Theological and Theoretical Issues in the Synoptic Problem

John S. Kloppenborg, Joseph Verheyden, John S. Kloppenborg, Joseph Verheyden

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780567688262
• eBook ISBN: 9780567688293
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

This volume addresses the Synoptic Problem and how it emerged in a historical context closely connected with challenges to the historical reliability of the gospels; questions the ability of scholarship arriving at a compelling reconstruction of the historical Jesus; the limits of the canon; and an examination of the relationship between the historical reliability of gospel material and ecclesial dogma that was presumed to flow from the gospels. The contributors, all experts in the Synoptic Problem, probe various sites and issues in the 19th and 20th century to elaborate how the Synoptic Problem and scholarship on the synoptic gospels was seen to complement, undergird, or complicate theological views. By exploring topics ranging from the Q hypothesis to the Markan priority and the Two Document hypothesis, this volume supplies extensive theological context to the beginnings of synoptic scholarship from an entirely new perspective.

1

Theological Issues at Stake in Early-Twentieth-Century Research on the Synoptic Problem

Christopher Tuckett

1. Whose “Stakes”?

The title for this chapter was originally suggested to me by the organizers of the colloquium that has resulted in the present volume of essays.¹ Its wording provides something of an “intertextual echo” of the titles of two essays by John Kloppenborg: cf. his “Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem” and “Conceptual Stakes in the Synoptic Problem.”² “Issues at stake” are not far removed from “theological/conceptual stakes,” so the three titles are very similar. The titles are, however, a little ambiguous. Above all, whose are the “stakes” implied? Who decides what is “at stake”? Is an essay with such a title intended to be a historical investigation of what people at the time thought were the stakes involved? Or is it intended as a judgment of the modern author, perhaps trying to extend the discussion to consider (“theological”) issues that others at the time had thus far ignored?

In his two essays, Kloppenborg seems to imply that the “stakes” are issues that he identifies, and that others have not considered and/or have ignored. Thus, in his earlier essay, he highlights the way in which different source theories affect theological issues more broadly (rather than focusing on the minutiae of details involving vocabulary choices or the somewhat formal aspects of the phenomenon of order) and raises the issue of whether some source theories are more plausible than others in this respect. He focuses in particular on the presentation of the disciples in Mark and shows how a Griesbach (or “2GH”) Mark must have heightened very considerably the negative, polemical picture of the disciples and of Peter; and all this is then difficult to square with at least one highly influential 2GH defender’s [William R. Farmer] overall explanation of the origin of Mark’s gospel as a Petrine—and “eirenic”—production seeking to mediate between the gospels of Matthew and Luke.³ By forcing the debate about the Synoptic Problem into areas beyond discussion of tiny details of wording, and considering broader “theological” issues, Kloppenborg succeeded in extending the discussion about competing hypotheses to take account of wider concerns. Yet this was something that he himself brought to the discussion: it was not an issue already there in the debate brought in by advocates and defenders of the 2GH.⁴ In both essays, Kloppenborg also raises the issue of the status of Q for the 2DH: he refers to the fact that, on almost every version of the Q hypothesis, Q lacks a passion narrative. What then does this say about our understanding of the nature of early Christianity if one is positing a document, or text, where the story of the passion and death of Jesus appears to be regarded as relatively peripheral, so that no account of it is given? Again, the impetus for the debate on the issue comes from Kloppenborg himself: if there is a “complaint” against others, it is that they have ignored, or sidestepped, this issue. The matter has of course been raised by some, all of whom are advocates of 2DH (as the existence of Q is only accepted by those who accept the 2DH). But discussion of the issue has not often taken place within the debates on the Synoptic Problem as such; rather, such discussion often occurs in another forum and in another scholarly context.⁵

In the context of a chapter that focuses on the contemporary debates about the Synoptic Problem, such an approach is fully justified. If a critic of one source hypothesis believes that a broader (or different) perspective, looking at aspects of the texts not previously considered, might have a bearing on the viability of that hypothesis, then he or she is more than justified in suggesting that the terms of the debate should be extended to consider such factors.

However, in the case of a more “historical” approach, looking at past debates about the Synoptic Problem rather than the Synoptic Problem today, such an approach may not be quite so appropriate. It is all too easy to observe that people in the past failed to take note of various issues, theological or otherwise, as if to imply that they should have done so. Indeed, this applies at a number of different levels—in relation to study of the Synoptic Problem as indeed in many other areas of scholarly debate as well. None of us is an “island”: we live in the context of the time and place we occupy. And in relation to scholarly debates in which we choose to engage, this often means that we are part of a wider scholarly discourse that often focuses on some aspects of an issue and ignores others.

This is especially the case in relation to the Synoptic Problem. The number of theoretical solutions to the Synoptic Problem is probably almost infinite if one reckons with the possibility of the existence of prior sources to account for the agreements between the gospels, since these sources can in theory be multiplied almost ad infinitum (literally). Most have appealed to the general lack of agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark (primarily in relation to order) to argue that Mark must occupy a medial position in any “tree” of relationships.⁶ And this reduces the number of theoretical possibilities to a more manageable number. Certainly, if the Synoptic Problem is to be explained by a theory of direct dependence (at least in part), then the number of theoretical possibilities where Mark is medial is considerably reduced. However, not all such possibilities are considered on an equal footing in almost any discussion of the issue at any time. For many years, the 2DH has—rightly or wrongly—been the favored option by the great majority of New Testament scholars (not all of whom have necessarily involved themselves in any detail in the discussions concerned). This inevitably means that the 2DH has almost always been at the forefront of any debates, whether for or against. Time and again, the effort has been made to attack, or defend, the 2DH. Yet the alternative(s) that might be offered has/have varied over the years. In the middle of the twentieth century, the Augustinian hypothesis (Matthew first, Mark using Matthew, Luke using Mark and Matthew) was in vogue to a certain extent with the arguments of, for example, Butler.⁷ Today, that theory has few, if any, advocates and is rarely discussed. The year 1964 is often regarded as the renaissance of the Griesbach hypothesis (later renamed as the Two-Gospel Hypothesis [2GH]) with the publication of Farmer’s significant monograph.⁸ For many years subsequently, the 2GH was regarded as the main rival to the 2DH. In part, this was due to the tireless efforts of Farmer himself, promoting his theories and also organizing a number of conferences and colloquia, whose papers were published and gave prominence to the 2GH as an (or the) alternative to the 2DH. Other hypotheses were entertained, but often regarded as perhaps slightly idiosyncratic or not widely supported.⁹ In the conference held in Jerusalem in 1984, three main “teams” were assembled as representing what were felt to be the (then) dominant source theories on offer: these were the 2DH, the 2GH, and “the multi-stage hypothesis.” “Leaders” of the teams were Neirynck, Farmer, and Boismard, respectively. During this period, a somewhat lonely furrow was being plowed ploughed by Michael Goulder, arguing consistently and strongly for the theory of his teacher and mentor, Austin Farrer, for what has been labelled the “Farrer hypothesis” (FH) (Mark first, Matthew using Mark, Luke using Matthew and Mark).¹⁰

Yet times change. As we come to the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century, the 2GH has waned somewhat in significance. Farmer and Dungan, perhaps the most vocal and energetic of the defenders of the 2GH in the recent past, have both died. Today, lip service is regularly and explicitly paid to the 2GH as a theoretical alternative to the 2DH, but I know of no great new discussions or analyses of the theory in recent years. Meanwhile, Goulder has also now died, but his mantle has been taken over by others, so that the FH has gained considerable momentum through the work of scholars such as Goodacre, Poirier, Watson, and others, and now would appear to command a significant level of support.¹¹ For some at least, it has inherited the place of the 2GH as the main alternative theory to the 2DH. In any scholarly context, the debates that take place are as often as not generated by, and reflect, the interests and positions of the participants involved. Hence today, in many contexts (colloquia, volumes of essays, etc.), space is regularly given to advocates of the FH to argue their case, and the hypothesis is also often noted and discussed in detail by advocates of the 2DH. By contrast, the 2GH today is effectively rather sidelined.

Yet even today, there are other hypotheses that are advocated and yet (so far) get little detailed discussion. For example, in the past few years some have advocated a theory of “Matthean Posteriority” (Mark first, Luke using Mark, Matthew using Mark and Luke).¹² If I were pressed to argue the case for an alternative to the 2DH, I think that this might be an attractive option to choose.¹³ Yet, as far as I am aware, the theory has been largely ignored with no detailed analysis by those not convinced by its modern advocates.¹⁴ If, at some future date, the scholarly pendulum were to swing and this theory were to be widely supported, historians of future years might then look back to the present time and “accuse” scholars of today of willfully and unjustifiably ignoring a valid source theory that should have been taken far more seriously than it has been.¹⁵

Nevertheless, one works within a scholarly “climate” and context that determines (rightly or wrongly) so much of what we do. For better or worse, the theory of Matthean Posteriority has not (so far) generated much support. In the 1960s and subsequently, the work of Farmer and his followers generated an enormous bandwagon of support for the 2GH, and Farmer’s own tireless efforts generated a huge amount of discussion with an ever-increasing volume of scholarly “noise” about the 2GH. However, as noted earlier, the number of possible solutions to the Synoptic Problem is in theory almost unlimited. It is thus simply not feasible for anyone to treat any and every possible solution to the problem fully: life is simply too short! In hindsight, it is easy to criticize others in the past for not treating in more detail a theory that we might feel they should have done. But such a judgment might reflect our own time, our own situation, and the issues that we face today quite as much as what might have been the main issues at the time of the people in the past we are discussing.

To take one illustration, Holtzmann’s defense of the 2DH (or something very similar: in his earlier work he argued for dependence of all three gospels on an “A” source which was close to, but not quite the same as, Mark, together with the existence of a “Λ” source to explain the common sayings shared by Matthew and Luke) is widely regarded as being extremely influential in discussions at the end of the nineteenth century in establishing the theory of Markan priority.¹⁶ In his analysis of Holtzmann’s contribution, Kloppenborg notes the massive influence exerted by Holtzmann’s discussions, yet notes too that the probative value of his work is somewhat weak in some respects. Thus, Holtzmann did consider the GH in some detail; he also engaged with Hilgenfeld’s advocacy of the Augustinian hypothesis. Yet Holtzmann did not consider other theories, such as Luke’s possible use of Matthew; rather, for the greater part of his analysis of the tradition, he simply proceeded to explain aspects of the texts of the gospels presuming his own theory of Markan priority (or dependence on an “A” source very similar to Mark).¹⁷

This may not be entirely fair on Holtzmann. The fact that Holtzmann did not deal with the possibility of an incipient FH was in part perhaps due to the fact that no such theory was currently advocated.¹⁸ And the procedure of assuming a hypothesis and then seeking to show that the development of the tradition that the hypothesis implies is plausible and “reasonable” is also one that is widely adopted, both then and now.¹⁹ We cannot and should not expect scholars of the past to have anticipated the problems (and postulated solutions) that arose subsequently to the time they wrote, especially in relation to the Synoptic Problem where so many theoretical possibilities exist, and it is simply not possible to consider them all in detail within a finite time. In looking to the past, we have to seek to engage in “fair play” in considering how others at the time argued and debated and not impose our own agendas, and presuppositions, on them.

In considering then “theological issues at stake” in past discussions of the Synoptic Problem, I look first at the possible issues that those engaged in the discussions at the time may have thought were at stake. In a final section I offer some brief critical reflections on those issues from a contemporary standpoint from where, with hindsight, it is all too easy to be critical! However, ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle Page
• Title Page
• Contents 
• Preface
• Notes on Contributors
• 1 Theological Issues at Stake in Early-Twentieth-Century Research on the Synoptic Problem Christopher Tuckett
• 2 The Decline of the Gospel Harmony: Loss or Gain? Marijke H. de Lang
• 3 The Archaeology of the Q Hypothesis: The Case of H. J. Holtzmann Francis Watson
• 4 Memory, Tradition, and Synoptic Sources: The Quest of Holtzmann and Wernle for a Pre-Dogma Jesus Alan Kirk
• 5 Die Suche nach dem ,,Urevangelium“ als Frage nach der Authentizität der Jesusüberlieferung Markus Tiwald
• 6 The Rise of the Markan Priority Hypothesis and Early Responses and Challenges to It Paul Foster
• 7 “No Weapon but That of Analysis”: Issues at Stake in the Rise and Reception of the Two-Document Hypothesis Daniel A. Smith
• 8 The Synoptic Problem, the “Apocryphal Gospels,” and the Quest of the Historical Jesus: Toward a Reformulation of the Synoptic Problem Jens Schröter
• 9 French Catholic Scholarship on the Synoptic Problem in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries Benedict Thomas Viviano O.P.
• 10 Camouflaging Q: The Catholic 2DH from Lagrange to Sickenberger and Beyond John S. Kloppenborg
• Bibliography
• Index of Names
• Index of References
• Imprint