Showing posts with label synoptic problem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label synoptic problem. Show all posts
Monday, October 05, 2015
Sunday, October 14, 2012
The Sermon on the Mount 1
The best known of the five big sermons in Matthew is the Sermon on the Mount. We may miss some profound aspects of this grand sermon if we merely think of it as a sermon Jesus gave on one particular occasion. By the time you finish this book, you will hopefully realize that the main goal of the Gospel writers was not merely to record the things Jesus said and did but also to tell us truths about Jesus by the way they presented the things Jesus said and did.
For example, some of the material in the Sermon on the Mount is in both Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6. Now it is quite possible that Jesus preached similar things on more than one occasion, but that is not the best explanation for what we find in these chapters. We have good reason to conclude that Matthew and Luke were drawing on a common source for this material. [1] If this idea is true, then the differences between the two are significant, because they probably represent something Matthew (or Luke) was meaning to say about Jesus.
What is the significance of the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is on a mountain? Is it merely the fact that Jesus said these words on a mountain? Or has Matthew set these teachings of Jesus on a mountain in order to tell us something about Jesus? Again, this whole line of thinking can be a little troubling when you hear it for the first time. We are programmed merely to think of the Gospels as historical presentations without realizing that ancient writers felt freer to be creative in the way they presented history than we would expect.
So is it possible that Matthew wanted us to think of another word from God that was given on a mountain in the Old Testament? Is it possible that Matthew wanted his original Jewish audience to think of Moses and the Law when they read the Sermon on the Mount? If so, then the key verses of the sermon, 5:17-21, take on a rich meaning.
Matthew 5:17 says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Now the Law and the Prophets is a shorthand for the entire Old Testament Scriptures. [2] But the next couple verses go on to talk about commandments in the Law and the rest of the chapter shows how Jesus fulfills the Law.
The point is that the Sermon on the Mount gives Jesus' authoritative interpretation of the Law. It implicitly compares Jesus to Moses as the law-giver. Moses gave the Law. Now in this sermon Jesus gives the fulfilled Law. The sermon closes with the people getting the point: "When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law" (7:28-29).
[1] Because it was German scholars who first explored this issue, they called the hypothetical source "Q" after the first letter of the German word for "source," Quelle. Scholars like Mark Goodacre believe it is more likely that Luke used Matthew as a source directly for this sort of material ***. My point in the main text comes to the same conclusion either way.
[2] The three sections of the Old Testament in the Jewish division are the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The "Law and the Prophets" is thus a shorthand way of referring to the whole Old Testament by referring to its two main parts.
For example, some of the material in the Sermon on the Mount is in both Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6. Now it is quite possible that Jesus preached similar things on more than one occasion, but that is not the best explanation for what we find in these chapters. We have good reason to conclude that Matthew and Luke were drawing on a common source for this material. [1] If this idea is true, then the differences between the two are significant, because they probably represent something Matthew (or Luke) was meaning to say about Jesus.
What is the significance of the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is on a mountain? Is it merely the fact that Jesus said these words on a mountain? Or has Matthew set these teachings of Jesus on a mountain in order to tell us something about Jesus? Again, this whole line of thinking can be a little troubling when you hear it for the first time. We are programmed merely to think of the Gospels as historical presentations without realizing that ancient writers felt freer to be creative in the way they presented history than we would expect.
So is it possible that Matthew wanted us to think of another word from God that was given on a mountain in the Old Testament? Is it possible that Matthew wanted his original Jewish audience to think of Moses and the Law when they read the Sermon on the Mount? If so, then the key verses of the sermon, 5:17-21, take on a rich meaning.
Matthew 5:17 says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Now the Law and the Prophets is a shorthand for the entire Old Testament Scriptures. [2] But the next couple verses go on to talk about commandments in the Law and the rest of the chapter shows how Jesus fulfills the Law.
The point is that the Sermon on the Mount gives Jesus' authoritative interpretation of the Law. It implicitly compares Jesus to Moses as the law-giver. Moses gave the Law. Now in this sermon Jesus gives the fulfilled Law. The sermon closes with the people getting the point: "When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law" (7:28-29).
[1] Because it was German scholars who first explored this issue, they called the hypothetical source "Q" after the first letter of the German word for "source," Quelle. Scholars like Mark Goodacre believe it is more likely that Luke used Matthew as a source directly for this sort of material ***. My point in the main text comes to the same conclusion either way.
[2] The three sections of the Old Testament in the Jewish division are the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The "Law and the Prophets" is thus a shorthand way of referring to the whole Old Testament by referring to its two main parts.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
The Story of Matthew (3.2)
... continued from yesterday.
____________
The scholarly story of Matthew is not as romantic as the one we hear more often. Normally, we hear of how Matthew was a tax collector that Jesus called to be a disciple. Then later Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote down his reminiscences of Jesus' earthly ministry. We get the impression that Saint Matthew sat down one day (or two) and the Holy Spirit inspired him to write down his memories of his time with Jesus two or three decades earlier.
God's inspiration of the Gospel of Matthew was probably a little more complicated and less romantic. The book of Matthew itself is anonymous. Nowhere in its pages does it tell us who its author is. There is an early tradition by a man named Papias who wrote this: "Matthew collected the sayings [of Jesus] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as best they could." [1]
It is not clear that Papias was talking about the Gospel of Matthew as we have it. Nevertheless, at some point early on, the heading, "The Gospel according to Matthew," started circulating as the title of this document. It is the only name we have offered from the ancient world for the name of its author. My sense is that these sort of traditions usually preserved some kernel of truth but also that they also usually got a little mangled and romanticized.
Here is the scholarly story. The Gospel of Mark was written first, probably in the late 60s or early 70s of the first century, probably primarily to a Gentile Christian audience. Then a Christian Jew, sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem, perhaps in the 70s, took the Gospel of Mark and created the Gospel of Matthew out of it.
[insert text box on the Synoptic Question]
I should probably stop and remind you that God can inspire a person to use sources just as much as he can dictate to you. In fact, on the romantic model, Matthew was remembering things. That is, his memory was a source, helped by the Holy Spirit. Certainly 1 and 2 Kings mention sources like the Annals of the Kings of Judah, and Jude quotes a book called 1 Enoch.
So what did the author of Matthew add to Mark to make the Gospel of Matthew? Basically, Matthew adds five large sermons scattered throughout. Then he added the Virgin Birth and resurrection details on the front and the end. If you take Mark and drop these sermons into it, add the introduction and conclusion, then you have Matthew.
Now the author of Matthew had to have a source for these sermons. One possibility is of course that the source of these sermons was a collection of Jesus' sayings that in some way went back to the disciple Matthew. While this is mostly speculation, it would be typical of how traditions often worked in the ancient world. The Gospel of Matthew would get its name from one of its major sources but the precise story would have grown a little. [2]
The fact that there are five sermons has not been lost on interpreters of Matthew, since the cornerstone of the Jewish Scriptures is the five books of the Law, the Pentateuch. Could it be that the author of Matthew was thinking of the Law when he added these five sermons? [3] After all, Matthew arguably presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of the Law, and as we will see, the way it tells Jesus' birth story makes us think of Moses.
Was it the disciple Matthew who put this all together? On the whole it seems more likely that material from Matthew was a source for the Gospel than that the actual disciple Matthew put the Gospel together into its current form. It's certainly possible, just not the most likely conclusion. For example, why would an eyewitness (Matthew) draw on a non-eyewitness (Mark) as his primary source? And although Greek was certainly spoken in Palestine, the only evidence we have of Matthew suggests he preferred Aramaic (or Hebrew).
Nevertheless, I will refer to the author of the Gospel as Matthew. If this sort of issue is annoying, it's important to realize that half the things that upset us are actually traditions we have learned about the Bible rather than things in the Bible itself. The Gospel of Matthew does not tell us who its author was--the titles were surely added later. But since we grow up forming our faith around the Bible as we know it--or the version in which we read it--we can feel like our faith is being challenged when in fact it is only our traditions about faith that are in question...
[1] My translation. Found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16. Three elements of this translation are highly debated. Did Matthew collect sayings or stories? Was it in Aramaic or Hebrew? Did people translate or interpret them?
[2] One problem with this speculation is that the sermons of Matthew are not exactly "translation Greek." Some of it could be, although it is virtually impossible to trace it without wild speculation. Assuming the Gospel of Matthew used a written source, it would likely have been a Greek source.
[3] B. W. Bacon is often credited with first developing this idea. ***
____________
The scholarly story of Matthew is not as romantic as the one we hear more often. Normally, we hear of how Matthew was a tax collector that Jesus called to be a disciple. Then later Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote down his reminiscences of Jesus' earthly ministry. We get the impression that Saint Matthew sat down one day (or two) and the Holy Spirit inspired him to write down his memories of his time with Jesus two or three decades earlier.
God's inspiration of the Gospel of Matthew was probably a little more complicated and less romantic. The book of Matthew itself is anonymous. Nowhere in its pages does it tell us who its author is. There is an early tradition by a man named Papias who wrote this: "Matthew collected the sayings [of Jesus] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as best they could." [1]
It is not clear that Papias was talking about the Gospel of Matthew as we have it. Nevertheless, at some point early on, the heading, "The Gospel according to Matthew," started circulating as the title of this document. It is the only name we have offered from the ancient world for the name of its author. My sense is that these sort of traditions usually preserved some kernel of truth but also that they also usually got a little mangled and romanticized.
Here is the scholarly story. The Gospel of Mark was written first, probably in the late 60s or early 70s of the first century, probably primarily to a Gentile Christian audience. Then a Christian Jew, sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem, perhaps in the 70s, took the Gospel of Mark and created the Gospel of Matthew out of it.
[insert text box on the Synoptic Question]
I should probably stop and remind you that God can inspire a person to use sources just as much as he can dictate to you. In fact, on the romantic model, Matthew was remembering things. That is, his memory was a source, helped by the Holy Spirit. Certainly 1 and 2 Kings mention sources like the Annals of the Kings of Judah, and Jude quotes a book called 1 Enoch.
So what did the author of Matthew add to Mark to make the Gospel of Matthew? Basically, Matthew adds five large sermons scattered throughout. Then he added the Virgin Birth and resurrection details on the front and the end. If you take Mark and drop these sermons into it, add the introduction and conclusion, then you have Matthew.
Now the author of Matthew had to have a source for these sermons. One possibility is of course that the source of these sermons was a collection of Jesus' sayings that in some way went back to the disciple Matthew. While this is mostly speculation, it would be typical of how traditions often worked in the ancient world. The Gospel of Matthew would get its name from one of its major sources but the precise story would have grown a little. [2]
The fact that there are five sermons has not been lost on interpreters of Matthew, since the cornerstone of the Jewish Scriptures is the five books of the Law, the Pentateuch. Could it be that the author of Matthew was thinking of the Law when he added these five sermons? [3] After all, Matthew arguably presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of the Law, and as we will see, the way it tells Jesus' birth story makes us think of Moses.
Was it the disciple Matthew who put this all together? On the whole it seems more likely that material from Matthew was a source for the Gospel than that the actual disciple Matthew put the Gospel together into its current form. It's certainly possible, just not the most likely conclusion. For example, why would an eyewitness (Matthew) draw on a non-eyewitness (Mark) as his primary source? And although Greek was certainly spoken in Palestine, the only evidence we have of Matthew suggests he preferred Aramaic (or Hebrew).
Nevertheless, I will refer to the author of the Gospel as Matthew. If this sort of issue is annoying, it's important to realize that half the things that upset us are actually traditions we have learned about the Bible rather than things in the Bible itself. The Gospel of Matthew does not tell us who its author was--the titles were surely added later. But since we grow up forming our faith around the Bible as we know it--or the version in which we read it--we can feel like our faith is being challenged when in fact it is only our traditions about faith that are in question...
[1] My translation. Found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16. Three elements of this translation are highly debated. Did Matthew collect sayings or stories? Was it in Aramaic or Hebrew? Did people translate or interpret them?
[2] One problem with this speculation is that the sermons of Matthew are not exactly "translation Greek." Some of it could be, although it is virtually impossible to trace it without wild speculation. Assuming the Gospel of Matthew used a written source, it would likely have been a Greek source.
[3] B. W. Bacon is often credited with first developing this idea. ***
Friday, October 12, 2012
Scholars, Consensus, and a Story (3.1)
Scholars are notorious for disagreeing with each other, as well as with having bizarre ideas. I personally believe that not all scholars are created equal. In particular, some are more objective than others. In the area of religion, some people become experts only to defend the positions with which they started. Others try to nail out the details of a position that was wrong to begin with, and they predictably end up in a wacky place.
I personally take a lot of stock in consensus. When those who are truly experts on a subject pretty much agree on something, I take that very seriously. There is an important caution here. For example, the book of Hebrews was the focus of my doctoral work and I have published two books and several articles on it. I think it is fair to consider me an expert on Hebrews.
But I am not an expert on the Gospel of John. A position I have on John doesn't count as much intrinsically as if a Johannine scholar were to speak. Frankly, even on the subject of Hebrews, I am more of an expert on some aspects than others. So when I speak of consensus on something like the Gospel of Matthew, I mean experts on Matthew more than I would mean a New Testament scholar in general.
So I have a PhD in New Testament. I have written a New Testament survey textbook. So I have explored a little the question of how the gospels were created. Am I an expert on that subject? Maybe we should say I am more of an expert than your pastor probably is, but less of one than those for whom this subject is their specialty.
Nevertheless, I want to tell you a story. I think it is a story that most of those who truly are experts would agree with. I want to tell you the story of how someone started with the Gospel of Mark and ended up with the Gospel of Matthew...
I personally take a lot of stock in consensus. When those who are truly experts on a subject pretty much agree on something, I take that very seriously. There is an important caution here. For example, the book of Hebrews was the focus of my doctoral work and I have published two books and several articles on it. I think it is fair to consider me an expert on Hebrews.
But I am not an expert on the Gospel of John. A position I have on John doesn't count as much intrinsically as if a Johannine scholar were to speak. Frankly, even on the subject of Hebrews, I am more of an expert on some aspects than others. So when I speak of consensus on something like the Gospel of Matthew, I mean experts on Matthew more than I would mean a New Testament scholar in general.
So I have a PhD in New Testament. I have written a New Testament survey textbook. So I have explored a little the question of how the gospels were created. Am I an expert on that subject? Maybe we should say I am more of an expert than your pastor probably is, but less of one than those for whom this subject is their specialty.
Nevertheless, I want to tell you a story. I think it is a story that most of those who truly are experts would agree with. I want to tell you the story of how someone started with the Gospel of Mark and ended up with the Gospel of Matthew...
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
The Synoptic Question
Made this video to slip into the one assignment in the MDiv curriculum where it seems potentially relevant:
Saturday, July 14, 2012
4.1 Splicing the Gospels Together
I think that, apart from a conclusion, I'll make this group of posts the last cluster in the series I've been doing on weekends giving somewhat of my hermeneutical autobiography. The previous clusters have been (I'm linking to the last of each group of posts):
1. Learning to Read in Context
2. The Text of the New Testament
3. The NT Use of the OT
This last cluster will deal with how I came to view the diversity of the biblical stories and the idea that various narratives of the Bible have combined sources.
____________
For this last group of posts, I return to Dr. Marling Elliott's Synoptic Gospels class (Matthew-Mark-Luke) in college at Southern Wesleyan University. My earliest exposure to issues of "higher criticism" were in high school under the shadow of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and Dr. D. James Kennedy. I'm not 100% where or when, but I was exposed to Josh McDowell's More Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Harold Lindsell's Battle for the Bible.
Inspired by this breed of zealous apologists, I decided to write my final paper for Dr. Elliott's class on the parallel accounts between the gospels on the three denials of Peter. We used, by the way, a great textbook for that class, Kurt Aland's Greek-English Synopsis of the Four Gospels. No one who knew me back then will be surprised to know that, despite good intentions and probably more than one start, I had very little of the paper written as the day before the due date rolled by. Yes, it would be yet another all nighter I would regret.
So I started by comparing Matthew with Mark. I was simply going in order. (I wasn't convinced at that time that I should start with Mark--that would come in my second or third year at Asbury.) It seemed fairly easy. For example, Mark mentions that they were warming themselves for the first denial, which Matthew doesn't say. But Matthew doesn't say they weren't warming themselves. No problem.
There was the minor variation in Mark about the cock crowing twice but that was easy enough to harmonize. Matthew just doesn't mention the crowing in the middle that Mark mentions.
It does say in Matthew that it is a different servant girl with the second denial, while it is the same servant girl in Mark. I don't remember what I did with that one. I think I might have suggested that two girls were part of the second denial. Mark mentions the new girl. Matthew the old one. I moved on to Luke.
Luke was pretty easy to fit with Matthew and Mark. Luke has the fire that Mark has. Luke has someone else for the second denial, like Matthew. For the third denial, Luke has only one person making a point of Peter's Galilean accent. But that's no problem, many people includes several single individuals within it.
It must have been around 4am in the morning when I got to this point of the paper. This is easy, thought I. I can figure any problem those faithless scholars throw at me, thinks I. Then I started John.
It is interesting that the King James version of John gave me greater issues than the NIV or another version might have. In the KJV, you get the impression that it is at the door that a servant girl questions Peter (18:16-17). But there is the fire nearby as well (18:18), so perhaps the fire was near the doorway.
No biggie, except that John seems to have the movement the opposite of the Synoptics. In Matthew and Mark, Peter's first denial is by the fire and his second is by the doorway. In John, the first denial seems to be at the doorway and the second at the fire. But again, perhaps the two were very close to each other.
There is the added dimension of the beloved disciple. But in such cases harmonizing simply says this is another layer, something we didn't know from the other gospels. I think I was struck, however, by this whole new layer of the beloved disciple, completely absent from Matthew-Mark-and Luke.
So now in the second denial, they ask him if he was one of Jesus' followers. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, one or another servant girl asks this. But the "they" of John are "slaves and officers" (18:18). But this is doable. A "they" can include any number of people, from male slaves to servant girls. Of course, are we still at three denials then?
The third one is a bit more difficult. In the Synoptics, some people notice Peter's Galilean accent and ask him about it. But the person who asks Peter in John is someone who had been in the Garden of Gethsemane and seen Peter, a relative of the person whose ear Peter had cut off. It's a different question and a different person. Again, it could be a group of people I suppose, some of whom asked one thing, some of whom asked another.
I was out of time. I wasn't really happy with the paper. I suspect it had the character of some papers I've since read, where you get the distinct impression that the person wrote it in one sitting and never went back to edit earlier parts of the paper as their thinking developed. I printed the paper off on my dot matrix printer and turned it in exactly on time.
For more than one reason, I've come to view what I did in this paper as deeply problematic...
1. Learning to Read in Context
2. The Text of the New Testament
3. The NT Use of the OT
This last cluster will deal with how I came to view the diversity of the biblical stories and the idea that various narratives of the Bible have combined sources.
____________
For this last group of posts, I return to Dr. Marling Elliott's Synoptic Gospels class (Matthew-Mark-Luke) in college at Southern Wesleyan University. My earliest exposure to issues of "higher criticism" were in high school under the shadow of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and Dr. D. James Kennedy. I'm not 100% where or when, but I was exposed to Josh McDowell's More Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Harold Lindsell's Battle for the Bible.
Inspired by this breed of zealous apologists, I decided to write my final paper for Dr. Elliott's class on the parallel accounts between the gospels on the three denials of Peter. We used, by the way, a great textbook for that class, Kurt Aland's Greek-English Synopsis of the Four Gospels. No one who knew me back then will be surprised to know that, despite good intentions and probably more than one start, I had very little of the paper written as the day before the due date rolled by. Yes, it would be yet another all nighter I would regret.
So I started by comparing Matthew with Mark. I was simply going in order. (I wasn't convinced at that time that I should start with Mark--that would come in my second or third year at Asbury.) It seemed fairly easy. For example, Mark mentions that they were warming themselves for the first denial, which Matthew doesn't say. But Matthew doesn't say they weren't warming themselves. No problem.
There was the minor variation in Mark about the cock crowing twice but that was easy enough to harmonize. Matthew just doesn't mention the crowing in the middle that Mark mentions.
It does say in Matthew that it is a different servant girl with the second denial, while it is the same servant girl in Mark. I don't remember what I did with that one. I think I might have suggested that two girls were part of the second denial. Mark mentions the new girl. Matthew the old one. I moved on to Luke.
Luke was pretty easy to fit with Matthew and Mark. Luke has the fire that Mark has. Luke has someone else for the second denial, like Matthew. For the third denial, Luke has only one person making a point of Peter's Galilean accent. But that's no problem, many people includes several single individuals within it.
It must have been around 4am in the morning when I got to this point of the paper. This is easy, thought I. I can figure any problem those faithless scholars throw at me, thinks I. Then I started John.
It is interesting that the King James version of John gave me greater issues than the NIV or another version might have. In the KJV, you get the impression that it is at the door that a servant girl questions Peter (18:16-17). But there is the fire nearby as well (18:18), so perhaps the fire was near the doorway.
No biggie, except that John seems to have the movement the opposite of the Synoptics. In Matthew and Mark, Peter's first denial is by the fire and his second is by the doorway. In John, the first denial seems to be at the doorway and the second at the fire. But again, perhaps the two were very close to each other.
There is the added dimension of the beloved disciple. But in such cases harmonizing simply says this is another layer, something we didn't know from the other gospels. I think I was struck, however, by this whole new layer of the beloved disciple, completely absent from Matthew-Mark-and Luke.
So now in the second denial, they ask him if he was one of Jesus' followers. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, one or another servant girl asks this. But the "they" of John are "slaves and officers" (18:18). But this is doable. A "they" can include any number of people, from male slaves to servant girls. Of course, are we still at three denials then?
The third one is a bit more difficult. In the Synoptics, some people notice Peter's Galilean accent and ask him about it. But the person who asks Peter in John is someone who had been in the Garden of Gethsemane and seen Peter, a relative of the person whose ear Peter had cut off. It's a different question and a different person. Again, it could be a group of people I suppose, some of whom asked one thing, some of whom asked another.
I was out of time. I wasn't really happy with the paper. I suspect it had the character of some papers I've since read, where you get the distinct impression that the person wrote it in one sitting and never went back to edit earlier parts of the paper as their thinking developed. I printed the paper off on my dot matrix printer and turned it in exactly on time.
For more than one reason, I've come to view what I did in this paper as deeply problematic...
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Our God Reigns 1
Now moving on to a possible second chapter to The Essential Jesus, this one titled, "The Kingdom of God."
Our God Reigns
What was Jesus' ministry on earth all about? What did he say to the crowds? What did he teach? Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree that his key message was the good news of the kingdom of God. [1] This is the message he brought to the crowds on the Galilean countryside. [2]
But what did he mean when he said that, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news" (Mark 1:15, NRSV)? Again, all four gospels locate the beginning of Jesus' earthly mission in the preaching of John the Baptist. Since Jesus was baptized by John, we can assume he also was 1) looking for the restoration of God's people, Israel, 2) that he agreed with the call of Israel to repentance and the symbolic washing away of sins in baptism in preparation for 3) the arrival of the anointed one, the messiah and 4) the judgment of sinners, at least within Israel.
Thus the gospels explicitly remember Jesus preaching repentance and commitment to this "good news," similar to what the Baptist was calling Israel to do. Against this backdrop, the kingdom of God must have referred to this coming, restored people of God. The kingdom of God, of course, locates God as the king over this renewed people. But we can also assume that a messiah would be part of this kingdom. The Jews of the day would have assumed that an earthly king would reign over the kingdom as God's representative on earth.
The prayer Jesus taught gives us a key insight into at least part of what he meant when he spoke of God's kingdom coming: "Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10). For God's kingdom to come was for God to rule the earth as he does the heaven. No doubt the idea of God's rule returning to the earth involved more than one layer in Jesus' message. For most in the crowds, they would have surely heard the return of Israel's sovereignty and political independence as a people. For Jesus, as we will see, it also involved the defeat of demonic forces that God had allowed to run rampant in the land.
With the word "gospel" and the idea of the reign of God right next to each other, it seems overwhelmingly likely that Isaiah 52:7 stands in the background of Jesus' message:
"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.”
To be sure, the gospels are in Greek and Jesus would not have been using the Greek Old Testament. But the collection of images and language fits the historical context so well that it seems likely we are hearing in the gospels a Greek version of a message that goes back to Jesus.
For example, just as Isaiah 40 which was used of John the Baptist, Isaiah 52 also comes from the context of Israel's return from captivity in Babylon. Since Jesus' ministry flowed out of the ministry of John the Baptist, since this imagery of restoration and returning from exile was part of John's message, since experts overwhelmingly agree that the kingdom of God stood at the heart of Jesus' message, we are surely safe to think that Isaiah 52:7 was ground zero of Jesus' earthly preaching. When the message moved into Greek speaking territory, surely the word "gospel" leaped from the page of Greek Isaiah.
In the Roman Empire, a gospel was good news of an extraordinary sort, such as the birth of an heir to the throne or a major military victory. The Roman Emperor Augustus is celebrated in one inscription as savior of the world and his birth was the beginning of a gospel for the world. [3] Jesus and the earliest Aramaic speaking Christians may not have used the word in this way, but we can make a good argument that the idea started in Jesus' use of Isaiah and that the word "gospel" took off as soon as the message hit Greek speaking believers.
It thus also seems likely that the phrase "the kingdom of God" also comes directly from Isaiah 52:7 and the idea that in the restoration of Israel, God will reign once more. The kingdom of God is the fact that "our God reigns," once more on earth as it is in heaven. If John's message was one of anticipation and preparation, Jesus' message was one of arrival. The kingdom of God is imminent, about to embark in full. It is beginning and growing.
[1] Matthew's "kingdom of heaven" is not something different but a matter of Matthew's style. Following the dominant assumption that Matthew used Mark as a starting point, then Matthew at a number of points intentionally changes Mark's "kingdom of God" to "kingdom of heaven," indicating that the phrasing comes more from Matthew than from Jesus himself. Some think it was a reverential move on his part, to refer to the place where God is rather than to God directly. The theory is not without problems, but is perhaps the best one out there.
[2] Key summaries of Jesus' message in all three of the "Synoptic" gospels summarize Jesus' preaching in this way (Mark 1:14-15; Matthew 4:17: and Luke 4:43). Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because they have such similar wording and events that gospel experts unanimously believe they stand in some literary relationship to each other, meaning that they share common literary sources. The dominant theory for well over a hundred years is that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a major source. Meanwhile, Christians since the 100s have recognized that something quite different is going on in John, with the second century Christian Clement of Alexandria calling it a "spiritual" gospel. It seems to give a less literal and more symbolic presentation of Jesus, as we will see in the second volume of this series.
[3] The Priene Inscription.
Our God Reigns
What was Jesus' ministry on earth all about? What did he say to the crowds? What did he teach? Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree that his key message was the good news of the kingdom of God. [1] This is the message he brought to the crowds on the Galilean countryside. [2]
But what did he mean when he said that, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news" (Mark 1:15, NRSV)? Again, all four gospels locate the beginning of Jesus' earthly mission in the preaching of John the Baptist. Since Jesus was baptized by John, we can assume he also was 1) looking for the restoration of God's people, Israel, 2) that he agreed with the call of Israel to repentance and the symbolic washing away of sins in baptism in preparation for 3) the arrival of the anointed one, the messiah and 4) the judgment of sinners, at least within Israel.
Thus the gospels explicitly remember Jesus preaching repentance and commitment to this "good news," similar to what the Baptist was calling Israel to do. Against this backdrop, the kingdom of God must have referred to this coming, restored people of God. The kingdom of God, of course, locates God as the king over this renewed people. But we can also assume that a messiah would be part of this kingdom. The Jews of the day would have assumed that an earthly king would reign over the kingdom as God's representative on earth.
The prayer Jesus taught gives us a key insight into at least part of what he meant when he spoke of God's kingdom coming: "Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10). For God's kingdom to come was for God to rule the earth as he does the heaven. No doubt the idea of God's rule returning to the earth involved more than one layer in Jesus' message. For most in the crowds, they would have surely heard the return of Israel's sovereignty and political independence as a people. For Jesus, as we will see, it also involved the defeat of demonic forces that God had allowed to run rampant in the land.
With the word "gospel" and the idea of the reign of God right next to each other, it seems overwhelmingly likely that Isaiah 52:7 stands in the background of Jesus' message:
"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.”
To be sure, the gospels are in Greek and Jesus would not have been using the Greek Old Testament. But the collection of images and language fits the historical context so well that it seems likely we are hearing in the gospels a Greek version of a message that goes back to Jesus.
For example, just as Isaiah 40 which was used of John the Baptist, Isaiah 52 also comes from the context of Israel's return from captivity in Babylon. Since Jesus' ministry flowed out of the ministry of John the Baptist, since this imagery of restoration and returning from exile was part of John's message, since experts overwhelmingly agree that the kingdom of God stood at the heart of Jesus' message, we are surely safe to think that Isaiah 52:7 was ground zero of Jesus' earthly preaching. When the message moved into Greek speaking territory, surely the word "gospel" leaped from the page of Greek Isaiah.
In the Roman Empire, a gospel was good news of an extraordinary sort, such as the birth of an heir to the throne or a major military victory. The Roman Emperor Augustus is celebrated in one inscription as savior of the world and his birth was the beginning of a gospel for the world. [3] Jesus and the earliest Aramaic speaking Christians may not have used the word in this way, but we can make a good argument that the idea started in Jesus' use of Isaiah and that the word "gospel" took off as soon as the message hit Greek speaking believers.
It thus also seems likely that the phrase "the kingdom of God" also comes directly from Isaiah 52:7 and the idea that in the restoration of Israel, God will reign once more. The kingdom of God is the fact that "our God reigns," once more on earth as it is in heaven. If John's message was one of anticipation and preparation, Jesus' message was one of arrival. The kingdom of God is imminent, about to embark in full. It is beginning and growing.
[1] Matthew's "kingdom of heaven" is not something different but a matter of Matthew's style. Following the dominant assumption that Matthew used Mark as a starting point, then Matthew at a number of points intentionally changes Mark's "kingdom of God" to "kingdom of heaven," indicating that the phrasing comes more from Matthew than from Jesus himself. Some think it was a reverential move on his part, to refer to the place where God is rather than to God directly. The theory is not without problems, but is perhaps the best one out there.
[2] Key summaries of Jesus' message in all three of the "Synoptic" gospels summarize Jesus' preaching in this way (Mark 1:14-15; Matthew 4:17: and Luke 4:43). Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because they have such similar wording and events that gospel experts unanimously believe they stand in some literary relationship to each other, meaning that they share common literary sources. The dominant theory for well over a hundred years is that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a major source. Meanwhile, Christians since the 100s have recognized that something quite different is going on in John, with the second century Christian Clement of Alexandria calling it a "spiritual" gospel. It seems to give a less literal and more symbolic presentation of Jesus, as we will see in the second volume of this series.
[3] The Priene Inscription.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Jesus Tradition 2: Mark came first
Yesterday I started a brief series to fill in some of the common understanding of gospel experts that may or may not have trickled down to pulpit and pew. If we are to do an archaeological dig on Jesus Tradition, the earliest material at our disposal is found in Paul. That does not, of course, mean that later material might not give as good or even a better window on Jesus. But earlier is prima facie more likely to give us that window.
Today I want to speak of another majority opinion of gospel experts--one that is now going on 150 years old. If you step back and think about it, it is rather impressive for a group of experts to agree solidly on something like this for such a long period of time. I am referring here to "Markan priority," the conclusion first reached in the late 1800s that the Gospel of Mark is most likely the earliest of the gospels and that Matthew and Luke almost certainly used it (or some edition of it) as a primary source.
The reason for this conclusion goes something like this:
1. All about about 31 verses of Mark can be found in almost identical form in Matthew and Luke. This begins to suggest that Mark was either a source for the other two or that he summarized by drawing from both of them. Very rarely do Matthew and Luke have the same wording in disagreement with Mark. Far more often, either Matthew and Mark agree in wording and Luke is different or Mark and Luke agree and Matthew is different.
2. Important to recognize is that the wording is too similar to be a matter of oral tradition. The overwhelming majority of experts consider it definitive that these three gospels stand in some literary relationship to each other.
Consider the following:
Mark
And after six days takes Jesus the Peter and the James and the John and brings them up into a hill high privately alone (9:2)...
And a cloud came overshadowing them and a voice came from the cloud, "This is my Son, my beloved [Son], hear him" (9:7)
Matthew
And after six days takes Jesus the Peter and James and John the brother of him and brings them up into a hill high privately (17:1)...
... a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold a voice from the cloud speaking, "This is my Son, my beloved [Son], in whom I am pleased, hear him" (17:5).
Luke
About eight days taking Peter and John and James he went up into the mountain to pray... (9:28)
A cloud came and was overshadowing them... and a voice came from the cloud saying, "This is my Son, who has been chosen, him hear" (9:34-35).
As is often the case, the verbal similarity between Matthew and Mark is very close, with only some minor variations. Notice, however, that in the case of the second verse, Mark and Luke are closer at some points. The virtually unanimous sense of those who have gone through all three gospels with a fine tooth comb of comparison is thus that these three gospels stand in some literary relationship to each other.
As a side note, God could have dictated such strong similarities in the midst of minor differences, but why would he? The minor variations are meaningless--they would serve no purpose for God to dictate in such a way. And these gospels never claim to be dictated word for word from God and in fact Luke tells us he used sources. It is overwhelmingly likely that inspiration worked through a normal process of using sources and writing in a way that worked together and through the minds and categories of the authors.
A second realization is that Mark was almost certainly not an eyewitness to anything but perhaps some of the final events in Jerusalem. The earliest witness to him points this out (Papias). He was not a disciple. People often get this confused. Neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses, and Luke may not even have been a Jew.
3. The order of the gospels is also quite interesting. Matthew and Mark are very close. Luke often is the same but also is different in order at some points. This is quite remarkable when we consider that Jesus did many things that aren't in the gospels. That Matthew-Mark-and Luke would narrate the same basic events in the same basic order also points to a literary relationship.
4. Among these three, Mark's grammar is the least polished (the most Semitic, in my opinion) and least theologically developed. This points to Mark being the first rather than the last. For example, in Mark Jesus is simply baptized by John. By contrast, Matthew deems it important to clarify that Jesus does not need to be baptized by John--he is doing it because it is part of the plan. Mark has Aramaic words like "Talitha cumi," "Ephatha," and "Abba" that Matthew and Luke do not have. Mark 1 starts numerous verses with "and," "and," "and," "and," a fact that most translations have altered because it is bad English style. That same material is somewhat spread out and smoothed out in Matthew.
Here's just a small example of the kind of dynamics we find repeatedly:
Mark
"And whenever you see the abomination of desolation standing where it is not supposed to (let the reader understand), then let those in Judea flee to the hills" (13:14).
Matthew
"Therefore, whenever you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken through Daniel the prophet, having stood in the Holy Place (let the reader understand), then let those in Judea flee to the hill" (24:15-16).
This is an even better illustration of how close the Synoptic gospels (Matthew-Mark-Luke) can be at times. Notice that they even have a parenthetical comment in common ("let the reader understand"). If we ask which is more likely to be original, we see that one of Matthew's characteristic themes--the fulfillment of Scripture. In general, things tend to expand rather than condense, although this is not an absolute. Mark's style is a little rougher, though not much.
Let's then look at Luke:
"And whenever you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those in Judea flee to the hills.
I have put the verbal similarities in bold. You can once again see a word-for-word layer in Luke, but it has also tweaked the prophecy to make it correspond more closely to the way the prophesy actually played out. Rather that the temple being desecrated by some object placed in it (as in Daniel), the temple was destroyed by the Roman armies. This modification Luke has made makes it virtually certain that Luke-Acts were both written after the temple's destruction in AD70. Notice also that Luke follows Mark's "and" rather than Matthew's "therefore."
Conclusion
What we find is that the assumption that Mark was first and that Matthew and Luke then used Mark as a primary source has incredible explanatory power. Time after time, this assumption yields a plausible explanation for the various similarities and modifications we find between the Synoptics.
Two closing examples:
1. In Matthew we are a little puzzled by the way Jesus curses a fig tree that immediately withers (21:18-22). Matthew uses the event as an illustration of what a person with faith can do.
Mark has the story different. In Mark, Jesus does not curse the fig tree after he has overturned the tables in the temple but right before. Then the next day they find that the tree has withered. This is a "sandwich." Mark sandwiches Jesus' action in the temple with the incident with the fig tree.
If we assume Markan priority, we can see what happened. In the original version of Mark, the fig tree story was very relevant to the passion story. Matthew's modifications, by contrast, have left us with a story that seems oddly placed. Luke then doesn't copy the story at all.
2. In Luke 23:25, Pilate has been talking to the chief priests, the rulers, and the people (23:13). In 23:25-26, it seems like Pilate delivers Jesus over to these people. When we look at Matthew 27:27-31 and Mark 15:16-20, we realize that Luke has abbreviated the account. He has omitted material in which soldiers take Jesus away and beat him.
So, like any hypothesis, the repeated and detailed comparison of the Synoptics has resulted in a very strong consensus among gospel experts that Mark was very likely the first of the gospels and that Matthew and Luke used it as the starting point for their own gospels.
Today I want to speak of another majority opinion of gospel experts--one that is now going on 150 years old. If you step back and think about it, it is rather impressive for a group of experts to agree solidly on something like this for such a long period of time. I am referring here to "Markan priority," the conclusion first reached in the late 1800s that the Gospel of Mark is most likely the earliest of the gospels and that Matthew and Luke almost certainly used it (or some edition of it) as a primary source.
The reason for this conclusion goes something like this:
1. All about about 31 verses of Mark can be found in almost identical form in Matthew and Luke. This begins to suggest that Mark was either a source for the other two or that he summarized by drawing from both of them. Very rarely do Matthew and Luke have the same wording in disagreement with Mark. Far more often, either Matthew and Mark agree in wording and Luke is different or Mark and Luke agree and Matthew is different.
2. Important to recognize is that the wording is too similar to be a matter of oral tradition. The overwhelming majority of experts consider it definitive that these three gospels stand in some literary relationship to each other.
Consider the following:
Mark
And after six days takes Jesus the Peter and the James and the John and brings them up into a hill high privately alone (9:2)...
And a cloud came overshadowing them and a voice came from the cloud, "This is my Son, my beloved [Son], hear him" (9:7)
Matthew
And after six days takes Jesus the Peter and James and John the brother of him and brings them up into a hill high privately (17:1)...
... a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold a voice from the cloud speaking, "This is my Son, my beloved [Son], in whom I am pleased, hear him" (17:5).
Luke
About eight days taking Peter and John and James he went up into the mountain to pray... (9:28)
A cloud came and was overshadowing them... and a voice came from the cloud saying, "This is my Son, who has been chosen, him hear" (9:34-35).
As is often the case, the verbal similarity between Matthew and Mark is very close, with only some minor variations. Notice, however, that in the case of the second verse, Mark and Luke are closer at some points. The virtually unanimous sense of those who have gone through all three gospels with a fine tooth comb of comparison is thus that these three gospels stand in some literary relationship to each other.
As a side note, God could have dictated such strong similarities in the midst of minor differences, but why would he? The minor variations are meaningless--they would serve no purpose for God to dictate in such a way. And these gospels never claim to be dictated word for word from God and in fact Luke tells us he used sources. It is overwhelmingly likely that inspiration worked through a normal process of using sources and writing in a way that worked together and through the minds and categories of the authors.
A second realization is that Mark was almost certainly not an eyewitness to anything but perhaps some of the final events in Jerusalem. The earliest witness to him points this out (Papias). He was not a disciple. People often get this confused. Neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses, and Luke may not even have been a Jew.
3. The order of the gospels is also quite interesting. Matthew and Mark are very close. Luke often is the same but also is different in order at some points. This is quite remarkable when we consider that Jesus did many things that aren't in the gospels. That Matthew-Mark-and Luke would narrate the same basic events in the same basic order also points to a literary relationship.
4. Among these three, Mark's grammar is the least polished (the most Semitic, in my opinion) and least theologically developed. This points to Mark being the first rather than the last. For example, in Mark Jesus is simply baptized by John. By contrast, Matthew deems it important to clarify that Jesus does not need to be baptized by John--he is doing it because it is part of the plan. Mark has Aramaic words like "Talitha cumi," "Ephatha," and "Abba" that Matthew and Luke do not have. Mark 1 starts numerous verses with "and," "and," "and," "and," a fact that most translations have altered because it is bad English style. That same material is somewhat spread out and smoothed out in Matthew.
Here's just a small example of the kind of dynamics we find repeatedly:
Mark
"And whenever you see the abomination of desolation standing where it is not supposed to (let the reader understand), then let those in Judea flee to the hills" (13:14).
Matthew
"Therefore, whenever you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken through Daniel the prophet, having stood in the Holy Place (let the reader understand), then let those in Judea flee to the hill" (24:15-16).
This is an even better illustration of how close the Synoptic gospels (Matthew-Mark-Luke) can be at times. Notice that they even have a parenthetical comment in common ("let the reader understand"). If we ask which is more likely to be original, we see that one of Matthew's characteristic themes--the fulfillment of Scripture. In general, things tend to expand rather than condense, although this is not an absolute. Mark's style is a little rougher, though not much.
Let's then look at Luke:
"And whenever you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those in Judea flee to the hills.
I have put the verbal similarities in bold. You can once again see a word-for-word layer in Luke, but it has also tweaked the prophecy to make it correspond more closely to the way the prophesy actually played out. Rather that the temple being desecrated by some object placed in it (as in Daniel), the temple was destroyed by the Roman armies. This modification Luke has made makes it virtually certain that Luke-Acts were both written after the temple's destruction in AD70. Notice also that Luke follows Mark's "and" rather than Matthew's "therefore."
Conclusion
What we find is that the assumption that Mark was first and that Matthew and Luke then used Mark as a primary source has incredible explanatory power. Time after time, this assumption yields a plausible explanation for the various similarities and modifications we find between the Synoptics.
Two closing examples:
1. In Matthew we are a little puzzled by the way Jesus curses a fig tree that immediately withers (21:18-22). Matthew uses the event as an illustration of what a person with faith can do.
Mark has the story different. In Mark, Jesus does not curse the fig tree after he has overturned the tables in the temple but right before. Then the next day they find that the tree has withered. This is a "sandwich." Mark sandwiches Jesus' action in the temple with the incident with the fig tree.
If we assume Markan priority, we can see what happened. In the original version of Mark, the fig tree story was very relevant to the passion story. Matthew's modifications, by contrast, have left us with a story that seems oddly placed. Luke then doesn't copy the story at all.
2. In Luke 23:25, Pilate has been talking to the chief priests, the rulers, and the people (23:13). In 23:25-26, it seems like Pilate delivers Jesus over to these people. When we look at Matthew 27:27-31 and Mark 15:16-20, we realize that Luke has abbreviated the account. He has omitted material in which soldiers take Jesus away and beat him.
So, like any hypothesis, the repeated and detailed comparison of the Synoptics has resulted in a very strong consensus among gospel experts that Mark was very likely the first of the gospels and that Matthew and Luke used it as the starting point for their own gospels.
Friday, November 27, 2009
What I'm Reading (11-27-09)
As part of my goal to read at least 30 minutes a day in relation to my writing, I started Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin's book Questioning Q today. I am such a ridiculously slow reader and easily distracted by children and multitudes of other things. After over an hour I had only read the Foreward by N. T. Wright and the 12 page Introduction by Perrin, "Reasons for Questioning Q."
In any case, I have updated my reading list on the side and will be adding a couple other books in the days ahead. Because I have a short span of attention, I hope to rotate around these books, finishing a chapter in one and then rotating to the next.
I had not known (silly me) that either Wright or Perrin would favor such positions, although to be honest, Wright did not exactly take a position in his Foreward. He rather told his own surprise over the years that the Q hypothesis had not been questioned more often. For those who aren't aware of this issue, the majority position among gospel scholars has long been that Mark was the first gospel and that Matthew and Luke both independently used a sayings source commonly called "Q" (from the German Quelle) to explain the similar material they have in common.
I have generally accepted the majority position on the issue, although in the name of truth I insist on being open to other hypotheses as the evidence is marshalled. I am quite open to the possibility that Luke knew Matthew, for example. On the other hand, I will approach this material wondering whether that possibility in itself eliminates justification for a sayings source. We'll see. In my critical issues series, the Synoptic Problem is next up, so this is my research for that section. Yes, Goodacre is right, I am a "lazy believer" in Q.
Perrin recounts the story of how the Q hypothesis developed. I'll save that story for my own summary to come. One key point is his sense that David Strauss' mid-1800s claims that the gospels were full of "myth" begged for an account like that of H. J. Holtzmann that arrived at some sort of Jesus bedrock--in his case an earlier version of Mark and a collection of Jesus' sayings.
Hopefully more to come. I hate to say it but with 10 more chapters, this may take me a while.
Oh me, oh life...
In any case, I have updated my reading list on the side and will be adding a couple other books in the days ahead. Because I have a short span of attention, I hope to rotate around these books, finishing a chapter in one and then rotating to the next.
I had not known (silly me) that either Wright or Perrin would favor such positions, although to be honest, Wright did not exactly take a position in his Foreward. He rather told his own surprise over the years that the Q hypothesis had not been questioned more often. For those who aren't aware of this issue, the majority position among gospel scholars has long been that Mark was the first gospel and that Matthew and Luke both independently used a sayings source commonly called "Q" (from the German Quelle) to explain the similar material they have in common.
I have generally accepted the majority position on the issue, although in the name of truth I insist on being open to other hypotheses as the evidence is marshalled. I am quite open to the possibility that Luke knew Matthew, for example. On the other hand, I will approach this material wondering whether that possibility in itself eliminates justification for a sayings source. We'll see. In my critical issues series, the Synoptic Problem is next up, so this is my research for that section. Yes, Goodacre is right, I am a "lazy believer" in Q.
Perrin recounts the story of how the Q hypothesis developed. I'll save that story for my own summary to come. One key point is his sense that David Strauss' mid-1800s claims that the gospels were full of "myth" begged for an account like that of H. J. Holtzmann that arrived at some sort of Jesus bedrock--in his case an earlier version of Mark and a collection of Jesus' sayings.
Hopefully more to come. I hate to say it but with 10 more chapters, this may take me a while.
Oh me, oh life...
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Matthew 22 and Mark 12--Same story as Luke 10?
Had a good follow up question to my post yesterday in relation to the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:
I have a question about the Matt 22 and Mark 12 stories. The Matthew and Mark versions seem obviously parallel in my opinion, but the Luke version is different enough from both (who answers the question first, adding the Samaritan parable, and the ending of the Mark story is unique). I realize that the writers may have framed the story to fit their gospel, but are these versions different enough to no longer call them parallel? ... I am just asking first, what is the standard for calling passages parallel? Second, what kind of hermeneutic is there for these parallel passages in the gospels or in Samuel/Kings/Chronicles?
My response:
Great question!
From the standpoint of interpreting Luke (or Mark or Matthew) you will want to let each gospel have its full rein. This means to think of Matthew, Mark, or Luke at these points as a self-contained, literary text. If you think first of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as giving videos of the events, that is, as transcripts of exactly what happened, then you will get off into harmonizing them and will miss the unique points that gospel is making. It's like what we tend to do with Christmas plays or Passion plays. Each gospel has a unique message in relation to these parts of Jesus' life and we miss them if we do not read each independently of each other first.
I'm sure you know that most think Luke and Matthew used Mark as a major source behind their gospels. That presents us with a question when it comes to incidences like this one. We have two basic choices:
1) we consider this unique Luke material that he got from some other source--and certainly this is the way most scholars, even very skeptical ones like John Dominic Crossan, view the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Tom Wright might say that Jesus probably taught similar things in different contexts in slightly different ways, so who is to say that this isn't simply a similar situation passed on independently.
2) The other option--and one made more likely by the fact that Matthew and Luke seem to use up almost all of Mark (only 31 verses of Mark aren't found in them somewhere) is that this is Luke's creative re-presentation of the same story in order to present the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which he knew from some other source.
You will have to choose which scenario you think is more likely. The truth of Luke 10 remains either way.
I have a question about the Matt 22 and Mark 12 stories. The Matthew and Mark versions seem obviously parallel in my opinion, but the Luke version is different enough from both (who answers the question first, adding the Samaritan parable, and the ending of the Mark story is unique). I realize that the writers may have framed the story to fit their gospel, but are these versions different enough to no longer call them parallel? ... I am just asking first, what is the standard for calling passages parallel? Second, what kind of hermeneutic is there for these parallel passages in the gospels or in Samuel/Kings/Chronicles?
My response:
Great question!
From the standpoint of interpreting Luke (or Mark or Matthew) you will want to let each gospel have its full rein. This means to think of Matthew, Mark, or Luke at these points as a self-contained, literary text. If you think first of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as giving videos of the events, that is, as transcripts of exactly what happened, then you will get off into harmonizing them and will miss the unique points that gospel is making. It's like what we tend to do with Christmas plays or Passion plays. Each gospel has a unique message in relation to these parts of Jesus' life and we miss them if we do not read each independently of each other first.
I'm sure you know that most think Luke and Matthew used Mark as a major source behind their gospels. That presents us with a question when it comes to incidences like this one. We have two basic choices:
1) we consider this unique Luke material that he got from some other source--and certainly this is the way most scholars, even very skeptical ones like John Dominic Crossan, view the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Tom Wright might say that Jesus probably taught similar things in different contexts in slightly different ways, so who is to say that this isn't simply a similar situation passed on independently.
2) The other option--and one made more likely by the fact that Matthew and Luke seem to use up almost all of Mark (only 31 verses of Mark aren't found in them somewhere) is that this is Luke's creative re-presentation of the same story in order to present the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which he knew from some other source.
You will have to choose which scenario you think is more likely. The truth of Luke 10 remains either way.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Luke-Synoptic Question-Gospels
Interviews for new IWU seminary today have knocked me from my May term class. Here is a peek into the life of an IWU New Testament Survey class:
True and false thoughts on Luke and the synoptic question...
Quick summary of synoptic question...
True and false thoughts on Luke and the synoptic question...
Quick summary of synoptic question...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
