New Testament Summary Paper 1-5

NEW TESTAMENT SUMMARY PAPER Student’s name Course Date Lecture One According to Lecture One, scholars employ several analytical tools to understand the styles, wording, and events that characterized the writing of the four gospels of the New Testament. When scholars employ lower criticism, they sort and compare existing manuscripts in order to reconstruct the original text as accurately as possible. When they use higher criticism, scholars aim to explain the process that marked the composition of the original document. Other methods of interpreting the gospels according to Brown include textual criticism, historical criticism, form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, structuralism, narrative criticism, social criticism, rhetorical criticism, and advocacy criticism. As learned from Brown, a combination of the different approaches ensures that no one method becomes exclusive in interpreting the New Testament. Notheneless, the advocacy criticism is interesting and relevant in the sense that it can be applied to change socio-political situations.[BIBLIOGRAPHY \l 1033 Brown, Raymond E. 1997. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday., 21-27] [Brown, 28] A key concept in the lecture is the synoptic problem, which describes the similarities and differences between the gospels of Mark, Luke, and Matthew. While the older approach to the study of the gospels focused on the harmony of the four books, new approaches sought to analyze the similarities and differences between them. Given the similarities and differences among the gospels, various approaches have been developed to try to solve the synoptic problem. Statistically, 80% of the verses in Mark were reproduced in Matthew while 65% were reproduced in Luke. In essence, as observed in the lecture, almost all of the content in Mark is found in Matthew and or Luke. Interestingly, Matthew and Luke have commonalities that cannot be found in Mark, despite the two books having significant similarities with Mark as determined above. One key theory that has been advanced to explain the synoptic is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. However, this approach does not explain the differences. According to Brown, another theory is that the three gospels drew from the Aramaic Gospel that is no longer in existence.[Brown, 111] [Brown, 112.] Scholars have also sought to base their interpretations on the assumption that Matthew was the first Gospel and Luke drew from it. However, this approach is limited in the sense that Mark omits the Double Tradition that characterizes Matthew and Luke. Scholars have also used the Makcan priority to try to explain the synoptic problem. As noted by Brown, the Markan priority approach is supported by the idea that Luke and Matthew drew from Mark but wrote independently of one another. Markan priority is supported by the fact that Mark has the poorest Greek, and therefore, Luke and Matthew must have improved upon it. Furthermore, the sayings in Mark are harder, and some of these difficult sayings are not found in Luke and Mathew. Finally, the fact that the gospel of Mark is less developed lends some credence to the Markan priority approach.[Brown, 112.] [Brown, 114.] There are also other theories that seek to address the synoptic problem. One such theory is the Greisbach theory, which holds that Matthew wrote his first, followed by Mark who condensed content from Matthew, and finally Luke utilized both Matthew and Mark. This is the oldest theory and prevailed up to the 18th century. Another theory is the Two-Source Theory that is based on Markan priority and Q is posited to account for what Luke and Matthew have in common but did not derive from Mark. Although there are several theories trying to explain the synoptic problem, Brown contends that there is no solution that solves all the difficulties. However, the author recommends to the reader the Two-Source Theory based on Markan priority.[Brown, 115] Lecture Two Lecture Two focused on the history and culture of the New Testament. It is important to recognize King David's reign (1000-960 BC) as laying the foundation for the events that eventually led to the development of the New Testament. After the split of the Kingdom under King Solomon's son, Rehoboam, into Judah and Israel, many kings led both kingdoms. During the Hellenistic period in Palestine, the Jews were dominated by the Egyptian Ptolemaic dynasty (301-200 BC) and later by Syria’s Seleucid dynasty (200-129 BC). A defeat of the Syrians in 190 BC by the Romans, led to heavy war indemnity imposition on them. This was translated to the Palestinian Jews who were taxed heavily by the Syrians. As a result, under the leadership of Mattathias and his sons, the Jews had to revolt for 35 years. At least three of Mattathias' sons (Simon, Jonathan, Judas Maccabeus, John, and Eleazar) participated in the revolt against the Syrians. They attained victory in 164 BC when they retook Jerusalem, with Jonathan becoming the high priest later in 152 BC. During the Hasmomean/Maccabean dynasty, the rulers were John Hyrcanus (135-105/4 BC), Aristobulus I (104-103 BC), Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC), and Salome Alexandra (76-67 BC).[Brown, 56] [Brown, 57] [Brown, 57] Romans took over in 63 BC with Hyrcanus II (63–41) being favored as the high priest because he was weak. Herod ambitiously utilized brutality and murder to become King of Judea in 37 BC. Herod focused on building projects, killed even his sons and Bethlehem babies, and died of stomach disease in 4 BC. After Herod's death, the kingdom was divided amongst his three sons: Archalaus, Antipas, and Philip. It is important to recognize that this happened under the reign of the Roman Empire, which had been founded way back in 753 BC by Romulus and Remus. The Roman occupation of Judea was characterized by Judaism religion being recognized by Rome. In essence, given the power of Rome, the Judeans experienced peace but were still oppressed as Rome was perceived to be unconquerable. In addition, they were waiting for Messiah to rescue them. The Roman Empire was a collection of cities, and Brown notes that most Christians described in the New Testament were in cities. When it comes to language, the Jews initially spoke Hebrew. However, with the influence of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic period, Greek became a common language. Key social immoralities during the New Testament period included Hedonism, sexual sins, brutality, and slavery. Patron-client institutions also characterized the Jewish culture, with the patron having more power and the client being expected to honor the patron.[Brown, 64] The Roman household was characterized by a family led by a male head, a maximum of three children, and the presevance of family honor. In this sense, key members of the household included the husband, wife, unmarried children, freedmen, clients, and slaves. When it com...