% jS.

Religious and Philosophical World of N"f Times

Perkin'>, P., 111l' Gnostic Dialogue: The Early Church and the Crisis ofGllostidsm
(New York: Paulist, 1980).
--'--, Gnosticism and the New Testament (Minneapolis: AfF, 1993).
Rudolph, K.. Gnosis: The Nature and Hi.ftOry of Gnosticism (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1983).
-"-'--, "Gnosticism;' ABD 2.1033-AO. P RT I I
Sdlolef. D. M.• ed., Nag Hammadi Bibliography, 1970--1994 (l.eiden: Brill,
..------, Studies in Early Christianity. Vol. 5: Gnosticism in the Early Church (New
York: Garland. 1993).
Wilson, R. M., Gnosis (lrul the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress. 19(8). THE GOSPELS AND
Yam;.llIcili, E.. Pre-Christian Gnosticism (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983)
RELATED \VORKS

Gospels in General; Synoptic Gospels

Mark
Matthew
Luke
Acts of the Apostles
John
Three Johannine Epistles
 CHAPTER 6
5
t
i

GOSPELS IN GENERAL-, SYNOPTIC

II GOSPELS IN PARTICULAR

I This Chapter dea!;>."with two interrelated problems. There is a seriou., debate "2 ,
t about the extent tWlwhich the literary ge.!1~ of a Gospel is unique to Chm­
"
tianity or is a modification of fllePattem of Jewish !i,~s of the prophets or
of Pagan biographies. I The answer in part depends o~e re~~!.i.<?!!~~l£Of the
to Jesus: Does the earliest canonical Gospel derive from memories
I of what Jesus did and said in his lifetime, or is it mostly an
creation retrojecting belief:'i about the postresurrectional Jesus into his life­
t time? The first three subdivisions of this Chapter will treat general Gospel
questions: Use of the word "gospel';' Origin of the Gospel genre; and the
Three of Gospel fonnation.
Beyond the general picture there are questions about the Synoptic Gospels
in paIticular~he very close paraUels<imong these three Gospels
fr~m one anotfie:r;~but i~what:directi(?n? Was Mark the earliest
Gospel, so that Matt and Luke drew upon it'! Or was Mark a digest from
Matt and Luke? Were Matt and Luke written independently of each other,
or did the Lucan writer draw on Matt (as well as on Mark)? Two final subdi­
visions will treat the SynopTic problem and the Eristence "Q,"

Use of the Word "Gospel'"

In t:f.L..timeli~qgg.tljp!l ("good announcement;' the word we translate
"gospel") did not refer to a book or writing but to ;lJ?r()£!QI!!~.~~2.:,".?r r:!:~~~.'.:¥.:'
This is understandable given the background of the tenn. Words related to
it were employed in ~..bri.gi..~fo~ood news, especially news of
victory in battle; and in the iI~J?~q!L£lllJh~~l!lpeE()E:~.biJjtu;mf1Jll~:lcn(;1!
constituted good news for the Roman world. LXX words related to i!uaggl'l­
ion translate words the Hebrew biT, which has a similar range of pro,
c1~lIlTling good news, especially of Israel's victory or God's victory, Mon'

!The del-mlc ,:entcrs lin the Gospels since the more radical willf.\ of ,dulllil'ship ,Iu", ",,1
whil~h
the otht'rs an:' (P' :lh2 hel"", I,
 100 .§6, Gospels il1 General; SY110ptic Gospels
widely it can cover the proclamation of God's glorious acts on behalf of
Israel.
S<.:holars debate whether Jesus himself used "gospel" to describe his proc­
lamation of the kingdom. Certainly his followers did. with an emphasis that
the news involved what God had done in Jesus. In Rom 1:3-4 paUl)
describes his gospel in terms that were probably already known to the Ro-
mans; it comprises the twofold identity of Jesus, namely. from the seed of
David according to the flesh, and designated Son of God in power according/
to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection of/from the dead. More commonly
for Paullhe heart of the gospel is centered in Jesus' suffering/death/resuo'ec­
tion and its power for justification and ultimately salvation (Rom 1: 16),
Mark 1: 1 opens his account with the words: "The beginning of the gospel
of Jesus Christ." The good news of what God has done, once proclaimed to
Israel. will now be proclaimed in and through Jesus Christ to all the nations
(13: 10), It involves the kingdom or rule of God that is made present in Jesus'
forgiving sins, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, raising the dead, calming
storms-a kingdom/rule proclaimed in his teachings and parables that seek
) point out and counteract human obstacles. Je:}us is a king whom Goo,
makes triumr: ianl even when enemies have cI1~cified him, While neither
Matt nor Luke begins in the same way as Mad.;:, their basic gospel outlook
is much the same. Man has Jesus proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom
(4:23; 9:35; 24:14), and Luke uses the verbal form euaggelizein ("to pro­
claim the good news") 10 des(~rihe this activity (8: 1; 16: 16). Since both these
writings commCIll:e with two chapters of infancy story, their version of the
good news also involves the marvelous conception and birth of Jesus (e,g.,
Luke 2: 10), Although John has content about Jesus similar to that of the
Synoptics, neither euaggeliofl nor the verbal form appcars, However J John
(l 3: 11) uses the related term aggdid ("mcssage") which may have been
the Johannine designation for what we know as the Gospel according to
John,
The 2d century furnishes attestation of euag~(lliilll cmploYl'd for Christian
writings, 2 The plurality of written gospels necessitH\t'd Ihe IItilization of Ilis··
tingllishing designations, and so by the end of the ~d cl:ntury litle~ wert'
prefaced to the canonical Gospels in the patll~rn "The (illspel acconling
to .. ,- (For the debate about the number of authentic (jospds, set' p. 1,\
above.) The existence of gospels beyond the canunical i!'! a qm'stioll l'lllllpli
cated by issues of tenninology: (a) Relatively few noncanonical works call
YI'cac'hings are said to be f(mnd or not found in "the Gospel" by Did'Jche 15:3-4; 1/ ('{"lIIt·1It X:~;
Ma/'l.m/om of PO/l'carp 4: I. H. Ktwster, NTS 35 (1989),361-81, would trace Ih(~ usage to Mardml
who Ilia, protesting against oral traditions 10 which churches attributed 'Ip()stolic alllhmity.
Use of the Word "Gospel" 101
themselves gospels, For instance, the Protevangeliwn Protogospei)
James, most of the Nag Hammadi collection, and whal we have of the Gos­
Peter do not describe themselves as "gospel"; (b) The title
Lhas been used to refer to noncanonical works independently of their self-
designation. Sometimes the usage is neutral and intended simply to
fl.. '~J nate a work about J.esus..'. as d.istinct from epistles, apocalypses, etc. Some­
.
bl/( -ti'iTieS' the -~j.!!ge 18 Ten<ientiol.!~, wishing to claim for a noncanonical work
. .,.. rank equal to that of a canonical work, In antiquity this might have been a
claim of those whom the larger church designated as heretics: today it is
sometimes the practice of revisionist s,-~holars . to dethrone the canon,
As an example of the \viden~-;e:·u~(le~-the title
(Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1992) R. J, Miller (cd.) gives the text of seven­
teen works (plus some loose sayings): the four canonical Gospels; two
completely hypothetical reconstructions (a collection of signs from
and Q from Matt and Luke); four fragments of papyrus that bear no
self-designation; two works about Jesus' infancy, neither of which
nates itself a gospel; four Nag Hammadi collections of sayings, none
which in its own text designates itself a gospel;3 and the Seerl't Gospel of
Mark that Clement Of Alexandria describes as a confiated form of canonical
Mark.
Because of these tel(Nnological complications it may be useful to keep
distinct two categories9' "Jesus material" (infancy and passion narratives,
sayings collections, miracle col1ections, discourses attrihuted to the risl'n
Jesus-without arguing whether or not ~!f.ey were called "gospels" in antiq­
uity or should be called that today); an<f<'gospels," Lt., full nmTatives such
as we encounter in the four canonical writings (covering at least a span of
public ministry/passion/resurrection, and comhining miracles and sayings)4
Let me emphasize that this distinction is only a judgment of utility f!.lr the
, sake of the following discussion ahout thl' genre of full narrative "gospels,"
not a prejudicial judgment ..dutlw 10 the value 01 antiquity of the "Jesus ma­
! terial:'
lAn apPI'IHIt',1 lilk- <'Ollis III(' (;",I/,"{ or 'llI'HIIIIS a !1-ospel; il and lhc~ Gospel of .'vlan' sp~ak of
prcm'hlll)! 11i(' J,:"'hln.:ws.
·llk..,'''~ ,·Iscwhl~n'. "M'I'Pt ill ilalil'il.l'" lilks of wl)rks. capital "U" will be kept for thl' canonical
"oslwl, III thr "1""'lypha of Illl' lit's! f,'w \'\'III1II';':S we hHve preserv.:d no full narrative
SOllie 1IIIIIhi wish 10 al'~lIC Ihal ,'it,,'ll'! Murk. SIlt(;C il was a conflated form of Mark, W,,b a
nanulivc V.o'l'd; hOWl'Vel', we possess only IWO small p;lssages and therefor," ill>': not certain to what
(~~ll'HI Iltt' whole work Wlls truly distinct ii-om Mark. Of the (jf Peter (GPel) we have
M'rvcd ollly u partial pilssionlrcsun·ccliofl narrative, Origen knew a Petrine gospel that
an iufan,'}, narcaliw (BDM 2,1337)·-;1' Ihat was the same work, GPel was probably a full narra­
IIvl.' ~!)spcL

102 j6. In General; Synoptic
Origin of the Gospel Genre (~v~ 01;\'\1"'-
How did the idea of writing the Gospels come about? Did it have its
in the OT? \Vas it an imitation of a Greco-Roman Was it a
creative insight of Mark, with the inlplication that .Matt, Luke, and John then
copied Mark's approach? Or was it rather a natural development from early
Christian preaching so that the ha'bic idea could be preMarcan and more
widespread? Scholars have tended to advocate with exclusiveness one or the
oth~r of those approaches. s Let me explain elements that contribute to the
various solutions, holding open the possibility of combining some of them,
ORIGIN IN THE OT AND JEWISH DE'I.'ELOPMEN1S DERIVATIVE FROM THE
OT. ~wart1ey, Israe/:~ Scripture, contends that the structure of the synopticl
Gospels was dictated by the OT story of dealing with Israel. In the
Book of Jeremiah, one has the prophet's background and dating (1'1-3), a
of his call (including a reference to God's planning before he WlL.,
born: I :4--10), an account of his words or speeches and of his prophetic
actions (see especially his actions and words in the Temple area in chap.
wamings of impending doom for Jerusalem, and a type of passion narrati\e
26, 37-38). Although the proportion of Jeremiah's oracular sp<!ecbes
is much higher than that of J~Svs' words in t~ canonical Gospels, the Book
o'f Jeremiah illustrates the joining in one work of many elements that are
joined in the Gospels. By the I st century AD we find a Jewish work. the Lives
the Prophets, 6 which recounts a few or many details about the various
prophets: c.g, birth, signs, dramatic deeds, death, and burial place. Probably
written in Greek, this work may reflect the influence of the ancient
we now describe. (Readers are cautioned not to think of modem biog-
ORIGIN IN lMITA TION OF SECULAR BIOGRAPHIES, Among the abundanl
Greco-Roman literature of (he centuries immediately before and after Christ
were various types of biography, e.g., Plutarch's Lives of famous Greeks and
Silelonius' Lives afthe Caesars, Philostfatus' ofApollonius of
'(WI1W, and Diogenes Laeltius' Lives of the Ancient Philosophers. 7 Thos.:
proposed as counterpatts to the have divergent tonalities.
sd101ars sometimes as a special genre of
Origin Gospel Genre 103
()'\~ 0\ tut,~\~ &..,Mv<,,:) man (theias with works mir­
acles. Despite the appeal to Philostratus, it is not dear that such a definable
genre existed; and many of the parallels are postMarcan. Second, Shuler,
Genre, points to the "laudatory biography" where the primary concern was
to show the greatness ortheflgllre. In the case of the philosophers especially,
there is emphasis on their teachings and an idealization of the noblest in their
life, designed to encourage appreciation and imitation, However, diversities
among the proposed laudatory biographies have to be overlooked to isolate
a Sllbgenre, and so its definabiIity is uncertain. 111ird, lhIbert,
considers the portrayal of "immortals" and of "etemals," Humans (some­
(,
times sired by-grn:tst'cuu1doecome imfii6rtils atdeatll,' whereas eternals
were divine beings who descended to earth, lived as humans, and then as-
to heaven again. He contends that Matt, Mark, and Luke present
Jesus as an immortal, whereas John portrays him as an eternal-a compari­
son that needs serious q':!.alifu:' 1011,8
In con~~rabl(C!i[ferences e. ist between Greco-B.O!pan biographies
and the Gosp~pecifiCa1lyln;~aiier's anon~mity, th~;f cllturtheological
'emphasis a~!lmiss-ionary goal,~jh~lr p..~icipated ecdesiology;~heii compo'"
5itioo from co~ul1ity tradition, art4their being read in community wor­
Especialft,Mark differs from a biography pattern that would highlight
the unusual birth' and early life of the hero, plus his triumph-or if he was
unjustly treated, his fearless and noble acceptance. However, these dissimi­
larities between the Gospels and Greco-Roman biography
thf!sch()Jar1y point oC"jew and take into account what the
probably intended. It is lik~lJl,'ltJJ.lany familiar
with Greco-Roman biographies ~()l1Jclnot have been ~opreciSI;; and would
have thought of the Gospels almost as lives of Christ, particularly Matt and
Luke which begin with an infancy narrative.
CREATIVITY AND THE GOSPELS, If was the earliest was the
Gospel a unique Marcan creation? Despite the suggestions in the two pre­
ceding paragraphs, there is a uniqueness to the Gospels. Eventhougl]. the
idea of writing a of Jesus' career might have been~talyi~)I by
the of l i v e s p h l l o s o p h e r s , and world lip
g()v~by a simpk dcsm' III
... >~

'III gelleral I shalll'(''''IW 10 Chapl(,r 11 below a discu.<.sion of other hypolhl'sCS Decu!iar 10 the
~The Synoptic Gospels do not present Jesus simply as a monal who rallis IIIIIII"n"I<I\' II', " I'
"IudI' 01 ,,,1111,
,I
"~I i,',·s ( )'1'1' ~,.lKC, 'J") IIw, ('nmp(i'::lit:'lI history indudtng secmiugly some Christian additions.
ward; ralher !he resnfl-e,ctioo primarily confirms the truth HI' what II<' 'lhell,l;. '"'' h,""11' .1""110 '"Io!,
does not present an clernaJ descending to em1h unu livlIlg as a human, hUI n<lh"1 a tI,\ III.' W.. "IIIIIII
S(O' /'I'I"'IHlix /I hdnw
became flesh and remained tlesh. Aune, "Prohlem:' oHers an ~~I"lIIk,1 1111111"" "r 'lilli.'11
II )11" ",,"ld mf'ill<k ,,1,',,1) IIw ~'t,'m"rdMIi" of Sncmt.,s hy Xcoophon and (he biographical dementi.
90ne l~o\lld nrgue thlllihe Gospels arc dll'islOlogy III nIlIlUUvt' 1.1111',111111 '1 ••11..-11, ,\,,1< /lI,~, \,"1111"
"h,,"l ~;""11'''' 11\ I'lal,,'.; /I"d"gul'.l: set'tI", >llIdy of VOIllW. Gospels 30.. 62, (In purt the biography
to ro" and'~lll novel. Stanlnn, "Mall!n'w;' howe ......" Ohll'('I, Ihlll, wh'" liI"II' .11" ,.!lII·' 0111111<11 11I~II!1~
1'''11,/\<,1', W,·I .. ,,1I(',ul a Il'lICllOll h. lilt· ,h,'Sls thai the Gospcb wt:'re a Iypc of popular li!t:ralurc
c0nvelllinos, Ilovds were meanl 'n supply t'utl'ltltillll1!'111 /II'!! 1I"II!lli"n ., ull_h Iii" ~1I!lllir Ih~
.h',II1\' I I,,,,,, lilt" III'"" rla'.m',,1 111"11111111',1 V.,h.w. '11.lhcI1. 1:lurridgc, Imu SHIIlInn (hll MaUl have
G()spcl~.
h.·.·" "',"Iollll' "1"'""'1\'"r II,,' 11I"l'lllpli,Y "I'proud) wlhe GUIlpC'ho
 104 §6. Gospels in Getteral; Synoptic Portraits ofJesus lOS

provide infonnation (although there is an element of that in Luke [1

~ '1' -- PORTRAITS OF JESlls3everthelcss. even in the latter _t,~e
lheClo5esi of the four Gospels to a Greco-Roman biography) o!:..t()
~I(require.d theJeslis matepj!l Accord­
emulation, As we saw above in <!isc~ng the W~{8Kl!_!..i!?!I,
ingly it 9'pelpful to keep-arsdnct three portraits: th~~ctual Jesu'i,-'the histori­
a sense in which wh~_tis ~eP2!:1~~isGo re?~ve a response offaith and to
cal Jesu~~~nd tbe Gospel Jesus, A pOJ1:rait QLthe..£/ct.ua(~;?us:\Vould
a considerable degl'ceJonn's statement purpose in 20:31 f1ls evs:rythi!lg O[jll~lS~tabQut him: II exact dates of birth death;
all the Gospels, "Tl.!e.,~_t!!i!3~a.r.~written thatyou may believe that Jesus is detaiis about his parents and family; how he along with them and how
the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his he grew up; how and where he \'/Orked for a living before he began preach­
naffiC:"'thc'appearance ortheword
euaggelion in Paul covering a content 2'2,\ jog; what he looked like; what his were in food and drink:
would have a similar purpose (Rom I: I Cor 15: 1-8; cf. I Cor I 1:23­ ~\>-' whether he got sick from timt~ to lime; whether he
26) means that Mark was certainly not the first to put Jesus material ','I" ~ and liked by villagers of Nazareth, etc.
for a salvific purpose, even though his was the earlies! preserved fuli nar­ &Z'\
~c:,'1- the_Qos~ls, and the very 12c~ 9.f it iswhy many
rative. \\<'vu ... ),I\J'If"- \s, ~--t_ w;!;~J..\ ' ,<ft
\~J:: the as or lives of Christ. Awareness
How much I~gcnuity ",;i as requited to construct a full gospel nanative , ~'fi:,,,r IS Important might otherwise approach the Gospels in the
ahoul Jesus? The answer depends in part on the historicity of the narrative: ,,~.x same way they would approach the life of a famous modern figure, without
Largely fiction, or largely fact? (I shall describe historical-Jesus research ~":::",W"$$"'any sense of tendentious Gospel '2<d
hridly in Appendix I, wh).<;h develops m. . an .... y observ.a.'. . tionS.f,nade in this para­
\:".~'~~ v A portrait of the ~!s!~r:ical Jesus is a scholarly construct based on reading
graph,) On the one handlA var~__Qfscholars wQl!l!!jydge much of tl'le~ Gosf/.eLsurfacc
stripping off all i"".,,-.rplc.tinn
MrrrJ.; narrates as ti~ttQ!l. For som~ the P:il)ssion nan'ative is fi~tional, largely ments, developments that could possibly have taken in the thilty
created fronl reflecllOlls on the or. Fo~ome J~ was a ~,1~9Q!!~~lifJl~!, to seventy years that separated his public and death from the written
and the n-'.lrrat i ves of miracles anci reslllxcctiQI] ,were P.!9J?.agfl1LctiSll£c:relit.i£!Is Gospels. TIle validity of the construct depends on the criteria employed by
tl,~ order to make Jesus competitive with other wonder-working For ,. the investigating scholars. The detailed recognition that the Gospel picture
~me Jelill~wa~ a!l!agicml1 who healed by variau" means, and the _.:..:cc~:'­ ~ reflects developments beyond Jesus' lifetime was first and most ardently pro­
!£~I~:!lipg was il creation in order to make him respectable, Were any of this moted in the last two centuries by skeptics who wished to challenge tradi­
true, much creativity woulJ have heeD required to m{we from what Jesus tional Christian theology; and so the initial quest for the historical Jesus had
was in fact to the plausihle but very different picfure painted in the Gospels. a debunking tone, as if the Christ of faith had little to do with the Jesus of
Appendix I. however. Wt' "hilll S(~C how tenuous i)JOe evidence on which history. Still today leaders of "the Jesus Seminar" (Appendix I) have publicly
many of thesc claims arc Blatlt-.) On the other han,J.~fi e~-:~~I_arg~Lf!l!.rllber stated a goal of liberating JeSllS from the church's procimnation of him, In
o~_~~~_(J!ars would jgdge llIlich (If wlwl Mark l_mrralt'~ as factual. Suppose fact, however, as illustrated by Meier, Mcuginal. investigation of the histuri­
that Jesus was baptized by Hlllp and did prodaim the ~omillg of God's cal Jesus, while it ,~an never be purely needs not be slanted
dom both by sayings/parahks thai clmilengcd p<:opk',; entrenched attitudes such prejudices_ Indeed. given our modem curiosity this investigation is ill
and by healing the sick and expelling what he It'g,mled a,~ dcmons; :-.upposc evitablc and justifiable and even helpful--a point that some who criticize Ih~'
that he aroused the antipathy of Jewish katler:; hy l'xen:hillg too sovereign ;\ ---'"--- ~-,--- .....--~.-~~,----~-.-,-"",,~-"-------­
freedom toward the Law, by claiming to speak 101 (11ll1 ill ;j way lilt') n:ganlcd amI P"W':I. h,' w('1I1 ilhlll.llrkllll!i good and heailng those by the devil in lht' ('nunlfy "I lit,'
J,'w, allli J"IUSilkll1: UI"Y hallged him {In a trce. but God him up ,Jl\ the third dav, alld I", \\".
as arrogant, and by challenging Temple adminisll;III"1I Ihrollf.h actioli" ,mil '(~~II h\ (;O(\'s ,b"~'~11 witllr,~~es who lite and drank with him, C It Dodd \ExpTimll I 1'1 \ I
wamings-then Jesus himself would have supplictllhl' kllllt<. OIIlI.III,TWI thai 1<)(, .H~)j Mlg):c~led that th,,; W,IS the commull preaching outline fleshed oul hy ,Il<' t ;""1"'1, I ,II
llIule lJ~c!\' [Ill.' lO', "n outline lllstiHed from Luke's 0\'111 Gm,pd wili.:h hI." ill,,~rle" III'" III" 'I'll"""
ultimately went into the Gospels, no matter how nUH.:h Ihat lIlah'1 ial dewl lIlid winch II,' r n ! hUI[1 Mark. the preaching contained ksus Illall'l iill Ik ",,1.11111'
oped over the decades that separated him from the evangelists. HI (iulik(' to Jcl1ls:u!'m probably reHec\s simplification, In the Illajority VIl'W ,,,1111 1', I" ,I ,j. I"
d,'1Il 011 Mark; lind while John begins With JBap's bapusm ano coilluill', ,....,,1. 1111.1 ,knh "I I, .11'
theft' is .10 'lIlomh mov('me!1l from Galilee to klllsalcm bIll h~'qlll'lIl '~\ll"i" "'".~ 111,,\1"1111
lllThcre is il rough ouilinc of Jesus' in the sermons ofAClS, e,g" 2::2-24, 'Illd ~sre':l<\lIy "AU l>ioj!ra!lh!e~ have to he sdective; bul here lrcfcr In whal pw:- \ Ilalll)' ,111.1, "hOI I.. \1>' '•• ,'
10:37--41. It began i.n Galjl,~(" nfte:r Hi(,p'" when JesllS was am"llted with tht~ Holy SpirIt they becom" um1'~r~i.andablc anJ lhi'lr IWr>oOllilltly l'III<'II~I'"
 106 m The Formation 107

excesses of the Jesus Seminar L. T. Johnson)

VVl>lJl:'1 presentations of In term..:; of m:m!!l!2

Yet cautions are in such investigation. The

who are not ~pt:l,;HU.llSt:s
hi "r.oncal Jesus is a construct based on limited evidence and designed to
of the " - U M .."'·...,.

p~rillncmlltiSfViewl1ral~a1f15e-scie.iimrcalIY::·agree(L<!ri-:-fi-can-gi;e
u:-,at most a tiny fraction of the detail and coloring of the actual Jesus. and

The Three of Gospel Formation

it. will constantly change as scholarly method is rdined or revised.

the investigation strips off the christological appreciation of Jesus

_. (1) THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OR ACTIVITY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH
the lwo-dimen~ional picmre that emerges will be
third of the 1st century AD&-Ie did of note, orally nmd:llmea
heological and soiritual depth and almost surelv will
...mess.a}!e, and with others and Jewish
who traveled with him and saw and heard what he
~ supplied the raw "Jesus
Jesus IS a material. were already selective since they concentrated
~ The Gospel Jesus refers to the portrait painted by an It stems . on what pertained to Jesus' proclamation of God, not the many of
from his highly selective arrangement of Jesus ma~~ljal.J~,_<!!~<::'LtQ.ngI!II2te c\¥'~;i 'ordinary existence elements of the "actual Jesus''). On a praclicallevel ii
a,nd strengthen a fa~!f:l.!...~?l!ld~!~E1Lp":.?ple_~lo~~!:_tg qQd. TIle evangelist 1J-,;)~l;jd,1r is important for modern readers to keep reminding .themselves that these
induded only infonnmion that served that purpose, and the needs of the ¥. ~...

en\i~i(lneJ audience affected both contents and presemation. That is why the i}-,;»)"~{

Gospels written by different

d~cades had to differ,

for different audiences in

It may be noted that in giving names to the three pictures of Jesus [ have
,
.... ,l were memories of what was said and done
and Jerusalem in the 20s. Jesus' manner of
his vocabulary and outlook were those that
failures to understand Jesus and
the fact that
a Jew who lived in Galiiee
the problems he
time and
of his thoughts stem from
remove him from space and time and
refr.lined from speaking of "the real Jesus:' a designation that has connota­ that he was with issues he never There can even be a
tions both of truth and value. The life of the real Jesus attracted and con­ \ :sophisticated form of misrepresenting Jesus by imposing on him f'", ..'m',,''''<:
vinc'eli disdpJcs who proclaimed him throughout the known world. How do tImt reaily do not fit, e.g., peasant!4 or freedom-fighter.
the portraits of the actual Jesus, the historical Jesus, and the Jesus (2) THE PREACHING ABOUT JES\JS (the second third of the 1st
mal,;,:h up to "real" in th,~t sense? Major aspects ..of the actual Jesus ar,~ unre· century who had seen and heard Jesus had their following of him:;l
~ \. 1 i ~~I --() ,/
ported and thus unknowable; functionally, then, this picture of Jesus can only
bc partly reaito subsequent generations. Because of what it excludes, espe­ ;2Crilical Prnlesll1nt scholarship developeu 11ll'" three-stage by discussing the effect "I'
ciallv. of a reii!!iotls and nature, the depiction of the historical the variation:; in the Sir;: im Ld'en (life-colltext.! of a passage. the context it had ill the lite of
, 1
Jesus. the context it had in the lif~ of the chUft,h as it was and the Wille);! it hl!, in th,'
Jesus (or heller the HrCCOllstrw.:ted is the farthest from giving us the - 2ti Gospel in which it ha$ ix:en IIlcorporalcd. In a church (hat has
real .Jesus. As we shall see in I. it is hard to see how the historical Roman Catholic;, ("llIstnl~ti\'n on the Historical Tnlth of the Gospels;' April 21,
the Roman Pontilkal Biblical Commission prc]JOsed the three>stage do:velopmenl at. a way of c\
Jesus reconstructed hy many would attract the ardent commitment
that. althollj,th thcy <:ontain historical material. the are lIolliteral historv.
to the point of dt~alh thaI we know Jesus evoked from those who had known or c,',nservative. Christians make ·that 'flley may ask wh,·thl'r k.l1\
him. If not..! an.:cpts that the in the Gospels retain signilicant ') w(lll]d sel\" it.' .1 soldier in a modern war (e.g., in Vietnam'! or how many sacraments he I'hllll1('d
The exact an'wt'f'. to such questions is th:.t a Gali],:an Jew would not have known of the (.\'';(,',,".
amounts of material/mill the actual Jesus and their missionary goal was not / of Vietnam 01' of mechanized war, and thaI there was not even a word for "sacrament"' allhl', 1"'11""[
alien to his, then thm;e portraits are as close to the real Jesu's as we are likely I r What JeSIiS did aml said has il1lplic~.tiollS for these later but in Chrislian lailll till' 1I,.iI
to get: As state? in, the Fon:w~)nl. this :nlro~uct~on is meant to .acq~aint read- \ :J~
Spi.it l'Iarih~s Ihalllllplicalion by a process oftmnslatjng '0
Jesus' tim", om III"". WII,,, , 1,111' I·
<:1.11l1'l'ssillnal ,kx:umcnt" about the aCHO!l~ of "Jesus Christ." they arc lIot sillll'lI lall< IlIf' .. b...,,,
ers With what m tact eXists If! the N r. Primanly. therefore, It Will be con- / . the Jesus of the public but about the Je~us portrayed in lil1(>'lo!ic IlIT'llChllljl Hili I
cemed with the Jesus of the Gospels. with views held most , qllem traditio!).
l4(:riti(.ilCd by Mder, MargillolI.278-82: Jesus lived in an agmriilll "Ie iely hll\ Ii..... II '''Ilk ", II
niddle-of-the-road scholars rather than with the hi2hlv sneculative. the next
W()o,l\vorkef (Mark 6:3). way of modern parallel. Meier 111l1illiains lhlll I",,,, wllilid 111111' h~,"
subsection will
In thaI. con- closer "tva blue-collar ill lower-middle-class Amen;.:,," llilill I" II 1'('1,,""1 ~.N I' (,I .11111.
 108 Gospels in SynOIJtic
f2 c:)nfirm'Ai Jbr()us~poslresurrectional~fJl:Jearal~~:es (l Cor
came LO full faith intlie-nsenJesus'as Lie one through whom God had mani­
fested ultimate salvific love to Israel and eventually to the whole w()rld~
faith they vocalized through confessional titles (Messiah/Christ, Lord, Sav- ';
lor, Son of God, etc.~at postresurrectional faith illumined the memo~s
/of what they had seen and heard during the preresurrectional period; and~o
they proclaimed his words and deeds with enriched significance. (Modem
readers, accustomed to a media goal of uninvolved, factual reporting, need
10 recognize the very different atmosphere of early Christian preaching.) We
speak of these preachers as "apostolic" because they understood themselves
as sent forth (apostelfein) by the risen Jesus, and their preaching is often
described af:Bk:erygmatic proc.lamation (kerygma) intended to others to
faith. Eventually the circle of missionary preachers was enlarged beyond the
original companions of Jesus, and the faith experiences of newcomers like
Paul enriched what 'Nas received and proclaimed.
Another factor operative in this stage of development w~e necessary
adaptation of the preaching to a new audience. If Jesus was a Galilean Jew
of the tirst third of the I st century who spoke Aramaic, by midcentury
gospel was being preached in the diaspora to urban Jews and Gentiles in
Greek, a language that he did not nonnally speak (if he spoke it at all). This
change of language involvea translation in the broadest sense of that term,
i.c.• a rephrasing in vocabulary and patterns that would make the message
intelligible and alive for new audiences. SomctinH:s the rephrasing (which
has left visible traces in the written Gospels) affected illl.~identals, e.g., a type
of tile roof familiar to a Greek audience in Luke 5: 19. as contrasted with the
Pakstinian-style roof through which a hole was opencd in Mark 2:4. But
olher rephrasing had theological repercussions, e.g., the choice of sijma,
"hody" for the eucharistic component in Synoptics and I Cor 11:24 (as
distinct from the more literal translation sarx, "flesh" in John 6:51 and Igna-
Ul!/l/(UIS 7:3), That choice may have facilitated the figurative use ofhody
in the theology okt.hc body of Christ of which Christians are members (I Cor
12: 1227), Thlls'l~evelopments in the Jesus tradition were promoting the
).',mwth of Chrisljan t.heology.
Most o/icn "preaching" scrves ~he umbrella term for this second stage
of Uospcl development, a1thoug~her fonnative clements contributed to
Ibl.' (iospel end-products. For instance, liturgy or worship became part
('hristian life as seen in Gospel baptismal and eucharistic fonnuI a,.<:;. The
of IIHw.:rial by catechesis can be detected in MatfComqlUnity con-
1"'Vl.'ls,~'S :-.upplird I.:o!omtion, c.g., struggles with kwi!'.h synagogue leaders
(III Mall ami .1(1111) ilild Internally with some who cry "Lord, Lord" in Malt
/. ,'I (al',lill,>1 ,"pin11l1l1 ('llthllsiasls'!).
The Stages of Formation 109
(3) THE WRITTEN GOSPEU;; last third of the 1st century.
mately). Although in the middl~f the period a<i, the Jesus material
was being preached some earl~ritten collections (now lost) would have
appeared, and although preaching based on oml preservation and tipv.Wnn­
ment of the Jesus material continued well il1to the 2d century,':; the
100 was probably when all four canonical Gospels 1ire written. As for
the evangelist') or Gospel writers/authors, according tQ;;ri-aditions stemming
from the 20 century and reflected in titles prefaced to the Gospels ca. 200
or even earlier, two Gospels were attributed to apostles (Matthew and
and two to apostolic me~{i.e., companion::> of the apostles: Mark lof Peter]
and Luke Lof Paull). Yet~ost modern scholars do not think that the
lists were eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus. This surely represents a
of view;16 but the denial of the tradition may not be so sharp as ii
40 seems, for the early traditions about authorship. may)Wt always have
lot::,
referred to the evangelist who composed the final Gospel, Am:ient attribu;
tion may have been concerned with the one responsible for the tradition
and enshrined in a particular to ~ht;cmthoritv behind t
Gospel), or to the one who wrote one of the main sources
p:-20§'below for the problem of what Papias
meant when he stated.
thew arranged in order the (logia] in the Hebrew C;~ r
language, and each one interpreted/translated them as he was able <,
~~9.16).
\~he recognition that the evangelists were not of Jesus' min­
is important for understanding the differences among the Gospels. In
the older approach, wherein the evangelists themselves were thought to hme
4\ seen what they reported, it was very difficult to explain differences among
their Gospels. How couid eyewitness John (chap. 2) report the cleansing of
the Temple at the beginning of the ministry and eyewitness Matthew
21) repoI1 the cleansing of the Temple at the end of the ministry? In ord.:r
to reconcile I.hem, interpreters "'iould contend that the
happened twice and that each evangelist chose to report
illstances,l1 However, if neither evangelist was an eyewitness and each had
received an account of the Temple-cleansing from an intermediate sourc'.:',
neither one (or only one.) may have Known when it occurred during thl'
15Ca. AD 115 Papias, bishop of was seeking out those who had I"'<'!l
apostolic. or their immediate looking for orallradill(lf\ IIHI"It',',11'111 .. I 11.,. ",
len thaI he also knew (EH 3.39.3-4).
16At about Matt and Johl1. Luke 1:2.<1 stalc~ dearly Ihal th.. \1.·111", \\.1' 11,,1 ,'1" ,
eyewitnesses although he drew on them.
17Many olher examples of illlprohablc reeonci.lialilll's ",,"1.1 \).' .. 11"11'.1 "111" "'.\1111."",'" 111"·0.
on the Mvunl (tnd Luke has 1.1 similar :oIenn"lI on 011" 1'11I1111M.1I1 ~ I 1 Ill,' " II' Ih· " It '11',1 1...­
beel) a plain on Ihe Side ollhl' IIIllIlIlI:"", Sill",· MlIlI Itll.' 111l' 1 nltl'" 1'111\,.. ,1,1111,111111 Ih,,1 ~,III'oIli
 110 §6. Gospels in Synoptic "TU'""U"'''.' Synoptic 1I I
lie ministry. Rather than depending on a personal
of even~"'ach four different not a harmonized version; and it is to the indmduul
evangelist has the material he received in order to
Je§'us in ""''''''1-'''''''. each with its own viewpoint, that we should look. Harmoni1'..atiol1.
a way that would meekWe spiritual needs of the community to which he W3$
instead of enriching, can impoverish.
addressing the Gosp&.1;§)rhus the Gospel,\' ~ been arranged in logicalor­
~t;\lln Ihe last half of the 20th respect for the individuality of each Gospd
C'1i'\'
der, not necessarily in chronological ordetJhe evangelists emerge as au­
• uJ ~t,.ll) 'i\ ',. had an effect on church liturgy or ritual. Many churches have follm\ ed lhe
thors. shaping, developing, pruning the transmitted Jesus material, and ~tS.
~ ~~.P ~)~~lead of the Roman Catholic liturgical reformation in introducing a three-year
42
theologians, orienting that material to a particular goal.
c/'i' ~\J. ~.ectionary where in the first year the Sunday Gospel rc.adings are taken from
Corollaries, (!f this approach to Gospel formation would the fo1- tJ"- ~~Matt, in the second year from Mark, and in the third vcar from Luke. In the
\ ~ Roman church fhis replaced a one-year lectionary whe~e without any discern­
ible pattern the rt~ding was taken one from Matt, &'1other
.. The Gospels arc not literal records of the ministry of Jesus. Decades of devel­
Sunday from Luke, etc. A major factor in making the was the recogni­
oping and adapting the Jesus tradition had intervened. How much
tion that Gospel pericopes should he read sequentially within the same Gospel
men\') That has to be dctem1ined by painstaking scholarship which most often
if one is to do justice to the theological orientation given to those pass<'lges by
produces judgments ranging from possibility to probability. but rarely cer­
the individual evangelist. For instance, a parable that appears in all three Syn­
tainty.
optic Gospels can have different meanings depending on the context in which
• A thesis that docs lIot present the Gospels as literal history is sometimes inter­
each evangelist has placed it.
pre,ted to mean that they are not true accounts of Jesus. Truth, however, must

Ix~ evaluated in terms of the intended purpose, The Gospels might be judged

tlf~t~ue jf the goal was strict reporting or exact biography; biiliftlle'goaI w~

l\ The Synoptic Problem
to bl·jug reDders/hearers to a faith in Jesus that opens them to God's role or

kingdolJl, then adaptations that make the Gospels less than literal (adding the \,,,
A further stage in Gospel development is required to explain the interrela­
dllHcllsion of faith, adjusting to new audiences) were made precisely to facili­
uunship of the first three Gospels. called "Synoptic" because they can be
tate that goal and thus to make the Gospels true.
';y~~ <reViewed side by side (syn. -optically). These Gospels have so much in com·
• To some such an approach to Gospc!lruth is unsatisfactory since, if there have
f'vo\:>\.tWI mon that in the third stage described above there must have been some de·­
been devel;~mlt'nls and mJaptations, how do We know that the Gospels offer a
w~~ pendence of one or two on the other or on a common written soun::e. Al­
message faithful Itl thai or JeslIs'! SdlOlars cannot be certain guides since they
~¥ ~ though much scholarly attention and even has been devoted to this
disagrel~ widely 011 the amount of alteration. ranging from major to mino;{1(\ilS~\
problem, most readers of the NT find the issue complex, irrelevant (0 their
This is a theological issul" and so a theological al!swer is-.apPfopriale. Those'O ~~.

and boring-a fact that causes me to be succinct in my t.reatment.

who believe in inspimlioll will maintain lImt the,Ji(~ Spiritmildea,.the pro­ I~
cess, guaranteeing that tht' cnd'product (;ospds rcfh'rl......the
, --"".,
tmth that God sent

".""
bibliography will be given; but beginners are warned that the suhject
tends to generate complexity, and they may want to senk for ttH~ rnost com­
Jesus to proclaim. ~ \f\J\ltu\ 1<, \1," ~l(lJJ IN/' \,), 0\ \.r1J~? 'IN\>''c\~· h,j of
Wi
mon conclusions that I have italicized below (pp. 114. 115. 122).
• Much time has been SpCllt in till' hislOI y UIl'Xl"gl'!,is harnlonizing Gospel dif­ \~ CC\~
Statistics and terminology: Mark has 661 verses ('lv,): Mall has 1
ferences, not only in millor mailers hut also 011 a hlr).!l' scal(', e.g .. trying to IIt\ ~
make one, sequential mUTative Oul of llil' Vt'ry dillen'lIt MullhC:ln and Lue'lll ~ and Luke has 1.149. Eighty percent of Mark's vv. :lre reproduced in Matt
infancy narralives, or out of Luke's an:mllli of appt';uallu'!. of Ihe lis~'n ksus oJ C(),\l- and 65 percent in Luke. lx The Marean rnall'l'ial found in hath the other two
in Jemsulem and Matt's account of an appl.'ar:UI\:!' on a 1II01l1llaili in (;alil('(', \,AI. \ is called the "'Triple Tradilion." Thl' approximate 220-235 vv. (in whole or
Besides whether this is possible, we nCt~d III as~ WIWlhl'f such harmon! in parI) of III mMare;1II rrmlerial that Matt ,lilt! LlIke have in common is called
zation is not a dis!orlion. In an outlook of faith. diviu(' prllVidl'fl,'l' furllj~;lJ('J the "Douhle -))aditioll." In both inst9Jlfe~o much of the order ill which that
commull material is prcSI.'Hted. anJ::.so much of the won~ing in which it is
. -" ..
-'~---,-,----~.'" """~~-.''''''"''''"~' ~-,".,
phra!'.ed are the same thut dependence at the written rather than simolv at
I.ulc has H later on the road to jerusalem (Matt 6:9-13; Luke t J :2-4), the dj~"lptI'S mllSI IHlve
it, causing Jesus it. Mark 10:46 plael:s the healing of the hlind mall 1I11~'r Jesus
While Luke: 8:33; it before Jesus clItP.red Jericho. f":rhaps Jesus was Icavillg '"Nlllnlx~l's drawn from Nc.rYIl!:k, NJBC 40:5. Very few Marean periwpes have no panlJlel in
lilt, sile of OT jericho lind entering &ite of NT Jericho!
cith"r Malt or Luke,
112 .56. Gospels i1~ General; Synoptic Gospels
the oral )e\'e! has to be posited,19 Let me simply list some proposals offered
to explain these statistics, including for each the main argument(s) pro and
con. FinaUy I shall draw out corollaries from the most commonly.accepted
solution.
SOLUTIONS THAT POSIT ONE OR MORE PROTOGOSPELS. There have been
many proposals having no major following today) that would explain
the interrelationships of the Synoptic Gospels by positing a gospel.t!!aLe.x­
isted~Jpre they were \mtten. In the 18th centuryG. E. Lessing suggested
111at all three Synoptlc Gosper;; drew on a no-longer-extant Aramaic Gospel,
a theory developed by J. Eichhorn. who thought of this source as a full life
drawn on by the Synoptic evangelists, not directly but on a preGospeJ level:
of Christ. A variant of this thesis has been revived by those who would make
apoclyphaJ gospels the source of the canonical Gospels. (The Gospel
Thomas will be discussed in relation to Ihe Q hypothesis mentioned below.)
Secret Mark. a contlated form of Mark known to Clement of Alexandria and
thought by ma.ny to have been composed in the early 2d century, is claimed
by M. Smith to represent more closely than do the canonical Gospels the
oldest detectable Christian gospel source, and H. Koester would contend
that Secret Mark itself was actually written before :::anonical Mark. The fact
that all we know of this gospel is two small fn! Jments and that they can
a'.ld similarities..rat!!~Lt~~.!J..Posit.ing no-longer-extant p.rotogospelS and vcry.
be understood as dra'l\"O from the canonical Gospels has discouraged wide
acceptance of such claim'S.20 In addition to Secret Mark 1. D. Crossan posits
the priority of a shorter form of tbe Gospel of Peter from which all four
canonIcal Gospels drew their passion accounts. Again the majority view is
that GPet is dependent on the canonical Gospels,21
In a more traditional search for a protogospel, some would invoke Papias
("Matthew arranged in order the sayings in the Hebrew == Aramaic?] lan­ r ~;.r Deardorf; J. Wenham). In this ~l!~§!inian aQQI.:~~~h the (.';~nonical order is
guage": p. 209 below) and contend that he was speaking not about the Matt
l!Yfuckett, ABD 6.263-64. cites two
oral dependence. Mall (14:3·-12) i'.nd Mark both stop the narrative of Jesus' nlinistry after
his return to Na7.areth to report the dealh of IBap; all three Gospd~ have the same internlpled
sentence when JeSllS speaks to the paralytic (Mati 9:6; Mark 2: 10-·11; Luke 5:24). The order of
Mark may agree With that of Matt, or that of Luke. or with that of botlj-however. Matt and Luke
Luke
never agree against Mark in order. (For seven proposed instances to the contrary. see
1:68-69: Five are inst.mces of d"pelldence on Q nuhe! than on ""<l.tl;:; two are very In
itsdf, that pattern of ilgrecmellt wO\lld not prove that Mark was writt.en first and ,he l,thcr two
on 11, but only that Mark somehow $tZincs between Mat! and Luke.
201\1. Smith, Clement and" Seere/ G<J.\pel of "'-lark (C;tmbridge. MA: Harvard.
19'13); also HTR 75 449-61; H. KbeSl<'1 in Colloquy on New Testo.mem S,udies. ed. B.
Corley (MaJ.;on. GA: Mercer. 1983).35··57; M. W. Meyer Semda49 (1990),129·-53. Critique: R. E.
Brown. CBQ 36 (1974). 466··85; F. Neirynd, Enm>:elica II (BETL 91..); Leuven Univ" 1(91).
716-24.
21J. D. Crossan. fI"II!" (lihu Gospels (Minneapolis: Wio~tOil. 1985/: The Cross Thor .')pok" (San
Francisco: Harpel & Row. 19R81: Semeia 49 (1990), l:-'j·6K. Critique: R. E. Bwwn, NTS 3:, (1987).
321-43; HDM 2.l317·-4!:1; E Ndl}'IlCk. El'oIlliif'licu 11,2.7:12·-4<); D. E Wright. Theme/illS 12 (2; Jan.
1(87),56-60; A. Knk, NTS 40 (1994),572-<)5.
The Synoptic Problem 113
we know but about an earlier collection (at times designated M) on whieh
Mark drew and also canonical Matt (whether directly or through ~vhuk).
Supposedly this hypothetical collection contained what cannot easily be ex­
plained by deriving Mark from canonical Malt or vice versa. 22 Other schol­
ars judge necessary a more complex multidocument theory, e.g., the source
wao;; not simply Aramaic M but a Greek translation of M, plus an Aramaic
collection of sayings Ir'dflslated into Greek. Oral sources alongside the writ­
ten are also posited. In a three-volume French Synopsis produced in the
1970s. M.-E. Boismard and A. Lamouille detect four source documents
I
I
Document A of Palestinian and Jewish Christian origin ca. AD Document
B, a reinterpretation of A for Gentile Christians written before AD 58: Docu­
ment C, an independent Palestinian tradition in Aramaic, very archaic and
perhaps the memoirs of Peter-used\also in John; Document Q containing
.. .' \JI!Jaterial common to Matt and Luke! :This type of th~ry virtually po~its a
ils~lw.:\-Ihew source to solve ev~ruiifJjf.!!!ty. It cannot be proved wrong or right, but
most will find it too complex to help in the ordinary study of the Gospels.
LC\vo\q.N\j...':>j In fact, the scholarly mJili?ritll!!.i!1'J,tI9rt J.Q~~plaln.synopW;-differences
~.\(~~""~
~
' ~1I'<r early apocrypha/draws 01'1) a rcl.ruiQoship among the.. t!xtant GQsp~ls, i.e..
rrt W ~) , ~"-- .<­
,;\JiG.,.1./ . pi' mutual-dependence solutions to which we now turn.
. • ,--. I(j\;
{fJ 4.<.0 SOLUTIONS IN WHICH MATT WAS THE FIRST GOSPEL, AND LUKE USED
MATT. This hypothesis, dating back to Augustine in the 4th century, is the
oldest explanation; it was generally accepted by Roman Catholics up 10 the
.:.tt\ mid-20th century, and still has respectable advocates (8. C. BUlkr; J. W.
~~ al!'2 th~9IQ.t2I5:)tdep~.DQt:Q~e: Matt was wri~ten tirst, Mar.k severelv abbrevi­
c'>( P: . atcd Matt, and then came Luke and John, WIth each drawll1g on Its
~
sors. In 17891. J. Griesbach proposed .1 theory of dependence in which the
\I;/~~" 'order was Matt, Luke, and Mark.2 1 The Unilcll)inlling of the Matthean prior­
ity proposal is that from antiquity Mall has heen con~idered the tirst Gospel.
Explaining Mark is the grcatt~sl dinicully ill uuy hypothesis that
.Ova'..,'- ~.1. ity to Matt. In the Augustinian hypnlhl~sis what was Mark's logic in omitting
ti-l~tJ-~~ so much of Malt's m.:cmmt? Till' Grieshach hypothesis attempts to meet that
difficulty hy placing Mark last and evaluating it mostly as a digest that re­
~'"f ~v,.~
::.'0111•.'1' 1'1\'I"r~"'IWl theories indmlc 1Jt'l!1oMark (c. lAlchmann; H. J. Boltzmann), which Mall
lIml l.uke lIsed rlllhcf Ihun canonical Mark, and pr%Luke B. Streeter), consisting of Q amI
,.p<"dlll LULan material and I.'olliposed hy Luke before he material influenced by Mark.
nile WII~ not dear as to whNII('r Luke depended 011 Matt. but thi:' modified Griesbach hypothe"",
advocatc.d loday does SlIppm,\! such depe.orlenc::. Prominent supporters are W. R. Farmer, H. 01
chard, and D. L. Dungan.
 114 Cos/Jeis in General; Syno/)tic Synoptic PrnhlpfH 115
ports material where Matt and Luke agree. Yet Mark omits the whole

x,
We may compare. it to the jnesl)ach hypothesis thus:
Tradition wbere do agree!
~t The main support for the thesis that Luke used Matt lies in passages in The Griesbach The Two-Source Hl'nolhp<i<

"K-q the Triple Tradition where Luke and Matt agree, over against Mark, i.e., the
~'Minor Agreements." For instance. in the Jewish mockery of Jesus both Matt
U\ and Luke have Jesus being asked an identically worded question absent from
Mark: "Who is it. that struck you?"·--a 4uotation that makes better sense of

,
Matt

l~Luke
..,./'"
Mark'
l\lar..

,
Malt L,'.
the challenge to prophesy (Matt 26:6H; Luke 22:64; Mark 14:65). If Luke
B/ T he basic argument for Marean priority is that it solves more problems than
and Matt wrote inuepl'lHlcnlly of each olher, could such an agreement have
any other theor/.it offers the best explanation for why Man and Luke so
com(; abom hy pure coin("idence') Is if not more plausible that Luke copied
often agree with Mark in order and wording, antt! allows reasonable surmises
the question from Matl?·"j Yet there are major against Lucan de­
for why Matt and Luke differ from Mark when they do so independently.
pendcnct~ Oil Mati (~ec Fitzmyer, Luke .73-75). Where Luke and Matt
For instance, neither evangelist liked Mark's redundancies, awkward Greek
almost contradictory accounts, why did Luke not make some effort to
expressions, uncomplimentary presentation of the disciples and Mary, and
cilc the difficulty? For example, Luke's infancy narrative is not only
embarrassing statements about Jesus. When Mark, both expanded the
sively different from Mutt's, but also in details is viltually irreconcilable
Marean accounts in the light of postresurrectional faith. The basic argument
it, e.g., abom Joseph amI Mary's home (in Bethlehem in Matt 2: I 1
against Marcan priority rests on the Minor Agreements cited above in refer­
in Nazareth in Luke 2:4--7, with no home in Bethlehem) and about their
ence to the Griesbach hypothesis. Good explanations can be offered for
travels after the birth of Jesus (to Egypt in Matt 2: 14; to JerusaJem and Naza­
" many of them,26 but some remain very difficult.
reth in Lukf: 2:22.J9}. Or again, Luke's account. o~ the death of Judas in Acts
(PlAcM&< A realistic conclusion is that. no solution to the SYlloptic Problem solves
I: I H-·19 is scarcely reconcilable with Matt 27 :3-10. As for if Luke W\I...l ~ .fvv- all difficulties. Modern authors whose own books require research and who
used Matt, why docs Luke's placing of the Q material differ so greatly from "3 \1I~t;lttempt after several decades the almost impossible task of reconstructing
Matt's (except for the words of JBap and the temptation story: see Table 2 precisely how they had put their sources together in writing those books will
below)? ThaI argument becomes stronger if Luke used Mark as wen be sympathetic to our inability to reconstruct precisely the way the evange­
gustirtian thesis), for Luke fo!iows Mark's order dose/yo Another problem lists proceeded 1,900 years ago. The process was probably more complex
would be Luke's failure to report the Matthean additions to Mark, e.g., Matt than the most complex modern reconstruction. If one cannot resolve all the
3:14···15; 12:5-7; 16:17-19; 21:14-16; 26:52·-54. enigm.as, it is realistic to accept and work with a relatively simple solution
-
SOLUTIONS BASED ON MAReAN PRIORlTY. Mark was written first and both
~~u and Luke drew on it. There is a form of this approach that goes on to

---~.-----'----
to the Synoptic Problem that is largely satisfactory. That is the spirit in which
the theory of Marean priority (as part of the Two-Source Theory) is recom­
hold that Luke drew on Matt as well, but it the
mended to Gospe! readers. Even though it remains a hypothesis, one should
in the last paragraph. The most common thesis, thereJore
be aware that important consequen(:cs flow from accepting it
and Luke depended un Afark and wrote independently of each other. Wt13t
These are some points to be k/Jpt in ttlifllJ when working with Marean pri­
tht!y have in common and did not derive fTOm Mark (the Double Tradition)

is explained by positing Q (a source reconstructed from Matt and

• Even when Mark was writlen, the remembrance of oral tradition about Jesus
Luke 10 he di~,cussed ill tile next "",'->""~""

did not cease. Too often Wl: imagine the wrnpositlon of the as totally
Source Theory2" Gt ~ Q\k.\\e. ~ SOli \( C€

