Present and defend one particular solution to the Synoptic
Problem.
The
Synoptic Gospels which include Matthew, Mark and Luke are very similar, and yet
have significant differences. The
similarities are in the order and the exact wording of many of the scriptures.
It would appear that there was some literary dependence. It leaves the question
of who copied who.
I feel that the Griesbach Theory is the most
likely solution to the synoptic issue. The church fathers said that Matthew was
the first Gospel written, and since they were more or less on the scene I would
believe that what they said was factual. The early church Fathers also gave
information on the reason for the writing of each of them. It also does not
require the lost document of Q which might have existed or might not have which
is another advantage two the Two Gospel Theory.
The Two Gospels of Matthew and Luke
fulfill Duet. 17:6 where two or three witnesses are needed to verify the truth
of a statement. This could also be why there are the similarities between the
three Gospels. Their truth is verified in the mouth of three witnesses.
“J.J. Griesbach published a
treatise in 1789 defending the order of composition as Matthew, Luke, and Mark.
He also argued that each later Gospel used the contents of its predecessor(s).”[1]
Luke would have taken from Matthew while Mark, who got much of his information
from Peter would not necessarily have used all the information in Matthew and
Luke. Mathew was an eye witness and a tax collector which would have meant he
was literate, and he geared his book towards the Jews. Luke was writing to a
Gentile whose name was Theophilus, and in Luke 1:1-4 he states he was not an
eyewitness, but that the information he puts forth came from an eyewitness
which would be Matthew. Mark on the other hand got much of his information from
Peter, and from Matthew and Luke.
The differences between Matthew and
Luke can be explained in Luke 1:1-4. “These verses show that Luke recognizes
three stages in the development of his work. 1. He referred to original
“eyewitnesses” who had handed down traditions to him and others. 2. He
described the writers who had drawn up “an account of the things” that had
occurred. 3. He spoke of his own role in making a careful investigation and in
writing” an orderly account.”[2]
Each writer would have put forth the information to get their particular point
across.
Mark and Peter realizing that the
virgin birth and other miracles had been covered by Matthew and Luke did not
include this information. Mark was writing to Roman Christians who were
Gentiles. Mark believes they have some knowledge of the Christian faith, but
little knowledge of Jewish tradition which he explains to them. He does not
repeat the information that Christ forbid teaching Gentiles. They each write to
their audiences appropriately using the information needed to strengthen them
in their faith.
Each one of the books is important,
because of the message that it puts forth. Their similarities give us the
witness that was required in the law to verify a truth. Their differences
provide more information to increases our faith. They were very different
people writing for different audiences and purposes. God knew what he was doing
as he guided them through the writings of the remarkable Gospels.
No comments:
Post a Comment