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

Re: More Luke and Matthew

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Peterson
    On the question of Luke s knowledge of Matthew in the birth narrative, a striking agreement appears at Luke 1:31//Matt 1:21 KAI TEXH(I) [Mt TEXETAI DE] hUION
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 2, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      On the question of Luke's knowledge of Matthew in the birth narrative, a
      striking agreement appears at Luke 1:31//Matt 1:21 KAI TEXH(I) [Mt TEXETAI
      DE] hUION KAI KALESEIS TO ONOMA AUTOU IHSOUN. Such a verbal correspondence
      would be instantly attributed to Q if it appeared anywhere in the Synoptic
      account of Jesus' ministry; on what grounds can it legitimately be denied
      to Q here?

      Jeffrey Peterson
      Institute for Christian Studies
      Austin, Texas, USA
    • Jim West
      ... On the grounds that similarity does not dependence demonstrate. ... Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 3, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:41 AM 9/3/98 +0000, you wrote:
        > Such a verbal correspondence
        >would be instantly attributed to Q if it appeared anywhere in the Synoptic
        >account of Jesus' ministry; on what grounds can it legitimately be denied
        >to Q here?

        On the grounds that similarity does not dependence demonstrate.


        >
        >Jeffrey Peterson

        Jim

        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        Jim West, ThD
        Quartz Hill School of Theology
        jwest@...
      • Bob Schacht
        ... Jeffrey, Since you addressed this to me (among others), I ll attempt a preliminary question before my betters get involved. First, no one is denying
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 3, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          At 04:41 AM 9/3/98 +0000, Jeff Peterson wrote:
          >On the question of Luke's knowledge of Matthew in the birth narrative, a
          >striking agreement appears at Luke 1:31//Matt 1:21 KAI TEXH(I) [Mt TEXETAI
          >DE] hUION KAI KALESEIS TO ONOMA AUTOU IHSOUN. Such a verbal correspondence
          >would be instantly attributed to Q if it appeared anywhere in the Synoptic
          >account of Jesus' ministry; on what grounds can it legitimately be denied
          >to Q here?
          >
          >Jeffrey Peterson

          Jeffrey,
          Since you addressed this to me (among others), I'll attempt a preliminary
          question before my betters get involved.

          First, no one is denying "striking agreements" between Luke and Matthew
          such as the one you cite.

          Second, I am puzzled by your comment, "Such a verbal correspondence
          >would be instantly attributed to Q if it appeared anywhere in the Synoptic
          >account of Jesus' ministry"

          I am puzzled because, last I knew, Luke and Matthew were both considered to
          belong to the "Synoptic account", and therefore the passage is probably
          attributed (instantly or otherwise) to Q, although I don't have a copy of
          the IQP handy to verify this.

          Third, the argument over whether Luke used Matthew or Q is to be settled
          not with "striking agreements" such as this one, but with other indications
          that Luke knew Matthew in a way that was clear but did NOT involve verbatim
          agreement and thus literary dependence. Mark G. uses the "minor agreements"
          between Luke and Matthew in this regard, if I remember correctly. To review
          the argument for Luke's use of Matthew (rather than Q), the best thing is
          to consult Mark Goodacre's web pages.

          Have I understood you correctly?

          Bob
          *******************************
          Robert M. Schacht
          Northern Arizona University

          Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
          (Where charity and love are [found], God is there)
          9th century latin hymn
        • Philip B. Lewis
          What I have found curious is that Lk and Matt. at their Infancy Narratives show a striking degree of similarity. The orindary thing is to emphasize the
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 3, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            What I have found curious is that Lk and Matt. at their Infancy Narratives
            show a striking degree of similarity. The orindary thing is to emphasize
            the differences between the accounts. But they are alike in: a birth in
            Bethlehem, the parents Joseph and Mary, heavenly announcement, broad
            agreement as to dates, the naming of a child Yesgua. Perhaps more if one
            sizes up similarities.

            Indicates to me that their was extant in the latter 1st century a legendary
            development of Jesus' origin which came to underlie Matt & Lk. Simply
            saying one cribbed from the other won't explain the similarities, would it?

            -phil@...

            "Liberal" is not a dirty word;
            it is a state of grace.
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... Could not that tradition have begun with Matthew s Midrash? If Markdidn t know it in the 60 s, this had to have come from somewhere. John didn t know it
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 3, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Jim West wrote:

              > At 11:39 AM 9/3/98 -0700, you wrote:
              >
              > > Either Luke got this from Matthew or it was "harmonized" into Luke
              > >later. The Hebraic character of these chapters of Luke suggests that
              > >Luke got it from Matthew....unless I am out in left field on this.
              > >
              > >Comments?
              > >
              > >Jack
              >
              > Yup much as I hate to disagree with anyone- especially Jack, i think this
              > is extraordinarily unlikely. The birth narrative springs from a common oral
              > tradition. It isnt Q, and it isnt a case of borrowing. it is merely shared
              > tradition. The variants between the Matthean and Lukan versions shows their
              > independence in terms of use of the tradition.

              Could not that tradition have begun with Matthew's Midrash? If Markdidn't know
              it in the 60's, this had to have come from somewhere. John
              didn't know it yet Luke is bracketed by Matthew and John (accepting the
              Luke used Matthew thingy). The Yohannine Community is not all that
              far from the Antiochene in Asia Minor. Matthew is the only one who
              has this affection for the LXX to import the Isaiah prophecy in what to
              me seems classic Aggadic Midrash. I can only see a Matthew to Luke
              trajectory for this story. Now if Luke, as a Gentile, did not understand
              midrashic writing, it seems to reason that he would fly with it in his
              Norman Mailer fashion.

              Otherwise, I can't see this as an oral tradition that arose among Jews
              who actually believed Jesus was "zapped" into gestation by the Big
              Boss. Perhaps an oral midrash set to writing by Matthew and "validated"
              with his Isaiah cite? Then on to either Luke or a Lukan redactionist
              who accepts it as history?

              Jack
            • Jeff Peterson
              I m sorry to have missed noting Philip Lewis s comments in my post on Q 1:31? Philip draws attention to the neglected similarities between the Matthaean and
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 5, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm sorry to have missed noting Philip Lewis's comments in my post on "Q
                1:31?" Philip draws attention to the neglected similarities between the
                Matthaean and Lucan infancy narratives, which Drury takes as signs of
                literary dependence but then asks, " Simply saying one [Luke] cribbed from
                the other [Matthew] won't explain the similarities, would it?"

                It seems to me that Lucan use of Matthew would account for the similarities
                if one characterizes it as other than "cribbing." If, that is, Luke is
                understood as a creative author appropriating and recasting tradition that
                has come to him in oral and written form. This kind of creative
                appropriation is clearly in evidence in Luke in the Travel Narrative of
                chaps. 9-19; here Luke borrows a mass of sayings material (whether from Q
                or from Matthew) and creatively "packages" it as teaching offered on Jesus'
                journey to accomplish his "exodus" in Jerusalem. What prevents us from
                saying that Luke was similarly creative in reworking an infancy narrative
                which he received in written form from Matthew, as Drury suggests?

                Jeff Peterson
                Institute for Christian Studies
                Austin, Texas, USA
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.