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

Re: [XTalk] Matthew's Infancy Narrative

Expand Messages
  • Zeba Crook
    ... No actually, I like that comment a lot. In response to Jim s These seem to me reflective of the standard narrative introduction in Hebrew, wayehi - and
    Message 1 of 58 , May 17, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Goodacre wrote:

      >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.
      >
      No actually, I like that comment a lot.

      In response to Jim's "These seem to me reflective of the standard
      narrative introduction in Hebrew, "wayehi"- and so it happened." If
      this is what Matthew is thinking, and I don't discount it by any means,
      why doesn't he word it more along the lines of the Hebrew he's thinking of.

      In response to Rikk's suggestion that Matt 24:38 shows us that Matt uses
      the phrase to refer to broad swaths of time: These are the only two
      places Matthew uses this phrase (which is not much to base an argument
      on either way), but I would argue they are not parallel usages. 24:38
      provides the antecedent (before the flood), whereas 3:1 does not.
      Taking Mark's apt suggestion that our chapter/verse markers are
      distracting, if we were to remove them and simply read the narrative as
      presented, I'd suggest there is no reason to think that any time has
      elapsed between the settling in Nazareth and the arrival of John. And
      that's certainly not how the phrase functions un 24:38.

      Zeb

      --

      Zeba A. Crook

      Assistant Professor

      Religion and Classics

      2a Paterson Hall

      Carleton University

      1125 Colonel By Drive

      Ottawa, Ontario

      K1S 5B6

      613-520-2600, ext. 2276

      www.carleton.ca/~zcrook



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.