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

5955Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke knew Matthew: Three versions

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    Apr 11 8:19 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- 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?
      >
      > Pete,
      >
      > 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.

      Jack


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic