Re: [Synoptic-L] RE: [GPG] Matthew and "Q"
Interesting. I'll be dragging my old seminary textbooks, as I've forgotten about this theory.
Rev. Chuck Jones
--- On Mon, 5/11/09, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:
From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] RE: [GPG] Matthew and "Q"
Cc: "GPG" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 11:57 AM
In Response To: Chuck Jones
On: Mt and Lk use of Mk
CHUCK: Since Mt used 90% of Mk while Lk used only 60%, . . .
BRUCE: Misleading figure. A large part of the difference is in the "Great
Omission," which as Streeter irrefutably showed (cf The Four Gospels), was
missing in Lk's copy of Mk. The disposition of later commentators to regard
Luke's omission of this material as literarily or doctrinally motivated
simply ignores the details of Streeter's demonstration. The key point is
that Luke's omission does not coincide with pericope boundaries, but
overlaps them at both ends. This is not how an anthologist, or in Luke's
case a supposed disanthologist, operates.
If we accept Streeter's result, and for those willing to track the exact
points, in the Greek text, at which Luke loses and then regains contact with
Mark, I don't think there is really any alternative, then there are next
steps to be taken. Those next steps are virgin territory, which is at least
a novelty in the overtraversed Synoptic domain.
I won't go into any of them at this point, but thought it worthwhile to
contradict this often quoted, and much relied on, "60%" statistic. It
doesn't tell us anything about Luke the author, because it doesn't correctly
describe the situation in the first place.
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> What you propose is clearly not impossible. But it is certainly not as good
> as the original. What you present here is a brief general call to
> repentance, followed by scenarios of people eager to repent. In our extant
> Luke there is a warning of wrath and fire, so that by verse 10 one can sense
> the crowds feeling guilty and ready to make amends. It parallels an
> evangelistic meeting where there is a lengthy build-up of emotion before a
> challenge to commitment. Luke was a good storyteller!
'Better', is a subjective judgment. Personally I'd prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that's just my subjective judgment.
Consistency, and sticking with a theme is a less subjective measure.
>I really don't see this as much of a jump, if any. v3 mentions forgiveness (group not named), and the quote from Isaiah's 'punchline' is about salvation (for all). "Forgiveness -> salvation" seems like theme continuity to me.
> But there remains the jump in the opposite direction, between verses 3 & 4.
> In the extant text vv. 4-6 represent a temporary departure from the theme of
> repentance so that Luke can portray the Jewish scriptures as hinting at the
> salvation of the Gentiles (v.6).
I've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.