"TIl{, Minor Agreements and Q" in Piper. Gospel. 49 -7'2,

,,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,' alilt
24W D, Danes ;md Alli,,,,,, Ma,lhew 1II\), 14, answer carefully ohjecliol1s on this d" Llle. ed. E (rev, eo.; BET!.. 32; l.euvclI: PCl'h,,-,,
basis by Stoldt, lIiSlorl"l, abo see ll, 26 bel,,\\', . OlltlcultJes for 1989).335 1)2; !{, II. Stein, CB(l54 (1<)92),482,-502, llrt>less difllcuh since c(lilll:l<\cn
Ule rest (lfthe n,."xh"ch mockery, if Mark used Matt both t:vangrhst!i may have f(lund Mark tl<:<ed!ess!y trouhlesorne. e,g., both Mall 26:45 1Ilid luke
and Luke, hay" and thai improves the sellse'? omillhe vlrlually llflltanslatahle ol'f!cnci enough/paid"l of Mark 14:41, As 1(11 IIll!!"Wll
to haVe drawn 011 special lUat~rial for passages t'lliollS. ill 1I few l.f ,he Minor Ag:cemclIls 11 minority of textual witnesses 10 Mar.. 'Igrc(' wilh 'JIh;\!
and thus Oil a typ" of third source; hut we are Mall !\lId Luke have added (e,g., adding "and in Mark 9: 19. to agn,'c with Mall 1717;
hilve .'n common. Luke 9:41); hul Ihat may resuU from (Copyists' h'''rn"nnli7~'H''n<
 116 Gospels in General; Synoptic Gosl)efs
a written endeavor. Yet Papias i... a witness to continued inll:~rest in oral tradi­
and vke versa, and so must have had a common source, Many cautions
tion in the 2d (n. 15 above). Scholars differ on how much of the oral
tradition was memorized (on II rabbinic model) as distinct from rcpl~atcd at about 220-235 verses or parts of verses. 31 Independently, however. both
word-of-mouth tmnsmission.27 Many think thai Milne problems nol resolved Matt and Luke om.it passages found in Mark;
by the Two-SourCt~ TIleory can he met by hriu/!,ing illio thc picture the inHu­
f:ncc of ?rally transmitted remembrances. For iustancc, thc identical
"Who is it that stmck you?". shared by Matt and Lllke over against Mark
above), might be explained liS illdl~pendcnt u~e of a traditional question in the
blindman's-huf'r trcaIrIU.. 'llt of ksu~ (BI)M 1.57(l)
• If both Matt and Lul..c used Mark. their theology can at times be studied by
lhc chungcs they Illade in Marl's report---rcdaction criticism. This has been
the linchpin of SOllll~ l'cumemcal "tudies tracing the developmem of ideas in
Ist"cl'ntury (,hri~tiamly by mmlllg from Mark through Matt [0 Luke. 28
• If one ,kciucs that Matt or Luke has added material to what was taken from
Mark, thai addition, sometime!. coming from the special material peculiar to
either of tho!>e evangelists. need nol be dated later than the Marean material.
A scnsitiw inswllce would be Matt 16:17-19 added between material bor··
roweu from Mark 8:29 and 8:30. The added material, which na<; a very
Semitic cast. may well he ,early.
J/
The Existence of "Q"29 ":~)~\t
which version more likely represents a change wrought by the individual
\I\J\"I~\ \(, G
"Q" is a hypotheticaI~urce PQsitegj:lj'_D22~_~_s"bQla~~.!9c:!xpI",J.Il.!!bm:..was
called abov~le Tradition, i.e., agreements (often verbal) between
Mattandl:uke" on materiafnot found in Maii::'30-Sehind the hypotl~~is
the plausible assurnpli~theMattheanev'angelist did not know Luke ..
.' "For some a written Go:;pel was an al!empl. conscious or unconscious (and pcrh~ps ~umcwhat
antagonistic) to controllhe vagaries of or-al tradition~a theory that does not do justice 10 the role
of apostolic authority ill fashioning the JeSllS t.radition (I Cor 15: II). See W. it KelbeI'. 111t:· Oral
Md rh,' Wrilfefl Gospel /philaddphi:l: Fortress, 1983}, who is deooled by B. Gerhardsson. The G(}.~­
Tmdition (C()niertan'~a Neoteslamelltica J 5; Lund: G1eemp. 1986). Cf. also Je.sus and the Oral
ed. H. Wanshrough (Sheftidd: Academic, 1991); B. W. Iknaut, Ora! Tradirifm alld Ih('
JSOT,I993).
views of Pe!er and Mary grow more tilvorable
in the order Mark,Mall·Luke Although some
haH' pri\is(,d the Griesbadl bypothesi,; a, a more traditional approach. are lell with all unfavor­
ahk trajectory since the !i\te"lllf Ihe Synop!ics (Mark) would lhclllx~ the appreciative of Peter
and Mary (see p. 165 below!.
l"The designatloll "Q" from thl: German "sour<.:e;- is thought ,() have begun wIth J. Weiss
, in ! KlJO. See E Neirynck, ETL 54 I J.li\ Jilkrcnl approach is to lISSUllle thaI the
(I' ,;~ '''Or :Ii least !lot found in Mark the form founo in Mall and Luke. For illsUUlce Mark 1: 12-13
r"\,'i IIlCIllJOIlS tlK' tempting of Jesus Satail hili not in the extended form fouod in .Matl 4:1-11 and
~I~\ I ,Ilk,' 4: 1·13. Mark 3:22 repo/ts Bcclzebul (Beelzebub) but not atlached 10 casting
'- mil a ll\'moll from a m"I(: as ill Mall 12:22-24alld Luke 11:.I4-!5, Q 153-60, prints oul
th,' Inl \.1 M:m:aa pa,;:agcs parallel to Q; and Fleddennalln, Mark. offers a lhorou2h discussion. A
it-w ,,:hllims Iw.Hltmll !/);u Mark knew Q; ,ee l. DUlIdernerg, NTS 41 (1995),
1 Existellce of 117
I
are necessary before Q is reconstructed. The contents are usually estimaled
It is that
t independently have omitted material that existed in Q. Sometimes
,
t
t
Matt or oniy Luke will preserve material in Mark; it is also possible that
material only in one of the two Gospels might have existed in Q.32 We
, ,are not certain of the sequence of material in Q because Matt and Luke do
~0v..'#1A10t present it in the same order; nevertheless most reconstructions follow
1); ~J).j)'. the Lucan order, since it seems that Matt worked Q material into his
I
'- '- sermons the Sermon on the Mount in chaps. 5-7, and the Mission Dis­
course in chap. 10). The accompanying Table shows generally agreed on
contents ofQ in the Lucan order; and henceforth, unless otherwise specified,
in this Chapter rejereru.'('s to Q material will be through the Lucan lJ"' ..·~lT1'·n_
•;)N.A\\'f tion. Q is normally reconstructed as a Greek written document because the
~~~",,"L>J guide is two Greek Gospels and because a purely oral body of tradition
~ \A' would not explain the large of the Double Tradition that are in the same
order. Since Matt and Luke often do not agree in the wording of what they
have derived from Q (any more than they agree in what they have derived
from Mark), one has to study the tendencies of each Gospel to determine
evangelist Also it is unlikely that there was only one copy of Q in existence
to which Matt and Luke had independent access, and it is possible that some
of the differences of wording between Matt and Luke are derived from
slightly variant copies of Q.:B .,.,. () (P ~,5:~ ~0 ~
Reconstructed Q consists of sayings and some parables with an absolute
minimum of narrative setting;34 and thus there is a strong sapiential tone.
The discovery of the Coptic Gospel (~rThomas, representing a Greek original
JIKloppenborg's very useful Q fJ/lrallrls gives a Gn'ek lext and En!~lish translation of
English t.::xt is printed out in Havener, Q 123-46; ami in Miller, Complete
are offered in Neirynck, NJBC 40.14; Davies and Allison, Matthew l.l !7-i8;
of Edwards' COllcordance (with Aland synopsis Humbers), Virtually a commentarv
:atchpole, Quest. There is (t vigorous scholarly debate alxiUt some verses and
inson. "International." reports on the discllssion of each verse.
J2Neiryllt'k. NJBC 40,1.\, mentions pmposed passages; Malt 1O:5b-6; 10:23; Luke 6:24-~(,;
9:61-62; 12::12.:lS--JK,49-50\54--56); 15:8-10: ! 7:28-29. Havener. Q 147--51. prints Ollt
texts possibly pertaining to ().
of Q was in Aramaic (I'. Busshy. EXI'Tilll/':;
11954-551,2n-7:'i---inlhul case Q might be with the collection of Ihe l<l~i~ ,,1
the Lord unanged hy Mallhew ill Hebn'wiA.ramaic), Matt and would then haw drllw" 011
dilfcrcnl Greek mmsl;'llons of Ihal Aramaic. Relatively few difference·s. huwevcl. <'[1Il he platosihly
C'xphlincd through that hypothesis.
14Thcl'(: are three llalTalives of note: the tempting of Jesus; the ,'cmurion's Sl':~ servulIt: dh"il'k';
of JBap come 10 Jesus,
 Mattncw

3: 71'1-12
2, MA:rERIAL USUALLY ALlOrn-:n TO Q

Contentli

(ml' tn '.orne
..-"
M;;!Urew Luke
TABLE 2_ c,:'ntinu('d,

Contents

...
42h.-1l~
lO:26-33; 12:32
12:2",10 all ('(wered (0 be revealed: fear 1',0' killcrs ofb,.;Jy_ .. iJ"",;",,;':.ing me
-------~-,

~:!.6.4.11-_12

6:20b-2J 10:19--20 12:11-12 ,yn,,!wl""". Holy Spirit will hdp

5:44,39b-,40,42 ---"""­
1.27-30
'---'----'---,--.-~-------
w'cwding)

I"ve "I enemies; tum "'her c~ek; gIve coot; £"e 10 !>('Mals 6:25-33
12:22·,1 don't be anxious about the body; consider hHe~; of he'lli: f- :tL~~ knOM
oet'~J
7;12
/dl
---""-­ what you
-----
<lMo them
6:19·21 12:33--34 no treasures on e:8n1: but in ht;aven
5:4Q·47,4),48
6::l2--:lJ,35b--36
love more than those whq IOVt' you: be merciful ('I:'> (he F8thf.~r!s
-,----,-----1
--------
7:1,2
f.:::tr rnai:~~r -.: .~:ornjng
6:J7a,3fu:
----- .. --­ fl'k:a~UH" gJVt:n is fJlL'llsure ret.'Cive-d
not t.',Ont~ to bring peace hut sword. division;., uf fa;;;;l}
10;, I-I, 1024 2~11
6:39,40
-~-'.----- ....... ---,
"'-------t---­ ability to imC'fpret weather signa should en~bl(' tl) mlerpn;~t pr-lf::SeHt times
7:3-5 11:41-42
5~25-:26 12:58-59 settling before going before the magistrate
7: 1r>,20(12:B-J5) 6:43-45
