Handout 2: The Synoptic Problem

Get students to draw in the arrows to show in which direction the influence goes in each major model (*note: thanks to Mark Goodacre for catching some typos in the comments)

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

The word Synoptic comes from the prefix syn (with, together) and optic (from optikos “having to do with sight”).  We refer to Matthew, Mark and Luke as the Synoptic Gospels because they are so much alike and can be easily compared by consulting a  synopsis.  The Synoptic Problem refers to their literary relationship; for all the proposed solutions see Stephen Carlson’s site http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/09/overview-of-proposed-solutions.html.

a. Griesbach hypothesis/Two gospel theory:  J.J. Griesbach, W. Farmer, B. Orchard

Matthew          Luke

Mark

b. Two source hypothesis; H. J. Holtzmann; B. H. Streeter, R.H. Stein, C.M. Tuckett

Mark                 Q (from German Quelle meaning “source”)

Matthew           Luke

c. Markan priority without Q; A. Farrer, M. Goulder, M. Goodacre

Mark

Matthew            Luke

d. Augustinian Hypothesis; B.C. Butler, J. Wenham

Matthew

Mark             Luke

 There Must be Some Literary Relationship

• So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand) (Matthew 24:15)
• But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand) (Mark 13:14)
• ‘When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near’ (Luke 21:20)

Which Gospel has the Earliest Version?

Example 1:

• And he did not do many deeds of power there, because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13.58)
• And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them.  And he was amazed at their unbelief. (Mark 6:5-6)

Example 2:

• “Lord, save us! We are perishing!” (Matt 8.26); “Master, Master, we are perishing!” (Luke 8.24)
• “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” (Mark 4.38)

Example 3:

• ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’ (Matthew 16.28)
• And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’ (Mark 9.1)
• But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.’ (Luke 9:27)

Example 4:

• Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness… (Matthew 4:1; cf. Luke 4:1-2)
• The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness (Mark 1:12)

Example 5:

• “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good.” (Matt 19:17)
• “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18; cf. Luke 18:19)

Example 6:

• A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, ‘If you choose, you can make me clean.’ Moved with anger [textual variant: compassion], Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I do chose. Be made clean!’ (Mark 1.40-42)
• …and there was a leper who came to him and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, if you chose, you can make me clean.’ He stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, ‘I do choose. Be made clean!’  (Matthew 8.2-3)
• When he saw Jesus, he bowed with his face to the ground and begged him, ‘Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean.’ Then Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, ‘I do choose. Be made clean.’ (Luke 5.12-13).

Example 7 (Matthew and Luke have a parallel to Mark 2:28 but not Mark 2:27 – what do you think might be the explanation?)

• Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath; [28] so the son of man is lord even of the Sabbath.’ (Mark 2.27-28; cf. Matt 12.8; Lk 6.5)

Example 8 (the following passages in Mark are not in Matthew and Luke)?

• When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.’ (Mark 3.19-21)
• He took the blind man by the hand… and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked them, ‘Can you see anything?’ And the man looked up and said, ‘I can see people, but they look like trees, walking.’ Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. (Mk 8.22-25)
• A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked. (Mk 14:51-2)

Double Tradition in Matthew/Luke not in Mark

Which version of these passages do you think is the earliest version?  Do you think that Luke is using Matthew (or vice-versa) or are they both drawing on a common source labelled as Q (or possibly a variety of written or oral sources)?

Example 1:

• “You brood of vipers!  Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?  Bear fruit worthy of repentance.  Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.  Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 3.7-10 and Luke 3.7-9 almost verbatim)

Example 2:

• “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3)
• “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20)

Example 3:

• “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” (Matthew 12:28)
• “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” (Luke 11:20)

Example 4:

• “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: Justice and mercy and faith.” (Matthew 23:23)
• “But woe to you Pharisees!  For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God.” (Luke 11:42)

Does Mark Deny Jesus Was Good?

To begin with a personal anecdote:  when I graduated high school and embarked on a degree in Religion & Theology, my goal in part was to be an apologist.  Among the popular apologetics I had readily consumed was Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998) (my attitude to apologetics has since changed quite a bit as it seems to me more about reinforcing the worldview of insiders than an effective mode of persuasion for outsiders and I tend to think the best apologetic is how a tradition impacts one’s daily life and how one treats other people).  Moving away from that personal tangent, Strobel’s chapter “The Profile Evidence: Did Jesus Fulfill the Attributes of God” interviews D.A. Carson and has the following conversation:

For example, in Mark 10 someone addresses Jesus as “good teacher,” promoting him to reply, “Why do you call me good? No one is good-except God alone.”  “Wasn’t he denying his divinity by saying this?” I [Strobel] asked.  “No, I think he was trying to get the fellow to stop and think about what he was saying,” Carson explained. “The parallel passage in Matthew is a little more expansive and does not find Jesus downplaying his deity at all. “I think all he’s saying is, ‘Wait a minute; why are you calling me good? Is this just a polite thing, like you say, “Good day”?  What do you mean by good? You call me good master-is this because you’re trying to honey up to me?’  In a fundamental sense there’s only one who is good, and that’s God. But Jesus is not implicitly saying, ‘So don’t call me that.’  He’s saying Do you really understand what you’re saying when you say that? Are you really ascribing to me what should only be ascribed to God?’ That could be teased out to mean, ‘I really am what you say; you speak better than you know’ or ‘Don’t you dare call me that; next time call me “sinner Jesus” like everybody else does.’ In terms of all that Jesus says and does elsewhere, which way does it make sense to take it?”  With so many verses that call Jesus “sinless,” “holy,” “righteous,” “innocent,” “undefiled,” and “separate from sinners,” the answer was pretty obvious (162)

It is hard to deny Mk 10:17-18 (cf. Luke 18:18-19) creates issues for Christology, so much that the parallel in Matthew 19:16-17a ”good” is no longer an adjective describing the teacher (διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ) but ”what good thing I must do” (τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω) and ”why do you call me good?  No one is good except one, God” (τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός) becomes “why do you ask me concerning the good?  One is good” (τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός).  Yet Carson’s view of Mark as actually implicitly pointing to Jesus’ divinity is a traditional reading (cf. Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Halls, Mark for Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series) and I came across online an extensive case that at the level of the evangelist (regardless of what the historical Jesus or the rich man thought) the intent was for the perceptive reader to reach this deeper understanding in Brian Han Gregg, “Why Do You Call Me Good:  A Markan Riddle” Scripture and Interpretation 3:1 (2009): 68-78.  Gregg’s case seems to hinge on whether one accepts that the words/deeds of the Markan Jesus go beyond the Jewish concept of agency (e.g., could the conflict in Mk 2:7f be about the source of Jesus’ authority, see the interpretive comment in Matt 9:8?) and whether the call to sell all & follow me supersedes Torah (might the man’s attachment to possessions be seen as breaking the first commandment which prevents him from Torah obedience as interpreted in the Jesus movement?).  On the contrary, I don’t think Mark intended to discredit Jesus’ deity or goodness because I am not sure it is yet an issue in this particular gospel but was merely trying to make a point against flattery that should be reserved for God; however from a canonical or sytematic theological perspective I am not opposed to a Christian who wants to make the equation Jesus = good = equal with God even if not convinced that was how the first readers (or auditors) of Mark heard it.  What do you think?

Adopted as Son of God at the Baptism?

Anyone remember the 1999 tv special on Jesus that is now available on youtube – this clip combines Jesus and John as relatives (Lk 1:36, + childhood story from Lk 2:42-52), the public nature of the Spirit’s descent and divine voice (Matt 3:16-17/Lk 3:21-22) and “lamb of god” from John 1:36 (and the following temptation scene is pretty entertaining and a little bit of a confused take on what Christians have believed about the nature of the Incarnation and hypostatic union).  Aside from the typical harmonzing of the movie, there is much to discuss about the episode in Mark and I have tried to go through some of the commentaries:

• John the Baptist appears on the scene as the “voice in the wilderness” (cf. 1QS 8.12-16 for the Qumran communities self-understanding of their role in the wilderness) and forerunner of the Lord.  Mark later explicitly identifies him with Elijah (9:11-13), but there is already an echo in the choice of John’s attire (2 Kings 1:8; a full study of John’s diet has been done by James A. Kelhoffer, The Diet of John the Baptist).  It is also worth comparing the similarities and differences from Josephus’ characterization of the Baptist (Ant. 8.5.2) and the continuities/discontinuities of John’s innovation of a single baptism with other ritual purification washings or the later practice of Gentile proselyte baptism and the meaning of John’s rite.  The location in the wilderness and Jordan River evoke ideas of a new exodus and entry into the Promised Land and John may be calling for national repentance (see Brian S. suggestion in the comments that Jesus identifies with this project) before the coming eschatological agent who is likely a human figure (cf. John unworthy to untie his sandals).
• Notice the changes in the Synoptic parallels to Mark 1:10-11.  Mark has a private vision that “he [Jesus?] saw” (εἶδεν) and describes it in violent imagery with the heavens being torn open (σχιζομένους) (cf. Isa 63:19LXX; see also Mk 1:13 the spirit “drives out” [ἐκβάλλει] Jesus into the wilderness) and the spirit descends as a dove (contrary to a gentle image see Maurice Casey’s analogy of a flapping pigeon) “into” (εἰς) Jesus followed by the divine voice.  Mark’s scene is of a divine invasion!  This is softened in Matt 3:16-17/Lk 3:21-22 as the heavens open (ἀνοίγω in different moods) and the spirit descends on (ἐπί ) him and Matthew also changes “you are” (σὺ εἶ ) to “this is” (οὗτός ἐστιν) my beloved son.
• Does Mark indicate that Jesus was adopted as son of god at the baptism (yet note the quotation of Ps 2:7 stops short of quoting the line “today I have begotten you”), reflecting an adoptionist christology that figures like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Eusebius 3.27; 5.28, etc, opposed?  If one goes through some of the more traditional commentaries one can find debates about whether Jesus became the Son at the baptism or if the voice rather declares what Jesus already was, but in my view I wonder if we ought to be cautious in reading later christological debates about divine sonship into Mark’s account here.  What if the reference to “my son” is the Davidic king of the royal Psalm then the story can be read as his annointing for messianic office for which he was enthroned at his exaltation (cf. Mk 12:35-37) and possessed by the divine spirit (cf. 1 Sam 10:10-12; Isa 61:1, cf. the eschatological advent of the spirit)?
• As for the intertextual echoes in the divine voice, there is most likely an allusion to Psalm 2:7 on the Davidic king as god’s son, possibly to Isaiah 42:1 on the servant and a slight chance that there is an allusion to the Akedah or binding of Isaac is the reference to the “beloved” son (I am not so sure that we should read so much into a parallel based on a single word).

What do you think was the purpose of Mark’s account of the baptism by John?

A Prooftext from Isaiah?

Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ, Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου· φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ

As it has been written in the prophet Isaiah, ‘Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way; a  voice of (one) crying in the wilderness,  ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’” (Mk 1:2-3).

Mk 1:2-3 quotes the Septuagint (LXX) (in English) Exodus 23:20; Malachi 3:1 (a good argument is made that Mark is working with the Hebrew text for this passage) and Isaiah 40:3.  The messenger seems identified with John the Baptist (cf. 1:4) while interestingly the 1st person singular of Mal 3:1 is altered to the 2nd person singular ”of you” (σου) and Isa 40:3 paths “of God” (τοῦ θεοῦ) becomes “of him” (αὐτοῦ) meaning that the Lord (κύριος) is now identified with Jesus.  This could be read as high christology but other passages we will wrestle with in this series seem to imply a low christology (“high” and “low” are problematic terms in that they apply a later theological standard by which to judge the varying christologies of the NT but I’m using them as shorthands) and Mark elsewhere distinguishes the “Lord” (God) from the “Lord” (Jesus) (12:36) so is it that Jesus’ way is being closely identified with God’s way or that Jesus acts on behalf of God as his representative and even bears the divine name (for varying viewpoints see here, here, here, here)?

Anyways, the problem I want to highlight is the attribution of the composite quotation to Isaiah:  the parallel in Matthew 3:3/Luke 3:4-6 recognizes the issue by omitting Exod 23:20/Mal 3:1 (the conflated text appears in Matt 11:10/Lk 7:27 = Q?) and there is signs of scribal editing in the alternative reading “in the prophets” (Dan Wallace lays out the textual data and why the reading above is superior on text-critical grounds here).  So one option is the evangelist just grabbed a conflated prooftext from a testimony collection and mistakenly attributed it to Isaiah or a later gloss (1:2) was interpolated into Mark’s quotation early enough to not leave a trace in the manuscript tradition, but I have issues with both solutions.  I checked out two major works arguing for a great deal of influence of Deutero-Isaiah in Mark, Joel Marcus The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark  (ch 2) and Rikki Watts Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (ch 3, 4).  There is other Jewish evidence of the conflation of Exod 23:20/Mal 3:1 (cf. Exodus Rabbah 32:9) and Mark deliberately conflated it with Isa 40:3 (saw links in the Hebrew/Aramaic expression for ”prepare the way” not observable in LXX Greek, other inter-textual connections with the Malachi passage sandwiched between the ascription and quotation of Isaiah to add a threat element if they are unprepared for the arrival of the forerunner and Yahweh) and the emphasis on Isaiah is because Isaianic themes are key to the gospel (announcing “good news”, wilderness as scene of new exodus, Yahweh as divine warrior with cosmic imagery and shepherd of Israel, return to Zion, the rule of God translated into eschatological expection, restoration of sight to the blind, the Servant of the Lord).  I also read Morna D. Hooker, “Isaiah in Mark’s Gospel” in Isaiah in the New Testament who acknowledges Isaiah’s importance in the prologue in setting forth themes such as “good news” and eschatological salvation in Jesus but does not see the influence of Isaiah to the extent of Marcus or Watts (e.g., she has long been skeptical of a link between the ransom saying in Mk 10:45 and the suffering servant) and notes that explicit citations of Isaiah revolve around judgment (4:12; 7:6-7; 9:48; 12:1-12; 13:23-4; even 11:17 positive temple function becomes a judgment in light of Jer 7:11).  What do you think about Mk 1:2-3?

Does Secret Mark Pre or Post-Canonical Mark? Part I

Besides Smith a few scholars have argued that Secret Mark (SM) was actually part of original Mark excised from canonical Mark (CM) due to its misuse by the Carpocratians.  I will look at the proposals of Helmut Koester’s theory in Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (1990), where he refines his argument that had been presented at an earlier seminar, and John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels:  Shadows on the Contours of Canon (1985). Again, these are just my notes on their work, not my own views.

Koester argues from the minor agreements (cf. Neirynck, Minor Agreements) of Matt/Luke against CM that they used another version of Mark ca 100 CE.  He admits some are common stylistic/grammatical corrections, accidental common omissions or scribal altering under influence of Matt, but focusses on instances where a recognizable editorial purpose may explain a change in CM from the “Mark” known to Matt/Luke (275-6).  Under common “omissions”, he argues the editor of CM inserted Mk 2:27 (interpreted as criticism of Sabbath observance, cf. Col 2:16; Ignatius Mg. 9:1; Barn. 15), Mk 4:26-29 (Matt 13:24-30 has similar Parable of the Tares but Matt 13 eager to expand Mk 4 parables), Mk 10:21, 24 (loved him, repetition, amazement), Mk 12:32-34 (appendix from Hellenistic Jewish/Christian propoganda of the scribe who makes the true confession of Shema [cf. Mk 12:29] and love of God from “whole understanding” superior to offerings [cf. Bornkamm]), Mk 14:51-52, and Mk 10:35-39 (Matt has cup as appropriate symbol of martyrdom but no baptism - a later homiletic expansion based on sacraments of eucharist & baptism, Rom 6:3-13 not a parallel [p. 278 n. 2]) (276-9).  CM alters the original wording preserved by Matt/Luke: Matt 13:11/Lk 8:10 (cf. Thom. 62; 1 Cor 13:2; 4:1; 14:2) plural mysteries to know better fits parables as mysteries to be explained than Mk 4:11 singular “mystery” given (summary about Jesus or the “gospel”, cf. Eph 6:19), Matt 16:21/Lk 9:22 third day & passive raised more primitive (cf. 1 Cor 15:4) than Mk 8:31 three days to rise (echo of Lazarus’ resurrection on 4th day? – p. 280 n. 2; cf. Smith, Clement, 163-4) and Matt 17:18-20a/Lk 9:42-43 older version of epileptic boy than Mk 9:14-29 (Mk 9:25-26 now a deaf-mute though remnants of epilepsy in 9:18, 20, 22, powerful contest with demon in exorcism as boy shakes and then as dead, but Jesus grabs him by the hand and raises him) (279-82).  Peculiar terminology in CM:  to teach (didaskein)/teaching (didache) (Mk 1:21, 22; 6:2, 6; [7:7]; 11:18; 12:14; 14:49) - sometimes reproduced in Synoptic parallels but many not and oddly placed like Mk 1:27 (cf. Acts 17:32 teaching = resurrection, Pap. Oxy. 1224, 2v. col. new teaching & new baptism), 6:30, 34; 8:31; 9:31 while Matt/Luke use different verb than “to teach” in parallel to Mk 2:13; 4:1-2; 10:1; 11:17; 12:35, 37, 38 – or the verb (ek)thambeisthai for amazement (1:27; 9:15; 10:24; 10:32; 14:33; 16:5, cf. 16:6) (283-4) (p. 284 n. 1 notes use of term in Hellenistic magic). Luke’s great omission with Mark’s doublets and peculiar features (“to understand” suniemi in Mk 6:52; 7:14; 8:17, 21 while elsewhere only Mk 4:12 allusion to Isa 6:9-10; synonymous noein 7:18; 8:17 and elsewhere only 13:14; “without insight” asunetos only in 8:17) shows his version of Mark missing this “Bethsaida section.”  So far, Koester reconstructs the evolution of CM in stages from the earliest version of Mark from the external evidence (not speculative Urmarkus – p. 285) used by Luke, an amplified Mark with 6:45-8:47 used by Matt, a new edition with SM (not yet argued), CM without 16:9-20 and the longer ending(s) (285-6).  On the Letter to Theodore (293-303),  he argues the vocab, style, syntax and manner of quotation identical with or similar to Clement’s writings so skepticism hard to justify (293-4) and may be written between 175-200 or 200-215 CE (Clement died ca 215) (294).  The greater mysteries of SM intended for mature Christians advancing in knowledge or undergoing second baptism (294 n. 7), but with no organized church and bishop/presbyters in early 2nd cent Alexandria it was easy to obtain copies of any writing (295).  SM’s vocab and style compatible with Mark so was from the same Markan school (cf. Johannine school) (295).  Parallels with John 11 story include the love (cf. Jn 11:3, 5, 35-36) and Bethany, but it lacks traces of Johannine redaction (names, motif of delay of travel, measurement of space/time, discourses with disciples or Mary/Martha) (296).  The youth’s initiation can’t be secondary because CM’s redaction shows awareness of it (Mk 4:11 ”mystery”; 10:21 loved him [cf. Jn 11:5, 36]; 14:51-52 youth in linen cloth; emphasis on “teaching”, Mk 8:31/9:31/10:32-34 3 days rise; 9:26-27 grasped by hand and raised; 9:15, 10:23-24, 10:32 “amazed”; 10:38-40a baptism, 10:46 Jericho) (297-302.  Thus, SM arranged Mk 8-10 to have two stories of raising a dead person, each after a passion prediction of resurrection in 3 days, and added references to the singular “mystery,” baptism as symbol for martyrdom, the youth fleeing naked in the garden (p. 297-8 n. 8 denies young man in Mk 16:5 in bright young man is same person and more likely an angel, cf. Gos Pet 13:55) and the teaching activity that leave traces in CM (301-2).  Meanwhile, Carpocratian additions including  ”naked with naked” was not in the Alexandrian church’s version, but Koester argues it need not imply sexual license as nakedness common in baptism (cf. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 21:11) (302)

Crossan divides SM into 5 parts: SM1 (=Mk 10:32-34 third passion prophecy), 2 (resurrected youth), 3 (=Mk 10:35[-45?] James & John), 4 (=Mk 10:46a Jericho) and 5 (women).  He finds SM2 more primitive than John 11 and lacks Johannine redactions with the following comparisons:  1. Voice – SM’s cry from the tomb like exorcised demons (Mk 1:26; 5:7) or Jesus himself in struggling with demonic power of death (Mk 15:34) changed to Jesus’ cry in Jn 11:43; 2. Anger – SM anger negative (cf. Mk 1:43; 14:5; Matt 9:30; Eger Pap 2, 2r51) at disciples rebuke of the sister while no reason for anger in John 11:33, 38 (verb different, usually translated deeply moved); 3. Garden - SM in a garden because youth rich while John 11 not in a garden but Jesus’ own garden tomb in 19:41 (104-6).  He argues the redactor of CM eliminated the raising of the youth and story behind Mk 10:46 though traces appear in CM (106-8). Parts of SM are still present in CM (SM1 verbatim first 8 words w/ Mk 10:32 and last 4 words with Mk 10:46; SM3 first 6 word verbatim of Mk 10:35; SM4 verbatim first 4 words of 10:46 except “he comes to Jericho” changed to “they come to Jericho” with “he was leaving Jericho with his disciples), while the omission of the episode at SM4 leaves a gaping hole in Mk 10:46 as we don’t learn what happened at Jericho (Clement’s copy must have already omitted something from SM5 as we don’t know why he didn’t receive the women – perhaps there was an original conversation with Salome?). Other parts that appear include the rich man obedient from his “youth” and whom Jesus loved and Salome at Mk 15:30/16:1 (109-10).  Of 5 literary elements of SGM (Arrival, Request, Miracle, Instruction, Departure) (111), CM dismembers and scatters them about:  Bethany (11:1, 11, 12) problematically relocated in 11:1 (rephrased in Lk 19:28-9/omitted Matt 21:1), “Son of David have mercy on me” to 10:47-48 awkwardly brackets “Jesus” (original petition of Bartimaeus just to “Jesus”?), rolled away the stone from door of the tomb to Mk 16:3 “who will roll away the stone” (not in Matt 28:2; Lk 24:2), the youth to young man at tomb in 16:5 (2 men in Lk 24:4, angel in Matt 28:2), ‘raised him seizing his hand’ to epileptic boy (Mk 9:26; cf. Mk 1:31; 5:41; 9:27; only retained in Matt 9:25/Lk 8:54), “that he might be with him” to former demoniac in 5:8, youth’s house to 1:29, 2:14-5, 3:20, “for he was rich” to Mk 10:17-22 (originally SM’s youth a new character as Clement has no knowledge of the rich man’s salvation in his exposition on this pericope but Mk 10:17-22 now has man obey from “youth” and Jesus “looks on him and loves him”), “after 6 days” to 9:2 (cf. Coptic tradition of 6th day of 6th week when Jesus baptized disciples), wearing linen cloth over naked body (cf. Thom 27, 37 wisdom, paradise regained and sexual asceticism; Jn 3:2 visit at night; Acts 16:33 nocturnal baptism; Pauline baptism imagery of taking off/putting on) relocated to odd story at Mk 14:51-2, mystery of kingdom to Mk 4:11 now in context of public parables, and other side of Jordan to 10:1 (omitted in Lk 9:51; changed in Matt 19:1) (111-9).  SM’s nocturnal baptism with its Edenic symbolism used in Alexandrian baptisms but misinterpreted as an erotic scene by the Carpocratians who added “naked with naked”, so the editor of CM dismembered it to make  SM look like a secondary Carpocratian edition (117-8).  Thus, Crossan’s model is of Markan tradition with SM (based on an oral tradition shared by John 11), then Carpocratian interpolations, then SM2 & 5 omitted as literary units and their parts dismembered throughout CM which finally left difficulties for Matt/Luke to make sense of CM’s editing (119-20) [note: doesn’t this imply a very late date for Matt/Luke if redacting CM after the Carpocratians!).

There are a few other works that are worth considering.  I do not have access to Marvin W. Meyer, “The Youth in the Secret Gospel of Mark” pages 129-53 in Semeia 49: the Apocryphal Jesus and Christian Beginnings (1990): 129-53 at the moment (the last publication of the innovative journal Semeia was in 2002 and has been replaced by a book series) and reprinted along with some other articles in his Secret Gospels: Essays on Thomas and the Secret Gospel of Mark (2003).  Basically he uncovers parallels of a beloved disciple in Christian literature and of a neaniskos (youth) fleeing naked in Greco-Roman literature and argues that if one adds back in the story of SM into its original location in Mark we have a consistent story of discipleship from the call of Jesus, the resurrection of the rich youth from the dead and initiation into the teaching of the kingdom while wearing baptismal garb, his failure like the rest of the disciples in Gethsemane (14:51-52) and his restoration when dressed in white proclaiming the resurrection (16:5) while the women fail at the end (16:8; is this why Jesus does not receive them in SM?).  Another work I have not yet read is by John Dart, a journalist who had long covered this issue, called Decoding Mark.  I am always a bit hesitant about finding chiasms as they seem like they can be found anywhere one wants to look but if someone who has actually read the book and wants to pass on their thoughts (RBL reviews here).

Judy Redman on Memory, Oral Tradition and Jesus

Judy Redman has kindly responded to my question on whether Thomas is dependent on the Synoptics and argues Thomas received sayings independently from the rich oral tradition.  There are a number of things that I can say appreciatively about the many scholars studying oral transmission or social memory.  First, I agree with Judy on many points: Jesus may have repeated the same teachings in different ways in all sorts of settings and various eyewitnesses in the first generation continued to retell their stories as they remembered, both of which could account for some similarities (even some verbatim ones) and variations in the Synoptics or Thomas.  Second, against those attacking Bart Ehrman (who now has a blog) and the infinitely patient James McGrath,  there was likely many oral and written souces floating around because Luke tells us so in the prologue (Lk 1:1-4, this is an odd way of saying just Mark & Q, or Mark & Matthew), it was an oral culture with low literacy, it accounts for some differences of John from the Synoptics even if John is literary dependent (ditto Matt/Luke, it is difficult to explain every difference as intentional redactional change), the early 2nd century bishop Papias prefers the “living voice” to the written word and it explains some variations of Jesus’ sayings or deeds in the Apostolic Fathers (Helmut Koester’s Überlieferung bei den  Apostolischen Vätern [1957] and subsequent works demonstrates they often draw on oral tradition rather than written gospels) or some extra-canonical gospels.  Third, as also from her review, there is much to be gained from social memory capturing the gist (Jesus was a sage, an apocalyptic seer, social reformer, messianic figure) while acknowledging human memory is also selective, flawed and sometimes constructs what is needed for the contemporary situation, echoing form critical debates of how much goes back to Jesus or the Sitz im Leben of the church.  Fourth, I appreciate these studies are interdisciplinary and offer methodologically sound replacements for outdated form critical laws about “pure forms” or impersonal “laws of tradition” for how traditions grow.

However, I am not ready to throw out all the labours of the classic German scholarship on source, form and redaction criticism.  I continue to accept sayings/deeds apart from the Passion circulated individually in forms to aid memory (e.g., chreiai -pronouncement stories), served various practical functions as they were handed down (instruction in ethics, magnifying Jesus when retold in worship, aiding in legal debates with fellow Jews, useful for evangelizing outsiders, etc) before incorporated in written Gospels.  Eyewitnesses are subject to both the limitations of memory and limited to not being everywhere at once, so as stories were told and retold widely there was room for creative new things.  Once included in a written source (Mark, perhaps Q source[s]?), the later evangelists (Matthew, Luke, John, Thomas, etc) did not just pull everything from oral tradition but copied each other and did some deliberate updating of the material to meet the theological needs of their readers.  An example where I see literary dependence and redaction is Mk 13:14/Matt 24:15/Lk 21:20 – “let the reader understand” seems to me a Markan addition hinting to the readers that they had been instructed about the “abomination of desolation”, Matthew repeats Mark’s aside verbatim while Luke reinterprets the enigmatic sign for non-Jewish readers in a post-70 context as the siege of Jerusalem.  That is a minor change, but would not a major change either  during the continuing oral tradition or at the redactional level be to explain how Mark and Thomas can reach such opposite views on apocalyptic?  An example I would want to look at would be the ”thief in the night” (Thomas  21, Matt 24:43/Lk 12:39; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 3:3; 16:15; Did 16:1) – on the one hand I could accept Judy’s view on Thomas complete independence here and getting this from the oral tradition as it is abundantly attested, but it does lead one to ask whether something Jesus had said about a thief in the night was remembered by different eyewitnesses or tradents in two dramatically different ways and put in very different contexts (be on guard against the world, be ready for the second coming of Jesus), if it was dramatically altered in the oral tradition received by either Matt/Luke (Q?) or Thomas, if either Matthew (or Q?) or Thomas made the redactional change to the saying or gave it a new context or if Thomas is dependent and changed Matt/Luke?

Thus, in my opinion the gist of how Jesus was remembered in the first generation was preserved and aphorisms/parables/short anecdotes and so on survived orally for centuries, but also the image of Jesus was theologically developed in oral tradition and redactionally at the hands of the Synoptic evangelists and (even more so) in John, Thomas, etc.  For a bibliography on memory and oral tradition:

• Alison, Dale.  Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History.  Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.
• Bauckham, Richard.  Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
• Dunn, James.  Jesus Remembered.  Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003.
• Le Donne, Anthony.  The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology and the Son of David.  Baylor University Press, 2009.
• Le Donne, Anthony.  The Historical Jesus: What can we know and how can we know it?  Eerdmans, 2011.
• Redman, Judy. ”How Accurate Are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129, no. 1 (2010): 177-97.
• Rodriguez, Rafael.  Structuring Early Christian Memory.  London and New York: T&T Clark, 2010.  His blog has lots of discussion on memory.

The Reception of Mark by John II?

I have a busy semester teaching second semester Greek and tutoring undergrads for a intro NT course, but conveniently the lesson coming up is on similarities and differences between John and the Synoptics and I was provided a few links that helpfully introduce this topic here and here.  A few posts ago I noted the patristic view that John wrote to supplement the Synoptic Gospel, but modern critical scholarship goes back and forth between John’s dependence or independence on them.  If independent, the similarities in the general outline and in several individual stories may perhaps be accounted for by some shared oral or written sources, including what many form critics believed was a pre-Markan passion narrative (note how many of Mark’s individual units seem like they could have been passed down independently but the Passion narrative is a smooth, interconnected narrative) that may explain why the narratives of Mark and John converge more here.  Recently, I have the impression that scholarship seems to be swinging back to the view that John knew and was dependent on at least Mark with some specialized studies trying to demonstrate an intertextual connection such as agreement in literary order/unique vocabulary or other alleged Markan redactional features showing up in John (thanks to Ed Babinski for emailing some of these sources to me).  What do you think is the solution?

• Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to St John.  Second Edition; London: SPCK, 1978.
• Bauckham, Richard.  “John for Readers of Mark.”  Pages 147-71 in The Gospels for All Christians.  Edited by Richard Bauckham.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
• Kurek-Chomycz, Dominika A.. “The Fragrance of Her Perfume: The Significance of Sense Imagery in John’s Account of the Anointing in Bethany.”  Novum Testamentum 52 (2010): 334-354.
• Dvorak, James D.  “The Relationship between John and the Synoptic Gospels.”  JETS 41 (1998): 201-213.
• Goodacre, Mark.  “Dating the crucial sources in early Christianity.” Paper presented at Cross, Resurrection and Diversity in Earliest Christianity Consultation, SBL Annual Meeting, Boston, November 21-24, 2008.
• Hunt, Stephen A.  Rewriting the Feeding of Five Thousand:  John 6.1-15 as a test case for Johannine dependence on the Synoptic Gospels.  New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2011.
• Neirynck, F.  “John and the Synoptics.”  Pages 73-106 in L’évangile de Jean.  Edited by M. de Jonge.  Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1977.
• Sim, David C.  “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?” New Testament Studies 57 (2011): 176 – 192.
• Smith, D.M.  John Among the Gospels: The Relationship in the Twentieth Century.  Second Edition.  Columbia: University of South Carolina, D. M. Smith, 2001.
• Some helpful blog posts or online resources on the subject are found here, here, here, here (please add your post in the comments below if you have written anything on this topic)

The Reception of Mark by Augustine

Augustine’s view on the Synoptic Problem and his ambivalent reception of Mark can be found in De Consensu Evangelistarum 1.2.4:

Mark seems to have followed closely after him [Matthew] like someone following on his footsteps and abbreviating him. For in fact, he has said nothing with John alone, very little by himself, a few with just Luke, but much more indeed with Matthew, and just as almost many things too in the same words, agreeing either with him alone or with the others. [translation from Stephen Carlson with original Latin text here, for other translations see also here, here, here, here, etc.]

For the great theologian looking to harmonize the One Gospel in the fourfold gospels, Mark seemed to have little distinctive to contribute as Matthew’s abbreviator.  His solution to the Synoptic Problem does have a few modern advocates (B.C. Butler, John Wenham), but most modern advocates of the priority of Matthew argue for a version of the Griesbach Hypothesis (Matthew and Luke were conflated by Mark) (e.g. William Farmer, David Peabody, etc.).  Mark remained largely neglected through most of Christian history until the emerging near academic consensus that Mark was the first narrative gospel practically raised it from the dead!

The Reception of Mark by Luke: The Great Omission?

One way to ask what the author of Luke-Acts thought of the gospel of Mark would be to look carefully at the Lukan prologue in 1:1-4.  The question might be how did Luke compare to the “many” who had already attempted or undertaken to write an account, especially with Luke’s stated goal to write for his patron Theophilus in order.  Another route might be similar to Sim’s study of Matthew’s redaction of Mark.  On this latter point, I want to look at what has come to be known as the Great Lukan Omission of Mark 6:45-8:26.  Basically, after Jesus feeds the five thousand (Luke 9:10-17), Luke goes straight into Jesus’ famous question “Who do you say that I am” with Peter’s climatic confession but omits the reference to Caesarea Philippi (Luke 9:18-20).  Why do you think Luke may have missed this entire section of Mark?

• An argument for the Griesbach hypothesis that Mark was intended to conflate Matthew and Luke?
• There was a proto-Mark without Mark 6:45-8:26 that was used by Luke, while a later redactor added this section to canonical Mark?
• This section was accidently skipped over due to the phenomenon of homeoleuton (the section begins with them going to and ends with them leaving “Bethsaida”)?
• Luke had a defective copy of Mark that was accidently missing this section?
• Luke wanted to reduce doublets (this section has a second feeding narrative and second sea miracle)?
• Luke chose to restrict Jesus’ mission to Jews in Galilee (rather than Tyre, Sidon and the Decapolis)?
• Luke found some features offensive such as the comparison of the non-Jewish Syrophoenician woman to a dog, the use of saliva to heal the deaf/mute man and the blind man, the harsh depiction of the ignorance of the disciples (their hearts are hardened at 6:52 in response to the Sea miracle and at 8:17 in response to Jesus remark on the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod) or some obscure teachings (e.g. Mk 7:1-23 involves some pretty technical discussion of Jewish halakhah and purity laws in responding to the objection about eating with unwashed hands)?
• Luke wanted to omit any discussion of clean and unclean (Mark 7) until Peter’s vision in Acts 10?
• Other explanations?

For an introduction to this issue one can check out the options laid out in commentaries such as Joseph Fitzmyer’s Luke I-IX for Anchor Bible (for commentaries available on google preview that comment on the issue see R.H. Stein, LT Johnson) or for various online views from scholars or laypersons at Crosstalk: Historical Jesus and Xtian Origins, Synoptic L Archive or Bernard’s (frequent commentor here) website.

The Reception of Mark by Matthew

I have finally gotten around to reading the article by David C. Sim, “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?” NTS 57 (2011): 176 – 192 (thanks to Ed Babinsky for mentioning the article in my post here and emailing it to me a while back).  While aspects of Sim’s study may be debated (was Mark a Paulinist and was Matthew anti-Pauline?), overall I found it a persuasive case that by reproducing most of Mark’s content while cleaning up Mark’s grammar and style, revising and enlarging it with a wealth of new material from other sources (the double tradition ["Q"], special Matthean materials) and editing out what has become theologically problematic the evangelist behind Matthew intended to replace Mark’s gospel (see especially page 178-181).  Sim writes (p. 183),

Why would he want his community to read of the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida in Mark 8:22-26 when he himself thought it unworthy of inclusion? Why would he be content to have his readers learn that Jesus’ power was limited in Mark 6:5 when he had rewritten that Marcan text in Matt 13:58 so as not to convey that impression?  Why would he want his intended readers to learn from Mark 3:19b-21 that the family of Jesus’ believed he was demon-possessed after he himself deemed it so offensive that he took considerable pains to ensure that it did not appear in his parallel account? Why would Matthew think it desirable for his community to be exposed to Mark’s statment in Mark 7:19b that Jesus declared all foods clean when he himself clearly opposed this view and omitted the offending words, and elsewhere depicted Jesus as a Law-observant Jew? Finally, why would the evangelist desire that his readers continue to read Mark when it offered them so little interms of their immediate and pressing needs, such as their conflict with Formative Judaism?

[*for Sim Mk 8:22-26 was omitted due to the use of spittle as a healing agent, the conflict with formative Judaism is the intensification of polemic against scribes & Pharisees in Matt 23, and Mk 7:19b points to Mark as a Paulinist but Sim doesn't deal with Crossley's reinterpretation of all foods already permitted by Torah as clean i.e. unwashed hands can't render eater unclean]

Sim points out that Matthew’s attitude conforms with Luke’s slightly critical view of his sources in the prologue (Lk 1:1-4), John’s working with a completely different tradition from Mark, and the mixed reception of Mark in the 2nd century (pp. 188-92).   The question is, if the apostle Peter had not been attached to Mark in patristic tradition, would we be reading Mark today?