Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
  • Calendar
    • Calendar
    • Events
  • Blog
  • Recording Archives
  • Resources
    • Bible Study - John's Gospel
    • Greek Tutorials
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Position Papers
  • Sandbox

Dating the Gospels

1/28/2022

0 Comments

 
1/28/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter Twelve: When Were the Gsopels Written?" Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 223-244.

Wenham observes the dating of the Gospels remains a challenge, with advocates of various dates. The first question he approaches is that of the year 70. Though the Gospels record Jesus' eschatological statements about the destruction of Jerusalem, none says anything about the fulfillment (Wenham 1992, 224). It would be hard to conceive of a Gospel written after the fall of Jerusalem but not mentioning it.

Wenham also, after brief reviews of a number of theories, concludes that Acts was written before 70 (Wenham 1992, 226). In fact, due to several of the indicators in Acts, he, with numerous other scholar, is accepting of a theory of composition in 62 (Wenham 1992, 227).

Luke's Gospel, though not a direct predecessor of Acts like a first of a two volume work, does seem to come before Acts (Wenham 1992, 230). Wenham suggests a plausible date as during Paul's time in a Ceaesarean prision, 57-59. Luke would certainly have had adequate time to assemble his information and write his account. However, if Luke is the person referred to in 2 Corinthians 8:18, written in 56, as the early Fathers affirmed, he would have written the Gospel before 56 (Wenham 1992, 231). Denials of this passage referring to Luke are regularly based on the idea that Mark and Luke wrote at a later time, so the passage could not possibly refer to someone due to his writing a Gospel book (Wenham 1992, 234). Wenham cites numerous instances from the first 80 years of Christianity in which "gospel" can easily be understood as a book which tells about Jesus. Wenham understands this to be the meaning of Mark in Mark 1:1 (Wenham 1992, 235). To allow Luke time to become famous for the Gospel, Wenham suggests that he wrote the work in the period 50-55, when he was not known to be on journeys with Paul (Wenham 1992, 238).

Wenham briefly summarizes his argument from chapters six and seven, which placed Mark and Peter together at Rome from 42-44. The composition of his Gospel during this period, or slightly later, but certainly before 50, strikes Wenham as "likely enough" (Wenham 1992, 238).

Matthew, according to Eusebius, wrote his Gospel shortly before he departed from Palestine, probably 12 years after Crhist's Passion (Wenham 1992, 239). Wenham thinks the event could be as early as 41 or 42, in times of persecution. While some readers take Irenaeus  to advocate a date in the 60s, Wenham thinks this is a misinterpretation of "Against Heresies" 3.1.1 (Wenham 1992, 240). Irenaeus' interest was not in the date, but in how the Gospels had survived to his time (Wenham 1992, 241). Eusebius, in fact, places Matthew's Gospel in 41.

Wenham closes his book by summarizing his conclusions (Wenham 1992, 243-244). He takes the Gospels to be largely independent compositions which reflect similar knowledge of oral instruction. Similarities in order of events may well show a literary relationship. The Gospels were written in the order Matthew (about 40), Mark (about 45), Luke (early 50s), John (later). This is consistent with internal evidence and early historical accounts (Wenham 1992, 244).

​
0 Comments

What Is Tradition Anyway?

1/27/2022

0 Comments

 
1/27/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter Eleven: Jesus-Tradition Oral and Written." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 217-222.

Wenham's overall argument leads toward an early date for each of the Synoptic Gospels. Despite the existence of the texts, it is fair to ask why the rest of the New Testament does not refer to them directly (Wenham 1992, 218). Wenham does observe that there are indicators throughout the New Testament of knowledge of the traditions about Jesus, even though there is very little overt reference to those traditions. In fact, explicit references to the written Gospels are also rare in the Fathers, whose knowledge of the documents is not in question (Wenham 1992, 219). For that matter, in Acts, Luke does not repeat the events of his Gospel to explain what the apostles are doing. Wenham views the purposes of the Epistles to be significantly different from those of the Gospels, thus requiring different types of information and proofs (Wenham 1992, 220). There is a presupposition of knowledge about Jesus, but the events of the Gospels are not used as direct arguments.

Wenham further considers that cultural differences between Judaism and Christianity made the use of written normative documents less important in Christian communities than in Jewish communities (Wenham 1992, (Wenham 1992, 220-221). These differences were based on an emphasis on orality rather than textuality in Christianity, as well as a focus on apostolic authority rather than canonicity.

​
0 Comments

Gospels and Writing Methods

1/26/2022

0 Comments

 
1/26/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter Ten: How Were the Gospels Written?" Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 198-216.

Wenham considers it essential that we remember that Jesus was an oral preacher and teacher in a culture where orality and detailed memorization of words and order of events was common. At the same time, it was also common for teachers and scholars to make notes for mnemonic purposes (Wenham 1992, 199). Jesus and others would have been quite capable of using Aramaic or Greek, and possibly Hebrew as well. Wenham suggests the possibility of both specific recollections of particular wording of interactions and written recollections which may have been consulted (Wenham 1992, 200). Written records would have become more common as the need for a definitive account which could be consulted in the absence of the eyewitnesses arose. This would be seen as a means of preserving the truth. 

Matthew was traditionally understood as the first to write a definitive gospel account (Wenham 1992, 201). Wenham does not consider the composition to have been done hurriedly. He even considers that Matthew may well have composed the greater discourses first, then arranged other events around them to guide the overall emphasis of the gospel to the passion account. In doing so, Matthew may have used papyrus transcripts of the teachings of the other apostles, at least as a prompt to his memory (Wenham 1992, 202).

Wenham has more uncertainty about Mark's gospel. He takes it to use Matthew as a model and also to be based on Peter's preaching (Wenham 1992, 202). As Peter was an eyewitness to the events, he would not have been dependent on Matthew, though he may well have had access to a copy of Matthew (Wenham 1992, 203). Wenham is open to theories of literary dependence or dependence on an oral tradition which had some specific idiomatic phrasing.

Wenham reviews accounts of manuscript preparation, noting that copyists did not use a writing table or desk until the late Middle Ages. This would have made a task of composition which drew from and adapted multiple written sources very difficult (Wenham 1992, 204-205). Rearranging and revising texts was considered high level scholarly work. Wenham considers it highly unlikely that any of the canonical Gospels would have been composed in this way (Wenham 1992, 206).

Luke's Gospel, from the prologue, was intended to set testimony in order (Wenham 1992, 209). Wenham considers Luke to have had access to Matthew and Mark. While Matthew would be an "eyewitness," Mark would have been an "assistant," each representing an element of Luke's research. Luke seems to have narrated most of the material which was used by both Matthew and Mark, but to have used Mark's organizational structure for the most part. Many of Luke's differences have to do with geography, about which his record tends to be more accurate than that of the other evangelists (Wenham 1992, 211).

Wenham finally moves to a brief discussion of the different genealogies of Jesus. The two defy harmonization. early Chrsitian traditions suggest the genealogies were provided by different branches of the family (Wenham 1992, 214). Wenham tends to think the genealogy in Matthew is intended to show royal succession while Luke intends to show natural familial succession. Another popular view suggests that Luke has Mary's family while Matthew has Joesph's, thus the legal heritage (Wenham 1992, 216). 

​
0 Comments

Anonymity and Luke's Gospel

1/24/2022

0 Comments

 
1/24/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter Nine: Ancient Testimony to Luke's Gospel." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 183-197.

Wenham considers early testimony to be unanimous that Luke's Gospel was written by one luke, and normally stated along with an assertion tha this Luke accompanied Paul (Wenham 1992, 184). Some early voices add that Luke is from Syria, that he was a physician, never married, and lived to the age of 84. The Roman custom of putting a tag with an author's name on the outside of a scroll could easily explain the association of Luke's name with the third Gospel (Wenham 1992, 185). Wenham notes a tradition dating to the third century that Luke was one of the seventy sent out by Jesus. Though the tradition is inconclusive, it could explain why Luke spoke at relatively great length about that mission (Wenham 1992, 186).

Where Luke is to be placed in the sequence of the Gospels is a significant matter of debate. According to Eusebius (H.E. 6.14.5), Clement of Alexandria placed the Gospels with genealogies first (Wenham 1992, 188). This led to the "Two Gospel Hypothesis," which took Matthew and Luke to be first. On the other hand, we have Origen, who claims the tradition to be Matthew, Mark, then Luke (Wenham 1992, 189). This tradition, in turn, conflicts with Egyptian codices which are often in the order John, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Wenham 1992, 190). Irenaeus normally states the order as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is also the order given in the Muratorian Canon (Wenham 1992, 192). By the fourth century, Wenham finds a solid consensus of the order of composition. Wenham does discuss attempts to reconcile Clement and Eusebius in some detail. He concludes that Mark is best explained as an intermediate step, after Matthew and before Luke (Wenham 1992, 196). The question which remains as of primary importance is whether we should think of the relatinships primarily in literary terms (Wenham 1992, 197). 

​
0 Comments

Mark and Alexandria

1/21/2022

0 Comments

 
1/21/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter Eight: Mark's Gospel: Further Considerations." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 173-182.

The placement of Mark as founder of the church in Alexandria further informs our understanding of the time and origin of Mark's Gospel. Eusebius places Mark in Alexandria, with his written Gospel, in time to be succeeded by Annianus in Nero's eighth year (Wenham 1992, 174). This was a universal explanation of the founding of the church in Alexandria from early Christianity. Manuscript P52, from Egypt, from the early second century, strongly suggests that the Gospel was present there from an early time (Wenham 1992, 175).

Wenham further adduces 7QS, sealed in Qumran in 68, as evidence of Mark's Gospel being known at that time, as the scroll contains a part of Mark 6:52f (Wenham 1992, 177). Spelling irregularities in the passage suggest an Egyptian origin of the text (Wenham 1992, 178). 

Internal evidence in Mar's Gospel also, as far as Wenham is concerned, speaks to early composition drawn primarily from oral narratives. This further suggests the accuracy of early testimony of the Church, asserting that it was based on Peter's preaching (Wenham 1992, 180).

​
0 Comments

Peter and Rome

1/20/2022

0 Comments

 
1/20/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter Seven: The Date of Peter's Going to Rome." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 146-171.

Wenham notes that a traditional historic interpretation of first century events places Peter in Rome after he was released from prison (Acts 12:17), and that his presence in Rome at that time suggests that Mark's Gospel may have been in progress by the mid 40s as opposed to the late 60s (Wenham 1992, 147). While some modern scholarship dismisses Peter's early presence in Rome, many have continued to affirm it as likely. The essential argument which Wenham puruses in this chapter is summarized: "1.) There was a large and world-famous church in Rome in 57 with which Paul had had contact for some years. 2.) A well-grounded tradition says that its foundation was laid by Peter in the second year of Claudius. 3. This fits without difficulty into the account of Peter in Acts. 4.) Rome's claim to Petrine foundation was unchallenged throughout the church" (Wenham 1992, 149).

While Acts never tells us how or when the gospel came to Rome, we do know from chapter 28 that there were Christians there in 60, who came to meet Paul. We also have every reason to believe Paul's letter to the Romans was sent in 57 from Corinth (Wenham 1992, 149). The letter recognizes the church as well established, and greets a number of people by name. The work of Suetonius speaks of riots and discussions among the Jews on account of "Christus," which led to Claudius' exile of Jews in 50. This is consistent with the account in Acts 18 of Paul, in Corinth, meeting a number of Chrsitians who have come from Italy (Wenham 1992, 150). Many exiles likely returned to Rome after Claudius' death in 53. Wenham considers the church at Rome to have been large. Paul greets 25 people, probably a small fraction. Suetonius saw the group as large enough to provoke significant unrest in a large city (Wenham 1992, 152). Further, several of the greetings in Romans 16 are toward members of prominent households, including that of the emperor (Wenham 1992, 153). The Christian movement in Rome was not obscure.

Romans 15:20-24 states that Paul's habit was not to go to places with an established church. Wenham considers this a hint that Rome's church had been established, and probably by Peter, the other apostle known for planting churches (Wenham 1992, 155). The church of Rome since the mid second century until recently taught that Peter was instrumental in the founding and leadership of the church in Rome for 25 years until his death about the year 67 (Wenham 1992, 156). Wenham considers the arguments for and against this tradition. He concludes that the argument from early documents strongly suggests Peter was associated with the church in Rome as the apostolic founder from the earliest period, when some would still have first-hand knowledge of the events (Wenham 1992, 160). Wenham speaks in brief of a tradition suggesting the apostles were to remain in Jerusalem for twelve years, placing a likely departure no earlier than 42 (Wenham 1992, 160-161). He also notes the importance of Simon Magus in Acts 8 (Wenham 1992, 162). Irenaeus, citing Justin Martyr, places Simon in Rome later, deceiving the people and being confronted by Peter.

Though we have relatively few pieces of evidence about Peter's actions after Stephen's death, Wenham does create a chronology of sorts. It demonstrates that Peter was not a constant resident bishop in Rome from 42-67 (Wenham 1992, 165). However, the custom of the ἐπίσκοπος being in residence all the time was not well established by this time. Wenham does not consider the relative silence about someone who was a political fugitive to be a problem, when compared to the selective nature of Acts (Wenham 1992, 166). Peter's work in Rome can explain a great deal, not only about the development of a thriving church there, but also about the relative independence and preparation ofMark's gospel (Wenham 1992, 170).

Finally, Wenham points out that in early Chrsitianity there were no suggestions that Peter was established as a leader anywhere other than at Rome (Wenham 1992, 171). We would expect that other communities would have claimed this Petrine heritage if they could.

​
0 Comments

Ancient Testimony to Mark

1/19/2022

0 Comments

 
1/19/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter Six: Ancient Testimony to Mark's Gospel." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 136-145.

As with Matthew's Gospel, ancient testimony about Mark's Gospel begins with Papias, quoted by Eusebius. Papias' report is that John (possibly the apostle but called the Presbyter) said Mark wrote the report of what Peter said about the Lord (Wenham 1992, 136). Eusebius considered Matthew to show an orderly, literary polish, while Mark he considered more influenced by orality. The testimony that Mark wrote in Rome under the influence of Peter is quite solid.

Wenham considers it significant that Papias calls Mark the  ἑρμηνευτής, or "interpreter" of Peter (Wenham 1992, 137). This does not strike Wenham as a word used of a transcriptionist but of someone who would engage in additional teaching. Papias considered the account accurate and a full account, though not in order (Wenham 1992, 138). 

Wenham notes that Irenaeus described Mark as writing during Peter's life, at a time close to the preaching, but that he passed the written account on only afte rPeter's death (Wenham 1992, 139). This emphasizes Mark's writing as coming while Peter could affirm his accuracy.

In addition to his quotes of Papias, Eusebius helpfully quotes Clement of Alexandria, who understood Mark to have written according to Peter's speech, with Peter's knowledge (H.E. 6.14.6f, Wenham 1992, 141). Eusebius also quotes Origen's commentary on Matthew, in which Origen states he learned of four Gospels. He takes Mark to have written what Peter taught (H.E. 6.25.5, Wenham 1992, 142). 

​
0 Comments

Ancient Testimony to Matthew

1/17/2022

0 Comments

 
1/17/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter Five: Ancient Testimony to Matthew's Gospel." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 116-135.

Wenham observes that early testimony to Matthew's primacy is virtually unanimous, reaching back as far as Papias, who "had direct contact with two of Jesus' actual followers" (Wenham 1992, 116). Matthew the tax collector was seen as the author, with his gospel being the first to be written, and possibly being originally written in Hebrew (Wenham 1992, 117). Wenham quotes Papias, Irenaeus, Jerome's account of second century missionary Pantaenus, Origen (Wenham 1992, 117), Eusebius, and Cyril of Jerusalem (Wenham 1992, 118) in support of this thesis.

The tradition of Matthean primacy has faced criticism. Wenham notes that Jerome seems to refer to the Gospel under several titles, which causes some confusion. Jerome also cites come content in a text which seems to be Matthew in Hebrew, but the content is not present in the Greek Matthew (Wenham 1992, 120). Wenham considers it important to defend Papias and his proximity to Matthew's Gospel. Citing Gundry at length he takes Papias' comments about the primacy of Matthew to date no later than 110, as opposed to much opinion which places him about 135 (Wenham 1992, 122). Of note is Eusebius' view (HE 3.39.1-4) that Papias had a decided preference for firsthand testimony rather than literary remains. These witnesses included apostolic voices (Wenham 1992, 123).

Papias' testimony has been discounted through four basic means. Wenham sees these four means as "1.) insistence on Matthew's deviation from Mark; 2.) emphasis on the ambivalence of Eusebius; 3.) attempted explanations of how Papias got it wrong; 4.) attempted reinterpretations of Papias" (Wenham 1992, 125). Basing Matthew on Mark, rather than the other way around, indicates that Papias was incorrect. However, we have seen numerous reasons to believe Matthew was at least largely independent of Mark. While Eusebius does not consider Papias to be infallible, he recognizes that Papias' scholarship is rightly influential (Wenham 1992, 127). This is consistent with his mentions of much of Papias' information without attempted refutation. The attempts to explain how Papias went astray are based on our failure to find a Hebrew version of Matthew. This suggests to scholars that the Gospel was not written by Matthew the tax collector, or Papias would have brought two documents to light (Wenham 1992, 129). Finally, Papias' reference to Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ has been re-interpreted. The term διάλεκτος as used in the New Testament uniformly means "language" (Wenham 1992, 131). To re-interpret it as "style" strikes Wenham as an attempt to force Papias to say something he never said.

