Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Various similarities in the three Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) have led some researchers to hypothesize a lost document called Q. Matthew and Luke were to have been based on Mark and this Q document. It is my contention that Q never existed. Instead Matthew used Mark and his own imagination to serve an agenda of interest to Matthew. And Luke used Mark, Matthew and his own imagination for [his own agenda. In particular Luke wrote to counter various aspects of Matthew that were inappropriate for Luke’s intended audience. Toward this end, Luke takes some uniquely Matthean material and inverts it to redirect the story to serve Luke’s purpose. The redirected items for the most part do not appear in any other NT sources.
Matthew’s agenda is to demonstrate that Jesus is the genuine Jewish Messiah, making the Jesus movement the true heir of historical Judaism in the wake of the catastrophic destruction of the Temple, the heart of Judaism. His target audience is a community of Jewish followers of Jesus. His competition is rabbinic Judaism, being constructed by Pharisees of the House of Hillel who avoided the siege of Jerusalem.
Luke’s target audience is mainly gentile. Matthew’s strongly Jewish Jesus is less than relevant to them. There is also the shadow of the terrible Jewish Revolt, sparked by a Jewish messianic movement. Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus as a Kingly Messiah would cast some of that shadow on the Jesus movement. This prompts Luke to create another Gospel directed more to a gentile audience. Involving a more universal Jesus.
Components of Luke’s program of redirecting Matthew include: a very different genealogy presentation, entirely new Annunciation and Nativity stories, moving the Rejection at Nazareth from deep in the narrative to almost immediately at the start of the ministry, the undoing of the Moses and King themes, the concentration on the journey to Jerusalem, the different post-Resurrection story, and miscellaneous small items.
This first installment deals with the genealogies.
Matthew places the genealogy of Jesus at the very beginning of his Gospel. This is a logical place for a genealogy and also allows Matthew to introduce his theme of Jesus as the Messiah and the Jesus movement as the true Judaism right up front. Luke puts the genealogy well into the story, after the baptism of Jesus, back in chapter 3.
Matthew introduces the genealogy dramatically, “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham”. Luke merely says, “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph”. “So it was thought”? First Luke pushes it back ‘off the front page’ so to speak. Now he emphasizes that this is not the biological genealogy of Jesus. Why does Luke mention a genealogy at all if he is going to downplay its importance like that? Because Matthew had one. Because Luke wants to remind the reader of Matthew to underscore that Luke is telling the story a different way.
[b]Direction[b]
Matthew’s genealogy runs from Abraham, father to son, unfolding to its inevitable climax in Jesus. Jesus is therefore the culmination of Jewish history, justifying the Jesus movement as the true and unique heir of Judaism. Luke runs it backwards from son to father, undoing that sense of inevitable historic momentum and thereby separating Jesus from that strong sense of being exclusively Jewish.
Organization
Matthew points out that the genealogy he presents is organized in three groups of fourteen. “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.” Why fourteen? It turns out that the Hebrew Gematria value of the name David is 14. Daled Vav Daled = 4 + 6 + 4 = 14. According to scripture, the Messiah must be a descendant of David. The whole genealogy of Jesus shouts “Messiah! Messiah! Messiah!” Also notice that David gets counted twice in the list. He is the last of the first group of 14 and also the first in the second group of 14. Matthew even points this out in his ‘fourteen’ description quoted above.
Luke does not attempt to organize his genealogy. In fact he adds back names that appear in the genealogy list in 1 Chronicles that Matthew omitted, thereby breaking Matthew’s 14-based organization.
Place of Mary
In order to connect the genealogy of Joseph to Jesus, thereby justifying the essential Davidic lineage, Matthew links Joseph to Mary by marriage. This establishes a legal basis for Davidic ancestry. Matthew foreshadows this by mentioning several illustrious women (spouses or mothers) in passing in his genealogy list. Luke makes no mention of Mary at all. He makes it clear that he is talking about Joseph’s genealogy and makes no attempt to link it to Mary. Luke’s gentile audience is not concerned with Jewish details like Davidic descent and Luke can then avoid having to justify non-biological descent from David.
Content
In addition to restoring omitted names as mentioned above, Luke gives a totally different ancestry of Joseph following David. In particular he has Joseph descended from Nathan, an obscure son of David, and not from Solomon, the great and famous king. This separation of Jesus from Matthew’s ‘King’ meme also shows up in other facets of Luke’s program, and serves to separate Jesus from being strictly Jewish and also from the bloody Revolt.
Scope
Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham. Luke, who runs his list backwards, goes all the way back to Adam and then to God, calling Adam “the son of God”. The term “Son of God” appears frequently in all the Gospels in reference to Jesus. Why should Luke use it in reference to Adam? The answer lies in the passage immediately preceding Luke’s genealogy list.
Quote:
Luke 3
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Luke has God calling Jesus his Son and having Adam, father of all, also being called “son of God”. And note that this happens when Jesus gets baptized just like “all the people” This makes everyone metaphorically a child of God and linking Jesus, another child of God, to everyone. Jesus is universal and not just Jewish. (If anyone hears echoes of Paul, so do I.)
So that is the way I see it. Luke employs differences in direction, organization, the place of Mary, content and scope to distinguish his story from Matthew and make Jesus universal and not just Jewish, to present the story in a more meaningful way to his gentile audience.
Next installment – when my left hand has a chance to rest – will be the very different Annunciation and Nativity stories.
(BTW I was barely able to manage octave and one with my left hand from being out of practice (and old). Maybe after all this posting I will be able to do tenths again. But only left handed.)
I do not believe that Mark (as we now have it) was the basis of Matthew or indeed Luke, because he gets confused over the direction of travel to Bethaida and back. If they had worked from Mark, matthew and Luke would have assumed that the 'Lonely place' was somewhere else and would have followed Mark. They did not and they did not make the same mistake.
It need hardly be addes that Luke cannot have worked from Matthew. The differences are too glaring.
Thus all three must have been working from one common document - a synoptic original - and anything that is in one and not one other is their own work. Mark's Pilate's question about Jesus dying soon, The contradictory nativities in Matthew and Luke.
where two of them share material, if they didn't copy from each other, they must have got it from somewhere else. What is common to Matthew and Mark (the feasting of 4.000, syrio -phonecian woman) I call 'M' or matthew/Mark or 'P' to distinguish it from 'Q'.
'What is common to Luke and Matthew, but not Mark was identified long ago and called 'Q' (for Quelle "source"). It is generally held to have been a written list of saying, though some have claimed an oral tradition. I reckon a written collection similar to the gospel of Thomas and it included the temptation (I suppose with a reference that enables both to place it after the driving into the wilderness), the question of John's messengers and the sermon, though they had to guess where these went and that uis why they appear at chronologically different point. Luke indeed shifts half his 'Q' material to the trip to Jerusalem, whereas Matthew has it all recited on the mount.
I need hardly labour the point that these gospels are made up of existing material common to three or two of them, and stuff they made up themselves.
Apart from my view that 'Q' did exist, I am fine with your post.
I do not believe that Mark (as we now have it) was the basis of Matthew or indeed Luke, because he gets confused over the direction of travel to Bethaida and back. If they had worked from Mark, matthew and Luke would have assumed that the 'Lonely place' was somewhere else and would have followed Mark. They did not and they did not make the same mistake
Matthew and Luke did not ‘follow’ Mark. They took material from Mark and each went his own way for his own agenda. They did not consider each other ‘gospel’.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
It need hardly be addes that Luke cannot have worked from Matthew. The differences are too glaring.
The differences Luke introduces are deliberate. The differences between Matthew and Mark (mainly additions) serve Matthew’s purpose of establishing Jesus firmly as the Jewish Messiah to try to keep his Jewish community safe from the influence of rabbinic Judaism. The differences between Luke and Matthew serve Luke’s purpose of redirecting Matthew to better suit Luke’s gentile audience. The differences between Luke and Matthew were intended to be glaring. Luke is practically shouting: This is NOT Matthew’s Gospel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Thus all three must have been working from one common document - a synoptic original - and anything that is in one and not one other is their own work. Mark's Pilate's question about Jesus dying soon, The contradictory nativities in Matthew and Luke.
