May 21: Luke 24:47-49, etc

Luke 24:47-49 and the Great Commission

Having discussed Matthew 28:18-20 (and especially the baptism formula of verse 19) in the previous notes, today I will look briefly at the ‘parallel’ Commission passages in the other Gospels—Luke 24:45-49; John 20:21-23; and [Mark 16:15-16ff]. It is clear that all four post-resurrection Commissions by Jesus to his followers stem from separate traditions, and yet, interestingly, they contain certain common elements. I would isolate these common features as follows:

  • Jesus sends out his disciples, as he is recorded doing earlier in his ministry (Mk 6:7-13 par; Lk 10:1-12)—that is, they become his apostles in the basic meaning of the word:
    • Matthew—”you are (to be) going/traveling (forth) [poreuqe/nte$]…”
    • [Mark]—”you are (to be) going/traveling (forth) [poreuqe/nte$] into the world…”
    • Luke—”to be preached… into all the nations, beginning from Yerushalaim {Jerusalem}”
    • John—”even as the Father has set me forth [a)pe/stalken, i.e. sent me], I also (am) send(ing) [pe/mpw] you”
  • Jesus gives to his disciples power/authority, which he received (from the Father):
    • Matthew—”all authority [e)cousi/a] in heaven and upon earth is given to me..” (it must be inferred that the same authority is given to the disciples, cf. Matt 9:35; 10:7-8)
    • [Mark]—”these signs will follow along… in my name”
    • Luke—”to be proclaimed upon his [i.e. my] name…. See, I set forth [i.e. send] the announcement/promise of the Father upon you”
    • John—”as the Father set me forth, so I send you…. For whomever you release…it will be released for them…”
  • There is an emphasis on repentance and release (forgiveness) of sin:
    • Matthew (also [Mark])—”dunking/baptizing them…”, i.e. the fundamental association of baptism with repentance and forgiveness (Matt 3:11 par)
    • Luke—”repentance [lit. change-of-mind] (is) to be proclaimed upon my name unto release of sins unto all the nations…”
    • John—”(For) whomever you release the(ir) sins, they have been released for them…”
  • Finally, there is an association with the Spirit:
    • Matthew—”dunking/baptizing them in the name of…the holy Spirit”
    • [Mark]—”…trusting and being dunked/baptized…these signs will follow along for the ones trusting…”; cf. the manifestation of the Spirit following (or in connection with) baptism in the book of Acts
    • Luke—”…the announcement/promise of the Father upon you”, clearly a reference to the coming of the Spirit (Acts 1:5; 2:1-4, etc)
    • John—”he breathed in/on (them) and said to them, ‘Receive (the) holy Spirit'”

This strongly suggests an underlying historical tradition regarding Jesus’ (final) instruction to his followers, which, it would seem, came to be preserved in two strands of the Gospel Tradition—one set in Galilee (Matthew/Mark) and one set in Jerusalem (Luke/John), with the Markan ‘Appendix’ (or long ending) apparently combining both. With regard to the Commission specifically, the versions in Matthew and the Markan ‘Appendix’ are clearly related—compare, in particular, Matt 28:19 with Mark 16:15-16. Similarly, it is clear that, in the resurrection (and post-resurrection) narratives, Luke and John have certain traditions in common. The accounts of Jesus’ appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem in Lk 24:36-43 and John 20:19-20 are quite close, especially if one accepts the Alexandrian/Majority readings rather than the shorter ‘Western’ text of Luke 24. Though less obvious on the surface, the “Commission” accounts in Lk 24:47-49 and John 20:21-23 have a good deal in common as well:

    • The disciples as Jesus’ representatives (witnesses/’apostles’) whom he is sending out from Jerusalem into the wider world—Lk 24:47-48 / Jn 20:21
    • Mention of the Father in connection with Jesus’ “sending”—Lk 24:49a / Jn 20:21
    • The coming of the Spirit on/upon the disciples, with Jesus himself as the source—Lk 24:49a / Jn 20:22 (“I [am] send[ing]…” / “he breathed…”)
    • Reference to the release (i.e. forgiveness) of sins in connection with the work and preaching of the disciples—Lk 24:47 / Jn 20:23

By way of comparison with Matt 28:19, it is interesting that Luke/John also bring together Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The “Son” is implied by the presence of Jesus:

    • In Luke, compare verse 45 in context (referring to Jesus as the “Anointed” [Christ/Messiah]) with the earlier formulae using the expression “Son of Man” (24:7, also 9:22, 44; 18:31; 22:22).
    • The Gospel of John gives special emphasis to the idea of Jesus as “the Son”, in relation to God the Father—Jn 1:14; 3:35; 5:19-27; 6:27, 40; 8:28; 10:36; 14:31; 17:1ff; 20:17.

In many ways, the account in Lk 24:47-49 is closer to Matt 28:18-20 than the other Commission passages; note especially the parallels between verse 47 and Matt 28:19:

    • The disciples are to preach/proclaim the Gospel “into all the nations”—cp. Matt 28:19a (“make all the nations to be learners [i.e. disciples]”)
    • The wording and syntax also matches formulae related to baptism; cp. especially with Acts 2:38:
      “…repentance (is) to be proclaimed upon his name unto (the) release of sins unto all the nations” (Lk)
      “Repent and be dunked/baptized…upon the name of Yeshua (the) Anointed unto (the) release of your sins” (Acts)
    • In each, the Commission concludes with a promise by Jesus using the emphatic pronoun “I” (e)gw/) and beginning with the exclamation “see!” [i)dou/]:
      “and see! I set forth [i.e. send] the announcement/promise of my Father upon you…” (Lk 24:49 [some MSS omit i)dou])
      “and see! I am with you every day until the (full) completion of the Age” (Matt 28:20b)

Concluding note (on Matthew 28:19)

Returning for a moment to the question of the authenticity of the trinitarian baptismal formula in Matt 28:19, I would here note several arguments in favor of authenticity (on objective grounds):

    • The instruction regarding baptism itself, as well as most of Matt 28:18-20 in context, is fully compatible with the sayings and teaching of the historical Jesus, based on an entirely objective analysis of the Gospel Tradition. For a number of examples and references illustrating this, cf. the prior notes.
    • The common elements and parallels between the various post-resurrection Commission passages in the Gospels (cf. above), which surely represent separate strands of tradition (given their differences), strongly suggest an underlying historical core.
    • Luke 24:47-49 provides independent attestation for the inclusion of a baptismal ‘formula’ as part of the Commission, which is also associated with the Holy Spirit (Lk 24:49; Acts 2:38) and the Father. The other points of similarity between Lk 24:47-49 and Matt 28:18-20 were noted above.

On the contrary, one must, I think, be willing to admit that:

    • Many of the parallels and similarities cited above are relatively loose, and could be said to be outweighed by the significant differences in detail. On the basis of traditional-conservative desire to harmonize, it would actually prove quite difficult to piece together all of these details (and separate Commission passages) into a genuinely convincing whole (judged honestly and objectively).
    • Assuming that Matt 28:19 is authentic, it is most strange that there really is no evidence for it (or its influence) anywhere else in the New Testament. By all accounts, based on the book of Acts and the letters of Paul, early believers were only ever baptized “in the name of Jesus“. If the apostles and early Christians were following Jesus’ example and instruction, then it is likely that Jesus’ original saying would have been something along the lines of: “baptizing them in my name…” (cf. Lk 24:47 / Acts 2:38)
    • The earliest attestation for the saying/instruction of Matt 28:19 is found in Didache 7:1, 3, which is typically dated from the early 2nd (or late 1st) century A.D. A fair date for the traditions in the Didache might be c. 70-80 A.D., which likely coincides with the completed form of the Gospel of Matthew. The trinitarian form (and formula) of baptism is attested in the second and third centuries, but, as far as we know, not earlier than c. 70 A.D.

The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition: Introduction

In honor of Pentecost, celebrating the coming of the (Holy) Spirit upon the first believers (cf. Acts 2:1-13ff), I will be presenting a series of Daily Notes examining all the references to the Spirit in the Gospel Tradition—i.e., the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, as well as a survey of passages in the book of Acts. This series will continue through the month of May (2020) until the day of Pentecost (May 31).

With regard to the earliest layers of the Gospels and Christian tradition, it is sometimes difficult to be sure precisely what is meant when the word pneu=ma (pneúma) is used. This is due in large measure to the basic range of meaning in the word itself. The root verb pne/w fundamentally signifies “to blow”, as of the wind in nature, or the breath of a living being, these being generally related—according to the ancient (mythological) worldview, the wind could be understood or described as the “breath” of a deity. The noun pneu=ma, like the related pnoh/, refers to something blowing (or “breathing”); specifically this can mean: (a) wind or breeze, (b) breath of a living being (esp. a human being), (c) the life force/essence which animates a living being (i.e. soul/spirit), or (d) a personal/personified life-essence (“breath”), i.e. an invisible deity or “spirit-being” which animates the natural world. The Hebrew word j^Wr (rûaµ) has a similar range of meaning.

Frequently in the Old Testament, j^Wr refers to the “breath/wind/spirit” of God (YHWH)—Gen 1:2; 6:3; 41:38; Ex 31:3; 35:31; Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 6:34, et al. Primarily this signifies the presence and power of YHWH in relation to his people, especially to the prophets and rulers of Israel. There is no real indication in Old Testament tradition that the “Spirit” of YHWH is a distinct person; however, according to the ancient mindset, the attributes (power, wisdom, holiness, etc) and/or manifestation of a deity were often personified. The “Messenger” of YHWH is perhaps the most common and notable example of this religious phenomenon in the Old Testament—often it is hard to know for certain whether the tradition understands this as separate being (“Angel”) or the manifestation of YHWH himself. Early Christians, including the Gospel writers, inherited this idea of the Spirit of God. Naturally, holiness was a fundamental attribute and characteristic of God’s Spirit, though the term “Holy Spirit” (lit. “Spirit of Holiness”) itself is quite rare (Psalm 51:11; Isa 63:10-11; cf. also Dan 4:8-9, 18; 5:11), becoming more common in later Jewish writings. It is quite in keeping with the phenomena of ancient Near Eastern religion that the Holiness of God would come to be personified or understood as a person.

In the New Testament, the word pneu=ma (as “breath, spirit”) is primarily used three ways:

    1. The animating life-breath or ‘soul’ of a human being, i.e. “spirit” (with a lower-case “s”)
    2. The Spirit of God (YHWH), according to Old Testament and Israelite/Jewish tradition
    3. A distinctive Christian understanding of God’s Spirit, in relation to the person of Jesus Christ and God the Father (YHWH)

For the most part, as we shall see, it is the second meaning that is most common in the Gospel tradition. Occasionally there is some uncertainty whether the first or second meaning is intended. Only in a few places do we find clear evidence for the third (Christian) meaning. By the time of the later New Testament writings (c. 70-95 A.D.), use of pneu=ma, with or without the qualifying adjective a%gio$ (“holy”), almost always indicates the Holy Spirit in the uniquely Christian sense.

In these Daily Notes, I will be adopting the following approach, looking at references to the Spirit in:

  • Passages or sayings of Jesus common to the Synoptic tradition (generally using the Gospel of Mark as a reference-point)
  • The Gospel of Luke (along with parallels in the Gospel of Matthew)
  • The Gospel of John
  • A survey of passages in the book of Acts, along with several key references from early Christian tradition elsewhere in the New Testament

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Passion Narrative, Pt 2 (1 Cor 11:23-26 etc)

The Words of Jesus—Institution of the Lord’s Supper

The last two notes have examined the Passover meal episode in the Passion Narrative. An important component of this scene is the institution of the “Lord’s Supper”—the words of Jesus over the bread and the cup. Most commentators recognize that this tradition in the Gospels is related in some way to the early Christian practice of observing the “Supper of the Lord” (1 Cor 10:16-22; 11:17-34, v. 20). It would hardly be surprising if early ritual and liturgical practice shaped, to varying degrees, the Gospel narrative at this point. But the direction and extent of the influence remains a matter of considerable debate.

It is clear that the “Last Supper” was identified as a Passover meal in the early Gospel tradition; this is certainly the case in the Synoptics (Mk 14:1, 12-16 par), though less definite in John’s Gospel (to be discussed in the next note). Luke brings out most prominently the Passover connection (cf. the prior note), all the more so, it would seem, if one adopts the longer, majority text of vv. 17-20 (which includes vv. 19b-20). It has been argued that here, in the longer text, Luke preserved more of the original setting of the Passover meal, such as it would have been practiced in the 1st century A.D. These details are explored by J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Fortress Press: 1977), esp. pp. 41-88, and summarized by Fitzmyer, Luke, pp. 1389-91. According to this reconstruction, the outline of the meal in Lk 22:17-20 (longer text) would be:

  • The Cup (vv. 17-18)—a single cup, to be shared, it would seem, among all the disciples together. It is it perhaps to be identified with the initial cup of blessing (qiddûš), drunk prior to the serving of the meal. Possibly it may also represent the second cup of wine following the Passover liturgy (hagg¹d¹h).
  • The Bread (v. 19)—the “unleavened bread” (maƒƒôt) served and eaten together with the Passover lamb.
  • The Cup (v. 20)—the second cup of blessing (trad. kôš šel b§r¹k¹h), following the meal.

If Luke thus preserves more of the original historical setting, then the Synoptic version in Mark-Matthew (Mk 14:22-25/Matt 26:26-29) would have to be viewed as a simplification or abridgment of the scene. While this might be appealing from a historical-critical standpoint, the situation is not quite so straightforward, at least when considering the words of institution by Jesus. There are two basic forms preserved—(1) that in Mark/Matthew, and (2) that in Luke and 1 Corinthians. In addition to the Synoptic Gospels, the tradition is preserved by Paul in 1 Cor 11:22-26, part of his instruction regarding the “Supper of the Lord” (vv. 17-34, cf. also 10:16-21). Paul introduces the tradition in v. 23:

“For I took/received along from the Lord th(at) which I also gave along to you—that the Lord Yeshua, on the night in which he was given along [i.e. betrayed], took bread…”

The first phrase does not necessarily mean that Paul received this information as a special revelation by Jesus; it may simply indicate that the tradition goes back to the words and actions of Jesus himself. As in the Gospels, Paul recorded words spoken by Jesus over the bread and the cup/wine, in turn. Let us examine the tradition regarding each of these.

1. The Bread—Mk 14:22; Matt 26:26; Luke 22:19 [MT]; 1 Cor 11:24

First, the action of Jesus as described:

  • Mark 14:22: “taking [labw\n] bread (and) giving a good account [eu)logh/sa$, i.e. blessing] (to God), he broke [e&klasen] (it) and gave [e&dwken] (it) to them and said…”
  • Matt 26:26: “taking bread and giving a good account [i.e. blessing] (to God), Yeshua broke it and, giving [dou\$] it to the learners [i.e. disciples], said…”
    [Note how close Mark and Matthew are, the differences in the latter’s version are indicated by the words in italics]
  • Luke 22:19: “taking bread (and) giving (thanks for God’s) favor [eu)xaristh/sa$], he broke (it) and gave (it) to them, saying…”
    [Luke is even closer to Mark, except for the verb eu)xariste/w instead of eu)loge/w]
  • 1 Cor 11:24: “Yeshua…took bread and, giving (thanks for God’s) favor [eu)xaristh/sa$], broke (it) and said…”

Paul agrees with Luke in use of the word eu)xariste/w (“give [thanks] for [God’s] favor”) instead of eu)loge/w (“give a good account [i.e. words of blessing] [to God]”). His version is simpler in that it omits mention of Jesus giving the broken bread to the disciples.

Now the words of Jesus:

  • Mark 14:22: “Take (it)—this is my body [tou=to/ e)stin to\ sw=ma/ mou]”
  • Matt 26:26: “Take (it and) eat—this is my body”
    [Matthew is identical to Mark, except for the addition of the command fa/gete (“eat/consume [it]”)]
  • Luke 22:19: “This is my body (be)ing given over you—do this unto my remembrance [i.e. in memory of me]”
    [The italicized portion is not in Mark/Matthew]
  • 1 Cor 11:24: “This is my body th(at is given) over you—do this unto my remembrance [i.e. in memory of me]”

Again, we see how close Paul is to Luke—nearly identical except for the participle dido/menon (“being given”), which is to be inferred. The only portion common to all four versions are the words “this is my body“—in Greek, tou=to/ e)stin to\ sw=ma/ mou, though Paul has a slightly different word order (tou=to/ mou/ e)stin to\ sw=ma).

2. The Cup—Mk 14:23-25; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20 [MT]; 1 Cor 11:25

Jesus’ action and words associated with the cup are clearly parallel to those associated with the bread. First, the action:

  • Mark 14:23-24: “and taking [labw\n] (the) drinking-cup (and) giving (thanks for God’s) favor [eu)xaristh/sa$], he gave [e&dwken] (it) to them and they all drank out of it. And he said to them…”
  • Matt 26:27: “and taking (the) drinking-cup and giving (thanks for God’s) favor, he gave (it) to them saying, ‘Drink out of it all (of) you’
    [Matthew is identical to Mark, except that the reference to drinking has been made part of Jesus’ directive]
  • Luke 22:20: “and so the same (way) also (he took) the drinking-cup after th(eir) dining, saying…”
  • 1 Cor 11:25: “and so the same (way) also (he took) the drinking-cup after th(eir) dining, saying…”
    [Luke and Paul have virtually the same version, with slightly different word order]

And the words of Jesus:

  • Mark 14:24: “This is my blood of the agreement [i.e. covenant] set through [diaqh/kh] (by God), th(at) is poured out over many”
  • Matt 26:27: “This is my blood of the agreement set through (by God), th(at) is poured out around many unto [i.e. for] the release [i.e. forgiveness] of sins
    [Differences between Matthew and Mark are indicated by italics]
  • Luke 22:20: “This drinking-cup is the new agreement set through (by God) in my blood, th(at is) being poured out over you”
  • 1 Cor 11:25: “This drinking-cup is the new agreement set through (by God) in my blood—do this, as often as you should drink it, unto my remembrance”

Again, the common tradition inherited by Luke and Paul is clear. Their version differs significantly from that of Mark/Matthew in one respect:

    • In Luke/Paul, the cup is identified as the “new covenant”
    • In Mark/Matthew, the blood (wine) itself is identified with the “covenant”

The reference in Mark/Matthew is more obviously to the original covenant ceremony in Exodus 24:8; in the Greek LXX the declaration reads:

“See, the blood of the agreement which the Lord set through toward you around/about all these words”
In Hebrew:
“See, the blood of the agreement which YHWH cut with you upon all these words”

In ancient Near Eastern thought and religious/cultural practice, an agreement between two parties was often established through the ritual slaughter (sacrifice) of an animal. It may involve the sprinkling or application of blood, as in the Exodus scene, where Moses throws blood upon the people (or their representatives). This action followed the reading of all the words which God had spoken to Moses, referred to collectively (in written form) as the “Book of the Agreement [i.e. Covenant]” (v. 7).

This symbolism is less direct in the Lukan/Pauline version; indeed, the emphasis has switched to the symbolic act of giving the cup, rather than the wine (i.e. blood) in it. Also the reference is now to the “New Covenant” of Jer 31:31, a passage of tremendous importance for early Christian identity, much as it also had been for the Qumran community (CD 6:19; 1QpHab 2:4ff, etc). Along with the other Synoptics, Luke has retained the expression (and image) of the blood being “poured out” (the verb e)kxe/w) “over” (u(per) people. In addition to Exod 24:8, we find this ritual/sacrificial imagery elsewhere in the Old Testament, such as Lev 17:11, where the idea of expiation and atonement for sin is present. Paul omits this aspect in 1 Cor 11:22-26. Instead, he gives emphasis to the rite of the Supper as a memorial of Jesus’ death. Luke includes this in the words over the bread (22:19), but not the cup.

Summary

If we consider all four versions, it would seem that, while 1 Corinthians may have been the earliest written (in the form we have it), it is also the version which most reflects early Christian ritual. This can be seen in the way that the Passover and sacrificial elements are missing, and by the emphasis of the Supper as a memorial. In addition, the Pauline form has a more consistent shape. The rougher contours of the Synoptic version would, I think, suggest a closer approximation to the original (Aramaic?) words of Jesus. Here, as often is the case, Mark may record the earliest form of the tradition; note the common elements highlighted in bold:

  • “Take (it)—this is my body [tou=to/ e)stin to\ sw=ma/ mou]”
  • This is my blood [tou=to/ e)stin to\ ai!ma/ mou] of the agreement/covenant, th(at) is poured out over many”

It would seem that Matthew and Luke have both adapted this core tradition in various ways (cf. above). The real problem lies with the text-critical question in Luke. The similarity between Luke and Paul here has been used as an argument in favor of the shorter text, with vv. 19b-20 (so close to 1 Cor 11:24-25), being viewed as a harmonization or interpolation. However, if vv. 19b-20 are original, then there can be no doubt that Luke and Paul have inherited a common historical tradition, however it may differ from the version in Mark/Matthew. I would argue that all four versions—that is, both primary lines of tradition (Mark/Matthew and Luke/Paul)—have adapted the original words and setting into a framework that reflects, to some degree, early Christian practice regarding the Supper. In Mark/Matthew, this is done primarily through the narrative description of Jesus’ action, and the sequence of verbs used (cf. above), especially with the key pairing of eu)loge/w and eu)xariste/w (the latter giving rise to the term “Eucharist”). In the case of Luke and Paul, it may be that Jesus’ words (in Greek translation) have been shaped to reflect the ritual context. Even so, as I noted in the prior note, Luke has clearly retained (and carefully preserved) a connection with the Passover setting of the original tradition.

References above marked “Fitzmyer, Luke” are to J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 28A (1985).

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Passion Narrative

We now come to the third (and final) major section of the current series entitled Jesus and the Gospel Tradition (cf. the Introduction). The first part of the this series was devoted to a detailed examination of the Baptism of Jesus. The second part dealt with the Galilean Period of Jesus’ ministry, especially as an organizing principle within the Synoptic Gospels. I had noted previously this basic two-part structure of the Synoptic narrative—(i) the Galilean ministry (Mk 1:28:30), and (ii) the journey to Judea/Jerusalem and the events there (Mk 8:3116:8). Luke, through his expanded treatment of the journey to Jerusalem, has a three-part division (+ the Infancy Narrative):

  • [The Infancy Narrative]
  • The Galilean ministry (3:19:50)
  • The Journey to Jerusalem (9:5118:34)
  • The time in Judea/Jerusalem (18:3524:53)

The Judean/Jerusalem period may likewise be divided into two main sections, along with shorter introductory and concluding episodes:

All three Synoptics essentially follow this basic outline, though it has been modified and expanded in places by Matthew and Mark (especially the Resurrection episodes in Luke). We may outline the Passion Narrative itself as follows:

  • Narrative Introduction (Mk 14:1-2)
  • The Anointing Scene (14:3-9)
  • Excursus 1: The betrayal by Judas introduced (14:10-11)
  • The Passover: Jesus with his Disciples (14:12-25):
    —The Preparation (vv. 12-16)
    —The Passover scene at mealtime (vv. 17-21)
    —Institution of the “Lord’s Supper” (vv. 22-25)
  • Excursus 2: The denial by Peter foretold (14:26-31)
  • The Passion Scene in Gethsemane (14:32-52)
    —Jesus’ Passion and Prayer (vv. 32-42)
    —The Arrest of Jesus (vv. 43-52)
  • The Jewish “Trial”: Jesus before the Sanhedrin (14:53-72)
    —The Scene before the Council (vv. 53-65)
    —Peter’s Denial (vv. 66-72)
  • The Roman “Trial”: Jesus before Pilate (15:1-20)
    —The Scene before Pilate (vv. 1-5)
    —The Judgment (vv. 6-15)
    —The Preparation for Crucifixion (vv. 16-20)
  • The Crucifixion and Death of Jesus (15:21-40):
    —The Crucifixion Scene (vv. 21-32)
    —Jesus’ Death (vv. 33-40)
  • Narrative Conclusion (15:42-47)

There are six principal episodes, each of which will be discussed in turn, beginning with the Anointing Scene (Mark 14:3-9 par).

It is generally felt by most scholars that the Passion Narrative was the first (and earliest) part of the Gospel Tradition to be given a distinct narrative shape. This can be glimpsed by the early Gospel preaching recorded in the book of Acts, as well as by the kerygmatic elements common throughout the New Testament (especially the Pauline Letters). The death and resurrection of Jesus formed the center of the Gospel message, so it is natural that those traditions would be the first to take shape as a simple narrative, to make the details easier to communicate and commit to memory. This also means that a number of these traditions are relatively fixed, and evince less development than in other portions of the Gospel. Details such as Judas’ betrayal or Peter’s denial of Jesus simply had to be included in any telling of the story. Even so, each Gospel writer handles the material in his own distinctive way, “ornamenting”, if you will, around the core traditions.

In analyzing the Passion Narrative, I will continue utilizing the method I have adopted for this series. For each passage, narrative, or set of traditions being studied, I examine—

    • The basic Synoptic narrative (as represented primarily by the Gospel of Mark)
    • The so-called “Q” material (shared by Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark)
    • Traditions and details preserved only in Matthew and/or Luke (so-called “M” and “L” material), as well as original (literary) contributions by the authors
    • Johannine tradition and the Gospel of John

Generally speaking, this order of study is chronological, reflecting ‘layers’ of development—but not strictly so by any means. Indeed, there is some evidence that the Gospel of John, usually thought of as the latest of the canonical Gospels (c. 90 A.D.?), contains early/authentic historical traditions in a form that may be older than those of the Synoptics. Wherever possible, I will attempt to trace the manner of development in the Tradition, and how/why it may have taken place.

The next note in this series will begin examination of the first episode of the Passion Narrative—the scene of Jesus’ Anointing.

Monday Notes on Prayer: The Lord’s Prayer

I am introducing a new feature on this site: Monday Notes on Prayer—a brief critical and exegetical study on a verse or passage related to prayer, to be posted each Monday, as a supplement to the regular Daily Notes and Exegetical Study Series, etc. This first Monday Prayer Note will actually begin a week-long set of daily notes on the Lord’s Prayer—for Christians, certainly the most famous and well-known prayer in all the Scriptures. And yet, there are many textual and interpretive difficulties surrounding this prayer of which the average reader is largely unaware. Translations slant and gloss over some the difficulties, in order to provide a readable and understandable text. For the faithful commentator and exegete, however, it is necessary to dig into the original Greek of the Lord’s Prayer, critically analyzing the language, style, and context within the Gospel narrative. This we will do in this series of notes.

To begin with, as most students of the New Testament realize, there are two different forms, or versions, of the “Lord’s Prayer”—one in Matthew (6:9-13, part of the ‘Sermon on the Mount’) and another in Luke (11:2-4). There is actually a third instance of the Prayer in early Christian literature—in the writing known as the Didache (“Teaching [of the Twelve Apostles]”), 8:2, a work which, in the form we have it, likely dates from c. 125-150 A.D., but which may contain earlier traditional material. Some commentators regard Didache 8:2 as a third version of the Prayer, transmitted independently of those in Matthew and Luke. However, a close examination of the text shows, I think, that the Didache form of the Prayer is the same as the Matthean. It follows the Matthean version closely, differing in wording only slightly, so that it can be considered as an adaptation of it. The only question is whether the author/compiler of the Didache (and/or his underlying source material), made use of the Gospel of Matthew directly, or is drawing upon a tradition shared by that Gospel. The former view seems more likely.

That still leaves the two distinct versions of the Prayer, in Matthew and Luke, respectively. The Lukan version is noticeably shorter, and there are a number of other significant differences. This has led commentators to discuss and debate the precise relationship between the two versions. Since the Lord’s Prayer occurs in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, it technically belongs to the so-called “Q” material. Many commentators regard “Q” as a specific document, rather than a set of traditions considered more broadly; and, for these scholars, it remains something of a question whether the Lord’s Prayer belongs to such a Q-document, or was preserved through a separate line of tradition. This also brings up the historical critical question of whether Jesus himself uttered two different forms of the Prayer, or whether the differences are the result of the transmission and adaptation of a single historical tradition. There are thus several possibilities which must be considered:

    • Matthew and Luke record different historical scenarios, and Jesus spoke a distinct version of the Prayer in each. This takes the text at face value and harmonizes the two accounts, in a manner popular among many traditional-conservative commentators. The substance of the Prayer is largely the same, but Jesus, according to this view, did not adhere to one fixed form when he instructed his disciples on prayer.
    • There is one Prayer—that is, a single historical tradition—which came to be transmitted (and included in the Gospels) in two different versions. According to this view, the differences are primarily traditional, and not the result of editing by the Gospel writers.
    • There is a single “Q” Prayer form (historical tradition), which Matthew and Luke each handled differently; here there are two possibilities:
      • Luke represents the more original form, to which Matthew has added wording, etc, either by his own composition or from a known traditional/liturgical adaptation, or both.
      • Matthew has the fuller (original) form, which Luke has abridged/shortened, modifying the language, perhaps to make it more understandable for a Gentile audience.

The harmonizing approach (first option above) is problematic, for a variety of reasons. One simple difficulty seems obvious, and has been noticed by many commentators: if Jesus gave the instruction in Matt 6:5-13ff to his disciples at the point, and in the manner, described in the Matthean account, how is that the disciples subsequently (at the point in the Lukan account) would have felt the need to ask Jesus to teach them how to pray, as they do in Lk 11:1? More to the point, such harmonizing efforts founder on the basic fact that in each Gospel there is just one (historical) account of the Lord’s Prayer. That it occurs at different points in the narrative, and in different contexts, is best explained as the result of a literary, not historical-chronological, arrangement of material.

Each Gospel writer has set the Prayer (a single historical tradition) within a distinctive collection of teachings/sayings of Jesus, according to their own literary/narrative framework. For Matthew, it is part of the great collection of teaching known as the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), which is set at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry—a compendium of the kind of instruction Jesus gave to his disciples during his (Galilean) period of ministry. Luke places it at a different point in the narrative—during the journey to Jerusalem, which the author has expanded (9:51-18:30; cp. Mk 10) to include a wide range of sayings, parables, and other teaching by Jesus (to his disciples). The journey to Jerusalem provides the narrative framework for these Gospel traditions in Luke.

From the standpoint of the development of the historical tradition, Lk 11:1-13 probably reflects an early collection of Jesus’ instruction on prayer (“Q” material), which Matthew has chosen to incorporate within the wider context of his “Sermon on the Mount” framework in a different manner. Indeed, the Matthean location of the Prayer appears to be intrusive. The Sermon structure in Matt 6:1-18 follows a consistent pattern: three areas of religious behavior are addressed—(1) almsgiving (vv. 2-4), (2) prayer (vv. 5-6), and (3) fasting (vv. 16-18)—each according to the principle taught in verse 1. Verses 7-15 (on prayer) disrupt this pattern, suggesting that separate traditions have been included by the author at this point; these may be outlined as follows:

    • Saying[s] of Jesus on prayer (v. 7-8)
    • The Lord’s Prayer (vv. 9b-13), introduced by v. 9a
    • Saying/teaching of Jesus on forgiveness (vv. 14-15)

This sequence (vv. 7-15) makes for a powerful little homily in its own right. The thematic significance of this setting is discussed below. First, let us compare the Lukan sequence in outline:

    • The Lord’s Prayer (11:2-4), introduced by the narrative summary in v. 1 with the request by the disciples
    • Parable by Jesus (vv. 5-8)
    • Sayings of Jesus on the theme of asking God (to provide for one’s needs, etc), “Q” material (vv. 9-13, cp. Matt 7:7-11)

Each Gospel writer has incorporated traditional material in a different way. We must be careful not to confuse literary arrangement with a strict historical-chronological sequence. Moreover, this literary arrangement gives to the Lord’s Prayer, in each Gospel setting, a different thematic emphasis or thrust.

In Matthew, the main point of the teaching in 6:1-18 is a contrast between religion practiced in front of others, for the purpose (in part at least) of receiving recognition, and true religious devotion which is done privately (“in the hidden/secret [place]”) to be seen only by God the Father. The contrast is between things done ‘on earth’ (in front of other people), and things done in the sight of God the Father, “the One [who is] in the heavens“. The expression “the One (who is) in the heavens” is an important key phrase of the Sermon on the Mount, a fact that must be remembered when examining the Matthean Lord’s Prayer. This contrast between public religious expression (by the masses) and the private devotion expressed by true followers of Jesus informs the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer in context.

The Lukan setting of the Prayer has a rather different emphasis; the structure of the Journey narrative is much more complex than the Sermon on the Mount, but the immediate context (of chapters 10-11) provides several important themes:

    • Disciples following the example of Jesus, in ministry, etc (10:1-12, 16)
    • The presence and power of the Spirit (10:19-20, 21)
    • Authority, revelation, etc, given to the Disciples by Jesus, and, in turn, by God the Father (10:16, 19f, 21-22ff)

These themes govern the presentation of the instruction on prayer in chapter 11—note:

    • The Disciples see Jesus in prayer, and, seeking to follow his example, request that he teach them to pray (as he does) (v. 1)
    • When they ask of God (in prayer) as Jesus does, the Father will answer and give to them (vv. 5-13)
    • The ultimate goal of prayer for Jesus’ followers is the Holy Spirit which God the Father will give to them (v. 13)

There is a deeper theological dimension to the Lukan setting of the Prayer (and one that is more distinctly Christian). Again, it is important to keep these points in mind when examining the Lord’s Prayer, and not to treat it apart from its Gospel context. While it is possible that, at the historical level, the Lord’s Prayer may have originally been uttered by Jesus to his disciples in a different setting, we must admit that, if so, this is now lost to us. What has been preserved is the form of the Prayer as it appears within the narrative setting of the Matthean and Lukan Gospels. The setting of the Prayer in the Didache is secondary, but may be worth noting here in passing. The work is divided into two main parts: (1) The “Two Ways” (1:1-6:2), a dualistic instruction derived largely from the teaching of Jesus (esp. the Sermon on the Mount), and (2) a kind of Church Manual (6:3-16:8) providing instruction for congregations on a variety of religious and practical matters. The Church Manual begins with a brief warning against involvement with pagan culture (in terms of food sacrificed to idols, cf. Acts 15:20, 29; 1 Cor 8-10; Rev 2:14, 20), followed by teaching regarding baptism (chap. 7), fasting (8:1), prayer (8:2-3), and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist, chaps. 9-10). The Lord’s Prayer is cited, almost verbatim, from Matt 6:9-13 (8:2), including the preceding teaching in verse 7 (8:2a), increasing the likelihood that a citation from Matthew is involved. There is really no theological or thematic context to the Prayer in the Didache—it is simply quoted as an authoritative (fixed) prayer, to be recited three times daily (8:3).

The Lord’s Prayer in Aramaic?

If we accept that the Lord’s Prayer essentially derives from the words and teaching of Jesus himself (as even critical commentators almost universally admit), then we must consider the likelihood that the Prayer would originally have been spoken (by Jesus) in Aramaic. Even though an Aramaic original of the Prayer is now lost to us, being preserved only in Greek in the New Testament, it is not particularly difficult to reconstruct the Prayer back into Aramaic, such as it might have been spoken by Jesus and the earliest (Jewish) Christians in Palestine and Syria. I will be touching upon this at various points in these notes; however, I though it might be good here, in closing, to provide at least one possible Aramaic reconstruction. For the sake of simplicity, I limit this here to the Lukan version of the prayer; I am also, for the moment, following the Aramaic given by Joseph A. Fitzmyer (something of an Aramaic specialist among New Testament scholars) in his Commentary on Luke (Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 28A, p. 901):

°Abb¹°
yitqaddaš š§mak
t¢°têh malkût¹k
laµmán¹° dî mist§y¹° hab
lán¹h yôm¹° d§n¹h
ûš§buq lán¹h µôbayn¹°
k§dî š§báqn¹° l§µayy¹bayn¹°
w§°al ta±¢linnán¹° l§nisyôn

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Galilean Period, Excursus (John 5 etc)

Having surveyed, however briefly, the different kinds of traditions in the Synoptics, and how they have been combined and arranged within the various Gospels—using just one segment of the narrative (from the Galilean period)—it now remains to compare how this may have taken place in the Gospel of John. The fact that the Fourth Gospel has inherited a distinct line of tradition, separate from the Synoptics, makes a comparative study extremely valuable. The presumption is that any similar or common traditions, between John and the Synoptics, would likely go back to a very early stage in the process of transmission—when the original historical traditions were (first) being preserved in written form. Such a comparison reveals numerous examples of tradition-units—sayings, miracle stories, and other episodes—in the Gospel of John which are similar (in certain respects) to those in the Synoptics, but have been set and developed within a very different narrative context. I have already discussed several of these in the earlier notes in this series on the Baptism of Jesus, the Calling of the Disciples, and a few other places as well.

Generally speaking, there is a fundamental difference between the way that traditions are handled in the Gospel of John. We have seen how the Synoptic narrative, especially in the Galilean period (i.e. Mk 1:14-8:30 par), has been built up by joining together various tradition-units. In the core Synoptic narrative, these involve: short narratives centered around a saying (or group of sayings), parables, miracle stories, and “encounter” episodes (often featured conflict/debate between Jesus and the religious authorities). In the previous two notes, we studied how these small units were joined together to form larger segments (about a chapter in length), and again, in the individual Gospels, into even larger sections or narrative divisions. The sequence of units and segments may be historical-chronological, but, more often than not, they appear to have been joined together by a thematic association. The many differences in order between the various units of the Synoptic Gospels prove decisively that they are not governed by a strict chronological arrangement.

The Gospel of John, by contrast, arranges its material—especially in the portion that corresponds (loosely) with the Galilean period in the Synoptics (2:1-7:1ff)—into extended Discourses by Jesus. These discourses utilize a dialogue format, similar to that found in Jewish and Greco-Roman literature, whereby there is an exchange between Jesus and various persons whom he encounters, or who see/hear the things he is saying and doing. There are discourses in each of chapters 3-6 of the Gospel. We may isolate three components of these discourses:

  • The setting, which is often based upon a particular traditional episode (miracle story, encounter story, etc)
  • The dialogue, which is sometimes limited to a simple two-part exchange, and is centered around a saying (statement or declaration) by Jesus
  • An exposition by Jesus, in which the true meaning of his statement is explained, at a deeper spiritual/theological level

Let us survey the four main discourses in chapters 3-6:

The setting (i.e. traditional episode)—

  • 3:1-2ff—Jesus and Nicodemus (encounter story)
  • 4:1-7ff—Jesus and the Samaritan woman (encounter story)
  • 5:1-14—Healing of the disabled man at the pool (miracle story)
  • 6:1-13—Feeding of the Five Thousand (miracle story)

The dialogue—

  • 3:2-5ff, 9-10ff—Jesus and Nicodemus (saying: verse 3)
  • 4:7-15ff—Jesus and the Samaritan woman (main saying: verse 10)
  • 5:15-18—Jesus and the “Jews” (saying: verse 17)
  • 6:25-34ff—Jesus and the “Jews” (central saying: verse 35)

The exposition—

  • 3:5-21, which is built into the dialogue to make three parts:
    —vv. 5-8, then after another question by Nicodemus (v. 9)
    —vv. 10-15, which is followed by a parallel exposition with a different emphasis:
    —vv. 16-21
  • 4:13-26, which covers a more detailed exchange (between Jesus and the woman):
    —vv. 13-14 (the woman’s response, etc, vv. 15-20)
    —vv. 21-24 (her response, v. 25)
    —v. 26 (Jesus’ final declaration)
  • 5:19-47, a single exposition, in two parts: vv. 19-30, 31-47 (cf. below)
  • 6:32-58, the most complex of the four discourses, to be discussed in an upcoming note (on the Feeding Miracle in the Gospel Tradition)

The discourses in chapters 5 and 6 are similar in that they derive from a miracle story similar to those we see in the Synoptic Gospels. I discussed the chapter 5 discourse in a recent note, but it is worth reviewing here.

The basic miracle story (the tradition) is found in verses 1-9a. Verse 9b introduces the motif of the reaction to the healing miracle by certain people (“Jews”) with a strict traditional-religious mindset. They are not identified specifically as Pharisees (compare 9:13ff), but the implication is that they are experts/authorities on Scripture and the Law; in the Synoptic tradition these ‘opponents’ of Jesus are typically referred to as “Scribes and Pharisees”. These two components—the miracle and the reaction—make up the traditional narrative in verses 1-14. As such, the episode resembles somewhat the healing miracle in Mark 2:1-12; the detail in verses 9b-14 also turns it into a “Sabbath controversy” episode, not unlike those in the Synoptics (Mark 3:1-6 par, and Luke 13:10-17; cf. also Lk 14:1-6, and the recent notes on these passages). However, it is clearly a Johannine tradition, and is narrated in the style of the Fourth Gospel. This can be seen by the close structural and thematic similarity between 5:1-14ff and 9:1-41.

Verses 15-16 are transitional, joining the tradition in vv. 1-14 with the saying (v. 17) and discourse which follows. As discussed in the earlier note, Jesus’ saying relates generally to the ancient tradition regarding the Sabbath, of God resting/ceasing from His work as Creator. The statement by Jesus makes two points—(1) the creative, live-giving work of God (the Father) continues to the present time, and (2) Jesus (the Son) does the same work as God. The reaction by the “Jews” is narrated in verse 18, after which comes the explanation of the saying by Jesus, where he expounds its true, deeper meaning. This exposition can be divided into two parts:

    • The Son performs the work(s) of the Father—vv. 19-30
    • These works are a witness to the Son (and to the Father)—vv. 31-47

The first part (vv. 19-30) is also divided into two sections, like poetic strophes, in which the same theme and motifs and repeated:

    • The Son gives eternal/spiritual life to those who believe—vv. 19-24
    • The Son gives new life (resurrection) at the end time (to those who believe)—vv. 25-30

These two aspects of the resurrection power at work in Jesus will reappear in the great Lazarus episode of chapter 11—a more dramatic miracle story that is foreshadowed here.

This same sort of the development of traditional material can be seen in the “Bread of Life” discourse in chapter 6. It has a much more complex (cyclical) structure, utilizing the dialogue format extensively in its narration. I have discussed this discourse in some detail in earlier notes, and will address it again in the next topic of this series—the tradition of the Miraculous Feeding—which begins in the next note.

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Galilean Period, Excursus (Lk 6:20-8:3 etc)

In the previous note, I presented the Synoptic narrative outline, as represented by the Gospel of Mark, along with a more detailed breakdown of the traditions in Mk 3:13-8:30, the second half of the Galilean period (1:14-8:30). Today, I want to look at how this material was developed by Luke and Matthew. In particular, I will focus on Luke’s treatment of the Synoptic/Markan traditions.

First, here again is the outline of Mk 3:13-6:13:

  • Calling the Twelve—3:13-19
  • Reaction to Jesus’ ministry—his natural vs. true family; 3 traditions joined together:
    3:20-21, 22-30, 31-35
  • Parables of Jesus—4:1-34, a distinct block (or sub-unit) of traditional material, organized as follows:
    • Introduction (vv. 1-2)
    • Parable of the Sower:
      —The Parable (vv. 3-9)
      —Saying to the Disciples (vv. 10-12)
      —Explanation of the Parable (vv. 13-20)
    • Three additional Parables (vv. 21-32)
    • Conclusion (vv. 33-34)
  • Miracle (Calming the Storm): Jesus with the Disciples together in the boat—4:35-41
  • Healing Miracles: 2 Episodes (3 miracles)—5:1-20, 21-43
  • Reaction to Jesus’ ministry—his natural vs. true family; episode at Nazareth—6:1-6a
  • Mission of the Twelve—6:6b-13

The green above indicates portions which Luke appears to have either re-worked or presents in a different order:

    • Luke reverses the order (6:12-16, 17-19) of the material corresponding to Mk 3:7-12, 13-19, reworking it to some extent
    • In 8:4-21, also the material corr. to Mk 3:31-35 & 4:1-25 is reversed and set in a different narrative context (omitting Mk 3:20-30)
    • Luke has a quite different (and expanded) version of the episode at Nazareth (Mk 6:1-6a), and it is set in a different location—at the very beginning of Jesus’ Galilean ministry (Lk 4:16-30); cf. the earlier note on this passage

The dark red portions above indicate the Markan traditions which Luke has omitted, or otherwise does not include—Mk 3:20-30; 4:26-34.

Besides the ‘additions’ to the Nazareth episode (mentioned above), Luke has also included a considerable amount of material at a point corresponding to Mk 3:19. Here is the Lukan outline, with Markan parallels in parentheses:

From this point, Luke 8:22-9:6 follows Mk 4:35-5:43 + 6:6b-13. It is important to consider the additional Lukan material (6:20-8:3), which is comprised of six distinct units set in sequence. “Q” indicates the so-called Q-material, shared by Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. “L” refers to traditions found only in Luke. There are three “L” traditions included here:

    • 7:11-17: a healing miracle story—the raising of the dead son of the widow at Nain.
    • 7:36-50: an encounter story (with a parable), involving the traditional motif of conflict/debate between Jesus and the Pharisees—the anointing of Jesus by the “sinful” woman. This tradition is quite similar to, but not identical with, Mk 14:3-19, and will be discussed in an upcoming note.
    • 8:1-3: a narrative summary, probably of Lukan composition, but containing traditional/historical information.

The traditions in 7:11-17 and 36-50 are very much in keeping with the episodes of the core Synoptic Tradition (cf. the previous note), though 7:36-50 shows definite signs of literary development. The “Q” material is rather different, and indicates that it has been derived from a separate (and early) line of tradition.

Many scholars believe that “Q” was an actual source document, comprised mainly of a collection of sayings by Jesus. These sayings, at an early point, were joined together, by way of thematic and “catchword” bonding, to form small units, which then could be collected/grouped into larger sections of sayings-material. “Q”, if it existed at all as a specific text, would have been made up of these larger sections, two of which are found at this point in Luke:

1. The “Sermon on the Plain” (Lk 6:20-49), which follows the basic outline of the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew (chapters 5-7). Despite the narrative setting in each Gospel, which presents the material as a single “sermon” given by Jesus, most (critical) commentators believe that it is better understood as a collection of sayings, parables, and teachings by Jesus, which represents the sort of instruction he gave regularly to his disciples. Matthew’s version contains considerably more material, some of which is found in a different location in Luke. Moreover, there are some significant differences in wording and emphasis, especially in the Beatitudes (cf. my earlier series on the Beatitudes for more detail). Here is a breakdown of the Lukan “sermon”:

Luke and Matthew have each arranged several distinct units of “Q” material (sayings and parables, etc) to form a sermon or discourse. Notably, each Gospel writer (independently) has set this in the context of Jesus gathering his disciples together and instructing them (Matt 4:18ff; 5:1-2; Luke 6:12-16, 17)—though in each Gospel it occurs at a slightly different point in the narrative.

2. Jesus and John the Baptist (Lk 7:18-35). I have discussed this section briefly in the earlier notes of this series on the Baptism of Jesus. Again, while it would seem that the material in vv. 18-35 is all part of a single discourse by Jesus, this more likely reflects the thematic joining of a number of different traditions during the (early) process of collection and transmission. Clearly, the common theme involved is John the Baptist and his relation to Jesus. In my view, this is a mark of very early historical tradition, as the interest in John the Baptist soon faded among Christians in the New Testament period. There is less variation between the versions of this material in Matthew and Luke, than for the earlier “Sermon” (cf. above); both Gospels preserve it as a distinct block of tradition. Here is how it appears in Luke:

It is worth noting the portions in Matthew’s version which are not found in Luke (or occur in a different location):

Interestingly, while this Q-material in Luke follows generally after Jesus’ calling the Twelve (6:12-16) and the “Sermon” (6:20-49), in Matthew it occurs at a different (though similar) point in the narrative. The calling and subsequent mission of the Twelve is narrated together (Matt 10:1-5f), followed by an entirely separate collection of instruction (or “sermon”) for the disciples (10:5-42).

This brief, though detailed, analysis demonstrates the creative work of each Gospel writer in selecting, adapting, and arranging traditional material. Many of the themes and contours of the narrative are the same in each Gospel, but the overall presentation and thematic structure differs considerably. This is all the more true when we consider how the (historical) traditions have been developed and arranged in the Gospel of John. I will be examining this in the next note.

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Galilean Period, Excursus (Mk 1:14-8:30)

Before proceeding to the next main topic in this series on “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition“, focusing on the Galilean Ministry Period of Jesus, it may be useful to examine briefly, over the next few notes, how the various traditions came to be joined together. This study will deal primarily with the Synoptic Gospels—the Synoptic Tradition—since it provides the best evidence for how the original historical traditions may have been combined.

The various traditions may be classified in different ways. We can note generally the following types:

  • Sayings of Jesus, sometimes combined in fundamental groups or clusters of sayings, or set within a very simple narrative framework.
  • Parables of Jesus, often preserved in distinct blocks of parables.
  • Miracle stories, which also be joined/grouped into sequence; sometimes the miracle tradition is presented as a pronouncement story, in which the narrative climaxes with a saying or declaration by Jesus.
  • Encounter scenes, which, in the Synoptics, often involve conflict and debate between Jesus and the religious authorities (typically specified as “Scribes and Pharisees”). These traditional scenes occasionally take the form of pronouncement episodes as well.
  • Pronouncement stories of other kinds, often involving Jesus together with his disciples.

Other categories might be added, but these cover the majority of traditions, especially as they occur in the core Synoptic Tradition; for the purpose of this series, I have used the Gospel of Mark as representing this “Synoptic” material generally. If Matthew and Luke did not make use of the Gospel of Mark, then they must have used material which had a very similar outline and arrangement of content.

The Markan Outline

The Galilean Ministry period, which makes up the first half of the Synoptic narrative, is covered by 1:148:30 in Mark. There is evidence of a careful, thematic treatment of the traditional material, which indicates some degree of literary development, presumably by the Gospel writer. It is very difficult to tell how much of this occurred within the traditional material prior to its inclusion in Mark’s Gospel. Some signs are present, however. Consider, for example, Mk 2:1-3:6, a block of five traditions, or episodes, which are preserved, in sequence, by Luke (5:17-6:11) and also by Matthew (though separated in Mt, 9:2-17 and 12:1-14). All five episodes share the common theme of (negative) reaction to Jesus’ ministry—his miracles, teaching and the conduct of he and his disciples—by the religious authorities (“Scribes and Pharisees”, etc), or by people with a strict traditional-religious mindset. This thematic association could easily have taken place well before Mark’s Gospel was composed. Almost certainly this is the case with the last two episodes (2:23-28; 3:1-6) which involve the observance of the Sabbath, and the Sabbath regulations.

While it is possible that a sequence of events such as Mk 2:1-3:6 may be presented in its chronological order—i.e., as the events actually occurred—nothing in the text requires that it be read this way. There are many differences in the order of scenes and sections in the Gospels, and, in most instances, this reflects a literary, rather than historical/chronological, arrangement. In the case of the Sabbath Controversy episodes (Mk 2:23-28; 3:1-6 par, discussed in the previous notes), Mark gives the impression that these occurred on the same day, while Luke clearly states that they took place on different Sabbath days (Lk 6:6). At the historical level, the second episode conceivably could have occurred prior to the first episode. In a number of places, Luke has the same traditions as Mark, but in the reverse order, or even an entirely different arrangement (more common in Matthew).

An interesting example involves the Feeding of the Five Thousand and Jesus’ Walking on the Water. These two episodes are joined together in both the Synoptic (Mark/Matthew) and Johannine tradition—Mk 6:30-52; Matt 14:13-33, and John 6:1-21. The combination of the episodes in two entirely separate lines of tradition means that they were likely joined together prior to their inclusion in Mark. Moreover, since there is no obvious thematic association between the two episodes, this could indicate an original historical-chronological connection—Jesus’ walking on the water was remembered as occurring (right) after the feeding miracle. The association of the episodes was so strong that the Johannine Gospel writer (trad. John the apostle) was compelled to include the walking-on-water scene even though it interrupts the sequence of the Feeding miracle followed by the Bread of Life discourse. There is no clear and discernable reason why it was included, other than the strength of the early tradition which set the two episodes together.

As I have indicated, many traditions are joined together by a common theme, or sometimes a common word or phrase, referred to as “catchword bonding”. Most likely this took place at a very early point in the transmission of the material, perhaps even at the point of oral transmission, when such organization based on theme and key word or motif would have helped early believers retain disparate traditions in their memory, and make it easier to pass them along to others by word of mouth. However, while this traditional material is presumably at an earlier stage of development in Mark, than it is in the other Gospels, the precise literary arrangement still show considerable signs of development, by the writer (trad. Mark). I recognize four units which make up the Galilean Period material in Mk 1:148:30. I outline these as follows:

  • The Beginning of Jesus’ Ministry—1:14-45. This includes:
    • The Call of the First Disciples—vv. 16-20 and
    • Four episodes, primarily of healing miracle stories—vv. 21-45
  • Reaction to Jesus’ Ministry: conflict/debate with religious authorities—2:1-3:6
  • [Transitional]—3:7-12
  • Jesus’ Ministry with the disciples (theme of discipleship)—3:13-6:13
  • Reaction to Jesus’ Ministry: including conflict/debate with religious authorities—6:14-8:30

This essentially divides the Galilean period into two main sections, which have a similar (and parallel) thematic structure. I take this to be largely a Markan development; and, to the extent that this outline is preserved in Matthew and Luke, it supports the critical hypothesis that those two Gospels each made use of Mark. Here is an expanded outline of the last two units, covering 3:13-8:30:

Mark 3:13-6:13
  • Calling the Twelve—3:13-19
  • Reaction to Jesus’ ministry—his natural vs. true family; 3 traditions joined together:
    3:20-21, 22-30, 31-35
  • Parables of Jesus—4:1-34, a distinct block (or sub-unit) of traditional material, organized as follows:
    • Introduction (vv. 1-2)
    • Parable of the Sower:
      —The Parable (vv. 3-9)
      —Saying to the Disciples (vv. 10-12)
      —Explanation of the Parable (vv. 13-20)
    • Three additional Parables (vv. 21-32)
    • Conclusion (vv. 33-34)
  • Miracle (Calming the Storm): Jesus with the Disciples together in the boat—4:35-41
  • Healing Miracles: 2 Episodes (3 miracles)—5:1-20, 21-43
  • Reaction to Jesus’ ministry—his natural vs. true family; episode at Nazareth—6:1-6a
  • Mission of the Twelve—6:6b-13

I have pointed out the symmetric (chiastic) structure of this section in an earlier note; it is framed by the two episodes involving the Twelve—their calling/naming, and their mission.

Mark 6:14-8:30
  • Reaction to Jesus, and his identity: the declaration by Herod—6:14-16
    [inclusion of an associated tradition, 6:17-29]
  • Feeding Miracle (5,000): the disciples/12 baskets—6:30-44
    Miracle on the water: Jesus with the disciples in the boat—6:44-52
    (they did not understand about the miraculous loaves)
  • Healing Miracles6:53-56
  • Conflict/debate with religious authorities over tradition and ritual—7:1-23
    including a Parable and explanation by Jesus (vv. 14-16, 17-23)
  • Healing Miracles: 2 episodes—7:24-30, 31-37
  • Feeding Miracle (4,000): the disciples/7 baskets—8:1-10
    Teaching on the water: Jesus with the disciples in the boat—8:11-21
    (they did not understand, re. the miraculous loaves)
  • Healing miracle—8:22-26
  • Reaction to Jesus, and his identity: the confession by Peter—8:27-30

Again, there is a symmetric/chiastic structure, with parallel episodes involving (1) the public reaction to Jesus’ identity, (2) a feeding miracle with similar details and associated traditions, and (3) healing miracles. At the center is the debate of Jesus with the “Scribes and Pharisees” regarding religious tradition and ritual behavior.

A Point of Development: Mark 3:13-19 and 6:6b-13

The traditions involving Jesus’ calling of the Twelve (Disciples/Apostles), and their mission into the territory of Galilee as Jesus’ representatives, are instructive for examining how different lines of tradition were joined together, i.e. in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. I have already discussed Mk 3:13-19 and its Synoptic parallels in prior notes; here I want to point out again how the Gospels writers incorporated additional material into the Synoptic (Markan) outline at these points. As a result, the narrative was expanded and enhanced considerably, creating a more complex structure. This will be discussed further in the next note, focusing on the Lukan treatment of the Synoptic material corresponding to Mark 3:13-8:30.

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Galilean Period, Pt 1 (Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:1-11)

Today’s note begins the next division of our series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition”, focusing on the Galilean Ministry of Jesus (cf. the Introduction). The first topic of study is on traditions related to the Call of the Disciples. There are four primary traditions found in the Gospel narrative:

    1. The call of the first Disciples—esp. two pair of brothers (Peter/Andrew, James/John)
    2. The call of Matthew/Levi
    3. The call and commission of the Twelve
    4. The naming of Peter

Only the first and third of these will be dealt with in detail.

The Call of the First Disciples

Mark 1:16-20 par

Following the baptism of Jesus (and the testing in the desert), the period of Galilean ministry, according to the Synoptic narrative, begins with announcement of Jesus’ activity. In the Gospel of Mark, this is found in 1:14-15:

“And with the giving along (of) Yohanan {John} (into custody), Yeshua {Jesus} came into the Galîl {Galilee} proclaiming the good message of God and giving account [i.e. declaring/saying] that ‘The time has been (ful)filled and the kingdom of God has come near! Change your mind [i.e. repent] and trust in the good message!'”

Matthew (4:17) generally follows Mark, though without the preceding message of John the Baptist’s arrest. Luke has set the notice of John’s imprisonment at a different point in the narrative (right before Jesus’ baptism, 3:18-20), and makes no mention of Jesus proclamation of the coming of the kingdom or need for repentance (but cf. Lk 4:43; 8:1). This has essentially been replaced by the narrative summary in 4:14-15, emphasizing the role of the Spirit and Jesus’ activity of teaching (in the Synagogue), which sets the scene for the episode at Nazareth in 4:16ff. In the quotation of Isaiah 61:1 (vv. 18-19), Jesus declares, as part of his mission, that he is to “give/proclaim the good message”, much as is stated in Mk 1:14-15.

Mark 1:16-20 records the call of the first disciples. The parallel in Matthew (4:18-22) is very close; while Luke, has supplemented the basic narrative (5:1b-2, 10-11) with a miracle story involving Peter and his co-workers (5:4-9). This unique handling and development of the tradition will be discussed below. The narrative in Mark is extremely simple, with action and dialogue kept to an absolute minimum:

    • Notice of the location, along the Sea of Galilee (v. 16a)
    • Jesus encounters a two pair of brothers—Simon/Andrew & James/John—in turn (vv. 16b, 19a)
    • These men are all fishermen, busy working their nets (vv. 16b, 19b)
    • Jesus calls to them (to follow him) (vv. 17, 20a)
    • They all leave their nets and boats (and family, etc) to follow Jesus (vv. 18, 20b)

The central element is the saying of Jesus in verse 17, and the structure of the narrative gives the impression that it was built up around the saying. Here is the saying (in Mark):

“Come (here) in back of me [i.e. follow me], and I will cause you to become salt-water (fisher)s of men” (Mk 1:17)

Matthew’s version (4:19) is virtually identical, reading “make you” instead of “cause you to become”. In Luke, the comparable saying is quite different:

“Do not be afraid! From now on you will be catching men alive” (Lk 5:10b)

What is striking about the main Synoptic tradition, as given simply in Mark/Matthew, is how the sparse narrative detail gives the impression of an immediate response by the disciples—at the very (first) word from Jesus, they leave everything and follow him. This, of course, will become a motif—i.e. of obedience and commitment in following Jesus—repeated on several occasions in the Synoptic narrative (Mk 2:14; 8:34; 10:21 par; Lk 9:57-62 par). The core saying itself contains certain elements which summarize and reflect the ministry of Jesus, and are worth noting:

Verse 17a—the emphasis and motif of discipleship:

    • The expression deu=te (“come [here]”) is as much an invitation or exhoration as it is a command, and indicates one’s coming close, toward Jesus—Matt 11:28; 25:34; cf. also 22:4; Mark 6:31.
    • The preposition o)pi/sw (“in back of, behind”) is often used specifically in terms of a disciple following a master (Mark 8:34 par, etc). Its occurrence in the saying(s) of John the Baptist (Mk 1:7 par; Jn 1:15, 27, 30) was discussed in previous notes.

Verse 17b—the illustration from daily life (cf. the parables of Jesus):

    • The word a(lieu/$ refers to someone who works on/in the salt-water, here meaning specifically a fisherman. The activity from daily life is applied to the religious/spiritual life of the disciple (believer) who follows Jesus.
    • The genitive “of men” (a)nqrw/pwn) establishes the point of contrast—instead of gathering in fish for the catch, the disciples will be gathering in human beings for the kingdom of God. This latter detail is not stated explicitly, but such a connotation is likely, given the frequent references to the kingdom of God/Heaven in the parables and teachings of Jesus.

Luke 5:1-11

As noted above, Luke’s version of this episode represents a significant development (cf. my earlier study on this passage), in which the core Synoptic narrative (found in vv. 1b-2, 10-11) has been expanded to include a distinct miracle story featuring Peter (vv. 4-9). Verses 1a & 3 may reflect Lukan editing/authorship in order to blend the two traditions effectively into a literary whole. In particular, they seem to echo the setting in Mk 4:1-2, which Luke may have transferred from that location in the (Synoptic) narrative. This is likely, since in 8:4ff, the passage parallel to Mk 4:1-2ff, there is no corresponding mention of Jesus teaching the crowd from a boat.

This is all relatively straightforward—the Synoptic narrative, supplemented by another (“L”) tradition related to the call of Peter—were it not for the fact that the miracle narrated in vv. 4-9 is remarkably similar to that found in John 21:1-8ff. The problem is that the Johannine episode is said to have occurred at a much later time, after the resurrection of Jesus. It is not just a question of a general similarity; rather, there are a number of specific details shared by the two narratives, which include:

    • Peter and his colleagues had fished all night and had caught nothing (v. 3, 5; Jn 21:3)
    • Jesus is standing on the shore of the lake (v. 1; 21:1, 4)
    • Jesus tells them to go and cast out their nets again (v. 4; 21:6)
    • The result is an enormous catch of fish (v. 6b; 21:6, 11)
    • Reference to the stress (tearing) on the nets, and to the help required to bring in the catch (vv. 6-7; 21:8, 11)
    • A reaction by Peter to(ward) Jesus as a result of the miracle (v. 8; 21:7)
    • Jesus is called “Lord” [ku/rio$] (v. 8; 21:7)
    • The catch of fish is symbolic of the work of Christian ministry, and is connected in the narrative to a (separate) tradition involving the commission of Peter and the other disciples (vv. 10-11; 21:11, 15ff)

Also notable is the use of the dual name “Simon Peter” in both narratives (v. 8; 21:7), as it is the only such occurrence in the Gospel of Luke (and only once elsewhere in the Synoptics, Matt 16:16); cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 28), p. 561.

These similarities have been explained various ways by commentators:

    • As two separate historical episodes, at different points in the life of Peter, during his time with Jesus—one at the beginning, and the other at the end. The shared details would be either coincidental or providential.
    • Two separate traditions have been shaped by a distinct miracle-story form—i.e. the miraculous catch of fish.
    • A tradition with an original post-resurrection setting (John) has been given an earlier setting at the time of Peter’s calling (Luke).
    • A tradition originally associated with Peter’s calling has been set after the resurrection. I.e. the reverse of the view above.
    • It is a piece of “floating” tradition, which came to the Gospel writers (and/or their sources) without a specific narrative (or chronological) context; each writer made use of the tradition at the most meaningful (or logical) point.

The first option generally follows the traditional-conservative view. Those who hold to it would quickly point out the many differences between the two narratives, in addition to the similarities. Critical scholars, on the other hand, are more likely to accept either the second, third, or fifth options (e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 561-2). The fact that Luke has apparently adapted an (earlier) Synoptic narrative, by adding/inserting the miracle episode, as a distinct unit (vv. 4-9), would perhaps favor (some form of) the critical view. For those who would argue between the Lukan and Johannine setting as the “original” setting of the historical tradition, the evidence seems to be fairly evenly divided. On the one hand, the fact that Luke and John (according to the Alexandrian/Majority text of Lk 24), have inherited common traditions related to the resurrection, supports the post-resurrection setting in John 21. On the other hand, the idea of Peter and the other disciples returning to the ordinary life of fishermen after the resurrection has always seemed a bit odd (even unlikely) to many. The overall milieu of the scene (esp. vv. 1a-8 in John) better fits the period of Jesus’ Galilean ministry (as narrated in the Synoptics). It would be easy enough to adapt such an “earlier” or “floating” tradition to a post-resurrection setting, as could have been done in John simply by adding vv. 1 and 12b-14 (try reading the text without these framing verses) to an episode otherwise very close to Lk 5:4-9.

Speaking of the Gospel of John, it should be mentioned, in closing, that the Fourth Gospel has nothing like Mark 1:16-20 par, but records/preserves an entirely different tradition regarding the call of the first disciples (Peter/Andrew, etc). This will be discussed in the next note.

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Galilean Period

This is a good moment to stop and re-set the current series entitled Jesus and the Gospel Tradition (cf. the Introduction). The first part of the this series has been devoted to a detailed examination of the Baptism of Jesus. This was chosen because it provides an ideal case study (using extensive evidence from all four canonical Gospels) for analyzing how the early (historical) traditions came to be developed and adapted over time, leading to the composition of the Gospel narratives as we have them. It was demonstrated rather clearly, I think, in these notes, how the account of Jesus’ baptism (and his relation to John the Baptist) were preserved (independently) in multiple strands of tradition. Each Gospel writer gave his own interpretation and treatment of the material, but was essentially obligated to hold to a basic narrative, and to the preservation of certain fundamental traditions.

The remaining two parts, or divisions, of this series will be focusing on: (1) the Galilean Ministry of Jesus (Pt  II) and (2) the Passion Narrative (Pt III). These are also useful as divisions since they reflect the basic two-part structure of the Synoptic narrative—(i) the Galilean ministry (Mk 1:28:30), and (ii) the journey to Judea/Jerusalem and the events there (Mk 8:3116:8). The other Synoptics have more complex structures; indeed, Luke rather clearly has a three (or four) part division:

    • [The Infancy Narrative]
    • The Galilean ministry (3:19:50)
    • The Journey to Jerusalem (9:5118:34)
    • The time in Judea/Jerusalem (18:3524:53)

However, it is easy enough to see how the core Synoptic narrative has been adapted and expanded. In the case of Luke, the Infancy narrative (chaps. 1-2) has been added and the journey to Jerusalem (Mk 10) has been filled out by including a wide range of sayings/teachings of Jesus, and other episodes, most of which do not occur in the Gospel of Mark (i.e., so-called “Q” and “L” material).

Here is a preliminary list of some of the areas and topics I will be addressing in the next set of notes (for the remainder of February and into March), dealing with the Galilean Ministry of Jesus, traditions and passages related to:

    • The call of the Disciples
    • Jesus’ relatives and family
    • The Sabbath Controversies
    • Collection/joining of sayings, parables, and miracle stories
    • The Feeding miracle(s)
    • The Son of Man sayings

The next several notes will deal with the first topic—the Call of the (first) Disciples of Jesus.

It is worth mentioning, that these Galilean ministry passages and traditions are, for the most part, exclusive to the three Synoptic Gospels. The main reason for this is that a large percentage of scenes and dialogues in the Fourth Gospel are set in and around Jerusalem, so there is less material with which we can definitely work. However, it may be surprising how many parallels we will find between the Synoptic and Johannine traditions, and that the latter may well have included (and reworked) numerous episodes and traditions which are set in the “Galilean” section of the Synoptic narrative.

It may also be helpful to remind readers of the method I have adopted for this series. For each passage, narrative, or set of traditions being studied, I examine—

    • The basic Synoptic narrative (as represented primarily by the Gospel of Mark)
    • The so-called “Q” material (shared by Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark)
    • Traditions and details preserved only in Matthew and/or Luke (so-called “M” and “L” material), as well as original (literary) contributions by the authors
    • Johannine tradition and the Gospel of John

This order of study is roughly chronological, reflecting ‘layers’ of development—but not strictly so by any means. The Gospel of John certainly contains (separate) early/authentic historical traditions which are not found in the Synoptics. However, more often than not, the Fourth Gospel also shows the most evidence of extensive development, adaptation, and interpretation, of Gospel tradition. Indeed, this is a primary reason why it is usually regarded as the latest of the canonical Gospels—often dated around 90 A.D., in the form it has come down to us.