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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Did Luke use Matthew ?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Luke doesn t lack them all. It lacks many of them. But at most this shows that Au_Luke preferred Mark as his source wherever a pericope occurs in both Mark
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Tucker wrote:

      >
      >Matthew and Luke did not know each other.
      >
      >1. Luke lacks the Matthean additions to the triple tradition.
      >
      Luke doesn't lack them all. It lacks many of them.
      But at most this shows that Au_Luke preferred Mark as his source
      wherever a pericope occurs in both Mark and Matthew.
      >
      >2. The Q material is found in a different context in Luke.
      >
      This is true of the core sayings material, and it constitutes evidence
      for the existence of a sayings-only source, which I have called "sQ".
      But the Baptist's words and the Temptation story are in the same
      context, and the Centurion's Servant comes shortly after the great
      Sermon in both Matthew and Luke. Au_Luke took all three (Baptist's
      words, Temptation story, Centurion's Servant) from Matthew.
      >
      >3. At times the Q material is less developed in Luke.
      >
      This merely shows that Au_Luke obtained many of his sayings
      from a source other than Matthew. It does not disprove Au_Luke's use of
      Matthew for other material.

      >
      >4. The lack of Matthew-Luke agreements in order and wording against
      >Mark.
      >
      These are the so-called 'minor agreements'. Right?
      According to Prof. U. Schnelle there are about 700 of them.
      If this constitutes a "lack" then you're using some language I don't
      understand. Or else what you say is blatantly erroneous.
      In fact the Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark constitute one of the
      strongest arguments that Au_Luke **did** use Matthew.

      >
      >5. The lack of M material in Luke.
      >
      Using the usual definition of M material as material which is peculiar
      to Matthew, it is logically impossible for any M material to be in Luke,
      for if it were in Luke it would not be peculiar to Matthew, so why is
      its "lack" remarkable?
      Are you saying that if Au_Luke used Matthew he would have used it all?
      Such an idea has no foundation because we know for sure that Au_Luke did
      not use all of Mark.

      To sum up, the Three Source Hypothesis where Au_Luke used Mark and sQ
      as his primary sources and Matthew only occasionally as a secondary
      source easily explains all the problems raised in your five items.

      Happy New Year to you all !

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Brian E. Wilson
      ... Matthew) - ... Ron Price replied - ... It is not remarkable that any material which is defined as absent from both Mark and Luke is absent from Luke. It is
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        >Brian Tucker wrote (as support for the idea that Luke did not use
        Matthew) -
        >
        > 5. The lack of M material in Luke.
        >
        Ron Price replied -
        >
        >Using the usual definition of M material as material which is peculiar
        >to Matthew, it is logically impossible for any M material to be in
        >Luke, for if it were in Luke it would not be peculiar to Matthew, so
        >why is its "lack" remarkable?
        >
        It is not remarkable that any material which is defined as absent from
        both Mark and Luke is absent from Luke. It is remarkable, however, that
        if Luke used Matthew there is so much material in Matthew which is
        absent from both Mark and Luke. In other words, perhaps what Brian
        Tucker intended to say was simply -
        >
        > 5. The existence of so much M material.
        >
        This is a difficulty for the 3SH, and equally for the Farrer Hypothesis,
        I would suggest. For on these hypotheses, from where did all that M
        material come? On the 3SH (or the FH), did Matthew use a sort of divine
        *creatio ex nihilo* to produce the material special to his gospel out of
        nothing? Or did he use an additional source which advocates of the 3SH
        (and FH) would find it embarrassing to admit because it would make their
        hypothesis more complex and therefore less credible? Either way, it
        seems there is a difficulty here for the 3SH (or FH).

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
        SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
        10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 1/1/2000 6:13:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 1/1/2000 6:13:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          ron.price@... writes:

          <<
          >2. The Q material is found in a different context in Luke.>
          This is true of the core sayings material, and it constitutes evidence
          for the existence of a sayings-only source, which I have called "sQ".
          But the Baptist's words and the Temptation story are in the same
          context, and the Centurion's Servant comes shortly after the great
          Sermon in both Matthew and Luke. Au_Luke took all three (Baptist's
          words, Temptation story, Centurion's Servant) from Matthew.>>

          There is an incoherency in the above response, taken as a whole. If one
          admits, e.g., that the Centurion's Servant story comes to Luke from Matthew,
          then it is clear from his handling of Matt 8:11-12 (removal to a totally
          different context in 13:28-29) how Luke treats lengthy "sayings" material
          from Matt, and this explains the relationship of Luke's "Q" material to
          Matthew's without the need to hypothesize a "Q" document separate from
          Matthew itself. So the fact that the "Q" material is found in a different
          context in Luke does not "constitute evidence
          for the existence of a sayings-only source".

          Leonard Maluf
        • Ron Price
          Brian Wilson suggested that the existence of so much M material poses a problem for the 3SH and Farrer hypotheses because they have difficulty explaining where
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Brian Wilson suggested that the existence of so much M material poses a
            problem for the 3SH and Farrer hypotheses because they have difficulty
            explaining where the material came from and why the author of Luke
            rejected it.

            Brian,
            I don't see any difficulty arising from this observation.
            (1) Most M material was probably created by Au_Matt. This is consistent
            with the fact that in critical circles the M material is widely regarded
            as almost worthless as a source for the historical Jesus. The only
            exception I can think of which has a reasonable claim to historicity is
            the name of Jesus' father.
            (2) Au_Luke was clearly dissatisfied with the earlier gospels (Luke
            1:1-4). Therefore we should not be surprised that he rejected so much of
            Matthew.

            Leonard Maluf wrote:

            >If one
            >admits, e.g., that the Centurion's Servant story comes to Luke from Matthew,
            >then it is clear from his handling of Matt 8:11-12 (removal to a totally
            >different context in 13:28-29) how Luke treats lengthy "sayings" material
            >from Matt, and this explains the relationship of Luke's "Q" material to
            >Matthew's without the need to hypothesize a "Q" document separate from
            >Matthew itself. So the fact that the "Q" material is found in a different
            >context in Luke does not "constitute evidence
            > for the existence of a sayings-only source".

            Leonard,
            I accept that your observation lessens the force of this particular
            argument
            for the existence of a sayings source. But I don't think it totally
            nullifies it.
            The fact that Au_Luke changed the context of Matt 8:11-12 would show
            that
            he is not above occasionally changing the context of a saying when it
            suited
            his purposes. It would not show that he could have made the wholesale
            changes of context required by the Farrer Hypothesis for sayings
            material.

            Ron Price

            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

            e-mail: ron.price@...

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          • David Barrett Peabody
            ... Ron, Surely you would not exclude all of the parables in the M material as almost worthless as a source for the historical Jesus. Most critical circles
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 2, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Ron Price wrote:

              >(1) Most M material was probably created by Au_Matt. This is consistent
              >with the fact that in critical circles the M material is widely regarded
              >as almost worthless as a source for the historical Jesus. The only
              >exception I can think of which has a reasonable claim to historicity is
              >the name of Jesus' father.

              Ron,

              Surely you would not exclude all of the parables in the M material "as
              almost worthless as a source for the historical Jesus." Most "critical
              circles" interested in the historical Jesus with which I am familiar would
              be more cautious about excluding all of this material.

              David B. Peabody
              Nebraska Wesleyan University
              5000 St. Paul Ave.
              Lincoln, NE 68504
              Phone: (402) 465-2302
              FAX: (402) 465-2179
              e-mail: dbp@...
            • Steven Craig Miller
              To: David Barrett Peabody, Ron Price, et al., RP:
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 2, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                To: David Barrett Peabody, Ron Price, et al.,

                RP: << ... in critical circles the M material is widely regarded as almost
                worthless as a source for the historical Jesus. The only exception I can
                think of which has a reasonable claim to historicity is
                the name of Jesus' father. >>

                DBP: << Surely you would not exclude all of the parables in the M material
                "as almost worthless as a source for the historical Jesus." Most "critical
                circles" interested in the historical Jesus with which I am familiar would
                be more cautious about excluding all of this material. >>

                Even the radical Jesus Seminar accepts some M material as among the
                authentic sayings of Jesus. And I would suspect that other less-radical
                reconstructions of the historical Jesus would find some M material to be
                authentic as well.

                -Steven Craig Miller
                Alton, Illinois (USA)
                scmiller@...
                Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),
                what do I know?"
              • Brian E. Wilson
                Ron Price wrote -- ... I can see that on the 3SH you are almost driven to this conclusion concerning Au_Matt. The only obvious alternative would be to posit a
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 2, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ron Price wrote --
                  >
                  >Most M material was probably created by Au_Matt.
                  >
                  I can see that on the 3SH you are almost driven to this conclusion
                  concerning Au_Matt. The only obvious alternative would be to posit a
                  second hypothetical documentary source, making the 3SH even more
                  complex.

                  Do you not find it strange on the 3SH, however, that although Au_Matt
                  was such an uncompromisingly inventive writer in creating so much M
                  material out of his own head, yet he adhered so faithfully to the
                  wording of the sayings of Jesus he took from the Gospel of Mark?

                  Best wishes,
                  BRIAN WILSON

                  E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
                  SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
                  10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                  Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK
                • Ron Price
                  ... David, I stand corrected. My statement was not sufficiently precise. What I should have written was that in critical circles the M material is widely
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 3, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ron Price wrote:

                    >> Most M material was probably created by Au_Matt......
                    >>in critical circles the M material is widely regarded
                    >>as almost worthless as a source for the historical Jesus.


                    David Peabody replied:
                    >
                    >Surely you would not exclude all of the parables in the M material "as
                    >almost worthless as a source for the historical Jesus." Most "critical
                    >circles" interested in the historical Jesus with which I am familiar would
                    >be more cautious about excluding all of this material.


                    David,
                    I stand corrected. My statement was not sufficiently precise.
                    What I should have written was that in critical circles the M material
                    is widely regarded as almost worthless as a source for events relating
                    to the life of Jesus.

                    There are a few **sayings** in M material (including a few short
                    parables) which may be authentic.
                    However as our earliest record of these is in Matthew's gospel, ca. 80
                    CE, they must surely be assessed for consistency with earlier testimony
                    such as that of the Q material before being accepted as authentic. So in
                    a sense they represent secondary source material.

                    It should be noted also that some of these sayings may have been in
                    'Q' but we don't recognize them as 'Q' sayings because Au_Luke rejected
                    them. For instance I think that: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles ....."
                    (Matt 10:5b-6) was probably in 'Q' but was rejected by Au_Luke as
                    anti-Gentile.
                    Any remaining authentic M sayings must be attributed by the 3SH to
                    oral tradition. Of course on the Farrer Hypothesis the number of
                    authentic Matthean sayings which must be attributed to oral tradition is
                    very much larger, unless one accepts Michael Goulder's extremely
                    sceptical position on the authenticity of the 'Q' material, which I
                    don't.
                    However the less sceptical Farrer view also seems to me incredible.
                    For it is unlikely that Au_Matt, who was clearly interested in events as
                    well as sayings, would have had access to so much reliable oral
                    **sayings** tradition (the subset of Q and M sayings which are
                    authentic) whilst apparently having access to so little reliable oral
                    **events** tradition.

                    Brian Wilson wrote:

                    >Do you not find it strange on the 3SH, however, that although Au_Matt
                    >was such an uncompromisingly inventive writer in creating so much M
                    >material out of his own head, yet he adhered so faithfully to the
                    >wording of the sayings of Jesus he took from the Gospel of Mark?

                    Brian,
                    I see no contradiction between being relatively faithful to a written
                    source and inventing new material. Indeed there are several cases which
                    constitute an intermediate category, where Au_Matt takes a kernel from
                    Mark or 'Q' and develops it into a full blown story or parable.
                    For example on the 3SH, Matt 4:1-11 can be seen as a development of Mark
                    1:12-13, Matt 4:12-16 as a development of Mark 1:14 and Matt 25:14-30 as
                    a development of Q 19:26.

                    Ron Price

                    Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                    e-mail: ron.price@...

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.