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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Proto-Matthew & Q

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 3/2/2001 4:53:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, poirier@siscom.net writes:
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 3/2/2001 4:53:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      poirier@... writes:

      << As to the possibility of Lukan posteriority: Although I now accept that
      Luke
      may be dependent upon Mark, I've always been struck at how often one finds
      commentators referring to Luke's smoothing over of redactional seams. The
      presence of these "seams," of course, is deduced only from a comparison with
      Mark. I think the matter deserves another look. Perhaps Luke didn't smooth
      over anything, and the absence of seams is the result of Luke's dependence
      upon Mark's source document.

      I just mention this as a possibility. The foregoing does not reflect the
      shape of my present working hypothesis (= the Goulder hypothesis), but it
      does reflect some real problems I see with the easy assumptions that
      everyone makes about Luke.>>

      Some questions and observations on the above:

      If you are now a follower of the Farrer position, this implies that you
      believe Luke knew and used Matt. You also speak of Luke's possible
      "dependence on Mark's source document". These two positions could coincide,
      and in fact do so, to some extent, under the Two Gospel Hypothesis model.
      Worth thinking about, at any rate.

      Two things could make one believe that Luke used Mark, rather than vice
      versa, in the material common to these two Evangelists alone:

      1. The clear presence in Luke of Markan redactional features (and you have
      previously said that the results of your research showed that there are none);

      2. If this material itself were demonstrably "Markan" in origin or
      inspiration. Now there is not a large amount of this material to begin with,
      but what there is of it can, I think, be demonstrated to be rather Lukan (as
      opposed to Markan) in inspiration (though there is no universally accepted
      methodology for making this determination, I would urge you to consider the
      prima facie case in favor of this judgment).

      Once we begin to suspect that Mark might depend on Luke, rather than vice
      versa, it would make sense to look for further confirmation of this
      possibility. And this may be found through the following considerations:

      Luke's dependence on Matt, which is accepted by at least three popular models
      of Synoptic interrelationships (Farrer, Augustine, Griesbach), may be
      understood in a weak or in a stronger sense. If we experiment with the
      stronger sense of this hypothesis, we are obligated to think through in depth
      the precise nature of Luke's relationship with and dependence on Matt. When
      one has done this, learning to read Matthew carefully through Luke's eyes,
      one stumbles on an interesting phenomenon: namely, that Luke's way of using
      Matthew requires, at times, by its own internal logic, the generating of
      "new" Synoptic material. When it is then discovered that some of this
      material, coming right out of Luke's analysis and use of Matt, shows up in
      Mark, the idea clearly suggests itself that Mark wrote at a time when the
      Lukan use and expansion of Matt was already in existence (the 2 GH model).
      This conclusion then also has the advantage of explaining why there are no
      signs of Markan redaction in the text of Luke. The theory as a whole can
      become problematic only if there are (also!) clear signs of Markan redaction
      in Matt, or of "secondariness" in Matt, not just in general, but specifically
      with reference to one or other of the existing Synoptic Gospels. This is a
      good and important question to pose explicitly, if you have not yet done so.
      I would suggest that the search will result in no clear indication of
      secondariness in Matt with respect specifically to Mark (and quite a number
      of such in the reverse direction).

      Leonard Maluf

      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.