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
    • 0 Attachment
      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@...
    • 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 2 of 7 , Jan 7, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 7 , Jan 12, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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.