DOCSLIB.ORG

Page Proof Instructions and Queries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Page Proof Instructions and Queries Publishing Page Proof Instructions and Queries Journal Title: Pacifica (PAA) Article Number: 731796 Thank you for choosing to publish with us. This is your final opportunity to ensure your article will be accurate at publication. Please review your proof carefully and respond to the queries using the circled tools in the image below, which are available by clicking ‘‘Comment’’ from the right-side menu in Adobe Reader DC.* Please use only the tools circled in the image, as edits via other tools/methods can be lost during file conversion. For comments, questions, or formatting requests, please use . Please do not use comment bubbles/sticky notes . Comment *If you do not see these tools, please ensure you have opened this file with Adobe Reader DC, available for free at get.adobe.com/reader or by going to Help > Check for Updates within other versions of Reader. For more detailed instructions, please see us.sagepub.com/ ReaderXProofs. No. Query Please confirm that all author information, including names, affiliations, sequence, and contact details, is correct. Please review the entire document for typographical errors, mathematical errors, and any other necessary corrections; check headings, tables, and figures. Please confirm that the Funding and Conflict of Interest statements are accurate. Please ensure that you have obtained and enclosed all necessary permissions for the reproduction of artistic works, (e.g. illustrations, photographs, charts, maps, other visual material, etc.) not owned by yourself. Please refer to your publishing agreement for further information. Please note that this proof represents your final opportunity to review your article prior to publication, so please do send all of your changes now. Original Article Pacifica 0(0) 1–16 The Synoptic Problem: ! The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: Where to from here? sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1030570X17731796 Christopher John Monaghan journals.sagepub.com/home/paa Yarra Theological Union, a College of University of Divinity, Australia Abstract The study of the Synoptic Problem continues with a wide range of hypotheses proposed to explain the relationship of Mark, Matthew and Luke to the early Jesus tradition, and to each other. This article reviews recent developments in synoptic studies highlighting the recognition of the ongoing role of the oral tradition, the ways in which scribal compositional practices in the first century have been used to test the major hypoth- eses, and the methodological constraints that accompany research in this area. Keywords composition practice, minor agreements, oral tradition, Q source, Synoptic Problem Introduction: Major approaches Exploring the formation of the Synoptic Gospels and their relationship to the development and preservation of the Jesus tradition, and to one another, is a question that continues to be as strongly debated and argued as it has ever been.1 Plotting and describing the processes by which the sayings and deeds of 1 For some recent surveys see Christopher M. Tuckett, ‘The Current State of the Synoptic Problem’, in Paul A. Foster, Andrew Gregory, John S. Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden (eds), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem Oxford Conference, April 2008. Essays in honour of Christopher M. Tuckett (BETL 239; Leuven, Paris, Walpole: Peeters, 2011), 9–50; M. Eugene Boring, An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012), see pp. 467–506. Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer, The Synoptic Problem: four views (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016); in this volume Craig A. Evens, Mark Goodacre, David Barrett Peabody and Rainer Reisner provide presentations of the major hypotheses and interact with them, and each other. A very useful collection of articles evaluating the 2DH can be found in Arthur J. Bellinzoni Jr, Joseph B. Tyson and William O. Walker Jr (eds), The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal Corresponding author: Christopher John Monaghan, 98 Albion Road Box Hill, Victoria 3128, Australia. Email: [email protected] 2 Pacifica 0(0) Jesus were preserved and transmitted, both orally and as written narratives, is necessarily speculative, but this has not curbed enthusiasm to rise to the challenge. For some time now there have been two major lines of investigation. The first is taken by those who argue for the Synoptic Gospels to be the result of independ- ently drawing on the early Jesus tradition described variously as an Ur-Gospel in Aramaic, as oral tradition, or fragments.2 While these suggestions were prominent in the 18th and 19th centuries they continue in various forms with a focus on eyewitnesses or the oral tradition. Eta Linnemann and David Farnell see the dif- ferences between the Synoptic Gospels as due to divergence in the various eyewit- ness accounts, where Riesner