1. Introduction Before getting into each of the points of the arguments between scholars, it is essential to understand that none of these things invalidate that the Bible, specifically the synoptic gospels, or make the Bible fallible. The Bible is inspired by God and is knitted together in perfect unison, whether readers comprehend how they do or not. The synoptic problem is a subject that frequently comes up in debates amongst scholars. There are multiple aspects to this problem such as the order in which the synoptic Gospels are written, these usually fall into two main categories: the Markan Priority and the Augustinian Hypothesis. Further topics that are deliberated with the synoptic problem are the sources behind the synoptic gospels. A primary source that is commonly accepted among scholars is the Q source: this source has not formally been discovered and proven to be entirely legitimate. Other source hypothesis include the two source and four source hypothesis; both hypothesis include Q as a source, but they differ when …show more content…
This idea is not as prominent among scholars and theologians as the Markan Priority, but nonetheless is worth discussing. William Farmer is among one of the leading scholars to endorse this theory. In Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, Farmer used the Augustinian Hypothesis as a foundational piece for his Two Gospel Hypothesis. Farmer stated in his essay that “There seems to be no sound literary or historical ground on which to base denial of the premise that Mark throughout almost the whole extent of his Gospel appears to be working with the texts of Matthew and Luke before him.” He also said “It is historically probable that Mark was written after Matthew and Luke and was dependent upon both” The Augustinian Hypothesis was widely accepted until the discovery of the Two Source Hypothesis in the 19th
However, if any explanation other than historically accurate is accepted the disciples non- understanding might be explained. Overall, it is fair to say that scholarly opinion is divided on an explanation for the differences in the accounts; perhaps best explained by the writing perspective of the individual authors.
Writings of historical scholars, Josephus, Aristotle, and Plato, to name a few, are taken as truth and fact, yet the writings of the Scripture are constantly disputed. Why? Perhaps because of the ethical imperatives imposed to which people do not want to adhere. Perhaps because of man’s ego and pride that disallows them to submit to a Higher Authority. Nonetheless, The Bible has been, and still remains, the most widely read and revered book of all
It is stated in the New Jerusalem Bible that “the Gospels don’t reflect the biography or the life of Jesus but are the four versions of the preaching from Jesus and are full of wonders and mysteries regarding the life of Jesus.” (New J Bible 1147). All the stories in gospels share similar outcomes and main ideas. They are very similar mainly that of Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke while Gospel of John is a little different from the rest three. The stories from Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the synoptic. It is because they have the same synopsis and are simil...
The study of textual criticism is important when talking about any historical manuscript or text. In particular, when talking about something with as much impact and influence as the bible, textual criticism is a necessary part of scholarship. Brad Ehrman does an excellent job in explaining the basics of textual criticism and how it can be used to determine the accuracy of biblical texts and manuscripts. His book, Misquoting Jesus, serves as a primer to the study of historical biblical manuscripts. As Ehrman states in his introduction, the thesis explained in the text is that biblical manuscripts have been changed throughout history, both intentionally and non-intentionally, and that those changes were affected by the attitudes and beliefs of the scribes.
In the Enlightenment period David Strauss developed a radical new approach to the resurrection of Jesus, explaining it was a “subjective conception in the mind” of the disciples (McGrath, 2001, 399). Strauss’ theory suggests the disciples did not witness a life physically restored but saw a projection of Jesus living in the presence from their memories (Luke 24.39-49). As a result of this, he referred to the Biblical account of resurrection as “a reflection of the gospel writers’ social conditioning and cultural outlook” (McGrath, 2001, 399). Therefore, the apostle Matthew can be viewed as the authority figure in which Luke and Mark took the concept of resurrection from because they were socially conditioned to believe the apostles account of resurrection (Luke 24.6). Thus providing evidence for the two-source hypothesis in the synoptic problem: Matthew was the original source Luke and Mark used when writing their
The study of the Gospel of John can be viewed as distinct and separate from the study of any of the previous three synoptic gospels. The Fourth Gospel contains language and conceptions so distinct from the synoptics that scholars are often faced with the question of its historical origins. Originally, scholars believed the main source for the Gospel of John to be Jewish wisdom literature, Philo, the Hermetic books and the Mandaean writings, leading to the idea that John was the most Greek of the Gospels. However, with the discovery of the scrolls, scholars were now faced with source materials, remarkably similar to the concepts and language found in John, illuminating the literature as not only Jewish but Palestinian in origin. The discovery of the manuscripts opened up an entirely new interpretation of the gospel of John and a progressive understanding of its proper place within biblical scripture.
The reason that the Gospel of Matthew is in the first place among the four Gospels is due to the early church tradition that Matthew was the earliest one who recorded Lord’s word and Jesus stories. In the fifth century, Augustine of Hippo claimed that "the canonical order of the four Gospels was the chronological order." In the late-eighteenth century, J. J. Griesbach stated that The Gospel of Mark was a short version of the combination of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. In the nineteenth century, German scholars concluded that the Gospel of Matthew was preceded by the Gospel of Mark and Matthew used the Gospel of Mark as his primary source. No matter which theory that most New Testament scholars accept, Matthew did not simply copy sources from other Gospels, but also included his own ideas and quoted verses from the Old Testament. So the question of readers should rise is "How strong relationship did the Gospel of Matthew have with the Old Testament?" or "How accurately did Matthew use the Old Testament?
Kruger challenges Christians to reevaluate why they believe that the Bible is the word of God. While he gives his answer by quoting scripture it employs the reader to dig deeper to understand not only the canon but also the Bible as a whole text. He is careful when making his claims to have fact behind them from scripture and his studies. Kruger paints a clear picture of the canon and addresses the controversies of each model. This book earns its place among relevant and important works in the study of the canon both now and in the foreseeable
The contents of the Bible have dealt with controversy in regards to its inerrancy since publication, and will surely continue to. Historians progress to learn more about biblical stories in order to provide evidence for the reliability of information. Many believers today understand that not everything in the Bible has been factually proven. An outstanding topic many scholars pay attention to lies within the four gospels. The three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, replay essentially the same story with minor inconsistencies, while John portrays Jesus in an entirely different way. The differences in each gospel are due to how each gospel entertains different portrayals of the life and understanding of Jesus himself, in order to persuade
For centuries now Christians have claimed to possess the special revelation of an omnipotent, loving Deity who is sovereign over all of His creation. This special revelation is in written form and is what has come to be known as The Bible which consists of two books. The first book is the Hebrew Scriptures, written by prophets in a time that was before Christ, and the second book is the New Testament, which was written by Apostles and disciples of the risen Lord after His ascension. It is well documented that Christians in the context of the early first century were used to viewing a set of writings as being not only authoritative, but divinely inspired. The fact that there were certain books out in the public that were written by followers of Jesus and recognized as being just as authoritative as the Hebrew Scriptures was never under debate. The disagreement between some groups of Christians and Gnostics centered on which exact group of books were divinely inspired and which were not. The debate also took place over the way we can know for sure what God would have us include in a book of divinely inspired writings. This ultimately led to the formation of the Biblical canon in the next centuries. Some may ask, “Isn’t Jesus really the only thing that we can and should call God’s Word?” and “Isn’t the Bible just a man made collection of writings all centered on the same thing, Jesus Christ?” This paper summarizes some of the evidences for the Old and New Testament canon’s accuracy in choosing God breathed, authoritative writings and then reflects on the wide ranging
Mark was Peter's son (I Peter 5:13, possibly spiritual son), who wrote down what Peter said about who Jesus was, what He did, where He went and what happened; Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, an eye-witness account, written down by Mark.
The historical reliability of the Bible is the first matter that needs to be discussed. There are three criteria that the military historian C. Sanders lists as principles for documentary historical proof: the bibliographical test, internal evidence test, and the external evidence test (McDowell 43). The bibliographical test is the examination of text from the documents that have reached us. The reliability of the copies of the New Testament is tested by the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time intervals between the time in which the piece of literature was written and our earliest copy. There are more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and 10,000 Latin vulgate manuscripts, not to mention the other various translations.
The Bible is without doubt the one of the most powerful books in the world. It has the power to control nations and to create war over a simple verse and so it is not uncommon that this book has been studied in the most detailed way. Upon those scholars who have analyzed the bible lies Julius Wallhausen who came up with what is now known as the “Documentary Hypothesis”. The Documentary Hypothesis states that the first five books of the bible were put together from independent different sources, labeled J(Yawhist), E(Elohist), D(Deuteronomic) and the P(Priestly) source (Coogan, pgs 51-55). This paper will provide a short summary of each source, as well as the importance that this hypothesis might have on a bible reader and how it can change
The term “Synoptic Problem” alludes to the similarities and differences that is apparent in the Synoptic Gospels. Events that occurred are detailed in somewhat different arrangements and narrations. These differences and similarities have caused observant Christians to wonder what could cause what appear to be a chronological difference in these Gospels and why do we have more than one Gospel? All of these observations and questions in essence make up the “Synoptic Problem.” (Lea and Black,The New Testament Its Background and message 2003:114) The development of the Gospel as described by Luke referred to “eyewitnesses” an “account of the things” and “an orderly account”. These stages correlate to the Oral tradition, the period of written sources, and the period of final composition.(Lea and Black,The New Testament Its Background and message 2003:115)
Most Christian scholars agree that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke. Over half the material in Matthew and Luke is common to material in Mark, suggesting that Matthew and Luke used Mark to write their gospels. Matthew and Luke each have about 100 verses in common, most of them sayings; to explain this agreement, scholars assume that they used a primitive document, which they call Q. It consisted largely of sayings of Jesus. Matthew and Luke also contain unique material not present in Mark. This apparently came from two different sources, of which each author had access to only one. These differences and similarities can be seen in the story of the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus can be broken down into 5 sections: the approaching of the tomb, the removal of the stone, looking in the tomb, the response and the reaction.