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

33Re: a hypothesis like the Farrer one

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    Feb 16, 1998
      At 07:07 PM 2/16/98 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
      >Antonio Jerez wrote -
      >>As for myself I wholeheartedly endorse the part of the >>hypothesis of
      >>Lagrange, Farrer and Gundry-Morgenthaler that presume Luke's use >>of Matthew.

      >Fair enough, if you wish to hold that view. I would only comment that
      >by itself the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew, Mark and other sources,
      >and that Matthew used Mark, is not a solution to the synoptic problem to
      >my way of thinking.
      >
      >For one thing, Matthew contains hundreds of verses of material - about
      >half his gospel - not found in Mark. A solution to the synoptic problem
      >would, I think, have to be compatible with this phenomenon which can be
      >observed in any synopsis.

      I hope I may comment here, as this lies close to my own main interests.

      A modified Augustinian hypothesis of course also solves this problem -- that
      the writer of Mark in Rome did indeed abbreviate Matthew, as Irenaeus,
      Origen, Augustine... indicated. The primary reason would be the usual one:
      that this writer was writing a gospel for gentiles whom he felt wouldn't be
      much interested in Judaisms. But I sense in addition that he omitted some
      items from Matthew that he did not endorse, and others that he did not
      understand. The latter may have been due partly to original Matthew having
      been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, if for consistency this part of the
      tradition is followed, too.

      >For another thing, is it not a rather odd idea that Luke should have
      >deliberately cannibalized two books (Matthew and Mark), already in use,
      >to produce a third book (Luke)? Was that the done thing in those days?

      I believe that those partaking in such actions would have thought of it as
      correcting serious deficiencies in the previous gospel(s), and not
      cannibalization. The writer of Luke, in striving for a universal gospel,
      would have realized that Mark omits far too much from Matthew, and so the
      omitted material would need to be reinstated into his own gospel (in
      whatever context and order!). The writer of Mark would previously have felt
      that Matthew contains far too much anti-gentile material, and inexcusably
      excluded gentiles from the kingdom. So that had to be remedied.

      I call this part of a modified Augustinian hypothesis because, unlike the
      standard one, it presupposes that the Gospels were written rather late and
      not by their namesakes. In any event, I'm heartened at least to see some
      support on this list for Luke having made use of Matthew.

      Jim Deardorff
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic