No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The first-century Jewish sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees have been the subject of much scholarly attention, mainly because of their role in the New Testament. The works of Flavius Josephus provide critical information about these two groups, and it is sometimes supposed that the two portrayals should not be reconciled. This paper supports the argument that the two positions are in basic agreement.

Thesis (Ed.M.)--Boston University / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / 2031-01-01

Only recently have studies of the synoptic problem begun to ground their assessments of literary dependence in ancient conventions. In an effort to appreciate more fully the evangelists’ modus operandi, our study examines their appeal to Greco-Roman rhetoric, the “science of speaking well.” Focusing on a rhetorical form called the chreia (xrei/a), we examine rhetorical techniques and reasons for chreia adaptation, particularly reasons why authors changed this form in theory and in the practice of the Hellenistic authors Plutarch and Josephus. With these reasons in mind, we assess literary dependence among the synoptic gospels, focusing on one chreia in the Triple Tradition (Matt. 9:14-17/Mark 2:18-22/Luke 5:33-39) and another in the Double Tradition (Matt. 12:22-37/Mark 3:20-35/Luke 11:14-36). Our study illustrates that hypotheses of Markan priority, like the Farrer Hypothesis and Two-Document Hypothesis, are more rhetorically plausible than hypotheses of Matthean priority. While Matthew and Luke’s adaptations of Mark reflect the rhetorical reasoning that we should expect, Mark’s reasoning is often problematic, for Mark repeatedly works against the fundamental rhetorical principles of clarity and propriety.

Only recently have studies of the synoptic problem begun to ground their assessments of literary dependence in ancient conventions. In an effort to appreciate more fully the evangelists’ modus operandi, our study examines their appeal to Greco-Roman rhetoric, the “science of speaking well.” Focusing on a rhetorical form called the chreia (xrei/a), we examine rhetorical techniques and reasons for chreia adaptation, particularly reasons why authors changed this form in theory and in the practice of the Hellenistic authors Plutarch and Josephus. With these reasons in mind, we assess literary dependence among the synoptic gospels, focusing on one chreia in the Triple Tradition (Matt. 9:14-17/Mark 2:18-22/Luke 5:33-39) and another in the Double Tradition (Matt. 12:22-37/Mark 3:20-35/Luke 11:14-36). Our study illustrates that hypotheses of Markan priority, like the Farrer Hypothesis and Two-Document Hypothesis, are more rhetorically plausible than hypotheses of Matthean priority. While Matthew and Luke’s adaptations of Mark reflect the rhetorical reasoning that we should expect, Mark’s reasoning is often problematic, for Mark repeatedly works against the fundamental rhetorical principles of clarity and propriety.