Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)

329

John S. Kloppenborg Synoptic Problems

Collected Essays

Mohr Siebeck John S. Kloppenborg, born 1951; MA and PhD at the University of St. Michael’s College; Professor and Chair of the Department for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153273-3 ISBN 978-3-16-152617-6 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliogra- phie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de 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 electronicsystems. ­ The book was printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buch­binderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

In the memory of

William R. Farmer Michael D. Goulder Frans Neirynck

Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos, gigantium humeris insi- dentes, ut possimus plura eis et remotiora videre, non utique proprii visus acumine, aut eminentia corporis, sed quia in altum subvenimur et extollimur magnitudine gigantea.

Preface

This volume had its origins in the kind invitation of Jörg Frey and Henning Ziebritzki to collect and reprint several essays on the Synoptic Gospels and Q. In selecting those for inclusion, I have benefited from the encouragement and counsel of William Arnal, Sarah Rollens, Daniel Smith, and Joseph Verhey- den. Rather than simply reprint the essays as they once appeared, I have attached a bibliographical addendum to each that takes note of literature that has appeared in the meantime, agreeing, dissenting from, and advancing the conclusions of these essays. These addenda do not, of course, aim at biblio- graphical completeness, but offer only some of the most prominent engage- ments with the topics of these essays. All of the essays have been reformatted and a consistent bibliographical format employed, replacing in some instances the author-date format of the original publications. This means, of course, that the original in-text citations now appear as footnotes. The original pagination, however, is indicated with bolded numerals in the body of the text. In preparing these essays for publication I have been aided greatly by the assistance of Ms. Emily Lafleche, who read the re-formatted essays against their original publications, and who located much secondary literature that engaged these essays after their initial appearance. The collection is dedicated, with great admiration, to three giants of Synop- tic studies, all sadly deceased: William R. Farmer, whose Synoptic Problem in 1964 was the prime mover behind the re-opening of studies on the Synoptic Problem in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s; Michael Goulder, indefatigable advo- cate of the Farrer hypothesis, brilliant and learned redaction critic, and a daunting sparring partner in any debate; and Frans Neirynck, with his encyclo- pedic grasp of Synoptic studies, tireless and generous defender of the Two Document hypothesis, and intellectual leader in New Testament studies. I have profited more than can be stated here from the immense learning of these three.

VIII Preface

I wish gratefully to acknowledge permission to publish the following articles and essays: “The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem,” The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (BETL 100; eds. F. Van Segbroeck, C. Tuckett, G. Van Belle and J. Verheyden; Leuven: Peeters, 1992) 93–120. ©Peeters 1992. “Is There a New Paradigm?” Christology, Controversy, and Community: Essays in Honour of David Catchpole (NovTSup 99; eds. D. G. Horrell and C. M. Tuckett; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000) 23–47. ©E.J. Brill 2000. “On Dispensing with Q? Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew,” New Testament Studies 49/2 (2003) 21–36. ©Cambridge University Press 2003. “Variation in the Reproduction of the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 83/1 (2007) 49–79. ©Peeters 2007. “Synopses and the Synoptic Problem,” New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (BETL 239; eds. P. Foster, A. Gregory, J. S. Kloppenborg and J. Verheyden; Leuven: Peeters, 2011) 51–85. ©Peeters, 2011. “Symbolic Eschatology and the Apocalypticism of Q,” Harvard Theological Review 80/3 (1987) 287–306. ©Harvard University 1987. “‘Easter Faith’ and the Sayings Gospel Q,” Semeia 49 (1990) 71–99. ©Society of Biblical Literature 1990. “Nomos and Ethos in Q,” Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of James M. Robinson (eds. J. E. Goehring, J. T. Sanders and C. W. Hedrick; Sono- ma, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1990) 199–214. ©Polebridge Press 1990. “City and Wasteland: Narrative World and the Beginning of the Sayings Gospel (Q),” Semeia 52 (1991) 145–60. ©Society of Biblical Literature 1991. “Literary Convention, Self-Evidence, and the Social History of the Q People,” Semeia 55 (1991) 77–102. ©Society of Biblical Literature 1991. “The Sayings Gospel Q: Literary and Stratigraphic Problems,” Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q (Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran Julkaisuja, Publi- cations of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65; ed. R. Uro; Helsinki and Göttingen: Finnish Exegetical Society and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996) 1–66. ©Finnish Exegetical Society 1996. “A Dog Among the Pigeons: The ‘Cynic Hypothesis’ as a Theological Problem,” From Quest to Quelle: Festschrift James M. Robinson (BETL 146; eds. J. Asgeirsson, K. de Troyer and M. W. Meyer; Leuven: Peeters, 1999) 73–117. ©Peeters 1999. “Discursive Practices in the Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus,” The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (BETL 158; Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense XLIX; ed. A. Lindemann; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press, 2001) 149–90. ©Peeters 2001. “Egyptian Viticultural Practices and the Citation of Isa 5:1–7 in Mark 12:1–9,” Novum Testamentum 44/2 (2002) 134–159. ©E.J. Brill 2002. “Self-Help or Deus ex Machina in Mark 12.9?” New Testament Studies 50 (2004) 495–518. ©Cambridge University Press 2004.

Preface IX

“Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark,” JBL 124/3 (2005) 419–50. ©Society of Biblical Literature 2005. “Agrarian Discourse in the Sayings of Jesus,” Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Interpretation (eds. B. Longenecker and K. Lieben- good; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010) 104–128. ©Eerdmans 2010. “Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q,” The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (NovTSup 75; ed. R. A. Piper; Leiden, New York, and Köln: E.J. Brill, 1995) 275–319. ©Brill 1995. “The Parable of the Prodigal Son and Deeds of Gift,” Jesus, Paul and Early Chris- tianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge (NovTSup 13; eds. R. Buitenwerf, H. W. Hollander and N. Tromp; Leiden and Boston: E.J. Brill, 2008) 169–94. ©Brill 2008. “Pastoralism, Papyri and the Parable of the Shepherd,” Light from the East: Papyro- logische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament (Philippika. Marburger altertums- kundliche Abhandlungen 39; eds. P. Arzt-Grabner and C. M. Kreinecker; Wies- baden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010) 48–69. ©Harrassowitz 2010. “The Representation of Violence in the Synoptic Parables,” Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in Their First Cen- tury Settings (WUNT 271; eds. E.-M. Becker and A. Runesson; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 323–51. ©Mohr Siebeck 2011.

Contents

Preface ...... VII Abbreviations ...... XIII

Introduction ...... 1

Part I: SYNOPTIC PROBLEMS ...... 9

1. The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem ...... 11

2. Is there a New Paradigm? ...... 39

3. On Dispensing with Q? ...... 62 Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew

4. Variation in the Reproduction of the Double Tradition ...... 91 and an Oral Q?

5. Synopses and the Synoptic Problem ...... 120

Part II:THE SAYINGS GOSPEL Q ...... 155

6. Symbolic Eschatology and the Apocalypticism of Q ...... 157

7. “Easter Faith” and the Sayings Gospel Q ...... 179

8. Nomos and Ethos in Q ...... 204

9. City and Wasteland: Narrative World ...... 222 and the Beginning of the Sayings Gospel (Q)

10. Literary Evidence, Self-Evidence, ...... 237 and the Social History of the Q People

11. The Sayings Gospel Q: Literary and Stratigraphic Problems ...... 266

XII Contents

12. A Dog Among the Pigeons: ...... 322 The ‘Cynic Hypothesis’ as a Theological Problem

13. Discursive Practices in the Sayings Gospel Q ...... 366 and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

Part III: MARK ...... 407

14. Egyptian Viticultural Practices ...... 409 and the Citation of Isa 5:1–7 in Mark 12:1–9

15. Self-Help or Deus ex Machina in Mark 12:9? ...... 434

16. Evocatio deorum and the Date of Mark ...... 458

17. Agrarian Discourse in the Sayings of Jesus ...... 490

Part IV: PARABLES ...... 513

18. Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q ...... 515

19. The Parable of the Prodigal Son and Deeds of Gift ...... 556

20. Pastoralism, Papyri and the Parable of the Shepherd ...... 577

21. The Representation of Violence in the Synoptic Parables ...... 600

Bibliography ...... 631 Index of Modern Authors ...... 697 Index of Ancient Texts ...... 709

Abbreviations

The abbreviations of ancient sources and modern publication are those of Patrick H. Alexander, et al., The SBL Handbook of Style, for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999). Other abbreviations include:

2DH Two Document hypothesis 2GH Two Gospel (neo-Griesbach) hypothesis FH (MwQH) Farrer (Goulder) hypothesis, Mark-without-Q hypothesis

AJAH American Journal of Ancient History AJPh American Journal of Philology CEQ Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. The Critical Edition of Q: A Synopsis, Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas, with English, German and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Hermeneia Supplements. Leuven: Peeters; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. ESCJ Studies in Christianity and Judaism / Études sur le Christianisme et le Judaïsme SA Sociological Analysis

Q texts are cited by their Lukan versification. For example, Q 6:20b is the Q text located at Luke 5:20b || Matt 5:3. This does not imply, however, that Lukan wording is necessarily that of Q. For Matthaean Sondergut that might derive from Q, Q/Matt is used; e.g., Q/Matt 5:41.

Papyri are abbreviated by the conventions of the American Society of Papyrologists: see John F. Oates, Roger S. Bagnall, and William H. Willis. Checklist of Editions of Greek Papyri and Ostraca. 5th ed. BASP Supplements, vol. 9. Oakville, Conn.: American Society of Papyrologists, 2001.

Introduction

As a title for this collection I have chosen “Synoptic Problems” rather than the perhaps more optimistic “Synoptic solutions.” I have done this for two main reasons. First, it is to avoid the hybris of supposing that we are in a position to offer definitive solutions to the issues of the relationship among the Synoptic Gospels, the shape, construction and editorial intent of the hypothetical Sayings Gospel Q, and issues concerning the interpretation of Mark and the parables. The data upon which we base our conjectures and hypotheses are, after all, rather paltry, with many gaps. Our earliest manuscripts of Matthew and Luke date from about a century after their putative dates of composition, and the earliest copy of Mark is even later. We are not in a position to know how strictly the texts of the gospels were transmitted prior to the end of the second century CE, but we do know that by the beginning of the third century there were already a number of important variations in those texts. This in turn means that we cannot know the degree to which the texts of the Synoptics that are printed in the twenty-eighth edition of Nestle-Aland, upon which we found our analysis and hypotheses, correspond to originating texts of the gospels. Hence, to the extent that discussions of the Synoptic Problem and the recon- struction of Q depend on knowing the texts of the Gospels with a high degree of certainty – and they surely do –, our conclusions cannot be definitive and the talk of “proofs” must be replaced with “plausible scenarios.” Second, the term “problems” underscores the fact that our thinking about the Synoptics is always provisional and subject to revision. In fact, the Synop- tic Gospels turn out to be outstanding loci to think about how best to construct hypotheses that are responsive to the available data and which seem historically plausible. This applies not only to the Synoptic Problem and the reconstruction of Q, but also to numerous exegetical problems. Compelling interpretations of issues in the Synoptic Gospels require a thick set of comparanda – lexicographical, literary, social-historical, material, and conceptual. In many instances, however, our data set is very weak. Part of the challenge in constructing compelling hypotheses involves choosing appropriate and relevant comparanda. But what are these? Only “biblical” materials? Only “Jewish” texts and ideas? Graeco-Roman data, and if so, the products of high literary culture, or nonliterary and documentary materials? Some of the essays in this collection will attempt to make a case for the robust use of papyri from early Roman Egypt, since these provide detailed information on social realities,

2 Introduction administrative processes and social practices that are presupposed by Synoptics stories and sayings: for example, the managment of vineyards and viticultural labour; the division of paternal property inter vivos; mechanisms of dispute settlement; and the operations of courts, banks, and tax extraction. Because Synoptic parables and sayings were written for audiences that already had cultural competence in these ancient practices, it is hardly a suprrise that the Synoptics do not bother to explain or elaborate on any of these matters. But the modern interpreter, historically and culturally separated from those practices, is left with a dilemma. Either to suppose that vineyard management and dispute settlement occurred pretty much as they do today and to run the risk of serious anachronism. Or, to assemble solid ancient comparanda on the practices and social realities which the sayings of Jesus and the parables presuppose. For such a project, documentary papyri are usually our most plentiful, and some- times only, resource. A more subtle problem raised in some of these essays concerns how the canons of plausible explanation are constructed. What makes an argument compelling? What kinds of comparative data are relevant to explanation? A longer historical view of the study of the New Testament quickly reveals that conclusions that we now find far-fetched were in the past endorsed by very competent and distinguished scholars. Issues that they regarded as central to the exegetical enterprise often do not coincide at all with our questions. And some of the issues that we find pressing did not even have occurred to our predecessors. To look at the long historical view of exegesis is to come face to face with the fact that humanistic scholarship is historically and ideologically situated. This should constitute a warning that our own senses of what is important to know, and of which are good arguments and which are not, are not entirely based on objective norms but on ideological (and therefore subtle) factors.1 These dictate, among other things, what we suppose must have been the case and what cannot have been the case. A long historical view will show how dramatically such understandings have changed, and how with them the habits of argument have changed. Prior to the end of the Second World War the topic of “unity and diversity in New Testament theology” was hardly probed and Walter Bauer’s Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christen- tum, published in 1934, was largely ignored. Interest in the social structures of the earliest Christ groups was hardly discussed before the 1960s, apart from —————— 1 I use ‘ideological’ here not in the sense of ‘conceptual’, but rather to refer to the nexus of beliefs and practices of a society which implicitly privilege certain values and judgments and which therefore control the interpretation of textual data by rendering ‘natural’ or ‘plausible’ certain construals, and ‘implausible’ or ‘impossible’ others that might, on the face of it, be mounted with equivalent arguments. On this notion of ideology, see Terry Eagleton, Ideology: An Introduction (London and New York: Verso, 1991) and Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation),” in Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays (translated by Ben Brewster; New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971), 127–86.

Introduction 3 similarly ignored works by Adolf Deissmann and Karl Kautsky until interest was revived by Edwin Judge, Gerd Theissen, Abraham Malherbe and Wayne Meeks a generation later. Part of the construction of a good argument, then, involves not only selecting appropriate comparanda, but also understanding why we might think that these comparanda are appropriate and articulating what is at stake in these comparisons.2

The first section of this collection, entitled “Synoptic Problems,” refrains from rehearsing or defending one or other solution to the synoptic problem, but instead treats conceptual and methodological issues in the synoptic problem. There are already many good treatments and evaluations of solutions to the Synoptic Problem, and many studies that advance a particular hypothesis as superior to all others with more appearing every year.3 There are many fewer —————— 2 One here thinks of Jonathan Z. Smith’s observation in Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, 14. School of Oriental and African Studies; Chicago: London: The School of Oriental and African Studies; University of Chicago Press, 1990) that the widespread practice in the exegesis of the New Testament to insist on “biblical” and “Jewish” pedigrees had a strong correlation with Protestant-Catholic polemics which construct the theological purity of Protestantism by caricaturing Catholicism as pagan or “Hellenistic.” 3 The classic treatments of the synoptic problem are Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863); Hajo Uden Meijboom, Geschiedenis en critiek der Marcus-Hypothese (Proefschriff, Groningen; Amsterdam: Gebroeders Kraay, 1866); Gustav Meyer, La question synoptique: Essai sur les rapports et l’origine des trois premiers évangiles canoniques: thése (Paris: Sandoz et Fischbacher, 1877); Paul Wernle, Die synoptische Frage (Leipzig, Freiburg im Breisgau, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1899); J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (2nd ed; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909 [repr. 1968]); William Sanday, ed., (Oxford) Studies in the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911); B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Dates (London: Macmillan & Co., 1924); John Chapman, Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels (ed. John M.T. Barton; London: Longmans, Green, 1937); B. C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951); Lucien Cerfaux, “Le problème synoptique,” NRTh 76 (1954): 494–505; Léon Vaganay, Le problème synoptique: une hypothèse de travail (with a preface by Lucien Cerfaux; Bibliothèque de théologie, Série 3: Théologie biblique 1; Tournai: Desclée & Cie., 1954); Bruno de Solages, Synopse grecque des évangiles: Méthode nouvelle pour résoudre le problème synoptique (with a preface by Eugène Cardinal Tisserant; Leiden, New York, and Köln: E.J. Brill; Toulouse: Institut catholique, 1959); William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1964); Robert Morgenthaler, Statistische Synopse (Zürich and Stuttgart: Gotthelf, 1971); William R. Farmer, ed., New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983); Christopher M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal (SNTSMS 44; Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Christopher M. Tuckett, ed., Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983 (JSNTSup 7; Sheffield:

4 Introduction treatments of what I call the “meta-issues.” These include the theological entailments in solutions to the synoptic problem and, therefore, the relationship between synoptic solutions and our reconstructions of the development and articulation of early Christian thinking about christology, soteriology, unity and diversity in early Christian thought, and other issues informing the synthetic pictures that we create from the various data at our disposal (chap. 1). The 2DH has been so widely embraced that its historical and conceptual entail- ments now run the risk of becoming the “things we think we most certainly know about early Christianity.” This (false) certainty in turn lends credibility to the 2DH. But these entailments are in fact only the products of the hypothesis, not its demonstration. Thus, Matthew’s more sympathetic treatment of the Twelve is not an assured result of research which happily coheres with the 2DH; it is a product or entailment of the 2DH, that Matthew edited Mark and not vice versa. The historical narrative that we tell ourselves that there was a tendency to enhance and deepen christological insights from the earliest period onwards is a consequence of adopting the 2DH, not an independent datum that supports the 2DH. Hence, chapter 1 examines some of the theological entailments in the 2DH, the FH and the 2GH, not as a way to cast doubt on any of them, but rather to lay out the picture of the evangelists’s redactional methods and the picture of the ‘development’ of early Christianity that flows inevitably from these hypotheses.4 —————— JSOT Press, 1984); Hans-Herbert Stoldt, Geschichte und Kritik der Markus-Hypothese (2nd edition, expanded; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1986); Robert H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1987); Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989); David L. Dungan, ed., The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-E. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck. Jerusalem 1984 (BETL 95; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press, 1990); David L. Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York, London and Toronto: Doubleday, 1999); John S. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), chap. 1, 6; Mark S. Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (The Biblical Seminar 80; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); Mark S. Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2002); Delbert Burkett, Rethinking the Gospel Sources [1]: From Proto- Mark to Mark (New Testament Guides; London and New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2004); Rethinking the Gospel Sources, Volume 2: The Unity and Plurality of Q (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009); Dennis R. MacDonald, Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’ Exposition of the Logia About the Lord (Early Christianity and Its Literature 8; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012). 4 This approach is now exemplified in several of the essays published in Paul Foster, et al., New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008. Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett (BETL 239; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), in particular in the essays by David B. Peabody (“Reading Mark from the perspectives of different synoptic source

Introduction 5

Another second issue, discussed in the second chapter, has to do the with logical status of the “proofs” that are offered in defence of a particular hypothesis or against another. The standard introductions to the Synoptic Problem – the fictions that we tell our undergraduates – create simplistic dia- grams of the relationship among the three gospels, as if on the 2DH Matthew quite literally had Mark’s gospel before him, or on the FH, that Luke had Matthew’s gospel as an immediate source. Simple reflection on the state of our knowledge of the transmission of early Christian texts should tell us that it is dazzlingly improbable that Matthew had direct access to Mark, or that Luke had Matthew’s autographic copy. At best, they had copies (or copies of copies) which at the very least were subject to the ordinary alterations introduced by copyists, and perhaps more major alterations such as additions, deletions, and rewordings as well. If the latter is the case, then the arguments that we invoke for testing hypotheses cannot take the form of simple deductive testing. That is, if the Synoptic Problem were a logical puzzle on the same level of the proposition that “all swans are white,” where the discovery of even a single black swan would refute that proposition, it would be a simple matter to refute, for example, the FH’s claim that Luke de- rived all of his “double tradition” material Matthew by pointing to a single in- stance where Luke’s version of a double tradition saying or story was clearly earlier than Matthew’s version. But such is hardly the case. For we have neither the autographs of Matthew or Luke, nor is it reasonable to suppose that there was a hermetically sealed conduit between Matthew and Luke such that no alternate memories, performances, or information could affect Luke’s re-per- formance of a Matthaean unit. Though the fictions of simple synoptic diagrams are heuristically useful, we must not be beguiled by their simplicity and assume that the relationship between two gospels was a simple one. That also means that simple deductive testing is not the appropriate tool for the evaluation of synoptic hypotheses. Chapters 3 and 4 engage specific problems in the Synoptic Problem. Chapter 3 reviews and assesses critically Mark Goodacre’s The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (2002), which is less a critique of the Two Document hypothesis as it is a stout defence of the Farrer hypothesis. The fourth chapter engages and tests the suggestion promoted by James D. G. Dunn to the effect that while instances of high-verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke in non-Markan materials indicates reliance on a written source (Q), the low-agreement pericopae more likely derive from oral materials. —————— hypotheses: historical, redactional and theological implications”), David Sim (“Matthew and the Synoptic Problem”) and John Poirier (“The Composition of Luke in Source-Critical Perspective”). Each of these authors were asked to consider the composition of their respective gospels from three different perspectives, outlining both the strengths and challenges to the 2DH, 2GH, and FH.

6 Introduction

The final chapter in this section is in conversation with the claims, on the one hand, of Heinrich Greeven that three- or four-gospel synopses can be “neutral” as far as source criticism is concerned, and on the other, the conten- tion of Bernard Orchard and the late David L. Dungan that the very physical construction of a synopsis skews the data and inclines the user toward one solution to the Synoptic Problem and obscures others. What is at stake in this issue is of considerable moment, for if the case of Orchard and Dungan can be sustained, it would logically necessitate that we always work with several specialized synopses at hand, each constructed to illustrate a particular source- critical solution. And even if they are not right in claiming inherent and systemic bias in synopses, it is nonetheless critical to grasp the significance of the very important differences between the display of synoptic texts adopted by Huck and his successors and that exemplified in the Aland and Boismard synopses. If one cannot show systemic bias, it is nonetheless true that the editors’ choices in presenting synoptic materials have profound effects on how one imagines the editing of one gospel by another. The second main division of the volume deals with problems that arise from the Sayings Gospel Q. Of course, Q is already the product of one of the Synoptic hypotheses, the 2DH, and hence from one point of view, each of the eight essays in this section ought perhaps to have a large question mark placed over it. Nevertheless, these essays are offered in the conviction that if Markan priority and the literary independence of Matthew and Luke are cogent postu- lates, then the corollary of these two postulates, Q, is deserving of examination, no less than other problems in the literature of the early Jesus movement. Hence, this section examines a range of problems that arise from the positing of Q and analogous to questions that are routinely asked of Mark: the eschatology of Q (Chap. 6); making sense of Q’s apparent lack of any reference either to Jesus’ death or to his vindication by God (Chap. 7); and Q’s stance toward the Torah and the sense that can be made of the seeming lack of chriae in Q that represent Jesus as in conflict with Sabbath practices (Chap. 8). Other essays reflect on the spatial imagination of Q, that is, the “world” that it projects and the values assigned to various locations in that spatial world, in particular, cities and the desert (Chap. 9). Chapter 10 marks the beginning of my movement away from speaking of a “Q community” – as if those producing the document and employing it were a settled and discrete “church” somewhere in the Galilee – and a re-focusing of the issue of the producers/addressees of Q by attending to the values and assumptions about the cosmos that are embed- ded in the document, and what these suggest about its producers. Chapter 11 is a lengthy survey of redaction-critical approaches to Q, designed to lay out as clearly as possible the conflicting methods that have been used in the analysis of Q, and both the convergences and divergences in results. Chapter 12, on the so-called Cynic Q hypothesis, is not so much concerned with whether this hypothesis, advocated in various forms by Burton Mack, Leif

Introduction 7

Vaage, and F. Gerald Downing, is cogent or not, as it is with why that hypo- thesis has provoked so muscular, even frantic, a refutation. That is, the refu- tation of the Cynic hypothesis turns out to be an excellent site to examine how that refutation has been mounted, and what unspoken issues appear to be its guiding subtext. The final chapter (13) in this section tries to address the problem of Q and the historical Jesus. This is a problem for both historical and methodological reasons. Since Harnack it has been widely assumed that Q provides unvarnished access to the historical Jesus, and hence, many contem- porary scholars seem to conclude that conclusions on Q are simply transfer- rable to the historical Jesus. On the other hand, the mainstream of Q studies since Lührmann and Hoffmann have studiously avoided conflating their con- clusions about the composition, editing, and theology with conclusions about the historical Jesus. No one nowadays would think that Mark’s depiction of Jesus can naively be projected onto the historical Jesus. Yet in order to avoid an analogous naivété in regard to the use of Q, it is necessary to reflect on how the results of the analysis of Q might be used judiciously in the effort to reconstruct a credible and defensible portrait of the historical Jesus. The third section of the volume has Mark as its focus. Both Chapters 14 and 15 are concerned with exegetical aspects of the Parable of the Tenants in Mark 12:1–12. Both employ Graeco-Egyptian papyri to assist in assessing the com- positional history of Mark 12:1–9, with its Isaian allusions, relative to the very different version of the parable found in the Gospel of Thomas (65). Efforts to date the Gospel of Mark – the subject of chap. 16 – have focused mainly on the apocalyptic discourses in Mark 13 and its dual predictions of the dismantling of the Temple (13:1–2) and its desecration by the presence of το` βδε'λυγμα τη^ς ε’ ρημω' σεως (13:14). It is not clear that these predictions should be read to- gether, as two aspects of a more general fear about the temple; nor is it clear whether they are told ex eventu (i.e., from the vantage point of 70 CE or later) or not. This essay draws on what is know of Roman battlefield practices, in particular the ritual of “calling out the gods” from a site that is about to be destroyed and poses the question, Does Mark know of this ritual, and does he know that it had occurred? The final essay (17) in the section has both Mark and Q in view as it inquires into the various ways in which the measure-for-measure aphorism is deployed in Mark 4:24 and Q 6:38. This essay makes the case that an under- standing of the measuring practices in an agrarian economy is fundamental to appreciating how the measure-for-measure aphorism re-imagined and adapts a commonplace about equal exchange, applying the aphorism to various moral practices (Q; 1 Clement) and to the economy of revelation (Mark) and bene- faction (Luke). The fourth and final set of essays take parables as their focus, first surveying the parables of Jesus in Q, and observing how “unparabolically” they function

8 Introduction

(Chap. 18). The other three essays draw heavily on documentary papyri that concern testamentary practices and “deeds of gift,” pastoralism and the practice of sheep raising, and the conceptualization of force and violence to offer inter- pretations of the actions of the younger son in the Parable of Prodigal Son (Chap. 19), the Parable of the Shepherd (Chap. 20), and parable of Mark, Q and Matthew that feature violent actions by one of the protagonists (Chap. 21). Each of these essays is designed to illustrate how different the problem looks when one shifts from exclusively “biblical” and “Jewish” comparanda, to a broader and more inclusive survey that takes into account papyrological re- sources.

As will be clear by now, it is my conviction that the literature, practices, and thought of the early Jesus movement should be treated in splendid isolation of their ancient social, literary, and intellectual contexts. Those contexts should not be preemptorily narrowed in order to protect dogmatic investments. A glar- ing instance of such a narrowing can be found in the reaction to the so-called “cynic hypothesis” (chap. 12); but it is a danger in other exegetical problems as well. Hence, part of the attempt of the later essays in this collection is to broaden the comparative basis of exegesis to documentary materials and thus to see whether the matter looks different when one views early Christian texts in the context of Graeco-Egyptian papyri. Moreover, the intellectual contexts of scholarship must be taken into account every bit as much as ancient intel- lectual contexts. Throughout, I have strived, unsuccessfully no doubt at times, to create a level playing field in argument and to treat competing hypotheses by equivalent rules of evaluation – something that I learned from William Farmer, who on many occasions expressed irritation at how arguments and surveys of the Synoptic Problem were framed from the perspective of the supposed victors.

Part I Synoptic Problems

Chapter 1

Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem1

In the debate about the Synoptic Problem, theological considerations have played a relatively minor role. Most of the attentions has been focused, rightly, on other issues: which of the many arrangements of dependency that are abstractly possible are in fact logically permitted, given the pattern of agree- ments and disagreements among the Synoptic gospels? And which of the solutions that are logically possible entail literary procedures that are credible given what we can surmise of the editorial interests of each of the evangelists, and given what we know of editorial procedures in other ancient literature?

I

It is well-known that the general non-agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the order of pericopae in the triple tradition suggests a solution of dependence in which Mark is the medial term between Matthew and Luke.2 Mark, however, is medial in all three synoptic source-critical hypotheses that dominate recent critical discussion: the Two Document Hypothesis (2DH), the Two-Gospel (Owen-Griesbach) hypothesis (2GH), and the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis (FH). Since purely logical considerations do not resolve the Synoptic problem, the second issue – that of the plausibility of the editorial scenarios implied by each solution – becomes important. Here, clearly, we are dealing only in the realm of probabilities rather than “proofs.” That one solution entails generally credible editorial procedures does not in itself imply that other solutions are less probable. It should be added that our failure to understand the editorial practices implied by a given source-critical solution or our inability to imagine

—————— 1 [First published as “The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem.” Pp. 93–120 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by Frans Van Segbroeck, et al. BETL 100. Leuven: Peeters, ©1992. Reprinted by permission of the publisher; all rights reserved.] 2 This point was made by B. C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), 62–71, himself an advocate of the Augustinian hypothesis (in which Mark is also medial). The “fallacy” is misnamed, for Karl Lachmann, “De ordine narrationum in evangeliis synopticis,” TSK 8 (1835): 570–90, did not in fact commit it, though some since Lachmann have.

12 Synoptic Problems a credible setting for a particular gospel may be a failure of our imagination rather than a defect of the solution itself. A generation of redaction-critical analyses of Matthew and Luke presup- posing the 2DH have, with relatively few exceptions, been able to render credible their respective treatments of Mark. Indeed, one argument in favor of the 2DH is its very Brauchbarkeit in accounting [94] for the shape of Matthew and Luke.3 These same studies, to the extent that they deal with Matthew’s relation to Markan material, might also serve to rationalize one component of the FH. It is only recently that redactional studies have begun to appear that attempt to rationalize in a systematic way the supposition, shared by the 2GH and the FH, of Luke’s use of Matthew,4 and the position of the 2GH, that Mark alter- nated between his two sources5 as he conflate them.6 This work is only in its —————— 3 Recently, S. E. Johnson (The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism [SBLMS 41; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991]) has compared the 2DH and the GH in their explanations of the redactional procedures of the synoptic evangelists, and by using the treatments of the kingdom of God, the parables, and Christology as tests case. He concludes that while the solutions proposed by the GH are not impossible, “the 2DH provides a more satisfactory solution of most of the problems” (p. 144). 4 See also Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); William R. Farmer, “Luke’s Use of Matthew: A Christological Inquiry,” Perkins Journal 40, no. 3 (1987): 39–50. H. B. Green has tried to account for Luke on the basis of the FH, but his arguments are often tortured and speculative. See “The Credibility of Luke’s Transformation of Matthew,” in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983 (ed. Christopher M. Tuckett; JSNTSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 131– 55 and idem, “Matthew 12.22–50 and Parallels: An Alternative to Matthaean Conflation,” in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983 (ed. Christopher M. Tuckett; JSNTSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 157–76. 5 The suggestion that Mark alternated between Matthew and Luke is fundamental to Griesbach’s solution (“A Demonstration that Mark was Written after Matthew and Luke,” in J. J. Griesbach, Synoptic and Text Critical Studies, 1776–1976 [ed. Bernard Orchard and Thomas R.W. Longstaff; SNTSMS 34; Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978], 103–35, esp. 108–13). See also Ferdinand Christian Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältnis zueinander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung (Tübingen: Ludwig Friedrich Fues, 1847), 544: “So hält er [Markus] abwechselnd bald an diesem, bald an jenem, und sein Verfahren ist überhaupt ein zusammensetzendes eklektisches.” On this problem, see now Thomas R.W. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study in the Synoptic Problem (SBLDS 28; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature, 1977); idem, “The Minor Agreements: An Examination of the Basic Argument,” CBQ 37 (1975): 184–92 and the responses of Joanna Dewey, “Order in the Synoptic Gospels: A Critique,” SecCent 6, no. 2 (1987–88): 68–82; William O. Walker, “Order in the Synoptic Gospels: A Critique,” SecCent 6, no. 2 (1987–88): 83–97 and Longstaff’s response “Order in the Synoptic Gospels: A Response,” SecCent 6, no. 2 (1987– 88): 98–107. 6 For attempts to understand Mark’s theology on the 2GH, see Thomas R.W. Longstaff, “Crisis and Christology: The Theology of Mark,” in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge

Chapter 1: Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem 13 infancy; a great deal remains to be done [95] in order to given an account of Lukan (2GH, FH) and Markan (2GH) editorial practice.

II

Although the center of gravity of the discussion thus far has been on the logic and the “mechanics” of various source critical solutions, the ultimate interest of source criticism is, presumably, to achieve an adequate textual basis for under- standing (a) the literary and theological achievements of each gospel, (b) the place of each gospel in the history of primitive Christianity, and, eventually, (c) the history of primitive Christianity itself. It is at this point that constructive, synthetic and theological considerations become important. 1. It is obvious that the adoption of a particular source-critical theory has important consequences for the reconstruction of an evangelist’s theology. While this reconstruction is, strictly speaking, an outcome of the source theory, a particular arrangement of synoptic relationships that implies an implausible theology will most likely be deemed to be in need of revision if not abandon- ment. Clearly, the key term is “implausible,” and the key issue has to do with the canons of plausibility for first-century CE theological views. It would be rash to attempt to predict what kinds of theologies ancient authors were capable of producing and what theological views would have seemed self-evidently appropriate, since new discoveries of ancient texts continue to broaden our horizons of what was “thinkable.” We have, however, a gauge of what the Synoptic evangelists considered plausible and appropriate in the actual constructions of their gospels. In this regard, it is unfortunate that —————— Gospel Conference and Beyond (ed. William R. Farmer; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), 373–92; David L. Dungan, “The Purpose and Provenance of the Gospel of Mark According to the Two-Gospel (Owen-Griesbach) Hypothesis,” in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond (ed. William Reuben Farmer; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983), 411–40; and, most recently, William R. Farmer, et al., “Narrative Outline of the Markan Composition According to the Two Gospel Hypothesis,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers (ed. David J. Lull; SBLSP 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 196–211; William R. Farmer, “The Two-Gospel Hypothesis: The Statement of the Hypothesis,” in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-E. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck. Jerusalem 1984 (ed. David L. Dungan; BETL 95; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press, 1990), 125–56; Allan J. McNicol, “The Composition of the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse,” in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-E. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck. Jerusalem 1984 (ed. David L. Dungan; BETL 95; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 157–200. The commentary by C.S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986) is unfortunately not an eloquent defense of Markan posteriority and seldom provides reasons for Mark’s editorial practice apart from claiming (for dubious reasons) that Mark’s version was “the way it happened.”

14 Synoptic Problems most of the redaction-critical studies of the gospels in the past forty years have taken the 2DH for granted, and consequently have not rigorously distinguished the task of describing the stylistic and theological profile of each of the Synop- tics on the basis of a synchronic analysis from a profile that is produced dia- chronically, by drawing inferences from their respective alterations of Mark and Q. Synchronic analysis, precisely because it is based upon what the evan- gelist in fact accomplished – the selection and arrangement of materials and the style and theological disposition visible in what is presented – , affords us a control on what the evangelist thought was appropriate in a life of Jesus. The implications of diachronic analyses, predicated on various source-critical as- sumptions, must be tested against the results of synchronic analysis, and these results must cohere. Herein lies the importance of the several recent attempts to establish a redactional profile for the gospels without regard to a particular [96] source- critical hypothesis.7 As important as these may be on methodological grounds, it is nonetheless crucial that the results of such studies be coordinated with the inferences drawn from diachronic analyses, and important that the two sets of results are consistent. There would be an obvious contradiction if the theo- logical and stylistic tendencies of, say, Mark, derivable from the architecture of the gospel, were to conflict with the editorial policies that on a given source- critical hypothesis Mark must be deemed to have use with respect to his sources. 2. Theological considerations play an important role in the discussion of the synoptic problem in another way. A careful reading of the history of the discussion of the problem reveals the extent to which a priori assumptions have controlled what was thought to be “imaginable” or “likely” as Christian theo- logy, and hence, what could plausibly be suggested about any of the gospel writers.8 It should be recognized that the very prominence of the hypothesis of —————— 7 For Mark (and dealing mostly with style rather than theology), see Frans Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (BETL 31; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1972); David B. Peabody, Mark as Composer (New Gospel Studies 1; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986). For Matthew, see Jack Dean Kingsbury, “The Theology of St. Matthew’s Gospel According to the Griesbach Hypothesis,” in Farmer, William R. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), 331–61; William O. Walker, “A Method for Identifying Redactional Passages in Matthew on Functional and Linguistic Grounds,” CBQ 39 (1977): 76–93. For Luke, see J.G.F. Collison, “Linguistic Usages in the Gospels [Sic] of Luke,” in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond (ed. William R. Farmer; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), 245–60; idem, “Eschatology in the Gospel of Luke,” in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond (ed. William R. Farmer; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), 363–71; Joseph B. Tyson, The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1986). 8 The role of larger political, cultural and theological forces in commending one hypothesis has hardly been explored. For the beginnings of such an investigation, see Bo I. Reicke, “From Strauss to Holtzmann and Meijboom: Synoptic Theories Advanced During the

Chapter 1: Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem 15

Markan priority and the extent which it has controlled scholarly imagination has played a role in rendering one view of Christian origins “self-evident” and completing reconstructions “less probable.”9 Dominant hypotheses, precisely because they are treated as self-evidently true, have the tendency to replicate themselves, thereby further entrenching the larger schema in the human imagi- nation. The dominant views of the dating of the gospels, the ways in which the evangelists’ theologies are construed, and reconstructions of theological and ecclesial developments all serve [97] to replicate and reinforce the 2DH, and, perhaps to some extent, to control the way in which questions about Christian origins are posed.10 Just as it is important to face the implications that a given source hypothesis has for the reconstruction of the theology of an evangelist, it is also important to raise to the level of self-conscious method the assumptions which undergird and render credible one source hypothesis and the theological constructions that derive from it, and which render another hypothesis “incredible.”11 This paper will consider three issues: first, the implications of the 2GH for reconstructing the theology of the evangelists, using Mark’s treatment of Jesus’ relatives as a test case; second, the possibility of coordinating lines of theological development with source criticism; and third, a priori assumptions at work in the 2DH. It is not my purpose either to defend the 2DH or to argue against the FH or the 2GH; instead, I hope to expose by way of several exam- ples what is at stake in the adoption of a particular source-critical hypothesis.

—————— Consolidation of Germany, 1830–70,” NovT 29, no. 1 (1987): 1–21, has argued that “[i]n this situation [after 1848] liberal and empirical interests became more important than before, and since liberal theology was now dominating in Protestant Germany, its emphasis on historical experience favoured the preference for the two-document hypothesis” (p. 16). 9 On the notion of the self-evident, see Alfred Schutz and Thomas Luckmann, The Structures of the Life-World (trans. Richard M. Zaner and H. Tristram Jr. Engelhardt; Northwestern University Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy; Evanston Il.: Northwestern University Press, 1973), 284: Insights that were once subjective are condensed into symbols that can be shared; thus they are objectified and generalized, and rendered self- evidently true. “It is thus ... that knowledge comes to have an overwhelming and at the same time taken-for-granted independence, which in the end is based on the subjective results of experience and explication, but which contrasts with the individual and the subjectivity of his experience and situation.” 10 Proponents of the 2GH and FH often express incredulity (or worse) at attempts, for example, to arrive at a theology of Q, (rightly) observing that this is building hypothesis upon hypothesis. This is somewhat disingenuous, since the adoption of any source hypothesis would inevitably lead to the construction of analogous (though different) theological and historical scenarios deriving from that hypothesis. 11 Ironically, in spite of the dominance of the 2DH, many of its historical, methodological, and theological consequences have not been grasped when is comes to the reconstruction of Christian origins, or the historical Jesus. See now John S. Kloppenborg, ed., in collaboration with Leif E. Vaage, Early Christianity, Q and Jesus (Semeia 55; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991).