I am grateful to Peter Head for his interesting comments on a post from Brian Wilson. I d like to add a couple of things: ... Agreed; one might also takeMessage 1 of 4 , Jul 25, 2000View SourceI am grateful to Peter Head for his interesting comments on a post
from Brian Wilson. I'd like to add a couple of things:
On 25 Jul 00, at 10:07, Peter M. Head wrote:
> a) the lack of narration of miracles for the disciples of the
> Baptist in Matthew is interesting, but is hardly a sign that Matthew is
> "tired". Surely the Matthean presumption is that Jesus' entire ministry is
> characterised by such activity (cf. 4.23f; 9.35; 11.1f), so that whatever
> the messengers do not "see" they could easilly "hear" about.
Agreed; one might also take AKOUETE KAI BLEPETE as "what
you are hearing and what you are seeing", as if at any given
moment one could, for Matthew, see and hear the "works" that
typified the ministry of "the Christ". I reckon that this is how Luke
took it, adding his summary statement in which Jesus there and
then allows them to "hear and see" such things.
> i) ERGA - occurs 4 times in Matthew but only once in Mark
> and only once in Luke (in another context).
> ii) EUAGGELIZW - "preach the good news". This occurs 25
> times in Luke/Acts (10 times in Luke), but only once in Matthew (here in
> the passage we are considering, of course) and not once in Mark.
Again agreed. I am a bit wary (after the year's work that went into
_Goulder and the Gospels_, Chapter 2). about points made on the
basis even of clusters of single characteristic words. Note also
that PTWXOI EUAGGELIZONTAI is here surely echoing Isa. 61
> So I conclude, two closely parallel passages (both of crucial importance
> to the presentations of the respective evangelists), enough close
> parallelism in the words of Jesus to suggest literary dependence; but no
> indication of mutual dependence. Therefore, there must have been a common
> source behind an independent Matthew and Luke, which contains sayings of
> Jesus in Greek. Sounds like Q to me.
This is where I become less sure of Peter's helpful analysis. I
agree that there has to be literary dependence of some kind, and I
agree that if, on other grounds, one has conceded Matthew's and
Luke's independent use of Mark, Q is the inevitable answer.
However, the passage does actually cause some difficulties for the
Q hypothesis and for this reason the literary contact seems more
likely to be Luke's contact with Matthew.
I will attempt to explain why as briefly as I can. Q seems to
presuppose knowledge of elements that have been directly narrated
outside of Q, in the triple tradition material: (a) Q apparently here
takes for granted that John has been arrested, something that has
not been directly narrated in Q, but that has been narrated in the
triple tradition in which it is here embedded; (b) Q also takes for
granted here a specific healing ministry of Jesus of precisely the
kind that is narrated in the triple tradition. Our concerns about Q
7.18-23 are then intensified if we look at continuation of the
passage, Q 7.24-35: (d) Q has Jesus ask "What did you go out to
the wilderness to see?" (Q 7.24), i.e. it presupposes something
else it has not related, that John's ministry was in the wilderness.
Again, this is something narrated in the triple tradition. And (e) in
Q 7.34 we hear the charge: "Behold a glutton and a drunkard,
someone who mixes with tax collectors and sinners". In other
words, Q also presupposes another thing it has not directly related,
viz. that Jesus consorts with "tax collectors and sinners"; again,
this is related in the triple tradition.
When one sees so much material that presupposes the narrative
context in which it is currently embedded, I submit that it is more
likely that Matthew has crafted this pericope to fit that narrative
context than it is that Q featured extensive sayings material that
presupposed material it did not directly relate. And that is just the
evidence of one pericope in Q. As usual, the dispensing with Q
helps us to make good sense of the Gospels.
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology
University of Birmingham Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512
The New Testament Gateway
Peter Head wrote -- ... Peter, May I ask whether you are really persuaded that Luke is fatigued in relation to Matthew in the Mission Charge in Mt 10.5-15 //Message 1 of 4 , Jul 25, 2000View SourcePeter Head wrote --
>Interesting as Brian's observations are on this passage (Q 7.18-23), I
>am not really persuaded that Matthew is "fatigued" in relation to Luke
>(or his source, more likely "Q").
May I ask whether you are really persuaded that Luke is
"fatigued" in relation to Matthew in the Mission Charge in Mt 10.5-15 //
Lk 9.1-6, and also in the Parable of the Talents/Pounds in Mt 25.14-30
// Lk 19.11-27 ? These are two of the instances set out as "fatigue" in
Mark Goodacre's "NTS" article (pages 54-55).
In other words, are you not persuaded of the "fatigue" phenomenon in any
instance at all?
Or is it rather that you accept the examples put forward by Mark, but
not the instance of the Question of John the Baptist which I have put
forward (Mt 11.2-6 // Lk 7.18-23)?
My instance is in the reverse direction to those observed by Mark
Goodacre, of course. So accepting both his and my examples would
necessitate positing a hypothetical documentary source such as Q.
E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot_
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".