Re: Query on Q
> then we have Theory #22 as the only survivor.Bruce, your theorizing is ok, but keep in mind that we are dealing with human action/interaction and this is not always rational or following Ockham's razor.
It is perfectly possible that
- Lk and Mt used more sources, perhaps similar ones, perhaps catechetic manuals.
- Lk and Mt knew each other and they corresponded.
- Lk only later got to know Mt and copied only a few things.
- oral traditions have been used
- short written notes existed, transferred between various Christian groups
- Lk or Mt used another document based on something like Q.
- post-apostolic editing took place.
The truth is IMHO in any case more complicated than simply
Mk > Mt >> Lk
or something like that.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
- Ron and Leonard,
I think that we need to be careful and nuanced when we refer to Mt's "Jewishness" as a gospel. It is a subversive if not heretical tract against Judaism, made much more powerful by being written from an insider's (a Jewish) point of view.
It begins with Herod, the Jewish king, as the new Pharoah trying to kill the baby. Pagan astrologers worship while Jerusalem scribes use their biblical knowledge to aid the murder plot. Jesus, the New Moses, has to escape *into* Egypt!
Then the very first block of teaching, delivered on a Mount, has Jesus saying "you've have heard it said [in the Law--even in the Ten Commandments!]...but I say to you."
Gentiles are noble and Jews the enemies of God throughout the book. And Mt's Great commision concludes with "go therefore and teach all nations (ta ethne--the Gentiles)."
It is as if someone wrote a tract quoting the founding fathers and constitution, using traditional American patriotic and political language, etc., but as an apologetic for the rightness of Al Quada.
All of this suggests the timing of Mt's book should be tied to a community situation in which the split between Jew and Xn is profound, maybe nearly complete. Mt makes the argument that the split happened because historial Israel missed the point (as they had always done). So I'm not sure we can argue an early date from Mt's "Jewishness."
By the way, Lk makes the same point in a different way. Mk, however, does not seem to have a particular bone to pick with the Jews.
Rev. Chuck Jones
Leonard Maluf wrote:
> I like the logic here. But let me show you what else it yields: In.
> both language and outlook, Mark is clearly aimed at a Gentile audience,
> whereas Matthew has much stronger ties with Judaism. Christianity was born out
> of Judaism, therefore it is very unlikely that Matthew made use of Mark.
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]