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

3555Re: [Synoptic-L] Did Luke use Matthew

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    Dec 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 12/30/1999 11:22:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      jbtucker@... writes:

      << Please forgive me for being pedantic, this statements are from Stein in
      Dic. of Jesus, 790. My academic training has been from professors who
      were two source guys and I have recently been working through the
      implications of Goulder's work. I have finished "Is Q a Juggernaut." and
      Mark's treatment of Goulder and a few other articles. Each of these have
      dealt with aspects of the issues Stein brings up, I would like either a
      response or bibliography for answers to these questions.

      Matthew and Luke did not know each other.

      1. Luke lacks the Matthean additions to the triple tradition.

      2. The Q material is found in a different context in Luke.

      3. At times the Q material is less developed in Luke.

      4. The lack of Matthew-Luke agreements in order and wording against
      Mark.

      5. The lack of M material in Luke.>>

      I will give you short answers to each of the above, and from the perspective
      of my own source hypothesis (more or less neo-Griesbach). You will
      undoubtedly hear from Farrer hypothesis proponents as well, though this may
      materialize some time in the next millennium.

      << 1. Luke lacks the Matthean additions to the triple tradition.>>

      Luke analyzes a Matthean pericope in depth before he employs it. Sometimes he
      finds in it a number of distinct themes which he chooses to develop in
      separate pericopes of his own, or within different contexts of his own (just
      as he does with the sayings material). In the cases that end up being
      described in the above manner, Mark, coming third, has chosen to follow (more
      or less) Luke's form of a given pericope which omits the Matthean material in
      question. I doubt that you will find a single such case in which it would be
      difficult to find elsewhere in Luke-Acts a clear echo of the Matthean passage
      so omitted (e.g. cf. Matt 3:14 and Lk 1:43).

      << 2. The Q material is found in a different context in Luke.>>


      This is neither remarkable nor suprising from the point of view of the 2 GH.
      If Luke has chosen to write a new Gospel at all, it is not remarkable that he
      will consistently place sayings material in a different context, often with
      very pointed pragmatic intent (e.g., when the saying "he who hears you hears
      me" occurs no longer as addressed to the 12, as in Matt 10:40, but now to the
      70, as in Lk 10:16).

      << 3. At times the Q material is less developed in Luke.>>

      These are exceptional and rare cases and involve a judgment call as to what
      is meant by "less developed". They would have to be treated on an individual
      basis. All cases in point have in fact been explained quite successfully, in
      my judgment, both by Farrerites and Griesbachians.

      <<4. The lack of Matthew-Luke agreements in order and wording against
      Mark.>>

      There are, however, in the judgment of both Farrerites and Griesbachians, a
      sufficient number of these to constitute serious problems for the 2SH.

      << 5. The lack of M material in Luke.>>

      Two categories of solutions apply here: on the one hand, a response similar
      to that given for 1. above (where Luke may be seen to develop the Matthean
      themes from M material in a way that is more free than literal, in parts of
      his Gospel not generally recognized as "parallel" to the M material); and, on
      the other hand, some of the M material is simply too Jewish or Jewish
      Christian for Luke's new audience.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic