Re: [Synoptic-L] Proto-Matthew & Q
- In a message dated 3/2/2001 4:53:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
<< As to the possibility of Lukan posteriority: Although I now accept that
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).
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...