Re: the Markan Cross Factor
- Brian Wilson wrote:
> It seems to me that the pattern described above still needs to beHow far is the explanation suggested by Stephen Carlson and
seconded by David Mealand adequate? Can we not say that Matthew and
Luke are generally more conservative with sayings material than they
are with narrative material?
If one wants a modern parallel for the same thing, consider some of
the Jesus films. *King of Kings* (Nicholas Ray, 1961), on the whole,
keeps the Biblical words in Jesus's mouth though playing fast and
loose with the narrative order and narrative setting (and even
narrative voice, spoken in *King of Kings* by Orson Wells). I think
the same basic point could be made about *Jesus of Nazareth*
(Zeffirelli, 1977) and even about films specifically based on one of
the Gospels, *Godspell* (David Greene, 1973) and *The Gospel
According to St Matthew* (Pasolini, 1964).
Further, is there a danger that the following overstates the case?
> For instance, in the double tradition "John's Question to Jesus" inThe only narrative material in Matt. 11.2-6 // Lk 7.18-23 is the
> Mt 11.2-6 // Lk 7.18-23, the direct speech in Matthew is very
> similar in wording to the wording which is parallel in Luke, but the
> parts of Matthew which are not direct speech show hardly any verbal
> agreement at all with the parts of Luke which are not direct speech.
introductory verse in each account. The introductory verse to a
pericope is always likely to be different in each Gospel because this
is where a redactor is setting the scene in characteristic fashion.
Even in pre-redaction-criticism days, the redactor's work at the
beginning of pericopae was recognised as important -- Bultmann
devoted a whole chapter in his *History* to such transitional verses.
The differences are likely to be particularly marked in cases like
this where Matthew and Luke have differing material preceeding
the pericope in question (Luke the Widow at Nain, Matthew the
Discourse on Mission).
The point is confirmed by two observations:
a). within the same section (Matt. 11.2-6 // Luke 7.17-23), Matthew
and Luke agree almost verbatim on Matt. 11.4 // Luke 7.24, KAI
APROKRIQEIS [hO IHSOUS, Mt] EIPEN AUTOIS
b). In the introduction to the next section, now parallel in sequence
between Matthew and Luke, the wording in narrative is closer than it
was in Matt. 11.2 // Luke 7.18:
Matt. 11.7: HRXATO O IHSOUS LEGEIN TOIS OCLOIS
Luke 7.24: HRXATO LEGEIN PROS TOUS OCLOUS
> This is true also of the double tradition account of the Temptation'Not at all similar' is, I think, slightly to overstate the case.
> of Jesus. Matthew and Luke agree closely in wording where the devil
> is speaking, or Jesus, but the material which is not direct speech
> is not at all similar.
Matthew and Luke agree in several respects against Mark in the
narrative sections of the Temptation story, e.g. hUPO TOU DIABOLOU
against Mark's hUPO TOU SATANA (Mark 1.13 //); EPEINASEN (Matt. 4.2
// Luke 4.2), but also strikingly at the following place:
Matt. 4.5: KAI ESTHSEN AUTON EPI TO PTERUGION TOU hIEROU
Luke 4.9: KAI ESTHSEN EPI TO PTERUGION TOU hIEROU
>The same thing generally happens in theHere again the narrative material concerned is at the beginning of
> triple tradition also, however. For example, in the triple tradition
> account of Jesus and his disciples walking through the cornfields
> (Mt 12.1-8, Mk 2.23-28, Lk 6.1-5), the direct speech by the
> Pharisees and by Jesus is mostly very similar in Matthew and Luke,
> but Matthew and Luke have very little verbal similarity in the
> material which is not direct speech.
the pericope, most of the rest of which is direct speech. The
evangelists are showing characteristic variation at a pericope's
opening though, nevertheless, showing clear agreement also (DIA
SPORIMWN, hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU etc.).
To summarise, I think that the answer is threefold:
1. Observing the difference between narrative and sayings will take
us most of the way, as has already been noted. A good parallel is
provided by the way Jesus films deal with the Gospel material.
2. Observation of the way the evangelists handle openings of
pericopae (and the like) will take us most of the rest of the way.
3. We should be careful not to over-generalise -- there
is often agreement in narrative between the Gospels, in
both triple tradition and double tradition.
With good wishes
Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham