5955Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke knew Matthew: Three versions
- Apr 11 8:19 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Price" <ron.price@...>
To: "Synoptic-L" <Synoptic-L@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke knew Matthew: Three versions
> Peter Head wrote:
> > Would any of the advocates of the view that Luke knew Matthew like
> > to suggest their best examples?
> I suggest the following:
> (1) The Temptation. Davies & Allison (_Matthew_, I, 350), refer to an
> article by Wilkens - "Die Versuchung Jesu nach Matthaus" NTS 28 (1982),
> 479-89, which argues for the Matthean version as largely redactional and
> for Luke as dependent on Matthew here.
> (2) John the Baptist's Inquiry
> (3) The 'naming' and framing of the Sermon on the Plain, which looks
> very much as if it was based on that of the Sermon on the Mount, for the
> scenery was not in the sayings source.
I find none of these arguments supporting Lukan use of Matthew. Luke's
use of more "primitive" forms of material found in Matthew; Luke's tendency
to use the Aramaic idiom accurately over Matthew's translational Greek
sources....all equals Mark > Luke > Matthew with Matthew using a
translational Greek "Q" and Luke having used an Aramaic document. It
is Luke's Aramaic Q that keeps me out of the "no Q" club. A fictional
document doesn't come in two languages.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>