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

[Synoptic-L] Mt differs to Q

Expand Messages
  • Tim Lewis
    Mt’s Judgment expressions imply Q. E.g. here s the NT ‘Judgement Day’ Expressions (not including on that day ): 1 Jn 4:17 at the day of the judgment
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment

      Mt’s Judgment expressions imply Q. E.g. here's the NT ‘Judgement Day’ Expressions (not including "on that day"):

      1 Jn 4:17 "at the day of the judgment" en th ‘hmera ths krisews

      2 Pt 2:4 "unto [the] judgment" eis krisin

      2 Pt 2:9 & 3:7 "unto day of-judgment" eis ‘hmeran krisews

      Jd 1:6 "unto mega judgment day" eis krisin megalhs ‘hmeras

      Hb 9:17 "[the] judgment" krisis

      Lk 10:14, 11:31 & 32 (cf. Mt 12:41,42)"at the judgment" en th krisei

      Mt 10:15; 11:22 , 24; 12:36 "at day of-judgment" en ‘hmera krisews

      It seems safe to say that Mt's "on Judgment Day" (en ‘hmera krisews) is Matthean. The expression is unique to Mt. Mt uses this expression four times (Mt 10:15; 11:22 , 24; 12:36).

      Mt also shares with Lk the expression "at the judgment" en th krisei twice in the final two occurrences (in Mt 12:41, 42).

      It could be argued that it is Luke who (in 11:31-32) adopts Mt’s EN TH KRISEI (from Mt 12:41-42). But Lk had already preferred the expression (in Lk 10:14) when he supposedly already changed Mt’s preferred expression ("at Judgment Day" Mt 11:22) to "at the judgment." Farrer theorists might argue that Lk simply prefers his own expression to Mt’s and so is consistent in changing it. But the theory cannot account for Mt’s behaviour. Why is Mt inconsistent when he seems to prefer the expression he used four times (esp. Mt 12:36). Thus my problem with the Farrer theory is that it cannot explain Mt’s behaviour here since Lk’s presence should have no affect.

      Thus it seems that editorial fatigue better explains Mt’s alternation between his two different expressions. Mt’s preferred expression is the one found in 12:36 (no Lk parallels) en ‘hmera krisews ("at/on Judgment Day") and he slips into reproducing his source’s expression in 12:41-42 "at the judgment" (from his oral or written "Q" source). The Mark-Q theory can explain both Mt’s and Lk’s expressions whilst the Farrer (Mk-Mt) theory leaves unexplained why the expression in Lk differs to Mt’s preferred expression but coincides with Mt’s final two.

      Mt’s use of Lk could also explain the phenomena but Lk’s use of Mt cannot fully explain it.

      Tim Lewis.



      Timothy M. Lewis
      Cranbourne, VIC 3977
      Part-time Greek Tutor at Whitley College,
      Melbourne College of Divinity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.



      Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic-L In Response To: Tim Lewis On: Mt
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 16, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic-L
        In Response To: Tim Lewis
        On: Mt < Q
        From: Bruce

        Tim asks about how Mt 12:41-42 is to be understood, if not as momentarily
        reproducing the [Lukan] wording of Q. He gives by way of preface a very
        helpful list of "Judgement" expressions in the NT. Since I lack the
        requisite tool (and others may lack it also), could I ask for a similar list
        of "Judgement" expressions in Q? Including, if possible, "on that day" where
        this refers to the Day of Judgement?

        It's interesting, meanwhile, that Mark seems to lack such expressions, in
        any form. Hell; yes. Day of Judgement, as far as I can see; No.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Ken Olson
        ... KRISEI (from Mt 12:41-42). But Lk had already preferred the expression (in Lk 10:14) when he supposedly already changed Mt s preferred expression ( at
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 17, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On November 16, 2004, Tim Lewis wrote:

          >>It could be argued that it is Luke who (in 11:31-32)
          adopts Mt's EN TH
          KRISEI (from Mt 12:41-42). But Lk had already preferred the expression (in
          Lk 10:14) when he supposedly already changed Mt's preferred expression ("at
          Judgment Day" Mt 11:22) to "at the judgment." Farrer theorists might argue
          that Lk simply prefers his own expression to Mt's and so is consistent in
          changing it. But the theory cannot account for Mt's behaviour. Why is Mt
          inconsistent when he seems to prefer the expression he used four times (esp.
          Mt 12:36). Thus my problem with the Farrer theory is that it cannot explain
          Mt's behaviour here since Lk's presence should have no affect.<<

          Tim,

          You appear to grant that Luke's consistency in using Mathhew here can be
          explained on the Farrer theory, but you contend that Matthew's inconsistency
          cannot.  Thus we need to hypothesize a source for Matthew.   Have you
          considered the possibility that Matthew's ANASTHSONTAI EN TH KRISEI in 12.41
          may have LXX Psalms 1.5, ANASTHSONTAI...  EN KRISEI as its "source", and
          that Mt. 12.42 uses EN TH KRISEI because it was constructed in parallel with
          12.41?

          Best Wishes,

          Ken

          Kenneth A. Olson
          MA, History, University of Maryland
          PhD Student, Theology, University of Birmingham
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.