Lecture 1 – Introduction to the Course

Readings:

Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 83-104

Other Readings:

Paul W. Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
1999), 376-399.
Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic
Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 45-56.
R. H. Stein, “Synoptic Problem,” in J. B. Green & S. McKnight (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus
and the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 784-92.
R.H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).
Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001).

The consequences of studying Jesus academically

• Some of you would prefer this course to be safe, easy and non-troubling.

• I am fired by the opposite possibility

• The aspirational goal – a richer appreciation of the biblical Jesus.

Presupppositions of this Course

• Nobody comes to this material in a neutral fashion

o Raised within a Protestant Evangelical context

o Jesus read through the eyes of Paul (justification, substitutionary

atonement, etc.).

o The need to read the Gospels, and Jesus, on their own terms.
o Coming to terms with our blind spots.

o The presuppositions of this course

Evangelical

• The Bible is the Word of God expressed in human

words

• Jesus is the Christ

Historical

• Committed to thinking about Jesus historically – how

was he understood in the first century

• Exegetically oriented - Predominant question we are

asking is what do the Gospels and Jesus mean within
their original settings.

• Only occasionally will we explicitly move to consider

the contemporary significance.

Academic

• We will draw on the best of scholarship, both

evangelical and non-evangelical.

• Not everyone is to be believed, but everyone is

worth a hearing.

• We will be reading scholars – not pastors, not devotional

writers, not systematic theologians.
 • You will be examined on an academic basis, not your
love for Jesus.

Introduction to the Fourfold Gospel

The NT provides us with four Gospels.

Three of those Gospels seem to be substantially similar in various ways (Matthew,

Mark and Luke)

One Gospel appears to be quite different (John)

Some key questions to consider:

1. Did they all get written independently, or did they use one another?

2. Can we tell which one of the Gospels was the earliest?

3. Why does any of this matter for our Bible reading?

The Period before the Gospels

Most scholars (including conservatives) date the written Gospels which we read to
after the 50’s or 60’s AD. How was the Jesus story shared in this period?

• Oral traditions

• Written traditions (see Luke 1:1-4) – see the chapter by Barnett

Gospels traditions passed around in small little units = pericope [sing] or pericopae
[plu]).
Post - World War I, a new discipline of study (form-criticism) was developed in order
to investigate the effects of this period upon the traditions about Jesus.

The uncontroversial insight

Oral tradition tends to naturally sort itself into certain standard patterns or forms –
hence, form criticism.

• stereotyped patterns enables the easy memorization of the traditions.

• Therefore, being able to identify the form of a story potentially helps us with
our exegesis: it enables us to see what was the main point the story intended us
to see (where the stress is).

Some examples

Miracle Stories - The structure of the miracle story includes the description of the
need, sometimes the faith of the one wanting to be healed, the miraculous act, and the
results of the miracle. See Mark 2:1-12; 5:1-29; 6:30-44; 7:25-30; 9:17-23

Pronouncement Stories – Often devoid of chonological or geographical detail - These

are short stories that always culminate in a significant saying or pronouncement of
Jesus. The story “sets you up”, so to speak, for the saying at the end. Classic example
is Mark 10:13-16. See Lk 12:13-15; Mk 12:13ff; Lk 11:27ff; Mk 3:31-35; Mk 14:3-9

Other forms include parables, wisdom sayings, proverbs, etc. For a much fuller listing
of form types, see James L. Bailey and Lyle D. Vander Broek, Literary Forms in the
New Testament: A Handbook (Louisville: Westminster/JohnKnox, 1992), 89-188

The controversial insight

German form-critics (like Martin Dibelius and Rudolf Bultmann) argued that the
period of oral transmission lead to the comprehensive reshaping and alteration of
traditions, and even the wholesale invention of new traditions.

 Early Church molding of the tradition.

 For each gospel tradition, their aim was to find the Sitz im Leben (life-
situation) out of which that tradition arose. But the life situation is not the
situation in Jesus’ ministry, but rather the life-situation in the early church.
The Reply to the Form critics

 Ignores the fact that memorization was far more developed as a skill in the
ancient world, in particular amongst the Jews (Birger Gerhardsson, Harald
Riesenfeld).

 Assumes the disciples all disappeared after the resurrection, and therefore
there were no controls on the oral transmission.

 More recent studies of oral transmission have emphasized that there can be
informal controls on transmission, which allow for both a stable core, and yet
some variations (see the work of Kenneth Bailey on “informal, controlled, oral
tradition).

 Assumes there were no written traditions at all (when in fact oral and written
tradition can exist side by side, and continued to do so after the Gospels were
written – see the comment of Papias “For I did not suppose that information
from books would help me so much as the word of a living and surviving
voice” (Eus.Eccl.Hist.3.39.4)

 For more see Michael Bird, “The Formation of the Gospels in the Setting of
Early Christianity: The Jesus Tradition as Corporate Memory,” Westminster
Theological Journal 67.1 (2005): 113-34

The Value of Form Criticism

• The Gospels are not chronological biographies

• Gospel incidents can be comprehensible as independent units
• Gospel material was preserved for its religious value
• Can see the editorial work of the Evangelists (especially Mark).
The Problem of Four Gospels

• From very early on, the diversity of the four gospels provided an apologetic
challenge to the early church

• Our present four Gospels quickly are recognised as being the best witnesses
to the historical Jesus and his teaching.

• We do know that alternative options to a “fourfold” Gospel were proposed, by

heretical and orthodox church leaders:

o The two most common options:

Favour one gospel over the others:

• Marcion

Harmonise the four Gospels

• Tatian’s Diatessaron (Gk. “through four”)

o Read in worship in Syriac churches in 3rd

century.

o By fifth century, Theodoret (bishop of Cyrrhus)

is having to destroy copies in order to enforce
reading of the four gospels

The Values of a Fourfold Witness

• This is what God caused to happen:

“we need to allow the actual character of the Scriptures to define for us what
our assumptions about them should be... Our responsibility is not to decide in
advance what the biblical documents ought to be like, but to let them be what
they actually are.” (Richard Erickson, A Beginnners Guide to New Testament
Exegesis, 149).

• A multiple witness enables a richer portrait.

Key issues in reading Four Gospels

When we read the Synoptic Gospels, we notice that they share substantial amounts of material:

 similarity in wording (even Greek word order)

Mark 10:13-16//Matt 19:13-15//Luke 18:15-17

Mark Matthew Luke

13
And they were bringing
children to him that he might
touch them, and the disciples
rebuked them.
14
But when Jesus saw it, he
was indignant and said to
them, "Let the children come
to me; do not hinder them, for
to such belongs the kingdom
of God.
15
Truly, I say to you,
whoever does not receive the
kingdom of God like a child
shall not enter it."
16
And he took them in his
arms and blessed them,
laying his hands on them.
13
Then children were
brought to him that he might
lay his hands on them and
pray. The disciples rebuked
the people,
14
but Jesus said, "Let the
little children come to me and
do not hinder them, for to
such belongs the kingdom of
heaven."
15
And he laid his hands on
them and went away.
15
Now they were bringing
even infants to him that he
might touch them. And when
the disciples saw it, they
rebuked them.
16
But Jesus called them to
him, saying, "Let the children
come to me, and do not
hinder them, for to such
belongs the kingdom of God.
17
Truly, I say to you,
whoever does not receive the
kingdom of God like a child
shall not enter it."

• Another classic example (words underlined are the only ones different):

Matt 3:8-10
ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς µετανοίας
9 καὶ µὴ δόξητε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, Πατέρα ἔχοµεν τὸν Ἀβραάµ. λέγω γὰρ ὑµῖν ὅτι δύναται ὁ
θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα τῷ Ἀβραάµ.
10 ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον µὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν
ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται.

