εύαγγέλιον: How Soon a Book?

Author(s): Robert H. Gundry

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 2 (Summer, 1996), pp. 321-325
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266859 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 13:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:09:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Critical Notes 321

EYAIFEAION:HOW SOON A BOOK?

Recently,H. Koesterhastakenthe positionthateDayyelXov is notused

("gospel")
for a bookuntil Marcion.1 this
Against position have been adduced xo
adpXil e'ayye-
kiou 'Iqooi Xptazto ("beginningof the gospelof JesusChrist")in Mark1:1;xovxoT6
xti
evayyT/Xtov paaiXeia; ("thisgospel of the kingdom")in Matt 24:14; 26:13; and sev-
eraluses of e6aryyXtovin subapostolicliterature,specificallyin Did. 8.2; 11.3;15.3,4;
2 Clem.8.5; Ign. Smyrn.5.1; 7.2. The NT uses failto carryconviction,however.Mark
maysimplyreferto the beginningof anorallyproclaimedgospelthathe is writingdown
in hisbookwithno intentionof callingthe bookitselfa gospel,orthe gospel(cf.esp.Phil
4:15, where ev dpxoi ToDe?'ayyeXio), "in [the] beginning of the gospel,"obviouslyrefers
to Paul'sfirstpreachingin Philippi).2
To take Matthew'sxoixo not as an emphasison
Jesus'orallyproclaimedgospelof the kingdombutasanidentification of the gospelwith
Matthew'sbookoverlooksthe unlikelihoodthatthe orallyorientedverbKITpIuoEoeoat
("tobe proclaimed"),with which Matthew'sphrase is construed, would apply to a book,3
and the further unlikelihood that Matthew would consider his audience so unintelli-
gent as to accept that Jesus spoke to his disciples about Matthew's book as though it
existed long before Matthew wrote it and even before all the events recorded in it had
transpired.4

1 H. Koester, "Fromthe Kerygma-Gospelto Written Gospels,"NTS 35 (1989) 361-81; idem,

Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia:Trinity;London: SCM,
1990) 1-43; cf. idem, Synoptische Uberlieferungenbei den Apostolischen Vdtern (TU 65; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag,1957) 6-12.
2 R. H.
Gundry, Mark:A Commentaryon His Apologyfor the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1993) 32-33.
3 To the contrary, one might cite Acts 15:21: "For since ancient generations Moses,
being
read in the synagoguesevery Sabbath,has had those who proclaim (iclpiaooovxa;)him city by city."
But it is hard to tell whether the proclamation defines or accompanies the reading. Definition
would make a true parallel with the bookish interpretation of Matt 24:14; 26:13, but would also
requirethat Matthewenvisionedthe circulationandpublicreadingof his book"inthe whole
world."A tall order!
4
Only by failingto maintainthe distinction between Matthew as containinga gospel message
and Matthew as being a gospel book can G. N. Stanton ("Matthew:BIBAO;, EYArFEAION, or
BIO'?" in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck [ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al.; BETL
100; Leuven: Leuven UniversityPress/Peeters, 1992] 1195) cite J. D. Kingsbury,U. Luz, and me as
supporting his equation of Matthew with "this gospel" in Matt 26:13 (see Kingsbury, Matthew:
Structure,Christology, Kingdom [Philadelphia:Fortress, 1975] 130-31, 163; Luz, Matthew 1-7: A
Commentary [Minneapolis:Augsburg, 1989] 208; R. H. Gundry,Matthew:A Commentaryon His
Literary and TheologicalArt [Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1982] 480; cf. Stanton, "Matthew,"1195
n. 36, for a more accurate representation of Luz's position, and W. Schenk, Die Sprache des

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:09:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
322 Journal of Biblical Literature

Given the unpersuasiveness of Mark 1:1 and Matt 24:14; 26:13, we may concen-
trate attention on the subapostolicuses of ebayy?Xhov.Understandingthem as evidence
for a bookish meaning prior to Marcion are G. N. Stanton and M. Hengel.5 Along with
this understandinggoes the position that subapostolic literature borrows material from
books that became canonical. The contraryposition denies such borrowingin favorof a
borrowing from extracanonicaltradition, whether oral or written but fragmentary,and
thus denies a bookish meaning of eb'ayy;Xiov.The present critical note offers a middle
position: subapostolicliteratureborrowsfrom books that became canonicalbut does not
use evayy??Xtovfor any of those books.6Since the case for borrowing,particularlyfrom
Matthew, has been made often and convincingly,7attention may further concentrate on
the meaning of e6iayyk;tov.
Did. 8.2 introduces the Pater Noster partlywith the clause wdEC oeAX?Vv6 KuptOS
ev X,o eVayysei, auTxoi("as the Lord commanded in his gospel")8 and then follows
almost exactlythe introductionto and version of the Pater Noster found in Matt 6:9-13,
which differ rather widely from those in Luke 11:2b-4 and give much evidence of
Matthean redaction.9But Did. 8.2 speaks about "hisgospel [the Lord's],"without relat-

Matthaus:Die Text-Konstituentenin ihren makro-und mikrostrukturellenRelationen [Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987] 265, for some support of Stanton'sposition).
5 Stanton, "Matthew,"1190-95; idem, A
Gospelfor a New People (Edinburgh:Clark, 1992)
14-15; Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1985) 70-71.
6 Cf.
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 15: "Even if it is possible that certain writers drew
their gospel materialsfrom written documents, this does not imply that they called such documents
'gospels."'
7 T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Erlangen: Deichert, 1889) 1/2.840,
916-41; E. Massaux,The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literaturebefore
Saint Irenaeus: Book 3, The Apologists and the Didache (ed. A. J. Bellinzoni; New Gospel Studies
5/3; Macon, GA: Mercer UniversityPress, 1993) 154-55, 157, 163-67 et passim;W.-D. Kohler, Die
Rezeption des Matthausevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus (WUNT 2/24; Tubingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 1987) 19-56, 73-96, 129-49, 519-21; 0. Knoch, "Kenntnis und Verwendung des
Matthius-Evangeliums bei den Apostolischen Vatern," in Studien des Matthausevangeliums
(Festschrift W. Pesch; ed. L. Schenke; SBS; Stuttgart: KatholischesBibelwerk, 1988) 159-77, esp.
167-69; J. P. Meier, "Matthewand Ignatius:A Response to William R. Schoedel,"in Social History
of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (ed. D. L. Balch; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991) 179-86. For discussion pro and con, see K. Niederwimmer, Die Didache (Kom-
mentar zu den Apostolischen Vatern 1; G6ttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 71-78 (esp. n.
35), 168-73. Mention should be made of the view that treats some subapostolic uses of Eicayy;tov
as oral, other such uses as bookish (ibid., 76; Koester, "From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written
Gospels," 371-72; idem, Ancient Christian Gospels, 17; idem, Synoptische Uberlieferungen,
240-41; J.-P. Audet, Le Didache [Ebib; Paris: Gabalda, 1958] 112-13).
8 Koester ("Fromthe
Kerygma-Gospelto Written Gospels,"371; Ancient Christian Gospels,
16; Synoptische Oberlieferungen,11) argues that the aorist of icKXeaev points awayfrom a book,
whose text would be present (as in 2 Clem. 8.5; see below). What then does he do with the present
tense at 15.3-4: dx; Xere v Tx)e,uayyeXiqp("asyou have in the gospel")?Apparently,the pastness
of teaching by the historical Jesus determines the aorist tense whereas present possession of such
teaching in the gospel determines the present tense. The teaching present in the gospel could be
either oral or written, so that the tenses are irrelevantto our question.
9 The Mattheanismsinclude the following,with the first number in parentheses representing

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:09:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Critical Notes 323

ing it in anywayto Matthew(as,for example,in the earlytitle,"TheGospelAccording

to Matthew")and without any indicationof writtenness(as, for example,in Justin
1 Apol. 66; Dial. 10.2; 100.1). So even though the followingmaterialcomes from
Matthew'sbook,"gospel"meansmaterialpreachedandtaughtorallyfirstby Jesusand
now by those who use Matthew'sbook for a source more naturallythan it means
Matthew'sbookitself.The traditionthathe wrotethe bookwhosetitle now bearshis
nameantedatesPapias'swriting,for Papiasattributesthattraditionto the elder John
(Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 3.39.16);and scholarsof otherwisedifferentstripesare increas-
inglyunitedon a date for Papias'swritingin the veryfirstdecadeof the secondcen-
tury.10 Thisdateputsthe dateof the traditionconcerningMatthew'sauthorshipso early
that we mightwell have expectedthe Didache,whose own date of writingremains
somewhatuncertainbut can hardlyantedatethattradition,to associate"thegospel"in
8.2 with Matthewor with writtenness,were the referenceto his book.On the other
hand,nothingfavorsa referenceto pre-Matthean traditionstillalivein oralcommunica-
tionor in fragmentary writingsstillin circulationafterthe compositionof Matthew.We
maynot doubtthe existenceof suchtradition,but stronglydisfavoring a referenceto it
hereis the aforementioned presenceof Mattheanisms thatappearalsothroughoutother
partsof Matthew'sfinishedbook.ll
Did. 15.4containsthe phrase?v T, EDayyeiqoTxouKvpiop) TIl6v ("inthe gospelof
ourLord"),whichaddsa qualification to ?v TrOeiCayyeXiq ("inthe gospel")in thepreced-
ingverse;andthe surrounding materialalludesto Matt5:22-26;6:1-18;18:15-35.Asin
Did. 8.2, the nearlyidenticalqualification "ofourLord"joinsthe lackof an association
with Matthew'snameor withwrittennessto makea referenceto materialpreachedand
taughtorallyfirstby Jesusandnowby thosewhouse Matthew's bookfora sourcemore
naturalthana referenceto the bookitself.
Did. 11.3 containsthe phraseKa'raTo6 86yLca rTO1eoayyekiou("according to the
decree of the gospel").The uncertaintythat cloudsthe identificationof this decree
makesthe passagepoorevidencefora bookishmeaningof ei5ayyekiou.Butforthe sake
of argumentone mightallowthatthe similarityof the instructions in Did. 11.4-12 con-
and to
cerningapostles prophets passages such as Matt 7:15-23;10:9-13,23ab,40-41;
12:31;23:3;24:24favorsa drawingon Matthew.Yetas in Did. 8.2; 15.3,4, thereis no
reasonto thinkof anythingmorethana referenceto materialgivenorallyfirstby Jesus
andnowby thosewhofindin Matthewa sourcefortheirpreachingandteaching.

insertionsintoparalleledpericopesandthe secondnumberappearancesin pericopesuniqueto

Matthew: o6v (35,11), oiivco (18,5), D15te (15,3), 6 iv roi; o1upavoi; (10,2), 06Xrlpa (3,1; cf.
09eX--18,8), yevr0/roo)(3,0), ovpav6; and yi paired (6,0), x; (23,8), orCepov (4,3), plus assimila-
tions to Matthew's context, creation of lines for parallelism, etc. (see R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A
on His Handbookfor a MixedChurchUnderPersecution[2d ed.; GrandRapids:
Commentary
Eerdmans, 1994] 104-9). Because comparisonwith the rest of Matthew gives these Mattheanisms
the look of overall redaction at the latest stage, they make gratuitousand uneconomical a hypothe-
sizing of sources that were pre-Matthean but Matthew-like(againstthe tendency of Luz, Matthew
1-7, passim;similarly,Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferungen,passim).
10See Gundry,Mark, 1026-34, and other literaturecited there; also idem, Matthew [1994],
616-19, against interpretingthe pre-Papiantraditionin terms other than the Greek book known as
the Gospel According to Matthew, that is, in terms of OT proof texts, Q, or an Aramaicbook.
11See n. 9

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:09:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
324 Journal of Biblical Literature

In 2 Clem. 8.5, which may or may not antedate Marcion, Xyet ... 6 Kicpto;ev rp
eaxyyeXi) ("the Lord says in the gospel") introduces materialthat seems to come from
Luke 16:10-12. But as in the cases of the Didache and Matthew, there is no reason to
think of anythingmore than a reference to materialgiven orallyfirst by Jesus and now by
those who find in Luke a source for their preaching and teaching. And again, a mention
of "the Lord"ratherthan of any writer'sname or of writtenness makes a reference to the
oral message drawn from the book more naturalthan a reference to the book itself.'2
Ign. Smyr. 5.1 follows up ai icponTlrtat oi'8/; 6 v6ogo;MCoaoEoX ("theprophecies
nor the law of Moses") with dUX'oi6& {?Xpt vtv T6e/uayygXtov,o r65 /r xa i{rtpa r6tv
KaxT' dvspa xadfulaxa ("yetneither till now the gospel nor our sufferings man by man").
Because of parallelism, the writtenness of OT prophecies and of the Mosaic Law may
seem at first glance to favorwrittenness for the gospel. But the strong adversative akX'
distances the gospel from those prophecies and that law, so that the gospel is closely par-
allel only with the sufferings of Ignatius and other persecuted Christians. Since those
sufferings do not make up a written document, neither need the gospel make up a writ-
ten document. In fact, closeness of parallelbetween the gospel and the sufferings favors
unwrittenness for the gospel as well as for the sufferings-all the more because the suf-
ferings appear to arise out of antagonism toward oral proclamation of the gospel, not
toward any writing of the gospel.'3
Ign. Smyrn. 7.2 draws a close parallel between xoig;iporixTat; ("the prophets")
and xr eayyeXiq e?v TO itdOos iltv 6e615krata Kai i dvvaoxaoa crt eEeiWtat ("the
gospel, in which the Passion has been made plain to us and the Resurrection has been
accomplished").But when in 5.1 Ignatius wanted a reference to the prophetic portions
of the OT to accompany a reference to the Mosaic Law, he used npo0rltsiat ("prophe-
cies"). Here he may switch to spoitrxat ("prophets") for a reference to Christian
prophets (cf. Did. 11.3). By parallelism,then, the oralityof their messages would favor
an oralityof gospel preaching. It may be more likely, however, that Ignatius is referring
to OT prophets, as apparentlyin Magn. 9.2; Phld. 5.2; 9.2. Even so, the parallelwith "the
gospel" does not help the case for a bookish meaning, for Magn. 9.2 portrays the OT
prophets not as writers of books but as persons who were Jesus' disciples in Spirit and
who expected him to be their teacher, and both Phld. 5.2 and 9.2 portray the OT
prophets again not as writers of books but this time as preachers (KaTnyyeXKicvat and
Kal, yyetXav, respectively). In view is not the written record of their preaching, but
their preaching itself.14
One might argue to the contrary that Phld. 8.2 refers to written texts of the OT.
There Ignatius quotes some opponents as saying, "If I do not find it [Xpioxora0tiav,
'Christ-learning'] in the archives [dpXeiot;, i.e., OT texts because of yeypacrxat, 'it
stands written,' in the next sentence], ... I do not believe in the gospel." But this quota-
tion contains a contrast between the OT and the gospel, so that the writtenness of the
OT need not imply a writtenness of the gospel. In fact, the oralityof a gospel so new that
it cannot boast of any archives makes up a good part of the contrast drawnby Ignatius's
opponents. One might also note that ev Tre-ayy,tiX ... i.toZElU) ("believe ... in the

12See n. 8
against an appeal to the present tense of Xyei.
'3 Cf. W. R. Schoedel, Ignatius ofAntioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia:Fortress, 1985) 234.
14Koester,
Synoptische Uberlieferungen,7.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:09:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Critical Notes 325

gospel")matchesthe wordingof Mark1:15,which indubitablyrefersto Jesus'oral

proclamation, notto anywrittentextabouthim.Thismatchfavorsoralityin the Ignatian
referencetoo. When Ignatiuspirates"archives" for the gospel,textsdo not enter the
picture;rather,the justifyingeventsof JesusChrist'scross,death,andresurrectionand
of the faiththatcomesthroughhim-in otherwords,the mainsubjectmatterof Paul's
andthe pre-Paulineoralgospel(see esp. 1 Cor15:3-5).
All in all,then, despitethe strengthof evidencefor borrowingfrombooks,espe-
ciallyMatthew,thatwere latercanonized,Koesterremainscorrectat leastin his judg-
ment that as yet we have no convincingevidenceso earlyas the NT or subapostolic
literaturefor a bookishmeaningof ecatyyeXtov. Nonetheless,the recordingof Jesus'
oralgospelin those booksandthe derivationof Christians' oralgospelfromthem led
to a
naturally subsequent use of ei6ayyeXtov for the booksthemselves.Accordingto
ancientreports,Marcionusedthe wordforhis expurgated editionof whatis nowcalled
the Gospelof Luke.'5If true,the reportsmaywell transmitthe firstuse of eiaxyyhXov
fora book.Otherwise,JustinMartyr's 1 Apol.66 andDial. 10.2;100.1providethe earli-
est evidenceof thisusage.16

RobertH. Gundry
WestmontCollege,SantaBarbara,
CA93108

15See the collationof thesereportsby A. von Harnackin his Marcion:DasEvangelium vom

fremdenGott(Neue Studienzu Marcion;2d ed.; Leipzig:Hinrichs,1924;reprinted,Darmstadt:
WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1960)184?. Marcionappearsnotto haveattributed hisexpur-
gatedwritten gospelto Luke.
16It shouldbe statedthatthoughunusedby recentauthorsto arguefora bookishmeaningof
E?Y)aTX1ov, neitherMart.Pol.1.1;4.1 northeircontextsgivereasonto thinkof sucha meaning.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:09:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions