Re: Goulder and Luke's Use of Mk
- In a message dated 98-08-31 12:55:09 EDT, mmatson@... writes:
BTW, why would the sole passage "friends of sinners and tax
collectors" , which is not found in the Matt. 26 pericope but in Matt
11:19, be a sign of Luke's use of Matt? How do you see Luke
operating to pluck this passage from Matt 11:19 and use it in the
LEONARD: My point, Mark, is that Luke cites this statement found in Matt 11:19
in 7:34, clearly in preparation for his re-written story of the woman "sinner"
who anoints Jesus in 7:36-50. This is an example of Luke illustrating a saying
taken from Matthew by means of a story. One of many such. By the way, I was
interested to read your response to our conversation, but I have always
regarded the links between Lk and Jn to be due to the influence of the former
on the latter. Why do you find that explanation unsatisfactory, or its
opposite more appealing? In other words, why do you think John wrote before
- Apologies for the delay in responding to some interesting points, and apologies
for the length of this post.
On 29 Aug 98 at 10:47, Maluflen@... wrote:
> MARK: When did the big change toward Mk take place? When
> Matthew was produced.
> LEONARD: But Matt was produced before Luke in your view, therefore Luke should
> have had a second-century attitude towards the respective gospels of Matt and
> Mk. His attitude is the reverse of a second-century attitude if Farrer-Goulder
> are right. Great reverence for Mark as the foundational document, more
> liberties taken with Matt.
I suppose that the difference between Luke and those who, later in the second
century, preferred Matthew to Mark is that Luke has interacted with Mark on its
own for some time before he comes across Matthew. His situation is in some
ways unique -- a writer who has Mark practically by heart before he sees
Matthew. The situation is different later on for those who have known Matthew,
Mark and Luke together for as long as they can remember. It is in this later
situation that Matthew gets preferred to Mark. Or, as I put it before:
> MARK: Luke's Gospel makes good sense as a document of the 90s
> that has been interacting with Mark for (say) 20 years and Matthew for (say)
> 10 years. The second century evidence is not problematic at all for the
> Farrer Theory because by the second C. Matthew, Mark, Luke were all available.
> It is in this situation that Matthew is preferred.
To which Leonard responded:
> LEONARD: Why so? Why does Matt have an advantage when the three Syn Gospels
> are present that it didn't have when only Matt and Mk were present (i.e., at
> the time of Luke's writing)? If anything, I would think Matt's importance
> might begin to diminish at this point, at least in the Gentile world which is
> more catered to by Lk and Mk.
The point is simply that Luke will have known Mark for longer than he has known
Matthew. This possibility accounts for the look of Luke's Gospel. But his
situation is in many ways unique because within a generation people were
familiar with all three synoptics and rarely only with one of the three.
On 31 Aug 98 at 9:24, Mark Matson wrote, in the same thread:
> Mark M.: I, too, was unconvinced by Goulder's treatment of Luke 5.
> But I would be hard pressed to see Luke creating this from Matt. I
> don't see the addition of the number "two" as being that significant.
> I would certainly like to see the effort. But what is missing in
> Goulder's effort here is a willingness to admit to Luke's use of the
> story found in John 21. The similarities are too remarkable! In my
> dissertation, I argue that Luke in the Passion narrative shows strong
> indications of having been influenced by John's gospel.
While I am not yet fully convinced of the thesis that Luke knew John (rather
than the reverse), what does seem clear at least is that Luke knew some
Johannine-type traditions, or traditions that eventually found their way into
John. This is one of the reasons that I picked Luke 5.1-11 -- it is a triple
tradition pericope for which we have a parallel outside the synoptics, in John.
And that parallel suggests to me what I think often went on where we do not
have the luxury of such parallels -- that Luke interacted with his Markan
source in the light of other, perhaps independent traditions. Other creative
re-writings of Markan / Matthean pericopae suggest themselves along similar
lines, 4.16-30 (Rejection at Nazara) and perhaps 7.36-50 (Sinner), for example.
I had written:
> > MARK: On the other hand, I am keener on Goulder's exegesis of Luke
> > 7.36-50 as a creative reworking of Mark 14.3-9.
On which Leonard commented:
> > LEONARD: But then, of course, this Markan text closely parallels
> > Matt 26:6-13. Moreover, the story in its Lukan context illustrates
> > (or plays on) a saying found in Matt, not in Mark, that Jesus is a
> > "friend of sinners" (Luke 7:35, and cf. Luke 19:1-10 for Luke's
> > illustration of Jesus as "friend of tax- collectors").
And Mark M.:
> Mark M.: Well, again isn't it interesting how the most peculiar
> aspects of this passage seem to connect with John's story of the
> anointing (e.g. the anointing of the feet, the wiping with the hair)?
> Again, Luke seems to have modified the Mark/Matt story under the
> influence of another anointing in which the feet were anointed, not
> the head.
The difficulty I would have here with the John > Luke direction is that John
seems to make more sense as a creative re-working of Matthew // Mark + Luke.
- Mark /'/ Matthew have the woman anointing Jesus with oil;
- Luke has the woman crying on Jesus' feet and wiping them with her hair;
- John has the woman anointing Jesus' feet with the oil and wiping them with
As Goulder points out, the perfume therefore ends up on her hair and
not on Jesus -- this is most odd in comparison with the coherent Lukan account
(tears wiped away) and the coherent Matthean // Markan account (Jesus
Finally, Mark M. wrote:
> My criticism of Goulder's analysis of these two passages is that he
> is reluctant (or even unwilling) to consider other material that Luke
> might have relied on other than Mark, Matt, and the OT. Granted that
> his focus (as Mark G has well put it) is on establishing Luke's use
> of Matt, to the exclusion of Q. And granted that Goulder,
> correctly in my view, wants to establish the creativity of Luke. But
> in his single-minded focus, he has frequently done some real
> exegetical stretches to show Luke relied on Mark and/or Matt when
> other sources might better account for the material.
I could not agree more; and sadly it has detracted from the plausibility of the
case he makes on other occasions for Luke's use of Matthew and Mark.
Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l
Synoptic-L Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- At 09:25 AM 9/7/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
>> LEONARD: Why so? Why does Matt have an advantage when the three Syn Gospelsknown
>> are present that it didn't have when only Matt and Mk were present (i.e., at
>> the time of Luke's writing)? If anything, I would think Matt's importance
>> might begin to diminish at this point, at least in the Gentile world which is
>> more catered to by Lk and Mk.
>The point is simply that Luke will have known Mark for longer than he has
>Matthew. This possibility accounts for the look of Luke's Gospel. But hisIt's good to keep alternative explanations in mind here. With ALk greatly
>situation is in many ways unique because within a generation people were
>familiar with all three synoptics and rarely only with one of the three.
preferring Mark over Matthew, that possibility easily accounts for the look
of Luke. The later translation of Hebraic Mt into Greek further accounts for
the lengthy strings of verbal identities between Mt and Lk's double tradition.
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm