Part 97
(20:19-23) The Disciples See the Lord In the Christian tradition it remains unclear how often the risen Christ manifested himself to his disciples. Paul names five appearances: to the twelve, to more than five hundred brothers and sisters, to James, to the apostles, and last of all to himself (i Cor 15:57). According to Mk 16:7 Peter and the other disciples would meet Jesus in Galilee; in Mt 28:16—20 this is described as a farewell scene where the eleven disciples are sent out to the whole world (cf. also Mk 16:14-18). In Lk 24:36-49 Jesus appears to them in Jerusalem, wishes them peace, shows them his hands and feet, and eats the fish they give him. He gives them a mission to all people and promises them the gift of the Holy Spirit. Jn 20:19-23 and 21:13 resemble the Lucan narrative in many respects, v. 19, just as in Lk 24:29, 36-53, Jesus appears in Jerusalem in the evening of the day he rose again. John alone mentions that the door was locked, perhaps in order to underline that the risen Christ is no longer bound by normal space conditions. The peace greeting prolongs what Jesus had said in his farewell discourse (Jn 14:27; 16:33). v2O> the hands and the side are also mentioned in w. 25 and 27, whereas in Lk 24:39 Jesus shows his hands and feet. w. 21-2, the missionary work of the disciples depends on
Scripture (cf. 2:22; 12:16). Perhaps the evangelist wanted to point out that even he had to increase in understanding. The two disciples go home and allow Mary to meet Jesus alone
(w. ii—18).
(20:11—18) Mary Sees the Lord This narrative is close to the synoptic account, where several women see God's angels, and even Jesus himself, on their way to the disciples in Mt 28:910. John seems to have fused together two different scenes from Mt 28:1—10: Mary sees first two angels (Jn 20:12—13), then the Lord himself (w. 14—16). w. 11—13, it is possible that exo, 'outside', has been added to improve the text. Mary re-
JOHN 998
reader has to penetrate the mystery of Jesus' revelation of his divine glory, v. 31, it is difficult to decide whether the original subjunctive was an aoristpisteusete or a presentpisteuete. In the first case one could translate as NRSV, 'that you may come to faith', in the second case, 'that you may continue to believe'. In 19:35 the variant that has the aorist tense seems to be preferable, but in our verse both variants are well attested. It is not certain that the evangelist himself would in this case make a clear distinction between the two tenses. In any event, he seems to address Christian readers, whom he wants to gain life in Christ by deepening their faith in Jesus as Messiah and
the mission of the Son and on the gift of the Holy Spirit. In his farewell discourse Jesus had promised that he would send the Helper. A first gift of the Spirit was already described in 19:30, but now the disciples are so to speak 'baptized' by the risen Christ's Spirit, v. 23, as Lk 24:47-49, the forgiveness of sins is linked to the gift of the Spirit and the disciples' missionary work. But John transforms the Lukan understanding of forgiveness with the help of material similar to Mt 16:19 and 18:18. Matthew stresses Peter's and the other disciples' power to 'bind' and 'loose' certain rules in the assembly, whereas John speaks of retaining (binding) sins or forgiving them. Despite the present and the future tenses in many MSS, the variant apheontai (perfect passive, 'they are forgiven') is probably original. The Christian tradition early linked together Matthew and John in its understanding of penance. (20:24-9) Thomas Sees the Lord Thomas' encounter with Jesus is modelled on the previous scene. His experience is meant to help all future believers who have not seen the risen Christ, w. 24—5, the same expression, 'one of the twelve', is applied to Judas in 6:71. The Greek didymos means both 'twin' and 'double' or 'twofold'. In 11:16 and 14:5 Thomas had difficulties understanding Jesus, now he hesitates when confronted by his resurrection. The disciples relate their vision of the Lord, as Mary did in v. 18. In the original Greek text the 'mark' of the nails is first typos, and then probably topos ('place'). The MSS have muddled the two words. The palpable marks have an apologetic function for the reader, w. 26-7, the week following the resurrection corresponds probably to the first week in 1:19-2:1 and to the last week in Jesus' life in 12:1—19:31. Just as in the previous appearance to the disciples, Jesus enters despite the shut doors. Jesus accepts Thomas' daring demand, but tactfully the evangelist does not describe its fulfilment, v. 28, Thomas' doubts give way to a climax in Johannine Christology. In 13:13—14 Jesus used 'teacher' and 'lord' as synonyms, but now 'my Lord' designates the risen Christ. 'My God' resumes the description of Jesus in the Prologue as 'God' (1:1, 18). In the OT Lord and God are associated terms (e.g. Ps7:2—3; 30:3). This is more likely to be the background than the pagan acclamation of the emperor as Lord and God (but see Suetonius, Dom. 13: 'dominus et deus noster'). v. 29, besides 13:17, this is the only formula using 'blessed' in John. It concerns the future believers (cf. 17:20—4) who have not seen Jesus. Thomas should have believed without seeing the marks. Still his clear confession is an act of faith, as was that of the hesitant Nathanael at the beginning of the gospel
Son of God. (21:1-23) m ^is chapter Jesus reveals himself a third time to the disciples, but now by the Sea of Tiberias. The evangelist wants to complete the appearances in Jerusalem with the data of Mk 16:7 and Mt 28:7,10,16-20. He also completes Jn 1:3542 with the help of what we know about the occupation of the disciples from Mk 1:16—20 par. The evangelist has read either a source similar to Lk 5:1—11 or that text itself. There a miraculous draught of fish is combined with the disciples' call. Our passage has a similar relationship to Lk 24:41-3 where the risen Christ eats a piece of the fish.
The author has used different kinds of material but has put them together into a well-organized unity. In a first scene we meet seven disciples who on the word of the Lord catch many fish. In the second scene the risen Christ gives Peter a special mission and speaks about the beloved disciple's destiny. The first scene describes different actions, whereas the second consists of a dialogue between Jesus and Peter. The two scenes are linked together through the different relationships between the risen Lord and the two main disciples.
(21:1—14) The miraculous catch offish and the following meal are closely interrelated, v. i the typical Johannine 'after these things' does not indicate a chronological but a thematic progression (cf. 6:1). The same formula 'to show oneself as in 7:4 is now used in reference to the risen Christ (in 21:14 in me
passive form). Strangely enough the word 'disciples' occurs seven times in w. 1-14, matching the seven disciples named in v. 2. In 6:1 the Sea of Tiberias is mentioned as a synonym for the Sea of Galilee, v. 2, the use of 'together' (Gk. homou) is different from that at 4:36 and 20:4, but similar to Luke's in Acts. Three of the seven disciples occur in Lk 5:1-11: Peter, James, and John. Peter and Thomas have been important in the appearances in Jn 20. Nathanael who is mentioned in 1:45-51 is now presented as coming from Cana in Galilee, perhaps under the influence of the wedding in ch. 2. In the synoptic tradition James and John are often presented as sons of Zebedee (Mk 1:19—20 par.; 3:17 par.; 10:35 Par-)- With Simon and Andrew, who were named in Jn 1:35-42, they form a special group. We have seen that the anonymous disciple in 1:40—2 is best identified with John, one of the sons of Zebedee. He will be called the other disciple, or the one whom Jesus loved, in the rest of ch. 21. The two other disciples in 21:2 could then be Andrew and Philip (see 1:40-4; 6:7-8; 12:22). w. 3-4, as in Lk 5:5 they have fished during the night. Why they do this after the appearances in Jerusalem has no importance for the author. Despite Greek epi, 'on' (the beach) in many M S S, cis is probably original, but has here the same meaning as en or cpi.
(1:43-51).
(20:30—1) The author suddenly expresses himself in a first epilogue to what he calls this book. v. 30, the word 'sign' is a key for the reader to understand both the risen Christ's appearances and their link with the 'signs' during his public life. Those who presuppose a sign-source behind this gospel consider w. 30—1 as its natural conclusion. But we have seen that the Fourth Gospel forms a unity despite its redactional problems. In this case the 'signs' are not only the seven miracles we have enumerated, but also other scenes and words of Jesus. These signs are no riddles, since the reader is from the beginning informed about the Word, Jesus Christ. But the
999 JOHN
pastor of Jesus' sheep he will give his life, just as the Master himself laid down his life for them (cf. 10:15, I7~1^)- ^n vJ9 the author explains what Jesus prophetically formulates in v. 18: Peter will die on a cross (on Peter's death as martyr under Nero, see i Clem. 5:4). w. 20—3, in a natural way Peter asks about the destiny of the beloved disciple, who was first explicitly mentioned as such in 13:23. The answer is even more mysterious than that concerning Peter: he will remain until Jesus comes. In his comment in w. 23—4 the writer
In contrast to v. 12 the disciples at first do not recognize Jesus, though he has already revealed himself to them in Jerusalem. But in this case ch. 21 is not concerned to be consistent with ch. 20. w. 5-6, Jesus addresses the disciples with tenderness, by using a diminutive form paidia (cf. i Jn 2:14,18), similar to teknia in Jn 13:33 (and i Jn). The right side signifies blessing, prosperity. In Lk 5:4 Jesus says: 'Put out into the deep water'. Since the miraculous catch has missionary aspects both in Lk 5:10 and in Jn 21:15-17 'to haul in the fish' may allude to this symbolic meaning. In Lk 5:6—7 the partners in the other boat have to come and help. w. 7—8, as in ch. 20 the beloved disciple understands more quickly than Peter. Respect for the Lord makes Peter do contradictory things: he puts on some clothes before he jumps into the water, probably in order to reach Jesus first (cf. Mt 14:28). The other disciples are only secondary characters, who go with Peter (v. 3) and drag the net (v. 8). w. 9-10, in a subtle way the story of the catch moves into one of a meal, resembling Lk 24:41—3. But John does not explicitly say that the risen Lord himself ate: he only prepares the fish and the bread (v. 9) and gives them to the disciples
(probably a redactor) suggests that the beloved disciple will finally die, but that he will remain until Jesus comes. This has a symbolic meaning: his message will remain. (21:24-5) Probably a redactor, who had already reworked the preceding verses, is responsible for this second conclusion to the gospel and perhaps also for 19:35 to which he alludes. By speaking of 'we' he designates the group who has approved the testimony of the beloved disciple, reflected in the gospel. The evangelist has transmitted the message and testimony of the beloved disciple, whom he wants the reader to identify with John, the son of Zebedee. As Christians must still wait for Jesus' return, the witness of the beloved disciple helps them even after his death and completes Peter's pastoral function. The words 'many other things' amplify what was said in the first conclusion in 20:30.
(v. 13). v. n, in the Greek text (anebe, 'went up') it is not clear whether Peter went back to the boat (NRSV; TOB; JB) or went up on the shore (Bultmann 1971). The 153 fish have been interpreted as the totality of the kinds of fish known at that time (Jerome, In Ezekid 14.47.9-12). A better explanation is to see 153 as the sum of all the numbers up to 17. Moreover there were 12 baskets filled with the fragments of the 5 loaves in 6:13, and that makes a total of 17 (cf. Lindars 1972). Other exegetes have proposed calculations based on gematria, the value of Greek or Hebrew letters, but this leads to arbitrary hypotheses. In any case, the evangelist symbolically suggests a totality of people recruited through missionary work. w. 1213, the author describes in concrete terms how the risen Lord gives the true bread from heaven that was mentioned in ch. 6 (see Hartman 1984). That the disciples do not dare ask Jesus contrasts with Thomas's behaviour in 20:24-9. vI4> me
Appendix: 7:53-8:11
This passage, though canonical, does not properly belong to the Gospel of John, since it is missing in the oldest textual witnesses (e.g. P66, P", Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, old translations). Most MSS that have the text put it after Jn 7:52, probably because of the words 'neither do I condemn you' in 8:11, which can be compared with 8:15. Some MSS, however, place it after 7:36, 7:44, or 21:25; me Ferrar group after Lk 21:38. Several witnesses mark the text as doubtful.
Papias seems to allude to it in £.130 CE, if we can trust Eusebius, H.E 3.39.17. In the fourth century we find it in a simpler form in the Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, 8.2, and in Didymus' commentary on Eccl 7:21-2. The style reminds us of Luke and the story may be compared with Lk 7:36—50. It could be called a biographical apophthegm, in which a saying of Jesus has been developed into the story of a woman caught in adultery. Just as in the Synoptic Gospels, here Jesus does not reject the law directly but criticizes those who apply it mechanically. The law must be interpreted in the light of God's mercy for sinners.
evangelist frames w. 2-13 by resuming v. i and adding that this revelation was the third one to the disciples
(taking into account 20:19—23, 24—9). It is impossible to make this agree with Mk 16:7 and Mt 28:16-20, where the appearance in Galilee is the first one to the disciples
(cf. Mk 16:14).
(21:15-23) The comparison between Peter and the beloved disciple which was hinted at in the first scene becomes explicit in the second one. w. 15—17, the Greek sentence in v. 15 can be understood in three different ways: 'Do you love me more than you love these things?' (teuton is then understood as a neuter pronoun); 'do you love me more than you love those (persons)?'; 'do you love me more than those do?' (this is best in the context). The three questions and the three answers are formulated differently and lead to a climax where Peter feels personally hurt. In a certain sense he makes up for his threefold denial in 18:15—27. Jesus addresses Peter three times as 'son of John', just as he did in his first call (1:42). At that time Peter loved his master whom he was willing to follow (cf. also 13:36—8). There Jesus called him Cephas or Peter, 'rock' (from Aram, kefd' and Gk. Petra). After the three denials Peter must three times confess his love if he is to be the shepherd of Jesus' flock, w. 18-19, now Peter is ready to follow Jesus: as the
(7:53-8:11) Jesus teaches in the temple as he does every day in Luke (Lk 19:47; 20:1; 21:37). He goes to the Mount of Olives as in Lk 21:37. Just as in the synoptic tradition, the scribes and the Pharisees suddenly come to test the Master. The woman seems to be married, as the text emphasizes that she had committed adultery. 8:3/7-6, the legal basis of the accusers' action is not specified, but it may refer to Lev 20:10 and Deut 22:21. According to the Mishnah (Sanh. 7:4; 11:1), an adulterous betrothed girl should be stoned and a married woman strangled, but this legislation is later than the time of our text.
Jesus' silence makes the story more lively. Perhaps what he was writing referred to Jer 17:13: 'Those who turn away from me shall be written on the earth'. The accusers are not the
JOHN
IOOO
appropriate persons to be judges, w. 7-8, 'without sin' does not imply only sexual sins. Jesus' saying is in harmony with Mt 7:1: 'Do not judge, so that you may not be judged' (cf. Lk 6:37). The accusers have to face God's judgement upon their own sins. According to Deut 13:9 the witness should be the first to throw a stone, w. 9—11, as the elders in the Sanhedrin have not been mentioned before, presbyteroi designates probably the oldest men. Perhaps there is even an allusion to the elders of Sus 28 and 41. With much skill the author has delayed the dialogue with the accused woman to the end of his story. In the synoptic tradition Jesus can forgive sins (cf. Mk 2:5; Lk 7:46). Something similar is suggested here, when Jesus says: 'from now on do not sin again' (cf. Jn 5:14), which supposes her contrition.
