What is Goulder’s take on Luke?
Goulder became known for developing the idea that all the pericopes in the Gospels should be read in parallel with the synagogue readings from the Old Testament. Now, more people have made that claim, but Goulder is also attempting to reconstruct that reading schedule. He has faced much criticism for it, and it is surrounded by many uncertainties, but it is plausible. It is plausible because such a thing must have existed, although it may always have looked somewhat different from his reconstruction. Due to all the criticism, he retreats a bit from it in his book on Luke, but maintains with great certainty that the major feasts of the synagogue can be found in the pericopes of the Gospels. He was a student of Farrer and follows Farrer in his interpretation that Luke used Matthew, but views Mark as the first Gospel, like Farrer and unlike Butler. Here I present his view. I am doing this in the run-up to presenting Farmer’s view, who advocates the order: Matthew, Luke, Mark. I leave it to the reader to weigh the options and form their own judgment. Apart from his view on Mark, it is also interesting to read Goulder’s work to see how he arrives at the rejection of the supposed Q source.
“Paradigm Shift”
At the beginning of his book on Luke, Goulder makes an important methodological consideration [1]. He calls into question the prevailing consensus regarding the Gospels. He resorts to Kuhn’s book on paradigm shifts [2]. Every science is characterized by a set of hypotheses. One can call this a paradigm. Together, these provide a certain perspective on the facts. Once a certain paradigm has been accepted, you only truly participate as a scientist if you work within that paradigm. There may be counter-evidence, and that is the spice of life, because otherwise there is nothing to argue about. Normally, such counter-evidence can still be accommodated within the existing paradigm, or it may turn out to be wrong, or, as is often the case, over time something will be found that explains it within the usual paradigm [3]. Consequently, one continues to work along the existing lines. Nevertheless, counter-evidence can continue to accumulate, and a new generation may suddenly come up with a new paradigm. This constitutes a revolution in science. The point Kuhn makes in his book is that such a revolution often does not come about through the accumulation of the evidence, but because the paradigm no longer suffices for other reasons. People no longer want to see it that way. But as long as such a paradigm is in power, it is incredibly elastic and can be endlessly adapted. You can always find a line of reasoning by which something could be explained after all, even if it is absolutely not obvious. This is also the case with the inherited paradigm regarding the interconnectedness and succession of the Gospels, according to Goulder. Goulder describes the complex of hypotheses regarding the current and prevailing paradigm in eight points:
1. It is possible followed the trace back from the texts to actual words and events from Jesus’ time.
2. These diverse traditions were preserved and transmitted in various Christian communities and consequently underwent erosion and/or were also reinforced in their meaning.
3. The first collection of traditions is Mark, written around 70 and with its own kind of erosions and reinforcements.
4. There was a second collection of words of Jesus, a source Q, which has been lost, but which must have contained material that Luke and Matthew possess but Mark does not.
5. Matthew wrote his Gospel around the year 80, and it consists of a combination of Mark and Q, alongside a third source M, which only Matthew had at his disposal.
6. Luke wrote his Gospel around the year 90 for the Christians from among the Gentiles; he had Mark and Q as sources, did not know Matthew, but did possess his own source, L.
7. John was written around 100, although this is increasingly in doubt, and he had access to a tradition from the sphere of Luke and the sphere of Mark.
8. The Gospel of Thomas still contains old material, words, and parables.
In the philosophy of science, Karl Popper introduced the criterion of falsifiability. By this he meant that a certain hypothesis must be testable, because otherwise that hypothesis is meaningless. It then has no distinguishing value. You can claim all sorts of things and come up with all kinds of hypotheses and thus always make the story work. According to Goulder, that is also the problem with the above system of hypotheses. They are very difficult to refute, even if they are not really obvious. You can always reason towards them. But the price of that is that you then no longer have a good criterion for truth in your hands. That is why Goulder puts forward as a criterion that the simplest explanation has the greatest probability. The burden of proof then lies with the more complex hypotheses.
The minor agreements between Matthew and Luke
Goulder illustrates this with the problem of the minor agreements between Luke and Matthew as opposed to Mark [4]. There are very many of them. If Luke and Matthew did not know each other, what about those literal similarities? Well, the classic answer is that they are explained by the common source Q, which both Luke and Matthew used. This source, Q, however, according to most of its proponents, contains no stories but only or almost exclusively words of Jesus. Therefore, Q has no Passion narrative either. If that is the case, then we need only find a small minor agreement between Luke and Matthew versus Mark in the Passion narrative to refute the Q hypothesis. Such a minor agreement does exist. According to Goulder, there are as many as six, but he mentions only the one he considers the most important. That is:
“67Then they spat in His face and struck Him. Others punched Him 68 and said: ‘Prophesy now for us, Messiah, who is it that struck You?’”
