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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mt differs to Q

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic-L In Response To: Tim Lewis On: Mt
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 16, 2004
      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 2 of 3 , Nov 17, 2004
        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.