Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I
A critical issue in New Testament studies is the relationship between
John and the Synoptic Gospels. Until World War II, John was
generally believed to be literarily dependent on the Synoptics.1 This
position is still held today,2 but no longer with a consensus of opinion.
At present the strongest contender for this view is Frans Neirynck
who believes that John knew and used all three Synoptics.3
1. B.W. Bacon, The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (New York:
Moffat, Yard & Co., 1910), pp. 366-68. Bacon argued that John quoted Mark and
was influenced by Luke, but basically ignored Matthew. B.H. Streeter, The Four
Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1924), pp. 395-417. Streeter argued for John's
dependence on Mark and Luke, but not Matthew.
2. CK. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 2nd edn, 1978 [1962]), p. 14 and passim. Barrett argues that the Fourth
Evangelist was dependent certainly on Mark, probably on Luke, and possibly on
Matthew.
3. F. Neirynck, with the collaboration of J. Delobel, T. Snoy, G. van Belle,
F. van Segbroeck, Jean et les Synoptiques: Examen critique de l'exgse de
M.-E. Boismard (BETL, 39; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979).
F. Neirynck, 'John and the Synoptics', in M. de Jonge (ed.), L'vangile de Jean:
Sources, rdaction, thologie (BETL, 44; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1977),
pp. 73-106; F. Neirynck, 'John and the Synoptics: The Empty Tomb Stories', NTS
30 (1984), pp. 161-87. See also J.A. Bailey, The Traditions Common to the
Gospels of Luke and John (Leiden: Brill, 1963). Bailey argues that John used Luke
in some passages; in others he used only related traditions. J. Blinzler, Johannes und
118
119
II
I would like to argue for John's literary dependence on the Synoptics
(primarily on the Gospel of Matthew) and against the second and third
positions stated above, by drawing the reader's attention to the
Hebrew text of Matthew I published in 1987.10 In my judgment there
is reason to believe that the author of the Fourth Gospel used a text
like the Hebrew Matthew and that he then polemized against it. I will
say a few words about the Hebrew Matthew and then present the evidence for my view.
I extracted the Hebrew Matthew from a fourteenth-century Jewish
polemical treatise, entitled Even Bohan, written by the Spanish author,
Shem-Tob ben-Isaac ben-Shaprut. In the treatise Shem-Tob quotes the
entire Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew and occasionally makes disparaging remarks against it. For my edition, I reproduced ShemTob's Gospel text, supplied it with an English translation, and offered
some critical analysis. Since its publication, I have been engaged in
more extensive study of this text and have made periodic updates to
my conclusions.11
9. D. Moody Smith, 'John and the Synoptics: Some Dimensions of the
Problem', NTS 26 (1980), p. 444. See also D. Moody Smith, 'John and the
Synoptics', Bib 63 (1982), pp. 102-13; idem, Johannine Christianity (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 1984), pp. 97-172. Cf. R.E. Brown, The
Gospel according to John (AB, 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966), I, p. xlvii.
Brown argues that by and large the 'evidence does not favor Johannine dependence
on the Synoptics or their sources. John drew on an independent source of tradition
about Jesus, similar to the sources that underlie the Synoptics.' Bent Noack argues
that a cross-fertilization between Johannine and Synoptic traditions took place during
a pre-literary oral tradition period. See B. Noack, Zur johanneischen Tradition:
Beitrge zur Kritik an der literarkritischen Analyse des vierten Evangeliums
(Copenhagen: Rosenkilde, 1954).
10. G. Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text
(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987).
11. G. Howard, 'The Textual Nature of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew', JBL 108
(1989), pp. 239-57; Note on the Short Ending of Matthew', HTR 81 (1988),
pp. 117-20; Primitive Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Tol'doth Yeshu', NTS
34 (1988), pp. 60-70; Note on Codex Sinaiticus and Shem-Tob's Hebrew
120
Matthew', NovT 34 (1992), pp. 46-47; 'Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the
Pseudo-Clementine Writings' (Forthcoming).
12. The Old Syriac of Matthew reads 'abode'. Mark tt (W) 33 pc lat boP1 Aeth
read . According to Jerome, In Isaia 11.2 (PL, XXIV, p. 145), the Gospel
according to the Hebrews reads: 'it came to rest upon him' (requievit super eum).
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
121
122
123
Such remarks have led scholars to speculate that the author of the
Fourth Gospel was polemizing against the followers of John the
Baptist, who exalted their master above Jesus. At the end of the last
century Baldensperger argued for this position.14
Bultmann held a similar view. He also argued that the Prologue to
John was originally a hymn of the Baptist community, which the
Evangelist, a former member of this community, had changed to refer
to Jesus.15
Others accept the polemic against John the Baptist in the Fourth
Gospel, but argue that this is not a major concern in John,16 or that
the evidence for a rival Baptist community, against which the author
of John could polemize, is too scanty to be conclusive.
Brown, for instance, lists as the evidence for a Baptist community
the following: (1) Acts 18.25. Apollos is said to have known only the
baptism of John; (2) Acts 19.1-7. reference is made to twelve
Ephesian disciples who had received John's baptism; and (3) the thirdcentury (perhaps based on second-century sources) Pseudo-Clementine
Recognitions 1.54, 60 (PG, I, cols. 1237-38 and 1240) where it is said
that the disciples of John declared their master to be the messiah.
Brown concludes that this evidence is too scanty to argue that a rival
Baptist group in the first century claimed that John was the messiah.17
One might add the evidence of the Synoptic Gospels. They report
that some of the contemporaries of John and Jesus confused their
identities (Mk 6.14; 8.28); others wondered whether John might be
the Christ (Lk. 3.15). Also considerable attention has been given to
the first chapter of Luke, some scholars arguing that John receives an
exalted position in his birth account, and that this account is based on
ancient Baptist sources.18
Nevertheless, it is difficult to identify clear-cut evidence for a
Baptist community in the first century, which elevated John the
14. W. Baldensperger, Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums, sein polemischapologetischer Zweck (Tbingen: Mohr, 1898).
15. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1971), pp. 17-18.
16. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, pp. 167-69.
17. Brown, The Gospel according to John, p. lxviii.
18. D. Vlter, 'Die Apokalypse des Zacharias im Evangeliums des Lucas',
Theologisch&Tijdschrift 30 (1896), pp. 244-69; M. Goguel, Au seuil de l'vangile:
Jean Baptiste (Paris: Payot, 1927), p. 74.
124
Baptist to messianic status, and with whom the Gospel of John was in
conflict.
John A.T. Robinson says,
The sole direct evidence that there was such a group at any time is in fact
confined to two passages in the Clementine Recognitions (1.54 and 60),
which are notoriously unreliable as history and cannot at best take us back
beyond the second and third centuries AD.19
Earlier Robinson wrote,
That there were elements of John's following which did notfindtheir way
into the Church is indeed very probable; that these elements constituted a
rival group to Christianity in the first century, with a competing
Christology, is, I believe, without any foundation whatever.20
When I first examined Shem-Tob's text of Matthew, I was immediately struck by its treatment of John the Baptist. It, in fact, depicts the
Baptist in messianic terms. If the polemic in the Fourth Gospel was
directed against the followers of John the Baptist, one could hardly
think of a more appropriate document to represent this community
than Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. In order to demonstrate this point,
I direct the reader to the following passages.
Matthew 11.11. 'Truly I say to you, among all those born of women
none has risen greater than John the Baptizer.' The familiar phrase
that follows in the Greek text, 'yet he who is least in the kingdom of
heaven is greater than he', is absent in the Hebrew. Shem-Tob's text
leaves John's premier greatness unmodified.
There is further evidence that this type of text circulated in the
ancient world. In the Lukan parallel (Lk. 7.28) MSS 5, 475* and
1080* omit all qualification to the Baptist's greatness, in agreement
with Shem-Tob's reading.
This reading can also be inferred from the Pseudo-Clementine
writings. In Recognitions 1.60.1-3, it is reported that one of the disciples of John argued from the words of Jesus that John, not Jesus, is
the Christ. The Clementine text reads as follows:
19. J.A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John (London: SCM Press, 1985),
p. 172.
20. J.A.T. Robinson, 'Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection', NTS 3-4
(1956-58), p. 279 n. 2.
125
Jesus himself declared that John was greater than all men and all prophets.
'If, then', said he, 'he be greater than all, he must be held to be greater
than Moses, and than Jesus himself. But if he be the greatest of all, then
must he be the Christ.'21
Clearly this argument has validity only if based on a Shem-Tob-type
text.
Matthew 11.13. Tor all the prophets and the law spoke concerning
(?v) John.' This is to be contrasted to the Greek which reads: Tor all
the prophets and the law prophesied until () John'. 2 2
Matthew 17.11. 'He answered them and said: Indeed Elijah will come
and will save (iPBfm) all the world.' This is to be contrasted to the
Greek which reads: 'He replied, "Elijah does come, and he is to
restore () all things'".
Matthew 21.32. 'Because John came to you in the way of righteous
ness and you did not believe him. But violent men and harlots believed
him and you saw it and did not turn in repentance. Also afterward you
did not repent to believe him.' The Greek reads in basic agreement
with this text, but, in the canonical Matthew, the words are spoken to
the chief priests and the elders of the people (v. 23). In the Hebrew
they are spoken to Jesus' own disciples (v. 28) and the following
comment, absent in the Greek, appears: 'He who has ears to hear let
him hear in disgrace'.
In summary, this series of readings asserts that none is greater than
John, the prophets and the law spoke concerning John, John (Elijah) is
to save all the world, and Jesus' own disciples are disgraced for not
having believed John.
This is clearly a description of John the Baptist which traditional
Christianity, including the Fourth Gospel, reserved for Jesus. One can
assume, I think, that if the author of the Fourth Gospel had had access
21. et ecce unus ex discipulis Iohannis adfirmabat, Christum Iohannem fuisse, et
non Iesum; in tantum, inquit, ut et ipse Iesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis
maiorem esse pronuntiaverit Iohannem. si ergo, inquit, maior est omnibus, sine
dubio et Moyseo et ipso Iesu maior habendus est. quod si omnium maior est, ipse est
Christus.
22. The Greek reflects the Hebrew , a strikingly similar form to Shem-Tob' s bv.
126
2.
ABSTRACT
There is reason to argue that the Gospel of John is dependent upon a Shem-Tob-type
text of Matthew. There are eighteen readings in the Hebrew Matthew in agreement
with the Fourth Gospel where there is no agreement between the Greek Matthew and
John. The origin of these agreements may be due to the author of the Fourth Gospel
borrowing from a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text. The Hebrew Matthew elevates
John the Baptist virtually to messianic status. The polemic in the Fourth Gospel
against John the Baptist may be directed toward a Shem-Tob-type Matthaean text.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.