Formation of the Gospels_PDF.pdf

Exploring the Origin and Nature of the Gospels Strauss, Mark L. Four Portraits: One Jesus.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007.  Overview of the Chapter How the Gospels Came to Be: The Development of the Gospel Tradition Source Criticism and the Synoptic Problem Form Critici...

Exploring the Origin and Nature of the Gospels Strauss, Mark L. Four Portraits: One Jesus.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007.  Overview of the Chapter How the Gospels Came to Be: The Development of the Gospel Tradition Source Criticism and the Synoptic Problem Form Criticism: Seeking the Spoken Word behind the Written Word Redaction Criticism: Studying the Evangelists as Purposeful Editors  Jesus Christ The gospel tradition begins with the life of Jesus Christ in Palestine around AD30-33. His disciples proclaimed him as the Messiah. and his life, death and resurrection for the salvation of the world. Oral traditions abour Jesus were spreading from one person to another. Stages in the Development of the Gospels Stage 1: The life, death, and resurrection of the historical Jesus (the events themselves) - Sitz em leben Jesu Stage 2: The period of oral tradition, when the sayings and stories of Jesus were passed down primarily through the spoken word Stage 3: The period of written sources, when collections of sayings and other material began to be written down and collected - Sitz em leben Kirche Stage 4: The writing of the Gospels themselves  Luke’s Prologue (1:1-4) Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account [Stage 3] of the events that have been ful lled among us [Stage 1] just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word [Stage 2] I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very rst, to write an orderly account [Stage 4] for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. fi fi  Historical Criticism Collective name for the Critical tools developed to analyse each stage of the Gospel formation. Form criticism analyses the oral “forms,” or units of tradition, passed down and used by the early church in their preaching and teaching. Source criticism identi es the written sources which lie behind the Gospels and their relationship to one another. Redaction criticism determines the emphases and purposes of the Gospel writers by analyzing how they “redacted,” or edited, their sources to produce our present Gospels. fi  Synoptic Problem Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and gospel writers The rst three gospels are the Synoptic wrote in Greek. How did all of them use the Gospels. These three gospels are similar in same words? various ways - in wording, language, themes How are these gospels related? Why do they etc. so closely resemble each other? Why do they These gospels are not copies of one another, di er at so many points? Did they borrow they are far di erent. material from each other? Which was written rst and which was borrowed from the At times the Gospel writers use the same others? words. Sometimes, they say essentially the same thing, but using di erent words. The problem that emerges from the Sometimes one writer gives additional details. relationship between these gospels is called Synoptic Problem. fi ff fi ff ff  Three Crucial Questions (i) Are the Gospels dependent on one another? (ii) If they are dependent, which gospel was written rst? (iii) Which gospel depended on the others? The method attempting to answer these questions - seeking the sources for the gospels is Source Criticism fi Solutions to the Synoptic Problem  Augustinian Hypothesis Matthew wrote rst Mark abbreviated Mathew Luke used both Matthew and Mark. Critique: Although based on canonical order, it is doubtful whether Mark wrote rst. fi fi  Markan Priority Markan Priority is the ‘conclusion’ scholars arrive at - that Mark is the rst gospel written. Other gospel writers used Mark to write their accounts. However, others also argue that Matthew can be the rst gospel. fi fi  Markan Priority: How can we prove it? Agreement from Order: Most scholars think the order of events in Mark seems to be original, Mark’s unpolished language: Mark tends to since wherever Matthew departs from Mark, have a rougher, less-polished Greek style, which Luke supports Mark’s order, and wherever Luke Matthew and Luke frequently smooth over. departs from Mark, Matthew agrees with Mark’s Markan Redundancies. Mark repeats the same