A History of the Synoptic Problem, by David Laird Dungan, is an accessible, academic study of a question that has needled readers of the New Testament since before the Bible was canonized: How does one reconcile the different accounts of Jesus's life given by the four gospels? Today the most highly publicized answer to this question is the one offered by John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar, who seek to reconcile the differences among the gospels by designating some events and statements in the gospels historically true and others false. There are lots of other ways to explore the synoptic problem, however, and Dungan provides a clear and lively history of the strategies employed by Origen, Augustine, Erasmus, Spinoza, Locke, and others. Dungan's method is to break the synoptic problem down into its corollary questions: Which gospels should be considered in the debate? Which text of each gospel should be considered? And how should one read the Bible in general and the gospels in particular? Dungan's interest in these questions is not merely literary; he also delves into the political and economic agendas that have influenced biblical interpretation. In this regard, the most interesting and original connection he makes is to explain the relationship between the rise of the modern historical-critical method of reading scripture (asking who wrote the books of the Bible, when, how, and for whom) and the creation and maintenance of political democracy--and furthermore, the ways in which fundamentalist "literal" readings of Scripture serve the same goal. Dungan's own investment in debates on the synoptic problem is shot through with an appealing humility about the stakes of the debate. "At its deepest level, the Synoptic Problem is not a scientific 'problem'," he writes. "[T]he quest for the correct solution to the Synoptic Problem, like the Church's quest for the correct canon of the Gospels, and the correct text of the Gospels, and the correct way to interpret the Gospels, is a vital aspect of the Church's perennial quest for the Word of Life."
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.