised concerns. These minor agreements are those points where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (for example, the mocking question at the beating of Jesus, "Who is it that struck you?", found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark). The "minor agreements" thus call into question the proposition that Matthew and Luke knew Mark but not each other.
Secondly, how could a major and respected source, used in two Canonical gospels totally disappear? Why was Q never mentioned in any of the Church catalogs? Also not one scholar from the time of Christ to Jerome has ever mentioned it. Until these issues are resolved Q will remain in doubt.[16][17][18][19]
[edit] Recent Scholarship
- See the Synoptic Problem
Scholars continue their work to find a solution to the synoptic problem and to develop answers to the difficult questions surrounding Q.
If Q did exist, these sayings of Jesus would have been highly treasured in the Early Church. It remains a mystery how such an important document, which was the basis of the two canonical Gospels, could be totally lost. An even greater mystery why the extensive Church Catalogs compiled by Eusebius and Nicephorus would omit such an important work, yet include such spurious accounts as the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas.
The existence of a highly treasured dominical sayings document in circulation going unmentioned by the Fathers of the Early Church, remains one of the great conundrums of Modern Biblical Scholarship.
James Edwards, the Bruner-Welch Endowed Professor of Theology at Whitworth University confronts this issue head on. He studied Jerome's Illustrious men, which deals with the written texts of the great authors of the Early Church. This bibliographal work names over 800 Christian works as well as 31 from Josephus and 36 from Phils. Jerome also names 25 lost documents.
When Edwards looked at the first section of Illustrious Men, he found the Gospel of Mark where it should be, [21] as it was the first gospel written and was the basis of later gospels. Following it should be Q. But not only is Q not where it should be at the top of Jerome's list, this treasured work recording the Logia of Christ is mentioned nowhere by Jerome. Rather, the first seminal document is not Q but the Gospel of the Hebrews. Section 2 on James, the largest in the Illustrious Men, is mainly about this Hebrew Gospel (one-third of the section). The entirety of the third section is devoted to the Hebrew Gospel as well. In "the place of honor" that should be given "the phantom Q" we find a Hebrew usurper. [22]
From this basis James Edwards expands the Parker Hypothesis into the Hebrew Gospel Hypothesis. In meticulous detail he puts forward his solution to the synoptic problem. This Hypothesis states Matthew wrote a small Hebrew Gospel called the Gospel of the Hebrews and this was the second source used in the Gospel of Luke and possibly used in the so-called "Gospel of Matthew". [23]
[edit] Dating
Scholars generally date the synoptic gospels as having been written after the epistles of Paul and before the Gospel of John. (ie between years 60 and 115). [24] As to the specific dates for each book, this largely depends on (or supports) the particular hypothesis used to account for the books' textual relationship.
[edit] Comparison Chart of the Major Gospels [25]
The material in the Comparison Chart is from the Gospel Parallels by B. H. Throckmorton, The five Gospels by R. W. Funk, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, by E. B. Nicholson & The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition by J. R. Edwards.
| Item | Matthew, Mark, Luke | John | Thomas | Gospel of the Hebrews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Covenant | The central theme of the Gospels - Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself [26] | The central theme - Love is the New Commandment given by Jesus [27] | Secret knowledge, love your friends [28] | The central theme - Love one another [29] |
| Forgiveness | Very important - particularly in Matthew and Luke [30] | Assumed [31] | Not mentioned | Very important - Forgiveness is a central theme and this gospel goes into the greatest detail [32] |
| The Lord's Prayer | In Matthew & Luke but not Mark [33] | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Important - “mahar” or "tomorrow" [34] [35] |
| Love & the poor | Very Important - The rich young man [36] | Assumed [37] | Important [38] | Very important - The rich young man [39] |
| Jesus starts his ministry | Jesus meets John the Baptist and is baptized [40] | Jesus meets John the Baptist [41] | N/A- Speaks of John the Baptist [42] | Jesus meets John the Baptist and is baptized. This gospel goes into the greatest detail [43] |
| Disciples-inner circle | Peter, Andrew, James & John [44] | Peter, Andrew, James & the Beloved Disciple [45] | Peter, Andrew James & John [46] | Peter [47] |
| Disciples-others | Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Jude Thaddaeus, & Judas[48] | Philip, Nathanael, Matthew, Thomas, James, Simon the Zealot, Jude Thaddaeus & Judas [49] | Matthew, James the Just (Brother of Jesus), Simon the Zealot, Thaddaeus, Judas [50] | Matthew, Thomas, James the Just (Brother of Jesus) [51] |
| Possible Authors | Unknown; [52] Mark the Evangelist & Luke the Evangelist | The Beloved Disciple [53] | Thomas [54] | Matthew the Evangelist [55] |
| Virgin birth account | In Matthew & Luke, but not Mark [56] | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Jesus' baptism | Described [57] | Not Mentioned [58] | N/A | Described great detail [59] |
| Preaching style | Brief one-liners; parables[60] | Essay format, Midrash[61] | Sayings [62] | Brief one-liners; parables [63] |
| Storytelling | Parables [64] | Figurative language & Metaphor [65] | Gnostic, hidden [66] | Parables [67] |
| Jesus' theology | 1st Century liberal Judaism. [68] | Critical of Jewish Authorities [69] | Gnostic [70] | 1st Century Judaism [71] |
| Miracles | Many miracles | Seven Signs | N/A | Fewer but more credible miracles [72] |
| Duration of ministry | 1 year [73] | 3 years (Multiple Passovers) | N/A | 1 year [74] |
| Location of ministry | Mainly Galilee | Mainly Judea, near Jerusalem | N/A | Mainly Galilee |
| Passover meal | Body & Blood = Bread and wine | Interrupts meal for foot washing | N/A | Hebrew Passover is celebrated but details are N/A Epiphanius [75] |
| Burial shroud | A single piece of cloth | Multiple pieces of cloth [76] | N/A | Given to the High Priest [77] |
| Resurrection | Mary and the Women are the first to learn Jesus has arisen [78] | John adds detailed account of Mary's experience of the Resurrection [79] | Not Applicable as Gospel of Thomas is a collection of the "sayings" of Jesus, not the events of his life |
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar