No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2024
Three witnesses of the same event hardly ever give exactly the same account of it, but there is usually a sufficient measure of agreement between them to ensure the general veracity of their testimony, even if many of the details remain irreconcilable. This seems to be true of the first three Gospels. The triple tradition at first sight gives reassurance. The differences between them appear to confirm the essential truth of the account, as they suggest that the tradition has been independently attested.
If this is the impression which first strikes the reader of the Synoptic Gospels, more careful study will soon shake his confidence. When the triple tradition is subjected to word-for-word comparison in the Greek, it soon becomes apparent that the similarities are too close to be explained in terms of independent testimony. The Synoptic Gospels are actually interdependent. One evangelist has used the work of another. This means that the differences between them are not due to independent tradition, but are deliberate divergences on the part of the evangelists. And if the two later ones have been so lacking in fidelity to their common source, how can we have any certainty that the original has not been equally unfaithful to the primitive tradition on which it is based ? And if that is so, how can we ever get back to the truth of the matter, and find out what Jesus really did say and do in his life on earth?
This is the essence of the Synoptic Problem, and it has been the central issue before New Testament scholars for the past 150 years.
page 62 note 1 Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium XXV, edited by Potterie, I. de la. Duculot, J., Gembloux/P. Lethielleux, Paris, 1967.Google Scholar
page 63 note 1 See especially Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, by Bornkam, G., Barth, G. and Held, H.J., 1963Google Scholar.
page 63 note 2 Wrede's Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (1901) has had a lasting influence.
page 63 note 3 The essay is largely a critique of H. Conzelmann's The Theology of Luke, 1960.
You have
Access