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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Did Luke excerpt Matthew's Sermon on the Mount?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... This point, of course, is a valid one. Fortunately for Mark G., however, today s leading scholars who actually argue for Q (e.g. Tuckett) do in fact argue
    Message 1 of 39 , Jan 31, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      At 11:50 AM 1/31/00 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
      >On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
      >> Q is an hypothetical text, postulated primarily on the assumption that
      >> Matthew and Luke are independent of one another.
      >
      >But we should not confuse science with the history of science, of course.
      >The reason why theory X was originally proposed may have little do to with
      >the reason(s) why this theory is held by scholars presently.

      This point, of course, is a valid one. Fortunately for Mark G., however,
      today's leading scholars who actually argue for Q (e.g. Tuckett) do in
      fact argue for Q by showing that Matthew and Luke are independent of
      one another.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
      ... This is a very interesting discussion. While I don t have much to offer, I am reading the thread carefully. The one comment I will make is that we need to
      Message 39 of 39 , Feb 16, 2000
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        At 11:57 AM 2/16/00 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
        >I wrote re "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for
        >righteousness.......":
        >
        > >> Au_Matt was introducing one of his
        > >> favourite words and (arguably) at the same time avoiding giving praise to
        > >> a section of society for which he had no special concern.
        >
        >Mark Goodacre replied:
        >
        > >I disagree in particular with the last sentence. Is there any
        > >evidence in Matthew that feeding the hungry is regarded as being
        > >specially blessed? Indeed there is, in what is commonly accepted
        > >to be one of the most blatantly Matthean passages in the Gospel,
        > >25.31-46, "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was
        > >thirsty and you gave me something to drink . . . " etc.
        >
        >Mark,
        > You have a good point here.
        > However the analogy is not *quite* as strong as you suggest. There is
        >a difference between blessing those who feed the hungry and blessing the
        >hungry themselves. It is at least arguable that Au_Matt might have made
        >such a distinction.

        This is a very interesting discussion. While I don't have much to offer, I
        am reading the thread carefully. The one comment I will make is that we
        need to avoid oversimplification. When looking at Matthean references to
        hunger and thirst (both are important), and especially, but not only,
        Matthew 25, we need to keep in mind the complex relationship of Matthew 25
        to Matthew 10:41 and, ultimately, to I Kings 13 (which Matthew surely has
        in mind). Mark (Goodacre) is quite right that hunger - and I would add
        thirst - is an important term in Matthew and (often at least) does
        emphasize that feeding the hungry and giving drink to the thirsty are
        "specially blessed."


        Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
        Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
        Director, African-American Studies Program
        Colby College
        4643 Mayflower Hill
        Waterville, ME 04901-8846
        Email: t_longst@...
        Office phone: 207 872-3150
        FAX: 207 872-3802
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.