Finally, Wenham considers the nature of titles provided for works in antiquity (Wenham 1992, 134). Normally, the author's name would be present in the genitive, followed by a title indicating the content. However, the Gospels are routinely referred to as Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ name. The testimony of these titles is unanimous from the earliest copies onward. Wenham thus sees very early attribution of authorship, prior to the year 100, possibly as early as 69 or 70 (Wenham 1992, 135). The uniformity of title as well as the early witness of a standard order suggests that Papias' view was recognized before Papias wrote and represents the actual historic point of view.

​
0 Comments

Matthew First Or Mark?

1/14/2022

2 Comments

 
1/14/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter Four: Building a Synoptic Theory: (3) The Relation of Matthew to Mark." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 88-115.

Wenham considers the arguments for Markan priority to be lacking. Matthew seems like an original work, Palestinian in origin, without strong marks of depdence on other texts (Wenham 1992, 88). For this reason, Wenham in this chapter pursues the thesis that "Matthew's relation to Mark can be satisfactorily explained on the lines of patristic tradition" (Wenham 1992, 89).

The Gospels do not show signs of complete independence. They frequently follow the same order of arrangement, which suggests some influence (Wenham 1992, 89). However, the lines of influence are not clear. Most arguments which can be made from similarity can be reversed. This becomes a more significant challenge when we consider the three Synoptic Gospels, rather than just two of them (Wenham 1992, 90).

Wenham briefly discusses arguments in favor of Markan rather than Matthean primacy Mark tends to omit material found in Matthew. This could suggest that Mark didn't know what Matthew did, or it could suggest that Mark was selectively emphasizing some elements but didn't feel a need to provide every possible piece of information he had (Wenham 1992, 91). Mark's wealth of detail, which could suggest priority, could also point to a later, more mature stage of understanding. Therefore, Wenham does not consider this a compelling argument for Markan priority (Wenham 1992, 91). Mark's provision of a fuller, more nuanced, view of the death of John the Baptist could suggest a later date just as well as an earlier date (Wenham 1992, 92). Further, when comparing Matthew 27:15-18 with Mark 15:6-10, some scholars suggest Mark's narrative is more clearly logical in its sequence, therefore Matthew borrowed from Mark but didn't fully understand his sequence. This could equally well say that Matthew wrote first and Mark, possibly aware of Matthew, chose to clear up some of the statements of motivations (Wenham 1992, 93). 

Matthew's Gospel was regarded, in early Christianity, as a brilliant and original work. Wenham, along with others, has trouble seeing it as a derivative "patchwork" which tried to follow the work of others but made some eight thousand modifications. In short, to Wenham, it "looks original" (Wenham 1992, 94). 

Not only does it look original, but it seems early in date and Palestinian in nature (Wenham 1992, 95). The frequent appeals to the Old Testament and the portrayal of conflict with the Pharisees suggests this early Palestinian origin.

Rather than finding Mark as a work dependent on Matthew, Wenham considers many of the distinctives to be indicative of relatively independent composition for a very different audience, one not local to Jerusalem (Wenham 1992, 96-97).

Mark is often considered to have omitted portions of Matthew's material (Wenham 1992, 97). Wenham considers whether this is evidence of anything in particular. When Wenham compares passages in which Matthew provides numerous chunks of teaching content and Mark provides fewer, Mark regularly makes statements to the effect that he is providing only a partial account (Wenham 1992, 99). This suggests to Wenham that not only is Mark aware of Matthew's account, but also that he does not think of himself as providing uniqe material (Wenham 1992, 100). 

The different order of events in Matthew and Mark may be indicative of the order in which the works were written. Wenham argues that it is easier to explain Mrk changing the order of events than to explain Matthew doing so (Wenham 1992, 101). The three major dislocations in order are considered in turn. It proves much more reasonable to understand Mark as moving fairly large blocks of narrative than to understand Matthew as making many small displacements of material so as to take logically connected materials and make a different but coherent schme (Wenham 1992, 102).

Wenham further considers whether there is evidence for a Semitic original of Matthew (Wenham 1992, 109). It would be highly unlikely to take a Greek Gospel (Mark) and revise it into Aramaic (Matthew). However, Wenham finds many Aramaisms in Matthew, which suggest to him that Matthew is an original composition with Hebrew/Aramaic roots (Wenham 1992, 110). Finally, Wenham argues for a very high rate of literacy in 1st century Palestine, with people typically making notes of interactions so as to preserve them. Of all the apostles, Matthew, by his profession, would be uniquely qualified to preserve accounts of Jesus through notetaking and subsequent transcription (Wenham 1992, 113).

Wenham concludes that Matthew came first, that Mark came second and was heavily influenced by Peter, with knowledge of Matthew, and that Luke came third, knowing Matthew and Mark but showing considerable independence (Wenham 1992, 115).

​
2 Comments

Knowledge versus Dependence

1/12/2022

0 Comments

 
1/12/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter Two: Building a Synoptic Theory: (1) The Relation of Luke to Mark." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 11-39.

Wenham identifies five steps needed to build a theory of how the Synoptic Gospels interrelate. In this chapter he discusses the first three necessary steps (Wenham 1992, 11).

First, Wenham sets out to demonstrate that Luke knew Mark's gospel. Most scholars accept this readily, but some argue that Luke cane before Mark (Wenham 1992, 12). Wenham finds that clusters of two or more words in Luke which clearly come from Mark or a common source are relatively rare, particularly if we exclude wording common to all three Synoptics (Wenham 1992, 16). Wenham further finds there is relatively little material which occurs in Matthew and Luke and also appears in Mark. This suggests to him that Mark did not use Luke as a source, as a compiler might (Wenham 1992, 17). The order of pericopes is also significant to Wenham. There are relatively few places where Matthew and Luke have a different order of events than Mark, and only one point at which both Matthew and Luke diverge in the same event (Wenham 1992, 18). Wenham notes that all the divergences can be explained easily by holding to the Augustinian model of Matthew - Mark - Luke rather than a different order of composition (Wenham 1992, 18). If, then, total independence is not the likely scenario, Wenham considers it almost certain that Luke knew Mark.

Wenham's second and third steps are treated together. He seeks to demonstrate: "Step 2: There are fifty-two pericopes where Luke and Mark almost certainly have a common origin, either from a common oral source or through some measure of direct literary dependence (Category 1). There are fourteen other pericopes in which the two gospels cover more or less the same ground for which there is no prima facie evidence of this. Step 3: Luke keeps to the sense of Mark in the truly parallel passages" (Wenham 1992, 18). The basic procedure for his investigation is a side-by-side perusal, evaluating both the similarity of wording and the parallelism of ideas.

While Wenham finds that Luke follows the order of events and ideas in Mark very closely, the wording is often changed (Wenham 1992, 19). Rather than understanding Luke as someone copying and editing a work, Wenham views the style more as the work of someone who may be consulting Mark for an order of events but who narrates the events as he himself, an experienced teacher, would naturally express them (Wenham 1992, 20). Many of the passages Wenham reviewed had similar wording, but they were rarely identical (Wenham 1992, 21). Wenham provides numerous side by side samples of texts in which the identical idea is expressed using slightly different wording (Wenham 1992, 21-27).

Wenham additionally considers passages in which there is no clear evidence of a common origin. Of these 14 passages, 11 are within Luke's narrative of the passion and resurrection (Wenham 1992, 28). Though the passages generally fit into the same sequential order as in the other Synoptics, the wording is quite unrelated (Wenham 1992, 29-38). With only rare exceptions, Luke does capture the very same ideas as Mark, in the same order.

​
0 Comments

The Problem of Assessing Literary Dependence

1/10/2022

0 Comments

 
1/10/22
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, John. "Chapter One: The Intractable Problem." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 1-10.

Weham observes the difficulty inherent in identifying influences on the composition of the Gospels. He states, "For nearly a undred years the search has been for literary solutions. Before that, belief in a common form of basic oral instruction was popular" (Wenham 1992, 1). It is difficult to consider the gospels to be created completely independently based on oral tradition, though, because it presupposes an extensive but non-authoritative body of oral tradition, a nearly simultaneous composition of the Synoptic Gospels, and suggests that church traditions are not correct in their views of the Gospels. Wenham suggests it is possible that there was some degree of structural, but not verbal, dependence (Wenham 1992, 1). 

The 20th century has largely approached Gospel scholarship based on an assumption of literary dependence on Mark and the hyopthetical Q document. However, Wenham suggests that this construct is not necessarily compelling. Many of the arguments used can be reversed with equal force (Wenham 1992, 3). We can all agree that there are many similarities in the Synoptic Gospels, but finding the actual connections is elusive. Prior to the 20th century oral theory suggested a common narrative that guided the evangelists but didn't dictate what they would do. However, in the 20th century the assumption has been that there is a primarily literary relationship (Wenham 1992, 4).

