Talk:Synoptic problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Please add more information on what Lessing's ur-gospel theory was. There is no info in wikipedia on those topics.  :)

Contents

[edit] Other takes on "synoptic problem"

Evangelical Christians I have encountered have a totally different concept of the synoptic problem than the higher criticism approach of the article. It seems to me that "synoptic problem" means the mental and linguistic gymnastics taken to reconcile descrepancies between the gospels in such a way to maintain their Biblical inerrancy. I wonder if someone could comment on that in the article? El charangista 00:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does the synoptic problem/hypotheses reconcile discrepancies between the gospel accounts? My impression was that the whole synoptic approach is fairly "historico-critical" and (generally speaking) tends to be either opposed or deemed fairly irrelevant by the evangelical side of Christianity Leon 06:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding what has been called "the synoptic problem": I've heard that Luke took a largely journalistic approach by interviewing eyewitnesses and researching other accounts. I've also heard that Matthew, as a tax collector, likely knew some form of shorthand, and was able to transcribe Jesus's teachings verbatim, on the spot. The higher criticism approach seems to treat each of the gospels as later writings cobbled together, regarding their authors as propogandists of a sort, and not as first or second generation sources.
Purely from my imagination, I can theorize Mark writing his gospel first; then Luke running around interviewing people, including Matthew, using Mark as a framework; then Matthew writing his own gospel, having been inspired (in the usual sense) by Luke's journalism.
Regarding the apparent discrepencies between gospel accounts: I believe that has its own article, or section in other articles, such as the biblical inerrancy article you mentioned. --BlueNight (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] "Eta Linneman" addendum under Proposed Solutions

So I removed the "citation needed" tag again. WP:RS does not say you can't ref another wiki page as a source, and it's a guideline anyway not a hard and fast rule. Furthermore, this is not something that requires a fact tag. But I went ahead and added a cite anyway, which is a duplicate from the other article that I also re-added as a further source. Let's discuss any more issues you have with that here. --shift6 17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the reference. I wanted to first say that the WP:CITE page says in big bold letters Note: other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. I also wanted to say that "homepage.mac.com" is a self-publishing hosting service, similar to "members.aol.com" or "geocities.com" and brings up issues of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). It would be better for wikipedia if the text (which is claimed to be in the public domain) was linked to from a different source. The only other places I could find this document online was [1] and [2]. Next, we need to qualify what sort of "Christians" believe this claim. You removed the word "traditional" which I restored. There are many Christians who accept the two source hypothesis, therefore making the statement inaccurate. Thanks for finding a source for the information, and coming to talk to work out these issues.-Andrew c 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't check WP:CITE because you had referenced WP:RS in the history, so I appreciate that clarification. As for the source, while it is found on a personal web page, it also cites an original author and date, and the title and date of the periodical in which it was originally published in 1889. I understand wiki's policy on verifiability, but how would someone be expected to reference such a source? Especially since it is used to claim "some people believe X", a claim which really only needs one adherant to be true, as opposed to a historical-factual or wide ranging claim. The web page author is not claiming authority on some matter which is being used as a source for some wide claim in the wiki article, he just reproduced a really old work.
Finally, I feel that your final assessment is incorrect. Yes, there are Christians who believe in a two source hypothesis. But this does not make it inaccurate to say that no source documents are needed, because of the definition of spiritual inspiration. Note that my edits did not that claim no sources existed, only that they are not needed. I removed the word "traditional" in my most recent edit as I thought that might be the controversial part of the sentence, as in claiming some kind of wide-ranging belief within Christianity. --shift6 01:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge_with_synoptic_gospels

I propose these articles be merged. I was cleaning up the gospels article, and I realized that other than the section on etymology, these two articles were covering the same material. Counter proposals, anyone? --Otheus 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally support the motion. --Marcus wilby73 19:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep The research into the Synoptic Problem is a separate theological and academic discipline than that into the Synoptic Gospels. If you do merge then keep a redirect from one to the other Jack1956 07:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm conflicted here. Both of these topics are notable enough to warrant their own articles, however if we do have redundant content, we may only have enough material to fill one good article. And I don't know what the title of the article should be. The synoptic problem is the one I am more familiar with, and the one that holds the most interest with me, but it gets less google hits than synoptic gospels. Maybe we could consider keeping them separate, but work on cleaning them up to avoid redundancy. Maybe have one paragraph/section summarizing the synoptic gospels here, and one paragraph/section summarizing the synoptic problem at the other article and have {{main}} links directing each other the the more specific content. Though, I'm not sure how much content could go in the synoptic gospels article if we cut out all the info on the problem/proposed solutions. -Andrew c [talk] 13:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep apart. The Synoptic Gospels page should describe each of the three, and the content and stylistic overlaps and differences. The Synoptic Problem should discuss the various modern theories on which came first and what may have been copied from where. --Rumping 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the two articles should be merged. I feel that those genuinely seeking instruction on the subject may search for Synoptic Gospels, rather than using the technical term 'synoptic problem', and as a result may miss the marvellous resort that the work on this site is. - Philbool 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep separate. TheScotch 08:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep separate would be my guess, but including Synoptic Problem as a subarticle on Synoptic Gospel, summarizing according to Summary Style. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Should the article on "synoptic gospels" be about their content, their structure, and their significance in Christianity? This article is more about a historical issue.Vice regent 20:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep separate Any disputes can be handled at Synoptic Problem, and Synoptic Gospel can be a neutral overview/definition of the subject Nownownow (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the merge messages. Hope it's ok. --Witr (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What this article is lacking

The article is about the synaptic problem. Yet, it starts with the solutions, and discusses afterward of the problems. Also, we should explain much more carefully the problems that are being raised. I think that a list of quick "facts" that the solution must account would be helpful. I am not a specialist of this question, so I am hesitant to change the article, but here is what the list of "quick facts" could include (which I borrowed from diverses Wikipedia articles about the gospels):

  • Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, include a sayings collection from Jesus
  • 92% of Mark is found in Matthew, but only 56% of Mark is included in Luke. Matthew and Luke share 53%.
  • Chronologically, Matthew and Luke follow Mark most of the time. When Matthew disagrees with Mark's chronology, Luke often agrees with Mark. When Luke disagrees with Mark's chronology, Matthew will always agree with Mark. Matthew and Luke rarely ever disagree together against Mark.
  • Whenever Mark and Matthew agree, Mark often has a more verbose version.
  • Luke has more similarity to John than any other two synoptic gospels
  • Mark's Greek is more primitive than the other Gospel writers. Often, Luke or Matthew will state a parallel Jesus quote much more eloquently than Mark.
  • There is progression in the quality of language and communication with Mark being the least polished/rendered Greek, Matthews being the most 'Jewish', with many key terms replaced with Jewish emphasis to make the Gospel more applicable to a predominately Jewish audience, and Luke being the work of a refined scholar of language, with clear rhetorical technique demonstrated -Philbool
  • Luke refers in his gospel that many versions summarizing Jesus life are already available 21:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcus wilby73 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 July 2007.
Right, so first off, we merge synoptic gospels with this article, and then expand on the similarities and differences. It's hard/redundant to try to cover the same material in two different articles. My proposal so far has one supporter (Markus wilby73) who is not a "main" contributor to either article, so I'm waiting to hear from others before commencing the merge. --Otheus 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, Otheus. I'd hate to end up at this article (as I just did) and miss those useful facts (as I would have if I weren't in the habit of checking talk pages). Pschelden 09:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pschelden (talk • contribs)

The Study of the Synoptic Gospels and the Study of the Study of the Synoptic Gospels are different categories, cross referencing and summarizing would be a far better solution to what is missing from both this article and the synoptic gospel article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.99.236 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)