A Pauline light on the synoptic problem?
June 2nd, 2008 by Danny ZachariasThe relationship between Paul and the Jesus tradition is one of my pet interests that I try to keep up with. Among the numerous articles and books written on the subject, one of the finest articles in my opinion is by Dale Allison— “The Pauline Epistles And The Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern Of The Parallels.” New Testament Studies 28 (1982): 1-32. Allison argues that there is a recognizable pattern to some parallels between Paul’s letters and Synoptic traditions. Various connections in Paul’s writings are not randomly scattered through the Gospels, but are connected to well-defined sections which are generally considered to be early blocks of Jesus tradition. The sections in question are: Luke 6:27-38; Mark 9:33-50; and Mark 6:6b-13 (w/ synoptic parallels). The argument is, then, that Paul knew of early Jesus tradition which existed in identifiable collections, collections reflected (as collections) in the synoptic Gospels.
My interest in this article and connecting it to the synoptic problem lies with the Luke section which Allison discusses. If one were to look at Luke 6:27-38 and its parallels in Matthew, you will notice that Matthew spreads these sayings out, while Luke has it in one concentrated section.
Hopefully, you can see where I’m going with this. We have Alison’s argument that Paul knew of at least three concentrated collections of Jesus material, collections that are presented as collections in Mark and Luke. Yet, the parallels to the Lukan collection are spread out in Matthew. If one accepts the Farrer theory, then how can this be? We would have to believe that Luke collected scattered sayings in Matthew and arranged them into a collection that just so happens to already be known as a collection by Paul— quite the feat! Accepting the two-source theory for the synoptic problem eliminates this conundrum (so does the argument for Matthean posteriority btw). Matthew, Luke, and Paul all knew of this tradition, Luke is the only one who kept it as an integrated whole and placed it in his Gospel.
If we can draw a historical connection between the author of Luke and Paul, then it is possible that Paul was the originator of this collection preserved in Luke— but this is just speculation.
I am very interested to hear what other bloggers think about this, particularly Mark Goodacre who usually blows my arguments out of the water 
Cheers!
June 4th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Jesus’ disciples probably repeated all of his teachings and sayings to Barnabas in Solomon’s Porch. Barnabas must have passed much of it along to Paul, who was absolutely one of Luke’s sources. (By the way, Barnabas himself also informed Luke during their years together in Antioch. So even Barnabas may have been one of Luke’s sources!) To me, that oral chain pretty well settles things, generally, but any evidence toward more specifics, of course, is what we’re usually after, isn’t it?!
Now, let me make sure I understand - it seems the point of your post is about the question of how much (and what specifically) anyone along the way of that communication chain actually wrote anything down… prior to Mark’s Gospel, c.50 AD. It seems your goal is to reconstruct the early _written_ “collections” in particular, and who passed them on to whom.
Please correct me if I’ve missed the point and - honestly and sincerely - please forgive my simplicity/ignorance. I’m just recently trying to learn to speak scholar.
Now for question number one: Does any of your research address other possibile sources that could have been more direct links [than Paul was] for transmitting the [written down] info from the twelve down to Luke?
For example: Perhaps Simon, Lucius, Manen, Rufus, Alexander, Titus or some other brother learned how to write a little bit during the early years of the Antioch church. Perhaps they learned to read & write expressly for the purpose of recording things Barnabas (and, 16 years later, Peter also) was telling them.
What I mean is, it’s possible Paul AND Luke may have been reading together for many years from the very same collections, assuming (as I do) that Luke lived with (or even before) Paul in Antioch! Now that scenario would seem to cut Paul out as the “middleman”, but Pauline text mirroring Lukan text could still be seen in parallel as branches off the same trunk. (OR, if Luke didn’t learn to read & write until Philippi, in which case Paul’s personal scrolls may still have been the first time Luke saw any written “collection” with his own eyes.)
Admittedly, that all begs speculation, but at the moment I’m simply asking if any of it’s been suggested or mentioned before.
Which brings me to question two: You seem to be very tech/research savvy - please, do you know how an independent working stiff like me might get affordable at-home access to all those wonderful database articles? I’m guessing it’s cheaper to just audit a seminary class somewhere and get the access, but maybe you know a better way?
Thanks for humoring the new guy, and for giving me so much to think about tonight. I definitely think you have an interesting blog… I’ll be around.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Bill, thanks for the reply.
your comments are interesting, and I think there is a barnabas link as well, but proving it takes a bit of work.
however, the links between Paul and the gospel traditional is not the main focus of this post. Rather, I’m seeing how this connection may reflect on the synoptic problem. Either Matthew and Luke used “Q” and Mark, or Matthew used Mark, and Luke then used Mark and Matthew. I think this particular connection with Paul and Luke shows that the Farrer theory (no Q) is untenable.
As to your final question— you may be able to get a library card at a local university library and access the databases from the library computers.
There are also a number articles online for free at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/articles.html
June 4th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Ah. So at the moment we’re just eliminating “no Q” as a theory. Thanks.
In focusing on chronology, I’ve studied very little so far about “Q”, but my general impression has always been that it’s spoken of as a single source, wheras common sense to me suggests Luke and Matthew had many sources, perhaps including more than two texts. Would a proper understanding of Q see it as an assortment of traditions and collections, or is Q actually theorized to be just one single piece of writing?
On that note, what’s a good book with a broad intro to the scholarly debate on Q and the Synoptic problem in general?
Thanks again for your help. And see my ps to your ps on my blog.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Okay, education helps. I’ve ordered Mark Goodacre’s book(s) and read up on his site a bit. “No Q” eh? I think my gut says BOTH yeah and naw.
I’m looking forward to more reading, and if Mark can show Luke definitely used Matthew, I’ll be excited to learn how he shows that. But basically, the idea of “Q” as given never made sense. However, the idea of other source material _in general_ being used by Luke. Well, yeah. Duh.
So much left to learn…
Any advice will still be greatly appreciated.