The Synoptic Problem
When I first realized that some of the gospel writers had peeked off of someone else’s writing — actually cut-and-pasted material even down to parenthetical comments (see how Matthew includes Mark’s “let the reader understand” — Mk 13/Mt 24) — it was disorienting. And now I’m not sure why. At least in theory I never thought that God had just dictated information to the biblical writers. They had researched, interviewed — probably even used erasers a few times.
So then there was the scholarly debate about who peeked off of whom. I side with those who think Mark wrote first and was used by Matthew and Luke; then Matthew and Luke shared some other common source or, perhaps, Luke also had access to Matthew’s gospel when he wrote.
What was at first a problem for me, though, is now a source of encouragement. I like thinking about the early church preserving the stories of Jesus — passing along stories and teachings, sharing with one another what they knew, even recording the accounts. I appreciate Luke telling us that he “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Lk 1:3). And I enjoy contemplating why certain changes were made to Mark’s order, perspective, and wording by Matthew and Luke (though I know people can get carried away with this, claiming to know more than they really know about all the reasons).
Now I think my problems came from leaning too heavily into words like “infallible” and “inerrant” instead of better words like “gospeled’ and “trustworthy” and “authoritative” — thereby forcing modern categories onto ancient texts.
Now the task: to live a life formed by that world-altering story!
Fantastic. And I have Trevor Thompson and John Willis (and Wayne Meeks and NTW and Anthony Saldarini and Eugene P., etc., etc.) to thank for leading me into much the same journey, including the same kind of strange encouragement and comfort that attends a more “faithful” (you know what I mean, and it’s not the judgmental connotation!) reading of these supremely interesting, variegated, and magnificent texts.
(“What? You would be inclined to give more credence to what Paul said than what the gospel writers said about what really happened? You must be a heretic!” -LOL)
Mike, did you ever convey these kinds of ideas about the text from the pulpit, and if so, what were the typical reactions from the gang at HCC?
qb
Ha…when I first heard about source criticism and all that from Dr. Pollard, I thought he was a flaming liberal who had been hiding in sheep skin all that time he was teaching how to read Greek.
My fears have since been put to the wayside. I too like terms such as ‘trustworthy’, etc… better. In graduate school, Dr. Powell (HUGSR) showed us some of the epistemological problems with words like ‘inerrant’ and ‘infalible’ (but that is another issue).
Grace and peace,
Rex
I still don’t mind admitting to believing that the inspired Scriptures are inerrant and infallible.
I’m in the same boat, Terry.
Although qb has to admit that the word “gospeled” strikes him as too trendy by half. Still, carry on. qb
Terry and Kathy,
So what do you do with the different chronological order of Jesus’s ministry in different gospels?
Or what do you do with passages that contradict one another, ie Paul’s comments vs James regarding faith and works?
If we’re looking at something inerrant (and I assume you mean here perfect, no contradiction, or as I like to say it, no need for faith) why do we have these seemingly striking inconsistancies of theology? Why do some books in the New Testament seem to be expecting an imminent return of Jesus (like in their lifetimes) while others don’t?
And then you run into the “inerrant and infallible” issues of how you read the text. Should the bible be read as a science/biology book, detailing scientifically how the world was created? Should it be read as a history book in the western sense, attempting to accurately portray all historical events? And another question, if I set a phone book, a fiction novel, an encyclopedia, a blog, and a book of poetry down on the table… do you read all of these pieces of literature through the same lense, or do you look at the intentions of the author to determine how to interpret the text?
Just some questions….
Terry – I know many terrific Christ-followers who have the same conviction. Thanks.
qb – laughing. I deserved that. But darn it: I like it.
Because I find the scriptures to be inerrant and infallible , therefore I find no difficulty in finding the word to be the spiritual authority for the world, the reliable and trustworthy guide for life and eternity . And will be always willing to proclaim with joy the gospel of Jesus, crucified and raised from the dead.
It does work, I’ll give it that. Forces us to confront the content of our doctrine: is it good news, or not.
(question mark omitted for idiosyncratic effect.)
Thanks for this, Mike. I have found the Bible to be infallible at helping me get context for my life (“the story”) and inerrant as a guide into my relationship with God through Jesus (is that what you mean by “gospeled”?).
In my experience inerrant and infallible are words used to endorse one’s own interpretation. These words have been used right along side “Narrow Gate/Wide Gate” discussions of why everyone who reads the Bible differently will be using the Wide Gate. Shame.
The Bible never describes itself using these terms and I don’t see the benefit of us doing so either.
Of course, others will use these two words in better ways than I described here. So perhaps it comes down to how we speak rather than what words we use.
