| |
REB_NTI. Chapter 6.
Gospels
in General;
Synoptic Gospels in Particular
Use of the Word "Gospel"
Portraits of Jesus.
Origin of the Gospel Genre
The Three Stages of Gospel Formation
This Chapter deals with two interrelated problems. There is a serious
debate about the extent to which the literary genre of a Gospel is unique
to Christianity or is a modification of the pattern of Jewish lives of
the prophets or of Pagan biographies.1 The answer in part depends on the
relationship of the Gospels to Jesus: Does the earliest canonical Gospel
derive from memories of what Jesus did and said in his lifetime, or is
it mostly an imaginative creation retrojecting beliefs about the postresurrectional
Jesus into his lifetime? The first three subdivisions of this Chapter
will treat general Gospel questions: Use of the word "gospel";
Origin of the Gospel genre; and the Three stages of Gospel formation.
Beyond the general picture there are questions about the Synoptic Gospels
in particular. The very close parallels among these three Gospels suggest
borrowing from one another, but in what direction? Was Mark the earliest
Gospel, so that Mt and Luke drew upon it? Or was Mark a digest from Mt
and Luke? Were Mt and Luke written independently of each other, or did
the Lucan writer draw on Mt (as well as on Mark)? Two final subdivisions
will treat the Synoptic problem and the Existence of "Q."
Use of the Word "Gospel"
In NT times euaggelion ("good announcement," the word we translate
"gospel") did not refer to a book or writing but to a proclamation
or message. This is understandable given the background of the term. Words
related to it were employed in non Christian Greek for good news, especially
news of victory in battle; and in the imperial cult the emperor's birth
and presence constituted good news for the Roman world. LXX words related
to euaggelion translate words from the Hebrew bsr, which has a similar
range of proclaiming good news, especially of Israel's victory or God's
victory. More {100} widely it can cover the proclamation of God's glorious
acts on behalf of Israel.
Scholars debate whether Jesus himself used "gospel" to describe
his proclamation of the kingdom. Certainly his followers did, with an
emphasis that the good news involved what God had done in Jesus. In Rm
1:3-4 Paul describes his gospel in terms that were probably already known
to the Romans; it comprises the twofold identity of Jesus, namely, from
the seed of David according to the flesh, and designated Son of God in
power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection of/from the
dead. More commonly for Paul the heart of the gospel is centered in Jesus'
suffering/death/resurrection and its power for justification and ultimately
salvation (Rm 1:16).
Mk 1:1 opens his account with the words: "The beginning of the gospel
of Jesus Christ." The good news of what God has done, once proclaimed
to Israel, will now be proclaimed in and through Jesus Christ to all the
nations (13:10). It involves the kingdom or rule of God that is made present
in Jesus' forgiving sins, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, raising
the dead, calming storms - a kingdom/rule proclaimed in his teachings
and parables that seek to point out and counteract human obstacles. Jesus
is a king whom God makes triumphant even when enemies have crucified him.
While neither Mt nor Luke begins in the same way as Mark, their basic
gospel outlook is much the same. Matthew has Jesus proclaiming the gospel
of the kingdom (Mt 4:23; Mt 9:35; Mt 24:14), Mt and Luke uses the verbal
form euaggelizein ("to proclaim the good news") to describe
this activity (Lk 8:1; Lk 16:16). Since both these writings commence with
two chapters of infancy story, their version of the good news also involves
the marvelous conception and birth of Jesus (e.g., Lk 2:10). Although
John has content about Jesus similar to that of the Synoptics, neither
euaggelion nor the verbal form appears. However I John (1 Jn 1:5; 1 Jn
3:11) uses the related term aggelia ("message") which may have
been the Johannine designation for what we know as the Gospel according
to John.
The 2d century furnishes attestation of euaggelion
employed for Christian writings.2 The plurality of written gospels necessitated
the utilization of distinguishing designations, and so by the end of the
2d century titles were prefaced to the canonical Gospels in the pattern
"The Gospel according to..." (For the debate about the number
of authentic Gospels, see p. 13 above.) The existence of gospels beyond
the canonical is a question complicated by issues of terminology: (a)
Relatively few noncanonical works call {101} themselves gospels. For instance,
the Protevangelium (i.e., Protogospel) of James, most of the Nag Hammadi
collection, and what we have of the Gospel of Peter do not describe themselves
as "gospel"; (b) The title "gospel" has been used
to refer to noncanonical works independently of their self-designation.
Sometimes the usage is neutral and intended simply to designate a work
about Jesus, as distinct from epistles, apocalypses, etc. Sometimes the
usage is tendentious, wishing to claim for a noncanonical work rank equal
to that of a canonical work. In antiquity this might have been a claim
of those whom the larger church designated as heretics; today it is sometimes
the practice of revisionist scholars trying to dethrone the canon. As
an example of the wideness of use, under the title The Complete Gospels
R. J. Miller (ed.) gives the text of seventeen works (plus some loose
sayings): the four canonical Gospels; two completely hypothetical reconstructions
(a collection of signs from John, and Q from Mt and Luke); four fragments
of papyrus that bear no self-designation; two works about Jesus' infancy,
neither of which designates itself a gospel; four Nag Hammadi collections
of sayings, none of which in its own text designates itself a gospel;3
and the Secret Gospel of Mark that Clement of Alexandria describes as
a conflated form of canonical Mark.
Because of these terminological complications it may be useful to keep
distinct two categories: "Jesus material" (infancy and passion
narratives, sayings collections, miracle collections, discourses attributed
to the risen Jesus - without arguing whether or not they were called "gospels"
in antiquity or should be called that today); and "gospels,"
i.e., full narratives such as we encounter in the four canonical writings
(covering at least a span of public ministry/passion/resurrection, and
combining miracles and sayings).4 Let me emphasize that this distinction
is only a judgment of utility for the sake of the following discussion
about the genre of full narrative "gospels," not a prejudicial
judgment relative to the value or antiquity of the "Jesus material."
{102}
Origin of the Gospel Genre
How did the idea of writing the Gospels come about? Did it have its origin
in the OT? Was it an imitation of a Greco-Roman genre? Was it a unique
creative insight of Mark, with the implication that Matthew, Luke, and
John then copied Mark's approach? Or was it rather a natural development
from early Christian preaching so that the basic idea could be preMarcan
and more widespread? Scholars have tended to advocate with exclusiveness
one or the other of those approaches.5 Let me explain elements that contribute
to the various solutions, holding open the possibility of combining some
of them.
Origin in the OT and Jewish developments derivative from the OT. Swartley,
Israel's Scripture, contends that the structure of the Synoptic Gospels
was dictated by the OT story of God's dealing with Israel. In the Book
of Jeremiah, one has the prophet's background and dating (1:1-3), a report
of his call (including a reference to God's planning before he was born:
1:4-10), an account of his words or speeches and of his prophetic actions
(see especially his actions and words in the Temple area in chap. 7),
warnings of impending doom for Jerusalem, and a type of passion narrative
(chaps. 26, 37-38). Although the proportion of Jeremiah's oracular speeches
is much higher than that of Jesus' words in the canonical Gospels, the
Book of Jeremiah illustrates the joining in one work of many elements
that are joined in the Gospels. By the 1st century ad we find a Jewish
work, the Lives of the Prophets,6 which recounts a few or many details
about the various prophets: e.g, birth, signs, dramatic deeds, death,
and burial place. Probably written in Greek, this work may reflect the
influence of the ancient biographies we now describe. (Readers are cautioned
not to think of modern biographies.)
Origin in imitation of secular biographies. Among the abundant Greco-Roman
literature of the centuries immediately before and after Christ were various
types of biography, e.g., Plutarch's Lives of famous Greeks and Romans,
Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars, Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana,
and Diogenes Laertius' Lives of the Ancient Philosophers.7 Those proposed
as counterparts to the Gospels have divergent tonalities.
First, scholars sometimes speak of "aretalogy" as a special
genre of biog- {103} raphy where a divine man (theios aner) with preternatural
gifts works miracles. Despite the appeal to Philostratus, it is not clear
that such a definable genre existed; and many of the parallels are post
Marcan. Second, Shuler, Genre, points to the "laudatory biography"
where the primary concern was to show the greatness of the figure. In
the case of the philosophers especially, there is emphasis on their teachings
and an idealization of the noblest in their life, designed to encourage
appreciation and imitation. However, diversities among the proposed laudatory
biographies have to be overlooked to isolate such a subgenre, and so its
definability is uncertain. Third, Talbert, What, considers the portrayal
of "immortals" and of "eternals." Humans (sometimes
sired by gods) could become immortals at death, whereas eternals were
divine beings who descended to earth, lived as humans, and then ascended
to heaven again. He contends that Matthew, Mark, and Luke present Jesus
as an immortal, whereas John portrays him as an eternal - a comparison
that needs serious qualification.8
In fact, considerable differences exist between Greco-Roman biographies
and the Gospels, specifically in the latter's anonymity, their clear theological
emphasis and missionary goal,9 their anticipated ecclesiology, their composition
from community tradition, and their being read in community worship. Especially
Mark differs from a biography pattern that would highlight the unusual
birth and early life of the hero, plus his triumph - or if he was unjustly
treated, his fearless and noble acceptance. However, these dissimilarities
between the Gospels and Greco-Roman biography are observable from the
scholarly point of view and take into account what the evangelists probably
intended. It is likely that many lst-century hearers/readers familiar
with Greco-Roman biographies would not have been so precise and would
have thought of the Gospels almost as lives of Christ, particularly Mt
and Luke which begin with an infancy narrative.
Creativity and the Gospels. If Mark was the earliest Gospel, was the Gospel
a unique Marcan creation? Despite the suggestions in the two preceding
paragraphs, there is a uniqueness to the Gospels. Even though the idea
of writing a description of Jesus' career might have been catalyzed by
the existence of lives of the prophets, famous philosophers, and world
figures, what is narrated about Jesus is scarcely governed by a simple
desire to {104} provide information (although there is an element of that
in Luke (1:3-4), the closest of the four Gospels to a Greco-Roman biography)
or to encourage emulation. As we saw above in discussing the word euaggelion,
there is a sense in which what is reported is to receive a response of
faith and to bring salvation. To a considerable degree John's statement
of purpose in Jn 20:31 fits all the Gospels, "These things are written
that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that
believing you may have life in his name." The appearance of the word
euaggelion in Paul covering a content that would have a similar purpose
(Rm 1:1-4; 1 Co 15:1-8; cf.1 Co 11:23-26) means that Mark was certainly
not the first to put together Jesus material for a salvific purpose, even
though his was the earliest preserved full narrative.
How much ingenuity was required to construct a full gospel narrative about
Jesus? The answer depends in part on the historicity of the narrative:
Largely fiction, or largely fact? (I shall describe historical-Jesus research
briefly in Appendix I, which develops many observations made in this paragraph.)
On the one hand, a variety of scholars would judge much of what Mark narrates
as fiction. For some the passion narrative is fictional, largely created
from reflections on the OT. For some Jesus was a wisdom teacher, and the
narratives of miracles and resurrection were propagandists creations in
order to make Jesus competitive with other wonder-working figures. For
some Jesus was a magician who healed by various means, and the wisdom
teaching was a creation in order to make him respectable. Were any of
this true, much creativity would have been required to move from what
Jesus was in fact to the plausible but very different picture painted
in the Gospels. (In Appendix I, however, we shall see how tenuous is the
evidence on which many of these claims are made.) On the other hand, an
even larger number of scholars would judge much of what Mark narrates
as factual. Suppose that Jesus was baptized by JBap and did proclaim the
coming of God's kingdom both by sayings/parables that challenged people's
entrenched attitudes and by healing the sick and expelling what he regarded
as demons; suppose that he aroused the antipathy of Jewish leaders by
exercising too sovereign a freedom toward the Law, by claiming to speak
for God in a way they regarded as arrogant, and by challenging Temple
administration through actions and warnings - then Jesus himself would
have supplied the kinds of material that ultimately went into the Gospels,
no matter how much that material developed over the decades that separated
him from the evangelists.10 {105}
Portraits of Jesus.
Nevertheless, even in the latter understanding
the production of Gospels required selection from the Jesus material.
Accordingly it is helpful to keep distinct three portraits: the actual
Jesus, the historical Jesus, and the Gospel Jesus. A portrait of the actual
Jesus would involve everything of interest about him:11 exact dates of
birth and death; revealing details about his parents and family; how he
got along with them and how he grew up; how and where he worked for a
living before he began preaching; what he looked like; what his preferences
were in food and drink; whether he got sick from time to time; whether
he was humorous, friendly, and liked by villagers of Nazareth, etc. We
have nothing like that detail in the Gospels, and the very lack of it
is why many scholars resist describing the Gospels as biographies or lives
of Christ. Awareness of that deficiency is important for readers who might
otherwise approach the Gospels in the same way they would approach the
life of a famous modern figure, without any sense of tendentious Gospel
selectivity.
A portrait of the historical Jesus is a scholarly construct based on reading
beneath the Gospel surface and stripping off all interpretations, enlargements,
and developments that could possibly have taken place in the thirty to
seventy years that separated his public ministry and death from the written
Gospels. The validity of the construct depends on the criteria employed
by the investigating scholars. The detailed recognition that the Gospel
picture reflects developments beyond Jesus' lifetime was first and most
ardently promoted in the last two centuries by skeptics who wished to
challenge traditional Christian theology; and so the initial quest for
the historical Jesus had a debunking tone, as if the Christ of faith had
little to do with the Jesus of history. Still today leaders of "the
Jesus Seminar" (Appendix I) have publicly stated a goal of liberating
Jesus from the church's proclamation of him. In fact, however, as illustrated
by Meier, Marginal, investigation of the historical Jesus, while it can
never be purely objective, needs not be slanted by such prejudices. Indeed,
given our modern curiosity this investigation is inevitable and justifiable
and even helpful - a point that some who criticize the {106} excesses
of the Jesus Seminar (e.g., L. T. Johnson) do not seem to appreciate sufficiently.
Yet cautions are needed in such investigation. The portrait of the historical
Jesus is a construct based on limited evidence and designed to produce
a minimalist view that can be scientifically agreed on. It can give us
at most a tiny fraction of the detail and coloring of the actual Jesus,
and it will constantly change as scholarly method is refined or revised.
Since the investigation strips off the christological appreciation of
Jesus by his followers, the two-dimensional picture that emerges will
be singularly lacking in theological and spiritual depth and almost surely
will be partially distorted because it will reflect what the investigators
wish to highlight. The notion that Christian faith should depend on reconstructions
of the historical Jesus is a dangerous misunderstanding.
The Gospel Jesus refers to the portrait painted by an evangelist. It stems
from his highly selective arrangement of Jesus material in order to promote
and strengthen a faith that would bring people closer to God. The evangelist
included only information that served that purpose, and the needs of the
envisioned audience affected both contents and presentation. That is why
the Gospels written by different evangelists for different audiences in
different decades had to differ.
It may be noted that in giving names to the three pictures of Jesus I
have refrained from speaking of "the real Jesus," a designation
that has connotations both of truth and value. The life of the real Jesus
attracted and convinced disciples who proclaimed him throughout the known
world. How do the portraits of the actual Jesus, the historical Jesus,
and the Gospel Jesus match up to "real" in that sense? Major
aspects of the actual Jesus are unre-ported and thus unknowable; functionally,
then, this picture of Jesus can only be partly real to subsequent generations.
Because of what it excludes, especially of a religious and theological
nature, the depiction of the historical Jesus (or better the "reconstructed
Jesus") is the farthest from giving us the real Jesus. As we shall
see in Appendix I, it is hard to see how the historical Jesus reconstructed
by many scholars would attract the ardent commitment to the point of death
that we know Jesus evoked from those who had known him. If one accepts
that the portraits in the Gospels retain significant amounts of material
from the actual Jesus and their missionary goal was not alien to his,
then those portraits are as close to the real Jesus as we are likely to
get. As stated in the Foreword, this Introduction is meant to acquaint
readers with what in fact exists in the NT. Primarily, therefore, it will
be concerned with the Jesus of the Gospels. Working with views held by
most middle-of-the-road scholars rather than with the highly speculative,
the next subsection will expound in simplified form a theory of three
stages that con- {107} tributed to the Gospel presentations of Jesus.12
In terms of helping those who are not specialists to understand the Gospels,
this is the most important part of the Chapter.
The Three Stages of Gospel
Formation
(1) The public ministry or activity of Jesus of Nazareth (the first third
of the 1st century ad). He did things of note, orally proclaimed his message,
and interacted with others (e.g., JBap and Jewish religious figures).
Jesus chose companions who traveled with him and saw and heard what he
said and did. Their memories of his words and deeds supplied the raw "Jesus
material." These memories were already selective since they concentrated
on what pertained to Jesus' proclamation of God, not the many trivia of
ordinary existence (or elements of the "actual Jesus"). On a
practical level it is important for modern readers to keep reminding themselves
that these were memories of what was said and done by a Jew who lived
in Galilee and Jerusalem in the 20s. Jesus' manner of speaking, the problems
he faced, his vocabulary and outlook were those of that specific time
and place. Many failures to understand Jesus and misapplications of his
thoughts stem from the fact that Gospel readers remove him from space
and time and imagine that he was dealing with issues he never encountered.13
There can even be a sophisticated form of misrepresenting Jesus by imposing
on him categories that really do not fit, e.g., peasant14 or freedom-fighter.
(2) The (apostolic) preaching about Jesus (the second third of the 1st
century ad). Those who had seen and heard Jesus had their following of
him {108} confirmed through postresurrectional appearances (1 Co 15:5-7);
and they came to full faith in the risen Jesus as the one through whom
God had manifested ultimate salvific love to Israel and eventually to
the whole world - a faith they vocalized through confessional titles (Messiah/Christ,
Lord, Savior, Son of God, etc.)- That postresurrectional faith illumined
the memories of what they had seen and heard during the preresurrectional
period; and so they proclaimed his words and deeds with enriched significance.
(Modern readers, accustomed to a media goal of uninvolved, factual reporting,
need to recognize the very different atmosphere of early Christian preaching.)
We speak of these preachers as "apostolic" because they understood
themselves as sent forth (apostelleiri) by the risen Jesus, and their
preaching is often described as kerygmatic proclamation (kerygma) intended
to bring others to faith. Eventually the circle of missionary preachers
was enlarged beyond the original companions of Jesus, and the faith experiences
of newcomers like Paul enriched what was received and proclaimed.
Another factor operative in this stage of development was the necessary
adaptation of the preaching to a new audience. If Jesus was a Galilean
Jew of the first third of the 1st century who spoke Aramaic, by midcentury
his gospel was being preached in the diaspora to urban Jews and Gentiles
in Greek, a language that he did not normally speak (if he spoke it at
all). This change of language involved translation in the broadest sense
of that term, i.e., a rephrasing in vocabulary and patterns that would
make the message intelligible and alive for new audiences. Sometimes the
rephrasing (which has left visible traces in the written Gospels) affected
incidentals, e.g., a type of tile roof familiar to a Greek audience in
Lk 5:19, as contrasted with the Palestinian-style roof through which a
hole was opened in Mk 2:4. But other rephrasing had theological repercussions,
e.g., the choice of soma, "body" for the eucharistic component
in the Synoptics and 1 Co 11:24 (as distinct from the more literal translation
sarx, "flesh" in Jn 6:51 and Ignatius, Romans 7:3). That choice
may have facilitated the figurative use of body in the theology of the
body of Christ of which Christians are members (1Co 12:12-27). Thus developments
in the Jesus tradition were promoting the growth of Christian theology.
Most often "preaching" serves as the umbrella term for this
second stage of Gospel development, although other formative elements
contributed to the Gospel end-products. For instance, liturgy or worship
became part of Christian life as seen in Gospel baptismal and eucharistic
formulas. The shaping of material by catechesis can be detected in Matthew
Community controversies supplied coloration, e.g., struggles with Jewish
synagogue leaders (in Matthew and John) and internally with some who cry
"Lord, Lord" in Mt 7:21 (against spiritual enthusiasts?). {109}
(3) The written Gospels (the last third of the 1st century, approximately).
Although in the middle of the previous period as the Jesus material was
being preached some early written collections (now lost) would have appeared,
and although preaching based on oral preservation and development of the
Jesus material continued well into the 2d century,15 the era 65-100 was
probably when all four canonical Gospels were written. As for the evangelists
or Gospel writers/authors, according to traditions stemming from the 2d
century and reflected in titles prefaced to the Gospels ca. 200 or even
earlier, two Gospels were attributed to apostles (Matthew and John) and
two to apostolic men (i.e., companions of the apostles: Mark (of Peter)
and Luke (of Paul)). Yet most modern scholars do not think that the evangelists
were eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus. This surely represents a change
of view; 16;16 but the denial of the tradition may not be so sharp as
it first seems, for the early traditions about authorship may not always
have referred to the evangelist who composed the final Gospel. Ancient
attribution may have been concerned with the one responsible for the tradition
preserved and enshrined in a particular Gospel (i.e., to the authority
behind the Gospel), or to the one who wrote one of the main sources of
the Gospel. See p. 209 below for the problem of what Papias meant when
he stated, "Matthew arranged in order the sayings (logia) in the
Hebrew (= Aramaic?) language, and each one interpreted/translated them
as he was able" (EH 3:39.16).
The recognition that the evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry
is important for understanding the differences among the Gospels. In the
older approach, wherein the evangelists themselves were thought to have
seen what they reported, it was very difficult to explain differences
among their Gospels. How could eyewitness John (chap. 2) report the cleansing
of the Temple at the beginning of the ministry and eyewitness Matthew
(chap. 21) report the cleansing of the Temple at the end of the ministry?
In order to reconcile them, interpreters would contend that the Temple-cleansing
happened twice and that each evangelist chose to report only one of the
two instances.17 However, if neither evangelist was an eyewitness and
each had received an account of the Temple-cleansing from an intermediate
source, neither one (or only one) may have known when it occurred during
the public {110} ministry. Rather than depending on a personal memory
of events, each evangelist has arranged the material he received in order
to portray Jesus in a way that would meet the spiritual needs of the community
to which he was addressing the Gospel. Thus the Gospels have been arranged
in logical order, not necessarily in chronological order. The evangelists
emerge as authors, shaping, developing, pruning the transmitted Jesus
material, and as theologians, orienting that material to a particular
goal.
Corollaries of this approach to Gospel formation would include the following:
Ø The Gospels are not literal records of the ministry of Jesus.
Decades of devel oping and adapting the Jesus tradition had intervened.
How much develop ment? That has to be determined by painstaking scholarship
which most often produces judgments ranging from possibility to probability,
but rarely cer tainty.
Ø A thesis that does not present the Gospels as literal history
is sometimes inter preted to mean that they are not true accounts of Jesus.
Truth, however, must be evaluated in terms of the intended purpose. The
Gospels might be judged untrue if the goal was strict reporting or exact
biography; but if the goal was to bring readers/hearers to a faith in
Jesus that opens them to God's rule or kingdom, then adaptations that
make the Gospels less than literal (adding the dimension of faith, adjusting
to new audiences) were made precisely to facili tate that goal and thus
to make the Gospels true.
Ø To some such an approach to Gospel truth is unsatisfactory since,
if there have been developments and adaptations, how do we know that the
Gospels offer a message faithful to that of Jesus? Scholars cannot be
certain guides since they disagree widely on the amount of alteration,
ranging from major to minor. This is a theological issue, and so a theological
answer is appropriate. Those who believe in inspiration will maintain
that the Holy Spirit guided the pro cess, guaranteeing that the end-product
Gospels reflect the truth that God sent Jesus to proclaim.
Ø Much time has been spent in the history of exegesis harmonizing
Gospel dif ferences, not only in minor matters but also on a large scale,
e.g., trying to make one, sequential narrative out of the very different
Matthean and Lucan infancy narratives, or out of Luke's account of appearances
of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem and Matthew's account of an appearance
on a mountain in Galilee. Besides asking whether this is possible, we
need to ask whether such harmoni zation is not a distortion. In an outlook
of faith, divine providence furnished {111} four different Gospels, not
a harmonized version; and it is to the individual Gospels, each with its
own viewpoint, that we should look. Harmonization, instead of enriching,
can impoverish.
In the last half of the 20th century respect for the individuality of
each Gospel had an effect on church liturgy or ritual. Many churches have
followed the lead of the Roman Catholic liturgical reformation in introducing
a three-year lectionary where in the first year the Sunday Gospel readings
are taken from Matthew, in the second year from Mark, and in the third
year from Luke. In the Roman church this replaced a one-year lectionary
where without any discernible theological pattern the reading was taken
one Sunday from Matthew, another Sunday from Luke etc. A major factor
in making the change was the recognition that Gospel pericopes should
be read sequentially within the same Gospel if one is to do justice to
the theological orientation given to those passages by the individual
evangelist. For instance, a parable that appears in all three Synoptic
Gospels can have different meanings depending on the context in which
each evangelist has placed it.
The Synoptic Problem
A further stage in Gospel development is required to explain the interrelationship
of the first three Gospels, called "Synoptic" because they can
be reviewed side by side (syn-optically). These Gospels have so much in
common that in the third stage described above there must have been some
dependence of one or two on the other or on a common written source. Although
much scholarly attention and even passion has been devoted to this problem,
most readers of the NT find the issue complex, irrelevant to their interests,
and boring - a fact that causes me to be succinct in my treatment. Ample
bibliography will be given; but beginners are warned that the subject
tends to generate complexity, and they may want to settle for the most
common conclusions that I have italicized below (pp. 114, 115, 122).
Statistics and terminology: Mark has 661 verses (vv.); Matthew has 1:068,
and Luke has 1:149. Eighty percent of Mark's vv. are reproduced in Matthew
and 65 percent in Luke.18 The Marcan material found in both the other
two is called the "Triple Tradition." The approximate 220-235
vv. (in whole or in part) of non Marcan material that Mt and Luke have
in common is called the "Double Tradition." In both instances
so much of the order in which that common material is presented, and so
much of the wording in which it is phrased are the same that dependence
at the written rather than simply at {112} the oral level has to be posited.19
Let me simply list some proposals offered to explain these statistics,
including for each the main argument(s) pro and con. Finally I shall draw
out corollaries from the most commonly accepted solution.
Solutions that posit one or more protogospels. There have been many proposals
(some having no major following today) that would explain the interrelationships
of the Synoptic Gospels by positing a gospel that existed before they
were written. In the 18th century G. E. Lessing suggested that all three
Synoptic Gospels drew on a no-longer-extant Aramaic Gospel, a theory developed
by J. Eichhorn, who thought of this source as a full life of Christ. A
variant of this thesis has been revived by those who would make apocryphal
gospels the source of the canonical Gospels. (The Gospel of Thomas will
be discussed in relation to the Q hypothesis mentioned below.) Secret
Mark, a conflated form of Mark known to Clement of Alexandria and thought
by many to have been composed in the early 2d century, is claimed by M.
Smith to represent more closely than do the canonical Gospels the oldest
detectable Christian gospel source, and H. Koester would contend that
Secret Mark itself was actually written before canonical Mark. The fact
that all we know of this gospel is two small fragments and that they can
be understood as drawn from the canonical Gospels has discouraged wide
acceptance of such claims.20 In addition to Secret Mark J. D. Crossan
posits the priority of a shorter form of the Gospel of Peter from which
all four canonical Gospels drew their passion accounts. Again the majority
view is that GPet is dependent on the canonical Gospels.21
In a more traditional search for a protogospel, some would invoke Papias
("Matthew arranged in order the sayings in the Hebrew (= Aramaic?)
language": p. 209 below) and contend that he was speaking not about
the Matthew {113} we know but about an earlier collection (at times designated
M) on which Mark drew and also canonical Mt (whether directly or through
Mark). Supposedly this hypothetical collection contained what cannot easily
be explained by deriving Mark from canonical Mt or vice versa.22 Other
scholars judge necessary a more complex multidocument theory, e.g., the
source was not simply Aramaic M but a Greek translation of M, plus an
Aramaic collection of sayings translated into Greek. Oral sources alongside
the written are also posited. In a three-volume French Synopsis produced
in the 1970s, M.-E. Boismard and A. Lamouille detect four source documents
drawn on by the Synoptic evangelists, not directly but on a preGospel
level: Document A of Palestinian and Jewish Christian origin ca. ad 50;
Document B, a reinterpretation of A for Gentile Christians written before
ad 58; Document C, an independent Palestinian tradition in Aramaic, very
archaic and perhaps the memoirs of Peter - used also in John; Document
Q containing material common to Mt and Luke. This type of theory virtually
posits a new source to solve every difficulty. It cannot be proved wrong
or right, but most will find it too complex to help in the ordinary study
of the Gospels. In fact, the scholarly majority in its effort to explain
Synoptic differences and similarities, rather than positing no-longer-extant
protogospels and very early apocrypha, draws on a relationship among the
extant Gospels, i.e., mutual-dependence solutions to which we now turn.
Solutions in which Mt was the first Gospel, and Luke used Mt This hypothesis,
dating back to Augustine in the 4th century, is the oldest explanation;
it was generally accepted by Roman Catholics up to the mid-20th century,
and still has respectable advocates (B. C. Butler; J. W. Deardorf; J.
Wenham). In this Augustinian approach the canonical order is also the
order of dependence: Mt was written first, Mark severely abbreviated Matthew,
and then came Luke and John, with each drawing on its predecessors. In
1789 J. J. Griesbach proposed a theory of dependence in which the order
was Matthew, Luke, and Mark.23 The underpinning of the Matthean priority
proposal is that from antiquity Matthew has been considered the first
Gospel. Explaining Mark is the greatest difficulty in any hypothesis that
gives priority to Mt In the Augustinian hypothesis what was Mark's logic
in omitting so much of Mart's account? The Griesbach hypothesis attempts
to meet that difficulty by placing Mark last and evaluating it mostly
as a digest that {114} reports material where Mt and Luke agree. Yet Mark
omits the whole Double Tradition where they do agree!
The main support for the thesis that Luke used Mt lies in passages in
the Triple Tradition where Luke and Mt agree, over against Mark, i.e.,
the "Minor Agreements." For instance, in the Jewish mockery
of Jesus both Mt and Luke have Jesus being asked an identically worded
question absent from Mark: "Who is it that struck you?" - a
quotation that makes better sense of the challenge to prophesy (Mt 26:68;
Lk 22:64; Mk 14:65). If Luke and Mt wrote independently of each other,
could such an agreement have come about by pure coincidence? Is it not
more plausible that Luke copied the question from Mt?24 Yet there are
major arguments against Lucan dependence on Mt (see Fitzmyer, Luke 1:73-75).
Where Luke and Mt have almost contradictory accounts, why did Luke not
make some effort to reconcile the difficulty? For example, Luke's infancy
narrative is not only massively different from Matthew's, but also in
details is virtually irreconcilable with it, e.g., about Joseph and Mary's
home (in Bethlehem in Mt 2:11 (house); in Nazareth in Lk 2:4-7, with no
home in Bethlehem) and about their travels after the birth of Jesus (to
Egypt in Mt 2:14; to Jerusalem and Nazareth in Lk 2:22,39). Or again,
Luke's account of the death of Judas in Ac 1:18-19 is scarcely reconcilable
with Mt 27:3-10. As for order, if Luke used Matthew, why does Luke's placing
of the Q material differ so greatly from Matthew's (except for the words
of JBap and the temptation story: see Table 2 below)? That argument becomes
stronger if Luke used Mark as well (Au-gustinian thesis), for Luke follows
Mark's order closely. Another problem would be Luke's failure to report
the Matthean additions to Mark, e.g., Mt 3:14-15; Mt 12:5-7; Mt 16:17-19;
Mt 21:14-16; Mt 26:52-54.
Solutions based on Marcan priority. Mark was written first and both Mt
and Luke drew on it. There is a form of this approach that goes on to
hold that Luke drew on Mt as well, but it faces the difficulties recounted
in the last paragraph. The most common thesis, therefore, posits that
Mt and Luke depended on Mark and wrote independently of each other. What
they have in common and did not derive from Mark (the Double Tradition)
is explained by positing Q (a source reconstructed entirely from Mt and
Luke to be discussed in the next subsection). Thus this is known as the
Two-Source Theory.25 {115}
We may compare it to the Griesbach hypothesis thus:
The basic argument for Marcan priority is that it solves more problems
than any other theory. It offers the best explanation for why Mt and Luke
so often agree with Mark in order and wording, and allows reasonable surmises
for why Mt and Luke differ from Mark when they do so independently. For
instance, neither evangelist liked Mark's redundancies, awkward Greek
expressions, uncomplimentary presentation of the disciples and Mary, and
embarrassing statements about Jesus. When using Mark, both expanded the
Marcan accounts in the light of postresurrectional faith. The basic argument
against Marcan priority rests on the Minor Agreements cited above in reference
to the Griesbach hypothesis. Good explanations can be offered for many
of them,26 but some remain very difficult.
A realistic conclusion is that no solution to the Synoptic Problem solves
all difficulties. Modern authors whose own books require research and
who attempt after several decades the almost impossible task of reconstructing
precisely how they had put their sources together in writing those books
will be sympathetic to our inability to reconstruct precisely the way
the evangelists proceeded 1,900 years ago. The process was probably more
complex than the most complex modern reconstruction. If one cannot resolve
all the enigmas, it is realistic to accept and work with a relatively
simple solution to the Synoptic Problem that is largely satisfactory.
That is the spirit in which the theory of Marcan priority (as part of
the Two-Source Theory) is recommended to Gospel readers. Even though it
remains a hypothesis, one should be aware that important consequences
flow from accepting it.
These are some points to be kept in mind when working with Marcan priority:
Even when Mark was written, the remembrance of oral tradition about Jesus
did not cease. Too often we imagine the composition of the Gospels as
totally {116} a written endeavor. Yet Papias is a witness to continued
interest in oral tradition in the 2d century (n. 15 above). Scholars differ
on how much of the oral tradition was memorized (on a rabbinic model)
as distinct from repeated word-of-mouth transmission.27 Many think that
some problems not resolved by the Two-Source Theory can be met by bringing
into the picture the influence of orally transmitted remembrances. For
instance, the identical question, "Who is it that struck you?",
shared by Mt and Luke over against Mark (see above), might be explained
as independent use of a traditional question in the blindman's-buff treatment
of Jesus (BDM 1:579).
Ø If both Mt and Luke used Mark, their theology can at times be
studied by the changes they made in Mark's report - redaction criticism.
This has been the linchpin of some ecumenical studies tracing the development
of ideas in lst-century Christianity by moving from Mark through Mt to
Luke.28
Ø If one decides that Mt or Luke has added material to what was
taken from Mark, that addition, sometimes coming from the special material
peculiar to either of those evangelists, need not be dated later than
the Marcan material. A sensitive instance would be Mt 16:17-19 added between
material bor rowed from Mk 8:29 and 8:30. The added material, which has
a very strong Semitic cast, may well be early.
The Existence of "Q"29
"Q" is a hypothetical source posited by most scholars to explain
what was called above the Double Tradition, i.e., agreements (often verbal)
between Mt and Luke on material not found in Mark.30 Behind the hypothesis
is the plausible assumption that the Matthean evangelist did not know
Luke {117} and vice versa, and so they must have had a common source.
Many cautions are necessary before Q is reconstructed. The contents are
usually estimated at about 220-235 verses or parts of verses.31 Independently,
however, both Mt and Luke omit passages found in Mark; therefore it is
plausible that independently they have omitted material that existed in
Q. Sometimes only Mt or only Luke will preserve material in Mark; it is
also possible that material found only in one of the two Gospels might
have existed in Q.32 We are not certain of the sequence of material in
Q because Mt and Luke do not present it in the same order; nevertheless
most reconstructions follow the Lucan order, since it seems that Mt worked
Q material into his large sermons (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount in chaps.
5-7, and the Mission Discourse in chap. 10). The accompanying Table shows
generally agreed on contents of Q in the Lucan order; and henceforth,
unless otherwise specified, in this Chapter references to Q material will
be through the Lucan versification. Q is normally reconstructed as a Greek
written document because the only guide is two Greek Gospels and because
a purely oral body of tradition would not explain the large parts of the
Double Tradition that are in the same order. Since Mt and Luke often do
not agree in the wording of what they have derived from Q (any more than
they agree in what they have derived from Mark), one has to study the
tendencies of each Gospel to determine which version more likely represents
a change wrought by the individual evangelist. Also it is unlikely that
there was only one copy of Q in existence to which Mt and Luke had independent
access, and it is possible that some of the differences of wording between
Mt and Luke are derived from slightly variant copies of Q.33
Reconstructed Q consists of sayings and some parables with an absolute
minimum of narrative setting;34 and thus there is a strong sapiential
tone. The discovery of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, representing a Greek
original {118-119}
Table 2. Material usually Allotted to Q
MatthewLukeContents3:7b-123:7-9, 16-17JBap: warnings, promise of one to
come4:2b-lla4:2-13three temptations (testings) of Jesus by the devil (different
order)5:3,6,4, 11-126:20b-23beatitudes (different order, wording)5:44,39b-40,426:27-30love
of enemies; turn other cheek; give coat; give to beggars7:126:31what you
wish others to do to you, do to them5:46-47,45,486:32-33,35b-36love more
than those who love you; be merciful as the Father is7:1-26:37a,38cjudge
not and be not judged; measure given is measure received15:14,10:24-25a6:39-40can
blind lead the blind; disciple not above teacher7:3-56:41-42speck in brother's
eye, log in one's own7:16-20 (12:33-35)6:43-45no good tree bears bad fruit;
no figs from thorns7:21, 24-276:46-49calling me Lord and not doing; hearing
my words and doing them8:5a-10,137:1-2,6b-10centurion at Capernaum begs
help for sick servant, marvelous faith11:2-117:18-28disciples of JBap;
message to him; praise of JBap as more than a prophet11:16-197:31-35this
generation pleased by neither JBap nor Son of Man8:19-229:57-60Son of
Man has nowhere to lay head; to follow him let dead bury dead9:37-38;
10:7-1610:2-12harvest plentiful, laborers few, mission instructions11:21-23;
10:4010:13-16woe to Chorazin, Bethsaida; whoever hears you, hears me11:25-27;
13:16-1710:21-24thanking the Father for revealing to infants; all things
given to the Son who alone knows the Father; blessed eyes that see what
you see6:9-1311:2-4the Lord's prayer (variant forms - Mart's longer)7:7-1111:9-13ask
and it will be given; if you give good gifts, how much more the Father12:22-3011:14-15,
17-23demons cast out by Beelzebul; strong man guards his palace; not with
me, against me12:43-4511:24-26unclean spirit gone out of someone returns
and brings seven others, making worse12:38-4211:29-32generation seeks
sign; sign of Jonah; judgment by people of Nineveh, queen of south5:15;
6:22-2311:33-35not putting lamp under bushel; eye lamp of body, if unsound,
darkness23:25-26, 23:6-7a,2711:39-44Pharisees cleanse outside of cup;
woe for tithing inconsequentials, seeking first place23:4, 29-3111:46-48woe
to lawyers for binding heavy burdens, building tombs of the prophets23:34-36,1311:49-52I
speak/God's wisdom speaks: Will send prophets who will be persecuted;
woe to lawyersTable 2. Continued
MatthewLukeContents10:26-33; 12:3212:2-10all covered to be revealed; fear
not killers of body; acknowledging me before God10:19-2012:11-12before
synagogues, Holy Spirit will help6:25-3312:22-31don't be anxious about
the body; consider lilies of field; Father knows what you need6:19-2112:33-34no
treasures on earth but in heaven24:43-44, 45-5112:39-40, 42-46householder
and thief; faithful servant preparing for master's coming10:34-3612:51-53not
come to bring peace but sword; divisions of family16:2-312:54-56ability
to interpret weather signs should enable to interpret present times5:25-2612:58-59settling
before going before the magistrate13:31-3313:18-21kingdom of heaven/God:
like growth of mustard seed; like leaven woman puts in meal7:13-14, 22-23;
8:11-1213:23-29narrow gate through which few will enter; householder refusing
those who knock; people coming from all directions to enter kingdom of
heaven/God23:37-3913:34-35Jerusalem, killing the prophets, must bless
him who comes in the Lord's name22:2-1014:16-24kingdom of heaven/God:
a great banquet, invitees make excuses, others invited10:37-3814:26-27anyone
coming must prefer me over family and must bear a cross5:1314:34-35uselessness
of salt that has lost its savor18:12-1415:4-7man who leaves 99 sheep to
go after lost one6:2416:13cannot serve two masters11:12-13; 5:18,3216:16-18law
and prophets till JBap; not a dot of Law will pass; divorcing wife and
marrying another is adultery18:7,15, 21-2217:l,3b-4woe to tempters; forgive
brother after rebuking; Peter: how often to forgive17:2017:6if you had
faith like grain of mustard seed, could move mountains24:26-2817:23-24,37signs
of the coming of the Son of Man24:37-3917:26-27,30as in the days of Noah,
so will be the coming of the Son of Man10:3917:33whoever finds one's life
will lose it; whoever loses will find it24:40-4117:34-35on that night,
of two, one taken and the other left25:14-3019:12-27parable of the pounds/talents19:2822:38,30followers
will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel
{120} probably of the 2d century, shows that there were Christian compositions
consisting of collections of sayings. (The exact relationship between
Q and Thomas is highly disputed, since some would date Thomas early while
others contend that Thomas was produced a century after Q and with considerable
dependence on the canonical Gospels.35) Presumably, as with other Gospel
material, these sayings were preserved because they were thought to be
of relevance to existing Christians. Looking down the Contents column
of the Table helps to highlight the emphases of Q. There is a strongly
escha-tological thrust in the warnings, woes, and some of the parables.
One gets the impression that judgment is imminent; yet Lk 12:39-40 shows
that the hour of the master's coming is not known; Lk 17:23-24 warns that
there will be deceptive signs; and Lk 19:12-27 suggests that there is
a time period for the recipients to make profit with the pounds/talents.
Accordingly Jesus' followers are expected to live a highly moral life
observing even the Law (Lk 16:17) without superficial hypocrisy (Lk 11:39-44).
There is expectation of persecution and encouragement for those who bear
it for the sake of the Son of Man (Lk 6:22-23).
Many would attribute to Q a low christology since in it Jesus emerges
simply as a Sophist or Cynic wisdom teacher. Yet the Q Jesus is to come
and baptize with the Holy Spirit, as proclaimed by JBap (Lk 3:16-17; Lk
7:18-23). He is greater than Solomon and greater than Jonah the prophet
(Lk 11:31-32). He is portrayed as the Son of Man who will come in judgment
(Lk 17:23-27,30,37) and as the Son of Man who is rejected and suffers
in his lifetime (Lk 7:31-35; Lk 9:57-60). He is the Son to whom all has
been given; he is known only by the Father, and only he knows the Father
(Lk 10:22). It is insufficient simply to call Jesus Lord; one must hear
his words and do them if one is to survive (Lk 6:46-49). Jerusalem must
bless him (Lk 13:34-35), and one must prefer him over family (Lk 14:26-27).
He can proclaim with assurance that in the kingdom those who follow him
will sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Such a Jesus
is far more than a wisdom teacher.
{121} Sayings from Q are compared in detail with their variants in Matthew
and Luke, in the belief that sometimes by comparing the version of a saying
in those two Gospels we can trace a pattern of changes. However, the assumption
that we can attribute with considerable accuracy different emphases to
different stages of growth36 presupposes an unlikely systematization in
Christian life. Much publicity has been attached to this form of reconstruction,
and so for the sake of balance readers should be informed that the claims
made for it are widely disputed or doubted, and not only by conservative
commentators.37
Let me briefly report some of the claims. (Then in parentheses I shall
report observations indicating the precarious aspect of the reasoning.)
Some now refer to "the Q Gospel," often with the assumption
that it has every right to be considered as important as the canonical
Gospels. The classification is thought to be justified by the observation
that a collection of sayings bears the name "The Gospel of Thomas."
(Yet that title is a secondary appendage, perhaps by 2d-century gnostics
trying to give Thomas status. F. Neirynck38 prefers to retain the designation
"the (Synoptics) Saying Source Q" as a reminder that Q remains
a hypothetical text to which we have no direct access.) Often a basic
presupposition is that Q was produced in a single community whose view
it represented. (An individual, having heard sayings and parables attributed
to Jesus, could have made a collection. Is there really a coherent theology
that marks these juxtaposed sayings that frequently are grouped around
different unifying motifs? A look at the sequence in the Contents column
of Table 2 gives a rather haphazard impression.) The next presupposition
is that Q represents the whole (or enough of the) outlook of those who
collected it that it may be used to diagnose their stance as Christians.
(The very fact that independently it was preserved by Mt and Luke only
in combination with Marcan material may slant the likelihood in the other
direction, i.e., that it was never more than an additional collection
of teaching for those who accepted the Jesus story.) The argument from
silence becomes a major factor in such a presupposition. For example,
because there is no reference in the Q material to crucifixion or resurrection,
it is claimed that the Q Christians ignored, rejected, or gave little
importance to such belief. (In the combination they made, Mt and Luke
found no contradiction {122} between Q and Mark with its strong emphasis
on the passion or between Q and their own emphasis on the resurrection.
One cannot assume that independently two evangelists took over a source
they wished to correct; rather a justifiable assumption is that Mt and
Luke agreed with Q or they would not have used it. Moreover, there are
some Q parallels in Mark - could the theology of Mark and Q have been
so contradictory? What proof is there that any early-lst-century Christians
believed in a Jesus who was not uniquely distinguished by the fact that
he had been crucified and raised?39 A rejection of crucifixion/resurrection
is characteristic of a gnosticism not clearly datable before the 2d century.)
In the hypothesis that Mt and Luke used both Q and Mark, it is not unreasonable
to assume that Q was as old as Mark and in existence in the 60s. Some,
however, make the unprovable claim that Q is older than Mark and is indeed
the oldest Christian presentation of Jesus. There is evidence against
too early a dating, since certain sayings in Q suggest that an interval
has passed since the time of Jesus. One has the impression from Lk 11:49-52
that Christian prophets and apostles have been persecuted. Lk 11:39-44,
46-48 shows considerable hostility toward the Pharisees and lawyers; intense
conflicts with Pharisees probably developed later in the history of Palestinian
Christians rather than earlier.
Extravagant hypotheses based on this hypothetical document have left their
mark on modern "Historical Jesus" research (see Appendix I).
The portrait of Jesus the wisdom teacher or Cynic philosopher with no
apocalyptic message and no messianic proclamation emerges from speculations
about stage one of Q theology - a portrait that some would substitute
for the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus of church faith.40 A bit abrupt
but worthy of reflection is the proposal of J. P. Meier, Marginal 2:178,
that every morning exegetes should repeat, "Q is a hypothetical document
whose exact extension, wording, originating community, strata, and stages
of composition cannot be known." Linnemann, "Is There,"
is even more acerbic. That having been said, in the judgment of most,
the existence of Q (without many of the added hypotheses) remains the
best way of explaining the agreements between Mt and Luke in material
they did not borrow from Mark.
|
|
These Courses