Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] RE: [XTalk] "A History of the Synoptic Problem"

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    ... The Synoptic Problem finds itself taking nuanced forms in the past 2 centuries, with the majority of publications divorcing themselves from the Gospel of
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 18, 2002
      --- Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...> wrote:
      > Sorry, I'm a bit late on this one. I share many of
      > the other views
      > expressed on the list on Dungan's History; I had a
      > review of this in
      > the Scottish Journal of Theology earlier this year
      > (_SJT_ 55
      > (2002), pp. 373-7). Let me mention one thing that
      > connects with one
      > of Stephen Carlson's comments. Dungan does not give
      > a precise
      > definition of the Synoptic Problem and this rather
      > skews the
      > discussion. If I might take the liberty of quoting
      > myself,
      > > Moreover, at the risk of being oversimplistic, the
      > term "Synoptic"
      > > Problem is generated by the term "Synoptic"
      > Gospels, and nowhere here
      > > is there any discussion of that most basic issue,
      > the distinction
      > > between the Synoptics and John. The reader
      > unfamiliar with the
      > > Synoptic Problem would have no idea from reading
      > this book that the
      > > extensive, verbatim agreement between Matthew,
      > Mark and Luke is not
      > > shared with John. Rather, where Dungan does draw
      > attention to any
      > > difference, he suggests that it is a question
      > purely of the
      > > theological and historical judgements on the
      > Fourth Gospel. Dungan
      > > claims, for example, that "Huck's synopsis
      > dispensed with most of the
      > > Gospel of John" because "prevailing opinion held
      > it to be totally
      > > unhistorical" (p. 350; cf. p. 322). But Gospel
      > Synopses (including
      > > the pioneering attempt of Griesbach as well as
      > those of contemporary
      > > Griesbachians) do not necessarily "dispense" with
      > John because of any
      > > historical or theological judgement on it but only
      > in so far as they
      > > are Synopses of the Gospels, books that arrange
      > the Gospels
      > > synoptically, inevitably giving preference to
      > those Gospels - Matthew,
      > > Mark and Luke - to which the Synopsis thereby
      > lends its name. (p. 375).
      > Mark

      The Synoptic Problem finds itself taking nuanced forms
      in the past 2 centuries, with the majority of
      publications divorcing themselves from the Gospel of
      John, which in turn synergistically advancing the idea
      either deliberately or not to date John last, usually
      c. AD 90-100. This very method and approach that uses
      various assumptions that are never addressed also
      advances the assumption about the Gospel of John not
      being integral to the Synoptic Problem either because
      the parallels are far fewer or for some other cause.

      Just as orginal sources were used to write the Gospels
      that took the unfortunate direction of being
      artificially labled Q turning out as it has in
      literature, so too is the Synoptic Problem defined
      variously artificial in itself having the same
      consequences. So, as you have been conscious of the
      problem surrounding Q which your book tackles you
      might also address this same problem regarding the
      defined Synoptic Problem.

      With very warm regards,

      John N. Lupia, III
      501 North Avenue B-1
      Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
      Phone: (908) 994-9720
      Email: jlupia2@...
      Editor, Roman Catholic News

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! News - Today's headlines

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.