I appreciate your comments and wish they were shared from more pulpits. This dichotomy of inerrant vs. completely human text leads people to believe that they must reject christianity out of hand if they find any errors or contradictions (which I believe there obviously are). It puts Christians in a difficult spot if their only choice is to reject Christianity in light of these findings. What do you make of a Peter Enns “Inspiration and Incarnation” approach to scripture?
Thanks for this post. A God who would entrust scripture to so much human influence is a much more radical and risk-taking God than the one who dictates word for word.
Sometimes I think God is crazy, literally, for trusting humans so much. If he knows us so well, then why trust us? It seems too high a risk. And yet, who of us wildly in love hasn’t done something a little crazy?
The challenge of “truth” as I understand it was the same as for the early disciples. It infers that we have arrived at exclusive understanding and directive. The reality is the “truth” operates at a much higher, transcendent level that invites me to humility and inclusion beyond my bias and my training, my culture and experience, two qualities that I find incredibly difficult but worthy of a life.
Just listened to a good lecture by Michael Horton about this today on Chris Rosebrough’s web site: http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2010/07/is-inerrancy-defensible.html
I was really exposed to this approach to Scripture for the first time in the mid 1980′s by a mutual friend. It made so much sense to me then – it was like a bright light went on.
I like what Keith said, “The Bible never describes itself using these terms and I don’t see the benefit of us doing so either.”
With you, except “gospeled”? What does it mean? Is it even a word?
Michael – Yes, I think it’s a word. Barely. For me, it’s shorthand for “the good news in the way the N. T. Wright describes good news.”
Good post and discussion here.
“The Synoptic Problem” is the standard phrase. But in teaching New Testament to first-and-second-year college students in the Bible Belt, I prefer to speak of “the Synoptic Question.” For some of them, if I talk about a “problem” and the Bible, they can easily assume I mean the Bible’s problem, not ours. Also, the word “problem” can lead to another assumption: that you can find the answer at the back of the book, or at least in the teacher’s edition
. So I go with “Synoptic Question.” It’s not so likely to raise red flags, and it’s just as descriptive, if not more so.
As some of the comments here point up, it’s much better when people are led to discover the Question, rather than simply be told about it. This requires the instructor to be less of the sage on the stage and more of a guide on the side. (Great expressions; can’t remember where I first heard them). After about nine tries at raising the Question, I’ve learned several dos and don’ts and it’s starting to go pretty well.
Frank,
Thanks for sharing that. Besides bible-belt undergraduates, I believe your approach would be a helpful way to talk about this in a local church bible-study. There’s no need to sound off unneeded alarms. Thanks!
Grace and peace,
Rex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk&feature=player_embedded
Seriously people. Wake up. It’s not infallible, and no, ‘it says so’ is not a credible argument. You wouldn’t accept that kind of circular logic from any other piece of literature, so why accept it from a bunch of ancient writers who would think your electric razor was magical?
Mike, I appreciate the approach. I don’t believe you are saying that God’s word is any less true.
I am grateful that I have had some “contradictions” shown not to be such after time and study. Sometimes understanding comes from diligent study in the original language – this experience led me to minor in Greek at ACU. Other times it just takes time, gaining in experience and reading many times. But sometimes it never comes. I believe this is the time for faith. I pray something like “Lord, I don’t understand but I know your understanding is so much greater than mine will ever be. I trust your word and know that it is true.” Paul told the Phillipians in 3:14-15: “I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.” It seems clear that he believes that God will lead us to the understanding we need, Kent
To Tim Keller, a man much smarter than any of us, and a man who has done more in reaching unbelieving culture on their terms than any other I know, removing inerrancy from authoritative and trustworthy is an impossibility. As he recently stated,
“Just for the record: I have no problem at all talking about inerrancy. As a pastor if I actually say to someone, any layperson–if I believe in the authority of the Bible but not the inerrancy of the Bible, they’re going to say, “what’s the difference?” And as soon as I begin to explain it, their eyes glaze over. And they’re going to think of it as a distinction without a difference. If I say it’s not authoritative in all its parts and it’s not inerrant, they understand that. And if I say it’s authoritative and inerrant, they understand that. But to say it’s authoritative and not inerrant, I’ve never in 35 years of working with people been able to get that.”
In other words, one can believe the Bible is both authoritative and inerrant; and the only other option is to think that it is neither authoritative nor inerrant.
As DeYoung says, “if we try to parse some fine distinction between reliability and inerrancy, the average churchgoer will think we’re just trying to avoid a label for some reason or just trying to hide something. And very often they’ll be right on both accounts.”
—