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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Did Luke use Matthew

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... Apologies for coming back on this late in the day. I have attempted to provide brief answers to several of these points in my Mark Without Q FAQ at
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 11, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      > At 11:20 PM 12/30/99 -0500, Brian Tucker wrote:
      > >I would like either a
      > >response or bibliography for answers to these questions.
      > >
      > >Matthew and Luke did not know each other.
      > >1. Luke lacks the Matthean additions to the triple tradition.
      > >2. The Q material is found in a different context in Luke.
      > >3. At times the Q material is less developed in Luke.
      > >4. The lack of Matthew-Luke agreements in order and wording against
      > >Mark. 5. The lack of M material in Luke.

      Apologies for coming back on this late in the day. I have
      attempted to provide brief answers to several of these points in my
      Mark Without Q FAQ at http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/faq.htm.

      More briefly still, (1) is an error: Luke has many of Matthew's
      additions to Mark; they are not noticed by two source theorists
      because they have already been parcelled off to a troubling location
      of their own labelled "Mark-Q overlap".

      (2) is essentially the argument from order, for which my preference
      is to look to a literary-critical explanation: Luke is attempting to
      write a plausible, dramatic account in sequence of the kind that
      necessitates relocating much (but not all) of the Q material.

      (3) is the argument from alternating primitivity for which one needs
      to look at Goulder's recent article on "Self Contradiction in the IQP"
      as well as to reflect on the likelihood that Luke is interacting
      creatively with Matthew in line with his oral tradition.

      (4) There are substantial agreements in order between Matthew
      and Luke against Mark but they tend to be in places where the non-
      Markan Matthean material has marked narrative elements, on
      which cf. my Q-Thomas paper. Luke's primary decision, though,
      was to follow Mark, which he had known for longer, and to add
      Matthean material subsequently, often in fresh, more appropriate
      literary settings.

      (5) is a fallacy, as I think has already been pointed out. Luke does
      not include M by definition. But I notice that I have not covered this
      one in my FAQ and I ought to do so.

      Mark
      ---------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology
      University of Birmingham Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
      New Testament Gateway
      Mark Without Q
      Aseneth Home Page
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.