3555Re: [Synoptic-L] Did Luke use Matthew
- Dec 31, 1999In a message dated 12/30/1999 11:22:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<< 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
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
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>