A Discussion of the Jerusalem School Hypothesis
A Discussion of the Jerusalem School HypothesisThe following is a brief bibliography concerning this hypothesis:
A fuller bibliography was compiled by David Bivin, who also has graciously provided an overview of the JSH.
Stephen Carlson, scarlson@mindspring.com
From: ERICHOVEE@aol.com
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 01:18:42 -0400
To: scarlson@washdc.mindspring.com
cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Priority of the Synoptics
On At 11:58 9/18/96, I wrote:
...This summer I picked up a book titled A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark, written by a Robert Lisle Lindsey, second edition 1973. His research argues for a view of synoptic priority that I have not encountered elsewhere, namely that Luke comes first.The case for Lukan priority rests primarily on an analysis indicating that Luke (in Greek) is the only one of the synoptics that can be readily and idiomatically translated back into Hebrew (as an initial source document)....
On 09/19/96 Stephen C. Carlson replied:
I'm a little bit familiar with Lindsey's theory. The problem with his argument is that Luke consciously imitated the style of the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. As a result, it is not particularly surprising that a Hebraicizing style for Greek text is readily translatable into Hebrew. Other than that, he postulates two hypothetical documents and seven lines of dependence, which is judged to be "too complicated" by most.
Somewhat belatedly, here are some added thoughts that may also tie in with recent Crosstalk discussion:
1. Lindsey agrees that: "There seems to be no escape from the conclusion that the ancestry of our Greek Gospels is more complicated than we could wish but the remarkable fact is that when we have isolated the severe Markan redaction (of Luke) and noted its influence on Matthew we are still left with with an extensive series of excellent Hebraic-Greek narrative and sayings contexts." Lindsey suggests a stemma or schematic that starts with a Hebrew saga, thereafter translated with "great literalness" to a Greek "Grundschrift", which is subsequently separated between a series of Q sayings excerpts and a protonarrative digest, then to Luke, Mark and, finally Matthew. At least the added complication of one or more protonarrative documents is not at all inconsistent with prior observations of several Crosstalkers.
2. Even if Luke intended to imitate the Hebraicizing style of the Septuagint, this would seem a formidable challenge (with new material) unless there were an original document in Hebrew from which to draw.
3. I perhaps oversimplified Lindsey's analysis as resting "primarily" on ability to readily retranslate from the Greek text back to Hebrew. Lindsey also conducts extensive verbal and sequencing comparisons of the three synoptics drawing, for example, from the work of Herbert Marsh in the 19th century with the conclusion that "Matthew and Luke are unable to demonstrate long verbal parallels opposite each other if they are also opposite Mark." In a forward to the Second Edition, David Flusser of Hebrew University observes that: "If we follow Lindsey's diagnosis of the Synoptic situation it is not surprising that we often find many evidences to suggest that Luke's version is the most accurate and that Matthew has been too often unduly influenced by Mark, even when he is correcting Mark by his parallel texts" (independent of Luke).
4. Lindsey furthers his discussion with what he terms the Markan Cross-Factor which essentially says: (a) the Triple Tradition (of all three synoptics) shows close agreement between Matthew and Luke in the order of about 77 pericopae but low agreement in verbal identity; and (b) the Double Tradition (of Luke-Matthew) shows little agreement between Luke and Matthew in the order of 42 pericopae but high agreement in verbal identity. In other words: "It is obvious that the Gospel of Mark is somehow responsible for the particular pattern the evidence takes and the only question is how." Without Mark, there is considerable divergence in the ordering of the Matthean and Lukan accounts.
5. Lindsey argues that Matthew often represents a combination of the story in Mark and Luke, an example being the baptism of Jesus. Matthew agrees with Luke that John did not necessarily physically baptize Jesus into the Jordan, that the heavens opened rather than were split open (as in Mark), and that the Holy Spirit came upon rather than into Jesus. However, Matthew is consistent with Mark with Jesus coming "immediately" out of the water, and that Jesus "saw" the Spirit descending.
6. In short, rather than being first out of the box, Mark appears to follow at least one of the other writers with what may well represent the Readers' Digest version of the Synoptics. Mark is most disconnected from any Hebraic origin (though the Greek is rough). Mark repeatedly uses a number of Greek adverbs or adjectives which appear to have no direct Hebrew equivalent. A good example is the term "immediately" (used 40 times in Mark, 7 times in Matthew and once in Luke). Mark is fast with dramatic action and relatively short on any systematic theology except perhaps for polemic thrusts as with his universal disparagement of disciples. Lindsey also suggests one other factor, namely that Mark may be having a little fun. In short: "To look for some great theological emphasis in Mark is, if I may be allowed to use the phrase, to miss the fun. Mark is really a kind of word-magician. He gets the reader's attention by using a striking word or dramatic phrase and then proceeds to keep the reader guessing as to when the expression will next appear. Perhaps his greatest skill lies in carefully concealing his sources."
7. Professor Flusser comments that in a time when the view that Mark is a principal source of the other Synoptics is "all but unanimous", Lindsey's work provides "a decisive new clue to the understanding of the Synoptic relationships and an equally important clue to the right approach to the Gospel of Mark." However, a primary drawback of the Lindsey theory is the placement of Matthew at the back of the pack. Is there another alternative that brings together Lindsey's approach with that of an earlier proto-Matthew? If so, such a synthesis could perhaps better address three issues: (a) consistency with statements of early patriarchs as to the primacy of Matthew (in initial form); (b) subsequent addition of text in Matthew driven by the perceived need to establish a better link with OT prophecy (e.g. the Isaiah 7:14 misinterpretation of a virgin birth); and (c) opportunity for a redacted Matthew to respond to then available texts Mark (and possibly Luke) in the context of the 85 CE conflict between Jewish and Greek strands of early Christianity.
Eric Hovee, ERICHOVEE@aol.com