This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Synoptic problem page were merged into Synoptic Gospels. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I assure those who have contributed to this article that my edits were in good faith. I removed some material, but that was material I could not fit into the prior article or flow, nor my newly reorganized flow. I am a high critic of my own organization, but without engaging in OR, there is little I can do on this topic. Wish I had brought my stash of Bible Review articles with me across the Atlantic.-- Otheus 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Made just a few changes for the final proofread. The article is probably in need of sources, though, especially towards the end. — beverson 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:synoptic problem#merge with synoptic gospels. -- Otheus 14:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
More radically, and apologies to those who have worked hard on this, I'd propose the complete deletion of this article, leaving the Synoptic Problem as the only one on the subject. You can just about justify Thomas being included here on Jesus Seminar principles (though I would suggest it is better dealt with solely on its own page), but to add the Gospel of the Hebrews means the page bears no relation to what most scholars would consider a proper article on the synoptics. Matruman ( talk) 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
What exactly do "conservative" and "liberal" mean in this context? Liberal and conservative are only opposites for certain meanings of the words, and I'm not sure if those meanings are appropriate here.
Wardog ( talk) 09:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Something is unusual with the grammar of the italicized part. Please clarify/fix. E.g., according to the dictionary, I would write "attests gospel genre of the sayings" or "attests to the gospel genre of the sayings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.69.71 ( talk) 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The use of the possessive in the "Two-source hypothesis" section could be read as indicating a specific point of view. In any case, it is not clear what is meant by "our Mark", though presumably the intent is the gospel as presented in accepted versions of the the Bible. KeithC ( talk) 22:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the dating section entirely, as it is mostly a content fork of the section in Gospel with an eye toward pushing later dates. Maybe there's room for discussion of how the synoptic solutions influence the dating of the various writings, but that's not what we have now. Mangoe ( talk) 14:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:EIGHT, we are supposed to cover material to the extent that our commonly accepted reference texts and disinterested secondary and tertiary sources cover it. There's no historical-critical support for the two-gospel hypothesis or for the other also-ran hypotheses listed. They should be given coverage due them, which means much less. The two-gospel hypothesis, in particular, is backed up only by two sectarian Christian references and doesn't deserve to be treated as a serious contender in the historical-critical arena. Leadwind ( talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Can the official gospels really be called "primary sources"? Wikipedia's own definition is "a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic". Mark was written at least a century after Christ's death, based on what we can only assume is oral testimony and the putative Q. The other gospels are mostly derivative of Mark. Gymnophoria ( talk) 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Walter, something not discussed in the one line we get when we do edits/reverts is that nothing in the article talks about history vis-a-vis the gospels. I think it would be good to have a section on that if you want to go to the effort to create it. But until that's done, not only is the assertion unsupported, it doesn't even really fit with the tenor/themes of the article.
Thoughts? Justin Z ( talk) 19:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Eltopiafrank/s two-bits: I don't think the "primary sources" are available by the objector's standards. Few would argue that the scriptures are not the closest thing to primary sources widely available today. In other words, I think the source is good enough for most people, probably including most scholars, provided the specific version is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltopiafrank ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
To claim that the Synoptic Gospels are the primary source for historical information about Jesus is like saying the directors of the Alien movies are the primary source for historical information about Ripley. The Gospels may not contain any accurate historical information about Jesus. They do not even establish Jesus' existence in the first place. The Gospels are stories all written 40 years after the protagonist's death and even after 1900 years of study the existence of Jesus or the accurate portrayal of Jesus by the Gospels has not been ascertained. And given Mark's re-use of classical Greek story-telling the whole thing may be fully fictional. The New Testament is no reliable source for historical information about anything whatsoever, unless confirmed by other, independent sources. Even if the Gospels and Acts get the circumstances of time and place right, the Jesus story may still be fictional. As the supernatural stuff is. ♆ CUSH ♆ 04:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Eltopiafrank: I did not find the article objective enough. For example, it says that "many scholars" believe in ... (basically, the traditional view. That of course, is by definition true, as there are more traditional scholars, especially as they have accrued over the centuries.) Eltopiafrank ( talk)
A more fair approach would have been to acknowledge that among modern scholars this view is changing rapidly. Eltopiafrank ( talk) 04:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No, the article is not objective. It asserts that Matthew and Luke give genealogies of Jesus. They do no such thing. They give (different) genealogies of JOSEPH, and tell you that Joseph was not Jesus' father. A genealogy of Jesus would have to include the descent of Mary, who was his only human parent. (Actually, we can get even more fussy. The gospels SUGGEST that Jesus had no human father. They do not actually spell it out.) Unauthorized Persons Inc. ( talk) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Unauthorized Persons Inc.
Hi Walter,
I concede my edit of 'Synoptic Gospels' may have been hasty. I'm not yet prepared to concede it was pointless. Nor was the opinion embodied at all idiosyncratic. It has been standard doctrine of major Christian sects, since at least the Nicene Creed, that the mother of Jesus was a virgin when she conceived the foetus that was to become Jesus of Nazareth.
What do the gospels say ? Mark makes no mention of Jesus' father. John mentions him precisely twice, calling him Joseph. Luke's Gospel *suggests* that the Holy Ghost had more to do with it than Joseph, (Luke chapter 1 vv 26-38). Nevertheless, Luke does not positively state that Mary conceived as a virgin. Matthew however does just that, unless you can convict me of misreading. Chapter I, verse 18 ff:(emphasis mine - KJ version) When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, *before they came together,* she was found with child of the Holy Ghost
Unless I misread entirely this means that Joseph was *not* Jesus' father and he knew that. He was even minded to break the engagement off. If you take this as literal truth, then a genealogy of Joseph has *nothing* to do with that of Jesus, whose only human parent was Mary. I suppose you could believe that the Holy Ghost managed to transferm a sperm from Joseph to Mary - but that would be a radically idiosyncratic notion that ought not be introduced by the back door.
Unauthorized Persons Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unauthorized Persons Inc. ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Walter, Even if I accept what you say, you still fail to expose the fact that these genealogies are extremely odd in two respects. I) They do *not* end with the name of the subject: e.g. a genealogy of (the) David would end 'and X begat Jesse and Jesse begat David'. If this happened here you would have to have 'Mary' in the same place as Jesse. (And, Jews inform me, a Jew who confesses a tribe takes his/her tribe from mother, not father.) II) These genealogies include a foster-father, which must make them close to unique. Perhaps you can come up with other genealogies that do this ? Exposing ambiguities is the business of an Encyclopedia, merely expressing them is the job of a rock concert. You will find similar points made by Geza Vermes in his book "Jesus the Jew"; and, I haven't checked, but I'll bet David Strauss had something to say about it. ( Unauthorized Persons Inc. ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC))
Thus in 'stating what exists' you fail to point out its manifest ambiguities, you merely express them.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Synoptic Gospels → ? –
"synoptic, adj. (and n.)" [adj.] 2a. Applied distinctively to the first three Gospels (viz. of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect. Also transf. pertaining or relating to these Gospels.
[2]b. as n. Any one of the Synoptic Gospels (or of their writers = synoptist n. 1). Usually in pl.
[2]b. One of the books written by the four Evangelists; †sometimes pl. in sing. sense. Also applied to certain ancient lives of Christ of a legendary character (apocryphal gospels), as the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Gospel of the Infancy, etc.
Is "Synoptic Gospels" (or "synoptic gospels") a proper name or a common noun phrase? Joja lozzo 03:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names, words or phrases derived from proper names, acronyms, initialisms, and titles of persons. Where is it not clear from the provisions on this page whether a word or phrase ought to be capitalized, Wikipedia consults reliable sources.
There needs to be some clarification in the double tradition section. The current section implies that the "sermon on the mount is "intact" as a complete unit in bout Mark and Luke. When in fact the "Sermon on the Mount" is only found "intact" in Mark and though, almost all the material is found in Luke it is broken up throughout most of the gospel. I would propose the sentence to be reworked like this. "It consists almost entirely of Jesus' sayings and teachings, most parables, and includes most of the text found in the Sermon on the Mount." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicer5 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC) -- Spicer5 ( talk) 21:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
These two articles are looking badly sourced stand alone and outside the structure of better articles. Where should they be merged to? In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The page Oral transmission (synoptic problem) is in effect a discussion of part of the development of the Synoptic Gospels. Not a well sourced or great discussion, but in principle that is what it is. It makes sense to trim it and merge in here. History2007 ( talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Based on this discussion the merge flag was removed, and some material from the Oral transmission (synoptic problem) page was moved to the Oral gospel tradition page, and more can be cleaned up and added there. History2007 ( talk) 23:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
( User:SlothMcCarty, Nov. 2003)
So, I found this start-class article in rather poor shape, saying relatively little about the synoptic gospels themselves and serving as a dumping ground for material on synoptic theories, often with borderline POV issues. I appreciate the work of the many editors who have contributed to it, and would like to largely preserve that work either here or in the articles on the respective theories. However, I think the time has come for a rewrite.
Let me propose some principles that I have tried to follow, and which I hope future editors will also follow:
-- SlothMcCarty ( talk) 10:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The image should change “Double Tradition” to “Luke and Matthew” for consistency, as the other two are not labeled as such. Cali Boy 09 ( talk) 03:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Synoptic problem page were merged into Synoptic Gospels. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I assure those who have contributed to this article that my edits were in good faith. I removed some material, but that was material I could not fit into the prior article or flow, nor my newly reorganized flow. I am a high critic of my own organization, but without engaging in OR, there is little I can do on this topic. Wish I had brought my stash of Bible Review articles with me across the Atlantic.-- Otheus 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Made just a few changes for the final proofread. The article is probably in need of sources, though, especially towards the end. — beverson 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:synoptic problem#merge with synoptic gospels. -- Otheus 14:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
More radically, and apologies to those who have worked hard on this, I'd propose the complete deletion of this article, leaving the Synoptic Problem as the only one on the subject. You can just about justify Thomas being included here on Jesus Seminar principles (though I would suggest it is better dealt with solely on its own page), but to add the Gospel of the Hebrews means the page bears no relation to what most scholars would consider a proper article on the synoptics. Matruman ( talk) 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
What exactly do "conservative" and "liberal" mean in this context? Liberal and conservative are only opposites for certain meanings of the words, and I'm not sure if those meanings are appropriate here.
Wardog ( talk) 09:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Something is unusual with the grammar of the italicized part. Please clarify/fix. E.g., according to the dictionary, I would write "attests gospel genre of the sayings" or "attests to the gospel genre of the sayings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.69.71 ( talk) 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The use of the possessive in the "Two-source hypothesis" section could be read as indicating a specific point of view. In any case, it is not clear what is meant by "our Mark", though presumably the intent is the gospel as presented in accepted versions of the the Bible. KeithC ( talk) 22:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the dating section entirely, as it is mostly a content fork of the section in Gospel with an eye toward pushing later dates. Maybe there's room for discussion of how the synoptic solutions influence the dating of the various writings, but that's not what we have now. Mangoe ( talk) 14:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:EIGHT, we are supposed to cover material to the extent that our commonly accepted reference texts and disinterested secondary and tertiary sources cover it. There's no historical-critical support for the two-gospel hypothesis or for the other also-ran hypotheses listed. They should be given coverage due them, which means much less. The two-gospel hypothesis, in particular, is backed up only by two sectarian Christian references and doesn't deserve to be treated as a serious contender in the historical-critical arena. Leadwind ( talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Can the official gospels really be called "primary sources"? Wikipedia's own definition is "a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic". Mark was written at least a century after Christ's death, based on what we can only assume is oral testimony and the putative Q. The other gospels are mostly derivative of Mark. Gymnophoria ( talk) 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Walter, something not discussed in the one line we get when we do edits/reverts is that nothing in the article talks about history vis-a-vis the gospels. I think it would be good to have a section on that if you want to go to the effort to create it. But until that's done, not only is the assertion unsupported, it doesn't even really fit with the tenor/themes of the article.
Thoughts? Justin Z ( talk) 19:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Eltopiafrank/s two-bits: I don't think the "primary sources" are available by the objector's standards. Few would argue that the scriptures are not the closest thing to primary sources widely available today. In other words, I think the source is good enough for most people, probably including most scholars, provided the specific version is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltopiafrank ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
To claim that the Synoptic Gospels are the primary source for historical information about Jesus is like saying the directors of the Alien movies are the primary source for historical information about Ripley. The Gospels may not contain any accurate historical information about Jesus. They do not even establish Jesus' existence in the first place. The Gospels are stories all written 40 years after the protagonist's death and even after 1900 years of study the existence of Jesus or the accurate portrayal of Jesus by the Gospels has not been ascertained. And given Mark's re-use of classical Greek story-telling the whole thing may be fully fictional. The New Testament is no reliable source for historical information about anything whatsoever, unless confirmed by other, independent sources. Even if the Gospels and Acts get the circumstances of time and place right, the Jesus story may still be fictional. As the supernatural stuff is. ♆ CUSH ♆ 04:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Eltopiafrank: I did not find the article objective enough. For example, it says that "many scholars" believe in ... (basically, the traditional view. That of course, is by definition true, as there are more traditional scholars, especially as they have accrued over the centuries.) Eltopiafrank ( talk)
A more fair approach would have been to acknowledge that among modern scholars this view is changing rapidly. Eltopiafrank ( talk) 04:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No, the article is not objective. It asserts that Matthew and Luke give genealogies of Jesus. They do no such thing. They give (different) genealogies of JOSEPH, and tell you that Joseph was not Jesus' father. A genealogy of Jesus would have to include the descent of Mary, who was his only human parent. (Actually, we can get even more fussy. The gospels SUGGEST that Jesus had no human father. They do not actually spell it out.) Unauthorized Persons Inc. ( talk) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Unauthorized Persons Inc.
Hi Walter,
I concede my edit of 'Synoptic Gospels' may have been hasty. I'm not yet prepared to concede it was pointless. Nor was the opinion embodied at all idiosyncratic. It has been standard doctrine of major Christian sects, since at least the Nicene Creed, that the mother of Jesus was a virgin when she conceived the foetus that was to become Jesus of Nazareth.
What do the gospels say ? Mark makes no mention of Jesus' father. John mentions him precisely twice, calling him Joseph. Luke's Gospel *suggests* that the Holy Ghost had more to do with it than Joseph, (Luke chapter 1 vv 26-38). Nevertheless, Luke does not positively state that Mary conceived as a virgin. Matthew however does just that, unless you can convict me of misreading. Chapter I, verse 18 ff:(emphasis mine - KJ version) When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, *before they came together,* she was found with child of the Holy Ghost
Unless I misread entirely this means that Joseph was *not* Jesus' father and he knew that. He was even minded to break the engagement off. If you take this as literal truth, then a genealogy of Joseph has *nothing* to do with that of Jesus, whose only human parent was Mary. I suppose you could believe that the Holy Ghost managed to transferm a sperm from Joseph to Mary - but that would be a radically idiosyncratic notion that ought not be introduced by the back door.
Unauthorized Persons Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unauthorized Persons Inc. ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Walter, Even if I accept what you say, you still fail to expose the fact that these genealogies are extremely odd in two respects. I) They do *not* end with the name of the subject: e.g. a genealogy of (the) David would end 'and X begat Jesse and Jesse begat David'. If this happened here you would have to have 'Mary' in the same place as Jesse. (And, Jews inform me, a Jew who confesses a tribe takes his/her tribe from mother, not father.) II) These genealogies include a foster-father, which must make them close to unique. Perhaps you can come up with other genealogies that do this ? Exposing ambiguities is the business of an Encyclopedia, merely expressing them is the job of a rock concert. You will find similar points made by Geza Vermes in his book "Jesus the Jew"; and, I haven't checked, but I'll bet David Strauss had something to say about it. ( Unauthorized Persons Inc. ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC))
Thus in 'stating what exists' you fail to point out its manifest ambiguities, you merely express them.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Synoptic Gospels → ? –
"synoptic, adj. (and n.)" [adj.] 2a. Applied distinctively to the first three Gospels (viz. of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect. Also transf. pertaining or relating to these Gospels.
[2]b. as n. Any one of the Synoptic Gospels (or of their writers = synoptist n. 1). Usually in pl.
[2]b. One of the books written by the four Evangelists; †sometimes pl. in sing. sense. Also applied to certain ancient lives of Christ of a legendary character (apocryphal gospels), as the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Gospel of the Infancy, etc.
Is "Synoptic Gospels" (or "synoptic gospels") a proper name or a common noun phrase? Joja lozzo 03:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names, words or phrases derived from proper names, acronyms, initialisms, and titles of persons. Where is it not clear from the provisions on this page whether a word or phrase ought to be capitalized, Wikipedia consults reliable sources.
There needs to be some clarification in the double tradition section. The current section implies that the "sermon on the mount is "intact" as a complete unit in bout Mark and Luke. When in fact the "Sermon on the Mount" is only found "intact" in Mark and though, almost all the material is found in Luke it is broken up throughout most of the gospel. I would propose the sentence to be reworked like this. "It consists almost entirely of Jesus' sayings and teachings, most parables, and includes most of the text found in the Sermon on the Mount." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicer5 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC) -- Spicer5 ( talk) 21:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
These two articles are looking badly sourced stand alone and outside the structure of better articles. Where should they be merged to? In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The page Oral transmission (synoptic problem) is in effect a discussion of part of the development of the Synoptic Gospels. Not a well sourced or great discussion, but in principle that is what it is. It makes sense to trim it and merge in here. History2007 ( talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Based on this discussion the merge flag was removed, and some material from the Oral transmission (synoptic problem) page was moved to the Oral gospel tradition page, and more can be cleaned up and added there. History2007 ( talk) 23:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
( User:SlothMcCarty, Nov. 2003)
So, I found this start-class article in rather poor shape, saying relatively little about the synoptic gospels themselves and serving as a dumping ground for material on synoptic theories, often with borderline POV issues. I appreciate the work of the many editors who have contributed to it, and would like to largely preserve that work either here or in the articles on the respective theories. However, I think the time has come for a rewrite.
Let me propose some principles that I have tried to follow, and which I hope future editors will also follow:
-- SlothMcCarty ( talk) 10:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The image should change “Double Tradition” to “Luke and Matthew” for consistency, as the other two are not labeled as such. Cali Boy 09 ( talk) 03:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)