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

Re: Luke CANNOT use Matthew

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    ... Welcome, Steve. Being new to the list, you may be unaware that a modified form of the AH gives cause for this editorial behavior on the part of the author
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 20, 1999
      At 06:57 PM 4/20/99 GMT, Stephen Nelson wrote:

      >[...] It
      >appears that the sum of the arguments [of Bock's] can be divided into two
      halves:
      >
      >A. Luke cannot have used Matthew because of the implausible way in
      >which he is required to have reorganised Matthew's material.
      >(Argument from inclusion.)
      >
      >B. Luke cannot have used Matthew because of the implausible occasions
      >upon which he has failed to include important Matthean material.
      >(Argument from omission.) [....]

      >I propose that rather, category A objections (inclusion) be explained
      >by the redactional decision of Luke to include Matthean material, and
      >that category B objections (omission) be explained by the redactional
      >decision of Luke to omit this material.

      Welcome, Steve.

      Being new to the list, you may be unaware that a modified form of the AH
      gives cause for this editorial behavior on the part of the author of Luke
      (ALk). In this modified form, the writers of the gospels, in addition to
      appearing on the scene too late to have been the persons to whom the gospels
      are attributed, are allowed to have human motivations for their actions,
      even if these motivations include ethical values not quite up to today's
      standards. It includes ALk having had some later access to the proto-Matthew
      document out of which AMt formed Matthew, taken to be the Logia known to
      Papias, written in Aramaic; ALk was one of the others who "interpreted" (or
      translated) it as best he could. ALk then included within his gospel the few
      things that AMt omitted, in addition to a lot from Matthew that Mark omitted.

      Going over your list from Bock, we have:

      >1. Luke has unique infancy material, and shows no knowledge of
      >Matthew's infancy account.

      This material (Lk 2:1-7 at least) then was omitted by AMt but picked up by
      ALk. AMt had omitted it because its A.D. 6 time frame did not fit his desire
      to portray Herod the Great as the slayer of infants, etc. On the other hand,
      ALk did not mind contradicting Matthew, and so felt free to include it. More
      on this later.

      However, I place Lk 1:5a as stemming from Matthew -- Mt 2:1. Yet the decree
      from Caesar presumably occurred in 6 A.D., with this census being in the
      days of the rebellion of Judas the Galilean (as in Acts 5:37), as was
      Quirinius's becoming governor or legate of Syria.

      >2. Luke is required to have hacked up the aesthetic order of Matthew
      >and scattered it around the Travel Narrative.

      The motivation for ALk having written his gospel is seen to have been to
      correct Matthew for being anti-gentile (as did AMk) but also to correct Mark
      for having been pro-gentile at the exclusion of so much Judaistic material
      from Matthew, and for having portrayed the Jewish disciples in a poor light.
      However, ALk is seen as being as disgusted with AMt for his anti-gentile
      barbs as was AMk, and so he displayed his feelings on this by his editorial
      behavior slanted against Matthew. This was no small deal -- being
      anti-gentile at a time when the church's expansion was occurring most
      rapidly into gentile lands.

      >"...why should so literary an artist as Luke want to destroy the
      >Mathean masterpiece of the Sermon on the Mount?" However one wants to
      >explain the Lukan travel account, it is hardly likely that he quarried
      >the material for it from Matthews sermons." (Fitzmyer, 74)

      Same explanation. Matthew's anti-gentilism, which went so far as to reserve
      discipleship just for the lost sheep of Israel, was totally unacceptable to
      most by late first century and early 2nd century.

      >3. Luke is required to have recast several Matthean parables and
      >Sayings (Pounds, Lost Sheep, Great Banquet, Unfaithful Steward,
      >Beatitudes, Lord's Prayer).

      Same explanation. ALk could show his disgust for Matthew and its
      anti-gentilism largely in this manner, while yet including most of the
      Matthean material that Mark omits in order to fulfill a key reason why he
      felt obliged to write yet another gospel.

      >4. Luke never has the Matthean 'additions' to the triple tradition.
      >
      >"...it is difficult to discern why Luke would have preferred the
      >simpler Marcan form, when he was supposed to have the Matthew form
      >before him." (Fitzmyer, 74)

      Here again, ALk preferred Mark's pro-gentile stance to Matthew's
      anti-gentile stance, and so preferred Mark over Matthew. He had Mark in
      front of him in Greek, the gentile tongue, while Matthew was in Hebrew or
      mixed Hebrew-Aramaic; so this could have been a further reason for his
      preference for Mark.

      In addition, the AH has to have Hebraic Matthew be translated into Greek at
      some stage, and in this modified form this happens only after the other
      Gospels are written. Certain Matthean "additions" and alterations occurred
      by the translator at this somewhat later stage, including the addition of
      the pro-gentile verses Mt 28:17-20, and probably also Mt 12:17-22.

      >5. With two exceptions (3:7-9 & 4:2b-13) Luke never has material from
      >Matthew in the same Marcan context.

      Same explanation as for 2. & 3.

      >"The frequent disagreement with the Matthean order in this regard is
      >crucial to any judgement about Luke's dependence of Matthew; indeed it
      >suggests that he does not depend on him at all.." (Fitzmyer, 75)

      This suggestion is based upon the consideration to overlook the present
      arguments as being theologically unacceptable.

      >6. Any such theory (as the FH) denies Luke 1:1-4 in which Luke says
      >he used 'many' sources. Mark and Matthew do not equate to 'many'.

      Placing Luke 3rd, and having it depend a bit upon the content of Papias's
      Logia, equates to three sources, which comes closer to being "many" than it
      does for other hypotheses.

      >In addition to these difficulties, we may note the following:
      >
      >7. Luke's omissions of M material in the triple tradition are
      >duplicated in the double tradition, where numerous small Matthean
      >aspects are not included. These are particularly seen in the
      >Beatitudes and the Lord's prayer. Fitzmyer, 74 provides a helpful
      >table.

      If ALk only grudgingly included from Matthew what AMk had omitted, it seems
      plausible that he would not have been so meticulous as to have included all
      of it.

      >8. There are occasions when Matthew and other occasions when Luke
      >appear to be providing the 'original' setting of a certain story.
      >This is best explained by use of a common source. Streeter writes:

      I'm not sure of the truth of this, and would go along with the discussion
      you gave it.

      My apologies to others on the list whom I have already familiarized with
      these aspects of the modified AH.


      Jim Deardorff
      Corvallis, Oregon
      E-mail: deardorj@...
      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.