Ancient compositional practices and the Synoptic Problem

grantor: University of St. Michael's CollegeThis dissertation investigates the ways in which an understanding of the literary culture(s) of the Greco-Roman world can inform Synoptic source critical discussion. From a survey of ancient book production, a study of the interplay between orality and textuality, the identification and analysis of written sources and how they were adapted by later authors, we are able to catalog a set of compositional methods of ancient writers. From this, we are able to test the extent to which three “solutions” to the Synoptic Problem are consistent with the known practices of writers in antiquity. We conclude that while all three of the theories had certain problems in light of our catalogue of compositional practices, some had more problems than others. The most significant problem for the Two-Gospel (Neo-Griesbach) Hypothesis (2GH) continues to be the picture of Mark as one who “micro-conflates” Matthew and Luke. This imagined procedure is mechanically unworkable and unattested in ancient literature. In addition, the sort of literature that Mark is on the 2GH is not supported by an appropriate literary analogy from the ancient world. The Farrer-Goulder Theory (FGH) does not suffer the same problems that Mark does on the 2GH. What Matthew is said to do with Mark is feasible. However, the most significant hurdle for the FGH is its depiction of Luke's compositional method. The description of Luke's compositional methods on the FGH is often problematic, particularly in Michael Goulder's description of Luke's reverse contextualization of Matthew. Finally, the Two-Document Hypothesis (2DH) has certain problems as well. While Luke's method of adapting Mark and Q—essentially in alternating blocks—is both feasible and consistent with the known practices of writers in antiquity, Matthew's use of Mark and Q potentially creates a different set of problems. In terms of compositional conventions, the 2DH is weakest in the sections in Matthew where he is evidently conflating Mark and Q (i.e., the Mark-Q overlap texts). However, when a reconstructed Q is provided, often Matthew appears to be following either Mark or Q, and may, in fact, be recalling the other by memory. In the end, it appears that the 2DH has the fewest problems in light of the compositional practices of antiquity.Ph.D