# Restudying the Synoptic problem" of the Gospels and questions of priority/harmony



## Pergamum

Who here believes in Markan priority? Does it bother you that the early church all seemed to believe in Matthean priority? Was the early church wrong?

I am re-studying the "synoptic problem" and I am looking for books or links about perceived contradictions or dis-harmonies within the 4 Gospels (especially the synoptics) and am looking for early church father quotes as well.

Also, I am restudying "Q" and about Augustine's view of Mark drawing much info from Peter and his sermons.


Can any of you point me to any links?

Does anyone have a list of chronological difficulties within the Gospels and how these can be resolved (how many times did Jesus go to Jerusalem, kick out the money changers, what time of year and where was the feeding of the multitudes, etc).

Thanks.


----------



## py3ak

I think the "problem" is desperately over-hyped. Whether that's the blindness of unbelief, the lack of critical ability, the desire to make a splash, the need to publish something in order to get tenure, being hoodwinked by academic orthodoxy, or some other reason or combination of reasons I'll leave to the psychiatrists.

Assume that the events actually happened, and a large part of the "source" problem dries up. The common source is the facts. And people always retell facts a little differently, not only from one another, but also from themselves at different stages. People often point to Luke's prologue as though it affirmed a dependence on other sources; but I have yet to see it _demonstrated_ rather than assumed that Luke saying that many others had written means that he had read them and used them.

Don't assume that explanations of difficulties must involve special pleading or be implausible, and the remaining difficulties can be resolved. 

Gain some acquaintance with the practicalities of life and with the functioning of literature, and even some very thorny problems suddenly don't seem so difficult. I remember one person who doubted that the explanation for Matthew's sermon on the mount and Luke's sermon on the plain being similar and dissimilar was that they were two different sermons; and yet if you don't have a manuscript and haven't memorized an outline, can you even make a sermon come out the same way twice if you try? And has there been an itinerant preacher in history who hasn't repeated himself?

I think the best all-in-one source on the Gospels is still Alfred Edersheim's _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_; it is massive, but much more helpful, skillful, and learned than, for instance, E.P. Sanders. It's available online: Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


----------



## RamistThomist

The problem resolving Q is a simple one. Conservative scholars have learned to counter all Q-arguments with the simple question, "Show me Q." Obviously it can't be done. The whole premise rests on a fallacious argument from silence. Without Q, Markan priority falls.


----------



## Pergamum

I have always leaned towards Matthean priority since the early fathers favored it. But it seems very logical that the students of Jesus would transcribe notes and compile the contents of his sermons, which Luke and the others probably saw, at least in part.


----------



## arapahoepark

From what I gather, Q could just be notes, or stories from eye witnesses that Luke and Mark gathered their info from, not some other gospel that many are making it out to be. But I am also unlearned in the synoptic problem so don't take my word for it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I oft times reflect on how much of "scholarship" is based on some conjecture that everyone accepts within a certain community and, because it has the title of scholarship, has a certain dignity that would never be respected in another arena. Have you ever stopped to think about how _little_ there is in the writings to come up with the crazy theories that scholars come up with. The entire New Testament isn't even the length of an average size novel but all sorts of textual theories are concocted as if the breadth of the corpus is sufficient to establish large patterns. As just one example, we act as if it's a complete mystery who wrote Hebrews where the early Church was convinced it was Paul. What did they know? They didn't have the scholarship we possess to notice that this "pretender" was writing in a completely unknown manner.

Look, I'm not unstudied in this stuff. It's because I have that I'm unimpressed with what some people build their entire professional careers upon. I need to find the exact details but I was listening to a presentation in which a case arose at the turn of the 20th century where an "expert" witness was brought in for some sort of legal dispute. He was a critical scholar who was a recognized expert within the arena of textual criticism. He evaluated a document to "prove" for his client an entire backstory about a document applying the same criteria he used to conjecture about Books of the Bible. The result? His testimony was essentially treated with scorn by the court as completely worthless. Many experts in literature have long opined that the normal rules do not apply in the arena of Biblical study. You can see I have little respect for those who make their living coming up with what we would consider "fish tales" if you weren't granted a PhD for it.

Anyhow, it's no mystery to me why Mark, Matthew, and Luke are alike and I really don't think who wrote first had much of an impact on the writing of the Scriptures. Just think about the last election cycle and all the stump speeches. While I don't want to drag Christ into the same boat as politicians the analogy is somewhat apt to give a point of reference. You don't even have to think terribly hard to determine why you would expect a community of Christians to remember certain phrases from sermons and teaching that they heard repeated over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Keep your Markan priority for those of you convinced of it. Makes for scholarly repute. I'll seek my professional repute in something not based on pure conjecture that treats the ancient Church like a bunch of idiots just because they didn't know how to use a Word Processor.

Rant off.


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> As just one example, we act as if it's a complete mystery who wrote Hebrews where the early Church was convinced it was Paul. What did they know? They didn't have the scholarship we possess to notice that this "pretender" was writing in a completely unknown manner.



I enjoyed the rant, Rich - but if you include Origen as "early Church" it is not the case that they were _all_ convinced Paul was the author of Hebrews.


----------



## VictorBravo

Semper Fidelis said:


> Rant off.



Nice rant, Rich.

I’ve used a similar approach sometimes with those who come up with strained explanations for Genesis. In answer to the so-called problems with text being draw from different sources and pieced together, I suggest they sit with some Bedouin sheep headers in a Middle Eastern desert, under stars around a fire, and listen to their storytelling technique. 

The structure of Genesis would make sense to anyone with an ear for narrative. (Of course, you’d have to learn Arabic to get the comparison).

But that’s the problem. So many critics have hidden from life and thrown their senses out the window.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

John Wenham (1913-1996), Anglican, wrote (1992) on the subject, defending Matthean priority.

Amazon.com: Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (9780830817603): John Wenham: Books


----------



## Pergamum

Looks great...but, WOW, expensive!


----------



## JimmyH

I've never come up with the $ to buy this, at one time you couldn't find even a used copy under $100.00 +, but now, while still relatively expensive, it has been coming down in price. I am not sure of the author's theology either, but she apparently defends the gospels. Four of the five reviewers give it a high mark. 

Is There a Synoptic Problem?: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels: Eta Linnemann: 9780801056796: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## timmopussycat

Linnemann is a German trained, formerly Bultmanian academic who later became an evangelical.


----------



## CharlieJ

I'm in favor of Markan priority, although I don't hold it with certainty. It just seems more likely. You can find arguments for it by evangelicals. Look at Carson and Moo's Introduction to the New Testament. 