Matthew 26: 67
“65Then some began to spit on Him; they blindfolded Him and struck Him and said: ‘Prophesy now!’, and the servants also gave Him blows”
Mark 14: 65
“63The men who held Jesus captive mocked Him and scourged Him. 64They blindfolded Him and said: ‘Prophesy now, who is it that struck You?’”
Luke 22: 63,64
In the underlined text, Matthew and Luke agree over against Mark. However, such agreement could also be coincidental, because they happened to make the same change. It is also possible that a copyist adapted the text to the other gospel on his own authority. That defense mechanism is the course of the hardliners, according to Goulder. There is also a more cautious strategy, which suggests that possibly an older version of Mark contained the text found in Matthew and Luke. The current text of Mark would then represent a later version or final redaction. However, in that case, Mark must once have received a new version. That makes the theory more complicated and, according to Goulder’s criteria, therefore less likely. There may also have been oral traditions that provided the text for Luke and Matthew. Anything is possible. The problem at the end of the day is that the hypothesis is no longer falsifiable. The hypothesis of a collection of words of Jesus in a lost writing Q has become dogma. Every refutation of the hypothesis is justified. Throughout his book, Goulder provides a detailed analysis of the content of the supposed source Q. He concludes that the reconstruction of Q yields a text that is actually indistinguishable from Matthew. Why must what is evident be denied? Q is not necessary and did not exist.
The historical development
How did it actually happen, then? Goulder takes the position that the Gospel of Mark is the result of John’s, James’, and Peter’s conception of the meaning of the life, cross, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Together, the three of them led the first congregation in Jerusalem for a considerable period. As for Luke and Matthew, he takes the position that they are of a later date and that the words of Matthew and parables of Luke cannot actually be attributed to this early period [5]. In Mark, Goulder reads a tense expectation of a speedy return; be vigilant (Mark 13:37), for example. In the other Gospels, this is given less emphasis. This means that in those Gospels, the end is no longer expected so soon. There is already a certain delay [6]. When a mission fails, as the mission among the Jews that Mark presents actually failed, the process of coming to terms with it goes through a number of emotional states, such as hope, disappointment, acknowledgment, and bitterness. In Mark, therefore, we see hope; in Paul, in 55, we see disappointment. In the Epistle to the Romans, he says that he would be willing to be cut off from Christ if only he could save his Jewish brothers (Romans 9:3). In Matthew, we see a certain formalism emerging. Formally, the mission to Israel continues, but this only results in disappointments and abuse (Matthew 23). The acknowledgment of the failure is evident in Acts (especially 28:17-31), and we find unbridled bitterness in the Gospel of John [7].
It took the church a long time to move from the high expectations of Mark to the long time horizon of Luke. In Luke, in the parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus, judgment upon both of them does not come until death. The Second Coming of the Lord is therefore not expected before death. In between lies the voice of Matthew. He has the parable of the bridegroom who is expected, but the ten virgins who are expecting him fall asleep and some do not have enough oil (Matthew 25:1-13). So, Goulder.
Characteristics of Luke
Goulder sees in Luke more than merely an editor [8]. He is also someone with his own creativity and his own (version of the) message. An example is the parable of the father of the two sons in Matthew, of whom one listens and the other does not. He transforms this into the parable of the Prodigal Son [9]. This is entirely in line with the Jewish Midrash tradition, which also works in this way. Much material that is exclusively from Luke has all the characteristics of Luke’s style and choice of words. Goulder therefore attributes this to Luke himself. Stories such as that of the young man of Nain who is by Jesus raised from the dead were invented by Luke himself, but not entirely out of thin air. Luke must be considered as someone who expanded, explained, and elaborated on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, added colorful details, references to the Old Testament, and so on.
In his parables, Luke presents the reality of the social middle class of his day. It is not about millions of debt, as is often the case with Matthew, but about realistic debts in the everyday life of a well-to-do middle class in the Greco-Roman Empire. He has fewer allegorical stories than his predecessors and his parables are often illustrations. Often, the main characters do not have a good reputation, like rich, honorable kings, farmers, or businessmen. His characters are given more color than those in Mark and Matthew. They are in dialogue with one another and also consult with themselves: what should I do now? According to Goulder, Luke adapted the parables to the needs of his congregations [10]. We could therefore say that, as Paul states, in Luke we no longer know Christ according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (2 Corinthians 5:16). The Gospel writers do not want to describe exactly how things happened, but what the meaning of Jesus Christ is.
Luke is the great storyteller in the New Testament. The rich man, for example, is not a caricature compared to the poor Lazarus, but a man of flesh and blood who, although indifferent and contemptuous of the beggar at his door, is nevertheless also concerned for his brothers, even amidst his own torments. Luke’s characters also speak to themselves; you hear their reflections. In the parable of the vineyard, for instance, only in Mark does it state: “6 Finally, only his beloved son remained; he sent him lastly to them, thinking: They will surely respect my son” (Mark 12:6). In Luke, it then says: “13 Then the owner of the vineyard said: “What shall I do? “I will send my beloved son to them; surely they will respect him” (Luke 20:13). Luke also features longer conversations and dialogues. For example, the guests who do not wish to attend the feast their master intends to give are not merely described in their doings but they speak up, offering pretexts and justifications. Luke pays attention to detail and to the work people do. In Matthew, the wise builder of a sturdy house merely lays a good foundation, but in Luke, the builder is someone who “dug a deep hole and laid the foundation on rock” (Luke 6:48). Moreover, Luke has far fewer allegorical descriptions, and instead features many historical details of real people.
Matthew’s parables are often in the indicative mood. They describe the actions of God or Christ. They often begin with “The kingdom of heaven is like…”. Luke’s parables are often in the imperative mood, because the focus is on the intention. They point Christians to their duty. We must act like the merciful Samaritan, and not like the Pharisee, and so on.
Luke also attempts more than once to smooth over the sharp edges of the story for the Roman authorities. In Mark, for example, Jesus consistently says nothing to Pilate during the trial and is mocked by a group of soldiers who put a purple so-called royal robe on him. In Luke, Pilate sends Jesus to King Herod, and there it is Herod’s soldiers who mock Jesus. Luke’s Roman readers may perhaps feel less criticized by this. There are more examples of this, such as the “new teaching” that Jesus supposedly gives. In Mark, it states: “27Everyone was so astonished that they said to one another: ‘What is all this? A new teaching with great authority! Even when He commands unclean spirits, He is obeyed’” (Mark 1:27). But Luke has written there: “6All were astonished. They discussed the incident among themselves and said: ‘What are these things He says? How is it that He has the authority and the power to give His commands to unclean spirits so that they leave people?’” (Luke 4:36). That is more moderate. That, too, is a justification over against the Romans, because the Romans greatly respected inherited religious traditions. One always had to be careful not to offend any gods, and therefore one also had to be careful with innovations and new things. An example is also the trial of Stephen, in which he is accused of saying that Jesus would destroy the temple. That is exactly an accusation brought against Jesus in Mark. And Luke does not adopt that from Mark when it comes to Jesus (we must add: if the adoption goes in that direction from Mark to Luke, but such is indeed Goulder’s view).
Luke’s Greek is better than that of the other evangelists. He uses better constructions, more beautiful rhetorical sentences. At the same time, his Greek is often modeled after the Septuagint. His Hebrew style of expression originates in the Septuagint, not in the fact that he knows Hebrew. He is well acquainted with Jewish customs and traditions. His geographical descriptions are also accurate.
[1] Goulder, M.D., 1989. Luke: A New Paradigm, Part I, Sheffield Academic Press.
[2] Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions, University of Chicago Press.
[3] Goulder Ibid 4.
[4] Goulder Ibid 6.
[5] Goulder Ibid 77.
[6] Goulder Ibid 64.
[7] Goulder Ibid 65 The question, however, is which mission has actually failed: the one to the Gentiles or the one to the Jews? The text of Goulder present mention it here. After all, the mission to the Gentiles was very successful, but it failed to get the Jewish brothers on board. Here Goulder is unclear. In Mark, the mission among the Jews no longer holds a central position. Mark has already left behind the debate in which Matthew is still embroiled regarding the correct interpretation of the law.
[8] Goulder Ibid 75.
[9] Goulder Ibid 124.
[10] Goulder Ibid 87.
