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

Re: Luke, Matthew, and John

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Jan 20, 2002
      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)'.


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