I have already given examples of where Synoptic analysis points to the firm conclusion of Matthean and Lukan dependency on Mark (§7.3). But in other cases the variation in detail is such that the straightforward hypothesis of literary dependence on Mark becomes very strained. Consider the following narratives: the stilling of the storm (Mark 4.35-41/Matt. 8.23-27/Luke 8.22-25); the Syro-phoenician woman (Mark 7,24-30/Matt. 15.21-28); the healing of the possessed boy (Mark 9.14-27/Matt. 17.14-18/Luke 9.37-43); the dispute about greatness (Mark 9.33-37/Matt. 18.1-5/Luke9.46-48); and the widow's mite (Mark 12.41-44/Luke 21.1-4).
200. Since Herod's army was modelled on the Roman pattern, the 'centurion' of the Synoptic account could conceivably have been a Jew.
201. Basilikos (John 4.46) denotes a royal official, not necessarily a Jew; Herod Antipas could have appointed some experienced foreigners (like a centurion) to his military staff.
202. Pace F. Neirynck, 'John 4.46-54: Signs Source and/or Synoptic Gospels', Evangelica //(Leuven: Leuven University, 1991) 679-88, who assumes that only redaction of literary sources can be invoked to explain the differences.
203. Cf. E. Haenchen, Johannesevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1980) 260-61, summarizing his treatment in 'Johanneische Probleme', Gott und Mensch (Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1965) 82-90.
Was this article helpful?