FOOTNOTES 64
FOOTNOTES
1. It can be found in NPNF 6:77-236.
2. Martin uses Luke 1:1-4 in a similar way in his introduction (1:119-21).
3. Schmidt’s Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur altesten JesusQberlieferung was published in 1919 (by Trowitzsch & Son in Berlin) and has never been translated. Also appearing in 1919 in its original German edition was Martin Dibelius’s From Tradition to Gospel (ET New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, n.d.). The History of the Synoptic Tradition by Rudolf Bultmann was published in 1921 (ET New York: Harper & Row, 1963).
4.E.g., Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, pp. 178-79.
5. In addition to the Dibelius and Bultmann works mentioned, see Vincent Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1935). Taylor uses form criticism with less historical skepticism than does either Dibelius or Bultmann.
6. Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 4.
7. Normann Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1967), p. 27. cf. Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 127-28.
8. C. H. Dodd, for instance, proposes that from the beginning, the pattern of early Christian preaching had imposed a certain pattern in the gospel material ("The Framework of the Gospel Narrative,” ExpTim 43 [1932]: 396-400).
9. See esp. Erhardt GQttgemanns, Candid Questions Concerning Gospel Form Criticism: A Methodological Sketch of the Fundamental Problematics of Form and Redaction Criticism (ET Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979), and Werner H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
10. E.g., David Hill, New Testament Prophecy (Richmond: John Knox, 1979), pp. 16085; J. D. G. Dunn, "Prophetic ‘I’-Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances Within Early Christianity,” NTS 24 (1978): 175-98; David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 245.
11. E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS 11 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).
12. See, e.g., M. D. Hooker, "On Using the Wrong Tool,” Theol 75 (1972): 570-81.
13. See esp. Robert Stein, "The ‘Criteria’ of Authenticity,” in GP 1:225-63; Ben F.
Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), pp. 85-87.
14. McNeile, p. 53.
15. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, ASNU 22 (Lund: Gleerup,
1964). For a review of this proposal, see Peter Davids, "The Gospels and Jewish Tradition: Twenty Years After Gerhardsson,” in GP 1:75-99.
16. Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, WUNT 2.7 (TQbingen: Mohr, 1981); idem, "JQdische Elementarbildung und EvangelienQberlieferung,” in GP 1:209-23.
17. The agreement in the Greek text is almost as close, with variations only in the tense of an infinitive, the inclusion of a nonessential verb in Luke, and the choice of a particle at the beginning of the last sentence. Notice the "for” in Matthew, with nothing comparable in Luke (the Greek text has de [de], "and,” "but”). Why the NIV has an exclamation point at the end of the first sentence in Luke and a period at the same place in Matthew is a mystery.
18. Full accounts of the history of the investigation may be found in Werner Georg Kummel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (New York: Abingdon, 1970), pp. 74-88, 144-61; Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1986 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 112-36.
19. G. E. Lessing, Neue Hypothese Ober die Evangelisten als blos menschichliche Geschichtschreiberbetrachtet, nos. 24-49 (1784).
20. J. E. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1804).
21. C. C. Torrey, The Four Gospels (New York: Harper, 1933). See also X. Leon-Dufour, "The Synoptic Gospels,” in Robert/Feuillet, pp. 252-86. Leon-Dufour argues that the synoptic evangelists are independent on the literary level, all the similarities arising through dependence on an Aramaic Matthew and oral tradition.
22. J. G. Herder, Von der Regel der Zusammenstimmung unserer Evangelien (1797).
23. J. K. L. Gieseler, Historisch-kritischer Versuch Ober die Entstehung und die frOhesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien (1818).
24. B. F. Westcott was one of the better-known defenders of the view. See his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 8th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1895), pp. 165212.
25. John M. Rist has recently argued that the agreements between Matthew and Mark can be explained by common use of oral tradition, without having to bring in written sources or to have one depending on the other (On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, SNTSMS 32 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978]). Bo Reicke attributes the similarities among the Synoptic Gospels to a combination of shared (mainly) oral tradition and personal contacts among the authors (The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986]).
26. See esp. F. Schleiermacher, "Ober die Zeugnisse des Papias von unseren ersten beiden Evangelien,” TSK 5 (1832): 335-68.
27. F. Gerald Downing notes that Josephus rarely quoted his sources word-for-word. If this tendency can be assumed for the synoptic evangelists, it is the similarities, not the differences, that require explanation ("Redaction Criticism: Josephus’ Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels,” JSNT 8 [1980]: 33).
28. Robert Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43. Stein’s entire discussion of this matter, replete with many examples, gives a detailed defense of synoptic interdependence (pp. 29-44).
29. Augustine The Harmony of the Gospels 1.2, in NPNF Vol. 6.
30. B. C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951); see also D. J.
Chapman, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels, ed. John M. T. Barton (London: Longmans, Green, 1937).
31. J. J. Griesbach, Commentatio qua Marci evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (Treatise in which is demonstrated that the gospel of Mark has been wholly derived from the commentaries of Matthew and Luke) (1789). Griesbach was anticipated in this proposal by H. P. Owen in 1764 (Observations of the Four Gospels).
32. See esp. William Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (New York: Macmillan, 1964); Hans-Herbert Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis (Macon, Ga: Mercer University Press, 1980); William Farmer, ed., New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond (Macon, Ga: Mercer University Press, 1983). A collection of significant essays for and against the hypothesis is found in Arthur J. Bellinzoni, Jr., ed., The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal (Macon, Ga: Mercer University Press, 1985).
33. Karl Lachmann, "De Ordine narrationum im evangeliis synopticis,” TSK 8 (1835): 570-90; C. G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch-kritische Untersuchungen Ober das Verwandtschaftsverhaltniss der drei ersten Evangelien (1838); C. H. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (1838).
34. H. J. Holtzmann, Die synoptische Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und ihr geschichtlicher Charakter (1863).
35. B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924).
36. See the surveys in Zahn 2:392-96 and William Farmer, Jesus and the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), pp. 13-110.
37. See, however, R. L. Lindsey, "A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence,” NovT 6 (1963): 239.
38. For further detail and other arguments, see esp. Kummel, pp. 56-63; Stein,
Synoptic Problem, pp. 45-88; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Priority of Mark and the ‘Q’ Source in Luke,” in Jesus and Man’s Hope (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970), 1:131-70 (reprinted in Bellinzoni, The Two-Source Hypothesis).
39. The statistics are from Stein, Synoptic Problem, p. 48, who is citing Joseph B.
Tyson and Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Synoptic Abstract, The Computer Bible 15 (Wooster, Ohio: College of Wooster, 1978), pp. 169-71.
40. E.g., David L. Dungan, "The Purpose and Provenance of the Gospel of Mark According to the Two-Gospel (Owen-Griesbach) Hypothesis,” in New Synoptic Studies, pp. 411-40.
41. G. M. Styler, "The Priority of Mark,” in Moule, p. 231.
42. See, e.g., David Wenham, "The Synoptic Problem Revisited: Some New Suggestions About the Composition of Mark 4:1-34,” TynB 23 (1972): 3-38.
43. The designation is often thought to be the first letter of the German word Quelle, "source.” See the discussion in John J. Schmitt, "In Search of the Origin of the Siglum Q,” JBL 100 (1981): 609-11.
44. See esp. A. Polag, Fragmenta Q: Texthelf zur Logienquelle, 2d ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982). Guthrie provides a helpful outline (pp. 167-68).
45. Richard A. Edwards, A Theology of Q (Philadephia: Fortress, 1976).
46. See, e.g., Kummel, pp. 65-66; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981), pp. 76-81.
47. Stein, Synoptic Problem, p. 107.
48. See, on this point, John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (Oxford: Clarendon, 1909), pp. 80-107.
49. Most notably, Austen Farrar, "On Dispensing with Q,” in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), pp. 55-88.
50. The number of these agreements is debated; see the tabulation and discussion in Franz Neirynck, The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark, with a Cumulative List, BETL 37 (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1974).
51. For these suggestions, see Streeter, Four Gospels, pp. 293-331; Stein, Synoptic Problem, pp. 123-27; F. Neirynck, "Synoptic Problem,” in IDBSup, p. 845.
52. E.g., GQnther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1960), p. 217; Vincent Taylor makes such a suggestion, but very cautiously (The Gospel According to St. Mark, 2d ed. [London: Macmillan, 1966], pp. 67-77).
53. Kummel, p. 62.
54. The translation is by Kirsopp Lake, from Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1,
LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926). See further discussion of this passage in chap. 2 below, in the section Author.
55. E.g., Zahn 2:601-17. Others who maintain the existence of an Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew lying behind the Synoptic Gospels are Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 188-89; Chapman, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, pp. 90-92; X. Leon-Dufour, "Synoptic Problem,” pp. 283-86; and J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), p. 97.
56. See esp. Streeter, Four Gospels, pp. 199-221; Vincent Taylor, The Passion Narrative of St. Luke: A Critical and Historical Investigation, ed. Owen E. Evans, SNTSMS 19 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Friedrich Rehkopf, Der lukanische Sonderquelle, WUNT 5 (TQbingen: Mohr, 1959).
57. See Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 90-91, for criticisms.
58. See, e.g., the complicated source-critical proposal of L. Vaganay, Le probl&aage;me synoptique: Une hypoth&aage;se de travail (Paris: Desclee, 1954); note his summary on p. 444.
59. Correctly emphasized by Robinson, Redating, pp. 93-94.
60. Good descriptions of redaction criticism are found in Norman Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969); R. H. Stein, "What Is Redaktionsgeschichte?” JBL 88 (1969): 45-56; idem, Synoptic Problem, pp. 231-72; Joachim Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists (London: SCM,
1968). R. T. France provides an illuminating example of redaction criticism at work in his "Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 253-64.
61. For the methodology of redaction criticism as applied to Mark, see E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark, SNTSMS 33 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1978); Stein, Synoptic Problem, pp. 251-63. Skeptical of the whole enterprise of redaction criticism as applied to Mark is C. Clifton Black, The Disciples in Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate, JSNTSupp 27 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989).
62. William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901 [ET The Messianic Secret in Mark]).
63. R. H. Lightfoot’s 1934 Bampton Lectures, published as History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), anticipates many of the emphases of redaction criticism, as do Ned B. Stonehouse’s The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (1944) and The Witness of Luke to Christ (1951) (the two can be found in a one-volume edition from Baker Book House [1979]). On Stonehouse’s work, see Moises Silva, "Ned B. Stonehouse and Redaction Criticism. Part I: The Witness of the Synoptic Evangelists to Christ; Part II: The Historicity of the Synoptic Tradition,” WTJ 40 (1977-78): 77-88, 281-303.
64. It can be found in English translation in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974).
65. Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1960).
The German original, more revealingly titled Die Mitte der Zeit ("The center of time”), was published in 1954.
66. Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969); the German original appeared in 1956.
67. Note particularly three monographs from conservative scholars that employ redaction-critical methods and that dissent from the conclusions of Marxsen, Conzelmann, and Bornkamm: Ralph Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972); I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, new, enlarged ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989); R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989).
68. For more detail on these points and others, see D. A. Carson, "Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), pp. 119-42, 376 81.
69. See Graham N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching,
SNTSMS 27 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974).
70. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, p. 23.
71. The issue raised in this paragraph is very broad and important. For these points and others, see esp. R. T. France, "The Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus,” in History, Criticism, and Faith, ed. Colin Brown (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1976), pp. 101-41; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1987), esp. pp. 35-43, 113-52; I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
72. See, e.g., Grant R. Osborne, "The Evangelical and Redaction Criticism: Critique and Methodology,” JETS 22 (1979): 305-22.
73. Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 107.
74. The New Testament use of eUaggeliov (euangelion, "gospel”, G2295) and eUaggeliZomai (euangelizomai, "to preach good news”, G2294) is taken from the Old Testament. These Greek words translate Hebrew words (from the root rCb[bsr, "bear tidings”]) that refer to the deliverance that God has promised his people (see esp. Isa. 40:9; 42:7; 52:7; 61:1; Ps. 95:1).
75. See, e.g., G. Friedrich, "eUaggeliov (G2295),” in TDNT2:721-35.
76. E.g., Martin Hengel, "The Titles of the Gospels and the Gospel of Mark,” in Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), pp. 64-84.
77. K. L. Schmidt, "Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturgeschichte,” in ETXAPIΣTHPION Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Fs. Hermann Gunkel, ed. K. L. Schmidt, FRLANT 19.2 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), pp. 59-60.
78. See Robert Guelich, "The Gospel Genre,” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher (TQbingen: Mohr, 1983), pp. 183-219.
79. See, e.g., Kummel, p. 37; Guthrie, pp. 16-19; Martin 1:20; Robert H. Gundry, "Recent Investigations into the Literary Genre ‘Gospel,’” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 101-13; Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford: University Press, 1989), pp. 15-20.
80. See esp. C. W. Votaw, "The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies,” AJT 19 (1915), pp. 45-71; Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); Philip L. Shuler, A Genre for the Gospels: The Biographical Character of Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); Detlev Dormeyer and Hubert Frankemolle, "Evangelium als literarische Gattung und als theologisches Begriff: Tendenzen und Aufgaben der Evangelienforschung im 20. Jahrhundert, mit einer Untersuchung des Markusevangeliums in seinem Verhaltnis zur antiken Biographie,” in ANRW 25.2, pp.1545-81; Albrecht Dihle, "Die Evangelien und die griechische Biographie,” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, pp. 383-411; David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity 8 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), pp. 17-76.
81. Patricia Cox makes the important point that ancient biographies recounted the "deeds” (πράξεις [πραχεις]) of its subject only as a means of illuminating his or her "essence,” or "manner of life” (εθος [ethos]) (Biography in Late Antiquity [Berkeley: University of California, 1983], p. 65). This does not match the intention of the evangelists.
82. Edgar V. McKnight, Post-Modern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-
Oriented Criticism (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), p. 14.
83. A fine, brief survey of the movement generally, with competent critique, is Tremper Longman III, Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987). Some important studies that consider various approaches within this general movement are Norman R. Peterson, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978); Edgar V. McKnight, Meaning in Texts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974); idem, Post-Modern Use of the Bible ; Daniel Patte, What Is Structural Exegesis ? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); idem, Structural Exegesis for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990); Robert W. Funk, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Somona, Calif.: Polebridge, 1989). See also Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
84. See, for this point, Kevin Vanhoozer, "A Lamp in the Labyrinth: The Hermeneutics of ‘Aesthetic’ Theology,” TrinJ 8 (1987): 25-56.
85. See, e.g., E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1967).
86. On Reimarus and other key figures in the debate about the "historical Jesus” through the middle of the nineteenth century, see esp. Colin Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 1778-1860 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988). A broader survey is found in Charles C. Anderson, Critical Quests of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969).
87. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1961). The German title is Von Reimarus zu Wrede (From Reimarus to Wrede).
88. Johannes Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); the German original was published in 1892.
89. Martin Kahler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964); the German original was published in 1896.
90. The German original, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, was first published in 1901.
91. E. E. Ellis, "Gospels Criticism: A Perspective on the State of the Art,” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, p. 30.
92. Rudolph Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951-55), 1:26.
93. Ernst Kasemann, "The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in Essays on New Testament Themes (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), pp. 15-47; Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, esp. pp. 13-26; and note James M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus, SBT 25 (London: SCM, 1959). For a conservative appraisal, see Ralph P. Martin, "The New Quest of the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Savior and Lord, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), pp. 31-45.
94. A helpful collection of essays on a variety of views current through 1969 is Harvey K. McArthur, ed., In Search of the Historical Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969).
95. Martin Hengel, "Literary, Theological, and Historical Problems in the Gospel of Mark,” in Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 41.
96. Note, e.g., the approach advocated by Royce Gordon Gruenler, New Approaches to Jesus and the Gospels: A Phenomenological and Exegetical Study of Synoptic Christology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982).
97. See, e.g., Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus ; Blomberg, Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
98. Childs, pp. 154-56.
99. On harmonizing, see esp. Craig L. Blomberg, "The Legitimacy and Limits of Harmonization,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John
D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), pp. 135-74, 388-97.
100. See esp. Harold Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), pp. 12-13.
101. E.g., William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), pp. 238-300.
102. E.g., Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), pp. 23-24.
103 Within this general span, there are several possibilities for the exact month and date, depending on which calendar may have been used. See, e.g., George Ogg, The Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940), pp. 174-83.
104. E.g., F. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 1:166-67.
105. Most evangelical scholars argue that John’s cleansing of the temple is a different cleansing than the one narrated in the Synoptic Gospels. If, however, they are one and the same event, then John would refer to only two separate Passovers.
106. Hoehner’s claim that John’s gospel, as it now stands, requires a ministry of at least three years, appears to depend on taking Jesus’ reference in 4:35 as an indication that it was January or February (Chronological Aspects, pp. 56-63). But this is unlikely (see Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], pp. 278-80); nor does Hoehner seriously consider the possibility that John’s cleansing is the same as the one narrated in the synoptics. See particularly the discussion in C. H. Turner, "Chronology of the New Testament,” in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, 5 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 18981904), 1:407-9; and G. B. Caird, "Chronology of the New Testament,” in IDB 1:602.
107. Morris, John, pp. 774-86.
108. D.A. Carson, "Matthew,” in EBC 8:528-32.
109. The most recent calculations are found in Colin J. Humphreys and W. Graeme Waddington, "The Date of the Crucifixion,” JASA 37 (1985): 2-10; See also J. K. Fotheringham, "The Evidence of Astronomy and Technical Chronology for the Date of the Crucifixion,” JTS 35 (1934): 146-62; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM, 1966), pp. 36-41.
110. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, pp. 105-11.