takes a view that draws on the oral tradition, eyewitness accounts, and is indebted to the suggestions of those who take a multi-source approach to the Synoptic Problem.3 The second major line of investigation has been in terms of literary interdepend- ence with one or other of the Synoptic Gospels drawing upon either one, or both, of the other Gospels. While the Two Source Hypothesis (2DH) continues as the majority position, its provisional nature is freely admitted, as well as the sense that it is, as in the case with all theories, a working hypothesis. The other major hypotheses are the Griesbach hypothesis/The Two Gospel Hypothesis (2GH); and the Farrer Hypothesis (FH).4 Alongside the major hypotheses the (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985). David L. Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1999) – see Part 3, ‘Current Trands in the Post- Modern Period’, 345–394. Robert L. Thomas (ed.), Three views on the origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2002). Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). 2 See Robert H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation (2nd edition; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001). See p. 144 for a brief overview of the suggestions made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 3 Eta Linnemann, Is there a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992); F. David Farnell, ‘The Case for the Independence View of Gospel Origins’, in Robert Thomas (ed.), Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2002), 226–309; Rainer Riesner, ‘From the Messianic Teacher to the Gospels of Jesus Christ’, in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus Vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter (eds), (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 405– 446. Rainer Riesner, ‘The Orality and Memory Hypothesis’, in Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer (eds), The Synoptic Problem: four views, 89–112. 4 For 2GH see David Barrett Peabody, ‘The Two Gospel Hypothesis’, in Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer (eds), The Synoptic Problem: four views, 67–88; William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis, (New York: Macmillan, 1964); Allan McNicol, David L. Dungan and David Barrett Peabody (eds), Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies, (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996). David Barrett Peabody, Lamar Cope, and Allan J. McNicol (eds), One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke: A Demonstration by the Monaghan 3 Matthean Posterity Hypothesis (MPH) has re-emerged in the work of MacEwen and Garrow, who argue that it is Matthew who depends on Luke, rather than Luke who depends on Matthew as the FH proposes.5 Other more complex multi-source hypotheses continue to be proposed by scholars such as Boismard and Burkett.6 The fact that the major theories are advocated unabatedly and with such vigour indicates at least two things: (i) that the same data is capable of multiple interpret- ations; and (ii) it reveals that while synchronic readings of the Synoptic Gospels as independent crystallisations and performances of the Jesus tradition have enor- mous value, there is still an enthusiasm for addressing diachronic questions as we attempt to plot and describe the development of the tradition in its multiple streams and forms, both oral and written, and their interaction. All synoptic hypotheses have to deal with the same data in terms of how to address the external evidence provided by patristic sources, and the internal evidence in terms of differences in wording and Greek style that may indicate primitivity on the part of Mark, Matthew or Luke, or redactional or stylistic improvements. Attention also needs to be paid to agreements and disagreements in the order of pericopes, as well as dealing with the challenge posed by traditions that are preserved in multiple forms within a given gospel.7 Each of the major hypotheses are the subject of criticism for perceived weak- nesses.8 The 2DH hypothesis has difficulty explaining the minor agreements and Research Team of the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies, (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002). For FH, see John C. Poirier and Jeffrey Peterson (eds), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrar Hypothesis, (LNTS 455; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015). Francis Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013). Christopher A. Rollston (ed.), The Gospels according to Michael Goulder: A North American Response. (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002). 5 Robert T. MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem (LNTS 501; London: Bloomsbury T &T Clark, 2015). Alan Garrow, ‘Streeter’s ‘‘Other’’ Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis’, NTS 62(2) (2016), 207–226.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Matthew C. Williams. Two Gospels from One: a Comprehensive
    1 Matthew C. Williams. Two Gospels from One: A Comprehensive Text-Critical Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006. Pp. 256. ISBN 0-8254- 3904-X. $21.99, paper. 1. Matthew C. Williams’ Two Gospels from One: A Comprehensive Text-Critical Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels promises more than it can deliver, misleads readers with its subtitle, and stymies rather than advances the agendas of text-critical research and gospel criticism. Williams’s study not only fails to shed new light on the Synoptic Problem, but also misappropriates (and misapplies) text-critical criteria to problems beyond their purview. The result is a work that amounts to little more than a cataloguing of well-known arguments for Marcan priority, encumbered by repeated attempts to tether a text-critical approach to the Synoptic Problem. Despite the appearance of copious detail, the work is selective in its treatment and founded upon a number of abstractions. 2. The work’s subtitle leads readers to expect detailed treatment of all three Synoptic Gospels. In fact, only Matthew and Mark are considered. Nor is every pericope relevant to the Synoptic Problem examined—less than a third of Mark’s evidence is taken up (173 verses, or 27%). The exclusion of arguments from “order” or any consideration of Q, both of critical relevance to the Synoptic Problem, further heightens the disparity between the work’s claim and its execution. The author acknowledges these limitations, but makes no effort to reconcile them with the subtitle (p. 46-47). On the contrary, the grand claim is carried over into the first chapter heading: “A Proposed Method for Solving the Synoptic Problem.” 3.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction Paper Title the Marcan Concept of Discipleship: An
    Introduction Paper title The Marcan concept of discipleship: An exegesis of Mark 8.27-10.52. Focal theory The concept of discipleship which involves ‘taking up one’s cross’ within the daily Christian experience remains a challenging and often distant concept for modern Christians within affluent communities. Purpose of the paper The purpose of the paper is to explore the Marcan concept of discipleship through an exegesis of Mark 8.27-10.52. The paper’s hypothesis is that whilst recognizing that Mark provides a complex soteriology’,1 and a multi-faceted Christology, the evn th/| o`dw/| motif contained within the focus passage, understood in the light of the Son of Man’s earthly and eschatological roles, incorporates key Marcan theology that directly addresses the understanding of discipleship within the modern context. 1 The complex soteriology within Mark has attracted much debate, particularly focusing on the so-called ‘ransom saying’ of 10.45, a debate that can be traced back to the subjective and objective view of the atonement as classically understood by Abelhard (subjective) and Anselm (objective). Stott provides an excellent overview of the history of the debate between the objective and the subjective views of the atonement (see John R.W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 1986), pp. 17-351). Within modern scholarship, some such as Allison opting for a more ‘Jewish’ understanding of Jesus’ death (partly as a result of the understandings gained in the so-called ‘Third Quest’ for the historical Jesus), and others such as Hengel opting for an approach based on an understanding of the early kerygmatic preaching of the apostles.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Saccio
    Great Figures of the New Testament Parts I & II Amy-Jill Levine, Ph.D. PUBLISHED BY: THE TEACHING COMPANY 4840 Westfields Boulevard, Suite 500 Chantilly, Virginia 20151-2299 1-800-TEACH-12 Fax—703-378-3819 www.teach12.com Copyright © The Teaching Company, 2002 Printed in the United States of America This book is in copyright. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior written permission of The Teaching Company. Amy-Jill Levine, Ph.D. E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Professor of New Testament Studies Vanderbilt University Divinity School/ Vanderbilt University Graduate Department of Religion Amy-Jill Levine earned her B.A. with high honors in English and Religion at Smith College, where she graduated magna cum laude and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Her M.A. and Ph.D. in Religion are from Duke University, where she was a Gurney Harris Kearns Fellow and W. D. Davies Instructor in Biblical Studies. Before moving to Vanderbilt, she was Sara Lawrence Lightfoot Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Religion at Swarthmore College. Professor Levine’s numerous publications address Second-Temple Judaism, Christian origins, Jewish-Christian relations, and biblical women. She is currently editing the twelve-volume Feminist Companions to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature for Continuum, completing a manuscript on Hellenistic Jewish narratives for Harvard University Press, and preparing a commentary on the Book of Esther for Walter de Gruyter (Berlin).
