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

Re: [Synoptic-L] What did Luke know?

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... Well, this is exactly so, Stephen. According to Loisy, there were earlier editions of all the gospels, and they all influenced each other along the way.
    Message 1 of 39 , Feb 4, 2000
      On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 Maluflen@... wrote:

      > In a message dated 2/4/2000 12:14:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      > scarlson@... writes:
      >
      > << On page 321 of his ORIGINS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Loisy assigns a date
      > of 140 at the earliest for the canonical edition of Matthew, but then
      > on page 322, Loisy dates the canonical Luke between 135 and 140. This
      > dating thus excludes the dependence of the canonical Luke on canonical
      > Matthew. Of course, Loisy also considers earlier, non-canonical
      > editions of the gospels, which complicates the picture.>>

      Well, this is exactly so, Stephen. According to Loisy, there were earlier
      editions of all the gospels, and they all influenced each other along the
      way. No, his theories are not for those who wish to find simple or
      simplistic solutions to the Synoptic problem. But I'm afraid a simple and
      straightforward "one-step" solution to the Synoptic problem simply doesn't
      exist.

      > I had seen these references, and this would make it all the more
      > amazing to imagine the final redactor of Luke never having seen an
      > edition of Matthew (i.e., the fact that such a redactor was at work,
      > according to Loisy, almost in the middle of the second century). Loisy
      > doesn't say this explicitly (that the latest redactor did not know
      > Matt), but on the other hand, I have not yet found a statement in the
      > book where he clearly envisions even any of the later redactors of
      > Luke having known and used Matthew. I suppose Yuri may still find such
      > a passage, but they don't jump out at you from the book, to say the
      > least.

      It's there, Leonard. I've been writing about this repeatedly over the last
      couple of years. Loisy certainly believed that the last edition of Lk is
      aware of Mt. Like you write yourself, to give 140 as the date for the
      final edition of Lk and to maintain its isolation from Mt is simply not
      realistic. I will look up the passage soon (you're right, he's not making
      a major argument out of this, just mentions this in passing). If it's not
      in the ORIGINS, then it must be in the BIRTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

      Regards,

      Yuri.

      Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

      http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
    • 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
        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.