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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Rethinking the Synoptic Problem?

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    ... If this were a valid argument, the Synoptic Problem would have been solved for a long. a+ manu Synoptic-L Homepage:
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron Price wrote:
      >
      > Bill,
      > Any attempt to show that in Lk 3:1-9:50 Luke was not making use of
      > parallel material in Matthew would, in my opinion, fail, so your
      > scenario would never be reached.
      > It seems to me highly probable that, for instance, Lk 4:1-13 was
      > derived from Mt 4:1-11. The argument is essentially as follows:
      >
      > (a) The wording is so close as to demand a literary relationship.
      > (b) Lk 1:1 indicates that Mark and Matthew were already in existence
      > when Luke was written. So Lk 4:1-13 was not the source for Mt 4:1-11.

      If this were a valid argument, the Synoptic Problem
      would have been solved for a long.

      a+
      manu

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ron Price
      ... Bill, Any attempt to show that in Lk 3:1-9:50 Luke was not making use of parallel material in Matthew would, in my opinion, fail, so your scenario would
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I wrote:

        ><< Surely in order to show that Luke did not indicate a knowledge of
        >Matthew here, we would have to show that for each of the Lukan pericopae
        >where there is a parallel with Matthew, Luke did not make use of that
        >parallel. >>

        Bill Foley replied:

        >But Luke does write a gospel, showing that he is dissatisfied with those that
        >he knew of, and thought he could do it better. The fact that he may not make
        >use of a parallel may be that he disvalued this source for a better one, or
        >thought he had info the other missed.

        Bill,
        Any attempt to show that in Lk 3:1-9:50 Luke was not making use of
        parallel material in Matthew would, in my opinion, fail, so your
        scenario would never be reached.
        It seems to me highly probable that, for instance, Lk 4:1-13 was
        derived from Mt 4:1-11. The argument is essentially as follows:

        (a) The wording is so close as to demand a literary relationship.
        (b) Lk 1:1 indicates that Mark and Matthew were already in existence
        when Luke was written. So Lk 4:1-13 was not the source for Mt 4:1-11.
        (c) The Temptation story has typical Matthean characteristics embedded
        in it, and was clearly designed for its context following the
        declaration concerning Jesus "This is my beloved Son..." in Mt 3:17.
        Therefore it is unlikely to have been part of the early sayings source.
        (d) The only simple solution remaining is that Lk 4:1-13 was derived
        from Mt 4:1-11.

        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@...
      • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
        ... Is there, in Luke 1:1-3, anything that clearly indicates that the author of this gospel is dissatisfied with the earlier accounts with which he was
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          At 08:01 AM 12/6/2002 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
          >I wrote:
          >
          > ><< Surely in order to show that Luke did not indicate a knowledge of
          > >Matthew here, we would have to show that for each of the Lukan pericopae
          > >where there is a parallel with Matthew, Luke did not make use of that
          > >parallel. >>
          >
          >Bill Foley replied:
          >
          > >But Luke does write a gospel, showing that he is dissatisfied with those
          > that
          > >he knew of, and thought he could do it better. The fact that he may not
          > make
          > >use of a parallel may be that he disvalued this source for a better one, or
          > >thought he had info the other missed.

          Is there, in Luke 1:1-3, anything that clearly indicates that the author of
          this
          gospel is dissatisfied with the earlier accounts with which he was familiar?
          This seems to me a very improbable statement. Were the author of Luke
          dissatisfied with the earlier gospels or accounts, how would one understand
          his close, and I would say respectful, use of his sources? That he wishes
          to write a new account for (or dedicated to) Theophilus does not mean that
          he is dissatisfied with earlier accounts. Many people preach, or write
          expositions or commentaries, on biblical texts, not because they are
          dissatisfied with them but rather because they wish to set them in a new or
          particular context or relate them to a new situation to which they seem
          applicable. It is entirely reasonable to suppose, I think, that Luke wanted to
          organize materials differently, to set them in a different context, or to apply
          them to new situations. Rather than looking on the earlier accounts with
          dissatisfaction, he might well have found them valuable resources for the
          historical account that he wanted to present.

          One argument which seems to me fallacious, but which will not go away,
          is based on the presupposition that later authors always wrote to replace the
          works that they used as sources. Thus people often ask, rhetorically as
          though the question settles the issue, why Mark, were he a later gospel,
          would omit the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. The answer
          might simply be that if Mark were later, he wrote to supplement the earlier
          gospels or to set the materials in a new context (giving them a new
          application). He might well have known that churches would not simply
          discard earlier gospels, that they would continue to be read, and used
          in churches, and therefore there is no fear that the Lord's Prayer or
          Sermon on the Mount would be lost. If the later author writes with what
          seems to me a reasonable expectation that earlier gospels would not be
          discarded, then there is no pressure to include everything in the later
          work.

          Similarly here. That Luke undertakes to write a gospel narrative when
          he knows that there are already such documents in existence, does not,
          or so it seems to me, indicate that he is dissatisfied with the earlier
          narratives. It may mean no more than that he has a different purpose in
          mind or a different perspective to bring to the material. Those of us
          who have been privileged to contribute to the new series from Sheffield
          Academic Press, A Feminist Companion to...., do not wish to throw
          away generations of scholarship, dissatisfied with what others have
          written, but rather wish to supplement that scholarship (thus the name of
          the series "A Feminist Companion") by taking note of elements in the
          biblical narratives that scholars less aware of gender-related issues
          might not have mentioned.

          In short, there are a plurality of reasons why an author will again
          address a topic about which others have written. There is no reason
          to suppose that the later authors always (or even usually) intended that
          their work would replace the earlier ones and that those earlier documents
          will soon disappear. Tatian, writing the Diatessaron, might have had such
          an intent, but if so we can see that it was a colossal failure. There is even
          less reason to believe that later authors always exhibit dissatisfaction with
          the earlier documents known to them.

          Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
          Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies, Emeritus
          Colby College



          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.