I love being a teacher. I really do. I've done it for a living since 1995 and have found it a very fulfilling life. And before that time I really enjoyed being a student. Now as I am employed as a pastor and as a teacher and am spending time, money, and no small amount of effort trying to learn to be a student again, it's serving to open my eyes.
Case in point. If you've been following this blog you will have noticed that I'm posting summaries of chapters in books I read for seminary and for other purposes. One of my assignments for a seminary course is to write a critical review of one of those books that I've been summarizing. It seems like it should be a pretty easy task. But I'm now running into trouble with length requirements. After I pulled the material for Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke and dropped it into a word processing document with double-spacing I found I had thirty-odd pages of material. Some pages, of course, were odder than others. Now to reduce that to five pages of summary and five pages of commentary, consistent with what the professor has requested - that's more of a challenge to me than reading the book and writing the posts.
It's a good challenge, learning to present material in the way that the teacher requests it. Not that the teacher is necessarily requiring the best possible manner of presentation or that there are particular advantages of that over anything else you could do. It's just good to learn to comply with the requirements placed upon us. Who knows when we might need to do other tasks in accordance with the expectations others give us? It isn't that uncommon.
So as I take a couple of days off from writing chapter reviews, I'm busy learning to trim material, hopefully the best material to be trimmed, in order to present a nice concise package to a professor.
Showing posts with label Wenham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wenham. Show all posts
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
When Were the Gospels Written?
"When Were the Gospels Written?" Wenham pp. 223-244
p. 223 "On the face of it the synoptic apocalypse makes a date before 70 probable for all three gospels - there is no suggestion of Jesus' momentous prophecy having been fulfilled." Wenham also cites 2 Corinthians 8:18 to identify a date for Luke's gospel. p. 223 "The 'brother whose fame in the gospel is throughout the churches; is evidently Luke, and his fame derives from his gospel-book. (This usage of εὐαγγέλιον was to be expected any time after Mark 1:1 had been written.) It makes 55 the latest possible date for Luke."
p. 223 "mark is to be dated c. 45, after Peter's first visit to Rome in 42-44."
p. 223 "Matthew is to be dated before the dispersal of the apostles in 42. Irenaeus is often misinterpreted in favour of a date after Paul had reached Rome.'
As regards the dating before or after 70, Wenham observes that there is a good deal of eschatological discussion in the synoptic gospels, pointing to a great destruction. But while this is predicted, there is a difference between predictions and statements of current situations. p. 224 "The eschatological discourse foretells the shocking disaster which forty years later was to engulf the Jewish people, yet not one of them tells us that Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled."
Finding an appropriate date for Acts, since we want to put Luke before it, is important in dating. Wenham observes that the final events of Acts require a date at least as late as 62. But with the positive attitude shown in Acts about the Roman government it is hard to feature a date after 70. Scholars tend to be moving toward earlier dates for Acts, pushing it as early as 62. p. 229 "The decisive reason for rejecting 62 for the dating of Acts has been the dating of Luke (and lying behind that the dating of Mark).
So when do we date Luke? It does not seem to be the case that Luke is the first part of an organic whole. But the books are clearly by the same author and seem to have been created in the sequence of Luke followed by Acts. p. 230 "An attractive way of dating Luke, if it must be dated no later than 62, is to place it during the time of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea: 57-59. This is related in a we-passage which records the arrival of Paul and Luke in Jerusalem: 'When we had come to Jerusalem' (21:17), and their departure from Caesarea: 'we put to sea' (27:2). During this long stay in Palestine, Luke would have had ample opportunity for interviewing scores of witnesses and building up an accurate body of information to put in his gospel. It is perfectly possible that Luke did this, but there is evidence to suggest that we should look for an even earlier date."
The suggestion then of 2 Corinthians 8:18 is that Luke may well have been famous for having written a gospel account. The account could well have been written during the period of 49-57, when Luke does not appear to have been in the story of Acts. 2 Corinthians was written about 56, thus allowing a good period of time for Luke to have written a gospel account. p. 231 "There are noteworthy references in the great early fathers, Origen, Eusebius, Ephraem, Chrysostom, Jerome, identifying the brother 'whose praise in the gospel had spread through all the churches' with Luke." There is also some manuscript evidence that 2 Corinthians (p. 231) "was written from Philippi διά Titus and Luke. If in fact this reference is to Luke and the "gospel" is a reference to a written account, we have a date prior to 56 for the publication of the gospel.
The question remains whether or not it is appropriate to refer to "gospel" as "a written account of what Jesus did" at this time period. While the word simply means "good news" Mark 1;1 could certainly be taken to look like the title of a book, whether Mark intended it that way or not. So it is certainly possible that after the publication of Mark, subsequent authors who wrote an account of Jesus' life might be referred to as people who wrote a "gospel."
p. 237 "So then, this piece of external evidence, if we have assessed it correctly, would give us our first firm gospel date: the gospel of Luke was written before 56, the approximate date of 2 Corinthians." Wenham suggests that to become famous it would have taken at least a year's time, given the pace of travel within the Roman empire.
In chapters 6 and 7 Wenham concluded that Peter and Mark were probably in Rome from 42 to 44. As to the dating of Mark's gospel, (p. 238) "any date between 44 and the writing of Luke in the early 50s is...possible."
p. 239 "There is a suggestion [in Eusebius] that the writing of the gospel preceded the departure of Matthew from Palestine. As we have seen (pp. 160-62) there was a widespread belief that the apostles were dispersed from Jerusalem twelve years after the crucifixion." Wenham suggests, though, that Eusebius points toward an early date in the 30s or 40s for Matthew, but that Irenaeus considered the date to be in the 60s. He analyzes the data and observes that Eusebius actually seems to put Matthew in the year 41. This would be consistent with the idea of Matthew writing the gospel down before leaving Jerusalem about twelve years after the resurrection.
Wenham makes his conclusions on pp. 243-244, which I quote extensively.
"The argument of Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, which has eight major stages, has been cumulative:
1.) Verbal synoptic likenesses and differences are best explained by independent use of the primitive form of oral instruction.
2.) Genre and order are best explained by a literary relationship.
3.) In particular, Luke knew Mark's gospel.
4.) Dates should be reckoned by working back from Acts, the natural date of which is 62.
5.) Luke's gospel was apparently well known in the mid-50s.
6.) According to tradition Mark's gospel gives Peter's teaching in Rome.
7.) Peter's first visit to Rome was probably 42-44 and Mark's gospel was probably written about 45.
8.) The universal tradition of the early church puts Matthew first, which means a date around 40."
Wenham states that his theory "confirms the general soundness of early tradition, showing the external evidence and the internal evidence to be in remarkably close agreement. It gives us two gospels containing the teaching of apostles and a third by one who had followed everything closely for a long time. These were written at dates when many were alive who could confirm or contradict what was written. This means that the Christian is fully justified in accepting anything that is written in these books until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be in error. It confirms the right of the Christian church to maintain its traditional stance with regard to the foundation documents of the faith without impairing its integrity - and for that we should be thankful indeed."
p. 223 "On the face of it the synoptic apocalypse makes a date before 70 probable for all three gospels - there is no suggestion of Jesus' momentous prophecy having been fulfilled." Wenham also cites 2 Corinthians 8:18 to identify a date for Luke's gospel. p. 223 "The 'brother whose fame in the gospel is throughout the churches; is evidently Luke, and his fame derives from his gospel-book. (This usage of εὐαγγέλιον was to be expected any time after Mark 1:1 had been written.) It makes 55 the latest possible date for Luke."
p. 223 "mark is to be dated c. 45, after Peter's first visit to Rome in 42-44."
p. 223 "Matthew is to be dated before the dispersal of the apostles in 42. Irenaeus is often misinterpreted in favour of a date after Paul had reached Rome.'
As regards the dating before or after 70, Wenham observes that there is a good deal of eschatological discussion in the synoptic gospels, pointing to a great destruction. But while this is predicted, there is a difference between predictions and statements of current situations. p. 224 "The eschatological discourse foretells the shocking disaster which forty years later was to engulf the Jewish people, yet not one of them tells us that Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled."
Finding an appropriate date for Acts, since we want to put Luke before it, is important in dating. Wenham observes that the final events of Acts require a date at least as late as 62. But with the positive attitude shown in Acts about the Roman government it is hard to feature a date after 70. Scholars tend to be moving toward earlier dates for Acts, pushing it as early as 62. p. 229 "The decisive reason for rejecting 62 for the dating of Acts has been the dating of Luke (and lying behind that the dating of Mark).
So when do we date Luke? It does not seem to be the case that Luke is the first part of an organic whole. But the books are clearly by the same author and seem to have been created in the sequence of Luke followed by Acts. p. 230 "An attractive way of dating Luke, if it must be dated no later than 62, is to place it during the time of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea: 57-59. This is related in a we-passage which records the arrival of Paul and Luke in Jerusalem: 'When we had come to Jerusalem' (21:17), and their departure from Caesarea: 'we put to sea' (27:2). During this long stay in Palestine, Luke would have had ample opportunity for interviewing scores of witnesses and building up an accurate body of information to put in his gospel. It is perfectly possible that Luke did this, but there is evidence to suggest that we should look for an even earlier date."
The suggestion then of 2 Corinthians 8:18 is that Luke may well have been famous for having written a gospel account. The account could well have been written during the period of 49-57, when Luke does not appear to have been in the story of Acts. 2 Corinthians was written about 56, thus allowing a good period of time for Luke to have written a gospel account. p. 231 "There are noteworthy references in the great early fathers, Origen, Eusebius, Ephraem, Chrysostom, Jerome, identifying the brother 'whose praise in the gospel had spread through all the churches' with Luke." There is also some manuscript evidence that 2 Corinthians (p. 231) "was written from Philippi διά Titus and Luke. If in fact this reference is to Luke and the "gospel" is a reference to a written account, we have a date prior to 56 for the publication of the gospel.
The question remains whether or not it is appropriate to refer to "gospel" as "a written account of what Jesus did" at this time period. While the word simply means "good news" Mark 1;1 could certainly be taken to look like the title of a book, whether Mark intended it that way or not. So it is certainly possible that after the publication of Mark, subsequent authors who wrote an account of Jesus' life might be referred to as people who wrote a "gospel."
p. 237 "So then, this piece of external evidence, if we have assessed it correctly, would give us our first firm gospel date: the gospel of Luke was written before 56, the approximate date of 2 Corinthians." Wenham suggests that to become famous it would have taken at least a year's time, given the pace of travel within the Roman empire.
In chapters 6 and 7 Wenham concluded that Peter and Mark were probably in Rome from 42 to 44. As to the dating of Mark's gospel, (p. 238) "any date between 44 and the writing of Luke in the early 50s is...possible."
p. 239 "There is a suggestion [in Eusebius] that the writing of the gospel preceded the departure of Matthew from Palestine. As we have seen (pp. 160-62) there was a widespread belief that the apostles were dispersed from Jerusalem twelve years after the crucifixion." Wenham suggests, though, that Eusebius points toward an early date in the 30s or 40s for Matthew, but that Irenaeus considered the date to be in the 60s. He analyzes the data and observes that Eusebius actually seems to put Matthew in the year 41. This would be consistent with the idea of Matthew writing the gospel down before leaving Jerusalem about twelve years after the resurrection.
Wenham makes his conclusions on pp. 243-244, which I quote extensively.
"The argument of Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, which has eight major stages, has been cumulative:
1.) Verbal synoptic likenesses and differences are best explained by independent use of the primitive form of oral instruction.
2.) Genre and order are best explained by a literary relationship.
3.) In particular, Luke knew Mark's gospel.
4.) Dates should be reckoned by working back from Acts, the natural date of which is 62.
5.) Luke's gospel was apparently well known in the mid-50s.
6.) According to tradition Mark's gospel gives Peter's teaching in Rome.
7.) Peter's first visit to Rome was probably 42-44 and Mark's gospel was probably written about 45.
8.) The universal tradition of the early church puts Matthew first, which means a date around 40."
Wenham states that his theory "confirms the general soundness of early tradition, showing the external evidence and the internal evidence to be in remarkably close agreement. It gives us two gospels containing the teaching of apostles and a third by one who had followed everything closely for a long time. These were written at dates when many were alive who could confirm or contradict what was written. This means that the Christian is fully justified in accepting anything that is written in these books until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be in error. It confirms the right of the Christian church to maintain its traditional stance with regard to the foundation documents of the faith without impairing its integrity - and for that we should be thankful indeed."
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Jesus-Tradition Oral and Written
"Jesus-Tradition Oral and Written" Wenham pp. 217-222
In this penultimate chapter Wenham asks the very important question of why the gospels are not referred to throughout the New Testament if, in fact, they were written early. There are remarkably few specific citations of the gospels in the remainder of the New Testament and even in the immediate subapostolic period. p. 219 "The thinness of appeal to the Jesus-tradition is not confined to the literature written at a time when the existence of the gospels is debatable, but it continues into the period of the apostolic fathers."
Wenham summarizes the arguments of Thompson on pp. 219-220. "1.) Language which echose the gospels is commonest in paraenesis. But in paraenesis, where argument ceases and exhortation begins, Paul has no need to cite sources. 2.) The occasional nature of the epistles means that their purpose is not to present the ABCs of Christian tradition for neophytes, but to give particular answers to particular problems. 3.) Paul's own chief experience of Christ was on the Damascus road, and his supreme concern continues to be with Christ as he is, rather than as he was. 4.) The cross outshone all other examples of love and humility, and the resurrection outshone all other examples of power. The whole Jesus-tradition was necessary to make the gospel claim intelligible, but in paraenesis all was secondary to its great climax. 5.) Chrsitianity was builto n Judaism and this remained a source for much of what Paul taught. So it is that he had no occasion to tell his readers what Jesus habitually spoke in parables, that he healed the sick and ministered in Galilee, that he was baptised, tempted and transfigured."
We go on to see five more reasons which may have prevented the norm in the Church from being the written gospels in the early period. First, those who had heard messages from the apostles would be more likely to depend on what those apostles said rather than what they wrote. Second, while Jewish education emphasized memorization of scriptures, the Gentile converts had more of an oral culture so would have been more familiar with sayings than writings. Third, scrolls are difficult to manage and refer to. Until the common use of the codex it would be more natural to quote and paraphrase from well known events. Fourth, it was some time before churches developed a habit of reading specifically a gospel and an epistle. The epistles were read but the gospel was stated in the preaching. Finally, canonicity would have developed slowly out of apostolic authority. The apostlic teaching was seen as the authority, but the writing was not necessarily considered as the whole body of the apostolic doctrine.
p. 222 "These factors account for the paucity of references to the gospels as manuals of instruction and show that in practice reliance was placed for a long time on oral instruction rather than on written texts."
In this penultimate chapter Wenham asks the very important question of why the gospels are not referred to throughout the New Testament if, in fact, they were written early. There are remarkably few specific citations of the gospels in the remainder of the New Testament and even in the immediate subapostolic period. p. 219 "The thinness of appeal to the Jesus-tradition is not confined to the literature written at a time when the existence of the gospels is debatable, but it continues into the period of the apostolic fathers."
Wenham summarizes the arguments of Thompson on pp. 219-220. "1.) Language which echose the gospels is commonest in paraenesis. But in paraenesis, where argument ceases and exhortation begins, Paul has no need to cite sources. 2.) The occasional nature of the epistles means that their purpose is not to present the ABCs of Christian tradition for neophytes, but to give particular answers to particular problems. 3.) Paul's own chief experience of Christ was on the Damascus road, and his supreme concern continues to be with Christ as he is, rather than as he was. 4.) The cross outshone all other examples of love and humility, and the resurrection outshone all other examples of power. The whole Jesus-tradition was necessary to make the gospel claim intelligible, but in paraenesis all was secondary to its great climax. 5.) Chrsitianity was builto n Judaism and this remained a source for much of what Paul taught. So it is that he had no occasion to tell his readers what Jesus habitually spoke in parables, that he healed the sick and ministered in Galilee, that he was baptised, tempted and transfigured."
We go on to see five more reasons which may have prevented the norm in the Church from being the written gospels in the early period. First, those who had heard messages from the apostles would be more likely to depend on what those apostles said rather than what they wrote. Second, while Jewish education emphasized memorization of scriptures, the Gentile converts had more of an oral culture so would have been more familiar with sayings than writings. Third, scrolls are difficult to manage and refer to. Until the common use of the codex it would be more natural to quote and paraphrase from well known events. Fourth, it was some time before churches developed a habit of reading specifically a gospel and an epistle. The epistles were read but the gospel was stated in the preaching. Finally, canonicity would have developed slowly out of apostolic authority. The apostlic teaching was seen as the authority, but the writing was not necessarily considered as the whole body of the apostolic doctrine.
p. 222 "These factors account for the paucity of references to the gospels as manuals of instruction and show that in practice reliance was placed for a long time on oral instruction rather than on written texts."
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
How Were the Gospels Written?
"How Were the Gospels Written?" Wenham, pp. 198-216
A question central to Wenham's book is the manner of the composition of the gospels. Recent scholarship has taken a view of literary dependence which assumes a different manner of composition than is typical among authors, that is, a lifting of words and phrases from other texts in order to create a new text. Wenham suggests that this is highly unlikely. p. 198 "It is unlikely that one evangelist worked directly on the scroll of another. Ancient historians relied on their memories and the briefest of notes."
As opposed to this literary dependence, Wenham suggests an extensive oral background. The Roman culture of the time, as well as the Jewish culture, emphasized learning oral traditions, speeches, sayings, and the like. While people did clearly take notes on what they heard, the educational process generally emphasized speaking and writing from spoken sources, not writing and copying written sources.
On pp. 201-202 Wenham suggests that Matthew's gospel was written first, taking from Matthew's recollection and notes that he may well have taken over the years. He may well have written a version in Aramaic or in Greek. This gospel would have likely been based on the instruction in the life and work of Jesus which was given to people who came to Jerusalem wishing to hear from the apostles about the Christ.
Wenham discusses the writing of Marks gospel on pp. 202-207. He is clear that there are more variables to be considered in Mark's gospel. It may well have been structured based on Matthew's gospel. Tradition says the content is dependent on Peter's teaching. It is quite possible that Peter would have used a copy of Matthew's gospel in his preaching and teaching, as a prompt or an organizational aid. This would explain some of the parallelisms between Matthew and Mark. Mark also, of course, may have been quite familiar with Matthew's gospel. Yet because of the amount of concentration and work required to make an actual copy of a scroll, particularly with the customs of the time (no writing desk, for example), it is unlikely that Mark would have copied passages from Matthew. Rather, Mark would have approached the work with an intention of providing another view of Jesus' life and work, informed by Matthew and by the preaching of Peter, but not strictly dependent on Matthew's writing for quotations.
We turn our attention to Luke's gospel from pages 208-213. According to Luke's prologue there were already written sources. Yet Luke seems to have other sources of information as well, sources he trusts a good deal. Luke presents himself as someone who is experienced in the gospel and in teaching, as well as someone who has done thorough research. The length of Luke's gospel suggests that he planned it to fit within one standard scroll. This can explain his selectivity in usage of material which appears in Matthew and Mark. Matthew already gave a comprehensive account, so would have been used here and there as needed. Mark, being much shorter, may have served Luke as an outline. Based on notes pulled from those sources and his own notes, Luke could have worked out his overall plan, then cut it in order to fit on a scroll. It would seem natural for him to keep the material which was not included in the existing gospels so as to present his on view of Jesus' life.
Wenham wraps up this chapter with some notes about the genealogies of Jesus. It may well be that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, while in Matthew we have the genealogy of Joseph. It may be that one of the genealogies is one of birth and the other is one indicating the legal inheritance of the royal power of David. Whatever the differences we seem to have two different traditions for the genealogy. There is no definitive explanation.
A question central to Wenham's book is the manner of the composition of the gospels. Recent scholarship has taken a view of literary dependence which assumes a different manner of composition than is typical among authors, that is, a lifting of words and phrases from other texts in order to create a new text. Wenham suggests that this is highly unlikely. p. 198 "It is unlikely that one evangelist worked directly on the scroll of another. Ancient historians relied on their memories and the briefest of notes."
As opposed to this literary dependence, Wenham suggests an extensive oral background. The Roman culture of the time, as well as the Jewish culture, emphasized learning oral traditions, speeches, sayings, and the like. While people did clearly take notes on what they heard, the educational process generally emphasized speaking and writing from spoken sources, not writing and copying written sources.
On pp. 201-202 Wenham suggests that Matthew's gospel was written first, taking from Matthew's recollection and notes that he may well have taken over the years. He may well have written a version in Aramaic or in Greek. This gospel would have likely been based on the instruction in the life and work of Jesus which was given to people who came to Jerusalem wishing to hear from the apostles about the Christ.
Wenham discusses the writing of Marks gospel on pp. 202-207. He is clear that there are more variables to be considered in Mark's gospel. It may well have been structured based on Matthew's gospel. Tradition says the content is dependent on Peter's teaching. It is quite possible that Peter would have used a copy of Matthew's gospel in his preaching and teaching, as a prompt or an organizational aid. This would explain some of the parallelisms between Matthew and Mark. Mark also, of course, may have been quite familiar with Matthew's gospel. Yet because of the amount of concentration and work required to make an actual copy of a scroll, particularly with the customs of the time (no writing desk, for example), it is unlikely that Mark would have copied passages from Matthew. Rather, Mark would have approached the work with an intention of providing another view of Jesus' life and work, informed by Matthew and by the preaching of Peter, but not strictly dependent on Matthew's writing for quotations.
We turn our attention to Luke's gospel from pages 208-213. According to Luke's prologue there were already written sources. Yet Luke seems to have other sources of information as well, sources he trusts a good deal. Luke presents himself as someone who is experienced in the gospel and in teaching, as well as someone who has done thorough research. The length of Luke's gospel suggests that he planned it to fit within one standard scroll. This can explain his selectivity in usage of material which appears in Matthew and Mark. Matthew already gave a comprehensive account, so would have been used here and there as needed. Mark, being much shorter, may have served Luke as an outline. Based on notes pulled from those sources and his own notes, Luke could have worked out his overall plan, then cut it in order to fit on a scroll. It would seem natural for him to keep the material which was not included in the existing gospels so as to present his on view of Jesus' life.
Wenham wraps up this chapter with some notes about the genealogies of Jesus. It may well be that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, while in Matthew we have the genealogy of Joseph. It may be that one of the genealogies is one of birth and the other is one indicating the legal inheritance of the royal power of David. Whatever the differences we seem to have two different traditions for the genealogy. There is no definitive explanation.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
"Ancient Testimony to Luke's Gospel"
"Ancient Testimony to Luke's Gospel" Wenham, pp. 183-197
p. 183 "Testimony is virtually universal that the author of the third gospel was Luke, the beloved physician and companion of Paul."
p. 183 "clement of Alexandria says that 'those gospels were first written which include the genealogies'. This would seem to mean that Luke (and Matthew) were written before Mark (and John). This is the strongest argument in the Griesbach case, for Clement is early (c. 150-215) and well informed."
Wenham sets out to answer who the author of Luke might be and where it comes in the sequence of the gospels.
p. 184 "The unanimous testimony of the early Christian writers attributes the gospel to Luke. This is found in irenaeus, the Muratorian fragment, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and in those who came after, and is never disputed. They usually make clear that he was the companion of Paul."
The issue of the anonymity seems to clash with the early identification of the author, though. People have tried to identify Luke as the author based on the knowledge that there was a Luke with Paul sometimes, though he is not identified as Paul's chronicler anywhere. Some have attempted to identify Luke by the process of elimination. Streeter observes that the preface would not make sense to readers without knowledge of the author.
p. 185 "It is probable that Theophilus' own copy would have been tagged with the author's name. Private libraries were common among the rich, and before placing a book-roll in the library, it was customary to tag it. Unlike oriental practice, Greco-Roman libraries were indexed by the author's name. Thus the authorship of a catalogued book which had no author's name in the text would nonetheless be known beyond doubt to its readers, and this was presumably true of Luke."
Wenham discusses several other, but possibly less persuasive, theories which can point to Luke as the author. p. 186 "The three other traditions of Luke's identity to which we referred are of little value as historical evidence." He then goes on to discuss a tradition that Luke was one of the seventy and therefore would have had information about that mission and would have had access to Jesus and the apostles. There is another tradition, which is supported by the identity of Luke as one of the seventy, that he was the disciple on the Emmaus road who is not named. We also see some suggestions that Lucius of Cyrene, Paul's kinsman (Romans 16:21) was the Antiochan church leader. None of those traditions help us identify the author, but they do all point to someone who was present early in the Christian period. p. 187 "The earlier we envisage Luke participating in the Christian mission the stronger will be the case for taking his narrative as a sound historical source."
The question of the sequence of the gospels is open to debate as well. Some point out that Clement, quoted by Eusebius, may suggest that the gospels including genealogies were first. This would suggest that Matthew and Luke came before Mark and John. However, Origen knew the order to be Matthew, Mark, then Luke. p. 189 (quoting Origen) "...as having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter's instructions, whom also Peter acknowledged as his son in the catholic epistle, speaking in these terms: 'She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.' And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe], the Gospel that was praised by Paul. After them all, that according to John. (HE 6.25.3-6)"
Wenham quotes Zahn on p. 190. "What Origen gives as a tradition, without any thought of a divergent view, is expressed also by Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian fragment without the least indication of uncertaintiy. It continued to be the prevalent view of antiquity, and it was this more than anything else which brought it about, that the arrangement of the Gospels familiar to us displaced more and more the other arrangements..."
The difficulty is a parallel tradition involving Clement and Origen, two church fathers who were near each other in time (Clement was Origen's teacher). He traces Zahn's argument in some detail.
Augustine listed the gospels in order as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, Augustine tends to make some other statements which could suggest that Mark appears dependent on Matthew and Luke. Yet the statements of Augustine do not appear to be entirely clear. Augustine may suggest affinity without suggesting dependence.
Wenham concludes the chapter without necessarily resolving the difficulty. He has stated strengths and weaknesses of a variety of arguments. The chapter actually closes with questions about whether or not we are wise looking for literary relationships and particularly literary dependence. This is the big question of Wenham's book.
p. 183 "Testimony is virtually universal that the author of the third gospel was Luke, the beloved physician and companion of Paul."
p. 183 "clement of Alexandria says that 'those gospels were first written which include the genealogies'. This would seem to mean that Luke (and Matthew) were written before Mark (and John). This is the strongest argument in the Griesbach case, for Clement is early (c. 150-215) and well informed."
Wenham sets out to answer who the author of Luke might be and where it comes in the sequence of the gospels.
p. 184 "The unanimous testimony of the early Christian writers attributes the gospel to Luke. This is found in irenaeus, the Muratorian fragment, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and in those who came after, and is never disputed. They usually make clear that he was the companion of Paul."
The issue of the anonymity seems to clash with the early identification of the author, though. People have tried to identify Luke as the author based on the knowledge that there was a Luke with Paul sometimes, though he is not identified as Paul's chronicler anywhere. Some have attempted to identify Luke by the process of elimination. Streeter observes that the preface would not make sense to readers without knowledge of the author.
p. 185 "It is probable that Theophilus' own copy would have been tagged with the author's name. Private libraries were common among the rich, and before placing a book-roll in the library, it was customary to tag it. Unlike oriental practice, Greco-Roman libraries were indexed by the author's name. Thus the authorship of a catalogued book which had no author's name in the text would nonetheless be known beyond doubt to its readers, and this was presumably true of Luke."
Wenham discusses several other, but possibly less persuasive, theories which can point to Luke as the author. p. 186 "The three other traditions of Luke's identity to which we referred are of little value as historical evidence." He then goes on to discuss a tradition that Luke was one of the seventy and therefore would have had information about that mission and would have had access to Jesus and the apostles. There is another tradition, which is supported by the identity of Luke as one of the seventy, that he was the disciple on the Emmaus road who is not named. We also see some suggestions that Lucius of Cyrene, Paul's kinsman (Romans 16:21) was the Antiochan church leader. None of those traditions help us identify the author, but they do all point to someone who was present early in the Christian period. p. 187 "The earlier we envisage Luke participating in the Christian mission the stronger will be the case for taking his narrative as a sound historical source."
The question of the sequence of the gospels is open to debate as well. Some point out that Clement, quoted by Eusebius, may suggest that the gospels including genealogies were first. This would suggest that Matthew and Luke came before Mark and John. However, Origen knew the order to be Matthew, Mark, then Luke. p. 189 (quoting Origen) "...as having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter's instructions, whom also Peter acknowledged as his son in the catholic epistle, speaking in these terms: 'She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.' And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe], the Gospel that was praised by Paul. After them all, that according to John. (HE 6.25.3-6)"
Wenham quotes Zahn on p. 190. "What Origen gives as a tradition, without any thought of a divergent view, is expressed also by Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian fragment without the least indication of uncertaintiy. It continued to be the prevalent view of antiquity, and it was this more than anything else which brought it about, that the arrangement of the Gospels familiar to us displaced more and more the other arrangements..."
The difficulty is a parallel tradition involving Clement and Origen, two church fathers who were near each other in time (Clement was Origen's teacher). He traces Zahn's argument in some detail.
Augustine listed the gospels in order as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, Augustine tends to make some other statements which could suggest that Mark appears dependent on Matthew and Luke. Yet the statements of Augustine do not appear to be entirely clear. Augustine may suggest affinity without suggesting dependence.
Wenham concludes the chapter without necessarily resolving the difficulty. He has stated strengths and weaknesses of a variety of arguments. The chapter actually closes with questions about whether or not we are wise looking for literary relationships and particularly literary dependence. This is the big question of Wenham's book.
Friday, February 3, 2012
"Mark's Gospel: Further Considerations"
"Mark's Gospel: Further Considerations" Wenham pp. 173-182
This chapter discusses additional considerations about the dating of Mark's Gospel.
pp. 173-174 "Another possible source of information about the writing of Mark's gospel is the tradition of the Alexandrian church. We have seen that the dismissal of the age-long tradition of the Roman church by nineteenth-century scholars may have been ill judged. Perhaps the same applies to Alexandria."
Wenham goes on to cite early authorities who state that Mark went to Egypt, proclaiming the gospel which he had previously written.
p. 175 "Thus in the fourth century, not only does Alexandria claim Mark as its founder, but this claim is acknowledged in East and West, and it has remained the steadfast tradition of the Coptic church to the present day."
p. 175 "It is a case of putting Eusebius' encyclopedic knowledge of the Eastern church together with the solid tradition of the Copts against conclusions based on what Roberts calls the 'jejune and scrappy references' available to present-day scholars in our extant literary sources."
We then look at the ease of travel for both people and documents in imperial Rome, documenting that it was fairly easy for people to travel throughout the Mediterranean region.
Wenham discusses the fragment 7Q5, which may possibly be asserted to be a fragment of Mark 6:52 and following. pp. 178-179 "If 7Q5 is tentatively identified with Mark 6:52f, some of O'Callaghan's other identifications at once become plausible. 7Q4 fits 1 Timothy 3:16-4:3 (O'Callaghan thinks this certain) and 7Q8 fits James 1:23f. That epistles like 1 Timothy and James, commonly dated round about the end of the century, should have been in the possession of a Christian community in Palestine in 68 is a conclusion almost too shocking to be contemplated! But if the traditional dating of these New Testament documents is in general sounder than the modern dating (as the present book maintains), there is nothing impossible about it. We ought therefore, in spite of the fragmentary nature of the evidence, to keep the possibility in mind."
Finally, Wenham looks at some internal features of Mark, indicating that the vividness of details may indicate a very early authorship, not bearing the marks of a long tradition which could smooth out the physicality of the gospel.
Wenham's conclusion is that Mark's gospel was informed by Peter's preaching and that it was handed down to the church after Peter's death, probably having been written some time before that, possibly as early as the first half of the 40s.
This chapter discusses additional considerations about the dating of Mark's Gospel.
pp. 173-174 "Another possible source of information about the writing of Mark's gospel is the tradition of the Alexandrian church. We have seen that the dismissal of the age-long tradition of the Roman church by nineteenth-century scholars may have been ill judged. Perhaps the same applies to Alexandria."
Wenham goes on to cite early authorities who state that Mark went to Egypt, proclaiming the gospel which he had previously written.
p. 175 "Thus in the fourth century, not only does Alexandria claim Mark as its founder, but this claim is acknowledged in East and West, and it has remained the steadfast tradition of the Coptic church to the present day."
p. 175 "It is a case of putting Eusebius' encyclopedic knowledge of the Eastern church together with the solid tradition of the Copts against conclusions based on what Roberts calls the 'jejune and scrappy references' available to present-day scholars in our extant literary sources."
We then look at the ease of travel for both people and documents in imperial Rome, documenting that it was fairly easy for people to travel throughout the Mediterranean region.
Wenham discusses the fragment 7Q5, which may possibly be asserted to be a fragment of Mark 6:52 and following. pp. 178-179 "If 7Q5 is tentatively identified with Mark 6:52f, some of O'Callaghan's other identifications at once become plausible. 7Q4 fits 1 Timothy 3:16-4:3 (O'Callaghan thinks this certain) and 7Q8 fits James 1:23f. That epistles like 1 Timothy and James, commonly dated round about the end of the century, should have been in the possession of a Christian community in Palestine in 68 is a conclusion almost too shocking to be contemplated! But if the traditional dating of these New Testament documents is in general sounder than the modern dating (as the present book maintains), there is nothing impossible about it. We ought therefore, in spite of the fragmentary nature of the evidence, to keep the possibility in mind."
Finally, Wenham looks at some internal features of Mark, indicating that the vividness of details may indicate a very early authorship, not bearing the marks of a long tradition which could smooth out the physicality of the gospel.
Wenham's conclusion is that Mark's gospel was informed by Peter's preaching and that it was handed down to the church after Peter's death, probably having been written some time before that, possibly as early as the first half of the 40s.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
"The Date of Peter's Going to Rome"
"The Date of Peter's Going to Rome" Wenham, pp. 146-172
This chapter was of great interest to me. I had always wondered where the tradition came from that Peter was in Rome, as there seems to be no mention of it in the Scripture. Wenham lays the ideas out in very clear terms.
p. 146 "For many centuries the church of Rome held that Peter in fact arrived there after his escape from prison in 42 (when it is said that he 'went to another place', Acts 12:17) and that he was in some sense the overseer of that church for twenty-five years."
This idea, paired with Mark's being informed by Peter's preaching to write his gospel, gives us insight into the possible dating of the gospel. p. 147 "The substantial truth of the patristic tradition about Mark could be maintained without necessitating a date somewhere after the mid-60s, and a date as early as the mid-40s becomes possible."
So how are we going to argue for Peter's presence in Rome, when (largely Protestant) recent scholarship tends to deny it?
p. 149 "There was a large and world-famous church in Rome in 57 with which Paul had been in contact for some years. . . When Paul arrived in Italy in 60 he found brethren at the great port of Puteoli with whom he stayed for seven days." Judging from the many greetings to the churches (plural) in Rome found in Paul's epistle to the Romans, written from Corinth in 57, this was a well-established church. This can explain the fact that Priscilla and Aquila, whom Paul meets in Acts 18, coming from Italy. There had been an expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius, possibly because of dissension among Jews over the question of Christ. This occurred about the year 50.
p. 154 "According to a well-grounded tradition the foundation of the church in Rome was laid by Peter in the second year of Claudius." It is possible that Paul is hinting at this by his intention only to stop briefly in Rome to visit. p. 155 "It was his policy not to preach the gospel where Christ had already been named, lest he 'build on another man's foundation' (Rom. 1520-24). While the idea of the powerful church at Rome does not require a powerful founder, (p. 155) "it gains force if (as missionary experience in general confirms) the church of Rome did not arise merely through the chance movements of Christian converts, but was in large measure the result of one man's vision and work."
Early tradition, though there are some discrepancies, seems to point toward Peter serving as a leader of the church in Rome either from Claudius' second year to Nero's last year (42-67) or else from the ascension of the Lord to the year 55. Wenham discusses this on p. 157. He then cites Edmundson's analysis of Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, and Irenaeus. The conclusion that Irenaeus makes as quoted by Edmundson is cited on p. 159 of Wenham. "The Blessed Apostles, having founded and established the Church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his epistles to Timothy, Anencletus succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement received the episcopate." It seems no mistake, then, that early Roman tradition places the church in Rome on the foundation of Peter and Paul, not Paul or Peter individually.
p. 165 "This tradition fits without difficulty into the account of Peter in Acts. Direct evidence for Peter's movements after the death of Stephen is scanty: we find him at Samaria (Acts 8:14), and moving about among all the growing churches of Judea, Galilee and Samaria (9:31ff); we find him nitiating the first Gentile misson at Caesarea (10:1-11:18). During Agrippa's reign (41-44) he escaped from Jerusalem and fled Agrippa's territory (12:1-17). e was in Jerusalem again for the visit of Paul and Barnabas in 46 (Gal. 2:1-10) and for the Apostolic Council of 49 (Acts 15:1-21). He visited Antioch (Gal. 2:11) and had associations with the churches in Asia Minor (1 Pet. 1:1). In 54 Paul can speak of Peter 'leading around a wife', presumably moving from place to place in missionary work (1 Cor. 9:5). This shows that Peter was not a resident ἐπίσκοπος in Rome for twenty-five years. But before its appropriation by the developing Christian church ἐπίσκοπος was no a technical ecclesiastical term and it would have been a suitable description, for instance, of Paul as a non-residential overseer of the churches which he had founded."
So as we look at the evidence, the idea of Peter being mostly based in Rome from about 42 until his death in 67 makes a great deal of sense.
p. 171 "Rome's claim to Petrine foundation was unchallenged throughout the church."
pp. 171-172 "The argument is cumulative. Paul seems to have regarded this large and world-famous church as having a founder. An immensely strong tradition, accepted by the most learned men in the early church, says that its foundation was laid by Pter in the second year of the reign of Claudius. This is indirectly and independently confirmed by the traditions concerning the apostles' twelve-year stay in Jerusalem and concerning Peter's confrontation with Simon Magus in Rome. The movements of Peter and Mark as seen in the rest of the New Testament readily fit in. The tradition was unchallenged throughout the church."
This chapter was of great interest to me. I had always wondered where the tradition came from that Peter was in Rome, as there seems to be no mention of it in the Scripture. Wenham lays the ideas out in very clear terms.
p. 146 "For many centuries the church of Rome held that Peter in fact arrived there after his escape from prison in 42 (when it is said that he 'went to another place', Acts 12:17) and that he was in some sense the overseer of that church for twenty-five years."
This idea, paired with Mark's being informed by Peter's preaching to write his gospel, gives us insight into the possible dating of the gospel. p. 147 "The substantial truth of the patristic tradition about Mark could be maintained without necessitating a date somewhere after the mid-60s, and a date as early as the mid-40s becomes possible."
So how are we going to argue for Peter's presence in Rome, when (largely Protestant) recent scholarship tends to deny it?
p. 149 "There was a large and world-famous church in Rome in 57 with which Paul had been in contact for some years. . . When Paul arrived in Italy in 60 he found brethren at the great port of Puteoli with whom he stayed for seven days." Judging from the many greetings to the churches (plural) in Rome found in Paul's epistle to the Romans, written from Corinth in 57, this was a well-established church. This can explain the fact that Priscilla and Aquila, whom Paul meets in Acts 18, coming from Italy. There had been an expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius, possibly because of dissension among Jews over the question of Christ. This occurred about the year 50.
p. 154 "According to a well-grounded tradition the foundation of the church in Rome was laid by Peter in the second year of Claudius." It is possible that Paul is hinting at this by his intention only to stop briefly in Rome to visit. p. 155 "It was his policy not to preach the gospel where Christ had already been named, lest he 'build on another man's foundation' (Rom. 1520-24). While the idea of the powerful church at Rome does not require a powerful founder, (p. 155) "it gains force if (as missionary experience in general confirms) the church of Rome did not arise merely through the chance movements of Christian converts, but was in large measure the result of one man's vision and work."
Early tradition, though there are some discrepancies, seems to point toward Peter serving as a leader of the church in Rome either from Claudius' second year to Nero's last year (42-67) or else from the ascension of the Lord to the year 55. Wenham discusses this on p. 157. He then cites Edmundson's analysis of Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, and Irenaeus. The conclusion that Irenaeus makes as quoted by Edmundson is cited on p. 159 of Wenham. "The Blessed Apostles, having founded and established the Church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his epistles to Timothy, Anencletus succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement received the episcopate." It seems no mistake, then, that early Roman tradition places the church in Rome on the foundation of Peter and Paul, not Paul or Peter individually.
p. 165 "This tradition fits without difficulty into the account of Peter in Acts. Direct evidence for Peter's movements after the death of Stephen is scanty: we find him at Samaria (Acts 8:14), and moving about among all the growing churches of Judea, Galilee and Samaria (9:31ff); we find him nitiating the first Gentile misson at Caesarea (10:1-11:18). During Agrippa's reign (41-44) he escaped from Jerusalem and fled Agrippa's territory (12:1-17). e was in Jerusalem again for the visit of Paul and Barnabas in 46 (Gal. 2:1-10) and for the Apostolic Council of 49 (Acts 15:1-21). He visited Antioch (Gal. 2:11) and had associations with the churches in Asia Minor (1 Pet. 1:1). In 54 Paul can speak of Peter 'leading around a wife', presumably moving from place to place in missionary work (1 Cor. 9:5). This shows that Peter was not a resident ἐπίσκοπος in Rome for twenty-five years. But before its appropriation by the developing Christian church ἐπίσκοπος was no a technical ecclesiastical term and it would have been a suitable description, for instance, of Paul as a non-residential overseer of the churches which he had founded."
So as we look at the evidence, the idea of Peter being mostly based in Rome from about 42 until his death in 67 makes a great deal of sense.
p. 171 "Rome's claim to Petrine foundation was unchallenged throughout the church."
pp. 171-172 "The argument is cumulative. Paul seems to have regarded this large and world-famous church as having a founder. An immensely strong tradition, accepted by the most learned men in the early church, says that its foundation was laid by Pter in the second year of the reign of Claudius. This is indirectly and independently confirmed by the traditions concerning the apostles' twelve-year stay in Jerusalem and concerning Peter's confrontation with Simon Magus in Rome. The movements of Peter and Mark as seen in the rest of the New Testament readily fit in. The tradition was unchallenged throughout the church."
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
"Ancient Testimony to Mark's Gospel"
"Ancient Testimony to Mark's Gospel" Wenham, pp. 136-145
p. 136 "Eusebius quote Papias, who in turn quotes John the Presbyter. . . who says that Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord. . . Eusebius contrasts the orderly arrangement of Matthew with the less structured oral teaching of Peter."
p. 136 "Irenaeus tells how Mark the disciple of Peter handed on Peter's teaching after the latter's 'exodus' - probably his death. . . Clement of Alexandria says that Mark wrote at the request of leading Christians in Rome and that Peter later gave his approval. Origen says that Mark wrote on the instruction of Peter."
It seems there is a strong tradition that Mark's Gospel is heavily influenced, even dependent on the teaching and preaching of Peter. The book and traditions about the book show all the signs of coming from Rome.
Eusebius quotes from Papias. Though it is impossible to tell where Papias ends and Euesebius begins in the quote, (p. 137) "The main thrust of the whole statement appears to be a contrasting of the recollections of Mark derived from the preaching and teaching of Peter with the more orderly arrangement of the gospel of Matthew." The first sentence of the quotation of Papias makes four points.
p. 137 "1.) Mark became Peter's ἑρμηνεθτής." This is an interpreter, not necessarily a translator. Mark's role may well have been to expound on what Peter said, to explain it for others.
p. 138 "2.) He wrote 'accurately'."
p. 138 "3.) He wrote fully."
p. 138 "4.) He wrote 'not in order'." Mark has a greater emphasis on the Lord's activity than Matthew. He has a tendency to be less orderly in his chronology. This is a sign that Mark may well have pulled from Peter's preaching and teaching rather than from any sort of historical notes, as Matthew may have done.
Irenaeus discusses both Mark's gospel, identifying him as a disciple of Peter and as the person who has handed over apostolic teaching, probably shortly after the death of Peter. p. 139 "The passage contrasts the traditions of the heretics with the public declarations of the apostles, first preached, then committed to writing and now preserved in the church. Irenaeus does not say that after the death of Peter and Paul, Mark wrote his gospel, but that he has handed on the preaching of Peter to us in writing. Any suggestion of discontinuity between the time of preaching and the time of writing would weaken his argument, and no such notion should be read into it.
Some manuscripts of the New Testament have prologues to Mark known as the "anti-Marcionite" prologues. Mark's says, among other things, (p. 140) post excessionem ipsius Petri descripsit idem hoc in partibus Italiae evangelium . . . descripsit suggests what is absent from, or at best ambiguous in, Irenaeus - that Mark wrote down his gospel after Peter's death.
Clement of Alexandria also is quoted by Eusebius. p. 141 "Clement has inserted a tradition of the primitive elders . . . those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward."
Eusebius also quotes a passage from Origen, saying, (p. 142) "And second, that according to Mark, who did as Peter instructed him, whom also he acknowledged as a son in the catholic epistle."
p. 142 "All these testimonies point to a solid core of tradition, which makes Mark the author of the gospel, which makes him a fellow-worker with Peter, and which makes his book a faithful record of what that apostle taught in Rome. The tradition is not entirely clear as to whether he wrote before or after the apostle's death."
The next step to adequate dating of Mark's Gospel is, therefore, to identify when Peter was teaching in Rome and when Peter died.
p. 136 "Eusebius quote Papias, who in turn quotes John the Presbyter. . . who says that Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord. . . Eusebius contrasts the orderly arrangement of Matthew with the less structured oral teaching of Peter."
p. 136 "Irenaeus tells how Mark the disciple of Peter handed on Peter's teaching after the latter's 'exodus' - probably his death. . . Clement of Alexandria says that Mark wrote at the request of leading Christians in Rome and that Peter later gave his approval. Origen says that Mark wrote on the instruction of Peter."
It seems there is a strong tradition that Mark's Gospel is heavily influenced, even dependent on the teaching and preaching of Peter. The book and traditions about the book show all the signs of coming from Rome.
Eusebius quotes from Papias. Though it is impossible to tell where Papias ends and Euesebius begins in the quote, (p. 137) "The main thrust of the whole statement appears to be a contrasting of the recollections of Mark derived from the preaching and teaching of Peter with the more orderly arrangement of the gospel of Matthew." The first sentence of the quotation of Papias makes four points.
p. 137 "1.) Mark became Peter's ἑρμηνεθτής." This is an interpreter, not necessarily a translator. Mark's role may well have been to expound on what Peter said, to explain it for others.
p. 138 "2.) He wrote 'accurately'."
p. 138 "3.) He wrote fully."
p. 138 "4.) He wrote 'not in order'." Mark has a greater emphasis on the Lord's activity than Matthew. He has a tendency to be less orderly in his chronology. This is a sign that Mark may well have pulled from Peter's preaching and teaching rather than from any sort of historical notes, as Matthew may have done.
Irenaeus discusses both Mark's gospel, identifying him as a disciple of Peter and as the person who has handed over apostolic teaching, probably shortly after the death of Peter. p. 139 "The passage contrasts the traditions of the heretics with the public declarations of the apostles, first preached, then committed to writing and now preserved in the church. Irenaeus does not say that after the death of Peter and Paul, Mark wrote his gospel, but that he has handed on the preaching of Peter to us in writing. Any suggestion of discontinuity between the time of preaching and the time of writing would weaken his argument, and no such notion should be read into it.
Some manuscripts of the New Testament have prologues to Mark known as the "anti-Marcionite" prologues. Mark's says, among other things, (p. 140) post excessionem ipsius Petri descripsit idem hoc in partibus Italiae evangelium . . . descripsit suggests what is absent from, or at best ambiguous in, Irenaeus - that Mark wrote down his gospel after Peter's death.
Clement of Alexandria also is quoted by Eusebius. p. 141 "Clement has inserted a tradition of the primitive elders . . . those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward."
Eusebius also quotes a passage from Origen, saying, (p. 142) "And second, that according to Mark, who did as Peter instructed him, whom also he acknowledged as a son in the catholic epistle."
p. 142 "All these testimonies point to a solid core of tradition, which makes Mark the author of the gospel, which makes him a fellow-worker with Peter, and which makes his book a faithful record of what that apostle taught in Rome. The tradition is not entirely clear as to whether he wrote before or after the apostle's death."
The next step to adequate dating of Mark's Gospel is, therefore, to identify when Peter was teaching in Rome and when Peter died.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
"Ancient Testimony to Matthew's Gospel"
"Ancient Testimony to Matthew's Gospel" Wenham, pp. 116-135
It is appropriate to consider ancient sources of information about pieces of ancient literature.
THE COMMON WITNESS TO AUTHORSHIP
p. 117 "The fathers regularly make the following points:
1.) Matthew the tax-collector, otherwise known as Levi, one of the twelve, was the author.
2.) His was the first gospel to be written.
3.) He wrote for Hebrews in the Hebrew language (and in the Hebrew script)."
Wehnam goes on to quote and summarize testimony of Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Cyril of Jerusalem. He observes that similar testimony continues through the early and later fathers.
THE TRADITION DISCOUNTED
p. 119 "To begin with, the references to Jewish Christian gospels in the fathers and in later writers form a notoriously complex study concerning which no consensus has yet emerged." Church fathers often did not refer to a book specifically by name. They also had a tendency to refer to one book by any of several names. Citations were often made from memory, as paraphrases, so it is sometimes difficult to find the kind of evidence which modern historians would like. pp. 120-121 "But, while it is possible to find arguments that whittle away the whole tradition, it needs to be remembered that these arguments only open up the possibility that all came from a single erroneous source, they constitute no proof." We cannot find an autograph manuscript of any New Testament text, nor could we definitively prove that a purported autograph from the middle of the first century was either truly original or falsified. We are left then with tradition. p. 121 "As far as we know, there was only one tradition known to scholars and historians of the early and medieval church which they considered worth recording, and we need not lightly assume that it all sprang from an erroneous statement of one denigrated Phrygian bishop which obliterated knowledge of the true facts."
THE TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS
Papias, who lived and worked near the end of the first century and beginning of the second century may well have written his observations about the origin of the Gospels very shortly after the apostolic period, possibly during the lifetime of John. Papias' information about the origin of Matthew's gospel purports to come from John the "presbyter" who may be identified with the apostle or may be identified with a follower of one or more of the apostles. He clearly identifies that Matthew wrote a gospel.
DISCOUNTING THE EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS
p. 125 "Four means have been used to discredit his testimony:
1.) insistence of Matthew's derivation from Mark;
2.) emphasis on the ambivalence of Eusebius;
3.) attempted explanations of how Papias got it wrong;
4.) attempted reinterpretations of Papias.
Matthew's Use of Mark
p. 125 "Modern critical opinion has for a long time been almost unanimous that Papias was wrong - certainly about the first gospel being originally in Hebrew and probably about Matthew being the author. This derives principally from the vast measure of assent given to the theory that our Greek Matthew was based on the Greek Mark. This makes it impossible to believe that Matthew is a translation from a Semitic original, and difficult to believe that it is the work of an eyewitness apostle."
The ambivalence of Eusebius
Eusebius was not enthusiastic of Papias, attributing to him millennarian attitudes and tending to erode impressions of Papias' intelligence. Eusebius takes this to an extreme as he attempts to show that Papias' identification of a separate apostle John and a presbyter John was in error. Yet Papias has said what he has said. p. 128 "Papias claimed (and why should we doubt him?) that he made it his practice to get his information from those who had got it direct from the apostles, a good deal of it before the last of those who had accompanied Jesus were dead, and some of it may well have come from the apostle John himself." p. 128 "There is no alternative tradition about the authorship of Matthew's gospel, as there is in the case of hebrews, nor was there doubt of its apostolic authorship, as htere was in the case, for instance, of 2 Peter."
Attempts to explain how Papias got his ideas wrong
Scholars in the past 150 years have emphasized that the composition of a gospel by one of the apostles seemingly of lesser importance is unlikely. They have also tried to tie Papias' statemtn of what Matthew wrote to something other than a gospel account, something more like a collection of the sayings of Jesus which may have been lost by now.
Attempst to reinterpret Papias' expression Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ
Papias was a rhetorician. It is quite possible that he would have taken the term "in the Hebrew dialect" to mean "following a Hebraic style." Yet Eusebius may well have taken the term to mean "in the Hebrew language," i.e., "in Aramaic." This is a debate which is not easily resolved. There is evidence that Matthew is written in a rather sophisticated style, consistent with a text written in Greek, not translated from Hebrew. Yet there are Hebraic elements evident in the composition. The tax collector Levi would certainly have been someone of adequate education to make good notes and communicate effectively in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. There is therefore no reason to reject any of the possible scenarios of composition.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TITLES
While there was only one written gospel there would be no reason to attach a name to it. As soon as there were two a name would become important. Books in antiquity were generally titled with the name of the author in genitive, for example, "of Plato" followed by a brief title, for example, "Physics." However, the gospels never circulated with titles of this sort. They appear to have assumed the word "gospel" then they were identified by a prepositional phrase, "according to Matthew." This may well have been a scribal practice, typical for putting a label on a scroll to identify the contents readily. The titles are uniform for as long as we have found titles. There is no evidence that any of the gospels ever circulated under any other name. This should bear some weight in a discussion of the origin of a text.
It is appropriate to consider ancient sources of information about pieces of ancient literature.
THE COMMON WITNESS TO AUTHORSHIP
p. 117 "The fathers regularly make the following points:
1.) Matthew the tax-collector, otherwise known as Levi, one of the twelve, was the author.
2.) His was the first gospel to be written.
3.) He wrote for Hebrews in the Hebrew language (and in the Hebrew script)."
Wehnam goes on to quote and summarize testimony of Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Cyril of Jerusalem. He observes that similar testimony continues through the early and later fathers.
THE TRADITION DISCOUNTED
p. 119 "To begin with, the references to Jewish Christian gospels in the fathers and in later writers form a notoriously complex study concerning which no consensus has yet emerged." Church fathers often did not refer to a book specifically by name. They also had a tendency to refer to one book by any of several names. Citations were often made from memory, as paraphrases, so it is sometimes difficult to find the kind of evidence which modern historians would like. pp. 120-121 "But, while it is possible to find arguments that whittle away the whole tradition, it needs to be remembered that these arguments only open up the possibility that all came from a single erroneous source, they constitute no proof." We cannot find an autograph manuscript of any New Testament text, nor could we definitively prove that a purported autograph from the middle of the first century was either truly original or falsified. We are left then with tradition. p. 121 "As far as we know, there was only one tradition known to scholars and historians of the early and medieval church which they considered worth recording, and we need not lightly assume that it all sprang from an erroneous statement of one denigrated Phrygian bishop which obliterated knowledge of the true facts."
THE TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS
Papias, who lived and worked near the end of the first century and beginning of the second century may well have written his observations about the origin of the Gospels very shortly after the apostolic period, possibly during the lifetime of John. Papias' information about the origin of Matthew's gospel purports to come from John the "presbyter" who may be identified with the apostle or may be identified with a follower of one or more of the apostles. He clearly identifies that Matthew wrote a gospel.
DISCOUNTING THE EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS
p. 125 "Four means have been used to discredit his testimony:
1.) insistence of Matthew's derivation from Mark;
2.) emphasis on the ambivalence of Eusebius;
3.) attempted explanations of how Papias got it wrong;
4.) attempted reinterpretations of Papias.
Matthew's Use of Mark
p. 125 "Modern critical opinion has for a long time been almost unanimous that Papias was wrong - certainly about the first gospel being originally in Hebrew and probably about Matthew being the author. This derives principally from the vast measure of assent given to the theory that our Greek Matthew was based on the Greek Mark. This makes it impossible to believe that Matthew is a translation from a Semitic original, and difficult to believe that it is the work of an eyewitness apostle."
The ambivalence of Eusebius
Eusebius was not enthusiastic of Papias, attributing to him millennarian attitudes and tending to erode impressions of Papias' intelligence. Eusebius takes this to an extreme as he attempts to show that Papias' identification of a separate apostle John and a presbyter John was in error. Yet Papias has said what he has said. p. 128 "Papias claimed (and why should we doubt him?) that he made it his practice to get his information from those who had got it direct from the apostles, a good deal of it before the last of those who had accompanied Jesus were dead, and some of it may well have come from the apostle John himself." p. 128 "There is no alternative tradition about the authorship of Matthew's gospel, as there is in the case of hebrews, nor was there doubt of its apostolic authorship, as htere was in the case, for instance, of 2 Peter."
Attempts to explain how Papias got his ideas wrong
Scholars in the past 150 years have emphasized that the composition of a gospel by one of the apostles seemingly of lesser importance is unlikely. They have also tried to tie Papias' statemtn of what Matthew wrote to something other than a gospel account, something more like a collection of the sayings of Jesus which may have been lost by now.
Attempst to reinterpret Papias' expression Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ
Papias was a rhetorician. It is quite possible that he would have taken the term "in the Hebrew dialect" to mean "following a Hebraic style." Yet Eusebius may well have taken the term to mean "in the Hebrew language," i.e., "in Aramaic." This is a debate which is not easily resolved. There is evidence that Matthew is written in a rather sophisticated style, consistent with a text written in Greek, not translated from Hebrew. Yet there are Hebraic elements evident in the composition. The tax collector Levi would certainly have been someone of adequate education to make good notes and communicate effectively in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. There is therefore no reason to reject any of the possible scenarios of composition.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TITLES
While there was only one written gospel there would be no reason to attach a name to it. As soon as there were two a name would become important. Books in antiquity were generally titled with the name of the author in genitive, for example, "of Plato" followed by a brief title, for example, "Physics." However, the gospels never circulated with titles of this sort. They appear to have assumed the word "gospel" then they were identified by a prepositional phrase, "according to Matthew." This may well have been a scribal practice, typical for putting a label on a scroll to identify the contents readily. The titles are uniform for as long as we have found titles. There is no evidence that any of the gospels ever circulated under any other name. This should bear some weight in a discussion of the origin of a text.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Building a Synoptic Theory: (3) The Relation of Matthew to Mark
"Building a Synoptic theory: (3) The Relation of {Matthew to Mark" Wenham, pp. 88-115.
p. 88 "Matthew's relation to Mark can be satisfactorily explained on the lines of patristic tradition."
