Q or not Q?: The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels 3631604920, 9783631604922

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
Summary of contents
Contents
Introduction: The Q source and the so-called synoptic ‘traditions’
1. The synoptic problem and recently adopted solutions to it
2. The basic pattern of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels
3. Mark’s use of his sources
4. Luke’s use of his sources
5. Matthew’s use of his sources
General conclusions
Bibliography
Index of ancient sources

Citation preview

Bartosz Adamczewski

Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

PETER LANG Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften

Q or not Q?

Bartosz Adamczewski

Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

PETER LANG

Frankfurt am Main · Berlin · Bern · Bruxelles · New York · Oxford · Wien

Umschlaggestaltung, Illustration: Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche © Olaf Glöckler, Atelier Platen, Friedberg Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Bookcover Design:bibliographic data is Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed © Olaf Gloeckler, Atelier Platen, Friedberg available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Cover Design: © Olaf Gloeckler, Atelier Platen, Friedberg Art Design, Coverillustration: Cover Design: © Olaf Gloeckler,Atelier AtelierPlaten, Platen, Friedberg Olaf Gloeckler, Friedberg Illustrator, Art Director: © Olaf Gloeckler, Atelier Platen, Friedberg Umschlagentwurf Umschlaggestaltung

ISBN 978-3-635-00190-7 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Frankfurt am Main 2010 All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. www.peterlang.de

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Professor Roman Bartnicki (Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw) for introducing me for the first time to the complexity of the synoptic problem and for encouraging me to find my own solution to this apparently already satisfactorily settled issue. I owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Henryk Witczyk (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) for teaching me how to find over-literal levels of meaning of biblical texts by paying close attention to their apparently insignificant literary features. I am grateful also to Professors Ryszard Rubinkiewicz and Antoni Paciorek (both: The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) for encouraging me to practice actively biblical exegesis. My special thanks go to Professor Karl P. Donfried (Smith College in Northampton, Mass.), Professor Andrzej Gieniusz (Pontifical Urbaniana University in Rome), and Dr Zdzisław J. Kapera (Jagiellonian University in Cracow) for their friendly encouraging me to study Jewish exegetical traditions, to use modern tools of exegetical research, and to publish the results of my investigations in English. I am indebted to Professor Dean Bechard (Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome) and Dr hab. Artur Malina (University of Silesia in Katowice) who encouraged me to turn back in my research to the study of the Synoptic Gospels. I am very grateful to my dear mother, Jolanta Adamczewska, MSc for her love, prayer, encouragement, and help. My special thanks go to my dear grandfather, Józef Chmielewski, MA who financed the publication of this book. I would like to thank also my Diocese of Warszawa-Praga; Archbishop Sławoj Leszek Głódź, DCnL; the community of the Pontifical Lombardian Seminary in Rome; the staff of the Library of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome; the Catholic Parish of St Michael in Tübingen; the staff of the Tübingen University Library; the Catholic Parish of St Mark in Warsaw; and all my relatives and friends for their great spiritual and material support during my writing of this book. I want to thank also Mrs. Ute Winkelkötter and the members of the staff of the Publisher who helped turn the electronic version of the text into a book. At the end, I would like to express my thankfulness to St Paul, St Mark, St Luke, and St Matthew themselves for their fascinating variegated ways of presenting the one gospel of Jesus Christ and for their ultimately successful striving to solve apparently insurmountable Church problems in truth, broadening of spiritual and mental horizons, dialogue, and reconciliation.

5

Summary of contents Contents................................................................................................................. 9 Introduction: The Q source and the so-called synoptic ‘traditions’.................... 17 Chapter 1: The synoptic problem and recently adopted solutions to it............... 19 1.1 Synoptic features of the first three canonical Gospels and problems with their adequate interpretation ............................................................... 19 1.2 Solutions to the synoptic problem adopted during the last twenty-five years ............................................................................................................ 21 1.2.1 Priority of Mk and the written source Q ............................................ 23 1.2.2 Priority of Mk and/or common oral traditions................................... 95 1.2.3 Priority of Mk and of some textually not recoverable traditions (D. C. Parker) ........................................................................................ 109 1.2.4 Priority of Proto-Mk and Q.............................................................. 111 1.2.5 Relative priority of Deutero-Mk (with or without Q) against Mt and Lk.................................................................................................... 116 1.2.6 Numerous precanonical sources of the Synoptic Gospels ............... 125 1.2.7 Common use of one lost protogospel............................................... 133 1.2.8 The Mt-Mk-Lk (‘Augustinian’) order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .................................................... 141 1.2.9 The Mt-Lk-Mk (‘Two-Gospel’) order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .................................................... 145 1.2.10 The Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels................................................................................... 161 1.2.11 The Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels................................................................................... 173 1.2.12 Conclusions .................................................................................... 184 1.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 185 Chapter 2: The basic pattern of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels .......................................................................................................... 187 2.1 Criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of possible direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels .................................... 187 2.1.1 Questionable criteria of direct literary dependence ......................... 188 2.1.2 More reliable criteria of direct literary dependence......................... 196 2.1.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 205 2.2 Test cases of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels: Mk 1:14-2:28 parr. .................................................................................... 205 2.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 225 Chapter 3: Mark’s use of his sources ................................................................ 227 3.1 The origin of the literary structure of the Gospel of Mark ..................... 227 3.1.1 Paul’s letters ..................................................................................... 229 7

3.1.2 Homer’s Iliad ................................................................................... 266 3.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 269 Chapter 4: Luke’s use of his sources................................................................. 275 4.1 The sources and their use in Lk 3:1-4:13................................................ 275 4.2 The sources and their use in the so-called Lukan ‘little interpolation’ (Lk 6:20-8:3) ............................................................................................. 285 4.3 The sources and their use in the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:5119:28) ........................................................................................................ 298 4.3.1 Lk 9:51-13:21................................................................................... 301 4.3.2 Lk 13:22-17:10................................................................................. 352 4.3.3 Lk 17:11-19:28................................................................................. 371 4.3.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 388 4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 390 Chapter 5: Matthew’s use of his sources........................................................... 401 5.1 Matthew’s use of Lk................................................................................ 401 5.1.1 Alleged Lukan emendations of the Matthean version of the double Mt-Lk tradition.......................................................................... 401 5.1.2 Matthew’s redactional use of Lk...................................................... 406 5.1.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 407 5.2 Matthew’s use of Acts and of the letters attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders........................................................................................ 407 5.2.1 The post-Pauline letters attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders . 408 5.2.2 Matthew’s use of Acts and of Jas with 1 Pet ................................... 418 5.2.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 437 5.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 437 General conclusions .......................................................................................... 441 Bibliography...................................................................................................... 449 Primary sources ............................................................................................. 449 Israelite-Jewish.......................................................................................... 449 Graeco-Roman .......................................................................................... 450 Early Christian (I-II c. AD) ........................................................................ 450 Secondary literature....................................................................................... 451 Index of ancient sources .................................................................................... 512

8

Contents Introduction: The Q source and the so-called synoptic ‘traditions’.................... 17 Chapter 1: The synoptic problem and recently adopted solutions to it............... 19 1.1 Synoptic features of the first three canonical Gospels and problems with their adequate interpretation ............................................................... 19 1.2 Solutions to the synoptic problem adopted during the last twenty-five years ............................................................................................................ 21 1.2.1 Priority of Mk and the written source Q ............................................ 23 1.2.1.1 Main arguments for the existence of the lost source Q .............. 24 1.2.1.2 Modern proponents of the Q hypothesis..................................... 30 H. Schürmann...................................................................................... 30 H. Koester ........................................................................................... 31 F. Neirynck.......................................................................................... 33 J. M. Robinson .................................................................................... 34 J. Lambrecht........................................................................................ 36 F. G. Downing..................................................................................... 38 P. Hoffmann ........................................................................................ 39 D. R. Catchpole................................................................................... 40 D. Zeller .............................................................................................. 42 A. Denaux ........................................................................................... 43 U. Luz.................................................................................................. 44 P. Vassiliadis ....................................................................................... 46 P. M. Casey ......................................................................................... 47 J. S. Kloppenborg................................................................................ 49 C. M. Tuckett ...................................................................................... 53 J. Schlosser.......................................................................................... 57 H. T. Fleddermann .............................................................................. 58 R. A. Piper........................................................................................... 61 A. D. Jacobson .................................................................................... 62 D. C. Allison, Jr. ................................................................................. 63 The International Q Project................................................................. 66 L. E. Vaage.......................................................................................... 70 B. L. Mack........................................................................................... 72 R. Uro.................................................................................................. 73 M. Sato ................................................................................................ 74 T. A. Friedrichsen ............................................................................... 76 A. Kirk................................................................................................. 76 C. Heil ................................................................................................. 78 W. E. Arnal ......................................................................................... 79 J. Schröter............................................................................................ 80 9

M. J. Goff ............................................................................................ 82 1.2.1.3 Problems with the theory of the priority of Mk and Q ............... 83 Disappearance of the apparently widely known document Q ............ 83 Hundreds of Mt-Lk agreements against Mk throughout the Gospels 85 Questionable proofs of the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy ..................... 93 1.2.2 Priority of Mk and/or common oral traditions................................... 95 1.2.2.1 Main arguments for independent redactional use of common oral traditions ...................................................................................... 96 1.2.2.2 Modern proponents of the ‘oral tradition’ hypothesis ................ 97 B. Reicke ............................................................................................. 97 B. Gerhardsson.................................................................................... 98 J. D. G. Dunn ...................................................................................... 99 W. H. Kelber ..................................................................................... 102 R. A. Horsley .................................................................................... 103 A. D. Baum ....................................................................................... 105 T. C. Mournet.................................................................................... 106 1.2.2.3 Problems with the ‘oral tradition’ hypothesis........................... 108 1.2.3 Priority of Mk and of some textually not recoverable traditions (D. C. Parker) ........................................................................................ 109 1.2.4 Priority of Proto-Mk and Q.............................................................. 111 1.2.4.1 Main arguments for the existence of Proto-Mk ........................ 111 1.2.4.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the priority of Proto-Mk ........................................................................................... 112 H. Koester ......................................................................................... 112 N. Walter ........................................................................................... 113 W. Schmithals ................................................................................... 113 R. Bartnicki ....................................................................................... 115 1.2.4.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the priority of Proto-Mk ....... 115 1.2.5 Relative priority of Deutero-Mk (with or without Q) against Mt and Lk.................................................................................................... 116 1.2.5.1 Main arguments for the existence of Deutero-Mk.................... 116 1.2.5.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the relative priority of Deutero-Mk against Mt and Lk .................................................... 117 J. Carmignac...................................................................................... 117 A. Fuchs ............................................................................................ 118 M. Klinghardt.................................................................................... 120 F. Kogler ........................................................................................... 121 C. Niemand ....................................................................................... 122 J. Rauscher ........................................................................................ 122 A. Ennulat ......................................................................................... 123 1.2.5.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the relative priority of Deutero-Mk against Mt and Lk......................................................... 124 10

1.2.6 Numerous precanonical sources of the Synoptic Gospels ............... 125 1.2.6.1 Main arguments for the existence of numerous precanonical sources of the Synoptic Gospels ....................................................... 125 1.2.6.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the existence of numerous precanonical sources of the Synoptic Gospels................. 126 M.-É. Boismard................................................................................. 126 P. Rolland.......................................................................................... 129 D. R. Burkett ..................................................................................... 131 1.2.6.3 Problems with the multiple-source theories.............................. 132 1.2.7 Common use of one lost protogospel............................................... 133 1.2.7.1 Main arguments for common synoptic use of one protogospel 133 1.2.7.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the priority of one protogospel........................................................................................ 134 D. Flusser .......................................................................................... 134 C. Tresmontant.................................................................................. 136 T. L. Brodie ....................................................................................... 136 S. Hultgren ........................................................................................ 138 H. M. Humphrey ............................................................................... 140 1.2.7.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the priority of one protogospel ................................................................................................ 140 1.2.8 The Mt-Mk-Lk (‘Augustinian’) order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .................................................... 141 1.2.8.1 Main arguments for the Mt-Mk-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels.................................... 141 1.2.8.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the Mt-Mk-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .............. 142 J. Wenham......................................................................................... 142 A. Kowalczyk.................................................................................... 143 1.2.8.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the Mt-Mk-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .................. 144 1.2.9 The Mt-Lk-Mk (‘Two-Gospel’) order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .................................................... 145 1.2.9.1 Main arguments for the Mt-Lk-Mk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels.................................... 145 1.2.9.2 Modern proponents of the Two-Gospel hypothesis.................. 146 W. R. Farmer..................................................................................... 146 D. L. Dungan..................................................................................... 149 J. B. Orchard ..................................................................................... 150 D. B. Peabody ................................................................................... 151 H. Riley ............................................................................................. 153 A. J. McNicol .................................................................................... 155

11

1.2.9.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the Mt-Lk-Mk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .................. 156 External evidence scanty and not pertaining to the hypothesis ........ 157 Internal evidence better explained by the hypothesis of Markan priority........................................................................................... 157 Implausible dispersion and omission of much Matthean and Lukan material .............................................................................. 159 Assumed poor redactional skill of Mark........................................... 160 1.2.10 The Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels................................................................................... 161 1.2.10.1 Main arguments for the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels.................................... 161 1.2.10.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .... 162 M. D. Goulder ................................................................................... 162 R. H. Gundry ..................................................................................... 164 H. B. Green ....................................................................................... 166 E. Franklin......................................................................................... 168 M. S. Goodacre ................................................................................. 169 1.2.10.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .................. 171 Unconvincing linguistic evidence..................................................... 171 Implausibility of Luke’s omission of several Lukan-like motifs from the Gospel of Matthew ......................................................... 172 Implausibility of Luke’s decomposition of the Matthean literaryrhetorical structures....................................................................... 172 1.2.11 The Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels................................................................................... 173 1.2.11.1 Main arguments for the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels.................................... 173 1.2.11.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .... 176 M. Hengel.......................................................................................... 176 R. V. Huggins.................................................................................... 179 E. Aurelius......................................................................................... 180 G. A. Blair ......................................................................................... 181 1.2.11.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels .................. 182 Mattheanisms in the double Mt-Lk tradition .................................... 182 Unidentified sources of the Lukan non-Markan material................. 183 No support for the Mk-Lk-Mt order of the composition of the Gospels in the early Church tradition ........................................... 184 12

1.2.12 Conclusions .................................................................................... 184 1.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 185 Chapter 2: The basic pattern of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels .......................................................................................................... 187 2.1 Criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of possible direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels .................................... 187 2.1.1 Questionable criteria of direct literary dependence ......................... 188 Vocabulary characteristic of a given Gospel ........................................ 188 Shorter and longer version of a common text....................................... 190 Repetitions and doublets ....................................................................... 191 Increasing clarity................................................................................... 191 Evident inconsistencies and logical errors............................................ 192 Growing Hellenization of the gospel tradition ..................................... 192 Implausibility of removing established Christian theological ideas and literary motifs ............................................................................. 194 Dependence on the redactional work of another evangelist ................. 194 Explicable disagreements in the order of common material................. 196 2.1.2 More reliable criteria of direct literary dependence......................... 196 Conflations of elements of other Gospels............................................. 196 Presence of vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. typical of another Gospel and occurring only in the passages that are evidently paralleled in that other Gospel .......................................... 198 Contrariety of the ideas expressed in the passages that are paralleled in another Gospel to the ideas expressed elsewhere in the given Gospel and especially peculiar to it .................................................. 201 Not easily perceivable inconsistencies and logical errors in the passages that are paralleled in another Gospel, in which the inconsistency or error in question is absent ............................................... 201 Increasing confusion ............................................................................. 202 Evident congruity of the features of style, redactional technique, theology, etc. of a given passage with those peculiar to the Gospel in question, together with relative incongruity of the corresponding features of the parallel passage in another Gospel with those of that other Gospel ............................................................................... 203 Dependence on extant and not merely hypothetical works .................. 204 2.1.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 205 2.2 Test cases of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels: Mk 1:14-2:28 parr. .................................................................................... 205 Mk 1:14-15 parr. ................................................................................... 206 Mk 1:16-20 parr. ................................................................................... 209 Mk 1:21-22 parr. ................................................................................... 210 Mk 1:23-28 parr. ................................................................................... 212 13

Mk 1:29-31 parr. ................................................................................... 212 Mk 1:32-34 parr. ................................................................................... 213 Mk 1:35-38 parr. ................................................................................... 215 Mk 1:39 parr.......................................................................................... 215 Mk 1:40-45 parr. ................................................................................... 216 Mk 2:1-12 parr. ..................................................................................... 217 Mk 2:13-17 parr. ................................................................................... 220 Mk 2:18-22 parr. ................................................................................... 221 Mk 2:23-28 parr. ................................................................................... 223 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 224 2.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 225 Chapter 3: Mark’s use of his sources ................................................................ 227 3.1 The origin of the literary structure of the Gospel of Mark ..................... 227 3.1.1 Paul’s letters ..................................................................................... 229 Mk 1:1-7:37........................................................................................... 232 Mk 8:1-10:45......................................................................................... 248 Mk 10:46-12:44..................................................................................... 256 Mk 13:1-15:15....................................................................................... 260 Mk 15:16-16:8....................................................................................... 264 3.1.2 Homer’s Iliad ................................................................................... 266 3.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 269 Chapter 4: Luke’s use of his sources................................................................. 275 4.1 The sources and their use in Lk 3:1-4:13................................................ 275 Lk 3:1-6 ................................................................................................. 276 Lk 3:7-20 ............................................................................................... 277 Lk 3:21-22 ............................................................................................. 280 Lk 3:23-38 ............................................................................................. 281 Lk 4:1-13 ............................................................................................... 282 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 284 4.2 The sources and their use in the so-called Lukan ‘little interpolation’ (Lk 6:20-8:3) ............................................................................................. 285 Lk 6:20-49 ............................................................................................. 286 Lk 7:1-35 ............................................................................................... 290 Lk 7:36-8:3............................................................................................ 293 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 297 4.3 The sources and their use in the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:5119:28) ........................................................................................................ 298 4.3.1 Lk 9:51-13:21................................................................................... 301 Lk 9:51-62 ............................................................................................. 302 Lk 10:1-24 ............................................................................................. 309 Lk 10:25-37........................................................................................... 319 Lk 10:38-11:13...................................................................................... 322 14

Lk 11:14-36........................................................................................... 325 Lk 11:37-54........................................................................................... 331 Lk 12:1-12 ............................................................................................. 336 Lk 12:13-34........................................................................................... 339 Lk 12:35-53........................................................................................... 341 Lk 12:54-13:21...................................................................................... 345 Conclusion............................................................................................. 351 4.3.2 Lk 13:22-17:10................................................................................. 352 Lk 13:22-14:24...................................................................................... 352 Lk 14:25-35........................................................................................... 358 Lk 15:1-32 ............................................................................................. 360 Lk 16:1-15 ............................................................................................. 361 Lk 16:16-18........................................................................................... 363 Lk 16:19-31........................................................................................... 365 Lk 17:1-6 ............................................................................................... 368 Lk 17:7-10 ............................................................................................. 370 Conclusion............................................................................................. 371 4.3.3 Lk 17:11-19:28................................................................................. 371 Lk 17:11-19........................................................................................... 372 Lk 17:20-37........................................................................................... 374 Lk 18:1-14 ............................................................................................. 378 Lk 18:15-43........................................................................................... 380 Lk 19:1-10 ............................................................................................. 382 Lk 19:11-28........................................................................................... 385 Conclusion............................................................................................. 388 4.3.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 388 4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 390 Chapter 5: Matthew’s use of his sources........................................................... 401 5.1 Matthew’s use of Lk................................................................................ 401 5.1.1 Alleged Lukan emendations of the Matthean version of the double Mt-Lk tradition.......................................................................... 401 Lk 4:5-6 par........................................................................................... 402 Lk 11:3-4 par......................................................................................... 403 Lk 12:9 par. ........................................................................................... 404 Conclusion............................................................................................. 405 5.1.2 Matthew’s redactional use of Lk...................................................... 406 5.1.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 407 5.2 Matthew’s use of Acts and of the letters attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders........................................................................................ 407 5.2.1 The post-Pauline letters attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders . 408 5.2.1.1 The Letter of Pseudo-James (Jas) ............................................. 409 5.2.1.2 The Letter of Pseudo-Peter (1 Pet)............................................ 414 15

Conclusion............................................................................................. 417 5.2.2 Matthew’s use of Acts and of Jas with 1 Pet ................................... 418 5.2.2.1 Matthew’s insertions into the Markan narrative framework and relocations of the Markan material ............................................ 419 ‘Inflation’ of the ‘Jewish’ sections of the gospel story..................... 419 Anticipations and reworking of the Markan material in Mt 1-13..... 422 Composition of the ‘Petrine’ pericopes in Mt 14-20 ........................ 426 Sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts in Mt............................. 428 5.2.2.2 Matthew’s detailed use of Jas ................................................... 430 5.2.2.3 Matthew’s detailed use of 1 Pet ................................................ 434 Conclusion............................................................................................. 436 5.2.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 437 5.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 437 General conclusions .......................................................................................... 441 Bibliography...................................................................................................... 449 Primary sources ............................................................................................. 449 Israelite-Jewish.......................................................................................... 449 Graeco-Roman .......................................................................................... 450 Early Christian (I-II c. AD) ........................................................................ 450 Secondary literature....................................................................................... 451 Index of ancient sources .................................................................................... 512

16

Introduction: The Q source and the so-called synoptic ‘traditions’ The synoptic problem seems to be a very technical issue, which is studied with passion by a narrow group of scholars who seek a solution to a literary-historical riddle instead of studying the theology of the inspired Gospels. Such a perception of the synoptic problem is based on grave misunderstanding of its importance for the exegesis of the Synoptic Gospels and for the theology and hermeneutics of the New Testament as a whole. “When we recognize the solution to the Synoptic problem to be a central building block in our understanding of how to answer questions about the trustworthiness of the Gospels and the distinctive theologies of each evangelist, we cannot help but appreciate its importance.” 1 Let us ask a simple question, has Mark ever seen or heard the so-called ‘Q source’? Every New Testament scholar realizes that any answer to this simple question is of crucial importance for interpretation of most probably the earliest Gospel and consequently also of the later gospels of Matthew and Luke. If Mark knew the ‘Q source’, he must have given some response to the ideas expressed in that work. In such a case, what was his response? Did he value ‘Q’, or did he rather disregard it? Did he use that source in its entirety or only selected parts thereof? Did he follow its literary structure and wording, or did he rather thoroughly rework it? Did he quote it, or did he merely allude to it? Any response to these questions is in fact highly problematic. If Mark knew the ‘Q source’ and decided to use it in his own literary work, why did he preserve so few of its reconstructed contents? In case Mark knew ‘Q’ but decided to ignore it, why has it suddenly become so important for both Matthew and Luke, who, as it is usually assumed, worked independently of each other, and nevertheless they decided to reproduce ‘Q’ in its entirety in their respective Gospels? Alternatively, if Mark did not know the ‘Q source’, how can we explain the origin of numerous Markan texts that are evidently closely related to their Matthean-Lukan counterparts and yet notably differing from them? If the ‘Q source’ ever existed, it must have been one of the pillars of theology of early Christianity. In such a case, why was this pillar so underdeveloped theologically, especially in comparison to the Pauline ideas? Why did ‘Q’ completely disappear as a literary entity soon after the composition of the gospels of

1

C. L. Blomberg, ‘The Synoptic Problem: Where We Stand at the Start of a New Century’, in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. D. A. Black and D. R. Beck (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2001), 17-40 (here: 40).

17

Matthew and Luke? Shall we believe that Christianity is based on sand of an unknown, lost, theologically problematic document? It is therefore evident that the solution to the synoptic problem has fundamental importance for interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels and of the early Christian tradition as a whole. Every solution to the synoptic problem offers not only a more or less satisfactory explanation of the literary similarities and differences among the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It either gives or presupposes also an answer to a more general question, whether the Synoptic Gospels and other New Testament writings were based on one internally coherent gospel tradition or on numerous disparate, partially overlapping traditions and literary sources. Consequently, every solution to the synoptic problem not only explains the origin of the so-called triple, double, and single traditions in the Synoptic Gospels but also gives an explicit or implicit answer to the more fundamental literary-hermeneutic question, in what sense we may call them ‘traditions’ at all. Were they channels of more or less faithful oral transmission of some preliterary material or rather ways of literary-rhetorical formulation and reformulation of some particular theological ideas? Accordingly, shall we understand the synoptic ‘traditions’ as having (similarly to other scriptural traditions) mainly a historical-informative or rather an intertextual-performative nature? The quest for the correct solution to the synoptic problem is therefore by no means a purely technical issue. Every solution to the synoptic problem to a considerable degree conditions understanding not only of the history of early Christianity but also of the literary character of the New Testament writings and consequently of adequate ways of their overall interpretation.

18

Chapter 1: The synoptic problem and recently adopted solutions to it The synoptic problem consists in difficulty of finding a satisfactory explanation of the origin of the particular pattern of literary similarities and differences among the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are traditionally called the ‘Synoptic Gospels’. Many solutions to this problem have been proposed throughout history. A comprehensive survey of the solutions that were adopted by New Testament scholars in the last few decades should highlight not only the complexity of the issue but also the ways in which the research on the synoptic problem is correlated with other literary, historical, and theological investigations.

1.1 Synoptic features of the first three canonical Gospels and problems with their adequate interpretation Despite all the differences among the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there are several close similarities among them that cannot be adequately explained by the hypothesis of common indebtedness of the Synoptic Gospels solely to early Christian oral traditions. First, there are numerous instances of high verbal agreement among these Gospels in quite long textual units (e.g. Mt 22:23-33; Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-40). Second, there are numerous passages in which the order of narrative units, which are traditionally called ‘pericopes’, is almost the same in all three Synoptic Gospels (e.g. Mt 16:13-18:5; Mk 8:279:41; Lk 9:18-50). Third, there are narrator’s comments that are added to the narrated gospel story and addressed to the reader of its written text, which are identical in two or three Synoptic Gospels (e.g. Mt 24:15d = Mk 13:14c: “Let the reader understand”). Fourth, there are some changes introduced to traditional scriptural quotations in the Synoptic Gospels that are identical to all three of them (e.g. Mt 3:3d = Mk 1:3c = Lk 3:4d: “Make his paths straight”). Moreover, Luke stated in the prologue to his Gospel that he had used in his literary work some previously composed narratives (Lk 1:1-2). 1 On the other hand, numerous differences among the Synoptic Gospels in their wording, order, and amount of material render the issue of their literary interdependence quite complicated. In particular, there are some portions of 1

Cf. R. H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation (2nd edn., Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2001), 29-47.

19

gospel material that may be found in all three Synoptic Gospels and are for this reason traditionally called the ‘triple tradition’ (e.g. Mt 9:1-17 par. Mk 2:1-22 par. Lk 5:17-39). There are also large portions of gospel material that are common to only two Synoptic Gospels and consequently called ‘double traditions’ (e.g. Mt 14:22-15:39 par. Mk 6:45-8:10), or that are peculiar to only one Gospel and for this reason called the ‘special material’ or ‘single traditions’ (e.g. Mt 25:31-46; Mk 8:22-26; Lk 3:10-14). The identification of the passages that belong to the so-called ‘triple’, ‘double’, and ‘single’ traditions is, however, easy only in theory. There are numerous instances in which two from among the evangelists agree somehow against the third one in the material that they all share, i.e. in the so-called ‘triple tradition’. All three possible patterns of such partial agreement may be observed: Mt + Mk against Lk, Mt + Lk against Mk, and Mk + Lk against Mt. 2 The conventional definition of the ‘triple tradition’ is therefore in fact imprecise. Moreover, some fragments of material contained in two or three Synoptic Gospels display both striking similarities and significant differences (e.g. Mt 25:1430 par. Lk 19:11-27) so that the conventional definitions of the ‘double traditions’ and of the ‘special material’ or ‘single traditions’ are likewise quite ambiguous. There are also numerous portions of material that seem to be duplicated (e.g. Mt 9:27-31 and Mt 20:29-34; Mk 6:34-44 and Mk 8:1-10; Lk 8:16 and Lk 11:33) or closely paralleled (e.g. Lk 15:4-7 [cf. Mt 18:12-14] and Lk 15:8-10 [with no counterpart in Mt]) within the texts of the respective Gospels. In these cases, it is difficult to say which portions of material might have been literarily dependent on some pre-Gospel sources, and which were composed by the evangelists themselves. Moreover, it is difficult to say whether this distinction between ‘tradition’ and ‘composition’ is altogether methodologically justifiable for at least Luke seems to have admitted that he had both consulted and thoroughly reworked the pre-Gospel sources that were available to him (Lk 1:3). In view of these data, a fundamental question arises. If the Synoptic Gospels are in some way literarily interdependent, what is the precise chronological and literary pattern of their interdependence? Were they written one after another in a linear sequence so that the second evangelist used the work of the first one, and the third one used the work of the second one (or of both his literary predecessors)? In such a case, who was the first, who was the second, and who was the third evangelist? Alternatively, all three evangelists might have used independently of one another a common protogospel or some other pre-Gospel 2

20

Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the sigla: Mt, Mk, and Lk (and consequently also Proto-Mk, Deutero-Mk, etc.) will be used to refer to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke respectively.

sources that were later lost. In such a case, however, why are the Synoptic Gospels so different from one another, especially in the order of their material? Maybe a mixed solution should be therefore adopted, namely that the later evangelists used in their compositional work the works of their literary predecessors, as well as some lost pre-Gospel sources and/or some oral traditions? In such a case, however, any reconstruction of the pattern of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels is inevitably very uncertain from the methodological point of view. The number of possible combinations of literary interdependence and common dependence of three literary works is almost infinite, especially if the possibility of the existence of thematic overlaps among the hypothetical sources (as well as the earlier Gospels) is not excluded a priori. 3 Moreover, any reconstruction of the pattern of literary interdependence and common dependence of the Synoptic Gospels is inevitably heavily conditioned by the adopted procedures of reconstruction of the hypothetical pre-Gospel sources and traditions. These procedures are in turn methodologically questionable. The particular pattern of literary similarities and differences among the first three canonical Gospels may be therefore explained in various possible ways. Scholars usually consider some of them more plausible than others. A comprehensive survey of recently discussed proposals should reveal their respective argumentative strengths and their inherent weaknesses. In such a way, it should help find the correct solution to the synoptic problem.

1.2 Solutions to the synoptic problem adopted during the last twenty-five years It is obviously impossible to present in detail in one book a complete history of research on the synoptic problem. Interested readers are referred to one of the existing works that explore this issue from various points of view. 4 Finding the 3

For a short discussion on some of the various possible patterns of literary interdependence and common dependence of the Synoptic Gospels, see e.g. F. Neirynck, ‘The TwoSource Hypothesis: Introduction’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 3-22 (esp. 14-19) [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (BEThL 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 343-362 (esp. 354-359)].

4

See e.g. A. G. da Fonseca, Quaestio synoptica (Institutiones biblicae: Opera subsidiaria; 3rd edn., Pontificium Institutum Biblicum: Romae 1952), passim; W. Schmithals, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (GLB; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1985), 1233; T. R. W. Longstaff and P. A. Thomas, The Synoptic Problem: A Bibliography,

21

correct solution to the synoptic problem requires, however, a detailed survey of the solutions that were adopted by New Testament scholars at least recently, for example during the last twenty-five years (i.e. from 1984 to 2009). Such a survey may help understand and evaluate arguments that are put forward both in favour of and against various hypotheses, in the form in which they are formulated in contemporary scholarship after centuries of exegetical and literarycritical discussions. It should be noted that at least some of the solutions to the synoptic problem that are adopted by modern New Testament scholars are not mutually exclusive. On the other hand, most modern synoptic theories are internally variegated according to particular, at times contrasting or even mutually exclusive ideas of their respective supporters. Any classifying survey of solutions to the synoptic problem is therefore inevitably, from the methodological point of view, to some extent artificial. The classification of various proposals of modern scholars into larger categories that will be proposed below serves therefore mainly to clarify the internal logic of their respective ways of argumentation and consequently to evaluate them adequately. The below-proposed survey of solutions to the synoptic problem that were adopted by modern New Testament scholars during the last twenty-five years will be ordered according to their relative popularity: from the hypotheses based on the assumption of the existence of the hypothetical source ‘Q’, which is almost universally accepted nowadays by New Testament scholars, to the hypotheses more or less consistently dispensing with this hypothetical source. Every major solution to the synoptic problem will be presented first in its original logical-argumentative structure. At this stage, the most important arguments put forward in favour of a given hypothesis and the basic logical structure thereof will be analysed against the background of particular philosophical, theological, and literary ideas that were popular in a given cultural epoch and milieu in which the hypothesis was first formulated. In such a way, both explicitly stated and implicitly presupposed axioms, and consequently inherent limitations and possibly also deforming features of a given hypothesis, will be highlighted to the extent that it is possible from the modern, hermeneutically more self-conscious point of view.

1716-1988 (New Gospel Studies 4; Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1988), passim; F. Neirynck, J. Verheyden, and R. Corstjens, The Gospel of Matthew and the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1995 (BEThL 140B; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1998), 263*-267*; D. L. Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (ABRL; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1999), passim; C. Coulot, ‘Synoptique (Le Problème)’, in DBSup, vol. 13, 785-828 (esp. 789-819).

22

Thereupon, the results of research of modern proponents of the respective hypotheses will be presented and critically evaluated. The scholars will be ordered according to the chronological order of their first publications that referred somehow to the synoptic problem. Understandably, only the ideas of the most creative supporters of a given hypothesis may be here discussed. Finally, evident problems with the given hypothesis will be presented. As a rule, no detailed counter-arguments put forward by adversaries of a given hypothesis and of particular ideas of a given scholar will be here explicitly discussed. It does not mean that they have not been taken into due consideration. However, a detailed survey of all arguments and counter-arguments put forward in the discussion on the synoptic problem, even only during the last twenty-five years, would greatly exceed the limits of one readable book. 1.2.1 Priority of Mk and the written source Q The hypothesis that explains the similarities and differences among the first three canonical Gospels by means of postulating the existence of two main sources used independently by Matthew and Luke, namely the canonical Gospel of Mark and a no-longer-extant source ‘Q’, gradually developed into a large, complex theory. At the beginning of the twenty-first century this theory is regarded and presented in many academic circles as a quasi-certain solution to the synoptic problem. At the same time, other possible solutions to the synoptic problem are more and more reluctantly taken into serious consideration. 5 In effect, many New Testament scholars, exegetes, theologians, graduate students, journalists, etc. simply accept the theory of the priority of Mk and Q as a modern scholarly theorem. Accordingly, the Q theory has to be discussed here in an extensive and detailed way so that it might be adequately and critically evaluated as a proposed solution to the synoptic problem.

5

Cf., for example, the remarks of an Italian exegete who participated in the 49th Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense in Leuven, during which The Critical Edition of Q was officially presented to the scholars: “[…] è giocoforza costatare che ormai la comunità degli esegeti considera l’esistenza di una fonte dei detti di Gesù come ben più di un’ ipotesi, ma come uno strumento esplicativo praticamente sicuro. È stato notato che, per motivi a noi non noti, erano assenti dal convegno tutti gli avversari della fonte Q (A. Fuchs, M. Goulder, ecc.) […]”: C. Marrucci, ‘La fonte Q e il problema del Gesù storico: Annotazioni in merito al XLIX Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense’, RivBib 49 (2001) 319-336 (here: 335).

23

1.2.1.1 Main arguments for the existence of the lost source Q The hypothesis of the existence of a particular no-longer-extant source that contained the material shared by Mt and Lk but absent in Mk dates back to the eighteenth century. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, a famous literary critic and writer who investigated the Gospels from a purely literary point of view, argued at that time that the literary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels are too close to be explained solely by the traditional hypothesis of common dependence of the Gospels on oral apostolic traditions, but on the other hand they are too complex to be explained by the classical Augustinian theory of sequential literary dependence of the Gospels in their canonical order. Lessing postulated therefore the existence of a written Hebrew or Aramaic ‘Gospel of the Apostles’, which originated, in his opinion, from the oral apostolic tradition that described the life of Jesus as a merely human Messiah, and which was probably known to some Fathers of the Church. 6 Lessing’s idea of the existence of a written source of tradition that had preceded the formation of the canonical Gospels was more fully developed by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn.7 This German scholar argued that not only the common Mt-Mk-Lk tradition but also the material shared by Mt and Lk but absent in Mk points to the existence of some no-longer-extant written sources (Quellen), which were different from the main Aramaic protogospel document. 8 Eichhorn’s argument in support of this thesis was quite simple. If Matthew and Luke had received the material shared only by them from the main source of the gospel tradition (gemeinschaftliche Quelle), they would have preserved this material in the same order of pericopes. Since, however, Mt and Lk display differing arrangements of their common material, then it may be reasonably assumed that (a) either Matthew and Luke had access to different manuscripts of the same 6

This hypothetical protogospel was called by the scholar in a way that has become very influential for the later research, namely, among others, Nazarenische Quelle (‘Nazarene source’): G. E. Lessing, ‘Theses aus der Kirchengeschichte’, in id., Theologischer Nachlass (Christian Friedrich Voß und Sohn: Berlin 1784), 73-82 (esp. 81 [§. 47]) [also in id., Werke und Briefe, vol. 8, Werke 1774-1778, ed. A. Schilson (Deutsche Klassiker: Frankfurt am Main 1989), 619-627 (here: 626)]; id., ‘Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als blos menschliche Geschichtschreiber betrachtet’ [Wolfenbüttel 1778], in id., Theologischer Nachlass, 45-72 (here: 56 [§. 25]) [also in id., Werke und Briefe, vol. 8, 629-654 (here: 638)].

7

J. G. Eichhorn, ‘Ueber die drey ersten Evangelien. Eynge Beytrage zu ihrer künftigen kritischen Behandlung’, in id., ABBL, vol. 5 [part 5-6], Weidmann: Leipzig 1794, 761996.

8

Ibid. 965: “[Mt and Lk] müssen also auch hier von einer gemeinschaftlichen schriftlichen Quelle abhängen.”

24

basic gospel tradition (Urschrift), or (b) they found the body of texts peculiar to them in some other written sources (Quellen). Eichhorn rejected the first possibility as implausible for, as he noticed, the Lukan order of the double Mt-Lk tradition seems natural, and consequently Matthew (or the author of the version of the protogospel that was used in Mt [my clarification]) would have had no reason for changing the ‘natural’ order of the basic gospel tradition into a ‘strange’ one. 9 The only acceptable solution was therefore, according to Eichhorn, the assumption of the existence of some other written sources (Quellen) of the material that was shared only by Mt and Lk. 10 Two issues are worth noting here. First, in Eichhorn’s theory (in difference to that of Augustine) it is presumed that none of the three canonical evangelists knew another’s work, and consequently all major similarities among the Synoptic Gospels have to be ascribed to the evangelists’ use of some written protogospel sources (Schriften, Quellen). On the other hand, all major discrepancies among the Gospels are explained in this theory by the number and diversity of the hypothetical literary sources. In this context, it is worth noting that if Lessing tried to solve the synoptic problem by postulating the existence of only one later lost Aramaic protogospel document (Urevangelium), Eichhorn’s theory required at the beginning five and at a later stage of his research ten hypothetical documents. 11 The cost of presuming that the evangelists worked independently of one another and merely reproduced the material found in their sources was evidently very high. The second significant feature of Eichhorn’s theory is its particular argumentative construction. The scholar’s assumption of the existence of written sources (Quellen) of the double Mt-Lk tradition is based on the premise that Matthew could not have rearranged the Mt-Lk material, which is, as Eichhorn rightly noticed, organized in a relatively ‘natural’ way in Lk and in an ‘artificial’ one in Mt. Precisely on the basis of this premise, the German scholar argued that Matthew must have used a particular source (Quelle) of the Mt-Lk material. If, however, Eichhorn had worked with our modern understanding of Matthew’s redactional aims and of Matthew’s highly complex literary-rhetorical organizational techniques, he would have probably never formulated his highly speculative ‘Q’ hypothesis. Eichhorn’s complex theory was considerably simplified by Christian Hermann Weisse who postulated independent use of Mk and of a pre-Matthean 9

Ibid. 967: “Eine unwahrscheinliche Voraussetzung!”

10

Ibid.: “[…] aus den andern schriftlichen Quellen, aus denen sie [Mt and Lk] neben der […] Urschrift geschöpft haben.”

11

Id., Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. 1 (Weidmann: Leipzig 1804), 353-356.

25

source of gospel sayings (λόγια) by Matthew and by Luke.12 In such a way, Weisse gave rise to the classical ‘Two-Source’ theory. Again, the particular logical construction of Weisse’s hypothesis is quite particular. The German scholar did not deduce the existence of the hypothetical Q source from an exegetical analysis of the double Mt-Lk tradition. The existence of a pre-Matthean sayings source was one of Weisse’s methodological presuppositions, which was in turn based on Schleiermacher’s interpretation of the information given by Papias (quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16), namely that Matthew “arranged the Lord’s oracles (τὰ λόγια) in [the] Hebrew language in an orderly way”. 13 Accordingly, Weisse first argued that the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew was composed with the use of the Gospel of Mark and of the ‘truly Matthean’ Hebrew λόγια, 14 and only thereupon he postulated Matthew’s and Luke’s independent use of both these sources. 15 This particular logical construction of the original ‘Two-Source’ hypothesis, namely that a conventional, tradition-based presupposition of the existence of Q is followed by searching exegetical proofs of its existence, may be traced also in the works of many modern advocates of the Q theory. What are therefore, after over two hundred years of research, the main scholarly arguments for the existence of the lost source of the double Mt-Lk tradition? They have been conveniently summarized in a recent work of one of the main advocates of the Q theory, namely Harry T. Fleddermann. 16 According to Fleddermann, there are three classical arguments for the existence of Q: the verbal agreement, the agreement in order, and the doublets. The first argument is based on the observation that there is a considerable number of at times quite large passages in Mt and Lk that agree almost word for word in the respective Gospels (e.g. Mt 3:7b-10 par. Lk 3:7b-9; Mt 8:20 par. Lk 9:58; Mt 11:21-23 par. Lk 10:13-15; Mt 11:25b-26 par. Lk 10:21bc; Mt 12:27-28 par. Lk 11:19-20; Mt 12:30 par. Lk 11:23). Moreover, Mt and Lk at times agree in using quite unusual words and phrases (e.g. ἐπιούσιον in Mt 6:11 par. Lk 11:3; ἱκανὸς ἵνα in Mt 8:8 par. Lk 6:6; σεσαρωμένον in Mt 12:44 par. Lk 11:25). All these agreements indicate either literary dependence of one of these Gospels on the 12

C. H. Weiße, Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, vol. 1 (Breitkopf und Härtel: Leipzig 1838), 78-83.

13

Cf. F. Schleiermacher, ‘Ueber die Zeugnisse des Papias von unsern beiden ersten Evangelien’, ThStKr 5 (1832) 735-768.

14

C. H. Weiße, Die evangelische Geschichte, 48.

15

Ibid. 78-83.

16

H. T. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (Biblical Tools and Studies 1; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2005), 41-68.

26

other one (which is ruled out in the Q theory) or their common dependence on a written Greek source. 17 The second classical argument for the existence of Q is based on the agreement in order of many passages in the double Mt-Lk tradition, especially within the main gospel discourses (e.g. the ‘great sermon’ Lk 6:20b-49 par. Mt 5:37:27; the mission discourse Lk 9:57-60; 10:2; 10:3-12; 10:16 par. Mt 8:19-22; 9:37-38; 10:7-16; 10:40; woes against the Pharisees Lk 11:47-48; 11:49-51; 13:34-35 par. Mt 23:29-32; 23:34-36; 23:37-39). Admittedly, that this pattern of common order is often broken by additions or transpositions of some other fragments of material, which are common or not common to Mt and Lk. However, this feature is ascribed in the Q theory to the redactional work of one of the evangelists, especially to Matthew. The phenomenon of common order of several blocks of gospel material is difficult to explain by the hypothesis of its origin solely in the oral tradition, and consequently it indicates either literary dependence of one of these Gospels on the other one (which is ruled out in the Q theory) or the existence of their common written source. 18 The third classical argument for the existence of Q is based on the phenomenon of doublets, that is repetitions of sayings, parables, or pericopes in the same Gospel. Since the phenomenon of doublets occurs most often in Mt and in Lk, it is assumed that the authors of both these Gospels must have used two sources of the gospel tradition, namely Mk and another source, which in the Q theory is conventionally referred to as ‘Q’. Not all kinds of doublets, however, are interpreted by the supporters of the Q theory as proving the existence of the hypothetical non-Markan source Q. The argument from doublets is based only on the repetitions of textual fragments that in one of their occurrences in Mt and/or in Lk differ somehow from the form found in Mk (e.g. Mt 16:24 par. Lk 9:23 [par. Mk 8:34], and Mt 10:38 par. Lk 14:27 [with no direct parallel in Mk]). It is axiomatically assumed that such modifying repetitions of Markanlike texts cannot be ascribed to creative literary activity of either Matthew or Luke (followed later by the other evangelist), and consequently these repetitions are interpreted as of necessity indicating duality of Matthew’s and Luke’s sources. 19 On this assumption, the intriguing in itself phenomenon of para17

Ibid. 41-46.

18

Cf. ibid. 46-54.

19

Such a formulation of the argument from doublets seems to neglect, however, the fact that creative doubling of traditional sayings and episodes (often differing in their forms) is an important literary, sometimes evidently structuring device that was used by all three synoptists: by Mark (cf. e.g. Mk 6:34-44 par. 8:1-9; 9:35 par. 10:43-44), by Matthew (cf. e.g. Mt 9:27-31 par. 20:29-34), and especially by Luke (cf. e.g. Lk 6:6-10 par. 14:1-4; 8:19-21 par. 11:27-28; 9:1-5 par. 10:1-11; 9:10 par. 10:17-20).

27

Markan doublets in Mt and in Lk has to be explained, however, by an additional, in fact quite problematic hypothesis of partial thematic overlap of Mk and Q. Since this additional assumption poses serious problems for the logical construction of the Two-Source hypothesis, 20 the argument from doublets is not given the same importance by all Q theorists. 21 As noted above, none of these classical arguments for the existence of Q rules out the possibility of direct literary dependence of Mt on Lk (or vice versa) as the cause of similarity between these Gospels in their double tradition. However, the hypothesis of direct literary dependence of Mt on Lk (or vice versa) is rejected by the Q theorists because of the so-called Mt-Lk priority discrepancy. 22 This phenomenon consists in the fact that, as it is argued, neither the Matthean nor the Lukan version of the sayings, episodes, and order of pericopes that belong to the double Mt-Lk tradition is considered always relatively more original than its counterpart in the other Gospel. It is evident that the argument from the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy is not straightforward. Determining which version of e.g. Mt 8:19-22 par. Lk 9:57-62 is relatively more original involves much exegetical theorizing, and consequently it is very hypothetical. Moreover, one must demonstrate much confidence in the possibilities of critical exegesis in order to propose reconstructions of original versions of some Q texts that were preserved in their original form, as it is argued, neither in Mt nor in Lk (for example, some fragments of the ‘great sermon’, of the woes against the Pharisees, and of the pericope of the lost sheep). 23

20

The higher the number of doublets that is detected in Mt and in Lk (Fleddermann lists 29 of them), the greater the extent of the overlap of Mk and Q that has to be postulated in addition to the basic Q theory. The argument from doublets both corroborates and undermines therefore the classical hypothesis of the existence of Q, which is traditionally defined as a source of material that is shared by Mt and Lk but absent in Mk. It should be also noted that the hypothesis of direct literary dependence between Mk and Q overlap seriously undermines the logical basis of the entire Q theory: cf. A. Lindemann, ‘Studien zur Logienquelle und zum lukanischen Doppelwerk: Einleitung’, in id., Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte: Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte (WUNT 241; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 157-163 (esp. 160).

21

Cf. H. T. Fleddermann, Q, 54-60; id., ‘The Doublets in Luke’, EThL 84 (2008) 409-444 (esp. 418-444); pace e.g. C. M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1996), 11.

22

In fact, the hypothesis of direct literary dependence of Mt on Lk or vice versa calls into question the logical construction of the entire Q theory: cf. A. Lindemann, ‘Einleitung’, 160.

23

Cf. H. T. Fleddermann, Q, 60-65.

28

The fifth argument for the existence of Q is based on the assumed internal coherence of the reconstructed Q source. It is argued that all the passages of the double Mt-Lk tradition form together a literarily and theologically coherent work. 24 According to Q theorists, the Q source consisted mainly of speeches and dialogues. 25 It is usually reconstructed as including unifying literary devices (for example, parallelisms, catchwords, and overall literary structure and genre) 26 and having a distinct theological profile (centred on, for example, the motifs of the Son of Man and of the kingdom of God, and on the interplay of motifs of prophecy, wisdom, and suffering). 27 As it is evident to every New Testament scholar, none of these formal and thematic elements is peculiar to the double Mt-Lk tradition. Consequently, reconstructions of Q as a coherent literary document that expressed a set of distinctive theological ideas vary considerably among Q theorists. Accordingly, the argument from internal coherence of Q, although it is regarded by numerous scholars as very important for reconstructions of the history of early Christianity, 28 is probably the weakest one in the debate over the existence of a distinct source of the double Mt-Lk tradition.

24

Cf. ibid. 65-67.

25

There are only a few pericopes that are included by the Q theorists in the reconstructed Q source and have a narrative form, which at times, e.g. in the case of the pericope of the centurion’s servant (Mt 8:5-13 par. Lk 7:1-10), considerably differs from the form of the main part of the reconstructed Q material.

26

The argument from literary cohesion of Q is in reality highly questionable for it is usually argued that the fragments of Q were often broken, displaced, shortened, and expanded by both Matthew and Luke with the effect that only rarely uninterrupted passages from Q that are longer than 2-3 sentences may be traced in the canonical Gospels. The existence of literary links between isolated, dispersed, and displaced Q fragments functions therefore as both premise and outcome of various reconstructions of Q as a literarily coherent document.

27

As it is admitted by, for example, C. M. Tuckett, Q and the History, 38-39, the argument from theological distinctiveness of Q is evidently highly debatable for it has to be based on subtractive elimination of theological ideas that are characteristic of the canonical evangelists (especially for Matthew and Luke) from all ideas that may be traced in the double Mt-Lk tradition. Even if, in theory, such a procedure might leave a remnant constituting a ‘Q theology’, its adoption in practice is highly debatable, as it follows from the similar, still unresolved question of identification of pre-Markan material in the Gospel of Mark or of pre-Lukan material in the Gospel of Luke. Detailed theological preferences of the evangelists, on the level of their detailed literary decisions, are evidently still unclear to modern scholars.

28

Cf. e.g. D. Lührmann, ‘The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q’, JBL 108 (1989) 51-71 (esp. 62-71).

29

The hypothesis of the existence of a large Gospel-like literary source, which was for some reasons very early lost, is therefore based in fact on two arguments: from the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy and from internal coherence of the double Mt-Lk tradition. Both of them, however, are in reality quite weak. No wonder that the Q theory developed into a number of particular forms. Although the assumption of the existence of Q is nowadays accepted by the majority of scholars as the most convenient hypothesis that explains more problems and creates fewer difficulties than others do, it remains only a hypothesis that is in fact hard to prove conclusively. 1.2.1.2 Modern proponents of the Q hypothesis H. Schürmann It is characteristic of the older generation of NT scholars that, after many decades of wide use of the Q hypothesis in the research on the Synoptic Gospels, they often regarded the assumption of the existence of Q simply as a methodological axiom. 29 This is true also in the case also of a renowned German scholar Heinz Schürmann who by the end of his scholarly career still referred to the Q hypothesis as an “enough justified presumption”. 30 Schürmann’s research on Q in the 1980s was focused on reconstructing stages of redaction of the Q source. In his article concerning the gospel sayings that were directed against ‘this generation’ (Mt 23:1-39 par. Lk 11:37-54), the German scholar detected four pre-Gospel compositional forms (Kompositionsformen): (a) primary sayings (Grundworte) that might be ascribed to the authentic vox Jesu, (b) sayings units (Sprucheinheiten), (c) early compositions (frühe Kompositionen), and (d) the final redaction of the speeches source (Endredaktion der Redenquelle). 31 A few years later, Schürmann presented a yet more detailed formal classification of pre-Gospel compositions, which ranged from primary sayings, through paired sayings, saying groups, structured compo29

For a bibliography of scholarly investigations concerning the Q hypothesis that were carried out between 1950 and 1995, see F. Neirynck, J. Verheyden, and R. Corstjens, The Gospel of Matthew, 365*-420*.

30

H. Schürmann, ‘Die Redekomposition wider “dieses Geschlecht” und seine Führung in der Redenquelle (vgl. Mt 23,1-39 par Lk 11,37-54): Bestand – Akoluthie – Kompositionsformen’, in SNTU.A 11 (1986) 33-81 (here: 33). Cf. also id., ‘QLk 11,14-36 kompositionsgeschichtlich gefragt’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 563-586 (esp. 565-566).

31

Id., ‘Redekomposition’, 65-79.

30

sitions, and dominical discourses, to the final form of the ‘Q-patterned’ composition. The German scholar admitted, however, that smaller and simpler forms of organization of gospel tradition might have been used also at later stages of redaction of the double Mt-Lk tradition (even in the redactional work of the evangelists). Consequently, any reconstruction of earlier stages of formation of the Gospels that would be based on formal research should be undertaken only with great caution. 32 It is significant that in the course of his minute diachronic analysis of the sayings Lk 11:39-44.46-52, which were regarded by Schürmann as belonging to Q, the scholar could not detect any signs of Lukan reworking of the final stage of the redaction of Q. According to the German scholar, the only difference between the hypothetical text of Q and the Lukan text of this fragment consisted in absence of three logia (Mt 23:2-3.12.15) that, according to Schürmann, had been omitted from Q by Luke. The scholar honestly admitted, however, that the latter thesis was only his suspicion (Verdacht), which was not necessarily espoused by other scholars. 33 The final text of Q 11:39-44.46-52 was therefore, according to Schürmann, in fact identical with the text of Lk 11:39-44.46-52. However, the reasons for this striking correspondence were never adequately explained by the German scholar. H. Koester Helmut Koester began his studies on the synoptic tradition under the tutorage of Rudolf Bultmann. The influence of the master of modern exegesis on the young scholar was so great that at the beginning of his scholarly career, which was devoted mainly to the study of extracanonical Christian writings, Koester took the idea of the existence of Q, which was espoused by Bultmann, simply for granted. 34 In his later research, Koester, together with James M. Robinson, postulated the existence of small collections of Jesus’ sayings that were partly used in the 32

Schürmann made a very important distinction between forms of composition (Kompositionsformen) and stages of composition (Kompositionsstufen) of the gospel material: id., ‘Zur Kompositionsgeschichte der Logienquelle’, in Der Treue Gottes trauen: Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas, Festschrift G. Schneider, ed. C. Bussmann and W. Radl (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1991), 325-342 (here: 330 and 339 n. 104).

33

Id., ‘Redekomposition’, 37 n. 17; 39 nn. 22, 24.

34

“Hierbei wird die Gültigkeit der synoptischen Zweiquellentheorie vorausgesetzt, daß nämlich Mt. und Luk. neben Mk. noch die sogenannte Spruchquelle Q benutzt haben”: H. Köster, Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern (TU 65; Akademie Verlag: Berlin 1957), 3.

31

Gospel of Thomas, in Q, and in later post-apostolic literature (e.g. in 1 Clem. 13). In the opinion of the German scholar, Q represented the western, Syrian (Antiochene) branch of the more widespread literary genre of ‘Logoi Sophōn’, which was more faithfully preserved in the eastern (Edessan) branch, namely in the Gospel of Thomas. 35 Koester argued that Q had been composed on the basis of a yet earlier, Gnosticizing ‘Gospel’ work, which lacked the apocalyptic expectation of the Son of Man and was known to Paul (cf. 1 Cor 2:9) and to the author of the Gospel of Thomas (cf. Gos. Thom. 17). 36 In his more recent studies, Koester argues that the version of the Q material that was preserved in the Gospel of Thomas may (a) prove that some sayings that were preserved exclusively in Mt or in Lk belonged originally to Q; (b) prove relative originality of the Matthean or of the Lukan version of a given saying; and (c) help to determine the extent of the early, namely sapiential and eschatological, stratum of Q (esp. Q 6:20b-44; 11:27-12:56), as distinct from the later, apocalyptic one, which was not known to the author of the Gospel of Thomas. 37 The historical-social setting (Sitz im Leben) of the earlier stage of Q that presented Jesus as the eschatological prophet should be traced, according to Koester, in the first years after the death of Jesus, in Palestine or in the diaspora, in Greek-speaking communities that were not yet affected by the Pauline mission. The later stage of Q, which focused on the figure of the Son of Man, should be traced in western Syria or in Palestine that was characterized by an apocalyptic ferment before the Jewish War 38 or after the end of that war. 39 35

H. Koester, ‘ΓΝΩΜΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity’, HTR 58 (1965) 279-318 (esp. 298) [also in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Fortress: Philadelphia 1971), 114-157 (esp.135-136)].

36

Id., ‘One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels’, HTR 61 (1968) 203-247 (esp. 230) [also in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories, 158-204 (esp. 186)].

37

It is worth noting that in his assigning the eschatological and the prophetic material to the earlier stratum of Q, Koester notably differs from John S. Kloppenborg. See H. Koester, ‘The Sayings of Q and Their Image of Jesus’, in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical, Festschrift T. Baarda, ed. W. L. Petersen, J. S. Vos, and H. J. de Jonge (NovTSup 89; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1997), 137-154 (esp. 145-154) [also in id., From Jesus to the Gospels: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context (Fortress: Minneapolis 2007), 251-263 (esp. 256-263)].

38

Id., Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (SCM: London and Trinity: Philadelphia, Pa. 1990), 134, 150, 165. Cf. id., ‘Q and Its Relatives’, in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings, Festschrift J. M. Robinson, ed. J. E. Goehring [et al.] (ForFasc 2; Polebridge: Sonoma, Calif. 1990), 49-63 (esp. 55-63).

39

Id., ‘The Synoptic Sayings Gospel Q in the Early Communities of Jesus’ Followers’, in Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols, Festschrift F. Bovon (BIS

32

According to Koester, the synoptic Sayings Source, which was redacted in this way, underwent probably yet another, pre-Matthean redaction, which was carried out by the author of the Sermon of the Mount before the Sayings Source was used by Matthew. 40 It is worth noting in this context that Koester treats the Matthean version of the double Mt-Lk tradition as essentially posterior to the Lukan one. F. Neirynck The Leuven school of research on the Synoptic Gospels is well known for its support for the Q hypothesis. For decades, Frans Neirynck was the main champion of the Q hypothesis in this academic centre. In a series of articles, this Flemish scholar argued for the insufficiency of other solutions to the synoptic problem and consequently for the acceptability of solely the Q hypothesis. 41 Neirynck’s significant contribution to the research on Q consists in his criticisms against recent attempts to ‘canonize’ the hypothetical Q source as an independent, fully reconstructable document that was parallel in its form, content, and theological significance to the canonical Gospels. The scholar opts for more modest evaluations of the proposed reconstructions of the Q source (which is, for example, called by him the ‘hypothetical source’ and not the ‘Sayings Gospel’) and for the use of more adequate terminology concerning Q (for example, the complete Lk-based reference system including parallels in Mt, instead of the parabiblical siglum ‘Q’). 42 Neirynck opts for a somewhat restricted version of the Q theory. He argues that the texts that display minor Mt-Lk agreements against Mk (especially Lk 3:2-4; 3:21-22; (6:12-16); 10:25-28; 12:1b; 17:2; 17:31 par.) are post-Markan and therefore should not be included in the body of the Q material. 43 Neirynck

66; Brill: Boston · Leiden 2003), 45-58 (esp. 58) [also in id., From Jesus to the Gospels, 72-83 (esp. 83)]. 40

Id., Ancient Christian Gospels, 167-171.

41

See the collections of Neirynck’s essays on the synoptic problem that were published between 1982 and 2000: F. Neirynck, Evangelica II: 1982-1991, ed. F. van Segbroeck (BEThL 99; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1991); id., Evangelica III: 19922000 (BEThL 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001).

42

Id., ‘The Reconstruction of Q and IQP / CritEd Parallels’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 53-147 (esp. 56-57).

43

Id., ‘The Minor Agreements and the Two-Source Theory’, in id., Evangelica II: 19821991, 3-42 (here: 40-41); id., ‘The Minor Agreements and Q’, in The Gospel Behind the

33

regards also Lk 3:7a; 4:1-2a; 4:16; 6:20a; 11:16; 13:30; 17:33 par. as texts that did not belong to Q. 44 The scholar suggests, moreover, that the so-called Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ and ‘Mark-Q overlaps’ were caused by the influence of Mk on the Lukan redaction (e.g. of Mk 9:50 on Lk 14:34 par. Mt 5:13b). 45 However, the intriguing phenomenon of post-Markan modifications shared by Mt and Lk, as well as of Markan influence on the double Mt-Lk tradition by means of Markan influence on the Lukan redaction, is left by the scholar without further explanation. J. M. Robinson James McConkey Robinson belongs without doubt to the scholars who shaped modern discussion on the hypothetical Q source in a decisive way. 46 From the beginning of his academic career, having taken the existence of Q for granted, 47 Robinson opted for understanding of Q as a document that had a distinct literary genre of a collection of sayings of a sage, which was similar to that of, for example, the Gospel of Thomas. According to Robinson, the precise reconstruction of Q and the study of history of its redaction are of crucial importance for Christian theology. The scholar argues that the oldest layer in the Q tradition consists of logoi that contained authentic sayings of the historical Jesus. 48 Robinson’s confidence in the possibility of adequate scholarly reconstruction of Q induced him to organize a team of about forty scholars (which was later called the International Q Project [see below]) who attempted to establish a Gospels. Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (NovTSup 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 49-72 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000, 245-266]. 44

Id., ‘Reconstruction of Q and IQP’, 71-92.

45

Id., ‘Literary Criticism, Old and New’, in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, ed. C. Focant (BEThL 110; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1993), 11-38 (esp. 30) [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000, 65-92 (esp. 85)]; cf. id., ‘Mark and Q: Assessment’, in H. T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts with an Assessment by F. Neirynck (BEThL 122; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1995), 261-307 (esp. 297-298) [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000, 505-545 (esp. 539-540)].

46

Robinson’s essays on Q that were published between 1964 and 2005 are conveniently collected in J. M. Robinson, The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays, ed. C. Heil and J. Verheyden (BEThL 189; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2005).

47

Id., A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (SBT 25; SCM: London 1959), 118-119 n. 1.

48

Id., ‘Theological Autobiography’, in The Craft of Religious Studies, ed. J. R. Stone (Macmillan: London and St. Martin’s: New York 1998), 117-150 (esp. 125, 139) [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 3-34 (esp. 10, 25)].

34

critical text of what Robinson used to call ‘the Sayings Gospel Q’. 49 The scholar introduced the practice of referring to the fragments of this reconstructed document simply with the use of the siglum ‘Q’ (so in a way similar to quoting extant biblical and parabiblical writings) instead of traditional referring to the double Mt-Lk tradition by means of giving references to the places in Mt or in Lk with the corresponding parallels. 50 This practice was later adopted by almost all scholars who work on Q. In a series of articles published during the last twenty-five years, Robinson argued that Q had been redacted in several stages: from isolated sayings that may be ascribed to Jesus, through small clusters of his sayings, to a document whose final edition took place in Galilee by the time of the fall of Jerusalem (c. AD 70). According to Robinson, the oldest layer of Q, which was roughly comparable to the Sermon on the Mount supplemented with the instructions on prayer and faith (Q 6:20-49; 11:2b-4; 11:9-13; 12:22b-31), 51 consisted of sayings in which Jesus, as the ‘son of humanity’, claimed for himself no specific Christological title and perceived himself as a mere agent of God’s dynamic kingdom. Consequently, inasmuch as the eschatological role of the historical Jesus may be tentatively reconstructed on the basis of this oldest layer of Q, this role was limited to his appearing as a witness at God’s final judgement or, more probably, to his mere saying what a person should do in order to be acquitted. “For him, this was really enough.” 52 It was always God’s Wisdom (Sophia), and

49

It is worth noting that, on the other hand, Robinson argued that any reconstruction of the text of Q might be impossible from the methodological point of view because of the textual fluidity of the New Testament writings in the last quarter of the first century: id., ‘Textual Criticism, Q, and The Gospel of Thomas’, in Text and Community, Festschrift B. M. Metzger, ed. J. H. Ellens, vol. 1 (NTM 19; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2007), 922 (esp. 19).

50

Id., ‘The Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Work Sheets for the Reconstructions of Q’, in SBL.SP 22 (1983) 451-454 (esp. 451).

51

Id., ‘The Critical Edition of Q and the Study of Jesus’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 27-52 (esp. 44-45) [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 663-688 (esp. 680-681)].

52

Id., ‘Theological Autobiography’, 145 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 30-31]. Cf. also id., ‘Jesus’ Theology in the Sayings Gospel Q’, in Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions and Symbols, Festschrift F. Bovon, ed. D. H. Warren, A. G. Brock, and D. W. Pao (BIS 66; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2003), 25-43 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 689-709].

35

not Jesus or John the Baptist or some anonymous early Christian prophets, that stood at the centre of Q sayings. 53 According to Robinson, the reconstructed literary work, which was called by him the ‘Sayings Gospel Q’, was a product of a Jewish Christian movement, which originated from a group of Jesus’ poor, Galilean, ‘Nazarene’ followers and developed into the Matthean community in Antioch. 54 The scholar argues that this movement was merely hinted at, in passing, by Luke in Acts. Robinson fails to explain, however, why Luke would decide to leave such an important group totally outside the scope of his seemingly ‘antiquarian’ Church history, especially if, as Robinson argues, the Sayings Gospel Q indeed “survived in the gentile church’s gospels of Matthew and Luke”. 55 Robinson tries to solve this problem by claiming that the Q movement was rejected after AD 70 by mainline Gentile Christianity as the heresy of Ebionites. 56 On the other hand, the scholar theorizes that the Q movement died out naturally because of the enormous height of its idealistic demands, which were imposed by the historical Jesus (and consequently also by Q) on his followers. 57 It is therefore evident that the question of the place of the hypothetical Q community in the history of early Christianity, and consequently of the plausible Sitz im Leben of the hypothetical Q document, is one of the fundamental unresolved issues in Robinson’s theory of Q. J. Lambrecht The Flemish scholar Jan Lambrecht examined in his doctoral dissertation the redaction of the synoptic apocalypse Mk 13 par. Lk 21. Lambrecht argued that in the process of his redaction of the eschatological sermon, Mark had used five earlier fragments (called by Lambrecht ‘sources’) that were present in Qmk and that were known to Mark in a version different from that used by Luke (Qlk) but 53

Id., ‘The Sayings of Jesus: Q’, DrewG 54 (1983) 26-37 (esp. 31) [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 177-192 (esp. 184)].

54

Id., ‘Theological Autobiography’, 142-143 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 28-29].

55

Id., The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of the Original Good News (HarperCollins: New York 2005), 19. It is regrettable that Robinson’s presentation of the ideas and theology of Acts, especially of its treatment of Judaism and Jewish Christianity, is in fact very simplistic.

56

Id., ‘The Sayings of Jesus: Q’, 31 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 184]. Cf. id., The Gospel of Jesus, 18-19.

57

Id., ‘The Image of Jesus in Q’, in Jesus Then and Now: Images of Jesus in History and Christology, ed. M. Meyer and C. Hughes (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 7-25 (esp. 17) [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 645-662 (esp. 662)].

36

more similar to the one used by Matthew (Qmt). Consequently, they were probably dependent on a form common to Qmk and Qmt, which was called by Lambrecht Qrev. 58 It is worth noting that Lambrecht did not methodologically presuppose the influence of Q on the triple tradition, although he took for granted the existence of the independent double Mt-Lk tradition (Q) as one of the material sources of the synoptic logia. 59 In his book devoted to Jesus’ programmatic sermon (Maar Ik zeg u), Lambrecht reconstructed the extent and the structure of the Q ‘great sermon’ as resembling those of the Lukan Sermon on the Plain (but without the Lukan pericopes of: the woes, the blind guide, and the master and the disciple) and as divided into three main parts: proclamation (cf. Lk 6:20b-23), admonitions (cf. Lk 6:29-31.27-28.35c.32-33.36.37-42), and exhortation to act (cf. Lk 6:43-45. 46-49). 60 In his later research, with the use of the same methodological axioms, Lambrecht argued for Markan probable dependence on Q in the following sections of the triple tradition: Mk 1:1-15 parr.; 3:20-35 parr.; 12:28-34 parr.; 13:11-13 parr.; 13:32-37. 61 The scholar claimed that Q, in its final stage, was not a pure

58

J. Lambrecht, ‘Redactio Sermonis Eschatologici’, VD 43 (1965) 278-287; id., ‘Die Logia-Quellen von Markus 13’, Bib 47 (1966) 321-360; id., Die Redaktion der MarkusApokalypse: Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung (AnBib 28; Päpstliches Bibelinstitut: Rom 1967), esp. 256-259.

59

Id., Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse, 5 n. 1; cf. also ibid. 77-79. For Lambrecht’s later research on Q and Mk that was carried out with the use of the same set of axioms, see e.g. id., ‘Redaction and Theology in Mk., IV’, in L’Évangile selon Marc: Tradition et redaction, ed. M. Sabbe (BEThL 34; 2nd edn., Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1988 [first pub. 1974]), 269-308 (esp. 285-297); id., ‘Jesus and the Law: An Investigation of Mk 7, 1-23’, EThL 53 (1977) 24-79 (esp. 27-31); id., ‘Q-Influence on Mark 8,34-9,1’, in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus – The Sayings of Jesus, Festschrift J. Coppens, ed. J. Delobel (BEThL 59; Peeters and Leuven University: Leuven 1982), 277-304 (esp. 277-278).

60

Id., Maar Ik zeg u: De programmatische rede van Jezus (Mt. 5-7; Lc. 6, 20-49) (Vlaamse Bijbelstichting and Acco: Leuven 1983), esp. 42, 234-243.

61

Id., ‘John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark 1,1-15: Markan Redaction of Q?’, NTS 38 (1992) 357-384 [also in Understanding What One Reads: New Testament Essays, ed. V. Koperski (ANL 46; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2003), 14-42]; id., ‘The Great Commandment Pericope and Q’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (NovTSup 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 7396 [also in Understanding What One Reads, ed. V. Koperski, 80-101]; id., ‘A Compositional Study of Mark 3,20-35’, in Understanding What One Reads, ed. V. Koperski, 43-59; id., ‘Literary Craftsmanship in Mark 13:32-37’, in SNTU.A 32 (2007) 21-35; id., ‘The Line of Thought in Mark 13,9-13’, in «Il Verbo di Dio è vivo», Festschrift A. Van-

37

‘sayings source’ but was on the way to become a story of events, which, in its incipient biographical character, may have influenced Mark in his invention of the ‘Gospel’ literary genre. 62 As a result of his studies on Markan dependence on Q, Lambrecht came to believe that the wording of Q should be reconstructed not only with the use of Mt and Lk but also with the use of Mk, namely on the basis of agreements of any two Synoptic Gospels against one: Mt and Lk against Mk, Mk and Mt against Lk, and Mk and Lk against Mt. 63 Besides, Lambrecht argues that Q may be at times reconstructed on the basis of the wording of even one Synoptic Gospel against the two others. 64 The scholar understandably does not develop his hypothesis further. Evidently, with Lambrecht’s set of axioms, namely that Q was used by Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Q may be reconstructed on the basis of agreements of not only two or one but also of all three Synoptic Gospels, and consequently it may be equivalent to an extensive protogospel. 65 F. G. Downing F. Gerald Downing is a British scholar whose main area of research covers the study of Cynicism as a background to the so-called ‘Jesus movement’ and to the New Testament writings. 66 Downing argued in his numerous works that Q, whose existence the scholar assumed but did not simply take for granted, 67 had a number of points of contact with Cynic ideology, especially in its summons to hoye, ed. J. E. A. Chiu [et al.] (AnBib 165; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 2007), 111-121. 62

Id., ‘John the Baptist’, 384 [also in Understanding What One Reads, ed. V. Koperski, 41].

63

Id., ‘A Note on Mark 8.38 and Q 12.8-9’, JSNT 85 (2002) 117-125 (esp. 121-122) [also in Understanding What One Reads, ed. V. Koperski, 60-67 (esp. 64)].

64

Ibid.

65

For some reasons, which have not been explicitly stated, Lambrecht treats this counterargument, raised by e.g. Ismo Dunderberg, as “unfair” and “not logical!” [exclamation mark J. L.]: J. Lambrecht, ‘Scandal and Salt: Is Mark Dependent on Q in 9,42-50?’, in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Festschrift A. Fuchs, ed. C. Niemand (Linzer Philosophisch-Theologische Beiträge 7; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002), 223-234 (here: 232) [also in Understanding What One Reads, ed. V. Koperski, 68-79 (here: 77-78)].

66

See e.g. F. G. Downing, Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition (JSOT Manuals 4; JSOT: Sheffield 1988); id., Cynics and Christian Origins (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1992) (esp. 1-168).

67

Id., ‘Towards the Rehabilitation of Q’, NTS 11 (1964-1965) 169-181.

38

live without anxiety, to entrust all human concerns into God’s hands, to live freely and without worries, and to shun wealth as the greatest threat to human happiness. On the other hand, according to Downing, Q differed from Cynic writings in that it showed much interest in eschatology and a more than passing concern for healings, exorcisms, and some elements of Christology. 68 On the other hand, Downing insisted that it was especially Matthew who had effectively made Jesus “look more, rather than in a way less Cynic”. 69 In this context, it should be noted that the particular ‘Cynic-like’ ideas of the double Mt-Lk tradition focus in fact on great trust in God’s providence and fatherly care. This theme, however, is common to both Lk and Mt. Accordingly, if it may be argued that Mt knew and used Lk, the assumed ‘Cynic’ features of the double Mt-Lk tradition may characterize in a particular way the material that Matthew decided to borrow from Luke. In his later works, Downing investigated not only the content but also the form of Q. The scholar argued that the literary genre of Q might be compared to that of ‘lives’ (bioi) of Cynic philosophers. 70 On the other hand, however, Downing argues for a generally intertextual character of the Mt-Lk ‘Q’ tradition against its primarily Jewish literary background. 71 Further research on the particular character of the intertextual features of the double Mt-Lk tradition is evidently needed. P. Hoffmann A distinguished German scholar Paul Hoffmann belongs to the generation of scholars who already at the beginning of their scholarly career simply took the existence of Q for granted. 72 Hoffmann’s research centred in its initial stage on reconstructions of the text and of the Sitz im Leben of the Q sayings. Hoffmann argued that Q had been composed earlier than Mk by a group of wandering charismatic-prophetic missionaries who worked in Palestine independently of 68

Id., ‘Cynics and Christians’, NTS 30 (1984) 584-593.

69

Id., ‘The Social Contexts of Jesus the Teacher: Construction or Reconstruction’, NTS 33 (1987) 439-451 (here: 447).

70

Id., ‘Quite Like Q: A Genre for “Q”: The “Lives” of Cynic Philosophers’, Bib 69 (1988) 196-225; id., ‘A Genre for Q and a Socio-Cultural Context for Q: Comparing Sets of Similarities with Sets of Differences’, JSNT 55 (1994) 3-26.

71

Id., ‘Psalms and the Baptist’, JSNT 29 (2006) 131-137 (esp. 136).

72

Cf. the opening sentence of Hoffman’s first book on Q: “Die folgende Untersuchung setzt die Zwei-Quellen-Theorie voraus”: P. Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTAbh, NF 8; Aschendorf: Münster 1972), 1.

39

Paul and probably earlier than Paul, and who presumably represented the earliest form of the Jesus movement. 73 In his more recent works, Hoffmann tries to reconstruct (notwithstanding the reservations expressed earlier by H. Schürmann) the stages of composition of the Q material with the use of the criterion of increasing formal complexity. The Catholic scholar argues for the existence of three main formative stages of the gospel tradition: (a) Jesus’ sayings, (b) reception of these sayings in the sayings source (Q), and finally (c) their reworking by Matthew and by Luke. 74 The Q stage corresponded, according to Hoffmann, to the second stage of the early Christian mission, which might be datable to c. AD 70, when, after a breach with Jewish Palestinian communities, the deuteronomistic redactors of the Q sayings issued an indictment against ‘this generation’. This indictment was formulated as proclaimed by the eschatological Son of Man and it boosted the identity of the Jesus movement in terms of ‘children of wisdom’ and ‘chosen recipients of the revelation of the Son’. 75 Investigation of this radical historical change of the Sitz im Leben of the early Christian mission is, according to the German scholar, much more important for the analysis of the form of Q than using purely formal models of ‘sapiential’ or ‘apocalyptic’ literature. 76 However, since the history of early Christianity may be reliably reconstructed only on the basis of an adequate multifaceted analysis of early Christian writings, the procedure proposed by Hoffmann is tantamount to explaining unknown by unknown. D. R. Catchpole David R. Catchpole is a British scholar for whom, at the beginning of his scholarly career, the Q hypothesis was simply a commonly accepted methodological 73

Ibid. 331-334.

74

See e.g. id., ‘Jesu “Verbot des Sorgens” und seine Nachgeschichte in der synoptischen Überlieferung’, in Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im frühen Christentum, Festschrift W. Marxsen, ed. D. A. Koch [et al.] (Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh 1989), 116-141 [also in id., Tradition und Situation: Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung in der Logienquelle und den synoptischen Evangelien (NTAbh, NF 28; Aschendorf: Münster 1995), 107-134].

75

Id., ‘QR und der Menschensohn: Eine vorläufige Skizze’, in The Four Gospels, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 421-456 (here: 455-456) [also in id., Tradition und Situation, 243-278 (here: 277-278)].

76

Id., ‘Mutmassungen über Q: Zum Problem der literarischen Genese von Q’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 255-288 (esp. 277-278).

40

axiom. 77 Later, however, Catchpole realized that the existence of Q has to be critically proved. The scholar analysed therefore, in a series of articles, numerous individual passages usually attributed to Q, in order to demonstrate that the Two-Source hypothesis offers the best solution to the synoptic problem. 78 Having analysed sixteen passages that belong to the double Mt-Lk tradition, Catchpole’s argues that in all of them the Matthean version of the text cannot be considered simply original. On the other hand, there are also instances in which traces of Lukan redaction of an earlier tradition are discernible, and consequently the existence of an earlier body of common pre-Mt-Lk tradition has to be postulated. 79 Catchpole argues further, on the grounds of his analyses of other ‘Q’ texts, that the body of the generally neither Matthean nor Lukan double MtLk tradition formed originally a single document (Q), which was known to and modified by Mark. 80 In the scholar’s opinion, Q included early traditions that stemmed from Jesus himself and that were later expanded by an editor of Q with the use of material that was partially authentic and partially inauthentic. 81 According to Catchpole, the distinctive ideas of the Q source include (a) prophetic framework of the Christian proclamation, (b) importance of Is 61:1-2 as a hermeneutic key to understanding Jesus’ activities, (c) remaining of the movement within the broadly understood community of Israel, (d) conformity to Jewish halacha, (e) need of forgiveness and reconciliation, (f) preoccupation with the mission to Israel, (g) hope for renewal and wholeness of the people of God, (h) delay of the coming of the Kingdom, (i) socio-economic need and corresponding trust in God’s providence, (j) disturbing activity of non-Christian charismatic prophets, (k) commitment to the Jewish law and to the Jerusalem Temple notwithstanding the conviction that Jerusalem and the Temple will be abandoned by God, and (l) giving witness to the power of Jesus’ word. 82 As it 77

Cf. e.g. D. R. Catchpole, ‘The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 64)’, NTS 17 (1970-1971) 213-226 (esp. 218); id., ‘The Son of Man’s Search for Faith (Luke xviii 8b)’, NovT 19 (1977) 81-104 (esp. 82-87).

78

The articles on Q written by D. R. Catchpole between 1981 and 1993 are conveniently collected, supplemented, and revised in his book: id., The Quest For Q (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1993).

79

Ibid. 7-59 (esp. 58-59). It should be noted, however, that Catchpole insists mainly (against Michael Goulder) that Lk cannot be regarded as a reworking of Mt. Catchpole’s arguments against Matthean dependence on Lk are in fact much more tenuous.

80

Ibid. 75-78.

81

Ibid. 188.

82

Ibid. 77, 133, 149-150, 188, 198, 217, 228, 255, 277-279, 308. Cf. also id., ‘Q’s Thesis and Paul’s Antithesis. A Study of 2 Corinthians 5,16’, in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Festschrift A. Fuchs, ed. C. Niemand (Linzer Philosophisch-

41

may be easily noticed, a thorough investigation of the evidently close relationship of this set of allegedly ‘Q’ ideas to the ideas of Lk-Acts would be very interesting. D. Zeller Dieter Zeller is one of the scholars who show much interest in form-critical analyses of the material that belongs to the double Mt-Lk tradition. As it was characteristic of the older generation of scholars, in his first book on the synoptic tradition, Zeller never discussed the premises of the Q theory but treated it simply as a methodological axiom. 83 This initial simplistic methodological approach changed in Zeller’s short but influential commentary on the Q source. 84 The very idea of writing a commentary on a merely hypothetical source in a series of popular commentaries on the books of the Bible was perceived in 1984 by the Catholic German editor of the book as undoubtedly controversial but on the other hand fully justified methodologically and theologically. 85 Zeller himself admitted that the so-called ‘Two-Source’ theory was only a scholarly hypothesis. Accordingly, he justified this hypothesis to the readers with the use of a set of arguments: from the synoptic doublets; from the verbal agreement; and from the literary genre of Q as that of a ‘sayings collection’, which was widely used in ancient literature. Zeller argued also for the existence of four main stages of formation of the Q tradition: (a) Jesus’ preaching, which had been taken over by his disciples; (b) post-Easter missionary expansion of the tradition, with more stress placed on the idea of a threat of judgement; (c) catechetical etc. reworking of the material in early Christian communities; and finally (d) translation into Greek and written redaction of the collected traditions. 86 Accordingly, Zeller reconstructed various modifications of the early traditions in their changing Sitze im Leben and argued for a distinct theological profile of the sayings source within early Christianity. Nevertheless, he admitted that a precise historical-geographical identification of

Theologische Beiträge 7; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002), 347-366 (esp. 347). 83

Cf. D. Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern (FzB 17; Echter: Würzburg 1977), 51.

84

Id., Kommentar zur Logienquelle (SKK.NT 21; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 1984).

85

Ibid. 9-10.

86

Ibid. 11-14.

42

the Q communities, especially in their relationship to the Jerusalem Church, was for him alas not possible. 87 In the last decade, Zeller returned to this evidently weak point of his theory and tried to reconstruct a plausible Sitz im Leben of the final redaction of the Q material. The scholar conjectures that Q was redacted somewhere in the north of Palestine or possibly in Syria after the breach with mainstream Israel by the regathered Christian communities that continued to live on a threshold: having broken relationships with historical Israel, they did not develop any idea of a theologically justified Gentile mission.88 Having modified his earlier formcritical opinion, Zeller argues also that it is impossible to classify the reconstructed Q material into any known literary genre. According to the scholar, Q was a mixture of texts that could not be even vaguely called “a collection of words of an important man with an impact” for it contained sayings not only of Jesus but also of John the Baptist. 89 The precise contours of Q and of the corresponding hypothetical Q community are evidently difficult to reconstruct with the use of Zeller’s arguments. A. Denaux The Flemish scholar Adelbert Denaux also belongs to the generation of scholars who at the beginning of their academic career simply presupposed the Q hypothesis as a well-established scholarly axiom. 90 Subsequently, however, Denaux insisted that, from the methodological point of view, even if synchronic analyses of the Gospels may be carried out without any diachronic research, synchronic studies on Q (of its reconstructed strata, redaction, theology, etc.) have to be necessarily preceded by an advanced literary-critical procedure of reconstruction of this hypothetical document. Denaux argued that such a reconstructing procedure has to consist in (a) identifying Matthean and Lukan

87

“Die Suche nach besonderen Trägerkreisen verliert sich also im Dunkel der Frühgeschichte des Christentums”: ibid. 98.

88

Id., ‘Jesus, Q, und die Zukunft Israels’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 351-369 (esp. 367-368).

89

Id., ‘Eine weisheitliche Grundschrift in der Logienquelle?’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 389-401 (here: 401).

90

A. Denaux, ‘L’hypocrisie des Pharisiens et le dessein de Dieu: Analyse de Lc., XIII, 3133’, in L’Évangile de Luc: Problèmes littéraires et théologiques, Festschrift L. Cerfaux, ed. F. Neirynck (BEThL 32; Duculot: Gembloux 1973), 245-285 (esp. 246 n. 3).

43

redactional peculiarities in the double Mt-Lk tradition and on this basis (b) reconstructing the wording of Q, which had preceded both Mt and Lk. 91 In his important review article that was published in 1995, Denaux returned to the issue of adequate criteria for identifying Q-passages. 92 The scholar insisted that the criterion of high verbal agreement, even if it is presumably the most important one, should be modified in such a way that it might refer not only to the same corresponding grammatical form of a word in the respective Gospels. Moreover, it should be used together with other criteria: (a) of sequence (of words, sentences, and pericopes); (b) of connection with the immediate context; and (c) of thematic coherence. Moreover, Denaux rightly stressed that more weight in the synoptic studies should be given to the analyses of redactional activities of the evangelists. They were, according to the scholar, both faithful to the tradition and considerably creative in their literary work. 93 The latter observation, taken together with Denaux’s earlier cautionary note concerning the possibility of reconstruction of the wording of Q, 94 means, however, that a comprehensive reconstruction of the wording of the hypothetical Mt-Lk source may be, at least in numerous passages, very debatable if not entirely impossible. 95 U. Luz Ulrich Luz is one of the most known exponents of the hypothesis of the existence of Q in at least two parallel versions: QMt and QLk. The Swiss scholar argues that the procedure of reconstructing a common source of the double Mt-Lk tradition by means of subtracting Matthean and Lukan probable amendments to their source or sources results at times (especially in the Sermon on the Plain) not in a common ‘Q’ text but in two considerably differing versions of Q. In addition to that, Luz notes a fundamental methodological problem, namely that any reconstruction of Q is heavily conditioned by a more or less adequately 91

Id., ‘Der Spruch von den zwei Wegen im Rahmen des Epilogs der Bergpredigt’, in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus – The Sayings of Jesus, Festschrift J. Coppens, ed. J. Delobel (BEThL 59; Peeters and Leuven University: Leuven 1982), 305-335 (esp. 330).

92

Id., ‘Criteria for Identifying Q-Passages: A Critical Review of a Recent Work by T. Bergemann’, NovT 37 (1995) 105-129.

93

Ibid. 116-117.

94

“Wenn dann beide Fassungen redaktionelle Eigentümlichkeiten aufzeigen, ist es schwer bzw. unmöglich, den Wortlaut der Q-Fassung zu rekonstruieren”: id., ‘Spruch’, 330.

95

Cf. id., ‘The Parable of the Talents/Pounds (Q 19,12-27): A Reconstruction of the Q Text’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 429-460.

44

shaped idea of the characteristic features of the redactional activity of the evangelists. 96 According to Luz, Q was a collection of traditions that was redacted in several stages: from smaller isolated collections (for example, the Sermon on the Plain), through a common written version of Q that was similar in its extent and wording to QMt, to the considerably expanded version of QLk. The final redaction of Q took the material form of a larger notebook that was bound with cords on its one side so that it was always possible to insert some new sheets. 97 In the last decade, Luz scrutinized the criteria that are used for attributing various texts to the Q source. The scholar argues that, from the logical point of view, there are three basic criteria for attribution of a given fragment of the double Mt-Lk tradition to Q: (a) agreement in wording higher than explicable by the hypothesis of common dependence on oral tradition; (b) similar placing of a given fragment in the Matthean and in the Lukan order of the double Mt-Lk tradition; and (c) clear contextual placing of the fragment in a macrotext, i.e. in a larger block of the reconstructed Q material. According to Luz, who notes that at times the first, or the second, or both the first and the second criteria are not fulfilled by several important texts that are commonly attributed to Q (for example, by the Sermon on the Plain Q 6:20-49 and the woes Q 11:39-52), the third criterion has to be considered decisive. Consequently, with the use of this ‘macrotextual’ criterion, the scholar reconstructs the basic extent of Q as comprising the material that is shared by Lk and Mt, and that is gathered in large collections: Lk 3:1-17; 4:1-13; 6:20-7:35; 9:57-10:16; 11:2-12:59; 13:18-35; 17:16.20-37. Luz excludes from Q the fragments Lk 14:16-24; 15:3-7; 19:11-27; 22:28-30 par. and expresses doubts over the attribution of Lk 14:15-27.34-35; 16:13-18 par. to Q. 98 The scholar fails to explain, however, the cause of high verbal Mt-Lk agreement in certain logia that were excluded by him from Q or only hesitantly attributed to it (e.g. Lk 16:13; 22:30b par.).

96

U. Luz, ‘Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Reconstruction of QMt and QLk’, in SBL.SP 22 (1983) 473-479 (esp. 473).

97

Id., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 1, Mt 1-7 (EKK 1/1; 5th edn., Benzinger: Düsseldorf [et al.] and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002), 48.

98

Id., ‘Matthäus und Q’, in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien, Festschrift P. Hoffmann, ed. R. Hoppe and U. Busse (BZNW 93; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998), 201-215 (esp. 201-204); id., ‘Le regard de Matthieu sur la source Q’, in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): Aux origines du Christianisme, ed. A. Dettwiler and D. Marguerat (MoBi 62; Labor et fides: Genève 2008), 255-273 (esp. 258-259).

45

P. Vassiliadis Petros Vassiliadis [Βασιλειάδης] has become probably the first Orthodox scholar who decided to join the debate on the Q source. In a series of important articles, Vassiliadis argued in favour of (a) fixed written form of the single QDocument, (b) Greek as the original language of the Q-Document, (c) originality of Luke’s order of the Q material, (d) Luke’s generally more faithful rendering of the wording of the Q-Document, (e) possibility of common omission of some sayings from the Q-Document by both Matthew and Luke, (f) coherent basic structure of the Q-Document, and (g) formal ending of each of the sections of the Q-Document. 99 The scholar’s important contribution to the Q debate was his establishing of the set of seven criteria for identification of the Q material. On the basis of these criteria, Vassiliadis ascribed to Q (a) portions of the double Mt-Lk tradition characterized by high verbal agreement (at least in their sayings matter), (b) extensive discourses in Lk that have some counterpart in Mt, (c) parallels to Mk in the double Mt-Lk tradition, (d) Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk, (e) portions of the double Mt-Lk tradition that differ in Mt and in Lk but fit well the original (i.e. Lukan) order of Q sections, and (f) some parts of the special Matthean and Lukan material that seem to fit well the rest of the QDocument. 100 The Greek scholar failed to notice, however, that his set of criteria identifies not only the extent of the hypothetical Q-Document but also, in a surprisingly similar way, the extent of the Lukan material that had been borrowed and reworked by Matthew if Mt was literarily dependent on Lk. In his more recent works, Vassiliadis develops an idea of a Eucharistic (liturgical) structure of the Q-Document. On the basis of comparison of the reconstructed Q-Document with the liturgical celebration that was described by Justin (1 Apol. 65), Vassiliadis argues that (a) the Mt-Lk sections that contain Jesus’ teaching and a response to Jesus’ teaching (Q 6:20-9:62) correspond to the early Christian Liturgy of the Word; and (b) the sections referring to Jesus and his disciples (Q 10:2-11:13), in which Jesus’ thanksgiving to the Father (Q 10:21-22) precedes the Lord’s prayer (Q 11:2-4), correspond to the Eucharistic Liturgy proper. The scholar known for his clarification of the methodological criteria used in the Q research understandably admits that there is not enough evidence for such a liturgical structure of Q. Nevertheless, he argues that possible links “between the most eschatologically oriented document of the N.T. tradition (Q) 99

See esp. P. Vassiliadis, ‘The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document’, NovT 20 (1978) 49-73 [also in id., ΛΟΓΟΙ ΙΗΣΟΥ: Studies in Q (University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 8; Scholars: Atlanta, Ga. 1999), 39-59].

100 Ibid. 66-67 [also in id., ΛΟΓΟΙ ΙΗΣΟΥ, 53-54].

46

and the most eschatological act of the Christian community (Eucharist)” are worth being taken into consideration.101 Vassiliadis points to the fact that scholarly reconstructions of the Sitz im Leben of the Q-Document should not be based on mere analyses of early Christian texts; they have to include due consideration of the Eucharistic, communal, and eschatological experience of early Christians, which preceded Christian formative texts and which led to their formation. 102 Such an understanding of the Q-Document leads Vassiliadis to the conclusion that Q represented a strand of early Christianity that was not Pauline but parallel to Paul and to the canonical Gospels, and that ended up (via the Letter of James, the Didache, and the Gospel of Thomas) in marginal, non-Orthodox, Gnostic Christianity. 103 However, the precise relationship between Q and the Pauline-synoptic tradition is left unexplained by the Greek scholar. P. M. Casey The British scholar P. Maurice Casey is well known worldwide for his studies on Aramaic sources of New Testament traditions. Like numerous other scholars of his generation, from the beginnings of his scholarly career, Casey simply presupposed the existence of Q as one of the two oldest sources of the synoptic tradition. 104 In his early works, Casey argued mainly that there had been twelve authentic Aramaic Jesus’ sayings that might be traced behind the later Greek Son of Man sayings that were included in Mk (e.g. Mk 14:21a), Q (e.g. Mt 8:20//Lk 9:58), and Lk (Lk 22:48). According to Casey, these original sayings 101 Id., ‘Eucharist and Q’, Scholarly Annual of the Department of Theology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 6 (1996) 111-130 [also in id., ΛΟΓΟΙ ΙΗΣΟΥ, 117-129 (esp. 128-129)]; id., ‘Πηγή λογίων και Ευχαριστία’, ΔΒΜ 23 (2005) 33-51. The term ‘eschatological’ has to be understood here in the sense it has in the Eastern theological tradition. 102 Id., ‘Pauline Theology, the Origins of Christianity and the Challenge of Q: The Cynic Hypothesis’, in Atti del V simposio di Tarso su S. Paolo Apostolo, ed. L. Padovese (Turchia: la Chiesa e la sua storia 12; Pontificia Università Antoniano: Roma 1998), 4160 (esp. 57-58) [reworked in id., ‘The Challenge of Q: The Cynic Hypothesis’, in id., ΛΟΓΟΙ ΙΗΣΟΥ, 141-152 (esp. 151-152)]. 103 Id., ‘Paul’s Theologica Crucis as an Intermediate Stage of the Trajectory from Q to Mark’, in Atti del VII simposio di Tarso su S. Paolo Apostolo, ed. L. Padovese (Turchia: la Chiesa e la sua storia 16; Pontificia Università Antoniano: Roma 2002), 47-55 (esp. 53); id., ‘The Eucharist as an Inclusive and Unifying Element in the New Testament Ecclesiology’, in Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament: Dritte europäische orthodoxwestliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg 24.-31. August 2005, ed. A. A. Alexeev [et al.] (WUNT 218; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 121-145 (esp. 142-143). 104 P. M. Casey, ‘The Son of Man Problem’, ZNW 67 (1976) 147-154 (esp. 153).

47

were later developed in the Greek traditions of both Mk and Q (e.g. Mk 8:38 and Lk 12:9//Mt 10:33). In Casey’s view, at times also differing Matthean and Lukan versions of a given Son of Man saying (e.g. Mt 12:32a//Lk 12:10a) should be regarded as different Greek translations of the same reconstructed Aramaic original. 105 Consequently, according to the British scholar, “both Mark and Q contain a large quantity of authentic source material, much of which was written down in Aramaic by Jews long before the writing of the Gospels”. 106 These observations and further research led Casey to formulate a complex theory of Q, which considerably differs from its widely adopted counterpart (i.e. of Q as a single Greek document). The British scholar argues that at times (e.g. in Mt 11:2-19//Lk 7:18-35) Matthew and Luke edited the same Greek translation of an Aramaic source (and at the same time Luke did not edit Mt). At times (e.g. in Mt 23:23-26//Lk 11:39-51), they used two different Greek translations of the same Aramaic original, and at times (e.g. in Mt 12:22-32//Lk 11:14-23) the Aramaic version of their tradition differed from that of Mk (in this case, Mk 3:2031). Moreover, at times (e.g. in Lk 11:42) Luke himself misread the Aramaic source. Casey opts therefore for “a rather chaotic model” of Q that consisted of (a) a Greek Q that included the preaching of John the Baptist, (b) a Greek Q that included the Beelzebul controversy translated from Aramaic, (c) a Greek Q that ended with some passion material (cf. e.g. Mt 26:75//Lk 22:62) that is difficult to mark off clearly from the special Lukan material (which was based on authentic Aramaic sayings), (d) a Greek multi-Q that included some material that was never redacted in a common order and probably included sayings transmitted orally, and (e) an Aramaic Q that included the source material of Lk 11 and Mt 23. 107 Casey’s hypothesis is in effect indeed ‘chaotic’. On the other hand, it is quite interesting because it does not explain all the phenomena of the double Mt-Lk tradition with the use of a single literary model. However, Casey’s expla105 Ibid. 148-152. Cf. also id., Son of Man: The interpretation and influence of Daniel 7 (SPCK: London 1979), 228-237; id., ‘General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term “Son of Man” in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus’, JSNT 29 (1987) 21-56; id., ‘Idiom and Translation: Some Aspects of the Son of Man Problem’, NTS 41 (1995) 164-182 (esp. 177). 106 Id., From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology: The Edward Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birmingham, 1985-86 (James Clarke & Co.: Cambridge and Westminster/John Knox: Louisvile, Ky. 1991), 57; cf. also ibid. 148-150. 107 Id., An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (SNTS.MS 122; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2002), esp. 25-29, 74, 185-190. Cf. also id., The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (LNTS 343; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 168-199, 212-245, 270-272.

48

nation of the phenomenon of the common basic order of the double Mt-Lk tradition as resulting merely from Matthean and Lukan common but independent use of the Markan narrative framework 108 is evidently unsatisfactory. J. S. Kloppenborg John S. Kloppenborg is certainly one of the most active advocates of the Q theory. In his first major book on Q (The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections), 109 the Canadian scholar took the existence of Q for granted and focused his attention on the question of the genre of Q. He suggested interpreting the Q material not in categories of a collection of isolated sayings commonly attributed to Q but in categories of mid-size, topically coherent clusters of sayings that were placed together in a certain logical order. 110 On the basis of the analysis of eleven such clusters, Kloppenborg argued that five of them (Q 3:7-9.16-17; Q 7:1-10.18-23.24-26. [16:16]. 31-35; Q 11:14-26.2932.33-36.39-52; Q 12:39-40.42-46.49.51-53. [54-56]. 57-59; and Q 17:23.24.2630.34-35.37) had the general form of an announcement of judgement, whereas the other six (Q 6:20b-49; Q 9:57-62; 10:2-16.21-24; Q 11:2-4.9-13; Q 12:2-12; Q 12:22-34; Q 13:24-30.34-35; 14:16-24.26-27; 17:33; 14:34-35) displayed predominantly sapiential formal features. Arguing for importance of this basic genre distinction, Kloppenborg ascribed the latter group to the formative, sapiential stratum of Q that was composed in a written form and was later expanded by the addition of the former group of sayings (often framed as chriae) that were polemical against Israel. This complex composition was finally furnished with the addition of the temptation story, which provided legitimation for Q’s radical ethic and added a biographical dimension to the whole work. The substantial change of literary genre of the collection during the course of its redaction was interpreted by Kloppenborg as not violating the boundaries of different literary genres but as developing the dynamic potential contained in the ancient literary genre of sayings collection, which naturally evolved in the direction of chreia and bios. 111 What is noteworthy in Kloppenborg’s way of diachronic treatment of the hypothetical Q material is the adopted by him procedure of investigating the material not in the chronologically progressing order but in the reverse one, 108 Id., An Aramaic Approach to Q, 189. 109 J. S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (SAC; Fortress: Philadelphia 1987). 110 Ibid. 89-92. 111 Ibid. 317-327.

49

namely from the latest compositional stage to the earliest one. Kloppenborg strived to pay due attention to the collocation, function, and aporias caused by individual sayings and clusters of sayings in their respective contexts. 112 At a later stage of his research, the Canadian scholar explained that, according to him, the fundamental difference between both main strata of Q was that of rhetorical posture, namely the change from a hortatory and deliberative strategy in the formative stratum Q1 to an epideictic one in the secondary stratum Q2. 113 If, however, in Kloppenborg’s view, it is the difference between various rhetorical strategies that enables identification of various strata in Q, it may be asked whether, for example, the phenomenon of presence of fragments with different rhetorical stances in Acts also necessarily implies the existence of a number of distinct strata in the compositional history of that Christian work. The implications of the procedure that was established by Kloppenborg are likewise significant. The Canadian scholar understands the second stratum of Q material (predominantly apocalyptic in its form) as displaying ideological interests of a developed Christian community that, after the failure of the mission to Israel, used apocalyptic language to provide itself with a clear boundary definition. 114 On the other hand, having stressed the importance of the rhetorical approach to Q, Kloppenborg argues that the Sayings Gospel Q, although it was redacted probably within a decade from Jesus’ death, does not provide us with an immediate access to Jesus’ ipsissima vox. According to the Canadian scholar, one has to distinguish carefully between the words of the historical Jesus and their rhetorical presentation in Q (in terms of ‘invention’ and ‘arrangement’).115 Accordingly, in Kloppenborg’s view, it was the Gospel of Thomas that preserved, for example, Jesus’ parables in a much less reworked and hence pre-

112 Id., ‘The Sayings Gospel Q: Literary and Stratigraphic Problems’, in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. R. Uro (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65; Finish Exegetical Society: Helsinki and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1996), 1-66 (esp. 57). 113 Id., ‘The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus’, HTR 89 (1996) 307344 (esp. 336). It should be noted that at that time Kloppenborg understood epideictic strategy as consisting in “defending a particular view [ethos] of Jesus (and John and the Q people) and characterizing opponents in a negative way” (ibid.). A few years later, Kloppenborg more correctly defined this posture as ‘apologetic’: id., Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 2000), 204. 114 Id., ‘The Function of Apocalyptic Language in Q’, in SBL.SP 25 (1986) 224-235 (here: 234-235). 115 Id., ‘The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest’, 326-329.

50

sumably much more original form than Q, although the Gospel of Thomas was framed several decades later than Q. 116 Kloppenborg sees therefore no problem in describing the early Jesus movement, which was reflected literarily in Q1, in terms of a Cynic-like, ‘deviant’ way of life. 117 Nevertheless, the scholar insists that one cannot ascribe to the historical Jesus the ideas of, for example, predominantly futuristic eschatology or preaching repentance, even if they were indeed present in Q but only in its secondary and framing material. 118 A comprehensive presentation of Kloppenborg’s hypothesis may be found in his major book Excavating Q. 119 The scholar first presents in it a set of correlated arguments for the very existence of Q. He argues that since in the triple tradition both Mt and Lk often agree with Mk and only rarely agree in wording and never in order against Mk, the Markan Gospel has to be treated as occupying a medial position between Mt and Lk: either as the middle term between Mt and Lk, or as their source, or as a conflation of the two. In each case, Mt and Lk must have been be written independently of each other and their similarity to each other should be explained as resulting exclusively from their common literary dependence on the same source or sources. Since Mt and Lk considerably agree with each other in wording and order of their common material that has no parallel in Mk, but not in the way in which the double Mt-Lk tradition is combined with the Markan material, they must have been dependent, according to Kloppenborg, on a source (Q) that was different from Mk. 120 These arguments seem clear and logical. The Canadian scholar fails to note, however, that if Mt and Lk were literarily dependent on each other in some 116 Id., ‘Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (NovTSup 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 275-319 (esp. 318-319). Cf. also id., The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine (WUNT 195; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006) (esp. 351-352). 117 Id., ‘A Dog Among the Pigeons: The “Cynic Hypothesis” as a Theological Problem’, in From Quest to Q, Festschrift J. M. Robinson, ed. J. M. Asgeirsson, K. De Troyer, and M. V. Meyer (BEThL 146; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2000), 73-117 (esp. 115). 118 Id., ‘Discursive Practices in the Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 149-190 (esp. 189-190). 119 Id., Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 2000). 120 Ibid. 15-32. Cf. also id., Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus (Westminster John Knox: Louisville · London 2008), 2-40.

51

direction, then the later evangelist would not have to treat the other Gospel (Lk or Mt respectively) in the same way as he had treated Mk. If Mk was the oldest Gospel, then Matthew or Luke could have treated it more respectfully than the Gospel that was second in order (Lk or Mt respectively). In such a way, this later evangelist could have caused the observed difference between the two levels of agreement: of Mt and Lk with Mk, and of Mt with Lk against Mk. 121 In fact, no serious Q theorist assumes that Matthew and Luke used their sources (in this theory: Mk and Q) indiscriminately. 122 In the later parts of his book, Kloppenborg presents a more detailed description of the reconstructed Q source. He argues that the ‘Sayings Gospel Q’ was a single document, which was stylistically and to a lesser extent theologically coherent, and which was socially based within the scribal sector of the network of villages and towns of Galilee. In the scholar’s opinion, it was written in Greek in three compositional stages between the late 50s and early 70s AD, it included a small number of fragments that overlapped with Mk or that were preserved by only one of the evangelists, and it was generally conformed in its order to Luke’s sequence of material. 123 In the last few years, Kloppenborg returned to the analysis of the Letter of James and of the Didache, which are regarded by him as literary works that provide interesting parallels to the Q material. The scholar argues that James paraphrased and emulated Q with the result of his giving an independent testimony not only to the content of Q but also to the ways in which individual Q sayings were framed and deployed in the ‘Sayings Gospel Q’. 124 On the other hand, the 121 Cf. id., Excavating, 39, where this problem is formulated in the form of an unanswered question, and the possibility of Matthew’s use of Lk is not taken into consideration at all. Kloppenborg honestly admits, however, that all solutions of the synoptic problem that place Mk in the medial position are logically possible and that their real value depends on their capacity to explain plausibly the editorial procedures of the synoptists (ibid. 43). 122 Cf. ibid. 98-99. 123 Cf. ibid. 55-213, 403-408. 124 Id., ‘The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James’, in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, ed. J. Schlosser (BEThL 176; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2004), 93-141; id., ‘The Emulation of the Jesus Tradition on the Letter of James’, in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James, ed. R. L. Webb and J. S. Kloppenborg (LNTS 342; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 121150. In both these articles Kloppenborg compares the Letter of James with the text of Q that is simply taken by him from J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg (eds.), M. C. Moreland (managing ed.), The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas, (Hermeneia; Fortress: Philadelphia and Peeters: Leuven

52

scholar maintains that the compiler of Did. 1:3b-2:1 probably knew Lk but it is difficult to say whether his other source of tradition was Mt or Q. 125 In a recent article devoted to the phenomenon of variability of the level of agreement between Mt and Lk in the double Mt-Lk tradition, Kloppenborg rightly notes that the real problem that has to be explained are not in the instances of low Mt-Lk verbal agreement. It is rather the phenomenon of unusually, even anomalously [italics J.S.K.] high verbal agreement (reaching 85-98% of common wording, i.e. much higher than generally in the triple tradition) in many passages of the double Mt-Lk tradition that is quite surprising. 126 The scholar explains this phenomenon by pointing to examples of ‘wooden’ copying of important regulatory and instructional documents by ancient scribes. 127 However, all examples given by Kloppenborg are in fact instances of reproduction of one document in another one (i.e. of two documents correlated by a ‘parent and child’ relationship) and not of common use of the same document in two mutually independent works (correlated by a ‘siblings’ relationship). In this context, it is regrettable that, having made such important technical observations, Kloppenborg never takes into consideration the possibility that, as in all the examples that were quoted by him, the anomalously high verbal agreement in the double Mt-Lk tradition points to direct literary dependence of one of these Gospels on the other one. C. M. Tuckett Christopher M. Tuckett is one of the scholars who at the beginning of their academic career did not consider the existence of Q a universally accepted axiom. The British scholar began his studies on the synoptic problem from a critical 2000). Moreover, the scholar does not compare Jas with the texts of Mt and Lk as well, as he does it in the case of the Didache (see the following note for the bibliographical reference). In this way, Kloppenborg tacitly avoids investigating intertextual relationships among Jas, Lk, and Mt other than those envisaged by his version of the Q theory. 125 J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1’, in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu?, ed. H. van de Sandt (Royal Van Gorcum: Aachen and Fortress: Minneapolis 2005), 105-129 (esp. 129). Cf. also id., ‘Poverty and Piety in Matthew, James, and the Didache’, in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. H. van de Sandt and J. Zangenberg (SBL.SymS 45; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 201-232 (esp. 218). 126 Id., ‘Variation in the Reproduction of the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?’, EThL 83 (2007) 53-80 (esp. 63). 127 Ibid. 74-77.

53

evaluation of other solutions to this highly debated issue. 128 Consequently, his own version of the Q hypothesis is relatively self-critical and equilibrated. Tuckett is one of the researchers who attach much weight to the reconstruction of a distinct theological profile of the Q source. In a collection of his essays that were commonly reworked and published in 1996 under the title Q and the History of Early Christianity, 129 Tuckett attempts to describe the theological profile of Q in a both minimalist and maximalist way. The scholar’s minimalist approach consists in discerning motifs or themes that may be considered distinctive of the Q tradition within the Gospels by means of a critical elimination of ideas that are characteristic of the extant New Testament writings from among all the ideas that are contained in the double Mt-Lk tradition. According to Tuckett, the minimal core of Q theology, which is reconstructed in this way, comprised a particular kind of ‘Wisdom Christology’, namely presentation of Jesus as “one of the prophets sent by Wisdom, all of whom suffer violence and rejection.” 130 The maximalist approach, according to Tuckett, consists in describing all theological themes that display even a high degree of continuity between the (reconstructed) theology of Q and the theologies of both Mt and Lk. As such, these themes are possibly not peculiar to Q. Nevertheless, such an aggregation of particular theological motifs that are contained in the double Mt-Lk tradition may convince many, according to Tuckett, that a theological profile of the reconstructed Q material may be built up.131 Accordingly, Tuckett proposes a set of theological themes that, with greater or lesser probability, might be ascribed to the ‘Q theology’: (a) John the Baptist’s opening the new era of ‘kingdom of God’; (b) futuristic eschatology; (c) polemic but also hope in confrontation with the ‘present generation’; (d) Christology of the ‘eschatological prophet’ (against the background of Is 61:1-2) who was sent by Wisdom but was violently rejected like other prophets; (e) ‘Son of Man’ as someone suffering but vindicated 128 C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal (SNTS.MS 44; Cambridge University: Cambridge [et al.] 1983). 129 Id., Q and the History of Early Christianity (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1996). 130 Ibid. 38. 131 Ibid. 39. It is evident that the ‘maximalist’ reconstructive procedure is highly questionable from the methodological point of view. The argument from theological distinctiveness is, after all, one of the few valid arguments for the very existence of Q. If therefore one fails to demonstrate that a given idea is peculiar to Q, how can one attribute it to a ‘theological profile of Q’ without falling into the trap of petitio principii? The ‘maximalist’ procedure adopted by Tuckett may be compared to building the Pauline theology on the basis of the entire Corpus Paulinum, without making an adequate distinction between the proto-Pauline and various types of deutero- and post-Pauline writings.

54

by God; (f) failure of the intended audience to repent; (g) sapiential traditions overlaid by prophetic and eschatological elements; (h) itinerant but joyful lifestyle of the Christian preachers; (i) strongly ‘conservative’ attitude to the law especially in its Pharisaic formulation; and (j) tension and even hostility in confrontation with the actual Pharisaic movement, but on the other hand also a desire not to be separated from the Jewish contemporaries. 132 Tuckett’s views on the extent, content, and history of redaction of Q are quite ‘conservative’. Tuckett accepts the possibility of some Mk-Q overlaps, which might include some of the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk, but, on the other hand, he argues for mutual independence of Mk and Q. 133 The British scholar, in opposition to many other Q theorists, argues against considering the Gospel of Thomas an independent witness to the Q material. 134 In Tuckett’s view, one may safely assume only that Q was a document that was written in Greek, somewhere in Galilee or Syria, within a relatively broad time span between c. AD 40-70, with the use of some earlier material, and in a form resembling more a prophetic than a sapiential collection. 135 Accordingly, the scholar is quite reluctant to reconstruct with more precision the fragments of Q that were allegedly preserved by only one of the evangelists, the hypothetical differing versions of Q (i.e. Qmt and Qlk), and various redactional strata of the formation of Q (Q1, Q2, Q3, etc.). 136 In the last decade, Tuckett attempted to describe the reconstructed Q theology in a more detailed way. He notes that the use of the Scripture in the material that is attributed to Q was mainly allusive and only rarely explicit. 137 The scholar argues also that Q’s Christology of Jesus as the Son of Man was not built on using this term as a title. In Tuckett’s view, this formula did not serve to 132 Ibid. 107-450. It should be noted that Tuckett often compares these ideas with those characteristic of Mk and Mt but only rarely with those of Lk. Accordingly, the obvious similarities of Tuckett’s ‘Q theology’ with the theology of Luke are left unexplained in fact by the British scholar. 133 Id., Revival, 61-93. 134 Id., ‘Thomas and the Synoptics’, NovT 30 (1988) 132-157; id., ‘Das Thomasevangelium und die synoptischen Evangelien’, BThZ 12 (1995) 186-200. 135 Id., Q and the History, 73-75, 83-92, 100-103, 325-354. 136 Ibid. 52-82, 92-100. Cf. also id., ‘Q and the Historical Jesus’, in Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung, ed. J. Schröter and R. Brucker (BZNW 114; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 213-241. 137 Id., ‘Scripture and Q’, in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. id. (BEThL 131; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1997), 3-26. Cf. also id., ‘Isaiah in Q’, in Isaiah in the New Testament, ed. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel; T&T Clark: London · New York 2005), 51-61.

55

distinguish Jesus from his followers but to describe him as enabling others to follow him and to share in his own position: both in his suffering and in his final messianic triumph. 138 Tuckett stresses also the importance of miracles, especially of making the blind see, curing the lame, cleansing the lepers, and raising the dead (Q 7:22), for the reconstructed theology of Q. 139 All these identified by Tuckett, hypothetical theological features of Q are quite similar, however, to the theological ideas of Luke. Nevertheless, Tuckett insists that the theology of Q is distinguishable from that of Lk-Acts. According to the British scholar, the ideas that were characteristic of Q and were adopted by Luke but not developed in Lk-Acts include the use of the formula ‘Son of Man’, 140 the concept of Jesus as one of the Wisdom’s prophetic envoys, 141 the use of Is 61:1-2, 142 and the idea of Jesus as a prophet. 143 However, in order to 138 Id., ‘Q 22:28-30’, in Christology, Controversy and Community, Festschrift D. R. Catchpole, ed. D. G. Horrell and C. M. Tuckett (NovTSup 99; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2000), 99-116 (esp. 114-116). Cf. also id., ‘The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 371-394 (esp. 374-392); id., ‘The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Inclusive Aspects of Early Christologies’, in Christian Origins: Worship, Belief and Society: The Milltown Institute and the Irish Biblical Association Millennium Conference, ed. K. J. O’Mahony (JSNTSup 241; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2003), 164-190 (esp. 171-182). 139 Id., ‘The Disciples and the Messianic Secret in Mark’, in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, Festschrift H. Räisänen, ed. I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni (NovTSup 103; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 131-149 (esp. 137). 140 Tuckett did not take into due consideration, alas, the use of the formula ‘Son of Man’ in Acts 7:56. 141 It is regrettable that Tuckett did not take into consideration both the explicit recurrent use of the combination of ideas of Wisdom, Spirit, prophecy, suffering, and imitating Jesus as the Son of Man in Acts 6:3-7:60, and the particular narrative reworking of this set of ideas in the portrayals of Peter and Paul in Acts. 142 Cf., however, the use of Is 61:1-2 in Lk 4:18-19 and in Acts 10:38. It is evident that not only the use of Is 61:1-2a (conflated with Is 58:6 to obtain a more adapted sense) in LkActs but also further study of the peculiarly Lukan, i.e. not only quotational and allusive but also narrative use of the categories and ideas of the Spirit, the Anointed One, announcement of good news, release from captivity, recovery from blindness, liberation of the oppressed, proclamation of the ‘year’ of the Lord’s favour, etc., is certainly needed. 143 The occurrence of this idea in Lk 4:24; 7:16; 13:33; Acts 3:22; 7:37 has also not been taken into due consideration by the British scholar. Cf. id., ‘The Christology of LukeActs’, in The Unity of Luke-Acts, ed. J. Verheyden (BEThL 142; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1999), 133-164 (esp. 142-147). Cf. also id., Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers (Edinburgh University: Edinburgh 2001), 191-201.

56

have a more critical perspective on this issue, Tuckett should have compared the degree of Lukan development of this set of ideas not only with that of the Q source (which is reconstructed by the scholar precisely by means of theological comparisons) but also with the theologies of, at least, Paul, Mark, and Matthew. J. Schlosser Jacques Schlosser’s investigations of the synoptic problem are based on a simple presupposition of the existence of Q. 144 They centre mainly on reconstructions of difficult Q passages, on the relationship between Mk and Q, and on the theological profile of Q. 145 Schlosser argues that in some instances (e.g. in Mk 11:25 parr.) the Markan text displays features of dependence on Q. 146 The scholar stresses also the importance of the Christological dimension of Q. In his view, it was not restricted to the explicit use of the so-called Christological titles, but it was often expressed in an indirect, implicit way, by means of presenting Jesus as, for example, the one sent by God/Wisdom, the one bringing the decisive message, and the eschatological divine agent in action. 147 On the other hand, Schlosser argues that Q’s Christology was consciously inserted, especially by means of the frag-

144 Cf. J. Schlosser, Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus (ÉtB, NS; Gabalda: Paris 1980), 43. 145 Cf. e.g. id., ‘Lk 17,2 und die Logienquelle’, in SNTU.A 8 (1983) 70-78; id., ‘Le logion de Mt 10,28 par. Lc 12,4-5’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 621-631; id., ‘La création dans la tradition des logia’, in Jésus de Nazareth: Nouvelles approches d’une énigme, ed. D. Marguerat, E. Norelli, and J. M. Poffet (MoBi 38; Labor et fides: Genève 1998), 321-354. A French version of Schlosser’s articles concerning Q has been published in id., À la recherche de la Parole: Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique (LeDiv 207; Cerf: Paris 2006), 179-354. I will refer here, however, to their original versions. 146 Id., ‘Mc 11, 25 : Tradition et rédaction’, in À cause de l’Évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes, Festschrift J. Dupont (LeDiv 123; Cerf: [s.l.] 1985), [vol. 1,] 277-301 (esp. 293-299). 147 Id., ‘L’utilisation des écritures dans la source Q’, in L’évangile exploré, Festschrift S. Légasse, ed. A. Marchadour (LeDiv 166; Cerf: Paris 1996), 123-146 (esp. 145-146); id., ‘Q 11,23 et la christologie’, in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien, Festschrift P. Hoffmann, ed. R. Hoppe and U. Busse (BZNW 93; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998), 217-224; id., ‘Q et la christologie implicite’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 289-316.

57

ment Q 4:1-13, into a broader theocentric scheme. 148 Once again, it may be asked what the relationship of this set of allegedly ‘Q’ ideas to the theology of Lk-Acts really was. H. T. Fleddermann Harry T. Fleddermann is undoubtedly one of the staunchest modern advocates of the Q hypothesis. In his early works, which were devoted, above all, to the analysis of the Gospel of Mark, the American scholar, having accepted the Q theory as a scholarly axiom, argued that Mk was literarily dependent on the Q material. 149 At a somewhat later stage of his scholarly career, Fleddermann joined James M. Robinson’s project of reconstruction of the Q document and analysed mainly the so-called ‘Mk-Q overlap’ passages. Fleddermann argued that (a) the Markan version of these texts was secondary to that of Q, 150 and (b) the version of the Gospel of Thomas was dependent on the redactional work of the later synoptists (Mt and Lk). 151 In his analyses, Fleddermann attempted also to reconstruct, at least partially, the theology of Q. The American scholar argued that the author or authors of Q (a) felt the impact of the delay of the Parousia, 152 (b) suggested reasons for this delay both on the individual level (by providing an opportunity to show fidelity to the absent Lord) and on the cosmic level (by allowing the hidden Kingdom to grow and to permeate the whole world), 153 (c) presented the Son of Man mainly as a future eschatological figure, 154 and (d) stressed the necessity of a present radical clinging to Jesus to the point of em-

148 Id., ‘Les tentations de Jésus et la cause de Dieu’, RevSR 76 (2002) 403-425. 149 H. T. Fleddermann, ‘The Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33-50)’, CBQ 43 (1981) 5775; id., ‘A Warning about the Scribes (Mark 12:37b-40)’, CBQ 44 (1982) 52-67. 150 Id., ‘John and the Coming One (Matt 3:11-12//Luke 3:16-17)’, SBL.SP 23 (1984) 377384. 151 Id., ‘The Cross and Discipleship in Q’, SBL.SP 27 (1988) 472-482 (esp. 480); id., ‘The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas’, SBL.SP 28 (1989) 216236 (esp. 225-230). 152 Id., ‘The Householder and the Servant Left in Charge’, SBL.SP 25 (1986) 17-26 (esp. 26). 153 Id., ‘The Mustard Seed and the Leaven’, 234. 154 Id., ‘The Q Saying on Confessing and Denying’, SBL.SP 26 (1987) 606-616 (esp. 614616).

58

bracing his homeless life 155 and his death on the cross 156 in order to share also in his eschatological triumph and in his judgement over recalcitrant Israel. 157 In his first book on Q, which was entitled Mark and Q, Fleddermann thoroughly investigated the problem of the so-called ‘Mk-Q overlap’ texts. 158 The scholar identified twenty-nine such ‘overlaps’ and came to the conclusion that in all of them the version Mk is secondary to that of Q. 159 According to the scholar, the signs of Markan reworking of Q include (a) elimination of Q exaggerations and softening of Q harsh demands, (b) making implicit Q points explicit, (c) emphasizing Christology, and (d) changing Q wording for more ambiguous in order to stretch the meaning to fit new situations. Fleddermann argues also that since Mark at times combined or clustered distinct Q sayings that were at times borrowed from various parts of Q, he must have used Q in the redactional form of a single written document. Moreover, according to the American scholar, Mark used only Q and no oral tradition in his redactional reworking of the ‘overlap’ texts. Since all redactional changes from the version of Q to that of Mk reflect typically Markan ideas, it was Mark and not a hypothetical pre-Markan redactor who made these changes. Markan redactional use of Q, according to Fleddermann, was quite free and included (a) toning down radicalness of Q statements, (b) abbreviating Q discourses, (c) splitting Q texts and using them in different contexts, and (d) conflating Q texts. 160 It is worth noting, however, that the latter two phenomena are, from the logical point of view, mutually opposed as concerns their implication for the relative priority or posteriority of Mk against Q. It is therefore regrettable that Fleddermann never clarified his criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of possible direct literary dependence of a given work on another one among the Synoptic Gospels. 161 155 Id., ‘The Demands of Discipleship Matt 8,19-22 par. Luke 9,57-62’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 541-561 (esp. 554). 156 Id., ‘The Cross and Discipleship in Q’, 482. 157 Id., ‘The End of Q’, SBL.SP 29 (1990) 1-10. 158 Id., Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts with an Assessment by F. Neirynck (BEThL 122; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1995), 1-260. 159 Ibid. 209. 160 Ibid. 209-216. Cf. id., ‘Mark’s Use of Q: The Beelzebul Controversy and the Cross Saying’, in Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and its Earliest Records, ed. M. Labahn and A. Schmidt (JSNTSup 214; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 17-33. 161 At times, the criteria used by Fleddermann are not very clear. Cf. e.g. “Evidence in one text of the redactional text of a second writing is the clearest proof that the first depends on the second”: id., Mark and Q, 212. Cf. also F. Neirynck’s methodological reservations concerning the results of Fleddermann’s use of his criteria: F. Neirynck, ‘Mark

59

Fleddermann’s research on Q was summarized and expanded in his major commentary on Q, which was published in the year 2005. 162 After a concise presentation of the history of the Q hypothesis and of five classical arguments in favour of the existence of Q (Mt-Lk verbal agreements, agreement in order, doublets, priority discrepancy, and internal coherence), which are in the scholar’s opinion “extremely powerful”, 163 Fleddermann discusses the problem of the extent of Q. He argues that (a) the whole Q has been preserved in Mt and Lk (i.e. no fragment of Q has been lost); (b) the whole content of Q has been preserved by both Matthew and Luke independently of each other (i.e. none of them omitted even one fragment of Q); (c) the structure of Q was coherent (i.e. Q had no structural gaps); (d) none of the co-called Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk belonged to Q (i.e. in all of them Matthew and Luke independently of each other modified the text of Mk precisely in the same way); and (e) Mk overlapped with Q in twenty-nine fragments, but in all these instances (which should be distinguished from the so-called Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’) Mark reworked Q with no use of any oral traditions. 164 Fleddermann’s theory is unbelievably simple and coherent. It develops the Q theory to its extremes. The scholar accepts all axioms of the Q theory. He performs sophisticated investigations of the internal structure of Q and of literary devices that were allegedly used in it (catchwords, concentric structures, gospel genre, etc.). He carries out detailed analyses of Mark’s, Matthew’s, and Luke’s macro-level, mid-level, and micro-level techniques of redactional use of Q. 165 The scholar argues that with the use of all these procedures he is able to reconstruct the full text of Q perceived as a single document that was written in one redactional stage, was composed in smooth Greek c. AD 75 as a Gentile Christian gospel, was intended to remedy the loss of the historical Jesus, and was characterized by high internal coherence on both the literary and the theological level. 166 and Q: Assessment’, 261-307, for example 277: “[…] One can agree that for all four sayings [in Mark 4:21-25] there are parallels in Q. But does it mean that Mark drew on Q?” 162 H. T. Fleddermann, Q. A Reconstruction and Commentary (Biblical Tools and Studies 1; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2005). 163 Ibid. 3-68 (here: 41). 164 Ibid. 69-77. 165 Ibid. 180-194. Cf. also Fleddermann’s articles ‘Mid-Level Techniques in Luke’s Redaction of Q’, EThL 79 (2003) 53-71; id., ‘Doublets’, (esp. 418-444), in which Fleddermann investigates Luke’s redactional procedures on the assumption that Q existed. 166 Id., Q, 79-180.

60

Is such a reconstruction reliable? If one fails to believe that both Matthew and Luke independently of each other and, moreover, in notable difference to their patterns of redactional use of Mk preserved the entire Q in all its fragments, one has to ask what is wrong here: the sophisticated reconstructive procedures that are applied by the American scholar or the axiomatic premises and the logical structure of the entire Q theory? R. A. Piper Ronald A. Piper is a British scholar whose study of the use of the aphoristic sayings in the double Mt-Lk tradition led him to the conclusion that neither Matthew nor Luke was responsible for creating the distinctive design of the argumentation that was employed in the Mt-Lk aphoristic collections (e.g. Lk 6:2736 par.; Mt 7:7-11 par.). Consequently, in the scholar’s opinion, the Mt-Lk aphoristic sayings must have preceded both Matthew and Luke, and they must have been known to both of them. 167 In the last decade, Piper further investigated the ‘instructive’ sayings contained in the double Mt-Lk tradition. He argued that it was impossible to trace a distinct apocalyptic stratum in this body of material. The scholar noted that even though the theme of material need and poverty was certainly prominent in the sayings attributed to Q, explicit references to ‘the destitute’ and ‘the rich’ were rare in the double Mt-Lk tradition. According to Piper, the double Mt-Lk tradition presented the ‘Q people’ as experiencing (especially at a later stage of their history) social ostracism and material destitution but nevertheless remaining attracted by the optimistic call to put aside their anxieties and to remain loyal to Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom by putting their trust in God’s fatherly care. 168 The same faithfulness to the historical Jesus, notwithstanding social opposition, was expressed, according to the scholar, in the ‘Q people’s’ persistence in exercising exorcistic activities. 169 Once more, a thorough comparison of this 167 R. A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus (SNTS.MS 61; Cambridge University: Cambridge [et al.] 1989) (esp. 195); id., ‘The Language of Violence and the Aphoristic Sayings in Q: A Study of Q 6:27-38’, in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg (Trinity International: Valley Forge, Pa. 1995), 53-72 (esp. 54-59). 168 Id., ‘Wealth, Poverty, and Subsistence in Q’, in From Quest to Q, Festschrift J. M. Robinson, ed. J. M. Asgeirsson, K. De Troyer, and M. V. Meyer (BEThL 146; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2000), 219-264 (esp. 251-264). 169 Id., ‘Jesus and the Conflict of Powers in Q: Two Miracle Stories’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 317-349.

61

set of allegedly ‘Q’ ideas with the ideas expressed in Lk-Acts would be very desirable. A. D. Jacobson It is significant that at the beginning of the 1980s not only British scholars but also a number of their American fellows could no longer take the existence of Q for granted and simply investigate it as it were an extant text. This feature is evident at least in the research of Arland D. Jacobson who felt obliged to present some arguments in favour of the Q hypothesis at the beginning of his first article on Q. 170 In Jacobson’s opinion, although Q was fairly coherent from the literary point of view, it comprised two major blocks of material that corresponded roughly to two redactional strata of Q. In his view, the earlier, apocalyptic stratum (comprising roughly the material of Lk 12:2 par. to 22:30 par.) was characterized by the expectation of an imminent coming of the Son of Man, and the later stratum (comprising roughly the first half to two-thirds of Q) was characterized by a deuteronomistic and sapiential theology. According to the American scholar, the radical theological change between the two strata was caused probably by a persecution or by the success of the mission to the Gentiles. 171 A fully developed presentation of Jacobson’s views on Q may be found in his book The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q. 172 The American scholar insists in this work that Q should be called ‘gospel’ and not merely ‘source’ because it dealt with Jesus and presented a coherent theological perspective in such a way that it was “capable of standing alone”. 173 Nevertheless, according to Jacobson, Q should be understood as a primarily Jewish, ‘pre-Christian’ work. 174 Jacobson further developed his literary-redactional model of the history of Q by claiming that Q in its final version comprised three major compositional units (‘sections’): Q 3:1-7:35; 9:57-10:22; 10:23-11:52, which were composed in at least two or three redactional stages. The last part of Q (12:2-22:30) dis170 As Jacobson rightly noted, “Q scholars […] have made little effort to defend the Two Document hypothesis which they presuppose”: id., ‘The Literary Unity of Q’, JBL 101 (1982) 365-389 (here: 365). 171 Ibid. 388-389. Cf. also id., ‘The History of the Composition of The Synoptic Sayings Source Q’, in SBL.SP 26 (1987) 285-294. 172 Id., The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Polebridge: Sonoma, Calif. 1992). 173 Ibid. 30. 174 Ibid. 32, 212.

62

played, in the scholar’s view, a considerably lower level of internal coherence. Taking the deuteronomistic stratum, which in Jacobson’s opinion was discernible in all compositional sections, as a diachronic stratigraphic benchmark, the scholar identified three main redactional strata (pre-deuteronomistic, deuteronomistic, and post-deuteronomistic) in the compositional units of Q. On the other hand, Jacobson insisted that only the deuteronomistic stratum of Q had its own distinctive features and that it constituted the most important compositional level of Q, which expressed Q’s main preoccupation with the failure of the mission to Israel. Jacobson assumed at the same time that the distinctive of Q combination of sapiential and deuteronomistic traditions was borrowed from earlier Jewish works (e.g. Prov 1:20-33). 175 The scholar argued, moreover, that the use of the deuteronomistic tradition in the New Testament outside Q was restricted to 1 Thes 2:14-16 and Acts 6-7.176 He failed to note, however, that the latter, Lukan text also combined deuteronomistic and sapiential motifs, and consequently that the distinctive, according to Jacobson, theological profile of Q in the New Testament may be interpreted as in fact PaulineLukan. In his most recent works, Jacobson argues that, from the sociological point of view, the Q group(s), having severed ties to their families, belonged to family-like communities that could together sustain a modest living. 177 Evident correspondence between this idea and the Lukan ecclesiology was also left unnoticed, alas, by the American scholar. D. C. Allison, Jr. Dale C. Allison, Jr. is an American scholar who began his scholarly career with, on the one hand, the presupposition of the existence of Q but, on the other hand, also with the awareness that the Q theory was not universally accepted by the scholars and that it needed a critical revision of some of its widely accepted corollaries. 178 Allison argued in his first article that Paul probably knew and parae175 Ibid. 77-259. 176 Ibid. 259-260. 177 Id., ‘Divided Families and Christian Origins’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (NovTSup 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 361-380 (esp. 379). Cf. id., ‘Jesus Against the Family: The Dissolution of Family Ties in the Gospel Tradition’, in From Quest to Q, Festschrift J. M. Robinson, ed. J. M. Asgeirsson, K. De Troyer, and M. V. Meyer (BEThL 146; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2000), 189-218 (esp. 190-202). 178 D. C. Allison, Jr., ‘The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels’, NTS 28 (1982) 1-32 (esp. 4, 12, 29 n. 86).

63

netically used in his letters the sources that lay behind Lk 6:27-38 par.; 12:39-40 par. (as well as Mk 6:6b-13 parr.) and that circulated as pieces of Jesus tradition before their incorporation into Q. 179 In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (which has been written by D. C. Allison together with W. D. Davies), the scholar accepted the Q hypothesis, having based his decision on the arguments from the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy and from disagreement of Mt and Lk in the placement of their common material within the Markan framework. Allison postulated the existence of Q as a written source that contained a sequence of at least four thematic blocks: (a) programmatic sermon, (b) missionary discourse, (c) anti-Pharisaic denunciations, and (d) eschatological prophecies and warnings. The scholar rightly noted that it was Matthew who evidently changed the basic Lukan order of the common Mt-Lk material, because it was Matthew who from Mt 15:14 on had Lukan parallels only after Lk 11:36. 180 Having noted the phenomenon of four doublets that are shared by Mt and Lk, Allison postulated some Mk-Q overlap without assuming, however, Markan literary dependence on Q. In order to explain the presence of non-redactional divergences in the double Mt-Lk tradition, the scholar argued also for some overlap between Q and the peculiarly Matthean source ‘M’, and for circulation of Q in at least two slightly different forms (Qmt and Qlk). The scholar was sceptical, however, about the possibility of reconstruction of the tradition history of Q. 181 Notwithstanding these earlier reservations, in his more recent book The Jesus Tradition in Q, Allison attempts to delineate the compositional history of Q. He argues that the earliest Q document (called by Allison Q1) (a) included Q 9:57-11:13; 12:2-32; and possibly also Q 22:28-30, (b) was redacted probably in Aramaic in the 30s AD as a work of instruction and encouragement for missionaries, and (c) identified Jesus simply as the Son (Q 10:21-24). At a later compositional stage (Q2), this missionary document was supplemented with general sapiential-eschatological words of counsel, which (a) were composed in Greek, (b) were contained in Q 12:33-22:30, and (c) presented Jesus as the coming Son of Man. The last, biographical redaction of the earlier material (Q3) consisted in adding Q 3:7-7:35 and inserting Q 11:14-52 (and possibly also Q 10:13-15), which contained polemical material that was characterized by an 179 Ibid. 18-21. Cf. the later reshaping of this idea in id., The Jesus Tradition in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 1997), 54-60, 86-87, 104-119. 180 This observation, which is alas not entirely correct (cf. Mt 21:31d-32 and Lk 7:27-30), obviously does not prove the Q hypothesis, for it may be explained also by the hypothesis of Matthean literary dependence on Lk. 181 W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1 (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988), 115-121.

64

apologetic interest in the Scriptures in the form of the Septuagint, as well as by a very rich Christology of Jesus as the eschatological figure and embodiment of the new Israel. This last redaction took place, according to Allison, in the 40s or 50s AD. 182 The American scholar argues that at none of these redactional stages there was a suitable place for including to Q, for example, the material concerning the Lord’s Supper or narratives concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection. In this context, Allison states that also traditions that are peculiar to Matthew (‘M’) and to Luke (‘L’) had nothing to say about Jesus’ death and resurrection. The scholar explains these intriguing phenomena by claiming that ‘Q’, ‘M’, and ‘L’ originated from communities that presupposed the standard Christian kerygma. For this reason, the full content of this kerygma had not been expressed in Q. 183 The latter argument is in fact very interesting. The American scholar compares the status of the material that is commonly attributed to Q with that of the material that was allegedly added by Luke and Matthew to the basic Gospel framework, which was borrowed form Mk. In effect, notwithstanding all the efforts to reconstruct Q as a separate Gospel-like document, its status may be in reality quite similar to that of the body of material that is usually called ‘L’, namely a set of pieces of material of various extent, which were inserted by Luke into the earlier, Markan gospel framework. Another Allison’s recent book, The Intertextual Jesus, is devoted to the use of Scripture in Q. 184 After a thorough investigation of the Q material, the American scholar came to the conclusion that the intertextual use of Scripture in Q was quite dense (c.50 references in c.230 verses). However, according to Allison, it is hard to say whether the Scripture that was used in Q represented the version of the Septuagint or rather that of the Masoretes. The scholar argues that although Q sometimes explicitly quoted Scripture or made explicit references to particular scriptural events, Q’s favourite manners of reference were oblique. They consisted in (a) drawing key words, phrases, themes, or images from wellknown texts of the Tanak; (b) using embedded quotations without acknowledgment; (c) recalling famous scriptural stories rather than prophetic or sapiential discourses; (d) imitating scriptural phrases and the archaic biblical language; and (e) drawing on running subtexts. According to Allison, the scriptural texts were often reworked in Q in a way that was conformed to contemporary Jewish exegetical practices, namely by (a) enlarging the original meaning, (b) producing typology, (c) turning the Scriptures into proof texts, (d) reversing scriptural 182 D. C. Allison, Jr., The Jesus Tradition in Q, 8-42, 52-54. 183 Ibid. 43-46. 184 Id., The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2000).

65

subtexts, and (e) presupposing conventional Jewish exegesis of various scriptural texts. 185 Allison noted in passing that at least some of the features of Q’s use of Scripture are characteristic also of Luke. 186 However, he failed to investigate this intriguing phenomenon further. 187 The International Q Project The International Q Project (IQP) was first set up during the 119th Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Dallas on 19-22 December 1983. During that meeting, a group of scholars who participated in the Q Seminar run by James M. Robinson decided to join their efforts to reconstruct the text of Q. It was assumed that this text underlay the material that is shared by Mt and Lk but not by Mk. 188 The international research project to establish a ‘critical text of Q’ was based at the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont in California. It was reconstituted in 1989 by the Research and Publications Committee of the Society of Biblical Literature as the ‘International Q Project’. The methodology of the whole project was devised by James M. Robinson already in the autumn of the year 1983. According to the scholar, the Q material ought to be identified in a double way. It ought to include these passages within the double Mt-Lk tradition in which the versions of Mt and Lk diverge from each other, but in which linguistic and theological traits of the evangelists are detectable so that the identification or reconstruction of the unaltered original of Q is possible. It ought to include also these passages in which Mt and Lk agree in wording, and hence, in Robinson’s view, “Q is extant” in them. These passages should give clues for building step by step the linguistic and theological 185 Ibid. 187-211. 186 Ibid. 211. 187 It is worth noting that, for example, in Allison’s article concerning the theme of the new exodus in Q, the explicit reference to this idea in the Lukan text Lk 9:31 has not been taken, alas, into consideration: id., ‘Q’s New Exodus and the Historical Jesus’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 395-428 (esp. 423). In Allison’s article on the Elijah tradition in the Lukan text Lk 9:52-56, there is only a passing reference to the continuation of the Elijah motif in the subsequent fragment Lk 9:59-62, which is attributed by Allison to Q: id., ‘Rejecting Violent Judgment: Luke 9:52-56 and Its Relatives’, JBL 121 (2002) 459-478 (esp. 459). 188 Cf. J. M. Robinson, ‘The Sermon on the Mount/Plain’, 451. Cf. also Robinson’s autobiographical description of the history of this project and of the methods used therein: J. M. Robinson, ‘Theological Autobiography’, 140-142 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 26-28].

66

traits of Q, which should help identify or reconstruct also in other texts a version typical of Q. 189 Robinson believed that this kind of reconstructive procedure was justifiable and practicable, provided that scholars would work together in an international team. However, he did not take into consideration two important facts. First, the instances of high verbal agreement between two written texts do not necessarily prove the existence of a source that was common to them, as all textual critics very well know. Second, in spite of the ongoing research on the linguistic and theological traits of the evangelists, it is still very difficult to reconstruct on that basis any hypothetical pre-Gospel sources, which the evangelists might have used in their literary work (e.g. pre-Markan sources, ‘M’, and ‘L’). It is worth noting here that, according to Robinson, the scholarly reconstructed text of Q with its critical apparatus should never be considered completed or final but it should always remain open for improvement and revisions. Nevertheless, he intended to publish the new textus receptus of Q and to make it widely available to the public in translations, so that Q would not have to continue “such a ghostlike existence in our world”. 190 Other important axioms of the IQP were explicitly formulated, alas, not at the beginning of the project but almost two decades later. They include (a) assumption of literary independence of Mk and Q; (b) ruling out of any kind of mutual literary dependence of Mt and Lk; (c) rejection of hypotheses of Protoand Deutero-Mk; (d) taking into consideration the Gospel of Thomas for the reconstruction of Q; (e) assumption that Q had a distinct theological profile; (f) assumption that there was most probably only one final version of Q (and not, for example, QMt and QLk); and (g) interest in the reconstruction of only the final (‘Q-manuscript’) version of Q and not of its possible earlier redactional stages. 191 The existence of these initially concealed axioms heavily conditions the outcome of the IQP. For example, the scholars who participate in the project generally do not report the arguments of the scholars who hold synoptic theories other than the classical Two-Source theory in the databases of arguments (Documenta Q) that concern such important issues as, for example, the presence of individual fragments of the double Mt-Lk tradition in the hypothetical Q source. 192 189 Id., ‘The Sayings of Jesus: Q’, 35-36 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 190]. 190 Ibid. 36 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q, 191]. 191 C. Heil, ‘Die Q-Rekonstruktion des Internationalen Q-Projekts: Einführung in Methodik und Resultate’, NovT 43 (2001) 128-143 (esp. 134-137). 192 For this axiomatic rule, see R. A. Derrenbacker and J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Self-Contradiction in the IQP? A Reply to Michael Goulder’, JBL 120 (2001) 57-76 (here: 59): “This

67

The International Q Project seemed a very promising endeavour and consequently it soon attracted many scholars from the whole world. In the year 1989, John S. Kloppenborg from Toronto joined James M. Robinson from Claremont in California to constitute the co-chairmanship of the project. 193 In 2000, the total number of the members of the IQP reached forty-seven. 194 The International Q Project adopted a strict research and editorial procedure. Scholars were organized in teams working on selected pericopes. For each pericope, one of the members “collected and sorted the scholarly literature and wrote a first Evaluation. Then one or more other members responded with their own Evaluations. All this was distributed in advance of a project meeting so that the resultant divergences could be discussed and resolved at such a session.” 195 Textual decisions were taken by vote. The results of the work sessions of the IQP, in form of a critical Greek text accompanied by its English translation, were published yearly in the autumn issues of the Journal of Biblical Literature in the years 1990-1995 and 1997. 196 In agreement with the first assumptions that were made for the whole project, this ‘first draft’ of the ‘critical edition of Q’ was not considered final. After the first stage of the work, the IQP was restructured to work with two new main

database consists of the arguments that have been advanced by scholars in favor of one or other reconstruction of Q.” Somewhat later in the text of the article, its authors claim, however, that the database records “arguments and statistical data pertinent to the reconstruction of Q”, and that “the aim of the database, rather, is to be as comprehensive and fair as possible in reporting all arguments on all sides and thus provide a fair account of the state of question” (ibid. 59-60). Accordingly, the suggested “all arguments on all sides”, which are “pertinent to the reconstruction of Q”, are in fact limited to those “in favor of one or other reconstruction of Q.” Even if it is argued that there is no contradiction between these declared aims of the Documenta Q database, it is very doubtful whether such an axiomatically limited presentation of arguments does in fact “provide a fair account of the state of question.” 193 At subsequent stages, Paul Hoffmann from Bamberg in Germany, Christoph Heil from Graz in Austria, and Joseph Verheyden from Leuven in Belgium joined the board of General Editors of the Documenta Q series, which was aimed at publishing the results of the work of the IQP. 194 See the list of members of the IQP in J. M. Robinson et al. (eds.), The Critical Edition of Q, xvii. 195 S. Carruth and A. Garsky, Q 11:2b-4, vol. ed. S. D. Anderson (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1996), vii. 196 See JBL 109 (1990) 499-501; 110 (1991) 494-498; 111 (1992) 500-508; 112 (1993) 500-506; 113 (1994) 495-499; 114 (1995) 475-485; 116 (1997) 521-525.

68

aims: (a) to revise, update, edit, and publish the databases of the IQP; and (b) to revise and publish the critical text of Q. 197 The outcome of the first direction of the still ongoing work of the IQP is published from 1996 onward in the volumes of the Documenta Q series under the managing direction of (initially): Stanley D. Anderson, Sterling G. Bjorndahl, Shawn Carruth, and Christoph Heil. These volumes present analytical reconstructions of isolated fragments of Q, which are accompanied by databases of scholarly comments on these fragments (which were published from 1838 to the present) and by mutually corrective evaluations of the plausibility of (a) attribution of a given fragment, sentence, phrase, or word to Q; and (b) its particular placement within Q. 198 The whole series, which is planned for 31-32 volumes, was intended to come out at the rate of about four volumes a year; 199 consequently, it was intended to be published in its entirety by the year 2004. Until the year 2009, however, only eight volumes (which refer to Q 4:1-13.16; 6:20-21; 7:1-10; 11:2b-4; 12:8-12; 12:33-34; 12:49-59; 22:28.30) have been published. 200 Nevertheless, the series is still presented by its editors as aimed at becoming “a standard tool to facilitate all Q research of the future”. 201 Another major work of the IQP, namely The Critical Edition of Q, which was published in 2000, is the result of the second direction of work. 202 The 197 M. C. Moreland and J. M. Robinson, ‘The International Q Project: Work Sessions 23-27 May, 22-26 August, 17-18 November 1994’, JBL 114 (1995) 475-485 (esp. 475). 198 Cf. C. Heil, ‘Die Q-Rekonstruktion’, 138-140. 199 M. C. Moreland and J. M. Robinson, ‘The International Q Project: Editorial Board Meetings 1-10 June, 16 November 1995, 16-23 August, 22 November 1996; Work Sessions 17 November 1995, 23 November 1996’, JBL 116 (1997) 521-525 (esp. 521). 200 In the year 2009, the most recent of the published volumes was S. R. Johnson, Q 12:3334: Storing up Treasures in Heaven, vol. ed. id. (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2007). The publication of the next volume (concerning Q 6:37-42, vol. ed. L. E. Youngquist et al.) is planned for the year 2010. 201 Ibid. viii. 202 J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg (eds.), M. C. Moreland (managing ed.), The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas, (Hermeneia; Fortress: Philadelphia and Peeters: Leuven 2000). An abbreviated and simplified version of this work has been published as: J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg (eds.), M. C. Moreland (managing ed.), The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels form the Gospels of Mark and Thomas (Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Sterling, Va. 2001). French, German, and Spanish editions of the latter work have also been published.

69

reconstructed and presented in this volume ‘critical text of Q’, which is accompanied by its English, German, and French translations and by a Greek Concordance of Q, has been ‘established’ by the three co-chairpersons of the IQP, namely James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, ‘presupposing’ the work of the IQP. 203 According to the editors, the Greek text of Q that has been published in The Critical Edition of Q has a size of 3,519 words (excluding at least 400 occurrences of the Greek definite article) and includes a total vocabulary of some 760 words. 204 It differs, however, in a considerable number of cases from the previous text of the IQP that was published a few years earlier in the Journal of Biblical Literature. 205 This fact casts serious doubts both on the methodological validity of the assumptions of the entire project and on the real value of its results. Nevertheless, The Critical Edition of Q is uncritically used by numerous scholars and students as the ‘established’ textual basis for their historical and theological research on the earliest stages of Christianity. 206 L. E. Vaage Leif E. Vaage’s research on Q is characterized by two main factors. On the one hand, the Canadian scholar, who studied at the Claremont Graduate School under the tutelage of James M. Robinson and joined the International Q Project, attempts to offer his own reconstructions of the text of Q, while he simply presupposes its existence. 207 On the other hand, from the beginnings of his scholarly career, Vaage showed remarkable interest in reconstructing the Sitz im Leben of Q. The scholar argued, in general agreement with John S. Kloppenborg, that in its formative stage, which had been reflected, for example, in the Q 203 Cf. J. M. Robinson et al. (eds.), The Critical Edition of Q, lxxi; S. R. Johnson, Q 12:3334, vii-viii. A vague apologetic explanation of what this ‘establishing’ of the Q text by the three General Editors, ‘presupposing’ the decisions of the whole team of the IQP, meant in practice, has been presented to the wider scholarly community by C. Heil, ‘Die Q-Rekonstruktion’, 137: “Im Ergebnis wurde damit ein insgesamt ‘konservativer’ QText hergestellt, der frei ist von extravaganten Spekulationen.” 204 J. M. Robinson et al. (eds.), The Critical Edition of Q, 563. 205 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Reconstruction of Q and IQP’, 53-147; C. M. Tuckett, ‘Q and the Historical Jesus’, 219. 206 See e.g. J.-M. Babut, À la découverte de la Source: Mots et thèmes de la double tradition évangélique (Initiations bibliques; Cerf: Paris 2007), 9: “On s’est imposé de ne pas discuter mais d’adopter tel quel dans son libellé le texte reconstitué par J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann et J. Kloppenborg dans leur The Critical Edition of Q.” 207 L. E. Vaage, ‘Q 4’, SBL.SP 23 (1984) 347-373.

70

woes, the loosely constituted Q movement (called later by Vaage ‘Galilean upstarts’) bore similarities to Greco-Roman Cynics especially in its questioning conventional mores of the social system but, nevertheless, remaining part of it. In the redactional stage, the Q community began to create a new order, which was justified, for example, by means of Q’s prophetic rhetoric of threat of a coming retribution, which was directed against the dominant culture. 208 In his more recent works, Vaage further justified his ‘Cynic Q’ hypothesis by arguing that there were several similarities between the formative stratum of Q and Cynicism on the levels of social ethos, ethics, ideology, and critique; and consequently that both movements shared the same basic socio-rhetorical strategy. 209 According to the scholar, even the use of Scripture in Q resembled formally not the exegesis of Second Temple Judaism (which is attested, for example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls) but the Cynic style of interpretation of Homeric texts. 210 Having analysed the sermon Q 6:20b-49 in categories of tradition-historical research, Vaage reached the important conclusion that the ‘sermon’ never existed as an independent literary (or even oral) work. On the other hand, however, the scholar argued that since the material of the ‘sermon’ had been attested in a number of variants in early Christian writings, it must have originated from earlier, widely available, presumably oral traditions. 211 Vaage did not explain, alas, how these presumably oral traditions might be traced behind the present text of the remarkably well composed and contextualized ‘sermon’. 212

208 Id., ‘The Woes in Q (and Matthew and Luke): Deciphering the Rhetoric of Criticism’, SBL.SP 27 (1988) 582-607; id., ‘The Son of Man Sayings in Q: Stratigraphical Location and Significance’, Semeia 55 (1991 [1992]) 103-129; id., Galilean Upstarts: Jesus’ First Followers According to Q (Trinity: Valley Forge, Pa. 1994). 209 Id., ‘Q and Cynicism: On Comparison and Social Identity’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (NovTSup 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 199-229 (esp. 229); id., ‘More Than a Prophet, and Demon-Possessed: Q and the “Historical” John’, in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg (Trinity International: Valley Forge, Pa. 1995), 181-202 (esp. 194). 210 Id., ‘Jewish Scripture, Q and the Historical Jesus: A Cynic Way with the Word?’, The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 479-495 (esp. 495). 211 Id., ‘Composite Texts and Oral Myths: The Case of the “Sermon” (6:20b-49)’, SBL.SP 28 (1989) 424-439 (esp. 439). 212 Cf. id., ‘Composite Texts and Oral Mythology: The Case of the “Sermon” in Q (6:2049)’, in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg (Trinity International: Valley Forge, Pa. 1995), 75-97

71

B. L. Mack Burton L. Mack studied the Hellenistic background of the New Testament under the tutorage of Heinz Conzelmann at the University of Göttingen in Germany. Like the majority of twentieth-century scholars, Mack simply presupposed the existence of Q in his research on the social history of the synoptic tradition. 213 Having investigated, in agreement with John S. Kloppenborg’s research, the social history of the ‘tradents’ of Q, Mack identified five redactional strata of Q: pre-Q1, Q1, an intermediate stratum between Q1 and Q2, Q2, and Q3. The earliest, barely recoverable stage (pre-Q1) contained, in Mack’s view, a set of aphorisms and aphoristic imperatives, which were formulated for individuals as an invitation to join the group of Jesus’ followers. The second redactional stage (Q1) expressed interest in inner-group relations; it was characterized by hyperbolic sayings that were critical of social conventions and challenging in their radicalness (breaking with the family, homelessness, etc.) even popular Cynic ideas. The stage between Q1 and Q2 alluded to the experience of a breach between the Jesus movement and its Jewish social environment (friends, local synagogue, etc.). The fourth stage (Q2) was characterized by the language of apocalyptic that was used to threat detractors and by esoteric and eschatological language that was used to corroborate the identity of the embattled community. The last stage (Q3) developed mythological language that reached the level of the Gospel of Mark: Jesus was presented here as the Son of God who took part in a cosmic battle between God and Satan. 214 In his later research, the scholar argued, in agreement with the research of Ron Cameron, that both main strata of Q (namely Q1 and Q2) displayed features of Cynic philosophy by presenting two examples of Cynic-like children of wisdom: Jesus as a libertine sage (Q1) and John as an ascetic preacher and prophet (Q2). 215 On the other hand, Mack insisted that the Cynic-like aphoristic humour, (here: 94): “The previous ‘oral’ history of these materials [Q 6:20-49] cannot be traced or further specified, due to the specific nature of orality”. 213 Cf. e.g. B. L. Mack, ‘The Kingdom Sayings in Mark’, Foundations & Facets Forum 3 (1987) 3-47 (esp. 17); id., A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Fortress: Philadelphia 1988), 5, 53-60. 214 Id., ‘The Kingdom That Didn’t Come: A Social History of the Q Tradents’, SBL.SP 27 (1988) 608-635 (esp. 632-635). Cf. also id., ‘Lord of the Logia: Savior or Sage?’, in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings, Festschrift J. M. Robinson, ed. J. E. Goehring [et al.] (ForFasc 2; Polebridge: Sonoma, Calif. 1990), 3-18 (esp. 9-12); id., ‘Q and the Gospel of Mark: Revisiting Christian Origins’, Semeia 55 (1991 [1992]) 15-39 (esp. 16-18); id., The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins (HarperSanFrancisco: New York 1993), 105-176, 203-205. 215 Id., The Lost Gospel, 158.

72

playful spirit, and socially critical, experimental style of life characterized only the first, pre-Q1 stage of the Jesus movement. 216 According to Mack, Q represented a strand of Christianity that was earlier and different from the Pauline and Markan ‘kerygmatic Christians’. It was a group in which Jesus’ teaching and not his death was the focal point of theological interest. The Mk-Q overlaps were explained by the scholar as having arisen from Markan selection and revision of the Q material according to his own ‘mythmaking’ theological programme. 217 On the other hand, in Mack’s opinion, it was the Gospel of Thomas that preserved and elaborated in a particular way numerous traditions from the earliest stage of the Jesus movement, which was witnessed especially in the Q1 stage of the formation of Q. 218 From the hermeneutical point of view, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Two-Source hypothesis in Mack’s ‘libertine sage’ version reflects more the world view of many American intellectuals of the 1970s and 1980s than the historical world view of the New Testament writings. Moreover, Mack’s highly debatable socio-literary reconstructions of the Q movement and of its writings reveal that the Q hypothesis, with its hypothetical and fluid textual basis, is capable of justifying almost every scholarly ideological-theological construct. R. Uro The Finnish scholar Risto Uro investigated in his doctoral dissertation Sheep Among the Wolves the mission instructions of Q (Lk 10:2-16 par.). 219 In the introduction to his work, Uro admitted that “only rarely have Q researchers seriously discussed other solutions proposed to the synoptic problem” and consequently that the studies on Q could be regarded as “resting on the axiomatic point of departure on which all their results stand or fall”.220 Nevertheless, Uro assumed that a written Q document existed, it was known to Matthew and to Luke, and it functioned as a source for Mt and Lk. It should be noted, however, that Uro regarded this assumption as a hypothesis of no absolute value, which

216 Id., Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth (HarperSanFrancisco: New York 1995), 50-51. 217 Id., ‘Q and the Gospel of Mark’, 19-30; id., The Lost Gospel, 177-180, 215-243. 218 Id., The Lost Gospel, 180-183. 219 R. Uro, Sheep Among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions of Q (AASF: Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 47; Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia [Academia Scientiarum Fennica]: Helsinki 1987). 220 Ibid. 1-2.

73

served merely as a tool for scholarship, and which was aimed at explaining various literary phenomena and at contributing to their better understanding. 221 Uro assumed that the mission instructions Lk 10:3-16 were more original than their Matthean counterparts. He argued that the instructions Lk 10:3-16 were redacted by adding ‘frame sayings’ Lk 10:3.12.13-15.16 to an earlier version of the speech (Lk 10:4-11). In Uro’s view, this earlier version had a common antecedent (called by the scholar ‘early mission code’) with Mk 6:8-11. The earliest ‘kernel’ of the speech was traced by Uro in Lk 10:4-7ab. 222 The examination of the Sitz im Leben of these redactional strata led Uro to assume that the earliest collections of mission instructions were composed in Palestine in the first decades after Jesus’ crucifixion by wandering ascetic preachers who lived and preached as ‘sons of peace’. According to the scholar, later negative experience of the mission among the Jews changed this initially peaceful attitude so that the early mission instructions were reworked into a ‘mission speech’ that was redacted as a prophetic threat of divine judgement and an accusation against the Jewish people. A final redactor of Q further reworked this speech in a new situation of separation of the Q communities from the ‘mother religion’ of Judaism. 223 The applied by Uro, sociological model of a peaceful charismatic community that was rejected by its environment and eventually defined itself by condemning outsiders is obviously too simplistic to describe adequately the history of early Christianity. Regrettably, also Uro’s later research is based on the same assumption of a change from optimistic proclamation of the powerful kingdom of God to a pessimistic use of the Son of man [sic] symbol, which expressed experiences of shame and hopes for vindication. 224 M. Sato Migaku Sato is probably the first Japanese scholar who, under the direction of U. Luz, published a book that was focused on the synoptic problem: Q und Pro-

221 Ibid. 2. 222 Ibid. 97-116. Cf. also id., ‘Thomas and oral gospel tradition’, in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, ed. id. (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1998), 8-32 (esp. 27-31). 223 Ibid. 241. 224 Id., ‘Apocalyptic Symbolism and Social Identity in Q’, in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. id. (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65; Finish Exegetical Society: Helsinki and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1996), 67-118 (esp. 117).

74

phetie. 225 Sato identified two main redactional blocks of material in Q: Lk 3:27:28 par. (‘Redaction A’) and Lk 9:57-10:24 par. (‘Redaction B’) that were at a later stage combined and supplemented with additional material (‘Redaction C’). The scholar assumed, like his tutor, that Q existed in two different recensions (QMt and QLk). Sato investigated Q with the use of the methods of form criticism and history of traditions in order to analyse its literary genre and its Sitz im Leben. 226 Sato argued that Q was a prophetic work of the type of Old Testament prophecies: both in its ‘macro-genre’ of a ‘prophetic book’ and in the ‘microgenres’ of its smaller literary units (vision accounts, announcements, invectives, woes, warnings, macarisms, etc.). The Japanese scholar identified also prophetic components of numerous sapiential texts (e.g. warnings) that were included in Q. Moreover, he explained the lack of any passion narrative in Q by pointing to its assumed literary genre of a ‘prophetic book’. In Sato’s view, another reason for regarding Q as a prophetic and not an apocalyptic work is constituted by its specific Sitz im Leben. The scholar argued that the Q community, like the community of the followers of John the Baptist, functioned as a circle of disciples of an important prophet. They continued their master’s prophetic activity and his radical way of life, following the examples of, for example, Elijah and Elisha. The only formal difference between Q and Old Testament prophecies was, according to the scholar, the unparalleled dignity of the master Jesus as the Son of Man and Judge of the world who was de facto equated with God. 227 Sato’s stress on the prevalence of prophetic traits over the sapiential and apocalyptic ones in Q’s form and history of tradition is undoubtedly worth noting. Sato failed to explain, however, the evidently close correspondence between the function of prophecy in the hypothetical source Q and the function of prophetic forms and traditions in the two-volume work of Luke.

225 M. Sato, Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT 2.29; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1988). 226 Ibid. 15, 33-65. 227 Ibid. 409-410. Cf. also id., ‘Q: Prophetie oder Weisheit? Ein Gespräch mit J. M. Robinson’, EvTh 53 (1993) 389-404; id., ‘Wisdom Statements in the Sphere of Prophecy’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (NovTSup 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 139-158; id., ‘Le document Q à la croisée de la prophétie et de la sagesse’, in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): Aux origines du Christianisme, ed. A. Dettwiler and D. Marguerat (MoBi 62; Labor et fides: Genève 2008), 99-122.

75

T. A. Friedrichsen Timothy A. Friedrichsen began his studies on the synoptic problem at the Catholic University of Leuven under the tutorage of Frans Neirynck. In a series of articles devoted to the problem of the so-called Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk, Friedrichsen argued (against, for example, Harry T. Fleddermann) that in a number of them Mk was not dependent on Q. Consequently, according to Friedrichsen, there was no real Mk-Q overlap in the texts like Mk 4:21-22 parr. and Mk 4:24c-25 parr. For this reason, in his view, they should not be included in Q. 228 Friedrichsen pointed also to the fact that at least in some of the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk Luke’s reworking of the Markan text may be postulated. 229 Regrettably, this important conclusion has not been further developed in the scholar’s further research. A. Kirk The Canadian scholar Alan Kirk investigates the genre and compositional features of the Q source whose existence is simply taken by him for granted. 230 Kirk argues that Q was an internally coherent instructional document, which should not be divided into sapiential and apocalyptic strata (as it is proposed by, for example, John S. Kloppenborg). Kirk points to the fact that rhetorical devices of reproach, invective, and threats that prepare the ground for positive instructions (as, for example, in John’s liminal, protreptic speech in Q 3:7-9.1617) were used also in sapiential literature. 231 228 T. A. Friedrichsen, ‘The Parable of the Mustard Seed Mark 4,30-32 and Q 13,18-19: A Surrejoinder for Independence’, EThL 77 (2001) 297-317; id., ‘A Note on the Lamp Saying, Mk 4,21 and Q 11,33: A Rejoinder for Independence’, EThL 79 (2003) 423430; id., ‘What Is Hidden Will Be Revealed: A Note on the Independence of Mk 4,22 and Q 12,2’, EThL 80 (2004) 439-444; id., ‘The Measure: Mk 4,24cd and Q 6,38c; 12,31b: A Note on Its Independence from Q’, EThL 81 (2005) 186-196; id., ‘“To One Who Has…”: Mk 4,25 (Mt 25,29; Lk 19,26): A Note on the Independence of Mk 4,25 from Q 19,26 and on the Sayings Cluster of Mk 4,21-25’, EThL 82 (2006) 165-173. 229 F. Neirynck and T. A. Friedrichsen, ‘Note on Luke 9,22: A Response to M. D. Goulder’, EThL 65 (1989) 390-394 (esp. 394); T. A. Friedrichsen, ‘Luke 9,22 – A Matthean Foreign Body?’, EThL 72 (1996) 398-407. 230 Cf. A. Kirk, ‘Some Compositional Conventions of Hellenistic Wisdom Texts and the Juxtaposition of 4:1-13; 6:20b-49; and 7:1-10 in Q’, JBL 116 (1997) 235-257. 231 Id., ‘Upbraiding Wisdom: John’s Speech and the Beginning of Q (Q 3:7-9, 16-17)’, NovT 40 (1998) 1-16 (esp. 8-13); id., ‘Crossing the Boundary: Liminality and Transformative Wisdom in Q’, NTS 45 (1999) 1-18.

76

In his book on Q, which was entitled The Composition of the Sayings Source, Kirk described macro-compositional features of the hypothetical Q source. According to the scholar, Q was made up of four instructional discourses: the ‘inaugural’, ‘mission’, ‘controversy’, and ‘eschatological’ one. Each of them was shaped by several cohesive devices: (a) framework units enacting reversal of motifs, (b) programmatic threshold (i.e. opening) units, (c) placing of a gnomic or aphoristic pronouncement in the heart of the discourse, (d) ring composition, (e) linear elaboration, (f) addressing a specific deliberative issue, (g) unified (and socially aggressive) rhetorical strategy, and (h) motif connection with the neighbouring discourse. 232 Kirk argued further that these compositional features reflected conventions that were widely applied in wisdom literature: both ancient (Egyptian Instructions, Prov 1-9, etc.) and later, Hellenistic (Wisdom of Solomon, Pseudo-Phocylides, Sirach, Syrian Menander, and the Pythagorean Golden Rules). According to the scholar, Q cannot be therefore regarded as Kleinliteratur that was written by local village scribes (as it is postulated by John S. Kloppenborg) but has to be literarily placed in the current of the ‘Great Tradition’. 233 The scholar noted that although ring compositions were used in Q as cohesive devices, “Q’s macro compositions carry out primarily linear elaborations which move forward from programmatic openings incrementally through sequenced units to final culminations”. 234 In this respect, the individual reconstructed Q discourses should be compared not only with ancient sapiential works but also, above all, with the literary discourses that are incorporated into the narrative work of Lk-Acts. In his most recent works on Q, Kirk uses models that are borrowed from socio-cultural studies in order to demonstrate that Q should be regarded as a radically unique, distinct, theological and social formation in primitive Christianity. The scholar argues that the commemorative depiction of Jesus’ violent death, which was integrated in Q 11:47-51 into potent archetypal scripts of Israel’s cultural memory, served broader instructional, normative aims of ethosdefining and status corroboration for the Q community. Accordingly, the death of Jesus was not a marginal but the central problem for the Q tradition. 235 Kirk argues, moreover, that the confrontational passages Q 11:14-23.39-52 should not 232 Id., The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom Redaction in Q (NovTSup 91; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 1998), 397-398. 233 Ibid. 397-400. 234 Ibid. 400. 235 Id., ‘The Memory of Violence and the Death of Jesus in Q’, in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, ed. A. Kirk and T. Thatcher (SBL Semeia Studies 52; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 191-206 (esp. 198-204).

77

be interpreted as tokens of disengagement of the secondary stage of the Q community from repulsive Israel but as expressions of Q’s protreptic programme of social and moral transformation of Israel.236 Once more, a thorough comparison of these hypothetical Q traits with Lukan religious ideas and socio-rhetorical devices would be more than appropriate. C. Heil Christoph Heil is one of the participants of the International Q Project. Like most of his fellow-researchers, at the beginning of his scholarly career, Heil simply presupposed the existence of Q. 237 According to the scholar, Q was a document that was written in Greek in at least two redactional stages, in correspondence to the change of its Sitz im Leben from that of itinerant Jewish Christian Galilean preachers to that of a distinct settled Q-community situated probably in Syria. The final redaction of Q took place, according to the scholar, who referred in this respect to e.g. Q 13:35a, about AD 70. 238 In his book on Q, which was entitled Lukas und Q, Heil argued that Q contained several literary motifs, themes, and devices that were characteristic also of Luke. They included the role of women, gender-paired presentations, being poor/poverty, towns and fields, desert, John the Baptist as a moralist preacher, etc. 239 It is therefore regrettable that the Austrian scholar presented Luke’s assumed use and reworking of Q only fleetingly, in the summary of his work. Moreover, he analysed it only on the literary level, namely in terms of Luke’s small redactional changes of the extent and order of the Q material. 240 Moreover, 236 Id., ‘Going Public with the Hidden Transcript in Q 11: Beelzebul Accusation and the Woes’, in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, ed. R. A. Horsley (SBL Semeia Studies 60; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2006), 181-191 (esp. 191). 237 Cf. C. Heil, Die Ablehnung der Speisegebote durch Paulus: Zur Frage nach der Stellung des Apostels zum Gesetz (BBB 96; Beltz Athenäum: Weinheim 1994), 267-268; id., ‘Die Rezeption von Micha 7,6 LXX in Q und Lukas’, ZNW 88 (1997) 211-222. Cf. also id., ‘Die Q-Rekonstruktion’, 134: “Das IQP setzt die Zweiquellentheorie in ihrer idealen Form voraus […]. Die Entscheidung für die Zweiquellentheorie wurde in IQP nicht eigens zum Thema gebracht.” 238 Id., ‘Die Q-Rekonstruktion’, 129-132. 239 Id., Lukas und Q: Studien zur lukanischen Redaktion des Spruchevangeliums Q (BZNW 111; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2003), esp. 233-269. 240 Ibid. 355-356. For a more detailed analysis of this issue, see id., ‘La réception de la Source dans l’évangile de Luc’, in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): Aux origines du Christianisme, ed. A. Dettwiler and D. Marguerat (MoBi 62; Labor et fides: Genève 2008), 275-294.

78

Heil failed to explain adequately the origin of the striking similarity of all these thematic and formal features of the hypothetical Q material with the well-known ideas of Lk-Acts. In his most recent article, Heil analyses the literary genre of Q. He argues that Q was the first example of a ‘sayings gospel’. 241 On the other hand, the scholar argues that the author of Q chose this particular literary genre in order to arouse in his readers certain expectations concerning Jesus. 242 Moreover, Heil argues that the biographic-narrative elements of Q do not belong in fact to the genre of a ‘sayings gospel’ because Q was on its way to the genre of a ‘narrative gospel’. 243 The scholar does not explain, however, how to reconcile these contradictory ideas. W. E. Arnal The Canadian scholar William E. Arnal investigates mainly the social and cultural Sitz im Leben of the hypothetical Q source, whose existence is taken by him for granted. Arnal argues that the ideological profile of the earliest layer of Q, which is called by him Q1 and dated to the 30s or 40s AD, reflects interests of low-level administrative scribes who lived in small Galilean towns and villages, and who were acquainted with legal proceedings (cf. Q 6:29; 12:57-59). They used the rhetoric of status inversion (Q 6:20b-23b) not because they were economically destitute but in order to design a broader programme of social change. The second, deuteronomistic stratum (Q2) can be dated, according to the scholar, to the 40s or 50s AD. The third redactional stratum (Q3) originated from the period prior to AD 66. 244 Arnal makes an interesting point concerning the assumed ideological profile of Q. He argues that although Q was clearly androcentric in its outlook, it 241 C. Heil, ‘Evangelium als Gattung: Erzähl- und Spruchevangelium’, in Historiographie und Biographie im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, ed. T. Schmeller (NTOA 69; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009), 62-94 (esp. 77). 242 Ibid. 81. 243 Ibid. 81-82. 244 W. E. Arnal, ‘The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels’, HTR 88 (1995) 471-494 (esp. 483-485); id., Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q (Fortress: Minneapolis 2001), 157-172; id., ‘Why Q Failed: From Ideological Project to Group Formation’, in Redescribing Christian Origins, ed. R. Cameron and M. P. Miller (SBL.SymS 28; SBL: Atlanta 2004), 67-87 (esp. 75-84); id., ‘The Q Document’, in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, ed. M. Jackson-McCabe (Fortress: Minneapolis 2007), 119-154 (esp. 122-129).

79

expressed also some androcentric ‘regulatory’ interests by means of the use of gendered couplets, which alluded to correlated male and female activities (Q 11:31-32; 13:18-21; 15:4-10; 17:27; 17:34-35 and also Q 12:51-53; 14:2627). The scholar argues that such a practice was witnessed in many contemporary writings and that it formally corresponded to the broader literary use of couplets in Q. 245 It is regrettable, however, that Arnal did not compare in this respect the hypothetical source Q with the entire Gospel of Luke. J. Schröter Jens Schröter’s research on Q constitutes a part of the scholar’s larger project of identification or reconstruction of early Christian sources that provide independent critical access to the historical Jesus. 246 At the beginning of Schröter’s research, the hypothesis of the existence of Q was regarded by him as a methodological axiom. 247 Although the German scholar admitted in the introductory part of his first book (Erinnerung an Jesu Worte) that the Q theory is only a scholarly hypothesis, 248 he assumed nevertheless, on the basis of a brief survey of recent research on the subject, 249 that the Q hypothesis still had the greatest capacity to explain the synoptic problem. 250 Consequently, in the course of his 245 Id., ‘Gendered Couplets in Q and Legal Formulations: From Rhetoric to Social History’, JBL 116 (1997) 75-94 (esp. 82-92). 246 See e.g. J. Schröter, ‘The Historical Jesus and the Sayings Tradition: Comments on Current Research’, Neot 30 (1996) 151-168; id., ‘Markus, Q und der historische Jesus: Methodische und exegetische Erwägungen zu den Anfängen der Rezeption der Verkündigung Jesu’, ZNW 89 (1998) 173-200 [reworked in id., Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie: Methodologische und exegetische Studien zu den Ursprüngen des christlichen Glaubens (BThSt 47; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001), 62-89]. 247 Id., ‘The Historical Jesus’, 153-162. 248 Id., Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas (WMANT 76; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997), 1, 61. 249 Schröter’s survey of recent source-critical research is so brief that the names of e.g. W. R. Farmer, A. Farrer, and M. D. Goulder never appear in his book. They are mentioned in a mere note in the scholar’s article: id., ‘Erwägungen zum Gesetzesverständnis in Q anhand von Q 16,16-18’, in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. C. M. Tuckett (BEThL 131; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1997, 441-458 (here: 441 n. 2) [reworked in id., Jesus und die Anfänge, 118-139 (here: omitted)]. Only at a later stage of his research did Schröter begin to deal seriously with the limitations of the Q theory: id., Jesus und die Anfänge, 90-117. 250 “[…] wird in dieser Darstellung davon ausgegangen, daß sie immer noch die Hypothese mit der größten Erklärungskraft darstellt“: id., Erinnerung, 62.

80

detailed investigations of gospel texts, Schröter methodologically presupposed the existence of Q. 251 The outcome of Schröter’s research on the overlap passages in Mk, Q, and the Gospel of Thomas (Q 9:57-10:22; 11:9-13; 11:14-32; 11:33-36; 12:2-12; 14:26-27; 17:6; 17:33) may be summarized as follows: (a) Mk and Q as written sources were independent of each other, but they were dependent on a common oral tradition (hence their partial overlap); (b) the Gospel of Thomas was generally independent of the Synoptic Gospels although it was chronologically postsynoptic; (c) no written redactional stages of Q can be detected, although Q was composed of earlier material transmitted orally; (d) the variety of literary genres (‘sapiential’, ‘prophetic’, etc.) of pre-Q material does not stand in contradiction to their basic thematic coherence, which refers to the eschatological approaching of the kingdom of God; and (e) the literary genre of Q may be described as a biographical recollection (Erinnerung) of Jesus’ words. 252 In Schröter’s view, Q presented Jesus’ message about the kingdom of God as standing in continuity with the Law and the Prophets (Q 16:16-17) and as remaining within the interpretative horizon of Jewish purity regulations (Q 16:18). 253 According to the scholar, the Christology of Q was to some extent parallel to that of Mk, but it was based uniquely on the Galilean Jesus tradition that was interpreted in a post-Easter time. It included an implicit confession of Jesus as the Christ and as the Son of God, but it was oriented on the ideas of the Kingdom and of the expectation of the return of the presently absent Son of Man. 254 In his most recent works, Schröter insists that although the tendencies that are typical of Q may be traced within the historical trajectories of theology of early Christianity, the precise extent, wording, and literary genre of the Q source 251 Cf., for example, the first clause of the main, exegetical part of Schröter’s book: “Die Anweisungen Jesu […] in Q, Mk und EvThom rezipiert worden sind”: ibid. 144. 252 Ibid. 459-472. 253 Id., ‘Erwägungen’, 457 [reworked in id., Jesus und die Anfänge, 138]. 254 Id., ‘Jerusalem und Galiläa: Überlegungen zur Verhältnisbestimmung von Pluralität und Kohärenz für die Konstruktion einer Geschichte des frühen Christentums’, NovT 42 (2000) 127-159 (esp. 147-157) [reworked in id., Jesus und die Anfänge, 180-219 (esp. 207-217)]; id., ‘The Son of Man as the Representative of God’s Kingdom: On the Interpretation of Jesus in Mark and Q’, in Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and its Earliest Records, ed. M. Labahn and A. Schmidt (JSNTSup 214; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 34-68 (esp. 66-68) [reworked in id., Jesus und die Anfänge, 140-179 (esp. 176-178)]. Cf. also id., ‘Les toutes premières interprétations de la vie et de l’œuvre de Jésus dans le christianisme primitif : la source des paroles de Jésus (Q)’, in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): Aux origines du Christianisme, ed. A. Dettwiler and D. Marguerat (MoBi 62; Labor et fides: Genève 2008), 295-320 (esp. 301-318).

81

(even as a ‘sayings collection’) cannot be unequivocally reconstructed. 255 The German scholar argues that the early tradition of Jesus’ teaching was preserved and developed in early Christianity in the forms of (a) individual sayings (e.g. Q 10:7b; 1 Thes 4:15-17; 5:2-3; 5:13; 1 Cor 7:10-11; 9:14; 11:23b-25; Mk 9:50; Did. 13:1-2); (b) small sayings collections that were oriented paraenetically (e.g. Q 11:9-13; Rom 12:14-21; Mk 9:42-47; Jas; 1 Pet; 1 Clem. 13:2; Gos. Thom.); and (c) larger biographical collections of speeches and actions that were attributed to Jesus (e.g. Q’s great sermon that was followed by the centurion episode; Markan narrative structures). According to the scholar, the entire Q source follows formally not the paraenetic but the biographical pattern. 256 Schröter’s observation is quite important for finding the solution to the synoptic problem. However, it should be noted that this particular biographical literary form was not witnessed at the first stage of early Christianity apart from the canonical Gospels (which were more or less evidently dependent in their formal outline on Mk). 257 In this context, the very existence of two early ‘Jesus’ works that were composed in the narrative-biographical form parallelly but independently of each other (i.e. Mk and Q) becomes quite implausible. The ‘Gospellike’ character of the material that is shared by Mt and Lk but absent in Mk argues therefore in itself against the Q theory and favours hypotheses that explain this ‘Gospel-like’ feature of the double Mt-Lk tradition by postulating literary dependence of Lk on Mt or of Mt on Lk. M. J. Goff The American scholar Matthew J. Goff is known for his studies on the sapiential literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In his recent article, Goff applies the results of his research on 1Q/4QInstruction to the analysis of the sayings source Q, whose existence is assumed by the scholar as an axiom. Goff argues that 4QInstruction 255 Id., Jesus und die Anfänge, 90-117; id., ‘Die Bedeutung der Q-Überlieferung für die Interpretation der frühen Jesustradition’, ZNW 94 (2003) 38-67. 256 Id., ‘Anfänge der Jesusüberlieferung: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu einem Bereich urchristlicher Theologiegeschichte’, NTS 50 (2004) 53-76 [also in id., Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons (WUNT 204; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 81-104]. Cf. also id., ‘Jesus Tradition in Matthew, James, and the Didache: Searching for Characteristic Emphases’, in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. H. van de Sandt and J. Zangenberg (SBL.SymS 45; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 233-255 (esp. 244-245). 257 Cf. id., ‘Jesus und der Kanon: Die frühe Jesusüberlieferung im Kontext der Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons’, BThZ 22 (2005) 181-201 (esp. 186-194) [also in id., Von Jesus, 271-295 (esp. 278-287)].

82

is an example of a Jewish sapiential work that contained also numerous apocalyptic motifs. According to the scholar, such was also the genre of Q. Consequently, in Goff’s view, the sayings source Q should not be divided into sapiential and apocalyptic strata (as it is done, for example, by John S. Kloppenborg), but it has to be understood as a sapiential work with an apocalyptic world view. Goff argues at the same time that the Q source and 4QInstruction shared also two particular motifs: (a) poverty of the sage that leads to his radical dependence on God in basic material needs; and (b) hope for eschatological, angelic or heavenly reward after the death. 258 This direction of studies, namely research on the Jewish features of the double Mt-Lk tradition and on their interplay with the ideas that are peculiar to Lk and to Mt, is certainly worth further scholarly investigations, independently of its direct relationship to the Q hypothesis. 1.2.1.3 Problems with the theory of the priority of Mk and Q Disappearance of the apparently widely known document Q One of the main problems with the hypothesis of the existence of the early Christian document conventionally called ‘Q’ lies in the fact that, on the one hand, this document must have been widely known at the time of composition of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but, on the other hand, it must have been very early lost. The advocates of the Q theory usually assume that Q was an important written document that contained traditions of the first Palestinian followers of Jesus and was redacted at the earliest stages of the Jesus movement. It is assumed, moreover, that this document was widely known among early Christians, for it is argued that Q was used independently by various authors who were quite distanced both in geographical and in theological categories, namely Matthew and Luke, and probably also Mark, James, and the author of the Gospel of Thomas. 259 This assumption is yet more striking if it is noted that scholars generally reject the idea that Luke and Matthew knew the letters of Paul, which were widely circulating among Christian communities across the Mediterranean. The range of influence of Q must have been therefore much greater, according to the 258 M. J. Goff, ‘Discerning Trajectories: 4QInstruction and the Sapiential Background of the Sayings Source Q’, JBL 124 (2005) 657-673. 259 For this reason, the ‘lostness’ of Q cannot be adequately explained by comparing Q to other hypothetical pre-Gospel or pre-Pauline literary traditions, as it is postulated by e.g. D. R. Catchpole, Quest, 4-5.

83

Q theory, than that of the letters of Paul. 260 This almost universally acknowledged authority of Q as a source of Jesus tradition for many different Christian communities is hard to reconcile with the assumption that Q was later simply lost by all or almost all strains of early Christianity. 261 A traditional answer to this problem consists in claiming that the Q document was at least indirectly known to Papias who, as is it assumed, lived at the beginning of the second century AD. Some scholars argue that the enigmatic oracles (τὰ λόγια), which were referred to by Papias (quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16) as having been “orderly arranged” by Matthew, constituted in reality the lost source of the synoptic tradition. 262 Without entering here in details of this hypothesis, it has to be said that this idea is only rarely espoused by modern critical scholars. Another, more theological answer to the problem of ‘lostness’ of the Q document has been given by James M. Robinson. The American scholar argued that Q was not lost by the early Church simply by chance. According to Robinson, “perhaps Q was becoming suspect of heresy at a time when its gattung was being exploited by Gnostics”. 263 This solution has the merit of addressing the problem of the allegedly wide circulation and high authority of Q in early Christianity. Nevertheless, it still does not answer the question why Q did not survive as an integral literary work even in marginal Christian communities that preserved so many New Testament apocrypha. 260 It may be legitimately asked whether such a major collection of Jesus’ sayings indeed existed in Paul’s time, especially in view of the fact that the Apostle made only few explicit references to the words and commands of the Lord in his otherwise highly argumentative letters: 1 Thes 4:15; 1 Cor 7:10-11; 9:14; 11:23-25; 14:37.40, and moreover most of these Pauline texts is usually not included in Q by the advocates of the Q hypothesis: cf. D. Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel (JSNTSup 119; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1995), 215. If Q were in fact known to the Jerusalem, Galatian, Philippian, Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Roman communities, Paul would have almost certainly used it in his letters as a source of extremely convincing ‘Lord’s’ arguments (e.g. Q 13:28-29.34-35; 16:16) in more than just a few isolated texts. 261 Cf. e.g. W. Kahl, ‘Vom Ende der Zweiquellentheorie oder Zur Klärung des synoptischen Problems’, in Kontexte der Schrift, vol. 2, Kultur: Politik: Religion: Sprache – Text, Festschrift W. Stegemann, ed. C. Strecker (Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2005), 404-442 (esp. 409). 262 See e.g. F. Schleiermacher, ‘Ueber die Zeugnisse’, 736-752; T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. M. Black (Manchester University: Manchester 1962), 6986; M. Black, ‘The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew’, JSNT 37 (1989) 31-41; H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 166-167. 263 J. M. Robinson, ‘The Johannine Trajectory’, in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories, 232-268 (here: 239).

84

Hundreds of Mt-Lk agreements against Mk throughout the Gospels The phenomenon of hundreds of Mt-Lk literary agreements against Mk is commonly regarded as the most important problem of the Q theory. The question arises as a consequence of the axiomatic assumption of mutual literary independence of Mt and Lk. If Mt and Lk are literarily not dependent on each other in any direction, then what is the cause of so many instances of their close textual agreement? In the Q theory, the agreements of Mt and Lk are explained by their postulated dependence on common literary sources, namely Mk and, where there is no close Markan parallel to Mt and Lk, the hypothetical source Q. There are, however, many instances of Mt-Lk literary agreement against one of their common sources, namely Mk. 264 These agreements affect the whole extent of the Markan Gospel and they may be counted in several hundreds if not thousands (i.e. statistically: more that one per verse). 265 How can this intriguing phenomenon be explained? One of the logically possible solutions to the problem of literary agreements of Mt and Lk against Mk consists in postulating Matthew’s and Luke’s common use of an otherwise unknown hypothetical version of the Markan

264 It is worth noting that Q theorists almost never discuss the logical possibility of the existence of a high number of Mt-Lk agreements against their second alleged common source, namely Q. Such a discussion would obviously undermine methodologically any attempt to reconstruct the wording of the hypothetical Q source, and consequently it would invalidate one of the most important arguments for the very existence of Q, namely the argument from internal literary and theological coherence of Q. For a shorthand dismissal of this logical possibility, see e.g. H. T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 16 n. 63: “However, in practice Matthean and Lukan agreements in Q material are invariably traced to Q.” 265 Lists of Mt-Lk agreements against Mk and calculations of their number vary in correspondence to the variety of definitions of the key terms ‘agree’ and ‘against’, and according to the textual version of the Gospels that is chosen for the investigations. In his recent monograph, Andreas Ennulat counted 1,183 ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ Mt-Lk agreements against Mk: A. Ennulat, Die »Minor Agreements«: Untersuchungen zu einer offenen Frage des synoptischen Problems (WUNT 2.62; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1994), 10. For a description of the methodological problems involved in defining and counting the agreements, see e.g. M. E. Boring, ‘The Synoptic Problem, “Minor” Agreements, and the Beelzebul Pericope’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 587-619 (esp. 588-600); C. M. Tuckett, ‘The Minor Agreements and Textual Criticism’, in Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991, ed. G. Strecker (GTA 50; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1993), 119-141.

85

Gospel that differed from the canonical one. 266 Variants of this solution will be treated in more detail separately, together with other general solutions to the synoptic problem, namely the hypotheses of the existence of a Proto-Mk and of a Deutero-Mk. 267 However, it may be noted already here that there is no unambiguous textual evidence for the existence of an early (i.e. first-century AD) version of Mk that was different from the canonical one. 268 Consequently, this kind of solution to the problem of Mt-Lk agreements against Mk inevitably requires assumption of the existence of not one but two widely circulating, highly authoritative, and nevertheless very early lost documents: Q and a noncanonical version of Mk. Another solution to the problem of Mt-Lk agreements against Mk consists in postulating a thematic overlap of the two main Mt-Lk sources: Mk and Q. 269 Advocates of the Q theory do not agree whether this postulated overlap was caused by Mark’s use of some form of Q 270 or by independent reworking of an earlier source of tradition by both Mark and the author(s) of Q. 271 In the first case, namely if Mk used Q, any reconstruction of the extent and of the literarytheological profile of Q becomes very debatable on methodological grounds for it is almost impossible to say, which parts of Mk were dependent on Q and which not. 272 In the second case, namely if Mk and Q were dependent on a com266 For the hypothesis of a differing early copy of Mk, see already W. Sanday, ‘A Survey of the Synoptic Question’, The Expositor 4th series vol. 3 (1891) 179-194 (esp. 191). 267 See below, 111-125 (Sections 1.2.4 and 1.2.5). 268 Later harmonizations of the Synoptic Gospels constitute obviously another phenomenon. The general harmonizing tendency of the so-called ‘Western’ text of Mark was recognized even by the nineteenth-century advocate of its possible originality (in some instances) against the canonical Mk: P. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Freiburg i. B. · Leipzig · Tübingen 1899), 54-58. 269 See already T. Stephenson, ‘The Overlapping of Sources in Matthew and Luke’, JThS 21 (1919-1920) 127-145. 270 See e.g. J. Lambrecht, ‘John the Baptist’, 357-384 [also in Understanding What One Reads, ed. V. Koperski, 14-42]; D. R. Catchpole, Quest, 75-78; H. T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 1-260. 271 See e.g. R. Laufen, Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (BBB 54; Peter Hanstein: Königstein/Ts. · Bonn 1980), 385; J. Schüling, Studien zum Verhältnis von Logienquelle und Markusevangelium (FzB 65; Echter: Würzburg 1991), 215; I. Dunderberg, ‘Q and the Beginning of Mark’, NTS 41 (1995) 501-511 (esp. 503); T. A. Friedrichsen, ‘“To One Who Has…”’, 165-173. 272 Cf. the obviously debatable idea of including into Q, for example, the episodes of feeding the multitudes, transfiguration, and anointment: B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3rd edn., Wilhelm Hertz: Berlin 1897), 471 n. 3: “Gewiss konnte hier Vieles nur vermutungsweise eingereiht werden […]”. Cf. also the recent

86

mon source, the existence of yet another hardly reconstructable source lying behind Mk and Q has to be postulated. 273 Even more important, however, is the fact that the Mt-Lk literary agreements against Mk occur throughout the whole Gospel of Mark, including the passion and resurrection narratives (cf. e.g. Mt 26:68 par. Lk 22:64 diff. Mk 14:65). 274 For this reason, most advocates of the Q hypothesis who do not want to assume that the extent of the hypothetical source Q covered almost the entire Gospel of Mark 275 postulate dividing the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk into two distinct groups: (a) the ones explicable source-critically (i.e. by their attribution to Q); and (b) all others (traditionally referred to as ‘minor agreements’),276 for which other explanations have to be sought. The methodological basis and precise criteria for dividing the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk into the categories of the ‘major’ and the ‘minor’ ones are, however, only rarely explicitly discussed by the Q theorists. 277

highly debatable proposal of reconstructing Q on the basis of agreements between any two Synoptic Gospels: J. Lambrecht, ‘A Note on Mark 8.38’, 121-122 [also in Understanding What One Reads, ed. V. Koperski, 64]. 273 Another logical possibility, namely that of Q’s dependence on Mk, is commonly rejected in more recent studies. For this proposal, see J. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei (Georg Reimer: Berlin 1904), 9, 22, et passim. The hypothesis of common dependence of Mk and Q on merely oral traditions fails to explain the instances of high verbal agreement between Mk and the hypothetical Q source: cf. e.g. B. W. Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4 (JSNTSup 82; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1993), 299-301. 274 Cf. A. Ennulat, Die »Minor Agreements«, 18. 275 This logical corollary of the explanation of the problem of the Mk-Lk agreements against Mk uniquely by means of the Q hypothesis was recognized already by P. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, 49. 276 The terminological distinction between ‘major’ and ‘minor’ agreements goes back to C. G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der drei ersten Evangelien (Gerhard Fleischer: Dresden · Leipzig 1838), 323. 277 It should be noted that in the works of Christian Gottlob Wilke, who was the author of the term ‘minor agreements’, the distinction between the ‘minor’ and the ‘major’ agreements was neither methodologically founded nor consistently applied. Cf., for example, his list of differently identified and indiscriminately listed Mt-Lk agreements against Mk in id., Der Urevangelist, 554. It is worth noting that Friedrichsen’s article that presents a survey of modern studies on the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk, which have been, alas, not defined explicitly by the scholar, was entitled simply: T. A. Friedrichsen, ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark: A Survey of Recent Studies: 1974-1989’, in L’Évangile de Luc. The Gospel of Luke [Revised and Enlarged Edition

87

Edwin A. Abbott, who introduced the expression ‘minor agreements’ as a technical term to the scholarly discussion, defined this phenomenon as “just such modifications of Mark’s text as might be expected from a Corrector desirous of improving style and removing obstacles”. 278 Accordingly, Abbott distinguished the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk from Matthew’s and Luke’s additions to the Markan text. 279 However, the scholar honestly admitted that “occasionally there may be a doubt whether an expression should be treated as a correction […] or an addition belonging to the Double Tradition”. 280 Somewhat later, T. Stephenson further divided Abbott’s ‘corrections’ into two subgroups: (a) those which are “quite small” and “scattered with fair uniformity over the whole of the Gospels”; and (b) those which are placed in “passages in which, for the most part, along with agreements against Mark there are also large agreements in material which is absent from Mark”, and for this reason they have to be ascribed to Q. 281 However, the scholar did not explain what his equivocal expressions ‘for the most part’ and ‘large’ meant in reality. Moreover, he failed to explain the origin of Mt-Lk agreements in numerous passages in which the Mt-Lk text notably differs from the text of Mk but which do not include any extensive additions of material to the text of Mk (e.g. Mk 1:9-11 parr.). In sum, Stephenson’s theory intentionally confused at least four issues: (a) distinctiveness of the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk (i.e. their difference in wording from the text of Mk), (b) their textual extent, (c) their distribution within the framework of the Markan Gospel, and (d) their relationship to the MtLk texts that are absent in Mk. The scholar wrongly claimed that all these factors were correlated in such a way that all Mt-Lk agreements against Mk might be classified as either (using the above-presented fourfold distinction) ‘small/ small/scattered/Mk-related’ or ‘major/large/grouped/non-Markan’. 282

of L’Évangile de Luc. Problèmes littéraires et théologiques], ed. F. Neirynck (BEThL 32; 2nd edn., Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1989), 335-392. 278 E. A. Abbott, The Corrections of Mark Adopted by Matthew and Luke (Diatessarica: Part II; Adam and Charles Black: London 1901), 300. 279 Ibid. 61. 280 Ibid. 281 T. Stephenson, ‘Overlapping’, 127. 282 It is worth noting that Burnett H. Streeter’s objections to Stephenson’s theory were expressed in terms that were also intentionally imprecise, for example “obviously different versions” and “doublets very distinctly defined”: B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins: Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates (MacMillan & Co.: London 1924), 306.

88

This methodological vagueness and terminological confusion prevails also in the works of modern scholars who deal with the problem of the so-called ‘minor agreements’. For example, Frans Neirynck, instead of defining them, simply listed “instances mentioned in the exegetical discussion and in former compilations”. 283 Andreas Ennulat, in his book devoted to the phenomenon of the ‘minor agreements’, deliberately refrained from giving any definition of the main subject of his work. 284 Wolfgang Schenk proposed a semantic distinction between the ‘minor agreements’, which are in his theory defined as isolated elements belonging only to the superficial (‘purely morphologic’) structure of the text, and the ‘major agreements’, which are understood as systemically related to a deep (‘meaning’) textual structure. 285 Harry T. Fleddermann’s similar distinction is based on the allegedly evident sharp difference between, on the one hand, Matthew’s and Luke’s regular ‘corrections’ of Mark’s rough style and, on the other hand, the ‘substantial’ agreements that, as Fleddermann claims, are more original than Mk. 286 However, such a definition of the ‘minor agreements’ suggests that among all the para-Markan texts in Mt and Lk, the ones that are merely stylistic variants with no consistent semantic value may be sharply distinguished from those that belong to an internally coherent theological system. This binary classification is based on a too simplistic theory of the literary style that is regarded as conveying no substantial meaning. Every stylistic corrector of highly authoritative texts knows very well, however, that stylistic improvements often significantly change the meaning of the corrected text. Timothy A. Friedrichsen’s redaction-critical proposal of identifying ‘minor agreements’ not only in the ‘pure’ triple tradition but also in the postulated ‘MkQ overlap’ fragments consists in two correlated procedures. First, the wording of Q has to be reconstructed by means of redaction-critical analysis, namely as underlying sections of the Lukan text that are considered “not easily seen as LkR” (e.g. Lk 13:18b). Thereupon, the neighbouring Mt-Lk agreements (e.g. 283 F. Neirynck [in collaboration with T. Hansen and F. van Segbroeck], The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark with a Cumulative List (BEThL 37; Leuven University: Leuven 1974), 51. 284 A. Ennulat, Die »Minor Agreements«, 2 n. 12: “[…] sind damit natürlich immer die ›kleinen mtlk Übereinstimmungen gegen den Mk Text‹ gemeint und schließen keinesfalls die ›großen mtlk Übereinstimmungen‹ (den gemeinsamen ›Q-Stoff‹) mit ein”. 285 W. Schenk, ‘Zur Frage einer vierten Version der Seesturm-Erzählung in einer Mt/LkAgreement-Redaktions-Schicht (DT-Mk): Versuch einer textsemiotischen Geltungsprüfung von A. Fuchs’, in Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991, ed. G. Strecker (GTA 50; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1993), 93-118 (esp. 113-115). 286 H. T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 16-17.

89

Lk 13:19a par.) have to be explained as logically related to this reconstructed Q text and as constituting instances of common but independent Matthean and Lukan ‘minor’ expansion of the Q text that was preserved in Lk. 287 This proposal is obviously based on a quite subjective opinion on what may be ‘easily’ and what ‘not easily’ seen as Lukan redaction.288 Consequently, the alleged substantial difference between the postulated Q-related ‘minor agreements’ and the Lkrelated Mt-Lk agreements against Mk may be in reality only apparent. Maynard E. Boring suggests a purely quantitative distinction between various Mt-Lk agreements against Mk. The American scholar argues that the term ‘minor agreements’ should be applied to phenomena of the extent of “less than a clause”. 289 Such a definition is, however, evidently quite artificial. As Boring himself admits, it is totally separated from any source theories, 290 and, as such, it cannot help to solve the synoptic problem. In fact, there are some Mt-Lk agreements against Mk that are smaller than a clause and are nevertheless regarded by numerous scholars as isolated fragments that belonged to Q and not as Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ (e.g. Q 4:16a; cf. Mk 1:21a). 291 As it follows from this short survey of research on the Mt-Lk literary agreements against Mk, the conventional scholarly distinction between the ‘major’ and the ‘minor’ agreements still lacks adequate methodological justification and definition. Moreover, it should be noted that, although it is only rarely admitted by the Q theorists, there are numerous Markan or para-Markan elements that are contained in the fragments usually attributed to the ‘pure’ Mt-Lk double tradition (e.g. Mk 11:25 par. Lk 11:2-4 par. Mt 6:5-15). The conventional distinction between the ‘Q material’, the ‘Mk-Q overlaps’, and the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ is therefore in reality very arbitrary. Consequently, it seems most reasonable to abandon this distinction at all—as artificial, imprecise, and misleading. Most proponents of the Q hypothesis assume that many Mt-Lk agreements against Mk arouse from coincidentally identical ways of reworking of the Gospel of Mark by Matthew and by Luke. 292 The postulated independently made but 287 T. A. Friedrichsen, ‘“Minor” and “Major” Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mk 4,30-32’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 647-676 (esp. 675). 288 It is worth noting that Friedrichsen’s particular opinion, namely that the form of Lk 13:18 is “not easily seen as LkR”, is based not on his own research on the subject but on the work of C. M. Tuckett: see ibid. 675 n. 136. 289 M. E. Boring, ‘The Synoptic Problem’, 597. 290 Ibid. 598. 291 Cf. J. M. Robinson et al. (eds.), The Critical Edition of Q, 42. 292 See e.g. P. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, 58-61.

90

identical Mt-Lk changes of the Markan text are explained in terms of (a) re-writers’ natural omissions of details that are considered worthless and insignificant, 293 (b) necessary improvements of logically defective texts, 294 (c) agreements in literary style, 295 (d) influence of the Septuagint or of the Hebrew text on the Gospels, 296 (e) common oral transmission,297 (f) converging redactional decisions, 298 and (g) pure chance. 299 All these explanations might be quite plausible in themselves. They fail to explain, however, numerous instances in which the agreements consist in the use of several identical words in the same order (e.g. Lk 8:10 par.; 8:22 par.; 8:25 par.; 8:44 par.; 9:22 par.). Moreover, it is hard to believe that two independent writers would correct or improve a given text in the same or almost the same way in several hundreds or thousands of instances. 300 In fact, a simple experiment consisting in comparing two independent redactional corrections of any text that was submitted to a publisher would certainly disprove the validity of the explanation of the problem of Mt-Lk literary agreements against Mk in terms of independent but identical redactional reworking of the Markan text. 301 293 Ibid. 58. 294 Ibid. 59-60; M. McLoughlin, ‘Synoptic Pericope Order’, EThL 85 (2009) 71-97 (esp. 88). 295 F. Neirynck [in collaboration with T. Hansen and F. van Segbroeck], The Minor Agreements, 199. 296 E. A. Abbott, The Corrections of Mark, 303-304. 297 B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Einleitung, 517; M. L. Soards, The Passion According to Luke: The Special Material of Luke 22 (JSNTSup 14; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1987), 97-106; R. H. Stein, ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark: Insight from John’, CBQ 54 (1992) 482-502 (esp. 494-502); J. S. Kloppenborg Verbin, ‘Is There a New Paradigm?’, in Christology, Controversy and Community, Festschrift D. R. Catchpole, ed. D. G. Horrell and C. M. Tuckett (NovTSup 99; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2000), 23-47 (esp. 36). 298 J. S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating, 34-35. 299 P. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, 61: “Alles läſst sich nicht erklären. Vieles bleibt einfach Zufall.” 300 Attempts to reduce the high number of the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk by subdividing them into ‘insignificant’ and ‘significant’ ones are not convincing on methodological-literary grounds for such a procedure would require, among others, defining agreements that are both ‘minor’ and ‘significant’. For such a proposal, see e.g. S. McLoughlin, ‘Les accords mineurs Mt-Lc contre Mc et le problème synoptique: Vers la théorie des deux sources’, EThL 43 (1967) 17-40 (esp. 28). 301 Such a methodologically controlled experiment was actually conducted at Duke University by Richard B. Vinson, a degree-holder in both mathematics and theology. The

91

Another proposal of explaining at least some of the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk consists in postulating textual harmonization of the texts of Mt and Lk by later copyists.302 All scholars who adopt this solution admit, however, that it may explain only some of the numerous Mt-Lk agreements.303 Moreover, assimilating tendencies of the copyists are generally accurately detected by modern textual critics in the process of establishing of the critical text of the Gospels. 304 Some scholars accept the possibility of some subsidiary Lukan dependence on Matthew as the cause of the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk. 305 They do not explain in detail, however, what this Matthean ‘subsidiary dependence’ on Lk meant in reality. Nonetheless, the very idea of some kind of direct literary relationship between Mt and Lk is certainly worth taking into serious consideration.

mean rate of Mt-Lk minor agreements against Mk was approximately ten times higher than that of the texts that were written by an actual control group made of graduate students in New Testament and approximately six times higher than in a control group of ancient texts. See the description of the experiment and its results, and a critique of its premises in T. A. Friedrichsen, ‘The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark: Critical Observations on R. B. Vinson’s Statistical Analysis’, EThL 65 (1989) 395-408. For a defence of methodological correctness of interpretation of the experiment, see R. Vinson, ‘How Minor? Assessing the Significance of the Minor Agreements as an Argument against the Two-Source Hypothesis’, in Questioning Q, ed. M. Goodacre and N. Perrin (SPCK: London 2004), 151-164 (esp. 153-163). For a recent survey of the use of statistical methods in the research on the synoptic problem, see J. C. Poirier, ‘Statistical Studies of the Verbal Agreement and their Impact on the Synoptic Problem’, CBR 7.1 (2008) 68-123. 302 W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; 3rd edn., T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1912), xl; J. S. Kloppenborg Verbin, ‘Is There a New Paradigm?’, 36. 303 See e.g. W. C. Allen, Matthew, xl: “Some of the agreements in question are probably due to the fact that the texts of the first and third Gospels have been assimilated.” Cf. also A. Ennulat, Die »Minor Agreements«, 24. 304 See e.g. B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th edn., Oxford University: New York · Oxford 2005), 257, 262; K. Aland and B. Aland, Der Text des Neuen Testaments: Einführung in die wissenschaftlichen Ausgaben sowie Theorie und Praxis der modernen Textkritik (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1982), 292; D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge University: Cambridge 1997), 40-43, 205. 305 See e.g. F. Neirynck, ‘The Minor Agreements and the Two-Source Theory’, 41.

92

Questionable proofs of the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy One of the main arguments for the existence of the hypothetical source Q that was used independently by Matthew and Luke is the argument from the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy. It is based on scholarly attributions of relative originality of differing versions of the so-called double Mt-Lk tradition at times to the version of Mt and at times to that of Lk. It is argued that neither Mt nor Lk always contains the more original version of their common material, and consequently neither Mt nor Lk could serve as a literary source for the other post-Markan Gospel. In such a way, the argument allegedly disproves hypotheses that postulate direct literary dependence of Mt on Lk or, in a reverse way, of Lk on Mt. The argument from the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy is based, however, not on the gospel texts themselves but on scholarly evaluations of degrees of originality of various Matthean and Lukan texts that belong to the so-called double Mt-Lk tradition. Such evaluations are, in fact, quite subjective unless a set of reliable criteria for ascertaining the relative priority and posteriority of gospel texts is formulated. However, the Q theorists are generally reluctant to present and systematically discuss such criteria, although, from the methodological point of view, they are much more important for the discussion on the synoptic problem than reconstructions of the hypothetical strata of the Q tradition, their plausible Sitze im Leben, the genre and ideology of Q, etc. Another methodological problem with the argument from the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy is created by the Q theorists’ use of particular inductive reasoning. Matthew’s and Luke’s ways of treating their sources may be studied inductively in the triple tradition, in which Mt and Lk have their extant parallel in Mk, on the condition that the priority of Mk is accepted. 306 It may not be uncritically assumed, however, that Matthew and Luke commonly used another source or sources in the same way as they used Mk. In fact, even many advocates of the Q theory postulate considerable disparities in Matthew’s and Luke’s ways of treating their differing written sources: Mk and Q. 307 Moreover, several scholars argue also for Matthew’s and Luke’s use of one or more oral sources (some of them possibly in Aramaic) in the pericopes that display low Mt-Lk 306 Until relative originality of the versions of the synoptic material that are contained in the Gospel of Thomas and in other non-synoptic writings against the canonical Gospels is adequately proved, these works cannot be considered independent witnesses to the text of Q and consequently cannot be regarded as constituting another kind of the ‘triple tradition’. 307 Cf. e.g. C. E. Carlston and D. Norlin, ‘Statistics and Q—Some Further Observations’, NovT 41 (1999) 108-123; H. T. Fleddermann, Q, 184-194. For a recent survey of the variety of ancient ways of reproducing written sources, see J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Variation’, 54 n. 4.

93

verbal agreement. 308 It is almost certain that Matthew and Luke would have used such differing sources in quite differing redactional ways. Application of redaction-critical models that are based solely on the study of Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mark in the procedure of assessing the degree of originality and relative priority of differing versions of the double Mt-Lk tradition is therefore methodologically highly questionable. 309 It is therefore not surprising that one of the supporters of the Q theory admits that “advocates of Q are in general less uneasy about making a judgement about probable priority, whereas opponents of Q have often criticized such judgements as fragile and subjective”. 310 One of the proposed remedies for the subjectivity of scholarly judgements as to the relative priority of differing versions of the double Mt-Lk tradition consists in attempting to work in teams that provide mutual corrections of scholarly evaluations of relative originality of the gospel texts, as it is practised, for example, in the International Q Project. This procedure does not guarantee, however, finding the correct solution to the synoptic problem. A look on the considerable divergence of scholarly opinions concerning relative originality of various texts belonging to the double Mt-Lk tradition 311 casts doubt on methodological correctness of this procedure as a means for proving the actual priority discrepancy between Mt and Lk, and consequently for reconstructing the text of the hypothetical source Q. 312 In fact, Q

308 See e.g. J. D. G. Dunn, ‘Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition’, NTS 49 (2003) 139-175 (esp. 172); T. C. Mournet, Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q (WUNT 2.195; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2005), 291-293. The possibility of oral transmission of some parts of the material of the Mt-Lk double tradition is acknowledged also by J. S. Kloppenborg on behalf of the IQP: J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Variation’, 63-79. 309 Inductive study of Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Q that is regarded as roughly identical to the extent of the Mt-Lk double tradition is methodologically not permitted at this stage of argumentation because it has to be first proved, precisely by means of the argument from the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy, that the instances of Mt-Lk high verbal agreement in their common material that is absent in Mk were not caused by direct literary dependence of Mt on Lk or vice versa. 310 D. R. Catchpole, Quest, 3. 311 Cf., for example, ten of the thirteen evaluated sections of the hypothetical Q 4:1-2: S. Carruth and J. M. Robinson, Q 4:1-13,16, vol. ed. C. Heil (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1996), 29-35, 45-66, 73-87, 92-96. 312 John S. Kloppenborg admits that the level of verbal agreement between Mt and Lk (and consequently also the document Q reconstructed by the IQP) is at times anomalously

94

theorists never proved correctness and efficiency of their retrieving procedure by reconstructing retrogressively a text of ‘Mk’ on the sole basis of informed scholarly analysis of Mt and Lk in the material of the so-called triple tradition. 313 1.2.2 Priority of Mk and/or common oral traditions The hypothesis of common dependence of the Synoptic Gospels on oral traditions, which is treated as a solution to the synoptic problem, dates back to the patristic era. Whereas Luke in the prologue to his Gospel asserted merely in broad terms his acquaintance with reliable sources of the apostolic tradition (Lk 1:1-2), 314 the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ (quoted in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15-16) specified that the gospels of Mark and Matthew were based on oral traditions that were handed down by Peter and presumably also by the Twelve. Irenaeus developed this idea into a theory of the fourfold Gospel that preserved in its written forms the preaching of the three most important apostles: Peter (in Mk), Paul (in Lk, together with Peter in Mt), and John (in Jn) (Adv. haer. 3.1.1; 3.11.8 [Gr. fr. 11]). The hypothesis of common dependence of the Synoptic Gospels on oral traditions was revived in the epoch of Romanticism by German scholars: Johann Gottfried Herder, 315 Jakob Christoph Rudolf Eckermann, 316 and Johann Carl [italics J. S. K.] high, so that an adequate explanation for this anomaly has to be found: J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Variation’, 63. 313 For such a reconstruction and its interpretation as casting doubt on the possibility of any reliable reconstruction of the hypothetical Q source, see E. Eve, ‘Reconstructing Mark: A Thought Experiment’, in Questioning Q, ed. M. Goodacre and N. Perrin (SPCK: London 2004), 89-114. 314 Cf. L. Alexander, The preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary convention and social context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTS.MS 78; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1993), 106-136; S. Byrskog, Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (WUNT 123; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2000), 228-232. It should be noted, however, that Luke alluded in fact in Lk 1:1-2 not so much to the oral testimony of the Twelve as to the ministry of Paul who lived “from the beginning” among his people and in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 26:4); who was an eyewitness of Christ (cf. Acts 9:17.27); who had become the main servant of the matters that were revealed to him (cf. Acts 26:16; cf. also 1 Cor 4:1; 9:1; 15:8-10; Acts 13:5); and whose activity in Christ had been really fulfilled “among us”, i.e. among the Pauline Christians. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001), 25. 315 J. G. Herder, Vom Erlöser der Menschen: Nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien (Johann Friedrich Hartknoch: Riga 1796), esp. 30-52, 87, 160-174, 202-205; id., Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland: Nach Johannes Evangelium: Nebst einer Regel der Zusammenstimmung unsrer Evangelien aus ihrer Entstehung und Ordnung (Johann Friedrich

95

Ludwig Gieseler. 317 They assumed that the Gospels originated in the Hebrew culture that was characterized by oral transmission of small gnomic-propheticlegendary texts and was opposed to the Greek and Roman cultures of predominantly written large-scale literature. 318 From the mid nineteenth to the mid twentieth century, the literary critique of the Gospels, which led to the formulation of various hypotheses suggesting direct literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels on one another or on some reconstructed written sources, marginalized scholarly interest in the redactional use of oral traditions. The hypothesis of significant influence of oral traditions on the process of composition of the Synoptic Gospels has been revived recently, however, as one of the solutions to the synoptic problem. 1.2.2.1 Main arguments for independent redactional use of common oral traditions The arguments for independent redactional use of common oral traditions by all the synoptists, regarded as a solution to the synoptic problem, may be summarized as follows. First, it is observed that the role of oral traditions in ancient Mediterranean cultures was much greater than in modern industrial societies, with the result that the originator, carriers, transmitters, supervisors, explainers, redactors, correctors, and receivers of the early Jesus tradition were much more accustomed to this medium of communication than modern generations. Second, it is argued that ancient societies developed various means that increased reliability of oral tradition as a vehicle of transmission of important texts. Accordingly, it may be assumed that also Jesus and his followers deliberately employed such methods, especially by shaping mnemonically Jesus’ preHartknoch: Riga 1797), esp. 306, 310-322, 339-341, 378, 397-402. Herder accepted, however, also Lessing’s hypothesis of the existence of a pre-Markan written (but merely ‘private’) Hebrew protogospel: id., Vom Erlöser der Menschen, 174-179; id., Von Gottes Sohn, 378, 408. Herder postulated also literary dependence of the canonical (Greek) Mt on Mk: id., Von Gottes Sohn, 377. 316 J. C. R. Eckermann, ‘Über die eigentlich sichern Gründe des Glaubens an die Hauptthatsachen der Geschichte Jesu und über die wahrscheinliche Entstehung der Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte’, Theologische Beyträge 5/2 (1796). 317 J. C. L. Gieseler, Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und frühesten Geschicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien (Wilhelm Engelmann: Leipzig 1818), 53-130. 318 This particular Romantic background of the modern hypothesis of common dependence of the Synoptic Gospels on oral traditions has heavily conditioned, as concerns hermeneutic presuppositions, modern research on the Gospels, especially in its twentiethcentury form-critical, tradition-critical, redaction-critical, and anthropological-cultural forms.

96

paschal teaching material (in the forms of summaries, meshalim, etc.) and by creating specific ways of controlled transmission of the early tradition (circles of close followers, etc.). 319 Third, the writings of Paul, John, and James, as well as other numerous works that have not been included in the canon of the New Testament, contain forms of Jesus’ teaching that differ from those preserved in the Synoptic Gospels although all these works, as it is commonly assumed, were literarily independent of the synoptic tradition. Accordingly, it is argued that the synoptists redactionally used some oral traditions that were known also to other New Testament writers. 320 Fourth, considerably low verbal agreement among parallel versions of numerous pericopes that are witnessed in more than one Synoptic Gospels suggests that these pericopes were transmitted to at least one of the evangelists only orally. These basic arguments are developed, modified, and presented in somewhat differing ways by modern advocates of the ‘oral tradition’ hypothesis. 1.2.2.2 Modern proponents of the ‘oral tradition’ hypothesis B. Reicke The scholarly interest in the influence of oral traditions on the final redaction of the Synoptic Gospels increased in the twentieth century mainly as a result of the studies of the so-called Scandinavian school of research on the Gospels. One of the leaders of this school, Bo Reicke, argued that the differences among the variants of Jesus’ teachings that are contained in the Synoptic Gospels are most satisfactorily explained as resulting from the evangelists’ redactional use of differing oral formulations of particular theological ideas. 321 In the Swedish scholar’s view, the complexity of relationship between Mk 13:9-13 parr. and Mt 10:17-23 par., which consists in similarity in content but difference in context, implies that the double Mt-Lk tradition consisted of scattered ‘Q’ elements

319 R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der EvangelienÜberlieferung, PhD diss. (Tübingen 1980) (esp. 430-432); cf. the summary of Riesner’s dissertation in id., ‘Der Ursprung der Jesus-Überlieferung’, ThZ 38 (1982) 493-513 (esp. 503-512); cf. also: id., ‘Jesus as Preacher and Teacher’, in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. Wansbrough (JSNTSup 64; JSOT: Sheffield 1991), 185-210. 320 See e.g. R. H. Stein, ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements’, 486-501. 321 B. Reicke, ‘Den primära Israelmissionen och hednamissionen enligt synoptikerna’, SvTK 26 (1950) 77-100 (esp. 94-96).

97

that have never formed a literary source but circulated as separate teaching units in the oral tradition. The similarities between the gospels of Mark and Luke were explained by Reicke as resulting not from direct literary dependence of Lk on Mk but from direct personal contact of Mark and Luke in Caesarea in AD 58-60 (cf. Phlm 9. 24) when the two writers had presumably exchanged some material. 322 The similarities between the texts of Mk and Mt resulted, according to the scholar, from common dependence of these two Gospels on the Petrine tradition. Likewise, close correspondences between Mt and Lk resulted from common indebtedness of Matthew and Luke to the authoritative tradition of the Apostles and of the ‘Hellenists’. 323 Reicke’s claim that all the agreements between the Synoptic Gospels can be explained as resulting from common use of the same apostolic tradition is of course exaggerated. On the other hand, precisely the evident overstating of the importance of the living apostolic tradition for all three synoptists reveals one of the main weaknesses of Reicke’s argumentation. If it is assumed that all the evangelists were dependent in their redactional activity mainly on the authoritative teaching of the Apostles and of the Jerusalem community, then the scholar’s identification of the ‘Q’ material as an “independent, freely circulating, not ordered tradition” 324 in fact contradicts his main thesis. B. Gerhardsson Another Swedish scholar, Birger Gerhardsson, investigated in his important book Memory and Manuscript the ways of transmission of important texts by means of oral traditions in rabbinic Judaism and in early Christianity. On the basis of analogies drawn from rabbinic Judaism, Gerhardsson claimed that Jesus shaped his teaching in the form of condensed memory texts, which were memorized, repeated, expounded, and applied by the early Church. According to the scholar, the evangelists had at their disposal both fixed oral traditions and accounts of Jesus’ speeches and activities, which had been preserved in the written form in notebooks and private scrolls. The observed differences among parallel gospel traditions were explained by Gerhardsson as resulting from: (a) Jesus’ 322 Id., ‘A Test of Synoptic Relationships: Matthew 10:17-23 and 24:9-24 with Parallels’, in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, ed. W. R. Farmer (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 209-229. Cf. also id., ‘Die Entstehungsgeschichte der synoptischen Evangelien’, in ANRW II.25.2 (1984) 1758-1779 (esp. 1772-1789). 323 Id., The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels (Fortress: Philadelphia 1986), 180-189. 324 Ibid. 28.

98

own repetitions of the same sayings and (b) the margin of variation that was typical of transmission of the haggadic gospel material. 325 Similarly to Bo Reicke, Gerhardsson conventionally accepted in his research the hypothesis of the existence of the Q source, which was understood by the scholar as “the enigmatic traditional collection which we usually call ‘Q’”. 326 In his recent article, Gerhardsson insists that even in the narrative gospel material the margin for variation was somewhat broader only in longer miracle stories and in the passion narrative. Moreover, the scholar argues that Israel of the New Testament times was not an oral society; consequently, also Jesus’ oral tradition was always accompanied by its written counterpart. On the other hand, a certain degree of variation of the tradition was quite natural within the process of oral memorization and transmission of the synoptic material, because in such a process texts might be both memorized in more than one version and altered at a later stage of transmission. 327 If, however, as Gerhardsson argues, the gospel tradition was always recorded also in a written form, the recourse to orality as the only cause of synoptic variegation should be supplemented, if not replaced, by serious investigations of the phenomenon of intertextuality among the Synoptic Gospels. J. D. G. Dunn James D. G. Dunn began his research on the Synoptic Gospels with the basic presupposition of the reliability of the Two-Source hypothesis. However, already in one of his first articles concerning the Synoptic Gospels, the British 325 B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, trans. E. J. Sharpe (ASNU 22; C. W. K. Gleerup: Lund and Ejnar Munksgaard: Copenhagen 1961) (esp. 325-335). Cf. also id., The Gospel Tradition (Coniectanea Biblica. New Testament Series 15; CWK Gleerup [Liber]: Malmö 1986), 39-56 [also in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990, 497-545 (esp. 528-544); also in id., The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition, forew. D. A. Hagner (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2001), 89-143 (esp. 123-142)]; id., ‘Illuminating the Kingdom: Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels’, in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. Wansbrough (JSNTSup 64; JSOT: Sheffield 1991), 266-309. 326 Id., Memory and Manuscript, 333. 327 Id., ‘The Secret of the Transmission of the Unwritten Jesus Tradition’, NTS 51 (2005) 118 (esp. 11-16). Cf. also id., ‘Christ in the Ethical Teaching of Early Christianity’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 179-189 (esp. 182).

99

scholar argued that the observed differences among the Synoptic Gospels could not be adequately explained only in terms of direct literary interdependence of the Gospels in some direction or of their common literary dependence on some sources. Accordingly, Dunn postulated the evangelists’ redactional use not only of written sources but also of “a tradition which would already be known much more widely in many churches in oral form, and which would continue to be remembered and used and circulated in that form”. 328 For this reason, according to Dunn, Matthew could have at times eliminated distinctive Markan redactional elements and could have followed instead of Mk a form of tradition (‘Q’) that was earlier than its Markan redactionally reworked counterpart and that was preserved more faithfully in the Gospel of Thomas (e.g. Mt 15:11 par. Mk 7:15 par. Gos. Thom. 14). 329 Such a phenomenon of oral traditions’ influencing the process of Gospel redaction was quite natural for the synoptists because, according to Dunn, wide redactional use of the oral form of the gospel tradition (and not of the written Synoptic Gospels) has been witnessed also in Paul’s letters 330 and in the Gospel of John. 331 The British scholar argues moreover, on the basis of his detailed traditionhistorical analyses, that the ‘Q’ tradition was at times parallel to the protoMarkan tradition and that their divergence went back to the Aramaic stage of tradition.332 On the other hand, in Dunn’s opinion, Aramaic traditions might

328 J. D. G. Dunn, ‘Jesus and Ritual Purity: A Study of the tradition history of Mk 7, 15’, in À cause de l’Évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes, Festschrift J. Dupont (LeDiv 123; Cerf: [s.l.] 1985), [vol. 1,] 251-276 (here: 262). 329 Ibid. 261-264. Cf. also id., ‘Matthew’s Awareness of Markan Redaction’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 1349-1359 (esp. 1355-1358). 330 Id., ‘The Gospels as Oral Tradition’, in id., The Living Word (Fortress: Philadelphia 1988), 25-43 (esp. 29-30); id., ‘Jesus Tradition in Paul’, in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans (NTTS 19; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1994), 155-178 (esp. 174) [also in id., The Christ and the Spirit, vol. 1, Christology (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1998), 169189 (esp. 186)]. 331 Id., ‘John and the Oral Gospel Tradition’, in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. Wansbrough (JSNTSup 64; JSOT: Sheffield 1991), 351-379. 332 Id., ‘Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20 – A Word of Jesus?’, in Eschatology and the New Testament, Festschrift G. R. Beasley-Murray, ed. W. Hulitt Gloer (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 1988), 29-49 (esp. 36) [also in id., The Christ and the Spirit, vol. 2, Pneumatology (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1998), 187-204 (esp. 193)].

100

have been translated into Greek and circulated in Greek-speaking circles in Palestine already within the period of Jesus’ ministry. 333 According to the British scholar, the studies on Jesus’ oral tradition reveal that the redactional use of oral traditions may be discerned in these fragments of the Synoptic Gospels that display low verbal agreement between thematically parallel Gospel texts. In Dunn’s view, they constitute examples of “a mix of constant themes and flexibility, of fixed and variable elements in oral retelling”. 334 Accordingly, Dunn postulates that, apart from Matthew’s and Luke’s possible use of Mk and of the written source Q, common synoptic reworking of orally transmitted traditions may be detected in numerous Gospel pericopes. These traditions may be both narrative (e.g. Mk 4:35-41 parr.; 7:24-30 par.; 9:33-37 parr.; Lk 7:1-10 par.; 21:1-4 par.) and containing teachings (e.g. Mk 14:22-25 parr.; Sermon on the Mount/Plain; Lk 11:1-4 par.; 12:51-53 + 14:2627 par.; 14:16-24 par.; 17:3-4 par.). 335 In all these cases, as Dunn argues, the relation is not obviously literary. “The relation is more obviously to be conceived as happening at the oral level.” 336 It is interesting to note that Dunn analyses in his investigations, probably as a test case for his hypothesis, also the triple account of the conversion of Saul (Acts 9:1-22; 22:1-21; 26:9-23). The scholar claims that “here, then, we have an excellent example of the oral principle of ‘variation within the same’, […] of the 333 Id., ‘John the Baptist’s Use of Scripture’, in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner (JSNTSup 104; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1994), 42-54 (esp. 44) [also in id., The Christ and the Spirit, vol. 2, Pneumatology (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1998), 118-129 (esp. 120)]. 334 Id., ‘Jesus in Oral Memory: The Initial Stage of the Jesus Tradition’, SBL.SP 39 (2000) 287-326 (here: 325) [also in Jesus: A Colloquium in the Holy Land, ed. D. Donnelly (Continuum: New York · London 2001), 84-145 (here: 127)]; cf. id., Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2003), 253 [corrected to “a mix of stable themes and flexibility, of fixed and variable elements in oral retelling”]. Cf. also id., ‘Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6 (2008) 85-105 (esp. 92); id., ‘Matthew as Wirkungsgeschichte’, in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog: Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift U. Luz, ed. P. Lampe, M. Mayordomo, and M. Sato (Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008), 149-166 (esp. 160-163). 335 Id., ‘Jesus in Oral Memory’, 298-317 [also in Jesus, ed. D. Donnelly, 96-118]; cf. id., Jesus Remembered, 212-238. Cf. also id., ‘Q1 as oral tradition’, in The Written Gospel, Festschrift G. N. Stanton, ed. M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (Cambridge University: Cambridge 2005), 45-69; id., Beginning from Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making 2; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2009), 113-127. 336 Id., ‘Jesus in Oral Memory’, 316 [also in Jesus, ed. D. Donnelly, 117]; cf. id., Jesus Remembered, 237.

101

oral traditioning process itself.” 337 Accordingly, Dunn argues that Luke’s literary activity included conscious composition of three literary variants of the same story. Consequently, Luke must have composed three literary texts that display the level of verbal agreement, which is similar to that of oral retelling of the same event. Dunn’s example disproves therefore his own hypothesis. If Luke felt free to compose or rework the literary story about the conversion of Saul/ Paul several times in Acts in a highly variegated way, he could have likewise reworked numerous other literary stories and teachings in his Gospel. The same may be said also of Matthew who, at least according to Q theorists, felt free to reorganize and rework substantially the whole Q material. Evidently, “a mix of stable themes and flexibility” may characterize not only oral tradition but also literary reworking of earlier written texts. 338 W. H. Kelber Werner H. Kelber investigates oral and written traditions in the Synoptic Gospels, having presupposed the classical Two-Source hypothesis of the priority of Mk and Q. The scholar argues, however, that Q represented an oral genre, which was appropriate for a work that was composed as an oral, prophetic continuation of Jesus’ words, and consequently it lacked any passion narrative. According to Kelber, Q functioned as an intermediate stage between orality and scribality. Since the transmission of Q greatly corroborated authority of its carriers (Jesus’ relatives, prophets, disciples, etc.), Mark decided to replace it with a written narrative Gospel, which ‘disoriented’ its hearers and readers from traditional oral authorities and oriented them towards Jesus. Therefore, Matthew and Luke could use the ‘deactivated’ Q, which had been deprived of its oral function and authority, by deconstructing it and absorbing it into their written Gospels. 339 In one of his recent articles, Kelber interestingly notes that such an understanding of Q alerts scholars to limited usefulness of the Two-Source hypothesis. As it is argued by the scholar, each of the three Synoptics (and John as well) was informed by compositional ambitions and a will to emplotment. “Osten337 Ibid. 298 [also in Jesus, ed. D. Donnelly, 96]; cf. id., Jesus Remembered, 212. 338 Israel’s Bible and the writings of early Judaism are full of examples of substantial literary reworking of earlier written texts. Contrary to our modern sensibility, such stable and, on the other hand, flexible actualizing reworking of earlier literary works did not undermine their high authoritative status, but it rather implied and confirmed it. 339 W. H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (Fortress: Philadelphia 1983) (esp. 201-210); id., ‘Die Anfangsprozesse der Verschriftlichung im Frühchristentum’, in ANRW II.26.1 (1992) 3-62 (esp. 22-54).

102

sively, more is involved in the Gospel compositions than the use of sources— more even than the creative use of sources.” 340 This cautionary note should be taken into consideration whenever differences among the Gospels in their common traditions are too easily explained by a recourse to variety or overlap of hypothetical gospel sources. R. A. Horsley Like numerous modern scholars, Richard A. Horsley began his research on the Synoptic Gospels with the presupposition of the existence of Q. He argued that its Sitz im Leben could be traced in the non-bureaucratic local Galilean infrastructure with its local ‘scribes’ and other literate leaders. 341 The American scholar interpreted the composition of Q not in categories of a diachronic sequence of strata (as it is proposed, for example, by John S. Kloppenborg) but in categories of a synchronic sequence of sayings clusters. In addition to that, Horsley emphasized their mainly prophetic character that consisted in conveying a call to a renewal of the social order. 342 The scholar argued, moreover, that Q should be understood not as a collection of sayings but as “a series of discourses or speeches focused on several related topics/concerns”, which functioned within an oral communication environment. 343 Nevertheless, in Horsley’s view, Q was a distinct literary work, whose unifying theme was the ‘kingdom of God’. Accordingly, in its literary form of logoi prophētōn, Q resembled to some extent the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache. 344 340 Id., ‘The Works of Memory: Christian Origins as MnemoHistory—A Response’, in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, ed. A. Kirk and T. Thatcher (SBL Semeia Studies 52; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 221-248 (here: 240). 341 R. A. Horsley, ‘Questions about Redactional Strata and the Social Relations Reflected in Q’, SBL.SP 28 (1989) 186-203. 342 Id., ‘Logoi Prophētōn? Reflections on the Genre of Q’, in The Future of Early Christianity, Festschrift H. Koester, ed. B. A. Pearson [et al.] (Fortress: Minneapolis 1991), 195-209; id., ‘Q and Jesus: Assumptions, Approaches, and Analyses’, Semeia 55 (1991 [1992]) 175-209; id., ‘Social Conflict in the Synoptic Sayings Source Q’, in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg (Trinity International: Valley Forge, Pa. 1995), 37-52 (esp. 46-51). 343 Id., ‘Wisdom Justified by All Her Children: Examining Allegedly Disparate Traditions in Q’, SBL.SP 33 (1994) 733-751 (here: 737). 344 Id., ‘The Contours of Q’, in R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 1999), 61-93 (esp. 87-93). Evidently, also the Gospel of Luke (with Acts) should have been added to this literary genre comparison.

103

In his more recent research on Q, the American scholar went beyond these purely literary considerations. He argues, by quoting statements of Werner H. Kelber, that Q was an ‘oral-derived’ text, which even after its literary redaction in the form of a written document continued to function in repeated recitation “in an environment saturated with oral sensitivities”. 345 The scholar claims, moreover, that the Sitz im Leben of Q was distinctively shaped by ‘prophetic performers’. 346 Horsley fails to prove, however, that the hypothetical Q differed substantially in this respect (i.e. as a repeatedly recited document) from the canonical written Gospels. 347 Horsley’s general argument that the ancient Mediterranean culture was to a considerable extent permeated by the experience of communal recitation and performance 348 does not prove that the ‘Q’ material was composed and treated by the early Church in a way that was different from the attitude to the highly rhetorical and purposefully composed canonical Gospels. The literary form of a work that was composed with the use of a series of literary discourses, as it was the case allegedly of Q and evidently of Mt, Lk-Acts, and Jn, does not imply by itself its distinctively oral performance. Consequently, Horsley’s claim that, for example, the mission discourse, “along with other Q discourses, was performed to communities of a wider movement” 349 because it

345 Id., ‘The Oral Communication Environment of Q’, in R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You, 123-149 (here: 145). 346 Id., ‘The Renewal Movement and the Prophet Performers of Q’, in R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You, 292-310 (esp. 300-310). 347 Cf. also the explicit references to public reading in other, non-synoptic New Testament writings: 1 Thes 5:27; Col 4:16; Rev 1:3. In the last paragraph of his article, Horsley concedes that not only Q but also “Mark and Paul’s letters belonged in a world of performance and hearing”: ibid. 310; cf. also id., ‘Early Christian movements: Jesus movements and the renewal of Israel’, HvTSt 62 (2006) 1201-1225; id., Jesus in Context: Power, People, and Performance (Fortress: Minneapolis 2008), 95, 114-118. No further inferences are drawn, however, from this observation. For a suggestion of a theorist of oral performance that, as a ‘voiced text’, the hypothetical Q (if it existed) was similar to Mt and Lk, see J. M. Foley, ‘The Riddle of Q: Oral Ancestor, Textual Precedent, or Ideological Creation?’, in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, ed. R. A. Horsley (SBL Semeia Studies 60; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2006), 123-140 (esp. 139). 348 R. A. Horsley, ‘The Oral Communication Environment of Q’, 146-147. 349 Id., ‘Prophetic Envoys for the Renewal of Israel: Q 9:57-10:16’, in R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You, 228-249 (here: 248).

104

contained paralleled sentences and its text allegedly might be displayed in three or four vertical columns, 350 has to be regarded as methodologically unfounded. A. D. Baum Armin D. Baum is one of the scholars who argue for the synoptists’ redactional use of oral traditions on the basis of the relatively low verbal agreement among the parallel texts of the Synoptic Gospels. In the beginning of his academic career, Baum followed the ideas of his tutor, Jakob van Bruggen, namely that the biographical data that are contained in the Gospels may and should be mutually harmonized, and that the material of the double Mt-Lk tradition originated not from a hypothetical written pre-Gospel source (‘Q’) but from early Christian oral traditions. 351 At a more recent stage of his research, Baum attempted to draw support for his hypothesis from experimental psychology. The scholar argued that, from the psychological point of view, it is quite plausible that the texts that were memorized by various persons and then reproduced orally after a certain period of time were quite similar and yet differing in details. 352 In order to corroborate his hypothesis, Baum draws some examples also from the rabbinic tradition. 353

350 Ibid. 235-236. Cf. also another attempt to present the text of Q 6:20-49 as ‘blocked in “measured verse”’ in id., ‘Performance and Tradition: The Covenant Speech in Q’, in Oral Performance, ed. id., 43-70 (esp. 54-64); cf. also id., Jesus in Context, 74-81, 229254. Horsley’s division of the text into columns should probably reflect, in the scholar’s intention, the internal syntactic structure of the Greek clauses of the text. In reality, however, Horsley’s division does not follow any consistent pattern. Jonathan A. Draper’s allegedly methodological explanation of the procedure that was adopted by Horsley, namely that of dividing the text into “component units within lines”, is evidently very vague: J. A. Draper, ‘Recovering Oral Performance from Written Text in Q’, in R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You, 175-194 (here: 188). 351 A. D. Baum, Lukas als Historiker der letzten Jesusreise (Brockhaus: Wuppertal · Zürich 1993), 334-335; id., Der mündliche Faktor und seine Bedeutung für die synoptische Frage: Analogien aus der antiken Literatur, der Experimentalpsychologie, der Oral Poetry-Forschung und dem rabbinischen Traditionswesen (TANZ 49; Narr Francke Attempto: Tübingen 2008), 386. 352 Id., ‘Experimentalpsychologische Erwägungen zur synoptischen Frage’, BZ 44 (2000) 37-55; id., ‘Oral poetry und synoptische Frage: Analogien zu Umfang, Variation und Art der synoptischen Wortlautidentität’, ThZ 59 (2003) 17-34; id., ‘Der mündliche Faktor: Teilanalogien zu den Minor Agreements aus der Oral Poetry-Forschung und der experimentellen Gedächtnispsychologie’, Bib 85 (2004) 264-272; id., Der mündliche Faktor, 389-399; id., ‘Matthew’s Sources – Written or Oral? A Rabbinic Analogy and Empirical Insights’, in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, ed. D. M.

105

As concerns the Gospel of Matthew, Baum argued, on the basis of the socalled ‘testimony of Papias’, that Mt was probably a Greek written translation of an original Aramaic pre-Mt, which had replaced its earlier oral translations.354 As concerns the Gospel of Luke, having compared the level of verbal agreement between the work of the Chronist and one of his sources (namely 1 Kgs) with that between Lk and Mk, the scholar theorized that Luke must have used, apart from Mark, another source, which must have been an oral source. Baum based his hypothesis on the alleged implausibility of simultaneous use of two written sources by the Lukan evangelist 355 and on a general consideration of the widespread in antiquity skill of memorizing pronounced and written material. 356 Most recently, Baum goes even further by claiming that Matthew and Luke composed their respective Gospels with the use of exclusively oral traditions, independently of Mk and of each other. 357 Baum does not take into consideration, however, the fact that ancient historians did not write their books but dictated them, and consequently they did not need an exceptionally large writing desk if they wanted to redact their texts with the use of one or two written sources, especially if these sources were written on sheets of papyrus. Moreover, the analogies from the ancient literature, psychology of memory, experimental psychology, orally transmitted poetry, and rabbinic writings that are drawn by the scholar are only analogies, which cannot prove that the evangelists did not use in their redactional work any written sources. Baum’s solution to the synoptic problem is therefore unsatisfactory. T. C. Mournet Terence C. Mournet is an American scholar who began his studies on the synoptic tradition under the tutorage of James D. G. Dunn and who consequently borrowed the British scholar’s ideas and methodology of research. Mournet inGurtner and J. Nolland (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2008), 1-23 (esp. 8-14). 353 Id., ‘Matthew’s Sources’, 5-7. 354 Id., ‘Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatischen Gottesdienst’, ZNW 92 (2001) 257-272 (esp. 271). 355 It is worth noting that this highly debatable thesis has been formulated by Baum merely in form of a repeated rhetorical question: “Wie wahrscheinlich ist […]?”: id., ‘Die lukanische und die chronistische Quellenbenutzung im Vergleich: Eine Teilanalogie zum synoptischen Problem’, EThL 78 (2002) 340-357 (here: 354). 356 Ibid. 355-357. 357 Id., Der mündliche Faktor, 402; id., ‘Matthew’s Sources’, 13-14.

106

vestigated internal variability of the level of Mt-Lk verbal agreement within twelve pericopes that belong to the double Mt-Lk tradition and—as a test case— within two pericopes that belong to the triple tradition. On the basis of statistical analysis of the level of Mt-Lk verbal agreement within these pericopes, Mournet argued that the pericopes that belong to the triple tradition contain relatively long Matthean and Lukan non-paralleled fragments within the pericopes and display relatively even distribution of the Mt-Lk verbal agreement throughout the remaining fragments (‘sections’) of the pericopes. The pericopes that belong to the double Mt-Lk tradition display, according to Mournet, two main patterns. Some of them (e.g. Lk 9:57-62) resemble the triple-tradition test cases and on this basis may be classified as ‘literary’, whereas others (e.g. Lk 12:57-59) display greater overall level of internal variability and as such should be rather classified as ‘oral’. 358 Mournet’s apparently objective analysis of the triple tradition and of the double Mt-Lk tradition has, however, several serious weaknesses. As noted above, Mournet investigated only two test cases from the triple tradition, and moreover one of them belonged to the passion narrative. Each of these test cases displayed in fact a different level of internal variability.359 Moreover, although the scholar rightly aimed at investigating three phenomena that characterized pericopes that were treated by him as being mutually parallel (i.e. shared words, agreement in order, and verbatim agreement), 360 his conclusions were drawn from the consideration of only one factor, namely that of the level of verbal agreement. 361 Finally, although Mournet carried out an apparently highly formal analysis of the pericopes (with the use of statistical summaries, graphic charts, etc.), his conclusions lacked any technical statistical calculation in terms of comparison of standard deviation, etc. Accordingly, the scholar attempted to define various ‘classes’ of gospel pericopes by using quite vague expressions like “there is a discernable difference”, “resembles more closely”, “there is generally less […] variability”, “a look at Figure 41 lends support”, and “does exhibit

358 T. C. Mournet, Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q (WUNT 2.195; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2005), 278-284, 291. 359 See e.g. Lk 20:9-19 par., which displayed internal variability of the level of (Lukan) verbal agreement ranging from 17% to 46% and nevertheless was classified by Mournet as a pericope with relatively low internal variability, which lacked any ‘core’ section in which the level of verbal agreement would be significantly higher than in other, neighbouring sections: ibid. 276 [Table 28 with its interpretation on pp. 280, 283]. 360 Ibid. 210-211. 361 Ibid. 278-284, 291-293.

107

characteristics different enough from”. 362 Consequently, a good research project ended up in vague ideas that reflect merely “the explanatory power offered by a folkloristic approach to the tradition”. 363 1.2.2.3 Problems with the ‘oral tradition’ hypothesis As it may be easily noticed on the basis of the above-presented survey of modern research on the synoptists’ use of oral traditions, the ‘oral tradition’ hypothesis is almost never regarded by the scholars as a comprehensive solution to the synoptic problem. In fact, the agreement in order of the gospel pericopes that have quite different literary genres (e.g. Lk 7:1-10 par. following Lk 6:20-49 par.), display high agreement in wording in a number of gospel pericopes, 364 and contain apostrophes to the readers (Mk 13:14 par. Mt 24:15) strongly argue against the hypothesis of dependence of the Synoptic Gospels exclusively on oral traditions. 365 The assumption of independent use of common oral traditions by Paul, the synoptists, John, James, and the authors of the Didache and of the Gospel of Thomas is also difficult to prove. This particular idea seems to be based, in fact, more on Romantic hermeneutic presuppositions, which are justified in modern research by the application of quite artificial models that are borrowed from folklore studies, oral poetry research, etc., than on good exegetical arguments. On the other hand, this post-Romantic premise methodologically excludes or at least ignores in its starting point, i.e. in the particular argument from multiple independent attestation of the same material in differing forms, the possibility of literary dependence among early Christian literary works. In particular, it neglects the possibility of the dependence of (a) the Synoptic Gospels on the letters of Paul, (b) Lk on Mt or vice versa, (c) Jas on Mt or vice versa, (d) Jn on the Synoptic Gospels and vice versa, (e) the Didache and the Gospel of Thomas on the Synoptic Gospels and vice versa, etc. The majority of modern advocates of the ‘oral tradition’ hypothesis presents it therefore in a restricted version, namely as a supplement to the widely 362 Ibid. 279-280. 363 Ibid. 291. 364 It is interesting to note that even Eta Linnemann, who by means of statistical arguments challenged every kind of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels, admitted that the general level of verbal agreement among the Synoptic Gospels lies below that typical of “tendentious ideological/theological reworking” but above that of “creative rewriting”: E. Linnemann, Gibt es ein synoptisches Problem? (Hänssler: NeuhausenStuttgart 1992), 133-136. 365 R. H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 46-47.

108

accepted Q hypothesis or as a modification thereof. Recourse to orality is treated as a remedy for some of the weaknesses of the Q hypothesis but it hardly challenges or improves in a significant way that commonly adopted solution to the synoptic problem. It is merely argued that the fragments of the double Mt-Lk tradition that display low verbal agreement should be attributed to common oral traditions, whereas the other ones should be interpreted as originating from the written document Q. The models that are borrowed from the research on oral cultures, interdependence of orality and literality, preserving and forming social memory by means of orality, etc. constitute therefore in fact a quite artificial addition to the axiomatic assumption of the existence of the so-called ‘Q’ or ‘q’ tradition. It should be noted, however, that a methodologically responsible application of such models has to be preceded by a demonstration that oral phenomena really shaped the hypothetical ‘Q/q’ tradition. Low level of agreement in wording between two thematically similar texts does not necessarily prove their provenance from a common oral source. Literary studies reveal that classical and Hellenistic authors as a rule consistently and thoroughly rewrote their sources. What is striking, against this background, is not the low level of Mt-Lk agreement in wording in some pericopes of the double Mt-Lk tradition but, on the contrary, (a) instances of anomalously high verbal agreement and (b) the observed unevenness in the distribution of verbatim agreement in the synoptic texts (also within the synoptic pericopes). 366 The former phenomenon is most satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis of direct literary dependence between Mt and Lk in some direction. The latter issue requires further research on patterns of literary reworking of highly authoritative (for example legal) Jewish and Hellenistic works in antiquity. 367 1.2.3 Priority of Mk and of some textually not recoverable traditions (D. C. Parker) The hypothesis of the existence of variety of early versions of the text of the Synoptic Gospels is one of the proposed solutions to the problem of the so366 Cf. S. L. Mattila, ‘A Question Too Often Neglected’, NTS 41 (1995) 199-217 (esp. 206213); T. C. Mournet, Oral Tradition, 278-284; J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Variation’, 63. 367 It should be noted that the research on literary interdependence of various versions of, for example, the so-called ‘Damascus Document’ and the so-called ‘Community Rule’ may be much more pertinent to the investigation of the synoptic tradition than, for example, analyses of Josephus’ extensive paraphrases of the books of the Bible, not to mention the studies on African oral poetry (with all due respect for this subject of research).

109

called Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk in the standard Q theory. 368 Moreover, the observed textual variety of the synoptic tradition functions as the basis for a more general, textual solution to the entire synoptic problem. David C. Parker, a British textual critic, investigated in his book The Living Text of the Gospels the phenomenon of considerable textual variety that is observed in the manuscripts of the New Testament. He came to the conclusion that oral gospel tradition did not cease with the redaction of the first manuscript (or manuscripts) of the Gospels but continued to exist and influence the written gospel tradition. In Parker’s view, modern quest for the one, earliest, original, definite text of the written Gospels may limit the scholarly perception of the ambiguity and multiplicity of the variegated gospel textual tradition. 369 On the basis of this general observation, Parker argues that the development of the Gospel material in the period after the activity of the evangelists does not permit the kind of scrutiny that is required for a documentary explanation of the problem of the so-called Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk. 370 Parker’s own proposal consists in accepting the basic idea of Matthew’s and Luke’s redactional use of the Gospel of Mark, but in a modified version. He allows namely for the possibility that the copyists, who were influenced by various versions of the Gospels, already in the first and the second century AD extensively, intentionally or inadvertently, harmonized the texts of the Synoptic Gospels. For this reason, according to the British scholar, explanation of the similarities between Mt and Lk by means of reconstruction of a hypothetical pre-Gospel document(s) ‘Q’ is methodologically not possible. 371 However, it should be noted that the complex pattern of, on the one hand, similarities between Mt and Lk and, on the other hand, their numerous evidently not harmonized differences (for example, in the Sermon on the Plain/Mount) cannot be adequately explained solely by the hypothesis of the copyists’ untraceable harmonization of the variegated synoptic tradition in the first and the second century AD. If all commonly agreed text-critical procedures are applied to the double Mt-Lk tradition and the texts of the Gospels that are traceable back 368 See e.g. C. G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist, 463-464; P. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, 54-58; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 113 n. 65. 369 D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge University: Cambridge 1997), 209-212. 370 Ibid. 183. 371 Ibid. 121-123; cf. also id., An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge University: Cambridge 2008), 314. It should be noted that Parker does not deny a priori the existence of any pre-Gospel documents. He expresses doubts, however, as to the methodological possibility of reconstructing such documents on the basis of the textual data that are available to us today.

110

to the second-third century AD are critically reconstructed, the resulting pattern of Mt-Lk similarity and divergence does not resemble any kind of diatessaron. Consequently, the proposal of the British scholar cannot be regarded as a comprehensive solution to the synoptic problem. 1.2.4 Priority of Proto-Mk and Q The hypothesis of the priority of a reconstructed Proto-Mk and a likewise reconstructed source Q is a variant of the modern Two-Source hypothesis. It differs from its widely accepted counterpart in that it postulates literary dependence of Mt and Lk not on the canonical Gospel of Mark that is known to us from the Gospel manuscripts but on its reconstructed, more original variant, which is usually called in German Ur-Marcus (which may be rendered into English as ‘Proto-Mk’). 1.2.4.1 Main arguments for the existence of Proto-Mk The hypothesis of Matthew’s and Luke’s redactional use of a version of Mk that was earlier than the canonical Gospel of Mark goes back to the nineteenth century. The German scholar Heinrich J. Holtzmann, having compared the Markan version of the gospel tradition with that of the other two synoptists, came to the conclusion that the Markan text in many instances displays features of deliberate shortening (e.g. Mk 1:13; 3:22), legendary expansion, difference from the text shared by Mt and Lk (e.g. Mk 1:10), and addition to the common Mt-Lk version (e.g. Mk 9:21-24; 10:23.49). 372 In order to explain theses features, Holtzmann postulated the existence of two main, later lost sources of the synoptic tradition: (a) Proto-Mk (Urmarcus, ‘A’), which contained the material of Mk plus Lk 3:79.16-17 par.; 4:1-13 par.; 6:20-49 par.; 7:1-10 par.; Jn 7:53-8:11; Mt 28:9-10.1620, and (b) Proto-Mt (Urmatthäus, ‘Λ’), which included the remaining part of the double Mt-Lk tradition (beginning with Lk 7:18 par.) and most of the sayings material peculiar to Mt and Lk. 373 It should be noted that Holtzmann’s arguments for attributing numerous fragments of the triple tradition and of the double Mt-Lk one to Proto-Mk were not based on a critical reconstruction of the wording of the hypothetical preMarkan source, which was allegedly used by all the synoptists. They were based only on the scholar’s judgements as to the plausibility of the relative posteriority of the canonical text of Mk, especially in its positive (i.e. longer-text) disagree372 H. J. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Wilhelm Engelmann: Leipzig 1863), 60-63. 373 Ibid. 67-102, 126-157.

111

ments against Mt and Lk. 374 This type of argumentation is used also in several modern proposals concerning the existence of a hypothetical Proto-Markan source. 1.2.4.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the priority of Proto-Mk H. Koester Helmut Koester’s literary analysis of the text of Mk as compared to that of Mt and Lk led him to the conclusion that several texts that are present in Mk but that do not have extant parallels in Mt and/or Lk (e.g. Mk 2:27; 4:26-29; 6:458:26; 9:14b-16.21.22b-24; 10:21.24.32; 12:32-34; 14:51-52) display features that are normally considered secondary. Consequently, in Koester’s opinion, they were probably missing in the copy of Mk that was used by Matthew and Luke. 375 Moreover, in the scholar’s view, there are some terms (e.g. εὐαγγέλιον) that often occur in Mk but are for some reasons omitted in Mt and/or Lk. Accordingly, Koester formulated a hypothesis of composition of the Gospel of Mark in several stages: (a) an initial Proto-Mk, which was known to Luke; (b) a Proto-Mk that was expanded with the use of Mk 6:45-8:26, and which was known to Matthew; (c) a version of Mk that was expanded with the use of the story of raising of a youth from the dead and of his subsequent initiation, which was known to Clement of Alexandria as the Secret Gospel of Mark; and (d) the canonical Gospel of Mark. 376 However, Koester’s hypothesis is too general, both in categories of detailed textual comparison and in categories of explanation of the reasons for e.g. the apparent omission of Mk 6:45-8:26 in the Gospel of Luke, to be treated as a comprehensive solution to the synoptic problem.

374 Cf. also E. Wendling, Ur-Marcus: Versuch einer Wiederherstellung der ältesten Mitteilungen über das Leben Jesus (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1905), 3. 375 Koester’s research on the synoptic problem has been already partly analysed above, in the Section 1.2.1, which was devoted to the Q theory. Since, however, Koester’s investigations refer also to the hypothesis of the existence of Proto-Mk, they will be analysed here as well. 376 H. Koester, ‘History and Development of Mark’s Gospel (From Mark to Secret Mark and “Canonical” Mark)’, in Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches, ed. B. Corley (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 35-57; id., Ancient Christian Gospels, 276-286, 295-303.

112

N. Walter Nikolaus Walter’s proposal concerning the existence of the hypothetical ProtoMk is based on the argument from Markan posteriority against Mt and Lk in at least some of the instances of disagreement of the text of Mk against Mt and Lk (Mk 1:1-8; 1:12-13; 2:27; 6:34; 8:22-26; 10:12; 12:1-12; 16:8). 377 Walter’s main contribution to the classical Ur-Marcus theory is a suggestion as to the geographical-historical setting of the hypothetical Proto-Markan or rather early Markan source. The German scholar argued that the original Markan work (called by him: Mk1) had been composed c. AD 70 in Syria, whereas the canonical one (Mk2) had been redacted somewhat later (c. AD 100) in Rome. 378 Walter admitted, however, that the second version of the Gospel of Mark (Mk2) displayed no consistent redactional or theological traits in comparison to its hypothetical original counterpart (Mk1). 379 This observation considerably diminishes the plausibility of Walter’s entire proposal. W. Schmithals The German scholar Walter Schmithals proposed in his commentary on the Gospel of Mark a complex theory of the existence and literary interdependence of three hypothetical pre-Gospel literary sources: Q1, Q, and a Proto-Markan Grundschrift (GS). The Proto-Markan work was reconstructed by Schmithals mainly on the basis of the scholar’s literary analyses of the canonical Gospel of Mark. This reconstructed source (GS) was, according to Schmithals, known to Mark, to the author of Q, and presumably also to Matthew and Luke. 380 It should be noted, however, that although the assumption of Matthew’s and Luke’s use of GS was regarded by Schmithals as the best explanation of some instances of Markan disagreement against Mt and Lk (Mk 1:16-20; 377 N. Walter, ‘Das Markus-Evangelium und Rom: Das kanonische Markus-Evangelium als überarbeitete Fassung des ursprünglichen Markus-Textes’, Helikon 18-19 (1978-1979) 22-40 [updated in id., Praeparatio Evangelica: Studien zur Umwelt, Exegese und Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, ed. W. Krays and F. Wilk (WUNT 98; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1997), 78-94]. 378 Id., ‘Mk 1,1-8 und die “Agreements” von Mt 3 und Lk 3: Stand die Predigt Johannes des Täufers in Q?’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 457-478. 379 Ibid. 477. 380 W. Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Markus (ÖTKNT 2; Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh and Echter: Würzburg 1979), 57-58.

113

2:23b.27; 3:16-17; 5:27; 9:3; 11:9; 14:3-9.72b), it was never included in the scholar’s synthetic, graphic presentations of his solution to the synoptic problem. 381 Most probably, the scholar did not want to address the evident problems that result from this assumption for redaction-critical analyses of Mt and Lk. Much more insightful is the scholar’s realization that the material shared only by Mt and Lk, which is usually attributed to the hypothetical source Q, was in its final form dependent on the Markan tradition (GS and Mk), and that it was composed as a supplement to Mk that presupposed the existence of Mk. 382 This opinion rightly challenges two widely accepted assumptions: (a) of Q’s independence of Mk and (b) of Markan dependence on Q. In his most recent investigations, Schmithals put forward a new solution to the synoptic problem, which is based on Mark’s postulated peculiar redactional activity. Schmithals theorizes that it was Mark who ‘messianized’ and finally edited the originally pre-Christian, ‘Johannine’ Q source, having enriched it with material that conveyed especially the Markan idea of the ‘messianic secret’ (e.g. Lk 4:1-13 par.). On the other hand, it was Mark who inserted into the original pre-Markan version of his Gospel some material from Q, especially that concerning the heavenly ‘Son of Man’ (e.g. Lk 12:40 par.). 383 According to the new version of the scholar’s theory, Mk and Q were literarily mutually dependent on each other. Schmithals theorizes, moreover, that Mark could have edited Q and Mk on one scroll, and that he could have marked the beginning of the Gospel (which was placed on the scroll after Q) with the particular remark Mk 1:1. According to Schmithals, such a form of publication of Q and Mk accounts also for Matthew’s and Luke’s independent use of both Q and Mk in their redactional work.384 However, the scholar fails to explain why it was not Mark (who was allegedly quite creative in his ‘material-exchanging’ redactional activity) but Matthew and Luke who independently of each other devised the technique of interweaving Q with Mk to form one continuous narrative. 385

381 See esp. id., Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 215, 428; id., Das Evangelium nach Markus (ÖTKNT 2; 2nd edn., Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh and Echter: Würzburg 1986), 57. 382 Id., Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 397-399, 403. 383 Id., ‘Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Spruchquelle’, HvTSt 64 (2008) 353-375 (esp. 373). 384 Ibid. 374. 385 Cf. ibid.

114

R. Bartnicki Roman Bartnicki is a Polish scholar who performed a thorough redaction-critical analysis of the Matthean missionary discourse (Mt 9:35-11:1). In the course of his investigations of this section of Mt, Bartnicki came to the conclusion that the origin of the triple-tradition passages that are contained in the analysed discourse is difficult to explain by the classical Two-Source hypothesis. According to the scholar, in some instances (e.g. Mk 3:16-19; 6:7.11; 13:9.11), the text of Mk should be interpreted as simply parallel to the version of Mt rather than as functioning as a source for Mt. On this basis, Bartnicki postulated the existence of two presynoptic sources: one that was known to all three synoptists (‘S’) and one that was known only to Matthew and Luke (‘Q’). 386 The Polish scholar admitted that his proposal was difficult to prove conclusively, and that for this reason it ought to be regarded as a mere hypothesis, which, however, had the advantage of being both simple and plausible. 387 Bartnicki did not test his hypothesis, alas, on other gospel texts. 388 1.2.4.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the priority of Proto-Mk The hypothesis of the priority of Proto-Mk and Q is based on a general recognition of the fact that Mark redactionally reworked some earlier sources or traditions. The hypothesis of the existence of a large written Proto-Markan source departs from this widely agreed-upon statement in two main directions, which necessarily cause two sets of problems. Most proponents of the theory of Proto-Mk justify their hypothesis with the argument from the relative posteriority of the text of Mk in the so-called Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk. However, in order to confirm the theory of the existence of a Proto-Markan source, positive proofs of the alleged priority of the common Mt-Lk ‘minor-agreements’ version against that of Mk should be given. The present state of discussion reveals, however, that evidence of this kind is in reality meagre and inconclusive. Moreover, no adequate reconstruction of distinct theological traits of such a ‘minor-agreements’ version of the hypothetical Proto-Mk, which would have been in fact widely agreeing with the canonical Mk, has ever been seriously offered. Doubts over the possibility of reconstruc386 R. Bartnicki, Uczeń Jezusa jako głosiciel Ewangelii: Tradycja i redakcja Mt 9,35-11,1 (Akademia Teologii Katolickiej: Warszawa 1985), 242-244. 387 Ibid. 243; id., ‘Problem synoptyczny dawniej i dzisiaj’, STV 27 (1989) fasc. 1, 15-73 (esp. 68-71). 388 Cf. id., Ewangelie synoptyczne: Geneza i interpretacja (3rd edn., Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2003), 398-399.

115

tion of aims of the alleged reworking of the hypothetical ‘minor-agreements’ Proto-Markan work by the author of the canonical Mk have been explicitly raised instead, even by the advocates of the Proto-Mk theory. The more ‘creative’ version of the Proto-Mk theory, which postulates that Proto-Mk was much differing in wording and order of pericopes from the canonical Gospel of Mark, is even more difficult to justify methodologically. If Matthew and Luke knew and used Proto-Mk that was quite different from Mk, why did they both resolve to follow generally the order of pericopes that is witnessed in the canonical Gospel of Mark? Moreover, why did they both so often follow closely the wording of the canonical Mk? It seems, therefore, that the enigmatic, reconstructed work of Proto-Mk has the main advantage not so much of explaining the synoptic data as rather of being adaptable to free scholarly manipulations. 1.2.5 Relative priority of Deutero-Mk (with or without Q) against Mt and Lk 1.2.5.1 Main arguments for the existence of Deutero-Mk The hypothesis of the existence of a later recension or revision of Mk, which was used, along with Q, by Matthew and by Luke independently of each other, dates back to the nineteenth century. At that time, the study of the so-called Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk led some scholars to formulate the hypotheses of Matthew’s and Luke’s redactional use of a version of Mk that was different from the canonical one. Whereas some scholar opted for the existence of Proto-Mk, others argued that the version differing from Mk, which was used by Matthew and Luke, represented a later revision of the canonical Mk. William Sanday, the most known scholar of the latter persuasion, argued that the version of the text of Mk that was used by Matthew and Luke displayed features of deliberate editorial correction of style and of removing obscurities contained in the canonical text of Mk. According to the British scholar, the textual version of Mk that was used by Matthew and Luke was composed probably in Antioch and then lost in the early period of the history of the Church when the two longer Synoptic Gospels (i.e. Mt and Lk) overshadowed Mk in the Church’s proclamation and theology. 389 Burnett H. Streeter, in his major study on the 389 W. Sanday, ‘The Conditions under which the Gospels were written, in their bearing upon some Difficulties of the Synoptic Problem’, in Studies in the Synoptic Problem: By Members of The University of Oxford, ed. id. (Clarendon: Oxford 1911), 1-26 (esp. 21-24) [also in id., Essays in Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, ed. C. A. Evans, S. E. Porter, and S. N. Doff (JSNTSup 225; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 40-58 (esp. 54-57)].

116

Gospels, argued likewise that in all investigated by him Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk, the existing text of Mk seemed more primitive and more original than the more ‘polished’ common version of Mt and Lk. 390 The main argument for the existence of Deutero-Mk is based therefore on the understanding of the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk as secondary to the canonical text of Mk. 1.2.5.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the relative priority of Deutero-Mk against Mt and Lk J. Carmignac Jean Carmignac’s synoptic theory formally belongs to multiple-source hypotheses, but its logical construction is based on the assumption of the existence of a kind of Deutero-Mk, and for this reason it will be discussed here. On the basis of numerous Semitisms detected in the gospels of Mark and Matthew, the French scholar argued that both these Gospels (as well as the Q ‘Collection of Discourses’) were originally composed in Hebrew. The Mt-Lk agreements against Mk were explained by Carmignac by means of a recourse to a postulated, also Hebrew, ‘Complemented Mk’ (Marc Complété) that was known to Matthew and Luke. Consequently, in Carmignac’s opinion, Luke, as the last among the synoptists, used in his redactional work four sources: Mk, the ‘Collection of Discourses’, the ‘Complemented Mk’, and Mt. 391 Carmignac’s theory is evidently quite complicated. It is, moreover, structurally redundant. Mt-Lk agreements with Mk in the triple tradition are here explained by two concurrent factors: (a) Matthew’s and Luke’s common use of Mk, and (b) Lukan dependence on Mt. Mt-Lk agreements against Mk are also explained by two factors: (a) Matthew’s and Luke’s common use of the ‘Complemented Mk’, and (b) Lukan dependence on Mt. Moreover, Carmignac unduly divided the Synoptic Gospels into the ‘Hebrew’ ones (Mk and Mt) and the ‘Greek’ one (Lk). Such an assumption may no longer be sustained, especially in the light of more recent research on the synoptists’ common variegated use of ancient Jewish traditions.

390 B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 180-181, 298-305. 391 J. Carmignac, La naissance des Évangiles Synoptiques (3rd edn., O.E.I.L.: Paris 1984), 51-57.

117

A. Fuchs The Austrian scholar Albert Fuchs is without doubt the main modern champion of the hypothesis of the existence of Deutero-Mk. In his books 392 and in a series of articles published in the period of over thirty years, 393 Fuchs presented and defended the hypothesis of the existence of Deutero-Mk as the only viable solution to the synoptic problem. In difference to earlier advocates of the Deutero-Mk hypothesis, Fuchs argues that the Deutero-Markan work was not a mere stylistic correction of the canonical text of Mk, but that in many instances (e.g. Mk 1:1-8 parr.; 1:12-13 parr.; 3:22-27 par.; 6:45-8:26 par.) it substantially differed from Mk. According to Fuchs, in the above-mentioned pericopes the versions of Mt and Lk, on the one hand, agree against Mk and much differ from it but, on the other hand, they display typically Markan narrative features. For this reason, according to the scholar, they were based not on the hypothetical source Q, which according to a number of Q theorists oddly overlapped in these pericopes with Mk, but on a Deutero-Markan expansion of the canonical Mk. 394 A similar Deutero-Markan expansion of the Markan text is detectable, according to Fuchs, in many other pericopes throughout the Gospels (e.g. Mk 1:9-11 parr.; 2:1-12 parr.; 3:28-30 parr.; 4:35-41 parr.; 5:21-43 parr.; 6:17-13 parr.; 6:32-44 parr.; 10:46-52 parr.; 11:1-10 parr.; 11:27-33 parr.; 12:13-17 parr.; 12:18-27 parr.; 12:28-34 parr.; 12:35-37a parr.; 14:32-42 parr.). 395 For this reason, the scholar presents his hy392 A. Fuchs, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Matthäus und Lukas: Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkritik (AnBib 49; Biblical Institute: Rom 1971), 55-57 et passim (cf. esp. 202); id., Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: Traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 3,22-27 und Parallelen, verbunden mit der Rückfrage nach Jesus (SNTU.B 5; Linz 1980), passim. 393 Fuchs’s articles dealing with the synoptic problem are conveniently gathered and partly reworked in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 1-5 (SNTU.NF 1-5; Lit: Münster 2004-2007). Cf. also id., Defizite der Zweiquellentheorie (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2009). 394 Id., ‘Spuren von Deuteromarkus – Ein Überblick’, in id., Spuren, vol. 1 (SNTU.NF 1; Lit: Münster 2004), 7-32 (esp. 21-30). 395 Id., ‘Offene Probleme der Synoptikerforschung: Zur Geschichte der Perikope Mk 2,1-12 par Mt 9,1-8 par Lk 5,17-26’, in id., Spuren, vol. 2 (SNTU.NF 2; Lit: Münster 2004), 19-52; id., ‘Die Seesturmperikope Mk 4,35-41 parr in Wandel der urkirchlichen Verkündigung’, in id., Spuren, vol. 2, 53-93; id., ‘Schrittweises Wachstum: Zur Entwicklung der Perikope Mk 5,21-43 par Mt 9,18-26 par Lk 8,40-56’, in id., Spuren, vol. 2, 115-170; id., ‘Die synoptische Aussendungsrede in quellenkritischer und traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht’, in id., Spuren, vol. 2, 198-307; id., ‘Die Sünde wider den Heiligen Geist Mk 3,28-30 par Mt 12,31-37 par Lk 12,10’, in id., Spuren, vol. 3 (SNTU.NF 3; Lit: Münster 2004), 159-180; id., ‘Die Agreement-Redaktion von Mk 6,32-44 par

118

pothesis in terms of a linear ‘three-stages theory’ that encompasses Mk, Deutero-Mk, and Mt with Lk. 396 Fuchs claims, moreover, that an early redactional stage of the Gospel of John (esp. in Jn 6:1-15) was dependent on Mk, but, on the other hand, it was known to the author of Deutero-Mk. 397 Fuchs asserts that the existence of the hypothetical source Q has to be considered unquestionable. The Austrian scholar argues at the same time that the extension of this source was limited to the material that was incorporated into the Markan framework by the Deutero-Markan redactor, i.e. to the ‘pure’ double Mt-Lk tradition with no parallel in Mk. However, according to Fuchs, the most important issue in the research on the synoptic problem is not the decision on what belonged to Q and what to Deutero-Mk but the investigation of the process of growth of the entire synoptic tradition, which should be understood in categories of a generally Deutero-Markan development of the Markan narrative tradition. 398 Fuchs’s arguments concerning the generally post-Markan character of the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk are certainly valid and supported by detailed, extensive exegesis of pertinent texts. Fuchs’s theory evidently lacks, however, a

Mt 14,13-21 par Lk 9,10b-17: Ein vorläufiger Entwurf’, in id., Spuren, vol. 3, 245-271; id., ‘Die agreements der Einzugsperikope Mk 11,1-10 par Mt 21,1-9 par Lk 19,28-38’, in id., Spuren, vol. 3, 273-286; id., ‘Die agreements der Perikope von der Taufe Jesu Mk 1,9-11 par Mt 3,13-17 par Lk 3,21-22’, in id., Spuren, vol. 4 (SNTU.NF 4; Lit: Münster 2004), 23-57; id., ‘Gethsemane: Die deuteromarkinische Bearbeitung von Mk 14,32-42 par Mt 26,36-46 par Lk 22,39-46’, in id., Spuren, vol. 4, 131-194; id., ‘Die Frage nach der Vollmacht Jesu Mk 11,27-33 par Mt 21,23-27 par Lk 20,1-8’, in id., Spuren, vol. 4, 195-233; id., ‘Die Pharisäerfrage nach der Kaisersteuer Mk 12,13-17 par Mt 22,15-22 par Lk 20,20-26’, in id., Spuren, vol. 4, 235-261; id., ‘Die Saduzäerfrage Mk 12,18-27 par Mt 22,23-33 par Lk 20,27-40’, in id., Spuren, vol. 4, 263-296; id., ‘Mehr als Davids Sohn Mk 12,35-37a par Mt 22,41-46 par Lk 20,41-44’, in id., Spuren, vol. 5 (SNTU.NF 5; Lit: Münster 2007), 11-31 [also as id., ‘More Than David’s Son: Mark 12:35-37a//Matthew 22:41-46//Luke 20:41-44’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 82-95]; id., ‘Die Agreements der Blindenheilung Mk 10,64-52 par Mt 20,29-34/9,27-31 par Lk 18,35-43’, in id., Spuren, vol. 5, 33-60; id., ‘Probleme der Zweiquellentheorie anhand der Perikope vom obersten Gebot Mk 12,28-34 par Mt 22,34-40 par Lk 10,25-28’, in id., Spuren, vol. 5, 61-204. 396 Id., ‘Durchbruch in der Synoptischen Frage: Bemerkungen zu einer “neuen” These und ihren Konsequenzen’, in id., Spuren, vol. 1, 101-115 (esp. 114-115). 397 Id., ‘Das Verhältnis der synoptischen agreements zur johanneischen Tradition, untersucht anhand der messianischen Perikope Mk 6,32-44 par Mt 14,13-21 par Lk 9,10-17; Joh 6,1-15’, in SNTU.A 27 (2002) 85-115. 398 Id., ‘Spuren von Deuteromarkus’, 17-21.

119

full, coherent presentation of the redactional techniques and of the theological outlook of the postulated, hypothetical Deutero-Mark. Another important, not clarified issue is the relationship of the hypothetical Deutero-Mk to the material that is conventionally attributed by Fuchs to the Q source. Were Deutero-Mk and Q literarily dependent on each other in some direction? Did they share any redactional or theological traits? Alternatively, were they composed by the same post-Markan redactor, for example by Luke, with the use of various earlier materials? Finding an adequate answer to these questions is in fact crucial for solving the synoptic problem. M. Klinghardt At the first stage of his academic career, Matthias Klinghardt espoused the traditional Q theory. 399 The solution to the synoptic problem that has been recently offered by the German scholar broadly corresponds to that of Jean Carmignac. The main novelty of Klinghardt’s proposal, as compared to that of Carmignac, consists in the German scholar’s identification of the ‘enlarged Mk’, which allegedly served as the main source for Lk and as a secondary source for Mt (apart from postulated by Klinghardt Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mk and Luke’s use of Mt), with the lost but well attested in ancient sources Marcion’s Gospel. Klinghardt argues that the ‘Marcionite Gospel’, which may be regarded as a sort of Deutero-Mk or Proto-Lk, was an altered and enlarged re-edition of Mk, which included the material found in e.g. Lk 6:20-49; 7:1-28.36-50; 15:1-10; 16:117:4. 400 The scholar admits, however, that nothing can be said in his theory about the origin of this additional ‘Marcionite’ material. Likewise, no explanation is given for Marcion’s alleged omission of Mk 1:1-20; 4:26-34; 6:45-8:26, apart from the vague assumption that the hypothetical author “left it out for editorial reasons”. 401 The scholar fails to explain also the redactional aims and procedures that were applied by the hypothetical author of the ‘Marcionite Gospel’ in his postulated reworking of Mk. Moreover, the patristic tradition, which is our only 399 See M. Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes: Das lukanische Verständnis des Gesetzes nach Herkunft, Funktion und seinem Ort in der Geschichte des Urchristentums (WUNT 2.32; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1988), 16-23. 400 Cf. id., ‘The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion’, NovT 50 (2008) 1-27 (esp. 5-22). Cf. also id., ‘“Gesetz” bei Markion und Lukas’, in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament, Festschrift C. Burchard, ed. D. Sänger and M. Konradt (NTOA 57; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen and Academic: Fribourg 2006), 99-128. 401 Id., ‘The Marcionite Gospel’, 22.

120

source of information concerning Marcion, unanimously states that it was Marcion who reworked the canonical Gospels and not vice versa. 402 Klinghardt’s hypothesis cannot be therefore regarded as convincing. F. Kogler Franz Kogler’s dissertation concerning Mk 4:30-32 parr., which was written under the tutorage of Albert Fuchs, aimed at corroborating the tutor’s hypothesis of the existence of Deutero-Mk. Kogler argued that Deutero-Mark transformed the Markan parable of the mustard seed (Mk 4:30-32) into a twin parable of the mustard seed and of the yeast (Mk 4:30-32 par. Lk 13:18-21) by adapting it to the Hellenistic cultural milieu and by emphasizing the ideas of growth of the Kingdom and of the corresponding hope for missionary repletion of the whole world with its transforming dynamism. 403 Although Kogler attempted to undertake in his dissertation a traditioncritical analysis of the allegedly Deutero-Markan twin parable, he failed to address adequately the redaction-critical issue of correct attribution of the composition of the twin, gender-paired parables within the synoptic tradition. 404 This particular redactional device may be attributed, of course, to a hypothetical Deutero-Mark, but there is no reason to do so, especially if one takes into consideration the fact that composing gender-paired literary couples was characteristic especially of Luke. The allegedly Deutero-Markan theological traits of Lk 13:18-21, as described by Kogler, are also quite characteristic of Luke. Kogler’s hypothesis of the existence of Deutero-Mk is therefore at least unnecessary, if not misleading, as a solution to the synoptic problem.

402 For Klinghardt’s arguments against reliability of the patristic traditions concerning Marcion, see id., ‘Markion vs. Lukas: Plädoyer für die Wiederaufnahme eines alten Falles’, NTS 52 (2006) 484-513. If, however, the reliability of the patristic tradition concerning Marcion’s editorial procedures that consisted, according to the Fathers, in omitting, reworking, and adding material is called into question, then any reliable reconstruction of the text of the ‘Marcionite Gospel’ is methodologically impossible and Klinghardt’s hypothesis ends up in explaining unknown by unknown. 403 F. Kogler, Das Doppelgleichnis vom Senfkorn und vom Sauerteig in seiner traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung: Zur Reich-Gottes-Vorstellung Jesu und ihren Aktualisierungen in der Kirche (FzB 59; Echter: Würzburg 1988), 200-205. 404 Cf. in this respect the merely one note: ibid. 185 n. 337, which gives no interpretation of the pertaining textual data.

121

C. Niemand Christoph Niemand is another supporter of the Deutero-Mk hypothesis, who in his dissertation (dealing with Mk 9:2-10 parr.) espoused the ideas of Albert Fuchs. 405 Niemand attempted to reconstruct some distinct redactional and theological traits of the hypothetical Deutero-Mk. He admitted, however, that this procedure could be effective only if it would be applied to more textual data. 406 It is therefore intriguing that, with the exception of one article, 407 Niemand did not attempt to corroborate the Deutero-Mk hypothesis in his later academic career. 408 In his analysis of Mk 14:22-25 parr., the scholar simply passed over the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk (and at times also against 1 Cor 11:23-26). 409 J. Rauscher Johann Rauscher’s dissertation, which was written under the tutorage of Albert Fuchs, corroborated the tutor’s theory of the existence of Deutero-Mk by means of an analysis of Mk 4:10-12 parr. 410 Rauscher’s book, which came out a few years later, dealt with Mk 4:21-22 parr. On the basis of analyses performed by himself and by Franz Kogler, Rauscher attempted to reconstruct the distinctive redactional and theological traits of the hypothetical Deutero-Mk. In the

405 C. Niemand, Studien zu den Minor Agreements der synoptischen Verklärungsperikopen: Eine Untersuchung der literarkritischen Relevanz der gemeinsamen Abweichungen des Matthäus und Lukas von Markus 9,2-10 für die synoptische Frage (EHS 23/352; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1989) (esp. 274-281). 406 Ibid. 296-298; id., ‘Bemerkungen zur literarkritischen Relevanz der minor agreements: Überlegungen zu einigen Aufgaben und Problemen der agreement-Forschung’, in SNTU.A 14 (1989) 25-38 (esp. 35-36). 407 Id., ‘Die Täuferlogien Mk 1,7-8 parr: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen und ihre Bedeutung für die synoptische Frage’, in SNTU.A 18 (1993) 63-96. 408 Cf. id., Die Fusswaschungserzählung des Johannesevangeliums: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Entstehung und Überlieferung im Urchristentum (StAns 114; Roma 1993), 85 n. 6. 409 Id., ‘Jesu Abendmahl: Versuche zur historischen Rekonstruktion und theologischen Deutung’, in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Festschrift A. Fuchs, ed. id. (Linzer Philosophisch-Theologische Beiträge 7; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002), 81-122 (esp. 92). 410 J. Rauscher, Vom Messiasgehemnis zur Lehre der Kirche: Die Entwicklung der sogenannten Parabeltheorie in der synoptischen Tradition (Mk 4,10-12 par Mt 13,10-17 par Lk 8,9-10) ([s.n.] Desselbrunn 1990) (esp. 7-8, 331-336).

122

scholar’s view, Deutero-Mark transformed Mk 4:1-34 into an explanation of the principles that underlie the actual course of the history of salvation. 411 On the basis of his analysis of Deutero-Mk par. Lk 8:16-17, Rauscher theorized that the community of Deutero-Mk was a distinct, internally organized, and significant element of the surrounding society, which was open for a dialogue with outsiders and proclaimed boldly the doctrine about Jesus. In Rauscher’s view, Deutero-Mark developed also earlier paraenetic exhortations to obey the word of God, to be led by it in all circumstances of life, and to gain supporters by conducting an exemplary way of life. Another allegedly DeuteroMarkan theological trait was the idea of universality of salvation regarded as positively planned by God. The believers ought to adjust their lives totally to this plan, so that the call of the Gentiles to faith might be effectively realized. 412 Evident similarities of these allegedly Deutero-Markan ideas to the wellstudied world view of Luke are left by the Austrian scholar, alas, without an adequate explanation.413 A. Ennulat Andreas Ennulat wrote his important dissertation concerning the problem of the so-called Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk under the tutorage of Ulrich Luz. He refrained, alas, from giving any definition of the ‘minor agreements’, which constituted the main subject of his work. 414 Nevertheless, the scholar undertook a thorough analysis of 1,183 ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ Mt-Lk agreements against Mk, which are spread throughout the Gospels. 415 As a result of his analysis, Ennulat argued that although most (i.e. 48-51%) of the Mt-Lk (‘minor’) agreements against Mk correspond to both Matthean and Lukan redactional tendencies in their reworking of the text of Mark, they could have resulted also from an unverifiable pre-Mt-Lk reworking of Mk. Additionally, 39% of the Mt-Lk (‘minor’) agreements against Mk may suggest a possible pre-Mt-Lk

411 Id., Das Bildwort von der Öllampe in der synoptischen Tradition: Eine Auslegung von Mk 4,21f par Lk 8,16f; Mt 5,15; Lk 11,33 ([s.n.] Desselbrunn 1994), 143. 412 Ibid. 313-331. 413 Cf. the noteworthy statement in ibid. 335: “Zwischen Dmk und Lk besteht keine qualitative Differenz, sondern nur eine graduelle […].” 414 A. Ennulat, Die »Minor Agreements«, 2 n. 12: “[…] sind damit natürlich immer die ›kleinen mtlk Übereinstimmungen gegen den Mk Text‹ gemeint und schließen keinesfalls die ›großen mtlk Übereinstimmungen‹ (den gemeinsamen ›Q-Stoff‹) mit ein”. 415 Cf. ibid. 10.

123

reworking of Mk, and 10% of the agreements display some features of such a pre-Mt-Lk reworking. 416 It should be noted, however, that before undertaking his analyses, Ennulat simplistically rejected all possible solutions to the synoptic problem except two, namely that of Matthew’s and Luke’s independent reworking of Mk, and of a Deutero-Markan recension of Mk. 417 Nevertheless, Ennulat’s calculations are noteworthy: whereas only 4% of textual data decisively support the hypothesis of the existence of a pre-Mt-Lk reworking of Mk, 418 48-51% of the data may be easily explained in terms of Matthean and Lukan redactional reworking of Mk. Another interesting outcome of Ennulat’s work consists in the scholar’s comprehensive presentation of the theological profile of the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk. The scholar argues that in the texts that belong to the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk, Jesus is presented more decisively than in Mk as (a) the central character; (b) readily and universally healing; (c) teaching basically only in synagogues and in the Temple; (d) less emotional and more majestic (for example, having a shining face); (e) defined as κύριος and χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; (f) having disciples who understand him, also among the members of his family and among the women who followed him; and (g) acting less esoterically and more in public. 419 The relationship of this set of ideas (especially of the motifs of synagogues and the Temple, Jesus’ relatives, and women) to the theological traits of Luke is never addressed, however, in Ennulat’s otherwise quite valuable work. 1.2.5.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the relative priority of Deutero-Mk against Mt and Lk The theory of the existence of Deutero-Mk offers at least one insight that is crucial for the discussion on the synoptic problem. It demonstrates that the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk are generally post-Markan and not pre-Markan. 420 It offers also an interesting interpretation of the entire synoptic tradition (including

416 Ibid. 417-418 [Ennulat’s classes: IV, IV/III, III/IV, III; III/II, II/III, II; and III/I, II/I, I/III, I/II, I respectively: cf. his definitions given on p. 33]. 417 Ibid. 25-32. 418 Ibid. 418 [Ennulat’s class I]. 419 Ibid. 422-427. 420 This view is shared also by some scholars who do not espouse the hypothesis of the existence of Deutero-Mk: see e.g. T. A. Friedrichsen, ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements’, 391; F. Neirynck, ‘The Minor Agreements and the Two-Source Theory’, 40.

124

Lk and Mt) in terms of a stepwise development of the ideas and of the narrative framework that originate from the Gospel of Mark. 421 There are, however, at least three serious problems that make this hypothesis difficult to accept. First, as the study of Andreas Ennulat revealed, the textual data that unambiguously imply the existence of Deutero-Mk as distinct from Mk, Lk, and Mt are in fact very meagre (only c.4% of the so-called Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk). Second, the relationship of the postulated Deutero-Mk to the material that is attributed also in this theory to the Q source is far from clear. In fact, this issue is hardly ever discussed by the advocates of the Deutero-Mk theory. Third, in the theory of Deutero-Mk, the redactional activities of both later synoptists are interpreted as generally insignificant. Matthew and Luke are perceived by the Deutero-Mk theorists as having merely adopted the DeuteroMarkan reworking of the text of Mk. 422 This problem is serious especially in the case of Lk, because the redactional devices and theological traits of the postulated Deutero-Mark are hardly distinguishable from those of Luke. The literary and theological distinctiveness, and consequently the very existence of Deutero-Mk have to be therefore called into question. The redactional reworking of the text of Mk that is witnessed in Lk and Mt, instead of being ascribed to a hypothetical Deutero-Mark, may be attributed simply to Luke and regarded as partially adopted also by Matthew. 1.2.6 Numerous precanonical sources of the Synoptic Gospels 1.2.6.1 Main arguments for the existence of numerous precanonical sources of the Synoptic Gospels The hypothesis of the existence of numerous precanonical sources of the Synoptic Gospels goes back to the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century studies of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. This German scholar based his investigations of the Synoptic Gospels on the assumption (borrowed from the earlier studies of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing) that the canonical Gospels were not directly interdependent on one another in any way. 423 Having made this assump421 Cf. e.g. A. Fuchs, ‘Durchbruch’, in id., Spuren, vol. 1, 114: “[…] Dmk, Mt und Lk nichts anderes als weiterentwickelte Formen des Mk-Ev sind”. 422 Cf. e.g. A. Ennulat, Die »Minor Agreements«, 429: “Man wird deshalb davon ausgehen müssen, daß Mt und Lk im Einzelnen traditionsgebundener sind, als bisher angenommen wurde.” 423 J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung, 356: “[…] keiner der drey katholischen Evangelisten den andern vor Augen gehabt hat […]”.

125

tion, in order to explain in a satisfactory way both similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels, Eichhorn postulated the existence of numerous written precanonical, later lost sources that were used by the canonical evangelists. The complexity of the synoptic data required, according to Eichhorn, the assumption of the existence of at least five or even ten such precanonical documents. 424 The main argument for the existence of numerous lost, precanonical sources is therefore quite simple. Their existence is allegedly required by the complexity of the synoptic tradition, which is witnessed in the three similar but on the other hand much differing Synoptic Gospels. By postulating the existence of numerous lost documents or redactional stages, multiple-source hypotheses are capable of explaining all literary data in the Gospels, even the apparently contradictory ones. 425 Another argument for this hypothesis has a more literary character. The advocates of the multiple-source theory argue that none of the Synoptic Gospels is undoubtedly always more primitive or always more secondary than the other two. The supporters of this hypothesis prefer postulating the existence of numerous precanonical sources to, as they perceive it, forcing the evidence to suit various relatively simple schemes that are based on the assumption of some kind of direct literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels. 426 1.2.6.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the existence of numerous precanonical sources of the Synoptic Gospels M.-É. Boismard The multiple-source theory became quite popular in the last decades of the twentieth century especially in the French school of Gospel research. One of the main proponents of this theory was Marie-Émile Boismard. In his commentary to the monumental Synopsis of the Four Gospels in French, this scholar presented a

424 J. G. Eichhorn, ‘Ueber’, 761-996; id., Einleitung, 354-356. 425 M.-É. Boismard, ‘Théorie des niveaux multiples’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 231-243 (here: 233): “[…] En raison même de leur souplesse, elles peuvent rendre compte de faits littéraires en apparence contradictoires.” 426 Ibid. 237.

126

highly complicated multiple-source theory of redaction of the Synoptic Gospels. 427 In his more recent research, Boismard investigated several synoptic texts (e.g. Mk 1:32-34; 1:40-44 parr.; 6:30-34 parr.) that, according to the French scholar, are in neither Gospel clearly original as compared to the two other ones, and consequently they are most satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis of the existence of numerous precanonical sources: Proto-Mt, Proto-Mk, and ProtoLk. 428 In the last decade of his scholarly activity, Boismard came to the conclusion that the common features of Mk and Lk, which were earlier interpreted by him as resulting from Lukan dependence on the Markan tradition (precisely: on Proto-Mk), are more adequately explained in opposite terms, namely those of Markan dependence on the tradition of Proto-Lk. 429 Accordingly, in Boismard’s new opinion, the canonical Mk was literarily dependent on (a) Proto-Mk, which was in turn based on two earlier thematically parallel documents, did not contain the second multiplication of loaves (Mk 8:1-10), and ended with the institution of the Eucharist (Mk 14:22-25); (b) Proto-Mt; and (c) Proto-Lk. The final redaction of Mk was, according to the scholar, accomplished by a disciple of Luke or by Luke himself. 430 In the last period of his research, Boismard remarkably changed, likewise, his view on the double Mt-Lk tradition. He argued that in the fragments in which this tradition was transmitted in very differing forms (e.g. Lk 19:12-27 par.) it was dependent on Q, but in the parts in which Mt and Lk considerably agreed with each other, the double Mt-Lk tradition should be explained in terms of Matthean literary dependence on Proto-Lk. 431 Boismard’s hypothesis of Mark’s dependence on the tradition of Lk-Acts is in fact highly questionable because, as it may be easily noticed on the basis of this survey of Boismard’s research, the scholar’s criteria for ascertaining the direction of literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels at times yield 427 P. Benoit and M.-E. Boismard, Synopse des Quatre Évangiles en français, vol. 2, Commentaire par M.-E. Boismard avec la collaboration de A. Lamouille et P. Sandevoir, pref. P. Benoit (Cerf: [s.l.] 1972), 15-55. 428 M.-É. Boismard, ‘Introduction au premier récit de la multiplication des pains (Mt 14:1314; Mc 6:30-34; Lc 9:10-11)’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels, ed. D. L. Dungan, 244-258; id., ‘Étude sur Mc 1,32-34’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 987-995. 429 Id., L’Évangile de Marc: Sa préhistoire (ÉtB, NS 26; Gabalda: Paris 1994), 8. 430 Ibid. 9-12, 241-242, 277-290. 431 Ibid. 8 n. 3.

127

exactly opposite results. The other outcome of Boismard’s recent research is, however, really significant. The scholar who generally postulated the existence of numerous precanonical documents came to the conclusion that the Mt-Lk double tradition should be explained in terms of Lukan (precisely: Proto-Lukan) influence on Mt rather than by the hypothesis of the existence of a lost source or document ‘Q’. 432 Boismard further developed the latter idea by reconstructing in detail the hypothetical Proto-Lk. On the basis of a statistical analysis of frequency of occurrence of expressions regarded as typically Lukan (i.e. occurring almost exclusively in Lk-Acts), the French scholar argued that the canonical Lk was composed (and then reworked by another redactor) with the use of two earlier documents that displayed relatively few Lukan features. The first of them was Proto-Lk, which had been in turn composed of an earlier ‘Johannine’ document ‘X’ (including Lk 1:26-33.36-38; 2:1-40) and of a large Christian document ‘L’ (including most of the Gospel material, especially parts of the ‘travel narrative’, e.g. Lk 11:5-8; 12:13-21; 13:1-17; 15:11-32; 16:1-12.14-15; 18:1-8). The second of them was a considerably limited in its extent source ‘Q’, which was used by Lk and Mt (and which included, for example, Lk 10:2-16.21-24; 11:9-13; 11:2932; 11:39b-52; 12:41-46 par.). Boismard stated at the same time that both ‘L’ and ‘Q’ displayed relatively few features of Lukan reworking, whereas in the triple tradition Luke at times borrowed the Markan text without any significant changes (e.g. in Lk 6:1-11) but at times extensively modified it (e.g. in Lk 5:1826). 433 It should be noted that Boismard’s last hypothesis is not only highly complicated and in practice unverifiable but also methodologically flawed. Above all, Boismard’s statistical calculations are in fact quite inaccurate. For example, in his analysis of Lk 1:26-33.36-38, the scholar listed 9 peculiarly Lukan features that occur in 7 of the total 11 verses, 434 but somewhat later he argued that there are only 2 Lukan notes within these 11 verses. 435 The summarizing calculation of the allegedly 0.32 ‘Lukan’ notes per verse in Lk 2:1-40 and the allegedly 0.91 ‘Lukan’ notes per verse in Lk 2:41-52 led Boismard to the conclusion that the mean of the ‘Lukan’ notes per verse is 0.96 in the whole section Lk 2:1-

432 Ibid. 8 n. 3: “Mais lorsqu’ils [les textes de Mt/Lc] sont quasi identiques, leur caractère lucanien nous semble certain et nous pensons qu’ils proviennent de la tradition lucanienne […]”. 433 Id., En quête du Proto-Luc (ÉtB, NS 37; Gabalda: Paris 1997), 16-39, 333-336. 434 Ibid. 18. 435 Ibid. 35.

128

52. 436 The scholar’s procedure of distinguishing Lukan redaction from preLukan sources (‘X’, ‘L’, and ‘Q’) is therefore in reality highly questionable. Moreover, Boismard observed that Luke reworked Mk in markedly differing ways: at times by simply adopting Markan wording, but at times by heavily reworking it. 437 However, the French scholar did not take into consideration the fact that Luke was evidently capable also of imitating various sources and styles. As New Testament scholars very well know, reconstructions of the hypothetical sources of Acts that are based solely on the observed variety of Lukan style are at least inconclusive. Accordingly, Boismard’s claim that, for example, Lk 15:11-32 was borrowed by Luke from his pre-Lukan source (Proto-Lk) in an unchanged form 438 has to be met with deep reservations. P. Rolland The French scholar Philippe Rolland developed another version of the multiplesource theory, which combined the assumption of the priority of Mk and Q (which has been borrowed from the Two-Source theory) with Griesbach’s hypothesis of Markan posteriority against Mt and Lk. 439 Rolland argued that whereas in their double tradition Mt and Lk were dependent literarily on Q (which was called by Rolland the ‘Gospel of God-fearers’), in the triple tradition they were dependent not directly on Mk but on two earlier documents that commonly gave rise to Mk, namely on, respectively, Proto-Mt (called by Rolland ‘H’ for the ‘Gospel of the Hellenists’) and Proto-Lk (called ‘P’ for the ‘Pauline Gospel’). In Rolland’s view, these two precanonical documents were in turn dependent on a yet earlier common source ‘D’ (for the ‘Gospel of the Twelve’ [French: Douze]). 440 In his later works, Rolland defended his hypothesis by referring to the phenomenon of over 170 Markan ‘double expressions’ that could be most naturally 436 Ibid. 34-36. 437 Ibid. 39. 438 Ibid. 296. 439 Rolland admits that his theory differs from Eichhorn’s classical multiple-source hypothesis in only one important point: that Roland (being influenced by the Two-Source theory) postulates independence of the source of the Mt-Lk double tradition (Q) from the source of the triple tradition (a protogospel): P. Rolland, Les premiers Évangiles: Un nouveau regard sur le problème synoptique (LeDiv 116; Cerf: Paris 1984), 34. 440 Id., ‘Les prédécesseurs de Marc: Les sources présynoptiques de Mc, II, 18-22 et parallèles’, RB 89 (1982) 370-405. Cf. also the earlier indirect presentation of Rolland’s hypothesis in L. Sabourin, Il Vangelo di Matteo: Teologia e esegesi, vol. 1 (Paoline: [s.l.] 1975), 177-180.

129

explained as conflations of shorter, differing versions of Mt and Lk. 441 By means of a comparison of fragments of the synoptic tradition with passages from Acts, Rolland reconstructed also the plausible Sitze im Leben of his hypothetical documents: Jerusalem (for the protogospel ‘D’), Caesarea (for the proto-Mt-Lk ‘Q’), Antioch (for the proto-Mt-Mk ‘H’), and Ephesus or Philippi (for the proto-LkMk ‘P’). 442 In Rolland’s opinion, in some fragments of the triple tradition (Mk 1:12-13; 2:8; 4:10.36; 6:33.38) the Markan version of the gospel text should be regarded as secondary to the common Semitic original, which underlay the versions of Mt and Lk that were differently translated from it. 443 For this reason, Rolland changed his earlier traditional view that Papias’ pre-Matthean λόγια should be identified with Q. 444 The scholar suggested their identification with the earliest pre-Gospel source (‘D’), which was now called by him the ‘Hebrew Matthew’. Correspondingly, the document ‘H’ was now called the ‘Hellenistic Matthew’, 445 and it was identified by the scholar with the tradition of Peter (cf. 1 Pet 1:18; 2:21-22; 5:13). 446 In Rolland’s view, it was Mark who as the first, after the redaction of Mt and Lk c. AD 63-64, effectively combined c. AD 66-67 the two great traditions: of Peter and of Paul (cf. Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Pet 5:13). 447 Rolland’s theory deals mainly with the phenomenon of Markan apparently coinciding priority and posteriority with respect to Mt and Lk. It fails to explain in a satisfactory way, however, the relationship between the triple tradition and the double Mt-Lk tradition. 448 Rolland’s assertion that the double tradition (‘Q’) 441 P. Rolland, ‘Marc, première harmonie évangélique?’, RB 90 (1983) 23-79; id., Les premiers Évangiles, 109-122. 442 Id., ‘Les Évangiles des premières communautés chrétiennes’, RB 90 (1983) 161-201; id., Les premiers Évangiles, 136-180, 248. 443 Id., ‘L’arrière-fond sémitique des évangiles synoptiques’, EThL 60 (1984) 358-362. However, this idea seems to be later abandoned by Rolland: cf. e.g. id., ‘La véritable préhistoire de Marc (Mc 6,30-34 et parallèles)’, RB 103 (1996) 244-256. 444 Id., Les premiers Évangiles, 207. 445 Id., ‘La question synoptique demande-t-elle une réponse compliquée?’, Bib 70 (1989) 217-223 (esp. 220-221). 446 Id., L’origine et la date des évangiles (Saint-Paul: Paris 1994), 19, 65-69; id., ‘A New Look at the Synoptic Question’, EuroJTh 8 (1999) 133-144. 447 Id., ‘Marc, lecteur de Pierre et de Paul’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 775-778; id., L’origine, 131-139, 164. 448 Cf. e.g. id., L’origine, 45: “Nous connaisons par la triple tradition (Mc 4,21 = Lc 8,16), mais aussi par la double tradition (Mt 5,15 = Lc 11,33), la parabole de la lampe qu’on met sur le lampadaire.”

130

was redacted first in Hebrew or Aramaic, as an ‘adaptation’ of the Gospel of the Twelve (‘D’), 449 is methodologically imprecise and in fact unfounded. For example, the observed thematic similarity between Lk 7:5-10 par. and Acts 10:248 does not prove, as it is claimed by the French scholar, that the former text was composed in Caesarea for Gentile ‘God-fearers’ on the basis of the Apostles’ reminiscences. 450 The evidence given by the French scholar points rather to Lukan authorship of Lk 7:5-10 par. Rolland’s ‘simple’ multiple-source theory is therefore in reality too simplistic. D. R. Burkett One of the most recent contributions to the theory of the synoptists’ independent redactional use of numerous sources has been offered by Delbert R. Burkett. This American scholar attempts to correct and develop the theory of Philippe Rolland. Having presupposed the existence of Q as an explanation of the similarities between Mt and Lk, Burkett analysed the relationships between Mt, Mk, and Lk in the triple tradition. On the basis of his investigations of divergences in both wording and order of material in the triple tradition, the American scholar postulated the existence of a later lost ‘Proto-Mark’. In Burkett’s view, this work was composed in Greek in Jerusalem c. AD 70 and contained the material that is witnessed by all three synoptists in the same order and with generally the same wording, and hence it constitutes the ‘Synoptic core’ that was later expanded by other traditions. This basic work, according to Burkett, underwent two subsequent revisions that resulted in the composition of ‘Proto-Mark A’ and ‘ProtoMark B’, which were commonly used, respectively, by Mk with Mt, and by Mk with Lk. 451 Thus far, Burkett’s theory closely resembles that of Philippe Rolland. The American scholar formulated, however, another peculiar postulate. In his opinion, since both Mt and Lk in many instances disagree with the order of Mk in the triple tradition, they could not be dependent simply either on Mk or on the sources they shared with Mk (i.e. ‘Proto-Mark A’ and ‘Proto-Mark B’ respectively), but they both must have shared with Mk at least three independent 449 Id., Les premiers Évangiles, 179-180. 450 Cf. id., ‘Les Évangiles des premières’, 183: “Ainsi, l’entrée dans l’Église d’un grouppe de « craignants Dieu » éveille la mémoire des témoins de Jésus de Nazareth, et suscite l’anamnèse d’une guérison accordée jadis à un païen.” 451 D. Burkett, Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark (T&T Clark: New York · London 2004), 143-167. Cf. also id., ‘The Return of Proto-Mark: A Response to David Neville’, EThL 85 (2009) 117-133.

131

sources, which were called by Burkett ‘Material A’, ‘Material B’, and ‘Material C’. 452 Accordingly, Burkett explains the divergences in order between Mt and Lk against Mk not in terms of the evangelists’ redactional activities but in terms of the evangelists’ use of three independent overlapping sequences of material. For example, since in Mt, in difference to Mk, Jesus’ coming to Capernaum (Mt 4:13b par. Mk 1:21a) is placed before the call of the fishermen (Mt 4:18-22 par. Mk 1:16-20), it follows that the former episode must have belonged to the precanonical ‘Sequence B’ and the latter to the ‘Sequence A’, so that Mark and Matthew could have combined them differently, in the orders that pleased each of them. 453 Burkett argues, moreover, that Mk 1:16-20 parr. was contained in ‘Proto-Mark’ that was known to all three synoptists, 454 and that Mk 1:21a belonged to the ‘Material B’ that was used both directly by all three synoptists and indirectly (through ‘Proto-Mark B’) only by Mk and by Lk.455 In Burkett’s theory, the history of composition of the simple narrative sequence Mk 1:16-20a parr. is therefore highly complicated. Accordingly, the theory that was designed to explain all possible synoptic phenomena fails to explain convincingly the simplest ones. 1.2.6.3 Problems with the multiple-source theories The problems with the theory of the existence of numerous precanonical sources may be summarized in four points. First, the existence of a number of lost precanonical documents is certainly possible but, on the other hand, highly implausible. It may be conceded that the collection of λόγια (referred to by Papias), if it really existed, has been somehow lost in the course of history of the Church. Is it possible, however, that so many important kerygmatic and catechetic documents of early Christianity later simply disappeared? Second, the existence, extent, and wording of the postulated sources are in reality unverifiable. The methodology of recovering these postulated sources, both at the stage that immediately preceded the composition of the canonical Gospels and at earlier precanonical stages, is in fact highly debatable. The procedures that are applied by the advocates of the multiple-source hypotheses to identify numerous pre-Gospel sources behind the texts of the Synoptic Gospels 452 Id., Rethinking, 60-118, 168-223. 453 Ibid. 66-67, 79. 454 Ibid. 153. 455 Ibid. 144, 187.

132

are often questionable. The criteria that are used to ascertain the existence, peculiar character, and direction of postulated literary interdependence among the Gospels and their hypothetical sources and ‘proto-sources’ often yield contradictory results. The recourse to plurality of plausible Sitze im Leben of numerous hypothetical documents does not resolve the more fundamental source-critical problems. Third, the advocates of the multiple-source hypotheses generally assume the existence of Q and of an expanded, multi-level Proto-Mk. In all multiplesource hypotheses, the existence of Q, with all the problems that are inherent in the Q theory, is therefore taken for granted. Moreover, in all multiple-source hypotheses, the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk are treated as always more original than the text of Mk. In light of recent research, this assumption is, however, highly questionable. 456 Fourth, in the multiple-source theories, the redactional activity of the evangelists is perceived as greatly limited, in favour of their postulated simple reproduction of numerous hypothetical sources. Such a view is methodologically unfounded, especially in the case of Luke who evidently was a master of restyling (cf. e.g. Acts 9:1-22; 22:1-21; 26:9-23). Creative reworking of written and oral traditions, reorganization of their order, changing of their wording, omissions of some fragments and additions of others seem to have belonged to normal redactional practices of all three synoptists. For this reason, the multiplesource theories generally fell into decline with the rise of modern redaction criticism and of the analyses of the phenomenon of intertextuality in the synoptic tradition. 1.2.7 Common use of one lost protogospel 1.2.7.1 Main arguments for common synoptic use of one protogospel The hypothesis of the existence of one written protogospel that was used by all three synoptists is generally based on the information given by Papias (quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16), who stated that Matthew arranged the [Lord’s] oracles (τὰ λόγια) in [the] Hebrew language in an orderly way, and that every one translated them as he was able. The idea of common synoptic use of a Hebrew Proto-Mt was presented in modern times by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. In 456 See e.g. F. Neirynck, ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements in Mt 14,13-14 / Lk 9,10-11 (par. Mk 6,30-34): A Response to M.-É. Boismard’, EThL 60 (1984) 25-43 [also in id., Evangelica II: 1982-1991, 75-94]; A. Ennulat, Die »Minor Agreements«, 418. With regard to the apparent Markan conflations of Mt and Lk, see e.g. F. Neirynck, ‘Les expressions doubles chez Marc et le problème synoptique’, EThL 59 (1983) 303-330 [also in id., Evangelica II: 1982-1991, 293-320].

133

order to explain the literary similarities between the Synoptic Gospels, this German scholar postulated the existence of a written Aramaic-Hebrew protogospel (called by him variously: the ‘Gospel of the Apostles’, the ‘Gospel of the Nazarenes’, the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’, or the ‘Nazarene Source’), which was based on oral apostolic traditions, and which was used later independently by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 457 The arguments for the common synoptic use of one lost protogospel are therefore generally twofold. First, the existence of a Hebrew protogospel that was translated into Greek and used later in various Greek-speaking circles seems warranted by the early Christian tradition. Second, the existence of a hypothetical protogospel is postulated in order to explain the close literary relationships between Mt, Mk, and Lk. 1.2.7.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the priority of one protogospel D. Flusser David Flusser was a Jewish scholar who investigated also gospel traditions. On the basis of his acquaintance with the Dead Sea Scrolls and with other Jewish works of that era, Flusser argued for the basic originality of the Matthean version of the synoptic tradition. 458 On the other hand, the scholar distinguished between the original Jesus tradition that was used by Matthew and its later antiJewish Greek reworking in the canonical Mt. 459 These observations led Flusser to adopt Robert L. Lindsey’s solution to the synoptic problem, which was based on the assumption of the existence of (a) an early Semitic protogospel narrative (which was used subsequently by Luke, by Mark dependent on Lk, and by Mat-

457 G. E. Lessing, ‘Theses’, 80-81 [§. 33-47]; id., ‘Neue Hypothese’, 49, 51-52, 55-56, 5860, 63-68 [§. 4, 7-11, 24-25, 31-33, 42-50]. It should be noted that the idea of the existence of a lost Semitic Proto-Mt was widely held by ancient, medieval, and modern scholars on the basis of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’: see e.g. R. Simon, Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament: Où l’on établit la Verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrêtienne est fondée (Reinier Leers: Rotterdam 1689), 47-100. Against this background, the peculiarity of Lessing’s hypothesis consisted in his arguing that the lost Proto-Mt had been independently used by all three synoptists. 458 D. Flusser, ‘Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit…’, IEJ 10 (1960) 1-13 (esp.11) [also in id., Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Magness: Jerusalem 1988), 102-114 (esp. 112)]. 459 Id., ‘Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew’, Imm. 5 (1975) 37-45 [also in id., Judaism and the Origins, 552-560].

134

thew dependent on Mk) and (b) the sayings source Q (which was most probably known only to Luke and Matthew). 460 In his more recent research, Flusser simplified Lindsey’s theory by rejecting the idea of the existence of Q. Flusser postulated explaining the synoptic problem in terms of common use of a Hebrew Proto-Mt by the three canonical synoptists: Luke, Mark, and a Greek redactor of Mt, who were literarily dependent on one another in this sequence. 461 In a series of articles, Flusser corroborated his main thesis that the text of Lk was in many instances much closer to the Hebrew original than the texts of Mk and Mt, although it was the Greek, anti-Jewish Mt which better preserved the structure of the original ProtoMatthean work. 462 In one of his most recent articles, Flusser adopted again the hypothesis of the existence of the Sayings Source that was known to Matthew and Luke in a Greek translation. The scholar supplemented it with an additional hypothesis of the existence of an independent pre-Markan Jewish source that was used by Mark in Mk 1:12-13 in place of the parallel and more original ‘Q’ passage. 463 Notwithstanding Flusser’s evident problems with finding the comprehensive solution to the synoptic problem, one point made by the Jewish scholar is really worth noting. Flusser proved that all three synoptists knew and in various ways used Jewish exegetical traditions that are known to us today at least to some extent from the pseudepigrapha and from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Consequently, arguing for relative priority of a given Gospel against the other ones exclusively on the basis of its assumed more extensive use of Jewish exegetical traditions has to be carried out with great circumspection. 460 Id., Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, vol. 1, Das Wesen der Gleichnisse (JudChr 4; Peter Lang: Bern · Frankfurt am Main · Las Vegas 1981), 193-281 (esp. 204, 275-276, 281 n. 27). Cf. R. L. Lindsey, ‘A New Approach to the Synoptic Gospels’, Mishkan 17-18 (1992-1993) 87-106. 461 M. Lowe and D. Flusser, ‘Evidence corroborating a modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory’, NTS 29 (1983) 25-47 (esp. 25-26). 462 See e.g. D. Flusser, ‘Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man’, in id., Judaism and the Origins, 526-534; id., ‘Matthew’s “Verus Israel”’, in id., Judaism and the Origins, 561574; id., ‘“Who is it that Struck You?”’, in id., Judaism and the Origins, 604-609; id., ‘“Den Alten ist gesagt” Zur Interpretation der sog. Antithesen der Bergpredigt’, Jud. 48 (1992) 35-39 [also in id., Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament, vol. 2, Jesus – Qumran – Urchristentum, ed. M. Majer (Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999), 83-88]. Cf. also D. Flusser and R. S. Notley, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius (4th edn., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2007), 3-4. 463 Id., ‘Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund’, Jud. 45 (1989) 110-128 [also in id., Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament, vol. 2, Jesus – Qumran – Urchristentum, ed. M. Majer (Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999), 193-211].

135

C. Tresmontant Claude Tresmontant was another scholar who tried to demonstrate that all canonical Gospels were based on pre-existent Hebrew documents. Tresmontant’s synoptic hypothesis is quite simple. The scholar argued that all three Synoptic Gospels were independently of one another based on a Hebrew Proto-Mt that was referred to by Papias. This fundamental work was, according to Tresmontant, translated into Greek c. AD 30-35 and subsequently much reworked for the use in Gentile communities by the Hebrew Mark (whose work was translated into Greek c. AD 40-60) and by Luke (who wrote his work c. AD 40-50). 464 At a later stage of his research, Tresmontant argued that all four Gospels were simply Greek translations of distinct but contemporary and mutually complementary sets of notes (or documents) that were redacted in Hebrew day by day in the years AD 27-31. 465 Tresmontant’s hypothesis obviously does not explain all synoptic phenomena in detail. Its main value lies in its attempt to demonstrate the rootedness of all the Synoptic Gospels in ancient Jewish traditions. T. L. Brodie Thomas L. Brodie is an Irish scholar who investigates the intertextual use of the Old Testament traditions in the New Testament writings. In his earlier works, Brodie argued for Luke’s independence of Mk and Q in Lk 7:1-10; 7:18-35; 7:36-50; 9:57-62 in favour of the hypothesis of Luke’s own particular reworking of the Old Testament texts, which was typical of the Hellenistic rhetorical practice of imitatio. 466

464 C. Tresmontant, Le Christ hébreu: La langue et l’âge des Evangiles (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1983), 35-216 (esp. 54, 58). 465 Id., Évangile de Matthieu (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1987), 506; id., Évangile de Luc (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1987), 644; id., L’Évangile de Marc (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1988), 479. 466 T. L. Brodie, Luke the Literary Interpreter: Luke-Acts as a Systematic Rewriting and Updating of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative in 1 and 2 Kings, Diss. ad Lauream ([s.n.] Romae 1987), 5-270, 367-385; id., ‘Luke 7,36-50 as an Internalization of 2 Kings 4,1-37: A Study in Luke’s Use of Rhetorical Imitation’, Bib 64 (1983) 457-485; id., ‘Luke 9:5762: A Systematic Adaptation of the Divine Challenge to Elijah (1 Kings 19)’, SBL.SP 28 (1989) 237-245; id., ‘Not Q but Elijah: The Saving of the Centurion’s Servant (Luke 7:1-10) as an Internalization of the Saving of the Widow and her Child (1 Kgs 17:116)’, IBSt 14 (1992) 54-71; id., ‘Again not Q: Luke 7: 18-35 as an Acts-orientated Transformation of the Vindication of the Prophet Micaiah (I Kings 22:1-38)’, IBSt 16 (1994) 2-30. See also id., The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Devel-

136

On the basis of these ideas, Brodie formulated his theory of the existence of a Proto-Lk that, according to the scholar, might be recovered from the fragments of Lk-Acts that display features of imitatio of passages from the Septuagint, especially from the Elijah-Elisha narrative (i.e. Lk 1:1-3:6; 3:10-38; 4:14-22a; 7:18:3; 9:51-10:20; 16:1-9.19-31; 17:11-18:8; 19:1-10; 22:1-22:30; 22:66-24:53; Acts 1:1-15:35). Brodie argued that the reconstructed Proto-Lk was characterized by its distinctive dependence on the Septuagint and by its distinctive unity of structure that was devised in the form of eight diptychs. 467 The Irish scholar theorized also that Mark used Proto-Lk (and 1 Pet) before his Gospel was on its part used by the canonical redactor of Lk-Acts. 468 The Gospel of Matthew, according to Brodie, was composed on the basis of Mk, Proto-Lk, and logia that contained the material of Mt 5:5-9; 5:17-48; 11:25-30 and were witnessed by Papias. The Gospel of Matthew was in turn used by the canonical Luke. 469 Accordingly, Brodie postulated the following sequence of literary dependence of the New Testament works: the logia, the Pauline epistles (esp. 1 Cor), Proto-Lk, (1 Pet), Mk, (Rom), Mt, Jn, and Lk-Acts. 470 However, Brodie’s hypothesis of the existence of Deuteronomy-based, ‘verifiable’, pre-Matthean logia is in fact not adequately proved. The postulated thematic parallelism of the pre-Matthean logia with passages from Deuteronomy is of the kind: “Those hungering/thirsting for righteousness shall be satisfied” (Mt 5:6) 471 // “No righteousness; Moses does not eat or drink” (Deut 9:1-10); opments of the New Testament Writings (NTM 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 294-301, 312-338, 351-364. 467 Id., ‘Intertextuality and Its Use in Tracing Q and Proto-Luke’, in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. C. M. Tuckett (BEThL 131; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1997), 469-477 (esp. 473-475); id., ‘The Unity of Proto-Luke’, in The Unity of Luke-Acts, ed. J. Verheyden (BEThL 142; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1999), 627-638; id., Birthing, 84-106. 468 Id., The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels (Michael Glazier and Liturgical Books: Collegeville, Minn. 2000), 97; id., Birthing, 147-188. 469 Id., ‘An Alternative Q/Logia Hypothesis: Deuteronomy-based, Qumranlike, Verifiable’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 729-743; id., Birthing, 109-124. 470 Id., Birthing, 83-279 (esp. 276). Cf. also id., ‘Towards Tracing the Gospels’ Literary Indebtedness to the Epistles’, in Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity, ed. D. R. MacDonald (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 104-116 (esp. 110-116). 471 Brodie did not explain why this beatitude (Mt 5:6) had been included by him in the logia and not in Proto-Lk. On the other hand, the provenance of Mt 5:10 remains unexplained in Brodie’s theory.

137

“The pure of heart shall see God” (Mt 5:8) // “Tested heart knows God as a father and is filled” (Deut 8). 472 It should be noted, however, that the hypothesis of the existence of Deuteronomy-based, pre-Matthean logia serves Brodie only to explain the absence of some important parts of the Matthean material in Lk (on Brodie’s assumption that Lk was dependent on Mt). If, however, the direction of Mt-Lk literary dependence was in reality reverse (i.e. if Mt was dependent on Lk), the problem in this form disappears and the highly questionable hypothesis becomes unnecessary. On the other hand, Brodie’s main thesis, namely that of Lukan dependence not on a hypothetical Q but on reworked (imitated) Old Testament texts, Paul’s epistles, and Mk, is certainly worth further investigations. S. Hultgren One of the most recent proposals concerning the existence of a precanonical protogospel has been formulated by Stephen Hultgren. This American scholar, a student of Ed P. Sanders, examined numerous fragments of the triple and of the double Mt-Lk traditions in Lk 4:1-22:62 par. On the basis of these investigations, Hultgren stated that not only the triple tradition but also the double Mt-Lk tradition displayed distinctive narrative features and, what is more, both these traditions seemed to be based on a common narrative framework (e.g. Mk 1:143:20 par. Mt 4:12-8:5//Lk 4:14a-7:1).473 Having assumed Markan priority against Mt and Lk (and hence also the priority of the Markan framework of the triple tradition), Hultgren argued that both the triple tradition and the double MtLk tradition were based on the same pre-Markan, kerygmatic-scriptural, narrative framework. This narrative framework thematically referred to (a) the beginnings under John the Baptist; (b) Jesus’ baptism and temptation; (c) Jesus’ Galilean ministry, which consisted of preaching, teaching, and healing; (d) sending out of the disciples; and (e) the final events in Jerusalem. The pre-Markan narrative framework was known, according to Hultgren, to all three synoptists (and moreover it was witnessed by Luke also in Acts 10:34-43) and to the author of the Gospel of John. 474 Hultgren’s main thesis is worth taking into serious consideration. The scholar noted that the framework of some portions of the double Mt-Lk tradition 472 Id., ‘An Alternative Q/Logia Hypothesis’, 729-743 (here: 734); id., Birthing, 112. 473 S. Hultgren, Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative (BZNW 113; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 208-210. 474 Ibid. 59, 210-213, 253-255, 311-329, 348-352.

138

was somehow parallel to that of the Gospel of Mark. Does it imply, however, that it was pre-Markan? On this assumption, it is difficult to explain Markan omissions of many portions of the double Mt-Lk tradition (e.g. of the ‘great sermon’). 475 For example, having rightly noted the parallelism between Mk 2:1 and Mt 8:5//Lk 7:1, Hultgren speculates that “one might even view this as a Mark-Q overlap that Mark has truncated so severely that all that remains in his Gospel is the return to Capernaum.” 476 The phenomenon of the narrative ‘overlaps’ between the triple tradition and the double Mt-Lk tradition, and consequently between the narrative framework of Mk and that of significant portions of the double Mt-Lk tradition, 477 is evidently much better interpreted as postMarkan and not as pre-Markan. Accordingly, the post-Markan narrative shaping of at least some parts of the double Mt-Lk tradition has to be attributed either to a hypothetical Deutero-Mark or—more probably—to Luke or Matthew. In his most recent article on the subject, Hultgren argues that the hypothetical presynoptic material contained not only narratives but also sayings and speeches. 478 The scholar theorizes, on the basis of parallels between the double Mt-Lk tradition and Acts (e.g. Lk 3:16 par. and Acts 2:3-4.16-41; Lk 11:23 par. and Acts 19:11-20), that this early Christian material had its most plausible Sitz im Leben in the Jerusalem Church. 479 Hultgren fails to note, however, that parallels between the double Lk-Mt tradition and Acts are most satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis of their common Lukan origin and their subsequent reuse by Matthew.

475 Cf. ibid. 209-210. 476 Ibid. 350. 477 It should be noted that Hultgren scrutinized mainly the initial and the final part of the narrative framework of the Gospels. His treatment of the material contained in Mk 6:1413:37 parr. is much vaguer: cf. ibid. 235-248, 348. 478 Id., ‘The Apostolic Church’s Influence on the Order of Sayings in the Double Tradition’, ZNW 99 (2008) 185-212 (esp. 187, 191-198). 479 Ibid. 191-194, 206-208. Cf. also id., ‘The Apostolic Church’s Influence on the Order of Sayings in the Double Tradition: Part II: Luke’s Travel Narrative’, ZNW 100 (2009) 199-222, in which the scholar argues that parallelism between the double Mt-Lk tradition and Mk or Acts implies the existence of a pre-Gospel apostolic tradition, which originated in a Palestinian Jewish setting and which was to the Gentile Christian setting perhaps in Antioch (esp. ibid. 202-219). Hultgren consistently uses Acts in an uncritical way as a fully reliable source for the reconstruction of the history of early Palestinian Christianity.

139

H. M. Humphrey Hugh M. Humphrey noted in his recently published book that all the parallels between Mk and the hypothetical source Q are placed in the section Mk 1:213:22. On this basis, Humphrey concluded that there must have existed an earlier common source for Mk and Q, which constituted a consistent narrative, covered the whole section Mk 1:2-13:22, and might be called ‘a narrative version of Q’ (‘QN’). 480 The exact reasons for Humphrey’s particular assumption, namely for the inclusion of e.g. Mk 1:2-2:12 in the hypothetical ‘Mark’s Narrative Version of Q’ and the omission of e.g. Mk 2:13-3:6 (as well as the entire double Mt-Lk tradition) from this hypothetical work, are never explained, however, by the scholar. Humphrey’s book cannot be therefore regarded as presenting an adequate solution to the synoptic problem. 1.2.7.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the priority of one protogospel The hypothesis of the evangelists’ use of one common, later lost protogospel offers a simple, attractive solution to the synoptic problem, which is based on the assumption of the existence of one early narrative that contained the basic Jewish Christian story of Jesus. This theoretically simple hypothesis is, however, quite difficult to prove in practice. First, it is very difficult to reconstruct the detailed wording of the postulated protogospel, especially if this work is supposed to have been written in Hebrew. Second, the order of most of the material of the gospels of Matthew and Luke generally agrees with the order of the Gospel of Mark and not with that of a different, merely hypothetical source. Accordingly, if the order of material of the hypothetical protogospel generally corresponded to that of Mk, the hypothesis of the existence of the protogospel is at least superfluous. On the other hand, there are numerous disagreements in order among Mt, Mk, and Lk that are difficult to explain on the assumption of common literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels on one protogospel narrative. In the latter case, since it has to be assumed that all three evangelists (including Mark) considerably changed the primitive protogospel order of material, this original order is almost impossible to reconstruct in detail. Third, the extent of the hypothetical protogospel is also very difficult to reconstruct. If the protogospel contained only the material that referred to the most 480 H. M. Humphrey, From Q to “Secret” Mark: A Composition History of the Earliest Narrative Theology (T&T Clark: New York · London 2006), 43-50.

140

important events from Jesus’ life (as a kind of a pre-Markan narrative ‘creed’), the origin of all other gospel material that was added to this protogospel framework (especially by Matthew and by Luke) requires an adequate explanation. If, on the other hand, the protogospel was quite rich in material (being a kind of Proto-Mt or Proto-Lk), the omissions of large portions of its material by other evangelists (especially by Mark) are likewise difficult to explain. The hypothesis of the evangelists’ common use of one hypothetical protogospel is therefore attractive only as a general idea but not as an adequate solution to the synoptic problem. 1.2.8 The Mt-Mk-Lk (‘Augustinian’) order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels 1.2.8.1 Main arguments for the Mt-Mk-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels The hypothesis of the chronological order of composition and of sequential literary dependence of the Gospels according to their canonical order (Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn) was first put forward in antiquity by Augustine. This great theologian assumed that every canonical evangelist knew and used the works of his predecessors, and particularly that Mark followed and abbreviated Mt (De consensu evangelistarum 1.2 [1.3-4]) [CSEL 43, 3-4]. It should be noted, however, that the idea of the basic priority of Mt was not argued for but merely presupposed by Augustine on the basis of earlier Christian traditions (cf. e.g. Cons. 1.2 [1.34]; 2.80 [2.157]). This classical hypothesis of Mark’s and subsequently Luke’s use of Mt was traditionally supported by numerous scholars also in more recent research. In the first half of the twentieth century, the hypothesis of Matthean priority was supported, in opposition to the Q theory, for example by John Chapman 481 and Basil Christopher Butler. 482

481 J. Chapman, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels, ed. J. M. T. Barton (Longmans, Green and Co.: London · New York · Toronto 1937). 482 B. C. Butler, The Originality of St Matthew: A Critique of The Two-Document Hypothesis (Cambridge University: Cambridge 1951).

141

1.2.8.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the Mt-Mk-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels J. Wenham The traditional hypothesis of Mark’s (and Luke’s) use of Mt has been revived recently by John Wenham. This British scholar argued that since Matthew and Luke generally agreed with Mark in the triple tradition, it was implausible that either of them would have changed the order and at times also wording of the Mt-Lk double tradition, if the latter originated from their common source (Q) or from either of them. Wenham argued therefore that Mt and Lk were generally independent of each other. 483 The British scholar conceded, on the other hand, that Lk must have been somehow literarily dependent on Mt. Wenham limited, however, the extent of this ‘supplementary’ Lk-Mt dependence to two Baptist passages (Lk 3:7-17; 7:18-35).484 All the rest of the Mt-Lk double tradition, probably together with Luke’s peculiar version of the eschatological discourse and of the passion narrative, came to Luke, according to Wenham, via oral tradition. No further detail in this respect was alas given. Wenham’s reference to this assumption extended to merely one sentence. 485 Wenham’s arguments for Matthean priority against Mk are threefold: (a) Mt looks original; (b) Mt looks early, Palestinian, and Semitic; and (c) Matthean priority provides an adequate rationale for the differences in order between Mt and Mk because the Markan simple account more clearly reflects Peter’s later records of the chronological sequence of events than the more original but structurally artificial Mt. 486 At the same time, Mark’s postulated omissions of large portions of the Matthean material (including also many ‘Petrine’ pericopes) were explained by Wenham quite simply. According to the scholar, Mark and Matthew generally belonged to the same Petrine tradition, and consequently it should not surprise anyone that Mark simply supplemented Matthew and restricted himself to the most standard elements of the Apostle’s evangelistic teaching. 487 483 J. Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Hodder & Stoughton: London [et al.] 1991), 86-87. 484 One of the two reasons for this limitation was, according to Wenham, quite simple: Luke “was hard pressed for space”. In the next statement, however, Wenham theorizes that “In addition he [Luke] had a great quantity of new material […]”: ibid. 87. 485 Ibid. 486 Ibid. 94-115. 487 Ibid. 91, 100.

142

The reasons for Mark’s assumed omission of some of the great Matthean discourses (with the inclusion of the ‘parables’ and the ‘eschatological’ discourse) are alas never explained in Wenham’s theory. It is therefore not surprising that almost no other modern scholar wants to join Wenham in his ‘fresh assault on the synoptic problem’. A. Kowalczyk Andrzej Kowalczyk’s initial contribution of to the synoptic debate consisted in his evaluation of arguments for and against Markan priority against Mt. The Polish scholar attempted to defend the thesis of Matthean priority against Mk, which was regarded by him as based on the ancient Church tradition, 488 by means of comparative redaction-critical analyses of the gospels of Mark and Matthew. Having argued for Markan distinctive indebtedness to numerous scriptural texts: Is 40:1-11; 52:7-12; 60:1-22; 61:1-11; Ps 96 (95), Kowalczyk claimed that Mark conformed the Matthean text to the scriptural models by inserting into it the title ‘the Saint of God’ (Mk 1:23-28; cf. e.g. Is 41:14.20) and the ideas of peace (Mk 5:34; cf. Is 52:7), good (Mk 5:34; cf. Is 52:7), saving/salvation (e.g. Mk 5:23; cf. Is 52:7), and preaching good news (Mk 1:14-15; cf. Is 61:1). Kowalczyk gave also some redactional reasons for Mark’s postulated omissions and transpositions of much Matthean material. The scholar pointed to Mark’s evident interest in the themes of (a) scriptural prophecies of the good news, (b) Jesus’ divine sonship, (c) soteriological dimension of Jesus’ activity, (d) testimony of the Apostles (as distinct from scriptural argumentation), and (e) positive image of the Jews (against the assumed anti-Semitic ideas of the Roman community). In Kowalczyk’s view, all these themes were highlighted by Mark because of the change of Sitz im Leben of the Gospel proclamation from the Jewish (Mt) to the Gentile one (Mk). According to the Polish scholar, Mark’s knowledge of the text of Matthew might be traced, for example, in Mk 1:22; 4:21.24-25; 9:41; 10:49-50; 11:25-26. 489 Kowalczyk argues therefore that the arguments for Markan priority against Mt and Lk are not convincing. 490 On the other hand, the Polish scholar argues, by referring to the results of the investigations of David L. Dungan, that there 488 A. Kowalczyk, ‘Próba wyjaśnienia różnic w kompozycji Mt – Mk’, STV 31 (1993) 77116 (esp. 77); id., ‘Dlaczego Marek napisał drugą ewangelię?’, RBL 49 (1996) 107-120 (esp. 107-108, 112). 489 Id., ‘Próba’, 77-116; id., ‘Dlaczego’, 113-120; id., Geneza Ewangelii Marka (Bernardinum: Pelplin 2004), 119-207, 226-260. 490 id., Geneza Ewangelii Marka, 20-29.

143

are some arguments for Markan posteriority against Mt and Lk, namely (a) absence in Mt and Lk of many features of style and vocabulary that is characteristic of Mk and (b) presence of features that are characteristic of Mt and Lk in Mk. 491 In spite of the latter observation, the Polish scholar does not accept the hypothesis of Markan posteriority against both Matthew and Luke (which is espoused by David L. Dungan) but supports the Augustinian hypothesis of the MtMk-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. 492 Kowalczyk’s analyses evidently fall short therefore of adequate, consistent use of relatively reliable criteria for ascertaining the direction of literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels. 1.2.8.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the Mt-Mk-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels The hypothesis of the Mt-Mk-Lk order of direct literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels enjoys the authority of the great ancient theologian Augustine. It runs, however, into numerous serious problems. It fails to give convincing reasons for Mark’ assumed omissions of large portions of the Matthean material. It does not explain adequately Luke’s assumed decomposition of the Matthean carefully designed literary-rhetorical structures. Moreover, it is based on no explicitly formulated set of criteria for ascertaining the direction of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels. Consequently, the arguments for the priority of Mt against Mk that are offered by the advocates of the Augustinian hypothesis (for example, from the order of pericopes, from increasing clarity, and from growing Hellenization of the gospel tradition), are in fact reversible and therefore far from convincing.

491 Id., ‘Argumenty za i przeciw pierwszeństwu Ewangelii Marka’, StGd 13 (2000) 37-48 (esp. 48); id., Geneza Ewangelii Marka, 29, 31. 492 Id., Geneza Ewangelii Marka, 208-225; id., Geneza Ewangelii Łukasza (Bernardinum: Pelplin, 2006), 64-110, 142-164.

144

1.2.9 The Mt-Lk-Mk (‘Two-Gospel’) order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels 1.2.9.1 Main arguments for the Mt-Lk-Mk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels The hypothesis of direct literary dependence of Mk upon both Mt and Lk was propagated at the end of the eighteenth century by Johann Jakob Griesbach. 493 The German scholar noted that Markan dependence on the Petrine oral tradition and on Mt was commonly agreed upon by most scholars from the time of Augustine. Moreover, Griesbach noted that some scholars before him (he meant probably Henry Owen) 494 attempted to demonstrate, on the basis of great conformity of Mk with Lk, that Mk was literarily dependent also on Lk. 495 Griesbach’s hypothesis is therefore evidently based in its origins and in its logical structure on the assumptions that are borrowed from earlier, traditional hypotheses. 496 In order to corroborate the hypothesis of the Mt-Lk-Mk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels, the German scholar put forward some exegetical arguments. First, since Mk mostly agrees in order and wording with Mt (e.g. Mk 1:1-20 par. Mt 3:1-4:22), but there are passages, in which the Markan order and wording agrees more with that of Lk (e.g. Mk 1:21-39 par. Lk 4:31-44), it may be assumed that Mark in his redactional work switched between Mt and Lk as his both sources. 497 Second, since Mk contains only about twenty493 I. I. Griesbach, [Commentatio] qua Marci Euangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (Stranckmann and Fickelscher: Ienae 1789-1790) [reworked in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 1, ed. J. C. Velthusen, C. T. Kuinoel, and G. A. Rupert (Iohannes Ambrosius Barth: Lipsiae 360-434); recently reprinted in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and text-critical studies 1776-1976, ed. B. Orchard and T. R. W. Longstaff (SNTS.MS 34; Cambridge University: Cambridge [et al.] 1978), 74102]. 494 H. Owen, Observations on the Four Gospels Tending Chiefly to Ascertain the Times of the Publication, and to Illustrate the Form and Manner of their Composition (T. Payne: London 1764). 495 I. I. Griesbach, Commentatio (Stranckmann and Fickelscher: Ienae 1789-1790), 2-3 [reworked in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 1, 361]. 496 Cf. id., Commentatio, in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 1, 402: “Nimirum […] credibile non est, Matthaeum, testem oculatum, ducem sibi elegisse in tradenda Christi historia scriptorem [Mk], qui rebus gestis haud interfuerat.” 497 Id., Commentatio (Stranckmann and Fickelscher: Ienae 1789-1790), 7-12 [reworked in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 1, 367-382, 388-389]. It should be noted that Griesbach’s tabular presentation of the synoptic data in categories of Markan agreement with either Mt or Lk in Mk 1:1-6:13 parr. is intended to deny the existence of the triple

145

four verses that have no parallel in either Mt or Lk, it may be assumed that Mark intended to select and combine various fragments from Mt and Lk without adding to them any other portions of material. 498 Third, Mk contains references to Jewish customs and to Old Testament texts that are less explicit than those of Mt and Lk. Fourth, Mark at times added some details that are absent in both Mt and Lk. 499 These basic Griesbach’s arguments are adopted and developed by modern advocates of the theory of Markan posteriority against both Mt and Lk. 1.2.9.2 Modern proponents of the Two-Gospel hypothesis W. R. Farmer Griesbach’s hypothesis of the posteriority of Mk against Mt and Lk was revived and defended with great fervour in the last decades of the twentieth century especially by William R. Farmer. This American scholar adopted and expounded Griesbach’s hypothesis by arguing that the relationship between Mt and Lk, which had not been adequately explained by Griesbach, was in fact one of direct

tradition (i.e. of at least partial agreement of Mk with both Mt and Lk) in this section, which is obviously not true. In reality, Griesbach’s argument may refer only to varying degree of Markan agreement with Mt and with Lk in the triple tradition, as it was noted by the scholar himself: “Ubi Matthaei insisteret vestigiis, Lucam tamen ex oculis non dimitteret, sed hunc cum Matthaeo compararet, et vicissim”: id., Commentatio (Stranckmann and Fickelscher: Ienae 1789-1790), 4 [also in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 1, 368]. The problem, whether such variety of degree of Markan agreement with Mt and with Lk in the triple tradition may logically prove Griesbach’s hypothesis, is obviously another issue. On the opposite assumption of Markan priority, both Matthew and Luke might have had peculiar, not mutually congruent interests in changing to some extent the order and wording of Mk. 498 Id., Commentatio (Stranckmann and Fickelscher: Ienae 1789-1790), 6 [reworked in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 1, 382-388]. The probative force of this observation is obviously very limited. The phenomenon noted by Griesbach may be easily explained, for example, by the Mk-Mt-Lk and the Mk-Lk-Mt hypotheses, on the assumption that the last synoptist used most of the Markan material that had been omitted by his predecessor. 499 Id., Commentatio (Stranckmann and Fickelscher: Ienae 1789-1790), 4-5 [reworked in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 1, 368-372]. The last argument obviously does not support exclusively Griesbach’s hypothesis because each of the synoptists had in fact his own peculiar material and at times disagreed with the two other synoptic writers.

146

literary dependence: “Matthew was evidently used extensively by the author of Luke […]”. 500 Farmer presented some arguments in support of his theory. First, the phenomenon of only exceptional agreement between Mt and Lk against Mk in the order and wording of the triple tradition implies a special position of Mk among the Synoptic Gospels (and Farmer assumed that it was the last position because it is easier to imagine one author than two as resolving to follow closely other Gospels as literary sources). Second, the relationship between Mt and Lk is so close that it has to be explained in terms of their direct literary dependence. Third, in the scholar’s opinion, Luke’s use of Mt may be deduced from Lk 1:1 and from the more distinctively Jewish flavour of Mt. 501 According to Farmer, the order Mt-Lk-Mk-Jn was witnessed by Clement of Alexandria (in his Hypotyposeis, quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.14.5-7), and partly by Irenaeus (cf. e.g. Adv. haer. 3.9.1–3.11.7; 4.6.1) and Augustine (Cons. 4.10 [4.11]). Moreover, in Farmer’s opinion, this order was not motivated theologically. 502 In Farmer’s view, Mark composed an ‘ecumenical’ Gospel by uniting the Matthean (Jerusalem-Jewish) and the Lukan (Pauline-Gentile) gospel traditions under the guidance of Peter in Rome and in such a way provided foundations for the future ‘more-than-one-Gospel’ canon. For this reason, according to Farmer, 500 W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Macmillan: New York and Collier-Macmillan: London 1964), 200; id., ‘The Case for the Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. D. A. Black and D. R. Beck (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2001), 97-135 (esp. 100). 501 Id., The Synoptic Problem, 211-224; id., ‘The Two-Gospel Hypothesis: The Statement of the Hypothesis’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 125-156 (esp. 138-144, 147-154); id., ‘The Passion Prediction Passages and the Synoptic Problem: A Test Case’, NTS 36 (1990) 558-570; id., ‘The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark and the Two Gospel Hypothesis: A Study of These Agreements in Their Compositional Contexts’, SBL.SP 30 (1991) 773-815 [also in Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991, ed. G. Strecker (GTA 50; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1993), 163208]; id., ‘Case’, 111-121. 502 Id., Jesus and the Gospel: Tradition, Scripture, and Canon (Fortress: Philadelphia 1982), 97-106; id., ‘The Patristic Evidence Reexamined: A Response to George Kennedy’, in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, ed. id. (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 3-15; id., ‘The Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, 125130, 145-146. Farmer’s argument concerning the absence of any theological scheme that underlay the order Mt-Lk-Mk-Jn is not convincing. This arrangement evidently proceeds from Mt and Lk as the more ‘Hebrew’ Gospels that included Jewish genealogies to Mk and Jn as the more ‘Gentile’ and ‘spiritual’ Gospels; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposeis, quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.14.5-7.

147

the whole theory of Markan posteriority against Mt and Lk should be called the ‘Two-Gospel’ hypothesis. 503 In the last decade of his academic career, Farmer, together with a broader team of scholars that had been organized in response to the International Q Project, 504 attempted to give an extensive and detailed explanation of the literary and theological reasons for the alleged Markan reworking of Mt and Lk. Farmer argued, for example, that the Markan version of the Temptation story (Mk 1:1213), which replaced the Matthean and Lukan accounts of the tempting of God’s Son, had been designed especially for the Roman Christians by alluding to a martyrdom scenario: with wild beasts attacking the faithful and with angels strengthening them in the Colosseum. 505 A similar project was aimed at explaining the supposed Lukan ways of redactional reworking of the Gospel of Matthew. 506 However, this project also failed to give adequate explanations for alleged Lukan omissions and reworking of large portions of the sophistically organized Matthean material (for example, of the Sermon on the Mount). 507

503 W. R. Farmer, ‘The Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, 125, 130. It should be noted that the name ‘Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, which was coined by Bernard Orchard, suits better the classical Griesbach’s version of the theory of Markan posteriority against Mt and Lk than Farmer’s hypothesis because the latter scholar postulated Lukan dependence on Mt. 504 Cf. id., ‘Source Criticism: Some Comments on the Present Situation’, USQR 42 (1988) 49-57 (esp. 53-55). 505 W. R. Farmer [et al.], ‘Narrative Outline of the Markan Composition According to the Two Gospel Hypothesis’, SBL.SP 29 (1990) 210-239 (esp. 214). Cf. also D. B. Peabody, L. Cope, and A. J. McNicol (eds.), One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies (Trinity: Harrisburg · London · New York 2002), 79. 506 L. Cope [et al.], ‘Narrative Outline of the Composition of Luke According to the Two Gospel Hypothesis’, SBL.SP 31 (1992) 98-120; SBL.SP 32 (1993) 303-333; SBL.SP 33 (1994) 516-573; SBL.SP 34 (1995) 636-687; A. J. McNicol, D. L. Dungan, and D. B. Peabody (eds.), Beyond the Q Impasse – Luke’s Use of Matthew: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies, pref. W. R. Farmer (Trinity: Valley Forge, Pa. 1996). 507 Cf. e.g. L. Cope [et al.], ‘Narrative Outline of the Composition of Luke According to the Two Gospel Hypothesis’, SBL.SP 31 (1992) 98-120 (esp. 117-118); A. J. McNicol, D. L. Dungan, and D. B. Peabody (eds.), Beyond the Q Impasse, 104-105.

148

D. L. Dungan David L. Dungan began his research on the synoptic problem within the framework of the classical Two-Source hypothesis. His analysis of the synoptic mission instructions (Mk 6:7-11 par. Lk 9:1-5; 10:1-12 par. Mt 10:1-16) led him to the conclusion that the Matthean version of the instructions was closest to Q and well rooted in the Jewish milieu, and consequently was most original. On the other hand, in Dungan’s view, the Lukan version appears to be a conflation of Q with the Markan formal outline. Moreover, the Markan version was in turn a thorough revision of an account that was very similar to or identical with Q. 508 Furthermore, in Dungan’s opinion, Mark used Lk, and consequently the most adequate solution to the synoptic problem is the Griesbachian one. 509 The scholar admitted, however, that the rationale for Mark’s alleged revision of Q and Lk is rather difficult to explain. 510 In his further research, Dungan examined the methodology of constructing Gospel synopses and argued that every synopsis, by means of a particular division, matching, and arrangement of parallel gospel material, presupposes certain source-critical and literary assumptions, which should be explicitly described in the methodological part of the synopsis. 511 The American scholar argued also that the argument from order (i.e. from the absence of agreement between the Matthean and Lukan order of pericopes against that of Mk) strongly favours the Griesbachian solution to the synoptic problem. 512 However, it should be noted that, from the logical point of view, the phenomenon that was referred to by Dungan could be explained in at least two 508 D. L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Fortress: Philadelphia 1971), 41-66. 509 Ibid. 71 n. 2; cf. ibid. 131 n. 1. Cf. also id., ‘Mark—The Abridgment of Matthew and Luke’, in Jesus and man’s hope, vol. 1, A Perspective Book (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: Pittsburgh 1970), 51-97. 510 Id., Sayings, 74. 511 Id., ‘Theory of Synopsis Construction’, Bib 61 (1980) 305-329 (esp. 327-328); id., ‘Synopses of the Future’, Bib 66 (1985) 457-492 [also in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. id. (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 317-347]. 512 Id., ‘A Griesbachian Perspective on the Argument from Order’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (JSNTSup 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 67-74; id., ‘Response to the Two-Source Hypothesis’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. id. (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 201216 (esp. 204).

149

ways. First, if Mark was the last synoptist, he could have had a habit of frequently disagreeing with one of his predecessors but almost never with both of them. He could have namely regarded in principle neither Mt nor Lk as a reliable source of information, and consequently he could have behaved like a judge who examines two casual, not very credible witnesses. Second, if either Matthew or Luke was the last synoptist, he could have generally regarded the earliest Gospel (i.e. Mk) as more authoritative than the second one, and consequently he could have almost never followed the second Synoptic Gospel against Mk. The first scenario would be more plausible only if the Synoptic Gospels were written quite late, and consequently Mark would have had no access to any other, independent source of information, but he would have had to rely exclusively on the two earlier written Gospels.513 The second scenario is much more plausible, especially if some time elapsed between the redaction of the first Synoptic Gospel and the third one, so that the former may have already gained some widely acknowledged authority. J. B. Orchard John Bernard Orchard, a disciple of John Chapman and Basil Christopher Butler, began his scholarly career with the presupposition that the Two-Source hypothesis was in many respects unsatisfactory, and consequently that it needed a more credible alternative. Having rejected out of hand all hypotheses that postulate the existence of lost documents, all hypotheses based on Markan and Lukan priority, and the Augustinian hypothesis, Orchard presented arguments for Lukan use of Mt, and for Markan use of both Mt and Lk. However, the reasons for the alleged Markan omissions of much Matthean and Lukan material have been described by Orchard on mere four pages including a note that these omissions are not clear to modern scholars. 514 Notwithstanding these evident shortcomings of his theory, Orchard coined a special name for it: the ‘Two-Gospel’ hypothesis. 515 513 Against this background, Dungan’s claim that Mk, together with 1 Pet, embodied the Roman, ‘ecumenical’ preaching of the apostle Peter is really implausible: see id., ‘The Purpose and Provenance of the Gospel of Mark According to the Two-Gospel (Owen– Griesbach) Hypothesis’, in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, ed. W. R. Farmer (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 411-440 (esp. 439) [also in Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches, ed. B. Corley (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 133-156 (esp. 155)]. 514 B. Orchard, Matthew, Luke & Mark (The Griesbach Solution to the Synoptic Problem 1; Koinonia: Manchester 1976), vii, 12-16, 26-27, 110-114. 515 Id., ‘The Two-Gospel Hypothesis or, Some Thoughts on the Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis’, DRev 98 (1980) 267-279 (esp. 267). As noted above, the name ‘Two-Gos-

150

In his more recent research, Orchard investigated the patristic evidence that supported, in his view, the hypothesis of Markan posteriority against Mt and Lk. 516 The British scholar reconstructed also the plausible Sitze im Leben of Mt, Lk, and Mk, on the assumption of Petrine-Markan reconciliation of the conflicting Jewish and Gentile theological currents in early Christianity, which were allegedly represented by Mt and Lk respectively. 517 Markan inferior style as compared to Mt and Lk was justified by Orchard as resulting from Mark’s exact, literal, tachygraphic, unedited transcription of Peter’s vivid Roman discourses. 518 The precise literary character of the alleged Markan ‘fusion’ of Peter’s oral discourses with the written works of Mt and Lk remains, however, unexplained in the British scholar’s theory. D. B. Peabody David B. Peabody, a student of William R. Farmer, began his research on the Synoptic Gospels with an investigation of the redactional features that might be detected in Mk on purely linguistic grounds, namely by an analysis of the phenomenon of recurrent phraseology in Mk. Peabody came to the conclusion that some of these features, in the cases in which they occur in a given Gospel only in places that are paralleled in another Gospel but in that other Gospel occur also in other contexts, might suggest either Markan priority against Mt and Lk, or

pel Hypothesis’ suits better the original Griesbach’s theory than its reworked version, which postulates Lukan dependence on Mt. 516 In fact, the only one positive testimony regarding alleged Markan posteriority against Mt and Lk was found by Orchard in a statement of Clement of Alexandria, which was quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.14.5-7: B. Orchard, ‘The Historical Tradition’, in B. Orchard and H. Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1987), 109-226 (esp. 226). Cf. also id., ‘Some Guidelines for the Interpretation of Eusebius’ Hist. Eccl. 3.34-39’, in The New Testament Age, Festschrift B. Reicke, vol. 2, ed. W. C. Weinrich (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1984), 393-403; id., ‘Response to H. Merkel’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 591-604. 517 Id., ‘How the Synoptic Gospels Came into Existence’, in B. Orchard and H. Riley, The Order of the Synoptics, 227-277. 518 Id., ‘Mark and the Fusion of Traditions’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 777-800. Cf. also id., ‘The Publication of Mark’s Gospel’, in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, ed. C. Focant (BEThL 110; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1993), 518-520.

151

Markan dependence on Mt and Lk. 519 Consequently, Peabody tried to corroborate his tutor’s hypothesis by means of an appeal to the opinion of Augustine that had been expressed in De consensu evangelistarum 4.10 [4.11] and that could be treated as supporting the hypothesis of Markan dependence on both Mt and Lk. 520 The American scholar attempted, moreover, to explain the alleged Markan omissions of much Matthean and Lukan material by pointing to examples of omission of source material in the Hellenistic literature and to the similar Johannine redactional procedure of selection that had been referred to in Jn 20:30; 21:25. 521 Peabody argued also that the phenomenon of ‘repeated language’ in Mt could be explained by the Two-Gospel hypothesis, on the assumption that the Gospels were written on scrolls. According to the scholar, it is not very plausible that a redactor would introduce similar phrases into several texts in which he used the same block of source material. 522 However, the scholar failed to answer the question how this thesis could be reconciled with his earlier formulated argument, namely that recurrent phraseology is one of the most important features of conscious redaction. 519 D. B. Peabody, The Redactional Features of the Author of Mark: A Method Focusing on Recurrent Phraseology and Its Application, PhD diss. (Southern Methodist University: [s.l.] 1983), 411. It is worth noting that the whole paragraph that contained this indecisive conclusion of Peabody’s doctoral dissertation (and apparently only this one paragraph!) has been omitted in the later published version thereof: id., Mark as Composer (New Gospel Studies 1; Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1987), 171. 520 Id., ‘Augustine and the Augustinian Hypothesis: A Reexamination of Augustine’s Thought in De consensu evangelistarum’, in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, ed. W. R. Farmer (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 37-64. In fact, Peabody’s appeal to Augustine’s alleged ‘pre-Griesbachian’ ideas is mistaken. Cf. especially Augustine’s careful choice of words that refer to Mark in Cons. 4.10 [4.11]: incedit, congruit, and pertinere. Augustine noted some thematic (and consequently also symbolic) congruence of Mk with Mt and Lk, but he did not claim that Mark epitomized both Mt and Lk. Cf. also Cons. 1.3 [1.6]; 1.6 [1.9], with its description of thematic and symbolic but evidently not chronological principles that underlie the order Mt-Lk-Mk. 521 D. B. Peabody, ‘Response to Multi-Stage Hypothesis’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 217-230 (esp. 222-224); id., ‘Source and Text Criticism of the Past: Analogues for the Present’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 27-35 (esp. 30). 522 Id., ‘Repeated Language in Matthew: Clues to the Order and Composition of Luke and Mark’, SBL.SP 30 (1991) 647-686 (esp. 648).

152

The results of Peabody’s analysis of Luke’s alleged use of Mt are also very debatable. In order to give reasons for Luke’s postulated decomposition of the Matthean discourses and for dislocation of their contents into various parts of the Lukan Gospel, the American scholar postulated multiple scanning (called by him: ‘usages’ or ‘sweeps’) of Mt by the Lukan redactor, which resulted in the observed pattern of Lukan ‘orderly’ displacement. According to Peabody, the word ‘orderly’ in Lk 1:3 implies that Luke “did radically recompose” the Matthean material. 523 It may be conceded that, from the logical point of view, a radical recomposition of a given work may always be called ‘orderly’, on the assumption that this term denotes the particular result of a number of sequential, selective ‘scans’ of the work in question. However, the problem with such an approach lies in the fact that there is no source-critical phenomenon that could not be explained by such an ‘orderly’ theory, which is, consequently, in fact unfalsifiable. H. Riley Harold Riley is a British scholar who carried out an investigation of all three Synoptic Gospels on the premises of the Two-Gospel hypothesis. Riley’s main argument for the thesis that Mk was literary dependent on Mt and Lk was based on the intriguing coincidence of agreements in order and in wording between at times Mk and Mt, and at times Mk and Lk. The scholar called this phenomenon ‘zigzag pattern’ and explained it in terms of Mark’s simultaneous use of Mt and Lk, on the assumption that they had been written on scrolls.524 Riley’s investigation of the patterns of agreement and disagreement in order in the triple tradition was, however, very general and abstract. The scholar’s tabular presentation of the triple tradition suggested (in agreement with the traditional, Griesbach’s argument) that, for example, there is no Matthean parallel (in both subject matter and sequence of the shared material) to the Markan pericopes Mk 1:29-34; 2:1-22; 2:23-3:6.525

523 Id., ‘Luke’s Sequential Use of the Sayings of Jesus from Matthew’s Great Discourses: A Chapter in the Source-Critical Analysis of Luke on the Two-Gospel (Neo Griesbach) Hypothesis’, in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts, Festschrift J. B. Tyson, ed. R. P. Thompson and T. E. Phillips (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1998), 37-58 (here: 49). 524 H. Riley, ‘Internal Evidence’, in B. Orchard and H. Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1987), 1-108 (esp. 318); id., The Making of Mark: An Exploration (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1989), ix-xx (here: xv). 525 Id., ‘Internal Evidence’, 4-6; id., The Making of Mark, x-xii.

153

Riley admitted that “if any one of the narratives of Mk 1:21-3:19 is considered in isolation, it can be argued that Luke is dependent on Mark, not Mark on Luke”. Nevertheless, the scholar claimed that because Mk agreed in Mk 1:213:19 with Lk in both wording and order, “it is Mark’s dependence on Luke and Matthew that is confirmed”. 526 The British scholar noted that from Mk 6:6b onward, Mk generally agreed with Mt and Lk in the order of their shared material. 527 He did not give, however, any plausible explanation for the disagreements of Mk with Mt and Lk in Mk 1:16-6:6a. Riley failed to note, for example, that Mark’s narrative location of some events that are described in this section was vague or not stated (cf. e.g. Mk 1:40; 5:21), whereas Matthew evidently showed particular interest in locating the events from Jesus’ Galilean activity at Capernaum (Mt 4:13-16). This fact may explain Matthew’s ‘ordering’ displacement of the Markan pericopes Mk 1:40-45; 4:35-5:20; 5:21-43, whereas the opposite procedure (i.e. of Luke’s and Mark’s conscious removing of the Matthean geographical references) is quite implausible. 528 Riley fails to note, likewise, that Matthew’s consistently applied procedure of placing together thematically congruent texts (e.g. Mk 3:13-19a and 6:6b-11; Mk 11:12-14 and 11:20-21) is much more plausible than the postulated opposite (i.e. ‘scattering’) procedure on the part of Luke and Mark. 529 No attention was also paid by the scholar to Luke’s evident redactional interest in reworking the Markan pericopes that distanced Jesus from his relatives (Mk 3:20-35; 6:1-6; cf. e.g. Acts 1:14). It should be noted that Matthew was interested in displacing and reworking mainly the pericopes that described events that took place outside Capernaum, and Luke, on the other hand, of those that took place at Capernaum and at Nazareth. Consequently, the lack of agreement of Matthew’s and Luke’s ways of reworking Mk 1:16-6:6a, and consequently the origin of the so-called ‘zigzag phenomenon’ at the beginning of Mk, is explicable in purely redactional terms. If therefore Matthew and Luke caused, for their particular redactional reasons, the limited Mk-Mt and Mk-Lk disagreements in order at the beginning of 526 Id., ‘Internal Evidence’, 15. 527 Ibid. 17. 528 Cf. id., ‘Internal Evidence’, 38-40; id., The Making of Mark, 18, 61. 529 Cf. id., The Making of Mark, 134. It is worth noting that Riley gives no adequate reason for the alleged Lukan (and hence also Markan) separation of the call and of the sending of the Twelve (Mk 3:13-19a; 6:6b-11 parr.). The scholar curiously treats the Lukan account of the call of the Twelve as simply belonging to the ‘great sermon’ (according to Riley: Lk 6:13-49): id., Preface to Luke (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1993), 48; cf. id., The First Gospel (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1992), 103.

154

Mk, it is understandable that they also reworked the displaced Markan material in a way that was less literary than simple copying from Mk. Accordingly, the supposed ‘zigzag phenomenon’ in the triple tradition constitutes a source-critical problem only on a general, abstract level of analysis of the texts of the Synoptic Gospels. A. J. McNicol Allan J. McNicol aimed at demonstrating the validity of the Two-Gospel hypothesis as the sole satisfactory solution to the synoptic problem by means of source-critical analysis of the synoptic eschatological discourses (Mt 24:1-51 par. Lk 12:35-48; 17:20-37; 21:5-36 par. Mk 13:1-37). He came to the conclusion that Luke had used the Matthean material in three different contexts and that Mark had conflated Mt and Lk. 530 However, McNicol’s method of determining the direction of literary dependence in paralleled Gospel texts is evidently flawed. At the beginning of his analyses, the American scholar argued that the direction of literary dependence might be determined on the basis of presence of linguistic characteristics of a given Gospel in the text of another Gospel only in passages that are paralleled in the former one, “where there is evidence of copying”. 531 Nevertheless, in practice, in the conclusions of his analyses of Mt 24:43-51 par. Lk 12:39-40.42-46, McNicol claimed that in this material there are no phrases that are characteristic of only one Gospel, and consequently that “the evidence is neutral”, 532 notwithstanding the presence of at least two characteristic Lukan expressions: τὰ ὑπάρχοντα and προσδοκάω in Mt 24:46.50, which meet (especially the latter one) McNicol’s linguistic criterion of literary dependence of Mt on Lk. Probably having noted the evident weaknesses of his hypothesis, McNicol did not include Lk 12:35-48; 17:20-37 in his later analysis of the synoptic eschatological discourses. 533 The quality of intertextual analyses that were carried out in this later work was not much better, however, than that of the former ones. 530 A. J. McNicol, ‘The Composition of the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 157-200. 531 Ibid. 160. 532 Ibid. 166. 533 Id., Jesus’ Directions for the Future: A Source and Redaction-History Study of the Use of the Eschatological Traditions in Paul and in the Synoptic Accounts of Jesus’ Last Eschatological Discourse (New Gospel Studies 9; Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1996), 115-149.

155

McNicol noted, for example, that the clause καὶ κηρυχθήσεται τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας in Mt 24:14 is characteristically Matthean, but he failed to note that it had been coined with the use of the noun τὸ εὐαγγέλιον that was characteristically Pauline and Markan. Likewise, the scholar failed to note that the noun οἰκουμένη, which had been used in the following phrase in Mt 24:14, is characteristically Lukan. Moreover, both these words (especially the latter one) appear in Mt only in texts that are paralleled in other Gospels and consequently, according to the criterion adopted by McNicol, both words had been most probably borrowed by Matthew from Mk and Lk respectively. In the course of his analysis of the relationships between Mt 11:2-19 and Lk 7:18-35; 16:16, McNicol came to the conclusion the linguistic evidence of Matthean dependence on Lk is slightly stronger (7 to 5) than that of Lukan dependence on Mt. 534 The scholar failed to note, however, that the allegedly Matthean phrase σκανδαλίζομαι ἐν (Mt 11:6 et al. par. Lk 7:23) is in fact Markan (Mk 6:3). The second alleged Mattheanism (οὗτός ἐστιν: Mt 11:10 et al. par. Lk 7:27) is in fact widely used by all three synoptists. The third allegedly Matthean phrase (ὁ νόμος + καὶ + οἱ προφῆται: Mt 11:13 et al.) is widely used also by Luke (Lk 16:16; Acts 13:15; 24:14). Another allegedly Mattheanism, namely the noun κάλαμος (Mt 11:17 et al. par. Lk 7:24) is in fact used by Matthew only in Markan (Mt 27:29-30.48 par. Mk 15:19.36), Lukan (Mt 11:17 par. Lk 7:24), and scriptural (Mt 12:20 par. Is 42:3 LXX) contexts. The only one phrase in Mt 11:2-19 and Lk 7:18-35; 16:16 that appears to be really Matthean, namely ἦλθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης (Mt 11:18; 21:32 par. Lk 7:33), seems to simply borrowed from Lk 7:33 par. Mt 11:18 in Mt 21:32 because the neighbouring phrase οἱ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι in Mt 21:32-33 betrays Matthean conflating dependence on Lk 7:19.34.37.39. Therefore, the evidence that was provided by the American scholar as proving the Two-Gospel hypothesis is at least inconclusive. 1.2.9.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the Mt-Lk-Mk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels The hypothesis of the Mt-Lk-Mk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels runs into several grave problems. They have been already referred to in the preceding subsection, but they will be summarized here in a more systematic way. 534 Id., ‘Has Goulder Sunk Q? On Linguistic Characteristics and the Synoptic Problem’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 46-65 (esp. 58-59).

156

External evidence scanty and not pertaining to the hypothesis Griesbach’s hypothesis of direct literary dependence of Mk upon both Mt and Lk has been proposed as an alternative to the traditional Augustinian theory of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels in the Mt-Mk-Lk order. This theory was in turn based on earlier traditions concerning the origins of the gospels of Matthew and Mark. Consequently, most modern advocates of the Two-Gospel hypothesis accept the traditional patristic understanding of Mt as the most original Gospel that was redacted for the Jews, and of Mk as the Gospel that preserved the preaching of the Apostle Peter. For this reason, the advocates of the Two-Gospel hypothesis try to find some external, traditional support for their theory. The patristic evidence that is offered by some scholars as a proof of Markan dependence on Mt and Lk is, however, very scanty. There are only two texts that might really corroborate the Two-Gospel hypothesis: (a) Clement’s opinion concerning the priority of the Gospels that were provided with genealogies (Hypotyposeis, quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.14.5-7), and (b) Augustine’s reflections concerning mutual relationships among Mt, Lk, and Mk (Cons. 4.10 [4.11]). In fact, these both patristic texts do not pertain to the hypothesis of Markan literary dependence on Mt and Lk. Clement did not assert that Mark was literarily dependent on Mt and Lk that had been allegedly written earlier than Mk. The Alexandrian theologian argued (in agreement with the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’) that Mark was dependent on the apostolic preaching of Peter. The word τάξις that was used by Clement evidently denoted in this context the chronological order of the Gospels and not their literary interdependence in any way. Augustine on his part discussed thematic and consequently also symbolic connections among Mt, Lk, and Mk, in agreement with the order of their symbols that is based on Rev 4:7 (a lion, an ox, and a man respectively), but he never asserted that such was also the order of literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. On the contrary, he stated explicitly: “Non autem habuit tanquam breviatorem conjunctum Lucas, sicut Marcum Matthaeus” (Cons. 1.3 [1.6] [CSEL 43, 6]). Internal evidence better explained by the hypothesis of Markan priority The main argument that is offered by the advocates of the Two-Gospel hypothesis in favour of their theory is the argument from order, i.e. from Markan switching agreement in order and wording of pericopes with either Mt or Lk especially in Mk 1:16-6:6a. However, the reasons for the alleged Mark’s use of the strange redactional procedure of switching copying from the two earlier Gospels have been never adequately explained by the supporters of the Two-Gospel hypothe157

sis. Moreover, there is no clear reason for the limitation of this alleged Markan, redactional ‘zigzag’ procedure only to the first part of the Markan Gospel. The scholars’ explanations of this phenomenon in terms of alleged Petrine-Markan attempts to reconcile two conflicting early Christian traditions, namely the Matthean-Jewish and the Lukan-Gentile one, by means of mere mechanical switching between two copied Gospel scrolls are unsatisfactory in both theological and literary categories, and consequently they cannot be treated as serious solutions to the synoptic problem. The particular pattern of Mk-Mt and Mk-Lk disagreements, which is interpreted by the advocates of the Two-Gospel hypothesis as resulting from the alleged Markan ‘zigzag’ redactional procedure, may be quite satisfactorily explained on the assumption of Markan priority if the redactional interests of Matthew and Luke are taken into due consideration. It should be noted, for example, that Matthew was evidently interested in displacing and reworking the Markan episodes that were vaguely located somewhere outside Capernaum (Mk 1:40-45; 4:35-5:20; 5:21-43) in order to create a theological image of Jesus who ‘resided’ in this town (cf. Mt 4:13-16). On the other hand, Luke showed a contrasting interest in displacing and reworking Markan pericopes that somewhat disparagingly referred to Jesus’ relatives (cf. Acts 1:14) and for this reason were located, as it might be assumed, precisely at Capernaum and at Nazareth (Mk 3:20-35; 6:1-6). The textual data of the Gospels may be therefore much better explained in terms of Matthean and Lukan conscious, and to some extent contrasting, ways of reworking the Markan section Mk 1:16-6:6a than on the hypothesis of Mark’s postulated mechanical ‘zigzag’ copying of material from either one of two Gospel scrolls. One of the merits of the work of the advocates of the Two-Gospel hypothesis is, however, an attempt to formulate some reliable criteria for ascertaining the direction of literary dependence of a given Gospel on another one. However, both the theoretical justification and the practical application of these criteria to the gospel texts that were provided by the supporters of the Two-Gospel hypothesis are in fact inadequate and inconclusive. The two most reliable criteria adopted by the scholars, namely (a) of the presence of conflations of two other works and (b) of the presence of linguistic features that are typical of another Gospel, evidently should not be applied mechanically, i.e. without taking into consideration other important factors such as at times diverging, literarytheological interests of the evangelists, their respect for established traditions, etc. Another phenomenon: of only rare agreement of Mt and Lk against Mk in order and wording in the triple tradition, which allegedly resulted from Mark’s respect for his predecessors whenever they agreed with each other, is also, in fact, inconclusive as an argument in favour of the Two-Gospel hypothesis. From the logical point of view, this phenomenon implies only that the relative literary 158

‘distance’ between Mt and Lk is greater than that between Mk and Mt, and that between Mk and Lk. This particular phenomenon may be explained in a number of ways. The Two-Gospel theory of Mark’s high respect for the common witness of the earlier Gospels fails to offer a plausible explanation of his alleged total omission (and not alternate following) of, for example, the Matthean and Lukan introductory ‘infancy narratives’, the elaborate temptation stories, and the concluding ‘resurrection narratives’. An explanation of the observed textual phenomena, which would be better than that given by the supporters of the TwoGospel hypothesis, is evidently needed. Implausible dispersion and omission of much Matthean and Lukan material One of the greatest problems with the Two-Gospel hypothesis lies in the unavoidable assumption of Luke’s dispersion and Mark’s dispersion and omission of large portions of the sophistically arranged Matthean material. In the case of Luke, such a procedure would have involved deconstruction of the five great Matthean discourses and of some other thematically united sections (e.g. Mt 10:1-16), and dispersion of their material throughout the Lukan Gospel. According to the supporters of the Two-Gospel hypothesis, Mark’s redactional activity must have involved also omission of such important, and moreover witnessed by both his alleged predecessors, gospel sections as the infancy narratives, the ‘great sermon’ (with retaining two other Matthean discourses, however), the account of the healing of the servant of the Gentile centurion at Capernaum, and the extensive resurrection narratives. 535 Mark would have also allegedly omitted (contrary to his assumed pro-Petrine interests) at least three particularly Petrine episodes from the Gospel of Matthew (Mt 14:28-31; 16:1719; 17:24-27). These postulated redactional procedures evidently contradict the traditional images of the evangelists that are envisaged by the advocates of the Two-Gospel hypothesis, namely that of Luke as the evangelist who with much literary skill composed ‘an orderly account’ of the fulfilled events (cf. Lk 1:3), and of Mark who was a faithful follower of Peter (cf. 1 Pet 5:13) and a literary compiler who never opposed the common testimony of Mt and Lk.

535 Cf. R. A. Derrenbacker, ‘The “Abridgement” of Matthew and Luke: Mark as Epitome?’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 36-45 (esp. 45).

159

Assumed poor redactional skill of Mark Another significant problem with the Two-Gospel hypothesis lies in the assumed poor skill of Mark as a literary writer. This evangelist is not perceived by the advocates of the Two-Gospel hypothesis as an independent author or redactor who creatively used his source material according to his own literary and theological aims. He is rather regarded as an almost slavish copyist who simply reproduced the material from the works of his predecessors (Mt and Lk) and/or from oral catecheses of the Apostle Peter. Moreover, the precise relationship between, on the one hand, Mark’s postulated copying from Mt and Lk and, on the other hand, Mark’s elaboration of Peter’s oral preaching is very unclear. All the compositional devices peculiar to Mk, which were detected in the last decades by the scholars who investigated the redactional features of the Markan Gospel (the ‘sandwich’ device, doubling of episodes, working out of a consistent redactional plan of the Gospel, etc.), are simply ignored by the Two-Gospel theorists, who assume that Mark was merely a slavish compiler or a tachygraphic reproducer of someone else’s discourses. Moreover, it should be noted that there is a very well known ‘Markan’ text that has been in fact composed as a compilation of materials borrowed from Mt and Lk-Acts: the so-called ‘longer ending’ of Mk (Mk 16:9-20). Its dependence on Lk and Mt is evident (cf. e.g. Mk 16:11-15.19 par. Lk 24:11.13-51 and Mt 28:19), and nevertheless in its literary features it is evidently much differing from the genuine Gospel of Mark (Mk 1:1-16:8), and moreover it is absent in the most important, early textual and patristic witnesses of the Markan Gospel. 536 It may be therefore reasonably assumed that the postulated Mark’s conflation of Mt and Lk would yield in fact a text resembling Mk 16:9-20 and not Mk 1:1-16:8. The existence of two differing ‘versions’ of the Gospel of Mark (i.e. the genuine one and the conflated, secondary one) provides therefore strong evidence against the Two-Gospel hypothesis.

536 Cf. e.g. C. A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (WBC 34B; Thomas Nelson: Nashville 2001), 546-547; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. [et al.] and Paternoster: Carlisle 2002), 685-687.

160

1.2.10 The Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels 1.2.10.1 Main arguments for the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels The hypothesis of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels in the Mk-Mt-Lk order was first formulated and developed by a few German scholars in the nineteenth century. On the general assumption of Markan priority against Mt and Lk, they put forward several arguments for Luke’s dependence on Mt and not vice versa. They included (a) the non-Septuagintal form of the quotation from Mal 3:1 in Lk 7:27 par. Mt 11:10 (contrary to the general Lukan habit of quoting from the Septuagint) 537 and (b) the presence of peculiar Lukan features (e.g. Lukan phraseology, stylistic improvements, glosses, misunderstandings, omissions of pleonastic phrases, exaggeration of miracles, chronological mistakes, Pauline universalistic tendency, distance from Judaism, more developed Christology, and ‘delayed’ eschatology) in the Lukan version of the double MkLk tradition, the double Mt-Lk tradition, and the triple tradition. 538 Some of the supporters of the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels assumed, however, that the Lukan dependence on Mt was only secondary, namely that both Luke and Matthew used Mk and another common source (Q), and that the redactor of Lk used Mt in a merely supplementary way. 539 The hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels was revived and developed in the mid twentieth century by Austin M. Farrer. This British scholar argued that Matthew’s composition of his Gospel might be explained in terms of reworking of solely Mk, with no use of other hypothetical documents (such as ‘Q’ or ‘M’), because the pericopes that are commonly attributed to Q are in fact very well nestled into their Matthean

537 A. Ritschl, ‘Ueber den gegenwärtigen Stand der Kritik der synoptischen Evangelien’, ThJb(T) 10 (1851) 480-538 (esp. 534-535). 538 J. H. Scholten, Das paulinische Evangelium: Kritische Untersuchung des Evangeliums nach Lukas und seines Verhältnisses zu Marcus, Matthäus und der Apostelgeschichte, trans. E. R. Redepenning (R. L. Friderichs: Elberfeld 1881), 30, 86, 187, 235-236. 539 See e.g. C. Wittichen, ‘Die Composition des Lukasevangeliums’, ZWTh 16 (1873) 499522 (esp. 508-509); E. Simons, Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthäus benutzt? (C. Georgi: Bonn 1880), 104-112; H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der historischkritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3rd edn., J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Freiburg i. B. 1892), 356-357.

161

contexts. 540 Luke on his part, according to Farrer, disencumbered the Markan narrative of Matthew’s additions to it and placed them together according to his own plan, which was not necessarily better than that of Matthew. 541 It should be noted, however, that Farrer, aiming at disproving the Q hypothesis, attempted to demonstrate mainly the plausibility and not the actuality of Lukan dependence on Mt. What really mattered for the scholar was his idea of Matthew’s free remodelling and reshaping of Mk. 542 Consequently, a positive demonstration of Luke’s use of Mt had to be carried out by other scholars. 1.2.10.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels M. D. Goulder Michael D. Goulder, a student of Austin M. Farrer, welcomed and much developed the proposal of his Oxford tutor. Having presupposed Farrer’s thesis of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels in the Mk-Mt-Lk order, Goulder argued that Mt was composed on the basis of Mk according to a Jewish lectionary-calendrical pattern, with no use of any extensive written or oral nonMarkan sources. In the scholar’s opinion, Luke on his part reworked Mk and Mt in a new way according to the same lectionary-calendrical pattern. 543 In his later research on the Synoptic Gospels, Goulder tried to prove his hypothesis in a methodologically more justified way. He argued for Luke’s knowledge of Mt in the triple tradition with the use of the philological argument from the presence, in the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk, of Matthean redactional phrases that were avoided elsewhere by Lk. 544 In order to explain the reasons for 540 A. Farrer, St Matthew and St Mark (Dacre: Westminster 1954), 46 n. 2, 176. 541 Id., ‘On Dispensing with Q’, in Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Basil Blackwell: Oxford 1955), 55-86 (esp. 65-66). 542 Ibid. 62, 66, 85-86. 543 M. D. Goulder and M. L. Sanderson, ‘St. Luke’s Genesis’, JThS, NS 8 (1957) 12-30 (esp. 13); M. D. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (SPCK: London 1964), 123-144; id., Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker’s Lectures in Biblical Studies 1967-71 (SPCK: London 1974), 452-475; id., The Evangelists’ Calendar: A Lectionary Explanation of the Development of Scripture: The Speaker’s Lectures in Biblical Studies 1972 (SPCK: London 1978), 73-105, 141-182, 212-218, 241-306. Cf. also id., Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989), [vol. 1,] 147-177; id., ‘Sections and Lections in Matthew’, JSNT 76 (1999) 79-96. 544 Id., ‘On Putting Q to the Test’, NTS 24 (1977-1978) 218-234; id., ‘Mark xvi. 1-8 and Parallels’, NTS 24 (1977-1978) 235-240.

162

Luke’s alleged deconstruction of the great Matthean discourses, the scholar argued that Luke might have not recognized the need for this kind of long spiritual guidelines for the disciples. Consequently, Luke might have used the Matthean material in block sequences that partially intersected with the Markan material: Mt 1-12 in Lk 1:5-11:36; Mt 23-25 in Lk 11:37-13:33; and Mt 22-13 (in a reversed order) in Lk 13:34-18:8. 545 The linguistic criterion that has been applied by Goulder is well defined, but its use by the British scholar is, alas, less convincing. Goulder asserted, for example, that the word Ναζαρά in Lk 4:16 par. Mt 4:13 “at least in Matthew is redactional”, 546 but he did not substantiate his claim. On the other hand, this particular claim is quite implausible in view of the fact that it was Matthew and not Luke who clearly avoided calling Jesus Ναζαρηνός (Mt 2:23; 26:71 diff. Mk and Lk) and consequently, according to the criterion adopted by Goulder, it was Mt that was dependent on Lk in Lk 4:16 par. and not vice versa. Similarly, Goulder argued that the change of the Markan κράβαττον to the Mt-Lk κλίνη in Mk 2:34 parr. had been introduced by Matthew and not by Luke. 547 However, it was Matthew who never used this word outside the pericope Mt 9:1-8 (but cf. Lk 8:16; 17:34 diff. Mt) and consequently, according to the criterion adopted by Goulder, it was Mt that was here dependent on Lk and not vice versa. Having noted the inadequacy of the use of this linguistic criterion for proving the postulated Lukan use of Mt, Goulder stated that it is the amount and distribution of this kind of linguistic phenomena that prove his hypothesis. For this reason, the scholar wrote a full-scale commentary on Lk, which was based on the assumption of Luke’s use of Mk and Mt. 548 It is worth noting that Goulder argued also for Luke’s literary dependence on the Pauline letters. 549 At the most recent stage of his research, Goulder corroborated his theory by pointing to the presence of seventeen presumably Matthean features of numer-

545 Id., ‘The Order of a Crank’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (JSNTSup 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 111-130 (esp. 128130). 546 Id., ‘On Putting Q’, 220. Cf. id., Luke, [vol. 1,] 306-307; id., ‘Luke’s Knowledge of Matthew’, in Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991, ed. G. Strecker (GTA 50; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1993), 143-162 (esp. 146-148); id., ‘Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68 Par.)’, NovT 45 (2003) 365-373 (esp. 368-371). 547 Id., ‘On Putting Q’, 222; Cf. id., Luke, [vol. 1,] 331; id., ‘Luke’s Knowledge of Matthew’, 150. 548 Id., Luke (esp. [vol. 1,] 84-86). 549 Id., ‘Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline Letters?’, PRSt 13 (1986) 97-112.

163

ous phrases and sentences that are contained in the double Mt-Lk tradition. 550 However, the scholar did not compare this evidence with the opposite one (i.e. of the presence of Lukan features in the double Mt-Lk tradition) in order to reach a balanced judgement on the whole issue. He stated only that in the instances of high agreement in the double Mt-Lk tradition, Mt generally shared with this common tradition the phrases that are more striking than those of Lk, and consequently it was presumably Mt and not Lk that gave rise to the double Mt-Lk tradition. 551 However, Goulder himself argued two decades earlier, with the use of the personal example of his own frequent use of some peculiar phrases of his tutor, that such an argument, if it is used apart from other considerations, can be in reality quite elusive because its fails to prove exclusively the hypothesis of Luke’s use of Mt. 552 On the other hand, it may be reasonably assumed that a redactor who copied a fragment of his source with particularly high fidelity most probably regarded this fragment as particularly important, and consequently it is quite plausible that he adopted its phraseology also in the sections of his work that were freely composed by him. In a final note to one of his most recent articles, Goulder admitted that it might be argued that the notoriously problematic Mt-Lk ‘minor agreement’ against Mk in Mt 22:28 par. Lk 22:64 (τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε;), which for decades served Goulder to prove that Luke used Mt, might be explained also in opposite terms. At least in this instance there is some, although in Goulder’s opinion very weak, hint that Mt could have been literarily dependent on Lk. 553 Such a concession at the end of the academic career may be treated as a sign of greatness of the British scholar. R. H. Gundry Robert H. Gundry proposed a particular form of the hypothesis of Matthew’s and Luke’s common use of a non-Markan tradition that contained, in his view, 550 Id., ‘Self-Contradiction in the IQP’, JBL 118 (1999) 506-517. 551 Id., ‘The Derrenbacker–Kloppenborg Defense’, JBL 121 (2002) 331-336 (esp. 335336). 552 Id., ‘Some Observations of Professor Farmer’s “Certain Results…”’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (JSNTSup 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 99-104 (esp. 100). Cf. also id., ‘Derrenbacker–Kloppenborg’, 336. 553 Id., ‘Two Significant’, 373 n. 17: “Kiilunen adds a subsidiary point: Luke inserts […]. But this would be a weak basis on its own for maintaining that the words were copied into Matthew from Luke.”

164

(a) the material that is traditionally attributed to ‘Q’, (b) the nativity story, and (c) some of the material that is usually attributed to ‘M’ and ‘L’. Gundry argues, moreover, that Lk was dependent not only on Mk and on Q but also, additionally, on Mt. 554 The latter claim is based on Gundry’s investigations of the alleged Mattheanisms, which are identified by the scholar as the phrases that were inserted by Matthew into Mk, into the double Mt-Lk tradition, and into the passages peculiar to Mt. In Gundry’s opinion, these Mattheanism occasionally appear as ‘foreign bodies’ in Lk. Identification of these ‘foreign bodies’ is carried out by the scholar by means of contextual analysis. Gundry argues that the Mt-Lk passages that suit better their context in Mt than in Lk have to be regarded as foreign bodies in Lk. 555 However, the American scholar noted in passing that the Matthean context of these passages, which is in his view more original, is often not peculiarly Matthean but it stems rather from Mk. 556 Consequently, Gundry’s claim to the Matthean originality of these passages is evidently not well founded. In his more recent research of this phenomenon, Gundry argued that some of the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk display evident anti-Lukan features and therefore ought to be regarded as borrowed by Luke from Mt. 557 The alleged anti-Lukan character of the texts that were offered as proofs by Gundry is, however, very debatable. For example, having noted the omission of the clause ἵνα ὦσιν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ from Mk 3:14 in Lk 6:13 par. Mt 10:1, the scholar argued that in the light of, for example, Acts 1:21-22, this omission had to be regarded as anti-Lukan. 558 He failed to note, however, that in this case Luke omitted not only this particular clause but also the whole Markan statement about the purpose of 554 R. H. Gundry’s research is presented in this section and not in that devoted to the Q theory because his advocacy of Lukan dependence on Mt constitutes an important part of his analyses of the Synoptic Gospels. 555 R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1982), 2-5; id., Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (2nd edn., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994), xv-xvi, 2-5. 556 Id., Matthew (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1982; 2nd edn., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994), 5. 557 Id., ‘Matthean Foreign Bodies in Agreements of Luke with Matthew Against Mark Evidence that Luke Used Matthew’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 1467-1495; id., ‘A Rejoinder on Matthean Foreign Bodies in Luke 10,25-28’, EThL 71 (1995) 139-150. 558 Id., ‘Matthean Foreign Bodies’, 1468-1469.

165

Jesus’ ‘creation’ of the Twelve (Mk 3:14b-15), in order to rework this theme in a more elaborate way in Lk 9:1-6. Likewise, in his analysis of Lk 6:14 par. Mt 10:2 diff. Mk 3:17, Gundry argued that advancing Andrew to the second place in the list of the apostles and describing him as “his [i.e. Simon Peter’s] brother” was anti-Lukan in view of the list Acts 1:13. 559 However, the scholar failed to note that the second place and the particular family status of Andrew had been evidently deduced from Mark’s narrative (Mk 1:16-18). Moreover, the explicit description of Andrew as Simon Peter’s brother in the list of the apostles is required only by the Lukan and not by the Matthean narrative logic because only Luke did not introduce the character of Andrew into the gospel narrative before the list of the apostles. Gundry’s arguments for the alleged anti-Lukan character of some of the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk are therefore evidently flawed. H. B. Green The British scholar H. Benedict Green joined Michael Goulder in his defence of the hypothesis of Lukan dependence on Mt and of the non-existence of the hypothetical source Q. 560 Green added credibility to the hypothesis of Luke’s use of Mt by postulating Luke’s unequal treatment of his sources. In the scholar’s opinion, Luke gave basic priority to Mk as the Gospel that was composed earlier and was known to Luke for longer. In addition to that, Luke used Mt that was regarded by Luke as an enlarged version of Mk. The scholar argued also that since Luke reduced the Markan parables discourse from thirty-one to eighteen verses, he might have similarly abbreviated and decomposed the lengthy discourses of Mt. 561 In his more recent research, Green argued, on the basis of some linguistic affinities, that Lk and Acts were dependent not only on Mk and on Mt, but also on 1 Clem. (which was in turn dependent on Mt). Having noted, however, that such a proposal requires a very tight-fitting chronology of composition of Mt, 559 Ibid. 1470. 560 In his first publications, Green was very sceptical about the Q hypothesis: see e.g. H. B. Green, ‘The Structure of St Matthew’s Gospel’, in Studia Evangelica, vol. 4, Papers presented to the Third International Congress on the New Testament Studies held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1965, Part I, The New Testament Scriptures, ed. F. L. Cross (TU 102; Akademie Verlag: Berlin 1968), 47-59 (esp. 48-49). At a later stage of his research, Green admitted that Matthew and Luke might have commonly used some nonMarkan traditions: id., The Gospel According to Matthew in the Revised Standard Version: Introduction and Commentary (Oxford University: Oxford 1975), 6-7. 561 Id., ‘The Credibility of Luke’s Transformation of Matthew’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (JSNTSup 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 131-155 (esp. 133-135).

166

1 Clem., and Lk, Green suggested that Luke lived in Corinth (i.e. on the receiving end of Clement’s letter) and encountered Clement when his Gospel was already in an advanced state of preparation. 562 Green did not explain, however, where this encounter between Clement, who had sent his letter, and Luke, who had been preparing his Gospel, might have actually taken place: in Corinth or in Rome. The arguments for the hypothesis of Luke’s use of Mt are not very much persuasive in Green’s more recent works. For example, in his analysis of the text Mt 11:13 par. Lk 16:16a, the British scholar strangely argued that the phrase καὶ ὁ νόμος in the double Mt-Lk tradition was distinctively Matthean, and that Luke’s simple ὁ νόμος in his parallel text constituted a reworking of this Mattheanism. Green claimed, moreover, that it was Luke who omitted fragments of the Matthean tradition in this sentence according to one of his redactional habits: “Where a saying is found in his source in more than one variant, he tends to prefer the version outside the context that he is following to the one within it” (cf. Lk 16:17 par. Mt 5:18). 563 Evidently, the hypothesis of Lukan dependence on Mt implies a very strange redactional habit on the part of Luke, which mat be obviously much better explained in opposite terms: of Matthew’s reworking of Lk. In his book on the Beatitudes, Green attempts to demonstrate that their shorter, Lukan version was more original than their elaborated counterpart in Mt. The conclusions of Green’s insightful analyses, which evidently support the hypothesis of Matthean dependence on Lk, are, however, quite surprising: “There are thus no internal reasons why Lk. 6.22-23 cannot be regarded as Luke’s own redaction of Mt. 5.11-12.” 564 Green’s claim that in Lk 6:21 Luke was dependent on Mt is based on the mere observation that Lk 6:21 included much Lukan phraseology. 565 The scholar fails to note, however, that much of this peculiarly Lukan phraseology appeared also in the parallel version of Mt. Similarly, the problem of the alleged Lukan decomposition of the Matthean elaborate beatitude ‘poem’ is explained by the British scholar quite simply: “Luke could well have thought the Beatitudes as he found them in Matthew too grand in conception and scale to perform the same function for his own dis-

562 Id., ‘Matthew, Clement and Luke: Their Sequence and Relationship’, JThS, (1989) 1-25 (esp. 24-25).

NS

40

563 Id., ‘Matthew 11,7-15: Redaction or Self-Redaction?’, in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, ed. C. Focant (BEThL 110; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1993), 459-466 (here: 461). 564 Id., Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (JSNTSup 203; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 279. 565 Ibid. 280.

167

course.” 566 This kind of arguments certainly cannot substantiate the alleged ‘breaking through the impasse’ in the research on the synoptic problem. 567 E. Franklin At an early stage of his research on the Gospel of Luke, the British scholar Eric Franklin was inclined to accept the hypothesis of the existence of a common source of the double Mt-Lk tradition. 568 Later, however, he changed his opinion and became an advocate of the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Franklin’s arguments for Lukan dependence on Mt centre on postulating a number of Luke’s redactional procedures: adding some pro-Jewish statements to the double Mt-Lk tradition (e.g. Lk 7:3-5), expanding the extent of the double Mt-Lk tradition (e.g. Mt 3:1-12 par. Lk 3:1-18), splitting and dislocating parts of the common Mt-Lk pericopes (e.g. Lk 12:10), and treating the Matthean mention of women in Mt 1:1-17 as a slur. 569 All of these literary arguments are in reality evidently at least inconclusive because they fail to exclude the opposite procedure (i.e. of Matthew’s reworking of Lk). For this reason, the British scholar put forward a theological argument of Luke’s alleged dissatisfaction, from a pro-Pauline perspective, with the Matthean view on the law and with Matthew’s Church-centred outlook. 570 This theological argument would be persuasive, if Franklin’s presentation of the Lukan theology of the law were more adequate and less superficial. 571 In his most recent research, Franklin again entertained the possibility of the existence of a kind of the Q source. He assumed that Q’s theology was quite consistent with that of the Lukan passion narrative. 572 Alas, the British scholar did not give any plausible reasons for this striking correspondence. 566 Ibid. 282. 567 Cf. ibid. 36. 568 E. Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (SPCK: London 1975), 160. 569 Id., Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew (JSNTSup 92; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1994), 282-287, 298-301, 359. 570 Ibid. 309-315, 322-327, 370-375, 381-388. 571 Cf. ibid. 198-209. It should be noted that the scholar’s description of Luke’s theology of the law, which has been presented on mere twelve pages, is generally restricted to the analysis of Lk 5:1-5; 10:25-27; and 16:16-18. 572 Id., ‘A Passion Narrative for Q?’, in Understanding, Studying and Reading, Festschrift J. Ashton, ed. C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis (JSNTSup 153; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998), 30-47.

168

M. S. Goodacre Mark S. Goodacre is Michael D. Goulder’s disciple, who analysed in his dissertation Goulder’s synoptic theory. Goodacre examined critically the criteria that had been used by Goulder for proving Matthean priority against Lk. 573 Goodacre concluded that the analysis of the vocabulary that had been used in the ‘Q’ passages proved neither Matthean priority against Lk nor Luke’s priority against Mt. 574 The scholar demonstrated also that application of Goulder’s criterion of the presence of un-Lukan features in the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk in fact yielded inconclusive results. 575 Goodacre argued that at least six of the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk (Mk 3:10; 4:41; 6:2; 6:33; 12:22; 14:43 parr.) display features that are both Matthean and un-Lukan, so that Luke’s dependence on Mt in these cases should be postulated. On the other hand, in Goodacre’s view, at least one Mt-Lk ‘minor agreement’ against Mk (Mk 6:44 parr.; cf. also Mk 12:28 parr.) displays features that are both Lukan and un-Matthean, which implies Matthew’s dependence on Lk. 576 Having criticized to some extent the methodological principles that underlay Goulder’s work, Goodacre developed his own criterion for identifying the direction of literary dependence of parallel gospel texts. Goodacre stated that linguistic inconsistencies and logical errors in the flow of the narrative might evince ‘editorial fatigue’ of the gospel redactor in question, and consequently they might prove literary dependence of the gospel text in question on the parallel one. On this basis, the scholar attempted to prove Markan priority against Mt and Lk, and Matthean priority against Lk. 577 It should be noted, however, that Goodacre’s criterion of ‘editorial fatigue’ is in fact very debatable because the opposite editorial procedure (i.e. of clarifying, improving, and correcting the perceived inconsistencies and errors in the source) is at least equally plausible. For example, the phenomenon of Matthew’s 573 M. S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (JSNTSup 133; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1996), 42-48, 83-88. 574 Ibid. 84-88, 364. Cf. id., ‘Beyond the Q Impasse or Down a Blind Valley?’, JSNT 76 (1999) 33-52 (esp. 48-50). 575 Id., Goulder and the Gospels, 101-107, 122-130. 576 Ibid. 107-122, 364. It is worth noting that only the first half of this statement, which is in fact inconclusive, was used later by Goodacre, obviously as proving Luke’s use of Mt and not vice versa: id., The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2001), 146-147. 577 Id., ‘Fatigue in the Synoptics’, NTS 44 (1998) 45-58. Cf. id., The Synoptic Problem, 7176, 154-156; id., The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2002), 40-43.

169

(not entirely) consistent use of παῖς in Mt 8:5-13 against the interchange of δοῦλος and παῖς in Lk 7:1-10 may be explained not only in terms of the alleged Lukan ‘fatigue’ (i.e. inconsistency) in Luke’s reworking of Matthew, 578 but also in terms of Matthew’s resolve to restrict the Lukan variatio locutionis in order to achieve a more coherent narrative with a higher rhetorical impact. In fact, Goodacre himself admits that “Luke is a subtle and versatile writer with a large vocabulary and a tendency to vary his synonyms. Matthew, on the other hand, has a more pronounced, easily recognizable style, and he does not have so rich a vocabulary.” 579 The scholar’s editorial-stylistic argument for Luke’s use of Mt and not vice versa is therefore at least inconclusive. Having noticed that it is impossible to prove that the Matthean version of the double Mt-Lk tradition is always more original than that of Lk, Goodacre conceded that Luke might have used in his redactional activity some oral traditions. Accordingly, the scholar distinguished the issue of the relative literary priority of the Gospels from that of the relative age of traditions that are contained in each of them. He gave the example of Lk, which, notwithstanding its evident literary dependence on Mk, contained traditions that might be more original than those used by Mark (e.g. Lk 22:15-20 par. Mk 14:22-25; cf. 1 Cor 11:23-26). 580 Goodacre rightly noted therefore that Markan and Lukan variegated dependence on the Pauline tradition was one of the plausible reasons of the relative disagreement of Mk and Lk in their common tradition. The British scholar did not analyse, however, the highly complex but extremely important issue of the influence of Paul’s missionary and literary activity (and consequently, of the tensions caused by it in the early Church) on the theological content and the literary form of the synoptic tradition. A similar problem arises in Goodacre’s literary-theological argumentation for Matthean priority against Luke. For example, according to the scholar, Luke greatly played down the Markan-Matthean idea that John was Elijah (e.g. Mt 11:14) and he enhanced the idea that Jesus was Elijah (e.g. Lk 4:25-27). 581 The 578 Id., ‘Fatigue’, 56. Cf. id., The Synoptic Problem, 155. 579 Id., ‘A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q’, SBL.SP 39 (2000) 583-622 (here: 615). 580 Ibid. 616-620. Cf. id., The Synoptic Problem, 94-96, 138-139. Cf. also id., ‘A World without Q’, in Questioning Q, ed. M. Goodacre and N. Perrin (SPCK: London 2004), 174-179 (esp. 178-179). 581 Id., ‘Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual Reading of Mark’, in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew, ed. T. R. Hatina (LNTS 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 73-84 (esp. 83).

170

scholar notes, however, that also Luke in his freely composed text affirmed that John would come in the ‘spirit and power of Elijah’ (Lk 1:17). Goodacre explains this alleged literary-theological inconsequence in terms of Luke’s attempt to reconcile between the different streams of tradition. 582 However, in order to have something to reconcile the Markan-Matthean tradition with, the scholar has to postulate Luke’s acquaintance with the Johannine tradition, which flatly denied that John was Elijah (Jn 1:21). Moreover, the scholar has to argue that only Luke, against all other Gospels (Mk, Mt, and Jn), supported and enhanced the view of the early tradition that Jesus was Elijah. 583 Goodacre ends up, therefore, in postulating in fact both Lukan posteriority and Lukan priority against the views of Mk, Mt, and Jn. The scholar does not explain, alas, how to reconcile these contradictory ideas concerning the Lukan Gospel. 1.2.10.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels The hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels is regarded by many scholars as one of the most important modern alternatives to the Q theory. 584 Nevertheless, this hypothesis cannot be regarded as a comprehensive solution to the synoptic problem because of its several inherent argumentative weaknesses. Unconvincing linguistic evidence The advocates of the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels developed the linguistic criterion of the presence of Mt-Lk phrases that are both distinctively Matthean and distinctively un-Lukan or anti-Lukan, in order to prove Lukan dependence on Mt. However, as the investigation of one of the supporters of this hypothesis (namely Mark S. Goodacre) revealed, the application of this particular criterion to the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk yields at least inconclusive results as to the postulated Lukan dependence on Mt. Application of the same criterion to the ‘pure’ double Mt-Lk tradition gives results that are likewise at least inconclusive. The postulated non-Lukan ‘Mat582 Ibid. 583 Ibid. 584 Cf. e.g. F. Watson, ‘Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology’, NTS 55 (2009) 397415 (esp. 398), who simply refrains from discussing other solutions to the synoptic problem (ibid. 399, 408).

171

theanisms’ in the double Mt-Lk tradition are concentrated in relatively few and limited sections of the Mt-Lk material (especially in Lk 3:7-9.17; 12:28; 13:28 par.), which share the theme of announcement of God’s approaching severe judgement. For this reason, the opposite redactional procedure, namely that of Matthew’s adoption and elaboration of a peculiar Lukan motif together with its distinctive phraseology, is also quite plausible. Alternatively, if Luke really used Mt, the presence of non-Lukan Mattheanisms in the double Mt-Lk tradition would be most probably commoner, more evenly dispersed, and more variegated thematically. Implausibility of Luke’s omission of several Lukan-like motifs from the Gospel of Matthew The hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels implies that Luke must have omitted several motifs and episodes that are included in Mt but absent in Lk. Such a procedure is in itself, of course, not implausible. However, if Luke indeed redactionally used the Matthean Gospel, he must have omitted several Matthew’s motifs that display quite Lukan features. For example, the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels implies Luke’s omission of several Matthean beatitudes (of the meek, merciful, pure in heart, and making peace: Mt 5:5.7-9), which is quite implausible in view of Luke’s elaboration of these motifs elsewhere (cf. e.g. Lk 1:50-52; 11:41; Acts 15:9.33). Similarly implausible is Luke’s omission of the Matthean texts that deal with forgiveness (Mt 18:23-35) and with the special role of Peter (Mt 14:28-31; 16:17-19; 17:24-27) because Luke showed a particular interest in these two issues elsewhere (cf. e.g. Lk 7:4749; Acts 2:14-40). Luke’s omissions of Lukan-like motifs from Mt, which are postulated in the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels, are therefore, from the literary-theological point of view, too numerous and too variegated thematically to be plausible. Implausibility of Luke’s decomposition of the Matthean literary-rhetorical structures The hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels implies also Luke’s decomposition of several Matthean rhetorically arranged discourses and mixing of their content with Luke’s own, mainly narrative material. The postulated Luke’s redactional procedure of this

172

kind is in itself not implausible. 585 It should be noted, however, that Luke had no explicable redactional reasons to do so, apart from the hypothetical and in fact highly debatable redactional ‘liberty’ or the postulated mechanical ‘rewinding’ of the scroll of Mt. If Luke decided to extract the Matthean material from the framework of Mk and to insert it in his own para-Markan ‘interpolations’, why would he reorder the Matthean material so drastically and mix it with the Markan and his own material in the way that is evidently not required by the flow of the Lukan narrative? It should be noted that Luke did not dislike long discourses, for he himself composed (especially in Acts) several long, elaborate speeches (cf. e.g. Acts 7:2-53) that are thematically quite similar to the Matthean ones (cf. esp. Acts 20:18-35 and Mt 18:3-20; 20:1-16). Luke’s postulated decomposition of Matthew’s elaborate discourses and recontextualization of their material in various points of his own work is therefore quite implausible in view of his redactional habits. Moreover, several intriguing literary-theological (especially ecclesiological) affinities between Mt and Luke’s second work (i.e. Acts) cannot be adequately explained by the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. 1.2.11 The Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels 1.2.11.1 Main arguments for the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels The hypothesis of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels in the Mk-Lk-Mt order was formulated in the eighteenth century by the German scholar Gottlob Christian Storr. He was the first modern scholar who argued, on the basis of the traditional understanding of Mark as the follower of Peter and of the relative shortness of Mk, for the literary priority of Mk (which, according to Storr, had been written in Jerusalem under the mandate of Peter for the Greekspeaking Christians who lived in Antioch). Consequently, the scholar postulated independent use of Mk by both other synoptists, namely Luke (who had written his Gospel in Rome during the imprisonment of Paul) and Matthew (writing in Palestine in Aramaic for Jewish Christians). Storr argued also, however, that the translators of the Aramaic Mt into Greek used in their work both Mk and Lk. In

585 Pace R. A. Derrenbacker, Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (BEThL 186; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2005), 192-202, 257.

173

such a way, according to the scholar, they caused the observed similarities among the Greek Mt, Mk, and Lk. 586 Storr’s hypothesis was later supported and developed by Christian Gottlob Wilke who put forward several arguments in its favour. In Wilke’s view, (a) Matthew often conflated and expanded texts that had a more primitive form and context in Mk and Lk, which at times led to logical inconsistencies (e.g. in Mt 12:10); (b) at least some of the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk could have resulted from Matthew’s copying of the text of Lk; (c) the Matthean Sermon on the Mount is a compiled and expanded version of the parallel texts in Lk and not vice versa; (d) at times Matthew abbreviated the Lukan texts by relocating them (e.g. in Mt 8:19-22 par.); (e) at times Matthew’s additions ran contrary to the logic of the original Lukan text (e.g. in Mt 12:40); (f) several characteristically Lukan words appear in Mt; and (g) several fragments that are common to Mt and Lk display features of Lukan theology (e.g. Mt 8:5-12 par.). 587 A few other scholars in the nineteenth adopted the hypothesis of the MkLk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels and offered some linguistic arguments for the understanding of Mt as a combination of Mk and Lk. 588 586 G. C. Storr, Ueber den Zwek der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis (Jakob Friedrich Heerbrandt: Tübingen 1786), 270-307, 355-361, 369-370, 375-377. However, in his later works, under the influence of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (and Papias), Storr argued that the canonical (Greek) Matthew and Luke had commonly but independently of each other used two main sources: Mk and a pre-Matthean Hebrew biography of Jesus: id., De fonte evangeliorum Matthaei et Lucae (Fues: Tubingae 1794), esp. 5-13 [reworked in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 3, ed. J. C. Velthusen, C. T. Kuinoel, and G. A. Rupert (Iohannes Ambrosius Barth: Lipsiae 1796), 140-172 (esp. 143-150)]. 587 C. G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist, 460-462, 465, 685-691. 588 B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, vol. 1 (Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1841), 127, 161, 243-244, 286, 309, et passim; G. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Entwicklung nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Wissenschaft (F. A. Brockhaus: Leipzig 1857), esp. 370-385; M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander, verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes, zum Selbststudium für die akademische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen (Gustav Mayer: Leipzig 1861), iv, vii; G. Schläger, ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Matthäusevangeliums vom Lukasevangelium’, ThStKr 69 (1896) 83-93. It is worth noting that from among the scholars who were referred to by F. Neirynck [in collaboration with T. Hansen and F. van Segbroeck], The Minor Agreements, 28 n. 85 as arguing for Matthean dependence on Lk, some (F. Hitzig, J. E. Carpenter, and P. Dausch) did not in fact espouse the hypothesis of Matthean dependence on Lk, O. Pfleiderer considered such a possibility but eventually left the question open (O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum: seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang, vol. 1 (2nd edn.,

174

At the beginning of the twentieth century, a few scholars considered the possibility of Matthew’s secondary use of Lk, apart from Matthew’s and Luke’s common use of Mk and some other tradition or traditions. They allowed for this possibility on the basis of (a) Mt-Lk agreements against Mk, (b) post-70 AD Sitz im Leben of some parts of the double Mt-Lk tradition (e.g. Lk 13:34-35 par.), and (c) high plausibility of literary dependence of the Matthean infancy narrative on the Lukan one. 589 Although a number of literary arguments had been provided in favour of the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels, this proposal was later, for over half a century, totally disregarded by New Testament scholars. 590 Along with the growing domination of the Two-Source hypothesis, the phenomenon of Matthean posteriority against parallel gospel texts was usually explained in terms of (a) Matthew’s conflation of Mk with Q, and (b) Matthew’s expansion of Q. At the same time, the order and literary features of Q were often regarded by the scholars as preserved more faithfully in Lk than in Mt, so that many relevant passages in Lk were regarded as almost identical with Q. Nevertheless, they were interpreted as originally composed in Q and not in Lk. 591 The peculiar Lukan features of the Georg Reimer: Berlin 1902), 612), and others (A. F. Büsching, E. Evanson, P. J. S. Vogel and W. Küppers) postulated Lukan priority against both Mt and Mk; the work of B. Heigh (1916) could not be found in any library or bibliography. 589 H. Delafosse, ‘Rapports de Matthieu et de Luc’, RHR 90 (1924) 1-38 (esp. 24-38); E. von Dobschütz, ‘Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet’, ZNW 27 (1928) 338-348 (esp. 345-347). Cf. also tentatively M.-J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Luc (ÉtB; Gabalda: Paris 1921), lxix-lxxxvi (esp. lxx-lxxiii). 590 For a notable exception that consisted in suggesting Matthew’s use of a Proto-Lk, which was in turn dependent (together with Mt) on Mk, see the article of H. P. West, Jr. who offered a plausible explanation of Matthew’s omission of some parts of the Lukan material by pointing to Matthew’s peculiar attitude towards women, lawless people, and wealth: H. P. West, Jr., ‘A Primitive Version of Luke in the Composition of Matthew’, NTS 14 (1967-1968) 75-95 (esp. 79-88). For a recent short remark concerning the MkLk-Mt hypothesis, see P. Foster, ‘Is it Possible to Dispense with Q?’, NovT 45 (2003) 313-337 (esp. 333-336) who rejects, however, this hypothesis out of hand with the use of the evidently tenuous argument that Matthew could not have known Lk because he did not include in his Gospel all of the Lukan additions to Mk (ibid. 336). 591 Cf. e.g. C. M. Tuckett, Revival, 85-89; id., ‘On the Relationship Between Matthew and Luke’, NTS 30 (1984) 130-140 (here: 140): “[In Mt 23:34 par. Lk 11:49] Matthew’s version can be adequately explained as MattR of Luke’s version […]. The most likely explanation is that Matthew and Luke depend on a common source at this point […].” It should be noted in this context that, according to Tuckett, Lk 11:49 par. is one of the texts in which the alleged distinctive Q theology is most easily traceable: id., Q and the History, 15, 38.

175

hypothetical, reconstructed source Q and of the Mt-Lk agreements against Mk were at the same time hardly noticed. This attitude somewhat changed at the end of the twentieth century, when a few scholars began to discuss anew the Mk-Lk-Mt hypothesis. 1.2.11.2 Modern proponents of the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels M. Hengel The German scholar Martin Hengel began his research on the Synoptic Gospels with the presupposition of the existence of the hypothetical source Q. 592 However, already at an early stage of his academic career, Hengel expressed his reservations concerning the existence of Q in form of a single document (and not of a body of common traditions), and consequently also concerning the possibility of reconstructing the exact wording and redactional history of this hypothetical source. 593 Hengel’s recent book The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ revealed a yet more radical change of the scholar’s views. In a ‘postscript’ to his analyses of the issue of authenticity of the traditional titles of the Synoptic Gospels, Hengel argued for a partial dependence of Mt on Lk. 594 The German scholar stated that the hypothetical Q source was merely a very hetero592 See e.g. M. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu Mt 8,21f. und Jesu Ruf in die Nachfolge (BZNW 34; Töpelmann: Berlin 1968), 3-6 [also in id., Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V, ed. C.-J. Thornton (WUNT 211; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 40-138 (esp. 42-44)]. Cf. yet id., ‘Der Finger und die Herrschaft Gottes in Lk 11,20’, in La Main de Dieu: Die Hand Gottes, ed. R. Kieffer and J. Bergman (WUNT 94; J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1997), 87-106 [also in id., Jesus und die Evangelien, 644-663; but cf. ibid. 644 n. 1]. 593 Id., ‘Kerygma oder Geschichte? Zur Problematik einer falschen Alternative in der Synoptikerforschung aufgezeigt an Hand einiger neuer Monographien’, ThQ 151 (1971) 323-336 (esp. 301-304) [also in id., Jesus und die Evangelien, 289-305 (esp. 333-336)]; id., ‘Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund’, ThR 52 (1987) 327-400 (esp. 329-328) [also in id. [et al.], Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II (WUNT 109; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999), 219-292 (esp. 221-222)]. 594 Id., The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, trans. J. Bowden (SCM: London 2000), 68, 169-207, 303-323; id., Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 274-353. For the initial formulation of Hengel’s new idea, see M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer [et al.], Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien: Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels (WUNT 108; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1998), 14 n. 41.

176

geneous body of texts. Hengel noted that Q was variously reconstructed by the scholars and that it did not explain the high number of Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk. On the other hand, in Hengel’s view, several literary phenomena, namely (a) the basic common order of the double Mt-Lk tradition, (b) the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk, (c) the higher number of doublets in Mt than in Lk, and (d) the general greater originality of the Lukan version of the double Mt-Lk tradition, are much better explained by the hypothesis of Matthew’s use of Lk. In Hengel’s opinion, the reverse direction of Mt-Lk literary dependence is implausible because of the much more developed compositional structure of the double Mt-Lk tradition in Mt than in Lk. The scholar explained Matthew’s omissions of great portions of the Lukan material as having resulted from Matthew’s particular theological and moral convictions, which must have been much different from those of the Pauline disciple Luke, but much closer to those of the author of the Letter of James. Accordingly, Matthew’s use of his sources must have been unequal: Matthew generally followed Mk because it enjoyed the authority of Peter and, additionally, he borrowed from Lk only where Lk lacked Markan parallels. 595 Matthew’s use of Lk is quite plausible, according to Hengel, also because of the temporal distance between Lk (which was written c. AD 80) and Mt (which was written c. AD 90-100). In the scholar’s opinion, Luke demonstrated remarkably good knowledge of Jewish conditions of life in Palestine before AD 70 and was dealing with the impact of the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. On the other hand, Matthew referred to the Temple only in the passages that were borrowed from Mk. He showed a considerable interest in the sharp controversy with the synagogue that regained its strength after the war catastrophe. According to the German scholar, Matthew’s community was also much more organized than those of Mark and Luke. It had a monarchical government and the ‘church law’; it developed the Trinitarian baptismal formula; and it engaged in the most developed polemics against the Jews, which was comparable with that of the Gospel of John. Moreover, in Hengel’s opinion, the two ‘nonapostolic’ Gospels (Mk and Lk) had been written before the ‘apostolic’ ones (Mt and Jn) that were given apostolic’ titles in order to strengthen their authority in the universal Church. 596 595 M. Hengel, The Four Gospels, 172-177, 181-186; id., Die vier Evangelien, 281-288, 295-320. Cf. id., ‘Jesus als messianischer Lehrer der Weisheit und die Anfänge der Christologie’, in M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie (WUNT 138; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2001), 81-131 (esp. 84-96). 596 M. Hengel, The Four Gospels, 189-204; id., Die vier Evangelien, 323-349. Cf. id., ‘Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus’, Hyperboreus: Studia Classica 7 (2001) [Festschrift A. I. Zaicev] 332-351 (esp. 336-342) [also in id., Jesus

177

The German scholar argued also that Luke, as he had stated in the prologue to his Gospel (Lk 1:1-4), had probably used numerous oral and written sources: both for the material that was later borrowed from his work by Matthew (which is now conventionally called ‘Q’) and for the material that Matthew later omitted (which is now conventionally called ‘L’). 597 In Hengel’s view, Matthew and Luke (and probably also the author of the Gospel of Thomas) presumably had access to similar, or even the same, traditional collection or collections, one of which was later referred to by Papias as an Aramaic collection of the Lord’s sayings. Therefore, as a rule, according to Hengel, the fragments of the double MtLk tradition that display high verbal agreement must have been borrowed by Matthew from Lk, whereas the Mt-Lk passages that display lower verbal agreement have to be explained as resulting from differing translations of various collections of logia. 598 In his most recent, reworked, German version of his book that had been published originally in English, the German scholar added some new elements to his hypothesis. In his most recent opinion, (a) Mk was dependent on the common tradition of logia; (b) Mark used (especially in his passion narrative) a preMarkan narrative tradition; (c) the peculiar Lukan and Matthean materials were influenced by the tradition of logia; and (d) all pre-Gospel traditions (i.e. the tradition of logia, peculiar materials, and the narrative tradition) originated probably, at least in a substantial part, from the oral tradition and existed together with it. 599 The pattern of literary interrelationships that results from these postulates is evidently very complex, but it reveals, according to Hengel, the limitation of our knowledge and the impossibility of finding a satisfactory solution to the synoptic problem. 600 und die Evangelien, 664-682 (esp. 668-672)]. It is worth noting that, in accordance with Hengel’s argument, the ‘non-apostolic’ Gospels (Mk and Lk) could not postdate the ‘apostolic’ ones (Mt and Jn) for otherwise they would have also understandably received a not inferior to them, ‘apostolic’ attribution (cf. the ‘Gospel of Thomas’, ‘Gospel of Peter’, ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’, ‘Protevangelium of James’, etc.). 597 Id., The Four Gospels, 174-177; id., ‘Der Lukasprolog und seine Augenzeugen: Die Apostel, Petrus und die Frauen’, in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium (Durham, September 2004), ed. S. C. Barton, L. T. Stuckenbruck, and B. G. Wold (WUNT 212; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 195242 (esp. 206-215); id., Die vier Evangelien, 283-288. 598 Id., The Four Gospels, 177-179; id., ‘Lukasprolog’, 212-214; M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum (Geschichte des frühen Christentums 1; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 225-227; M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien, 288-292. 599 M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien, 317-318, 352. 600 Ibid. 318.

178

Hengel’s hypothesis is very interesting, although evidently it has not been developed in detail. 601 The main problem that has not been solved by the great scholar is the question of the origin, literary character, and redactional features of the Lukan non-Markan material. Likewise, the postulated by Hengel sourcecritical identification of Matthew’s oral and written sources on the basis of variation in the level of verbal agreement in the Mt-Lk double tradition is very debatable. Moreover, the scholar’s recently expressed scepticism over the possibility of finding a satisfactory solution to the synoptic problem seems somewhat exaggerated. R. V. Huggins Ronald V. Huggins is the first scholar who argued in the recent decades for the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. In his article, which was published in 1992, the Canadian scholar pointed out that this hypothesis is in fact based on two fundamental discoveries of the TwoSource theory: (a) Markan priority against Lk and Mt, and (b) Lukan overall originality against Mt. The postulated by Huggins assumption of Matthean posteriority against both Mk and Lk solves, however, several problems of the TwoSource theory: (a) the phenomenon of the Matthean doublets, (b) the ‘Mk-Q overlaps’, (c) the Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk, (d) the existence of the Q ‘entity’, (e) the problematic order of Q, and (f) the literary-genre ambiguity of Q. 602 Huggins admitted that the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels stands or falls on “whether it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that Matthew is more primitive than Luke at certain points in the double tradition”. However, due to the limited scope of his study, the scholar left this question open. 603 He argued, instead, that the order of the double Mt-Lk tradition at times agrees with Mk (in Lk 3:7-9.16-17; 4:1-13 par.) but at times also against Mk with no particular narrative clue from Mk (for example, in the placing of Lk 6:20-7:10 par. in the Markan narrative setting of Mk 3:7-8.13 notwithstanding its transposition in Mt to the point of Mk 1:20 parr.), which is inexplicable in the Two-Source theory. According to Huggins, Matthew generally followed the outline and content of Mk, even against the Lukan 601 Cf. id., The Four Gospels, 184-185: “[…] A detailed demonstration of whether and where Matthew is not dependent on ‘Q’ but on Luke—that would call for a lengthy monograph, though it would be worth while.” 602 R. V. Huggins, ‘Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal’, NovT 34 (1992) 1-22 (esp. 2-4). 603 Ibid. 3 n. 4.

179

transpositions of the Markan material, and used Lk only as a source that supplemented Mk. For this reason, Matthew selected and rearranged the Lukan nonMarkan material. Similarly, Matthew’s infancy and resurrection narratives were composed with the use of Lk, which resulted in several points of Mt-Lk agreement in these sections. Matthew omitted, according to the scholar, the Lukan episodes that concerned the righteous poor ones and exercised in these sections more redactional freedom than in the originally Markan parts of his Gospel. 604 Huggins’s proposal was evidently very insightful, but it has not been developed, alas, into a full-scale synoptic theory. E. Aurelius The Swedish scholar Erik Aurelius assumed in his research that the existence of the hypothetical source Q was a well-founded scholarly hypothesis. Nevertheless, he put forward an argument for Matthew’s secondary use of Lk. The scholar argued that the Matthean additions in his two pericopes (especially Mt 8:13 in Mt 8:5-13; Mt 15:28 in Mt 15:21-28) made out of them, notwithstanding their different origin (the double Mt-Lk tradition and Mk respectively), a paired set of episodes that described Gentiles as (a) coming to Jesus, (b) asking him for healing of their children, (c) overcoming Jesus’ discouraging reception of them, (d) expressing their great faith that was subsequently praised by Jesus, and (e) being granted healings at a distance. A similar paradigm may be found in the Old Testament only in the story of the healing of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:1-19). Aurelius argued that such a coherent reworking of two originally distant episodes into a gender-paired set could not have occurred simply due to chance. It betrays Matthew’s knowledge of the Lukan redactional text Lk 4:25-27, in which such a gender-paired set of two characters: Naaman and the widow at Zarephath near Sidon, who served as examples of Gentiles’ faith over against the unbelief of Jews, had been created. 605 Aurelius assumed therefore that Matthew used in his redactional work Mk, Q, and Lk. The Swedish scholar supposed, under the influence of Martin Hengel, that Q might have existed in the form of several documents and not in that of a unitary source. Consequently, the narrative text Mt 8:5-13 par. might have not belonged to the same source as other fragments of the Q material, but it

604 Ibid. 4-22. 605 E. Aurelius, ‘En hemlig förbindelse Lukas-Matteus’, SEÅ 65 (2000) 191-200 (esp. 192197); id., ‘Gottesvolk und Außenseiter: Eine geheime Beziehung Lukas – Matthäus’, NTS 47 (2001) 428-441 (esp. 429-436).

180

might have been placed together with them by the Lukan, and later also Matthean, redaction. 606 Aurelius did not attempt, however, to reconstruct the contents, mutual relationships, and possible causes of later disappearance of these postulated numerous ‘Qs’. Moreover, he did not analyse in detail the relationships of the ideas that had been expressed in Mt 8:5-13 par. (for example, the power of Jesus’ mere word and the importance of believing in this word) with those that are peculiar to the synoptists, especially to Luke. Further investigation in this field is evidently needed. G. A. Blair George A. Blair argued for the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels on the basis of a simple literary comparison of the texts of Mk, Lk, and Mt, which was accompanied by the scholar’s generally unprejudiced explanation of the synoptic data. 607 Blair analysed the similarities and differences that occur among the texts of the Synoptic Gospels and drew balanced conclusions concerning their various possible origins, formulating them in terms of relative probability, such as “as likely as”, “extremely implausible”, “slightly more probable”, “far more likely”, etc. 608 Blair’s work is certainly valuable, mainly because of its high methodological impartiality as concerns various possible solutions to the synoptic problem. However, it has also several important weaknesses. Blair did not consistently apply any objective set of criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of possible literary dependence between two given literary works. 609 He wrongly claimed that he was the first scholar who argued for the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. He did not refer to any secondary literature on the subject, although he took into consideration at least the main ‘generic alternatives’: the Griesbach–Farmer and the Farrer–Goulder hypotheses, and the Two-Source theory. 610 Blair’s work cannot be therefore regarded as offering a comprehensive solution to the synoptic problem.

606 Id., ‘Gottesvolk’, 438-439. 607 G. A. Blair, The Synoptic Gospels Compared (SBEC 55; Edwin Mellen: Lewiston · Queenston · Lampeter 2003) (esp. 309-311). 608 Ibid. 9-12 et passim. 609 Cf. e.g. ibid. 189-194, 283-286. 610 Cf. ibid. 3-4.

181

1.2.11.3 Problems with the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels The most important problem with the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels lies in the fact that this theory has never been adequately tested. For over a hundred years, this hypothesis was hardly taken into consideration by the scholarly community. In the whole twentieth century, only a few articles and a ‘postscript’ to a book that focused on another matter referred directly to this proposal. If the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels was taken into consideration at all, it was usually treated as a purely theoretical possibility. In place of serious arguments for or against this hypothesis, general disregard dominated the scholarly debate on this subject. 611 The main problems with the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels may be summarized in three points. Mattheanisms in the double Mt-Lk tradition The main argument against the hypothesis of Matthean dependence on Lk is based on the alleged presence of Mattheanisms in the double Mt-Lk tradition. For Q theorists, this argument assumes the form of the argument from the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy. It is argued that there are several texts that belong to the double Mt-Lk tradition, in which the vocabulary is distinctively Matthean and non-Lukan, and consequently that the hypothesis of Lukan dependence on Mt or on a common Mt-Lk source is much more plausible than that of Matthean dependence on Lk.

611 For example, Frans Neirynck referred to this hypothesis in a mere supplementary note to one of his articles, stating simply: “I do not think that there is a future for the theory of Matthew’s dependence on Luke”: F. Neirynck, ‘A Symposium on the Minor Agreements’, in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (BEThL 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 333-339 (here: 339). For a more balanced presentation of this hypothesis (in Martin Hengel’s version), see e.g. J.-P. Michaud, ‘Effervescence in Q Studies’, in SNTU.A 30 (2005) 61-103 (esp. 75-77). For a recent critique of this hypothesis (also in Martin Hengel’s version), see A. Fuchs, ‘Die quellenkritische Glaubensbekenntnis Martin Hengels und die widerspenstigen Tatsachen der synoptischen Tradition’, in SNTU.A 34 (2009) 159-206. For positive use of this hypothesis (likewise, in M. Hengel’s version) outside the synoptic studies, see F. Siegert, Das Evangelium des Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt: Wiederherstellung und Kommentar (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 7; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2008), 90-99.

182

There is, however, no widely agreed upon list of such un-Lukan Mattheanisms in the double Mt-Lk tradition, mainly because Mt (in difference to Lk) contains relatively few material that is not paralleled in other Gospels and not dependent on scriptural traditions, so that it is difficult to identify words or phrases that are indeed distinctively Matthean. Moreover, a significant part of the alleged non-Lukan Mattheanisms in the double Mt-Lk tradition is related to the theme of announcement of God’s approaching severe judgement (cf. esp. Lk 3:7-9.17; 12:28; 13:28 par.). This fact renders quite plausible also the opposite redactional procedure, namely that of Matthew’s adoption and elaboration of a peculiar Lukan motif together with its distinctive phraseology. It is the merit of the scholars who participate in the International Q Project that they gathered in the databases of the project various, but alas not all, scholarly opinions concerning the relative priority of the Matthean and Lukan versions of the double Mt-Lk tradition and provided them with their own critical evaluations. The research on the postulated non-Lukan Mattheanisms in the double Mt-Lk tradition may be therefore aided by the results of the work of the IQP scholars who identified the features of the double Mt-Lk tradition that are considered by the majority of scholars Matthean and non-Lukan. The number and thematic diversification of such features has to be analysed in detail in order to answer the question, whether the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels is really implausible. Unidentified sources of the Lukan non-Markan material Another issue that is difficult to explain by the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels is the origin of the Lukan non-Markan material, especially of the so-called Lukan ‘interpolations’ into the basic Markan gospel framework (Lk 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28). If it is assumed, as it is made in the Q theory, that Luke knew and used a hypothetical Mt-Lk source in the form of a ‘Q’ document or traditions, the problem of the Lukan ‘interpolations’ is limited to the question of the origin of the so-called ‘L’ (i.e. non-Markan and non-Q) material. However, if it is assumed, as it is made in more radical versions of the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels, that Luke did not use any lost Mt-Lk source or traditions (‘Q’), then that the amount of material that has been interpolated by Luke into the Markan framework (not counting Acts) must have exceeded the extent of Mk. Accordingly, the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels has to explain in a satisfactory way both the origin and the order of the Lukan material that has been interpolated into the framework of Mk. Moreover, this hypothesis has to explain the relationship between the Lukan ‘tradition’ and the Lukan ‘redaction’. If the material that has 183

been borrowed by Luke from Mk amounts to merely one-half of the Lukan work, then Luke’s ‘redaction’ of this material must have been quite creative. No support for the Mk-Lk-Mt order of the composition of the Gospels in the early Church tradition Another, external difficulty for the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels is caused by the early Christian tradition, which gives no support for the Mk-Lk-Mt order of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. No Church Father argued for this order or regarded it as plausible. On the other hand, it should be noted that the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’, which seems to be the main source of the entire patristic tradition concerning the order of composition of the Gospels, postulates only the Mk-Mt order of their composition and does not refer to the origin, and consequently to the relative priority or posteriority, of Lk. This particular ‘testimony’ should be therefore regarded as neither supporting nor contradicting the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Consequently, in this case, the patristic evidence may be considered inconclusive. 1.2.12 Conclusions Most New Testament scholars agree that there is no hypothesis that would explain all aspects of the synoptic problem, and consequently that all relevant hypotheses may be regarded as merely more or less persuasive. This widespread conviction seems to be, however, only partially true. The analysis of various proposals that were supported by the scholars during the last twenty-five years revealed that the idea of Markan priority against Mt and Lk in some form (i.e. including its Proto-Markan, Deutero-Markan, and protogospel variants) is nowadays almost universally accepted. The arguments against it are in fact very weak. On the other hand, the Q theory is not as universally accepted as it is usually suggested by its numerous supporters. It is by no means the only reasonable solution to the synoptic problem. It has several serious weaknesses, which are not less significant than those of other synoptic theories. Among several solutions to the synoptic problem that are theoretically possible and are in fact advocated by some scholars, there is one that was never seriously tested in the whole twentieth century, although it is certainly worth a critical evaluation: the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels.

184

The analysis of various solutions to the synoptic problem that were adopted by the scholars during the last twenty-five years confirmed also the significance of Gadamer’s hermeneutic rule of importance of cognitive preconceptions and presuppositions for the research on the synoptic problem. 612 Most synoptic hypotheses were formulated in their initial form and in their logical structure under strong influence of external data that originated from the early Christian tradition, especially from the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ and from the ideas of Irenaeus and Augustine. Moreover, modern scholars are often heavily influenced by the ideas of their tutors and of the academic milieus in which they carry out their studies. Furthermore, the scholars who investigated, especially at the early stages of their academic career, in particular one Synoptic Gospel tend to credit it with relative originality (or at times on the contrary: with relative posteriority) against the other Gospels. There is, therefore, great need for establishing a set of relatively reliable criteria for ascertaining the relative literary priority among the Synoptic Gospels. The use of such criteria seems to be one of the main requirements of any critical research on the synoptic problem.

1.3 Conclusions The analysis of the nature of the synoptic problem and of various solutions to it that were adopted by the scholars during the last twenty-five years revealed that the question of the origin of both similarities and differences among the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke cannot be answered by means of a simple comparison of the texts of the respective Gospels. Finding the adequate solution to the synoptic problem requires not only much literary-critical research but also serious hermeneutical and methodological analyses. In such a way, the axiomatic structure of each of the proposed solutions may be investigated, and consequently its inherent and contextual limitations and argumentative weaknesses may be well perceived. It seems that only this kind of interdisciplinary, wideranging, self-critical research may result in an adequate evaluation of various synoptic hypotheses and consequently in finding the adequate solution to the synoptic problem. It has also been noticed that one of the main weaknesses of modern research on the synoptic problem lies in general insufficiency of research aiming 612 Pace e.g. D. Batovici, ‘The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem’, CBR 7.2 (2009) 245-271 (esp. 260), who suggests concentrating the future research on the synoptic problem on purely historical issues (the relevance of the Gospel of Thomas, the use of the Old Testament, and the reality of communication media in antiquity).

185

at establishing a set of reliable criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels and/or their postulated sources. Only the elaboration and consistent use of such a set of criteria may enable the scholars to evaluate adequately various hypotheses concerning the origin of both similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels.

186

Chapter 2: The basic pattern of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels Finding the correct solution to the synoptic problem requires, first of all, establishing in a most objective possible way the basic pattern of literary interdependence of the extant Synoptic Gospels. In order to fulfil this task, a set of criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of possible direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels has to be first established. Thereupon, the texts of the Synoptic Gospels have to be analysed with the use of this set of criteria.

2.1 Criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of possible direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels From a purely theoretical point of view, if there is evidence of some kind of literary interdependence among three literary works, then there are eighteen possible various patterns of such interdependence. 1 Is it possible to determine, which one of them reflects a given actual case—for example, the case of the three Synoptic Gospels? One of the important factors that contribute to the complexity of the synoptic problem consists in the lack of generally accepted criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence between two literary works. 2 Interested scholars know very well that the problems of determining relative literary priority and posteriority among, for example, differing versions of the so-called Community Rule or of the so-called Damascus Document are in fact very difficult to solve. 3 Some scholars who deal with the synoptic problem 1

Cf. W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (2nd edn., Western North Carolina: Dillsboro, N.C. 1976), 208-209.

2

Cf. T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter, ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method – Suggested Guidelines’, in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice, ed. eid. (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 284-296 (here 291): “[…] It may come as somewhat of a surprise to realize that there is no recognized self-evident method of tracing literary dependence, whether in biblical studies or elsewhere.”

3

See e.g. recently: A. Schofield, ‘Rereading S: A New Model of Textual Development in Light of the Cave 4 Serekh Copies’, DSD 15 (2008) 96-120 (esp. 99-103).

187

radically change their views on the existence and direction of direct literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels over time. 4 For this reason, a set of criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels has to be established or at least explicitly discussed before carrying out any evaluation of the plausibility of various possible patterns of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels. 2.1.1 Questionable criteria of direct literary dependence Among the criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels, there are some that have been adopted by various scholars in the research on the synoptic problem but, nevertheless, they are in fact quite questionable. The most important of them will be discussed below. Vocabulary characteristic of a given Gospel A number of scholars regard the presence, in a text belonging to a given Gospel, of vocabulary that is characteristic of this particular Gospel as a token of the relative posteriority of this text against its thematic counterparts elsewhere. In other words, the presence of the so-called ‘Mattheanisms’, ‘Markanisms’, and ‘Lukanisms’ in a given text that belongs to Mt, Mk, and Lk respectively is often treated as a sign of the relative posteriority of this text, and consequently of this particular Gospel. 5 Scholars differ, however, in defining the minimum level of peculiarity of a given word or phrase to the Gospel in question that would justify

4

See, for example, the diametrical change of views of the French scholar Marie-Émile Boismard who asserted in the year 1994 that the common features of Mk with Lk and of Mk with Mt, which had been earlier (i.e. in the years 1972-1980) interpreted by him as resulting from Matthean and Lukan dependence on the Markan tradition (precisely: on the ‘Intermediary Mark’), should be explained in most cases (but not always) in opposite terms, namely those of Markan dependence on the Matthean and Lukan traditions: M.-É. Boismard, L’Évangile de Marc: Sa préhistoire (ÉtB, NS 26; Gabalda: Paris 1994), 8: “[…] Nous verrons maintenant au contraire une influence des traditions matthéenne et lucanienne sur l’ultime rédaction marcienne.”

5

See e.g. W. R. Farmer, ‘The Case for the Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. D. A. Black and D. R. Beck (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2001), 97-135 (esp. 128); W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1 (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988), 630-631 [referring to Mt 6:19-20 par. Lk 12:33] et passim.

188

considering this word or phrase ‘characteristic’ of this Gospel. 6 Since the definition and use of this criterion is in fact quite artificial, some scholars propose mere comparison of the total number of occurrences of a given word or phrase in various Synoptic Gospels as indicating the relative priority and posteriority of the Gospels in which this word or phrase occurs with notably differing frequency. 7 There are at least two important limitations of usefulness of this linguistic criterion of relative literary posteriority. First, the use of this criterion is based on the assumption that the evangelists, as a rule, merely added their own peculiar vocabulary and phraseology to the linguistically more ‘neutral’ material they had borrowed from their sources. This assumption, however, is not necessarily true. The evangelists could also suppress ideas or vocabulary that they considered for various reasons improper, inadequate, etc. 8 For example, the presence of numerous linguistic and thematic ‘Markanisms’ in Mk 3:20-21, which are apparently unparalleled in both other Synoptic Gospels (εἰς οἶκον, ὥστε… δύνασθαι, ἔλεγον γάρ, ἐξίστημι meaning ‘losing one’s mind’), does not necessarily prove the relative posteriority of Mk against the works of Luke and Matthew. If it is admitted that the evangelists could in some way actively and critically rework one another’s Gospels and not merely supplement them with their own ideas, then the presence of some particular vocabulary in a given gospel text cannot be taken as a token of its relative posteriority. The second limitation of the use of this criterion lies in the fact that the relatively high number of occurrences of a given word or phrase in a given Gospel does not necessarily prove that this word or phrase is characteristic of this particular Gospel. If the evangelists used some other works (including other Gospels) as their literary sources, they could have adopted with considerable predilection some vocabulary and phraseology that was peculiar to those sources. 9 The comparison of relative frequency of the use of some words or phrases in the Synoptic Gospels may help establish the pattern of literary inter6

See, for example, the discussion of this issue in M. D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989), [vol. 1,] 79-86. Goulder formulated the criterion of the occurrence of a given word or phrase at least three times in different contexts in a given Gospel as proving its being ‘characteristic’ of this Gospel (ibid. 85).

7

See e.g. C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal (SNTS.MS 44; Cambridge University: Cambridge [et al.] 1983), 12.

8

Cf. M. D. Goulder, ‘Some Observations of Professor Farmer’s “Certain Results…”’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (JSNTSup 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 99-104 (esp. 100).

9

Cf. R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (2nd edn., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994), 3.

189

dependence of the Gospels only in the cases in which it may be proved that the words or phrases in question have not been borrowed from the Gospel sources (including other Gospels). In practice, if a given word or phrase has been used at least once in the texts of all three Synoptic Gospels (e.g. the noun γέεννα), it may not serve by itself as a secure token of the relative priority or posteriority of the texts in which it has been used because in such cases it is difficult to prove who originally borrowed the word or phrase in question from whom. Moreover, if a given word or phrase is scriptural or Pauline (e.g. εὐαγγέλιον), it may not serve as a token of the relative priority or posteriority of the texts in which it has been used unless it is proved that the evangelists did not allude in the texts in question to the Scriptures or to the letters of Paul. The use of the criterion of ‘characteristic’ vocabulary for establishing relative posteriority of a given text is therefore in fact highly questionable. Shorter and longer version of a common text A number of scholars use the criterion of differing length of parallel versions of a common text as indicating their relative priority or posteriority. It is assumed that the evangelists generally either abbreviated their sources and omitted fragments that were regarded by them as superfluous or, to the contrary, they expanded their sources and supplemented them with fragments that were regarded by them as necessary explanatory glosses. 10 The redactional procedures that are postulated by the scholars who employ this criterion are in themselves not implausible because they correspond, for example, to the rule lectio brevior potior that is used in textual criticism. The problem with the application of this criterion lies, however, in the difficulty of finding out for sure what features were considered superfluous and what explanatory by a given evangelist (and, accordingly, by his intended audience) in a given textual fragment. 11 For example, the scholars who support the Q theory are still unable to answer the question, whether the fragment Lk 9:61-62 has been added to the common Mt-Lk tradition by Luke as a kind of redactional gloss, or it has been omitted by Matthew from the common Mt-Lk tradition as superfluous. For this reason, the criterion of differing length of parallel versions of a given text is in fact highly questionable. 12 10

See e.g. E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (SNTS.MS 9; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1969), 46-189, 272-275; W. R. Farmer, ‘Case’, 128.

11

Cf. C. M. Tuckett, Revival, 10.

12

Cf. W. R. Farmer, ‘Case’, 130; H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem in Historical Jesus Research: The Search for Valid Criteria (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 36; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2004), 118-119.

190

Repetitions and doublets The presence of two or more similar and yet differing versions of a given text in the same Gospel is perceived by numerous scholars as a sign of the posteriority of this particular Gospel against the one that contains only one version of the text in question. This criterion is often used also to prove the existence of numerous sources that must have been used by a given evangelist (who is regarded as relatively posterior), inasmuch as it is axiomatically assumed that the plurality of differing versions of a given text in a given Gospel must have resulted from (a) independent transmission of the same original text in differing channels of oral or written tradition and (b) their subsequent combination by the evangelist in question. 13 The problems involved in the formulation and use of this criterion are, however, quite evident. First, it is well known that writers often use repetitions and doublets of somehow differing versions of various texts as a quite natural literary device. Both Mark and Luke seem to have at least sometimes used this device for purely literary-theological reasons (cf. e.g. Mk 8:31-33; 9:30-37; 10:35-45 and Lk 1:5-25.26-38 respectively). 14 Second, as noted above, the evangelists did not merely expand traditional material, but they also quite often omitted the portions of texts that were considered by them superfluous, improper, etc. For example, it seems that Luke omitted a significant portion of the Markan text that contained, among others, the doublet Mk 8:1-10 (cf. Mk 6:3444). For this reason, the presence of repetitions and doublets cannot serve as a reliable criterion for determining relative priority or posteriority among the Synoptic Gospels. 15 Increasing clarity One of the most widely used criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels is the criterion of 13

See e.g. M.-É. Boismard and A. Lamouille, La vie des évangiles: Initiation à la critique des textes (Cerf: Paris 1980), 21-25; H. T. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (Biblical Tools and Studies 1; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2005), 54-60.

14

Cf. e.g. recently G. Van Oyen, ‘Repetitious Style and the Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark’, in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation, ed. G. Van Belle, M. Labahn, and P. Maritz (BEThL 223; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2005), 109-125 (esp. 123-124).

15

Cf. C. M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1996), 11.

191

increasing clarity. It is widely assumed that evangelists corrected the material they had borrowed from their sources, in such a way that it might become more understandable to their intended audience. The validity of this criterion, which is used also, for example, in textual criticism (lectio difficilior potior), seems self-evident. Determining in practice, however, what was clearer and what was more obscure for the evangelists (and correspondingly, for their audiences) who lived two millennia ago is not always self-evident, especially because the redactional aims of the evangelists are merely reconstructed by modern scholars with more or less reliability. Moreover, the evangelists’ own redactional activities (displacements of textual fragments, combinations of various texts with other texts, etc.) might have introduced various literary-semiotic errors (logical and chronological inconsistencies, syntactic errors, etc.) into their initially clear and consistent source texts. 16 Consequently, the criterion of increasing clarity has an only limited value for determining the direction of literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels. Evident inconsistencies and logical errors In contrast to the criterion of increasing clarity, Mark Goodacre formulated the criterion of redactional inconsistencies and logical errors that resulted from ‘editorial fatigue’ (i.e. from not entirely consistent reworking of source texts) as proving literary dependence of the text in question on another one. 17 The use of this criterion is obviously highly questionable because the opposite editorial procedure, i.e. of clarifying, improving, and correcting logically or literarily inconsistent source texts, is at least equally plausible than the postulated phenomenon of ‘editorial fatigue’. Growing Hellenization of the gospel tradition The criterion of growing Hellenization of the gospel tradition is widely applied by the scholars who deal with the synoptic problem. It is usually assumed that the gospel texts that display more ‘Jewish’ features of their phraseology, literary

16

Cf. e.g. D. R. Catchpole, The Quest For Q (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1993), 4; W. R. Farmer, ‘Case’, 130; H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 107-108.

17

M. S. Goodacre, ‘Fatigue in the Synoptics’, NTS 44 (1998) 45-58; id., The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2001), 154-156. Cf. also H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 113.

192

structure, etc. should be considered more original than the more ‘Hellenistic’ ones. 18 There are, however, several problems that are involved in the use of this apparently self-evident criterion. First, the assumed direction of development of the first century Christian theology from a more Jewish to a more Hellenistic one is by no means evident. 19 For example, the internal development of the Pauline theology reveals growing and not diminishing need for countering the Jewish-style arguments of the Apostle’s opponents over time. The widespread idea of gradual increase of Hellenization of Christian theology in the first century AD is therefore based mainly on a superficial interpretation of Acts, which is understood as describing the triumphant passage of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. It is worth noting, however, that the last scene of Acts presents Paul as disputing not with the Gentiles but with the Jews (Acts 27:17-28). Second, there is no evident tendency to avoid Semitisms in the synoptic triple tradition. All three Synoptic Gospels display numerous Semitic features, and it is impossible to prove that the evangelists consistently avoided Semitisms that were found in their sources. 20 Third, our understanding of early Judaism radically changed in the last few decades. Consequently, the reconstructions of the postulated Jewish Palestinian Sitz im Leben of numerous gospel texts that had been undertaken earlier on the basis of parallels in rabbinic writings turned out to be very inadequate to the features of Palestinian Judaism of the New Testament era as it may be reconstructed on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Various ‘rabbinic’ features of the Gospels may attest therefore a relatively late stage of the development of Palestinian Judaism (and correspondingly, of the synoptic tradition), in which, for example, chronomessianic expectations were deliberately suppressed in favour of more and more abstract halachic discussions.

18

See e.g. W. R. Farmer, ‘Case’, 128; É. Nodet, Le Fils de Dieu: Procès de Jésus et évangiles (Josèphe et son temps 4; Cerf: Paris 2002), 114-115, 144-146; H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 106.

19

Cf. e.g. C. M. Tuckett, ‘Response to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 47-62 (esp. 57); J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 93-120 (esp. 109).

20

Cf. e.g. E. P. Sanders, Tendencies, 255; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 85; S. Witetschek, ‘Propheten auf der Baustelle: Zur redaktionellen Gestaltung von Mt 7,24-27’, BZ, NF 51 (2007) 44-60 (esp. 50-59).

193

Both the theoretical justification and the practical application of the criterion of growing Hellenization of the gospel tradition are therefore in fact highly questionable. Implausibility of removing established Christian theological ideas and literary motifs Several scholars employ in their research on the synoptic problem the criterion of non-reversible theological growth, which may be understood as the criterion of the implausibility of removing established Christian theological ideas and literary motifs from the material that has been borrowed from earlier sources and traditions. Omission or restriction, on the part of a given evangelist, of important, distinctively Christian theological ideas and literary motifs (advanced Christology, infancy narrative, the ‘great sermon’, the role of Peter, etc.) that were elaborated by his predecessors is usually regarded as highly implausible. 21 Even the scholars who adopt this criterion usually admit, however, that its use is not always uncontroversial. Every evangelist could omit or correct for some reasons the theological ideas and the literary motifs that had been elaborated before him. Such an ‘aggressive’ redactional procedure on the part of the evangelists is in itself not implausible, provided that adequate reasons for its use in a particular case or work will be given. The use of the criterion of the implausibility of removing established Christian theological ideas and literary motifs is therefore in fact very debatable. 22 Dependence on the redactional work of another evangelist The criterion of dependence of a given text on a redactional version of the same text in another Gospel is treated by some scholars as the clearest proof of literary dependence on that other Gospel. 23 The criterion is based on the assumption that if a given text that is common to two Gospels bears signs of being a result of 21

See e.g. J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Theological Stakes’, 109-119; S. E. Johnson, The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism (SBL.MS 41; Scholars: Atlanta, Ga. 1991), esp. 137-144; P. M. Head, Christology and the synoptic problem: An argument for Markan priority (SNTS.MS 94; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1997), esp. 148-262; W. R. Farmer, ‘Case’, 131.

22

Cf. J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Theological Stakes’, 112-113, 120; W. R. Farmer, ‘Case’, 131132; H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 119-121.

23

See e.g. H. T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts with an Assessment by F. Neirynck (BEThL 122; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1995), 211212; H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 81-83.

194

conscious redactional work of one of the evangelists, then it must have been composed by this evangelist and merely borrowed in its already ‘redacted’ form by the other evangelist. The same criterion is used by several scholars also in its negative form, namely that the lack of evidence of dependence of a given text on a redactional version of the same text in another Gospel is treated as a sign of independence of that other Gospel. 24 From a purely theoretical point of view, the criterion itself, at least in its positive form (not based on the argument ex silentio), is certainly valid. In its positive form, the criterion is quite similar to the criterion of the use of vocabulary and phraseology that is typical of another evangelist. The problems arise, however, with the practical application of the criterion of dependence on a ‘redacted’ version of a given text. The use of this criterion in the research on the synoptic problem is based on an important additional assumption, namely that scholars are generally able to (a) identify beyond doubt the features of redactional work of the evangelists, and (b) assign these redactional features to the proper evangelists. This additional assumption is in fact quite questionable. Doubts may be raised over the claims of some scholars that they are able to identify for a certainty the distinctive features of the redactional style of a given evangelist. 25 The same reservations concern the alleged ability to identify beyond doubt ‘key redactional expressions’ that are ‘naturally fitting’ their redactional contexts in a given source. 26 Moreover, even if the signs of redactional reworking are evident (for example, in the cases of the evangelists’ modification of otherwise faithfully quoted scriptural texts), the basic problem remains, namely who and for what reasons modified the quotation in question, and who borrowed the quotation in the already modified version? In order to answer this fundamental question, much exegetical reasoning has to be applied. 27 It renders the practical use of the criterion of dependence of a given text on the redactional version thereof in another Gospel very questionable. Accordingly, this criterion may be properly used only together with other, more reliable criteria for ascertaining the direction of direct literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. 24

Cf. C. M. Tuckett, Q and the History, 7-8.

25

See, for example, the reservations of M. S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (JSNTSup 133; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1996), 98.

26

Cf. H. T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 211-212.

27

Cf., for example, the discussion on the scriptural quotations in Mk 1:2 parr. in ibid. 2930.

195

Explicable disagreements in the order of common material The phenomenon of agreements and disagreements in the order of the common material of the Synoptic Gospels was long considered one of the most important clues for solving the synoptic problem. It was widely assumed that whereas numerous agreements in the order of pericopes in the Synoptic Gospels strongly suggest some kind of their literary interdependence, the observed disagreements might be explained as resulting from differing redactional aims of the respective evangelists. Consequently, the pattern of disagreements in the order of the material of the Synoptic Gospels was widely perceived as offering strong arguments for proving posteriority of a given Gospel against another one, on the assumption that the redactional aims and procedures of the evangelists may be reliably reconstructed. However, as the ongoing scholarly debate revealed, the latter assumption is in reality highly questionable. Supporters of competing synoptic hypotheses offered radically different reconstructions of the redactional aims and procedures that had been allegedly followed by the respective evangelists. Even redactioncritical, ‘compositional’ investigations of distinct patterns of disagreement in the order of the common material of the Synoptic Gospels fail therefore to yield a reliable, widely accepted criterion for proving relative posteriority of a given Gospel against another one. 28 2.1.2 More reliable criteria of direct literary dependence After a brief survey of the criteria that are for various reasons questionable, more reliable criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels shall be discussed. Conflations of elements of other Gospels The criterion of the presence of redactional conflations of originally independent motifs, phrases, etc. that are contained in other literary works may be regarded as one of the most reliable criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence. 29 It may be reasonably assumed that if two relatively 28

Cf. D. J. Neville, Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique (New Gospel Studies 7; Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1994), passim (esp. 223-237); id., Mark’s Gospel – Prior or Posterior? A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order (JSNTSup 222; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2002), 109, 335-338; H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 113-116.

29

For the use of the criterion of the presence of conflations for ascertaining literary posteriority of a given work against another one in modern biblical scholarship, see e.g.

196

independent motifs, phrases, etc. that are typical of one or more works are woven together in another writing, then this other writing is literary dependent on the work or works in question. 30 In fact, some kind of redactional conflating procedure on the part of the evangelists is postulated in every major solution to the synoptic problem. However, the hypothesis of conflating activity mainly on the part of Matthew, in whose case it would have relatively rarely involved ‘microconflations’, is most consistent with the known compositional practices of writers in antiquity.31 The criterion of the presence of conflations may be regarded as reliable, provided that four additional logical-deductive factors are taken into due consideration. First, the assumedly conflated motifs or phrases have to be relatively peculiar to their respective works, so that the possibility of dependence of the ‘conflating’ work on other widely known literary works, widespread oral traditions, etc. might be excluded. Second, the criterion looses its validity in the cases in which adequate reasons may be given for the opposite redactional procedure, namely that of omission of a part of a complex motif or phrase by a given evangelist. 32 Third, the criterion is most reliable in the cases in which the complex motif or phrase is semantically somehow unclear and not merely redundant, because redundant repetitions are typical of the popular biblical narrative style. In such particular cases, the complex motif or phrase in question is difficult to explain in terms other than of a result of conflation of two originally semantically clear motifs or phrases that were well rooted in their respective literary contexts. 33 For O. Leppä, The Making of Colossians: A Study on the Formation and Purpose of a Deutero-Pauline Letter (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 86; Finnish Exegetical Society: Helsinki and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2003), 31-44; B. Adamczewski, List do Filemona. List do Kolosan: Wstęp. Przekład z oryginału. Komentarz (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny 12; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006), 126; A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LNTS 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), 28-29, 32-38, 43-45, 69, 76-79, 82-86; H. Ausloos, ‘The “Angel of YHWH” in Exod. xxiii 20-33 and Judg. ii 1-5: A Clue to the “Deuteronom(ist)ic” Puzzle?’, VT 58 (2008) 1-12 (esp. 11). 30

See e.g. E. P. Sanders, Tendencies, 262-263.

31

Cf. R. A. Derrenbacker, Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (BEThL 186; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2005), 257-258.

32

Cf. E. P. Sanders, Tendencies, 264; M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1,] 43.

33

Cf. H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 111.

197

example, most of the so-called ‘duplicate expressions’ in Mk (cf. e.g. “at evening, when the sun had set” in Mk 1:32) is semantically redundant, 34 whereas, for example, the formula “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Lk 13:28 par. et al.) is semantically unclear because it is difficult to say what is the precise relationship between weeping and gnashing of teeth. Fourth, in an apparent contradiction to the preceding factor, the criterion of the presence of conflations is very reliable also in the cases in which the combination of motifs or phrases is very smooth, especially in well-composed, internally coherent texts. In such cases, the opposite procedure of analytical decomposition of an internally consistent literary work or pericope into a set of isolated motifs or phrases that were subsequently used in other texts is rather implausible. For example, whereas the smooth narrative of Acts may be reasonably interpreted as including numerous conflations of ideas, motifs, vocabulary, etc. that have been borrowed from the Pauline letters, the opposite procedure, namely that of composition of the Pauline letters on the basis of the motifs that are contained in the narrative of Acts, is evidently highly implausible. Presence of vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. typical of another Gospel and occurring only in the passages that are evidently paralleled in that other Gospel One of the most important and, at least theoretically, most reliable criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels is the criterion of the presence of vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. typical of another Gospel and occurring only in the passages that are evidently paralleled in that other Gospel. It may be reasonably assumed that a given evangelist could have borrowed some vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. that was not typical of him but typical of another Gospel in the process of relatively faithful use of material that he had borrowed from that other Gospel, i.e. in the evidently paralleled passages. The limitation of this phenomenon only to the strictly paralleled passages, in which some kind of literary interdependence between the Gospels is evident, may serve as a proof that the evangelist in question had no predilection for the 34

198

Cf. C. M. Tuckett, Revival, 16-21; J. S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 2000), 35. This feature is not taken into due consideration by, for example, M.-É. Boismard, ‘Théorie des niveaux multiples’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 231-243 (here: 234).

particular adopted vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. 35 In such cases, the presence of vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. that is typical not of the Gospel in question but of another Gospel may be most satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis of direct literary dependence on that other Gospel. 36 For example, the verb προσδοκάω occurs in the Gospel of Matthew only in the passages that are paralleled in the Gospel of Luke (Mt 11:30; 24:50 par.). On the other hand, this verb is used in Lk also elsewhere (e.g. in Lk 8:40), it is rather rarely used in the Septuagint, and it does not occur in the Pauline letters. Consequently, it has been most probably borrowed by Matthew from the corresponding passages in the Gospel of Luke (Lk 7:19; 12:46). 37 On the other hand, some scholars point to the fact that the reverse direction of literary dependence, namely that of wide redactional use of a casual expression that has been found by a given evangelist in his source is in itself also plausible. 38 It may be argued that a redactor who copied a particular fragment of his source with high verbal fidelity most probably regarded this fragment as especially important, so that that the adoption of its vocabulary, phraseology, etc. also in other sections of his own work is quite plausible. 39 Although this possibility cannot be excluded, most scholars agree that in the case of the Synoptic Gospels such a procedure would be rather exceptional because the synoptists evidently adopted quite faithfully large amounts of material from other Gospels not for reasons of their predilection for a particular word or phrase. 40

35

Such vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. may be properly called ‘nonMatthean’, ‘non-Markan’, and ‘non-Lukan’ respectively. Since in the cases in which this criterion may be used, the vocabulary etc. in question has been in fact adopted, albeit to a limited extent, by the posterior evangelist, the neutral terminology ‘nonMatthean’ etc. has to be preferred over the more exclusive one: ‘un-Matthean’ etc.

36

Cf. E. Zeller, ‘Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie’, ThJb(T) 2 (1843) 443-543 (esp. 527-528); C. M. Tuckett, Revival, 11; W. R. Farmer, ‘Case’, 128-129; H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 79.

37

Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Matthäusevangeliums vom Lukasevangelium’, ThStKr 69 (1896) 83-93 (esp. 87).

38

Cf. M. D. Goulder, ‘The Derrenbacker–Kloppenborg Defense’, JBL 121 (2002) 331336 (esp. 336).

39

Such a procedure seems to have been adopted, for example, in deutero-Pauline writings and in the Fourth Gospel.

40

Cf. W. R. Farmer, ‘Reply to Michael Goulder’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (JSNTSup 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 105-109 (esp. 105-106).

199

The criterion of the presence of vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. typical of another Gospel only in paralleled passages may be therefore regarded as reliable, provided that four factors are taken into due consideration. First, the evidence of direct literary dependence, which may be obtained with the use of this criterion, has to be taken cumulatively because some exceptions to the rule certainly may also be found.41 In such exceptional cases, the reasons for the adoption of the opposite redactional procedure, namely that of relatively frequent redactional use of some casual expressions that have been borrowed from the literary source of the Gospel in question, should be explained. Second, the use of this criterion should be limited to the passages with high verbal agreement, which implies direct literary dependence. 42 Third, in the process of identification of the vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. typical of a given Gospel, non-paralleled passages therein should be considered highly instructive. In the case of the Gospel of Luke, the vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. of Acts, especially of its passages in which direct literary dependence on pre-existent sources is rather implausible, should be taken into due consideration as a relatively neutral test case. 43 Fourth, the application of this criterion to the vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. that are typical also of the presumably common sources of the Gospels (the Scriptures, the letters of Paul, and—on the assumption of Markan priority—the Gospel of Mark) should be generally avoided, 44 unless it may be proved that only one of the evangelists for some reasons creatively used a given word, phrase, structural pattern, etc. that was present in the common source or sources.

41

Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 92.

42

Cf. A. J. McNicol, ‘The Composition of the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 157-200 (here: 160): “where there is evidence of copying”.

43

Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 84.

44

Cf. M.-É. Boismard, En quête du Proto-Luc (ÉtB, NS 37; Gabalda: Paris 1997), 35 who effectively challenged the validity of his earlier investigations in which this point had not been taken into due consideration: cf. e.g. id., L’Évangile de Marc: Sa préhistoire (ÉtB, NS 26; Gabalda: Paris 1994), 16-20, 22-23.

200

Contrariety of the ideas expressed in the passages that are paralleled in another Gospel to the ideas expressed elsewhere in the given Gospel and especially peculiar to it The criterion of contrariety of the ideas that have been expressed in the passages that are paralleled in another Gospel to the ideas that have been expressed elsewhere in the given Gospel and especially peculiar to it may be regarded as one of the relatively reliable criteria of direct literary dependence. The logical basis of this criterion is similar to that of the criterion of the presence of vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. typical of another Gospel and occurring only in the passages that are evidently paralleled in that other Gospel. It may be reasonably assumed that a given evangelist might have borrowed from his source some ideas that were contrary to his own ones, provided that the ideas in question have been expressed in the borrowed text only implicitly or in passing, so that the resulting contradiction with his own ideas would not be perceived as a matter of great importance. For example, the pericope Mt 8:5-13 conveys the idea of Jesus’ natural, direct contact with the Gentiles, which is to some extent contrary to the Matthean redactional idea that has been expressed explicitly in Mt 10:5-6, and consequently it has been partly justified by Matthew by the insertion of Mt 8:11-12. This criterion may be regarded, however, as relatively reliable only in the cases of real logical contrariety and not of mere difference with respect to the evangelist’s own ideas because only the cases of logical contrariety require the explanation in terms of borrowing of the ideas in question from a pre-existent source. Otherwise, it might be reasonably assumed that the evangelist himself expressed slightly differing ideas in different parts of his work. Not easily perceivable inconsistencies and logical errors in the passages that are paralleled in another Gospel, in which the inconsistency or error in question is absent The criterion of the presence of not easily perceivable inconsistencies and logical errors in the passages that are paralleled in another Gospel, in which the inconsistency or error in question is absent, is similar in its logical-deductive structure to the criterion of the presence of vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. typical of another Gospel and occurring only in the passages that are evidently paralleled in that other Gospel. It may be reasonably assumed that some not easily perceivable inconsistencies, logical errors, narrative anomalies, etc. could have arisen as a result of the procedure of adaptation of material from a pre-existent source. For example, whereas the instruction Mk 6:10bc (“In whatever place you enter a house, stay there”) is logically internally consistent, its elaborated counterpart Lk 10:5-7a is not. The Lukan text contains the inser201

tion of Lk 10:5b-6, which describes two possibilities: (a) of a positive reception of the disciples (Lk 10:6ab), and (b) of a negative one (Lk 10:6c), in which case remaining in the house in question, as it is ordered in Lk 10:7a, does not make any sense. However, since the inserted text Lk 10:5b-6 contains the key word that is different from its Markan counterpart (“peace” in place of “a house”), the internal inconsistency of the whole text Lk 10:5-7a is not immediately perceived. This criterion may be regarded, therefore, as relatively reliable only in the cases of not easily perceivable inconsistencies and logical errors. 45 Otherwise, the opposite redactional procedure, namely that of, for example, clarifying, improving, and correcting easily perceived literary inconsistencies and errors in the source text, is also quite plausible. Increasing confusion The criterion of increasing confusion is based on the reasonable assumption that if a given evangelist encountered in his source text an unclear expression, confused internal logic, etc., he could either replace the confusing features with some evidently clearer ones or—if he failed to understand the text altogether— render it even more confused. In the former case, the direction of direct literary dependence is difficult to ascertain because the opposite modification, namely that of accidental redactional confusing of a semantically and logically clear source text, is also quite plausible. However, in the latter case (i.e. that of the presence of various degrees of obscurity and confusion in parallel texts), the opposite procedure, namely that of mere reduction of confusion (i.e. of rendering the confused text only somewhat less confused), is rather implausible. This criterion is most reliable in the cases in which the most confused text contains really absurd ideas and not merely strange ones. In such cases, the opposite procedure, namely that of explaining absurd by confused and not by clear, is highly implausible. For example, the surprising Lukan idea of casting out a mute demon (Lk 11:14, which probably resulted from a conflation of Mk 7:3237 with Mk 9:25-29) has its yet stranger and in fact absurd counterpart in Mt. In the Matthean story, the demoniac was both blind and mute; after the healing, the formerly mute could both speak and see (Mt 12:22; cf. Mt 9:32-33). 45

202

This factor is taken into due consideration only in theory, but not in practice, by Mark S. Goodacre who assumes that inconsistent replacing, within a short pericope, of a given word that occurred several times in the source with the one preferred by the evangelist may be treated as an unconscious mistake that resulted from ‘editorial fatigue’: cf. M. S. Goodacre, ‘Fatigue’, 46. Although such redactional mistakes are certainly possible, they cannot serve as a basis for establishing a reliable, non-reversible criterion of direct literary dependence.

Evident congruity of the features of style, redactional technique, theology, etc. of a given passage with those peculiar to the Gospel in question, together with relative incongruity of the corresponding features of the parallel passage in another Gospel with those of that other Gospel The criterion of evident congruity of the features of style, redactional technique, theology, etc. of a given passage with those peculiar to the Gospel in question, together with relative incongruity of the corresponding features of the parallel passage in another Gospel with those of that other Gospel, is one of the relatively reliable criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence between two Gospels. It may be reasonably assumed that if in a given paralleled passage, in which some kind of direct literary dependence between two Gospels is very plausible, there are some features of style, redactional technique, theology, etc. that are different in both Gospels, and in one of the Gospels they are peculiar to this Gospel whereas in the other not, it is very plausible that the former evangelist modified the text that he had borrowed from the other Gospel in order to conform it to his own style, ideas, etc. On the other hand, such a procedure is obviously much less plausible for the other evangelist. 46 For example, since the formula “in the book of Psalms” in Lk 20:42 is characteristically Lukan (cf. Acts 1:20; cf. also Lk 24:44; Acts 13:33), whereas the corresponding formula “in the Holy Spirit” in the parallel text Mk 12:36 is not characteristically Markan, it may be reasonably assumed that the Lukan text Lk 20:42 is literarily dependent on Mk 12:36 and not vice versa. This criterion may be regarded as relatively reliable on two conditions. First, the differing style, redactional techniques, theological ideas, etc. have to be really peculiar to only one Gospel and neutral as concerns the other. 47 If the differing features of style, redactional technique, theology, etc. display some characteristic redactional features in both respective Gospels, the direction of literary dependence cannot be ascertained on this basis. Second, this criterion looses its value if there is some evidence that the ‘neutral’ evangelist deliberately avoided the given characteristic feature of style, 46

Cf. H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 92-93.

47

For the proper use of this criterion, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that one of the evangelists was fond of some particular vocabulary, style, redactional techniques, etc. (which are usually called ‘Mattheanisms’ etc.) that have been used in his version of the paralleled passage, as it is suggested by e.g. R. H. Gundry, Matthew (2nd edn., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994), 3; D. R. Catchpole, Quest, 3. It has to be also demonstrated that the corresponding text in the other Gospel does not contain, likewise, characteristic ‘Markanisms’ etc., and consequently that the reverse direction of the ‘corrective’ intertextual relationship is much less probable. Cf. C. M. Tuckett, Revival, 1214.

203

redactional technique, theology, etc. of the other Gospel. In such cases, it may be argued that the evangelist in question replaced the avoided feature of the other Gospel with a relatively neutral one. The features that are considered peculiar to a given Gospel should be found out on the basis of the analysis of these Gospel fragments in which it may be demonstrated that the features in question were treated by the given evangelist as really his preferred ones. In the case of the Gospel of Luke, Acts should be taken as an important test case. Dependence on extant and not merely hypothetical works The criterion of preference of the proposals that explain the observed intertextual data in terms of literary dependence of the Gospels on some extant works (including other Gospels) to the proposals that postulate their dependence on merely hypothetical sources differs somewhat from the preceding ones. It does not refer directly to the existence and direction of possible direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels, but it evaluates deductively various models of proposed literary relationships among the Synoptic Gospels. It favours discovering the existence of literary relationships among actual texts over that among merely hypothetical ones. This criterion is based on the simple ontological-epistemological rule entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate. It is also based on the fact that, from the methodological point of view, every hypothesis of direct literary dependence of a given work on a work that is merely hypothetical and reconstructed inevitably involves some kind of circular reasoning. The hypothetical work in question has to be reconstructed on the basis of direct literary dependence that, in such a case, has to be both assumed and proved. Moreover, all hypothetical works may be shaped by the scholars quite freely according to their particular assumptions. This fact renders the hypotheses that postulate the existence of hypothetical works on the one hand apparently correct and persuasive (because hypotheses of this kind obviously suit the scholars’ assumptions very well) but also, on the other hand, methodologically not very reliable. Therefore, the explanations of literary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels that postulate some kind of literary dependence of the Gospels on one another should be preferred to the hypotheses that postulate their dependence on merely hypothetical sources. For example, if it is possible to give some evidence of direct literary dependence of Mt 4:1-11 on Lk 4:1-13 or vice versa, this kind of explanation of the intertextual data has to be preferred to the hypotheses of common literary dependence of Mt 4:1-11 and Lk 4:1-13 on a hypothetical, merely reconstructed source.

204

2.1.3 Conclusions The analysis of criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of possible direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels revealed that, apart from several mostly unreliable rules, there are six or seven relatively reliable criteria that may serve to ascertain whether two given Gospels are literarily dependent on one another and, if such is the case, what is the direction of their literary dependence (i.e. which one is dependent on which one). Obviously, none of these criteria is in itself absolutely convincing. Otherwise, the synoptic problem would have been solved two millennia ago. The results of the analyses that are carried out with the use of these criteria have to be taken comprehensively, with the awareness that some not easily explicable exceptions to the rules may always be found. Moreover, the above-defined criteria have to be used in a responsible way, with taking into consideration both their argumentative strengths and their limitations. Accordingly, the criteria should not be applied in a mechanical (for example, purely statistical) way. They cannot replace good, logical, exegetical reasoning. However, they may clarify the assumptions that are made in such reasoning, and consequently they may help evaluate its results.

2.2 Test cases of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels: Mk 1:14-2:28 parr. It is impossible to investigate in detail in one book all textual agreements and disagreements among the Synoptic Gospels. It is possible, however, to examine some test cases of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels in order to establish the most plausible pattern thereof. In order to avoid premature conclusions based on analyses of some exceptional, potentially misleading features, the test cases in question should be relatively neutral as concerns their interpretation in various synoptic theories. Moreover, they should belong to the ‘mainstream’ of the synoptic material, i.e. to the so-called triple Mt-Mk-Lk tradition, in which parallel gospel texts are witnessed in all three Synoptic Gospels, and consequently they are relatively easily comparable with one another. On the other hand, in order to carry out also some redaction-critical analyses of the gospel texts, the test cases should not be isolated from one another but should belong to a larger block of the gospel material. The first block of the gospel material that relatively well suits these fundamental deductive criteria is the Mt-Mk-Lk material that refers to the first stage of Jesus’ Galilean activity: from the episode referring to Jesus’ coming back to Galilee after his baptism to the episode of the plucking of heads of grain on the 205

Sabbath (Mt 4:12-12:8; Mk 1:14-2:28; Lk 4:14-6:5). For the sake of convenience, this material will be arranged and subdivided according to the order and internal structure of the gospel story in the version of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 1:14-2:28 parr.). 48 Mk 1:14-15 parr. The introductory statement that refers to Jesus’ coming back to Galilee (… εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν: Mt 4:12 par. Mk 1:14ab par. Lk 4:14a) 49 is phrased in each of the Synoptic Gospels differently, and consequently it gives no obvious clue as to their respective relative priority or posteriority. The precise destination of Jesus’ journey to Galilee after his baptism has been given only by Matthew (Mt 4:13-16). The Matthean remark that Jesus, having left Nazareth, came and dwelt in Capernaum (Mt 4:13a-c) is, however, somewhat surprising in the Matthean version of the gospel story. Matthew’s emphasis is placed on the subsequent remark, namely that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy by making his home at Capernaum that was situated by the sea in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali (Mt 4:13c-16). The reference to Jesus’ leaving Nazareth (Mt 4:13a) is therefore entirely superfluous in the logic of the Matthean story. Moreover, it is quite problematic in the context of the Matthean scriptural ‘fulfilment geography’ according to which Jesus moved to the terri48

In order to avoid overloading of the following analyses with references to hundreds, if not thousands, of secondary exegetical works, only selected secondary literature will be quoted in this chapter and in the subsequent parts of the book. As a rule, in the following analyses of the Synoptic Gospels, references will be given only to the works that present views that at least to some extent correspond to those expressed in my work but, on the other hand, they do not belong to the exegetical loci communes known to every serious New Testament scholar. It does not mean that other exegetical opinions have not been taken into serious consideration. However, inevitable selectivity in quoting secondary literature has been caused by the specific subject of my investigations. Solving the synoptic problem requires performing numerous analyses of the texts of all three Synoptic Gospels (and at times also of the Pauline letters, of Acts, of the Catholic Epistles, and of various intertestamental works), whereas, as all New Testament scholars very well know, the secondary literature that relates to every chapter of them is immense. The readers have to be therefore, of necessity, referred to commentaries and monographs that present in detail arguments for and against various widely known solutions to numerous problems of the interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels and of other New Testament writings.

49

In the subsequent analyses, the alphabetical numbering of textual units within the verses (e.g. Mk 1:14a; Mk 1:14b) refers, as a rule, to the successive clauses in the Greek text. Thus, for example, ‘Mk 1:14ab’ refers to two successive Greek clauses: Μετὰ δὲ τὸ παραδοθῆναι τὸν Ἰωάννην ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.

206

tory of Zebulun and Naphtali from elsewhere, as it is suggested in Mt 4:13c and as it is required by the adaptation of the Isaian prophecy that justifies in Mt 4:14-16 Jesus’ relocation from Nazareth to Capernaum. In reality, Matthew contradicted himself because the Matthean Jesus moved from Nazareth, which was situated in the territory of Zebulun, to Capernaum, which was situated in the territory of Naphtali. 50 The presence of the reference to Nazareth in Mt 4:13a is therefore not required by the flow of the Matthean story (cf. its much more natural version in Mk 1:14-21), and, moreover, it is contrary to Matthew’s redactional aims. Since this reference is shared by Mt only with Lk (Lk 4:16.31) against Mk 1:14-21, and since it is much more natural in Lk in which it clearly serves Luke’s redactional aim of presenting the paradigm of (a) Jesus’ proclamation as directed initially to the Jews and (b) his being rejected by them (which is in turn based on the Gospel of Mark: cf. Mk 6:1-6a and the surprising in the Lukan story reference to Capernaum in Lk 4:23; cf. Lk 4:31),51 it may be reasonably assumed that it has been borrowed by Matthew from Lk. 52 The literary form of this Lukan reference to Nazareth, which has been later adopted by Matthew, is quite particular. It includes the name of Nazareth formulated in the accusative case as Ναζαρά. This strange name form, which occurs in the New Testament only in Mt 4:13 par. Lk 4:16, is more easily explicable as a Lukan than as a Matthean construction. Whereas Matthew is known for his redactional tendency to standardize and uniform the gospel vocabulary, Luke displayed a penchant for redactional use of variegated name forms, which allude, among others, to the more Gentile or the more Jewish character of a given place, person, object, etc. (cf. e.g. Luke’s use of Ἱεροσόλυμα and Ἰερουσα-

50

Cf. D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (WBC 33A; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993), 73; U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 1, Mt 1-7 (EKK 1/1; 5th edn., Benzinger: Düsseldorf [et al.] and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002), 233.

51

Cf. L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991), 8081, 85; D. J. Neville, Mark’s Gospel, 174-175; J. Kiilunen, ‘“Minor Agreements” und die Hypothese von Lukas’ Kenntnis des Matthäusevangeliums’, in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, Festschrift H. Räisänen, ed. I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni (NovTSup 103; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 165-202 (esp. 173-174); M. Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 196.

52

Cf. B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, vol. 1 (2nd edn., Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1846), 253-254; M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 316.

207

λήμ). 53 The name form Ναζαρά, which has been used in Lk 4:16 in the context of Jesus’ paradigmatic proclamation to the Jews and of his being rejected by them (Lk 4:16-30), may have been therefore coined by Luke as a nominal counterpart to the Jewish-style adjectival identification of Jesus as ὁ Ναζωραῖος (with α in the third syllable: Lk 18:37 diff. Mk 10:47). On the other hand, both in Mk and in Lk the more ‘Gentile’ name form Ναζαρέτ (Mk 1:9) / Ναζαρέθ (e.g. Lk 1:26; Acts 10:38) corresponds to the adjectival identification of Jesus as ὁ Ναζαρηνός (with ε/η in the third syllable: Mk 10:47 etc.; Lk 24:19 used in a text that alludes to the mission among the Gentiles). 54 Matthew used both the Markan name form Ναζαρέτ (Mt 2:23) and the two Lukan ones: Ναζαρέθ and Ναζαρά (Mt 4:13; 21:11). In agreement with his redactional aims, Matthew adopted, however, only the Lukan Jewish-style adjectival identification of Jesus as ὁ Ναζωραῖος (Mt 2:23; 26:71). The non-Markan reference to Nazareth as a town (e.g. Mt 2:23; 4:13; Lk 1:26; 4:29) is presumably Lukan and only secondarily Matthean because it was Luke who was interested in elevating the social status of his main narrative characters. The Matthean redactional, surprising combination of motifs of (a) the Jews living with the Gentiles in Galilee and (b) of the light that has dawned for those without sight, which in fact has been justified only partially by means of the quotation from the prophet Isaiah (Mt 4:14-16: cf. esp. ἀνέτειλεν Mt 4:16 diff. Is 9:1), most probably originates from the similar, much more natural combination of motifs in Lk 4:17-18.25-27, which has been rephrased by Matthew with the use of Lk 1:78-79. The Lukan idea of (the time of) fulfilment of scriptural prophecies in Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel is based on the Markan text Mk 1:15, which refers to the fulfilment of the time of Israel’s expectation in Jesus’ preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of God (πεπλήρωται: Mk 1:15 and Lk 4:21). The Markan redactional ideas of preaching of the gospel and of fulfilment of the time (Mk 1:14c.15b) are most probably based on the Pauline texts Gal 4:4 and 1 Thes 2:9. 55 The phrase ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ used as an indirect complement

53

For a discussion on the latter phenomenon, see recently K. Mielcarek, IEPOYΣAΛHM IEPOΣOΛYMA: Starotestamentowe i hellenistyczne korzenie Łukaszowego obrazu świętego miasta w świetle onomastyki greckiej (Studia Biblica Lublinensia 2; KUL: Lublin 2008), esp. 32-74, 216-227.

54

Cf. also the Lukan name form Ματταθά (Lk 3:31), which has been used as an Aramaicsounding counterpart to the more Hellenized name form Ματταθίας (Lk 3:26).

55

Cf. W. Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Markus (ÖTKNT 2; 2nd edn., Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh and Echter: Würzburg 1986), 98.

208

of various verbs (Mk 1:15e) is also characteristically Pauline (e.g. 2 Cor 10:14). 56 Matthew’s double omission of the Markan key word τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (Mk 1:14-15) in Mt 4:17, which led to the intransitive use of the verb κηρύσσω as forming part of the pleonastic phrase κηρύσσειν καὶ λέγειν, reflects the Matthean idea of exact correspondence of the contents of the preaching of John with that of Jesus and of his disciples (Mt 3:1-2; 4:17; 10:7). The origin of the triple Mt-Mk-Lk tradition in the sections Mt 4:12-17 par. Mk 1:14-15 par. Lk 4:14-30 is therefore most satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis of the (Paul)-Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Mk 1:16-20 parr. The Lukan version of the account of Jesus’ call of his first disciples (Lk 5:1-11) differs notably from its Matthean and Markan counterparts (Mt 4:18-22 par. Mk 1:16-20). The Lukan decision to relocate the account to the first point in the gospel story at which Jesus leaves Capernaum and goes elsewhere (Lk 5:1-11: after Lk 4:42-44 par. Mk 1:35-39) is a natural consequence of his earlier redactional decision to present Jesus’ relocation from Nazareth to Capernaum as a result of his being rejected in his own Jewish hometown (Lk 4:23-31). In order to set the stage for the narrative introduction of the character of Simon as an apparently yet unknown person in Lk 5:3, Luke omitted his name in Lk 4:42d-43 (diff. Mk 1:36-38).57 The evangelist did not avoid, however, other narrative errors that resulted from his redactional displacement of the originally evidently Markan pericope. Luke’s introduction of Simon as an apparently yet unknown narrative character in Lk 5:3 stands in contradiction to his earlier appearance in Lk 4:38 par. Mk 1:29-30. 58 Jesus’ asking Simon to put out with his boat a little to sea notwithstanding Simon’s being currently at work by the boat on the shore (Lk 5:2-3) is an oddity in the Lukan story, which in fact resulted from the Lukan conflation of Mk 1:19 with Mk 3:7-9; 4:1. The reference to the fishermen in the second boat at deep sea (Lk 5:7) is quite striking after the earlier mention of them as working

56

Cf. J. Marcus, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Mark 1-8 (Anchor Bible 27; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000), 173.

57

Cf. G. Rossé, Il vangelo di Luca: Commento esegetico e teologico (3rd edn., Città Nuova: Roma 2001), 166, 169; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 207.

58

Cf. L. T. Johnson, Luke, 84-85; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 203.

209

on the shore (Lk 5:2). 59 The final Lukan reference to ‘their’ leaving everything (Lk 5:11) is understandable only in its original Markan context as referring to the four apostles: Simon, Andrew, James, and John (Mk 1:18.20). It does not suit in fact the logic of the Lukan story in which Jesus speaks directly only to Simon (Lk 5:10b) and in which the statement Lk 5:11 might in itself refer also to the hirelings (Lk 5:9; diff. Mk 1:20). 60 The idea of calling Simon by his other name Peter already in Lk 5:8 (diff. Lk 5:3-5.10 par. Mk 1:16) is Lukan because it resulted in fact from Luke’s introduction of the Markan motif of Peter’s sinfulness (Mk 8:33; 9:5; 14:37.66-72) already into the story of his call (Lk 5:8de). This Lukan anticipated identification of Simon as Peter has been simply borrowed by Matthew, with the strange result that the Matthean Simon appears to be called Peter simply by everyone and not particularly by Jesus (Mt 4:18 diff. Mk 1:16; 3:16;61 cf. the surprising in this context, postponed name-giving proclamation in Mt 16:18). The sections Mt 4:18-22 par. Mk 1:16-20 par. Lk 5:1-11 have been therefore composed in the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Mk 1:21-22 parr. The account of Jesus’ entry to Capernaum and of his powerful teaching there has been shaped by each of the synoptists in a quite different way. The accounts of Mark (Mk 1:21-22) and Luke (Lk 4:31-32) display much verbal agreement. The comparison of their respective versions suggests that Luke’s account is literarily dependent on that of Mark. Luke doubled and reworked the Markan reference to Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue on the day of Sabbath (Mk 1:21) in both Lk 4:15-16 and Lk 4:31, which resulted, however, in a not easily perceivable narrative inconsistency. The Lukan reader is informed that the whole event that has been described in Lk 4:31-36 took place in a synagogue not earlier than in Lk 4:33, as though it were evident already in Lk 4:31b and as it is in fact evident in the original Markan text Mk 1:21. Moreover, the word διδαχή that has been used in Lk 4:32a par. Mk 1:22a is Markan and in the context of Lk 4:31-32 59

Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 1:1-9:50 (BECNT; Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994), 457; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 210-211.

60

Cf. B. Bauer, Kritik, vol. 1 (2nd edn., Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1846), 267, 271-272; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC 3; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1978), 206; J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20 (WBC 35A; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1989), 223; M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 210.

61

Cf. J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. [et al.] and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005), 179.

210

non-Lukan for in Lk 4:32b.36 it has been replaced by Luke with his favourite word λόγος, not least in order to obtain a stylistic variatio locutionis. The Lukan text Lk 4:31-32 is therefore literarily dependent on Mk 1:21-22. Matthew also doubled (most probably under the influence of the Gospel of Luke) the Markan statement concerning Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue on the day of Sabbath (Mk 1:21-22). Similarly to Luke who doubled the Markan description of Jesus’ entry to the synagogue on the day of Sabbath (Mk 1:21 par. Lk 4:15-16 and Lk 4:31) and expanded the first remark into Jesus’ programmatic sermon that was directed to the Jews but referred also to the Gentiles living in Syria (Lk 4:18-27), Matthew doubled the account of Jesus’ coming to Capernaum (Mk 1:21a par. Mt 4:13bc and Mt 8:5a) 62 and expanded the first notice into Jesus’ programmatic sermon that was, likewise, directed to the Jews but referred also to the Gentiles living in Syria (Mt 4:23-7:27). Matthew’s way of introducing the great programmatic sermon by means of the redactional summary Mt 4:23-25, which is in fact a conflation of various Markan and Lukan texts: Mk 1:14.21.28; Lk 4:38 (par. Mk 1:30); Mk 1:32.34.39; 2:3-4; 3:7-8 (reworked with the use of Mk 5:20-21); Mk 5:24 (conflated with Lk 9:11); and Mk 6:6, 63 is much more artificial than its narratively and argumentatively clear counterpart in Lk 4:14-16. The Matthean text has to be regarded therefore as literarily dependent not only on Mk but also on Lk. Since Matthew inserted his version of Jesus’ programmatic sermon together with the introduction to it (Mt 4:23-7:27) after the first occurrence of the doubled, originally Markan (Mk 1:21a) reference to Jesus’ initial coming to Capernaum (Mt 4:13; Mt 8:5), Mark’s subsequent reference to Jesus’ powerful preaching (Mk 1:21b-22) has been reworked by Matthew in its proper place, namely after the sermon (i.e. in Mt 7:28-29). 64 The sections Mt 4:13bc; 7:28-29; 8:5a par. Mk 1:21-22 par. Lk 4:15-16.3132 have been therefore redacted in the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels.

62

Cf. G. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Entwicklung nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Wissenschaft (F. A. Brockhaus: Leipzig 1857), 372. It should be noted that Markan second reference to Jesus’ coming to Capernaum (Mk 2:1) has been reworked by Matthew in Mt 9:1.

63

Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 412-413; U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 245; J. Nolland, Matthew, 182-184; P. Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium (ThKNT 1; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2006), 101-103.

64

Cf. G. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu, 371.

211

Mk 1:23-28 parr. In the section Mt 1:23-28 par. Lk 4:33-37, the Lukan surprising reference to “a spirit of an unclean demon” (πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου: Lk 4:33) most probably resulted from a conflation of the Markan texts Mk 1:23 (πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον) and Mk 1:34 (δαιμόνια). However, Luke applied the conflating procedure evidently inconsistently because in Lk 4:35 (diff. Mk 1:26) the spirit is referred to as τὸ δαιμόνιον and in Lk 4:36 (cf. Mk 1:27) as one belonging to ἀκάθαρτα πνεύματα. The subsequent Lukan statement ἀνέκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (Lk 4:33) resulted from a conflation of two Markan expressions: ἀνέκραξεν (Mk 1:23) and φωνῆσαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (Mk 1:26), which have been combined by Luke in a particular way in order to avoid the Markan tautology φωνῆσαν φωνῇ and to obtain a stylistically nicer variatio locutionis. 65 The Lukan text Lk 4:33-37 is therefore literarily dependent on its Markan counterpart (Mk 1:23-28). The Matthean text Mt 4:24a belongs to the Matthean summary Mt 4:23-25, which is a conflation of Mk 1:28 with other Markan and Lukan texts.66 The rest of the corresponding Markan pericope (Mk 1:23-27) has not been entirely omitted by Matthew but it has been replaced with the thematically similar account of the healing of an impure Gentile at Capernaum (Mt 8:5-13). The latter account resulted, in turn, from Matthean shortening conflation of two originally unrelated to each other Lukan texts: Lk 7:1-10 (used in Mt 8:5-13 because of its placement after the Lukan ‘great sermon’, its reference to coming to Capernaum, and its reference to an impure person related somehow to the Capernaum synagogue) and Lk 13:28-30 (justifying Jesus’ dealing with the Gentiles already at this early stage of his activity). The sections Mt 4:24a; 8:5-13 par. Mk 1:23-28 par. Lk 4:33-37; 7:1-10 have been therefore composed in the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Mk 1:29-31 parr. In the account of the healing of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law (Mt 8:14-15 par. Mk 1:29-31 par. Lk 4:38-39), Luke omitted the Markan reference to Andrew (Mk 1:29) in order to set the stage for the account of the call of Simon, without any direct reference to Andrew, in Lk 5:1-11. Matthew simply followed Lk in 65

Cf. D. Hermant, ‘Les redites chez Marc et les deux autres synoptiques (Ire partie)’, RB 106 (1999) 511-548 (esp. 539).

66

Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 412, 416; U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 245.

212

this redactional omission, notwithstanding his earlier inclusion of the reference to Andrew in Mt 4:18 (par. Mk 1:16). In the description of the women’s high fever, Luke used his favourite verb συνέχω (Lk 4:38), which, however, was generally avoided by Matthew (with the exception of the conflated summary Mt 4:24), and consequently it has not been borrowed by him from Lk in Mt 8:14. In the description of the women’s double activity of arising and serving, as following her having been healed by Jesus, Matthew seems to have followed the version of Lk (Mt 8:15cd par. Lk 4:39de) against Mk 1:31e. Matthew replaced the Lukan verb ἀνίστημι, which was generally avoided by him, with the more neutral ἐγείρω (Mt 8:15c diff. Lk 4:39d). The sections Mt 8:14-15 par. Mk 1:29-31 par. Lk 4:38-39 have been therefore redacted in the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Mk 1:32-34 parr. The Markan double expression ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης ὅτε ἔδυ ὁ ἥλιος (Mk 1:32ab), which opens the section Mt 8:16-17 par. Mk 1:32-34 par. Lk 4:40-41, appears to be a conflation of the Matthean ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης (Mt 8:16a) and the Lukan δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου (Lk 4:40a). It should be noted, however, that similar temporal double expressions are quite typical of the Markan narrative, and that they occur also in the passages in which Mark’s conflation of the Matthean and Lukan versions is evidently implausible (cf. e.g. πρωῒ ἔννυχα λίαν: Mk 1:35; ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὀψίας γενομένης: Mk 4:35; γενομένης ἡμέρας εὐκαίρου ὅτε Ἡρῴδης… ἐποίησεν: Mk 6:21; τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων ὅτε τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον: Mk 14:2; ὀψίας γενομένης ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευή: Mk 15:42). 67 On the other hand, it is evident that Luke consistently omitted or reworked all Markan occurrences of the clause ὀψίας γενομένης (Lk 8:22 diff. Mk 4:35; Lk 22:14 diff. Mk 14:17; Lk 23:50-54 diff. Mk 15:42). 68 Matthew on his part evidently shortened in Mt 8:16 the entire Markan account Mk 1:32-34, and consequently he simplified the Markan double expression according to the pattern that may be observed also in Mt 14:6 diff. Mk 6:21 (cf. also Mt 27:57 diff. Mk 15:42). Accordingly, Mark’s double expression Mk 1:32ab is in reality not a

67

Cf. R. H. Stein, Mark (BECNT; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008), 95.

68

Cf. I. Howard Marshall, Luke, 196; G. Rossé, Luca, 165 n. 119; D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, 437 n. 28.

213

conflation of the parallel Matthean and Lukan texts but rather a common source of both of them. 69 The Lukan version of the account of the healing of the sick at evening (Lk 4:40-41) is in fact a conflation of two thematically correlated Markan stories: Mk 1:32-34 (at sunset, all sick brought to Jesus, various diseases, he healed them, demons cast out, he did not allow demons to speak because they knew him) and Mk 3:10-12 (he healed many, spirits shouting: “You are the Son of God”, spirits rebuked—all these motifs have been borrowed by Luke from Mk 3:10-12 diff. Lk 6:18-19). 70 The conflation was caused by Mark’s apparently inconclusive ending of the story in Mk 1:34d (ὅτι ᾔδεισαν αὐτόν). Matthew’s account Mt 8:16 is a much shortened version of Mk 1:32.34,71 which has been composed with a not easily perceivable dependence on the Lukan parallel text Lk 4:40-41. The Matthean reworked quotation from Is 53:4ab in Mt 8:17bc, which refers to Jesus’ taking and carrying our infirmities, hardly suits the preceding Matthean statement concerning Jesus’ exorcistic and therapeutic activity (Mt 8:16), which is based on Mk 1:32.34 (including its summarizing reference to Jesus’ identity as the Son of God and the Holy One of God, who is full of authority: cf. Mk 1:1.11.22.24.27). The Matthean quotation is adequately justifiable only as alluding to the Lukan identification of Jesus as the Messiah in Lk 4:41 (cf. Is 45:1 related to the texts referring to the Servant of the Lord, among others Is 52:13-53:12; cf. also the application of the same prophecy to Jesus in 1 Pet 2:22-25; Acts 8:30-35; Jn 12:38; cf. also Mt 12:15-21). The Matthean form of the quotation, which significantly differs from Is 53:4 LXX 72 and includes references to both ἀσθενεῖαι (a non-Matthean word, which has been used instead of Matthew’s favourite μαλακία: cf. Mt 4:23; 9:35; 10:1; cf. also Is 53:3 LXX) and νόσοι (Mt 8:17bc), seems to originate, likewise, from the Lukan phrase ἀσθενοῦντας νόσοις (Lk 4:40b diff. Mk 1:34a). Moreover, Matthew’s somewhat strange reference to Jesus’ casting out the spirits with a word (Mt 8:16c diff. Mk 1:34b) is easily explicable as literarily dependent on the Lukan conflating reworking of Mk 1:34 in light of Mk 3:12, namely that Jesus cast out demons by rebuking them orally (Lk 4:41d).

69

Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1991), 36.

70

Cf. I. Howard Marshall, Luke, 195-196; J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 212-213.

71

Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 206.

72

Cf. L. Novakovic, ‘Matthew’s Atomistic Use of Scripture: Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 53.4 in Matthew 8.17’, in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew, ed. T. R. Hatina (LNTS 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 147-162 (esp. 155-158).

214

The Matthean text Mt 4:23-24, which belongs to the redactional summary Mt 4:23-25, is a conflation of Mk 1:32.34 with numerous other Markan and Lukan texts. 73 The literary form of the sections Mt 8:16-17 par. Mk 1:32-34 par. Lk 4:4041 is therefore most satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Mk 1:35-38 parr. In the introduction to the section Mk 1:35-38 par. Lk 4:42-43, Luke replaced the Markan phrase πρωῒ ἔννυχα λίαν with the semantically clearer γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας, 74 as well as the repetitive Markan ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἀπῆλθεν with the stylistically nicer variatio locutionis ἐξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη (Lk 4:42a diff. Mk 1:35ab).75 Luke’s replacement of the narrative character of Simon (Mk 1:36) with that of the crowds (Lk 4:42b) was caused by the Lukan redactional idea of relocation of the account of the call of Simon (Mk 1:16-20) to Lk 5:1-11, which involved the presentation of Simon in Lk 5:3 as an apparently yet unknown character. 76 Matthew replaced the Markan account of Jesus’ resolve to move from Capernaum elsewhere (Mk 1:35-38) with the thematically related account of Jesus’ decision to go to the other side of the sea (Mt 8:18-34; cf. Mk 4:35-5:20, Lk 9:57-60). The narratively strange Matthean introduction to this account, which refers to the crowds around Jesus (ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὄχλον περὶ αὐτόν: Mt 8:18a diff. Mk 4:35), is most probably based on the Lukan redactional reference to the crowds as trying to hold Jesus (Lk 4:42b-e diff. Mk 1:36). The sections Mt 8:18a par. Mk 1:35-38 par. Lk 4:42-43 have been therefore most probably composed in the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Mk 1:39 parr. The Markan and the Lukan versions of the summary of Jesus’ initial activity differ in one important issue. Mark describes Jesus as acting in Galilee (Mk 1:39), but Luke refers to his activity in Judaea (Lk 4:44). Whereas Markan remark is 73

Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 412, 415, 417; U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 245; J. Nolland, Matthew, 184; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 101-103.

74

Cf. F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 1 (EKK 3/1; Benzinger: Zürich and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989), 220.

75

Cf. D. Hermant, ‘Les redites (Ire partie)’, 539-540.

76

Cf. G. Rossé, Luca, 166, 169.

215

quite natural in its narrative context, Luke seems to have adopted in Lk 4:145:17 a particular, typical of his rhetoric, geographical pattern of spreading of the Gospel. The Lukan Jesus reached with his proclamation first Galilee (Lk 4:14. 31), then Judaea (Lk 4:44), and finally the whole Galilee, Judaea, and Jerusalem (Lk 5:17; based on Mk 3:7-8). 77 At these stages, the preaching of the gospel dominated the activity of the Lukan Jesus, hence the Lukan omission of the Markan remark concerning Jesus’ exorcistic activity (Mk 1:39c). Accordingly, Lk 4:44 is most probably literarily dependent on Mk 1:39. Matthew, having anticipated in Mt 8:18-34 the account of Jesus’ travel to the other side of the sea (cf. Mk 4:35-5:20), omitted the thematically related, and yet much differing from Mk 4:35-5:20, Markan text Mk 1:39, which had been used by Matthew (as conflated with other Markan and Lukan texts) in Mt 4:23.78 However, since that earlier account of Jesus’ initial activity in Galilee, which was presented by Matthew as reaching immediately also Judaea and other Jewish regions (Mt 4:25), is literarily dependent also on Mk 3:7-8, it is difficult to say whether Matthew used in Mt 4:23-25 also the corresponding to Mk 1:39 Lukan text Lk 4:44. The fragments Mt 4:23 and Lk 4:44 have been therefore composed with the use of the Markan text Mk 1:39. The existence and direction of literary interdependence between the Matthean and Lukan texts cannot be ascertained, however, on the basis of the analysis of Mk 1:39 parr. Mk 1:40-45 parr. The Mt-Lk agreement in having καὶ ἰδού (Mt 8:2; Lk 5:12) against the Markan καὶ ἔρχεται (Mk 1:40) in the introduction to the sections Mt 8:1-4 par. Mk 1:4045 par. Lk 5:12-16 is a phenomenon that occurs quite often in the triple tradition. 79 It may be interpreted as a result of the influence of the Septuagintal style on both Matthew and Luke who worked independently of each other. However, it is more probable that it is a result of a particularly Lukan, relatively free reworking of the Markan introductory formulas, which is witnessed, for example, in Lk 14:2 (καὶ ἰδού) diff. Mk 3:1 par. Lk 6:6 (καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ). 80 Accordingly, Mat77

Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 187, 208, 221.

78

Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 182, 363; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 101-102.

79

Cf. A. Fuchs, ‘Offene Probleme der Synoptikerforschung: Zur Geschichte der Perikope Mk 2,1-12 par Mt 9,1-8 par Lk 5,17-26’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 2 (SNTU.NF 2; Lit: Münster 2004), 19-52 (esp. 20-21).

80

Cf. H. Klein, Das Lukasevangelium (KEK 1/3; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2006), 212 n. 8.

216

thew most probably later adopted this Lukan, Septuagint-like formula in his own Gospel. The Markan double expression ἀπῆλθεν… καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη (Mk 1:42ab) appears to be a conflation of the corresponding Lukan verb ἀπῆλθεν (Lk 5:13f) with the Matthean ἐκαθαρίσθη (Mt 8:3f). However, it should be noted that the verb καθαρίζω occurs also immediately before Mk 1:42 parr., namely in Mt 8:3e par. Mk 1:41f par. Lk 5:13e. The Markan repetition of the verb has been most probably treated by Matthew and Luke differently, in agreement with their different redactional habits. Whereas Luke omitted the second occurrence of the verb καθαρίζω in order to avoid repetition (cf. the similar treatment of μηδενὶ μηδέν from Mk 1:44c in Lk 5:14b), Matthew omitted the verb ἀπῆλθεν in order to highlight in a rhetorical way the parallelistic correspondence between Jesus’ command and its effect (Mt 8:3ef). The result of Matthew’s reworking of both earlier gospel texts is, however, semantically quite strange. Matthew conflated the Markan predicate ἐκαθαρίσθη, which referred in Mk 1:42 to the leper, with the Lukan subject λέπρα and obtained in effect the phraseological combination καθαρίζω + λέπρα that occurs nowhere else in the Bible. 81 The concluding Markan statement Mk 1:45 has been relocated by Matthew to Mt 9:31 (διαφημίζω; cf. ἐμβριμάομαι in Mk 1:43 and Mt 9:30) 82 and conflated there with the reworked story Mk 10:46-52 par., most probably in order to avoid the impression that the healed leper did not obey both the law and Jesus’ command (Mt 8:4 diff. Mk 1:44-45). 83 The sections Mt 8:1-4 par. Mk 1:40-45 par. Lk 5:12-16 have been therefore composed in the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Mk 2:1-12 parr. The Lukan introduction to the account of the healing of the paralytic (Lk 5:17) is most probably a reworked version of the Markan summarizing statements Mk 1:45f (καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντοθεν) and Mk 2:2a (καὶ συνήχθησαν πολλοί). It is composed with the use of the Markan text Mk 3:7-8, which has 81

Cf. G. Volkmar, Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Commentar (Fues’s (R. Reisland): Leipzig 1870), 116-117.

82

Cf. D. Hermant, ‘Les redites chez Marc et les deux autres synoptiques (IIIe partie)’, RB 108 (2001) 571-597 (esp. 575).

83

Cf. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 2, Mt 8-17 (EKK 1/2; 3rd edn., Benzinger: Zürich [et al.] and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999), 9; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 201, 222.

217

been reworked according to Luke’s particular geographical pattern of gradual spreading of the gospel (cf. earlier Lk 4:14.31.44). The Mt-Lk agreement in having καὶ ἰδού (Mt 9:2; Lk 5:18) against the Markan καὶ ἔρχονται (Mk 2:3) in the introduction to the account proper (Mt 9:28 par. Mk 2:3-12 par. Lk 5:18-26) is typical of the triple tradition.84 Like the earlier Mt-Lk agreement in Mk 1:40 parr., it may have resulted from the influence of the Septuagintal style on both Matthew and Luke who worked independently of each other, but it is more probable that it is a result of particular Lukan reworking of the Markan formula, which has been adopted later also by Matthew. The Mt-Lk agreement in inserting the phrase ἐπὶ κλίνης (Mt 9:2; Lk 5:18) against the Markan αἰρόμενον ὑπὸ τεσσάρων (Mk 2:3) is Lukan and nonMatthean (cf. also Lk 17:34; no other occurrence in Mt). Moreover, the semantically surprising Matthean phrase ἐπὶ κλίνης βεβλημένον (“thrown on a bed”: Mt 9:2) is in fact a conflation of the corresponding Lukan ἐπὶ κλίνης (Lk 5:18) with the thematically related Markan phrase βεβλημένον ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην (“thrown onto the bed” [by a demon]: Mk 7:30). Notwithstanding his use of the Markan word κράβαττον (Mk 2:4.9.11.12; 6:55) in Acts 5:15; 9:33, 85 Luke evidently avoided the idea that a sick person could be carried while he was lying on this type of unstable pallet or mattress 86 (cf. the omission of the Markan problematic κράβαττον in Lk 5:23; 87 cf. also the vague ἐφ᾿ ὃ κατέκειτο in Lk 5:25). Consequently, in his description of the men who went up on the roof and let the sick man on the bed down (Lk 5:19), and then of the healed man’s carrying the bed (Lk 5:24), Luke replaced the Markan noun κράβαττον with the more suitable in this context noun κλίνη and with the corresponding, typical of him, diminutive form κλινίδιον (cf. κλινάριον in Acts 5:15) that refers to a bed that is both stable and portable. 88 Matthew on his part, also in a way typical of him, uniformed the vocabulary, 89 which had been used in the earlier texts of Mark and Luke, by using only twice the Lukan, nonMatthean word κλίνη (Mt 9:2.6) and omitting all its synonyms. 84

Cf. A. Fuchs, ‘Offene Probleme’, 20-21.

85

Cf. ibid. 22.

86

Cf. W. Radl, Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Kommentar, vol. 1 (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2003), 316.

87

For possible rhetorical reasons for the omission of κράβαττον in Lk 5:23 par. Mt 9:5, see A. Damm, ‘Ornatus: an Application of Rhetoric to the Synoptic Problem’, NovT 45 (2003) 338-364 (esp. 342-350).

88

Cf. A. Fuchs, ‘Offene Probleme’, 22-23.

89

Cf. D. Hermant, ‘Les redites chez Marc et les deux autres synoptiques (IVe partie, fin)’, RB 109 (2002) 528-555 (esp. 554).

218

The Mt-Lk agreement (Mt 9:2; Lk 5:18) in omitting the Markan αἰρόμενον ὑπὸ τεσσάρων (Mk 2:3) is post-Markan. It cannot be explained in the opposite categories, namely those of a Markan addition to the Mt-Lk version, for neither *αἰρομεν 90 nor τέσσαρες are characteristic of Mark. On the other hand, the Markan fragment Mk 2:3-4 conflated with other Markan and Lukan texts has been used in the Matthean text Mt 4:24, which belongs to the Matthean redactional summary Mt 4:23-25. The Mt-Lk double agreement in replacing the Markan λέγει (Mk 2:5.8) with the aorist εἶπεν (Mt 9:2.4; Lk 5:20.22) is most probably Lukan and nonMatthean (cf. the Lukan verb form εἶπεν also in Lk 5:24 against the Markan λέγει in Mk 2:10, which has been reworked to τότε λέγει in Mt 9:6). 91 Matthew seems to have conflated the Markan clause λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ (Mk 2:5b) with the Lukan verb form εἶπεν (Lk 5:20b), with the result of obtaining the clause εἶπεν τῷ παραλυτικῷ (Mt 9:2c). The Markan pleonastic expression τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ (Mk 2:7) is not a conflation of the Matthean οὗτος βλασφημεῖ (Mt 9:3) with the Lukan τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὃς λαλεῖ βλασφημίας (Lk 5:21) for the Markan version is not a combination of the two other Gospel texts. It was rather Luke who in a way typical of him corrected the Markan rough phrase τί οὗτος οὕτως to a nicer and more personal τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὅς and replaced the Markan repetitive λαλεῖ βλασφημεῖ with the stylistically more correct λαλεῖ βλασφημίας. 92 Matthew on his part, also in a way typical of him, shortened the entire problematic sentence to the simple οὗτος βλασφημεῖ. The origin of the differing versions of Mk 2:8a parr. is most easily explained by the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct literary dependence. It may be reasonably assumed that the Markan stylistically and semantically confused ἐπιγνοὺς… τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως διαλογίζονται ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (Mk 2:8a) has been corrected by Luke to the nicer and typically Lukan ἐπιγνοὺς… τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς αὐτῶν (Lk 5:22a; διαλογισμοί: cf. Lk 6:8). It has been subsequently rephrased by Matthew to ἰδὼν… τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις αὐτῶν (Mt 9:4a; τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις αὐτῶν: cf. also Mt 12:25). The Matthean word order ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας (Mt 9:6bc) is most satisfactorily explained as a result of conflation of the corresponding texts of the gospels of Mark (ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Mk 2:10b) and Luke (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας: Lk 5:24c).

90

The asterisk (*) will be used henceforth to refer to a particular part of a given word.

91

Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 235-237.

92

Cf. ibid. 235; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 244 n. 14.

219

The Matthean idea of fear in Mt 9:8 (ἐφοβήθησαν) has been most probably borrowed from Lk 5:26 (ἐπλήσθησαν φόβου) for Matthew (in difference to Luke) showed no interest in the phrase φοβέομαι τὸν θεόν. 93 On the other hand, it was most likely Luke who introduced in Lk 5:26 diff. Mk 2:12 the idea of fear, according to the traditional pattern glory → fear, which was followed by him, for example, in Lk 1:11-12; 2:9; Acts 2:42-43a. 94 The sections Mt 9:1-8 par. Mk 1:45f-2:12 par. Lk 5:17-26 have been therefore composed in the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Mk 2:13-17 parr. Among the three synoptic versions of the account of the call of Levi/Matthew (Mt 9:9-13 par. Mk 2:13-17 par. Lk 5:27-32), the Markan text seems to be the simplest one. The structure of the Markan sentence: καὶ παράγων εἶδεν + proper name (Mk 2:14ab) closely corresponds to the thematically related sentence Mk 1:16ab. Luke, having presented tax collectors already earlier in his narrative as paradigmatic examples of moral conversion (Lk 3:12), placed the reference to Levi’s profession before his proper name (Lk 5:27b) in order to introduce in such a way the immediately following paradigmatic example Lk 5:28-32. 95 At the same time, Luke omitted the Markan patronymic (τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου) as problematically identical to that of James, one of the Twelve (Mk 3:18). 96 Luke’s postposition of the proper name of the tax collector has been adopted also by Matthew (Mt 9:9bc). This evangelist perceived Mark’s narrative assimilation of the call of Levi to that of the four most important apostles, which was not matched in Mk by Levi’s inclusion to the group of the Twelve, as a problem that required an adequate solution. Matthew resolved the Markan apparent narrative inconsistency in a twofold way: (a) by suggesting that ‘Matthew’ was another name of the tax collector, which was used from time to time (… λεγόμενον: Mt 9:9c; cf. Mt 27:33b [word order!]; diff. Mt 27:32); and (b) by the later explicit identification of the tax collector with Matthew, one of the Twelve (Mt 10:3). 97 The latter identification was most probably based on a sim93

Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 2, 95 n. 79.

94

Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 238; H. J. Sellner, Das Heil Gottes: Studien zur Soteriologie des lukanischen Doppelwerks (BZNW 152; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2007), 192.

95

Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 241-242, 244; F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 256.

96

Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 1, 254.

97

Cf. B. Bauer, Kritik, vol. 1 (2nd edn., Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1846), 98-99.

220

ple premise: the name of Matthew was the only one among the names of the Twelve that was traditionally associated with the ideology of the tribe of Levi (cf. e.g. 1 Chr 15:21; 1 Macc 2:1). Moreover, in the list of the apostles in Acts 1:13 (diff. Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15), Matthew was placed immediately before James son of Alphaeus, and consequently he might be perceived as his brother, who was identical to the Markan Levi son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14). However, the evangelist did not avoid another narrative inconsistency: why Matthew, who had been called as the fifth among the apostles (Mt 9:9), was assigned the mere eight place in the list of the Twelve (Mt 10:3; cf. Acts 1:13)? The sections Mt 9:9-13 par. Mk 2:13-17 par. Lk 5:27-32 have been redacted in the Mk-Lk-(Acts)-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Mk 2:18-22 parr. The differing versions of the beginning of the controversy story concerning fasting (Mt 9:14-17 par. Mk 2:18-22 par. Lk 5:33-39) are a good example of increasing confusion in the synoptic tradition. In the Markan version, some people come and ask why the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees behave in a way that is different from that of the disciples of Jesus (Mk 2:18b). These unnamed people may be identical with the previously mentioned “scribes of the Pharisees” (Mk 2:16a), but they may also belong to the general Galilean audience of Jesus. Luke’s connection of the story Mk 2:18-22 par. Lk 5:33-39 with the previous one (Mk 2:13-17 par. Lk 5:27-32) by means of the statement οἱ δὲ εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτόν (Lk 5:33a) resulted in the surprising, almost absurd identification of the people who asked about the habits of the disciples of the Pharisees (Lk 5:33d) with the Pharisees themselves (Lk 5:30a).98 Matthew reworked the Markan and Lukan texts in a yet more surprising way. In his version, the enigmatic people who ask Jesus are also narratively identified (like in Lk 5:33a) but this time with the disciples of John, who strangely ask Jesus why they in fact fast (Mt 9:14b). 99 The Matthean idea of mourning (πενθεῖν: Mt 9:15b), which replaced in Mt 9:14-17 the corresponding Markan idea of fasting (νηστεύειν: Mk 2:19d), and which is somewhat inconsistent with the internal logic of the narrative that concerns voluntary fasting (cf. Mk 2:19f par. Mt 9:15f), is most probably dependent on the corresponding Lukan idea of forcing the disciples to fast (ποιῆσαι νηστεῦσαι: Lk 5:34d). 98

Cf. I. Howard Marshall, Luke, 224; J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 247; G. Rossé, Luca, 188189.

99

Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 189; D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 242.

221

The origin of the diverging versions of Mt 9:17e par. Mk 2:22d par. Lk 5:38 is most satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. The Markan sentence ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς evidently lacks predicate, which has been later inserted by Luke (… βλητέον) on the basis of Mk 2:22a par. Lk 5:37a (οὐδεὶς βάλλει). However, since the verbal adjective βλητέον, which was introduced into the narrative by Luke, seems to have never been used in the Greek literature before the times of Luke (more precisely, it was used only in its compound forms and, moreover, very rarely, mostly in medical and philosophical treatises), Matthew replaced it with the simple verb βάλλουσιν, which was used already in Mt 9:17a (cf. Mk 2:22a). The opposite intertextual relationships, namely those of Lukan dependence on the version of Mt and of Markan dependence on the version of Lk, are at the same time highly implausible. The Lukan addition that refers to the value of old wine as compared to new one (Lk 5:39) 100 has been replaced by Matthew with his own statement: “And so both [i.e. old and new] 101 are preserved” (Mt 9:17f). It corresponds thematically to the Matthean text Mt 13:52, which presents both the new and the old as having some value. The origin of the similarities and differences among the sections Mt 9:1417 par. Mk 2:18-22 par. Lk 5:33-39 is therefore most satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels.

100 Lk 5:37-38 par. Mk 2:22 refers to a situation in which there is only one kind of wine (in this case: new), which means that its losing is tantamount to having nothing (Lk 5:37cd). Lk 5:36 diff. Mk 2:21 depicts a situation of having two garments (a new and an old one) and illustrates the danger of losing the new garment, and consequently of being left with merely the old, torn one. The addition Lk 5:39 conflates the motifs of Lk 5:36 and Lk 5:37-38 and depicts a situation in which there are two kinds of wine (new and old). The Lukan idea of Lk 5:36 diff. Mk 2:21 is further illustrated in Lk 5:39 by means of the motif that has been borrowed from Lk 5:37-38 par. Mk 2:22. The disciples who have already drunk (πίνω: Lk 5:30.33.39 diff. Mk 2:16.18.22) good, Christ’s, wedding wine (which is paralleled to a new, good garment) want no wine of lesser quality (which is set in parallel with an old, torn robe). Luke was conscious of the semantic tension between Lk 5:37-38 and Lk 5:39ab, and for this reason he formulated Lk 5:39ab in a very concise way (with the use of only five words), in order to highlight the importance of the final, explicating sentence Lk 5:39cd (λέγει… χρηστός ἐστιν). The same Lukan idea is expressed in somewhat different terms in Jn 2:10. 101 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 2, 115; A. Paciorek, Ewangelia według świętego Mateusza: Wstęp. Przekład z oryginału. Komentarz, vol. 1 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny 1/1; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2005), 380; D. L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008), 255-256.

222

Mk 2:23-28 parr. In the introduction to the account of the plucking of heads of grain on the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-8 par. Mk 2:23-28 par. Lk 6:1-5), the Matthean phrase ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ (Mt 12:1a) is redundant or even awkward from the narrative point of view (cf. the use of the same phrase immediately before in Mt 11:25a; 102 cf. also the pleonastic use of the Markan phrase τοῖς σάββασιν in Mt 12:1a). 103 It may be therefore reasonably assumed that this redundancy resulted from Matthew’s transposition and insertion of much Markan and Lukan material between Mt 9:17 (par. Mk 2:22) and Mt 12:1 (par. Mk 2:23). The Mt-Lk agreement (Mt 12:3; Lk 6:3) in omitting the Markan pleonastic χρείαν ἔσχεν καί (Mk 2:25d) cannot be satisfactorily explained in terms of Markan addition to the Mt-Lk material because Mark never used the clause in question in texts that are not paralleled in the other two Gospels. The Mt-Lk agreement (Mt 12:4; Lk 6:4) against Mk 2:26 in adding the adjective μόνος is most probably of Lukan, non-Matthean origin. In the Markan version, which highlighted the contrast between, on the one side, David who foreshadowed the ruling Son of Man and, on the other side, the high priest with other priests, the adjective was unnecessary because David evidently was not a priest. It was Luke who displaced the clause that referred to David’s (and consequently also Son of Man’s) companions, 104 and consequently included the companions in the comparison with the priests (Lk 6:4c diff. Mk 2:26d). However, since in the Markan and Lukan versions of the gospel narrative one of Jesus’ disciples bore the name Levi (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27.29), Luke inserted in Lk 6:4 the adjective μόνος in order to single out priests as specially privileged among all sons of Levi. In the Matthean text, however, in which the distinction between David and his companions is almost entirely lost, this adjective is in fact redundant (which implies that it has been merely borrowed from Lk) because the author of Mt changed the name of the tax collector from Levi to Matthew. This evangelist rephrased the whole discussion on the paradigmatic behaviour of David in the Temple as referring entirely to the past and being irrelevant for the situation in which the Temple was long destroyed and there was no more hope for its reconstruction (ἐξὸν ἦν in Mt 12:4 diff. ἔξεστιν in Mk 2:26; Lk 6:4). 105 102 This point is not taken into consideration in the too atomizing analysis of H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 243, 281. 103 Cf. ibid. 93, 246; J. Nolland, Matthew, 481 n. 3. 104 Cf. S. Stasiak, ‘Gesù è Signore del sabato: Studio diacronico di Lc 6,1-5’, Anton 80 (2005) 245-276 (esp. 256). 105 All these consequences of the logical-narrative coherence of the respective Lukan and Matthean versions have not been taken into due consideration in the too atomizing

223

The Mt-Lk agreement (Mt 12:4; Lk 6:4) against Mk 2:26 in having the prepositional phrase τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ in place of the Markan τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ most probably resulted from the proximity of the phrase οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ in the preceding sentence Mk 2:25 par. Mt 12:3 par. Lk 6:3, and consequently it should not be regarded as Matthean and non-Lukan. 106 The concluding Markan clause Mk 2:28 is logically related to the preceding argument Mk 2:27, which is absent in the versions of Lk and Mt. Luke knew it, however, and summarized the contents of both Mk 2:27 and Mk 2:28 in the short statement Lk 6:5b. 107 Matthew borrowed the Lukan formula verbatim (Mt 12:8) but presented it strangely as a corollary of the argumentation concerning priests and sacrifices, which has been inserted by him in Mt 12:5-7. 108 The sections Mt 12:1-8 par. Mk 2:23-28 par. Lk 6:1-5 have been therefore redacted in the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Conclusions The analysis of the triple Mt-Mk-Lk material that refers to the first stage of Jesus’ Galilean activity: from the episode referring to Jesus’ coming back to Galilee after his baptism to the episode of the plucking of heads of grain on the Sabbath (Mt 4:12-12:8; Mk 1:14-2:28; Lk 4:14-6:5), which has been carried out with the use of the relatively reliable criteria of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels, revealed that this part of the triple Mk-Lk-Mt material has been composed in the (Paul)-Mk-Lk-(Acts)-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence. No hypothetical sources are required to explain the origin of both similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels in this part of the triple Mk-Lk-Mt material.

analysis of H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism, 261. Moreover, this evident Mt-Lk agreement against Mk is omitted in Shin’s further investigations: cf. ibid. 266. 106 Pace B. Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (JSNTSup 215; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2002), 67-68. 107 Cf. W. Eckey, Das Lukasevangelium: Unter Berücksichtigung seiner Parallelen (Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004), [vol. 1,] 268. 108 Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 203; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 2, 312-313, 315.

224

2.3 Conclusions From the methodological point of view, finding the correct solution to the synoptic problem, i.e. explaining the origin of both similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels, requires first of all establishing relatively reliable criteria for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels. Accordingly, at the first stage of investigations, a set of six such criteria has been established on a purely deductive basis. Application of these deductive criteria to a set of test-cases of direct literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels, which included the triple Mt-Mk-Lk material that refers to the first stage of Jesus’ Galilean activity: from his coming back to Galilee after his baptism to the episode of the plucking of heads of grain on the Sabbath (Mt 4:12-12:8; Mk 1:14-2:28; Lk 4:14-6:5), revealed that five of these criteria, namely (a) presence of conflations of elements of other Gospels; (b) presence of vocabulary, phraseology, structural patterns, etc. typical of another Gospel and occurring only in the passages that are evidently paralleled in that other Gospel; (c) not easily perceivable inconsistencies and logical errors in the passages that are paralleled in another Gospel, in which the inconsistency or error in question is absent; (d) increasing confusion; and (e) evident congruity of the features of style, redactional technique, theology, etc. of a given passage with those peculiar to the Gospel in question, together with relative incongruity of the corresponding features of the parallel passage in another Gospel with those of that other Gospel, proved very useful for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels. The criterion of contrariety of the ideas expressed in the passages that are paralleled in another Gospel to the ideas expressed elsewhere in the given Gospel and especially peculiar to it turned out to be less useful for the above-presented analyses, most probably because much redactional work has been done by each of the evangelists in order to achieve basic redactional-ideological consistency of their Gospels. The analysis of the triple Mt-Mk-Lk material that refers to the first stage of Jesus’ Galilean activity: from his coming back to Galilee after his baptism to the episode of the plucking of heads of grain on the Sabbath (Mt 4:12-12:8; Mk 1:14-2:28; Lk 4:14-6:5) revealed that the similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels are most satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis of (Paul)Mk-Lk-(Acts)-Mt order of their direct, sequential literary dependence. The existence of no non-extant, merely hypothetical source (a protogospel, Proto-Mk, Deutero-Mk, Q, solely oral traditions, etc.) has to be assumed in order to explain the origin of both similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels in this part of the triple Mk-Lk-Mt material. Accordingly, the additional criterion of preference of the proposals that explain the observed intertextual data in terms of literary dependence of the Gospels on extant works (including other 225

Gospels) to the proposals that postulate dependence on merely hypothetical sources is also satisfied. It may be reasonably assumed on this basis that the hypothesis of the (Paul)-Mk-Lk-(Acts)-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels may provide the correct solution to the synoptic problem. However, in order to prove this thesis conclusively, further redaction-critical analyses of the Synoptic Gospels are required.

226

Chapter 3: Mark’s use of his sources It is widely assumed in modern biblical scholarship that the Gospel of Mark was written as the first among the Synoptic Gospels and that it served as a literary model for the two subsequent ones (Lk and Mt). The above-presented analysis of the pattern of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels in Mk 1:142:28 parr. confirmed the correctness of this basic assumption. Several scholars argue, however, that Mk was, in turn, composed on the basis of some earlier Gospels or Gospel-like works, which are identified as (in various combinations) Q, units of oral tradition, Proto-Mk, Proto-Mt, Proto-Lk, common protogospel, Mt, or Lk. A comprehensive solution to the synoptic problem has to provide therefore an satisfactory answer to the notoriously difficult question of the origin of Mk. Scholars usually try to solve this problem by means of analytic investigations of relatively small textual units of Mk. They try to identify their literary form, internal structure, distinct vocabulary, and other textual features, as compared to parallel texts especially in other Gospels, and on this basis they attempt to reconstruct their plausible origin. After several decades of research it is evident, however, that such an approach does not yield satisfactory, unquestionable results. Consequently, another, more synthetic approach to the issue of the literary origin of Mk should be adopted. The research should aim not only at investigating plausible origins of small textual units of Mk, but also, and maybe above all, at discovering the origin of the Markan Gospel taken as a whole, with its inherent literary macrostructure.

3.1 The origin of the literary structure of the Gospel of Mark If it may be with good reasons assumed that Mk was written as the first among the Synoptic Gospels, an important question arises: What was the origin of its literary structure? It is not so much the problem of the literary genre of the earliest narrative Gospel (which resembles, as it has been observed, ancient biographies etc.) as rather the issue of the origin of the internal order of its material that requires an adequate explanation. For example, why is the preaching in parables (Mk 4:1-34) placed in Mk after the account of the arrival of Jesus’ relatives (Mk 3:31-35)? Traditionalists might reply that it simply happened so in reality, namely that after the arrival of his relatives, Jesus actually began to teach the crowds in parables. However, traditionalists have to take into consideration the fact that according to the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’, Mark organized his material not in agreement with the order of historical events from Jesus’ life (cf. 227

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15). Consequently, if the sequence of events described by Mark is not based on early Christian traditions concerning the sequence of historical events from Jesus’ life, then what is the pattern that underlies the internal structure of the Markan work? In modern research on Mk, the issues of its sources and of its structure belonged without doubt to the most important subjects of scholarly investigations. Bibliographies of publications that concern each of these two issues are immense. Only rarely, however, the questions of the sources and of the structure of Mk were thoroughly examined together. This striking feature of modern research on Mk results mainly from particular hermeneutical presuppositions and related to them, inherent limitations of the methods that were employed in the investigation of Mk over the centuries. As a result of centuries-long dependence of most ancient and medieval Markan exegesis on the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’, the sources of the Markan work were traditionally identified as Peter’s oral catecheses. On such an assumption, no other source of Mk was either needed or looked for. In the nineteenth century, many scholars, who followed the idea of the literary critic Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, reconstructed the source or sources of Mk in form of a hypothetical early Christian protogospel. However, neither the structure nor plausible origins of the structure of this hypothetical work were seriously examined. In the twentieth century, scholars generally adopted anew the ancient presupposition, namely that the oral tradition was the main source of the material of Mk. The twentieth-century modification, as compared to premodern research, consisted in assuming axiomatically that the oral (or written) pre-Markan sources must have been composed in forms of small literary units. Accordingly, the sources of Mk, like those of other Gospels, came to be reconstructed and analysed by means of form-, tradition-, and redaction criticism. In this methodological approach it is assumed that the literary author (usually called ‘redactor’) of the Gospel shaped a continuous narrative with the use of numerous, small, originally not correlated units of traditional material according to a freely designed literary pattern. As a result of this particular methodological approach, the structure of Mk is now generally regarded as a product of theological-literary invention of the evangelist. Accordingly, this structure is usually analysed with the use of purely synchronic literary categories of literary genre, concentric structures, narrative patterns, rhetorical models, reader-response strategies, etc. 1 Consequently, the 1

228

For recent surveys of modern research on the Markan structure and redaction, which was conducted with the use of various methods, see e.g. G. Van Oyen, De studie van de Marcusredactie in de twintigste eeuw (VVAW.L 55, Nr. 147; AWLSK: Brussel 1993), esp. 323-326; K. W. Larsen, ‘The Structure of Mark’s Gospel: Current Proposals’, CBR

two correlated issues, namely that of the sources and that of the structure of Mk, are generally regarded today as two separated problems. It is widely presupposed that the possible sources of Mk (which include, for example, the hypothetical Q source) did influence directly its final structure, and consequently that the overall structural pattern of Mk was not borrowed from any pre-Markan sources. At the same time, possible sources of the Markan work other than those suggested by the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’, especially the letters of Paul, are only rarely taken by the scholars into serious consideration. 2 For this reason, a thorough intertextual analysis of possible literary dependence of Mk on Paul’s letters and other literary texts is certainly needed. 3.1.1 Paul’s letters There are good reasons for assuming that Mark used at least some of the Pauline letters. First, since the letters of the Apostle of the Nations were written at least a decade before the composition of Mk, and since they were sent from or to several important cities around the eastern Mediterranean (Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, presumably also Jerusalem via Paul’s opponents in Rome and Galatia), Mark would have had to live in Rhaetia, Gaul, or Britain in order to have no direct contact with at least some of them. Second, several scholars noted striking linguistic and theological correspondences between the Pauline letters and Mk, 3 although some of them conceded merely that Mk could

3.1 (2004) 140-160; D. Dormeyer, Das Markusevangelium (Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 2005), esp. 37-231; E.-M. Becker, Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie (WUNT 194; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006), 6-36. 2

The widespread modern rejection of the hypothesis of Mark’s dependence on the Pauline letters is usually based on the study of M. Werner, Der Einfluß paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium: Eine Studie zur neutestamentlichen Theologie (Alfred Töpelmann: Gießen 1923), passim. Cf. also recently J. G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (LNTS 266; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004), 47-55, who suggests that Paul was influenced by the Markan Gospel.

3

See e.g. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung des gelösten Problems der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes zum Selbststudium für die academische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen geordnet (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), iv-xxvi; G. Volkmar, Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Commentar (Fues’s (R. Reisland): Leipzig 1870), 644-646; W. Schenk, ‘Sekundäre Jesuanisierungen von primären Paulus-Aussagen bei Markus’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters:

229

have been dependent on the Pauline letters at most indirectly. 4 Third, the traditional identification of the author of the shortest Gospel with the person of Mark known from the New Testament writings suggests that he was originally one of the closest co-workers of Paul (συνεργός: Phlm 24; cf. Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11). He was only secondarily, by means of a literary ‘adoption’, related to the Petrine tradition (υἱός: 1 Pet 5:13; cf. Acts 12:12). 5 Is it possible, however, that Paul’s letters influenced not only some particular theological ideas and at times wording of Mk but also its particular narrative design? In order to answer this question, another hermeneutic-literary model and another, corresponding to it, method of investigation has to be used, namely that of critical analysis of the phenomenon of intertextuality. 6 At the same time, possible ways of literary dependence of Mk on the letters of Paul should not be axiomatically limited to that of simple borrowing of some particular Pauline phrases or ideas. Mark could have reworked the Pauline letters in a way much more creative than that of a simple quotation or paraphrase, just as he creatively reworked (i.e. narrativized) 7 numerous scriptural texts in, for example, his passion narrative. Since any possible reworking of the Pauline letters in the process of composition of Mk must have inevitably involved a change of the literary genre, the exegetes have to analyse not only instances of Mark’s evident adoption of some characteristically Pauline linguistic or theological traits but also possible ways of Mark’s hypertextual, narrative reformulation of distinctively Pauline ideas. 8 Mark could have used vocabulary and literary models Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 877-904; P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Paul and Mark (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1999), 127, 133-237. 4

Cf. e.g. K. Romaniuk, ‘Le Problème des Paulinismes dans l’Évangile de Marc’, NTS 23 (1977) 266-274 (esp. 270-274); J. Marcus, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Mark 1-8 (Anchor Bible 27; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000), 75.

5

Cf. J. C. Fenton, ‘Paul and Mark’, in Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Basil Blackwell: Oxford 1955), 89-112 (esp. 111).

6

For a recent study of the use of intertextual literary procedures in antiquity, see e.g. E. Finkelpearl, ‘Pagan Traditions of Intertextuality in the Roman World’, in Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (SAC; Trinity International: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 78-90.

7

For a definition of transmodal narrativization as one of the possible ways of hypertextual reworking of hypotexts, see G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982), 395, 401.

8

For a definition of the notion of hypertextuality, which has been adopted in my work, see G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 12-48 (here: 13): “Hypertextualité [: ] J’entends par là toute […] dérivation […] de l’ordre […] tel que B [hypertexte] ne parle nullement de A [hypotexte], mais ne pourrait cependant exister tel quel sans A [hypotexte], dont il ré-

230

that were quite different from those used by Paul but that were borrowed, for example, from the Scriptures (as it is the case in the Markan passion narrative). 9 The criteria that may be used for verification of possible hypertextual dependence of Mk on the Pauline letters may be divided into general and particular ones. General criteria include (a) accessibility of the Pauline letters for the author of Mk and (b) analogy of the postulated compositional procedure to those known from other works that are roughly contemporary with Mk. Particular criteria include (a) density of linguistic or thematic correspondences, (b) order of the correspondences, (c) distinctiveness of the correspondences for Mk and the letters of Paul, and (d) explanatory capability of the assumed correspondences for solving interpretative problems of the Markan narrative that are difficult to explain without the reference to the Pauline hypotexts. 10 From the purely theoresulte au terme d’une opération que je qualifierai, provisoirement encore, de transformation, et qu’en conséquence il évoque plus ou moins manifestement, sans nécessairement parler de lui et le citer.” For a description of this kind of hypertextuality in somewhat different terms of thematic and semantic transformations, see S. Holthuis, Intertextualität: Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption (Stauffenburg Colloquium 28; Stauffenburg: Tübingen 1993), 83-85, 136-147; cf. also M. Orosz, Intertextualität in der Textanalyse (ÖGS/ISSS: Wien 1997), 14-29; ead., ‘Literarische Bibellektüre(n): Aspekte einer semiotischen Intertextualitätskonzeption und intertextueller Textanalyse’, in Die Bibel im Dialog der Schriften: Konzepte intertextueller Bibellektüre, ed. S. Alkier and R. B. Hays [et al.] (Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie 10 [2005]; Francke: Tübingen · Basel 2005), 217-236 (esp. 220-228) [also as ‘Literary Reading(s) of the Bible: Aspects of a Semiotic Conception of Intertextuality and Intertextual Analysis of Texts’, in Reading the Bible Intertextually, ed. R. B. Hays, S. Alkier, and L. A. Huizenga (Baylor University: Waco, Tex. 2009), 191-204 (esp. 194-199)]. 9

Biblical writings provide numerous examples of hypertextual reworking of earlier texts, which involved even significant transmodal changes of literary genres (for example, from poetry or legal genres to narratives and vice versa). As it follows from the analysis of a number of these hypertexts, their hypotexts were often treated as mere traditional points of departure for creative reworking of some particular ideas in quite different literary forms (see e.g. Gen, Josh, Judg, Jon, certain Psalms, Eccl), with only limited use of literary motifs, vocabulary, etc. that was characteristic of the hypotexts. Interpretation of such hypertexts that would be limited merely to the analysis of their purely literal meaning, without taking into due consideration the intertextual references to their hypotexts, would be obviously very inadequate.

10

Cf. D. R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale University: New Haven · London 2000), 8-9; id., ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice, ed. T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 211-225 (esp. 212). For a similar list of criteria for proving literary dependence, see A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the

231

tical point of view, the criteria of order and of explanatory capability seem to be the least subjective ones, and consequently they have to be treated as decisive for verification of possible intertextual literary dependence. The below-proposed analysis of Mk in categories of its hypertextual reworking of the Pauline letters obviously is not intended to be a full-scale commentary on Mk. It is rather an attempt to understand the structure and the overall meaning of the Markan work as intertextually dependent on the letters of Paul the Apostle. 11 The below-proposed division of the Markan work into five main sections (Mk 1:1-7:37; 8:1-10:45; 10:46-12:44; 13:1-15:15; 15:16-16:8) is based on detailed intertextual, and corresponding to them source-critical, considerations, which will be justified in the course of the analysis. Mk 1:1-7:37 Mk 1:1 is not so much a paratextual title of the Markan work as rather a hypertextual reference to the beginning (ἀρχή) of the realization of the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον: a typically Pauline term) that was proclaimed by Paul in the whole world. 12 The gospel itself is characterized in Mk 1:1 as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is an allusion to the Pauline formula Gal 1:7 (probably conflated in Mk 1:1 [B, D, W, et al.] with Rom 1:9), which was used in the opening section of the letter that systematically described the gospel proclaimed by Paul. Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LNTS 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), 20-22. 11

References to Scripture-based motifs will not be given, as a rule, in the following intertextual analysis of the Markan Gospel. They may be found in all major commentaries on Mk; cf. also R. E. Watts, ‘Mark’, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. and Apollos: Nottingham 2008), 111-249. The main object of the belowpresented analysis is Mark’s literary use of the letters of Paul the Apostle.

12

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 133; A. Y. Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis, Minn. 2007), 16; J. Svartvik, ‘Matthew and Mark’, in Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries, ed. D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (LNTS 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 27-49 (esp. 34). It should be noted, however, that the opening statement Mk 1:1 is quite exceptional in the Markan narrative in that, because of its having two distinct and easily recognizable functions (introducing the Markan narrative, and referring to Paul and his letters), it may be regarded as really ‘sylleptic’ and consequently ‘compulsory’ in its impelling the reader to pursue the search for the intertext of the Pauline writings, as it may be expressed in terms of Michael Riffaterre’s theory of intertextuality: cf. M. Riffaterre, ‘Compulsory reader response: the intertextual drive’, in Intertextuality: Theories and practices, ed. M. Worton and J. Still (Manchester University: Manchester · New York 1990), 56-78 (esp. 71, 75-77).

232

The full title Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is also non-Markan, but it is typically Pauline (Mk 1:1; cf. e.g. Gal 1:1). In difference to Phlp 4:14, however, Mk 1:1 locates the beginning of the (Pauline) gospel not in Macedonia but in Judaea, in order to illustrate the pattern of spreading of the gospel of Christ as it was sketched by Paul in Rom 15:19. Mk 1:2-8 illustrates the Pauline idea of preaching of the gospel (κηρύσσω, *εὐαγγελ: Rom 10:14-15) at the beginning in the country of Judaea (Ἰουδαία: 1 Thes 2:14; Gal 1:22) and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Ἱεροσόλυμα: Gal 1:17-18) by a Jewish (Christian) “angel” (ἄγγελος: Mk 1:2; Gal 1:8) who was sent by God and preached basically the same gospel as did Paul, the servant of Christ (Mk 1:7-8; Gal 1:8-10). This preaching was understood by Paul, and consequently also by Mark, as a fulfilment of the written words of the prophets (προφήτης, *γραφ: Rom 1:2), especially of the prophet Isaiah (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, Ἠσαΐας: Rom 10:16 and four other times in Rom). 13 This is the cause of the surprising conflation in Mk 1:2b-3 of the motif of the “angel”, which has been borrowed from Gal 1:8 and illustrated by means of the quotation from Exod 23:20 LXX (ἄγγελος), with the Isaian text Is 40:3 LXX (ἀποστέλλω, ἄγγελος, πρό). 14 This is also the reason of the surprising narrative non-historical shaping of the figure of John the Baptist into that of a scriptural prophet in Mk 1:4-6 (diff. Jos. Ant. 18.117). 15 The formula καθὼς γέγραπται, which has been used in Mk 1:2 to introduce a direct scriptural quotation, is also non-Markan but it is typically Pauline (cf. e.g. Rom 10:15). The non-Markan combination of the motifs of (a) power, (b) the Holy Spirit, and (c) baptizing as marking the beginnings of proclamation of Christ’s gospel in the world is based on the Pauline texts 1 Thes 13

The Book of Isaiah is the most frequently explicitly quoted book in Rom: cf. e.g. M. Tiwald, Hebräer von Hebräern: Paulus auf dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Argumentation und biblischer Interpretation (HBS 52; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2008), 91.

14

The attribution of the whole conflated quotation in Mk 1:2b-3 to Isaiah is not a Markan error, as it is argued by several scholars. No one creates a quotation and attributes it erroneously to someone else.

15

Mark evidently conflated in Mk 1:4-6 various motifs that borrowed from Josephus’ accounts concerning John the Baptist (Jos. Ant. 18.116-119), Theudas (Ἰορδάνης ποταμός, prophet: Jos. Ant. 20.97; cf. also Mk 11:32), and anonymous pretenders who led the crowd into the wilderness (*ἔρημ: Jos. B.J. 2.259; Ant. 20.167, 188). Each one of these motifs taken separately suits well its original Josephus’ context: John the Baptist as a preacher of moral righteousness and ritual purity who was active in the region of Machaerus by the time of Herod Antipas’ marriage with Herodias, Theudas as a new Joshua dividing the Jordan Rover, the Egyptian pretender as a new Moses in the wilderness and a new Joshua conquering the Land of Israel. Mark conflated all these motifs to form an artificial image of John the Baptist as a preacher of repentance who was active as a prophet in the wilderness in Judaea by the Jordan River.

233

1:5-6 (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ) and 1 Cor 1:13-16 (βαπτίζω; cf. also βαπτίζω + πνεῦμα: 1 Cor 12:13). Mk 1:9-13 illustrates, with the use of well-known scriptural motifs, the Pauline idea of revelation of Jesus Christ with no human mediation as the sole basis of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel (Gal 1:11-12.16a). The otherwise strange modification of the quotation from Ps 2:7 LXX in Mk 1:11 serves to combine, in one Scripture-based sentence, the key expressions εὐδοκέω and υἱός αὐτοῦ with the idea of grace, which have been all borrowed from Gal 1:1516a. 16 The transformation of Jesus’ identity from that expressed in terms of the root of Jesse 17 to that of the Son of God revealed by the Spirit (Mk 1:9-11) illustrates the well-known Pauline idea expressed in Rom 1:3-4. The motif of going away to the desert depicted as Paradise (Mk 1:12-13) illustrates two combined Paul’s autobiographical statements referring to his initial journey to the desert country of Arabia (εὐθύς: Gal 1:16c.17b) 18 and to his having been taken away into Paradise after the vision of “split” heavens (οὐρανοί pl.: Mk 1:10-11; cf. 2 Cor 12:2) at the beginning of his apostolic ministry (2 Cor 12:4). Mark explained also in Mk 1:13cd the somewhat enigmatic Pauline statement concerning the revelation of the Son of God in him who was appointed and called from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15b-16a) with the use of scriptural and Jewish exegetical traditions referring to Adam as the human son of God.19 This Markan interpretation is based on the Pauline theology of the humanity and of the universe understood as restored in Christ (cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Rom 5:14-19; 8:14-30), together with the corresponding understanding of Paul as the representative of the new humanity restored in Christ through baptism, overcoming of sin, and

16

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 138.

17

Mark most probably coined the Hebrew-sounding reference to Nazareth on the basis of Is 11:1 LXX, MT as alluding to the Jewish Christian, messianic understanding of Jesus as the root of Jesse and as the son of David, as it has been witnessed by Paul (cf. Rom 1:3; 15:12). Otherwise, for example, the Markan text Mk 10:47a.c would loose its internal semantic logic (ὁ Ναζαρηνός → υἱὲ ∆αυίδ), which evidently constitutes its narrative meaning. It is worth noting that in Mk 6:1 Mark avoided stating that Jesus came to Nazareth as to his hometown. The name ‘Nazareth’, which is unknown to Paul, functions therefore in the Markan Gospel as a symbol of the original, Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus Christ. In Mk 1:9 it functions specifically as the point of departure, by its referring to Christ “according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3; 2 Cor 5:16b), for the subsequent, fuller, Pauline understanding of Jesus’ identity.

18

Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xi; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 139.

19

Cf. J. Marcus, ‘Son of Man as Son of Adam’, RB 110 (2003) 38-61, 370-386 (esp. 5556, 373).

234

living in the Spirit (cf. Rom 6:3-8:17). 20 The account Mk 1:9-13 alludes therefore to Paul’s claim to his having been appointed and called by God in a special, personal way in God’s Son before the call of those who became apostles before him (Gal 1:15-17a; cf. Mk 1:14-20). 21 Mk 1:14-15 illustrates the Pauline ideas of (a) fulfilment of the time (cf. Gal 4:4) of beginning of the worldwide preaching of the gospel (κηρύσσω τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ: 1 Thes 2:9; cf. Gal 1:16b) and (b) of the corresponding approaching (ἤγγικεν: Rom 13:12) of the kingdom of God (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ: Rom 14:17; cf. 1 Thes 2:12). The imprisonment of John (Mk 1:14) narratively (but not historically) illustrates Paul’s idea of the end of the epoch of the prophets who preceded the coming of Christ (Rom 1:2). The ideas of repentance (*μετανο: Rom 2:4) and of living in the gospel (ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ: Rom 1:9 etc.) have been likewise borrowed by Mark from the letters of Paul. Mk 1:16-20 describes the public call of the leading, ‘pillar’ apostles. The Markan account is shaped according to the canons of the Pauline theology. The evangelist describes the ‘pillar’ apostles as led by Simon, who bears a scriptural, non-Aramaic (i.e. not Judaizing) name, and by his Greek-named brother Andrew, who functions in the Markan narrative as Peter’s Gentile alter ego (cf. Gal 2:14). 22 These twin characters are presented by Mark as called to be active in catching people from both sides of the boat (ἀμφιβάλλω: Mk 1:16, allusively:

20

The narrative character of Jesus generally alludes therefore in Mk to the person of Paul the Apostle. It would be erroneous, however, to interpret Mk as entirely dominated by allusions to the Apostle. Mark, as a faithful disciple of Paul, wanted rather to illustrate in a narrative way Paul’s specific self-understanding, which has been expressed in the statements like: “You became imitators of us and of the Lord” (1 Thes 1:6), “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1), and “It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). The hypertextual procedure that has been adopted by Mark (i.e. of presenting the life of Paul through the life of Jesus) may be therefore properly called not interfiguration but con-figuration. For a definition of interfigurality, see W. G. Müller, ‘Interfigurality: A Study on the Interdependence of Literary Figures’, in Intertextuality, ed. H. F. Plett (Research in Text Theory: Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 15; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1991), 101-121.

21

It should be noted that the baptism of Jesus is presented in Mk 1:9-11 (in difference to e.g. Lk 3:22) as a private event and not a public one. According to Mk 1:10-11, only Jesus saw the split heavens and the Spirit descending to him; likewise, the voice from heavens was directed only to him.

22

The narrative relationship between Simon-Peter and Andrew (i.e. either the presence of Andrew close to Simon; or his being separated from Cephas/Peter by the characters of James and John; or his being absent in the episodes that refer only to Cephas/Peter, James, and John) illustrates in Mk the changing attitude of Cephas to the idea of the widespread Gentile mission.

235

among the Jews and the Greeks; cf. Gal 2:7-8). 23 Mark’s surprising characterization of Gennesaret as the “sea” (θάλασσα: Mk 1:16) and not as a “lake”, as it was called by Josephus,24 alludes to the Pauline-style call of Cephas to catch people around the entire Mediterranean Sea. 25 Mark highlights also the fact that only Peter and Andrew followed Jesus immediately (εὐθύς), without referring to any other authoritative persons (Mk 1:18 diff. Mk 1:20), and consequently according to the pattern of Paul the Apostle (Gal 1:16c). 26 On the other hand, James and John are described as called somewhat later (and consequently, being not superior to Cephas: cf. Gal 1:18-19; 2:6.12).27 They are presented as called to (a) stop being preoccupied with “correcting” or “perfecting” the evangelistic nets (καταρτίζω: Mk 1:19) instead of actively catching people, (b) part company with non-Pauline hirelings (cf. 1 Cor 9:17-18), and (c) depart for the mission with Jesus (ἀπῆλθον: cf. Gal 1:17). 28 Mk 1:21-34 is the first part of the section Mk 1:21-2:12, which most probably alludes to three enigmatic, difficult to reconcile, Pauline statements concerning the early stage of his activity: his persecutions of the Church (Gal 1:13-14; cf. 1 Cor 15:9), his preaching of the gospel first in Jerusalem and its

23

Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 79.

24

Cf. R. S. Notley, ‘The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym’, JBL 128 (2009) 183-188 (esp. 185).

25

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 141.

26

Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xi-xii.

27

It is worth noting that James the Jerusalem “pillar” (Gal 2:9) has not been explicitly identified by Paul as “the brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19; cf. Acts 15:13). Luke made this explicit identification in Acts by means of the introduction of a brief remark concerning the death of James the brother of John (Acts 12:2), which was followed by the narrative introduction of the character of James the brother of the Lord (Acts 12:17). Mark seems to have been unaware of this later identification (cf. Mk 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; cf. also Mk 15:40 referring to James as one of the three most important, ‘pillar’ apostles but not identical with James the brother of the Lord). Moreover, as it follows from the polyvalence of Markan allusions to James in Mk 1:19; 3:17, Mark probably did not know for sure who of two possibly not identical Jameses mentioned in Gal 1:19; 2:9 has been referred to by Paul in Gal 2:12. The evangelist evidently (and most probably correctly) assumed that it was James the brother of the Lord.

28

The repeated Markan characterization of James and John (but especially of James) as the sons of Zebedee probably alludes to the story of Achan (Josh 7:1-25; cf. Jos. Ant. 5.33-44: Ζεβεδαίου παῖς), in thematic agreement with Gal 2:10; cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 143. As it will be demonstrated below, the financial obligation that has been imposed by the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ on the Gentile Churches, as it has been referred to in Gal 2:10, was perceived by both Mark and Luke as hardly justifiable.

236

environs (Rom 15:19), and his return to Damascus (Gal 1:17c). 29 In order to illustrate these Pauline statements, Mark described in Mk 1:21-2:12 Jesus’ powerful activity in and around the Jewish town of Capernaum (Mk 1:21.33.45; 2:1: πόλις; diff. Jos. Vita 403: κώμη). 30 On the allusive level, by means of spatial translation, 31 this activity alludes to Paul’s initial preaching presumably in Jewish Christian terms in and around Jerusalem (cf. Rom 15:19) and in the town of Damascus (cf. Gal 1:17c).32 The first part of this activity (the day at Capernaum: Mk 1:21-34) has been described by Mark as extremely powerful (Mk 1:22.2728), violently hostile towards signs of impurity (Mk 1:23-26), and allied with the ‘pillars’ (Mk 1:29). 33 From among the ‘pillars’, especially Simon has been allusively chastised by the evangelist for his being preoccupied (in difference to his Greek-named apostolic alter ego) with his marriage-bound relatives (Mk 1:3031; cf. 1 Cor 9:5). As such, the fragment Mk 1:21-34 alludes in a particular way to Paul’s persecutions of the (for Mark: proleptically Gentile) Church (Gal 1:1314; cf. 1 Cor 15:9). The Markan Jesus reveals himself, however, already at this 29

Evidently, not only modern scholars but also Mark tried to solve the problem of the ‘early Paul’.

30

It is quite probable that Mark presented the place called Capernaum (Καφαρναούμ: cf. Jos. B.J. 3.519) as the hometown of Simon and Andrew because it was related in Jos. B.J. 3.519-520 to fish, and consequently it suited the Markan image of Simon and Andrew as fishermen (Mk 1:16-18). It should be noted that Mark consistently presented the narrative events from Jesus’ life as having occurred in places that were not involved in the Jewish War (according to Josephus’ works). For this reason, the Markan Jesus never entered Taricheae, Tiberias, the city of Jericho, the city of Jerusalem outside the Temple, etc. On the other hand, the Markan Jesus frequented places with Aramaicsounding names that are not known from Josephus’ works: Dalmanutha, Bethphage, Bethany, etc., apart from the ‘peaceful’ places known from Josephus’ writings: Capernaum, Gennesaret, Bethsaida, Caesarea Philippi, etc.

31

For the meaning of the term ‘spatial translation’, which refers to one of the most widely used hypertextual procedures, see G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 431.

32

Mark evidently resolved to combine in Mk 1:21-2:12 two Paul’s apparently irreconcilable ideas: (a) of the Apostle’s early preaching in the Jewish city of Jerusalem and (b) of his activity in the Gentile city of Damascus. Accordingly, the evangelist introduced in this section the narratively strange, ‘mixed’ (i.e. Jewish–Gentile) characters of a habitually impure person in the synagogue (Mk 1:23), Simon’s Greek-named brother Andrew, Simon’s presumably impure mother-in-law (Mk 1:29-31), etc.

33

It should be noted that the Markan image of Jesus as mainly teaching (*διδα) and doing wonderful things among both Jews and Gentiles, which attracted many people, is generally non-Pauline (diff. Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:28-30; 14:6.26; Gal 1:12; diff. also Rom 15:8) and consequently it is most probably based on Jos. Ant. 18.63 (in its original form).

237

stage as also kind and benevolent towards potentially impure sick people, including a potentially impure woman (Mk 1:29-34b). Mk 1:35-2:12 alludes to Paul who experienced an internal transformation during a vigil-dawn prayer (cf. 2 Cor 11:27; reinterpreted in Mk 1:35 as an experience of the power of the resurrection: πρωΐ [cf. Mk 16:2], ἀναστάς), which resulted in the desire to go out of the town first to the desert (ἀπέρχομαι: cf. Gal 1:17b) and then “elsewhere” (cf. Rom 15:19) in order to preach the gospel (Mk 1:35-39). The spiritually transformed Mark’s main character displays still greater compassion for impure persons (Mk 1:40-41) and ceases to avoid direct contact with them (Mk 1:38-44; cf. Gal 1:16b). 34 On the other hand, he loosens his ties with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ and begins to work alone (Mk 1:36-39; cf. Gal 1:17). When he comes back to the town (Mk 2:1-12), he allows impurity enter his house and proclaims forgiveness of sins through the mediation of a human person (allusively: of the Apostle) not on the basis of any human effort but on the basis of faith in God’s forgiveness of sins (πίστις, ἀφίημι, αἱ ἁμαρτίαι: cf. Rom 4:5-7; cf. also 1 Cor 15:9-10; Gal 1:13-15), which has been attested by the overwhelming power of resurrection (ἐγείρω: cf. 1 Cor 15:4-10; Rom 8:32-34). The narrative character of the paralytic most probably alludes to the person of Paul’s closest co-worker Timothy (see the surprising τέκνον in Mk 2:5; cf. 1 Cor 4:17; Phlp 2:22). On the other hand, the strange Markan habit of referring to the opponents of the main character as to γραμματεῖς has been most probably borrowed from the Pauline text 1 Cor 1:20, which refers to the “recorders” in a way that is entirely understandable in its Pauline context (“recorders of signs”: 1 Cor 1:22a; cf. also 2 Cor 3:6-7). Mk 2:13-17 alludes to the call of another Paul’s co-worker who was active together with Paul among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:16b). His call is presented by Mark as not inferior to that of the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ παράγων: cf. Mk 1:16) and of other apostles (τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου: cf. Mk 3:18). Consequently, the allusion that has been made in Mk 2:13-17 evidently refers to Barnabas as a ‘partner’, together with Paul, of the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (cf. Gal 2:1-9). 35 His leaving behind his profession of a tax collector refers to Barnabas’ 34

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 145.

35

The name of Levi suggests to the readers that Barnabas, like Paul, did not belong to the tribe of Judah, and consequently he was not interested in Judahite (and consequently also Jewish Christian) Davidic messianism (Rom 1:3; cf. the same motif reworked later in a different way by Luke in Acts 4:36). His father’s name Ἀλφαῖος in Mk 2:14 (cf. also Mk 3:18) alludes, by means of internymic deviation, to Barnabas’ Hellenistic affinities (ἄλφα) that were important for an apostle to the Gentiles. For a systematic description of the often adopted by Mark and by Luke procedure of internymic deviation, which is characteristic of many intentionally hypertextual writings, see W. G. Müller, ‘Interfigurality’, 104-105.

238

missionary poverty, which was similar to Paul’s and was referred to in rhetorical terms of ‘not working for earning’ (1 Cor 9:6). The character of Levi is described in Mk 2:15-17 as rising (ἀνίστημι alluding to Barnabas’ belief in the halachic impact of the resurrection: cf. e.g. Mk 5:42; 8:31; 9:27) and as leading many people (repeated πολλοί), who are imitating him and are called by the opponents “tax collectors and sinners” (ἁμαρτωλοί: cf. e.g. Rom 5:8; Gal 2:17), to table fellowship with Jesus and to the dignity of being Jesus’ followers (cf. 1 Thes 1:6; 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1). The rebuke on the part of the Pharisees, who generally allude interfiguratively in Mk to the anti-Pauline Jewish Christian opponents belonging to the entourage of James, 36 is notably directed to Jesus’ disciples (allusively: to Barnabas and other Paul’s Jewish co-workers) because of their siding with the halachically ‘libertine’ main narrative character (Mk 2:16; cf. Gal 2:12). 37 The response given to them in Mk 2:17 illustrates Paul’s argument presented in Gal 2:15-17 (*δικαιο, ἁμαρτωλοί; καλέω: cf. Gal 1:6. 15). 38 Mk 2:18-3:6 alludes to Paul’s definite renouncement of his previous Pharisaic, halachic way of pursuing righteousness (cf. Phlp 3:5-9). The particular thematic triad of (a) prolonged fasting, (b) sabbath regulations, and (c) restoring life originates from Rom 14:2-9. The image of Christ as a bridegroom originates from 2 Cor 11:2. The three key terms used in Mk 2:18-3:6 have been also borrowed from the Pauline letters (καινός in the context of wine: 1 Cor 11:25;39 κύριος in the context of sabbath regulations: Rom 14:5-6; ἐγείρω in the context of σῴζω: Rom 10:9; cf. also πώρωσις: Rom 11:25 40). The halachic (or rather anti-halachic) stance presented in Mk 2:18-3:6 is notably argued by Mark by means of a set of paired examples that are based both on common sense (and hence they are understandable to the Gentiles) and on the Scriptures (and hence

36

Cf. M. D. Goulder, ‘A Pauline in a Jacobite Church’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 859-875 (esp. 863-874). Mark’s identification of the main Jewish Christian, Jacobean opponents of Paul, and consequently also of Jesus (on the Markan hypertextual narrative level), as Pharisees has been most probably deduced from Jos. Ant. 20.199-201 (cf. B.J. 1.110). From the historical point of view, the Pharisees’ sympathy for James would be absurd if James’s brother (mentioned precisely in Jos. Ant. 20.200) quarrelled earlier mostly with them.

37

Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 145-146, 150-154; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 148.

38

Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xiv; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 148.

39

Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 180.

40

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 150.

239

they are understandable to the Jews). 41 The motif of opposition from the Pharisees and from the “Herodians” (Mk 3:6) alludes in a particular way to the assumed perplexity of the Jerusalem Jewish Christian authorities (especially of the entourage of James the brother of the Lord, and of Cephas who has been alluded to by the narrative character of the alleged ‘king’) over Paul’s law-breaking activity among the Gentiles (Gal 1:16c-17a; cf. Gal 1:18-19); it alludes probably also to the attempt to kill Paul in Damascus (2 Cor 11:32). Mk 3:7-12 illustrates the outcome of the first stage of Paul’s missionary activity by means of a summarizing description of the areas that were probably evangelized by Paul during his first journey as Christ’s disciple: to Arabia and back to Damascus (Gal 1:17bc). The Markan surprising, from the narrative point of view, phrase ἀνεχώρησεν πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν introduces a list of regions that alludes to the itinerary of Paul’s first journey: from the north (Galilee) to the south (Judaea) and to Arabia (Idumaea, beyond the Jordan) and then back to the Gentile cities in the north (in the region of Tyre and Sidon). Mark stresses that at that time the main narrative character avoided coming to Jerusalem (cf. Gal 1:17a): the inhabitants of Jerusalem came to him, instead. The phrases: πολὺ πλῆθος, ὄχλος, and τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα allude to the Gentile setting of the events that happened at that time (Gal 1:17bc). The Gentile-style confession of Jesus as the Son of God (Mk 3:11) illustrates the Pauline statement Gal 1:16ab (ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). The surprising conclusion Mk 3:12 alludes to Paul’s rhetorical refraining from boasting of his missionary successes (2 Cor 11:30 et al.). Accordingly, the famous Markan ‘messianic secret’ is in fact characteristically Pauline. Mk 3:13-35 alludes in a narrative way to Paul’s first travel to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18-20). The motif of going up to the mountain in order to call there the Twelve (Mk 3:13-19; δώδεκα: cf. 1 Cor 15:5) corresponds to the motifs of Gal 1:18a: movement upward, the Apostles’ being called by Jesus and not simply belonging to the group of Jesus’ relatives, and the dominant role of Cephas/ Peter (who was thereafter referred to by Mark with this Pauline, Aramaic-based name with the exception of Mk 14:37; cf. 1 Cor 15:5) 42 among the apostles (especially over the negatively presented characters of James and John: cf. Gal 2:7-

41

For a detailed analysis of the significance of the arguments that have been put forward in Mk 2:18-3:6, see e.g. B. Adamczewski, ‘Pan młody i przymierze oblubieńczej miłości (Mk 2,18-22)’, Verbum vitae 4 (2003) 141-156; id., ‘Dekalog w nauczaniu Jezusa’, Roczniki Teologiczne Warszawsko-Praskie 2 (2002) 3-24 (esp. 16-19).

42

It is worth noting that Mark’s main narrative character knew Peter first in his Scripturebased, non-Aramaic, Andrew-related identity of Simon (Mk 1:16-3:16) and only later in his more Judaizing identity of Cephas/Peter (Mk 3:16-16:7; cf. Gal 1:18).

240

8). 43 The tasks of the Twelve have been presented by Mark in typically Pauline terms of going away in order to be with Jesus (ἀπέρχομαι: Gal 1:17), being sent to preach (ἀποστέλλω, κηρύσσω: Rom 10:15 etc.), and having authority over demons (ἐξουσία: 1 Cor 8:9; δαιμόνια: 1 Cor 11:20-21—both used originally in the context of halachic discussion over the Gentile food sacrificed to idols). The strange remark Mk 3:20 most probably alludes to Paul’s not having the opportunity to meet the Jerusalem apostles and to have meal together with them (Gal 1:19a). The reference to Jesus’ relatives (Mk 3:21.31-35) is based on Gal 1:19b (ἀδελφός) with a probable allusion to the activity of the Lord’s brothers and of their followers who acted against Paul outside Judaea (cf. Gal 2:12). 44 Jesus’ apology against false charges of his Jerusalem opponents most probably alludes to Gal 1:20. This Pauline text presents the Apostle’s defence against Jewish Christians, which is formulated in a way understandable to the Gentiles and 43

Does the enigmatic text βοανηργές ὅ ἐστιν υἱοὶ βροντῆς allude (in Greek and only apparently in Aramaic) to the Pauline opponents’ loud ‘boasting of their works’ (of the law?), or to their rhetorical capacities (cf. e.g. 2 Cor 11:5-6.13-15.20), or to their intimidating Cephas (cf. Gal 2:12)? It is worth noting that in the Markan list of apostles (Mk 3:16-19), the two characters who bear Greek names directly follow the three ‘pillars’, and consequently they probably allude either to Peter, James, and John as responsible for the mission also among the Gentiles, which was led by Paul and Barnabas, or to Paul and Barnabas themselves (cf. Gal 2:9). The three subsequent, Aramaic-sounding names probably illustrate the Jewish Christian identity of the whole Jerusalem community (for Βαρθολομαῖος, cf. Jos. Ant. 20.5: Θολομαῖος). The remaining four names, if taken as two pairs, allude to the later change of attitude of the Jerusalem Church: from the more favourable to the Gentile mission to the more hostile one (James the son of Ἀλφαῖος → Thaddaeus bearing an Aramaic name, Simon the Cananean → Judas Iscarioth ‘who betrayed him’); cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 153-154. The Hebrewsounding second name Ἰσκαριώθ that has been added to the paradigmatic name of Judas (Mk 3:19; 14:10; cf. Jos. Ant. 10.160, 176-182 with the motif of taking away into Gentile captivity), placed at the end of the list, most probably alludes to the Jewish identity of Paul’s opponents who were presumably at least indirectly responsible for the Apostle’s imprisonment and subsequent death (cf. Phlp 1:15a.17; 1 Clem. 5:5, and the abrupt ending of Acts with the last surprising word ἀκωλύτως that refers probably to the antiPauline Jewish Christian opponents: 1 Thes 2:16; Lk 9:49-50; 11:52; 18:16; Acts 10:47; etc.). Second names added to the scriptural names of James, Simon, and Judas in Mk 3:18-19 additionally distinguish these members of the group of the Twelve from the Lord’s brothers (referred to as having no second names in Mk 6:3), and consequently they demonstrate that the Lord’s brothers never belonged to this authoritative group (cf. 1 Cor 15:5-7). For difficulties with exact identification and historical contextualization of the Aramaic-sounding names and second names in the Markan list, cf. e.g. R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2006), 100-107.

44

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 154-156.

241

corresponding particularly to 1 Thes 4:7-8 (*ἀκαθαρ, rejecting God, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον). Mk 4:1-34 alludes to Paul’s spiritual preparation for spreading the gospel outside Judaea (Gal 1:21-24; παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν: cf. earlier Mk 1:16; 2:13; 3:7). This section consists of five Pauline-style parables that are not based on scriptural motifs, and consequently they are easily understandable also to the Gentiles (cf. esp. 1 Cor 9:11; 4:5; 14:25; 2 Cor 10:12-15; 9:6.10; Rom 7:4; 1 Cor 15:35-38.43). 45 The internal structure of the parable of the sower, as well as the change of the main points of all five parables if taken together, illustrates the power of the word of God as being more and more fruitful by being gradually less conditioned by human negative responses, and consequently as more and more revealing the overwhelming power of the resurrection especially among the Gentiles. The inserted, Scripture-based motifs of (a) repeated hearing (ἀκούω: esp. Mk 4:3.9.23-24a.33), (b) general incomprehension by those “outside”, and (c) giving an explanation to the disciples (Mk 4:10-20.33-34) commonly allude to Paul’s statements concerning (a’, b’) the Jerusalem community as merely hearing the notices about the Apostle’s preaching among the Gentiles (Gal 1:22-24) and (c’) Paul’s special explanation of his missionary activity both to his Gentile believers (as diff. from οἱ ἔξω: cf. 1 Thes 4:9-12) and to the Jewish Christian authorities (κατ᾿ ἰδίαν: cf. Gal 2:2c). 46 Mk 4:35-5:20 alludes to Paul’s missionary activity in the Gentile regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21). 47 The pericope Mk 4:35-41 illustrates, in Greek terms, the main content of Paul’s preaching among the Gentiles, namely faith (πίστις: Mk 4:40; cf. Gal 1:23; cf. also Homer, Odyssey 5.291-393 [ἄνεμος, κῦμα, ἀπόλλυμι, γαλήνη, *μεγάλ] 48 illustrating the travel far away to the 45

Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), vii, xvi.

46

Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xvi; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 160-163.

47

It is very probable that, from the historical point of view, during the period of fourteen years of his mission among the Gentiles, which has been referred to in Gal 1:21-2:1, Paul reached not only Syria and Cilicia (cf. Acts 13:1-14:20 placing here also Galatia) but also Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia (cf. Phlp 4:15; Acts 15:40-21:16). However, Mark seems to follow in his narrative the sequence of themes of Paul’s letters rather than the historical sequence of events. It should be also noted that the particular Lukan narrative justification of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles by means of the account of the haste return of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem after their having converted the first ‘true’ Gentiles—apparently in order to receive an authorization for such a mission from the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ already at its beginning (Acts 14:21-15:39)—was obviously not known to Mark.

48

Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 60.

242

Greeks; 13.70-169 [θάλασσα, πρύμνη, κύματα, ἄνεμος, πρὸς ἀλλήλους] 49 illustrating true divine power over the sea). The motif of the Polyphemic character of the extremely powerful, uncontrollable, ungodly person living alone in a cave, related to stones and to a particular name, and accompanied by a herd of animals (cf. Homer, Odyssey 9.181-542 [λίθοισι, ὄνομα, δέω]; cf. also 10.238-243 [transformation into pigs]), 50 who has been presented by Mark as inhabiting the region of the distanced city of Gerasa, as being an impure Gentile, and as being possessed by a “legion” (Mk 5:1-13), most probably alludes to the presence of Roman troops in the military headquarters of the Romans in Syria, namely at the city of Antioch (cf. e.g. Jos. Ant. 18.120, 126). 51 Mk 5:21-43 is a Markan narrative reworking of Gal 1:22-24 with its motif of rumours concerning Paul’s activity, which were heard in Judaea (i.e., narratively, on ‘this’ side of the sea; ἀκούω: Gal 1:23; Mk 5:27) while Paul was absent from his homeland, being still away by the sea (diff. Mk 6:1-6). Mark depicts these rumours as reaching both the Jerusalem church as a whole and the authorities of the Jerusalem community. Accordingly, the introductory fragment Mk 5:21-24a is based on the Pauline description of his dealing in Jerusalem first with the Jerusalem community (Gal 2:2b) and then with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:2c; cf. 2:9). Dealing first with the Jewish “crowds”, which involved physical contact with a person who was habitually impure in her body but heard about Jesus and was saved (σῴζω) on the double basis of (a) her faith (πίστις) and (b) her public confession of Jesus (Mk 5:24b-34), illustrates the content of the Pauline gospel as preached among the Gentiles (Gal 1:23c; cf. Gal 2:1b.2b), in accordance with its concise formulation in Rom 10:8-10. The subsequent fragment Mk 5:35-43 illustrates the same basic content of the Pauline gospel preached among the Gentiles (Rom 10:8-10: salvation on the basis of faith in Jesus’ being raised from the dead [πιστεύω, ἐγείρω]) as explained separately to the three ‘pillars’ (cf. Gal 2:2c-10) in terms that were understandable to them, namely by means of (a) a well-known scriptural motif of raising Gentiles from the dead, which involved physical contact with them; (b) a retrospective reference to the ‘pillars’’ own experience (cf. Mk 1:31); and (c) the use of Aramaic (Mk 5:41). The repeated motif of ‘twelve years’ (Mk 5:25.42) alludes to the time of Paul’s activity among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:21-24), which elapsed before Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem (cf. Gal 2:1a: ‘fourteen years’). The sur-

49

Cf. ibid. 59 n. 18.

50

Cf. ibid. 63-76, 175.

51

Cf. e.g. M. Klingardt, ‘Legionsschweine in Gerasa: Lokalkolorit und historischer Hintergrund von Mk 5,1-20’, ZNW 98 (2007) 28-48 who traces in Mk 5:1-13 a narrative allusion to the Tenth Legion’s ideology of ‘swimming wild boars’ (ibid. 45).

243

prising concluding remark Mk 5:43b alludes to the relatively unproblematic at that time sharing meals with the Gentiles. Mk 6:1-6 alludes to Paul’s problematic coming from the Gentile world to his homeland, namely to Judaea (Gal 2:1-4), which has been illustrated with the use of the well-known Greek motif of the hero’s return home and of his being despised there (Homer, Odyssey 5.234-256 and Books 13-18 [πατρίδα, τέκτων, χεῖρας]). 52 Understandably, Mark knew nothing about the later Lukan identification of Paul’s homeland with the city of Tarsus (cf. Acts 21:39; 22:3). Mark evidently assumed, most probably on the basis of Rom 15:19, that Paul regarded Judaea as his homeland. The motifs of (a) Jesus’ brothers and (b) negative reception of Jesus’ teaching, which strangely followed an initial positive response, allude to Paul’s statement concerning ‘false brothers’ in Gal 2:4a (cf. Gal 2:9).53 The combination of the motifs of σοφία and δυνάμεις (cf. 1 Cor 1:24; 2:4-5; 12:8-10), as well as the motifs of activity of a building master (*τέκτων: cf. 1 Cor 3:10), 54 Semitic metronymic identification of Jesus (Gal 4:4), and teaching around the homeland (κύκλῳ: Rom 15:9), 55 clearly allude to Paul’s mission (cf. Gal 2:2-4). Mk 6:7-13 illustrates the peculiarities of the early Christian mission, as it was understood by Paul (cf. Gal 2:5). The Markan fragment illustrates the character of this mission as including, among others, the Apostles’ basic right to be sustained by the recipients of the gospel that was preached by them (1 Cor 9:15). 56 Mk 6:14-29 is a Markan narrative comment on the Jerusalem agreement (Gal 2:6-9) in light of the subsequent Antiochene crisis (Gal 2:11-14). The introductory fragment Mk 6:14-16 alludes to Gal 2:7ab, which referred to Peter’s 52

Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 17-19.

53

The Markan names of Jesus’ brothers (Mk 6:3), except for that of James which has been borrowed from the Pauline text Gal 1:19, are the names of the postexilic tribes (cf. e.g. [11Q19] Temple 39:12), with Ἰωσῆς most probably replacing the name of Joseph that was associated with the ideology of the Samaritans who were perceived by the Jews as ‘liars’ who had taken place of their true brother Joseph who was still in exile (cf. 4Q372 1:14; cf. Gal 2:4a), and with the omission of the name of Benjamin because Mk 6:3 alludes to “his”, that is in fact Paul’s, brothers (cf. Rom 11:1). The Jewish-Latin name Μαρία (Mk 6:3; cf. Rom 16:6) functions as a link between the two main semantic levels of the Markan narrative: the reference to Jesus (with his Jewish name) and to Paul (with his Latin name).

54

Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xvii; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 167.

55

Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 345.

56

Cf. ibid. 351.

244

(who is alluded to by the narrative character of the king) appreciation of Paul’s missionary success as based on God’s being at work (ἐνεργέω) in his preaching of the resurrection (cf. Gal 2:7ab.8b-9a). The subsequent fragment illustrates, however, Paul’s disregard and rebuke for Peter as the person ruling among those who were supposed to be leaders, which was motivated by Cephas’ past deeds of questionable value and by God’s impartiality even towards persons of high social status (cf. Gal 2:6a-c). This disregard, which culminated in a public rebuke directed to Cephas for his incoherence that involved, among others, his living in a Gentile and not a Jewish manner (cf. Gal 2:11.14), has been illustrated by Mark in Mk 6:17-18.22-23 by means of allusions to (a) Paul’s disparaging remarks concerning Cephas’ ‘sister-wife’ (1 Cor 9:5) and (b) Paul’s severe censures for incest relationships with one’s stepchild (1 Cor 5:1-13; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.110) and for remarriage (1 Cor 7:10-11). These Pauline motifs have been further reworked by Mark with the use of the conflated literary motifs of (a) the activity and subsequent death of John the Baptist (Jos. Ant. 18.116119), 57 (b) Herod Antipas’ marriage with Herodias (Jos. Ant. 18.109-116), 58 and (c) the scriptural story of Jezebel, the godless, seducing wife of king Ahab (1 Kgs 18:4-21:25). 59 Mark allusively depicted also Peter’s general siding with Paul, which resulted from Paul’s powerful personality and from the results of his mission (εἰδώς: Mk 6:20; cf. Gal 2:7-8.12a), but also Peter’s regrettable, in the evangelist’s view, concession made to the anti-Pauline meal participants (ὅτε: Mk 6:21; cf. Gal 2:11.12b). The narrative character of the king’s unlawful wife Herodias, who first changed her husband and then, at the moment of her performing a dancing show, strangely became the king’s daughter (Mk 6:17.22 ‫א‬, B), 60 most probably alludes to the character of the ‘play-actor’ Barnabas (Gal 2:9.13), who by allying himself with Cephas against Paul in fact lost his position 57

It should be noted that, from the historical point of view, the execution of John the Baptist took place presumably after Jesus’ death (c. AD 35-36) and, moreover, in Machaerus and not in Galilee: cf. W. Eckey, Das Markusevangelium: Orientierung am Weg Jesu: Ein Kommentar (2nd edn., Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008), 228-229.

58

Mark surprisingly called Herod Antipas ‘king’ (Mk 6:14.22-23.25-27) in order to allude more clearly to the person and position of Cephas (cf. Gal 1:18; 2:11.14).

59

For a discussion on real, political reasons of killing John, which were only indirectly related to Antipas’ divorce and remarriage, see e.g. G. Volkmar, Jesus Nazarenus und die christliche Zeit mit den beiden ersten Erzählern (Caesar Schmidt: Zürich 1882), 356-357. For the Jewish halachic marriage regulation that has been referred to by Mark in Mk 6:17-18, see e.g. Jos. Ant. 17.341.

60

For the problems involved in attempts to identify historically the daughter of Antipas, who is known to us only from the Gospel of Mark, see e.g. N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (JSPSup 30; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998), 232-233, 270.

245

of Cephas’ partner (cf. Gal 2:9; cf. also the allusive name of Barabbas in Mk 15:7-15).61 The motif of the solemn oath to give a half of the kingdom (Mk 6:23) alludes to Cephas’ forsaking the Gentile half of the missionary realm of God’s Kingdom (Gal 2:9.12b). The entirely unnecessary, from the narrative point of view, motif of the platter (Mk 6:25.28) reinforces the allusion to the controversy over table fellowship (Gal 2:12). 62 Mk 6:30-44 alludes to Gal 2:10a with its motif of benevolent (not mandatory) care for the Jewish Christian poor, which was perceived as a factor unifying the Jewish and the Gentile Church. Mark illustrated this idea of supporting the Jewish Christian community with the use of the scriptural motif of feeding Israel in the desert. The evangelist used also the Pauline motifs of Jewish– Gentile Christian table fellowship (Gal 2:12a) and Christ’s self-giving love (Gal 2:20). The latter motif has been expanded in Mk 6:34-44 with the use of the Pauline Eucharistic-ecclesiological traditions (λαμβάνω, ἄρτος, εὐλογέω, *κλάω, ἄρτος: 1 Cor 10:16-17; 11:24), in order to present the Eucharist as uniting the Jewish and the Gentile believers in Christ. The evangelist elaborated these motifs with the use of the symbolic numbers five and two (Mk 6:38.41), which most probably allude to the number of five principal originally Jewish Christian apostles (Gal 2:9) and two closest Gentile (so ‘caught in the sea’: cf. Mk 1:16-17) Paul’s co-workers: Timothy and Titus (cf. e.g. Gal 2:1.3; 1 Thes 3:2.6). 63 Mark depicted also the ideal Jerusalem Church with the use of the number twelve that symbolized unity of the predominantly Jewish Christian community with the Gentile Christians in the one people of God, which had been created by Christ’s paschal, self-sacrificing and self-giving love (Mk 6:39-40. 43). The multiplication factor 1,000 (Mk 6:41.44; diff. Mk 4:8.20; 8:6.9) illustrates the possible, although incredible, success of a common mission of the Jewish–Gentile Church (cf. Gal 2:10a). Mk 6:45-52 illustrates Peter and Barnabas’ travel to the Gentile world after the Jerusalem agreement, while Paul (alone!) still cared for the Jerusalem com61

It is possible that the surprising identification of Herodias’ first husband as Philip (Mk 6:17 diff. Jos. Ant. 18.109) is related to the name of Philip at the fifth place in the list of the Twelve (Mk 3:18), which may allude to the character of Barnabas with the presumably predominantly Hellenistic features of the first stage of his missionary activity.

62

Cf. P.-B. Smit, ‘Eine neutestamentliche Geburtstagsfeier und die Charakterisierung des “Königs” Herodes Antipas (Mk 6,21-29)’, BZ, NF 53 (2009) 29-46 (esp. 40, 45-46).

63

The reference to the Roman monetary unit (δηνάριον: Mk 6:37) additionally alludes to the issue of the Gentile collection for the Jerusalem church (cf. Gal 2:10). For a discussion on the absence of Roman denarii in Israel until the Flavian period, see recently D. Furlan Taylor, ‘The Monetary Crisis in Revelation 13:17 and the Provenance of the Book of Revelation’, CBQ 71 (2009) 580-596 (esp. 582-585).

246

munity (cf. Gal 2:10b-11a.13b). Mark presented Peter and Barnabas as heading towards the Gentile city of Corinth, in which they were evidently well known (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5-6). This city has been alluded to by Mark with the use of the motif of Bethsaida: the town that had a harbour and that was located on the other (Gentile) side of the sea. Peter and Barnabas stopped, alas, midway between the Jewish and the Gentile realms, failing to follow Paul who moved quickly and “intended to pass them by” (Mk 6:48). At that time, Peter and Barnabas looked at Paul but did not recognize him, since they perceived him now as a mere ghost (Mk 6:49-50a; cf. Gal 2:11-14; 3:1). The motif of hardening of the disciples’ hearts (πωρόω, καρδία: Mk 6:52), which has been borrowed from 2 Cor 3:14-15, alludes to Peter and Barnabas’ yielding not to the Pauline but to the Jewish Christian understanding of the mystery of the Church. Mark conflated this motif with Paul’s idea of turning back from the freedom and confidence in the Spirit to blindness and fear of the flesh (cf. Gal 2:4-6; 2:11-3:5; 2 Cor 3:4-18). Mk 6:53-56 describes the events that took place in the land of Gennesaret, so on the northern shore of the sea (cf. Jos. B.J. 3.516-521), which refers allusively to the ‘northern’ city of Antioch (cf. Gal 2:11). The narratively surprising presentation of the inhabitants of this region as already knowing Jesus (Mk 6:54) alludes to Paul’s earlier activity in Syrian Antioch (cf. Gal 1:21). 64 Mk 7:1-23 alludes to the Antiochene crisis and to its aftermath, namely the subsequent Galatian crisis (Gal 2:11-5:21). The Markan text alludes to Paul’s halachic discussions with his Jewish Christian opponents called ὑποκριταί (Mk 7:6; cf. Gal 2:13), who came from Jerusalem and issued charges against Paul’s disciples, pointing to their being impure and, nevertheless, participating in such a state in common meals (Mk 7:1-5; cf. Gal 2:12). 65 The counter-arguments that are presented in Mk 7:6-23 and based on Gal 3:6-5:21 are of three kinds: (a) scriptural for the Jews (based on the motifs of an elderly father and mother in Mk 7:6-13 and Gal 3:6-4:31; cf. esp. Mk 7:9.13 and Gal 3:15.17: ἀθετέω, ἀκυρόω; cf. also Gal 1:14: παράδοσις); 66 (b) commonsensical for the Gentiles (Mk 7:14-19 and Gal 5:1-12, cf. also Rom 14:14-20: κοινός, *καθαρ, πάντα, βρῶ-

64

Mark understandably knew nothing about the Antiochene church’s having been founded by ‘Hellenists’ (Acts 11:19-20 etc.) and of its having been led by Barnabas (Acts 11:2224; 13:1). On the basis of Gal 1:21, the evangelist assumed that the Antiochene believers already knew Paul but they did not know Peter and Barnabas.

65

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 177.

66

Cf. ibid. 178. The motif of κορβᾶν translated as δῶρον (Mk 7:11) has been most probably borrowed from Jos. Ant. 4.73.

247

μα; 67 1 Cor 6:13: κοιλία, βρώματα); and (c) general-conventional, based in their first part on the Pauline catalogues of vices (Mk 7:20-23 and Gal 5:19-21: πορνεία, ἀσέλγεια; cf. also Rom 1:29: φόνος, πλεονεξία, πονηρία, δόλος). 68 Mk 7:24-30.31-37 alludes to Gal 5:22-6:15. The Markan text describes Jesus’ solitary travel to a purely Gentile territory, which alludes to Paul’s solitary travel northward from Antioch to Galatia (cf. Gal 4:13-14). 69 The Pauline motif of his not having been “spit out” (ἐκπτύω) by the Galatians, notwithstanding his being somehow despicable and disgustful at that time, has been illustrated by Mark in a double way in Mk 7:27.33. The pericope Mk 7:24-30 illustrates, with the use of a few scriptural motifs, the Pauline motifs of Gal 5:22-23 (cf. also Gal 2:15-21): confrontation of the law (Mk 7:25-27) with the spirit of peace, patience, gentleness, and self-control (Mk 7:28). This confrontation results in withdrawal of the impure demon because of the presence of the Spirit of God in the person of the child’s mother (Mk 7:25.29; cf. 1 Cor 7:14). The subsequent pericope Mk 7:31-37 with its motif of speaking with distress (Mk 7:32), with its strange image of direct physical contact with the sick person (Mk 7:33), and with its surprising quotation of Jesus’ words in Aramaic regarded as a ‘gate’ to speaking freely (Mk 7:34-35) sequentially illustrates the Pauline ideas of (a) improper use of speech, (b) bearing personally another’s burden, and (c) the law of Christ (Gal 5:26-6:2). The conclusion Mk 7:36-37 illustrates the typically Pauline motifs of (a) renunciation of boasting (Gal 6:3-5.13-14) and (b) new creation (Gal 6:15; cf. Gen 1:31 LXX: καλῶς, πάντα, ποιέω). Mk 8:1-10:45 Mk 8:1-9 describes a numerous crowd of Gentiles (diff. Mk 6:39-40) upon whom Jesus imposed a spiritual reality that has been depicted in a narrative way with the use of the motif of the number seven, which symbolizes Jewish holiness and perfection. Such a presentation of the beneficiaries of the miracle alludes to the opening section of the First Letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:1-9), which

67

Cf. H. Räisänen, ‘Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7.15’, in id., Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays, trans. D. E. Orton (JSNTSup 43; JSOT: Sheffield 1992), 127-148 (esp. 145-146); J. Marcus, Mark [vol. 1], 74.

68

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 178.

69

Mark evidently assumed that Paul was active in Galatia mainly after the Antiochene crisis.

248

describes the recipients of the letter as numerous, 70 sanctified, and brought to perfection in Christ Jesus. Mk 8:10-13 describes a short travel to the district of Dalmanutha, which was situated on the Jewish side of the sea. The non-Markan word μέρος in Mk 8:10 (diff. e.g. Mk 5:1.17; 7:24.31; 10:1) alludes to the verb μερίζω in 1 Cor 1:13. 71 The subject of the dispute that has been referred to in Mk 8:11-12 clearly alludes to 1 Cor 1:22 (σημεῖον, ζητέω; cf. also *συζητ: 1 Cor 1:20). The evangelist presented therefore in Mk 8:11-12 the Corinthian Jewish Christians opponents of Paul (cf. 1 Cor 1:22a) as Pharisees (with a whole ‘generation’ following them) who seek extraordinary signs.72 Mk 8:14-21 is narratively connected with the preceding pericope (Mk 8:14a) and describes an event that took place midway between the Jewish and the Gentile side of the sea, and consequently alluding to the Corinthian disciples as affected by both Jewish and Gentile limitations of understanding of the Pauline gospel. The pericope depicts the disciples as failing to perceive the threat from the anti-Pauline opponents (ζύμη: cf. Gal 5:9; most probably referring to the Corinthian supporters of James and of Cephas who is alluded to by the character of ‘King’ Herod: cf. 1 Cor 1:12-13; 9:5 and Mk 3:6; 12:13) who seek extraordinary signs and do not understand the importance of the sign of the Eucharist that should unite in the sign of one bread the Jewish and the Gentile believers (Mk 8:14b.18-20). The motif of not understanding (συνίημι: Mk 8:17. 21), which is related to the motif of blindness as caused by God and predicted by Isaiah (without mentioning the prophet’s name: Mk 8:18), alludes to 1 Cor 1:19 (σύνεσις/συνετός). It introduces also the motif of false wisdom that is developed in the following pericope (πωρόω, καρδία: cf. 2 Cor 3:14-15; cf. also *διαλογι: 1 Cor 3:20-22). Mk 8:22-26 describes the arrival at the Hellenistic harbour town of Bethsaida, which was situated on the Gentile side of the sea and consequently alluded, by means of spatial translation, most probably to Corinth with its port Cenchreae (cf. Rom 16:1-2). The character of the blind Gentile (cf. Mk 7:31-37) alludes to the Corinthian ‘party’ of Apollos (cf. 1 Cor 1:12-13; diff. Acts 18:2425) who bore a typically Greek name. The surprising motif of spitting on the 70

The number 4,000 in Mk 8:9 may allude to the number of the Gentile regions that have been evangelized by Paul by the time of writing of 1 Cor: Galatia (1 Cor 16:1), Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5), Achaia (1 Cor 16:15), and Asia (1 Cor 16:19).

71

Accordingly, also the strange, otherwise unknown, indecipherable name Dalmanoutha (Mk 8:10) may illustrate the Pauline idea of futility of merely human seeking of wisdom and understanding (1 Cor 1:19-20).

72

Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xix; M. D. Goulder, ‘A Pauline in a Jacobite’, 868-869.

249

eyes (Mk 8:23) most probably illustrates the Pauline idea of God’s making the worldly wisdom foolish and tasteless (1 Cor 1:20d). Another strange motif, namely that of partial blindness that causes perception of persons as full-grown, isolated, self-moving trees (Mk 8:24), illustrates the Pauline idea of misunderstanding of Paul and Apollos by the believers who focused their attention on them and not on God (1 Cor 1:20a-c.22b; 3:6-8; 4:5-6). The concluding remark Mk 8:26 most probably alludes to the ‘healed’ Apollos’ not coming back to Corinth (1 Cor 16:12). Mk 8:27-33 is a bipartite section (Mk 8:27-30.31-33) that illustrates first (i.e. in Mk 8:27-30) the essentially Jewish Christian confession of Jesus as the Messiah (Χριστός: Mk 8:29; cf. 1 Cor 1:24). This confession is presented by Mark somewhat strangely as associating Jesus with previous preachers of the word of God (Mk 8:28; cf. 1 Cor 1:21; diff. Mk 12:35; 14:61; 15:32) but on the other hand as surpassing all other Jewish ideas about Jesus (Mk 8:28; cf. 1 Cor 1:22a.25b). As such, it probably alludes to the content of the essentially Petrine, Jewish Christian preaching in the distanced city of Rome (region of *Καισαρ: Mk 8:27). 73 The motif of secrecy (Mk 8:30) alludes to the idea of understanding of Jesus as Christ only by the called ones: both Jews and Greeks (1 Cor 1:24a). The subsequent motif of lack of understanding of the significance of Christ’s suffering and rejection that led to his death and resurrection (Mk 8:31-33) illustrates the Pauline idea of general human lack of understanding of Paul’s preaching of the crucified Christ as the sign of God’s power and wisdom (1 Cor 1:23-25: τοῦ θεοῦ, τῶν ἀνθρώπων). Mark attributed this misunderstanding also to Peter at that stage of his missionary activity. 74 Mk 8:34-9:1 illustrates the identity of Jesus’ disciples by means of the bipartite direct discourse Mk 8:34-38; 9:1, which alludes to the bipartite Pauline text 1 Cor 1:26-31; 2:1-5. The first part of the Markan textual unit (Mk 8:34-38) is an instruction directed to the disciples and based on 1 Cor 1:26-31 with its themes of (a) the particular Christian calling (Mk 8:34ab; cf. 1 Cor 1:26a) and (b) living in Christ who embodies paradoxical but God-given wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption (Mk 8:34c-38; cf. 1 Cor 1:26b-31). The second part of the textual unit (Mk 9:1) alludes to the motifs of mystery and power of God (θεός, δύναμις), which have been borrowed by Mark from the Pauline text 1 Cor 2:1.4-5. Mk 9:2-10 alludes to the Pauline text 1 Cor 2:6-9 by illustrating, with the use of a set of well-known scriptural motifs, the Pauline ideas of (a) wisdom of 73

It is worth noting that whereas Mk 6:45-8:26 alluded to the travel through Aramaic- and Greek-speaking regions (cf. esp. Mk 7:31), the event described in Mk 8:27-30 is located in the region that displays cultural links with Rome.

74

Cf. A. Loisy, L’Évangile selon Marc (Émile Noury: Paris 1912), 245-246.

250

the perfect ones as differing from the worldly wisdom of the present rulers (Mk 9:2.5-6; cf. 1 Cor 2:6.8a); (b) mystery and hidden truth (Mk 9:2.7-10; cf. 1 Cor 2:7a.9); (c) wisdom determined before the ages in the Scriptures (Mk 9:4; cf. 1 Cor 2:7b.9a based presumably on the text of Isaiah, 75 hence the first place of Elijah the prophet in Mk 9:4); (d) the future glory of the believers (Mk 9:10; cf. 1 Cor 2:7b.9); and (e) the Lord of glory (Mk 9:3a; cf. 1 Cor 2:8c) that was never seen before by the eyes of the humans (Mk 9:3b; cf. 1 Cor 2:9b). The contrast between the understanding of Jesus as ‘rabbi’ 76 and as the Son of God (Mk 9:5. 7) alludes to the difference between the understanding of Christ by the Jewish Christian ‘pillars’ (καλόν ἐστιν: cf. Mk 7:27), which was tantamount to equating Christ with Moses and Elijah,77 and that of Paul (ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός: cf. Mk 1:11 alluding to Gal 1:15-16), which was tantamount to obeying Christ more than Moses and Elijah. Mk 9:11-13 alludes to 1 Cor 2:10-16 with its two main motifs, namely those of (a) the Spirit and (b) having the ‘foolish’ wisdom of Christ. The first motif has been reworked by Mark by means of the reference to Elijah understood as the man of the Spirit par excellence (Mk 9:11-12a; cf. 2 Kgs 2:9-16; cf. also ἀποκαθιστάνω used in the contexts of transcending the limits of law: Mk 3:5; 8:25). The second motif has been reworked with the use of the distinctively Pauline motifs of Christ-like suffering and of being treated as nothing (Mk 9:12b-13; cf. 2 Cor 1:6; 12:11). It is worth noting that the reference to Elijah in Mk 9:12c has been formulated in the present tense (ἀποκαθιστάνει). In fact, the characters of both Elijah and the Son of Man commonly allude in Mk 8:12-13 to the person of Paul the Apostle: the man of the Spirit who transcended the law, suffered, and was treated with contempt by his Jewish Christian opponents. The enigmatic complex motif of suffering many things and being treated with con75

For a discussion on the use of Is 64:4; 65:17 in 1 Cor 2:9, see H. H. Drake Williams III, ‘Light Giving Sources: Examining the Extent of Scriptural Citation and Allusion Influence in 1 Corinthians’, in Paul: Jew, Greek, Roman, ed. S. E. Porter (Pauline Studies 5; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 7-37 (esp. 12-14).

76

It should be noted that the use of the word ‘rabbi’ (sing.) with the meaning ‘teacher [of the law]’ is first recorded in the latest writings of the New Testament (Mt 23:8; Jn 1:38 et al.), which evidently tried to explain (in a quite surprising way) the Markan Semitism (Mk 9:5; 10:51; 11:21; 14:45). This fact suggests that the use of this term was not yet established by the time of the composition of Mark’s Gospel; cf. also D. InstoneBrewer, Prayer and Agriculture (TRENT 1; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2004), 3. Accordingly, the otherwise unexplained use of the word ‘rabbi’ as a technical term with the meaning ‘teacher of the law’ may have been borrowed in the rabbinic literature from Christian writings.

77

Cf. J. Marcus, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2, Mark 8-16 (Anchor Yale Bible 27A; Yale: New Haven · London 2009), 639.

251

tempt according to what ‘has been written’ (καθὼς γέγραπται: Mk 9:12d-13) may allude to the Pauline sevenfold catalogue of apostolic hardships, which was accompanied by the motif of being treated as sheep to be slaughtered (Rom 8:35b-36). Mk 9:14-29 clearly alludes to the Pauline text 1 Cor 3:1-17 by means of a sequential reworking of its series of motifs of not being able (οὐκ *ἠδυνήθη: Mk 9:28; cf. 1 Cor 3:1; δύναμαι used four times in Mk 9:14-29 and 1 Cor 3:117) to speak (Mk 9:17; cf. 1 Cor 3:1); spirit (*πνευμα: Mk 9:17; cf. 1 Cor 3:1); childhood (Mk 9:17.21; cf. 1 Cor 3:1); milk, giving to drink, chewable food, envy and strife (Mk 9:18c-e; cf. 1 Cor 3:2-3);78 faith (*πιστ: Mk 9:19.23-24; cf. 1 Cor 3:5); laying solid foundation (Mk 9:20; cf. 1 Cor 3:10-11); fire (πῦρ: Mk 9:22a; cf. 1 Cor 3:13.15); destruction (Mk 9:22b; cf. 1 Cor 3:15.17); mercy (Mk 9:22e; cf. 1 Cor 3:15); Spirit and not spirits dwelling in the believer (πνεῦμα: Mk 9:25; cf. 1 Cor 3:16); and God’s temple (Mk 9:29; cf. 1 Cor 3:17; cf. also Mk 11:17). Mk 9:30-32 further develops the passion and resurrection motif, which was introduced into the gospel narrative in Mk 8:31 but which has been particularly shaped in Mk 9:30-32 with the addition of the Pauline motifs that have been borrowed from 1 Cor 3:18-23: deliberate not knowing (Mk 9:30; cf. 1 Cor 3:18), blameworthy not understanding (Mk 9:32; cf. 1 Cor 3:19-20), powerful people (ἄνθρωποι: Mk 9:31; cf. 1 Cor 3:21), and life–death–afterlife (Mk 9:31; cf. 1 Cor 3:22). Mk 9:33-41 is a sequential reworking of the most important motifs of the Pauline text 1 Cor 4:1-21: considering (*λογίζομαι: Mk 9:33d; cf. 1 Cor 4:1), house (*οἰκο: Mk 9:33b; cf. 1 Cor 4:1-2), judging before time (Mk 9:33d-34; cf. 1 Cor 4:5), being puffed up against one another (Mk 9:34; cf. 1 Cor 4:6-8), the Apostles’ being last and despised by everyone (ἔσχατος, πάντων: Mk 9:35; cf. 1 Cor 4:9-13), beloved children (*παιδ: Mk 9:36; cf. 1 Cor 4:14-15), imitating (Mk 9:37; cf. 1 Cor 4:16), a child who has been sent (Mk 9:37; cf. 1 Cor 4:17), a servant who was faithful to the distant Lord in a hostile environment (Mk 9:38; cf. 1 Cor 4:17-18), hostile words and God-given power (*λογ, δύναμις: Mk 9:39; cf. 1 Cor 4:19-20), a threat (Mk 9:40a; cf. 1 Cor 4:21b), and coming in Christ-like gentleness (Mk 9:41; cf. 1 Cor 4:21c). The initial reference to the town of Capernaum (Mk 9:33), which alluded in Mk 1:21-2:12 to Jerusalem and Damascus, most probably reflects Mark’s understanding of 1 Cor 4:1.9 as ex-

78

252

It is hard to avoid the impression that in his particular narrative reworking of 1 Cor 3:23 (giving to drink milk and not chewable food because of envy and strife in the community) in Mk 9:18c-e (the sick person as foaming from the mouth and grinding the teeth) Mark showed a vivid imagination and a great sense of humour.

pressing Paul’s rhetorical placing himself in one group with the Jerusalem authoritative administrators and apostles. Mk 9:42-50 illustrates the problem of scandals in the Church, which was addressed by Paul in 1 Cor 5:1-6:11; 8:1-13 (σκανδαλίζω: 1 Cor 8:13). The combination of particular motifs of (a) being small (μικρός) and good (καλός), and (b) a flourmill (Mk 9:42) probably alludes to 1 Cor 5:6. The strange Markan idea of cutting off one of the important members of the body, like the hand, the foot, or the eye (Mk 9:43-47), resulted from a conflation of two Pauline motifs, namely those of (a) removing a scandalizing member of the Church (1 Cor 5:113) and (b) allegory of the Church as a body that has different but important members (χείρ, πούς, ὀφθαλμός: 1 Cor 12:15.21). Mark argued, in difference to 1 Cor 12:21 but in agreement with 1 Cor 5:1-13, that there may be some members of the body that are not necessary for the life of the whole. The Markan motif of going to Gehenna with the result of being destroyed there is most probably based on 1 Cor 5:5a. The accompanying motif of fire (πῦρ) has been borrowed by Mark from 1 Cor 3:13.15 and expanded with the use of Is 66:24 LXX. The original meaning of the metaphor of fire, as it has been borrowed by Mark from Paul (i.e. before its Markan, ‘Isaian’ expansion), may be discovered in Mk 9:49. The fire is understood there not as eternally destroying the human being (as it is suggested in Is 66:24 LXX) but as testing and destroying only one’s material body, and consequently as permitting the innermost part of the human being to be saved ‘through fire’ (cf. 1 Cor 3:13.15; 5:5).79 The concluding summons to keep peace within the community (Mk 9:50e) thematically corresponds to 1 Cor 6:7-8, but it has been formulated with the use of 1 Thes 5:13. For this reason, it may be assumed that the metaphor of salt, which was combined only initially with that of fire (Mk 9:49-50d), intentionally refers to the Spirit that, if it is not quenched, gives the ability to discern, and it preserves the whole human being from destruction (cf. 1 Thes 5:19-23: σβέννυμι, καλόν, εἰρήνη; cf. also 2 Cor 13:9-11). Mk 10:1-16 is a bipartite section that consists of two thematically and narratively correlated pericopes (Mk 10:1-12.13-16). They both allude to the Pauline text that concerns family relationships: 1 Cor 6:12-7:40. The Markan section begins with the geographical remark that presents Jesus as coming to a mixed, Jewish–Gentile region (Mk 10:1). This remark most probably alludes to the mixed, both law-based and wisdom-based argumentation that is employed in 1 Cor 6:12-7:40. The teaching concerning divorce has been presented in Mk 10:2-12 in the form of three interconnected, sequential arguments, which are based on the Pauline sequence of ideas concerning marriage and divorce (1 Cor 6:12-7:40). The first, strictly scriptural argument (Mk 10:5-8) has been bor79

Cf. A. Loisy, Marc, 286; A. Y. Collins, Mark, 454.

253

rowed from 1 Cor 6:16 (ἔσονται… οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν: Mk 10:8a, rephrased in agreement with Gen 2:24b LXX) and expanded with the use of some other texts (Rom 2:5; 1:20; Gen 1:27; 2:24a LXX; 1 Cor 7:10.15) and with the addition of the introductory motif of the Pharisees (Mk 10:2-4) probably as an antithesis of 1 Cor 6:17.19. The second argument (Mk 10:9) has been presented by the evangelist as an inference from the first one, but it is in fact based on the Pauline ‘command of the Lord’ (μὴ χωρισθῆναι: 1 Cor 7:10).80 The third argument (Mk 10:11-12) is a summarizing restatement of the second one, now based on the Pauline idea of marital bond (1 Cor 7:10-11) and on the Pauline summarizing statements concerning remarriage as permitted to the wife only after the death of the husband: 1 Cor 7:39 (being bound, γυνή, ἀνήρ, γαμέω) and Rom 7:3 (being bound, *μοιχα). 81 The following pericope, which describes Jesus as (a) touching children who were brought to him with faith, (b) pointing to them as easily entering the kingdom of God, (c) embracing them as their father, and (d) blessing them (Mk 10:13-16), illustrates Paul’s understanding of children of the believers as being not impure but holy because of their receiving in their families God’s fatherly, sanctifying grace that has been expressed in Jesus (1 Cor 7:14cd). Mk 10:17-31 sequentially illustrates the ideas that have been expressed in the Pauline text 1 Cor 8:1-9:27. In response to the Jewish Christian question Mk 10:17, which has been formulated with the additional use of Rom 2:7 (ἀγαθός, ζωὴν αἰώνιον; cf. also Phlp 2:10), the statement Mk 10:18 illustrates the Pauline fundamental confession of the existence of only one true God who is venerated as the good Father (εἷς θεός: 1 Cor 8:6). Mk 10:19-20 alludes to Paul’s arguments employed in 1 Cor 9:8-14 (which were drawn from the law and applied to the Jewish Christian apostles) with the use of the particular ‘not ordered’ list of 80

Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 476-481; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 197.

81

It should be noted that the Pauline ‘command of the Lord’ (1 Cor 7:10-11) should be understood against the background of the earlier scriptural text Deut 24:1 and not against that of the later text Mk 10:11-12. In agreement with the Jewish law, Paul permitted divorce and remarriage to the husband but not to the wife (1 Cor 7:10-11; cf. also 1 Cor 7:27-28.39; Rom 7:2-3; Jos. Ant. 15.259). The command not to leave the wife (1 Cor 7:11d; ἀφίημι: cf. 2 Sam 15:16; 20:3 LXX; cf. also Ezek 16:39; Song 3:4 LXX; the meaning ‘divorce’ only in Herodotus, Hist. 5.39 [and even there rather ‘dismiss’]) probably refers to the practice of the Jerusalem apostles (interpreted as an authoritative ‘command of the Lord’) who did not leave their wives while travelling (1 Cor 9:5; cf. a similar line of argumentation concerning God-imposed obligation to support the apostles, regarded as an authoritative ‘command of the Lord’, in 1 Cor 9:4-6.8-10.13-14). Also according to Paul, leaving the wife for a longer period of time could expose the couple to the temptation of sexual immorality, which should be avoided at all costs by the people who belong to the Lord (1 Cor 6:13-18; 7:2-5).

254

commandments, which has been borrowed from Rom 13:9 82 and slightly restyled by Mark by (a) adding μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς in its proper place, (b) replacing the equivocal οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις with the thematically related μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς that has been borrowed from 1 Cor 6:7-10 (cf. also κληρονομέω), 83 and (c) adding the lacking in Rom 13:9 τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα at the end of the list. In response to the Jewish Christian statement Mk 10:20, the image of Jesus as loving the asking person (ἀγαπάω: Mk 10:21b) illustrates the Pauline idea that has been borrowed likewise from Rom 13:9, namely that all the commandments (and particularly those of the ‘second tablet’) are summed up in that of love of the neighbour. The subsequent motif of selling everything in order to be free to follow Jesus (Mk 10:21) is based on the characteristically Pauline idea expressed in 1 Cor 9:15-18. The combination of motifs of being rich and of saving a part of the people (Mk 10:22-27) alludes to 1 Cor 9:19-22 (σῴζω). The motifs of (a) double reward for apostolic renunciations (an earthly reward among hardships and a future one in glory) and (b) being first among others in a competition (Mk 10:28-31) originate from 1 Cor 9:23-27 (*λαμβάνω; cf. also 2 Cor 12:10: διωγμός, δυνατός; 1 Cor 15:8: ἔσχατος referring to Paul). Mk 10:32-34 is the first of the three pericopes Mk 10:32-34.35-40.41-45, which are connected on the narrative level by means of the travel notice Mk 10:32a-d. This notice presents Jesus somewhat surprisingly as being on the way, preceding the fearful crowd that followed him, and explaining them the things that would happen in the future. It alludes therefore to the Pauline midrash on Israel in the desert 1 Cor 10:1-13 (ascending to Jerusalem as though from Egypt, 84 astonishing events, ἀκολουθέω, frightening events, συμβαίνω), which serves as a source of motifs that have been used by Mark in all three pericopes Mk 10:32-34.35-40.41-45. In the first pericope (Mk 10:32e-34), the particular motifs of (a) taking the Twelve aside for a special instruction, (b) handing over of Jesus, and (c) humiliation, death, and new life of Jesus’ body allude to 1 Cor 11:23-24 (παραλαμβάνω, twice παραδίδωμι). 82

On the basis of the Lukan, exceptional for him, non-Septuagintal form of the commandments (μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, μὴ φονεύσῃς: Lk 18:20 diff. the corrected, ‘Masoretic’ order and traditional form in Mt 19:18), it may be deduced that Luke preserved in Lk 18:20 the original lection of Mk 10:19 (μη μοιχευσης, μη φονευσης: Mk 10:19 A et al.), with the Mk-Lk order of these two commandments corresponding to Rom 13:9 and to the Septuagint (Exod 20:13-15 LXX B; Deut 5:17-18 LXX B).

83

Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 489-490.

84

It should be noted that the idea of ascending to Jerusalem before arriving at Jericho from Transjordan or from the Jordan valley (Mk 10:1.32.45) is counterfactual on the purely literal level of the Markan narrative.

255

Mk 10:35-40 alludes to the Pauline motifs that are contained in the Pauline text 1 Cor 10:1-12:13. Whereas the negative motif of the Jewish Christian apostles’ sitting and drinking of the cup (Mk 10:37-38) is based on the midrash on Israel 1 Cor 10:7 (καθίζω, πίνω aor.), its positive, Eucharistic version (Mk 10:39-40) is based on 1 Cor 11:25-27 (πίνω τὸ ποτήριον in the present time, future eschatological accomplishment with differing results). The motif of two different ways of understanding of the significance of baptism, namely the Jewish Christian and the Pauline one (Mk 10:38-39: βαπτίζομαι), has been borrowed by Mark from the midrash on Israel 1 Cor 10:2 and from the typically Pauline imagery used in 1 Cor 12:13 (cf. esp. the combination of motifs of baptism and drinking; cf. also Rom 6:3). Mk 10:41-45 sequentially illustrates the elements of the Pauline allegory 1 Cor 12:14-27 with its set of particular motifs: numerous and not only few members of the Church (Mk 10:41; cf. 1 Cor 12:14-20), contempt for the weak ones on the part of those in authority (Mk 10:42; cf. 1 Cor 12:21), merely external appearance of having a certain value (δοκέω: Mk 10:42; cf. 1 Cor 12:22-23), adopting in the Church the attitude of attributing high value to the weak (Mk 10:43-44; cf. 1 Cor 12:22-24), caring for all (Mk 10:45ab; cf. 1 Cor 12:25), suffering (Mk 10:45c; cf. 1 Cor 12:26a), and redemption in Christ (*λυτρ: Mk 10:45c; cf. 1 Cor 12:26b and Rom 3:24-25) 85 for the believing members of the Church (πολλά: Mk 10:45c; cf. 1 Cor 12:27 with 1 Cor 12:14.20). Mk 10:46-12:44 Mk 10:46-52 begins with a travel notice that describes Jesus as arriving at the city of Jericho, and consequently as coming from Transjordan back to the territory of Judaea (Mk 10:46a). This geographical remark alerts the reader to the fact that Mark began at this point of the narrative his systematic hypertextual reworking of Rom, not from its beginning, however, but from the section Rom 9:1-11:15, which deals with the issue of hope for the salvation of Israel. 86 Mark reworked in Mk 10:46-52 several Pauline motifs that he had borrowed from Rom 9:1-11:15: Jesus Christ’s progenitors (“Nazarene” as the branch out of the root of Jesse, “son of David”: Mk 10:47-48; cf. Rom 9:5; cf. also Rom 1:3); some Israelites not being true Israel (Bartimaeus son of Timaeus: Mk 10:46c; cf. 85

Cf. J. Marcus, ‘Mark – Interpreter of Paul’, NTS 46 (2000) 473-487 (esp. 475).

86

As it will be demonstrated below, the section Mk 10:46-12:44 alludes in fact to the Pauline text Gal 2:1 (referring to Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem and to bringing the offering of the poor Gentiles to the Jerusalem ‘treasury’), which has been combined by the evangelist with Rom 9:1-15:33 (referring, among others, to the Pauline ideas concerning the fate of Israel).

256

Rom 9:6); 87 having mercy (repeated ἐλεέω: Mk 10:47-48; cf. Rom 9:15-18); God’s mercy and not human running being decisive (Mk 10:49-50; cf. Rom 9:16); raising/rising for the miracle (*ἔγειρω: Mk 10:49; cf. Rom 9:17); salvation also for the Jews through faith and public confession of Jesus (πίστις, σῴζω: Mk 10:51-52; cf. Rom 10:8-9); salvation for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus (Mk 10:47-48; cf. Rom 10:9.13); the Jews hearing the widespread rumour about Jesus (ἀκούω: Mk 10:47; cf. Rom 10:16-18); acquired loss of sight (*βλέπειν: Mk 10:51; cf. Rom 11:8.10); the back bent down (Mk 10:50; cf. Rom 11:10); and salvation, resurrection, and acceptance for some of the Jews (Mk 10:49-52; cf. Rom 11:14-15). Mk 11:1-25 alludes to the most important Pauline motifs that are contained in the subsequent section Rom 11:16-27: a Jewish meal (Beth-phage: Mk 11:1; cf. Rom 11:16ab); leafy branches symbolizing faith (Mk 11:8; cf. Rom 11:16c19); unfruitful tree withered totally from (or rather ‘without’ in Mk 11:20?) its roots (ῥίζα: Mk 11:13-14.20-21; cf. Rom 11:16c-18); olive tree (ἐλαία: Mk 11:1; cf. Rom 11:17.24); lack of faith as the cause of withering (*πίστ: Mk 11:22; cf. Rom 11:20); severity in not sparing the unfruitful (Mk 11:21; cf. Rom 11:21-22b), remaining in God’s kindness (Mk 11:25; cf. Rom 11:22cd); metaphor of a contrary to nature, miraculous transfer performed on the basis of faith (*πίστ: Mk 11:23-24; cf. Rom 11:23-24; cf. also Ps 46[45]:3 LXX); entering of all the nations into the holy centre of Israel (Mk 11:17; cf. Rom 11:25-26a); the Deliverer coming out of Zion (Mk 11:9-11.19; cf. Rom 11:26c); and the Deliverer removing ungodliness from Israel (*στρέφω: Mk 11:15-16; cf. Rom 11:26d; cf. also Jos. C.Ap. 2.91, 106). Mk 11:27-33 is the first of the three pericopes Mk 11:27-33; 12:1-12.13-17, which are connected on the narrative level by means of the same main agents (Mk 11:27; 12:1.12-13) and which commonly allude to the Pauline text Rom 13:1-7. The first pericope (Mk 11:27-33) illustrates Paul’s teaching on authority (ἐξουσία: Mk 11:28-29.33), as it is presented in Rom 13:1-3 (cf. also the discussion on Paul’s ἐξουσία over the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor 9:4-18). The Markan Jesus’ answer to the question of the chief priests is also typically Pauline: the existing authorities are appointed by God (Mk 11:30-32; cf. Rom 13:1). Mark commented the Pauline idea evidently with a sense of humour. Whereas normally the subjects fear the authority (φοβέομαι: Rom 13:3), in the Markan narrative the authorities opposing Jesus feared their subjects (Mk 11:32; 12:12). 87

It is very probable that the enigmatic Jewish–Gentile character of Bar-Timaeus alludes, by means of a characteristically Markan internymic deviation, to the person of Barnabas who was referred to in Gal 2:1 as coming to Jerusalem from elsewhere (cf. also his Gentile–Jewish hesitation in Gal 2:13). The detailed literary allusions to Rom 9:1-11:15 are therefore nested in Mk 10:46-52 within the more general thematic allusion to Gal 2:1 with its main theme of Paul’s travel to Israel.

257

Mk 12:1-12 is based on the Pauline idea contained in Rom 13:4, namely, that God punishes those who practice evil. This idea has been reworked in detail by Mark with the use of well-known scriptural motifs (Is 5:1-2.4; Ps 118 [117]:22-23 LXX) and of the Pauline motifs that referred to the Pauline Christians and were contained in Gal 4:1-7 (δοῦλος, υἱός, *ἀποστέλλω, being the last/final one, κληρονόμος; cf. also Gal 4:29-30). The modification of Is 5:1-2 LXX in Mk 12:1-2 (ἀμπελῶνα… ἐφύτευσεν, καρπός) illustrates the role of Paul as the founder and supervisor of the Corinthian community (1 Cor 3:6-8; 9:7). The whole parable most probably alludes therefore, on a secondary semantic level (which enhances its main, Christological meaning), to Paul’s dealing with his Corinthian opponents: (a) with the help of Titus and of another brother together with him (twice *ἀποστέλλω: cf. 2 Cor 12:17-18 in the context of the collection understood as καρπός like in Rom 15:28; ἀτιμάζω: cf. Rom 13:7); (b) with the help of other brothers (*ἀπόστ: 2 Cor 8:23); (c) with the help of Timothy, Paul’s ‘beloved child’ and legitimate successor (ἀγαπητός: Mk 12:6-8; cf. 1 Cor 4:17; ἐντρέπω: cf. 1 Cor 4:14; cf. also 1 Cor 16:10-11 in the context of the collection); and finally (d) through the coming of Paul himself (ἐλεύσομαι: Mk 12:9; cf. 1 Cor 4:19-21). Mk 12:13-17 sequentially alludes to the Pauline text Rom 13:5-7 with its set of motifs: being subject to the civil (i.e. Roman) authority because of both compulsion and conscience (Mk 12:14; cf. Rom 13:5), 88 paying taxes collected from everyone (φόρος/φέρω: Mk 12:14-16; cf. Rom 13:6-7), 89 paying what is due (ἀποδίδωμι: Mk 12:17; cf. Rom 13:7), 90 and fulfilling both financial and personal obligations (Mk 12:17; cf. Rom 13:7). The Markan narrative introduction Mk 12:13-15 alludes to the Pauline text Gal 2:4-6.11.13-14 (ἀλήθεια, making no difference for anyone, πρόσωπον, ὑπόκρισις), which has been reworked with the use of the characteristically Markan allusion to the entourage of James and to the ‘pillars’ led by Cephas, namely with the use of the narrative characters of the Pharisees and of the Herodians (Mk 12:13; cf. the earlier allusion to the supporters of the ‘pillars’ in the Corinthian Church in Mk 8:15). The reason for the presence of this allusion to Gal 2:4-6.11.13-14 in Mk 12:13-15 may be deduced from Gal 2:10. 91 88

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 208.

89

The reference to the Roman monetary unit (δηνάριον: Mk 12:15), which was normally not used in Israel in Jesus’ times, strengthens the hypertextual link to the Letter to the Romans.

90

Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 522; M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xxiii.

91

Evidently, the imposition of the obligatory financial contribution for the Jerusalem community upon the Gentile Churches, which has been referred to in Gal 2:10, was per-

258

Mk 12:18-34 consists of two pericopes Mk 12:18-27.28-34, which are connected on the narrative level in Mk 12:18 and which commonly allude to the Pauline text Rom 13:8-12. The first pericope (Mk 12:18-27) illustrates the Pauline ideas that are contained in Rom 13:8 (ὀφείλω; cf. Tob 6:13 LXX) and Rom 13:11-12 (eschatological ἐγείρω, putting on the armour of light). They have been explained in Mk 12:18-27 with the use of the Pauline text 1 Cor 15:3-4.1213.15.43.47-50 (τὰς γραφάς, λέγουσιν… τινες ὅτι ἀνάστασις… οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐγείρονται, δύναμις, spiritual bodies, οὐρανός, flesh and blood not entering the heaven) and of well-known scriptural motifs. The second pericope (Mk 12:2834) similarly illustrates the Pauline text Rom 13:9-10 (first ἐντολή above any other, ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν, repeated *ἀγαπ as the fulfilment of the whole law) with the use of a well-known scriptural motif. 92 Mk 12:35-44 consists of three pericopes Mk 12:35-37.38-40.41-44, which are connected on the narrative level by their common motif of the Temple (Mk 12:35.38.41) and which commonly allude to the Pauline text Rom 13:13-15:33. The first pericope (Mk 12:35-44) illustrates, with the use of a Scripture-based motif, the characteristically Pauline confession of Jesus as the Lord (κύριος: Rom 13:14) 93 and not merely (according to the Jewish Christian understanding) the son of David (Rom 1:3; cf. Rom 15:11-12). 94 The second pericope (Mk 12:38-40) alludes to Rom 14:1-3.10-12 with its set of particular motifs: weak members of the community, having common meals (*ἐσθίω), eating merely vegetables, despising others, and eschatological judgement (*κριν). 95 The third pericope Mk 12:41-44 illustrates the last section of the body of the Letter to the Romans (Rom 15:13-33) with its particular motifs: abounding (περισσεύω: Rom 15:13), faith and hope (Rom 15:13), priestly realm (*ἱερο: Mk 12:35; cf. Rom 15:16), bringing to Jerusalem a Gentile financial offering on the way to Rome (quadrans: Mk 12:42; cf. Rom 15:16.25.28), two (Greek regions actually par-

ceived by both Mark and Luke as hardly acceptable. Hence their allusions to hypocrisy, imposition of a poll tax, and even greed on the part of the Jerusalem community (cf. e.g. Mk 12:15-17; Lk 12:15-21). Cf. also the later, irenic reworking of this motif in Acts 21:24. 92

Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xxiii; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 208.

93

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 208.

94

For this important Christological distinction in the Pauline and post-Pauline writings, see e.g. S. Ruzer, Mapping the New Testament: Early Christian Writings as a Witness for Jewish Biblical Exegesis (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 13; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2007), 114-129 (esp. 115).

95

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 208-209.

259

ticipating in the collection: Rom 15:26), 96 being poor (πτωχός: Rom 15:26; cf. 2 Cor 6:10; 8:2), 97 the offering being sealed up (treasury: Mk 12:41.43; cf. Rom 15:28), and life greatly endangered in Judaea and consequently entrusted to God (Rom 15:30-31). The motif of a not remarried widow also alludes in Mk 12:4144 (cf. also Mk 12:40) to the person of Paul the Apostle (χήρα: cf. 1 Cor 7:8). Mk 13:1-15:15 Mk 13:1-4 introduces the Markan ‘eschatological sermon’ and thematically alludes to the opening section of the First Letter to the Thessalonians with its motif of the coming of the eschatological wrath (1 Thes 1:10), which has been illustrated by Mark first in terms that were understandable to Jewish Christians, namely by means of the motif of destruction of God’s building and God’s Temple (οἰκοδομή: Mk 13:1-2; cf. 1 Cor 3:9-17). 98 The second part of the pericope (Mk 13:3-4), by means of the unnecessary, from the narrative point of view, reference to Andrew who represents in the Markan Gospel Peter’s Gentile alter ego (Mk 13:3), 99 widens the relevance of 1 Thes 1:10 (which was first reworked in 96

The Markan equation 2 lepta = 1 quadrans (Mk 12:42 diff. Lk 21:2; diff. also Lk 12:59 par. Mt 5:26: 1 lepton = 1 quadrans) was by no means self-evident in its historical context: cf. M. Reiser, ‘Numismatik und Neues Testament’, Bib 81 (2000) 457-488 (esp. 478-479). The weight and value of the smallest coins that were used in Judaea (lepton, half-prutah, and prutah) varied greatly over time. After AD 3-6, one prutah equalled in theory to one Roman quadrans or in practice to 2/3 of Roman quadrans, but underweight coins with unclear value (prutot or half-prutot?) were also often minted: cf. Y. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (Yad Ben-Zwi: Jerusalem and Amphora: Nyack, NY 2001), esp. 80-81, 84. It should be noted that all coins that were minted by the Roman prefects/procurators of Judaea bore Greek and not Latin inscriptions (ibid. 167), which is significant for discovering the allusive and not simply historical meaning of Mk 12:15.42.

97

Mk 12:42-43 expresses the idea characteristic of Mk and Lk, namely that of poverty of the Church as referring, above all, to Gentile Christians.

98

The fact that the Pauline texts 1 Thes 1:10 and 1 Cor 3:9-17, which are in themselves neutral as concerns Jewish–Gentile relationships within the Church, have been reworked in Mk 13:1-2 in terms that clearly refer to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (which was interpreted by Mark, in the light of the intertextual reference to 1 Cor 3:9-15 in Mk 13:1-2, as caused by God), proves much more convincingly than the reference to the destruction itself in Mk 13:2c that the Gospel of Mark was written after AD 70.

99

Mark allusively created in Mk 13:3 the impression that after his coming to Jerusalem, which was referred to in Rom 15:25-31, Paul (this time not accompanied by Barnabas) again met there privately (κατ᾿ ἰδίαν: cf. Gal 2:2) the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ in their proper (from the post-Pauline point of view) order of importance: Peter (hesitantly—as it is il-

260

more narrow Jewish Christian terms in Mk 13:1-2) to the entire Jewish–Gentile Church (cf. the Jewish–Gentile Christian ἐλαία in Mk 13:3; cf. Rom 11:17.24) that was constituted in its Jewish part by the Jewish Christian ‘rest’ that has not been destroyed during the Jewish War AD 66-70 (cf. Mk 13:3 located afar from the Temple; σημεῖον: Mk 13:4; cf. 1 Cor 1:22).100 Mk 13:5-8 illustrates the Pauline text 1 Thes 2:1-13 with its particular set of motifs: coming to the community (1 Thes 2:1), deceit (*πλαν: 1 Thes 2:3), being approved by God and neither by humans nor by one’s claimed importance (1 Thes 2:4-7), childbearing (1 Thes 2:7; ὠδίν: cf. 1 Thes 5:3), kingdom (βασιλεία: 1 Thes 2:12; cf. ἐπί in the sense of punishment: 1 Thes 2:16), and verbal report (ἀκοή: 1 Thes 2:13). 101 Mk 13:9-13 alludes to the Pauline text 1 Thes 2:14-16 with its particular motifs: persecutions of Jesus’ disciples by their Jewish and Gentiles relatives, preaching to the Gentiles (ἔθνη), and God-ordered end of the persecutions (εἰς τέλος). The evangelist additionally used in Mk 13:9-13 other characteristically lustrated by the presence and position of ‘Andrew’—inclined to approve Paul’s account of his mission among the Gentiles, which has been illustrated in the textual unit Mk 13:1-14:9 by means of the sequence of allusions to the content of 1 Thes), James, and John. As it will be demonstrated below, the second part of the section Mk 13:1-15:15, namely Mk 14:10-15:15, is structured with the use of Gal 2:11-14. It is therefore evident that in the whole section Mk 13:1-15:15, the evangelist systematically used, as a recurring hypotext, the Pauline text Gal 2:2-14 (cf. its use already earlier in Mk 6:17:5), which was evidently very important for the self-identification of the post-Pauline communities (cf. its later, also recurrent, use in Acts). In this context, the first part of the section Mk 13:1-15:15, namely Mk 13:1-14:9, should be interpreted as a Markan elaborate comment on Gal 2:2-10 with its motifs of the presentation of the essence of Paul’s gospel as preached to the Gentiles and of the ‘judgement’ over Paul. This comment has been made with the use of the sequentially reworked 1 Thes, which was evidently regarded by Mark as a letter addressed to an undoubtedly entirely Gentile community and dealing, among others, with the issue of God’s judgement. The preceding section Mk 10:46-12:44, which describes Jesus’ coming to Judaea and Jerusalem, thematically corresponds to Gal 2:1 with its motifs of arriving in Judea and bringing the offering of the poor Gentiles (which had been gathered by Titus) to the Jerusalem ‘treasury’. 100 The reference to the satanic σημεῖα in 2 Thes 2:9 has a semantic value that is different from that of God-given warnings and credential proofs, which is employed in the Markan text Mk 13:4 (which is based on 1 Cor 1:22). For this reason, it may be reasonably assumed that 2 Thes did not function as a hypotext for Mk 13:4. 101 The motif of not being scared (μὴ θροεῖσθε) in Mk 13:7, notwithstanding its linguistic affinity to 2 Thes 2:2, is a hypertextual reworking of the peculiarly Pauline ideas that are expressed in 1 Thes 2:7-11 rather than a borrowing from 2 Thes 2:2, in which the motif of eschatological scaring not least by means of a pseudo-Pauline letter is in fact quite strange and consequently probably literarily dependent on Mk 13:7.

261

Pauline motifs (παραδίδωμι: 1 Cor 11:23; πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, *εὐαγγελι: Gal 3:8; first the fullness of the Gentiles: Rom 11:25; 102 τέκνα… γονεῖς: 2 Cor 12:14; *ὑπομ: Rom 12:12). Mk 13:14-20 alludes, with the use of traditional apocalyptic motifs, to the Pauline text 1 Thes 2:17-3:4 with its mainly temporal motifs of being orphaned (Mk 13:17; cf. 1 Thes 2:17), being distanced for a short time (Mk 13:14-16; cf. 1 Thes 2:17), being not permitted to come (Mk 13:15-16; cf. 1 Thes 2:18), resolve to shorten the period of suffering (Mk 13:20; cf. 1 Thes 3:1), and foretelling of tribulations (θλῖψις: Mk 13:19; cf. 1 Thes 3:3-4). Mk 13:21-23 alludes to 1 Thes 3:5-11 with its spatial motif of Paul’s desire to come in person to the believers, and consequently of not enticing them to leave their homes in search of him. Mk 13:24-27 sequentially illustrates, with the use of traditional apocalyptic motifs, the Pauline ideas that are contained in 1 Thes 3:12-13: the end of suffering (Mk 13:24a; cf. 1 Thes 3:12) and the eschatological coming of the Lord (Mk 13:26; cf. 1 Thes 3:13b) with all his saints (μετά: Mk 13:27; cf. 1 Thes 3:13bc). Mk 13:28-32 sequentially alludes to 1 Thes 4:1-18 with its set of particular motifs: continuous growth until the time determined by God (Mk 13:28; cf. 1 Thes 4:1-8), helping fellow believers and not looking for hospitality among the outsiders (Mk 13:29; cf. 1 Thes 4:9-12), the hope of the present generation to see the Parousia (Mk 13:30; cf. 1 Thes 4:13-15), the value of the words of the Lord (λόγος: Mk 13:31b; cf. 1 Thes 4:15.18), the passing nature of heaven and earth (οὐρανός: Mk 13:31a; cf. 1 Thes 4:16-17: only clouds will remain), and God’s command announcing the eschatological end (Mk 13:32; cf. 1 Thes 4:16: the archangel and the Lord in heaven will obey). Mk 13:33-37 sequentially alludes to the Pauline text 1 Thes 5:1-10 with its set of motifs: the appointed time (καιρός: Mk 13:33; cf. 1 Thes 5:1), coming to the house unexpectedly and suddenly at night (*νύξ, ἔρχεται, *αἰφν: Mk 13:3436; cf. 1 Thes 5:2), not being asleep (καθεύδω: Mk 13:36; cf. 1 Thes 5:6a-7.10), instruction directed to the addressees and to others (Mk 13:37; cf. 1 Thes 5:6b8), and being watchful (γρηγορέω: Mk 13:33.37; cf. 1 Thes 5:6b.10). 103 Mk 14:1-2 alludes to 1 Thes 5:10a, which refers to Jesus’ death. 104 Mk 14:3-9 alludes to the last section of the body of 1 Thes, namely 1 Thes 5:11-24 (comforting one another, ποιέω well, *κοπ, admonishing, esteeming 102 Cf. A. Loisy, Marc, 372; P. Dschulnigg, Das Markusevangelium (ThKNT 2; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2007), 337. 103 Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xxiv. 104 The unclear chronological remarks in Mk 14:1.12 seem to be based on Jos. B.J. 2.10.

262

beyond all measure, πάντοτε, discerning what is καλόν, preservation of the σῶμα for the tomb, *πιστ, eschatological fulfilment). Mk 14:10-15:15 is an elaborated reworking of the Pauline statement concerning Jesus’ having been delivered to death at night (παραδίδωμι: cf. 1 Cor 11:23c; used ten times in Mk 14:10-15:15). Mark structured his account of the delivery of Jesus to death with the expanding use of the thematically related Pauline text Gal 2:11-14, 105 with the set of its particular motifs: Peter’s initial eating together with others (Mk 14:10-25); prediction of Peter’s denial of Paul and of the accord ‘2 plus 3’ (Mk 14:25-31); 106 public blaming of Peter as the representative of the ‘pillars’ (Mk 14:32-42); coming of the entourage of the main Jewish opponent (Mk 14:43-49); flight of Gentile Christians because of the attempt to Judaize them (Mk 14:50-52); charge of the main Jewish opponent (Mk 14:53-65); Peter’s triple denial: of his Jewish Christian identity, of his affinities with Paul and Barnabas, and of his Gentile affinities, but with a subsequent reminiscence of the violated accord ‘2 plus 3’ (Mk 14:66-72); summarizing confession of belief leading to expulsion and execution (Mk 15:1-5); and hypocrisy of others accompanied by Barnabas’ parting from his fellow-prisoner (Mk 15:6-15). 107 This basic set of themes of Gal 2:11-14 has been elaborated by Mark in detail in Mk 14:10-15:15 with the use of several other Pauline motifs, which have been borrowed from 1 Cor 5:7 (ζύμη, πάσχα, θύω: Mk 14:1.12-16), 1 Cor 11:23-29 (closely reworked in Mk 14:10-25), 108 Rom 15:3 (καθὼς γέγραπται: Mk 14:21), 1 Cor 16:3 (γρηγορεῖτε: Mk 14:34-38), Rom 8:15 (αββα ὁ πατήρ: Mk 14:36), 109 Rom 8:35 (μάχαιρα, *γυμν: Mk 14:43-52), 2 Cor 4:16105 Cf. the earlier use, or rather reuse, of the motif of Paul’s encounter with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’, which has been borrowed from Gal 2:2, in Mk 13:3. 106 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 220. 107 The adopted in Mk 15:7-15 procedure of internymic deviation (Βαρναβᾶς → Βαραββᾶς) has an additional derogatory function (cf. earlier Mk 6:17-28). According to Mark, Barnabas, who until the Antiochene crisis could have been truly regarded as ‘a son of prophecy’ (nomen omen), after his abandoning Paul (Gal 2:13) became merely ‘a son of the father’. 108 Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 566-567; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 217; W. Schenk, ‘Die Rezeption der paulinischen Herrenmahlworte bei Markus’, in Gottes Wort in der Zeit: verstehen – verkündigen – verbreiten, Festschrift V. Stolle, ed. C. Barnbrock and W. Klän (Lit: Münster 2005), 261-269; F. Watson, ‘“I Received from the Lord…”: Paul, Jesus, and the Last Supper’, in Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate, ed. T. D. Still (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2007), 103-124 (esp. 116-120). 109 Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 573; M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xxv; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 219 n. 15; É. Trocmé, L’Évangile selon saint Marc (CNT 2; Labor et Fides: Genève 2000), 347.

263

5:1 (ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ, καταλύω, ἀχειροποίητον: Mk 14:58), 1 Cor 4:11 (κολαφίζω: Mk 14:65), and Phlp 1:14-17 (*δεσμ: Mk 15:6; διὰ φθόνον: Mk 15:10 110). 111 Mk 15:16-16:8 Mk 15:16-24 is the first of the five pericopes that are commonly composed with the use of the motif of elapsing periods of time (Mk 15:25.33.42; 16:1) and that constitute together the section Mk 15:16-16:8. This section illustrates, with the use of several motifs that have been borrowed from the Pauline letters (Rom, 1-2 Cor, Phlp) and that have been conflated with numerous scriptural motifs, two important Pauline creedal statements: (a) 1 Cor 15:3-4, namely that Christ died, was buried, and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and (b) Phlp 2:6-11, namely that Christ did not grab at being equal to God but emptied himself (Mk 15:34), was regarded as a mere human (ἄνθρωπος: Mk 15:39), died on a cross (σταυρός: Mk 15:21-32), 112 and was universally confessed in his true dignity (Mk 15:39). The pericope Mk 15:16-24 illustrates the Pauline idea of Jesus’ cross that is regarded as foolishness by the Gentiles who seek wisdom (1 Cor 1:18-23) 113 with the use of the Pauline motifs that have been borrowed from Phlp 1:13 (πραιτώριον, ὅλος: Mk 15:16) and Rom 16:13 (Ῥοῦφος as a son of a personally helpful person: Mk 15:21), and that have been conflated with the scriptural motif of the ruling sage who was (a) clothed in purple and (b) given an emblem of authority that was placed around him (Dan 5:29; 6:4 LXX), 114 but who was presented by Mark, in agreement with 1 Cor 1:18-23, as (b’) mocked by the Gentiles as a fool who had an empty head (hence the motifs of beating with a reed pen, of a head, of a skull, and of wine) and (a’) being contemptuously twice stripped of his clothes. Mk 15:25-32 alludes to the subsequent statements 1 Cor 1:22a.23ab: that the crucified (*ἐσταυρ) Jesus is for the Jews the opposite of the signs of power that they demand, and consequently a cause for scandal. These two correlated Pauline ideas have been illustrated in Mk 15:25-32 by means of the motifs of 110 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 226. 111 The reference to Pilate (Πιλᾶτος) in Mk 15:1-44 is most probably based on Jos. Ant. 18.64 (in its original form). 112 Cf. T. K. Heckel, ‘Der Gekreuzigte bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium’, BZ, (2002) 190-204 (esp. 200).

NF

46

113 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 226. 114 Mk 15:17-18 seems to be based also on the motifs of Philo, Flacc. 37-39, which describes mocking a Jewish king.

264

Jesus’ being the king of the Jews (Mk 15:26b: formulated with the use of rhetorical irony), his being crucified among bandits (Mk 15:27), and his being powerless notwithstanding his claims to power (Mk 15:29-32). The last motif has been formulated with the additional use of the Pauline texts 1 Cor 9:22 (σῴζω: Mk 15:30-31) and Rom 15:3 (ὀνειδίζω: Mk 15:32). Mk 15:33-41 illustrates, with the use of the scriptural motifs of darkness (σκότος: Exod 10:22 LXX) and abandonment (Ps 22[21]:2; Ps 38[37]:12 LXX), the Pauline text 2 Cor 4:4-13, which refers to (a) the Gentile way of perceiving the glory of God in the abandoned (ἐγκαταλείπω) and dying Paul (and consequently, also Christ) by means of a God-given illumination of their hearts, which that leads to faith, and, on the other hand, (b) the Jewish and Jewish Christian not understanding of Christ as the Son of God, notwithstanding their having the Scriptures (cf. 2 Cor 3:7-16; cf. also Mk 9:2-13). The Pauline texts that have been additionally used in Mk 15:33-41 include Rom 1:4 (υἱὸς θεοῦ: Mk 15:39) and Rom 16:1-2.6.12 (an important woman who renders service *διακον to the main narrative character and to others, and who subsequently comes from her town to the city of the execution; Μαρία and other women: Mk 15:40-41.47; 16:1). Mk 15:42-47 illustrates the Pauline motif of being buried (ἐτάφη: 1 Cor 15:4a), by means of the scriptural motifs that have been borrowed from the story of Tobit (Tob 1:13.17-19; 2:7). This pericope alludes also to the Pauline text Phlp 1:14 (τολμάω: Mk 15:43). Mk 16:1-8 illustrates the Pauline ideas of Christ’s having been raised in glory (ἠγέρθη: Rom 6:4; Mk 16:5-6) and of his having been seen first not simply by everyone but only by Cephas, and consequently presumably (in Mark’s interpretation) in his homeland Galilee (ὁράω: 1 Cor 15:5; Mk 16:5-8). The Markan motif of removal of the stone (Mk 15:46; 16:3-4) alludes to removing the stumbling stone that blocked the way to the true understanding and preaching of Christ: not as the ‘Nazarene’ root of Jesse according to the flesh but as the crucified and raised Lord who is accessible through faith (Mk 16:6-8: Peter, and not the pious women, was called to be the first one on this way of faith; cf. Rom 9:30-33; 2 Cor 2:12). 115 Mk 16:1-2.5-6 additionally illustrates the Pauline idea of the new creation in Christ, who has been raised from the dead (2 Cor 5:15-

115 It should be noted that round ‘rolling’ stones (cf. Mk 15:46) were very rarely used for closing tombs in Judaea of the Second Temple period: see R. Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period (JSJSup 94; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 62-64; A. Kloner and B. Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (ISACR 8; Peeters: Leuven · Dudley, Mass. 2007), 55-56. Accordingly, the Markan texts Mk 15:46; 16:3-4 should be interpreted as having a primarily intertextual and not simply historical-referential meaning.

265

17), with the use of the thematically related scriptural text Gen 1:5 LXX (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). The analysis of the section Mk 15:16-16:8 demonstrates therefore that Mark did not have access to any reliable traditions concerning Paul’s death. Otherwise, he would have alluded to them in Mk 15:16-16:8, just as he did earlier in Mk 1:1-15:15. The evangelist was forced to rework in Mk 15:15-16:8 numerous isolated motifs that he had to borrow from Paul’s letters and from the Scriptures. The details that have been included in the Markan passion and resurrection narrative (e.g. Mk 15:21.40-41) suggest only that Mark assumed that Paul suffered his martyrdom in Rome (cf. Phlp 4:21). 116 Moreover, Mark expressed allusively in Mk 15:16-16:8 his deep conviction that the Roman Jewish Christians were at least indirectly responsible for the death of the Apostle of the Nations (cf. 1 Clem. 5:5; 2 Tim 4:16; cf. also the intriguing abrupt ending of Acts). Nevertheless, the evangelist cherished hope for their conversion and reconciliation on account of the power of Christ’s resurrection (Mk 14:28; 16:7). 3.1.2 Homer’s Iliad Not only Paul’s letters constitute structuring hypotexts of the Gospel of Mark. 117 As it has been already noted by Dennis R. MacDonald, the Markan Gospel con116 It is worth noting that Mark repeatedly stated that Jesus had died because of his confessing to be the king of the Jews (Mk 15:2.9.12.18.26.32). If this charge referred, on the Markan allusive level, also to Paul, then it may be assumed that, according to Mark, the Apostle suffered martyrdom under the charge that was formulated in a Jewish Christian way. It is possible that Mark alluded here in fact to Paul’s fierce and damaging disputes with Jewish Christians in Rome over the identity and significance of Jesus as the Messiah/Christ (cf. e.g. Phlp 1:14-18; 2:5-11; 3:18; cf. also Acts 28:17-28). 117 The definition of a ‘structuring hypotext’ that has been adopted in my work is similar to, but more restrictive than, the definition of a ‘running subtext’ that has been adopted by D. C. Allison, Jr., The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2000), 200-202 (of repeated allusive use of a subtext). In the strict sense, a structuring hypotext may be defined as a hypotext that has been reworked sequentially in the hypertext, i.e. with retaining the original sequence of essential elements that constitute the internal structure of the hypotext. In this sense, Col is the structuring hypotext for Eph, but Ps 22[21] is not the structuring hypotext for Mk 15:24-34. For the importance of discovering similar narrative structures, which hint at a structural imitation of the hypotext in the hypertext, as one of the criteria for ascertaining the existence of intended intertextual relationship between two texts, see D. C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Fortress: Minneapolis 1993), esp. 20-22, 140, 156-160, 268. For a theoretical investigation of the phenomenon of structurality, which is interpreted as one of the particular aspects of intertextuality in the cases in which a hypotext (‘pretext’) serves as a structural pattern for the hypertext, see M. Pfister, ‘Konzepte der Intertextualität’, in Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien, ed.

266

sistently alludes also to Homer’s works. 118 In fact, the Gospel of Mark is a consistent hypertextual reworking of Homer’s Iliad. The particular sequence of themes and motifs of the Homer’s work has been creatively reworked in the Markan Gospel: 1. A divine oracle for the hero (Iliad 2.802-807; Mk 1:9-11) 2. The hero’s personal engagement in the battle on the plain outside the city (Iliad 2.811-816; Mk 1:14-15) 3. The hero’s temporal withdrawal (Iliad 5.471-492; Mk 1:35.45) 4. Public recognition of the evident divine assistance for the hero (Iliad 5.601-606; Mk 2:7-12) 5. The relatives’ unsuccessful attempt to take hold of the hero (Iliad 6.354355, 407-439; Mk 3:21) 6. The royal house apparently divided (Iliad 6.523-526; Mk 3:24-25) 7. A duel against a strong man in order to plunder his weapons and property (Iliad 7.67-272, cf. 12.10-12; Mk 3:27) 8. A night dangerous sally to spy out the well-defended enemies’ territory (Iliad 10.300-458, cf. Odyssey 5.291-393, 9.181-542, 13.70-169; 119 Mk 4:355:20) 9. Withdrawal back to the home territory (Iliad 11.163-180; Mk 5:21) 10. Miraculous salvation from a wound and from apparent death (Iliad 11.350-360; Mk 5:22-43) 11. A partial defeat in the battle (Iliad 11.489-498, 524-530; Mk 6:17-29) 12. The second, longer raid to the enemies’ territory (Iliad 12.453-14.522; Mk 7:24-37) 13. A special relationship between God and the hero, which results in the hero’s rising up after his apparent inevitable death (Iliad 15.9-262, 287-293; Mk 9:2-10) 14. The third raid to the enemies’ territory (Iliad 15.346-16.376; Mk 10:131) 120 U. Broich, M. Pfister, and B. Schulte-Middelich (Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 35; Max Niemeyer: Tübingen 1985), 1-30 (esp. 28). 118 See D. R. MacDonald, Homeric Epics, passim. For a recent study of the pivotal role of Homer’s works in the ancient Mediterranean culture, see K. O. Sandnes, The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity (LNTS 400; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), esp. 40-58. 119 Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 63-76, 175. 120 Pace K. R. Iverson, Gentiles in the Gospel of Mark: ‘Even the Dogs Under the Table Eat the Children’s Crumbs’ (LNTS 339; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 83125, the journey to the tertrarchy of Philip (Mk 8:22-9:29) was not necessarily understood by Mark as a journey into a Gentile territory.

267

15. The final prediction of the hero’s death (Iliad 16.853-854; Mk 10:3234) 121 16. Crossing the border river (Iliad 21.233-384; Mk 10:46-52) 17. The hero’s consideration whether to escape or to wait for his enemy (Iliad 22.92-130; Mk 14:32-42) 18. Coming of the enemy who was armed with wooden and metal weapons (Iliad 22.133-134; Mk 14:43) 19. A ‘divine’ verdict against the hero, which resulted in his being evidently abandoned by God (Iliad 22.209-213; Mk 14:55-65) 20. Illusory assistance for the hero from a person who was only apparently close to him during his final struggle (Iliad 22.227-299; Mk 14:66-72) 21. The hero’s words concerning his being evidently abandoned by God (Iliad 22.300-303; Mk 15:34) 122 22. The hero’s last loud cry (Iliad 22.306; Mk 15:37: *φωνή) 123 23. Recognition of the hero’s divine character by a high-ranking soldier (Iliad 22.394; Mk 15:39) 124 24. Women watching the hero’s dead body from afar (Iliad 22.430-515; Mk 15:40-41) 125 25. Ransoming of the body of the hero by a respected royal man who courageously came to the enemies’ military commander (Iliad 24.146-719; Mk 15:42-45) 126 26. Three women watching and lamenting over the body of the hero (Iliad 24.724-776; Mk 15:47-16:1) 127 121 Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 133-134. It should be noted that the Markan impersonal δεῖ (Mk 8:31; cf. 9:31; 10:32-34) expresses a post-Homeric rather than a postPauline interpretation of reasons of Jesus’ death. 122 Cf. ibid. 139-140; id., ‘Imitations of Greek Epic in the Gospels’, in The Historical Jesus in Context, ed. A.-J. Levine, D. C. Allison, Jr., and J. D. Crossan (Princeton Readings in Religion; Princeton University: Princeton · Oxford 2006), 372-384 (esp. 381-382). 123 Cf. id., Homeric Epics, 140. 124 Cf. id., Homeric Epics, 141-143; id., ‘Imitations’, 382. 125 Cf. id., Homeric Epics, 143-144; id., ‘Imitations’, 382-383. 126 Cf. id., Homeric Epics, 154-157; id., ‘Imitations’, 383. It should be noted that the otherwise unknown name of A-rima-thea may evoke the name of P-riam. 127 Cf. id., Homeric Epics, 157-158. It seems that Mark combined in Mk 15:40.47; 16:1 the motif of Hector, who had his wife (Andromache), his mother (Hecuba), and his sisterin-law (Helen), with that of Paul, who behaved as having no wife (cf. 1 Cor 7:7-8; 9:5), no natural mother (cf. Rom 16:13), and no natural sister (cf. Rom 16:1; 1 Cor 9:5). Mark ‘reconciled’ both motifs by means of the ambiguous features of the characters of the otherwise unknown Mary “the Magdalene” (maybe alluding to Mariamme, King

268

27. The burial of the body of the hero led by the respected royal man, which consisted in wrapping the body of the hero in a cloth and placing it in a tomb that was provided with a heavy stone (Iliad 24.777-801; Mk 15:46: *λᾶας) 128 All these correspondences point to conscious hypertextual, sequential use of Homer’s Iliad in the Markan Gospel. Although some of the above-mentioned correspondences are certainly not very close, their order is striking. Moreover, the particular Markan pattern of three Jesus’ incursions into Gentile territories (with the first one being surprisingly undertaken at night) cannot be deduced from Paul’s letters; it points to the literary dependence of the Gospel of Mark on Homer’s Iliad, which contains precisely such a pattern of changing location of narrative scenes. Mark had good reasons for using Homer’s Iliad as an important structuring hypotext of his Gospel. In fact, he had to present in a positive way Jesus, the Jewish Messiah who claimed to be the ruler of the world, in a consistently ‘Gentile’ literary work that was addressed mainly to the Greeks. Therefore, Mark resolved to depict Jesus with the use of the features of Hector: the only ‘Asian’ royal character that was widely known and esteemed in the Greek literary world. In such a way, Mark created a work that was comparable in its purpose to Vergil’s Aeneid: it provided a literary basis for the nascent Christian civilisation of the Roman Empire. 129

3.2 Conclusions As the critical-intertextual analysis of the Gospel of Mark reveals, the Markan work has been composed as a systematic, sequential, hypertextual reworking of the letters of Paul the Apostle and, to some extent, of Homer’s Iliad. In agreement with Paul’s understanding of his own life, Mark aimed at presenting the whole course of Paul’s life as revealing the essential features of the identity of Christ (cf. e.g. 1 Thes 1:6; 1 Cor 11:1; Gal 1:16; 2:20; Phlp 3:17-18). The evangelist achieved this aim by means of an extensive and systematic ‘narrativization’ of the contents of the Pauline letters. 130 Herod’s wife: cf. Jos. B.J. 1.241 et al.), Mary the mother of James and Joses (mother of Jesus’ brothers: cf. Mk 6:3), and Salome (King Herod’s sister: cf. Jos. B.J. 1.181 et al.). 128 Cf. id., ‘Imitations’, 383. 129 Cf. ibid. 374-375. 130 In this sense, Mark answered already two thousand years ago the question that has been raised recently by modern scholars, e.g. R. B. Hays, ‘Is Paul’s Gospel Narratable?’, JSNT 27.2 (2004) 217-239 (esp. 229, 234-236).

269

In the first part of his narrative presentation of the Pauline gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, as he had been revealed in the life and teaching of the Apostle (i.e. in the Markan ‘mission and opposition narrative’: Mk 1:1-15:15), Mark systematically reworked the contents of the main Pauline letters, which were treated by him as structuring hypotexts for his own gospel narrative. The evangelist preserved the sequence of their thematic contents in the sequence of his own narrative pericopes. Accordingly, Mark composed Mk 1:1-15:15 as a systematic hypertextual reworking of Gal 1:1-6:15 (in Mk 1:1-7:37), 1 Cor 1:112:27 (in Mk 8:1-10:45), Gal 2:1 thematically combined with Rom 9:1-15:33 (in Mk 10:46-12:44), and Gal 2:2-14 thematically combined with 1 Thes 1:10-5:24 (in Mk 13:1-15:15).131 The concluding account of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Mk 15:16-16:8) has been composed by Mark, in agreement with the Pauline hermeneutic principle expressed in 1 Cor 15:3-4, as a systematic conflation of various motifs that have been borrowed from the letters of Paul and from the Scriptures. The detailed procedure of hypertextual ‘narrativization’ of the contents of Paul’s letters in Mk is quite particular. In the sequence of pericopes that forms his narrative version of the Pauline gospel, Mark reworked the most characteristic thematic and linguistic features of the respective fragments of the Pauline letters by (a) conflating them with other motifs that had been borrowed from the Pauline letters (Rom, 1-2 Cor, Gal, Phlp, and 1 Thes), 132 from Homer’s works (Iliad and Odyssey), from the Jewish sacred Scriptures in the version of the Septuagint, and from Josephus’ works (Bellum, Antiquitates, and probably also Contra Apionem); 133 and (b) reworking them into short narrative accounts, dia131 Mark evidently decided to rework the Pauline letters, which have been treated by him as structuring hypotexts for his work, in the order of their relative thematic development: from the call of Paul, through his mission among the Gentiles, to his travel to Jerusalem, and to the ‘judgement’ and betrayal of Paul. Mark almost certainly did not assume that such was also the chronological order of composition of these letters. Otherwise, he would have not thematically combined Gal 2:1-14 with Rom 9:1-15:33 and 1 Thes 1:10-5:24 in Mk 10:46-15:15. 132 There is no trace of Mark’s use of Phlm and 2 Thes, Col, Eph, 1-2 Tim, and Tt. Phlm may have been omitted by Mark simply because of its relative unimportance for the Church problems that were faced by Paul and by the evangelist. 133 The particular geographical pattern of the main narrative character’s movements (Judaea → intense activity in Galilee → Jerusalem) seems to be based on Josephus’ autobiographical accounts. Moreover, it has been proved above that Mark conflated various motifs that have been borrowed from Josephus’ works, especially Antiquitates (e.g. in Mk 1:4-6 and Mk 6:17-27). Besides, Mark used various, otherwise nowhere or only rarely attested (e.g. Semitic), names in the Greek forms in which they appear in Josephus’ works (e.g. Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστής [Ant. 18.116], Ζεβεδαῖος [Ant. 5.33], Καφαρναούμ [B.J. 3.519], Γερασηνοί [B.J. 2.480 et al.], ∆εκάπολις [B.J. 3.446], Ἡρω-

270

logues, discourses, and sayings, which generally well fitted the Palestinian geographical, cultural, and theological setting. 134 The way of reworking particular Pauline motifs in the Markan Gospel differs greatly from pericope to pericope. Sometimes, Mark preserved much of the original Pauline vocabulary, whereas sometimes he merely alluded to the contents of the corresponding sections of the Pauline letters. The evangelist did not refrain from quite creative reworking of the Pauline motifs. Moreover, at times he showed his vivid imagination and a great sense of humour (cf. e.g. 1 Cor 3:23: giving to drink milk and not chewable food because of envy and strife in the community → Mk 9:18c-e: the sick person’s foaming from the mouth and grinding the teeth). The idea of intertextual, sequential reworking of the contents of the Pauline letters in a new, hypertextual literary work may have been borrowed by Mark from the Pauline letters themselves. Close thematic and linguistic affinities between numerous sections of Rom and Gal 135 suggest that the literary relationship between these two Pauline works is of a hypertextual character. Moreover, a similar kind of relationship may be traced among numerous deutero-Pauline works (e.g. Col and Eph). Mark used therefore this well known in the Pauline circles method of hypertextual reworking of earlier texts into new texts that better suited new situations. However, Mark considerably developed this basic method by creating a hypertext of a literary genre that was quite different from that of its hypotexts. 136 This idea of composing a literary work that includes διάς [Ant. 18.110], Βηθσαϊδά [Ant. 18.28], κορβᾶν = δῶρον [Ant. 4.73 et al.], Σαδδουκαῖοι [B.J. 2.119 et al.], and Καϊάφας [Ant. 18.35, 95]). These features imply literary dependence of the Gospel of Mark on Josephus’ Bellum and Antiquitates. 134 Mark knew quite well the topography of the land of Israel, but this knowledge was generally based on Josephus’ works. On the other hand, Mark was able to use Aramaic in a creative way. For example, he created allusions that were based on referring to Aramaic or Aramaic-sounding personal names. Most probably, therefore, Mark was one of Paul’s compatriots from the diaspora, who was fascinated by the Apostle’s way of life and by his gospel (cf. e.g. Rom 16:7.11.21) and who knew at least some basic Aramaic vocabulary. 135 First attempts to rework hypertextually the Pauline epistolary-theological treatises into continuous biographical narratives, which describe the identity of God’s Son and the basic features of his gospel as revealed in the course of life of the Apostle, may be found already in Paul’s own letters, e.g. in Rom 1:16-17 and in Gal 1:15-16b; cf. e.g. U. Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830; 6th edn., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2007), 112. It is therefore no mere coincidence that Mark’s Gospel is based mainly on Paul’s most autobiographical-narrative letter, namely Gal (see esp. Mk 1:1-7:37; 10:46-15:15); cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 127. 136 In this sense, Mark evidently transcended the limitations of the ancient intertextual, rhetorical-didactic technique of ‘elaboration’ (ἐξεργασία) as it was described by Aelius

271

several, short, rhetorical-narrative examples (παραδείγματα) that support Paul’s theological-halachic theses might have been suggested to Mark by the particular, argumentative-episodic structure of Gal (esp. Gal 3-4), which constitutes in fact the most important hypotext for the Markan Gospel. 137 The above-presented analysis of the Gospel of Mark in categories of a systematic hypertextual reworking of the Pauline letters fulfils several criteria for identifying a hypotext of a given text: accessibility (fulfilled by the fact that Mk was written after the letters of Paul and in the sphere of their theological influence), analogy (partially fulfilled by the fact that an analogous hypertextual procedure was later adopted by Luke in his ‘travel narrative’), density (because there are hundreds of linguistic and thematic correspondences between the Pauline letters and Mk), order (because Mark sequentially reworked the Pauline letters that were treated by him as structuring hypotexts), distinctiveness (especially of the particular pro-Pauline presentation of the Antiochene crisis and of the importance of Paul in both the Pauline letters and Mk), and explanatory capability (for numerous more or less evident cruces of Mk). 138 The systematic hypertextual use of Homer’s Iliad in Mk may be proved with the use of the same criteria of accessibility (fulfilled by the fact that Mk Théon, Progymnasmata [16], ed. M. Patillon and G. Bolognesi (Collection des Universités de France; Les Belles Lettres: Paris 1997), cvii-cxi, 110-111 [142-143], and of the rhetorical-poietic imitatio as it was understood by Quintilian, Inst. orat. 10.2.1-28. On the other hand, the technique of composing para-historical, hypertextual stories, as well as that of reworking traditional stories in order to illustrate particular theological ideas with the use of characteristic literary motifs and vocabulary of legal, poetic, hortatory, etc. hypotexts, is well rooted in the Israelite and Jewish literary tradition. 137 Since the Jerusalem-Antiochene crisis, related in Gal 2:1-14, evidently had crucial importance for Mark (esp. Mk 6:1-7:5; 10:46-15:15) and, on the other hand, the evangelist’s relationship to Paul and to his life had a predominantly literary and not a personal character, it may be supposed that Mark composed his work c. AD 100-110 for one of the post-Pauline communities. This ‘Markan’ community was located probably in Macedonia (perhaps in Philippi because Phlp was only marginally reworked in Mk, but, on the other hand, cf. the Markan texts that are derogatory for the Romans: Mk 5:3-13; 15:16-20), Achaia, or Asia (in Ephesus: in my opinion most likely; cf. also 2 Tim 4:11). It struggled for definition and defence of its Pauline identity against other, predominantly Jewish Christian currents of early Christianity, which were represented especially by the figures of James, Cephas, and Barnabas and by the influential Church metropolises of Jerusalem, Rome, and Antioch. In a certain sense, with his Pauline ‘Jesus’ narrative, Mark saved Pauline Christianity and consequently Christianity in its entirety. 138 Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 8-9; id., ‘Categorization’, 212. The aboveanalysed Mark’s intertextual use of Paul’s letters evidently fulfils also the (secondary) criterion of the systematic use of a source, which is discussed by A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization, 21.

272

was written after Homer’s works, which were very well known in the whole Hellenistic world), analogy (fulfilled by the fact that such a hypertextual procedure of imitating and emulating Homer’s works was often used in the ancient culture), density (because there are several thematic correspondences between Homer’s Iliad and Mk), order (because Mark sequentially reworked Homer’s Iliad that was treated by him as a structuring hypotext), distinctiveness (especially of the particular pattern of changing location of the narrative scenes in both Homer’s Iliad and Mk), and explanatory capability (for numerous more or less evident cruces of Mk). It should be noted, however, that notwithstanding hundreds of intertextual allusions to the Pauline letters, to Homer’s works, to the Jewish Scriptures, and to Josephus’ writings, 139 the Markan work is an autonomous, self-standing narrative, which invites the reader to interpret it on its own terms. In fact, Mk was for centuries widely understood precisely in this way (i.e. as a self-standing account of the events from Jesus’ life). 140 This fact attests Mark’s remarkable skill as a literary author. The evangelist succeeded in creating a hypertextual work of supreme literary quality because, as it has been stated by a modern theoretician of hypertextuality, the recourse to the hypotext should never be indispensable 139 For a taxonomy of intertextual uses of antetexts, see e.g. D. R. MacDonald, ‘Categorization’, 213. For the sake of argument, in the above-presented analysis, the use of broad categories of ‘allusion’, ‘illustration’, and ‘reworking’ was generally preferred to the adoption of the apparently more specific, but on the other hand not always well defined categories of ‘echoes’, ‘imitations’, etc. I refrained also from using the often abused category of ‘midrash’, for the word midrāš had in the Jewish literature of the second and first centuries BC a wide range of meanings, which was not reducible to that of a literary genre or of an intertextual technique; cf. e.g. P. van ’t Riet, Lukas versus Matteüs: De terugkeer van de midrasj bij de uitleg de evangeliën (Kok: Kampen 2005), 50-51. 140 Papias evidently misinterpreted Mk by criticizing it for its apparent lack of order. Papias’ references to Peter’s teaching and to Mark’s memory, interpretation, trustworthiness, etc. constitute a relatively late, epexegetical attempt to explain the origin of Mk by regarding it as having primarily a ‘quantitative’ value and not a ‘qualitative’ one. In this context it should be noted that the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ (quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15-16) seems to be based on Lk 1:1-4 both linguistically (*ταξ, πράγματα, γενόμενοι, λόγος, παρακολουθέω, ἀκριβῶς, γράψαι, λόγοι) and thematically (earlier unsuccessful compositional attempts, oral traditions passed on, eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, a new orderly composition based on early traditions, Christian catechesis, certainty): cf. R. H. Gundry, ‘The Apostolically Johannine PrePapian Tradition Concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew’, in id., The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (WUNT 178; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2005), 49-73 (esp. 60). Thematic and linguistic correspondence of Papias’ work (as quoted by Eusebius) to Lk-Acts is evident already in its prologue: see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4.

273

for a simple understanding of the hypertext. 141 On the other hand, however, such a simple understanding of the hypertext is not exhaustive. The reader’s unrecognition of the hypotext always deprives the hypertext of one of its real dimensions, and consequently it results in the loss of much of its meaning. 142 Accordingly, Mk may be understood in a satisfactory way without taking into consideration its relationship to the letters of Paul and to other literary works. Such an understanding is, however, far from complete. Moreover, such a superficial understanding neglects, or even methodologically destroys, the inherent, intertextual unity of the New Testament literary tradition. In reality, also on the literary level, there is only one gospel of Jesus Christ, as it was asserted by both Paul and the subsequent evangelists (cf. Gal 1:7).

141 Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 554-555. Genette formulated this opinion in opposition to the theory of intertextuality that was developed by Michael Riffaterre. In fact, the intertextual features of Mk are better explained by the theory of Genette (of intertextual ‘ambiguousness’) than by that of Riffaterre (of intertextual ‘syllepsis’) precisely because the Markan work is a hypertext that is remarkably well composed and effectively concealing its hypotexts from the readers who are not well acquainted with the Pauline writings. On the other hand, however, Riffaterre’s theory gives a better model for understanding of the diegetic truth of Mk, which is in fact more ‘poetic’ (i.e. referring to other texts) than ‘narrative’ (i.e. referring to non-literary reality): cf. M. Riffaterre, Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd edn., John Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD · London 1993), 111. For an analysis of both referential and intertextual relationships of the text to the ‘reality’, which are in fact not mutually exclusive, see e.g. R. Nycz, Tekstowy świat: Poststrukturalizm a wiedza o literaturze (IBL: Warszawa 1995), 71-75. 142 Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 555. Cf. also G. Allen, Intertextuality (New Critical Idiom; Routledge: London · New York 2000), 112-115.

274

Chapter 4: Luke’s use of his sources According to Robert Morgenthaler, Luke borrowed 6,737 (60.8%) of 11,078 words of Mk and expanded this material with the result that he composed the work of the extent of 19,448 words (Lk), not counting Acts. 1 The material that has been directly borrowed from Mk forms therefore only 34.6% of the extent of Lk. The Lukan expansions and additions to the Markan material amount to 12,711 words, so more than the extent of Mk itself. This simple statistical observation raises several exegetical questions. For example, did Luke simply omit such a substantial amount of the Markan material, or did he rather use some portions thereof in a not straightforward way, namely by means of various modifications, reworkings, allusions, etc.? What is the structure of the large amount of the Lukan, apparently non-Markan, additional material that has been inserted by the evangelist into the basic Markan framework? What were the sources for these extensive Lukan additions to the Markan narrative material? As it may be easily noticed, the Lukan expansions of the basic Markan framework are concentrated in the sections Lk 1:1-2:52; 3:7-15.23-38; 4:2b13.16-30; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-18:14; 19:1-28.39-44; 22:35-38; 23:6-16.39-43; 24:12-53, plus obviously the entire book of Acts. In correspondence with the above-presented demonstration of the basic plausibility of the hypothesis of the (Paul)-Mk-Lk-(Acts)-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels, these Lukan fragments will have to be analysed in categories of their possible dependence on the text of Mk, and possibly also on the letters of Paul. Since the sections Lk 1:1-2:52 and Lk 24:12-53 evidently form a Lukan introduction to the Markan narrative and a conclusion thereof respectively, and the sections Lk 4:16-30; 19:39-44; 22:35-38; 23:6-16.39-43 display quite evident features of Lukan redactional expansion thereof, the following investigations will have to deal with the Lukan use of the Markan and possibly also Pauline material in the three remaining major sections: Lk 3:1-4:13, Lk 6:20-8:3 and Lk 9:51-19:28.

4.1 The sources and their use in Lk 3:1-4:13 The part of the Lukan Gospel that is devoted to John the Baptist’s public activity and to the preliminary stage of Jesus’ public activity (Lk 3:1-4:13) has evidently much in common with the corresponding section of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 1

R. Morgenthaler, Statistische Synopse (Gotthelf: Zürich · Stuttgart 1971), 89 (Table 5).

275

1:2-13). On the other hand, Lk 3:1-4:13 contains much material that is absent in Mk. Accordingly, the origin of this material and the question of the literary relationship between these corresponding parts of the gospels of Mark and Luke has to be analysed. Lk 3:1-6 The section Lk 3:1-6, which describes the beginnings of the public activity of John the Baptist, has been evidently composed by Luke on the basis of Mk 1:24. Luke reordered the Markan text according to his characteristic redactional pattern (cf. e.g. Lk 2:22-23; 7:24-27; 19:45-46), namely that of describing first the event (Lk 3:1-3; cf. Mk 1:4) and subsequently its scriptural justification (Lk 3:4-6; cf. Mk 1:2-3). Having inserted into the Markan framework the universalistic introduction Lk 3:1-2a (cf. Jos. Vita 13-16; Ant. 18.237; 19.275; 20.138), 2 Luke followed in Lk 3:2b the Markan clause ἐγένετο… Ἰωάννης… ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (Mk 1:4a), adding to it his favourite word ῥῆμα and the description of John as a son of Zacharias in agreement with Lk 1:5-80. The phrase περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, which has been inserted in Lk 3:3, evokes the motif of the plain of Jordan before the destruction of Sodom (Gen 13:10 LXX; cf. the Lukan use of this motif also in Lk 10:12; 17:28-29). 3 It does not refer, therefore, to the population of the valley of Jordan at the time of Jesus, but it introduces the image of John’s ‘fiery’ preaching of conversion, which is depicted in the following section Lk 3:7-20. The scriptural motif of the region of Sodom has been inserted into the gospel narrative in a characteristically Lukan (and non-Matthean), i.e. general-allusive way. The subsequent clause Lk 3:3b (κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) has been literally borrowed by Luke from Mk 1:4b.

2

Cf. S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (2nd edn., Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2003), 282. For recent surveys of scholarly opinions concerning Luke’s possible use of Josephus’ works, see e.g. G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1992), 365-369; S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 251-295 (opting for Lukan literary dependence on Josephus’ works: esp. 292-293). The apparent contradictions between some historical-geographical details provided by Josephus and those given by Luke may be explained in purely exegetical categories, taking into consideration, among others, the well-known fact that also Josephus at times contradicted himself (cf. e.g. B.J. 2.175 and Ant. 18.60).

3

Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘The Reconstruction of Q and IQP / CritEd Parallels’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (BEThL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 53-147 (here: 84-85).

276

The Markan complex scriptural quotation in Mk 1:2-3 has been literally borrowed by Luke only in its part that was really taken from Isaiah (Lk 3:4 par. Mk 1:3). 4 The initial, non-Isaian part of the Markan complex quotation (Mk 1:2b) has been transferred by Luke to Lk 7:27, and at the same time its identification as Isaian has been understandably omitted. In its place, the subsequent fragment of the prophecy of Isaiah (Is 40:4-5 LXX) has been inserted (in agreement with the Pauline idea expressed in Rom 1:2) 5 and slightly modified in Lk 3:5-6 in order to obtain the favourite Lukan image of the road as the place of receiving salvation (cf. e.g. Lk 24:35; Acts 9:2; 13:10). Luke reworked therefore in Lk 3:1-6 the Markan text Mk 1:2-4 in agreement with his characteristic redactional preferences and procedures, probably with the use of the Pauline text Rom 1:2 and of Josephus’ works (Ant. 18.237; 19.275; 20.138; Vita 13-16). The hypotheses of Mark’s use of the text of Lk 3:16 and of Lukan dependence in Lk 3:1-6 on some non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or Mt) have to be rejected as not adequately proved. Lk 3:7-20 The section Lk 3:7-20 is a Lukan expansion of the corresponding Markan text Mk 1:5-8. At the beginning of the section (in Lk 3:7a), Luke closely followed the text he had borrowed from Mk 1:5ab. 6 He omitted, however, the Markan references to the Judaean region and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Mk 1:5a) in order to present John’s preaching as addressed to the crowds who had come from the whole Israel and who were understood as children of Abraham (Lk 3:8). This omission permitted Luke to prolong the scriptural allusion to the fiery destruction of Sodom, which has been introduced into the narrative in Lk 3:3, to the whole section Lk 3:7-20. 4

Cf. M. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 157.

5

For a recent survey of opinions on the possible Lukan literary dependence on Paul’s letters, see e.g. P. Elbert, ‘Possible Literary Links between Luke-Acts and Pauline Letter Regarding Spirit-Language’, in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice, ed. T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 226-254 (esp. 230-233).

6

Cf. e.g. T. Schramm, Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (SNTS.MS 14; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1971), 35; A. Fuchs, ‘Durchbruch in der Synoptischen Frage: Bemerkungen zu einer “neuen” These und ihren Konsequenzen’, in SNTU.A 8 (1983) 33-81 (esp. 13-14) [also in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 1 (SNTU.NF 1; Lit: Münster 2004), 101-115 (esp. 111)]; F. Neirynck, ‘Reconstruction of Q and IQP’, 82.

277

The subsequent Markan text (Mk 1:5c) describes the activity of the people as confessing their sins. This Markan motif, together with the earlier introduced scriptural allusion to the plain of Jordan before the fiery destruction of Sodom (Lk 3:3; cf. Gen 13:10 LXX), has been expanded by Luke into the pericope Lk 3:7-9. The particular motifs of (a) Abraham as protector against the imminent destruction by fire and (b) exceptional escape before the universal destruction have been borrowed by Luke from Gen 18:20-19:29. Against this scriptural background, the opposition between (a) the “brood of vipers” understood as the offspring of Abraham’s fleshly relative Lot who fled away from the fire that burned down Sodom (cf. Gen 19:30-38) and (b) Abraham’s children of promise (cf. Gen 18:1-19) is clearly Pauline (τέκνα… Ἀβραάμ: Rom 9:7-9; cf. ἐγείρω: Rom 4:17-25). 7 The image of cutting down from the roots the tree that does not bear good fruit (Lk 3:9 par.; cf. Lk 6:43), which refers metaphorically to Israel, is most probably a Lukan, post-70 AD version of Rom 11:16-24, 8 which has been reworked according to the Lukan redactional pattern that is attested also in Lk 13:6-9. The vocabulary that has been used in Lk 3:7-9 par. is (Pauline)Lukan and non-Matthean (ἔχιδνα, ὑποδείκνυμι, ὀργή as God’s punitive wrath, ἄξιος τῆς μετανοίας, ἄρχομαι + λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, πατήρ + Ἀβραάμ, τέκνα + Ἀβραάμ). 9 The Lukan syntagm γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, 10 which describes in Lk 3:7 the behaviour of vipers in a characteristically Lukan way, namely as fleeing away from the fire (cf. Lk 3:9; Acts 28:3), was later borrowed, as peculiarly ‘harsh’, from Luke by Matthew (Mt 12:34; 23:33), 11 but without its original scriptural-Lukan context of the universal fiery destruction. The pericope Lk 3:10-14 is thematically based on the Markan description of John as having three most distinctive attributes: peculiar clothes, belt, and food (Mk 1:6). John’s summons to the crowds to share clothes and food in Lk 3:10-11 is based on the first and the third John’s attributes in Mk 1:6. Both motifs have been combined by Luke and placed before the motif of material wealth, like in Lk 12:22-31.32-34. The summons concerning money (Lk 3:12-14) is a particular Lukan reworking of the Markan motif of the belt (ζώνη: Mk 1:6), 7

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001), 41.

8

Cf. ibid. 41 n. 13.

9

Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Matthäusevangeliums vom Lukasevangelium’, ThStKr 69 (1896) 83-93 (esp. 86).

10

The peculiar syntagm γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, which has been used in Lk 3:7, may be a Lukan allusion to the offspring of Anak (Judg 1:10 LXX), who were apparently supposed to have inhabited Sodom and Gomorrah before their destruction by the fire of God’s wrath (cf. Sir 16:6-9 LXX; Deut 9:2-3 LXX).

11

Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 92.

278

which was understood as a place for holding money (cf. Mk 6:8). The issue of wealth has been singled out of the corresponding text Mk 1:6 and commented in more detail in Lk 3:12-14 because of Luke’s general interest in this issue. The wording of Lk 3:12-14 alludes to the Pauline discussion concerning the wages of the leaders of the Church (1 Cor 9:7-27: ποιέω, διατάσσω, πράσσω, στρατεύω, ὀψώνια). 12 Luke transformed therefore the Markan image of a desert prophet (Mk 1:6) into a double message for the Church that consisted of ordinary members, who were called on to share their possessions with others (Lk 3:10-11), and Church leaders, who were urged to live in self-discipline and self-limitation for the kingdom of God (Lk 3:12-14; cf. Acts 20:33-35). The subsequent Markan text Mk 1:7-8 has been reworked by Luke in the pericope Lk 3:15-18. After the typically Lukan introduction Lk 3:15 (cf. Lk 1:21.29), which replaced Mk 1:7a, the evangelist borrowed in Lk 3:16 the Markan text Mk 1:7b-8 and reordered it in such a way that the contrast between John and Jesus, which was highlighted by Luke also elsewhere (e.g. Lk 7:28; 16:16), might be most clearly visible. Luke’s omission of the Markan expressions ὀπίσω μου and κύψας, which might suggest some close relationship between John and Jesus, also served to achieve this aim. The motif of fire, which has been added to the Markan text Mk 1:8b in Lk 3:16e, as well as the corresponding image of a universal destruction caused by wind and fire (Lk 3:17), in the context of Lk 3:3-20 most probably constitutes a further allusion to the destruction of Sodom by means of fire (cf. Lk 17:29; Gen 19:24 LXX). However, this traditional scriptural motif has been reworked by Luke with the use of the Pauline imagery that has been borrowed from 1 Cor 3:13.15-16 (πνεῦμα, κατακαίω, πῦρ) and conflated with the Markan motif of destruction by means of the inextinguishable fire (πῦρ ἄσβεστον: Mk 9:43). The image of gathering grain is characteristically Lukan (συνάγω τὸν σῖτον, ἀποθήκη: Lk 12:18). All these motifs, conflated in Lk 3:16e-17, served the evangelist to replace the Markan image of a common baptism (Mk 1:8b) with the Pauline-Lukan idea of individual moral responsibility for fulfilling one’s Christian vocation (cf. e.g. Lk 3:9). This idea has been elaborated in Lk 3:18 with the use of the PaulineLukan paraenetic verb παρακαλέω (cf. esp. Acts 2:40; Lk 20:1) and in Lk 3:19 by means of presenting John as rebuking Herod for not only marrying Herodias (Lk 3:19a; cf. Mk 6:17) but also for all evil things that he had done (Lk 3:19b). The Lukan conclusion Lk 3:20 again highlights the contrast between John and Jesus: this time to such an extent that, according to Luke, John had been appar12

Cf. M. D. Goulder, ‘Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline Letters?’, PRSt 13 (1986) 97112 (esp. 106); R. I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge: Santa Rosa, Calif. 2006), 69.

279

ently already shut up in prison when Jesus was baptized (Lk 3:21).13 Against this background, it is evident that the image of John the Baptist as the last of the scriptural prophets (Lk 3:2b-17) who announced the gospel before the coming of the Son of God (Lk 3:18-22) is in itself non-Lukan, and it serves only to illustrate the Pauline idea expressed in Rom 1:2. The whole section Lk 3:7-20 has been therefore composed by Luke as an expansion of the Markan fragment Mk 1:5-8 in thematic agreement with Rom 1:2 and with the use of several other Pauline (1 Cor 3:13.15-16; 9:7-27; Rom 4:17-25; 9:7-9; 11:16-24), Markan (Mk 6:8.17; 9:43), and scriptural motifs. The hypotheses of Mark’s use of the Lukan text and of Lukan dependence in Lk 3:720 on some non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or Mt) have to be rejected. Lk 3:21-22 The Lukan account of the baptism of Jesus (Lk 3:21-22) is a slightly reworked version of the corresponding Markan fragment Mk 1:9-11.14 Luke considerably shortened the Markan account of the baptism proper (Lk 3:21b; cf. Mk 1:9) in agreement with his constant interests in (a) diminishing the role of John in comparison to Jesus and (b) presenting the baptism of Jesus as the true “beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God” (cf. Rom 1:1-3a; Acts 1:22; diff. Mk 1:1). The motif of heaven opened during one’s prayer (προσεύχομαι, ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανόν sing.: Lk 3:21c) is characteristically Lukan (cf. Acts 10:9.11), just as the motif of external appearance (εἶδος: cf. Lk 9:29). The vocabulary that describes the descent of the Spirit upon (ἐπί) Jesus is scriptural-Lukan (cf. Is 61:1 LXX) and non-Matthean. Consequently, no non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources other than Rom 1:3a and Mk 1:9-11 (e.g. Q or Mt) may be detected behind the Lukan text Lk 3:21-22.

13

Cf. H. Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 1 (HThKNT 3/1; 2nd edn., Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1982), 185.

14

Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘The Minor Agreements and Q’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels. Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (NovTSup 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 49-72 (esp. 65-67) [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (BEThL 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 245-266 (esp. 260-261)].

280

Lk 3:23-38 After the statement that Jesus is God’s beloved Son (Lk 3:22; cf. Mk 1:11), Luke inserted Jesus’ genealogy (Lk 3:23-38) in order to demonstrate that Jesus was God’s Son also in a human, ‘genealogical’ way (υἱός… τοῦ θεοῦ: Lk 3:23. 38). The idea of inserting a genealogy into a literary work of another genre is known from the (in my opinion Pharisaic-like) Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (CD 4:4-5) 15 and is reflected in Paul’s ‘boasting’ of his belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1; Phlp 3:5). The Lukan genealogy is evidently based on a heptadic chronological pattern, which was known, for example, from the Apocalypse of Weeks and which was used by Luke also elsewhere (cf. e.g. Lk 2:36-37; 13:11.16; 17:4). 16 The introductory remark concerning the age of Jesus as being about thirty years old (Lk 3:23) is probably dependent on Jos. Vita 80. 17 The part of the genealogy that is not based directly on the Scriptures (Lk 3:23-31) displays several interesting features. Jesus’ genealogy according to the flesh is traced back to David (Lk 3:23.31; cf. Rom 1:3b; Lk 1:27), but through Nathan (or Natham) and not through Solomon. Luke, who was interested in the issue of unity of the whole Israel (not limited to the Jews), evidently resolved to make up a ‘parallel’ line of lineage, which would be less problematic for the Samaritans. The ‘ecumenical’ names that are contained in this part of genealogy are grouped in thematic series that allude to the history of Israel: Aramaicsounding names beginning with the same letter (Melea, Menna, Mattatha: 15

For the name and identification of the Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law, see below, 333 n. 127.

16

For example, in the Lukan genealogy (Lk 3:23-38), Abraham is the 21st character (3 × 7; cf. 1 En. 93:5), David is the 35th one (5 × 7; cf. 1 En. 93:7), Salathiel is the 56th one (8 × 7; cf. 1 En. 93:8), and Jesus is the 77th one (11 × 7; cf. 1 En. 93:10) who implicitly concludes the Jewish postexilic period and the whole pre-Christian history of the humankind. The Lukan heptadic calculation was most probably designed to replace the earlier one, which was based on counting jubilees and which was intended to justify the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty with its ‘Messiah’ Alexander Jannaeus. Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘“Ten Jubilees of Years”: Heptadic Calculations of the End of the Epoch of Iniquity and the Evolving Ideology of the Hasmoneans’, QC vol. 16, no. 1-2 [July 2008], 19-36 (esp. 34-35).

17

Cf. K.-H. Ostmeyer, ‘Die Genealogien in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Vita des Josephus: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmung ihrer Charakteristika, Intentionen und Probleme’, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, ed. C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (WUNT 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 451-468 (esp. 459-460).

281

Lk 3:31), ‘ecumenical’ patriarchs (Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph: Lk 3:29-30; cf. Semein, Josech, Joda: 3:26), ‘ecumenical’ conquerors of the land of Israel (Joshua, Eliezer: Lk 3:29), unspecified kings (Melchi: Lk 3:28), postexilic rulers of the presumably not yet divided Israel (Zerubbabel, Salathiel: Lk 3:27), northern prophets (Amos, Nahum, cf. Naggai: Lk 3:25), Hasmonean rulers of Judaea and the subsequent priestly-royal rulers of the whole Israel (Mattathias as the grandfather of Jannai, an enigmatic Joseph replacing Hyrcanus the destroyer of Samaria [diff. Jos. Vita 3]; Levi, Melchi; Matthat: Lk 3:24-25; cf. the same idea expressed in Josephus’ genealogy: Vita 2), 18 and finally the ‘ecumenical’ high priest ruling in the period immediately preceding the rise of the monarchy (Heli: Lk 3:23). 19 Consequently, this part of genealogy is purely fictitious; it reflects solely Luke’s particular aims. The section Lk 3:23-38 has been therefore composed by Luke as an explanation of Rom 1:3b on the basis of the sacred Scriptures of Israel, Jewish (especially Pharisaic-like) and maybe also Samaritan exegetical traditions, and probably also Josephus’ Vita. No non-Pauline Christian literary sources (e.g. L or Mt) of Lk 3:23-38 may be detected behind the text of this Lukan section. Lk 4:1-13 The section Lk 4:1-13 is a Lukan counterpart of the much shorter Markan pericope Mk 1:12-13. The way of reworking Mk 1:12-13 in Lk 4:1-13 is peculiarly Pauline-Lukan. As it has been demonstrated above, Luke used in the preceding section Lk 3:23-38 the Pauline motif of Jesus’ belonging, according to the flesh, to the posterity of David (Rom 1:3). In the section Lk 4:1-13, the evangelist explained the second, somewhat enigmatic part of the Pauline creed, namely that Jesus was declared Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness (Rom 1:4). 20 The tripartite pericope Lk 4:1-13, which deals with the issues of Jesus’ divine sonship in its first and third parts (Lk 4:3-4.9-12) and of Jesus’ authority in its second part (Lk 4:5-8), gives a Lukan answer to the question whether and in what way Jesus was the Son of God in Spirit, power, and holiness (cf. Lk 4:14: ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος). The introduction to the section (Lk 4:1-2) originates from Mk 1:12-13b. The statement Lk 4:1a is evidently Lukan (πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου, ὑπο18

Cf. ibid. 454-455.

19

Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989), [vol. 1,] 288.

20

Accordingly, the whole fragment Lk 3:1-4:13 presents the Lukan version of the “beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God” (Mk 1:1) in thematic agreement with the Pauline creedal statements Rom 1:2-4.

282

στρέφω). Lk 4:1b-2a is a redactionally corrected version of Mk 1:12-13b, 21 in which the Markan problematic ἐκβάλλω has been replaced with the more neutral and more Scripture-based ἤγετο (borrowed from Deut 8:2 LXX, which precedes Deut 8:3 LXX quoted in Lk 4:4) 22 that implies that during the fasting and the temptations Jesus remained always empowered and sanctified by the Spirit (πνεῦμα: cf. Rom 1:4; diff. Mk 1:13d: οἱ ἄγγελοι). The non-Septuagintal word order ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα (Lk 4:2a), as well as the idea of fulfilling (συντελέω) the period of spiritual trial that consisted in living in the desert and not eating anything, most probably originates from Jos. Vita 12. The idea of occasional fasting before the beginning of an important mission (Lk 4:2b) is peculiarly Lukan and non-Matthean (cf. Acts 13:2-3; 14:23). 23 The order of the three temptations in Lk 4:3-12 accords with the scriptural tradition: the desert, the kingdom, and the Temple (cf. e.g. Acts 7:36-50). 24 The spatial references in Lk 4:1.5.9 form a consistent pattern of an ascending movement from the desert to Jerusalem, which is carried out after the conclusion of the period of spiritual hardening in the desert (cf. Jos. Vita 12). Moreover, Jesus’ answers in the second and third temptations (Lk 4:8.12 par.) originate from consecutive scriptural passages in Deut 6:13.16 LXX. 25 The third Lukan temptation develops the motif of angels (οἱ ἄγγελοι: Lk 4:10), which concludes the corresponding Markan text Mk 1:13. The order of the three temptations is therefore more original in Lk 4:3-12 than in Mt 4:1-11 and it reflects Luke’s use of his sources, according to his particular aims and procedures. 21

Cf. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 36.

22

Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Note on Q 4,1-2’, EThL 73 (1997) 94-102 (esp. 98-100) [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000, 440-450 (esp. 444-448)].

23

Cf. G. Bouwman, Das dritte Evangelium: Einübung in die formgeschichtliche Methode, trans. H. Zulauf (Patmos: Düsseldorf 1968), 80.

24

The generally non-Lukan tripartite pattern of Lk 4:3-12 associates Jesus, according to the pattern of the Apocalypse of Weeks, which must have been known to Luke (cf. the preceding section Lk 3:23-28), particularly with Moses, by Jesus’ being distanced from him by the ‘week’ of the desert and the judges, then the ‘week’ of the monarchy, and finally the ‘week’ of the priestly rule in Judaea. This Lukan and non-Matthean intertextual link highlights Jesus’ piety and holiness as based on the Mosaic Torah (cf. the literal quotations from the Torah in Lk 4:4.8.12; cf. also similar Josephus’ claims concerning his Pharisaic piety: Vita 12). The temptations described in Lk 4:1-13 have therefore a double significance. They recall (a) the temptations of Israel in the desert before and during the gift of the law (Lk 4:1-2; cf. Deut 9:7-9 LXX) and (b) the temptations during Israel’s history after the gift of the Mosaic law (Lk 4:3-12).

25

Cf. e.g. D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. and Apollos: Nottingham 2008), 251-414 (esp. 285).

283

The unusual phrase υἱὸς… τοῦ θεοῦ in Lk 4:3.8 par. (which was literally copied in Mt 27:40 diff. Mt 27:43) is probably based on the main statement of the preceding section (Lk 3:23.38), and consequently it is probably Lukan and non-Matthean. The scriptural quotation in Lk 4:8 par. is a conflation of Deut 5:9 LXX and Deut 6:13 LXX, which has been additionally supplemented with the adjective μόνος that is typical of Luke and not of Matthew. The syntagm γέγραπται ὅτι in Lk 4:10 par. is Markan-Lukan and non-Matthean. The section Lk 4:1-13 is therefore an expanded version of Mk 1:12-13, which has been reworked in thematic agreement with the Pauline statement Rom 1:4 with the use of numerous scriptural and traditional Jewish motifs conflated with motifs borrowed from Josephus’ Vita. The hypotheses of Mark’s use of the Lukan text and of Lukan dependence in Lk 4:1-13 on some non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or Mt) have to be rejected. Conclusions The part of the Lukan narrative that describes John the Baptist’s public activity and the preliminary stage of Jesus’ public activity (Lk 3:1-4:13) is a Lukan reworking of the opening section of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 1:2-13) in thematic agreement with the Pauline text Rom 1:2-4.26 It has been demonstrated that Luke used in his work several other motifs that he had borrowed from (a) the Scriptures in the version of the Septuagint, (b) the Pauline letters (esp. Rom 9:79; 1 Cor 9:7-27), (c) other Markan texts, (d) Jewish (especially Pharisaic-like) and maybe also Samaritan exegetical traditions, and (e) Josephus’ works (Antiquitates and Vita). The way of Luke’s use of his sources in Lk 3:1-4:13 is generally consistent with that characteristic of other parts of the Lukan work (esp. Lk 6:20-8:3; 9:5119:28). Luke used several sources at a time, paraphrased them, and conflated them. He made use of the correspondences between their linguistic and thematic features in order to combine his secondary sources with the main structuring hypotext Mk 1:2-13. The instances of literal quoting of the text of the Scriptures (in the version of the Septuagint), which is rather untypical for Lk, were motivated by particular Lukan aims in the respective sections. The material of Lk 3:1-4:13, inasmuch as it differs from that borrowed from Mk, is phrased with the use of the characteristically Pauline and Lukan vocabulary. In the material that is common to Mt and Lk but, on the other hand, absent or different in Mk the wording is generally Lukan and non-Matthean, 26

284

Cf. also another instance of Luke’s evident hypertextual use of Rom 1:1-5 (while Rom 1:3-4 was treated as a structuring hypotext) in the opening part of the Lukan work, namely in Lk 1:26-38.

with a few instances of Matthew’s literal borrowing of some peculiar Lukan phrases that were taken out of their original contexts. The above-presented analyses proved that the hypotheses of (a) Mark’s dependence on Lk 3:1-4:13, (b) Luke’s dependence on non-Pauline and nonMarkan Christian literary sources (e.g. Mt or hypothetical sources like Q, L, Proto-Lk, protogospel, Proto-Mk, and Deutero-Mk), and (c) Luke’s dependence solely on oral traditions have to be rejected.

4.2 The sources and their use in the so-called Lukan ‘little interpolation’ (Lk 6:20-8:3) The so-called Lukan ‘little interpolation’ (Lk 6:20-8:3) consists of material that has been inserted into the basic narrative framework of Mk after the pericopes Mk 3:7-19 par. Lk 6:12-19. The way of inserting this material into the Markan framework is quite particular. It is evident that Luke changed the places of the Markan pericopes that both preceded and followed the so-called ‘little interpolation’. The order of the Markan pericopes Mk 3:7-12 and Mk 3:13-19 has been reversed in the Lukan corresponding textual units Lk 6:12-16 and (redactionally abbreviated) Lk 6:17-19. Likewise, the Markan sections Mk 3:31-35 and Mk 4:1-34 have been interchanged in the corresponding Lukan textual units: (redactionally abbreviated) Lk 8:4-18 and Lk 8:19-21. In such a way, the relatives of Jesus could be presented by Luke in Lk 8:19-21 (par. Mk 3:31-35) in a positive and not contrasting relationship to hearing and doing the word of God (cf. Lk 11:27-28), which is described in Lk 8:4-18 (par. Mk 4:1-25). 27 The so-called Lukan ‘little interpolation’ (Lk 6:20-8:3) substitutes therefore for the Markan section Mk 3:20-30 in the structure of the textual block Lk 6:128:21, which corresponds to Mk 3:7-4:25. 28 The textual unit Lk 6:20-8:3 still occupies the central position (C–C’) in the Mk-derived pattern A–B–C–D–E (Mk 3:7-12; 3:13-19; 3:20-30; 3:31-35; 4:1-25) that has been reworked by Luke by means of interchanging the external elements and abbreviating the ones that have been placed closer to the centre: B’–A’abbr.–C’–E’abbr.–D’ (Lk 6:12-16; 6:17-19; 6:20-8:3; 8:4-18; 8:19-21). Accordingly, the so-called ‘little interpolation’ should be more adequately called ‘little reworking’. 27

Cf. S. Hultgren, Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative (BZNW 113; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 253-254.

28

Cf. G. Volkmar, Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten Text mit historisch-exegetischem Commentar (Fues’s (R. Reisland): Leipzig 1870), 258-260, 294.

285

The Markan section Mk 3:20-30 presents a triple charge that was issued against Jesus by his opponents. These three accusations are formulated in Mk 3:20-30 by means of the threefold repetition of the verb ἔλεγον (Mk 3:21.22. 30). The first charge, namely that of Jesus’ being out of mind (Mk 3:21), refers in its Markan narrative context to Jesus’ not being in a position to eat anything (Mk 3:20c), in contrast to his implicit claims to be the Son of God (Mk 3:11) and the ruler of the whole Israel (Mk 3:7-8.13-14). The second charge, namely that of performing miracles by means of the power of Beelzebul (Mk 3:22), is issued by the experts in the Scriptures who came from Jerusalem. The third charge, namely that of having an unclean spirit (Mk 3:30), is related in its Markan context (Mk 3:28-29) to Jesus’ promise of forgiveness of every human sin except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. These three charges have been reworked and answered by Luke in the three consecutive sections of the so-called Lukan ‘little interpolation’ (Lk 6:20-8:3), namely Lk 6:20-49; 7:1-35; and 7:368:3. Lk 6:20-49 The so-called Sermon on the Plain (Lk 6:20-49) is introduced in the Lukan narrative by a series of 3 + 1 beatitudes and a corresponding series of 3 + 1 woes (Lk 6:20b-23.24-26). 29 The triple Lukan and non-Matthean phrase μακάριοι οἱ (Lk 6:20b-21) introduces three Scripture-based motifs (cf. Is 61:1; Ps 107 [106]:9; 126[125]:6 LXX), which in their original contexts were related to the theme of the return of the whole People from the exile with the following restoration of Zion (Is 61:1-7; Ps 107[106]:2-9; 126[125]:1-6 LXX). This theme, which was interpreted in messianic categories in some Jewish circles in the second and first centuries BC (cf. e.g. 11Q13 [Melchizedek] 2:2-25; 3:9-10; 4Q521 [MessApoc] 2ii+4 1-14), 30 was certainly important for Luke, as it is attested in the nearby literary context (Lk 6:17 diff. Mk 3:7-9). However, the set of three beatitudes serves above all to illustrate, by means of scriptural motifs, the characteristic features of spirituality of Paul the Apostle (cf. esp. Rom 4:7; 2 Cor 6:10; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:11-13; Phlp 4:12; 3:18-20). 31 The way of dealing with the Scriptures in Lk 6:20b-21 is characteristically Lukan: the scriptural motifs

29

For a discussion on the introductory character of Lk 6:20a, see F. Neirynck, ‘Reconstruction of Q and IQP’, 71-73.

30

On the chronomessianic ideology of 11Q13 [Melchizedek], which most probably referred to the rule of Alexander Jannaeus, see B. Adamczewski, ‘“Ten Jubilees of Years”’, 31-35.

31

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 58-59.

286

have been recalled and to some extent conflated (cf. Lk 6:21b and Eccl 3:4), but they have not been quoted explicitly. The fourth beatitude (Lk 6:22-23 par.) is formally distinct from the preceding ones in that it is addressed directly to Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 6:20a). Both its form (μακάριοι + εἰμί + *ἄν + aor. subj.: cf. Lk 12:38) and its wording (hendiadys χαίρω καί another verb, ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολύς) are Lukan and nonMatthean. The fourth beatitude is the most elaborated among the beatitudes in the series Lk 6:20b-23. It announces the main theme of the following elaborate textual unit Lk 6:27-38, namely enmity and evil treatment of Jesus’ disciples, which evokes the Pauline interpretation of the Antiochene crisis (ἀφορίζω: Gal 2:12; cf. μισθός as future: 1 Cor 3:8; 9:18-23). The three Scripture-based beatitudes Lk 6:20b-21 and the general scriptural allusion to persecutions of the prophets in Lk 6:23 par. function therefore as a scriptural substantiation of the main, characteristically Lukan claim made in Lk 6:22 par., namely that the rebuke of Jesus (and consequently also of the Pauline disciples) that has been issued by Jesus’ relatives, as well as the exclusion from table fellowship (Mk 3:20-21; cf. Gal 2:12; cf. also Gal 1:18-19), belongs in fact to the characteristic features of Jesus’ (and consequently Paul’s) life as that of the suffering Son of Man, who promised a future, eschatological reversal (cf. e.g. Lk 16:19-23). The addition of the woes Lk 6:24-26, which thematically and linguistically correspond to the beatitudes Lk 6:20b-23, may be explained in terms of Lukan reworking of the literary topos of mutually corresponding blessings and curses, which is known from various Jewish writings (e.g. 1QS 2:1b-4a.4b-9; 4Q286 [Blessings and Curses] 7i-ii; 4QMMT C 14-20; 32 4Q511 [Songs of the Sage] 63iii-iv). The function of the woes in Lk 6:24-26 is similar to that of another Lukan reworking of Mk 3:20-22, namely Lk 11:15a. The woes in Lk 6:24-26 shift the burden of suspicion and guilt from Jesus’ relatives onto some unnamed rich members of the Galilean crowds. Moreover, they explain the problematic charges against Jesus in terms of a general social conflict. 33 32

It is worth noting that the motif of blessings and curses in 4Q397 14_21 13-16; 4Q398 11_13 1-3 [4QMMT C 14-20] has, like in Lk 6:20-26, evident eschatological-messianic connotations, which originally most probably referred to the rule of Alexander Jannaeus. Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘The Hasmonean Temple and Its Water-Supply System in 4QMMT’, QC vol. 13, no. 2/4 [April 2006], 135-146 (esp. 143 n. 24); id., ‘“Ten Jubilees of Years”’, 34 n. 43.

33

The technique of shifting the burden of suspicion and guilt from Jewish Christians onto non-Christian Jews was widely used by Luke in both Lk and Acts: cf. e.g. W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘The Timothy-Titus Problem Reconsidered’, ExpTim 92 (1980) 231-235 (esp. 234); C. Mount, Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (NovTSup 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 155. The idea of alluding to the

287

The elaborate textual unit Lk 6:27-38 presents various positive answers of Jesus’ (Pauline) disciples to the problem of external enmity and mistreatment of them. The first answer, described in Lk 6:27-30.35a, is Lukan and non-Matthean: it is the response of love (ἀγαπάω) directed also towards enemies (Lk 6:27b; cf. Lk 7:5; 10:25-37). This idea evokes the mature teaching of Paul the Apostle, who was hardly proved in his love by misunderstanding and rejection (cf. Rom 5:8; 12:17-21 and esp. Rom 11:28: *ἀγαπ, ἐχθροί; cf. also 2 Cor 2:4; 12:15). 34 Similarly, Lk 6:28a originates from Rom 12:14 (εὐλογεῖτε τούς, καταράω). 35 The idea expressed in Lk 6:29ab par. is also Lukan and non-Matthean, and it reflects the characteristic behaviour of Paul the Apostle (cf. Acts 23:2-5; cf. Hos 11:4 LXX). The motif of handing over both the overgarment and the undergarment (ἱμάτιον + χιτών: Lk 6:29cd par.), which illustrates the Pauline idea of giving up even the innermost parts of one’s belongings and personality (1 Thes 2:8; 2 Cor 8:9; Phlp 2:1-8), is likewise Lukan and non-Matthean. The second answer to the problem of external enmity and mistreatment of the disciples is based on the widely known in the Hellenistic world ‘golden rule’ (Lk 6:31), which has been interpreted in Lk 6:32-35 par., however, in a distinctively Pauline-Lukan (and non-Matthean) way, attested also in Lk 10:37. Loving the enemies by showing mercy to them establishes the standard for the ‘golden rule’ on the level of God and not on that of the sinners (cf. Lk 11:1-13). The idea of eschatological God’s sonship of Jesus’ disciples (υἱοί: Lk 6:35 par.) is also Pauline-Lukan (Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26; 4:6). The third answer to the problem (Lk 6:36) is evidently based on the Scriptures (cf. e.g. Exod 34:6; Deut 4:31). The fourth response (Lk 6:37) is again Pauline (cf. 1 Cor 4:5; Rom 2:1). It was foreshadowed already in Lk 6:35 by means of the use of the word χρηστός (cf. Rom 2:4). The fifth answer (Lk 6:38) is based on the Markan saying Mk 4:24bc (cf. also other instances of its Lukan reworking in Lk 12:14.31b; 19:16-22.27), which was omitted by Luke in Lk 8:16-18 par. Mk 4:21-25. The motifs used in the saying Mk 4:24bc (measure for measure; giving even more) have been interchanged in Lk 6:38, and at the same time Mk 4:24b has been stylistically corrected (ἐν ᾧ changed to ᾧ; μετρηθήσεται changed to Luke’s favourite *ἀντι-) Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem in terms of richness and to the Pauline Gentile Christians in terms of poverty has been most probably borrowed by Luke from Mk (cf. e.g. Mk 12:41-44). 34

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 61.

35

Cf. W. Schenk, ‘Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on his Reception’, in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, Festschrift B. van Iersel, ed. S. Draisma (Kok: Kampen 1989), 127-139 (esp. 133-134); P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 60-61.

288

and the motif of giving even more (Mk 4:24c) has been picturesquely elaborated. The remaining part of the section Lk 6:20-49 constitutes a Lukan reworking of the Markan text Mk 3:23-25. The opening statement Lk 6:39, with its unexpected introduction of a parable, evidently originates from Mk 3:23 (παραβολή, αὐτοῖς, δύναται, acc. + nom. sing. of the same noun + pres. inf., negative answer expected). The argument presented in Mk 3:23 has been reworked by Luke into three arguments. First: the one who lives without God is blind and has to be guided (cf. Rom 2:19), 36 and consequently he cannot guide himself (Lk 6:39). Second: a disciple of Satan cannot overpower Satan (Lk 6:40). Third: a blind person cannot remove (ἐκβάλλω) someone else’s blindness (Lk 6:41-42). The vocabulary used in Lk 6:41 is Lukan and non-Matthean (κατανοέω). 37 The two following pericopes (Lk 6:43-45.46-49) are based on Mk 3:24-25, which has been reworked in a particular Lukan way that is witnessed also in Lk 11:17. According to the Lukan text contained in the ‘travel narrative’, a kingdom divided against itself (Mk 3:24) ends up in being laid waste like a desert (Lk 11:17c), and a house divided against itself (Mk 3:25) falls down (Lk 11:17d). The same two images have been used in Lk 6:43-45.46-49. The fragment Lk 6:43-45 expresses the idea (congruent with the logic of Mk 3:24) that just as desert plants cannot bear sweet fruits, also a bad tree cannot bear good fruit and an evil person cannot do good things and speak with wisdom. 38 In Lk 6:46-49 the image of a falling house (οἰκία: Mk 3:25; cf. Lk 11:17d) has been reworked into a wisdom parable (referring to building upon the foundation of Christ or without any foundation: Lk 6:48-49), which is based on the Pauline texts 1 Cor 3:10-12 (τίθημι, θεμελίος) 39 and 1 Cor 10:4 (πέτρα as Christ). The parable itself is much more natural in its Lukan version of a flood (Lk 6:48-49) than in its Matthean version of rain and wind (Mt 7:25.27) presented as destroying the house. The specific motif of hearing and doing the word (ἀκούω, ποιέω, λόγος) is also Lukan and non-Matthean (cf. Lk 8:21). The section Lk 6:20-49 is therefore a Lukan reworking of the Markan text Mk 3:20-21.23-25 with the use of numerous Pauline, scriptural, and Hellenistic motifs. The hypotheses of Mark’s use of the Lukan text and of Lukan depend36

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 62.

37

Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 86-87.

38

Jas 3:12b is secondary to the Lukan text. Instead of illustrating the argument that is presented in Lk 6:44 par. and Jas 3:12c, it merely demonstrates difference between certain elements. Moreover, the Lukan image of the human heart as a treasure (Lk 6:45 par.) has been probably borrowed from 2 Cor 4:6-7, which may have been additionally conflated by Luke with Deut 28:12 LXX.

39

Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1,] 373; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 62.

289

ence in this section on non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or Mt) have to be rejected. Lk 7:1-35 Having presented in Lk 6:39-49 (which is based on Mk 3:23-25) ‘parabolic’ responses to the general, ‘popular’ charge against Jesus that was issued in Mk 3:20-21 (which has been reworked in Lk 6:20-38), Luke offered in Lk 7:1-35 a scriptural answer to the charge that was issued by the experts in the Scriptures who came from Jerusalem, namely that Jesus’ miracles were performed by the power of the demon and not by that of God (Mk 3:22.26; cf. Lk 11:15-16). The most important of the five pericopes that constitute the section Lk 7:135 is obviously the third, central one (Lk 7:18-23). The two main literary themes of Mk 3:22 (the representatives of the scriptural elite coming from Judaea, and the accusation of Jesus for the allegedly ungodly origin of his miracles) have been reworked by Luke in Lk 7:18-23 with the use of the Markan motif of the Judaean prophet John the Baptist who has been surprisingly presented in Lk 7:18-23 as allowed to freely receive and send disciples, despite his being shut up in prison (Lk 3:20). 40 In the Lukan account, John’s representatives come from 40

290

The indirect dialogue between John and Jesus, which is presented in the Lukan work as paradigmatic, may have been introduced by Luke in Lk 7:18-23 on the basis of the account of Josephus who described the death of John (datable for AD 35-36: cf. Ant. 18.116-119, presumably not more than one year before the event described in 2 Cor 11:32-33), in difference to Mk 6:14-29, as subsequent to the death of Jesus. For the date of Jesus’ death according to Josephus, see Ant. 18.63-64 in its original form that most probably referred, among others, to the followers of Jesus among Jews and (subsequently) Greeks. Josephus’ reference to Jesus was thematically elaborated in the following bipartite allusive story Ant. 18.65-84, which condemned the financially suspect proselytizing activity of some Jewish missionaries among the Romans in the capital of the empire. This story, for reasons hardly different from that of the story’s reference to the activity of Jewish Christians (cf. e.g. Rom 16:7; Gal 2:10; Acts 2:10-11) and especially Paul (cf. e.g. Phlp 3:3.20; 4:10.14.22) in Rome, was postponed by Josephus from AD 19 (expulsion of the Jews from Italy: cf. Tacitus, Ann. 2.85) to the time of Pilate (presented narratively as an expulsion of the Jews from Rome because of the blameworthy activity of Christian missionaries among the Romans); cf. H. D. Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome (SFSHJ 160; Scholars: Atlanta, Ga. 1997), 50 n. 42; M. Ebner, Jesus von Nazaret: Was wir von ihm wissen können (Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2007), 32. In such a way, Josephus thematically correlated the reference to Jesus who was called the Messiah (Ant. 18.63-64; cf. 20.200) and the allusive story concerning his blameworthy disciples (Ant. 18.65-84) with the reference to a Samaritan would-be Messiah (Ant. 18.85-87: “But also the nation of the Samaritans…”). Most probably in order to avoid evident historical inaccuracy, Luke omitted in his narrative the Markan texts Mk 6:17-29 and Mk 9:9-13,

Judaea (cf. Lk 7:17; 3:2-4:13; Jos. Ant. 18.119 diff. Mk 6:21) 41 and pose a Scripture-based question to which they receive a scriptural answer. The issue discussed in Lk 7:18-23 is very similar to that of the structurally corresponding Lukan text Lk 11:16.29-32: an implicit demand for an extraordinary sign from heaven that would ultimately prove the divine origin of Jesus’ mission is answered by Jesus’ pointing to the number of miracles that have been performed by him already earlier. The only signs that will be given “this generation” (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη: Lk 7:31; cf. 11:29-32) thereafter are: the prophetic preaching (Lk 7:24-30; cf. 11:29-30) and wisdom (Lk 7:31-35; cf. 11:31) of the Kingdom, which were foreshadowed by the preaching and wisdom of John. The vocabulary used in Lk 7:18-23 par. is Lukan and non-Matthean (προσδοκάω, 42 εὐαγγελίζω 43). The two initial pericopes of the section (Lk 7:1-10; 7:11-17) provide the factual rationale, which is otherwise missing in the preceding Lukan narrative (cf. Lk 7:21; 5:18-26; 5:12-14; 6:20), for Jesus’ Scripture-based argument presented in Lk 7:22 (cf. 4Q521 [MessApoc] 2ii+4 1-14). The first pericope (Lk 7:1-10) describes a Gentile who heard and believed in Jesus’ word (cf. κωφοὶ ἀκούουσιν in Lk 7:22; cf. also 11:14). The second one (Lk 7:11-17) describes raising the dead (cf. νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται in Lk 7:22). Both pericopes are additionnotwithstanding his evident redactional interest in presenting the activity of John as having terminated before the public appearance of Christ (Lk 3:20; 7:27-28). Likewise, Luke did not mention John in Lk 11:51 (despite the presence of the reference to John in Lk 9:9 par. Mk 6:16). 41

It is significant that in the Lukan account, in the effect of resuscitating the son of the widow at the town called Nain (Lk 7:11-16), the word about Jesus went throughout “all Judaea and all the surrounding region” (Lk 7:17). Josephus seems to have regarded the otherwise unknown Nain as a fortified village that was located on the border between Judaea and Idumaea (Jos. B.J. 4.511, 517). Luke evidently agreed with Josephus (Jos. Ant. 18.119) against Mark (Mk 6:21) in locating John’s place of imprisonment in Judaea and not in Galilee. Probably also for this reason, he omitted Mk 6:19-29 in his narrative: cf. M.-J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Luc (ÉtB; 7th edn., Gabalda: Paris 1948), 212. Jesus’ discourse to the crowds Lk 7:24-35, although not located explicitly in geographical categories, suits better the Judaean rather than the Galilean setting. The ‘JudaeanIdumaean-Gentile’ story Lk 7:11-17 offers therefore a narrative setting for the scriptural charges against (or rather in Lk: scriptural questions for) Jesus, which were issued by the people who came to Jesus from Judaea (Mk 3:22 and Lk 7:17-18) or, more precisely (in Lk), from the region of Machaerus.

42

Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 87; A. J. McNicol, ‘Has Goulder Sunk Q? On Linguistic Characteristics and the Synoptic Problem’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 46-65 (esp. 59).

43

Cf. A. J. McNicol, ‘Has Goulder’, 59.

291

ally correlated in several, particularly Lukan ways. They are based on evidently important for Luke allusions to the scriptural deeds of Elijah (1 Kgs 17:17-24 LXX) and Elisha (2 Kgs 5:1-19 LXX; cf. 4:8-37), which were first referred to in Lk 4:25-27 (ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ), and which have been interchanged in Lk 7:1-10.1117 in order to suit the order of messianic deeds in Lk 7:22 (cf. 4Q521 [Mess Apoc] 2ii+4 1-14). Both pericopes are based, moreover, on the Lukan favourite male–female pattern. The narrative setting of the pericope Lk 7:1-10, which describes Jesus at home at Capernaum (Lk 7:1.3-4), has been borrowed from the structurally corresponding text Mk 3:20 (ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον) and reworked by Luke in Lk 7:1, for the sake of clarity, with the use of Mk 2:1 (εἰσέρχομαι, εἰς Καφαρναούμ). The motif of entering the house of a military officer (Lk 7:6) has been most probably based on the similar Markan motif of entering the house (εἰσέρχομαι, οἰκία) of a strong man (Mk 3:27), which has been rephrased with the use of other Markan texts: Mk 5:22-23.35-36; 7:30 (cf. e.g. σκύλλω in Mk 5:35). 44 The motifs of a Gentile God-fearer (Lk 7:3-5; cf. Acts 10:1-11:18), Jesus’ not coming into physical contact with the Gentiles (Lk 7:6), and believing solely in Jesus’ efficacious word (Lk 7:8) are peculiarly Lukan. The motif of being put under authority (ὑπό, ἐξουσία, τάσσω pass.: Lk 7:8) is Pauline (Rom 13:1). The wording of Lk 7:1-10 par. is Lukan and non-Matthean (ἑκατοντάρχης, verb of saying + λόγῳ, ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι, ποίησον). In the pericope Lk 7:11-17, which is composed with the use of Lukan favourite vocabulary (e.g. μονογενής, ἀνακαθίζω), the motif of weeping (κλαίω: Lk 7:13) has been probably borrowed from the Markan fragment Mk 5:38-43. This fragment follows in the Markan narrative the textual units Mk 5:21-24.3537, which were used in the preceding Lukan pericope (Lk 7:1-10). The wording of the pericope Lk 7:24-30 par. is Lukan and non-Matthean (ἐξέρχομαι ἰδεῖν, σαλεύω, ναὶ λέγω ὑμῖν, οὗτός + ἐστιν + περὶ οὗ, μικρότερος used as superl.), just as the idea of John the Baptist’s not belonging to the era of the kingdom of God (Lk 7:28; cf. Lk 3:20; 16:16; Acts 19:2-4). The double initial ἀλλά in Lk 7:25-26, which introduces the image of a ‘strong’ prophet (Lk 7:24-26), is probably a Lukan reworking of Mk 3:27 conflated with Mk 1:6-7 on the basis of their common word ἰσχυρός. The conflated, Scripture-based quotation referring to John the Baptist (Mal 3:1; Exod 23:20 LXX), has been evidently borrowed in Lk 7:27 par. from Mk 1:2. At the same time, the problematic Markan identification of the quotation as Isaian has been understandably omitted by Luke. The pericope Lk 7:31-35 has been composed likewise with the use of Lukan and non-Matthean vocabulary (τίνι… ὁμοιώσω, προσφωνέω, ἐσθίω – πίνω, 44

292

Cf. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 42.

φίλος). Lk 7:32 is based on traditional Hellenistic motifs, which are used here to support the argument that is presented in a fuller form in the structurally corresponding text Lk 11:31, namely that Gentile wisdom can lead to the kingdom of God. 45 The reference to the diet of John the Baptist (Lk 7:33bc) is based on Mk 1:6 (cf. also Lk 1:15). The surprising charge issued against John in Lk 7:33d (δαιμόνιον ἔχει) is an evident, concluding reworking of Mk 3:22 in the section Lk 7:1-35. The whole section Lk 7:1-35 has been therefore composed as a reworking of the scriptural charge that was issued against Jesus in Mk 3:22, with the use of several other Markan texts, some Pauline letters, and traditional (scriptural, Jewish exegetical, and Josephus’) literary motifs. The hypotheses of Mark’s dependence on the Lukan text and of Lukan dependence on some non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Mt or Q) have to be rejected. Lk 7:36-8:3 The third section that belongs to the so-called Lukan ‘little interpolation’ (Lk 7:36-8:3) is a particular Lukan reworking of Jesus’ promise of forgiveness of every human sin except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mk 3:28-29), which was related in Mk to the third charge issued against Jesus in the text Mk 3:2030: of his having an impure spirit (Mk 3:30). The first pericope of the section (Lk 7:36-50) is thematically based on the Markan motif of forgiveness of all human sins, which has been borrowed by Luke from Mk 3:28 (ἀφίημι, *ἁμαρτ). The particular kind of the sin that is referred to paradigmatically in Lk 7:36-50 (the sin of an immoral woman) has been most probably taken by Luke from Mk 3:30 (πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον: cf. Lk 11:24). The main narrative motif of entering a house of a powerful person (εἰσέρχομαι εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν: Lk 7:44; cf. 7:36.45) has been probably based on Mk 3:27. Also other motifs that shape the Lukan story have been adopted from Mk and subsequently conflated by Luke: Jesus’ dining with sinners (κατάκειμαι, ἁμαρτωλός: Mk 2:15-17), an alabaster vase of ointment in the house of Simon 45

It is possible that the narrative characters presented by Luke in Lk 7:29-35 assume already in this text the allusive function assigned to them more clearly in Lk 11:29-54. Accordingly, the tax collectors would refer to Gentile believers (justified by means of receiving baptism), the Pharisees to the entourage of James, the enigmatic “experts in the law” to the Jerusalem “pillars” (not baptized by John), “this generation” to the Jerusalem Christians in general, and the Son of Man to Paul with his liberal food halacha (cf. Gal 2:1-21). The issue of the stance of the Jewish Christian anti-Pauline opponents towards the Pauline, peculiar theology of baptism (cf. 1 Cor 1:12-13; 12:13; Gal 3:2.27) was later tackled by Luke, with the use of the same motif of John’s baptism but in a somewhat different way, in Acts 18:24-19:5.

293

(ἀλάβαστρον μύρου, Σίμων: Mk 14:3), 46 forgiveness of sins and subsequent indignation over it (ἀφέωνταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, τίς… ἁμαρτίας ἀφίησιν: cf. Mk 2:5-7), 47 and an unclean woman touching Jesus and being saved by virtue of faith (ὀπίσω, ἅπτομαι αὐτοῦ, στραφείς, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε: Mk 5:2734). 48 Lk 7:36-50 displays therefore features of a typical of Luke conflation of several motifs that have been borrowed from various Markan texts. Luke reworked Mk 3:28.30 with the use of other Markan texts in a way typical of him: by shifting the burden of suspicion and guilt from the well-known persons onto some enigmatic ones. In the Lukan account, the sinful woman touching Jesus may be considered impure, but the impurity certainly does not refer to Jesus. The pericope Lk 7:36-50 contains also other typically Lukan motifs, which are used elsewhere in Lk: touching Jesus (ἅπτομαι αὐτοῦ: Lk 7:39; cf. 6:19), Jesus’ being invited to eat in a house of a Pharisee (cf. Lk 11:37; 14:1), and remission of one’s debt (cf. Lk 16:5-8). The motif of the Pharisee in Lk 7:36-39 corresponds to the Markan text Mk 3:30: a charge concerning uncleanness could be issued most plausibly by a Pharisee (cf. Lk 11:39). The wording of Lk 7:3650 is generally Lukan (e.g. κατακλίνω, χρεοφειλέτης, ὁ εἷς – ὁ ἕτερος, χαρίζομαι, ὑπολαμβάνω). The unhistorical in itself motif of the Roman monetary unit (denarius: Lk 7:41; diff. Lk 15:8-9: drachma) alludes most probably to the church in Rome (cf. the earlier allusions to the Letter to the Romans, esp. Rom 12-13, in Lk 6:2021.27b-28a.35.37.39; 7:8). Accordingly, the motif of a sinful woman entering a house of a ‘Roman’ Pharisee alludes most probably to the motif of the Corinthian (so presumably sinful) woman, who served Jesus and who came to Rome (1 Cor 16:1-2). Moreover, the motif of conflict with Simon over the issue of impurity at a common meal alludes most probably to Gal 2:11-12.14-21. 49 The short pericope Lk 8:1-3 is thematically based on the Markan text Mk 3:30 (being possessed by an impure spirit), which has been reworked in a 46

Cf. H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (SCM: London and Trinity: Philadelphia, Pa. 1990), 342 n. 2.

47

Cf. J. Delobel, ‘L’onction par la pécheresse. La composition littéraire de Lc., VII, 3650’, EThL 42 (1966) 415-475 (esp. 465); K. Paffenroth, The Story of Jesus according to L (JSNTSup 147; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1997), 36. In the logic of the Lukan reworking of Mk 3:28-30 in Lk 7:36-50, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists in the Jewish fellow banqueters’ indignation over the Pauline idea of forgiving sins on the sole basis of faith and love that are displayed by the impure Gentiles (cf. also Lk 11:23-26; 12:10).

48

Cf. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 43-45; M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1,] 398-399.

49

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 66.

294

particular Lukan way that is attested also in Lk 11:24.26 (πνεύματα πονηρά, ἐξέρχομαι ἀπό, ἑπτά) and in Luke’s redactional summaries that are thematically related to Lk 8:1-3, namely Lk 6:18c (θεραπεύω ἀπὸ πνευμάτων) and Lk 7:21 (θεραπεύω ἀπὸ πνευμάτων πονηρῶν). The motif of certain women (γυναῖκες) who accompanied Jesus in Galilee and provided for (διακονέω) Jesus and the Twelve has been borrowed by Luke from Mk 15:40-41. 50 The motif of going out of a demon (δαιμόνιον, ἐξεληλύθει) from a female narrative character has been borrowed from Mk 7:29-30 (cf. also the structurally related text Lk 11:14). Again, Luke evidently reworked Mk 3:28-30 in such a way that it should be clear for the reader that it was not Jesus who might have had an impure spirit, but at most the women who accompanied him. Luke’s use of the Markan motif of Mary Magdalene (Mk 15:40.47; 16:1) in Lk 8:2 may be explained by the evangelist’s resolve to allude further to the text of the Letter to the Romans, namely to Rom 16:6 (Μαρία). For this reason, the Markan simple reference Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή (Mk 15:40.47; 16:1) has been changed by Luke to Μαρία ἡ καλουμένη Μαγδαληνή (Lk 8:2), which draws attention to the name of Mary (cf. Rom 16:6) and not to her origin. The Markan motif of Mary Magdalene has been developed by Luke in Lk 8:2 in a particular way. Luke must have noticed that in the triple list of women that was provided by Mark in Mk 15:40.47; 16:1, only one woman (Mary of James) could be perceived as married to an explicitly named husband. Consequently, the evangelist who was interested in providing for his readers examples of good Christian families replaced in his list (Lk 24:10) the enigmatic Markan Salome with Joanna of whom he had written earlier that she was married to Chuza the governor of Herod (Lk 8:3). In the fragment Lk 8:2-3, which described ‘single’ women who travelled with Jesus through Galilee and who were for this reason implicitly not bound to their husbands, another procedure has been applied. The Markan enigmatic Salome has been replaced in Lk 8:3 with Susanna, whose name evoked the well-known Jewish literary motif of a wife who heroically preserved fidelity to her husband even in his absence. 51 Mary Magdalene, who according to the Markan Gospel apparently lived alone, has been described in Lk 8:2 with the use of the thematically related, conflated liter50

Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘The Argument From Order and St. Luke’s Transpositions’, EThL 49 (1973) 784-815 (esp. 813) [also in id., Evangelica: Gospel Studies – Études d’Évangile, ed. F. van Segbroeck (BEThL 60; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1982), 737768 (esp. 766)].

51

It is significant that the name Σουσάννα, used in Lk 8:3, is attested only once (and only in Hebrew) in Palestinian written sources dated to the period between 330 BC and AD 200: see T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1, Palestine 330 BCE – 200 CE (TSAJ 91; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2002), 426, 451.

295

ary motifs of a woman who had seven husbands killed by an evil demon (ἑπτά, δαιμόνιον: Tob 3:8) and remaining a not remarried widow (Mk 12:20-23; cf. Lk 2:37). Luke evidently did not confuse Mary surnamed Magdalene who accompanied Jesus (Lk 8:2) with the unnamed sinful women who had been sent away by him (Lk 7:50). In such a way, the Markan ethically suspect saying concerning Jesus’ remaining in the company of brothers, sisters, and mothers (Mk 3:35) has been replaced by Luke with the traditional, and yet additionally corrected by Luke, Markan motif of the Twelve and the morally ‘safe’ women, who formed the group that followed Jesus in Galilee and later in Jerusalem. Accordingly, the charge that Jesus had an impure spirit (Mk 3:30) has been answered by Luke in terms of Jesus’ forgiveness of all human sins (Lk 7:36-50) and of his throwing away impurity from women, who were considered most susceptible to impurity (Lk 8:1-3). The particular literary pattern that has been used in the list of women Lk 8:2-3 (the most important woman, a wife, a not married woman, and several other women—all of them in the context of *διακον) is most probably based on Rom 16:1-15 (Phoebe the presumably unmarried διάκονος and benefactor of the Apostle and of many others, Prisca the wife of Aquila, Mary, and several other presumably less distinguished women). Consequently, the Lukan narrative character of Chuza 52 most probably alludes to Aquila who was considered by Luke a representative of Paul in the Pauline Churches (cf. Rom 16:3 and only their οἶκος in the whole list 1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:1-15; Acts 18:18.26). The function of Chuza as a procurator of the not identified in Lk 8:3 Herod (diff. Lk 3:1.19; 9:7) is therefore most probably a literary allusion to the Church function of Aquila as it was understood from the particular Lukan point of view, which was more patriarchal than the Pauline one. For this reason, Joanna the wife of Chuza was most probably a fictitious character, which has been modelled by Luke upon the narrative character of the unnamed wealthy wife of Ptolemy the ἐπίτροπος of King Herod Agrippa II. According to Josephus, the latter married woman travelled without her husband from Galilee to the dominion of the Romans (Jos. Vita 126). The section Lk 7:36-8:3 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of the Markan text Mk 3:27-28.30 with the use of numerous other Markan texts, well-known Jewish literary motifs, Paul’s letters (esp. Rom 16:1-15 and Gal 2:11-14), and Josephus’ Vita. No non-Markan and non-Pauline Christian literary sources for Lk 7:36-8:3 (e.g. L) may be detected.

52

296

The person of Chuza, referred to in Lk 8:3, is not known from any non-Lukan, historical source: cf. ibid. 441.

Conclusions Under close scrutiny, the so-called Lukan ‘little interpolation’ (Lk 6:20-8:3) turned out to be a consistent Lukan reworking of the Markan text Mk 3:20-30. In order to deal adequately with this problematic text, which presented three charges that were issued against Jesus (Mk 3:21.22.30), Luke composed three thematically correlated textual units: Lk 6:20-49; 7:1-35; 7:36-8:3. The most general charge, somehow involving Jesus’ relatives (Mk 3:21; cf. also Mk 3:20. 23-25), has been reworked by Luke in terms of a general social conflict and of enmity against Jesus’ (i.e. Pauline) disciples (Lk 6:20-49). The second, scriptural charge Mk 3:22 (cf. also 3:26-27) has been replaced by the factual-scriptural discussion that was referred to John the Baptist (Lk 7:1-35). The third charge, namely that of having an impure spirit (Mk 3:30; cf. also 3:27-28), has been answered by Luke in terms of Jesus’ remaining in the company of women whom he forgave sins and whom he healed from evil spirits (Lk 7:36-8:3). In his redactional reworking of Mk 3:20-30, Luke used also numerous other Markan text and many traditional (scriptural, Jewish exegetical, Josephus’, and Hellenistic) literary motifs. Luke borrowed also numerous motifs and ideas from the letters of Paul the Apostle, especially from Rom 12-16, which may have been treated by the evangelist to a certain degree as a structuring hypotext. 53 The evangelist used several sources at a time, conflated them, paraphrased them, alluded to them, but, as a rule, he never quoted them literally. The choice of sources that were used in a particular Lukan text depended on their linguistic and/or thematic correspondences to the basic structuring text from Mk that was reworked in the given place.

53

In fact, the textual unit Lk 6:20-8:3 presents an initial Lukan formulation of the most characteristic features of the Pauline gospel, especially of its inherent link with poverty, rejection, love of the enemies, forgiveness, generosity, goodness, building on a solid foundation, outreach to the Gentiles, travel to the south-eastern desert, tensions with Judaean religious authorities, answering their questions first from afar, a short visit to Simon the ‘Pharisaic’ leader and dispute with him over the issue of participation of impure persons in the meals of the Jews, and undertaking a more broadly planned mission together with the persons who were widely regarded as at least formerly impure and sinful. Accordingly, the textual unit Lk 6:20-8:3 may be interpreted as a result of Luke’s free hypertextual reworking of the motifs contained in the Pauline text Gal 2:11-21, which presents the most characteristic features of Paul’s missionary activity against the ideas of his ‘Jacobean’ and ‘Petrine’ adversaries. These motifs have been conflated by Luke with numerous other Pauline motifs, borrowed mainly from Rom 12-16, as well as with other, scriptural and generally Hellenistic, literary motifs. For further arguments in favour of this hypothesis, see B. Adamczewski, Heirs of the Reunited Church (forthcoming), Section 3.2.

297

All pericopes that belong to the textual unit Lk 6:20-8:3 have been generally composed with the use of characteristically Lukan vocabulary and particularly Lukan redactional devices. In the fragments of Lk 6:20-8:3 par. that are common to Mt and Lk, much peculiarly Lukan and non-Matthean vocabulary has been used. On the basis of the above-presented analyses, the hypotheses of (a) Markan dependence on the text of Lk 6:20-8:3, (b) Lukan dependence in Lk 6:20-8:3 on non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Mt or hypothetical sources like Q, L, Proto-Lk, protogospel, Proto-Mk, and Deutero-Mk), and (c) Luke’s dependence solely on oral traditions have to be rejected.

4.3 The sources and their use in the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28) In modern synoptic studies, the central section of Lk is traditionally called the ‘great interpolation’ (Lk 9:51-18:14) because it is usually regarded as containing material that has been inserted by Luke in place of the so-called ‘little omission’ of the Markan material that was placed between Mk 9:40 (par. Lk 9:50) and Mk 10:13 (par. Lk 18:15). It may be easily noticed, however, that at least a part of the Markan material that is contained in the so-called ‘little omission’ (Mk 9:4110:12) has more or less exact parallels in the Lukan ‘great interpolation’ (e.g. Mk 9:42 par. Lk 17:2; Mk 9:51a par. Lk 14:34; Mk 10:11-12 par. Lk 16:18). Moreover, there are many other, at times more linguistic and at times more thematic, correspondences between the content of the Lukan ‘great interpolation’ and various fragments of Mk. Explanations of the intriguing phenomenon of more or less clear use of the Markan or ‘Markan-like’ material in the Lukan ‘great interpolation’ vary considerably according to the variety of more general source-critical and synoptic theories that are adopted by the exegetes. The hypotheses that are proposed by modern scholars as solutions to the problem of the presence of the ‘Markan-like’ material in the so-called Lukan ‘great interpolation’ or ‘travel narrative’ include Luke’s use of some non-Markan ‘travel source(s)’, 54 Luke’s use of Q that partially overlapped with Mk, 55 Luke’s conflation of Mk with some para-Markan 54

See e.g. L. G. Girard, L’Évangile des voyages de Jésus ou La Section 9,51 – 18,14 de saint Luc ([s.n.] Paris 1950), 39-50, 120-121; G. Ogg, ‘The Central Section of the Gospel According to St Luke’, NTS 18 (1971-1972) 39-53.

55

See e.g. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition, Quellen und Funktion des Lukanischen Reiseberichtes (Lk. ix 51-xix 28)’, NovT 20 (1978) 100-135 (esp. 113-121); J. Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas

298

traditions, 56 Luke’s dependence on a Deutero-Markan reworking of Mk,57 Luke’s dependence on a lost pre-Markan protogospel, 58 Mark’s use of a ProtoLk, 59 Mark’s conflation of Mt-Lk doublets, 60 Luke’s dependence on a Matthean reworking of Mk and at times also on Mark, 61 and Luke’s dependence at times on Q and at times on Mk. 62 There at least are two problems that result from the logical structures of these hypotheses. First, in all above-mentioned theories apart from the very implausible hypothesis of Lukan dependence on Mt, the existence of some hypothetical lost source or sources (e.g. the ‘travel source’, Q, L, a common protogospel, Proto-Lk, or Deutero-Mk) has to be postulated. The extent and wording of these sources may be found out only by means of sophisticated reconstructive procedures, which are in reality quite difficult to verify, as, for example, the notorious difficulties with the reconstruction of the hypothetical peculiarly Lukan source or sources (the so-called ‘L’) clearly show. Second, none of these scholarly theories explains the distribution and order of the ‘Markan-like’ material in the so-called ‘great interpolation’. Even if several scholars allow for some Markan influences on this part of the Lukan narrative, no existing theory adequately explains the apparently chaotic pattern of the use of the Markan material in Lk 9:51-18:14. Accordingly, the entire central section of Lk is usually perceived as an amalgam of various pre-Lukan traditions that have been lumped together within the very vague redactional framework of the so-called ‘great interpolation’ or ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51 ff.). (WMANT 76; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997), 144-486; H. T. Fleddermann, Q, 190-194. 56

See e.g. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 46-49.

57

See e.g. A. Fuchs, ‘Spuren von Deuteromarkus – Ein Überblick’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 1 (SNTU.NF 1; Lit: Münster 2004), 7-32 (esp. 26-30).

58

S. Hultgren, Narrative Elements, 249-255.

59

See e.g. P. Benoit and M.-E. Boismard, Synopse des Quatre Évangiles en français, vol. 2, Commentaire par M.-E. Boismard avec la collaboration de A. Lamouille et P. Sandevoir, pref. P. Benoit (Cerf: [s.l.] 1972), 25-28, 270-305; T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (NTM 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 174-175, 179-182.

60

See e.g. A. J. McNicol, ‘The Composition of the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 157-200 (esp. 188-193).

61

M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1,] 170-177, [vol. 2,] 453-691 (esp. 457).

62

F. Neirynck, ‘Reconstruction of Q and IQP’, 86-92.

299

A new approach, based on other premises, has to be therefore adopted. First, instead of assuming that Luke used for the composition of the central section of his Gospel some hypothetical lost sources (or that he reworked Mt in a hardly understandable way), this large Lukan section has to be investigated on the sole reasonable assumption of the relative priority of Mk against Lk. Second, the possibility of Luke’s use of the Pauline material shall not be excluded a priori, as it is usually done, without adequate reasons, in modern scholarship. An adequate method has to be adopted for this type of new source-critical investigations. 63 All purely synchronic (i.e. formal-structural, narratological, biographical, etc.) approaches are not very suitable for the source-critical analysis of the central section of Lk because they methodologically leave out the question of possible sources of the Gospels. Consequently, they have a very limited value for the research on the phenomenon of the presence of the ‘Markan-like’ material in the apparently non-Markan, Lukan text. On the other hand, purely diachronic analyses, which are carried out in form-critical categories, methodologically atomize the text by treating individual pericopes, sayings, etc. as originally independent of one another, and consequently as a priori not belonging to any coherent literary project. A combination of synchronic and diachronic approaches to the Lukan text has to be therefore adopted. After such a general methodological statement, an objection may be raised, namely that since Lk was analysed for over half a century with the use of the redaction-critical method that unites diachronic and synchronic analyses of the text, the aims and procedures that were adopted by Luke are already quite well known. Such an objection is justified only partially. It should be noted that all modern redaction-critical investigations of Lk were performed on the assumption of Luke’s at least secondary literary dependence either on the hypothetical source Q (in the Q theory and its derivatives: hypotheses of common oral tradition, Proto-Mk, and Deutero-Mk) or on some other lost sources (in the ‘textual 63

300

For recent surveys of the variety of synchronic and diachronic approaches to the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ that are adopted by modern scholars, see e.g. E. Mayer, Die Reiseerzählung des Lukas (Lk 9,51 – 19,10): Entscheidung in der Wüste (EHS 23/554; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1996), 17-67; J. Székely, ‘Structure and Purpose of the Lucan Travel Account’, Folia Theologica 8 (1997) 61-112 (esp. 63-96) [also in J. Székely, Structure and Theology of the Lucan “Itinerarium” (Lk 9,51-19,28) (Szent Jeromos Katolikus Bibliatársulat: Budapest 2008), 9-54]; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ und ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ: Eine exegetische Untersuchung der Texte des sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium (BZNW 101; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2001), 6-44; F. Noël, The Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke: Interpretation of Lk 9,5119,28 (CBRA; Wetenschappelijk Comité voor Godsdienstgeschiedenis van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten van België: Brussel 2004), 15-206.

tradition’, multiple-source, and protogospel theories) or on Mt (in the Augustinian, Two-Gospel and Farrer–Goulder hypotheses). Accordingly, the results of modern redaction-critical analyses of Lk are largely conditioned by various, not necessarily correct, source-critical assumptions that are made by the scholars. Since these assumptions may be considered methodologically questionable, a new type of diachronic-synchronic investigations of Lk has to be proposed. Given that the precise character of the literary relationship between Mk and Lk is, from the methodological point of view, not the point of departure but the point of arrival of the below-presented analyses, the central part of Lk cannot be treated here as the ‘great interpolation’ that is defined as having virtually no counterpart in Mk. For the sake of methodological unprejudicedness, the central part of Lk should be defined more neutrally as a literary unit that contains the so-called Lukan ‘travel narrative’. It may be easily noticed that, in the narrative framework of the Lukan work, the so-called ‘travel narrative’ begins after the pericope Lk 9:49-50, which refers to the appearance, on the cognitive horizon of the Twelve, of an enigmatic person who acts in the name of Jesus but does not follow him together with the Twelve. The parallel Markan text Mk 9:38-40 apparently alludes to the person of Paul the Apostle. It may be therefore reasonably assumed that the whole ‘travel narrative’, which has been inserted by Luke precisely at this point of the gospel narrative, thematically refers somehow to the person and missionary activity of Paul the Apostle. 64 However, the origin and detailed features of this thematic relationship have to be adequately investigated. The below-proposed analysis of the ‘travel narrative’ will not methodologically presuppose any particular delimitation, structure, or particular understanding of the central part of Lk. However, at the starting point of the analyses, some preliminary delimitation and division of this part of the Gospel has to be adopted. Accordingly, the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ will be investigated in the limits of Lk 9:51-19:28, and it will be divided into three main parts: Lk 9:5113:21; 13:22-17:10; and 17:11-19:28, on the basis of the presence of the socalled ‘travel notices’ in Lk 9:51; 13:22; 17:11; 19:28. The central part of Lk will be further subdivided into several minor sections whose delimitation results from the observation of Luke’s particular use of his sources. 4.3.1 Lk 9:51-13:21 The first part of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ contains pericopes that are included between the first and second ‘travel notices’, which refer to Jesus as going to 64

Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 470-471, 481; H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (2nd edn., Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 1999), 231-232.

301

Jerusalem (Lk 9:51; 13:22). This repeated literary device is so distinctive in the Lukan text that it may be regarded as having been almost certainly intended by Luke to function as a structuring marker. However, the significance of this delimitation of the first part of the ‘travel narrative’ to Lk 9:51-13:21 is, at least at a first glance, not very clear. It becomes more evident when the Lukan text is analysed in categories of its relationship to its literary sources. Lk 9:51-62 The Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28) evidently begins in Lk 9:51 with the solemn statement that refers to the fulfilment of the time of Jesus’ being taken up and to his firm resolve to go to Jerusalem. The temporal adverbial ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι (Lk 9:51a, cf. Acts 2:1), which is somehow confusing the reader as having a retrospective and not prospective meaning, 65 refers (like in Acts 2:1) to present-conclusive fulfilment of the days of Jesus’ being taken up to heaven (cf. Acts 1:2), 66 and consequently to the narrative situation that corresponds to that of Acts 1:4-8.11, namely that of Jesus’ departure from this world and of his commissioning the disciples to be his witnesses as far as the end of the earth. By means of the use of this illogical, if taken in its purely literal meaning, retrospective temporal adverbial, the evangelist offered already at the beginning of the ‘travel narrative’ the fundamental hermeneutic key to understanding this large part of his work. The ‘travel narrative’ as a whole should be interpreted as having more than just one level of intended meaning. On the literal level, it refers to the historical situation of Jesus’ life. On the allusive level, which is in reality much more important for Luke and his readers, it refers to the postascension history of the Church. Consequently, the narrative characters and phenomena that have been used and developed by Luke in the ‘travel narrative’ should be interpreted not only in their explicit literal meaning but also in their paradigmatic value, as allusively referring to the persons, events, and phenomena that characterized the situation and problems of the early Church. According to this fundamental hermeneutic principle of interpretation of Lk 9:51-19:28, for example, the Lukan narrative ‘Samaritans’ do not refer sim65

Cf. A. W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (NovTSup 87; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1997), 84-86; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 134-136.

66

Cf. also the earlier reference to Jesus’ Jerusalem ‘exodus’ in Lk 9:31. Both these Lukan redactional remarks are clearly correlated in a particularly Lukan, scriptural-allusive way on the level of their theological-chronological meaning. The ἀνάλημψις in Lk 9:51 follows the ἔξοδος in Lk 9:31.

302

ply to the real Samaritans, the narrative ‘Jews’ do not denote merely the historical Jews, the narrative ‘rulers’ do not refer simply to representatives of civil authorities, etc. Luke often used such narrative characters, who represented various opponents of the gospel, to allude to persons and communities that were involved in intra-Christian conflicts, which were regarded by Luke as potentially scandalizing for his readers if described in a straightforward way (cf. e.g. Acts 16:3 and Gal 2:3; 6:12; Acts 15:1 and Gal 2:12; cf. also Luke’s main literary aim: Lk 1:4). 67 Consequently, in agreement with the hermeneutic rule that has been suggested to the reader in Lk 9:51, the Lukan narrative characters and phenomena should not be interpreted simply in their explicit literal meaning, without taking into consideration their much more important allusive connotations, which were hinted at by the evangelist by means of some particular phrases, words, combined literary motifs, topics, etc. The sometimes astonishing features of the Lukan narrative have to be explained adequately, with due respect for the evangelist’s literary skill, and not in terms of modern scholars’ censuring Luke for his allegedly only limited knowledge of, for example, Septuagintal phraseology, Paul’s theology, and geography and culture of Israel of the first century AD. The interpretation of Lukan literary allusions affects therefore greatly the understanding of his overall aims and procedures, and consequently conditions also all redaction-critical and source-critical analyses of the ‘travel narrative’. In order to find possible sources for the Lukan narrative, the scholar cannot limit his investigation only to the analysis of the traceable origins of the vocabulary and literary motifs that have been used in a particular pericope (for example, in the ‘mission charge’ Lk 10:1-12). He has to ask also what is the possibly manifold function and semantic reference of a particular narrative phenomenon that is present in a given place of the work (for example, in the case of the ‘mission charge’ Lk 10:1-12, its placement close to the beginning but not at the very beginning of the ‘travel narrative’). Only such a procedure may provide an adequate answer to the question of full intended meaning, and consequently also of maybe not explicit but nevertheless real dependence of a given Lukan text on some literary source or sources. The triple repetition of the characteristic ‘travel notices’ within the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51; 13:22; 17:11) resembles to some extent the Markan 67

This procedure of changing the referential value of narrative characters as compared to historical or antetextual data, but with preserving the general actantial structure of historical or antetextual conflicts, may be termed ‘recasting’: cf. T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter, ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method – Suggested Guidelines’, in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice, ed. eid. (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 284-296 (esp. 290). Cf. also W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘Timothy-Titus’, 234; C. Mount, Pauline Christianity, 155.

303

triple prediction of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Mk 8:31; 9:30-31; 10:32-34), which was accompanied by travel notices in Mk 9:30; 10:32. Consequently, this device has been probably borrowed by Luke from Mk. Moreover, the Markan pericope that contains the first passion and resurrection prediction (Mk 8:31-33) is followed by a discourse that concerns conditions of following (ἀκολουθέω) Jesus (Mk 8:34-38), just as the Lukan first travel account (Lk 9:51-56) is followed by three paradigmatic stories that illustrate conditions of following (ἀκολουθέω) the Lord (Lk 9:57-62). The Lukan elaborate, bipartite section Lk 9:5156.57-62 seems to have been therefore to some extent modelled on the Markan bipartite fragment Mk 8:31-33.34-38. Similarly to the role of Mk 8:31-38 within the Markan narrative, the section Lk 9:51-62, which opens the Lukan ‘travel narrative’, has a very important hermeneutic function within it. It familiarizes the reader with the main sources that have been used in the whole ‘travel narrative’. Moreover, by presenting them as linguistically and thematically correlated in such a way that they form an intertextual net that functions as a complex hypotext for the Lukan narrative, this introductory pericope offers the second, namely intertextual key to understanding the whole Lukan ‘travel narrative’. 68 This part of the Lukan work, more than all others, has to be interpreted as alluding to several source texts at a time. It is the task of the reader to find out which source texts serve to explain which others in this complex, intertextual net. The reader may only reasonably presume that the better-known literary motifs, which have been borrowed from more authoritative sources (for example, from the Scriptures or from other widely respected literary works), serve to elucidate the motifs that are less clear or that are contained in less reliable or more controversial sources. The word ἀνάλημψις, used in Lk 9:51, introduces the first of the literary sources of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’. As noted above, this word refers not prospectively to Jesus’ future coming to Jerusalem but retrospectively to his ‘historical’ ascension, as it was perceived from the ‘fulfilled’, post-ascension perspective (cf. Acts 1:2.11.22). However, by means of the use of the particular word ἀνάλημψις, Luke evoked in Lk 9:51 also the scriptural motif of being taken up to heaven, which recalls the Septuagintal story of Elijah (ἀναλημφθῆναι: 2 Kgs 2:9-15 LXX). In such a way, Luke evoked the entire Septuagintal topic of legitimate spiritual succession to the great Master, which should be 68

304

For recent studies on various concepts of intertextuality that are adopted in the research on Lk, see e.g. K. D. Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (JSNTSup 282; T&T Clark: London · New York 2005), 46-65; K. Schiffner, Lukas liest Exodus: Eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme ersttestamentlicher Befreiungsgeschichte im Lukanischen Werk als Schrift-Lektüre (BWANT: Neunte Folge 12 [172]; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2008), 36-51.

brought to fruition by his ‘firstborn’ disciple who ought to be both chosen and proving to be most closely related to him. Precisely this issue, namely who was the closest disciple and consequently also the most legitimate successor to Jesus in the post-ascension missionary Church, is one of the most important themes of the entire Lukan ‘travel narrative’. It is allusively introduced by the evangelist in Lk 9:51 and it is ultimately developed in the last pericope of this large textual unit, namely Lk 19:11-28 (cf. similarly Acts 1:8 and 28:30-31). 69 The internal logic of Luke’s narrative presentation of this highly controversial issue is based on Paul’s line of argumentation presented in 1 Cor 15:3-10. However, the particular narrative shape of Luke’s answer to this problem is based, among others, on the Septuagint. The presence of the motif of firm setting of the face (τὸ πρόσωπον στηρίζω), which was used in the Septuagint always in the context of strong prophetic rebuke (cf. e.g. Jer 3:12; Ezek 6:2), is somewhat surprising in the opening statement Lk 9:51b. Its meaning, as referring to the Elijah-like decision to abandon the unfaithful Israelites and to go to meet the living God in a foreign land, becomes clearer in the context of the whole section Lk 9:51-62 and of the whole ‘travel narrative’. The second source of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ is introduced by means of the motif, somewhat surprising on the literary level, of some enigmatic human ‘angels’ (anarthrous ἄγγελοι: Lk 9:52a) who are different from the apostles (cf. Lk 9:54) but nevertheless they are sent similarly to them (ἀποστέλλω: Lk 9:52) as the representatives of Jesus, who is not received (δέχομαι: Lk 9:53) in a certain place. This particular combination of literary motifs and vocabulary appears also in the highly rhetorical, censuring text Gal 1:1.8-14 (cf. also Gal 4:14), in which Paul referred to himself as to the apostle who had been first received in Galatia as an angel of God and, moreover, as Jesus Christ himself, but who was later rejected, and consequently he threatened with a curse all other ‘angels’ who opposed him. Significantly however, Paul, who presented himself as a former violent persecutor of Christian ‘heretics’ but thereafter a disciple of Christ, actually rejected all violent ways of dealing with the disobedient community. In order to cope with this highly problematic Pauline text, Luke introduced in Lk 9:52a the third source for his ‘travel narrative’, namely the Gospel of Mark. He reworked the Pauline motif of (not) receiving the Apostle as an angel 69

For a discussion of the issue who, according to Luke, really fulfilled Christ’s mandate to be his witness “to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8), see e.g. D. Moessner, ‘“Completed End(s)ings” of Historiographical Narrative: Diodorus Siculus and the End(ing) of Acts’, in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift E. Plümacher, ed. C. Breytenbach, J. Schröter, and D. S. du Toit (Early Judaism & Early Christianity 57; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2004), 193-221 (esp. 206-221).

305

of God and as Christ himself by conflating it with the motif of John the Baptist, who was characterized in Mk as the scriptural ‘angel’ who had been sent before the face of Jesus Christ to prepare the way for him (ἀποστέλλω, ἄγγελος, πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ, ἑτοιμάζω: Mk 1:2-3 and Lk 9:52). 70 The fourth source of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ is introduced in Lk 9:52b56 by means of the strange, at least on the purely literal level, set of images of (a) the disciples’ entry to a habitually hostile to them Samaritan village immediately after the decision to go from Galilee to Jerusalem, and (b) their responding to the Samaritan hostility with disproportionate violence. This complex literary motif of a Samaritan village (κώμη) that was (a) hostile to Galilean pilgrims going to Jerusalem and (b) set on fire by the vengeful Galileans before they were persuaded by their authorities to withdraw has been borrowed by Luke from Josephus’ works (B.J. 2.232-238; Ant. 20.118-124). 71 It is worth noting that whereas Josephus presented this event as an extraordinary outburst of violence, which took place in AD 52 (cf. also Tacitus, Ann. 12.54), Luke alluded to it as to an almost everyday scene. Since the Samaritans were elsewhere described by Luke in quite positive terms (cf. e.g. Lk 10:30-37), it is evident that the motif of a violent Galilean response to the Samaritan hostility has been used by Luke in Lk 9:53-54 only for a particular redactional reason. 72 In fact, the account of Galilean anti-Samaritan violence suppressed by religious authorities (Lk 9:52b-56), which had been borrowed from Josephus, served Luke as a narrative basis for the combination and reworking of peculiar motifs that he had borrowed from his three main literary sources: the Pauline letters, Mk, and the Septuagint. Paul’s rhetorical rebuke to the Galatians has been contrasted by Luke with the behaviour of the Jerusalem apostles James and John (cf. Gal 1:17a; 2:9; cf. ἀναλίσκω in Lk 9:54 attributed also to Paul’s opponents in Gal 5:15) who have been described by the evangelist with the use of the Markan motif of their being called by Jesus “Boanerges, that is, ‘Sons of Thunder’” (Mk 3:17; cf. the same motif evoked in Lk 9:49 par. Mk 9:38). Jesus’ (and 70

Luke evidently used in Lk 9:52 the cluster of scriptural quotations in their already conflated Markan form (Mk 1:2-3) and did not make use of the scriptural texts themselves.

71

It is worth noting that Luke intertextually introduced in Lk 9:51-56 the sources for his ‘travel narrative’ in the order of their composition and of their diminishing authoritativeness for him: the Scriptures, the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Mark, and the works of Josephus.

72

It should be noted that Luke evidently did not know any paradigmatic stories concerning Samaritans at the time of Jesus (i.e. before the Jewish War) other than the two narrated by Josephus, namely B.J. 2.232-246 (cf. Ant. 20.118-136) and Ant. 18.85-87, which were alluded to by Luke in Lk 9:53-54 and Lk 13:1 respectively. This observation corroborates the hypothesis of Luke’s literary dependence on Josephus’ works.

306

consequently Paul’s) rejection of violence has been described in Lk 9:55 with the use of the Markan vocabulary borrowed from Mk 8:33 (*στραφείς, ἐπετίμησεν). The motif of punishing by means of fire coming down from heaven (πῦρ καταβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ: Lk 9:54; cf. 2 Kgs 1:10.12 LXX) evokes again the Septuagintal topic of Elijah, which is also the source of another motif used in Lk 9:54-55, namely that of the Lord’s rejecting violent religious zeal that is metaphorically compared to destructive fire (κύριος, πῦρ: 1 Kgs 19:10-12 LXX). By means of conflation of various motifs that had been borrowed from his four literary sources, Luke presented in a narrative way in Lk 9:51-56 Paul’s claim to be, after the revelation of God’s Son in him, the true spiritual heir of Jesus Christ. This heir behaved in a way that was quite different from that of the leading Jerusalem apostles (cf. Gal 1:1-19a). 73 The motif of Elijah’s journey to Mt. Horeb in anger against his unbelieving fellow Israelites, which resulted in his encountering the Lord not in the fire but in a peaceful breeze (κύριος, πῦρ: 1 Kgs 19:10-12 LXX; Lk 9:54-55), has been further developed in the following section Lk 9:57-62. Its tripartite structure is untypical of Luke who generally preferred bipartite parallel patterns. This particular structural pattern is in fact dependent on the motif of the triple task of Elijah, who had to go his way (πορεύομαι, ὁδός) through the wilderness in order to appoint three persons who would fulfil God’s plans after the assumption of the prophet to heaven (1 Kgs 19:15-16 LXX). The first of these three persons was Hazael, who went out of Damascus with an offer in his hand to meet the man of God (2 Kgs 8:7-15). In the Lukan reworking of this motif (Lk 9:57-58), the offer consists in the desire to depart (ἀπέρχομαι) with the Lord. From the narrative point of view, this proposal is surprising. Where from and where to would the would-be follower depart? The proposal has to be therefore explained on the allusive level, namely as referring to Paul’s departure from the city of Damascus to ‘wild’ Arabia (ἀπέρχομαι: Gal 1:17b). 74 The second character in the story of Elijah’s succession was Jehu, who was called out by a prophet to follow him, and thereupon he was anointed king (βασιλεύς) but was told that no one will bury the dead queen mother (θάπτω: 2 Kgs 9:8 LXX; cf. Lk 9:59-60). The same prophetic task, namely that of leaving the body not buried, referred also to the dead king in place of his father

73

It is significant that Peter has not been mentioned together with James and John in the negative presentation of the leading Jerusalem apostles in Lk 9:54. This neutral presentation of Peter at the beginning of the allusive description of Paul’s missionary activity most probably reflects Paul’s presentation of Cephas in Gal 1:18-19a.

74

Cf. Origene, Hom. Luc., Gr. fr. 66 [Rauer 154] (SC 87, 514).

307

(πατήρ: 2 Kgs 9:25-26 diff. 2 Kgs 9:28 LXX; cf. 1 Kgs 21:24). Luke reworked both these motifs in a quite creative way in Lk 9:59-60. The third narrative character in the story of Elijah was Elisha, who decided to follow Elijah but wanted to kiss his father first, wherefore he was rebuked by the prophet (ἀκολουθήσω: 1 Kgs 19:20 LXX; cf. Lk 9:61-62). The allusive use of this motif in Lk 9:61-62 is evident. 75 These three scriptural stories have been reworked by Luke with the use of particular literary motifs that have been borrowed from Mk and Gal. The Lukan motifs of (a) ‘nowhere to go’, (b) close relationship with one’s father, and (c) relationship with one’s household (Lk 9:57-62) are probably based on the Markan text Mk 6:4b, in which Jesus’ leaving his homeland for his great mission was justified in terms of his being despised (a) in his homeland, (b) by his relatives, and (c) by his household (οἰκία). 76 The untypical of Luke thematic pattern A–B–B’ in the pericope Lk 9:5762, in which the first dialogue concerns space (the need to leave one’s safe home) and the two others concern time (prohibition of doing even the most important things: burying one’s father or turning back home to bid farewell to one’s parents before going away to preach the kingdom of God), is probably based on the Pauline text Gal 1:16b-17a, in which Paul’s way of fulfilling God’s will is presented in terms of his preaching among the Gentiles (Gal 1:16b) and of his immediate departing for the mission without contributing to flesh and blood (Gal 1:16c) or going up to Jerusalem to those who preceded him in the apostolate (Gal 1:17a). It is also possible that the three would-be followers of Jesus allude to the three ‘pillars’ of the Jerusalem Church. The first dialogue, based on the motif of lack of hospitality, would then refer to the behaviour of James as it was described in Gal 1:19. The second dialogue, with its motif of concern for one’s relatives, would refer to Cephas as he was alluded to in 1 Cor 9:5. Consequently, the third dialogue would refer to John. In any case, the pericope Lk 9:57-62 refers to Paul’s readiness to fulfil the task of being Jesus’ true spiritual heir: by

75

Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 364; D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, 316.

76

It should be noted that Mk 6:4b, which has been probably reworked in Lk 9:57-62, precedes the Markan section Mk 6:7-31a that was reworked by Luke in Lk 10:1-20. M. Miyoshi traced a thematic link of Lk 9:61-62 with Mk 13:15-16: M. Miyoshi, Der Anfang des Reiseberichts Lk 9,51 – 10,24: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AnBib 60; Biblical Institute: Rome 1974), 52-55. However, although Mk 13:15-16 might have linguistically influenced Lk 9:62 (εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω), this Markan text has its much closer thematic and linguistic counterpart in Lk 17:31, where the noun οἰκία has been preserved and not changed by Luke to οἶκος. On the other hand, the dialogue Lk 9:59-60 is linguistically based on Mk 2:14 rather that on Mk 13:15-16.

308

leaving his safe home country and by immediately departing for the mission, independently of the Twelve. 77 From the linguistic point of view, the whole section Lk 9:51-62, in all its parts, displays features of wording that are more or less distinctively Lukan (συμπληρόω, στηρίζω, Ἰερουσαλήμ, 78 Σαμαρίτης, ὡς final + inf., διαγγέλλω, ἀποτάσσομαι, εὔθετος) and in Lk 9:57-60a par. also non-Matthean (ἀλώπηξ, κλίνω, ἐπιτρέπω). The particular clause τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώσεις in Lk 9:58 par. has its almost exact linguistic counterpart in Mk 4:32 (τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνοῦν), and consequently it has been most probably borrowed by Luke from that Markan text. There is therefore no need to postulate the existence of any non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) in order to account for the structure and wording of the section Lk 9:51-62. This Lukan fragment has been in fact based on the highly controversial Pauline text Gal 1:1-19a (cf. also Gal 4:14), which has been narratively reworked by Luke with the use of much paradigmatic scriptural material (esp. 1 Kgs 19:1-16), Markan texts Mk 1:2-3; 2:14; 3:17; 4:32; 6:4b; 8:31-38, and a story borrowed from Josephus’ works (B.J. 2.232-238; Ant. 20.118-124). If some other sources have been used by the evangelist in Lk 9:51-62, they are not recognizable behind the present form of the Lukan text. Lk 10:1-24 The section Lk 10:1-24 may be divided into two unequal parts: the tripartite subsection Lk 10:1-20 and the pericope Lk 10:21-24. Both parts have a common narrative setting because they are connected by the temporal adverbial ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ in Lk 10:21a. The structure of the tripartite textual unit Lk 10:1-20 closely resembles that of Mk 6:7-31a. The redactionally non-Lukan, tripartite pattern of (a) the account of sending out the disciples in pairs and of giving them mission instructions (Lk 10:1-12); (b) denouncement of Jewish unbelief in spite of the deeds of power (δυνάμεις) that have been performed among them (Lk 10:13-15.16); and (a’) the 77

The opposite attitude of the Jerusalem apostles, who were generally attached to Jerusalem and to the past events from Jesus’ life, will be explained by Luke with much effort in Acts (cf. e.g. Acts 1:5-6.11; 6:4; 8:1; 12:17).

78

The non-Markan form of the name of the Holy City in Lk 9:51.53 (Ἰερουσαλήμ), used in the section of the Lukan work that is devoted to the relationships of the preachers of the gospel with their home regions, probably echoes Paul’s statement Rom 15:19, which refers to the Apostle as having begun his missionary work in Jerusalem and in the regions surrounding it (Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ κύκλῳ), thus placing Jerusalem at the centre of his whole missionary activity (cf. 1 Cor 16:3).

309

account of the return of the disciples who report their activities to Jesus, which is accompanied by Jesus’ comments on them (Lk 10:17-20), has its close thematic, and to much extent also linguistic, counterpart in the Gospel of Mark (Mk 6:7-11.12-29.30-31a). However, Luke considerably reworked this Markan literary pattern. The motif of Jesus’ appointing disciples and sending them out in twos has been borrowed by Luke from Mk 6:7ab and developed in Lk 10:1 with the use of Luke’s favourite vocabulary (ἀναδείκνυμι, ἀνά + num., πρὸ προσώπου, ἤμελλεν + inf.). 79 The particular Lukan group of disciples is called by the evangelist “others”. Since in the preceding pericope (Lk 9:57-62), Luke presented three Jesus’ would-be followers who were at least implicitly called to follow him, the “others” in Lk 10:1 evidently belong to the same category of disciples: they are not identical with the group of the Twelve but they are urged to leave their hometowns and to set out immediately for the mission (cf. Gal 1:16b-17b). In difference to the Markan text Mk 6:7a, the Lukan ‘other’ disciples are described as not called but clearly shown by Jesus. The verb ἀναδείκνυμι, which has been used in Lk 10:1, refers in the Lukan vocabulary to public manifestation of a previously made divine choice, which was, up to that moment, somehow hidden from the wider public (Acts 1:24; cf. Lk 1:80). The use of this particular verb alludes therefore to Paul’s Scripture-based idea of his having been set apart and called through divine grace already from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15; cf. Lk 1:44). The metaphorically described in Lk 10:3 missionary task consisting in being sent as sheep among the wolves (Lk 10:3) is literarily based on the Animal Apocalypse, in which this motif alludes to the stay of the sons of Israel among the Gentiles in Egypt (1 En. 89:12-27). It is worth noting that Luke evidently followed the Septuagintal tradition of counting seventy-five (Gen 46:27; Exod 1:5 LXX) and not seventy (Gen 46:27; Exod 1:5 MT; Jub. 44:33-34) descendants of Jacob who came to Egypt (Acts 7:14). Accordingly, having previously presented three disciples who failed to fulfil their Pauline-style missionary obligations (Lk 9:57-62), the evangelist described the ‘other’ seventy-two 80 as successfully sent for the mission.

79

Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 115.

80

The textual variant εβδομηκοντα δυο in Lk 10:1.17 is decisively better supported in the manuscripts (e.g. p75, p45) than εβδομηκοντα: cf. B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/German Bible Society: Stuttgart 1994), 126-127 with K. Aland’s note. The motif of seven thousand faithful who were left in Israel (1 Kgs 19:18 LXX), which follows in the Septuagint the literary motif of the three successors to Elijah (1 Kgs 19:1-16 LXX) that was reworked in the preceding section Lk 9:51-62, may serve as an argument in favour of the reading εβδο-

310

The number of the missionaries refers symbolically to the scope of the mission as reaching out to the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:16b), in agreement with the Septuagintal idea of seventy-two nations that inhabit the whole world (Gen 10:1-32 LXX). The number seventy-two, based on counting twelves, alludes also to the origin of these Pauline-style missionaries from all the tribes of Israel (cf. Ep. Arist. 39, 46-50). It is worth noting in this context that Paul belonged to the ‘little’ tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1; Phlp 3:5) and not to one of the Jewish dominant tribes of Judah and Levi. Moreover, the Lukan number seventy-two is a multiple of twelve, and consequently it conveys the particularly Pauline idea that the Apostle of the Nations, who did not belong to the group of the Twelve, was in fact not inferior to them (cf. Gal 1:11-20; cf. also the fact that Lk 10:1-12 has been modelled on Mk 6:7-11). The particularly Lukan introduction to the mission charge Lk 10:1-3, which is phrased with the use of favourite Lukan and non-Matthean vocabulary (δέομαι in Lk 10:2 par.), has been therefore intended by the evangelist to refer particularly to the Apostle of the Nations. The set of detailed mission instructions that are contained in Lk 10:4-12 is a reworked, expanded, and corrected version of the corresponding series Mk 6:8-11. The first instruction Mk 6:8 was first reworked by Luke in the mission charge Lk 9:3. In that text, Luke followed Mark quite closely. Nevertheless, Lukan distinctive redactional traits are visible already in Lk 9:3. The evangelist who was particularly interested in the issue of poverty moved the Markan “bag” (πήρα) from the third to the second place as more significant in that context than “bread” (ἄρτος). He replaced also the Markan “bronze” (χαλκός), which referred to coins of little value, with the more significant “silver” (ἀργύριον: cf. Acts 3:6; 20:33). He changed the Markan concession to take a staff into a prohibition thereof. He omitted also the Markan command to wear sandals. The same features of Luke’s dealing with Mk 6:8 are discernible in its more thoroughly reworked version in Lk 10:4. The first place in this Lukan list has been reserved for the “money bag” (βαλλάντιον); the second place has been assigned to the almost synonymous “bag” (πήρα). The reference to bread (ἄρτος), which was understood in Lk 9:3 as having little significance for the issue of material poverty, has been totally omitted in Lk 10:4. The staff, which was allowed for in Mk 6:8 but prohibited by Luke in Lk 9:3, totally disappeared in Lk 10:4. The Markan sandals (σανδάλια), which were elsewhere interpreted by Luke as natural travel equipment (cf. Acts 12:8), in Lk 10:4 par. have been renamed ὑποδήματα (cf. Exod 3:5 LXX) and explicitly prohibited in agreement with the Pauline-Lukan (and non-Matthean) idea of travelling to Mt. Horeb,

μηκοντα. On balance, however, it does not prevail over the external and internal textual data that favour the lection εβδομηκοντα δυο.

311

which has been more clearly expressed in Lk 10:17-22. 81 This important prohibition took the place of the earlier Mk-based ruling out of taking two tunics (Mk 6:8 par. Lk 9:3; cf. Acts 20:33). An additional prohibition of greeting anyone along the road, based probably on 2 Kgs 4:29, has been appended at the end of Lk 10:4 in agreement with the Lukan exhortation to greet not the people of esteem in public places (Lk 11:43; 20:46) but rather believers in their homes (Lk 1:29.40; Acts 18:22; 21:7.19). The general missionary instructions Lk 10:4 deal therefore mainly with the issues of poverty and total reliance upon God’s providence (cf. Lk 22:35). This peculiar way of reworking the Markan text is Pauline-Lukan and non-Matthean (cf. e.g. Mt 5:3a). Moreover, the reverse direction of direct literary dependence, namely that of Mk 6:8-9 on Lk 10:4 or Q 10:4, is implausible because the Markan travel concessions Mk 6:8a.9a are, on the one hand, traditional (cf. Exod 12:11) and, on the other hand, separated in Mk 6:8-9 from one another. Mark would have had also no reason to replace the noun ὑποδήματα (Lk 10:4; cf. also Mk 1:7) with σανδάλια (Mk 6:9), which is a Markan hapax legomenon. The relative clause Lk 10:5a corresponds closely in its theme and wording to Mk 6:10b, with only a minor Lukan stylistic correction (similar to Lk 9:4) of the Markan rough ὅπου ἐὰν εἰσέλθητε εἰς (cf. Mk 14:9). The Markan text Mk 6:10 is, however, so obscure that in Luke’s eyes it required something more than just a stylistic correction (cf. its not clearer Lukan counterpart in Lk 9:4b). Luke offered therefore in Lk 10:5b-9 an elaborate explanation of the obscure Markan command. The Markan vague statement ὅπου ἐὰν… εἰς οἰκίαν, which refers first to a place and then to a house, has been expounded by Luke in the reverse order in two textual units, the first of which refers to a house (Lk 10:5-7) and the second to a town (Lk 10:8-9). The Lukan idea of replacing the vague Markan “place” (τόπος) with the more specific, Lukan favourite “town” (πόλις) is attested also in Lk 9:5; 10:10 diff. Mk 6:11 (conflated later in Mt 10:14). The section that is devoted to entering a house (Lk 10:5-7) is an elaborate version of the simple Markan conditional clause Mk 6:10b. In Luke’s religious world view, entering a house of a pious person had to be accompanied by a religious salutation (cf. Lk 1:28-29.40-44; Acts 18:22; 21:7.19). The word “peace” (εἰρήνη) that has been used in the salutation formula Lk 10:5-6 is therefore peculiarly Pauline-Lukan and non-Matthean. After the insertion of the pious salutation formula in Lk 10:5-6, an elaborate bipartite explanation has been given in Lk 10:7-9 to the simple, enigmatic 81

312

The prohibition of carrying sandals (Lk 10:4) had obviously nothing to do with the Galilean small distances, population, climate, etc., as it is suggested by numerous scholars, e.g. M. Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus: Jesu erste Jünger – ein Anfang und was davon bleibt (ÖBS 20; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002), 180.

Markan command “remain there” (ἐκεῖ μένετε: Mk 6:10c; cf. Lk 10:7a). 82 This command stood in apparent contradiction to the principle that had been stated immediately before (Mk 6:8-9). If the disciples were prohibited to make provisions for the travel, how were they supposed to stay for longer as strangers in someone else’s house? The Lukan answer to this problem (Lk 10:7b) is based on the traditional, general rule that is known to us from the letters of Paul (albeit it was only partially adopted by the Apostle himself), namely that the preachers have the right to “eat and drink” what the host offers them as a “reward, wages” (μισθός) for their work (1 Cor 9:4.7-14.17-18). 83 Luke explains, however, that the disciples are obliged not to move to another house in search for a more comfortable accommodation (Lk 10:7c, which is a reworking of the tautological Mk 6:10d). The preachers’ remaining in a given town (Lk 10:8-9) involves the same right to be fed by the household (Lk 10:8, linguistically based on 1 Cor 10:27)84 and the corresponding obligation to heal the sick and to preach there the kingdom of God (Lk 10:9, based on Mk 6:12.13b). In Lk 10:10-11a Luke resumed his direct, correcting explanation of the Markan text (Mk 6:11), which was carried out in thematic agreement with his previously made, redactional change of the Markan vague “place” (τόπος) to the “town” (πόλις). The evangelist almost literally reproduced in Lk 10:10b the Markan negative conditional clause ἂν… μὴ δέξηται ὑμᾶς (Mk 6:11a). The subsequent expansion of the Markan text in Lk 10:11 has been formulated (as already earlier in Lk 10:9b) with the use of favourite Lukan and non-Matthean vocabulary (κονιορτός: Lk 10:11 par.) and with the use of the Markan clause ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (Mk 1:15). 85 The concluding negative example of the lot of Sodom (without mentioning Gomorrah) in Lk 10:12 corresponds to the narrative logic of the Lukan text that refers to going out of one unrepentant city, and it is in itself characteristically Lukan (cf. Lk 17:29). This short Lukan paradigmatic example was later borrowed and conflated with Lk 10:14 by Matthew (Mt 11:23-24), who expanded it

82

The result of Luke’s reworking of Mk 6:10bc in Lk 10:5-7a is in fact illogical: the disciples are ordered to remain in the house even if it is hostile to them. Cf. B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, vol. 2 (2nd edn., Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1846), 215-216.

83

Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2,] 469.

84

Cf. F. C. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältnis zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung (Ludwig Fr. Fues: Tübingen 1847), 441; W. Schenk, ‘Luke as Reader’, 133.

85

Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 52.

313

in Mt 10:15 to conform it to the traditional scriptural formula referring to Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. e.g. Gen 19:24). The next textual unit (Lk 10:13-15) structurally corresponds to Mk 6:12-29. It is based on the Markan verb μετανοέω (Mk 6:12 and Lk 10:13) and on the pattern of Galilean rejection of the prophet with his message, despite his demonstration of miraculous powers (αἱ δυνάμεις: Mk 6:14 and Lk 10:13). However, the same idea, moreover, with more exactly corresponding to Lk 10:13 meaning of the key term δυνάμεις (as “deeds of power, miracles”: Mk 6:2), is contained also in the fragment Mk 6:1-6, which was previously alluded to by Luke in Lk 9:57-62. It seems therefore that Luke combined in Lk 10:13-15 two thematically correlated Markan motifs: (a) the rejection of Jesus in his homeland and (b) the rejection of the prophet in Galilee—both despite the miracles that had been performed publicly. The reason for such a combination is clear: Jesus’ disciples are described by Luke as rejected in their hometowns (Chorazein [sic], Bethsaida, and Capernaum) and consequently called on to sever ties with their households and their native regions in order to preach the Gospel among the Gentiles (σάκκος καὶ σπόδος, *καθ, μετανοέω: Lk 10:13; cf. Jon 3:6.9 LXX). For this reason, the prophetic woes against Galilean towns are not addressed to their inhabitants, as it might be naturally expected, but to the disciples themselves (cf. Lk 10:12. 16). The background of this idea is evidently Pauline (cf. Gal 1:16b-17b). In the logic of the Lukan narrative, the woes against the Galilean towns (Lk 10:13-15) apparently imply the existence of some traditions concerning the disciples’ origin not only from Capernaum (cf. Mk 1:21-29) but also from Chorazein and Bethsaida (cf. Jn 1:44; 12:21). Mark evidently did not know any such traditions (cf. the account of the disciples’ travel to Bethsaida as a place that was foreign to them: Mk 8:14.16.22). On the other hand, Luke agrees with Josephus (Ant. 18.28) against Mark (Mk 8:22-26), and probably also against the archaeological data, in regarding Bethsaida/Julias as a town and not merely as a village (Lk 9:10; cf. Jn 1:44). 86 As such, Bethsaida could have been compared by Luke with the great Gentile cities of Tyre and Sidon (Lk 10:13). The hypothesis of 86

314

Mark might have referred to Bethsaida at an early stage of its being merely a fishermen’s village (κώμη: Jos. Ant. 18.28), which probably reflected the situation at the time of Jesus’ public activity. For the problems involved in identification of the village that has been excavated at et-Tell with the town Julias that is known from Josephus and Pliny the Elder, see e.g. R. Arav, ‘Bethsaida’, in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2006), 145-166 (esp. 148-150, 166); J. Zangenberg, ‘Das Galiläa des Josephus und das Galiläa der Archäologie: Tendenzen und Probleme der neueren Forschung’, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, ed. C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (WUNT 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 265-294 (esp. 288-289).

literary dependence of Luke’s references to Bethsaida, which was understood by him as a town, on the work of Josephus is further corroborated by the peculiar way of Luke’s referring to this place. The first Lukan reference to Bethsaida (Lk 9:10) is not straightforward, in difference to that of Mk 6:45, but it resembles the reference to the village-town Nain (Lk 7:11), which has been probably also borrowed by Luke from Josephus’ work (B.J. 4.511, 517). Lukan Bethsaida has to be therefore identified, according to the logic of the Lukan narrative, with Josephus’ city of Julias, which was founded by Philip at Lake Gennesaret in lower Gaulanitis. It was located about one stadium away from the Jordan River, east of it. 87 It was provided with a port or an anchorage. It was granted the dignity of a city because of the number of its inhabitants and of its grandeur, and it was important enough for the tetrarch to eventually die there (Jos. B.J. 2.168; 3.515; Ant. 18.28; 18.108; Vita 399, 406; cf. Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.71). For this reason, the city suited, along with Chorazein [sic], 88 the Lukan paradigmatic comparison of these towns with Tyre and Sidon, for because of their status they might embody the unbelief of the whole region east of Lake Gennesaret. On the allusive level of the Lukan narrative, both these towns, located east of the Jordan River, probably refer to the city of Damascus, 87

Mark also located Bethsaida on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee (Mk 6:45; 8:2226).

88

The Lukan Χοραζείν (Lk 10:13 p75, p45) is not known from any other source contemporary with the Gospels. The ruins called today Chorazin date from the period after the second Jewish revolt: see e.g. A. Runesson, D. D. Binder, and B. Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins: A Source Book (AJEC 72; Brill: Leiden · New York 2008), 33. The Lukan name Χοραζείν may be related to modern Kursi and/or to a certain venerated Christian place that was located not far from Heptapegon (Χορσία: Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 24 [TU 49/2, 108.14]). It should be noted, however, that Luke referred to Bethsaida and Capernaum in Lk 10:13.15 as to the only towns that, in his opinion, suited his line of argumentation in Lk 10:13-16 by their being located at Lake Gennesaret, having the status of towns (πόλεις), having Semitic names, and having been visited by Jesus and his disciples before the event that was described in Lk 10:13-16. Accordingly, the evangelist most probably modelled the Aramaic-sounding name Χοραζείν on the Markan reference to the region (χώρα) of the town of the Γερασηνοί (Mk 5:1.14 par. Lk 8:26.34) that also met these Lukan redactional criteria. The evangelist seems to have followed in this respect the well-known Hebrew-Hellenistic toponymic transcriptional practice (cf. esp. the use of the name form Γαριζείν in, for example, Jos. B.J. 3.307). Consequently, the Lukan list of towns that were referred to in Lk 10:13.15 proceeds geographically from south-east to north-west along the shore: ‘Chorazein’Hippos, Bethsaida-Julias, and Capernaum (cf., in the reverse direction, Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.71). The procedure of inventing new, Semitic-sounding names on the basis of some other ones was not unknown to Luke, as the Lukan genealogy clearly shows (cf. e.g. Σεμεΐν in Lk 3:36).

315

which could have been regarded by Luke as Paul’s real hometown (cf. Gal 1:17c). 89 From the historical point of view, it is quite implausible that Jesus would have performed numerous public miracles in a big town, which was one of the most important ones in the state of Philip, was foreign to Jesus, and presumably remained under strict control of its ruler, and the rest of the gospel tradition would know nothing about such Jesus’ activity or it would even contradict it (cf. Mk 8:22-23.26). The idea of Jesus’ performing numerous public miracles in Bethsaida has been therefore most probably deduced by Luke from Mk 6:45.5356. It is worth noting that Luke combined and relocated to Lk 9:10 par. Mk 6:30-32 the Markan references to Bethsaida in Mk 6:45 and Mk 8:22, which begin and close, respectively, the Lukan ‘great omission’ of the Markan material that included, among others, the reference to the Gentile regions of Tyre and Sidon in Mk 7:31. In such a way, Luke attempted to restrict the Markan idea that Jesus was active also on the other (i.e. non-Jewish) side of Lake Gennesaret. 90 For the same reason, the Lukan reference to Jesus’ activity in Chorazein and Bethsaida in Lk 10:13 is only indirect and combined with the reference to Capernaum (Lk 10:15) that was located on the western side of Lake Gennesaret.

89

The Acts’ depiction of Paul as coming generally from Tarsus and in fact from Jerusalem (Acts 7:58; 9:2; 22:3; 23:16) was evidently not yet invented by the time of the composition of Lk 10:13-16.

90

In the particular Lukan outlook, the earthly Jesus almost never left the land of Israel. Even his stay in Samaria was more intended than actual (cf. Lk 9:51-56; 13:22.31-33; 17:11). The only one exception, in which Luke decided to follow the Markan text, was made for the account of Jesus’ boat travel to the other side of Lake Gennesaret (Lk 8:26-39 par. Mk 5:1-20). In this case, however, Luke considerably shortened the story, removed the Markan location of the city in question as placed in Decapolis (Lk 8:39 diff. Mk 5:20), and inserted his own remark (which was at variance with the geographical data) that the country of the Gerasenes was very close to Lake Gennesaret, “[on the side of the Lake] opposite to Galilee” (Lk 8:26). Luke suggested, moreover, that during his apparently short trip (cf. Lk 8:37 diff. Mk 5:17-29) Jesus hardly left the Jewish region of Galilee. Although the Lukan earthly Jesus extended his activity and influence also upon the ‘lost’ tribes of Israel (cf. e.g. Lk 2:25-38), he never expressed any wish to leave the land of Israel. Cf. A. Lindemann, ‘Jesus, Israel und die Völker: Zum Jesusbild der neutestamentlichen Evangelien’, in id., Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte: Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte (WUNT 241; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 368-405 (esp. 386-390). Cf. also the similar Lukan image of Peter in Acts 8:1; 12:17 diff. 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 2:11. For the halachic (Pharisaic-like) background of this idea, see e.g. the Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (the so-called ‘Damascus Document’: 4Q266 5ii 5-6).

316

The wording and motifs of Lk 10:13-15 are traditional, taken from the Septuagint. The verb ὑψόω in Lk 10:15 par. is, however, Lukan (borrowed from 2 Cor 11:7?) and non-Matthean, especially if compared with ἀναβαίνω in Is 14:13 LXX, which probably served as the closest scriptural matrix for Lk 10:15 (cf. Is 14:11.15 LXX and Lk 10:15b). 91 The summarizing statement Lk 10:16, which concludes the fragment Lk 10:13-16, displays features of generalizing reworking of Mk 9:37 with its conclusion τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με. Luke reworked this Markan sentence already in Lk 9:48, where he omitted the problematic for him negative clause “[receives] not me but…” in order to emphasize Christological importance of receiving Jesus together with God in faith. In Lk 10:16 the Markan negative clause has been reworked yet more thoroughly but still in agreement with the same Lukan logic. According to the bipartite, positive–negative formula Lk 10:16ab, it is Christ himself (and not only God) who is either received or rejected in the missionary activity of his disciples. The statement Lk 10:16c, more explicitly than Mk 9:37 or even correctively to it, stresses the fact that the attitude to God is in reality closely correlated with that to Jesus Christ. In Lk 10:17 Luke returned to his direct, sequential reworking of Mk 6:131a. The Lukan fragment Lk 10:17-20 corresponds structurally to Mk 6:30-31a. In the introduction to this fragment (Lk 10:17), Luke combined the motifs of (a) the return of the disciples (ὑποστρέφω: cf. the return of Paul in Gal 1:17c) and (b) Jesus’ comment on it (Mk 6:30-31a) with the Markan remark that opened the preceding textual unit and that concerned the disciples’ casting out demons (δαιμόνια: Mk 6:13a). The peculiar motif of the disciples’ casting out demons in the name of Jesus has been borrowed by Luke from Mk 9:38. This text immediately follows in the Markan narrative the statement Mk 9:37, which was reworked in the preceding Lukan pericope (Lk 10:16). Luke evidently wanted to use the Markan pericopes in their relative sequence, even if they were borrowed from various parts of the Markan work. Lk 10:18-20 is a Lukan explanation of the somewhat enigmatic Markan command for the disciples to go by themselves to a desert place (Mk 6:31a). It has been phrased by Luke with the use of (a) the motif of authority over the spirits, which has been borrowed from Mk 6:7; 92 (b) traditional scriptural91

Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34 (WBC 35B; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993), 557; D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, 318. Other, from the linguistic-thematic point of view less plausible hypotheses concerning the literary background of Lk 10:15 include possible Lukan allusions to the prophecies against Tyre (Ezek 28:2-8 LXX: not having any reference to ᾅδης) and to those against Pharaoh, the king of Egypt (Ezek 31:2-18 LXX: including a reference to ᾅδης).

92

Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 52.

317

apocalyptic motifs (esp. Is 14:12 LXX; cf. the earlier use of Is 14:11.13.15 LXX in Lk 10:15); 93 and (c) Lukan favourite vocabulary (πατέω, σκορπίος, ἀδικέω, πλήν). The peculiar motif of treading on serpents and scorpions (Lk 10:19), which has been borrowed from Deut 8:15, evokes the topic of going through the desert. Accordingly, it most probably alludes to Paul’s reference to his Elijahlike journey to Arabia (Gal 1:17b, understood in Gal 4:25 as reaching Mt. Sinai), which was followed by his return (ὑποστρέφω: Gal 1:17c; cf. Lk 10:17) to Damascus. The Markan motif of physical rest (Mk 6:31a) has been reinterpreted in Lukan terms of having one’s name written in heaven (Lk 10:20b; cf. 6:23; 12:33; 18:22), which are based on 2 Cor 12:2 (οὐρανοί pl.; cf. *ἀποκαλυπ in 2 Cor 12:1 and Lk 10:21-22). The pericope Lk 10:21-24 is connected to Lk 10:1-20 by means of the temporal adverbial ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ in Lk 10:21a. This narrative link is not purely redactional. The Lukan (and non-Matthean) motif of the present revelation of the Son of God (ἀποκαλύπτω, ὁ υἱός) according to the good favour (*εὐδοκ) 94 of God the Father (Lk 10:21-22 par.) is linguistically and thematically based on the Pauline text Gal 1:15-16a. The literary unity of the whole section Lk 10:1-24 is therefore based on the unity of the Lukan source text that has been reworked in this section, namely Gal 1:15-17b. The verb ἀποκρύφω used in Lk 10:21, as well as the syntagm σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν used in Lk 10:21 par. in the context of a positive revelation (1 Cor 1:19; cf. *εὐδοκ in 1 Cor 1:21), is Pauline. 95 Lk 10:21-22 alludes therefore to the particular revelation of the Son of God in Paul (Gal 1:15-16a), 96 which was the basis of Paul’s apostleship that was perceived by him as independent of the authority of James, who was related to Jesus by the bonds of ‘flesh and blood’, and from that of Cephas, who became an apostle earlier than Paul (cf. Gal 1:16c-17a). The placing of the pericope Lk 10:21-22, which alludes to Gal 1:15-17a (revelation of God’s Son as independent of the Jerusalem ‘pillars’), after the pericope Lk 10:17-20, which alludes to Gal 1:17bc (the desert journey to Sinai), is very important in Luke’s intertextual plan. By means of this reversal, Luke intended to persuade his readers that the enigmatic God’s revelation of his Son in Paul (Gal 1:16a), which was the basis of Paul’s entire, highly controversial, missionary activity, was in fact not a suspect private revelation. It was rather a religious experience that could be comparable to that of Elijah, who abandoned

93

Cf. D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, 318.

94

Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 88.

95

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 87-88.

96

Cf. ibid. 88.

318

the unbelieving Israelites and travelled through the desert to Mt. Sinai where he met the living God 97 and became an invincible prophet of faith. The image of Jesus’ addressing his disciples separately (κατ᾿ ἰδίαν: Lk 10:23a) has been borrowed by Luke from Mk 6:31-32. This Markan text was reworked in Lk 9:10-11 in terms of (a) Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom of God and (b) Jesus’ healing. The same motif of the evident presence of the Kingdom among the disciples has been reworked in Lk 10:23-24 par. with the use of Luke’s favourite device of macarism (μακάριοι) and of the Markan motif of eyes seeing and ears hearing (Mk 8:18), which related in Mk to the accounts of the miraculous feedings (Mk 6:32-44; 8:1-9) that function as hypotexts for Lk 10:23-24. The whole section Lk 10:1-24 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of the somewhat enigmatic Pauline text Gal 1:15-17 (cf. Gal 4:25), which has been narratively explained with the use of the Markan fragment Mk 6:7-44, as well as other Pauline (1 Cor 1:19-21; 9:4.7-14.17-18; 10:27; 2 Cor 12:1-2) and Markan texts (Mk 1:15; 5:1.14; 6:45.53-56; 8:18; 9:37-38). Luke used also several motifs that he had borrowed from the Scriptures, the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:12-27), and Josephus’ works (B.J. 3.307; Ant. 18.28 et al.). Neither Markan dependence on Lk 10:1-24 nor Luke’s use of non-Pauline and nonMarkan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or Mt) may be proved by the textual data. Lk 10:25-37 The Lukan section Lk 10:25-37 contains two pericopes that are connected on the narrative and thematic level. The discussion concerning the greatest commandment in Lk 10:25-28 is followed by the thematically related paradigmatic pericope Lk 10:29-37, which serves as its paradigmatic explanation. The first pericope (Lk 10:25-28) has been redactionally based on Mk 12:28-34. 98 More precisely, it is a Lukan conflation of Mk 12:28-34 with Mk 10:17-18a. 99 97

This particular idea of travelling to meet the holy God on Mt. Sinai motivated also the otherwise strange Lukan prohibition of taking sandals for the journey (ὑποδήματα: Lk 10:4 par.; cf. Exod 3:5 LXX).

98

Cf. e.g. M. Ebersohn, Das Nächstenliebegebot in der synoptischen Tradition (MThSt 37; Elwert: Marburg 1993), 144-155; H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 343; H. Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 2 (HThKNT 3/2; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1994), 136-139 (changing his earlier opinion); H. Klein, Lukasstudien (FRLANT 209; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2005), 50.

99

Cf. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 48-49; J. Kiilunen, Das Doppelgebot der Liebe in synoptischer Sicht: Ein redaktionsgeschichtlicher Versuch über Mk 12,28-34 und die

319

In the narrative introduction Lk 10:25a, the Lukan “expert in the law” (i.e. the peculiarly Lukan and non-Matthean νομικός) 100 took place of the Markan “scribe” from Mk 12:28. As it is evident from the analysis of the whole Lukan ‘travel narrative’, the enigmatic Lukan νομικός refers on the allusive level to the person of Peter with his authority to give binding expositions of the law for Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 11:45-52; 14:3). The motif of putting Jesus to test (ἐκπειράζω: Lk 10:25b) reveals the particular Lukan way of narrative reworking of the Pauline motif of Cephas’ apparent lack of trust in Paul’s particular revelation and missionary mandate during his first visit to Jerusalem (cf. Gal 1:18 reworked in a similar way also in Acts 9:26: ἐπείραζεν). The motif of a doubting expert in the law (νομικός: cf. Lk 7:30) has been therefore created by Luke in accordance with his characteristic technique of shifting the burden of suspicion and guilt from the members of the Jerusalem community onto some generally criticized Jewish groups. The question concerning inheriting eternal life and the introduction to Jesus’ answer (Lk 10:25c-26a) have been borrowed almost word for word from Mk 10:17d-18a, with only a minor stylistic correction of the Markan clauses to Luke’s favourite ποιήσας and εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν. 101 The question concerning reading (ἀναγινώσκω) what is written in the law (ἐν τῷ νόμῳ: Lk 10:26bc) is a characteristic Lukan (cf. Lk 2:23a) 102 expansion of the standard Markan controversy-dialogue forming device that was used, for example, in Mk 12:26, so in the pericope immediately preceding Mk 12:28-34, which has been reworked in Lk 10:25-28. It is evident again that Luke tended to rework his source material with respecting its original internal structure. The Markan form of the scriptural quotations in Mk 12:29b-31b has been modified by Luke in agreement with the particular function that the pericope Lk 10:25-28 acquired in the textual unit Lk 10:25-42. In the Lukan context, the fragment Lk 10:27 par. Mk 12:30.31b is no more a purely theoretical discussion concerning the question which is the first of all commandments (cf. Mk 12:2834), but it serves to prove the Lukan idea that the love of God has to be accomParallelen (STAT/AASF B.250; Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia [Academia Scientiarum Fennica]: Helsinki 1989), 51-77; F. Neirynck, ‘Luke 10,25-28: A Foreign Body in Luke?’, in Crossing the Boundaries, Festschrift M. D. Goulder, ed. S. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton (BIS 8; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1994, 149-165 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000, 267-282]; F. Noël, Travel Narrative, 329-395. 100 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 87; M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 335. 101 Cf. J. Kiilunen, Doppelgebot, 57. 102 Cf. ibid. 60.

320

panied by the love of the neighbour, which is exemplified with the following paradigmatic story Lk 10:30-37. For this reason, all Markan secondary elements of Jesus’ discourse (Mk 12:28b-29.31a.31c-34) have been omitted by Luke. At the same time, the third and the fourth element of the Markan version of the quotation from Deut 6:5 (διανοία, ἰσχύς) have been interchanged in order to stress, in agreement with the main theme of Lk 10:25-37, the importance of the Pauline passionate evangelistic commitment against the Petrine more deliberative halachic thinking. Probably the same idea of the need of a deep personal engagement in the love of God prompted Luke to replace the second, third, and fourth pronoun ἐξ with the pronoun ἐν that more clearly expresses this idea. 103 The Lukan conclusion Lk 10:28 (cf. Lk 7:43), which is based on Deut 30:6.8, provides an answer for the initial question Lk 10:25b, which has been borrowed from Mk 10:17d. It foreshadows also the similar conclusion of the next, narratively and thematically related pericope in Lk 10:37b. The second pericope of the section (Lk 10:29-37) explains the discussion concerning the greatest commandment Lk 10:25-28 in a particular Lukan way, which is thematically dependent on Gal 1:18-19a. The strange, from the historical point of view, character of a Samaritan who undertook travels from Jerusalem to other regions of Israel (Lk 10:33-35), who was one of three correlated narrative characters (Lk 10:31-33), who provided the wounded stranger with basic lodging for about two weeks (Lk 10:35),104 and who served as an example of love of the neighbour that overcomes one’s national-religious prejudices (Lk 10:37) has to be interpreted as referring on the allusive level to the person of Cephas. Cephas was the only one of the three ‘pillars’ of the Jerusalem Church who welcomed and hosted the persecuted refugee Paul for two weeks, while other apostles were at that time apparently, in Luke’s allusive rhetoric, too busy to meet him and to care for him (Gal 1:18-19a; cf. 2 Cor 11:23.32-33; Acts 9:2328). 103 Cf. ibid. 66. The first phrase ἐξ… καρδίας may have been retained by Luke as more adequate for conveying the intended metaphorical meaning than ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου (cf. Lk 6:45). 104 N. Heutger, ‘Münzen im Lukasevangelium’, BZ, NF 27 (1983) 97-101 (esp. 97). According to Mk 6:37.44, the price of bread that was sufficient for a supper for one person was c.1/25 denarii. However, taking into consideration the data that were given by Peter Lampe on the basis of ancient Roman inscriptions, namely that a slave could survive for c.1½ days eating bread for 2 asses, it may be assumed that one could survive for 2 denarii (i.e. 32 asses) for c.24 days. The price of living in an inn was at least 3 asses a day, and consequently with 2 denarii one could live in an inn for c.11 days. Cf. P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (WUNT 2.18; 2nd edn., J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1989), 162-163; cf. also M. Reiser, ‘Numismatik und Neues Testament’, Bib 81 (2000) 457-488 (esp. 481-482).

321

The whole section Lk 10:25-37 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of the Pauline text Gal 1:18-19a (and also 2 Cor 11:23.32-33), which has been explained with the use of Mk 10:17-18a and Mk 12:28-34. The hypotheses of Mark’s use of the text of Lk and of Lukan dependence on nonPauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) have no real basis in the Gospel texts. Lk 10:38-11:13 The section Lk 10:38-11:13 consists of four pericopes that share the common theme of priority of listening to the word of Jesus, as well as of prayer, over concerns for daily bread. The first of these textual units (Lk 10:38-42) has been composed with the use of the Pauline (*περισπα, μεριμνάω: cf. 1 Cor 7:3235) 105 and Lukan favourite vocabulary, and it narratively illustrates the Pauline idea of remaining unmarried in order to be concerned solely about the things of Lord. The particular Scripture-based name form Μαριάμ used in Lk 10:39.42 106 (cf. Exod 15:20-21 LXX) was reserved by Luke uniquely for Jesus’ mother (cf. e.g. Lk 1:27; Acts 1:14; diff. Acts 12:12). The paradigmatic character of the otherwise unknown Miriam in the Lukan story Lk 10:38-42 refers therefore allusively to Jesus’ mother, whom Luke depicted also elsewhere as attentively listening to the word of God (cf. e.g. Lk 2:19) and earnestly praying (cf. e.g. Acts 1:14). The placing of the allusive references to Mary the mother of Jesus and to his brothers (Lk 10:38-11:13) immediately after the reference to the apostles (Lk 10:25-37) is characteristically Lukan (cf. Acts 1:14). In fact, Luke depicted in Lk 10:38-42 the ideal image of Mary, who welcomed Jesus at home that was not hers, as an allusion to Paul’s remark Gal 1:19b concerning his having been welcomed not only by Cephas but also by James, and consequently, in the Lukan deductive logic, presumably also by Mary. 107 105 Cf. G. Bouwman, Das dritte Evangelium, 110-111; M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2,] 493; W. Schenk, ‘Luke as Reader’, 134. 106 The lectio difficilior Μαριαμ of p75 has to be considered original in Lk 10:39.42. This name form was in use in Palestine in the first century AD: see T. Ilan, Lexicon, part 1, 242-244. 107 Luke evidently assumed that Mary the mother of Jesus remained a not remarried widow and that she lived in Jerusalem. Did he also assume that she was not the mother but an aunt of James? The allusion to Paul’s visit to James (Gal 1:19b) was most probably made by Luke in Lk 11:5-8. Therefore, Luke might have assumed that Mary lived in Jerusalem in company with other widows (cf. the γυναῖκες in Acts 1:14) and not together with James. On the other hand, Mary who was mentioned in Lk 24:10 (Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου) was evidently perceived by Luke not as Miriam the mother of Jesus but presum-

322

The Lukan allusive reference to Mary (and James) in Lk 10:38-42 evokes also the Markan negative remark Mk 3:20-21, which refers to the concern of Jesus’ relatives who heard (ἀκούω: Mk 3:21 reworked in a positive way in Lk 10:39) that Jesus apparently had no time to eat bread, and consequently they attempted to subject him to the authority of the family. The three following pericopes Lk 11:1-4.5-8.9-13 deal with this issue in a peculiarly Lukan manner. They all illustrate the same idea that the daily bread is a gift of the heavenly Father, which has to be trustfully prayed for (cf. Acts 6:2-4). The key motif of bread (ἄρτος: Lk 11:3.5.12) has been borrowed from Mk 3:20, whereas that of God as the Father (πατήρ) of Jesus and of his disciples, which forms the thematic inclusio in Lk 11:2.11.13, originates from Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6. The tripartite instructions on prayer Lk 11:1-13 are literarily dependent on similar, but much shorter, instructions contained in Mk 11:24-25. The Lukan paradigmatic form of prayer of Jesus’ disciples (Lk 11:2-4) displays striking similarities to Mk 11:25. The introduction to the prayer in Lk 11:2 (ὅταν προσεύχησθε) is almost the same as in Mk 11:25 (ὅταν στήκετε προσευχόμενοι). The motif of standing while praying has been eliminated by Luke under the influence of Jesus’ example of prayer in Gethsemane (Mk 14:35 par. Lk 22:41.45; cf. Acts 9:40; 20:36; 21:5). The favourite Lukan and non-Matthean simple invocation of God as the Father (abs. πάτερ) has been borrowed by Luke in Lk 11:2 from the Pauline tradition (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6; Mk 14:36)108 in place of the phrase ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν in Mk 11:25. The correlated clauses Lk 11:4ab (ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν – ἀφίομεν) are a reversed version of Mk 11:25bc (ἀφίετε – ἀφῇ ὑμῖν τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν). The particular Lukan vocabulary: ἁμαρτία, ὀφείλω is more rooted in the Scriptures than the Markan vague: παράπτωμα, εἴ τι ἔχετε κατά τινος. The rest of the paradigmatic prayer of Jesus’ disciples is a Lukan expansion of the corresponding Markan text. This fragment has been composed by Luke with the use of scriptural and Markan vocabulary; some favourite Lukan phrases (δίδου, καθ᾿ ἡμέραν), which are in part also nonMatthean (εἰσφέρω, πειρασμός); and the Lukan neologism ἐπιούσιος, which has been formed probably as a masculine counterpart to the phrase ἡ ἐπιούση (cf. Acts 20:15). 109 ably as James’s wife. Luke evidently avoided therefore identifying the household of Mary the mother of Jesus with that of James and his wife. 108 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 92. 109 The consciously ambiguous text Lk 17:37 suggests that Luke referred in Lk 11:2d-3 to the bread of the future (ἐπιούσιος) eschatological banquet of the Kingdom (cf. Lk 14:15: φάγεται ἄρτον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ), which is available in the present epoch every day (τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν) in the bread of the Eucharist (cf. Lk 24:30.35; Acts 2:42.46; 20:7.11; 27:35: κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου).

323

The second Lukan pericope concerning prayer and bread (Lk 11:5-10) also has a mixed, Pauline-Markan-scriptural origin. The paradigmatic example Lk 11:5-8, which has been composed with the use of favourite Lukan and nonMatthean vocabulary (μεσονύκτιον, φίλε, ἐπειδή, παρέχω, διά γε, ἐπιδίδωμι), most probably alludes, with the use of narrative motifs that have been borrowed from Mk 3:20 (ἄρτος, οὐ δύναμαι), to Paul’s unwelcomed visit to James (Gal 1:19b). The tripartite set of instructions and promises Lk 11:9-10 is based on the Markan vague instruction concerning asking for everything with faith, and on the corresponding promise of receiving all that was asked for (πάντα ὅσα… αἰτεῖσθε, πιστεύετε ὅτι ἐλάβετε, καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν: Mk 11:24). The form and wording of the first of the three Lukan detailed instructions and promises (αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν: Lk 11:9c) closely correspond to those of Mk 11:24b.d (αἰτεῖσθε… καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν). The word λαμβάνω, used in the first of the three subsequent general rules (Lk 11:10a), has been borrowed from Mk 11:24c. The two other instructions and general rules (Lk 11:9bd.10bc) are in fact Lukan expansions of the instructions borrowed from Mk; they have been composed with the use of favourite Lukan and non-Matthean vocabulary (ζητέω – εὑρίσκω, κρούω). The third pericope (Lk 11:11-13) also concerns priority of trustful prayer to the Father over the concern for daily bread (ἄρτος). 110 It has been composed with the use of the scriptural motif of serpents and scorpions that has been borrowed from Deut 8:15 (Lk 11:11-12; cf. Lk 10:19), as well as of favourite Lukan and non-Matthean vocabulary (διδόναι). It is therefore evident that the whole section Lk 10:38-11:13 has been composed by Luke on the basis of Gal 1:19b with the use of several other Pauline (Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 7:32-35; Gal 4:6) and Markan texts (Mk 3:20-21; 11:24-25; 14:35-36); traditional scriptural motifs; and Luke’s favourite ideas and vocabulary, which in several fragments of the double Mt-Lk tradition are also nonMatthean. The hypotheses of literary dependence of the pericopes belonging to this section on non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) and of Markan dependence on the text of Lk have to be treated therefore as methodologically inacceptable.

110 The reading αρτον of p45 in Lk 11:12 has to be regarded as original. In the Markan Gospel, fish was naturally related to bread (Mk 6:38.41.43 parr.) and not to an egg. Moreover, the Matthean version of Lk 11:11-12 in the Matthean text Mt 7:9-10, in which it was reversed in agreement with Mk 6:38.41 parr. and conflated with Lk 4:3, also witnesses αρτον as the Lukan original reading that underlies the Matthean text. The early scribal replacing of αρτον with ωον in Lk 11:12 most probably resulted from homoioteleuton.

324

Lk 11:14-36 The section Lk 11:14-36 presents one of the most interesting examples of Luke’s reworking of a problematic text from Mk. Having redactionally used the Markan text Mk 3:20-21 in the section Lk 10:38-11:13, the evangelist proceeded to the pericope concerning the Beelzebul controversy (Mk 3:22-27) and reworked it in Lk 11:14-22. The next evident Lukan intertextual link to the structurally corresponding Markan text may be found in Lk 11:33 (lamp to be put on a lampstand: cf. Mk 4:21). The whole Lukan fragment that is contained between these two points of contact and that has been composed with the use of the recurring motif of demanding a sign from Jesus (Lk 11:14-32) may consequently correspond to the Markan text Mk 3:22-4:20. A close investigation of the structure and wording of these two textual units of the Gospels proves that this is indeed the case. In the Lukan fragment Lk 11:14-22, the actual charge against Jesus (Lk 11:15b) corresponds almost word for word to the Markan charge Mk 3:22b. Jesus’ first argument against this charge, which refers to a kingdom and a house divided (Lk 11:17b), also closely corresponds to Mk 3:24-25. In the Markan Gospel, between these two intertextually matching points, there is a narrator’s statement concerning Jesus’ calling the people to himself and his speaking to them in parables (ἐν παραβολαῖς), which is followed by Jesus’ rhetorical question (Mk 3:23). In the structurally corresponding place in the Lukan Gospel, the evangelist placed a narrator’s comment that others demanded from Jesus a sign (σημεῖον) from heaven and that Jesus knew their thoughts (Lk 11:16-17a). What is the relationship between the Markan “parables” and the Lukan “sign”? It should be noted that both words are key terms of the textual units that in the respective Gospels immediately precede the ‘matching’ sayings concerning the lamp to be put on a lampstand (Mk 4:21 par. Lk 11:33): Mk 4:1-20 and Lk 11:29-32 respectively. Moreover, both these correlated textual units (Mk 4:120 and Lk 11:29-32) have a very similar, untypical of Luke, tripartite concentric structure A–B–A’ (Mk 4:1-9.10-13.14-20 and Lk 11:29-30.31.32), in which the final element (A’) presents an explanation of the somehow enigmatic initial element (A). There are also several thematic correspondences between both these tripartite units. In the Gospel of Mark, the introducing parabolic element (A: Mk 4:19) depicts the sower’s sowing of the seed that is later identified as God’s word (A’: Mk 4:14-20). In the Lukan text, the introducing enigmatic element (A: Lk 11:29-30) refers to Jonah’s sign for the Ninevites, which is later interpreted in terms of Jonah’s preaching to them (A’: Lk 11:32). The thematic correspondences between the matching external elements of the Markan and Lukan concentric structures are therefore evident: enigmatic, parabolic images are in both

325

Gospels explained as referring to preaching God’s word and to various human responses to it. The central elements (B) of both concentric structures have also much in common. Mk 4:10-13 deals with understanding (or not) of the mysteries that were imparted to the chosen ones by God. Lk 11:31 gives a scriptural example of the queen of the South who admired the wisdom of Solomon. The sapiential motif of God-given wisdom that is expressed in parables (παραβολαί: cf. 1 Kgs 5:12 LXX), which is understood or not by the outsiders, is used in both Gospel texts. Consequently, there are good reasons to assume that Luke reworked the Markan unit Mk 4:1-20 by adopting its tripartite-concentric, generally un-Lukan redactional form and by reinterpreting its contents in a way characteristic of him, namely by means of Pauline literary motifs, which have been explained with the use of well-known scriptural images. The structure of the Lukan section Lk 11:14-36 is therefore based on the corresponding structure of Mk 3:22-4:22. The Beelzebul controversy (Mk 3:2227 and Lk 11:14-22) is followed in both Gospels by a discussion concerning vehement opposition to Jesus’ activity, which is expressed as a charge of having an unclean spirit (Mk 3:28-30 and Lk 11:23-26); then by a dialogue concerning Jesus’ true relatives (Mk 3:31-35 and Lk 11:27-28); in the next place by a tripartite unit that parabolically depicts various responses to God’s word and wisdom (Mk 4:1-20 and Lk 11:29-32), which were foreshadowed already in the first textual unit (Mk 3:23 and Lk 11:16); and finally by two correlated pericopes that are based on the metaphor of light (Mk 4:21-22 and Lk 11:33-36). Luke’s literary dependence in Lk 11:14-32 on the texts of Mark and Paul is evident also on the micro-level, i.e. in detailed redactional modifications of the Markan text. The Lukan introduction to the section (Lk 11:14 par.), which is absent in the corresponding text of Mk, is most probably a Lukan version of the account of the healing of the deaf mute Mk 7:31-37 (who is designated by Luke simply κωφός), which has been additionally conflated with Mk 9:25-29 (demon, κωφός, ἐκβάλλω, ἐξέρχομαι). This account has in both Gospels an obvious allusive meaning because it clearly alludes to the missionary activity among the Gentiles. In Lk 11:14 it refers to the reality hinted at in Gal 1:20-21, namely to the early controversies over Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. This mission reached in reality during the period of fourteen years, as it may be deduced from the Pauline letters (cf. e.g. 1 Thes 1:7; 1 Cor 16:1; Gal 1:21-2:2a; Phlp 4:15), not only Syria and Cilicia (cf. Acts 13:1-14:20 placing here also Galatia) but also Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia (cf. Acts 15:40-21:16). 111 111 The particular Lukan narrative justification of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles by means of the account of the haste return of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem after their having converted the first ‘true’ Gentiles—apparently in order to receive an authorization for such a mission from the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ already at its beginning (Acts 14:21-

326

The statement concerning demanding from Jesus a sign from heaven (Lk 11:16), which develops the Markan charge Mk 3:22b par. Lk 11:15b in agreement with Mk 3:23a (παραβολαί – σημεῖον), is an only slightly stylistically improved Lukan version of the Markan text Mk 8:11.112 The motif of demanding a sign (σημεῖον) by the enigmatic Lukan “others” has been inserted in Lk 11:16 in order to enhance the meaning of the Markan charge Mk 3:22b by means of an allusion to Paul’s argument directed against his Jewish (Christian) opponents in 1 Cor 1:22. 113 The verb πειράζω alludes in Lk 11:16 (just as in Lk 10:25, which referred to Cephas) to Jewish Christian doubts over the legitimacy of Paul’s missionary activity, which were expressed by, among others, the ‘party’ of Cephas. Jesus’ rhetorical example of a kingdom divided against itself so that a house falls on a house (ἐπί: Lk 11:17) is a more plastic version of the simpler, more anthropocentric text Mk 3:24-25, 114 in which a “house” means simply a household. The Markan text Mk 3:23b has been omitted by Luke as no more suiting the developed charge Lk 11:15-16, which allusively refers to Paul the Apostle. The rhetorical question Lk 11:18a is a corrected version of Mk 3:26. In the Lukan text, the specific application of the paradigmatic example of the divided kingdom, as referring, in Luke’s version, to Satan and his kingdom, appears only once, namely after the paradigmatic example and not both before it and after it (cf. Mk 3:23b.26), which could disorient the readers. The Markan concentric structure A–B–A’ has been therefore reworked by Luke into a simpler, linear one (B–AA’). Lk 11:19-20 par. is a Lukan version of the preceding argument, which has been expanded with the use of the scriptural motif borrowed from Exod 8:15 LXX, 115 the Lukan and non-Matthean word κριτής, and the Pauline and nonMatthean verb φθάνω that was used in 2 Cor 10:14 and 1 Thes 2:16 in similar, apologetic-eschatological contexts. 116 The next fragment Lk 11:21-22 is an example of reworking of a concentrically structured Markan text, which concerned a “strong man” (ἰσχυρός: Mk 15:39)—was evidently not yet invented at the time of the composition of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’. 112 Cf. e.g. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 47; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, vol. 2 (AB 28A; Doubleday: Garden City, NY 1985), 918; J. Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 637; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 52, 419. 113 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 94. 114 Cf. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 46; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 52. 115 Cf. D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, 323; K. Schiffner, Lukas liest Exodus, 333. 116 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 95.

327

3:27),117 in agreement with the Lukan preferred, bipartite narrative pattern and probably also with the use of the Pauline (2 Cor 10:4-5) and scriptural imagery (Is 49:24-25 LXX). The subsequent textual unit (Lk 11:23-26) structurally corresponds in the Lukan sequence of pericopes to the Markan fragment Mk 3:28-30. The content of the latter is very enigmatic. Why shall everything be forgiven to humans, except for the sin against the Holy Spirit? Luke gave a twofold answer to this question. First, he negatively reworked the Markan text Mk 9:40 (κατ᾿… ἐστίν) by supplementing it with the argument that is based on the Pauline evangelisticapologetic agricultural imagery (cf. 1 Cor 3:6-8; 9:11) and that has been formulated with the double use of the Lukan and non-Matthean formula ὁ μὴ + pres. part. (Lk 11:23; cf. Lk 22:36 and also Lk 12:48). In such a way, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted by Luke first in terms of denying the legitimacy of Paul’s evangelistic activity. Thereupon, the evangelist reworked the enigmatic and offensive to Jesus text Mk 3:29-30 by borrowing from it its key syntagm πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον and by composing on its basis with the use of favourite Lukan and non-Matthean vocabulary (διέρχομαι, ζητέω – εὑρίσκω, σαρόω: Lk 11:24-26 par.), and probably also with the use of Mk 9:25, a Jewishstyle parable. Accordingly, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted here as a sin of Paul’s opponents in Judaea (cf. Gal 1:22 reworked in a polemic way), who were once purified by Jesus but who thereafter returned to the state that was worse than that before their initial believing in him. 118 The Lukan dialogue concerning Jesus’ true relatives (Lk 11:27-28) is a much shortened and thoroughly reworked version of the ‘scandalizing’ text Mk 3:31-35. Luke borrowed from the Markan text only its basic thematic motifs: (a) a woman who called Jesus through the crowd and (b) Jesus’ response that redirected attention of his hearers from the misunderstood family relationships to general summons to obey God’s will (cf. Lk 1:42-45). 119 The positive evaluation of the woman as representing Jesus’ Jewish relatives and disciples who did not see closely but, nevertheless, they heard and blessed Jesus from afar (although not adequately to his true identity and to his mission of preaching the word of God) thematically corresponds to Paul’s presentation of the initial positive attitude of many members of the Judaean Churches towards him (Gal 1:22-24). The textual unit Lk 11:29-32, which has been structurally based on Mk 4:120, presents yet another allusion to Paul’s apologetic arguments against his 117 Cf. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 46. 118 For other instances of Lukan explanation of the enigmatic Markan statement Mk 3:2830, see Lk 7:36-8:3; 12:10. 119 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Szczęśliwa, która uwierzyła (Łk 1,45)’, Verbum vitae 5 (2004) 75-87.

328

Jewish Christian opponents. The Pauline motif of demanding a sign (1 Cor 1:22), which was introduced into the ‘travel narrative’ earlier in Lk 11:16 (which is linguistically based on Mk 8:11), has been developed in Lk 11:29 in form of a negative statement, which is a stylistically improved and expanded version of the subsequent Markan text Mk 8:12. 120 The negative answer to the demand for a sign (cf. 1 Cor 1:22) has been supplemented in Lk 11:29 with the solemn statement concerning giving solely the sign of Jonah (Lk 11:29d). As it is further explained in Lk 11:30.32, the sign of Jonah consists in preaching the word of God to the Gentiles (κήρυγμα: cf. 1 Cor 1:23). 121 The sign of preaching is accompanied in the Lukan text, in agreement with Paul’s well-known idea, by the sign of God’s wisdom, which is likewise understandable particularly to the Gentiles (σοφία: Lk 11:31; cf. 1 Cor 1:24). It is therefore evident that the pericope Lk 11:29-32 may not be adequately explained in purely literal terms limited merely to the superficial semantic level of the Lukan narrative. Notwithstanding the negative statement Lk 11:29, the Lukan Jesus will yet perform many splendid deeds that will astonish “this generation” (see e.g. Lk 13:10-17). The pericope Lk 11:29-32 has to be therefore explained on the allusive level, namely as referring to polemical “gathering” (ἐπαθροίζω: Lk 11:29a; cf. 12:1) of the Jewish “generation” against Paul, who carried out the mission to the Gentiles (like to the scriptural Ninevites) and who took some of the Gentiles (like the scriptural queen of the South) to Jerusalem to give visible signs that evidently proved already at that time (ὧδε: Lk 11:31-32) the divine authorization for his universal mission (Gal 2:1). The vocabulary used in the fragment Lk 11:31-32 par., which expands the Markan text Mk 8:12, is characteristically Lukan and non-Matthean (βασίλισσα, νότος, ἐν τῇ κρίσει, aor. inf. ἀκοῦσαι, ἄνδρες + gentile adj., ἀνίστημι, μετανοέω). The Scripture-based gender-paired couple of characters, who were, moreover, geographically oriented to the north and to the south, and consequently referred particularly to Galilee and to Judaea respectively, is also characteristically Lukan. The combined reference to a prophet and a king is also most probably Lukan (cf. Lk 10:24). Accordingly, whereas Lk 11:17-22, which is based on Mk 3:23-27, presented the first, ‘parabolic’ answer to the charge of lacking divine legitimacy for the evangelistic activity (Lk 11:15 par. Mk 3:22), the textual unit Lk 11:29-32 presents a second, scriptural answer to that charge (cf. also the similar function of Lk 7:1-35). Having reworked in Lk 11:14-32 the Markan section Mk 3:22-4:20, Luke proceeded to comment the Markan pericope Mk 4:21-22. The thematic and lin120 Cf. e.g. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 420. 121 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 97 n. 62.

329

guistic correspondence between Mk 4:21 and Lk 11:33ab is evident. The precise relationship between the pericopes Mk 4:21-22 and Lk 11:33-36 requires, however, some further clarifications. It should be noted first that the Markan expression ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος (Mk 4:21b), although acceptable in Greek, is somewhat vulgar. It means literally: “the lamp comes”. It evidently did not please Luke, who thoroughly reworked this clause already in Lk 8:16 to the more elegant οὐδεὶς… λύχνον ἅψας + pres. indic. The same correcting procedure has been applied in Lk 11:33ab, where the adjective κρυπτός has been borrowed by Luke from Mk 4:22a and the formula ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν from Mk 4:21d. Another important correction of Mk 4:21b has been made by the evangelist in Lk 11:33c. On the basis of the final clause Mk 4:22b (ἵνα ἔλθῃ εἰς φανερόν), which described something hidden as coming to an illuminated place, Luke created the image of someone entering a house and perceiving it as illuminated (ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόμενοι τὸ φῶς βλέπωσιν: Lk 11:33c). At the same time, the Markan division of space into dark and illuminated realms has been replaced by Luke with the image of an entirely illuminated house. This Mk-based image of an entirely illuminated house has been further developed by the evangelist in Lk 11:34-35. The surprising Lukan metaphor of a human body that is illuminated by its eye resulted from a conflation of the Pauline allegory of the whole body (ὅλον τὸ σῶμα: 1 Cor 12:12-27), in which the eye (ὀφθαλμός) was placed always at the top of Paul’s rhetorical gradationes (1 Cor 12:15-16.17.21),122 with the Markan polemic against Jewish Christians Mk 7:20-23, which interpreted human impurity in terms of evil internal attitudes like, among others, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός (Mk 7:22). The Lukan metaphor Lk 11:34-35 par. contrasts therefore Paul and his followers, who were sincere (*ἁπλο: cf. 2 Cor 1:12; 11:3-4) 123 and therefore had their entire bodies illuminated, with Jewish Christians, who lived in internal darkness (σκότος ἐστίν) because of their having an “evil eye” on Paul and his mission (cf. Lk 11:26). The polemically used in Lk 11:35 par. motif of light and darkness (φῶς – σκότος), as well as the verb σκοπέω, is Pauline and non-Matthean (cf. e.g. Rom 2:19; 1 Thes 5:5). The meaning of the Lukan allegory Lk 11:34-35 is therefore quite different from that of the Markan text Mk 4:21-22. Whereas Mark allusively depicted in 122 For a discussion on the meaning of this allegory in its Pauline context, see e.g. B. Adamczewski, ‘Kościół jako ikona Ciała Chrystusa w Pierwszym Liście do Koryntian’, Verbum vitae 6 (2004) 147-168. Luke may have been prompted to use this allegory in Lk 11:34-36 by the structurally corresponding Markan combination of statements referring to seeing and hearing in Mk 4:21-22.23. 123 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 98.

330

Mk 4:21-22 the dynamics of preaching of the gospel to the whole world, Luke alluded in Lk 11:34-35 to the Gentile Christian Titus (cf. the earlier allusion to him in Lk 11:31) who had been taken by Paul to Jerusalem as a shining example of a morally blameless Gentile Christian (Gal 2:1b) but, nevertheless, he was viewed by Jewish Christians with indignation because of his uncircumcised body (cf. Gal 2:3). The concluding statement Lk 11:36 further develops the motif of an entirely illuminated body (Lk 11:34-35) with the use of the motif of a lightning. The logical construction of Lk 11:36 is quite surprising. Luke created a strange image of an entirely illuminated human body (Lk 11:36ab) that should be entirely illuminated as whenever one is enlightened by the lamp by means of the lightning (Lk 11:36cd). The key to understanding this enigmatic statement may be found in the Lukan use of the motif of a lightning (ἀστραπή). In Lk 17:24 the motif of a lightning as flashing over the whole world is used as alluding to the universal revelation of God’s Son to the Gentiles by the missionary activity of Paul the Apostle who went, from the east to the west, all over the world. A similar idea is evoked also in Lk 11:36, which alludes to Paul who accomplished his missionary-illuminating work at least in the eastern part of the empire and thereupon, having received another special revelation, came to Jerusalem (cf. Rom 15:23; Gal 2:1-2a). The whole section Lk 11:14-36 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of, and as an explanation of, Paul’s apologetic narrative Gal 1:20-2:2a with the use of the Markan section Mk 3:22-4:22. Both these Lukan source texts follow the fragments Gal 1:19b and Mk 3:20-21, which were reworked in the preceding Lukan section Lk 10:38-11:13. In order to explain these somewhat enigmatic texts, Luke used numerous other Pauline (Rom 2:19; 1 Cor 1:22-24; 3:6-8; 9:11; 12:12-27; 2 Cor 1:12; 10:4-5.14; 11:3-4; 1 Thes 2:16; 5:5) and Markan statements (Mk 7:20-23.31-37; 8:11-12; 9:25), as well as some traditional scriptural motifs. The hypotheses of Lukan dependence in this section on some non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) and of Markan dependence on the text of Lk have to be therefore rejected. Lk 11:37-54 The section that presents Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees and Jesus’ woes against the Pharisees and experts in the law (Lk 11:37-54) develops the motif of dispute and conflict over Paul’s Gentile mission. The bipartite structure of the section, which refers first to the Pharisees (Lk 11:37-44) and then to the experts in the law (Lk 11:45-52), is based on Paul’s description of his double disclosure of the content of his gospel as preached among the Gentiles: first generally to Jerusalem Christians (Gal 2:2b) and then, in a separate meeting, to those who enjoyed reputation (Gal 2:2c). In agreement with Luke’s standard literary practice, 331

the narrative characters of the Pharisees allude in Lk 11:37-44 to Paul’s Jerusalem opponents, especially those belonging to the entourage of James, who required circumcision of the Gentile believers (cf. Gal 2:3-5 and Lk 12:1; Acts 15:5). The otherwise unknown “experts in the (Mosaic) law” (νομικοί) allude to the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ led by Cephas, who enjoyed the authority to verify Paul’s preaching and to issue binding halachic expositions of the law for the disciples of Jesus Christ (cf. Gal 2:6; cf. also the earlier allusion to Cephas as a νομικός in Lk 10:25). 124 The narrative introduction to the dispute with the Pharisees (Lk 11:37-38) has been modelled by Luke on the Markan text Mk 7:1-4, 125 which resulted, for example, in the untypical of Lk use of the verb βαπτίζω in the sense of washing (Lk 11:38), which in fact originates from Mk 7:4. The motif of Jesus’ and his disciples’ being invited by various people to have meals with them is a Lukan favourite (cf. e.g. Lk 10:38-42; 19:1-10; Acts 10:1-48), which presents the evangelist’s response to the Antiochene crisis (cf. Gal 2:11-14).

124 It should be noted that Luke consistently used the tripartite (but not concentric) structural pattern, which he had borrowed from the texts of Paul (Gal 2:9) and Mark (Mk 5:37; 9:2; 14:33), in order to allude in his Gospel to Jewish Christians (cf. e.g. Lk 4:312; 9:57-62). This pattern was later combined by Luke with his preferred ‘concentricmissionary’ pattern (cf. e.g. Lk 13:6-21) in Acts in which, for example, James was active only in Jerusalem, John also in Samaria, and Peter also in the whole Judaea and among the Gentile ‘God-fearers’ (Acts 2-5; 8; 10-12). Knowing that at the time of the writing of the Gospel, i.e. after the Jerusalem accord and the Antiochene crisis (Gal 2:714), such a pattern was only an unrealized ideal, Luke borrowed from Paul and from Mark the bipartite ‘Jewish–Gentile Christian’ complementary pattern (cf. e.g. Rom 1:16; 10:12; 1 Cor 1:24; 12:13; Mk 6:35-44; 8:1-9) and developed it into a genderpaired one (cf. 1 Cor 11:11-12; Lk 1-2), which presented the complementarity of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the Church as God-ordered (cf. e.g. Lk 15:3-7.8-10; 17:34-35). By the time of writing Acts, when the Jewish–Gentile Christian reconciliation proceeded (cf. Eph; 2 Pet; Jn 21), the Pauline-Markan simple (i.e. not gender-paired) bipartite pattern and the Lukan concentric-missionary pattern were combined together, for example, in the stories concerning Peter and Paul. 125 Cf. G. Bouwman, Das dritte Evangelium, 68; G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 114; J. M. Robinson, ‘The Sequence of Q: The Lament over Jerusalem’, in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien, Festschrift P. Hoffmann, ed. R. Hoppe and U. Busse (BZNW 93; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998), 225-260 (esp. 255) [also in J. M. Robinson, The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays, ed. C. Heil and J. Verheyden (BEThL 189; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2005), 559-598 (esp. 592)]; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 53, 421. It should be noted that the fragment Mk 7:20-23, which belongs to the Markan section Mk 7:1-23, was redactionally reworked by Luke in the preceding pericope Lk 11:33-36. Luke evidently used Markan texts with taking into consideration their original contexts.

332

Jesus’ arguing for the importance of inward and not merely outward attitudes, regarded as crucial for the rules concerning ritual purity (Lk 11:39-41), is a much abbreviated version of the long Markan text Mk 7:14-23. 126 The argument concerning excessive agricultural tithing (Lk 11:42) may be a Lukan shortening and simplifying reworking of the more complex Markan argument concerning excessive cultic offerings (Mk 7:10-12) with the use of favourite Lukan and non-Matthean vocabulary (ἀποδεκατόω, cf. also κἀκείνος). The Lukan ironic argument concerning tithing even of fruits of the garden (Lk 11:42) is most probably based on the halachic regulation concerning the first fruits of the garden, which was issued in the Pharisaic-like Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (4Q271 2:4; cf. the immediately preceding regulations concerning agricultural tithes in 4Q270 3i 19 - 3iii 15). 127 The charge of the Pharisees’ love for seats of honour and for greetings in the marketplaces (Lk 11:43) is a Lukan almost word-for-word borrowing from the Markan text Mk 12:38b-39a. This text has been taken out of its more elaborate context Mk 12:38-40 and reworked by changing the order of the charges (first: seats of honour, then: greetings in the market places), in order to suit Luke’s logic of argumentation, which proceeded usually from the inner (in this case: intramural) to the outer (in this case: extramural) realm. The conclusion of the Markan pericope Mk 12:38-40 has been probably reworked by Luke in a special way. It is quite plausible, although difficult to prove conclusively, that the use of the literary form of woes, which is in itself traditionally Jewish, 128 originates in Lk 11:42-52 from the Markan eschatological condemning verdict upon the scribes (Mk 12:40c). The particular form of woes (οὐαί) in the double Mt-Lk tradition is Lukan and only secondarily Matthean (cf. Lk 6:24-26).

126 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 2,] 518. 127 There is no place here to investigate the relationship between, on the one hand, the ideology and halacha of the so-called ‘Damascus Document’ (and of other documents known from the Dead Sea Scrolls) and, on the other hand, those of the Pharisees [perušîm] as known from other sources. It should be only noted here that the work, which is conventionally called ‘Damascus Document’, ought to be entitled the Last Interpretation [midrāš] of the Law (4Q270 7ii 15) or rather the Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law(s) (cf. CD 4:8; 6:14 and the conclusive 4Q270 7ii 12; cf. also Lev 24:12; Num 15:34; Neh 8:8): cf. e.g. J. M. Baumgarten [et al.], Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273) (DJD 18; Clarendon: Oxford 1996), 32 (“The elaboration of the laws”). For a very similar name and characterization of the Pharisees, see Jos. B.J. 2.162: “Pharisaioi are considered those who expound the laws with exactness.” 128 For the scriptural-Jewish background to Lk 11:49 par., see e.g. D. C. Allison, Jr., The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2000), 178-180.

333

The argument concerning impurity that results from contact with an unmarked grave (Lk 11:44) probably alludes to the halachic regulation concerning defilement caused by indirect contact with a corpse, which was issued in the Pharisaic-like Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law 4Q271 2:11 (after the regulation concerning fruits of the gardens 4Q271 2:4; cf. Lk 11:42) and in another work of the Pharisaic-like ‘separatists’, which referred, among others, to impurity resulting from casual contact even with a bone of a dead person (4Q396 1_2iv 1-3 = 4Q397 6_13 11 [4QMMT B 72-74]). 129 The first argument used in the dispute with one of the “experts in the law”, who narratively allude to the Jerusalem ‘pillars’, refers to their loading others with burdens hard to bear (δυσβάστακτα) but not bearing them themselves (Lk 11:46). The same argument refers in Gal 2:14 to Cephas (cf. οὔτε ἡμεῖς ἰσχύσαμεν βαστάσαι: Acts 15:10, explained in conciliatory terms in Acts 15:28). The second Lukan argument (Lk 11:47-51) alludes to Paul the ‘apostle’ as being persecuted (*δίωκω) by his Jewish Christian opponents according to the pattern of the prophets, and generally of all people, up to the moment of the already approaching final revelation of God’s wrath upon them (1 Thes 2:15.16c; cf. Gal 4:29; 5:11). This Pauline motif has been reworked narratively by Luke with the typical of Luke allusive use of motifs borrowed from the Scriptures, from the letters of Paul (σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ, προφῆται – ἀπόστολοι), and from Josephus’ work (the story of Zacharias killed by the Zealots in the middle of the Temple: Jos. B.J. 4.343). 130 The word πατέρες used in Lk 11:48 par. in the sense of forefathers (pl.) is Lukan and non-Matthean. Other vocabulary used in Lk 129 For a critique of the hypothesis that the halacha of 4QMMT displays distinctive Sadducean features, see e.g. B. Adamczewski, ‘The Hasmonean Temple’, 135-146. For a widespread, influential opinion, which is quite astonishing in its self-contradictory logic, that the statement “we have separated [pāraš] from the majority of the people” (4Q397 14_21 7 [4QMMT C 7]) was issued by a group that was related to the Pharisees but, on the other hand, that was not identical with them but merely disputing who could legitimately call himself ‘separated ones’ by means of appropriating for themselves the very self-identification of the Pharisees (i.e. the ‘separated ones’), see e.g. R. Deines, ‘The Pharisees Between “Judaisms” and “Common Judaism”’, in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1, The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid, (WUNT 2.140; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen and Baker Academic: Grand Rapids 2001), 443-504 (esp. 494-495). 130 It should be noted that Zacharias who was mentioned in 2 Chr 24:20 MT was called not Ζαχαριας but Αζαριας in the Septuagint that was used by Luke. On the other hand, the thematic and linguistic correspondences (ἐν μέσῳ, ἀπόλυσις) favour Jos. B.J. 4.343 as the source for Lk 11:51. Cf. G. C. Storr, De fonte evangeliorum Matthaei et Lucae (Fues: Tubingae 1794), esp. 9 n. 41 [reworked in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 3, ed. J. C. Velthusen, C. T. Kuinoel, and G. A. Rupert (Iohannes Ambrosius Barth: Lipsiae 1796), 140-172 (esp. 148 n. 41)].

334

11:47-51 is also typical of Luke (μάρτυς, συνευδοκέω, ἐκζητέω). The particular motif of killing and persecuting the prophets and the apostles who were full of God’s wisdom, which resembled earlier persecutions and killing of the prophets by the ‘fathers’, and which was approved by the present opponents of Jesus and his disciples (Lk 11:48-49 par.), was further developed by Luke in Acts 6:3.10; 7:52; 8:1. The third Lukan argument (Lk 11:52), which concerns authoritative forbidding (κωλύω) those who wanted to enter knowledge access to it, is based on the Pauline statement concerning his Jewish Christian opponents (1 Thes 2:16a). The motif of knowledge (γνῶσις) is typically Pauline. It is significant that in Mk 9:38 the verb κωλύω, allusively referring to Jewish Christians’ hindering the Pauline mission, was placed in the mouth of John the brother of James. It is therefore very probable that the three woes against the “experts in the law” (Lk 11:46.47-51.52) have been composed as alluding to each of the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ distinctively. Their order, applied by Luke in Lk 11:46-52 (Peter, James, and John), is Markan (cf. Mk 5:37; 9:2; 14:33). 131 The formula “the scribes and the Pharisees” used in Lk 11:53a corresponds to the bipartite formula Mk 7:1.5a, which has been reversed according to the usual Lukan pattern (cf. Lk 5:21.30; 6:7; 15:2) that was based on Mk 2:16 (cf. Acts 23:9). This formula has been further expanded with the use of Lukan favourite vocabulary (ἐνεδρεύω) into the narrative conclusion Lk 11:53-54. The whole section Lk 11:37-54 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of the Pauline text Gal 2:2bc with the use of other Pauline (1 Thes 2:15-16c) and Markan texts (Mk 7:1-5a.10-12.14-23; 12:38-40) and of motifs that have been borrowed from the Scriptures, the Pharisaic-like Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (4Q271 2:4.11), and Josephus’ work (B.J. 4.343). No non-

131 As concerns the plausible reference of the linguistically least identifiable second woe (Lk 11:47-51) to James the ‘pillar’, it should be noted that James was earlier presented, together with John, as a violent persecutor of his Samaritan opponents in Lk 9:54. In Acts 8:14-25 it is significantly only John who is sent together with Peter to Samaria. It is worth noting that although Paul seems to not have known any other James than the well-known ‘brother of the Lord’ (1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19; 2:9.12; the character of ‘James the son of Zebedee’ appeared for the first time in the Gospel of Mark: Mk 1:19), James the ‘pillar’ (Gal 2:9) was not explicitly identified by Paul with James ‘the brother of the Lord’ (Gal 1:19; cf. Acts 15:13). Luke made this explicit identification in Acts in order to clarify the identity of the Pauline and Markan Jameses by introducing a brief remark concerning the death of James the brother of John in Acts 12:2, which was followed by a narrative introduction of the character of James the brother of the Lord in Acts 12:17. Neither Mark (cf. Mk 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; cf. also Mk 15:40) nor Luke at the time of the composition of the Gospel ‘travel narrative’ seem to have been aware of this later explicit identification.

335

Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) may be traced behind the present form of this Lukan text. Lk 12:1-12 The section Lk 12:1-12 consists of several sayings that share the common theme of physical and spiritual tension. The introductory statement Lk 12:1a, with its motif of gathering (ἐπισυνάγω) of myriads of people, is a reworking of the Markan motif of gathering of the whole town (Mk 1:33), which has been referred by Luke to the Jewish Christians who lived in Jerusalem (cf. also Acts 21:20). The surprising, almost comic motif of physical pressure of the crowds (Lk 12:1b) alludes, as it follows from the analysis of Lk 12:4-7, to the Pauline remark concerning putting Titus under pressure to have his body circumcised (Gal 2:3b). Jesus’ saying concerning the leaven of the Pharisees (Lk 12:1d) originates from the Markan text Mk 8:15. 132 The original Markan warning has been corrected stylistically by Luke: the Markan ὁρᾶτε βλέπετε has been replaced with προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς. It has also been supplemented with an explanation of the Markan enigmatic saying in Lukan terms of hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισις) that allusively refers to the behaviour of Barnabas and other Jewish Christians who at least indirectly compelled (ἀναγκάζω) the Gentiles to become Jews (Gal 2:1314; cf. 2:3b). 133 As a result of the standard narrative procedure that was widely used by Luke, the historical persons of Barnabas and of other numerous Jewish Christian opponents of Paul have been alluded to in Lk 12:1 by the collective character of the Pharisees (cf. also Acts 15:5 combining the two controversies referred to in Gal 2:1-10.11-14). This narrative introduction (Lk 12:1) has been further expanded by Luke in Lk 12:2-3 with the use of the Markan text Mk 4:22-23 with its combined motifs of seeing and hearing. Accordingly, Luke resumed in Lk 12:2-3 his reworking of Markan text Mk 4:1-21, which began in the section Lk 11:29-36, and which was subsequently (i.e. in Lk 11:37-54) left off. The Markan motif of seeing (Mk 4:22) has been adopted and thoroughly reworked stylistically by Luke in Lk 12:2. 134 Since in the Markan double saying, which referred to universal visibility of hidden attitudes and events, the second element of the parallelism (Mk 4:22b) redundantly repeated the wording of the 132 Cf. e.g. B. Bauer, Kritik, vol. 2 (2nd edn., Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1846), 233; F. Neirynck, ‘The Minor Agreements and Q’, 60-61 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000, 255-256]; W. Eckey, Das Lukasevangelium: Unter Berücksichtigung seiner Parallelen (Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004), [vol. 2,] 562. 133 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 102. 134 Cf. B. Bauer, Kritik, vol. 2 (2nd edn., Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1846), 234.

336

first one (Mk 4:22a), Luke changed in Lk 12:2 par. the Markan vocabulary to that more clearly Pauline (which is also non-Matthean: ἀποκαλύπτω – γινώσκω: cf. Lk 10:22 diff. Mt 11:27). Lk 12:3 is a thematic reworking of Mk 4:23, which is based on its two key words: οὖς and ἀκούω. Luke combined both Markan motifs, namely those of seeing and hearing (Mk 4:22-23.24a; cf. Mk 8:18). The evangelist created the image of a house (cf. Lk 11:33) with a flat roof terrace that was referred to with the use of the Lukan and non-Matthean word δῶμα (cf. Mk 13:15 parr.; Lk 5:19; Acts 10:9). The vocabulary used in the rest of Lk 12:3 par. is Pauline and nonMatthean (ἀκούω – κηρύσσω). The following pericope Lk 12:4-7 alludes, in the reverse order, to the three features of the person of Titus who was referred to in Gal 2:3. The motif of killing the body (Lk 12:4 par.) refers to the motif of exerting pressure on Titus to have his body circumcised. The motif of killing only the body (Lk 12:4-5 par.), which presupposes Hellenistic dualistic spiritual-corporeal anthropology, alludes to Titus’ Greek nationality and culture. The motif of selling sparrows for small Roman coins, which were normally not used in Palestine at the time of Jesus (Lk 12:6-7 par., diff. Mk 12:42), 135 alludes to Titus’ Roman name. The motif of being thrown into Gehenna (Lk 12:5) has been most probably borrowed from the Markan text Mk 9:45.47, and the motif of two small coins with a Roman name, from Mk 12:42. 136 The vocabulary used in Lk 12:4-7 is Septuagintal (φοβέομαι ἀπό), peculiarly Lukan (ὑποδείκνυμι), and, where common with Mt, also non-Matthean (τρίχες τῆς κεφαλῆς, κεφαλὴ ὑμῶν). The remaining fragments of the section (Lk 12:8-12) develop the theme of persecution, which was introduced into the ‘travel narrative’ in Lk 12:4-7, with the use of Markan motifs that suit the situation of Jewish harassment (cf. Gal 2:3). The saying Lk 12:8 is a slightly expanded, positive version of the subsequent statement Lk 12:9. The sequence of two synonymous prepositions ἔμπροσθεν and ἐνώπιον in Lk 12:8-9 may reflect the similar sequence in

135 Cf. M. Reiser, ‘Numismatik’, 477. The coins minted by the Roman prefects/procurators of Judaea bore Greek and not Latin inscriptions: cf. Y. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (Yad Ben-Zwi: Jerusalem and Amphora: Nyack, NY 2001), 167. 136 In the context of Mk 12:44, the two coins, which are referred to in Lk 12:6-7, have the value of human life that is endangered but entrusted to God’s providence like sparrows are (cf. e.g. Ps 11[10]:1; 124[123]:7 LXX). The somewhat strange calculation of five sparrows for two asses and not, for example, one sparrow for two quadrants (cf. Mk 12:42 and Matthew’s correction in Mt 10:29) may allude to the reversal of the fate of the Torah-oriented Jerusalem Christians (who were symbolized by the number five: cf. Lk 16:28) at the time of coming of Titus the Roman general to Jerusalem (cf. Lk 19:27).

337

Dan 7:10.13 θ'. The otherwise unattested expression ὁμολογέω ἐν in Lk 12:8 par. is a Semitism (cf. Sir 4:26). 137 The statement Lk 12:9 is a Lukan reworking of Mk 8:38. This Markan text warned the disciples against being ashamed of Jesus in this generation, but it did not specify before whom the Son of Man would be ashamed at his eschatological coming. This lack of symmetry in the Markan text has been corrected by Luke for the first time in Lk 9:26, where the evangelist shortened the first element of the parallelistic saying (Lk 9:26a). In the second instance of Luke’s dealing with this Markan text, it has been corrected in yet another way. According to the perfectly balanced, Luke’s double saying Lk 12:8-9, if the disciples repudiate Jesus in the presence of men, also the Son of Man will repudiate them in the presence of the angels of God. The Lukan idea of the Son of Man’s repudiating his disciples in the presence of the angels is somewhat strange, but it originates in fact from the Danielic-Markan idea of the Son of Man’s coming with the holy angels (Mk 8:38). The verb ἀρνέομαι used in Lk 12:9 par. is Lukan and non-Matthean. In Lk 12:10 the evangelist reworked once more the enigmatic Markan text concerning the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mk 3:28-29). 138 It was explained by Luke already earlier in Lk 7:36-8:3; 11:23-26 as referring to the sin of the Jewish Christians who denied the legitimacy of Paul’s missionary practice and, in consequence, returned to the state of impurity that was worse than that before their initial believing in Christ. This general meaning has been retained also in Lk 12:10, in the context of allusions to Titus who served as a visible proof of the divine authorization of Paul’s mission (Lk 12:4-7 cf. Gal 2:3), but it has been rephrased with the use of the motif of Paul’s apology as taught by the Spirit (Lk 12:12 cf. 1 Cor 2:13). In Lk 12:10 the somewhat chaotic formal and syntactic structure of Mk 3:28-29 has been changed to a perfectly balanced and parallelistic one. Lk 12:10 has been therefore modelled on Mk 3:28-29 139 and rephrased in the same correcting way as Lk 12:8-9 was modelled on Mk 8:38. At the same time, the Markan motif of “sons of men” meaning ‘humans’ (οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων: cf. Mk 2:27-28) has been replaced in Lk 12:10a with the theological title “Son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) that has been borrowed from Mk 8:38, which was reworked earlier in Lk 12:8-9 (cf. the similar ‘theologizing’ procedure adopted earlier in Lk 12:2 par. Mk 4:22). The confusing statement Mk 3:29b has been 137 It may be supposed that Luke rephrased in Lk 12:8 par. the Pauline formula Rom 10:910 in a way similar to Lk 7:23 par. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 102 n. 85. 138 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 53. 139 Cf. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 46; J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, vol. 2, 963, 966; A. Fuchs, ‘Spuren von Deuteromarkus’, 27-29.

338

corrected by Luke in Lk 12:10d not only stylistically but also logically (the present ἔχει ἄφεσιν has been changed to the future ἀφεθήσεται to suit the context), and at the same time the problematic ending of Mk 3:29bc (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα…) has been entirely omitted. Lk 12:11-12 has been composed on the basis of Mk 13:9.11. 140 Lk 12:11a refers, however, in difference to Mk 13:9, uniquely to Jewish persecutions (cf. Lk 20:20). In Lk 12:11c the favourite Lukan verb ἀπολογέω has been inserted. The subsequent statement Lk 12:12 reinterprets the promise of a charismatic gift of speech (δοθῇ ὑμῖν), which has been borrowed from Mk 13:11c, in terms of the Pauline Christians’ being taught by the Spirit (διδάξει ὑμᾶς: cf. 1 Cor 2:13). The whole section Lk 12:1-12 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of Gal 2:3 with the use of other Pauline (Rom 10:9-10; 1 Cor 2:13; Gal 2:13-14) and Markan texts (Mk 1:33; 3:28-29; 4:22-24a; 8:15.38; 9:45.47; 12:42; 13:9.11), as well as traditional scriptural motifs. The hypotheses of Lukan dependence in Lk 12:1-12 on non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or Mt) and of Markan dependence on the text of Lk are entirely implausible. Lk 12:13-34 The section Lk 12:13-34 consists of two sets of Jesus’ sayings: the first addressed to the crowds (Lk 12:13-21) and the second directed to a small number of Jesus’ closer disciples (Lk 12:22-34). This bipartite division is based on the double set of references in Gal 2:4-5: first to the Jewish Christian ‘crowds’ in Jerusalem and then to the ‘little flock’ of the Pauline Christians. In Gal 2:4a Paul described the Jerusalem conflict as caused by “false brothers” (ψευδάδελφοι). This enigmatic and also somehow scandalizing Pauline characterization of his Jewish Christian opponents has been reworked by Luke in Lk 12:13-21 in the form of a set of sayings that are based on the motif of an evil brother (ἀδελφός: Lk 12:13). The somewhat strange motif of insisting upon dividing (μερίζω) the inheritance (Lk 12:13c-14), which was not approved by Jesus, originates from the Jewish Christian idea of dividing the worldwide missionary field into two separate realms (Gal 2:9.12cd): the idea that was not espoused by Paul who argued that Christ should not be divided (Gal 2:8.12ab; 1 Cor 1:13: μερίζω). The motifs of condemnation of greed (πλεονεξία) and of having an abundance (περισσεύω: Lk 12:15) are also Pauline (2 Cor 9:5.8.12). The motifs of storing up treasures (θησαυρίζω) and of becoming rich (πλουτέω: Lk 12:21), which conclude the parable Lk 12:16-21, are Pauline 140 Cf. A. Fuchs, ‘Spuren von Deuteromarkus’, 29; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 53.

