storage2.sibro.xyz/huxu-sexo-telefono.php Log In Sign Up. Papers People. The use of statistics and the empirical analysis of data in the Synoptic Gospels has largely revolved around positing a solution to the Synoptic Problem. As a result, synoptic scholars have often dismissed the use of data interpretation In this paper I argue that empirical data and statistical analyses should not be disregarded from synoptic studies nor need they be committed to wholistic explanations of particular source theories.
Rather, statistical tools can be used by New Testament scholars to aid in the interpretation of texts, and thus should be considered part of the repository of exegetical tools alongside more traditional avenues of interpretation such as textual, source, and redaction criticism. I demonstrate that a contingency table can be used to postulate an association between two gospel texts, which can then guide exegetical interpretation, and is also a useful source of information for designing a digital visualization of the gospel texts.
In particular, I find that a contingency table posits a positive association between Matthew and Luke based on their common redaction of Mark in the pericope of the Healing of the Paralytic Mt —8; Mk —12; Lk — Save to Library. Review of James R. This is a slightly expanded version of a review of James R. Judas, the kiss, the morsel - and lifting of heels.
The character of Judas perhaps is the most dynamic one of all the gospels, and undergoes a truly grand transformation. In the gospel of Mark Judas starts betraying Jesus with a kiss for apparently no reason; Matthew then provides him In the gospel of Mark Judas starts betraying Jesus with a kiss for apparently no reason; Matthew then provides him with a quantifiable financial motive and Judas shows remorse - the utmost form of remorse; in Luke Judas doesn't kiss Jesus yet suddenly is possessed by Satan during his every action, and John explains that Judas being possessed is a result of a direct action of Jesus - and John has Judas betray Jesus without a kiss, without being financially rewarded for it, and also without showing any remorse.
If it were up to John, Judas even appears to remain among the 12 afterwards. That does sound confusing, doesn't it? The kiss, the morsel, and lifting of heels: underlying the first two appear to be truly grand Judaic events that undoubtedly were known by the majority of Jews. Was Judas then equally grand?
And if the last gospel-writer paints such a benign picture of Judas, why is our image of him so villainous? The Synoptic Problem is a puzzle that scholars have desired to solve since the 18th century. The discussion has a religious background, because it is about the first three canonical Gospels of the Church, namely Matthew, Mark and Luke, The discussion has a religious background, because it is about the first three canonical Gospels of the Church, namely Matthew, Mark and Luke, which came to be called the Synoptic Gospels. The discussion, in the most basic context, concentrates on the point that there is a possible relationship or connection between the Synoptic Gospels and that each one is substantially similar to another but at the same time includes different aspects.
This theoretical discussion separates the Gospel of John from the Synoptic Gospels and does not see it as a main source for the history of Jesus. The method of discussion is based on the reading of the Synoptic Gospels from a birds-eye-view, as seen together, and as comparatively in relation to each other. The aim of the discussion is to reach accurate historical information about Jesus and the birth of Christianity by analyzing the possible relationship between the Synoptic Gospels through their sources. Several hypotheses have been proposed for the solution of the Synoptic Problem.
However, all the modern studies in the context of the problem are carried out by Western scholars. In other words, Synoptic Problem is a relatively unknown subject in the Turkish academic circles. So in this paper the aim is to draw the attention of the Turkish academy to the substance and framework of the Synoptic Problem through an introductory survey.
In addition, some results that can be reached in this context will be exemplified by getting help from the redaction criticism. Summary: The Synoptic Problem is a puzzle that scholars have been trying to solve since the 18th century. The discussion has a religious background, for it is about the first three canonical Gospels of the Church namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are called the Synoptic Gospels. The discussion, in the most basic context, concentrates on a possible relationship or connection between the Synoptic Gospels and that each one is substantially similar to another one, but at the same time including different aspects.
This theoretical discussion separates the Gospel of John from the Synoptic Gospels, and does not see it as a main source for the history of Jesus. The method of this discussion is based on the broad reading of the Synoptic Gospels as well as a comparison in relation to each other. The traditional four Gospels have been debated since ancient times.
There have been many dimensions of these discussions. However, whether the Gospels contain contradictory information or not has always been at the forefront. Pagan writers, such as Celsus or Porphyry, criticized the Gospels in this respect. Christian writers, such as Marcion or Tatian who lived in the second century when the Gospels were not seen as canon yet, raised some suggestions based on the doubts that the Gospels were incompatible with the Jewish scriptures and contained contradictions among themselves.
Tatian made a mixed version of the four Gospels.
In the next stage, the contradictions in the Gospels were explained by the Christian writers, such as Origenes or Augustine. However, the four Gospels were more prominent in this new era and they were regarded as canons by the Church. Origen emphasized allegorical interpretation which had been known since the Jewish philosopher Philo d.
Thus, he wanted to protect the contradictory texts from being seen as the source of the problem. He argued that the problem was the human mind that could not grasp the allegorical mystery of the text or the narrative in the text. Augustine had a similar approach with the suggestion that the Gospels should be read by a faithful heart. According to Augustine, it is natural that the Gospels reflect different characters because the Gospel writers describe Christ differently. In order to be able to comprehend the divine meaning in these texts, the Gospels must be read in a spiritual mood.
After all, all these Christian writers aimed to respond to the criticism by the pagan writers regarding the Gospels, as well as the current suspicions in the minds of Christians. Origen was the first Christian thinker to devote an effort to solve the debates on the Gospels in a logical and systematic way. As for Augustine, he was the starting point of the Synoptic Problem since Augustine was the first to mention the links between the Gospels texts, namely the idea that the authors of the Gospels may have used each other as sources. However, in the modern sense, the Synoptic Problem has been transformed into an academic discipline by the intellectuals who followed the path of Enlightenment thinkers, such as Reimarus , Lessing , Griesbach , and Eichhorn Because modern researchers differ from old writers based on Church ideologies, they began to demolish traditional beliefs about the Gospels.
Thus, the effort to harmonize incompatible narratives in the Gospels is left aside. Indeed, the ancient writers put a lot of effort into it.
Now, in the places where indirect relations can be established between the Gospels, the idea of finding the common hypothetical sources of these Gospels is prominent. The claim that the Gospels were directly connected to Jesus as a historical figure has been gradually faded away. The basis of the Synoptic Problem is the comparative reading of the Synoptic Gospels. In the modern sense, this comparison and its interpretation was made by J.
Griesbach for the first time. Griesbach was the first scholar to compare Matthew, Mark, and Luke in a way to create a synopsis. His comparison is based on a reading done by placing several passages or narratives from the Gospels side by side. Many hypotheses have been put forward for the solution of the Synoptic Problem.
These views are based on Marcan Priority. Also, according to the Two-Sources and Four-Source Hypotheses, the authors of Matthew and Luke used another written document as their sources. The writers of the Gospels wrote their own texts by using written and oral sources. One of the scholarly methods is the redaction criticism that explores how the Gospel writers shaped the old literary documents by arranging, re-shaping, and revising them. This theory looks at whether the source used by an author is known and available today in order to understand whether how the author used his sources would provide important clues about his tendencies or ideologies.
In this regard, the theory of the Marcan priority can be rendered functional along with the redaction criticism. In doing so, it is possible to reach important conclusions about Jesus and the birth of Christianity, as well as the theological and ideological ideas of the unknown authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Secondly, we have these three Gospels today. And finally, the ways in which the writers of Matthew and Luke shaped the text, phrases, or expressions of Mark reveal important results about their thoughts. These authors did not do such things without a reason. In this context, according to some expressions in Mark, Jesus' power had a limit. This proves that the authors of Matthew and Luke re-arranged their resources to present Jesus as a superhuman being.
Similarly, in Mark, there are lines in which Jesus declares his loyalty and servitude to the God of Israel. In such passages, he presented his personality in a low Christology context against God. However, the authors of Matthew and Luke were disturbed by such statements, because they intervened in these statements in Mark. In the end, all these researches also responded to the question of to what extent the Gospels provide reliable information on a historical basis.
Revised June Of the four anonymous Gospels, the one attributed to John has done the most damage. Let x be the probability that a given word in A is transmitted unaltered to B. Let y be the probability that a given word in B is transmitted unaltered to C. Let z be the probability that a given word in A is transmit-. Similar direct evaluations can be made for all conditional probabilities involving A, B and C, but conditional probabilities that involve C1 and C2 have to be evaluated indirectly.
In terms of the notation that we have introduced, the probabilities x, y and z may be expressed as. The relationship is illustrated in Figure 1. However, the commonly accepted two-source hypothesis is not accommodated within the framework of the triplelink model. Honor6 made some further assumptions and then proceeded to carry out a mathematical and statistical analysis to t his model to the data.
He made some progress but ultimately went astray, essentially because of his lack of a suciently well-dened specication of the model in mathematical terms. However, Honors assumptions and analysis can be recast in terms of the notation of probability theory5. Further, denote by C1 the event that the given word is in gospel C and has been transmitted via gospel B and denote by C2 the event that the given word is in gospel C and has been transmitted directly from gospel A.
With this notation, Pr B A denotes the conditional probability that a given word is in gospel B given that it is in gospel A. Using the basic denition of conditional probability:. It is straightforward to evaluate x directly, but expressions that may be used to evaluate y and z need to be derived using Honors further assumptions6, which, in our terms, amount to the following three conditional independence assumptions: Assumption 1. Given that a word is in gospel A, the event that it is transmitted to gospel B and the event that it is transmitted directly from gospel A to gospel C are independent.
Assumption 2. Given that a word is in gospel B, the event that it is in gospel A and the event that it is transmitted from gospel B to gospel C are independent. Assumption 3. Given that a word is in gospel A and gospel B, the event that it is transmitted from gospel B to gospel C and the event that it is transmitted directly from gospel A to gospel C are independent.
These values can be evaluated and compared with the values of Pr BC A and. The conditional probability so evaluated is precisely the probability that, for the aggregated triple-. Pr C A as calculated directly from the data. Following the approach of Honor6, the values as calculated from the formulae can be compared with the values calculated directly, and the ratios between them may be used as a measure of the goodness-of-t for each of the six possible variants of the model.
The closer these ratios are to one, the better the t of the model. Handling two scrolls at once, while writing a third, must have been cumbersome in the extreme. Although already in the second century the Christian scriptures came to be written in codex, i. Handling two scrolls at once while writing a third must have been cumbersome in the extreme. Partly from consideration of the physical conditions under which the gospels would have been written, in later work I have suggested a modication of Honors model in which assumption 3 of conditional independence is replaced by assumption 3A of mutual exclusion:.
Figure 2. The healing of Peters mother-in-law: an example of a triple-tradition pericope. Assumption 3A. The event that a word is transmitted from gospel B to gospel C and the event that it is transmitted directly from gospel A to gospel C are mutually exclusive. The rst has Matthew as the earliest of the surviving authors; the other has Mark.
Both put Luke as the last in date, and have him using the other two as sources for his gospel. These models represent, of course, a radical simplication of the actual process of gospel composition. Still, they do provide a basis for the analysis of such data as we do possess. We have examined individual words. Our analysis of individual words shows that Luke was in all probability the last of the three gospel writers to put pen to parchment.
Similar analysis of the frequencies of complete pericopes might conrm this and tell us whether it was Matthew or Mark who was the rst to record the gospel of Christ. Aland, K. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Throckmorton, B. Nashville: Nelson. Goodacre, M. London: Sheeld University Press. Hawkins, J. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Abakuks, A. Honor, A. Novum Testamentum, 10, Since then his main research interests have been in the application of probability and statistics to problems in New Testament studies and theology.
Read Free For 30 Days. Flag for inappropriate content. For Later. Related titles. Carousel Previous Carousel Next. Matera - Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem Luke 9. A Conflict with Israel. Miller - History Is Not Optional. Jump to Page. Search inside document. The synoptic problem and statistics In New Testament studies, the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the synoptic gospels. The pericopes that make up Matthews famous sermon on the mount are predominantly double tradition, in that they are to be found also in the gospel of Luke, but not in Mark.
Because of this, The relationship between the gospels is a notoriously difficult one. Let z be the probability that a given word in A is transmit- Figure 1. In terms of the notation that we have introduced, the probabilities x, y and z may be expressed as ted unaltered directly to C.
Using the basic denition of conditional probability: It is straightforward to evaluate x directly, but expressions that may be used to evaluate y and z need to be derived using Honors further assumptions6, which, in our terms, amount to the following three conditional independence assumptions: Assumption 1. These values can be evaluated and compared with the values of Pr BC A and this conditional probability may be evaluated directly from the data by the corresponding relative frequency, i.
The conditional probability so evaluated is precisely the probability that, for the aggregated triple- Pr C A as calculated directly from the data. Partly from consideration of the physical conditions under which the gospels would have been written, in later work I have suggested a modication of Honors model in which assumption 3 of conditional independence is replaced by assumption 3A of mutual exclusion: Table 2.
The healing of Peters mother-in-law: an example of a triple-tradition pericope Assumption 3A. References 1. Table 3. Fernanda Fernandez Alvarez. Alvin Cardona.
Carlos Castro. Andrew Lloyd.
Narcis Ciobanu. Tebogo Sea. FRC Grand Rapids. Brix Jonnard Vasallo. Mc Bagual. Jay Winters. Karina Laksamana Alvarez. Dave McNeff. Tophe Provido.