Synoptic Gospels 3

The Case for for Luke's use of Matthew
1. 1. The Minor Agreements
  1. "Agreements between Luke and Matthew against Mark in the Triple Tradition material"
  2. If Luke sometimes agrees with Matthew against Mark in important ways, then Matthew and Luke were not written independently of one another.
  3. If they were not written independently of one another, Q is no longer required to explain the Double Tradition material - for this, Luke can be dependent primarily on Matthew.
  4. Jesus being mocked - Matthew 26.67-68 Mark 14.65 Luke 22.64
    1. Q does not have, according to any of its contemporary defenders, a Passion Narrative.
2. 2. Passages in which Mark is not the middle term
  1. There are major agreements between Mt & Lk
  2. Commonly called the 'Mark/Q overlap'
3. 3. The narrative element in Q
  1. Much of 'Q' is sayings material / 'sayings source'
    1. Beatitudes, parables, aphorisms, exhortation and teaching material.
    2. But it does has a narrative order
  2. Elements in the narrative sequence show the clear signs of Matthew's redactional hand.
4. 4. Editorial fatigue
  1. Evidence Luke became fatigued in his redaction of Matthew
  2. There is not evidence of Matthew becoming fatigued in his use of Q, which is usual, as he did in his redaction of Mark
Occam's Razor
1. British mediaeval philosopher William of Occam
2. "Entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary"
  1. No point to postulating a hypothetical document when we already have a plausible theory in Luke's use of Matthew

Nächster

Synoptic Gospels 3

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von radnorgardens vor mehr als 11 Jahre