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

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

Expand Messages
  • Matson, Mark (Academic)
    Well, because it is not irrefutable. Lots of things Streeter says have been refuted. I think there are lots of reasons for the differences between Luke and
    Message 1 of 34 , May 13 11:01 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, because it is not irrefutable. Lots of things Streeter says have been refuted.

      I think there are lots of reasons for the differences between Luke and both Matthew and Mark that do not require documentary explanations (i.e. Luke's own editorial control).

      Chuck Jones wrote, responding to Bruce Brooks
      :
      > What strikes me here is that the main objection to Q is that no extant
      > copy exists, so theories that don't need it are to be preferred.
      >
      > Here we have a copy of Mk with a big hole in it--a copy which of course
      > does not exist nor leave a trace in the textual history.  We find this
      > explanation to preferrable--no wait--irrefutable.
      >
      > Interesting.
      >
      > Separately, how did Streeter treat Lk's small ommission?  Coffee
      > stains?


      Mark A. Matson
      Academic Dean
      Milligan College
      http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.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.