Vinnie

Yuri, can you a) cite some examples of where Luke preserves the earlier wording and b) tell us how you determine that.

Vinnie

Yuri Kuchinsky

How about the Great Omission? We've already discussed this before...

Best,

Yuri.

Vinnie

I am still relatively new in my studies of the Great Omission (Bethsaida section) missing from Luke.

I have found three theories:

1. Koester's: = THis section was not in Luke's but was in Matthew's. The contents look redactional like someone redacted Mark's Gospel and Matt used that copy while Luke had one without it.

I'll grant that this would be an instance where Luke preserves an earlier wording and thi hurts Lucan dependence on Matthew.

However, I have found two other theories.

2) Luke's copy of Mark was simply missing pages (non redactional).

3) Luke strangely doesn't include this account but there are hints in his Gospel that he knows about it and read this material.

So in order for this to demonstrate an instance of Luke preserving an earlier wording of Mark than Matthew we would need to see argument one authenticated over numbers 2 and 3.

Why do you reject two and three?

Vinnie

Nomad

Okay, I wasn't sure if this was what you were referring to, but since Brown does not elaborate on the point, nor even reference Sanders, Farrer or Goulder (all respected scholars, two of whom, at least, were certainly known to Brown), then we cannot say that Brown gives this argument a fair hearing, and dismisses it with nothing more than a wave of the hand. This is not typical of Brown, as he usually gives at least some details on a thesis, even if he rejects it entirely, and he certainly notes the relevant bibliographical material. From the above statement I can only assume that he never actually read Goulder or Sanders in detail on this question.

Like you I am not all that impressed by what Luke would have left out from Matthew, since he can easily be shown to have left out large chunks of information found in Mark as well. As for the overlaps, we have enough that everyone now admits to it, even if they call these "Minor Agreements" by the atrocious name of Mark-Q overlaps.

Again Luke does not always agree with Mark either, so this argument is meaningless.
When Luke has two competing sources his tendency is to use one to the exclusion of the other. Whether we accept Q or dependence on Matthean we see this when Luke uses the Q version of a story rather than Mark's. Scholars call this Luke's "block use of sources".
We actually have three competing traditions on the death of Judas, with Papias (c. 120 AD) offering the third. I do not see any reason to assume that Luke would have preferred Matthew's account of Judas' death to any others floating around at the same time.

First, the question of why Luke follows Matt so closely in both the baptism, AND in the temptation stories is crucial. Q does not account for this, and typically defenders of the 2DH have to rationalize the similarities as coincidence.

As for the argument from order, I know that this is popular, and Goodacre certainly takes it seriously (he dedicates three chapters to refuting it in his book), but I just do not see why Luke needs to be expected to keep sayings material in some kind of predetermined order. Narrative information, on the other hand comes largely from Mark, and it is logical to leave such material in the same basic chronological order. In fact, one can hardly expect any less, since the temptation can hardly be placed before the baptism (at least there is no logical reason saying anyone should do this), and the death of Jesus obviously has to come near the end rather than the start.

Goodacre makes an interesting point in that Luke follows Matthew in his example of adding a Birth Narrative at the beginning, and a Resurrection Story at the end of his gospel, while Mark omits both. This is certainly not probative in any sense, but if Luke had read Matthew, he may have liked the idea, even as he rejected the stories Matthew related. Given that Luke wanted Jesus' Resurrection to take place in Jerusalem rather than in Galilee (as per Mark AND Matt), it makes sense that he was not going to use Matthew's Resurrection stories which were, of course, set in Galilee.

Since Brown makes a strong case for a pre-Marcan Passion Narrative (cf. Death of the Messiah), and for a pre-Matthean Birth Narrative (cf. Birth of the Messiah), and it is obvious that Luke was using his own special "L" sources as well, then we have more than enough evidence for "many" gospels floating about when he wrote. Regardless I do not see why positing Q as one of those sources is more reasonable than saying that Matthew was one of Luke's sources.

One cannot argue for Marcan knowledge of Q without begging the question. The entire reason Q was posited at all was that Mark was believed to be unaware of Q, and Matt and Luke independently used both. Once one accepts that Mark knew Q, then we are back to the Griesbach hypothesis, and the need for Q evaporates. On the other hand, if Matthew knew Mark, and Luke knew of Matthew and Mark, then we will not be surprised by the so called Minor Agreements. As Goodacre points out, this is what we would expect when one story teller is using two or more sources. There will be a range of degrees of similarity from minor to major agreements between the three sets of stories depending entirely upon how faithfully the last storyteller (in this case Luke) would wish to adhere to his sources. Sometimes he will prefer one to the other, sometimes he will use elements of both, and other times he will simply reject both equally. Since this is exactly what we do find in Luke, it serves as powerful evidence of Lucan dependence upon Mark and Matthew, a line of dependence that is strengthed by the internal evidence that shows that Luke redacted the Matthean material in much the same way as he redacted Mark.

This is, in my opinion, where the argument from Editorial Fatigue comes into play, since Luke shows the same kinds of "fatigue" when he uses Matthean material as he does when using Marcan stuff. This is not what we would expect to find if Mark used Matthew and Luke, condensing and simplifying them in some kind of shortened harmonization. The direction of the fatigue is from Mark to Matthew and Mark to Luke, not the other way around. Such a direction of dependence is best explained by accepting that Mark was the first of the Synoptics.

Peace,

Nomad

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Vinnie!

This solution is highly problematic. I've already posted here a quote from Loisy about this.

Quote:

3) Luke strangely doesn't include this account but there are hints in his Gospel that he knows about it and read this material.

Well, some later editor of Lk may have indeed read this material... But, again, these are just
"hints" -- there are no smoking guns.

Quote:

So in order for this to demonstrate an instance of Luke preserving an earlier wording of Mark than Matthew we would need to see argument one authenticated over numbers 2 and 3. Why do you reject two and three? Vinnie

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Or maybe it was the other way around, i.e. Mark and Matt following Luke's order closely...

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Vinnie,

I've been recently preparing some material about the early features of Luke, indicating that, in essence, this gospel was certainly not dependent on either Mk or Mt.

I can accept that a few late passages in Lk may have been influenced by the other gospels, but IMHO these few passages are outweighed by plenty of other stuff in Lk that is more original.

I'll post my analysis soon.

All the best,

Yuri.