Ron Price has written (on his home-page) --
>The Temptation story (Matt 4:1-11) is remarkably suitable for its
>context, in between the baptism (c.f. the crossing of the Red Sea) and
>the Sermon on the Mount (c.f. the giving of the law on Sinai), as
>indicated by J.C.Fenton in "Saint Matthew" (Penguin Books, 1963). In
>particular, the question: "If you are the Son of God ..." in 4:3 makes
>perfect sense coming three verses after the declaration: "This is my
>beloved Son". It would be much less meaningful without this context.
Even if we accept this finding here, and suppose that the
Temptation story is indeed in its context in Matthew, and therefore not
in Luke, is this not fully consistent with Luke not being dependent on
Matthew at all? How do you get from "the Temptation is in its context in
Matthew but not Luke" to the conclusion that therefore "Luke used
Matthew"? I cannot see the steps between your premise and your
I can see that your argument could arrive at the conclusion that
therefore Matthew did not use Luke. It seems to me, however, that this
is not the conclusion you want to reach.
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".
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...