User:Gabrielranalli

Parker Pierson developed a hypothesis that would serve as a solution to the synoptic problem. His ideas surrounding the solution to the synoptic problem has to do with the judaizing controversy that took place a generation after Jesus’ death. The controversy is about the first followers of Christ. Since these first followers were Jews, the question became whether they could come directly to divine salvation without taking part in the Jewish intermediary steps of Law, ceremonial, and circumcision. This controversy is important because it affected the Gospels, specifically Matthew & Mark, and less directly Luke. It is important to investigate the Matthew and Mark material in order to witness the similarities and differences that occur. For example: about half of the passages that are found in Matthew are also in Gospel of Mark (90percent of Mark reappears in Matthew in more condensed/polished form), about one fourth of Matthew is paralleled in Luke (this is mostly teachings of Jesus), the authors of Matthew & Luke used a common source, Q (which seems to be a pro-Gentile in tone), and about one fourth of Matthew has no parallel in any other Gospel (this material is called “M”). This material that Pierson labels M is a filled with broken sentences and half-told stories. It also deals with matters that would interest Jewish Christians.

Of course with a claim that there is another sourced introduced to the solution of the Synoptic problem, there will be questioning with regard to its validity and importance. There are three arguments that Pierson adds in his book: The Gospel Before Mark. One position that Streeter suggests is that M represents a book and this book disappeared after the author of Matthew used it. However an objection to this claim would be that as a book, M is unconvincing, we create too many hypothetical sources (for example: Streeter thought there was a book “L” & “Proto-Luke”, both of which have more evidence for existing than M. Another idea is that M is simply the editorial additions which the compiler if Matthew made to his material. To which an objection could be made that Matthew apparently was made in Greek so why would he add all this Jewish material at a time where the Jewish and Gentile churches separated. Finally, M & Q are the same document; where M is only parts of the common Saying Source that were not used by Luke (i.e. both deal with teachings of Jesus & have same length). However, this is improbable since they differ in vocabulary, style, arrangement, and choice of material. Through reading Pierson’s book, The Gospel Before Mark, early on, the reader can get a solid understanding of what Pierson will be arguing. Pierson believes that there was a Jewish Christian Gospel written in Aramaic several years before our Gospel of Mark. The early Jewish Christian Gospel: interest was for the Christian Jews in Palestine, recorded sayings of Jesus (if taken out of context were used by Jewish Christians against the Gentiles). Later, this early Gospel came into John Mark’s hands (protagonist for the Gentiles), he took from the Gospel all the anti-gentile material and revised them to benefit the gentile Christian Church. Then the author of Matthew used the early Gospel, and he combined the Jewish Christian source with Q (pro-gentile). This would mean that canonical Matthew is NOT taken from our current Gospel of Mark but from his immediate ancestor. While Luke used canonical Mark and did NOT use the early Jewish Christian source. This early Jewish Christian Gospel is referred to by Pierson as the “K” source: it was the common ancestor to Matthew and Mark and less directly Luke.

Pierson breaks up his argument into several parts, three of which that stand out as strong are the evidence from: language and style, structure, and content. With regard to the language and style Pierson acknowledges that the author of Matthew treats the language of Q with respect. This is because Matthew has a list of distinctive terms which he uses, which are also found in Q (for example the words: day of judgement, persecute/pursue, confess,). Also Matthew’s Greek is smoother & passages are shorter than Mark, which may not be because of polishing but rather Mark left out parts of K (this creates roughness). Matthew doesn’t always display better editing than Mark (Matthew use of Tote (then) vs. Marks’s use of the smoother kai (and) & de (but). Thus, it is hard to explain if Matthew copied directly from Mark but it is easy to explain if both authors worked independently using a common source.

Evidence from structure comes from analysing the several passages from the bible that Pierson outlines in his book. The narratives that stood out were the temptation stories of Matthew and Luke because they suggest that one source both Gospels cannot have used a single source for all three narratives. Furthermore, Luke took all material from Q, Matthew only took material from Q only in the Jerusalem Temple story, the other two temptation stories he used K. The three temptation stories are: MATT 4:3, LUKE 4:3, MATT 4:5-7, LUKE 4:9-12, and MATT 4:8-10, LUKE 4:5-8. The differences in word selection such as: using “tempter” instead of the “devil” (common to Q). Also words that are common to the K source were kept by Matthew in his “Visions of the Nations” story (MATT 4:8-10), such as: Exceeding, get thee hence, and worship.

To convey the argument the K is different from Mark as a source for the author of Matthew, Pierson notes three differences between the two sources. They are that: K assumed that its readers were in Palestine, thus concerned itself with problems that would pertain to Palestine, K made heavy use of the Old Testament, and K hints strongly at a close relationship between the movements of Jesus and of John the Baptist. These elements fuse both M and Matthew parallels to Mark. These all set K within the framework of Palestinian Jewish Christianity, and remove it from the attitudes of canonical Mark. Since K reflects the Judaizing controversy, the choice of Jesus sayings provided support for those on the Jewish Christian side. This would suggest that Mark reworked the material in the interest of Christians on the gentile side (so has canonical Matthew).

The K document itself can be a little ambiguous and difficult for new readers to accept. It is important to determine the main key features of the document K for a better understanding of this source. Pierson suggests indications that the document was dated well before A.D 70, and was written in Palestine (probably in Aramaic), and likely by the apostle Matthew. It appeared at the time when Peter & Paul went to the gentile side, and then made its way y to Rome (likely in a Greek translation) it was abridged and revised by John Mark (a missionary to the gentiles). There it gets preserved by the Jewish Christian community in Palestine and is the basis for later Jewish Christian expansions.

It seems as though Parker has adopted an ideology that not only makes sense but is quite convincing. However, like all hypothesis of this nature, it is not provable for certain, which is why there are criticisms to all theories. A criticism that can be made would be that Parker came out with another book 30 years later titled: A Second Look at The Gospel Before Mark. Here he seems to adopt suggestions of a proto-Luke which was the source of the Q and L material. Followed by more “borrowing” by using Griesbach idea of Mark being a conflation of proto-Matthew ("K") and proto-Luke. This would seem to discredit Parker’s original theory that he argues in his 1953 book The Gospel Before Mark. By “mashing” up all the suggestive hypothesises that scholars have given over the years, would seem like an easy way out to solving the synoptic problem? This addition of ideas does not seem convincing in the end because there is simply too much information to swift through in order to find the true solution.

References:

Parker, Pierson. The Gospel Before Mark. Chicago: The Universtiy of Chicago Press, 1953