-------------+--, 13:31-3'1 !3:i8--21 kin£dom of~-",'eoIG()d; like grou,lh "f mustard =d; like k;,;r.cn woma"
7:21.14-27 6:46-49
----'--------7--------__',-____,
lL'iu-JO,I ~ 1: 1-2,61:>-10
________ ,__,_,.__________________________-----'--1 ,------1--------1--­

1U-II 7: Us-2M than a prupile:

I 7: 13--14,22-23;
8:11-11
13:13-,29

/I: 11'-19 7:.\1,35 t";3-37-39 13;34--35

------------- --'---"-'-'t----­
I
H: 1'1--22 9:57--«J SOllofMa" has n{)wher<' I" kl) 1""",; 10 f"lIow him lerdead bmy dead
-------+----- -----"-----------,------­ 22:2-10 1,!:16--24 !1~~:n!tj(xt: a great banqtl('t~ inVitees n\ake ,~"".::\.!~~ . ), vthers
9:37--38; 10:7-16 10:2-12 halVes! plentiful, lab"It", /ew. 10"-""0 illSUlIl't'nns
-·---·-----i-----,-__-;,___________._____.._~______,___________
10:37-38 anyon~: comjng must pncfermeover family and ITIU"t ~:;":~%
1:21--23; 10:40 10: 13-16 Woe 10 Chomzin, Be!h,,,,da; wh'k'wr h",,,,, you_ hears me
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._._..__,___ _ _ _,_ _
_.~ ~ ~"'~___._..J

II :25--27;
5:13

():l), 13
-_._--­ -------TI-----, 1<1:12-14
11:2-4
6:24
7-] .. 1] .-.---.--"---------"'"-~----.-
J 1:9-·13 ask and it will be giVCll; il )"" give !'(oodgifls, how mudl In"'" the Falhe" 11:12-13:5:18.32
12:22-10
I I; 14-1\ t7--23 Jemllns t:ast out by .BeeLt.ebul~ strong man guard:;: hJS pi:llacc; 1I\~t WJth - - -_ _ _,_ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _'"_"_" _ _ _ _ _ _ _,....,..... _ _ _

~
4
~
_
~
~
~
,
_
.
~
~
~
"
~
~
~
~
me. .aga'fH,l me
----"---------+----------+--------,---------,---,----- -----..,---­ 18:7,15,21-22 I J: 1,3b-4 woe to k:mptef":'~ forgive brother tti~cr Icbuling, Prler; ho\Q,' \:>,ften 0:0
f('lrgivc
unt.'ICilll . .;pilit gOJ):;; (out
nla"ja~ worf,e
17:20 17:6 faitt'i hkc gru\t, ofmustard seed.\.'\.:ltlldln"":~ ~.1D':.aJns
I
24:26--:::;; t7:]J-24,)7 ~igns uffhccoml!!g of the Son of~'1an

5: 15; 6:22.,2:1 ---~-.--------------.. ,----­ 24::n·39 17:','ll-n,lO ,,:< in the days of Noah. so will be (ll",-ommg olllle S.lIl 1\.1..,,,
1();.l9 17:~3 whoever finds one"s )ife will lose ~t; whoever lpsc~ win niHl "~
23:25--26,23,6-7a,27 "''''' j'-.rmhmg i!lconsequentials.

----,-----'---,---+-------------------''''
on that night, of IWo, om: and (I\<! ,,(be. lefi take~
23:4.29,-3 j
1-------,.".. ,,------+------,-------1-----------­
._'-------- ---"-'---1---",
23::14-36, U ! I;.:;'-1--52
Wil! CIt,Utl p"Opht~IS WilD will be S~i. on thl'OUCIi .It.l(ttJiH~ 11K' I,"l'lw u,h. ',\~I Il'f .Jt,:.~ 1
,"""", we,,", WO<: to lawyers
 120 .S6. Gospels in General; SYllo/ltic Gospels
probably of the 2d century, shows that were Christian compositions
consisting of collections of sayings. (The exal;t relationship between Q and
Tlwmtls is highly disputed, since some would date Thomas early while oth­
ers contend that Thomas was produced a century after Q and with consider­
able dependence 011 the canonical Gospels. 3~) Presumably, as with
Gospel. material, these sayings were preserved because they were thought to
be of relevance to existing Christians. Looking down Ihe Contents column
of the Table helps to highlight the emphases of There is a strongly escha- .")
tological thrust in the warnings, woes, and some of the parables. One gels /
the impression thaI judgment is imminent; yel Luke 12::19-40 shows that
the hour of the master's coming is not known; 17:23-24 wams that there
will be deceptive signs; and 19:] 2-27 suggests that there is a lime
for the recipients to make profit with the pounds/talents. Accordingly Jesus'
followers arc expected to live a highly moral life observing eVen the Law
(16:17) without superficial hypocrisy (11:39-44). There is expectation of
persecution and encouragement for those who bear it for the sake of the Son
of Man (6:22-23).
Many would attribute to Q a low christology since in it Jeslf.{i emerges)
simply as a Sophist or Cynic wisdom teacher. Yet t'.!e Q Jesus is tcVcome and
b:w.\ti~ with the Holy Seirit, as proclaimed by JBap (3: 16--17; 7: 18-23). He
h~er ~ Solo!!,!911 and greater than Jonah the pronhet (11 :31-32). He
i.s portrayed ~Ihe Son of Man who will come in judgment (Luke 17:23­
27.30.37) and ait 1he Son of Man who is rejected and suffers in hi~(.~ifetime
(7:31-35; 9:57-(0). He i(jhe son
to v,hom all has been given; he ~.!!...~'1
o!!ly l~L!~~J'~ll~~r, and only he knows the Father(lO:22). It is insufficient
simply to call Jesus Lord; one must hear his words and do them if one is to
~urvive (6:46-49). Jerusalem must bless him (13:34·-:15), and one must pre­
fer him over family (14:26-27). He can proclaim with assurance that in the
kingdom those who follow him will sit on thrones, jUdging the twelve tribes
of Israel. Such a Jeslls is far more than a wisdom teacher.
That issue leads us to a highly debatable aspect of recent Q studies: the
attempt to rcconslntct a Q community, its history, its theology, where it was
written (usually Palestine or Syria), and ils leadership prophets).
Indeed. Q has bc(:n analyzed to comain anywhere from two to four redac­
tionallayers with a theological outlook assigned to each. it is virtually
certain Ihm. like the rest of the Gospel material, the Q material has under­
gone changes (redaction) during the period before l1~pti(jtrlnto-,Matt
J5Contrast S. 1. Palll'rslln, TIlt' fIIld }('Ju.\· (SoliOlna, CA: Polebridge, 199:l) and
C. M. Tucket!, E:rt 67 (I ()() I},
The Existence of MQ" 121
Luke, and that sometimes by comparing tbe version of a saying in those
Gospels we can trace a pattern of changes. Howcvt~r, the assumption that
can attribute Wilh con.siderab/e accuracy different emphases to diff(~rent
of growth·'i, presupposes an unlikely systematization in Christian life.
Much publicity has heen attached to this form of reconstmction, and so for
the sake of balance readers should be informed that the claims made for it
are widely disputed or doubted, and not only by conservative commen··
tators. 37
. Let me briefly report som.e of the claims. (Theil in parenthese..~ h:5hall
,~\lreport indicating the aspect of1he reasoning.lUome
(~:tl';now refcr to "the Q Gospel:' often with the assumption that it has.':~"'t:Z:YEight
,,,, ~to be considt:!e~asji'!lp()Il;:mt ~s.the canonical Gospels. The classification is
fJ"'" ,,'',,It thoUl~ht to be J' ustified bv the observation that a collection of sayings bears
:..;,'" i':' the name
,~;.~'-> e
"The Gospel of- Thomas:' (Yet that title is a secondary appendage,
38
(/,'" perhaps by 2d-century gnostics trying to give Thomas status. E Neirynck
prefers to retain the designation "the [Synoptics J Saying Source Q" as are·
minder that Q remains a hypothetical text to which we have no direct access.)
\ . .?if/Often a basic presupposition is that Q was produced in a single community
Gt>v"~ '--whose vie.w it represented. (An individual, having heard sayings and par­
(p~ abies attributed to could have made a collection. is there really a co­
herent theology that marks these juxtaposed sayings that frequently are
grouped around different unifying motifs? A look at the sequence in the
",i;;!.,&,vytonlents column of Table 2 gives a rather haphazard impression.) The next
: ; J\ I presupposition IS that Q represents the whole (or enough of the) outlook of
~~",q. , those who collected it that it may be used to diagnose their stance as Chris­
~...o Y!~.... tians. (The very fact that independently it was preserved by Malt and Luke
o>\'r)i . . only in combination with Marean may slant the likelihood in the
~~"" other direction, i.e .• that it was never more than an additional collection of
~;;:I ","j>teaching for those who accepted the Jesus story.) The argument from siknce
. ~X:;~"fo.ecomes a major factor in such a presupposition. For example, because there
I.y A is no reference in the Q material to crucifixion or re~um.;dion, it i;.;
\, /i that the Q Christians ignored, rejected, or gave little impo!1anCe to such be­
,wcw'~~ lief, (In the combination they made, Mutt and Luke found no contradicfion
"~, ~\
~.;J'" '.
, l< """,\~'l"""
.. ~oJ-
1'1' ,\,/I' ~'X.;..:;­
,0" 161<1cob~01l, First, and Klop[lclloorg, /-umlil/itlll, arc S(fOll)!, ;t,jv"<.:al,,,. For example, one approadl
!v-t. It 17:,\r·~'p pOSit,; a tirst ,tag'~ I,f Q Ihat w,., "ll'icllti,\! land WlI' dmc to Ih,' hislOrical Jeslls, who was not an
Q.. ~iii' . apo.:aIY[1ticlsl). a second ,wj((: wlim: Q was upncalyplicizcd. and a ,third st.age where there \\13.' II
.f.. '." ,)\ movement toward narrahve and J,,;o:-. hc;, ;lIlle an advocate of SIne! lmah observance (which made
.p.fL".J-Jl"'.f!I'~ Q l!IH(:nable to Matthew).
()t ,..l ~ ,,","SCI: II. W. AUridgc, "J{cllcclioll> 'Ill Rl'~e.arch into Q;' Semeia 55 (1992), 222-34.
(). .wI" . .1.> IK"Q: I'rom Source In (Jo'p(:I:' ETt 71 (\995).421·,,30, Allhough the Q saying in Luke 7:27:.
~~ ~,~ speaks of Ibe POt)" having til,' l]ospd mcachcd 1.0 them (p,UlIlQl'lizein). that is borrowed trom Isa 61: I,
122 56. Gospels ill GellCt.Jl; Synoptic 123
its strong emphasis on the pay,jon 01 between Q BiblioeraDi1v on the Gospels in General
and their own ptnnh"" on the resurrection. One cannt'\ assume that inde­
INTRODUCTION AND GOSPEL GENRE:
pendently two evangelists took ov(~r a source they wished 10 correct; rather
a justifiable assumption is that Mall and Luke agreed with Q or they would Aune. D. E.. "The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels;' GP 2 (1981)' 9-60.
no! have used it. Moreover, there are some Q paralleis in Mark--could the Burridge, R. A. What Are the Gospels? A with Graeco-Roman
theology of Mark and Q have been so contradictory? What proof is there that phy (Sl'iTSMS 70; Cambridge Univ., 1(92).
Goosen, G., and M. Tomlinson, Studying the Gospels: An introduction
any early-lst·century Chrislian, helieved in a Jesus who was not uniquely
CT: Morehouse, 1994}. Interesting popular lex!.
distinguished by the fact Ihal he hud been crucified and raised?,9 A rejection O'Grady, 1 E, 71le FOllr Gospels and the Jesu) Tradition (New York: Paulist. 1
of crucifixion/resurrection is charadcristic of a not c1earlv dat­ Robbins, V. K., "Mark as Genre," SBLSP J 980,371-99.
able before the 2d century.) Shuler, P. L, A the (Philadelphia: Fortress. 1
In the hypolh(·~js that Mall and Luke used both Q and Mark, it is not Stanton, G. N., "Mauhew: Biblos, Eur.H!!!(:lion, or Bios," FGN 2.118 7 -1201
unrcasonahle 10 aSS\IIlli.: thai Q was as old as Mark and in existence in the
60s. Some, however, Jllake the unprovable claim that Q is older than Mark
Talbert, C. H.. What [s a Gosnel? The Genre
and is indeed the oldest (llrislian presentation of Jesus. There is evidence
Fmtress, 1971).
against 100 early a dating. since certain sayings in Q suggest that an interval Votaw, C. W.• The Gospels and COl1temporarr Biographies in the Greco·Roman
has p:J:-seJ sinl.'c the titTle of Jesus. One has 'the impression from Luke World (Facet Biblical Series 27; Philadelohia: 'Fortres:,>, 1970).
! I :49-52 thaI Chri:-'Iian propbeb and apostles have been persecuted. Luke '" THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM:
II :39-A4A6--4~ shows conslderahlc hostility toward the Pharisees and law­
yt'rs; IfIt('n.se conllicts ""ilh Pilarisees probably developed later in the history Barr, A., Diagmm ofSynoplic RelafiullShips (new cd.;

of Pa/cstinian Christians rather than earlier, Bellinzoni, A.1., et a!., eds., The Two-Source
f{\111( \1en.:cr,
Extravagant hypOl.heses based on this hypothetical document have left 1985). Various views.

Butler, B. C, The
Sf. Mat/ho, (Cambridge Univ" 195 \ l.
their mark on modern "Historical Jesus" research (see Appendix 1). The por­
ian hypothesis.
trait of Jesus the wisdom leacher or Cynic philosopher with no apocalyptic (San Fn:ncisco,
Deardorff. J. W., The Problems (~r New 1f'stament
message and no messianic proclamation emerges from speculations about CA: Mdlen. 1992). Augustinian hvnnlh",j
stage one of Q theology-·-a pomal! that some wO!lld substitute for tbe Jesus Dungan, D. L., cd., The InterreiatlOns (BETL 95; Leuven: Pedcr;;,
of the Gospels and the Jesus of church fajth:~() A bit abrupt but worthy of 1990).
reflection is the proposal of J. P. Meier, Marginal 2 J [hat every morning'. i;;:';'S­ '<'- Farmer, W. R., The Synoptic Problem cd .. Dillsboro: Western North Carolina,
exegetes should rept~at, "Qi<;..! h.ypothetical document whose exact cxten- / rfJ~ 1 For Griesbach.
SiOll, wording, originating community, strata. and of romposilion can­ \l~',~~j'" n ------, "Modern
of Griesbach's Hypothesis," NTS 23 (! 976·-77),
not be known." Linnemann, "Is There;' is even more acerbic. That having ~'- 275·-95.

Problem (Lou­
- - - , The Gospel ()f Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance ofthe
been said, in the iudgment of most, thl:' existence of Q (without many oj the
isville: W/K, 1994).
remains the bl'st way (4' e.tpltlinillg the agret~ments be­ Johnson, S. The Griesbach Hypothesis mul Redaction Criticism (SBLM~; 41;
tween Mart (Ind Luke in material ther did not borrow from Mark. Atlanla: Scholars, 1(91). Against Uriesbach.
T. R, W., and P. A. ThollW6, cds" The
Problem: A Bibfil 'f.!wpill'.
1916·-1988 (Macon, UA: Mercer, 19S8).

iV/ottt,,,,lA' and Luke against j\lfi/rk l (;('111

NcirYlllJ(, E, ed., The Minor
hloux: Duculot, 1(74).
WQ ~a)'il1g' n:h.ll' ksu, rCJ,",cti"ll ,.md ,!:'alh !G the similar fllle of the (13:34; II :49; Ncvil.!e, D. l, Argu.menrs from Order in Swum tic Source Critkiwn (Mac'oll. I.ii\
6:23); y~l then..> I~, fl(l t.'vi(h~n\.T !hal ~hi;; (~OUI}("dion meant that the. rt~sulTectinn j~cked uniqi.!c
value for ttl<! CluiSliil:!' who !C:,dJ11card () Mercer, P!94).
in Iii,' '/il'll
.11l0ne need not ag.'l'C' WI!h I arm,:, 's lkfem;e 01 I.he Gril'sbach to realiz.e that he is right New, D. S.. Old Testament

(Gospel) in arguing thaI the ,,)hH.illHI'W!X.l>cJ br lht: Syn()ptic has paslorallclevance. Document HypotheSIS

124 GO;;/Je/s ill General; Synoptic Gospels Bibliography 125

D" IIfa/thew, ullu'. and Murk (Collegeville: Liturgical. 1976). For J. S., and L. E. cds" Early Q and Jesus
Griesbach, 55: Atlanta: Scholars, 1992).
Orchard. 8.. and H. Riley. The Ordertl{the Synoptic.I·. Why Three Synoptic Gospels? Linnemann, E., "Is There a Gospel ofQ?" BRev 1J (#4; Aug. 1995), IS-23, 42-·43.
GA: Mercer. 191\7). For Griesbach. Llihrmann, D" "11,e Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q," JBL 108
It. The Makilll{ afMark (Macon, CiA: Men:er, 1989). For Griesbach. 51--71.
S,anlon, G, N., TlU' Gmpds ({lid JI"SUS (New York: Oxford. lyg9). Mack, B. L, The Lost Gospel. The Book of 0 and Christian Ori "ins (San Francbco:
----, Gospel Truth'! (Valley Forge. PA:Trinity. 1995). Harper.
Stein. R. B.. TIl(' Spwr1tl( Prohlem (Grand Rapids: Baker. 1987). Meyer, P. D., "The Gentile Mission in Q:' JBL 89 (1970), 405-17.
Stoldt. H. H,lli.~torv and Criticism oj the Markallliypothcsis (Macon, GA: Mercer, E, "Recent Developments in the Study of Q, in
19XO), Again". MUf'l':m prioril)!. Jesus, cd. 1. Delobel (Leuven: Peeters, 1982). 29-75.
SlrccKL'r. 0., cd.. MillOI' Ag!'('emcnts (GiHlingen: VUl1dcnhocck & _"'___, Q,Svnopsis: The Douhle Tradition Passa~es in Greek (rev. cd.; Leuven:
Slyler, G. M.• "The Pnumy uf Mark:' in Moulc. Birth 285-316. Good contlrma­ Peeters, 1995).
lOry examples. R. A. Wisdom in the Q-tradition (SNTSMS 61; Cambridge Unl, .. 1989),
TiJylO!~ v., nil' hmlll1liol/ of rhe Tradition LllllUUlI. Macmillan, S(iil _"_ _ , ed.. The Gospel behind the Cunt'n; Studies 0/1 Q (~OVTSllP 75:
important, Leiden: Brill, 1995).
Theissen, G., TIll' UO.l'pd., III Context: Social and Political fhHory in the Synoptic Robinson, J. M" "LOGOI SOPHON: On the Ganung of Q," in TraJecrories
'fradition (Minneapolis: Nr~ 1991). Earl\' Christianity, cds. Robinson and H. Koester (Philadelphia: hlrtrcs~_
Tuckett, C. M.. The Revinll oIthe Griesbach Hypothesis (SNTSMS 44; Cambridge 1971), 7\-·113.
Univ., 191:12). Against Griesbach. .__._, "International Q Project;' JBL 109 (1990), 499-501 and subsequent years.
Wenham. 1.. Redating Marrhev.·. Mark & Luke (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, ---___, ed .. Documenta Q (Leuven: Peeters, 1996-- I. The first volurne deals with
1(92). Augustinian hypothesis. n.'('lmstructions of the las! two centuries. Eventually each of 235 verses of Q
will be discussed.
"Q" RESEARCH: Tucken, C. M.. "A Cynic Q?" Bibliea 70 (1989), 349--76.

1\1, E., Risen Jesus (SNTSMS 46; Cambridge Univ., 1982). ____, "On the Relalionship between Matthew and Luke;' NTS 30 (!QS4).

~"-'-, The ty)ice of Jesus (Louisville: W/K, 19(2). A revision of the 130-42.
ahovc, -----. Studies on Q (Edinburgh: Clark, 1995).
D. R., The Quest J{Jr Q (Edmburgh: Clark, 1993). _~._, Q and the Christianity Weabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996).
J)r/wnillg. F G., "A Genre for Q and a Sndo-Cultural Context for Q," lSNT 55 Turner, N., "Q in Recent Thought:' ExpTim SO (1969-70),324-·28.
( 1994), 3-26.. L. E., Galilean Uvstarts: Jesus' First Followers According to Q
Edwards, R. A.. A Concordance 10 Q (Missoula. MT: Scholars, 1975). Forge, PA: Trinity, I
-"~", A 71ifology (philadelphia: Fortress. 1 Vassiliadis, P., "The Nature and Extent of the Q Document," NovT 20 \ 1978), 49-7';'
Farrer, A., "On Dispensing with Q." in Studies in the Gospels. cd. D. E. Nineham Worden, R.. D., "Redaction Criticism of Q: A Survey:' JEt '-)7 (! 975),532-46
(It H. Lightfoot Festschrift; O"ford: Blackwell, 1955).
Fleddcrmann, H. T.. Mark and A Study offhe Overlap Texts (BETL 122; Leuven:
Peelers, 19(5).
lIavr-ner, t, Q: The (~f Jesus (Wilmington: Glazier, 1(87) .
.llU.:oh~ion, A. D .. "The Literary Unity of Q," JBL 101 (1982). 365··89.
Tile First (Impel.' All introdlK'tio/1 to Q (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1992).
1. S., The Fi:mnation oj Q (Philadelphia: Fortress,
. "Bibli~)paphy on "SBLSP 24 (1985), \03··26 .
. , Q Pliralld,l, Critical NOles & COr/cO/d,me€' tSonoma, CA: Pole·
hridgc, 19S8).
, "The Go~pd Q: Recent on !he People behind the Doeu­
11lt'1I1," CKBS ! (1993),9··34. Long
. ed, Tlte Shape of Q
KI"PP"lIborg, J, S .. ~:l al,. Q.l1wmus Reader (Sonoma. CA: Polebridge,