[Synoptic-L] Re: Fallacies at Heart of Q
- Richard Anderson wrote on Sun Jul 9, 2000 1:51pm:
Subject: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at Heart of Q
> In reviewing Beyond the Q Impasse--Luke's Use of Matthew, I note thatYes, Richard, I think your concerns are justified. All too often the
> there is no discussion of the ransom saying (Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28) nor
> of Matthew's connection of Jesus' convenant blood with the remission
> of sins (26:28).
> I think it is clear that not only has GMark (as well as Matt)
> condemned the animal sacrificial system but also proclaimed a theology
> of the cross. Luke does not.
> It this instance it can be said that the theology of Luke is the
> earliest and most primitive of the synoptics. I have yet to see any
> scholarly discussion of this point by the advocates of Marcan priority
> or by those who claims that Luke is based on either Matt, Mark or
> Then again, why do you need to create a theology of the cross if you
> as a Jew or Jewish follower of Jesus believe on the Day of Atonement,
> the sins of the entire Jewish nation are forgiven and that the death
> of the High Priest has a limited atonement value?
> It seems to me that anyone claiming Luke is based on Matt and/or Mark
> has to explain the existence of this religious belief long after the
> destruction of the Temple.
> The silence of the advocates of Marcan Priority and Lucan dependency
> is deafening.
> Richard H. Anderson
assumption is made that everything in Lk is late, and is based either on
Mk, or on Mt, or on both. But there's much evidence that contradicts these
views. Unfortunately, all too often it is neglected or minimised.
M-E Boismard, in his article THEORIE DES NIVEAUX MULTIPLES, in Dungan,
D.L. (ed.) _The Interrelations of the Gospels_: The proceedings of a
Symposium led by Boismard, Farmer, and Neirynck (Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1990.) discusses this issue, and gives some additional evidence
indicating that Lk should not be seen as all late (to say the least).
Indeed, it seems to contain numerous early features such as you mentioned.
Luke's famous "Great Omission" is but one of them.
And in any case, all the mainstream 2ST and Q theorists seem to agree
that, as compared to Mt, Lk generally tends to preserve the earlier and
more original version of the Sayings of Jesus. So then why is the "general
lateness of Lk" still such an item of faith for them? Surely there appears
to be at least some contradiction in these views.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy
"What are among the moral convictions most fondly held by barbarous and
semi-barbarous people? They are the convictions that authority is the
soundest basis of belief; that merit attaches to readiness to believe;
that the doubting disposition is a bad one, and skepticism a sin; that
when good authority has pronounced what is to be believed, and faith has
accepted it, reason has no further duty" -- Thomas H. Huxley