Matthew and Mark Gospels

[billsherman]

Hmmmm. Now we have two diagrams purporting to convey the same statistical breakdown, but the second diagram gives completely different percentages.

The first one is more accurate (though exact percentages will vary a little based on rounding and some interpretations).

I’m not really sure how to read the second one, it’s trying to represent the triple tradition in a different way (graphically) graphically, but I’m not certain how. Matthew and Luke don’t have anywhere near that much material that is unshared (called the M and L Material).

 

[bpd_stl]

Not intended to come across as sarcastic (ok, perhaps just a little )…but what difference does it really make? We will NEVER know. THE END. The oceans of ink spilled over the “Synoptic Problem” is primarily the doings of navel-gazing academics trying to come to grips with this fact…as well as to justify their employment.

Everybody begins from somewhere. One of the first questions asked by those inquisitive about Christianity is why there are 4 Gospels instead of 1. A Good question indeed.

The short answer: the Gospels are at their core the memoirs of specific apostles as handed down orally in the apostolic communities that they themselves founded. Like every re-telling of a story, certain details change depending on: who’s perspective is being narrated, the clarity of recollection and who does the re-telling. Somebody in each community finally decided to write the oral tradition down…thus, the Gospels as we know them.

We live in a literate society today, so we have difficulty in grasping the concept that the Church didn’t have a written New Testament to found themselves around. The second (and third) generation wrote down this oral tradition so the memories could be preserved.: the NT we know today. Wrapping my head around this is what led me to convert to Catholicism.

If your faith is shaken to its very foundations by the possibility that the authors of both Matthew & Luke had before them a copy of Mark and then redacted it according to their own apostolic community’s oral tradition…then that’s more a statement about the fragility of your faith than anything. All the Gospels have as their source the same collective experience of the apostles.

 

[Shakuhachi]

We may never know the influences but the actual material shared should be objective.
It would just take a line by line analysis. One would think a computer could easily do it.

 

[billsherman]

The oceans of ink spilled over the “Synoptic Problem” is primarily the doings of navel-gazing academics trying to come to grips with this fact…as well as to justify their employment.

Ouch.

People are perplexed by all sorts of questions, and look for answers. Some people try to explain quantum mechanics, others look for the literary influences on Shakespeare, and yet others want to explain the relationships among the Synoptic Gospels.

It may not matter to you, but it matters to some people. We are all free to look for answers to the great questions that intrigue us. Just as we are free to ignore the great questions that don’t intrigue us.

 

[Shakuhachi]

great questions that intrigue us

Yes, and it is funny how for me, what intrigues me changes over time.

 

[Gorgias]

One of the first questions asked by those inquisitive about Christianity is why there are 4 Gospels instead of 1. A Good question indeed.

Really? That’s a relatively simple one: because the three authors of the three synoptic Gospels were writing to very different audiences, and because the author of John was writing his Gospel as a later document that addressed questions that were raised subsequent to the first three.

See? Simple!

 

[BartholomewB]

Sometimes expressed as, “Matthew is for Jews, Mark is for Romans, Luke is for Greeks … and John is for advanced students.”

 

[bpd_stl]

As I noted in my initial reply…sarcasm intended. Hard to convey online. My apologies if I offended.

I by no means reject the work of reputable scholars in this regard. I have read many of them over the years. Impossible to read all of them. The shelves are buckling under all the weight. More and more come out each year. It’s an industry.

My point is that we can never have a definitive “answer” to the Synoptic Problem. The next new book promising “answers” won’t give us any answers…other than a subsequent volume to address the answers that weren’t answered in the previous volume.

 

[bpd_stl]

(touching side of my nose)…I know. You just articulated what I wanted to say in an my already lengthy initial post: yes, they were writing for their intended “audience.” The idea that the writers of the Gospels were what we might say today were bloggers or citizen-journalists or “scholars” is something we try to back-feed.

 

[billsherman]

My point is that we can never have a definitive “answer” to the Synoptic Problem.

You’re correct (unless we uncover new evidence, of course).

The next new book promising “answers” won’t give us any answers

No, it probably won’t. But it will further our historical understanding of some portion of the problem. It’s undeniable that our understanding of the relationships among the Synoptics has expanded immeasurably over the past two centuries. Whether or not that does anything for you is another story, of course.

 

[bpd_stl]

True that.

I’m waiting for the 4th Quest for the Historical Jesus to begin.

 

[billsherman]

I’m waiting for the 4th Quest for the Historical Jesus to begin.

It’s going to be a bit, but if you’re young enough you’ll see it.

 

[bpd_stl]

bpd_stl:

I’m waiting for the 4th Quest for the Historical Jesus to begin.

It’s going to be a bit, but if you’re young enough you’ll see it.

By the time I finish Dunn’s ‘Christianity in the Making’ trilogy…probably