I felt like praying or something, when I was in bed, but I couldn’t do it. I can’t always pray when I feel like it. In the first place, I’m sort of an atheist. I like Jesus and all, but I don’t care too much for most of the other stuff in the Bible. Take the Disciples, for instance. They annoy the hell out of me, if you want to know the truth. They were all right after Jesus was dead and all, but while He was alive, they were about as much use to Him as a hole in the head. All they did was keep letting Him down. I like almost anybody in the Bible better than the Disciples. If you want to know the truth, the guy I like best in the Bible, next to Jesus, was that lunatic and all, that lived in the tombs and kept cutting himself with stones. I like him ten times as much as the Disciples, that poor bastard. I used to get in quite a few arguments about it, when I was at the Whooton School, with this boy that lived down the corridor, Arthur Childs. Old Childs was a Quaker and all, and he read the Bible all the time. He was a very nice kid, and I liked him, but I could never see eye to eye with him on a lot of stuff in the Bible, especially the Disciples. He kept telling me that if I didn’t like the Disciples, then I didn’t like Jesus and all. He said that because Jesus picked the Disciples, you were supposed to like them. I said I knew He picked them, but that He picked them at random. I said He didn’t have time to go around analyzing everybody. I said I wasn’t blaming Jesus or anything. It wasn’t his fault that He didn’t have any time. I remember I asked old Childs if he thought Judas, the one that betrayed Jesus and all, went to Hell after he committed suicide. Childs said certainly. That’s exactly where I disagreed with him. I said I’d bet a thousand bucks that Jesus never sent old Judas to Hell. I still would, too, if I had a thousand bucks. I think any one of the Disciples would’ve sent him to Hell and all—and fast, too—but I’ll bet anything Jesus didn’t do it. Old Childs said the trouble with me was that I didn’t go to church or anything. He was right about that, in a way. I don’t. In the first place, my parents are different religions, and all the children in our families are atheists. If you want to know the truth, I can’t even stand ministers. The ones they’ve had at every school I’ve gone to, they all have these Holy Joe voices when they start giving their sermons. God, I hate that. I don’t see why the hell they can’t talk in their natural voice. They sound so phony when they talk. (130-31)

Holden’s opinion about the disciples is certainly justified by the stories in the gospels, which portray the disciples very negatively at times—especially in the pre-Easter period. His remark that Jesus chose the disciples at random because he lacked the time necessary to vet them is a very interesting claim. Yet it misses the point of the gospels, which uses the disciples as examples of what it means or does not mean to follow Jesus. Nevertheless, for Holden the disciples merely represent all that’s wrong with the Bible. Perhaps Holden is actually waging a larger critique against Christianity, which is often thought of as hypocritical. Jesus is fine for Holden and even that lunatic living in the tombs is acceptable. Both are who they claim to be, but the disciples are flawed characters who never live up to their expectations. This is similar, then, to Holden’s disdain for ministers as hypocrites who talk in phony voices.

Arthur Childs accepts the disciples out of simple faith, but Holden maintains his skepticism. Who is the better reader of Scripture?
]]> http://sitzimleben.com/2010/01/29/j-d-salinger-and-jesus-disciples/feed/ 0 http://sitzimleben.com/2009/07/20/robert-stein-studying-the-synoptic-gospels/ http://sitzimleben.com/2009/07/20/robert-stein-studying-the-synoptic-gospels/#comments Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:51:18 +0000 brandonw http://sitzimleben.com/?p=373 This originally appeared in 2006 on the now defunct Novum Testamentum Blog. I have posted it here with only minor revisions.

Robert H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001). 302 pp. ISBN: 0-8010-2258-4. Paperback. $30.00

Studying the Synoptic Gospels is an introduction to the study of source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism of the Gospels. It is not intended to be a primer on exegesis or general hermeneutics of the Gospels, but to address the composition of the Synoptics and their respective theologies.

Robert Stein is a senior professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has written extensively on the Gospels and hermeneutics, including A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), Gospels and Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), and commentaries on Luke (NAC; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993) and Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).

