Mahlon Smith wrote:
> There is a syllogistic error in reasoning that the term MAQHTHS in the
> gospels must have originated with Jesus simply because there is no
evidence
> that Xns used that term to refer to each other after his death. The term
> MAQHTHS is not an absolute title but describes a particular temporal
social
> relationship (learner-teacher). It is dependent on access to the
> instructional activity of a DIDASKALOS. People aren't generally referred
to
> as perpetual "students" after their teacher has passed away. Apart from
> alleged resurrection appearances, HJ's role as instructor ended with his
> crucifixion, if not before. Ergo with HJ's disappearance from the
historical
> stage Kephas & Co. graduated to a post-MAQHTHS status in the Jesus
movement.
> They became APOSTOLOI ("missionaries").

Mahlon, Pardon my sloppiness. I mis-stated Meier's argument. In my post, I
incorrectly suggested that the *term* disciples (mathetes/MAQHTHS)
originated with Jesus. The fact that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic and not
Greek is by itself sufficient reason to suspect that he did not introduce
the term into Palestinian discourse. Meier's argument, which I found
persuasive, is that John the Baptist is the first known instance in
Palestine of the *practice* of the master-disciple relationship described by
the term mathetes/MAQHTHS, and that Jesus imitated this practice.

Meier based his argument largely on the criterion of dissimilarity. The word
mathetes/MAQHTHS is absent from the Septuagint and other Jewish writings in
Greek dated earlier than Philo. The word mathetes/MAQHTHS also is absent
from New Testament writings outside of the Gospels/Acts. Given the paucity
of precedents, he argues, the practice was not borrowed from Judean
tradition. Given the non-use of the term in the early church, the Gospel
writers did not retroject the practice back onto Jesus. Ergo, the practice
in Palestine probably originated with John and Jesus.

> Paul, pseudo-James & the Pastor are witnesses that there continued to be
Xn
> DIDASKALOI in the primitive church (1 Cor 12:28, 1 Tim 1:7, Jms 3:1), each
> of whom would have had his/her own MAQHTAI (even if that word is not used
in
> these texts).  But the term MAQHTAI did not properly describe the current
> social relationship of any member of the EKKLHSIA to Jesus himself; nor
was
> its implication of subservience adequate to characterize early
> Xns'egalitarian ideal of  their relationship to each other.  Xns
> demonstrably preferred to refer to each other as ADELFOS (presumably
because
> HJ referred to his own associates as such - Mark 3:35par).

> *If* HJ taught his groupies to regard God as their personal ABBA &
> themselves as his brothers, then it is highly unlikely that the term
MAQHTHS
> in the gospels would have originated with HJ himself.

If I understand you correctly, you are implying from Jesus' use of the term
ABBA that he practiced an egalitarian relationship with his followers: God
was the father while Jesus and his companions were brothers. While I would
agree that such terminology implies a less hierarchical relationship that
that which prevailed in the world around them -- from kings to beggars -- it
was not an egalitarian relationship either. The family structure in
1st-century Palestine had hierarchical elements, in which older brothers
enjoyed superior status, privileges and authority. Jesus may have viewed
himself as a brother to his companions, but he likewise enjoyed superior
status and authority within the movement he led and created.

> Rather, MAQHTHS  was
> the standard Attic academic term from Plato on (cf. Liddell-Scott 1072)
for
> designating those who subordinated themselves to a mentor & committed
> themselves to passing on *his* instruction (as Plato pretends to do for
> Socrates).  Thus, as Hellenistic authors who claimed to be transmitting
the
> DIDAXH of HJ himself, it is easy to see why the evangelists regularly
> characterized HJ's followers as MAQHTAI.  For in the social world in which
> they were writing this automatically accorded HJ the social status of a
> protean sage & vested his words with the authority of eternal wisdom.  At
> the same time it was useful for down-playing the reputations of pillars of
> the early church such as Peter, James & John -- just as it makes a
> difference to my reputation whether I am presented as a "disciple of R.W.
> Funk" (one of his many students) or "Prof. Smith" (i.e., a teaching
> authority in my own right).

You make an interesting argument. As I understand you, the Gospel writers
were applying the term mathetes/MAQHTHS to Jesus' followers based on the
master-learner relationships they had observed in their own societies. But
you are pre-supposing that they are applying the term inappropriately. I
must ask you, what kind of relationship do you suppose Jesus had with those
who abandoned personal property and family ties to follow him? Did Jesus'
followers not regard him as a sage? Did they not vest his words with the
authority of eternal wisdom? And, however, you see that relationship, did it
not represent an innovation in the Palestinian Judaism of the 1st century
C.E.?

Best regards,

Jim

James A. Bacon Jr.
The Jesus Archive
jabacon@...

Jim Bacon said:

>>The word mathetes / MAQHTHS also is absent from New
Testament writings outside of the Gospels / Acts.<<

I have yet to obtain volume 3, but does Meier really limit
consideration to only NT documents? What about the _Letter
to Diognetus_?

The dating (ranging from 117-313, with 150-225 being more
likely per Holmes in his edition of Lightfoot's _Apostolic
Fathers_) is, perhaps, precarious (as if that of NT books in
general is not), but it does show that somewhere in the
"early" Christian movement an author could use the word
MAQHTES in a description of himself and others (11.1), fully
expecting the readers to understand what meaning he was
conveying, that is, giving it the same sense that the NT
Gospels do when referring to a close follower of Jesus. This
author does appear to allude to passages in the gospels of
Matthew and John.

I also think an infinitive form of a related Greek verb
(MANQANW)is used in the sense of disciples in Lxx Isaiah
8:16 (although Brenton does not so translate it). The author
of the _Letter to Diognetus_ also uses the infinitive of
MANQANW to describe Diognetus (1.1, as one who is learning).

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

By Meier's count, the term *mathetes* occcurs 261 times in Gospels/Acts and
only 12 times in the corpus of the "Apostolic Fathers," nine of which occur
in the writings of Ignatius. I could find no reference in Meier's footnotes
to the Letter to Diognetus. He doesn't address the post-Apostolic Fathers
literature. Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: David C. Hindley <dhindley@...>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: [XTalk] MAQHTHS (was: John 2:1-4:54)


> Jim Bacon said:
>
> >>The word mathetes / MAQHTHS also is absent from New
> Testament writings outside of the Gospels / Acts.<<
>
> I have yet to obtain volume 3, but does Meier really limit
> consideration to only NT documents? What about the _Letter
> to Diognetus_?
>
> The dating (ranging from 117-313, with 150-225 being more
> likely per Holmes in his edition of Lightfoot's _Apostolic
> Fathers_) is, perhaps, precarious (as if that of NT books in
> general is not), but it does show that somewhere in the
> "early" Christian movement an author could use the word
> MAQHTES in a description of himself and others (11.1), fully
> expecting the readers to understand what meaning he was
> conveying, that is, giving it the same sense that the NT
> Gospels do when referring to a close follower of Jesus. This
> author does appear to allude to passages in the gospels of
> Matthew and John.
>
> I also think an infinitive form of a related Greek verb
> (MANQANW)is used in the sense of disciples in Lxx Isaiah
> 8:16 (although Brenton does not so translate it). The author
> of the _Letter to Diognetus_ also uses the infinitive of
> MANQANW to describe Diognetus (1.1, as one who is learning).
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Dave Hindley
> Cleveland, Ohio, USA
>
>
>
>
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> List managers may be contacted directly at:
crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

At 03:55 PM 12/31/01 -0500, Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
>Jim Bacon wrote:
>
> >  ...early Christians did *not* speak of one another as disciples.
> >  Therefore, the term had to originate with Jesus himself. Further, Meier
> >  argues that the Greek word *mathetes* occurs very rarely in the 1st
>century
> >  at all. Josephus uses the word, but he post-dated the historical Jesus,
>so
> >  he is of little use to us.

Jim,
The thesis that the concept of discipleship goes back to Jesus is supported
by Hans Weder's article on Disciple, Discipleship in the Anchor Bible
Dictionary.

However, Weder makes an even better point, IMHO, by drawing attention to
the importance of Greek *akolouthein,* "to walk behind, to follow" which,
Weder notes, was frequently used as a specialized term in the NT for
following Jesus. My BibleWorks glosses the term as
"akoloutheo  {ak-ol-oo-theh'-o}  •  from 1 (as a particle of union)
and  keleuthos (a road); TDNT - 1:210,33; v •  AV - follow 91, reach 1; 92
•  1) to follow one who precedes, join  him as his attendant, accompany him
2)  to join one as a disciple, become or be  his disciple 2a) side with his
party".

The classic phrase, "Follow me" is couched in these terms, e.g.,
    (Mark 2:14//Matt 9:9//Luke 5:27; Mark 8:34//Matt 16:24//Luke 9:23; Mark
10:21//Matt 19:21//Luke 18:22; Matt 8:22//Luke 9:59;  John 10:27;12:26;
13:36; 21:19)

In contrast, the term "disciple" (MAQHTHS) in the singular form is never
used by Jesus in direct address to a disciple; instead, all usages are
talking *about*  disciples. Furthermore, the term in the singular is not
used at all by Mark, only 4 times each by Matthew and Luke, and 14 times by
John. Of course the plural is much more numerous; but both singular and
plural are completely lacking from Paul's letters. Instead, in Paul's
letters, we get the term *mimetes* [{mim-ay-tace'}  •  from 3401; TDNT -
4:659,594; n m •  AV - follower 7; 7 •  1) an imitator] , e.g., 1 Cor 11:1,
and other words with the same base.

Interestingly, when a replacement for Judas is called for in Acts 1:21, the
term is not disciple, but
sunerchomai  [{soon-er'-khom-ahee}  •  from 4862 and 2064; TDNT
-  2:684,257; v •  AV - come together 18, go with 4,  come with 2, resort
2, come 2, come  with + 2258 1, company with 1,  accompany 1, assemble with
1; 32 •  1) to come together 1a) to assemble  1b) of conjugal cohabitation
2) to go  (depart) or come with one, to  accompany one  ]

Acts 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time
that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
   22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up
from us-- one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection."

Note also that what was required was not discipleship but witness.

  From this I conclude that
1. the followers of Jesus were not initially thought of as disciples, but
simply as companions.
2. During Paul's era, the idea of followers as imitators began to develop;
3. with Mark  and Q the followers were collectively referred to as disciples;
4. and then with Matthew and Mark specific individual followers began to be
regarded as disciples (interestingly, first with Joseph of Arimethea! [Matt
27:57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named
Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus.]

Happy New Year!
Bob







>All of the gospels also "post-dated the historical Jesus." So are they to be
>dismissed as "of little use to us"?
>
>There is a syllogistic error in reasoning that the term MAQHTHS in the
>gospels must have originated with Jesus simply because there is no evidence
>that Xns used that term to refer to each other after his death. The term
>MAQHTHS is not an absolute title but describes a particular temporal social
>relationship (learner-teacher). It is dependent on access to the
>instructional activity of a DIDASKALOS. People aren't generally referred to
>as perpetual "students" after their teacher has passed away. Apart from
>alleged resurrection appearances, HJ's role as instructor ended with his
>crucifixion, if not before. Ergo with HJ's disappearance from the historical
>stage Kephas & Co. graduated to a post-MAQHTHS status in the Jesus movement.
>They became APOSTOLOI ("missionaries").
>
>Paul, pseudo-James & the Pastor are witnesses that there continued to be Xn
>DIDASKALOI in the primitive church (1 Cor 12:28, 1 Tim 1:7, Jms 3:1), each
>of whom would have had his/her own MAQHTAI (even if that word is not used in
>these texts).  But the term MAQHTAI did not properly describe the current
>social relationship of any member of the EKKLHSIA to Jesus himself; nor was
>its implication of subservience adequate to characterize early
>Xns'egalitarian ideal of  their relationship to each other.  Xns
>demonstrably preferred to refer to each other as ADELFOS (presumably because
>HJ referred to his own associates as such - Mark 3:35par).
>
>*If* HJ taught his groupies to regard God as their personal ABBA &
>themselves as his brothers, then it is highly unlikely that the term MAQHTHS
>in the gospels would have originated with HJ himself. Rather, MAQHTHS  was
>the standard Attic academic term from Plato on (cf. Liddell-Scott 1072) for
>designating those who subordinated themselves to a mentor & committed
>themselves to passing on *his* instruction (as Plato pretends to do for
>Socrates).  Thus, as Hellenistic authors who claimed to be transmitting the
>DIDAXH of HJ himself, it is easy to see why the evangelists regularly
>characterized HJ's followers as MAQHTAI.  For in the social world in which
>they were writing this automatically accorded HJ the social status of a
>protean sage & vested his words with the authority of eternal wisdom.  At
>the same time it was useful for down-playing the reputations of pillars of
>the early church such as Peter, James & John -- just as it makes a
>difference to my reputation whether I am presented as a "disciple of R.W.
>Funk" (one of his many students) or "Prof. Smith" (i.e., a teaching
>authority in my own right).
>
>If the *concept* of learning implied by the term MAQHTHS is retrojected to
>the time of HJ himself, then it approximates the status of a Jewish TALMID
>(learner) who was accustomed to addressing his mentor as RABBI. In this
>case, then the concept is better seen as originating with HJ's followers
>themselves rather than with the one whom *they* addressed as "Master" (MAR,
>KYRIOS). For it could be argued (akin to Mark's thesis) that the term
>MAQHTHS reflects the failure of HJ's most avid devotees to grasp fully the
>anti-hierarchical implications of their mentor's own social message.
>
>Shalom!
>
>Mahlon
>
>
>Mahlon H. Smith
>Department of Religion
>Rutgers University
>New Brunswick NJ 08901
>
><http://religion.rutgers.edu/profiles/mh_smith.html>http://religion.rutgers
>.edu/profiles/mh_smith.html
>
>Synoptic Gospels Primer
><http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/>http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/
>
>Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
><http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/>http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
>
>The XTalk Home Page is
><http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/>http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
>To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jim Bacon replied:

>>By Meier's count, the term *mathetes* occurs 261 times in
Gospels/Acts and only 12 times in the corpus of the
"Apostolic Fathers," nine of which occur in the writings of
Ignatius. I could find no reference in Meier's footnotes to
the Letter to Diognetus. He doesn't address the
post-Apostolic Fathers literature.<<

Well ... I may just have to break down and secure a copy of
a Greek concordance of the Apostolic Fathers. None of the
translations of these works in my possession seems to have
the word "disciple" indexed, nor are there Greek word
indices.

If Meier is true to form, the answer to the question of
whether Diognetus includes one or more of those 3 occasions
of use of the word MAQHTHS (spelled right this time) not in
Ignatius is probably buried in one of those references in
the notes.

Thank you!

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

"David C. Hindley" wrote:

>  Jim Bacon replied:
>
> >>By Meier's count, the term *mathetes* occurs 261 times in
> Gospels/Acts and only 12 times in the corpus of the
> "Apostolic Fathers," nine of which occur in the writings of
> Ignatius. I could find no reference in Meier's footnotes to
> the Letter to Diognetus. He doesn't address the
> post-Apostolic Fathers literature.<<
>
> Well ... I may just have to break down and secure a copy of
> a Greek concordance of the Apostolic Fathers. None of the
> translations of these works in my possession seems to have
> the word "disciple" indexed, nor are there Greek word
> indices.
>
> If Meier is true to form, the answer to the question of
> whether Diognetus includes one or more of those 3 occasions
> of use of the word MAQHTHS (spelled right this time) not in
> Ignatius is probably buried in one of those references in
> the notes.
>

I have just uploaded a TLG D Disk search of all instances of MAQHTH
(using MAQHT as my search term) from the 3rd cent. BCE through the
second century CE (excluding the instances in Galen, Origen, and the
Ecumenical Councils) to our files section.

It may be accessed at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/MAQHTH.htm

The Greek text is in beta code. To transform it to Greek, you will need
to have SGreek in your fonts file.

I hope this helps, rather than hinders, the discussion.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:

> I have just uploaded a TLG D Disk search of all instances of MAQHTH
> (using MAQHT as my search term) from the 3rd cent. BCE through the
> second century CE (excluding the instances in Galen, Origen, and the
> Ecumenical Councils) to our files section.
>
> It may be accessed at
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/MAQHTH.htm
>
> The Greek text is in beta code. To transform it to Greek, you will
> need
> to have SGreek in your fonts file.
>
> I hope this helps, rather than hinders, the discussion.

Please note that the file I've uploaded does NOT contain all NT
instances of the term in question.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 12:09 PM 12/29/01 -0500, Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
>Pardon a few comments on Mark Cameron's "general comments." He wrote:
>
> > ... It is widely agreed by those who accept the Q hypothesis
> > that there was an early tradition about Jesus' birth that both Luke
> > and Matt knew in different forms and independently expanded upon.
> > e.g. birth in Bethlehem to a virgin named Mary, who was betrothed to
> > Joseph, during the reign of Herod the Great.  <SNIP>
>
>Widely agreed?  Among whom? ...
>The common elements in the Matthean & Lukan birth narratives have the
>character of random tidbits of information that are better accounted for
>on grounds other than a common "tradition about Jesus' birth."...

Mahlon,
Rather than respond item by item to your strenuous attempt to refute any
common tradition to both Matthew and Luke, I here provide Raymond Brown's
list of 11 points shared by the two infancy narratives (Birth of the
Messiah, 1977, p. 34f.):

1. The parents to be are Mary and Joseph who are legally engaged or
married, but have not yet come to live together or have sexual relations
(Matt 1:18;  Luke 1:27,34)
2. Joseph is of Davidic descent (Matt 1:16,20; Luke 1:27,32; 2:4 [cf.
Romans 1:3-4]
3. There is an angelic announcement of the forthcoming birth of the child
(Matt 1:20-23; 1:30-35)
4. The conception of the child by Mary is not through intercourse with her
husband (Matt 1:20,23,25; Luke 1:34)
5. The conception is through the Holy Spirit ( Matt 1:18,20; Luke 1:35)
6. There is a directive from the angel that the child is to be named Jesus
(Matt 1:21; Luke 1:31)
7. An angel states that Jesus is to be Savior (Matt 1:21; Luke 2:11)
8. The birth of the child takes place after the parents have come to live
together (Matt 1:24-25; Luke 2:5-6)
9. The birth takes place at Bethlehem (Matt 2:1; Luke 2:4-6)
10. The birth is chronologically related to the reign (days) of Herod the
Great (Matt 2:1; Luke 1:5)
11. The child is reared at Nazareth (Matt 2:23; Luke 2:39)

Brown also points out that the parallels are (except for the last)
concentrated in Matthew 1:18 - 2:1-- i.e., in 9 verses. That is, 10
parallels are identified in 9 consecutive verses.

I think it is rather unlikely that Matthew and Luke independently invented
all of these parallels.

Bob
Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

With apologies for cross posting:

Is there online anywhere maps -- and in particular, a series of maps --
which show in chronological sequence the territories conquered, ruled
over by, and then lost to Alexander and his successors, particularly the
Ptolemys and the Selucids?

I'd also be very interested in knowing if there are similar maps which
demonstrate the expansion of Roman power from the Hellenistic age until
the time of Diocletian and Constantine.

Ideally, I'd like to see something that is animated -- that is to say,
something that is not just a series of maps, but which, like a movie,
has moving boundary lines. In other words, I'm seeking something which
is an animated version of the Penguin Atlas of the Ancient World.

Hoping I'm not to vague, I give thanks in advance for any suggestions of
where to look for all of this.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...

--- In crosstalk2@y..., "Mahlon H. Smith" <mahlonh.smith@w...> wrote:

> Widely agreed?  Among whom? Certainly not Q specialists. I know of
no Q
> scholar who postulates "an early tradition about Jesus' birth that
both Luke
> and Matt knew in different forms and independently expanded upon."
The
> common elements in the Matthean & Lukan birth narratives have the
character
> of random tidbits of information that are better accounted for on
grounds
> other than a common "tradition about Jesus' birth."

Hello Malhon

I would agree that no scholar I am familiar with links the Birth
Narrative (BN) with "Q", but in many ways, this simply highlights the
arbitrary nature of how Q is generally (but necessarily) defined. In
any event, I agree that it is extremely unlikely that Matt and Luke
created their stories of Jesus' birth using the same sources, and
they certainly did not use one another.  Yet, I am not fully
convinced by what you have said below, so, if I may:

> 1. Details such as the names of Mary & Joseph are simple basic
biographical
> info that anyone who knew of the Galilean Jew named Yeshu bar Yosef
could
> have gleaned from oral tradition that had nothing to do with his
birth.  The
> fact that Matt 2 & Luke 2 present conflicting traditions explaining
Jesus
> ties to Nazareth make it unlikely that they were working from a
common
> tradition about his origins.

This is one of the powerful arguments against Matt and Luke using a
similar source, and as the name Mary is known to Mark, and Joseph to
John, then we can be reasonably safe in assuming that early
traditions did give us this bit of biographical information.

> 2. Mark's thesis of the messianic secret provided plenty of
theological
> motivation for Matt & Luke to compose birth narratives *de novo*
since the
> Markan story of Jesus' private vision after his baptism is not very
> convincing evidence that Jesus was in fact "Son of God" or
motivated by the
> HS -- both important claims of Xn christological apologetics long
before the
> composition of any gospel narrative (witness Paul).

While you may be correct that Mark does not, in the eyes of Matt and
Luke, do a credible enough job of establishing Jesus as the Son of
God, there can be little doubt from reading Mark's narrative, that
the author did believe this to be true.  And at the same time, we
must keep in mind that Mark's thesis did not rest solely upon the
messianic secret motif.  He was most concerned with Jesus as the
Messiah/Christ, and as the Son of Man, so one need not place too much
emphasis on this particular shortcoming in Mark's Gospel.  Mark does
not really speculate on the "when" of Jesus gaining his Messiahship.
His focus is that Jesus is the Messiah, period. Further, given Paul's
letters, as you have pointed out, Jesus' identity as the Son of God
was already well established by the time Mark put quill to papyrus,
so it should not come as a great surprise that he was less concerned
with establishing this fact to his readers in any case.

> As a hedge against
> christological skeptics not likely to be convinced by the Markan
origins
> scenario, Matt & Luke demonstrably developed quite independent
background
> plots to illustrate that Jesus was *literally* Son of God & filled
with the
> HS from his very conception. Neither would need to have access to a
common
> birth tradition to develop these trajectories. All each would need
is a
> higher christology than Mark's adoptionism & the inventive mindset
of an
> apologist.

Unfortunately, we do not really know what the "christological
sceptics" might have been thinking about in the mid to late 1st
Century C.E.  On that basis it is difficult, if not impossible to
speculate as to the exact motivations for why Luke and Matt
independently recorded Jesus' birth story as they did.  From Paul,
and from Mark, we know that Jesus is accepted the Christ, as the Son
of God, and the Son of Man.  In all likelihood, the creedal formula
found in Philippians 2:5-11 was sufficiently well known by the early
Church to have established Jesus as Son of God, at least from the
time that he was "born in the likeness of men".  Luke and Matthew
appear to be fleshing out the details found in this creed, and doing
so from a sources that could easily have existed from before Paul.

> 3. The only other common details in the Matthean & Lukan birth
narratives
> (Bethlehem & the virgin motif) are easily accounted for as
apologetical
> inferences from the Hebrew Bible *in Greek translation.* Matt
himself is
> evidence that Micah 5:2 & Isa 7:14 were proof texts that could be
cited by
> any Hellenistic Xn who argued that Jesus was the Messiah predicted
in
> biblical prophecy. While that was not Luke's main agenda, one can
assume
> that as an educated Hellenist who claims to have followed closely
the
> preaching of those who were "ministers of the word" he would have
been well
> aware of such texts & taken them for granted in composing his birth
story
> from scratch.

Bob has already shown that Matt and Luke share several more details
in their BN's than Jesus' parents, Bethlehem, and the virgin
conception, so I will not elaborate on that point here.  But your
belief that Luke may have known and used Isaiah 7:14 as a silent
proof text for explaining the virgin conception is quite astonishing
in my view.  If Luke did have such an understanding of this text
(from the LXX), and did not get it from Matt (as seems likely), even
to the point that Luke could simply "take it for granted", then later
Jewish apologetics from the 4th Century on is clearly misleading.
Their argument has always been that Isaiah 7:14 can never be read as
meaning a virgin conceptions, especially one in the (for Isaiah) far
distant future.  Yet, using your reasoning here, we would have two
separate 1st Century exegetes drawing the same conclusion, that it
did mean such a thing, and that their understanding was so common
that one of them could simply assume it.  Later Jewish denials of
this fact would be nothing more than a polemical attack on an
interpretation of Isaiah that was at least reasonably common in the
1st Century.

Personally, I think it is extremely unlikely that Luke knew of Isaiah
7:14 as a specific Messianic prophecy.  He certainly would not have
built his story "de novo" on such a flimsy reed without justifying
it.  More likely is that he was aware of the virgin conception story
from an earlier source, and that this source was not the one used by
Matthew.

> 4. The oft-made claim that Luke traces Jesus' birth to Herod's
reign as does
> Matt is simply an unfounded inference, since Herod is never
mentioned in
> Luke 2.  The only reference to Herod the Great in Luke's birth
narratives is
> in Lk 1:5 where it is presented as the general time frame when
*Zechariah*
> lived. Herod is never again mentioned in Luke's stories of the
angelic
> annunciation of Elizabeth's conception or JB's birth, much less
Mary's
> conception or the birth of Jesus. Since Matt does not have the
story of JB's
> birth & Luke reports none of the actions of Herod that Matt
describes, it is
> fallacious to argue that there is a common tradition of a Herodian
time
> frame behind the Matthean & Lukan infancy narratives. Luke 2:1-2
provides a
> very explicit detailed time frame for Jesus' birth & that is
demonstrably
> post-Herodian.  For all we can tell from Luke's narrative he may
even have
> thought that Jesus' conception precipitated Herod's death, since he
plays up
> the theme of the demise of kings in Mary's Magnificat (Lk 1:52 -
  "He has
> brought down the powerful from their thrones").

Since Matthew (writing independently of Luke and Luke's sources)
clearly places Jesus' birth at the time of Herod the Great, and Luke
tells us in Luke 3:1, 23 that Jesus was about 30 years old when he
began his ministry (ca. 27-29CE) it is most reasonable to link the
Lucan reference to Herod in Luke 1 to the timeframe of Jesus' birth
given to us in Luke 2.

I think it is naïve to assume the dates given in Luke 1:1-2 over the
other clearer temporal markers given to us in Luke 1 and 3, and the
simpler solution is to ascribe either an error to Luke's reference to
the census of 6CE, or motivations outside of simply dating the birth
of Jesus.  In my own view, I see the census as a device used by Luke
to place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, a piece of data he had
independent of the census.

Looking at the text, as well as Luke's overall motives in writing his
gospel we can see that Luke wanted to establish the following:

1) Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph
2) Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit while still a virgin
3) Jesus was named, circumcised and consecrated to God in Jerusalem,
and according to the Law of Moses
4) He was recognized as the Messiah in Jerusalem by a righteous,
devout and Spirit filled man, Simeon, as well as by an especially
holy and wise woman (prphetess?), Anna, even as a new born infant
5) Only after all of this was completed did Jesus and his family
return to Nazareth

The historicity of any of the above events is beside the point here.
Luke's objective was to establish each of the above "truths" in his
BN, and the means by which he brings it about both logically and
geographically is through the census.

> Thus, there is no textual evidence of a common birth tradition
behind Matt &
> Luke. Those who assume there was have to be prepared to explain
every
> divergence in the synoptic birth accounts as a deliberate
idiosyncratic
> "correction" of earlier tradition by either author (or both).
The "star" &
> "magi" remain exclusively Matthean motifs.  Speculation about a
basis for
> either detail in earlier tradition also has to be prepared to
explain why
> such a dramatic celestial portent would have been totally ignored
(or
> deliberately suppressed) by all other 1st c. Xn writers in an age
that
> regarded such phenomena as divine proof of the historic importance
of a
> person or event.

I agree fully that the evidence is insufficient to theorize that Matt
or Luke knew of the other's BN traditions in composing their works.
The divergences far out weigh the similarities.  But to then
postulate that the evangelists wrote their entire works de novo,
especially as regards the detail of the virgin conception is, in my
judgement, incredible.  Both men knew certain details from their
earlier sources, and based on the evidence (even as we set aside the
question of historicity of any of them), we can say with a reasonable
degree of probability the following existed in the earlier sources of
both Matthew and Luke's Birth Narratives:

1. The parents are Mary and Joseph [cf: Mark 6:3, John 1:45, 6:42]
who are legally engaged or married, but have not yet come to live
together or have sexual relations (Matt 1:18;  Luke 1:27,34 )
2. Jesus is of Davidic descent (Matt 1:16,20; Luke 1:27,32; 2:4
[cf. Mark 10:47, Romans 1:3-4]
3. There is an angelic announcement of the forthcoming birth of the
child (Matt 1:20-23; Luke 1:30-35)
4. The conception of the child by Mary is not through intercourse
with her husband (Matt 1:20,23,25; Luke 1:34)
5. The conception is through the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:18,20; Luke 1:35)
6. There is a directive from the angel that the child is to be named
Jesus (Matt 1:21; Luke 1:31)
7. An angel states that Jesus is to be Savior (Matt 1:21; Luke 2:11)
8. The birth of the child takes place after the parents have come to
live together (Matt 1:24-25; Luke 2:5-6)
9. The birth takes place at Bethlehem (Matt 2:1; Luke 2:4-6)
10. The birth is chronologically related to the reign (days) of Herod
the Great (Matt 2:1; Luke 1:5, also Luke 3:1, 23)
11. The child is reared at Nazareth (Matt 2:23; Luke 2:39, also
Mark 1:24, 10:47, John 1:45)

As a note, I offer the references to Mark and John only when they
give us a clear indication of sources that are independent of (and
probably earlier than) Matthew or Luke.  I am not saying that John
predates the Synoptics, though he may.

Peace,

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

"Thomas R. W. Longstaff" wrote:

> If anyone knows of such maps, please reply to the list. Although this query
> is off-topic for Synoptic-L, it is something that will be of interest to
> many of us and, I think, this message itself is quite acceptable for
> Synoptic-L. Nevertheless, I would advise against a discussion of map
> technology on Synoptic-L although information about where maps such as the
> one Jeffrey wants would, in my mind, be acceptable.

A hobbit friend of mine, whose selflessness in doing research for me always
amazes me, has found a page that speaks to some of what I was hoping for. It may
be found at:



http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~atlas/europe/maps.html

You will need the Shockwave plug-in to view the animated maps.  Maps requiring
that are so noted.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...

Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

> A hobbit friend of mine, whose selflessness in doing research for me
always
> amazes me, has found a page that speaks to some of what I was hoping
for. It may
> be found at:
>
>
>
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~atlas/europe/maps.html
>

Hobbits really are amazing creatures, as I have said before.  You can
learn all there is to know about their ways in a month, and yet after
a hundred years they can still surprise you at a pinch.  I hardly
expected to get such an answer ;-)

Best Wishes,

Ken

Kenneth A. Olson
Graduate Teaching Assistant
Department of History
2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
kaolson@...

I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything - T.H.
Huxley

Bob Schacht wrote:

> Rather than respond item by item to your strenuous attempt to refute any
> common tradition to both Matthew and Luke, I here provide Raymond Brown's
> list of 11 points shared by the two infancy narratives (Birth of the
> Messiah, 1977, p. 34f.):

Having just finished grading 150 final exams I can take a breather to wish
all a happy New Year & reply (briefly I hope) to Bob's citation of Ray
Brown.

First let me point out that my prior post was framed only as an ad hoc
reaction to Mark Cameron's argument tracing the star of Bethlehem to a
hypothesized common pre-synoptic "tradition about Jesus' birth." It was not
intended to be an exhaustive comparative analysis of the infancy narratives
much less a critique of Brown's *Birth of the Messiah.* I have neither time
nor interest in pursuing either right now. I'm afraid, other projects are
more pressing. But since Bob has put Brown's list of 11 alleged "common
points" in Matt 2 & Luke 2 on the table, here's my comments one those items.

First, it should be kept in mind that Brown himself formulated these points
& that they are not the sort of verbatim or structural parallels in Matt &
Luke that could be cited as evidence of these two synoptists working from a
preformed common *birth story* (a more precise term than "infancy narrative"
since infancy covers several years of life). Second, several of the common
details are isolated words loaded with christological /messianic
significance (e.g., Davidic descent, Holy Spirit, Bethlehem) at least some
of which are found in pre-synoptic christological formulae that have nothing
to do with any birth story or  infancy tradition about Jesus (e.g., Rom
1:3-4). Others are narrativized elaborations of the virgin motif of  LXX Is
7:14 or traditional features of ancient Jewish/Xn hagiographic story-telling
(angel). Others were basic biographical data about HJ that was public
knowledge apart from any birth story (Mary, Joseph, Nazareth).  Finally,
Herod was the well-known name of a long-lived infamous ruler which any first
c. writer who had any sense of history could invoke to give a story
historical verisimilitude. I readily admit that all these items were part of
pre-synoptic tradition. What I deny, however, is that these had coalesced to
form a common tradition about HJ's birth prior to the composition of
independent infancy narratives by Matt & Luke. One would have to be able to
produce evidence of the structure of a common narrative behind Matt 1-2 &
Luke 1-2 to convince me of that.

Now for Brown's points:

> 1. The parents to be are Mary and Joseph who are legally engaged or
> married, but have not yet come to live together or have sexual relations
> (Matt 1:18;  Luke 1:27,34).

This is a paraphrase of Matt; the Lukan verses stress Mary's virginity
without mentioning cohabitation. In either case this point is historicized
christology rather than pre-natal biography. If it were the latter one would
be hard pressed to explain why GJohn makes no reference to it.

HJ's mother's name was widely known to be Mary. As a Palestinian Jew he was
also probably known by a patronym (in this case as "son of Joseph"). But it
became axiomatic for early Xns even before Paul that Jesus was to be
proclaimed "Son of God" (Gal 1:15). Therefore, the identification of Jesus
as "son of Joseph" became christologically problematic for some literal
minded Xns. For people generally think that a person can have only one true
father. If God was to be affirmed as Jesus' only *real* father then it had
to be explained how he came to be known as "son of Joseph" in a way that
precluded the possibility of Joseph's paternity. Since almost all marriages
in the ancient world were arranged when people reached puberty, the dating
of Jesus' conception to the period of his parent's betrothal, coupled with
insistence that they had not yet had intercourse, provided a natural logical
explanation that could have easily occurred to different theologically
motivated authors who were working on the same problem with the same minimal
biographical data (HJ's parents' names). Whether this was an instance of
simultaneous discovery of the same solution by totally independent
researchers (as often happens) or whether it had already begun to circulate
among "preachers of the word" that influenced Luke and Matt is impossible to
determine.

  > 2. Joseph is of Davidic descent (Matt 1:16,20; Luke 1:27,32; 2:4 [cf.
> Romans 1:3-4]

Davidic descent was practically axiomatic for any messianic candidate in
ancient Judaism. And Jews historically traced lineages through the paternal
line (with names of mothers often passing unknown). The fact is Matt & Luke
do not provide Joseph with the same lineage & even disagree on the name of
his own father (HJ's legal grandfather). Thus it is evident that they were
not working from common genealogical information. Joseph's Davidic descent
is again fundamentally a christological development since it enabled Xns
(after Mark) to assert that Jesus was in fact (legally) "of the line of
David" & hence a legitimate candidate for the messianic figure alluded to in
various passages of Hebrew scripture.

> 3. There is an angelic announcement of the forthcoming birth of the child
> (Matt 1:20-23; 1:30-35).

This is an abstraction from two completely different narratives of
revelations to Joseph on the one hand (Matt) & Mary on the other (Luke)
using the time-honored convention of divine announcements in Jewish
story-telling. It overlooks the great differences in the Matthean & Lukan
narratives. Matt's "angelos" is non-personified voice that Joseph hears in a
dream. Luke's is the archangel Gabriel who is deputized to visit Mary much
like the angelic visitors to Abraham & Sarah who announced Isaac's birth.
There is no common narrative tradition behind these two stories.

> 4. The conception of the child by Mary is not through intercourse with her
> husband (Matt 1:20,23,25; Luke 1:34)

This is not really a separate point but simply a reiteration of Brown's
first point. Cf. my response to that.

> 5. The conception is through the Holy Spirit ( Matt 1:18,20; Luke 1:35).

Again historicized christology. Rom 1:4 stands near the beginning of this
theological trajectory with the HS proclaimed as the agent in Jesus'
resurrection from the dead. Mark links that moment to his baptism. Matt &
Luke are the *first* authors to associate the HS with Jesus' conception.
Again it matters not whether this was the result of independent
brainstorming on their part or the result of each drawing on a later stage
of christological argumentation that prevented any period in Jesus' life as
being interpreted as devoid of the HS. The point is it is not common
tradition about Jesus' conception known to Paul, Mark or the author(s) of
GJohn (where the HS is given/sent only by the resurrected Jesus).

> 6. There is a directive from the angel that the child is to be named Jesus
> (Matt 1:21; Luke 1:31)

What name would you expect? The fact is this person was named Yeshua. If
anyone asked who gave him that name & why, it would be natural for Jewish
Xns to claim that God did because of the inherent theophorous connotations
of the root name Yeho-shua (YHWH saves).  And angels were the conventional
agents for conveying divine intentions.

> 7. An angel states that Jesus is to be Savior (Matt 1:21; Luke 2:11)

This is simply a Hellenistic christological inference base on etymology of
Yeho-SHUA. The use of the fish (IXQYS) by early Xns as a visible creed shows
that the identification of Jesus as "Son of God" (QEOU YIOS) & "Savior"
(SOTHR) was a common christological formulation without any reference to a
birth story. In this case, Matt & Luke are simply providing a historicized
explanation of the common creed of Greek speaking Xns in the latter part of
the 1st c. CE.

> 8. The birth of the child takes place after the parents have come to live
> together (Matt 1:24-25; Luke 2:5-6)

Which explains why HJ would have been known as "son of Joseph" but also
protects him from the stigma of being an obvious *mamzer* (bastard), which
would have led to ostracization by religious Jews & prevented him from being
accepted as Messiah.

> 9. The birth takes place at Bethlehem (Matt 2:1; Luke 2:4-6)

An obvious Davidic motif (Micah 5:2). The important thing is that Matt &
Luke totally disagree about how Joseph & Mary came to be there when Jesus
was born. Matt assumes they had a house there (which a star could "stand
over") which they left only because they were warned to flee from Herod & to
which they did not return only because they feared Archelaus. Luke just as
explicitly assumes that Joseph & Mary were residents of Nazareth who made
the 100+ mile temporary trek to Bethlehem only because of Quirinius' census.
He explicitly stresses that they found no regular lodging there & returned
to Nazareth little more than a week after HJ's birth (Luke 2:7, 39). There
is certainly no "common" tradition of Jesus birth behind such contradictory
scenarios.

> 10. The birth is chronologically related to the reign (days) of Herod the
> Great (Matt 2:1; Luke 1:5)

Denied. Luke 1:5 dates Zechariah's priesthood to Herod's reign. Herod is
never mentioned in Luke in conjunction with Jesus' birth. See my previous
post for more on this.

> 11. The child is reared at Nazareth (Matt 2:23; Luke 2:39)

But again Matt & Luke have no common narrative element that accounts for
this. The assumption that Jesus grew up in Nazareth is simply a normal
deduction from the fact that he was known as Jesus (bar Joseph) of Nazareth.

> I think it is rather unlikely that Matthew and Luke independently invented
> all of these parallels.

IMHO *if* they were dependent on any earlier "tradition" it was in the
character of christological assertions rather than historical narration.

Shalom!

Mahlon

Mahlon H. Smith
Department of Religion
Rutgers University
New Brunswick NJ 08901

http://religion.rutgers.edu/profiles/mh_smith.html

Synoptic Gospels Primer
http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/

Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/

At 06:51 PM 1/3/02 -0500, Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
>Bob Schacht wrote, after listing Raymond Brown's common elements of the
>Infancy (sic.: Brown's term) narratives:
>
> > I think it is rather unlikely that Matthew and Luke independently invented
> > all of these parallels.
>
>IMHO *if* they were dependent on any earlier "tradition" it was in the
>character of christological assertions rather than historical narration.

You are conflating two issues here. My assertion was that Matthew and Luke
seem to be drawing from a common *source.* I did not claim that it was an
*historical* narration, although it might include historically useful
information. It may be that the common source was primarily Christological
in nature.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, and may you have a very happy new
year!

Bob


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have a vague memory of sending out a message on this matter before, so
forgive me if I'm being redundant. But has any List Member taught an HJ
course using the Theissen and Merz text? If so, I'd be **very**
interested in seeing --ASAP - the syllabus you created for your course.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...

Leon Albert wrote on December 28, 2001:

>   I appreciated your analysis, Ted. I wondered about the relevance of Levi
Strauss's contention that the same myths frequently, even invariably, appear
in a diversity of forms while displaying the same underlying structure. This
too would seem contradictory to Bailey's fidelity of transmission thesis,
within a broader cross-cultural context. Thus, Bailey appears to be guilty
of a form of special pleading with respect to Christian mythology. Would you
not agree?

Leon, I have been away and just returned to answer my e-mail.   Thank you
for your response to my critique of Bailey's theory.  With regard to Levi
Strauss vis-a-vis Bailey's theory, I think I understand the point you are
making.   However, it would be helpful if you would elaborate further what
you have in mind.

Yours,

Ted

> >Bob Schacht wrote, after listing Raymond Brown's common elements of the
> >Infancy (sic.: Brown's term) narratives:
> >
> > > I think it is rather unlikely that Matthew and Luke independently
invented
> > > all of these parallels.

I countered:

> >IMHO *if* they were dependent on any earlier "tradition" it was in the
> >character of christological assertions rather than historical narration.
.

To which Bob replied:

> You are conflating two issues here. My assertion was that Matthew and Luke
> seem to be drawing from a common *source.* I did not claim that it was an
> *historical* narration, although it might include historically useful
> information. It may be that the common source was primarily Christological
> in nature.

I'm not ready to concede a "common source" behind Matt & Luke's account of
Jesus' birth either, since this implies that these gospel stories are
traceable to a single coherent preformed pattern of information whether
textual or oral. I don't regard that as an accurate analysis of two
narratives which weave a handful of common motifs into mutually
contradictory scenarios. There simply is no isolatable "common source"
behind the Matthean & Lukan birth narratives either akin to the Q material
or to the Johannine Signs Gospel. All one has here is a few of  the same
christologically loaded ideas that are developed by twp authors in opposite
directions. That only shows that Matt & Luke were writing at the same stage
of early christological speculation & were free to creatively develop a few
of the same ideas into quite different scenarios without fear of being
charged with distorting the details of prior tradition about HJ's birth.

If anyone cares to credit a hodgepodge of loosely related key words such as
Mary, Joseph, betrothed, virgin, Jesus, son of God, Savior, Holy Spirit,
Davidic descent, Bethlehem, Nazareth & angel to a "common source," I simply
ask that person to try to reconstruct how these terms were linked in that
hypothesized source that permitted Matt & Luke to write what each in fact
did.  I think the most one can come up with is that the Jesus who was known
as son of Joseph & Mary and grew up in Nazareth was "really" (a) Son of God
& (as his name implied) Savior because he was filled with the HS from the
moment of his conception & (b) satisfied predictions of a Davidic messiah
born in Bethlehem. Moreover, the Matthean & Lukan insistence on Mary's
virginity at the time of Jesus' conception (and the lack of this motif in
Mark & John) is a valuable clue for tracing the "source" of this information
to a rather late *Hellenized* Sitz that was influenced by the LXX version of
Isa 7:14. In short, this represents not so much a "common birth tradition"
or even a "common source" traceable to the cultural Sitz in which HJ was
probably born so much as a common thread of apologetic argumentation by two
rather late Greek-speaking Xn authors writing about the same (rather late)
period in the evolution of the Greek-speaking church's christology.

*If* one posits a "common birth tradition" or a "common source" behind Matt
& Luke's narratives then one has to be prepared to explain (a) how/why Matt
and/or Luke were able to take such liberty with it as to come up with
historically conflicting interpretations & (b) why both Mark & John show no
knowledge of key elements in that traditional "source" (Mary's virginity,
conception by the HS, Jesus' birth in Bethlehem). That was the point
concerning analysis of the probable history of a trajectory of information
(my specialization as a historian of ideas) that led me to get sucked into
this thread in the first place.

Shalom!

Mahlon

Mahlon H. Smith
Department of Religion
Rutgers University
New Brunswick NJ 08901

http://religion.rutgers.edu/profiles/mh_smith.html

Synoptic Gospels Primer
http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/

Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/

----- Original Message -----
   From: Ted Weeden
   To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:44 PM
   Subject: Re: [XTalk] Critique errors


   Leon Albert wrote on December 28, 2001:

   >   I appreciated your analysis, Ted. I wondered about the relevance of Levi
   Strauss's contention that the same myths frequently, even invariably, appear
   in a diversity of forms while displaying the same underlying structure. This
   too would seem contradictory to Bailey's fidelity of transmission thesis,
   within a broader cross-cultural context. Thus, Bailey appears to be guilty
   of a form of special pleading with respect to Christian mythology. Would you
   not agree?

   Leon, I have been away and just returned to answer my e-mail.   Thank you
   for your response to my critique of Bailey's theory.  With regard to Levi
   Strauss vis-a-vis Bailey's theory, I think I understand the point you are
   making.   However, it would be helpful if you would elaborate further what
   you have in mind.

   Yours,

   Ted

   Ted,
   I was refering to the fact that in Levi-Strauss's structuralist approach to
the analyses of myth, he not only saw similar underlying structures in myths
from different cultures, he also noted that the same myth within a particular
culture would occure in a diversity of forms. If this is true, it would speak
against Bailey's thesis, unless Bailey is holding that his thesis only applies
to the culture area with which he is dealing.

   This would also go to your criticism that Bailey fails to consult experts in
orality to test his thesis. You cite Kebler and his predecessors, along with
Scott, as seeing oral transmission very differently from Bailey. I suggest that
Bailey's theory would also be contradicted by the observations of Levi-Strauss.
Fidelity of transmission cannot be reconciled with myths occuring in a diversity
of forms. Thus, insofar as Bailey's thesis is an "exceptional case" restricted
to his cluster of Middle East villages, and "extrapolated" to include
transmission of the Jesus tradition, it appears to be an exercise in special
pleading directed toward preserving a particular religious tradition.

   Thanks,

   Leon Albert


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:46:21 -0500
>From: Matthew Collins <matthew.collins@...>
>Subject: Call for Papers
>Organization: Society of Bilbical Literature
>
>Dear Colleague:
>
>The SBL 2002 Call for Papers is available on the SBL Web site.
>
>Papers proposals, including abstract and AV, will be made through the
>web-site this year.  Please go to the following link to view the 2002 Call
>and to propose a paper:
>
>http://www.sbl-site2.org/Congresses/AM/AM_Call_Front_Page.php3
>
>If you have questions regarding a particular program unit, please email
>the Program Unit Chair directly.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------
>Matthew S. Collins
>Director of Congresses
>Society of Biblical Literature
>825 Houston Mill Road, Suite 350
>Atlanta, GA 30329
>P. 404.727.3095
>F. 404.727.3101
>E. matthew.collins@...
>W. www.sbl-site.org
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------

Leon Albert wrote on December 28, 2001:

>   >   I appreciated your analysis, Ted. I wondered about the relevance of
Levi
>   Strauss's contention that the same myths frequently, even invariably,
appear
>   in a diversity of forms while displaying the same underlying structure.
This
>   too would seem contradictory to Bailey's fidelity of transmission
thesis,
>   within a broader cross-cultural context. Thus, Bailey appears to be
guilty
>   of a form of special pleading with respect to Christian mythology. Would
you
>   not agree?

I replied on January 3, 2002:

>. With regard to Levi-Strauss vis-a-vis Bailey's theory, I think I
understand
>  the point you are  >   making.   However, it would be helpful if you
would
>  elaborate further what you have in mind.

Leon wrote on January 4, 2002:

>   Ted,
>   I was refering to the fact that in Levi-Strauss's structuralist approach
to the analyses of myth, he not only saw similar underlying structures in
myths from different cultures, he also noted that the same myth within a
particular culture would occure in a diversity of forms. If this is true, it
would speak against Bailey's thesis, unless Bailey is holding that his
thesis only applies to the culture area with which he is dealing.
>
>   This would also go to your criticism that Bailey fails to consult
experts in orality to test his thesis. You cite Kebler and his predecessors,
along with Scott, as seeing oral transmission very differently from Bailey.
I suggest that Bailey's theory would also be contradicted by the
observations of Levi-Strauss. Fidelity of transmission cannot be reconciled
with myths occuring in a diversity of forms. Thus, insofar as Bailey's
thesis is an "exceptional case" restricted to his cluster of Middle East
villages, and "extrapolated" to include transmission of the Jesus tradition,
it appears to be an exercise in special pleading directed toward preserving
a particular religious tradition.

Thanks, Leon, for elaborating further on your point with respect to
Levi-Strauss vis-a-vis Bailey's theory.   Bailey, of course, at least as I
understand him, would not accept the fact that the Jesus oral tradition
prior to the textuality of the Synoptics has any thing to do with Christian
myth.  Rather, he is confident that the oral tradition is historically
authentic, at least at its core.   Levi Strauss, as you point out, along
with Bultmann and many others, would severly challenge Bailey's confidence,
a la C. H. Dodd, that the Jesus oral tradition is basically reliably
authentic.   In citing Levi-Strauss, you have provided yet one more damaging
blow to Bailey's theory.

Ted Weeden

Recently, we discussed Bailey's use of a story about a wedding, at which
the groom was accidently shot (I have temporarily misplaced the story, or
I'd quote it.) It was said that the community, rather than telling the
police that "Mr. X shot Mr. Y," first formulated a version that "Mr. X held
a rifle. He lowered it. It discharged, killing Mr. Y," the intent evidently
being to exonerate Mr. X.

Tonight while watching CNN, a headline bar scrolled across the bottom of
the screen to the effect that a child picked up his father's loaded gun--
and then that "it" fired, killing his father, the intent evidently being to
avoid blaming the child for shooting his father.

Hmmm.

[But USA Today is not so delicate:
>Rookie cop killed by 3-year-old
>Officer's son grabbed gun from kitchen table and shot his father.
The link is supposed to be
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/04/policeman-killed.htm
but I get a loading error when I try to go there. I can't find a link on
CNN.com for this story.]

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert M. Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Philonic influence


> At 08:57 AM 12/24/01, McCoy wrote:
>
> >[Frank]
> >
> >...The bottom line:  What you are telling me is that, for me to give the
> >readers, including yourself, an adequate reason for thinking that these
> >sayings *ought* to be interpreted in terms of Philonic thought, I must do
> >what is impossible for me to do, i.e., demonstrate that uniquely Philonic
> >ideas are present in these saying attributed to Jesus.
> >
> >Setting the bar much lower, what are your requirements for me to give the
> >readers, including yourself,  adequate reason for thinking that these
> >saying*might* have been influenced by Philonic thought?
>
> Frank,
> First, Merry Christmas! I wish you all the best in this holiday season,
and
> a Happy New Year!
>

Bob, a Happy New Year to you as well!

[Bob]
> What I was saying is that it is not enough for an idea to be plausible.
The
> evidence for it must be greater than for rival hypotheses, such as that
the
> ideas to which you refer could just as easily have been derived from
> OT/Apocrypha sources.
> The issue is this:
> Let's say, for a given passage, you show that it bears a similarity to
> thoughts, words, etc. in Philonic thought.
> Then, say, Loren comes along and says that for the same passage, he can
> show that it bears an equal similarity to thoughts, words, etc. in the OT,
> or in other pre-Christian Jewish literature of the apocrypha. How are we
to
> decide between your proposal and "Loren's"? Unless you can show that the
> similarity is to *unique*  aspects of Philonic thought, or to unique
> sequences of words in Philonic thought, then I don't see any objective or
> definitive way for us to choose between the rival hypotheses, and it
> becomes merely a matter of which theory we "like." The "bar" I am
proposing
> is not really so unreasonably high. I am only asking what any critical
> scholar would ask of an alleged literary dependence of one source on
> another. If you are not claiming literary dependence, then exactly what is
> it that you are claiming? And how can we tell which hypothesis is to be
> preferred-- e.g., Philonic influence vs. OT/Apocrypha influence?

[Frank]
I am not trying to base the argument that Philonic thought influenced the
thought of the real Jesus on literary dependency.  Even if Jesus
had come to some knowledge about Philonic thought by reading some of his
works (as opposed to learning about Philonic thought from one
or more tutors), it is highly unlikely that, when speaking before crowds of
peasants or, even, speaking to his disciples, Jesus would have made
statements that have a literary dependency on Philo.  Further, ISTM, even if
it could be proved that a saying attributed to Jesus has a literary
dependency on Philo, this all but guarantees that this saying is either the
invention of an early Christian or else a corrupt version of a saying that
originated with Jesus.  I say this because it is *highly improbable* that a
saying of Jesus originally uttered by him with sufficient evidence in its
wording to demonstrate a literary dependence on Philo would have been orally
transmitted through many people with sufficient accuracy to preserve enough
of  the evidence of literary dependence for us to recognize it.  So, the
bottom line, ISTM. is this: It is unlikely that Jesus, even if he had read
some works of Philo, made any oral statements that had a literary dependence
on Philo and, even if he had, any such oral statements would not have been
orally transmitted with sufficient fidelity to preserve the evidence of the
literary dependence.

Now, given the condition you stipulate (i.e., the analysis of a single
passage), unless one of the two hypotheses can be proven to be invalid, both
remain valid hypotheses.  Due to the subjective factors that go into the
weighing of the evidence, two people might look at the same evidence and one
conclude that it favors the Philonic influence hypothesis while the other
concludes that it favors the OT/Apocrypha influence hypothesis.  That's the
way, ISTM, things work in the real world of research into passages in the
NT--rarely is there a knockout blow or, even, a TKO that enables one
hypothesis to be declared the undisputed champion and a split decision is
very common..  .

Having said this, I would like to add that, ISTM, in the postulated
situation you pose, there are at least  seven hypotheses that should be
entertained.  These are: (1) the hypothesis that the saying reflects
Philonic thought, (2) the hypothesis that the saying is based on OT/
Apocryphal passages as interpreted in terms of Philonic thought, (3) the
hypothesis that the saying is based on first century CE non-Philonic
thought, (4) the hypothesis that the saying is based on OT/Apocryphal
passages as interpreted in terms of non-Philonic first century CE thought,
(5) the hypothesis that the saying reflects a mixture of Philonic thought
and non-Philonic first century CE thought), (6) the hypothesis that the
saying is based on OT/Apocryphal passages as interpreted in terms of a
mixture of Philonic thought and non-Philonic first century CE thought, and
(7) the hypothesis that the saying is solely based on the BCE thought found
in the OT/Apocrypha. Logically, many more hypotheses are feasible.  Your
dualism of (1) vs. (7) is, ISTM,  grossly inadequate and, what is even more
important, can mislead the unwary into thinking that Philonic thought and
OT/Apocryphal thought are mutually exclusive.  Actually, almost all the
elements of Philonic thought (including his concepts of Sophia and the
Logos), have roots in the Septuagint--which contains both the OT and the
Apocrypha--and many of his essays are permeated with citations from the
Septuagint.

When one goes beyond the analysis of one saying attributed to Jesus to the
generic level of all sayings attributed to Jesus, it could very well be the
case that both the hypothesis that Jesus was influenced by OT/Apocryphal
thought and the hypothesis that Jesus was influenced by Philonic thought are
true.  Of course, even if it could be demonstrated that both are true, there
still would remain the question of the relative degree of influence of each
on Jesus.

I would also like to add that, when it comes to a general hypothesis, such
as the hypothesis that the real Jesus of history had been influenced by
Philonic thought, the question of whether a particular saying attributed to
Jesus has been influenced by Philonic thought is but a skirmish in a much
more general war.  So, even if the battle is lost on that one saying, it has
little outcome on the war itself.  Further, as the number of sayings
attributed to Jesus that are consistent with this hypothesis increase, the
probability that the hypothesis is correct also increases.  This is
particularly true of sayings that are most likely to be primitive (The
problem here, of course, is that it is difficult to get a consensus, on any
one given saying, as to how primitive it is.  Still, with some, such as the
Parable of the Mustard Seed, there does seem to be close to general
agreement that it probably is primitive).

Finally, I would like to point out that, on past posts to X-talk, I have
made at least three very specific hypotheses regarding the possible
influence of Philonic thought on Jesus.  One is that the real Jesus of
history believed himself to be Philo's Logos incarnate in the flesh.  The
second is that the real Jesus of history took what he called the Kingdom to
be what Philo called Wisdom and, since Philo deemed the virtues/words of God
to be of the very self of Wisdom, to also be what Philo called the
virtues/words of God.  The third is that the real Jesus of history knew of,
and accepted, Philo's idea that the virtues/words of God can grow and
multiply in receptive human souls.  The first hypothesis hasn't been
challenged in any serious sense.  The second and third have been challanged,
but no one has yet been able to demonstrate that either one must be wrong
or, ISTM, even demonstrated that either one is weaker than any other rival
hypothesis.  Indeed, ISTM, no rival hypothesis has been put forward which
explains the over-all evidence as well as either one of these two
hypotheses.

[Frank]
> >...Cumulative effect can be telling.  As the number of Philonic ideas to
be
> >found in sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels increases, the
> >probability that Philonic thought influenced at least some of these
sayings
> >increases....

[Bob]
> But you are assuming what is to be proved. How do we really know that they
> are *Philonic* ideas? It does not follow equally that if enough ideas are
> *attributed* to Philonic thought, then does it really increase the
> probability that they actually were influenced by *Philonic* thought (and
> not by some common tradition)?

[Frank]
I am assuming nothing.  If an idea is present in Philonic thought, then it
is a Philonic idea.  This is a no brainer.

Of course, unless a Philonic idea is unique to Philonic thought, then it is
also the idea of one or more other systems of thought as well.  So, a
Philonic idea might also be an Essenic idea, a Sadducic idea, a Cynic idea,
etc..

The bottom line, while all Philonic ideas are found in Philonic thought,
almost all (if not all) Philonic ideas are also found outside of Philonic
thought and, therefore, the presence of a Philonic idea in a saying
attributed to Jesus is not necessarily the presence of Philonic thought in
that saying.  Indeed, rather, it is highly probable that it came to Jesus
through another system of thought, e.g., Essenic thought.

Still, ISTM, as the number of Philonic ideas in saying attributed to Jesus
increases, the probability that we are dealing with a genuine influence of
Philonic thought on this saying increases.  On a more generic level, ISTM,
as the percentage of Philonic ideas in sayings attributed to Jesus
increases, the probability that there is a genuine influence of Philonic
thought on these sayings increases.

[Bob]
> "Cumulative weight" counts in the Synoptics where there is sufficient
> word-for-word similarity between Matthew and Luke, on the one hand, and
> Mark on the other hand, to lend weight to the hypothesis that Matthew and
> Luke not only had access to pieces of GMark, but had the entire gospel at
> their disposal. The "weight" of the Access-to-GMark hypothesis accumulates
> because each item shows word-for-word correspondence, and there are many
> such items.

[Frank]
You appear to presume, here, that cumulative weight can *only* count where
similarity in written wording (i.e., literary dependency) can be proved.
By what line of reasoning do you arrive at this conclusion?

[Bob]
> I am not, in principle, opposed to the idea that Philonic thought
> influenced certain ideas in the NT. In fact, I suspect that Philonic
> thought has not usually been given as much consideration as it deserves,
> and that real influences existed. But maybe not as much consideration as
> you have proposed.  I do not agree that if you pile up enough half-baked
> ideas, they add up to a good idea.
>
[Frank]
Certainly, as Philonic thought was present in early first century CE
Judaism, and as the real Jesus had been an early first century CE Jew, there
is, in principle, the possibility that the real Jesus had been influenced by
Philonic thought.

Please amplify on your last sentence.  In particular, please give several
specific examples of the half-baked ideas you are referring to and identify
the one good idea that they do not add up to.


Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. #17
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

After being away from Sweden for almost four months in a row and passing through
countries like Spain, Jamaica, Marocco and Egypt it is a delight to be home
again and
finding that X-talk is still going strong. I was also delighted to see that
Mahlon is back on
the list after a long absence. I have a little quibble with a thing Mahlon wrote
a couple of days
ago.

> *If* one posits a "common birth tradition" or a "common source" behind Matt
> & Luke's narratives then one has to be prepared to explain (a) how/why Matt
> and/or Luke were able to take such liberty with it as to come up with
> historically conflicting interpretations & (b) why both Mark & John show no
> knowledge of key elements in that traditional "source" (Mary's virginity,
> conception by the HS, Jesus' birth in Bethlehem). That was the point
> concerning analysis of the probable history of a trajectory of information
> (my specialization as a historian of ideas) that led me to get sucked into
> this thread in the first place.

Although I don't believe in a common source behind the infancy narratives
(except
for Luke having read GMatthew and getting inspiration from that gospel) I don't
see
at all why the fact that GJohn has no infancy narrative would speak against the
hypothesis
that Matthew and Luke could have used a common "infancy" source. I am quite
convinced
that the author of GJohn knew the synoptics and was not the least unaware of
things like
Mary´s virginity, Jesus conception by the HS and his birth in Betlehem. But a
closer look
at John´s gospel and his special Johannine theology makes me think that John had
good
reasons for leaving out the infancy story from his narrative. First of all I
don´t think John
was very keen on repeating what others had already done - he is much too
imaginative for
that, as can be shown through the whole of the gospel where he subtly alludes to
the synoptic
tradition and refashions it. Secondly, since John as already from the start made
Jesus into the
pre-existent Logos who becomes flesh and decends to earth I do not think it
would suit his
purposes to repeat the synoptic infancy narraives. Jesus is already before
conception as spiritfilled
as anyone can get and it would be a kind of anticlimax to have him born in a
manger.

I would heartily like to recommend a recent book by James F. McGrath that has
functioned
as a real eyeopener to me and has made me see GJohn in a totally new light. The
name
of the book is "John´s apologetic christology - legitimation and development in
Johannine
christology" (Camebridge University press 2001). I don't think anyone has
explained as
convincingly as McGrath the reasons why the author of GJohn chose to create
Jesus the
way he did. He also puts John's peculiar christology into a firstcentury
cultural context that
makes almost all the previously puzzling pieces fall into place. A strength of
McGrath's book
is also that he has a keen eye for seeing the way John is interacting with the
synoptic tradition
and his reasons for leaving out things or going beyond the synoptic tradition.

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Göteborg, Sweden

At 10:13 AM 1/5/02 -0600, FMMCCOY wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert M. Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
>To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [XTalk] Philonic influence
>
>
>[Bob]
> > What I was saying is that it is not enough for an idea to be plausible.
>The
> > evidence for it must be greater than for rival hypotheses, such as that
>the
> > ideas to which you refer could just as easily have been derived from
> > OT/Apocrypha sources.
> > The issue is this:
> > Let's say, for a given passage, you show that it bears a similarity to
> > thoughts, words, etc. in Philonic thought.
> > Then, say, Loren comes along and says that for the same passage, he can
> > show that it bears an equal similarity to thoughts, words, etc. in the OT,
> > or in other pre-Christian Jewish literature of the apocrypha. How are we
>to
> > decide between your proposal and "Loren's"? Unless you can show that the
> > similarity is to *unique*  aspects of Philonic thought, or to unique
> > sequences of words in Philonic thought, then I don't see any objective or
> > definitive way for us to choose between the rival hypotheses, and it
> > becomes merely a matter of which theory we "like." The "bar" I am
>proposing
> > is not really so unreasonably high. I am only asking what any critical
> > scholar would ask of an alleged literary dependence of one source on
> > another. If you are not claiming literary dependence, then exactly what is
> > it that you are claiming? And how can we tell which hypothesis is to be
> > preferred-- e.g., Philonic influence vs. OT/Apocrypha influence?
>
>[Frank]
>I am not trying to base the argument that Philonic thought influenced the
>thought of the real Jesus on literary dependency.  Even if Jesus
>had come to some knowledge about Philonic thought by reading some of his
>works (as opposed to learning about Philonic thought from one
>or more tutors), it is highly unlikely that, when speaking before crowds
>of peasants or, even, speaking to his disciples, Jesus would have made
>statements that have a literary dependency on Philo.  Further, ISTM, even
>if it could be proved that a saying attributed to Jesus has a literary
>dependency on Philo, this all but guarantees that this saying is either
>the invention of an early Christian or else a corrupt version of a saying
>that originated with Jesus.  I say this because it is *highly improbable*
>that a saying of Jesus originally uttered by him with sufficient evidence
>in its wording to demonstrate a literary dependence on Philo would have
>been orally transmitted through many people with sufficient accuracy to
>preserve enough of  the evidence of literary dependence for us to
>recognize it.  So, the bottom line, ISTM. is this: It is unlikely that
>Jesus, even if he had read some works of Philo, made any oral statements
>that had a literary dependence on Philo and, even if he had, any such oral
>statements would not have been orally transmitted with sufficient fidelity
>to preserve the evidence of the literary dependence.

Frank,
This misses the mark somewhat. I'm not yet ready to assess whether *Jesus*
was influenced by Philo. What I meant was first, how do we determine if the
authors of the Gospels, whom we refer to for convenience as Mark, Matthew,
Luke, and John, were influenced by Philo? This was the question that I
assumed we were discussing (incorrectly, it seems). Thus, in order to
determine if *Jesus* was influenced by Philo, you would have to show that
the Philonic influences that you observe in the Gospels was due to Jesus
and not to those who were writing about him.


>Now, given the condition you stipulate (i.e., the analysis of a single
>passage), unless one of the two hypotheses can be proven to be invalid,
>both remain valid hypotheses. ...
>
>Having said this, I would like to add that, ISTM, in the postulated
>situation you pose, there are at least  seven hypotheses that should be
>entertained.  These are: (1) the hypothesis that the saying reflects
>Philonic thought, (2) the hypothesis that the saying is based on OT/
>Apocryphal passages as interpreted in terms of Philonic thought, (3) the
>hypothesis that the saying is based on first century CE non-Philonic
>thought, (4) the hypothesis that the saying is based on OT/Apocryphal
>passages as interpreted in terms of non-Philonic first century CE thought,
>(5) the hypothesis that the saying reflects a mixture of Philonic thought
>and non-Philonic first century CE thought), (6) the hypothesis that the
>saying is based on OT/Apocryphal passages as interpreted in terms of a
>mixture of Philonic thought and non-Philonic first century CE thought, and
>(7) the hypothesis that the saying is solely based on the BCE thought
>found in the OT/Apocrypha. Logically, many more hypotheses are feasible.

Well, yes, and I suppose we could entertain the hypothesis that the cow
jumped over the moon. I do not want to get into the business of enumerating
myriad hypotheses, and then equalizing them all by asserting that, well,
they're all *possible* and then jumping to the conclusion that one is as
good as any of the others.

>  Your dualism of (1) vs. (7) is, ISTM,  grossly inadequate and, what is
> even more important, can mislead the unwary into thinking that Philonic
> thought and OT/Apocryphal thought are mutually exclusive.

I never meant to suggest this. Indeed, it seems like it is rather your
claim that these can be distinguished. So then, I think, it is up to *you*
to show how they can be distinguished. But you seem to prefer not to do
that. You seem to go to great lengths to stamp "Philo" on ideas that can at
best be described as OT/Apocrypha/Philo.

>  Actually, almost all the elements of Philonic thought (including his
> concepts of Sophia and the Logos), have roots in the Septuagint--which
> contains both the OT and the Apocrypha--and many of his essays are
> permeated with citations from the Septuagint.

Indeed, it is as an exegete that Philo is perhaps best known.


>When one goes beyond the analysis of one saying attributed to Jesus to the
>generic level of all sayings attributed to Jesus, it could very well be
>the case that both the hypothesis that Jesus was influenced by
>OT/Apocryphal thought and the hypothesis that Jesus was influenced by
>Philonic thought are true.  Of course, even if it could be demonstrated
>that both are true, there still would remain the question of the relative
>degree of influence of each on Jesus.

Exactly. And in my response to you I merely suggested that one cannot
assess the *relative* influence by the methods you were using. Next,
skipping over some old ground where you merely restate what you have stated
before,


>...Finally, I would like to point out that, on past posts to X-talk, I
>have made at least three very specific hypotheses regarding the possible
>influence of Philonic thought on Jesus.  One is that the real Jesus of
>history believed himself to be Philo's Logos incarnate in the flesh.

It is easier to see that the author of GJohn considered this to be so, than
it is to demonstrate that Jesus himself believed it. There is much more
evidence for the former than for the latter. If what you say is true, why
was this remarkable fact passed over in silence by Mark, Matthew and Luke?
Or have I failed to remember some analysis of yours that claimed that
Jesus/Logos Christology is also evident in the other Gospels?


>  The second is that the real Jesus of history took what he called the
> Kingdom to be what Philo called Wisdom and, since Philo deemed the
> virtues/words of God to be of the very self of Wisdom, to also be what
> Philo called the virtues/words of God.

If you have accomplished anything in this regard (which I do not concede),
it would probably be more accurate to say that the authors of the Synoptic
Gospels saw some connection between Jesus' Kingdom and Philo's Wisdom. But
it seems to me that they more likely had in mind OT/Apocrypha ideas about
Wisdom more than Philo's version of those ideas.

>The third is that the real Jesus of history knew of,
>and accepted, Philo's idea that the virtues/words of God can grow and
>multiply in receptive human souls.  The first hypothesis hasn't been
>challenged in any serious sense.

Then you don't recognize a serious challenge when you see it.

>  The second and third have been challanged, but no one has yet been able
> to demonstrate that either one must be wrong or, ISTM, even demonstrated
> that either one is weaker than any other rival hypothesis.

I am sorry to point out that this is an oft-repeated tactic of many
crackpots, and I am loath to see you in their company. That is, they
propose some loony idea, and then assert that is the responsibility of the
*others* to prove them wrong. This is putting the shoe on the wrong foot.
It is *your* responsibility, not ours, to make the case that your theory is
stronger than rival hypotheses. You typically do this not by taking any
rival hypotheses seriously, but making claim after claim for your
hypothesis, apparently in the hope that if you repeat it often enough,
people will start thinking it might be true, and you won't have to take
rival hypotheses seriously. You will get more traction for your ideas,
IMHO, if you are able to show why we should consider rival hypotheses more
flawed than your own.

>  Indeed, ISTM, no rival hypothesis has been put forward which
>explains the over-all evidence as well as either one of these two
>hypotheses.

Loren wasn't exactly silent when he proposed that OT/Apocrypha influences
account for the over-all evidence as well as, or better than, your
hypotheses. Just because he did not go on at length like you have done does
not mean that his hypothesis has less merit. And for the rest of us, don't
confuse silence for agreement.


>[Frank]
> > >...Cumulative effect can be telling.  As the number of Philonic ideas
> to be
> > >found in sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels increases, the
> > >probability that Philonic thought influenced at least some of these
>sayings
> > >increases....
>
>[Bob]
> > But you are assuming what is to be proved. How do we really know that they
> > are *Philonic* ideas? It does not follow equally that if enough ideas are
> > *attributed* to Philonic thought, then does it really increase the
> > probability that they actually were influenced by *Philonic* thought (and
> > not by some common tradition)?
>
>[Frank]
>I am assuming nothing.  If an idea is present in Philonic thought, then it
>is a Philonic idea.  This is a no brainer.

It is also not true. Suppose I write that I think democracy is a good
thing. Does that mean that democracy is a Schacht idea? There is a big
difference between an idea that crosses someone's mind, and an idea that is
created by someone. The latter merits credit; the former scarcely matters.


>Of course, unless a Philonic idea is unique to Philonic thought, then it
>is also the idea of one or more other systems of thought as well.  So, a
>Philonic idea might also be an Essenic idea, a Sadducic idea, a Cynic
>idea, etc..

Precisely. And if that is the case, what is the point of calling it a
Philonic idea?

>The bottom line, while all Philonic ideas are found in Philonic thought,
>almost all (if not all) Philonic ideas are also found outside of Philonic
>thought and, therefore, the presence of a Philonic idea in a saying
>attributed to Jesus is not necessarily the presence of Philonic thought in
>that saying.

This seems to contradict your claims made above.

>  Indeed, rather, it is highly probable that it came to Jesus
>through another system of thought, e.g., Essenic thought.

And indeed, if this is so, what is the point of calling it a Philonic
thought rather than an Essenic thought?

>Still, ISTM, as the number of Philonic ideas in saying attributed to Jesus
>increases, the probability that we are dealing with a genuine influence of
>Philonic thought on this saying increases. ...

This is baloney, because you have just admitted above that "Philonic ideas"
don't necessarily originate with Philo, and could have, and probably were,
obtained from elsewhere. Therefore it reduces your claim to a deceptive
triviality.

Enough.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary identifies about 3 areas of interest in NT
discussions regarding Philo:
     * Influence on the Logos of John;
     * Influence on Hebrews;
     * Influence on exegetical methods.
It might be more interesting for you to discuss how Philo's exegetical
methods influenced, say, the exegetical style of GMatthew.

Bob


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have found the recent discussions on Philonic thought quite fascinating as
I have an article positing the presence of Greek thought and concepts in the
New Testament which appears to me, to be non-Hebraic (not found in the OT).
Those with an interest in this subject may access the following url
http://www.bibleorigins.net/Presuppositions.html

All the best, Walter

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
Walldorf by Heidelberg
Baden-Wurttemburg, Germany
www.bibleorigins.net


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Philonic influence?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Philonic influence?

> [Frank]
> >...Finally, I would like to point out that, on past posts to X-talk, I
> >have made at least three very specific hypotheses regarding the possible
> >influence of Philonic thought on Jesus.  One is that the real Jesus of
> >history believed himself to be Philo's Logos incarnate in the flesh.
>
[Bob]
> It is easier to see that the author of GJohn considered this to be so,
than
> it is to demonstrate that Jesus himself believed it. There is much more
> evidence for the former than for the latter. If what you say is true, why
> was this remarkable fact passed over in silence by Mark, Matthew and Luke?
> Or have I failed to remember some analysis of yours that claimed that
> Jesus/Logos Christology is also evident in the other Gospels?

[Frank]
I have made posts outlining evidence that Mark's Jesus is Philo's Logos
incarnate in the flesh as the Essenes' Branch of David (e.g., see the posts
of 7-25, 7-31, 8-2, and 8-5).  In my last post to Loren, I point out
evidence that Jesus is Philo's Logos in the parable of the wise and foolish
virgins (from Matthew).  I have pointed out in past posts that there is
evidence of a Logos christology in parts of Luke's infancy narrative.

As respects the Q tradition there is evidence of a Logos Christology in Luke
10:22-24, "And, having turned to his disciples, he said, 'All things were
delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows who is the Son except the
father, and who is the Father except the Son and he to whomsever may will
the Son to reveal (Him).  And, having turned apart to his disciples, he
said, 'Blessed (are) the eyes that see what you see.  For, I say to you,
many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and saw not, and to
hear what you hear, and heard not.'"

In his essay, Fuga (108-11), Philo declares that the Logos has God as his
Father and rules the Cosmos as God's Viceroy.  Hence, Jesus, by calling
himself the Son of Father and by declaring that "all things were delivered
to me by my Father", gives himself attributes that are also attributes of
Philo's Logos.

  In Jesus' statement, "And no one knows who is the Son except the Father,
and who is the Father except the Son", he might be speaking as the
Logos--who has a uniquely intimate association with God.  So, in Fuga (101),
Philo declares, the Logos "is placed nearest, with no intervening
distance, to the alone truly Existent One."

In his statement, "And no one knows...who is the Father except the Son and
he to whomsoever He may will the Son to reveal (Him)", he might be speaking
as the Logos: who acts as the divine intermediary between man and God.  So,
in Heres (205-206), Philo states, "This same Logos both pleads with the
immortal as suppliant for afflicted mortality and acts as ambassador of the
ruler to the subject.  He glories in this prerogative and proudly dscribes
it in these words 'I stood between the Lord and you' (Deut. v. 5)..".

In his statement, "For, I say to you, many prophets and kings desired to see
what you see, and saw not, and to hear what you hear, and heard not", he
might be speaking as the Logos.  If so, then he is referring to the fact
that the Logos, being the Word of God, personifies the speech of God and,
therefore, speaks the words of God.  In this case, it is a statement that
his disciples, unlike all those before them, both see the Word of God as
personified in His Logos and hear this Word of God as uttered in its purest
form by this Logos.

(Note: Two of the above three quotes from Philo come from Fuga 101 and Fuga
108-11.  It is noteworthy that, as I point out in a post (i.e., "John
2:1-4:54") of Dec. 19, there is evidence that the author of John had read
Fuga 77-114)

There also are, I would like to point out, some passages in GTh which might
have a Logos Christology.

For example, in GTh 77, Jesus says, "It is I who am the light which is above
them all.  It is I who am the All.  From Me did the All come forth, and unto
Me did the All extend.  Split a piece of wood, and I am there.  Lift up the
stone, and you will find me there."

When this saying is interpreted in terms of Philo's teaching, Jesus
speaks as Philo's Logos.

For example, let us take the first sentence, "It is I who am the light
which is above them all."  Similarly, the Logos is a light which is above
them all.  So, in Som i, 75, Philo states, "For the model or pattern (of the
visible light) was the Logos, which contained all His Fullness--light, in
fact."

Again, let us take the second sentence, "It is I who am the All."  Here,
Jesus might speak as  the Logos: the Image of God, who is the
incorporeal All beheld by the mind, of which the corporeal All beheld by
sense-perception is a copy.  So, in Op. 25, Philo declares, "The whole
creation, this entire world perceived by our senses (seeing that it is
greater than any human image) is a copy of the
Divine Image.  It is manifest that the archetypal seal also which we aver to
be the world descried by the mind, would be the very Logos of God."

Too, let us look at the first part of the third sentence, "From Me did
the All come forth."  Similarly, it is from the Logos that the corporeal All
came forth.  So, in Sacr. 8, Philo speaks about "that Logos by which also
the whole universe was formed."

Also, let us look at the close to this saying, "And unto Me did the All
extend.  Split a piece of wood, and I am there.  Lift up the stone, and you
will find me there."  Similarly, the Logos extends himself throughout the
corporeal All and all its parts.  Thus, in Plant. 9, Philo states, "The
evelasting Logos of the eternal God is the very sure and staunch prop of the
Whole.  He it is, who extending himself from the midst to its utmost bounds
and from its extremities to the midst again, keeps up though all its length
Nature's unvanquished course, combining and compacting all its parts.  For
the Father Who begat Him constituted His Logos such a Bond of the Universe
as none can break."

The bottom line: Evidence of a Logos Christology can be found in all the
canonical gospel traditions and in the Thomas tradition as well.  Thats a
lot of smoke spread through a goodly number of what might be independent
gospel traditions, so there's the possiblity, ISTM, of a fire, i.e., of an
underlying reality that the real Jesus did claim to be Philo's Logos
incarnate on earth.

> >[Bob]
> > > But you are assuming what is to be proved. How do we really know that
they
> > > are *Philonic* ideas? It does not follow equally that if enough ideas
are
> > > *attributed* to Philonic thought, then does it really increase the
> > > probability that they actually were influenced by *Philonic* thought
(and
> > > not by some common tradition)?
> >

> >[Frank]
> >I am assuming nothing.  If an idea is present in Philonic thought, then
it
> >is a Philonic idea.  This is a no brainer.
>
[Bob]
> It is also not true. Suppose I write that I think democracy is a good
> thing. Does that mean that democracy is a Schacht idea? There is a big
> difference between an idea that crosses someone's mind, and an idea that
is
> created by someone. The latter merits credit; the former scarcely matters.

[Frank]
.It's now clear to me that the term "Philonic idea" is ambigous, since you
and I have differing conceptualizations as to its meaning.

Because the term "Philonic idea" is ambiguous I should not have used it in
past posts and I apologize to you and to the other X-talk listers for having
done so.  In future posts, I will try to avoid this term and will try to
only speak of ideas held by Philo.  Feel free to jump all over me if, in a
future post, I forget this and fall back on old ways!

Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. 17
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

At 06:48 PM 1/6/2002 -0600, Frank McCoy wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
>To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 9:42 PM
>Subject: Re: [XTalk] Philonic influence?
>
>
>[Bob]
> > It is easier to see that the author of GJohn considered this to be so, than
> > it is to demonstrate that Jesus himself believed it. There is much more
> > evidence for the former than for the latter. If what you say is true, why
> > was this remarkable fact passed over in silence by Mark, Matthew and Luke?
> > Or have I failed to remember some analysis of yours that claimed that
> > Jesus/Logos Christology is also evident in the other Gospels?
>
>[Frank]
>I have made posts outlining evidence that Mark's Jesus is Philo's Logos
>incarnate in the flesh as the Essenes' Branch of David (e.g., see the posts
>of 7-25, 7-31, 8-2, and 8-5).  In my last post to Loren, I point out
>evidence that Jesus is Philo's Logos in the parable of the wise and foolish
>virgins (from Matthew).  I have pointed out in past posts that there is
>evidence of a Logos christology in parts of Luke's infancy narrative....
>The bottom line: Evidence of a Logos Christology can be found in all the
>canonical gospel traditions and in the Thomas tradition as well.  Thats a
>lot of smoke spread through a goodly number of what might be independent
>gospel traditions, so there's the possiblity, ISTM, of a fire, i.e., of an
>underlying reality that the real Jesus did claim to be Philo's Logos
>incarnate on earth.

Frank,
I apologize for not remembering that you had addressed these issues. It was
careless of me not to check.


> > >[Bob]
> > > > But you are assuming what is to be proved. How do we really know
> that they
> > > > are *Philonic* ideas? It does not follow equally that if enough
> ideas are
> > > > *attributed* to Philonic thought, then does it really increase the
> > > > probability that they actually were influenced by *Philonic*
> thought (and
> > > > not by some common tradition)?
> > >
>
> > >[Frank]
> > >I am assuming nothing.  If an idea is present in Philonic thought, then it
> > >is a Philonic idea.  This is a no brainer.
> >
>[Bob]
> > It is also not true. Suppose I write that I think democracy is a good
> > thing. Does that mean that democracy is a Schacht idea? There is a big
> > difference between an idea that crosses someone's mind, and an idea that is
> > created by someone. The latter merits credit; the former scarcely matters.
>
>[Frank]
>It's now clear to me that the term "Philonic idea" is ambigous, since you
>and I have differing conceptualizations as to its meaning.
>
>Because the term "Philonic idea" is ambiguous I should not have used it in
>past posts and I apologize to you and to the other X-talk listers for having
>done so.  In future posts, I will try to avoid this term and will try to
>only speak of ideas held by Philo.  Feel free to jump all over me if, in a
>future post, I forget this and fall back on old ways!

Thanks for your clarification! I think we understand each other better now.

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify what I meant when I wrote

>I am sorry to point out that this is an oft-repeated tactic of
>many  crackpots, and I am loath to see you in their company. That is, they
>propose some loony idea, and then assert that is the responsibility of
>the  *others* to prove them wrong. This is putting the shoe on the wrong
>foot.  It is *your* responsibility, not ours, to make the case that your
>theory is stronger than rival hypotheses.

I very much regret the tone of this statement. I did not mean to imply
guilt by association, or that your ideas are "loony," or that you are some
kind of crackpot. I meant only to draw attention to the tactic of claiming
that a theory is to be assumed true until proven false, so that the "burden
of proof," so to speak, falls not on the proposer of the theory, but on the
proposer's audience (to disprove the claim). I appreciate the patience with
which you marshall data in favor of your theories, even if I am reluctant
to come to the same conclusions. And by our recent exchanges, I can see
that you do not really appear to be claiming what I thought you were
claiming, and appreciate your taking the time to set me straight. So
perhaps our understanding is not as far apart as I had thought.

Thanks,
Bob


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In crosstalk2@y..., "Mahlon H. Smith" <mahlonh.smith@w...> wrote:

> First, it should be kept in mind that Brown himself formulated
> these points & that they are not the sort of verbatim or structural
> parallels in Matt & Luke that could be cited as evidence of these
> two synoptists working from a preformed common *birth story* (a
> more precise term than "infancy narrative" since infancy covers
> several years of life).

As I have said in my previous post, I agree with Mahlon that when we
look at the two birth narratives as given in Matt and Luke, we are
not likely to be seeing the end product of what has been produced
from a single common source.  The differences in the two narratives
are so great that they not only preclude such a possibility as being
even plausible, but make the idea that Matt and or Luke knew of the
other's gospel extremely unlikely.  That said, I still have some
difficulty with several of Mahlon's ideas, and would like to recap
them here.

> Second, several of the common
> details are isolated words loaded with christological /messianic
> significance (e.g., Davidic descent, Holy Spirit, Bethlehem) at
> least some of which are found in pre-synoptic christological
> formulae that have nothing to do with any birth story or  infancy
> tradition about Jesus (e.g., Rom 1:3-4).

Agreed, and again I made a similar point myself.

> Others are narrativized elaborations of the virgin motif of  LXX Is
> 7:14 or traditional features of ancient Jewish/Xn hagiographic
> story-telling (angel).

Here is one of my biggest concerns with Mahlon's thesis.  It is
widely accepted that the formula citation of Isaiah 7:14 was a
redactional innovation created by Matthew alone, working from the
LXX.  Quite simply, the virginal conception cannot be drawn from any
Jewish hagiographic story, and without evidence that Matthew was
offering not his own understanding of Isaiah 7:14, but, rather, an
interpretation that was widely enough known that Luke could actually
assume it is astonishing in my view.  The angelic annunciation is,
indeed, very common in OT traditions and need not be elaborated upon,
but the idea of a virgin actually conceiving and giving birth to the
Messiah is, so far as we can tell, a Matthean innovation.  In fact,
in Raymond Brown's _The Birth of the Messiah_ (Doubleday, 1993),
Brown tells us specifically that such a reading of Isaiah 7:14 was
NOT to be taken from the Septuagint.  Brown concludes:

"There was nothing in the OT (including the Hebrew and the Greek of
Isa 7:14) that would have suggested the obstacle of a virgin who was
not to have marital relations with her husband… Here I would stress
that it (the idea of the virgin conception) was not the creation of
either Matthew or Luke, but seems to have come to them both from a
pre-Gospel tradition." (BBM, pg. 161).

"…there is no reason to believe that the LXX of Isa 7:14 either
referred to a virginal conception or was so interpreted by Jews.  It
is Christian exegesis, witnessed in Matt 1:22-23, that has
reinterpreted Isa 7:14 in light of an *existing* (emphasis mine)
Christian tradition of the virginal conception of Jesus."
(Ibid. pg. 534)

In other words, the concept of the virginal conception predates both
Matt and Luke, and this makes using this admittedly christological
statement highly problematic when trying to date these two gospels.
After all, if the virginal conception was known to Christians before
Matthew or Luke was written, both gospels could, on the basis of this
piece of evidence, at any time after the idea was first introduced to
the Church.  Further, the idea that Luke read Isaiah 7:14 in the same
way as did Matthew is without support in any possible reading of
Luke's infancy narrative with which I am familiar.

> I readily admit that all these items were part of
> pre-synoptic tradition. What I deny, however, is that these had
> coalesced to form a common tradition about HJ's birth prior to the
> composition of independent infancy narratives by Matt & Luke. One
> would have to be able to produce evidence of the structure of a
> common narrative behind Matt 1-2 & Luke 1-2 to convince me of that.

Two points:

First, if, as you admit, the virgin conception idea pre-exists the
Gospels, then using it as a means to postulate and justify a late
dating for either Matthew or Luke seems unwarranted.  Second, Brown
does offer an outline of what Matthew's pre-Gospel source may have
looked like.  As I do not know if you are familiar with it at this
point, I will not go into it in much depth, but his hypothesis
strikes me as very reasonable (See BBM, Table VII pg. 109).  In
effect, the pre-Gospel sources looks very much like Matthew's
account, minus the formula citations of OT Scripture.  As Brown
notes, if one removes these OT citations from the text, it not only
retains its coherence, but actually becomes more readable than
Matthew's final composition.

In my own case, I found Brown's arguments convincing, while at the
same time, I do not think a similar construction of Luke's pre-Gospel
source is as easily derived.  One thing is certain, he did not use
Matthew's source.

> This is a paraphrase of Matt; the Lukan verses stress Mary's
> virginity without mentioning cohabitation. In either case this
> point is historicized christology rather than pre-natal biography.
> If it were the latter one would be hard pressed to explain why
> GJohn makes no reference to it.

This is a small point, but as other scholars have proposed in the
past, John's theology of a pre-existent Christ/Logos hardly requires
a virginal conception or birth.  Quite simply, we have no reason to
expect John to mention this kind of information, even if he knew of
it.

> Since almost all marriages
> in the ancient world were arranged when people reached puberty, the
> dating of Jesus' conception to the period of his parent's
> betrothal, coupled with insistence that they had not yet had
> intercourse, provided a natural logical explanation that could have
> easily occurred to different theologically motivated authors who
> were working on the same problem with the same minimal
> biographical data (HJ's parents' names). Whether this was an
> instance of simultaneous discovery of the same solution by totally
> independent researchers (as often happens) or whether it had
> already begun to circulate among "preachers of the word" that
> influenced Luke and Matt is impossible to determine.

Given your admission that it is impossible to know if the virginal
conception was a coincidental creation of Luke and Matt working
independently, or that it existed in an earlier source(s), I see no
reason why we should use it as Mahlon has in dating either Matthew or
Luke late.

> Davidic descent was practically axiomatic for any messianic
> candidate in ancient Judaism.

This is simply not the case.  The DSS have shown us that the Messiah
could also have been thought to been from the line of Aaron, through
the tribe of Levi. To rule out the possibility of a non-Davidic
Messiah in 1st Century Palestine is simply reading beliefs from this
period of time anachronistically and through a now dominant Christian
world view.

> And Jews historically traced lineages through the paternal
> line (with names of mothers often passing unknown). The fact is
> Matt & Luke do not provide Joseph with the same lineage & even
> disagree on the name of his own father (HJ's legal grandfather).
> Thus it is evident that they were not working from common
> genealogical information.

Agreed.

> Joseph's Davidic descent
> is again fundamentally a christological development since it
> enabled Xns (after Mark) to assert that Jesus was in fact
> (legally) "of the line of David" & hence a legitimate candidate for
> the messianic figure alluded to in various passages of Hebrew
> scripture.

While the Davidic descent is obviously a christological development,
it is clearly one that dates back to before Paul (Romans 1:3-4).
Thus, we cannot use it as a means to date the Gospels late.

> > 10. The birth is chronologically related to the reign (days) of
> > Herod the Great (Matt 2:1; Luke 1:5)
>
> Denied. Luke 1:5 dates Zechariah's priesthood to Herod's reign.
> Herod is never mentioned in Luke in conjunction with Jesus' birth.
> See my previous post for more on this.

I have already covered this point off in a previous post (replying to
Mahlon's point).  Suffice to say, Luke's giving us Jesus' age
(Luke 3) at "about 30 years of age" during the "fifteenth year of the
reign of Tiberius" (ca. 27-29CE) makes Jesus' birth during the reign
of Herod the Great most probable.  Thus, Luke 1 and Luke 3 (against
Luke 2) should serve as evidence that Luke's source agreed with
Matthew's, and Jesus was most likely born during the reign of Herod,
and then most probably 5-4 BCE.

In conclusion, I am not necessarily saying that all of Brown's 11
parallels are historically accurate pieces of information.  Brown
does not claim this either.  But he does show how they exist in a pre-
Canonical Gospel source(s), and on this basis we should not use their
inclusion in Matthew and Luke as reasons for dating these gospels as
being necessarily late creations.

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

Brian Trafford wrote:

>  The differences in the two narratives
>are so great that they not only preclude such a possibility as being
>even plausible, but make the idea that Matt and or Luke knew of the
>other's gospel extremely unlikely.

Brian,

   Not so.
   You are failing to allow for the following:
(1) The author of Luke's gospel was clearly dissatisfied with previous
accounts of Jesus (Luke 1:1-4), i.e. with Mark and Matthew.
(2) Luke omitted half of the material he found in Mark, and for the rest
he altered every pericope which he took over.
(3) John also knew Mark (Barrett, Crossan et al.), but nevertheless
produced a portrait of Jesus which in many respects contradicts Mark's
portrait. Why shouldn't Luke have been capable of similar independent
thought?
(4) The positive evidence that Luke knew Matthew includes:
   (a) major agreements such as the Temptation and the Centurion's
Servant
   (b) hundreds of minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark
   (c) the 'naming' and framing of the two sermons
   (d) editorial fatigue (as pointed out in relaton to e.g. the
Talents/Pounds by Mark Goodacre)

Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail:  ron.price@...

Web site:  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

Just to add to Ron's message, I think it's easy to underestimate the
case for Matthew's influence on Luke's Infancy Narrative on both the
macro and the micro level.  First, I find it odd that on the standard
view, Luke and Matthew both come up with just the same idea
independently, at about the same time, of "fixing" Mark by adding
birth narratives one end, resurrection stories the other and
restructuring with much teaching material in between.  The Birth
Narratives themselves have the same broad structure, pre-natal
(Matthew 1 and Luke 1) and post-natal (Matthew 2 and Luke 2).  It's
easy for us to assume that the most natural thing for anyone to do
was to make up for Mark's lack by adding Birth Narratives.  But
that's because of our familiarity with Matthew and Luke.  If we think
ourselves back into the end of the first century, it ceases to become
so obvious.  John didn't think it necessary;  all things considered,
it seems likely that something must have provided the catalyst for
Luke's decision to preface the Markan framework with a Birth
Narrative, and that catalyst was Matthew.

But is there anything more than general probability?  Indeed there is
-- we are in luck.  Jeff Peterson pointed out to me a little while
ago that Matt. 1.21 // Luke 1.31 has the following verbatim parallel
in Greek, TEXETAI DE / KAI TEXHi hUION KAI KALESEIS TO ONOMA AUTOU
IHSOUN (And she/you will give birth to a son and you (sing.) shall
call his name Jesus).  This is a clear case of Luke's borrowing from
Matthew.  In Matthew the command to Joseph makes sense "You (Joseph)
will call his name Jesus" -- and he did so, Matt. 1.25.  However,
Luke has this addressed to Mary rather than Joseph, having
reconfigured the annunciation in line with his desire to give a much
more marked profile to Mary.  But now "You (sing.) shall call . . . "
becomes problematic in the narrative because Luke actually agrees
with Matt. that naming the child is either the sole responsibility of
the father (1.13) or at best of both parents (1.59-66, cf. 2.21).

For more on this see The Case Against Q, pp. 54-8.  (Coming soon,
folks;  I've nearly finished the indexing!  In the mean time, I hope
you all have your copies of The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the
Maze;  I have a nasty feeling that they have been a bit slow in
making their way to the U.S.)

Mark
-----------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre                 mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
   Dept of Theology                  tel: +44 121 414 7512
   University of Birmingham      fax: +44 121 414 4381
   Birmingham    B15 2TT  UK

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
http://NTGateway.com