John, Luke, and the Jewish trial[s] of Jesus

Matthew D. Larsen is blogging a series “investigating the trial[s] of Jesus (or lack thereof) by means of a synoptic analysis of Luke 22.54–71, Mark 14.53–72, and Matthew 26.57–75.”

From the looks of his stated goals, Larsen’s study will culminate in a summary of the Luke passion “especially in light of its Synoptic parallels.”

I will be suggesting other approaches to one or two of the points which Larsen treats, but I am not seeking any controversy with Matthew.  The appeal for me here is twofold:

(1) the chance to open up a study of Michael D. Goulder’s theory about the sources for the Passion in Luke in conjunction with a current example of high-quality text-critical blogging (without jamming up another writer’s blog with lengthy comments) and

(2) the chance to write out an idea found in my recent study of Schleiermacher’s Life of Jesus about a possible supplementary role here for the Gospel of John.

I have Goulder’s 1989 book, Luke: A New Paradigm, home from the library only today.  Goulder has become a new fascination of mine in conjunction with my study of problems with the Q-based Two-Source theory (challenges to ‘Q’ by Austin Farrer in the 1950s and by Goulder in the 80s and more recently prof. Mark Goodacre at Duke).

 The real question is:  can I keep up with the pace I expect Matthew Larsen to set?

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “John, Luke, and the Jewish trial[s] of Jesus

  1. Matt, I see you have your second installment up, and I have spent some time examining it this morning.

    Do I detect a theory of Matthean priority in your treatment? I view that as a minority opinion which might cause a communication breakdown between us if we were outside the basic trial sequence. Overall I think your treatment so far represents a pretty good general view and I’d better get busy with my project!

  2. no, no matthean priority. i hold (as most do—nothing too outside the box here) to markan priority. just curious, where do you detect that in my post?

    looking forward to your project …

  3. I guess I thought Matthew was dominating from behind the scenes in your second post. Following the order of events (in which Matthew comes first instead of Mark) there is a lot of discussion of the differences between Mark and Luke (which implied to me a kind of stable and original Matthew).

    Did you list your order of events that way to place Mark in the middle for better comparison? Since its a chronological paradigm I mistook it for a claim of priority for Matthew in a study where who wrote what when can be very important.

    Of course, I laughed when I realized that my own minority opinion about Luke’s possession of a copy of Matthew might cause a communication breakdown as well (the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis, as Mark Goodacre calls it – you know I think that Goodacre also doubts Q).

    I started my response this morning, but the bulk of the day was given to job and finishing up my income taxes. I hope to have something by tomorrow night.

  4. Pingback: The Historical Jewish Trial of Jesus « Matthew D. Larsen's NT studies blog

  5. Pingback: Understanding the synoptic gospels without Q « next theology

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s