Decoding the Enigmatic Synoptic Problem: An In-Depth Academic Analysis of Pentecostal Hermeneutics Applied to the Genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38

Sinoptik Problem ve Redaksiyon Kritiği: Giriş Mahiyetinde Bir Değerlendirme

This collection of essays is the fruit of the second meeting of a group investigating “Narrative Transformation as Theological Interpretation of the Gospels.” The proceeds of its first meeting were also published in the Library of New Testament Studies as volume 550 under the title Luke’s Literary Creativity. The second volume is the proceeds of the conference Gospel Interpretation and the Q Hypothesis held in Denmark in 2015.The volume contains 14 essays. Heike Omerzu provides the opening essay that outlines the reason for the volume, gives a synopsis of each essay, and explains how they contribute to the larger issue under discussion. By a brief historical review of the Synoptic problem, she points out that the current solutions proposed vary depending on the location of the scholarship. In particular, the two-source theory is the point of departure for this discussion. So, by collecting scholars from Germany, England, and America, each of the different solutions are brought into dialogue in this volume. The other 13 essays are this dialogue and are grouped under two larger headings, those that deal with issues of method (“History and Theology,” 6 essays) and those that put method into practice (“Textual Studies,” 7 essays). The volume is rounded out with three indexes (author, subject, references). Even though some of the contributors are continental scholars, all essays are presented in English.The first part opens with John S. Kloppenborg discussing the methodologies utilized by scholars in approaching the Synoptic problem and their links to historical and theological reasoning. The quest for the historical Jesus and the early Jesus Movement are briefly examined as case studies. His conclusion is that any solution of the Synoptic problem is “not innocent of ideological commitments” so scholarship in the area should be humble in the confidence with which it proposes its solutions. Next, Stefan Alkier presents a historical survey of the Synoptic problem from the early church to the present. His essay concludes with 10 theses that acknowledge the absence of a present consensus “theory” that is able to explain all the data and highlights the value of consulting previous explanations. Third, Mogens Müller argues that the two-source hypothesis is the result of an interest in ascertaining the historical sources behind the Gospels. But if the Gospels are seen as literary creations and dated in sequence (Mark, Matthew, Luke), then there is no need for the two-source hypothesis. The next three chapters are a discussion between Francis Watson and Christopher M. Tuckett. Watson starts with a number of historical observations about the origin of the Q theory, in particular noting that Q is a canonical solution to the Synoptic problem since it is reconstructed from the canonical texts. However, there are parallels with Q in noncanonical sayings sources (such as P.Oxy. 1) that open the possibility that the search for a solution to the Synoptic problem should also take into account the noncanonical sayings sources. Tuckett’s essay is a critical review of Watson’s work Gospel Writings in which Watson argues that the existence of Q is a less satisfactory solution to the Synoptic problem than the view that Luke is dependent on Matthew. Tuckett examines areas he perceives are weak in Watson’s argument—his methodology and particular examples of coincidences and Watson’s explanations. In response, Watson lists seven theses where he disagrees with Tuckett with respect to Q. The interaction of these essays is a good introduction to both the methodological and exegetical significance of the proposed solutions to the Synoptic problemThe second part of the book opens with Eve-Marie Becker’s essay on the value of Q for Markan studies. She argues that Mark knew Q and did not use it as a source but instead wrote his gospel to surpass Q. Clare K. Rothschild proposes that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Q 7:31–35 is “a self-referential designation for John the Baptist.” Luke used Baptist traditions in Q and combined them with Jesus traditions. Hildegard Scherer suggests that Q existed because the social matrix (relationships between people) pictured in the double tradition is so coherent. Mark Goodacre presents a case for the Farrer solution to the Synoptic problem by exploring the places where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark—the so called “Mark-Q Overlaps.” This is followed by Werner Kahl’s essay that focuses on Matthew and Luke’s use of Mark 1:1–8. He proposes that the differences between the Synoptic gospels can be explained by understanding Matthew to have used Mark and Luke to have used both Mark and Matthew in writing up his account. That is, he again defends the Farrer solution to the Synoptic problem. Shelly Matthews examines the composition of Luke and argues that the final form was compiled in the second century from a “core Luke” to which were added Luke 1–2 and 24. The additions were possibly made in response to a Marcionite version which also used the core and added its own flourishes. Finally, Dieter T. Roth critically reviews recent scholarship that invokes Marcion’s Gospel in solutions to the Synoptic problem.In accordance with its aim, the volume does place essays alongside each other that represent differing solutions to the Synoptic problem. The inclusion of material on issues of both methodology and textual comparison keeps the significance of the attempts to solve the problem at the forefront of the reader’s mind. Further, the essays are well written and mostly easy to read, a point that bears stating given the hypothetical nature of the solutions and the attention to minute detail required to argue a case from difference in the Gospels. The book does not suit the undergraduate who is first entering into the problem but is appropriate for the advanced student or researcher who has been exposed to the various solutions and would like to see them juxtaposed in detail.

In New Testament studies, the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the synoptic gospels. They contain much common material, and this is particularly clear when their texts are laid out side by side. The gospel of John has a very different style, and there is not such a close correspondence between it and the synoptic gospels. Andris Abakuks focuses on the synoptic problem, hypotheses that attempt to explain the relationships between the synoptic gospels.

Mike Duncan argues that the Farrer Hypothesis is the best working solution to the Synoptic Problem in New Testament studies by way of rhetorical theory, as he sees the Synoptic Problem as less about source and textual criticism and more as a writing problem that concerns how and why they were composed The book’s six chapters feature case studies of different aspects of gospel rhetoric, such as how the different post-resurrection accounts interact with each other and how the apostles are portrayed from gospel to gospel. These chapters form a collective argument—that the synoptic gospels are competing rhetorical narratives about Jesus, with the authors of Luke and Matthew reacting to previous gospels with the goal of superseding the previously composed versions of Jesus’s life. However, Duncan acknowledges that the Farrer Hypothesis has special difficulties and cannot be pushed beyond an educated guess, that the Synoptic Problem remains an unsolvable problem due to a lack of evidence and lost original context, and that it is only a philosophical acceptance of the inaccessibility of a solution that paradoxically allows a frank and unsentimental view of the alternatives.

In New Testament studies, the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the synoptic gospels. They contain much common material, and this is particularly clear when their texts are laid out side by side. The gospel of John has a very different style, and there is not such a close correspondence between it and the synoptic gospels. Andris Abakuks focuses on the synoptic problem, hypotheses that attempt to explain the relationships between the synoptic gospels.

The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature, edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen. BJS 326. Providence: Brown University Press, 2000. Pp. xiii + 167. $60.00. Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture, by Jeffrey Rubenstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Pp. xvi + 436. $55.00. Shaye Cohen's edited volume The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature and Jeffrey Rubenstein's Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture are major contributions to the field of rabbinics, the former for its explicit attempt to deal with methodological issues pertaining to the study of this literature, the latter for the ways in which it analyzes several notable rabbinic stories in a fresh and detailed manner. While prima facie these works are different in terms of style and scholarly agenda, each nonetheless deals with the question of the extent to which rabbinic literature can be used to enhance our understanding of the rabbis, and of Palestinian and Babylonian Jews of late antiquity. The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature comprises six papers given at a small conference held at Brown University in 1998. Topics included the relationship of the Mishnah to the Tosefta, the relationship of these texts to Tannaitic midrashim and beraitot, the relationship of the Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) to the Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud), the relationship of the Talmuds to both the Tosefta and the Tannaitic midrashim, and the relationship of the Yerushalmi to Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, and Lamentations Rabbah. Given the caliber of the participants, undoubtedly this was an intellectual feast for those interested in current trends in rabbinic scholarship. While the collection covers a variety of topics and raises many methodological issues, its cohesion lies in its attempt to debunk the documentary hypothesis. As Robert Goldenberg refers to it, the Documentary Premise, espoused by Jacob Neusner, is an approach to rabbinic documents that treats rabbinic texts only on the redactional level with no serious regard for either earlier sources found within a work, or for similar sources found in other compilations. Each document must be understood on its own terms and as such tells us a great deal about the redactor of the compilation. That is to say, documents such as the Mishnah, Genesis Rabbah, the Tosefta, or the Yerushalmi are discrete works that attest to the coherent Weltanschauung of their respective redactors who intentionally shape their sources accordingly. Indeed, as Shaye Cohen avers, Much of ancient rabbinic literature is as synoptic as Matthew, Mark, and Luke; because of their extensive parallels in structure, content, and wording, rabbinic texts should be `seen together (p. vii). It should be noted, however, that the synoptic problem in rabbinic literature is in many respects more complex and unwieldy than in the Gospels. While the Synoptic Gospels are more or less contemporaneous, rabbinic literature spans several centuries. In this instance, the synoptic problem does not deal with three Gospels, a commonly recognized Q source and two other putative sources, but rather it involves numerous iterations of similar stories, sayings and dicta in more than one corpus (for that matter in more than one type of corpus), which, depending on the corpus itself, could very well have undergone several layers of redaction. Cohen's collection of essays, despite lacking a synthesizing conclusion, offers the reader access into the complicated nature of the synoptic problem in rabbinic literature. Each of the six chapters merits a more detailed treatment than space allows. With this in mind, I will discuss briefly the main thrust of each paper and occasionally will make some general observations. In the first paper of the series, Robert Goldenberg sets the stage for the ensuing engagement with and criticism of Neusner's documentarian approach, which he considers a deeply problematic stance. …

