This past Wednesday we introduced the Gospels as a whole and talked briefly concerning the "synoptic problem." This upcoming Wednesday we will jump into the text of Matthew chpt. 1. Please, as always, come with at least three observations from the text to share with us all. Also, let me take advantage of this oppurtunity to once again challenge you to read through Matthew entirely once each week! You will profit and gain from this in more than words can say.
Stay posted, in the following days I will post some suggestions and brief observations concerning Matthew 1.
Showing posts with label synoptic problem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label synoptic problem. Show all posts
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Gospels as "slow action replay"
This quote is taken from Donald A. Hagner, "Interpreting the Gospels: The Landscape and the Quest," Jets 24:1 (March 1981) p. 23-37.
"We are the richer because our gospels are what they are. If the gospels were the written equivalents of videotapes that is, the results of a kind of flat, disinterested reporting of “the bare facts” we should be immeasurably impoverished. Comparatively, Jesus would be enigmatic, his words obscure, his intent confusing, his ministry bewildering. (Of course we should still do quite well—better than the disciples—in making sense of it all, since we would be reading these accounts from our post-resurrection perspective.)
What we have in the gospels as they are is perhaps analogous in some ways to the “slow-action replay” that we encounter in television coverage of sports events. In these replays the action can be dramatically slowed down so that one is able to see much more than one was able to see in the action as it actually occurred. If one is given the full treatment—close-up, slow-action, forward-and-reverse, split-screen, the same scene from several perspectives, and with the verbal commentary and interpretation of an expert superimposed—one has a fair analogy of what the evangelists do. The correspondence is striking especially in that this kind of replay is in one sense what actually occurred, but in another sense is quite different from what occurred (not only in speed but also in what one individual is capable of perceiving). One might add to the force of the analogy by pointing out that the true significance of certain plays can only be known after the game is over. Now they are often seen in a new light, their true meaning dependent on what subsequently transpired. The gospels are like slow-action, analytical replays with expert commentary seen after the conclusion of the game. The gospels are truer portraits of Jesus than they would have been had they only given us “the bare facts.” The irony is that to the extent that the evangelists go beyond “the bare facts” they give us what in the last analysis is a more accurate portrait of Jesus and his significance. Since the evangelists know with full certainty the meaning of what transpired, there is an authority in their presentation of the story that is unmistakable. Their creativity in its own way not only demonstrates that authority but also paradoxically amounts to the honoring of the tradition.“ The tradition is preserved as it ought to be—intact and yet enhanced by the insight of a mature perspective."
"We are the richer because our gospels are what they are. If the gospels were the written equivalents of videotapes that is, the results of a kind of flat, disinterested reporting of “the bare facts” we should be immeasurably impoverished. Comparatively, Jesus would be enigmatic, his words obscure, his intent confusing, his ministry bewildering. (Of course we should still do quite well—better than the disciples—in making sense of it all, since we would be reading these accounts from our post-resurrection perspective.)
What we have in the gospels as they are is perhaps analogous in some ways to the “slow-action replay” that we encounter in television coverage of sports events. In these replays the action can be dramatically slowed down so that one is able to see much more than one was able to see in the action as it actually occurred. If one is given the full treatment—close-up, slow-action, forward-and-reverse, split-screen, the same scene from several perspectives, and with the verbal commentary and interpretation of an expert superimposed—one has a fair analogy of what the evangelists do. The correspondence is striking especially in that this kind of replay is in one sense what actually occurred, but in another sense is quite different from what occurred (not only in speed but also in what one individual is capable of perceiving). One might add to the force of the analogy by pointing out that the true significance of certain plays can only be known after the game is over. Now they are often seen in a new light, their true meaning dependent on what subsequently transpired. The gospels are like slow-action, analytical replays with expert commentary seen after the conclusion of the game. The gospels are truer portraits of Jesus than they would have been had they only given us “the bare facts.” The irony is that to the extent that the evangelists go beyond “the bare facts” they give us what in the last analysis is a more accurate portrait of Jesus and his significance. Since the evangelists know with full certainty the meaning of what transpired, there is an authority in their presentation of the story that is unmistakable. Their creativity in its own way not only demonstrates that authority but also paradoxically amounts to the honoring of the tradition.“ The tradition is preserved as it ought to be—intact and yet enhanced by the insight of a mature perspective."
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
To quote...
Synoptic Problem
That there is such a problem is a fact,
and everyone who is interested in the Gospels
should know something about it.
Scroggie, A Guide to the Gospels (London: 1967), 83
Synoptic Problem and Wednesday Night
Several have expressed unease and apprehension concerning our upcoming discussion of the Synoptic Problem this Wednesday night. Please do not be alarmed! I merely desire for us to be aware of it as a problem and familiar with it's terminology. I desire this because any commentary you pick up on Matthew (or any of the synoptic Gospels) that was written in the last century will be full of synoptic Gospel terminology and language. You will see terms like "form criticism," "source criticism," "redaction criticism," "sitz im leben," etc. that you should at the very least be able to define. What's more, several commentaries or articles you may pick up will be discussing the synoptic problem without ever using these terms and you need to be able to identify it.
In short, to prepare for Wednesday night, don't lose any sleep over the synoptic problem. Simply read some of the material suggested concerning it and think through some of the positive and negative aspects of the synoptic problem, and then stop and think if there really is a synoptic problem after all.
To be well prepared for Wednesday night, spend most of your time reading Matthew and introductions to the Gospel.
In short, to prepare for Wednesday night, don't lose any sleep over the synoptic problem. Simply read some of the material suggested concerning it and think through some of the positive and negative aspects of the synoptic problem, and then stop and think if there really is a synoptic problem after all.
To be well prepared for Wednesday night, spend most of your time reading Matthew and introductions to the Gospel.
Monday, January 29, 2007
What to expect?
Our first meeting for the Mathew bible study will be a twofold introduction. First, I will introduce the synoptic problem. A subject matter we should at the very least be aware of. Second, I will introduce the book of Matthew. Should you desire to come prepared for these introductions I strongly recommend you read the first two chapters of "An Introduction To The New Testament" by D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris. This will only take a few hours to read at the very most.
In the following week and a half I will be posting some further thoughts and points of interest for the synoptic problem and Matthew itself.
In the following week and a half I will be posting some further thoughts and points of interest for the synoptic problem and Matthew itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
