Allen,
O. Wesley, Jr. Reading the SynopticGospels: Basic Methods for Interpreting Matthew, Mark, and Luke. St. Louis,
MO, Chalice Press, 2013.
This
book has a good explanation about the term of biblical theology. So I could
easily understand, because the author’s general writing is simple and easy. I
like the author who write an easy sentence even though he has great knowledge.
This book is really helpful to me, I think not only to me also to the word
lover who desire to dig well the meaning of the word of God. First of all, it was very helpful to know how
to establish the pericope, because it was very difficult to build the text for
me especially the books of the Gospel.
And
I can sense that the author really wants to help his readers to be prepared
well for the exegesis of God’s word. He suggests that we need to understand all
the vocabulary, references in the periscope, and also the historical, social
background of course. For this, he gives us good advice that the Gospels are
historical bound and it contains historical elements, but we need to know, the
Gospels are not the history books. Their goal is not giving historical
information, but it is in the preaching the gospel of Christ. Therefore, it is
good to focus on the type of social and historical question rather than to know
every detail of the social and historical background.
The
author’s explanation about that Matthew and Luke how they used Mark’s
information also very easily understandable. He said, Matthew and Luke
independently used the Gospel of Mark as their primary source for composing
their own narratives. So that they followed some of Mark’s outline, modified
parts, and radically departed from it in some sections of their narratives. I
like this explanation. This is because I can know that, they didn’t just use
the gospel of Mark, but for their emphasis on the Jesus Christ, they used some
from Mark or depart from it very dynamic in the freedom of the Spirit. It helps
me to
understand about
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
In
facts, my understanding of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is that almost
passive form. I thought that the author of the Bible has no freedom to use
their own expression, or the theology, thoughts. They must write right word
what they heard from God. Because of this idea, for me, it was very difficult
to understand that the author’s of the Bible omitting, adding, put in their
theological emphasis. Now, I can adjust those things through this book.
But
still, there are some that difficult to understand. Allen says that, in this
situation we can see that Matthew and Luke valued Mark enough to depend on it
greatly, however, changed it, because they ultimately found it inadequate
theologically. Well, then, how can we accept or treat the gospel of Mark. If
they found it ultimately inadequate theologically?
Though
the author of this book, I could understand what is redaction criticism,
because his explanation is so good. But, the editorial work of the gospel
writers, the redaction criticism that the person who stands behind the text
change this word, or why did he add/omit that phrasing, periscope, or section,
what is the theological reason for his editorial work, is still challengeable
for me to accept it.
In
any way, it is important to catch up the intention of the editorial work, we
have to study every significant vocabulary, topic, character, and place in our
passage. And for this Allen gives us tip that even small things become
significant when it used repeatedly. And he suggests that we need to, have to
read the entire gospel through to discover editorial patterns are more linked
to themes than to vocabulary. This suggestion that the author gives us is very
practical and important point I think. Therefore, for the serious digging the
word of God, especially, the Synoptic, we have to read through Matthew, Mark,
or Luke quickly in one sitting.
About the genre of Synoptic, Allen
examines as narrative. He also says that the gospel share historical but are
not history, more focus on Jesus but more than biographies. And they proclaim
the good news of the Christ, but they are not sermons. Also, Gospel share
theological, but the Gospels are not theological treatises. Therefore, the
author’s conclusion about the Gospels’ genre as narrative.
But as the author’s logic, the
Gospel contains stories, but it is difficult to see the genre of the Gospels as
narrative. This is because there are many things in the Gospels as Allen says. It
contains sermon, history, narratives, commandments, lessons. I think it is
unique. So, as my understanding, it is more reasonable to know the genre as the
Gospel itself as some scholars suggest rather than narrative.
The last question that “what this
Scripture passage means to me?” to answer this question, not only for the
sermon, but also for the personal reflection, we need to exegesis. And we have
to try to get right answer for this question. But more I study the word, especially,
the Synoptic passage which has layers meaning, I can see more my limitation.
Especially, it is very hard to reset my mindset to understand fully about what
the scholars argue or determine about it. But I believe that I am in the
process to extend my understanding for that, as long as, I do not stop to study
about it.
Written by Sue
๋๊ธ
๋๊ธ ์ฐ๊ธฐ