This study examines the expression of the Son of Man in the Gospels. As far as I know, there has been no study that deals with its characteristics of each Gospel by comparing the four Gospels after classifying the references to the Son of Man by theme according to each Gospel. G. E. Ladd conducted a similar study, but his classification is somewhat general and broad. Therefore, I supplemented Ladd’s study through this study. This study is divided into three parts.<BR> In the first part, I looked at how the expression of the Son of Man can be classified thematically in the four Gospels. Ladd categorized this expression in the four Gospels into three main categories. I followed his first and second categories. But I made subcategories for his third category.<BR> The second part discussed the synoptic problem based on what I observed in the first part. Based on the analysis of the Son of Man passages in the synoptic Gospels, I suggested that the order of composing the synoptic Gospels was in the order of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. This section outlines two main theories of the synoptic problem. One is the two source hypothesis. The other is a theory that denies the existence of Q. This theory also assumes that after the Gospel of Mark was written, Luke read and used the Gospel of Matthew before writing his Gospel. I supported the latter theory based on my observation of the references to the Son of Man in the synoptic Gospels in the first part.<BR> In the third part, the relation between John’s Gospel and the synoptic Gospels was discussed based on what I observed in the first part. Based on observations of the Son of Man passages in the four Gospels, I suggested that although the Gospel of John did not directly use the synoptic Gospels, the author of John’s Gospel knew the synoptic Gospels and wrote his Gospel based on the content of the synoptic Gospels. I also argued that the idea of the author of John’s Gospel of linking the cross to glory was influenced by the Gospel of Luke as well as the theology of Isaiah.

The past two centuries have witnessed a wide spectrum of solutions for the Synoptic Problem. Even though quite far from a consensus, the problem tends to incorporate new domains from ongoing connected research: the relevance of the Gospel of Thomas, the Synoptic authors' use of the Old Testament or recent studies on communication media in antiquity. This article surveys a number of issues presented in the papers of the Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem, held in May 2008, ranging from challenging past and present solutions of the Synoptic Problem from different perspectives to new directions of research on this topic.

Studies seeking to elucidate the Synoptic Problem, the issue of literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels, often proceed by making close comparisons among the Synoptic Gospels that rely on the idea that the text of each of these Gospels is fixed. Yet when one turns to the actual manuscripts preserving the Gospels, one finds instead fluid texts with significant variation. Textual critics of the New Testament have attempted to sort through these variations and determine the earliest recoverable text of each of the Gospels, and in doing so, they have often adopted particular approaches to the Synoptic Problem. At the same time, one’s approach to the Synoptic Problem is determined by the analysis of the editions established by textual critics. This chapter explores the implications of this circularity by examining a series of parallel passages in different printed synopses and in individual manuscripts.

SummaryIn New Testament studies, the synoptic problem is concerned with the relationships between the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. A careful specification in probabilistic terms is set up of what is known as the triple-link model, and, as a special case, the double-link model. Counts of the numbers of verbal agreements between the gospels are examined to investigate which of the possible triple-link models appears to give the best fit to the data.

SummaryIn New Testament studies, the synoptic problem is concerned with the relationships between the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. In an earlier paper a careful specification in probabilistic terms was set up of Honoré’s triple-link model. In the present paper, a modification of Honoré’s model is proposed. As previously, counts of the numbers of verbal agreements between the gospels are examined to investigate which of the possible triple-link models appears to give the best fit to the data, but now using the modified version of the model and additional sets of data.

Summary In New Testament studies, the synoptic problem is concerned with the relationships between the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Assuming Markan priority, we investigate the relationship between the words in Mark that are retained unchanged by Matthew and those that are retained unchanged by Luke. This is done by mapping the sequence of words in Mark into binary time series that represent the retention or non-retention of the individual words, and then carrying out a variety of logistic regression analyses.

