33Re: a hypothesis like the Farrer one
- Feb 16, 1998At 07:07 PM 2/16/98 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>Antonio Jerez wrote -I hope I may comment here, as this lies close to my own main interests.
>>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.
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 haveI believe that those partaking in such actions would have thought of it as
>deliberately cannibalized two books (Matthew and Mark), already in use,
>to produce a third book (Luke)? Was that the done thing in those days?
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>