Wenham suggests, on p. 89, "There are three main possibilities as to the relation of the first two gospels: 1.) They are independent; 2.) Matthew used Mark; 3.) Mark used Matthew." In modern scholarship we typically see a view that favors Mark being written first and Matthew depending upon Mark and one or more other sources. There are numerous objections to the primacy of Matthew, even though until fairly recently it was assumed that Matthew was composed first.
p. 91 "It is difficult to believe that Mark would have omitted so much important Matthean material had he known of its existence. . . If it is supposed that Mark was intended as a replacement of Matthew, it has great weight - we should indeed be much the poorer without the great discourses and all Matthew's unique contributions. But whoever suggested that this was the intention?"
p. 91 "Mark's wealth of detail is a prima facie indication of priority . . . Wealth of detail would make it an acceptable supplement, but in itself it has nothing to do with order of production."
p. 92 "Matthew's account of the death of the Baptist requires a knowledge of Mark's account." Yet this is not necessarily the case. "It is perfectly possible that Herod was torn between great annoyance that John had repeatedly denounced his sexual sin in public, and respect for one he knew to be a good man. There is no need for Matthew to have known Mark's gospel, it is sufficient that he should have known the fuller story."
p. 92 "Matthew 27:15-18 has destroyed the logic of Mark 15:6-10."
p. 93 "The claim is that Mark's 'comparatively clear' sequence 'seems' to have a logic which has been blurred by Matthew, whose account lacks 'clear logic'. This appears to be hypercriticism with no real basis. The point of the statement 'For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up' may not be immediately obvious - but this applies equally to both gospels. They are both making the point that Pilate knew Jesus to be innocent, and he hoped that the demand of the people would get him out of his predicament."
Judging from the evidence displayed, Wenham is unconvinced that Matthew or Mark was written in dependence on the other. He suggests that it is quite possible that Mark was written with a knowledge of, but not dependence upon, Matthew. He goes on to discuss several reasons this seems to be a valid hypothesis.
p. 94 Matthew looks original. "Whether he assembled recollections and testimonies of his own or whether his work was based on Mark and other sources, all must admit that it was a careful and brilliantly successful operation. It is difficult to see it as the result of making eight thousand alterations to someone else's work. But of course it is not impossible."
p. 95 Matthew looks early and Palestinian. "Matthew's account looks like a vivid record of a terrible clash between Jesus and the religious leaders, rather than a veiled polemic of church against synagogue."
p. 96 "Mark looks like Peter's version of the same Palestinian tradition composed for Jewish and Gentile readers outside Palestine."
p. 97 "It looks as though Mark is omitting Matthean material at certain points."
p. 101 "Matthean priority provides the better rationale for the differences in order between the two gospels."
p. 109 "Matthew looks as though it may have been originally in a Semitic language."
p. 115 "To sum up our investigation of the internal evidence of the symoptic problem thus far: There seems to be a good case for believing that Matthew, possibly in a Semitic language, was the first gospel; that Mark is substantially the teaching of Peter, who knew Matthew's gospel; and that Luke knew and used both matthew and Mark. However, Mark shows a large measure of independence of Matthew, and Luke shows a large measure of independence of both. These conclusions (which have already to some extent anticipated it) will be seen to fit the external evidence remarkably well."
p. 88 "Matthew's relation to Mark can be satisfactorily explained on the lines of patristic tradition."
Wenham suggests, on p. 89, "There are three main possibilities as to the relation of the first two gospels: 1.) They are independent; 2.) Matthew used Mark; 3.) Mark used Matthew." In modern scholarship we typically see a view that favors Mark being written first and Matthew depending upon Mark and one or more other sources. There are numerous objections to the primacy of Matthew, even though until fairly recently it was assumed that Matthew was composed first.
p. 91 "It is difficult to believe that Mark would have omitted so much important Matthean material had he known of its existence. . . If it is supposed that Mark was intended as a replacement of Matthew, it has great weight - we should indeed be much the poorer without the great discourses and all Matthew's unique contributions. But whoever suggested that this was the intention?"
p. 91 "Mark's wealth of detail is a prima facie indication of priority . . . Wealth of detail would make it an acceptable supplement, but in itself it has nothing to do with order of production."
p. 92 "Matthew's account of the death of the Baptist requires a knowledge of Mark's account." Yet this is not necessarily the case. "It is perfectly possible that Herod was torn between great annoyance that John had repeatedly denounced his sexual sin in public, and respect for one he knew to be a good man. There is no need for Matthew to have known Mark's gospel, it is sufficient that he should have known the fuller story."
p. 92 "Matthew 27:15-18 has destroyed the logic of Mark 15:6-10."
p. 93 "The claim is that Mark's 'comparatively clear' sequence 'seems' to have a logic which has been blurred by Matthew, whose account lacks 'clear logic'. This appears to be hypercriticism with no real basis. The point of the statement 'For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up' may not be immediately obvious - but this applies equally to both gospels. They are both making the point that Pilate knew Jesus to be innocent, and he hoped that the demand of the people would get him out of his predicament."
Judging from the evidence displayed, Wenham is unconvinced that Matthew or Mark was written in dependence on the other. He suggests that it is quite possible that Mark was written with a knowledge of, but not dependence upon, Matthew. He goes on to discuss several reasons this seems to be a valid hypothesis.
p. 94 Matthew looks original. "Whether he assembled recollections and testimonies of his own or whether his work was based on Mark and other sources, all must admit that it was a careful and brilliantly successful operation. It is difficult to see it as the result of making eight thousand alterations to someone else's work. But of course it is not impossible."
p. 95 Matthew looks early and Palestinian. "Matthew's account looks like a vivid record of a terrible clash between Jesus and the religious leaders, rather than a veiled polemic of church against synagogue."
p. 96 "Mark looks like Peter's version of the same Palestinian tradition composed for Jewish and Gentile readers outside Palestine."
p. 97 "It looks as though Mark is omitting Matthean material at certain points."
p. 101 "Matthean priority provides the better rationale for the differences in order between the two gospels."
p. 109 "Matthew looks as though it may have been originally in a Semitic language."
p. 115 "To sum up our investigation of the internal evidence of the symoptic problem thus far: There seems to be a good case for believing that Matthew, possibly in a Semitic language, was the first gospel; that Mark is substantially the teaching of Peter, who knew Matthew's gospel; and that Luke knew and used both matthew and Mark. However, Mark shows a large measure of independence of Matthew, and Luke shows a large measure of independence of both. These conclusions (which have already to some extent anticipated it) will be seen to fit the external evidence remarkably well."
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Building a Synoptic Theory: (2) The Relation of Luke to Matthew
"Building a Synoptic Theory: (2) The Relation of Luke to Matthew" Wenham, pp. 40-87
p. 40 "Luke may be presumed to keep to the sense of his other sources. The differences of sense between the Q-material of Matthew and of Luke make dependence on Q or large-scaled borrowing from Matthew improbable."
Wenham suggests that Luke shows in places that he does not borrow from Mark and change the overall meaning of what he borrows. This suggests that Luke would be similar in his work with other sources.
p. 41 "When comparing Luke with Mark we have seen how consistently he keeps to Mark's sense. Since his aim was to confirm Theophilus in the truth, it follows that he would only have used sources which eh believed to be trustworthy, and that he would have been as faithful to them as he was to Mark."
The problem which then arises is that scholars have suggested a hypothetical "Q" document which served as a source for the evangelists. If both Luke and Matthew borrowed heavily from this document but took its information quite differently from each other, one or both of them misrepresented it. Wenham is going to consider the claims that Luke borrowed from a "Q" but made significant innovations. He'll look at it first in the central section of Luke, then the Sermon on the Level Place, then the rest of Luke.
1. The Central Section (9:51-18:14)
p. 43 "If Q is regarded as a single Greek document roughly coterminous with the material not found in Mark which is common to Matthew and Luke, the Q theory is sufficiently precise for thorough investigation."
THE ARGUMENT FROM ORDER
p. 43 "Where several pericopes, which have no apparent logical or chronological succession, are found in the same order, a natural possible inference is a literary connection. Similarly, if a sequence of material is broken by an omission or by the intrusion of new matter and is then resumed again, a literary connection is a natural explanation."
Yet on p. 44 Wehnam points out passages where the order of events in Matthew and Luke are in a significantly different order. He discusses various views of how the order may have been derived, but observes that all fall short in that they require us to know what a source document may have contained and in what order. I observe that all the theories discussed seem to indicate that authors are slavishly trying to follow or purposely modify an existing pattern, either to protect their presuppositions or to alter an historical account.
THE ARGUMENT FROM WORDING
p. 51 "Redaction critics tend to see the redactionary process as something quite complex, so it may seem naive to try to assess the probability of a literary connection by simply laying parallel passages side by side and asking ourselves whether they look as though one is adapting the text of the other."
The arguments from wording in redaction criticism strike me as being weak. Because there is some similarity in wording, even a slight similarity, a redaction critic often suggests a literary relationship. This is not necessarily the case. In fact, people speaking about similar events tend to use similar language. Wenham introduces a section of comparison of different Greep passages in which he highlights similarities and differences.
p. 54 "In the case of Mark (as we have seen) Luke almost invariably keeps to his sense, but this (as we shall now show) is not so in the Q-material. Even in the ten fairly long passages (pp. 55-66 below) where there is general agreement in wording and sense the relation does not appear to be a literary one; in the nine examples (pp. 67-76) where the sense is markedly different a literary connection is improbable in the extreme."
p. 59 "If to some the wording seems to close for separate utterances retained in separate minds over several years, it needs to be remembered that in addition to a tendency towards divergence there could also have been a tendency towards assimilation when similar sayings were taught in the church."
Wenham is suggesting, then, that different authors may use different vocabulary and style to discuss the same matters, particularly if they are depending not on a source as a literary quote-book, but if they are depending rather on the events detailed in a source book. There is also a tendency to start using the same language to discuss matters when the matters are discussed within the context of an assembly such as a church body. One person uses a particularly apt manner of expression and others follow suit. This is not strictly a literary dependence.
p. 63 "The Beelzebul controversy (11:14-32) has perhaps the most plausible claim to a literary connection. It has nineteen verses which run parallel to the twenty-four verses of Matthew 12:22-45. Not only are several of the sayings of Jesus found in identical or nearly identical form, but there is a sustained similarity of order throughout much of the passage. In addition the setting, including the reactions of Jesus and of the crowds, is similar."
Wenham sums up his argument briefly on p. 66 "Looking at the Q-material studied thus far, it does not look as though the Luke who followed Mark so closely would have constructed passages out of Matthew in this way. Nor does it look as though the two evangelists followed a single common Q-source, since it would have entailed (particularly as we shall see, in the nine most divergent passages) one or other or both of them treating its different parts in too inconsistent a way."
He then goes on to bring out nine passages with sense differences between Luke and Matthew.
THE ORIGIN OF LUKE'S CENTRAL SECTION
pp. 76-77 "If the Q-material of the Central Section does not come from the one or more Qs or from Matthew, what is the alternative? The simplest answer is the most revolutionary. The answer could be that these Q-passages have no common literary, or even oral, origin, but derive from different sayings of Jesus."
The material can be explained easily with five arguments Wenham explains on pp. 77-79.
1. It fits the claims of the narrative.
2. It fits Luke's claims for his sources.
3. It would explain the extraordinary interest in the mission of the seventy.
4. It would explain the order of the material.
5. It would account for the verbal likenesses and unlikenesses.
Wenham goes on to discuss the Great Sermon, Luke 6:20-49, which has a strong parallel in the Sermon on the Mount. Though the parallels are strong, Wenham does not think there is a clear literary dependence, because there are significant differences which would seem very odd in a literary derivation.
He goes on to talk about the remainder of Luke's Gospel, addressing five Q-passages in the rest of the book. Because the passages do not seem to line up with their parallels very well, we are faced with problems from a standpoint of literary dependence. We would expect that two authors who are not trying to be misleading would report their sources in approximately the same manner. Yet Luke and Matthew seem to report this alleged source very differently from one another.
p. 83 "This brings us back to the question of method in redaction criticism. Thus far we have simply laid the Q-passages side by side and asked the question: Does the similarity necessitate a belief that there is a direct literary connection between them? And the answer (except in rare cases) seems plainly to be, No. But of course moern writers do not conceive the relationship in this simplistic fashion. We have quoted from Fitzmyer, who presents his theory of Luke's composition with elegant sophistication. We saw in his treatment of the Coming Crisis in Luke 12:49-59 on p. 69 a case in point. He found there in succession: L, L heavily modified, Q, redaction, Q, a passage where six words out of forty-seven agree with Matthew - partly Lukan composition, partly L, Lukan composition, Q. This is all right, if one is assured a) that the relationship is primarily literary, b) that Luke was in the habit of altering the substance of his sources, c) that Q actually existed, d) that L source(s) actually existed, e) that Luke (whether by inspiration or not) created a good deal of his material de novo. But all these propositions are debatable and they beg the very question that we are investigating."
With all this data, Wenham asks a probing question on p. it. "But might it not be that Luke has kept to the sense of Q and that Matthew has done nearly all the changing?" What are other options?
p. 86 "just as Luke would not have altered a Q of the Matthean type in the way supposed, neither would Matthew have done so to one of the Lukan type. That both Matthew and Luke would have made major changes sufficient to account for the divergences between the two known versions of the Q- material is of precisely equal improbability" - we simply don't have adequate data to assess the way hypothetical sources were used.
p. 87 "Finally, we must consider the possibility that Luke got his Q- material direct from Matthew."
p. 87 "The picture which is emerging would suggest that Luke had two documents which are known to us which he used quite differently but equally scrupulously. He took Mark as his guide to the basic framework of the gospel, following the order and main substance of Mark's pericopes in the first third and final third of his book, though seldom following his actual wording. Matthew he seems to have used in a minor way to provide some supplementary information in the early part of the book."
However we stack it, it seems to me that forming a theory of literary dependence is going to be very difficult and fraught with weaknesses. It does not seem a way that authors write, which to me throws up a very substantial difficulty.
p. 40 "Luke may be presumed to keep to the sense of his other sources. The differences of sense between the Q-material of Matthew and of Luke make dependence on Q or large-scaled borrowing from Matthew improbable."
Wenham suggests that Luke shows in places that he does not borrow from Mark and change the overall meaning of what he borrows. This suggests that Luke would be similar in his work with other sources.
p. 41 "When comparing Luke with Mark we have seen how consistently he keeps to Mark's sense. Since his aim was to confirm Theophilus in the truth, it follows that he would only have used sources which eh believed to be trustworthy, and that he would have been as faithful to them as he was to Mark."
The problem which then arises is that scholars have suggested a hypothetical "Q" document which served as a source for the evangelists. If both Luke and Matthew borrowed heavily from this document but took its information quite differently from each other, one or both of them misrepresented it. Wenham is going to consider the claims that Luke borrowed from a "Q" but made significant innovations. He'll look at it first in the central section of Luke, then the Sermon on the Level Place, then the rest of Luke.
1. The Central Section (9:51-18:14)
p. 43 "If Q is regarded as a single Greek document roughly coterminous with the material not found in Mark which is common to Matthew and Luke, the Q theory is sufficiently precise for thorough investigation."
THE ARGUMENT FROM ORDER
p. 43 "Where several pericopes, which have no apparent logical or chronological succession, are found in the same order, a natural possible inference is a literary connection. Similarly, if a sequence of material is broken by an omission or by the intrusion of new matter and is then resumed again, a literary connection is a natural explanation."
Yet on p. 44 Wehnam points out passages where the order of events in Matthew and Luke are in a significantly different order. He discusses various views of how the order may have been derived, but observes that all fall short in that they require us to know what a source document may have contained and in what order. I observe that all the theories discussed seem to indicate that authors are slavishly trying to follow or purposely modify an existing pattern, either to protect their presuppositions or to alter an historical account.
THE ARGUMENT FROM WORDING
p. 51 "Redaction critics tend to see the redactionary process as something quite complex, so it may seem naive to try to assess the probability of a literary connection by simply laying parallel passages side by side and asking ourselves whether they look as though one is adapting the text of the other."
The arguments from wording in redaction criticism strike me as being weak. Because there is some similarity in wording, even a slight similarity, a redaction critic often suggests a literary relationship. This is not necessarily the case. In fact, people speaking about similar events tend to use similar language. Wenham introduces a section of comparison of different Greep passages in which he highlights similarities and differences.
p. 54 "In the case of Mark (as we have seen) Luke almost invariably keeps to his sense, but this (as we shall now show) is not so in the Q-material. Even in the ten fairly long passages (pp. 55-66 below) where there is general agreement in wording and sense the relation does not appear to be a literary one; in the nine examples (pp. 67-76) where the sense is markedly different a literary connection is improbable in the extreme."
p. 59 "If to some the wording seems to close for separate utterances retained in separate minds over several years, it needs to be remembered that in addition to a tendency towards divergence there could also have been a tendency towards assimilation when similar sayings were taught in the church."
Wenham is suggesting, then, that different authors may use different vocabulary and style to discuss the same matters, particularly if they are depending not on a source as a literary quote-book, but if they are depending rather on the events detailed in a source book. There is also a tendency to start using the same language to discuss matters when the matters are discussed within the context of an assembly such as a church body. One person uses a particularly apt manner of expression and others follow suit. This is not strictly a literary dependence.
p. 63 "The Beelzebul controversy (11:14-32) has perhaps the most plausible claim to a literary connection. It has nineteen verses which run parallel to the twenty-four verses of Matthew 12:22-45. Not only are several of the sayings of Jesus found in identical or nearly identical form, but there is a sustained similarity of order throughout much of the passage. In addition the setting, including the reactions of Jesus and of the crowds, is similar."
Wenham sums up his argument briefly on p. 66 "Looking at the Q-material studied thus far, it does not look as though the Luke who followed Mark so closely would have constructed passages out of Matthew in this way. Nor does it look as though the two evangelists followed a single common Q-source, since it would have entailed (particularly as we shall see, in the nine most divergent passages) one or other or both of them treating its different parts in too inconsistent a way."
He then goes on to bring out nine passages with sense differences between Luke and Matthew.
THE ORIGIN OF LUKE'S CENTRAL SECTION
pp. 76-77 "If the Q-material of the Central Section does not come from the one or more Qs or from Matthew, what is the alternative? The simplest answer is the most revolutionary. The answer could be that these Q-passages have no common literary, or even oral, origin, but derive from different sayings of Jesus."
The material can be explained easily with five arguments Wenham explains on pp. 77-79.
1. It fits the claims of the narrative.
2. It fits Luke's claims for his sources.
3. It would explain the extraordinary interest in the mission of the seventy.
4. It would explain the order of the material.
5. It would account for the verbal likenesses and unlikenesses.
Wenham goes on to discuss the Great Sermon, Luke 6:20-49, which has a strong parallel in the Sermon on the Mount. Though the parallels are strong, Wenham does not think there is a clear literary dependence, because there are significant differences which would seem very odd in a literary derivation.
He goes on to talk about the remainder of Luke's Gospel, addressing five Q-passages in the rest of the book. Because the passages do not seem to line up with their parallels very well, we are faced with problems from a standpoint of literary dependence. We would expect that two authors who are not trying to be misleading would report their sources in approximately the same manner. Yet Luke and Matthew seem to report this alleged source very differently from one another.
p. 83 "This brings us back to the question of method in redaction criticism. Thus far we have simply laid the Q-passages side by side and asked the question: Does the similarity necessitate a belief that there is a direct literary connection between them? And the answer (except in rare cases) seems plainly to be, No. But of course moern writers do not conceive the relationship in this simplistic fashion. We have quoted from Fitzmyer, who presents his theory of Luke's composition with elegant sophistication. We saw in his treatment of the Coming Crisis in Luke 12:49-59 on p. 69 a case in point. He found there in succession: L, L heavily modified, Q, redaction, Q, a passage where six words out of forty-seven agree with Matthew - partly Lukan composition, partly L, Lukan composition, Q. This is all right, if one is assured a) that the relationship is primarily literary, b) that Luke was in the habit of altering the substance of his sources, c) that Q actually existed, d) that L source(s) actually existed, e) that Luke (whether by inspiration or not) created a good deal of his material de novo. But all these propositions are debatable and they beg the very question that we are investigating."
With all this data, Wenham asks a probing question on p. it. "But might it not be that Luke has kept to the sense of Q and that Matthew has done nearly all the changing?" What are other options?
p. 86 "just as Luke would not have altered a Q of the Matthean type in the way supposed, neither would Matthew have done so to one of the Lukan type. That both Matthew and Luke would have made major changes sufficient to account for the divergences between the two known versions of the Q- material is of precisely equal improbability" - we simply don't have adequate data to assess the way hypothetical sources were used.
p. 87 "Finally, we must consider the possibility that Luke got his Q- material direct from Matthew."
p. 87 "The picture which is emerging would suggest that Luke had two documents which are known to us which he used quite differently but equally scrupulously. He took Mark as his guide to the basic framework of the gospel, following the order and main substance of Mark's pericopes in the first third and final third of his book, though seldom following his actual wording. Matthew he seems to have used in a minor way to provide some supplementary information in the early part of the book."
However we stack it, it seems to me that forming a theory of literary dependence is going to be very difficult and fraught with weaknesses. It does not seem a way that authors write, which to me throws up a very substantial difficulty.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
"Building a Synoptic Theory: (1) The Relation of Luke to Mark"
"Building a Synoptic Theory: (1) The Relation of Luke to Mark" Wenham, pp. 11-39
In this chapter Wenham builds three steps toward his theory. First, he attempts to show that Luke was familiar with Mark's gospel. Second, he observes (p. 11) that "fifty-two pericopes of Luke and Mark have a common origin...fourteen others cover the same ground, but show no signs of common origin." Finally, he observes (p. 11) that "Luke keeps to the sense of mark in the truly parallel passages."
The foundation of some of the text-critical work has been identifying words or series of words which appear in multiple different gospels. Wenham includes charts which demonstrate that there are similarities of numerous words in numerous passages between Mark and Luke. He seems more interested in the fact that Luke follows Mark in a substantial number of pericopes, keeping them in the same order. The use of particular phrases and clauses is not actually very widespread.
p. 19 "If we think of Luke as working directly on the scroll of Mark, we find that he often omits from, adds to or gives a more polished version of Mark's story, but he almost always does so without changing the basic meaning. This is particularly true with regard to the words of Jesus." It seems that where there are passages with identical or nearly identical wording, they tend to be quotations of Jesus. This is consistent with a strong oral tradition of the sayings of Jesus.
p. 20 "It cannot be too strongly stated that one evangelist's knowledge of the work of another does not necessarily mean that his work is a modification of the other." This strikes me as an instance of Wenham being quite fair with the evangelists. Just as a modern author can be familiar with another author and be informed by that other author's writing does not mean that we are simply re-writing what the other author said.
Wenham spends pp. 21-39 giving texts of common passages along with highlights of similarities and commentary on the similarity and differences he finds. A warning - this portion of the book is largely quotations in Greek which are not translated. If you read Greek it's quite clear. If not, prepare for a mystery.
My observation of the texts Wenham quotes is that they seem related in their vocabulary and usage in only a casual way. Because they are statements of the same events they tend to use similar vocabulary. Verb tenses, cases of significant nouns, etc., all point to a natural phenomenon which we observe when speaking of the same events. This observation of mine is consistent with what Wenham seems to be affirming, that the authors acted rather independently of one another but were quite aware of a standard collection of events about which they would write.
In this chapter Wenham builds three steps toward his theory. First, he attempts to show that Luke was familiar with Mark's gospel. Second, he observes (p. 11) that "fifty-two pericopes of Luke and Mark have a common origin...fourteen others cover the same ground, but show no signs of common origin." Finally, he observes (p. 11) that "Luke keeps to the sense of mark in the truly parallel passages."