I'm a church historian, though. I tend not to place too much weight on the historical claims of church fathers. They lived before historical consciousness and were more likely to make historical claims to fit a theological or cosmic-symbolical framework.


----------



## Grimmson

CharlieJ said:


> They lived before historical consciousness and were more likely to make historical claims to fit a theological or cosmic-symbolical framework.



"They lived before historical consciousness?" Those my friend are fighting words. I think you mean to say that the Fathers did not have a critical view of history. I read the fathers’ historical work all the time, and one thing you need to realize is the force of taking the word of an earlier father as gospel, instead of later fathers analyzing it critically. Plus you should also consider the nature of an oral culture, which is a major separating difference between our world today and their world. What has been pasted down orally had some weight, for good reason. One being ancient kids’ school training in memorization (more than what we have today). Another, people typically did not exactly have pieces of paper with them where ever they go; therefore they had to rely on their memory which could also reinforce memory skills. Third, if the same story is told enough times repeated by the same person and group then that story becomes easier to remember and may be pasted down due to personal or community significance. I would say that they had a much better "historical consciousness" then we do today with are critical view of history. Many of them would be able to tell you their genealogy, better then we would today. Most of them would probably know their local history, how many kids know their community's history today? The reality then is that history played an important role in their life, who they were, their profession, and many more factors. Their connection to history was more personal and less academic. And you can see this in the writing of the fathers, which is why I recommend that people read their work. 

And one more point, it almost looks like from this post that your accusing the fathers of making up history for theological reasons. I'll let you expand on that thought if you do not mind.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> I enjoyed the rant, Rich - but if you include Origen as "early Church" it is not the case that they were all convinced Paul was the author of Hebrews.


Origen (as quoted by Eusibius):


> That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion,* I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s*, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said.* If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s.* But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.


What Origen is disputing is not Pauline authorship but that someone might have taken "short notes" of what the Apostle taught and wrote it out in their own style. As you're most likely aware, the earliest collections of Pauline epistles include Hebrews. 

I might add that if I selected only 14 writings to textual critics, I'm certain that I could find critics who would claim I did not write one of them as my style widely varies depending upon audience. If, for whatever reason, those writings of mine had been widely used by many who knew I had written them and told their children I had written them then I believe their testimony ought to hold greater weight than textual analysis based on a limited collection of everything I might have written in my life.

R.C. Sproul tells a story of why he rejects this kind of textual criticism. He was learning the Dutch language and created index cards for new Dutch words as he labored through a text while at the Free University of Amsterdam. After he completed one theologian's work, he began reading another work by the same author. He added about 2000 cards for words that he had not encountered in the prior work.

I'm not disputing the value of textual analysis altogether but the sample size is incredibly small in order to determine the kind of precision that some people insist upon. I will go with the testimony of the early Church on authorship as I don't believe the analysis has a credible precision with which to overrule their testimony.


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> Origen (as quoted by Eusibius):
> 
> 
> 
> That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. *But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows.* Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], *some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.*
> 
> 
> 
> What Origen is disputing is not Pauline authorship but that someone might have taken "short notes" of what the Apostle taught and wrote it out in their own style. As you're most likely aware, the earliest collections of Pauline epistles include Hebrews.
> 
> I might add that if I selected only 14 writings to textual critics, I'm certain that I could find critics who would claim I did not write one of them as my style widely varies depending upon audience.
Click to expand...


He's not willing to argue against Pauline authorship; he's also not willing to affirm it. That the _theology_ is Pauline is one thing; that Paul wrote or dictated it, another. (Just as it is one thing to say that Mark had Peter's testimony as a basis for his gospel, and another that Peter wrote it.) As a testimony to Origen's view, or even to the view that had been handed down to him, it's hardly a forceful affirmation of Pauline authorship.


----------



## Pergamum

CharlieJ said:


> I'm in favor of Markan priority, although I don't hold it with certainty. It just seems more likely. You can find arguments for it by evangelicals. Look at Carson and Moo's Introduction to the New Testament.
> 
> I'm a church historian, though. I tend not to place too much weight on the historical claims of church fathers. They lived before historical consciousness and were more likely to make historical claims to fit a theological or cosmic-symbolical framework.



This would mean that Jesus and his disciples (including the writers of the Gospels) also lived before a sense of historical consciousness.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> As a testimony to Origen's view, or even to the view that had been handed down to him, it's hardly a forceful affirmation of Pauline authorship.


It depends upon what you mean by authorship. Many attribute not only the writing but the thoughts and teachings to Apollos or to some completely unknown party. As Origen defines authorship in this case, he's granting Paul authorship. The same argument, by the way, is made that Peter could not have written one of his Epistles as the Greek is too advanced. Conservative scholars argue that he may have had someone putting his thoughts into better Greek for him if they grant the validity of the argument about the style. The point is that we receive the Epistle as belonging to inspiration of Peter and not to another person whether someone else may have penned it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I had a professor at the liberal seminary I attended make that exact argument when it came to the gospel writers application of OT texts to Jesus.

(This was in response to Pergy's post, Rich and I posted simultaneously.)


----------



## CharlieJ

Yes, I think that legend and history overlap to a considerable degree in ancient sources, something even some Roman historians understood. And yes, I think sometimes the early church fathers simply made up historical claims because they were theologically convenient. Or, they really believed those claims were historically true, but they believed that they were true on grounds other than historical. They thought some thoughts MUST be true or OUGHT to be true because it made so much SENSE for them to be true. (This is similar to how medieval philosopher-theologians argued for Ptolemaic cosmology.) For example, it was common to accuse Epicureans of licentious hedonism, when their own texts reveal quite the opposite. Augustine played Cyprian pretty false to use him against the Donatists. There is a good amount of legendary material already in Eusebius and Hippolytus. The ECFs as a group vary widely as to their historical reliability.


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a testimony to Origen's view, or even to the view that had been handed down to him, it's hardly a forceful affirmation of Pauline authorship.
> 
> 
> 
> It depends upon what you mean by authorship. Many attribute not only the writing but the thoughts and teachings to Apollos or to some completely unknown party. As Origen defines authorship in this case, he's granting Paul authorship. The same argument, by the way, is made that Peter could not have written one of his Epistles as the Greek is too advanced. Conservative scholars argue that he may have had someone putting his thoughts into better Greek for him if they grant the validity of the argument about the style. The point is that we receive the Epistle as belonging to inspiration of Peter and not to another person whether someone else may have penned it.
Click to expand...


I don't see that Origen defines authorship in this excerpt. He says that the style lacks Paul's typical rudeness; that the thoughts are not inferior; and therefore he judges the most plausible speculation not that someone _helped_ Paul with the language (as people suggest of Silvanus or Mark in the case of Peter), but that someone _remembered_ Paul's teaching. That sounds a lot more like _formative influence_ than it does like _authorship_. I have written things under the recollection of Turretin, Luther, et al; if I do so well, the thoughts are theirs - yet I am still the author. I think Calvin's view is consistent with this understanding of Origen, though Calvin is obviously rather bolder than Origen:



> Moreover, as to its author, we need not be very solicitous. Some think the author to have been Paul, others Luke, others Barnabas, and others Clement, as Jerome relates; yet Eusebius, in his sixth book of his Church History, mentions only Luke and Clement. I well know that in the time of Chrysostom it was everywhere classed by the Greeks among the Pauline
> Epistles; but the Latins thought otherwise, even those who were nearest to the times of the Apostles.
> I indeed, can adduce no reason to show that Paul was its author; for they who say that he designedly suppressed his name because it was hateful to the Jews, bring nothing to the purpose; for why, then, did he mention the name of Timothy as by this he betrayed himself. But the manner it of teaching, and the style, sufficiently show that Paul was not the author; and
> the writer himself confesses in the second chapter that he was one of the disciples of the Apostles, which is wholly different from the way in which Paul spoke of himself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> I don't see that Origen defines authorship in this excerpt. He says that the style lacks Paul's typical rudeness; that the thoughts are not inferior; and therefore he judges the most plausible speculation not that someone helped Paul with the language (as people suggest of Silvanus or Mark in the case of Peter), but that someone remembered Paul's teaching. That sounds a lot more like formative influence than it does like authorship. I have written things under the recollection of Turretin, Luther, et al; if I do so well, the thoughts are theirs - yet I am still the author. I think Calvin's view is consistent with this understanding of Origen, though Calvin is obviously rather bolder than Origen:



Since we're dealing with the early Church, I'll stick with Origen and end here as I have to run.

My point is that Origen clearly affirms that the teachings are Paul's. Again, the issue of inspiration is key here. Origen attributes the teachings and thoughts to Paul. Now, you may argue from Origen that this is "formative influence" but then the question is: Who is inspired? Who was moved by the Holy Spirit in giving us Hebrews? Others claim in denying Pauline authorship that someone else must have been inspired. Origen is arguing for two writers in his notes: Paul is the teacher, someone else is purported to be the person who has written it down. The former is the one with Apostolic authority and the one who taught under divine inspiration.


----------



## Pergamum

As of right now, I hold to the view that Mathew wrote first, then Mark, Luke and then John (at a later date post-70 ad date...contra the preterists). I also think that written notes about Jesus' and Peter's preaching were making the rounds as well as the oral traditions, such that we need not believe in a "Q" but only affirm that, yes of course, Jesus' students often wrote down His teachings.

How does that sound?


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> Since we're dealing with the early Church, I'll stick with Origen and end here as I have to run.
> 
> My point is that Origen clearly affirms that the teachings are Paul's. Again, the issue of inspiration is key here. Origen attributes the teachings and thoughts to Paul. Now, you may argue from Origen that this is "formative influence" but then the question is: Who is inspired? Who was moved by the Holy Spirit in giving us Hebrews? Others claim in denying Pauline authorship that someone else must have been inspired. Origen is arguing for two writers in his notes: Paul is the teacher, someone else is purported to be the person who has written it down. The former is the one with Apostolic authority and the one who taught under divine inspiration.



I understand that this is your view, Rich. But what I don't see is a claim from Origen that it is Paul's inspiration that makes Hebrews inspired. I think I see why you read it that way; but I think that reading depends on a presupposition brought to the text of Origen, rather than one derived from Origen himself. That doesn't make it wrong; it just means that one part of the argument is still undocumented.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CharlieJ said:


> Yes, I think that legend and history overlap to a considerable degree in ancient sources, something even some Roman historians understood. And yes, I think sometimes the early church fathers simply made up historical claims because they were theologically convenient. Or, they really believed those claims were historically true, but they believed that they were true on grounds other than historical. They thought some thoughts MUST be true or OUGHT to be true because it made so much SENSE for them to be true. (This is similar to how medieval philosopher-theologians argued for Ptolemaic cosmology.) For example, it was common to accuse Epicureans of licentious hedonism, when their own texts reveal quite the opposite. Augustine played Cyprian pretty false to use him against the Donatists. There is a good amount of legendary material already in Eusebius and Hippolytus. The ECFs as a group vary widely as to their historical reliability.



Sounds pretty much like "modern" people to me.


----------



## Phil D.

py3ak said:


> therefore he judges the most plausible speculation not that someone helped Paul with the language (as people suggest of Silvanus or Mark in the case of Peter), but that someone remembered Paul's teaching. That sounds a lot more like formative influence than it does like authorship.



Indeed. As one scholar once put it, Paul's fingerprints are all over Hebrews, but not his DNA. 

Dr. D. Allan makes a compelling case that Paul's very close friend and colleague Luke is a very likely candidate for having penned Hebrews. The book is a bit technical in places, but it does a good job of looking at the collective opinions of the ECFs, quite a number of whom argue for Luke, as well as the epistle's prose and syntax. One of the most compelling factors Dr. Allan explores, however, is how amazingly Hebrews' theological themes and structure intertwine with those of Luke's Gospel and Acts. It's well worth a read if someone is really interested in this issue. 

Notably if Luke was indeed the penman, then there is no issue at all (from an evangelical perspective) in terms of Hebrews' credentials as an inspired text.


----------



## Steve Paynter

It was suggested earlier in this thread that the historicity of the gospel events explains the commonalities between the different gospel accounts. This, however, is not an adequate account of the commonalities between the synoptic gospels. The commonalities in places extend to precise words used in "editorial asides" introducing the pericopes. 

There are a large number of features of Mark's gospel which indicate that ... as a minimum ... it is independent of the other gospels - things like Mark using more awkward Greek, having larger accounts of different shared pericopes, and, arguably, having a slightly less polished theology. None are these features are explicable changes if Mark was drawing upon either Matthew or Luke. If Mark is independent of the other accounts, and yet the other accounts show a literary dependence on Mark (or a common document shared with Mark), one is starting to develop strong evidence that Mark account came first, and was used by either Matthew or Luke in composing their own accounts.

