 |
|
|
|
The New Testament
Querying the QM Thesis
Matthew 26-28 and parallels
J. P. Holding
The Passion narratives leave some clouds over this arena. Not all agree that Q had a passion narrative; Markan priority remains part of the package, however. Since this is so we will simplify here by merely collection various arguments from this section rather than engaging a full analysis.
Farmer [Farm.SP, 149] notes a difference between Matthew 26:67-8 and parallels, "Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?" Matt lacks any indication of a facial covering; Mark lacks the taunt asking who was striking. This according to Farmer illustrates the secondary nature of Mark's text, for he has omitted a reason for Jesus to prophesy (by saying who struck him). On this I do not necessarily agree, for one could argue that perhaps Matt has also lost the point by losing the blindfold; but then again, that only makes a difference if we assume that Jesus knew the names of every person in the Sanhedrin in the first place. Moreover, the "honor challenge" would remain intact even in Mark as the challenge to a false prophet to reveal some truth, even if not specifically "who hit you". Witherington notes that it is possible [385] that this reflects a belief that "a prophet or the Messiah would be able to sense things about people through his sense of smell, a sign of miraculous powers." Thus as well it could not be argued that Matthew is "fixing" Mark; but nor could it be argued of necessity that Mark is missing something essential from Matthew, as there could be a "high context" indication that the demand had a specific purpose. This argument should probably be regarded as equivocal.
Hawkins [Hawk.HS, 118] offers the observation in favor of Marcan priority that Mark 15:44-5, where Pilate marvelled that Jesus was already dead, "might have been thought at least needless" to introduce into ordinary teaching. Which just as well suggests that it was not in the original tradition, but was added as a Petrine reminisce, and that Matthew and Mark worked independently.
Hawkins [120] also introduces a paranoid idea that Mark 14:14's "my guestchamber" was changed to "the guestchamber" by Matt and Luke because it "may have seemed a harshly expressed claim"! Not only is this paranoid, it is also completely contrary to ancient ideas of assertiveness. So once again, if anything, this would be proof of Markan posteriority (or as we would argue, independence).
Also by Hawkins [120-1], a claim that Mark 15:58's "I will destroy the temple" was changed by Matt to "I am able to destroy" because it "may have appeared to be an unfulfilled prophecy, or possibly to have justified Jewish hostility...." The latter is a remarkably peculiar comment; as if there were not reams of material in Matthew that could not be used to "justify Jewish hostility"! As for "unfulfilled prophecy," when is Hawkins thinking this was left unfulfilled? The temple was destroyed in 70 AD and if this was written before 70, it remained "unfulfilled" as yet for either writer; if after 70, what was there to be embarrassed about?
And again by Hawkins [124], an idea that ptoma, used in Mark 15:45 (not in the Received Text) was changed by Matt and Luke because it would be avoided, because it "carries a tone of contempt." It does? No, it doesn't. It is not used because it indicates carrion, and Joseph did not pick up a body from Pilate that had been scavenged, all ideas by Crossan aside. Mark more likely used the word because he used it before (6:29) of John the Baptist's discarded body, and is trying to use a form of mimesis by using the word in more than one place. Soma would be the natural choice, and which he would change for this purpose; Matthew and Luke would retain the better translation.
Go Home! |
|
|
