A. The Synoptics
1. The Synoptic Problem
Mt., Mk. and Lk. are similar, sometimes verbally identical, in many passages describing incidents in the life of Jesus, and yet elsewhere they differ. How does one explain this fact?
2. A Synoptic Solution
There are a variety of hypotheses to explain the interdependence of these three "synoptic" [ = presenting the same view] gospels. Notable among those is one which maintains:
a) The Priority of Mk
The priority of Mk. is difficult to demonstrate. But its assumption solves far more questions than the assumed priority of either Matthew or Luke. If Mk. is the earliest of the preserved Gospels, it further suggests...
b) The Mark Source Hypothesis
...that when Mt. & Lk. are in close agreement with Mk., they are using Mk. as a (textual, not oral) source. And one may further hypothesize...
c) The Q Hypothesis
...that when Mt. & Lk. are in close agreement with each other, but against Mk, they are thought to be using another common source, conventionally called Q, a collection of Jesus' logia, which can be reconstructed out of those same passages [see Miller, The Complete Gospels, pp. 253-300]. These notions constitute the "two source hypothesis."
d) M & L = Four Sources
But that still leaves some material unique to Mt. and Lk. This may represent independent sources available to each (M & L). This notion is part of the "four source hypothesis."
B. John
Did the author of Jn. have his own source, e.g., the "Signs Gospel" (Miller, The Complete Gospels: 180-193)? If so, that still leaves material unique to Jn.
What was Jn.'s relationship to the Synoptics? Did he know them (at least Mk.) and merely intend to supplement them, as most believe? Was he a sectarian correction of them? Or was his Gospel written in almost total independence of the Synoptic tradition?
C. The Dating of the Gospels
Whoever was actually responsible for their final form, Mk is now usually dated in the 70s (occasionally in the late 60s), Mt and Lk in the 80s or 90s, and Jn. near the end of the first century or even a little later. Paul, it will be recalled, was writing anywhere from five to fifteen or even twenty years before the appearance of Mk.
The dating of the Gospels rests chiefly on their content and their sequencing (e.g. Mk.> Mt. & Lk.).
The two most important dating criteria in the contents of the Gospels have been (a) the attitude toward the Jews [Mt. and Jn. show signs of a rupture between Jesus' followers and the rest of the Jews (Mt.10:17; Jn.21:12), and this probably occurred later in first century] and (b) their Christology [see 5A below] on the assumption that low Christology=early composition and high=late. A third consideration is the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Do the Gospels mention it or not (e.g. Lk.21:20-24)? It is judged that they do, though in a curiously oblique fashion; if not, it would suggest a much earlier date of composition for all the Gospels.
The passion narrative in the Gospels stands somewhat apart since, beginning with the arrest of Jesus, the narrative lines of Mk. and Jn. generally cohere, and thus "at a very early stage the passion narrative began with the arrest of Jesus" (Jeremias). Later it was expanded to include the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the Temple, the question about Jesus' authority, the Last Supper with the announcement of the betrayal, the prophecy of the denial, Gethsemane, the arrest of Jesus, trial before the Sanhedrin, the denial of Peter, the story of Barabbas, the condemnation by Pilate, the crucifixion and the empty grave.
D. Assessing the Gospels
From what we have: What precisely is a Gospel? Is it history or hype? Biography or propaganda? Is it usable by the historian? How?
1. Form criticism
Form Criticism is the study of the origins and type of the literary units (pericopes) or forms incorporated into the Gospels --polemical or didactic sayings, proverbs, apocalyptic prophesies, community regulations, parables, miracle stories-- and the circumstances of their transmission, their so-called Sitz im Leben. The circumstances of Jesus' original utterance would constitute the first Sitz im Leben; their oral transmission (and shaping) down to our present Gospels, the second Sitz im Leben.
2. Redaction Criticism
Redaction Criticism is the analysis of the historical circumstances (thus, the third Sitz im Leben) in which our preserved Gospels were finally formulated produced in the hope that it will enable the historian to understand (and disallow) the intentions and biases of the evangelists and their communities.
Questions: For whom were the Gospels intended? (Jews? Gentiles?) By whom were they written and what were the circumstances or attitudes of the Christians behind them? What were they expected to do? To convert non-believers? To reinforce believers?
The actual Gospels appear to have been written both for Jews --the OT prophecies are fulfilled-- and against them (e.g. the death plot), a situation that existed when the anticipated harvest was still principally Jewish (or proselytes who would be swayed by such arguments,) but there already existed a rising tide of Jewish sentiment against the new movement, possibly on the issue of the notion of the ingathering of the Gentiles, which would explain why the Gentile mission is occasionally underlined, despite what appears to be Jesus' own narrower theater of choice.
3. Some Criteria of Authenticity
Multiple attestation, dissimilarity from later church attitudes, coherence with context, hard sayings or embarrassing events.
Bruce Chilton believes he can narrow the criteria down to two:
Bruce Chilton, The Temple of Jesus, 1992: 120: "Jesus' position cannot be known directly, but only by means of the sources to hand. We can pentagulate his theology: that is, in a process akin to triangulation in mapping, we may infer from our reading of five texts what his position must have been to produce what we read. That course is unquestionably torturous, but it is the only course available for the historical apprehension of Jesus....We must [al so] appreciate from the outset that, if we wish to speak of Jesus in historical terms, he must be located in the space of early Judaism. Any language that alleges Jesus' rejection or transcendence of Judaism is to be dismissed from the outset as an instance of apologetic."
"There are, then, precisely two indices of Jesus as he may be known historically: (1) what may be said of him in aggregate as the presupposition of the canonical Gospels and Thomas; and (2) within a critical understanding of Judaism. Other alleged measures, such as his distinction or similarity from Judaism, or the alleged primitivity of a given source, are examples of ideology masquerading as science, attempts to define Jesus to be discovered in advance of investigation."
Despite these strictures, there is considerable optimism in some quarters:
E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 1985: 1-2: "What is characteristic of (many of the new works on Jesus) is that, despite the recognition of how difficult it is to be certain of the historical reliability of any individual pericope, the authors seem confident of the ability to present a reasonably accurate sketch of what Jesus taught and how he behaved...The dominant view today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that these two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism."
Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, 1988: 97: "What really happened" during Jesus' ministry is not recoverable from the evangelical descriptions of what happened. But by examining these descriptions in the light of Jesus' historical context, we can establish with reasonable security what possibly happened, what probably happened, and what could not possibly have happened."
There remains, however, some skepticism, particularly on the recovery of the ipsissima verba of Jesus The most recent attempt, by the "Jesus Seminar" (Funk et al., The Five Gospels. New York: Macmillan, 1993), tried voting on each case. Their collective wisdom had confidence in 18% of the sayings reported in the four canonical Gospels --though none at all in Jn.--and Thomas.