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

[Synoptic-L] Synoptic Relationship (was Re: "Desert" of Bethsaida)

Expand Messages
  • R. Steven Notley
    David, Two quick observations, then its quits for Easter: 1. You may be right about a collection of Jesus sayings (not to be confused with Q which
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment

      Two quick observations, then its "quits" for Easter:

      1. You may be right about a collection of "Jesus sayings" (not to be
      confused with Q which traditionally is presented as the non-Markan
      "sayings" material shared by Matthew and Luke). I must confess that
      your hypothesis as written looks suspiciously like your S is based upon
      the traditional "sayings" criteria for Q. I would want to hear more how
      you define your S source.

      2. I can think of no occasion where Lukan reliance upon Matthew is
      indicated. As I stated previously, they do share a common (non-Markan)
      source and on the occasions in which Matthew is free from Markan
      influence, he is often superior to Luke. But that does not demonstrate
      that Luke is dependent upon Matthew. Only that he has preserved the
      material better than Luke. [BTW, I can neither think of occasions where
      Matthew use of Luke can be demonstrated.]

      More problematic, you have Matthew reliant solely upon Mark and the
      Sayings Source. Yet, I think the evidence indicates Matthew had access
      to the "good source" of Luke. I am not certain Mark did, but I have no
      question that Matthew knew and used this primitive witness.

      Using your symbols (I have suggested p-G [proto-Gospel] to remove the
      suggestion that the shape of this unknown document(s) looked like either
      Mark or Luke.

      I would venture something akin to the following:

      p-G + [p-G/2?] => L

      p-G [or p-G/2?]=> K

      K + p-K => M

      One final comment. Instead of S I have indicated that both Luke and
      Matthew had access to p-G and Mark (more probably) to p-G/2. This
      second document may have been an existing revision of the p-G in which
      the literal Hebraisms rendered in the Greek were removed. Evidence for
      this may be in Luke's Doublets where they vary considerably in their
      Semitic style (i.e. one more Hebraic and one more refined Greek). In
      such a case, it may be that Mark had access to this revision rather than
      the more primitive "Hebraic" p-G. I say this because on no occasion (or
      at the most—very, very, very rarely) that comes to mind is Mark more
      Hebraic than Luke. I know that it is often said that Mark's bad Greek
      is because of underlying Semitic influences (i.e. sources). It's not
      true. It's just bad Greek. Either Mark has so totally re-written his
      Hebraic p-G (a very remote possiblity) or he was in possession of a
      revision of it that had already removed the stark Hebraisms. In any
      event, Mark's own redaction contributions are all over his Gospel.

      Take a look at the Cleansing episode [Luke 19:45/Mark 11:15-16/Matt
      21:12]. Luke witnesses to the earliest stage of this story. Mark
      inflates the tradition with clear intent—expanding the target of Jesus'
      wrath, depicting him resorting to violence and in essence shutting down
      the Temple. Matthew is influenced by Mark—but does not follow him
      fully. As is common Matthew demonstrates a "middle" (not historically
      but in form) role between Mark and Luke.

      As a suggested response from you, I would like to hear from you an
      occasion which you think demonstrates that Luke knew and used Matthew.

      Steven Notley
      Nyack College
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.