Synoptic Gospels 2

Synoptic Gospels 2

1. NT scholarship

   • Redaction criticism (to understand the author's theological view)
     • 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.
       • But what were Mark's sources?
     • Less an issue with Mt & Lk's sources - one of them are assumed to be Mk
     • Mt & Lk found Mk's gospel to be inadequate (too short, lacking important details), so decided to write it
       • Matthew and Luke differed from Mark in theology and Christology
     • Mk's gospel assume the readers have a good knowledge of the OT. Mt & Lk make less assumption and explain things in more detail
       • Matthew 17.9-13 Mark 9.9-13
     • Mk's gospel is more raw, less kind, less repectful of Jesus
       • Matthew 8.25-26 Mark 4.38-39 Luke 8.24-25
   • Historical Jesus & Christian origins
     • Historians want to use the earlier material, most use Mark
       • Dangers
         • Neglects the possibility that Mt & Lk might be used oral traditions, independent of Mark
         • The assumption that the earliest is the 'best'/most reliable
           • In modern times, biographes tend to be better some time after the events, using perspective.
     • It is interesting to see the 'development' of Jesus from Mark through to Matthew/Luke
       • This 'development' might have occurred during the continuing oral tradition (more original than Mark's gospel)
         • Example: The Eucharist (Matthew 26.27-28 Mark 14.23-24 Luke 22.20 / Corinthians 11.25)
   • Textual criticism
     • Scribes made errors, corrections, omissions and changes when copying
       • The scribes may have been influenced by their readings of Mt & Lk and other oral tradition
     • The texts we have today are 'witnesses', not the original manuscripts

2. Introduction to 'Q' hypothesis

   • An explanation for the Double Tradition (common material between Mt & Lk, but not found in Mk)
     • 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),
   • Markan Priority and Q make up the 'Two Source Theory' - the consensus view
   • Possible explanations for Double Tradition
     • 1. Matthew used Luke
       • Not considered by sensible scholars!
     • 2. Luke used Matthew
       • Farrer Theory
     • 3. Mt & Lk used a third document now lost to us
       • Q - Two Source Theory
   • The material is near verbatim between Mt & Lk
     • 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

3. The Case for 'Q'

   • Postulates Mt & Lk used Mk independently or one another
     • Therefore discounts Lk's use of Mt from the start
   • Negative reasoning (against Luke's use of Matthew)
     • Argument 1 - Luke's order
       • 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.
         • Possible that Mt expanded on the Q source, which is best represented in Lk's Sermon
           • Mt. 5-7 & Lk. 6.17-49
     • Argument 2 - Luke 's Ignorance of Matthew 's additions to Mark
       • Walking on water - Mt add's Peter walking on water (Mk 6.45- 52/Mt. 14.22-33)
       • Jesus commending Peter in Confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mt16.15-19/Mk 8.29-30/Lk 9.20-21)
     • Argument 3 - Luke 's Lack of 'M' Material
       • Why has Luke not included 'Matthaean' material?
         • e.g. in the infancy and resurrection narratives?
       • 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
     • Argument 4 - Alternating Primitivity
       • Sometimes Matthew, and sometimes Luke seems to have the more primitive form of Double Tradition material.
       • If Luke had used Matthew, one would have expected Matthew always to have the more primitive form, and Luke always to be secondary.
   • Positive reasoning (belief in 'Q')
     • Argument 5 - The Distinctive Character of Q
       • The belief that Q was a tangible document
       • It had it's own theology, vocabulary, history, structure and style
     • Argument 6 - The Redaction-Critical Case
       • Those who have assumed the Q hypothesis have produced plausible redaction-critical studies of Matthew and Luke.
       • Due to the 'success' of redaction-critical studies using the assumption of Q,it it generally assumed to be correct
   • Strong language against Luke using Matthew
     • Normally stated in introductions, so the author has limited space to explore other options
     • The influence since B.H. Streeter's Four Gospels in 1924
     • Annoyance that the 'Q' debate still rages on today

4. The Case against 'Q'

   • Farrer Theory (Austin Farrer)
     • Luke's use of Matthew
     • Dispense with 'Q'
     • Markan Priority
   • Argument 1 - Luke's order
     • 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
     • Narrative-critical studies show Luke has an excellent literary style which makes the gospel flow. Preference for Matthew's style is prejudice
     • Luke wanted to re-write the gospel to ensure Theophilus understood correctly (i.e. having read Mark, Matthew)
     • 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
   • Argument 2 - Luke 's Ignorance of Matthew 's additions to Mark
     • Luke does feature Matthaean material in preference to Mark!
     • The omitted pericopae and Matthaean material do not fit into Luke's theology
     • 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.
   • Argument 3 - Luke 's Lack of 'M' Material
     • Self-refuting - it wouldn't be 'M' material if it was in Luke !
     • Again, the omitted pericopae and Matthaean material do not fit into Luke's theology
   • Argument 4 - Alternating Primitivity
     • Many places where there is agreement that Luke is secondary.
     • 'Q' theorist choose to ignore the possibility of continuing oral tradition, which might be more original that what is recorded in Mt
   • Argument 5 - The Distinctive Character of Q
     • Supposed 'Q' material has a 'Luke pleasing profile'
     • The 'M' material is distinctly non-Lukan in profile
   • Argument 6 - The Redaction-Critical Case
     • 'Q' is a hyperthetical document
       • It can be made to fit any outcome
     • Q is allowed to gain credibility by association with Markan Priority