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

[Synoptic-L] Luke displeasingness in Mt. 16.17-19

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    I ve been reading John S. Kloppbenborg s On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew from NTS 49 (2003) 210-236. Among the arguments
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment

      I’ve been reading John S. Kloppbenborg’s "On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew" from NTS 49 (2003) 210-236. Among the arguments in Goodacre’s Case Against Q to which JSK(V?) takes exception is that Luke failed to use Mt. 16.17-19 because ‘Luke is not as positive overall about Peter as Matthew’ and his importance recedes throughout Acts. JSKV provides several examples to show that Luke attached great importance to Peter and had a very favorable attitude toward him. For what it’s worth, I think JSKV has the better of Goodacre on this one.

      However, I do not think this means that advocates of the Farrer theory need admit that Mt. 16.17-19 fails to meet the requirement of ‘Luke displeasingness.’ There are two things about the passage that I think Luke found displeasing: (1) its sequence, and (2) the nature of the authority given to Peter.

      (1) On the first point: Mt. 16.17-19 is a bit awkward in its current location. Matthew has Jesus bless Peter and make him the foundation upon which the church is built just a few verses before he calls him Satan and says ‘you are an offense to me’ (Mt. 16.23). Peter later abandons and denies Jesus.

      How does Luke deal with this problem? First, he omits the Satan reference common to Matthew and Mark . This still leaves the problem that Peter abandons Jesus after being made the foundation of the church. So in Lk. 22.31-34, Luke has a pre-resurrection passage in which Jesus recognizes the post-resurrection importance of the role Peter will play once he has returned to Jesus. JSKV notes that Lk. 22.31-34 is a parallel ‘though not an equivalent’ to Mt. 16.17-19 (p. 221).

      Second, Luke attributes the founding of the church to the activity of the Holy Spirit bestowed by the risen Jesus (and, in fact, writes a whole new book on the subject). In this, he agrees with John rather than Matthew. John has a rough equivalent of Mt. 16.17-19, but places it after the resurrection and has the risen Jesus bestow the Holy Spirit on the apostles. Under the influence of Barbara Shellard and Mark Matson, I accept as a working hypothesis that Luke knew John’s gospel, but anyone who prefers to can think Luke and John share a common tradition here.

      (2) The second issue is probably even more important to Luke. The passages at Mt. 16.16-19, 18.18 and Jn. 20.22-23 all carry the implication (intended or not) that human agents have been granted the authority to withhold God’s forgiveness of sins. For Luke, this absolutely will not do. One of the major themes of Luke-Acts is that God's forgiveness is always available to any sinner who repents. The theme is found over and over in Luke’s special material (Lost Coin, Prodigal Son, Pharisee and Tax-Collector, Zacchaeus and many other places). For Luke, the apostles are intended to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins to everyone, not to withhold it from anyone (Lk. 24.47).

      Luke’s story of Simon ‘Magus’ in Acts 8.9-24 may be intended as a corrective to the possible interpretation of Mt. 16.17-19, 18.18 and Jn. 20.22-23 that the dispensing of forgiveness or the Holy Spirit was at the discretion of the apostles. Simon, who has been baptized but has not received the Holy Spirit attempts to buy it from Peter. Peter rebukes him, saying that the gift of God cannot be purchased with money and that Simon should repent and pray to God for forgiveness for his wickedness.

      In short, I think there are very good narrative and theological reasons for Luke to treat Mt. 16.17-19 as, on the Farrer theory, he did. I would be interested to know if anyone can think of counterexamples from Luke-Acts in which the apostles do exhibit the authority to withhold remission of sins.

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      kaolson@...

    • Maluflen@aol.com
      ... I suppose you suspected that this would extricate me from moth-balls. What about Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5:1-11? And speaking of 5:1-11 , what about
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 10, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 2/10/2004 4:04:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, kaolson@... writes:

        > In short, I think there are very good narrative and theological reasons for Luke to treat Mt. 16.17-19 as, on the Farrer theory, he did. I would be interested to know if anyone can think of counterexamples from Luke-Acts in which the apostles do exhibit the authority to withhold remission of sins.>>

        I suppose you suspected that this would extricate me from moth-balls. What about Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5:1-11? And speaking of "5:1-11", what about the clear influence of the Matt 16 text on Lk 5:1-11? If you need help with this, I will be happy to oblige at some future time (though I believe I have already written extensively on this point in past postings to this list). As you can see, I disagree with your premise. The absence of an obvious Lukan parallel to a Matthean text does not automatically indicate Luke-displeasingness: more often than not (though perhaps not always), it means that Luke thought he could express the Matthean ideas in other and better ways. It also could sometimes amount to a recognition on Luke's part that the Matthean passage in question is so ingeniously contrived that it would look silly for him, as a respected author, to simply copy it into his text. By the way, I am dead serious about this, and I think it is a fully valid point. I realize, however, why it would be a difficult one to absorb by people who think Luke was using Mark (and/or Q) as well as Matthew.

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA
      • Mark Goodacre
        I am grateful for your interesting post, Ken, and appreciate your reasons for seeing seeing the passage as Luke-displeasing , which I find coherent. You
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 10, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I am grateful for your interesting post, Ken, and appreciate your
          reasons for seeing seeing the passage as "Luke-displeasing", which I
          find coherent. You comment Kloppenborg has the better of me on this
          one and I am inclined to agree. The difficulty is that I wrote one
          terse sentence on this issue and Kloppenborg wrote over a page in
          response. K. is the master of homing in on an undeveloped area of
          the argument and exploiting it! But the value of this approach is
          that it helps one to isolate areas in one's own case that require
          more thought and / or more explanation. One element that I had
          thought would be self evident when I wrote that sentence was not
          picked up by Kloppenborg and, it seems, requires a little more
          explication. Looking again at what I wrote, I can see that I should
          have developed the point much more than the one sentence.

          When I spoke of the "narrative development" of the Acts of the
          Apostles, and of Peter receding into the background, I was attempting
          to add some narrative-critical sensibility to the redaction-critical
          enterprise. In other words, I don't think that is adequate simply to
          look for general "tendency" in the way that a character is depicted,
          as if by establishing that Luke is generally pro-Peter we can make it
          unlikely that Luke would have dropped Matt. 16.17-19. What one
          requires when looking at redactional tendencies, especially in Luke,
          is also some sensitivity to the way that the narrative progresses and
          the way that a given character develops. How does his destiny
          unfold? This is sharply focused in relation to Matt. 16.17-19, where
          Jesus is prophesying Peter's future. Now Luke is the one evangelist
          who is actually going to be narrating Peter's future because he has a
          second volume. My point about Peter "progressively reced[ing]
          further and further into the background" is that Luke's narrative in
          the Acts makes it clear that Peter was not the rock on which the
          church was built. Yes he's important, yes he's a major spokesperson
          especially in the early stages, yes he plays a major role. But he's
          one amongst many, and one who has vanished by the half-way point of
          the book. This is a major player but not the rock on which the
          church was built. The narrative development of Luke-Acts makes it to
          me highly unlikely that Matt. 16.17-19 would have a role to play in
          Luke's narrative.

          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@...
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... I agree broadly with the general point; it seems obvious to me that Luke sometimes thought he could express the Matthean ideas in other and better ways .
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 10, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On 10 Feb 2004 at 17:56, Maluflen@... wrote:

            > The absence of an obvious Lukan parallel to a
            > Matthean text does not automatically indicate Luke-displeasingness:
            > more often than not (though perhaps not always), it means that Luke
            > thought he could express the Matthean ideas in other and better ways.
            > It also could sometimes amount to a recognition on Luke's part that
            > the Matthean passage in question is so ingeniously contrived that it
            > would look silly for him, as a respected author, to simply copy it
            > into his text. By the way, I am dead serious about this, and I think
            > it is a fully valid point. I realize, however, why it would be a
            > difficult one to absorb by people who think Luke was using Mark
            > (and/or Q) as well as Matthew.

            I agree broadly with the general point; it seems obvious to me that
            Luke sometimes "thought he could express the Matthean ideas in other
            and better ways". I add "sometimes" because Luke must have thought
            that on occasion Matthew's wording was just the thing or he would
            not have copied it out verbatim (and likewise for whichever source
            theory one holds -- just swap around the names). But I don't follow
            why this would be difficult to absorb "by people who think Luke was
            using Mark (and/or Q) as well as Matthew". On the contrary,
            something like Peter's confession would make good sense on the
            assumption that Luke has chosen here to follow Mark rather than
            Matthew in line with his broad policy to prefer one or other of his
            major sources and not to conflate.

            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@...
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 2/10/2004 6:37:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk writes:
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 11, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 2/10/2004 6:37:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

              << But I don't follow why this [Luke's reluctance to reproduce highly artistic (macro-)work of Matthew by literal reproduction] would be difficult to absorb "by people who think Luke was using Mark (and/or Q) as well as Matthew".>>

              My point was -- and I agree that I expressed it too tersely -- that in general Luke follows the text of Mark and/or Q with a considerably higher ratio of literal copying, in the view of scholars who hold Markan priority, than he does Matthew, on the terms of the Two Gospel Hypothesis. This is why Marcan priority scholars view every departure by Luke from Matthew, and especially every omission of Matthean material by Luke, as something in need of special justification. This response is still too terse, and would require fuller development, but perhaps you grasp my point. The point is supplemented too by your observation that Luke often reserves a Matthean theme for fuller treatment in Acts.

              Leonard Maluf
              Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
              Weston, MA

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Ken Olson
              ... about Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5:1-11? And speaking of 5:1-11 , what about the clear influence of the Matt 16 text on Lk 5:1-11? If you need help with
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 11, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                On Tuesday, February 11, Leonard Maluf wrote:

                >>I suppose you suspected that this would extricate me from moth-balls. What
                about Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5:1-11? And speaking of "5:1-11", what
                about the clear influence of the Matt 16 text on Lk 5:1-11? If you need help
                with this, I will be happy to oblige at some future time (though I believe I
                have already written extensively on this point in past postings to this
                list).<<

                KO: Indeed, I thought that, with the exception of Mark himself, you were the
                person most likely to respond to my post. That is partly because the whole
                idea of looking for Matthean influence in Acts is something I learned from
                you. I should like to hear what you have to say about Acts 5.1-11 when you
                have the time. I looked at it the morning before I sent the earlier post.
                At the moment, I can see that it might be related to Mt. 16, but I'm not
                sure how you would construe that relationship. I haven't looked through the
                list archives to see your past comments.

                LM: >>As you can see, I disagree with your premise. The absence of an
                obvious Lukan parallel to a Matthean text does not automatically indicate
                Luke-displeasingness: more often than not (though perhaps not always), it
                means that Luke thought he could express the Matthean ideas in other and
                better ways.<<

                KO: Actually, I was attempting to answer JSKV's criticism on his premises.
                I am pretty much in agreement with you on this one. I find JSKV's premise
                very odd. (I've done a great deal of thinking on JSKV's criticisms of the
                Farrer theory, but I haven't gotten around to typing them all up yet and
                didn't mention this in my earlier post.) He seems to argue that, where Luke
                has material with similar themes to a passage in Matthew, but does not use
                Matthew's wording, this indicates that Luke did not know Matthew's gospel.
                Thus Kloppenborg can argue that Luke did not know Matthew's hand-washing
                scene in the passion narrative, because Luke has a passage where Pilate says
                he finds no reason to put Jesus to death. This, in the eyes of Kloppenborg
                and many other 2DHers, shows that Luke was interested in having Pilate find
                Jesus innocent, so he would have used the Matthean passage had he known it.
                The fact that Luke adds a scene in the passion narrative where Pilate finds
                Jesus not deserving of death shows that he did not know Matthew's addition
                to the passion narrative where Pilate says Jesus is innocent.

                Kloppenborg's premise is bound to seem counterintuitive to anyone who is
                prepared to entertain the idea that Luke did use Matthew. I can't see Luke'
                s passage in which Pilate declares Jesus innocent as evidence that Luke did
                not know Matthew's passage in which Pilate declared Jesus innocent, nor can
                I see how Luke's pre-resurrection passage in which Jesus acknowledges Peter'
                s future importance in the church as evidence that Luke did not know Matthew
                's passage in which Jesus acknowledges Peter's future importance in the
                church.

                Goulder, of course, argued that almost all of the so-called L material is,
                in fact, derived from Matthew. This has provoked a largely negative
                reaction, even among many who agree with Goulder on other points. While I
                think Goulder may have pressed the theory too far in some places, I think it
                is more-than-likely correct in others. I would not hesitate to identify
                Luke's parable of The Man With Two Sons (15.11-32) as Luke's 'version'
                (version is probably not the right word, but I can't think of a better one)
                of Matthew's parable of The Man With Two Sons (21.28-32) or Luke's parable
                of the Bad Steward (16.1-13) as his version of Matthew's parable of the Bad
                Servant (18.23-35).

                Returning to the subject of JSKV's criticism of Goodacre: JSKV notes that
                Goodacre has distanced himself from some of the 'complexities' of Goulder's
                views (p. 212). Part of me wonders if JSKV's fairly lengthy criticism of
                Goodacre's arguments on Luke's omission of the Matthean additions to Mark
                and of Matthew's M material are intended to push Goodacre into espousing
                Goulder's view of the L material. It might be a necessary part of the
                Farrer theory to consider that some of the L material is extensively
                re-worked Matthean material, and JSKV probably sees that as a weakness.

                That's all for tonight.

                Best Wishes,

                Ken

                kaolson@...





                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Ken Olson
                ... reasons for seeing seeing the passage as Luke-displeasing , which I find coherent. You comment Kloppenborg has the better of me on this one and I am
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 12, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tuesday, February 10, Mark Goodacre wrote:

                  >>I am grateful for your interesting post, Ken, and appreciate your
                  reasons for seeing seeing the passage as "Luke-displeasing", which I
                  find coherent. You comment Kloppenborg has the better of me on this
                  one and I am inclined to agree.<<

                  KO:
                  Actually, I feel I have to side against you on minor points every now and
                  again so that people won't think I'm some kind of Goodacre-apologist (-;

                  MG:
                  >>The difficulty is that I wrote one
                  terse sentence on this issue and Kloppenborg wrote over a page in
                  response. K. is the master of homing in on an undeveloped area of
                  the argument and exploiting it! But the value of this approach is
                  that it helps one to isolate areas in one's own case that require
                  more thought and / or more explanation. One element that I had
                  thought would be self evident when I wrote that sentence was not
                  picked up by Kloppenborg and, it seems, requires a little more
                  explication. Looking again at what I wrote, I can see that I should
                  have developed the point much more than the one sentence.<<

                  KO:
                  Despite my earlier comments on you and JSKV regarding Peter, I'm not sure
                  you should have spent more than one sentence on it because it would have
                  distracted attention from the main point you were making. JSKV, in fact,
                  quietly concedes the main point, which is that on the Farrer theory Luke
                  does know many of Matthew's additions to the triple tradition. He then
                  refocuses the argument on seven to nine passages (depending on what one
                  considers "a passage"), none more than four verses long, which total 19 and
                  one half verses, which he thinks Luke ought to have made more direct use of
                  than the Farrer theory postulates that he did. I think it is more than
                  possible to provide a good account of Luke's choices for each of these cases
                  on the Farrer theory, but that is not the main point.

                  The main point is this:

                  "Luke *never* shows a knowledge of Matthew's additions in the triple
                  tradition" would be a powerful argument against Luke's use of Matthew.

                  "There are 19 and one half verses in Matthew's additions to Mark that I
                  think Luke ought to have made more direct use of if he knew Matthew" is
                  *not* a powerful argument against Luke's use of Matthew.

                  JSKV's point is weakened still further when he drops two of his examples,
                  Mt. 14.28-31 and 19.9 because they do not have a parallel context in Mark
                  and notes that all but the first verse of Mt. 13.14-17 is paralleled at Lk.
                  10.23-24. His point starts to look pretty paltry.

                  That said, we can look at the individual cases JSKV deals with. I take your
                  point about Peter. Matthew is trying to deal with the post-resurrection
                  foundation of the church in three verses (16.16-19). Luke writes a whole
                  book on the subject, and he knows there are a lot more "foundations" than
                  just Peter. I think that argument is compatible with the two I made
                  earlier.

                  JSKV also takes exception to your brief explanation Luke's "omission" of Mt.
                  3.14-15. The problem for Matthew, Luke and John, of course, is that JBap's
                  baptism of Jesus might suggest that Jesus was inferior to JBap and needed
                  remission of sins. Matthew has JBap admit his inferiority to Jesus, while
                  John suppresses the baptism. JSKV thinks that Luke would not have omitted
                  Jesus' baptism by John if he had seen how Matthew had "solved" the problem.

                  One can argue, though, that Matthew's solution is a bit clumsy. It directly
                  raises precisely the issue that needs to be suppressed. My take on this is
                  that Luke knew both Matthew's and John's solutions to the problem and used
                  both. He kept the baptism, which is important in Luke-Acts, but removed
                  JBap from the picture and he reworked Mt. 3.14-15 by having JBap's mother
                  admit her inferiority to Jesus' mother in Lk. 1.43.

                  Best Wishes,

                  Ken

                  kaolson@...





                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  First, let me say that I am delighted to see from this post the extent of your agreement with my approach to Luke s use of Matthew. I wish to comment briefly
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 12, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    First, let me say that I am delighted to see from this post the extent of your agreement with my approach to Luke's use of Matthew. I wish to comment briefly on the single point cited below, only because of constraints of time. Actually, I don't have anything too enlightening to say about the Acts 5:1-11 passage at the moment anyway, except to note that it seems to show Peter in a position of authority in the early Jewish-Christian community, and apparently not in the mood for "loosing". However, there is a problem with too closely correlating the "binding-loosing" of Matt 16 with the idea of the retention/remission of sins. More directly it relates, I think, to the interpretation (or, more precisely, the application) of Torah, the imposition or suspension of halakic rules, characteristic of someone in a position of authority over the messianic community (MOU THN EKKLHSIAN) [not to be translated "the church"]. In a broad sense then, Acts 5:1-11 seems to show Peter in the role assigned to him by Jesus in Matt 16:18-19.
                    ______________

                    In a message dated 2/11/2004 11:32:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, kaolson@... writes:

                    > I would not hesitate to identify Luke's parable of The Man With Two Sons (15.11-32) as Luke's 'version'(version is probably not the right word, but I can't think of a better one)...>>

                    It's the time of day, no doubt.

                    <<..of Matthew's parable of The Man With Two Sons (21.28-32) >>

                    At the risk of once again giving away some of my best work before I have time to prepare it for publication, Lk 15:11-32 does indeed relate to Matt 21:28-32, but not only. To understand this Lukan masterpiece you have to read carefully, in sequence, the whole series of three Matthean parables, ending with the banquet parable in Matt 22:1-13. In his own parable, which he makes the climax of his own series of three, Luke draws inspiration and specific features, from all three of these Matthean parables, which he reads together as a unit. By the way, I agree with Goulder in his evaluation of much to most of the "special" Lukan material as deriving ultimately from Matthew.


                    Leonard Maluf
                    Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                    Weston, MA
                  • Karel Hanhart
                    Ken, I read your note with great interest. Without entering into the discussion of an existing Q document, I too agree that the absence of Mt 16,17-19 in
                    Message 9 of 14 , Feb 12, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ken,
                       
                      I read your note with great interest. Without entering into the discussion of an existing  Q document, I too agree that  the absence of Mt 16,17-19 in Luke, does not mean that the passage had no appeal  for Luke and was not pleasing to him (p. 221 NTS article Kloppenberg).
                      To me the omission in Luke was due to difference in audience. Both Mark and Matthew were writing for liturgical and didactic use of the burgeoning (Judean/Gentile) ecclesia whose Judean leadership  was familiar with a midrash type of 'searching the Scriptues', unfamiliar to a Gentile audience.. Both Mark and Matthew could therefore rely on the knowledge and insight of a local presbyter to unlock the haggadic midrashim  in their story. For the meaning of the miracle stories, including the opened tomb story (or frustrated burial story), can only be unlocked with the help of midrash. The first two Gospels are therefore esoteric. Luke and John had a much wider public in mind. It is the primary reason for the omission of the "Peter' passage in Luke.  The second is, that Luke in his Acts offers a balanced picture of Peter's primary role, his mission to the Judeans in Jerusalem and Paul's (so called) mission to the Gentiles and Peter's disappearance to another topos!! at the end of his mission. The word 'topos' is significant here. For it has a dual meaning. After the destruction and during the new exile in the Messianic age, Jerusalem (as Luke sees it) is no longer the Holy PLace (topos, Hb. maqom) of the God of Israel   For both in the passion story of Mark and of Matthew the word topos (Hb maqom) refers to the Holy Place - Mt Zion. 
                      Mt 16,17-19 is obviously an addition to the post-70 Mark version of a Passover Haggadah, used for the ecclesial liturgy in the Passover season, commemorating the mission of Jesus Messiah. Matthew's 'Peter and the keys' passage was in irs effect a confirmation of Mark's epilogue, as I have argued before. Matthew even elaborated the opened tomb story in a satirical fashion (the guard before the tomb).  For in his midrash on LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16 and LXX Gn 29,2.10. Mark was not referring to a literal empty grave, but to the destruction of the temple (mnemeion... ek petras) and so to the devastations on Mt Zion,  called  "ho topos" [Hebrew: ha-Maqom] in the angel''s words: "Behold (ide, sing.!)  - the Place (nomin.) where he was laid". The women see the destruction in a future vision (anablepsasai) and flee in perplexity and fear. 
                      Mark wrote just after the awful news of the Fall of Jerusalem was reverberating through the empire. He meant to say that in spite of the crucifixion of the Master and in spite of the destruction of Zion, Jesus work would go on'. God had raised him and through his living body (!), the ecclesia, headed by James, Peter and John, Jesus had already continued his message among the nations : "He will go before you" to the Galil ha-goyim.
                      I am assuming, therefore,  the classical view that Mark wrote for the ecclesia in Rome and that Matthew represented the ecclesia in the motherland (now in Pella? or somewhere in Syria? or Antioch?). At any rate, Matthew adopted (and improved) Mark's  post-70  gospel concerning this last "Passover" of Israel almost in his entirety. Since John Mark was the acknowledged ïnterpreter of Peter,  to Matthew Mark's Gospel bore the apostolic signature of Peter, so to speak.  The saying "on this rock (petra)  I will build my ecclesia", fits seamlessly this interpretation of Mark's 'monument on the Rock' midrash. In other words by adopting Mark's new passion story for the liturgy of the ecclesia, Mathew gave, so to speak, an ecclesial approval to this interpretation of the history of Jesus and of his followers. This theory, at any rate, would also clarify  Matthew's  words on the "keys of the Kingdom", given to Peter.  For it is widely acknowledged that this part of the Peter saying ALSO refers to LXX Isa 22,15-25 the same scripture Mark used as one of his midrashic sources for his opened tomb story.  In other words Matthew, with the authority of the "mother ecclesia" behind him, acknowledged Mark'S new and approved interpretation  of Jesus' work, his suffering, death and elevation to God's right hand AFTER THE TRAUMA OF 70.
                      Now Luke omitted this Peter and the keys passage because his Gentile readers would not have been able to decipher this cryptic reference to the temple's destruction and  its meaning. But he does have the mission theme (comp. Mt 28,18f) in the very beginning of his Acts and he gives Peter his due weight before Paul who likewise ends up in Rome before 70. Luke like his predecessors refrains also from explicitly referring to the Judean Roman war for anyone who has lived in a state of a dictatorial regime knows one should be careful with the written word. The guarded language used by all three synoptics was unavoidable in view of the relatively dangerous political situation of the Jesus' followers.
                       
                      This rationale is offered because I believe those scholars who like me, adhere to Farrer's order of the four Gospels, could perhaps be invited to try  to clarify how they explain such phenomena as raised here by Mark Goodacre and Kloppenberg.   I find it remarkable that we agreed in this list to discuss the paper on Daniel Wallace on the priority of Mark. After a few feeble attempts to counter one or two Wallace's persuasive arguments, the e-mails stopped. Briefly, who would like to offer a rationale why 1) Matthew used Mark's post-70 version - a revision of older material -  2) Luke used both sources (and possibly others - 3) John gave his own 'spiritual' view of all three (while rejecting the  Gospel of Thomas as prof Fagel rightly suggested).
                       
                      Thank you for your patience,
                       
                      Karel 
                        
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                      ----- Original Message ----- petra) I will build my church" implies that the Gospel of Mark, who had the approval of the ecclesia in Rome and was considered to have
                      From: Ken Olson
                      Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:04 PM
                      Subject: [Synoptic-L] Luke displeasingness in Mt. 16.17-19

                      I’ve been reading John S. Kloppbenborg’s "On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew" from NTS 49 (2003) 210-236. Among the arguments in Goodacre’s Case Against Q to which JSK(V?) takes exception is that Luke failed to use Mt. 16.17-19 because ‘Luke is not as positive overall about Peter as Matthew’ and his importance recedes throughout Acts. JSKV provides several examples to show that Luke attached great importance to Peter and had a very favorable attitude toward him. For what it’s worth, I think JSKV has the better of Goodacre on this one.

                      However, I do not think this means that advocates of the Farrer theory need admit that Mt. 16.17-19 fails to meet the requirement of ‘Luke displeasingness.’ There are two things about the passage that I think Luke found displeasing: (1) its sequence, and (2) the nature of the authority given to Peter.

                      (1) On the first point: Mt. 16.17-19 is a bit awkward in its current location. Matthew has Jesus bless Peter and make him the foundation upon which the church is built just a few verses before he calls him Satan and says ‘you are an offense to me’ (Mt. 16.23). Peter later abandons and denies Jesus.

                      How does Luke deal with this problem? First, he omits the Satan reference common to Matthew and Mark . This still leaves the problem that Peter abandons Jesus after being made the foundation of the church. So in Lk. 22.31-34, Luke has a pre-resurrection passage in which Jesus recognizes the post-resurrection importance of the role Peter will play once he has returned to Jesus. JSKV notes that Lk. 22.31-34 is a parallel ‘though not an equivalent’ to Mt. 16.17-19 (p. 221).

                      Second, Luke attributes the founding of the church to the activity of the Holy Spirit bestowed by the risen Jesus (and, in fact, writes a whole new book on the subject). In this, he agrees with John rather than Matthew. John has a rough equivalent of Mt. 16.17-19, but places it after the resurrection and has the risen Jesus bestow the Holy Spirit on the apostles. Under the influence of Barbara Shellard and Mark Matson, I accept as a working hypothesis that Luke knew John’s gospel, but anyone who prefers to can think Luke and John share a common tradition here.

                      (2) The second issue is probably even more important to Luke. The passages at Mt. 16.16-19, 18.18 and Jn. 20.22-23 all carry the implication (intended or not) that human agents have been granted the authority to withhold God’s forgiveness of sins. For Luke, this absolutely will not do. One of the major themes of Luke-Acts is that God's forgiveness is always available to any sinner who repents. The theme is found over and over in Luke’s special material (Lost Coin, Prodigal Son, Pharisee and Tax-Collector, Zacchaeus and many other places). For Luke, the apostles are intended to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins to everyone, not to withhold it from anyone (Lk. 24.47).

                      Luke’s story of Simon ‘Magus’ in Acts 8.9-24 may be intended as a corrective to the possible interpretation of Mt. 16.17-19, 18.18 and Jn. 20.22-23 that the dispensing of forgiveness or the Holy Spirit was at the discretion of the apostles. Simon, who has been baptized but has not received the Holy Spirit attempts to buy it from Peter. Peter rebukes him, saying that the gift of God cannot be purchased with money and that Simon should repent and pray to God for forgiveness for his wickedness.

                      In short, I think there are very good narrative and theological reasons for Luke to treat Mt. 16.17-19 as, on the Farrer theory, he did. I would be interested to know if anyone can think of counterexamples from Luke-Acts in which the apostles do exhibit the authority to withhold remission of sins.

                      Best Wishes,

                      Ken

                      kaolson@...

                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      ... further and further into the background is that Luke s narrative in the Acts makes it clear that Peter was not the rock on which the church was built.
                      Message 10 of 14 , Feb 15, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 2/10/2004 6:31:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

                        >> How does his destiny unfold? This is sharply focused in relation to Matt. 16.17-19, where Jesus is prophesying Peter's future. Now Luke is the one evangelist who is actually going to be narrating Peter's future because he has a second volume. My point about Peter "progressively reced[ing]
                        further and further into the background" is that Luke's narrative in the Acts makes it clear that Peter was not the rock on which the church was built.>>

                        This surprises me. I wonder exactly how you would expect the Acts narrative to have been written if its author thought of Peter, along with Matthew, as the rock on which, in some sense, Jesus built his church? On the other hand, do you find anything in the Matthean narrative that would confirm for you the view of its author of Peter as the foundation rock of the church? And in Luke's own Gospel narrative, is not the idea of Peter's "firming up" his brethren (22:32) not simply a translation into real language of the metaphor of the rock as applied by Jesus to Peter in Matt 16? Even Paul's Gentile mission in Acts rests on the firm foundation of Peter's experience with a Gentile centurion, and his interpretation of that experience at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:6-11), does it not? I don't think one need be a mindless apologist for papal primacy to see a foundational role for Peter played out in the Acts narrative (more so, I might add, than anything found in the later narrative of Matthew!). The fact that Peter acts here as representative of the apostolic college (Acts 15:2,6) does not diminish his unique role, any more than what is said by Jesus in Matt 18:18 weakens the effect of what is said to Peter alone in 16:18 (and cf. Lk 5:10, likewise addressed to Peter alone).


                        << Yes he's important, yes he's a major spokesperson especially in the early stages, yes he plays a major role. But he's one amongst many, and one who has vanished by the half-way point of the book. This is a major player but not the rock on which the church was built.>>

                        I don't see the distinction as more than one between a metaphor (Matt) and its narrative expression (Lk-Acts). One thing is certain, namely, that Luke is extremely reluctant to try to pass off a pun by an earlier author as his own. For this reason, instead of a play on the name "Peter", in Luke's equivalent passage (5:1-11) he plays on the name "Simon", which means to "listen", or "obey". Crowds are "listening" to the word of God at the beginning of this narrative; Peter "obeys" the word of Jesus in the narrative, and on the basis of this rock-solid obedience to Christ's word the church is founded -- in the form of two boats hauling in a large catch of fish, and representing the Church's two major missionary wings (the second, of course, being that of Paul as head of the Gentile mission).


                        <<The narrative development of Luke-Acts makes it to
                        me highly unlikely that Matt. 16.17-19 would have a role to
                        play in Luke's narrative.>> QED (quod erat disputandum).

                        Leonard Maluf
                        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                        Weston, MA
                      • Mark Goodacre
                        Leonard I appreciate your response and think it a useful corrective to my perhaps overstated one. Your point And in Luke s own Gospel narrative, is not the
                        Message 11 of 14 , Feb 16, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Leonard

                          I appreciate your response and think it a useful corrective to my
                          perhaps overstated one. Your point "And in Luke's own Gospel
                          narrative, is not the idea of Peter's "firming up" his brethren
                          (22:32) not simply a translation into real language of the metaphor
                          of the rock as applied by Jesus to Peter in Matt 16?" is similar to
                          Ken Olson's point in an earlier email and is appreciated. I think
                          this view quite plausible -- Luke essentially rewrites in Lucan form
                          and relocates. After all, in that very context we have a re-writing
                          and relocation of Mark 10.35-44 // Matt. 20.20-28 (Luke 22.24-27).
                          So all in all this would rather strengthen my point that we need not
                          see Luke's lack of Matt. 16.17-19 as in any way counting in favour of
                          the theory of Luke's independence from Matthew.

                          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@...
                        • Karel Hanhart
                          ... From: Ken Olson To: ; Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:32 AM Subject: Re:
                          Message 12 of 14 , Feb 17, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Ken Olson" <kaolson@...>
                            To: <Maluflen@...>; <Synoptic-L@...>
                            Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:32 AM
                            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke displeasingness in Mt. 16.17-19



                            > KOlsen wrote: ...... I find JSK[loppenberg]V's premise very odd.
                            >(I've done a great deal of thinking on JSKV's criticisms of the
                            > Farrer theory, but I haven't gotten around to typing them all up yet and
                            > didn't mention this in my earlier post.) He seems to argue that, where
                            Luke
                            > has material with similar themes to a passage in Matthew, but does not use
                            > Matthew's wording, this indicates that Luke did not know Matthew's gospel.

                            In an earlier contribution ( ), I wrote in agreemen with you:

                            ....The first two Gospels are therefore esoteric. Luke and John had a much
                            wider public in mind. It is the primary reason for the omission of the
                            "Peter' passage in Luke. The second is, that Luke in his Acts offers a
                            balanced picture of Peter's primary role, his mission to the Judeans in
                            Jerusalem and Paul's (so called) mission to the Gentiles and Peter's
                            disappearance to another topos (Acts 12, 17).......probably referring to
                            Rome, the place Mark's post-70
                            gospel was written. Matthew took over most of Mark's passion story and the
                            Peter passage in Mt 16 appears to demonstrate that Matthew thereby "accepts"
                            Mark's (Petrine) version of the meaning of Jesus' death as the Passover lamb
                            and his being seated at the right hand of the Power.
                            By writing a Gospel and an Acts, Luke wants to clearly differentiate between
                            the ministry of Jesus
                            and the mission of the apostles, two historical periods that in Matthew and
                            Mark are overlapping.
                            For example, the later persecution of the apostles, the second feeding of
                            the 4000, and the destruction of the temple form the context in which Jesus'
                            passion is told. Pericopes such as these supply the link between Jesus'
                            ministry and that of the apostles. Matthew followed suit.
                            Luke, however, wrote his Acts because his audience would not have
                            understood the overlapping periods in Mark and Matthew.
                            Another example of differentiation is Luke's arresting omission of Andrew
                            when Jesus called his first disciples (Luke 5:1-11). The omission makes
                            sense. For in Mark and Matthew the Greek named Andrew is portrayed as the
                            'spiritual brother' of Simon Peter. He plays no role except in chapter 13 on
                            the 'future'. The name 'andreas' is typically Greek as much as Sjemon is
                            Hebrew. In Mark and Matthew, therefore, Andrew represents the "incoming" of
                            the Gentiles in the apostolic period. The "house" of Simon and Andrew in
                            Kefarnaum by the sea (Mk 1,21; par.) appears to function as the ideal model
                            for the later ecclesia's around the Mediterranean. The purpose of naming
                            Andrew as the spiritual brother of Peter, was to emphasize the equality of
                            (believing) Gentiles with the Jews. Andrew is there from the very outset of
                            Jesus' mission. Because of his wish to present his stories in historical
                            order, Luke omitted Andrew here, for he planned to write on the ïncoming"of
                            the Gentiles in his Acts.
                            The omission of Andrew in the calling story is another example why Luke knew
                            Matthew (and as I see it also Mark).
                            This rationale is offered because I believe those scholars who like me,
                            adhere to Farrer's order of the four Gospels, should be invited to try to
                            clarify how they explain the inner coherence of the four gospels as we have
                            them.
                            cordially

                            Karel





                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Karel Hanhart
                            ... From: Karel Hanhart To: Ken Olson ; Synoptic-L Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke displeasingness in Mt. 16.17-19 Ken,
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 5 1:54 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                               
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:58 AM
                              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke displeasingness in Mt. 16.17-19

                              Ken,
                               
                              I read your note with great interest. Without entering into the discussion of an existing  Q document, I too agree that  the absence of Mt 16,17-19 in Luke, does not mean that the passage had no appeal  for Luke and was not pleasing to him (p. 221 NTS article Kloppenberg).
                              To me the omission in Luke was due to difference in audience. Both Mark and Matthew were writing for liturgical and didactic use of the burgeoning (Judean/Gentile) ecclesia whose Judean leadership  was familiar with a midrash type of 'searching the Scriptues', unfamiliar to a Gentile audience.. Both Mark and Matthew could therefore rely on the knowledge and insight of a local presbyter to unlock the haggadic midrashim  in their story. For the meaning of the miracle stories, including the opened tomb story (or frustrated burial story), can only be unlocked with the help of midrash. The first two Gospels are therefore esoteric. Luke and John had a much wider public in mind. It is the primary reason for the omission of the "Peter' passage in Luke.  The second is, that Luke in his Acts offers a balanced picture of Peter's primary role, his mission to the Judeans in Jerusalem and Paul's (so called) mission to the Gentiles and Peter's disappearance to another topos!! at the end of his mission. The word 'topos' is significant here. For it has a dual meaning. After the destruction and during the new exile in the Messianic age, Jerusalem (as Luke sees it) is no longer the Holy PLace (topos, Hb. maqom) of the God of Israel   For both in the passion story of Mark and of Matthew the word topos (Hb maqom) refers to the Holy Place - Mt Zion. 
                              Mt 16,17-19 is obviously an addition to the post-70 Mark version of a Passover Haggadah, used for the ecclesial liturgy in the Passover season, commemorating the mission of Jesus Messiah. Matthew's 'Peter and the keys' passage was in irs effect a confirmation of Mark's epilogue, as I have argued before. Matthew even elaborated the opened tomb story in a satirical fashion (the guard before the tomb).  For in his midrash on LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16 and LXX Gn 29,2.10. Mark was not referring to a literal empty grave, but to the destruction of the temple (mnemeion... ek petras) and so to the devastations on Mt Zion,  called  "ho topos" [Hebrew: ha-Maqom] in the angel''s words: "Behold (ide, sing.!)  - the Place (nomin.) where he was laid". The women see the destruction in a future vision (anablepsasai) and flee in perplexity and fear. 
                              Mark wrote just after the awful news of the Fall of Jerusalem was reverberating through the empire. He meant to say that in spite of the crucifixion of the Master and in spite of the destruction of Zion, Jesus work would go on'. God had raised him and through his living body (!), the ecclesia, headed by James, Peter and John, Jesus had already continued his message among the nations : "He will go before you" to the Galil ha-goyim.
                              I am assuming, therefore,  the classical view that Mark wrote for the ecclesia in Rome and that Matthew represented the ecclesia in the motherland (now in Pella? or somewhere in Syria? or Antioch?). At any rate, Matthew adopted (and improved) Mark's  post-70  gospel concerning this last "Passover" of Israel almost in his entirety. Since John Mark was the acknowledged ïnterpreter of Peter,  to Matthew Mark's Gospel bore the apostolic signature of Peter, so to speak.  The saying "on this rock (petra)  I will build my ecclesia", fits seamlessly this interpretation of Mark's 'monument on the Rock' midrash. In other words by adopting Mark's new passion story for the liturgy of the ecclesia, Mathew gave, so to speak, an ecclesial approval to this interpretation of the history of Jesus and of his followers. This theory, at any rate, would also clarify  Matthew's  words on the "keys of the Kingdom", given to Peter.  For it is widely acknowledged that this part of the Peter saying ALSO refers to LXX Isa 22,15-25 the same scripture Mark used as one of his midrashic sources for his opened tomb story.  In other words Matthew, with the authority of the "mother ecclesia" behind him, acknowledged Mark'S new and approved interpretation  of Jesus' work, his suffering, death and elevation to God's right hand AFTER THE TRAUMA OF 70.
                              Now Luke omitted this Peter and the keys passage because his Gentile readers would not have been able to decipher this cryptic reference to the temple's destruction and  its meaning. But he does have the mission theme (comp. Mt 28,18f) in the very beginning of his Acts and he gives Peter his due weight before Paul who likewise ends up in Rome before 70. Luke like his predecessors refrains also from explicitly referring to the Judean Roman war for anyone who has lived in a state of a dictatorial regime knows one should be careful with the written word. The guarded language used by all three synoptics was unavoidable in view of the relatively dangerous political situation of the Jesus' followers.
                               
                              This rationale is offered because I believe those scholars who like me, adhere to Farrer's order of the four Gospels, could perhaps be invited to try  to clarify how they explain such phenomena as raised here by Mark Goodacre and Kloppenberg.   I find it remarkable that we agreed in this list to discuss the paper on Daniel Wallace on the priority of Mark. After a few feeble attempts to counter one or two Wallace's persuasive arguments, the e-mails stopped. Briefly, who would like to offer a rationale why 1) Matthew used Mark's post-70 version - a revision of older material -  2) Luke used both sources (and possibly others - 3) John gave his own 'spiritual' view of all three (while rejecting the  Gospel of Thomas as prof Fagel rightly suggested).
                               
                              Thank you for your patience,
                               
                              Karel 
                                
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                              ----- Original Message ----- petra) I will build my church" implies that the Gospel of Mark, who had the approval of the ecclesia in Rome and was considered to have
                              From: Ken Olson
                              Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:04 PM
                              Subject: [Synoptic-L] Luke displeasingness in Mt. 16.17-19

                              I’ve been reading John S. Kloppbenborg’s "On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew" from NTS 49 (2003) 210-236. Among the arguments in Goodacre’s Case Against Q to which JSK(V?) takes exception is that Luke failed to use Mt. 16.17-19 because ‘Luke is not as positive overall about Peter as Matthew’ and his importance recedes throughout Acts. JSKV provides several examples to show that Luke attached great importance to Peter and had a very favorable attitude toward him. For what it’s worth, I think JSKV has the better of Goodacre on this one.

                              However, I do not think this means that advocates of the Farrer theory need admit that Mt. 16.17-19 fails to meet the requirement of ‘Luke displeasingness.’ There are two things about the passage that I think Luke found displeasing: (1) its sequence, and (2) the nature of the authority given to Peter.

                              (1) On the first point: Mt. 16.17-19 is a bit awkward in its current location. Matthew has Jesus bless Peter and make him the foundation upon which the church is built just a few verses before he calls him Satan and says ‘you are an offense to me’ (Mt. 16.23). Peter later abandons and denies Jesus.

                              How does Luke deal with this problem? First, he omits the Satan reference common to Matthew and Mark . This still leaves the problem that Peter abandons Jesus after being made the foundation of the church. So in Lk. 22.31-34, Luke has a pre-resurrection passage in which Jesus recognizes the post-resurrection importance of the role Peter will play once he has returned to Jesus. JSKV notes that Lk. 22.31-34 is a parallel ‘though not an equivalent’ to Mt. 16.17-19 (p. 221).

                              Second, Luke attributes the founding of the church to the activity of the Holy Spirit bestowed by the risen Jesus (and, in fact, writes a whole new book on the subject). In this, he agrees with John rather than Matthew. John has a rough equivalent of Mt. 16.17-19, but places it after the resurrection and has the risen Jesus bestow the Holy Spirit on the apostles. Under the influence of Barbara Shellard and Mark Matson, I accept as a working hypothesis that Luke knew John’s gospel, but anyone who prefers to can think Luke and John share a common tradition here.

                              (2) The second issue is probably even more important to Luke. The passages at Mt. 16.16-19, 18.18 and Jn. 20.22-23 all carry the implication (intended or not) that human agents have been granted the authority to withhold God’s forgiveness of sins. For Luke, this absolutely will not do. One of the major themes of Luke-Acts is that God's forgiveness is always available to any sinner who repents. The theme is found over and over in Luke’s special material (Lost Coin, Prodigal Son, Pharisee and Tax-Collector, Zacchaeus and many other places). For Luke, the apostles are intended to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins to everyone, not to withhold it from anyone (Lk. 24.47).

                              Luke’s story of Simon ‘Magus’ in Acts 8.9-24 may be intended as a corrective to the possible interpretation of Mt. 16.17-19, 18.18 and Jn. 20.22-23 that the dispensing of forgiveness or the Holy Spirit was at the discretion of the apostles. Simon, who has been baptized but has not received the Holy Spirit attempts to buy it from Peter. Peter rebukes him, saying that the gift of God cannot be purchased with money and that Simon should repent and pray to God for forgiveness for his wickedness.

                              In short, I think there are very good narrative and theological reasons for Luke to treat Mt. 16.17-19 as, on the Farrer theory, he did. I would be interested to know if anyone can think of counterexamples from Luke-Acts in which the apostles do exhibit the authority to withhold remission of sins.

                              Best Wishes,

                              Ken

                              kaolson@...

                            • Karel Hanhart
                              ... From: Karel Hanhart To: Ken Olson ; Synoptic-L Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke displeasingness in Mt. 16.17-19 Ken,
                              Message 14 of 14 , Mar 5 1:57 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:58 AM
                                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke displeasingness in Mt. 16.17-19

                                Ken,
                                 
                                I read your note with great interest. Without entering into the discussion of an existing  Q document, I too agree that  the absence of Mt 16,17-19 in Luke, does not mean that the passage had no appeal  for Luke and was not pleasing to him (p. 221 NTS article Kloppenberg).
                                To me the omission in Luke was due to difference in audience. Both Mark and Matthew were writing for liturgical and didactic use of the burgeoning (Judean/Gentile) ecclesia whose Judean leadership  was familiar with a midrash type of 'searching the Scriptues', unfamiliar to a Gentile audience.. Both Mark and Matthew could therefore rely on the knowledge and insight of a local presbyter to unlock the haggadic midrashim  in their story. For the meaning of the miracle stories, including the opened tomb story (or frustrated burial story), can only be unlocked with the help of midrash. The first two Gospels are therefore esoteric. Luke and John had a much wider public in mind. It is the primary reason for the omission of the "Peter' passage in Luke.  The second is, that Luke in his Acts offers a balanced picture of Peter's primary role, his mission to the Judeans in Jerusalem and Paul's (so called) mission to the Gentiles and Peter's disappearance to another topos!! at the end of his mission. The word 'topos' is significant here. For it has a dual meaning. After the destruction and during the new exile in the Messianic age, Jerusalem (as Luke sees it) is no longer the Holy PLace (topos, Hb. maqom) of the God of Israel   For both in the passion story of Mark and of Matthew the word topos (Hb maqom) refers to the Holy Place - Mt Zion. 
                                Mt 16,17-19 is obviously an addition to the post-70 Mark version of a Passover Haggadah, used for the ecclesial liturgy in the Passover season, commemorating the mission of Jesus Messiah. Matthew's 'Peter and the keys' passage was in irs effect a confirmation of Mark's epilogue, as I have argued before. Matthew even elaborated the opened tomb story in a satirical fashion (the guard before the tomb).  For in his midrash on LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16 and LXX Gn 29,2.10. Mark was not referring to a literal empty grave, but to the destruction of the temple (mnemeion... ek petras) and so to the devastations on Mt Zion,  called  "ho topos" [Hebrew: ha-Maqom] in the angel''s words: "Behold (ide, sing.!)  - the Place (nomin.) where he was laid". The women see the destruction in a future vision (anablepsasai) and flee in perplexity and fear. 
                                Mark wrote just after the awful news of the Fall of Jerusalem was reverberating through the empire. He meant to say that in spite of the crucifixion of the Master and in spite of the destruction of Zion, Jesus work would go on'. God had raised him and through his living body (!), the ecclesia, headed by James, Peter and John, Jesus had already continued his message among the nations : "He will go before you" to the Galil ha-goyim.
                                I am assuming, therefore,  the classical view that Mark wrote for the ecclesia in Rome and that Matthew represented the ecclesia in the motherland (now in Pella? or somewhere in Syria? or Antioch?). At any rate, Matthew adopted (and improved) Mark's  post-70  gospel concerning this last "Passover" of Israel almost in his entirety. Since John Mark was the acknowledged ïnterpreter of Peter,  to Matthew Mark's Gospel bore the apostolic signature of Peter, so to speak.  The saying "on this rock (petra)  I will build my ecclesia", fits seamlessly this interpretation of Mark's 'monument on the Rock' midrash. In other words by adopting Mark's new passion story for the liturgy of the ecclesia, Mathew gave, so to speak, an ecclesial approval to this interpretation of the history of Jesus and of his followers. This theory, at any rate, would also clarify  Matthew's  words on the "keys of the Kingdom", given to Peter.  For it is widely acknowledged that this part of the Peter saying ALSO refers to LXX Isa 22,15-25 the same scripture Mark used as one of his midrashic sources for his opened tomb story.  In other words Matthew, with the authority of the "mother ecclesia" behind him, acknowledged Mark'S new and approved interpretation  of Jesus' work, his suffering, death and elevation to God's right hand AFTER THE TRAUMA OF 70.
                                Now Luke omitted this Peter and the keys passage because his Gentile readers would not have been able to decipher this cryptic reference to the temple's destruction and  its meaning. But he does have the mission theme (comp. Mt 28,18f) in the very beginning of his Acts and he gives Peter his due weight before Paul who likewise ends up in Rome before 70. Luke like his predecessors refrains also from explicitly referring to the Judean Roman war for anyone who has lived in a state of a dictatorial regime knows one should be careful with the written word. The guarded language used by all three synoptics was unavoidable in view of the relatively dangerous political situation of the Jesus' followers.
                                 
                                This rationale is offered because I believe those scholars who like me, adhere to Farrer's order of the four Gospels, could perhaps be invited to try  to clarify how they explain such phenomena as raised here by Mark Goodacre and Kloppenberg.   I find it remarkable that we agreed in this list to discuss the paper on Daniel Wallace on the priority of Mark. After a few feeble attempts to counter one or two Wallace's persuasive arguments, the e-mails stopped. Briefly, who would like to offer a rationale why 1) Matthew used Mark's post-70 version - a revision of older material -  2) Luke used both sources (and possibly others - 3) John gave his own 'spiritual' view of all three (while rejecting the  Gospel of Thomas as prof Fagel rightly suggested).
                                 
                                Thank you for your patience,
                                 
                                Karel 
                                  
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                ----- Original Message ----- petra) I will build my church" implies that the Gospel of Mark, who had the approval of the ecclesia in Rome and was considered to have
                                From: Ken Olson
                                Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:04 PM
                                Subject: [Synoptic-L] Luke displeasingness in Mt. 16.17-19

                                I’ve been reading John S. Kloppbenborg’s "On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew" from NTS 49 (2003) 210-236. Among the arguments in Goodacre’s Case Against Q to which JSK(V?) takes exception is that Luke failed to use Mt. 16.17-19 because ‘Luke is not as positive overall about Peter as Matthew’ and his importance recedes throughout Acts. JSKV provides several examples to show that Luke attached great importance to Peter and had a very favorable attitude toward him. For what it’s worth, I think JSKV has the better of Goodacre on this one.

                                However, I do not think this means that advocates of the Farrer theory need admit that Mt. 16.17-19 fails to meet the requirement of ‘Luke displeasingness.’ There are two things about the passage that I think Luke found displeasing: (1) its sequence, and (2) the nature of the authority given to Peter.

                                (1) On the first point: Mt. 16.17-19 is a bit awkward in its current location. Matthew has Jesus bless Peter and make him the foundation upon which the church is built just a few verses before he calls him Satan and says ‘you are an offense to me’ (Mt. 16.23). Peter later abandons and denies Jesus.

                                How does Luke deal with this problem? First, he omits the Satan reference common to Matthew and Mark . This still leaves the problem that Peter abandons Jesus after being made the foundation of the church. So in Lk. 22.31-34, Luke has a pre-resurrection passage in which Jesus recognizes the post-resurrection importance of the role Peter will play once he has returned to Jesus. JSKV notes that Lk. 22.31-34 is a parallel ‘though not an equivalent’ to Mt. 16.17-19 (p. 221).

                                Second, Luke attributes the founding of the church to the activity of the Holy Spirit bestowed by the risen Jesus (and, in fact, writes a whole new book on the subject). In this, he agrees with John rather than Matthew. John has a rough equivalent of Mt. 16.17-19, but places it after the resurrection and has the risen Jesus bestow the Holy Spirit on the apostles. Under the influence of Barbara Shellard and Mark Matson, I accept as a working hypothesis that Luke knew John’s gospel, but anyone who prefers to can think Luke and John share a common tradition here.

                                (2) The second issue is probably even more important to Luke. The passages at Mt. 16.16-19, 18.18 and Jn. 20.22-23 all carry the implication (intended or not) that human agents have been granted the authority to withhold God’s forgiveness of sins. For Luke, this absolutely will not do. One of the major themes of Luke-Acts is that God's forgiveness is always available to any sinner who repents. The theme is found over and over in Luke’s special material (Lost Coin, Prodigal Son, Pharisee and Tax-Collector, Zacchaeus and many other places). For Luke, the apostles are intended to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins to everyone, not to withhold it from anyone (Lk. 24.47).

                                Luke’s story of Simon ‘Magus’ in Acts 8.9-24 may be intended as a corrective to the possible interpretation of Mt. 16.17-19, 18.18 and Jn. 20.22-23 that the dispensing of forgiveness or the Holy Spirit was at the discretion of the apostles. Simon, who has been baptized but has not received the Holy Spirit attempts to buy it from Peter. Peter rebukes him, saying that the gift of God cannot be purchased with money and that Simon should repent and pray to God for forgiveness for his wickedness.

                                In short, I think there are very good narrative and theological reasons for Luke to treat Mt. 16.17-19 as, on the Farrer theory, he did. I would be interested to know if anyone can think of counterexamples from Luke-Acts in which the apostles do exhibit the authority to withhold remission of sins.

                                Best Wishes,

                                Ken

                                kaolson@...

                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.