339

(2 Cor 12:14; 8:9). In their original contexts, they are thematically related to the financial contribution for the Jerusalem Christians, which was imposed upon the Gentile Christian believers (Gal 2:10a). The Lukan parable itself has been composed, like the rest of the fragment Lk 12:13-21, with the use of distinctively Lukan vocabulary (voc. ἄνθρωπε, καθίστημι, κριτής, φυλάσσω, ὑπάρχω; χώρα meaning ‘a field’, ἔχω ποῦ, καθαιρέω as ‘destroy’, τὰ ἀγαθά, εὐφραίνω, ἄφρων, ἀπαιτέω, πλουτέω). The narrative thread of the parable most probably originates from Mk 4:25cd (“even what he has will be taken away from him”: cf. ἔχω in Mk 4:25; Lk 12:17.19; cf. also ὃ δοκεῖ ἔχειν in Lk 8:18) and Mk 4:29 (καρπός: crop at the harvest time). The second part of the section (Lk 12:22-34) describes the peculiarly Pauline understanding of freedom in Christ and of the truth of the Gospel (Gal 2:4b5) as it was perceived by Luke, who was fascinated by the life of Paul who had been concerned only about the things of the Lord (cf. the key word μεριμνάω: 1 Cor 7:32-34 and Lk 12:22.25-26; cf. also Lk 10:41). In order to illustrate the Pauline understanding of freedom in Christ and of the truth of the Gospel, Luke used other motifs that he had borrowed from the Markan text Mk 4:24d-29: σπείρω/σπόρος (Lk 12:24; cf. Mk 4:26-27), χόρτος (Lk 12:28; cf. Mk 4:28), and βασιλεία (Lk 12:31-32; cf. Mk 4:26). The peculiar expression: καὶ […] προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν (Lk 12:31b) has been almost certainly borrowed by Luke from Mk 4:24d because in the Lukan context the idea of adding food and clothing to the kingdom of God is somewhat strange (cf. Lk 12:32-33 diff. Lk 12:25). The concluding fragment of the section (Lk 12:32-34) has been formulated with the use of the imagery and vocabulary that has been borrowed from Mk 10:21 (cf. πωλέω, δίδωμι, θησαυρὸς ἐν οὐρανῷ/οὐρανοῖς in Lk 12:33 and Mk 10:21c). 141 The vocabulary of Lk 12:22-34 is generally Lukan (κατανοέω, μὴ φοβοῦ, ποίμνιον, ὑπάρχω, βαλλάντιον). In the common Mt-Lk fragments, the vocabulary is mostly Lukan and non-Matthean (ἡλικία, προστίθημι, αὐξάνω, part. acc. ὄντα, αὔριον, χρῄζω, πλήν), 142 and only at times it is apparently Matthean and non-Lukan (ἔνδυμα: widely used; ὀλιγόπιστος: probably a Lukan neologism, which corrected ἄπιστος that referred to the disciples in Mk 9:18-19, and which

141 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 53. 142 The somewhat strange thematic link between ravens and grain in Lk 12:24 par. has been borrowed by Luke, in a peculiar to him (and not to Matthew) allusive way, from 1 Kgs 17:4.6a where ravens were depicted as bringing bread to Elijah (cf. 1 Kgs 17:4 LXX διατρέφω and Lk 12:24 τρέφω). The combination of the allusions to Elijah (Lk 12:24 par.) and to Solomon (Lk 12:27 par.) also reflects the peculiarly Lukan (and nonMatthean) interest in depicting the eschatological Israel as including its two historical parts: the northern and the southern one (cf. e.g. Lk 11:30-32; Acts 1:8).

340

was most probably based on 1 Thes 5:14 and adopted later as peculiarly ‘harsh’ by Matthew). 143 The whole section Lk 12:13-34 has been therefore composed on the basis of Gal 2:4-5 with the use of other Pauline (1 Cor 1:13; 2 Cor 9:5.8.12; 8:9; 12:14; Gal 2:8-10.12; 1 Thes 5:14) and Markan texts (Mk 4:24d-29; 9:18-19; 10:21), as well as some scriptural motifs. Neither Lukan dependence on nonPauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) nor Markan dependence on the text of Lk may be proved in this section. Lk 12:35-53 The three pericopes that form together the section Lk 12:35-53 share the common theme of an eschatological tension and conflict. This theme has been somewhat surprisingly introduced by Luke precisely into this part of the ‘travel narrative’ in order to deal with the highly controversial Pauline text Gal 2:6. The first controversial feature of the Jerusalem leaders, which has been referred to in Gal 2:6a-c, was their considering themselves or their being considered (δοκέω) “something”, which was based on their special status at some time in the past (ποτέ). According to Paul, this high status was not necessarily approved by God because God generally shows favouritism to no one. This controversial issue has been explained by Luke in the double pericope Lk 12:3540.41-48, which is based on the Markan text Mk 13:33-37. The reasons for using precisely this Markan fragment in Lk 12:35-40.41-48 were both thematic (stern warning to Peter, James, John, and Andrew: cf. Mk 13:3) and linguistic (the use of the key word πότε: Mk 13:33.35 and Lk 12:36; cf. Gal 2:6b). The introduction to the first pericope (Lk 12:35) is evidently based on the traditional scriptural motifs that have been borrowed from Exod 12:11; 27:20 LXX. 144 The image of coming of the Lord that resembles that of a master who comes back home at night-time (Lk 12:36-38) closely corresponds to Mk 13:3336. In fact, this Markan pericope has been reworked in Lk 12:35-38 much more faithfully to the original Markan wording than in the structurally corresponding text Lk 21:34-36, in which only the imperative ἀγρυπνεῖτε in Lk 21:36a constitutes an evident linguistic link to Mk 13:33a (cf. also αἰφνίδιος in Lk 21:34c and ἐξαίφνης in Mk 13:36). 145 143 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 92. 144 Cf. D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, 331. 145 The comparison of Lk 21:34-36 with Mk 13:33-37 reveals the degree of possible Luke’s reworking of his source texts. Apart from some general thematic correspondences, almost nothing of the original Markan wording has been preserved in Lk 21:34-36, in difference to Lk 12:35-38; 12:41-44. Accordingly, it should be noted that Luke was not

341

In agreement with his general redactional habit, Luke attributed in Lk 12:36-38 a more precise meaning to somewhat vague or surprising Markan expressions. The strange Markan image of a man coming back home at night-time from a travel to another country (Mk 13:34-36) has been reworked by Luke in more plausible categories of a master coming back home at night-time from a wedding banquet that was presumably held somewhere nearby (Lk 12:36-38). 146 The Lukan image of the servants who immediately open the door to the master knocking at it at night-time (Lk 12:36-37a; cf. Lk 13:25) corresponds to the task that was assigned to the doorkeeper in Mk 13:34c (γρηγορέω in Mk 13:34-35.37 and Lk 12:37a; cf. εὑρίσκω in Mk 13:36 and Lk 12:37a). The wording used in Lk 12:37bc in the paradoxical metaphor of the master’s having his slaves recline (ἀνακλίνω transit.) and of his coming by (παρέρχομαι) to wait on them (διακονέω) shows signs of Lukan reworking of the Markan paschal-Eucharistic pericopes Mk 6:35-44.45-52, which is similar to that of Lk 22:14-27 (diff. Lk 17:7-8). The idea of the master’s coming during the second or the third “watch”, so in the middle of the night, and not during the evening or at dawn (Lk 12:38 diff. Mk 13:35; Mk 6:48), betrays Lukan intertextual dependence on 1 Thes 5:2-8a. This dependence is evident also in Luke’s unexpected introduction of the metaphor of a thief (κλέπτης) who breaks into (διορύσσω: cf. Exod 22:1; Job 24:16 LXX) the house (Lk 12:39 par.; cf. 1 Thes 5:2b.4).147 The somewhat strange motif of the hour (ὥρα) of the coming of the thief (Lk 12:39; cf. also Lk 12:40.46 par.) is a reworked version of the Markan saying Mk 13:32, which has been entirely omitted in Lk 21:33-34 because of its Christological inadequacy, at least as it was perceived by Luke. The same Markan saying concerning the impossibility of ‘knowing the hour’ (Mk 13:32) has been combined in Lk 12:40 par. with the correlated Markan statement that referred to the future coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26; cf. Mk 8:38; 14:62). This Markan text has been reworked, however, in Lk 12:40 par. in surprising, peculiarly Lukan (and non-Matthean) presential terms (ἔρχεται: cf. Lk 17:20-22) and with the also somewhat surprising use of the verb δοκέω, which has been borrowed by Luke from the reworked by him in this only a corrective re-styler, but also a highly creative re-worker of his sources. It is really hard to understand on what basis some exegetes may argue, notwithstanding the evident intertextual data, that Lk 21:34-36 is a Lukan redactional “replacement” for Mk 13:3337, whereas Lk 12:35-38 (which in its thematic and linguistic features is much closer to Mk 13:33-37) came to Luke from a separate non-Markan source: see e.g. J. Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53 (WBC 35C; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993), 1012. 146 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 53. 147 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 106.

342

fragment Pauline text Gal 2:6a in place of the much more natural in this context Markan verb οἶδα (Mk 13:32). Accordingly, Luke used the Markan motif of the future coming of the Son of Man at an unknown hour, in order to present the Jerusalem leaders, who were once considered or were considering themselves something (δοκέω: Gal 2:6a), as failing to consider (δοκέω: Lk 12:40 par.) the coming of the Lord now, namely in the preaching of Paul the Apostle (cf. also later Lk 12:54-57). The second pericope of the section (Lk 12:41-48) begins with the strange question of Peter (Lk 12:41), which is an evident reworking of the Markan statement Mk 13:37. 148 The subsequent parable Lk 12:42-44 presents another Lukan version of the Markan text Mk 13:33-36 (ἐλθών, εὑρίσκω in Mk 13:36 and Lk 12:43; μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος in Lk 12:43 par.; cf. earlier Lk 12:37). The parable Lk 12:42-44 is thematically related to Lk 21:34-36 but reworked with the use of the image of daytime service to the master, which is in fact based on the motif of the “day” in 1 Thes 5:2-8a. The use of the motif of a manager (οἰκονόμος: Lk 12:42 diff. κύριος in Mk 13:34 and Lk 12:43) as referring to the leaders of the Church is clearly Pauline (cf. 1 Cor 4:1-2; 9:17). 149 The Markan motif of the eschatological time (καιρός: Mk 13:33) has been reworked in Lk 12:42 par. in Lukan (and non-Matthean) terms of the present period of continuous service to fellow brethren in faith (cf. Lk 21:36; Acts 1:7; 14:17; 17:26). The Lukan and non-Matthean image of appointing the servant over the master’s possessions (τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, cf. also καθίστημι: Lk 12:44) 150 is most probably a Lukan version of the corresponding Markan motif of giving authority to the servants (Mk 13:34b; cf. Lk 19:17). The image of the servant as getting drunk (μεθύσκω) during the prolonged absence of the master (Lk 12:45) has been borrowed by Luke from 1 Thes 5:7 (cf. also 1 Cor 11:21-22). 151 The motif of the master’s return on an unexpected day (ἡμέρα) and at an unknown hour (ὥρα: Lk 12:46) is a further Lukan reworking of the problematic Markan text Mk 13:32, now with the use of imagery of punishment, which is based probably on 2 Cor 6:14-15 (*μερ, ἄπιστος). The strange image of being first divided into two parts and thereupon being given the share with the unbelievers (Lk 12:46) is probably based on the similar sequence of motifs in 2 Cor 6:14-15: being unevenly yoked and having a com148 Cf. G. Bouwman, Das dritte Evangelium, 58; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 53, 423. 149 G. Bouwman, Das dritte Evangelium, 58, 139; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 107108. 150 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 91. 151 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 109.

343

mon share with the unbelievers. In the Lukan intertextual logic, being divided into two parts would then result from being unevenly yoked. However, on the allusive level of the Lukan narrative, the division into two parts refers above all to Cephas and to other Jerusalem ‘pillars’ who, instead of exercising authority over the whole master’s property (Lk 12:44), caused the regrettable, from the Pauline and Lukan point of view, division of the Church into two parts (cf. Gal 2:9.12; 1 Cor 1:13; Lk 12:13-14.51-53), with the Jewish Christian part having the common share with the Jewish unbelievers (cf. 2 Cor 4:4; Lk 19:27). The wording of Lk 12:45-46 par. is Lukan and non-Matthean (τύπτω, ἐσθίω – πίνω, προσδοκάω). 152 Lk 12:47-48 has been composed with the use of Lukan (γινώσκω τὸ θέλημα… αὐτοῦ, παρατίθημι as “entrust”, αἰτέω with acc. of the person asked), Markan (ζητέω παρά), and scriptural phraseology (ἄξιος πληγῶν: cf. Deut 25:2 LXX). Consequently, no pre-Lukan Christian source may be detected behind the motif of cruel corporal punishment of the slave, which has been used in Lk 12:47-48 (cf. also Lk 16:23-24; 19:27; Acts 5:5-10). The third pericope of the section (Lk 12:49-53) presents Jesus as causing tension and division among the people. The image of Jesus as causing division in the whole world, notwithstanding the disciples’ considering (δοκέω) him the one who brings peace (Lk 12:49-51), serves to explain the Pauline text Gal 2:6d concerning the presumably fierce dispute between, on the on hand, Paul the passionate apostle, who wanted to baptize the whole world, and, on the other hand, the Jerusalem leaders, who considered (δοκέω) possible keeping the peace in the Church by subjecting Paul’s Gentile mission to their halachic authority (cf. the same motif reworked in a more conciliatory way in Acts 2:3). The Lukan metaphor of throwing fire (Lk 12:49), which thematically introduces Lk 12:50-51 (cf. Lk 3:16), may be linguistically related to the enigmatic Markan text Mk 9:49 and to some scriptural images (e.g. Joel 2:3). 153 The saying Lk 12:50a is an evident reworking of Mk 10:38d (βάπτισμα… βαπτισθῆναι), 154 which has been expanded in Lk 12:50b. The word εἰρήνη that is used in Lk 12:51 par. is Lukan and non-Matthean. 152 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 91. 153 The strange Matthean metaphor of “throwing peace” in Mt 10:34 is a conflation of Lk 12:49 with Lk 12:51. Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung des gelösten Problems der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes zum Selbststudium für die academische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen geordnet (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), li-lii. 154 Cf. B. Bauer, Kritik, vol. 2 (2nd edn., Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1846), 238; G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 124; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54, 424.

344

The image of a divided family (Lk 12:52-53) is based on the Markan text Mk 13:12, which described apocalyptic tribulations in terms of the disciples’ being handed over to death by their brothers, fathers, and children. Luke conflated this text with Mi 7:6a-c LXX, 155 which describes rebellion of a son against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Lk 12:53). Luke used this scriptural motif in order to depict the image of a family of five as internally divided into two mutually opposed parties: “three against two and two against three” (Lk 12:52). Luke’s allusion to the halachic dispute of James, Cephas, and John on the one side, and Paul and Barnabas on the other side (Gal 2:6d.9; cf. Acts 15:7-21) is here evident. The section Lk 12:35-53 is therefore a peculiar Lukan explanation of the controversial text Gal 2:6 with the use of other Pauline (1 Cor 1:13; 4:1-2; 9:17; 2 Cor 4:4; 6:14-15; Gal 2:9.12; 1 Thes 5:2-8a) and Markan texts (Mk 9:49; 10:38d; 13:12.26.32-37), as well as some scriptural motifs. Neither Markan dependence on the text of Lk nor Lukan use of non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) may be demonstrated in this section. Lk 12:54-13:21 The pericopes that belong to the section Lk 12:54-13:21 apparently share no common theme. However, they all are in fact a particular Lukan explanation of the basic motifs of the Pauline text Gal 2:7-9. The pericope Lk 12:54-57 alludes to the Jerusalem leaders’ having seen (*ἰδ: Lk 12:54b; cf. Gal 2:7a) the fruits of the preaching of the gospel by Paul and by Peter respectively (Gal 2:7). The image of the cloud that rises in the west (Lk 12:54b) refers to Paul’s preaching in the Mediterranean, i.e. west of Israel. The image of the south wind refers to Peter’s preaching among the circumcised, so presumably in the direction towards Egypt and Ethiopia (cf. this idea reworked in a different way in Acts 8:25-39). 156 The difference between the cloud that brings a longed-for fruitful rainstorm (Lk 12:54; cf. 1 Kgs 18:44-45) and the wind that brings only drying heat (Lk 12:55; cf. Hos 13:15; Ezek 17:10; 19:12), as well as the difference between the heaven and the earth (Lk 12:56 p75, p45; cf. 155 Cf. D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, 332-333. 156 The idea of Peter’s activity in Samaria (Acts 8:14-24), which significantly did not consist in preaching (cf. Acts 8:4-11), evidently had not been yet invented at the time of composition of Lk 12:55 (cf. also Lk 9:52-54). On the other hand, according to Hellenistic geographical-cultural ideas, Egyptians (along with Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Macrones) were generally circumcised (Herodotus, Hist. 2.36-37, 104). The list of nations in Acts 2:9-11 in comparison to that of Jub. 8:12-21; 9:1 suggests that Egypt was perceived by Luke as a Semitic or Hamitic country, but certainly not as a Japhetic (i.e. Greek) one.

345

Gal 4:25-26), illustrates the Lukan view on the difference between the results, as well as origins, of both missions (cf. Gal 2:8). Lk 12:56-57 develops the idea of visible signs of God’s being at work in Paul’s mission (cf. Gal 2:8-9a) in negative terms of a somewhat strange in the Lukan context rebuke for hypocrisy (ὑποκριταί), which alludes in fact to Paul’s rebuke to Cephas and Barnabas for their Antiochene hypocrisy (Gal 2:11-14). 157 The whole fragment Lk 12:54-57 has been composed with the use of favourite Lukan vocabulary (ἔλεγεν… τοῖς ὄχλοις, γίνεται οὕτως, νότος, πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς, δοκιμάζω, ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν). The pericope Lk 12:58-59 is a Lukan reworking of the Pauline text Gal 2:9c, which refers to the Jerusalem agreement as (a) reached by two opposing parties, (b) confirmed by giving (δίδωμι) a sign of business agreement, and (c) involving a concession made to the advantage (ἐργασία: Lk 12:58) of the stronger party (in the case of Gal 2:9c: to the three Jerusalem leaders). The wording used in Lk 12:58-59 par. is characteristically Lukan (ἄρχων as “official”, ἐργασία, ἀπαλλάσσω) and non-Matthean (ἀντίδικος, κριτής, βάλλω εἰς φυλακήν). The double pericope Lk 13:1-5 alludes to the Pauline phrase that described the Jerusalem leaders as οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι (Gal 2:9b). The first Lukan pericope (Lk 13:1-3) is thematically based on the story related in Jos. Ant. 18.85-87. 158 Luke replaced the characters of the Samaritans from Josephus’ account with those of the Galileans in order to adapt the story to the Lukan favourite pattern of juxtaposing Galilee and Judaea. The Lukan point of the story is phrased as a response to considering (δοκέω: cf. Gal 2:9b) the killed Galileans worse sinners that all others (Lk 13:2-3). In such an indirect way, Luke argued that also the Galilean apostles needed conversion (cf. Lk 22:32). The second pericope (Lk 13:4-5), which refers to the otherwise unknown event of falling of a tower in Siloam, 159 narratively alludes to Paul’s questioning 157 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 112. 158 Cf. C. Böttrich, ‘Was kann aus Nazaret Gutes kommen? Galiläa in Spiegel der Jesusüberlieferung und bei Josephus’, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, ed. C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (WUNT 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 295-333 (esp. 329-330). 159 The existence of an otherwise unknown tower in Siloam may have been deduced by Luke from the work of Josephus who described Siloam as the place of bending of the wall of Jerusalem, whence it could be deduced that this place had been provided with a tower that was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 (cf. Jos. B.J. 5.145, 252, 505; 6.363, 413; 7.1-2). Cf. G. Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (ÖTKNT 3/2; Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh and Echter: Würzburg 1977), [vol. 2,] 297; F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 2 (EKK 3/2; Benzinger: Zürich [et al.] and Neukirchener: NeukirchenVluyn 1996), 377. The event referred to in Lk 13:4 would then allude to the fall of the

346

the status of the Jerusalem leaders who were revered as ‘pillars’ (cf. Gal 2:9b). In Luke’s view, the ‘pillars’ may really support the Church only if they convert (cf. Lk 22:32). The wording of Lk 13:4-5 (e.g. κατοικέω, Ἰερουσαλήμ) is distinctively Lukan. The four subsequent pericopes are grouped into two pairs, which are structured according to the Lukan favourite gender-paired male–female pattern: Lk 13:6-9 with Lk 13:10-17, and Lk 13:18-19 with Lk 13:20-21. They commonly allude to the Pauline text Gal 2:9d that presented the missionary activity of the Church as assigned to Paul and Barnabas in the realm of the Gentiles, and to James, Cephas, and John in the realm of the circumcised. However, in Luke’s opinion, in agreement with Paul’s view, this division ought not to mean separation (cf. Gal 2:11-14; 1 Cor 1:13). Consequently, in the fourfold presentation Lk 13:6-21, Luke offered his own idea of the one, undivided mission of the Church (cf. somewhat differently Acts 1:8). The pericope Lk 13:6-9 is a conflating reworking of thematically correlated Markan motifs that have been borrowed from Mk 11:12-14 (fig tree illustrating the threat for not bearing fruits at the time of Jesus’ unexpected coming: συκῆ, ἦλθεν, καρπός, ἐν αὐτῇ, εὑρίσκω), 160 Mk 12:1-9 (parable of the master’s right to take the fruit of the vineyard at the proper time: παραβολή, φυτεύω, ἀμπελών, καρπός, κύριος), and Mk 13:28-29 (parable of the fig tree illustrating the nearness of the decisive moment: παραβολή, συκῆ). All these Markan pericopes allude in their original contexts to the calling and the fate of Jerusalem and Judaea. This meaning has been retained by Luke in Lk 13:6-9 and enhanced with the motif of an additional “year”, which alludes to the period of time that was given by God to Jerusalem and Judaea: after Jesus’ death and resurrection, but before their destruction in AD 70 (cf. Lk 19:20-27). The second pericope of the series (Lk 13:10-17) has also been composed with the use of the motifs that have been borrowed from various fragments of the Markan narrative: Mk 1:21-28 (ἦν… διδάσκων, συναγωγή, τοῖς σάββασιν, πνεῦμα), Mk 2:1-12 (μὴ δυναμένη, ἰδὼν… ὁ Ἰησοῦς, δοξάζω τὸν θεόν, ὄχλος), Mk 3:1-6 (συναγωγή, τοῖς σάββασιν, σάββατον… θεραπεύω), 161 Mk 5:21-43 (γυνή, twice ἔτη, ἐπιτίθημι… τὰς χεῖρας, ἀρχισυνάγωγος, ὄχλος), Mk 6:1-6 (διδάσκω, συναγωγή, ἐπιτίθημι… τὰς χεῖρας, θεραπεύω, σάββατον sing.), and Mk 7:32-35 (ἐπιτίθημι… χείρ, *ὀρθ, ὄχλος, λύω, δεσμός). The Lukan argument concerning halachic legitimacy of pasturing animals on the Sabbath (Lk 13:15) Jewish Christian Church in Jerusalem in AD 70 (cf. Lk 19:27). For a possible symbolic meaning of the number eighteen, as referring to the end of Israel understood narrowly as children of Abraham according to the flesh, see Lk 13:11. 160 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54. 161 Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 114; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54.

347

has been most probably based on the Pharisaic-like regulations that were issued in the Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (CD 11:5-7). 162 The pericope Lk 13:10-17, including for the last time in the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ the motif of the synagogue as a setting of Jesus’ activity (cf. Lk 14:16 diff. Mk 3:1-6), refers metaphorically to the eschatological expectations of the entire, divided and dispersed, Israel understood broadly as descendants of Abraham (cf. Acts 7:16; 13:26). 163 Israel has been depicted by Luke as at present bent over and bound by Satan but, on the other hand, as awaiting completeness and perfection of her original destiny (cf. the apparently redundant εἰς τὸ παντελές in Lk 13:11), which was offered to her in Jesus. The destruction of Jerusalem and Judaea in AD 70 was therefore perceived by Luke most probably not as an end of Israel but as a necessary precondition of a restoration of the whole Israel that would be freed from nationalist particularisms and enabled to fulfil her God-given vocation in Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 11:25-27). If interpreted in these categories, the Church’s mission to the circumcised (cf. Gal 2:9d) is not yet over. 162 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 724. 163 Luke evidently developed in his work Markan numerical symbolism (e.g. Lk 2:36-37; 3:23-38; Acts 19:7). In difference to Mark, Luke showed particular interest in the ‘lost’ tribes of Israel (e.g. Lk 2:36; 22:30; Acts 13:21; 26:7). For this reason, the number eighteen in Lk 13:11.16 (in place of that of twelve in Mk 5:25.42) may symbolically refer to the nine northern ‘lost’ tribes of Israel (as distinguished from the three faithful ‘Jewish’ ones: cf. e.g. 4Q372 [ApJos] 1:14) or, according to the presumably northern traditions known to Luke (cf. Acts 7:14), to nine descendants of Joseph (Gen 46:27 LXX) or to eighteen descendants of Rachel (Gen 46:22 LXX). The number eighteen may refer in Lk 13:11.16 also to Israel taken as a whole, understood as children of Abraham (cf. Lk 19:9). It should be noted that, according to Luke, c.450 years passed from the time of Abraham to that of the Judges (Acts 7:6; 13:17-20a). If the period of the Judges was also widely understood to have lasted c.450 years, then it may be reasonably assumed that Luke calculated the time of Jesus (or of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70) as distanced 4 × 450 years = c.1800 years from the epoch of Abraham. This idea (cf. more vaguely Gal 4:4) corresponds to that expressed in the Apocalypse of Weeks in which the period of time that elapsed from Abraham to the messianic age was reckoned as lasting from the fourth to the seventh “week” (1 En. 93:5-10). Luke most probably knew and reworked that calculation according to his needs. In Lk 3:23-38, Abraham is the 21st patriarch (3 × 7; cf. 1 En. 93:5), and David is the 35th (5 × 7; cf. 1 En. 93:7); then Salathiel is the 56th (8 × 7; cf. 1 En. 93:8), and Jesus is the 77th (11 × 7; cf. 1 En. 93:10). The Lukan calculation was most probably designed to replace the earlier one, which was based on counting jubilees and which was intended to justify the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty with its ‘Messiah’ Alexander Jannaeus. For the latter issue, cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Chronological Calculations and Messianic Expectations in Apocryphon of Jeremiah D (4Q390)’, QC vol. 14, no. 3-4 [December 2006], 127-142 (esp. 140-141); id., ‘“Ten Jubilees of Years”’, 19-36.

348

The third pericope of the series (Lk 13:18-19) is a quite literal reworking of Mk 4:30-32. 164 The thematic and linguistic correspondences between Lk 13:1819 par. and Mk 4:30-32 are evident. 165 In comparison to the Markan text, the Lukan version (which was followed later by Matthew) contains a number of modifications. Luke simplified the Markan convoluted ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν (Mk 4:30b) with the use of the verb form *ὁμοιόσω that has been borrowed from Mk 4:30a. He inserted in Lk 13:18b.19a the double, explicative, semantically clear (and for this reason borrowed later by Matthew) phrase ὁμοία ἐστίν: in place of the difficult Mk 4:30a (reworked in Lk 13:18c) and in place of the problematic ὡς + dat. in Mk 4:31a. Luke eliminated the Markan word παραβολή, which became unnecessary without its original context Mk 4:1-34. He corrected also the somewhat inaccurate Markan image of sowing onto the soil (Mk 4:20.31 diff. Mk 4:8; Lk 8:8.15). Luke eliminated the Markan stress on littleness (Mk 4:31b), which did not serve his redactional aim in Lk 13:18-21. He introduced into the Markan text also his favourite verb αὐξάνω, which probably alludes in Lk 13:19, together with the noun κῆπος, to Is 61:11 LXX, which refers to Jerusalem and Judaea as glorious among the nations. Most notably, Luke replaced in Lk 13:19cd the Markan correct identification of the mustard plant as a herb (λάχανον) with the clearly hyperbolic image of a tree (δένδρον) that enables the birds to nest in its branches. 166 The evangelist evidently used here the metaphor of the tree that refers to Israel, which has been borrowed from Ezek 17:22-23 (cf. also Ezek 31:5-6; Dan 4:7-24). 167 Luke used this scriptural image in order to conform the Markan text Mk 4:32 to the Pauline allegory Rom 11:16b-24 (κλάδοι: Lk 13:19d; cf. Rom 11:16-21), which referred to the root of the holy Israel as giving a place for living also to the 164 It is worth noting that Luke used in Lk 13:18-21 the Markan pericope Mk 4:30-32, which directly follows in the Markan narrative the textual unit Mk 4:24d-29, which was reworked earlier in Lk 12:13-34. 165 Cf. T. Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 49-50 n. 1; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54 n. 15. 166 No scholar has yet given evidence to birds’ nesting in the branches of the mustard plant (Lk 13:19 diff. Mk 4:32: ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ). The saying Lk 13:19 par. is absurd if it is removed (as it is done, for example, in the Q theory) from its particular, Lukan, compositional-allusive context. Cf. Z. A. Crook, ‘The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: A Test-Case for the Two-Document, Two-Gospel, and Farrer– Goulder Hypothesis’, JSNT 78 (2000) 23-48 (esp. 42 n. 78). 167 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 728; C. M. Tuckett, ‘The Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Book of Ezekiel’, in The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence, ed. H. J. de Jonge and J. Tromp (Ashgate: Aldershot, Hampshire · Burlington, Vt. 2007), 87-101 (esp. 8990).

349

believing Gentiles. 168 Other Lukan modifications of Mk 4:30-32 include insertion of the Lukan τίνι ὁμοιώσω (cf. Lk 7:31 par.; 13:20) and λαβὼν… ἔβαλεν (cf. Acts 16:24), as well as the elimination of the element of comparison of the mustard plant with other herbs, which did not suit the Lukan metaphor of Israel and the Gentiles who were understood as finding place in and not beside the spiritual heritage of Israel. The last pericope of the series (Lk 13:20-21 par.) is connected with Lk 13:18-19 par. in a twofold, Lukan and non-Matthean way. First, the thematic link between the metaphor of the tree and that of dough is provided by the Pauline combination of the two motifs in Rom 11:16a.16b-24. It should be noted that the noun φύραμα used in Rom 11:16a is linguistically associated in 1 Cor 5:6 and Gal 5:9 with the expressions ζύμη – ζυμόω ὅλον, which have been used also by Luke in Lk 13:21. Second, the Pauline combination of the two motifs has been reworked by Luke in a way peculiar to him, namely by means of creation of a gender-paired male–female couple Lk 13:18-19.20-21 par. Both parables Lk 13:18-19.20-21 have been composed by Luke according to the same literary pattern, which has been borrowed from Mk 4:30-32, which resulted in the somewhat strange Lukan wording λαβοῦσα… εἰς and in the surprising image of hiding the leaven in an enormous amount of flour without mixing the leaven with it (Lk 13:21 par.). The motif of three seahs of flour alludes in Lk 13:21 to the promise of the birth of Isaac (ἐγκρύπτω: Lk 13:21 p75; cf. Gen 18:6 LXX) who in the Pauline theology prefigured the believing Gentiles as children of Abraham born not according to the flesh but through promise (Gal 4:23.28). The first of the four pericopes (Lk 13:6-9) allusively refers therefore to Jerusalem and Judaea, the second (Lk 13:10-17) to Israel as a whole, the third (Lk 13:18-19) to the Gentile proselytes living together with the Israelites, and the fourth (Lk 13:20-21) to the whole humanity traditionally viewed as consisting of three main parts: Shem, Ham, and Japheth, or: Asia, Africa, and Europe (cf. Acts 2:9-11). 169 This fourfold scheme of concentric, progressing evangelization 168 Cf. D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 9:51-24:53 (BECNT; Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1996), 1226-1227; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 114. 169 Cf. Beda Venerabilis, Hom. Ev. 2.13.83-88 (CChr.SL 122, 269). If Luke wanted to express the simple literary sense of the three measures of flour (Lk 13:21), he would have used the Greek vocabulary of Gen 18:6 LXX (τρία μέτρα), just as he used the verb ἐγκρύπτω which he had borrowed from Gen 18:6 LXX. The use of the Aramaic word σάτα in Lk 13:21 (cf. Hag 2:16 LXX) may allude to the gift of tongues as uniting the Church that is present among various nations (cf. Acts 2:3-11). It is worth noting that the use of some particular Christian Aramaic words was most probably regarded by Paul (1 Cor 16:22; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6) and by Mark (Mk 5:41; 7:34; 14:36; 15:34) as a sign of unity of the Gentile Churches with the Church in Judaea. Luke preferred, however, to render Aramaic phrases in various ways by means of their Greek

350

of the whole world (Lk 13:6-21) is probably based on the traditional Jewish pattern (cf. 4Q279 [Purif. Rules D] 5:4-6 with the proselytes as the fourth lot), which has been structurally adapted by Luke to suit the characteristic Pauline bipartite pattern that was used in Gal 2:9 (the circumcised and the Gentiles). In the Lukan conflated pattern, which illustrates the spreading of the one and the same gospel of Christ (cf. Gal 1:7) from the Jews to the Gentiles, two pericopes refer to the circumcised ones and two to the Gentiles (cf. somewhat differently Acts 1:12-5:42; 6:1-8:40; 9:1-16:8; 16:9-28:31). The section Lk 12:54-13:21 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of the Pauline text Gal 2:7-9 with the use of other Pauline (Rom 11:16-27; 1 Cor 1:13; 5:6; Gal 2:11-14; 5:9) and Markan texts (Mk 1:21-28; 2:1-12; 3:1-6; 4:30-32; 5:21-43; 6:1-6; 7:32-35; 11:12-14; 12:1-9; 13:28-29), as well as various motifs that have been borrowed from the Scriptures, the Pharisaic-like Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (the so-called ‘Damascus Document’: CD 11:57), the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:5-10), Herodotus’ writings (Hist. 2.36-37, 104), and Josephus’ works (B.J. 5.145, 252, 505; Ant. 18.85-87). The hypotheses of Markan use of the text of Lk and of Lukan use of non-Pauline and nonMarkan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) have to be rejected. Conclusion The first part of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-13:21) has been composed by Luke as a continuous reworking of the Pauline text Gal 1:1-2:10, which described the beginnings of Paul’s missionary activity: from his call to the Antiochene crisis. This Pauline text has been treated by Luke as the main structuring hypotext for his own narrative Lk 9:51-13:21. In order to explain in his own way the controversial issues that were referred to by Paul in Gal 1:1-2:10, Luke composed a narrative in which the Pauline expressions, statements, ideas, etc. have been sequentially reworked and conflated with numerous literary motifs that have been borrowed from the sacred Scriptures of Israel (Pentateuch, 1-2 Kgs, Major and Minor Prophets, Psalms: all in the version of the Septuagint), the Pauline letters (Rom, 1-2 Cor, Gal, 1 Thes), the Gospel of Mark, and other literary works: the Apocalypse of Weeks, the Pharisaic-like Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (the so-called ‘Damascus Document’), Josephus’ works (Bellum and Antiquitates), and the work of Herodotus (Historiae).

counterparts (cf. e.g. Acts 9:40). The exceptional use of the Aramaic word in Lk 13:21 has therefore most probably a special narrative function, namely that of making the readers aware of the allusive level of meaning.

351

The hypotheses of Mark’s use of Lk 9:51-13:21, Luke’s use of some nonPauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt), and Lukan dependence solely on oral traditions have to be entirely rejected. 4.3.2 Lk 13:22-17:10 The second part of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 13:22-17:10) is delimited in an evident way by the repetition of the ‘travel notices’ in Lk 13:22 and Lk 17:11. The delimitation of Lk 13:22-17:10 as one literary unit is based, however, not only on the recurrence of the ‘travel notices’, but also, just as the first part of the ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-13:21), on Luke’s particular use of his sources. The latter issue should be investigated by means of systematic source-critical and redaction-critical analyses. Lk 13:22-14:24 It has been demonstrated above that the first part of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ is a systematic, continuous reworking of the Pauline text Gal 1:1-2:10. It may be therefore reasonably assumed that in the section Lk 13:22-14:24 the evangelist proceeded further in his hypertextual explanation of Gal by reworking the subsequent Pauline text Gal 2:11 ff. The detailed source-critical and redactioncritical analysis of the section Lk 13:22-14:24 proves that this assumption is in fact correct. The second Lukan ‘travel notice’ (Lk 13:22), which opens the section Lk 13:22-14:6, originates from the corresponding second ‘travel notice’ in the Gospel of Mark (Mk 9:30). The strangely used in Lk 13:22 verb διαπορεύομαι (in place of the standard Lukan διέρχομαι: cf. e.g. Lk 9:6; cf. διοδεύω in Lk 8:1) is a reworking of the Markan phrase παραπορεύομαι διά (Mk 9:30). Luke replaced the Markan geographical reference to Galilee with the vague phrase ‘towns and villages’, which does not correspond to any specific Galilean location (cf. the unspecified village in Lk 17:12; diff. Mk 9:33) but hints at the urban character of the corresponding geographical reference in Gal (Antioch: Gal 2:11). The summarizing description of Jesus as solely teaching (Lk 13:22b; diff. Lk 13:32; 14:4) also alludes to Paul’s halachic dispute with Cephas in Antioch (Gal 2:11). The very rarely used in Lk form of the name Jerusalem (Ἱεροσόλυμα) has been borrowed by the evangelist from Gal 2:1, which introduced the whole section that referred to the conflict of Paul with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:1-14). The somewhat abruptly inserted question concerning the small number of those to be saved (Lk 13:23b), which corresponded to the ideas of many Jews, introduces the theme of the participation of the Jews and the Gentiles in the eschatological meal of the kingdom of God. This theme dominates the whole section Lk 13:22-14:24 and alludes to the Pauline discussion of the issue of 352

Jewish–Gentile table fellowship in Gal 2:11-14. The Lukan form of the question Lk 13:23b is based on Mk 10:26c (τίς δύναται σωθῆναι; cf. also Mk 10:24). 170 Jesus’ initial answer in Lk 13:24 par. closely resembles the sayings that immediately precede Mk 10:26, namely Mk 10:25 (εἰσέρχομαι διά, the image of narrowness). The parable Lk 13:25-27 par. is an expansion of the saying Lk 13:24 par. The wording of Lk 13:25-27 is generally Lukan (e.g. ἐνώπιον, ἀφίστημι). The image of the householder’s rising and closing the door (for the Jews) is characteristically Lukan both on the literal (cf. Lk 11:7-8) and the figurative level (Lk 13:25). The Lukan phrase ἐσθίω ἐνώπιον (Lk 13:26b) has Eucharistic overtones (cf. Lk 24:43; Acts 27:35) and alludes to the understanding of the messianic banquet as reserved only for the Jewish believers in Christ, as it was perceived by the entourage of James (Gal 2:12ab; presented differently in Acts 15:2021.28-29). Accordingly, the word πλατεῖαι in Lk 13:28 refers to the streets of Jerusalem or Antioch (cf. Lk 14:21; Acts 5:15). The phrase ἐργάται ἀδικίας (Lk 13:27c) is based on the Pauline presentation of the ‘false apostles’ in 2 Cor 11:13.15 (which thematically corresponds to Gal 2:12a). The prophetic sayings Lk 13:28-30 explain the condemnatory statement Lk 13:27c. The image of throwing away (ἐκβάλλω) the Jewish narrow-minded opponents of the Pauline teaching (Lk 13:28) is based on Gal 4:30. 171 The phrase ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων in Lk 13:28a belongs to the few expressions in the double Mt-Lk tradition that are, from the formal point of view, Matthean and non-Lukan. It should be noted, however, that this expression functions as a fixed and somewhat redundant (βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων) formula only in Mt. Luke used in a quite natural way both parts thereof, namely κλαυθμός (Acts 20:37) and βρύχω τοὺς ὀδόντας (Acts 7:54), independently of each other. The phrase βρύχω τοὺς ὀδόντας is a traditional scriptural expression (Job 16:9; Ps 35[34]:16; 37[36]:12; 112[111]:10 LXX; Lam 2:16). 172 Consequently, it may be reasonably assumed that the expression ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων has been coined by Luke only once in Lk 13:28a as a combination of two originally independent motifs, and that Matthew borrowed it and used it several times as a particularly emphatic and harsh formula. Such an understanding of the origin of this enigmatic expression is further corroborated by the fact that the image of gnashing the teeth denotes both in the Scriptures and in Lk 13:28a (in its Lukan context) strong anger, whereas in Mt it acquires the meaning of extreme suffering. Such a particular meaning resulted from the conflation of the 170 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54 n. 16. 171 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 115. 172 Cf. D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, 335.

353

motifs of weeping (which illustrates suffering) and gnashing the teeth (which illustrates anger) in Lk 13:28a. This semantic combination is in fact understandable only in its Lukan context in Lk 13:28 but not in its later Matthean uses. 173 The idea of the general call of the Gentiles from every part of the world into the kingdom of God (Lk 13:29) is evidently Pauline (cf. e.g. 1 Thes 1:8; 2:12). The saying Lk 13:30, which supports to some extent the bold Paulinestyle claims Lk 13:28-29, is a reworking of Mk 10:31 (cf. the earlier reworking of the preceding Markan fragment Mk 10:25-26 in Lk 13:22-24). Luke borrowed and reworked this Markan saying (for example, by reversing Mk 10:31ab) in Lk 13:30 par. He applied it not only to Paul and the Jerusalem apostles but also, more broadly, to the Gentile and Jewish Christians in order to justify the claims made earlier in Lk 13:28-29. The particular combination of four motifs that have been used in Lk 13:31 (temporal coincidence, coming of opponents, advice to withdraw, and a threat) is based on the similar combination of motifs in Gal 2:12cd. The allusive presentation of the entourage of James with the use of the narrative characters of “some Pharisees” (Lk 13:31a) is characteristically Lukan (cf. Acts 15:5). The advice to get out and to go away from Galilee (Lk 13:31c) alludes to Paul’s being compelled to leave Antioch (cf. Acts 16:6-10; 18:23; 20:3), in consequence of the Jerusalem agreement (Gal 2:9), which was interpreted by Jewish Christians in Antioch in terms quite different from the Pauline ones (cf. Gal 2:12bc; Acts 15:28-31; 16:4; 21:25). The motif of a bold critique of the ruling authorities (Lk 13:32b) is based on Gal 2:11.13-14. The idea of being brought to perfection (τελειόω pass.) through death and resurrection in due time that shall be preceded by a period of being on the way (Lk 13:32c-33) is most probably based on Phlp 3:10-14, which gives a Pauline interpretation of the consequences of the Antiochene crisis (cf. the motif of Paul’s breach with the Jewish Christian “dogs” in Phlp 3:2-8). This text has been reinterpreted from the Lukan perspective, namely that of someone who knew that Paul’s death took place in its due time, not immediately after the Antiochene argument. The idea of rejection of Jesus alongside the prophets by the Judaean Jews (Lk 13:33-34) is Pauline (1 Thes 2:14-15a), 174 as well as the motif of a hen/ mother nursing her children (τὰ τέκνα… ἑαυτῆς: Lk 13:34b; cf. 1 Thes 2:7c). The somewhat strange statement ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν (Lk 13:35a), which functions almost as a curse, is in fact another Lukan presentation of the outcome of the Antiochene crisis, which is now referred to with the use of scriptural-traditional imagery. Lk 13:35d par. is modelled on Mk 11:9a (quoting 173 It should be noted that the formula in question is not self-evident in its meaning. As a rule, no one gnashes his teeth while weeping. 174 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 116.

354

Ps 118[117]:26 LXX), which has been corrected by Luke in a particular way: the psalm should be naturally spoken (εἴπητε; cf. Lk 19:38a: λέγοντες) and not cried out (Mk 11:9a: ἔκραζον). In agreement with the logic of Lk 19:14.27, the quotation refers to both Jesus and Paul as coming in the name of the Lord. The wording of Lk 13:34-35 par. is Lukan and non-Matthean (Ἰερουσαλήμ, 175 τρόπος). The four subsequent pericopes develop the motif of the banquet, which was introduced into the ‘travel narrative’ in Lk 13:26-30. They explain the controversy over the issue of table fellowship (cf. Gal 2:11-14) in various categories that are intended to be easily understandable to the readers: a halachic dispute (Lk 14:1-6), Jesus’ rebuke for striving for importance (Lk 14:7-11), teaching on poverty (Lk 14:12-14), and a neglectful approach to the issues of the Kingdom (Lk 14:15-24). The first of these four pericopes (Lk 14:1-6) is a Lukan narrative version of the argument that was issued by Paul against the entourage of James and against Cephas in Gal 2:14 and that was supplemented by the Apostle with explanatory arguments, which referred to the limited validity of halachic regulations and which were based on the axiom of the absurdity of Christ’s being an agent of sin (Gal 2:15-17). In order to explain these complex Pauline ideas, Luke used in Lk 14:1-6 the motifs that have been borrowed from the Markan pericope Mk 3:1-6 (Φαρισαῖοι and earlier Ἡρῴδης – Ἡρῳδιανοί, παρατηρέω, dropsy – withered, ἔξεστιν, σάββατον, θεραπεύω, saving human life on the Sabbath) 176 and conflated with those borrowed from Mk 7:1-13 (Pharisees and another group, τίς τῶν, meal setting, observing Jesus, halachic dispute, care for human life). Having borrowed and reworked Jesus’ rhetorical answer Mk 3:4b (ἔξεστιν…), Luke overlooked the fact that in its new redactional context (Lk 14:3) the answer was not preceded by any charge at all. 177 Lk 14:1-6 is therefore the third instance of Luke’s redactional use of Mk 3:1-6 (cf. earlier Lk 6:6-11; 13:10-17). Luke reworked the Markan text Mk 3:1-6 in Lk 14:1-6 in such a way that it might allude to the Pauline text Gal 2:12-17. The Pauline character of James has been alluded to in Lk 14:1 by means of the semantically corresponding character of one of the rulers of the Pharisees (cf. Lk 18:18; Acts 15:5), and Cephas has been alluded to in Lk 14:3a by the character of one of the experts in the law (νομικός: cf. Lk 10:25; 11:45-46). In the Lukan text Lk 14:1-6 the theme of a halachic dispute is clearly dominant (Lk 14:3.5-6; cf. Gal 2:15-16) and the 175 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 90. Cf. also R. T. France, ‘Matthew and Jerusalem’, in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, ed. D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2008), 108-127 (esp. 109). 176 Cf. F. Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 466-469; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54. 177 Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 114.

355

healing itself is barely mentioned (Lk 14:4bc). It is worth noting that Luke presented quite faithfully the Pharisaic-like line of halachic argumentation that was issued in the Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (CD 11:13b-14a.16-17a). The argument used in Lk 14:5 basically agrees with that of CD 11:16-17a (cf. also 4Q265 6:6-7): It is permitted to save human life endangered in a well or a place full of water (cf. ὑδρωπικός in Lk 14:2), provided that only grasping (cf. the otherwise strange ἐπιλαβόμενος in Lk 14:4 diff. Mk 3:5) and no tool is used. 178 Since no charge is levelled against Jesus in Lk 14:1, the opponents are confronted in Lk 14:5 par. with their own Pharisaic-like argumentation. 179 The second one of the set of four pericopes (Lk 14:7-11) introduces somewhat abruptly in Lk 14:7-8 the motif of the Apostles’ desire to occupy first places (cf. Mk 9:33-37; cf. Mk 10:35-40), which was supplemented with the Markan charge against those who love first places (πρωτοκλισία) at the dinners (Mk 12:39). The exhortation to be last (ἔσχατος) in order to become first (Lk 14:10) is based on the corresponding exhortation that was addressed to the Twelve in Mk 9:35b. The wording used in Lk 14:7-10 is peculiarly Lukan (ἐπέχω, κατακλίνω, ἔντιμος, κατέχω) and in Lk 14:11 par. also non-Matthean (ὑψόω). The two subsequent pericopes (Lk 14:12-14.15-24) develop the motif of the supper (δείπνον), which followed in Mk 12:39 the motif of πρωτοκλισία (cf. Lk 14:7-8). The common motif of inviting for the meal those who, according to the Pharisaic halacha, were habitually impure and consequently rendered the 178 Cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC 3; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1978), 580. For an interpretation of CD 11:16-17a and 4Q265 6:6-7, see e.g. L. Doering, Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (TSAJ 78; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999), 201-204, 231235; id., ‘Much Ado about Nothing? Jesus’ Sabbath Healings and their Halakhic Implications Revisited’, in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: Standorte – Grenzen – Beziehungen, ed. L. Doering, H.-G. Waubke, and F. Wilk (FRLANT 226; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2008), 217-241 (esp. 230). 179 Matthew’s version of Lk 14:5 lacks the specific Pharisaic-like logic of halachic argumentation. Mt 12:11-12 is based on the general Markan argument concerning lawfulness of “doing good” on the Sabbath (Mk 3:4), which is supplemented with an example (being a conflation of Lk 15:4-5 and Lk 6:39) that is based on the general exegetical rule qal wāḥômer, which was most probably borrowed by Matthew from Lk 12:7.24 (πόσῳ… διαφέρω). Mt 12:11-12 misses, however, the point of CD 11:16-17a and of Lk 14:5, namely that saving human life may prevail over the sabbath rule, provided that the precept is not explicitly violated. It should be noted that whereas the logic of the argumentation in Lk 14:5 is based on the principle of saving human life (and only secondarily of that of an ox that is perceived as an important, expensive animal), Mt 12:11-12 (based on Lk 15:4) refers mainly to saving one sheep, which was explicitly forbidden on the Sabbath according to CD 11:13b-14a.

356

prepared food impure, 180 in place of the normally invited relatives and close friends, is a Lukan, halachic, Pharisaic-like reworking of the Pauline exhortations concerning the Lord’s Supper with its eschatological significance (1 Cor 11:20-34). The wording of Lk 14:12-14 is generally Lukan (γείτων, δοχή). The distinctive feature of the pericope Lk 14:15-24 consists in the particular narrative function of the one Paul-like slave who is sent out by his master (δοῦλος, ἀποστέλλω: cf. e.g. Rom 1:1). According to Lk 14:17-21a, he is ordered to go initially to the guests who were invited as first but who revealed themselves unfit for their calling, having become, unlike Paul but like the Jerusalem ‘pillars’, burdened with possessions (cf. Gal 2:10), with the yoke of the law (cf. Gal 2:14; Acts 15:10; πέντε: diff. 1 Kgs 19:19 LXX), and with their wives (cf. 1 Cor 9:5). Upon their refusal, the slave is ordered (Lk 14:21b-22) to invite for the banquet all the habitually impure persons from the city that allusively refers to the city of Jerusalem or Antioch (πλατεῖαι: cf. Lk 13:26-28; Acts 5:15). Afterwards, the slave is ordered to go beyond the boundaries of the city in order to urge the Gentile outsiders to come to the dinner (Lk 14:23). The apostolic activity of the Paul-like slave (ἀναγκάζω) is similar to, but on the other hand contrasted with (cf. Gal 2:15-17), Cephas’ halachic policy of forcing all people to live in a Jewish way, as it was referred to in Gal 2:14. The concluding statement Lk 14:24 clearly refers to the outcome of the Antiochene crisis as breaking the Jewish–Gentile table fellowship and consequently blocking common access to the Eucharist of the Church (cf. Gal 2:11-14). The wording of Lk 14:15-24 is generally Lukan (ταχέως, εἰσάγω). The idea of God’s wrath (*ὀργ: Lk 14:21) upon the halachic opponents of Paul has been borrowed by Luke from 1 Thes 2:16. 181 The whole section Lk 13:22-14:24 has been therefore composed by Luke as an explanation of Gal 2:11-17 with the use of other Pauline (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 11:20-34; 2 Cor 11:13.15; Gal 2:1; 4:30; Phlp 3:2-8.10-14; 1 Thes 1:8; 2:7c.12. 14-15a.16) and Markan texts (Mk 3:1-6; 9:30.33-37; 10:25-26.31; 11:9a; 12:39), as well as some motifs that have been borrowed from the Scriptures and from the Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (CD 11:16-17a). Neither the hypothesis of Mark’s use of the text of Lk 13:22-14:24 nor that of Lukan dependence on 180 For the halachic background of the list of the habitually impure people Lk 14:13 as formulated by the Pharisaic-like group of those who “separated [pāraš] from the majority of the people” (cf. 4Q397 14_21 7 [4QMMT C 7]), see e.g. 4Q394 8iii 19 – 8iv 4; 4Q396 1_2ii 1-5 [4QMMT B 49-54]. Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘The Hasmonean Temple’, 140-141. 181 It should be noted that the negative statements Lk 14:21a.24 are not the last words on Cephas, James and other Antiochene halachic opponents of Paul in the Lukan ‘travel narrative’. Luke gave them a narrative opportunity to convert in Lk 18:18-30; 19:11-28 (presented as realized in Lk 22:28-32; cf. later Acts 15:6-29).

357

some non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) may be justified on the basis of the textual data. Lk 14:25-35 The section Lk 14:25-35 describes the basic features of Paul’s understanding of the gospel, as they were presented in Gal 2:18-3:4. The first feature consists in being crucified with Christ and in living in one’s flesh the life of faith in God’s Son (Gal 2:19c-20). This difficult idea has been explained by Luke in Lk 14:2527 in terms that are intended to be more easily understandable to the readers. The Lukan phrase συμπορεύομαι + a reference to Christ in dat. (Lk 14:25; cf. 7:11) is based on the formally similar Pauline clause Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι (Gal 2:19c). The motif of great crowds illustrates in Lk 14:25 the broad scope of the Pauline evangelistic activity (cf. Lk 19:16). The saying concerning disregarding one’s relatives (Lk 14:26) thematically corresponds to Gal 2:20 but it has been modelled linguistically on Mk 10:29c. 182 The Markan saying has been significantly reworked by Luke according to the Pauline pattern that is traceable also in the more literal reworking of Mk 10:29 in Lk 18:29. 183 In Lk 18:29 Luke omitted the motif of abandoning the fields, as not pertaining to Paul, but stressed the importance of leaving even one’s wife, in correspondence to Paul’s statement 1 Cor 9:5. The same Pauline pattern has been applied in Lk 14:26. The motif of abandoning the fields has been relocated by the evangelist to Lk 14:33. In its place, the motifs of leaving one’s wife (cf. 1 Cor 9:5) and of “hating” one’s fleshly relatives and one’s own life (cf. Gal 2:20) have been inserted. Moreover, in agreement with Gal 2:20, the importance of the vertical relationship of the believer in Christ with the Father has been stressed. In Lk 14:27 par., the evangelist explained the Pauline idea of being crucified with Christ (Gal 2:19c). He did it with the use of the Markan saying Mk 8:34b, which was slightly reworked already in Lk 9:23 (ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεσθαι) and which has been additionally conformed in Lk 14:27 to Gal 6:14-17 (βαστάζω). 184

182 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Recent Developments in the Study of Q’, in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus – The Sayings of Jesus, Festschrift J. Coppens, ed. J. Delobel (BEThL 59; Peeters and Leuven University: Leuven 1982), 29-75 (esp. 51) [also in id., Evangelica II: 19821991, ed. F. van Segbroeck (BEThL 99; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1991), 409-464 (esp. 431)]; J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, vol. 2, 1063-1064. 183 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54 n. 16. 184 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 123.

358

The somewhat abruptly introduced paradigmatic example Lk 14:28-30 is in fact a reworking of the Pauline motifs of building (οἰκοδομέω: Gal 2:18), doing something in vain (Gal 2:21), and beginning and not finishing (*ἄρχομαι, *τελέω: Gal 3:3). Luke used also the Pauline narrative motif of wise building upon a previously laid foundation (*οἰκοδομέω, τίθημι θεμέλιον: 1 Cor 3:10-12). 185 The subsequent, parallel example (Lk 14:31-32) most probably alludes to the Jewish War, which was presented by Josephus as hopeless (πόλεμος: cf. Jos. B.J. 1.1; πρεσβεία, εἰρήνη: cf. B.J. 4.414-415). The somewhat enigmatic Pauline hypothetic question concerning believing without result (Gal 3:4) has been explained by Luke in Lk 14:34 par. with the almost literal use of the Markan text Mk 9:50a-c (καλὸν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται, ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε). 186 The most important Lukan modification of Mk 9:50a-c consists in replacing the Markan phrase ἄναλον γένηται, which was quite natural in its original context, with the somewhat unexpected word μωρανθῇ. This modification alludes to the Pauline presentation of the cross (cf. Gal 3:1) in the correlated terms of foolishness (μωρία: 1 Cor 1:18.21. 23) and revealing to be fool (μωραίνω: 1 Cor 1:20; cf. Rom 1:22). The following statement Lk 14:35 par. allusively presents the rival, anti-Pauline apostles as the ones who are fit neither for the land of Israel (cf. Lk 4:25) nor for the impure Gentiles (cf. *κόπρ: Is 30:22 LXX), 187 and consequently they have to be totally thrown out of the kingdom of God (cf. Lk 9:62). Luke did not issue, however, a final condemnation against the apostles who did not meet the high Pauline Christ-like standards. The evangelist used rather in Lk 14:35c the Markan parabolic formula ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω (cf. Mk 4:9.23),188 which functions in the Lukan text as a rhetorical threat (parallel to that of Mk 4:12) but also as a summons to conversion. The section Lk 14:25-35 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of the Pauline text Gal 2:18-3:4 with the use of other Pauline (1 Cor 1:18.2021.23; 3:10-12; 9:5; Gal 6:14-17) and Markan texts (Mk 4:9.23; 8:34b; 9:50a-c; 10:29c), as well as motifs that have been borrowed from the Scriptures and from Josephus’ work (B.J. 1.1; 4.414-415). Neither Mark’s use of Lk 14:25-35 nor

185 Cf. M. D. Goulder, ‘Did Luke Know’, 100. 186 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Recent Developments’, 51 [also in id., Evangelica II: 1982-1991, 431]; J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke, vol. 2, 1067. 187 For the origin of the literary motif that has been used in Lk 14:35a, see 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 113[112]:7 LXX. Its meaning in Lk 14:35a is, however, evidently metaphoric. The image of using salt either for the soil or for the dunghill has no literal point of reference. 188 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Recent Developments’, 51 [also in F. Neirynck, Evangelica II: 19821991, 431]; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54 n. 16.

359

Luke’s use of some non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) may be demonstrated in this section. Lk 15:1-32 The section Lk 15:1-32 consists of two correlated pericopes (Lk 15:4-7.8-10) that are provided with a narrative introduction (Lk 15:1-2) and followed by a longer story (Lk 15:11-32). The main theme of the narrative introduction Lk 15:1-2, namely acceptance of those who are not righteous (δίκαιος) because they fail to fulfil the written law (cf. γραμματεῖς) but who nevertheless listen (ἀκούω) to Jesus, has been borrowed by Luke from Gal 3:5-14 (ἀκοή, *δικαιο, γεγραμμένα). Moreover, the Pauline motif of buying back (ἐξαγοράζω: Gal 3:13) may have given rise to the particular narrative thread of the story Lk 15:810. On the purely narrative level, the introduction Lk 15:1-2 is a Lukan reworking of Mk 2:15-16 (τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, Φαρισαῖοι, γραμματεῖς, λέγω… ὅτι, *ἐσθίει; cf. Lk 5:30: ἐγόγγυζον). 189 The absurd, if taken literally, motif of sheep (πρόβατα) that are left behind in the desert (ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ) while the shepherd goes away to find the one that was lost (τὸ ἀπολωλός) elsewhere (Lk 15:4-6) is a Lukan conflation of the motifs that have been borrowed from the Pauline midrash referring to Israelites dying in the desert (ἔρημος: 1 Cor 10:5-11) and from with the scriptural allegory of a sheep (πρόβατον) that was lost (τὸ ἀπολωλός) and found by the shepherd (Ezek 34:11-16 LXX). Both these motifs have been adapted to explain the Pauline argument concerning the Gentiles who are saved without the Israelite law (Gal 3:5-14). 190 The key word of the narrative conclusions Lk 15:6.9 (συγχαίρω) is Pauline. The rest of the vocabulary used in Lk 15:4-10 (e.g. φίλος, γείτων, μετάνοια, ἅπτω λύχνον, σαρόω, ἐνώπιον), as well as the characteristic pattern of gendered pairing (Lk 15:4-7.8-10), is typically Lukan. The second, much longer textual unit (Lk 15:11-32) is a Lukan narrative reworking of the Pauline motifs that are contained in Gal 3:15-4:31: a father having two sons (δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν: Gal 4:22 reworked by Luke with the use of 189 Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 114; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54, 428. 190 It should be noted that according to Lk 15:5-6, the lost sheep was brought home and not to the rest of the sheep that were left behind in the desert. It should also be noted that the Antiochene drachms were only rarely used in Israel in Jesus’ times. Moreover, if the Gospel woman (Lk 15:8-9) really had an Antiochene coin, it would be a tetradrachm and not a drachma: cf. recently D. Furlan Taylor, ‘The Monetary Crisis in Revelation 13:17 and the Provenance of the Book of Revelation’, CBQ 71 (2009) 580-596 (esp. 587-588). Accordingly, the motif of the Greek monetary unit alludes in Lk 15:8-9 to the issue of the salvation of the Gentiles (Gal 3:5-14).

360

the story of Jacob and Esau: cf. esp. Gen 33:4 LXX); testament (Gal 3:15); being a minor who is enslaved to elements of the world as the Gentiles are (Gal 4:3.8-9); invocation “Father!” (Gal 4:6); tearing out eyes by welcoming the weak person (Gal 4:13-15), putting on clothes (ἐνδύω: Gal 3:27); rejoicing (εὐφραίνω: Gal 4:27); being jealous (Gal 4:17-18); persecution of the younger son by the older one (Gal 4:29); being kept under authority as a slave under the law, as compared to being free sons and heirs (Gal 3:23-26; 3:29-4:7); 191 and being a child always but, on the other hand, being born anew in suffering accompanied by a change of the father’s tone to tenderness (τέκνον, πάντοτε: Gal 4:18-20). The vocabulary of Lk 15:11-32 is characteristically Lukan (e.g. χώρα μακρά, λιμός, κολλάω, πολίτης, ἐνώπιον, θύω, εὐφραίνω, εἴη, ὑγιαίνω). The section Lk 15:1-32 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of Gal 3:5-4:31 with the use of the motifs that have been borrowed from other Pauline (1 Cor 10:5-11) and Markan texts (Mk 2:15-16), as well as from the Scriptures. No non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) may be traced behind this Lukan text. Lk 16:1-15 The section Lk 16:1-15 includes four textual units: Lk 16:1-9.10-12.13.14-15. The first of them (Lk 16:1-9) is a Lukan narrative reworking of the Pauline text Gal 5:1-13a with its motifs of (a) liberation (Gal 5:1.13a) from being a debtor to the whole law (*ὀφειλέτης: Gal 5:3; cf. also Gal 5:12) 192 by means of receiving a benefit (Gal 5:2) out of grace (Gal 5:4), which leads to hope (Gal 5:5); and (b) thinking in the same way as the Gentiles do (φρονέω: Gal 5:10). Luke reformulated the Pauline radical idea of the law into his own, more conciliatory one (cf. Acts 15:19-21.28-31). The particular literary motif of one hundred cors of wheat and one hundred baths of olive oil in Lk 16:6-7 has been borrowed from Ezr 7:22 LXX (ἑκατόν, βάτος, ἐλαίου, κόρος). In that text, it appears in the context of a description of Ezra as a γραμματεὺς τοῦ νόμου who was sent with the money that was entrusted to him by the king to the “dwelling” of God in Jerusalem in order to pay with the entrusted money a sacrifice to God according to God’s law, which was “in Ezra’s hand”. Ezra was described as authorized to make arrangements for the rest of the money according to the will of God and to pay from the king’s treasure all eventual additional expenses for the house of God (Ezr 7:14-21). This scriptural motif, used in order to justify Paul’s innovative halachic policy 191 Cf. I. Howard Marshall, Luke, 612. 192 Cf. Theophilus of Antioch, Comm. in Evv., quoted in Jerome, Epist. 121.6 (CSEL 56/1, 26).

361

by means of a reference to the well-known character of the Jewish halachic lawgiver Ezra, seems to have been conflated in Lk 16:6-7 with the particular Pauline motif of writing letters with one’s own hand (γράμματα pl., γράφω: Gal 6:11). The motif of making oneself friends with the use of money (Lk 16:9; cf. probably also Lk 16:10-15) most probably alludes to Paul’s policy of collecting money for the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem, which was indirectly referred to in Gal 6:6.8c-10 and explained more fully, for example, in 2 Cor 9:6 (σπείρω – θερίζω). The second fragment (Lk 16:10-12) presents an idea that is apparently contradictory to the first one (Lk 16:1-9). This Lukan change of ideas results from the similar change of theme in the Pauline text Gal 5:13b-15, which follows Gal 5:1-13a that was reworked in Lk 16:1-9. Paul’s argument pars pro toto concerning the law has been reworked in Lk 16:10-12 with the use of the financial motif that was introduced into the ‘travel narrative’ earlier in Lk 16:1-9. Luke seems to have used also the motif of the present bearing of the others’ burden and of the future bearing of one’s own burden (Gal 6:1-5; cf. ὑμέτερος: Gal 6:13). The short fragment Lk 16:13 is a reworking of the Pauline idea of conflicting allegiances, which is expressed in Gal 5:16-26, with the use of the verb δουλεύω that has been borrowed from Gal 5:13. The concluding fragment Lk 16:14-15 is composed with the use of the key word ἐκμυκτηρίζω, which is a Lukan compound version of the verb μυκτηρίζω that has been borrowed from Gal 6:7. 193 Luke seems to have used in Lk 16:1415 also the motifs of eschatological destruction (Gal 6:8ab) 194 and Paul’s opponents as boasting of merely external righteousness (Gal 6:13). The whole section Lk 16:1-15 has been composed with the use of much Pauline vocabulary (οἰκονόμος: cf. 1 Cor 4:1-2; οἰκονομία: cf. 1 Cor 9:17; γράμμα: Rom 2:27.29; 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6-7; υἱοὶ φωτός: 1 Thes 5:5; πιστεύω as “entrust”: Rom 3:2; 1 Cor 9:17; Gal 2:7; 1 Thes 2:4; δικαιόω: Gal 5:4 etc.) and of an Aramaic word that is known from the Dead Sea Scrolls (mammon [= money] of the righteous: 11Q10 [tgJob] 11:8; in Hebrew: cf. e.g. CD 14:20) and that refers to the sphere of trade. Luke used in Lk 16:1-15 also his own favourite vocabulary (ἀφαιρέω, σκάπτω, ἐπαιτέω, μετίστημι, χρεοφειλέτης, ταχέως, ἀδικία, οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, φίλος, ἐκλείπω, ὑμέτερος, οἰκέτης, ἐνώπιον), which in Lk 16:13 par. is also non-Matthean (δουλεύω, εἷς – ἕτερος, μαμωνᾶς, also μισέω). 193 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 134. 194 Cf. ibid. 135.

362

The section Lk 16:1-15 has been therefore composed on the basis of the Pauline text Gal 5:1-6:13 with the use of other Pauline and scriptural motifs. No non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) may be traced behind this Lukan text. Lk 16:16-18 The short section Lk 16:16-18 begins with the statement that seems to continue Luke’s reworking of Gal: “The law and the prophets until John” (Lk 16:16a; cf. Gal 6:15: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision amounts to anything”). The thematic similarity between the two texts is, however, only apparent. Although Paul discussed in Gal the role of the law, the word προφήτης (Lk 16:16a) was never used in that Pauline work. In fact, the characteristically Lukan (and non-Matthean) syntagm ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται (Lk 16:16a diff. Mt 11:13) has been borrowed by Luke from the Pauline text Rom 3:21, in which the law and the prophets were presented as merely witnessing to the new type of God’s righteousness, namely that revealed apart from the law and accessible for everyone (πᾶς: Rom 3:22 and Lk 16:16b). The same idea, together with the motif of preaching the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον), is expressed in the initial part of the Letter to the Romans (Rom 1:1-2.15-16: οἱ προφῆται, εὐαγγελίζομαι, πᾶς). 195 The idea of John as the last of the scriptural prophets who merely foretold the coming of Christ (Lk 16:16a) is peculiarly Lukan (cf. Lk 3:2-20; 7:18-28) but, on the other hand, it is based on the Markan motif of temporal succession between John’s activity and Jesus’ preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of God (εὐαγγέλιον, ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ: Mk 1:1415). The motif of everyone’s forcing his way into the kingdom of God (Lk 16:16b) thematically corresponds to Rom 2:10 (πᾶς), which has been rephrased by Luke with the use of the scriptural motif of forcing one’s way to God (βιάζομαι intransit.: Exod 19:24 LXX). The subsequent statement Lk 16:17, which stresses the validity of the law, is based on the Pauline statements Rom 2:12-27; 3:31 (cf. also Rom 7:12), which present a vision of the law quite different from that expressed in Gal 2:156:16 and reworked by Luke in Lk 14:1-16:15. Luke explained this more balanced view on the law in Lk 16:17a par. with the use of the Markan text Mk 13:31a (ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, παρέρχομαι), having replaced its second part that referred to the words of Jesus (Mk 13:31b) with the one that concerns the law (νόμος: Lk 16:17b par.). The statement Lk 16:17b par. seems to have been formulated with the use of a contemporary with Lk, Hellenistic motif of κεραία as the smallest part of a 195 Cf. ibid.

363

word (cf. e.g. Philo, Flacc. 131.5; Plutarch, Mor. 1100.A.4-5). 196 It should be noted, however, that the word κερέα (Lk 16:17 p75: lectio dissimilis, difficilior) or κεραία (cf. Κερεάτας/Κεραιάτης) may have been used by Luke in its general meaning of something protruding or prominent (cf. Jos. B.J. 3.419), and in this sense implicitly, adjectivally characterizing a commandment (ἐντολή [fem.]: cf. Rom 13:9). The corresponding image of falling down of a horn might have been borrowed by Luke from Am 3:14 LXX. Paul referred in Rom 2:21-22.26-27; 3:31 to the universal validity of the law that was understood not as a written code but as a set of easily perceived principles of universal human ethics (cf. also Rom 13:8-10). Precisely this idea (and not that of the validity of every “stroke” of the law: cf. Mt 5:18) has been elaborated by Luke in Lk 16:18 (cf. also Acts 15:20-21.29). The enigmatic word κερέα/κεραία in Lk 16:17 may therefore denote a ‘prominent (commandment)’ that is comparable in its universal and eternal validity with the words of Jesus, and with heaven and earth that shall not pass away. Having explained in Lk 16:16-17 the main Pauline ideas expressed in Rom 1:1-3:31, Luke omitted Paul’s arguments that were presented in Rom 4:1-6:23 because they thematically corresponded to those of Gal 3:5-6:16, which were reworked already earlier in Lk 15:1-16:15. The evangelist proceeded therefore in Lk 16:18 to the Pauline example offered in Rom 7:2-3 and illustrating limited validity of the law (γυνή – ἀνήρ, *μοιχ, ἕτερος). Luke rephrased this example with the use of the Markan text Mk 10:11-12. Both the bipartite structure of the statement Lk 16:18 par. and most of its wording (ἀπολύω, τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καί, γαμέω, μοιχεύω, ἀπολύω, ἀνήρ, γαμέω, μοιχεύω) originate from Mk 10:11-12. 197 Luke replaced the Markan conditional syntax with the simple word πᾶς and changed the Markan male–female pattern to the male–male one in order to formulate the rule that explains Paul’s general statements concerning validity of the law until the man’s death (Rom 7:1-3). For the same reason, Luke replaced the Markan double μοιχάομαι (Mk 10:11-12) with μοιχεύω that clearly refers to the always binding precept of the Decalogue (cf. Mk 10:19 par. Lk 18:20; Rom 2:22; 13:9; 1 Cor 6:9). The whole section Lk 16:16-18 has been therefore composed on the basis of the Pauline texts Rom 1:1-3:31; 7:1-3 with the use of the Markan texts Mk 1:14-15; 10:11-12; 13:31 and some scriptural motifs. The hypotheses of Mark’s dependence on the text of Lk 16:16-18 and of Lukan dependence on some non-

196 The Matthean insertion of ἰῶτα ἓν ἤ in Mt 5:18 is clearly a secondary expansion of the Hellenistic motif that referred to κεραία (‘stroke, mark’) as one of numerous similar graphic items and not to a distinct letter or its equivalent. 197 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54.

364

Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or Mt) have to be rejected. Lk 16:19-31 The section Lk 16:19-31 is a summarizing narrative reworking of the main themes of the Pauline text Rom 8:1-13:14: (a) contrasting results of living according to the Spirit and according to the flesh, (b) the eschatological fate of Israel and of Gentile Christians, and (c) love of the neighbour as the fulfilment of the law. Luke used also in Lk 16:19-31 several particular motifs that are contained in that Pauline text: revelry and drunkenness (Rom 13:13), hunger and nakedness (Rom 8:35), the table as a trap and a recompense (τράπεζα: Rom 11:9), suffering together with Christ as a condition for sharing in his glory (Rom 8:17), overcoming death as resulting in life and bodily resurrection (Rom 8:2.11. 38), being a child of Abraham as not guaranteeing salvation but nevertheless resulting in being loved because of the fathers (τέκνον: Rom 9:7-8; 11:28), having mercy (ἐλεέω: Rom 9:15 etc.), God’s goodness and severity (Rom 11:22), insurmountable separation from God (Rom 8:38-39), Israelite brothers (Rom 9:3), setting one’s mind on the things of the flesh as inevitably leading to death and as fundamentally opposed to the law (Rom 8:5-8.13), Moses and the prophets (Rom 10:19-21), and raising of Christ from the dead (Rom 8:11; 10:9) as a reason for being persuaded into faith (πείθω pass.: Rom 8:34.38). 198 Luke illustrated the Pauline ideas expressed in Rom 8:1-13:14 with the use of several other literary motifs, which explain the ideas of that Pauline text by means of the example of Paul’s own passing through suffering and death to the glorious afterlife. The image of the rich man who dresses himself in purple and fine linen but does not help the poor is a negative reworking of the scriptural motif of a human embodiment of wisdom (Prov 31:20-22 LXX). 199 This sapiential motif has been used in Lk 16:19 in order to illustrate universal moral rules that apply also to those who may not know the Jewish law (Lk 16:28-29; cf. Rom 2:10-16). The motif of inevitable severe punishment for serving only one’s belly illustrates the Pauline statement Phlp 3:19. The somewhat strange in the Lukan work motif of punishing the condemned one by means of make him suffer in flames of eternal fire (Lk 16:24; diff. Lk 3:17 par.: burning once for all) has been most probably based on Mk 9:43-49. The evangelist changed the 198 The lectio difficilior εγερθη in Lk 16:30-31 p75 may be original. In such a case, the linguistic correspondence between Lk 16:30-31 and Rom 8:11.34; 10:9 would be even closer. Cf. J. R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 36; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 693 n. 403. 199 Cf. D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, 345.

365

Markan word γέεννα to ᾅδης in order to refer clearly also to the Gentiles (Lk 16:23). Luke reworked also the Markan enigmatic saying Mk 9:49, which concerns being salted with fire, into the somewhat surprising image of being thirsty among the flames (Lk 16:24). As it follows from all the allusions that are contained in the section Lk 16:19-31 (cf. also Lk 19:11-28), the character of the rich man alludes to the Jewish–proselyte Christian community in Rome (cf. Acts 2:10-11),200 which did not accept Paul the Apostle. The name form Λάζαρος of the character of the poor man (Lk 16:20) is attested in the first century AD only in Jos. B.J. 5.567, 201 and consequently it has been most probably borrowed by Luke from that work. This traditionally priestly name 202 may allude to Paul’s understanding of his life as a priestly service to God, which included making sacrifice of himself (Rom 12:1; 15:16; Phlp 2:17; 4:18).

200 The strange name of the rich man Νευης (Lk 16:19 p75) may allude to the well-known Roman Italic name Naevius. The existence of the relatively rich Jewish–proselyte Christian community in Rome seems to have been known to Josephus: cf. Ant. 18.63-84 with its thematic-argumentative coherence as condemning the financially suspect proselytizing activity of some Jewish missionaries among the Gentiles in Rome, which, for reasons hardly different from that of the story’s reference to the activity of Jewish Christians (cf. e.g. Rom 16:7; Gal 2:10; Acts 2:10-11) and especially Paul (cf. e.g. Phlp 3:3.20; 4:10.14.22) in Rome, was surprisingly postponed by Josephus from AD 19 to the time of Pilate’s being in office in Judaea; cf. F. W. Horn, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum aus neutestamentlicher Perspektive’, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, ed. C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (WUNT 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 117-136 (esp. 134-135); C. Niemand, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Befunde, Diskussionsstand, Perspektiven’, PzB 17 (2008) 45-71 (esp. 65-67). 201 Cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon, part 1, 65. This non-Hebrew form of the well-known Hebrew name has been used by Luke most probably in order to cope allusively with the issue of the non-Hebrew name of Paul the Pharisee. Another, presumably later Lukan way of dealing with this problem, namely by relating Paul’s name to the Hebrew name Saulos that is akin to that of Saul the king of Israel who, like Paul, belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, is attested in Acts 9:4 (Σαοὺλ Σαούλ); 13:9 (Σαῦλος δέ ὁ καὶ Παῦλος); 13:21 (Σαοὺλ υἱὸν Κίς). 202 Cf. R. Hachlili, ‘Hebrew Names, Personal Names, Family Names and Nicknames of Jews in the Second Temple Period’, in Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early Judaisms and Early Christianities: Texts and Fictions: Papers Read at a NOSTER Colloquium in Amsterdam, June 9-11, 1998, ed. J. W. van Henten and A. Brenner (STAR 2; Deo: Leiden 2000), 83-115 (esp. 91).

366

The unnecessary from the narrative point of view and phrased untypically of Luke motif of “the dogs” (οἱ κύνες) 203 that licked the sores of Lazarus (Lk 16:21) has been borrowed from the scriptural story of the rich king Ahab and poor Naboth, whose blood was after their death licked by the dogs (1 Kgs 21:19 [20:19] LXX). This story has been borrowed and adapted by Luke in order to illustrate humiliations and sufferings that were inflicted upon Paul by his Jewish Christian opponents who were compared by the Apostle to “the dogs” (οἱ κύνες: Phlp 3:2). 204 The scriptural story has been additionally supplemented with the motif of garbage/kitchen refuse (cf. Sir 27:4), which has been borrowed from Phlp 3:8 (cf. also the motif of resurrection after Christ-like suffering and death in Phlp 3:10). 205 The sufferings of Lazarus illustrate therefore Paul’s situation in the last, Roman stage of his life, namely that of a poor ‘priest’ who struggled to satisfy his hunger (χορτάζω pass.: Lk 16:21; cf. Phlp 4:12), who received some support not from the local congregation but from the remote Philippians (Phlp 4:10.15-19; cf. Phlm 9.13.22-24), and who was nevertheless still harassed by his Jewish Christian opponents. 206 203 Luke normally did not use the article in the instances of his referring to a group of animals and not to their whole genus (cf. Lk 10:3.19; 15:15; Acts 20:29). 204 The linguistic, structural and thematic correspondences between Lk 16:21 and Mk 7:28 are rather too weak to permit tracing an intended intertextual link between these texts. For this proposal, see A. Fuchs, ‘Spuren von Deuteromarkus’, 27. 205 The sores of the poor Paul-like Lazarus may allusively refer to the “physical marks of Jesus”, which Paul bore on his body (Gal 6:17; cf. Phlp 3:17-18). 206 As it follows from the overall analysis of Lk 16:19-31 and Lk 19:11-28, Luke regarded Phlp as the last letter of the Apostle, which had been written during his imprisonment in Rome. The scandalizing image of Paul as generally forsaken by the predominantly Jewish Christian Roman community (cf. Acts 2:10-11) and by many of his former coworkers (cf. 2 Tim 4:10.16; 1 Clem. 5:5) was later reworked by Luke into a more neutral one in Acts 28:16.30, which, however, still intriguingly depicted Paul as living alone at his own expense (diff. e.g. Acts 16:15.34; 17:5-7; 18:7; 21:8; cf. Rom 16:3-15 with only Prisca and Aquila hosting the Pauline Gentile Christians in their house in Rome). The rather implausible idea of a poor shipwrecked prisoner’s living for two years with a soldier who was paid for guarding him (Acts 28:16 diff. e.g. Acts 28:14) resulted from Luke’s presentation of Paul as having come to Rome as a Roman prisoner (which was modelled in Acts 25:21.25 on Jos. B.J. 3.398, 401: ἀναπέμπω – πέμπω; cf. also Jos. Ant. 18.125, 203, 235), which was accompanied by the presentation of Paul’s Roman imprisonment as caused by the non-Christian Jews in Jerusalem. This image was most probably intended to conceal the fact that Paul was handed over to the Roman authorities because of envy and opposition against him on the part of his Jewish Christian opponents (cf. Phlp 1:15a.17; 1 Clem. 5:5 and the abrupt ending of Acts with the last surprising word ἀκωλύτως that probably refers to anti-Pauline Jewish Christian opponents: 1 Thes 2:16; Lk 9:49-50; 11:52; 18:16; Acts 10:47; etc.).

367

The image of the bosom (κόλπος) of Abraham (Lk 16:22) alludes to the scriptural motif of male nursing a child (Num 11:12; cf. also Ruth 4:16), and as such refers to Abraham’s ‘conceiving’ or ‘adopting’ new believers who were born on the basis of the promise (Rom 9:7-9). 207 Abraham’s bosom is referred to in Lk 16:23 as being double (κόλποι pl.), in agreement with the theological ideas of Rom 4:16-17. It is worth noting that the Paul-like character of Lazarus, in difference to the rich man, died but was not buried; he was exceptionally carried away by the angels immediately to Abraham’s bosom without awaiting the general resurrection (cf. Phlp 1:23; diff. earlier 1 Thes 4:16-17; 1 Cor 15:52). Luke evidently interpreted the death of the Apostle as a truly deserved assumption (cf. the use of the similar motif in Lk 24:51; cf. also Acts 1:2.9-11). The concluding formula ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ, which refers to Christ in Lk 16:31 (if the lection εγερθη in Lk 16:30-31 p75 is not original), has been literally borrowed by Luke from Mk 9:9-10. The remaining vocabulary of Lk 16:19-31 is generally traditional-scriptural (e.g. πορφύρα καὶ βύσσος) and Lukan (εὐφραίνω, πυλῶν, ἐπιθυμέω χορτασθῆναι, κόλπος, ἐπαίρω, voc. πάτερ, ὀδυνάω, διαμαρτύρομαι, Μωϋσῆς καὶ οἱ προφῆται, πείθω). The section Lk 16:19-31 is therefore a Lukan explanation of the ideas and motifs that are contained in the Pauline textual unit Rom 8:1-13:14, with the use of other motifs that have been borrowed from the Pauline letters (Rom 4:16-17; 15:16; Phlp 1:23; 2:17; 3:2.8.10.19; 4:10.12-19), the Gospel of Mark (Mk 9:910.43-49; 10:25), the Scriptures, and Josephus’ work (B.J. 5.567). No nonPauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. L) may be traced behind Lk 16:19-31. Lk 17:1-6 The section Lk 17:1-6 is a Lukan narrative reworking of the Pauline text Rom 14:1-15:16. The introductory statement Lk 17:1ab deals with “traps, allurements to falls, causes of falls” (σκάνδαλα). This particular motif has been borrowed by Luke from Rom 14:1-23 (σκάνδαλον: Rom 14:13) and rephrased with the use of the Markan text Mk 14:21 (οὐαὶ… δι᾿ οὗ: Lk 17:1c), which originally referred to Judas. The same theme has been further illustrated in Lk 17:2 with the use of the Markan text Mk 9:42 (εἰ… περίκειται, *μύλος, περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, σκανδαλίσῃ, τῶν μικρῶν τούτων, ἕνα). 208 The Lukan inversion of the internal order of the Markan text Mk 9:42 and the insertion of the phrase λυσιτελεῖ αὐτῷ at the beginning of Lk 17:2 were necessary for conforming the 207 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.34.12 (SC 456, 424). 208 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54 n. 17.

368

Markan saying to the preceding Lukan text Lk 17:1 with its key noun σκάνδαλα. Another significant change that has been made by Luke in Lk 17:2 consists in replacing the Markan non-scriptural syntagm βάλλω εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν with the well-known scriptural syntagm ῥίπτω εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν (Exod 15:1.4.21 LXX). 209 Yet another change is also typical of Luke: replacing the Markan Palestinian expression “donkey-millstone” (μύλος ὀνικός) with the more general, easier to imagine, and similarly sounding “mill-stone” (λίθος μυλικός). The fragment Lk 17:3-4 deals with the issue of bearing sins of fellow believers by patient repetitive rebuking and forgiving them. This theme has been borrowed by Luke from Rom 15:1-7.14-16. The verb ἐπιτιμάω used in Lk 17:3 (cf. Lk 23:40) probably betrays literary dependence of this Lukan text on Mk 8:32-33. The motif of repetitive forgiving (ἀφίημι) is most probably based on Mk 11:25 (cf. Lk 11:4). The somewhat surprising inclusion of the motif of faith in Lk 17:5-6 is in fact an outcome of Luke’s reworking of the Pauline argument concerning God’s truthfulness in his promises, and consequently of the believers’ abounding in hope that results from believing in him (πιστεύω: Rom 15:8-13). The illustrative example Lk 17:6 has been composed with the use of the Markan motifs that have been borrowed from Mk 4:31 (ὡς κόκκος σινάπεως) and Mk 11:22-23 (ἔχετε πίστιν, λέγω ἄν + dat., double aor. pass. impv., θάλασσα). At the same time, the Markan hyperbolic image of moving a mountain has been replaced by Luke with the motif of moving a mulberry tree (συκάμινος). This change was most probably influenced by the illustration of the strength of faith by means of withering of a fig tree (συκῆ), as it had been depicted in the Markan text Mk 11:20-21, which immediately preceded in the Markan narrative the textual unit Mk 11:22-23. 210 The motif of being obedient (ὑπακούω), conflated with those of the sea (ἡ θάλασσα) and of faith (πίστις), may have been borrowed by Luke from Mk 4:41 (cf. Lk 8:25). The strange in itself image of the roots (cf. Mk 11:20 ἐκ ῥιζῶν) of a great mulberry tree (συκάμινος diff. συκῆ in Mk 11:20-21) as planted in the sea (Lk 17:6) illustrates the Pauline argument expressed in Rom 15:12, namely that the scriptural root (ῥίζα) of Jesse shall reign over the Gentiles (who are symbolized in Lk by the Mediterranean Sea: cf. Lk 12:54; cf. Acts 28:28), 211 which was hoped for in faith by Paul and by Luke. The section Lk 17:1-6 is therefore a Lukan narrative explanation of the Pauline text Rom 14:1-15:16 with the use of various motifs that have been borrowed from the Gospel of Mark (Mk 4:31.41; 8:32-33; 9:42; 11:20-23.25; 209 F. Neirynck, ‘Reconstruction of Q and IQP’, 91-92. 210 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 54. 211 Cf. Beda Venerabilis, In Luc. Exp. 5.579-581 (CChr.SL 120, 310).

369

14:21) and from the Scriptures. No non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or Mt) may be detected behind this Lukan text. Lk 17:7-10 The last section of the second part of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 17:7-10) is based on the Pauline text Rom 15:17-28b. This Pauline fragment provided the thematic background to Lk 17:10: no boasting of one’s own efforts (Rom 15:17), accomplishing the work (Rom 15:18), finishing a certain part of the work outside the city (Rom 15:19-21.23), desire to participate in a symposium together with the hosts after the arrival at their place (Rom 15:24), and delay of the symposium because of performing first the necessary service and only thereafter having the possibility to enjoy the desired rest (Rom 15:25-28b). Whereas the narrative introduction Lk 17:7 clearly alludes to the person of Paul the Apostle (δοῦλος: Rom 1:1 etc.; ἀροτριάω + ποιμαίνω: 1 Cor 9:7.10),212 the fragment Lk 17:8-10 has been linguistically based on Rom 15:25-27 (διακονέω, ποιέω, ὀφείλω) 213 and on the thematically related text 1 Cor 16:1 (ποιέω, διατάσσω). The allusion to hard toiling Paul who finished a part of his evangelistic work and desired to come for a symposium to Rome but had to go first to Jerusalem in order to perform a service for Jewish Christians that was ordered to him or perceived by him as an obligation (cf. Gal 2:10) is here clearly perceivable (cf. also the use of the same motifs of shepherding and disinterest in money in the thematically related text Acts 20:28-35). Luke illustrated the Pauline-style ideal of self-denying service (Lk 17:8) with the use of the Markan texts that described (a) the service of the apostles who entered the city and prepared (ἑτοιμάζω) the meal for Jesus (Mk 14:12.1516) and (b) the behaviour of Jesus himself who had the people recline (ἀναπίπτω) and who subsequently served food to them (Mk 6:40-41; 8:6; cf. Lk 12:37; 22:14-27). The particular, non-scriptural expression ἔχω χάριν + dat. (“be thankful to someone”), which has been used in Lk 17:9, occurs also in 2 Tim 1:3; 1 Tim 1:12. Although this linguistic correspondence is striking, the phrase in question was widely used in Greek, and consequently it cannot be regarded as a proof of direct literary dependence of Lk on the Pastoral Epistles or vice versa. The section Lk 17:7-10 has been therefore composed by Luke as a hypertextual explanation of the Pauline text Rom 15:17-28b with the use of other Pauline (1 Cor 9:7.10; 16:1) and Markan texts (Mk 6:40-41; 8:6; 14:12.15-16).

212 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 138. 213 Cf. Origene, Comm. in Rom. 10.14 (PG 14, 1275).

370

No non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. L) may be detected behind this Lukan text. Conclusion The second part of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 13:22-17:10) is a continuous allusive exposition of the main part of Gal (Gal 2:11-6:13 in Lk 13:22-16:15) and of large parts of Rom, inasmuch as they thematically differed from Gal that was earlier reworked by the evangelist (Rom 1:1-3:31; 7:1-3; 8:1-15:28b in Lk 16:16-17:10). The second part of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 13:22-17:10) alludes therefore to the period of Paul’s missionary activity, as it was presented by Luke, from the Antiochene crisis (Gal 2:11-14) to his reaching Illyricum and taking the decision to go with the collection to Jerusalem (Rom 15:19b.25-27). In order to explain these Pauline texts, Luke reworked them with the use of various literary motifs that he had borrowed from the sacred Scriptures of Israel (Pentateuch, 1 Kgs, Major and Minor Prophets, Psalms, Prov, Ezr: all in the version of the Septuagint), the Pauline letters (Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Phlp, 1 Thes), the Gospel of Mark and Josephus’ work (Bellum). The evangelist referred also quite adequately to the Pharisaic-like halachic argument that was presented in the Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (CD 11:13b-14a.16-17a). Luke exceptionally used here also an Aramaic word referring to the sphere of trade. It has been demonstrated that Luke used in Lk 13:22-17:10 neither hypothetical non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or L) nor Mt. The hypotheses of Luke’s dependence solely on oral traditions and of Mark’s use of Lk have been also proved false. 4.3.3 Lk 17:11-19:28 The third part of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 17:11-19:28) may be divided, from the redaction-critical point of view, into three main parts. The first one (Lk 17:11-18:14) continues the great Lukan insertion into the basic Markan narrative framework, which began in Lk 9:51. The second part (Lk 18:15-43) is a close but not exact parallel to the Markan section Mk 10:13-52. The third part (Lk 19:1-28) constitutes another Lukan insertion into the basic Markan framework, which ends with the final ‘travel note’ that refers to going up to Jerusalem (Lk 19:28). As it may be easily noticed, it is not the Markan material that structurizes the Lukan section Lk 17:11-19:28.

371

Lk 17:11-19 As it has been demonstrated above, the second part of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 13:22-17:10) ends with a hypertextual reworking of the Pauline statements Rom 15:25-28b concerning the accomplishment of the Apostle’s service to Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (cf. Lk 17:10c). Accordingly, it may be reasonably assumed that in Lk 17:11-19 Luke alluded to the subsequent Pauline statement Rom 15:28c concerning the Apostle’s plan to go to Spain through Rome (cf. also Rom 15:24). The key phrase that was used by Paul in Rom 15:24.28c to describe the planned travel to Spain (πορεύομαι εἰς) has been literally borrowed by Luke in Lk 17:11 (cf. also Lk 7:11; 9:51.53.56; 19:12; 24:13). 214 The Pauline Spain, which symbolized in antiquity the end of the earth and consequently also the aim of Paul’s and of the Church’s mission (cf. Acts 1:8), has been alluded to by Luke in Lk 17:11 by means of a reference to Jerusalem. The change of the name of the Holy City from Ἱεροσόλυμα in Lk 13:22 to Ἰερουσαλήμ in Lk 17:11 reflects the corresponding difference in the Apostle’s references to Jerusalem in Gal 2:1 and Rom 15:25-26.31 respectively. The transitory visit to Rome was referred to by Paul with the use of the expressions διαπορεύω and ἀπέρχομαι διά (Rom 15:24.28c). Luke conflated both these expressions to διέρχομαι διά (Lk 17:11b). The preposition διά has been extended by the evangelist to the prepositional phrase διὰ μέσον, probably under the influence of the thematically related Markan text Mk 7:31 (διά… ἀνὰ μέσον), 215 in order to achieve the meaning “through the midst of”. The whole clause διέρχομαι διὰ μέσον refers, similarly to Lk 4:30, to Paul’s “passing through the midst of” the Christian population of the city of Rome (cf. Lk 19:1. 4). Luke evidently regarded the Roman Christians as divided into two main groups: the presumably relatively small group of the Pauline Gentile believers (cf. Rom 1:13-15; 16:1-16; Acts 28:28-31) and the “Jews and proselytes” who remained under direct jurisdiction of the Jerusalem community (cf. Acts 2:1011). Both groups have been alluded to in Lk 17:11b-12 as, respectively, Samaritans and Galileans who lived together in the same village, which is quite strange on the purely literal level of the Lukan narrative (cf. Lk 9:52-54). Samaria has 214 It is worth noting that from among these Lukan texts, Lk 7:11 and Lk 24:13 clearly allude to the mission to the Gentiles (cf. the references to the border town Nain with Gentile overtones in Lk 7:11-17, and to the Roman colony Emmaus/Ammaus [cf. Jos. B.J. 7.217] in Lk 24:13), Lk 19:12 refers likewise to “a distant country”, and the pericope Lk 9:51-56 introduces the entire para-Pauline ‘travel narrative’. 215 It is worth noting that Lk 17:11 is far more remote in wording from the Markan travel notice Mk 10:1 than from Mk 7:31.

372

been mentioned in Lk 17:11b-12 before Galilee because Gentile Christians, who were alluded to in Lk 17:11-19 by the character of the believing Samaritan, were the main addressees of Rom (which was commented by Luke in Lk 16:1619:28), notwithstanding the fact that they most probably constituted only a small minority (in Luke’s view: 10 per cent?) of the Roman believers in Christ. The Lukan paradigmatic story (cf. Lk 9:52; 10:38) of ten lepers Lk 17:1219 is evidently a redactional elaboration of the similar Markan account Mk 1:4045 (λεπρός, ἐκαθαρίσθη, ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ). 216 Luke used this Markan text earlier in Lk 5:12-16, stressing the fact that the leper fell on his face before Jesus (πίπτω ἐπὶ πρόσωπον: Lk 5:12 diff. Mk 1:40) in a gesture of quasiliturgical prostration (cf. Lk 17:16; cf. e.g. Gen 17:3 LXX). The lepers’ initial appeal made from afar (ἐπιστάτα: Lk 17:13) may be found elsewhere in Lk only on the lips of the Twelve. It alludes therefore in Lk 17:13 to the reception of Paul by the Roman Christians who remained under direct Jerusalem jurisdiction (cf. Lk 17:14; Acts 2:10-11; the motif has been reworked positively in Acts 28:15: ἀπάντησις, but cf. Acts 28:15d). The form of the cry ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς (Lk 17:13) has been borrowed by Luke from Mk 10:47-48 (ἐλέησόν με), where it was placed within the context of peculiarly Jewish Christian understanding of Christ as the promised Son of David. The pericope Mk 10:46-52 was also used at the conclusion of the Lukan story (ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε: Lk 17:19; cf. Mk 10:52; cf. also Mk 5:34), thus forming a narrative framework for Lk 17:13-19. The reaction of the Samaritan to his being healed (Lk 17:15-16) has been described by Luke with the use of several other Markan motifs. The Samaritan, having seen that he had been healed (ὅτι ἰάθη: cf. Mk 5:29), did not go to the priests, but he returned to Jesus. He glorified God (δοξάζω τὸν θεόν: cf. Mk 2:12) by falling on his face at Jesus’ feet (πίπτω παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ: cf. Mk 5:22; 7:25) in a gesture of quasi-liturgical prostration. This somewhat strange, on the literal level of the narrative, behaviour of the Samaritan alludes to the Gentile Christian worship of God through the ‘priestly’ mediation of Paul, without participating in the Jewish Christian worship in the Jerusalem Temple (Rom 15:16; cf. Rom 12:1). The whole story Lk 17:11-19 has been therefore composed by Luke with the use of various literary motifs that have been borrowed from several Markan pericopes: Mk 1:40-45 (leper purified, Jesus’ command to show himself to the priest); Mk 2:1-12 (Jesus acting as an embodiment of God, the recipients’ glorification of God); Mk 5:22-34 (falling at Jesus’ feet, healing, the necessity of returning to Jesus, “your faith has saved you”); Mk 7:24-31 (healing of a Gentile at a distance by mere Jesus’ word, falling to Jesus’ feet, going to the Jewish 216 Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 115; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 55.

373

territory by moving away from the Temple through the regions of the Gentiles); and Mk 10:46-52 (asking with loud voice for Jesus’ mercy, “your faith has saved you”). The novelty of the story Lk 17:11-19 in comparison to all its Markan counterparts may be noticed in its narrative core Lk 17:14-18. In difference to Mk 1:42-44, the lepers in Lk 17:14 are ordered by Jesus to go the priests before they become clean. Consequently, in agreement with the typically Lukan idea that was influenced by the scriptural story of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:10-15 LXX: πορευθείς, ἐκαθαρίσθη, ἐπέστρεψεν), they are called on to believe on the sole basis of Jesus’ word (cf. e.g. Lk 7:7). Moreover, in difference to Mk 1:44, the lepers are not ordered to offer a sacrifice for their healing, as it was required by the Mosaic law (Lk 17:14). Luke has illustrated the situation of the Roman Christians, for whom going to the Jerusalem Temple was either impossible (for Jewish Christians together with proselytes) or unnecessary (for the Pauline Gentile Christians). The Samaritan’s glorifying God (δοξάζω τὸν θεόν: Lk 17:15) in response to God’s mercy that has been shown to him expresses the correct religious attitude of all Gentile Christians, as it was envisaged by Paul (Rom 15:9). Moreover, in the Pauline context, glorifying God for his mercy that has been revealed in Jesus (Lk 17:13.15) ought to be perceived as uniting Jewish and Gentile Christians notwithstanding the existence of traditional barriers between them (Rom 14:1-15:13). The idea of the need to give thanks (εὐχαριστέω) to God through Jesus (Lk 17:15-16) is also Pauline (Rom 1:8; cf. Col 3:17). The use the verb εὐχαριστέω in Lk 17:16 in the context of worship and the fact that this verb is used in the Synoptic Gospels almost exclusively in evident Eucharistic contexts (Mk 8:6; 14:23 parr.; but cf. Acts 28:15) may suggest that also according to Luke, the Gentile Christian worship of God through the mediation of Christ and of Paul the Apostle takes place, above all, in the Eucharist. The section Lk 17:11-19 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of Rom 15:28c with the use of several other Pauline (Rom 1:8; 12:1; 14:1-15:13; 15:16.24-26) and Markan texts (Mk 1:40-45; 2:1-12; 5:22-34; 7:24-31; 10:4652), as well as the scriptural story of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:1-19 LXX). No nonPauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. L) may be detected behind the text of this pericope. Lk 17:20-37 The section Lk 17:20-37 begins with a quite strange indirect question: “When does the kingdom of God come?” (Lk 17:20b). The double use of the present form ἔρχεται in Lk 17:20bd is even more surprising if it is compared with the use of the future form ἐλεύσονται in Lk 17:22b. In fact, the interplay between

374

both these forms reflects the similar interplay in the Pauline text Rom 15:29bc (ἐρχόμενος – ἐλεύσομαι). Luke initially reworked the Pauline motif of his apostolic parousia in the mixed Jewish–Gentile Church in Rome (Rom 15:29) with the use of the motif of coming of the kingdom of God to Jewish Christians (Lk 17:20-21). This motif has been borrowed from the pericope Mk 11:1-10, which referred to the coming of Jesus to Jerusalem (ὅτε – πότε, μαθηταί, ἡ ἐρχομένη – ἔρχεται, βασιλεία, τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ∆αυίδ – τοῦ θεοῦ, μαθηταί; cf. also the use of the preceding pericope Mk 10:46-52 in the preceding section Lk 17:11-19). Jesus’ answer to the question of the Pharisees (Lk 17:20a; cf. Lk 19:39-44 diff. Mk 11:11) first counters the idea of coming of the Kingdom as a result of observation of some halachic rules (παρατήρησις: Lk 17:20d) 217 and thereupon presents the main argument of the whole section Lk 17:20-37. This argument may be formulated as follows: The right question concerning the kingdom of God, which ought to be asked, is not: “When?” but “Where?” (Lk 17:21a.37a). 218 The Lukan answer is clear. The Kingdom is not present in Jerusalem or somewhere around it (Lk 17:21a) but there where Jesus is represented by his Apostle Paul (Lk 17:21b. 37b). The idea of the Kingdom as already present in Christ within the believers (i.e. in common life in the Holy Spirit) is a Lukan reworking of Paul’s view expressed in Rom 14:17. In the second part of the section (Lk 17:22-37), Luke illustrated this basic idea (Lk 17:21b) as referring also to Gentile Christians, namely with the use of the motifs that he had borrowed from the Markan pericope Mk 13:15-27, which referred to Christ’s cosmic Parousia. The somewhat strange statement οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν ἰδοὺ ὧδε ἤ ἐκεῖ in Lk 17:21a has been almost literally borrowed by Luke from Mk 13:21a (ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ ἴδε ὧδε ὁ χριστός ἴδε ἐκεῖ) 219 and applied first in Lk 17:21a and then in Lk 17:23 to the present reality of the Kingdom. The syntagm ὁράω ἡμέρας (pl.) used in Lk 17:22 is scriptural (Ps 34 [33]:13 LXX). It adapts the Markan plural ἡμέραι, which referred collectively to the horrific days of the cosmic parousia of the Son of Man (Mk 13:17.19-20.24), to the longed-for days of the apostolic parousia of Paul among the Roman Gentile Christians. The statement Lk 17:23 is another version of Mk 13:21. This Markan text has been rephrased by Luke in order to allude to the Jewish War AD 66-70, which was fought far from Rome and which was presumably followed by an influx of Jewish and Jewish Christian slaves to the capital of the empire. 217 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 140. 218 Cf. F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 3 (EKK 3/3; Benzinger: Düsseldorf [et al.] and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001), 162. 219 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 55; H. T. Fleddermann, ‘Mid-Level Techniques in Luke’s Redaction of Q’, EThL 79 (2003) 53-71 (esp. 65-66).

375

The Lukan and non-Matthean image of a flashing lightning (*ἀστραπ) that illuminates the whole earth under the heaven (Lk 17:24 par.) is a conflation of several scriptural motifs (Ps 144[143]:6; 77[76]:19; 97[96]:4 LXX; cf. Exod 17:14 LXX; 2 Macc 2:18). Luke 220 replaced the Markan image of the Son of Man’s gathering the elect “from the four winds, from the far end of the earth to the far end of heaven” (Mk 13:27b) with that of a lightning that flashes from one horizon to the other (Lk 17:24). In such a way, the evangelist alluded to the apostolic parousia of Paul as casting light of the gospel to the whole Mediterranean world: from Damascus and Arabia in the east to Spain in the west (cf. Gal 1:17; Rom 15:18-28; 1 Clem. 5:6-7). The saying Lk 17:25 (δεῖ… πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι) has been almost literally borrowed by Luke from Mk 8:31 (cf. also πρῶτον δεῖ in Mk 9:11; 13:10) 221 and supplemented with the Lukan favourite ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης, which alluded in Lk 11:50-51 to the Jewish Christian party of James (cf. 1 Clem. 5:5). The double scriptural image of the days of Noah and of the days Lot (Lk 17:26-30) is a reworking of the Markan text Mk 13:24-26. It should be noted that Luke reworked the Markan cosmic catastrophic imagery Mk 13:24-25 in Lk 21:25-26 into the one of a natural disaster that reaches the sky, the sea, and the earth, and that causes people to stop breathing out of panic. For this reason, it may be reasonably assumed that the combination of the motifs of a flood and of a downpour of fire and sulphur from the sky in Lk 17:27.29 most probably alludes, likewise, to the eruption of Vesuvius (which was located close to Rome and alluded to in Lk 17:20-37) in AD 79. The wording of Lk 17:26-30 par. is Lukan (ᾗ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ, κατὰ τὰ αὐτά) and non-Matthean (ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας). 222 The warning Lk 17:31 has been almost literally borrowed by Luke from Mk 13:15-16 (ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος, μὴ καταβάτω, ἆραι, καὶ ὁ, ἀγρός, μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω). 223 Luke merely relocated the Markan double motif of the things that should not be taken from the house (Mk 13:15b.16b) to the first element of his parallelistic saying (Lk 17:31ab) in order to conclude the second element (Lk 17:31c) with the clause μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, to which the 220 The saying Lk 17:24 par. Mt 24:27 is a logical continuation of Lk 17:23 (“here”, “there”) and not of Mt 24:26 (“in the desert”, “in the inner rooms”), which is an evident Matthean expansion of the Lukan text. 221 Cf. A. Büchele, Der Tod Jesu in Lukasevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Lk 23 (FTS 26; Josef Knecht: Frankfurt am Main 1978), 158; H. T. Fleddermann, ‘Mid-Level Techniques’, 66-67. 222 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 89. 223 Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 861; F. Neirynck, ‘The Minor Agreements and Q’, 5456 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000, 250-252]; H. T. Fleddermann, ‘Mid-Level Techniques’, 70.

376

Lukan favourite female counterpart (Lk 17:32) to the earlier introduced scriptural motif of Lot (Lk 17:28-29) could be appended. The saying Lk 17:33 is an evident, almost literal reworking of Mk 8:35 (ὃς ἐάν, τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν, ὃς δ᾿ ἄν, ἀπόλλυμι, αὐτήν; cf. the earlier use of Mk 8:31 in Lk 17:25). 224 Luke merely corrected the Markan clause ἂν ἀπολέσει to ἂν ἀπολέσῃ and introduced into the Markan text his favourite verbs: ζητέω, περιποιέω, ζῳογονέω (for the two latter ones, cf. also 1 Tim 3:13; 6:13). The Markan clause Mk 8:35c (ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ…) has been omitted by Luke as not suiting the situation of the Roman, urban Gentile Christians who were alluded to in Lk 17:22-37. The double saying Lk 17:34-35 par. has a typically Lukan (and nonMatthean) gender-paired male–female structure. The combination of the motifs of night and day (in this order) is also Markan-Lukan and non-Matthean. The image of separation of two persons who lived and worked together most probably constitutes another allusion to the mixed Jewish–Gentile community in Rome. The concluding dialogue Lk 17:37 recalls the main theme of the section, which was presented in Lk 17:21: where and not when of the Kingdom. The disciples’ question ποῦ in Lk 17:37a resembles that of Mk 14:12.14, where it provided the narrative setting for the Eucharistic pericope Mk 14:12-25 (cf. the upper room in Mk 14:15) whose main theme was the Eucharistic body (σῶμα: Mk 14:22) of Jesus as prepared beforehand for its burial (Mk 14:8). The somewhat strange, non-scriptural Lukan image of vultures/eagles gathering around the corpse/body (σῶμα; diff. e.g. Job 39:27.30 LXX) that is identified with the Lord himself (Lk 17:37) is therefore most probably a typical of Luke, allusive reworking of the Markan text Mk 14:8-9.12-25 (cf. also the presence of Eucharistic overtones earlier in Lk 17:16). The thematic and linguistic correspondences between Mk 14:8-9.12-25 and Lk 17:34-37 are in fact numerous: the corpse/body of Jesus, universal outreach of the message of the Kingdom, being above the ground, reclining (cf. Mk 6:39) and making/eating bread, gathering around Jesus, presence of someone who will not be saved, and participation in the banquet of the eschatological Kingdom (cf. also Lk 22:28-30 as a reworking of Mk 14:25). Moreover, in difference to the syntactically similar sentence Lk 12:34 (ὅπου… ἐστίν… ἐκεῖ καί…), the subordinate clause of the sentence Lk 17:37b (ὅπου τὸ σῶμα… ἐκεῖ καί…) contains no verb. The elliptical syntactic construction in Lk 17:37b creates therefore a dialectical tension between the present gathering of the halachically impure “vultures” around the Eucharistic

224 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Reconstruction of Q and IQP’, 88; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 55.

377

body of Jesus 225 and the future gathering of “eagles” for the eschatological meal of the Kingdom around the glorious Son of Man. 226 The word ἐπισυνάγω in Lk 17:37c, which concludes the section Lk 17:22-37, has been evidently borrowed from Mk 13:27b, which concluded in the Markan Gospel the corresponding pericope Mk 13:15-27. The section Lk 17:20-37 is therefore a Lukan reworking of the Pauline text Rom 15:29 with the use of the motifs that have been borrowed from other Pauline (Rom 14:17; 15:18-28; Gal 1:17) and Markan texts (Mk 11:1-10; 13:15-27; Mk 14:8-9.12-25, and Mk 8:31.35), some scriptural motifs, and widely known historical data (the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79). The hypotheses of Mark’s use of the text of Lk 17:20-37 and of Lukan dependence on some non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or Mt) have to be rejected. Lk 18:1-14 The bipartite section Lk 18:1-14 is evidently united by the common theme of prayer (*προσευχ), which has been borrowed by Luke from Rom 15:30-31a. The latter text described Paul’s prayer in the context of contending, or even fighting, with his Jewish opponents who were disobedient to God, in order that he might be rescued from them (Rom 15:30b-31a). This theme has been elaborated by Luke first in the parable Lk 18:1-8, which exhorts not to lose heart in a struggle for justice against an opponent. Much of the vocabulary that has been 225 According to Lk 17:37, the Eucharistic communion of Jewish and Gentile Christians (cf. 1 Cor 10:16-17), which had been broken in Antioch (cf. Gal 2:11-14; Col 2:16.2023; Mk 6:25-28; 7:1-5; 14:10-15:15; Lk 22:24-27; Jn 6:60-66), was not yet restored at the time of the writing of Lk. Consequently, the Eucharist was perceived by Luke as uniting mainly Gentile Christians (cf. Lk 24:30.35; Acts 20:7.11; 27:35). It was, however, accompanied by fervent hope for conversion and reconciliation (cf. e.g. Lk 22:2832). This reconciliation has been achieved at least partially somewhat later, as it may be deduced from e.g. Acts 2:42.46; 10:1-11:18; 15:2.22-29; 21:25; Mt 15:10-20; 18:10-15; Jn 6:67-69; 21:9-13; Eph 2:14-16, in particular by means of ‘ecumenical’ shaping of the personage of Cephas into the narrative character of Simon-Peter. 226 Cf. also the presence of Eucharistic overtones in Lk 11:3 (ἐπιούσιος, τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν) and in Lk 14:15. It is worth noting that Luke (in agreement with Mk 6:52; 8:14-21), wherever it was possible, presented the Eucharist as sole breaking of the bread (Lk 24:30.35; Acts 2:42.46; 20:7.11; 27:35), without mentioning sharing the cup, most probably in order to avoid the impression of consuming blood (cf. Lk 22:17-18 diff. Mk 14:23-25; cf. also Acts 15:20.29; 21:25). For the halachic background of the latter idea, see e.g. Gen 9:4; Lev 7:27; Deut 2:16; CD 3:6. It is also possible that the “eagles” in Lk 17:37 (so in the section Lk 17:20-37, which refers to Rom 15:29) allude to the name of Aquila who lived in Rome, served as a host for the Gentile Church there (Rom 16:3-5a), and was Paul’s expected host in the capital of the empire (cf. Lk 19:1-10).

378

used by Luke in the parable Lk 18:1-8 is typically Pauline, and it functions as characterizing the personality and difficult life of the Apostle (ἐγκακέω, ἐντρέπω, ἐκδικέω – ἐκδίκησις, παρέχω κόπον, ὑπωπιάζω, ἀδικία, μακροθυμέω, ἐν τάχει). 227 The somewhat surprising conclusion of the pericope (Lk 18:8b), which refers to the Son of Man as coming and possibly not finding faith on the earth (ἄρα introduces here a question with a presumably negative answer: cf. Acts 8:30), is a reworking of the Markan motif of Jesus’ coming and not finding fruits on a fig tree that symbolized the Jerusalem Jews (ἄρα, ἐλθὼν… εὑρίσκω, ἐπί, πίστις: Mk 11:13.22). The remaining vocabulary of Lk 18:1-8 is characteristically Lukan, as well as borrowed from the Scriptures in order to develop the allusion to Paul’s dealing with his Jewish Christian opponents in Jerusalem (ἀντίδικος, ἐπὶ χρόνον, εἶπεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, τῆς ἀδικίας, ποιέω… ἐκδίκησιν, ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός). The second paradigmatic story (Lk 18:9-14) displays several linguistic features that allude to the Pauline tradition. The perfective verbal form *πεποιθ (Lk 18:9) was applied by Paul to describe his opponents as putting their trust in the ‘flesh’ (2 Cor 10:7; Rom 2:19; Phlp 3:3-4; cf. 2 Cor 1:9). 228 The word pair δίκαιος – δικαιόω, which frames the Lukan pericope (Lk 18:9.14), belongs to the key terms of the Pauline polemical theology (cf. e.g. Rom 2:13; Gal 3:11). The verb ἐξουθενέω (Lk 18:9) was used by Paul to describe his opponents’ disdain for their fellow believers (Rom 14:3.10),229 for Paul (2 Cor 10:10; Gal 4:14), and for his co-worker Timothy (1 Cor 16:11). The summarizing catalogue of typical sinners (ἅρπαγες, ἄδικοι, μοιχοί: Lk 18:11) has been composed by Luke on the basis of the beginning, the middle, and the ending of the similar Pauline catalogue 1 Cor 6:9-10. 230 The motif of public acknowledgment and confession of previously committed sins is also characteristically Pauline (1 Cor 15:8-9; Gal 1:13; Phlp 3:6: ἁμαρτωλός; cf. the application of this motif to Peter in Lk 5:8 and to the Galilean woman in Lk 7:37.39). The concluding saying Lk 18:14b, which refers in the context of the story Lk 18:9-14 to humbling and exalting oneself not only before God but also before fellow believers (cf. also Lk 14:11), is a Lukan reworking of the typically Pauline idea expressed in 2 Cor 11:7; Phlp 2:5.8-9. The narrative thread of the parable (Lk 18:10-11) is based on the Markan motif of indignation of the Pharisees against tax collectors (Mk 2:16). Luke 227 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 141-142. 228 Cf. ibid. 142-143. 229 Cf. ibid. 143. 230 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Luke, [vol. 1,] 136.

379

applied in Lk 18:9-14 much of his favourite vocabulary (ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, ὁ εἷς – ὁ ἕτερος, σταθείς, ἀποδεκατόω, κτάομαι, ἑστώς, ἐπαίρω τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, τύπτω τὸ στῆθος). 231 The section Lk 18:1-14 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of the Pauline text Rom 15:30-31a with the use of numerous motifs that have been borrowed from the Pauline letters (e.g. Rom 2:13.19; 12:19; 14:3.10; 16:20; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 9:27; 15:8-9; 16:11; 2 Cor 10:7.10; 11:7; Gal 1:13; 3:11; 4:14; 6:17; Phlp 2:5.8-9; 3:3-4.6) and from the Gospel of Mark (Mk 2:16; 11:13. 22). No non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. L) may be detected behind this Lukan text. Lk 18:15-43 The section Lk 18:15-43 is an evident Lukan reworking of the corresponding Markan section Mk 10:13-52. However, these two texts are not identical. Apart from several minor redactional modifications, there are some Lukan alterations of the Markan text that reshaped it into an extensive allusion to the encounter of Paul with the Jerusalem Christian “saints” that was referred to in Rom 15:31b. In the first pericope of the section (Lk 18:15-17), Luke changed the Markan reference to children (παιδία: Mk 10:13) to the one concerning newborn infants (βρέφη: Lk 18:15, but cf. 18:16-17). The metaphor of recently born babies was used by Paul to refer to his Gentile converts (cf. e.g. 1 Thes 2:7; 1 Cor 3:1; Phlm 10). According to Lk 18:16-17 diff. Mk 10:14-16, Jesus did not come into direct contact with the infants but, somewhat surprisingly, he called them to himself. Accordingly, the pericope Lk 18:15-17 alludes to Paul’s presentation of the results of his missionary activity among the Gentiles to the Jerusalem Christian authorities (cf. Acts 21:19-25). It may allude in particular to the person of Titus as a visible proof of God’s blessing for Paul’s way of preaching the kingdom of God (cf. Gal 2:1.3). In the second pericope (Lk 18:18-30), the Markan “someone” has been changed by Luke to “a certain ruler/leader” (ἄρχων: Lk 18:18 diff. Mk 10:17). The change is significant because in Lk 14:1 the noun ἄρχων described a leader of the Pharisees who alluded to James as one of the leaders of the Jewish Christian Church. A similar feature may be detected also in Lk 19:2, where the paradigmatic character of Zacchaeus, which alludes to a Gentile Christian leader, is 231 It is worth noting that, in difference to Mark, Luke presented the Jerusalem Temple as a house of prayer that is reserved only for the Jews (cf. Lk 19:46 diff. Mk 11:17; Acts 21:28-29). For the halachic (probably initially Pharisaic-like) background of this idea, see the argument of those who “separated [pāraš] from the majority of the people” (cf. 4Q397 14_21 7 [4QMMT C 7]): 4Q394 8iii 9-16 [4QMMT B 39-46]. Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘The Hasmonean Temple’, 141.

380

referred to as ἀρχιτελώνης. Accordingly, in Lk 18:18-30, in difference to Mk 10:17-31, the discussion concerning self-denial and poverty for the sake of Jesus does not refer simply to everyone but particularly to the leaders of the Church. Luke presented in the pericope Lk 18:18-30 first the ideal of righteousness of the law-abiding character of James (Lk 18:18-21) as confronted (Lk 18:24 diff. Mk 10:23) with Paul’s ideal of leaving everything (πάντα: Lk 18:22 diff. Mk 10:21) for the sake of Jesus (Lk 18:22-27). Then, in the discussion concerning the conditions of Peter’s following Jesus (Lk 18:28-30), Luke replaced the Markan πάντα (Mk 10:28) with the vaguer τὰ ἴδια (Lk 18:28). The evangelist alluded thereby to the fact that Cephas left something but not everything for the sake of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor 9:14). Moreover, in Lk 18:29 diff. Mk 10:29, Luke inserted the summons to leave even one’s wife. The evangelist alluded thereby to another Pauline standard that was apparently not met by Cephas (1 Cor 9:5). The Lukan promise of compensatory receiving other goods in the Church in this life (Lk 18:30a diff. Mk 10:30a) is much vaguer than the corresponding Markan declaration. The rhetorical gradatio that has been composed in such a way in Lk 18:18-30 (James < Peter < Paul), replacing the Markan vaguer rule Mk 10:31, foreshadows the conclusion of the entire ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 19:11-28; cf. Acts 1-12; 13-28). The third Markan prediction of the passion and the resurrection (Mk 10:3234) has been reworked by Luke in a particular pro-Pauline way in Lk 18:31-34. The Markan phrase εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (Mk 10:32-33) has been replaced by Luke in Lk 18:31 with the phrase εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ, which has been borrowed from Rom 15:31b. The Lukan text Lk 18:32 diff. Mk 10:33 predicts that the Son of Man will be handed over exclusively to the Gentiles, just as, according to Acts, Paul the Apostle was (Acts 21:11.13). Moreover, the Lukan Son of Man will be previously insulted by the Gentiles (ὑβρίζω: Lk 18:32 diff. Mk 10:34), which is a feature that referred particularly to Paul (cf. 1 Thes 2:2). In Lk 18:33 Luke corrected Mk 10:34 in agreement with the Pauline statement 1 Cor 15:4 (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ; cf. also πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα in Lk 18:31d). The concluding remark Lk 18:34 is based on Mk 9:32 (τὸ ῥῆμα), which has been elaborated with the use of the vocabulary that expressed the peculiarly Pauline understanding of the cross, which was different from all other ideas thereof (*συνίημι, *κρύπτω, γίνωσκω: 1 Cor 1:19; 2:7-8). Luke omitted the Markan pericope that described the rivalry among the Twelve over being the first, distinguished, ruling, and great in Jesus’ kingdom (Mk 10:35-45) as not suiting his elaborate allusion to the dispute between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders, which underlies Luke’s redactional ideas in the section Lk 18:15-43. Luke used fragments of this Markan pericope elsewhere (Mk 10:35-37.41-45 in Lk 22:24-27; Mk 10:38-39 in Lk 12:50). The key Markan statement Mk 10:40 has been reworked extensively by Luke in the last pericope of his ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 19:11-28). 381

The Markan account of the healing of the blind man at Jericho (Mk 10:4652) has been redactionally modified by Luke in Lk 18:35-43 in order to illustrate the evangelist’s view on the possibility of reconciliation between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The healing of the blind man has been located by Luke in Lk 18:35, in difference to Mk 10:46, on the way to and not from the non-Jewish (from the scriptural point of view) city of Jericho, which most probably alludes to the Gentile city of Rome (cf. Acts 28:14-15). The blind man’s indirect question τί εἴη τοῦτο (Lk 18:36) alludes in Lk 15:26 to Jewish Christian doubts over the legitimacy of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles (cf. also Acts 10:17). As a response to these doubts, Luke paradigmatically depicted in Lk 18:37-43 the necessary for the (Roman) Jewish Christians passage from the Christology expressed in characteristically Jewish titles of Ναζωραῖος (Lk 18:37 diff. Mk 10:47) 232 and Son of David (Lk 18:38-39; cf. Rom 1:3) to the Pauline confession of Jesus as the Lord saving through faith (κύριος: Lk 18:41 diff. Mk 10:51; cf. Rom 10:9; Mk 5:19; 7:28), with all its halachic consequences (cf. e.g. Rom 14:14). Accordingly, Jewish Christians have been called on to glorify and praise God along with the Gentiles (λαός, δοξάζω τὸν θεόν, *αἰν: Lk 18:43 cf. Rom 15:6.9-11.31b; Acts 21:20). The whole section Lk 18:15-43 is therefore a Lukan narrative explanation of the Pauline text Rom 15:31b by means of redactional reworking of the Markan pericopes Mk 10:13-34.46-52, with the use of other motifs that have been borrowed from the Pauline letters (Rom 10:9; 14:14; 15:6.9-11; 1 Cor 1:19; 2:78; 9:5.14; 15:4; 1 Thes 2:2) and from the Gospel of Mark (Mk 9:32). No nonPauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources may be traced behind this Lukan text. Lk 19:1-10 The section Lk 19:1-10, which is composed with the use of Lukan favourite vocabulary (σπεύδω, ὑποδέχομαι, διαγογγύζω, σταθείς, συκοφαντέω, καθότι, τὸ ἀπολωλός), begins with a surprising introductory statement εἰσελθὼν διήρχετο (Lk 19:1). While the first verb of this statement is a modified version of the one 232 It should be noted that Luke used the form Ναζαρηνός only in Lk 4:34, where it had been in fact borrowed from Mk 1:24, and in Lk 24:19, which alludes to Paul and to his Gentile mission. All Lukan passages in which the form Ναζωραῖος has been used have a distinctive Jewish Christian narrative setting. The Lukan form Ναζωραῖος was therefore probably intended to evoke associations with the word ναζιραίος (cf. e.g. Judg 13:5 LXX; cf. also Acts 18:18; 21:23-24.26), and consequently to replace the reference to the virtually unknown (and different from Bethlehem) Jesus’ hometown with a more noble, Septuagint-based title (cf. also, aiming at this direction, Ναζαρά in Lk 4:16 par., diff. e.g. Lk 2:51).

382

used in Mk 10:46a, the second verb form (διήρχετο: cf. also Lk 19:4) was used earlier in Lk 17:11, which alluded to Paul’s planned passing through the city of Rome on his way to Spain (cf. Rom 15:24b.28c). Accordingly, having reworked the Pauline text Rom 15:31b in the section Lk 18:15-43, Luke evidently alluded in Lk 19:1-10 to the subsequent Pauline fragment Rom 15:32-16:5a, which had been intended to prepare Paul’s planned ‘passing’ stop in Rome among his Gentile Christian followers. The section Lk 19:1-10 is therefore a Roman Gentile Christian counterpart233 to the preceding pericope Lk 18:35-43, which alluded to the Roman Jewish Christians. In the first part of the pericope (Lk 19:1-6), Luke used the key terms of the Pauline text Rom 15:32-16:5a (ἔρχομαι, οἶκος diff. Lk 9:4; 10:7 par. Mk 9:4, *δέχομαι, χαίρω/χαρά; μένω: cf. Acts 28:16 referring to Paul’s dwelling in Rome). The name Zacchaeus (Ζακχαῖος: Lk 19:2.5.8) has been most probably borrowed by Luke from Jos. Vita 239, where a rebellion leader named Σακχαῖος was presented as Josephus’ only ally in a town that was generally hostile to him. Luke most probably corrected the name form Σακχαῖος to Ζακχαῖος in agreement with 2 Macc 10:19-21, which referred to Zacchaeus as an important but presumably corrupt military general. The Lukan neologism ἀρχιτελώνης, in correspondence with Luke’s allusive use of the noun ἄρχων to describe Church leaders (cf. Lk 14:1; 18:18) and his use of the noun τελώνης as referring to the mission among the Gentiles (cf. Lk 15:1; 18:10-13), alludes to a leader of the Gentile Church. Judging from the context, the character of Zacchaeus alludes to a leader of the Gentile Church in the city of Rome. The text Rom 15:32-16:5a, viewed as the hypotext for Lk 19:1-10, refers to only one person who might serve as a prototype of the corresponding Lukan paradigmatic character of Zacchaeus. It was Aquila who, according to Rom 16:5a, was the only one person who opened his house (οἶκος) to host the Gentile Christian community in the capital of the empire. His function as Paul’s representative and maybe also intended successor in Rome has been alluded to by Luke with the use of the motif of Zacchaeus’ desire to see Jesus (ἰδεῖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν: Lk 19:3), which in the Pauline letters referred to the apostolic authority as based on seeing Jesus (cf. 1 Cor 9:1).234 The motif of Zacchaeus’ running ahead 233 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.37.1 (SC 456, 456). 234 The somewhat strange motif of Zacchaeus’ not being able (δύναμαι) to see Jesus because of his small age/maturity/stature (Lk 19:3c) might be a narrative reworking of Rom 16:25-27, which is placed in p46 after Rom 15:33. The textual support for this hypothesis is, however, very weak. Rom 16:25-27 is much more triumphalistic in its vision of the successful mission to the Gentiles than e.g. Rom 1:5-6.11; 15:4-19; 16:4 (and consequently also Lk 19:1-10) or even Eph 3:2-10. It resembles rather the world view of Tit 1:2-3. Accordingly, Luke most probably did not know Rom 16:25-27.

383

(ἔμπροσθεν) and climbing up a fig-mulberry tree (Lk 19:4), and not, for example, upon a roof of a house, is most probably based on Phlp 3:13-14, which has been reworked by Luke in order to create a pun on the Latin-Roman name of Aquila (‘eagle’). The motif of controversy over Jesus’ eating with the sinner (ἁμαρτωλός) has been borrowed by Luke from Mk 2:15-17 235 and reworked in such a way that it might describe hostility against Zacchaeus on the part of Jesus’ Jewish ‘righteous’ followers (Lk 19:7 diff. Mk 2:16; Lk 15:2). The requirements of the Kingdom that were approved for Zacchaeus in Lk 19:8-9 differ significantly from those imposed on Paul and on the Jewish Christian leaders in Lk 18:18-30. Zacchaeus wanted to see Jesus, just as earlier Paul did (Lk 19:3-4). He indirectly confessed Jesus as the Lord (Lk 19:8). He fulfilled the requirements of social solidarity (which were set out earlier in Lk 3:10-14) and of due restitution 236 in agreement with Paul’s idea of the Gentiles’ fulfilling all possible indebtedness that might result from the law through their repaying with justice and with love of the neighbour (ἀποδίδωμι, τέλος/τελέω: Rom 13:7-8). Zacchaeus was not ordered, however, to sell everything and to live in poverty for the sake of Jesus. His most important task in the Church consisted rather in being a host for Jesus and, allusively, for the Gentile Christian community (Lk 19:5-6.9; cf. Rom 16:2-5a). The motif of Jesus’ declaration concerning salvation (σωτηρία) that came to Zacchaeus’ house immediately after his public confession of Jesus as the Lord that was accompanied by a sincere conversion of his heart (Lk 19:8-9b) is based on the Pauline text Rom 10:9-10. Accordingly, the narrative declaration: “Also he is a son of Abraham” (Lk 19:9c) is based on Zacchaeus’ righteousness that resulted from faith and that was confirmed in public confession (cf. Rom 10:10), and not on his ethnic identity. 237 Together with the character of the “daughter of Abraham” (which was introduced into the ‘travel narrative’ by the end of the 235 Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Komposition’, 114; R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 55. 236 Cf. Josephus’ interpretation of the punishment of the Jewish law for theft in Jos. Ant. 16.3; cf. also the Roman punishment for metus [duress] as discussed by Julian and Marcellus quoted by Ulpian in Digesta 4.2.9.5-8. 237 The statement: “Also he is a son of Abraham” (Lk 19:9c) implies that Zacchaeus functions in the Lukan narrative as a paradigmatic example of a Gentile Christian. It should be noted that (a) Aquila and his wife’s Latin names, (b) Aquila’s being related to the Churches of the Gentiles in Rom 16:4b, and (c) the absence of any reference to Aquila and his wife’s Jewish identity in 1 Cor 16:19 and Rom 16:3-5a (cf. also 2 Tim 4:19; diff. συγγενεῖς in Rom 16:7.11.21) calls into question the reliability of Aquila’s identification as a Jew in Acts 18:2. In fact, this later identification served Luke to demonstrate that also in Corinth Paul began his preaching from the Jews (Acts 18:2-6 diff. 1 Cor 1:16; 16:15-17).

384

first part of it, namely in Lk 13:16), the character of Zacchaeus, referred to as a Gentile “son of Abraham” who was saved on the basis of his faith in Jesus and of his conversion (who was introduced by the end of the entire Lukan ‘travel narrative’, namely in Lk 19:9), forms a narrative illustration of one of the fundamental ideas of the Pauline theology (Rom 4:16). 238 The concluding statement Lk 19:10 is based on 1 Cor 10:33 (ζητέω, σῴζω), which has been rephrased with the use of Mk 10:45 (ἦλθεν… ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου + double aor. inf.). 239 The section Lk 19:1-10 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of the Pauline text Rom 15:32-16:5a with the use of literary motifs that have been borrowed from the Pauline letters (Rom 4:16; 10:9-10; 13:7-8; 15:24b.28c; 1 Cor 9:1; 10:33; Phlp 3:13-14), the Gospel of Mark (Mk 2:15-17; 10:45-46a), the Scriptures, and Josephus’ works (Ant. 16.3; Vita 239). No non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. L) may be detected behind the text of this Lukan section. Lk 19:11-28 The last section of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 19:11-28) alludes to the last fragment of the Letter to the Romans (Rom 15:6-23). Luke borrowed from this Pauline text some of its key terms (δοῦλος/δουλεύω, ἀγαθός, πόλις) and motifs (victory over Satan soon, a considerable number of narrative characters involved, working hard for the Lord, being outstanding among the apostles, being approved by a test, sedition, laziness, flattery, destruction of evil). The initial statement Lk 19:11 provides the spatial and thematic setting for the main and secondary threads of the parable Lk 19:11-28. In difference to Mk 10:46.52, Luke situated the event described in the pericope Lk 19:11-28 within the city of Jericho (cf. προσθείς that connects Lk 19:11-28 to the preceding pericope Lk 19:1-10). 240 The evangelist maintained the allusive reference of Jericho to the city of Rome and adding a reference to Jericho as Archelaus’ informal capital in Judaea (Jos. B.J. 2.3). The noun βασιλεία in Lk 19:11 introduces the main theme of both narrative threads of the pericope, namely contrasting ways of realization of the kingdom of God in this world. The main narrative thread of the parable (Lk 19:12-13.15-26) is based on the Markan text Mk 13:34-36 (ἄνθρωπος, δοῦλος, δίδωμι, ἐξουσία, κύριος). At 238 Cf. Beda Venerabilis, In Luc. Exp. 5.1598-1612 (CChr.SL 120, 335-336); F. J. Matera, ‘Jesus’ Journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9.51-19.46): A Conflict with Israel’, JSNT 51 (1993) 57-77 (esp. 74 n. 35). 239 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 55, 435. 240 Cf. J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 1997), 677.

385

the same time, the Markan word ἀπόδημος (Mk 13:34) has been replaced by Luke with the phrase εἰς χώραν μακράν (Lk 19:12). 241 On the basis of this Markan text, Luke created the image of a man who travelled to a distant country in order to obtain for himself kingship (βασιλεία) and then return (Lk 19:12). The evangelist suggests that he succeeded in his plan (Lk 19:15). This simple statement is quite surprising on the most obvious allusive level of meaning of the parable because Archelaus, who is clearly alluded to in Lk 19:14 (*μισ, πρεσβεία: cf. Jos. Ant. 17.300, 302, 313), received in Rome the title of ethnarch (Jos. B.J. 2.93; Ant. 17.317) and not that of king. Moreover, the particular ending of the sedition against of the king (i.e. Archelaus), as alluded to in Lk 19:27, also does not correspond to Josephus’ accounts (B.J. 2.64; Ant. 17.284, 339). 242 The main narrative thread of the parable (Lk 19:12-13.15-26) has therefore evidently yet another allusive referent. It was in fact Paul the Apostle 243 who planned to go from Rome to the “distant country” of Spain in order to complete his preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles in the whole world (Rom 15:19b-24; cf. 1 Clem. 5:7) and in such a way to bring about the kingdom of God (cf. 1 Thes 2:12; Rom 11:25). Paul appointed in Rome and in other cities his representatives with the task of working hard for the Lord (cf. Rom 16:3.6.9.12). Some of them were more outstanding (cf. Rom 16:7) in their apostolic work, and consequently they were rewarded with the rule over the Churches in several cities (πόλις: cf. Rom 16:23). From among them, Timothy turned out to be especially prominent in his faithful service (δοῦλος, δουλεύω: Phlp 1:1; 2:22; cf. Phlm 1; πιστός: 1 Cor 4:17), and consequently he was appointed to be Paul’s main successor who exercised authority over the network of the Pauline Gentile Churches at large (Phlp 2:19-23; cf. 1 Cor 16:10). 244 241 Cf. R. von Bendemann, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ, 55 n. 22. 242 This fact has been overlooked, alas, by B. Schultz, ‘Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27)’, NovT 49 (2007) 105-127 (esp. 109, 116). 243 The somewhat strange characterization of the main character of the parable as εὐγενής (Lk 19:12) may allude to Paul’s self-description in Phlp 3:5, which has been reworked in Acts 22:25-29 as referring to Paul’s Roman citizenship, and consequently as the reason of Paul’s travel to Rome as a prisoner (Acts 25:10-12). 244 Detlev Dormeyer argues that according to Acts it was Paul who had founded Christian communities in ten cities (Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Perga; Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroia, Corinth, Ephesus), and Peter in five (Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea): D. Dormeyer, ‘Lc 19,11-27: La parábola de las minas en el marco de las biografías didácticas de Pedro el pobre y Pablo el rico en los Hechos de los Apóstoles’, in Riqueza y solidaridad en la obra de Lucas, ed. M. Grilli, D. L. Gándara, and C. Langner (Evangelio y Cultura: Monografías 3; Verbo Divino: Estella (Navarra) 2006), 243-262 (esp. 260).

386

On the other hand, the Roman Church leadership (cf. the use of the very rare, if not coined by Luke, Latin-Greek word σουδάριον in Lk 19:20) did not meet the Lord’s and Paul’s standards of involvement in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles (τίθημι, σπείρω, θερίζω: Lk 19:21-22; cf. 1 Cor 3:10-11; 9:11; cf. οὐ δουλεύουσιν: Rom 16:18, reworked with the characteristic Lukan shift of the burden of guilt in Acts 28:24-25a). 245 The particular punishment described in Lk 19:24 and justified in Lk 19:26 with the use of the Markan text Mk 4:25 (δοθήσεται, ἀπό, καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται) suggests that Luke believed that Timothy had been charged by Paul with responsibility for the Gentile Churches not only in Achaia, Macedonia, and Asia, but also in Rome (cf. 2 Tim 4:9-21, reworked in Acts 28:25b-28). The secondary thread of the parable (Lk 19:14.27) alludes to Paul’s Jewish Christian opponents who sent envoys after him (Rom 16:17-18; πλήν: Phlp 1:17-18; cf. Phlp 3:2.18-19; 1 Clem. 5:5; the motif has been reworked in a particular way in Acts 28:21-22). The extraordinary cruel way of punishing the Jewish opponents (Lk 19:27 diff. e.g. the vaguer Mk 12:9) most probably alludes to the persecution of the presumably mostly Jewish Christians in Rome in AD 64 (cf. 1 Clem. 6:1; Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; Suetonius, Nero 16.2) or to the slaughter of the Jews (presumably including also many nationalist Jewish Christians: cf. Lk 19:11) during the Jewish–Roman war in AD 66-70 (κατασφάζω: cf. Jos. B.J. 7.267). The conclusion of the section (Lk 19:28), 246 which is based on Mk 10:32ab; 11:1a (εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα), presents Jesus as courageously going ahead (ἔμπροσθεν) and upward (*ἀνα) to meet his final destiny in Jerusalem (Lk 19:28). Such a picture, which on the purely literal level of the Lukan narrative is evidently contrary to the wish expressed earlier in Lk 19:5 (cf. the narrative connection in Lk 19:11ab), 247 most probably alludes to Paul’s presentation of the presumably last stage of his missionary activity in Phlp 3:13-14, 248 namely as directed ahead and upward to God who called him in Christ (cf. also 1 Clem. 5:5.7).

245 It should be noted that the statement Lk 19:23 par., if taken merely in its literal sense, surprisingly blames the slave for his not having violated the Jewish law (τόκος: cf. e.g. Exod 22:24[25]). 246 For a survey of the arguments for regarding Lk 19:28 as the conclusion of the section Lk 19:11-28 and consequently of the whole Lukan ‘travel narrative’, see F. Noël, Travel Narrative, 283-328. 247 Cf. M.-J. Lagrange, Luc (7th edn., Gabalda: Paris 1948), 497. 248 As noted above, in the course of the analysis of the section Lk 16:19-31, Luke most probably regarded Phlp as Paul’s last letter that had been written from a prison in Rome (cf. Phlp 4:22).

387

The section Lk 19:11-28 has been therefore composed by Luke on the basis of the Pauline text Rom 16:6-23 with the use of motifs that have been borrowed from the Letter to the Philippians (Phlp 1:1.17-18; 2:19-23; 3:2.13-14.18-19) and other Pauline letters (Rom 11:25; 15:19b-24; 1 Cor 3:10-11; 4:17; 9:11; 1 Thes 2:12), the Gospel of Mark (Mk 4:25; 10:32ab; 11:1a; 13:34-36), and Josephus’ works (B.J. 2.3; 7.267; Ant. 17.300, 302, 313). The hypotheses of Mark’s use of the text of Lk 19:11-28 and of Lukan dependence on some nonPauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q, L, or Mt) have to be rejected. Conclusion The third section of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 17:11-19:28) has been composed by Luke as a narrative, allusive exposition of the Pauline text Rom 15:28c-16:23. Luke used in his hypertextual work numerous literary motifs that he had borrowed from the Pauline letters (Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Phlp, 1 Thes, maybe also Phlm), the Gospel of Mark, the sacred Scriptures of Israel (2 Kgs, Psalms: in the version of the Septuagint), and Josephus’ works (Bellum, Antiquitates, and Vita). It has been demonstrated that Luke used in Lk 17:11-19:28 neither hypothetical non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Q or L) nor Mt. The hypotheses of Luke’s dependence solely on oral traditions and of Mark’s use of Lk have been also proved false. 4.3.4 Conclusions The Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28), which at first sight may seem a random collection of sayings and stories, on detailed investigation turns out to be a thoroughly planned literary composition. It has been devised by Luke as a systematic, continuous, allusive presentation of the person and missionary activity of Paul the Apostle on the basis of his own letters. Two of the Pauline letters, namely Gal and Rom, have been treated by Luke as his main structuring hypotexts in Lk 9:51-16:17 and Lk 16:18-19:28 respectively. The tripartite structure of the ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-13:21; 13:22-17:10; 17:11-19:28) illustrates the three main stages of Paul’s missionary activity as they were presented by Luke: (a) from the call of the Apostle (which was preceded by the call of those who became apostles before him) to the Jerusalem meeting with the ‘pillars’, (b) from the Antiochene crisis to the decision to go to Jerusalem with the collection for the ‘saints’, and (c) from the travel to Jerusalem to the imprisonment in Rome. In order to explain in his own way the controversial issues that characterized Paul’s missionary practice and theology, as they had been described by the 388

Apostle in Gal and Rom, Luke composed a continuous narrative in which the Pauline expressions, statements, ideas, etc. that were contained in these two letters have been sequentially reworked by the evangelist into paradigmatic stories and discourses presented as characterizing Jesus’ person and life. In the process of the composition of these stories and discourses, Luke sequentially used particular literary motifs of nearly all consecutive fragments of his main Pauline hypotexts (i.e. Gal and Rom). The evangelist conflated these structuring motifs with numerous other literary motifs that had been borrowed from the sacred Scriptures of Israel (all in the version of the Septuagint), the Pauline letters (Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Phlp, 1 Thes, and maybe also Phlm), the Gospel of Mark (including the so-called ‘little omission’ and ‘great omission’), as well as other literary works: the Apocalypse of Weeks, the Pharisaic-like Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (the so-called ‘Damascus Document’), the works of Josephus (Bellum, Antiquitates, and Vita), and that of Herodotus (Historiae). Luke inserted the ‘travel narrative’, which had been composed in such a particular way, into the basic framework of the Gospel of Mark after the pericope Lk 9:49-50 (cf. Mk 9:38-40), 249 which apparently alluded in Mk to the person and mission of Paul the Apostle who faced authoritative opposition against his activity from John as a representative of the Twelve. The ‘travel narrative’ presents a particular Lukan apology of Paul, which is on the one hand highly allusive and on the other hand much more siding with the Apostle of the Nations than the later conciliatory narrative of Acts. Luke’s criticisms that have been levelled in Lk against the Jerusalem Church authorities (especially against the entourage of James) for their hindering Paul’s mission among the Gentiles are at times even harsher than the Pauline ones. The insertion of the ‘travel narrative’ into the framework of the paraMarkan Lukan Gospel suggests that Lk was first designed as a self-standing work, which was intended to resemble to some extent Mk in its literary way of dealing with the still acute problems of the early Church. Acts cannot be therefore regarded as one of the sources for the Lukan ‘travel narrative’. This work presents rather another, later Luke’s attempt (cf. Acts 1:1) to cope with the problems of the early Church by means of an apparently ‘historical’ narrative. Luke constantly applied in the ‘travel narrative’ his favourite procedure (which was further developed in Acts) of alluding to the persons and events that had shaped the history of early Christianity by means of narrative characters and literary motifs that had been borrowed from various literary sources. Paul’s life 249 It is worth noting that the procedure of inserting later texts into the literary framework of older ones was widely used in the sacred Scriptures of Israel, in which various traditions that thematically commented one another were often placed together, side by side, by the scriptural redactors.

389

and distinctive ideas, which had been described by the Apostle himself in Gal and Rom, were consistently alluded to by Luke by means of the narrative character of Jesus. Having introduced a reference to Jesus’ ascension at the very beginning of the ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51a), Luke created a narrative situation in which the clearly post-ascension missionary activity of the Apostle, who was presented as the closest spiritual successor to the Lord, could be ‘inserted’ into the life of Jesus himself. 250 Luke presented in narrative categories the life of Paul as—in agreement with Paul’s own self-understanding—living in Christ: from the particular call of the Apostle in Christ; through his apostolic preaching, struggling, and suffering for Christ; to his being carried away from this life like Christ to live in communion with Abraham (Lk 16:20-22; cf. 24:51; 1 Clem. 5:7). On the other hand, the narrative characters of various Jesus’ opponents (e.g. the Pharisees and the “experts in the law”), as well as numerous secondary characters (e.g. the rich ones) that appear in Jesus’ parables and discourses contained in the ‘travel narrative’, generally allude to various historical opponents of the Apostle of the Nations. On the basis of the above-summarized intertextual considerations and the application of the linguistic criterion of the constant use of favourite Lukan and non-Matthean vocabulary in the entire ‘travel narrative’, it has been demonstrated that the hypotheses of (a) Mark’s use of the text of Lk 9:51-19:28, (b) Luke’s use of some non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Mt or hypothetical sources like Q, L, Proto-Lk, protogospel, Proto-Mk, and Deutero-Mk), and (c) Luke’s dependence solely on oral traditions have to be rejected.

4.4 Conclusions The detailed analysis of three large fragments of the Gospel of Luke (Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28) demonstrated that these parts of Lk, which are to a great extent not paralleled directly in Mk, are in fact three instances of Luke’s creative reworking of his sources that included the sacred Scriptures of Israel, the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Mark, Josephus’ works, and other widely known Jewish and Hellenistic literary works like the Apocalypse of Weeks, the Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (the so-called ‘Damascus Document’), and Herodotus’ Historiae. From among numerous Lukan sources, the letters of Paul the Apostle and the Gospel of Mark functioned as the main sources for Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 250 Cf. G. Volkmar, Evangelien, 470-471, 481; H. J. Cadbury, Making, 231-232.

390

9:51-19:28. Luke used them as structuring hypotexts for large parts of his narrative: Mk 1:2-13 for Lk 3:1-4:13, Mk 3:20-30 for Lk 6:20-8:3, and Gal followed by Rom for Lk 9:51-19:28. In all these sections of his work (Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:208:3; 9:51-19:28; cf. also e.g. Lk 24:7-53), Luke elaborated to a considerable extent the Markan gospel narrative with the use of discourses, sayings, and stories that presented Luke’s own understanding of Christianity as they had been proclaimed and revealed in the most remarkable way by Paul the Apostle. Luke’s redactional use of Mk varied greatly in Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:5119:28. In the first analysed fragment (Lk 3:1-4:13), the narrative framework and the particular formulations of Mk 1:2-13 are clearly discernible behind its Lukan redactional reworkings and expansions. In the second fragment (Lk 6:20-8:3), the Markan text Mk 3:20-30 functioned as a structuring hypotext that gave a basic thematic arrangement to the corresponding Lukan textual unit Lk 6:20-8:3. In the so-called Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28), Mk was only exceptionally treated as a structuring hypotext that was reworked pericope after pericope (cf. Mk 10:13-34.46-52 in Lk 18:15-43); it served rather as a source of literary motifs that were used by Luke to illustrate and justify his particular allusive presentation of the missionary activity of Paul the Apostle. It is worth noting that Luke evidently knew and used the entire text of Mk, including the so-called ‘great omission’ (Mk 6:45-8:26). Some fragments of Mk were used redactionally by Luke more than once. More often, however, Luke conflated several Markan texts in a given pericope of his own work. This particular Lukan procedure of conflating several Markan texts in one pericope, as well as the phenomenon of quite evident Lukan modifications of the Markan text as it is critically reconstructed on the basis of the manuscript data, renders totally implausible the hypotheses of (a) Markan dependence on Lk, (b) Markan and Lukan common dependence on a hypothetical Proto-Lk or on another hypothetical protogospel, (c) Lukan dependence on a hypothetical Proto-Mk or Deutero-Mk, (d) Lukan dependence solely on oral traditions, and (e) Lukan dependence on numerous hypothetical non-Markan sources. The Lukan use of Mk that was regarded as not only illustrating but also justifying particular controversial features of Paul’s theology suggests that at the time of the writing of Lk, the Markan work must have already enjoyed, at least among the intended readers of Lk, considerable normative status, which was comparable to some extent to that of the sacred Scriptures of Israel. On the other hand, however, Luke evidently regarded Mk as an imperfect attempt to present the history of Jesus and of his Church (cf. Lk 1:1). Consequently, in Luke’s eyes, Mk needed much correction, explanation, and expansion. The particular Lukan way of such redactional modification of Mk may be often observed in the fragments of Lk that are closely corresponding to their Markan counterparts (i.e. in the Lukan ‘parallels’ to Mk). Luke’s redactional aims and procedures that are traceable in these fragments often give important clues to understanding the pe391

culiar for Luke modifications of the Markan texts (and not vice versa) also in the fragments in which the Markan texts have been reworked by Luke more extensively, especially in the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28). The letters of Paul the Apostle constituted the other main source for Lk 3:14:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28. It has been demonstrated that Luke knew and extensively used Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Phlp, 1 Thes, and maybe also Phlm. Luke was well acquainted not only with general contents of these letters but also with their detailed wording and literary structure. He used Gal, Rom, and to a lesser extent also Phlp, following the internal order of their respective contents (cf. καθεξῆς: Lk 1:3), as his main sources for the history of the Pauline mission that he wanted to describe allusively in his ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28; cf. παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς: Lk 1:3). Luke resolved to use hypertextually the Pauline letters in this particular order (Gal, Rom, and Phlp) probably on the basis of a thematic collation of their respective contents. Apart from these letters, which have been used together by Luke as a continuous structuring hypotext for his ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28), numerous other literary motifs borrowed from all letters of Paul the Apostle have been used, reworked, and alluded to at various points of the Lukan work. The concentration of Luke’s interest in the autobiographical-personal sections of Gal and Rom (Gal 1:1-2:17 in Lk 9:51-14:24; Rom 15:17-16:23 in Lk 17:7-19:28), which refer, above all, to Paul’s strained and painful relationships with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’, suggests that Luke may have treated these sections of the Pauline letters as belonging to the early “accounts” (διηγήσεις: Lk 1:1; cf. Lk 9:10; Acts 9:27; 12:17) 251 of events that had taken place among the believers (ἐν ἡμῖν: Lk 1:1). These events shaped the history of not so much the earthly Jesus as of Christ’s and the apostles’ Church. Luke presented these events anew (following in his design and his method the work of Mark), in such a way that they might conclusively prove the legitimacy of the Pauline teachings that had been received by the intended reader(s) of the Lukan Gospel (ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν: Lk 1:4). In general, Luke’s use of the Pauline letters was much more allusive than that of Mk. It resembled rather Luke’s allusive use of the Scriptures. This particular feature most probably resulted from the fact that the legitimacy of the Pauline mission among the Gentiles was still challenged at the time of the writing of the Lukan Gospel (cf. Lk 1:4). Accordingly, Luke resolved to explain and justify the ideas expressed in the Pauline letters by reformulating them into a continuous para-Markan narrative about Jesus, which has been composed in the form of a series of paradigmatic stories and sayings that were based on the sa251 On the other hand, it is also quite probable that Luke referred to several earlier “accounts” (διηγήσεις: Lk 1:1) simply in order to allude to Jos. B.J. 1.1 (διηγήματα).

392

cred Scriptures of Israel and on Mk, and that were intended to illustrate and corroborate particular Pauline ideas. The presence of numerous allusions to the Pauline letters in the Lukan texts Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28 has been proved with the use of several correlated criteria. First (density of correspondences), it has been demonstrated that there are many linguistic and thematic correspondences between various fragments of the Pauline letters and Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28, which are numerous enough and close enough to lead to the inevitable conclusion that Luke must have known and used the letters of Paul the Apostle (obviously not vice versa). Second (order of correspondences), the order of these thematic and at times also linguistic correspondences reveals that the apparently chaotic structure of the Lukan ‘travel narrative’ reflects in reality the particular order of material in Paul’s letters that were treated by Luke as structuring hypotexts for his own work (Gal and Rom). Third (evident non-literality), numerous strange, surprising, and apparently redundant or self-contradictory Lukan expressions that are difficult to explain on the purely literal level of meaning of Lk allude in reality to the Pauline referents of the apparently purely historical Lukan narrative. Fourth (evident symbolism), several numerals that have been used by Luke in his paradigmatic stories (e.g. five) convey evident allusive meaning, which is adequately explicable as referring to the themes of the structurally corresponding sections of the Pauline letters. Fifth (evidence of borrowing), some structural patterns that are not characteristic of Lk but that have been, nevertheless, used by the evangelist (e.g. the tripartite pattern) betray Luke’s indebtedness to preLukan texts. Sixth (explanatory capability), many traditional cruces of Lk are quite easily explicable on the assumption that Luke used and systematically reworked a collection of Paul’s letters. Seventh (falsifiability of interpretation), the allusions in Lk refer to only some of the letters that belong to the Corpus Paulinum, which proves that the intertextual correspondences have been devised in the mind of Luke and not in that of the modern commentator of his work. 252 252 For the first, second, fifth, and sixth criteria for ascertaining literary dependence of a given text on an antetext, see D. R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale University: New Haven · London 2000), 8-9; id., ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice, ed. T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 211-225 (esp. 212); T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter, ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method’, 293-294. The third and fourth criteria may be regarded as secondary inasmuch as they refer to the presence of features of the text that are somehow surprising but that might be attributed also to the author’s carelessness, repetitiveness, etc., or to sheer chance; these two criteria are treated as primary, however, by A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LNTS 323;

393

The variegated character of hypertextual reworking of the Pauline texts in Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28 might be further classified in literary-critical categories of paraphrase, reference, allusion, echo, imitation, etc. 253 However, since a detailed description of all intertextual and hypertextual features of the Lukan work requires a separate, detailed, extensive study, which would not refer directly to the subject of this work, the literary relationship of Lk to the Pauline letters has been described here in broad terms of ‘reworking’ and ‘allusion’. 254 The detailed hypertextual analysis of Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28 demonstrated that Luke, at least in these sections that more clearly allude to the Pauline written heritage, was much more faithful to the Pauline ideas than it might be assumed on the basis of his more irenic presentation of Paul and his Jewish Christian opponents in Acts. The presentation of Paul in Lk 9:51-19:28 is much more apologetic than conciliatory. The arguments in favour of the legitimacy of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles, which had been drawn from the Scriptures, the Gospel of Mark, and at times also Jewish (especially Pharisaiclike) exegetical traditions, did not compromise the distinctive Pauline ideas. They were intended to explain them in terms that were presumably more understandable and more acceptable to the Lukan readers who were somehow affected also by the Jewish Christian mission and theology. Luke seems to have T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), 21 (“distinctive details”). On the other hand, the use of the seventh criterion (of falsifiability of the interpretative procedure) is obviously very important from the general methodological point of view. 253 Cf. D. R. MacDonald, ‘Categorization’, 213; T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter, ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method’, 288-290. 254 Gérard Genette proposed the use of the term “transposition” for describing instances of serious hypertextual transformation of hypotexts: G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982), 292: “La transposition […] peut s’investir dans des œuvres de vastes dimensions […] dont l’amplitude textuelle et l’ambition esthétique et/ou idéologique va jusqu’à masquer ou faire oublier leur caractère hypertextuel, et cette productivité même est liée à la diversité des procédés transformationnels qu’elle met en œuvre.” However, the term “transposition”, because of its etymology, may denote also simple alteration of order of the hypotextual material, which is evidently not intended by Genette and which does not correspond to Luke’s particular procedure. Cf. also the proposal of using the term “textual adaptation”: T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter, ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method’, 287-288. In my opinion, the intended meaning of the term “textual adaptation” is too narrow to refer to Lk (and also to Mk) because it suggests mere reception and modification of antetexts by a later author. Both Mark and Luke, however, like many of their biblical and Hellenistic literary predecessors, thoroughly reworked their antetexts by treating them as mere points of departure for their own creative compositional activity. For example, the elaborate Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28) may be regarded as an expanding reworking but not as an adaptation of the short Markan pericope Mk 9:38-40.

394

followed in this respect Paul’s own strategy, which had been formulated in 1 Cor 9:20 (“To the Jews I became as a Jew”) and adopted especially in Rom. No unequivocal token of Luke’s use of other New Testament writings (esp. Col, Eph, 2 Thes, 1-2 Tim, Tit, Hebr, and Jas) in the composition of Lk 3:14:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28 has been detected. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated with high degree of plausibility that Acts, which presents a much more conciliatory vision of the history of the early Church than the ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28), was written at least a decade later than Lk. On the basis of these source-critical and redaction-critical investigations of the Lukan expansions of Mk, which proved that these expansions have been thematically and linguistically based on the Pauline letters, as well as on the basis of linguistic analyses of the constant use of favourite Lukan and nonMatthean vocabulary in Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28, it has been demonstrated that Luke did not use Mt in the composition of his work. Several features of the so-called double Mt-Lk tradition, namely (a) constant use of much favourite Lukan and non-Matthean vocabulary therein; (b) presence of characteristically Lukan low-level and mid-level redactional devices therein; and (c) correspondence of the Mt-Lk high-level structural patterns, which are not adequately explicable within the limits of the Mt-Lk material (see, for example, the function of Lk 13:34-35 par.), to the general structure of the Lukan expansions of Mk, rendered wholly implausible the hypothesis of Luke’s dependence on a common to Lk and Mt, hypothetical source Q. As a result, on the basis of the detailed source-critical, redaction-critical, and linguistic analyses of Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28, it has been demonstrated that the hypotheses of (a) Mark’s use of Lk, (b) Luke’s literary dependence on non-Pauline and non-Markan Christian literary sources (e.g. Mt or hypothetical sources like Q, L, Proto-Lk, protogospel, Proto-Mk, and DeuteroMk), and (c) Luke’s dependence solely on oral traditions have to be entirely rejected. It does not mean that Luke did not use in Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:5119:28 any Christian sources other than Mk and the Pauline letters. However, if Luke used some sources that are not known to us (especially oral sources), their detection and reconstruction on the basis of the text of Lk seems to be methodologically not possible. The sacred Scriptures of Israel were other important sources that have been extensively used by Luke in Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28. Luke was well acquainted with their contents and wording in the version of the Septuagint (although he seems to have been acquainted also with at least some Aramaic vocabulary, especially referring to the sphere of trade). It is worth noting that the Lukan ‘canon’ of the Scriptures that have been used for his redactional reworking of Mk seems to have been ‘ecumenical’ (i.e. presumably acceptable also for the Samaritans), namely generally limited to the Pentateuch, Judg, 1-2 Kgs, the Major and Minor Prophets, Pss, Prov, Ezr, and Tob (with the omission of the 395

presumably most controversial for the Samaritans 1-2 Sam and Neh). Luke seems to have known also, at least generally, the peculiarities of Samaritan exegetical traditions as distinct from the Jewish ones. Luke used the sacred Scriptures of Israel in a particular way that was much different from that of Matthew. The easiness with which Luke chose and adapted various literary motifs borrowed from the Scriptures suggests that he knew large portions of the Scriptures by heart. The evangelist generally referred to the Scriptures by making easily recognizable allusions to their particular motifs or phrases, but he only rarely quoted the relevant scriptural texts verbatim.255 Luke used various scriptural motifs in order to explain or defend particular Pauline theological positions. It is worth noting that such a technique of alluding to earlier, traditional, sacred texts in order to illustrate and prove particular theological or halachic positions is well known from the Scriptures themselves and from the intertestamental exegetical literature (cf. e.g. CD 1:1-4:12). Luke’s literary indebtedness to the Scriptures was also an important, albeit only secondary, structuring factor for his expansions of the Markan narrative. The detailed analysis of the ideas expressed in Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:5119:28 revealed that Luke was well acquainted also with at least some of the Jewish exegetical and halachic traditions that are known to us today from the pre-Christian pseudepigrapha and/or from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It has been demonstrated that Luke most probably knew at least the general ideas, if not the detailed wording, of the Apocalypse of Weeks and of the (in my opinion Pharisaic-like) Exact Exposition [pērûš] of the Law (the so-called ‘Damascus Document’). 256 On the basis of Luke’s creative use of various scriptural and Jewish exegetical sources, it may be concluded that Luke was much more Jewish than it was widely assumed in earlier scholarship. The works of Josephus (Bellum, Antiquitates, and Vita) constituted other important source for Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28. The evangelist used several literary motifs and historical data that he had borrowed from the works of this Jewish historian. For example, it has been demonstrated that Josephus’ works were Luke’s only source for the stories concerning Samaritans (Lk 9:5354; Lk 13:1). Consequently, it may be reasonably assumed that Lk was composed after the time of the composition of Antiquitates and Vita, i.e. after AD 94. 257 More precisely, since Mk was for the same reason written c. AD 100-110 255 For a recent detailed analysis of this phenomenon, limited, alas, to the passages common to Lk and Mt, see D. C. Allison, Jr., The Intertextual Jesus, passim. 256 It is worth noting that both these documents have been preserved also outside the land of Israel. 257 For the dating of Josephus’ Antiquitates and Vita to AD 93-94, see e.g. S. Mason [ed.], Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 9, Life of Josephus: Translation

396

(see e.g. Mk 1:4-6 and Mk 6:17-27), and since Lk is literarily dependent on Mk, Lk must have been written c. AD 110-120. The evangelist reworked the motifs and data that he had borrowed from Josephus’ works in a way characteristic of himself and corresponding to his own aims. Thus, for example, one of the stories that originally referred to the Samaritans (Ant. 18.85-87) refers in Lk to the Galileans (Lk 13:1). Luke used in Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28 also some widely known Hellenistic literary motifs that he had borrowed, for example, from Herodotus’ Historiae. Luke’s use of his sources in Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28 was quite particular. Luke corrected them, paraphrased them, adapted them, and alluded to them. Moreover, as a rule, he conflated several sources (even of the same type: for example, several fragments of Mk) at a time. Occasionally, the same source texts had been used and explained in various parts of Lk in differing ways, in correspondence with the ideas that were expressed in their new Lukan contexts (cf., for example, the use of Mk 3:28-30 in Lk 7:36-8:3; 11:23-26; 12:10). Luke generally followed in Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28 the thematic order of material of his main structuring hypotexts (Mk 1:2-13; Mk 3:20-30; and Gal with Rom respectively). He explained them in a particular, narrative, proPauline way. Luke used for this purpose several other literary motifs that he borrowed from his sources (the Scriptures, the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Mark, Josephus’ works, etc.) and that he adapted and conflated with the motifs that were contained in his main structuring hypotexts, on the basis of linguistic and thematic correspondences among them. Occasionally, the evangelist preserved the internal thematic order also of his secondary sources. In such a way, the evangelist created a complex multi-level net of intertextually correlated texts that had been reworked and conflated together in order to explain particular ideas or phrases of his main structuring hypotexts. 258 It should be noted that this particular procedure was used in various Lukan sections, both those paralleled in Mt and those not paralleled in Mt, which gives another proof of falsity of the Q theory. The process of composition of Lk was therefore a profoundly hermeneutic enterprise. The texts that belong to the Lukan sections that expand the basic and Commentary (Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2001), xv-xix. For a later dating of these works (shortly after AD 100), see e.g. D. Labow [ed.], Flavius Josephus, Contra Apionem, Buch I: Einleitung, Text, Textkritischer Apparat, Übersetzung und Kommentar (BWANT 167; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2005), xlii-xlv. 258 For an analysis of the use of a somewhat similar ancient literary device of creating twotier allusions to sources that were literarily dependent on one another, see A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization, 29-38.

397

Markan framework (Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28) were composed by the evangelist by means of broadening of the spectrum of possible meaning of various source texts, especially by means of reformulating them, placing them in new contexts, and combining them with other source texts. Moreover, Luke composed the texts that belong to the sections Lk 3:1-4:13; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28 in such a way that they have more than just one intended level of meaning. The interplay among various referential, hypertextual, and other levels of meaning is therefore an inherent phenomenon of Lk. This particular technique was not unknown before Luke. The evangelist adapted and developed the literary technique that had been devised by his great predecessor Mark, who with the use of numerous scriptural and traditional motifs systematically, hypertextually reworked the contents of the Pauline letters, by treating them as structuring hypotexts for his own gospel narrative. Luke seems to have known, however, only the general principle of Mark’s systematic, allusive, narrative reworking of the letters of Paul. Luke’s decision to rework in the ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28) only Gal and Rom, as well as the insertion of the ‘travel narrative’ after the pericope Lk 9:49-50 par. Mk 9:38-40, which only apparently alluded in the Markan narrative to the person and mission of Paul the Apostle, suggests that Luke probably did not have the possibility to meet Mark personally, although he evidently belonged to the Pauline-Markan school of thought and literary activity. 259 By means of the use of the technique of paraphrasing, adapting, alluding to, and conflating several sources at a time, Luke placed himself within the great biblical and Hellenistic tradition of rereading, adaptation, and emulation of earlier literary texts. The examples of ‘rewriting the Scriptures’, which are attested in several forms in the Jewish exegetical works that are known to us from the Scriptures themselves, from the pseudepigrapha, and from the Dead Sea Scrolls, might have been especially instructive for Luke. 260 Different use of the same

259 On the other hand, it should be noted that Luke might have used only Gal and Rom as the structuring hypotexts for his own ‘travel narrative’ because these two letters referred in the most direct way to the main problem he wanted to address, namely the still painful consequences of the Antiochene crisis. 260 S. W. Crawford classifies the techniques that were used in the procedure of creative ‘rewriting the Scriptures’ as “harmonizing, content-editing, conflation, modifications and additions for clarification, and addition through exegesis. What results is a new composition, separate from the base text(s), with a distinct theological agenda, which may be expressed through narrative (Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon) or legal rulings (the Temple Scroll)”: S. W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2008), 145-146.

