- To: Synoptic
We have been hearing of late from the John prioritists, and from the Q
prioritists in one variant or another. But it seems a long time since anyone
mentioned FGH. Since we have something of an official representative (or
anyway, ambassador presumptive) of that theory, namely MkG, I would like, by
way of personal update on the state of the question, to ask that person
these questions, as of May 2011:
1. Do you accept Markan Priority?
2. With what, if any, qualifications?
3. Do you believe that there was a Q?
4. Do you accept the sequence Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn?
5. Do you accept M Goulder's argument that the socalled Q passages in Mt/Lk
are original in Mt and drawn on by Lk?
6. With what, if any, qualifications?
7. How do you propose to explain the Minor Agreements?
8. Do you date Thomas after the Synoptics?
9. With what if any exceptions?
10. What relation, if any, do you see between Thomas and John?
[References to published works always acceptable; I am just reluctant to
assume that the mind of 2011, my own or anyone else's, coincides at all
points with the mind of a decade or more ago].
E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- I noted previously that while I think Luke's beatitudes
in the main have an earlier form than those in
Matthew, I had agreed with Benedict Green that
Luke's matching woes had vocabulary links with
Matthew's beatitudes (and Isai 61.2Gk). This made me suspect
that Luke might have changed "mourn" and "be consoled"
to "weep" and "laugh" the first time, but then
used the original wording (or cognates) the second time.
Mark came up with a similar edit to that where Luke
follows Mark, but now this one where Luke matches
Matthew's _additions_ to Mark. (On 2ST or on FGH)
Here's another analogous case. Matt. 8.1R has ὄχλοι πολλοί (OCLOI
POLLOI), not picked up in Luke 5.12, perhaps because of the
contradiction with 8.4 ("Don't tell anyone"). Luke 5.15, then uses
the expression in its summary verse subsequent to the Leper story.
This is more interesting as the oxloi polloi along with
kai idou and Kyrie are what I would call three "minor agreements"
but which Mark would class as Lukan dependencies on Matthew.
I had all three flagged in the relevant colour long since,
but had thought the agreements coincidental edits.
However, the pattern of "not following then following later"
might well be one worth pursuing as a possible Lukan
In an earlier edit Mark 3.7 has polu plhqos Matt.4.25 oxloi polloi
and Luke a neatly differentiated oxlos polus of disciples and
plhqos polu of the people! Also with diverse lists of the regions
from which this crowd came!
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.