Wenham proceeds to ask some very important questions. For instance, "Can one distinguish documentary dependence from indebtedness to a common oral tradition?" (Wenham 1992, 5). Finding examples of identical wording easily leads scholars to assume literary dependence. Yet this is not necessarily the case. Orality can also account for even extended passages with nearly identical wording (Wenham 1992, 5). Yet Wenham notes that Matthew 14-28 and Mark 6-16 have no fewer than seventy items in the same order. That suggests a written source (Wenham 1992, 7).

In the nd, Wenham questions independence on three counts. First, he thinks the similar order of pericopes in the Synoptics is likely to depend on some sort of written source (Wenham 1992, 9). He further considers it likely that in the highly mobile society information and written works would be disseminated quickly (Wenham 1992, 10). Finally, early Christian tradition recognized the Gospels as written in a particular order, and assumed the earlier writings would be known to later authors.

​
0 Comments

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Samuel
    1 Thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2 Chronicles
    2 Corinthians
    2-john
    2 Kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent 3
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent 4
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Akagi 2016
    Alesso-2009
    Alexander 1999
    Allegory
    Allitt-2010
    All Saints' Day
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Anaphora
    Anointing
    Anunciation
    Apollinaris Of Hierapolis
    Apostolical Constitutions
    Aristides Of Athens
    Aristotle
    Aryeh 2021
    Ascension Day
    Ash Wednesday
    Athenagoras Of Athens
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Bakker 1993
    Balabanski 1997
    Bammel 1996
    Baptism
    Baptism Of Christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Bardy 1938
    Baron 2019
    Baron & Maponya 2020
    Bauckham 1984
    Bauckham 2006
    Bauckham 2007
    Beale 1984
    Belief
    Belonging
    Ben-Amos 1999
    Betz 1996
    Biesenthal 1893
    Bigg 1904
    Bigg 1905
    Blogcation
    Blomberg 1984
    Boehme-2010
    Botha 1967
    Botha 1993
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Butler 1960
    Caneday 2017
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carr 2010
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Cerfaux 1959
    Chilton 1984
    Chrismation
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas Dawn
    Christmas-day
    Christmas Eve
    Christmas Midnight
    Chronicles
    Circumcision And Naming Of Christ
    Cody 1995
    Colossians
    Conditions
    Confession Of Peter
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constanza-2013
    Cooper & Lioy 2018
    Costa 2021
    Court 1981
    Culley 1986
    Cyprian
    Daly 1978
    Daniel
    Danielou 1956
    Davids 1984
    Davis 1995
    DeHalleux 1996
    Dehandschutter 1995
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Divine Fellowship
    Dix 1933
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Doane 1994
    Draper
    Draper 1984
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1995
    Draper-1996
    Draper-1997
    Draper-2000
    Draper-2006
    Dube 2016
    Due 2003
    Easter-2
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-day
    Easter-monday
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Easter-sunrise
    Easter-tuesday
    Easter-wednesday
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria2014
    Elman-1999
    Ephesians
    Epiphany
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Epistle Of Barnabas
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Eve-of-the-circumcision-of-christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Experiential Reading
    Eybers 1975
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Farrell-1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser-1996
    Forde-2007
    Fraade-1999
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Garrow 2004
    Gender
    Genesis
    Gero 1977
    Gibbins 1935
    Gibbs 2006
    Glover-1958
    Goga & Popa 2019
    Gonzalez-2010
    Good-friday
    Gospels
    Grosvener-schaff-1885
    Grosvenor-1884
    Guardian-of-jesus
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hagner 1984
    Harnack-1884
    Harris 1887
    Harris 1984
    Hearon 2004
    Hearon 2010
    Hebrews
    Heilmann 2018
    Henderson1992
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson 1995
    Hezser 2010
    History
    Hoffman-1986
    Holy Cross Day
    Holy-innocents
    Holy-saturday
    Horsley 2010
    Hosea
    Hutchens2013
    Hymes-1994
    Ignatius Of Antioch
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    Jaffee-1999
    James
    James Of Jerusalem
    James The Elder
    Jefford 1989
    Jefford 1995
    Jeffreys-1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Jones & Mirecki 1995
    Joseph
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Jungmann-1959
    Justin Martyr
    Kelber-1987
    Kelber-1995
    Kelber 2002
    Kelber 2010
    Kelber & Sanders 2010
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Kloppenborg 1979
    Kloppenborg 1995
    Koch2010
    Kok 2015
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lake 1905
