Part Two: New Testament Literature
Chapter 7: The Gospels
Before discussing the individual gospels we should say something about their use in the early Christian Church and about their literary character or characters. We may suggest that two of the evangelists refer to books analogous to their own and that a third almost certainly knows another.
(1) At the beginning of the Gospel of Luke we read of ‘many’ who have undertaken to draw up an account of the matters accomplished among Christians, in accordance with traditions received from eyewitnesses.
Among the ‘many’ is presumably the author of the Gospel of Mark, for as we shall see (Chapter 10), Mark was the principal source followed by Luke. Luke’s statement implies that Mark was not an eye-witness but received his information from eye-witnesses. (2) At the end of the
Gospel of John (20:30) we read that ‘Jesus performed many other signs.
. . which are not recorded in this book.’ This statement may imply the existence of other books in which the ‘other signs’ were recorded. (3) The principal source followed by the author of Matthew was the Gospel of Mark; Matthew is therefore obviously a witness to Mark’s prior existence.
Within the other New Testament writings there seems to be only one reference to a gospel. This occurs in I Timothy 5:18, where quotations from Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 are introduced by the
expression, ‘the scripture says’. It would appear that the saying of Jesus is to be found in a book and that the book is regarded as scripture.
In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (see Chapter 16) there are fairly clear references to written gospels (Matthew in the Didache and in
Barnabas). A certain Papias, bishop (?) of Hierapolis in Phrygia towards the beginning of the second century, discussed at least two of the
gospels in his Exegeses of the Dominical Oracles, of which only
fragments survive. In his preface he stated that he valued oral traditions more highly than books; then he proceeded to discuss books in the light of traditions.
(1) Quoting ‘the elder’, probably ‘the elder John’ whom he mentions elsewhere, Papias describes the origin of the Gospel of Mark. It is an accurate account of the Lord’s words and deeds, though neither ‘in order’ nor complete. Mark derived his information from the teaching and preaching of Peter, for whom he had served as ‘interpreter’. This statement implies that the order of Mark has been compared with some other order, probably that of John (since the order of Matthew and Luke is much the same as Mark’s). It has sometimes been thought that the picture of Mark’s relation to Peter is based on I Peter 5:13 (‘Mark my son’), since Eusebius says that Papias knew I Peter; but there is no valid reason for supposing that both Papias and I Peter are not reflecting early Roman tradition.
(2) In regard to Matthew, Papias reported that he ‘compiled the oracles in the Hebrew language; but each person translated them as he was able.’ The statement shows that early in the second century there were several Greek versions of something regarded as Matthew’s collection of ‘oracles’ (Old Testament proof texts?); one of them may have been the apocryphal gospel of the Hebrews, which Eusebius says contained some materials which Papias used. It is conceivable that he regarded both ‘Hebrews’ and our Gospel of Matthew as translations of an
apostolic document. His view may reflect analysis of the Old Testament quotations in Matthew, some of which are much closer to the Hebrew than to the Greek Septuagint.
(3) A so-called ‘anti-Marcionite prologue’ to the Gospel of John states that John dictated his gospel to Papias himself; but this highly garbled document is not likely to give us any trustworthy information about either Papias or John. Modern study of the prologue places it in the fourth century, or even later.( See E. Gutwenger, ‘The Anti-Marcionite Prologues’, Theological Studies 7 (1946), 393-409; R. C. Heard, ‘The Old Gospel Prologues’, Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 6 (1955), 1-
16.)
From Papias, then, we derive some information, possibly correct, about the origin of Mark’s gospel and of some of the materials in Matthew.
The trouble with this information lies in our own inability to assess it properly. How reliable was Papias? How reliable were his informants?
The only way we can tell is to check what he says with the gospels themselves and to see to what extent our analysis confirms his
statements. This method means, of course, that our primary sources of evidence lie in the gospels, not in what Papias says about them.
Probabilities About the Gospels
Before turning directly to the gospels we may well consider a few general factors which are related to the question of their date. We have already looked at what evidence there is within the New Testament which bears on this question. Now we turn to consider some points which have to do with the life of the Christian Church and the apostles.
First of all, it must be admitted that we cannot prove that the gospels were not written at a very early time. The fact that some, if not all, early Christians expected the imminent return of Jesus does not prove that they cannot have written down their memories of his words and deeds.
Rabbinic insistence upon not writing down the oral law provides no parallel, since we know that disciples of the rabbis sometimes did write it down; furthermore, apocalyptic literature, though secret, was by definition written, and from the discoveries at Qumran we know that much more was written than might have been supposed. On the other hand, the earlier New Testament documents, such as the Pauline
epistles, make no reference to any gospel writings, and in them there is a fairly strong insistence upon the value of oral tradition (I Cor. 11:23;
15:3). Moreover, the synoptic gospels seem to be based, fairly often, directly on oral tradition, especially at points where sayings have been linked by verbal association for the purpose of memorization. Such a procedure is characteristic of oral transmission, not of copying from written documents. These facts suggest that the gospels. while relatively early in date, are likely to come from the second generation of Christians rather than from the first.
What conspicuous historical events may have provided occasions for the writing down of the oral tradition? Two events immediately suggest themselves: (1) the persecution of Roman Christians in the year 64,
when some of the leading apostles were probably put to death (we may also mention the death of James the Lord’s brother in 62), and (2) the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, when the Church came to be more fully conscious of its mission to the gentile world. Of these two the more important was probably the death of some of the apostles. Since the Church’s proclamation of the significance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was based upon the memories of eye-witnesses to these events (cf. I Cor. 15:5-8; Acts 1:21-2), when those eye-witnesses grew old or died it was obviously necessary to commit their narratives to writing. We do not know how old the apostles were at the time of the crucifixion; perhaps some of them were no more than twenty or so; but by the sixties of the first century the life-expectancy of any of them cannot have been great. Given a combination of these factors, we should assume that gospel-writing would begin no later than the time of the persecution under Nero.
Another point, however, must be considered. Our gospels lay almost no emphasis upon eye-witness testimony. Mark and Matthew never do so.
Luke mentions eye-witnesses as sources in his prologue but thereafter in his gospel never speaks of them. John refers to eye-witnesses very
sporadically (1:14; 19:35; 21:24). The gospels testify primarily to the faith and the memories of the communities out of which they came, not to the historical reliability of their authors. In many respects the synoptic gospels (though not John) resemble folk literature more than the
creations of individual artists. What this fact means is either that the evangelists were not interested in historical reliability or that they took it for granted and, in writing their books, proceeded to develop the
implications of memories assumed to be trustworthy. The latter
conclusion seems to be justified in view of the insistence on historical reliability expressed by Paul, by Luke, and by John. The evangelists made use of historical memories in order to set forth the significance of those memories. As the author of II Peter claims, the apostles did not proclaim the power and presence of their Lord by relying on myths such as those employed by rhetoricians (1:16).(See the important discussion, from a somewhat different viewpoint, by D.E. Nineham in Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958), 13-25; 243-52; 11 [1960], 253-64.) The gospels, then, originated fairly soon after the middle of the first century. They were created by and for believers who were concerned with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and tried to interpret the meaning of this chain of events. It may be that the gospel form did not come into existence before Hellenistic communities (Rome, Antioch,
Ephesus) had made Palestinian traditions their own, though the notion that Matthew wrote something in Hebrew may point towards an earlier origin for some, at least, of the traditions found in this gospel. Whether Hebrew or Greek, the gospels originated in relation to (1) the apostolic preaching and teaching, concerned not only with the events of Jesus’ life but also with what he taught, (2) the continuing worship of the Christian communities and especially the Lord’s Supper, in which his death was proclaimed until he would return (I Cor. 11.26), and (3) the living memories of those who had been with him during his ministry.
These factors are perhaps equally important. Sometimes the liturgical origin of the gospels has been emphasized almost to the exclusion of other considerations, but it must be recalled that while Paul does recall the story of the Last Supper in setting forth regulations for the conduct of the Lord’s Supper, he does not state that the story had been recited, or was to be recited, at the Lord’s Supper in Corinth; and he does not
mention the Supper in any of his letters but I Corinthians. What is clear from his mention of the Last Supper is the fact that the story was told in a context. He reminds the Corinthians of what the Lord Jesus did and said ‘on the night when he was betrayed.’ This point suggests that well before the year 50 at least the Passion Narrative (Mark 14:15 and parallels) was told as a continuous story. On the other hand, it may be that we should not try to infer too much from what Paul reports. He also possesses a fairly detailed list of resurrection appearances (I Cor. 15), and it is extremely hard to reconcile with the resurrection stories in the gospels.
It has sometimes been argued that the general outline of the synoptic gospels, and especially that of Mark, can be proved historically reliable because of the rough outlines to be found in some of the early Christian sermons in Acts. This point is hard to establish with any degree of certainty because (1) we know that Luke used Mark, and (2) we know that Luke was accustomed to compose speeches (whether he used earlier sources or not) in order to provide discourses he regarded as suitable for various occasions. The second point does not prove that the Marcan outline is unreliable, but it suggests that we are not in a position to say whether it is or not -- especially since the outline provided by John is so different. It should be added that one of the few points on which Papias insists is that Mark was not written ‘in order’. Since he seems to have known the Gospel of John, he probably means that Mark’s chronology seems wrong to him.
Essentially the primary proof of the correctness, or at least the literary adequacy, of Mark’s outline lies in the fact that it commended itself, with minor changes, to Matthew and Luke. This point leads us to
consider the interrelations of the synoptic gospels, since it is impossible to consider them separately without first trying to see why they are as similar as they are. Several theories in regard to the resemblances and the differences have been set forth. In antiquity, once the tradition that Matthew wrote first had become established, the other two had to be explained in terms of the first. Origen, for example, claimed that the Spirit gave each evangelist a perfect memory; the deviations of Mark and Luke from Matthew were due to theological purposes, often highly subtle in nature. Augustine took another line: according to him, Mark simply abbreviated Matthew. In the nineteenth century, however, it came to be generally held that Mark wrote first and that both Matthew and Luke made use of his book, along with another common source which each of them arranged differently.
The proof of the priority of Mark, often regarded as almost mathematical in nature, is not really mathematical. Briefly stated, it is this. The
sequence in which Matthew and Luke write ~ their gospels is never the same unless Mark is in agreement with them; and where Mark is in agreement with them their sequence is always the same. We can put the argument in tabular form:
Matthew Mark Luke A -- D
B B B C C C D -- A
It still remains possible, however, that Mark abbreviated Matthew and that Luke changed Matthew’s order. Therefore other considerations have to be taken into account. Where Matthew and Luke are parallel to Mark it can be argued that, generally speaking, they differ from Mark in ways (usually different) that suggest that both of them have tried to improve the style or the thought of their common source.
Several examples may serve to illustrate this process.
Mark 10:27-18 Matthew 19:16-17
And as he was setting out on And behold,
His journey, a man ran up and one came up to him,
knelt before him and asked saying, him, Good teacher, Teacher,
what must I do to inherit what good deed must I do, eternal life? And Jesus said to have eternal life? And he to him, said to him,
Why do you call me good? Why do you ask me about No one is good but God what is good? One there is Alone. Who is good.
(2) In Mark 10.35 -- 45 the sons of Zebedee askJesus for the right to sit on his right and left in his ‘glory’. In Matthew 20.20 -- 8 their mother makes the request for them, but Jesus replies, exactly as in Mark, ‘You do not know what you are asking’; in both instances the ‘you’ is plural.
(~) The third example shows both Matthew and Luke apparently rewriting Mark:
Matthew 8.16 -- 17 Mark 1.32 -- 4 Luke 4.40-1 That evening That evening at sun- When the sun was they brought to down they brought setting all those him to him all who who had any sick
were sick or with various diseases
many possessed with possessed with brought them to demons. demons. And the him.
whole city was gathered together about the door.
And he cast out And he healed many And he laid his the spirits with a who were sick with hands on every one word and healed all various diseases and of them and who were sick, cast out many healed them. And demons, demons also came
out of many,
crying, You are the Son of God. And he rebuked them,
and he would not and would not
allow the demons allow them to speak, to speak, because they because they knew knew him, that he was the
Christ.
This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah ...
(The words in italic are the same in Greek.)
These examples could be multiplied, but they serve to show that both Matthew and Luke, at least in many instances, modified the materials they took from Mark. (For further discussion cf. B.H. Streeter. The Four Gospels,. 149-331.)
We have just observed a case in which Matthew and Luke seem to have made independent selections from Mark, and there are several others.
Matthew Mark Luke
the leprosy was the leprosy the leprosy
cleansed from him departed from him departed from him (8.3) and [he] was (5.13)
cleansed (1.42)
for the sake of my for the sake of me for the sake of the name (19.29) and the gospel kingdom of God
(10.29) (18.29)
immediately immediately entering (19.30) (21.2) entering (11.2)
in this night today in this night today (22.34) (24.34) (14.30)
It seems unlikely either that Matthew used Luke or that Luke used
Matthew; the only possibilities seem to be that either (1) Mark used both Matthew and Luke (but the cumulative effect of the differences between Mark and the other two gospels suggests that this is not so), or (2)
Matthew and Luke used Mark in different ways and for different purposes.
Q For Quelle
Matthew and Luke agree in order at points where they are following Mark. At other points they do not agree in order but have common
materials. At such points their agreement is sometimes exact, sometimes a matter of common materials treated somewhat differently. Two
explanations of these coincidences have been given. (1) Luke used
Matthew but revised his materials. (2) Both Matthew and Luke made use of a common source, usually called Q from the German word ‘Quelle’, which means ‘source’. Sometimes the use of this symbol has led
investigators to assume that there was a clearly definable document which could be recovered from Matthew and Luke, but further research has suggested that the limits of Q are much vaguer than had been
supposed.
(1) It seems unlikely that Luke used Matthew, for the following reasons.
(a) In Matthew many sayings of Jesus have been assembled into a collection called the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7); in Luke these sayings are scattered over a number of chapters, in different contexts.
Would Luke have felt free to treat Matthew in this way? (b) Many sayings of Jesus are connected to one another by verbal association in both Matthew and Luke; but in about seventeen instances the word used for the association by Matthew differs from the word used by Luke. This point proves that both Matthew and Luke drew independently upon a common stock of oral tradition.(Th. Soiron, Die Logia Jesu [Munster, 1916], J. Jeremias in ZNW 29 [1930]) Other arguments have been
advanced to support the independence of Luke from Matthew, but these two (especially the second) are the most convincing.
(2) On the other hand, the notion that there was a single written source to be designated as Q is also untenable, first because of the argument just advanced, and second because sometimes the resemblances are very close and at other times they are rather remote. In the latter case it is uncertain whether a common source is being used or not. When we speak of Q, then, we are referring to a conglomeration of sources,
perhaps partly written (as in the accounts of the Baptist’s preaching and of the baptism and temptation of Jesus) but more often oral in origin.
Perhaps the letter Q should be dropped; but it is convenient as a
designation for non-Marcan materials common to Matthew and Luke -- nothing more.
What do these materials consist of? Various scholars have given various lists, but a convenient summary, following the order of Matthew, has been provided by Julius Wellhausen in his Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905). He lists the following passages: