Bruce, Jeff, et al.,

Almost every synopsis produced since the middle of the nineteenth
century is "Markenized," although many of the authors would claim to
have created a "neutral" tool. Don't believe it. Some of these
"Markenized" synopses are explicitly so, but most are implicitly so with
a claim to "objectivity" that is impossible (see Dungan's articles noted
on the 2GH WEB page, cited below).

I also know that the task of making a neutral synopsis is impossible
because I have been constructing my own synopses of individual pericopes
for thirty years and have a substantial part of the work done on two
complete synopses, one illustrating Luke's use of Matthew, and another
illustrating Mark's use of Matthew and Luke. "Markenized" synopses
simply do not show some of the most important evidence in support of the
neo-Griesbach (two-gospel) hypothesis. (Unfortunately, neither does John
Bernard Orchard, *A Synopsis of the Four Gospels in Greek Arranged
Acording to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis* [Macon GA: Mercer University
Press/Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983]).

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of judgment calls that
must be made by every synopsis maker. How large should the pericopes be?
Where should they begin/end? What constitutes a parallel? How many
columns are required to display all of the relevant evidence?
(Three-columned synopses are often inadequate.) Which words should be
set in parallel? What is a "partial agreement"? What is an agreement in
order? Include John or not? etc. etc.

One of the most telling judgment calls that everyone who constructs a
synopsis must make is where to place the Sermon on the Mount and the
Sermon on the Plain (Again, see Dungan). Once such basic decisions have
been made, many others "fall out" from it/them. Orchard could have
better illustrated Luke's use of Matthew had he made a different
decision about where to place the Sermon on the Mount and his
arrangement makes it even more difficult than do most "Markenized"
synopses to see how Mark could have composed his gospel from Mt and Lk.

Also see the brief statement on synopsis-making by the Research Team of
the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies posted at

http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/intro.html

David Dungan's articles on synopsis construction noted there are
particularly instructive and you may also want to explore the rest of
the Two Gospel Hypothesis WEB site, including the early version of a
synopsis of Mk 1:1-3:30 which explicitly intends to illustrate Mark's
use of Matthew and Luke. I have now revised and expanded that synopsis
through Mk 6:6, but I have not yet sent it to Tom for posting to the
WEB.

Two of the most explicitly "Markenized" synopses are those by W. G.
Rushbrooke (1880, color coded and arranged to illustrate the
two-document hypothesis) and Albert Huck which was used by Burton
Throckmorton for his most popular English synopsis (RSV and, more
recently, NRSV). In the first German edition, Huck noted that he
constructed his synopsis to illustrate Holtzmann's two-source theory. In
subsequent editions, Huck abandoned that task, but without altering his
arrangement significantly. That is to say, Holtzmann's source theory
still forms the core of the Huck/Throckmorton synopsis tradition.

Allan Barr's popular synoptic chart is particularly biased toward Markan
priority because Barr did not think it was necessary to distinguish
between triple tradition (agreeements among Mark, Matthew and Luke) and
double tradition (agreements between Mark and Matthew) and double
tradition (agreements between Mark and Luke). All of these three
distinguishable types of agreements are color coded with pink.

Heinrich Greeven's "The Gospel Synopsis from 1776 to the Present Day"
[in *J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776-1976,*
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 34 (ed. Bernard
Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1978) 22-49] is worth reading and covers much of the history of
synopsis making, including some comments on synoptic work done prior to
1776. However, Greeven has always affirmed that his own synopsis was
"neutral."

Jeff, make your own synopsis. Color-coding someone else's work will not
reveal half of the relevant evidence. The knowledge you will gain by
doing the color-coding, however, is well worth the effort.

David B. Peabody
Nebraska Wesleyan University
Lincoln, NE
dbp@...