The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (44 page)

¹⁷³
G. Barna, “Beliefs: General Religious,” n.p. (cited May 1, 2007); posted at http://www.barna.org/FlexPage. aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=2.

¹⁷⁴
H. Taylor, “The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans, 2003,” n.p. (cited May 8, 2007); posted at http://www. harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359.

¹⁷⁵
See R. Swinburne, “The Evidential Value of Religious Experience,” in
The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century
, ed. A. R. Peacocke (Stockfield: Oriel, 1981), 182–96.

¹⁷⁶
D. Polkow, “Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research,” in K. H. Richards, ed.,
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
, SBLSP 26 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 336–56.

¹⁷⁷
F. C. Burkitt,
The Gospel History and Its Transmission
, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911), 147. Burkitt examined Mark and Q for double attestation. After the publication of B. H. Streeter's work (on which see further below), the criterion was expanded to include material in M and L as well.

¹⁷⁸
C. H. Dodd,
The Parables of the Kingdom
, rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961), 26–29; id.,
History and the Gospel
(London: Nisbet, 1938), 91–102.

¹⁷⁹
Porter,
Criteria of Authenticity
, 86–89.

¹⁸⁰
See the discussion of the various theories regarding the relationship of the Synoptic Gospels below.

¹⁸¹
See C. L. Quarles,
The Sermon on the Mount for Today
(Nashville: B&H, 2009).

¹⁸²
See U. C. von Wahlde, “Archaeology and John's Gospel,” in
Jesus and Archaeology
, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 560–66 (with additional references); R. Brown,
The Gospel According to John I–XII
, AB 29 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 206–7; and Köstenberger,
John
, 178.

¹⁸³
See Porter,
Criteria of Authenticity
, 71; Bultmann,
History of the Synoptic Tradition
, 205.

¹⁸⁴
M. Hengel,
The Charismatic Leader and His Followers
, trans. J. C. G. Greig (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), 5.

¹⁸⁵
For the call to abandon the criterion of double dissimilarity, see G. Theissen and D. Winter,
The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria
, trans. E. M. Boring (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 27–171.

¹⁸⁶
Ibid., 211.

¹⁸⁷
Wright,
Jesus and the Victory of God
, 90.

¹⁸⁸
J. P. Meier, “Criteria: How Do We Decide What Comes from Jesus?” in
The Historical Jesus in Recent Research
, ed. J. D. G. Dunn and S. McKnight (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 134.

¹⁸⁹
Ibid., 135.

¹⁹⁰
See C. L. Quarles, “The Authenticity of the Parable of the Warring King: A Response to the Jesus Seminar,” in
Authenticating the Words of Jesus
, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 409–30.

¹⁹¹
C. L. Blomberg,
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
, 2d ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 303–4.

¹⁹²
See J. P. Meier,
Mentor, Message, and Miracles
, vol. 2 of
The Marginal Jew
(Garden City: Doubleday, 1994), 617–970; Twelftree,
Jesus the Miracle Worker
; N. T. Wright,
The Resurrection of the Son of God
, Christian Origins and the Question of God 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).

¹⁹³
For a good introduction to form criticism, see E. P. Sanders and M. Davies,
Studying the Synoptic Gospels
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 123–200.

¹⁹⁴
But see Darrell L. Bock (
The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities
[Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006], 83–96, 115–30, 147–64, 183–214), who explains how theology was being taught and understood in its core while the NT was being written. All the things the whole church did—whether read Hebrew Scripture, sing hymns, recite doctrinal summaries, and practice church rites—allowed early believers to be taught core theology while these works were being produced. See also Darrell L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace,
Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007).

¹⁹⁵
See Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, chap. 10, and the literature cited there, to whose treatment the following discussion is indebted; see especially his critique of Bailey and Dunn on pp. 257–63.

¹⁹⁶
K. E. Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,”
Asia Journal of Theology
5 (1991): 34–54; id., “Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,”
ExpTim
106 (1995): 363–67; J. D. G. Dunn,
Jesus Remembered
, Christianity in the Making 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 173–254.

¹⁹⁷
Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, chaps. 10 and 11.

¹⁹⁸
Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist
. 3.39.14–16.

¹⁹⁹
Some scholars suggest that Papias wrote his “Expositions of the Lord's Sayings” around the year 130. But Bauckham (
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, 12–14) demonstrated that this date is based on unreliable evidence.

²⁰⁰
Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, 425–33.

²⁰¹
See ibid., 114–47.

²⁰²
Bultmann,
History of the Synoptic Tradition
, 68, 215, 241, 283, 310, 345, 393; M. Dibelius,
From Tradition to Gospel
, trans. B. L. Woolf (London: Nicholson & Watson, 1934), 50–53.

²⁰³
Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, 73–74.

²⁰⁴
Ibid., 6. For Bauckham's views on the authorship of John's Gospel and a critique of his views, see chap. 7 below.

²⁰⁵
Blomberg,
Historical Reliability
, 25–30.

²⁰⁶
Ibid., 30.

²⁰⁷
See H. Lindsell,
Battle for the Bible
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 174–76. In order to explain variations in wording between the Gospels, Lindsell claimed that Peter denied Jesus six times. But this claim conflicts with Jesus' own prophecy that Peter would deny him three times before the rooster crowed.

²⁰⁸
For a more extensive discussion of legitimate approaches to harmonization, see Blomberg,
Historical Reliability
, 152– 240; id., “The Legitimacy and Limits of Harmonization,” in
Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon
, ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 139–74.