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-c
    LaVerdiere 1996
    Layton 1968
    Lectionary
    Lent-1
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Lincoln-1885
    Lindemann 1997
    Literary Character
    Liturgy
    Livesey 2012
    Long-2009
    Lord-1986
    Lord-1987
    Lord's Prayer
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Maccoull-1999
    Maier 1984
    Malachi
    Manuscripts
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Martyrdom Of John The Baptist
    Martyrs
    Mary Magdalene
    Mary Mother Of Our Lord
    Mason-1998
    Massaux 1993 (1950)
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mazza 1995
    Mazza-1996
    Mazza 1999
    Mbamalu 2014
    McDonald 1980
    McDonnell & Montague 1991
    McKean 2003
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Middleton 1935
    Milavec 1995
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec2012
    Miller 2019
    Missional
    Mitch-2010
    Mitchell 1995
    Molina-evers-1998
    Monday-in-holy-week
    Montenyohl-1993
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller-2006
    Muilenburg 1929
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Neufeld-1999
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Niditch-1995
    Niditch 2003
    Niebuhr 1956
    Niederwimmer-1982
    Niederwimmer 1995
    Niederwimmer-1996
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Olsen-1986
    Ong-1987
    Ong-1988
    Ong-1995
    Oralit
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Pardee 1995
    Parks-1986
    Passionb
    Patterson 1995
    Pearce-1993
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost-14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost-15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost-16c
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost 17C
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost 18 C
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost 19 C
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost 20 C
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost 21 C
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost 22 C
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost 23 C
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Pentecost Eve
    Pentecost Monday
    Pentecost Sunday
    Pentecost Tuesday
    Petersen 1994
    Peterson2010
    Peterson-2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Picirilli 1988
    Pick 1908
    Pieper1924
    Pieper 1924
    Pieper 1968
    Piper 1947
    Powell 2000
    Prayer
    Preaching
    Presentation Of Our Lord
    Proctor 2019
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Psalms
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Rabbinic Character
    Real Presence
    Receptivity
    Reed 1995
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reinhartz 2018
    Resurrection
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Rhoads 2010
    Richardson & Gooch 1984
    Riggs 1995
    Ritual Meal
    Romans
    Rordorf 1996
    Rosenberg 1986
    Rosenberg 1987
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Russo 1994
    Ruth
    Sacrament
    Sacrifice
    Saenger 1999
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Sale 1996
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 1886
    Schaff 1888
    Schaff 1889
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Schwarz 2005
    Scriptural Usage
    Seeliger 1996
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Simon And Jude
    Smith-2009
    Smith 2018
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    St. Andrew
    Stark 1997
    St. Barnabas
    St. Bartholomew
    St. John
    St. John The Baptist
    St Luke
    St Mark
    St Matthew
    St. Matthias
    St Michael And All Angels
    St. Paul
    St. Peter And Paul
    St Philip And St James
    Strawbridge 2017
    St. Stephen
    St. Thomas
    St. Titus
    Sunday Of The Passion
    Tatian
    Taylor 1888
    TDNT
    Teaching
    Telfer 1939
    Tertullian
    Textual Comparison
    Textual Integrity
    Theophilos 2018
    Theophilus Of Antioch
    Thielman-2010
    Thursday In Holy Week
    Timothy
    Titus
    Transfiguration
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity 1
    Trinity 10
    Trinity 11
    Trinity 12
    Trinity 13
    Trinity 14
    Trinity 15
    Trinity 16
    Trinity 17
    Trinity 18
    Trinity 19
    Trinity 2
    Trinity 20
    Trinity 21
    Trinity 22
    Trinity 23
    Trinity 3
    Trinity 4
    Trinity 5
    Trinity 6
    Trinity 7
    Trinity 8
    Trinity 9
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Trinity Sunday
    Tsang 2009
    Tuckett
    Tuesday In Holy Week
    Tuilier 1995
    Twelftree 1984
    Two Ways
    Ty 19
    Van Der Merwe 2017
    Van Der Merwe 2019
    Van Der Watt 2008
    Van De Sandt 2002
    Van De Sandt 2007
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Van De Sandt & Flusser 2002
    Van Deventer 2021
    Varner 2005
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Vikis-Freibergs 1997
    Visitation
    Voobus 1968
    Voobus 1969
    Warfield 1886
    Wasson & Toelken 1998
    Wednesday In Holy Week
    Wenham 1984
    Wenham 1992
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Wolmarans 2005
    Wright 1984
    Young 2011
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly