Synoptic Problem and Current Solutions[1]
By Jessie Sunday D Delfin
Introduction
The study of the Synoptic Problem for many is unattractive because of its complexities. I was under the impression that this subject is intimidating and irrelevant. Not anymore! At some point in my research, I began to appreciate its importance to my academic journey. The challenges in exploring its forest like dimension create motivation to those (like me) committed to finding its solution.
Synoptic Gospels refer to the first three Gospels namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They are described as “synoptic” because they contain similarities between themselves in terms of their structures and language.
The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) to define the nature of the Synoptic Problem, and (2) to determine the proposed solutions. This essay will present each proposed solution supported by arguments and evidence. The proposed solutions are as follows: (1) The Griesbach Hypothesis, (2) The Two-Source Hypothesis, (3) The Farrer Hypothesis, and (4) The Oral Independence Hypothesis.
In the New Testament studies Synoptic Problem[2] refers to the question about the literary relationship between the Gospels according to Matthew (Matthew), according to Mark (Mark), and according to Luke (Luke). The essence of the problem is how to explicate the similarities and differences between these three Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree substantially in terms of language and order. Similarities are evident by the presence of common pericopes[3]between them. They are also very similar in their order of events and even in many wordings.
This material is called Triple Tradition where a pericope is recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels. Numerous examples are illustrated in Table 1:
Table 1. Triple Tradition
| Pericope | Matthew | Mark | Luke |
| Healing of the LeperHealing of the ParalyticCall of Levi/MatthewQuestion about FastingControversy on SabbathMan with Withered HandChoosing of the TwelveJesus’ Mother and BrothersParable of the SowerCalming of the StormGerasene DemoniacJairus’ Daughter and the WomanFeeding of the Five ThousandPeter’s ConfessionThe Transfiguration of JesusHealing of Epileptic BoyAbout the Little ChildrenThe Rich Young RulerHealing of Blind ManTriumphal EntryThe Passion Narrative | 8:1-49:1-89:9-139:14-1712:1-812:9-1410:1-412:46-5013:1-238:23-278:28-349:18-2614:13-2116:13-2017:1-817:14-2019:13-1519:16-3020:29-3421:1-1921-28 | 1:40-452:1-122:13-172:18-222:23-283:1-63:13-193:31-354:1-204:35-415:1-205:21-436:30-448:27-309:2-89:14-2910:13-1610:17-3110:46-5211:1-1011-16 | 5:12-165:17-265:27-325:33-396:1-56:6-116:12-168:19-218:4-158:22-258:26-398:40-569:10-179:18-219:28-369:37-4318:15-1718:18-3018:35-4319:28-3820-24 |
Similarities between the Synoptic Gospels[4]
In this triple tradition the sequence of events among the Synoptics are very similar although in few junctures we find minor difference. An example is the event about Jesus’ Mother and Brothers (Matthew 12:46-50/Mark 3:31-35/Luke 8:19-21) is recorded by Luke after the Parable of the Sower while Matthew and Mark put it before. Another instance is while Mark (2:18-22) and Luke (5:33-39) place the event about the Jairus’ Daughter and the Woman (Matthew 9:18-26/Mark 5:21-43/Luke 8:40-56) before the Question about Fasting, Matthew (9:14-17) places it after.
The Synoptics are very close in language agreement. The record of events and teachings of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke exhibits high degree of similarity. There are even identical wordings used by these Synoptic gospels. Below are significant examples about agreement in language:
Example 1: Matthew 19:13-15/Mark 10:13-16/Luke 18:15-17
| Matthew 19:13-1513 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away. | Mark 10:13-1613 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” 16 And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them. | Luke 18:15-1715 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” |
Example 2: Matthew 9:9/Mark 2:14/Luke 5:27
| Matthew 9:99 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. | Mark 2:1414 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. | Luke 5:2727 After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth. And he said to him, “Follow me.” |
Example 3: Matthew 24:4-8/Mark13:5-8/Luke 21:8-11
| Matthew 24:4-84 And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. | Mark 13:5-85 And Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one leads you astray .6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. 7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. 8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains. | Luke 21:8-118 And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them. 9 And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified, for these things must first take place, but the end will not be at once.” 10 Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. |
Similarities between Matthew and Mark
What complicates the Synoptic Problem is the data of similarities between Matthew and Luke that is absent in Mark. Why is this material called Double Tradition non-existence in Mark? Below are familiar pericopes found in this material:
Table 2: Double Tradition
| Pericope | Matthew | Luke |
| Sermon on the Mount/PlainServant of CenturionMessengers from John the BaptistWoes Against the Cities of GalileeThanksgiving of Jesus to the FatherReturn of the Evil SpiritParable of the LeavenParable of the Lost sheepParable of the Marriage Feast/ Great SupperParable of Talents/PoundsDiscourse Against Scribes and PhariseesLament over JerusalemParable of the Faithful and Wise Servant | 5-78:5-1311:2-1911:20-24 11:25-27 12:43-4513:3318:10-1422:1-14 25:14-3023:1-36 23:37-3924:45-51 | 6:20-497:1-107:18-3510:12-15 10:21-22 11:24-2613:20-2115:3-714:15-24 19:11-2711:37-54 13:34-3512:39-46 |
The similarities between Matthew and Luke are very striking in that they both use language that is very comparable to each other. They have significant agreements in wording and they just differ in a minor way in some points. Few examples illustrates this:
Example 1: Matthew 7:7-11/Luke 11:9-13
| Matthew 7:7-117 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! | Luke 11:9-139 And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 11 What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; 12 or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” |
Example 2: Matthew 11:25-27/Luke 10:21-22
| Matthew 11:25-2725 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. | Luke 10:21-2221 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.[a] 22 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” |
Example 3: Matthew 23:37-39/Luke 13:34-35
| Matthew 23:37-3937 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” | Luke 13:34-3534 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 35 Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’” |
Differences
Unique Material in Matthew
This material called by scholars either ‘Special Matthew’ or ‘M’ material is only found in Matthew and not present in Mark or Luke. Where did this unique material in Matthew come from? Part of solving the Synoptic Problem is to answer this question. Some famous pericopes unique to Mathew are listed below:
Table 3: Special Matthew
| Pericope | Matthew |
| The Visit of the MagiJesus’ Invitation to the WearyParables of the Hidden Treasures the PearlParable of the DragnetCoin in the Fish’s MouthParable of the Unmerciful ServantAbout the Sheep and GoatsDeath of JudasGuard at the TombWomen at the TombBribing of the SoldiersGreat Commission | 1:1-1211:2813:44-4613:47-5017:24-2718:23-2525:31-4627:3-1027:62-6628.9-1028:11-1528:16-20 |
Unique Material in Luke
There are pericopes in Luke that are not found in Matthew and Mark. This material is commonly known as ‘Special Luke’ or ‘L’ material. Popular pericopes of this category are the following:
Table 4: Special Luke
| Pericope | Matthew |
| The Visit of Mary to Elizabeth and the MagnificatThe Shepherds and the Angels in NativityThe Boy Jesus in the TempleJesus Raising a Widow’s SonWomen Ministering with JesusSamaritan Village Rejecting JesusThe Return of the Seventy-TwoThe Parable of the Good SamaritanJesus at the House of Mary and MarthaTrue BlessednessThe Parable of the Rich FoolTower of SiloamThe Parable of the Barren Fig TreeThe Healing of the Bent WomanThe Healing of the Man with Dropsy on Sabbath | 1:39-562:8-212:41-527:11-178:1-39:51-5610:17-2010:29-3710:38-4211:27-2812:13-2113:1-513:6-910:10-1714:1-6 |
Major Proposed Solutions
Griesbach Hypothesis
The first proposed solution to the Synoptic problem is traced back to the German scholar Johann Jakob Griesbach, whose works have been published by Orchard and
Longstaff.[5] Griesbach advocated[6] that Matthew was written first. Luke copied from Matthew. Mark conflated both Matthew and Luke. This hypothesis follows Augustine’s view that Matthew was written first.[7] Griesbach asserted that it is unlikely that if Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, he would not have copied Mark, a writing of a non-apostle.[8]
William Farmer comprehensively revived and defended this theory later known as Two –Gospel Hypothesis in his book[9] and through the series of international conferences.[10] He argues in his fifth thesis that based on the phenomena of order and content and agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, Mark was written after Matthew or Luke:
There are isolatable and objectively definable categories of literary phenomena that play a prominent role in the history of the Synoptic problem that when properly understood are more readily explicable when Mark is placed third than when either Matthew or Luke is placed third.[11]
Farmer asserts that when deviating from the order of Luke, Mark inclines to agree closer to
Matthew, but closer to Luke when deviating from the order of Matthew.[12] He assumes that Mark does not follow the order common to both Matthew and Luke. He cites the Cleansing of the Temple placed contemporary with the Triumphal entry both in Matthew and Luke, whereas in Mark puts in on the next day.[13] Farmer promotes that the agreements between Matthew and Luke is due to the latter using the former basing on Luke 1:1.[14] He assumes that because Luke (Luke 21:20-24) edits out Matthew 24:20, “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath,” Luke altered Matthew.[15] Farmer also appeals to earliest and best external evidence that Mark was written after both Matthew and Luke.[16]
Advocating the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, Peabody demonstrates below “Mark’s pericope maintains alternating agreements with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke:”[17]
Matthew Mark Luke
| Matt. 1:1-2:23*Section begins with a genealogyand birth and infancy narratives Prophecies about John *Matt. 11:10; Cf. Mal. 3:1*Matt. 3:3; cf. Isa. 40:3 John the Baptist*Matt. 3:1-7 Three Stage Temptation*Matt. 4:1-11 Jesus’s Ministry BeginsCalls First Disciples*Matt. 4:12-22 Sermon on the Mount*Matt. 4:23-7:29 Plot to Kill Jesus*Matt. 12:14-16 Proof from Prophecy*Matt. 12:17-21 Jesus’s Wisdom*Matt. 12:22-13:23 *cf. Matt. 5:14-16; 6:22-23;7:1-2; 10:26-27;13:12 Parable of Wheat and Tares*Matt. 13:24-30 Parable of Mustard SeedTransitional Statement*Matt. 13:31-35 [Jesus’s True Relatives,Matt. 12:46-50 above] Transition with Retrospectiveon Jesus’s Wisdom and PowerMatt. 13:54-58 (cf. Matt. 9:35-10:16 Death of John the Baptist*Matt. 14:3-12 Feeding of the Five Thousand*Matt. 14:13-21 Feeding and Healing*Matt. 14:22-16:12, cf. 18:3 Matthew 18:6-19:15Note that this section beginsWith Matt. 18:1-2, 4-5.Mark places missing verse(Matt. 18:3) at Mark 10:15 From Decalogue to Shema*Matt. 19:16-22:40 Sadducees Mock Jesus’s TeachingOn Resurrection*Matt. 22:23-33 | Mark 1:1*Noting these contradictory orders, Genealogies, and birth and infancy narratives, Mark omits both Conflated Prophecies aboutJohn and “The Way”*Mark 1:2-3 “Beginning with the Baptismof John”*Mark 1: 4-11 Abbreviated Temptation *Mark 1:12-13(Duality “in[to] the desert”) John Arrested/Jesus’s Ministry Begins,Calls First Disciples*Mark 1:14-20 Contradictory InauguralSermons, So Mark OmitsBoth Healings and Teachings*Mark 1:21-3:5 First Step in Plot to Kill Jesus*Mark 3:6-12 Call of the Twelve*Mark 3:13-19 *Absence from Mark of the Sermonon the Plain, which complementsprevious absence of Sermon on theMount from Matthew’s Gospel Jesus’s Wisdom*Mark 3:20-4:20 Wisdom Sayings*Mark 4:21-25 Parable of Seed Growing Secretly*Mark 4:26-29 Parable of the Mustard StatementConclusion of Jesus’s Wisdom*Mark 4:30-44 [Jesus’s True Relatives,Mark 3: 31-35 above]*Mark agrees with Matthew’s version of this story in terms of order; therefore, Mark omits the same story here in Luke 8:19-21 Jesus’s Acts of Power*Mark 4:35-5:43 Transition with Retrospectiveon Jesus’s Wisdom and PowerMark 6:1-6a Commissioning of Twelve Apostles*Mark 6:6b-13 Retrospective onJohn the BaptistMark 6:14-16 Death of John the Baptist*Mark 6:17-29 Apostles’ Return*Mark 6:30-31See Bethsaida below at Mark 6:45 and 8:22 Feeding of the Five Thousand*Mark 6:32-44 Departure to Bethsaida*Mark 6:45Feeding and HealingMark 6:45-8:21 Arrival in Bethsaida*Mark 8:22Blind Man Healed*Mark 8:22-26 “On the way,”Jesus reveals his identity*Mark 8:27—10:16 Parallel w/ Matt. 18:1-2, 4-5In Mark 9:33-37 From Decalogue to Shema*Mark 10:17-12:34 Sadducees Mock Jesus’s TeachingOn Resurrection*Mark 12:18-27 | Luke 1:1-3:38*Parallel birth and infancy narratives of both John the Baptist and Jesus*Section ends with a genealogy Prophecies about John*Luke 7:27; cf. Mal. 3:1*Luke 3:4-5; cf. Isa. 40:3 John the Baptist*cf. Luke 3:1-22 Three Stage Temptation*Luke 4:1-13 Jesus’s Ministry Begins *Luke 4:14-16a Sermon In Nazareth*Luke 4:16b-30 Healings and Teachings*Luke 4:14-6:11 Call of the Twelve*Luke 6:12-19 Sermon on the Plain*Luke 6:20-7:1 Wisdom Sayings*Luke 8:16-18 Jesus’s True Relatives *Luke 8:19-21 Jesus’s Acts of Power*Luke 8:22-56 Commissioning of Twelve Apostles*Luke 9:1-6(cf. 10:1-16) Retrospective onJohn the BaptistLuke 9:7-9 (cf. Luke 3: 18-20) Apostles’ Return*Luke 9:10Withdrawal to Bethsaida Feeding of the Five Thousand*Luke 9:11-17 Luke 9;18-50 Cf. Lukan Travel Narrative Sadducees Mock Jesus’s TeachingOn Resurrection*Luke 20:27-40 End of Pericope (Luke 20:40):“No one dared to question him.” |
Peabody stresses that the above table also reflects Mark’s alternating agreements with
Matthew and Luke in wording within a pericope, and Mark depends greater in actual words upon the Gospel whose pericope he follows at a given time.[18]
The Griesbach/Two Gospel Hypothesis poses a number of weaknesses. First, there is no convincing reason why Mark copied from Matthew and Luke. Robert Stein puts it precisely:
The most basic problem that the Griesbach Hypothesis encounters, however, is that it simply cannot provide a credible explanation as to why Mark was ever written. Why Mark both “conflated” and “abbreviated” Matthew and Luke is most difficult to understand.[19]
In his later research, Farmer asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel version for apologetic purposes and to eliminate “inconsistencies and contradictions in Matthew and Luke.[20]
Dungan believes that Mark was written to reconcile the Jewish Gospel of Matthew and the Gentile Gospel of Luke.[21]Both of the above proposals do not suit the theology of Mark. It is implausible for Mark to shape his theology by compiling Matthew and Luke and with little material of his own.
Second, whereas it is explicitly indicated in his prologue[22] that Luke had multiple sources, the two gospel hypothesis restricts him to depend only upon Matthew. Luke’s prologue entails Mark to have written first before Luke.
Third, the appeal of Griesbach to Augustine positing that Matthew was written first is not reliable and unconvincing. This external evidence from history is not compelling because internal evidence doesn’t favor it (to be discussed below). McKnight is worth noting:
Augustine’s arguments were never serious arguments; he did not carefully compare the three Synoptics to see which might be the first. Instead, he used Eusebius’s canons and tried to show that Mark and Luke, or later (if David Peabody is right, and he may be) Luke and Mark, can be historically conformed to Matthew or at least historically confirmed as accurate history. Augustine’s gift to the church was at the level of historicity, not at the level of careful exegesis of the phenomena of the Synoptic problem.[23]
Two-Source Hypothesis
The two-Source Hypothesis (originally known as Oxford Hypothesis) was conceptualized in the nineteenth century primarily as a result of the seminars organized by William Sanday.[24] One of his students, B. H. Streeter’s made definitive statement of the case in 1924.[25] Streeter made modification to the hypothesis by arguing for additional sources referred to as M and L. M is material unique to Matthew, and L is material unique to Luke. Streeter’s view is called Four-Document Hypothesis, for which he contends that the synoptic gospels have four sources.
The two-source hypothesis is the most dominant proposed solution to the synoptic problem. It is widely accepted by many scholars. Numerous books present this dominance generally as established fact. Most scholars are compelled that it is the most viable approach in dealing with the similarities and differences among the Synoptics. Scot McKnight argues that the two-source hypothesis best explains the synoptic problem despite its imperfections.[26]
The two-source hypothesis posits Mark to have been written first among the synoptic gospels. Matthew and Luke wrote independently based on Mark and another hypothetical source called Q. The Q source is extinct but attributed to it is the large portion of the double tradition material common to Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark.
Markan Priority[27]
On his discussion about additions and omissions, Mark Goodacre brings up a question “whether Mark’s Gospel makes better sense on the assumption that its unique elements are matters that Mark has added to Matthew and Luke, (Markan Posteriority), or whether its unique elements are matters that Matthew and Luke have each omitted from Mark (Markan Priority)?”[28] He postulates that, on the assumption that evangelists just did have any knowledge on any material that they did not include in their writings, Mark could not have known about the Birth Narratives (Matthew 1-2; Luke 1-2) or the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), otherwise he could have incorporated them.[29] He adds that the large material common to Matthew and Luke that are absent from Mark (double-tradition material) cannot just be accounted for ‘omission of uncongenial material’ i.e. Mark omitted such material uncommon to him.[30] Goodacre argues that if Mark wrote last, he could have inserted a double-tradition material like the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:6/Luke 11:2-4) in Mark 11:20-25, that is fitting to his literary and theological purposes. Thus, the view that Mark wrote last is not compelling.
Mark being older among the Synoptics, preserves the primitive form of tradition, and Matthew and Luke made expansion, revision and editorial to improve the language of Mark. Whereas Mark (1:12) uses the Greek word ἐκβάλλω, “The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness,” Matthew (4:1) uses ἀνήχθη, “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil,” and Luke (4:1) uses ἄγω, “And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit.[31] It is more sensible to view that Matthew and Luke improved Mark’s language (“drove out”) with negative meaning by choosing words (“led up,” “led”) with neutral meanings.[32]
McKnight wrote an excellent essay favoring the Oxford Hypothesis (Two-Source Hypothesis). He highlights three phenomena to prove this point: the linguistic phenomena; the theological phenomena; and the redaction phenomena. The linguistic phenomena refers to the more primitive language. The assumption here is that Markan Priority can more easily explain the linguistic phenomena. The view that Mark is more primitive and difficult reading than Matthew and Luke in content and style validates the idea that the latter evangelists “smoothed out” the “rough spots.”[33] For instance, whereas Mark (7:31) records a very strange route of the trip of Jesus, “Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis” Matthew (15:29) reports a much easier trip to follow, “Jesus went on from there and walked beside the Sea of Galilee. And he went up on the mountain and sat down there,” or when Mark stresses the “the hardness of the heart” of the disciples (6:52; 8:17) while Matthew (16:8) and Luke (12:1-2) omit that condemnation. In these examples we can ask the question, “Which reading most likely gave rise to the other?[34] It is more probable that Matthew and Luke smoothed out Mark than Mark made Matthew and Luke more difficult.
McKnight’s argument from theological phenomena is very compelling. The idea being here is that Matthean redaction of Mark better explains theological alterations.[35] One example is the opposite conclusions on the events of feeding of the five Thousand and the walking on the water (Mark 6:30-52/Matthew 14:13-33). Mark (6:52) concludes on a negative note stressing Jesus’s critique against his disciples, “for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.” Matthew omits this critique and adds the story about Peter walking on water (14:22-33), ending with a positive note of the disciples worshipping Jesus saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” Mark with the harder reading portraying the disciples’ failure to please Jesus. Matthew makes the opposite conclusion emphasizing admirable attitude of the disciples. Contrasting conclusions are also found between the accounts of Mark (8:1-21) and Matthew (Matthew 16: 5-12). Whereas in Mark (8:21) Jesus faults his disciples for their inability to understand, “And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?” Matthew (16:12) writes the opposite: the disciples actually understood, “Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The two sets of comparison above show direction moving from negative to positive theological presentation. Is the reverse direction a better option? In other words, is Mark’s revision of Matthew more sensible; does Mark’s negative modification of Matthew’s positive presentation make a difference? Or does it make more sense viewing Matthew smoothing out Mark’s version i.e. Matthew converting Mark’s negative presentation into positive one? Mcknight presents a solution: “Oxford hypothesis offers a more probable account of the phenomenon: Matthew eliminated a theological difficulty. It is more probable that Matthew erased a theological problem than that Mark created one.”[36]
The notion that Oxford Hypothesis is more probable because of redactional phenomena stipulates that Matthew and Luke made modifications on Mark and not the contrary.[37] Robert Stein stresses that this is the strongest argument for Markan priority.[38] His statement about this assertion is well articulated and representative of proponents of this view:
In general it would appear that a Matthean use of Mark provides a clear and consistent redactional emphasis. The same can also be said of Luke’s handling of Mark. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of a Markan redaction criticism, a Markan use of Matthew (and/or Luke) seems most unlikely.[39]
Matthew’s usage of “righteousness” and the concepts attached to it in 3:15, 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; and 21:32 . McKnight believes that the fact that each reference aforementioned is not found in other Synoptics, “Matthew has consistently added that term to his sources because that term expresses what he wants to emphasize.”[40]
The Q Hypothesis
In the earlier part of this paper the Double Tradition material is referred to material common to both Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark. The Q hypothesis[41] is an attempt to explain this phenomenon. Two-Source Hypothesis entails Q along with Mark as sources of both Matthew and Luke. Proponents of this theory argue that Q really existed before its extinction.[42] There are approximately 200 verses that compose this material. Popular pericopes found in this material are the sermon on the mount/plain, parable of the leaven, parable of the lost sheep, parable of the marriage feast/ great supper, parable of talents/pounds, among others. The Q hypothesis presupposes Markan priority and the independence of Matthew and Luke of each other.
The independence of Matthew and Luke of each other indicates two assumptions: Matthew and Luke did not copy each other; and both of them depend on Q and Mark separately. The proponents contend that because there is only limited connection between Matthew and Luke in their infancy accounts and genealogies, is indicative of their ignorance of each other. In terms of order or materials Osborne notes: “This rearrangement of material is difficult to explain if Luke was copying from Matthew, and the rearrangement clashes with his careful handling of Mark. For this reason, most believe that Luke has faithfully followed Q, while Matthew has collected much of it into his five discourses.”[43] In view of their link to each other, Luke did not use more portions of Sermon on the Mount and the mission discourse in Matthew. This is simply because he did not utilize Matthew.[44] Another argument in favor of Q hypothesis is Luke’s ignorance of Matthew’s insertions to Mark. If Luke knew Matthew, he could have known stories such as Jesus ascribing to Peter the name “rock’ (Matthew 16:17-19) and the exception clause in the divorce saying (Matthew 19:9).[45]
Farrer Hypothesis
The Farrer Hypothesis is a proposed solution to the Synoptic problem operating on the premise that Mark was written first (Markan Priority, Matthew used Mark, and Luke used both Mark and Matthew. This hypothesis also known as “Mark without Q” or “Markan Priority without Q” is named after Austin Farrer, who wrote an essay challenging the popular view that Matthew and Luke wrote independently of each other.[46] This seminal paper, which also aims to dispense the Q hypothesis, is built upon the theory of Michael Goulder.[47] Farrer Hypothesis[48] is strongly defended by Mark Goodacre [49] and finds support in Francis Watson.[50]
Markan priority (see discussion above) is sufficient to explain the non-Markan material, and hence Q is unnecessary.[51] Farrer hypothesis posits that the material absent from Mark is a product of Matthew’s addition to Mark and Luke’s additions to Mathew and Mark. Goodacre suggests that extensive verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke is an indicator that they are directly related.[52] Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9 illustrates this point. The only difference in these parallel passages are the Greek words δόξητε (suppose) in Matthew 3: 9 and ἄρξησθε (begin) in Luke 3: 8. This phenomenon should be attributed to Luke’s knowledge of Matthew and not to their mutual access to an extinct Q source.[53]
Luke also reflects Matthew’s structure that is unlikely only by chance in that when compared to Mark’s, theirs’s are very similar. Goodacre notes:
Mark’s Gospel begins with John the Baptist’s preaching (Mark 1:4-8) and ends, according to most critics, with empty tombs (16:1-8). Matthew and Luke, by contrast, both begin their Gospels with birth narratives (Matt. 1-2; Luke 1-2) that set Jesus’s miraculous birth in Bethlehem, fulfilling prophecy, with great signs and portents, before fast-forwarding to John’s preaching (Matt. 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-20). Similarly, neither Matthew nor Luke stops where Mark stops, instead going on with resurrection appearances and Jesus’s commissioning of the disciples (Matt. 28:9-20); Luke 24:9-53). Further, Matthew and Luke coincide in filling in what is lacking in Mark’s narrative, adding a lot of Jesus’s teaching, in parables and discourses, as well as miracle stories and more.[54]
Luke displays that he was cognizant of Matthew’s editing of Mark which is evident in the Triple Tradition, the material common to the Synoptics. Goodacre referencing Matthew 3:11-12/Mark 1:7-8/Luke 3:15-17, concludes that Matthew and Luke’s additions of the phrase “with fire,” and the sentence about judgment to Mark, shows that Luke copied almost perfectly Matthew’s expansion of Mark’s core narrative.[55]
Against the claim of Q hypothesis, Luke did not include Matthew’s birth narrative (Matthew 1-2) and resurrection narrative (Matthew 28:1-20) not because he did not know these Special M passages (only found in Matthew), but because these are non-Lukan profile.[56] The route of Luke’s narratives is different from Matthew. He was critical to astrologers, magicians, and sorcerers as evident in Acts 8:9-24; 13:6; 8; 19:14, the reason for his exclusion of the Magi story. Although Luke’s birth narrative details differ from Matthew, verbal correspondence between them (Matthew 1:21/Luke 1:31) is obvious. These differences in details and focus do not indicate Luke’s independence from Matthew.
On the claim by the Q theorists that Luke did not know Matthew’s modification of Mark, Goodacre responds by reiterating Luke demonstrating Matthew’s modification of Markan materials (see above) due to Luke’s agreement with Matthew in triple tradition. [57] He adds that though on some occasions he follows Matthean version, Luke rather prefers Mark’s most of the time.[58]
Oral Independence Theory
The Oral Independence Theory postulates that the Synoptic Gospels are not mutually dependent and their similarities are results of them drawing from oral traditions deriving from early Christian community. Rainer Riesner emphasizes that, as a part of Greco-Roman and Jewish custom, the transmission of a teacher’s message or historical event was accomplished by the use of memory.[59] He concludes that “three Synoptic Gospels writers each partially used the same intermediary sources, both oral and written,”[60] He appeals to 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 to indicate oral gospel tradition in the New Testament, asserting that this Jesus tradition was orally handed to Paul.[61]
In the same vein, James Dunn stresses the oral culture in which the gospel writers operated.[62] Proponents of this view believe that the gospel material would have been transmitted through oral performance with the life and teaching of Jesus being the core material, but would have variations in details that evolved in different presentations to suit the different settings and audiences. The outcome are varied traditions having “a characteristic combination of stability and diversity, of fixity and flexibility”, “the same yet different”.[63] With the assumption that the gospel writers being immersed in this culture of oral performance, Dunn attributes the considerable differences among the synoptic gospels to the influence of oral tradition.[64]
Other defenders of the Independence Theory includes Eta Linnemann and Robert Thomas. Linneman argues largely on the basis of statistics: “since there is only 46.5 percent agreement between Matthew and Mark and only 32.6 percent agreement between Mark and Luke, the agreement is more likely the result of a common oral tradition than literary dependence.”[65] Thomas contends that the only position held for seventeen hundred years is the the independence view and that several scholars in the twentieth century took that approach.[66]
Osborne makes an evaluation on the Independence Theory: “There is merit in the independence view, but insufficient evidence. Literary dependence is mandated by the evidence; the only question is the direction of the flow.”[67]
Conclusion
After weighing the arguments for each proposed solution, and having investigated the evidences, I have come to the conclusion that the Farrer Hypothesis is the most plausible of all. The bulk of internal evidences for the Markan Priority makes it superior to the Griesbach Hypothesis. The Oral Independence Hypothesis fails the evidence test for denying the obvious literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Unlike the Two-Source hypothesis, the Farrer can easily be explained without referring to an extinct hypothetical Q source. Besides, there is no ancient, external evidence or whatsoever to prove Q’s existence. It is purely based on scholarly presupposition. There are textual evidences, no fragments, and no patristic citations. In the end it remains a hypothetical text.
Bibliography
Aland, Kurt. Synopsis of the Four Gospels : Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, on the Basis of the Greek Text of Nestle-Aland 27th Edition and Greek New Testament 4th Revised Edition, the English Text Is the Second Edition of the Revised Standard Version. [Stuttgart] : German Bible Society, 2013.
Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo, Saint John Chrysostom, and Philip Schaff. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff in Connection with a Number of Patristic Scholars of Europe and America. New York, The Christian literature co., 1886-90.
Black, David Alan, and David R. Beck. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Academic, 2001.
Catchpole, David R. The Quest for Q. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1993.
Dungan, David L. A History of the Synoptic Problem : The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels. The Anchor Bible reference library. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
Dunn, James D. G. The Oral Gospel Tradition. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 2013..
Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem : A Critical Analysis. New York : Macmillan ; London : Collier-Macmillan, 1964.
Farmer, William Reuben. “Modern Developments of Griesbach’s Hypothesis.” New Testament Studies 23, no. 3 (April 1977): 275–295.
Farrer A. M. “On Dispensing with Q.” In Studies Lightfoot, 55–88, 1955.
Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York : Doubleday, 992.,.
Funk, Robert W. New Gospel Parallels. Foundations and facets : New Testament. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1985.,
Goodacre, Mark S. Goulder and the Gospels : An Examination of a New Paradigm. Journal for the study of the New Testament. Supplement series: 133. Sheffield, England : Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
———. The Case against Q : Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg, Pa. : Trinity Press International, 2002.
———. The Synoptic Problem : A Way through the Maze. The biblical seminar: 80. London ; New York : Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Goodacre, Mark S., and Nicholas Perrin. Questioning Q : A Multidimensional Critique / Edited by Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Goulder, M. D. Luke : A New Paradigm. Journal for the study of the New Testament supplement series: v. 20. Sheffield, England : JSOT, 1989.
Head, Peter M. Christology and the Synoptic Problem : An Argument for Markan Priority. Monograph series / Society for New Testament Studies: 94. Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Huck, Albert, Hans Lietzmann, and F. L. Cross. Synopsis of the First Three Gospels. Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1976.
Johnson, Sherman E. The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism. Monograph series / the Society of Biblical Literature: no. 41. Atlanta, Ga. : Scholars Press, 1991.
Kloppenborg, John S. The Formation of Q : Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Studies in antiquity and Christianity. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1987.
Linnemann, E., and R. W. Yarbrough. Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Longstaff, Thomas R W, and Bernard Orchard. J J Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776-1976. Cambridge Univ Pr, 1979.
Orchard, Bernard. A Synopsis of the Four Gospels : In Greek. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1983.
Peabody, David Barrett, Allan J. McNicol, and Lamar Cope. One Gospel from Two : Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke : A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Renewal of Gospel Studies / Edited by David B. Peabody ; with Lamar Cope and Allan J. McNicol. Harrisburg, Pa. : Trinity Press International, 2002.
Poirier, John C., and Jeffrey Peterson. Marcan Priority without Q : Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis. Library of New Testament studies: 455. London : Bloomsbury, 2015.
Problem : Four Views. Grand Rapids, Michigan : Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2016.
Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg. The Critical Edition of Q : Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Hermeneia–a critical and historical commentary on the Bible. Supplements. Minneapolis : Fortress Press ; Leuven : Peeters, 2000.,
Sanday, W. Studies in the Synoptic Problem. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1911.
Stein, Robert H. The Synoptic Problem : An Introduction. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book House, 1987.
Streeter, Burnett Hillman. The Four Gospels; a Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates. London, Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1924.
Tuckett, C. M. The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis : An Analysis and Appraisal / C.M. Tuckett. Monograph series / Society for New Testament Studies: 44. Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Watson, Francis. “Q as Hypothesis : A Study in Methodology.” New Testament Studies : published quarterly under the auspices of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas 55, no. (4)4 (2009): 397–415.
.
[1] This essay was originally submitted to Dr. John Taylor on April 20, 2018, as a partial fulfilment of the requirements for the course New Testament Foundations Reading Seminar at Gateway Seminary, Ontario California, USA.
[2]For very good introductions on the Synoptic Problem and suggested solutions, see Robert H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem : An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book House, 1987), and Mark S. Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem : A Way through the Maze (London ; New York : Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).
[3] From Greek word περικοπή, means ‘section,’ a passage from the Scriptures.
[4] Several very good synopses of the Matthew, Mark, and Luke are: K. Aland, Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 7th ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1984); A. Huck and H. Greeven, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (Tübingen: Mohr, 1981); B. Orchard, A Synopsis of the Four Gospels in Greek: Arranged According to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis(Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983); R.W. Funk, New Gospel Parallels, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
[5] Thomas R W Longstaff and Bernard Orchard, J J Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776-1976(Cambridge Univ Pr, 1979).
[6] Henry Owen’s proposal later became Griesbach Hypothesis, C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 3.
[7] Augustine of Hippo, “The Harmony of the Gospels,” in Saint Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 78.
[8] Ibid., 7.
[9] William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem : A Critical Analysis. (New York : Macmillan ; London : Collier-Macmillan, 1964).
[10] See David L. Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem : The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels, The Anchor Bible reference library (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 376-378.
[11] Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, 211.
[12] The Synoptic Problem, 211.
[13] Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, 212.
[14] Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, 223.
[15] Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, 224.
[16] Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, 225-226.
[17] David B. Peabody, “The Two Gospel Hypothesis,” In The Synoptic Problem : Four Views. ed. Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer, 73-74 (Grand Rapids, Michigan : Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2016),.
[18] Peabody, 76.
[19] Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, 133.
[20] William R. Farmer, “Modern Developments of Griesbach’s Hypothesis,” New Testament Studies 23, no. 3 (April 1977): 275–295.
[21] David L. Dungan, “The Two Gospel Hypothesis,” In Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman(New York: Doubleday 1992), 5: 672.
[22] Luke 1:1-2, ESV, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us.”
[23] Scott McKnight, “A Generation Who Knew Not Streeter: The Case for Markan Priority,” In Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. David Alan Black and David R. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 71.
[24] W. Sanday, Studies in the Synoptic Problem (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1911). The discussions were eventually brought to fruition in an influential volume, Studies in the Synoptic Problem by Members of the University of Oxford.
[25] Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels; a Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates (London, Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1924), 131-136.
[26] Scot McKnight, 81–83.
[27] For comprehensive discussion see Robert H. Stein, 45-88; Craig A. Evans, “Two Source Hypothesis.” In The Synoptic Problem : Four Views, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer (Grand Rapids, Michigan : Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2016), 27-38.
[28] Mark S. Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 57.
[29] Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 57.
[30] Ibid., 58.
[31] For more discussion of ἐκβάλλω, see Craig A. Evans, “The Two-source,” 29-31.
[32] Ibid., 29-31.
[33] McKnight, 83.
[34] Ibid., 84.
[35] Peter Head contends that theological alterations, particularly Christological argument can be best explained in the premise of Markan priority, Peter M. Head, Christology and the Synoptic Problem : An Argument for Markan Priority., Monograph series / Society for New Testament Studies: 94 (Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1997), 8-27.
[36] McKnight, 88.
[37] For thorough discussion see S. E. Johnson, The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism, SBLMS 41 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991).
[38] Stein, 76.
[39] Stein, 76.
[40] McKnight, 88.
[41] See the following for extensive treatment of Q: David R. Catchpole, The Quest for Q. (Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1993); John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q : Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections., Studies in antiquity and Christianity (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1987); James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition of Q : Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas., Hermeneia–a critical and historical commentary on the Bible. Supplements (Minneapolis : Fortress Press ; Leuven : Peeters, 2000); C. M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity : Studies on Q. (Peabody, Mass. : Hendrickson, 1996).
[42] See Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q. 41-87. Kloppenborg argues for the existence of Q.
[43] Grant R. Osborne, “Response,” In Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. David Alan Black and David R. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 149.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Austin M. Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q,” In Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot, ed. D.E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 55–88.
[47] M. D. Goulder, Luke : A New Paradigm, JSNT Sup20 (Sheffield, England : JSOT, 1989).
[48] For further research on Farrer Hypothesis see Mark S. Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin, Questioning Q : A Multidimensional Critique, ed. Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2004) and John C. Poirier and Jeffrey Peterson, Marcan Priority without Q : Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis., Library of New Testament studies: 455 (London : Bloomsbury, 2015).
[49] Mark S. Goodacre, The Case against Q : Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, Pa. : Trinity Press International, 2002).
[50] Francis Watson, “Q as Hypothesis : A Study in Methodology,” New Testament Studies : published quarterly under the auspices of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas 55, no. (4)4 (2009): 397–415.
[51] Mark S. Goodacre, “The Farrer Hypothesis,” In The Synoptic Problem : Four Views, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dryer (Grand Rapids, Michigan : Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2016), 48.
[52] Goodacre, “The Farrer Hypothesis,” 52-53.
[53] Ibid., 53.
[54] Ibid., 53-54.
[55] Ibid., 55.
[56] Goodacre, “The Farrer Hypothesis,” 53.
[57] Ibid., 61.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Rainer Riesner, “Orality and Memory Hypothesis,” In The Synoptic Problem : Four Views, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dryer (Grand Rapids, Michigan : Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2016), 89.
[60] Ibid., 90.
[61] Ibid., 97-98
[62] James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 280-281, 305-306.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Dunn, 305-306.
[65] Eta Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, trans. R. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 108.
[66] R. Thomas and D. Farnell, eds., The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 233-246.
[67]Osborne, “Response,” 139.
“New Perspective on Paul”
A Research Paper by Jessie Sunday Delfin, originally presented to Dr. John Taylor
At Gateway Seminary, Ontario California
Introduction
New Perspective on Paul (NPP) is neither a movement nor a group, but a perspective just as the name suggests. NPP is coined by J.D.G. Dunn in his article in 1983 resonating pertinent views of E.P. Sanders written in his groundbreaking book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977. Proponents of NPP seek to correct the traditional (Lutheran) interpretation of Pauline soteriology. Firstly, they contend that Judaism was not a religion of merit: majority of the Jews do not perceive their religion based on merit. They argue against the view that faith replaces work. They believe that Jesus taught both faith and works – faith and action as God’s basis for judging humanity which is derived from the Old Testament tradition of judgment according to deeds, not simply based on the faith of the person. In relation to this, they oppose the view that law stands in contradiction with grace. They understand Paul as presenting a positive role of the law. Secondly, scholars of the NPP refute the notion that Judaism did not resolve the burden of guilt of the Paul. They believe that Saul (pre-Christian Paul) did not search for personal spiritual dilemma. Appealing to Numbers 15:30f, they perceive that the law provided the means of atonement and forgiveness. Thirdly, NPP teachers also deny that the doctrine of justification by faith was a new revelation. They contend for the notion that Paul argues for the existence of such doctrine in the Old Testament because of the fact that Abraham was declared righteous by faith. Fourthly, NPP proponents assert that in his letters, Paul emphasizes more the relationships between groups of people, and more specifically, Jews and Gentiles, an argument against the view that Paul focuses on the individual’s relationship with God.
The views of New Perspective on Paul are popularly associated to E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Donald Hagner accurately identifies the fundamental points of the proponents of New Perspective on Paul: (1) “Judaism was not and is not a religion where acceptance with God is earned through the merit of righteousness based on work,”[1](2) “Justification by faith is not the center of Paul’s theology but instead represents a pragmatic tactic to facilitate the Gentile mission,”[2] (3) “Pauls’ theology has been misunderstood because it has been read through the lenses of Luther and the Reformation.”[3]
Norman Tom Wright’s Views
NT Wright presents his views in a very rhetorical and stimulating way. Warden puts it precisely:
The most refreshing aspect of Wright’s work is also its most frustrating feature. The boldness of his critique of contemporary scholarship offering is stimulating. At the same time, one sometimes has the sense that rhetoric has taken precedence over substance.[4]
NT Wright concurs with the suggestion of Dunn that the phrase works of the law specifically means boundary markers, rather than self-help moralism. He agrees with Sanders’ basic idea about the pattern of the Jewish faith. He also stresses that, similar to Sanders and Dunn, Paul was not primarily concerned with how individuals can receive forgiveness, but with what defines the people of God, i.e. how Gentiles become God’s people without becoming like Jews.[5] He agrees with Sanders that early Judaism was not the early version of Pelagianism.[6] He believes that “the shameful death of Jesus at the hands of pagans was, for Paul, the center and starting point of what the gospel all about. It was the fulfilment of the Isaianic message. It was the proclamation of the ultimate victory. It was the Jewish message of good news for the world.”[7] He believes that according to Galatians 4:11, the message of the Pauline gospel is this:” the true God has sent his son, in fulfilment of the prophecies of Scripture, to redeem his people from their bondage to false gods, the elements of the world (Galatians 4:3, 9). [8] He believes that for Paul “the message of the gospel is not how one gets saved in an individual and historical sense. It is a fourfold announcement about Jesus.”[9] Wright asserts that the resurrection of Jesus ushered the New Age, “inaugurating the long-awaited time when the prophecies would be fulfilled, when Israel’s exile would be over, and the whole world would be addressed by the one creator God.”[10] He argues that Paul thinks that Jesus was divine according to Jewish monotheism.[11]
God’s faithfulness according to NT Wright, is embodied by Paul and his fellow-workers in their suffering and fear, and their faithful witness against all odds.[12] Hence, the Apostles in Christ embody the righteousness of God, the message they proclaim.[13] Wright also believes that Paul is assured that the renewal of the covenant fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah will be effective for the Gentiles and the Jews, who will come to faith in Jesus.[14]
In terms of justification, NT Wright describes it as “the coming of the great act of redemption and salvation, seen from the point of view of the covenant (Israel is God’s people) on the one hand and the law court on the other (God’s final judgment will be like a great law-court scene, with Israel winning the case).”[15] NT Wright argues that “justification in Galatians, is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences, as together they wait for the final new creation.”[16] He believes that the gospel of the cross of Christ is incomparable to anything a human person is proud of, anything he has possessing comes from God and is found in Christ.[17] Critiques on N.T. Wright’s views are reflected on assessments on E.P Sanders’ and James Dunn’s views below.
E. P. Sander’s View
Sanders believes, in agreement with Montefiore, Moore, and others, that Paul’s appraisal against Judaism is absent from Rabbinic Judaism.[18] Montefiore asserts that the Judaism Paul was familiar with and he opposed was not the mainline Rabbinic Judaism, but an inferior form of Judaism, which he identified as Hellenistic.[19] Furthermore, because of his assumption that the mainline Rabbinic in 300 to 500 did not reveal the kind of work-righteousness to which Paul objected, Montefiore claims that Paul had not known Rabbinic Judaism.[20]
F. Weber, according to Moore, believed that Judaism was the antithesis of Christianity because the latter believes in an accessible God and its premise is based on faith rather on works.[21] Likewise Thackeray contends that Paul’s theology was essentially antithetical to Judaism although many particulars of his thought were derived from it.[22] He argues that on the discussion on justification by faith, Paul is dissimilar with Judaism.[23] Thackeray, following Weber’s systematic theology of Rabbinic asserts that, in Judaism, righteousness is earned by works of righteousness, whereas in Paul’s, righteousness is the gift of God received by faith.[24] Bultmann makes a good summary of direct antithesis between Paul and Judaism:
The contrast between Paul and Judaism consists not merely in his assertion of the present reality of righteousness, but in a much more decisive thesis – the one which concerns the condition to which God’s acquitting decision is tied. The Jews takes it for granted that this condition in keeping the Law, the accomplishing of “works” prescribed by the Law. In direct contrast to this view Paul’s thesis runs – to consider its negative aspect first: “without works of the Law.”… The negative aspect of Paul’s thesis does not stand alone; a positive statement takes its place beside it, “by, or from, faith.”[25]
Parkes strongly stresses that Paul is unlikely attacking Rabbinic Judaism otherwise his charges against the Law are unjustified, his argument is irrelevant, and the concept of which he is criticizing is ambiguous.[26] Sandmel asserts the Paul had a very minimal relationship to Palestinian Judaism in one way or another.[27]
Schoeps thinks that although his thoughts on some various points originated in Judaism, Paul altered Jewish views using Hellenistic conventions.[28] He is compelled that Paul being a Hellenistic Jew proves his lack knowledge of repentance,[29] his misunderstanding of the Law,[30] and his failure to understand the relation between the covenantal and the Law.[31] Similarly, Sandmel[32] and Goodenough[33] concur to the idea that Paul is to be understood in the light of Hellenistic Judaism instead of Palestinian Judaism (Rabbinic Judaism). Davies disagrees with Montefiore (and others) denying the categorization of Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism.[34] He argues that Pauline motifs like dissatisfaction with the law, transcendentalism, pessimism, and mysticism, having been viewed as Hellenistic, in fact can be “paralleled in, and were derived from, Palestinian Judaism as reflected and preserved in Rabbinic literature.”[35] Davies is convinced that Paul had thought that the Messiah had come[36] and believes that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism rather than its antithesis.[37] Sanders makes a neat summary of views about Paul’s essential relationship with Palestinian Judaism:
That, because of numerous and important detailed agreements, Paul should be seen as essentially a Rabbi who thought that the Messiah had come (Davies); that, in spite of some agreements in detail, Paul’s religion is basically antithetical to that of Judaism (probably the majority view); and that Paul had little relationship to Palestinian Judaism one way or another (Sandmel). With regard to Paul’s polemical statements about Judaism, there are also basically three positions: that they do not represent his fundamental view and should be discounted as the polemics of the moment (Davies); that they are to be the point and represent the basic antithesis of Paul and Judaism (the majority); and that they do not really touch the Judaism which is known from Rabbinic sources, and so must be explained as referring to some other form of Judaism or arising from immediate apologetic need (Montifiore, Moore).[38]
In view of the central theme of Paul’s theology, Sanders agrees with Kasemann and Stendahl that the center of Paul’s theology is not focused on individual, although he agrees with Bultmann, Bornkamm, and Conzelmann that the particular formulation “righteousness by faith” primarily concerns the individual.[39] He notes that whereas Bultmann, Bornkamm, and Conzelmann are compelled that the doctrine of righteousness primarily applies to individual, Kasemann argues that “righteousness of God does not, in Paul’s understanding, refer primarily to the individual and is not to be understood exclusively in the context of the doctrine of man.”[40] Sanders notes that Kasemann argues that the central theme of Paul’s theology is the righteousness by faith and the history of salvation, whereas Stendahl believes that it is salvation history,[41]
According to Albert Schweitzer the concept of righteousness by faith is not an independent theme but subsumed under the eschatological doctrine of the being in Christ.[42] Sanders concurs with Schweitzer on the idea that righteousness by faith comes out from and is to be viewed in the light of other aspects of Pauline thought.[43] Sanders proposes the following two convictions as the basis for explaining Paul’s theology: “(1) that Jesus Christ is Lord, that in him God has provided for the salvation of all who believe (in general sense of ‘be converted’), and that he will soon return to bring all things to end, (2) that he, Paul, was called to be the apostle to the Gentiles.”[44]
The framework of Sanders’ understanding of Rabbinic religion is covenant nomism. His summary of its pattern provides the major components:
God has chosen Israel and Israel has accepted the election. In his role as King, God gave Israel commandments which they are to obey as best they can. Obedience is rewarded and disobedience punished. In case of failure to obey, however, man has recourse to divinely ordained means of atonement, in all of which repentance is required. As long as he maintains his desire to stay in the covenant, has a share in God’s covenantal promises, including life in the world to come. The intention and effort to be obedient constitute the condition for remaining in the covenant, but they do not earn it.[45]
Sanders claims that elements of this concept are drawn from the Tannaitic literature, the
provisions being applied to Israelites and also to proselytes and righteous Gentiles.[46] Covenant nomism postulates that a person is elected on the basis of God establishing a covenant with him and it requires him to obey the commandments as his response, and in his transgression is dealt with by the provision of atonement.[47] Sanders defines election in terms of the concept of salvation: by grace through God’s covenant, Israel is elected and by obedience to the laws, Israel stays in salvation. He notes that covenantal nomism as election and ultimately salvation is achieved by God’s mercy and not by human effort.[48]
Interestingly, Bird thinks that covenantal nomism (equivalent to merit theology) cannot be employed to the vast range of Jewish literature, and in some literature the concept of getting in and staying in.[49] He believes that the soteriology of the second-temple Judaism is diverse and can accommodate a wider range of views about the role of the law than covenantal nomism.[50] Bird’s observation is right about Paul’s portrayal of Judaism that stresses one’s eschatological position before God is determined by the execution of Torah.[51] Eskola thinks that Sanders uses sociological categories in explaining nomism, i.e. “covenant would be ab eschatological concept and keeping the law a sociological activity.”[52] Eskola contends that the law functions eschatologically and not just sociologically.[53] Sanders believes that in Judaism during the Second Temple, salvation is not futuristic but had to do more with this day.[54] But Eskola argues that the texts of the Second Temple period are mainly eschatological, unction as the criterion and condition for eschatological salvation.[55]
Michael F. Bird strongly describes Sanders’ idea as initiation by grace and salvation by works and defines the latter’s concept a “merit theology conveniently disguised with the language of election.”[56] Sanders asserts, however, that the idea of legalistic obedience to acquire God’s mercy through performing rituals is a deterioration of the idea that obedience is the result consequence of God offering of the covenant. He argues that the notion that obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant but does not earn God’s will is found in the Tannaic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, and Pseudipigrapha.[57] Sanders argues that Paul views in some of his statements to the effect that judgment is based on works (see Romans 12:12-16; 2 Corinthians 5:8-10; 1 Corinthians 3:10-15; 1 Corinthians 11:29-32), taking Romans 2:12-16 to mean that righteousness is based on works, righteousness being connected to punishment and not to earn salvation.[58] He presents Paul making the distinction between being saved (by God’s grace) and judged according to deeds, being rewarded for good deeds and punished for bad in 1Corinthians 3:10-15.[59] He understands the punishment in 1 Corinthians 11:29-32 as prevention from condemnation, a concept taken from the Jewish traditional view.[60] He notes that Paul’s assurance of salvation was not assurance that his work was perfect that at judgment nothing would be revealed against him for which he could be punished.[61] He attributes this idea to the general view of Rabbinic literature about the distinction between being saved by God’s gracious election and being judged on the basis of works and punished on rewarded at the judgment (or this life).[62]
Sanders argues that the purpose of Christ’s death, according to Paul, emphasizes the future, “towards the assurance of life with Christ whether one is alive or dead at his coming.”[63] The significance of Christ’s death, in Paul’s thought, is more inclined to the concept of a change of lordship that assures future salvation, than the idea of expectation of past transgression.[64] Sanders summarizes Schweitzer’s view on Paul’s attitude toward the law:
(1) The law becomes in operative with the beginning of the Messianic kingdom, which was inaugurated by the resurrection of Jesus; (2) that a man should not change the state in which he was called; (3) that Paul had experienced the impossibility of righteousness by the law and know that one must rely on God, and that in this conviction he agreed with “at least certain circles among the scribes of his time.[65] Sanders disagrees with Schweitzer’s view about the law: the more transcendent the kingdom, the less useful the law which applies to this world; Paul did not indicate the law (Galatians 3:19-26; 2 Corinthians 3:7-11; Romans 5:20; Romans 7:7-25; Romans 10:4-13).[66] Sanders defines “righteousness of God” as “power and action of God which are manifest in both wrath and grace (1:16-18; 3:21), as it is also his rightness and fidelity to what he promised and intended (3:17), where God’s dikaosyne is parallel to his pistis and aletheia and opposed to man’s adkia).[67]
Sanders views Christianity as a new covenant which functions like the old covenant: there is salvation to those inside of it; there is condemnation and death to those outside of it, it requires obedience while remaining in it, and the result of disobedience is expulsion and condemnation unless repentance is demonstrated (2 Corinthians 12:21).[68]
In his definition, Sanders views election as God’s special choosing of Israel for salvation. It follows that election is by God’s grace whereas staying elected is a human responsibility by works.[69] Peter Enns indicates several problems with these intertwined concepts:
It might be less confusing to say that election is by grace, but salvation is by obedience. In fact, getting in and staying in may not be categories that do justice to the evidence provided by the Second Temple sources. Since election is the beginning point, and this is solely Israel’s property according to Jubilees, perhaps we should speak of “being in” rather than getting in, since the latter is never really in view. This is more than merely semantic distinction. “Being in” is by birth; it is nationalistic. Staying in, however, is a matter of individual effort. Now, to be sure, that individual effort must be seen within the context of the individual’s self-understanding and confidence as a Jew, a confidence that rests on God’s faithfulness in calling a particular people to himself, and that he is predisposed to forgive transgression, an obvious fact seen in the biblical institution of a system of atonement. The point still remains, however, that the final outcome is based on more than the initial inclusion in the covenant.[70]
Sanders’ view is a description of merit theology. Eskola is correct in emphasizing the logic, “if legalism means that keeping the law affects eschatological salvation, then covenantal nomism is legalistic nomism by definition.”[71]
Sanders summarizes that the “theme of Paul’s gospel was saving action of God in Jesus Christ and how hearers could participate in this action.”[72] Sanders contends that Paul never preached starting from the plight of man and his need of salvation but rather always begins with God’s action in Christ: the death and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:4; 1:7-8; 2:10-13; Philippians 1:29; Galatians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 14:22-24; 15:17; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 1:8, 16), faith with the hope in one’s own salvation by being raised to be with Christ (2 Corinthians 4:13f).[73] He notes that the preaching about the death and resurrection implies Christ’s lordship, his return, the judgment and salvation of those who believe (1 Corinthians 15:20-28; Philippians 3:18-21).[74] In terms of future expectation and its present guarantee, Sanders claims that Paul believes the full salvation of believers and the destruction of unbelievers take place in the near future and the possession of the Spirit by Christians is the guarantee of future salvation (1 Corinthians 15, especially verses 23-25; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; Philippians 3:18-21). He asserts that having the Spirit means “real participation in the Spirit and the resurrected Lord, which participation provides the best guarantee of all: Christians are sons of God (Romans 8:16; Galatians 4:7).”[75] In summary of Paul’s view about God’s action and man’s participation, Sanders declares, “God appointed Christ as Lord and Savior of the world. All who believe in him have the Spirit as guarantee of future full salvation and at present considered to participate in Chris’s body, to be one in Spirit with him, as such, they are to act in accordance with the Spirit, which is also to serve Christ as the Lord to whom they belong.”[76]
Sanders makes a mistake by interpreting Pauline soteriology emphasizing Christ’s lordship at the expense of significant focus on forensic character of Pauline justification. It is very clear in the following references that Paul teaches that man is guilty of sin and for this Christ was sent by God:
- Galatians 3:13-14 – “13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[a] through faith.”
- Galatians 4:4-5 -“4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.”
Justification by faith is God’s solution to man’s guilt and its consequent condemnation.
Rayburn is correct in saying “guilt and sin are crucial to Paul as he develops man’s plight and Christ’s solution to it” … guilt is swept away on the basis of the saving act of God, and obedience to law thus has no meritorious connection with either the obtaining or the keeping of eternal life.”[77] About Sanders view on justification by faith in Pauline theology, King rightly notes:
Certainly his denial that justification by faith is the prime category for understanding Paul seems to undo, or at least loosen exegetical knot , and at the same time is true of his detailed argument for the priority in Paul’s mind of Christ as the liberating solution over the plight from which men are liberated, thereby reversing the commonest way of interpreting justification in Paul: sin is seen as a power from whose sovereignty believers transfer, because Paul has first experienced Christ as an alternative and liberating sovereignty.”[78]
James Dunn’s Views
James Dunn is persuaded by the view of the Achtemeiers that Paul’s central phrase the righteousness of God was taken directly from the Old Testament and reverberated overtime with characteristics Jewish emphasis.[79] Dunn believes that there is continuity between Paul’s religion prior to and after his experience on the road to Damascus. Firstly, he notes that the term gospel implies continuity with the fulfillment of earlier hopes in that the term in the earliest Christian thought and reflection derived from Jesus’s own use of Isaiah 61:1-2 (Matthew 11:5/Luke 7:22; Luke 4:18; Acts 10:36; cf. Luke 6:20-21/Matthew 5:3-4), a passage which evidently influenced other strands of second Temple Judaism (Pss. Sol. 11:1; QH 23{=18}.14; 11QMelch 18).[80] Secondly, he argues that Romans 1:16-17 and Galatians 2:14-16 clearly indicate that the truth of the gospel stresses the righteousness of God from/to faith (Romans 1:17), similarly demonstrated, in a person’s being justified through/from faith in Jesus Christ (Galatians 2:16), the point being, that the language and theology of the righteousness and justification of God is deeply rooted in a similar language and demonstrated the same theology inherent in Psalms and second Isaiah.[81] Thirdly, he points out that Paul links the gospel of God to what was promised in the past through the prophets in the holy scripture (Romans 1:1-2; Romans 15:16; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:2, 8-9), proving the continuity between the gospel with earlier scriptures, and thus, attesting the fact that “Paul has drawn from the categories and theology of the law and the prophets.”[82]
Dunn believes that Paul indicates in his letters that he views himself as being called rather than converted (Galatians 2:15).[83] He also refers the Gentiles, who were pagans prior to becoming Christians, as called by God (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10).[84] It is likely that Paul in his pre-Damascus understanding seemed to be that Jesus could not be the Messiah and proclaiming him as such is a blasphemy because he was hung on a tree, a death considered the curse of the law.[85] After his Damascus experience Paul teaches a different understanding of Deuteronomy 21 in which he stresses its salvific subtext for us, Jesus being the reference. Heen demonstrates this noting the flow of Galatian 3:10-13:
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law” [Deut 27 26] Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The one who is righteous will live by faith ” [Hab 2 4] But the law does not rest on faith, on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them” [Lev 18 5] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” [Deut 21 23].[86]
Dunn asserts that the works of the law Paul opposed in Galatians referred to circumcision (2:3, 7-9, 12; 5:2f; 6:12f, 15), keeping the religious calendar (4:10), and observing dietary laws (2:12-14).[87] He calls these laws badges and boundary markers of Judaism that distinguish Jews from Gentiles. These God-given Jewish distinctives aimed to put order, maintain social identity, and cohesion among the Jews.[88] Jewish Christians continued to practice their heritage by worshipping in the temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:12, 42) just as Paul did (Acts 21:26; 24:17f). Dunn argues that Paul did not intend to deal with moral behavior but with these boundary markers that differentiated Jews from Gentiles.[89] However, many texts referring to works (e.g. Romans 2:17f; 3:9-20; 11:6; Titus 3:5) cannot be clearly identified and limited to specific badges of Judaism.
The phrase works of the law, in Pauline letters, refers to the works which the law requires.[90] Westerholm argues what Paul means by law (nomos) in Galatians 3:10-14 (and in other references) does not refer to Pentateuch or Scripture as a whole, but to Sinaitic legislation – the sum of specific requirements given to Israel through Moses, with the basic principle it that must done or kept and not to be transgressed – this does not rest on faith.[91] Bird asserts that the polemic of Paul deals against both the “ethnocentric and the synergistic nature of any ‘works’ that are placed before God as the basis of salvation.[92]
Dunn believes that Paul condemns his boasting of being a Jew with ethnic privilege and not because of his personal achievement (Galatians 6:12-13). Such reduction of Paul’s criticism of justification by works to nationalism is problematic. It is clear in Phil. 3:3-9 that although Paul prides in his Jewish heritage, at the same time, he attacks his old self by being self-righteous based on devotion to the laws as a devout Jew and a Pharisee. As a result, Paul denounces “both his inherited privileges and personal achievements as the basis of his own righteousness.”[93] It is more likely than not that Paul’s boasting is on his self-accomplishment (Romans 4:2; 1 Corinthians 1:29; 4:7; Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 4:4-5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 3:9).
Dunn proposes that Paul created his statements of justification by faith and not works in reference to his mission as apostle to the Gentiles, resulting to being challenged by his fellow Jews (Galatians 2:2-4, Acts 15:1.5).[94] He argues that justification by faith involves social and ethnic dimension.[95] He asserts that Jewish Soteriology is synergistic and so Christianity is by referring to exhortations in passages such as Romans 12:9-21, Galatians 6:1-5, and Colossians 3:5-4:1.[96] In terms of salvation, Dunn argues that “Paul envisaged salvation as a process of transformation of the believer, not simply of the believer’s status but of the believer’s as such transformation. Final judgment will be the measure of that transformation. Central to the process is the enabling, in motivation and doing, of the spirit.[97] Waters finds this problematic:
Dunn claims that the “final justification” of the believer takes place at the Day of Judgment. “Final justification” has reference to the believer’s obedience. In this respect, “initial” and “final” justification correspond to the “grace” and “obedience” axes of covenantal nomism (p. 73). This raises the question of what role one’s obedience will play at the Day of Judgment. Dunn suggests that Paul and first-century Judaism are much closer on this question than many have supposed (p. 88). He declines to follow the Protestant Reformation in specifying the believer’s works as strictly evidential at the Day of Judgment (p. 87, n. 367). Instead, Dunn parts ways with the Reformers by affirming that the believer’s works are part of the basis of God’s declaring the believer righteous at the Last Day. Referring to Rom 2:6-11, he claims that “Paul’s theology of justification by faith alone has to be qualified as final justification by faith and by works accomplished by the believer in the power of the Spirit” (p. 88).[98]
Conclusion
The teaching of the “New Perspective on Paul” is not sound in its hermeneutical grounding. It’s a faulty and dangerous reinterpretation of Paul and it misunderstands Scripture in a way that fatally undermines the doctrine of justification by faith and the principle of sola fide. It promotes the false assumption that Paul’s doctrine of justification was only concerned with the Gentiles’ standing in the covenant community and not at all about a guilty sinner being declared just before a holy and righteous God by faith (Rom 1:17; 3:21-26).
Bibliography
Bird, Michael F. The Saving Righteousness of God : Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Paternoster biblical monographs. Milton Keynes, UK ; Waynesboro, Ga : Paternoster, 2007.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Scribner studies in contemporary theology. New York : Scribner, 1965.
Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism; Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. London, S.P.C.K.,1955.
Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: 185. Grand Rapid, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2008.
Enns, Peter. “Expansions of Scripture.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism, 73–98, 2001.
Eskola, Timo. “Paul, Predestination and ’Covenantal Nomism’–Re-Assessing Paul and Palestinian Judaism.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 28, no. 4 (November 1997): 390–412.
Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell, and A Thomas Kraabel. “Paul and the Hellenization of Christianity.” In Religions in Antiquity; Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, 23–68, 1968.
Heen, Erik M. “A Lutheran Response to the New Perspective on Paul.” Lutheran Quarterly 24, no. 3 (2010): 263–291.
King, N. “Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion.” Biblica 61, no. 1 (1980): 141–144.
Montefiore, C. G. Judaism and St. Paul : Two Essays. London : Max Goschen, 1914.
Moore, George Foot. “Christian Writers on Judaism.” Harvard Theological Review 14, no. 3 (July 1921): 197–254.
Parkes, J, Jesus, Paul, and the Jews, London, 1936.
Rayburn, Robert S. “Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion.” Presbyterion 4, no. 2 (1978): 106–110.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism : A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1977.
Sandmel, Samuel. The Genius of Paul : A Study in History. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1979.
Schoeps, Hans Joachim, and Harold Knight. Paul : The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History.Cambridge, England : James Clarke, 2002.
Schweitzer, Albert, and W. Montgomery. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. London : A. & C. Black, 1931.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification : A Challenge to the New Perspective. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Thackeray, H. St. J. The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought : An Essay to Which Was Awarded the Kaye Prize for 1899. ATLA monograph preservation program: ATLA fiche 1985-3501. London ; New York : Macmillan, 1900.
Warden, Duane. “What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?” Stone-Campbell Journal3, no. 1 (2000): 144–145.
Waters, Guy Prentiss. “The New Perspective on Paul.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 1 (March 2009): 164–165.
Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul : The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 2004.
.
Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said : Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans Pub. ; Cincinnati, Ohio : Forward Movement Publications, 1997.
[1] Hagner, “Paul and Judaism: Testing the New Perspective” in Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification : A Challenge to the New Perspective. (Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2001), 76.
[2] Ibid., 77.
[3] Ibid., 78.
[4] Duane Warden, “What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?” Stone-Campbell Journal 3, no. 1 (2000): 145.
[5] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said : Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans Pub. ; Cincinnati, Ohio : Forward Movement Publications, 1997), 60.
[6] Ibid., 32.
[7] Ibid., 49.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 60.
[10] Ibid., 60.
[11] Ibid., 63.
[12] Wright, 105.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., 109.
[15] Ibid., 33.
[16] Ibid., 122.
[17] Ibid., 123.
[18] E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism : A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1977), 4.
[19] C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and St. Paul : Two Essays (London : Max Goschen, 1914), 21.
[20] Ibid., 126.
[21] George Foot Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” Harvard Theological Review 14, no. 3 (July 1921): 228-233.
[22] H. St. J. Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought : An Essay to Which Was Awarded the Kaye Prize for 1899., ATLA monograph preservation program: ATLA fiche 1985-3501 (London ; New York : Macmillan, 1900), 80. George Foot Moore,
[23] Ibid.
[24] Thackeray, 80-87.
[25] Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Scribner studies in contemporary theology (New York : Scribner, 1965), 129.
[26] J. Parkes, Jesus, Paul, and the Jews (London, 1936), 120.
[27] Samuel Sandmel, The Genius of Paul : A Study in History (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1979), 39.
[28] Hans Joachim Schoeps and Harold Knight, Paul : The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Cambridge, England : James Clarke, 2002), 88, 112.
[29] Ibid., 196.
[30] Schoeps, 200.
[31] Ibid., 213-18, 260.
[32] Sandmel, The Genius of Paul, 59.
[33] Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough and A Thomas Kraabel, “Paul and the Hellenization of Christianity,” in Religions in Antiquity; Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (1968), 23–68.
[34] W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism; Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. (London, S.P.C.K. 1955), 1-16.
[35] Ibid., 15f.
[36] Ibid., 16.
[37] Ibid., 323.
[38] Sanders, 11-12.
[39] Ibid., 438.
[40] Ibid., 436.
[41] Ibid., 437.
[42] Albert Schweitzer and W. Montgomery, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. (London : A. & C. Black, 1931), 220f.
[43] Sanders, 441.
[44] Ibid., 441-442
[45] Ibid., 180.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.,75.
[48] Sanders, 422.
[49] Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God : Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective., Paternoster biblical monographs (Milton Keynes, UK ; Waynesboro, Ga : Paternoster, 2007), 93.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid., 94.
[52] Timo Eskola, “Paul, Predestination and ’Covenantal Nomism’–Re-Assessing Paul and Palestinian Judaism,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 28, no. 4 (November 1997): 393-394.
[53] Ibid., 394.
[54] Bird, 395.
[55] Ibid, 396.
[56] Ibid., 95.
[57] Sanders, 420. Sanders argues that the concept of reward and punishment in found in Rabbinic literature: God appropriately rewards and punishes for obedience and disobedience; the righteousness is rewarded in the world to come(125-147).
[58] Ibid., 516.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Sanders, 517.
[61] Ibid., 517.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid., 465.
[64] Ibid., 466.
[65] Ibid., 478.
[66] Ibid., 476.
[67] Sanders, 491.
[68] Ibid., 513.
[69] Bird, 94-95.
[70] Peter Enns, “Expansions of Scripture,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 1 – The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, eds. D.A. Carson, Peter O’ Brien and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 73–98.
[71] T. Eskola, 56.
[72] Sanders, 447.
[73] Ibid., 443. Sanders claims that Paul did not feel the need of universal savior prior his conviction that Jesus was such. He argues that Romans 7 describes the pre-Christian or non-Christian life as seen from the perspective of faith, and not a reflection of Paul’s frustration being a practicing Jew.
[74] Ibid., 444.
[75] Sanders, 460.
[76] Ibid., 463.
[77] Robert S Rayburn, “Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion,” Presbyterion 4, no. 2 (1978): 110.
[78] N King, “Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion,” Biblica 61, no. 1 (1980): 144.
[79] James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul., Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: 185 (Grand Rapid, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2008), 2.
[80] Ibid., 249.
[81] Dunn, 250.
[82] Ibid.
[83] Ibid., 12-23.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Erik M Heen, “A Lutheran Response to the New Perspective on Paul,” Lutheran Quarterly 24, no. 3 (2010): 277.
[86] Heen, 277.
[87] Dunn, 8, 36.
[88] Ibid., 8-9.
[89] Ibid., 44.
[90] Bird, 98.
[91] Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul : The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 2004), 300-305.
[92] Bird, 99.
[93] Ibid., 100.
[94] Dunn, 30.
[95] Ibid., 36.
[96] Ibid., 83.
[97] Dunn, 93.
[98] Guy Prentiss Waters, “The New Perspective on Paul,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 1 (March 2009): 165.
My interest in New Testament Studies particularly on Textual Criticism prompted me to join the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). Just last October of this year 2011. I registered to become a member. By being a member I am able to access the SBL Journals which contain articles on biblical studies written by bible scholars from all over the world. Also I am being informed of the events and updates about meetings, conferences, recent publications on biblical studies. I was fortunate that this year’s SBL Annual Meeting was held in San Francisco California, just 30 miles away from Union City where I live in. It was my first time to become a part of an Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Few days before, upon registering on-line to the Annual Meeting, I was able to see the program on SBL website. It fascinated me to know that the Textual scholars whose books I have been reading will do their presentations on different sessions. I got more excited after learning that my friend and Asian Theological Seminary fellow alumnus Edgar B. Ebojo from University of Birmingham, UK is one of the presenters on Nov. 19. It was around 1pm when I fetched him from San Francisco International Airport. We had our late lunch in restaurant, and then we proceeded to the venue of the Annual Meeting. After picking up our tote bags and badges, we went around surveying the 3-storey huge Moscone West Convention Center, at the corner of 4th St. and Howard St and took pictures of each other.
New Testament Textual Criticism Sessions
Upon entering Room # 2018 of the Moscone West Convention Center, I was overwhelmed to meet and chat in person with New Testament Textual Critics like David Parker, Larry Hurtado, James Royse, Daniel Wallace, and others. I and Edgar (Ebojo) took pictures alternately while conversing with them. This first session (9-11:30am) on New Testament Textual Criticism Section carries the theme, A Holistic Approach to Two Contemporary Purple Parchment Gospel Books: St. Petersburg 53 (Gregory-Aland 565) and Tirana, Beratinus 2 (Gregory-Aland 1143). I enjoyed the presentation of Nadezda Kavrus-Hoffmann, which concluded that purple colored manuscripts were of Christian origin signifying divine authority. Others presenters were Ulrich Schmid (Kirchliche Hoschschule Wupperta/Bethel) and Bruce Morill (University of Birmingham) who discussed A Textual Comparison between the Two Manuscripts, Daniel Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) who presented the Imaging Tirana Beratinus, and Kathleen Maxwel (Santa Clara University) demonstrated An Analysis of the Evangelist Portraits in Two Manuscripts. Prof. David C. Parker (University of Birmingham) presided the presentations and the panel discussion with the audience.
The second session held at Room # 3010(1-3:30pm) was focused on the discussion of the new critical edition of the SBL Greek New Testament, edited by Michael Holmes. Panelists include David Parker (University of Birmingham), Holger Strufwolf (Wesfaliche Wilhems-Universitat Munster), and Harold Attridge (Yale University). There was a strong disagreement from the panelists against the new SBL critical edition as an alternative to both to UBS and NA 27 critical editions. Nevertheless, to others among the audience it is additional resource.
The third session I attended was held at Marriot Hotel Marquis, on 4th St. near across the Moscone West. People squeezed their way inside a relatively small Sierra Room to hear and watch the presentations that centered on New Testament Manuscripts. Jeniffer Knust (Boston University) and Tom Wasserman (Orebro School of Theology) discussed how biblical hymns (canticles and odes) relate to transmission of the text. Hans-Gebhard Bethge (Humbolt-Univsitat zu Berlin) submitted an interesting presentation entitled A New Papyrus Codex with Text From Pauline Letters in Coptic. A Preliminary Report. Daniel B. Sharp (Claremont Graduate University) gave an insight on a methodology for identifying translations versus transcriptions. Most of all I enjoyed the paper of Edgar Ebojo (University of Birmingham, UK) entitled P46 with the Pastorals: A Misleading Proposal? Reinvestigating the Evidence of the Missing Last Pages of P46. He made a re-assessment on the long standing question whether Papyrus 46 included the Pastoral Epistles or not. Equipped with the skills and art of PowerPoint presentation, he demonstrated visually in details such as script profile, character profile, line profile, variations affecting text length, pagination, etc. in the examination of P46. Arguing from Scribal Habits perspective, he gave a new dimension on how to address the question of the elusive content of last pages of P46.
I was able also to hear interesting presentations by Stephen C. Carson (Duke University) For Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia: A Note on the Text of Galatians 4:25, Peter J. Williams (Tyndale House, Cambridge) The Gadarene, Gerasene, and Gergesene Variants Reconsidered, Ryan Wettlaufer (Univ. of St. Michaels) A First Glance At Title Creep, Claire Clivaz (Univ. de Lausanne) Dead Thanks to God / Apart from God: New Elements on the Variant of Heb. 2:9, Dirk Jongkind (Tyndale House, Cambridge) Know Your Bible: The Underestimated Influence of the Total Corpus on the Single Phrase, David Parker (Univ of Birmingham, UK) Commentary Manuscripts of the Gospel of John, Richard Pervo (Saint Paul, Minn) Textual Problems in Acts: An Exegete’s Perspective.
