Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5052Re: [Synoptic-L] How to Summarize Current State of Opinion

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Peterson
    Jul 23, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      Matthew written ca. 80 in Antioch does seem a near-consensus position to me (or at least widespread). It’s not, however, my impression there’s a consensus that Luke was written in Antioch; in fact, I believe this is the first time I’ve ever seen it suggested! 

      As to date, my impression is there’s a current trend (not to say a majority) favoring a date for Acts after 120; if you link Luke and Acts, that suggests a similar date for the Gospel. (FWIW, I’d favor a date ca. 90 for both. I have no clue where.)

      I quite agree about the unlikelihood of Matthew and Luke being written in ignorance of one another, the more so as the length of time postulated between them increases.

      Jeff Peterson
      Austin Graduate School of Theology


      On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:38 PM, 'E Bruce Brooks' brooks@... [Synoptic] <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
       

      Joseph Weeks offered this as part of an information summary about current Synoptic opinion.

       

      A smaller majority of gospel source specialists also affirm the independence of Matthew and Luke from each other, whereby each relied upon Mark as a primary source, in addition to an unknown source (“Q”) from which they both draw the traditions they share in common but that are not found in Mark."

       

      I think most people acquainted with the problem, whether or not they agree with this statement, would agree that it is more commonly held, or assented to, than any of its alternates.

       

       

      Leaving that aside now, for the moment, and starting afresh, I believe that there would also be a vague but definite majority in support of these statements about the date, place, and acquaintance of two of our Gospels:

       

      1. Luke: decade of the 80’s (give or take a few years); Antioch; knew and used Mark

       

      2. Matthew: decade of the 80’s (give or take a few years); Antioch; knew and used Mark

       

      Given those as somehow the default or least uncomfortable assumptions about those texts, for most people, suppose we now put this question, de novo, not to everybody, but to the people for whom those ARE the least uncomfortable assumptions:

       

      3. How likely is it, really, that the authors of Matthew and Luke were entirely unaware of each other?

       

      Bruce

       

      E Bruce Brooks

      Warring States Project

      University of Massachusetts at Amherst

       

       


    • Show all 8 messages in this topic