Personally, while I think that the gospels show that were some order between the gospel documents, I also think that it is a mistake to attempt to explain all the features of the gospels by documentary dependence, rather than allowing for common history and common oral traditions. I don't believe that we have enough evidence in the gospels themselves to definitively untangle the situation and give a sure account of how they came to be written.

One of the nice things about the "synoptic problem" is that it is a problem intimately concerned with the gospels themselves. One is attempting to understand and account for features of the Bible itself .... and while some postulated solutions may be more convincing than others, and may depend on more or less plausible theories about other factors/sources .... nevertheless at the end of the day, one is attempting to account for features of the Bible itself. This is a legitimate task for any biblical scholar, especially a Reformed one.


----------



## py3ak

Steve, if your post was directed at me, I don't think it's quite a fair assessment of my remarks. Perhaps there are two points I should clarify. One is that I was focusing on the synoptic "problem." This is not solely a matter of relationships between them; it is often also presented as a matter of discrepancies. But while there may be a "question," for those who believe in the inspiration of Scripture there is no "problem."
Second, my claim was that accepting the facts as stated dries up "a large part" of the source issue. Points of narrative art are not addressed by that, but points of narrative art are not so enormous as to make the question of common events and discourses minuscule in comparison. Questions about who wrote first will still have an historical interest (though I have yet to see any information that the relative dating of Matthew, Mark, and Luke would make a plugged ha'p'orth of difference to interpretation), but if you assume that things happened as described that does provide a common source for a great part of the material; and it eliminates certain issues, like the attempt to make John's temple cleansing the same as that of the synoptic writers.


----------



## Steve Paynter

py3ak said:


> Steve, if your post was directed at me, I don't think it's quite a fair assessment of m remarks..



Looking back, yes, it was one of your posts that prompted my contribution: but I was primarily trying to respond to the _idea_ that the dependencies
between the synoptics could be completely explained by appeal to a common underlying history, rather than because I thought that that was your complete
position. That in part (along with laziness in identifying the contribution which prompted this thought) was why I didn't quote from your post. Sorry if I misrepresented you.



py3ak said:


> Perhaps there are two points I should clarify. One is that I was focusing on the synoptic "problem." This is not solely a matter of relationships between them; it is often also presented as a matter of discrepancies. But while there may be a "question," for those who believe in the inspiration of Scripture there is no "problem."



All of my books with "Synoptic problem" in the title are either primarily or entirely focused on the question of dependencies. It is a "problem" rather than
merely a "question" because there is no completely satisfactory answer to this issue. I am not sure those who see inconsistencies see the purported inconsistencies as being particularly problematic.



py3ak said:


> Second, my claim was that accepting the facts as stated dries up "a large part" of the source issue. Points of narrative art are not addressed by that, but points of narrative art are not so enormous as to make the question of common events and discourses minuscule in comparison.



I agree completely.



py3ak said:


> Questions about who wrote first will still have an historical interest (though I have yet to see any information that the relative dating of Matthew, Mark, and Luke would make a plugged ha'p'orth of difference to interpretation), but if you assume that things happened as described that does provide a common source for a great part of the material; and it eliminates certain issues, like the attempt to make John's temple cleansing the same as that of the synoptic writers.



Again I agree to a certain extent. When one has various accounts of similar events, one has to decide whether the differences in the accounts can best be explained by it being different events being described, or by different viewpoints on the same event. There isn't one approach to these issues which is
guaranteed to produce the right ("sound") answer.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Pergamum said:


> Looks great...but, WOW, expensive!



If you are interested in John Wenham's book at a more reasonable price, consider using amazon.co.uk, and getting it shipped. See 
Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem: Amazon.co.uk: J.W. Wenham: Books


----------



## py3ak

Steve Paynter said:


> All of my books with "Synoptic problem" in the title are either primarily or entirely focused on the question of dependencies. It is a "problem" rather than merely a "question" because there is no completely satisfactory answer to this issue. I am not sure those who see inconsistencies see the purported inconsistencies as being particularly problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Questions about who wrote first will still have an historical interest (though I have yet to see any information that the relative dating of Matthew, Mark, and Luke would make a plugged ha'p'orth of difference to interpretation), but if you assume that things happened as described that does provide a common source for a great part of the material; and it eliminates certain issues, like the attempt to make John's temple cleansing the same as that of the synoptic writers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I agree to a certain extent. When one has various accounts of similar events, one has to decide whether the differences in the accounts can best be explained by it being different events being described, or by different viewpoints on the same event. There isn't one approach to these issues which is
> guaranteed to produce the right ("sound") answer.
Click to expand...


Steve, thank you or your kind reply. Since this is your field of expertise, I have no doubt you have read far more widely than I. In my limited reading about these matters, the synoptic problem and the quest for the historical Jesus are linked, and the fact of literary relationship and variation among the synoptic gospels is put forward as evidence for the hypothesis that parts of the Gospels have to be discounted as being historically valid. I am away from home at the moment, so can only refer to John C. Dwyer, _The Word Was Made Flesh_, pp.61,62:



> The texts given here and the observations we make about them obviously do not prove that Mark was the first to write a Gospel and that Matthew and Luke copied from him. They offer a very small sampling of the kinds of evidence which nineteenth century scholars sifted and weighed, and which led them to virtual certainty about the priority of Mark. This was an extremely important conclusion for two reasons. First, even in the earliest times, no one had ever claimed that Mark was an eye-witness of the events which he recounts, and it seems clear that if Matthew had been an eyewitness, he would not have used Mark’s Gospel as a source. In other words, the priority of Mark really invalidated the claim that Matthew was an eyewitness. Second, as a consequence of this «displacing» of Matthew, Mark was now seen to be to be the Gospel which brings us closest to the events of Jesus’ life. There was another very important consequence of the priority of Mark. In places where Matthew and Luke seem quite close to Mark, wecan often notice small differences - certain words left out, for example, or certain subtle changes in the events recounted, all of which seem to point in a single direction. For example, in the story of the cure of the man with leprosy (Mark 1:40-45; Mt 8:1-4; Luke 5:12-16), we find that Mark notes Jesus’ reaction when the leper comes and asks to be healed: Jesus is «deeply moved» («shaken» would be a possible translation). And when the cure itself is described, Mark notes that Jesus was «visibly and audibly angry.» (The emotional reaction may be the residue of a more primitive version which told of Jesus’ reaction to the demonic power which was responsible for the disease.) Most of these referencesare absent in Matthew and Luke, and it is hard to avoid the impression that the strong emotion which is reflected in verse 41 of Mark’s version of the story was felt, by the time Matthew and Luke wrote, to be inappropriate for Jesus. This type of editing appears just frequently enough to justify our speaking of a certain sense of embarrassment on the part of Matthew and Luke at a very human Jesus, who could be gripped by deep emotion. The process of making Jesus conform to human ideas of what «God in human form» should look like, had begun within the New Testament and did not wait for a later theology. Awareness of this would eventually bring scholars to raise the question of how Mark himself might have modified the oral tradition which he found; but in the nineteenth century it merely confirmed their suspicions about the priority of Mark and it led scholars to rely on Mark’s Gospel as they sought to draw the picture of the Jesus of history.



Certainly, it is always a valid question whether an event is described differently because it was a different event or because the narrator has a different standpoint and purpose; but claiming a contradiction in the dating of Christ cleansing the Temple, or in the setting and content of the Sermon on the Mount, becomes pointless if one accepts that the Gospel writers wrote accurately, so that if time and setting are described in terms that are incompatible, the reference must be to different events.


----------



## Steve Paynter

py3ak said:


> Steve, thank you or your kind reply. Since this is your field of expertise, I have no doubt you have read far more widely than I. In my limited reading about these matters, the synoptic problem and the quest for the historical Jesus are linked, and the fact of literary relationship and variation among the synoptic gospels is put forward as evidence for the hypothesis that parts of the Gospels have to be discounted as being historically valid.
> ...



I must just correct the impression that this is "my field of expertise". Before embarking on my part-time PhD I had no formal training in biblical studies or theology, being a software engineer by career (my first PhD was in logic for computer science). I was accepted as a PhD candidate on the strength of a paper
I'd written articulating a Reformed response to the New Perspective on Paul. My supervisor is David Wenham (son of John, whose book on Matthew has featured in this thread). He first set me working on some substantial essays to ensure that I had the basic grounding in New Testament studies that I ought to have had. One of these was on the synoptic problem, and source, form and redaction criticism, and another was on the "Historical Jesus". I did read reasonably widely for these, but I am no expert. The focus of my research has been Luke-Acts, justification, N.T. Wright and Reformed covenant theology.

I agree that the synoptic problem and the quest for the historical Jesus are linked, but not particularly tightly. Most attempts to identify the documentary dependencies between the gospels I have seen have not depended upon a particular theory about the "historical Jesus". Personally, I find the whole quest for the "historical Jesus" much more problematic for a conservative scholar - so much depends upon what one understands by the word "historical". It rarely means "the Jesus who actually lived", but rather "the Jesus whom we can know lived according to the evidence that we have that any historian (even those with a materialistic world-view) would have to acknowledge was valid evidence". In other words, a certain scepticism is invariably smuggled into the discussion with the adjective "historical". That is not to say, of course, that some good work has not been done by "historical Jesus" scholars situating Jesus in his first century context.

One's (working) solution to the synoptic problem will impact the "sources" one detects in the various gospels, and hence the "redactions" and the "tendency of those redactions" that one detects in the accounts. None of the questions asked by these forms of analysis are improper. However, the expectation that we know enough to get any kind of meaningful answer to these questions ... seems to me ... to be widely optimistic, and invariably leads into problems. Some questions, however valid, are simply unanswerable. Armed with these techniques is a bit like having a hammer ... they make everything seem like a nail. In contrast, literary readings of the gospels (especially those that do not deny the historicity of the accounts) are invariably more profitable and insightful. It is one of the exciting things about contemporary biblical studies is that these synchronic concerns have largely eclipsed the older (unanswerable) diachronic concerns.


----------



## Pergamum

Steve Paynter said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks great...but, WOW, expensive!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are interested in John Wenham's book at a more reasonable price, consider using amazon.co.uk, and getting it shipped. See
> Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem: Amazon.co.uk: J.W. Wenham: Books
Click to expand...


Just ordered it and my parents will ship it to me....maybe I'll get it by the end of the year.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'm amazed that Wenham's 20yr old book, _in paperback,_ can command a $45 pricetag in the US (to say nothing of the $100 hardback).

I had the chance to peruse this work in Seminary--it was a paperback, recently acquired by the Library at that time--and I thought the thesis was provocative and certainly gave the more common theory a run for its money. I couldn't justify its purchase for myself then, and not now either (not at the current valuation). But it is a book likely to repay the outlay, in my opinion.

I'm probably inclined to be contrarian (and in favor of Wenham), merely because Marcan priority seems to me to have arisen mainly out of the 19th century's desire for innovation and iconoclasm, by the fact that it was rationalists and anti-supernaturalists who set it forth as "the assured results" of better scholarship.

Well, today I think its time for some updated "revisionism," and questioning the Marcan/Q "orthodoxy" by severe critical examination of the newer theory. Have the years strengthened it, so that the assumptions that swiftly turned the older tide have been borne out by more patient labors? Seems to me, it was a rather unfair, hasty assessment of the "naivete" of the ancients--scholars and ordinary folks alike--that gave preference to modern theory, laden with its own historical prejudice.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm probably inclined to be contrarian (and in favor of Wenham), merely because Marcan priority seems to me to have arisen mainly out of the 19th century's desire for innovation and iconoclasm, by the fact that it was rationalists and anti-supernaturalists who set it forth as "the assured results" of better scholarship.
> 
> Well, today I think its time for some updated "revisionism," and questioning the Marcan/Q "orthodoxy" by severe critical examination of the newer theory. Have the years strengthened it, so that the assumptions that swiftly turned the older tide have been borne out by more patient labors? Seems to me, it was a rather unfair, hasty assessment of the "naivete" of the ancients--scholars and ordinary folks alike--that gave preference to modern theory, laden with its own historical prejudice.



I have sympathy with the suspicion of all things that arise from 19th century anti-supernaturalist rationalism; and I think that ... by and large ... the more ancient a view (in this sort of topic), the more the presumption should be that it is right. However, while not convinced about a literal Q (as opposed to numerous sources written by various "followers" of Jesus), I think there are good arguments for Marcan priority that are not beholden to the origins of the view of Marcan priority.

There remain, of course, minority reports, amongst biblical scholars concerning the synoptic problem. The principle positions are:

• The Augustinian Hypothesis: This states that the canonical order represents the order the Gospels were written, and the later Gospel writers knew the earlier Gospels. In spite of being an early theory, and the dominant one for many centuries, few scholars currently hold it.

