I have been trying to read my way into the Synoptic debate, learning that there is a lot to learn. One of the things I have been surprised by is how woodenly various principles are implemented concerning things like which saying or story is the older, more original version.
I remember well when first learning about textual criticism that there are a series of mutually conflicting principles which are brought to bear in deciding which reading is preferred. These include:
- the shorter reading
- the harder reading
- the earlier reading
- the most geographically distributed reading
- the reading attested by the greatest number of text types
- the less harmonious reading with parallel texts
If all of these factors are all in agreement, there is probably no question about what is original. The more contested textual variants will have evidence both in favor and against the reading. The text critic needs to weigh the evidence of each one both individually and then collectively before making a judgment. They do not hold these as rules, but as principles to be weighed.
In the synoptic discussions the principles regarding what is most primitive seem to be much more rigidly employed. I am surprised that claims by authorities are accepted uncritically, without much evaluation of the arguments for or against. Perhaps this is just due to my awareness of discourse factors that might have contributed evidence toward a different conclusion. I find myself questioning many such claims because I would have argued the opposite.
I am writing a paper following up from a previous topic I studied where principles are also employed more as rules, without much sensitivity to mitigating factors. It ain’t good. It is critical to remember the important distinction between principles and rules, no matter how often the former holds true. Losing sight of this can get you off the straight and narrow quite quickly in a number of different fields.
Remember the caution from Howard Hendricks: “Rules are many, principles are few, rules will change, principles never do.” Now that is a principle worth living by, especially in grammar!
Have you got any recommended reading for those of us interested in becoming more familiar with the synoptic problem?
Helgi,
I have appreciated Mark Goodacre’s work for several reasons. First, he takes the time to explain the nature of the problem before moving on to present the solutions. Second, his solutions is very much in line with my naive resolution that I have operated under. I had known something of the problems, had seen a way through, but had never formally looked into the matters until the in the last six months. In doing so, I learned that there is actually a name to the path I was following, and Goodacre is out ahead of me. Finally, he has developed some really great, accessible resources, ranging from his books to the podcasts available through his NT Pod, http://podacre.blogspot.com/. The more recent longer ones are actual lectures from Duke. It has been great to hear how he facilitates discussion and uses humor as a professor, lots to learn from him.
Recommended read:
The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through The Maze (Understanding the Bible and Its World)
Are you willing to give an example of a place where principles are more followed like rigid rules in the synoptic problem?
And have you read Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels? If, so what did you think?
Davis,
I have not read “Three Views…” but it looks like a great resource. My previous post on Mt 5:13 was what spurred this post, providing what I would consider a specific example.