The foundation of some of the text-critical work has been identifying words or series of words which appear in multiple different gospels. Wenham includes charts which demonstrate that there are similarities of numerous words in numerous passages between Mark and Luke. He seems more interested in the fact that Luke follows Mark in a substantial number of pericopes, keeping them in the same order. The use of particular phrases and clauses is not actually very widespread.
p. 19 "If we think of Luke as working directly on the scroll of Mark, we find that he often omits from, adds to or gives a more polished version of Mark's story, but he almost always does so without changing the basic meaning. This is particularly true with regard to the words of Jesus." It seems that where there are passages with identical or nearly identical wording, they tend to be quotations of Jesus. This is consistent with a strong oral tradition of the sayings of Jesus.
p. 20 "It cannot be too strongly stated that one evangelist's knowledge of the work of another does not necessarily mean that his work is a modification of the other." This strikes me as an instance of Wenham being quite fair with the evangelists. Just as a modern author can be familiar with another author and be informed by that other author's writing does not mean that we are simply re-writing what the other author said.
Wenham spends pp. 21-39 giving texts of common passages along with highlights of similarities and commentary on the similarity and differences he finds. A warning - this portion of the book is largely quotations in Greek which are not translated. If you read Greek it's quite clear. If not, prepare for a mystery.
My observation of the texts Wenham quotes is that they seem related in their vocabulary and usage in only a casual way. Because they are statements of the same events they tend to use similar vocabulary. Verb tenses, cases of significant nouns, etc., all point to a natural phenomenon which we observe when speaking of the same events. This observation of mine is consistent with what Wenham seems to be affirming, that the authors acted rather independently of one another but were quite aware of a standard collection of events about which they would write.
Monday, January 2, 2012
"The Intractable Problem"
"The Intractable Problem" Wenham pp. 1-10
The intractable problem Wenham identifies in chapter 1 is that Matthew, Mark and Luke are similar in many instances but have a significant degree of difference. Scholars have looked at the possibility that Matthew and Luke used Mark and some unknown source (Q) but their confidence in this view is waning.
p. 1 "For nearly a hundred years the search has been for literary solutions. Before that, belief in a common form of basic oral instruction was popular, Westcott being its most notable expositor. His views were eclipsed by the Oxford School: Sanday, Hawkins and Streeter. It is, however, perfectly possible for oral tradition to be accurately transmitted..."
Despite the idea of independence, it is clear that the Gospels are not completely independent. There seems to be an overall order of events, even of very specific details. The Gospels do not seem to exist in a vacuum. However they do not follow a pattern slavishly.
In the past century most scholars have held to a two-document hypothesis, with Mark and the hypothetical "Q" document informing Matthew and Luke. But this view has been dissatisfactory. The methodological problems involved in reconstructing a hypothetical source document and deciding the level of dependence shown in a derivative work are manifold. "Much of the argumentation is worth very little, because so many of the arguments are reversible: they can be argued either way with approximately equal cogency. This makes it essential to look for those arguments which have real weight. Another methodological snare is the temptation to fit the facts to a procrustean bed through looking for the wrong sort of solution" (p. 3).
But Wenham observes that the Gospels do exist and that they are related in some manner. A sufficient explanation of the relationship should be able to take care of all the data points observed. He goes on to observe (p. 3) "It will be noticed that the research of the last hundred years has been dominated by a belief in direct literary connections, yet a century ago the then reigning view (at least in the English-speaking world) relied on common oral tradition to explain the likenesses between the gospels." Specifically, Westcott observed that there was likely an oral tradition which would have maintained an order of events and a good deal of detail of those events, the apostolic tradition, which the evangelists would have drawn on to lay out their literary accounts. Because they were familiar with the same body of teaching and because of the orality of the culture at large they would naturally have used similar phrasing in many instances. Yet their individual literary styles would come through.
p. 4 "That the relationship is primarily literary rather than oral has been the assumption underlying most of the work of the present centry. This is strikingly illustrated by Farmer in The Synoptic Problem, where Westcott is dismissed in a footnote."
pp. 4-5 "The great question is: Have we been justified in placing so much emphasis on documentary relationships? Lying behind this is the even more basic question. Can one distinguish documentary dependence from indebtedness to a common oral tradition?"
p. 5 "as soon as there is identity of expression for more than about a dozen words in succession, one leaps to the conclusion that the connection must be literary. But this is not a safe conclusion...(examples of common statements)...Much more would Greek-speaking Christians in the first century have memorised many of the sayings of Jesus in whatever form they were commonly taught."
Wenham is, therefore, suggesting that the literary philosophy which counts words in common is founded on an illusory premise, that the only reason particular words or combinations of words would be used is that they were found in a source document. He refers to recent scholars who have suggested complete independence of some of the gospel accounts. In a summary of works by J.M. Rist, B. Reicke, and J.W. Scott Wenham points out that there are flaws in a theory of complete independence. After all, there are striking similarities in some of the subject matter of the gospels.
p. 7 "[This] means in Matthew 14-28 and Mark 65:14-16:8 seventy items all in order (except for a minor difference in the way the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig-tree are related), and this in spite of various omissions or additions by one or the other evangelist [exists]. Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, it seems more likely that one evangelist followed the other or that both followed a common written source, than that a standard order for reciting the oral tradition had been memorised, but not consistently adhered to."
Scott's suggestion is that Luke's reference to sources in the prologue of his gospel is a reference only to oral sources, never to written sources. However Wenham observes that "Luke's words are in fact compatible with his knowing only oral traditions, or knowing Mark and Q, or knowing Matthew and Mark" (p. 8).
In conclusion, Wenham considers that the intricate structure of the Gospels is not likely to exist outside of some written source which could inform authors. There is evidence that information traveled quite quickly and broadly, suggesting that the evangelists would be familiar with other Christian writings. Yet there are distinct orders of events known but not consistently adhered to, allowing for a large measure of independence among the evangelists.
The intractable problem Wenham identifies in chapter 1 is that Matthew, Mark and Luke are similar in many instances but have a significant degree of difference. Scholars have looked at the possibility that Matthew and Luke used Mark and some unknown source (Q) but their confidence in this view is waning.
p. 1 "For nearly a hundred years the search has been for literary solutions. Before that, belief in a common form of basic oral instruction was popular, Westcott being its most notable expositor. His views were eclipsed by the Oxford School: Sanday, Hawkins and Streeter. It is, however, perfectly possible for oral tradition to be accurately transmitted..."
Despite the idea of independence, it is clear that the Gospels are not completely independent. There seems to be an overall order of events, even of very specific details. The Gospels do not seem to exist in a vacuum. However they do not follow a pattern slavishly.
In the past century most scholars have held to a two-document hypothesis, with Mark and the hypothetical "Q" document informing Matthew and Luke. But this view has been dissatisfactory. The methodological problems involved in reconstructing a hypothetical source document and deciding the level of dependence shown in a derivative work are manifold. "Much of the argumentation is worth very little, because so many of the arguments are reversible: they can be argued either way with approximately equal cogency. This makes it essential to look for those arguments which have real weight. Another methodological snare is the temptation to fit the facts to a procrustean bed through looking for the wrong sort of solution" (p. 3).
But Wenham observes that the Gospels do exist and that they are related in some manner. A sufficient explanation of the relationship should be able to take care of all the data points observed. He goes on to observe (p. 3) "It will be noticed that the research of the last hundred years has been dominated by a belief in direct literary connections, yet a century ago the then reigning view (at least in the English-speaking world) relied on common oral tradition to explain the likenesses between the gospels." Specifically, Westcott observed that there was likely an oral tradition which would have maintained an order of events and a good deal of detail of those events, the apostolic tradition, which the evangelists would have drawn on to lay out their literary accounts. Because they were familiar with the same body of teaching and because of the orality of the culture at large they would naturally have used similar phrasing in many instances. Yet their individual literary styles would come through.
p. 4 "That the relationship is primarily literary rather than oral has been the assumption underlying most of the work of the present centry. This is strikingly illustrated by Farmer in The Synoptic Problem, where Westcott is dismissed in a footnote."
pp. 4-5 "The great question is: Have we been justified in placing so much emphasis on documentary relationships? Lying behind this is the even more basic question. Can one distinguish documentary dependence from indebtedness to a common oral tradition?"
p. 5 "as soon as there is identity of expression for more than about a dozen words in succession, one leaps to the conclusion that the connection must be literary. But this is not a safe conclusion...(examples of common statements)...Much more would Greek-speaking Christians in the first century have memorised many of the sayings of Jesus in whatever form they were commonly taught."
Wenham is, therefore, suggesting that the literary philosophy which counts words in common is founded on an illusory premise, that the only reason particular words or combinations of words would be used is that they were found in a source document. He refers to recent scholars who have suggested complete independence of some of the gospel accounts. In a summary of works by J.M. Rist, B. Reicke, and J.W. Scott Wenham points out that there are flaws in a theory of complete independence. After all, there are striking similarities in some of the subject matter of the gospels.
p. 7 "[This] means in Matthew 14-28 and Mark 65:14-16:8 seventy items all in order (except for a minor difference in the way the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig-tree are related), and this in spite of various omissions or additions by one or the other evangelist [exists]. Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, it seems more likely that one evangelist followed the other or that both followed a common written source, than that a standard order for reciting the oral tradition had been memorised, but not consistently adhered to."
Scott's suggestion is that Luke's reference to sources in the prologue of his gospel is a reference only to oral sources, never to written sources. However Wenham observes that "Luke's words are in fact compatible with his knowing only oral traditions, or knowing Mark and Q, or knowing Matthew and Mark" (p. 8).
In conclusion, Wenham considers that the intricate structure of the Gospels is not likely to exist outside of some written source which could inform authors. There is evidence that information traveled quite quickly and broadly, suggesting that the evangelists would be familiar with other Christian writings. Yet there are distinct orders of events known but not consistently adhered to, allowing for a large measure of independence among the evangelists.
"Introduction: A Radical Thesis"
"Introduction: A Radical Thesis" Wenham, xxi-xxiv
I picked this book up for a course project report in a seminary class. Wenham seems to be approaching the idea of New Testament criticism from a point of view similar to that which I was trained in as a philologist. He looks at the Gospels as pieces of literature which were influenced and informed by the time and setting of their authors, including by other pieces of literature known to the authors. Here are a few quotes that I think summarize the introduction well.
xxi "Each evangelist writes in the way he habitually teaches, literary dependence being minimal in so far as his choice of words is concerned."
xxii "The book is in fact an investigation of the whole synoptic problem, considering both internal and external evidence, believing that there is an overall consistency between them. Dating plays a significant part in the web of evidence."
xxiii "A new approach to the synoptic problem is attempted which denies literary dependence as the primary explanation of the likenesses of the gospels and which also questions complete literary independence."
xxiii "As this book is an argument in favour of the high value of Christian tradition with regard to three major books of the New Testament, I am naturally predisposed towards the traditional authorship of its other books. They have all had able defenders and I shall provisionally assume that their conclusions are satisfactory and then try to see how the case looks when this assumption is made."
I picked this book up for a course project report in a seminary class. Wenham seems to be approaching the idea of New Testament criticism from a point of view similar to that which I was trained in as a philologist. He looks at the Gospels as pieces of literature which were influenced and informed by the time and setting of their authors, including by other pieces of literature known to the authors. Here are a few quotes that I think summarize the introduction well.
xxi "Each evangelist writes in the way he habitually teaches, literary dependence being minimal in so far as his choice of words is concerned."
xxii "The book is in fact an investigation of the whole synoptic problem, considering both internal and external evidence, believing that there is an overall consistency between them. Dating plays a significant part in the web of evidence."
xxiii "A new approach to the synoptic problem is attempted which denies literary dependence as the primary explanation of the likenesses of the gospels and which also questions complete literary independence."
xxiii "As this book is an argument in favour of the high value of Christian tradition with regard to three major books of the New Testament, I am naturally predisposed towards the traditional authorship of its other books. They have all had able defenders and I shall provisionally assume that their conclusions are satisfactory and then try to see how the case looks when this assumption is made."
Wenham Reference
Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark, & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)