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
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.