{"id":540,"date":"2019-08-15T20:48:13","date_gmt":"2019-08-15T20:48:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pbthomas.com\/thoughts\/?p=540"},"modified":"2020-06-04T14:30:36","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T14:30:36","slug":"synoptic-gospels-course-manual","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/pbthomas.com\/thoughts\/?p=540","title":{"rendered":"Synoptic Gospels Course Manual"},"content":{"rendered":"

I had the privilege of lecturing to first and second year students at Kaniki Bible University College near Ndola in Zambia this summer. Here is the course I delivered on the Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>\n

Synoptic Gospels Students’ Notes PDF Corrected<\/a><\/p>\n

Here is the text of the course<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Kaniki Bible University College 2019<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Course Leader Rev. Peter Thomas<\/p>\n

1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Introductions<\/h1>\n

1.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Gospel is Good News<\/h2>\n

1.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Gospel as a Literary Genre<\/h2>\n

1.3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Inspiration and Authority<\/h2>\n

1.4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Principles of Hermeneutics<\/h2>\n

1.5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Introducing the Essays UNIT 18, the Seminar UNIT 19 and Words of Eternal Life UNIT 20<\/h2>\n

1.6\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Synoptic Problem<\/h2>\n

1.6.1\u00a0\u00a0 HOW THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN \u2013 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM<\/h3>\n

What Luke says about his Gospel<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye witnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. <\/em>(Luke 1:1-4)<\/p>\n

Examples of the Similarities and Differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke<\/strong><\/p>\n

Similarities in Wording<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Matthew 19:13\u201315<\/td>\nMark 10:13\u201316<\/td>\nLuke 18:15\u201317<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Matthew 22:23\u201333<\/td>\nMark 12:18\u201327<\/td>\nLuke 20:27\u201340<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Matthew 24:4\u20138<\/td>\nMark 13:5\u20138<\/td>\nLuke 21:8\u201311<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Similarities in Order<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Matthew 16:13\u201320:34<\/td>\nMark 8:27\u201310:52<\/td>\nLuke 9:18\u201351\/18:15\u201343<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Matthew 12:46\u201313:58<\/td>\nMark 3:31\u20136:6a<\/td>\nLuke 8:19\u201356<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Similarities in Parenthetical Material<\/strong> e.g. Let the Reader understand<\/em> Matthew 24:15 Mark 13:14.<\/p>\n

Similarities in OT Quotations<\/strong> \u2013 not following Hebrew or Greek OTs e.g. Matt 3:3 Luke 3:4<\/p>\n

NOT just down to \u201cthe verbal inspiration of the Holy Spirit\u201d<\/strong> this explains similarities, not differences.<\/p>\n

Mark is the shortest in length. Of Mark\u2019s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark\u2019s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. On the other hand, less than 60% of Matthew is duplicated in Mark, and only 47% of Luke is found in Mark. There is much important material found in both Matthew and Luke that is absent in Mark. In particular, the birth narrative, Sermon on the Mount, Lord\u2019s Prayer, and resurrection appearances.<\/p>\n

For examples of exclusively Mark-Luke parallels, note the following: the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mark 1:23-28\/Luke 4:33-37); the widow\u2019s mite (Mark 12:41-44\/Luke 21:1-4).<\/p>\n

For examples of exclusively Mark-Matthew parallels, note the following: the offending eye\/hand (Matt. 5:29-30\u00a0and 18:8-9\/Mark 9:43-47); the details about the death of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:3-12\/Mark 6:17-29); Jesus walking on the water (Matt 14:22-33\/Mark 6:45-52); Isaiah\u2019s prophecy about a hypocritical people and Jesus\u2019 application (Matt 15:1-20\/Mark 7:1-23); the Syrophoenicean woman pericope (Matt 15:21-28\/Mark 7:24-30); the healing of the deaf-mute (Matt 15:29-31\/Mark 7:31-37); the feeding of the four thousand (Matt 15:32-39\/Mark 8:1-10); Elijah\u2019s coming (Matt 17:10-13\/Mark 9:11-13); the withering of the fig tree (Matt 21:20-22\/Mark 11:20-26); the soldiers\u2019 mockery of Jesus before Pilate (Matt 27:28-31\/Mark 15:17-20).<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

1.6.2\u00a0\u00a0 Suggested Answers to The Synoptic Problem<\/h3>\n

Most scholars agree that the Gospels are so similar, yet so different, because of a literary dependence between them.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Augustine<\/strong> (5th<\/sup> Century) Matthew wrote first, Mark used Matthew, Luke used Mark<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Two Gospel hypothesis (Owen 1764, Griesbach 1789) <\/strong><\/p>\n

Matthew wrote first, Luke used Matthew, Mark used Luke and Matthew.<\/p>\n

Agrees with the Early Church tradition that Matthew was written first. It can explain the agreements between the Gospels, especially where Matthew and Luke agree and Mark doesn\u2019t. But it doesn\u2019t explain the differences between accounts. Why would Luke miss out so much of Matthew. And why would Mark have bothered to write anything at all?<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.6.3\u00a0\u00a0 The Two Source Hypothesis (Holtzmann 1863 Streeter 1924)<\/h3>\n

This is the view most widely held today. Mark wrote first. Matthew and Luke then each used Mark plus another source called Q (or other sources).<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Why do we think Mark wrote first?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The argument from REDACTION. We can see reasons why Matthew and Luke might have changed from what they read in Mark, but no sensible reasons why Mark would have written what he did if he had Matthew and Luke.<\/li>\n
  2. The lack of verbal agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark<\/li>\n
  3. The absence of agreements in order with Matthew and Luke against Mark<\/li>\n
  4. Mark is the shortest and so much of Mark is in both Matthew and Luke.<\/li>\n
  5. Mark missed out so much from Matthew and Luke but adds redundant material.<\/li>\n
  6. Mark has the poorest Greek and the least developed theology.<\/li>\n
  7. Mark has Aramaic expressions (Mk 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:22, 34) which are not in Matthew or Luke.<\/li>\n
  8. Mark has harder readings theologically \u2013 limitations of Jesus\u2019 power (cf. Mk 1:32\u201334; 3:9f; 6:5f)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The existence of Q (a body of source material shared by Matthew and Luke but not Mark)<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Matthew and Luke have in common about 235 verses not found in Mark.52<\/sup><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0The verbal agreements between these two is often striking e.g.,\u00a0Matt 6:24\/Luke 16:13;\u00a0Matt 7:7-11\/Luke 11:9-13. But the non-Mark material appears in different places in Matt and Luke, and sometimes it differs. Matt 6:10\u00a0 v Luke 11:2 Matt includes but Luke misses out, \u201cyour will be done on earth as in heaven.<\/p>\n

    Q could have been one document, or a collection of documents. Matthew and Luke could also have had their own unique sources, which some people call M and Q respectively. Matthew had his own recollections. Luke says Mary \u201ctreasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.\u201d (Luke 2:19)<\/p>\n

    Note also the recent insights of cognitive psychology. In a non-reading oral culture people were able to commit large blocks of content to memory and retell the stories reliably. And the disciples were highly motivated to remember Jesus\u2019s words and deeds as accurately as they could. Q could just be oral.<\/p>\n

    READING <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Articles and Extracts which are made available in course folders are indicated by (FOLDER).<\/p>\n

    Course reading is prioritised as follows:<\/p>\n

    Required Reading<\/u> <\/strong>\u2013 you should do your best to read this at some point before or after the lecture.<\/p>\n

    Recommended Reading <\/strong>\u2013 the material to read first if you want to explore a particular subject further.<\/p>\n

    Suggested Reading \u2013 other material to move on to after you have read the Recommended Reading.<\/p>\n

