Rezension von Craig A. Evans

Erschienen in: Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.2

Armin Baum’s hefty study (English: The Oral Factor and Its Meaning for the Synoptic Question) was presented to the Theology Faculty of Heidelberg University as a Habilitationschrift. However, in Baum’s own words, “after a protracted process it was finally rejected.” Readers should look at Baum’s preface (esp. p. viii). Having worked my way through this complex yet clearly argued and massively documented study, I am astonished that it was not accepted. How can this be? Surely not because Baum dared to follow his evidence and call into question an important point of critical orthodoxy? Has the storied Heidelberg, whose Theology Faculty at one time could boast the likes of Günther Bornkamm, become that narrow, that doctrinaire, that calcified? I must admit that these questions will not go away. I have read my share of doctoral dissertations and Habilitation dissertations, and Baum’s compares very favorably. I can find no good reason for the rejection of this stimulating and original piece of work. Let us consider Baum’s procedure and his very interesting results. 

Baum, who is Professor of NT at the Freie Theologische Akademie in Giessen, examines the various literary solutions to the Synoptic Problem in the light of human memory and orality. He defines the problem in the aforementioned preface (pp. vii–viii) and describes his project in a brief introduction (pp. 1–6). The problem, as Baums sees it, is the failure to find convincing analogies to the Synoptic Gospels and how they relate to one another when explained in terms of the classic literary solutions. Nine chapters follow (not numbered, but lettered A–H + J [“I” is skipped, presumably to avoid confusion with several chapter subsections that are numbered with uppercase Roman numerals]). These are followed by four helpful diagrams (pp. 467–70) and rich bibliographies (pp. 473–513) conveniently arranged according to the topics of the respective chapters. I should note that readers will want to look at the list of abbreviations on p. 471, for Baum coins a number of his own (e.g., DT = Doppeltradition; TT = Tripeltradition; ST = Synoptische Tradition). 

Chapter A reviews the status of research on the Synoptic Problem. Baum observes that agreement in wording ranges from 40% to 50% and agreement in order ranges from 85% to 90%. Individual parallels range from 0% to 100%. Baum finds that agreement is high in parallels involving quotations of the OT (69% to 100%), lower in parallels involving the words of Jesus (41% to 60%), and lower still in parallels involving narrative (27% to 43%). Baum then considers several analogies that could explain the phenomena. These analogies include literature from late antiquity (as in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, the books of Chronicles in relation to the books of Samuel and Kings, and the parallel versions of the Alexander Romance), early rabbinic orality, cognitive psychology, experimental psychology, and traditions of oral poetry. Baum briefly defines these analogies. In chapters B–E, he works out the details and suggests how they apply. Chapter F treats the so-called Minor Agreements (of Matthew and Luke against Mark). 

Chapter G (pp. 387–402) summarizes the results of the study. This chapter then appears in English as chapter H (pp. 403–17). I should mention that Baum also summarizes his work in English in “Matthew’s Sources” Written or Oral? A Rabbinic Analogy and Empirical Insights,” in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (ed. D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 1–23. 

What are the results of this investigation? First, Baum shows that the Synoptic tradition as a whole, which comprises about 30,000 words, could be memorized, especially so in the case of the words of Jesus, which comprise about 15,000 words. Greeks could memorize Homer’s famous works, which were much larger, and rabbis could memorize the whole of Torah, and some even memorized the Babylonian Talmud (almost 2,000,000 words). Baum also shows, as have others, that there are features in the dominical tradition that aid memorization and that the pictoral nature of Jesus’ teachings (about one third consisting of parables), as well as the relatively brief and simple style of the narrative, facilitated memorization. The percentages of agreement suggest not a literary relationship, as is typically envisaged by proponents of the two-document hypothesis (the majority view) or by proponents of the two-Gospel hypothesis (the minority view) or by proponents of variations of these views. The percentages of agreement suggest independent, oral origins of the three Synoptic Gospels, without a literary relationship of one sort or another. The major advantage of this conclusion is that the numerous “minor agreements” of Matthew and Luke, against Mark, are no longer a problem. Agreements such as these are what one should expect in the case of the appearance of three independent accounts that have drawn on the same pool of tradition. 

I am very impressed by Baum’s handling of what appears to me to be very appropriate analogies and data. There is no doubt that he throws a great deal of fresh light on the topic of orality and memory in late antiquity. I believe he also succeeds in shifting the burden of proof onto Synoptic scholars to show how purely literary strategies are sufficient to address the Synoptic Problem. That said, I am unable to embrace Baum’s conclusion that the Synoptic solution is entirely an oral solution. This is because horizontal comparison of the parallel materials in the Synoptic Gospels indicate an interpretive relationship, that is, Matthew and Luke interpreting and editing Mark, their primary narrative source, and interpreting, editing, and contextualizing a body of material, what scholars call Q, that the Matthean and Lukan evangelists did not derive from Mark. The exegetical payoff for scholars who see Matthew and Luke as having made use of Mark, in their respective ways, is simply too great and too consistent to lay aside. I cannot see how three independent Gospels, even if drawing on the same pool of tradition, could exhibit this sort of relationship. And of course, ongoing research continues to find important evidence for the existence of an independent, written Q. On this point, I recommend John Kloppenborg, “Variation in the Reproduction of the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?” ETL 83 (2007): 53–80, and Michael Labahn’s recently published Habilitationschrift, Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender: Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 32; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010). 

Synoptic scholars who share my reservations must, however, recognize that the oral transmission of the teaching and stories of Jesus did not cease with the appearance of one Gospel, then the appearance of another. It continued. And this also means that the evangelists Matthew and Luke accessed not only written sources, such as Mark and Q, but a still-living oral tradition, in which dominical tradition preserved in Mark and Q continued to circulate in parallel but somewhat different forms. 

Baum’s impressive and important study may not convince too many Synoptic scholars of all of its points, but I suspect many will take his work seriously and will rethink the role of oral tradition in the preservation and transmission of the dominical tradition. This work is too well argued and supported to ignore.