DOCSLIB.ORG

JOHN's USE of MATTHEW by James W. Barker Dissertation Submitted

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

JOHN’S USE OF MATTHEW By James W. Barker Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In Religion August, 2011 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Professor Amy-Jill Levine Professor Susan Hylen Professor Annalisa Azzoni Professor J. Patout Burns Professor David Petrain Copyright © 2011 James W. Barker All rights Reserved In loving memory of my dear friend and mentor David Laird Dungan ou)k e1stin maqhth_j u(pe_r to_n dida&skalon iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My undergraduate mentor David Dungan introduced me to the academic study of the Bible, encouraged me to think for myself, and supported me throughout my graduate studies; especially through warm friendship with Anne Dungan, David‘s memory continues to inspire my academic endeavors. My dissertation committee members have provided inestimable expertise and encouragement. My director Amy-Jill Levine has guided me throughout my masters and doctoral programs, strengthened my research and writing skills, and provided me numerous teaching opportunities at Vanderbilt Divinity School; from the dissertation‘s inception, A.-J. has championed my idea and sharpened my focus. Susan Hylen has provided me several teaching opportunities in Vanderbilt‘s Religious Studies department as well as consistent feedback on chapter drafts that has encouraged me to clarify my positions and make my voice more prominent. My minor area advisor Annalisa Azzoni has cultivated in me essential research skills by her excellent teaching of Aramaic, Syriac, and rabbinic Hebrew. J. Patout Burns has been a model professor, and I am grateful for his support in my efforts to elucidate the Gospels through the interpretations of the early church fathers. I have benefited much from the interdisciplinary perspectives of Vanderbilt‘s Religion in the Greco-Roman World workgroup—especially that of classicist David Petrain, whose joining the committee has strengthened my philology. I have also benefited from occasional correspondence and interaction with other scholars, and I extend special thanks to Paul Anderson, Guy Bar-Oz, Ram Bouchnik, Charles Hill, and Bronwen Wickkiser. Also, my second-cousin B. F. Barker graciously provided a wealth of zoological data regarding donkeys, horses, and mules, which contributed to my presentation of Chapter Three. In Vanderbilt‘s Graduate Department of Religion, I am grateful for the administrative support of James P. Byrd and Marie McEntire throughout my coursework, qualifying exams, dissertation research, and scheduling the dissertation defense. My parents James and Dianne Barker have taught Sunday School at Oak Grove Baptist Church (Gray, Tenn.) for my entire life, and I am blessed to have a family who so values the study of the Bible. Along with those of my parents, the love and prayers of my sister and brother- in-law Leanne and Rex Lewallen have given me constant motivation and strength. The same is iv true with regard to my father- and mother-in-law Emil and Diana Attanasi as well as my sisters- in-law Jennifer Attanasi and Marie Lehman with her husband Justin. Since our collaboration in religious studies and in campus ministry at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Donny Friederichsen has encouraged me in my studies and proved a stimulating conversation partner. I am fortunate to have forged so many close friendships that made my years at Vanderbilt eminently enjoyable. My deep sympathies extend to Leah and Thomas Payne; Joe Blosser and Wilson Dickinson; Adam Fronczek, William Young, and Luke Smith; Melissa Petersen Smith along with Shane and Virginia Bartlett; Maria Mayo and Abigail Redman; Brad Peper, Mark DelCogliano, and Lee Jefferson; David Dault, his wife Kira, and my goddaughter Maggie; Emily and Burt Fulmer and Will Matthews. My Koine Greek students at Vanderbilt Divinity School in 2009–2010 gave me much encouragement—especially Zachary Gresham, Christian Hawley, Siobahn Sargent, Kira Schlesinger, and Luke Townsend. I wish to thank the following colleagues at Roanoke College for their friendship and support while I taught in the Religion and Philosophy department in 2010–2011: Brent Adkins, Jennifer Berenson, Mike Heller, Marwood Larson-Harris, Wendy Larson-Harris, Eric Rothgery, Monica Vilhauer, Ned Wisnefske, and my department chair Hans Zorn. My wife and my best friend Katy Attanasi—whom I met on our first day of orientation to the Graduate Department of Religion—has loved and encouraged me beyond what I could imagine or describe. No one else could have listened or cared as much about this project from start to finish, and I am forever grateful for the daily sacrifices she has made to help me succeed—not the least of which involved painstakingly turning my footnotes into a bibliography. ―Happy is the husband of a good wife, and the number of his days is double‖ (Sir 26:1). Zeus and Lenny have provided constant amusement. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 II. FORSCHUNGSBERICHT, METHODOLOGY, AND HERMENEUTIC ..............................4 Forschungsbericht: John‘s Relation to Matthew ................................................................6 Eusebius of Caesarea (lived ca. 260–ca. 340) .........................................................6 B. H. Streeter (1925) ...............................................................................................7 Hans Windisch (1926) ..........................................................................................11 H.F.D. Sparks (1952) ............................................................................................12 Nils Dahl (1955), Peder Borgen (1959), and Anton Dauer (1972) .......................14 M.-É. Boismard et al. (1965–1977) ......................................................................18 John III’s use of Matthew .........................................................................19 John II-B’s use of Matthew ......................................................................19 Matthew’s use of John II-A ......................................................................22 Analysis ....................................................................................................23 Frans Neirynck (1969–1995) ................................................................................25 Bruno de Solages (1979) .......................................................................................26 Gerhard Maier (1981) ...........................................................................................28 Austin Farrer (1983, posthumous) ........................................................................29 Rosel Baum-Bodenbender (1984).........................................................................30 George Howard (1992) .........................................................................................31 Thomas Brodie (1993) ..........................................................................................32 Udo Schnelle (1994–2004) ...................................................................................34 Ulrich Wilckens (2000).........................................................................................34 Benedict Viviano (2004) .......................................................................................35 Hartmut Thyen (2005) ..........................................................................................38 Andrew Lincoln (2005).........................................................................................39 Urban C. von Wahlde (2010) ................................................................................42 Richard Bauckham (2011) ....................................................................................47 Summary ...............................................................................................................48 Methodology: John‘s Use of Matthew ..............................................................................49 vi Hermeneutic: John‘s Stance toward Matthew ..................................................................54 Windisch‘s Taxonomy and the Replacement Hypothesis ....................................54 Reading John as an Apocryphal Gospel ...............................................................58 III. ZECHARIAH‘S DONKEY PROPHECY AND JESUS‘ ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM ......63 Mark and Luke‘s pw~loj ............................................................................... 64 Walter Bauer‘s Rejection of the Palmesel ............................................................65 H.-W. Kuhn‘s Response to Bauer .........................................................................68 Otto Michel‘s Response to Bauer and Kuhn.........................................................69 In the Wake of Bauer, Kuhn, and Michel .............................................................71
Recommended publications
  • Creation: Believe It Or Not*

    Creation: Believe It Or Not*

    TMSJ 13/1 (Spring 2002) 5-32 CREATION: BELIEVE IT OR NOT* John MacArthur President and Professor of Pastoral Ministries Naturalism has replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western world. Though the teaching that natural evolutionary processes can account of the origin of all living species has never been proven, that teaching is central to the philosophy that now dominates Western scholarly thinking. Even evangelicals have become less willing to defend the early chapters of Genesis against the encroach- ments of evolutionary thought, although in actuality affirming an “old earth” theory and remaining evangelical is an inconsistency. A “framework” approach to those chapters does not square with a consistent hermeneutical approach to Scripture, because the first chapter of Genesis teaches that God created the world in a normal week of seven days. The purpose of evolution is to explain away the God of the Bible. The absurd teaching of the Big Bang theory of evolution is that nobody times nothing equals everything. It is a theory that raises an almost endless array of unsolvable problems. It is degrading to humanity, hostile to reasons, and antithetical to the truth that God has revealed. When one starts adapting the Word of God to fit scientific theories based on naturalistic beliefs, he has begun his journey on the road to skepticism. * * * * * Introduction Thanks to the theory of evolution, naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society. Less than a century and a half ago, Charles Darwin popularized the credo for this secular religion with his book The Origin of Species.
  • Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency. Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q

    Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency. Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q

    Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament • 2. Reihe Herausgeber/Editor Jörg Frey Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie • Judith Gundry-Volf Martin Hengel • Otfried Hofius • Hans-Josef Klauck 195 Terence C. Mournet Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q Mohr Siebeck TERENCE C. MOURNET, born 1969; 1999 M.T.S. in Biblical Studies at Eastern Baptist Theologi- cal Seminary, PA; 2003 Ph.D. Theology at University of Durham, UK; Adjunct Instructor of New Testament at North American Baptist Seminary, SD. ISBN 3-16-148454-1 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb. ddb. de. © 2005 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Druckpartner Rübelmann GmbH in Hemsbach on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Schaumann in Darmstadt. Printed in Germany. Preface This book is a revised version of my Ph.D. thesis, which was submitted to the University of Durham, UK in 2003. My interest in oral tradition began during the writing of my master's thesis in 1999. During that work, which focused on the "third quest" of historical Jesus research, I soon recognized the important place that oral tradition had in the discussion. This led me to inquire further about how oral communication functioned in antiquity, with particular reference to the development of the early Jesus tradition and Q.
  • Beyond the Q Impasse √ Luke«S Use of Matthew

    Beyond the Q Impasse √ Luke«S Use of Matthew

    Critical Observations on a Team Effort: Beyond the Q Impasse — Luke’s Use of Matthew I. INTRODUCTION At the 1997 CBA meeting in Seattle, David L. Dungan presented an overview of a forth- coming book, Beyond the Q Impasse — Luke’s Use of Matthew, which has since been published through the editorial work of Allan J. McNicol, himself and David B. Peabody.1 This work also represents the input of other members of the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies, William R. Farmer (who wrote the preface), Lamar Cope and Philip Shuler. The title of Dungan’s 1997 paper suggested that the Team had found “objective proof” of Luke’s use of Matthew, in support of their “Two Gospel Hypothesis” [= 2GH].2 The Team’s publication, however, does not make such an overstated claim, but seeks to give “a plausible account of the composition of the Gospel of Luke on the assumption that his major source was Matthew” (1),3 while “taking Mark completely out of the picture and dispensing with Q” (12).4 In this paper, I propose to offer an overview of the approach taken by the Team, as well as critical observations from the responses by other scholars5 and my own evaluation of the Team’s argumentation. 1Allan J. McNicol, David L. Dungan and David B. Peabody (eds.), Beyond the Q Impasse — Luke’s Use of Matthew: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospels Studies. Valley Forge PA: Trinity, 1996, xvi-333pp. — This article began as a paper for the 63rd International Meeting of the Catholic Biblical Association of America at Loyola Marymount University, August 5-8, 2000, entitled, “On Luke’s Use of Matthew.
  • C:\Users\Dougb\Documents\Websites

    C:\Users\Dougb\Documents\Websites

    THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS, MODERN FRUITS, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A TRADITIONAL SOLUTION Douglas M. Beaumont Charlotte, NC August 18, 2009 Introduction to the Synoptic Problem The first three canonical Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are often categorized together due to the relative ease with which their contents can be placed in sectional parallel relationships to one another such that overlap and differences become readily apparent. 1 The similarities and divergences are often in the same sections (e.g., the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of Jesus; Jesus’ greater Galilean ministry; his journey and ministry through Samaria, Perea, and rural Judea; and Christ’s Passion week, death, and resurrection). 2 The Johannine Gospel is excluded from this category due to the author’s inclusion of so much unique material. 3 The term used to describe these features, synoptic (“same view”), was put into use by Johann Jakob Griesbach in the late eighteenth century, and refers to his placing of the Gospels 1For the purposes of this paper and ease of nomenclature, the traditional Gospel titles (i.e., their traditional authors) will be used when referring to the respective writings. 2Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 1230. 3This is not to imply that Johannine material is completely distinct - indeed much of our knowledge of Gospel event chronology comes from harmonizing John’s material with its parallels in the synoptics (see David Alan Black, Why Four Gospels? [Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2001], 85-87). But the amount of similar material is so much greater between Matthew, Mark, and Luke that it bears categorization.
  • ORDER in the DOUBLE TRADITION and the EXISTENCE of Q Jeffrey

    ORDER in the DOUBLE TRADITION and the EXISTENCE of Q Jeffrey

    ORDER IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION AND THE EXISTENCE OF Q Jeffrey Peterson Austin School of Theology Austin, Texas Argument from the order of Synoptic pericopes holds a venerable place in discussion of the two-source hypothesis.1 Most often it is the agreements and disagreements of order in the triple tradition that have been taken up in relation to the priority of Mark.2 But the order of pericopes in the double tradition has also figured in consideration of the second document of the two-source hypothesis, the hypothetical Sayings Gospel Q.3 The differing arrangement of this material in Matthew and Luke has 1 See the survey by David J. Neville, Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique (New Gospel Studies 7; Leuven: Peeters; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1994). Despite the suggestion of comprehensiveness in his title, Neville neglects the argument considered in this essay. As the argument from double tradition order is significant only on the prior assumption of Marcan priority, Neville’s omission is perhaps related to his erroneous judgment that “[t]he only theory to have mounted a serious challenge to the two-document hypothesis is the Griesbach or two-gospel hypothesis” (5). For other, principally American, examples of such neglect of the Farrer hypothesis as a live alternative to the two-source hypothesis, see Mark S. Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2002) 12. 2 It is now widely recognized that such argument is inconclusive as regards the priority of Mark (so e.g., John Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000] 26), but solid grounds for Marcan priority are supplied by instances of editorial fatigue in Matthew and Luke (Goodacre, Case Against Q, 40–43, and more fully “Fatigue in the Synoptics,” NTS 44 [1988] 45–58; see already G.
  • How Views of Inspiration Have Impacted Synoptic Problem Discussions