²⁰⁹
Helpful resources include G. L. Archer Jr.,
The New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001 [1982]); N. L. Geisler and T. Howe,
When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992); and W. C. Kaiser Jr., ed.,
Hard Sayings of the Bible
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996).

²¹⁰
See K. Aland, ed.,
Synopsis of the Four Gospels
(New York: United Bible Societies, 1982; repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006); id.,
Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum
, 3d ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1988).

²¹¹
This table was adapted from R. Stein,
The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 35. Using Mark as the standard of comparison for the order of pericopes can prejudice a discussion in favor of Markan priority. That is not the intention here. The order of one of the Gospels must serve as a basis for comparison, and the great similarity in order between Mark and Luke justifies using either Mark or Luke in this way.

²¹²
Stein,
Synoptic Problem
, 38; cf. E. Best, “The Gospel of Mark: Who Was the Reader?”
IBS
11 (1989): 124–32.

²¹³
For commentators who affirm that the parenthetical statement was Jesus' call to careful interpretation of Daniel, see D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in
Matthew, Mark, Luke
, EBC 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 500; C. Keener,
A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 576; W. D. Davies and D. Allison,
Matthew 19–28
, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1997), 346. J. Nolland (
The Gospel of Matthew
, NICGT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 972) argued that the words refer to readers of Daniel rather than the Gospels but that they were inserted by the evangelists.

²¹⁴
Our translation. In addition to the slight differences that are obvious in the translation (“chief priests” and different tenses of the verb “handed over”), the evangelists used two different verbs for “know.”

²¹⁵
See especially G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds.,
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

²¹⁶
Proponents of the independence of the Gospels include H. Alford,
The Four Gospels
(London: Rivington's, 1863), 2–6; B. F. Westcott,
An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels
(London: Macmillan, 1895); B. Reicke,
The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); and E. Linnemann,
Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).

²¹⁷
See the brief history of the early church discussion in D. Bock,
Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 164–67. For a more extensive history, see Part I of D. L. Dungan,
A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels
, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 11–144.

²¹⁸
Some claim that the “Augustinian hypothesis” is a misnomer. H. J. de Jonge (“Augustine on the Interrelations of the Gospels,” in
The Four Gospels 1992: Fs. Frans Neirynck
, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al., BETL 100 [Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1992], 3:2417) stated: “The so-called “Augustinian hypothesis” does not reflect Augustine's views on the origin and interrelations of the Gospels. It is a recent invention, possibly not older than the sixteenth century.” On p. 2410, de Jonge notes the singular “predecessor” in the above-cited reference by Augustine.

²¹⁹
The Augustinian solution to the Synoptic problem has been defended recently by B. C. Butler,
The Originality of St. Matthew
(Cambridge: University Press, 1951); and J. Wenham,
Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem
(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991). Compare D. A. Black,
Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001).

²²⁰
This argument is weakened by the insistence of the early church that Mark's Gospel preserves Peter's reminiscences of Jesus' ministry. See the testimony of Papias, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen in Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
3.39.15; 6.14.5–7; and 6.25.5 respectively; Irenaeus,
Against Heresies
3.1.2; Tertullian,
Against Marcion
4.5; and the Muratorian Canon. See particularly the discussion in Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, 202–39.

²²¹
W. R. Farmer,
The Synoptic Problem
(Dillsboro: Western North Carolina Press, 1976), 215–17.

²²²
See further discussion below.

²²³
R. Stein, “Synoptic Problem,” in
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
, 787. The church fathers uniformly described Matthew as first and John as last, but there is less clarity regarding the respective positions of Luke and Mark. For example, Irenaeus (c. 130–c. 200) described the order as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (
Against Heresies
3.1.1–4), as do a great many other church fathers. This order may be reflective of the shape of the fourfold Gospel codex, although Irenaeus himself may have known it in the Western order Matthew, John, Mark, Luke. But Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), in a passage preserved in Eusebius (
Eccl. Hist.
6.14.5–7), described the order as Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John.

²²⁴
Stein, “Synoptic Problem,” 787. For a more detailed discussion with examples, see Stein,
Introduction to the Synoptic Problem
, 52–58, 62–67, 76–88.

²²⁵
Ibid., 787.

²²⁶
Stein,
Introduction to the Synoptic Problem
, 52–58.

²²⁷
Ibid., 62–67.

²²⁸
Ibid., 67–76.

²²⁹
Stein, “Synoptic Problem,” 787. For a more detailed discussion with examples, see Stein,
Introduction to the Synoptic Problem
, 52–58, 62–67, and 76–88.

²³⁰
See especially P. M. Head,
Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority
, SNTSMS 94 (Cambridge: University Press, 1997); cf. M. C. Williams,
Two Gospels from One: A Comprehensive Text-Critical Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006).

²³¹
Stein, “Synoptic Problem,” 787.

²³²
Earlier supporters of the two-document hypothesis used designations other than Q to refer to the hypothetical sayings source that lay behind Matthew and Luke. Marsh used the Hebrew
bet
. Holtzmann used the Greek
lambda
, an abbreviation for
logia
meaning “sayings source.”

²³³
H. J. Holtzmann,
Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter
(Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863).

²³⁴
C. H. Weisse,
Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophich bearbeitet
, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1838).

²³⁵
B. H. Streeter,
The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship and Dates
(London: Macmillan, 1924).