    FOR PASTORS \u2013 non-academic reading which will be useful for preachers and church leaders.<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    READING FOR THE WHOLE COURSE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The following reference works and general books contain articles or chapters relating to this course. Appropriate articles or pages are noted in different units.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels<\/em><\/strong> Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, eds.
    2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

    IVP New Bible Dictionary <\/em>3rd<\/sup> edition<\/strong><\/p>\n

    IVP New Bible Commentary <\/em>3rd<\/sup> edition<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Keener, C. S.\u00a0The IVP Biblical Background Commentary: New Testament.\u00a0 InterVarsity, 1993.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    G.D.Fee and D.Stuart\u00a0 How to Read the Bible Book by Book <\/em>(4th<\/sup> Edition Zondervan 2014) <\/strong><\/p>\n

    G.D.Fee and D.Stuart\u00a0 How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth <\/em>(4th<\/sup> Edition Zondervan 2014)<\/p>\n

    The following book has sections related to much of the course but is written at a deep level.<\/p>\n

    NT Wright Jesus and the Victory of God <\/em>\u00a01997<\/strong><\/p>\n

    These general books are also helpful<\/strong><\/p>\n

    John Drane Introducing the New Testament<\/em> 2001<\/p>\n

    Donald Guthrie Introducing the New Testament<\/em> IVP 1990<\/p>\n

    Donald Guthrie New Testament Theology<\/em> IVP 1981<\/p>\n

    Scott McKnight Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels <\/em>Baker Book House 1988<\/p>\n

    D.A. Carson New Testament Introduction <\/em>2005<\/p>\n

    C.L. Blomberg Jesus and the Gospels an Introduction<\/em> 2009, 2014<\/p>\n

    J.D.G. Dunn Jesus according to the New Testament<\/em> 2019<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    READING FOR UNIT 1<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Books, articles and extracts are generally listed in the order in which they should be read.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    IVP Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels \u2013 article SYNOPTIC GOSPELS<\/em> <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Peter Thomas\u00a0 Is the Longer Ending of Mark Holy Scripture? An Exploration of the Nature of Biblical Authority <\/em>\u2013 Dissertation for the degree of Master of Arts in Aspects of Biblical Interpretation. London Bible College 1995. Chapters 2 and 3. (FOLDER)
    R. Bauckham Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony<\/em> pp 1-11 (FOLDER)<\/p>\n

    FOR PASTORS: Peter Thomas Understanding the New Testament: a Course in Principles for Biblical Interpretation<\/em> (FOLDER)<\/p>\n

    2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mark\u2019s Gospel \u2013 an Overview<\/h1>\n

    2.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Author and Date<\/h2>\n

    Conservative opinion is John Mark, a companion of both Peter and Paul \u2013 see 1 Peter 5:12-13; Acts 12:12, 25; 13:13; 15:37\u201339, Philemon 24; Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11. He was part of the Jerusalem church which met at his mother\u2019s home (Acts 12:12) which might have been where Jesus celebrated the Last Supper (Mark 14:14\u201315; Acts 1:13\u201314). Many believe Mark himself was the \u201cyoung man\u201d in Mark 14:51-52.<\/p>\n

    Papias\u2019s Interpretation of the Lord\u2019s Sayings<\/em> (c. A.D. 120\/30) cited by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.<\/em> 3.39.15), claims: \u201cAnd this is what the Elder said, \u2018Mark, who became Peter\u2019s interpreter, accurately wrote, though not in order, as many of the things said and done by the Lord as he had noted.\u201d This tradition was followed by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria as cited by Eusebius. On Peter\u2019s influence see Mark 16:7.<\/p>\n

    Early tradition says Mark wrote following Peter\u2019s death in Rome (assumed to be during Nero\u2019s persecution 64-65 AD). Before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD (foretold in Mark 13:3-37) and even before the military blockade of 67-69 AD. So probably 65-67 AD<\/p>\n

    2.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Purposes<\/h2>\n