    How Views of Inspiration Have Impacted Synoptic Problem Discussions

    TMSJ 13/1 (Spring 2002) 33-64 HOW VIEWS OF INSPIRATION HAVE IMPACTED SYNOPTIC PROBLEM DISCUSSIONS F. David Farnell Associate Professor of New Testament Second Corinthians 10:5 and Colossians 2:8 warn believers to examine their thought life carefully to guard against being taken prisoner by philosophical presuppositions that are hostile to the Bible. One can either take thoughts captive or have their thought life taken captive to the detriment of their spiritual lives. One place in particular where conservative evangelicals have been taken captive is in the historical-critical discipline of source criticism. The predominant view of the early church was that the Gospels were four independent witnesses to the life of Christ. Starting around the A. D. 1600-1700s, there occurred a philosophical and ideological shift in thinking about the origin of the Gospels, particularly in relationship to Synoptic Gospels. Due to the rise of Rationalism, Deism, Skepticism, the Enlightenment, and Romanticism (to name a few), the Independence approach was rejected and two qualitatively different approaches in explaining the Gospels resulted: the Two-Gospel hypothesis and Two-Source hypothesis. A careful investigation reveals that both approaches stemmed from the same errancy roots as modern unorthodox views of inspiration. Because of the history and philosophy behind source criticism, when evangelicals adopt either approach in their interpretation of the Gospels, they automatically tap into these errancy roots that inevitably lead to deprecating the historicity of the Gospels. * * * * * INTRODUCTION Philosophical and Historical Bases of Literary Dependence For the first 1,700 years of the church, the Independence view regarding 33 34 The Master’s Seminary Journal synoptic origins prevailed.1 That is, each Gospel writer worked independently of the others, i.e., without relying on another canonical Gospel as a source of information.
  • The Synoptic Problem: the State of the Question1

    The Synoptic Problem: the State of the Question1

    [JGRChJ 12 (2016) 73-98] THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: THE STATE OF THE QUESTION1 Stanley E. Porter McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada Introduction In 1964, Stephen Neill published an excellent book on the history of New Testament scholarship. In that book, he wrote that in 1850 Markan priority as a solution to the Synoptic Problem was ‘little known even as a hypothesis’. However, he further notes that by the end of the nineteenth century it was ‘one of the assured results of the critical study of the New Testament’.2 By 1961, so far as Neill was concerned (the terminal date of his initial survey), the Two-Source/Document Hypothesis was virtually certain as the explanation of the relations among the Synoptic Gospels. However, just as soon as Neill had written these words, the situation began to change, with William 1. I do not hesitate to quote directly from the material that Bryan R. Dyer and I have written in the introduction and conclusion to our recent edited volume, The Synoptic Problem: Four Views (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), especially our ‘The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction to its Key Terms, Concepts, Figures, and Hypotheses’, pp. 1-26, and ‘What Have We Learned regarding the Synoptic Problem, and What Do We Still Need to Learn?’, pp. 165-78. I appreciate the opportunity to have presented this material as the major paper for the Synoptic Gospels Section at the Evangelical Theological Society 2016 Annual Meeting in San Antonio, TX, on 15 November 2016. As will be noticed in this paper, I have benefited from ideas suggested by my two respondents, Michael Burer and D.
  • The Synoptic Problem: Its Historical Roots, Modern Fruits, and the Possibility of an Orthodox Solution

    The Synoptic Problem: Its Historical Roots, Modern Fruits, and the Possibility of an Orthodox Solution

    THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS, MODERN FRUITS, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ORTHODOX SOLUTION Douglas M. Beaumont August 18, 2009 Introduction to the Synoptic Problem The first three canonical Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are often categorized together due to the relative ease with which their contents can be placed in sectional parallel relationships to one another such that overlap and differences become readily apparent.1 The similarities and divergences are often in the same sections (e.g., the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of Jesus; Jesus’ greater Galilean ministry; his journey and ministry through Samaria, Perea, and rural Judea; and Christ’s Passion week, death, and resurrection).2 The Johannine Gospel is excluded from this category due to the author’s inclusion of so much unique material.3 The term used to describe these features, synoptic (“same view”), was put into use by Johann Jakob Griesbach in the late eighteenth century, and refers to his placing of the Gospels into columns to show their relationships.4 Thus, a Gospel synopsis should be kept distinct from a 1For the purposes of this paper and ease of nomenclature, the traditional Gospel titles (i.e., their traditional authors) will be used when referring to the respective writings. 2Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 1230. 3This is not to imply that Johannine material is completely distinct - indeed much of our knowledge of Gospel event chronology comes from harmonizing John’s material with its parallels in the synoptics (see David Alan Black, Why Four Gospels? [Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2001], 85-87).