order. This also suggests that both are following idea, which Matthew and Luke deletes (cf. Mark Mark. 1:32; Matt. 8:16) A nity to Aramaic: Mark occasionally preserves Mark’s Primitive theology - Matthew and Luke the original Aramaic words which Jesus used, tend to alter readings in Mark that could be taken such as Talitha koum (5:41), corban (7:11), as o ensive or theologically questionable. (Cf. ephphatha (7:34), and Abba (14:36). Matthew and Mark 6:5; Matt. 13:58), (Cf. Mark 3:5; Mark 10:14). Luke consistently replace these with a Greek translation. ffi ff  Q - The Sayings Source Most scholars are puzzled at the concern: How to account for materials that both Matthew and Luke share [commonly appearing in Matthew and Luke], but missing in Mark. Scholars assume that besides Mark, there was another source - to which Matthew and Luke had access to, which they used independently. This document is called as Q, derived from the German word Quelle, which means original.  Two-Source Hypothesis With the addition of Q as a ‘Saying Source,’ two sources are now recognised. This hypothesis is known as Two - Source Hypothesis. Mark was the rst gospel; Matthew and Luke used Mark. Besides Mark, Matthew and Luke also accessed Q independently [Materials from Q appears in di erent order in them] fi ff  Four-Source Hypothesis The problems are far from solution. Besides materials common to Matthew and Luke, there are materials speci c to Matthew and Luke. Matthew has some materials which do not appear in Mark or Luke. Similarly, Luke has some materials which Mark or Matthew does not include. To resolve this issue, scholars identi ed two more additional sources - M and L to which these gospel writers had access. However, Q, M and L are hypothetical sources. fi fi  Greisbach’s Hypothesis Scholars were in pursuit of a solution for the Synoptic Problem without the hypothetical documents. This theory says Matthew wrote rst, Luke used Matthew as a source, and Mark J.J. Greisbach proposed Matthean Priority. combined and abridged their two accounts. Based on Matthean priority, he formulated the Two-Gospel hypothesis to solve the William R. Farmer was a proponent of this Synoptic Problem. It is also known as the theory. two-gospel hypothesis since Matthew and Luke are considered the sources for Mark. fi  Farrer Hypothesis Frustrated by increasing hypothetical sources, Austin Farrer proposed another Solution - Farrer’s Hypothesis. It proposes that Mark wrote rst (Markan Priority), Matthew used Mark and Luke used both Matthew and Mark. fi  What is Q? Scholars debate on the nature of Q. Four prominent views exist on clarifying the nature of Q. 1. A hypothetical scholarly construct with no historical validity, only to solve the Synoptic Problem. 2. A mixture of both written and oral sources without homogeneity. 3. A single written source comprising of Sayings of Jesus (τά λογὶα). Most scholars hold this position.  What does Q imply? Many scholars regard the Q signi es evidence of a Heterodox Community of Christianity. Some think Q is the core teachings of a distinct community within early Christianity. They speak of “the theology of Q” and even of the nature of the “Q community.” Others argue that the Q community represented a distinct form of Christianity which developed over time and di ered considerably from the later orthodox communities of the Gospels. Since the Q material does not contain a passion narrative, it has been suggested that the earliest Q community did not have a theology of the cross — the belief in the atoning signi cance of Jesus’ death. fi ff fi Form Criticism What is Form Criticism? The term Form criticism derives from the German term Formgeschichte, which means “history of form” of the Gospels. The method was developed in Germany in the early decades of the twentieth century. Its goal was to go behind the written sources and identify the earlier oral forms of the Gospel tradition.  