Published Introductions to the Synoptic Problem

David Stark's New Testament Interpretation blog has a series of posts reproducing the diagrams of synoptic problem solutions given in Kümmel's NT intro. The 'Synoptic Problem' tag will bring up the set of diagrams so far. Kümmel's presentation of the Synoptic Problem was one of the six I evaluated in my undergrad essay "Solving the Synoptic Problem for Students?"

My essay was written back in 2001 or 2002 (a few years before I had internet access at home) and 'Part A' evaluated six printed/published presentations on the Synoptic Problem, namely:

(1) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Priority of Mark and The 'Q' Source in Luke," (1970);
(2) Werner George Kümmel from his, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. 1975), 38-80;
(3) Robert Stein's classic book from 1987, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction;
(4) Christopher M. Tuckett's entry for the Anchor Bible Dictionary (vol 6, 1992), 263-270;
(5) David L. Dungan's book, A History of the Synoptic Problem (Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1999);
(6) and two chapters from John S. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q (chapter 1 and chapter 6).

Kümmel's presentation received a 27% rating according to my criteria drawn from a 'student perspective'. Kloppenborg's presentation (in Excavating Q) faired best with 47% but should have been rated higher than that because I had only based my evaluation on 2 of 3 relevant chapters in Excavating Q (I later realized!)

Would be good to know if other students have similarly evaluated other published presentations on the synoptic problem. I guess nowadays students instead go online for introductions to the Synoptic Problem which might explain why there are still not very many introductions/presentations published (compare my 'top ten recommended books for students' to the right). 

Revisiting Past Posts in the Future

I had thought that I would have finished recapping the topics covered during my first year of blogging by now. Instead, it seems I will be revisiting them at a slower pace. Today I mention the topic Claiming Theological and Pastoral Significance (for one's source theory).

I discussed the topic in three posts (here, here, & here) and concluded that despite the claims for significance being made there appears little evidence that appealing to pastoral and theological 'implications' can be shown to have real differences in terms of significant differences since it is almost impossible to state what such implications would be (or should be). Farmer's source theory cannot be seen as any more superior than other source theories based on its alleged pastoral significance, given the highly subjective nature of such criteria (and its use). Who is to say whether reducing, increasing or re-ordering Gospel sources makes for a 'better' overall source theory simply because it might appeal theologically to lay persons and their preferences for early sources on the life of Jesus?  

Similarly Kloppenborg's 'theological stakes' were not very significant at all.  The Gospel of Mark is rather combative on any source theory as well as having downplayed the notion of Jesus as apocalyptic Judge (again, from the perspective of any source theory). Even Kloppenborg's implications of the 'Q hypothesis' seem rather stretched. One has to take Q as a full blown document with its own complete theology (i.e. produced by Christians who did not see the need for giving an account of Jesus' death). Yet because Kloppenborg makes the point that Paul's theology was not necessarily representative of normative theology of that time then do not the Gospels on almost any source theory post-date Paul and consequently provide a more integrated/culminated  interpretation of the significance of Jesus' death (and their various perspectives allow for different interpretations of Jesus' death--Luke for example has Jesus' death as more of a necessary event than a salvific one, so it's not really Kloppenborg's Q hypothesis that makes the difference Kloppenborg claims).

Different Source Theory Implications part 2

Previously when writing about theological implications for one’s synoptic solution, I was rather dismissive of the suggestion that there were any real differences between source theories. Let me quote the notion as expressed by Scot McKnight, "A Generation Who Knew Not Streeter: The Case For Markan Priority," chapter 3 in, David Alan Black and David R. Beck (eds.) Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 95,

Griesbach and Oxford proponents differ substantially; and the differences are enormous in implication. But they are united in this: the problem is worthy of study, and it makes a difference for interpretation, for history, for theology, and for pastoral theology.[footnote]55

55 J. S. Kloppenborg, "The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem," in The Four Gospels--1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols., BETL 100 (Leuven University Press), 1:93-120, provides an excellent example of how modern scholars sort out the differences that various solutions offer.

I believe this to be grossly overstating the case. I have since tracked down Kloppenborg’s article and wish to comment here. Kloppenborg only compares two synoptic theories for comparison, and I guess the reason he chose to compare the Griesbach Hypothesis with the Two Document Hypothesis was because of the contrast in hypothesized sources for Griesbach’s theory (whereby Mk is no source at all and neither is Q). Although I would not see these two solutions as the top contenders it is foreseeable if one chose some "modified two-source theory" or "three-source theory" to compare with the Farrer theory there would obviously be even less difference. But even with these two contrasting source theories, Kloppenborg comes up with few results. In fact there are basically only three differences he asserts:

(1) On the Griesbach Hypothesis, the author of Mk "accentuates Jesus’ shunning of his family" and "views Jesus’ family as unbelieving opponents," "systematically vilified the disciples" and "omits any positive sign of the rehabilitation of the disciples, apart from the residual comments in 1428 and 16,7 (both taken from Matthew)" basically, "an eirenic view of Mark is not possible. On the GH, Mark is combative not complementary." But is not Mark’s theology rather combative on any source theory? I doubt very many would disagree with the above assessment of Mark’s theology even from the perspective of Markan priority. Mark strikes me as negating all kinds of views about Jesus (and those who supposedly knew Jesus) and I do not place Mk last.

(2) On the GH Mark has "removed from his christological portrait the motif of Jesus as the apocalyptic judge." But once again, this motif is still a conspicuous absence on the 2DH since this motif was present in Q (in canonical Mk Jesus is not the apocalyptic judge, which again seems deliberate to me—again points negatively made). This was, as I already suspected, disappointing for a section dealing with consequences affecting "christology, soteriology, ecclesiology" and Kloppnborg does himself admit that "for the most part it is not possible to argue that one scenario of development is more probable than another."

(3) Finally Kloppenborg brings out the theological implications of the Q hypothesis: "The most remarkable difference between Q and the narrative gospels lies in the valuation of the theological importance of Jesus’ death." Kloppenborg wishes to affirm that "the impression of normitivity, ubiquity and appropriateness" is an expectation that is merely generated by "the fact of a canon." In other words, Kloppenborg is saying that Paul’s theology of the cross "has mislead generations of scholars into thinking that this rhetoric was successful in promoting his vision and that this vision was representative of the various Christianities alive in the Mediterranean basin." I have no problem with this notion but I must ask, Would it not be considered Lk’s own intention (on the 2DH and the Farrer theory) to portray Jesus’ death as more martyr-like and less sacrificial (for sins)? For author Luke, Jesus’ death was necessary (rather than salvific) so again I don’t really see how Q makes much difference. Kloppenborg’s concludes "that the 2DH implies the existence of early Christians who did not (yet?) see the need of an account of the death of Jesus" but it is not only the 2DH that implies this.

Kloppenborg’s article is intended to raise "critical self-consciousness" "exposing the theologies which are implied by each source hypothesis" but I remain unconvinced that many differences exist, especially since they are not our only Christian documents from the first century.