Gyllenberg, R. (1960), 'Cykliska element i Johannesevangeliets upp-
byggnad', TT65: 309—15. Gyllenberg, R. (1980), RBI:s Studiebibel, Nya testamentet (Stockholm:
Verbum), 177-9. Hartman, L. (1984), 'An Attempt at a Text-Centered Exegesis of John
21', ST 38: 29-45. (1987) 'Johannine Jesus-Belief and Monotheism', L. Hartman-B. Olsson, Aspects on the Johannine Literature, CENTS 18, (Uppsala: Almqvist-Wiksell), 85-99. Hengel, M. (1993), Diejohanneische Frage: Ein Losungsversuch (Tubin-
gen: Mohr). ET, The Johannine Question (London: SCM, 1989). Hooker, M. D. (1974-5), 'The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic
Secret', NTS 21: 40-58. Johansson, N. (1940), Parakletoi: Vorstellungen von Fursprechernfur die
Menschen vor Gott in der alttestamentlichen Religion, im Spdtjudentum und Urchristentum (Lund: Gleerup). Kieffer, R. (1968), Au dela des recensions? LEvolution de la tradition
textuelle dans Jean VI, 52-71', CENTS 3 (Lund: Gleerup).
(1985), 'LEspace et le temps dans 1'evangile de Jean', NTS 31: 393-409. (iC)8j—8},Johannesevangeliet (2 vols.; Uppsala: EFS). (1989), Le Monde symbolique de S.Jean, Lectio divina, 137 (Paris: Cerf).
Aurelius, E. (1988), Der Fiirbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im
Alten Testament, CBOTS 27 (Stockholm: Almqvist-Wiksell). Barrett, C. K. (1978), St John: An Introduction with Commentary and
Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd edn. (London: SPCK). Benoit, P. (1961), Exegeseet Theologie (Paris: Cerf), i. Betz, O. (1963), Der Paraklet (Leiden: Brill). Birdsall, J. N. (1960), 'John X.29', JTS 11:342-4. Black, M. (1967), An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd edn.
(1992), 'Jean et Marc: Convergences dans la structure et dans les details', in A. Denaux (ed.), John and the Synoptics. BETL 101 (Leuven: Leuven University Press), 109-25. Lagrange, M.-J. (1936), Evangile selon saint Jean, 6th edn. (Paris: Ga-
balda). Lindars B. (1972), The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants). Malatesta, E. (1971), "The Literary Structure of John 17', Bib. 52: 190—
(Oxford: Clarendon). Boismard, M. E., and Lamouille, A. (1977), L'Evangile de Jean (Paris:
Cerf). Borig, R. (1967), Derwahre Weinstock, SANT 16 (Munich: Kosel). Brown, R. E. (1966), The Gospel According to John, I-XII (Garden City,
214. Miller, E. L. (1980), The Christology of John 8:25', TZ^6: 257-65. Mlakuzhyil, G. (1987), The Christocentric Literary Structure ofthe Fourth
NY: Doubleday).
Gospel, AnBib 117 (Rome: Pontifical Institute). Neirynck, F. (19840), 'John 4, 46-54: Sign Source and/or Synoptic
(197°), The Gospel According to John, XIII-XXI (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Gospels?', ETL 60: 367-75.
(1979), The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist). (1994), The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday). Bultmann, R. (1971), The Gospel of John, German original (Gottingen:
(1984!?), 'John and the Synoptics: The Empty Tomb Stories', NTS 30:161-84. - (1990), 'John 21', NTS 36: 321-36. Neyrey, J. (1982), The Jacob Allusions in John 1:51', CBQ 44: 586-
605. Olsson, B. (1974), Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-
Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1941). Culpepper, R. A. (1979-80), The Pivot of John's Prologue', NTS 27:
Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1—11 and 4:1—42 (Lund: Gleerup). Painter, J. (1980-1), The Farewell Discourses and the History of
1-31. de Jonge, M. (1972-3), 'Jewish Expectations about the Messiah accord-
Johannine Christianity', NTS 27: 525—43. Richter, G. (1967), Die Fusswaschung im Johannesevangelium (Regens-
ing to the Fourth Gospel', NTS 19: 246-70. Dewailly, L. M. (1969), Jesus-Christ, Parole de Dieu, 2nd edn. (Paris:
burg: Pustet).
Cerf). Forkman, G. (1972), The Limits of the Religious Community (Lund:
(i974), 'Zu den Tauferzahlungen Mk 1:9-11 und Joh 1:32-34', ZNW 65: 43-54. Rochais, G. (1985), 'La Formation du prologue (Jn i, 1-18)', ScEs 37: 5-
Gleerup). Fortna, R. T. (1970), The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narra-
44,161-87. (1993), 'Jean 7: Une confrontation litteraire dramatique, a la maniere d'un scenario', NTS 39: 355—78. Schnackenburg R. (1977-9), Das Johannesevangelium (Fribourg ), i-iii
tive Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
(1977—8), 'Jesus and Peter at the High Priest's House: ATest Case for the Question between Mark's and John's Gospels', NTS 24: 37183. (1988), The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress). Franck, E. (1985), Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John
(i, 4th edn.; ii, 2nd edn.; iii, 3rd edn.). ET, The Gospel According to St John (3 vols.; New York: 1968-82). Segalla, G. (1983), La preghiera di Gesu al Padre (Giov. 17): Un addio
missionario Studi Biblici, 63 (Brescia: Paideia). Stibbe, M. W. G. (1993), John (Sheffield: JSOT). Walker, W. O. (1982), "The Lord's Prayer in Matthew and John', NTS
(Uppsala: Gleerup). Giblin (1983), "The Miraculous Crossing of the Sea (John 6, 16-21)',
28: 237-56.
NTS 29: 96-103.
6i. The Four Gospels in Synopsis H E N R Y WANSBROUGH
Matthew the word is used twice for Jesus' own proclamation of the kingdom (4:23; 9:35) and twice with the addition of 'this gospel' (24:14; 26:13); in me former case the whole gospel message seems to be meant, and in the latter Matthew may possibly intend to restrict Mark's meaning to the particular incident of the gospel message, the anointing at Bethany. Stanton (19920), on the other hand, argues persuasively that usages of the term as early as the Didache, 8:2; 11:3; 15:3—4, seem to refer to our written gospel texts, and argues further that as soon as more than one of them existed they must have been known as something!
Outline
A. Gospel as a Literary Genre
B. The Basic Interrelationship of the Gospels C. Proposed Solutions to the Synoptic Problem D. John and the Synoptic Gospels
E. The Features of the Several Gospels Compared
Trial Pericopae:
F. The Call of the First Disciples G. The Beatitudes H. The Second Sign at Cana or Capernaum
I. The Controversy over Beelzebul J. The Walking on the Water K. Jesus' Prayer in the Garden
Finally it is important to realize that none of the four gospels originally included an attribution to an author. All were anonymous, and it is only from the fragmentary and enigmatic and—according to Eusebius, from whom we derive the quotation—unreliable evidence of Papias in 120/130 CE that we can begin to piece together any external evidence about the names of their authors and their compilers. This evidence is so difficult to interpret that most modern scholars form their opinions from the content of the gospels themselves, and only then appeal selectively to the external evidence for confirmation of their findings.
A. Gospel as a Literary Genre. 1. Mark opens with the words, 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ' (Mk 1:1). A modern reader would unhesitatingly see the writing that follows as the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact the concept of 'gospel' is not without its problems. We shall begin with the name 'gospel' before going on to examine the use of the term.
The English word 'gospel' (originally 'godspell' or 'good tidings') is the translation of the Greek euaggelion, but it is not obvious that the writers of the four documents applied this term to their writings. Luke at any rate never uses the noun
2. As recently as 1970 the type of writing now called 'gospel' was considered to be without parallel in the ancient world. Norman Perrin (1970-1: 4) could write assertively that it was 'the unique literary creation of early Christianity. This is a statement I would make with confidence... If we are to come to terms with this genre we must concentrate our attention upon the Gospel of Mark'. Perrin sees a gospel as being a narrative of an event from the past, in which interest and concerns of the past, present, and future have flowed together, since the events of Jesus' ministry are interpreted in the light of the writer's own time and of things expected of Jesus' future coming.
(except in Acts), though he frequently uses the corresponding verb for the activity of spreading the good news (e.g. 1:19; 4:18). He seems to consider his work rather in terms of a narrative (diegesis) or an orderly account (1:1—3). Both noun and verb are used frequently by Paul, who may rely on one or both of two backgrounds. In the religious cult of the emperors the term was used of a piece of imperial good news of salvation, such as a victory or the birth of an heir, which was flashed round the empire, and to which the various provinces, citystates, and other political units were expected to respond with congratulatory gifts. The elements of novelty, salvation, joy, and response, as well as the religious connotations, would have made the term a suitable one for Paul to use for 'my gospel' (Rom 16:25; Gal 1:11). Paul may also, however, be drawing on the use of the word in Isa 61:1, 'the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted'. This usage may go back to the proclamation of Jesus himself; it certainly occurs on his lips in Mt 11:5 and Lk 4:18 (see Stuhlmacher 1983). Neither Luke nor John uses the noun, and when it began to be used as a title of the four writings is disputed. Koester
In 1987 Christopher Tuckett could, with misgivings, still give as the majority opinion the view that there was no close parallel to the genre of the gospels. In the last decade, however, it has become clear that the literary genre of'gospel' can no longer be considered as completely unique. To enable a reader or listener to understand a document it must be possible to a certain extent to categorize it into a known type. Tuckett (1987: 75) wittily gives the example of 'Vicar gives directions to Queen? Just the opposite', to be understood as a newspaper headline or as a crossword puzzle clue for REV-ER-SE. The features of a particular genre of literature form a conventional set of expectations, a sort of implied contract with the reader that enables the reader to categorize the document. The expectations are not necessarily always identical in all respects with what the reader finds, but at least provide a family resemblance. Burridge (1992) has shown that the gospels fall within the varied and well-attested Graeco-Roman concept of biography. Of this genre there are many subdivisions, inevitably including cross-border borrowing with other genres, such as political propaganda, encomium, moralistic
(1989: 380) holds that the term was 'always and everywhere understood as the proclamation of the saving message about Christ or the coming of the kingdom' until Marcion in the mid-second century applied it to the written works. In his six usages apart from the heading, Mark certainly uses the term for the proclamation of the saving message, so that in his first verse also it is reasonable to take it in this sense rather than as 'The beginning of the written record' (see MK 1:1-13). m
THE FOUR GOSPELS IN SYNOPSIS
reaching an agreed solution to account for their interrelationship has been dubbed the 'synoptic problem'. The issue is so complicated that some scholars regard it as little more than an intellectual game. Brown (1997: in) opines that 'most readers ofthe NT find the issue complex, irrelevant to their interests, and boring'.
encouragement, and travelogue. Even religious biographies in the broad sense were not unknown. The respectful atmosphere found in the gospels, 'tinged with praise and worship' (ibid. 211) occurs also in such works as Tacitus' Agricola and Philo's DC vita Mosis. What is, however, unique to the gospels, and constitutes them as an unprecedented subgroup, is the importance and salvific claim of their message, expressed most clearly by Jn 20:31, 'these things are written that you may believe... and that believing you may have life'. It is not, then, an unprecedented type of writing, so much as the conviction of the writers that their subject and message had the power to change the world for those who accepted them, that is unique. But this does not exclude the gospels from the broad category of Graeco-Roman biography.
Three proposed solutions to the synoptic problem will be outlined (c), which will be tested in a discussion of six pericopes (F-K).
C. Proposed Solutions to the Synoptic Problem. 1. The Griesbach Hypothesis. Truly scientific study of this problem did not begin until in 1776 J. J. Griesbach produced a critical edition of a Synopsis ofthe Gospels, printing the gospels in parallel columns and thus enabling the reader to see in detail the similarities and differences between them. His conclusion, published in 1789, was that Mark was nothing but a combination of Matthew and Luke. The same conclusion had been reached slightly earlier by the little-known Oxford scholar Henry Owen in 1764, so that this view is sometimes called the Owen—Griesbach hypothesis. It later fell into obscurity, but has been revived by William R. Farmer in 1964, and has since become known strictly as the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. For brevity and to avoid confusion it will here be named the Griesbach theory.
B. The Basic Interrelationship of the Gospels. The three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are clearly related very closely to one another, much more closely than John is related to any of them. They share the same basic outline, roughly the same order of events, the same way of telling stories and relating sayings, and even the basically same portrait of the good news of the kingdom and its preaching by Jesus.
This similarity among the first three gospels is best seen by contrast to John. The geographical outline is different: in the first three gospels Jesus goes to Jerusalem only once during his ministry, for the final week, whereas in John he pays several visits to Jerusalem. The order of events is different, for example the cleansing of the temple comes early in John, introducing Jesus' ministry (Jn 2:13—22), whereas in the other three gospels it forms the climax (Mk 11:15-19). John relates many fewer miracles, but almost invariably these are developed by means of a subsequent long discourse of Jesus or by a controversy that brings out the sense and meaning of the event (for example the cure at the Pool of Bethesda continues into a discourse on the works of the Son, Jn 5; the multiplication of loaves flowers into the bread of life discourse, Jn 6:1—15, 22—66). While the Jesus ofthe first three gospels turns attention away from himself to the kingship of God, in John the kingship of God is mentioned only in 3:3-5; the Johannine Jesus teaches about his kingship only in 18:6, and otherwise concentrates rather on his gift of eternal life. In the first three gospels story-parables are an important vehicle of teaching, whereas the fourth gospel barely uses them, preferring instead extended images such as that ofthe Good Shepherd (Jn 10:1-18). The similarity between the first three gospels may be roughly described in terms ofthe number of verses shared. Of Mark's 661 verses, some 80 per cent feature in Matthew and 60 per cent in Luke. Conversely, only three pericopes of Mark (the seed growing secretly, Mk 4:26—9, the healing of the deaf-mute, Mk 7:31-7, and the blind man of Bethsaida, Mk 8:22-6) have no equivalent in either Matthew or Luke. Time and again such long stretches show almost verbatim agreement between Matthew and Mark or Mark and Luke that some literary relationship at the textual level must be postulated between them. Similarly Matthew and Luke have some 220 verses in common, mostly of sayings-material, so that some literary relationship between these two is undeniable. The possibility of viewing these three gospels together has led to the appellation Synoptic Gospels, and the difficulty of
The theory is that the first gospel to be written was that of Matthew, the most Semitic ofthe gospels, written for Christians of Jewish extraction. Next, for Christians of Gentile origin, but still before the destruction of Jerusalem, Luke was written. Finally Mark combined the two. The fundamental argument for this hypothesis, both for Griesbach and for Farmer, lies in the order of pericopes. Wherever Mark departs from Matthew's order, he supports Luke's; if there is a difference between the order of Matthew and Luke, Mark zigzags between the two, following first one, then the other. In addition, the supporters observe, Mark always proceeds forward, never turning back in the order established by Matthew and Luke. These observations are correct, but are not enough to prove the point that Mark combines Matthew and Luke, for in the same way the order of Matthew and Luke can be explained at least as well (see c.2) if Mark is taken as the starting-point.
Support for the theory is claimed also from the material within pericopes. Mark has many double expressions, of which half occur in Matthew and half in Luke. The paradigm case is Mk 1:32, 'That evening, at sunset', where Matthew has in the corresponding passage (8:16) 'That evening', and Luke (4:40) 'when the sun was setting'. The explanation given by the Griesbach theory is that Mark takes one phrase from each ofthe other gospels and combines them. There is a number of instances of this phenomenon (e.g. Mk 1:42, 'the leprosy left him, and he was made clean'; Mk 8:3, 'his leprosy was made clean'; Lk 5:13, 'the leprosy left him'; similarly at Mk 10:29, 'f°r
my sake and for the sake ofthe good news').
The Griesbachian explanation, however, is not compelling. Opponents claim, with good evidence, that duality of this kind is a feature of Mark's own style, specifically a feature of his oral style, in which a certain repetitiveness aids the hearer (see E.I). Rather than Mark combining his predecessors, he serves as a quarry for his successors; the phenomenon noted could equally well be the result of Matthew taking one of Mark's two
1003 THE FOUR GOSPELS IN SYNOPSIS
(Luke 6:23; 11:47—51; 13:34—5), and a promise of fulfilment through 'the one who is to come' (Luke 7:18—23; 13:35). Many of the sections isolated show a common structure, beginning with programmatic sayings, introducing a series of imperatives and concluding with affirmations of the importance of its message (Luke 6:21—49; 9:57—10:24). Kloppenborg (2000: 187) likens it to the 'widely attested genre in Near Eastern literature', the instruction or sapiential discourse. According to some scholars (e.g. Burton Mack) the principal function of its authors is social critique and the destabilization of a corrupt society, after the manner of itinerant Cynic teachers. There is reference to the rule of God, but—by contrast to the canonical gospels—there is no interest in exegesis of the Torah. This carefully elaborated characterization is, however, obviously secondary to proof of the existence of Q. The strongest arguments for this theory are the order of pericopes, the detailed editing, and the mutual independence of Matthew and Luke.
elements and Luke taking the other. It might seem that here again the argument may run either way, except for another observation. On many occasions Matthew keeps both Mark's elements while Luke has only one (Mk 4:5, 'other seed fell on rocky ground where it did not have much soil'; Mt 13:5 has both elements; Lk 8:6 has only 'some fell on the rock'); on many occasions Luke keeps both elements while Matthew has only one (Mk 4:39, 'the wind ceased and there was a dead calm'; Luke, 'they ceased and there was a calm'; Mt 8:26 has only 'and there was a dead calm'; similarly at Mk 6:36); on many occasions Matthew and Luke choose the same half of the double expression (Mk 2:25, 'were hungry and in need of food'; Mt 12:3 and Lk 6:3, 'were hungry'; similarly at Mk 3:26; 12:23). Double expressions occur also in Mark even in those few passages where there is no parallel in Matthew or Luke (Mk 4:28, the double 'head'; Mk 8:24, 25, the double 'looked' in each verse). How widespread a feature it is of Mark's own style has been fully documented by Neirynck (1988). There is therefore no need to postulate that it derives from the combination by Mark of Matthew and Luke.
With Mark as starting-point it is possible to explain the order of pericopes in Matthew and Luke. However the crucial point here (by contrast to the Griesbachian zigzag claim, see B) is that whenever they diverge from Mark's order it is possible to give clear and plausible reasons for this divergence. Matthew follows Mark's order of pericopes strictly except when he is composing two series, the collection of miracles in Mt 8—9 and the discourse on mission in Mt 10. For these two collections he takes material that occurs later in Mark (Mk 1:40-5; 3:9-13; 3:13-19; 4:35-5:43; 13:9-13). It is quite clear that Matthew is a careful and orderly teacher who likes to assemble into complete collections all the material on one subject. Thus all the changes in Matthew's order are explained as anticipations in accordance with his teaching methods. Luke's changes of the Markan order are not to be explained so simply and schematically, for Luke is far more creative in his writing and independent of his sources than is Matthew. So he puts the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth (Mk 6:1-6) earlier and builds it up into the programmatic opening speech with which Jesus begins his ministry at Nazareth (Lk 4:16—30). On the other hand Luke postpones until 5:1—11 the call of the first disciples (Mk 1:16-20) and builds it into an important lesson in discipleship (see F). Luke's most farreaching change in order is the construction of the great journey to Jerusalem (9:51—18:14), by which he locates much of Jesus' teaching on the final journey to his death at Jerusalem. All other distracting geographical names are there suppressed, to subserve the typical Lukan concentration on Jerusalem, where Jesus will die as a prophet and from where the gospel will spread to the ends of the earth. Luke's order varies so widely and imaginatively from that of his predecessors that Luke's supposed rearrangement of Q's order was mocked in 1924 by B. H. Streeter as that of a 'crank', a charge disputed by Goulder (1984). An alternative explanation of Luke's order is given in the same volume by H. B. Green (1984). A full explanation of the changes in order by Matthew and Luke, on the hypothesis of Markan priority, is given by Tuckett (19840).
The greatest difficulty for the Griesbach theory is, however, why Mark should have written a gospel (and why the church should have accepted it) in which he deliberately omitted so much that is valuable: the infancy stories, the beatitudes, the Lord's prayer, the resurrection appearances, and many other important and favourite passages which had already been included in Matthew and Luke.
2. The Two-Source Theory. Since it was extensively proposed by C. Lachmann in 1835, seconded by C. G. Wilke and H. Weisse in 1838, the Two-Source theory has won overwhelming acceptance, at least as a working hypothesis. It still holds the dominant position in NT scholarship. The theory is that Mark is the first gospel, and was used independently by Matthew and Luke, neither of whom knew each other's texts. The large quantity of material shared by Matthew and Luke
(but not by Mark), mostly sayings material, derives from a common source. Since an article by J. Weiss in 1890 this common source has been known as 'Q' (Neirynck 1978; 1979). The acceptance of this common source has been greatly assisted by the mention by the early second-century Bishop Papias (quoted by Eusebius) of a collection of Sayings of the Lord in Aramaic made or used by Matthew. Although few scholars accept all Papias' evidence, his mention of the collection of sayings has been widely taken to support this theory.
Despite the hypothetical nature of the very existence of Q, studies have progressed which have established what this document would have been like, e.g. Piper (1995), magisterially summed up by Kloppenborg (2000). It was caricatured by Meier (1994: 181) as a 'grab bag', without any coherent theology or genre. Its most striking feature was, however, that it contained no account of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus, and indeed showed no interest in these events, containing no hints that they were to occur. Kloppenborg suggests that Paul's stress on these events could be a deliberate corrective to their neglect in this very early document. The most important stress is on the threat of the coming judgement; this frames the whole document (Luke 3:7-9,16-17 and 19:12-27; 22:28-30), as well as many of the fourteen sub-units isolated by Kloppenborg. Combined with this is a 'deuteronomic' criticism of the continual rejection of the prophets
The argument from the detailed editing can hardly be briefly summarized. Some impression of it will be given by the pericopes discussed below (F—K). The outlines, however, are:
THE FOUR GOSPELS IN SYNOPSIS 1004
different places in Matthew and Luke. But in three instances both these gospels have material in the same sequence: the Baptist's preaching of repentance (Mt37-io; Lkyj-c)) comes between the same triple-tradition pericopes; the testing in the desert (Mt 4:1—11; Lk 4:1—13) occurs in both between the baptism and the first proclamation in Galilee; the parable of the leaven (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:20—1) in both follows the parable of the mustard seed.
(a) There are numerous occasions when both Matthew and Luke improve the grammar and style of Mark's unsophisticated Greek; it seems perverse to argue in the opposite direction that Mark deliberately roughens a more cultured presentation.
(b) Some features of Markan style and composition appear also in Matthew and Luke where and only where Mark uses them. It is more reasonable to suppose that Matthew and Luke derived them from Mark than that Mark adopted all the instances from both Matthew and Luke. One example of this is the Markan afterthought-explanation with a past tense of timi and gar ('for they were fishermen'); this is a feature of Markan style which occurs in Matthew and Luke only in passages parallel to those of Mark: in Mk 2:15; 5:42; 16:4 the construction occurs only in Mark; in Mk 1:16, 22; 6:48; 14:40 it is paralleled in Matthew, in Mk 10:22 it is paralleled in both Matthew and Luke.
2. Clusters of agreement between Matthew and Luke occur in a limited number of pericopes. Since B. H. Streeter it has been accepted that there are passages where the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are so pronounced that there must be literary contact between them apart from Mark, either directly or at least through Q; these are known as 'Mark-Q overlaps'. Streeter listed five major passages (John's preaching, the temptation, the mustard seed, collusion with Satan, and commissioning the twelve) and eleven others where this Mark—Q overlap occurs. In all these passages put together there is a total of 50 verses in which Streeter finds verbatim agreement between Mark and Q. This causes two major difficulties:
(c) There are several theological differences between Mark, Matthew, and Luke which may perhaps point (though uncertainly) in the direction of a development from Mark to Matthew and Luke rather than in the opposite direction. Thus Matthew and Luke show a distinctly more explicit Christology than Mark. Again, Mark is highly, even shockingly, critical of the disciples' lack of faith and understanding; Matthew and Luke both weaken this criticism, in a way that might be expected to have occurred at a time when reverence for the first leaders of Christianity was increasing.
(a) The source-question is therefore in fact simply pushed one stage further back: what is the literary relationship between Mark and Q? This widespread agreement must be explained; verbatim agreement in 50 verses must presuppose some literary connection. If Mark used Q for some passages, why did he not use Q more widely, especially to include some of those precious passages mentioned in c.i? Was only a partial edition of Q available to him? The number of unknown documents begins to proliferate, for example by different editions of Q. Alternatively, if the whole of Q was available to Mark, why did he omit so much?
The mutual independence of Matthew and Luke is a point crucial for establishing the extent and indeed the existence of Q. If Luke knew Matthew (or vice versa), the links between Matthew and Luke can be accounted for without the intervention of any Q. The large number of minor agreements (some calculate there are as many as 1,000) between Matthew and Luke against Mark demands some explanation in the sources. It may, however, be approached at various levels:
(b) While it is accepted that on many occasions both Matthew and Luke show major inventiveness, editing their sources with imagination and steady theological purpose, on these occasions their inventiveness is assumed to have deserted them. For instance, in the case of the mustard seed, they have carefully stitched together the versions of Mark and Q simply for the sake of using both versions without any large theological advantage.
i. The minor agreements. In texts of this length it is quite possible that many agreements may occur where Matthew and Luke make the same change to their version of Mark by sheer coincidence. This will especially be the case where they share the same principles, either linguistic (objection to Mark's primitive historic present and wearisomely repetitive conjunction kai/kai euthus = 'and/and immediately') or theological (increasingly explicit Christology or reverence for the disciples). It cannot be considered surprising that two Christian writers sometimes share the same reaction to a primitive Christian text. It requires explanation only if the identical expression of this becomes remarkable by its frequency or its extent. There can be no verdict on the likely frequency of such similarity, and little agreement on the significance of individual cases. The most striking single case is Mt 26:68 || Mk 14:65 || Lk 22:64, where both Matthew and Luke have 'Who is it that struck you?', lacking in Mark. So difficult is this of explanation that determined advocates of the theory that Matthew and Luke are totally independent of each other sometimes turn to the desperate expedient of declaring all the MSS corrupt. There are, however, scholars who are prepared to rebut the claim for each passage that Luke knew Matthew, e.g. Tuckett (1984/7). Another significant minor agreement is in the order of pericopes: an important support for the Q-theory is the claim that the Q-material always occurs in
3. Recourse to other editions of Mark is a possible expedient to account for a number of agreements, both positive and negative, between Matthew and Luke against Mark. If both Matthew and Luke include a phrase absent from Mark (a positive minor agreement), it may be that they had an earlier text of Mark that included this phrase. There was therefore an earlier version of Mark (Proto-Mark) on which both Matthew and Mark drew.
Conversely, if Matthew and Luke both lack a phrase, it may be that the phrase was added to Mark after they used that gospel. Sanders (1969) offers a list of such suggested additions to Mark after it had been used by Matthew and Luke, e.g. 'and Andrew with James and John' in Mk 1:29; or 'carried by four of them' in Mk 2:3; or 'and there he prayed' in Mk 1:35, a phrase that would have fitted Luke's emphasis on prayer, but is lacking in Luke's parallel passage; or Mk 2:27. This 'Deutero-Mark' theory will explain many negative minor agreements (that is, where Matthew and Luke agree on omitting a Markan phrase), and the lack of phrases in Matthew or Luke that might be expected to appeal to the particular evangel-
1005 THE FOUR GOSPELS IN SYNOPSIS
rise to an intermediate version of Matthew, into which fed also Q (possibly not a single document itself). This Intermediate-Matthew had no contact with B, C, or the Markan tradition. It was only subsequently that large sections of this tradition were replaced by sections drawn from an intermediate version of Mark, and further editorial changes were made by an editor whose style is in some ways remarkably similar to Luke. Such 'criss-crossing' is shown by the appearance in one gospel of expressions characteristic of another. It may well be attributed to the influence of each gospel on the others at a late stage of the tradition.
ist. The suggestion is that Mark is the first evangelist, but these phrases were simply not contained in the edition of Mark used by the later two. The difficulty about this theory is that many of the phrases are consistent with the style and methods widespread in and characteristic of the main part of the gospel. If they are consistent with the author's style, it seems unjustified to attribute them to a second editor. Deutero-Mark is, however, a possible way to evade some of the difficulties of the minor agreements.
The suggestion that a Matthean form (Proto-Matthew) existed before Mark is, however, attractive as a solution to some passages where Matthew seems more correct (or more faithful to the Jewish background) than Mark. For instance, in the pericope on plucking corn on the sabbath, Matthew's version makes far more sense than Mark's. In Mark's version (2:23) the disciples simply tear up the corn to make a path; this leads to a badly focused legal dispute. In Matthew's version (12:1) they pluck ears of corn to assuage their hunger as they pass through the field, in accordance with Deut 23:26; this gives rise to a good legal dispute about threshing on the sabbath. On the Proto-Mark theory Matthew would be drawing on an earlier version of Mark, which was later misunderstood and simplified by an author unfamiliar with niceties of Jewish law; finally Matthew would have simplified the legal issues and adopted some expressions from the final edition of Mark. The question is whether it is more economical to postulate this earlier version of the gospel, or to suppose that Matthew used Mark, but correctly spelt out and narrated the legal situation that alone makes sense of Mark's story. (However, Casey (1998) maintains that Mk 2:23—3:6 is itself the translation of a very ancient Aramaic document.)
Boismard's method is to look for a pure and simple form of a story, eliminating the least illogicality or unevenness. He attributes any illogicality or development to a written source, until the characteristics of the final authors are reached. One example of this method may be seen in his treatment of the return of the apostles (Mk 6:30-4 and par.). Mt 14:13 has the same pattern as Mt 12:15 an(^ 19:1—2, which shows that it stems originally from an earlier version of Matthew, and has received further Markan vocabulary at a later stage. According to one version (mostly w. 32-3) Jesus goes away to a deserted place, where the local people recognize him and hurry to meet him; this comes from Document A. According to another version (mostly w. 31-2) the crowd is already present and sees Jesus and the apostles depart in a boat; this version is from Document B. It is, of course, no longer possible to separate out the two versions completely now that they have been combined.
This particular case (which Boismard claims is a strong one for his schema) presents difficulties for the Two-Source Theory, since there are three positive minor agreements in two verses of Matthew and Luke against Mark: 'withdrew', 'the crowds followed him', and the mention of healing; Matthew and Luke also agree in three omissions against Mark. It does therefore seem likely that there is some direct relationship between Matthew and Luke. But there is no need at the documentary stage for the complications suggested by Boismard. Such a criss-crossing process may well have occurred at the stage of oral tradition. It fits better the more fluid consistency of a body of oral tradition, passing backwards and forwards between many witnesses.
Similarly, in the story of the empty tomb, the women's motive in Mt 28:1 (to pay a pious visit to the tomb) accords with Jewish custom, and with good sense, better than the motive in Mk 16:1 (to anoint an already decaying body, blocked off by a great stone). Has Matthew made better sense out of Mark's version, or has Mark misunderstood and simplified the story from an earlier version used by Matthew?
3. The Multiple-Level Hypothesis. This theory, put forward by M.-E. Boismard and other distinguished members of the French Biblical School in Jerusalem, goes a step (or several steps) beyond the theories of Proto-Mark and Deutero-Mark just outlined. It is little known beyond the French-speaking world, but is nevertheless important. The basis of the theory is that all the hypotheses hitherto put forward are too simplistic. There were several basic versions of the gospel material, which have interacted on one another at more than one stage of the development of the tradition to its final form. Traces of such development may also be garnered from divergent, nonstandard quotations of the gospels in very early church fathers. These are often attributed to faulty citations by the fathers from memory, but in this theory it is suggested that they are genuine relics of earlier versions of the gospels.
4. Mark as the Single Source. This final theory is that of Goulder (1974; 1989), a revival and elaboration of a position put forward by Austin Farrer in 1955, 'On Dispensing with Q'. Goulder holds that Mark is the first gospel. Matthew's only written source was Mark, which he edited and developed through his own theological resources. The material in Matthew which is not drawn from Mark shows a consistency of method and approach that can only be the stamp of one mind. This approach extends to the material taken over from Mark, to the material shared with Luke, and to the material proper to Matthew alone. The elements said to be characteristic of Q (a concern for eschatology, the threat of judgement, the need to bring forth good fruit, the importance of the Christian community) are in fact characteristic of Matthew, and expressed in Matthean language, so that there is no need to postulate (let alone reconstruct) any such hypothetical source. Two reservations about the original statement of Goulder's theory have been repeatedly and strongly expressed: Matthew should not be tied to any theoretical arrangement of a lectionary, which is
Boismard (1972) holds that there are four documents at the basis of the tradition. One (A) is a Palestinian version, stemming from Judeo-Christian circles. The second (B) is a Hellenistic reinterpretation for use in the non-Jewish Christian circles. The third (C) is less well defined, an independent version, probably of Palestinian origin. Document A gave
THE FOUR GOSPELS IN SYNOPSIS 1006
not as written documents but as texts held firmly and word for word in the memory, and thus allowing greater flexibility. However, proponents of the Two-Source Theory point out that the first two of these (the Baptist's preaching of repentance, and the testing in the desert) could scarcely occur anywhere else, leaving only the third case to be explained as a partial coincidence.
too nebulous. Nor should Matthew's process of elaborating Mark be termed 'midrash', for midrash can be done only on a sacred text, and Mark has not yet this status. Neither of these reservations affects the main thrust of the theory, though it would certainly strengthen it if it could be shown that Matthew was doing only what many other midrashists had done.
In order to show the uniformity of Matthew's style and theology Goulder 'finger-prints' Matthew not only by means of vocabulary, but principally by means of the consistent use of imagery and patterns of speech (e.g. pairs or double pairs of images, pairs of parables, consistent use of contrast in parables; such contrast is a feature of all Matthew's own storyparables, and is also introduced into parables taken over from Mark), see E.2.
The attack on Goulder's theory has increased in intensity during the last decade. A particularly strong attack is mounted by Tuckett (1995: 31—45). Principally, Goulder's answer to
Streeter's argument has been exploded. Streeter argued that it would be 'the order of a crank' if Luke meticulously followed Mark's order but changed the order of almost every pericope which he took from Matthew. Luke seems carefully to have scraped off every Matthean addition to Mark and then inserted many of them (but not all, e.g. Mt 12:5-7; 16:16-19; 27:I9» 24» and why not?) elsewhere. Goulder's explanation of Luke's break-up of the long Matthean discourses—that Luke considered they provided too much richness to be digested at a single gulp—flies in the face of the long speeches in Luke 21, Acts 7 and elsewhere. Goodacre (1996) also casts doubt on Goulder's central vocabulary argument: are the 'Matthean' words which Luke is claimed to have adopted indeed specifically Matthean? In a number of cases it can be argued equally well that the borrowing is in the opposite direction.
The same finger-printing technique is applied to Luke. The new material in Luke is largely parables and other stories, and in these not only a characteristic vocabulary but also a characteristic method of storytelling can be charted (entries and exits, conversation, soliloquies of the chief character, varied, lively, and often disreputable personalities). Vocabulary, techniques of storytelling, and recognizable theological interests (concern for the poor and underprivileged, stress on the need for repentance) are discernible throughout, not only in passages proper to Luke but also in Luke's treatment of passages shared with Mark and Matthew. Once Q has been set aside, the way lies open to explain the many agreements between Matthew and Luke, which remain such a bugbear for the Two-Source Theory, by Luke's knowledge and use of Matthew.
D. John and the Synoptic Gospels. 1. The basic differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels have been outlined at the beginning of this article. The relationship between them continues, however, to be highly disputed, several different opinions being put forward. In 1974 Norman Perrin held that John must have known the Gospel of Mark directly. In Denaux (1992) Rene Kieffer held that John knew Mark or a source very similar to Mark, while Frans Neirynck argues for the direct textual dependence of Jn 5:1—18 on Mark. On the other hand in the same work Peder Borgen maintains that John is not using the actual text of the Synoptics, but rather an underlying oral tradition which they have in common; he compares John's use of the synoptic tradition in several passages to Paul's use in i Cor 11:23—34 of the tradition of the institution of the eucharist reflected also in Mk 14:22-5.
Three major difficulties remain with this theory. The first is the different position of much of the teaching material in Luke from that of Matthew. The Sermon on the Mount becomes the Sermon on the Plain. Matthew's long, carefully structured discourses are cut up and cut down. Goulder explains this by Luke's theory that only a limited amount of teaching can be digested at one time; Luke therefore discards some material and redistributes other. Luke, in any case, shows no hesitation in relocating material (the rejection at Nazareth, the call of the disciples) if it suits his purpose. The second difficulty is that the theory attributes considerable freedom of inventiveness to both Matthew and Luke. This is particularly true in the parables, where both evangelists would have introduced whole stories which they did not receive from the Jesus-tradition. However, Goulder shows convincingly how Luke consistently builds his own stories out of existing hints. For example, Luke's parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:11-32) is a characteristically Lukan version of Matthew's parable of the two sons (Mt 21:28-30). Luke's infancy stories could be his own retelling, according to his own theology, interests, and style, of minimal data derived from Matthew's. Similarly Luke's story of the ten lepers (Lk 17:11-19) could well be Luke's own remoulding, according to his own techniques and theology, of the healing of the leper in Mk 1:40—5. The third difficulty, somewhat intangible, is the doubt whether such a careful, modern, scissors-and-paste method of editing two previous texts may be postulated of an ancient author. This difficulty is, however, common to almost all explanations of the interrelationships of the gospels. It may be less extreme if the texts on which the later evangelists worked are regarded
In detail the links between John and the synoptics are diverse.
(a) Some stories are closely similar in both John and the Synoptics, including verbal and structural similarities, though reworked to express the special theology of each author (e.g. the multiplication of loaves and the walking on the waters, see 1.1-3).
(b) In other cases Johannine miracle-stories are based on stories of the same type as the synoptic stories: controversial healings on the sabbath, Jn 5 and 9, a dead person, Lazarus, is raised to life, as Jairus' daughter or the son of the widow of Nain are in the Synoptics. It may be argued that in John the raising of Lazarus is so crucial to the decision to get rid of Jesus that, had it been known to the synoptic tradition, it could not have been omitted.
(c) There are sayings so close that they may simply be different translations of the same original (e.g. Jn 1:26-7; 2:19 compared to Mt 3:11 and Mk 14:58 respectively). In such cases the very form of the saying may be affected by the
1007 THE FOUR GOSPELS IN SYNOPSIS
On the grammatical level these include parataxis instead of syntaxis (a series of parallel short sentences, where a more literary writer might use subordinate clauses) and the frequent historical present (which often disappears in translation, and is often 'corrected' by Matthew and Luke). On a more stylistic level Markan duality has been thoroughly documented: Mark's thought often proceeds by two steps, the second frequently denning and focusing the first, 'That evening, at sundown' (1:32), 'in the morning, a great while before day' (1:35), 'the leprosy left him and he was made clean' (1:42). This duality shows also in the frequent double questions ('Do you not yet perceive or understand?, 8:17) and double commands ('Peace! Be still!', 4:39, or 'Take heed, beware!', 8:15). Another frequent oral technique is the afterthought explanation with 'for': 'for it was very large' (16:4), 'for they were afraid' (16:8). These are means by which the oral storyteller imparts his information gradually, at a pace at which it can be absorbed.
theology of the writer, and its positioning and use can certainly impart to it a different force.
(d) Some sayings in John appear in the form of stories in the Synoptics (e.g. Jn 12:27 and the prayer of Jesus in the Garden, see K.5). The saying of Jn 3:3, 5, is very similar to Mt 18:3; it is the only mention of 'the kingdom' in John, and makes the same point as the Matthew-saying. In the passion narrative John has no scene corresponding to the decision of the Sanhedrin in Mark/Matthew to deliver Jesus to Pilate, but there may be traces of the same discussion and decision in the meeting of the chief priests and Pharisees related in Jn 11:47-53. A special link between Luke and John is apparent. Luke and John share several omissions from the Mark—Matthew tradition (e.g. the mention of the Baptist baptizing Jesus). Some passages show a close relationship between Luke and John (the call of the disciples in Lk 5:1-11 and Jn 21, see 1.5; the anointing in Lk 7:36—50). The link between John and Luke is clearest in the passion and resurrection narrative. Normally it is assumed that, if there is any direct dependence, it is John who is dependent on Luke. It has also, however, been argued by Lamar Cribbs (1971) that dependence goes in quite the opposite direction, and that Luke depends on John. There is a remarkable series of 20 passages where Luke departs from the Mark-Matthew tradition precisely to agree with John. It remains, however, most probable that John's link with Luke, as with Mark and Matthew, remains at the oral level (see j.i).
Two other oral techniques deserve mention, the frequent triple repetition to stress important points (the three great prophecies of the passion, Jesus' triple return to the sleeping disciples in Gethsemane, the triple accusation of Jesus before the high priest, Peter's triple denial, Pilate's triple appeal to the people in his attempt to set Jesus free), and Mark's knack of focusing his audience's attention on one object easily visualized: Jesus in the boat 'asleep on the cushion' (4:38) or John's 'head on a platter' (6:28). It is these techniques that make Mark such a superb and memorable storyteller.
E. The Features of the Several Gospels Compared. In recent years scholars have devoted considerable attention to discerning the features proper to each evangelist, both in style and in theology. Such study cannot be divorced from the synoptic problem, that is, from the question of the order in which the gospels were written. Obviously features verbal, linguistic, and theological, present in both Matthew and Mark, will owe their origin to whichever of the two has been found to be the earlier, being borrowed thence by the later writer.
Mark 's Irony. Perhaps the most important feature of Mark's style of writing from the theological point of view is his consistent use of irony. His storytelling operates on two levels, so that events have for the informed reader a sense which the actors in the drama do not comprehend. From the beginning the reader knows the identity of Jesus (1:1; and the voice from heaven at the baptism, in Mark addressed to Jesus, not the onlookers, 1:11), while the actors in the story discover it only gradually. Ironically, it is the blind men at Bethsaida (8:25) and Jericho (10:47) wh° see clearly who Jesus is, while even in his confession at Caesarea Philippi Peter earns a rebuke for his lack of understanding (8:33). In the passion story this irony reaches a climax, as Jesus is repeatedly mocked for falsely claiming to be what he in fact is: a prophet (14:65) even while his prophecy of Peter's denial is being fulfilled, king (15:18), and saviour (15:31). Such irony serves both to drive home the lessons of the story and to bring readers to examine their own positions and commitment.
Word-lists have long been published, such as those of Hawkins (1909). His criterion for a word characteristic of Matthew and Luke is that the word occur at least four times in that gospel (three times in the case of Mark) and at least twice as often (in the case of Mark, more often) than in the other two Synoptic Gospels together. It has, however, been objected that mere frequency is no indication of origin, for a particular word found in a gospel may take another author's fancy, in which case the derivative author may use frequently a word originally derived from another evangelist, who uses the word only once or twice. Frequency of usage on its own is therefore no criterion of origin, particularly since Matthew and Luke are roughly twice as long as Mark. More progress may be made by means of particular usages of words, such as Mark's repeated transitional phrases, 'and immediately' and 'again'. It has proved possible to establish clusters of linguistic usage associated with such phrases by which Mark structures his stories. So, starting from Mark's highly characteristic and unusual use of 'again' to refer back to a previous incident, Peabody
Education Levels. Despite, therefore, Mark's often inelegant and popular language, the artistry of composition and arrangement shown by his work is evidence of a considerable degree of education. In the first century primary education was widespread, and at this level, or at any rate before embarking on higher education in rhetoric, children were taught to expand, contract, reform, and refute passages handed to them. It can no longer be considered acceptable to categorize the earliest Christians as exclusively uneducated riff-raff of the slave classes. Luke (especially in Acts) is perhaps overanxious to emphasize the respectable status of those who listened to and were attracted by Paul's message, but the
(1987) established that the same hand is responsible for the composition of the whole of Mk 1:16—4:1.
1. Mark. Narrative Style. A whole series of features in Mark may be connected to his distinctively oral style of storytelling.
THE FOUR GOSPELS IN SYNOPSIS 1008
(1:3) Mark has made clear that acceptance of this sovereignty of God will require a conversion and reorientation of life, though he is far less explicit than Matthew (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount) about the details of conduct required. There is a certain tension between two aspects, whether the kingship of God is already activated or is still to come. As Jesus' passion and resurrection approach, Mark gives a series of sayings that suggest that in some sense these events will bring the kingdom in power (9:1; 14:25, 62). At the same time the eschatological discourse leaves no doubt that all is not yet accomplished, and there is still to occur an overwhelming 'coming of the Son of Man in power' (13:26), preceded by a final great persecution of the disciples as they proclaim the Good News to all the nations (13:10).
evidence of Paul's letters shows that the community had considerable resources. They were able to travel, own slaves, eat meat, offer their houses for meetings, behave arrogantly and unfeelingly towards less wealthy members. Meeks (1983) opines that the most active and prominent members of Paul's circle were upwardly mobile. There is no reason to suppose that such a group would have selected a primitive ignoramus to write the gospel, or would have accepted it if one had done so.
The Failure of the Disciples. One of the most notable features of Mark's gospel is its criticism of the disciples. They initially respond with unhesitating obedience (1:16—20), and are congratulated as the grain giving a good yield (4:8) and for their first mission (6:30-1), but they continually fail to understand. They fail to rely on Jesus (4:38—40). They are sarcastic towards him (6:37). Time after time he rebukes their lack of understanding (7:18; 8:17; 8:29—33). m me nrst half of the gospel they are thrice rebuked on the lake for their lack of faith or understanding; in the second half of the gospel, at each of the three great prophecies of the passion they fail to understand that Jesus must suffer and that the disciple must share the lot of the Master. Finally when it comes to the passion they all desert Jesus. They have left all to follow Jesus; now the young man in the garden leaves all, even his makeshift clothing, to escape (14:52). Despite his earlier protestations of loyalty Peter thrice denies his Master, just as Jesus thrice stands up to his accusers. That these instances of failure are not mere historical reportage but bear Mark's emphasis is shown by the fact that they are all shot through with the colouring of his personal style such as dualism and triple repetition.