Synoptic objections

While your theory offers a fresh perspective on the Synoptic Problem, there are several potential objections that could be raised by scholars or critics of your approach. Here are some possible objections: 1. Overemphasis on Sensus Plenior

   Objection: Some scholars might argue that your theory places too much emphasis on sensus plenior (the deeper, Christ-centered meaning of Scripture) as the main hermeneutical key for understanding the Synoptic Gospels. While sensus plenior is a valid interpretive approach, critics might assert that it overcomplicates the relationship between the Gospels, suggesting that the textual similarities and differences can be adequately explained by more straightforward literary or historical methods, such as source criticism.
   Counterpoint: You could counter that sensus plenior provides a theological and Christocentric framework for understanding how the early Church interpreted Scripture and that this approach can account for both the unity and diversity of the Gospels.

2. Luke’s Omission of the Yeshua/Emmanuel Prophecy

   Objection: The argument that Luke omitted the Yeshua/Emmanuel prophecy due to the Greek-speaking Church’s lack of Hebrew knowledge may be challenged. Critics could suggest that Luke, as a well-educated physician (as per his portrayal in Acts), would have been familiar with Hebrew Scriptures and could have included the prophecy, but chose not to for other reasons—such as theological or thematic preferences.
   Counterpoint: In response, you could maintain that Luke’s omission was not theological but pragmatic, acknowledging the difficulty of conveying Hebrew word-play to a Greek-speaking audience. You could also explore how other aspects of Luke's Gospel, such as his emphasis on universality and the inclusion of Gentiles, align with the theory of limited Hebrew knowledge within his intended audience.

3. The Road to Emmaus as a Theological Catalyst

   Objection: The assertion that the sermon on the road to Emmaus triggered the disciples' decision to write the Gospels may be seen as speculative. While the event in Luke 24 is significant, critics may argue that there is insufficient biblical or historical evidence to claim that this moment directly led to the writing of the Gospels. Theories that attribute the origin of the Gospels to specific events or moments might be seen as over-simplified.
   Counterpoint: You could argue that the Emmaus event represents a pivotal moment in the disciples' understanding of the Old Testament and Christ's fulfillment of it. This catalytic moment could be viewed as part of a broader process in which the disciples gradually came to realize the significance of Christ in light of the Scriptures, prompting them to write about His life and teachings.

4. The Gradual Unveiling of Christ in the Gospels

   Objection: The idea that each Gospel represents a stage in a "progressive revelation" of Christ might be criticized for imposing an artificial structure on the Gospels. Critics may argue that the Gospels reflect different theological emphases and purposes rather than representing a linear development in the understanding of Christ. For example, John’s Gospel may not necessarily be the culmination of the Synoptic Gospels, as it is often seen as addressing different concerns and audiences.
   Counterpoint: You could respond by emphasizing that the "progressive revelation" is not about a simple chronological development but about a deepening theological reflection as the early Church grappled with the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. John’s Gospel, though distinct, could still be viewed as providing a more profound theological interpretation of Christ’s identity, complementing the Synoptic Gospels.

5. The Long Ending of Mark

   Objection: The theory that the long ending of Mark (16:9-20) was removed due to its riddle-like language and later reintegrated because of a misunderstanding could be contested. Critics may point to the manuscript evidence, which shows that the longer ending was present in some early manuscripts, but its absence in others could suggest that it was a later addition or interpolation rather than something that was originally part of Mark’s Gospel.
   Counterpoint: In response, you could argue that the long ending of Mark was indeed part of the original Gospel but was initially removed due to concerns about misinterpretations of the figurative language. The reinsertion may have been due to later Christians not fully understanding why it had been omitted and mistakenly thinking it was part of the original text. This approach acknowledges the complexity of manuscript traditions while maintaining the theological argument for the riddle-like nature of the passage.

6. The Use of the Synoptic Gospels in Early Christianity

   Objection: Some might argue that the theory does not fully account for the way in which early Christians used the Synoptic Gospels in their worship and teaching. If the Gospel writers were primarily concerned with a gradual unveiling of Christ through the Scriptures, critics might question why early Christians did not immediately embrace a more consistent or unified approach to these writings, leading to confusion over textual variants or theological discrepancies.
   Counterpoint: You could argue that the early Christian communities were still in the process of understanding and articulating their faith, and thus the Gospels reflected different stages in the process of discovering and interpreting the significance of Christ. The diversity in the Gospels, then, reflects the richness of this theological journey rather than inconsistency or confusion.

7. The Greek Church’s Disinterest in Hebrew

   Objection: The claim that the Greek-speaking Christians were not interested in learning Hebrew may be seen as an oversimplification. While it is true that Greek-speaking Christians may not have been as fluent in Hebrew, early Christian scholars and apologists, such as the Church Fathers, were deeply engaged with Hebrew Scriptures, and many Greek-speaking Christians were likely familiar with the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible).
   Counterpoint: You could counter that while some Greek-speaking Christians may have been familiar with the Septuagint, the deeper theological and linguistic nuances of the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., word play, puns, and typology) would have been lost on them. Luke’s omission of the Yeshua/Emmanuel prophecy could then be seen as a reflection of the broader community’s limited understanding of Hebrew.

In summary, while your theory offers a compelling and unique approach to the Synoptic Problem, these objections highlight areas where critics might challenge your conclusions. By addressing these potential objections, you can further refine and strengthen your thesis, offering more robust arguments to support your proposed solution.