Luke 3:8-9

8 ποιήσατε οὖν καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς µετανοίας καὶ µὴ ἄρξησθε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, Πατέρα ἔχοµεν
τὸν Ἀβραάµ. λέγω γὰρ ὑµῖν ὅτι δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα τῷ Ἀβραάµ.
9 ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον µὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν
καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται.
  on some occasions, similarity of narrative sequence.

o Mt 16:13-18:5/Mk 8:27-9:37/Lk 9:18-48, the following episodes are

found in the same general order:

Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi

Jesus’ first prediction of his death

Sayings

Jesus’ transfiguration

Exorcism of a boy

 similarity of parenthetical material (Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14)

These similarities between the Synoptics become even more visible when we include the Gospel of
John (with thanks to Gordon Fee)

• The story of the feeding of the five thousand (Matt 14:13-21; Mark 6:32-44; Luk 9:10-
17; John 6:1-15)

• Matt – 157 words

o 92 agree with Mark = 58.6%

o 68 agree with Luke = 43.3%

• Mark – 194 words

o 92 agree with Matthew = 47.4%

o 60 agree with Luke = 30.9%

• Luke – 153 words

o 68 with Matt = 44.4%

o 60 with Mark = 39.2%

53 words in common with all three

• Matt 33.8%
• Mark 27.3%
• Luke 34.6%

And this is a narrative!

Now John:

199 words

8 agree with all three Synoptics (4%) = words like 5, 2, 5000, took loaves, 12 baskets of pieces

• 17 with Matt = 8.5%

• 13 with Luke = 6.5%
• 17 with Mark = 8.5%

Conclusion – the three are related in a way that John is not.

Differences

Double Tradition Material

There is a large group of material (between 200-250 verses) which is present in both
Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark.

• mostly sayings

Unique Material

Both Matthew and Luke each have material which is entirely unique to them.

• Luke’s Gospel is composed of over 40% of unique material

• Matthew about 25% is unique.

• By comparison, almost all of the material in Mark is paralleled somewhere in

Luke or Matthew (the major exceptions are Mark 4:26-29; 7:33-36; 8:22-26;
14:51-52).

So how to explain the similarities and dissimilarities between

Matthew, Mark and Luke (The Synoptic Problem)

 Common source or sources (oral and written)

 Favoured option of last 100 years

o Literary interdependence - one came first, and then the others used it as a
source
  The majority option today is Markan priority = Mark comes first and both Matthew
and Luke use Mark as a source. This explains the “triple tradition”.

Why is Mark favoured as the prior Gospel?

• Nearly all of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke (approximately 93 per

cent).

o Could Mark be abridging Matthew or Luke?

• Why would Mark leave out so much or Matthew or Luke?

• Mark as the middle term.

Mark

Matthe Luke
w

Markan Priority

A Common Source for Matthew and Luke (Q).

Markan priority doesn’t account for “double tradition”?

• The proposal of a hypothetical common source, used by both Matthew and

Luke, which has been labeled Q (from the German word Quelle, meaning
“source”).
 Mark Q

Matthe Luke
w

Two-Source Theory

But what about stuff that is only in Matthew or only in Luke?

To the two-source theory, many scholars then add two more sources called M and L, which are
convenient labels for:

M = a source of unique material for Matthew

L = a source of unique material for Luke.

This four-source theory is the dominant, but by no means universal, model employed in Gospel’s
scholarship.

Mark Q
M L

Matthe Luke
w

Four-Source Theory
Are there any alternatives?

Yes, although they are decidedly in the minority. What is given below is a brutally
brief account. If you would like to know more, consult the bibliography.

o One option is to argue against Markan priority in favour of the priority of

Matthew (Griesbach Hypothesis).

o A second alternative involves retaining Markan Priority, but eliminating Q,

thus leading to the theory that Mark came first, Matthew used Mark, and then
Luke used both Matthew and Mark (The Farrer/Goulder Theory).

Being careful with Source-Criticism

 Q, M, and L are scholarly labels that we use to categorise material in the Gospels.

 Nevertheless, you cannot read a modern, scholarly commentary without knowing this
stuff.

• Source Criticism has all sorts of value historically

• Exegetically, the major payoff is in discerning how Matthew and Luke have
used Mark editorially (redaction)

• A second value is in isolating Q, L, and M material to assess its influence.