It was good to see you so thanks and enjoy work, study, summer and bureaucracy!
I just finished reading a book by David L. Dungan, "A History of the Synoptic Problem."
I thought of you because of a quote on p. 34 which I append here: "Viewed within the context of the bloody twentieth century, is it surprising that the great majority of Asian, African and South American biblical scholars and theologians are loath to use the West's wonderful historical-critical method in their biblical interpretation?"
The book takes up some of our own discussion and does what I like in history, the setting in place of trends of thought in their historical circumstances. You should at least take a look at the following reviews which I think are well-done. Prof. Dungan is a well-regarded Catholic biblical scholar as far as I can ascertain. His book has some polemical edges which are adverted to correctly in these reviews. But the reviews are by and large positive about what he is trying to do, to get critical methods of biblical interpretation into their proper place as tools rather than the end purpose.
Reviewed Work: The History of the Synoptic Problem. The Canon, the Text, the Composition and the Interpretation of the Gospels by D. L. Dungan
Review by: Christopher Tuckett
Novum Testamentum
Vol. 42, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 187-190
If you do take a look at the book, try: Introduction, Ch. 7 Origen, Ch. 10 Augustine, Ch. 11 Rise of the Modern Period, Ch. 20. Emergence of a 3rd Form, Ch. 21, Synoptic Problem Today, Ch.23, Conclusion.
Blessings in our Lord,
PJG, SJ
PS I am curious. Have you taken the synoptic problem in class? If so, have the various positions been described to you?
Rather than set out or defend his theory of the composition of the Gospels, Dungan reviews the synoptic problem from the 1st century to the 20th, especially the social and political agendas of each prominent theory's interpreters. The result is admirable but highly polemical scholarship. His anti-Enlightenment, anti-Protestant bent is conspicuous and unapologetic (which is better than a secret agenda, I guess) and his hatred of Spinoza is at times downright unhinged. The book's first part (on the Church Fathers) is excellent and engaging, and the rest is definitely informative and interesting. I just don't know how much I trust his analysis.