(1) People find it dull because it is taught badly. In fact, the Synoptic Problem is often not taught at all. In so far as New Testament introductions and introductory courses teach it, they focus on one particular solution (the Two-Source theory) and then they refract all the data through that theory. Simply setting out a solution deprives students of all the interest in the process of history, all the enjoyment in puzzling out the literary enigma.
(2) People find it dull because they do not actually study it. The only way to engage in serious study of the Synoptic Problem is to get down and dirty with the Synopsis, and to spend enjoyable time working with the texts, ideally doing some colouring. It's one of the guilty secrets of the guild that too many scholars simply do not do the work with the texts that they should, preferring instead to keep wading through the pile of largely mediocre pieces of secondary literature.
(3) People find it dull because they think that there is an obvious solution (the Two-Source Theory). Alternatives are thought to be unpersuasive and not worth attention. To an extent, Mike's post bears this out -- he engages only the Two-Source Theory and the Griesbach Theory. I think that this is a shame given the strong case that can be made for the Farrer Theory, engagement with which can make the Synoptic Problem interesting again.
This all rings true for me. I first became interested in the Synoptic Problem when I had the chance to spend time coloring an old synopsis and saw for myself - though I had already been told by teachers and friends - that the data did not fit as neatly into the schema of the Two-Source theory as I had supposed.
Has anyone else had this experience?
I've found the synoptic problem to be very tedious. It seems to be an awful lot of work for little to no outcome/change in the way things are. We have the gospels we have in their final form. The predetermining forms are interesting in that we see what choices early Christians might have been forced to make. But, if we're studying those choices - it would seem an analysis of the epistles against the gospels would be far more revealing to show some (all?) of these choices? Otherwise it seems we're just interested in the problem because its a hard problem (self-glorification/vanity/"I solved it.")
ReplyDeleteAll that being said, I don't find it very inspirational to study this problem (I'm an MTS student with a focus in NT).
Maybe this simply provides confirmation that I'm a strange lad, but the synoptic problem is actually what got me hooked on NT studies. It was the first essay that our tutor assigned for our 'Jesus and the Gospels' paper (=course) at college, and we considered all three major proposals.
ReplyDeleteAt the time, I was actually unpersuaded by the two-source theory, and more convinced by the Farrer hypothesis, but with no settled position. When it came to Finals, though, I found it was impossible not to have a settled position, and so the 2ST had to (temporarily) win-out, especially as it is presupposed in so much secondary literature.
I guess that it is hard to remain agnostic, when so much scholarship presupposes a particular answer to this question!
I found the SP incredibly difficult and complex when I started to look at it. The various parallel charts available and a few synopsii were helpful, but no solution was in sight. I needed insight.
ReplyDeleteJust looking at the SP made me suspicious of the gospels in their current form. At first Mark looked like a brutal mutilation of the gospel. I couldn't believe the others weren't inspired, and I couldn't believe Mark could gut them and still be an honest Christian.
As the details of the SP unfolded, I had to come to reverse my belief about Mark, and recognise that some form of his gospel was the outline that the other two (Matt/Luke) had used. Then I had a new problem: Why were Matthew and Luke so different? Now Matthew fell under suspicion. He seemed to have gutted Luke's social gospel, an essential element. And Matthew was filled with "church" stuff, and semi-Judaic stuff, which made him more suspect.
Nor could I accept the idea that Luke wrote after Matthew. It made no sense. How could Luke have rearranged Matthew? It was implausible if not impossible. Nor could Luke have just made up the social gospel and injected it into the gospel. I intuitively knew that Luke's material was authentic.
But Matthew could easily have rearranged Luke's material and/or used his sources independently with knowledge of Luke and in imitation of him. As I began to notice just how much of "Special Matthew" and "Q" was simply Luke in different guise, it became clear to me that Matthew was indeed the culprit. But again, now that I had established that 90% of Matthew was in Luke anyway, the remaining "Special Matthew" had shrunk to a manageable and acceptable size.
I came to notice that Matthew had indeed sometimes preserved a more original text than Luke, and I learned to forgive him for his editorial excesses and move on, even appreciate his good points.
One of the things that helped immensely in making the SP comprehensible was making my own charts and lists, and getting the essential and important features of the problem laid out in a visually informative way.
Anyone is welcome to critique our charts, in our Synoptic Section onsite:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/SYNOP/index.html
enjoy!
Nazaroo
I found the SP incredibly difficult and complex when I started to look at it. The various parallel charts available and a few synopsii were helpful, but no solution was in sight. I needed insight. Just looking at the SP made me suspicious of the gospels in their current form.
ReplyDeleteAt first Mark looked like a brutal mutilation of the gospel. I couldn't believe the others weren't inspired, and I couldn't believe Mark could gut them and still be an honest Christian. As the details of the SP unfolded, I had to come to reverse my belief about Mark, and recognise that some form of his gospel was the outline that the other two (Matt/Luke) had used.
Then I had a new problem: Why were Matthew and Luke so different? Now Matthew fell under suspicion. He seemed to have gutted Luke's social gospel, an essential element. And Matthew was filled with "church" stuff, and semi-Judaic stuff, which made him more suspect. Nor could I accept the idea that Luke wrote after Matthew. It made no sense. How could Luke have rearranged Matthew? It was implausible if not impossible.
Nor could Luke have just made up the social gospel and injected it into the gospel. I intuitively knew that Luke's material was authentic. But Matthew could easily have rearranged Luke's material and/or used his sources independently with knowledge of Luke and in imitation of him. As I began to notice just how much of "Special Matthew" and "Q" was simply Luke in different guise, it became clear to me that Matthew was indeed the culprit.
But again, now that I had established that 90% of Matthew was in Luke anyway, the remaining "Special Matthew" had shrunk to a manageable and acceptable size. I came to notice that Matthew had indeed sometimes preserved a more original text than Luke, and I learned to forgive him for his editorial excesses and move on, even appreciate his good points.
One of the things that helped immensely in making the SP comprehensible was making my own charts and lists, and getting the essential and important features of the problem laid out in a visually informative way. Anyone is welcome to critique our charts, in our Synoptic Section onsite:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/SYNOP/index.html
enjoy!
Nazaroo