Thesis (S.T.M.)--Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, 1994. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [212]-231).

The purpose of the present study is to assess the study of the synoptic problem in this century. The questions raised are: does the two-document hypothesis, more correctly, each of the theses of Markan priority and Q, merely stand on the sands, as its opponents claim?; and does any proposed alternative hypothesis account better for the synoptic phenomena than the two-document hypothesis, so that this orthodox view must now give way to it? Chap. I is mainly to answer the first question. To appraise the thesis of Markan priority, we investigate the synoptic phenomena like the agreement and disagreement in content, order and wording, doublets and OT quotations. The conclusions are: (a) they do not necessarily demand Markan priority; and yet (b) they are sufficiently explained on this hypothesis. There seems, on the other hand, no such evidence that requires us to discard Markan priority. Even the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are amenable to it. Then we assess the view that a proto-Mark rather than our canonical Mark was used by later evangelists (the hypotheses of Boismard, V. H. Stanton, Hendriks, J. A. T. Robinson and others). The proposed arguments, however, fall short of establishing a distinct proto-Mark. The Q hypothesis remains the most likely solution to explain Matthew's and Luke's double tradition material, unless Luke's direct use of Matthew or the opposite is proved. Any of these latter alternatives (the views of Parrer, Goulder, West and others) can readily explain the phenomenon of the so-called minor agreements but entails difficulties in accounting for drastic differences between Matthew and Luke in various phases. Our evaluation of the proto-Luke hypothesis shows that the evangelist Luke may well have employed a version of Q considerably expanded with special material. In chap. II, "Matthean priority," we deal with the Augustinian hypothesis (Jameson, Chapman and Butler), the Griesbach hypothesis (Parmer, Orchard, Dungan, Longstaff and others) and also three different proto- Matthew hypotheses (Hunt's testimony book, Parker's Jewish Christian Gospel K and Vaganay's Aramaic proto- Matthew M). The given evidences scarcely convince us that any of these is a better substitute for the twodocument hypothesis. As far as the phenomenon of order is concerned, the Griesbach hypothesis works well but this hardly justifies the view that this solution is superior over the two-document hypothesis* Por the former involves far greater difficulties than the latter allegedly has. Chap. Ill is concerned about Lukan priority, which is the least preferable solution. Hone of its proponents (Lockton, Bussmann and Lindsey) has offered a decisive reason for the assumption that our Luke is more primitive than Matthew and Mark, Finally, the thesis of independence of the Synoptics (Leon-Dufour, Gahoury and Rist) is appraised in chap, IV, Although the assumption of independence enables us to reconcile the opposing hypotheses of Markan priority and Matthean priority, it remains less plausible than the two-document hypothesis. For though there is little choice between the independence view and the two-document hypothesis as far as the synoptic dissimilarities are concerned, the latter explains the similarities far easily than the former. Some of the proposed alternatives are not well substantiated by the evidence. Some others may have a merit in solving some difficulty allegedly unsolved by the two-document hypothesis, or seem successful in explaining some aspects of the phenomena, but they hardly provide better explanation for the whole range of data. The alleged difficulties in the two-document hypothesis, on the other hand, are not insuperable. Thus we are led to the final conclusion that the two-document hypothesis remains the best solution of the synoptic problem.

Thesis (S.T.M.)--Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, 1988. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 124-130).

Thesis (S.T.M.)--Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, 1988. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 124-130).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, 2010. / Title from dissertation title page (viewed May 20, 2010). Includes abstract. "Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Brite Divinity School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biblical Interpretation." Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (S.T.M.)--Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, 1988. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 124-130).

No description available.

M.A. / The theme of this thesis is mainly on the essence of repentance as exclusively revealed by the Synoptic Gospels. As a starting point, repentance is looked at against the backgrounds of the Old Testament and the Inter-testamental periods, which in this case are represented by JoIm the Baptist. Its climax and fulfilment are realized in and through the person and works of Jesus Christ, who embodies the kingdom of God. The Synoptics show a watershed in the history of repentance. According to them the difference came with the coming of the long awaited Messiah and the kingdom of God. They managed to demonstrate through their two main characters, John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, how repentance was first introduced and then fulfilled. The Synoptists have been realistic and honest in reporting the personal belief of John the Baptist about the awaited apocalyptic kingdom. It it is human and realistic for a person so to believe. Probably unaware, the Synoptics reveal the fallibility that people in general seem to have. Although there were personal human misunderstandings and misconceptions about the main message, repentance was constantly proclaimed. It is interesting how the Synoptists show the manner in which John's belief was later corrected by Jesus. The three Synoptists succeeded individually to show how John the Baptist made a follow-up on the Old Testament repentance and also introduced the fulfilment of it. Through John the Baptist's humble attitude towards Jesus, they commonly reflect the unfulfilled nature of repentance which requires a personal relationship with the Messiah. On the other side the Synoptists also go on to demonstrate the full magnitude of repentance in and through the person, works and teachings of Jesus Christ amongst the people. Here, they show a new meaning that repentance carries when looked at against the background of the kingdom of God. In the light of the latter, both the indicative and the imperative aspects of repentance are equally maitained. God's acts of love and compassion towards people challenge and expect people to respond in a similar fashion towards other people and God himself Their protagonist, Jesus, did acts of love out of concern for people and he in turn instructed every person to do likewise. Thus, according to the Synoptists, repentance should be both productive and maintained. The magnitude of repentance is further confirmed by the way the Synoptists display how Christ demonstrates in real situations and parables concepts like, "faith," "love," "discipleship" and "obedience to the commandments." In this case the Synoptists ought to be credited for showing the depth, width and height of repentance in a concrete way. To sum it up, repentance is finally shown by the Synoptics as are-orientation of a person's attitude towards both other people and God.

The goal of the thesis is to trace the sequence of materials of different origin in the synoptic Gospels through stylistic features. The question is whether an author's style is typical in the way it employs syntax. Using syntax, the thesis tests whether a sample can be correctly associated with one author, rather than incorrectly associated with another author. 'Syntax,' in this thesis, quite specifically intends 'an assessment of a very broad range of syntax.' The thesis reviews the literary debate over the 'synoptic problem,' finding that Luke knew and depended the triple tradition known to Mark. Luke did not know or use the unique parts of Mark. This set of materials, then, can be used to test whether syntax indicates a similar relationship. Regarding the literature on style in authorship attribution, the thesis develops principles for measuring style through syntax, and compares the distribution of the occurrence-the 'weighted sum of the logs of the ratio'--of syntax in each of three blocks of text. Such a distribution associates a reference block of text with the correct distribution from the distributions in two alternative texts offered. That is, a reference block drawn from the editorial layer in Mark proves to be closer to the remaining editorial layer in Mark (which is correct), than it proves to be to the editorial layer in Luke (which would be incorrect). This is at least a first step towards using this method with sources that appear in New Testament documents, even when they are small or fragmentary. The thesis then applies such an analysis to one of the clearest sources in the synoptic Gospels, namely, the 'triple tradition' as presented by Luke. The analysis is congruent with the results of literary criticism. This supports the idea that syntax can discern or define a source, and so it can help us understand more about the evolution of the New Testament. Nevertheless, the thesis finds that although Luke knew the 'triple tradition' that Mark used, yet Luke appears not to have fully relied on the version of the triple tradition that we know in, and as edited by Mark. / New Testament Studies / D.Th. (New Testament)

The goal of the thesis is to trace the sequence of materials of different origin in the synoptic Gospels through stylistic features. The question is whether an author's style is typical in the way it employs syntax. Using syntax, the thesis tests whether a sample can be correctly associated with one author, rather than incorrectly associated with another author. 'Syntax,' in this thesis, quite specifically intends 'an assessment of a very broad range of syntax.' The thesis reviews the literary debate over the 'synoptic problem,' finding that Luke knew and depended the triple tradition known to Mark. Luke did not know or use the unique parts of Mark. This set of materials, then, can be used to test whether syntax indicates a similar relationship. Regarding the literature on style in authorship attribution, the thesis develops principles for measuring style through syntax, and compares the distribution of the occurrence-the 'weighted sum of the logs of the ratio'--of syntax in each of three blocks of text. Such a distribution associates a reference block of text with the correct distribution from the distributions in two alternative texts offered. That is, a reference block drawn from the editorial layer in Mark proves to be closer to the remaining editorial layer in Mark (which is correct), than it proves to be to the editorial layer in Luke (which would be incorrect). This is at least a first step towards using this method with sources that appear in New Testament documents, even when they are small or fragmentary. The thesis then applies such an analysis to one of the clearest sources in the synoptic Gospels, namely, the 'triple tradition' as presented by Luke. The analysis is congruent with the results of literary criticism. This supports the idea that syntax can discern or define a source, and so it can help us understand more about the evolution of the New Testament. Nevertheless, the thesis finds that although Luke knew the 'triple tradition' that Mark used, yet Luke appears not to have fully relied on the version of the triple tradition that we know in, and as edited by Mark. / New Testament Studies / D.Th. (New Testament)