    [Show full text]
  • John the Baptist's Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: Is Luke a Writing Reader Of
    John the Baptist’s Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20 Is Luke a Writing Reader of Matthew? Chauchot, Christina Solmunde M Publication date: 2017 Document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Document license: CC BY-NC-ND Citation for published version (APA): Chauchot, C. S. M. (2017). John the Baptist’s Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: Is Luke a Writing Reader of Matthew? Publikationer fra Det teologiske Fakultet. Download date: 26. sep.. 2021 SOLMUNDE MICHELSEN CHRISTINA ISBN 978-87-93361-34-8 CHRISTINA SOLMUNDE MICHELSEN John the Baptist’s Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: Is Luke a Writing Reader of Matthew? Is Luke a Writing Reader of Matthew? Is Luke a Writing John the Baptist’s Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: John the Baptist’s CHRISTINA SOLMUNDE MICHELSEN John the Baptist’s Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: Is Luke a Writing Reader of Matthew? Publikationer fra Det Teologiske Fakultet 75 SOLMUNDE MICHELSEN CHRISTINA ISBN 978-87-93361-34-8 CHRISTINA SOLMUNDE MICHELSEN John the Baptist’s Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: Is Luke a Writing Reader of Matthew? Is Luke a Writing Reader of Matthew? Is Luke a Writing John the Baptist’s Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: John the Baptist’s CHRISTINA SOLMUNDE MICHELSEN John the Baptist’s Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: Is Luke a Writing Reader of Matthew? Publikationer fra Det Teologiske Fakultet 75 John the Baptist’s Public Ministry in Lk 3:1-20: Is Luke a Writing Reader of Matthew? The public defense will be held on September 22, 2017, from 13:15 at the Faculty of Theology, University of Copenhagen, Søndre Campus, Karen Blixens Plads 16, 2300 Copenhagen S.
    [Show full text]
  • Crucifixion in Mark
    Scripturalization in Mark’s Crucifixion Narrative Mark Goodacre Duke University, Durham, NC Please cite this article as follows: Mark Goodacre, ―Scripturalization in Mark‘s Crucifixion Narrative‖ in Geert van Oyen and Tom Shepherd (eds.), The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark (Leuven: Peeters, 2006): 33-47 Numbers in square brackets refer to the original page numbers. The Shame of Crucifixion One might have thought that it was something of a scholarly cliché to stress the horror, the shame, the degradation, the suffering involved with crucifixion. Yet many of the scholarly reactions to The Passion of the Christ (dir. Mel Gibson, 2004), which balked at the scale of suffering endured here by Jesus, provide a timely reminder that many of us still have very little grasp of just how appalling a death crucifixion was. The remarkable thing about Mel Gibson‘s film was not so much the magnitude of suffering depicted but its restraint in showing many of the true horrors of crucifixion, as Gibson himself realized.1 Consider, for example, Seneca‘s mockery of the view that life is worth holding on to at any price: Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain dying limb by 1 See further Mark Goodacre, ―The Power of The Passion of the Christ: Reacting and Overreacting to Gibson‘s Artistic Vision‖ in Kathleen E. Corley and Robert L. Webb (eds.), Jesus and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ: the Film, the Gospels and the Claims of History (London & New York: Continuum, 2004): 28-44 (35-6).
    [Show full text]
  • Biblical Spirituality
    THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM Ascertaining the literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels constitutes what is commonly termed the Synoptic Problem. Site to compare Gospels: http://sites.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/ A. Similarities between the Synoptic Gospels 1. Common Material: Matthew Mark Luke Total Verses: 1,068 661 1,149 Triple Tradition (verses): 330 330 330 Double Tradition: 235 235 Note the similarity of the following pericopes: Matt 19:13-15/Mark 10:13-16/Luke 18:15-17 Matt 24:15-18/Mark 13:14-16/Luke 21:20-22 Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4 (Note the text of Isa 40:3 reads in the Septuagint: “Make straight the paths of our God,” and in the Hebrew “Make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.”). Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27 (This biblical quotation does not agree with the Hebrew text, which mentions heart and not mind, nor the Greek which never combines both heart and mind).1 2. Basic Agreement in Structure: Mark Matthew Luke a. Introduction to Ministry: 1:1-13 3:1-4, 11 3:1-4, 13 b. Galilean Ministry: 1:14-19, 50 4:12-18, 35 4:14-19, 50 c. Journey to Jerusalem: 10:1-52 19:1-20, 34 9:51-19:41 d. Death and Resurrection: chs. 11-16 chs. 21-28 chs. 19-24 3. Triple Tradition: An examination of “triple tradition,” reveals that while there is much material which is similar to all three Gospels, there is a good amount of material that show agreements between Matthew and Mark, and also Mark and Luke, but there is almost no material in the triple tradition that is common to Matthew and Luke (Matt 9:1-2; Mark 2:1-5; Luke 5:17-20).
    [Show full text]
  • Two Source Hypothesis New Testament
    Two Source Hypothesis New Testament Unestablished Rudie cooeeing, his fix overslips saturate cryptically. Eild Elnar still leaps: dilapidated and gradual Bryce outpraytypifying and quite relived. funny but rebuild her veldts jurally. Quiggly is prepaid and insculp quadruply while gastronomic Zacherie This area as an increasingly influential, new testament source hypothesis which cannot guess to be used. Matthew and new testament scholars note what became obsessed with origin of q materials before teaching of divorce and other against mark, predecessors of this? My students began, sell everything everywhere maintained matthaean tradition must originally composed first two source hypothesis new testament studies? In the culmination of the early christians only in writing and luke wrote bishop recites from some new testament source hypothesis? In oral tradition material culture was finally he publicly states, two source hypothesis new testament, while these lukan locations for us more true because this. Note also that in Matt. The two-source theory has been appropriately dethroned from the status of. Satis probabile est quod unusquisque evangelistarum eo se intento accommodata erant, new testament scholars accept that two source hypothesis new testament. Sermon on twelve, new testament and especially interested in question per issue. We have to compare the three gospels verse by verse in order to try to explain the literary relationship and dependence between them. In addition, Eta Linnemann rejects the Q document hypothesis and denies the existence of a Synoptic problem across all. Who put other two synoptic gospels is expressed in other three gospels view profiles by creating a new testament source hypothesis that it is not adopted prior to.
    [Show full text]
  • Missing Magdala and the Name of Mary 'Magdalene'
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278323992 Missing magdala and the name of mary 'magdalene' Article in Palestine Exploration Quarterly · September 2014 DOI: 10.1179/0031032814Z.000000000110 CITATIONS READS 2 330 1 author: Joan Taylor King's College London 37 PUBLICATIONS 235 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: A Trans-disciplinary View on the site where the 2000 year old Parchment manuscripts -the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls- were found by combining Nuclear, Biological and Synchrotron-based analytical Techniques View project All content following this page was uploaded by Joan Taylor on 04 June 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, , (), – MISSING MAGDALA AND THE NAME OF MARY ‘MAGDALENE’ J E. T Traditionally, Mary Magdalene’s name is assumed to indicate the place she came from: Magdala, meaning ‘the Tower’. However, no place named Magdala is mentioned in the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament or in other contemporaneous writing. The site called ‘Magdala’ in Israel today, some 5 km north of Tiberias and just north of Mount Arbel, continues a Byzantine identification, from the 5th or 6th centuries CE. It is often assumed that the sizeable town now coming to light here was more commonly called by the Greek name Tarichaea. However, questions may be asked about evidence. There was a village attested in rabbinic literature as Migdal Nuniya (‘Tower of Fish’), lying about one mile north of Tiberias, which was probably called ‘Magdala’ locally, but this Magdala lay south of Mount Arbel.
    [Show full text]
  • Called Ministry
    Sunday School Lesson Mark 1:16-20 by Lorin L. Cranford All rights reserved © Called A copy of this lesson is posted in Adobe pdf format at http://cranfordville.com under Bible Studies in the Bible Study Aids section. A note about the blue, underlined material: These are hyperlinks that allow you to click them on and bring up the specified scripture passage automatically while working inside the pdf file connected to the internet. Just use your web browser’s back arrow or the taskbar to return to the lesson material. ************************************************************************** Quick Links to the Study I. Context II. Message a. Historical a. Andrew and Peter, vv. 6-8 b. Literary b. James and John, vv. 9-20 *************************************************************************** During our history as Baptists, we have given a lot of emphasis to a “called ministry.” The stress has typically been for pastors and other church staff members to have a definite sense of divine calling into vocational Christian ministry. Often one of the scriptural sources for this understanding has been the calling of the disciples by Jesus as described in the four gospels. While making this demand upon the ministers in our ranks, we have not always seen the equal relevancy of the calling of these twelve disciples to our own lives. Somehow, the fact that they left their “jobs” as fishermen in order to follow Jesus puts them in a “clergy” category and out of a “laymen” category. Thus Jesus was calling clergy rather than laymen who are just supposed to sup- port the clergy. This rather interesting reasoning we have inherited from Roman Catholic tradition that has been in place for many centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Studies A2 1: Themes in the Synoptic Gospels
    GCE CCEA GCE A2 Exemplifying Examination Performance Religious Studies A2 1: Themes in the Synoptic Gospels This is an exemplification of candidates’ performance in GCE A2 examinations (Summer 2018) to support the teaching and learning of the Religious Studies specification. Permission to reproduce all copyright material has been applied for. In some cases, efforts to contact copyright holders may have been unsuccessful and CCEA will be happy to rectify any omissions of acknowledgement in future if notified. EXEMPLIFYING EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE GCE Religious Studies Introduction These materials illustrate aspects of performance from the 2018 summer A2 examination series of CCEA’s revised GCE Specification in 2016. Students’ grade A responses are reproduced verbatim and accompanied by commentaries written by senior examiners. The commentaries draw attention to the strengths of the students’ responses and indicate, where appropriate, deficiencies and how improvements could be made. It is intended that the materials should provide a benchmark of candidate performance and help teachers and students to raise standards. For further details of our support package, please visit our website at www.ccea.org.uk Best wishes Donna Finlay Education Manager, Religious Studies Email: [email protected] Telephone: 028 9026 1200 ext. 2105 GCE: A2 Religious Studies ARE11: Themes in the Synoptic Gospels Grade: A Exemplar 1 CCEA EXEMPLIFYING EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE 2 CCEA EXEMPLIFYING EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE Section A Q1a Analyse the sources used by Luke in writing his Gospel. [20] Student’s response Source criticism is an ‘important literary tool’ to find a developed theological understanding of the synoptics Gospels, and their relationship between one another as well as their literary interdependence according to Morris.
    [Show full text]
  • The Synoptic Problem: John the Baptist and Jesus
    The Synoptic Problem: John the Baptist and Jesus Mark Goodacre Curiosity and Colored Pencils For many New Testament scholars, studying the Synoptic Problem is a bit like studying algebra at school—it is a necessary evil. If you don’t have some kind of grasp on the issue, you can’t proceed to all the really rewarding, high-stakes issues that come afterwards, redaction-criticism, exegesis of the text, Historical Jesus research. It is a topic one first meets in courses offering introductions to the New Testament, when the major solution to the problem is explained in order to provide a framework for future study. To spend any longer on the problem is commonly regarded as a waste of time. It is too complex, too boring and best left to specialists who apparently retain a fascination with the topic long after they were supposed to have left it behind. Although many New Testament scholars remain unexcited about the Synop- tic Problem, their students do find it engaging once they are given the opportunity to explore it as a problem. While it is the norm among New Testament Introduc- tions simply to present the Two-Source Theory, the dominant solution, as a fait accompli and then to refract the data through the lens of that solution,1 there is actually a better way to approach it. The Synoptic Problem becomes exciting to students when they are introduced to it as a puzzle, as a problem in search of a solution. Engaging students in the humanities is, at its best, about teaching them how to engage critically with the materials rather than about simple description of consensus views.
    [Show full text]
  • Fatigue in the Synoptics
    Fatigue in the Synoptics by Mark Goodacre This article first appeared in New Testament Studies 44 (1998), pp. 45-58. I am grateful the editor and to Cambridge University Press for permission to reproduce it here. Web version by Mark Goodacre. Numbers in bold refer to the original ( NTS ) page numbers. Marcan Priority Many believe in the priority of Mark but few are able to give a good reason for it. Arguments that were once thought to be decisive, like appeals to Mark's rough Greek or the ordering of triple tradition material, are now seen to be unconvincing and reversible. For most, this is not a problem: the Marcan priority theory has been honoured by time; it provides a sound basis for convincing redaction-critical readings of Matthew and Luke (1) and, most importantly, the alternatives seem unattractive and implausible (2) . There is, nevertheless, something disturbing about a situation in which none of the standard text books find it easy to provide strong, textual grounds for believing that it was Mark and not Matthew who wrote first, particularly given the universal Patristic support for the opposite view. It is not necessary, however, to settle for this unhappy status quo. There is some data that points clearly to Marcan priority, data which though it has occasionally been [46] spotted, has a potential for solving the synoptic problem that has rarely been exploited. This is evidence of what might be called 'editorial fatigue' (3) or 'docile reproduction' (4) . Editorial fatigue is a phenomenon that will inevitably occur when a writer is heavily dependent on another's work.
    [Show full text]