Sermon Tone Analysis

Overall tone of the sermon

This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.17UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.16UNLIKELY
Fear
0.12UNLIKELY
Joy
0.51LIKELY
Sadness
0.53LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.86LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.58LIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.96LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.44UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.28UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.25UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.59LIKELY

Tone of specific sentences

Tones
Emotion
Anger
Disgust
Fear
Joy
Sadness
Language
Analytical
Confident
Tentative
Social Tendencies
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional Range
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
!  
! Introduction to The Parables of Jesus
In this course, I am continually excited at the prospect of uncovering the meaning of some of the most beautiful texts in the Scriptures with you.
We shall take a somewhat systematic approach to the parables beginning with some introductory material on the nature of parable.
Then we shall begin our study of the parables in earnest looking at the parables of the triple tradition.
From there we shall move to the parables of the double tradition.
And finally look at the bulk of the parables which occur in only a single source first Mark, then Matthew and finally Luke.
To begin, I would like to look briefly in review at the development of the gospel tradition and in particular the parable tradition.
Next I intend on examining the relationship of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke to each other, what is known as the Synoptic Problem.
This will form a basis for what follows.
Finally, this morning I will provide a general introduction to the literary form of Parable.
How can we spot one?
What makes a parable a parable?
So Let’s get started!!
!!!
The Development of the Gospel Tradition
!!!!
The Composition of the New Testament Books
The
!!!!
The Historical Truth of the Gospels
The
!!!
The Synoptic Problem
Before looking at the literary form of parable, we need to examine the relationship between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which is known in scholarship as the “Synoptic Problem.”
Let’s first take a look at this word Synoptic.
It comes from two Greek words, the preposition su
meaning ‘with’, or ‘together’, and the verb o(ra~/w which means to ‘look’ or to ‘see.’
Hence Synoptic means looking or seeing together.
This refers to the practice of many scholars since the 17th century of producing a text in which the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are laid out in parallel columns.
Such a text is known as a “synopsis” not because it is a summary, but because you can see the texts of the three Gospels together.
When they are laid out in this manner, one discovers striking word-for-word similarities in the Gospel text.
This raises the question of the literary relationship between these three texts, a question known as the “Synoptic Problem.”
Put plainly, was one of the Gospels a source for the other two?
Or was there a common source which was utilized by the authors of all three?
The arguments that have been put forth in solution to the “Synoptic Problem” are intricate and complex.
For our purposes here, I will present some basic threads of argument.
The arguments in favor a common source such as a primitive version of Matthew in Aramaic are at most conjectural and as such, I will not present them here.
!!!! Matthaean Priority     
The other possible solution is that one of the existing gospels is the source for the others.
Two possibilities have emerged—Matthew and Mark.
The argument for Matthaean priority has been strong since the time of Augustine who was its first proponent.
In contemporary scholarship it is held by W.R. Farmer, Bernard Orchard, and C.S. Mann who draw heavily upon the arguments of J.J. Griesbach.
One of the primary arguments in favor of Matthaean priority is the explanation of what have come to be known as minor agreements, i.e. texts in the triple tradition (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark.
Against the thesis of Matthaean priority is the fact that almost 95% of Mark’s text appears in Matthew, Luke, or both.
When Matthew and Luke disagree with each other in order of a text in the triple tradition, one of them always agrees with Mark.
Finally, if Matthew preceded Mark, then the author of Mark would have to have purposely eliminated many of the great texts of Matthew i.e. the Lord’s prayer and the Beatitudes.
!!!! Markan Priority
      As a result, most scholars today will posit Mark as the first of the Gospels to be written.
This is the thesis of Markan priority.
Mark thus becomes the source for the common material in Matthew and Luke.
This can be diagrammed as follows.
Mark
 
 
\\                              Matthew                     Luke
 
Such a hypothesis acknowledges the independence of Matthew and Luke, while at the same time explaining the common sections or “literary dependence” between the three Gospels.
!!!!
The Q Source
      A further question remains in our discussion of  “literary dependence” in the Synoptic gospels.
That is the question of the common elements of Matthew and Luke that do not appear in the text of Mark.
This is known as the “double tradition”  There are several texts in Matthew and Luke which are word for word the same that do not appear in the Markan text.
Hence, they cannot have Mark as their source.
How does one explain them?
Is there yet another common source that would have been used by the authors of Matthew and Luke in addition to Mark in the composition of their gospels?
Scholars have posited that there is such a source,  the “hypothetical” source Q.
It receives its name from the German word for Source, “Quelle.”
This produces the classic “Two source theory” It can be diagrammed as follows.
Mark                         Q
 
 
\\                              Matthew                     Luke
      The “two source theory” is a plausible solution to the Synoptic Problem as long as one does not push it too far.
Scholars have lined up the texts of Matthew Mark and Luke in parallel columns and have isolated the sections of Matthew and Luke which are word for word the same.
Through such “hypothetical reconstruction” they have isolated (what they think is) the source Q.
That is well and good.
However, there are some who then submit that hypothetical reconstruction to further analysis seeking to discover its sources etc.
This seems a bit constrained.
How can one do a source analysis on a hypothetical document.
Some have theorized that this “hypothetical” document must predate the Gospels and thus be a source of early Christian understanding.
It contains neither infancy narrative, nor resurrection narratives.
Hence the infancy and the resurrection traditions must be later traditions “invented” by the early Christian community.
It seems to me that by very definition, the document cannot contain them.
They must not appear in Mark, and they must be word for word the same in Matthew and Luke.
Is it not possible that Matthew and Luke had more sources at their disposal?
They could thus choose infancy and resurrection traditions that were from different sources.
Does that mean the events they narrate are a community invention?
I really don’t think so.
!!!!
The Four Source Theory
      The question of material in Matthew and Luke not accounted for in the two source theory led scholars to posit that indeed they had other sources.
For lack of a better nomenclature, they chose to identify these sources as M (Matthew’s specific material) and L (Luke’s specific material).
Joining these to Mark and Q, we have the classic “four source theory.”
It can be diagrammed as follows.
Mark                          Q
 
            M                    Matthew                     Luke                     L
!!!!  
!!!! Conclusion
      The generally accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem today is the Four Source theory.
It allows for Markan priority, it explains the common material between Matthew and Luke not in Mark, and it accounts for the material that is unique to Matthew and Luke.
Further, there is nothing in the theory that would preclude some material from M or L being in Q.
However, by definition of Q, that would not be possible.
You now can see how the division of our series came about.
It is based on the four source theory.
Each week we will look at parables in one of the four sources.
!!!
The Literary Form of Parable
Now that we have some idea of the development of the Gospel Tradition and the Synoptic Problem, I would like to give an example of parable in a contemporary form.
It is an Irish rebel song entitled, “Four Green Fields.”
Some of you may have heard it, but I would suspect that many have not.
That makes it a good candidate for this exercise.
(Hand out the words, and play the tape of “Four Green Fields”)
Can anyone tell me what this song is about?
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9