Parsimonious SPOKEN hypothesis: origin of synoptic gospels

[DanR]

The following was presented on a Bible site, but received no response, I'm reprinting it here in hopes someone informed in the synoptic 'problem' might have something to say, or add or modify. I would add that it is not in respect to the common multifarious and confused documentary/Markan/Quelle 'solutions', which are going nowhere. An oral origin is necessary and sufficient to the matter.

____________________

The theme of this post is a fresh start: that the gospel soon became crystallized in oral form, as often happens when a topic presented over and over again to new groups--new students in a physics class, for example. After a few years, it would have large sections that would become practically invariant in verbal exposition from Sunday to Sunday, although some parts might have some variation, and the three writers altered and/or transposed their placement as they saw fit.

I think something is missing from our perception of the early gospel: It was, needless to say, the gospel. That is to say, what the apostles were bringing to the world was the very narrative that we have in the gospels, though John presents it more Christologically.

To be more specific about the spoken hypothesis:

We are told in Acts how Peter, and to some extent the other apostles, preached the gospel to new believers, and right from the day of Pentecost. This included those whose first language was not Aramaic. It included Arabs and Greeks and Romans, etc. After a while, a sort of routine would have settled in: newcomers in batches would have the entire gospel story from beginning to end preached by Peter, or other apostles, in both Aramaic and Koine, and perhaps Latin also and Arabic, and Ethiopic.

This would happen perhaps every Sunday, or at least once a month, and considering newcomers were coming in by the thousands in the beginning, they would certainly need regular preaching of the whole matter. I would estimate a core oral Gospel presentation would take some 2-3 hours, and various oral versions and variations might have appeared in the major languages, but the source oral tradition would be mainly in Aramaic and Koine.

Older disciples, as well as newcomers, would hear this core, oral, gospel as well, over and over again, and this would become the traditional, set GOSPEL, but still oral. After a few years, some of it would be set in writing, and eventually Matthew or Mark or Luke would set it down in writing in their now-famous three versions. Whatever questions that the documentary hypotheses raise (common editorializations, for example) would have these written sources as an answer, but that's as far as documentary hypotheses are needful. The vast bulk of the synoptic gospels' phenomena--collusions, differences, transpositions, etc.--is answered ably by the process outlined above.

After the preaching, there would be the equivalent of FAQ's: problems, 'contradictions', etc. that listeners would want clarified, and would be answered over and over again. These matters too might be incorporated in various different ways into the three gospels.

Happy New Year,

--Dan

 

[cyberjosh]

Of course the Gospel was given in Oral form first, about 30 years before it was penned (as Paul often reminds his readers "what we preached to you at the first"), but this does not negate the presently inspired form of the written Gospels. For Matthew much of his narrative was a core of dialogue with some narrative to make it flow, and it was said by an early Church Father that he penned it in the Jewish native tongue, Hebrew and that it was copied into Greek as best they knew how. However, the form represents the original without tampering or additions over time, and even Luke who is supposedly one of the "Synoptic" Gospels has the most unique material in it, and they all take explicitly unique views of Christ and different focuses (as any good Bible study will show).

The idea of harmonizing came about eventually but in an obviously different form: The Disatessaron (written by Tatian in 175 AD) which melded all four Gospels together to give one "smooth" narrative from start to finish of Jesus' life. But the Gospels themselves did not suffer from much harmonization if any. Our newly discovered manuscripts of the last 100 years have pointed out verses that were absent early on, but this in no way suggests a bulk addition or changing of the Gospels to support such a full blown theory as the "Synoptic Gospels". I agree that they are "Synoptic" in the sense that they deal with many of the same stories of Jesus but the premise that they were all copied and dispersed from a common written source I do not believe, save perhaps a written account of Jesus' words. None the less the accounts are inspired.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[DanR]

'synoptic' is a neutral term and has the essential idea of 'together-view', Matthew, Mark and Luke having very similar presentations of the Gospel with respect to the Gospel of John.

I've purposely avoided the common term synoptic 'problem', as the term 'problem' suggests to many that there is something odd about these three,although conservative scholars--Daniel B. Wallace (not this 'dan', incidentally) for example, do not present it in that light in their documentary approach.

That the oral hypothesis to the synoptic 'problem' neatly resolves the matter with supple flexibility--to the extent that it matters not to the hypothesis whether or not Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (as you suggest), Aramaic, or Koine originally--within a Petran or consensus apostolic spoken core-gospel, with all the themes and variations that such a presentation would surely have occurred with the repeated preaching to successive groups of new believers coming into the church regularly, should surely lead written/documentary theorists to abandon a very confused melange of 'solutions'.

They simply are not working, whereas a spoken origin does work quite nicely, and fits what we would expect of the outcome of the preaching of the Word plainly recorded in the opening chapters of Acts, and the eventual appearance of the three written Gospels.

--Dan

 

[cyberjosh]

They simply are not working, whereas a spoken origin does work quite nicely, and fits what we would expect of the outcome of the preaching of the Word plainly recorded in the opening chapters of Acts, and the eventual appearance of the three written Gospels.

Interesting. Please explain more. I'm a bit of a Bible Scholar, Theologian, and Apologist by hobby in order to rationally and adequately defend the integrity of the Bible, so I'd be interested in anything you have to offer.

Thanks,

~Josh

 

[DanR]

OK. Perhaps I could put in a sort of rough chronology. Not being a scholar, but a curious layman, it is easier for me this way:

1. On the day of Pentecost, of course, the Gospel is sketched out to hundreds, as we have it in Acts, of Gentile converts to the Law, but little more than an outline.

2. On Sunday, these people start asking a little more about Christ, who he was, more exactly, what he did, his purpose, nature, fulfillment, lineage, etc.

3. Peter and the other apostles see the need for expanding the Gospel, and they start regular Bible classes, as it were. The Gospel starts getting fuller.

4. In the course of time, as new believers have to be discipled and taught these things, 'classes' start becoming a regular feature, and the Gospel itself starts to take on a set pattern. I know, as a teacher (English Second Language), that one tends to adopt the same format after a while; there is no reason to change it much, it works, it tells what has to be told, but certainly there are themes and variations.

5. This, then, becomes the core Gospel. As many more believers are added, the 'Gospel' becomes infused into their own discussions, and they help the newcomers also. The other apostles take up the 'Gospel'. Some people start writing a few things down, and maybe there are some written proto-gospels. From this comes the trump-card of documentary theorists: how come we have the identical editorial phrase in more than one gospel, 'let the reader understand'? Well, sure. That's about a 1% problem that Quelle documents solves. Why just one Q document? Why not 10? Big deal.

(I will interject that I agree with Eta Linnemann to this exent, that this Q document cult has gotten to the point of insanity: the Q document, the people of Q. It's becoming what is called in psychology 'the availability heuristic'; these scholars have spoken about Q with such addictive repetition that it is no longer possible for them to think about the written gospel origins without it coming to their minds reflexively. )

6. From an apologetics point of view, questions about consistency and 'contradictions' would be resolved immediately as they arose within the living oral testimony:

'Hey, wait a second, Peter, back up. Now you said Jesus fed the people over here, but now you're saying...'

'Uh-uh, it happened twice. Yes I know that sounds odd, but the thing happened that way.'

'Um, James? I don't see Peter around, but maybe you could explain. Now about the donkey the disciples found...? Ah, I see...'

'One possessed with devils in the tombs, or two...? Oh.'

7. As we all know at law, events can be incredibly complex, with contradictory reports that never become resolved, and we figure 'someone's lying, gotta be, or totally confused.' But since there were 12 apostles and dozens of non-apostolic witnesses of the events of the Gospel narrative, including the resurrection, we can be confident that an open consensus view of things emerged from the oral gospel before it was committed to print. This well accounts for the lack of apologetics within the gospels proper. The writers never seem to be trying to explain or harmonize anything, however out of place some things look to our eyes. This would be odd with so many eyewitnesses of Christ's life, and the story being told and retold. Luke himself refers to written accounts, but there is nothing, unless we read it in, in his preamble saying he's here to straighten it all out once and for all.

_________________

I've been carrying this hypothesis around for some years, but was puzzled that it never seems to have arisen in all the discussions of the synoptic 'problem'. I would have thought it would be the first idea to occur to someone. I suppose it's because although it's methodologically sound to work backward from the extant evidence, and don't think it's reasonable to ignore the account of Acts, or the normal dynamic that occurs when the same thing is being expounded over and over again.

I will also say that this is about as far as my speculations on the matter have taken me. Someone can take it further if they want. If there are phenomena in the account of the Gospels that seem hard to reconcile with the oral hypothesis, and that really require the extensive documentary apparatus(es) that are kicking around (including the 'gospel' of Thomas rubbish), they can toss it into the discussion.

--Dan

 

[wavy]

for an extensive treatment of the q document, i suggest hermeneia.

scholars are almost certain q existed and the evidence for that existence cannot be brushed aside by the lay men of this thread with the ridicule of those who advance the q view.


~eric

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Howdy DanR,

As I was reading through your posts here in this thread, I felt like I could hear Grandpa sayin' "What in thunder is he tryin' to say?" "Tell em that all the book learnin in the world ain't gonna do em a lick of good ifn their heart ain't right. Ifn theys got their heart right, God 'll see that they get their questions answered. Anyhow, ifn they're so all fired smart, why they workin so hard tryin to find stuff not to believe in?" :-D

 

[DanR]

for an extensive treatment of the q document, i suggest hermeneia.

scholars are almost certain q existed and the evidence for that existence cannot be brushed aside by the lay men of this thread with the ridicule of those who advance the q view.


~eric

There is extensive discussion of Q on the web, without paying $60 for a book most people here couldn't understand anyway. I'm a member of a Q group (Synoptic L), and the Wiki article on Q is quite accessible to laymen, q.v., but I'm finding these people walking deeper and deeper into a scholarly quagmire that laymen may justly view with no little scepticism.

Q plus Markan or Matthean priority was proposed as a necessary precursor to the synoptic gospels, because it was felt that oral transmission could not account for the phenomena of them, but Q has proven to be more problematic an hypothesis than the phenomena it claims to explain. Have you any idea the number of variant-hypotheses it has spawned?

Nevertheless, it was not my intention to discuss Q, but provide a fresh change, and a recognition of the real dynamic that would have gone into the evolution of the gospel in oral form, that would satisfactorily explain the great, invariant blocks of near-identical text that we find in Matthew, Mark and Luke, as well as the additions, subtractions and transpositions found therein.

Q is obsolete. An oral hypothesis is neat, clear, and elegant.

.

 

[DanR]

Howdy DanR,

As I was reading through your posts here in this thread, I felt like I could hear Grandpa sayin' "What in thunder is he tryin' to say?" "Tell em that all the book learnin in the world ain't gonna do em a lick of good ifn their heart ain't right. Ifn theys got their heart right, God 'll see that they get their questions answered. Anyhow, ifn they're so all fired smart, why they workin so hard tryin to find stuff not to believe in?" :-D

It's on account of all the book-larnin', instead of some down-home common sense about how folks talk about stuff and pass along what they heard and seen. The apostles simply related verbally what they heard and saw. I would have wrote nuthin' at all if this Forum didn't have this hi-falutin' title 'Apologies an' The Ology', whatever an ology is (though I've heard tell of elegies, but not sure about them either), an' what have we to apologize for anyways is what I'd like to know...

 

[wavy]

There is extensive discussion of Q on the web, without paying $60 for a book most people here couldn't understand anyway. I'm a member of a Q group (Synoptic L), and the Wiki article on Q is quite accessible to laymen, q.v., but I'm finding these people walking deeper and deeper into a scholarly quagmire that laymen may justly view with no little scepticism.

a super-abundance of online discussion and a wiki-article don't help a lay person grasp the the issue on the table. that just causes more confusion. that's why books are written. if any lay person is interested in studying q conjecture, a consensus work on it like hermeneia is a good reference. if one doesn't 'understand' it they probably shouldn't be interested in it anyway. i only suggested it for those informed enough to read it.

Q plus Markan or Matthean priority was proposed as a necessary precursor to the synoptic gospels, because it was felt that oral transmission could not account for the phenomena of them, but Q has proven to be more problematic an hypothesis than the phenomena it claims to explain. Have you any idea the number of variant-hypotheses it has spawned?

there's problems with the q hypothesis just as there would be with any other. difficulty doesn't invalidate the thought, however, and i don't believe oral transmission fully accounts for the said 'phenomena'. the evidence against mere oral transmission accounting for the similarities between the first three gospels is simply overwhelming. if i have time in the near future (and if i can find my files and material) i'll post a few examples of synoptic texts that i believe undermine your position (with or without q). i believe 'mark' is definitely primary and that both 'luke' and 'matthew' had at least 'mark' at their very desk when inditing their gospels.

Nevertheless, it was not my intention to discuss Q, but provide a fresh change, and a recognition of the real dynamic that would have gone into the evolution of the gospel in oral form, that would satisfactorily explain the great, invariant blocks of near-identical text that we find in Matthew, Mark and Luke, as well as the additions, subtractions and transpositions found therein.

like i said, if i have time later, i might take this further. vague generalities and models about oral transmission (i.e. yours in this thread) 'satisfactorily' explaining anything just don't cut it.

Q is obsolete. An oral hypothesis is neat, clear, and elegant.

q is not 'obsolete', and this 'oral hypothesis' hasn't gained consensus. your model above is vague and doesn't address the detailed evidence adduced by proponents of the q hypothesis.



~eric

 

[DanR]

Which Q (and which priority) is/are not obsolete? There is a plethora of choices.

Q/priority, and their house divided, are so well represented elsewhere (and the Wiki entry is indeed one of Wiki's better offerings for the layperson), little further need be said about them here. Q nicely (but trivially) explains editorialization phenomena, but that's about it.

It's time for a fresh change.

Let me give an example of how oral transmission can crystallize. When I took teacher-training, in phonetics class the instructor gave an example of stress-timing invariance in English. It was a good example, and I adopted it, and after some time of teaching it to new classes it became a set patter. All this happened without the need to write anything down. Others in my teachers' class may well have adopted the example in like manner and are now teaching the same example, with themes and variations of their own.

Even more so in the outset of the preaching of the Gospel, for the apostles and dozens of other early witnesses of the life and doing of Jesus were constantly together, comparing and correcting their memories and observations in preaching to groups of new believers. So the themes and variations would sometimes be in ipsissima verba agreement over long blocks, sometimes would have inclusions and transpositions, Arameaisms, Hellenisms, Latinisms, etc. because of the various backgrounds of the teachers.

But all maintaining the integrity of the Gospel account, a harmony of the Gospels, including John's, having only a tiny fraction of all the potential narrative of Christ's earthly ministry, as the end of John's Gospel indicates.

Finally, refuting a given hypothesis is done by directly presenting counter-evidence, phenomena that presents an irrefutable barrier. In scientific terms this is called 'falsification': showing that the proposed hypothesis necessarily fails, is false. It is not done by piling up evidence in favour of another hypothesis. The latter procedure is good optics, but bad science.