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

Re: [XTalk] Re: [Synoptic-L] sources of Matt. 4:1-11//Lk. 4:1-13

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Mark, Thanks for this. It is exactly the sort of clarification/correction I was hoping to receive. But what about what I said with respect to
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 11, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Goodacre wrote:
      > Hi Jeffrey,
      >
      > I realize that this partially overlaps with other messages in the same
      > and related threads. Your summary survey looks about right to me,
      > though I think the tendency of advocates of the Farrer theory is to
      > see Matthew as creatively expanding Matt. 1.12-13 and Luke then
      > dependent on Matthew. I have not seen it argued, though of course it
      > could be argued, that Matthew "derived [the story] from both Mk.
      > 1:12-13 and a fixed pre-Matthean tradition centering in a dialog
      > between Jesus and the devil". I am myself strongly inclined towards a
      > thesis of Matthew creatively expanding the Marcan base, drawing on the
      > relevant scriptural texts.
      >
      Mark,

      Thanks for this. It is exactly the sort of clarification/correction I
      was hoping to receive.

      But what about what I said with respect to Griesbachians? Am I correct
      here. And do you know where specifically any Griesbachian has engaged
      in a source critical discussion of Matt. 4:1-11?

      Yours,

      Jeffrey

      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Chicago, Illinois
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • David Cavanagh
      ... May I suggest that one possible solution is that Mark actually knew Q (assuming it actually existed!) but chose to edit it quite radically? We know that
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 11, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Goodacre wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > One thing that needs to be discussed by advocates of the Two-Source
        > Theory is the phenomenon here of so-called Mark-Q overlap. In other
        > words, we have to reckon with the issues that are thrown up by major
        > agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, agreement in order,
        > in extensive wording, and so on. Issues include the questions about
        > how Mark and Q happen to agree, Marcan knowledge of Q, Q's knowledge
        > of Mark or Mark's and Q's mutual knowledge of a hypothetical source.
        >











        May I suggest that one possible solution is that Mark actually knew "Q"
        (assuming it actually existed!) but chose to edit it quite radically? We
        know that Mark was perfectly capable of shaping his material to suit his
        theological tendencies. Leaving aside the well-know gloss in Mark 7:19b
        (Jesus declaring all foods clean), it seems to me that this tendency is
        illustrated by Mark's treatment of John the Baptist's proclamation of
        the Coming One and the associated baptism in the Spirit. Whereas Matthew
        and Luke agree in reporting John as announcing a baptism in "spirit
        (wind) and fire", which is both grace and judgment (I'm here summarizing
        Dunn's study in his early book "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" (London: SCM
        Press, 1970), Mark presents us with a baptism only in "Spirit" which
        seems to reflect a later Christian understanding of the
        spirit-initiation. If so, Mark may have chosen to edit (correct?) "Q",
        only to have Matthew and Luke come along and "put him right" in his
        turn......Might something similar have happened also elsewhere,
        including the Temptation/Test narrative?

        David Cavanagh
        Major (The Salvation Army)
        Naples (Italy)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bob Schacht
        ... I appreciate this discussion. The one additional wrinkle I have to comment on is that in your first paragraph, you focus on Matthew creatively expanding
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 11, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          At 05:52 AM 6/11/2008, Mark Goodacre wrote:
          >Hi Jeffrey,
          >
          >I realize that this partially overlaps with other messages in the same
          >and related threads. Your summary survey looks about right to me,
          >though I think the tendency of advocates of the Farrer theory is to
          >see Matthew as creatively expanding Matt. 1.12-13 and Luke then
          >dependent on Matthew. I have not seen it argued, though of course it
          >could be argued, that Matthew "derived [the story] from both Mk.
          >1:12-13 and a fixed pre-Matthean tradition centering in a dialog
          >between Jesus and the devil". I am myself strongly inclined towards a
          >thesis of Matthew creatively expanding the Marcan base, drawing on the
          >relevant scriptural texts.
          >
          >...One further thought -- you rightly use the phrase "whether oral or
          >written" because one increasingly hears this kind of vague appeal to
          >oral sources, but I think one would struggle to make the kind of
          >extensive verbatim agreement here anything other than due to a written
          >source, however mediated.
          >
          >Cheers
          >Mark

          I appreciate this discussion. The one additional wrinkle I have to comment
          on is that in your first paragraph, you focus on "Matthew creatively
          expanding the Marcan base," rather than allowing for "a written source," as
          mentioned in your last paragraph. In other words, I would encourage
          consideration of an otherwise unknown written source.

          We have no difficulty positing Q as an otherwise unknown written source;
          why not this?
          Or what am I forgetting?

          Bob Schacht
          University of Hawaii

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... HI Bob. You may be forgetting that I don t believe in Q. If one has Q, then the closeness of Luke to Matthew here means that Matthew is not doing any
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 11, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            2008/6/11 Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>:

            > I appreciate this discussion. The one additional wrinkle I have to comment
            > on is that in your first paragraph, you focus on "Matthew creatively
            > expanding the Marcan base," rather than allowing for "a written source," as
            > mentioned in your last paragraph. In other words, I would encourage
            > consideration of an otherwise unknown written source.
            >
            > We have no difficulty positing Q as an otherwise unknown written source; why
            > not this?
            > Or what am I forgetting?

            HI Bob. You may be forgetting that I don't believe in Q. If one has
            Q, then the closeness of Luke to Matthew here means that Matthew is
            not doing any work creatively expanding Mark 1.12-13. Rather, he is
            conflating his two written sources, Mark 1.12-13 and Q. Of course on
            the Farrer Theory too Matthew could be conflating Mark 1.12-13 with
            another written source unknown to us, but it tends not to be a popular
            option. They tend to see it as quite plausible to have Matthew
            creatively expanding the Marcan source here, drawing in material from
            the LXX.

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

            http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
          • Bob Schacht
            ... Of course! I was using that as an indication of the willingness of Biblical Scholarship to accept the idea of otherwise unknown written sources. ... Thanks
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 11, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              At 05:48 PM 6/11/2008, Mark Goodacre wrote:
              >2008/6/11 Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>:
              >
              > > I appreciate this discussion. The one additional wrinkle I have to comment
              > > on is that in your first paragraph, you focus on "Matthew creatively
              > > expanding the Marcan base," rather than allowing for "a written source," as
              > > mentioned in your last paragraph. In other words, I would encourage
              > > consideration of an otherwise unknown written source.
              > >
              > > We have no difficulty positing Q as an otherwise unknown written
              > source; why
              > > not this?
              > > Or what am I forgetting?
              >
              >HI Bob. You may be forgetting that I don't believe in Q.

              Of course! I was using that as an indication of the willingness of Biblical
              Scholarship to accept the idea of otherwise unknown written sources.

              > If one has Q, then the closeness of Luke to Matthew here means that
              > Matthew is
              >not doing any work creatively expanding Mark 1.12-13. Rather, he is
              >conflating his two written sources, Mark 1.12-13 and Q.

              Thanks for your patience in reminding me about that. I'm afraid my skills
              of Biblical analysis have eroded somewhat in the past year through lack of
              proper exercise.

              > Of course on the Farrer Theory too Matthew could be conflating Mark
              > 1.12-13 with
              >another written source unknown to us, but it tends not to be a popular
              >option. They tend to see it as quite plausible to have Matthew
              >creatively expanding the Marcan source here, drawing in material from
              >the LXX.

              Thanks for this clear summary.
              Bob


              >Cheers
              >Mark
              >--
              >Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
              >Associate Professor
              >Duke University
              >Department of Religion
              >Gray Building / Box 90964
              >Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
              >Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530
              >
              >http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
              >
              >------------------------------------
              >
              >The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
              >
              >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.