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

Re: Goulder and Luke's Use of Mk

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Apologies for the delay in responding to some interesting points, and apologies for the length of this post. ... I suppose that the difference between Luke and
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 7, 1998
      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.
      Consider:

      - 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
      her hair.

      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
      anointed).

      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.

      Mark Goodacre
      -------------------------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
      Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

      --------------------------------------------

      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@...
    • Jim Deardorff
      ... known ... It s good to keep alternative explanations in mind here. With ALk greatly preferring Mark over Matthew, that possibility easily accounts for the
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 7, 1998
        At 09:25 AM 9/7/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:

        >> 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.

        It's good to keep alternative explanations in mind here. With ALk greatly
        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.

        Jim Deardorff
        Corvallis, Oregon
        E-mail: deardorj@...
        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.