RLG 323F, Lecture Two Summary

The Two Source Hypothesis

Mark appears to be the middle term when two of the three evangelists agree against the other. This fact is most readily explained if Matthew and Luke used Mark, or if Mark used Matthew and Luke. Most scholars think that the first scenario (Markan priority) is more likely.
Matthew and Luke share about 235 verses that are not found in Mark.Some scholars suppose that Luke got these materials from Matthew, but most scholars consider that scenario unlikely because the overlaps between Matthew and Luke are limited to these 235 verses. Thus the theory of Markan priority and the likely independence of Matthew and Luke entails the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke also independently used another written source, which scholars call Q (from the German word Quelle, or “source”).
Q consists almost entirely of sayings. They sometimes appear in clusters but usually in different places relative to the Markan framework. The exceptions are places where Mark’s narrative supplies an obvious context for Q material.
Q scholars tend to think of Q as a sayings gospel, i.e., as a complete statement of the faith of its compilers.

Differences between John and the Synoptics

The length and location of Jesus’ ministry.
The “messianic secret.” Peter is the first to recognize Jesus as the messiah in the synoptics, and this occurs just before Jesus’ fateful trip to Jerusalem; in John, Jesus is recognized to be the messiah from the very beginning.
The manner of Jesus’ speech. In the synoptics, Jesus speaks in strings of short, memorable sayings; in John he speaks in long, solemn discourses. Few people understand John’s Jesus.
The issue of salvation. Inthe synoptics, Jesus proclaims the coming of the kingdom of God; in John, he proclaims himself in theological discourses that often centre on the theme “I am the…”
The role of demons. There are numerous exorcism stories in the synoptics but none in John.

John or the Synoptics?

The Johannine and synoptic pictures of Jesus cannot both be correct. Generally speaking, scholars prefer the synoptic picture of Jesus as a prophet who used short, memorable sayings to proclaimthe coming kingdom of God, because this theme is common to several independent sources (Mark, Q, M, L);these sources contain nothing resembling the long Jesus-centred discourses that appear in John. However, the style of Jesus’ speech in John is identical to that of “the elder” who wrote the letters of John. Most likely it is the elder who is speaking through John’s Jesus. John is still considered valuable on other matters not pertaining to Jesus’ discourses (e.g., geography, the form of miraclestories).

Signs of Oral Tradition in the Synoptics

The synoptic gospels are filled with short sayings and short episodes, most of which seem disconnected from what comes before and after. This self-contained, disjointed character is typical of orally transmitted traditions. These materials were probably transmitted anecdotally for decades before they were written down.

Oral Transmission

Everything that we hear enters our short-term memory and is lost within about 30 seconds if we do not think about it. This fact severely limits our ability to remember discourses verbatim. What we do remember are the things we spent time thinking about. The process of thinking about what you heard is what produces long-term memories. But those memories only last if they are strengthened by periodic recollection. Consequently, we would expect Jesus’ audiencesto have remembered only the most memorable things Jesus said. Fortunately, Jesus devised clever, pithy sayings to help people remember his important ideas. He also used conventional forms for his sayings, and his followers crafted anecdotes about his life in standard story formats. The best modern analogies are the forms or genres of jokes. The shortest and most standardized jokes are easy to remember verbatim (e.g., knock knock jokes, Newfie jokes), as are the shortest, most standardized sayings (“Judge not, least you be judged”). Episodes (pericopes) are too long to remember verbatim; people instead remember the essential elements (the “skeleton” of the narrative) and creatively fill in the remainder in the act of storytelling; the same is true of long jokes. Hence the details in these episodes are rarely reliable, but the basic story can remain the same for decades.

How Reliable are the Jesus Traditions?

Because so much of the synoptic gospels consists of triple (i.e., Markan) and double (i.e., Q) tradition, these gospels present a more-or-less consistent picture of Jesus’ life. But because this similarity is not the product of independent witnesses but of a shared use of sources, it cannot be taken as evidence of the historical reliability of this presentation of Jesus.
Indeed, Matthew and Luke diverge widely whenever they both relate an incident that is not found in Mark or Q (e.g., the genealogies, the infancy narratives, the resurrection appearances).
Matthew and Luke’s heavy reliance on Mark, their disagreements on where to put the double tradition materials, and the freedom with which they revised their sources are strong indications that they were not eyewitnesses (of the three, only Matthew was ever thought to be). John’s distinctiveness vis-à-vis the synoptic tradition likewise eliminates him as an eyewitness.
The integrity of the oral traditionsused in the gospels may be assessed by comparing the same stories or sayings in independent sources. The Centurion’s Slave (John and Q) typifies the range of variability. The Death of Judas (Acts and Matthew) illustrates how drastically a story can change over time.