Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Reid, Duncan G. Miracle Tradition, Rhetoric, and the Synoptic Problem. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. (Biblical Tools and Studies; 25) ***** Begin Content ****** TYNDALE UNIVERSITY 3377 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M2M 3S4 TEL: 416.226.6620 www.tyndale.ca Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Reid, Duncan G. Miracle Tradition, Rhetoric, and the Synoptic Problem. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. (Biblical Tools and Studies; 25) [ Citation Page ] BIBLICAL TOOLS AND STUDIES Edited by B. Doyle, G. Van Belle, J. Verheyden KU Leuven Associate Editors G, BAZZANA, Harvard Divinity School — A. BERLEJUNG, Leipzig KJ. Dell, Cambridge - J. Frey, Zurich - C.M. TuCKETT, Oxford Biblical Tools and Studies - Volume 25 [ Series Page ] MIRACLE TRADITION, RHETORIC, AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM BY DUNCAN G. REID PEETERS LEUVEN - PARIS - BRISTOL, CT 2016 [ Title Page ] Cover: Novum lesu Christi D.N. Testamentum ex bibliotheca regia. Lutetiae: ex officina Roberti Stephani, 1550. in-folio. KU Leuven, Maurits Sabbe Library, P225.042/F0 Mt 5,3-12 No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher. A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 978-90-429-3373-6 D/2016/0602/113 © 2016, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium) [ Title Page Verso ] TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface .... vii Acknowledgement .... ix List of Abbreviations .... xv Chapter 1 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM AND MIRACLE TRADITION . . 1 1.1 Introduction .... 1 1.2 History of Scholarship on the Synoptic Problem .... 2 1.2.1 Origins of the Modern Debate in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries .... 2 1.2.2 Early Twentieth Century Developments .... 5 1.2.3 Post WWII Developments and Challenges to the 2DH .... 6 1.3 Miracle Tradition and the Synoptic Problem: A Lacuna .... 9 1.4 The Conventions of Ancient Rhetoric in Relation to Narrative .... 11 1.5 Conclusion: The Starting Point .... 11 Chapter 1 Figures .... 13 Chapter 2 ESTABLISHING A METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING SYNOPTIC HYPOTHESES .... 15 2.1 Introductory Comments .... 15 2.2 Survey and Evaluation of Methodology in SP Research .... 16 2.2.1 Parsimony: A Guiding Principle in SP Argumentation? .... 17 2.2.2 Potential Pitfalls and Problems .... 19 2.2.3 Arguments Based on Internal Considerations .... 23 2.2.4 Arguments Based on External Considerations .... 28 2.3 A Methodological Proposal .... 30 2.3.1 Synchronic Reading of Miracle Tradition .... 31 [ Page XI ] [ Page ] XII TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.3.2 Appeal to the Literary Genre of Ancient .... 32 2.3.3 Appeal to Conventions of Ancient Rhetoric .... 33 2.4 A Summary of Conventions Based on the Progymnasmata and Rhetorical Handbooks .... 46 Chapter 2 Tables .... 48 Chapter 3 LITERARY AND RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS IN JOSEPHUS’ ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS .... 53 3.1 Introduction .... 53 3.2 The Nature and Function of Josephus’ Antiquities .... 53 3.2.1 Josephus’ Sources for the Antiquities .... 54 3.2.2 Rhetorical Conventions and Josephus’ Rewriting of his Sources .... 55 3.2.3 Josephus’ Apologetic Interests .... 58 3.2.4 Miracle and Prophecy in Josephus’ Antiquities .... 60 3.2.5 Concluding Comments on Josephus’ Antiquities .... 65 3.3 Rhetorical Adaptation of Sources in Josephus’Exodus Account .... 65 3.3.1 Order and Selection in Josephus’Exodus Account .... 65 3.3.2 Narrative Adaptation in Josephus’ Account of the Ten Plagues .... 70 3.4 Rhetorical Adaptation of Sources in Josephus’Account of Elisha .... 82 3.4.1 Order and Selection in the Elisha Narrative .... 82 3.4.2 Narrative Adaptation in Josephus’ Account of Elisha’s Death .... 86 3.5 Rhetorical Adaption of Sources in Josephus’ Account of Jonah .... 92 3.6 Conclusions on Josephus’Narrative Adaptation .... 98 Chapter 3 Tables .... 101 Chapter 4 LITERARY AND RHETORICAL CONVENTIONS IN PLUTARCH’S LIVES .... 137 4.1 Introduction .... 137 4.2 Introduction to Plutarch’s Lives .... 138 4.2.1 Dating of Plutarch’s Lives .... 138 4.2.2 The Sources of Plutarch’s Lives .... 139 4.2.3 Plutarch’s Divergence from his Sources .... 140 TABLE OF CONTENTS XIII 4.2.4 The Influence of the filoc Genre on Plutarch’s Adaptation of his Sources .... 142 4.2.5 The Influence of Rhetoric on Plutarch’s Adaptation of his Sources .... 147 4.2.6 Conclusion to the Introduction to Plutarch’s Lives .... 150 4.3 Introduction to Plutarch’s Coriolanus .... 150 4.3.1 Analysis of Order and Selection in the Coriolanus .... 151 4.3.2 Narrative Adaptation in the Coriolanus: The Capture of Corioli.................................................. 160 4.4 Introduction to Plutarch’s Camillus..................... 170 4.4.1 Analysis of Order and Selection in the Camillus... 172 4.4.2 Narrative Adaptation in Plutarch’s Camillus: the Siege of Falerri .... 180 4.5 General Conclusions Regarding Narrative Transformation in Jose- phus and Plutarch .... 188 Chapter 4 Tables .... 191 Chapter 5 ORDER AND SELECTION IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS’ MIRACLE TRADITION .... 243 5.1 General Introduction .... 243 5.1.1 Miracles: Some General Comments .... 244 5.2 Order and Selection of Gospel Miracle Traditions .... 279 5.2.1 Order and Selection According to the 2GH .... 280 5.2.2 Order and Selection According to the 2DH .... 298 5.2.3 Order and Selection According to the FH .... 315 5.3 Conclusions in Relation to Order and Selection .... 322 Chapter 5 Tables .... 323 Chapter 6 RHETORICAL TRANSFORMATION OF MIRACLE TRADITION PERICOPES .... 331 6.1 Introduction .... 331 6.2 The Gadarene/Gerasene Demoniac(s) .... 331 6.2.1 The 2GH and the Gadarene/Gerasene Demoniac(s) .... 333 6.2.2 The 2DH and the Gadarene/Gerasene Demoniac(s) .... 358 6.2.3 The FH and the Gadarene/Gerasene Demoniac(s) .... 375 [ Page ] XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.3 Jairus’ Daughter and the Hemorrhaging Woman .... 379 6.3.1 The 2GH: Jairus’ Daughter and the Hemorrhaging Woman .... 380 6.3.2 The 2DH: Jairus’ Daughter and the Hemorrhaging Woman .... 403 6.3.3 The FH: Jairus’ Daughter and the Hemorrhaging Woman .... 419 6.4 The Centurion’s Servant .... 425 6.4.1 The 2GH (and FH): Luke’s use of Matthew in the Cen- turion’s Servant .... 427 6.4.2 The 2DH and the Centurion’s Servant .... 437 6.4.3 The FH and the Centurion’s Servants .... 445 6.5 Conclusions Regarding Micro-Analysis of Synoptic Miracle Peri- copes .... 446 Chapter 6 Tables .... 453 Chapter 7 CONCLUSION .... 485 7.1 Introduction .... 485 7.2 Rhetorical Conventions in the Narrative Adaptations of Josephus and Plutarch .... 486 7.3 Rhetorical Conventions in the Narrative Adaptations of Synoptic Miracle Traditions .... 487 7.3.1 Macro-Analysis: Order and Selection of Miracle Tradition .... 487 7.3.2 Micro-Analysis: Rhetorical Transformation of Specific Miracle Pericopes .... 491 7.4 Conclusion .... 497 Bibliography .... 499 Indexes .... 523 ABBREVIATIONS AB Anchor Bible ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library AJSR Association for Jewish Studies Review ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt BDAG Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexiconof the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd Edition. Revised and ed. by Frederick William Danker. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000 BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bib Biblica BSac Bibliotheca Sacra BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBR Currents in Biblical Research CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies CQ Classical Quarterly ExpTim Expository Times ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses LXX Septuagint FH Farrer Hypothesis GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion Hor Horizons HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary Int Interpretation JBL Journal of Biblical Interpretation JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JRS Journal of Roman Studies JSJ Journal for the Study of the Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [ Page ] XVIII ABBREVIATIONS Table 4.2: Plutarch’s Omissions in the Coriolanus .... 202 Table 4.3: Plutarch’s Additions to Dionysius (and Livy) in the Corio- lanus .... 203 Table 4.4: Plutarch’s Transformations of Order in the Coriolanus .... 203 Table 4.5: The Capture of Corioli (Parallel Text in Plutarch and Dionysius) .... 204 Table 4.6: Marcins Captures Corioli (Parallel Outline) .... 209 Table 4.7: The Capture of Corioli (Parallel Text in Plutarch, Dio- nysius and Livy) .... 210 Table 4.8: Camillus Parallels in Plutarch and Dionysius .... 213 Table 4.9: Plutarch’s Additions to Dionysius’ Account of the Camillus .... 218 Table 4.10: Camillus Parallels in Plutarch and Livy .... 219 Table 4.11: Plutarch’s Omissions from the Camillus .... 227 Table 4.12: Examples of Plutarch’s Abbreviations in the Camillus .... 228 Table 4.13: Plutarch’s Transformations of Order in the Camillus .... 229 Table 4.14: Siege of Falerri and the Treacherous School Teacher: Parallel Text in Plutarch and Dionysius .... 230 Table 4.15: Siege of Falerri and the Treacherous School Teacher: Parallel Text in Plutarch and Livy .... 236 Table 4.16: Siege of Falerri Parallel Plot Outline .... 240 Table 5.1: Miracle Tradition in Acts .... 323 Table 5-2: Mark’s Conflation of Matthew and Luke (2GH) .... 324 Table 5-3: Miracle Story Word Counts .... 325 Table 5.4: Synoptic Summary Statements .... 326 Table 5.5: Synoptic Miracle Related Tradition .... 326 Table 5.6: Luke’s Use of Matthew Alone (2GH) .... 328 Table 5-7: Matthew’s Use of Mark and Q (2DH) .... 329 Table 5.8: Luke’s Use of Mark and Q (2DH) .... 330 Table 6.1: The Gadarene/Gerasene Demoniac (s) (Parallel Text) .... 453 Table 6.2: Gadarene Demoniac(s) Word Counts (1) .... 458 Table 6.3: Gadarene Demoniac(s) Word Counts (2) .... 460 Table 6.4: Narrative Links between Jairus’ Daughter and the Hem- orrhaging Woman .... 461 Table 6.5: Jairus’ Daughter and the Hemorrhaging Woman (Parallel Text) .... 462 Table 6.6: Jairus’ Daughter Word Counts .... 468 Table 6.7: The Centurion’s Servant (Parallel Text) .... 469 Table 6.8: Centurion’s Servant Word Counts .... 472 Table 6.9: Summary of Adaptations in Miracle Narratives .... 473 CHAPTER 1 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM AND MIRACLE TRADITION 1.1 Introduction Over a century ago in 1904 Ernest DeWitt Burton made the following observation: Ever since the days of Augustine and Jerome, not to say earlier, the mutual resemblances of the first three gospels have been observed, and the problem thus created for the biblical scholar has been discussed. Since 1794, when Eichhorn proposed his theory accounting for the resemblances and divergences of the synoptic gospels by deriving them all from a common document exist- ing in various recensions, the question has been vigorously discussed, and almost numberless theories have been proposed for its solution.1 Despite the passage of time this observation remains an apt description of the contemporary state of the so-called Synoptic Problem (SP), which at heart is a source critical debate concerning the possibilities of direct literary inter- dependence, lost written sources, and/or the role of oral tradition (and/or eye witness testimony) in the production of the Synoptic Gospels. My aim in this work is to test the relative strengths and weaknesses of three contemporary hypotheses of literary dependence,2 namely the Two-Document Hypothesis (2DH), the Two-Gospel Hypothesis (2GH) and the Farrer Hypothesis 1. Ernest DeWitt Burton, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem, The Decennial Publications 1/5 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1904), 3. 2. While the ‘independent’ theory (no literary relationship) continues to have voice in some quarters (e.g., Eta Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? trans. R. Yarbrough [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992]), the vast majority of scholars posit some level of literary depend- ence albeit frequently including hypothetical sources and the influence of oral tradition or memory. On this see the discussion in Andrew Gregory (“What is Literary Dependence?” pages 87-114 in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2011: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett, ed. Paul Foster, Andrew Gregory, John S. Kloppenborg, and Joseph Verheyden, BETL 239 [Leuven - Paris - Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2011]) along with literature cited at the beginning of chapter 2. [ Page 1 ] [ Page ] 2 (FH).3 In particular I will test the relative redactional plausibility of these competing hypotheses by examining the implied redaction of synoptic mir- acle tradition in light of ancient rhetorical conventions of narrative. It is first of all necessary, however, to situate the work within the history of SP debate. 1.2 History of Scholarship on the Synoptic Problem 1.2.1 Origins of the Modern Debate in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries To the extent that pertinent comments about gospel origins appear within both the extant texts (Luke 1:1-4) and the writings of the early church fathers (e.g., Papias, Origen, or Augustine) it is possible to trace SP dis- cussions back to the second or even first century C.E.4 More typically, how- ever, SP historians begin with Post-Enlightenment historical-critical German scholarship of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.5 A consideration of this period suggests several possible precipitating factors for the modern SP debate. The first, according to John Kloppenborg, was not detached literary- critical inquisitiveness but heated theological controversy over the historical credibility of the Gospel accounts resulting directly from the posthumously published writings of Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768). The result was a “collapse of confidence in Protestant orthodoxy” whereby the “wedges 3. Each hypothesis is variously named in the literature (e.g., Griesbach, Two-Source and Farrer-Goulder for the 2GH, 2DH, and FH respectively). My choice of nomenclature accords with that adopted at the 2008 Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem now pub- lished in Foster et al., eds., New Studies. 4. See especially David Laird Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (New York — London — Toronto — Sydney - Auckland: Doubleday, 1999). While he takes Luke’s prologue (first century?) as the “proper place to begin all discussions” of the SP (p. 13), comments of the second century fathers (e.g., Papias) are perhaps a better place to begin. 5. Examples include William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Dills- boro, NC: Western North Carolina Press, 1976); David B. Peabody, Lamar Cope, and Allan J. McNicol, eds., One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke. A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies (Harrisburg - London - New York: Trinity Press International, 2002), 1-16; John S Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q; The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 271—328; Hans-Herbert Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, trans. Donald L. Niewyk (Macon, GA - Edinburgh: Mercer University Press - T. & T. Clark, 1977); Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. Howard Clark Kee (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1975), 45-52. These works have formed the primary resources for the summary offered here. [ Page ] 3 that Reimarus had driven among the Gospels and between the Gospels and Jesus would prove impossible to extract.... The response elicited by Reimarus has been programmatic for Synoptic studies in the succeeding two centuries.”6 Johann Jakob Griesbach’s (1745-1812) hypothesis, for example, that Mark conflates Matthew and Luke, is probably best understood as an apologetic response to Reimarus.7 Griesbach himself was primarily responsible for the second (more obviously material) cause of the subsequent SP debate. This resulted from his publication of a parallel column Gospel synopsis in 1774 along with a simultaneous rejection of the previously favored Gospel har- mony.8 While the latter highlighted consistency and inter-connectedness leading to a “harmonious narrative” of the Gospels, the detailed comparison of parallel accounts facilitated by Gospel synopses highlights patterns of both simi- larities and differences. David Dungan points to the new Post-Enlightenment understanding of history, namely as chronological progress, as a third pre- cipitating factor in the modern SP debate. This shift in perspective fueled the desire to discover the historical (i.e., chronological) development of the Gospel accounts.9 The end result, as Burton rightly observes, is an “almost numberless” array of source hypotheses purporting to explain the observable data and solve the so-called SP. While the complexity of the issues precludes a detailed survey, a brief overview will help situate this work. The multitude of hypotheses appearing during the eighteenth and nine- teenth centuries can be conveniently grouped into three categories (see figure 1.1): (a) ‘direct utilization’ (direct literary dependence); (b) ‘proto- gospel’ or ' Urgospel' (positing earlier, written, now lost, typically Aramaic sources); and (c) ‘oral tradition.’10 Griesbach (1783) exemplifies the first category (‘direct utilization’) when he posits that Matthew wrote first, was 6. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 272-3, 275. 7. Griesbach may have been influenced by Henry Owen (in England) but this does not change the fact that he is responding to Reimarus. The same can be said for Griesbach’s contemporaries such as Johann Gottfried Eichhorn and Johann Gottfried Herder. On this see Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 280-82. 8. In actual fact it appears that Jean Calvin was the first to produce a parallel column arrangement of the Gospels and that he was likewise disturbed by the harmonies, at least that of Osiander. On this and the issue of Gospel harmonization (in the wake of Augustine) and subsequent rejection of harmonies see, for example, Dungan (History, 302-9), Farmer (Synop- tic Problem, 2-3), and Kloppenborg (Excavating Q, 272-82). Kloppenborg notes that about 150 harmonies existed by the year 1800 (p. 274, n. 8 citing Fabricius as a source) and supplies a quote indicating Griesbach’s explicit rejection of the harmonizing approach (p. 280). 9. See especially Dungan, History, 308—9. 10. See Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 282, where he notes the standardization of this tax- onomy by the beginning of the 19th century. The diagrams for figure 1.1 are taken from ibid, pp. 277 and 281. [ Page ] 4 directly utilized by Luke, and Mark conflated them both (figure 1.1a).11 While the so-called ‘Griesbach hypothesis’ (i.e. 2GH) was also advocated by E C. Baur (1847) and the nineteenth century Tübingen school, an alternative direct utilization hypothesis was that of C. G. Wilke (1838), who argued for Markan Priority (MP), Luke’s use of Mark, and Matthew’s use of Mark and Luke.12 An example of the second category (‘proto-gospel’) is the hypothesis of Johann Benjamin Koppe (1782), who argued that Luke’s prologue provided evidence that the canonical Gospels were based on earlier Greek and Hebrew narratives.13 ‘Urgospel' hypotheses were also advocated by, among others, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1784), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1794), Herbert Marsh (1801) and Karl Lachmann (1835).14 The distinctive feature of such hypotheses is the assertion of an earlier (now lost) written document (or documents) which served as primary source material for the later canonical Gospels (see figure 1.1b). Johann Gottfried Herder (1796) provides perhaps the earliest example of the third category (‘oral tradition’ hypotheses) when he argues for a primitive Urgospel (dated ca. 34-40 C.E.) as the source behind Mark, Luke, and Aramaic Mat- thew (all pre 70 C.E.) (figure 1.1c). This is similar to Lessing and Eichhorn but differs in positing that the Urgospel was oral rather than written.15 The three-fold division was not absolute in that many hypotheses com- bined elements of two or more categories such as Herder’s ‘oral tradition’ hypothesis including the direct influence of written Mark and Aramaic Mat- thew upon Luke, and of all three upon Greek Matthew (figure 1.1c). This is similarly the case with Lessing’s proto-gospel hypothesis (which includes an oral tradition component) and the more elaborate combination theories of Karl Credner in 1836 (combines primitive sources, oral Urgospel and direct utilization) and Heinrich Ewald in 1848 (a 10 document hypothesis).16 The three categories nevertheless identify the essential features of any given 11. See the following: Dungan, History, 302-23; Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 7-9; Klop- penborg, Excavating Q, 278-82; Bernard Orchard, trans., “A Demonstration That Mark Was Written After Matthew and Luke (A Translation of J. J. Griesbach’s Commentatio qua Marti Evangelium totum e Mattaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur),” pages 103-35 in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776-1976, ed. Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff, SNTSMS 34 (London - New York - Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1978). 12. For this and the brief survey that follows I depend on the following: Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 267—328; Dungan, History, 323—6; and Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 1—35. 13. Dungan, History, 323. 14. On these three see Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 276-8, 295-7. On Lachmann see also N. H. Palmer, “Lachmann’s Argument,” NTS 13 (1966-19Q7): 368-78, and on Marsh see also Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 11-15. 15. See Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 278-9. 16. On these latter two see Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 289 and 297. [ Page ] 5 hypothesis, whether in a more pure (e.g., Griesbach) or mixed (e.g., Herder) form,17 including those of the modern era. 1.2.2 Early Twentieth Century Developments Despite the variety of hypotheses important German (Heinrich Julius Holtzmann) and Swiss (Paul Wernle) contributions from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century were part of an influential and growing trend toward favoring two basic tenets of the 2DH, namely MP and the direct utilization of Mark (alongside an additional sayings source) by Matthew and Luke.18 Explicit support for this growing consensus came from a long stand- ing seminar involving a group of Oxford scholars (between 1894 and 1910) under the leadership of William Sanday.19 In introducing the published essays of the seminar Sanday noted strong general support for the 2DH (i.e., MP and Q) with only partial dissent from two contributors (Willoughby Allen and J. Vernon Bartlet).20 According to Sanday the difference of opin- ion was sufficiently negligible that “the skepticism that exists in some quar- ters” that “the whole problem would never be brought to a conclusion” was no longer necessary.21 Despite the seminar’s importance, however, it was the subsequent publication of one particular member that proved especially influential in twentieth century English SP scholarship, namely Burnett Hillman Streeter’s The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Man- uscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Dates.22 Alongside extensive dis- cussions of textual criticism, authorship, date and provenance, Streeter defends a four source hypothesis, essentially consisting of the 2DH with additional written sources (M and L) behind the special Matthean and Lukan material. While the additional sources (M and L) have not been well received in subsequent scholarship,23 the basic 2DH tenets of MP and Q have had a lasting influence. Streeter’s publication, according to William 17. For further discussion of the history along with examples of SP hypotheses from this era see Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 271-312 and Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 1-35. 18. On Holtzman see the following: Dungan, History, 326-41; Farmer, Synoptic Prob- lem, 36-47; Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 300-308. On Wernle see Dungan, History, 331. 19. Noting the following publications: Sir John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contribu- tions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1899) and W. San- day, ed., Studies in the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911). According to Farmer the seminar met nine times per year during this 16 year period and as such he calls it the “most sustained literary-critical project on record” (Synoptic Problem, 60). 20. Sanday, “Introductory,” pages vii-xxvii in Sanday, ed., Studies, esp. xi. 21. Ibid., xi-xii. 22. London: Macmillan & Co., 1924. 23. E.g., on the ‘M’ source see Paul Foster, “The M Source: Its History and Demise in Biblical Scholarship,” pages 591-616 in Foster et al. eds., New Studies. [ Page ] 6 Farmer and David Dungan, represents the final nail in the coffin in a long line of political and theological resistance to the (otherwise superior) theory of Griesbach, a resistance based primarily on its association with the suspi- ciously regarded German scholar F. C. Baur.24 Quite apart from the validity or otherwise of these particular historical judgments,25 there is no questioning the overwhelming support for the 2DH during the early- to mid-twentieth century. This is particularly true of German and English scholarship as seen, for example, in form- and redaction-critical works which invariably assume the 2DH (or something close to it).26 Scholarly confidence in the 2DH is famously reflected in several over-confident assertions such as Sanday’s 1910 reference to MP as the “most assured result” of sixty years of critical evalu- ation.27 Even more pointedly in 1955 Philip Vielhauer declared that “source critical analysis of the Gospels has in fact reached its goal in the Two-Source Theory”28 and in 1968 Willi Marxsen confidently asserted that the “Two- Source Theory has been so widely accepted by scholars that one feels inclined to abandon the term ‘theory.’”29 1.2.3 Post WWII Developments and Challenges to the 2DH In spite of such confident assertions, however, the 2DH has never been completely free of dissenting voices and some of these have gained signifi- cant traction during the last sixty years or so. Bishop Christopher Butler, for example, challenged MP in his 1951 defense of the so-called ‘Augustinian 24. Farmer calls Streeter’s volume “the final legacy of the Oxford Seminar” {Synoptic Problem, 63). Dungan says it “silenced the opposition for decades” (History, 370) by which he presumably means not that there was a total absence of dissenters but that their voices were not heard. 25. On which see Christopher Tuckett, “The Griesbach Hypothesis in the 19th Century,” JSNT' 3 (1979): 29-60: and R. H. Fuller, “Baur Versus Hilgenfeld: A Forgotten Chapter in the Debate on the Synoptic Problem,” NTS 24 (1978): 355-70. 26. The 2DH is assumed, for example, in the following: Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 5th ed., trans. John Marsh (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1963); Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, trans. Bertram Lee Woolf (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1934); Vincent Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London - New York: Macmillan & Co Ltd - St Martin’s Press, 1960); W. Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems, trans. G. Buswell (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968); Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, The New Testament Library (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963); Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. G. Buswell (New York: Harper & Row, 1961). 27. Sanday, “The Conditions under Which the Gospels Were Written, in Their Bearing upon Some Difficulties of the Synoptic Problem,” pages 4-26, in Sanday, ed., Studies, 9. 28. Cited in Dungan, History, 341. 29. Marxsen, Introduction, 118. For more examples of the same see Stoldt, History, 261. [ Page ] 7 Hypothesis’ in which he posits direct literary dependence among the Gospels according to their canonical order.30 Dungan sees Butler’s expose of Street- er’s faulty logic (especially in defending MP by appeal to pericope order, which Butler famously labeled a “schoolboyish error”) as a turning point in the modern SP debate resulting in the abandonment of ‘Streetarian’ logic even among some 2DH proponents.31 While Butler’s hypothesis gained little support in itself, the situation was different following William Farmer’s 1964 publication of The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. Having expe- rienced something of a ‘conversion’ away from MP (at least partly influenced by Butler), Farmer offered his own history and critique of the 2DH along with a renewed defense of the Griesbach Hypothesis (2GH). He not only went on to publish many related articles and books but attracted a team of like-minded researchers32 whose most important contributions, based on decades of collaborative research, are two volumes defending first Luke’s Use of Matthew (1996)33 and then Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke (2002).34 This resulted in the 2GH being a leading contender in the contemporary SP debate.35 30. I.e., Matthew is first, is abbreviated by Mark, then Luke uses both Matthew and Mark. See Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951). Note, however, Kloppenborg’s caution in speaking about an ‘Augustinian hypothesis’ insofar as Augustine himself may not have been speaking of literary dependence at all {Excavating Q, 38). 31. See Dungan, History, 370-71. In particular he cites the works of Frans Neirynck and Christopher Tuckett. 32. This group self identifies as the “International Institute for the Renewal of Gospel Studies” and “an international, ecumenical, research institute focussed on all aspects of Gospel studies.” From the 1970’s forward they generated numerous publications in support of the 2GH. Members (as of 1996) included Lamar Cope, David Dungan, William Farmer, Allan McNicol, David Peabody, and Philip Shuler. For this information see Allan J. McNicol, David L. Dungan, and David B. Peabody, eds., Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew. A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), vi. See pp. 321-3 for a select bibliography includ- ing papers by the members. For additional publications associated with Farmer and the 2GH see, for example, the following: Farmer, ed., New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Conference and Beyond (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983); various contributions to Arthur J. Bellinzoni, ed., The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal (Macon, GA: Mercer Uni- versity Press, 1985); idem, “Certain Results Reached by Sir John C. Hawkins and C. F. Burney which Make More Sense if Luke Knew Matthew, and Mark Knew Matthew and Luke,” pages 75-98 in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett, JSNTSup 7 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984); idem, “The Two-Gospel Hypothesis: The State- ment of the Hypothesis,” pages 125-56 in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-f. Boismard, W. R. Farmer, F. Neirynck. Jerusalem 1984, ed. David L. Dungan, BETL 95 (Leuven: Leuven University Press — Peeters, 1990). 33. McNicol et al., Q Impasse. 34. Peabody et al., One Gospel. 35. For more publications see the bibliography in the two volumes just cited. [ Page ] 8 Other 2DH and Q skeptics, however, are uncomfortable with the 2GH rejection of MP. This has resulted in another alternative hypothesis, albeit not always equally recognized,36 that is commonly traced back to a 1955 seminal article by Austin Farrer in which he retains MP but dispenses with Q in favor of Luke’s direct dependence on Matthew (alongside Mark).37 The hypothesis has been ardently supported and developed in a series of articles and books by Michael Goulder,38 and subsequently taken up by Mark Goodacre.39 Increasing Q skepticism among scholars is exemplified in a recent series of essays edited by Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin40 and the net result has been to position the so-called Farrer Hypothesis (FH) alongside the 2GH and 2DH as a third major contender in recent SP discussion.41 While other voices have contributed to the SP debate during the past sixty years,42 the 2GH and FH have provided the most consistent and sustained alternative to the 2DH which, despite these dissenting voices, continues to 36. Noting here the (apparently valid) complaints of Mark Goodacre about the general lack of recognition afforded the FH during the past 50 years (e.g., Goodacre, “A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q,” pages 583-622 in SBLSP [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000]). 37. “On Dispensing with Q,” pages 55-88 in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955). 38. For example see the following books and articles by Goulder: Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974); “A House Built on Sand,” pages 1-24 in Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study, ed. A. E. Harvey (London: SPCK, 1985); “The Order of a Crank,” pages 111-30 in C. M. Tuckett, ed., The Ampleforth Conferences', Luke: A New Para- digm. 2 Vols., JSNTSup 20 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); “Luke’s Compositional Options,” NTS 39 (1993): 150-52. 39. For example see the following publications by Goodacre: “Beyond The Q Impasse or Down a Blind Alley?” JSNT76 (1999): 33-52; The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Prior- ity and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002); Mark Gooda- cre and Nicholas Perrin, eds., Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004). 40. Questioning Q. This volume includes contributions from various scholars who call into question the Q hypothesis. 41. Other supporters of the FH include, for example, the following: John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976); H. Benedict Green, “The Cred- ibility of Luke’s Transformation of Matthew,” pages 131-55 in Tuckett, ed., The Ampleforth Conferences', and Morton Enslin, “Luke and Matthew: Compilers or Authors?” Pages 2357-88 in ANRWII.25.3 (1985). 42.E.g., the so-called Multi-Stage hypothesis (e.g., Léon Vagany, Le problème synoptique: un hypothèse de travail, Bibliothèque de théologie, serie 3: Théologie biblique 1. [Tournai: Desclée, 1954]; Marie-Émile Boismard, “The Two-Source Theory at an Impasse,” NTS 26 [1980]: 1-17), who was a key player in the 1984 Jerusalem conference (essays collected in Dungan, ed., Interrelations). Alternatives to the FH (agreeing on MP and denial of Q but switching the order of Matthew and Luke) include the following: Ronald V. Huggins, “Mat- thean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal,” NovT 24/1 (1992): 1-22; Erik Aurelius, “Gottes- volk und Außenseiter: Eine Geheime Bezeihung Lukas - Mattahäus,” NTS (2001): 428- 41; and Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus (London: SCM Press, [ Page ] 9 have ardent supporters (albeit with less propensity to over-confidence and sometimes with modifications in light of the challenges)43 and is probably the preferred hypothesis among the majority of New Testament scholars.44 These three hypotheses have dominated recent publications and been most repre- sented at major SP conferences45 of which the most recent was the Oxford- Conference on the Synoptic Problem (April 2008).46 For these reasons, along with the constraints of space, these three hypotheses have been selected for the comparison being undertaken here (see figure 1.2).47 1.3 Miracle Tradition and the Synoptic Problem: A Lacuna While isolating these three hypotheses provides a manageable objective for this study, the wide ranging issues of SP debates48 requires an additional specifying focus for which I have chosen the Synoptic miracle tradition. In 2000), 169-207. Other theories exist (e.g., the Jerusalem school which argues for Lukan priority) but the 2GH and FH remain the primary alternatives to the 2DH in recent published literature. 43. E.g., Robert Gundry acknowledges that certain Minor Agreements are best explained by Luke’s direct access to Matthew albeit he remains a 2DH advocate (“Matthean Foreign Bodies in Agreements of Luke with Matthew Against Mark: Evidence That Luke Used Mat- thew,” pages 1467-95 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 2, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden, BETL 100 [Leuven: Peeters — Leuven University Press, 1992]). 44. For an early defense of MP in light of Butler’s critique see G. M. Styler, “The Prior- ity of Mark,” pages 223-32 in The Birth of the New Testament, by C. F. D. Moule (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1962). Among the multitude of recent defenders of the 2DH see: Frans Neirynck, “The Two-Source Hypothesis,” pages 3-46 in Dungan, ed., Interrelations-, C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); and Kloppenborg, Excavating Q. A superficial perusal of commentaries and New Testament Introductions indicates the ongoing popularity of the 2DH in general. 45. E.g., the Ampleforth Conferences (1982 and 1983), the Jerusalem Symposium on “Interrelations of the Gospels” (1984), and the Göttingen Conference on “the Minor Agree- ments” (1991). For a more complete list see Dungan, History, 375-8. Notably the FH was not clearly represented at Jerusalem in 1984 where the major players were the 2GH, the 2DH and Boismard’s Multi-Stage hypothesis. The latter, however, has had few (vocal) advocates in recent years and was not represented at the 2008 Oxford conference. 46. Foster et al., eds., New Studies. Papers from this conference focused on reviewing results and methodology of the last one hundred years of debate. 47. I am not thereby claiming them as the ‘best’ hypotheses as this does not automatically or logically follow from their greater representation at conferences or in scholarly literature, but since my focus is to compare the relative plausibility of currently viable hypotheses they provide the most obvious candidates. 48. The variety of issues pertaining to SP discussion is well illustrated in Foster et al., eds., New Studies, and includes the following: synopsis construction; the nature of literary depend- ence; textual criticism; the role of oral tradition; the role of scribal and rhetorical procedures; Minor Agreements; the church Fathers; the place of John’s Gospel; etc. [ Page ] 10 my estimation this addresses a lacuna in SP research. Miracle narratives are inevitably considered in broadly based discussions of the SP49 and fre- quently appear in relation to particular issues such as the phenomenon of order,50 Minor Agreements,51 rhetoric,52 and ancient literary practices.53 They also appear in general discussions of directional dependence,54 redac- tional plausibility,55 and miracle related tradition.56 Indeed miracle tradition was the focus of discussion in contributions by Frans Neirynck (Matt 4:23— 11:1) and Marie-Émile Boismard (Matt 14:13-14 par.; Mark 1:40-45 par.) at the landmark 1984 Jerusalem conference.57 Despite these important con- tributions, however, I am not aware of any systematic attempt to examine the SP exclusively from the perspective of miracle tradition58 and this is despite large volumes of secondary literature on the latter, which for the most part assume rather than defend or debate (when mentioned) SP solutions.59 Given 49. E.g., Farmer, Synoptic Problem, esp. 233—82, Goulder, Luke, and Peabody et al., One Gospel. 50. E.g., Tuckett, “Arguments from Order: Definition and Evaluation,” pages 197-219 in Tuckett, ed., The Ampleforth Conferences, and Goulder, “The Order of a Crank”. 51. E.g., 4 out of 12 Minor Agreements discussed by Michael Goulder involve miracle tradition (“On Putting Q to the Test,” NTS 24 [1978]: 218-34, noting numbers 1, 2, 3, and 6). 52. E.g., Alex Damm, “Ornatus: An Application of Rhetoric to the Synoptic Problem,” NovT45 (2002): 338-64, esp. 342-50 on Mark 2:9 and par. 53. E.g., Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study in the Synoptic Problem, SBLDS 28 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 153-7 (on Mark 3:1-6 and paral- lels) and in debates over the Beelzebul pericope such as between F. Gerald Downing (“Towards the Rehabilitation of Q,” NTS 11 [1964]: 169-81) and Ken Olson (“Unpicking on the Farrer Theory,” pages 127-50 in Goodacre and Perrin, eds., Questioning Q). 54. E.g., Pierson Parker, “The Posteriority of Mark,” pages 67-142 in Farmer, ed., New Synoptic Studies. 55. E.g., Sherman E. Johnson, The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism, SBLDS 41 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) and Peter M. Head, Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority, SNTSMS 94 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 56. E.g., Sir John C. Hawkins, “Three Limitations to St. Luke’s Use of St. Mark’s Gos- pel,” pages 27-94 in Sanday, ed., Studies, esp. 61—74. 57. The essays appear in Dungan (Interrelations'} as follows: Neirynck, “Matthew 4:23— 5:2 and the Matthean Composition of 4:23-11:1” (pp. 23-46) and “Response to the Multi- Stage Hypothesis” (pp. 81-107); Boismard, “Introduction au premier récit de la multiplication des pains” (pp. 244-53) and “La guérison du lépreux” (pp.254-8). 58. Regarding these various observations along with some preliminary reflections on examining the SP from the perspective of miracle stories see Duncan Reid, “Miracle Stories and the Synoptic Problem,” pages 299-319 in Foster et al., eds., New Studies. 59. Typically this means assumption of the 2DH as for example in the following: Heinz Joachim Held, “Matthew as an Interpreter of Miracle Stories,” pages 165-299 in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held, The New Testament Library (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963); Reginald H. Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles (Naperville, IL: SCM Book Club, 1963); Howard Clark Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study in Socio-Historical Method (New Haven: Yale University [ Page ] 11 the extent of the Gospel miracle tradition, however, it provides an under- explored but valuable lens through which to test the three different SP hypotheses under consideration here. 1.4 The Conventions of Ancient Rhetoric in Relation to Narrative While a material focus on Gospel miracle traditions addresses a lacuna in SP discussions, an equally vital consideration in a study of this nature is the methodology to be employed. The assumed inter-dependence among the Synoptic Gospels for each of the chosen hypotheses (2DH, 2GH, and FH) implies distinct redactional procedures for each of the evangelists, proce- dures that obviously differ depending which hypothesis is adopted. This opens up the possibility of assessing the relative plausibility of the implied redactional procedures associated with these hypotheses. In order to assess redactional plausibility, without being governed entirely by subjective bias, I will appeal to the ancient conventions of narrative reproduction and adapta- tion. More specifically I will look to ancient rhetorical handbooks and observ- able practices of ancient authors (when utilizing known sources) to discern the likely rhetorical conventions that governed narrative reproduction and adaptation. To the extent that these conventions influenced the Gospel writ- ers they can be used to assess the relative plausibility of the implied redac- tional (adaptational) procedures of the Synoptic evangelists in relation to our three chosen hypotheses. SP methodology has rightly been the subject of much scrutiny and debate during recent decades and, therefore, the method employed here requires a more detailed explanation and defense. This, along with an overview of SP methodology in general, will be subject of the next chapter. 1.5 Conclusion: The Starting Point In essence the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels, in terms of their interdependence and/or common dependence upon oral and/or (lost) written sources, has generated much debate during the last two centuries. Despite Press, 1983); Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, trans. Francis McDonagh (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983); Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus: The Miracle Worker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999). An exception is Alistair Stewart-Sykes, “Matthew’s ‘Miracle Chapters’: From Composition to Narrative, and Back Again,” ScrB 25 (1995): 55-65. [ Page ] 12 the apparent hegemony of the 2DH, especially during the early- to mid- twentieth century, alternative theories have gained significant scholarly sup- port in the past sixty years. In particular the 2GH and FH have been high- lighted as primary contenders and together these three hypotheses (2DH, 2GH, and FH) have been selected here for comparison in terms of their relative redactional plausibility. This study will focus on the Gospel miracle traditions and will assess the plausibility of implied redactional procedures on the basis of ancient rhetorical conventions as found in the handbooks and as demonstrated in the practice of ancient authors, namely Josephus (chapter 3) and Plutarch (chapter 4). These conventions will be used to assess redactional plausibility in relation to matters of order and selection (chapter 5) as well as adaptation of individual pericopes (chapter 6) within the Gospel miracle traditions. It is first necessary, however, to provide a more detailed explanation and defense of the methodology being employed here. [ Page ] 13 Figure 1.1a Synoptic Problem Solutions in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1.1a details ] Figure 1.1b: Proto-Gospel Hypothesis (Eichhorn) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1.1b details ] Figure 1.1c: Oral Gospel Hypothesis (Herder) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1.1c details ] [ Page ] 14 Figure 1.2: Three Contemporary Synoptic Hypotheses [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1.2 details ] Figure 1.2a: The Two-Gospel Hypothesis (2GH) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1.2a details ] Figure 1.2b: The Farrer Hypothesis (FH) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1.2b details ] Figure 1.2c: The Two-Document Hypothesis (2DH) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1.2c details ] ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****