Whether “Q” existed or not, or Luke borrowed from Matthew or vice versa, or both borrowed from Mark, is really not my problem (the Synoptic Problem is not my problem). I accept the four Gospel narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as God-breathed documents of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. But I have a seeming problem:
I’ve found myself ranking the Gospel narratives. I guess I’m too overly impressed with Luke’s research ethic:
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (1:1-4, NRSV, emphasis added)
Here’s the grind: I believe each are equally inspired, but I’ve found myself over the years, favoring Luke’s narrative over the rest.
Maybe it’s the theme of the narrative.
I refer Mark’s narrative. I think there is a whole lot more going on there than it first seems. Rikk Watts’ “Isaiahs New Exodus in Mark” was really influential on me.
Bryan
Bryan L, Mark is all about moving toward the Passion Week. He doesn’t spend a whole lot of time on narratives—just snippets.
What’s that “Isaiahs New Exodus” motif in Mark? Do you have some examples? Now you’ve got me all into this thing.
Basically there’s a theme of a new exodus within Isaiah that Watts sees Mark adapting and structuring the narrative of Jesus around. Joel Marcus who did the Anchor commentary on Mark also came out with a book around the same time on that theme (“The Way of the Lord). David Pao followed up Watts work with a book about Isaiah’s new exodus in Acts.
Examples? It’s kind of elaborate so any I would give wouldn’t really make much sense. There is language that Mark picks up from Isaiah like “the way” and there is Exodus imagery such as when the pigs are drowned in the lake picking up on Pharaoh’s army being drowned in the Red Sea. However I suggest you listen to Watts sermons on Mark where he discusses some of that theme in more detail. Over all I really began to appreciate Mark’s literary artistry in putting together his gospel.
http://www.the-rockgarden.com/?Talks:Mark
Bryan
Bryan L, I never paid attention to those little details, but I’ll read Mark again with those motifs in mind. Thanks for the link.
Bryan – some believe that Mark’s gospel is the written version of Paul’s preaching, e.g. the transition from oral tradition to written records. Do you think that an Exodus motif could have been Paul’s framework for presenting to the Jews outside Israel? Certainly that might have resonated with them as foreigners to their native land.
Bryan beat me to it
I love the Gospel of St. Mark, the first chapter is so clearly built upon the second exodus motif and the themes of YHWH’s kingship resonnate through it like nothing else.
I would point out that the second exodus motif is also there in Luke-Acts, try Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus by Pao.
Also some of my explorations:
Calming the storm and the kingship of Jesus
The Exodus and Yahweh’s Enthronement
I suppose I’m a Mark man (marked man?) too, at least when I am looking for the basic narrative of Jesus’ life. I guess it’s because I tend to presuppose Markan priority, at least to the extent that when Matthew and Luke tell the same stories they are basically adapting Mark. In principle I recognise that Matthew and Luke’s adaptations are just as inspired as Mark’s original, but the kind of priority I semi-consciously give to Mark comes out for example in this comment.
If I favor one gospel over another (as far as referencing it, reading it more than the others, etc.) I think I would favor Matthew (but Luke would be a close second).
I have no definitive opinion as yet.
Matthew seems to be my favorite at the moment. However, that is probably because my pastor is currently preaching through it and I’m going through France’s commentary.
Before embarking on Matthew, my pastor was preaching through Mark and I was going through Lane’s commentary. At the time, Mark was my favorite.
I wonder if Luke is next?
“Here’s the grind: I believe each are equally inspired, but I’ve found myself over the years, favoring Luke’s narrative over the rest.
Maybe it’s the theme of the narrative.”
==Maybe it is not as academic as you think. Maybe you just favor the Gospel of Luke and that shows up in your study. Personally I seem to favor the Gospels of Matthew and John. I read, study, and reference Mark and Luke. I believe Mark and Luke are inspired Scripture on equal footing with Matthew and John. However I just enjoy John and Matthew more. That favor certainly shows up in my study. It does not mean that I think less of Mark and Luke it is just that I spend more time in Matthew and John. Just like you spend more time in Luke. It’s only natural.
Martin.
Bryan – some believe that Mark’s gospel is the written version of Paul’s preaching, e.g. the transition from oral tradition to written records.
El, I heard it was Peter’s speech of Acts 10:34-43.
Do you think that an Exodus motif could have been Paul’s framework for presenting to the Jews outside Israel? Certainly that might have resonated with them as foreigners to their native land.
That’s worth some careful investigation. Now I have to reread Mark with more motifs in mind.
I love the Gospel of St. Mark, the first chapter is so clearly built upon the second exodus motif and the themes of YHWH’s kingship resonnate through it like nothing else.
Richard, I have to dig into Mark more carefully, I see.
Peter, I’m with you on Markan Priority. Guthrie convinced me a few years back.
Stuart, What about Matthew?
Maybe it is not as academic as you think. Maybe you just favor the Gospel of Luke and that shows up in your study. Personally I seem to favor the Gospels of Matthew and John. I read, study, and reference Mark and Luke. I believe Mark and Luke are inspired Scripture on equal footing with Matthew and John. However I just enjoy John and Matthew more. That favor certainly shows up in my study. It does not mean that I think less of Mark and Luke it is just that I spend more time in Matthew and John. Just like you spend more time in Luke. It’s only natural.
Martin, I do love the divinity of Christ as seen in John and the lengthy discourse and the folks debating among themselves about the his true identity.
But the Passion Week is so different in a lot of ways to the Synoptics.
TC, on a side note, have you read Fr. Raymond Brown’s An Introduction to the New Testament? Thoughts? 2009 is going to be my NT year especially the Gospels and picked Brown’s book up last week.
Richard, I still need to get that masterful work. I like your 2009-September-2008 resolution.
EL:
“Do you think that an Exodus motif could have been Paul’s framework for presenting to the Jews outside Israel?”
I don’t really know. N.T. Wright did explore some new exodus stuff in his Romans commentary and J. Ross Wagner wrote a book called “Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans” which I imagine probably discusses some of the new exodus stuff.
Richard:
I have Brown’s intro but I’ve never even been interested enough to try reading it. I hear it basically introduces the student to the standard scholarly consensuses on NT issues. Do you have any other intros? I hear David DeSilva’s is really good. I’d also like to check out Green, Achtemeier and Thompson’s intro.
Bryan
Bryan,
2008 has been my OT year and so I have very little about the NT with the odd exception. Suggestions would be welcome.
BTW: My library is here (some of it at least).
Richard:
I can’t really recommend any NT intro’s since I was already pretty familiar with the NT by the time I started looking into them. Again i hear DeSilva is really good and if I were to buy a NT intro or trade my Raymond Brown intro I would probably try to get that one.
You should list all of the books you been going through for your OT study on your blog. I think that would be interesting.
I haven’t had a direction this year until now with my study into philosophy.
Bryan
I’m surprised that you guys not into Guthrie’s Intro.
TC: I’m late to the conversation but I’ll reproduce something that I said last year:
I love the book of Mark because of the stripped down picture it presents. I hold to Markan priority (although I’m highly skeptical about Q so in the end the Farrer Hypothesis fits me best). In my opinion the Gospel according to Mark is the Gospel with no frills and truth be told I find an extremely high Christology in Mark without all the added reflection found in John. That’s what amazes me so much about the book! But it is that added reflection that makes me love the Gospel according to John. The prologue is perhaps my favorite single passage of Scripture (along with the Carmen Christi of Phil. 2:5-11) because it packs so much Christological information in such a small space.
Nick, Mark does begin his Gospel kind of thematic: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”
“Q” will always be “Q.”
Yes, John’s reflections are quite good. I’ll have to agree with you on John’ prologue, but I love Luke’s as well. Luke does a little reflection during the Passion Week, in the Johannine style.
Well, Christology/Trinity is your thing. I guess you’re the second coming of Athanasius.
Pingback: Working out community exegesis at He is Sufficient
I’ve always liked Luke because it has a sequel. And John because it is unique from the others.
Nathan, I didn’t even think about the sequel, but that’s a good reason. Yes, I like John uniqueness too.
tc,
“what about Matthew?”
So many things, it is difficult to list them all . . . but here are a handful of things I like about Matthew . . .
1) Matthew is the “gospel of the kingdom” par excellence. From the first chapter to the last, Matthew develops the theme of Christ as king and the kingdom as an all important category. The kingdom parables and sayings are very important for our understanding of the kingdom.
2) Matthew (especially clear in the first few chapters) presents Jesus as a kind of “recapitulation” of Israel. He is a descendent of Abraham (1:1-17). Just as Pharaoh kills male children in Moses’ day, so too Jesus is threatened by Herod’s killing of children. God calls his people out of Egypt . . . Matthew connects this to Jesus leaving Egypt (2:19-23). Jesus is tempted 40 days in the wilderness as the Israelites were tempted in the wilderness. Etc., etc.
3) Matthew also presents Jesus as a “lawgiver” who does not destroy the previous law, but fulfills it. The Sermon on the Mount demonstrates this masterfully.
4) Yet Matthew also demonstrates how outward adherence to the law is not what God really desires of his people. Some of the strongest statements against the outward nature of the religious establishment of Jesus’ day are found in Matthew.
5) The end of Matthew’s Gospel! Jesus is worshipped (but some doubted). He states that all authority in heaven and earth has been given to him and therefore his disciples are to make disciples throughout the earth knowing that Jesus promises to be with them in this endeavor.
Stuart, great analysis, but I had to pick one.
But I’m surprised that no one went with Matthew either.