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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Matthew and "Q"

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Dave, Perhaps the key to understanding your proposal is in this earlier statement of yours. But it baffles me. Are you referring here to the whole of the
    Message 1 of 34 , May 13 2:17 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave Gentile wrote:

      > I would then add that some longer areas of textual agreement with are
      > assigned to Q, for example John's special preaching, were not added to
      > Luke by the original author. These were the work of other later
      > "authors" importing bits of Matthew into the text of Luke. These larger
      > bits of text look distinctly Matthian.

      Dave,

      Perhaps the key to understanding your proposal is in this earlier statement
      of yours. But it baffles me. Are you referring here to the whole of the
      Double Tradition or (as suggested by the word "some") to a subset of it? If
      the latter, what is the extent of the subset?

      > ....... Luke is accurately
      > quoting parts of Matthew where saying of Jesus are involved, and mostly to
      > completely ignoring Matthew the rest of the time.

      I see three problems with this conjecture.

      Firstly you paint a black-and-white division where I also see all shades of
      grey, with e.g. the story of the Centurion's Servant, and Luke's use of key
      ideas from Matthew's birth narrative.

      Secondly even Matthew's sayings attributed to Jesus are not always quoted
      accurately, e.g. the Parable of the Talents/Pounds; the Parable of the Great
      Dinner (Mt 22:1-10 // Lk 14:15-24); Mt 21:28-32 // Lk 15:11-32; Mt 18:23-35
      // Lk 16:1-13.

      Thirdly Mt 3:7b-10 // Lk 3:7b-9 is one of the most accurately copied
      passages in Matthew // Luke, yet the words spoken are attributed to John the
      Baptist.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Dave Gentile
      ... Dave: Better , is a subjective judgment. Personally I d prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that s just my subjective judgment.
      Message 34 of 34 , May 15 7:32 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron:

        >
        > Dave,
        >
        > 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!

        Dave:

        '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.


        Ron:

        >
        > 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 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.

        I've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.

        Dave
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.