On your whiteboard: Sum up what John’s gospel tells us about the nature and message of Jesus.

Key Questions: What is Biblical Criticism? What is the Synoptic Problem? What is Source Criticism, and how well does it solve the problem?

What do we already know about the writing of the Bible?

Biblical Criticism Does NOT mean criticising the Bible! It means analysing the Bible – taking it to pieces and studying it in detail, using all the available evidence. There are lots of different types of biblical criticism – historical, sociological, literary… Some Christians disapprove of any kind of Biblical criticism, as they see the Bible as literally the words of God. But most Christians rely on at least some critical study of the authors and their contexts to inform their understanding of the text.

Think-Pair-Share Why does it matter when the Bible texts were written?

Suggested more ‘accurate’ timeline of the NT – emphasise that they are general dates – there is nothing specific about our knowledge of when they were written. Emphasise the events of the time. Destruction of Temple – early church more concerned with circumcision than who/what Jesus was Emphasise that these are traditional dates and that they are more a range of possible dates

The Synoptic Gospels Can be laid side-by-side in a synopsis (first done by Griesbach in 1776). Huge similarities not only in content (which you’d expect, as they’re all telling the story of Jesus’ life), but in wording and order. There are also key differences between them – each seems to have its own themes which recur throughout the story.

“Units of tradition” – the passages of shared material Triple Tradition Double Tradition Content shared by all three gospels In almost identical order Mostly narrative Content shared by Matthew and Luke In a different order Some is word-for-word identical for long sections Mostly sayings of Jesus

An example of Triple Tradition material Mt 8:2–3 Mk 1:40–42 Lk 5:12–13 And behold, a leper came and worships him, saying: Lord, if you wish, I can be cleansed. And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying: I wish it; be cleansed. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And, calling out to him, there comes to him a leper and kneeling and saying to him: If you wish, I can be cleansed. And, moved with compassion, he stretched out his hand and touched him and says to him: I wish it; be cleansed. And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was cleansed. And behold, a man full of leprosy. But, upon seeing Jesus, he fell upon his face and requested him, saying: Lord, if you wish, I can be cleansed. And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying: I wish it; be cleansed. And immediately the leprosy left him. More than half the wording in this passage is identical. Just as interesting, though, is that each gospel includes words absent in the other two and omits something included by the other two.

Did Matthew and Luke both know something Mark didn’t?? Harmonies

An example of Double Tradition material The preaching of John the Baptist in Matthew and Luke, with differences in black. Here the two texts agree verbatim, with an isolated exception, for a span of over sixty words. Mark has no parallel.

Because so much of Mark is also in the other two, most scholars agree on the idea of Markan priority (Mark was written first and Mt and Lk used Mk as a source). Although, another interpretation is Markan posteriority (Mk was written later, using the passages that Mt and Lk agreed on).

But there are also big differences between the gospels: Example - The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Why are they so different? One possible reason is the audience they were for: The author of Matthew was Jewish. He was trying to link Jesus with Jewish tradition – Jesus was Jewish and Matthew has Jesus speaking to a Jewish audience. The author of Luke was Greek – he takes the lineage back to God to extend the invitation to everyone, removing the need for Jewish blood, circumcision etc.

The Synoptic Problem How do we explain the similarities and differences between the three synoptic gospels? We are asking if there is a relationship between the three gospels, and if so, what is it? It involves various sub-questions, such as Which was written first? Did they use material from each other? Did they use material from a common source? Did they write the stories as they found them or edit them? Are any of them more accurate/reliable than the others? Can we know anything about Jesus by reading the gospels?

Think-Pair-Share How would you answer the synoptic problem? How do you explain the huge similarities?

Solving the Synoptic Problem – Source Criticism Source Criticism is a type of Biblical criticism (what does this mean again?) that focuses on the source of the text – where did the author get their information from?

Augustinian Hypothesis The oldest known view, still advocated by some, with composition in canonical order. Mark's special place is neither priority nor posteriority, but as the intermediate between the other two gospels.

Proto-Gospel The gospels each independently derive from a common proto-gospel, possibly in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Two-Source Hypothesis Most widely accepted theory. Matthew and Luke have independently used Q, taken to be a Greek document with sayings and narrative.

Four-Document Hypothesis As proposed by Streeter

Think-Pair-Share Which of these is the best solution? Why?

On your whiteboard: What is biblical criticism? What is the synoptic problem? How does source criticism try to solve it?