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

Re: [XTalk] Matthew's Infancy Narrative

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    I must admit that Matt. 3.1 has always astonished me too and I suspect that it s one of those places where the chapter and verse divisions distract us from
    Message 1 of 58 , May 17, 2006
      I must admit that Matt. 3.1 has always astonished me too and I suspect
      that it's one of those places where the chapter and verse divisions
      distract us from seeing the lack of segue. You may not enjoy this
      comment, Zeb, but I think Luke also shared our perplexity, and
      Matthew's "In those days" is Luke's invitation to supply exactly
      *which* days we are talking about, and Luke 3.1-2 spells it out
      clearly for the reader, "In the fifteenth year of the reign of
      Tiberius Caesar . . ." etc. It's a good example of the way that Luke
      works with Matthew's narrative.

      On the issue of birth in 4 BCE, what surprises me is how scholars fix
      so precisely on a date which is, in the end, derived from Matthew's
      (surely fictional) Birth Narrative. Does Matthew know that Jesus was
      born around the time of Herod's death? Well, perhaps, but I don't
      know how one could be sure.

      All best
      Mark
      --
      Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
      Associate Professor
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      314 Gray Bldg./Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

      http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Though this Luke seems to have had a very impressive library (Mark, Q, John I, Mary, Thomas, etc.), I am struck that it nonetheless lacked the most
      Message 58 of 58 , May 30, 2006
        At 06:00 PM 5/29/2006 -0400, Gordon Raynal wrote:
        >On May 29, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Ken Olson wrote:
        >> My own take would be that Luke had known Mark, which had
        >> been THE gospel to him, for some time when Matthew came into his
        >> hands.
        >
        > I doubt this because from my perspective one can make far more sense
        >of the construction of the Luke-Acts work directly in relationship to
        >copying from Mark and Q and also in relationship to John (1-20), and
        >probably G. Mary, an edition of G. Thomas, and some of the other
        >fragmentary gospels and by then, decades old preachings and teachings
        >on key texts in TANAK as related to Jesus. Despite such as Mark G.'s
        >position that it's a better case that Luke got a lot of his material
        >from Matthew, as you know I think the whole issue of the use of the
        >Sayings materials makes much more sense in terms of understanding their
        >presence in Q and then the utilization and redaction independently by
        >Matthew and Luke.

        Though this "Luke" seems to have had a very impressive library (Mark,
        Q, John I, Mary, Thomas, etc.), I am struck that it nonetheless lacked
        the most popular gospel of the second century even after it had been
        circulating for 20-30 years.

        The existence of Q in the form that is most commonly accepted is
        based on the relative independence of Matthew and Luke. This premise
        has ramifications on their relative dating, because the further apart
        in time the compositions of Matthew and Luke become, the less
        reasonable it becomes to postulate their mutual ignorance of each
        other.

        As in any reduction to absurity, this exercise does not tell us
        which assumption is off. It could be that Q never existed, or
        that Q was smaller (a la Ron Price), or that Luke was written
        earlier, or that Matthew was written later, etc. Nevertheless,
        it is a good idea to step back from the jigsaw puzzle and see if
        the individual pieces actually do fit together to form a coherent
        picture.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
        Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.