398

motifs and literary material in different literary works of the same author is also well known to us, for example, from the works of Josephus. 261 As concerns the place of composition of Lk, it is implausible that it was written in or for the Churches in Jerusalem, Caesarea, or Syrian Antioch. These communities were certainly too well acquainted with various early Christian Palestinian traditions to create or even to accept the Lukan ‘rewritten’ gospel stories. For the same reason, it is also unlikely that Lk was written in Rome. The addressees of Lk may be most plausibly traced in Ephesus and more generally in Asia, which remained for decades a battlefield of various Christian influences, allegiances, and ideas (cf. Acts 16:6; 19:1-7; 20:16; cf. also Col; 1-2 Tim; Jas[?]; 1 Pet; Rev). Luke composed his Gospel most probably c. AD 110-120 in order to corroborate the position of Pauline Christianity in Asia against the ideas that were presumably widespread there and that still challenged the legitimacy of the Gentile mission of the Apostle of the Nations (cf. Lk 1:4).

261 Cf. S. Mason, ‘Josephus and the New Testament, the New Testament and Josephus: an Overview’, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, ed. C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (WUNT 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 15-48 (esp. 43).

399

Chapter 5: Matthew’s use of his sources Matthew’s use of his sources was investigated in modern research mainly in categories of his use of Mk and of some other, non-Pauline, non-Markan, and non-Lukan sources (‘Q’, oral traditions, numerous hypothetical sources, a protogospel, a calendar scheme, etc.). Additionally, attempts were made to reconstruct the source of material that is peculiar to Mt (the so-called ‘M’ source). At the same time, the possibility of Matthean dependence on the Pauline literary tradition was generally rejected by the scholars as incompatible with the particularly Jewish or Jewish Christian character of Mt. The same feature (the peculiarly Jewish character, and consequently alleged relative originality of Mt) was widely regarded as axiomatically precluding Matthean dependence on the works that display several literary correspondences to it, especially Lk, Acts, Jas, and 1 Pet. However, if the hypothesis of Matthean dependence on both Mk and Lk is true, and consequently if Mt was written not as the first (as it was assumed by Augustine) but as the last of the Synoptic Gospels, then the possibility of Matthean dependence on numerous other Christian works (e.g. Jas, 1 Pet, and Acts) has to be taken into serious consideration. Since the main counter-argument against the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels is based on the allegedly observed pattern of Matthean, at least partial, relative originality against the version of the double Mt-Lk tradition that is witnessed in Lk, the instances of alleged Lukan emendation of the Matthean version of the double Mt-Lk tradition have to be investigated first. Thereupon, a positive analysis of the Matthean use of his sources may be carried out.

5.1 Matthew’s use of Lk The analysis of Matthew’s use of Lk may be carried out in two stages: (a) a negative one, consisting in a critical analysis of the opposite hypothesis of Lukan dependence on the tradition preserved in Mt, and (b) a positive one, referring to possible ways of Matthew’s redactional use of Lk. 5.1.1 Alleged Lukan emendations of the Matthean version of the double MtLk tradition One of the most important arguments against the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels is the argument from Matthew’s priority against Luke in their common non-Markan tra401

dition. The Q theorists formulate this argument in terms of the argument from the Mt-Lk priority discrepancy in the double Mt-Lk tradition. Accordingly, before proceeding to the analysis of Matthew’s use of Mk and Lk, the problem of the alleged priority of Mt against Lk in some portions of their double tradition has to be addressed. The research on the issue of relative priority of the Gospels in the double Mt-Lk tradition has a long history. It is the merit of the scholars who participate in the International Q Project that they gathered various (but, alas, not all) scholarly opinions on this issue in the databases of the IQP (Documenta Q) and provided them with their own critical evaluations. The results of the work of the team of scholars who participate in the IQP are quite surprising. The instances of alleged Luke’s emendation of the version of the double Mt-Lk tradition that is attested in Mt (i.e. of Q = Mt) are remarkably few. If the cases of the alleged Lukan additions to the common Mt-Lk tradition are put aside (because it may have been also Matthew who deleted some Lukanisms if he redactionally used not the hypothetical source Q but Lk), then among over two hundred differences between the texts of Mt and Lk in the portions of their double tradition that were analysed thus far by the scholars (i.e. Lk 4:1-13.16; 6:20-21; 7:1-10; 11:2b-4; 12:8-12; 12:33-34; 12:49-59; 22:28-30 par.), there are only seven or eight instances of Luke’s alleged emendation of the Matthean text that are regarded by all evaluating scholars as “virtually certain” (i.e. that are commonly given the grade “A” of relative certainty of evaluation). These exceptionally rare cases are contained in the fragments Lk 4:5-6; 11:3-4; 12:9 par., which will be analysed below. Lk 4:5-6 par. The Matthean paratactic syntax of Mt 4:8b (καί) is considered original by the IQP scholars against the hypotactic syntax of Lk 4:5b. The only arguments in favour of this thesis, which are offered or discussed by the evaluating scholars, are (a) the observed predilection of both [emphasis mine] Matthew and Luke for hypotactic syntax against the paratactic one and (b) the identification of the paratactic syntax as more Semitic. The issue of possible Matthean emendation of the Lukan text in order to achieve a more Semitic flavour of the Gospel narrative has been addressed by only one scholar (Patrick J. Hartin) and, moreover, in the form of a rhetorical question. 1 Accordingly, the arguments in favour of Luke’s emendation of the Matthean text in Lk 4:5b par. are in reality far from convincing. 1

402

Cf. S. Carruth and J. M. Robinson, Q 4:1-13,16, vol. ed. C. Heil (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1996), 280-282.

The position of the phrase καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν in Mt 4:8 is considered original by the IQP scholars against its placing in Lk 4:6. The only argument in favour of this thesis is based on the remoteness of the pronoun αὐτῶν from its implicit referent in Lk 4:5 (πάσας τὰς βασιλείας). However, no clear reason is given for the alleged Lukan relocation of the phrase in question to Lk 4:6.2 Moreover, it should be noted that Luke’s understanding of glory (δόξα) was personal and not material. The noun δόξα always qualifies in Lk words that refer to persons, and not to impersonal entities (Lk 2:9.14.32; 9:26.31.32; 12:27; 14:10; 17:18; 19:38; 21:27; 24:26). It may be therefore assumed that the noun δόξα refers in Lk 4:6 implicitly to kings and not to kingdoms, and as such it suits the second part of the concluding scriptural quotation (καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις: Lk 4:8d), which would be otherwise thematically unmatched in the devil’s proposal Lk 4:7. The Matthean version of the double Mt-Lk tradition in Mt 4:8 is therefore a simple emendation of the corresponding Lukan text, which is in itself semantically coherent but syntactically unclear. Lk 11:3-4 par. The Matthean verbal form δός together with the corresponding σήμερον in Mt 6:11 is considered original by the IQP scholars against δίδου and καθ᾿ ἡμέραν respectively in Lk 11:3. The arguments in favour of this thesis are in fact three: (a) the aorist forms were regularly used in ancient prayers, (b) the phrase καθ᾿ ἡμέραν is characteristically Lukan, and (c) Luke had a tendency to generalize and to explain the delay of the Parousia. 3 As concerns the first and second arguments, they both favour in fact not Lukan posteriority against Mt but Matthean posteriority against Lk because the Matthean aorist with the corresponding σήμερον is a clear ‘lectio facilior’ that is conformed to the general Hellenistic usage of aorist in prayers. As concerns the third argument, one of the evaluators (James M. Robinson) noticed that the reasons for the alleged Lukan shifts “are not made explicit in the texts themselves” and that “interpretations should be cautious about ascribing more meaning than seems inherent in the texts.” 4 In fact, the use of the Lukan verbal form δίδου in a similar context in Lk 6:30 has nothing to do with the delay of the Parousia. On the other hand, the Matthean δός in Mt 6:11 conveys the same idea as the one expressed in Mt 5:42 (with the word παντί from Lk 6:30 omitted), namely that of avoiding indiscriminate 2

Cf. ibid. 292-296.

3

Cf. S. Carruth and A. Garsky, Q 11:2b-4, vol. ed. S. D. Anderson (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1996), 128-144.

4

Ibid. 136.

403

giving that would imply excessive (in the eyes of the prudent moralist Matthew) benevolence. 5 The same observations pertain to the related issue of the Matthean use of the verb form ἀφήκαμεν in Mt 6:12 against the Lukan ἀφίομεν in Lk 11:4 (cf. ἀφίετε in Mk 11:25). 6 The Matthean word ὀφειλήματα in Mt 6:12 is considered original by the IQP scholars against the corresponding word ἁμαρτίας in Lk 11:4. The arguments in favour of this thesis are in fact two: (a) ὀφειλήματα in Mt 6:12a forms a parallelism with ὀφειλέταις in Mt 6:12b and (b) the sequence *ἁμαρτ – *ὀφείλ regarded as synonymic is characteristically Lukan (cf. Lk 13:2.4; cf. also Lk 7:41-50). 7 It should be noted, however, that precisely this peculiarly Lukan understanding of debt as a metaphor for sin (which may be based on 11Q13 [Melchizedek] 2:6 or on Aramaic homonymy) enabled Luke to replace the Markan ambiguous sequence τὰ παραπτώματα – εἴ τι ἔχετε κατά τινος, which clearly referred first to God and then to humans (Mk 11:25), with the more theological one: τὰς ἁμαρτίας – παντὶ ὀφείλοντι (Lk 11:4), which expresses the Markan-Lukan idea of a close correspondence between the gracious actions of God and those of the believers (cf. e.g. Lk 6:35-38; 7:41-50). On the other hand, the Matthean parallelism ὀφειλήματα – ὀφειλέταις (Mt 6:12ab) unnaturally extends the meaning of the noun ὀφείλημα in Mt 6:12a in order to achieve its merely formal correspondence to *ὀφείλ in Lk 11:4b par. Mt 6:12b (diff. τὰ παραπτώματα in Mt 6:14-15, which is based on Mk 11:25). Lk 12:9 par. The Matthean repeated preposition ἔμπροσθεν in Mt 10:33 is considered original by the IQP scholars against the likewise repeated preposition ἐνώπιον in Lk 12:9. The arguments in favour of this thesis may be in fact reduced to one argument, namely that the use of ἐνώπιον in the synoptic tradition is peculiar to Lk. 8 However, precisely this fact renders plausible the opposite hypothesis of Matthean posteriority against Lk. Matthew may have consistently replaced the Lukan pronoun, which was evidently disliked by him, with the one more suiting his linguistic sensibility. 5

W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1 (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988), 547.

6

Cf. S. Carruth and A. Garsky, Q 11:2b-4, 164-170.

7

Cf. ibid. 145-155.

8

Cf. P. Hoffmann [et al.], Q 12:8-12, vol. ed. C. Heil (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1997), 370-375.

404

The Matthean simple verb ἀρνέομαι in Mt 10:33b is considered original by the IQP scholars against the compound verb ἀπαρνέομαι in Lk 12:9b. The argument in favour of this thesis is in fact only one, namely that the variatio locutionis in Lk 12:9ab displays superiority of the Lukan style against that of Mt. 9 However, it should be noted that Luke replaced the Markan compound verb ἀπαρνέομαι from Mk 8:34 with the simple ἀρνέομαι in Lk 9:23 (cf. also Lk 14:26), and consequently it is implausible that Luke would have replaced the Matthean simple ἀρνέομαι from Mt 10:33b with the compound ἀπαρνέομαι in Lk 12:9b. On the other hand, Matthew displayed a tendency to replace variationes locutionis with repeated words in order to achieve clearer formal parallelisms (cf. e.g. Mt 19:23-24 diff. Mk 10:23-25; Lk 18:24-25). 10 Conclusion None of the instances of alleged Luke’s emendation of the Matthean version of the double Mt-Lk tradition in the sections that were analysed thus far by the scholars who participate in the International Q Project (i.e. Lk 4:1-13.16; 6:2021; 7:1-10; 11:2b-4; 12:8-12; 12:33-34; 12:49-59; 22:28-30 par.) has been critically proved. The arguments in favour of the alleged seven or eight Luke’s emendations of the Matthean version of the double Mt-Lk tradition, which were considered “virtually certain” by all evaluating scholars, generally prove merely the existence of characteristic Lukan features of the Lukan version of the Mt-Lk non-Markan material. The arguments for Matthean priority against Lk in the allegedly evident cases that are traced in the fragments Lk 4:5-6; 11:3-4; 12:9 par. are based on (a) more Semitic flavour, (b) apparent greater logical and formal coherence, as well as (c) greater conformity to the general Hellenistic usage, of the Matthean version of the double Mt-Lk tradition. However, all these arguments prove in fact the reverse direction of direct literary dependence, namely that of Matthew’s consistent tendency to emend the Lukan text in order to make it clearer, rhetorically more persuasive for the readers, and more resembling the venerated scriptural tradition in its Semitic literary forms. The results of the above-presented analyses agree with the well-founded scholarly opinion that there are no undisputed Mattheanisms in Lk, 11 which further proves the thesis that Luke did not know the text of Mt.

9

Cf. ibid. 376-379.

10

Cf. D. Hermant, ‘Les redites chez Marc et les deux autres synoptiques (IIe partie)’, RB 107 (2000) 348-382 (esp. 365-366); id., ‘Les redites (IVe partie, fin)’, 541-542, 554.

11

Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 591-592.

405

5.1.2 Matthew’s redactional use of Lk The analysis of Matthew’s redactional use of the non-Markan material that is shared by him with Luke (i.e. of the so-called double Mt-Lk tradition) is generally well studied by the Q theorists. In general, it is assumed that Matthew used large blocks of the Mt-Lk common material, but that he often did not preserve its original order and at that he at times considerably shortened its content. 12 In the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels, which assumes that Matthew included much of the Lukan non-Markan material into his own work and created thereby the socalled double Mt-Lk tradition, the patterns of the Matthean use of the Lukan non-Markan material obviously broadly correspond to the patterns of the Matthean use of the Mt-Lk non-Markan material that were extensively studied by the Q theorists. Consequently, there is no reason to repeat the source-critical analyses of numerous modern scholars who investigated Mt on the assumption of the existence of the common Mt-Lk source Q. The only real difference between the pattern of Matthew’s use of the hypothetical Mt-Lk non-Markan source and that of Matthew’s direct use of Lk results from different assumptions of the respective theories. Whereas in the former theory it is assumed that Matthew redactionally used basically the whole source Q, in the latter hypothesis it is postulated that he used only a part of the Lukan non-Matthean material, leaving out the so-called ‘L’ pericopes. The reasons for Matthew’s omissions of some portions of the Lukan material may have been quite different. In fact, several of them have been already analysed by a few scholars. 13 However, the question itself may have been posed by the scholars in a wrong way. The answer to the question why certain Lukan pericopes have been omitted in the Matthean work has to be preceded by an adequate analysis of reasons for inclusion of certain Lukan pericopes into the basic para-Markan framework of Mt. It should not be axiomatically assumed 12

For Matthew’s method of including the non-Markan ‘Q’ material as consisting in a combination of Blocktechnik and Exzerpttechnik, see U. Luz, ‘Matthäus und Q’, in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien, Festschrift P. Hoffmann, ed. R. Hoppe and U. Busse (BZNW 93; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998), 201-215 (esp. 207212).

13

Cf. H. P. West, Jr., ‘A Primitive Version of Luke in the Composition of Matthew’, NTS 14 (1967-1968) 75-95 (esp. 79-88); R. V. Huggins, ‘Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal’, NovT 34 (1992) 1-22 (esp. 14-22); M. Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, trans. J. Bowden (SCM: London 2000), 182-184; E. Aurelius, ‘Gottesvolk und Außenseiter: Eine geheime Beziehung Lukas – Matthäus’, NTS 47 (2001) 428-441 (esp. 437).

406

that Matthew generally felt obliged to include all Lukan material that was known to him. It is evident that Matthew omitted for some reasons also several pericopes from the earlier written, and consequently presumably already relatively authoritative for him, Gospel of Mark. It is therefore more appropriate to analyse first the general patterns of Matthew’s use of his various sources (which, if Mt was written after the relatively late Lk, should not be axiomatically limited to Mk and Lk) and only thereafter to explain Matthew’s use of Lk in terms of presumably intentionally correlated inclusion, modification, and omission of the Lukan material. 5.1.3 Conclusions Contrary to the claims of many Q theorists, Matthew’s redactional use of Lk is not implausible at all. It has been demonstrated that the existence of alleged Lukan emendations of the Matthean version of the double Mt-Lk tradition, which is regarded as disproving the hypothesis of Matthean literary dependence on Lk, is in fact far from adequately proved. Consequently, almost all well-studied patterns of the alleged Matthean use of the Mt-Lk non-Markan (‘Q’) tradition are easily explicable also by the hypothesis of Matthean use of the Lukan nonMarkan material. However, the analysis of Matthew’s use of Lk has to be analysed in the wider context of Matthew’s use of his possibly numerous sources.

5.2 Matthew’s use of Acts and of the letters attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders The literary affinity of certain fragments of Mt to Jas and to 1 Pet was noticed (especially in the former case) by numerous ancient and modern exegetes. However, it is usually assumed axiomatically that either (a) Mt must have been the source for the parallel material that is contained in Jas and 1 Pet or (b) all these works must have been dependent on some common oral traditions. These assumptions are further corroborated by another usually made assumption, namely that all three works in question (or at least Mt and Jas) display numerous distinctively Jewish Christian features, and consequently they are based on some early Christian Palestinian traditions. However, all these assumptions are in fact highly questionable, as detailed intertextual, redaction-critical, and rhetorical investigation of Jas, 1 Pet, and Mt reveals. Moreover, in order to explain several differences between the outlines of Mk and Mt, a detailed analysis of intertextual relationships of Mt to other early Christian texts (especially Acts) has to be carried out.

407

5.2.1 The post-Pauline letters attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders The Letter of James and the First Letter of Peter 14 are two New Testament writings that share several distinctive literary and theological features, which are significant enough to treat them as elements of a common literary-theological project. The features shared by Jas and 1 Pet may be summarized as follows: 1. Declared authorship of one of the prominent Jewish Christian leaders who confronted Paul in Jerusalem and in Antioch (Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; cf. Gal 2:4. 8-9.11-12.14) 2. Distinctive references to the addressees as living in the diaspora (διασπορά: Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1) 3. Numerous evident points of contact with distinctively Pauline ideas and, on the other hand, notable differences from them 15 4. Close thematic and linguistic similarities in the introductory, middle, and conclusive sections of both letters (cf. esp. Jas 1:1 and 1 Pet 1:1: διασπορά; Jas 1:2-3 and 1 Pet 1:6-7: joy, πειρασμοῖς… ποικίλοις, τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως; Jas 1:12 and 1 Pet 1:6-8: πειρασμός, *δοκιμ, future glorious prize, ἀγαπάω; Jas 1:18-21 and 1 Pet 1:23-2:2: giving birth, λόγος, ἀποθέμενοι, πᾶσαν, κακία, *λογ; Jas 3:13 and 1 Pet 2:12: καλὴ ἀναστροφή) 16 5. Distinctive quotations or evident allusions to Is 40:6-7 LXX (Jas 1:10-11 and 1 Pet 1:24-25), Prov 3:34 LXX (Jas 4:6 and 1 Pet 5:5; reworked further in a very similar way in Jas 4:7.10 and 1 Pet 5:6.8-9: ἀντίστητε, διάβολος, submit, οὖν, θεός, ταπεινώθητε, ὑψόω, ὑμᾶς), and Prov 10:12 LXX (Jas 5:20 and 1 Pet 4:18) 17 14

In the following analyses, both Jas and 1 Pet will be called ‘letters’ and not ‘epistles’ in order to avoid premature conclusions concerning their literary character.

15

Cf. e.g. P. H. Davids, ‘James and Peter: The Literary Evidence’, in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity, ed. B. Chilton and C. Evans (NovTSup 115; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 29-52 (esp. 42-46).

16

Cf. e.g. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC 49; Word Books: Waco, Tex. 1988), xliv; M. Konradt, ‘Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus. Erwägungen zum historischen Kontext des Jakobusbriefes im Licht der traditionsgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zum 1. Petrusbrief und zum Hintergrund der Autorfiktion’, in P. von Gemünden, M. Konradt, and G. Theißen, Der Jakobusbrief: Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der „strohernen Epistel“ (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 3; Lit: Münster 2003), 16-53 (esp. 19-28); D. R. Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon (Baylor University: Waco, Tex. 2007), 225.

17

Cf. J. H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37B; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000), 23; D. G. Horrell, ‘The Product of a Petrine Circle? A Reassessment of the Origin and Character of 1 Peter’, JSNT 86 (2002) 29-60 (esp. 40-41).

408

On the other hand, both letters may be regarded as to a considerable degree complementary to each other. Whereas Jas refers in its quotations and allusions mainly to the Law and to the sapiential writings (cf. *νομο used nine times and *σοφ used five times in Jas; both absent in 1 Pet), 1 Pet most often quotes and alludes to the Prophets (especially Isaiah), Psalms, and Proverbs.18 This notable difference in general intertextual points of reference of both letters shapes in different ways the explicit scriptural-thematic interests and consequently the distinctive theological views of their declared authors. 5.2.1.1 The Letter of Pseudo-James (Jas) The relationship of the Letter of James to the Pauline tradition is certainly one of the most controversial issues in the research on this New Testament writing. The variety of scholarly opinions on this subject ranges from the hypothesis of direct or indirect ideological conflict between Jas and the Pauline letters, through that of their mere theological parallelism, to that of a conscious intended reconciliation of ‘Paul with Paul’ and ‘Paul with the pillars’. 19 An obviously not comprehensive list of linguistic-thematic affinities of Jas with the Pauline, and at times also Markan-Lukan post-Pauline, tradition is in fact quite long: 20 Jas 1:1 – Χριστοῦ δοῦλος as the only source of authority of the author of the letter: cf. Rom 1:1; Gal 1:10; Phlp 1:1; Jas 1:3 – *δοκιμ + κατεργάζεται + ὑπομονήν in a rhetorical climax: cf. Rom 5:3; Jas 1:6 – πίστις in opposition to διακρίνομαι: cf. Rom 4:20; 14:23; Jas 1:9 – καυχάομαι, *ταπειν: Pauline favourites; 18

Cf. the list of the scriptural texts that have been quoted and alluded to in 1 Pet in ibid. 13-16.

19

For a recent survey of modern scholarly opinions on the relationship of Jas to the Pauline tradition, see e.g. M. M. Mitchell, ‘The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism?’, in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James, ed. R. L. Webb and J. S. Kloppenborg (LNTS 342; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 75-98 (esp. 76-80).

20

For recent lists of linguistic-thematic affinities of Jas with the Pauline tradition, see e.g. L. T. Johnson, ‘James’s Significance for Early Christian History’, in id., Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2004), 1-23 (esp. 12-17); G. Maier, Der Brief des Jakobus (HistorischTheologische Auslegung: Neues Testament; Brockhaus: Wuppertal and Brunnen: Giessen 2004), 11-14; M. M. Mitchell, ‘The Letter of James’, 85-93; D. R. Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone, 228. For the sake of clarity, only the first occurences of specific affinities to the Pauline writings in Jas are noted here.

409

Jas 1:12 – πειρασμός as merely permitted by God and endured by humans: cf. 1 Cor 10:13; δόκιμος + γίνομαι: cf. 1 Cor 11:19; λαμβάνω + στέφανος: cf. 1 Cor 9:25; reward prepared τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν: cf. 1 Cor 2:9; Jas 1:15 – ἐπιθυμία + ἁμαρτία + θάνατος: cf. Rom 6:12.16; Jas 1:16 – μὴ πλανᾶσθε: cf. 1 Cor 6:9; 15:33; Gal 6:7; ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί: cf. 1 Cor 15:58; Phlp 4:1; Jas 1:17 – δώρημα from God: cf. Rom 5:16; Jas 1:18 – ἀπαρχή of sonship in relation to God in the created universe (*κτισ): cf. Rom 8:22-23; Jas 1:20 – refraining from human vengeance in the hope for God’s ὀργή and *δικ: cf. Rom 12:19; Jas 1:21 – σῴζω through the preached λόγος: cf. Rom 10:9; Jas 1:22 – ἀκροαταί: cf. Rom 2:13; Jas 1:23-25 – ἔσοπτρον + forsaking what one once was as opposed to being τέλειος (meaning freedom of the adults) + *μένω: cf. 1 Cor 13:10-13; ἐλευθερία: Pauline favourite; Jas 1:26 – εἴ τις δοκεῖ… εἶναι: cf. 1 Cor 3:18; 11:16; 14:37; Jas 2:1 – προσωπολημψία: cf. Rom 2:11; Christ as κύριος… τῆς δόξης: cf. 1 Cor 2:8; Jas 2:5 – ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο the poor to the world (κόσμος): cf. 1 Cor 1:2728; *κληρονομ + future βασιλεία: cf. 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; *κληρονομ + *ἐπαγγελ: cf. Rom 4:13-14; Gal 3:18.29; Jas 2:6 – κριτήρια against members of the community: cf. 1 Cor 6:2.4; Jas 2:8 – ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν as the supreme commandment, in the context of τελεῖτε and civil authority: cf. Rom 13:1-9; Jas 2:10 – ὅλον τὸν νόμον as a threat: cf. Gal 5:3; Jas 2:11 – παραβάτης νόμου: cf. Rom 2:25.27; Jas 2:14 – τί τὸ ὄφελος: cf. 1 Cor 15:32; Jas 2:23 – ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην: verbatim Rom 4:3 (diff. Gen 15:6 LXX); Jas 2:26 – σῶμα + πνεῦμα + νεκρός: cf. Rom 8:10-11; Jas 3:3-8 – στόμα + γλῶσσα + ἰός: cf. Rom 3:13-14 (where this set of three thematically correlated motifs resulted from a combination of three different scriptural quotations); Jas 3:9 – εὐλογέω + καταράομαι: cf. Rom 12:14; Jas 3:12 – the parable (image) of σῦκα in the context of στόμα as revealing fundamental human attitudes: cf. Lk 6:44-45 (although the original Lukan sense of the opposition between being a desert plant and bearing sweet fruits has been lost in Jas 3:12b that offers an example of merely two different fruit trees; cf., however, Jas 3:12c); Jas 3:14 – ζῆλος + ἐριθεία: cf. 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; cf. also 1 Cor 3:3 (ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις); 410

Jas 3:15 – σοφία + ψυχικός: 1 Cor 2:13-14; ἐπίγειος mind: Phlp 3:19; Jas 4:1 – *στρατεύομαι up to death + ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν: cf. Rom 7:23-24; Jas 4:4 – μοιχαλίς (Fem.) + κόσμος as opposed to God: cf. Mk 8:36-38; ἔχθρα: Rom 8:7; Jas 4:5 – πνεῦμα + *οἰκ: cf. Rom 8:9 in the context of antithetic opposition and decision (continuing the allusion to Rom 8:7 in Jas 4:4); Jas 4:6 – μείζονα + *χαρις: cf. 1 Cor 12:31; Jas 4:8-9 – being double-minded + *ταλαιπωρ: cf. Rom 7:22-25; πενθέω + κλαίω + *γελ: cf. Lk 6:25 (generalized in Jas 4:9); Jas 4:11-12 – κρίνω + ἀδελφός: Rom 14:10; Jas 4:16 – καύχησις: Pauline favourite; Jas 5:2-3 – *πλουτ + *σης + ἐσθίω + θησαυρίζω: cf. Lk 12:21-33 (where the motifs of storing up treasures, eating, and dressing were distinct from one another, in difference to their moralizing conflation in Jas 5:2-3); θησαυρίζω + eschatological ἡμέρα: cf. Rom 2:5; Jas 5:4 – μισθός due for agricultural work + θερίζω: cf. 1 Cor 9:11.17; Jas 5:8 – *στηρίξα τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν + παρουσία: cf. 1 Thes 3:13; Jas 5:12 – τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ in the context of God’s being the guarantor of truth of all solemn oaths and promises in Christ: cf. 2 Cor 1:17-20; Jas 5:13 – προσεύχομαι + ψάλλω: cf. 1 Cor 14:15; Jas 5:14-15 – ἄλείφω ἐλαίῳ the sick by the Church leaders + ὄνομα of Jesus + ἐγείρω: cf. Mk 6:13-14; ἐκκλησία: Pauline favourite; Jas 5:16-20 – ἐξομολογέομαι + τὰς ἁμαρτίας + ἐπιστρέφω + ὁδός + σῴζω/ σωτηρία + cancelling ἁμαρτίαι in the context of the motif of Elijah: cf. Mk 1:3. 5; Lk 1:16-17.76-77 (all originally referring to John the Baptist, conflated in Jas 5:16-20). As this list of linguistic and thematic affinities, and especially of conflated motifs, demonstrates, Jas is literarily dependent on the Pauline letters and on their post-Pauline narrative reworkings in Mk and Lk. Much more important, however, is the particular way in which the peculiarly Pauline theologicalhalachic views are presented in Jas. Contrary to the widespread scholarly opinion, they are neither really challenged nor merely paralleled or superficially reconciled in the letter of the Jewish Christian leader. In order to perceive the rhetorical aims and procedures that have been used in Jas, the missive has to be analysed not in its merely superficial meaning (especially of the apparently antiPauline section Jas 2:14-26) but in its true subversive force, which in fact undermines the Jewish Christian anti-Pauline argumentation that was confronted by Paul especially in Rom. The first example of the subversive, truly post-Pauline, and in fact antiJacobean rhetoric of Jas may be found in Jas 1:1. The Jewish Christian leader has been presented in the opening statement of the missive in characteristically Pauline terms: neither as an apostle nor as the Lord’s brother but as a slave of 411

the Lord Jesus Christ (κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος), who professed his faith in Jesus Christ not in a Jewish Christian but in a typically Pauline way (κύριος, δοῦλος). The opening formula Jas 1:1 places therefore the entire subsequent, rhetorical, Jacobean–Pauline confrontation on the clearly Pauline ground. The initial use of the highly controversial term ἔργον (sing.) in Jas 1:4 is not anti-Pauline (cf. ὑπομονή). It resembles to a considerable degree its use in the opening sections of the Pauline letters (e.g. 1 Thes 1:3; Rom 2:7; Phlp 1:6: ἔργον sing.), and in such a way it conditions its meaning also in Jas 1:25 (ἔργον sing. in the context of νόμος) and in Jas 2:14-26 (ἔργα pl. in the context of νόμος). The conclusive use of this controversial term in Jas 3:13 (ἔργα pl. without the context of νόμος), which leaves the last impression on the readers, is again neutral, not anti-Pauline. The opening section of the letter (Jas 1:2-2:13) presents the practice of faith in Jesus Christ in typically Pauline categories: being founded on the proclamation of the truthful word and on God-given wisdom; enduring trials; being steadfast; living in lowliness and not in boasting; opposing sinful desires; and maturing to perfection in freedom, respect for the poor, love of the neighbour, and mercy for the sinners. 21 The first argument (Jas 2:14-18) that has been put forward in the apparently anti-Pauline section Jas 2:14-26 is only apparently anti-Pauline. The service to the poor was regarded by both Paul and the Jewish Christian ‘pillars’ as one of the most convincing proofs of the truth of the Pauline gospel (cf. e.g. Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:1-15; Gal 2:10). On the other hand, it was James who was indirectly blamed by Paul for his not having received the Damascus refugee at his Jerusalem home (Gal 1:19; cf. Jas 2:16). The second argument (Jas 2:19) is directed not against the Pauline believers but rather against the Jewish Christians who boasted of their faith in the one God.

21

412

Cf. F. Avemarie, ‘Die Werke des Gesetzes im Spiegel des Jakobusbriefs: A Very Old Perspective on Paul’, ZThK 98 (2001) 282-309 (esp. 293, 295); G. Theißen, ‘Die pseudepigraphe Intention des Jakobusbriefes: Ein Beitrag zu seinen Einleitungsfragen’, in P. von Gemünden, M. Konradt, and G. Theißen, Der Jakobusbrief: Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der „strohernen Epistel“ (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 3; Lit: Münster 2003), 54-82 (esp. 64-71); J. Zangenberg, ‘Matthew and James’, in Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries, ed. D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (LNTS 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 104-122 (esp. 118).

Also the third argument (Jas 2:21-23) is only apparently anti-Pauline. 22 The argument from Abraham’s justification by works, which has been carefully composed in the form of an ambiguous question/statement (Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη: Jas 2:21a), does not refer, as it might be supposed, to the circumcision of Isaac (cf. Rom 4:9-12) but to the sacrifice of Abraham’s only son (Jas 2:21b), which was understood by Paul as the ultimate proof of Abraham’s faith in God-enacted resurrection that opened the way to salvation also for the uncircumcised Gentiles (Rom 4:16-25; cf. also Rom 8:32). The concluding quotation, which highlights Abraham’s faith (Jas 2:23), is entirely Pauline (cf. Rom 4:3 diff. Gen 15:6 LXX). The fourth argument (Jas 2:25) presents justification by works with the use of the hardly Jewish Christian example of a Gentile prostitute Rahab (cf. Lk 15:30) 23 whose “works” consisted in fact in receiving the messengers and helping them escape from their prosecutors. Accordingly, the “works” of Rahab typically foreshadow the ‘works’ that have been accomplished by the Gentile Galatians by their initial receiving the controversial figure of Paul the Apostle (*δέχομαι + ἄγγελος: cf. Gal 4:14). The rebuke section of the letter (Jas 3:1-5:6), which follows the doctrinal section Jas 2:14-26, is thematically based on Rom 12:1-21. The instruction concerning not allowing too many people to become teachers (Jas 3:1-2a), which includes the certainly not Jacobean assertion “we all stumble in many things” (Jas 3:2a), is thematically based on the Pauline text Rom 12:3-8, which prescribes division of functions within the community (cf. esp. *διδασκαλ: Rom 12:7). The subsequent fragment concerning sins of speech (Jas 3:2b-12), which recommends, in particular, blessing and not cursing (Jas 3:9-10), is thematically based on Rom 12:14 (εὐλογέω, καταράομαι). The fragment concerning Godgiven wisdom that leads to peace, humility, and weeping (Jas 3:13-4:10) alludes to Rom 12:15-18 (κλαίω, ταπεινοῖς, *εἰρην). The fragment that exhorts not to judge others but to leave the judgment to God (Jas 4:11-12) is thematically based on Rom 12:19. The subsequent fragment concerning sharing goods with others (Jas 4:13-5:5) alludes to Rom 12:20. The surprising conclusion Jas 5:6 probably alludes to Rom 12:21. 22

Klaus Haacker distinguished between the thema and the rhema of Jas 2:14-26: K. Haacker, ‘Rettender Glaube und Abrahams Rechtfertigung: Zum Verhältnis zwischen Paulus und Jakobus (und Petrus?)’, in Gottes Wort in der Zeit: verstehen – verkündigen – verbreiten, Festschrift V. Stolle, ed. C. Barnbrock and W. Klän (Lit: Münster 2005), 209-225 (esp. 220-221). If analysed in these terms, Jas 2:14-26 may be understood as mainly ‘thematic’ and only marginally ‘rhematic’.

23

Cf. G. C. Bottini, ‘Gc 1,14-26: complemento del pensiero di Paolo sulla giustificazione per fede?’, in Nuovo Testamento: teologie in dialogo culturale, Festschrift R. Penna, ed. N. Ciola and G. Pulcinelli (SRivBib 50; Dehoniane: Bologna 2008), 411-418 (esp. 416).

413

Apart from this set of apparently anti-Pauline arguments that are presented in Jas, there are some really anti-Pauline arguments that are significantly absent in the missive. The two most controversial issues that were discussed by Paul in Jerusalem and in Antioch with his Jewish Christians opponents including James, namely the circumcision of the Gentile believers and their table fellowship with the Jews (cf. Gal 2:3-9.12-14), are never addressed in Jas. 24 Accordingly, the missive rhetorically creates the impression that although James evidently held halachic views that were much different from those of Paul (cf. Jas 2:14-26), he never really opposed the Pauline Gentile mission. The specific rhetoric of Jas is therefore shaped by a carefully designed dialectic interplay of two seemingly opposing factors: (a) superficial, pseudoJacobean, apparently anti-Pauline phraseology (πίστις + ἔργα: Jas 2:14.1718.20.22.24.26) and (b) deep-level, crypto-Pauline, in fact anti-Jacobean argumentation (Jas 2:15-16.19.21.23.25; 3:1-5:6). The characteristically Pauline ideas are presented in Jas in a particular rhetorical way, namely without any recourse to the most characteristic Pauline ideas and vocabulary (the gospel, the Son of God, Christ’s cross, etc.) but by means of an artificially created personage of James who presents only apparently Jewish Christian arguments and world view. The author of Jas used therefore several rhetorical techniques that were widely used in antiquity (among others, a combination of ēthopoiia, eirōneia, and anaskeuē [confutatio]) 25 in order to prove that the legitimacy of the Pauline Gentile mission had never been seriously questioned by the Jerusalem Jewish Christian authorities (cf. also Acts 15:23-29; 21:21-25). The Letter of James should be therefore regarded as a post-Pauline letter of Pseudo-James. 5.2.1.2 The Letter of Pseudo-Peter (1 Pet) The First Letter of Peter is widely regarded by the scholars as displaying several features that are characteristic of the Pauline phraseology and, to a lesser extent,

24

Cf. W. Popkes, Der Brief des Jakobus (ThHK 14; Evangelische: Leipzig 2001), 4-5; G. Theißen, ‘Die pseudepigraphe Intention’, 61-63.

25

Cf. H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (3rd edn., Franz Steiner: Stuttgart 1990), §902, 4. It should be noted that ēthopoiia (which was not always differentiated from prosōpopoiia) was widely used in ancient historiography (e.g. Thucydides), drama (Menander), rhetoric (Quintilian), and school education (Theon): cf. G. Naschert, ‘Ethopoeia’, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, ed. G. Ueding, vol. 2 (Max Niemeyer: Tübingen 1994), 15121516 (esp. 1514-1515).

414

of Paul’s theology. 26 The case of 1 Pet is therefore similar to that of Jas. Both these works display striking affinities to the Pauline literary heritage, but on the other hand they are quite non-Pauline in their contents, at least taken in their face value. Moreover, as it has been noted above, both works are complementary in their intertextual references: whereas the argumentation of Jas is based mainly on the Jewish Law, 1 Pet refers mainly to the Prophets (especially Isaiah) and to the Psalms. Both missives allude to the sapiential writings, especially to the Proverbs, and share numerous other literary features. Consequently, it may be reasonably assumed that 1 Pet has been written as a work complementary to Jas. However, since Peter, in difference to James, was not perceived in the Pauline tradition as an outspoken opponent of Paul (cf. Gal 1:18; 2:6-9.11-14), the author of 1 Pet understandably avoided employing in the missive the rhetorical technique of anaskeuē [confutatio], retaining only the basic epistolary ēthopoiia and eirōneia. In fact, several features of 1 Pet confirm this hypothesis. First, the declared addressees of the missive are referred to as living in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). This geographical limitation of the scope of the letter is quite strange, especially in comparison to the very similar address Jas 1:1. However, it closely corresponds to the Lukan idea of God-imposed geographical limitation of the Jewish Christian mission led by Peter (Acts 2:9-10; cf. 16:6-7). This idea originates from, among others, the Pauline text Gal 2:7-9 (cf. Πέτρος, *ἀποστολ in Gal 2:8 and 1 Pet 1:1; *εὐαγγελ in Gal 2:7 and 1 Pet 1:12.25; 4:6.17 but absent in Jas). The authority (rhetorical ēthos) of the declared author of the letter is based not only on his being an apostle (1 Pet 1:1; cf. Gal 1:17-18; 2:8) but also on the particular references that are made by him to (a) Christ’s resurrection through the Spirit, which is presented as undeniable but, on the other hand, as having not immediately followed Christ’s death (1 Pet 1:3.21; 3:18-21; cf. Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:3-4) and (b) the author’s enjoying the privilege of having seen Christ (ὁράω: 1 Pet 1:8; cf. 1 Cor 15:5). Both these fundamental features of the personage of Peter, as referred to by Paul, have been reworked by the author of 1 Pet with the 26

For a recent survey of research on the relationship between 1 Pet and the Pauline letters, see e.g. J. Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus? Studien über das Verhältnis des Ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition (WUNT 103; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1998), 2-21. For recent lists of similarities and differences between 1 Pet and the Pauline letters, see e.g. P. J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter, ed. E. J. Epp (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 1996), 15-19; J. H. Elliott, 1 Peter, 20-23, 37-40; K. H. Jobes, 1 Peter (BECNT; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2005), 11-13; T. Söding, ‘Grüße aus Rom: Der Erste Petrusbrief in der Geschichte des Urchristentums und im Kanon’, in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief, ed. id. (SBS 216; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2009), 11-45 (esp. 32-35).

415

use of various scriptural and apocalyptic motifs. 27 They develop the Pauline (or rather: post-Pauline) motif of entrusting especially to Peter the interpretation of Christ’s sufferings, burial, and glory as having occurred in conformity with the prophetically understood Scriptures (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-5 and e.g. 1 Pet 1:10-13.1921; 3:19-20; cf. also Acts 1:16-20; 2:14-36; 3:12-26; 4:24-30; 10:39-43). Peter’s ēthos is additionally corroborated in 1 Pet by the surprisingly numerous Scripture-based references to the “rock” (πέτρα: 1 Pet 2:8; cf. Rom 9:33 diff. Is 8:14 LXX) and to the “living stone” (1 Pet 2:4-8: based on a thematic conflation of various scriptural texts; cf. also Acts 4:8-12), which most probably allude to understanding of the name of Peter as referring to his status of the main Jewish Christian apostle (Πέτρος: cf. Gal 2:7-8 and various post-Pauline works: Mk, Lk, Acts, Mt, Jn, and 2 Pet). Other characteristically post-Pauline features of the image of Peter that has been created in 1 Pet include persistent use of Jewish-style argumentation in a letter that apparently has been written to both the Jews and the Gentiles (e.g. 1 Pet 1:13-2:10; 4:3-4; cf. Gal 2:7-8.14); frequent references to food that has to be eaten in the state of holiness (1 Pet 1:13-19; 2:2-3; 4:3-4; cf. Gal 2:12.14); particular interest in authority and family matters (1 Pet 2:13-3:7; 5:1-5; cf. 1 Cor 9:5); conciliatory attitude to Church problems, notwithstanding numerous slanders (e.g. 1 Pet 1:22; 3:8-17; 4:8; cf. Gal 2:9.12); particular stress on hospitality (1 Pet 4:9; cf. Gal 1:18); and arguing for recognition of diverse Church charismata (1 Pet 4:10-11; cf. Gal 2:7-9), especially of the preaching of the gospel as carried out by others (1 Pet 1:12; cf. Gal 2:7-9). Several features of 1 Pet correspond to the association of the character of Peter with Rome (cf. Acts 2:10-11): 28 affinities to Rom especially in the discussion on the role of civil authorities (1 Pet 2:12-17; cf. Rom 12:18-13:8) 29 and in frequent references to Isaiah and to other prophets and psalms (cf. esp. Rom 911); references to the Pauline co-workers who bore Latin names, namely Silvanus and Marcus (1 Pet 5:12-13; cf. 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thes 1:1; Phlm 24); 30 and the 27

Cf. R. L. Webb, ‘Intertexture and Rhetorical Strategy in First Peter’s Apocalyptic Discourse: A Study in Sociorhetorical Interpretation’, in Reading First Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter, ed. R. L. Webb and B. Bauman-Martin (LNTS 364; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 72-110 (esp. 79-108).

28

For a critical opinion on the origin of this association, see M. D. Goulder, ‘Did Peter ever go to Rome?’, SJT 57 (2004) 377-396 (esp. 392-393).

29

Cf. K. M. Schmidt, Mahnung und Erinnerung im Maskenspiel: Epistolographie, Rhetorik und Narrativik der pseudepigraphen Petrusbriefe (HBS 38; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2003), 235-241.

30

Cf. U. Schnelle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (UTB 2917; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2007), 577-578.

416

final allusion to Rome as inevitably regarded by a pious Jew as a place of exile (1 Pet 5:13; cf. Acts 2:10-11; 12:17; cf. also 1 Pet 1:1.17; 2:11). The post-Pauline portrait of Peter that has been depicted in 1 Pet is, however, not entirely conciliatory as concerns its reference to the Pauline theology. The epistolary Peter’s enigmatic exhortation to long for spiritual, unadulterated milk (γάλα: 1 Pet 2:2) most probably alludes to the Pauline text 1 Cor 3:2 (cf. also Rom 12:1), which presents the Corinthian ‘parties’ (implicitly including also that of Cephas: 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22) as thinking as infants and, in consequence, metaphorically nourished merely with milk. Similarly to Jas, 1 Pet does not contain any reference to the most controversial issues that were discussed by Paul with Peter in Jerusalem and in Antioch: (a) circumcision of the Gentile believers and (b) the Gentile Christians’ table fellowship with the Jews (cf. Gal 2:3-9.11-14). On the contrary, the Galatian-Asian geographical location of the declared addressees of the missive (1 Pet 1:1) suggests that it was in fact intended to present one of the typically post-Pauline, ethopoeic answers to the Antiochene-Galatian crisis (cf. also Acts 15:7-11). 1 Pet may be therefore regarded as an ethopoeic, 31 post-Pauline 32 letter of Pseudo-Peter. Conclusion The Letter of James and the First Letter of Peter may be regarded as two correlated epistolary works that present the characters of the two main Jewish Christian opponents of the Apostle of the Nations, namely James and Cephas (cf. Gal 2:11-14), from the purely post-Pauline point of view. They both prove by means of the rhetorical technique of ēthopoiia that the legitimacy of the Pauline Gentile mission was never seriously questioned by the Jewish Christian authorities.33 31

Cf. K. M. Schmidt, Mahnung, 295.

32

Cf. F. C. Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: Ein Beitrag zu einer kritischen Geschichte des Urchristentums (Becher and Müller: Stuttgart 1845), 242.

33

It is worth noting that also 1 Jn, with its stress on the role of Jesus’ teaching (*διδασκ: 1 Jn 2:27; cf. Mk 9:38), seeing the brother (ὁράω: 1 Jn 4:20; 5:16; cf. Mk 9:38), Jesus’ name (ὄνομα: 1 Jn 2:12; 3:23; 5:13; cf. Mk 9:38), loving the brother because of the commandment of Jesus (1 Jn 3:23; 4:20-21; cf. Mk 9:38-39), and remaining in fellowship “with us” (μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν: 1 Jn 1:3; 2:19; 4:17; cf. Lk 9:49) and “for” us (ὑπέρ: 1 Jn 3:16; cf. Lk 9:50), was most probably composed with the use of the same post-Pauline rhetorical technique. The rhetorical charges against those who do not keep the Lord’s commandments (1 Jn 2:4 et al.), “went out from us but were not from among us” and did not “remain with us” (1 Jn 2:19), are mundane (1 Jn 2:15-17 et al.), deny that Jesus is the Messiah (1 Jn 2:22), deceive the believers (1 Jn 2:26 et al.), commit lawlessness

417

Both letters display numerous affinities to the post-Pauline, Lukan ideas that have been expressed most clearly in Acts. Both missives are in fact akin to the post-Pauline, ethopoeic, pseudo-Jewish Christian letter Acts 15:23-29, which is composed in good Hellenistic Greek and ascribed to the main Jewish Christian leaders: James and Peter (cf. esp. the Hellenistic epistolary greeting χαίρειν in Jas 1:1 and Acts 15:23, as well as the idea of writing a ‘catholic’ letter ascribed to James in Acts 15:20; 21:25). 34 It may be therefore reasonably assumed that Jas and 1 Pet have been composed in the same post-Pauline school of thought in which also the works of Luke have been written. 5.2.2 Matthew’s use of Acts and of Jas with 1 Pet The Gospel of Matthew is usually regarded as the most Jewish one among the Synoptic Gospels. 35 It displays numerous Jewish Christian, apparently even antiPauline features. It stresses the importance of the Law and of the Prophets, and it recommends doing even the least of the commandments (Mt 5:17a.19). It forbids giving holy things to dogs and throwing pearls before swine (Mt 7:6). It emphasizes the importance of doing the will of the Father in heaven, and it requires avoiding lawlessness in place of mere invoking the name of the Lord (Mt 7:21-23). It restricts the mission of the Twelve only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 10:5-6.23; cf. also Mt 15:23-24 added to Mk 7:25-26). It omits the Markan solution to the problem of the alleged impurity of the Gentile food (Mk 7:19 omitted in Mt 15:17). On the other hand, Mt surprisingly endorses the mission to all the nations of the world on the basis of Jesus’ teachings that are contained in the Matthean (1 Jn 3:4), and do not keep themselves from idols (1 Jn 5:21; cf. Acts 21:25) are in fact apparently anti-Pauline. They are rhetorically countered in the missive by the typically Pauline confession of Jesus as (a) the Son of God and the Son of the Father (1 Jn 2:2224), (b) the one who is believed and confessed in truth (1 Jn 2:21 et al.) with boldness (1 Jn 2:28 et al.) in the love of the Father for his children (1 Jn 3:1 et al.) that is attested by the presence of God’s Spirit in the believers (1 Jn 3:24 et al.), and (c) the one who gave the well rooted in the Scriptures supreme commandment of brotherly love (1 Jn 3:11 et al.). Since 1 Jn (as well as 2 Jn, 3 Jn, and Jud) seems to have not been used by Matthew, it is not analysed here in detail. However, rhetorical analysis of all the ‘Catholic Letters’ corroborates the plausibility of the hypothesis of the post-Pauline, ethopoeic character of Jas and 1 Pet. 34

Cf. G. Theißen, ‘Die pseudepigraphe Intention’, 61.

35

For a recent presentation of scholarly opinions on the Jewish or Jewish Christian character of Mt, see e.g. J. Schmidt, Gesetzesfreie Heilsverkündigung im Evangelium nach Matthäus: Das Apostelkonzil (Apg 15) als historischer und theologischer Bezugspunkt für die Theologie des Matthäusevangeliums (FzB 113; Echter: Würzburg 2007), 28-51.

418

work (Mt 28:19-20; cf. also Mt 4:15; 21:43). Accordingly, the particular features of Mt show signs of similarity to the rhetorical character of the post-Pauline letters attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders: the Letter of Pseudo-James (Jas) and the Letter of Pseudo-Peter (1 Pet), which convey distinctively post-Pauline ideas embedded in apparently Jewish Christian rhetorical argumentation. The adequate analysis of the message of Mt cannot be therefore limited to a superficial description of its apparently peculiarly Jewish Christian formulations. It has to include an adequate analysis of the rhetorical techniques and redactional procedures that have been applied by the evangelist, by means of which the peculiarly Jewish Christian formulations have been inserted into not necessarily Jewish Christian argumentative contexts. 5.2.2.1 Matthew’s insertions into the Markan narrative framework and relocations of the Markan material ‘Inflation’ of the ‘Jewish’ sections of the gospel story It is a widely known feature of Mt that it generally agrees in its second half (Mt 14:1-28:20) with the large part of the Markan Gospel (Mk 6:14-16:8) in the relative order of their respective material. Although there are several expansions of the Markan narrative framework that may be detected in the second half of Mt (similarly to its first part), the Markan order of pericopes is generally preserved there. 36 The first part of Mt (i.e. Mt 1-13) 37 has been composed in a much more complicated way. As a simple quantitative comparison reveals, this part of Mt is quite abundant in gospel material. One-third of the Markan story (Mk 1:1-6:13) thematically corresponds to almost one-half of Mt (Mt 1-13). This ‘inflation’ of the first part of the gospel story in the Matthean work (Mt 1-13) is caused 36

Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 100.

37

The delimitation of the main parts or sections of Mt is here deliberately vague (e.g. Mt 1-13). The internal structure of Mt seems to be, after all, a result of interplay of various redactional procedures, rhetorical techniques, and literary schemes that have been adopted by the evangelist. In order to understand their structuring and argumentative role, the distinctive features of the main parts of Mt have to be first analysed diachronically in their intertextual relationships to other New Testament works that may be regarded as possible sources for Mt: the Pauline letters, Mk, Lk, etc. Starting the investigation of Mt with the synchronic analysis of its internal structure, in categories of highlighting repetitions of some Matthean textual phenomena, may easily result in understanding of the whole work in mere linear categories (i.e. as a set of more or less arbitrarily delimitated sections and subsections), with disregarding its important, also structuring and meaning-conveying intertextual references.

419

mainly by redactional insertions of much material that is either (a) absent in Mk but present in Lk (the so-called ‘double Mt-Lk tradition’) or (b) thematically and at times linguistically corresponding to Lk (especially the infancy narrative Mt 1-2; cf. e.g. Mt 1:20-21 par. Lk 1:30-31: ἄγγελος… μὴ φοβ… *τέξ… υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν). Such a redactional procedure would not be surprising if it were applied consistently by the evangelist in his entire work. However, in the central part of Mt, which describes Jesus’ departure from Galilee and his subsequent travel to Jerusalem (Mt 14-20 par. Mk 6:14-10:52), the Lukan non-Markan material appears only exceptionally and, generally, in the form of small, isolated textual units (Mt 15:14; 16:2-4; 17:20; 18:7.12-15.21; 19:28; 20:16). The Lukan nonMarkan material reappears in forms of larger textual units, which are typical of Mt 1-13, in the section Mt 21-25, which describes Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem before his passion and resurrection (Mt 21:28.31-32; 22:1-14; 23:4-7.12-13.2339; 24:27-28.37-41.43-51; 25:10-12.14-30). This peculiar redactional procedure cannot be adequately explained in terms of Matthew’s ‘editorial fatigue’, 38 or of his ‘using up’ the ‘Q’ (i.e. in fact Lukan) source material in Mt 1-13, 39 for a significant amount of the originally Lukan material has been used also in the section Mt 21-25. Matthew was evidently interested in ‘inflating’ particularly these sections of the Gospel, which referred most directly to Jesus’ activity among the Jews. These parts of Mt describe events that took place in Judaea (Mt 1:1-2:21; 4:1-11), in Galilee (Mt 2:22-23; 4:12-13:58; 17:22-18:35; 28:16-20), and in Jerusalem before the Passover (Mt 21-25). 40 It is worth noting that each of these sections is concluded with a redactional transition remark (literarily based on Mk 3:6-7) that justifies withdrawal of the positive narrative characters (Joseph, Jesus, and the apostles) from the Jewish regions by pointing to the unbelief, rejection, or persecution on the part of the Jews or (allusively) Jewish Christians (ἀκούσας… ἀνεχώρησεν: Mt 2:22; 4:12; 38

Cf. R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (2nd edn., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994), 10.

39

Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 71. It should be noted that it is not true that “all of the material from Mt 15:14 on has Lukan parallels only after Lk 11:36” so that “Matthew, having completely used up the first half of Q by the time he comes to the mid-point of his Gospel, can draw only from the last half of Q thereafter” (ibid. 118). In reality, Mt 21:31d-32 is literarily dependent on Lk 7:27-30 (τελῶναι believing + βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ + Ἰωάννης + ὁδός + *δικαιο + disbelief of the Jewish elites; cf. also the motifs of prostitutes + *πιστ: Lk 7:37.50).

40

For a similar use of the geographical criterion as a structuring factor in Mt, see e.g. H. Kvalbein, Fortolkning til Matteusevangeliet, vol. 1 (2nd edn., Luther: Oslo 1998), 33-34.

420

14:13; cf. also Mt 13:57-58; 18:28-35; 25:41-46; 28:11-15). A theologicalnarrative post-Pauline pattern, similar to that used in Acts (cf. e.g. Acts 23:1124), may be here easily recognized. This peculiar pattern of repeated transition from the Jews to the Gentiles is additionally justified in Mt by means of the peculiarly post-Pauline use of fulfilment quotations from the prophets (especially from Isaiah: cf. Rom 9-10), which is understandably restricted to the Matthean ‘Jewish sections’ (see esp. Mt 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21 [cf. Mk 3:7-12]; 41 13:14-15.35; cf. also Mt 15:7-8, which has been borrowed from Mk 7:6). 42 It resembles particularly Acts 28:2428, which has been in fact quoted verbatim in Mt 13:14-15 (diff. Is 6:9-10 LXX). The peculiar Matthean feature of these quotations consists in the ‘Hebraized’ textual form of most of them. This feature may be adequately explained not in source-critical categories 43 but in redactional ones. 44 Most probably 41

Cf. R. Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel (SNTS.MS 123; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2002), 144-145, 148-149.

42

Cf. B. Standaert, ‘L’évangile selon Matthieu: Composition et genre littéraire’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (BEThL 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 1223-1250 (esp. 1233-1237). For a not entirely satisfactory presentation of the function of the fulfilment quotations, namely as concluding Matthean redactional sections, see M. Trimaille, ‘Citations d’accomplissement et architecture de l’Évangile selon S. Matthieu’, EstB 48 (1990) 4779.

43

According to Maarten J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (BEThL 173; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2004), 282, Matthew used in the so-called Matthean special (‘Sondergut’: in fact, redactional) material a particular version of the Septuagint, which had been partially revised in the light of the Hebrew text in Is, Jer, the Minor Prophets, and Pss, but which had not been revised in Deut. This hypothesis is implausible because (a) in Mt 5:21.31 also fragments of Deut are quoted in textual forms that expand and modify the standard version of the Septuagint and, on the other hand, (b) the quotation from Ps 8:3 in Mt 21:16 perfectly accords with the version of the Septuagint. Consequently, it was Matthew himself who evidently partially ‘Hebraized’ the Septuagint version of his scriptural quotations (cf. e.g. Mt 27:46bd diff. Mk 15:34bd).

44

If the expansion of the quotation from Deut 8:3 LXX in Mt 4:4, which has been borrowed from Lk 4:4, is put aside, there are only three Matthean redactional quotations that generally follow the version of the Septuagint: Mt 13:14-15 (which is identical to Acts 28:26-27 diff. Is 6:10b LXX, and consequently it has been probably borrowed from Acts 28:26-27), Mt 18:16 (which slightly modifies Deut 19:15 LXX), and Mt 21:16e (which quotes verbatim Ps 8:3a LXX): cf. M. J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 271-274. It should be noted in this context that the quotation in Mt 18:16 alludes to the Jerusalem accord ‘2 plus 3’, which referred to the mission among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:9), and that Mt 21:16 alludes likewise to the Gentiles’ praise of God. Accordingly, the

421

precisely this distinctive feature of Mt gave rise to Papias’ opinion that Mt had been composed “in [the] Hebrew language” (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ: quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16; cf. Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14). The Gospel of Matthew must have sounded strangely in the ears of its Hellenistic recipients who were accustomed to the text of the Septuagint. Anticipations and reworking of the Markan material in Mt 1-13 The first, generally ‘Jewish’, part of Mt (i.e. Mt 1-13) has been composed in a surprisingly complicated way. The Markan gospel story has not only been ‘inflated’ therein with the use of much Lukan material, but it has also been thoroughly reordered. Whereas in Mt 14-28 the evangelist generally followed the flow of the Markan story (even if he occasionally also considerably ‘inflated’ it, especially in Mt 21-25), in Mt 3-13 (which structurally corresponds to Mk 1:16:13) the original Markan order of pericopes has been changed in a significant number of cases. The overall pattern of these changes has been created not so much by interchanges of position of individual pericopes as rather by several anticipations of originally later parts of the Markan story.45 The Matthean summary Mt 4:23-25, which is placed after the account of the call of the first disciples (Mk 1:16-20 par. Mt 4:18-22) and before the account of the (in Mt second) coming to Capernaum (Mk 1:21 par. Mt 8:5), has been composed on the basis of numerous texts: Mk 1:14; 1:21; 1:28 (which remained from the very ‘Jewish’ pericope Mk 1:23-28, which has been omitted by Matthew); Lk 4:38 (par. Mk 1:30); Mk 1:32.34 (reworked in Mt 8:16-17); Mk 1:39 (omitted after Mt 8:17); Mk 2:3-4 (much shortened in Mt 9:2); Mk 3:78 (reworked with the use of Mk 5:20-21); 46 Mk 5:24 (conflated with Lk 9:11); and Mk 6:6 (omitted in Mt 13:58). By means of this complex conflation, Matthew created the image of Jesus’ initial activity as reaching (a) by means of his teaching the whole Jewish–Gentile Galilee (cf. Mt 4:15) and (b) by means of his

form of the Matthean quotations evidently corresponds not to their original textual version but to their hypertextual-narrative function within the Matthean work. 45

Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Matthew 4:23-5:2 and the Matthean composition of 4:23 – 11:1’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 23-46 (esp. 46).

46

Cf. ibid. 42-44 against M.-É. Boismard, ‘La Théorie des Deux Sources’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (BEThL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 259-265 (esp. 263-264).

422

famous healings also the Gentile country of Syria and the whole country of the Jews in its ideal borders, including also its present Gentile inhabitants. 47 The first great discourse (Mt 5-7), which has been composed on the basis of Mk 1:21-22 and Lk 6:12-13.20-49 (et al.), alludes in its content to the mission to both Jews and Gentiles (cf. e.g. Mt 5:13.14-16). 48 The apparently Jewish Christian exposition of the Law and the Prophets (cf. Mt 5:17-48) is in fact, in its exposition of “these” commandments (Mt 5:19), distinctively post-Pauline (cf. esp. Rom 13:9; 1 Cor 7:10-11; cf. also the universalistic formula Mt 7:12). The basic idea of fulfilling all the commandments of the law (Mt 5:17-20) by loving the neighbour (the climax of Mt 5:17-48 in Mt 5:43-48) is clearly Pauline (Rom 13:8). 49 On the other hand, it is worth noting that the Matthean exposition of the validity of the commandments (Mt 5:17-48) does not refer to the really controversial halachic issues of observing sabbaths (cf. Mk 2:23-3:6), circumcision, and purity of food (cf. Gal 2:3-14). Even the commandment of honouring father and mother, which was fully endorsed by Matthew elsewhere (Mt 15:3-6 par. Mk 7:8-13), has not been included in the post-Pauline exposition Mt 5:1748 because it was not mentioned in Rom 13:9. Accordingly, the will of the Father and the whole law have been effectively identified by Matthew with the post-Pauline version of the teaching of Jesus as it has been presented in the ‘great sermon’ (cf. Mt 7:21.23-27). The two pericopes that have been inserted before the account of the coming to Peter’s house and of subsequent healings (Mk 1:29-34 par. Mt 8:14-17) describe two paradigmatic healings: one granted to a Jew (Mk 1:40-44 par. Mt 8:14, with the universalistic motif Mk 1:45 omitted) and one granted to a Gentile (Lk 7:1-10 par. Mt 8:5-13, with the Jews-related motif Lk 7:3-5 omitted, and with the Gentile-related text Lk 13:28-30 inserted in Mt 8:11-12). The postPauline pattern of passage of the gospel from Jews to Gentiles (Mt 8:11-12; cf. e.g. Acts 9:32-11:18) is here clearly visible. 50 47

Cf. B. Repschinski, ‘Matthew and Luke’, in Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries, ed. D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (LNTS 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 50-65 (esp. 56). It is not true that Mt 4:23-25 refers simply to the Jewish population, which has been reluctantly admitted even by the proponent of the opposite thesis: M. Konradt, Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 215; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 54 n. 197; cf. also ibid. 56 n. 206.

48

Cf. P. Šoltés, “Ihr seid das Salz des Landes, das Licht der Welt”: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mt 5,13-16 im Kontext (EHS 23/782; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2004), 319.

49

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 4, Matthew and The Canon (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2009), 139-140.

50

Cf. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2007), 313, 316; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 151-153. Pace

423

The Markan text concerning Jesus’ leaving Capernaum (Mk 1:35-38) has been replaced by Matthew with the account of the travel to the other side of the Sea of Gennesaret, which has been anticipated from Mk 4:35-5:20 in Mt 8:18. 23-34. It has been preceded with the thematically related text Mt 8:19-22, which has been borrowed from Lk 9:57-60 and reworked by Matthew to suit his favourite pattern of easily perceivable parallelism (Mt 8:19-20.21-22). Consequently, in line with the characteristic post-Pauline pattern (cf. e.g. Acts 13:4549), the rejection of the gospel by the Jews (cf. Mt 8:12) is presented in Mt as followed by its preaching to the Gentiles. The paradigmatic (and hence also shortened in comparison to Lk 9:57-62 and Mk 4:35-5:20) stories Mt 8:18-34 have therefore the function of illustrating the peculiar post-Pauline Jewish– Gentile pattern. Between the Markan pericopes that refer to distinctively halachic issues: one concerning fasting (Mk 2:18-22 par. Mt 9:14-17) and two others concerning sabbath observance (Mk 2:23-3:6 par. Mt 12:1-14), much distinctively ‘Jewish’ material has been inserted and reworked in such a way that its distinctively Jewish features became less prominent (Mt 9:18-11:30; cf. already earlier Mt 9:9.13). The evangelist opened his insertion with the Markan pericopes referring to healings of two Jews, which have been much shortened and anticipated from Mk 5:21-43 in Mt 9:18-26. After that, the Markan ‘Jewish’ pericope Mk 10:4652 has been anticipated and thoroughly reworked in Mt 9:27-31. The subsequent pericope Mt 9:32-34 has been composed on the basis of Lk 11:14-15 (cf. Mk 3:22). All these three Jewish (but not ‘Judaizing’) pericopes have been provided by Matthew with conclusions that refer to wide spreading of the news about Jesus in Israel (Mt 9:26.31.33bc). These redactional conclusions introduce the thematically similar transitory pericope Mt 9:35-38, which has been composed on the basis of several texts: Mk 1:14.34; 4:29; 6:6b.34; Lk 10:2. The subsequent section Mt 10:1-11:30 has been composed on the basis of the Markan anticipated texts Mk 6:7-11; 3:15-19 with the use of much other (partly conflated) Markan and especially Lukan material. This section illustrates the mission of the Twelve, of John the Baptist, and of Jewish Christians in general as (a) limited, in accordance with Gal 2:9 (interpreted in post-Pauline, geographical categories), to Israel, which presumably included isolated righteous Gentiles living within its borders (cf. esp. Mt 10:5-6.23 and 10:41-42; cf. also Acts 2:9-11; 9:32-11:18), and (b) accompanied by growing hostility and persecutions on the part of the unbelieving Jews (cf. Acts 12:1-24). The concluding Matthean periW. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 102, it is not true that Mt 8-9 is a simple miracle story in difference to the controversy story Mt 12; see the presence of the clearly redactional elements of controversy in Mt 8:11-12; 9:3 (diff. Mk 2:7); 9:13a. 34.36.

424

cope Mt 11:28-30 illustrates the post-Pauline idea of the distinctively Christian halacha, which is interpreted as replacing the Jewish heavy burden with the light yoke of the few necessary precepts of the Church of Christ (cf. Mt 23:4; Acts 15:10.28-29). The same idea of a particular Christian law for the Gentiles is expressed in the pericope Mt 12:15-21, which is in fact a reworked version of the Markan text Mk 3:7-12. 51 The pericopes Mt 12:22-45 are based on the Markan text Mk 3:22-30, which has been conflated with the thematically similar Lukan pericopes Lk 11:14-26.29-32 and which has been rearranged and expanded with the use of other Markan and Lukan texts (Mk 2:12; 8:22-24; 10:46-52; Lk 6:43-45; 12:10) in order to develop the motif of condemnation of the unbelieving Jewish ‘this generation’. At the same time, the Lukan blessing Lk 11:27-28 has been entirely omitted as not suiting this particular redactional aim. The Matthean version of the Markan parables Mk 4:1-34 is presented as referring mainly to the Jews and to the Jewish Christian disciples, as distinct from the intended recipients of the Matthean work (Mt 13:1-52; cf. esp. Mt 13:15). The main features of Matthean reworking of the corresponding Markan material include replacement of the pattern of growth with that of decrease of the effects of the gospel among its Jewish Christian recipients (Mt 13:8 diff. Mk 4:8), elaboration of the motif of general misunderstanding and rejection of Jesus’ teaching by its Jewish hearers (Mt 13:11c-12.14-15 cf. Mk 4:25.12), and implicit change of the addressees of the blessing Lk 10:23-24 to all intended (Gentile) recipients of the Gospel who are presented as differing from the Jews who do not understand it (Mt 13:16-17; cf. also Mt 13:18-23). The Markan optimistic parables of the shining lamp and of the seed growing while people sleep (Mk 4:21-23.26-29; whereas Mk 4:25 was anticipated in Mt 13:12) have been replaced with the parable of the weeds, which alludes to the rise of the opponents of the Pauline gospel (Mt 13:24-30). The Markan parable of the mustard seed (Mk 4:30-32 conflated with Lk 13:18-19 in Mt 13:31-32), which has been reworked by Matthew to parallel that of the weeds (cf. Mt 13:24 and Mt 13:31; cf. also later Mt 13:44), presents, together with the subsequent Lukan parable of the yeast (Lk 13:20-21 par. Mt 13:33), an optimistic post-Pauline counterpart to Mt 13:24-30. The positive Markan conclusion Mk 4:34 has been replaced by Matthew with the enigmatic quotation Mt 13:35, which has been supplemented with parables that are composed with the use of the pattern of (a) diverging, (b) positive (Petrine), (b’) positive (Pauline), and (a’) diverging responses to the commonly preached (Petrine-Pauline) gospel (Mt 13:36-50). The conclusion Mt 13:51-52 promises, in characteristically post-Pauline categories, a share in the kingdom of God to those Jewish Christian leaders who will make an effort to 51

Cf. R. Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 165-170.

425

understand and accept the post-Pauline Gospel as a new jewel that is in harmony with the old scriptural-halachic values (cf. Acts 15:13-21). The ‘homeland’ pericope (Mt 13:53-58 par. Mk 6:1-6a), together with the much shortened by Matthew account of the death of John the Baptist (Mt 14:112 par. Mk 6:14-29; whereas Mk 6:6b-11 was used earlier in Mt 9:35-10:14), introduces, by means of the post-Pauline pattern of Jewish general rejection of the gospel, the central, generally ‘Gentile’ section of the Matthean work (Mt 1420; cf. the redactional transition formula ἀκούσας δὲ… ἀνεχώρησεν in Mt 14:13). 52 Composition of the ‘Petrine’ pericopes in Mt 14-20 The characteristic feature of the ‘Gentile’ section of the Matthean Gospel (Mt 14-20) consists in inclusion or elaboration of several texts that refer in a special way to the character of Peter (Mt 14:28-31; 15:15 [diff Mk 7:17]; 16:1720; 17:24-27 [diff. Mk 9:33ab]; 18:21-22 [diff. Lk 17:4]). On the other hand, several Markan references to Simon/Peter that were contained in the sections of the gospel story that were regarded by Matthew as ‘Jewish’ have been omitted in Mt (Mk 1:36; 5:37; 11:21; 13:3; cf. also 16:7). It is therefore evident that Matthew was not interested simply in highlighting the importance of Peter among the apostles. He illustrated rather the characteristically post-Pauline idea of a peculiar role of Peter in inauguration of the Christian mission to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7). This post-Pauline, redactional idea of including a number of ‘Petrine’ references in the central, ‘Gentile’ section of the Matthean Gospel (Mt 14-20), with the corresponding suppression of them, as far as possible, in the ‘Jewish’ sections Mt 1-13; 21-25, is evident also in the particular placing of the ‘Petrine’ texts within the Matthean sequence of pericopes. The first special reference to Peter (Mt 14:28-31) has been inserted into the pericope that refers to the Jesus’ travel with his disciples to the other side of the Sea of Gennesaret (Mt 14:2233). This pericope, which highlights the special relationship between Peter and Jesus, precedes the account that justifies Peter’s particular role in the halachic discussion of the issue of purity of food (Mt 15:1-20: cf. esp. 15:15 diff. Mk 7:17). Both these references to Peter allude to the Pauline texts 1 Cor 15:5 and Gal 2:11-14, and they present a post-Pauline solution to the Antiochene crisis. 53 According to Mt, it was Peter who was told (in a way similar to Acts 10:14-15; diff. the simple general statement Mk 7:19c: καθαρίζων…) that the Gentiles and their food could not be considered by themselves impure, and it was Peter who 52

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 193-196.

53

Cf. ibid. 197-199.

426

had to defend this view against other apostles on the basis of his special authority as the first witness of Christ’s resurrection (cf. Acts 11:2-17; 15:7-11). The second major particular reference to Peter (Mt 16:17-20) follows Peter’s confession of the identity of Jesus, which is formulated in Mt in both Jewish Christian terms, namely as the Messiah, and in the Pauline ones, namely as the Son of (the living) God (Mt 16:16 conflating Mk 8:29 and Lk 9:20 in a ‘Hebraized’ way: cf. Deut 4:33; 5:26; 1 Sam 17:36; Hos 2:1 LXX). Peter is therefore presented in Mt 16:16-20 as not merely one of the Jewish Christian ‘pillars’, who would be equal to or inferior to James (Gal 2:9). He is described as enjoying, on the basis of a special Pauline-style revelation of the risen Christ as the Son of God, which was granted to him (before Paul) in his Aramaic identity of Cephas → Simon → Bar Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. 1 Cor 15:5.8; Gal 1:1618), 54 the authority of the foundational rock of the entire Jewish–Gentile Church (diff. both Rom 15:20 and Gal 2:12; cf. e.g. Acts 1:15; 2:14; 15:7). The third ‘Petrine’ reference (Mt 17:24-27), which expands the Markan text Mk 9:33ab, illustrates Peter’s recognition of the Pauline freedom (*ἐλευθερ) of the gospel that was preached among the Gentiles and symbolized by the fish caught in the sea (cf. Gal 2:4). 55 It alludes also to the issue of the financial contribution for the Jerusalem Church, which was perceived, from the postPauline point of view, as unjustly imposed on the Gentile believers (cf. Acts 21:14-15; 24:17) and consequently interpreted in Mt 17:25-26 as calling into question their freedom of children of God in Christ. Nevertheless, this contribution is presented as paid by Paul (and in Mt 17:27 by Peter) in order to preserve the unity of the Church (Gal 2:10). 56 This reference to Peter’s learning from Paul how to solve grave Church problems (Mt 17:24-27) invites the readers to interpret also the subsequent Matthean pericopes of various origin (Mt 18:1-20) as referring indirectly to Peter (hence the omission of the pericope Mk 9:38-40, which referred to John, after Mt 18:1-5 par. Mk 9:33-37). In order to become the main Church leader, the Matthean Peter has to learn how to change inwardly and become humble like a child (Mt 18:3-4; cf. Gal 2:2; Lk 22:32), deal decisively and effectively with Church scandals (Mt 18:7; cf. Gal 2:4-5.11-13), 57 respect the little ones and look for the lost ones (Mt 18:10.12-14; cf. Gal 2:14), reprove erring fellow believers (Mt 18:15; cf. Gal 2:11), and deal in groups of two or three partners in order to achieve in the name of Christ an authoritative accord 54

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 205; D. C. Sim, ‘Matthew and the Pauline Corpus: A Preliminary Intertextual Study’, JSNT 31.4 (2009) 401-422 (esp. 411-416).

55

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 212.

56

Cf. ibid. 213-214.

57

Cf. J. Schmidt, Gesetzesfreie, 185-186.

427

that expresses the true nature of the Church of Christ (Mt 18:16-20; cf. Gal 2:9; Acts 15:25-29). The fourth special Matthean reference to Peter (Mt 18:21-22), which expands the Lukan text Lk 17:4, 58 introduces the pericope Mt 18:23-35, which presents all Church leaders, including the Jewish Christian ones, as debtors (i.e. sinners: cf. Mt 6:12) before God. Consequently, they may not obligate their (especially Gentile) fellow believers to pay their financial or moral debts (cf. Rom 15:27; Gal 2:10), but they shall cancel all of them (Mt 18:32-33.35). The fifth reference to Peter (Mt 19:27) is not peculiar to Mt because it has been borrowed by the evangelist from Mk 10:28. However, in difference to its original Markan context, it precedes in Mt two peculiarly Matthean texts. The first of them, namely Mt 19:28 (which is based on Lk 22:28.30), illustrates the apostles’ reward as consisting in their share in Christ’s authority. Their particular participation is regarded, however, as future and as limited only to Israel (diff. Lk 22:29; cf. 1 Cor 9:17-25; Phlp 4:1; 1 Thes 2:19). The second text, namely Mt 20:1-16 (which expands the Lukan text Lk 13:30 par. Mt 20:16), equals the reward (μισθός: cf. 1 Cor 3:8; 9:17-18) that is received by the workers who were called as last and without any promise of reward (alluding to Paul and his co-workers: cf. Mt 20:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:8) with the reward that is given to the first workers who were hired for paid work (alluding to Peter and the Twelve: Mt 20:2.10; cf. 1 Cor 15:5). The conclusion Mt 20:16, in agreement with the established post-Pauline pattern, exalts Paul and his co-workers above Peter and the Twelve (cf. 1 Cor 9:23-27; Mk 10:28-31; Lk 19:17.24-26; Acts 1:8 with 28:28-31). The concluding reference to the Eleven in Mt 28:16-20 (diff. Mk 16:7) thematically corresponds to Acts 1:1-12.26 (and is most probably based on it: ἕνδεκα, *Γαλιλαι, ὄρος, ἐξουσία, πᾶς + nations, βαπτίζω + τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ὁ πατήρ, διδάσκω, ἐντέλλομαι), which does not conclude but which in fact begins the post-resurrection story of the disciples, who were called by the risen Christ to make disciples (μαθητεύω: cf. Acts 14:21) among all the nations of the world. Sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts in Mt By means of these numerous redactional insertions into the Markan narrative framework and relocations of the Markan material, a complex internal organization of the contents of Mt has been achieved. As a whole, the basic pattern of changing geographical location of the action of Mt, which is combined with changes of its themes and literary motifs, corresponds closely to that of Acts: 58

428

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 220.

1. Establishment of a Jewish ‘rest’ consisting of a limited number of believing but violently persecuted Jews in Judaea, including four minor female characters (cf. Mk 15:40 par. Mt 27:56; cf. also Lk 8:2-3; 24:10) and Mary the mother of Jesus, and accompanied by Gentiles who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Acts 1:1-8:3; Mt 1:1-2:12; 2:16-18) 2. Persecutions causing leaving Judaea and heading for Egypt with no visible evangelistic success there (Acts 8:25-39; Mt 2:13-15) 3. Settlement and beginning of ascetic and hidden life in a city located in the northern part of Israel (Acts 8:40; cf. 21:8-9; Mt 2:19-23) 4. Light dawning by the way to the Gentiles, which leads to a missionary call, conversion, and fasting (Acts 9:1-19; Mt 3:1-4:22) 5. Outreach to Jews and Gentiles in the northern country of Syria (Acts 9:20-22; Mt 4:23-25) 6. Powerful preaching in both Jewish and Hellenistic terms on a holy mountain (Acts 9:26-29; Mt 5:1-7:29) 7. Healing activity among Jews and Gentiles living on the plain (Acts 9:3211:18; Mt 8:1-17) 8. Leaving the homeland and inaugurating the mission among the Gentiles who lived not far from the sea in the northern country that neighboured Israel (Acts 11:19-26; Mt 8:18-34) 9. Going back to the Jewish ‘own’ (precisely: not native but chosen) hometown with mercy and respect for ‘old’ (Acts 11:27-30; Mt 9:1-38) 10. Mission of the Twelve among the Jews, hindered by violent Jewish persecutions (Acts 12:1-17; Mt 10:1-11:1) 11. Preaching to the Jews elsewhere, referring to the desert, ancient prophets, and John [the Baptist] (Acts 13:1-44; Mt 11:2-15) 12. Jewish general rejection of the gospel that was preached to them, culminating in the preachers’ leaving their towns (Acts 13:45-14:7; Mt 11:16-24) 13. God-ordered but still synagogue-based mission among the Gentiles, hindered by the Jews (Acts 14:1-20; Mt 11:25-12:50) 14. Coming back by the sea, preaching, and missionary report (Acts 14:2128; Mt 13:1-52) 15. Halachic disputes resulting in Peter’s hesitant approval of the inclusion of the believing Gentiles in the Church (Acts 15:1-35; Mt 14:22-15:20) 16. Mission among the Gentiles in communion with Peter (Acts 15:3619:20; Mt 15:21-16:20) 17. Gathering funds, ecclesiological teaching, and instructing the present co-workers and the future successors on the God-ordered way back to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21-21:16; Mt 16:21-20:34) 18. Apologetic activity and teaching among the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-26; Mt 21:1-26:46)

429

19. Arrest in Jerusalem, general rejection by the Jews, and handing over to the Romans, involving intercession of the procurator’s Jewish-thinking wife (Acts 21:27-24:27; Mt 26:47-27:26) 20. Miraculous triumph over the powers of death, involving a natural disaster and guarding soldiers (Acts 27:9-28:10; Mt 27:62-28:10) 21. Paying the guarding soldiers and ultimate Jewish rejection of the gospel (Acts 28:16-27; Mt 28:11-15) 22. Prospect of an unhindered mission to the Gentiles worldwide (Acts 28:28-31; Mt 28:16-20) This highly complicated geographical-thematic pattern evidently originates from Acts because it is much more easily discernible and much more natural in the narrative of Acts than in that of Mt, and consequently the reverse direction of its origin and borrowing (i.e. from Mt to Acts) is highly implausible. Occasionally, Matthew theologically developed the motifs that he had borrowed from Acts in a peculiar to him, midrashic way, by conflating the particular motifs of Acts with those borrowed from the Scriptures (cf. e.g. Acts 8:25-39 → Mt 2:1315). 59 The only major difference in the use of the geographical-thematic pattern in Mt in comparison to Acts consists in the absence of any positive reference to Samaria in Mt (cf. Mt 10:5d diff. Acts 8:4-24). This notable difference resulted from different rhetorical aims of both works. Whereas Acts has been composed as an intentionally ‘pan-Israelite’ writing, Mt has been redacted as a distinctively ‘Jewish’ work, which understandably could not contain any positive reference to Samaria. The author of Mt consistently applied therefore in his redactional work the ethopoeic rhetorical technique that was known from Jas and 1 Pet. He composed an apparently Jewish Christian, and even anti-Pauline, literary work, which conveys a distinctively post-Pauline message that is quite similar to that of Acts. The pattern of intertextual relationships between Mt and Acts strongly suggests that this pseudo-Jewish Christian work is in fact a hypertextual, sequential reworking of Acts. 5.2.2.2 Matthew’s detailed use of Jas In the analysis of possible direct dependence of Mt on the post-Pauline Letter of Pseudo-James, two pairs of texts have to be taken into special consideration because of their considerably high verbal agreement: Jas 5:9ab with Mt 7:1, and Jas 5:12 with Mt 5:34-37.

59

430

Cf. G. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Entwicklung nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Wissenschaft (F. A. Brockhaus: Leipzig 1857), 361-367.

Jas 5:9ab linguistically corresponds to Mt 7:1 (μὴ -ετε… ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε) much more closely than it corresponds to Lk 6:37 (μὴ -ετε… καὶ οὐ μὴ κριθῆτε). In fact, the agreement in wording between Jas 5:9ab and Mt 7:1 is so striking that direct literary interrelationship between these two texts may be reasonably assumed. Since the text of Jas 5:9ab thematically and linguistically corresponds to Rom 14:10-13 (not judging others, *ἀλληλ + κρίνω) 60 and it is well inserted in its immediate post-Pauline context Jas 5:7-8.9c (ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου, μακροθυμέω, *στηρίξα τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν: based on 1 Thes 3:13; 4:15; 5:14; conflated with Mk 13:29: *ἐγγ, θύραι pl.), it may be reasonably assumed that it was originally formulated in Jas. On the other hand, its Matthean counterpart Mt 7:1, which is inserted among the texts that have been borrowed by Matthew from various sources (Mt 6:25-34 from Lk 12:22-32; Mt 7:1 from Lk 6:37ab; Mt 7:2ab κρίμα, κρίνω as judging others: cf. Rom 2:3; Mt 7:2cd from Mk 4:24), most probably results from a Matthean correction of Lk 6:37ab, which has been made in agreement with the stylistically more correct Jas 5:9ab in order to achieve an almost perfectly balanced bipartite sentence (Mt 7:1), which is in fact rhetorically structured in a way typical of Matthew. The exhortation Jas 5:12, which is formulated in a characteristic way (εἰμί + poss. pers. pron. + τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ used in the context of the motif of God’s being the trustworthy witness of truth of a solemn statement), is literarily dependent on 2 Cor 1:17-19. On the other hand, the Matthean elaborate moralistic prohibition of taking oaths (Mt 5:34-37) is literarily dependent on the short formula Jas 5:12 (μὴ + ὀμνύω, μήτε + οὐρανός + μήτε + γῆ + μήτε, ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν reworked to the stylistically more correct ἔστω δὲ … ὑμῶν, ναὶ ναὶ οὒ οὔ, threat). 61 It should be noted that in all Matthean ‘antitheses’ (Mt 5:21-48) the fragments that present Jesus’ positive teachings (which follow Scriptural statements and Jesus’ prohibitions) are based on the Matthean source material (Mt 5:23-24 cf. Mk 11:25; Mt 5:25-26 cf. Lk 12:58-59; Mt 5:29-30 cf. Mk 9:43.47; Mt 5:32 cf. Lk 16:18 conflated with Mk 10:11-12; Mt 5:39c-40.42 cf. Lk 6:2930.35; Mt 5:44-48 cf. Lk 6:27-28.35.32-33.36). 62 Accordingly, there is no reason to assume that Mt 5:34-37 is an exception to this rule. The post-Pauline 60

Cf. M. Konradt, ‘Der Jakobusbrief im frühchristlichen Kontext: Überlegungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Verhältnis des Jakobusbriefes zur Jesusüberlieferung, zur paulinischen Tradition und zum 1. Petrusbrief’, in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, ed. J. Schlosser (BEThL 176; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2004), 171-212 (esp. 195).

61

Cf. M. Vahrenhorst, »Ihr sollt überhaupt nicht schwören«: Matthäus im halachischen Diskurs (WMANT 95; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002), 256-258.

62

Cf. D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (SP 1), Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991, 90.

431

text Jas 5:12 was evidently treated by Matthew as an authoritative source text, which has been used in the composition of the ‘antitheses’ along with other source texts that have been borrowed from the post-Pauline gospels of Mark and Luke. It is worth noting that Matthew has used Jas 5:12 only for this particular rhetorical-compositional purpose in the ‘antithetic’ context of Mt 5:21-48. In a different literary-rhetorical context, the evangelist perceived no problem in swearing oaths by the Jerusalem Temple and by heaven, provided that the authority of God was duly respected (Mt 23:16-22). 63 None of numerous other fragments of Jas that were discussed recently by the scholars as being possibly dependent on Jesus’ tradition, which was preserved in the Synoptic Gospels, 64 displays linguistic correspondences to Mt close enough to ascertain by itself the existence and direction of direct literary interdependence between these two works. Jas 1:5 is not closer to Mt 7:7 than to the identical with it Lukan summons Lk 11:9 (impv. αἰτέω, δοθήσεται). Consequently, the intertextual relationship between Jas 1:5 and Mt 7:7 is indistinguishable from that between Jas 1:5 and Lk 11:9. Jas 2:5 is linguistically based on numerous Pauline texts: 1 Cor 1:27-28 (ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο, the weak and despised, κόσμος); 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21 (*κληρονομ + future βασιλεία); Rom 4:13-14; and Gal 3:18.29 (*κληρονομ + *ἐπαγγελ). It is in fact thematically closer to Lk 6:20 (οἱ πτωχοί, βασιλεία) than to Mt 5:3 (οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι). 65 Jas 2:8 with its isolated commandment ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν regarded as the summary of the whole law corresponds literally to Rom 13:9 and Gal 5:14, and not to Mk 12:31 par. Lk 10:27 par. Mt 22:39. Jas 2:13 with its set of motifs of the threat of God’s punitive judgement, doing mercy, and boasting over others (ποιέω, ἔλεος, κατακαυχάομαι) is in fact 63

Cf. W. Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (ThHK 1; Evangelische: Leipzig 1998), 402.

64

See e.g. J. Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Studies on Personalities in the New Testament; 2nd edn., University of South Carolina: Columbia, S.C. 2004), 260-265; L. T. Johnson (with W. Wachob), ‘The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter of James’, in L. T. Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2004), 136-154; G. Maier, Jakobus, 7-8; J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘The Emulation of the Jesus Tradition on the Letter of James’, in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James, ed. R. L. Webb and J. S. Kloppenborg (LNTS 342; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 121-150 (esp. 143-150).

65

Cf. J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James’, in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, ed. J. Schlosser (BEThL 176; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2004), 93-141 (esp. 135-141).

432

post-Pauline (cf. esp. Rom 11:18.21.31; Gal 6:9.14.16). The linguistic correspondences between Jas 2:13 and Mt 5:7 are quite remote (*ἐλε; cf. also Mt 18:33). 66 Jas 4:9 displays close linguistic correspondence (πενθέω + κλαίω + *γελ) to the Lukan text Lk 6:25cd, 67 which underwent a moralistic generalization in Jas 4:9. On the other hand, it displays less correspondence to Mt 5:4 (only the verb πενθέω). Jas 4:10 is in fact a conclusive elaboration of the quotation from Prov 3:34 LXX (Jas 4:6; cf. 1 Pet 5:5), which has been reworked in Jas 4:7.10 in a way very similar to that of 1 Pet 5:6.8-9 (ἀντίστητε, διάβολος, submit, οὖν, θεός, ταπεινώθητε, ὑψόω, ὑμᾶς). 68 The idea of humbling oneself in order to be exalted by God (ταπεινόω, ὑψόω) is characteristically Pauline (2 Cor 11:17; Phlp 2:8-9). The use of the preposition ἐνώπιον, which has been untypically of Jas used in Jas 4:10, is in the New Testament characteristic of Paul and, in particular, of Luke. Consequently, Jas 4:10 is not directly dependent on Mt 23:12 (or vice versa). 69 Jas 5:1 is linguistically related to the Lukan text Lk 6:24-25 (πλούσιοι, κλαίω), which has no direct counterpart in Mt. Jas 5:2-3 is linguistically quite close to the Lukan text Lk 12:21-33 (*πλουτ + *σης + ἐσθίω + θησαυρίζω), in which, however, the motifs of storing up treasures, eating, and dressing are distinct from one another, in difference to their moralizing conflation in Jas 5:2-3 (cf. also θησαυρίζω + eschatological ἡμέρα in Rom 2:5). The Matthean moralizing text Mt 6:19-20, with its limited set of motifs (θησαυρίζω + σής + the Lukan ἐσθίω reworked to βρῶσις), is dependent mainly on Lk 12:21-33 (cf. κλέπτης reworked by Matthew to pl. notwithstanding the sing. σής borrowed from Lk 12:33 in the immediate context), which has been only secondarily conflated by Matthew with Jas 5:2 (*σής + *βρῶσις) on the basis of their common use of the word σής (Lk 12:33; cf. Jas 5:2). This conflation resulted, however, in creating in Mt 6:19-20 strange semantic synonymy between σής and βρῶσις (“moth and eating”). It should be noted, however, that the minor linguistic and thematic correspondences between Mt and Jas that are not paralleled in Lk (cf. e.g. εἰμί τέλειος: Jas 1:4 and Mt 5:48; 19:21; vengeful *ὀργ: Jas 1:19-20 and Mt 5:22; πτωχός τῷ + dat.: Jas 2:5 and Mt 5:3; *ἐλε: Jas 2:13 and Mt 5:7;70 18:33; Ῥαάβ: 66

Cf. M. Konradt, ‘Der Jakobusbrief im frühchristlichen Kontext’, 198.

67

Cf. ibid. 200-201.

68

Cf. ibid. 193.

69

Cf. ibid. 193-194.

70

Cf. J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Emulation’, 144.

433

Jas 2:25 ‘Hebraized’ to Ῥαχάβ in Mt 1:5; not becoming διδάσκαλος: Jas 3:1 and Mt 23:8; σῦκα as the fourth item: Jas 3:12 conflated with Lk 6:44 and Gen 3:18 LXX in Mt 7:16; *ποι + *εἰρην: Jas 3:18 and Mt 5:9; 71 ὁ δυνάμενος… ἀπολέσαι: Jas 4:12 conflated with Lk 12:4-5 in Mt 10:28; αὔριον: Jas 4:13-14 and Mt 6:34; σητόβρωτα: Jas 5:2 conflated with Lk 12:21-33 in Mt 6:19-20) are, with a few exceptions, located in Mt in its programmatically ‘Jewish’ section Mt 5-7 (cf. also the thematically similar texts Mt 1:5; 10:28; 18:33; 23:8). 72 The author of Mt evidently used therefore the post-Pauline Letter of Pseudo-James as a hypotext for these sections of his work in which the Jewish or Jewish Christian flavour of the text had to be more easily perceived by the intended reader. 5.2.2.3 Matthew’s detailed use of 1 Pet The post-Pauline Letter of Pseudo-Peter (1 Pet) contains at least two texts that are linguistically similar enough to the fragments of Mt to suggest some kind of direct literary dependence among these works: 1 Pet 2:12c with Mt 5:16bc, and 1 Pet 3:14 with Mt 5:10. 1 Pet 2:12c is very close linguistically and thematically to Mt 5:16bc (conduct among outsiders, ὑμῶν, τὰ καλὰ ἔργα, observing, δοξάσωσιν, invisible God). 73 The text 1 Pet 2:12c is well inserted in its argumentative context 1 Pet 2:9-12, which refers to the recipients of the missive as to the holy people among the Gentile nations of the world. On the other hand, the Matthean text Mt 5:14b16a is an example of conflation of Matthean source material (Mk 4:21-22 with Lk 11:33) that is typical of the Sermon on the Mount, and consequently the use of 1 Pet 2:12c as one of the Matthean source texts in Mt 5:16 is also very plausible. Moreover, the text 1 Pet 2:9-12 probably influenced Matthew in his redactional ideas of (a) the cosmic-missionary meaning of the word φῶς (Mt 5:14a. 16a; cf. 1 Pet 2:9); (b) the somewhat strange example of a non-hidden city situated on a mountain (i.e. Jerusalem as the central place of worship: Mt 5:14b conflating Mk 4:22 with 1 Pet 2:9); (c) the present (cf. 1 Pet 2:9) and not merely future revelation of the invisible God to the Gentiles (cf. 1 Pet 2:12c); and (d) the use of the conjunction ὅπως in a solemn revelatory-missionary context (Mt 5:16b; cf. 1 Pet 2:9; the conjunction is not evenly distributed in Mt: cf. e.g. 71

Cf. ibid.

72

Cf. J. Painter, Just James, 260-262.

73

Cf. R. Metzner, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief: Studien zum traditionsgeschichtlichen und theologischen Einfluß des 1. Evangeliums auf den 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT 2.74; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1995), 54-55; U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 1, Mt 1-7 (EKK 1/1; 5th edn., Benzinger: Düsseldorf [et al.] and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002), 103-104.

434

Mt 5:45; 6:2-5.16-18), in place of the more natural conjunction ἵνα (cf. 1 Pet 2:12b). The Matthean use of the verb λάμπω (diff. Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33; 1 Pet 2:9.12), which connects his source material in Mt 5:15-16 (cf. Mt 17:2: λάμπω, φῶς), as well as the rhetorically developed tripartite rhythmic form of Mt 5:16, is evidently redactional. It is worth noting that the ‘Petrine’ text 1 Pet 2:9-12 has been used by Matthew in the textual unit Mt 5:14-16, which refers to the wide-reaching revelation of Christ’s gospel to the whole world. This textual unit follows the reference to the mission conducted in the land of Israel (Mt 5:13; cf. Lk 14:34-35a), which was referred to in a fragment that is much shorter than Mt 5:14-16. This literary phenomenon illustrates the limitation and relative unimportance of the Jewish Christian mission. The function of the intertextual reference to 1 Pet 2:9-12 in Mt 5:14-16 corresponds therefore to the general post-Pauline ideas of the author of Mt. 1 Pet 3:14 displays some thematic and linguistic similarities to Mt 5:10 (suffering, prep. + δικαιοσύνη, μακάριοι). The ‘Petrine’ text 1 Pet 3:14 is well inserted in its thematic-argumentative context 1 Pet 3:8-4:7, 74 which describes proper Christian reactions to unjust evil treatment (cf. esp. δίκαιος in 1 Pet 3:12. 18). On the other hand, the Matthean beatitudes Mt 5:3-12 are based on several sources, and consequently the use of 1 Pet 3:14 in Mt 5:10 is quite plausible. Moreover, in the composition of the Matthean beatitudes Mt 5:3-12, the ‘Petrine’ one (Mt 5:10) is placed after seven beatitudes that display some linguistic (but thematically ‘spiritualized’) affinities to Jas (Mt 5:3-9; cf. Jas 2:2-6; 4:9; 3:13; 2:16; 2:13; 4:8; 3:18). Moreover, the ‘Petrine’ beatitude Mt 5:10 introduces the conclusive one Mt 5:11-12, which originates from a conflation of Lk 6:22 not only with Lk 11:49-50 (διώκω + προφῆται) but also with 1 Pet 4:13-14 (χαίρω + ἀγαλλιάομαι [non-Matthean but cf. also 1 Pet 1:8], 75 ὀνειδίζω, μακάριοι). The particular placing of the intertextual references to the Letter of PseudoPeter (1 Pet) in Mt 5:10-12 (i.e. after the ‘Jacobean’ section Mt 5:3-9) and in Mt 5:14-16 (i.e. after the ‘Jacobean’ text Mt 5:13) implies that Matthew consistently applied in Mt 5:3-16 a ‘Jacobean–Petrine’, Jewish–Gentile Christian pattern, which corresponded to the Matthean post-Pauline ideas.

74

Cf. R. Metzner, Rezeption, 30.

75

It should be noted that the linguistic criterion of the presence of vocabulary typical of another work and occurring only the in passages that are evidently paralleled in that other work is a much more reliable criterion for establishing the direction of direct literary dependence (in this case: of Mt on 1 Pet) than the vague “criterion of growth” [of the tradition] that has been applied in ibid. 47-48.

435

The same pattern has been consistently applied also in the following section Mt 5:17-48, in which the ‘Jacobean’ discussion on the binding value and interpretation of the commandments of the law (Mt 5:17-37: limited in fact to the commandments of the second part of the Decalogue, which were slightly expanded [οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις] and endorsed by Paul in Rom 13:9, and to the Pauline ‘commandment of the Lord’ 1 Cor 7:10-11; for a direct reference to the work of ‘James’ see esp. Mt 5:33-37) is followed by the ‘Petrine’ discussion on the Christian way of suffering injustice (Mt 5:38-48: cf. esp. ἀντίστημι in 1 Pet 5:9 [diff. Jas 4:7] and Mt 5:39; ἐν οὐρανοῖς in 1 Pet 1:4 and Mt 5:45; δίκαιος + ἄδικοι in 1 Pet 3:18 and Mt 5:45; impv. ἔσεσθε in 1 Pet 1:16 and Mt 5:48) 76 in agreement with the Pauline idea of the supremacy of the commandment of love (Mt 5:38-48 reordering Lk 6:27-36; cf. Rom 13:9). The post-Pauline Letter of Pseudo-Peter (1 Pet) has been therefore used by the author of Mt in agreement with its original purpose, namely as a necessary thematic complement to the (also post-Pauline) Letter of Pseudo-James (Jas). Conclusion The analysis of the use of the post-Pauline letters of Pseudo-James (Jas) and of Pseudo-Peter (1 Pet) in the Gospel of Matthew revealed that they were regarded by the evangelist, in agreement with their original literary and rhetorical aims, as closely related to each other. Matthew used in his own work the constitutive for them rhetorical technique of ēthopoiia, and to some extent also eirōneia and anaskeuē [confutatio], generally in the same way as they were used in Jas and 1 Pet, namely by composing an apparently Jewish Christian, and even antiPauline, literary work, which conveys in reality distinctively post-Pauline ideas. Matthew made also particular use of the close rhetorical correlation of Jas and 1 Pet by alluding to them together according to a combined ‘Jacobean–Petrine’ pattern in his predominantly ‘Jewish’ sections (esp. in Mt 5:3-48) in order to justify the post-Pauline ideas of (a) basic unity of the Jewish–Gentile Church and (b) of the necessary passage of the gospel from Jews (who were alluded to by the intertextual references to Jas) to Gentiles (who were alluded to by the subsequent references to 1 Pet).

76

436

For a presentation of the literary relationship between 1 Pet and Mt 5:38-48 (albeit in terms of the reverse direction of literary dependence, namely 1 Pet 1:15-16; 3:9 on Mt 5:38-48), see e.g. ibid. 69-93. The surprisingly used in Mt 5:41 Latin loanword μίλιον (diff. Mt 14:24), together with the corresponding image of a farther-then-expected undesired travel, most probably alludes to Peter’s travel to Rome as a place of exile (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). This allusion additionally proves that Matthew consciously conflated in Mt 5:38-48 various ‘Petrine’ motifs that had been borrowed from 1 Pet.

5.2.3 Conclusions The Gospel of Matthew is neither Jewish nor Jewish Christian. More precisely, it is not more Jewish Christian than the letters of Paul, Lk, and Acts. In fact, Mt closely resembles Acts in the complicated geographical-thematic pattern of its contents, in its consistent use of the rhetorical technique of ēthopoiia, and in its distinctive post-Pauline ideology. The detailed comparison of common particular features of Mt and Acts, namely (a) their common complicated geographicalthematic structure (including such details as, for example, the role of the procurator’s Jewish-thinking wife in Mt 27:19 and in Acts 24:24), (b) their common post-Pauline ideas (for example, of the non-burdening Christian law for the Gentiles), and (c) the presence of corresponding fragments with very high verbal agreement (e.g. Mt 13:14-15 par. Acts 28:26-27 diff. Is 6:9-10 LXX), together with the consideration of the fact that all these features much more naturally suit the internal logic of the narrative of Acts than of Mt, proves that Mt is literarily dependent on Acts. It has been demonstrated that in order to create in his Gospel the particular post-Pauline, geographical-thematic pattern that corresponds to that of Acts, Matthew inserted much Lukan material into the Markan narrative framework and made several changes in the Markan sequence of pericopes especially in the predominantly ‘Jewish’ section of his work (Mt 1-13). These redactional modifications may be adequately explained in terms of their function within the Matthean, post-Pauline pattern that corresponds to that of Acts, and not in terms of their being haphazardly borrowed from the two postulated Matthean sources: Mk and Q. The post-Pauline letters attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders (Jas and 1 Pet) have been used by Matthew mainly in a general way, namely by borrowing their ethopoeic rhetorical technique in the composition of an apparently Jewish Christian work that conveys in fact a distinctively post-Pauline message. However, they were used also in a detailed way, namely in the composition of the predominantly ‘Jewish’ sections of the Matthean work (especially in Mt 5:348), by reinforcing their Jewish Christian flavour and by illustrating the postPauline theological patterns of (a) the Jewish–Gentile Church unity and (b) the necessary transition of the gospel from Jews to Gentiles, both of which were authorized and overseen by the ethopoeic character of Peter.

5.3 Conclusions The Gospel of Matthew is a clearly post-Pauline work, like Mk and Lk. However, in difference to Mk and Lk, the particular logical-thematic structure of Mt is not an outcome of sequential hypertextual reworking of a set of Paul’s letters, 437

but it results from an adaptation of the narrative framework of Mk to the geographical-thematic structure of Acts. In order to adapt the Markan gospel story to the more developed and more conciliatory post-Pauline interpretation of the history of propagation of the gospel in the Jewish and in the Gentile world, which had been proposed in Acts, Matthew made numerous insertions of material that has been borrowed by him mostly from Lk but also from the post-Pauline pseudepigraphic letters attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders (Jas and 1 Pet) into the Markan gospel story, especially into its parts that were considered by Matthew thematically most ‘Jewish’. In addition to that, Matthew made several relocations of the Markan material within the Mk-based gospel narrative framework, especially in Mt 3-13, in order to achieve closer correspondence of his work to the logical-narrative structure of Acts. Having applied the rhetorical technique of ēthopoiia, and to some extent also eirōneia and anaskeuē [confutatio], generally in the same way as they were used in Jas and 1 Pet, Matthew composed an apparently Jewish Christian, and even anti-Pauline, literary work, which in reality conveys a number of distinctively post-Pauline ideas that are quite similar to those of Acts. It is quite possible that precisely these peculiar features of Mt, namely the easily discernible ‘Judaized’ character of some of its parts, which included the use of the Scriptures in an artificially ‘Hebraized’ textual form (especially in Mt 1-13; 21-25), and the apparent internal contradiction of the overall message of Mt, were later explained in terms of the composition of the Matthean work “in [the] Hebrew language” and of its openness towards diverging interpretations (cf. Papias as quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16). Since Mt has been composed with the use of Acts, which was written after Lk, which was in turn written c. AD 110-120, it may be reasonably assumed that Mt was composed c. AD 130-140. In fact, Mt reflects the form of Judaism in a nascent rabbinic form that definitively renounced all chronomessianic expectations and concentrated on the interpretation of the Torah as explained by the rabbis, who developed more and more abstract halachic reasoning, always assuming, however, the already clearly unreal existence of the Temple (cf. esp. Mt 23:2-36). Several details of the Matthean narrative, such as the absence of any reference to the Temple and to its priests in Mt 1-2 (in difference to the thematically related to it, earlier texts Lk 1-2 and Acts 1:1-6:7) and, on the other hand, the presence of allusions to the impure Gentiles as freely entering the area of the Temple (Mt 21:14; diff. Lk 14:21) and erecting pagan symbols in the Jewish “holy place” (ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ: Mt 24:15; cf. Acts 6:13; 21:28; diff. Mk 13:14) 77 suggest that Mt was composed c. AD 135-140. The place of the composition of 77

438

Cf. É. Nodet, Le Fils de Dieu: Procès de Jésus et évangiles (Josèphe et son temps 4; Cerf: Paris 2002), 124, 146 n. 1.

Mt was most probably the same as that of the Lukan works, namely Ephesus or more generally Asia.

439

General conclusions Great Augustine was right. The Synoptic Gospels were composed in a linear pattern of direct, sequential literary dependence. However, the order of their composition was not Mt-Mk-Lk, as it was assumed by Augustine, but somewhat different, namely (Paul)-Mk-Lk-(Acts)-Mt. The arguments that prove this thesis and the results of the above-presented analyses may be summarized in a few points. 1. The detailed analysis of the pattern of literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels and of their hypertextual dependence on their sources revealed that the hypothesis of the existence of a common Mt-Lk source (the so-called ‘Q’), which dominated the research on the Synoptic Gospels for over a hundred years, has to be entirely rejected. On close investigation, the hypothetical ‘Q’ source turned out to be an artificial scholarly product of a superficial comparison of the sections of Mt and Lk that are not paralleled in Mk. The scholarly error resulted from not recognizing the fact that Mt is literarily dependent on Lk. The analysis of the axiomatic structure of the Q hypothesis revealed that its strength lay mainly in its having been combined in the beginning of the twentieth century with the form-critical research on the Gospels (the so-called Formgeschichte). This method of research was based on a post-Romantic assumption that Gospel pericopes and sayings were for a considerable period of time transmitted orally, in form of small textual units that were originally independent of one another. This uncritical assumption led scholars to investigate textual units of the Gospels in isolation from one another and to assess the degree of their hypothetical ‘originality’ separately, on the basis of their assumed relationship to their original Palestinian Sitz im Leben, which was in turn reconstructed mainly on the basis of much later rabbinic parallels. Consequently, the texts of the Gospels came to be regarded as results of more or less artificial compilation of units of originally Palestinian material, which, as it was assumed, reached the evangelists through various, oral or written, extant or hypothetical, sources. Another pillar of the Q hypothesis was the uncritical axiomatic assumption (based on the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’, which was in fact composed on the basis of Lk 1:1-4; Acts 21:40) that the synoptic material was generally independent of the traditions and ideas that were contained in the Pauline letters. Even if the synoptic material was occasionally regarded as somehow corresponding to the contents of the Pauline letters, it was usually treated as by definition more original of them. Moreover, especially in the last two centuries, simplistic and naively referential (text → community → Jesus) or, to the contrary, programmatically nonreferential (text ↔ text; modern ideology → text) hermeneutic models were 441

usually applied to the interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels. This fact seriously hindered perception of the intertextual status of the Synoptic Gospels within the corpus of the New Testament writings. On the basis of these axiomatic presuppositions, the theory of the existence of a non-Pauline and non-Markan, presumably Palestinian ‘Q tradition’, ‘Q source’, or ‘Q document’, which served as a literary source for the Mt-Lk nonMarkan sayings and stories, was created and gradually developed. Although scholars soon noticed that the order and wording of the hypothetical ‘Q material’ in the version of Lk should be generally considered more original than their counterparts in Mt, no substantial revision of the axiomatically structured hypothesis has been proposed by the Q theorists. More and more clearly perceived inconsistencies of the reconstructed ‘Q theology’ came to be explained, especially in the last decades, with the use of more and more complicated models of diachronic-redactional stratification of the postulated ‘Q source’. The reconstructions of the Sitz im Leben of the hypothetical ‘Q’ source were likewise very problematic. Since it was generally assumed that the postulated ‘Q movement’ within early Christianity was almost totally isolated from other Christian communities (and no effort was made to explain why it should have been so, despite the postulated Greek wording of the ‘Q document’ etc.), diverse reconstructions of the history and theology of ‘Q’ that were proposed by various scholars lacked adequate external controlling points of reference. Therefore, almost every reconstruction of ‘Q’ was somehow arguable. Consequently, the idea of the existence of a mixed Aramaic–Greek ‘Q community’, which was lost somewhere in Galilee or in Syria, which was almost extinct after the Jewish War, and which, nevertheless, suddenly became highly influential for both Matthew and Luke who redacted their works, as it was usually assumed, independently of each other in two entirely different geographical and theological settings, was never seriously considered entirely implausible. Various other synoptic theories (especially those of oral tradition, textual variation, Proto-Mk, Deutero-Mk, numerous sources, protogospel, Mark’s use of Mt, and Luke’s use of Mt), which were adopted by some scholars generally in response to the evident weaknesses of the Q theory, turned out to be only partial solutions to the problem. Advocates of these only partially alternative hypotheses did not dare to suppose that Mt, which on the basis of a revered Church tradition was considered more ‘Hebrew’ than Lk, is in fact literarily dependent on it. Moreover, also the supporters of these ‘alternative’ solutions to the synoptic problem almost totally neglected the role of the Pauline letters in the process of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. The advocates of these ‘alternative’ hypotheses, likewise, generally tacitly assumed that Paul lived in a world that was strangely isolated, in terms of written communication, from that of the synoptists. Again, no one explained why it should have been so, despite the obvious 442

fact that Paul was a man of travel and that his letters were redacted in and addressed to various Christian communities across the eastern part of the Mediterranean at least a decade before the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. Accordingly, there is no reason to assume that Paul’s highly controversial literary heritage was known to Christians of various persuasions to a lesser extent than the half-literary collection of sayings preserved in a hypothetical, anonymous, provincial ‘Q community’. 2. In order to ascertain the existence and direction of possible direct literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels, a set of six relatively reliable criteria has been established and distinguished from the criteria that have more limited intertextual and source-critical value. The application of this set of criteria to a relatively large fragment of the so-called ‘triple tradition’ (Mk 1:14-2:28 parr.) revealed that the Synoptic Gospels were literarily, directly, sequentially dependent on one another in the order: Mk-Lk-Mt. 3. Contrary to the widespread assumption, which is based mainly on the socalled (in fact post-Lukan) ‘testimony of Papias’, the Gospel of Mark is not directly dependent on early Christian oral or written traditions originating from Palestine. As the detailed analysis of the origin of the literary structure of Mk revealed, this Gospel was in fact a result of systematic, sequential, hypertextual reworking of the main letters of Paul the Apostle, namely Gal, 1 Cor, Rom, and 1 Thes (in this particular order). Mark adopted Paul’s technique of hypertextual reworking of his earlier texts into new literary works (which is witnessed, for example, in Rom and Gal) and developed it by adding to it a new feature (which is also somehow traceable already in Paul’s letters), namely that of changing the literary genre of hypotexts in the process of composition of the hypertext. In this complex literary procedure of hypertextual ‘narrativization’, which should be regarded as a relatively late invention in the history of the composition of the New Testament works (datable to c. AD 100, after the composition of various Pauline-style letters), Mark extensively used Homer’s works (especially Iliad), Jewish sacred Scriptures in the version of the Septuagint, and Josephus’ works (Bellum, Antiquitates, and probably also Contra Apionem). The resulting Markan biographical narrative illustrates, in agreement with Paul’s own selfunderstanding of his ministry (cf. e.g. 1 Thes 1:6; 1 Cor 11:1; Gal 1:16; 2:20; Phlp 3:17-18), the identity of God’s Son and the basic features of his gospel, such as they have been revealed in the teaching, behaviour, and course of life of Paul the Apostle. The Gospel of Mark is therefore not only in a generalideological way, but also in a detailed literary-hypertextual way, essentially Pauline. The Markan personage of Jesus is a theologically faithful, narrative counterpart of the Pauline figure of the Son of God, who has been revealed to the world in the person of his particularly chosen Apostle (cf. Gal 1:15-16b). 443

4. It has also been demonstrated that the so-called Lukan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28) was composed with the use of the same technique of systematic, sequential, hypertextual reworking of Paul’s letters, which had been adopted by the author of Mk. However, in his ‘travel narrative’, Luke used only two Pauline letters, namely Gal and Rom (in this order), which were chosen by the evangelist probably as most directly referring to the background and the outcome of the Antiochene crisis (cf. Gal 2:11-14). In order to explain the contents of these letters, Luke conflated their particular literary-theological motifs with other motifs that were borrowed from the Scriptures of Israel, Jewish exegetical (especially Pharisaic-like) traditions, the Gospel of Mark, Josephus’ works, and widely known Hellenistic writings (e.g. Herodotus’ Historiae). Other Lukan interpolations into the Markan narrative framework (esp. Lk 3:1-4:13 and Lk 6:208:3) are in fact particular post-Pauline expansions thereof. 5. The detailed analysis of the Gospel of Matthew revealed that this work had been composed on the basis of Mk and Lk, with the use of the clearly postPauline Acts (which served as its structuring hypotext), and with additional use of the post-Pauline letters attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders, namely the Letter of Pseudo-James (Jas) and the Letter of Pseudo-Peter (1 Pet). The Gospel of Matthew is in fact a result of narrative reworking of a number of post-Pauline ideas with the use of the widely known in antiquity, and applied also in Jas and 1 Pet, rhetorical technique of ēthopoiia, and to some extent also eirōneia and anaskeuē [confutatio]. The resulting literary work is a pseudo-Jewish Christian, rhetorically ‘Hebraized’ version of the Pauline gospel. It illustrates, from an ethopoeic Jewish Christian perspective, the post-Pauline ideas that are contained in Acts. It reflects, especially in its complex narrative structure, particular order of material, and variegated use of scriptural quotations, the thematic structure and rhetorical composition of Acts. 6. All three Synoptic Gospels should be therefore regarded as results of creative hypertextual reworking of earlier gospel works (including Paul’s letters) and not as effects of slavish literary dependence of postulated gospel ‘redactors’ on some hardly identifiable, oral or written, ‘traditions’. Accordingly, the use of the term ‘traditions’ for the description of the origin and identity of the Synoptic Gospels is quite misleading. It is based on a superficial hermeneutics of the Gospels, inasmuch they are perceived as referring directly to a series of events from Jesus’ historical life. In fact, such an understanding of the Gospels is contrary both to the Pauline hermeneutic rule expressed in 2 Cor 5:16 (“Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we no longer know [him in that way]”) and to general modern hermeneutics of the historical books of the Bible. It may be surprising for many exegetes and theologians that early Christian oral traditions are in fact much more difficult to reconstruct behind the texts of 444

Mk and the subsequent Gospels than it was hitherto generally assumed. It does not mean that no particular Jewish Christian traditions concerning the person of Jesus existed at the time of the writing of the Synoptic Gospels. Both Paul and the post-Pauline authors of Col, Mk, Lk, Mt, etc. for decades (c. AD 40-140) strongly argued against too narrow, Jewish Christian understanding of the identity of Jesus Christ. Consequently, a wide pre-Pauline and non-Pauline stream of Jewish Christian traditions concerning the person of Jesus the Messiah must have existed and flourished especially in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome, and later (after the Antiochene crisis) also in Galatia, Phrygia, and Asia. As it may be deduced from the Pauline letters, this traditional Jewish Christian image of Jesus as the Jewish (and possibly also universal) Messiah could not serve as a theological-halachic basis for the inclusion of the uncircumcised Gentiles into the Jewish Christian communities. The letters of the Apostle of the Nations attest, and to some extent challenge, the interpretation of the identity of the person of Jesus merely in terms of Davidic messiahship (cf. Rom 1:3; 15:12). The Synoptic Gospels, by means of their hypertextual identification of Paul’s and Jesus’ main adversaries as Pharisees, suggest that Jewish Christian understanding of the identity and significance of the person of Jesus had something in common with Pharisaism, which may have been at least partially true (cf. Jos. Ant. 20.199-201; cf. also B.J. 2.162). This particular interpretation of Jesus’ identity in predominantly Jewish terms was most probably transmitted mainly orally. It was Paul who first used the media of written communication for spreading his version of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. In this way, which was accompanied by the extraordinary and fascinating example of Paul’s personal self-denying love for Christ and his gospel, the Apostle of the Nations won, for all subsequent generations of the universal Church, the battle against his Jewish Christians opponents over “the truth of the gospel” (cf. Gal 2:5). After two millennia of the history of Christianity, our common Gentile Christian understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ closely corresponds to the faith of the Pauline Christians who lived in the second half of the first century AD in Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, and Galatia, who had no extensive ‘Jesus narrative’ of the type of the canonical Gospels, who had limited access to Jewish Christian oral traditions, and who were, nevertheless, true apostolic Christians. Undoubtedly, our Gentile Christian understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ is not based on the ideas of a hypothetical Galilean ‘Q’ community with its reconstructed ‘Jesus’’ sources and traditions. 7. The above-presented study of the synoptic phenomenon revealed that the Synoptic Gospels should be regarded as various responses to the questions that were posed to the early Church by the missionary theology of the Apostle of the Nations. In this respect, the Synoptic Gospels commonly bear testimony to the enormous impact of the person, missionary activity, and literary heritage of Paul 445

the Apostle upon early Christianity. If the theories of the evangelists’ use of some unknown hypothetical Christian literary sources are put aside as methodologically unfounded, it is hard to find an early Christian literary work that was not influenced, more or less directly, by the Pauline mission and literary heritage. In this sense, the remarkable insight of Irenaeus, who argued that thereis only one, “tetramorphic” gospel of the Son of God (τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον: Adv. haer. 3.11.8 [Gr. fr. 11]), corresponds to the Pauline argument that there is no other gospel of Christ than that which was proclaimed by the Apostle of the Nations (Gal 1:7). Our vision of Christ, inasmuch as it is based on the writings of the New Testament, is therefore largely shaped and hermeneutically conditioned by the religious experience, wandering missionary activity, deep love, divine and human wisdom, controversies with opponents, undeserved suffering, maturing spirituality, self-denying sacrifice, faith in the resurrection, and multifaceted theology of the Apostle of the Nations. The person of Jesus is described in all three Synoptic Gospels from distinctively post-Pauline points of view. Consequently, just as it is impossible to understand Jesus Christ without the Scriptures and Jewish exegetical traditions, it is also impossible, at least for us, to understand him without the fascinating personality and teaching of his beloved Apostle. This feature of our common Christology may be expressed also in traditional-liturgical terms: There is no euaggelion without the apostolos. This conclusion is very important not only for biblical and systematic Christology, but also for the whole Christian fundamental, dogmatic, moral, pastoral, and ecumenical theology, as well as for Christian–Jewish interreligious dialogue. The hermeneutical and theological relationships among Jesus Christ, the Spirit, the gospel, Paul, and the Church have to be thought through anew. 8. Another important conclusion of the above-presented investigations concerns general hermeneutics of the Synoptic Gospels. The detailed study of the synoptic problem revealed that the composition of the Synoptic Gospels in their hypertextual dependence on the Pauline letters, on the Scriptures, and on one another was a profoundly hermeneutic enterprise, which was not limited to the use of pre-Gospel ‘traditions’ by the Gospel ‘redactors’. The Gospels were composed by the evangelists in such a way that they consistently have more than one level of intended meaning. In order to achieve this aim, the evangelists widened the range of meaning of earlier texts by reformulating them, placing them in new contexts, and setting them together with other texts. At times, earlier texts were explained in differing ways in various parts of the same Gospel. The interplay of various literal, allusive, metaphoric, symbolic, adapted, and other levels of referential-intertextual meaning is therefore an inherent phenomenon of the synoptic tradition, and it is by no means peculiar to, for example, the Fourth Gospel. The synoptic tradition grew as a result of gradual, but 446

not always linear, widening of the range of meaning of earlier texts in the process of their reinterpretation by subsequent evangelists, which at times resulted in fascinating chains of variously reinterpreted motifs and ideas (cf. e.g. Rom 11:22cd → Mk 11:25 → Lk 11:2-4 → Mt 6:9-13). The chasm between, on the one side, the historical-critical investigations of the Synoptic Gospels in their ‘literal’ meaning and, on the other side, the variety of their patristic, medieval, and modern ‘allegorical’, symbolic, and actualizing interpretations, which was created artificially in the last two centuries, may and should be bridged in a methodologically correct way from the exegetical side. 1 9. The above-presented demonstration of the fact that the Synoptic Gospels were written in the (Paul)-Mk-Lk-(Acts)-Mt order of direct, sequential literary dependence evidently constitutes only the first step on a new way of investigation of the Synoptic Gospels and of the whole New Testament with the use of the method of critical-intertextual research, which may be regarded as a critical version of the so-called ‘canonical approach’ to the Bible. In fact, we need a new kind of critical-intertextual commentaries on the Synoptic Gospels and on other New Testament writings, in which the research on the phenomenon of intertextuality will not be limited to the study of the use of Israel’s Scriptures in the New Testament writings. We need new histories and theologies of the New Testament. We need in-depth analyses, in both analytic and synthetic categories, of the relationships of the New Testament writings to their Jewish background, which is known to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls. We need new ‘historical Jesus’ research. We need new hermeneutics of the Synoptic Gospels. In sum, much work has to be done. This work can be done, however, by the scholarly community as soon as scholars stop working on documents that in reality never existed and redirect their energy to serious critical-intertextual investigations of the New Testament writings in their rhetorical-literary interdependence. It is to be hoped that this will happen soon.

1

Cf. L. Alonso Schökel and J. M. Bravo Aragón, Apuntes de hermenéutica (Trotta: Madrid 1994), 156: “Hay que leer con fantasía lo que se escribió con fantasía.”

447

Bibliography Primary sources Israelite-Jewish Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph [et al.] (5th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1997). Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graece: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. A. Rahlfs and J. Ziegler [et al.], vol. 1-16 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1931- ). Septuaginta: Editio altera, ed. A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2006). Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate [Ep. Arist.], ed. A. Pelletier (Sources chrétiennes 89; Cerf: Paris 1962). The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. M. A. Knibb and E. Ullendorf, vol. 1-2 (Clarendon: Oxford 1978). The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, ed. and trans. J. C. VanderKam (Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 510-511: Scriptores aethiopi 87-88; Peeters: Lovanii 1989). Discoveries in the Judean Desert, ed. D. Barthélemy [et al.], vol. 1-40 (Clarendon: Oxford 1955- ). [Philo] Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie, ed. R. Arnaldez [et al.], vol. 1-36 (Cerf: Paris 1961-1988). Flavii Josephi Opera, ed. B. Niese, vol. 1-7 (Weidmann: Berolini 1887-1895). Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico: Der Jüdische Krieg: Griechisch und Deutsch, ed. O. Michel and O. Bauernfeind, vol. 1-3 (1-3 edn., Kösel: München 1963-1982). Flavius Josèphe, Guerre des Juifs [I-V], ed. A. Pelletier, vol. 1-3 (Collection des Universités de France: Série grecque; Les Belles Lettres: Paris 1975-1982). Flavius Josèphe, Les Antiquités juives, ed. É. Nodet [et al.], vol. 1- (Cerf: Paris 1990- ). Flavius Josephus, Aus meinem Leben (Vita): Kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar, ed. F. Siegert, H. Schreckenberg, and M. Vogel [et al.] (Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2001). Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 9, Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary, [ed.] S. Mason (Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2001).

449

Flavius Josephus, Contra Apionem, Buch I: Einleitung, Text, Textkritischer Apparat, Übersetzung und Kommentar, [ed.] D. Labow (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 167; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2005). Flavius Josephus, Über die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums [Contra Apionem], ed. F. Siegert, vol. 1-2 (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 6/1-2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2008). Graeco-Roman Homer, Ilias, ed. M. L. West, vol. 1-2 (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; vol. 1: Teubner: Stutgardiae et Lipsiae 1998, vol. 2: Saur: Monachii et Lipsiae 2000). Omero [Homer], Odissea, ed. S. West [et al.], trans. [ital.] G. A. Privitera, vol. 1-6 (Scrittori greci e latini; Mondadori: Roma · Milano 1981-1986). Herodotus, Historiae, ed. H. B. Rosén, vol. 1-2 (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Teubner: Stutgardiae · Lipsiae 19871997). Théon, Aelius, Progymnasmata, ed. M. Patillon and G. Bolognesi (Collection des Universités de France: Série grecque; Les Belles Lettres: Paris 1997). Plinius Secundus, C., d. Ä, Naturkunde [Naturalis Historia]: Lateinisch – deutsch, ed. R. König, G. Winkler, and K. Bayer [et al.], vol. 1-38 (Tusculum; 1-2 edn., Heimeran [s.l.] and Artemis & Winkler: München [et al.] 1973-2004). Quintilianus, Marcus Fabius, Ausbildung des Redners: Zwölf Bücher [Institutionis oratoriae libri XII], ed. H. Rahn, vol. 1-2 (Texte zur Forschung 2-3; 2nd edn., Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 1988). Plutarchus, Moralia, ed. M. Pohlenz [et al.], vol. 1-7 (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Teubner: Lipsiae 1952-1978). Tacitus, Cornelius, Ab excessu divi Augusti [Annales], ed. S. Borzsák and K. Wellesley, vol. 1-2 (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Teubner: Stutgardiae · Lipsiae 1986-1992). Sueton [C. Suetonius Tranquillus], Kaiserbiographien [De vita Caesarum]: Lateinisch und deutsch, ed. O. Wittstock (Schriften und Quellen der Alten Welt 39; Akademie Verlag: Berlin 1993). The Digest of Justinian [Digesta Iustiniani Augusti], ed. T. Mommsen, P. Krueger, and A. Watson, vol. 1-4 (University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, Pa. 1985). Early Christian (I-II c. AD) Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. E. Nestle, E. Nestle, and K. Aland [et al.] (27th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1993). 450

The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, ed. P. W. Comfort and D. P. Barrett (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1999). Clément de Rome, Épître aux Corinthiens [1 Clem.], ed. A. Jaubert (Sources chrétiennes 167; Cerf: Paris 1971). La doctrine des douze apôtres (Didachè), ed. W. Rordorf and A. Tuilier (Sources chrétiennes 248bis; 2nd edn., Cerf: Paris 1998). The Gospel According to Thomas, ed. B. Layton and H. W. Attridge, in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655, ed. B. Layton [et al.], vol. 1 (Nag Hammadi Studies 20; Brill: Leiden [et al.] 1989), 50-128.

Secondary literature Abbott, E. A., The Corrections of Mark Adopted by Matthew and Luke (Diatessarica: Part II; Adam and Charles Black: London 1901). Achtemeier, P. J., 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter, ed. E. J. Epp (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 1996). Adamczewski, B., ‘Chronological Calculations and Messianic Expectations in Apocryphon of Jeremiah D (4Q390)’, Qumran Chronicle vol. 14, no. 3-4 [December 2006], 127-142. Adamczewski, B., ‘Dekalog w nauczaniu Jezusa’, Roczniki Teologiczne Warszawsko-Praskie 2 (2002) 3-24. Adamczewski, B., ‘The Hasmonean Temple and Its Water-Supply System in 4QMMT’, Qumran Chronicle vol. 13, no. 2/4 [April 2006], 135-146. Adamczewski, B., Heirs of the Reunited Church (forthcoming). Adamczewski, B., ‘Kościół jako ikona Ciała Chrystusa w Pierwszym Liście do Koryntian’, Verbum vitae 6 (2004) 147-168. Adamczewski, B., List do Filemona. List do Kolosan: Wstęp. Przekład z oryginału. Komentarz (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny 12; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006). Adamczewski, B., ‘Pan młody i przymierze oblubieńczej miłości (Mk 2,18-22)’, Verbum vitae 4 (2003) 141-156. Adamczewski, B., ‘Szczęśliwa, która uwierzyła (Łk 1,45)’, Verbum vitae 5 (2004) 75-87. Adamczewski, B., ‘“Ten Jubilees of Years”: Heptadic Calculations of the End of the Epoch of Iniquity and the Evolving Ideology of the Hasmoneans’, Qumran Chronicle vol. 16, no. 1-2 [July 2008], 19-36. Aland, K. and Aland, B., Der Text des Neuen Testaments: Einführung in die wissenschaftlichen Ausgaben sowie Theorie und Praxis der modernen Textkritik (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1982).

451

Alexander, L., The preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary convention and social context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1 (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 78; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1993). Allen, G., Intertextuality (New Critical Idiom; Routledge: London · New York 2000). Allen, W. C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (International Critical Commentary; 3rd edn., T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1912). Allison, D. C., Jr., The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2000). Allison, D. C., Jr., The Jesus Tradition in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 1997). Allison, D. C., Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Fortress: Minneapolis 1993). Allison, D. C., Jr., ‘The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels’, New Testament Studies 28 (1982) 1-32. Allison, D. C., Jr., ‘Q’s New Exodus and the Historical Jesus’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 395-428. Allison, D. C., Jr., ‘Rejecting Violent Judgment: Luke 9:52-56 and Its Relatives’, Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002) 459-478. Alonso Schökel, L. and Bravo Aragón, J. M., Apuntes de hermenéutica (Trotta: Madrid 1994). Arav, R., ‘Bethsaida’, in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2006), 145-166. Arnal, W. E., ‘Gendered Couplets in Q and Legal Formulations: From Rhetoric to Social History’, Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997) 75-94. Arnal, W. E., Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q (Fortress: Minneapolis 2001). Arnal, W., ‘The Q Document’, in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, ed. M. Jackson-McCabe (Fortress: Minneapolis 2007), 119-154. Arnal, W. E., ‘The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels’, Harvard Theological Review 88 (1995) 471-494. Arnal, W. E., ‘Why Q Failed: From Ideological Project to Group Formation’, in Redescribing Christian Origins, ed. R. Cameron and M. P. Miller (Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 28; SBL: Atlanta 2004), 67-87. Augustinus Aurelius, De consensu evangelistarum, ed. F. Weihrich (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 43; F. Tempsky: Vindobonae and G. Freytag: Lipsiae 1904). Aurelius, E., ‘Gottesvolk und Außenseiter: Eine geheime Beziehung Lukas – Matthäus’, New Testament Studies 47 (2001) 428-441. 452

Aurelius, E., ‘En hemlig förbindelse Lukas-Matteus’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 65 (2000) 191-200. Ausloos, H., ‘The “Angel of YHWH” in Exod. xxiii 20-33 and Judg. ii 1-5: A Clue to the “Deuteronom(ist)ic” Puzzle?’, Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008) 1-12. Avemarie, F., ‘Die Werke des Gesetzes im Spiegel des Jakobusbriefs. A Very Old Perspective on Paul’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 98 (2001) 282-309. Babut, J.-M., À la découverte de la Source: Mots et thèmes de la double tradition évangélique (Initiations bibliques; Cerf: Paris 2007). Bartnicki, R., Ewangelie synoptyczne: Geneza i interpretacja (3rd edn., Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2003). Bartnicki, R. ‘Problem synoptyczny dawniej i dzisiaj’, Studia Theologica Varsaviensia 27 (1989) fasc. 1, 15-73. Bartnicki, R., Uczeń Jezusa jako głosiciel Ewangelii: Tradycja i redakcja Mt 9,35-11,1 (Akademia Teologii Katolickiej: Warszawa 1985). Batovici, D., ‘The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem’, Currents in Biblical Research 7.2 (2009) 245-271. Bauckham, R., Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2006). Bauer, B., Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, vol. 1 (Otto Wigand: Leipzig 1841; 2nd edn. 1846). Baum, A. D., ‘Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatischen Gottesdienst’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 92 (2001) 257-272. Baum, A. D., ‘Experimentalpsychologische Erwägungen zur synoptischen Frage’, Biblische Zeitschrift 44 (2000) 37-55. Baum, A. D., ‘Die lukanische und die chronistische Quellenbenutzung im Vergleich: Eine Teilanalogie zum synoptischen Problem’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 78 (2002) 340-357. Baum, A. D., Lukas als Historiker der letzten Jesusreise (Brockhaus: Wuppertal · Zürich 1993). Baum, A. D., ‘Matthew’s Sources – Written or Oral? A Rabbinic Analogy and Empirical Insights’, in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, ed. D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2008), 1-23. Baum, A. D., ‘Der mündliche Faktor: Teilanalogien zu den Minor Agreements aus der Oral Poetry-Forschung und der experimentellen Gedächtnispsychologie’, Biblica 85 (2004) 264-272. Baum, A. D., Der mündliche Faktor und seine Bedeutung für die synoptische Frage: Analogien aus der antiken Literatur, der Experimentalpsychologie, der Oral Poetry-Forschung und dem rabbinischen Traditionswesen (Texte 453

und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 49; Narr Francke Attempto: Tübingen 2008). Baum, A. D., ‘Oral poetry und synoptische Frage: Analogien zu Umfang, Variation und Art der synoptischen Wortlautidentität’, Theologische Zeitschrift 59 (2003) 17-34. Baur, F. C., Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältnis zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung (Ludwig Fr. Fues: Tübingen 1847). Baur, F. C., Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: Ein Beitrag zu einer kritischen Geschichte des Urchristentums (Becher and Müller: Stuttgart 1845). Beaton, R., Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 123; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2002). Becker, E.-M., Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 194; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006). Beda Venerabilis, Homeliae Evangelii, ed. D. Hurst (Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 122; Brepols: Turnholti 1955), 1-378. Beda Venerabilis, In Lucae Evangelium Expositio, ed. D. Hurst (Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 120; Brepols: Turnholti 1960), 1-425. Bendemann, R. von, Zwischen ΔΟΞΑ und ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ: Eine exegetische Untersuchung der Texte des sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 101; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2001). Benoit, P. and Boismard, M.-E., Synopse des Quatre Évangiles en français, vol. 2, Commentaire par M.-E. Boismard avec la collaboration de A. Lamouille et P. Sandevoir, pref. P. Benoit (Cerf: [s.l.] 1972). Black, M., ‘The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37 (1989) 31-41. Blair, G. A., The Synoptic Gospels Compared (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 55; Edwin Mellen: Lewiston · Queenston · Lampeter 2003). Blomberg, C. L., ‘The Synoptic Problem: Where We Stand at the Start of a New Century’, in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. D. A. Black and D. R. Beck, Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2001, 17-40. Bock, D. L., Luke, vol. 1, 1:1-9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994); vol. 2, 9:51-24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1996). Boismard, M.-É., En quête du Proto-Luc (Études bibliques, NS 37; Gabalda: Paris 1997). Boismard, M.-É., ‘Étude sur Mc 1,32-34’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theo-

454

logicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 987-995. Boismard, M.-É., L’Évangile de Marc: Sa préhistoire (Études bibliques, NS 26; Gabalda: Paris 1994). Boismard, M.-É., ‘Introduction au premier récit de la multiplication des pains (Mt 14:13-14; Mc 6:30-34; Lc 9:10-11)’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 244258. Boismard, M.-É., ‘La Théorie des Deux Sources’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 259-265. Boismard, M.-É., ‘Théorie des niveaux multiples’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 231-243. Boismard, M.-É. and Lamouille, A., La vie des évangiles: Initiation à la critique des textes (Cerf: Paris 1980). Boring, M. E., ‘The Synoptic Problem, “Minor” Agreements, and the Beelzebul Pericope’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 587-619. Bottini, G. C., ‘Gc 1,14-26: complemento del pensiero di Paolo sulla giustificazione per fede?’, in Nuovo Testamento: teologie in dialogo culturale, Festschrift R. Penna, ed. N. Ciola and G. Pulcinelli (Supplementi alla Rivista Biblica 50; Dehoniane: Bologna 2008), 411-418. Böttrich, C., ‘Was kann aus Nazaret Gutes kommen? Galiläa in Spiegel der Jesusüberlieferung und bei Josephus’, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, ed. C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 295-333. Bouwman, G., Das dritte Evangelium: Einübung in die formgeschichtliche Methode, trans. H. Zulauf (Patmos: Düsseldorf 1968). Bovon, F., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 1 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/1; Benzinger: Zürich and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989); vol. 2 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/2; Benzinger: Zürich [et al.] and Neukirchener: 455

Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996); vol. 3 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/3; Benzinger: Düsseldorf [et al.] and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001). Brodie, T. L., ‘Again not Q: Luke 7: 18-35 as an Acts-orientated Transformation of the Vindication of the Prophet Micaiah (I Kings 22:1-38)’, Irish Biblical Studies 16 (1994) 2-30. Brodie, T. L., ‘An Alternative Q/Logia Hypothesis: Deuteronomy-based, Qumranlike, Verifiable’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 729-743. Brodie, T. L., The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (New Testament Monographs 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004). Brodie, T. L., The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels (Michael Glazier and Liturgical Books: Collegeville, Minn. 2000). Brodie, T. L., ‘Intertextuality and Its Use in Tracing Q and Proto-Luke’, in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. C. M. Tuckett (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 131; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1997), 469-477. Brodie, T. L., ‘Luke 7,36-50 as an Internalization of 2 Kings 4,1-37: A Study in Luke’s Use of Rhetorical Imitation’, Biblica 64 (1983) 457-485. Brodie, T. L., ‘Luke 9:57-62: A Systematic Adaptation of the Divine Challenge to Elijah (1 Kings 19)’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 28 (1989) 237-245. Brodie, T. L., Luke the Literary Interpreter: Luke-Acts as a Systematic Rewriting and Updating of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative in 1 and 2 Kings, Diss. ad Lauream ([s.n.] Romae 1987). Brodie, T. L., ‘Not Q but Elijah: The Saving of the Centurion’s Servant (Luke 7:1-10) as an Internalization of the Saving of the Widow and her Child (1 Kgs 17:1-16)’, Irish Biblical Studies 14 (1992) 54-71. Brodie, T. L., ‘Towards Tracing the Gospels’ Literary Indebtedness to the Epistles’, in Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity, ed. D. R. MacDonald (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 104-116. Brodie, T. L., ‘The Unity of Proto-Luke’, in The Unity of Luke-Acts, ed. J. Verheyden (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 142; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1999), 627-638. Brodie, T. L., MacDonald, D. R., and Porter, S. E., ‘Conclusion: Problems of Method – Suggested Guidelines’, in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice, ed. eid. (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 284-296. 456

Büchele, A., Der Tod Jesu in Lukasevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Lk 23 (Frankfurter Theologische Studien 26; Josef Knecht: Frankfurt am Main 1978). Burkett, D., Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark (T&T Clark: New York · London 2004). Burkett, D., ‘The Return of Proto-Mark: A Response to David Neville’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 85 (2009) 117-133. Butler, B. C., The Originality of St Matthew: A Critique of The Two-Document Hypothesis (Cambridge University: Cambridge 1951). Byrskog, S., Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 123; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2000). Cadbury, H. J., The Making of Luke-Acts (2nd edn., Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 1999). Carlston, C. E. and Norlin, D., ‘Statistics and Q—Some Further Observations’, Novum Testamentum 41 (1999) 108-123. Carmignac, J., La naissance des Évangiles Synoptiques (3rd edn., O.E.I.L.: Paris 1984). Carruth, S. and Garsky, A., Q 11:2b-4, vol. ed. S. D. Anderson (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1996). Carruth, S. and Robinson, J. M., Q 4:1-13,16, vol. ed. C. Heil (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1996). Casey, M., An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 122; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2002). Casey, P. M., From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology: The Edward Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birmingham, 1985-86 (James Clarke & Co.: Cambridge and Westminster/John Knox: Louisvile, Ky. 1991). Casey, P. M., ‘General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term “Son of Man” in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987) 21-56. Casey, M., ‘Idiom and Translation: Some Aspects of the Son of Man Problem’, New Testament Studies 41 (1995) 164-182. Casey, M., The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (Library of New Testament Studies 343; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007). Casey, M., Son of Man: The interpretation and influence of Daniel 7 (SPCK: London 1979). Casey, P. M., ‘The Son of Man Problem’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 67 (1976) 147-154. 457

Catchpole, D. R., ‘The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 64)’, New Testament Studies 17 (1970-1971) 213-226. Catchpole, D. R., ‘Q’s Thesis and Paul’s Antithesis. A Study of 2 Corinthians 5,16’, in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Festschrift A. Fuchs, ed. C. Niemand (Linzer Philosophisch-Theologische Beiträge 7; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002), 347-366. Catchpole, D. R., The Quest For Q (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1993). Catchpole, D. R., ‘The Son of Man’s Search for Faith (Luke xviii 8b)’, Novum Testamentum 19 (1977) 81-104. Chapman, J., Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels, ed. J. M. T. Barton (Longmans, Green and Co.: London · New York · Toronto 1937). Collins, A. Y., Mark: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis, Minn. 2007). Cope, L. [et al.], ‘Narrative Outline of the Composition of Luke According to the Two Gospel Hypothesis’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 31 (1992) 98-120; 32 (1993) 303-333; 33 (1994) 516-573; 34 (1995) 636687. Coulot, C., ‘Synoptique (Le Problème)’, in Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément, ed. L. Pirot [et al.], vol. 13 (Letouzey & Ané: Paris 2005), 785-828. Crawford, S. W., Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2008). Crook, Z. A., ‘The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: A Test-Case for the Two-Document, Two-Gospel, and Farrer–Goulder Hypothesis’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 78 (2000) 23-48. Crossley, J. G., The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (Library of New Testament Studies 266; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004). [Cyril] Kyrillos von Skythopolis, ‘Leben des Sabas” [Vita Sabae], in Kyrillos von Skythopolis, ed. E. Schwartz (Texte und Untersuchungen 49/2; J. C. Hinrichs: Leipzig 1939), 85-200. Damm, A., ‘Ornatus: an Application of Rhetoric to the Synoptic Problem’, Novum Testamentum 45 (2003) 338-364. Davids, P. H., ‘James and Peter: The Literary Evidence’, in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity, ed. B. Chilton and C. Evans (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 115; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 29-52. Davies, W. D. and Allison, D. C., Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1-2 (International Critical Commentary; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988-1991). Deines, R., ‘The Pharisees Between “Judaisms” and “Common Judaism”’, in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1, The Complexities of Second 458

Temple Judaism, ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid, (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.140; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen and Baker Academic: Grand Rapids 2001), 443-504. Delafosse, H., ‘Rapports de Matthieu et de Luc’, Revue de l’histoire des religions 90 (1924) 1-38. Delobel, J., ‘L’onction par la pécheresse. La composition littéraire de Lc., VII, 36-50’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 42 (1966) 415-475. Denaux, A., ‘Criteria for Identifying Q-Passages: A Critical Review of a Recent Work by T. Bergemann’, Novum Testamentum 37 (1995) 105-129. Denaux, A., ‘L’hypocrisie des Pharisiens et le dessein de Dieu: Analyse de Lc., XIII, 31-33’, in L’Évangile de Luc: Problèmes littéraires et théologiques, Festschrift L. Cerfaux, ed. F. Neirynck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 32; Duculot: Gembloux 1973), 245-285. Denaux, A., ‘The Parable of the Talents/Pounds (Q 19,12-27): A Reconstruction of the Q Text’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 429-460. Denaux, A., ‘Der Spruch von den zwei Wegen im Rahmen des Epilogs der Bergpredigt’, in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus – The Sayings of Jesus, Festschrift J. Coppens, ed. J. Delobel (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 59; Peeters and Leuven University: Leuven 1982), 305-335. Derrenbacker, R. A., ‘The “Abridgement” of Matthew and Luke: Mark as Epitome?’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 36-45. Derrenbacker, R. A., Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 186; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2005). Derrenbacker, R. A. and Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘Self-Contradiction in the IQP? A Reply to Michael Goulder’, Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001) 57-76. Dobschütz, E. von, ‘Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 27 (1928) 338-348. Doering, L., ‘Much Ado about Nothing? Jesus’ Sabbath Healings and their Halakhic Implications Revisited’, in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: Standorte – Grenzen – Beziehungen, ed. L. Doering, H.-G. Waubke, and F. Wilk (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 226; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2008), 217-241.

459

Doering, L., Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 78; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999). Dormeyer, D., ‘Lc 19,11-27: La parábola de las minas en el marco de las biografías didácticas de Pedro el pobre y Pablo el rico en los Hechos de los Apóstoles’, in Riqueza y solidaridad en la obra de Lucas, ed. M. Grilli, D. L. Gándara, and C. Langner (Evangelio y Cultura: Monografías 3; Verbo Divino: Estella (Navarra) 2006), 243-262. Dormeyer, D., Das Markusevangelium (Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 2005). Downing, F. G., Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Manuals 4; JSOT: Sheffield 1988). Downing, F. G., Cynics and Christian Origins (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1992). Downing, F. G., ‘Cynics and Christians’, New Testament Studies 30 (1984) 584593. Downing, F. G., ‘A Genre for Q and a Socio-Cultural Context for Q: Comparing Sets of Similarities with Sets of Differences’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994) 3-26. Downing, F. G., ‘Psalms and the Baptist’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006) 131-137. Downing, F. G., ‘Quite Like Q: A Genre for “Q”: The “Lives” of Cynic Philosophers’, Biblica 69 (1988) 196-225. Downing, F. G., ‘The Social Contexts of Jesus the Teacher: Construction or Reconstruction’, New Testament Studies 33 (1987) 439-451. Downing, F. G., ‘Towards the Rehabilitation of Q’, New Testament Studies 11 (1964-1965) 169-181. Drake Williams III, H. H., ‘Light Giving Sources: Examining the Extent of Scriptural Citation and Allusion Influence in 1 Corinthians’, in Paul: Jew, Greek, Roman, ed. S. E. Porter (Pauline Studies 5; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 7-37. Draper, J. A., ‘Recovering Oral Performance from Written Text in Q’, in R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 1999), 175-194. Dschulnigg, P., Das Markusevangelium (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2007). Dunderberg, I., ‘Q and the Beginning of Mark’, New Testament Studies 41 (1995) 501-511. Dungan, D. L., ‘A Griesbachian Perspective on the Argument from Order’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 67-74.

460

Dungan, D. L., A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (Anchor Bible Reference Library; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1999). Dungan, D. L., ‘Mark—The Abridgment of Matthew and Luke’, in Jesus and man’s hope, vol. 1, A Perspective Book (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: Pittsburgh 1970), 51-97. Dungan, D. L., ‘The Purpose and Provenance of the Gospel of Mark According to the Two-Gospel (Owen–Griesbach) Hypothesis’, in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, ed. W. R. Farmer (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 411-440 [also in Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches, ed. B. Corley (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 133-156]. Dungan, D. L., ‘Response to the Two-Source Hypothesis’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. id. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 201-216. Dungan, D. L., The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Fortress: Philadelphia 1971). Dungan, D. L., ‘Synopses of the Future’, Biblica 66 (1985) 457-492 [also in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. id. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 317-347]. Dungan, D. L., ‘Theory of Synopsis Construction’, Biblica 61 (1980) 305-329. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition’, New Testament Studies 49 (2003) 139-175. Dunn, J. D. G., Beginning from Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making 2; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2009). Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6 (2008) 85-105. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘The Gospels as Oral Tradition’, in id., The Living Word (Fortress: Philadelphia 1988), 25-43. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Jesus and Ritual Purity: A Study of the tradition history of Mk 7, 15’, in À cause de l’Évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes, Festschrift J. Dupont (Lectio Divina 123; Cerf: [s.l.] 1985), [vol. 1,] 251276. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Jesus in Oral Memory: The Initial Stage of the Jesus Tradition’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 39 (2000) 287-326 [also in Jesus: A Colloquium in the Holy Land, ed. D. Donnelly (Continuum: New York · London 2001), 84-145]. 461

Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2003). Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Jesus Tradition in Paul’, in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans (New Testament Tools and Studies 19; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1994), 155-178 [also in id., The Christ and the Spirit, vol. 1, Christology (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1998), 169-189]. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘John and the Oral Gospel Tradition’, in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. Wansbrough (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 64; JSOT: Sheffield 1991), 351-379. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘John the Baptist’s Use of Scripture’, in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 104; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1994), 42-54 [also in id., The Christ and the Spirit, vol. 2, Pneumatology (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1998), 118-129]. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20 – A Word of Jesus?’, in Eschatology and the New Testament, Festschrift G. R. Beasley-Murray, ed. W. Hulitt Gloer (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 1988), 29-49 [also in id., The Christ and the Spirit, vol. 2, Pneumatology (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1998), 187-204]. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Matthew as Wirkungsgeschichte’, in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog: Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift U. Luz, ed. P. Lampe, M. Mayordomo, and M. Sato (Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008), 149-166. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Matthew’s Awareness of Markan Redaction’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 1349-1359. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Q1 as oral tradition’, in The Written Gospel, Festschrift G. N. Stanton, ed. M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (Cambridge University: Cambridge 2005), 45-69. Ebersohn, M., Das Nächstenliebegebot in der synoptischen Tradition (Marburger Theologische Studien 37; Elwert: Marburg 1993). Ebner, M., Jesus von Nazaret: Was wir von ihm wissen können (Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2007). Eckermann, J. C. R., ‘Über die eigentlich sichern Gründe des Glaubens an die Hauptthatsachen der Geschichte Jesu und über die wahrscheinliche Entstehung der Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte’, Theologische Beyträge 5/2 (1796). Eckey, W., Das Lukasevangelium: Unter Berücksichtigung seiner Parallelen, [vol. 1-2] (Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004).

462

Eckey, W., Das Markusevangelium: Orientierung am Weg Jesu: Ein Kommentar (2nd edn., Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008). Eichhorn, J. G., Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. 1 (Weidmann: Leipzig 1804). Eichhorn, J. G., ‘Ueber die drey ersten Evangelien. Eynge Beytrage zu ihrer künftigen kritischen Behandlung’, in id., Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur, vol. 5 [part 5-6], Weidmann: Leipzig 1794, 761-996. Elbert, P., ‘Possible Literary Links between Luke-Acts and Pauline Letter Regarding Spirit-Language’, in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice, ed. T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 226-254. Elliott, J. H., 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 37B; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000). Ennulat, A., Die »Minor Agreements«: Untersuchungen zu einer offenen Frage des synoptischen Problems (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.62; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1994). Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, ed. G. Bardy (Sources chrétiennes 31, 41, 55; Paris 1952-1958). Evans, C. A., Mark 8:27-16:20 (Word Biblical Commentary 34B; Thomas Nelson: Nashville 2001). Eve, E., ‘Reconstructing Mark: A Thought Experiment’, in Questioning Q, ed. M. Goodacre and N. Perrin (SPCK: London 2004), 89-114. Farmer, W. R., ‘The Case for the Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. D. A. Black and D. R. Beck (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2001), 97-135. Farmer, W. R., Jesus and the Gospel: Tradition, Scripture, and Canon (Fortress: Philadelphia 1982). Farmer, W. R., ‘The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark and the Two Gospel Hypothesis: A Study of These Agreements in Their Compositional Contexts’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 30 (1991) 773-815 [also in Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991, ed. G. Strecker (Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 50; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1993), 163-208]. Farmer, W. R., ‘The Passion Prediction Passages and the Synoptic Problem: A Test Case’, New Testament Studies 36 (1990) 558-570. Farmer, W. R., ‘The Patristic Evidence Reexamined: A Response to George Kennedy’, in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, ed. id. (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 3-15. Farmer, W. R., ‘Reply to Michael Goulder’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 105-109. 463

Farmer, W. R., ‘Source Criticism: Some Comments on the Present Situation’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 42 (1988) 49-57. Farmer, W. R., The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Macmillan: New York and Collier-Macmillan: London 1964; 2nd edn., Western North Carolina: Dillsboro, N.C. 1976). Farmer, W. R., ‘The Two-Gospel Hypothesis: The Statement of the Hypothesis’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 125-156. Farmer, W. R. [et al.], ‘Narrative Outline of the Markan Composition According to the Two Gospel Hypothesis’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 29 (1990) 210-239. Farrer, A. M., ‘On Dispensing with Q’, in Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Basil Blackwell: Oxford 1955), 55-86. Farrer, A., St Matthew and St Mark (Dacre: Westminster 1954). Fenton, J. C., ‘Paul and Mark’, in Studies in the Gospels, Festschrift R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Basil Blackwell: Oxford 1955), 89-112. Fiedler, P., Das Matthäusevangelium (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2006). Finkelpearl, E., ‘Pagan Traditions of Intertextuality in the Roman World’, in Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Trinity International: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 78-90. Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel According to Luke, vol. 2 (Anchor Bible 28A; Doubleday: Garden City, NY 1985). Fleddermann, H. T., ‘The Cross and Discipleship in Q’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 27 (1988) 472-482. Fleddermann, H. T., ‘The Demands of Discipleship Matt 8,19-22 par. Luke 9,57-62’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 541-561. Fleddermann, H. T., ‘The Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33-50)’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981) 57-75. Fleddermann, H. T., ‘The Doublets in Luke’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 84 (2008) 409-444. Fleddermann, H. T., ‘The End of Q’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 29 (1990) 1-10. Fleddermann, H. T., ‘The Householder and the Servant Left in Charge’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 25 (1986) 17-26. Fleddermann, H. T., ‘John and the Coming One (Matt 3:11-12//Luke 3:16-17)’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 23 (1984) 377-384.

464

Fleddermann, H. T., Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts with an Assessment by F. Neirynck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 122; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1995). Fleddermann, H. T., ‘Mark’s Use of Q: The Beelzebul Controversy and the Cross Saying’, in Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and its Earliest Records, ed. M. Labahn and A. Schmidt (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 214; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 17-33. Fleddermann, H. T., ‘Mid-Level Techniques in Luke’s Redaction of Q’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 79 (2003) 53-71. Fleddermann, H. T., ‘The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 28 (1989) 216-236. Fleddermann, H. T., Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (Biblical Tools and Studies 1; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2005). Fleddermann, H. T., ‘The Q Saying on Confessing and Denying’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26 (1987) 606-616. Fleddermann, H. T., ‘A Warning about the Scribes (Mark 12:37b-40)’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982) 52-67. Flusser, D., ‘“Den Alten ist gesagt” Zur Interpretation der sog. Antithesen der Bergpredigt’, Judaica 48 (1992) 35-39 [also in id., Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament, vol. 2, Jesus – Qumran – Urchristentum, ed. M. Majer (Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999), 83-88]. Flusser, D., ‘Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit…’, Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960) 1-13 [also in id., Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Magness: Jerusalem 1988), 102-114]. Flusser, D., ‘Jesus and the Sign of the Son of Man’, in id., Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Magness: Jerusalem 1988), 526-534. Flusser, D., ‘Matthew’s “Verus Israel”’, in id., Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Magness: Jerusalem 1988), 561-574. Flusser, D., Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, vol. 1, Das Wesen der Gleichnisse (Judaica et Christiana 4; Peter Lang: Bern · Frankfurt am Main · Las Vegas 1981). Flusser, D. and Notley, R. S., The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius (4th edn., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2007). Flusser, D., ‘Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew’, Immanuel 5 (1975) 37-45 [also in id., Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Magness: Jerusalem 1988, 552-560]. Flusser, D., ‘Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund’, Judaica 45 (1989) 110-128 [also in id., Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament, vol. 2, Jesus – Qumran – Urchristentum, ed. M. Majer (Neukirchener: NeukirchenVluyn 1999), 193-211].

465

Flusser, D., ‘“Who is it that Struck You?”’, in id., Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Magness: Jerusalem 1988), 604-609. Foley, J. M., ‘The Riddle of Q: Oral Ancestor, Textual Precedent, or Ideological Creation?’, in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, ed. R. A. Horsley (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies 60; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2006), 123-140. Fonseca, A. G. da, Quaestio synoptica (Institutiones biblicae: Opera subsidiaria; 3rd edn., Pontificium Institutum Biblicum: Romae 1952). Foster, P., ‘Is it Possible to Dispense with Q?’, Novum Testamentum 45 (2003) 313-337. France, R. T., The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. [et al.] and Paternoster: Carlisle 2002). France, R. T., The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2007). France, R. T., ‘Matthew and Jerusalem’, in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, ed. D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2008), 108-127. Franklin, E., Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (SPCK: London 1975). Franklin, E., Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 92; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1994). Franklin, E., ‘A Passion Narrative for Q?’, in Understanding, Studying and Reading, Festschrift J. Ashton, ed. C. Rowland and C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 153; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998), 30-47. Friedrichsen, T. A., ‘Luke 9,22 – A Matthean Foreign Body?’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 72 (1996) 398-407. Friedrichsen, T. A., ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark: A Survey of Recent Studies: 1974-1989’, in L’Évangile de Luc. The Gospel of Luke [Revised and Enlarged Edition of L’Évangile de Luc. Problèmes littéraires et théologiques], ed. F. Neirynck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 32; 2nd edn., Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1989), 335-392. Friedrichsen, T. A., ‘The Measure: Mk 4,24cd and Q 6,38c; 12,31b: A Note on Its Independence from Q’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 81 (2005) 186-196. Friedrichsen, T. A., ‘The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark: Critical Observations on R. B. Vinson’s Statistical Analysis’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 65 (1989) 395-408.

466

Friedrichsen, T. A., ‘“Minor” and “Major” Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mk 4,30-32’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 647-676. Friedrichsen, T. A., ‘A Note on the Lamp Saying, Mk 4,21 and Q 11,33: A Rejoinder for Independence’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 79 (2003) 423-430. Friedrichsen, T. A., ‘The Parable of the Mustard Seed Mark 4,30-32 and Q 13,18-19: A Surrejoinder for Independence’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 77 (2001) 297-317. Friedrichsen, T. A., ‘“To One Who Has…”: Mk 4,25 (Mt 25,29; Lk 19,26): A Note on the Independence of Mk 4,25 from Q 19,26 and on the Sayings Cluster of Mk 4,21-25’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 82 (2006) 165-173. Friedrichsen, T. A., ‘What Is Hidden Will Be Revealed: A Note on the Independence of Mk 4,22 and Q 12,2’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 80 (2004) 439-444. Fuchs, A., ‘Die Agreement-Redaktion von Mk 6,32-44 par Mt 14,13-21 par Lk 9,10b-17: Ein vorläufiger Entwurf’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 3 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 3; Lit: Münster 2004), 245-271. Fuchs, A., ‘Die Agreements der Blindenheilung Mk 10,64-52 par Mt 20,29-34/ 9,27-31 par Lk 18,35-43’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 5 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 5; Lit: Münster 2004), 33-60. Fuchs, A., ‘Die agreements der Einzugsperikope Mk 11,1-10 par Mt 21,1-9 par Lk 19,28-38’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 3 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 3; Lit: Münster 2004), 273-286. Fuchs, A., ‘Die agreements der Perikope von der Taufe Jesu Mk 1,9-11 par Mt 3,13-17 par Lk 3,21-22’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 4 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 4; Lit: Münster 2004), 23-57. Fuchs, A., Defizite der Zweiquellentheorie (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2009). Fuchs, A., ‘Durchbruch in der Synoptischen Frage: Bemerkungen zu einer “neuen” These und ihren Konsequenzen’, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Serie A 8 (1983) 33-81 [also in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 1 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 1; Lit: Münster 2004), 101-115]. Fuchs, A., Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: Traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von 467

Mk 3,22-27 und Parallelen, verbunden mit der Rückfrage nach Jesus (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Serie B 5; Linz 1980). Fuchs, A., ‘Die Frage nach der Vollmacht Jesu Mk 11,27-33 par Mt 21,23-27 par Lk 20,1-8’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 4 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 4; Lit: Münster 2004), 195-233. Fuchs, A., ‘Gethsemane: Die deuteromarkinische Bearbeitung von Mk 14,32-42 par Mt 26,36-46 par Lk 22,39-46’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 4 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 4; Lit: Münster 2004), 131-194. Fuchs, A., ‘Mehr als Davids Sohn Mk 12,35-37a par Mt 22,41-46 par Lk 20,4144’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 5 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 5; Lit: Münster 2004), 11-31 [also as id., ‘More Than David’s Son: Mark 12:35-37a//Matthew 22:41-46//Luke 20:41-44’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 82-95]. Fuchs, A., ‘Offene Probleme der Synoptikerforschung: Zur Geschichte der Perikope Mk 2,1-12 par Mt 9,1-8 par Lk 5,17-26’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 2 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 2; Lit: Münster 2004), 19-52. Fuchs, A., ‘Probleme der Zweiquellentheorie anhand der Perikope vom obersten Gebot Mk 12,28-34 par Mt 22,34-40 par Lk 10,25-28’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 5 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 5; Lit: Münster 2004), 61-204. Fuchs, A., ‘Die Pharisäerfrage nach der Kaisersteuer Mk 12,13-17 par Mt 22,1522 par Lk 20,20-26’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 4 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 4; Lit: Münster 2004), 235-261. Fuchs, A., ‘Die quellenkritische Glaubensbekenntnis Martin Hengels und die widerspenstigen Tatsachen der synoptischen Tradition’, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Serie A 34 (2009) 159-206. Fuchs, A., ‘Die Saduzäerfrage Mk 12,18-27 par Mt 22,23-33 par Lk 20,27-40’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 4 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 4; Lit: Münster 2004), 263-296. Fuchs, A., ‘Schrittweises Wachstum: Zur Entwicklung der Perikope Mk 5,21-43 par Mt 9,18-26 par Lk 8,40-56’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 2 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 2; Lit: Münster 2004), 115-170. Fuchs, A., ‘Die Seesturmperikope Mk 4,35-41 parr in Wandel der urkirchlichen Verkündigung’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 2 (Studien zum

468

Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 2; Lit: Münster 2004), 53-93. Fuchs, A., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Matthäus und Lukas: Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkritik (Analecta Biblica 49; Biblical Institute: Rom 1971). Fuchs, A., ‘Spuren von Deuteromarkus – Ein Überblick’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 1 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 1; Lit: Münster 2004), 7-32. Fuchs, A., ‘Die Sünde wider den Heiligen Geist Mk 3,28-30 par Mt 12,31-37 par Lk 12,10’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 3 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 3; Lit: Münster 2004), 159-180. Fuchs, A., ‘Die synoptische Aussendungsrede in quellenkritischer und traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht’, in id., Spuren von Deuteromarkus, vol. 2 (Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Neue Folge 2; Lit: Münster 2004), 198-307. Fuchs, A., ‘Das Verhältnis der synoptischen agreements zur johanneischen Tradition, untersucht anhand der messianischen Perikope Mk 6,32-44 par Mt 14,13-21 par Lk 9,10-17; Joh 6,1-15’, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Serie A 27 (2002) 85-115. Furlan Taylor, D., ‘The Monetary Crisis in Revelation 13:17 and the Provenance of the Book of Revelation’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009) 580-596. Genette, G., Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982). Gerhardsson, B., ‘Christ in the Ethical Teaching of Early Christianity’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 179-189. Gerhardsson, B., The Gospel Tradition (Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series 15; CWK Gleerup [Liber]: Malmö 1986), 39-56 [also in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990, 497-545; also in B. Gerhardsson, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition, forew. D. A. Hagner (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2001), 89-143]. Gerhardsson, B., ‘Illuminating the Kingdom: Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels’, in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. Wansbrough (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 64; JSOT: Sheffield 1991), 266-309. Gerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, trans. E. J. Sharpe (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Uppsalensis 22; C. W. K. Gleerup: Lund and Ejnar Munksgaard: Copenhagen 1961). 469

Gerhardsson, B., The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition, forew. D. A. Hagner (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2001). Gerhardsson, B., ‘The Secret of the Transmission of the Unwritten Jesus Tradition’, New Testament Studies 51 (2005) 1-18. Gieseler, J. C. L., Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und frühesten Geschicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien (Wilhelm Engelmann: Leipzig 1818). Girard, L. G., L’Évangile des voyages de Jésus ou La Section 9,51 – 18,14 de saint Luc ([s.n.] Paris 1950). Goff, M. J., ‘Discerning Trajectories: 4QInstruction and the Sapiential Background of the Sayings Source Q’, Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005) 657-673. Goodacre, M., ‘Beyond the Q Impasse or Down a Blind Valley?’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 76 (1999) 33-52. Goodacre, M., The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2002). Goodacre, M., ‘Fatigue in the Synoptics’, New Testament Studies 44 (1998) 4558. Goodacre, M. S., Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 133; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1996). Goodacre, M., ‘Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual Reading of Mark’, in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew, ed. T. R. Hatina (Library of New Testament Studies 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 73-84. Goodacre, M., ‘A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 39 (2000) 583-622. Goodacre, M., The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2001). Goodacre, M., ‘A World without Q’, in Questioning Q, ed. M. Goodacre and N. Perrin (SPCK: London 2004), 174-179. Goulder, M. D., ‘The Derrenbacker–Kloppenborg Defense’, Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002) 331-336. Goulder, M. D., ‘Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline Letters?’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 13 (1986) 97-112. Goulder, M. D., ‘Did Peter ever go to Rome?’, Scottish Journal of Theology 57 (2004) 377-396. Goulder, M. D., The Evangelists’ Calendar: A Lectionary Explanation of the Development of Scripture: The Speaker’s Lectures in Biblical Studies 1972 (SPCK: London 1978).

470

Goulder, M. D., Luke: A New Paradigm, vol. 1-2 (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989). Goulder, M. D., ‘Luke’s Knowledge of Matthew’, in Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991, ed. G. Strecker (Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 50; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1993), 143-162. Goulder, M. D., ‘Mark xvi. 1-8 and Parallels’, New Testament Studies 24 (19771978) 235-240. Goulder, M. D., Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker’s Lectures in Biblical Studies 1967-71 (SPCK: London 1974). Goulder, M. D., ‘On Putting Q to the Test’, New Testament Studies 24 (19771978) 218-234. Goulder, M. D., ‘The Order of a Crank’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 111-130. Goulder, M. D., ‘A Pauline in a Jacobite Church’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 859-875. Goulder, M. D., ‘Sections and Lections in Matthew’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 76 (1999) 79-96. Goulder, M. D., ‘Self-Contradiction in the IQP’, Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999) 506-517. Goulder, M. D., ‘Some Observations of Professor Farmer’s “Certain Results…”’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 99-104. Goulder, M. D., ‘Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68 Par.)’, Novum Testamentum 45 (2003) 365-373. Goulder, M. D., Type and History in Acts (SPCK: London 1964). Goulder, M. D. and Sanderson, M. L., ‘St. Luke’s Genesis’, Journal of Theological Studies, NS 8 (1957) 12-30. Green, H. B., ‘The Credibility of Luke’s Transformation of Matthew’, in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 7; JSOT: Sheffield 1984), 131-155. Green, H. B., The Gospel According to Matthew in the Revised Standard Version: Introduction and Commentary (Oxford University: Oxford 1975). Green, H. B., ‘Matthew 11,7-15: Redaction or Self-Redaction?’, in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, ed. C. Focant (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 110; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1993), 459-466. 471

Green, H. B., ‘Matthew, Clement and Luke: Their Sequence and Relationship’, Journal of Theological Studies, NS 40 (1989) 1-25. Green, H. B., Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 203; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001). Green, H. B., ‘The Structure of St Matthew’s Gospel’, in Studia Evangelica, vol. 4, Papers presented to the Third International Congress on the New Testament Studies held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1965, Part I, The New Testament Scriptures, ed. F. L. Cross (Texte und Untersuchungen 102; Akademie Verlag: Berlin 1968), 47-59. Green, J. B., The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 1997). Griesbach, I. I., [Commentatio] qua Marci Euangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (Stranckmann and Fickelscher: Ienae 1789-1790) [reworked in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 1, ed. J. C. Velthusen, C. T. Kuinoel, and G. A. Rupert (Iohannes Ambrosius Barth: Lipsiae 360-434); recently reprinted in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and text-critical studies 1776-1976, ed. B. Orchard and T. R. W. Longstaff (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 34; Cambridge University: Cambridge [et al.] 1978), 74-102]. Gundry, R. H., ‘The Apostolically Johannine Pre-Papian Tradition Concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew’, in id., The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 178; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2005), 49-73. Gundry, R. H., ‘Matthean Foreign Bodies in Agreements of Luke with Matthew Against Mark Evidence that Luke Used Matthew’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 1467-1495. Gundry, R. H., Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1982); Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (2nd edn., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994). Gundry, R. H., ‘A Rejoinder on Matthean Foreign Bodies in Luke 10,25-28’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 71 (1995) 139-150. Haacker, K., ‘Rettender Glaube und Abrahams Rechtfertigung: Zum Verhältnis zwischen Paulus und Jakobus (und Petrus?)’, in Gottes Wort in der Zeit: verstehen – verkündigen – verbreiten, Festschrift V. Stolle, ed. C. Barnbrock and W. Klän (Lit: Münster 2005), 209-225. Hachlili, R., ‘Hebrew Names, Personal Names, Family Names and Nicknames of Jews in the Second Temple Period’, in Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early Judaisms and Early Christianities: Texts and Fic472

tions: Papers Read at a NOSTER Colloquium in Amsterdam, June 9-11, 1998, ed. J. W. van Henten and A. Brenner (Studies in Theology and Religion 2; Deo: Leiden 2000), 83-115. Hachlili, R., Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 94; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005). Hagner, D. A., Matthew 1-13 (Word Biblical Commentary 33A; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993). Harrington, D. J., The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina 1; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991). Hays, R. B., ‘Is Paul’s Gospel Narratable?’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.2 (2004) 217-239. Head, P. M., Christology and the synoptic problem: An argument for Markan priority (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 94; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1997). Heckel, T. K., ‘Der Gekreuzigte bei Paulus und im Markusevangelium’, Biblische Zeitschrift, NF 46 (2002) 190-204. Heil, C., Die Ablehnung der Speisegebote durch Paulus: Zur Frage nach der Stellung des Apostels zum Gesetz (Bonner biblische Beiträge 96; Beltz Athenäum: Weinheim 1994). Heil, C., ‘Evangelium als Gattung: Erzähl- und Spruchevangelium’, in Historiographie und Biographie im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, ed. T. Schmeller (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 69; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009), 62-94. Heil, C., Lukas und Q: Studien zur lukanischen Redaktion des Spruchevangeliums Q (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 111; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2003). Heil, C., ‘Die Q-Rekonstruktion des Internationalen Q-Projekts: Einführung in Methodik und Resultate’, Novum Testamentum 43 (2001) 128-143. Heil, C., ‘La réception de la Source dans l’évangile de Luc’, in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): Aux origines du Christianisme, ed. A. Dettwiler and D. Marguerat (Le Monde de la Bible 62; Labor et fides: Genève 2008), 275-294. Heil, C., ‘Die Rezeption von Micha 7,6 LXX in Q und Lukas’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 88 (1997) 211-222. Henaut, B. W., Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4 (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 82; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1993). Hengel, M., ‘Der Finger und die Herrschaft Gottes in Lk 11,20’, in La Main de Dieu: Die Hand Gottes, ed. R. Kieffer and J. Bergman (Wissenschaftliche 473

Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 94; J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1997), 87-106 [also in id., Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V, ed. C.-J. Thornton (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 211; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 644-663]. Hengel, M., The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, trans. J. Bowden (SCM: London 2000). Hengel, M., ‘Jesus als messianischer Lehrer der Weisheit und die Anfänge der Christologie’, in M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 138; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2001), 81131. Hengel, M., ‘Kerygma oder Geschichte? Zur Problematik einer falschen Alternative in der Synoptikerforschung aufgezeigt an Hand einiger neuer Monographien’, Theologische Quartalschrift 151 (1971) 323-336 [also in id., Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V, ed. C.-J. Thornton (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 211; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 289-305]. Hengel, M., ‘Der Lukasprolog und seine Augenzeugen: Die Apostel, Petrus und die Frauen’, in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth DurhamTübingen Research Symposium (Durham, September 2004), ed. S. C. Barton, L. T. Stuckenbruck, and B. G. Wold (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 212; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 195242. Hengel, M., Nachfolge und Charisma: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu Mt 8,21f. und Jesu Ruf in die Nachfolge (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 34; Töpelmann: Berlin 1968) [also in id., Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V, ed. C.-J. Thornton (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 211; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 40-138]. Hengel, M., ‘Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus’, Hyperboreus: Studia Classica 7 (2001) [Festschrift A. I. Zaicev] 332-351 [also in id., Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V, ed. C.-J. Thornton (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 211; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 664-682]. Hengel, M., Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008). Hengel, M., ‘Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund’, Theologische Rundschau 52 (1987) 327-400 [also in id. [et al.], Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II (Wissenschaftliche Untersu-

474

chungen zum Neuen Testament 109; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999), 219292]. Hengel, M. and Schwemer, A. M., Jesus und das Judentum (Geschichte des frühen Christentums 1; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007). Hengel, M. and Schwemer, A. M. [et al.], Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien: Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 108; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1998). Herder, J. G., Vom Erlöser der Menschen: Nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien (Johann Friedrich Hartknoch: Riga 1796). Herder, J. G., Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland: Nach Johannes Evangelium: Nebst einer Regel der Zusammenstimmung unsrer Evangelien aus ihrer Entstehung und Ordnung (Johann Friedrich Hartknoch: Riga 1797). Hermant, D., ‘Les redites chez Marc et les deux autres synoptiques’, (Ire partie) Revue Biblique 106 (1999) 511-548; (IIe partie) Revue Biblique 107 (2000) 348-382; (IIIe partie) Revue Biblique 108 (2001) 571-597; (IVe partie, fin) Revue Biblique 109 (2002) 528-555. Herzer, J., Petrus oder Paulus? Studien über das Verhältnis des Ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 103; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1998). Heutger, N., ‘Münzen im Lukasevangelium’, Biblische Zeitschrift, NF 27 (1983) 97-101. Hoffmann, P., ‘Jesu “Verbot des Sorgens” und seine Nachgeschichte in der synoptischen Überlieferung’, in Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im frühen Christentum, Festschrift W. Marxsen, ed. D. A. Koch [et al.] (Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh 1989), 116-141 [also in id., Tradition und Situation: Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung in der Logienquelle und den synoptischen Evangelien (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, NF 28; Aschendorf: Münster 1995), 107-134]. Hoffmann, P., ‘Mutmassungen über Q: Zum Problem der literarischen Genese von Q’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 255-288. Hoffmann, P., ‘QR und der Menschensohn: Eine vorläufige Skizze’, in The Four Gospels, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 421-456 [also in id., Tradition und Situation. Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung in der Logienquelle und den synoptischen Evangelien (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, NF 28; Aschendorf: Münster 1995), 243-278]. Hoffmann, P., Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, NF 8; Aschendorf: Münster 1972).

475

Hoffmann, P. [et al.], Q 12:8-12, vol. ed. C. Heil (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1997). Holthuis, S., Intertextualität: Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption (Stauffenburg Colloquium 28; Stauffenburg: Tübingen 1993). Holtzmann, H. J., Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3rd edn., J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Freiburg i. B. 1892). Holtzmann, H. J., Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Wilhelm Engelmann: Leipzig 1863). Horn, F. W., ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum aus neutestamentlicher Perspektive’, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, ed. C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 117-136. Horrell, D. G., ‘The Product of a Petrine Circle? A Reassessment of the Origin and Character of 1 Peter’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 86 (2002) 29-60. Horsley, R. A., ‘The Contours of Q’, in R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 1999), 61-93. Horsley, R. A., ‘Early Christian movements: Jesus movements and the renewal of Israel’, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 62 (2006) 1201-1225. Horsley, R. A., Jesus in Context: Power, People, and Performance (Fortress: Minneapolis 2008). Horsley, R., ‘Logoi Prophētōn? Reflections on the Genre of Q’, in The Future of Early Christianity, Festschrift H. Koester, ed. B. A. Pearson [et al.] (Fortress: Minneapolis 1991), 195-209. Horsley, R. A., ‘The Oral Communication Environment of Q’, in R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 1999), 123-149. Horsley, R. A., ‘Performance and Tradition: The Covenant Speech in Q’, in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, ed. id. (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies 60; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2006), 43-70. Horsley, R. A., ‘Prophetic Envoys for the Renewal of Israel: Q 9:57-10:16’, in R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 1999), 228-249. Horsley, R. A., ‘Q and Jesus: Assumptions, Approaches, and Analyses’, Semeia 55 (1991 [1992]) 175-209.

476

Horsley, R. A., ‘Questions about Redactional Strata and the Social Relations Reflected in Q’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 28 (1989) 186-203. Horsley, R. A., ‘The Renewal Movement and the Prophet Performers of Q’, in R. A. Horsley and J. A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me. Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 1999), 292-310. Horsley, R. A., ‘Social Conflict in the Synoptic Sayings Source Q’, in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg (Trinity International: Valley Forge, Pa. 1995), 37-52. Horsley, R. A., ‘Wisdom Justified by All Her Children: Examining Allegedly Disparate Traditions in Q’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 33 (1994) 733-751. Howard Marshall, I., The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary 3; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1978). Huggins, R. V., ‘Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal’, Novum Testamentum 34 (1992) 1-22. Hultgren, S., Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 113; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002). Hultgren, S., ‘The Apostolic Church’s Influence on the Order of Sayings in the Double Tradition’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 99 (2008) 185-212. Hultgren, S., ‘The Apostolic Church’s Influence on the Order of Sayings in the Double Tradition: Part II: Luke’s Travel Narrative’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 100 (2009) 199-222. Humphrey, H. M., From Q to “Secret” Mark: A Composition History of the Earliest Narrative Theology (T&T Clark: New York · London 2006). Ilan, T., Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1, Palestine 330 BCE – 200 CE (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 91; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2002). Instone-Brewer, D., Prayer and Agriculture (Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament 1; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2004). Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies [Adversus haereses], ed. A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau [et al.] (Sources chrétiennes 100, 152-153, 210-211, 263264, 293-294; Cerf: Paris 1965-1982).

477

Iverson, K. R., Gentiles in the Gospel of Mark: ‘Even the Dogs Under the Table Eat the Children’s Crumbs’ (Library of New Testament Studies 339; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007). Jacobson, A. D., ‘Divided Families and Christian Origins’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 361-380. Jacobson, A. D., The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Polebridge: Sonoma, Calif. 1992). Jacobson, A. D., ‘The History of the Composition of The Synoptic Sayings Source Q’, in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26 (1987) 285294. Jacobson, A. D., ‘Jesus Against the Family: The Dissolution of Family Ties in the Gospel Tradition’, in From Quest to Q, Festschrift J. M. Robinson, ed. J. M. Asgeirsson, K. De Troyer, and M. V. Meyer (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 146; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2000), 189-218. Jacobson, A. D., ‘The Literary Unity of Q’, Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982) 365-389. [Jerome] Hieronymus, Epistulae, vol. 1-3, ed. I. Hilberg (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 54-56; 2nd edn., Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Wien 1996). Jobes, K. H., 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2005). Johnson, L. T., The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina 3; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991). Johnson, L. T., ‘James’s Significance for Early Christian History’, in id., Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2004), 1-23. Johnson, L. T. (with W. Wachob), ‘The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter of James’, in L. T. Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2004), 136-154. Johnson, S. E., The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 41; Scholars: Atlanta, Ga. 1991). Johnson, S. R., Q 12:33-34: Storing up Treasures in Heaven, vol. ed. id. (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2007). Kahl, W., ‘Vom Ende der Zweiquellentheorie oder Zur Klärung des synoptischen Problems’, in Kontexte der Schrift, vol. 2, Kultur: Politik: Religion: Sprache – Text, Festschrift W. Stegemann, ed. C. Strecker (Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2005), 404-442.

478

Kelber, W. H., ‘Die Anfangsprozesse der Verschriftlichung im Frühchristentum’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, part 2, Principat, vol. 26/1, Religion (Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament [Sachthemen]) (de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1992), 3-62. Kelber, W. H., The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (Fortress: Philadelphia 1983). Kelber, W. H., ‘The Works of Memory: Christian Origins as MnemoHistory— A Response’, in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, ed. A. Kirk and T. Thatcher (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies 52; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 221-248. Kiilunen, J., Das Doppelgebot der Liebe in synoptischer Sicht: Ein redaktionsgeschichtlicher Versuch über Mk 12,28-34 und die Parallelen (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia / Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B.250; Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia [Academia Scientiarum Fennica]: Helsinki 1989). Kiilunen, J., ‘“Minor Agreements” und die Hypothese von Lukas’ Kenntnis des Matthäusevangeliums’, in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, Festschrift H. Räisänen, ed. I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 103; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 165-202. Kirk, A., The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom Redaction in Q (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 91; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 1998). Kirk, A., ‘Crossing the Boundary: Liminality and Transformative Wisdom in Q’, New Testament Studies 45 (1999) 1-18. Kirk, A., ‘Going Public with the Hidden Transcript in Q 11: Beelzebul Accusation and the Woes’, in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, ed. R. A. Horsley (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies 60; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2006), 181-191. Kirk, A., ‘The Memory of Violence and the Death of Jesus in Q’, in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, ed. A. Kirk and T. Thatcher (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies 52; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 191-206. Kirk, A., ‘Some Compositional Conventions of Hellenistic Wisdom Texts and the Juxtaposition of 4:1-13; 6:20b-49; and 7:1-10 in Q’, Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997) 235-257. Kirk, A., ‘Upbraiding Wisdom: John’s Speech and the Beginning of Q (Q 3:7-9, 16-17)’, Novum Testamentum 40 (1998) 1-16.

479

Klein, H., Das Lukasevangelium (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 1/3; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2006). Klein, H., Lukasstudien (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 209; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2005). Klinghardt, M., ‘“Gesetz” bei Markion und Lukas’, in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament, Festschrift C. Burchard, ed. D. Sänger and M. Konradt (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 57; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen and Academic: Fribourg 2006), 99-128. Klinghardt, M., Gesetz und Volk Gottes: Das lukanische Verständnis des Gesetzes nach Herkunft, Funktion und seinem Ort in der Geschichte des Urchristentums (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.32; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1988). Klingardt, M., ‘Legionsschweine in Gerasa: Lokalkolorit und historischer Hintergrund von Mk 5,1-20’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 98 (2007) 28-48. Klinghardt, M., ‘The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion’, Novum Testamentum 50 (2008) 1-27. Klinghardt, M., ‘Markion vs. Lukas: Plädoyer für die Wiederaufnahme eines alten Falles’, New Testament Studies 52 (2006) 484-513. Kloner, A. and Zissu, B., The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 8; Peeters: Leuven · Dudley, Mass. 2007). Kloppenborg Verbin, J. S., ‘Discursive Practices in the Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 149-190. Kloppenborg Verbin, J. S., ‘A Dog Among the Pigeons: The “Cynic Hypothesis” as a Theological Problem’, in From Quest to Q, Festschrift J. M. Robinson, ed. J. M. Asgeirsson, K. De Troyer, and M. V. Meyer (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 146; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2000), 73-117. Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘The Emulation of the Jesus Tradition on the Letter of James’, in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James, ed. R. L. Webb and J. S. Kloppenborg (Library of New Testament Studies 342; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 121150. Kloppenborg Verbin, J. S., Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 2000).

480

Kloppenborg, J. S., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Fortress: Philadelphia 1987). Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘The Function of Apocalyptic Language in Q’, in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 25 (1986) 224-235. Kloppenborg Verbin, J. S., ‘Is There a New Paradigm?’, in Christology, Controversy and Community, Festschrift D. R. Catchpole, ed. D. G. Horrell and C. M. Tuckett (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 99; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2000), 23-47. Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 275-319. Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘Poverty and Piety in Matthew, James, and the Didache’, in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. H. van de Sandt and J. Zangenberg (Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 45; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 201-232. Kloppenborg, J. S., Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus (Westminster John Knox: Louisville · London 2008). Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James’, in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, ed. J. Schlosser (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 176; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2004), 93-141. Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus’, Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996) 307-344. Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘The Sayings Gospel Q: Literary and Stratigraphic Problems’, in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. R. Uro (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65; Finish Exegetical Society: Helsinki and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1996), 1-66. Kloppenborg, J. S., The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 195; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006). Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 93-120. Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1’, in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu?, ed. H. van de Sandt (Royal Van Gorcum: Aachen and Fortress: Minneapolis 2005), 105-129.

481

Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘Variation in the Reproduction of the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 83 (2007) 53-80. Koester, H., Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (SCM: London and Trinity: Philadelphia, Pa. 1990). Koester, H., ‘ΓΝΩΜΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity’, Harvard Theological Review 58 (1965) 279-318 [also in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Fortress: Philadelphia 1971), 114-157]. Koester, H., ‘History and Development of Mark’s Gospel (From Mark to Secret Mark and “Canonical” Mark)’, in Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches, ed. B. Corley (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 35-57. Koester, H. H., ‘One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels’, Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968) 203-247 [also in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Fortress: Philadelphia 1971), 158204]. Koester, H., ‘Q and Its Relatives’, in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings, Festschrift J. M. Robinson, ed. J. E. Goehring [et al.] (Forum Fascicles 2; Polebridge: Sonoma, Calif. 1990), 49-63. Koester, H., ‘The Sayings of Q and Their Image of Jesus’, in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical, Festschrift T. Baarda, ed. W. L. Petersen, J. S. Vos, and H. J. de Jonge (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 89; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1997), 137-154 [also in id., From Jesus to the Gospels: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context (Fortress: Minneapolis 2007), 251-263]. Koester, H., ‘The Synoptic Sayings Gospel Q in the Early Communities of Jesus’ Followers’, in Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols, Festschrift F. Bovon (Biblical Interpretation Series 66; Brill: Boston · Leiden 2003), 45-58 [also in id., From Jesus to the Gospels. Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context (Fortress: Minneapolis 2007), 72-83]. Köster, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern (Texte und Untersuchungen 65; Akademie Verlag: Berlin 1957). Kogler, F., Das Doppelgleichnis vom Senfkorn und vom Sauerteig in seiner traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung: Zur Reich-Gottes-Vorstellung Jesu und ihren Aktualisierungen in der Kirche (Forschung zur Bibel 59; Echter: Würzburg 1988). Kokkinos, N., The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 30; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1998). Konradt, M., Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 215; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007). 482

Konradt, M., ‘Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus. Erwägungen zum historischen Kontext des Jakobusbriefes im Licht der traditionsgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zum 1. Petrusbrief und zum Hintergrund der Autorfiktion’, in P. von Gemünden, M. Konradt, and G. Theißen, Der Jakobusbrief: Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der „strohernen Epistel“ (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 3; Lit: Münster 2003), 16-53. Konradt, M., ‘Der Jakobusbrief im frühchristlichen Kontext: Überlegungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Verhältnis des Jakobusbriefes zur Jesusüberlieferung, zur paulinischen Tradition und zum 1. Petrusbrief’, in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, ed. J. Schlosser (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 176; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2004), 171-212. Kowalczyk, A., ‘Argumenty za i przeciw pierwszeństwu Ewangelii Marka’, Studia Gdańskie 13 (2000) 37-48. Kowalczyk, A., ‘Dlaczego Marek napisał drugą ewangelię?’, Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 49 (1996) 107-120. Kowalczyk, A., Geneza Ewangelii Marka (Bernardinum: Pelplin 2004). Kowalczyk, A., Geneza Ewangelii Łukasza (Bernardinum: Pelplin, 2006). Kowalczyk, A., ‘Próba wyjaśnienia różnic w kompozycji Mt – Mk’, Studia Theologica Varsaviensia 31 (1993) 77-116. Kvalbein, H., Fortolkning til Matteusevangeliet, vol. 1 (2nd edn., Luther: Oslo 1998). Lagrange, M.-J., Évangile selon Saint Luc (Études bibliques; Gabalda: Paris 1921; 7th edn., 1948). Lambrecht, J., ‘A Compositional Study of Mark 3,20-35’, in Understanding What One Reads: New Testament Essays, ed. V. Koperski (Annua nuntia Lovaniensia 46; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2003), 43-59. Lambrecht, J., ‘The Great Commandment Pericope and Q’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 73-96 [also in Understanding What One Reads: New Testament Essays, ed. V. Koperski (Annua nuntia Lovaniensia 46; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2003), 80-101]. Lambrecht, J., ‘Jesus and the Law: An Investigation of Mk 7, 1-23’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 53 (1977) 24-79. Lambrecht, J., ‘John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark 1,1-15: Markan Redaction of Q?’, New Testament Studies 38 (1992) 357-384 [also in Understanding What One Reads: New Testament Essays, ed. V. Koperski (Annua nuntia Lovaniensia 46; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2003), 14-42]. Lambrecht, J., ‘The Line of Thought in Mark 13,9-13’, in «Il Verbo di Dio è vivo», Festschrift A. Vanhoye, ed. J. E. A. Chiu [et al.] (Analecta Biblica 165; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 2007), 111-121. 483

Lambrecht, J., ‘Literary Craftsmanship in Mark 13:32-37’, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Serie A 32 (2007) 21-35. Lambrecht, J., ‘Die Logia-Quellen von Markus 13’, Biblica 47 (1966) 321-360. Lambrecht, J., Maar Ik zeg u: De programmatische rede van Jezus (Mt. 5-7; Lc. 6, 20-49) (Vlaamse Bijbelstichting and Acco: Leuven 1983). Lambrecht, J., ‘A Note on Mark 8.38 and Q 12.8-9’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002) 117-125 [also in Understanding What One Reads: New Testament Essays, ed. V. Koperski (Annua nuntia Lovaniensia 46; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2003), 60-67]. Lambrecht, J., ‘Q-Influence on Mark 8,34-9,1’, in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus – The Sayings of Jesus, Festschrift J. Coppens, ed. J. Delobel (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 59; Peeters and Leuven University: Leuven 1982), 277-304. Lambrecht, J., ‘Redactio Sermonis Eschatologici’, Verbum Domini 43 (1965) 278-287. Lambrecht, J., ‘Redaction and Theology in Mk., IV’, in L’Évangile selon Marc: Tradition et redaction, ed. M. Sabbe (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 34; 2nd edn., Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1988 [first pub. 1974]), 269-308. Lambrecht, J., Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse: Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung (Analecta Biblica 28; Päpstliches Bibelinstitut: Rom 1967). Lambrecht, J., ‘Scandal and Salt: Is Mark Dependent on Q in 9,42-50?’, in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Festschrift A. Fuchs, ed. C. Niemand (Linzer Philosophisch-Theologische Beiträge 7; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002), 223-234 [also in Understanding What One Reads: New Testament Essays, ed. V. Koperski (Annua nuntia Lovaniensia 46; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2003), 68-79]. Lampe, P., Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.18; 2nd edn., J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1989). Larsen, K. W., ‘The Structure of Mark’s Gospel: Current Proposals’, Currents in Biblical Research 3.1 (2004) 140-160. Laufen, R., Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (Bonner biblische Beiträge 54; Peter Hanstein: Königstein/Ts. · Bonn 1980). Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (3rd edn., Franz Steiner: Stuttgart 1990). Leppä, O., The Making of Colossians: A Study on the Formation and Purpose of a Deutero-Pauline Letter (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society

484

86; Finnish Exegetical Society: Helsinki and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2003). Lessing, G. E., ‘Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als blos menschliche Geschichtschreiber betrachtet’ [Wolfenbüttel 1778], in id., Theologischer Nachlass (Christian Friedrich Voß und Sohn: Berlin 1784), 45-72 [also in id., Werke und Briefe, vol. 8, Werke 1774-1778, ed. A. Schilson (Deutsche Klassiker: Frankfurt am Main 1989), 629-654]. Lessing, G. E., ‘Theses aus der Kirchengeschichte’, in id., Theologischer Nachlass (Christian Friedrich Voß und Sohn: Berlin 1784), 73-82 [also in id., Werke und Briefe, vol. 8, Werke 1774-1778, ed. A. Schilson (Deutsche Klassiker: Frankfurt am Main 1989), 619-627]. Lindemann, A., ‘Jesus, Israel und die Völker: Zum Jesusbild der neutestamentlichen Evangelien’, in id., Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte: Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 241; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 368-405. Lindemann, A., ‘Studien zur Logienquelle und zum lukanischen Doppelwerk: Einleitung’, in id., Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte: Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 241; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 157-163. Lindsey, R. L., ‘A New Approach to the Synoptic Gospels’, Mishkan 17-18 (1992-1993) 87-106. Linnemann, E., Gibt es ein synoptisches Problem? (Hänssler: NeuhausenStuttgart 1992). Litwak, K. D., Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 282; T&T Clark: London · New York 2005). Loisy, A., L’Évangile selon Marc (Émile Noury: Paris 1912). Longstaff, T. R. W. and Thomas, P. A., The Synoptic Problem: A Bibliography, 1716-1988 (New Gospel Studies 4; Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1988). Lowe, M. and Flusser, D., ‘Evidence corroborating a modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory’, New Testament Studies 29 (1983) 25-47. Lührmann, D., ‘The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q’, Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989) 51-71. Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 1, Mt 1-7 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1/1; 5th edn., Benzinger: Düsseldorf [et al.] and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002); vol. 2, Mt 8-17 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1/2; 3rd edn., Benzinger: Zürich [et al.] and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999). Luz, U., ‘Matthäus und Q’, in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien, Festschrift P. Hoffmann, ed. R. Hoppe and U. Busse (Beihefte zur Zeit-

485

schrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 93; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998), 201-215. Luz, U., ‘Le regard de Matthieu sur la source Q’, in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): Aux origines du Christianisme, ed. A. Dettwiler and D. Marguerat (Le Monde de la Bible 62; Labor et fides: Genève 2008), 255-273. Luz, U., ‘Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Reconstruction of QMt and QLk’, in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 22 (1983) 473-479. MacDonald, D. R., ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice, ed. T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 211225. MacDonald, D. R., The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale University: New Haven · London 2000). MacDonald, D. R., ‘Imitations of Greek Epic in the Gospels’, in The Historical Jesus in Context, ed. A.-J. Levine, D. C. Allison, Jr., and J. D. Crossan (Princeton Readings in Religion; Princeton University: Princeton · Oxford 2006), 372-384 Mack, B. L., ‘The Kingdom Sayings in Mark’, Foundations & Facets Forum 3 (1987) 3-47. Mack, B. L., ‘The Kingdom That Didn’t Come: A Social History of the Q Tradents’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 27 (1988) 608-635. Mack, B. L., ‘Lord of the Logia: Savior or Sage?’, in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings, Festschrift J. M. Robinson, ed. J. E. Goehring [et al.] (Forum Fascicles 2; Polebridge: Sonoma, Calif. 1990), 3-18. Mack, B. L., The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins (HarperSanFrancisco: New York 1993). Mack, B. L., A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Fortress: Philadelphia 1988). Mack, B. L., ‘Q and the Gospel of Mark: Revisiting Christian Origins’, Semeia 55 (1991 [1992]) 15-39. Mack, B. L., Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth (HarperSanFrancisco: New York 1995). Maier, G., Der Brief des Jakobus (Historisch-Theologische Auslegung: Neues Testament; Brockhaus: Wuppertal and Brunnen: Giessen 2004). Manson, T. W., Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. M. Black (Manchester University: Manchester 1962). Marcus, J., Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Mark 1-8 (Anchor Bible 27; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000); vol. 2, Mark 8-16 (Anchor Yale Bible 27A; Yale: New Haven · London 2009).

486

Marcus, J., ‘Mark – Interpreter of Paul’, New Testament Studies 46 (2000) 473487. Marcus, J., ‘Son of Man as Son of Adam’, Revue Biblique 110 (2003) 38-61 [part 1], 370-386 [part 2]. Marrucci, C., ‘La fonte Q e il problema del Gesù storico: Annotazioni in merito al XLIX Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense’, Rivista biblica 49 (2001) 319336. Mason, S., Josephus and the New Testament (2nd edn., Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2003). Mason, S., ‘Josephus and the New Testament, the New Testament and Josephus: an Overview’, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus JudaeoHellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, ed. C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 15-48. Matera, F. J., ‘Jesus’ Journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9.51-19.46): A Conflict with Israel’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 51 (1993) 57-77. Mattila, S. L., ‘A Question Too Often Neglected’, New Testament Studies 41 (1995) 199-217. Mayer, E., Die Reiseerzählung des Lukas (Lk 9,51 – 19,10): Entscheidung in der Wüste (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/554; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1996). McLoughlin, M., ‘Synoptic Pericope Order’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 85 (2009) 71-97. McLoughlin, S., ‘Les accords mineurs Mt-Lc contre Mc et le problème synoptique : Vers la théorie des deux sources’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 43 (1967) 17-40. McNicol, A. J., ‘The Composition of the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 157-200. McNicol, A. J., ‘Has Goulder Sunk Q? On Linguistic Characteristics and the Synoptic Problem’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 46-65. McNicol, A. J., Jesus’ Directions for the Future: A Source and Redaction-History Study of the Use of the Eschatological Traditions in Paul and in the Synoptic Accounts of Jesus’ Last Eschatological Discourse (New Gospel Studies 9; Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1996). McNicol, A. J., Dungan, D. L., and Peabody, D. B. (eds.), Beyond the Q Impasse – Luke’s Use of Matthew: A Demonstration by the Research Team of 487

the International Institute for Gospel Studies, pref. W. R. Farmer (Trinity: Valley Forge, Pa. 1996). Menken, M. J. J., Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 173; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2004). Meshorer, Y., A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (Yad Ben-Zwi: Jerusalem and Amphora: Nyack, NY 2001). Metzger, B. M. and Ehrman, B. D., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th edn., Oxford University: New York · Oxford 2005). Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/German Bible Society: Stuttgart 1994). Metzner, R., Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief: Studien zum traditionsgeschichtlichen und theologischen Einfluß des 1. Evangeliums auf den 1. Petrusbrief (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.74; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1995). Michaud, J.-P., ‘Effervescence in Q Studies’, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Serie A 30 (2005) 61-103. Mielcarek, K., IEPOYΣAΛHM IEPOΣOΛYMA: Starotestamentowe i hellenistyczne korzenie Łukaszowego obrazu świętego miasta w świetle onomastyki greckiej (Studia Biblica Lublinensia 2; KUL: Lublin 2008). Mitchell, M. M., ‘The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism?’, in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James, ed. R. L. Webb and J. S. Kloppenborg (Library of New Testament Studies 342; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 75-98. Miyoshi, M., Der Anfang des Reiseberichts Lk 9,51 – 10,24: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Analecta Biblica 60; Biblical Institute: Rome 1974). Moessner, D., ‘“Completed End(s)ings“ of Historiographical Narrative: Diodorus Siculus and the End(ing) of Acts’, in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift E. Plümacher, ed. C. Breytenbach, J. Schröter, and D. S. du Toit (Early Judaism & Early Christianity 57; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2004), 193-221. Moreland, M. C. and Robinson, J. M., ‘The International Q Project: Editorial Board Meetings 1-10 June, 16 November 1995, 16-23 August, 22 November 1996; Work Sessions 17 November 1995, 23 November 1996’, Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997) 521-525. Moreland, M. C. and Robinson, J. M., ‘The International Q Project: Work Sessions 23-27 May, 22-26 August, 17-18 November 1994’, Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (1995) 475-485. Morgenthaler, R., Statistische Synopse (Gotthelf: Zürich · Stuttgart 1971).

488

Mount, C., Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002). Mournet, T. C., Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.195; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2005). Müller, W. G., ‘Interfigurality: A Study on the Interdependence of Literary Figures’, in Intertextuality, ed. H. F. Plett (Research in Text Theory: Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 15; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1991), 101121. Naschert, G., ‘Ethopoeia’, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, ed. G. Ueding, vol. 2 (Max Niemeyer: Tübingen 1994), 1512-1516. Neirynck, F., ‘The Argument From Order and St. Luke’s Transpositions’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 49 (1973) 784-815 [also in id., Evangelica: Gospel Studies – Études d’Évangile, ed. F. van Segbroeck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 60; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1982), 737-768]. Neirynck, F., ‘Les expressions doubles chez Marc et le problème synoptique’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 59 (1983) 303-330 [also in id., Evangelica II: 1982-1991, ed. F. van Segbroeck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 99; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1991), 293-320]. Neirynck, F., ‘Literary Criticism, Old and New’, in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, ed. C. Focant (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 110; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1993), 11-38 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 65-92]. Neirynck, F., ‘Luke 10,25-28: A Foreign Body in Luke?’, in Crossing the Boundaries, Festschrift M. D. Goulder, ed. S. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton (Biblical Interpretation Series 8; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1994, 149-165 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 267-282]. Neirynck, F., ‘Mark and Q: Assessment’, in H. T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts with an Assessment by F. Neirynck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 122; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1995), 261-307 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 505-545]. Neirynck, F., ‘Matthew 4:23-5:2 and the Matthean composition of 4:23 – 11:1’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Biblio489

theca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 23-46. Neirynck, F., ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements in Mt 14,13-14 / Lk 9,10-11 (par. Mk 6,30-34): A Response to M.-É. Boismard’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 60 (1984) 25-43 [also in id., Evangelica II: 1982-1991, ed. F. van Segbroeck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 99; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1991), 75-94]. Neirynck, F., ‘The Minor Agreements and Q’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels. Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 49-72 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 245266]. Neirynck, F., ‘The Minor Agreements and the Two-Source Theory’, in id., Evangelica II: 1982-1991, ed. F. van Segbroeck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 99; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1991), 3-42. Neirynck, F. [in collaboration with T. Hansen and F. van Segbroeck], The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark with a Cumulative List (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 37; Leuven University: Leuven 1974). Neirynck, F., ‘Note on Q 4,1-2’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 73 (1997) 94-102 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 440-450]. Neirynck, F., ‘Recent Developments in the Study of Q’, in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus – The Sayings of Jesus, Festschrift J. Coppens, ed. J. Delobel (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 59; Peeters and Leuven University: Leuven 1982), 29-75 [also in id., Evangelica II: 19821991, ed. F. van Segbroeck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 99; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1991), 409-464]. Neirynck, F., ‘The Reconstruction of Q and IQP / CritEd Parallels’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 53-147. Neirynck, F., ‘A Symposium on the Minor Agreements’, in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 333-339. Neirynck, F., ‘The Two-Source Hypothesis: Introduction’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 490

1990), 3-22 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 343-362]. Neirynck, F. and Friedrichsen, T. A., ‘Note on Luke 9,22: A Response to M. D. Goulder’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 65 (1989) 390-394. Neirynck, F., Verheyden, J., and Corstjens, R., The Gospel of Matthew and the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1995 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 140B; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1998). Neville, D. J., Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique (New Gospel Studies 7; Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1994). Neville, D. J., Mark’s Gospel – Prior or Posterior? A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 222; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2002). Niemand, C., ‘Bemerkungen zur literarkritischen Relevanz der minor agreements: Überlegungen zu einigen Aufgaben und Problemen der agreementForschung’, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Serie A 14 (1989) 25-38. Niemand, C., Die Fusswaschungserzählung des Johannesevangeliums: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Entstehung und Überlieferung im Urchristentum (Studia Anselmiana 114; Roma 1993). Niemand, C., ‘Jesu Abendmahl: Versuche zur historischen Rekonstruktion und theologischen Deutung’, in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Festschrift A. Fuchs, ed. id. (Linzer Philosophisch-Theologische Beiträge 7; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002), 81-122. Niemand, C., Studien zu den Minor Agreements der synoptischen Verklärungsperikopen: Eine Untersuchung der literarkritischen Relevanz der gemeinsamen Abweichungen des Matthäus und Lukas von Markus 9,2-10 für die synoptische Frage (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/352; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1989). Niemand, C., ‘Die Täuferlogien Mk 1,7-8 parr: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen und ihre Bedeutung für die synoptische Frage’, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Serie A 18 (1993) 63-96. Niemand, C., ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Befunde, Diskussionsstand, Perspektiven’, Protokolle zur Bibel 17 (2008) 45-71. Nienhuis, D. R., Not By Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon (Baylor University: Waco, Tex. 2007). Nodet, É., Le Fils de Dieu: Procès de Jésus et évangiles (Josèphe et son temps 4; Cerf: Paris 2002).

491

Noël, F., The Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke: Interpretation of Lk 9,5119,28 (Collectanea Biblica et Religiosa Antiqua; Wetenschappelijk Comité voor Godsdienstgeschiedenis van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten van België: Brussel 2004). Nolland, J., The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. [et al.] and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005). Nolland, J., Luke 1–9:20 (Word Biblical Commentary 35A; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1989). Nolland, J., Luke 9:21-18:34 (Word Biblical Commentary 35B; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993). Nolland, J., Luke 18:35-24:53 (Word Biblical Commentary 35C; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993). Notley, R. S., ‘The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym’, Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009) 183-188. Novakovic, L., ‘Matthew’s Atomistic Use of Scripture: Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 53.4 in Matthew 8.17’, in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew, ed. T. R. Hatina (Library of New Testament Studies 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 147162. Nycz, R., Tekstowy świat: Poststrukturalizm a wiedza o literaturze (IBL: Warszawa 1995). Ogg, G., ‘The Central Section of the Gospel According to St Luke’, New Testament Studies 18 (1971-1972) 39-53. O’Leary, A. M., Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Library of New Testament Studies 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006). Orchard, B., ‘The Historical Tradition’, in B. Orchard and H. Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1987), 109-226. Orchard, B., ‘How the Synoptic Gospels Came into Existence’, in B. Orchard and H. Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1987), 227-277. Orchard, B., ‘Mark and the Fusion of Traditions’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 777-800. Orchard, B., Matthew, Luke & Mark (The Griesbach Solution to the Synoptic Problem 1; Koinonia: Manchester 1976). Orchard, B., ‘The Publication of Mark’s Gospel’, in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, ed. C. Focant (Bibliothe-

492

ca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 110; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1993), 518-520. Orchard, B., ‘Response to H. Merkel’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 591-604. Orchard, J. B., ‘Some Guidelines for the Interpretation of Eusebius’ Hist. Eccl. 3.34-39’, in The New Testament Age, Festschrift B. Reicke, ed. W. C. Weinrich, vol. 2 (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1984), 393-403. Orchard, B., ‘The Two-Gospel Hypothesis or, Some Thoughts on the Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis’, Downside Review 98 (1980) 267-279. Origenes, Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos, ed. C. V. Delarue, Patrologia graeca 14 (J.-P. Migne: Lutetiae Parisiorum 1857), 833-1292. Origéne, Homélies sur S. Luc, ed. H. Crouzel, F. Fournier, and P. Périchon (Sources chrétiennes 87; Cerf: Paris 1962). Orosz, M., Intertextualität in der Textanalyse (ÖGS/ISSS: Wien 1997). Orosz, M., ‘Literarische Bibellektüre(n): Aspekte einer semiotischen Intertextualitätskonzeption und intertextueller Textanalyse’, in Die Bibel im Dialog der Schriften: Konzepte intertextueller Bibellektüre, ed. S. Alkier and R. B. Hays [et al.] (Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie 10 [2005]; Francke: Tübingen · Basel 2005), 217-236 [also as ‘Literary Reading(s) of the Bible: Aspects of a Semiotic Conception of Intertextuality and Intertextual Analysis of Texts’, in Reading the Bible Intertextually, ed. R. B. Hays, S. Alkier, and L. A. Huizenga (Baylor University: Waco, Tex. 2009), 191-204]. Ostmeyer, K.-H., ‘Die Genealogien in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Vita des Josephus: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmung ihrer Charakteristika, Intentionen und Probleme’, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, ed. C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 451-468. Owen, H., Observations on the Four Gospels Tending Chiefly to Ascertain the Times of the Publication, and to Illustrate the Form and Manner of their Composition (T. Payne: London 1764). Paciorek, A., Ewangelia według świętego Mateusza: Wstęp. Przekład z oryginału. Komentarz, vol. 1 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny 1/1; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2005). Paffenroth, K., The Story of Jesus according to L (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 147; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1997).

493

Painter, J., Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Studies on Personalities in the New Testament; 2nd edn., University of South Carolina: Columbia, S.C. 2004). Pao, D. W. and Schnabel, E. J., ‘Luke’, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. and Apollos: Nottingham 2008), 251-414. Parker, D. C., An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge University: Cambridge 2008). Parker, D. C., The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge University: Cambridge 1997). Peabody, D., ‘Augustine and the Augustinian Hypothesis: A Reexamination of Augustine’s Thought in De consensu evangelistarum’, in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, ed. W. R. Farmer (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 37-64. Peabody, D. B., ‘Luke’s Sequential Use of the Sayings of Jesus from Matthew’s Great Discourses: A Chapter in the Source-Critical Analysis of Luke on the Two-Gospel (Neo Griesbach) Hypothesis’, in Literary Studies in LukeActs, Festschrift J. B. Tyson, ed. R. P. Thompson and T. E. Phillips (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1998), 37-58. Peabody, D. B., Mark as Composer (New Gospel Studies 1; Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1987). Peabody, D. B., The Redactional Features of the Author of Mark: A Method Focusing on Recurrent Phraseology and Its Application, PhD diss. (Southern Methodist University: [s.l.] 1983). Peabody, D. B., ‘Repeated Language in Matthew: Clues to the Order and Composition of Luke and Mark’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 30 (1991) 647-686. Peabody, D. B., ‘Response to Multi-Stage Hypothesis’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 217-230. Peabody, D. B., ‘Source and Text Criticism of the Past: Analogues for the Present’, in Resourcing New Testament Studies, Festschrift D. L. Dungan, ed. A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 27-35. Peabody, D. B., Cope, L., and McNicol, A. J. (eds.), One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies (Trinity: Harrisburg · London · New York 2002). Pervo, R. I., Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Polebridge: Santa Rosa, Calif. 2006). 494

Pfister, M., ‘Konzepte der Intertextualität’, in Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien, ed. U. Broich, M. Pfister, and B. SchulteMiddelich (Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 35; Max Niemeyer: Tübingen 1985), 1-30. Pfleiderer, O., Das Urchristentum: seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang, vol. 1 (2nd edn., Georg Reimer: Berlin 1902). Piper, R. A., ‘Jesus and the Conflict of Powers in Q: Two Miracle Stories’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 317-349. Piper, R. A., ‘The Language of Violence and the Aphoristic Sayings in Q: A Study of Q 6:27-38’, in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg (Trinity International: Valley Forge, Pa. 1995), 53-72. Piper, R. A., ‘Wealth, Poverty, and Subsistence in Q’, in From Quest to Q, Festschrift J. M. Robinson, ed. J. M. Asgeirsson, K. De Troyer, and M. V. Meyer (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 146; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2000), 219-264. Piper, R. A., Wisdom in the Q-Tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 61; Cambridge University: Cambridge [et al.] 1989). Poirier, J. C., ‘Statistical Studies of the Verbal Agreement and their Impact on the Synoptic Problem’, Currents in Biblical Research 7.1 (2008) 68-123. Popkes, W., Der Brief des Jakobus (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 14; Evangelische: Leipzig 2001). Radl, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Kommentar, vol. 1 (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2003). Räisänen, H., ‘Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7.15’, in id., Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays, trans. D. E. Orton (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 43; JSOT: Sheffield 1992), 127-148. Ramsey Michaels, J., 1 Peter (Word Biblical Commentary 49; Word Books: Waco, Tex. 1988). Rauscher, J., Das Bildwort von der Öllampe in der synoptischen Tradition: Eine Auslegung von Mk 4,21f par Lk 8,16f; Mt 5,15; Lk 11,33 ([s.n.] Desselbrunn 1994). Rauscher, J., Vom Messiasgehemnis zur Lehre der Kirche: Die Entwicklung der sogenannten Parabeltheorie in der synoptischen Tradition (Mk 4,10-12 par Mt 13,10-17 par Lk 8,9-10) ([s.n.] Desselbrunn 1990). Ravens, D., Luke and the Restoration of Israel (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 119; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1995).

495

Reicke, B., ‘Die Entstehungsgeschichte der synoptischen Evangelien’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, part 2, Principat, vol. 25/2, Religion (Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Leben und Umwelt Jesu; Neues Testament [Kanonische Schriften und Apokryphen, Fortsetzung]) (de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1984), 1758-1779. Reicke, B., ‘Den primära Israelmissionen och hednamissionen enligt synoptikerna’, Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift 26 (1950) 77-100. Reicke, B., The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels (Fortress: Philadelphia 1986). Reicke, B., ‘A Test of Synoptic Relationships: Matthew 10:17-23 and 24:9-24 with Parallels’, in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, ed. W. R. Farmer (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1983), 209-229. Reiser, M., ‘Numismatik und Neues Testament’, Biblica 81 (2000) 457-488. Repschinski, B., ‘Matthew and Luke’, in Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries, ed. D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (Library of New Testament Studies 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 50-65. Riesner, R., Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Überlieferung, PhD diss. (Tübingen 1980). Riesner, R., ‘Jesus as Preacher and Teacher’, in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. Wansbrough (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 64; JSOT: Sheffield 1991), 185-210. Riesner, R., ‘Der Ursprung der Jesus-Überlieferung’, Theologische Zeitschrift 38 (1982) 493-513. Riet, P. van ’t, Lukas versus Matteüs: De terugkeer van de midrasj bij de uitleg de evangeliën (Kok: Kampen 2005). Riffaterre, M., ‘Compulsory reader response: the intertextual drive’, in Intertextuality: Theories and practices, ed. M. Worton and J. Still (Manchester University: Manchester · New York 1990), 56-78. Riffaterre, M., Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd edn., John Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD · London 1993). Riley, H., The First Gospel (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1992). Riley, H., ‘Internal Evidence’, in B. Orchard and H. Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1987), 1-108. Riley, H., The Making of Mark: An Exploration (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1989). Riley, H., Preface to Luke (Mercer University: Macon, Ga. 1993). Ritschl, A., ‘Ueber den gegenwärtigen Stand der Kritik der synoptischen Evangelien’, Theologische Jahrbücher 10 (1851) 480-538. Robinson, J. M., ‘The Critical Edition of Q and the Study of Jesus’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca 496

Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 27-52 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays, ed. C. Heil and J. Verheyden (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 189; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2005), 663-688]. Robinson, J. M., The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of the Original Good News (HarperCollins: New York 2005). Robinson, J. M., ‘The Image of Jesus in Q’, in Jesus Then and Now: Images of Jesus in History and Christology, ed. M. Meyer and C. Hughes (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2001), 7-25 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays, ed. C. Heil and J. Verheyden (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 189; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2005), 645-662]. Robinson, J. M., ‘Jesus’ Theology in the Sayings Gospel Q’, in Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions and Symbols, Festschrift F. Bovon, ed. D. H. Warren, A. G. Brock, and D. W. Pao (Biblical Interpretation Series 66; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2003), 25-43 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays, ed. C. Heil and J. Verheyden (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 189; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2005), 689-709]. Robinson, J. M., ‘The Johannine Trajectory’, in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Fortress: Philadelphia 1971), 232268. Robinson, J. M., A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (Studies in Biblical Theology 25; SCM: London 1959). Robinson, J. M., ‘The Sayings of Jesus: Q’, Drew Gateway 54 (1983) 26-37 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q. Collected Essays, ed. C. Heil and J. Verheyden (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 189; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2005), 177-192]. Robinson, J. M., ‘The Sequence of Q: The Lament over Jerusalem’, in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien, Festschrift P. Hoffmann, ed. R. Hoppe and U. Busse (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 93; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998), 225-260 [also in J. M. Robinson, The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays, ed. C. Heil and J. Verheyden (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 189; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2005), 559-598]. Robinson, J. M., ‘The Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Work Sheets for the Reconstructions of Q’, in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 22 (1983) 451-454. Robinson, J. M., ‘Textual Criticism, Q, and The Gospel of Thomas’, in Text and Community, Festschrift B. M. Metzger, ed. J. H. Ellens, vol. 1 (New Testament Monographs 19; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2007), 9-22. 497

Robinson, J. M., ‘Theological Autobiography’, in The Craft of Religious Studies, ed. J. R. Stone (Macmillan: London and St. Martin’s: New York 1998), 117-150 [also in id., The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays, ed. C. Heil and J. Verheyden (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 189; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2005), 3-34]. Robinson, J. M., ‘The Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Work Sheets for the Reconstructions of Q’, in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 22 (1983) 451-454. Robinson, J. M., Hoffmann, P., and Kloppenborg, J. S. (eds.), Moreland, M. C. (managing ed.), The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Hermeneia; Fortress: Philadelphia and Peeters: Leuven 2000). Robinson, J. M., Hoffmann, P., and Kloppenborg, J. S. (eds.), Moreland, M. C. (managing ed.), The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels form the Gospels of Mark and Thomas (Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Sterling, Va. 2001). Rolland, P., ‘L’arrière-fond sémitique des évangiles synoptiques’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 60 (1984) 358-362. Rolland, P., ‘Les Évangiles des premières communautés chrétiennes’, Revue Biblique 90 (1983) 161-201. Rolland, P., ‘Marc, lecteur de Pierre et de Paul’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 775-778. Rolland, P., ‘Marc, première harmonie évangélique?’, Revue Biblique 90 (1983) 23-79. Rolland, P., ‘A New Look at the Synoptic Question’, European Journal of Theology 8 (1999) 133-144. Rolland, P., L’origine et la date des évangiles (Saint-Paul: Paris 1994). Rolland, P., ‘Les prédécesseurs de Marc: Les sources présynoptiques de Mc, II, 18-22 et parallèles’, Revue Biblique 89 (1982) 370-405. Rolland, P., Les premiers Évangiles: Un nouveau regard sur le problème synoptique (Lectio Divina 116; Cerf: Paris 1984). Rolland, P., ‘La question synoptique demande-t-elle une réponse compliquée?’, Biblica 70 (1989) 217-223. Rolland, P., ‘La véritable préhistoire de Marc (Mc 6,30-34 et parallèles)’, Revue Biblique 103 (1996) 244-256. Romaniuk, K., ‘Le Problème des Paulinismes dans l’Évangile de Marc’, New Testament Studies 23 (1977) 266-274. Rossé, G., Il vangelo di Luca: Commento esegetico e teologico (3rd edn., Città Nuova: Roma 2001). 498

Royse, J. R., Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 36; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008). Runesson, A., Binder, D. D. and Olsson, B., The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins: A Source Book (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 72; Brill: Leiden · New York 2008). Ruzer, S., Mapping the New Testament: Early Christian Writings as a Witness for Jewish Biblical Exegesis (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 13; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2007). Sabourin, L., Il Vangelo di Matteo: Teologia e esegesi, vol. 1 (Paoline: [s.l.] 1975). Sanday, W., ‘The Conditions under which the Gospels were written, in their bearing upon some Difficulties of the Synoptic Problem’, in Studies in the Synoptic Problem: By Members of The University of Oxford, ed. id. (Clarendon: Oxford 1911), 1-26 [also in id., Essays in Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, ed. C. A. Evans, S. E. Porter, and S. N. Doff (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 225; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 40-58]. Sanday, W., ‘A Survey of the Synoptic Question’, The Expositor 4th series vol. 3 (1891) 179-194. Sanders, E. P., The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 9; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1969). Sandnes, K. O., The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity (Library of New Testament Studies 400; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006). Sato, M., ‘Le document Q à la croisée de la prophétie et de la sagesse’, in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): Aux origines du Christianisme, ed. A. Dettwiler and D. Marguerat (Le Monde de la Bible 62; Labor et fides: Genève 2008), 99-122. Sato, M., Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.29; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1988). Sato, M., ‘Q: Prophetie oder Weisheit? Ein Gespräch mit J. M. Robinson’, Evangelische Theologie 53 (1993) 389-404. Sato, M., ‘Wisdom Statements in the Sphere of Prophecy’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 139-158. Schenk, W., ‘Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on his Reception’, in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, Festschrift B. van Iersel, ed. S. Draisma (Kok: Kampen 1989), 127-139.

499

Schenk, W., ‘Die Rezeption der paulinischen Herrenmahlworte bei Markus’, in Gottes Wort in der Zeit: verstehen – verkündigen – verbreiten, Festschrift V. Stolle, ed. C. Barnbrock and W. Klän (Lit: Münster 2005), 261-269. Schenk, W., ‘Sekundäre Jesuanisierungen von primären Paulus-Aussagen bei Markus’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 877-904. Schenk, W., ‘Zur Frage einer vierten Version der Seesturm-Erzählung in einer Mt/Lk-Agreement-Redaktions-Schicht (DT-Mk): Versuch einer textsemiotischen Geltungsprüfung von A. Fuchs’, in Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991, ed. G. Strecker (Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 50; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1993), 93-118. Schiffner, K., Lukas liest Exodus: Eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme ersttestamentlicher Befreiungsgeschichte im Lukanischen Werk als Schrift-Lektüre (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament: Neunte Folge 12 [172]; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2008). Schläger, G., ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Matthäusevangeliums vom Lukasevangelium’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 69 (1896) 83-93. Schleiermacher, F., ‘Ueber die Zeugnisse des Papias von unsern beiden ersten Evangelien’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 5 (1832) 735-768. Schlosser, J., À la recherche de la Parole: Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique (Lectio Divina 207; Cerf: Paris 2006), 179-354. Schlosser, J., ‘La création dans la tradition des logia’, in Jésus de Nazareth: Nouvelles approches d’une énigme, ed. D. Marguerat, E. Norelli, and J. M. Poffet (Le Monde de la Bible 38; Labor et fides: Genève 1998), 321-354. Schlosser, J., ‘Lk 17,2 und die Logienquelle’, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Serie A 8 (1983) 70-78. Schlosser, J., ‘Le logion de Mt 10,28 par. Lc 12,4-5’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 621-631. Schlosser, J., ‘Mc 11, 25 : Tradition et rédaction’, in À cause de l’Évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes, Festschrift J. Dupont (Lectio Divina 123; Cerf: [s.l.] 1985), [vol. 1,] 277-301. Schlosser, J., ‘Q 11,23 et la christologie’, in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien, Festschrift P. Hoffmann, ed. R. Hoppe and U. Busse (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 93; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1998), 217-224. Schlosser, J., ‘Q et la christologie implicite’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 289-316. 500

Schlosser, J., Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus (Études bibliques, NS; Gabalda: Paris 1980). Schlosser, J., ‘Les tentations de Jésus et la cause de Dieu’, Revue des sciences religieuses 76 (2002) 403-425. Schlosser, J., ‘L’utilisation des écritures dans la source Q’, in L’évangile exploré, Festschrift S. Légasse, ed. A. Marchadour (Lectio Divina 166; Cerf: Paris 1996), 123-146. Schmidt, J., Gesetzesfreie Heilsverkündigung im Evangelium nach Matthäus: Das Apostelkonzil (Apg 15) als historischer und theologischer Bezugspunkt für die Theologie des Matthäusevangeliums (Forschung zur Bibel 113; Echter: Würzburg 2007). Schmidt, K. M., Mahnung und Erinnerung im Maskenspiel: Epistolographie, Rhetorik und Narrativik der pseudepigraphen Petrusbriefe (Herders Biblische Studien 38; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2003). Schmithals, W., Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (de Gruyter Lehrbücher; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1985). Schmithals, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Ökumenischer TaschenbuchKommentar zum Neuen Testament 2; Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh and Echter: Würzburg 1979; 2nd edn. 1986). Schmithals, W., ‘Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Spruchquelle’, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 64 (2008) 353-375. Schneider, G., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Ökumenischer TaschenbuchKommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/2; Gütersloher / Mohn: Gütersloh and Echter: Würzburg 1977). Schnelle, U., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Uni-Taschenbücher 1830; 6th edn., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2007). Schnelle, U., Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Uni-Taschenbücher 2917; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2007). Schofield, A., ‘Rereading S: A New Model of Textual Development in Light of the Cave 4 Serekh Copies’, Dead Sea Discoveries 15 (2008) 96-120. Scholten, J. H., Das paulinische Evangelium: Kritische Untersuchung des Evangeliums nach Lukas und seines Verhältnisses zu Marcus, Matthäus und der Apostelgeschichte, trans. E. R. Redepenning (R. L. Friderichs: Elberfeld 1881). Schramm, T., Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 14; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1971). Schröter, J., ‘Anfänge der Jesusüberlieferung: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu einem Bereich urchristlicher Theologiegeschichte’, New Testament Studies 50 (2004) 53-76 [also in id., Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung

501

des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 204; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 81-104]. Schröter, J., ‘Die Bedeutung der Q-Überlieferung für die Interpretation der frühen Jesustradition’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 94 (2003) 38-67. Schröter, J., Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas (Wissenschaftliche Monografien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 76; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997). Schröter, J., ‘Erwägungen zum Gesetzesverständnis in Q anhand von Q 16,1618’, in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. C. M. Tuckett (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 131; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1997, 441-458 [reworked in id., Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie: Methodologische und exegetische Studien zu den Ursprüngen des christlichen Glaubens (Biblisch-theologische Studien 47; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001), 118-139]. Schröter, J., ‘The Historical Jesus and the Sayings Tradition: Comments on Current Research’, Neotestamentica 30 (1996) 151-168. Schröter, J., ‘Jerusalem und Galiläa: Überlegungen zur Verhältnisbestimmung von Pluralität und Kohärenz für die Konstruktion einer Geschichte des frühen Christentums’, Novum Testamentum 42 (2000) 127-159 [reworked in id., Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie: Methodologische und exegetische Studien zu den Ursprüngen des christlichen Glaubens (Biblischtheologische Studien 47; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001), 180219]. Schröter, J., ‘Jesus Tradition in Matthew, James, and the Didache: Searching for Characteristic Emphases’, in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. H. van de Sandt and J. Zangenberg (Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 45; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 233-255. Schröter, J., Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie: Methodologische und exegetische Studien zu den Ursprüngen des christlichen Glaubens (BiblischTheologische Studien 47; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001). Schröter, J., ‘Jesus und der Kanon: Die frühe Jesusüberlieferung im Kontext der Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons’, Berliner theologische Zeitschrift 22 (2005) 181-201 [also in id., Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 204; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 271-295]. Schröter, J., ‘Markus, Q und der historische Jesus: Methodische und exegetische Erwägungen zu den Anfängen der Rezeption der Verkündigung Jesu’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 89 (1998) 173-200 [reworked in id., Jesus und die Anfänge der 502

Christologie: Methodologische und exegetische Studien zu den Ursprüngen des christlichen Glaubens (Biblisch-theologische Studien 47; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001), 62-89]. Schröter, J., ‘The Son of Man as the Representative of God’s Kingdom: On the Interpretation of Jesus in Mark and Q’, in Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and its Earliest Records, ed. M. Labahn and A. Schmidt (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 214; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 34-68 [reworked in id., Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie: Methodologische und exegetische Studien zu den Ursprüngen des christlichen Glaubens (Biblisch-theologische Studien 47; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001), 140-179]. Schröter, J., ‘Les toutes premières interprétations de la vie et de l’œuvre de Jésus dans le christianisme primitif : la source des paroles de Jésus (Q)’, in La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): Aux origines du Christianisme, ed. A. Dettwiler and D. Marguerat (Le Monde de la Bible 62; Labor et fides: Genève 2008), 295-320. Schüling, J., Studien zum Verhältnis von Logienquelle und Markusevangelium (Forschung zur Bibel 65; Echter: Würzburg 1991). Schultz, B., ‘Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27)’, Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 105-127. Schulze, M. H., Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander, verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes, zum Selbststudium für die akademische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen (Gustav Mayer: Leipzig 1861); Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung des gelösten Problems der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes zum Selbststudium für die academische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen geordnet (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886). Schürmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 1 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/1; 2nd edn., Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1982); vol. 2 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/2; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1994). Schürmann, H., ‘QLk 11,14-36 kompositionsgeschichtlich gefragt’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 563-586. Schürmann, H., ‘Die Redekomposition wider “dieses Geschlecht” und seine Führung in der Redenquelle (vgl. Mt 23,1-39 par Lk 11,37-54): Bestand – Akoluthie – Kompositionsformen’, in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Serie A 11 (1986) 33-81. 503

Schürmann, H., ‘Zur Kompositionsgeschichte der Logienquelle’, in Der Treue Gottes trauen: Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas, Festschrift G. Schneider, ed. C. Bussmann and W. Radl (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1991), 325342. Sellin, G., ‘Komposition, Quellen und Funktion des Lukanischen Reiseberichtes (Lk. ix 51-xix 28)’, Novum Testamentum 20 (1978) 100-135. Sellner, H. J., Das Heil Gottes: Studien zur Soteriologie des lukanischen Doppelwerks (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 152; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2007). Shellard, B., New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 215; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2002). Shin, H. W., Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem in Historical Jesus Research: The Search for Valid Criteria (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 36; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2004). Siegert, F., Das Evangelium des Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt: Wiederherstellung und Kommentar (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 7; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2008). Sim, D. C., ‘Matthew and the Pauline Corpus: A Preliminary Intertextual Study’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31.4 (2009) 401-422. Simon, R., Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament: Où l’on établit la Verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrêtienne est fondée (Reinier Leers: Rotterdam 1689). Simons, E., Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthäus benutzt? (C. Georgi: Bonn 1880). Slingerland, H. D., Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 160; Scholars: Atlanta, Ga. 1997). Smit, P.-B., ‘Eine neutestamentliche Geburtstagsfeier und die Charakterisierung des “Königs” Herodes Antipas (Mk 6,21-29)’, Biblische Zeitschrift, NF 53 (2009) 29-46. Soards, M. L., The Passion According to Luke: The Special Material of Luke 22 (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 14; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1987). Söding, T., ‘Grüße aus Rom: Der Erste Petrusbrief in der Geschichte des Urchristentums und im Kanon’, in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief, ed. id. (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 216; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2009), 11-45. Šoltés, P., “Ihr seid das Salz des Landes, das Licht der Welt”: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mt 5,13-16 im Kontext (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/782; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2004).

504

Stasiak, S., ‘Gesù è Signore del sabato: Studio diacronico di Lc 6,1-5’, Antonianum 80 (2005) 245-276. Standaert, B., ‘L’évangile selon Matthieu: Composition et genre littéraire’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 2,] 1223-1250. Stein, R. H., Mark (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008). Stein, R. H., ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark: Insight from John’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992) 482-502. Stein, R. H., Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation (2nd edn., Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2001). Stephenson, T., ‘The Overlapping of Sources in Matthew and Luke’, Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1919-1920) 127-145. Sterling, G. E., Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 64; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1992). Storr, G. C., De fonte evangeliorum Matthaei et Lucae (Fues: Tubingae 1794) [reworked in Commentationes Theologicae, vol. 3, ed. J. C. Velthusen, C. T. Kuinoel, and G. A. Rupert (Iohannes Ambrosius Barth: Lipsiae 1796), 140-172]. Storr, G. C., Ueber den Zwek der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis (Jakob Friedrich Heerbrandt: Tübingen 1786). Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins: Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates (MacMillan & Co.: London 1924). Svartvik, J., ‘Matthew and Mark’, in Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries, ed. D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (Library of New Testament Studies 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 27-49. Székely, J., ‘Structure and Purpose of the Lucan Travel Account’, Folia Theologica 8 (1997) 61-112. Székely, J., Structure and Theology of the Lucan “Itinerarium” (Lk 9,51-19,28) (Szent Jeromos Katolikus Bibliatársulat: Budapest 2008). Tarazi, P. N., The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Paul and Mark (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1999); vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001); vol. 4, Matthew and The Canon (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2009). Tertullien, Contre Marcion [Adversus Marcionem], ed. R. Braun and C. Moreschini (Sources chrétiennes 365, 368, 399, 456, 483; Cerf: Paris 1990-2004). Theißen, G., ‘Die pseudepigraphe Intention des Jakobusbriefes: Ein Beitrag zu seinen Einleitungsfragen’, in P. von Gemünden, M. Konradt, and G. Thei-

505

ßen, Der Jakobusbrief: Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der „strohernen Epistel“ (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 3; Lit: Münster 2003), 54-82. Tiwald, M., Hebräer von Hebräern: Paulus auf dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Argumentation und biblischer Interpretation (Herders Biblische Studien 52; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2008). Tiwald, M., Wanderradikalismus: Jesu erste Jünger – ein Anfang und was davon bleibt (Österreichische Biblische Studien 20; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002). Tresmontant, C., Le Christ hébreu: La langue et l’âge des Evangiles (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1983). Tresmontant, C., L’Évangile de Marc (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1988). Tresmontant, C., Évangile de Matthieu (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1987). Tresmontant, C., Évangile de Luc (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1987). Trimaille, M., ‘Citations d’accomplissement et architecture de l’Évangile selon S. Matthieu’, Estudios bíblicos 48 (1990) 47-79. Trocmé, É., L’Évangile selon saint Marc (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 2; Labor et Fides: Genève 2000). Tuckett, C. M., Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers (Edinburgh University: Edinburgh 2001). Tuckett, C. M., ‘The Christology of Luke-Acts’, in The Unity of Luke-Acts, ed. J. Verheyden (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 142; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1999), 133-164. Tuckett, C., ‘The Disciples and the Messianic Secret in Mark’, in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, Festschrift H. Räisänen, ed. I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 103; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 131-149. Tuckett, C., ‘Isaiah in Q’, in Isaiah in the New Testament, ed. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel; T&T Clark: London · New York 2005), 51-61. Tuckett, C. M., ‘The Minor Agreements and Textual Criticism’, in Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991, ed. G. Strecker (Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 50; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1993), 119-141. Tuckett, C. M., ‘On the Relationship Between Matthew and Luke’, New Testament Studies 30 (1984) 130-140. Tuckett, C. M., ‘The Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Book of Ezekiel’, in The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence, ed. H. J. de Jonge and J. Tromp (Ashgate: Aldershot, Hampshire · Burlington, Vt. 2007), 87-101. Tuckett, C. M., ‘Q and the Historical Jesus’, in Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung, ed. J. Schröter and R. Brucker (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 114; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 213-241.

506

Tuckett, C., ‘Q 22:28-30’, in Christology, Controversy and Community, Festschrift D. R. Catchpole, ed. D. G. Horrell and C. M. Tuckett (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 99; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2000), 99-116. Tuckett, C. M., Q and the History of Early Christianity (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1996). Tuckett, C. M., The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 44; Cambridge University: Cambridge [et al.] 1983). Tuckett, C. M., ‘Response to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984, ed. D. L. Dungan (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 47-62. Tuckett, C. M., ‘Scripture and Q’, in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. id. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 131; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1997), 3-26. Tuckett, C. M., ‘The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Inclusive Aspects of Early Christologies’, in Christian Origins: Worship, Belief and Society: The Milltown Institute and the Irish Biblical Association Millennium Conference, ed. K. J. O’Mahony (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 241; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2003), 164-190. Tuckett, C. M., ‘The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 371-394. Tuckett, C., ‘Thomas and the Synoptics’, Novum Testamentum 30 (1988) 132157. Tuckett, C., ‘Das Thomasevangelium und die synoptischen Evangelien’, Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift 12 (1995) 186-200. Turner, D. L., Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008). Uro, R., ‘Apocalyptic Symbolism and Social Identity in Q’, in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. id. (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65; Finish Exegetical Society: Helsinki and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1996), 67-118. Uro, R., Sheep Among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions of Q (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae: Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 47; Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia [Academia Scientiarum Fennica]: Helsinki 1987). Uro, R., ‘Thomas and oral gospel tradition’, in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, ed. id. (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1998), 8-32.

507

Vaage, L. E., ‘Composite Texts and Oral Myths: The Case of the “Sermon” (6:20b-49)’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 28 (1989) 424439. Vaage, L. E., ‘Composite Texts and Oral Mythology: The Case of the “Sermon” in Q (6:20-49)’, in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg (Trinity International: Valley Forge, Pa. 1995), 75-97. Vaage, L. E., Galilean Upstarts: Jesus’ First Followers According to Q (Trinity: Valley Forge, Pa. 1994). Vaage, L. E., ‘Jewish Scripture, Q and the Historical Jesus: A Cynic Way with the Word?’, The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 479-495. Vaage, L. E., ‘More Than a Prophet, and Demon-Possessed: Q and the “Historical” John’, in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg (Trinity International: Valley Forge, Pa. 1995), 181-202. Vaage, L. E., ‘Q 4’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 23 (1984) 347-373. Vaage, L. E., ‘Q and Cynicism: On Comparison and Social Identity’, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R. A. Piper (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1995), 199-229. Vaage, L. E., ‘The Son of Man Sayings in Q: Stratigraphical Location and Significance’, Semeia 55 (1991 [1992]) 103-129. Vaage, L. E., ‘The Woes in Q (and Matthew and Luke): Deciphering the Rhetoric of Criticism’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 27 (1988) 582-607. Vahrenhorst, M., »Ihr sollt überhaupt nicht schwören«: Matthäus im halachischen Diskurs (Wissenschaftliche Monografien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 95; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002). Van Oyen, G., ‘Repetitious Style and the Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark’, in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation, ed. G. Van Belle, M. Labahn, and P. Maritz (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 223; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2005), 109-125. Van Oyen, G., De studie van de Marcusredactie in de twintigste eeuw (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Akademie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren Jaargang 55, Nr. 147; AWLSK: Brussel 1993). Vassiliadis, P., ‘Eucharist and Q’, Scholarly Annual of the Department of Theology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 6 (1996) 111-130 [also in 508

id., ΛΟΓΟΙ ΙΗΣΟΥ: Studies in Q (University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 8; Scholars: Atlanta, Ga. 1999), 117-129]. Vassiliadis, P., ‘The Eucharist as an Inclusive and Unifying Element in the New Testament Ecclesiology’, in Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament: Dritte europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg 24.-31. August 2005, ed. A. A. Alexeev [et al.] (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 218; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 121-145. Vassiliadis, P., ‘The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document’, Novum Testamentum 20 (1978) 49-73 [also in id., ΛΟΓΟΙ ΙΗΣΟΥ: Studies in Q (University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 8; Scholars: Atlanta, Ga. 1999), 39-59]. Vassiliadis, P., ‘Pauline Theology, the Origins of Christianity and the Challenge of Q: The Cynic Hypothesis’, in Atti del V simposio di Tarso su S. Paolo Apostolo, ed. L. Padovese (Turchia: la Chiesa e la sua storia 12; Pontificia Università Antoniano: Roma 1998), 41-60 [reworked in id., ‘The Challenge of Q: The Cynic Hypothesis’, in id., ΛΟΓΟΙ ΙΗΣΟΥ: Studies in Q (University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 8; Scholars: Atlanta, Ga. 1999, 141-152]. Vassiliadis, P., ‘Paul’s Theologica Crucis as an Intermediate Stage of the Trajectory from Q to Mark’, in Atti del VII simposio di Tarso su S. Paolo Apostolo, ed. L. Padovese (Turchia: la Chiesa e la sua storia 16; Pontificia Università Antoniano: Roma 2002), 47-55. [Vassiliadis, P.] Βασιλειάδης, Π., ‘Πηγή λογίων και Ευχαριστία’, Δελτιο Βιβλικων Μελετων 23 (2005) 33-51. Vinson, R., ‘How Minor? Assessing the Significance of the Minor Agreements as an Argument against the Two-Source Hypothesis’, in Questioning Q, ed. M. Goodacre and N. Perrin (SPCK: London 2004), 151-164. Volkmar, G., Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien nach dem ältesten Text mit historischexegetischem Commentar (Fues’s (R. Reisland): Leipzig 1870). Volkmar, G., Jesus Nazarenus und die christliche Zeit mit den beiden ersten Erzählern (Caesar Schmidt: Zürich 1882). Volkmar, G., Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Entwicklung nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Wissenschaft (F. A. Brockhaus: Leipzig 1857). Walker, W. O., Jr., ‘The Timothy-Titus Problem Reconsidered’, Expository Times 92 (1980) 231-235. Walter, N., ‘Das Markus-Evangelium und Rom: Das kanonische MarkusEvangelium als überarbeitete Fassung des ursprünglichen Markus-Textes’, Helikon 18-19 (1978-1979) 22-40 [updated in id., Praeparatio Evangelica: Studien zur Umwelt, Exegese und Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, ed. 509

W. Krays and F. Wilk (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 98; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1997), 78-94]. Walter, N., ‘Mk 1,1-8 und die “Agreements” von Mt 3 und Lk 3: Stand die Predigt Johannes des Täufers in Q?’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 457-478. Watson, F., ‘“I Received from the Lord…”: Paul, Jesus, and the Last Supper’, in Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate, ed. T. D. Still (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2007), 103124. Watson, F., ‘Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology’, New Testament Studies 55 (2009) 397-415. Watts, R. E., ‘Mark’, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. and Apollos: Nottingham 2008), 111-249. Webb, R. L., ‘Intertexture and Rhetorical Strategy in First Peter’s Apocalyptic Discourse: A Study in Sociorhetorical Interpretation’, in Reading First Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter, ed. R. L. Webb and B. Bauman-Martin (Library of New Testament Studies 364; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 72-110. Weiss, B., Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3rd edn., Wilhelm Hertz: Berlin 1897). Weiße, C. H., Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, vol. 1 (Breitkopf und Härtel: Leipzig 1838). Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Matthaei (Georg Reimer: Berlin 1904). Wendling, E., Ur-Marcus: Versuch einer Wiederherstellung der ältesten Mitteilungen über das Leben Jesus (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1905). Wenham, J., Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Hodder & Stoughton: London [et al.] 1991). Werner, M., Der Einfluß paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium: Eine Studie zur neutestamentlichen Theologie (Alfred Töpelmann: Gießen 1923). Wernle, P., Die synoptische Frage (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Freiburg i. B. · Leipzig · Tübingen 1899). West, H. P., Jr., “A Primitive Version of Luke in the Composition of Matthew’, New Testament Studies 14 (1967-1968) 75-95. Wiefel, W., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 1; Evangelische: Leipzig 1998).

510

Wilke, C. G., Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der drei ersten Evangelien (Gerhard Fleischer: Dresden · Leipzig 1838). Witetschek, S., ‘Propheten auf der Baustelle: Zur redaktionellen Gestaltung von Mt 7,24-27’, Biblische Zeitschrift, NF 51 (2007) 44-60. Wittichen, C., ‘Die Composition des Lukasevangeliums’, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 16 (1873) 499-522. Wolter, M., Das Lukasevangelium (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 5; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008). Zangenberg, J., ‘Das Galiläa des Josephus und das Galiläa der Archäologie: Tendenzen und Probleme der neueren Forschung’, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald, ed. C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 265-294. Zangenberg, J., ‘Matthew and James’, in Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries, ed. D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (Library of New Testament Studies 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 104-122. Zeller, D., ‘Jesus, Q, und die Zukunft Israels’, in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 351-369. Zeller, D., Kommentar zur Logienquelle (Stuttgarter kleiner Kommentar, Neues Testament 21; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 1984). Zeller, D., ‘Eine weisheitliche Grundschrift in der Logienquelle?’, in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift F. Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck [et al.] (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1992), [vol. 1,] 389-401. Zeller, D., Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern (Forschung zur Bibel 17; Echter: Würzburg 1977). Zeller, E., ‘Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie’, Theologische Jahrbücher 2 (1843) 443-543. Zwiep, A. W., The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 87; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1997).

511

Index of ancient sources At times, in the sections that are devoted to continuous exegesis of given texts, references to individual places have been replaced with references to larger units of the text (pericopes etc.). Moreover, references to the purely hypothetical ‘Q source’, which is in fact not an ancient source, have been omitted. Old Testament Genesis 1:5 266 1:27 254 1:31 248 2:24a 254 2:24b 254 3:18 434 9:4 378 n. 226 10:1-32 311 13:10 276, 278 15:6 410, 413 17:3 373 18:1-19 278 18:6 350 18:20-19:29 278 19:24 279, 314 19:30-38 278 33:4 361 46:22 348 n. 163 46:27 310, 348 n. 163 Exodus 1:5 310 3:5 311, 319 n. 97 8:15 327 10:22 265 12:11 312, 341 15:1 369 15:4 369 15:20-21 322 15:21 369 17:14 376 19:24 363 20:13-15 255 n. 82 22:1 342 22:24[25] 387 n. 245 23:20 233, 292

27:20 34:6

341 288

Leviticus 7:27 378 n. 226 24:12 333 n. 127 Numbers 11:12 368 15:34 333 n. 127 Deuteronomy 2:16 378 n. 226 4:31 288 4:33 427 5:9 284 5:17-18 255 n. 82 5:26 427 6:5 321 6:13 283-4 6:16 283 8 138 8:2 283 8:3 283, 421 n. 44 8:15 318 9:1-10 137 9:2-3 278 n. 10 9:7-9 283 n. 24 19:15 421 n. 44 24:1 254 n. 81 25:2 344 28:12 289 n. 38 30:6 321 30:8 321 Joshua 7:1-25

236 n. 28

513

Judges 1:10 278 n. 10 13:5 382 n. 232 Ruth 4:16

368

1 Samuel 2:8 359 n. 187 17:36 427 2 Samuel 15:16 254 n. 81 20:3 254 n. 81 1 Kings 5:12 326 17:4 340 n. 142 17:6a 340 n. 142 17:17-24 292 18:4-21:25 245 18:44-45 345 19:1-16 309-10 19:10-12 307 19:15-16 307 19:18 310 n. 80 19:19 357 19:20 308 21:19 [20:19] 367 21:24 308 2 Kings 1:10 307 1:12 307 2:9-16 251 2:9-15 304 4:8-37 292 4:29 312 5:1-19 180, 292, 374 5:10-15 374 8:7-15 307 9:25-26 308 9:8 307 9:28 308 1 Chronicles 15:21 221

514

2 Chronicles 24:20 334 n. 130 Ezra 7:14-21 361 7:22 361 Nehemiah 8:8 333 n. 127 Tobit 1:13 265 1:17-19 265 2:7 265 3:8 296 6:13 258 1 Maccabees 2:1 221 2 Maccabees 2:18 376 10:19-21 383 Job 16:9 24:16 39:27 39:30

353 342 377 377

Psalms 2:7 234 8:3 421 n. 43 8:3a 421 n. 44 11[10]:1 337 n. 136 22[21]:2 265 34[33]:13 375 35[34]:16 353 37[36]:12 353 38[37]:12 265 46[45]:3 257 77[76]:19 376 97[96]:4 376 107[106]:2-9 286 107[106]:9 286 112[111]:10 353 113[112]:7 359 n. 187 118[117]:22-23 258

118[117]:26 124[123]:7 337 n. 136 126[125]:1-6 286 126[125]:6 286 144[143]:6 376 Proverbs 1-9 77 1:20-33 63 3:34 408, 433 10:12 408 31:20-22 365 Ecclesiastes 3:4 287 Song of Songs 3:4 254 n. 81 Sirach 4:26 338 16:6-9 278 n. 10 27:4 367 Isaiah 5:1-2 258 5:4 258 6:9-10 421, 437 6:10b 421 n. 44 8:14 416 9:1 208 11:1 234 n. 17 14:11 317-18 14:12 318 14:13 317-18 14:15 317-18 30:22 359 40:1-11 143 40:3 233 40:4-5 277 40:6-7 408 41:14 143 41:20 143 42:3 156 45:1 214 49:24-25 328 52:7 143 52:13-53:12 214

52:7-12 143 53:3 214 53:4 214 58:6 56 n. 142 60:1-22 143 61:1-11 143 61:1-7 286 61:1-2 41, 54, 56 61:1-2a 56 n. 142 61:1 143, 280, 286 61:11 349 64:4 251 n. 75 65:17 251 n. 75 66:24 253 Jeremiah 3:12 305 Lamentations 2:16 353 Ezekiel 6:2 305 16:39 254 n. 81 17:10 345 17:22-23 349 19:12 345 28:2-8 317 n. 91 31:2-18 317 n. 91 31:5-6 349 34:11-16 360 Daniel 4:7-24 349 5:29 264 6:4 264 7:10 338 7:13 338 Hosea 2:1 427 11:4 288 13:15 345 Joel 2:3

344

515

Amos 3:14 364 Jonah 3:6 314 3:9 314 Micah 7:6a-c

345

Haggai 2:16 350 n. 169 Malachi 3:1 161, 292 New Testament Matthew 1-13 419-20, 422-6, 437-8 1-12 163 1-2 420, 438 1:1-2:21 420 1:1-2:12 429 1:1-17 168 1:5 434 1:20-21 420 2:13-15 429-30 2:16-18 429 2:19-23 429 2:22-23 420 2:22 420 2:23 163, 208 3-13 422, 438 3:1-4:22 145, 429 3:1-12 168 3:1-2 209 3:3d 19 3:7b-10 26 4:1-11 204, 283, 420 4:4 421 n. 44 4:8 403 4:8b 402 4:12-13:58 420 4:12-12:8 206-25 4:12-8:5 138 4:12-17 206-9

516

4:12 420 4:13-16 154, 158 4:13 163, 208, 211 4:13bc 211 4:13b 132 4:14-16 421 4:15 419, 422 4:18-22 132, 209-10, 422 4:18 213 4:23-7:27 211 4:23-25 211-12, 215-16, 219, 422, 423 n. 47, 429 4:23-24 215 4:23 214, 216 4:24 213, 219 4:24a 212 4:25 216 5-7 423, 434 5:1-7:29 429 5:1 435 5:3-7:27 27 5:3-48 437 5:3-16 435 5:3-12 435 5:3-9 435 5:3 432-3 5:3a 312 5:4 433 5:5-9 137 5:5 172 5:6 137 5:7-9 172 5:7 433 5:8 138 5:9 434 5:10-12 435 5:10 137 n. 471, 434-5 5:11-12 167, 435 5:13 423, 435 5:13b 34 5:14-16 423, 435 5:14a 434 5:14b-16a 434 5:14b 434 5:15-16 435 5:15 130 n. 448 5:16 434 5:16a 434

5:16bc 434 5:16b 434 5:17-48 137, 423, 436 5:17-37 436 5:17-20 423 5:17a 418 5:18 167, 364 5:19 418, 423 5:21-48 431-2 5:21 421 n. 43 5:22 433 5:23-24 431 5:25-26 431 5:26 260 n. 96 5:29-30 431 5:31 421 n. 43 5:32 431 5:33-37 436 5:34-37 430-1 5:38-48 436 5:39 436 5:39c-40 431 5:41 436 n. 76 5:42 403, 431 5:43-48 423 5:44-48 431 5:45 435-6 5:48 433, 436 6:2-5 435 6:5-15 90 6:9-13 447 6:11 26, 403 6:12 404, 428 6:12ab 404 6:12a 404 6:12b 404 6:14-15 404 6:16-18 435 6:19-20 188 n. 5, 433-4 6:25-34 431 6:34 434 7:1 430-1 7:2ab 431 7:2cd 431 7:6 418 7:7-11 61 7:7 432 7:9-10 324 n. 110

7:12 423 7:16 434 7:21-23 418 7:21 423 7:23-27 423 7:25 289 7:27 289 7:28-29 211 8-9 424 n. 50 8:1-17 429 8:1-4 216-17, 423 8:5-13 29 n. 25, 170, 180-1, 201, 212, 423 8:5-12 174 8:5 139, 211, 422 8:5a 211 8:8 26 8:11-12 201, 423, 424 n. 50 8:12 424 8:13 180 8:14-17 423 8:14-15 212-13 8:16-17 213-15, 422 8:17 421-2 8:18-34 215-16, 424, 429 8:18 424 8:18a 215 8:19-22 27-8, 174, 424 8:20 26, 47 8:23-34 424 9:1-38 429 9:1-17 20 9:1-8 163, 218-20 9:2 422 9:3 424 n. 50 9:9-13 220-1 9:9 424 9:13 424 9:13a 424 n. 50 9:14-17 221-2, 424 9:17 223 9:18-11:30 424 9:18-26 424 9:26 424 9:27-31 20, 27 n. 19, 424 9:30 217 9:31 217, 424 9:32-34 424

517

9:32-33 202 9:33bc 424 9:34 424 n. 50 9:35-11:1 115 9:35-10:14 426 9:35-38 424 9:35 214 9:36 424 n. 50 10:1-11:30 424 10:1-11:1 429 10:1-16 149, 159 10:1 165, 214 10:2 166 10:3 220-1 10:5-6 201, 418, 424 10:5d 430 10:7 209 10:15 314 10:17-23 97 10:23 418, 424 10:28 434 10:29 337 n. 136 10:33 47, 404 10:33b 405 10:34 344 n. 153 10:38 27 10:41-42 424 11:2-19 48, 156 11:2-15 429 11:6 156 11:10 156, 161 11:13 156, 167, 363 11:14 170 11:16-24 429 11:17 156 11:18 156 11:21-23 26 11:23-24 313 11:25-12:50 429 11:25-30 137 11:25a 223 11:25b-26 26 11:27 337 11:28-30 425 11:30 199 12 424 n. 50 12:1-14 424 12:1-8 223-4

518

12:10 174 12:11-12 356 n. 179 12:15-21 214, 425 12:17-21 421 12:20 156 12:22-45 425 12:22-32 48 12:22 202 12:25 219 12:27-28 26 12:30 26 12:32a 47 12:34 278 12:40 174 12:44 26 13-22 163 13:1-52 425, 429 13:8 425 13:11c-12 425 13:12 425 13:14-15 421, 425, 437 13:15 425 13:16-17 425 13:18-23 425 13:24-30 425 13:24 425 13:31-32 425 13:31 425 13:33 425 13:35 421, 425 13:36-50 425 13:44 425 13:51-52 425 13:52 222 13:53-58 426 13:57-58 421 13:58 422 14-28 422 14:1-28:20 419 14-20 420, 426-8 14:1-12 426 14:6 213 14:13 420-1, 426 14:22-15:39 20 14:22-15:20 429 14:22-33 426 14:24 436 n. 76 14:28-31 159, 172, 426

15:1-20 426 15:10-20 378 n. 225 15:11 100 15:14 64, 420 15:15 426 15:17 418 15:21-16:20 429 15:21-28 180 15:23-24 418 15:28 180 15:3-6 423 15:7-8 421 16:2-4 420 16:13-18:5 19 16:16-20 427 16:16 427 16:17-20 426-7 16:17-19 159, 172 16:17 427 16:18 210 16:21-20:34 429 16:24 27 17:2 435 17:20 420 17:22-18:35 420 17:24-27 159, 172, 426-7 17:25-26 427 17:27 427 18:1-20 427 18:1-5 427 18:3-20 173 18:3-4 427 18:7 420, 427 18:10-15 378 n. 225 18:10 427 18:12-15 420 18:12-14 20, 427 18:15 427 18:16-20 428 18:16 421 n. 44 18:21-22 426, 428 18:21 420 18:23-35 172, 421, 428 18:32-33 428 18:33 433-4 18:35 428 19:18 255 n. 82 19:21 433

19:23-24 405 19:27 428 19:28 420, 428 20:1-16 173, 428 20:2 428 20:7 428 20:10 428 20:16 420, 428 20:29-34 20, 27 n. 19 21:1-26:46 429 21-25 420, 422, 426, 438 21:11 208 21:14 438 21:16 421 nn. 43-4 21:16e 421 n. 44 21:28 420 21:31-32 420 21:31d-32 64 n. 180, 420 n. 39 21:32-33 156 21:32 156 21:43 419 22:1-14 420 22:23-33 19 22:28 164 22:39 432 23-25 163 23 48 23:1-39 30 23:2-36 438 23:2-3 31 23:4-7 420 23:4 425 23:8 251 n. 76, 434 23:12-13 420 23:12 31, 433 23:15 31 23:16-22 432 23:23-39 420 23:23-26 48 23:29-32 27 23:33 278 23:34-36 27 23:34 175 n. 591 23:37-39 27 24:1-51 155 24:14 156 24:15 108, 438 24:15d 19

519

24:26 376 n. 220 24:27-28 420 24:27 376 n. 220 24:37-41 420 24:43-51 155, 420 24:46 155 24:50 155, 199 25:10-12 420 25:14-30 20, 420 25:31-46 20 25:41-46 421 26:47-27:26 430 26:68 87 26:71 163, 208 26:75 48 27:19 437 27:29-30 156 27:32 220 27:33b 220 27:40 284 27:43 284 27:46bd 421 n. 43 27:48 156 27:56 429 27:57 213 27:62-28:10 430 28:11-15 421, 430 28:16-20 111, 420, 428, 430 28:19-20 419 28:19 160 28:9-10 111 Mark 1:1-16:8 160 1:1-15:15 266, 270 1:1-7:37 232-48, 270, 271 n. 135 1:1-6:13 145 n. 497, 419, 422 1:1-20 120, 145 1:1-15 37 1:1-8 113, 118 1:1 114, 214, 232-3, 280, 282 n. 20 1:2-13:22 140 1:2-2:12 140 1:2-13 275-6, 284, 391, 397 1:2-8 233-4 1:2-4 276-7 1:2-3 276-7, 306, 309 1:2 292

520

1:2b 277 1:3 277, 411 1:3c 19 1:4-6 270 n. 133, 397 1:4 276 1:4a 276 1:4b 276 1:5-8 277, 280 1:5 411 1:5ab 277 1:5a 277 1:5c 278 1:6-7 292 1:6 278-9, 293 1:7-8 277 1:7 312 1:7a 279 1:7b-8 279 1:8b 279 1:9-13 234-5 1:9-11 88, 118, 267, 280 1:9 208, 280 1:10 111 1:11 214, 251, 281 1:12-13 113, 118, 130, 135, 148, 282, 284 1:12-13b 282-3 1:13 111, 283 1:13d 283 1:14-3:20 138 1:14-2:28 205-25, 227 1:14-15 143, 206-9, 235, 267, 363-4 1:14-21 207 1:14-20 235 1:14 211, 422, 424 1:15 313, 319 1:16-6:6a 154, 157-8 1:16-3:16 240 n. 42 1:16-20 113, 132, 209-10, 215, 235-6, 422 1:16-20a 132 1:16-18 166, 237 n. 30 1:16-17 246 1:16 213, 238, 242 1:16ab 220 1:19 236 n. 27, 335 n. 131 1:20 179 1:21-3:19 154

1:21-2:12 236, 252 1:21-39 145 1:21-34 236-8 1:21-29 314 1:21-28 347, 351 1:21-22 210-11, 423 1:21 211, 237, 422 1:21a 132 1:22 143, 214 1:23-28 143, 212, 422 1:24 214, 382 n. 232 1:27 214 1:28 211, 422 1:29-34 153, 423 1:29-31 212-13 1:29-30 209 1:30 211, 422 1:31 243 1:32-34 127, 213-15 1:32 198, 211, 422 1:33 237, 336, 339 1:34 211-12, 422, 424 1:35-2:12 238 1:35-39 209 1:35-38 215, 424 1:35 213, 267 1:36-38 209 1:36 426 1:39 211, 215-16, 422 1:40-45 154, 158, 216-17, 373-4 1:40-44 127, 423 1:40 154, 218, 373 1:42-44 374 1:44 374 1:45 237, 267, 423 1:45f-2:12 217-20 2:1-22 20, 153 2:1-12 118, 347, 351, 373-4 2:1 139, 237, 292 2:3-4 163, 211, 422 2:5-7 294 2:7-12 267 2:7 424 n. 50 2:8 130 2:12 373, 425 2:13-3:6 140 2:13-17 220-1, 238-9 2:13 242

2:14 223, 308 n. 76, 309 2:15-17 293, 384-5 2:15-16 360-1 2:16 222 n. 100, 335, 379-80, 384 2:16a 221 2:18-3:6 239-40 2:18-22 221-2, 424 2:22 223 2:23-3:6 153, 423-4 2:23-28 223-4 2:23b 114 2:27-28 338 2:27 112-14 3:1-6 347-8, 351, 355, 357 3:1 216 3:4 356 n. 179 3:4b 355 3:5 251, 356 3:6-7 420 3:6 249 3:7-4:25 285 3:7-19 285 3:7-12 240, 285, 421, 425 3:7-9 209, 286 3:7-8 179, 211, 216-17, 286, 422 3:7 242 3:10-12 214 3:10 169 3:11 286 3:12 214 3:13-35 240-2 3:13-19 285 3:13-19a 154 3:13-14 286 3:13 179 3:14 165 3:14b-15 166 3:15-19 424 3:16-16:7 240 n. 42 3:16-19 115 3:16-17 114 3:16 210 3:17 166, 236 n. 27, 306, 309 3:18 220-1, 238, 246 n. 61 3:20-35 37, 154, 158 3:20-31 48 3:20-30 285-6, 293, 297, 391, 397 3:20-22 287

521

3:20-21 189, 287, 289-90, 323-5, 331 3:20 292, 297, 323-4 3:20c 286 3:21 267, 286, 297, 323 3:22 111, 286, 290, 291 n. 41, 293, 297, 329, 424 3:22-4:22 326, 331 3:22-4:20 329 3:22-30 425 3:22-27 118, 325-6 3:22b 325, 327 3:23-27 329 3:23-25 289, 290, 297 3:23 289, 325-6 3:23a 327 3:23b 327 3:24-25 267, 289, 325, 327 3:24 289 3:25 289 3:26-27 297 3:26 290, 327 3:27-28 296-7 3:27 267, 292-3, 327-8 3:28-30 118, 294 n. 47, 295, 326, 328, 397 3:28-29 286, 293, 338-9 3:28 293-4 3:29-30 328 3:29bc 339 3:29b 338 3:30 286, 293-4, 296-7 3:31-35 227, 285, 326, 328 3:35 294 4:1-34 123, 227, 242, 285, 349, 425 4:1-25 285 4:1-21 336 4:1-20 325-6, 328 4:1-9 325 4:1 209 4:8 246, 349, 425 4:9 359 4:10-13 326 4:10-12 122 4:10 130 4:12 359, 425 4:14-20 325 4:20 246, 349 4:21-25 61, 288

522

4:21-23 330 n. 122, 425 4:21-22 76, 122, 326, 329-31, 434 4:21 130 n. 448, 143, 325, 330, 435 4:21b 330 4:21d 330 4:22-24a 337, 339 4:22-23 336 4:22 336, 338, 434 4:22a 330, 337 4:22b 330, 336 4:23 337, 359 4:24-25 143 4:24 431 4:24bc 288 4:24b 288 4:24c-25 76 4:24c 289 4:24d-29 340-1, 349 n. 164 4:24d 340 4:25 340, 387-8, 425 4:25cd 340 4:26-34 120 4:26-29 112, 425 4:26-27 340 4:26 340 4:28 340 4:29 340, 424 4:30-32 121, 349-51, 425 4:30a 349 4:30b 349 4:31 349, 369 4:31a 349 4:31b 349 4:32 309, 349 4:34 425 4:35-5:20 154, 158, 215-16, 242-3, 267, 424 4:35-41 101, 118 4:35 213, 215 4:36 130 4:41 169, 369 5:1-20 316 n. 90 5:1 249, 315 n. 88, 319 5:3-13 272 n. 137 5:14 315 n. 88, 319 5:17-29 316 n. 90 5:17 249 5:19 382

5:20-21 211, 422 5:20 316 n. 90 5:21-43 118, 154, 158, 243-4, 347, 351, 424 5:21-24 292 5:21 154, 267 5:22-43 267 5:22-34 373-4 5:22-23 292 5:22 373 5:23 143 5:24 211, 422 5:25 348 n. 163 5:27-34 294 5:27 114 5:29 373 5:34 143, 373 5:35-37 292 5:35-36 292 5:35 292 5:37 236 n. 27, 332 n. 124, 335, 426 5:38-43 292 5:41 350 n. 169 5:42 239, 348 n. 163 6:1-7:5 261 n. 99, 272 n. 137 6:1-31a 317 6:1-6 154, 158, 243-4, 314, 347, 351 6:1-6a 207, 426 6:2 169, 314 6:3 156, 241 n. 43, 269 n. 127 6:4b 308 n. 76, 309 6:6 211, 422 6:6b-13 64 6:6b-11 154, 426 6:6b 424 6:7-44 319 6:7-31a 308 n. 76, 309 6:7-13 244 6:7-11 149, 311, 424 6:7 115, 317 6:7ab 310 6:7a 310 6:8-11 74, 311 6:8-9 312-13 6:8 279-80, 311-12 6:8a 312 6:9 312 6:9a 312

6:10bc 313 n. 82 6:10b 312 6:10c 313 6:10d 313 6:11 115, 313 6:11a 313 6:12-29 314 6:12 313-14 6:13-14 411 6:13a 317 6:13b 313 6:14-16:8 419 6:14-10:52 420 6:14-29 244-6, 290 n. 40, 426 6:14 314 6:16 291 n. 40 6:17 279-80 6:17-13 118 6:17-27 270 n. 133, 397 6:17-28 263 n. 107 6:17-29 267, 290 n. 40 6:21 213, 291 6:25-28 378 n. 225 6:30-44 246 6:30-34 127 6:30-32 316 6:30-31a 317 6:31-32 319 6:31a 317-18 6:32-44 118, 319 6:33 130, 169 6:34-44 20, 27 n. 19, 191 6:34 113, 424 6:35-52 342 6:35-44 332 n. 124 6:37 321 n. 104 6:38 130, 324 n. 110 6:39-40 248 6:39 377 6:40-41 370 6:41 324 n. 110 6:43 324 n. 110 6:44 169, 321 n. 104 6:45-52 246-7 6:45-8:26 112, 118, 120, 250 n. 73, 391 6:45-8:10 20 6:45 315-16, 319 6:48 342

523

6:52 378 n. 226 6:53-56 247, 316, 319 6:55 218 7:1-23 247-8, 333 n. 125 7:1-13 355 7:1-5 378 n. 225 7:1-5a 335 7:1-4 332 7:1 335 7:4 332 7:5a 335 7:6 421 7:8-13 423 7:10-12 333, 335 7:14-23 333, 335 7:15 100 7:17 426 7:19 418 7:19c 426 7:20-23 330-1, 333 n. 125 7:22 330 7:24-37 248, 267 7:24-31 373-4 7:24-30 101 7:25-26 418 7:25 373 7:27 251 7:28 367 n. 204, 382 7:29-30 295 7:30 218, 292 7:31-37 249, 326, 331 7:31 249, 250 n. 73, 316, 372 7:32-37 202 7:32-35 347, 351 7:34 350 n. 169 8:1-10:45 232, 248-56, 270 8:1-10 20, 191 8:1-9 27 n. 19, 248-9, 319, 332 n. 124 8:6 246, 370, 374 8:9 246 8:10-13 249 8:11-12 331 8:11 327, 329 8:12-13 251 8:12 329 8:14-21 249, 378 n. 226 8:14 314 8:15 258, 336, 339

524

8:16 314 8:18 319, 337 8:22-9:29 268 n. 120 8:22-26 20, 113, 249-50, 314, 315 n. 88 8:22-24 425 8:22-23 316 8:22 314, 316 8:25 251 8:26 316 8:27-9:41 19 8:27-33 250 8:29 427 8:31-38 304, 309 8:31-33 191, 304 8:31 239, 252, 268 n. 121, 304, 376-8 8:32-33 369 8:33 210, 307 8:34-9:1 250 8:34-38 304 8:34 27, 405 8:34b 358-9 8:35 377-8 8:35c 377 8:36-38 411 8:38 47, 338-9, 342 9:2-13 265 9:2-10 122, 250-1, 267 9:2 236 n. 27, 332 n. 124, 335 9:3 114 9:4 383 9:5 210 9:9-13 290 n. 40 9:9-10 368 9:11-13 251-2 9:11 376 9:14-29 252 9:14b-16 112 9:18-19 340-1 9:18c-e 271 9:21-24 111 9:21 112 9:22b-24 112 9:25-29 202, 326 9:25 328, 331 9:27 239 9:30-37 191 9:30-32 252 9:30-31 304

9:30 304, 352, 357 9:31 268 n. 121 9:32 381-2 9:33-41 252-3 9:33-37 101, 356-7, 427 9:33 352 9:33ab 426-7 9:35 27 n. 19 9:35b 356 9:37-38 319 9:37 317 9:38-40 301, 389, 394 n. 254, 398, 427 9:38-39 417 n. 33 9:38 306, 317, 335, 417 n. 33 9:40 298, 328 9:41-10:12 298 9:41 143 9:42-50 253 9:42-47 82 9:42 298, 368-9 9:43-49 365, 368 9:43 279-80, 431 9:45 337, 339 9:47 337, 339, 431 9:49 344-5, 366 9:50 34, 82 9:50a-c 359 9:51a 298 10:1-31 267 10:1-16 253-4 10:1 249, 255 n. 84, 372 n. 215 10:11-12 298, 364, 431 10:12 113 10:13-52 371, 380 10:13-34 382, 391 10:13 298, 380 10:17-31 254-5, 381 10:17-18a 319, 322 10:17 380 10:17d-18a 320 10:17d 321 10:19 364 10:21 112, 340-1, 381 10:21c 340 10:23-25 405 10:23 111, 381 10:24 112, 353 10:25-26 354, 357

10:25 353, 368 10:26 353 10:26c 353 10:28-31 428 10:28 381, 428 10:29 358, 381 10:29c 358-9 10:30a 381 10:31 354, 357, 381 10:31ab 354 10:32-34 26, 255, 268 n. 121, 304, 381 10:32-33 381 10:32 112, 255 n. 84, 304 10:32ab 387-8 10:33 381 10:34 381 10:35-45 191, 381 10:35-40 256, 356 10:35-37 381 10:38-39 381 10:38d 344-5 10:40 381 10:41-45 256, 381 10:43-44 27 n. 19 10:45-46a 385 10:45 255 n. 84, 385 10:46-15:15 270 n. 131, 271 n. 135, 272 n. 137 10:46-12:44 232, 256-60, 261 n. 99, 270 10:46-52 118, 217, 256-7, 268, 373-5, 382, 391, 424-5 10:46 382, 385 10:46a 383 10:47-48 373 10:47 208, 382 10:49-50 143 10:49 111 10:51 251 n. 76, 382 10:52 373, 385 11:1-25 257 11:1-10 118, 375, 378 11:1a 387-8 11:9 114 11:9a 354-5, 357 11:11 375 11:12-14 154, 347, 351 11:13 379-80 11:17 252, 380 n. 231

525

11:20-23 369 11:20-21 154, 369 11:20 369 11:21 426 11:22-23 369 11:22 379-80 11:24-25 323-4 11:24 324 11:24b.d 324 11:24c 324 11:25-26 143 11:25 57, 90, 323, 369, 404, 431, 447 11:25bc 323 11:27-33 118, 257 11:32 233 n. 15 12:1-12 113, 258 12:1-9 347, 351 12:9 387 12:13-17 118, 258 12:13 249 12:15 260 n. 96 12:18-34 259 12:18-27 19, 118 12:20-23 294 12:22 169 12:26 320 12:28-34 37, 118, 319-20, 322 12:28 169, 320 12:29b-31b 320 12:28b-29 321 12:30 320 12:31 432 12:31a 321 12:31b 320 12:31c-34 321 12:32-34 112 12:35-44 259-60 12:35-37a 118 12:35 250 12:36 203 12:38-40 333, 335 12:38b-39a 333 12:39 356-7 12:40c 333 12:41-44 288 n. 33 12:42 260 n. 96, 337, 339 12:44 337 n. 136 13:1-15:15 232, 260-4, 270

526

13:1-14:9 261 n. 99 13 36 13:1-37 155 13:1-4 260-1 13:3 263 n. 105, 341, 426 13:5-8 261 13:9-13 97, 261-2 13:9 115, 339 13:10 376 13:11-13 37 13:11 115, 339 13:11c 339 13:12 345 13:14-20 262 13:14 108, 438 13:14c 19 13:15-27 375, 378 13:15-16 308 n. 76, 376 13:15 337 13:15b 376 13:16b 376 13:17 375 13:19-20 375 13:21-23 262 13:21 375 13:21a 375 13:24-27 262 13:24-26 376 13:24-25 376 13:24 375 13:26 342, 345 13:27b 376, 378 13:28-32 262 13:28-29 347, 351 13:29 431 13:31 364 13:31a 363 13:31b 363 13:32-37 37, 345 13:32 342-3 13:33-37 262, 341-2 13:33-36 341, 343 13:33 341, 343 13:33a 341 13:34-36 342, 385-6 13:34-35 342 13:34 343, 386 13:34b 343

13:34c 342 13:35 341-2 13:36 341-3 13:37 342-3 14:1-2 262 14:1 263 14:2 213 14:3-9 114, 262-3 14:3 294 14:8-9 377-8 14:8 377 14:10-15:15 261 n. 99, 263-4, 378 n. 225 14:10 241 n. 43 14:12-25 377-8 14:12-16 263 14:12 370, 377 14:14 377 14:15-16 370 14:15 377 14:17 213 14:21 368, 370 14:21a 47 14:22-25 101, 122, 127, 170 14:22 377 14:23-25 378 n. 226 14:23 374 14:25 377 14:28 266 14:32-42 118, 268 14:33 236 n. 27, 332 n. 124, 335 14:35-36 324 14:35 323 14:36 323, 350 n. 169 14:37 210, 240 14:43 169, 268 14:45 251 n. 76 14:51-52 112 14:55-65 268 14:61 250 14:62 342 14:65 87 14:66-72 210, 268 14:72b 114 15:1-44 264 n. 111 15:2 266 n. 116 15:7-15 246 15:9 266 n. 116 15:12 266 n. 116

15:16-16:8 232, 264-6, 270 15:16-24 264 15:16-20 272 n. 137 15:18 266 n. 116 15:19 156 15:21-32 264 15:21 266 15:24-34 266 n. 117 15:25-32 264-5 15:25 264 15:26 266 n. 116 15:32 250, 266 n. 116 15:33-41 265 15:33 264 15:34 264, 268, 350 n. 169 15:34bd 421 n. 43 15:36 156 15:37 268 15:39 264, 268 15:40-41 265-6, 268, 295 15:40 236 n. 27, 268 n. 127, 295, 335 n. 131, 429 15:42-47 265 15:42-45 268 15:42 213, 264 15:46 269 15:47-16:1 268 15:47 265, 268 n. 127, 295 16:1-8 265-6 16:1 264-5, 268 n. 127, 295 16:2 238 16:7 266, 426, 428 16:8 113 16:9-20 160 16:11-15 160 16:19 160 Luke 1:1-3:6 137 1-2 332 n. 124, 438 1:1-2:52 275 1:1-4 178, 273 n. 140, 441 1:1-2 19, 95 1:1 147, 392 1:3 20, 153, 159, 392 1:4 303, 392, 399 1:5-11:36 163 1:5-80 276

527

1:5-38 191 1:11-12 220 1:15 293 1:16-17 411 1:17 171 1:21 279 1:26-38 284 n. 26 1:26-33 128 1:26 208 1:27 281, 322 1:28-29 312 1:29 279, 312 1:30-31 420 1:36-38 128 1:40-44 312 1:40 312 1:42-45 328 1:44 310 1:50-52 172 1:76-77 411 1:78-79 208 1:80 310 2:1-52 128-9 2:1-40 128 2:9 220, 403 2:14 403 2:19 322 2:22-23 276 2:23a 320 2:25-38 316 n. 90 2:32 403 2:36-37 281, 348 n. 163 2:36 348 n. 163 2:37 294 2:41-52 128 2:51 382 n. 232 3:1-4:13 275-85, 282 n. 20, 390-8, 444 3:1-18 168 3:1-17 45 3:1-6 276-7 3:1 296 3:2-7:28 75 3:2-4:13 291 3:2-20 363 3:2-4 33 3:2b-17 280 3:3-20 279 3:4d 19

528

3:7-20 276-80 3:7-17 142 3:7-15 275 3:7-9 111, 172, 179, 183 3:7a 33 3:7b-9 26 3:9 279 3:10-38 137 3:10-14 20, 278-9, 384 3:12 220 3:15-18 279-80 3:16-17 111, 179 3:16 139, 344 3:17 172, 183, 365 3:18-22 280 3:19 296 3:20 290, 291 n. 40, 292 3:21-22 33, 280 3:21 280 3:22 235 n. 21, 281 3:23-38 275, 348 n. 163 3:23-28 283 n. 24, 280-1 3:23 284 3:26 208 n. 54 3:31 208 n. 54 3:36 315 n. 88 3:38 284 4:1-22:62 138 4:1-13 45, 111, 114, 179, 204, 282-4, 402, 405 4:1-2a 33 4:2b-13 275 4:3-12 332 n. 124 4:3 324 n. 110 4:4 421 n. 44 4:5-6 402-3, 405 4:7 403 4:8d 403 4:14-6:5 206-25 4:14-5:17 216 4:14-30 206-9 4:14-22a 137 4:14 216, 218, 282 4:14a-7:1 138 4:15-16 210-11 4:16-30 275 4:16 33, 163, 382 n. 232, 402, 405 4:18-27 211

4:18-19 56 n. 142 4:23-31 209 4:24 56 n. 143 4:25-27 170, 180, 292 4:25 359 4:29 208 4:30 372 4:31-44 145 4:31-36 210 4:31-32 210-11 4:31 207, 216, 218 4:33-37 212 4:33 210 4:34 382 n. 232 4:36 211 4:38-39 212-13 4:38 209, 211, 422 4:40-41 213-15 4:42-44 209 4:42-43 215 4:42d-43 209 4:44 215-16, 218 5:1-11 209-10, 212, 215 5:1-5 168 n. 571 5:3 215 5:8 379 5:12-16 216-17, 373 5:12-14 291 5:12 373 5:17-39 20 5:17-26 217-20 5:17 216 5:18-26 128, 291 5:19 337 5:21 335 5:27-32 220-1 5:27 223 5:29 223 5:30 222 n. 100, 335, 360 5:30a 221 5:33-39 221-2 6:1-11 128 6:1-5 223-4 6:6 26, 216 6:6-11 355 6:6-10 27 n. 19 6:7 335 6:8 219

6:12-8:21 285 6:12-19 285 6:12-16 33, 285 6:12-13 423 6:13-49 154 n. 529 6:13 165 6:14 166 6:15 221 6:17-19 285 6:17 286 6:18-19 214 6:18c 295 6:19 294 6:20-8:3 183, 275, 284-98, 390-8, 444 6:20-7:35 45 6:20-7:10 179 6:20-49 108, 111, 120, 286-90, 297, 423 6:20-38 290 6:20-26 287 n. 32 6:20-21 294, 402, 405 6:20 291, 432 6:20a 33, 287 6:20b-49 27 6:20b-26 286 6:20b-23 37, 287 6:20b-21 286-7 6:22-23 167, 287 6:22 435 6:23 318 6:24-26 287, 333 6:24-25 433 6:25 411 6:25cd 433 6:27-38 63, 287-9 6:27-36 61, 436 6:27-28 37, 431 6:27b-28a 294 6:29-31 37 6:29-30 431 6:30 403 6:32-33 37, 431 6:35-38 404 6:35 294, 431 6:35c 37 6:36 37, 431 6:37-42 37 6:37 294, 431 6:37ab 431

529

6:39-49 290 6:39 289, 294, 356 n. 179 6:40 289 6:41-42 289 6:43-49 37, 289 6:43-45 425 6:43 278 6:44-45 410 6:44 434 6:45 321 n. 103 7:1-8:3 137 7:1-10 29 n. 25, 101, 108, 111, 136, 170, 212, 291-2, 402, 405, 423 7:1-35 286, 290-3, 297, 329 7:1-28 120 7:1 139 7:3-5 168, 423 7:5-10 131 7:5 288 7:7 374 7:8 294 7:11-17 291 n. 41, 292, 372 n. 214 7:11-16 291 n. 41 7:11 315, 358, 372 7:16 56 n. 143 7:17-18 291 n. 41 7:17 291 7:18-35 48, 136, 142, 156 7:18-28 363 7:18-23 290-1 7:19 156, 199 7:21 291, 295 7:22 291 7:23 156, 338 n. 137 7:24-35 291 n. 41 7:24-30 291-2 7:24-27 276 7:24 156 7:27-30 64 n. 180 7:27-28 291 n. 40, 420 n. 39 7:27 156, 161, 277 7:28 279 7:29-35 293 n. 45 7:30 320 7:31-35 291-3 7:31 291, 350 7:33 156 7:34 156

530

7:36-8:3 286, 293-7, 328 n. 118, 338, 397 7:36-50 120, 136, 293-4 7:37 156, 379, 420 n. 39 7:39 156, 379 7:41-50 404 7:43 321 7:47-49 172 7:50 294, 420 n. 39 8:1-3 294-6 8:1 352 8:2-3 429 8:4-18 285 8:8 349 8:10 91 8:15 349 8:16-18 288 8:16-17 123 8:16 20, 130 n. 448, 163, 330 8:18 340 8:19-21 27 n. 19, 285 8:21 289 8:22 91, 213 8:25 91, 369 8:26-39 316 n. 90 8:26 314 n. 88, 316 n. 90 8:34 314 n. 88 8:37 316 n. 90 8:39 316 n. 90 8:40 199 8:44 91 9:1-6 166 9:1-5 27 n. 19, 149 9:3 311-12 9:4 383 9:6 352 9:7 296 9:9 291 n. 40 9:10-11 319 9:10 27 n. 19, 314, 316, 392 9:11 211, 422 9:18-50 19 9:20 427 9:22 91 9:23 27, 358, 405 9:26 338, 403 9:26a 338 9:31 66 n. 187, 302 n. 66, 403

9:32 403 9:37-38 27 9:48 317 9:49-50 241 n. 43, 301, 367 n. 206, 389, 398 9:49 306, 417 n. 33 9:50 298, 417 n. 33 9:51-19:28 183, 275, 284, 298-398, 444 9:51-18:14 275, 298-9 9:51-16:17 388 9:51-14:24 392 9:51-13:21 301-52, 388 9:51-10:20 137 9:51-56 304, 306 n. 71, 307, 316 n. 90, 372 n. 214, 302-9, 310 n. 80 9:51 299, 301-4, 309 n. 78, 371-2 9:51a 302, 390 9:51b 305 9:52-56 66 n. 187 9:52-54 345 n. 156, 372 9:52 305, 306 n. 70, 373 9:52a 305 9:52b-56 306-7 9:53-54 396 9:53 309 n. 78, 372 9:54-55 307 9:54 307 n. 73, 335 n. 131 9:56 372 9:57-10:24 75 9:57-10:16 45 9:57-62 28, 107, 136, 304, 307-10, 314, 332 n. 124, 424 9:57-60 27, 215, 424 9:57-60a 309 9:58 26, 47, 309 9:61-62 190 9:62 359 10:1-24 309-19 10:1-20 308 n. 76, 309-18 10:1-12 149, 303, 309-14 10:1-11 27 n. 19 10:1-3 311 10:1 310 10:2-16 73, 128 10:2 27, 311, 424 10:3-16 74 10:3-12 27 10:3 74, 310, 367 n. 203

10:4-12 311-14 10:4-11 74 10:4-7ab 74 10:4 311-12, 319 n. 97 10:5-7 312-13 10:5-7a 201-2 10:5b-6 202 10:6ab 202 10:6c 202 10:7-16 27 10:7-9 312 10:7 383 10:7a 202 10:8-9 313 10:10-11a 313 10:12 74, 276, 313-14 10:13-16 309, 315 n. 88, 316 n. 89 10:13-15 26, 74, 314-17 10:13 314-16 10:15 318 10:16 27, 74, 314, 317 10:17-22 312 10:17-20 27 n. 19, 310, 317 10:17 310 n. 80, 317-18 10:18-20 317-18 10:19 324, 367 n. 203 10:21-24 128, 318-19 10:21a 309 10:21bc 26 10:22 337 10:23-24 425 10:24 329 10:25-42 320 10:25-37 288, 319-22 10:25-28 33, 319-21 10:25-27 168 n. 571 10:25 327, 332, 355 10:27 432 10:29-37 319, 321 10:30-37 306, 321 10:37 288 10:38-11:13 322-5, 331 10:38-42 322-3, 332 10:38 373 10:40 27 10:41 340 11 48 11:1-13 288, 323

531

11:1-4 101 11:2-12:59 45 11:2-4 90, 323, 447 11:2 323 11:2b-4 402, 405 11:3-4 402-5 11:3 26, 323, 378 n. 226 11:4 369 11:5-10 324 11:5-8 128, 322 n. 107 11:5 323 11:7-8 353 11:9-13 128 11:9 432 11:11-13 324 11:11 323 11:12 323 11:13 323 11:14-36 325-31 11:14-32 326-9 11:14-26 425 11:14-23 48 11:14-22 325-6 11:14-15 424 11:14 202, 291, 295, 326 11:15-16 290, 327 11:15 329 11:15a 287 11:15b 325, 327 11:16-17a 325 11:16 33, 291, 326-7, 329 11:17-22 329 11:17 289, 327 11:17b 325 11:17c 289 11:17d 289 11:18a 327 11:19-20 26, 327 11:21-22 327 11:23-26 294 n. 47, 326, 328, 338, 397 11:23 26, 139 11:24 293-4 11:25 26 11:26 294, 330 11:27-28 27 n. 19, 285, 326, 328, 425 11:29-54 293 n. 45 11:29-36 336 11:29-32 128, 291, 325-6, 328-9, 425

532

11:29-30 291, 325 11:30-32 340 n. 142 11:31 291, 293, 326, 331 11:32 325 11:33-36 326, 330-1, 333 n. 125 11:33 20, 130 n. 448, 325, 337, 434-5 11:34-36 330 n. 122 11:36 64, 420 n. 39 11:37-13:33 163 11:37-54 30, 331-6 11:37-44 331 11:37-38 332 11:37 294 11:39-51 48 11:39-44 31 11:39-41 333 11:39 294 11:39b-52 128 11:41 172 11:42-52 333 11:42 48, 333-4 11:43 312, 333 11:44 334 11:45-52 320, 331 11:45-46 355 11:46-52 31, 335 11:46 334 11:47-51 334-5 11:47-48 27 11:49-51 27 11:49-50 435 11:49 175 n. 591, 334 n. 128 11:50-51 376 11:51 291 n. 40 11:52 241 n. 43, 335, 367 n. 206 11:53-54 335 12:1-12 336-9 12:1 329, 332, 336 12:1b 33 12:2-3 336 12:2 62, 338 12:4-7 336-8 12:4-5 434 12:7 356 n. 179 12:8-12 337-9, 402, 405 12:8-9 337-8 12:9 47, 402, 404-5

12:10

168, 294 n. 47, 328 n. 118, 338-9, 397, 425 12:10a 47 12:11-12 339 12:13-34 339-41, 349 n. 164 12:13-21 128, 339-40 12:13-14 344 12:14 288 12:15-21 259 n. 91 12:18 279 12:21-33 411, 433-4 12:22-34 278, 339-41 12:22-32 431 12:24 356 n. 179 12:27 403 12:28 172, 183 12:31b 288 12:33-34 402, 405 12:33 188 n. 5, 318, 433 12:34 377 12:35-53 341-5 12:35-48 155, 341-4 12:35-40 341-3 12:37 343, 370 12:38 287 12:39-40 63, 155 12:40 114 12:41-48 343-4 12:41-46 128 12:42-46 155 12:46 199, 342 12:48 328 12:49-59 402, 405 12:49-53 344-5 12:50 381 12:51-53 101, 344 12:54-13:21 345-51 12:57-59 107 12:54-57 343, 345-6 12:54 369 12:58-59 431 12:59 260 n. 96 13:1-17 128 13:1-5 346-7 13:1-3 346 13:1 306 n. 72, 396-7 13:2 404 13:4-5 346-7

13:4 404 13:6-21 332 n. 124, 347-51 13:6-9 278, 347, 350 13:10-17 329, 347-8, 350, 355 13:11 281 13:16 281, 385 13:18-35 45 13:18-21 121 13:18-19 347, 349-50, 425 13:18 90 n. 288 13:18b 89 13:19a 90 13:20-21 347, 350, 425 13:22-17:10 301, 352-72, 388 13:22-16:15 371 13:22-14:24 352-8 13:22-14:6 352-6 13:22-24 354 13:22 301-3, 316 n. 90, 352, 372 13:23b 352-3 13:24 353 13:25-27 353 13:25 342 13:26-30 355 13:26-28 357 13:28-30 212, 353-4, 423 13:28 172, 183, 198 13:30 33, 428 13:31-33 316 n. 90 13:32 352 13:32b 354 13:32c-33 354 13:33-34 354 13:33 56 n. 143 13:34-18:8 163 13:34-35 27, 175, 354-5, 395 14:1-16:15 363 14:1-6 348, 355-6 14:1-4 27 n. 19 14:1 294, 380, 383 14:2 216 14:3 320 14:4 352 14:7-11 355-6 14:10 403 14:11 379 14:12-24 356-7 14:12-14 355-7

533

14:15-27 45 14:15-24 355, 357 14:15 323 n. 109, 378 n. 226 14:16-24 45, 101 14:21 353, 438 14:25-35 358-60 14:26-27 101 14:26 405 14:27 27 14:34-35 45 14:34-35a 435 14:34 34, 298 15:1-16:15 364 15:1-32 360-1 15:1-10 120 15:1-2 360 15:1 383 15:2 335, 384 15:3-10 332 n. 124 15:3-7 45 15:4-7 20, 360 15:4-5 356 n. 179 15:4 356 n. 179 15:8-10 20, 360 15:8-9 294 15:11-32 128-9, 360 15:15 367 n. 203 15:26 382 15:30 413 16:1-17:4 120 16:1-15 361-3 16:1-12 128 16:1-9 137, 361-2 16:5-8 294 16:10-15 362 16:10-12 362 16:13-18 45 16:13 45, 362 16:14-15 128, 362 16:16-19:28 373 16:16-17:10 371 16:16-18 168 n. 571, 363-5 16:16 156, 279, 292, 363 16:16a 167 16:17 167, 363-4 16:18-19:28 388 16:18 298, 364, 431 16:19-31 137, 365-8, 387 n. 248

534

16:19-23 287 16:20-22 390 16:23-24 344 16:28 337 n. 136 17:1-6 45, 368-70 17:1 368-9 17:2 33, 298, 368-9 17:3-4 101, 369 17:4 281, 426, 428 17:5-6 369 17:7-19:28 392 17:7-10 370-1 17:7-8 342 17:10c 372 17:11-19:28 301, 371-88 17:11-18:14 371-80 17:11-18:8 137 17:11-19 372-5 17:11 301, 303, 316 n. 90, 352, 383 17:12 352 17:16 377 17:18 403 17:20-37 45, 155, 374-8 17:20-22 342 17:20-21 374-5 17:20a 375 17:21 377 17:21a 375 17:21b 375 17:22-37 375-8 17:22 375 17:23 375 17:24 331, 376 17:25 376-7 17:26-30 376 17:28-29 276, 377 17:29 279, 313 17:31 33, 308 n. 76, 376 17:32 377 17:33 33, 377 17:34-37 377 17:34-35 332 n. 124, 377 17:34 163, 218 17:37 323 n. 109, 377-8 17:37a 375 17:37b 375 18:1-14 378-80 18:1-8 128, 378-9

18:9-14 379-80 18:10-13 383 18:15-43 371, 380-3, 391 18:15-17 380 18:15 298 18:16 241 n. 43, 367 n. 206 18:18-30 357 n. 181, 380-1, 384 18:18 355, 383 18:20 255 n. 82, 364 18:22 318 18:24-25 405 18:29 358 18:31-34 381 18:35-43 382 18:37 208 19:1-28 275, 371, 382-8 19:1-10 137, 332, 378 n. 226, 382-5 19:1 372 19:2 380 19:4 372 19:5 387 19:9 348 n. 163 19:11-28 305, 357 n. 181, 366, 367 n. 206, 381, 385-8 19:11-27 20, 45 19:12-27 127 19:12 372 19:14 355 19:16-22 288 19:16 358 19:17 343, 428 19:20-27 347 19:24-26 428 19:27 288, 337 n. 136, 344, 347 n. 159, 355 19:28 301, 371 19:38 403 19:38a 355 19:39-44 275, 375 19:45-46 276 19:46 380 n. 231 20:1 279 20:9-19 107 n. 359 20:20 339 20:27-40 19 20:42 203 20:46 312 21 36

21:1-4 101 21:2 260 n. 96 21:5-36 155 21:25-26 376 21:27 403 21:33-34 342 21:34-36 341-2 n. 145, 343 21:34c 341 21:36 343 21:36a 341 22:1-22:30 137 22:14-27 342, 370 22:14 213 22:15-20 170 22:17-18 378 n. 226 22:24-27 378 n. 225, 381 22:28-32 357 n. 181, 378 n. 225 22:28 45, 377, 402, 405, 428 22:29 428 22:30 45, 62, 348 n. 163, 377, 402, 405, 428 22:30b 45 22:32 346-7, 427 22:35-38 275 22:35 312 22:36 328 22:41 323 22:45 323 22:48 47 22:62 48 22:64 87, 164 22:66-24:53 137 23:6-16 275 23:39-43 275 23:40 369 23:50-54 213 24:7-53 391 24:10 295, 322 n. 107, 429 24:11 160 24:12-53 275 24:13-51 160 24:13 372 24:19 208, 382 n. 232 24:26 403 24:30 323 n. 109, 378 nn. 225-6 24:35 277, 323 n. 109, 378 nn. 225-6 24:43 353 24:44 203

535

24:51

368, 390

John 1:21 171 1:38 251 n. 76 1:44 314 2:10 222 n. 100 6:1-15 119 6:60-66 378 n. 225 6:67-69 378 n. 225 7:53-8:11 111 12:21 314 12:38 214 20:30 152 21:9-13 378 n. 225 21:25 152 Acts 1:1-15:35 137 1-12 381 1:1-8:3 429 1:1-6:7 438 1:1-12 428 1:1 389 1:2 302, 304, 368 1:4-8 302 1:5-6 309 n. 77 1:7 343 1:8 305, 340 n. 142, 347, 372, 428 1:9-11 368 1:11 302, 304, 309 n. 77 1:12-5:42 351 1:13 166, 221 1:14 154, 158, 322 1:15 427 1:16-20 416 1:20 203 1:21-22 165 1:22 280, 304 1:24 310 1:26 428 2-5 332 n. 124 2:1 302 2:3-11 350 n. 169 2:3-4 139 2:3 344 2:9-11 345 n. 156, 350, 424 2:9-10 415

536

2:10-11 290 n. 40, 366-7, 372-3, 416-17 2:14-40 172 2:14-36 416 2:14 427 2:16-41 139 2:40 279 2:42 323 n. 109, 378 n. 225 2:42-43a 220 2:46 323 n. 109, 378 n. 225 3:6 311 3:12-26 416 3:22 56 n. 143 4:8-12 416 4:24-30 416 4:36 238 n. 35 5:5-10 344 5:15 218, 353, 357 6:1-8:40 351 6-7 63 6:2-4 323 6:3-7:60 56 n. 141 6:3 335 6:4 309 n. 77 6:10 335 6:13 438 7:2-53 173 7:6 348 n. 163 7:14 310, 348 n. 163 7:16 348 7:36-50 283 7:37 56 n. 143 7:52 335 7:54 353 7:58 316 n. 89 8 332 n. 124 8:1 309 n. 77, 316 n. 90, 335 8:4-24 430 8:4-11 345 n. 156 8:14-25 335 n. 131 8:14-24 345 n. 156 8:25-39 345, 429-30 8:30-35 214 8:30 379 8:40 429 9:1-16:8 351 9:1-22 101, 133 9:1-19 429 9:2 277, 316 n. 89

9:17 95 n. 314 9:20-22 429 9:23-28 321 9:26-29 429 9:26 320 9:27 95 n. 314, 392 9:32-11:18 423-4, 429 9:33 218 9:4 366 n. 201 9:40 323 10-12 332 n. 124 10:1-11:18 292, 378 n. 225, 426 10:1-48 332 10:2-48 131 10:9 280, 337 10:11 280 10:14-15 426 10:17 382 10:34-43 138 10:38 56 n. 142, 208 10:39-43 416 10:47 241 n. 43, 367 n. 206 11:2-17 427 11:19-26 429 11:19-20 247 n. 64 11:22-24 247 n. 64 11:27-30 429 12:1-24 424 12:1-17 429 12:2 236 n. 27, 335 n. 131 12:8 311 12:12 230, 322 12:17 236 n. 27, 309 n. 77, 316 n. 90, 335 n. 131, 392, 417 13-28 381 13:1-14:20 242 n. 47, 326 13:1-44 429 13:1 247 n. 64 13:2-3 283 13:5 95 n. 314 13:9 366 n. 201 13:10 277 13:15 156 13:17-20a 348 n. 163 13:21 348 n. 163, 366 n. 201 13:26 348 13:33 203 13:45-14:7 429

13:45-49 424 14:1-20 429 14:17 343 14:21-15:39 242 n. 47, 326-7 n. 111 14:21-28 429 14:21 428 14:23 283 15:1-35 429 15:1 303 15:2 378 n. 225 15:5 332, 336, 354-5 15:6-29 357 n. 181 15:7-21 345 15:7-11 417, 427 15:7 426-7 15:9 172 15:10 334, 357, 425 15:13-21 426 15:13 236 n. 27, 335 n. 131 15:19-21 361 15:20 378 n. 226, 418 15:20-21 353, 364 15:22-29 378 n. 225 15:23-29 414, 418, 428 15:23 418 15:28-31 354, 361 15:28-29 353, 425 15:28 334 15:29 364, 378 n. 226 15:33 172 15:36-19:20 429 15:40-21:16 242 n. 47, 326 16:3 303 16:4 354 16:6-10 354 16:6-7 415 16:6 399 16:9-28:31 351 16:15 367 n. 206 16:24 350 16:34 367 n. 206 17:5-7 367 n. 206 17:26 343 18:2-6 384 n. 237 18:2 384 n. 237 18:7 367 n. 206 18:18 296, 382 n. 232 18:22 312

537

18:23 354 18:24-19:5 293 n. 45 18:24-25 249 18:26 296 19:1-7 399 19:2-4 292 19:7 348 n. 163 19:11-20 139 19:21-21:16 429 20:3 354 20:7 323 n. 109, 378 nn. 225-6 20:11 323 n. 109, 378 nn. 225-6 20:15 323 20:16 399 20:18-35 173 20:28-35 370 20:29 367 n. 203 20:33-35 277 20:33 311 20:36 323 20:37 353 21:5 323 21:7 312 21:8-9 429 21:8 367 n. 206 21:11 381 21:13 381 21:14-15 427 21:17-26 429 21:19-25 380 21:19 312 21:20 336, 382 21:21-25 414 21:23-24 382 n. 232 21:24 259 n. 91 21:25 354, 378 nn. 225-6, 418 21:26 382 n. 232 21:27-24:27 430 21:28-29 380 n. 231 21:28 438 21:39 244 21:40 422, 441 22:1-21 101, 133 22:2 422 22:3 244, 316 n. 89 22:25-29 386 n. 243 23:2-5 288 23:9 335

538

23:11-24 421 23:16 316 n. 89 24:14 156 24:17 427 24:24 437 25:10-12 386 n. 243 25:21 367 n. 206 25:25 367 n. 206 26:4 95 n. 314 26:7 348 n. 163 26:9-23 101, 133 26:14 422 26:16 95 n. 314 27:9-28:10 430 27:17-28 193 27:35 323 n. 109, 353, 378 nn. 225-6 28:3 278 28:14-15 382 28:14 367 n. 206 28:15 373-4 28:15d 373 28:16-27 430 28:16 367 n. 206, 383 28:17-28 266 n. 116 28:21-22 387 28:24-28 421 28:24-25a 387 28:25b-28 387 28:26-27 421 n. 44, 437 28:28-31 372, 428, 430 28:28 369 28:30-31 305 28:30 367 n. 206 Romans 1:1-3:31 364, 371 1:1-5 284 n. 26 1:1-3a 280 1:1-2 363 1:1 357, 370, 409 1:2-4 282 n. 20, 284 1:2 233, 235, 277, 280 1:3-4 234, 284 n. 26 1:3 234 n. 17, 238 n. 35, 256, 259, 282, 382, 445 1:3a 280 1:3b 281-2 1:4 282-3

1:5-6 383 n. 234 1:8 374 1:9 232, 235 1:11 383 n. 234 1:13-15 372 1:15-16 363 1:16-17 271 n. 135 1:16 332 n. 124 1:20 254 1:22 359 1:29 248 2:1 288 2:3 431 2:4 235, 288 2:5 254, 411, 433 2:7 254, 412 2:10-16 365 2:10 363 2:11 410 2:12-27 363 2:13 379-80, 410 2:19 289, 330-1, 379-80 2:21-22 364 2:22 364 2:25 410 2:26-27 364 2:27 362, 410 2:29 362 3:2 362 3:13-14 410 3:21 363 3:22 363 3:24-25 256 3:31 363-4 4:3 410, 413 4:5-7 238 4:7 286 4:9-12 413 4:13-14 410, 432 4:16-25 413 4:16-17 368 4:16 385 4:17-25 278, 280 4:20 409 5:3 409 5:8 239, 288 5:14-19 234 5:16 410

6:3-8:17 235 6:3 256 6:4 265 6:12 410 6:16 410 7:1-3 364, 371 7:2-3 254 n. 81, 364 7:3 254 7:4 242 7:6 362 7:12 363 7:22-25 411 7:23-24 411 8:1-15:28b 371 8:1-13:14 365, 368 8:2 365 8:5-8 365 8:7 411 8:9 411 8:10-11 410 8:11 365, 415 8:13 365 8:14-30 234 8:14 288 8:15 263, 323-4, 350 n. 169 8:17 365 8:22-23 410 8:32-34 238 8:32 413 8:34 365 8:35 263, 365 8:35b-36 252 8:38-39 365 8:38 365 9:1-15:33 256 n. 86, 270 9-11 416 9:1-11:15 256, 257 n. 87 9-10 421 9:3 365 9:5 256 9:6 257 9:7-9 278, 280, 284, 368 9:7-8 365 9:15-18 257 9:15 365 9:16 257 9:17 257 9:30-33 265

539

9:33 416 10:8-10 243 10:8-9 257 10:9-10 338 n. 137, 339, 384-5 10:9 239, 257, 365, 382, 410 10:10 384 10:12 332 n. 124 10:13 257 10:14-15 233 10:15 233, 241 10:16-18 257 10:16 233 10:19-21 365 11:1 244 n. 53, 281, 311 11:8 257 11:9 365 11:10 257 11:14-15 257 11:16-27 257, 351 11:16-24 278, 280, 350 11:16-21 349 11:16ab 257 11:16a 350 11:16b-24 349 11:16c-19 257 11:16c-18 257 11:17 257, 261 11:18 433 11:20 257 11:21-22b 257 11:21 433 11:22 365 11:22cd 257, 447 11:23-24 257 11:24 257, 261 11:25-27 348 11:25-26a 257 11:25 239, 386, 388 11:26c 257 11:26d 257 11:28 288, 365 11:31 433 12-16 297 12-13 294 12:1-21 413 12:1 366, 373-4, 417 12:3-8 413 12:6-8 237 n. 33

540

12:7 413 12:12 262 12:14-21 82 12:14 288, 410, 413 12:15-18 413 12:17-21 288 12:18-13:8 416 12:19 380, 410, 413 12:20 413 12:21 413 13:1-9 410 13:1-7 257 13:1-3 257 13:1 257, 292 13:3 257 13:4 258 13:5-7 258 13:5 258 13:6-7 258 13:7-8 384-5 13:7 258 13:8-12 259 13:8-10 364 13:8 259, 423 13:9-10 259 13:9 255, 364, 423, 432, 436 13:11-12 259 13:12 235 13:13-15:33 259 13:13 365 13:14 259 14:1-15:16 368-9 14:1-15:13 374 14:1-23 368 14:1-3 259 14:2-9 239 14:3 379-80 14:5-6 239 14:10-13 431 14:10-12 259 14:10 379-80, 411 14:13 368 14:14-20 247 14:14 382 14:17 235, 286, 375, 378 14:23 409 15:1-7 369 15:3 263, 265

15:4-19 383 n. 234 15:6-23 385 15:6 382 15:8-13 369 15:8 237 n. 33 15:9-11 382 15:9 244, 374 15:11-12 259 15:12 234 n. 17, 369, 445 15:13-33 259 15:13 259 15:14-16 369 15:16 259, 366, 368, 373-4 15:17-16:23 392 15:17-28b 370 15:17 370 15:18-28 376, 378 15:18 370 15:19-21 370 15:19 233, 237-8, 244 15:19b-24 388 15:19b 371 15:20 427 15:23 331, 370 15:24-26 374 15:24 370, 372 15:24b 383, 385 15:25-31 260 n. 99 15:25-28b 370, 372 15:25-27 370-1 15:25-26 372 15:25 259 15:26 260, 412 15:27 428 15:28 258-60 15:28c-16:23 388 15:28c 372, 374, 383, 385 15:29 375, 378 15:29bc 375 15:30-31 260 15:30-31a 378, 380 15:30b-31a 378 15:31 372 15:31b 380-3 15:32-16:5a 383, 385 15:33 383 n. 234 16:1-16 372 16:1-15 296

16:1-2 249, 265 16:1 268 n. 127 16:2-5a 384 16:3-15 367 n. 206 16:3-5a 378 n. 226, 384 n. 237 16:3 296, 386 16:4 383 n. 234 16:4b 384 n. 237 16:6-23 388 16:6 244 n. 53, 265, 295, 386 16:7 271 n. 134, 290 n. 40, 366 n. 200, 384 n. 237, 386 16:9 386 16:11 271 n. 134, 384 n. 237 16:12 265, 386 16:13 264, 268 n. 127 16:17-18 387 16:18 387 16:20 380 16:21 271 n. 134, 384 n. 237 16:23 386 16:25-27 383 n. 234 1 Corinthians 1:1-12:27 270 1:1-9 248 1:12-13 249, 293 n. 45 1:12 247, 417 1:13-16 234 1:13 249, 339, 341, 344-5, 347, 351 1:16 384 n. 237 1:18-23 264 1:18 359 1:19-21 319 1:19-20 249 n. 71 1:19 249, 318, 381-2 1:20-21 359 1:20 238, 249, 359 1:20a-c 250 1:20d 250 1:21 250, 318, 359 1:22-24 331 1:22 249, 261, 327, 329 1:22a 238, 249, 264, 250 1:22b 250 1:23-25 250 1:23 329, 359 1:23ab 264

541

1:24 244, 250, 329, 332 n. 124 1:24a 250 1:25b 250 1:26-31 250 1:26a 250 1:26b-31 250 1:27-28 410, 432 2:1-5 250 2:1 250 2:4-5 244, 250 2:6-9 250 2:6 251 2:7-8 381-2 2:7a 251 2:7b 251 2:8 410 2:8a 251 2:8c 251 2:9 32, 251, 410 2:9a 251 2:9a 251 2:9b 251 2:10-16 251 2:13-14 411 2:13 338-9 3:1-17 252 3:1 252, 380 3:2-3 252, 271 3:2 417 3:3 410 3:5 252 3:6-8 250, 258, 328, 331 3:8 287, 428 3:9-17 260 3:9-15 260 n. 98 3:10-12 289, 359 3:10-11 252, 387-8 3:10 244 3:13 252-3, 279-80 3:15-16 279-80 3:15 252-3 3:16 252 3:17 252 3:18-23 252 3:18 252, 410 3:19-20 252 3:20-22 249 3:21 252

542

3:22 247, 252, 417 4:1-21 252 4:1-2 252, 343, 345, 362 4:1 95 n. 314, 252 4:5-6 250 4:5 242, 252, 288 4:6-8 252 4:9-13 252 4:9 252 4:11-13 286 4:11 264 4:14-15 252 4:14 258 4:16 239, 252 4:17-18 252 4:17 238, 252, 258, 386, 388 4:19-21 258 4:19-20 252 4:21b 252 4:21c 252 5:1-6:11 253 5:1-13 245, 253 5:5 253 5:5a 253 5:6 253, 350-1 5:7 263 6:2 410 6:4 410 6:7-10 255 6:7-8 253 6:9-10 379-80, 410, 432 6:9 364, 410 6:12-7:40 253 6:13-18 254 n. 81 6:13 248 6:16 254 6:17 254 6:19 254 7:2-5 254 n. 81 7:7-8 268 n. 127 7:8 260 7:10-11 82, 84 n. 260, 245, 254, 423, 436 7:10 254 7:11d 254 n. 81 7:14 248 7:14cd 254 7:15 254

7:27-28 254 n. 81 7:32-35 322, 324 7:32-34 340 7:39 254 8:1-9:27 254 8:1-13 253 8:6 254 8:9 241 8:13 253 9:1-5 244 9:1 95 n. 314, 383, 385 9:4-18 257 9:4-6 254 n. 81 9:4 313, 319 9:5-6 247 9:5 237, 245, 249, 254 n. 81, 268 n. 127, 308, 316 n. 90, 357-9, 381-2, 416 9:6 239 9:7-27 277, 280, 284 9:7-14 313, 319 9:7 258, 370 9:8-14 254 9:8-10 254 n. 81 9:10 370 9:11 242, 328, 331, 387-8, 411 9:13-14 254 n. 81 9:14 84 n. 260, 82, 381-2 9:15-18 255 9:17-25 428 9:17-18 236, 313, 319, 428 9:17 343, 345, 362, 411 9:18-23 287 9:19-22 255 9:20 395 9:22 265 9:23-27 255, 428 9:25 410 9:27 380 10:1-12:13 256 10:1-13 255 10:2 256 10:4 289 10:5-11 360-1 10:7 256 10:13 410 10:16-17 246, 378 n. 225 10:27 313, 319 10:33 385

11:1 235 n. 20, 239, 269, 443 11:11-12 332 n. 124 11:16 410 11:19 410 11:20-34 357 11:20-21 241 11:21-22 343 11:23-29 263 11:23-26 122, 170 11:23-25 84 n. 260 11:23-24 255 11:23 262 11:23b-25 82 11:23c 263 11:24 246 11:25-27 256 11:25 239 12:8-10 244 12:12-27 330-1 12:13 234, 256, 293 n. 45, 332 n. 124 12:14-27 256 12:14-20 256 12:14 256 12:15-16 330 12:15 253 12:17 330 12:20 256 12:21 253, 256, 330 12:22-24 256 12:22-23 256 12:25 256 12:26a 256 12:26b 256 12:27 256 12:28-30 237 n. 33 12:31 411 13:10-13 410 14:6 237 n. 33 14:15 411 14:25 242 14:26 237 n. 33 14:37 84 n. 260, 410 14:40 84 n. 260 15:3-10 305 15:3-5 416 15:3-4 259, 264, 270, 415 15:4-10 238 15:4 381, 382

543

15:4a 265 15:5-7 241 n. 43 15:5 240, 265, 415, 426-8 15:7 335 n. 131 15:8-10 95 n. 314 15:8-9 379-80 15:8 255, 427-8 15:9-10 238 15:9 236-7 15:12-13 259 15:15 259 15:32 410 15:33 410 15:35-38 242 15:43 242, 259 15:47-50 259 15:50 410, 432 15:52 368 15:58 410 16:1-2 294 16:1 249 n. 70, 326, 370 16:3 263, 309 n. 78 16:5 249 n. 70 16:10-11 258 16:10 386 16:11 379-80 16:12 250 16:15-17 384 n. 237 16:15 249 n. 70 16:19 249 n. 70, 296, 384 n. 237 16:22 350 n. 169 2 Corinthians 1:6 251 1:9 379 1:12 330-1 1:17-20 411 1:17-19 431 1:19 416 2:4 288 2:12 265 3:4-18 247 3:6-7 238, 362 3:7-16 265 3:14-15 247, 249 4:4-13 265 4:4 344-5 4:6-7 289 n. 38

544

4:6 266 4:16-5:1 263-4 5:15-17 265-6 5:16 444 5:16b 234 n. 17 5:17 234 6:10 260, 286 6:14-15 343, 345 8:1-15 412 8:2 260 8:9 288, 340-1 9:5 339, 341 9:6 242, 362 9:8 339, 341 9:10 242 9:12 339, 341 10:4-5 328, 331 10:7 379-80 10:10 379-80 10:12-15 242 10:14 209, 327, 331 11:2 239 11:3-4 330-1 11:5-6 241 n. 43 11:7 317, 379-80 11:13-15 241 n. 43 11:13 353, 357 11:15 353, 357 11:17 433 11:20 241 n. 43 11:23 321 11:27 238 11:30 240 11:32-33 290 n. 40, 321 11:32 240 12:1-2 319 12:1 318 12:2 234, 318 12:4 234 12:10 255 12:11 251 12:14 262, 340-1 12:15 288 12:17-18 258 12:20 410 13:9-11 253

Galatians 1:1-6:15 270 1:1-2:10 351-2, 392 1:1-19a 307, 309 1:1 233, 305 1:6 239 1:7 232, 274, 351, 446 1:8-14 305 1:8-10 233 1:8 233 1:10 409 1:11-20 311 1:11-12 234 1:12 237 n. 33 1:13-15 238 1:13-14 236-7 1:13 379-80 1:14 247 1:15-17 319 1:15-17b 318 1:15-17a 235, 318 1:15-16 251 1:15-16b 271 n. 135, 443 1:15-16a 234, 318 1:15 239, 310 1:15b-16a 234 1:16-18 427 1:16 269, 443 1:16ab 240 1:16a 234, 318 1:16b 235, 238, 308, 311 1:16b-17b 310, 314 1:16b-17a 308 1:16c-17a 240, 318 1:16c 234, 236, 308 1:17-18 415 1:17 236, 238, 241, 376, 378 1:17a 240, 306, 308 1:17bc 240, 318 1:17b 234, 238, 307, 318 1:17c 237, 316-18 1:18-20 240 1:18-19 236, 240, 287 1:18-19a 321-2 1:18 240 n. 42, 245 n. 58, 320, 415-16 1:18a 240 1:19 236 n. 27, 244 n. 53, 308, 335 n. 131, 412

1:19a 241 1:19b 241, 322, 324, 331 1:20-2:2a 331 1:20-21 326 1:20 241 1:21-2:2a 326 1:21-2:1 242 n. 47 1:21-24 242-3 1:21 242, 247 1:22-24 242-3, 328 1:22 233, 328 1:23 242-3 1:23c 243 2:1-21 293 n. 45 2:1-14 270 n. 131, 272 n. 137, 336, 352 2:1-9 238 2:1-4 244 2:1-2a 331 2:1 257 nn. 86-7, 246, 261 n. 99, 270, 329, 352, 357, 372, 380 2:1a 243 2:1b 243, 331 2:2-14 261 n. 99, 270 2:2-10 261 n. 99 2:2-4 244 2:2 260 n. 99, 263 n. 105, 427 2:2bc 335 2:2b 243, 331 2:2c-10 243 2:2c 242, 243, 331 2:3-14 423 2:3-9 414, 417 2:3-5 332 2:3 246, 303, 331, 337-9, 380 2:3b 336 2:4-6 247, 258 2:4-5 339, 341, 427 2:4 408, 427 2:4a 244, 339 2:4b-5 340 2:5 244, 445 2:6-9 244, 415 2:6 236, 332, 341, 345 2:6a-c 245, 341 2:6a 343 2:6b 341 2:6d 344-5 2:7-14 332 n. 124

545

2:7-9 345, 351, 416 2:7-8 236, 240-1, 245, 416 2:7 345, 362, 415 2:7ab 244-5 2:7a 345 2:8-10 341 2:8-9 408 2:8-9a 346 2:8 339, 346, 415 2:8b-9a 245 2:9 236 n. 27, 241 n. 43, 243-6, 306, 332 n. 124, 335 n. 131, 339, 344-5, 351, 354, 416, 421 n. 44, 424, 427-8 2:9b 346-7 2:9c 346 2:9d 347-8 2:10 236 n. 28, 246 n. 63, 258, 290 n. 40, 357, 366 n. 200, 370, 412, 427-8 2:10a 246, 340 2:10b-11a 247 2:11-6:13 371 2:11-5:21 247 2:11-3:5 247 2:11-21 297 n. 53 2:11-17 357 2:11-14 244, 247, 261 n. 99, 263, 296, 332, 346-7, 351, 353, 355, 357, 371, 378 n. 225, 415, 417, 426, 444 2:11-13 427 2:11-12 294, 408 2:11 245, 247, 258, 316 n. 90, 352, 354, 427 2:12-17 355 2:12-14 414 2:12 236, 239, 241, 246-7, 287, 303, 335 n. 131, 341, 344-5, 416, 427 2:12ab 339, 353 2:12a 245-6, 353 2:12bc 354 2:12b 245-6 2:12cd 339, 354 2:13-14 258, 336, 339, 354 2:13 245, 247, 257 n. 87, 263 n. 107 2:13b 247 2:14-21 294 2:14 235, 245, 334-5, 357, 408, 416, 427 2:15-6:16 363 2:15-21 248

546

2:15-17 239, 355, 357 2:15-16 355 2:17 239 2:18-3:4 358-9 2:18 359 2:19c 358 2:19c-20 358 2:20 235 n. 20, 246, 269, 358, 443 2:21 359 3-4 272 3:1 247, 359 3:2 293 n. 45 3:3 359 3:4 359 3:5-6:16 364 3:5-4:31 361 3:5-14 360 3:6-5:21 247 3:6-4:31 247 3:8 262 3:11 379-80 3:13 360 3:15-4:31 360 3:15 247, 361 3:17 247 3:18 410, 432 3:23-26 361 3:26 288 3:27 293 n. 45, 361 3:29-4:7 361 3:29 410, 432 4:1-7 258 4:3 361 4:4 208, 244, 348 n. 163 4:6 288, 323-4, 350 n. 169, 361 4:8-9 361 4:13-15 361 4:13-14 248 4:14 305, 309, 379-80, 413 4:17-18 361 4:18-20 361 4:22 360 4:23 350 4:25-26 346 4:25 318-19 4:27 361 4:28 350 4:29-30 258

4:29 334, 361 4:30 353, 357 5:1-6:13 363 5:1-13a 361-2 5:1-12 247 5:1 361 5:2 361 5:3 361, 410 5:4 361 5:5 361 5:9 249, 350-1 5:10 361 5:11 334 5:12 361 5:13 362 5:13a 361 5:13b-15 362 5:14 432 5:15 306 5:16-26 362 5:19-21 248 5:20 410 5:21 410, 432 5:22-6:15 248 5:22-23 248 5:26-6:2 248 6:1-5 362 6:3-5 248 6:6 362 6:7 362, 410 6:8ab 362 6:8c-10 362 6:9 433 6:11 362 6:12 303 6:13-14 248 6:13 362 6:14-17 358-9 6:14 433 6:15 248, 363 6:16 433 6:17 367 n. 205, 380 Ephesians 2:14-16 378 n. 225 3:2-10 383 n. 234

Philippians 1:1 386, 388, 409 1:6 412 1:13 264 1:14-18 266 n. 116 1:14-17 264 1:14 265 1:15a 241 n. 43, 367 n. 206 1:17-18 387-8 1:17 241 n. 43, 367 n. 206 1:23 368 2:1-8 288 2:10 254 2:17 366, 368 2:19-23 386, 388 2:22 238, 386 2:5-11 266 n. 116 2:5 379-80 2:6-11 264 2:8-9 379-80, 433 3:2-8 354, 357 3:2 367-8, 387-8 3:3-4 379-80 3:3 290 n. 40, 366 n. 200 3:5-9 239 3:5 281, 311, 386 n. 243 3:6 379-80 3:8 367-8 3:10-14 354, 357 3:10 367-8 3:13-14 384-5, 387-8 3:17-18 269, 367 n. 205, 443 3:18-20 286 3:18-19 387-8 3:18 266 n. 116 3:19 365, 368, 411 3:20 290 n. 40, 366 n. 200 4:1 410, 428 4:10 290 n. 40, 366 n. 200, 367-8 4:12-19 368 4:12 286, 367 4:14 233, 290 n. 40, 366 n. 200 4:15-19 367 4:15 242 n. 47, 326 4:18 366 4:21 266 4:22 290 n. 40, 366 n. 200, 387 n. 248

547

Colossians 2:16 378 n. 225 2:20-23 378 n. 225 3:17 374 4:10 130, 230 4:16 104 1 Thessalonians 1:1 416 1:3 412 1:5-6 233-4 1:6 235 n. 20, 239, 269, 443 1:7 326 1:8 354, 357 1:10-5:24 270 1:10 260 2:1-13 261 2:1 261 2:2 381-2 2:3 261 2:4-7 261 2:4 362 2:7-11 261 n. 101 2:7 261, 380 2:7c 354, 357 2:8 288 2:9 208, 235 2:12 235, 261, 354, 357, 386, 388 2:13 261 2:14-16 63, 261 2:14-15a 354, 357 2:14 233 2:15-16c 335 2:15 334 2:16 241 n. 43, 261, 327, 331, 357, 367 n. 206 2:16a 335 2:16c 334 2:17-3:4 262 2:17 262 2:18 262 2:19 428 3:1 262 3:2 246 3:3-4 262 3:5-11 262 3:6 246 3:12-13 262

548

3:12 262 3:13 411, 431 3:13bc 262 3:13b 262 4:1-18 262 4:1-8 262 4:7-8 242 4:9-12 242, 262 4:13-15 262 4:15-17 82 4:15 84 n. 260, 262, 431 4:16-17 262, 368 4:16 262 4:18 262 5:1-10 262 5:1 262 5:2-8a 342-3, 345 5:2-3 82 5:2 262 5:2b 342 5:3 261 5:4 342 5:5 330-1, 362 5:6a-7 262 5:6b-8 262 5:6b 262 5:7 343 5:10 262 5:10a 262 5:11-24 262 5:13 82, 253 5:14 341, 431 5:19-23 253 5:27 104 2 Thessalonians 2:2 261 n. 101 2:9 261 n. 100 1 Timothy 1:12 370 3:13 377 6:13 377 2 Timothy 1:3 370 4:9-21 387 4:10 367 n. 206

4:11 4:16 4:19 Titus 1:2-3

130, 230, 272 n. 137 266, 367 n. 206 384 n. 237 383 n. 234

Philemon 1 386 9 367 10 380 13 367 22-24 367 24 230, 416 James 1:1 408-9, 411-12, 415, 418 1:2-2:13 412 1:2-3 408 1:3 409 1:4 412, 433 1:5 432 1:6 409 1:9 409 1:10-11 408 1:12 410 1:15 410 1:16 410 1:17 410 1:18-21 408 1:18 410 1:19-20 433 1:20 410 1:21 410 1:22 410 1:23-25 410 1:25 412 1:26 410 2:1 410 2:2-6 435 2:5 410, 432-3 2:6 410 2:8 410, 432 2:10 410 2:11 410 2:13 432-3, 435 2:14-26 411-14 2:14-18 412

2:14 410, 414 2:15-16 414 2:16 412, 435 2:17-18 414 2:19 412, 414 2:20 414 2:21-23 413 2:21 414 2:21a 413 2:21b 413 2:22 414 2:23 410, 413-14 2:24 414 2:25 413-14, 434 2:26 410, 414 3:1-5:6 413-14 3:1-2 413 3:1 434 3:2a 413 3:2b-12 413 3:3-8 410 3:9-10 413 3:9 410 3:12 410, 434 3:12b 289 n. 38, 410 3:12c 289 n. 38, 410 3:13-4:10 413 3:13 408, 412, 435 3:14 410 3:15 411 3:18 434-5 4:1 411 4:4 411 4:5 411 4:6 408, 411, 433 4:7 408, 433, 436 4:8-9 411 4:8 435 4:9 411, 433, 435 4:10 408, 433 4:11-12 411, 413 4:12 434 4:13-5:5 413 4:13-14 434 4:16 411 5:1 433 5:2 433-4 5:12 411, 430-2

549

5:13 411 5:14-15 411 5:16-20 411 5:20 408 5:2-3 411, 433 5:4 411 5:7-8 431 5:8 411 5:9ab 430-1 5:9c 431 1 Peter 1:1 408, 415, 417 1:3 415 1:4 436 1:6-8 408 1:6-7 408 1:8 415, 435 1:10-13 416 1:12 415-16 1:13-2:10 416 1:13-19 416 1:15-16 436 n. 76 1:16 436 1:17 417 1:18 130 1:19-21 416 1:21 415 1:22 416 1:23-2:2 408 1:24-25 408 1:25 415 2:2-3 416 2:2 417 2:4-8 416 2:8 416 2:9 434-5 2:11 417 2:12 408 2:12-17 416 2:12 434-5 2:12b 435 2:12c 434 2:13-3:7 416 2:21-22 130 2:22-25 214 3:8-4:7 435 3:8-17 416

550

3:9 436 n. 76 3:14 434-5 3:18-21 415 3:18 435-66 3:19-20 416 4:3-4 416 4:6 415 4:8 416 4:9 416 4:10-11 416 4:13-14 435 4:17 415 4:18 408 5:1-5 416 5:5 408, 433 5:6 408, 433 5:8-9 408, 433 5:9 436 5:12-13 416 5:13 130, 159, 230, 417, 436 n. 76 1 John 1:3 417 n. 33 2:4 417 n. 33 2:12 417 n. 33 2:15-17 417 n. 33 2:19 417 n. 33 2:21 418 n. 33 2:22-24 418 n. 33 2:22 417 n. 33 2:26 417 n. 33 2:27 417 n. 33 2:28 418 n. 33 3:1 418 n. 33 3:4 418 n. 33 3:11 418 n. 33 3:16 417 n. 33 3:23 417 n. 33 3:24 418 n. 33 4:17 417 n. 33 4:20-21 417 n. 33 4:20 417 n. 33 5:13 417 n. 33 5:16 417 n. 33 5:21 418 n. 33 Revelation 1:3 104

4:7

157

Other Israelite-Jewish Works Letter of Aristeas 39 311 46-50 311 1 Enoch 89:12-27 310, 319 93:5-10 348 n. 163, 351 93:5 281 n. 16, 348 n. 163 93:7 281 n. 16, 348 n. 163 93:8 281 n. 16, 348 n. 163 93:10 281 n. 16, 348 n. 163 Jubilees 8:12-21 345 n. 156 9:1 345 n. 156 44:33-34 310 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 2:1b-9 287 4Q265 6:6-7 356 4Q266 5ii 5-6 316 n. 90 4Q270 3i 19 - 3iii 15 333 4Q270 7ii 12 333 n. 127 4Q271 2:4 333-5 4Q271 2:11 334-5 CD 1:1-4:12 396 CD 3:6 378 n. 226 CD 4:4-5 281 CD 4:8 333 n. 127 CD 6:14 333 n. 127 CD 11:5-7 348, 351 CD 11:13b-14a 356, 371 CD 11:16-17a 356-7, 371 CD 14:20 362 4Q279 5:4-6 351 4Q286 7i-ii 287 4Q372 1:14 244 n. 53, 348 n. 163 4Q394 8iii 9-16 380 n. 231 4Q394 8iii 19 – 8iv 4 357 n. 180 357 n. 180 4Q396 1 2ii 1-5 4Q396 1 2iv 1-3 334 4Q397 6 13 11 334

4Q397 14 21 7 334 n. 129, 357 n. 180, 380 n. 231 287 n. 32 4Q397 14 21 13-16 4Q398 11 13 1-3 287 n. 32 4QMMT B 39-46 380 n. 231 4QMMT B 49-54 357 n. 180 4QMMT B 72-74 334 4QMMT C 7 334 n. 129, 357 n. 180, 380 n. 231 4QMMT C 14-20 287 4Q511 63iii-iv 287 4Q521 2ii+4 1-14 286, 291 11Q10 11:8 362 11Q13 2:2-25 286 11Q13 2:6 404 11Q13 3:9-10 286 11Q19 39:12 244 n. 53 Philo of Alexandria In Flaccum 37-39 264 n. 114 131.5 364 Flavius Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 4.73 271 n. 133 5.33-44 236 n. 28 5.33 270 n. 133 10.160 241 n. 43 10.176-182 241 n. 43 15.259 254 n. 81 16.3 384 n. 236, 385 17.284 386 17.300 386, 388 17.302 386, 388 17.313 386, 388 17.317 386 17.339 386 17.341 245 n. 59 18.28 271 n. 133, 314-15, 319 18.35 271 n. 133 18.60 276 n. 2 18.63-84 366 n. 200 18.63-64 290 n. 40 18.63 237 n. 33 18.64 264 n. 111 18.65-84 290 n. 40

551

18.85-87 290 n. 40, 306 n. 72, 346, 351, 397 18.95 271 n. 133 18.108 315 18.109-116 245 18.109 246 n. 61 18.110 245, 271 n. 133 18.116-119 233 n. 15, 245, 290 n. 40 18.116 270 n. 133 18.117 233 18.119 291 18.120 243 18.125 367 n. 206 18.126 243 18.203 367 n. 206 18.235 367 n. 206 18.237 276-7 19.275 276-7 20.5 241 n. 43 20.97 233 n. 15 20.118-136 306 n. 72 20.118-124 306, 309 20.138 276-7 20.167 233 n. 15 20.188 233 n. 15 20.199-201 239 n. 36, 445 20.200 290 n. 40 Bellum judaicum 1.1 359, 392 n. 251 1.110 239 n. 36 1.181 269 n. 127 1.241 269 n. 127 2.3 385, 388 2.10 262 n. 104 2.64 386 2.93 386 2.119 271 n. 133 2.162 333 n. 127, 445 2.168 315 2.175 276 n. 2 2.232-246 306 n. 72 2.232-238 306, 309 2.259 233 n. 15 2.480 270 n. 133 3.307 315 n. 88, 319 3.398 367 n. 206 3.401 367 n. 206 3.419 364

552

3.446 270 n. 133 3.515 315 3.516-521 247 3.519-520 237 n. 30 3.519 270 n. 133 4.343 334-5 4.414-415 359 4.511 291 n. 41, 315 4.517 291 n. 41, 315 5.145 346 n. 159, 351 5.252 346 n. 159, 351 5.505 346 n. 159, 351 5.567 366, 368 6.363 346 n. 159 6.413 346 n. 159 7.1-2 346 n. 159 7.217 372 n. 214 7.267 387-8 Contra Apionem 2.91 257 2.106 257 Vita 2 282 3 282 12 283 13-16 276-7 80 281 126 296 239 383, 385 399 315 403 237 406 315 Other Graeco-Roman Works Homer Ilias 2.802-807 267 2.811-816 267 5.471-492 267 5.601-606 267 6.354-355 267 6.407-439 267 6.523-526 267 7.67-272 267 10.300-458 267 11.163-180 267

11.350-360 267 11.489-498 267 11.524-530 267 12.10-12 267 12.453-14.522 267 15.287-293 267 15.9-262 267 15.346-16.376 267 16.853-854 268 21.233-384 268 22.92-130 268 22.209-213 268 22.227-299 268 22.300-303 268 22.306 268 22.394 268 22.430-515 268 24.146-719 268 24.724-776 268 24.777-801 269 Odyssea 5.234-256 244 5.291-393 242, 267 9.181-542 243, 267 10.238-243 243 13-18 244 13.70-169 243, 267 Herodotus Historiae 2.36-37 345 n. 156, 351 2.104 345 n. 156, 351 5.39 254 n. 81 Aelius Theon Progymnasmata 16 272 n. 136 Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia 5.71 315 Quintilian Institutio oratoria 10.2.1-28 272 n. 136

Plutarch Moralia 1100.A.4-5

364

Tacitus Annales 2.85 290 n. 40 12.54 306 15.44 387 Suetonius Nero 16.2 387 Digesta Iustiniani Augusti 4.2.9.5-8 384 n. 236 Other Early Christian Works 1 Clement 5:5 241 n. 43, 266, 367 n. 206, 376, 387 5:6-7 376 6:1 387 13 31 13:2 82 Didache 1:3b-2:1 53 13:1-2 82 Gospel of Thomas 14 100 17 32 Justin Martyr Apologia I 65 46 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.1.1 95 3.11.8 95, 446 3.9.1–3.11.7 147 4.6.1 147

553

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 3.39.3-4 273 n. 140 3.39.15-16 95, 273 n. 140 3.39.15 228 3.39.16 26, 133, 422, 438 6.14.5-7 147, 151 n. 516, 157 Augustine De consensu evangelistarum 1.2 [1.3-4] 141 1.3 [1.6] 152 n. 520, 157 1.6 [1.9] 152 n. 520 2.80 [2.157] 141 4.10 [4.11] 147, 152, 157

554

The study analyses the current state of research on the synoptic problem and proves that the Synoptic Gospels were written in the Mark, Luke, Matthew order of direct literary dependence. Moreover, the work demonstrates that the Synoptic Gospels are results of systematic, sequential, hypertextual reworking of the contents of the Pauline letters. Accordingly, the so-called ‘Q source’ turns out to be an invention of nineteenth-century scholars with their Romantic hermeneutic presuppositions. Demonstration of the fact that the Gospels are not records of the activity of the historical Jesus but that they narratively illustrate the identity of Christ as it has been revealed in the person and life of Paul the Apostle will certainly have major consequences for the whole Christian theology.

Bartosz Adamczewski received his DD in biblical theology at The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin and his SSL at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. He is lecturer of the New Testament at the Cardinal Stefan :\V]\ĔVNL8QLYHUVLW\LQ:DUVDZ www.peterlang.de