Gospels

The following poem, “Epi-strauss-ium,” by Arthur Hugh Clough (1819–1861) playfully draws attention to D. F. Strauss’s then recently published Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet ( Life of Jesus Critically Examined; NAEL 2:1452 n. 1). Matthew and Mark and Luke and holy John Evanished all and gone! Yea, he that erst, his dusky curtains quitting, Through Eastern pictured panes his level beams transmitting, With gorgeous portraits blent, On them his glories intercepted spent, Southwestering now, through windows plainly glassed, On the inside face his radiance keen hath cast, And in the luster lost, invisible, and gone, Are, say you, Matthew, Mark, and Luke and holy John? Lost, is it? lost, to be recovered never? However, The place of worship the meantime with light Is, if less richly, more sincerely bright, And in blue skies the Orb is manifest to sight. ...

Greg Goswell has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, “Early Readers of the Gospels: The Kephalaia and Titloi of Codex Alexandrinus.” Goswell observes that “there is substantial variation among the codices [Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus] with regard to where [chapter] divisions are placed” (135) and argues that A survey of the kephalaia in the four Gospels [of Alexandrinus] indicates that their placement is not haphazard but reflects an evaluation of the flow of the narratives and shows insight into the meaning of the story. Some breaks are close together, but others are widely separated. There are considerable differences in the length of the sections, reflecting a perception of the nature of the text by those responsible for the sectioning. Even a glance at the headings assigned to the kephalaia reveal the large element of commonality between the four Gospels (e.g. the headings of Mt. A6, Mk A4 and Lk. A12 that all read ‘Concerning the leper’), but they also bring to light, at times, what is distinctive about particular Gospels (e.g. the differing themes of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke). . . . The function of a textual break in separating or joining material has at times provided . . . exegetical insights. One clear trend within all four Gospels is the highlighting of the element of the miraculous in the ministry of Jesus and (the reverse side of this) the downplaying of his teaching. The headings usually focus on the fact of controversy between Jesus and the religious leaders rather than what issues were controverted. The lack of attention given to dominical passion predictions and the paucity of divisions within the passion narrative itself suggest that there is little focus upon the suffering and atoning death of Jesus. Instead the divisions in the passion narratives reflect a homiletical tradition (or liturgical usage) in which there is a moralistic focus on positive and negative ethical examples (172–74). ...

In his Four Gospels, Burnett Streeter articulates his view of the sources of Luke and proto-Luke as follows: The hypothesis I propose in no way conflicts with the generally accepted view that Matthew and Luke are ultimately dependent not only on Mark but on Q—meaning by Q a single written source. Most, if not all, of the agreements of Matthew and Luke, where Mark is absent, are, I think, to be referred to Q; but I desire to interpolate a stage between Q and the editor of the Third Gospel. I conceive that what this editor had before him was, not Q in its original form—which, I hold, included hardly any narrative and no account of the Passion—but Q+L, that is, Q embodied in a larger document, a kind of “Gospel” in fact, which I will call Proto-Luke. This Proto-Luke would have been slightly longer than Mark, and about one-third of its total contents consisted of materials derived from Q (Streeter 208). ...

See Kümmel 139. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:[caption id=“attachment_2014” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Werner Kümmel”] [/caption]

See Baird 305; Kümmel 148–49. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. [caption id=“attachment_2065” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“William Baird”] [/caption] [caption id=“attachment_2014” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Werner Kümmel”] [/caption] ...

See Kümmel 327. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:[caption id=“attachment_2014” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Werner Kümmel”] [/caption]

Early Holtzmann Late Holtzmann See Kümmel 151–55. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:[caption id=“attachment_2014” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Werner Kümmel”] [/caption] ...

See Kümmel 149–51. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:[caption id=“attachment_2014” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Werner Kümmel”] [/caption]

See Kümmel 146–48. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:[caption id=“attachment_2014” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Werner Kümmel”] [/caption]

The Codex Sinaiticus Project has been producing an outstanding digital version of this fourth-century codex that contains the earliest extant collection of the standard New Testament canon. Until recently, the project had only prepared Septuagint and Old Greek texts, but Sinaiticus’s entire text of Mark is now available.

Herder thought that Mark most exactly reproduced Urev Or. Matthew reproduced it with expansions, and Luke, aware of these expansions, “wished to create ‘an actual historical account’ after a wholly Hellenistic pattern.” Herder also hypothesized that “[s]ome forty years later John . . . wrote an ’echo of the earlier Gospels at a higher pitch’ which undertook to set forth Jesus as the Savior of the world. . . .” ...

Eichhorn does not appear to have named Q as such, but this part of his hypothesis fits what has come to be called Q. See Kümmel 77–79. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:[caption id=“attachment_2014” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Werner Kümmel”] [/caption] ...

See Kümmel 76. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:[caption id=“attachment_2014” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Werner Kümmel”] [/caption]

See Kümmel 75–76. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:[caption id=“attachment_2014” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Werner Kümmel”] [/caption]

See Kümmel 75. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series. In this post:[caption id=“attachment_2014” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Werner Kümmel”] [/caption]

The following symbols, listed alphabetically, are used in the post series that summarizes solutions to the synoptic problem: A, or UrMk – Urmarkus (a proto-Gospel of Mark) Ar – Aramaic frag – fragmentary GosNaz – Gospel of the Nazarenes Heb – Hebrew L – a special, Lukan source Lk – Luke M – a special, Matthean source Mk – Mark ...

The ‘synoptic problem’ is a phenomenon that arises because the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), while they contain so much similar material, do not always report the same material in the same way. Various solutions for the synoptic problem that have been proposed—so many that their nuances can be difficult to remember. This post series will attempt to compose a set of diagrams based on the summaries of these solutions that Kümmel, New Testament ( affiliate disclosure), provides. ...

In the third book of his work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus takes up a defense of the fourfold Gospel tradition.

[caption id=“attachment_635” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Simon Kistemaker”] [/caption] Simon Kistemaker generally provides balanced, astute commentary on several of Jesus’ parables and parabolic sayings. He attempts to avoid allegorical interpretations, thinking that “in the New Testament we encounter elements of allegory but never a full-fledged allegorical parable” ( 15). This surface disagreement with Blomberg’s perspective on the parables is mainly an issue of semantics. In actuality, Kistemaker’s point merely reflects the very probable hypothesis that in none of Jesus’ parables do all the details stand for things other than themselves, or stated alternatively, that Jesus’ parables—even the allegorical ones—are qualitatively different from an allegory like The Pilgrim’s Progress. One of the chief benefits of The Parables is how Kistemaker consistently summarizes with simplicity and clarity what he considers to be the main points of each parable. Occasionally, one might well debate some precise points of exegesis. Yet, the work is, overall, engaging and informative, and Kistemaker’s style is coherent and straightforward. ...

Simon Kistemaker In The Parables, Simon Kistemaker specifically targets “theologically trained pastors. But because technical details have been relegated to endnotes, the text itself is user-friendly to any serious student of the Bible” ( 8). The introduction describes very broadly some of the basic issues of which one should be aware when studying parables, such as: the meaning of the term “parable,” the composition of parables, Jesus’ purpose for teaching in parables, the basic principles of interpreting parables, and the elusiveness of any firm method of classifying the parables ( 9–20). ...

[caption id=“attachment_601” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Dominic Crossan”] [/caption] Crossan’s book, In Parables, immediately demonstrates his keen intellect and wide range of reading. The great variety of literature he cites certainly indicates his substantial, literary aptitude. One of the more beneficial parts of the book, however, relates more directly to his detailed reading of Jesus’ parables themselves rather than so much to his wide reading in other literature. Specifically, Crossan performs a very valuable service in his detailed analyses of multiply attested parables in relation to the synoptic problem. Crossan’s close reading of these parables and his subsequent notes on points of divergence between the parable froms in the synoptics helpfully summarizes the major critical issues involved with these parables. The solutions he proposes to these difficulties are frequently innovative and seem to be motivated by a desire to recapture the exact wording Jesus used when He originally gave the parables ( ipsissima verba) ( 3–4). Nevertheless, many scholars might, in most cases, propose quite different solutions from those Crossan puts forth (cf. vii, 3–4). The book does have some questionable aspects, such as an excessive skepticism about the historical Jesus (e.g., 4; for a critical realist approach to this question, see Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God). Yet, In Parables definitely provides itself to be valuable by providing the reader with much helpful information concerning the divergences present in Jesus’ multiply attested parables. ...

Dominic Crossan Crossan’s work, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus, is based on several articles that Crossan wrote separately and has now compiled into a single collection ( xi). Rather uniquely, through citations from various scholars and littérateurs, the introduction and conclusion attempt to provide some literary commentary related to different ways of reading parables. The first major section, “Parables and the Temporality of the Kingdom” ( 3–36), addresses several broad issues related to literary theory, describes what constitutes a parable, and identifies a method for parable interpretation. At this section’s conclusion, Crossan groups Jesus’ parables by what he sees as their three major themes—namely, the advent of God’s kingdom, the reversal of the worldview of the parables’ addressees, and the calling and empowering of the recipients to live and act in concert with God’s kingdom ( 36). In each of the following chapters, Crossan comments generally about one of these themes and examines at least one parable that, in his estimation, fits that category. ...

[caption id=“attachment_501” align=“alignleft” width=“80” caption=“Craig Blomberg”] [/caption] In Interpreting the Parables, Blomberg appears to have succeeded quite well in accomplishing his stated task of producing an introduction to and theory of parable interpretation that will benefit a wide variety of readers ( 10). To this end, he keeps unnecessary, technical jargon to a minimum, yet regularly handles the necessary, technical points quite clearly. ...

Interpreting the Parables Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables ( affiliate disclosure; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992). Interpreting the Parables begins by summarizing significant findings and methodological issues in recent parable research so that a wide audience can benefit from this historical foundation for Blomberg’s work (13). In reviewing this previous scholarship, Blomberg seeks to interact critically with it and, at some points, propose specific alternatives (14). In Blomberg’s opinion, all Jesus parables are allegorical on some level. ...

[caption id=“attachment_482” align=“alignleft” width=“63” caption=“Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant’s Eyes”] [/caption]Kenneth Bailey, Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke, (combined ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Bailey initially published Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes separately. Yet, they have begun circulating in combined editions like the one shown here, and the works are, in fact, quite amiable partners, since Through Peasant Eyes is, in significant respects, a continuation of Poet and Peasant. Both these works are thought-provoking and fascinating pieces of scholarship, particularly with respect to Bailey’s unique perspectives on Jesus’ parables and the approach he uses to arrive at these understandings. Particularly, Bailey’s practice of interviewing Middle Easterners for their perspectives on the parables highlights some nuances that may easily become muted in purely Western treatments. Because modern, Middle Eastern culture is arguably closer to the culture of first-century, Jewish Palestine than is modern Western culture, Middle Eastern readers begin with a natural advantage over their Western counterparts in interpreting the parables. While some changes in Middle Eastern culture during the last two millennia (most notably, the Muslim conquest) may have introduced significant paradigm shifts into the Middle Eastern worldview, consulting people (whether directly or through Bailey’s work) who live in cultures of seeds and sowers, neighbors and midnight visitors will surely provide valuable grist for the interpretive mills of those who come from other cultural backgrounds. ...

Bailey’s works, Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes, explicitly attempt to approach Jesus’ parables from the perspective of an Oriental worldview.

Joachim Jeremias’s “Rediscovering the Parables” is a modern classic in parables research for reasons that can be clearly seen after even casual perusal.

[caption id=“attachment_442” align=“alignright” width=“95” caption=“Joachim Jeremias”] [/caption] Joachim Jeremias’ work, Rediscovering the Parables, attempts “to go back to the oldest form of the parables attainable and try to recover what Jesus himself meant by them” ( 7). Jeremias proceeds toward this goal by paying special attention to the Palestinian setting of the parables ( 7) and by analyzing the parables in terms of ten different categories of modifications that he thinks might be expected to appear in the course of their transmission ( 16–88)—namely, ...