Overview

Stein’s book—written “as an introduction and a work manual” (13)—is comprised of three major divisions: (1) The Literary Relationship of the Synoptic Gospels, (2) The Preliterary History of the Gospel Traditions, and (3) The Inscripturation of the Gospel Traditions. The first section is nearly half of the book’s length and deals with literary or source criticism; it seeks to answer the questions posed by the Synoptic Problem. What is the literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Which Gospel was written first? Which Gospels are dependent upon other Gospels? Et cetera. Ultimately, he argues that there is interdependence within the gospel tradition (chapter 1), that Mark was written first (chapter 2), and that Matthew and Luke independently used Q (chapter 3). Stein acknowledges some problems with this paradigm (chapter 4), but settles on the two-source theory as being the best the solution to the Synoptic Problem (chapter 5). In the sixth chapter, he discusses the value of source criticism and its relation to historical criticism, redaction criticism, and hermeneutics in general.

The second major division primarily deals with form criticism. Stein first addresses the rise and presuppositions of form criticism (chapter 7); then he tackles the general reliability of the transmission of oral traditions (chapter 8), before looking at the value of form criticism.

The third and final section covers redaction criticism. Here the author elaborates on the rise of redaction criticism (chapter 10), its method and practice (chapter 11), and its value (chapter 13).

Stein addresses the order in which one should perform source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism, but notes that this order is not rigidly defined because they all interrelate at different points (243-244).

Format

There are a number of factors that make Stein’s work very helpful for the student. The back of the book contains a glossary with over forty frequently used terms such as ipsissima verba, pericope and Urevangelium. But the glossary plays only a minor role. There are also many figures and charts. The charts put the synoptic parallels in a helpful line-by-line juxtaposition, which makes it easier to compare the texts. Not only do the charts exist for visual aid, but they are intended to be used as an exercise for the students to do hands-on work with the parallel passages following Stein’s color-coded methodology (29-30). The table of contents is also neatly formatted, outlining both major and minor sections for reference. Additionally, at the end of nearly every chapter is a conclusion or summary of the discussion designed to solidify the material.

Assessment

One aspect of this book that can be viewed both positively and negatively is that it is based on an English translation and not the Greek text of the Gospels. The obvious advantage is that is accessible to a larger audience, and so students untrained in Greek can utilize this as a textbook. The parallel passages are fairly easy to compare in English, since Stein uses the Revised Standard Version. It was a smart move on Stein’s part to retain the RSV instead of opting for popular updated versions such as the NIV and NRSV, which are less literal and thus less appropriate for synoptic comparisons. Yet how useful is such a book like this to people who have not studied Greek? Obviously one cannot truly engage in something like redaction criticism without a good grasp of the Greek text, even though Stein does refer to Greek words here or there when he deems it necessary. Nevertheless, I think that the English text is appropriate because Stein is not seeking to train redaction critics, but to get students’ feet wet in these critical disciplines. Ultimately, the English text helps the reader to move through the book quickly so that he or she sees the big picture. After one reads Stein’s book and is interested in the various disciplines of Gospel study they can find more advanced books elsewhere. After all, this book is merely an introduction.

There are several Synoptic Problem theories that the author does not address. Of course, since Stein did not intend to write a thorough history of the Synoptic Problem, references to the countless solutions would have only bogged down the reader. He does give a detailed analysis of the Griesbach hypothesis and the two-source hypothesis (to which he subscribes). However, more interaction with the Farrer theory would have been welcomed. Stein also writes in a non-technical manner and includes a healthy dose of redundancy, both of which contribute to accessibility of the work.

Stein approaches Studying the Synoptic Gospels pragmatically. He does not get tangled up with theory so much that he loses touch with real-world matters. Along this vein, he also questions the limits to which some have taken Q: “In light of the hypothetical nature of the Q source, the wisdom of various attempts to do redaction-critical work on the theology of the Q document or on the Q community must be questioned” (121). He acknowledges that it is “impossible to know what was going through the mind of Luke when he wrote and why he might have omitted this or that account from his Gospel” (112). He similarly states: “We can never reconstruct with certainty the mental activity of the Evangelist when he wrote his Gospel” (147). This is an important point since so much of source criticism is based on the intentions of the Gospel writers, especially Matthew and Luke.

In the end, the book stands out as a fine introduction to such matters. It is organized in a way that makes it easier on the student to follow the argument despite there being some difficult concepts to grasp. Stein encourages the students and reminds them of the importance of such pursuits with quotes like the following: “Thus for many scholars, especially in the nineteenth century, the solution to the Synoptic Problem was a prerequisite for a proper study of the life of Jesus” (154). So, for those looking at a basic introduction to the Synoptics, this work is one of the best options available.