[Synoptic-L] Re: Luke 6:6-11
- Leonard Maluf,
I had written:
<< If one is to assume that Luke used Matthew as his source for the
pericope of the man with the withered hand (Lk 6:6-11 & Mt 12:9-14), why
did Luke here change the direct discourse found in Matthew to indirect
discourse? What motivated Luke here to omit both the question Jesus was
asked along with Jesus' answer? Why would Luke change "they asked him" to
"they watched him"? And why did Luke change the direct discourse: "'Is it
lawful on the sabbaths [plural] to heal?'" to the indirect discourse:
"whether it is lawful on the sabbath [singular] to heal"? >>
To which you replied:
<< It amazes me if these are seriously thought to be unanswerable
rhetorical questions. >>
Just for the record, I never once considered my questions to have been
merely rhetorical, nor unanswerable. In fact, I assumed that it was very
possible for someone, perhaps even yourself, to have very satisfactory
answers to my questions. (But I will note, in passing, that you didn't
answer those questions, rather you moved onto other issues which you deemed
to be more important.)
<< FWIW ... there are a number of interesting 'Markan Additions,' e.g.:
"But they were silent"; "... with anger, saddened at the hardness of their
heart"; and "... immediately with the Herodians." >>
To which you replied:
<< Yes, and what, may I ask, motivated Matt and Luke to independently
remove each of the above colorful features, (which make much more sense as
psychological details added by a later writer, a good story teller,
attempting to appeal to a popular audience of Romans through a dramatic
retelling of the Gospel story)? >>
I would be more than happy to try my hand at answering such questions. But
just for the record, I don't believe that ALL the synoptic phenomena
unequivocally points to any one particular solution to the synoptic
problem. I happen to currently hold that the best solution to my mind is
the Two-Source hypothesis. I came to this result when I first read through
Aland's synopsis in the Greek with my pastor (we meet, to read Greek,
almost every week). At that time (it must have been over 10, maybe 15,
years ago), I had just read Farmer's "The Synoptic Problem" (1976), and I
had initially accepted what he had to say, and at that time I accepted the
Griesbach hypothesis. But as I read through the synoptic gospels in Greek,
and through further study, I changed my mind and came to accept the
Two-Source hypothesis. My pastor, FWIW, has accepted Goulder's hypothesis.
After having left off reading the Synoptic gospels to read other things
(the last being Acts), my pastor and I have now started to read through the
Synoptic gospels again in Greek.
As to why Matthew and Luke omitted these 'Markan Additions,' Davies and
Allison  note 8 passages where Jesus experiences emotion in Mark
(e.g. 1:41,43; 3:5; 6:6; 8:12; 10:14,21; 14:33) and which were omitted by
Matthew (1:104-105). And Willoughby Allen made the same observation in his
ICC commentary on Matthew (pp. xxxi-xxxii). The suggestion is that given
Matthew and Luke's higher Christology, they were prone to omit references
to Jesus' experiencing an emotion of anger. Thus this 'Markan Addition' is
another proof of Markan priority!
On the other hand, why was "But they were silent" missing? For Matthew it
is perhaps because he was not following Mark at this point, having just
interpolated a saying into his redaction of Mark. But for Luke, I don't know.
And as for the omission of "with the Herodians." For Luke it is perhaps
missing because he decides to re-work the whole ending to this pericope.
Mark mentions the Herodians twice in his gospel, once at 12:13 and here at
3:6. Assuming the 2SH, Matthew retained the one at 12:13 (i.e., at Mt
22:16), so why didn't he retained the mention at this pericope? I don't know.
-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller@...)
- Brian Wilson wrote --
>Leonard Maluf replied --
>I would suggest that it does not take much imagination or ingenuity to
>work out very convincing reasons for what Mark did if he used Matthew,
>or for what Matthew did if he used Mark.
>Often true, in individual cases. But overall, the view of Matt re-
>Judaizing an originally Jewish-Christian tradition that has previously
>been substantially un-Judaized by Mark is difficult. One should only
>assume such a tortuous line of development for very good reasons.
>Those usually supplied in support of the relative priority of Mark do
>not fit the bill.
Your argument seems to me to be that, if we assume the Farrer
Hypothesis (or similar), (1) Mark must have un-Judaized his source
material and (2) Matthew must then have re-Judaized this source
material, and that this is "tortuous" and therefore unlikely. What are
the grounds for either (1) or (2), however?
With respect to (1), it is conceivable that Mark un-Judaized none of his
source material, but faithfully used the source material available to
him, however un-Judaic it might be. If Mark wrote first, we cannot
distinguish between tradition and redaction in the Gospel of Mark. If we
had a method for making such a distinction, we would immediately be able
to use it to tell whether Matthew used Mark, or Mark used Matthew, and
the synoptic problem would be solved in a flash. On the Farrer
Hypothesis (or similar), not only do we not know which material Mark un-
Judaized, but we do not even know that he un-Judaized any source
material at all.
With respect to (2), on the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar) since half
the Gospel of Matthew is non-Markan material, it would seem that Matthew
has combined un-Judaic Mark with Judaic source material of some kind(s).
This is neither overall un-Judaizing nor overall Judaizing. It is
So, on the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar), there is no tortuous
development of un-Judaizing followed by re-Judaizing. There is only
conflating of Judaic and un-Judaic material. This would have been very
understandable bearing in mind that Christian communities such as those
at Rome, Antioch in Syria, Corinth and so on, were an intermingling of
Gentile and Jewish Christians, and that the writer of the Gospel of
Matthew would have realized that his book could be copied and circulated
widely to such "mixed" assemblies within weeks of it being written.
The question remains whether it is possible for the advocate of the
Griesbach Hypothesis to give an irreversible directional indicator
showing that Matthew did not use Mark. The alternative question is
whether the advocate of the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar) can give an
irreversible indicator to show that Mark did not use Matthew. I doubt
that either can do this.
EM brian@... HP www.twonh.demon.co.uk TEL+44(0)1480385043
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE18 8EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot_
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".