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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.