• The Griesbach (or Two-Gospel) Hypothesis (named after J.J. Griesbach who proposed this solution in 1790): This states that Matthew’s Gospel was written first, and then Luke made use of Matthew. Mark’s Gospel is an abridging synthesis of both Matthew and Luke’s Gospels. This hypothesis has been defended in recent times by William R. Farmer, but he has failed to convince very many others in spite of writing repeatedly on the subject.

• The Two-Source and Four-Source (or Oxford) Hypotheses: This states that, of the canonical Gospels,Mark’s was written first. Matthew and Luke’s Gospels were written using Mark’s Gospel but independently of each other. However, they both used a Source document known as ‘Q’, which contained the material common to Luke and Matthew, but not in Mark (the ‘Double Tradition’ material). In the Four-Source hypothesis, Luke also used a Source ‘L’, which contained the material unique to Luke’s Gospel; and Matthew used a source ‘M’, which contained the material unique to Matthew’s Gospel.

• The Farrer Hypothesis (named after Austin Farrer who proposed it in 1955): This states that, of the canonical Gospels, Mark’s was written first. However Matthew’s Gospel was written before Luke’s, and Luke used it along with Mark’s Gospel in composing his own. Austin Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q”, [23], in D.E. Nineham (ed), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot, [44], Basil Blackwell (Oxford: England), 1955. The Farrer Hypothesis has been developed and defended by scholars such as Michael D. Goulder and Mark Goodacre.

There are various categories of evidence which convince the holders of the Oxford and Farrer hypotheses of Marcan priority. These include:

1. Arguments from grammatical style

These arguments are based on similar reasoning as is used to determine text-critical questions. To reject these is to call into question the critically 
constructed Greek texts that we almost all scholars and Bible translators use. An example is Mark 5:10 and Luke 8:31. 

Mark 5:10 And he begged him eagerly not to send them out of the country
Luke 8:31 And they begged him not to command them to depart into the abyss.

In Mark there is this awkward switch from a singular to a plural. Luke uses two plurals. It is hard to imagine that Mark had Luke in front of him when 
writing this.

It is the cumulative effect of numerous such examples which convince many scholars of Marcan priority.

2. Arguments from more "awkward" descriptions of Jesus

These are more subjective, but nevertheless, it is clear that Mark often contains descriptions of Jesus' actions which might raise difficulties and 
questions which Matthew and Luke's accounts avoid raising. E.g. Mark 6:5 (cf Matthew 13:58 and Luke 4:24), where Mark writes: 

"And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them."

3. Arguments from the stories that are unique to Mark

There are only a few Marcan stories not picked up by either Matthew or Luke or both, and these often involve healing as a multi-stage process. One can 
easily imagine why writers might drop such stories, but not why Mark would only add such stories (when presumably he had many others he could have
drawn upon.)

4. Arguments from Mark's simpler theology

Mark when he has people give Jesus a title, often records them calling him "teacher." Luke usually has them using "Lord", and Matthew often has 
"son of David". These differences need to be accounted for, and that Mark was downplaying the honour given to Jesus seems unlikely; whereas Luke and 
Matthew select the strongest pertinent title used over the one Mark records is more plausible.

5. Arguments from the fact that Mark is not an abridgement

Mark has fewer pericopes than Matthew or Luke, but those he does have, he tells with more words, and sometimes with more details. Difficult to maintain that 
Mark is an abridgement of Matthew and/or Luke.


6. Arguments from Matthew and Luke's Editorial Fatigue

There are a couple of places where some scholars think they see Matthew or Luke relying on a fact told in Mark's account, but which they have 
"forgotten" they have not included.

It is only the last of these which might be problematic to a holder of a high view of Scripture. (I say "might", because although I have a problem with the idea of "editorial fatigue", my supervisor, David Wenham, who also has a high view of Scripture, expressed surprise at my difficulty with this concept.)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I appreciate what you've put together there, Steve.

My question is: does _priority_ necessitate inverse _dependency_? If Mark writes before Luke, why does Luke have to use Mark? Maybe he did, it really doesn't seem like a vital question. Luke surely accumulated numerous eyewitness accounts with his own pen, and probably other written materials from credible sources. If Mark's Gospel (or a proto-Gospel) was extant, he may well have used it.

Now flip it around, and if Luke writes before Mark, does Mark have to use Luke, thus leaving awkward grammatical tensions? It hardly seems necessary. Was Mark *Peter's* interpreter, as the ancients taught? There are powerful internal arguments in Mark's Gospel for the position. In which case, to what end would literary dependency even matter, assuming it were even possible or likely? Many of his unique word-choices could well be explained by Peter's recollection of events. "Teacher" might be the actual title he and the others used, especially prior to the Resurrection.

If I recall, Wenham suggests Peter could have had Matthew (or proto-Matthew) before him, to use like an outline; while he told his own story. Meanwhile, Mark took note of Peter's typical presentation, solecisms and all. It doesn't seem any less reasonable than the other proposals, and less speculative than many.

The thought that the Christology of the church has to grow and develop--and so Mark would represent a regress if that Gospel were supposed to come second--just seems like a dependent theory, rather than a good reason for supposing Mark came first. Belief in dependency (not just priority) and evolutionary-developmental theology (not just theological unpacking) force some scholars toward Marcan-priority. I don't think the opposite position entails a symmetrical commitment to dependency, or the importance of priority.

The notion of dependency (it seems to me) is only significant if one wishes to push the longer gospels further out and away from the days of Jesus himself, and possibly away from the first generation of disciples. In which case, we need a Mark and a Q floating about alone for quite some time, so that gospel-evolution can take place in those mysterious "communities" favored by the Mythological School.


If Acts is taken seriously, there was unquestionably a gospel-narrative that should have sprouted up among the Apostles, and predates anything written. When the Eleven add Matthias to their number (Act.1) the choice is between two men who were with them from the beginning. The witness is consistent across the Synoptics (and not undone by John) because it represents a collective memory. I suppose there were numerous "note-taking" accounts, and other non-sanctioned records, all which eventually go by the way when one and then another "authorized" narratives becomes commonplace.

Furthermore, the differences one typically finds in the Gospels aren't of the kind that look like "corrections" of a previous witness, but sound like independent takes on the same events. When two accounts are compared, are they really telling a different story? The more the accounts differ, the more likely we are to assume they were different events: like the parable of the talents, and the parable of the minas; or the Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

For some 45 years I have pondered these things, having a supreme interest in Scripture as the basis – the foundation – of our knowledge of God, communion with Him, and our walks with Him in this world.

I would side with Rich’s view as he initially laid it out in post #6. Like him I find that much scholarship is not pertinent for the serious disciple; myself, I think that when the locus of Biblical studies moved from the church to the academy an element entered into the endeavor that brought in a kind of scrutiny alien to a believing mindset.

Which is not to say that godly and gifted teachers / exegetes / and commentators are not in the academic community, and are not rich blessings to the church. But it is to say that academic Biblical study has become contaminated by an alien element, and one must pick and choose very carefully.

Steve P, I also, along with Pastor Bruce, appreciate what you have shared, and your obvious in-depth labors in the topic at hand, seeking to understand the “problems” that some have posited as such. However, also along with Bruce, I think that this area of study has given rise to much ado about nothing. For example, the “various categories of evidence which convince the holders of the Oxford and Farrer hypotheses of Marcan priority”, I find to be of little merit, to say the least. In these two parallel passages you noted,
Mark 5:10 And he begged him eagerly not to send them out of the country
Luke 8:31 And they begged him not to command them to depart into the abyss​ 
I do not think the “switch from a singular to a plural” in Mark is awkward at all, given that one devil is apparently “spokesperson” for the multitude of them, and it appears that they were also able to speak in unison with one voice (v 12). Luke perhaps approached it from the latter view. It casts no light whatsoever on the priority of one gospel over the other.

The “Arguments from more ‘awkward’ descriptions of Jesus” are in this same class, and are easily explained without any awkwardness at all in Mark’s presentation of the events, which really are transcriptions of Peter’s descriptions.

It seems very likely, given the tight community of the apostles (later including Paul), they were familiar with each other’s writings – or proto-writings or verbal expressions – and likely reminisced often about those three and a half years with Jesus, Peter and John (James being cut short) telling the others things that only the three were privy to.

Add to this the fact that the Author of the gospels – the guiding intelligence and bringer-to-remembrance (John 14:26; 16:12-15) – was the Spirit of God, and the apostles (and hence their amanuenses Luke and Mark) “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet 1:21), which process I think we can legitimately extrapolate to the NT writing of Scripture as well.

I think much scholarship busies itself with material that may give it something to do, but is of little value to the church.

About the authorship of Hebrews, which was briefly discussed above, I hold with Rich here too, though I would support it otherwise than by Origen. I would not belabor the thread with this off-topic matter, except to say it is _confessional_ to assert Paul wrote the Epistle, per the Belgic Confession, Article 4.


----------



## Pergamum

Thank you so much Steve!



> Mark 5:10 And he begged him eagerly not to send them out of the country
> Luke 8:31 And they begged him not to command them to depart into the abyss
> 
> I do not think the “switch from a singular to a plural” in Mark is awkward at all, given that one devil is apparently “spokesperson” for the multitude of them, and it appears that they were also able to speak in unison with one voice (v 12). Luke perhaps approached it from the latter view. It casts no light whatsoever on the priority of one gospel over the other.


Excellent response.






> it is confessional to assert Paul wrote the Epistle, per the Belgic Confession, Article 4.



This is a fascinating fact I never knew before.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Contra_Mundum said:


> I appreciate what you've put together there, Steve.
> 
> My question is: does _priority_ necessitate inverse _dependency_? If Mark writes before Luke, why does Luke have to use Mark? Maybe he did, it really doesn't seem like a vital question. Luke surely accumulated numerous eyewitness accounts with his own pen, and probably other written materials from credible sources. If Mark's Gospel (or a proto-Gospel) was extant, he may well have used it.
> 
> Now flip it around, and if Luke writes before Mark, does Mark have to use Luke, thus leaving awkward grammatical tensions? It hardly seems necessary. Was Mark *Peter's* interpreter, as the ancients taught? There are powerful internal arguments in Mark's Gospel for the position. In which case, to what end would literary dependency even matter, assuming it were even possible or likely? Many of his unique word-choices could well be explained by Peter's recollection of events. "Teacher" might be the actual title he and the others used, especially prior to the Resurrection.
> 
> If I recall, Wenham suggests Peter could have had Matthew (or proto-Matthew) before him, to use like an outline; while he told his own story. Meanwhile, Mark took note of Peter's typical presentation, solecisms and all. It doesn't seem any less reasonable than the other proposals, and less speculative than many.



Clearly, dependency is a stronger claim than priority (although it entails it!) Dependency by itself is arguably a purely academic question. However, it has been used as the basis for various other "critical" approaches to the gospels, especially, redaction criticism, which is used to give rise to substantial "insights".

I agree that many word choices can be explained by the recollection of events, but when you work through all the parallels between the synoptics this thesis as a complete explanation becomes increasingly strained, until it collapses under the weight of improbabilities. The ordering of descriptions and the words chosen point towards a documentatory (literary) dependence of some kind, and not merely independent accounts of the same event. Consider, for example, the following:

Matt 9:9 ..: And having passed on from there Jesus saw a man ...........................seated in the tax office, named Matthew,
Mark 2:14: And having passed on .................. he saw Levi son of Alphaeus ........seated in the tax-office, 
Luke 5:27: And.............................................he saw a tax-collector named Levi seated in the tax-office, 


Matt 9:9 .: and he says to him, "Follow me". And .................................... having arisen, he followed him
Mark 2:14: and he says to him, "Follow me". And .................................... having arisen, he followed him.
Luke 5:27: and he said to him, "Follow me". And having left everything and having arisen, he followed him.

Mark Goodacre in his "The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze", Sheffield Academic Press (London), 2001, writes: "This consensus [that there is a literary dependence between the synoptics] is based on the fact that there is substantial agreement between Matthew, Mark and Luke on matters of language and order. .... Some have argued that the closeness in agreement between the Synoptics could be due to faithful recording of the committed-to-memory words of Jesus, but significantly, in cases like this [i.e. the example given above], close agreement is not limited to the words of Jesus, and it will not do to argue on this basis that the Gospels are linked only orally. There is agreement in both narrative material and in sayings material."





Contra_Mundum said:


> The thought that the Christology of the church has to grow and develop--and so Mark would represent a regress if that Gospel were supposed to come second--just seems like a dependent theory, rather than a good reason for supposing Mark came first. Belief in dependency (not just priority) and evolutionary-developmental theology (not just theological unpacking) force some scholars toward Marcan-priority. I don't think the opposite position entails a symmetrical commitment to dependency, or the importance of priority.