If they worked from a common document, what is the explanation for Luke contradicting Matthew in such pointed ways? Luke takes parts of Matthew that do not appear anywhere else – the genealogy, the nativity, the sermon on the mount among others – and changes them radically and always in a way that inverts Matthew’s characterization of Jesus as the strongly Jewish Messiah, the Kingly Messiah, the New Moses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
It where two of them share material, if they didn't copy from each other, they must have got it from somewhere else. What is common to Matthew and Mark (the feasting of 4.000, syrio -phonecian woman) I call 'M' or matthew/Mark or 'P' to distinguish it from 'Q'.
Matthew copied from Mark and changed the story for his purposes, mostly by adding newly invented material. Luke copied from Mark and Matthew and changed the story for his purposes, by replacing or rearranging parts of Matthew he considered objectionable and adding newly invented material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
It 'What is common to Luke and Matthew, but not Mark was identified long ago and called 'Q' (for Quelle "source"). It is generally held to have been a written list of saying, though some have claimed an oral tradition. I reckon a written collection similar to the gospel of Thomas and it included the temptation (I suppose with a reference that enables both to place it after the driving into the wilderness), the question of John's messengers and the sermon, though they had to guess where these went and that uis why they appear at chronologically different point. Luke indeed shifts half his 'Q' material to the trip to Jerusalem, whereas Matthew has it all recited on the mount.
I need hardly labour the point that these gospels are made up of existing material common to three or two of them, and stuff they made up themselves.
What I am proposing is a simpler alternative that explains why Matthew and Luke were written the way they were without the need for hypothesizing a Q document that both was supposed to be widely known but has totally vanished without a trace and was not even mentioned by anyone.
I do not believe that Mark (as we now have it) was the basis of Matthew or indeed Luke, because he gets confused over the direction of travel to Bethaida and back. If they had worked from Mark, matthew and Luke would have assumed that the 'Lonely place' was somewhere else and would have followed Mark. They did not and they did not make the same mistake.
It need hardly be addes that Luke cannot have worked from Matthew. The differences are too glaring.
Thus all three must have been working from one common document - a synoptic original - and anything that is in one and not one other is their own work. Mark's Pilate's question about Jesus dying soon, The contradictory nativities in Matthew and Luke.
where two of them share material, if they didn't copy from each other, they must have got it from somewhere else. What is common to Matthew and Mark (the feasting of 4.000, syrio -phonecian woman) I call 'M' or matthew/Mark or 'P' to distinguish it from 'Q'.
'What is common to Luke and Matthew, but not Mark was identified long ago and called 'Q' (for Quelle "source"). It is generally held to have been a written list of saying, though some have claimed an oral tradition. I reckon a written collection similar to the gospel of Thomas and it included the temptation (I suppose with a reference that enables both to place it after the driving into the wilderness), the question of John's messengers and the sermon, though they had to guess where these went and that uis why they appear at chronologically different point. Luke indeed shifts half his 'Q' material to the trip to Jerusalem, whereas Matthew has it all recited on the mount.
I need hardly labour the point that these gospels are made up of existing material common to three or two of them, and stuff they made up themselves.
Apart from my view that 'Q' did exist, I am fine with your post.
They didn't copy, they used Mark as a source is all. It only makes up around 35-40 percent of each gospel. The other bit being their own traditions, shared traditions, and then Q. Q has always been problematic because it neither stands to the strict scrutiny of being a sayings gospel, nor is listed in by the early Church Fathers as a book. The assumption that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark *likely true* and then operated independently is still a strong one. My other issue is that it seems highly unlikely that 2 different writers in 2 different areas would both think to include a birth narrative. It always struck me as it being more likely that one copied from the other.
Remember that were several apostles and several early Christian communities. Of course each evangelist had different inputs. If one was written first and had been in circulation for a few years, why is it unreasonable for the others to have seem it, referenced it?
The Farrer hypothesis champions this theory as well. It also answers the issues relating to the hypothetical Q document.
I go beyond Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre in pointing out the inversion of particular Matthean themes by Luke and ascribing motives to the two authors for writing as they did..
Matthew and Luke did not ‘follow’ Mark. They took material from Mark and each went his own way for his own agenda. They did not consider each other ‘gospel’.
I would give that theory some room, if it were not Mark's error of direction in the trip to Bethsaida. That shows that he had the same source and Matthew and Luke, but he got confused. The other two didn't. P.s it also explains why Mark has a few comments that neither of the others pick up.
Quote:
The differences Luke introduces are deliberate. The differences between Matthew and Mark (mainly additions) serve Matthew’s purpose of establishing Jesus firmly as the Jewish Messiah to try to keep his Jewish community safe from the influence of rabbinic Judaism. The differences between Luke and Matthew serve Luke’s purpose of redirecting Matthew to better suit Luke’s gentile audience. The differences between Luke and Matthew were intended to be glaring. Luke is practically shouting: This is NOT Matthew’s Gospel.
I don't disagree with your assessment of what the writers had in mind when they adapted their material.
Quote:
If they worked from a common document, what is the explanation for Luke contradicting Matthew in such pointed ways? Luke takes parts of Matthew that do not appear anywhere else – the genealogy, the nativity, the sermon on the mount among others – and changes them radically and always in a way that inverts Matthew’s characterization of Jesus as the strongly Jewish Messiah, the Kingly Messiah, the New Moses.
The contradictions are there because Luke never saw Matthew's document and did not realize that his gospel would contradict Matthew. In the case of the nativity and genealogy, they both had a case to put, but they invented, shall we say, two different ways of doing it. That is why the nativity and genealogy contradict. In other respects, Luke clearly had the same material as Matthew - the parable of the Talents and the sermon. Again Luke had no idea that his adaptation of this material would be discrepant when compared with Matthew.
That the sermon does not appear in Mark shows that these were part of another document which both knew of and incorporated into their own gospels. Mark didn't.
Quote:
Matthew copied from Mark and changed the story for his purposes, mostly by adding newly invented material. Luke copied from Mark and Matthew and changed the story for his purposes, by replacing or rearranging parts of Matthew he considered objectionable and adding newly invented material.
As I say, I broadly agree, but there are reasons why I think Mark also worked from the same original synoptic gospel and amended it in his own way, also (probably) using the same Decapolis and feasting of 4,000 material from another 'Q' -type document that Matthew had, but Luke clearly didn't. Though he had 'Q' to hand as Matthew did but Mark didn't.
Quote:
What I am proposing is a simpler alternative that explains why Matthew and Luke were written the way they were without the need for hypothesizing a Q document that both was supposed to be widely known but has totally vanished without a trace and was not even mentioned by anyone.
Believe me, a simpler explanation would suit me fine . I do not like the many recensions and versions that I have to postulate. But that is the only explanation I can think of that explains the textual evidence I am indicating.
I should point out that I was looking for an explanation of every problem, discrepancy and contradiction in the gospels. I have had to arrive at a theory that will not just take a few problems as evidence but will explain all the problems in all of the four gospels - and Peter's, too. And Acts and Paul.
I shall be very interested to see how your explanation develops.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-27-2014 at 05:48 PM..
I would give that theory some room, if it were not Mark's error of direction in the trip to Bethsaida. That shows that he had the same source and Matthew and Luke, but he got confused. The other two didn't.
Let me be clear. I am arguing against the Two-Source Theory, that Matthew and Luke used Mark and the Q document as their sources. I do think it is likely that there was oral or written traditions prior to Mark because of the accurate detailed description of the political and religious environment in the putative time of Jesus. This environment no longer existed when the Gospels were written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I don't disagree with your assessment of what the writers had in mind when they adapted their material.
The contradictions are there because Luke never saw matthew's document and did not realize that his gospel would contradict Matthew. In the case of the nativity and genealogy, they both had a case to put, but they invented, shall we say, two different ways of doing it. That is why the nativity and genealogy contradict. In other respects, Luke clearly had the same material as Matthew - the parable of the Talents and the sermon. Again Luke had no idea that his adaptation of this material would be discrepant when compared with Matthew.
