Re: Dating the Lord's Prayer
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:09 pm
to Ken Olson,
Thank you Ken for your comments:
You wrote:
Now, I'll go into Luke not knowing about gMatthew next, by commenting on:
And neither Mark nor Matthew considered these so-called thematic doublets as redundant.
But 11.29, for me anyway, is a saying from gMark which has been added up by a Q author. Then Luke & Matthew used the Q version rather than Mark's.
I think the conventional definition should be modified as such:
Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke without, or with, textual relationship in the Gospel of Mark.
Q-->GLuke & GMatthew
OR
GMark-->Q-->GLuke & GMatthew
Therefore, Q would also include longuest "minor agreements", supporting Q as being a document instead of doing the opposite.
When Q is intermediary between gMark and Gluke & gMatthew, the longuest "minor agreements" can be explained by the Q author getting a passage from GMark, then injecting in it new wording not in GMark, which got copied by "Luke" & "Matthew" (with both, most of the time, still adding up more).
However I can understand it certainly can be argued that Luke got 11.29-32 from Matthew 12.38-42.
Overall, in the so-called Bethsaida mini gospel, there are a significant amount of items not found in Luke, even when appearing in Matthew.
Cordially, Bernard
Thank you Ken for your comments:
You wrote:
Luke not knowing the so-called Bethsaida mini gospel from gMark, I explained that here: http://historical-jesus.info/appf.htmlIt is not at all obvious that Luke could not have gotten his material for 12.1b from Mark 8.15 and/or Matt 16.6, 11 unless one first establishes that he did not know either Mark 6.47-8.27a or Matt 14.24-16.13a, as indeed you claim he did not.
Now, I'll go into Luke not knowing about gMatthew next, by commenting on:
However, there is no Jesus walking on water in the Stilling of the Storm (Mark 4.35-41 & Matthew 8:23-27.)Mark 6.45- 8.26 (Luke’s so-called Great Omission of Markan material which would have fallen between Luke 9.17 and 9.18)
Mark
6.45-52
Walking on Water
Thematic doublet of The Stilling of the Storm (Mark 4.35-41); Jesus shows power over wind and wave; the disciples were afraid but should have had faith in him.
And neither Mark nor Matthew considered these so-called thematic doublets as redundant.
Also in Matthew: 14.34-366.53-56
Healings at Gennesaret
Also in Matthew 15.10-207.1-23
What Defiles A Person
Gentile mission delayed until Acts, ruling on what it is permissible to eat in Acts 10.9-16; 11.4-10
Also in Matthew 15.21-28. I don't see much relevance with the story of the Centurion's boy. And I don't think the Centurion is kept off stage, even if he does not initially contact Jesus in person.7.24-30
Syrophoenician Woman
Gentile mission delayed until Acts; note in the Lukan version of the Centurion’s Boy in Luke 7.1-10, the Centurion is kept off stage and sends a delegation of Jewish elders in Luke 7.3-5.
Neither Mark nor Matthew thought the dual feedings were a doublet. Furthermore, the Feeding of the Five & Four Thousand in Matthew has a detail which would be dear to the feminist outlook of Luke (women, not only men, also benefit from the miralous feedings), which is not in Luke.8.1-10
Feeding of the Four Thousand
Doublet of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mark 6.35-44)
Luke 12.54-56 is very remote from 11.29.8.11-13
Pharisees Seek A Sign
=Luke 11.29, 12.54-56
But 11.29, for me anyway, is a saying from gMark which has been added up by a Q author. Then Luke & Matthew used the Q version rather than Mark's.
I think the conventional definition should be modified as such:
Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke without, or with, textual relationship in the Gospel of Mark.
Q-->GLuke & GMatthew
OR
GMark-->Q-->GLuke & GMatthew
Therefore, Q would also include longuest "minor agreements", supporting Q as being a document instead of doing the opposite.
When Q is intermediary between gMark and Gluke & gMatthew, the longuest "minor agreements" can be explained by the Q author getting a passage from GMark, then injecting in it new wording not in GMark, which got copied by "Luke" & "Matthew" (with both, most of the time, still adding up more).
However I can understand it certainly can be argued that Luke got 11.29-32 from Matthew 12.38-42.
Overall, in the so-called Bethsaida mini gospel, there are a significant amount of items not found in Luke, even when appearing in Matthew.
Cordially, Bernard