Acquaintances and Fellowships
Casual fellowships gave me opportunities to acquaint with a number of scholars. During lunchtime of Nov. 19 I had the chance to meet Dr. Amy Sue Anderson (Professor at North Central Seminary), Brice Jones (PH. D. student at McGill University) and others. I was so privileged to chat with the Staff members of the Univ. of Birmingham (Breakfast Fellowship, Nov. 20), specially Prof. David C. Parker discussing my plan to do NT Textual Criticism. A group of around 25 people associated to the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog site held a lively dinner fellowship at Sam’s Grill in San Francisco, in which I enjoyed the conversation with Peter Head and others and the food too.
Exhibit
Big discounts lured me to buy nearly a dozen of books in the exhibit. There were more than thirty publishing companies that sold their books written by hundreds of authors. Thank God for his provision, I have added to my small library books on NT Textual Criticism, Papyrology and Codicology.
Benefits
My first attendance to the SBL Annual Meeting has inspired me more to study the Scriptures in their original languages. I learned a lot from the sessions. I received many insights from the scholars with whom I had personal fellowship. Most of all, I have been blessed and encouraged to continue serving God. I am looking forward to more SBL Meetings in the near future. Thank God!
Richard Bauckham, “Devotion to Jesus in Early Christianity—An Appreciation and Discussion of the work of Larry Hurtado”
The third and last presenter, animatedly introduced by Dr Paul Foster, was Prof Richard Bauckham, former Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St Andrews. Under the rubric, “Devotion to Jesus in Early Christianity—An Appreciation and Discussion of the work of Larry Hurtado,” the ever-energetic speaker brought to the table the on-going dynamic discussions between him, Hurtado, and James Dunn as well as other “christologians”, with regards to the earliest recoverable Christian devotions to Jesus Christ, giving the audience the foretaste of the yet unexplored richness of the subject, despite the fact that voluminous literature has been published already on the subject. Interestingly, Bauckham specially noted, with forthright appropriateness, the “marginal interest” among NT scholars on the subject before Hurtado ventured to producing two stimulating monographs that eventually generated invigorated interest on the subject.
What should we know about Jesus? Why did the early Christians worship Jesus? How did they view Jesus? Is there a distinction between early high Christology and later high Christology? These are some of the questions that Bauckham underlined insofar as the subject is concerned. In relation to Hurtado’s own works, Bauckham started off by reviewing some of Hurtado’s main points in his two vital monographs: One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Point-by-point, Bauckham engaged Hurtado’s views on the following areas of Jewish monotheism and intermediary figures that played prominently in Hurtado’s two books, as well in his other related writings, including How on Earth did Jesus become a God? Historical Questions about the Earliest Devotion to Jesus. With his usual incisiveness, Bauckham lengthily discussed on the following points: 1) evidence of veneration of angels in the Second Temple Judaism (STJ) vis-à-vis the divine agencies in Jewish monotheism, 2) evidence of the worship of some human beings in the STJ vis-à-vis personified divine agents, 3) role of the sacrificial worship in the monotheistic worship in the STJ, 4) the narrowness of worship as a criterion of divinity, 5) questions about the role of principal angels and exalted patriarchs as plenipotentiaries, wielding all God’s power and authority of his behalf vis-à-vis principal agents and exalted patriarchs as divine agents, and 6) the proposal that monotheism requires more than cultic worship, in relation to what Hurtado calls the “early Christian mutation”.
Bauckham also commended Hurtado’s proposition that the earliest dominant Jewish monotheism was an exclusive monotheism as opposed to the pagans’ polytheism or against the other Jewish form of inclusive monotheism—a view Hurtado proffered in hisOne God, One Lord. Bauckham believes that this was a crucial argument in Hurtado’s thesis on the Christian Christological mutation, as he prepares to draw the essential connection between early Jewish monotheism and the eventual Trinitarian devotional practices of the early Christians. Along this line, Bauckham mentioned Hurtado’s evidences that underscore this undeniable association: 1) celebrating Christ, 2) prayer to Christ, 3) the use of the name of Jesus in baptism and other practices, including calling on the name of Jesus, an intertextual resonance of the OT’s calling upon the Name of the Lord, 4) the Lord’s Supper, 5) confessing Jesus as Lord, and 6) prophecies about Jesus and Jesus as the Risen Lord. For Bauckham, these early Christian practices afforded an “unprecedented centrality of a divine agent to a community devotion and cultic life”. Despite criticisms from other camps against Hurtado’s points, (of which Bauckham specifically mentioned two, namely, 1) use/non-use of magic and amulets in STJ, and 2) the evidence of the worship of other human beings in STJ), Bauckham believes that Hurtado has persuasively presented a very good case for the connection.
In regard to the early Christian devotion to Jesus and its origins, Bauckham added a few more features to Hurtado’s list, namely: 1) the early Christian exegesis of the Hebrew bible, and 2) the lavish early Christians’ application to Jesus of the title “Lord” as a direct echo of the OT. Bauckham also mentioned about the criticism proposing that the early Christian experience is not enough to explain the origins of devotions to Jesus Christ, which Hurtado, in his books, directly engaged counter-arguing that the early Christian’s religious experience, particularly visions and revelations, functioned in such a way that fortified their devotion to Jesus, and not only as a product of their idiosyncratic experience. To this, Bauckham added that these religious experiences must also be properly understood in the context of the early Christians’ exegesis of the Hebrew bible. Finally, Bauckham concluded his presentation with a brief discussion on the question, “Do we have sufficient evidence for thinking early Christian devotion to Jesus was based on visions of the exalted Jesus?” presenting his own appraisal of the on-going inquiry on the matter. Commending Hurtado’s significant contribution to the field of Christological studies, Bauckham advised Hurtado that “(T)he only disadvantage of retirement is that you no longer get sabbaticals”.
Edgar Ebojo
University of Birmingham
A shot with Prof. David C. Parker of Univ. of Birmingham UK and Dr Simon Crisp, the Director of Translation Services of the United Bible Societies
The Meaning of this generation in Matthew 24:34-35
Jessie Sunday D. Delfin
“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall not pass away.” (New American Standard Bible).
Introduction
Among the various proposals, the Apostle Matthew[1] is the most viable author for the Gospel according to Matthew. This gospel version was written at around AD 50-70[2] in Syria.[3] With regards to Matthew’s purpose for writing this gospel, the following are proposals from Carson et al: [4] 1) Jesus is the promised Messiah, prophesied in the Old Testament; 2) Many Jews, specially Jewish leaders, failed to recognized this; 3) The promised eschatological kingdom has been already inaugurated; 4) The true people of God are those believers of Jesus; 5) The Messianic reign of Jesus is both the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and foretaste of the consummated kingdom; 6) The church must continue evangelize and suffer throughout the age. As to the original recipients of the gospel, Matthew wrote to both Jewish and Gentile Christians. The structure of Matthew is very hard to determine, although there are proposals[5] Insofar as Matthew’s gospel appears to be more fluid than systematic in its structure, the following suggested structure is more appealing: (I) Jesus the Messiah; (II) The Jewish Rejection of Jesus in Galillee; (III) The Self-revelation of Jesus to His disciples; (IV) The Jewish Rejection of Jesus in Jerusalem; (V) Jesus the Risen Lord.
There are significant Greek variant readings in Matthew 24:34-35.[6] In verse 34, both the NA26 and UBS3 have amen humin hoti ou me parelthe he genea haute heos an panta tauta genetai which is translated in NASV, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Other manuscripts omitted the word “an”.[7] If we follow the former reading which includes the word “an”, the first part of the verse (amen humin hoti ou me parelthe) makes more dependent to the second part (he genea haute heos an panta tauta genetai).[8] Further, the inclusion of “an” denotes that the conditions stated in the protasis has the possibility (even probability) of becoming a reality.[9] It follows then that the fulfillment of panta tauta (these things) is more probable. This reading is to be preferred because it is attested by many reliable manuscripts.[10] In other translations, verse 35 is omitted.[11] This reading eliminates Jesus’ assurance for the future events found in verses 4-31. It would be best to retain this verse since it is present in Mark[12] (where Matthew copied from) and it is logical that Matthew originally included this because it comes from the Old Testament (Isa 40:6-8; Psa 119:89-90). This passage which is located in its immediate pericope (vv. 1-35), is categorized as apocalyptic-prophetic literature.[13]
Interpretation
Matthew 24:34-35 (cf. Mk 13:30-31; Lk 21:32-33) follows the Parable of the Fig-Tree which teaches the nearness of the parousia (coming) of Jesus.[14] It also makes the point of the parable (fig-tree) in plain language.[15] This passage is identical to Mk 13:30-31 except that Matthew used heos (until, so with Lk 21:32) instead of mechris (until). Two assurances have been given by Jesus in this passage. One is that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” and the other is that “heaven and earth will pass away but not Jesus’ words,”for they will stay unchanged. The difficulty in the interpretation of this passage lies on the meaning of the phrase “this generation” and the antecedent of “all these things”.
Verse 34
Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Matthew begins this passage in v. 34 (cf. Mt 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 16; 8:10) with the phrase “Truly I say tol you.” This emphasizes the importance of the message about to be uttered. The word “amen” for truly with lego (I say) is used to a solemn declaration.[16] Further, the point of “amen” is to stress the truth and the validity of the sayings of Jesus.[17] The main issues in this passage are: 1) what is the antecedent of panta tauta (these things); 2) what is the meaning of he genea (the generation). Panta tauta (these things) obviously refer to the events before hand but its scope is another question. Does it refer only 1) to the cosmic and terrestrial upheavels (vv. 29-31) just before the parousia?, 2) or is it limited to the distress of vv. 4-28 (including the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70), 3) or does the scope of panta tauta covers both? If we take option number one or three, then vv. 32-33 are illogical for any distinction between “all these things” and “it is near” would be destroyed. There is a good support for the second option since there is similarity in the phraseology of this verse to v. 2 and v. 8 (vv. 2, 8 and 34 have panta tauta) wherein the most natural antecedent of the word is the events in vv. 4-28. If this is the case, then the people referred by he genea haute would then have experienced the distress described in vv. 4-28. Does this mean then that the parousia of Jesus already took place, just as verse 29 (specially by the use of “immediately) seems to suggest? Of course not, for until now Jesus has not yet returned. What is then the relationship between vv. 4-28 and vv.29-31? In understanding this, it is necessary to determine the structure of the discourse where the passage at hand belongs. In view of the questions of the disciples, the flow of the discourse deals with at least two intertwined issues: the Fall of Jerusalem and the Parousia of Jesus. There are different views concerning the structure of the discourse which have been formulated out of these twin issues.
An older view popularized again by J.M. Kik[18] supported by R.T. France[19], contends that the Fall of Jerusalem covers vv. 1-35, and the issue concerning the Second Coming opens only in v. 36, vv. 29-31 then should be interpreted not eschatological but purely historical. According to France[20] verse 29 symbolically speaks of the fall of political powers (i.e. The Fall of Jerusalem); verse 30 as an allusion to Dan. 7:13-14, refers to the judgments of God upon the Jewish nation; verse 31 again taken from the Old Testament (Isa. 27:13) is not to be interpreted as the final judgment but rather the worldwide growth of the church. However some criticisms have been made on this view[21]. An outstanding one is concerning the interpretation of verse 31[22]. It is very illogical to accept the proposal that the Gentile Mission began only after the Fall of Jerusalem, when in fact the Gentile Mission had been flourishing for several decades already.
The most common approach today by most of the Evangelicals in structuring Matthew 24is integrating the principle of “prophetic foreshortening”. According to this view the historical judgments are rehearsals of the last judgments.[23] Cranfield as quoted by G.E. Ladd has suggested that for Jesus, the historical and eschatological are intertwined, and that the immediate historical events serve as the transparency for the eschatological phenomena.[24] Such approach is drawn from the Old Testament prophetic perspective.[25] Although this view is possible, Carson[26] pointed out its two weaknesses; 1) It has difficulty in interpreting verse 29 (e.g. “immediately after these days”); 2) The phrase “this generation” would be interpreted unnaturally.
Others scholars contend that all the parts of the Olivet Discourse talk about the Parousia and denying the event of the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.[27] This proposal is very unrealistic for it is impossible for the early Christian readers not to see the Fall of Jerusalem in this discourse, specially verse 15 (which refers to Daniel’s prophecy concerning the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70).
The dispensationalist interpretation views the Olivet Discourse as purely eschatological.[28] The phrase “this generation” has been interpreted by Walvoord (one of the proponents) either “this race” or something like “the generation living during the beginning of the great tribulation.”[29] This view is hard to accept for it will make the question of the disciples in verse 2 irrelevant. Another weakness of this view is unlikely meaning of the “this generation.”[30]
The most plausible approach for the Olivet Discourse is the view developed by David Wenham and D.A. Carson[31] separately. Carson assumes that the disciples thought the Jerusalem’s destruction and eschatological end as a single complex web of events.[32] Verses 4-28 point to the delay before the End, Jesus warns. The delay however, as Carson points out[33] is described by the persecution and tribulation of his followers (vv. 4-20), but with one particular event of judgment (i.e. Fall of Jerusalem, vv. 15-21; Mk. 13:14-20; Lk. 21:20-24). The Parousia (Second Coming of Jesus) will immediately “follow after the tribulation period.” The tribulation period as described in vv. 4-28 is not only confined to the times of Jesus’ hearers, otherwise Jesus or Matthew could have mistakenly included “immediately.”
Panta tauta (all these things) in verses 32-35 refers to the whole tribulation period, from the Ascension to the Second Coming. The he genea (the generation) of Jesus will experience all the features of the tribulation that function as the sign for the nearness of the Parousia (however the exact time no one knows except the Father). Insofar as panta tauta refers to the whole tribulation period, it will go beyond the times of the contemporaries of Jesus. Therefore verses 32-35; verses 4-28 and verses are logically connected to each other.
The main difficulty of this verse is the meaning of he genea (the generation)[34]. The obvious interpretation of this phrase is the generation contemporary to Jesus and to whom he spoke these words. This is supported by the fact that he genea haute has this basic natural meaning.[35] However, because he genea has extended meanings, various other proposals have been made. The second meaning of he genea is a race or Jewish family (Ex. 12:14). If this is the meaning for he genea in verses 34-35, it would assure the Jewish race would not pass-away despite the tribulation.[36] However, the interpretation is hard to believe because this is not the usual meaning of the word.[37] Another proposal for the meaning of he genea is to refer it to all Christians alive when the eschatological events begin to happen.[38] Adapting this view to verse 34 is highly artificial since Jesus was not only talking about Christians but also the Jews (as indicated by the context, i.e. Matthew 23).
The most viable alternative meaning of he genea is to take it metaphorical.[39] In this case, the phrase identifies a specific group of people which marks by their moral or spiritual trait.[40] The metaphorical meaning of he genea is more supported by the demonstrative pronoun haute (this). According to R. Morgenthaler,[41] has a pejorative character in some passages in the New Testament. It means that he genea haute refers to a class of people who is in this world stand over against the children of light and further described as faithless (Mk. 9:19), faithless and perverse (Mt. 17:17), adulterous (Mk. 8:38), evil (Lk. 11:29), crooked (Acts 2:40), crooked and perverse (Phil. 2:15).[42] One direct interpretation of he genea haute is to mean it as unbelieving and perverse.[43] If this is the meaning then Jesus may have been speaking of a continuing unbelief throughout the human history, until the rebellious are judged at the Parousia of Jesus.[44] Therefore he genea haute refers to a group of people which is perverse and unbelieving.
Verse 35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
This verse which is taken from Mk. 13:31 and also found in Lk. 21:32 serves as a conclusion to the first part of Jesus’ saying in the Olivet Discourse by stressing the validity of his words just as God’s words (Ps. 119:8-9; Isa. 40:6-8). The appearance of ou me (will never) indicates the strong emphasis that Jesus’ words will surely not fail. In effect Jesus is saying that verse 34 will surely be fulfilled. This verse also assures the certainty of the following teachings in the second half of the discourse.
Conclusion
The phrase he genea haute “this generation” refers to the perverse and unbelieving people (see discussion above). The antecedent of panta tauta “these things” is the distress described in verses 4-28, including the Fall of Jerusalem. Therefore the perverse and unbelieving people will certainly experience all the features of the distress described in verses 4-28, before passing away. This generation of perverse and unbelieving people exists until the Second Coming of Christ.
Bibliography
Albright, W. F. and C.S. Man, Mann. Matthew. In Anchor Bible, eds. W.F. Albright and D.N. Freeman.New York andGoldenCity: Doubleday and Company, 1971
Allen, W.C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew. In International Critical Commentary, Eds. S.R. Driver, A. Plummer, andC.A. Briggs.Edinburg: T and T Clark, 1912.
Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Edited and Translated by W.F. Arndt and W.F. Gingrich.Chicago Press, 1979
Blomberg, C. Matthew. In the New American Commentary. vol. 22. Ed. D.S. Dockery.Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992
Brown, C., ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3 vols. Eng. Trans. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976
Botterweck, G. and Ringen, H. eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1974
Brooks, J. A. and CarltonL. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek.Maryland, University Press ofAmerica, 1979
Carson, D.A. Matthew. In Expositor’s Bible Commentary. vol. 8 Ed. F. E. Gaebelein.Michigan: Zondervan, 1984
Carson, D. A., D. J. Moo, and Leon Morris, Eds. An Introduction to the New Testament.England: Apollos, 1992
Filson, F. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. In Black’s New Testament Commentaries, Ed. H. Chadwick.London: Adam and Charles Black, 1960
France, R. T. Matthew. In Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Ed. L. Morris,Leicester: IVP, 1985
Green, H. B. The Gospel According to Matthew. In The New Clarendon Bible.OxfordUniversity Press, 1975
Gundry, R. Matthew. A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982
Guthrie, D. ed. New Testament Introduction, rev. ed.Leicester: IVP, 1990
_______________. New Testament Theology, England: IUP, 1981
Hill, D. Gospel of Matthew. In New Clarendon Bible, Eds. R. Clements and M. Black,London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1972
Kittel, G. and G. Friedrich, Eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Abridged in one vol., 1985. Trans. By G. W. Bromiley.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967
Ladd, G. E. A Theology of the New Testament.Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974
Martin, R. P. New Testament Foundations. vol. 1Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975
Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, and K. Alland. Novum Testamentum Graece. 26th Edition.Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Biblelanstalt, 1979
Richards, L. O. Expository Dictionary of Bible Words.Michigan: Zondervan, 1985
Scweizer, E. The Good News According to Matthew. Trans. by D. E. Green.Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975
[1] Proponents to this view are: W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Matthew, in Anchor Bible. Eds. W.F. Albright and D.N. Freeman (New York and Golden City: Doubleday and Co., 1971) clx-clxxxvi; D.A. Carson. Matthew, in Expositor’s Bible Commentary. vol. 8. Ed. F.E. Gaebelin (Michigan: Zondervan, 1984) 17-19; R.H. Gundry. Matthew, A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982) 609-622; D. Guthrie, Ed. New Testament Introduction, revised edition (Leicester: IVP, 1990) 43-53; C.L. Blomberg. Matthew, in The New American Commentary (Nashvile; Broadman Press, 1992) 43-46; R.T. France. Matthew, in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Ed. L Morris (Leicester: IVP, 1985), 30-34.
[2] For the discussion in support to this view, see D. Carson. “Matthew”, 19-21 and D. Guthrie, “New Testament Introduction”, 53-56.
[3] Among those who hold such view are F. Filson; D. Hill and E. Schweizer.
[4] D.A. Carson; D.J. Moo and L. Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament (England: Apollos, 1992) 81. The purpose of Matthew cannot be limited to one because it is not clearly stated and by the presence of diverse themes.
[5] There are three main views regarding the outline/structure of Matthew. For the discussion see Carson, “Matthew”, 5-51.
[6] See apparatus in E. Nestle and K. Aland (eds). Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition (Stuttgart, 1979).
[7] Ibid.
[8] Bauer Arndt and Gingrich. A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (The University of Chicago Press: Illinois 1957, 4th edition), 48. “an” with the subjunctive after relatives, the relative clause forming virtually the protasis of a conditional sentence.
[9] J.A. Brooks, C. L. Winbery. Syntax of the New Testament Greek (University Press of America: Lanham, 1979), 164
[10] NA26, Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Schweizer has pointed out that the omission of verse 35 is probably an oversight on the part of the copyist. E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. By D.E. Green (J. Knox Press: Atlanta, 1975), 458.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Jesus used this parable of the fig-tree most likely to respond to the disciples’ request for signs in verse 3. For discussion of the meaning of the parable, see C.L. Blomberg. “Matthew”, 363; D.A. Carson. “Matthew”, 506-507: R.H. Gundry. “Matthew”, 490.
[15] The use of “panta tauta” (these things) in verse 33 and 34 makes the logical connection between vv.32-33 and vv.34-35.
[16] BAG. Ibid, “amen”, p.45
[17] G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, Editors. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. (William Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1985), “amen” contributed by H. Schlier, p. 53.
[18] J.M. Kik. Matthew Twenty Four. (Swengel: Bible Truth Depot, 1948).
[19] R.T. France. Matthew in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. (W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Company:Michigan, 1985).
[20] Ibid. 343-345.
[21] See Carson . “Matthew” for the extensive discussion for such criticism, 493-494.
[22] See above.
[23] G.E. Ladd. A Theology of the New Testament (W. Eerdmans Pub. Company:Michigan, 1974), 198.
[24] Ibid.
[25] In O.T. prophecy historical events may also be seen as eschatological. Such examples are: 1) The Day of the Lord in Amos as both historical (Amos 5:18-20) and eschatological (Amos 7:4;8:8-9;9:5); 2) The Visitation of the Lord onBabylon (Isa. 13) was also described by Isaiah to be eschatological; 3) Zephaniah pointed the Day of the Lord as historical disaster (Zeph. 1:10-12,12-17;2: 5-15) and eschatological (Zeph. 1:2-3).
[26] Carson “Matthew”, 492.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Hare quoted by Carson “Matthew”, holds that Matthew writing after A.D. 70, eliminates all reference to the destruction ofJerusalem and eschatologizes verses 15-28 and so does not answer the first question, D. Carson, “Matthew”, 494.
[29] Ibid.
[30] See the discussion of the meaning of “this generation” below.
[31] Carson. “Matthew”, 495.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] For extensive discussion of “he genea haute” see the following, Colin Brown, Ed. Dictionary of the New Testament Theology vol. 2 (Zondervan: Michigan, 1967), 35-39; G. Botterweck and H. Ringgen, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (1974), 169-181; TDNT, 114; Lawrence O. Richards, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Zondervan: Michigan, 1985), 302-303; BAG, 152-153; D. Guthrie. New Testament Theology (IVP; England, 1981), 796-797; G.E. Ladd. A Theology of the New Testament (W. Eerdmans: Michigan , 1974), 2009-2010.
[35] BAG 153.
[36] D. Guthrie. New Testament Theology, 796.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] L.O. Richards derives the metaphorical sense of he genea from the Hebrew dor. Such meaning is found in Ps. 14:5 and 79:13. L.O. Richards. EDBW 302.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Brown 36.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Richards, Ibid.
[44] Ibid.
New NASA technology reveals ancient texts
Published October 30, 2011Because paper and parchment were scarce in biblical and classical times, scribes often wrote newer messages over older documents.
Called palimpsests, from a Greek word meaning “rubbed again,” these might have a surface writing in, say, Medieval Latin and underneath it much older messages in Greek, Syriac (a form of Aramaic), Arabic and other languages.
The library of the St. Catherine Monastery at Mount Sinai in Egypt contains several thousand documents, many of which are palimpsests. Until now, because of their brittleness, many of these documents could be read only in part and others not at all.
Enter NASA technology. Led by Michael White, director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquities and Christian Origins at the University of Texas, scholars from several universities are beginning to decipher these ancient writings.
The NASA super cameras, developed originally for military surveillance and scientific surveys and adapted for work at the St. Catherine library, now can reveal in amazing detail not only smudged or damaged surface portions but also the earliest and most intriguing strata of the palimpsests. Incredibly, these cameras even make it possible to read documents wholly or partly destroyed by fire.
And what has the Texas-led team discovered so far? Among other things, an extremely ancient portion of the Gospel of John, perhaps dating from the second century and which contains wording missing in the conventional biblical text. With similar NASA technology, White’s team of students and scholars has uncovered with surgical precision walls, rooms and artifacts from the oldest synagogue in Europe at Ostia, the ancient port city near Rome.
Still in its infancy, this combination of linguistics, archaeology and NASA technology promises to expand our knowledge of the biblical world. Exciting stuff indeed.
Harold Raley is a linguist, professor and writer who lives in Friendswood. He can be reached at haroldraley(at)sbcglobal.net.
Jessie Sunday Delfin 