Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Post by Leucius Charinus »


Abstract:

Studies seeking to elucidate the Synoptic Problem, the issue of literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels, often proceed by making close comparisons among the Synoptic Gospels that rely on the idea that the text of each of these Gospels is fixed. Yet, when one turns to the actual manuscripts preserving the Gospels, one finds instead fluid texts with significant variation. Textual critics of the New Testament have attempted to sort through these variations and determine the earliest recoverable text of each of the Gospels, and in doing so, they often adopt a particular approach to the Synoptic Problem. At the same time, one’s approach to the Synoptic Problem is determined by the analysis of the editions established by textual critics. This chapter explores the implications of this circularity by examining a series of parallel passages in different printed synopses and in individual manuscripts.

Keywords: Manuscripts, Dependence, Synoptic Problem, Textual Criticism, Harmonization, Two-Source Hypothesis, Farrer Hypothesis

https://www.academia.edu/102692189/Manu ... ic_Problem

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Post by Peter Kirby »

Thanks! It's great to see people sharing their research online. A wonderful practice. I'll take a read.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Post by Peter Kirby »

Conclusion: "a critical parallel Gospel text with fuller citation of witnesses is required." Cool.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:34 pm
Conclusion:
"a critical parallel Gospel text with fuller citation of witnesses is required."

Cool.
The next sentence alludes to -

"a prototype of this kind of complex synopsis that is highly promising"

- at https://app.box.com/s/pncm86vx9ko34jd4hk12
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Post by Peter Kirby »

I don't think Kloppenborg or Goodacre are going to hold their breath. They have several critical editions at hand.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:48 pm The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

https://www.academia.edu/102692189/Manu ... ic_Problem
On the one hand, I like Brent's casual attitude when he makes the implicit suggestion: Literally, these gospels, whether canonical or non-canonical, are just stories about the life of Jesus, comparable in that sense to the Alexander literature. There is no reason to have extensive debates about it 8-)

On the other hand, I would immediately reply: Wrong! Let's discuss it :mrgreen:
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Post by MrMacSon »

The last paragraph of the conclusion, paragraphed further here, makes good points:


Finally, a work like the Vaticanus-Bezae parallels also helpfully reminds us that the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Synoptic Gospels that preserve extensive parallel passages date to the fourth and fifth centuries, meaning that our critical synopses are based on manuscripts that are the result of at least two centuries of textual transmission and intermingling.33 What we can know with confidence about the text(s) of the Gospels in the period before the fourth century is, I think, more limited than we have sometimes imagined.

Conflicting trends in composition and transmission in those prior centuries pull in different directions. The creative re-writing of Mark by Matthew and Luke in the first or second century suggests a willingness to freely change, cut, and expand gospel material.34 But developments in the second and third centuries, such as the emerging argument for a four-Gospel canon and the production of gospel harmonies, suggest an impulse toward harmonization in the period before our earliest surviving manuscripts.35 This should probably make us humble about any and all conclusions we make about issues of “dependence” among the Synoptic Gospels.



33 While one fairly extensive manuscript of the synoptic Gospels is sometimes assigned to the third century (the Chester Beatty codex of the Gospels and Acts, P45), the number of parallel passages preserved is limited, and the dating of the codex to the third rather than the fourth century may be overly optimistic; see Nongbri 2018: 134-138.
34 On this point, see the fascinating work of Larsen (Larsen 2018).
35 See further Parker 1997: 120-121.

Larsen, Matthew D. C. 2018. Gospels Before the Book. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nongbri 2018 is not listed but is probably God's library: the archaeology of the earliest Christian manuscripts, CUP.
Parker, D. C. 1997. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Post by mlinssen »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:04 pm I don't think Kloppenborg or Goodacre are going to hold their breath. They have several critical editions at hand.
Not that those have been at the least decisive in helping them formulate a solution to the SP; it seems that they merely keep each other occupied :goodmorning:

Then again both their Q is merely a workaround to the SP and miles away from a solution. And Brent most definitely is not going to solve it
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2885
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:40 am The last paragraph of the conclusion, paragraphed further here, makes good points:


Finally, a work like the Vaticanus-Bezae parallels also helpfully reminds us that the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Synoptic Gospels that preserve extensive parallel passages date to the fourth and fifth centuries, meaning that our critical synopses are based on manuscripts that are the result of at least two centuries of textual transmission and intermingling.33 What we can know with confidence about the text(s) of the Gospels in the period before the fourth century is, I think, more limited than we have sometimes imagined.

Conflicting trends in composition and transmission in those prior centuries pull in different directions. The creative re-writing of Mark by Matthew and Luke in the first or second century suggests a willingness to freely change, cut, and expand gospel material.34 But developments in the second and third centuries, such as the emerging argument for a four-Gospel canon and the production of gospel harmonies, suggest an impulse toward harmonization in the period before our earliest surviving manuscripts.35 This should probably make us humble about any and all conclusions we make about issues of “dependence” among the Synoptic Gospels.


Well said. Rather than back and forth over Marcion's gospel being the first gospel, perhaps it would be more profitable to attempt to fit it in with the gospels we do have. And that, I would suggest, requires giving more weight to the gospel story rather than the words conveying the story. All this debate over words is like discussing the many trees instead of viewing the forest. While the words may change or be removed, the bare bones of the gospel story stand, today, as they stood when whoever first put pen to papyrus. A human figure crucified. A figure immortalized in prayer, in ritual, in painting, in movies - and in gold or silver chains hung around the neck of millions of believers in the story's historicity. The cross is the very symbol of christianity - and yet some NT scholars like to spend their time counting trees.....
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Manuscripts: The Problem with the Synoptic Problem (Brent Nongbri)

Post by mlinssen »

maryhelena wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:07 am Well said. Rather than back and forth over Marcion's gospel being the first gospel, perhaps it would be more profitable to attempt to fit it in with the gospels we do have. And that, I would suggest, requires giving more weight to the gospel story rather than the words conveying the story. All this debate over words is like discussing the many trees instead of viewing the forest. While the words may change or be removed, the bare bones of the gospel story stand, today, as they stood when whoever first put pen to papyrus. A human figure crucified. A figure immortalized in prayer, in ritual, in painting, in movies - and in gold or silver chains hung around the neck of millions of believers in the story's historicity. The cross is the very symbol of christianity - and yet some NT scholars like to spend their time counting trees.....
For sure!!!

Let's completely ignore the words that form the story and instead conjure one of our own instead

A historical story at that, even

:lol:
:rofl:
Post Reply