The Competitive Textualization of the Synoptic Tradition

Abstract

Chapter 4 traces instances where the Synoptic authors self-consciously draw attention to their tradition’s status as written in bids for authority, often in reference to prior Gospels that they consider inferior. An initial section introduces the terms “textual self-consciousness” and “competitive textualization.” Following this section, the chapter addresses moments in each of the Synoptic Gospels where the author or authors draw attention to their status as written tradition. For Mark, the chapter highlights Mark 13:14, though it also shows how Mark is aware of Jewish Scriptures and positions himself with reference to them. For Matthew, the chapter makes an original scholarly contribution by focusing upon Matthew 1:1’s reference to the Gospel as a biblos (“book”), which shows that what Mark considered a “gospel” Matthew considered a “book.” For Luke, the chapter focuses upon the Lukan prologue of Luke 1:1–4, and specifically Luke’s awareness that he is entering a market for Jesus books by writing his Gospel.

The Gospel of John as Model for Literate Authors and their Texts in Epistula Apostolorum and Apocryphon of James (NHC I,2)

“… 11. The Beloved Disciple does feature in Thatcher’s monograph (2006: xv-xvi, 17-20, 24-32, 43-48, 101, 159-64), but his methodological orientation around social memory theory does not incorporate the Beloved Disciple’s projected literacy. On Thatcher’s use of social memory in this study, see further Keith 2016: 335-37. On Thatcher’s interpretation of the Beloved Disciple, see also Thatcher 2001, 2018. …”

“…In both 20.30-31 and 21.24-25, attention to the gospel’s written medium differentiates chosen tradition from extraneous tradition by specifying the chosen tradition’s textualized form. ‘Collectively, John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25 assert the superiority of the Gospel of John, as a Jesus book, to any other Jesus traditions that do exist or could exist in the future, particularly those that might also take the form of a book’ (Keith 2016: 326-27). 24 Whatever the alternative tradition not textualized in the Johannine account, written rendering in the gospel itself is key to demarcating what is included and excluded from gospel composition.…”

“…Thatcher (2005, 2006) calls attention to the prominent emphasis GJohn places on its written medium and considers this a rhetorical appeal to the socio-cultural currency of written texts in the face of reconstructed opponents. Keith (2016) rather explains this interest in textuality as awareness of competition with existing gospel writings. 9 Additionally, Lieu (2013) likens the import of textuality in GJohn to parallels in apocalyptic literature.…”

“…In the tradition of Bultmann (1971) and Hengel (1989), Baum (2012) provides a thorough defence of this position and recent rehearsal of the debate. I acknowledge that the weight placed on linguistic dissimilarity can be questioned – an objection raised by Keith (2016: 322) in his overview of current support for the opposing view. Nonetheless, I agree with Baum’s (2012: 244-47) judgment that this point does not outweigh the relative strengths of the editorial position.…”

“… 9. Keith (2016: 335-37) commends Thatcher’s (2005, 2006) spotlight on the yet untapped import of Johannine ‘textual self-consciousness’ but suggests that Thatcher falls prey to a ‘false choice’ between community conflict as motive for the gospel’s textualization and the prospective impetus of exposure to prior written gospels. …”