Re: Wording in Matthew supplied by the writer himself
- On 30 Aug 98 at 17:14, Brian E. Wilson wrote (some omitted)
> Moreover, I find it very hard to see how, without positing a documentaryI think that that is right, yet if one has already postulated Markan Priority
> relationship between the synoptic gospels and sources, we can validly
> point to any wording in the the Gospel of Matthew and give a good reason
> why the writer of the Gospel of Matthew himself supplied it. To take
> just one instance, did the writer of the Gospel of Matthew supply the
> phrase hOI OXLOI HKOLOUQHSAN AUTWi in the Feeding of the Five Thousand
> in Mt 14.13, or did he take it from his documentary source material? I
> do not myself see how this can be answered validly without first
> positing a documentary hypothesis of the documentary links between the
> synoptic gospels and their sources. And the answer we get is determined
> by which documentary hypothesis we posit.
to Matthew on other grounds, one will see the clause quoted above as an obvious
example of Matthean redaction. Why? Because on the assumption of Markan
Priority he has made the same change / insertion (of plural OXLOI) often,
including three times in the same pericope (Matt. 14.15 // Mark 6.36; Matt.
14.19a // Mark 6.39 and Matt. 14.19b // Mark 6.41).
Further, the combination AKOLOUQEW + OXLOI comes only in Matthew among the
gospels and always redactionally on the assumption of MP, att Matt. 4.25, 8.1,
19.2 and 21.9.
It would seem to me, however, that even without the assumption of Markan
Priority, the pattern here is distinctive and pervasive enough to be suggestive
of Matthean redaction. In other words, I would imagine that a Matthean
Priorist might be happy to postulate "redaction" here.
There is, however, a real problem for the 2ST in this example, the fact that
Luke in 9.11 parallels this combination (+ also aorist participle). Thus,
while AKOLOUQEW + OXLOI is common in Matthew's redaction of Mark, it occurs
just here in Luke (i.e. 5/0/1+0).
This is one of my six examples of Minor Agreements that feature wording
strongly characteristic of Matthew but uncharacteristic of Luke (_Goulder and
the Gospels_, Chapter 3). Neirynck has attempted to reply to this by re-
stating the case for independent redaction ("Goulder and the Minor Agreements",
full citation on my homepage).
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 10:37 PM 9/11/98 -0700, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>I'm sure the list would be grateful to have this "candidate document" (aThis would not be a good idea, because all (existing) versions of
>document which you frequently refer to, but don't ever name here or ever
>produce any exemplar of in your posts) *sent here to the list*, along
>with some explanation of how you know that this "candidate" is genuine.
this document are still under copyright. Those who are so inclined
can visit Jim Deardorff's web site themselves to see some quotations
of the document and come to their own conclusions.
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