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

Re: Wording in Matthew supplied by the writer himself

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Brian Wilson wrote (SNIP) - ... Mark Goodacre replied (SNIP) - ... Brian Wilson writes- If one has already postulated Markan Priority to Matthew on other
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 7, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Wilson wrote (SNIP) -
      >> Moreover, I find it very hard to see how, without positing a documentary
      >> 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.
      >
      Mark Goodacre replied (SNIP) -
      >I think that that is right, yet if one has already postulated Markan
      >Priority to Matthew on other grounds, one will see the clause quoted
      >above as an obvious example of Matthean redaction.

      Brian Wilson writes-
      "If one has already postulated Markan Priority to Matthew on other
      grounds" then of course Matthew could have supplied wording as he
      edited the wording of Mark, as MarkG says. The point I made above,
      however, is that without any such documentary relationship being posited
      at all, it would seem to be impossible to pick out a particular phrase
      in the Gospel of Matthew, and give any good reason why Matthew must have
      supplied those words.

      Putting the point as bluntly as possible - suppose that Matthew was the
      only synoptic gospel to have survived. Suppose also that we know from
      some early Christian writer than Matthew used documentary source
      material (other than the OT) for a substantial part of his Gospel. Then
      it would be impossible to determine which wording in Matthew was
      supplied by the writer of the Gospel himself, because we would not be
      able to distinguish between wording which Matthew himself supplied and
      wording which Matthew copied from his documentary source material.
      Nothing in Matthew would be an obvious example of redaction by Matthew.
      Indeed, the writer of the Gospel of Matthew might simply have conflated
      various documentary sources without himself supplying any wording at
      all.

      If we agree that Matthew used documentary source material, and if we
      posit a documentary relationship between the synoptic gospels and
      sources, for instance the Jerusalem School Hypothesis, then we can
      determine to some extent which wording, on th basis of that hypothesis,
      was supplied by Matthew himself. If we put forward another hypothesis,
      for instance the Two Document Hypothesis, then we will obtain a
      different set of wording supplied by Matthew himself on the basis of
      that hypothesis. If we assume no synoptic hypothesis, then any guess at
      the wording supplied by the writer of the Gospel of Matthew is as good
      as any other.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
      SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
      10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
      Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... This would not be a good idea, because all (existing) versions of this document are still under copyright. Those who are so inclined can visit Jim
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 12, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        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" (a
        >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 would not be a good idea, because all (existing) versions of
        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 Carlson
        --
        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.