# Good resources on the "Synoptic Problem"



## rpavich (Aug 8, 2009)

Hi,
I was looking through Mark 6 this morning when I encountered the "Synoptic Problem."

Mark 6:8
_He instructed them to take nothing for the journey *except a staff* – no bread, no bag, no money in their belts – and *to put on sandals* but not to wear two tunics._

Matthew 10:9
_Do not take gold, silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for the journey, or an extra tunic, *or sandals* *or staff*, for the worker deserves his provisions. _


Is there a good resource that speaks about these kinds of things in the Gospels?

I have some "harmonies" but I'm more looking for a specialized book that goes into some depth.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2009)

What is the discrepancy here? Spell it out.

Mt.10:9, it would appear as though the "extra" applies equally to "tunic" and "sandals" and "staff".

Mk.6:8, they are permitted one staff, one sandals, and one (not two) tunics.

There are lots of good books on the synoptic problem.
One author who wrote particularly well for the layman was John Wenham:
_Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem_ (IVP: 1992)
_Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?_ (Exeter, Devon, UK: Paternoster Press, 1984; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan)


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 8, 2009)

Robert Stein has quite a decent treatment of the synoptic problem, entitled _The Synoptic Problem_. Unfortunately, it is out of print. Fortunately, you could easily find a copy through Bookfinder or ABEbooks. He doesn't talk about your text in question, but he does talk about the different ways to resolve apparent discrepancies.


----------



## rpavich (Aug 8, 2009)

Contra and GB:

thanks for the suggestions.

Contra, here is the difficulty:It appears that the "extra" is only modifying the "tunic" and not the other items mentioned.

this is what the NET says about it:

Neither Matt 10:9–10 nor Luke 9:3 allow for a staff. It *might* be that Matthew and Luke mean not taking an extra staff, *or* that the expression is *merely rhetorical* for “traveling light,” which has been rendered in two slightly different ways.

The way it's worded in the NA27 is:

And not
Rod
and not
bag
and not
bread
and not
silver
and not
two shirts

The "two shirts" seems to be separately mentioned like a unit just like the other things mentioned.

that's why I asked.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2009)

Robert,
You didn't even raise the Luke passage in the first place, so (since this sort of thing doesn't much bother me) I didn't even look it up.

If the real issue for you was the difference between Mark's account and Luke's, then you should have made that clear. Harmonizing the Mark and Matthew accounts was relatively easy, the "duo" (two) term being extensible across the subsequent terms, some mss even having "staffs" (plural) possibly an early/clumsy attempt to harmonize by emendation. The main argument against NOT extending has to do with the term "sandals", a natural plural. Are we supposed to infer Jesus said DON'T wear sandals? This is contra-plausible, and inclines us to extend "duo" even before we get to "staff".

So, obviously I disagree with the NET comment that Mt.10:10 _*disallows*_ taking a staff. 

There's no good reason for refusing to extend; it is exactly like comparing testimony during a trial--given the context, are there reasons to understand person A's testimony as more consistent with or more contradictory to person B's? In the case of Mark and Matthew, the reasons are clearly good to understand the witnesses to be in agreement. Thus, we grant the greater probability that Matthew meant us to extend the term.

*************************

Once you have Mark and Matthew saying virtually the same thing (and the minor variations in terminology are arguments in favor of non-collaboration or collusion), the argument for Luke's "free" rendering being a rhetorical "traveling light" comment makes even more sense (since he's the one convert-author collating multiple eye-witness testimonials, and writing at a remove of perhaps a decade or more from the events).

There is a significant problem with the inept way that modern, agenda-driven types handle the biblical witnesses. On the one hand, they claim that any apparent discrepancy (however surface or minor) amounts to a significant challenge to biblical inspiration, but mainly its truthfulness. They would not, however, demand that sort of exactitude in determining the truthfulness and accuracy of testimony of prior events, as related in a court of law.

On the other hand, if we had three witnesses wherein there was not a single variation on vignettes related by two or more, they would quite reasonably conclude that these were not independent witnesses at all. But, its almost as though they would have us believe that in that case, they would lose all their doubts and willingly accept biblical and divine authority.

Why do I find that assertion hard to swallow?


----------



## rpavich (Aug 8, 2009)

Contra,
I'm sorry for not being more clear...I guess what was in my head didn't make it to the keyboard.

As for the Luke version; I'd say it was a little more than a "free rendering"; it's opposite.

I'm not one to look for disparities in everything but this is a pretty clear issue and I was wondering if there was more than "could be this" or "might be that" sort of thing.

thanks,
bob


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 25, 2009)

Hi Bob,

this may be one of the most difficult and intriguing examples of biblical discrepancies that I've come across! I haven't yet done an adequate query into the Greek construction, but my way of harmonizing Mark and Matthew would be to view Matthew's passage in context with receiving items as payment. Note that Matthew's version of Jesus' speech is flanked by language of compensation:

*"Freely you received, freely give. *
Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, 
or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; 
*for the worker is worthy of his support."*

This suggests that the acquiring of gold, silver, etc, could mean receiving these things as some form of payment for apostolic service. In other words, they are not to heap these things up, in addition to what they have. How does that sound?

Now, the Luke vs. Mark comparison is where the real problem lies, because here you have them directly quoting or citing Jesus' explicit instruction without reference to receiving compensation. Mark says sandals and a staff are to be brought, Luke says no.

My only way of harmonizing this would be to suggest that Jesus need not have given this type of instruction on ONLY ONE OCCASION. Jesus may have sent out his disciples on two or more separate occasions with similar but different marching orders producing distinct traditions for Mark and Luke to record. Another possibility could be that Luke cites the general order, which was subsequently clarified by Jesus to Peter and a smaller contingent of disciples which Mark had access to. Another, though unlikely is that Mark wrote it correctly, but the first generation of transcribers goofed up (this at least keeps inerrancy in tact).

I know these attempts seem silly, but I've pondering over the result of this being a genuine case of Mark being wrong. I think Bart Ehrman stumbled over this very passage, or another similar to it, to which his professor suggested that Mark was simply wrong. He was never the same again.


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 25, 2009)

*Eta Linnemann*

Eta Linnemann studied under Bultmann, and later came to faith in Christ. Her studies disproving her former historical-critical stance on the Bible are a fantastic resource for evangelicals.

She has a bunch of books, just search her name on Amazon.


----------

