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

Re: Luke, Matthew, and John

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.