{"id":3755,"date":"2016-03-13T10:00:31","date_gmt":"2016-03-13T14:00:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/?p=3755"},"modified":"2016-03-08T11:58:36","modified_gmt":"2016-03-08T16:58:36","slug":"3755","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/?p=3755","title":{"rendered":"Gaining a Deeper Understanding of the New Testament– 20160313"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"the_four_evangelists\"<\/a>There is another theory I would like to share with my readers about the Synoptic Problem (I won\u2019t define this at this point since I\u2019m sure that, if you have been reading this article, you will understand of what I write<\/em>). This theory actually bears the name of a particular author, L. Vaganay. He promoted the idea that the oral tradition that served as the foundation of the written narratives were found in two different sources that were put into writing as small collections of words and\/or incidents. In Gospel form these became Aram M, not identical with canonical Matthew. Another early collection consisting of saying and discourses, he names \u201cS\u201d. It was also written down in Aram and it, together with another oral tradition, were translated into Greek. The earliest canonical Gospel, Mark, used as its sources \u201cMg\u201d (the Greek translation of Aram M) and the oral tradition of Peter\u2019s preaching, but not \u201cS\u201d. Canonical Matthew used as sources Mark, \u201cMg\u201d, and \u201cSg\u201d which was the Greek translation of \u201cS\u201d plus elements of Peter\u2019s preaching. Vaganay also speculates that Luke used as sources Mark, \u201cMg\u201d, \u201cSg\u201d and elements of oral tradition. Vaganay introduced \u201cS\u201d into the solution of the problem because he felt that Aram M translated into Greek was insufficient to explain all the Synoptic tradition. He claims that this source has nothing in common with \u201cQ\u201d.<\/p>\n

The criticisms leveled at Vaganay\u2019s theory have stressed that his system is very complex. In his desire to reject the Two-Document Hypothesis he has reconstructed a similar theory substituting \u201cS\u201d for \u201cQ\u201d. There are about 60 passages that scholars commonly allocate to \u201cQ\u201d; over 40 of them are in \u201cS\u201d – therefore, is there an actual distinction between \u201cS\u201d and \u201cQ\u201d? He presents us with no good reason why Mark should have been written.<\/p>\n

There is one last theory I would like to share with my readers. It is called the\u00a0\u00a0 Multiple Documentation as the Basis for the Whole Gospel Complex. This theory consists mainly in supposing that a rather mixed combination of documents serve as the origins of the Synoptic Gospels. It is considered by some as a middle course because it does not insist on the simplistic approach of the Oral-Tradition Theory nor on the rigid approach of the theory of literary interrelationships. In its original form, the words and deeds of Jesus were not supposed to have been collected in one book but, rather, contained in diverse documents that circulated among the various Christian Communities. (More to follow<\/em>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There is another theory I would like to share with my readers about the Synoptic Problem (I won\u2019t define this at this point since I\u2019m sure that, if you have been reading this article, you will understand of what I … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-a-look-at-the-new-testament"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3755","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3755"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3755\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3759,"href":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3755\/revisions\/3759"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stmichaelarchangel.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}