Method of Form Criticism Form Critics assume that between the time of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels, there was an oral period when the sayings and stories of Jesus were passed along by word of mouth. This is called the period of oral tradition. They identify self-contained units, or pericopes, preserved and passed down by the church because of their practical value for preaching and teaching. They identi ed di erent forms within the text, which could function di erently in the Christian community. A form is a mini-genre, or a particular type of story, like a parable, a miracle story, or a wisdom saying. ff fi ff  Form Critical Categories Pronouncement Stories: Apothegms (Bultmann), Paradigms (Martin Dibelius) Miracle Stories: Novellen (Bultmann) Sayings and Parables: Paraneesis (Dibelius) Stories about Jesus: - Legends/Myths (Dibelius), Historical Stories and Legends (Bultmann) Passion Narratives (Vincent Taylor)  Rationale for Form Criticism Form Critics believed that each of these forms was shaped based on their function in a particular sitz em leben. For instance, an exorcism narrative or a healing narrative might function in a kerygmatic or apologetic sitz em leben Kirche to assert the superiority of Jesus or his authority over demonic powers and sicknesses. Form critics also believed that by analysing the form, one might reconstruct the sitz em leben to which the form served. This gives insights into the church’s situations and problems. Redaction Criticism  What is Redaction Criticism? Redaction criticism derives from the Redaction Criticism recognises each German term Redaktionsgeschichte. Gospel writer as an author and a theologian in his own right, presuming Proposed by German scholars, Günther that each of the gospel writers has had Bornkamm (Matthew), Willi Marxsen particular emphases and writes with a (Mark), and Hans Conzelmann (Luke). distinct purpose. Emerged in the twentieth century as a reaction against form criticism and its treatment of the Gospel writers as mere compilers of traditions (“scissors-and- paste men”). Goals of Redaction Criticism To analyze how the Gospel writers “redacted” or edited their sources. To discern from this redaction the theological emphases of each writer. To determine each author’s purpose in writing. To identify their Sitz im Leben (“setting in life”)  Method of Redaction Criticism Redaction criticism purviews the gospel writers as “redactors,” or editors. It attempts to determine why they collected, edited, and ordered the material the way they did.  Practicing Redaction Criticism To practice redaction criticism, compare parallel passages in the gospels and identify the evangelists’ emphases, seeking to nd possible explanations of the same. During the process, one may observe the following leads; 1. Individual Comments and Editorial Links. Sometimes a Gospel writer will add an editorial comment to bring out the signi cance of an episode. In Matt. 3:11; Mk 1:7-8; Lk 3:15-16, all three Synoptics describe John the Baptist’s preaching about the “more powerful” one coming after him, Luke alone adds a comment about the expectation of the people that John might be the Christ. This serves to emphasize John’s disclaimer: John denies that he is the Christ and points instead to Jesus. fi fi Practicing Redaction Criticism 2. Summaries. An Evangelist’s emphasis is evident in the way he summarizes Jesus’ activity. In Mark 1:45, the author describes how after healing a man with leprosy, Jesus’ popularity was so great he had to withdraw to the countryside. In his parallel account, Luke makes a similar statement but gives an additional reason for Jesus’ withdrawal: “But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed” (Luke 5:16).  Practicing Redaction Criticism 3. Additions and Omissions of Material. Additions and omissions made to the material can indicate an Evangelist’s interests and purpose. Luke’s additional comment after the account of the descent of the Spirit on Jesus at his baptism, Luke adds that Jesus was “full of the Spirit” when he was tempted by Satan in the wilderness prepares the reader for his later episodes of lling in the Holy Spirit. fi Practicing Redaction Criticism 4. Arrangement of Material. Where an Evangelist places an episode may demonstrate his purpose and emphasis. The synagogue sermon in Luke 4:16 – 30 is the same sermon recorded in Mark 6:1 – 6. If so, Luke has brought this episode forward to serve as an introduction to Jesus’ whole ministry. The rejection of Jesus in his hometown prepares the reader for the coming rejection by his own people.  Practicing Redaction Criticism 5. Use of Additional Source Material. Luke includes many parables and stories, which emphasize Jesus’ special care for people of low estate, for sinners, and for society’s outcasts, that are not found in the other Gospels (Luke 13:10 – 17; 14:7 – 14, 15 – 24; 15:7 – 10, 11 – 32; 16:19 – 31; 17:11 – 19; 18:9 – 14; 19:1 – 10). Thank You