I agree that there is circular reasoning in adopting an evolutionary-developmental theory of theological development, and then seeing such development as evidence of dependencies. However, I think some of the examples of "development" are not significant theologically, but explainable in terms of "improvement of presentation." One knows from editing one's own words, that a second re-write of a paragraph will often remove awkward phrases or statements which are open to misunderstanding.




Contra_Mundum said:


> The notion of dependency (it seems to me) is only significant if one wishes to push the longer gospels further out and away from the days of Jesus himself, and possibly away from the first generation of disciples. In which case, we need a Mark and a Q floating about alone for quite some time, so that gospel-evolution can take place in those mysterious "communities" favored by the Mythological School.



I do struggle with how worthwhile this dependency question is. On the one hand it involves a careful reading and comparison of Scripture, and reflects upon features of the Bible that God has given us. This cannot be a bad thing. On the other, some use it, as you say, to support untenable and destructive theories of development that undermine faith. That it also supports redaction criticism is also a mixed blessing, because although there is nothing in theory wrong with redaction criticism, sometimes it is pursued to construct a "reductionistic" reading of Scripture, and its conclusions can never be more certain than the - far from certain - identification of the sources that were redacted. 





Contra_Mundum said:


> If Acts is taken seriously, there was unquestionably a gospel-narrative that should have sprouted up among the Apostles, and predates anything written. When the Eleven add Matthias to their number (Act.1) the choice is between two men who were with them from the beginning. The witness is consistent across the Synoptics (and not undone by John) because it represents a collective memory. I suppose there were numerous "note-taking" accounts, and other non-sanctioned records, all which eventually go by the way when one and then another "authorized" narratives becomes commonplace.
> 
> Furthermore, the differences one typically finds in the Gospels aren't of the kind that look like "corrections" of a previous witness, but sound like independent takes on the same events. When two accounts are compared, are they really telling a different story? The more the accounts differ, the more likely we are to assume they were different events: like the parable of the talents, and the parable of the minas; or the Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain.



Again, I largely agree, although the presence of common ordering and language cannot be completely accounted for by the same underlying events, as I attempt to show in the example of above.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Steve P, I also, along with Pastor Bruce, appreciate what you have shared, and your obvious in-depth labors in the topic at hand, seeking to understand the “problems” that some have posited as such. However, also along with Bruce, I think that this area of study has given rise to much ado about nothing. For example, the “various categories of evidence which convince the holders of the Oxford and Farrer hypotheses of Marcan priority”, I find to be of little merit, to say the least. In these two parallel passages you noted,
> Mark 5:10 And he begged him eagerly not to send them out of the country
> Luke 8:31 And they begged him not to command them to depart into the abyss​
> I do not think the “switch from a singular to a plural” in Mark is awkward at all, given that one devil is apparently “spokesperson” for the multitude of them, and it appears that they were also able to speak in unison with one voice (v 12). Luke perhaps approached it from the latter view. It casts no light whatsoever on the priority of one gospel over the other.



I agree that Mark's account makes sense in its own terms, and any "awkwardness" in it can be accounted for, and that Luke's account can be explained in terms of adopting a different viewpoint. I even agree that by itself, one example like this does not cast light upon the dependency question.

However, that Mark's account - however theologically justifiable - is more awkward, is clear. Sentences do not normally jump around between the plural and singular. If there was documentary dependency between Mark and Luke, it would almost certainly be Luke knowing Mark rather than vice versa. If a writer wanted to change Luke to make a theological point about one devil being a spokesman for the others, arguably he would chose a more verbose way of doing so, and not merely "corrupt" a way of telling the story that does not have this "awkwardness". Conversely, one can imagine Luke adopting his different viewpoint to avoid the awkwardness of jumping from a singular to a plural.

Clearly, this one example may be accounted for by independence and not dependency. However, it is issues to do with ordering, word choices, and the shear consistency of the fact that time after time it is Matthew and Luke which have the smoother accounts of the same events which tend to support the idea of them being "dependent upon" (i.e. familiar with) Mark's account.




Jerusalem Blade said:


> It seems very likely, given the tight community of the apostles (later including Paul), they were familiar with each other’s writings – or proto-writings or verbal expressions – and likely reminisced often about those three and a half years with Jesus, Peter and John (James being cut short) telling the others things that only the three were privy to.
> 
> Add to this the fact that the Author of the gospels – the guiding intelligence and bringer-to-remembrance (John 14:26; 16:12-15) – was the Spirit of God, and the apostles (and hence their amanuenses Luke and Mark) “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet 1:21), which process I think we can legitimately extrapolate to the NT writing of Scripture as well.



I agree whole heartedly with both these points. However, the inspiration of John's gospel did not make it very similar to the Synoptics. Neither inspiration, nor memory of the same events, can account for the similarities between the Synoptic gospels. Some degree of documentary dependence is the most plausible explanation ... however familiar the apostles were with each others's reminiscences. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think much scholarship busies itself with material that may give it something to do, but is of little value to the church.



This is unquestionably true. Don Carson calls teachers (and to some extent this can be expanded to evangelical scholars) in the church "stomachs in the body of Christ." These take in vast quantity of almost indigestible stuff, and extract the goodness to nourish the rest of the body.

Your criticism was particularly true of older critical biblical scholarship which was controlled by a liberal sceptical agenda, but there are increasing numbers of evangelical scholars, and the techniques and questions have moved on ... some of which ... such as literary studies and studies into the social setting ... are more immediately helpful to the preacher and average disciple.

A thrilling read from a contemporary evangelical scholar working with the gospels, is Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, (Grand Rapids: Michigan), 2008. He highlights numerous features in the gospels which are the tell-tale evidences that they are based on eye-witness accounts. For example, have you ever wondered why the woman who anointed Jesus prior to the crucifixion is anonymous in one of the gospel accounts? However, it becomes explicable if it was a very early account, for, given that Jesus had been crucified for claiming to be a king, then in those early days, the person who anointed him might also have been thought to be in danger. Check out ... Jesus and EYEWITNESSES: Richard Bauckham: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks for your gracious and nuanced responses, Steve! Indeed, I much like Bauckham's, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, which I am slowly going through in preparation for refuting Bart Ehrman. It is an example of top-notch academic scholarship (I also appreciate his writings on Revelation, and Greg Beale's as well). Clearly, as you point out, there is _a lot_ of excellent material now coming out of Christian academia; it remains, though, one must sort through it very carefully.

Belatedly, welcome to PB, Steve – I look forward to seeing more of your posts.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I also appreciate the presentation, Steve.P. God bless your studies, both to yourself, and to the church.


----------

