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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Did Luke-Acts know Matthew?

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... This is a fascinating observation -- thanks very much for sharing it. On such occasions I like to try to get into the Q theorist s shoes to see if I could
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 7, 2004
      On 7 Jan 2004 at 8:54, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

      > Of the four gospels, only Matt 3:11 juxtaposes, as does Acts 19:4, the
      > motifs of a baptism of repentance (John) with the one coming after
      > (Jesus). According to the Critical Edition of Q (p. 14, at Q 3:16b,
      > which aggressively adds Jesus's baptism to Q because of too many minor
      > agreements), the phrase "for repentance" is Matthew's redaction of Q's
      > baptism. Does this mean that the author of Luke at Acts 19:4 knows
      > Matthew, or, that the editors of CEQ are wrong and Q is more like
      > Matthew than we thought?

      This is a fascinating observation -- thanks very much for sharing it.
      On such occasions I like to try to get into the Q theorist's shoes
      to see if I could answer it if I were persuaded of Q. What I think I
      would say would be that there is a third option.

      (1) It is not that Luke knows Matthew -- we know that that is not
      possible for a variety of reasons, chief among which are (a) Luke's
      eccentric editorializing that would be implied by that theory & (b)
      the phenomenon of alternating primitivity in double tradition.

      (2) And it cannot be that Q is more like Matthew than we previously
      thought. If Q had featured repentance here, Luke would have carried
      it over so producing the same juxtaposition of repentance + coming
      one in Luke 3. After all, we know that Luke has no aversion to
      repentance -- it is a favourite in his Gospel (e.g. Luke 5.32R, 15.7
      QD, 24.47). On the other hand, repentance is something Matthew might
      have added in Matt. 3 (e.g. cf. the prominence the theme is given in
      Matt. 3.2). So Q did not have repentance here.

      (3) So where did Luke get it from in Acts 19? It was probably his
      memory of these two features, both of them congenial, from Mark and
      Q. John's baptism of repentance is a key feature of Mark 1; the
      announcement of the coming one is a key feature of Q 3 and Q 7. So
      he juxtaposes them himself in Acts 19 in the same way that Matthew
      juxtaposed them himself in Matt. 3. So there is nothing here that
      cannot be explained by independent redaction.

      Mark
      -----------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
      Dept of Theology
      University of Birmingham
      Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
      Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

      http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
      http://NTGateway.com


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • John C. Poirier
      It s interesting that a bunch of Q skeptics are trying to play-act as Q believers, but I want to do the same. ... I doubt that this is what Luke would have
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 7, 2004
        It's interesting that a bunch of Q skeptics are trying to play-act as Q
        believers, but I want to do the same.

        Mark Goodacre wrote:

        >And it cannot be that Q is more like Matthew than we previously
        >thought. If Q had featured repentance here, Luke would have carried
        >it over so producing the same juxtaposition of repentance + coming
        >one in Luke 3. After all, we know that Luke has no aversion to
        >repentance -- it is a favourite in his Gospel (e.g. Luke 5.32R, 15.7
        >QD, 24.47).
        >
        I doubt that this is what Luke would have done. Matthew's formula is
        constructed as a contrast, implicitly lowering the value of John's
        baptism. Luke perhaps would have rescued his favored theme of
        repentance from that contrast: repentance is not something that the new
        baptism replaces, so Luke is careful to remove any mention of repentance
        in such close connection (a *formulaic* connection!) with John's
        baptism. Repentance is an integral part of the post-Pentecost summons
        (cf. Acts 2-3).

        I admit that there is a hole in this reasoning: water baptism is
        connected with repentance in Acts 2:38 ("Repent, and be baptized . .
        ."), so where is the implied obsolescence of the contrast? Obviously,
        there is no obsolescence, as far as ritual goes. Nevertheless, the
        original formula in the gospels is constructed as a contrast, and in
        that specific context it may have been difficult for Luke to follow Q.

        On this reading, Q is more like Matthew, and Luke's reproduction of Q's
        formula in Acts 19 is simply a lapse on his part.


        John C. Poirier
        Middletown, Ohio



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • John C. Poirier
        [I tried sending this over an hour go, but it apparently didn t go through. I m now resending, with a slight change.] It s interesting that a bunch of Q
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 7, 2004
          [I tried sending this over an hour go, but it apparently didn't go
          through. I'm now resending, with a slight change.]

          It's interesting that a bunch of Q skeptics are trying to play-act as Q
          believers, but I want to do the same.

          Mark Goodacre wrote:

          > And it cannot be that Q is more like Matthew than we previously
          > thought. If Q had featured repentance here, Luke would have carried
          > it over so producing the same juxtaposition of repentance + coming one
          > in Luke 3. After all, we know that Luke has no aversion to repentance
          > -- it is a favourite in his Gospel (e.g. Luke 5.32R, 15.7 QD, 24.47).
          >
          I doubt that this is what Luke would have done. Matthew's formula is
          constructed as a contrast, implicitly lowering the value of John's
          baptism. Luke perhaps would have rescued his favored theme of
          repentance from that contrast: repentance is not something that the new
          baptism replaces, so Luke is careful to remove any mention of repentance
          in such close connection (a *formulaic* connection!) with John's
          baptism. Repentance is an integral part of the post-Pentecost summons
          (cf. Acts 2-3).

          I admit that there is a hole in this reasoning: water baptism is
          connected with repentance in Acts 2:38 ("Repent, and be baptized . .
          ."), so where is the implied obsolescence, bound up in the contrast?
          Obviously, there is no obsolescence, as far as ritual goes.
          Nevertheless, the original formula in the gospels is constructed as a
          contrast, and in that specific context it may have been difficult for
          Luke to follow Q.

          On this reading, Q is more like Matthew, and Luke's reproduction of Q's
          formula in Acts 19 is simply a lapse on his part.


          John C. Poirier
          Middletown, Ohio




          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... Coincidence (here in the form of independent redaction ) is always possible but not often probable. For one, this independent redaction by Luke in
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 7, 2004
            Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...> wrote:
            >(3) So where did Luke get it from in Acts 19? It was probably his
            >memory of these two features, both of them congenial, from Mark and
            >Q. John's baptism of repentance is a key feature of Mark 1; the
            >announcement of the coming one is a key feature of Q 3 and Q 7. So
            >he juxtaposes them himself in Acts 19 in the same way that Matthew
            >juxtaposed them himself in Matt. 3. So there is nothing here that
            >cannot be explained by independent redaction.

            Coincidence (here in the form of "independent redaction") is always
            possible but not often probable.

            For one, this independent redaction by Luke in conflating Mark and
            Q differs from Luke's usual practice of not conflating Mark and Q elsewhere,
            while such conflation is more characteristic Matthew's behavior's with Mark
            and Q. So, this scenario proposes that, if Q is not more like Matthew
            that we thought, then Luke himself is more like Matthew than we thought.

            Also, if Acts 19:4 is independent redaction, by adding "for repentance" to
            the baptism account transmitted by Luke, what is the purpose of this
            redactional change? Repentance is not a theme in the Acts passage nor is
            it developed, so its inclusion is gratuitous in Acts but not however in Matt.,
            where repentance was earlier introduced as a theme at Matt 3:2. This
            suggests that it is part of Luke's source, much like "heal the sick among
            them" in Thomas 14:4 is an out-of-place spur that indicates dependence
            on Luke's form of the missionary instructions where the phrase in Luke
            10:4-11 is not out of place.

            A good theory would do well to minimize the number of anomalies it has,
            I would suggest that Acts 19:4 is yet another anomaly even under the
            name of "independent redaction."

            (A fourth possibility, which now occurs to me, is Matthew's knowledge of
            Acts, but I leave that to others to defend, hopefully by adducing any other
            corroborating evidence of that possibility.)

            Stephen Carlson

            --
            Stephen C. Carlson,
            mailto:scarlson@...
            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Ron Price
            Surely a good case could be made for Acts 1:2 as a reminiscence of Mt 28:16-20. Acts refers to the day when [Jesus] was taken up to heaven (a scenario
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 7, 2004
              Surely a good case could be made for Acts 1:2 as a reminiscence of Mt
              28:16-20.

              Acts refers to "the day when [Jesus] was taken up to heaven" (a scenario
              implied but not stated in the Mt text); "giving instructions" (c.f. "Go etc.
              in the Mt text); "through the Holy Spirit" (mentioned in Mt 28:19); "to the
              apostles whom he had chosen" (the 11 disciples of Mt 28:16).

              There is also the reference to a mission to PANTA TA EQNH in Lk 24:47,
              c.f. Mt 28:19. The mission is to be "in his name" (Lk), c.f. "in the name of
              ... the Son ..." (Mt).

              So it looks to me as if the author of Luke-Acts had been quite impressed
              by Matthew's splendid ending, even if he did change the wording to suit his
              own purposes.

              Ron Price,

              Derbyshire, UK


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • David Miller
              Last week Stephen Carlson proposed that the mention of baptism of repentance together with the prediction of a coming one in Acts 19:4 is best explained by
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 12, 2004
                Last week Stephen Carlson proposed that the mention of "baptism of
                repentance" together with the prediction of a "coming one" in Acts 19:4 is
                best explained by positing Luke's knowledge of Matthew. Mark Goodacre
                suggested that a Q theorist would likely respond as follows:

                > > (3) So where did Luke get it from in Acts 19? It was probably his
                > > memory of these two features, both of them congenial, from Mark and
                > > Q. John's baptism of repentance is a key feature of Mark 1; the
                > > announcement of the coming one is a key feature of Q 3 and Q 7. So
                > > he juxtaposes them himself in Acts 19 in the same way that Matthew
                > > juxtaposed them himself in Matt. 3. So there is nothing here that
                > > cannot be explained by independent redaction.

                Stephen Carlson replied: "A good theory would do well to minimize the number
                of anomalies it has,
                I would suggest that Acts 19:4 is yet another anomaly even under the
                name of 'independent redaction.'"

                I would like to suggest that Acts 19:4, understood within the larger context
                of references to John in Acts, is not anomalous. Perhaps a missing link
                here is Acts 13:24-25 where John's "baptism of
                repentance" is mentioned immediately before John's prediction of a coming
                one: "before his coming John had already proclaimed a baptism of repentance
                to all the people of Israel. And as John was finishing his work, he said,
                'What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but one is coming after
                me..."

                The mention of John's "baptism of repentance" (not "baptism for repentance")
                in Acts 13 as well as 19 suggests that the theme is not gratuitous in Acts.
                In any case, Acts 19:4 has more in common with Acts 13:24-25 than it does
                with Matt 3:11.

                It is interesting to note that if we omit Mark's description of John in Mark
                1:5-6, the prediction of a coming one (1:7) follows a reference to John's
                preaching of a baptism of repentance (1:4). Both Acts 13 and 19 focus on
                what John said--the extended description of John himself is naturally
                omitted. In Acts 13:24-25 the "baptism of repentance" is separated from the
                prediction of a coming one to a greater extent than it is in Acts 19:4, but
                in neither passage is a statement about repentance and baptism placed on
                John's lips. Only Matthew has John combine the two in one first person
                address.

                David Miller
                Ph.D. (Cand.), Biblical Area
                Dept. of Religious Studies
                McMaster University


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.