What do you think?
Rate this book
The Synoptic Problem: Handling Both Internal & External Evidence
Matthew and Luke are often thought to have copied much of their material from Mark, even though this solution involves rejecting the early traditions regarding their origins. But how can these traditions square with the internal evidence on which the dominant two-document theory was built? Here we suggest a solution which does justice to both the internal and external evidence.
26 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 18, 2012
1 person is currently reading
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 9, 2024
A SUGGESTION FOR RECONCILING THE "INTERNAL" EVIDENCE, AS WELL AS EARLY CHURCH ATTESTATION
Robert C. Newman has a Ph.D. in astrophysics from Cornell (he studied briefly with Carl Sagan) as well as an M.Div. from Faith Theological Seminary, and has long been associated with the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute (IBRI. He has also written 'Genesis One and the Origin of Earth,' 'What's Darwin Got to Do with It?: A Friendly Discussion About Evolution,' 'The Historicity of the Biblical Narratives of Easter Week,' etc.
The paper's Abstract states: "Both in liberal and conservative circles the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are commonly viewed as being literarily dependent on Mark, even though this involves dismissing substantial traditions regarding their origin. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how these traditions square with the internal evidence on which the dominant two-document theory has been erected. Some suggestions for a synthesis are here proposed."
He observes, "In view of the fact that John speaks of the enormous number of events during Jesus' ministry (20:30, 21:25), it is rather surprising how much overlap there is between the three synoptic Gospels. Of course, we would expect overlap on the unique and crucial incidents of Jesus' ministry, such as his baptism and temptation, the feeding of the five thousand, Peter's confession, the transfiguration, triumphal entry, trial, death and resurrection. We would also expect overlap in general features such as Jesus' popularity, miraculous works, parabolic teaching and the growing opposition from the leaders. What IS surprising is the synoptics' unanimous presentation of such specific miracles as the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, a certain leper, the paralytic, the man with a withered hand, and blind Bartimaeus, since Jesus must have performed hundreds or thousands of healings during several years of ministry." (Pg. 3)
He concludes, "Suppose that, instead of ignoring the external evidence and constructing the simplest model that (almost) fits the internal data, we try to give both a fair shake... Internal evidence suggests that the content of Mark is (generally) prior to Matthew; external evidence that the WRITING of Matthew is prior to Mark. Tradition tells us that Mark preserves the preaching of Peter. If we suppose that Peter ... made a selection of materials from the life of Christ to form their basic Gospel presentation, then the common part of the synoptics may be explained as the apostolic testimony. This would be an oral Gospel very much like Mark... Matthew would naturally use this oral Gospel in composing a written one, though he has supplemented it with some of the detailed teaching of Jesus as well as information on his birth. Luke, too, would use the apostolic testimony (so he claims, Luke 1:2), but he has done independent research to supplement it (Luke 1:3)... This view naturally explains how sometimes Matthew (and even Luke) will seem more primitive, since they do not depend on our written Mark." (Pg. 11)
He suggests, "I propose an early date for the Semitic Matthew (forties or fifties), followed by Luke in the late fifties or early sixties, then by the Greek Matthew while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and finally by Mark in the mid-sixties." (Pg. 12)
While obviously speculative, Newman's proposal will be worth consideration from anyone studying the first three Gospels.
Robert C. Newman has a Ph.D. in astrophysics from Cornell (he studied briefly with Carl Sagan) as well as an M.Div. from Faith Theological Seminary, and has long been associated with the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute (IBRI. He has also written 'Genesis One and the Origin of Earth,' 'What's Darwin Got to Do with It?: A Friendly Discussion About Evolution,' 'The Historicity of the Biblical Narratives of Easter Week,' etc.
The paper's Abstract states: "Both in liberal and conservative circles the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are commonly viewed as being literarily dependent on Mark, even though this involves dismissing substantial traditions regarding their origin. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how these traditions square with the internal evidence on which the dominant two-document theory has been erected. Some suggestions for a synthesis are here proposed."
He observes, "In view of the fact that John speaks of the enormous number of events during Jesus' ministry (20:30, 21:25), it is rather surprising how much overlap there is between the three synoptic Gospels. Of course, we would expect overlap on the unique and crucial incidents of Jesus' ministry, such as his baptism and temptation, the feeding of the five thousand, Peter's confession, the transfiguration, triumphal entry, trial, death and resurrection. We would also expect overlap in general features such as Jesus' popularity, miraculous works, parabolic teaching and the growing opposition from the leaders. What IS surprising is the synoptics' unanimous presentation of such specific miracles as the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, a certain leper, the paralytic, the man with a withered hand, and blind Bartimaeus, since Jesus must have performed hundreds or thousands of healings during several years of ministry." (Pg. 3)
He concludes, "Suppose that, instead of ignoring the external evidence and constructing the simplest model that (almost) fits the internal data, we try to give both a fair shake... Internal evidence suggests that the content of Mark is (generally) prior to Matthew; external evidence that the WRITING of Matthew is prior to Mark. Tradition tells us that Mark preserves the preaching of Peter. If we suppose that Peter ... made a selection of materials from the life of Christ to form their basic Gospel presentation, then the common part of the synoptics may be explained as the apostolic testimony. This would be an oral Gospel very much like Mark... Matthew would naturally use this oral Gospel in composing a written one, though he has supplemented it with some of the detailed teaching of Jesus as well as information on his birth. Luke, too, would use the apostolic testimony (so he claims, Luke 1:2), but he has done independent research to supplement it (Luke 1:3)... This view naturally explains how sometimes Matthew (and even Luke) will seem more primitive, since they do not depend on our written Mark." (Pg. 11)
He suggests, "I propose an early date for the Semitic Matthew (forties or fifties), followed by Luke in the late fifties or early sixties, then by the Greek Matthew while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and finally by Mark in the mid-sixties." (Pg. 12)
While obviously speculative, Newman's proposal will be worth consideration from anyone studying the first three Gospels.
Displaying 1 of 1 review