Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:15:26.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Turning Point in Synoptic Criticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

Benjamin Wisner Bacon
Benjamin Wisner Bacon
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Christianity as not only a world-religion, but pre-eminently the world-religion, can be rationally appreciated only in the light of its origins. The nineteenth century, therefore, to which nothing was understood that had not been understood genetically, devoted its newly won methods of historical criticism to a comparison of the contemporary documents, the Pauline Epistles, with Acts, the earliest embodiment of the tradition, that it might learn the facts of the great evolution of the Church from the Synagogue. But inquiry into the story of the second founder of our faith was, from the nature of the case, a mere preliminary to the deeper inquiry into the story of its first Founder.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1908, pp. 48 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1908

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 zu Wrede, Von Reimarus. Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, Tübingen, 1906.Google Scholar

2 Neue Linien in der Kritik der evangelischen Ueberlieferung, Giessen, 1906.Google Scholar

3 Das Evangelium Marci, 1903; Matthaei, 1904; Lucae, 1904; Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 1905.

4 Lukas der Arzt, der Verfasser des dritten Evangeliums und der Apostelgeschichte, 1906; Spruche und Reden Jesu: die zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas, 1907.

5 English translation, from the second German edition, 1904.

8 See Holtzmann, H. J., “Die Marcus-Kontroverse in ihrer heutigen Gestalt,” in Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, X (1907), pp. 18–40 and 161–200Google Scholar; further, “Der gegenwärtige Stand der Leben-Jesu-Forschung,” in Deutsche Literaturzeitung, XXVII (1906), col. 2357–2364, 2413–2422, 2477–2483, 2541–2646Google Scholar.

7 Die evangelische Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, 1838.

8 Der Urevangelist, oder exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtsehaftsverhältniss der drei ersten Evangelien, 1838.

9 Die synoptischen Evangelien, p. 126.

10 Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 43.

11 The Gospel History and its Transmission, 1906, p. 37.

12 See his Markus-Evangelium, 1850; his Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1875; and a continuous series of articles and reviews in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, especially against Holtzmann (1902, pp. 144–146); M. Schultze and Wrede (1903, pp. 4–19); Wellhausen (1904, pp. 182–228, 289–332, 462–524); and R. A. Hoffmann (1905, pp. 309–311).

13 Zahn, “the prince of conservative scholars,” in his commentary, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, 1903, refers the reader to his Einleitung, II, § 57, for the question of the relation of Matthew to Mark.” His answer is, Mark is not dependent on our Matthew, but on the Aramaic original Matthew, which in content and order was identical with ours. Badham's St. Mark's Indebtedness to St. Matthew, 1897, is mentioned by Holtzmann, but not as having independent significance.

14 Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (International Critical Commentary), 1907.

15 Einleitung, 3 ed., 1892, p. 356 f.

16 Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthäus benutzt? 1880.

17 In the German the symbol is not strictly algebraic; it assumes a single document. In English it may be used to designate the strictly definable entity, the non-Marcan common element of Matthew and Luke whencesoever derived. See Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, 1907, p. 24.

18 Die Lehre Jesu, I, 1886. This analytical portion of the work was omitted from the English translation.

19 Die Logia Jesu, 1898.

20 Sprüche und Reden Jesu, 1907.

21 Synoptische Evangelien, p . 142.

22 Synoptische Frage, p. 226.

23 Weiss, B., Das Markusevangelium, 1872Google Scholar; Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas, 9 ed., 1901; Die Geschichtlichkeit des Markusevangeliums, 1905.

24 Weiss, J., Das “Iteste Evangelium, 1903Google Scholar; Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, I, 2 ed., 1907.

25 Quellen des Lebens Jesu, 1906, p. 71.

26 English translation by Wilkinson, 1907.

27 St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1895.

28 Wernle, Quellen des Lebens Jesu, 1906, p. 35, formulates these results as follows:

1. The short Gospel is the source of the two longer.

2. Besides it, the two long Gospels are based in common on a Greek discoursesource.

3. Finally, Matthew and Luke have each their share of peculiar tradition.

29 Weiss, B., Geschichtlichkeit des Markusevangeliums, 1905.Google Scholar

30 Mark 5 1 14 20 6 45 53 7 31, etc.

31 Mark 3 6 22 7 1 8 34 9 14.

32 ἀνῆλθον ἱστορῆσαι Kηϕᾶν, Gal, 1 18; cf, 1 Cor. 15 1–5, ώϕθη Kηϕᾷ.

33 The tradition of the Antiochian parentage of Luke, reported by Eusebius (HE. iii, 4, 7), finds strong support, if applied not to the man, but to the writings, in the phenomena of Acts, some of which are lightly touched upon by Harnack (Lukas der Arzt, p. 15; cf. Bacon, “Acts versus Galatians,” in American Journal of Theology, July, 1907), and in the singular choice of this gospel by Marcion, disciple of Cerdo of Antioch.

34 E.g. Matt. 24 51 = Luke 12 46; cf. Isa. 53 12, “divide him his portion with the great.”

35 Acts 1 1.

36 1 Tim. 6 3.

37 Ep. Polyc. 7 1.

38 E.g. 1 Clem. 62 3.

39 Cf. Matt. 28 20 with Papias, ἐντολὰς.… παρὰ τοῦ Kυρίου τῇ πίστει δεδομένας.

40 ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα.

41 Acts 10 37–40.

42 Rom. 13 8–10; Gal. 5 14 6 15; Mark 12 28–34.

43 So uniformly in the Ebionite Clementine writings.

44 Acts 3 18–26.

45 Matt. 19 17–19; contrast the parallel in Mark.

46 John 20 31; cf. Mark 1 1 11 9 7 15 39.

47 Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, 1841–1842; Kritik der Evangelien, 1850–1852.

48 Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christenthums, 1893.

49 Das Messiasgeheimnis, 1901.

50 Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 2 ed., 1900. See also Das älteste Evangelium, 1903.

51 Von Reimarus zu Wrede, p. 306, n. 1.

52 Op. cit. p. 303; cf. Holtzmann, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, X, 37–40.

53 Acts 21 18; Gal. 2 1–10.

54 The term is applied by Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, 1901, p. 15, with rather inadequate application of the principle. Wrede's Messiasgeheimnis, 1901, in its positive contributions, which greatly outweigh the negative, marks the new development in this direction. Note the citations from Jülicher, Wernle, Pfleiderer, B. and J. Weiss, Harnack, Bousset, Frommel, and Zimmermann, made by Holtzmann, l. c, pp. 26–28, as typical of the aetiological tendency.

55 The omission of this passage by Matthew should be studied in the light of Matt. 7 21–23, which inverts the sub-Pauline principle that acknowledgment of Jesus as Lord and exercise of the gifts of the Spirit is proof of discipleship.

58 See Bacon, , “Acts versus Galatians: the Crux of Apostolic History,” in American Journal of Theology, XI (1907), pp. 454–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 In all cases the parallels in Matthew and Luke must be compared. In nearly every case of Pauline radicalism in Mark it will be found that Luke omits the passage, while Matthew inverts its sense by verbal changes.

58 See the authorities cited in Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, X, pp. 38–40.

59 On the influence of Q or some factor of it on Mark I 1-13, see Bacon, , “The Prologue of Mark,” in Journal of Biblical Literature, XXVI (1907), pp. 84–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Matt. 28 30 19 17–19.

61 Matt. 5 17–20 7 22–23 13 39–41 24 11–12 .