The first part of this collection is devoted to one of the key questions of the 'Synoptic Problem': the literary and christological relationship between Mark and Q. The second part deals with the 'Third Quest' for the historical Jesus, concentrating on his teaching and its cultural context. These interrelated themes each attract detailed analysis of their methodology as well as their impact on New Testament studies generally, providing a very useful introduction to the state of research in these important fields.

Reviewed by: A Brief Guide to New Testament Interpretation: History, Methods, and Practical Examples by Roy A. Harrisville Charles B. Puskas A Brief Guide to New Testament Interpretation: History, Methods, and Practical Examples. By Roy A. Harrisville. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2022. 120 pp. The academic study of the New Testament encounters issues like the synoptic problem, the function of parables, the fulfillment of Israel's scriptures, apocalyptic language, and the ending of Mark's Gospel. Since early last century, various methods have been employed from the lower critical methods of textual criticism to the higher critical methods of source, form, and redaction criticisms. Recalling the heuristic figurations of Paul Ricoeur, New Testament study has also focused on the world of the text (such as synchronic narrative, structural, and rhetorical criticisms) and the lifeworld of the reader (reader-response and ideological criticisms), in addition to its attention on the world behind the text (diachronic textual and historical criticisms). This author, a preeminent Lutheran scholar of New Testament studies, has added to the array of books on exegetical methods. This volume is particularly important given his many decades as a professor at Luther Seminary. What sets this thirteen-chapter book apart is his concern for the seminary student and pastor, specifically, regarding kerygma, event, and witness in the initial chapters. Another unique feature is his thumbnail sketch of the history of New Testament interpretation from the ancient church to the present, which is basically a summary of his Pandora's Box Opened (Eerdmans, 2014). Also distinctive are his helpful New Testament illustrations of the method and limits of the interpretative approach found throughout the book. His concise discussions of lower and higher criticisms recall early developments such as the Gutenberg press (22) and some of the earliest pioneers in this field (28). Next, the chapters on source, form, [End Page 195] and redaction criticisms demonstrate the work of an experienced practitioner of the methodology. His illustrations are insightful (see on the textual variants of Rom 5:1, 24–25) as are his caveats of the shortcomings (see on redaction analysis, 45). Still, I had hoped that he would have mentioned how redaction criticism often ignores the storyline of Jesus in its efforts to recover the contextual clues of the post-resurrection community and its author. The final chapters include sections on lexicography, sociological criticism, rhetorical criticism, structural analysis, post-structuralist analysis, reader-response criticism, feminist analysis. More could have been included (for example, genre analysis, canonical criticism). In chapters ten through thirteen on synchronic and post-modern methods the author states, "Over the years, malaise increased over the viability of historical method … The result has been a flurry of methods" (62). Many of his caveats are noteworthy. For example, while acknowledging the marginalization of women in our society and in the patriarchal culture of the Bible, Harrisville points out that "to distinguish Israel's faith … from Canaanite worship in which the goddess Astarte vied for equal status with Baal, or from Greek and Roman religion with their plethora of gods and goddesses … the male pronoun Jahve or El … or 'I am' … was sorely needed." (79). His concluding chapter hearkens back to the first chapters on the historical context of the kerygma, the witness of faith, the living message of God embodied in the text. Unfortunately, I have found some typographical errors: "the gragment-hypothesis of F. D. E. Schleiermacher" (28), "Isaiah 9" should read Isaiah 6:9 (41), and "Rom 12:24" should read Rom 12:21. I also wish that more was written about Bultmann and Käsemann, but they are more fully discussed in his The Bible and Modern Culture with co-author Walter Sundberg. The book includes a short glossary of key terms, a bibliography of works cited, and author and scripture indexes. This brief guide by a seasoned scholar will make an excellent supplemental text to courses on the New Testament, the Four Gospels, New Testament Exegesis, and Homiletics. [End Page 196] Charles B. Puskas Lino Lakes, Minnesota Copyright © 2023 Johns Hopkins University Press and Lutheran Quarterly, Inc.

The Synoptic Gospels contain a significant number of so-called doublets, i.e. sayings or narratives which appear twice in one and the same Gospel. Since the nineteenth century these doublets have functioned as a classical argument in favour of the existence of Q. Focusing on treatments of Luke's doublets within the contemporary rivalry between the Farrer hypothesis and the two-document hypothesis, the present article contributes to a not-Q-biased discussion of the evidence. While adherents of the two-document hypothesis should not overestimate the force of doublet-based arguments, defenders of the Farrer hypothesis should pay greater attention to the creation and elimination of doublets as part of Luke's alleged redactional activity.