Re: Luke's use of Matthew (was Re: [Synoptic-L] Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?)
- 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.
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530