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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.