tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post3465707256653062151..comments2024-03-12T17:34:02.225-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Garrow's FlawMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-33106717205433269932019-03-26T14:19:14.860-04:002019-03-26T14:19:14.860-04:00I don't know why I show up as "Unknown&qu...I don't know why I show up as "Unknown". Sorry.<br /><br />I'm reading my way through your <i>Rewalking the "Way of the Lord"</i> and I see you pointed out the similarity with the opening of the <i>Didache</i>. Isn't that a point in favour of Luke preceding Matthew, if this theme is especially dear to Luke? It would also turn the aesthetic argument on its head. Luke didn't retain any order from Q, he made it himself. Matthew according to the Q advocates found that unsatisfactory and reordered it to the 'beautiful' discourses.<br /><br />- SiliJens Knudsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15228873397903819412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-75382939772271608872019-03-24T16:57:06.278-04:002019-03-24T16:57:06.278-04:00What about the other part of the proposal? The Did...What about the other part of the proposal? The Didache as the origin of what was believed to be sayings material ('Q')? That idea should work equally well with the Farrer hypothesis. Personally I find it hard to see how a non-sayings document like the Didache would result from sayings believed to come from 'The Lord'. It makes more sense that Luke (or Matthew, if Harrow is right) put those words in Jesus' mouth the same way Mark did with Paul's.Jens Knudsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15228873397903819412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-80695675975775789422017-12-14T04:38:05.751-05:002017-12-14T04:38:05.751-05:00I am more inclined to accept a spectrum for Luke t...I am more inclined to accept a spectrum for Luke than for Matthew. As you (may) know, I am firmly convinced Matthew is a "Markan Christian" (for want of a better term!).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16660653198773687812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-13210981875421382872017-12-13T09:50:51.563-05:002017-12-13T09:50:51.563-05:00In addition to your point, Ken, it's worth rem...In addition to your point, Ken, it's worth remembering that Matthew produces very high verbatim pericopes in the Triple Tradition in places where he ought to have been "distracted" by Luke. In my fuller response, if I ever get around to writing it, I will draw this point out more fully, but the value of stressing the so-called Mark-Q overlap passages in this context is that these are among the very passages listed by Kirk as supposed examples of Matthew copying Luke without distraction.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-38312112103182764152017-12-13T09:44:40.949-05:002017-12-13T09:44:40.949-05:00Thanks, Andrew. To some extent, that is how the ma...Thanks, Andrew. To some extent, that is how the major agreements between Matthew and Luke are explained on the Farrer theory. Normally speaking, Luke follows Mark as his main source with supplementary material coming in from Matthew, but on several occasions, he follows Matthew, with supplementary material coming in from Mark. It's actually a spectrum.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-81627551191745019942017-12-13T09:41:29.221-05:002017-12-13T09:41:29.221-05:00Excellent point, Ken. Thanks.Excellent point, Ken. Thanks.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-37386086702540886112017-12-13T08:29:23.868-05:002017-12-13T08:29:23.868-05:00Thanks, Mark!
And if - as you draw out from Garro...Thanks, Mark!<br /><br />And if - as you draw out from Garrow's proposal - Matthew were looking only at Luke when copying a passage designated a "Mark-Q Overlap", he would be siding with Luke against his own predilection for the Gospel of Mark!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16660653198773687812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-55575954518706748492017-12-13T04:13:21.258-05:002017-12-13T04:13:21.258-05:00I would add to your point that Garrow has not made...I would add to your point that Garrow has not made clear how or why Matthew decides which of his sources he will follow and which will "distract" him when he finds that his different sources contain differing versions of the same story or saying. On the traditional two source theory, there is a limited number of Mark-Q overlap passages and Matthew conflates them (while on the Farrer theory Luke follows Matthew instead of Luke in these cases). On Garrow's theory there is a much larger number of passage found in both Mark and Q. In some of these Mark-Luke overlaps (i.e., the traditionally identified Mark-Q overlap passages) and especially the Beelzebul pericope, Matthew carefully conflates the two versions of Mark and Luke, while in most cases he follows Mark with a few touches of Luke (the traditional "Minor Agreements'). It seems like the mere existence of a parallel source does not determine whether Garrow's Matthew will be "distracted" by it or not, or by how much. A further level of explanation is needed on how Matthew makes the decision about which sources to use and how much to use them.Ken Olsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15306662794364203693noreply@blogger.com