That the sermon does not appear in Mark shows that with paert of another document which both knew of and incorporated into their own gospels.
Why does Luke have a genealogy at all if he downplays its importance so much and then makes it as opposite to Matthew’s in so many ways? No one else has a genealogy. Why does Luke have a nativity story at all? No one else has one. Why are Luke’s annunciation and nativity stories so much the reverse of Matthew’s? Why does Luke have Jesus come down from the mountain to give the Sermon on the Plain, negating Matthew’s Jesus as Moses image? (Also negated in the nativity story.) And no one else has anything like that sermon. Why does Luke refocus everything on Jerusalem when Matthew is so focused on Galilee? This even extends to the post-resurrection stories.
This is not coincidental parallelism. This is deliberate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I As I say, I broadly agree, but there are reasons why I think Mark also worked from the same original synoptic gospel and amended it in his own way, also (probably) using the same decapolis and feasting of 4,000 material from another 'Q' -type document that Matthew had, but Luke clearly didn't. Though he had 'Q' to hand as matthew did but Mark didn't.
Luke’s ‘Great Omission’ is clearly intentional. Much of the material that he omits is repetitious of previous passages or problematic in their implications or incomprehensible by gentiles or even downright insulting to them. Not at all surprising that Luke should omit this section. But that is a post by itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I Believe me, a simpler explanation would suit me fine . I do not like the many recensions and versions that I have to postulate. But that is the only explanation I can think of that explains the textual evidence I am indicating.
My proposal is the only one I can think of that explains the numerous inversions of Matthew by Luke, inversions of themes that appear only in Matthew and are also antagonistic to Luke’s gentile audience.
Let me be clear. I am arguing against the Two-Source Theory, that Matthew and Luke used Mark and the Q document as their sources. I do think it is likely that there was oral or written traditions prior to Mark because of the accurate detailed description of the political and religious environment in the putative time of Jesus. This environment no longer existed when the Gospels were written.
I suppose in a way I am arguing for the two source theory, except that Mark was not one of the sources or Matthew and Luke would have picked up at least a couple of mark's elaborations or, as I say, would have copied his error about the direction of Bethsaida. It is only comparing it with Matthew, Luke and John that we see Mark's error. Also, Mark and Matthew both have a third source - the Decapolis and 2nd feasting.
Quote:
Why does Luke have a genealogy at all if he downplays its importance so much and then makes it as opposite to Matthew’s in so many ways? No one else has a genealogy. Why does Luke have a nativity story at all? No one else has one. Why are Luke’s annunciation and nativity stories so much the reverse of Matthew’s? Why does Luke have Jesus come down from the mountain to give the Sermon on the Plain, negating Matthew’s Jesus as Moses image? (Also negated in the nativity story.) And no one else has anything like that sermon. Why does Luke refocus everything on Jerusalem when Matthew is so focused on Galilee? This even extends to the post-resurrection stories.
This is not coincidental parallelism. This is deliberate.
I am proposing that Matthew and Luke were addressing a point that didn't worry Mark - the embarrassment of Jesus being a Nazarene when scripture seems to say that the messiah should be born in Bethlehem. John notes this objection (1) but just has Jesus abusing the crowd. No mention from Jesus or John that he actually was born in Bethlehem. So he wasn't, but Matthew and Luke thought he must have been, so they invented different stories to show this happening. That also required an explanation of the line of descent from David, and those differ, too. As it happens they chose different lines, through Nathan who was never king and Zerubbabel who was but the line had been broken.
The differences in style is explained by the writers' methods. Luke thinks historically, using the mechanism of the census to get Joseph out of Galilee into Judea. Matthew is fantastical but with an interest in scripture with the mobile star and Herod going straight to scripture rather than a purge of his household to find where the messianic pretender would be. This is a rather clumsy plot to get Jesus out of Judea into Galilee to explain how (says Matthew trying to make it look like a fulfilled prophecy) "He shall be called a Nazarene".
I would suggest that, if Luke had seen Matthew's gospel, he would have thought that avoiding contradiction was more important than 'iinverting' Matthew. Why would he want to do that, by the way? (p.s I see, you think that Matthew's nativity is too scriptural and would irritate the gentile audience? well, why wouldn't Luke use the same story and 'invert' it, rather than write a totally different and contradictory one?)
I might suggest that Luke, with the Sermon material on his table, decided to fit it in after the choosing of the disciples. 6 12, he goes into a mountain to pray, 6.13, he calls the disciples and chooses 12 of them. Then he has to come down onto the plain in order to address a multitude from all over including the gentile areas, which is the way Luke likes it.
Matthew on the other hand, with the crowd from all over, takes his disciples and goes up a mountain to address them. It is a different kind of approach. I doubt whether casting Jesus as Moses even occurred to Luke though that might explain why Matthew likes having Jesus up on mountains.
The reason that "no - one" (Mark and John, of course) has the sermon is that neither of them came across 'Q'. I would have imagined they would have incorporated at least some of the sayings if they had.
In fact, Luke focusses as much outside Jerusalem as the others. The Decapolis material used by Matthew and Mark is cancelled out by Luke's 'Sermon' material (from 'Q') with some extra parables (written by himself, I doubt not) on the road to Peraea.
I suggest that the reason Luke focusses on Jerusalem post resurrection is because he is going to write Acts. Matthew, Mark and John, too, pretty much follow the last thing they have in common - the tomb is empty and Jesus has gone back to Galilee. There they would see him. That is what happens (2).
This does not suit Luke who wants to show the apostles setting up a community in Jerusalem and pretty much handing over authority to Paul for his mission to the gentiles. So he doesn't have the apostles going back to Galilee at all. He says they stayed in Jerusalem, praising God in the temple and having Jesus pop in for spiritual lectures.
So what about the angel and going back to Galilee?
Mark 16. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. 6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”
Matthew has the appearing Jesus (contradicted by Luke who has Cleopas say that the women did not see him - not an 'inversion' but a contradiction through being unaware of what Matthew had written) repeat this instruction.
Matthew 28. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. 8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. 10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Note that Matthew alters 'as he said to you' to 'Lo, I have told you', because Matthew had realized that, in the synoptic original, Jesus hadn't told them any such thing.
Luke goes one better. Since Luke has no intention of the disciples going back to Galilee as instructed, he changes this angelic message totally to Jesus' predictions of his death, told them while still in Galilee.
Luke 24.1 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them,[24:1 NU-Text omits and certain other women with them.] came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3 Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it happened, as they were greatly[24:4 NU-Text omits greatly.] perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. 5 Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, 7 saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’”
Quote:
Luke’s ‘Great Omission’ is clearly intentional. Much of the material that he omits is repetitious of previous passages or problematic in their implications or incomprehensible by gentiles or even downright insulting to them. Not at all surprising that Luke should omit this section. But that is a post by itself.
I have a problem with the idea that a writer would omit huge swathes of important Jesus teaching on the grounds of different interests. You'd think they would economize on some other other wordy stuff and at least use one or two of the more striking items, but that the entire thing is not even hinted at suggests that the writers didn't know of it.
Quote:
My proposal is the only one I can think of that explains the numerous inversions of Matthew by Luke, inversions of themes that appear only in Matthew and are also antagonistic to Luke’s gentile audience.
I might like to look more of this idea of inversion. As with the mountain, some less polemic and more practical explanation might be forthcoming. I take the point that Matthew takes more interest in scripture than Luke does, but one point that occurs to me. Matthew's tomb opening is (I suggest) an attempt to fulfill the Last Days scriptural need for tombs to open and the dead rise. Luke should have 'inverted' that but in fact he doesn't have it. Neither does Mark, nor of course, John. The conclusion is that Matthew invented it and the others never saw it.
(1) John 7. 40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” 41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.” Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?”
(2) also in John,though of course he never saw nor used the angelic message.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-28-2014 at 05:31 AM..
Reason: a few...well, several..2nd thoughts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I do not like the many recensions and versions that I have to postulate. But that is the only explanation I can think of that explains the textual evidence I am indicating.
