RBL 02/2009

Baum, Armin D.
Der mndliche Faktor und seine Bedeutung fr die
synoptische Frage: Analogien aus der antiken
Literatur, der Experimentalpsychologie, der Oral
Poetry-Forschung und dem rabbinischen
Traditionswesen
Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter
49
Tbingen: Francke, 2008. Pp. xvii + 526. Paper. 78.00.
ISBN 9783772082665.

Lars Kierspel
Trinity College of the Bible
Newburgh, Indiana
In this well-argued monograph, Armin Baum, professor of New Testament at the Freie
Theologische Akademie in Giessen, Germany, reexamines the Synoptic problem and
reevaluates theories of literary dependence aided by analogies from ancient literature and
insights from cognitive psychology, experimental psychology, and oral poetry research.
Baum argues that the weight of this interdisciplinary approach disqualifies theories of
literary dependence (including the versions of H. J. Cadbury and J. D. G. Dunn) and
supports explanatory models that focus on the Synoptic authors exclusively oral access to
the same traditions (so with P. Fiebig, A. B. Lord, B. Chilton, B. Reicke).
Chapter A presents the data of Synoptic agreement and disagreement and reviews the use
of ancient analogies in previous research. In addition to observing an average agreement
in wording (4050%) and in order (8590%), Baum points out that the variability of
agreement in individual parallels ranges from 0% to 100% (2527). Besides these rather
common observations, Baum also examines verbal agreement between parallels in
speeches of Jesus (4160%), in poetically regulated passages (3963%), and in Old
Testament quotations (69100%), which differ significantly from those in unregulated
narratives (2743%). Previous research had considered single analogies and made
selective use of modern experiments with human memory and oral poetry research. Yet

This review was published by RBL !2009 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

no one has attempted to compare and contrast the Synoptists with detailed data from all
available analogies (alle verfgbaren Analogien) and to base a conclusion on such a
total comparison (Gesamtvergleich, 81). In an excursus, Baum argues that, while
Luke does not deny in his prologue the existence of written accounts of Jesus prior to his
own version, the main sources for his own writing were eyewitnesses. Therefore, pace
Kmmel, Luke 1:14 does not contradict the tradition hypothesis (8284).
Chapter B analyzes three ancient analogies to the Synoptic problem. (1) Old Testament
parallels (e.g., 2 Kgs 24-25 par. Jer 52) do not differ much from the Synoptic Gospels
regarding selection and order of the material. Yet with 8590 percent, they reveal a much
higher average verbal agreement together with a much lower range of variability between
individual parallels. (2) Josephus, on the other hand, copied his sources in Ant. 1-13 (e.g.,
GenesisEsth 10) with very little concern for verbal agreement (1030%), largely due to
his preference for an atticist style; in the end, Downings claim of the Antiquities as the
best analogy to the Gospels does not stand the test (140). (3) Both versions of the
Alexander Romance display 6570 percent verbal agreement, and speeches were copied as
closely as narratives. Thus Reisers verdict of a close analogy between both versions of the
Alexander Romance and the Synoptics does not fit the data. The conclusion of this
chapter is largely negative, since the available analogies so far do not resemble Synoptic
agreements and disagreements. Baum transitions to the next chapter by asking cautiously:
Is it, first, possible that parallel texts such as the Synoptic double traditions were
transmitted through human memory? And, second, is it maybe even easier to explain the
presented peculiarities of the Synoptic data as a result of oral tradition? (158).
Chapter C draws on insights from cognitive psychology relevant for the Synoptic
Problem. The total Synoptic material amounts to roughly 30,000 words, much smaller
than bodies of literature that were and still are memorized, such as the Homers Odyssey
(72,500 words), Iliad (94,000 words), the Pentateuch (70,000 words), the Quran (78,000
words), the complete Hebrew Bible (ca. 270,000 words), the Mishnah (ca. 650,000 words),
or even all twelve volumes of the Talmud (ca. 2,000,000 words). Ancient and modern
experiences of memorizing show that a cultural preference for oral tradition, sufficient
motivation and intention to memorize, traditions of small sizes (the average length of
Marks 128 pericopes is only 86.5 words), together with sufficient time and repetition,
enable the memorization of texts much larger than the Synoptic traditions. The
prevalence of parallelismus membrorum (e.g., Matt 10:2628) as well as chiastic (e.g.,
Luke 1:525), topical (e.g., topic of sin in Mark 1:403:6) or historical-geographical
(passion narrative) structures further ease a texts entry into long-term memory and its
retrieval. The tendency of memory to shorten a story over time by dropping dispensable
elements favors Markan priority, since Marks pericopes in the triple tradition are
consistently longer than the parallels in Matthew and Luke (25152).
This review was published by RBL !2009 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

Chapter D brings results from experimental psychology and oral poetry research to bear
on the Synoptic Problem. Experiments with the folktale The War of the Ghosts (ca. 300
words) from the 1930s (Bartlett) and the 1970s (Hunt, Love) show, among others, that a
trained memory can reproduce stories even after one year with approximately 50 percent
verbal accuracy. Examples from oral poetry research in Yugoslavia (Parry, Lord), North
America (F. Boas), and West Africa (G. Innes) confirm and modify these observations.
While two recorded oral versions of the West-African Sunjata legend (ca. 8,000 words), as
told by the famous narrator Bamba Suso one year apart, show 49-70 percent verbal
parallels (29197), studies among thousands of songs by the creative Yugoslavian
folksingers demonstrate a variation of verbal accuracy between 10 and 70 percent, an
observation that clearly fits the Synoptic pattern (28182). In this regard, a hypothesis of
oral dependence better explains this variability than an assumption of literary connection
(304).
Chapter E analyzes analogies from rabbinic traditions. A sample study of parallels
between Targumim of the Pentateuch (Codex Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan) shows
similarities with the Synoptists regarding verbal agreement (4043%), but there is less
variability between the parallels, which weakens an assumption of the Targumims oral
dependence (nicht eindeutig, 330; also 373). However, a sample comparison of parallels
between version A and B of Avot de Rabbi Nathan finds that 80 percent of their common
pericopes agree in their order (339). The low average verbal agreement of 3536 percent
speaks against a literary connection between both versions (347). Their variability of
verbal agreements ranges from 13 to 95 percent, which establishes so far the only ancient
analogy to the Synoptic data (349). The parallel versions of Avot de Rabbi Nathan
constitute thus a nearly complete analogy to the Synoptic double tradition, not just with
regard to the selection, order, and level of verbal agreements, but also with regard to their
variability and higher agreement in Old Testament quotations, in speech, and in texts
regulated by poetry (361).
Chapter F reviews possible ancient parallels to the minor agreements and shows that
their existence strengthens an oral origin of the Synoptic material. Chapter G summarizes
the most important results, compares Baums tradition hypothesis with other models that
include components of oral tradition, and offers a simplified hypothetical scenario of the
Synoptic Gospels historical origin. The book finishes with an English translation of the
summary (40317), fifty pages of charts relevant for the study (41970), a bibliography,
and indexes.
Despite the magnitude of the project, Baums focus on a total comparison of Gospels and
ancient parallels does leave some important stones unturned. (1) With regard to the
Synoptic data there is, as far as I can see, no discussion of identical parenthetical
This review was published by RBL !2009 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

comments such as in Mark 2:10 (par. Matt 9:6; Luke 5:24) and Mark 13:14 (par. Matt
24:15), an observation that is frequently used to support literary dependence. (2) As
examples of oral poetry, Baum uses an American folktale, Yugoslavian epic songs, and a
West-African hero legend. While the raw numbers of their agreements and
disagreements can certainly be used for comparison with Synoptic data, it seems to me
that further methodological reflections about their compatibility with regard to genre,
content, context of culture, performance, audience, and so forth should at least be offered.
(3) Baums closest analogies to the Synoptic data are the two versions of Avot de Rabbi
Nathan, whose assumption of independent origin relies on a study from the 1930s. More
elaborate statistical analysis concerning this rabbinic material would be needed in order
to strengthen a theory of the versions oral origin.
However, despite the preliminary character of some results, Baum has gone many extra
miles in his research and offers new data, a variety of methods, and fresh conclusions that
are, in an often-trampled path such as the Synoptic Problem, astonishing and that merit
serious attention. (1) In particular, Baum reminds us that the Synoptic data is more
complex than is often presented. The three Gospels do not only display agreement in
selection, wording, and order, but speeches, Old Testament quotations, and material
regulated through poetry and parallelisms show significantly higher averages. These
phenomena are usually overlooked and therefore not taken into account (e.g., Mark
Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem [T&T Clark, 2001], 1619). (2) Furthermore, given the
Synoptists silence about their historical origin, Baums insistence that looking at the
Gospels data alone is not enough to argue for any theory about their historical origin
deserves full support. Comprehensive comparisons with ancient analogies are necessary to
avoid unarticulated and even unconscious warrants and anachronistic conclusions based
on selective modern parameters of reading and writing. (3) Baum has succeeded in
showing that future discussions need to include the oral factor as a major influence in any
explanation of the Synoptic problem. Will the literary paradigms default answers, so
prevalent among Synoptic scholars, allow for that much innovative input into their field?
A good English translation of this book could provide the needed stimulus.

This review was published by RBL !2009 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.