Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative [Reprint 2014 ed.] 3110175258, 9783110175257

Table of contents :
Abbreviations
Introduction to the Problem: Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition
1. Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Herbert Marsh
1.3 Friedrich Schleiermacher
1.4 Excursus on the Term Logion (Logia)
1.5 Karl Lachmann
1.6 C.H. Weisse
1.7 H. J. Holtzmann
1.8 Bernhard Weiss
1.9 After Weiss
1.10 The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, Part 1: K. L. Schmidt
1.11 The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, Part 2: C. H. Dodd
1.12 From Schmidt and Dodd to the Present
1.13 The Plan of this Study
1.14 Proto-Luke: A Non-Markan Synoptic Narrative Framework?
1.15 The Presuppositions of this Study and the Terminology Used
2. Are You the One to Come? On the Relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus (Matt 11.2-6, 7-11//Luke 7.18-23, 24-28)
2.1 Introduction
2.2 John 3.25-36
2.3 John and the Synoptics on the Relationship between Jesus and the Baptist
2.4 Mark 1.14-15
2.5 Mark 1.1-2
2.6 Conclusion
3. The Obedient Son of God: The Temptation and the Passion (Matt 4.1-11//Luke 4.1-13)
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Origin of the Temptation Narrative
3.3 The Purpose of the Temptation Narrative
3.4 The Relationship of the Temptation Narrative to Early Baptismal Catechesis
3.5 Mark’s Temptation Narrative (Mark 1.12-13)
3.6 Conclusion
4. From Nazareth to Capernaum: The Beginning of the Galilean Ministry (Matt 4.12-16; Luke 4.14-31a)
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Heinz Schürmann and “Der Bericht vom Anfang”
4.3 Critique of Schürmann’s Theory
4.4 Antonio Gaboury on the Structure of the Synoptic Gospels
4.5 Critique of Gaboury
4.6 Capernaum and Nazareth: Mark 1.21-22 and 6.1-6a
4.7 The Beginning of the Galilean Ministry: “To Proclaim the Year of the Lord’s Favor”
4.8 The Problem of Luke 4.23
4.9 John 2.1-12; 4.43-54, and the Double Tradition
4.10 Conclusion
5. The Early Galilean Ministry (in and around Capernaum)
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Gaboury on the Double Tradition
5.3 The Structure of Mark 1.21-6.13
5.4 Mark’s Framework and the Double Tradition
5.5 John and the Double Tradition
5.6 Appendix I: The Healing of the Paralytic and the Centurion in Capernaum
5.7 Appendix II: The Placement of Matthew’s Sermon in the Synopsis
6. The Later Galilean and Judean Ministries
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Matthew 8.1-13.58
6.3 Luke 7.11-9.6
6.4 The Later Galilean and Judean Ministries
6.5 An Exorcism and the Beelzebul Controversy
6.6 Conclusion
7. The Passion Narrative
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The Denial of Peter (Matt 26.69-75//Mark 14.66-72//Luke 22.54b-62)
7.3 Gethsemane Traditions in the New Testament
7.4 The Gethsemane Narratives in Matthew and Luke
7.5 Gethsemane and the Lord’s Prayer
7.6 On the Meaning of the Third Petition
7.7 The Lord’s Prayer and the Gospel of John
7.8 The Purpose of the Gethsemane Prayer
7.9 Other Common, Non-Markan Narrative Material in the Passion Narrative?
7.10 Conclusion
8. Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: Conclusions and Implications
8.1 Introduction
8.2 The Framework of the Gospel Narrative
8.3 The Synoptic Problem
8.4 John and the Synoptics
8.5 The Historical Jesus
8.6 Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church
Bibliography
Index of Scripture References
Index of Other Ancient Sources
Index of Modem Authors
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Stephen Hultgren Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

In Verbindung mit

James D. G. Dunn · Richard B. Hays Hermann Lichtenberger herausgegeben von Michael Wolter

Band 113

W G DE

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 2002

Stephen Hultgren

Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative

W DE

G_ Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

2002

®

Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Hultgren, Stephen: Narrative elements in the double tradition : a study of their place within the framework of the gospel narrative / Stephen Hultgren. Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 2002 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche ; Bd. 113) ISBN 3-11-017525-8

© Copyright 2002 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin.

To My Father and Mother μνήσθητι οτι δι' αύτών έγενήθης, καί τί ανταποδώσεις αύτοΐς καθώς αυτοί σοί;

Preface The present volume represents substantially my doctoral dissertation, which was accepted by Duke University in the summer of 2001. Most of the text has undergone only minor revisions, although Chapters 7 and 8 have received some additional material. I wish to acknowledge a number of persons who assisted in the production of this work. Thanks go first of all to my dissertation supervisor, E. P. Sanders, for his generous and helpful guidance during its writing. The other members of my dissertation committee, Richard B. Hays, D. Moody Smith, and Eric Meyers, also provided welcome support and advice at various stages of its development. Special thanks are due to Richard Hays, who made the initial recommendation for publication to the editorial board of BZNW. I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Michael Wolter, and to all of the editors, for their acceptance of my book in that series. Dr. Claus-Jürgen Thornton at Walter de Gruyter offered excellent technical direction for the preparation of the manuscript, and saw to it that this volume should be published in a timely manner. Finally, it is a pleasure to be able to name my father among those who read and commented on my manuscript. He followed the development of my thesis with interest and, when it was completed, made a number of valuable suggestions in preparation for publication. To him, and to my mother, I dedicate this book with gratitude and affection.

May 22, 2002

Stephen J. Hultgren

Table of Contents Abbreviations

xiv

Introduction to the Problem: Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition

1

1. Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

4

1.1

Introduction

4

1.2

Herbert Marsh

4

1.3

Friedrich Schleiermacher

9

1.4

Excursus on the Term Logion (Logia)

12

1.5

Karl Lachmann

18

1.6

C. H. Weisse

20

1.7

H. J. Holtzmann

24

1.8

Bernhard Weiss

30

1.9

After Weiss

34

1.10 The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, Part 1 : K. L. Schmidt.. 35 1.11 The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, Part 2: C. H. Dodd

47

1.12 From Schmidt and Dodd to the Present

51

1.13 The Plan of this Study

56

χ

Table of Contents

1.14 Proto-Luke: A Non-Markan Synoptic Narrative Framework?

58

1.15 The Presuppositions of this Study and the Terminology Used

59

2. Are You the One to Come? On the Relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus (Matt 11.2-6, 7-11//Luke 7.18-23, 24-28)

62

2.1

Introduction

62

2.2

John 3.25-36

68

2.3

John and the Synoptics on the Relationship between Jesus and the Baptist

73

2.4

Mark 1.14-15

85

2.5

Mark 1.1-2

88

2.6

Conclusion

92

3. The Obedient Son of God: The Temptation and the Passion (Matt 4.1-11//Luke 4.1-13)

95

3.1

Introduction

95

3.2

The Origin of the Temptation Narrative

96

3.3

The Purpose of the Temptation Narrative

114

3.4

The Relationship of the Temptation Narrative to Early Baptismal Catechesis

119

3.5

Mark's Temptation Narrative (Mark 1.12-13)

122

3.6

Conclusion

127

Table of Contents

xi

4. From Nazareth to Capernaum: The Beginning of the Galilean Ministry (Matt 4.12-16; Luke 4.14-31a) 128 4.1

Introduction

128

4.2

Heinz Schürmann and "Der Bericht vom Anfang"

134

4.3

Critique of Schiirmann's Theory

136

4.4

Antonio Gaboury on the Structure of the Synoptic Gospels . . . . 138

4.5

Critique of Gaboury

154

4.6

Capernaum and Nazareth: Mark 1.21-22 and 6.1-6a

156

4.7

The Beginning of the Galilean Ministry: "To Proclaim the Year of the Lord's Favor"

164

4.8

The Problem of Luke 4.23

169

4.9

John 2.1-12; 4.43-54, and the Double Tradition

175

4.10 Conclusion 5. The Early Galilean Ministry (in and around Capernaum)

189 191

5.1

Introduction

191

5.2

Gaboury on the Double Tradition

195

5.3

The Structure ofMark 1.21-6.13

196

5.4

Mark's Framework and the Double Tradition

208

5.5

John and the Double Tradition

210

5.6

Appendix I: The Healing of the Paralytic and the Centurion in Capernaum

213

xii

Table of Contents

5.7

Appendix II: The Placement of Matthew's Sermon in the Synopsis

6. The Later Galilean and Judean Ministries

215

218

6.1

Introduction

218

6.2

Matthew 8.1-13.58

218

6.3

Luke 7.11-9.6

232

6.4

The Later Galilean and Judean Ministries

235

6.5

An Exorcism and the Beelzebul Controversy

249

6.6

Conclusion

254

7. The Passion Narrative 7.1

Introduction

7.2

The Denial of Peter

256 256

(Matt 26.69-75//Mark 14.66-72//Luke 22.54b-62)

260

7.3

Gethsemane Traditions in the New Testament

278

7.4

The Gethsemane Narratives in Matthew and Luke

281

7.5

Gethsemane and the Lord's Prayer

290

7.6

On the Meaning of the Third Petition

299

7.7

The Lord's Prayer and the Gospel of John

301

7.8

The Purpose of the Gethsemane Prayer

303

7.9

Other Common, Non-Markan Narrative Material in the Passion Narrative?

307

Table of Contents

7.10 Conclusion

xiii

309

8. Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: Conclusions and Implications

310

8.1

Introduction

310

8.2

The Framework of the Gospel Narrative

310

8.3

The Synoptic Problem

325

8.4

John and the Synoptics

350

8.5

The Historical Jesus

352

8.6

Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church

353

Bibliography

355

Index of Scripture References

391

Index of Other Ancient Sources

413

Index of Modem Authors

415

Index of Subjects

421

Abbreviations Abbreviations generally follow the conventions of the Society of Biblical Literature or, where those are lacking, the Abkürzungsverzeichnis of the Theologische Realenzyklopädie.

Journals, Reference Works, and Series AAAboH AASF AB ABD ABRL AGSU ALBO AnGr (SFT) ANRW

ANTJ ASNU ATANT AThRSS BBB BBET BDAG

BDF

Acta Academiae Aboensis (Series A, Humaniora) Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. David N. Freedman; 6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) Anchor Bible Reference Library Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spätjudentums und Urchristentums Analecta Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia Analecta Gregoriana (Series Facultatis Theologicae) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (ed. H. Temporini & W. Haase; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972-) Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und Judentum Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Anglican Theological Review Supplementary Series Bonner biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early

Abbreviations

BETL BEvT Bib BibLeb BibS (N) BJRL BLE BN BR BWANT BZ BZNW CBQ CCSL CGTC ConBNT ConNT DBSup EHPhR EHS(T) EKKNT EstBib ETL EvT Exp ExpTim FB FRLANT FTS GTA HibJ

XV

Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Biblica Bibel und Leben Biblische Studien (Neukirchen, 1951-) Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique Biblische Notizen Biblical Research Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954-) Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series Coniectanea Neotestamentica Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément (ed. L. Pirot and A. Robert; Paris: Letouzy & Ané, 1928-) Études d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses Europäische Hochschulschriften (Series 23, Theology) Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Estudios bíblicos Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Evangelische Theologie The Expositor Expository Times Forschung zur Bibel Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Frankfurter theologische Studien Göttinger theologische Arbeiten Hibbert Journal

xvi HNT HTKNT HTR HTS IBS ICC IEJ JBL JJS JSNT JSNTSup JTS Jud KB ANT KEK LD LS NCB NGS NHS NICNT NIGTC NovT NovTSup NTAbh NTD NTL NTS NTTS ÖTK OTP

PSTJ QD RB

Abbreviations

Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Judaica Kommentare und Beiträge zum Alten und Neuen Testament Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar) Lectio Divina Louvain Studies New Century Bible New Gospel Studies Nag Hammadi Studies New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Library New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983-85) Perkins School of Theology Journal Quaestiones Disputatae Revue biblique

Abbreviations

ResQ RevQ RHPR RNT RSR RV SAC SANT SBLDS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSP SBS SBT SbWGF

SE SJ SJLA SNTA SNTSMS SNTU SR ST StPB StudNeot SUNT TCGNT

TDNT

THKNT TLZ TRE

xvii

Restoration Quarterly Revue de Qumran Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses Regensburger Neues Testament Recherches de science religieuse Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher für die deutsche christliche Gegenwart Studies in Antiquity and Christianity Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main Studia Evangelica Studia Judaica Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Studiorum Novi Testamenti Auxilia Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Studies in Religion Studia Theologica Studia Post-Biblica Studia Neotestamentica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich; tr. G. W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76) Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Realenzyklopädie (ed. G. Krause and G. Müller; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1977-)

xviii TSK TU TUMSR UNT WBC WdF WMANT WUNT YPR ZDPV ZKT ZNW ZTK

Abbreviations

Theologische Studien und Kritiken Texte und Untersuchungen Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Word Biblical Commentary Wege der Forschung Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Yale Publications in Religion Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Other Abbreviations and Symbols ET LXX MT NF NRSV NT OT Q q RSV

English Translation Septuagint Masoretic Text Neue Folge New Revised Standard Version New Testament Old Testament hypothetical Q document; or material attributed to that document gospel material common to Matthew and Luke (regardless of source) Revised Standard Version

Introduction to the Problem: Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition The last four decades have seen a remarkable evolution in synoptic gospel scholarship. I refer to the massive changes that the "classical" disciplines of gospel scholarship have undergone, especially in the areas of the synoptic problem, gospel origins, and form criticism. Many scholarly beliefs about the gospels that were not very long ago taken to be "assured results of scholarship" have been radically revised if not altogether discarded. The two-document hypothesis, which for a time was considered by many scholars to be one such "assured result," no longer enjoys the dominance it once had. Doubts about the presuppositions and purposes of classical form criticism have led to new theories regarding the formation and transmission of the gospel tradition. Parallel to this has been renewed interest in the genre of the gospels, their historical reliability, and the nature of their relationship to early Christianity.1 Amidst these important changes, however, old and time-honored approaches to the study of the gospels continue to flourish and even take on new life. For example, in the last generation the Q hypothesis, for a long time merely a theoretical construct for solving the synoptic problem, has turned into its own sub-field within gospel scholarship ("Q studies"). The recent publication of The Critical Edition of Q testifies to the tenacity with which a particular scholarly hypothesis can endure over the course of generations.2 This volume, controversial as it is, represents the culmination of an approach to the study of the gospels that is now well over 150 years old. The very existence of Q, of course, continues to be debated by scholars, and the developments in gospel scholarship over the last 40 years have been healthy

For discussions of these changes, see the symposia on the gospels collected in such volumes as Peter Stuhlmacher, ed., The Gospel and the Gospels (tr. John Vriend; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); David Dungan, ed., The Interrelations of the Gospels (BETL 95; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990); Bruce Corley, ed., Colloquy on New Testament Studies (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983); William R. Farmer, ed., New Synoptic Studies (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983); William O. Walker, Jr., ed., The Relationships among the Gospels (TUMSR 5; San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978); and Donald G. Miller and Dikran Y. Hadidian, eds., Jesus and Man's Hope (2 vols.; Pittsburgh: Perspective, 1970). James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffman, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds., The Critical Edition of Q (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000).

2

Introduction to the Problem

in that respect. Yet there is one assumption that seems to have survived this debate nearly unchallenged and intact. That is the assumption that, if there was a Q, it was basically a sayings source and was devoid of any significant narrative interest in Jesus of Nazareth. As we shall see in Chapter 1, this assumption has deep roots in gospel scholarship, and long ago it induced a tendency to dichotomize the sources of the synoptic gospels into narrative and sayings sources: within the two-source hypothesis as this is usually and simply understood, Mark presents the basic narrative for the ministry of Jesus, while Q provides us with his teachings. Matthew and Luke combined these two sources. In more recent years, however, this tendency to dichotomize has been taken one step, or rather two steps, further, and it has resulted in radically new and unconventional views of the historical Jesus, early Christianity, and gospel origins. In the first step, this dichotomy between narrative and sayings sources is taken to indicate not simply two different kinds of written documents, but a deep division at the roots of the gospel tradition itself, indeed a fissure between two fundamentally different Jesus traditions. One Jesus tradition was narrative and kerygmatic in orientation, and it culminated in the Gospel of Mark. Another Jesus tradition was essentially non-narrative and non-kerygmatic, and it resulted in Q. Q is even thought by some scholars to be closer (in respect of genre) to the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas than to the canonical gospels. On this view, when Matthew and Luke combined Mark and Q, they domesticated Q and radically altered its genre by placing it within a narrative-kerygmatic gospel framework.3 Some scholars think that this alleged division between narrative-kerygmatic and non-narrative, non-kerygmatic traditions (or sources) about Jesus can be made fruitful for new insight into the nature of early Christianity: Determining Q's theological outlook and genre has considerable importance. From the standpoint of drawing the map of the theological landscape of the Jesus movement, it is clear that Q represents an important and distinctive moment in early Christian theologizing—in particular, because there is no evidence that Q had developed a view

3

E.g., Helmut Koester, "GNOMAIDIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity," in James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) 135: "[T]he Gospel of Thomas continues...the most original gattung [íí'c] of the Jesus tradition—the logoi sophon—which, in the canonical gospels, became acceptable to the orthodox church only by a radical critical alteration, not only of the form, but also of the theological intention of this primitive gattung. Such critical evaluation of the gattung, logoi, was achieved by Matthew and Luke through imposing the Marcan narrative-kerygma frame upon the sayings tradition represented by Q." Cf. in the same volume James M. Robinson, '"Logoi Sophon' : On the Gattung of Q," 113.

Introduction to the Problem

3

that found particular salvific meaning in the death of Jesus himself....Reflections on the genre and scope of Q also provide the best clues in the efforts to ascertain the social location of its framers and first-intended audience.4

In a second step, some scholars think that hypothetical Q may provide better access to knowledge about the historical Jesus than the canonical gospels offer. When the narrative-kerygmatic framework of Mark was imposed on Q, it clouded the primitive, clear picture of Jesus—the real Jesus—as he was remembered by his first followers and as his words were preserved in Q. In order to get back to the real Jesus of history, we must remove the mythical overlay of Mark.5 The purpose of this study is, quite simply, to test the one basic assumption that lies at the root of these views: the assumption that the so-called Q material represents a source or a tradition that lacked a narrative interest in Jesus of Nazareth. The issues which we have briefly touched in the foregoing paragraphs indicate that in the present situation this is a serious and urgent question, and it will continue to be urgent as long as scholars are interested in the historical Jesus, gospel origins, and the nature of early Christianity.

4 5

John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000) 164-65. Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1998) 527-34; Burton Mack, The Lost Gospel (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1993) 47, 245.

1. Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy 1.1 Introduction The assumption that Q represents a tradition, document, or even a community that lacked a narrative interest in Jesus of Nazareth rests on a more fundamental view of gospel origins. That is the view that the Gospel of Mark and Q represent two different kinds of sources. Mark is a narrative source and represents the oldest narrative framework for the life of Jesus, while Q (defined in opposition to Mark, or at least in differentiation from Mark) is a sayings source, material from which has been inserted (by Matthew and Luke) into this framework. The purpose of this chapter will be to demonstrate how mainstream synoptic gospel scholarship arrived at the sharp dichotomy between narrative and sayings sources that underlies much of current gospel scholarship. In order to do this, it will be necessary to go back to the beginnings of the two-source hypothesis and to trace its history up until the present, with the genesis ofthat dichotomy as our central focus. Of necessity we shall pay careful attention to a few key figures, especially from the 19th and early 20th centuries, for that period was absolutely critical to the formation of the present state of gospel scholarship. The reader is referred to other works for more comprehensive treatments of the history of the synoptic problem in general and of the two-source hypothesis in particular.1

1.2 Herbert Marsh The first important figure for our discussion is the Cambridge scholar Herbert Marsh (1757-1839). Although scholars before Marsh proposed that the synoptic evangelists had used various sources in composing their gospels, Marsh has the distinction of being the first to propose specifically that the origin and composition of the synoptic gospels could be explained by appeal to a narrative

For helpful histories of the synoptic problem, see William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (New York: Macmillan, 1964) and David L. Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1999). The latter includes extensive discussion of the problem in antiquity and in the pre-modem period, as well as modern and post-modern developments.

Herbert Marsh

5

source (which he designated by the symbol X) and a sayings source (which he designated by the symbol 3). 2 Marsh begins by arguing that the similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke are such that "absolute independence, in respect to the composition of our three first Gospels, is no longer tenable," and a decision must be made: "either, that St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, copied the one from the other; or that all three drew from a common source."3 The rest of his book is devoted to making a decision on this "either-or." First Marsh discusses various utilization hypotheses. He assumes that under any utilization hypothesis the verbal harmony among all three gospels requires "not only that one of them copied from the other two, but that these two likewise copied the one from the other."4 That is because there are agreements between any two of the gospels against the third. Since Marsh does not entertain the possibility of combining a utilization hypothesis with a common-source hypothesis (as in the later two-document hypothesis), these agreements demand direct literary dependence between all three gospels. This allows for six possible orders of composition, where in each case the second gospel is dependent on the first, and the third gospel is dependent on both of its predecessors:5 (1) Mark, Matt, Luke; (2) Luke, Matt, Mark; (3) Matt, Mark, Luke; (4) Luke, Mark, Matt; (5) Matt, Luke, Mark; (6) Mark, Luke, Matt. Marsh then notes that options 1,2, 3, and 5 have all been proposed by various scholars, whereas he knows of no scholars who have proposed cases 4 or 6. He attributes this multiplicity of views to the "diversity of opinion, in respect to the time, when the Gospels were written."6 Out of these four hypotheses Marsh then focuses on number 5 (the Griesbach hypothesis). Marsh is of the view that, while this hypothesis is possible, it cannot explain why Mark omits so much of the material common to Matthew and Luke. More generally he concludes that while a utilization hypothesis (any of the six kinds) is possible in principle, it is "liable to objections, which it is not very easy to surmount."7 The author then proceeds to discuss various "common source" theories that assume an original Greek or Aramaic Ur-gospel. Marsh acknowledges that these theories have much explanatory power, but he also says that they present a

3 4 5 6 7

Herbert Marsh, A Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical Gospels (Cambridge: J. Deighton, 1801). Ibid., 2-3. Ibid., 5. Ibid., 6.1 have given these six possibilities in the same order that Marsh gives them. Ibid., 9. Ibid., 17-18.

6

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

problem: Cases where all three gospels agree verbally seem to require their use of a common Greek document, since such agreement is "wholly incompatible with the notion of three independent translations of the same [Aramaic] original."8 Yet on the other hand "the numerous examples, in which different Greek words are used in their Gospels, to relate the same things" are best explained precisely by translation from a common Aramaic gospel.9 Thus Marsh rejects both a simple Greek or Aramaic Ur-gospel hypothesis and utilization hypotheses.10 Instead Marsh posits a more complex hypothesis: Document X, of apostolic origin and written in Aramaic, was a kind of Urgospel, "a short narrative...containing the principal transactions of Jesus Christ from his baptism to his death." It provides the sections that are common to all three synoptic gospels (what we might call the "triple tradition"). This document was soon translated into Greek. In the course of time additions were made to the Aramaic document based on apostolic and eye-witness testimony. Marsh designates these additions as A (=sections in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke); α (=agreements between Matthew and Mark against Luke in the triple tradition [Χ]); Β (=sections in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew); β ^agreements between Mark and Luke against Matthew in the triple tradition [Χ]); Γ1 (=sections that appear in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, and that appear in the same order in Matthew and Luke); and γ (=agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark in the triple tradition [X]).11 The canonical gospels are syntheses of Aramaic and Greek versions of the Ur-gospel. Mark translated his copy of X (the Aramaic Ur-gospel with additions Α, α, B, and β) into Greek. He also used the Greek translation of X that had been made prior to these additions. Likewise Luke translated his copy of X (with additions Β, β, Γ1, γ) into Greek and also used the prior Greek translation of X. Matthew first wrote his gospel in Aramaic, for which he used his copy of X (with additions Α, α, Γ1, γ). Canonical Matthew is a Greek translation of this Aramaic Matthew. But the translator who produced canonical Matthew also consulted Greek Mark and Greek Luke. In this way Marsh believes that he can account for all of the phenomena of agreement and disagreement between the synoptic gospels. Exact verbal agreement between any two evangelists is due to their use of a common Greek source. Places where two evangelists report the

8 9 10 11

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

34. 33. 164-65, 174. 196-200.

Herbert Marsh

7

same thing but with different words are due to differing translations of the Aramaic.12 We have noted that Marsh designates the sections that Matthew and Luke have in common against Mark and that appear in the same order in Matthew and Luke with the symbol Γ1. This material covers those few sections in the double tradition where Matthew and Luke agree in order. Surprisingly Marsh includes here only the Sermon on the Mount/Plain and the Centurion in Capernaum.13 He does not include such passages as John's Preaching of Repentance or the Temptation. That is because he counts these latter two as part of the triple tradition, even though the Matthean/Lukan form of the Temptation is very different from Mark's, and even though John's Preaching of Repentance does not appear at all in Mark (Marsh simply runs John's Preaching of Repentance together with John's Messianic Preaching, which does appear in Mark, and counts them as one pericope). But what we must note just now is that Marsh attributes this material—the double-tradition material that appears in the same order in Matthew and Luke (Γ1)—to the Ur-gospel (i.e., Matthew's and Luke's copy of X). On the other hand, Marsh recognizes that the rest of the doubletradition material (the great majority of it) appears in a different order in Matthew and Luke. Therefore this material, which Marsh designates Γ2, ex hypothesi cannot have belonged to any version of the Ur-gospel, since the Urgospel had a set narrative order. Thus Marsh proposes a second Aramaic document Q ) from which the Γ2 material was derived. This document was a gnomologia that contained "a collection of precepts, parables, and discourses." Matthew and Luke both used a copy of this document, but Mark did not. Matthew's copy and Luke's copy were slightly different from each other. In addition to the common material, Matthew's copy contained some material not in Luke's copy (what today we might call M), while Luke's copy likewise contained some material not in Matthew's copy (L). Matthew and Luke inserted material from 2 at different places in their gospels.14 Marsh's work is not always consistent, accurate, or thorough. For example, he insists that none of the evangelists knew the work of the others, and yet he says that whoever translated Aramaic Matthew into canonical Matthew "consulted" Mark and Luke. Marsh needs the translator of Matthew to have consulted Greek Mark and Greek Luke in order to account for the verbal agreements between Matthew and Mark and between Matthew and Luke that

12 13 14

Ibid., 195. Ibid., 177. Ibid., 202.

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

8

cannot be explained on the basis of a common Aramaic document. Marsh claims that a translator's use of Mark and Luke is different from an author's use of Mark and Luke, so that his theory of Matthew's independence from Mark and Luke is secure.15 It is questionable, however, whether this distinction between author and translator is clean enough not to undermine the theory of Matthew's independence. Furthermore, his description of the data is sometimes slippery. For example, he writes that "in no instance throughout X [i.e., the triple tradition] does St. Mark fail to agree verbally with St. Matthew, where St. Luke agrees verbally with St. Matthew.'" 6 This is true only if one has already defined Κ exclusively as those places where Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree exactly verbatim. In that case of course Mark will never fail to agree with Matthew where Luke agrees with Matthew. But this is not Marsh's definition of X, for elsewhere X seems to stand for the triple tradition more generally: "For throughout all X [Matthew and Luke] invariably relate the same thing in different words, except in the passages, where both of them agree at the same time with St. Mark." 17 But if this is our definition of X, then there are many places where Matthew and Luke agree verbally against Mark (i.e., the minor agreements). Indeed, Marsh himself has already designated as γ those parts of the triple tradition where Matthew and Luke agree verbally against Mark. The description of the data is inconsistent and inaccurate. Finally Marsh omits much material in his discussion. For example, his tabulation of the double-tradition passages is incomplete.18 Nonetheless Marsh's work is important. It is important not only because Marsh is the first scholar to posit a narrative source and a sayings source as the two major, independent sources used by the synoptic evangelists. Equally important for our purposes are (1) Marsh's recognition that some of the material in the double tradition appears in the same order in Matthew and Luke, and that some (the majority of it) appears in a different order in Matthew and Luke; and (2) Marsh's attribution of the former to an Ur-gospel and the latter to a separate sayings document. This recognition—that some of the double-tradition material appears in a fixed order and stands within a narrative framework, and that the rest of the double-tradition material lacks such order—will become a recurring problem for all future synoptic scholarship, even to the present day. It may even

15

Ibid., 209.

16

Ibid., 151; cf. also 158.

17

Ibid., 151. Ibid., 1 2 0 - 4 7 .

18

Friedrich Schleiermacher

9

be said that this represents an enigma that has never been satisfactorily explained. This problem will receive attention in this study.

1.3 Friedrich Schleiermacher Marsh's identification of two sources—a narrative source and a sayings source—as the two main sources of the synoptic gospels was based primarily on an examination of internal evidence in the gospels themselves. But it was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) who made the important and—as it would prove to be—fatal step of identifying a narrative source and a sayings source on the basis of external evidence on the origins of the gospels. In an article of 1832 Schleiermacher brought the ancient testimony of Papias regarding Matthew and Mark to bear upon the synoptic problem.19 Schleiermacher's point of departure is the tradition received by Papias from "the elder" that "Matthew collected the λόγια in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted [or translated] them as best he could" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16: Ματθαίος μέν ούν ' Εβραΐδι διαλέκτφ τα λόγια συνετάξατο, ήρμήνευσεν δ' αύτά ώς ήν δυνατός έκαστος). 20 As Schleiermacher notes, this tradition about "Matthew" was usually taken to refer to our Gospel of Matthew and so used as evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). Schleiermacher rejects the traditional interpretation on two grounds. First, it is impossible that our Matthew could be a translation of an original Aramaic Matthew, as Papias' testimony demands on the traditional reading. Secondly, Schleiermacher understood the word λόγια to mean "sayings" or "speeches." But, he says, the Gospel of Matthew can hardly be described accurately as a collection of dominical sayings or speeches. If Papias were really referring to the author of our Gospel of Matthew, he would be obliged to say something more than that Matthew "collected the λόγια." He would be obliged to say that later Matthew filled out the collection of sayings with narrative material to produce a life of Jesus, or the like, because only then would Papias accurately describe

"

20

Friedrich Schleiermacher, "Über die Zeugnisse des Papias von unsern beiden ersten Evangelien," TSK 5 (1832) 735-68. This essay has recently been reprinted on pp. 227-54 of Exegetische Schriften, division 1, vol. 8 of the Kritische Gesamtausgabe (ed. Hermann Patsch and Dirk Schmid; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), with an introduction by the editors on pp. 1-liv. Page numbers will be given according to the original. Papias explicitly cites the authority of the elder only in his testimony on Mark, but it is generally agreed that the statement about Matthew in paragraph 16 is in continuity with the elder's testimony on Mark in paragraph 15. Thus the witness on Matthew also comes from "the elder."

10

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

our Matthew. But Papias does not say that. Therefore Papias cannot be referring to our Gospel of Matthew, and the author of our Matthew must be someone other than the apostle Matthew.21 If Papias is not referring to our Matthew, then to what (or to whom) is he referring? Papias must be describing a collection of sayings of Jesus compiled by the apostle Matthew.22 And when Papias says furthermore that "each interpreted (ήρμήνευσεν) them as best he could"—the verb ήρμήνευσεν here does not mean "translate" but "interpret"23—he means that various subsequent authors "interpreted" Matthew ' s collection of sayings and speeches by providing them with geographical or chronological details, thus setting them within a narrative context. Our Gospel of Matthew is one such "interpretation." The Gospel of Matthew (or rather the Gospel "according to Matthew," κατά Μαθθαΐον) received its name not because the apostle Matthew wrote it but because it rests upon Matthew's collection of λόγια.24 This collection of sayings appears in five sections in Matthew: (1) chapters 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount, which has been placed into the narrative context of Matt 4.23-25 and 7.28; (2) chapter 10, the Mission Discourse, framed by Matt 9.35-36 and 11.1; (3) the parables of chapter 13, framed by 13.1-2 and 13.53; (4) chapter 18, framed by 18.2 and 19.1; (5) chapters 23-25. The similar formulae that appear at the end of each of these five sections, "and it happened that when Jesus finished these words [parables, etc.]...," mark the ends of sections of the λόγια collection.25 Schleiermacher thinks that there is other material in the Gospel of Matthew besides these five sections that comes from the sayings source, but he has no clear criterion for identifying that material.26 Unlike later scholars, Schleiermacher did not think that Luke had used the sayings source (although he does not exclude the possibility that Luke knew it), and so the criterion that later scholars would use—the appearance of common material in Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark—does not apply for Schleiermacher.27 But he is insistent that the sayings source did not contain narrative material.28 Schleiermacher's treatment of Papias' testimony on Mark is very similar to his treatment of the testimony on Matthew. When Papias says that, according to

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Schleiermacher, "Zeugnisse," 736-37, 740-41, 757. Ibid., 738. Ibid., 742. Ibid., 745-46. Ibid., 746-49. Ibid, 749-52. Ibid., 757-58. Ibid, 752.

Friedrich Schleiermacher

11

the elder, Mark "wrote accurately, but not in order, the things said or done by the Lord" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.14-15: ακριβώς έγραψεν, ού μέντοι τάξει, τά ύπό του κυρίου ή λεχθέντα ή πραχθέντα), Papias is not referring to our Gospel of Mark, but rather to a collection of anecdotes from the life of Jesus, both of his words and of his deeds, put together by Mark the companion and interpreter of Peter and based on the latter's teaching. Mark did not put these anecdotes into any order or continuous narrative, but simply wrote them down as he recalled them from memory.29 The author of our Gospel of Mark was someone other than Papias' Mark. It is collections such as these—the collections of Matthew and Mark—that preceded and formed the basis for the composition of our gospels. Schleiermacher demurs to any firm conclusions on the synoptic problem. He allows for the possibility that canonical Matthew and Luke used canonical Mark, but he also considers the possibility that Matthew and Luke had direct access to the collection put together by Papias' Mark. Thus the Gospel of Matthew, for instance, may be a synthesis of Matthew's λόγια collection and Mark's collection of narratives and sayings of Jesus. Likewise he thinks that our Gospel of Mark is probably based on the collection produced by Papias' Mark, but he will not preclude the possibility that our Mark is dependent on canonical Matthew and Luke.30 In any case what is most important for Schleiermacher is the identification of these two sources: the λόγια source of Matthew and Mark's source consisting of both narrative and sayings material. Schleiermacher's essay is very important for two reasons. First, it gave (or at least seemed to give) ancient, patristic evidence for the existence of a sayings source standing behind the Gospel of Matthew. This patristic evidence would be adduced again and again in synoptic scholarship for several decades. Just as proponents of Matthean priority had patristic evidence to support their claims, so in the future proponents of Markan priority and of the sayings source could also claim patristic support. Secondly, by attributing a sayings source to Matthew and a more narrative type of source to Mark, Schleiermacher fortified the dichotomy between narrative and sayings sources (as opposed to a mere distinction between narrative and sayings materials) that we have already met in Marsh and that will become standard in future synoptic scholarship.

29 30

Ibid., 761-62. Ibid., 766-67.

12

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

1.4 Excursus on the Term Logion {Logia) It will not be out of place to note here a problem that attends Schleiermacher's reading of Papias' testimony. As we have seen, Schleiermacher chose to render λόγια with "sayings" or "speeches" of Jesus (Aussprüche, Sprüche, Reden). But Schleiermacher himself acknowledges in his article that the usual meaning of the word λόγιον (as opposed to λόγος) in both biblical and non-biblical Greek is "oracle" or "divine speech" (Götterspruch), not "saying."31 In the LXX the word λόγιον is used consistently—with only one exception—for the "word" of God. Once it is used to refer to the "words" of the psalmist (Ps 18.15; MT 19.15). In the NT the word is used four times (Acts 7.38; Rom 3.2; Heb 5.12; 1 Pet 4.11), always with reference to the "words" or "oracles" of God (as recorded in Scripture). Thus when Schleiermacher chose to render λόγια as "sayings" rather than "oracles," he did so not out of ignorance of the evidence, but in spite of it. To the data from the LXX and the NT on the meaning of λόγιον we may now also add the evidence of the early Greek Fathers. In his study of the word λόγιον in the patristic literature of the second century, R. Gryson shows that the word generally designates Holy Scripture, whether that be the OT or NT. Gryson concludes that the patristic evidence cannot support Schleiermacher's reading of Papias. Papias' τά λόγια probably refers to all of the material, both sayings and narratives, that the author of "Matthew" (canonical or otherwise) "put in order."32 Gryson is surely correct. Papias himself seems to use the terms λόγια (in reference to Matthew) and λόγια κυριακά (in reference to Mark and in the title of his work: Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1, λογίων κυριακών έξήγησις) more broadly than Schleiermacher allows. The question is whether in these places Papias has in mind "sayings o/the Lord" or "reports about the Lord." Eusebius clearly refers the tradition about Mark to "the Mark who wrote the Gospel" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.14: περί Μάρκου του τό εύαγγέλιονγεγραφότος). Thus when Papias reports that Mark "wrote accurately, though not in order, the things said or done by the Lord (τά υπό του κυρίου ή λεχθέντα ή πραχθέντα)," he is apparently describing our Gospel of Mark (contra Schleiermacher). After noting that Mark had not been a disciple of the Lord but that he had later become a companion of Peter, Papias says that Peter "used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles" (προς τάς χρείας έποιεΐτο τάς διδασκαλίας, άλλ' ούχ ώσπερ σύνταξιν των 31 32

Ibid., 738. R. Gryson, "A propos du témoignage de Papias sur Matthieu: Le sens du mot ΛΟΓΙΟΝ chez les pères du second siècle," ETL 41 (1965) 530-47.

Excursus on the Term Logion (Logia)

13

κυριακών ποιούμενος λογίων). Since Eusebius refers this tradition to our Gospel of Mark, and since Papias includes in Mark's writing both what Jesus said and what he did—in other words, both narrative and sayings material—most scholars today (including even the most ardent supporters of the Q hypothesis) now think that by the term λόγια κυριακά Papias does not mean "words of the Lord," but "reports about the Lord" more generally, including narratives.33 Papias' judgment that our Gospel of Mark lacks an "arrangement of the Lord's oracles" (άλλ' ούχ ώσπερ σύνταξιν των κυριακών ποιούμενος λογίων) comes presumably by way of comparison either with some other gospel, such as Matthew or even John, of whose arrangement Papias approves, or with Papias' own conception of how an ordered account of the "Lord's oracles" should be composed.34 When Papias comes to speak about Matthew, then, and says that Matthew "collected the oracles" (συνετάξατο τά λόγια), it is likely that here also Papias uses the term λόγια broadly to refer to the contents of a whole gospel, whether that be our Matthew or some other gospel that Papias identifies by that name, and not merely to a collection of Jesus' sayings.35 Already contemporaries of Schleiermacher criticized his interpretation of the word λόγια. Even in the face of such criticism, however, many subsequent scholars followed Schleiermacher's interpretation. For example, in his pathbreaking book Die evangelische Geschichte, where the two-document hypothesis is worked out for the first time, C. H. Weisse acknowledges that Papias meant the term λόγια in a broader sense than just "sayings." Indeed, Weisse suggests that the term as used by Papias probably refers to "gospel writings" ("Bezeichnung...der evangelischen Schriften").36 But then, despite this, he says that the use of this term for "gospel writings" is explicable only on the assumption that the sayings or speeches of Jesus formed the "core" ("Hauptsache") of one or more of these "gospel writings," for (in Weisse's view) the sayings are "the most important, the spiritually most significant part of their

33

34 35

36

Josef Kürzinger, "Das Papiaszeugnis und die Erstgestalt des Matthäusevangeliums," BZ 4 (1960) 37-38; idem, "Die Aussage des Papias von Hierapolis zur literarischen Form des Markusevangeliums," BZ 21 (1977) 254, 260; idem, "Papias von Hierapolis: Zu Titel und Art seines Werkes," BZ23 (1979) 175-76; Gryson, "A propos du témoignage de Papias sur Matthieu," 547; Ulrich J. Körtner, Papias von Hierapolis (FRLANT 133; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 154-59; James M. Robinson, "History of Q Research," The Critical Edition of Q (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000) xxvi. Körtner, Papias, 213. Ibid., 155,204; Kürzinger, "Das Papiaszeugnis," 37-38; idem, "Papias von Hierapolis," 176; Robinson, "History of Q Research," xxvi. Christian Hermann Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1838) 1.35.

14

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

content" ("den wichtigsten, geistig bedeutendsten Theil [s¿c] ihres Inhalts"). Weisse concedes that the canonical evangelists themselves did not have this view, since their intention was to give "a complete overview of Jesus' life" ("eine vollständige Übersicht der Lebensgeschichte Jesu"). Since such apurpose cannot be expressed by the word λόγια, however, this term must refer in the first instance to something other than "gospel writings" (note the petitio principii: this is precisely the question at issue). Furthermore, Weisse argues that Papias' statement that Mark wrote down "the things either said or done (ή λεχθέντα ή πραχθέντα) by the Lord" points to the possibility that a gospel might contain either sayings or narratives and did not have to contain both.37 This is not, however, the most natural way of reading Papias' statement, which refers in the first instance to Mark's own procedure of writing down what Jesus said or did, and not to general possibilities for gospel writing. We shall return to Weisse shortly. We see, then, that despite published opinion that Schleiermacher's interpretation of Papias was wrong, scholars could continue to use Papias' testimony as evidence for a sayings source. In 1863 Holtzmann designated the sayings source with the letter A (for λόγια) and cited Papias' testimony as historical proof for the existence of a sayings source, rejecting the arguments of Schleiermacher's critics.38 In his commentaries on Mark (1872) and Matthew (1876) Bernhard Weiss also cites Papias as evidence for the existence of a sayings source. Weiss, however, believed that this source (which he preferred to call "die apostolische Quelle" or "die älteste Schrift des Apostels Matthäus") contained narrative material in addition to sayings. He also thought that Mark had used this source.39 By the turn of the century, however, the symbol Q came increasingly to replace various other symbols and terms that had been used—in explicit connection with Papias' testimony—for the sayings source (Holtzmann: A; Bernhard Weiss: "die apostolische Quelle," etc.).40 The testimony of Papias no longer served as the

37 38

39

40

Ibid., 36. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863) 128, 248-52. But Holtzmann thought that Luke rather than Matthew preserved the original order of the material. Bernhard Weiss, Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen (Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1872) 14-15; idem, Das Matthäusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1876) 2-4. According to Frans Neirynck, "A Synopsis of Q," Evangelica II(BETL 99; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991) 474, the first appearance in writing of the symbol Q is probably in Eduard Simons, Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthäus benutzt? (Bonn: Carl Georgi, 1880) passim (see esp. pp. 22, 29, 30, 68, 95). For additional discussion on the history of the symbol Q, see Frans Neirynck, "The Symbol Q (=Quelle)," ETL 54 (1978)

Excursus on the Term Logion (Logia)

15

basis for Q, so that, for example, in 1903 Johannes Weiss could simply assume the existence of Q without any appeal to or discussion of the Papias fragment at all.41 The shift in terminology may be nicely illustrated by a comparison of the first and second editions of John Hawkins ' Horae Synopticae. In the first edition ( 1899) the section on the "second source" is entitled "The Logia of Matthew as a Probable Source." In the second edition (1909) this section is entitled "The Source Largely Used by Matthew and Luke, Apart From Mark," and Hawkins now uses the symbol Q. He explains: [I]t has been generally admitted that to call [Q] the 'Logia of Matthew' was unfairly 'question-begging,' as assuming that Matthew and Luke certainly used the document named by Papias. 42

The reference is to J. Armitage Robinson's book, The Study of the Gospels, where he rejected as "question-begging" the use of the term logia to describe the contents of the hypothetical sayings source.43 Five years earlier Grenfell and Hunt had published the first of the sayings of Jesus found in the Oxyrhynchus papyri. At the initial publication of these papyri their content was designated as logia.u Since that term does not appear in the fragments themselves, it appears that the editors chose that term simply because it had already won wide acceptance as a designation for the contents of the hypothetical sayings source.45

41

42

43

44

45

119-25 (reprinted in idem, Evangelica [BETL 60; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982] 683-90). Johannes Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903) 120-21. Weiss discusses the testimony of Papias in regard to Mark (pp. 9-10, 23, 39, 157, 346-49, 363, 385, 388-91, 393-94, 396) but not in regard to Matthew's logia. Weiss still uses the terms "Logien-Überlieferung" (p. 121), "Logienquelle" (p. 270), and "Logiensammlung" (p. 380), thus betraying the original connection with Papias, but mostly he uses the term "Redenquelle" (pp. 120, 121,133, 135, 156, and many other places). John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae ( 1 st ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899) 88; (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909) 107. In the preface to the second edition (pp. ix-x) Hawkins writes: "The Section (Pt. II, Sect. V) on the chief non-Marcan source used in the First and Third Gospels has been very largely rewritten, not because of much change of opinion on my own part, but in order to avoid the appearance of a claim to more certainty than has yet been reached on this subject." J. Armitage Robinson, The Study of the Gospels (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1902) 68-70. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, ΛΟΓΙΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ: Sayings of our Lord (London: Henry Frowde for the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1897). Robinson, "History of Q Research," xxii; Dieter Lührmann, "Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?" The Gospel behind the Gospels (ed. Ronald A. Piper; NovTSup 75 ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995) 102.

16

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

Soon thereafter, however, some scholars began to urge, on analogy with usage in other early Christian literature, that the term λόγοι was more appropriate than λόγια for sayings of Jesus.46 This opinion was confirmed in 1904 with the publication of P. Oxy. 654, which contains the incipit of a collection of sayings of Jesus (already attested by the earlier Oxyrhynchus discoveries and now identified as the Gospel of Thomas) and calls them λόγοι. The incipit reads: οτοι οί {oí} λόγοι οί [απόκρυφοι ους έλά]λησεν Ίη(σοΰ)ς ό ζών....47 But already in 1902 Robinson urged against identifying the hypothetical sayings source with Papias' logia since, as Robinson recognized, "when Papias spoke of 'the oracles of the Lord' he meant simply 'the scriptures about the Lord,' or, in other words, the Gospel... .Logia is a question-begging name: I could wish that we might hear no more of it in this connection."48 And soon thereafter other scholars followed suit, preferring to use the term λόγοι rather than λόγια to characterize the content of the hypothetical sayings source.49 So also Hawkins in 1909 acknowledged the problem of calling Q a logia collection based on Papias' testimony. In fact, however, Hawkins continued to make a connection between Q and Papias. The connection simply became covert. Hawkins continues: But the abandonment of that name ['Logia of Matthew'] in favor of the neutral symbol Q need not involve any intention of begging the question in the other direction, by ignoring the reasons for holding that the only two documents named by the earliest writer who deals with sources at all are the two which bulk so largely in our First and Third Gospels. 50

Thus the symbol Q, allegedly neutral, in fact still symbolizes the very same logia document that previous scholars wanted to find in Papias. Two years later Hawkins would again explicitly cite Papias as evidence for the existence of Q

46

47

48 49

50

E.g., Walter Lock, "Interpretation of the Text," in Walter Lock and William Sanday, Two Lectures on the 'Sayings of Jesus ' Recently Discovered at Oxyrhynchus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897) 16. Robinson, "History of Q Research," xxiii-xxiv. The reconstruction is based on the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. For the critical edition of the fragment, see Harold W. Attridge, "Appendix: The Greek Fragments," Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7 Together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1) and P. Oxy. I, 654, 655 (ed. Bentley Layton; 2 vols.; NHS 20-21; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989) 1.113. Robinson, Study, 69-70. E.g., Adolf von Hamack, The Sayings of Jesus (tr. J. R. Wilkinson; London: Williams & Norgate, 1908) 188; Kirsopp Lake, "The New Sayings of Jesus and the Synoptic Problem," HibJ3 (1905) 333. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2nd ed.) 107.

Excursus on the Temi Logion (Logia)

17

even while he acknowledged that the proper meaning of λόγιον at the time of Papias was "divine utterance." Hawkins writes that if a person [studies the use of the word λόγιον in the LXX, NT, and the early Fathers], he will come to the conclusion that the sense which a Christian writer of the date of Papias would (apart from any special reason to the contrary) naturally attach to the word is that of a divine or sacred utterance.51 To me it seems impossible to shut out from the mind the testimony of Papias, when one is attempting to estimate the probabilities as to the source which was used by Mt and Mk [s/c]. But the convenient practice which has grown up of calling it the 'Logian source' [sic] has not unnaturally been objected to as 'question-begging,' so it has been avoided in this Essay, and the neutral symbol Q has been substituted. And whenever any references are made to the Logia compiled by Matthew they have been and will be enclosed in square brackets so that they may interfere as little as possible with the impressions made by the purely internal evidence supplied by the Gospels themselves.52

The reader is given to understand that the contents of Q are now to be established solely on the basis of internal evidence. But when Hawkins discusses the fact that Q contains material that cannot be described as "sayings of the Lord," namely the Preaching of John the Baptist, he writes (still using the terminology of Papias) that "these records might well have been prefixed to a collection of the Lord's sayings [κυριακά λόγια in the narrower sense of the term]."53 Hawkins has seen that Q contains material (not only the Preaching of John the Baptist but even narratives) that cannot be categorized under the genre "sayings of the Lord," and this presents a problem. But while the terminology has changed, the conceptually remains the same: Q is a source of sayings of Jesus, even when the internal evidence suggests that it must be more than that. Thus while Papias ceased to function explicitly as external evidence for the existence of a sayings source, and while scholars such as Bernhard Weiss had raised important objections on the basis of internal evidence to limiting this source to sayings material, the symbol Q served to mask these difficulties. Scholars were now free to use the symbol Q to represent an entity whose existence could no longer be established on the basis of external evidence (i.e.,

51

52

Hawkins adds in a footnote: "But even if Papias himself applied the word to the complete Gospel which, in his time as in ours, may have been called Matthew's, it is quite possible he may have misunderstood his informant, who was referring to Q." John C. Hawkins, "Probabilities as to the So-Called Double Tradition of St. Matthew and St. Luke," Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. W. Sanday ; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911) 107.

53

Ibid., 119. The words in brackets are from Hawkins.

18

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

Papias; the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus papyri and then the Gospel of Thomas did, of course, provide possible external evidence for the existence of Q), and whose alleged character was contradicted by the internal evidence of the gospels themselves. Over the course of time the symbol Q has helped to disguise the fact that the material so designated includes not only sayings material but also narrative material. In the minds of many the symbol Q has come simply to be equated with "the sayings source used by Matthew and Luke along with Mark." On such an assumption it is difficult to come to a more nuanced view such as we find in the work of Bernhard Weiss, who preferred the terms "die apostolische Quelle" or "die älteste Schrift des Apostels Matthäus" and thus did not prejudge the question as to the contents of this source (although in his later writings he also would adopt the symbol Q). Weiss accordingly refused to limit the hypothetical source to sayings material. Schleiermacher's initial (mis)identification of a logia source set synoptic scholarship on a course from which it has proved very difficult to depart. As Dieter Lührmann writes, "it remains as a legacy of the history of the Synoptic Problem that a particular interpretation of the 'Logia of Matthew' mentioned by Papias as Q in the sense of the twodocument hypothesis belongs to the beginnings of the two-document hypothesis."54 We now return to that history.

1.5 Karl Lachmann In 1835 Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) published his famous article on the order of the synoptic gospels.55 Lachmann compares the orders of Matthew and Mark, noting that the points at which they disagree in order are confined to Mark 1.21-6.13 and Matt 4.24-13.58: "The entire difference concerns eight sections, two of which [Mark 1.29-31//Matt 8.14-15; Mark 1.40-45//Matt 8.2-4] have been simply interchanged, so that what each put first stands second in the other. The remaining sections can be divided into two parts in such a way that in neither did the writers differ in their ordering." In other words, even where Matthew and Mark depart from each other they maintain the same order within given blocks of material. From this Lachmann concludes that "each followed the same source, not departing from the order held by the other, unless compelled by some necessity."

54 55

Lührmann, "Q," 102. Karl Lachmann, "De ordine narrationum in evangeliis synopticis," TSK 8 (1835) 570-90. The article (minus introduction and the last six pages) has been translated into English by N. H. Palmer, "Lachmann's Argument," NTS 13 (1967) 368-78.

Karl Lachmann

19

Lachmann then asks, "Which of the two departed from the source's order, and by what necessity?"56 After rejecting the traditional view that Matthew was written by the apostle and therefore preserves the true order of events, and after rejecting the Griesbach hypothesis, which makes Mark into a "bungling dilettante" (Palmer's rendition of "ineptissimus desultor") who out of "weariness, desire, carelessness, or folly" swings back and forth between the orders of Matthew and Luke, Lachmann concludes that "no good reason can be found by which we could suppose that Mark was led to alter Matthew's order here, especially as Luke agrees with Mark on almost all of these points."57 Then Lachmann proceeds to explain what may have caused Matthew to depart from the order of Mark. For Lachmann the reason is clear: the Gospel of Matthew is based on the five blocks of sayings material identified by Schleiermacher, into which narrative material was later inserted. The composer of Matthew respected the order of the sayings material, and accommodated the order of the narratives to fit it. Mark's order is the more original. Lachmann then compares the orders of Mark and Luke. He notes a number of places where Mark and Luke differ in order, and for some of them he offers an explanation. In general, however, he does not consider the differences to be very important. He concludes: [TJhere is such precise and comprehensive agreement between both Matthew and Luke and the order of the gospel according to Mark that what little variations there are can be supposed made by them each for his own purposes, and if it is clear, in spite of this complete agreement, that they did not have before them a copy of Mark to imitate, the only remaining possibility is to say that the more or less prescribed order which all three follow was settled and established by some authority and tradition of the gospel, before they themselves wrote.58

Thus Lachmann posits a fixed narrative order (such as an Ur-gospel might have) that stands behind all three synoptic gospels. Lachmann has not yet made the final move that would lead to Markan priority: the elimination of the distinction between the Ur-gospel and the Gospel of Mark, and thus the attribution of the orders of Matthew and Luke to direct dependence on Mark. That is to say, as other scholars have noted, Lachmann himself did not commit what came later to be called the "Lachmann fallacy."59 But Lachmann has made an important

56 57 58 59

Ibid., 576 (ET, 372). Ibid., 577 (ET, 372). Ibid., 582 (ET, 375). The "Lachmann fallacy" refers to a false step in logic that was committed by subsequent scholars. As long as scholars posited an Ur-gospel upon which all three synoptic gospels

20

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

step in that direction: the orders of Matthew and Luke are best explained as departures from the order found in Mark.

1.6 C.H. Weisse It was C. H. Weisse (1801-66) who made the final step that brought the twosource hypothesis to birth. In his 1838 work Die evangelische Geschichte Weisse synthesized insights from Schleiermacher (the logia document) and Lachmann (the orders of Matthew and Luke viewed as departures from the order of Mark) to produce this revolutionary new view. Weisse's work is divided into two volumes (volume 1 contains 614 pages, and volume 2 contains 543 pages). Each volume is further sub-divided into four "books"; thus there are eight books in all. Our interest is in Book 1, where Weisse lays out his views on the sources of the gospels, and in Book 5, where he deals with the double tradition. We shall treat these books in order. In Book 1 Weisse lays out the groundwork for the two-document hypothesis. In order to arrive at this hypothesis, Weisse has to reject the existence of an Urgospel that could, as it did for Lachmann, provide a common narrative order for all three synoptic gospels. Weisse rejects both the Ur-gospel hypothesis and its relative, the oral-gospel hypothesis (Traditionshypothesis), on the grounds that they assume a continuity in content between apostolic teaching and the written gospels. Whereas apostolic teaching was oriented to the regula fidei of the church and to catechesis, the written gospels have as their subject the words and deeds of Jesus. A detailed account of the life and ministry of Jesus did not belong to the apostolic office. The words and deeds of Jesus were simply presupposed in apostolic preaching. Therefore it is impossible that written gospels arose directly out of apostolic teaching. There was no standard teaching

depend for the order of pericopes, then Mark, who (almost without exception) mediates agreements between Matthew and Luke in order, must stand closest to that primitive order, and the orders of Matthew and Luke must be viewed as divergences from it. In this sense (i.e., with respect to the order of pericopes), Mark is "prior" to Matthew and Luke. Once one eliminates the distinction between the Ur-gospel and canonical Mark, however (as future scholars, including C. H. Weisse, would do), then the conclusion that Mark is chronologically "prior" to Matthew and Luke (i.e., in the order of composition of the gospels) does not hold. Mark may be second or third in order of composition and still mediate the agreement in order between Matthew and Luke. See Palmer, "Lachmann's Argument," 369, 377-78; B. C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951) 62-71; William R. Farmer, "The Lachmann Fallacy," NTS 14 (1968) 441-43.

C. H. Weisse

21

form ("typischer Lehrvortrag") in the early church that had as its subject the gospel narrative ("die evangelische Geschichte").60 With this view Weisse has taken a major step away from Lachmann. As we have seen, for Lachmann all three gospels depended upon a fixed narrative order that had been pre-established by gospel "authority and tradition." Weisse has discarded that "authority and tradition" as a basis for a common narrative order. Yet he agrees with a major aspect of Lachmann's argument: Matthew follows Mark's order, and Matthew accommodates that order to the pre-established structure of his sayings material. From this Weisse makes the deduction: If there is no fixed narrative order in the gospel tradition (i.e., no Ur-gospel), and if Matthew agrees with Mark's order nonetheless, then this can mean only one thing: Mark's order is primary, and Matthew must be dependent on Mark. With this deduction Weisse commits the "Lachmann fallacy" (see note 59 above). And whence did Mark derive his narrative order? Quite simply, he invented it himself. According to Papias, Mark wrote down the words and deeds of Jesus "accurately, but not in order." Schleiermacher, as we recall, took this comment to refer to a pre-Markan collection of reminiscences that formed the basis of our Mark (and possibly other gospels). This collection did not yet have a clear narrative order, but it received such an order when it was used in our Mark.61 Weisse, by contrast, takes Papias' comment as referring to our Mark. The author of our Mark put his reminiscences together after Peter's death, and so, without the assistance of Peter, he had to invent his own narrative order for the material at hand.62 For Weisse, then, Papias' testimony provides an obvious history of the development of our gospels. Mark produced the basic narrative that underlies the other gospels. There is one common narrative thread that runs through all three synoptic gospels, and this thread is Mark's. It is much easier to conceive of all three gospels deriving their common order from one author than to conceive of all three deriving their order from a common gospel tradition ("Typus der Tradition"). There was no normative tradition ("Traditionstypus") from which Matthew and Luke might have derived a common narrative order independently of Mark. For Weisse the proof of this is that—with only a few exceptions (!)—the agreement in order between Matthew and Luke is always mediated through Mark. (Weisse notes some exceptions to this rule: the Sermon on the Mount, the Centurion in Capernaum, and the exorcism before the Beelzebul

60 61 62

Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, 1.12, 18-26. Schleierniacher, "Zeugnisse," 760-61. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, 1.38-45.

22

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

Controversy.63 Thus we have here the same recognition that we found in Marsh: some of the double-tradition material appears in a fixed narrative order. As we shall see, this recognition will become a problem for Weisse.) For his part, the apostle Matthew produced a collection of logia, and these logia were supplemented with the narrative of Mark to form the Gospel of Matthew. Luke also used the logia collection of the apostle Matthew and Mark's narrative order. Matthew and Luke are independent of each other.64 After laying out his view on the sources of the gospels in Book 1, Weisse proceeds to discuss other topics. When he comes to Book 5, he states as his purpose die Reihe einzelner Erzählungen, insbesondere von Christus gesprochener Worte, Reden und Parabeln aufzuführen, welche das erste und das dritte Evangelium, die im Allgemeinen dem Faden der Erzählung des Marcus folgen, an diesen Faden ergänzend anreihen; insofern nämlich solche Ergänzungen als selbstständige Zusätze, und nicht blos als gelegentliche Modificationen der Erzählung des Vorgängers zu betrachten sind. Der wichtigste Theil dieser Ergänzungen besteht, wie wir in unserm ersten Buche auseinandersetzten, aus einer Reihe größerer und kleinerer Stücke, welche beide genannte Evangelien der in hebräischer Sprache abgefaßten Spruchsammlung des Apostels Matthäus entnommen haben.65

Weisse then proceeds to discuss this double-tradition material in the order in which it appears in Matthew. Weisse is immediately confronted with a problem. Just after stating his intention to discuss the "series of individual anecdotes, particularly words, speeches, and parables spoken by Christ," he must acknowledge that the first unit in this material does not contain words of Jesus at all, but the preaching of John the Baptist (Matt 3.7-10//Luke 3.7-9). But Weisse is not discouraged. His ingenious solution to this problem lies in the observation that elsewhere in the gospel tradition words very similar to these words of John are attributed to Jesus (Matt 7.19; 12.34; 15.13; 23.33; see also Acts 1.5; 11.16). Thus Weisse concludes: the words attributed to John were not at all spoken by him; they are words of Jesus that have been transferred to John.66 When Weisse comes to discuss the next unit of material from the logia collection, he is confronted with a problem of another kind: the account of Jesus ' Temptation is in narrative form. Although Weisse does not explicitly note this

63 64 65 66

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

1.73 n. 1.46-56,71-73. 2.3. 2.4-9.

C. H. Weisse

23

as a problem, his treatment of the narrative suggests that in fact he saw it as a problem. After rejecting the view that the Temptation could represent an actual event in the life of Jesus, and after a discussion of other scholars' views on the narrative, he concludes that the Temptation illustrates a development within Jesus' own spiritual and moral life. As such, says Weisse, it is difficult to see how the narrative could have entered into the gospel tradition unless it was based on reports from Jesus himself.67 Thus the Temptation is actually a kind of parable put into narrative form, and so its inclusion in Matthew's logia collection is justified. Matthew probably recorded the parable precisely as it came "from his master's mouth."68 Likewise when Weisse discusses the healing of the centurion's servant in Capernaum, he states that der Apostel Matthäus, dessen Schrift nichts, als Reden und Aussprüche des Herrn enthielt, die gegenwärtige [Geschichte] ähnlich, wie nach unserer obigen Bemerkung die Versuchungsgeschichte, wirklich nur als eine Parabel, wiewohl im Tone eines historischen Berichtes, Jesu nacherzählt haben mochte. 69

As a "parable" the narrative has its real point in the verbal exchange between Jesus and the centurion, and not in the healing itself.70 Once again, then, the fact that the double tradition contains narrative has proved to be a problem. In Weisse, then, we see for the first time some of the hallmarks of modern synoptic scholarship: There was no traditional gospel narrative framework; Mark had to invent one. Matthew and Luke take over Mark's narrative framework in toto, and the double tradition contributes nothing to their narrative framework. Matthew and Luke have mechanically combined the Markan narrative with the logia. The logia document per deflnitionem can contain nothing other than sayings of Jesus. It has no narrative interest at all, and any narrative elements that we do find in the double tradition must be explained away. It is of great interest to note, however, that in 1856 Weisse published a second book on the gospels entitled Die Evangelienfrage. He reports that his studies since 1838 have made it necessary for him to correct his earlier work on one major point. There are certain elements in the double tradition, he says, that in his view can no longer be attributed to the sayings source. These elements are: 67

68

69 70

Ibid., 2.16: "ein von Jesus selbst in bildlicher Rede ausgesprochenes Bekenntnis über ein wichtiges Moment seines Geisteslebens und seiner sittlichen Entwickelungsgeschichte." Ibid., 2.17, 24 ("unmittelbar, wie es der Apostel aus seines Meisters Munde vernommen hatte"). Ibid., 2.53-54. Ibid., 2.55.

24

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

(1) the Preaching of John the Baptist; (2) the Temptation; (3) the Sermon on the Mount; (4) the Centurion in Capernaum; (5) John's Question to Jesus and Jesus' Witness to John; (6) the exorcism before the Beelzebul Controversy (as well as some of the sayings material in the Controversy itself). Weisse's reasons for these exclusions are as follows: If one attributes elements 1,2,4,5, and 6 to the logia collection, then this sayings source will become a narrative gospel like the canonical gospels. That is unacceptable. Why? Because it would come at the cost of Schleiermacher's explanation of the word λόγια, which is the only correct ("allein richtige") explanation. Element 3, the Sermon on the Mount, must be excluded for a different reason: How could it have happened, Weisse asks, that the authors of the first and third gospels, who otherwise place their sayings material in very different places compared to each other, have agreed in introducing the Sermon in just the same narrative context (cf. Matt 4.25 and Luke 6.17-20a)? He now attributes these six elements to an JJrmarcus.71 Weisse's reversal is stunning. He places so much confidence in Schleiermacher's interpretation of Papias that he must force the internal evidence of the gospels to fit his source theory. The logia collection simply cannot contain narrative elements or have a narrative framework, because then it would become indistinguishable from a canonical, narrative gospel. And that would contradict the "evidence" of Papias as interpreted by Schleiermacher.

1.7 H. J. Holtzmann Weisse was not the only one to resolve this problem by recourse to an Urmarcus. Seven years after Weisse offered the Urmarcus hypothesis in Die Evangelienfrage, H. J. Holtzmann (1832-1910) came out with a modification of Weisse's hypothesis in Die synoptischen Evangelien.11 This book is sometimes credited as being the book that established the two-document hypothesis.73 This accreditation is not fully warranted, however, since in several

71 72

73

Christian Weisse, Die Evangelienfrage (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1856) 88, 156-65. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863). E.g., Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (tr. S. MacLean Gilmour and Howard Clark Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) 151, who states: "[Holtzmann] not only demonstrated most convincingly, by an appeal to the primitive character of its narrative style and diction, that Mark's gospel was a source of the two other Synoptics, but also showed just as convincingly that we must assume a second source back of Matthew and Luke, one that consisted mainly of discourses. By basing this proof mainly on the linguistic peculiarities of the sources and on the connection of the

H. J. Holtzmann

25

important respects Holtzmann's work actually reverts to older views, and the modern two-document hypothesis is actually closer to Weisse than to Holtzmann. In effect, Holtzmann tried to synthesize the insights of Weisse with older Ur-gospel hypotheses, which Weisse had resolutely rejected. Unlike Weisse, Holtzmann assumes that there must have been a fixed narrative gospel order ("ein schon geformter Erzählungstypus") upon which the synoptic gospels depend.74 He will not simply attribute the orders of Matthew and Luke to their adoption of Mark's order, as Weisse did. Holtzmann notes that, since the work of Weisse, only a few scholars have accepted Markan priority, and of these even fewer have accepted it in its pure form (i.e., with Matthew and Luke directly dependent on Mark for their order). Most scholars who have accepted Markan priority, he says, do so only with qualifications, because there are signs that at some points Mark is secondary to Matthew and Luke. Among these signs Holtzmann includes: (1) truncation by Mark that sometimes disrupts the clarity of a narrative; (2) narratives that appear to be preserved in a more primitive form in Matthew; (3) Mark's abbreviation of some sayings material (e.g., the Preaching of John); (4) minor agreements in addition; (5) minor agreements in omission.75 Nonetheless, argues Holtzmann, our Mark contains the more unitary and more original narrative order in comparison with Matthew and Luke. Only in Mark is the narrative sequence appropriate ("sachgemäß"), and it is easier to explain the orders in Matthew and Luke as divergences from the order found in Mark than to explain the order of Mark as divergent from the order of Matthew or from the orders of both Matthew and Luke.76 Based on both of these observations (Mark's order is primary, but sometimes Mark's material appears to be secondary to Matthew and Luke), Holtzmann concludes that all three synoptic evangelists must have used a common Grundschrift. He states that, in order to avoid placing this Grundschrift "in a prejudicial light," he will not call it an Urmatthäus or an Urmarcus, but will rather designate it as "Grundschrift (A)." For the moment Holtzmann will leave open the question whether there were other sources for the synoptic gospels besides A.77 In Chapter 2 Holtzmann goes through the gospel narrative in order to establish the contents of A. The contents are established by comparing the three

74 75 76 77

accounts, Holtzmann grounded the two source hypothesis so carefully that the study of Jesus henceforth could not again dispense with this firm base." Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, 11. Ibid., 57-63. Ibid., 56. Ibid., 66.

26

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

gospels in each pericope of the triple tradition, following the order of Mark's gospel. Often Mark is found to have omitted material from A that still appears in Matthew and Luke. This leads Holtzmann to include in A not only many of the minor agreements, but also and especially some of the narrative material in the double tradition, as well as sayings material in the double tradition that appears within a fixed narrative order (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount). Holtzmann argues that in A the Sermon must have stood in the narrative context in which we find it in both Matthew and Luke: preceded by a short narrative introduction (cf. Matt 4.24-5.1//Luke 6.17-20a) and followed by the Centurion in Capernaum (although Matthew has separated these two units with the Cleansing of the Leper in 8.2-4). Mark has simply omitted this whole complex (Sermon and Centurion), but originally it must have stood after Mark 3.19.78 Likewise A contained Matt 10.1//Luke 9.1-2, a short introductory unit before the Mission Discourse that explains the purpose of the sending of the twelve. Mark has omitted these words.79 And so forth. After going through the whole gospel narrative in this way, Holtzmann concludes that, while Mark cannot be viewed as the immediate source of Matthew and Luke, Mark does represent the closest approximation to the order of A. A is defined as the pericopes of the triple tradition, plus pericopes that Mark has alone, plus material in the double tradition that appears in a fixed narrative order and that Mark may be said to have either omitted or abbreviated.80 Thus, Holtzmann explains, A is not quite an Urevangelium, because it does not contain all of the pericopes of the double tradition (which some scholars of his time did attribute to an Urevangelium). Since these latter do not appear in Mark, and since they do not appear in the same order in Matthew and Luke, they cannot belong to the common Grundschrift. They must be attributed to another source. A is an Urmarcus, not an Urevangelium. It provided the first connected narrative of Jesus' Galilean ministry, and it gave all three canonical gospels a normative order ("ein constanter Typus").81 Those elements of the double tradition that do not appear in a fixed narrative order, or which Mark cannot be said to have abbreviated, are relegated to a

78 79 80

81

Ibid., 75-78. Ibid., 82. Holtzmann also includes in A the resurrection appearances of Matt 28.9, 10, 16-20 (p. 99); and the pericope on the adulteress in John 7.53-8.11, which he considers to have been misplaced in the manuscripts. Its place in A was between Mark 12.17 and 12.18 and parallels (pp. 93-94). Ibid., 99-102.

H. J. Holtzmann

27

second source. Holtzmann calls this source Λ (for λόγια).82 Although he thus implicitly identifies this source with Papias' logia, it is important to note that Holtzmann has distanced himself in one respect from Papias. As we have seen, Schleiermacher thought that Matthew preserved the original order ofthis sayings material, as is natural, since he understood Papias to attribute the authorship of the logia collection to the apostle Matthew and thought that in turn this collection formed the core of our Gospel of Matthew. Even Weisse thought that Matthew preserved the order of the logia better than Luke. Holtzmann, on the contrary, thinks that Luke preserves the original order of the material.83 Thus although Papias' testimony is still adduced as evidence for the existence of a logia collection, Holtzmann discounts Papias' explicit connection of this document with Matthew. And so with Holtzmann the sayings source is beginning to be taken for granted and treated as an entity apart from Papias' testimony. As we saw above, this tendency would eventually lead to belief in "Q" totally apart from Papias' testimony. It is clear that Holtzmann like Weisse was concerned to keep this logia source "pure," that is, to keep it restricted to sayings material. That is why he must attribute to A rather than to Λ those elements of the double tradition that are either narratives or that stand in a fixed narrative framework. For example, he will not attribute the Preaching of John the Baptist to Λ, because to do so would make Λ into something more like the narrative gospels in the canon and so destroy the unitary character of Λ as a collection of sayings of Jesus.84 We see in Holtzmann, then, much of what we saw in Weisse: a recognition that there are some elements in the double tradition that stand in a fixed narrative order, and other elements that appear without such an order; a desire to keep the sayings source pure; and confidence in the primacy of Mark's order. It is true that Holtzmann recognized the problems that attend a simple two-source theory, and his recognition that Mark sometimes appears to be secondary to an older form of the gospel is particularly important. Yet Holtzmann's Urmarcus finally proves to be a phantom, an imaginary entity introduced only to accommodate material that cannot otherwise be accommodated.85 Despite his initial declaration that he is treating the Grundschrift neutrally (i.e., he will not at first identify it with an Urmatthäus or Urmarcus but will let his analysis determine its contents), it is clear that from the beginning he does in fact identify it with an

82 83 84 85

Ibid., 128. Ibid., 130. Ibid., 142. For use of the term "phantom" in connection with the Urmarcus hypothesis, see Β. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1925) 331.

28

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

Urmarcus, and even at points with canonical Mark. This is made evident by the fact that, just after his declaration of neutrality (page 66), he opens Chapter 2 with the title: "Composition des Marcus—Quelle A (Urmarcus)."86 A is immediately identified with Urmarcus. And later, in discussing the style of A, it becomes clear that A's style is in fact none other than canonical Mark's style (e.g., duality).87 Finally, in his short essay on the historical Jesus at the end of his book, Holtzmann writes that one of the virtues of "A, respective [=English 'or more precisely'] Marcus," is that it presents the most human Jesus of all three gospels.88 Clearly, then, in Holtzmann's mind A is really our Mark. The function of Urmarcus is simply to provide a way of dealing with material that is inconvenient for the theory of Markan priority. The boundaries of Urmarcus expand and contract somewhat arbitrarily to accommodate elements in Matthew and Luke that appear to be prior to Mark. Urmarcus turns out to be nothing other than our Mark, except that it "absorbs" elements of the double tradition that undermine Markan priority. A primary weakness of Holtzmann's work, therefore, is that he never undertakes a study of the narrative structure of the double tradition material on its own terms, nor does he ever try to relate it to the structure of the Grundschrift as a whole (as this is represented by Mark's order). That is because Holtzmann has already decided that our Mark is most proximate to the order of the Grundschrift. Holtzmann did not entertain the possibility that analysis of the double-tradition material—which (according to Holtzmann) Mark simply "omits" from the Grundschrift—might shed light on the shape of the precanonical gospel tradition. That is, despite the allegedly neutral title Grundschrift (as opposed to Urmarcus), Holtzmann has in fact decided a priori that the Grundschrift is an Urmarcus rather than an Urevangelium. This is an important—indeed, an essential—difference. For if one thinks of a Grundschrift in terms of an Urevangelium rather than an Urmarcus, then the possibility opens up that the double tradition may contribute to the narrative structure of the gospels and that Mark may at points be secondary not only with respect to the antiquity of his traditions (which Holtzmann accepts), but also in narrative structure or order. It should be noted that, although Holtzmann considered A and Λ to be independent of each other, he did try to correlate them as historical sources. This is because Holtzmann was ultimately after reliable sources for the life of Jesus,

86 87 88

Ibid., 67. Ibid., 280. Ibid., 475.

H. J. Holtzmann

29

and he found it important than A and A confirm each other historically. The material on John and Jesus in A (Matt 11.2-19//Luke 7.18-35), for example, confirms the material on John and Jesus in A (Mark 1.1-6 and parallels). The "Thrones" saying of Matt 19.28//Luke 22.30 demonstrates that A, like A, knew that Jesus had twelve disciples.89 And so forth. Holtzmann was correct (in my view) to try to correlate narrative and sayings materials. But he did not study the narrative structure of the double tradition on its own terms, and so he never successfully correlated the double tradition with the narrative structure of the gospels as wholes. This task remains to be done. Just like Weisse, Holtzmann later changed his mind. In his New Testament introduction of 1885 we find his older views standing together with newer views, and it is not quite clear how the old and new views coexist. On the one hand, Holtzmann still maintains that all three synoptic gospels are dependent on a common narrative order ("ein schon geformter Erzählungstypus"), and he still affirms the existence of a sayings source.90 He also says that the two-source hypothesis is the most plausible solution to the synoptic problem.91 On the other hand, he mentions in a brief note—and in small print—that the work of other scholars has led him to change his position on several points. Among these changes are: he now thinks that Luke knew canonical Matthew and canonical Mark; and as a consequence most of the reasons for distinguishing between an Urmarcus and our Mark disappear.92 Holtzmann does not expand on these concessions, but the second of them stands in direct conflict with his own stated thesis: all three synoptic gospels depend on a common gospel order (which in his earlier book was represented by Urmarcus). It appears that when Holtzmann wrote this section of the textbook his views on the synoptic problem were still very much in flux. But the Urmarcus—the foundation of his whole enterprise—appears to have been abandoned by him for good.

89 90

91 92

Ibid., 453-54. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1885) 331, 350. Ibid., 355. Ibid., 339.

30

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

1.8 Bernhard Weiss In 1861, two years before Holtzmann published his first book on the synoptics, Bernhard Weiss (1827-1918) published an excellent essay in which he provided an alternative way out of the dilemma that had led to Holtzmann's hypothesis.93 The dilemma, as we have seen, is that Matthew and Luke seem to depend on Mark for their order and for much of their material, but at some points Mark's material appears to be secondary to Matthew and Luke. While Weiss claims not to offer anything new in his essay but only to clarify and advance the work of previous scholars, in fact he offers a powerful new way of addressing this dilemma. In the first part of his essay Weiss makes a case for Matthew's dependence on Mark. His procedure is to point out places in Matthew's narrative where Matthean dependence on Mark can be considered certain. One example will demonstrate his method. The account of the death of John the Baptist appears in Matt 14.1-12//Mark 6.17-29. In Mark's version, it is Herodias who wants to have John killed, whereas Herod is reluctant to execute John and protects him, because he respected John and liked to listen to him (6.19-20). Thus when the daughter of Herodias asks for the head of John the Baptist, Herod is "grieved" (6.26; περίλυπος γενόμενος). Now in Matthew's account, it is Herod who wants to execute John (14.5), and Matthew does not say that Herod protected John or liked to listen to him. Yet when the daughter of Herodias asks for John's head, Herod is said to be sorrowful (14.9; λυπηθείς). The motivation for this emotion makes sense only on the basis of Mark's version, where Herod protects John and likes to listen to him, and where Herodias wants to eliminate John. For Weiss this is decisive evidence that Matthew is dependent on Mark. That Mark should be dependent on Matthew is, on the contrary, excluded.94 In addition, in Mark the account of John's death is a flashback, standing between the departure of the twelve (6.13) and their return (6.30). For his part Matthew begins the account as a flashback (14.3), but the end of the account flows directly into the next pericope. The disciples of John come and tell Jesus of John's death (14.12), and as a result Jesus withdraws in a boat, goes to a deserted place, and feeds the 5000 (14.13). This produces an incongruity in Matthew's narrative: the account begins as a flashback but ends as if it occurred in "present" time. It is unlikely that this incongruity is due to Matthew's own arrangement of the material. Weiss takes this as evidence that Matthew's 93

94

Bernhard Weiss, "Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der drei synoptischen Evangelien," TSK 34 (1861) 29-100, 646-713. Ibid., 60.

Bernhard Weiss

31

narrative structure is dependent on Mark's.95 Weiss gives many similar examples where Matthew appears to know specifically Markan treatment of traditional material. Weiss says that this evidence could lead to a simple view of Markan priority if it were not for the fact that in some pericopes Mark seems to be secondary. By this he does not mean that Mark presupposes canonical Matthew in the way that Matthew seems to presuppose canonical Mark, but rather that in some pericopes Matthew preserves a more original form of a tradition than does Mark. Weiss views Mark as secondary in a number of narratives, including the Baptism, the Temptation, and the Syrophoenician Woman, as well as in much of the sayings material. Weiss states as a general principle that, with regard to the substance of narratives and sayings, Mark is often secondary to Matthew, whereas in regard to the introductions and conclusions of these pericopes—that is, in regard to the way in which the pericopes are put in order—Matthew is dependent on Mark.96 Based on this double-faceted relationship between Matthew and Mark with respect to priority, Weiss offers this hypothesis: Mark is himself dependent on an older written source, and this is why at points he appears to have a secondary character. This older source is the apostle Matthew's logia collection mentioned by Papias. Mark used the logia collection, as well as additional materials from Pettine tradition, and put them together into a coherent narrative. Matthew used both Mark and the logia source. In pericopes that appeared in both Mark and the logia, Matthew preferred the older source (the logia). This is why in some pericopes (e.g., the Baptism) Matthew appears to be prior to Mark in substance. In pericopes that Mark did not derive from this common source but from elsewhere, Matthew is secondary to Mark (e.g., the Death of John the Baptist). The logia collection contained mostly sayings material, but it also included some narratives. The material in this source did not yet stand in a continuous narrative. Mark imposed on this material a narrative framework and so was the first to produce an orderly "life of Jesus." Matthew followed Mark's order. This explains why Matthew sometimes appears to be prior to Mark in substance, but secondary to Mark in order. Weiss explains Luke in the same way. Luke is dependent on both Mark and the logia.91 Thus Weiss has all three synoptic evangelists dependent on the same logia collection. Weiss was not the first to suggest that Mark might be dependent on the logia, but his suggestion that this source contained narratives in addition to sayings

95 96 97

Ibid., 40. Ibid., 60-67. Ibid., 68-69, 75-76, 89, 676-77, 696, 698, 704.

32

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

Table 1.1 Markan Material Derived Wholly or Partly from the Logia according to Bernhard Weiss (From Bernhard Weiss, Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen

[1872])

•=narratives * 1.1-4, Appearance of John the Baptist 1.5-8, John's Preaching •1.9-13, Baptism and Temptation [1.14-15, influence from logia (page 54)] •1.40-45, Cleansing of the Leper •2.1-12, Healing of the Paralytic •2.23-28, Sabbath Controversy *[3.1-6, influence from logia (page 109)] 3.22-30, Beelzebul Controversy •3.31-35, Jesus' True Family 4.1-9, Parable of the Sower 4.21-25, Parables 4.30-32, Parable of Mustard Seed *4.35-41, Stilling of the Storm •5.1-20, Gerasene Demoniac •5.21-43, Jairus' Daughter and Woman with Hemorrhage •6.7, Sending out of Twelve 6.8-13, Mission Discourse •6.30-34, Introduction to Feeding of 5000 •6.35-45, Feeding of 5000 •7.24-30, Syrophoenician Woman 8.10-13, Request for a Sign

8.34-9.1, On Discipleship •9.2-8, Transfiguration •9.14-27, Epileptic Boy •9.33-37, True Greatness 9.40, For and against Jesus 9.41, "He will not lose his reward" 9.42-50, On Scandals 10.10-12, On Remarriage •10.13-16, Blessing of the Children 10.28-31, Rewards of Discipleship 10.41-45, On Precedence •10.46-52, Healing of a Blind Man 11.23-26, Teaching on Faith and Prayer 12.1-12, Parable of the Vineyard 12.28-34, Great Commandment 12.38-39, Condemnation of Scribes and Pharisees 13.6-8, Signs before the End 13.9-13, Persecutions 13.14-23, Catastrophe in Judea 13.24-32, Coming of the Son of Man 13.33-37, Conclusion: Watch! •14.1-11, Anointing in Bethany

Bernhard Weiss

33

was an important innovation. Weiss does not challenge the conventional interpretation of logia as "sayings." Instead he points to the formula of Matt 7.28; 11.1; 13.53; 19.1; 26.1; Luke 7.1 ("when Jesus finished all these words..., etc."), which he attributes to the logia source, as evidence that this source contained narratives in addition to sayings. This formula served as a transition from sayings material to narrative material in the source, as it still does in canonical Matthew and Luke. Weiss justifies the inclusion of narrative material in a logia collection by arguing that even such narratives as appear in it contain words of Jesus, and the narrative elements serve only to provide a narrative framework for these sayings. Furthermore, these narratives did not stand in any fixed narrative order in the source.98 For Weiss, then, the key to solving the synoptic problem lies in having: (1) the logia source contain narratives; (2) Mark use the logia source; and (3) Matthew and Luke use both Mark and the logia source. In Weiss's view, C. H. Weisse's two-source hypothesis failed because it did not accept propositions 1 and 2. This failure, according to Weiss, is what later forced Weisse to abandon his simple two-source hypothesis in favor of an Urmarcus. But once one accepts propositions 1 and 2, the Urmarcus becomes unnecessary." Weiss's logia source, then, becomes nearly a complete gospel. In his later books he would attempt to establish the contents of this source.100 As reconstructed by Weiss, the source contained narrative material all the way from the Appearance of John the Baptist to the Anointing of Jesus in Bethany (see Table 1.1). Since Weiss still understood this source to be "apostolic Matthew," he included in it not only non-Markan material common to Matthew and Luke, but also material that does not appear in Luke at all, but that (in Weiss's view) Matthew preserves in a more original form than Mark.101

98 99 100

101

Ibid., 75-76, 88-89. Ibid., 97, 696. Bernhard Weiss, Das Markusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen (Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1872); idem, Das Matthäusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1876); idem, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1907); idem, Die Quellen der synoptischen Überlieferung (TU 32/3; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908). In his later work, Weiss would also include in Q some material that appears only in Luke. See, e.g., Die Quellen der synoptischen Überlieferung.

34

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

1.9 After Weiss With these innovations Weiss made a major breakthrough in synoptic source criticism. In its attention to detail, acuity of perception, and overall grasp of the elements that constitute the synoptic problem, Weiss's essay of 1861 is a small masterpiece of synoptic criticism and may well be the finest defense of Markan priority that has ever been produced. And Weiss boldly broke with the conventional view that the logia source must be confined to sayings material. In this respect Weiss was perhaps a man before his time. By the end of his life other scholars would recognize that Papias' testimony could no longer be used as proof for the existence of a pure sayings source. Unfortunately, as we have seen, this recognition did not prevent subsequent scholars from continuing to assume the existence of such a source, now under the symbol Q. Weiss was the last (and arguably the greatest) of the German source critics. After his passing, German scholarship turned toward other interests (particularly form criticism). The (temporary) cessation in historical Jesus research had brought serious source criticism to an end. These factors conspired to deny Weiss's work the full hearing that it deserved. Thus his legacy was largely lost. The view that Mark used the logia source was rejected by Holtzmann, and so, as we have seen, Holtzmann resorted to an Urmarcus hypothesis, which, however, he later abandoned. Paul Wernle, writing in 1899, simply noted that "B. Weiss hat der Hypothese von der Redesammlung eine Form gegeben, die sie für die meisten Forscher unannehmbar machte."102 Wernle also rejected the Urmarcus hypothesis in favor of a simple twodocument hypothesis that largely overlooked the complexities that Holtzmann, Weiss, and others had recognized. Johannes Weiss agreed with his father that the logia source contained narratives and that Mark used this source, but he tried to combine this view with the Urmarcus hypothesis.103 Yet this leads to confusion: If the logia source has already come to approximate a whole gospel, why distinguish any longer between it and an Urmarcus? Bernhard Weiss had offered his solution precisely to eliminate the need for an Urmarcus. Bernhard Weiss offered an important new way of thinking about the origin of the gospels. His inclusion of narratives in the logia source was a bold move. And once synoptic scholarship at the turn of the 20th century ceased to adduce Papias as evidence that a collection of sayings constituted a major source of the synoptic gospels, an opportunity presented itself to go beyond Weiss and to undertake an entirely new examination of the narrative structure of the gospels. 102 103

Paul Wemle, Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg: J. C. B. Möhr [Paul Siebeck], 1899) iii. Johannes Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903).

The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, Part 1 : K. L. Schmidt

35

Such an examination might have transcended the false dichotomy between narrative and sayings sources in which 19th-century scholarship had become entrenched. But this never happened. Instead, as we have seen, the shift to the abstract symbol Q carried the day. Q was increasingly understood (abstractly) as a pure sayings source, an entity that could be defined wholly apart from Papias' testimony and even in contradiction to the internal evidence of the gospels themselves. Mark, on the other hand, came to be viewed as representing the normative, narrative outline for the synoptic tradition. Mark and Q came to be defined in opposition to each other (i.e., Q as sayings material not found in Mark; or Q as a sayings source, Mark as a narrative source), and the dichotomy between narrative and sayings sources intensified. In this "orthodox" view of the two-source hypothesis, scholars would increasingly discount narrative in Q (even while acknowledging its presence), and with few exceptions scholars would not even try to correlate Mark and Q but treated them as two distinct entities that had almost nothing to do with each other.104 We shall document this tendency in somewhat greater detail below, but first we must turn to another important development that occurred in the early 20th century.

1.10 The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, Part 1 : K. L. Schmidt The enormous energy expended by the great 19th-century source critics was motivated by a desire to find sources for the life of Jesus. The Markan hypothesis arose in large part out of the theological struggles that occurred in Germany during the early- and mid-19th century. The Griesbach hypothesis had been used by the Tübingen school to argue for a late dating of the gospels. David Strauss used this hypothesis to demonstrate that from the beginning the gospels had a mythological character (Matthew and Luke, the earliest gospels, contain Virgin Birth and Resurrection [Appearance] narratives; Mark, the later gospel, has neither). Against these scholars, Markan priorists saw in Mark an early and reliable account of the life of Jesus.105 Thus Holtzmann crowns his study of the 104

105

E.g., Β. H. Streeter, who at first thought that Mark used Q but later changed his mind. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, 231, deals with the narrative elements in Q by positing stages of Q: the narratives belong to a later stage of Q. In this opinion he anticipates the view of many current scholars. He also argues (p. 211) that Mark "knew" Q but did not "use" it. For discussions of the theological and politico-historical context in which the Markan hypothesis arose, see Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, esp. 42: "This liberal life of Jesus [Mark], unencumbered by embarrassing birth legends and contradictory resurrection stories, provided the historical basis on which liberal theologians could ground their faith while they pressed with devastating effect their historico-critical attack on the two most vulnerable

36

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

synoptic gospels with a short essay on the life of Jesus. He views it as the most valuable result of his investigations that they place him in the position to draw a fairly definite picture of Jesus' personality and life. The Gospel of Mark (which he now unequivocally equates with the Grundschrift, source A) presents the most human Jesus of all the gospels. Holtzmann believes that the Gospel of Mark gives insight into Jesus as a real "individual" and allows one to trace the development of Jesus' messianic consciousness.106 In the early 20th century, two works in particular undermined efforts to reconstruct a life of Jesus on the basis of the Gospel of Mark. The first was William Wrede' s Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien ( 1901 ), in which the author argues that the Gospel of Mark cannot be used as a historical source to trace a development in Jesus' messianic consciousness or in the realization of his messianic identity.107 In fact Mark has no conception of a history of the life of Jesus.108 Although not all scholars would accept Wrede's thesis, it was influential enough at the time (along with Albert Schweitzer's work) to help bring a cessation to Leben-Jesu-Forschung for many years to come and to undermine confidence in the historical value of Mark's narrative framework.109

pillars of nineteenth century orthodoxy—the Virgin Birth and the physical Resurrection." Also idem, The Gospel of Jesus (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994) 146-60; idem, "State Interesse and Marcan Primacy, 1870-1914," The Four Gospels 1992 (ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols.; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992) 3.2477-2498; Herbert Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis (tr. and ed. Donald L. Niewyk; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1980) 227-35; John J. Kiwiet, "Translator's Introduction," in Hajo Uden Meijboom, A History and Critique of the Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis, ¡835-1866(ti. John J. Kiwiet; NGS 8; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1993) xiii-xxxiv; Bo Reicke, "From Strauss to Holtzmann and Meijboom: Synoptic Theories Advanced During the Consolidation of Germany, 1830-70," NovT29 ( 1987) 1-21 ; John Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000) 271-328. 106 107

108 109

Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, 468-96. William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901), translated into English by J. C. G. Greig as The Messianic Secret (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1971). Ibid., 131-32 (ET, 131-32). E.g., Johannes Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, 19, 56-58, who rejected Wrede's thesis as to Jesus' messianic consciousness, but agreed with him that the schema of the Gospel of Mark is not historical. Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (tr. John Marsh; 2nd ed.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972) 1, viewed Wrede's work as "an annihilating criticism of a seemingly clear picture of historical development in Mark" with the result that Mark must be viewed as an author who "ordered and arranged the traditional material that he received in the light of the faith of the early Church." Page 1 in the German, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (10th ed.; FRLANT 12 [NF]; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995).

The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, Part 1: K. L. Schmidt

37

The second major work that shook scholars' confidence in the historical value of Mark's framework was Karl Ludwig Schmidt's Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, published in 1919.110 Because of the importance of this book for subsequent work on Mark, as well as for the present study, it is necessary to discuss it at greater length. Schmidt's book is often classified together with the form-critical investigations of Rudolf Bultmann and Martin Dibelius. This classification is appropriate to the extent that his book seeks to isolate traditional units from their narrative framework. It may be more accurate, however, to locate Schmidt's book at the intersection of the previous generation of scholarship, to which Wrede also belonged, and the generation of the form critics properly so called, for in the very first sentence of his book Schmidt himself clearly places his work within the context of Leben-Jesu-Forschung\ he takes as his point of departure the question of where and for how long Jesus' public ministry took place.111 This historical question is raised when one compares the four gospels together, and especially when one compares John and the synoptics. For Schmidt, however, underlying this historical question is a literary question. The problem for Schmidt lies not so much in the disagreements between the various gospels regarding topology and chronology, but in a more basic question: is there a coherent topology and chronology in the gospels at all? Schmidt is concerned that the ascendancy of Markan priority has led to an overestimation of Mark's narrative outline as a basis for reconstructing the life of Jesus. Therefore an examination of that outline is in order. Already in his preface Schmidt anticipates the conclusions of his study: there is no coherent topography or chronology in the gospels, because at the root of the gospel tradition are only individual pericopes ('"Perikopen'-Überlieferung") that for the most part have no secure geographical or chronological data and that do not stand in any fixed relationship to each other. The only exception to this rule is the passion narrative, which from the beginning of the tradition appears to have formed a coherent narrative. In the rest of the gospel narrative there are only fragments of an itinerary.112 In order for us to evaluate Schmidt's work, it is important to understand how he conceives of the transmission of the Jesus tradition. Schmidt writes that "[d]ie älteste Jesusüberlieferung ist kultisch bestimmt, daher bildhaft und übergeschichtlich."1 13 From the beginning, then, Schmidt places history and theology 110 111 112 113

Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin: Trowitzsch& Sohn, 1919). Ibid., ν, 1. Ibid., ν—vii. Ibid., vi.

Historical Overview: The Genesis of a False Dichotomy

38

in opposition to each other: the earliest Jesus tradition was supra-historical {übergeschichtlich). History was of little concern for the early church. Accordingly, he goes on to describe the preservation of the Jesus tradition in early Christian worship thus: Zwanglos wurde im mündlichen Austausch eine Jesuserzählung an die andere gereiht. Wenn der eine aufgehört hatte zu berichten, fuhr der andere fort mit einem "und es geschah, daß...." Auf diese Weise entstanden Komplexe mehrerer Geschichten, die voneinander durch ein bloßes καί getrennt war....Es ist möglich, daß man für den gottesdienstlichen Gebrauch derartige Komplexe niedergeschrieben hat, um mehrere Geschichten hintereinander vorzulesen. Dann wurde aber auch wieder mal nur eine Geschichte, eine Perikope dargeboten. Dabei blieb das καί bestehen, genau so wie wir heute in unseren Kirchen das sonntägliche Evangelium verlesen und mit einem "und" beginnen.114

We may leave aside the question of how Schmidt knows that this was the practice of the early church (he himself admits on the same page: "Wir wissen über diese Dinge nichts Bestimmtes"). More important for us is his description of the transmission of the Jesus tradition. Pericopes were transmitted without any coherent narrative context, but were at best transmitted in narrative blocks. More than once he speaks of "wandering narratives" that in the course of transmission could lose, acquire, or even change their narrative framework.115 In his study of texts, Schmidt's method is to take each pericope in Mark and examine its narrative framework, particularly the introductions and conclusions. If evidence of an itinerary is found within a larger narrative complex, that itinerary will be studied. In each case he will also look at the parallels in Matthew and Luke. It is important to note here how Schmidt's procedure has been determined by his own scholarly heritage. He says that his study will have "synoptischen Charakter," for, he says, it is important to listen to each of the three synoptic gospels on its own terms.116 But Schmidt inherited from his 19thcentury predecessors the view that Mark presents the oldest narrative outline of the life of Jesus, and he never seriously challenged that opinion, despite his own stated misgivings as to the overestimation of the historical value of that narrative outline. Schmidt does not explicitly state his agreement with the consensus view until the last page of his book: "Der älteste Aufriß der Geschichte Jesu ist der des Mk Ev.'"17 But his method throughout the

114 115 116 117

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

19. 152, 303. ix. 317.

The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, Part 1 : K. L. Schmidt

39

book—treating Mark's narrative framework as primary and Matthew and Luke as secondary—shows that his procedure has been determined by this view. Near the end of his introduction Schmidt states his thesis fully: Die Vertreter der Markushypothese haben die richtige literarische Erkenntnis, daß Mk das älteste Ev ist, und ziehen daraus den falscher! historischen Schluß, daß dieses Ev im ganzen über die anderen E w hinaus geschichtlichen Wert hat. Andere wie Spitta haben die richtige historische Erkenntnis, daß Mk nicht diesen geschichtlichen Wert hat, und ziehen daraus den falschen literarischen Schluß, daß er nicht das älteste Ev geschrieben hat. Die vorliegende Untersuchung wird zeigen, daß Mk den ältesten Aufiiß der Geschichte Jesu enthält, daß aber dieser Aufriß