Broadly stated, we are considering the synoptic problem as the fact that we have three gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) that appear to be closely related in some way but which do not fully agree with each other. (One might broaden that complaint about the lack of cohesive agreement to pretty much the entire Bible.) This question is somewhat extended by the fact that we do not really know the authors or the precise history of composition and transmission. (Some general details can reasonably be established, but not ones that really lead us to a final resolution.)
It seems to me that, other than a purely intellectual exercise, this situation is mostly only a problem for people proposing one of two views:
1) the books are all directly written by God, who knows everything for all contexts and all times
2) the books are the result of a concerted, centuries-long conspiracy by the church to substantiate its own relevance and power, even though it was initially started when there was no power or any likely reason to assume that there would be.
Surely, both of these views are inherently problematic to explain given the nature of the surviving documents. The first view would necessarily mean that God has some inexplicable reason for creating controversy that undermines the presumed purpose of inspiring such documents. The second would necessarily mean that the brilliant conspiracy that has come to dominate so much of our world was successfully carried out by people who could not really even marginally coordinate their efforts or plan beyond a very short time-frame — basically that they were not very bright conspirators who have been miraculously successful in spite of their incompetence. I am not willing to lapse far into Dan Brown territory other than to admit that the church, particularly the early church, clearly made some ham-handed attempts to interfere with the transmission of documents, presumably for the sake of trying to eliminate a degree of confusion, and in that effort it has considerably failed . . . which, again, I think serves as the best argument against a grand conspiracy.
One might step back just a bit from the first position to argue that God, in some particular conception, exists and that these books in some way reflect his intentions, however imperfectly, due to the involvement of humans in their creation. One might step back further to speculate that they were written by people with very human limitations, who did not fully understand what they were attempting to accomplish, and who did not have the advantage of knowing everything about events which they may have witnessed and even less about events which they did not directly witness.
Thus, without worrying about the theological implications, we have pretty clearly imperfect documents, with a complicated history and a context that cannot completely be established. With that as the problem, the only “solution” I can see is to accept that we cannot fully resolve the inconsistencies, or authoritatively explain their creation. We can make some effort at possible, suggestive explanations, backed by carefully constructed arguments and whatever supporting evidence might be available — but it can only be conjectural and a matter for further questioning, modification and subjective weighing of relative merits given alternative arguments (not all of which may be currently known).
So, to me the only real “synoptic problem” is that too many people are making arguments based on preferred conclusions and asserted with an unreasonable degree of certainty.
Jarek said
Steefen said
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Challenging Traditional Views of Marcion
Critics of Marcion like Tertullian and Epiphanius complained that Marcion cut and edited scripture to fit his beliefs. Biblical scholar Adolf von Harnack accepted this claim in his definitive text on Marcion, Marcion: The Gospel of an Alien God (1920). However, Tertullian and Epiphanius lived several generations after Marcion, and they assumed the New Testament they read already existed in Marcion’s era. It didn’t. Marcion’s critics were reading history backward instead of forward: there was no New Testament yet.
Ancient critics thought Marcion cut out texts he didn’t like from an already existing canon, but this is not true.
— Westar Institute (@WestarInstitute) ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The list of 2nd and 3rd century manuscripts compiled by the late Larry Hurtado consists of about 300 items. They are divided into: 1/3 NT texts, 1/3 Apocrypha texts, 1/6 Christian LXX texts and 1/6 Jewish LXX texts. This means that the new literature completely dominated and that the apocrypha were as important as the NT texts. Especially the Shepherd Hermas pointing to the Roman Church. It is as popular as the Gospel of Matthew, despite the fact that in the text, about the volume of the entire Pauline Corpus, the word Jesus is mentioned once.
What conclusions
1. There are no 1st century manuscripts. All this writing began at the turn of the 1st / 2nd century. Why not earlier? Because it didn’t pay off. Because someone has finally found a target market.
2. The entire market is focused on new customers – pagan customers. The dramatic decline in the importance of the LXX
3. The canon was not important. All literature worked for the missionary success of Christianity.
4. Cannibalization and rivalry were the problem. The number of literary items indicates that a large proportion of players preferred to prey on converts rather than lead a mission among the pagans.
Paul’s letters were dated by all readers from the 2nd century to the 21st century on the basis of their content. They have always been ancient for all readers. Because they were supposed to be like that. And that’s why they have disappeared and have been miraculously found. A real resurrection.
