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

Re: Luke's use of Matthew (was Re: [Synoptic-L] Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?)

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Thanks for your comments, David. I think I am a bit less persuaded about Tuckett s criticisms than you are. ... Tuckett effectively withdraws one of his
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 29, 2011
      Thanks for your comments, David. I think I am a bit less persuaded
      about Tuckett's criticisms than you are.

      On 28 March 2011 13:16, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

      > On what I agree with in CT's review:
      > While one can see that some of Matthew's additions
      > to Mark might not appeal to Luke, this is not the case
      > for the eulogy of Peter, or for 3.14f, 12.5f and 27.19,24.

      Tuckett effectively withdraws one of his earlier examples of a
      Matthean addition to Mark eliminated by Luke, Matt. 14.28-31,
      presumably because he found my argument on that one convincing, but he
      retains these other examples. I am surprised that he and others find
      the absence of Matt. 3.14f telling given that a conversation between
      John and Jesus after John's arrest would be a narrative oddity in
      Luke, as I point out in Case. I am also surprised that the absence of
      Matt. 16.16-19 (eulogy of Peter) is thought to be telling. If I might
      borrow from a later article:

      "It is one of the many curiosities of synoptic source-criticism that
      it is often said that Luke could not have known Matthew because of his
      non-inclusion of Matt.
      16.17-19 (commendation of Peter), while nothing is made of his
      non-inclusion of Mark 8.33 // Matt. 16.22-23 (condemnation of Peter).
      But Luke’s omission of all
      of that material in his version of the Caesarea Philippi incident is
      unsurprising in the light of his treatment of Peter in Luke 22.31-32,
      which prophesies his sifting
      by Satan (cf. Mark 8.33 // Matt. 16.23), and his future strengthening
      of the brethren (cf. Matt. 16.17-19). For Luke, given a different
      Peter pattern in LukeActs, the Peter pattern of Matthew’s Caesarea
      Philippi, commendation followed by condemnation, is not an option and
      it is omitted" ("The Rock on Rocky Ground: Matthew, Mark and Peter as
      Skandalon" in Philip McCosker (ed.), What Is It That the Scripture
      Says?: Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Translation, And Reception
      in Honour of Henry Wansbrough Osb (Library of New Testament Studies;
      London & New York: Continuum, 2006): 61-73, reproduced at
      http://markgoodacre.org/peter.pdf, 69, n. 19).

      > Also though the "overlap" passages (on 2ST) would be examples
      > of Luke retaining Matthean additions (on FGGT) it is odd
      > that Luke in these places dumps his normal preference for Mark,
      > prefers Matthew's divergent wording AND yet rejects
      > Matthew's placing. I think the Beelzebul controversy and
      > the seed parable variations are better explained by 2ST.

      Many of the triple tradition passages that feature major agreements
      (usually called "Mark-Q overlaps) are located in the same place in
      Matthew and Luke, in the Matt. 3-4 // Luke 3-4 complex. Luke has
      dislocations in the Marcan narrative when one gets to Beelzebub
      whether one thinks that he is using Matthew or not, and he moves the
      adjacent Mothers and Brothers pericope too, a dislocation that can't
      be explained by its presence in Q.

      > But I do think that, as some things point one way and others
      > another, we have to take the rival theories seriously, and
      > try to weigh up the balance of probabilities over all the
      > available evidence.
      > David M.
      > ---------
      > David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
      > --
      > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
      > Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

      Mark Goodacre
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      Gray Building / Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

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