Abstract This article investigates the textual parallelism between Book iii of the treatise On the Resurrection of the Human Bodies , attributed to John of Dara, and Moses bar Kepha’s Commentary on the Words of Paul Demonstrating the Resurrection of the Bodies . Both works offer a running commentary on 1 Cor 15 in such a similar way that they present yet another synoptic problem, in addition to others documented in previous scholarship, of determining the relationship between these two texts. After a comparison of the respective texts’ structure and style, we address two contradictory pieces of evidence for the question of precedence: logical flaws in John’s text, pointing to its dependence upon Moses’, and a citation by Moses from John, rather indicating John’s priority. In the conclusion, we try to solve this contradiction and offer a solution to this further instantiation of close intertextuality between these two West Syrian authors.

The focus of this article is upon the first three Gospels. We will consider how they are approached collectively. It will become clear that they have a similarity of arrangement and content. The main themes are the baptism, temptation, and ministry of Jesus in Galilee, the confession at Caesarea Philippi, and the last journey to Jerusalem. John’s Gospel stands out on its own, as a brief glance will show that its content is largely distinct from the others. Because of their similarities, the opening Gospels have been often named by many scholars the Synoptic Gospels. The actual term synoptic (Latin: synopticus) comes from the Greek σύνοψις, synopsis, which means to see all together, giving an account of the events from the same general aspect. So, our aim is to discuss the precise nature of the literary relationship which the first three Gospels have. This has been named The Synoptic Problem not implying something negative, but understood as something that needs attention and investigation, positive consideration. The article acknowledges that suggestions concerning this subject are put forward tentatively. The relationships set out here form the most widely held view. In this article our aim is to conclude with what we consider to be the helpful contributions of Douglas M. Beaumont.

This article presents a Pentecostal Hermeneutics approach to resolving the synoptic problem through the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Employing a combination of textual analysis, comparative study, and the application of Pentecostal hermeneutics, the article unraveled the complexities and discrepancies found in these parallel passages. It explored the hypotheses put forth by various scholars, providing a nuanced understanding and trajectory of the synoptic enigma. By examining the structures, contents, and language of the genealogies, unique features and patterns were highlighted. A comparative study is conducted, shedding light on the theological and cultural implications of the differences and similarities between Matthew and Luke’s genealogies. Additionally, the article delved into the application of Pentecostal hermeneutics, demonstrating how this interpretive framework enhances the understanding of the genealogical narratives. By employing these methodological approaches, the article decoded the synoptic enigma, contributing to a deeper comprehension of the compositional techniques, theological significance, and historical context underlying these passages. This study serves as a valuable resource for academia, providing insights into a longstanding enigma in New Testament studies and helping to answer the synoptic problem. Keywords: Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Genealogy, Synoptic Gospels, and Synoptic problem.

This study concerns the impact of computer science on theological research, particularly in biblical exegesis. From the first computer-generated biblical concordance in 1957 to modern text analysis algorithms, technology plays an increasingly significant role in interpreting biblical texts. Mathematical modelling, especially the application of the Hidden Markov Model to the Synoptic Problem, supports the theory of Markan priority. The involvement of informatics and mathematics in theology opens new research avenues, yet the role of theologians remains indispensable in interpretative considerations.

As we discussed in a forthcoming article, there is an alternative hypothesisthat can be considered in lieu of the so-called Baur’s Tuebingen school, thatis the formative years of Earliest Christianity led to such notion of synthesisbetween Petrine Christianity and Pauline Christianity. Instead, we consider a branching process, which can be considered alternatively as spreadingnetwork even to Asia and Europe at the time. Corresponding to the hypothesis is that the four witnesses who worked on at the period to write down the four Gospels were more likely to write independently. In the meantime, this hypothesis does not exclude possibility that they ever met in person, at the First Council in Jerusalem as depicted in the book of Acts chapter 15, or before, or after that event.

Although the reception of Mark has a very long tradition within New Testament studies in discussions of the Synoptic problem or the relation of the Synoptics to John, nevertheless works on reception of the Gospel beyond the New Testament are few. Further, especially for the early period, these works focus primarily on the fact of Markan reception—who knew it and accepted it—rather than its hermeneutical potential. The present essay focuses on this hermeneutical question, tracing the Markan language of “this generation” through its reception, rejection, and adaptation in Gospel literature up to the Gospel of Judas. I argue that this intra-Gospel reception reflects back on Mark itself and illuminate aspects of its interpretive possibilities. Indeed, I aim to show here that Mark’s reception is intrinsic to its possibility for meaning at all and by attending to the ways in which early texts from Matthew to Judas interpret Mark enables one to appreciate the very different ways Mark’s potential meaning is actualized. This argument demonstrates the value of uniting exegetical and diachronic description with a dialogical hermeneutical framework, facilitating mutual interpretation without simple harmonization.

Abstract Recognition of the parallels between Q material and the Epistle of James has developed in recent years, and has convincingly attested to James’ literary dependence upon Q. If James does constitute an independent witness to the Sayings Gospel, there indeed may be some merit to a limited deployment of the Jacobean epistle in studies of the Synoptic Problem. The present contribution considers the reconstruction of Q through comparison with several of its Jacobean parallels, surveying the extent to which James can be fruitfully deployed. While scholars should certainly exercise caution in using James to reconstruct Q, selective comparison may offer us some new insights, particularly in adjudicating discrepancies between Matthew and Luke. Although the Epistle’s utility is limited because of its lack of verbatim citation of Q, James may be particularly helpful in the contentious debate about the inclusion of the Lucan woes (Q/Luke 6.24–6) into Q and offers some force to the minority position that the woes constituted an original component of Q’s Beatitudes.

Abstract: David B. Sloan and James R. Edwards have revived the antique hypothesis that there was a single Gospel according to the Hebrews underlying the diverse patristic testimonies about it and that it was a significant source behind the Synoptic tradition. Specifically, Sloan and Edwards equate this reconstructed text with either Q or L, respectively, two hypothetical sources in B. H. Streeter’s classic solution to the Synoptic Problem. In this article, I defend the common scholarly view that the text known to Epiphanius, which modern scholars entitle as the Gospel of the Ebionites to distinguish it from the Gospel according to the Hebrews , was a Greek text that, at points, harmonizes passages from the Synoptics. I will focus on this Gospel’s baptism narrative to demonstrate that it replicates Matthean and Lucan redactional elements, thus making it unlikely to be the source of the Synoptic double tradition or the Lucan Sondergut .


 
 
 Within the rich literary tradition of the West Syrian (i.e., Syriac Orthodox) Church, two ninth-century authors stand out thanks to a curious problem. The authors are the bishops John of Dara, who lived in the first half of the century, and Moses bar Kepha, who died in northern Iraq in 903. The problem is the literary relationship between several of the texts transmitted in their names. Applying a three-pronged approach to this synoptic problem, this article offers a path toward a solution. On the basis of biographical, stylistic, and philological arguments, it is argued that at least one text that goes under John’s name, On Heretics, was not in fact written by him. The author of that text, likely operating in the tenth century, drew heavily from Moses bar Kepha’s treatise On Paradise, while reshaping the material from Moses, and also incorporating additional material from other sources.
 
 

Reviewed by: A Brief Guide to New Testament Interpretation: History, Methods, and Practical Examples by Roy A. Harrisville Charles B. Puskas A Brief Guide to New Testament Interpretation: History, Methods, and Practical Examples. By Roy A. Harrisville. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2022. 120 pp. The academic study of the New Testament encounters issues like the synoptic problem, the function of parables, the fulfillment of Israel's scriptures, apocalyptic language, and the ending of Mark's Gospel. Since early last century, various methods have been employed from the lower critical methods of textual criticism to the higher critical methods of source, form, and redaction criticisms. Recalling the heuristic figurations of Paul Ricoeur, New Testament study has also focused on the world of the text (such as synchronic narrative, structural, and rhetorical criticisms) and the lifeworld of the reader (reader-response and ideological criticisms), in addition to its attention on the world behind the text (diachronic textual and historical criticisms). This author, a preeminent Lutheran scholar of New Testament studies, has added to the array of books on exegetical methods. This volume is particularly important given his many decades as a professor at Luther Seminary. What sets this thirteen-chapter book apart is his concern for the seminary student and pastor, specifically, regarding kerygma, event, and witness in the initial chapters. Another unique feature is his thumbnail sketch of the history of New Testament interpretation from the ancient church to the present, which is basically a summary of his Pandora's Box Opened (Eerdmans, 2014). Also distinctive are his helpful New Testament illustrations of the method and limits of the interpretative approach found throughout the book. His concise discussions of lower and higher criticisms recall early developments such as the Gutenberg press (22) and some of the earliest pioneers in this field (28). Next, the chapters on source, form, [End Page 195] and redaction criticisms demonstrate the work of an experienced practitioner of the methodology. His illustrations are insightful (see on the textual variants of Rom 5:1, 24–25) as are his caveats of the shortcomings (see on redaction analysis, 45). Still, I had hoped that he would have mentioned how redaction criticism often ignores the storyline of Jesus in its efforts to recover the contextual clues of the post-resurrection community and its author. The final chapters include sections on lexicography, sociological criticism, rhetorical criticism, structural analysis, post-structuralist analysis, reader-response criticism, feminist analysis. More could have been included (for example, genre analysis, canonical criticism). In chapters ten through thirteen on synchronic and post-modern methods the author states, "Over the years, malaise increased over the viability of historical method … The result has been a flurry of methods" (62). Many of his caveats are noteworthy. For example, while acknowledging the marginalization of women in our society and in the patriarchal culture of the Bible, Harrisville points out that "to distinguish Israel's faith … from Canaanite worship in which the goddess Astarte vied for equal status with Baal, or from Greek and Roman religion with their plethora of gods and goddesses … the male pronoun Jahve or El … or 'I am' … was sorely needed." (79). His concluding chapter hearkens back to the first chapters on the historical context of the kerygma, the witness of faith, the living message of God embodied in the text. Unfortunately, I have found some typographical errors: "the gragment-hypothesis of F. D. E. Schleiermacher" (28), "Isaiah 9" should read Isaiah 6:9 (41), and "Rom 12:24" should read Rom 12:21. I also wish that more was written about Bultmann and Käsemann, but they are more fully discussed in his The Bible and Modern Culture with co-author Walter Sundberg. The book includes a short glossary of key terms, a bibliography of works cited, and author and scripture indexes. This brief guide by a seasoned scholar will make an excellent supplemental text to courses on the New Testament, the Four Gospels, New Testament Exegesis, and Homiletics. [End Page 196] Charles B. Puskas Lino Lakes, Minnesota Copyright © 2023 Johns Hopkins University Press and Lutheran Quarterly, Inc.

Reviewed by: Relating the Gospels: Memory, Imitation, and the Farrer Hypothesis by Eric Eve Daniel Glover eric eve, Relating the Gospels: Memory, Imitation, and the Farrer Hypothesis (LNTS 592; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2021). Pp. viii + 247. $115. Eric Eve's Relating the Gospels is a new study on the Synoptic Problem, arguing in favor of the Farrer Hypothesis. E. proposes that offering attention to memory and the scribal and authorial practices of imitation in the ancient world help to demonstrate the plausibility of Luke's use of Matthew and Mark. He dialogues with recent advances in memory studies and scribal compositional practices to argue in seven chapters for the plausibility of Luke's use of Matthew. The first chapter introduces the book and specifies that E. has confined this study to "comparing the viability of the Farrer hypothesis with that of its principal competitor, the Two Document Hypothesis" (3). It is somewhat disappointing that the more recent Matthean [End Page 356] Posteriority Theory did not feature prominently in this book. While no book can do everything, even a surface level engagement with this recent literature in the footnotes would have been desirable. The next two chapters supply the book's method. In chap. 2, E. establishes different models of engagement with memory studies in relation to the Synoptic Problem and how these models can help support the assumption of Marcan priority. Most interesting here is the discussion of scribal composition. E. offers evidence that scribes had a profound capacity for memory and the memorization of texts. The literary elite valued not only rote memorization of lines of text for recitation but also creative memory, which allowed for an interaction with texts even amid their performance. The best scribes could recite passages from a given text that shared a theme, word, or character, rework passages around other and different themes, sometimes recite a narrative in reverse order, and all of these on demand. Those interested in composition would often practice the same sorts of recollecting techniques just described but in combination with other literary works in order to produce a new, creative retelling or reworking of those older sources. These sorts of practices of creative rewriting, therefore, challenge Alan Kirk's argument (Q in Matthew [LNTS 564; London: T&T Clark, 2016]) that the Gospel authors would have been restrained by the logical ordering of written materials. (E. helpfully complicates this argument by pointing out that whatever rearranging would be necessary on Luke's use of Matthew, would also be necessary on Matthew's use of Q.) To be sure, E. does not attribute to the Gospel authors the same level of ability as those elite scribes, but he takes for granted that they would have had access to some of these same practices. In chap. 3, E. places this vision of scribal practice into conversation with recent work on ancient paideia. E. suggests that, while progymnastic exercises of reordering and rearrangement cannot account for every instance of Luke's use of Matthew, they do help the reader to anticipate the types of changes Luke would have made to Matthew, especially once one considers Luke as engaging in typical scribal practices of creative memory. The next three chapters wade "into the weeds" as close, comparative, and exegetical studies of the double and triple tradition. In chap. 4, E. discusses and evaluates significant similarities between Matthew and Luke, especially in the sayings material, but also between the first few chapters of Matthew and Luke. E. himself lists eight thematic and verbal parallels that are difficult to explain without some sort of literary dependence. He finds much the same sort of information in their narratives of John the Baptist, the temptation, and the resurrection. Luke's scribal creativity manifests throughout his Gospel, but E. observes the significance of Luke's imitative rewriting of the narrative of Samuel's infancy narrative in the composition of Jesus's birth and early years. There we find an analogue for the kind of creative alterations to Luke's Septuagintal source that we may observe in Luke's Matthean source under the Farrer Hypothesis. Eve's last two chapters deal with problem passages in Luke, including...

A striking feature of the current state of Synoptic Problem studies is the almost universal acceptance of Markan Priority. If Mark was indeed used by both Matthew and Luke, this reduces the number of simple solutions to the Synoptic Problem to just two: Luke used Matthew or Matthew used Luke. Studies promoting the latter option, the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH), have recently begun to attract wider critical attention. This article examines the three critical responses published sivnce 2017 and asks which of the problems so far identified presents the most serious problem for the MPH.

Abstract The present article is an integrative study of rabbinic sources in tandem with gospel pericopes, Pauline passages, and a passage of the Duae viae (included in the Didache). I contend that all these sources are variants of a Jewish tradition composed of two elements: (a) a maxim—the golden rule—or an equivalent biblical verse, Lev 19:18b; (b) an assertion that this maxim or verse summarizes the torah, or is the core of the whole torah (the difference in Hebrew is between kǝlāl, “rule,” and kōl, “whole”). The wording of these variants cuts across the putative division between the various corpora. Observing the pluriformity of this tradition is important for the study of both the New Testament and rabbinic literature, the focus of the present article. This study demonstrates that early phraseology may be preserved in late rabbinic texts, which thus problematizes the “synoptic problem” of rabbinic literature (and, mutatis mutandis, of the gospels). Similar wording should not blur different contents; affinities should not obscure inherent dynamics. The potential for a radical interpretation of the formulation that “the whole torah” is encapsulated in one verse or maxim has not been realized in rabbinic literature; the radical potential of the formulation was realized and developed by Paul in Gal 5:14.

The Hebraic Gospels Series deals with the “radical” suggestion, advanced by a collaboration of Christian and Israeli scholars, that the so-called “synoptic problem” should be evaluated, not in accordance with Markan priority, but with the primacy of Luke. This commentary deals with the evidence for a hypothetical Hebrew “under-text” (grundschrift) hiding in plain sight beneath the synoptic traditions, detectable in the multiple Hebraisms scattered across the Gospel narratives. This admittedly avant-garde approach also mitigates what occasionally appears as a troublesome, anti-Jewish tone in the Gospels by forcing us to consider the role of editorial redaction, progressing not from Mark to Luke but, rather, from Luke to Mark and then Matthew. The potential of such an understanding is of huge consequence for both New Testament Studies and interfaith relations. Among Christians, there is considerable value in reading through the Greek Gospels to uncover, at least potentially, the ipsissima verba of Jesus himself, unadorned by theological overlay. Among Jews, the prospect of vivisecting the Gospels to encounter, not the progenitor of Christianity, but an ancient Jewish sage torn between the piety of early Hasidim and the Galilean freedom fighters of his day (the Zealots). All of this opens a door to appreciating the great Nazarene in a manner not thought possible since the inception of the Christian faith nearly two millennia ago. Exploring the potential Hebraic under-text of the Gospel of Luke will add to historical discussion on the Jewish Jesus in all of his color and first-century flavor.

Abstract By discussing a short sugya, this paper demonstrates how to read the components of a typical Talmudic discussion – Mishnah, Tosefta, Yerushalmi and Bavli – as arguments. In contrast to widely used academic approaches, I show that it is possible to ascribe disagreement to parallel sources without passing judgment either on their chronological order or on whether one of the sources is a direct response to the other. The appendix offers a new theoretical model for approaching the synoptic problem in rabbinic literature.

Synoptic specialist and Lucan posteriority proponent Mark Goodacre has recently called for a "mandatory retirement" of the term "Mark–Q overlaps" as a description of a set of data. He suggests that it fails to characterize neutrally the overlap phenomenon between the double and triple Synoptic traditions, proposing instead the following redescription: "major agreements." In this essay I examine Goodacre's argument, showing it to exhibit a questionable characterization of a number of aspects of the Two-Document hypothesis and to inadequately redescribe the data. Along the way, I clarify the use of the term "Mark–Q overlaps" as comprising, on the Q side of the overlaps, sayings rather than narrative material. In the conclusion, I propose a neutral solution to the issue of nomenclature.

The hypothetical phenomenon known as Luke’s ‘unpicking’ of some of Matthew’s Markan material has occupied the attention of synoptic problem specialists since the seminal article by F. Gerald Downing (1965). The discussion has received a number of contributions in recent years, first with an exchange between Christopher M. Tuckett and Francis Watson (both essays published in 2018) and now with a separate analysis by Eric Eve (2021). A comprehensive tabulation of the phenomenon, however, is still lacking, with the authors selectively focusing on some of the data. Eve concludes his discussion by suggesting that he has explained the phenomenon for the Farrer Hypothesis. However, Eve’s analysis does not include a number of the instances tabulated just a few years earlier by Watson. Moreover, Watson’s tabulation itself is need of an update, being unnecessarily narrow. In this article, I analyze Watson’s contribution to the discussion, developing his recognition of the phenomenon of unpicking and adjusting several aspects of his analysis. Assessment of the procedure’s difficulty does not belong to the article’s scope. Rather, this article aims to provide a comprehensive tabulation of Farrer Luke’s unpicking that can be utilized by synoptic specialists on all sides of the current discussion.

Abstract The Synoptic Gospels contain a significant number of so-called doublets, i.e. sayings or narratives which appear twice in one and the same Gospel. Since the nineteenth century these doublets have functioned as a classical argument in favour of the existence of Q. Focusing on treatments of Luke's doublets within the contemporary rivalry between the Farrer hypothesis and the two-document hypothesis, the present article contributes to a not-Q-biased discussion of the evidence. While adherents of the two-document hypothesis should not overestimate the force of doublet-based arguments, defenders of the Farrer hypothesis should pay greater attention to the creation and elimination of doublets as part of Luke's alleged redactional activity.

This paper addresses methodological issues in Qur’anic studies. At first, it intends to explain, through historiographical analysis, why methods proved fruitful in biblical and New Testament studies, such as form criticism and redaction criticism, have been disregarded in Qur’anic studies; secondly, it vindicates the application of such methods to the Qur’anic corpus; thirdly, it tries to exemplify the relevance of redaction criticism through examples. Two main issues are then discussed: the best way to account for the “synoptic problem” (the presence, in the Qur’ān, of variant parallel narratives), through an examination of some aspects of the Adam-Iblīs narratives (more precisely the composition of Q 2:30–38 and the nature of the relations between Q 38:71–85 and Q 15:26–43); and the beginning of Q 55. Two main conclusions are reached: first, the later versions of a parallel story are, in the examples discussed here, rewritings of earlier stories (namely, re-compositions based on a written version); second, sura 55 features the intervention of different authors, with two different profiles.

This volume, and the one to follow, are the product of 20 years of research and devotion from the author (p. xi). DelHousaye’s Fourfold Gospel seeks to walk the line of biblical commentary and devotional, utilizing the medieval Quadriga. This interpretive methodology, drawn from the Latin word for a chariot drawn by four horses, embraces four levels of scriptural interpretation: the literal, anagogical, typological, and tropological. The commentary itself is structured along the parallel rabbinic structure of PaRDeS (פַּרְדֵּס), wherein the “P” stands for peshat (פְּשָׁט)—the plain sense of the words; the “R” for remez (רֶמֵז)—the allegorical sense; the “D” for derash (דֵּרַשׁ)—the homiletical sense; and the “S” for sod (סוֹד)—the intent of the divine author (p. 30). The biblical text is then arranged in the form of a fourfold Gospel reminiscent of Tatian’s Diatessaron, with the commentary categorized by the letters explained above.Before arriving at the commentary proper, DelHousaye spends the first 126 pages explaining the methodology of the book, the historical development of its devotional approach, and a summarized history of the Gospels—including their reception in history, alternative arrangements, and competing Gospel texts within the first 300 years of the church. This introduction is a vital part of this commentary, as most Western readers will be wholly unfamiliar with the approach utilized or how to appropriate it. The author should be commended for his desire to reintroduce popular medieval concepts such as lectio divina into the Protestant reading of Scripture and present a work that is both academically challenging and spiritually enriching. For the reader interested in medieval spirituality, the bibliography contained within this introduction alone will be an invaluable resource for further study. While this work does not rest comfortably in the genre of biblical commentary that most are accustomed, DelHousaye encourages the reader to approach the text with spiritual preparation in order to allow the devotional content to permeate. Though this methodology may be uncomfortable for scholastics as well as lay Protestants, the author should again be commended for making the purpose of the text absolutely clear at the outset.Where this book succeeds is in its valiant attempt to summarize an often-overlooked era of Christian spirituality and synthesize it with modern academic Gospel studies. Its acknowledgment of the status quaestionis of the Synoptic Problem, as well as the historical-critical breakthroughs in Gospel research, open the door for the academic discussion without taking the forefront. Alternatively, this commentary seeks to demonstrate that modern academic discourse and medieval mystagogy can cohabitate. While not all commentary sections incorporate every aspect of the PaRDeS approach illustrated in the introduction, most attempt to close on a devotional thought designed for later reflection, and while this may be out of place for its peers, the devotional approach of this work presents the academic reader with something often overlooked: opportunity for introspection and internalization of the biblical text.While there is much to be lauded over an intrepid endeavour such as this, there are also infelicities that distract from the overall book. The introduction itself not without purpose, yet one wonders if it is necessary to include in a commentary on the canonical Gospels a lengthy discussion of apocryphal and heretical Gospels and Muslim literature. While worthy subjects of study in their own right, this diverts from the text in hand. Additionally, the author has chosen to include his own English interpretations of the Greek text—a common approach in most academic commentaries—resulting in several awkward readings of familiar texts and the adjusting of the Greek in uncommon ways.1 Last, the authors insistence that the Gospel of John was composed prior to Luke is at odds with most contemporary scholarship and is reasserted throughout the text without suitable substantiation.In spite of these minor disputations, it can be said that this work will stand out among its peers, given its unparalleled approach within the Protestant tradition. DelHousaye should be commended for his tireless efforts to gather such an immense collection of resources and his willingness to relate a work that is a deeply personal expression of his own spiritual formation. There is certainly a need in the academy for more of this within contexts dominated by intellectualism.