In order to account for this common material, scholars have conjectured a document they call Q (from the German word Quelle, source). This hypothetical document is used to explain the many sayings of Jesus that appear in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. In this theory, both Matthew and Luke used two documents, hence the name “two source theory.” Some scholars assume that this document must have existed in one form or another. For example, G. N. Stanton says that “we can be reasonably certain that Q existed as a written document” (650). Yet scholars such as Thomas Edgar vehemently deny its existence. Edgar states that “Q has never been seen nor is there any evidence that such a document ever existed” (147). The recent book Gospel Writing by Francis Watson makes a compelling case for some sort of Sayings Source, but he does not particularly like the implication of a multi-layered Q document sometimes described int he literature.
But the existence of a “sayings” gospel is a possibility in the light of two pieces of circumstantial evidence. The statement of Papias can be taken quite easily as a collection of sayings of Jesus were collected by Matthew first, rather than the gospel of Matthew. A problem night be then that Papias does not know the Gospel of Matthew. Second, the Gospel of Thomas, while not a particularly help source for historical studies, does show that the genre of a sayings gospel existed. Circumstantial evidence is, however, just that. Thomas is not Q and dates well after the first century. What Papias says may be explained in several different ways which do not imply the existence of a Q-like source document.
There is something about the idea of a source document which makes evangelicals uneasy. We do not want to accept the idea that Matthew and Luke were scholars and editors, assembling their gospels from sources. Most conservatives would dismiss Q immediately because it is the product of Historical Criticism (as the essays in The Jesus Crisis do). Did God inspire Matthew and Luke to edit their sources, or write their gospels? For the conservative scholar, Q simply is not helpful since their emphasis is on the text as it appears in the Bible.
This unease is felt over a broad spectrum of scholarship as well. The essays in Questioning Q, for example, wonder if relying on the existence of a Sayings source has short-circuited the idea of the Gospel writers as creative writers who should be treated as authors, not editors of their books.
Both of these warnings are well intended. It is true that documents which “count” are the synoptic Gospels as they appear on the page of the Bible. If the writers used sources, that may not matter much for our interpretation of the words in Matthew, Mark and Luke. I have always tried to get students to “stay within the world of the story” and read Matthew as Matthew, not as a parallel book to Luke.
Yet the evidence is there, and as I read it Matthew used Mark and a sayings source of some kind. Luke likely also used Mark and a sayings source, although he could have also used Matthew. For me, it is not correct to mis-characterize Matthew as cut and pasting sources together to create his gospel. Rather, if Matthew used courses, he was a scholar marshaling all of his resources to create a theological document which answered some questions about the person and nature of Jesus and the idea of discipleship after the resurrection. There is nothing wrong with the idea that Matthew (or Mark) used sources, but too much emphasis on the sources will obscure the goal – a clear reading of the Gospels.
Bibliography: Thomas Edgar. “Source Criticism: The Two Source Theory,” pages 132-157 in The Jesus Crisis (ed. Robert Thomas and F. David Farnell; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998); Mark Goodacre, editor. Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 2004); G. Stanton. “Q”, pages 644-650 in The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight; Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1992).
Keith, Chris and Larry W. Hurtado. Jesus among Friends and Enemies: A Historical and Literary Introduction to Jesus in the Gospel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2011. 352 pages, pb. $27.00. Link to BakerLink to Logos
Jesus among Friends and Enemies is a unique idea for a Historical Jesus book. Strictly speaking, this is not a book on Jesus, but rather the characters who encounter Jesus in the Gospels. Some react favorably and are “friends” while others reject Jesus and are labeled “enemies” of Jesus. Each chapter offers a historical sketch about the character from history and tradition, then a brief overview of their role in the Gospels. Sidebars appear throughout the text explaining technical terms or offering a closer look at something mentioned in the chapter. In the Logos version, these sidebars appear as grey boxes interrupting the flow of the chapter (as they do in the paper version). There are also a few photographs which are faithfully reproduced in the Logos version. The sidebars expose a flaw in the way Logos handle footnotes in the iOS app since some sidebars have notes that do not correspond to the rest of the notes on the page. Each chapter ends with a “for further reading” section.
I found this a fascinating book and ended up writing far more than a normal book review. I will therefore dived the review into two installments, covering the introduction and “friends” here, and the “enemies” and conclusion in the next post.
Chris Keith offers an introduction in which he surveys what can be known about Jesus. He begins with agrapha, the sayings of Jesus which appear outside the canonical Gospel. These sayings were preserved because Jesus was seen as a wise man by many ancient sources. Josephus, for example, calls Jesus a wise man. Both Tacitus and Suetonius considered Jesus a rather foolish character who founded and equally foolish band of followers. Keith briefly reviews the apocryphal gospels, including the infancy gospels and the gospels of Peter and Thomas. After sampling this widely diverse literature, Keith compares it to the portrait of Jesus in each of the four canonical gospels. His emphasis in this section is the narrative first of Mark then Matthew and Luke and finally John. For each gospel he answers the question “Who was (or is) Jesus?” and tries to highlight the way each gospel is distinctive from and similar to other canonical Gospels. This very brief survey indicates that the Gospels offer a multifaceted view of Jesus.
Edith Humphreys covers “God and Angels” in the first chapter, neither of which I would have considered as a “friend” of Jesus. Nevertheless, this chapter is a survey of second temple literature on the rather broad topic of God and monotheism. In addition Humphreys surveys this literature on the topic of angels. Here she is able to bring a great deal of information from such books as 1 Enoch. The “earliest Christian writers were informed by this lore of angels and expected their readers to understand such tantalizing details” (45). Turning to a narrative of the Gospels, Humphreys points out that the main character in each of the Gospels is God. Although angels figure significantly in each of the Gospels, the focus of the writers is squarely on Jesus.
In Chapter 2 Michael Bird introduces John the Baptist. Perhaps more than any of the other characters in this book, John the Baptist has generate the largest secondary literature. This is perhaps due to his ongoing legacy as well as the tantalizing possibility that John’s ministry was somehow connected to Qumran. (Bird deal with this possibility in a sidebar, although it is not clear if the sidebars come for the article authors or not.). He begins this chapter with the lone statement in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities that mentions John the Baptist. Bird creates a list of seven items that can be known from Josephus. These resonate with the Gospel narrative but the canonical Gospels go beyond these things in the service of their theology. In fact, “They also interweave traditions about the Baptizer into their own narratives in order to present him as a crucial figure in God’s revelation of his Son to Israel” (74). Bird traces the development from Mark to Matthew and Luke, who adopt material from Q to present John as “an apocalyptic preacher of repentance and judgment” (78).
In Chapter 3 Warren Carter begins with the discussion of disciples in general. He compares the four lists of the disciples, and wonders if there was even a fixed roster of 12. The number 12 seem stable but the lists vary. In addition sometimes others are included in the term disciples, such as Jesus is female followers in Luke 6:30-36. Carter concludes that “there is good historical reason to conclude that Jesus gathered disciples,” although the later traditions of their activities remains dubious at best (87). Turning to the gospels, Carter describes the disciples in Mark as “sustained failure” because they consistently misunderstood Who Jesus was what he was trying to teach them. But is it the case, as Carter suggests, that Mark has a “frequently negative presentation of the disciples” (92)? This is possible since there is a contrast between the disciples and the demons or the Gentiles. In fact, Matthew and Luke are far more positive then marking his presentation of the disciples.
Two features of this chapter stand out. First, the chapter seems the most connected to the methods of historical Jesus research. Carter deals with the criteria of authenticity to determine whether Jesus disciples. For some both conservative and less, the use of these criteria is problematic. I personally not that bothered by the use of criteria (especially since in this case I happen to agree with the results). Second, Carter makes use of the Gospel of John, which is normally not used much in a Historical Jesus study. He points out that disciples mentioned 70 times even though the Twelve are only mention four times.
Richard J. Bauckham’s essay on “The Family of Jesus” is one of the more fascinating in this book, probably because so little is known about Jesus’s family. Unlike the prior essays in this collection, Bauckham begins with the biblical material because there is simply very little material outside of The Gospels for him to use. He does cite the testimony of Hegesippus to the effect that Jesus’ family waned property in Nazareth, but there is no more extra-biblical material on the family of Jesus. Bauckham does deal with the well-known problem of Jesus his brothers in the New Testament. First how are they related to Jesus? Bauckham concludes that they were children of Joseph and Mary born after Jesus. Second, he deals with the fact that all of Jesus’s brothers he came significant leaders in the early church. He cites here the Gospel of Thomas which describes James as “the righteous.” Bauckham describes James as a leader in Jerusalem, but “the other brothers of Jesus worked as traveling missionaries” (111) based on 1 Cor 9:5 (the brothers Jesus had taken wives). My first impression was that this verse referred simply to Christians rather than the literal brothers of Jesus. But Bauckham cites Julius Africanus as evidence that Jesus’ Brothers participated in missionary activity (111).
Dieter T. Roth’s chapter on “Mary Magdalene, the Bethany Family, and the Beloved Disciple” studies some of the most enigmatic characters in the Gospels. While Mary Magdalene has been made famous by The Da Vinci Code, the others characters in this chapter are less well-known. Roth begins with the face that there are two women named Mary and an unnamed sinful woman in Luke 7:37–38 who are often conflated in church history. After showing that he was dealing with different women here, Roth examines apocryphal evidence concerning Mary Magdalene. Most of this evidence he dismisses, and rightly so. The picture from Scripture is that Mary Magdalene was an important disciple of Jesus but not his secret wife, etc. less is known about the Bethany family Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. Lazarus only appears and John but Mary and Martha appear in Luke10:38-42. The enigmatic beloved disciple appears only in John and there are a bewildering number of suggestions in the literature for his identity. Roth does not solve this problem nor does he even give his preference for the identity of the beloved disciple. Rather, he describes the role of the beloved disciple in John’s Gospel.
David M. Allen discusses two “Secret Disciples” of Jesus, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. These two friends appeared in John’s account of the burial of Jesus (John 19:38-42). Nicodemus also appears in John 3 as a skeptical yet friendly questioner and again in John 7:45-53 as a defender of Jesus. There is little historical data for Nicodemus although there is an apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, which Allen briefly discusses. Following the suggestion of Richard Bauckham, Allen observes that there was a wealthy priest by the name of Naqdimon ben Gurion (b. Giṭ. 56a) who may represent a later member of Nicodemus’s family. Even less can be known about Joseph of Arimathea. Other than his role in Holy Grail myth, he rarely appears in apocryphal Gospels. Unlike Nicodemus, Joseph appears in Mark 15:43 and parallels where he requests permission to bury Jesus. Mark describes him as “waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God,” a phrase Allen understands as a reference to being a pious Jew, like Tobit. Matthew adds that Joseph was a wealthy man and Luke comments that he was a member of the council who did not agree with the verdict to execute Jesus.
[This review continues in the next post, the “enemies.”]