There is no slow growth when you find a new, absorbent content market. There is madness. Luke wrote Acts between 100-150, added genealogy and preface to the gospel after 175. And is yet to be the author of the gospel around AD 85. I don’t even want to comment on that.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jarek,
Of the 257 items on the table in the Hurtado List, 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch are not one of the 257.
On Hurtado’s list, Daniel dates to AD 3rd century to AD 4th century. The Septuagint (LXX) is from 2nd century BCE.
The Book of Daniel is preserved in the 12-chapter Masoretic Text (7 – 10th centuries CE) and in two longer Greek versions, the original Septuagint version, c. 100 BCE, and the later Theodotion version from c. 2nd century CE.
– Wikipedia entry for Septuagint
Daniel is in the Septuagint by the time of Herod the Great. Why is Hurtado putting it WAY after 10 BCE?
– Steefen
Jarek
2. The entire market is focused on new customers – pagan customers. The dramatic decline in the importance of the LXX
Steefen
The LXX must have been in Herod’s Temple and in the Disapora (Babylon and Alexandria).
After the Temple was destroyed, that is all what was left of Judaism, a case can be made. Second, you canNOT say there was a dramatic decline in the importance of the LXX at Yavne.
One cannot get the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud without the LXX.
Check the score of this thread.
The Biblical Jesus did not leave behind writings.
The disciples of the Biblical Jesus did not leave behind writings.
Scholars: Paul’s authentic letters were written by him before he died AD 64
Jarek: Paul’s authentic letters were not written until after AD 100.
Scholars: gospels were written AD 70 to AD 95.
Jarek: There is only Oral Tradition until AD 100
AD 100 to AD 160 Marcion’s Gospel and Marcion’s collection of Pauline Letters
AD 160 to AD 500 Anti-Marcion Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the rest of canonical New Testament
– Steefen
Historical Preservation, Jarek.
You want us to believe what? about the Septuagint, Daniel, and Enoch I?
Josephus by CE 93, completed Antiquities. The second passage after the TF gives us a Paul figure exploiting pious women in Rome.
That Paul could communicate and probably write letters but you want a better writer to write Romans, 1 Corinthians, and probably Galatians.
= = =
People want to tie Jesus Christ to James the Just but in the accounts by Josephus, how does James reference Jesus?
There is no prayer, no parable, no eulogizing, there is no mention, there certainly is no Last Supper remembrance from James. James would not run afoul of Lev. 17: 10.
Where were the disciples when James was under attack?
Somewhere I came across the idea that Paul who loved Jesus SO MUCH, that Paul killed the brother of Jesus.
This could be a discussion thread.
For now, ** you do not have permission to see this link **
= = =
If the letters of Paul were not written by AD 64, buit 36 years later, how much of that was made up. And if the Paul section of Acts does not appear until 125 to 150 CE, how reliable is that–the conversion of Paul, finally written 100 years after the alleged fact? How accurate is the Oral Tradition of Paul. How accurate is the Oral Tradition of Jesus? Pilate did not crucify Jesus, he crucified the Samaritan Redeemer.
Robert said
Steefen said
Daniel is in the Septuagint by the time of Herod the Great. Why is Hurtado putting it WAY after 10 BCE?
Hurtado is speaking of the dates of manuscripts, not the dates of when particular books were written.
The Book of Daniel is preserved in the 12-chapter Masoretic Text (7 – 10th centuries CE) …
The majority of consonantal Hebrew scripture texts found at Qumran were similar to what would later be vocalized by the Masoretes.
One cannot get the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud without the LXX.
No, the Talmuds relied mostly on the Hebrew bible.
What Hebrew bible 100% independent of the LXX?
Steefen said
Robert said
Steefen said
Daniel is in the Septuagint by the time of Herod the Great. Why is Hurtado putting it WAY after 10 BCE?
Hurtado is speaking of the dates of manuscripts, not the dates of when particular books were written.
The Book of Daniel is preserved in the 12-chapter Masoretic Text (7 – 10th centuries CE) …
The majority of consonantal Hebrew scripture texts found at Qumran were similar to what would later be vocalized by the Masoretes.
One cannot get the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud without the LXX.
No, the Talmuds relied mostly on the Hebrew bible.
What Hebrew bible 100% independent of the LXX?
Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were thought to have been in use among various Jewish sects at the time. Several factors led most Jews to abandon the Septuagint around the second century CE.
So all the great rabbis of the first century that are discussed in the Talmud did not avoid the LXX because it was not abandoned until after AD70.
If you want to avoid the scholarship of Hebrew to Greek translation…
= = =
2. The entire market is focused on new customers – pagan customers. The dramatic decline in the importance of the LXX
Steefen
Oh, you’re not necessarily talking about the importance of the Hebrew Bible.
Wait a second, pagan customers are not Jewish customers. There was a dramatic decline in the importance of the LXX by Jewish customers.
The dramatic decline in the importance of the LXX among Jews means there was a dramatic decline in the importance of the LXX among Greek-speaking Gentiles?
Robert said
The LXX and the Old Greek translations are sometimes helpful in identifying textual variants in the Hebrew texts used by the later Greek translators, but the Hebrew texts are not dependent upon later Greek translators.
The tannaim who could read and speak Greek did not use the Septuagint?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Not important, Robert.
My comment was directed at Jarek.
I already admitted that I read his comment as the books of the Septuagint had a dramatic decline.
With the Temple destroyed and no more pilgrimages to the Temple, there could have been a decline in the interest for Judaism. Why exploit pious Gentiles under the guise of converting them to Temple Judaism and there is no more Temple. So many people “lost their religion” with that Tribulation.
“Well, let’s play the sympathy card: Oh, the poor Jews lost their religion but there was this Jewish miracle worker, so innocent, so smart, who came to a tragic end, just like Temple Judaism.”
“Oh, poor God, he no longer has a Temple for sacrifices.”
“Let’s give him his son as a sacrifice. That will work.”
“He was betrayed, just like Julius Caesar.”
“Yes, such a sympathetic character. So many BAWLED at his funeral.”
“If we’re going to invent a religious hero, he has to be lovable, unfairly treated, an underdog.”
“Yes, throw in some Homer. Make him walk on water like Hermes.”
“Julius Caesar and Homer? Too GOOD.”
“People saw the spirit of Caesar in the sky. How are you going to make this icon of Jewish Revolt martyrs live on beyond his death by betrayal–such a shame?”
“You’ll call him Eleazar?”
“No, there was that son of Mary kid who was eaten by his mother. There was that Jesus of Galilee who led his mariners against Vespasian and Titus. Then, there was that Jesus–Woe this, Woe that–and that other Jesus from Galilee who was a high priest…”
“Jesus of Gamala, Galilee.”
“Yes, him.”
“Make him resurrect. Give him the power to resurrect people and then he, himself, resurrects after he dies–THEN, for looking up to see him in the sky, give him an ascension.”
“Aren’t you worried about him running afoul of Lev. 17:10 with that Last Supper betrayal scene?”
“God is too busy dealing with his destroyed Holy of Holies.”
“God? God?! God means to be powerful, powerful enough to protect his son and his house. This God has lost his house, his son, and his people have been defeated. Rebel leaders in competition added a Jewish Civil War to the Jewish Revolt. It’s a great ruckus. Meanwhile, Rome, with Mars and Jupiter are going on doing what they do–not that they didn’t have problems the year before AD70.”
“Yes, remember how at the funeral of Julius Caesar, the crowd was TOTALLY overcome with grief when the likeness of Caesar with stab wombs was raised on a cross. We’ve got to get Jesus raised on a cross like THAT.”
All: CRUCIFIXION!
“Make Jesus die by crucifixion, not by his mother eating half of him and offering the other half to others, not by him dying in battle, not by him being stabbed to death. … Jesus on the cross – and give him a stab womb.”
“From a man named Longinus”
“That’s going too far, don’t you think? Longinus stabbed Julius Caesar.”
Longinus is the name given to the unnamed Roman soldier who pierced the side of Jesus with a lance and who in medieval and some modern Christian traditions is described as a convert to Christianity. His name first appeared in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Wikipedia
Steefen:
Check the score of this thread. Scores from Steefen:
The Biblical Jesus did not leave behind writings.
The disciples of the Biblical Jesus did not leave behind writings.
This is generally acceptable unless the civic leader (Justus of Tiberius) in Galilee who studied Greek and wrote history is Jesus of Galilee who lost the Battle of Galilee.
Scholars: Paul’s authentic letters were written by him before he died AD 64
Jarek: Paul’s authentic letters were not written until after AD 100.
Steefen: They carry the authority of canonized scripture but they were not important and authoritative in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, AD 60-100?
This is a big issue.
Scholars: gospels were written AD 70 to AD 95.
Jarek: There is only Oral Tradition until AD 100
Steefen: Jarek’s position is a challenge to the notion of Paul’s Gospel of God vs other gospels.
a) If Marcion wrote the first gospel and there was no Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke in final form by the time the Evangelikon and Apostolikon were published by Marcion, standard scholarship on when the gospels were written is not reliable.
b) Anti-Marcion editing and creation of New Testament material after Marcion’s New Testament was rejected is quite the turn of events for understanding Christianity.
Another issue: Luke could not have known Paul if the Gospel of Luke is a second century document and if the completed Gospel of Luke is a result of Anti-Marcion redaction and if Acts of the Apostles, in that period of Anti-Marcion redaction, contains a revision of biographical information for Paul.
These are important issues.
AD 100 to AD 160 Marcion’s Gospel and Marcion’s collection of Pauline Letters
AD 160 to AD 500 Anti-Marcion Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the rest of canonical New Testament
Book of Revelation cannot be dated to 96 CE, possibly.
JAS said
Broadly stated, we are considering the synoptic problem as the fact that we have three gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) that appear to be closely related in some way but which do not fully agree with each other. (One might broaden that complaint about the lack of cohesive agreement to pretty much the entire Bible.) This question is somewhat extended by the fact that we do not really know the authors or the precise history of composition and transmission. (Some general details can reasonably be established, but not ones that really lead us to a final resolution.)It seems to me that, other than a purely intellectual exercise, this situation is mostly only a problem for people proposing one of two views:
1) the books are all directly written by God, who knows everything for all contexts and all times
2) the books are the result of a concerted, centuries-long conspiracy by the church to substantiate its own relevance and power, even though it was initially started when there was no power or any likely reason to assume that there would be.
Surely, both of these views are inherently problematic to explain given the nature of the surviving documents. The first view would necessarily mean that God has some inexplicable reason for creating controversy that undermines the presumed purpose of inspiring such documents. The second would necessarily mean that the brilliant conspiracy that has come to dominate so much of our world was successfully carried out by people who could not really even marginally coordinate their efforts or plan beyond a very short time-frame — basically that they were not very bright conspirators who have been miraculously successful in spite of their incompetence. I am not willing to lapse far into Dan Brown territory other than to admit that the church, particularly the early church, clearly made some ham-handed attempts to interfere with the transmission of documents, presumably for the sake of trying to eliminate a degree of confusion, and in that effort it has considerably failed . . . which, again, I think serves as the best argument against a grand conspiracy.
One might step back just a bit from the first position to argue that God, in some particular conception, exists and that these books in some way reflect his intentions, however imperfectly, due to the involvement of humans in their creation. One might step back further to speculate that they were written by people with very human limitations, who did not fully understand what they were attempting to accomplish, and who did not have the advantage of knowing everything about events which they may have witnessed and even less about events which they did not directly witness.
Thus, without worrying about the theological implications, we have pretty clearly imperfect documents, with a complicated history and a context that cannot completely be established. With that as the problem, the only “solution” I can see is to accept that we cannot fully resolve the inconsistencies, or authoritatively explain their creation. We can make some effort at possible, suggestive explanations, backed by carefully constructed arguments and whatever supporting evidence might be available — but it can only be conjectural and a matter for further questioning, modification and subjective weighing of relative merits given alternative arguments (not all of which may be currently known).
So, to me the only real “synoptic problem” is that too many people are making arguments based on preferred conclusions and asserted with an unreasonable degree of certainty.
Thank You for that. It is exactly as you say. There are over a dozen proposed solutions to the synoptic problem generated by biblical scholars. And none of them has been verified by means of a comparative analysis with the benchmarks of the content market, and this one is huge. There is no shortage of benchmarks. If I came across such analyzes, I would discuss with their authors and not with biblical scholars. Finding a solution to a problem is different from trying to come up with the solution yourself.
This is, of course, precisely the problem. It is easy enough to make up a theory, but how do you “verify” it? What is the already verified and reliable standard against which it can be measured? What people tend to do for this sort of thing is accumulate available historical sources and seek out the commonalities (and disagreements), with an assumption that an agreement with at least some degree of independence is at least a kind of verification. The difficulty there is often establishing that independence and in distinguishing authority and influence. Often sources are at least partially repeating each other because they are aware of each other. Such awareness can taint even testimony from first-hand witnesses. The problems are not to be engaged in lightly, and all too often are.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)