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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke knew Matthew: Three versions

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/10/2001 9:08:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pmh15@cam.ac.uk writes:
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 10 7:38 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 4/10/2001 9:08:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      pmh15@... writes:

      << There seem to be three different views among those who think that Luke knew
      Matthew:

      a) Griesbach Hyp view: Lk used Mt as his major source (e.g. Old Griesbach
      School, Farmer, Q Impasse) >>

      The three examples cited here in the e.g. should probably be distinguished
      from each other in terms of their view that Luke knew and used Matthew, with
      significantly increasing awareness and exploitation of this fact from the
      first to the last named. I have not personally read through the whole of
      Griesbach's own treatise, but I have read in informed sources that he barely
      mentions Luke's knowledge and use of Matt. The entire treatise is focused on
      arguing that Mark's Gospel is best understood as a conflation of Matt and
      Luke. (My own approach has been from exactly the opposite direction from
      Griesbach: my emphasis has been on investigating the very complex web of
      evidence for Luke's profoundly respectful -- and critical -- use of Matthew,
      which can by no means be reduced to the picking up of a Matthean phrase here
      or there.) Farmer did more in the direction of thinking through Luke's use of
      Matt, and Q Impasse goes still further (but not far enough, in my view) in
      this direction.

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 4/10/2001 9:43:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 10 7:56 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 4/10/2001 9:43:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

        << Discussing Farrer alongside
        Griesbach does tend to obscure the extent to which Marcan
        Priority is foundational for the Farrer theory >>

        Indeed! This peculiar combination of responses to the Two Source Theory on
        the part of Farrerites has always puzzled me. From my point of view, they
        evidence (1) a profoundly critical rethinking of the Q hypothesis and (2) a
        seemingly uncritical acceptance of Markan priority as foundational to the
        solution of the Synoptic Problem. This is of course beginning to change in
        recent times, with the significant efforts and contributions of Mark G. and
        Peter Head, who have at least attempted to find some minimal solid support
        for Markan priority, the classical arguments for which have been demonstrated
        to be so hopelessly worthless, to state the point somewhat provocatively.
        But, to my knowledge, Farrerites have yet to address the significant
        arguments in favor of Markan posteriority that have been assembled by
        Griesbachians and others.

        Leonard Maluf

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Peter M. Head
        Thanks Mark for your helpful notes. Are there any interesting non-scientific commonalities among the British representatives of the Farrer-Goulder theory?
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 10 10:05 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Mark for your helpful notes. Are there any interesting
          non-scientific commonalities among the British representatives of the
          Farrer-Goulder theory? Oxford is one. Did they all go to the same school or
          something?
          I'm not meaning to ignore your comment by the way, it is just that Farrer
          theory is much less clear than Farrer-Goulder (which non-advocates have
          been using for a while). Should advocates be given automatic rights of
          self-identification?

          Re
          >The difficulty with treating the issue globally is that the Farrer
          >Theory is more closely related to the Two-Source Theory than it is
          >to the Griesbach Theory since both Two-Source and Farrer make
          >Marcan Priority foundational. Discussing Farrer alongside
          >Griesbach does tend to obscure the extent to which Marcan
          >Priority is foundational for the Farrer theory (cf. my "A Monopoly on
          >Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q").

          The alternative problem is that much of the evidence is somewhat similar.
          It is hard to imagine any discussion not being very repetitious. Anyway
          I'll worry about later.

          Pete


          Dr. Peter M. Head
          Tyndale House
          36 Selwyn Gardens
          Cambridge CB3 9BA
          Tel: 01223 566607
          Fax: 01223 566608
          email: pmh15@...



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Peter M. Head
          Thanks Leonard, that is worth pondering, although there is a bit more stuff in inter alia de Wette, Bleek, Davidson. There may be some more detail again in old
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 10 10:05 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks Leonard, that is worth pondering, although there is a bit more stuff
            in inter alia de Wette, Bleek, Davidson. There may be some more detail
            again in old material from the T¨bingen school. By the way I find your
            confession re Griesbach somewhat surprising (although your sources are
            surely right at this point).

            Peter

            Dr. Peter M. Head
            Tyndale House
            36 Selwyn Gardens
            Cambridge CB3 9BA
            Tel: 01223 566607
            Fax: 01223 566608
            email: pmh15@...



            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... Yes. The Augustinians (Zahn, Jameson, Chapman, Butler, and Wenham in the 20th century). Although the Augustinians and Farrer theory Q skeptics disagree
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 10 2:56 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              At 02:06 PM 4/10/01 +0100, Peter M. Head wrote:
              >There seem to be three different views among those who think that Luke knew
              >Matthew:
              >
              >a) Griesbach Hyp view: Lk used Mt as his major source (e.g. Old Griesbach
              >School, Farmer, Q Impasse)
              >b) Farrer-Goulder Hyp view: Lk used Mt as supplement to Mk, therefore
              >dispense with Q (e.g. Farrer, Goulder, Drury, Ropes, Enslin [I think some
              >Americans have held this view!], Goodacre)
              >c) 2SH view: Lk exhibits occasional knowledge of Mt, but primary sources
              >were Mk & Q (Gundry, later Holtzmann, Morganthaler).
              >
              >Some questions:
              >i) Have I missed anyone important?

              Yes. The Augustinians (Zahn, Jameson, Chapman, Butler, and Wenham in
              the 20th century). Although the Augustinians and Farrer theory Q
              skeptics disagree on Markan priority, their views on Luke's use of
              Matthew and Mark are compatible. (Though the Q skeptics, who hold
              to Markan priority without Q, have the better psychological argument
              for Luke's preference for Mark: Luke had known Mark for longer.)

              >ii) Does anyone know anything about E. Simon, Hat der dritte Evangelist den
              >kanonischen Matthäus benutzt (Bonn: C. Georgi, 1880)? Apparently influenced
              >Holtzmann, mentioned in Farmer, Synoptic Problem. Where does he fit into
              >the typology?

              All I know is what Hobbs explained. Simons was like your view
              (c), which has been termed the Three Source Hypothesis (Mark, Q,
              and Matthew). Holtzmann worked with Simons on this issue, which
              allowed Holtzmann to abandon Ur-Markus.

              >iii) If one was going to argue the opposite (i.e. Luke's independence from
              >Matthew) would it be fair to treat the issue globally, or would one need a
              >detailed critique of each of the three options?

              I would argue them separately. They are different and raise different
              kinds of issues.

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... If by treatise you are referring to his Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur, then you are
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 10 3:01 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                At 10:38 AM 4/10/01 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                >I have not personally read through the whole of
                >Griesbach's own treatise, but I have read in informed sources that he barely
                >mentions Luke's knowledge and use of Matt. The entire treatise is focused on
                >arguing that Mark's Gospel is best understood as a conflation of Matt and
                >Luke.

                If by "treatise" you are referring to his Commentatio qua Marci
                Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse
                monstratur, then you are right, except that I couldn't find
                anything in it at all that refers to Luke's use of Matthew. Bo
                Reicke claimed that in another work, Inquisitio in fontes, unde
                Evangelistae suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint
                (1783), Greisbach did assert that Luke used Matthew.

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Mark Goodacre
                ... I think Oxford is one -- Farrer taught Goulder there in the 1950s and John Muddiman in the 1960s. Franklin was at St Stephen s House and was my tutor in
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 10 3:17 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 10 Apr 2001, at 18:05, Peter M. Head wrote:

                  > Thanks Mark for your helpful notes. Are there any interesting
                  > non-scientific commonalities among the British representatives of the
                  > Farrer-Goulder theory? Oxford is one. Did they all go to the same
                  > school or something?

