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

Re: Luke used Mt?

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    ... Wieland, Surely Wallace should have known better than to use this quotation in his article. He was evidently going along with the assumption that Mark has
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 8, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 01:53 PM 4/8/99 +0200, Wieland Willker wrote:
      >* 5 Reasons against a World without Q *
      >----------------------------------
      >This is copied from an article
      >"The Synoptic Problem"
      > by Daniel B. Wallace

      >1. Did Luke Not Know Matthew?
      >
      >a. Luke's Lack of Matthean Additions to the Triple Tradition
      >
      >"One of the strongest arguments against the use of Matthew by Luke is
      >the fact that when Matthew has additional material in the triple
      >tradition (`Matthean additions to the narrative'), it is `never' found
      >in Luke."
      >"If Matthew and Luke both used Mark independently, we would expect that
      >their editorial additions to the account would seldom, if ever, agree
      >with one another. Rather, they would appear as `Matthean additions' and
      >`Lukan additions' to the narratives. And this is exactly what we find."

      Wieland,

      Surely Wallace should have known better than to use this quotation in
      his article. He was evidently going along with the assumption that Mark has
      priority. But let us dispense with that assumption and consider the AH. The
      Matthean additions are then mostly comprised of material that AMk omitted
      from Matthew and which ALk failed to reintroduce. One cannot expect that he
      would have reintroduced *all* of it. The Lukan additions are those which ALk
      added that were not in Matthew or Mark. Thus Wallace's quotation has no
      merit whatsoever, unless Markan priority could be taken as fact. (I wrote
      "mostly comprised" for the Matthean additions to allow for the likelihood
      that a small amount of material was added to Matthew when its Semitic form
      was translated into Greek, after both Mark and Luke had appeared.)

      >b. Luke's Different Context for the Q Material
      >
      >If Luke used Matthew, why does he never place the common (double
      >tradition) material in the same context as it appears in Matthew?
      >Matthew has five
      >well-defined sections of sayings of Jesus which are, for the most part,
      >absent in Mark but present in Luke. In each he concludes the section with
      >"and when Jesus finished these sayings." But Luke scatters these sayings
      >throughout his gospel.

      I believe this is evident and cannot reasonably be denied, although Brian
      recently emphasized some apparent exceptions to this.

      >"The thesis that Luke obtained the Q material from Matthew cannot
      >explain why Luke would have rearranged this material in a totally
      >different and `artistically inferior' format."

      Here is where an enlarged view of redaction criticism needs to be utilized.
      That is, in examining the motivations for ALk to have written his gospel,
      one needs to examine realistic motivations that reflect poorly on the
      writer's character as well as those that reflect favorably. On the AH, ALk's
      motivations were: (a) to write a universal gospel that wasn't biased against
      gentiles (as Semitic Matthew was) or against Jewish disciples (as Mark is
      upon comparing it against Matthew); and (b) to include much of what AMk had
      omitted in his use of Matthew -- Mark omits far too much. In so doing,
      however, ALk's own heavy bias against Matthew's anti-gentile tone caused him
      to treat the Matthean material he was reintroducing in a manner that
      expressed his distaste for the Gospel of Matthew. Thus he treated this ("Q")
      material in the disrespectful manner described in the above quote from
      Wallace's article.

      In so doing, ALk showed his favoritism for Mark over Matthew by following
      Mark's order and content especially well in the section where Mark deviates
      strongly from Matthew's order.

      Hence this argument used by Wallace provides support for the AH even if it
      does touch upon Streeter's view that ALk must then have been a "crank."

      >d. The Form of the Q Material
      >
      >Overall, Luke has a greater number of harder readings than does Matthew
      >in the common material. This is quite difficult to explain on the basis
      >of Matthean priority. Especially is this so when Luke's gospel involves
      >certain motifs that would have benefited from Matthew's articulation.
      >Personally, I regard this as a very strong argument against Matthean
      >priority.

      This would need to be argued in detail. Is a reference available as to
      Luke's greater number of harder readings? When I compare Matthew's "poor in
      spirit" with Luke's "poor," for example, I see the desire by ALk to remove
      any implication that the human spirit might be involved. When I compare
      Luke's "Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh" with Matthew's
      "mourn" and "comforted," I see ALk's desire to alter the Matthean material
      that he was obliged to reintroduce in a careless manner that would sometimes
      make it less appealing. I suspect that Wallace never for a moment considered
      the likelihood that ALk actually did hold Semitic Matthew in contempt, and
      how ALk as a writer would then have felt personally while grudgingly
      reintroducing so much from Matthew in order to fulfill a necessary
      motivation for his writing it. However, ALk couldn't be too obvious in doing
      this, as he was, after all, writing a gospel he no doubt hoped would be
      highly accepted. He had to show his disdain for Matthew in a somewhat subtle
      editorial manner.

      >e. Matthew's and Luke's Lack of Agreement in Order
      >
      >Although (as it has been pointed out) Matthew's and Luke's complete lack
      >of agreement in order whenever they disagree with Mark does not prove
      >Markan priority, if Markan priority is assumed, this does establish that
      >Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one another. Thus, at least
      >one permutation is negated by this evidence, viz., that either Matthew
      >used Luke or Luke used Matthew as a secondary source.

      But of course there's no need to assume Markan priority. The previous
      argument favoring the AH explains this well.

      >f. Luke's Lack of M Material
      >
      >Finally, the fact that Luke lacks the `M' material (material unique to
      >Matthew) and, conversely, the fact that Matthew lacks the `L' material,
      >argues that neither knew the other. It should be carefully noted that
      >this is not circular reasoning, though on the face of it it seems to be.
      >As soon as we define `M' as material unique to Matthew, then of course
      >Luke would lack it! But that is not the real point of this argument.
      >Rather, it is that there is so much material in Matthew-and rich
      >material at that-which would in all probability have been utilized by
      >Luke had he known of it, that for him not to have used it strongly
      >suggests that he did not know of its existence.

      Again the particulars are needed here. However, there is every indication
      that Mt 28:18-20 was added later, when Semitic Matthew was translated into
      Greek, and I believe Mt 12:17-22 was added then also. It's more plausible
      than not that the occasion on which Semitic Matthew was translated provided
      a golden opportunity to make small but significant additions and changes
      that would make Matthew more appealing to gentiles, and thus allow Greek
      Matthew to compete favorably against Mark and Luke.

      Jim Deardorff
      Corvallis, Oregon
      E-mail: deardorj@...
      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 4/8/1999 9:38:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de writes:
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 12, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 4/8/1999 9:38:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        willker@...-bremen.de writes:

        <<
        f. Luke's Lack of M Material

        Finally, the fact that Luke lacks the `M' material (material unique to
        Matthew) and, conversely, the fact that Matthew lacks the `L' material,
        argues that neither knew the other. It should be carefully noted that
        this is not circular reasoning, though on the face of it it seems to be.
        As soon as we define `M' as material unique to Matthew, then of course
        Luke would lack it! But that is not the real point of this argument.
        Rather, it is that there is so much material in Matthew-and rich
        material at that-which would in all probability have been utilized by
        Luke had he known of it, that for him not to have used it strongly
        suggests that he did not know of its existence.
        --------------
        >>
        The defense of this argument on the grounds that it is not circular may be
        insufficient to establish it as even remotely cogent. Rather, the argument
        suffers from extraordinarily naive presuppositions of how an evangelist
        conceived his task; the idea that an evangelist was one whose primary
        instinct was to simply reproduce material in front of him, especially
        well-written, "appealing" material. (Note: this presupposition owes much to
        the theory of Marcan priority, and has some merit IF that theory is true, but
        none at all if it is not, and in any case, none at all AS A PRESUPPOSITION).
        The argument also suffers from a very superficial understanding of the
        relationship between much of the L material in Lk and much of the M material
        in Matt. In many cases, the former does indeed strongly suggest that Luke has
        read and thoroughly digested Matt, but has made use of Matthew's great
        productions in the context of a highly creative re-writing of his own, such
        that Luke's Gospel as a whole, and many of its parts in particular, have a
        non-literal, analogous (and sometimes dialectical) relationship to Matt. It
        would have been completely counter to Luke's principles and training to
        simply reproduce into his Gospel especially the more elaborately constructed
        Matthean masterpieces. Hellenistic "imitation" involved a competitive
        instinct and a principle of emulation by which a second author would attempt
        to demonstrate a superior artistic ability by comparison to that demonstrated
        in his source. This was not accomplished by literal copying.

        Leonard Maluf
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.