CHRISTOLOGY AND
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM[1]
Peter M. Head
The
primary aim of this dissertation has been to examine and evaluate the
christological argument for Markan priority in view of recent scholarship on
the synoptic problem which advocates Markan posteriority (normally as part of
the Griesbach Hypothesis, henceforth GH). Chapter
One contains an overview of the history of discussion, with a particular
focus on the relationship between christological development and literary
priority (evident in both nineteenth-century Griesbachians and
twentieth-century Markan Priorists). The christological argument for Markan
priority emerged within British scholarship as a means of defending Markan
priority and explaining Matthean alterations of Mark. Although this particular
argument has played a relatively small role in supporting the structure of the
two source hypothesis (2SH), several factors suggest its contemporary
importance and the need for a critical assessment. The most important of these
factors is the revival of the GH, which has involved criticisms of the
arguments used to support the 2SH. These criticisms have, in turn, prompted
from Markan priorists a re-assessment of the arguments from wording, order and
content. Within this context it seemed appropriate and necessary to reassess
arguments from christological development, a notion that was also appealed to
by nineteenth-century defenders of the GH.
In
Chapter two, after a survey of
proposed criteria for determining literary priority, we argue that a method
which focuses on redactional plausibility and coherence is both appropriate to
the christological material in view and able to treat the two major hypotheses
in a relatively even-handed manner. Thus the discussions of the texts involve a
comparison between the plausibility of Markan redaction, assuming the GH, and
the plausibility of Matthean redaction, assuming the 2SH. Any alternative
method would involve the assumption of a particular pattern of christological
development within the early period. Our method, however, focuses on the texts
we do have, rather than the pattern of development which we do not. It also
allows both hypotheses to be tested in relation to their treatment of
christologically-loaded material. It allows this dissertation to test both
whether the traditional argument should be regarded as a strong support for
Markan priority, and whether the GH might be able to give a more plausible
picture of redactional behaviour. Thus the two major hypotheses (2SH and GH)
are compared in order to assess which provides the best explanation (in a
comparative-redactional sense) of the evidence.
The
investigation proper takes as its Ausgangspunkt
two passages which were at the heart of the historical christological argument
(described in chapter one). We compare the 2SH perspective and then the GH
perspective on the passages concerning: the rich young ruler (Three) and Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth
(Four); and then the walking on
water (Five). This investigation
suggests that the commonly held view that Matthew avoids christologically
embarrassing phrases does not provide a sufficient explanation of Matthean
redactional behaviour. Nevertheless, the 2SH is able to provide (at least for
two of the three passages) a more plausible and coherent explanation than the
GH.
Chapter Six deals with the issues of
Jesus’ emotions, questions, and inability (highlighted in chapter one) which
all involve (on the 2SH) Matthean omissions from Mark. Chapter Seven deals with other areas of the Matthean redaction
which have been claimed as a support for Markan priority (‘worship’ and
‘approach’ terminology and the passion narratives), which all involve Matthean
additions to Mark. The focus in these chapters is to test this material in
order to evaluate the claims of Markan priorists. In many cases the GH
explanation is found to be equally plausible (e.g. on the passion narratives),
and the christological interests of Matthew have been exaggerated (e.g. on
‘worship’ and ‘approach’ terminology). This conclusion leads to the following
chapters in which an attempt is made to compare the evangelists’ treatment of
major christological themes, using the christological titles as convenient loci for study.
In
Chapter eight we argued that the 2SH
makes much better sense of the treatments of Jesus as teacher and as Lord than
does the GH. Matthean redaction of Mark (on the 2SH) can be described as both
coherent and plausible on several levels, especially in relation to the OT, in
a way that could not be said of Griesbach-Mark. In Chapter nine we again concluded, concerning the presentation of
Jesus as Messiah, that the redactional activity of Matthew envisaged by the 2SH
was both coherent and pervasive and plausibly understood as a re-appropriation
of Jewish and OT categories for Matthew’s situation.
In
Chapter ten we investigated the
treatment of Jesus as the Son of God. In this case several specific problems
were noted in relation to the redactional procedure of Griesbach-Mark which were
not present in Matthew’s redaction of Mark (2SH). A similar conclusion was
drawn from the Son of Man material (Chapter
eleven). In both cases Matthew’s redaction of Mark involves an increased
appropriation of OT allusions in service of the tradition.
These
chapters form the basis, therefore, for a renewed christological argument for
Markan priority, based not on what Matthew omitted from Mark, but on the
coherent, plausible, pervasive and positive redactional alterations made by
Matthew in his re-presentation of the Markan traditions. In several places,
however, the redactional activity envisaged for Griesbach-Mark could have been
construed in terms of a developed but previously misconstrued secrecy motif. It
therefore proved necessary to investigate the secrecy material with a view to
assessing whether this material could be more plausibly explained by the GH (Chapter twelve). We concluded, however,
that this material did not offer a key which would explain Griesbach-Mark; on
the other hand the 2SH generally offered a reasonable and coherent picture of
Matthean redaction activity in this area.
The
Conclusion summarises the course of
the discussion and offers three major conclusions: i) that the christological
argument as traditionally conceived does not offer a compelling argument for
Markan priority; ii) that the GH is generally unable to provide a plausible
explanation for the behaviour of Griesbach-Mark in this area; and iii) that a
re-formulated christological argument focusing on the positive christological
emphases of Matthew is a powerful argument in favour of the 2SH over the GH.
[1]P.M. Head, Christology and the
Synoptic Problem: An Assessment of one argument for Markan priority
(Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, 1994); supervisor: Prof.
M.D. Hooker.