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

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

Expand Messages
  • FMMCCOY
    ... From: kymhsm To: Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 4:59 PM Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 8, 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
    • Peter Hofrichter
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 4 , 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
        --
      • kymhsm
        Dear Frank and Peter, Sorry, I ve been away for a week involved in a Summer School (God s Unfailing Mercy for All Creation). It will take me a couple of days
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 12, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Frank and Peter,

          Sorry, I've been away for a week involved in a Summer School (God's
          Unfailing Mercy for All Creation). It will take me a couple of days
          still to respond to you both but I will. I had never thought of it,
          but Mk, Lk and Mt's single journey to Jerusalem does limit their
          options with the cleansing of the temple. Simple but obvious
          explanation! I have another reason as well which has just become
          evident over the last week but I'll include it in a fuller response.

          Kym Smith
          Adelaide
          South Australia
          khs@...
        • kymhsm
          Dear Frank, ... major gospel traditions. First, there is the Markan tradition, which consists of the material in Mark. Second, there is the Johannine
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 20, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Frank,

            Sorry for the delay. You wrote:

            >>> 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.>>>

            If Q is John's leftovers, as I suspect, then it might be better to
            say that there are two traditions, Markan and Johannine, with the
            excess Johannine material being added to the markan framework by
            Matthew and Luke.

            It may be even more accurate to say that there is one tradition
            expressed from four different perspectives, each of which allows the
            variations that the others might include. By that I mean that Mark
            was written first to support the Church during the (expected)
            persecutions of Nero. Following the death of Nero (and failure of the
            perousia) the remaining apostles and eyewitnesses met and collated
            their recollections of Jesus' teachings which they intended to add to
            the Markan account. That combined effort abandoned teh Markan
            framework, uding instead Genesis 1&2 and became the Gospel of John.
            Still requiring much of the matreial collatd but not included in
            John, Matthew and Luke took the remaining material (Q) with the
            intention of writing their respective gospels.

            Mark (64), then, was only expected to be required for a short term
            until the parousia and was for rapid distribution to the whole Church
            (i.e. Jew and Gentile). John (68) was similarly for the whole Church
            and to encourage it to continue in the faith following the failure of
            the expected parousia. Matthew and Luke (both 68/69) were to provide
            the extra material lacking in Mark and John but which would be
            necessary for a Church which might (and did) outlast the apostles and
            eyewitnesses who, until that time, had been the primary sources of
            that information. Matthew and Luke were written with particular
            consideration for, respectively, Jewish and Gentile mindsets.

            >>> 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.>>>

            I'd rather call it John's leftovers, but that doesn't sound too
            scholarly, does it.

            >>> 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.......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?
            >>>

            Peter has given the obvious answer why the Synoptics could not have
            it early, i.e. because, in the framework they used, Jesus did not go
            to Jerusalem until the end of his ministry.

            I think there are theological/literary reasons why John has it early,
            but that neither proves nor disproves the actual timing of the event.
            It would not surprise me, however, if John's chronology is correct.

            >>> 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?>>>

            Jesus' hiding himself in 12:36 is likely to have more to do with the
            pressure he was under, cf. 12:27 "Now is my soul toubled..." than any
            cipher for 'discerning reader(s)'.

            Sincerely,

            Kym Smith
            Adelaide
            South Australia
            khs@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.