                  I think Oxford is one -- Farrer taught Goulder there in the 1950s and
                  John Muddiman in the 1960s. Franklin was at St Stephen's House
                  and was my tutor in the 1980s; Muddiman was my doctoral
                  supervisor in the 1990s. John Drury was chaplain of Exeter
                  College (which, as it happens, was my college too) in the 1970s,
                  across the road from Trinity where Goulder was giving his
                  Speakers' Lectures published as _Midrash and Lection in
                  Matthew_ in 1974 (cf. the preface to Drury's 1976 _Tradition and
                  Design in Luke's Gospel_). E. P. Sanders was Dean Ireland
                  professor at Oxford in the 1980s, and it was while there that he
                  published (with Margaret Davies) his most Farrer-friendly piece,
                  _Studying the Synoptic Gospels_ (1989). I can't fit Benedict Green
                  in here. I wonder if he was taught by Farrer too? I'll have to ask
                  him.

                  No, I don't think the same school comes into it. They are all posh
                  (e.g. Goulder went to Eton) whereas I was just an ordinary bod who
                  went to the local comprehensive school in the East Midlands.

                  There's a minor Birmingham link too. Goulder has spent most of
                  his academic career in the University of Birmingham until his
                  retirement in 1994. Farrer was a Cadbury lecturer here in 1953-4
                  (and the book is _St Matthew and St Mark_). Margaret Davies was
                  an undergraduate here in the late '50s, early '60s. I've been here
                  since 1995 for my short career so far. Ed Sanders was the
                  Cadbury lecturer here last year!

                  However, there are now those who have no link with any of this who
                  are becoming Q sceptics simply because they are looking carefully
                  at the evidence : )

                  > I'm not meaning to ignore your comment by the
                  > way, it is just that Farrer theory is much less clear than
                  > Farrer-Goulder (which non-advocates have been using for a while).
                  > Should advocates be given automatic rights of self-identification?

                  No, but they should be given a hearing if the existing usage is in
                  some way potentially misleading. There are several problems with
                  the term "Farrer-Goulder": (1) it marginalises the contributions of
                  key figures like John Drury and Eric Franklin; (2) it tacitly suggests
                  that the theory of Marcan Priority + Luke's use of Matthew
                  necessarily involves Goulder's take on it, including the implausible
                  theory of no additional sources. Drury and Franklin each contribute
                  something of key importance unrepresented by Goulder: Drury's
                  stress on Luke as a literary artist picks up on Farrer's stress on
                  the same and is a useful antidote to Goulder's fundamentally
                  source- / redaction- critical approach. Franklin stresses Luke's
                  critical attitude to Matthew alongside a rejection of Goulder's no-
                  extra-sources view. If in spite of these considerations, one still
                  thinks that "Farrer-Goulder" is the best description

                  > The alternative problem is that much of the evidence is somewhat
                  > similar. It is hard to imagine any discussion not being very
                  > repetitious. Anyway I'll worry about later.

                  Some of it is, but I suppose that my point was that the fundamental
                  agreement between Farrer & Two-Source on Marcan Priority
                  renders these rather different theses than Griesbach.

                  Mark

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Mark Goodacre
                  ... add then so be it , or finish the sentence how you see fit! Sorry for the error. Seriously, I have not heard a good defence of the term Farrer-Goulder
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 10 3:32 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 10 Apr 2001, at 23:17, Mark Goodacre wrote:

                    > If
                    > in spite of these considerations, one still thinks that
                    > "Farrer-Goulder" is the best description

                    add "then so be it", or finish the sentence how you see fit! Sorry
                    for the error. Seriously, I have not heard a good defence of the
                    term "Farrer-Goulder" from those who use it and I would be
                    interested to hear it.

                    Mark
                    -----------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                    Birmingham B15 2TT
                    United Kingdom

                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                    Homepage
                    http://NTGateway.com
                    The New Testament Gateway

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 4/10/2001 1:06:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, pmh15@cam.ac.uk writes:
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 10 5:53 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 4/10/2001 1:06:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      pmh15@... writes:

                      << Thanks Leonard, that is worth pondering, although there is a bit more stuff
                      in inter alia de Wette, Bleek, Davidson. There may be some more detail
                      again in old material from the T¨bingen school. By the way I find your
                      confession re Griesbach somewhat surprising (although your sources are
                      surely right at this point).>>

                      My thanks to Stephen Carlson for clearing up the business about Griesbach by
                      distinguishing between two of his major works that addressed the issue. It
                      might interest you to know, Peter, that my own strong adherence to the
                      Griesbach position is a result of work with the Greek texts of the Gospels,
                      not the result of having been pursuaded by the arguments of scholars. I am
                      probably considerably less literate in the writings of the so-called "Farmer
                      school" than is Stephen Carlson (and probably you) as well. To continue our
                      game of trivia in Synoptic source theories, I wonder if anyone on the list
                      (you, for instance) would be prepared to jump a century from Griesbach and
                      classify the position on the Synoptic Problem (and on the question of Luke's
                      knowledge and use of Matthew) of the great mid-19th century Erlangen scholar,
                      Franz Delitzsch? Hint: he did write on the topic, more or less explicitly.

                      Leonard Maluf

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Ron Price
                      ... Pete, I suggest the following: (1) The Temptation. Davies & Allison (_Matthew_, I, 350), refer to an article by Wilkens - Die Versuchung Jesu nach
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 11 1:09 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Peter Head wrote:

                        > Would any of the advocates of the view that Luke knew Matthew like
                        > to suggest their best examples?

                        Pete,

                        I suggest the following:
                        (1) The Temptation. Davies & Allison (_Matthew_, I, 350), refer to an
                        article by Wilkens - "Die Versuchung Jesu nach Matthaus" NTS 28 (1982),
                        479-89, which argues for the Matthean version as largely redactional and
                        for Luke as dependent on Matthew here.
                        (2) John the Baptist's Inquiry
                        (3) The 'naming' and framing of the Sermon on the Plain, which looks
                        very much as if it was based on that of the Sermon on the Mount, for the
                        scenery was not in the sayings source.

                        Detailed arguments on the first two (amongst others) can be found on
                        my Web site.

                        Ron Price

                        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                        e-mail: ron.price@...

                        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Peter M. Head
                        Thanks Mark, this is really helpful (and interesting). Peter ... Dr. Peter M. Head Tyndale House 36 Selwyn Gardens Cambridge CB3 9BA Tel: 01223 566607 Fax:
                        Message 11 of 14 , Apr 11 7:01 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thanks Mark,

                          this is really helpful (and interesting).

                          Peter

                          >On 10 Apr 2001, at 18:05, Peter M. Head wrote:
                          >
                          >> Thanks Mark for your helpful notes. Are there any interesting
                          >> non-scientific commonalities among the British representatives of the
                          >> Farrer-Goulder theory? Oxford is one. Did they all go to the same
                          >> school or something?
                          >
                          >I think Oxford is one -- Farrer taught Goulder there in the 1950s and
                          >John Muddiman in the 1960s. Franklin was at St Stephen's House
                          >and was my tutor in the 1980s; Muddiman was my doctoral
                          >supervisor in the 1990s. John Drury was chaplain of Exeter
                          >College (which, as it happens, was my college too) in the 1970s,
                          >across the road from Trinity where Goulder was giving his
                          >Speakers' Lectures published as _Midrash and Lection in
                          >Matthew_ in 1974 (cf. the preface to Drury's 1976 _Tradition and
                          >Design in Luke's Gospel_). E. P. Sanders was Dean Ireland
                          >professor at Oxford in the 1980s, and it was while there that he
                          >published (with Margaret Davies) his most Farrer-friendly piece,
                          >_Studying the Synoptic Gospels_ (1989). I can't fit Benedict Green
                          >in here. I wonder if he was taught by Farrer too? I'll have to ask
                          >him.
                          >
                          >No, I don't think the same school comes into it. They are all posh
                          >(e.g. Goulder went to Eton) whereas I was just an ordinary bod who
                          >went to the local comprehensive school in the East Midlands.
                          >
                          >There's a minor Birmingham link too. Goulder has spent most of
                          >his academic career in the University of Birmingham until his
                          >retirement in 1994. Farrer was a Cadbury lecturer here in 1953-4
                          >(and the book is _St Matthew and St Mark_). Margaret Davies was
                          >an undergraduate here in the late '50s, early '60s. I've been here
                          >since 1995 for my short career so far. Ed Sanders was the
                          >Cadbury lecturer here last year!
                          >
                          >However, there are now those who have no link with any of this who
                          >are becoming Q sceptics simply because they are looking carefully
                          >at the evidence : )
                          >
                          >> I'm not meaning to ignore your comment by the
                          >> way, it is just that Farrer theory is much less clear than
                          >> Farrer-Goulder (which non-advocates have been using for a while).
                          >> Should advocates be given automatic rights of self-identification?
                          >
                          >No, but they should be given a hearing if the existing usage is in
                          >some way potentially misleading. There are several problems with
                          >the term "Farrer-Goulder": (1) it marginalises the contributions of
                          >key figures like John Drury and Eric Franklin; (2) it tacitly suggests
                          >that the theory of Marcan Priority + Luke's use of Matthew
                          >necessarily involves Goulder's take on it, including the implausible
                          >theory of no additional sources. Drury and Franklin each contribute
                          >something of key importance unrepresented by Goulder: Drury's
                          >stress on Luke as a literary artist picks up on Farrer's stress on
                          >the same and is a useful antidote to Goulder's fundamentally
                          >source- / redaction- critical approach. Franklin stresses Luke's
                          >critical attitude to Matthew alongside a rejection of Goulder's no-
                          >extra-sources view. If in spite of these considerations, one still
                          >thinks that "Farrer-Goulder" is the best description
                          >
                          >> The alternative problem is that much of the evidence is somewhat
                          >> similar. It is hard to imagine any discussion not being very
                          >> repetitious. Anyway I'll worry about later.
                          >
                          >Some of it is, but I suppose that my point was that the fundamental
                          >agreement between Farrer & Two-Source on Marcan Priority
                          >renders these rather different theses than Griesbach.
                          >
                          >Mark
                          >
                          >Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          >List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                          Dr. Peter M. Head
                          Tyndale House
                          36 Selwyn Gardens
                          Cambridge CB3 9BA
                          Tel: 01223 566607
                          Fax: 01223 566608
                          email: pmh15@...



                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Jack Kilmon
                          ... From: Ron Price To: Synoptic-L Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke
                          Message 12 of 14 , Apr 11 8:19 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Ron Price" <ron.price@...>
                            To: "Synoptic-L" <Synoptic-L@...>
                            Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:09 AM
                            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke knew Matthew: Three versions


                            > Peter Head wrote:
                            >
                            > > Would any of the advocates of the view that Luke knew Matthew like
                            > > to suggest their best examples?
                            >
                            > Pete,
                            >
                            > I suggest the following:
                            > (1) The Temptation. Davies & Allison (_Matthew_, I, 350), refer to an
                            > article by Wilkens - "Die Versuchung Jesu nach Matthaus" NTS 28 (1982),
                            > 479-89, which argues for the Matthean version as largely redactional and
                            > for Luke as dependent on Matthew here.
                            > (2) John the Baptist's Inquiry
                            > (3) The 'naming' and framing of the Sermon on the Plain, which looks
                            > very much as if it was based on that of the Sermon on the Mount, for the
                            > scenery was not in the sayings source.

                            I find none of these arguments supporting Lukan use of Matthew. Luke's
                            use of more "primitive" forms of material found in Matthew; Luke's tendency
                            to use the Aramaic idiom accurately over Matthew's translational Greek
                            sources....all equals Mark > Luke > Matthew with Matthew using a
                            translational Greek "Q" and Luke having used an Aramaic document. It
                            is Luke's Aramaic Q that keeps me out of the "no Q" club. A fictional
                            document doesn't come in two languages.

                            Jack


                            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.