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

Re: [XTalk] Luke's knowledge of Matthew (was:"Infancy Narratives")

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Just to add to Ron s message, I think it s easy to underestimate the case for Matthew s influence on Luke s Infancy Narrative on both the macro and the micro
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Just to add to Ron's message, I think it's easy to underestimate the
      case for Matthew's influence on Luke's Infancy Narrative on both the
      macro and the micro level. First, I find it odd that on the standard
      view, Luke and Matthew both come up with just the same idea
      independently, at about the same time, of "fixing" Mark by adding
      birth narratives one end, resurrection stories the other and
      restructuring with much teaching material in between. The Birth
      Narratives themselves have the same broad structure, pre-natal
      (Matthew 1 and Luke 1) and post-natal (Matthew 2 and Luke 2). It's
      easy for us to assume that the most natural thing for anyone to do
      was to make up for Mark's lack by adding Birth Narratives. But
      that's because of our familiarity with Matthew and Luke. If we think
      ourselves back into the end of the first century, it ceases to become
      so obvious. John didn't think it necessary; all things considered,
      it seems likely that something must have provided the catalyst for
      Luke's decision to preface the Markan framework with a Birth
      Narrative, and that catalyst was Matthew.

      But is there anything more than general probability? Indeed there is
      -- we are in luck. Jeff Peterson pointed out to me a little while
      ago that Matt. 1.21 // Luke 1.31 has the following verbatim parallel
      in Greek, TEXETAI DE / KAI TEXHi hUION KAI KALESEIS TO ONOMA AUTOU
      IHSOUN (And she/you will give birth to a son and you (sing.) shall
      call his name Jesus). This is a clear case of Luke's borrowing from
      Matthew. In Matthew the command to Joseph makes sense "You (Joseph)
      will call his name Jesus" -- and he did so, Matt. 1.25. However,
      Luke has this addressed to Mary rather than Joseph, having
      reconfigured the annunciation in line with his desire to give a much
      more marked profile to Mary. But now "You (sing.) shall call . . . "
      becomes problematic in the narrative because Luke actually agrees
      with Matt. that naming the child is either the sole responsibility of
      the father (1.13) or at best of both parents (1.59-66, cf. 2.21).

      For more on this see The Case Against Q, pp. 54-8. (Coming soon,
      folks; I've nearly finished the indexing! In the mean time, I hope
      you all have your copies of The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the
      Maze; I have a nasty feeling that they have been a bit slow in
      making their way to the U.S.)

      Mark
      -----------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
      Birmingham B15 2TT UK

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      http://NTGateway.com
    • bjtraff
      Hello Mark I will get to Ron s post tonight when I have a bit more time, but I do have a couple of comments, and a question for you regarding your ... This
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 8, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Mark

        I will get to Ron's post tonight when I have a bit more time, but I
        do have a couple of comments, and a question for you regarding your
        post:

        --- In crosstalk2@y..., "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.Goodacre@b...> wrote:
        > First, I find it odd that on the standard
        > view, Luke and Matthew both come up with just the same idea
        > independently, at about the same time, of "fixing" Mark by adding
        > birth narratives one end, resurrection stories the other and
        > restructuring with much teaching material in between.

        This does not strike me as a particularly strong argument for source
        dependence, given the diversity (not to mention contradictions) of
        the accounts offered by Matthew and Luke. Here I would have to side
        with Mahlon, and suggest that, at best, the two evangelists shared a
        common tradition that included the basic elements outlined in Brown.
        As for their motivation for adding an infancy narrative, Matthew
        wishes to connect Jesus to as many Messianic prophecies as possible,
        as well as linking Jesus' life to that of Moses (the prophet of the
        first covenant, with Jesus being the prophet of the second) and the
        BN gives him ample opportunity to do so. Luke, on the other hand is
        writing to a largely Gentile audience where fantastic stories about
        the origins of a great hero are both common, and even expected.
        During this period of time Jewish works on heroes of the OT were
        popping up all over the place, and offering stories about the early
        years of men like Moses were quite common. Thus, finding these
        stories coincidentally in both Matthew and in Luke should not
        surprise us in the least.

        > The Birth
        > Narratives themselves have the same broad structure, pre-natal
        > (Matthew 1 and Luke 1) and post-natal (Matthew 2 and Luke 2). It's
        > easy for us to assume that the most natural thing for anyone to do
        > was to make up for Mark's lack by adding Birth Narratives. But
        > that's because of our familiarity with Matthew and Luke. If we
        > think ourselves back into the end of the first century, it ceases
        > to become so obvious. John didn't think it necessary; all things
        > considered, it seems likely that something must have provided the
        > catalyst for Luke's decision to preface the Markan framework with
        > a Birth Narrative, and that catalyst was Matthew.

        Actually, the structure is not all that surprising. By way of
        comparison, Luke also appears to be interested in linking the birth
        of Jesus with that of John the Baptist, and this is not found in any
        other source in the NT (let alone in Matt!). On a broader scale, Luke
        is intent on showing how Jesus' birth is like (if not greater than)
        that of several other heroes of the OT (more on this below). An
        added benefit of Luke's linkage between John and Jesus is that John's
        transitional role is strengthened in Luke (even more so than in Mark
        or Matt). A careful analysis of the birth stories of John and Jesus
        offers a classic set of parallels by which Luke can link his birth,
        and that of Jesus, to other OT examples, especially those of Samuel
        and Samson. I see no reason to expect Luke to require inspiration
        from Matthew, in fact, given his motivate to reach as broad an
        audience as possible, I would have been more surprised had Luke *not*
        included the Infancy Narrative found in chapters 1 and 2.

        As for why John did not need a BN, as I explained in my post, his
        theology proposed a pre-existent Christ/Logos, and this makes any
        stories about how Jesus was born entirely beside the point (similarly
        with Paul, who's christology was focused on the resurrection as
        opposed to Jesus' earthly life). Speculations on the nature of the
        Logos did not require nor expect such a thing as being "born" in the
        normal sense of the word. The surprising feature within John is the
        clear humanity of Jesus, something that we should not expect in a 1st
        Century document dedicated to the Logos of God. In any event, given
        the obvious differences in focus between Johannine theology and that
        of the Synoptics, we cannot expect to learn much about the
        motivations of Luke or Matthew from reading John.

        > But is there anything more than general probability? Indeed there
        > is -- we are in luck. Jeff Peterson pointed out to me a little
        > while ago that Matt. 1.21 // Luke 1.31 has the following verbatim
        > parallel in Greek, TEXETAI DE / KAI TEXHi hUION KAI KALESEIS TO
        > ONOMA AUTOU IHSOUN (And she/you will give birth to a son and you
        > (sing.) shall call his name Jesus). This is a clear case of
        Luke's borrowing from Matthew.

        Actually, the link is not clear at all. Matthew is obviously using
        Isaiah 7:14 here, where the wording is virtually identical (though
        the name given is Immanuel, not Jesus). Brown proposes that Luke, on
        the other hand, was using a standard formula found in the LXX (see
        for example Isaiah 9:6, a passage that almost certainly was known to
        Luke, given its obvious application to the Messiah (in contrast to
        7:14, which looks forced and arbitrary). In any case, the word
        TEXHi/TIKTO is most commonly found in the genealogies of the OT, so,
        again we should expect to see it used by both Matthew and Luke.
        Similarly, the expression "call his name" (KALESEIS TO ONOMA AUTOU)
        is a standard formula from the OT (see Gen. 16:11, 17:19, Isa 7:14,
        8:3, Hosea 1:4), and it is not surprising to see it used by two
        writers working independent of one another. I think the fact that
        Matthew and Luke place the expression in different contexts, and
        addressed to different people (Joseph vs. Mary) serves to decrease
        the likelihood that either used the other for this expression.
        Finally, given the length of the Infancy Narratives, the fact that we
        can find only one (barely) verbatim fragment contained in both
        suggests coincidence more than copying.

        > In Matthew the command to Joseph makes sense "You (Joseph)
        > will call his name Jesus" -- and he did so, Matt. 1.25. However,
        > Luke has this addressed to Mary rather than Joseph, having
        > reconfigured the annunciation in line with his desire to give a
        > much more marked profile to Mary. But now "You (sing.) shall
        > call . . . " becomes problematic in the narrative because Luke
        > actually agrees with Matt. that naming the child is either the sole
        > responsibility of the father (1.13) or at best of both parents
        > (1.59-66, cf. 2.21).

        Personally, I it is more plausible to link Luke's use of this
        expression with Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born (TEXHi)... and
        his name will be called..." than with Matthew. Luke may also have
        been looking at the examples I have listed from Genesis and/or
        Hosea. These books were Scripture for Luke at the time he wrote his
        gospel. Matthew, even if Luke knew of it, was not.

        Finally, see also in Luke 1:13 (compare the language to that of 1:31)
        where Luke says "and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and
        you shall *call his name* John." I see no reason to suggest that
        Luke used this formula (twice) based on Matthew. His inspiration is
        more probably to have been the OT where we see this expression used
        time and again.

        Thank you very much for your thoughts Mark. I apologize for not
        giving the specific quotes from Brown's _Birth of the Messiah_ , but
        I do not have it with me (it is at home right now). If necessary I
        will offer the relevant page numbers and quotes in support of my
        arguments. As you can see, I find his arguments persuasive against
        both Mahlon's and your own.

        Be well,

        Brian Trafford
        Calgary, AB, Canada
      • Mark Goodacre
        Thanks for the intelligent response, Brian. I agree with much of it. Clearly there are huge differences between Matthew s and Luke s Birth Narrative, and I am
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 8, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for the intelligent response, Brian. I agree with much of it.
          Clearly there are huge differences between Matthew's and Luke's
          Birth Narrative, and I am not wanting to make a case for "source
          dependence" but rather for the notion that the presence of Matthew's
          Birth Narrative provided the catalyst for the writing of Luke's.
          This is really just a reaction against the argument for Luke's
          independence from Matthew often given from "Luke's lack of M
          material", and a plea in response to that argument to recognise the
          uniqueness in early Christianity of tracing the Jesus story from
          conception -- in this Matthew and Luke stand alone in early
          Christianity, don't they? And they both do it in a similar way, pre-
          natal and post-natal narratives, constructed in accord with their own
          literary and theological agendas.

          I disagree with you, though, about the notion that "finding these
          stories coincidentally in both Matthew and in Luke should not
          surprise us in the least". On the assumption of Luke's independence
          from Matthew, I am surprised to see the Birth Narratives. We can see
          quite clearly where he thinks the story really begins -- with John
          the Baptist and the grand dating in 3.1, so suggestive of the
          existence of a Proto-Luke to Streeter and Taylor. And we know from
          Acts, don't we, that Luke sees the gospel as beginning not with
          Virgin Birth but with John the Baptist & Jesus' subsequent anointing -
          - 1.1-2, 2.22-7 etc. and especially 10.36-43? Luke's Birth
          Narrative, for all its literary brilliance and Christological
          coherence, nevertheless has the feel of something that is not, in the
          end, at the heart of Luke's attitude to the gospel.

          On the link between Matt. 1.21 and Luke 1.31, I'm keen simply to
          point out that one of the links you were pressing from Brown is
          actually much stronger on a literary level than Brown suggests. When
          one has that kind of agreement, it is useful to ask if there are any
          indications of the direction of dependence, and I suggest that the
          inappropriateness of the singular KALESEIS addressed to Mary in Luke
          is a hint that the direction of dependence is from Matthew to Luke.
          Could Luke have written this on his own in the way you suggest,
          drawing on Isaiah? Of course it's possible; indeed I suspect that
          he enjoyed the look of this sentence because of its Isaianic ring.
          But your mention of Luke 1.13 actually reinforces my point: here
          Luke has an angel say the same thing to Zechariah where Luke has no
          Matthaean source, and he uses GENNAW rather than TIKTW and gets the
          person doing the naming right -- Zechariah will name John, but Mary
          won't be naming Jesus.

          Is this enough to demonstrate that Luke knew Matthew? Absolutely
          not. They're just elements that suggest, to me at least, that the
          case for the independence here should not be assumed. But for proper
          evidence of Luke's use of Matthew, one has to look in more detail at
          the Gospels as a whole.

          Mark
          -----------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
          Birmingham B15 2TT UK

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          http://NTGateway.com
        • Gordon Raynal
          Mark, A serious question and then just a wee bit of fun. First... when do you date Matthew, John and Luke? I think Matthew is from the 80 s, John in it s
          Message 4 of 12 , Jan 9, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Mark,

            A serious question and then just a wee bit of fun.

            First... when do you date Matthew, John and Luke?

            I think Matthew is from the 80's, John in it's finished redaction from Signs
            comes from around 100 and that Luke comes along circa 110... with Acts
            probably being finished thereafter... circa 120. We will surely disagree
            about this... but I rather think Luke had written copies of Q, Mark,
            Matthew, John, Thomas and who knows how many other pieces of literature
            before him/her/ them (as in, this was a community... "let's get our story
            straight" mindset;)!).

            And they both do it in a similar way, pre-
            >natal and post-natal narratives, constructed in accord with their own
            >literary and theological agendas.

            Now for some fun;)! What other way, would you propose, that any sort of
            "coming into the world" narrative story of a hero's birth (or anyone else's,
            for that matter) be written;)?


            Gordon Raynal
            Inman, SC
          • Mark Goodacre
            Dear Gordon Thanks for the email; it was good to meet you at the SBL in Denver. I d be sympathetic with most of your dates, though perhaps a bit late for Luke.
            Message 5 of 12 , Jan 9, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Gordon

              Thanks for the email; it was good to meet you at the SBL in Denver.

              I'd be sympathetic with most of your dates, though perhaps a bit late
              for Luke. But yes, I'd be broadly happy with Matthew in the 80s and
              Luke later. I think John knew the Synoptics and am not yet convinced
              that Luke knew John, but a good case is made for it in Mark Matson's
              recent book (SBL Dissertation series), and also in Barbara Shellard's
              forthcoming _New Light on Luke_ (Sheffield). Interesting that both
              also think Luke knew Matt. and Mark.

              On your final question, it's the extensive pre-natal bit that is so
              interesting; Matthew and Luke both decide to preface the account of
              Jesus' birth with prophecy and portent. Of course it's possible that
              they decided to do this independently of one another, but all things
              considered some link is more likely. There is massive variety in
              birth stories of heroes and gods in classical and popular literature,
              so I don't know that the adding of a pre-natal story is inevitable.

              Mark
              -----------------------------
              Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
              Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
              University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
              Birmingham B15 2TT UK

              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
              http://NTGateway.com
            • bjtraff
              ... Hello Ron This statement is conclusory. Since Luke does not tell us either that he is disatisfied with previous accounts (only that he wishes to give an
              Message 6 of 12 , Jan 9, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In crosstalk2@y..., "Ron Price" <ron.price@v...> wrote:

                > (1) The author of Luke's gospel was clearly dissatisfied with
                > previous accounts of Jesus (Luke 1:1-4), i.e. with Mark and Matthew.

                Hello Ron

                This statement is conclusory. Since Luke does not tell us either
                that he is disatisfied with previous accounts (only that he wishes to
                give an "orderly" account), nor which Gospels he is referring to, we
                should not jump to a conclusion that has yet to be born out by the
                evidence. Luke did, almost certainly use GMarkas a source while
                offering his own redactional touches, but that is a long ways from
                saying he was "disatisfied" with Mark's work. And as for evidence
                that he similarily "fixed" GMatt, the jury is still very much out on
                that question, and therefore cannot be assumed.

                > (2) Luke omitted half of the material he found in Mark, and for the
                > rest he altered every pericope which he took over.

                The difficulty here is that some scholars have postulated that Luke
                used an earlier version of GMark, and therefore it is difficult to
                know what he left out. He did alter pericopes to suit his purposes,
                but we cannot, from that probability, decide that he also altered
                Matthew. Again, the evidence that Luke even knew of Matt, let alone
                used him must first be established.

                > (3) John also knew Mark (Barrett, Crossan et al.), but nevertheless
                > produced a portrait of Jesus which in many respects contradicts
                > Mark's portrait. Why shouldn't Luke have been capable of similar
                > independent thought?

                I could just as easily assert that John did *not* know Mark, and I do
                not believe that he did. That remains a separate discussion from
                this one however. Your statement above simply begs the question.
                After all, if one can argue that anything that is even close in John
                and Mark comes from Mark, while contradictions between the two simply
                show John's rejection of Mark(!), then the theory is fool proof, and
                cannot be disproven. But this is not sound research. In my view, if
                we see no evidence of copying, we should accept that the most
                probable reason is that copying did not occur, and that the texts are
                independent.

                Could John and Luke have been doing this with their sources? Of
                course. But can we know that, or worse yet, assert it? I would say
                we should not.

                > (4) The positive evidence that Luke knew Matthew includes:
                > (a) major agreements such as the Temptation and the Centurion's
                > Servant
                > (b) hundreds of minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark
                > (c) the 'naming' and framing of the two sermons

                We could also attribute this to Q, or some other common source.
                Anyone who wishes to postulate Matthean dependence for Luke must also
                contend with the enormous amount of evidence that points towards
                independence (i.e. the special M and L material, substantial
                differences in the BN, the Passion, and the Resurrection appearances).

                > (d) editorial fatigue (as pointed out in relaton to e.g. the
                > Talents/Pounds by Mark Goodacre)

                I am very sympathetic to the work that Mark Goodacre has done in this
                area, but my concerns with his conclusions remain. I will address
                those in my response to him, however, so as not to over burden this
                post, and to cause us to debate the same issues multiple times. Of
                course, I invite questions and comments from others in my posts to
                Mark (or anyone else for that matter), but I will try to keep each
                post focused on the unique issues raised by each contributor.

                Thank you for your thoughts Ron.

                Be well,

                Brian Trafford
                Calgary, AB, Canada
              • Gordon Raynal
                Mark, ... Likewise... and I hope to see you in Toronto next year. ... Thanks for the references. ... I think I must not have conveyed my attempted humorous
                Message 7 of 12 , Jan 9, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mark,
                  >
                  >Thanks for the email; it was good to meet you at the SBL in Denver.

                  Likewise... and I hope to see you in Toronto next year.
                  >
                  >I'd be sympathetic with most of your dates, though perhaps a bit late
                  >for Luke. But yes, I'd be broadly happy with Matthew in the 80s and
                  >Luke later. I think John knew the Synoptics and am not yet convinced
                  >that Luke knew John, but a good case is made for it in Mark Matson's
                  >recent book (SBL Dissertation series), and also in Barbara Shellard's
                  >forthcoming _New Light on Luke_ (Sheffield). Interesting that both
                  >also think Luke knew Matt. and Mark.

                  Thanks for the references.
                  >
                  >On your final question, it's the extensive pre-natal bit that is so
                  >interesting; Matthew and Luke both decide to preface the account of
                  >Jesus' birth with prophecy and portent. Of course it's possible that
                  >they decided to do this independently of one another, but all things
                  >considered some link is more likely. There is massive variety in
                  >birth stories of heroes and gods in classical and popular literature,
                  >so I don't know that the adding of a pre-natal story is inevitable.

                  I think I must not have conveyed my attempted humorous response to the
                  repitition you used in two of your posts about this. The way these American
                  eyes read your evidentiary support for your conclusion was that both used
                  the prenatal/ postnatal STORY ORDER (caps for emphasis). The ha ha here is
                  that this is rather much the NATURAL ORDER for describing events, eh;)!
                  And, of course, in the Biblical epic... the coming of Isaac and Moses and
                  Samuel, just to name 3... do work by telling "extensive" prenatal stories
                  before the inevitable post natal results of a healthy pregnancy and baby;)!


                  Oh well... just a bit of fun....

                  take care,

                  Gordon Raynal
                  Inman, SC
                • bjtraff
                  ... Hello again Mark, and thanks for the reply. I understand, and even sympathize with much of what you are doing, and greatly appreciate the work you have
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jan 9, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In crosstalk2@y..., "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.Goodacre@b...> wrote:

                    > Clearly there are huge differences between Matthew's and Luke's
                    > Birth Narrative, and I am not wanting to make a case for "source
                    > dependence" but rather for the notion that the presence of
                    > Matthew's Birth Narrative provided the catalyst for the writing of
                    > Luke's. This is really just a reaction against the argument for
                    > Luke's independence from Matthew often given from "Luke's lack of M
                    > material", and a plea in response to that argument to recognise the
                    > uniqueness in early Christianity of tracing the Jesus story from
                    > conception -- in this Matthew and Luke stand alone in early
                    > Christianity, don't they? And they both do it in a similar way,
                    > pre-natal and post-natal narratives, constructed in accord with
                    > their own literary and theological agendas.

                    Hello again Mark, and thanks for the reply.

                    I understand, and even sympathize with much of what you are doing,
                    and greatly appreciate the work you have done in raising some serious
                    objections to the Q hypothesis. We should always be keeping our
                    minds open to new possibilities, and personally, I would like nothing
                    better than to find Lucan dependence on Matthew. Let's just say I
                    still need a lot of convincing. B^)

                    There is a serious difficulty in the hypothesis that Luke drew his
                    inspiration for writing an Infancy Narrative from Matt, and including
                    it (possibly even at a later date, after he had finished his original
                    Gospel… more on that below). Namely, assuming Luke not only knew
                    that Matthew existed, but had read it, and in seeing an Infancy
                    Narrative, decided to include one of his own, why did he differ with
                    Matthew on even non-theological issues. Allow me to offer some
                    examples (I know you know these, but include them for reference):

                    (1) Joseph has a different father in Luke (setting aside the other
                    disagreements between the two genealogies for now)! Why do this if
                    Luke knows Matthew? Can we presume that he had a more accurate
                    genealogy? That hardly seems likely. In fact, of the things that
                    would probably have been Lucan creations "de novo", this is one of
                    the places I would start. Yet, if he had Matthew's genealogy in
                    front of him, there is no theological reason to explain why he would
                    fail to use it on such mundane matters as who was Jesus' grandfather.

                    (2) Luke has Joseph and the family returning to Nazareth immediately
                    after the (probably incorrect) cleansing rituals, done supposedly in
                    accordance with the Mosaic Laws. Why leave out a trip to Egypt?
                    Luke need not have accepted the Slaughter of the Innocents to justify
                    such a trip, and it would seem to have offered rich material for
                    possible Lucan theological development. Why the rush to get the holy
                    family to Nazareth?

                    (3) Why not have the star of Bethlehem? Given that many scholars
                    accept that Luke wished to connect Jesus with other kings, and
                    especially with Augustus, such a common portent as a birth star seems
                    a natural. We need not even postulate Matthew's link to the OT to
                    justify including the star, since, as Mahlon has pointed out, we find
                    such heavenly signs in many other birth stories in circulation at
                    this time.

                    Other examples spring to mind, but the three above should help to
                    make the point. It is one thing to hypothesize that Luke was aware
                    that a birth narrative existed in another form from his own, and his
                    being specifically aware of it's contents, especially in light of the
                    fact that he would have had to reject so much of what could have
                    easily been worked into his own theology.

                    In response to your question on Matt and Luke's uniqueness within the
                    NT Canon (and non-Canonical works for that matter), this is beyond
                    dispute. But the structural similarities do not serve as a strong
                    enough link to propose dependence, or even knowledge of one by the
                    other.

                    > On the assumption of Luke's independence
                    > from Matthew, I am surprised to see the Birth Narratives. We cansee
                    > quite clearly where he thinks the story really begins -- with John
                    > the Baptist and the grand dating in 3.1, so suggestive of the
                    > existence of a Proto-Luke to Streeter and Taylor. And we know from
                    > Acts, don't we, that Luke sees the gospel as beginning not with
                    > Virgin Birth but with John the Baptist & Jesus' subsequent
                    > anointing-1.1-2, 2.22-7 etc. and especially 10.36-43? Luke's Birth
                    > Narrative, for all its literary brilliance and Christological
                    > coherence, nevertheless has the feel of something that is not, in
                    > the end, at the heart of Luke's attitude to the gospel.

                    This is a slightly different question, and one that has some merit.
                    Did Luke write his gospel and Acts first, then later add the Infancy
                    Narrative? Here I will concede that this is possible, and you are
                    correct, Luke 3:1 gives us a clear indication that, like Mark, Luke
                    began his gospel with JBap and the baptism of Jesus. Additionally
                    there is no evidence that the rest of Luke's gospel contains even a
                    hint of knowledge of the first two chapters. The latter argument is
                    weakened by the fact that Matt's gospel shows no awareness of its own
                    infancy narrative once he reaches Jesus' actual baptism and the start
                    of his ministry.

                    Time for some speculation of my own, and here I will assume that Luke
                    did decide to create his infancy narrative after his original gospel
                    was written:

                    Luke remained bothered by the difficulty of Jesus being baptized by
                    John. He had already done his best to downplay John's role in this
                    event, preferring not to tell us until Acts that John was the person
                    who actually *did* baptized Jesus. Further, as we can see from
                    Acts 18:24-25, Luke is also aware that some followers of John were
                    still lurking about even after his death (as well as after Jesus'
                    death). This posed at least some threat to Luke, and given the
                    existence of Mark's gospel as well, it is hard to escape the possible
                    idea that some viewed John as greater than Jesus. Mark's apologetic
                    in Mark 1:2, 7-8 hardly looks all that convincing in this light, and
                    Luke's redactional efforts building on Mark don't improve matters
                    much (Luke 3:4, 16-17, and even the references to John's baptism
                    included in Acts). So Luke is left with the problem of how to
                    demonstrate that John is, indeed, great, but less than Jesus. The
                    Infancy Narrative serves this purpose perfectly, and as we examine
                    the stories of John's birth, and Jesus' through the two chapters, the
                    clear picture is one in which John is a great man of God, but he is
                    still far less than Jesus. To save space I will not outline these
                    differences, but I do invite those interested to read through Luke 1
                    and 2, then compare how Luke treats the annunciation, conception and
                    birth of the two protagonists.

                    Alright, that's the end of my speculations for now. Personally I
                    tend to shy from such exercises, since it is easy to move from
                    speculation to pure flights of fancy. But I do believe the above
                    line of reasoning provides more than enough rational for Luke's
                    creation of the Infancy Narrative, and does not require him to know
                    of Matt's own story.

                    > Could Luke have written this on his own in the way you suggest,
                    > drawing on Isaiah? Of course it's possible; indeed I suspect that
                    > he enjoyed the look of this sentence because of its Isaianic ring.
                    > But your mention of Luke 1.13 actually reinforces my point: here
                    > Luke has an angel say the same thing to Zechariah where Luke has no
                    > Matthaean source, and he uses GENNAW rather than TIKTW and gets the
                    > person doing the naming right -- Zechariah will name John, but Mary
                    > won't be naming Jesus.

                    I disagree Mark. The angel instructs Zechariah that he is to name
                    John, John. The name appears to have been chosen on his behalf.

                    As for the literary link between 1:13 and 1:31, it is my contention
                    that Luke is simply using the same convention he has already observed
                    in the LXX. The fact that he uses it twice does not increase (nor
                    decrease) the probability that he used Matthew. Finally, the use of
                    angels in annunciations is standard operating procedure from the
                    examples of the OT, so, again, we should expect to see it for both
                    John and Jesus. Remember, Luke does not want to eliminate John
                    completely (I would argue that would have been impossible, even if he
                    had wished it), but merely to demonstrate that John was great, but
                    not as great as Jesus.

                    > Is this enough to demonstrate that Luke knew Matthew? Absolutely
                    > not. They're just elements that suggest, to me at least, that the
                    > case for the independence here should not be assumed. But for
                    > proper evidence of Luke's use of Matthew, one has to look in more
                    > detail at the Gospels as a whole.

                    And here I can conclude on a more positive note. I continue to
                    believe that the BN argues powerfully against Lucan dependence on, or
                    even knowledge of, Matt. On the other hand, I have serious
                    reservations about Q as well, especially given the increasing
                    plasticity of the arguments that have been built upon its (assumed!)
                    existence. I sincerely wish you well in your efforts to demonstrate
                    the weaknesses of the Q hypothesis, and I even share many of your
                    concerns. Unfortunately, and in spite of those reservations, I
                    remain a weak proponent of the 2DH (with acknowledgements to special
                    M and L material). For now at least I think that it still solves the
                    Synoptic Problem better than any other hypothesis put forward to
                    date. That said, I await the day when I can be convinced otherwise.
                    B^)

                    Now that I am through all of that, I am reminded that I never did ask
                    you the question I intended from my original post:

                    Do you see any place for the hypothetical Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew in
                    your hypothesis? In other words, could Luke have had access to a
                    source written by Matthew, possibly even in Hebrew? This especially
                    intrigues me after reading Steven Notley's very interesting paper of
                    January 7 on the Synoptic-L list. I would appreciate hearing your
                    views on this possible source for Luke, either here or on that list.

                    Thank you again, and peace.

                    Brian Trafford
                    Calgary, AB, Canada
                  • Rikki E. Watts
                    ... Why so odd? Isn¹t is possible that Mark was considered a little strange because he didn¹t have any account of Jesus¹ origins, he did precious little
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jan 13, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      on 9/1/2002 3:46 AM, Mark Goodacre at M.S.Goodacre@... wrote:

                      > Just to add to Ron's message, I think it's easy to underestimate the
                      > case for Matthew's influence on Luke's Infancy Narrative on both the
                      > macro and the micro level. First, I find it odd that on the standard
                      > view, Luke and Matthew both come up with just the same idea
                      > independently, at about the same time, of "fixing" Mark by adding
                      > birth narratives one end, resurrection stories the other and
                      > restructuring with much teaching material in between.
                      >
                      Why so odd? Isn¹t is possible that Mark was considered a little strange
                      because he didn¹t have any account of Jesus¹ origins, he did precious little
                      with the resurrection, and very little teaching (if we are thinking Bioi,
                      and Jesus was a renowned teacher surely one would want more examples of his
                      teaching)? It is hardly unknown that two individuals independently hit on
                      the same idea at the same time.

                      Regards
                      Rikk
                      >


                      Dr. Rikki E. Watts (Cantab) Ph. (604) 583 7312
                      Surrey, BC, Canada



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Rikki E. Watts
                      ... Mark, I¹m not familiar with either of these volumes but I wonder if what we have here might also be interpreted as evidence of a much more broadly based
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jan 13, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        on 9/1/2002 10:23 PM, Mark Goodacre at M.S.Goodacre@... wrote:

                        > Dear Gordon
                        >
                        > Thanks for the email; it was good to meet you at the SBL in Denver.
                        >
                        > I'd be sympathetic with most of your dates, though perhaps a bit late
                        > for Luke. But yes, I'd be broadly happy with Matthew in the 80s and
                        > Luke later. I think John knew the Synoptics and am not yet convinced
                        > that Luke knew John, but a good case is made for it in Mark Matson's
                        > recent book (SBL Dissertation series), and also in Barbara Shellard's
                        > forthcoming _New Light on Luke_ (Sheffield). Interesting that both
                        > also think Luke knew Matt. and Mark.
                        >
                        Mark, I¹m not familiar with either of these volumes but I wonder if what we
                        have here might also be interpreted as evidence of a much more broadly based
                        web of relatively common oral tradition?

                        Dr. Rikki E. Watts (Cantab) Ph. (604) 583 7312
                        Surrey, BC, Canada



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Mark Goodacre
                        On 13 Jan 2002 at 16:05, Rikki E. Watts wrote: [Mark Goodacre] ... Having just replied to Rikk on another issue, I am reminded of this email sitting with many
                        Message 11 of 12 , Feb 1 9:04 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 13 Jan 2002 at 16:05, Rikki E. Watts wrote:

                          [Mark Goodacre]
                          > > I'd be sympathetic with most of your dates, though perhaps a bit
                          > > late for Luke. But yes, I'd be broadly happy with Matthew in the
                          > > 80s and Luke later. I think John knew the Synoptics and am not yet
                          > > convinced that Luke knew John, but a good case is made for it in
                          > > Mark Matson's recent book (SBL Dissertation series), and also in
                          > > Barbara Shellard's forthcoming _New Light on Luke_ (Sheffield).
                          > > Interesting that both also think Luke knew Matt. and Mark.
                          > >
                          > Mark, I¹m not familiar with either of these volumes but I wonder if
                          > what we have here might also be interpreted as evidence of a much more
                          > broadly based web of relatively common oral tradition?

                          Having just replied to Rikk on another issue, I am reminded of this
                          email sitting with many in my pending tray. But, yes, broadly I
                          agree with you. I've read both Shellard and Matson and neither have
                          yet convinced me of Luke's literary dependence on John. I think
                          Lucan knowledge of Johannine traditions is a live possibility. But
                          Matson and Shellard both make very interesting cases and are worth
                          consulting.

                          Mark


                          -----------------------------
                          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
                          Birmingham B15 2TT UK

                          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                          http://NTGateway.com
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.