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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Fallacies at the Heart of Q

Expand Messages
  • Bob MacDonald - AMA
    ... “Luke-pleasing” elements of Matthew in the third Gospel. [19] In particular, we should not be surprised that Luke s version of Peter s Confession (Luke
    Message 1 of 14 , Nov 1, 2000
      In the Fallacies article, Mark Goodacre writes:

      >>We will expect to find, to use Austin Farrer's phrase, only the
      “Luke-pleasing” elements of Matthew in the third Gospel. [19] In particular,
      we should not be surprised that Luke's version of Peter's Confession (Luke
      9.22-26) does not feature Matthew's additions about the ascendancy of Peter.
      After all, Luke's Gospel is not as positive about Peter overall as is
      Matthew's, and the narrative development of Luke-Acts – in which Peter
      progressively recedes further and further into the background – would seem
      to exclude the possibility of Luke's inclusion of the Matthean statement. It
      is exactly the kind of Matthean addition to Mark that we would expect Luke
      to omit. <<

      The process of interpreting redaction seems to require the imputation of
      likes and dislikes to the redactor.

      While I might like the theory that requires fewer buttresses, how would you
      know this if I didn't tell you? My inner likes and dislikes could follow
      Occam's pattern or I might prefer something more Baroque and inefficient.

      The above statement by Farrer is more light hearted than many statements of
      motive. A quick for instance is the common appeal to 'competition' between
      the BD and Peter in John. The Peter-preference of Matthew over Luke is also
      being noted in the above quote. Am I right to contend that if there is to be
      a 'preference' for Peter imputed to Au. Matthew or a 'preference' for others
      in another Gospel, that it should have a measurable piece of evidence behind
      it (other than the projection of our own likes and dislikes)?

      Another example: "Luke is making clear that _he is critical_ of his
      predecessors' work and that his radical re-ordering of Matthew is in the
      interest of providing Theophilus with the truth of those things in which he
      has been catechized."

      How do we know that Luke is 'critical'? Is Matthew 'untrue' because Luke has
      written things 'in order'? Is Matthew necessarily then 'out of order'? Luke
      clearly tells us in some of his writing that there was sharp division among
      believers. He does not say here that there is division between himself and
      his source material in his Gospel. He specifically says they also wrote 'in
      order'. (1:1) Unhappily, my Greek is insufficient to distinguish the nuance
      of anatassomai (1:1) vs pasin akribos kathexis (1:3).

      I read others saying that Luke is 'correcting' a prior Gospel. Without Luke
      saying 'I am correcting so and so', it seems to me that the imputation of
      correction as a motive is assuming too much. If I were to impute a motive to
      Luke, I would say that he enjoyed the opportunity he had to teach
      Theophilus. He was not operating out of a need to correct previous authors
      at all.

      Any comments - I don't mind being corrected.


      + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

      Catch the foxes for us,
      the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
      for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.