Synoptic Gospels 2

1. Assumes Mark was the first (the originator) to write a gospel, drawing all the material available about Jesus together into a whole, culminatiing the Passion and resurrection.
   1. But what were Mark's sources?
2. Less an issue with Mt & Lk's sources - one of them are assumed to be Mk
3. Mt & Lk found Mk's gospel to be inadequate (too short, lacking important details), so decided to write it
   1. Matthew and Luke differed from Mark in theology and Christology
4. Mk's gospel assume the readers have a good knowledge of the OT. Mt & Lk make less assumption and explain things in more detail

   Anmerkungen:

   • Matthew 17.9-13 Mark 9.9-13
5. Mk's gospel is more raw, less kind, less repectful of Jesus

   Anmerkungen:

   • Matthew 8.25-26 Mark 4.38-39 Luke 8.24-25

1. Historians want to use the earlier material, most use Mark
   1. Dangers
      1. Neglects the possibility that Mt & Lk might be used oral traditions, independent of Mark
      2. The assumption that the earliest is the 'best'/most reliable

         Anmerkungen:

         • In modern times, biographes tend to be better some time after the events, using perspective.
2. It is interesting to see the 'development' of Jesus from Mark through to Matthew/Luke
   1. This 'development' might have occurred during the continuing oral tradition (more original than Mark's gospel)

      Anmerkungen:

      • Example: The Eucharist (Matthew 26.27-28 Mark 14.23-24 Luke 22.20 / Corinthians 11.25)

1. Scribes made errors, corrections, omissions and changes when copying
   1. The scribes may have been influenced by their readings of Mt & Lk and other oral tradition
2. The texts we have today are 'witnesses', not the original manuscripts

Anmerkungen:

• Mainly sayings material,  for example the Lost Sheep, the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, the Parable of the Talents (or Pounds), the Centurion's Servant (or Son),

1. 1. Matthew used Luke
   1. Not considered by sensible scholars!
2. 2. Luke used Matthew
   1. Farrer Theory
3. 3. Mt & Lk used a third document now lost to us
   1. Q - Two Source Theory

Anmerkungen:

• Near verbatim: John the Baptist - Matthew 3.7-10 & Luke 3. 7-9 Not so close: the parables of the Great Supper and the Talents/Pounds, Mt. 22.1-14//Lk. 14.16-24

1. Therefore discounts Lk's use of Mt from the start

1. Argument 1 - Luke's order
   1. Luke's order of Double Tradition material, and especially his rearrangement of the Sermon on the Mount (Plain), seems inexplicable on the assumption that he used Matthew.
      1. Possible that Mt expanded on the Q source, which is best represented in Lk's Sermon

         Anmerkungen:

         • Mt. 5-7 & Lk. 6.17-49
2. Argument 2 - Luke 's Ignorance of Matthew 's additions to Mark
   1. Walking on water - Mt add's Peter walking on water (Mk 6.45- 52/Mt. 14.22-33)
   2. Jesus commending Peter in Confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mt16.15-19/Mk 8.29-30/Lk 9.20-21)
3. Argument 3 - Luke 's Lack of 'M' Material
   1. Why has Luke not included 'Matthaean' material?

      Anmerkungen:

      • e.g. in the infancy and resurrection narratives?
   2. Luke's omission of the visit of the Gentile magi (Mt. 2.1-12) in Matthew's Birth Narrative, for example, is thought unlikely for an evangelist like Luke who was so interested in the Gentile mission. It is added more broadly that Luke's Birth Narrative (Lk. 1-2) is so radically different from Matthew's (Mt. 1-2) that again it is unlikely that Luke knew of it
4. Argument 4 - Alternating Primitivity
   1. Sometimes Matthew, and sometimes Luke seems to have the more primitive form of Double Tradition material.
   2. If Luke had used Matthew, one would have expected Matthew always to have the more primitive form, and Luke always to be secondary.

1. Argument 5 - The Distinctive Character of Q
   1. The belief that Q was a tangible document
   2. It had it's own theology, vocabulary, history, structure and style
2. Argument 6 - The Redaction-Critical Case
   1. Those who have assumed the Q hypothesis have produced plausible redaction-critical studies of Matthew and Luke.
   2. Due to the 'success' of redaction-critical studies using the assumption of Q,it it generally assumed to be correct

1. Normally stated in introductions, so the author has limited space to explore other options
2. The influence since B.H. Streeter's Four Gospels in 1924
3. Annoyance that the 'Q' debate still rages on today

1. Luke's use of Matthew
2. Dispense with 'Q'
3. Markan Priority

1. It is evident that Luke has omitted, redistributed and keep some of Mark's discourses, so it is not unreasonable that he has also done the same with Matthew
2. Narrative-critical studies show Luke has an excellent literary style which makes the gospel flow. Preference for Matthew's style is prejudice
3. Luke wanted to re-write the gospel to ensure Theophilus understood correctly (i.e. having read Mark, Matthew)
4. Mark would have been written before Matthew, so Luke would have been familiar with Mark. Maybe he was not 'impressed' with Matthew's version and wanted to set the record straight

1. Luke does feature Matthaean material in preference to Mark!
2. The omitted pericopae and Matthaean material do not fit into Luke's theology
3. Wherever Luke features Matthew's additions to Mark, these are placed in the category 'Mark-Q overlap' and, as far as this argument is concerned, they are ignored.

1. Self-refuting - it wouldn't be 'M' material if it was in Luke !
2. Again, the omitted pericopae and Matthaean material do not fit into Luke's theology

1. Many places where there is agreement that Luke is secondary.
2. 'Q' theorist choose to ignore the possibility of continuing oral tradition, which might be more original that what is recorded in Mt

1. Supposed 'Q' material has a 'Luke pleasing profile'
2. The 'M' material is distinctly non-Lukan in profile

1. 'Q' is a hyperthetical document
   1. It can be made to fit any outcome
2. Q is allowed to gain credibility by association with Markan Priority