In their recent survey of the synoptic problem E. P. Sanders and M. Davies argue that a complicated solution must be held to be the most likely, and conclude,Mark probably did sometimes conflate material which came separately to Matthew and Luke (so the Griesbach hypothesis), and Matthew probably did conflate material which came separately to Mark and Luke (the twosource hypothesis). Thus we think that Luke knew Matthew (so Goulder, the Griesbachians and others) and that both Luke and Matthew were the original authors of some of their sayings material (so especially Goulder). Following Boismard, we think it likely that one or more of the gospels existed in more than one edition, and that the gospels as we have them may have been dependent on more than one proto- or intermediate gospel.
TrvEUncc 0eou and SOCKTUAOS QEOU are interchangeable. Accordingly we must entertain the possibility that Luke changed the-TTVEOUCCTI of Q t o SOCKTUACJ). Furthermore, if TTVEUHOC represents the more primitive tradition and thus is potentially nearer the verba Christi, one cannot draw the consequence that Jesus was more 'advanced' and 'spiritual 1 than to use crass anthropomorphisms. If he was as well versed in the Old Testament as Manson believes, he surely knew Ezek. viii. 1-3, and the other ' priestly' writings. The influence of this tradition upon the formation of the gospels seems more likely than ever since the discoveries at Qumran. 1
In Josephus' Antiquities we can see quite clearly the work of a first century Hellenistic Jewish redactor. We have his sources (mainly the canonical Scriptures) in a form very close to that which he used, and so can discern the direction and the extent of the changes made. This allows for a useful comparison with the Synoptic gospels, where the direction (and therefore the kind) of change is still in dispute; and especially with Luke's Gospel, where the stated intentions and the widely agreed 'tendencies' are often identical with those of Josephus.
Although some biblical commentators nowadays do refuse an aesthetic disjunction between ‘art’ and ‘craft’, so allowing that ancient Israel’s ‘crafts’ might have aesthetic value, there seems to be little attention accorded the aesthetics—the aesthetic behaviour—presupposed in the canonical literature. In part this is due to the obsessions of our now questionable, socially restrictive ‘Enlightenment’ inheritance. But there is discernible in the canonical writings an aesthetics of abundance, intensification, plenitude, especially in much of the Psalter, and in concentration in Song of Songs. And this aesthetic celebration which we may discern here tallies well with much of the everyday aesthetic behaviour in which we ourselves engage.
Discussions of the Gospels tend to ignore the pragmatics of contemporary composition. Oral performance is sometimes acknowledged, even though too clear a distinction is often drawn between oral and written communication. Here evidence for oral social composition in and for oral social performance will be adduced. If, then, as our main example, the Q community was as important in the oral formation of the collection as this oral social composition model suggests, the arbitrarily imposed 'strata' of much recent discussion seem very implausible. Then if there were 'wisdom' and 'apocalyptic' and/or 'deuteronomic' strands, they could anyway have lain happily intertwined from the start (as indicated, incidentally, by Paul in Romans), demanding no complex explanation in terms of successive radical revisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.