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

2293Re: [John_Lit] Re: Luke, Matthew, and John

Expand Messages
  • Peter Hofrichter
    Jan 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: "kymhsm" <khs@...>
      >To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      >Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 4:59 PM
      >Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
      >
      >
      >[Frank]
      ><<<I see a problem with this. Luke contains material from three
      >traditions:
      >the Q, the Markan, and the Lukan. Matthew contains material from three
      >traditions: the Q, the Markan, and the Matthean. If Q existed, it is
      >normally assumed that it consisted solely of the Q tradition.
      >However, if I understand you correctly, you think that Q consisted of
      >the Q, Lukan, and Matthean traditions.
      >
      >What is your justification for thinking this way?>>>
      >
      >[Kym]
      >Certainly I believe that Q existed, but not as a document that
      >circulated widely. It was the leftovers after John (and others) had
      >taken what he wanted for the FG from the combined recollections of
      >the apostles and eyewitnesses who contributed them. And only two
      >copies were necessary.
      >
      >I am not sure that I am saying there was no Lukan or Matthean
      >tradition material, though it could be so. Luke has material that is
      >not in Matthew, but that does not mean that it was not in Q. Unless
      >there is some other criteria for assessing what was in Q other than
      >its inclusion in Matthew also, we cannot be certain either way. It is
      >the same for the material unique to Matthew. One reason for thinking
      >that the non-Markan material in Matthew and Luke must be from Q is
      >that both men may have added to Mark only material that had been
      >attested to by other apostles and eyewitnesses. If Q was the
      >leftovers from the material amassed by the `council' at Ephesus
      >(according to my reconstruction of the post Nero events) and intended
      >originally for the gospel that that gathering resolved to produce (Lk
      >1:1), then it was material well attested to. While Matthew was
      >capable of introducing other material (and he may have, I do not
      >know), he may also have restricted himself to the `attested'
      >material, taking liberty only to rearrange that material according to
      >his understanding of the events/dialogues it contained (e.g. the
      >order of the temptations).
      >
      >I believe that there is a way of demonstrating at least a strong
      >likelihood that some material from Q and some unique to Luke (i.e. Lk
      >24:13-25 - the Emmaus Road) was intended for the FG. If I am correct,
      >then that ties at least a portion of what has been considered as part
      >of the Lukan tradition with Q and with John and leaves the door open
      >for the same to be considered of other Lukan tradition material. It
      >also raises the possibility - though it probably cannot resolve it -
      >that Matthean tradition material also came from Q. As I have already
      >offered - but no one, as yet, has asked for it - that evidence is
      >contained in an appendix that I am happy to send as an attachment to
      >any who request it.
      >
      >Dear Kym:
      >
      >Thank you for your clarification.
      >
      >If I understand you correctly, you think that there are three major gospel
      >traditions. First, there is the Markan tradition, which consists of the
      >material in Mark. Second, there is the Johannine tradition, which consists
      >of the material in John. Third, there is the Q tradition, which consists of
      >all (or, at least, almost all) of the remaining material.
      >
      >As (1) the standard definition of Q is narrower than your own,
      >and as (2) your third tradition consists of material that is unique to
      >Matthew and Luke, you might consider re-naming your third tradition the
      >Lukan-Matthean tradition.
      >
      >One of the major differences between John and Mark is that the temple
      >incident is placed near the beginning of Jesus' ministry in John, but near
      >the end of Jesus' ministry in Mark. Both Luke and Matthew follow Mark in
      >placing it near the end of Jesus' ministry. Interestingly, though, while
      >Mark has it occurring the day after Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, both Luke
      >and Matthew have it occurring on the same day that Jesus arrived in
      >Jerusalem.
      >
      >If, as you hypothesise, both Matthew and Luke were aware of John, then why
      >do they follow Mark rather than John, in placing the temple incident near
      >the end of Jesus' ministry? Could it be that it actually happened near the
      >end of Jesus' ministry and that it is deliberately shifted to near the
      >begiining of Jesus' ministry in John for theological reasons and that both
      >Matthew and Luke were aware of this?
      >
      >In John 12:36, around where, judging by the other three gospels, one would
      >expect the author of John to narrate the temple incident, (s)he, rather,
      >cryptically states that Jesus, "going away, was hid from them." Might this
      >be a cipher telling the discerning reader that the incident which
      >historically occurred next (i.e., the temple incident) has been hid away in
      >a much earlier section of the gospel for theological reasons?
      >
      >Regards,
      >
      >Frank McCoy
      >1809 N. English Apt. 17
      >Maplewood, MN USA 55109
      >
      Dear Mark and Kym!

      To the question - if the synoptics knew John - why Luke and Matthew
      follwed Mark rather than John: Of course, Matthew and Luke agreed
      more to the theology of Mark than to that of John, whose concept was
      newertheless more original and already essentially changed by Mark.
      As to the position of the cleansing of the temple, there are two
      reasons why Mark and accordingly Math and Luke pushed it from the
      beginning to the end of the Gospel. the first reason is am more
      mechanic one. Since Mark hat simplified the disturbing to and fro if
      Jesus' ways to one way from Galilee to Jerusalem, the temple
      cleansing had to be shifted to the end. The second reason is a
      christological one. John applies ot Jesus among others the dignity of
      of the returned prophet Eliah and therefore Maleachi 3,1-3, where the
      Lord and Messenger of God (who is Eliah) comes immediately to purify
      the temple. Therefore John the Baptist denies for himself to be Eliah
      (John 1,21). This dignitiy is spared for Jesus. Quite Contrary to
      that concept John, Mark excludes every identification of Jesus with a
      prophet and especially with Eliah (Mk 6,15; 8,28; 9,4), and he shifts
      this quality to John the Baptist (Mk 11-13; cf. Matth 17,13). As we
      see in Matth 17,13 Matthew shares not only, but even additionally
      explains and underlines the position of Mark. The cleansing of the
      Temple at he end of Jesus has therefore no longr a christological
      meaning for Mark and Matthew. Although Luke is not interested in
      taking one ore the other position and - as he often does - skips the
      whole issue, he maintains the outline of the one way of Jesus from
      Galilee to Jerusalem and therefore also the position of the cleansing
      at the end.

      All the best, Peter
      --
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic