tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post5274721453644415477..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Mark-Q Overlaps VI: The Direction of DependenceMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-31169172011390431582007-11-20T02:59:00.000-05:002007-11-20T02:59:00.000-05:00I don't think there is any evidence here for Luke ...I don't think there is any evidence here for Luke not having known Matthew here but I don't think verbatim agreement is "too close" for a third source, and I don't think that Luke's knowledge of Matthew negates evidence elsewhere in the double tradition which suggests access to common sources. At the same time, as Kloppenborg and Derrenbacker argue in response to Goulder, the appeals to Matthean vocabulary in Q can be explained as Matthew liking and re-using expressions he found in Q (as James notes above) and the same logic can be applied to Markan vocabulary in Matthew (where Matthew uses and then re-uses son of man, son of david), and Lukan expressions in Q (gender pairing which he used elsewhere including Q).<BR/><BR/>Also I can't help but think about historicity and wonder at how well this whole unit sitz im leben along with the expressions of judgement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1476994592764082792007-11-20T01:02:00.000-05:002007-11-20T01:02:00.000-05:00I would like to add that you appear to be correct ...I would like to add that you appear to be correct in thinking that Mt 3:7-10 is a Matthean creation. I am particularly impressed by an argument made by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies, which overlaps, to a certain extent, your own argument. In Beyond the Q Impasse Luke’s Use of Matthew (p. 72), they state, “Especially striking is gennemata echidnwn (Mt 3:7//Lk 3:7) which only occurs here, at Mt 12:34 and at Mt 23:33 within the Synoptic Gospels. Similarly, the combination of ekkoptein with ballein (Lk 3:9//Mt 3:10) followed by a reference to ‘fire’ is also a Matthean characteristic (cf. Mt 7:19 and Tevis, Display 224). Again, the term ‘good fruit’ (vs ‘evil fruit’) is a favorite of Mt (9 times), and it occurs only here and at Lk 6:43 in contexts clearly parallel to Mt’s order. All of these words and phrases are characteristic Matthean linguistic formulations, and their presence here in parallel passages in Luke and nowhere else in Luke is clear evidence of Luke’s direct utilization of the canonical Gospel of Matthew.”Frank McCoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16977985447972987579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-3364781538516881632007-11-19T21:39:00.000-05:002007-11-19T21:39:00.000-05:00I think that's a good argument, Mark. To be on the...I think that's a good argument, Mark. To be on the safe side, I would only extend it slightly to say that the imagery is typical of Matthew and/or of Matthew's source. More important, the meaning and imagery could be from a Hebraic Matthew, with the verbal agreement being due to a later translator of Matthew into Greek. This of course would be giving some credence to Papias and the early church fathers.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-23017487399289572112007-11-19T19:41:00.000-05:002007-11-19T19:41:00.000-05:00Thanks for a nice post (that could have been your ...Thanks for a nice post (that could have been your 'Synoptic meme' post, had you wished it to be). I will have to ponder your argument about Matthean imagery further - in particular, whether Matthew's repetition of something that he liked in the Q material could make sense of this or not. But it is reproduction of an author's special material that, as a rule, indicates dependence most clearly, and so it is this sort of evidence that needs to be focused on.<BR/><BR/>I do want to point out that your statement about "agreement between Matthew and Luke that is far too close to be mediated via a third source" doesn't make sense to me. If both used the same written source at this particular point, I don't see how extensive agreement would be anything but evidence that they did so. I will certainly grant that, taken on its own, it can also be evidence that one used the other. But that both could manage to copy the same phrase exactly from the same source, independently of one another, is not at all implausible.<BR/><BR/>That may not be what you intended to convey through what you wrote - I suspect it is the wording rather than your point that it is the problem. But if you fix it, you'll do a far greater job of challenging people like me who find Q plausible! :-)James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-17151715101885524912007-11-19T19:39:00.000-05:002007-11-19T19:39:00.000-05:00Let us not overlook what appears to be Matthew's l...Let us not overlook what appears to be Matthew's linkage of Th 45 and Mt 3:7-10 in Matthew 12:33-35 (Mt 1)and Matthew 7:16-20 (Mt 2) --see this line grid:<BR/>Line 1--The fruit of a tree reflects what it is<BR/>Mt. 1 Either make the tree good and the fruit of it (will be) good, or make the tree rotten and the fruit of it (will be) rotten. For by the fruit the tree is known.<BR/>Mt 2 By their fruits you will know them.<BR/><BR/>line 2. Based on the beginning of Mt 3:7-10 or of Th 45<BR/>Mt 1 Offspring of vipers,<BR/>Beg. of Mt 3:7-10 Children of vipers!<BR/>Mt 2 Thorns are not gathered from grapes or thistles from figs.<BR/>Beg. of Th 45 Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are figs gathered from thistles,<BR/><BR/>Line 3 So, something cannot produce what it is not but, rather, produces what it is<BR/>Mt 1 how are you able to speak good, being evil?<BR/>Mt 2 A good tree is not able to produce bad fruit, nor a rotten tree to produce good fruit. So every good tree produces good fruits, but the rotten tree produces bad fruit<BR/><BR/>Line 4 Based on the end of Th 45 or of Mt 3:7-10<BR/>Mt 1 --for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.<BR/>End of Th 45 For out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil things.<BR/>Mt 2 Every tree not producing good fruit is cut off and into fire is thrown.<BR/>End of Mt 3:7-10 Therefore, every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and into fire is thrown.<BR/><BR/>Line 5 Therefore, something is known by what it produces<BR/>Mt 2 Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.<BR/>Mt 1 The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil.<BR/><BR/>Note that Matthew apparently links the beginning of Th 45 and the beginning of Mt 3:7-10 in line 2 and the ending of Th 45 and the ending of Mt 3:7-10 in line 4. <BR/><BR/>This not only is an indication that Mt 7:16-20 and 12:33-35 are Matthean creations, but that Matthew knew of Thomas 45. <BR/><BR/>A further indication that Matthew knew of Thomas 45 comes in the ending of Mt 12:33-35 (i.e., "The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil."), which is *very* closely related to the center portion of Th 45 (i.e., "A good man brings forth good from his storehouse; an evil man brings forth evil things from his storehouse, which is his heart, and says evil things.").<BR/><BR/>I cannot see how the argument can be credibly reversed, so that Thomas creates Thomas 45 out of line 2 for Matthew 7:16-20 and out of a reversal of lines 4 and 5 for Matthew 12:33-35.Frank McCoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16977985447972987579noreply@blogger.com