In the Fallacies article, Mark Goodacre writes:
>>We will expect to find, to use Austin Farrer's phrase, only the
Luke-pleasing elements of Matthew in the third Gospel.  In particular,
we should not be surprised that Luke's version of Peter's Confession (Luke
9.22-26) does not feature Matthew's additions about the ascendancy of Peter.
After all, Luke's Gospel is not as positive about Peter overall as is
Matthew's, and the narrative development of Luke-Acts in which Peter
progressively recedes further and further into the background would seem
to exclude the possibility of Luke's inclusion of the Matthean statement. It
is exactly the kind of Matthean addition to Mark that we would expect Luke
to omit. <<
The process of interpreting redaction seems to require the imputation of
likes and dislikes to the redactor.
While I might like the theory that requires fewer buttresses, how would you
know this if I didn't tell you? My inner likes and dislikes could follow
Occam's pattern or I might prefer something more Baroque and inefficient.
The above statement by Farrer is more light hearted than many statements of
motive. A quick for instance is the common appeal to 'competition' between
the BD and Peter in John. The Peter-preference of Matthew over Luke is also
being noted in the above quote. Am I right to contend that if there is to be
a 'preference' for Peter imputed to Au. Matthew or a 'preference' for others
in another Gospel, that it should have a measurable piece of evidence behind
it (other than the projection of our own likes and dislikes)?
Another example: "Luke is making clear that _he is critical_ of his
predecessors' work and that his radical re-ordering of Matthew is in the
interest of providing Theophilus with the truth of those things in which he
has been catechized."
How do we know that Luke is 'critical'? Is Matthew 'untrue' because Luke has
written things 'in order'? Is Matthew necessarily then 'out of order'? Luke
clearly tells us in some of his writing that there was sharp division among
believers. He does not say here that there is division between himself and
his source material in his Gospel. He specifically says they also wrote 'in
order'. (1:1) Unhappily, my Greek is insufficient to distinguish the nuance
of anatassomai (1:1) vs pasin akribos kathexis (1:3).
I read others saying that Luke is 'correcting' a prior Gospel. Without Luke
saying 'I am correcting so and so', it seems to me that the imputation of
correction as a motive is assuming too much. If I were to impute a motive to
Luke, I would say that he enjoyed the opportunity he had to teach
Theophilus. He was not operating out of a need to correct previous authors
Any comments - I don't mind being corrected.
+ + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +
Catch the foxes for us,
the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...