I do not understand why this would be an argument for Q and not, say, for Luke knowing Matthew.
If "Luke" had an incomplete gMark to work on, then if she had gMatthew also, the corresponding missing block in gMatthew would also had to be removed. But gLuke has a saying which appears only in the would-be missing block of gMatthew. So that saying had to come from Q.
That does not make sense, Bernard. Matthew knew the section of Mark that was omitted by Luke. Incidentally, the writer of Luke was a man. The 'kamoi parekolouthekoti' in 1:3 uses the masculine form of the participle.
This argument presupposes that a) is also true, and rests on the unproven hypothesis that Luke did not know Matthew.
I certainly showed on the posted webpages (more so the one on Q) that "Luke" did not know gMatthew, for many reasons. http://historical-jesus.info/q.html[/quote]
There are many reasons to believe the contrary. The one hardest to argue with is Matthew's 13:55 "isn't this the carpenter's son" being changed by Luke 4:22 to "isn't this Joseph's son' when Jesus visits Nazareth. There is a clear dependency here, in that the former neighbours cannot recognize the source of learning in the young man whose father was a carpenter. Since this scene is not part of Q sayings, but belongs to a narrated pericope, one cannot explain the obvious indirect reference to Matthew's "carpenter" in the wonderment of the neighbours by referring it to Q. You would have to invent another "tradition" for it.
This is from Goulder's "Luke: A New Paradigm", pages 436-437, offering a reason for Luke's Great Omission:
Two things may be noticed. First, Mark has Jesus leave Galilee at
6.45 and return at 8.27, the point of leaving being Bethsaida, which is
also the point where the blind man is healed in 8.22-26. It can hardly
be accidental that the Lucan Great Omission covers the same span.
In Mark Jesus goes to Bethsaida on the east side of the lake (6.45,53),
and thence to Tyre (7.24-30), Decapolis (7.31-8.9), Dalmanutha
(8.10-12) and thence back to Bethsaida (8.20). Luke had Jesus come
in the spirit to Galilee in 4.14, and carry the gospel to the synagogues
of Jewry in 4.44, and it seems reasonable to think that he wished to
limit his account of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospel to Galilee and
Judaea. He seems similarly to excise a great loop of Paul’s missionary
life in Arabia, simply carrying the story on direct from his conversion
at Damascus to his escape from Damascus (Acts 9.1-25). He has a
clear tendency in Acts to tidy up the story into geographically
discrete units, as when Peter does all the missionary activity in
Judaea (outside Jerusalem) in Acts 9.32-11.18, but is never heard of
in Paul’s ‘area’. It seems easy therefore to think that Luke limited his
account of Jesus’ ministry to ‘the land of the Jews and Jerusalem’
(Acts 10.39), ‘from Galilee to Jerusalem’ (Acts 13.31). Any activities
of Jesus outside Jewish territory were peripheral to his mission, and
could be left by. ‘Galilee’ for this purpose has to be interpreted rather
liberally: it includes ‘the country of die Gergesenes opposite Galilee’
(8.26-39), and Bethsaida, also east of the Jordan, but none of the
Decapolitan hinterland.
Secondly, the omitted matter is not forgotten. We shall find a
number of its details echoing in later pages o f the Gospel where Luke
is short of material. For example, ‘they thought it was a ghost and
cried out. For they all saw him and were troubled. But he at once
spoke with them and said to them, Take heart, it is I, be not afraid’
(Mk 6.49f.), becomes ‘And quailing and frightened, they thought they
saw a spirit. And he said to them, Why are you troubled?... See my
hands and my feet, that it is I myself’ (Lk. 24.37-39). The
Resurrection stories have in particular drawn on the Omission (see
pp. 782f., 790), but not they alone (cf. 11.37-41).
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
neilgodfrey wrote:. I cited what I have read in the literature, but if you want my personal take, here it is:
The redactor of the Marcionite Luke/author of Acts did know Mark, of course, but he chose to follow Marcion's text ... and omit the Marcan verses, because they potentially lent themselves favourably towards Marcionism, and this redactor was writing to oppose Marcionism.
The scenes omitted (I'm copying from my 2009 post):
Jesus walking on the sea of Galilee
Healing many at Gennesarat
Controversy with Pharisees over eating with unwashed hands
Exorcising the daughter of the woman from Tyre/Sidon
Healing (with saliva) the deaf-mute in region of Decapolis
Feeding the 4000 in the wilderness
Controversy with Pharisees over a sign and warning of leaven of Pharisees and Herod
Healing the blind man (after two attempts)
Cheers!
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
That does not make sense, Bernard. Matthew knew the section of Mark that was omitted by Luke. Incidentally, the writer of Luke was a man. The 'kamoi parekolouthekoti' in 1:3 uses the masculine form of the participle.
Read again:
If "Luke" had an incomplete gMark to work on, then if she had gMatthew also, the corresponding missing block in gMatthew would also had to be removed. But gLuke has a saying which appears only in the would-be missing block of gMatthew. So that saying had to come from Q.
Of course, "Luke" had to pretend to be a man. If you read my piece on the great omission, you would know why I am certain she was a woman.
There are many reasons to believe the contrary. The one hardest to argue with is Matthew's 13:55 "isn't this the carpenter's son" being changed by Luke 4:22 to "isn't this Joseph's son' when Jesus visits Nazareth.
You are right, in the sense the wording is not the same in gMatthew and gLuke.
You would have to invent another "tradition" for it.
Yes, it could have been another tradition about Joseph as the father of Jesus, and Joseph being a carpenter (which Luke" did not know or choose not to mention). "Mark" had Jesus as a carpenter, so his father also being one makes sense.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller wrote:.
... it could have been another tradition about Joseph as the father of Jesus, and Joseph being a carpenter (which Luke" did not know or choose not to mention). "Mark" had Jesus as a carpenter, so his father also being one makes sense.
Cordially, Bernard
I understand builders or carpenters feature in many theological or other works from antiquity, as building was a common allegorical theme
neilgodfrey wrote:. I cited what I have read in the literature, but if you want my personal take, here it is:
The redactor of the Marcionite Luke/author of Acts did know Mark, of course, but he chose to follow Marcion's text ... and omit the Marcan verses, because they potentially lent themselves favourably towards Marcionism, and this redactor was writing to oppose Marcionism.
The scenes omitted (I'm copying from my 2009 post):
Jesus walking on the sea of Galilee
Healing many at Gennesarat
Controversy with Pharisees over eating with unwashed hands
Exorcising the daughter of the woman from Tyre/Sidon
Healing (with saliva) the deaf-mute in region of Decapolis
Feeding the 4000 in the wilderness
Controversy with Pharisees over a sign and warning of leaven of Pharisees and Herod
Healing the blind man (after two attempts)
Cheers!
.
Is that meant to be some attempt at sarcasm? What's your point? Does it bug you that I am careful not to appear to take credit for ideas that are not my own? Do you have anything positive to contribute to these explanations or do you just want to get into personal fault-finding?
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
No, Neil. I am acknowledging you have contemplated others' ideas; you repeat those you find plausible, and you expand or add your own.
I have repeated what you said in those two posts as a compliment, and to keep it at the fore-front of discussions as others,
such as Stephan, are also currently discussing Luke
I don't do sarcasm here, as there is too much misunderstanding as it is. Sincere Regards
Bernard Muller wrote:Certainly this gospel goes so much out of its way to be appealing to women (especially middle-class influential ones), featuring many of them, that it can be postulated the author was likely a woman:
That logic would make all the authors of the Greek "erotic" novellas -- Daphnis and Chloe, Leucippe and Clitophon, Chaereas and Callirhoe, and the rest -- women writing under pen names of men. The Books of Ruth and Esther were no doubt written by women. Homer's Odyssey and Virgil's Aeneid have many scenes presumably appealing to upper class influential women. The Gospel of Luke's scene of the woman anointing Jesus' feet with her hair and tears is so richly sensual I had always suspected it was written by a man with an eye for female sensuality. You make me rethink that: maybe it was written by a lesbian.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
