Re: Wording in Matthew supplied by the writer himself
- At 12:35 PM 9/7/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
> Brian Wilson wrote (SNIP) -Brian's points make very good sense. For example, the source explored in my
>>> 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.
own website indicates that at Mt 14:13 it was exaggerated by AMt through the
use of hOI OXLOI, but otherwise he did utilize his source quite faithfully
in this verse. The same occurred at Mt 14:19a (where this source indicates
that AMt added "on the grass," which AMk then escalated to "green grass").
And again the exaggeration of hOI OXLOI occurred at Mt 14:19b, with AMt's
source again not having been Mark.
>Putting the point as bluntly as possible - suppose that Matthew was theVery true.
>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
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
- 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