Re: [Synoptic-L] The Sermon on the Plain
- I had written:
> In spite of the existence of a plentiful supply of 'Luke-pleasing'Bruce Brooks replied:
> sayings in Mt 5-7, including Mt 6:19-21 // Lk 12:33-34; Mt 6:22-23 // Lk
> 11:34-35; Mt 6:25-33 // Lk 12:22-31, . . .
> The adjective "Luke-pleasing" is to me one of the big mistakes in theWrong. It means, in the context of a posited theory (in this case the Farrer
> vocabulary of the FGH people, going back to the founder of the movement. It
> means merely "what I think Luke would have liked."
Theory), what Luke chose to select from an earlier source. If we grant that
he had a free choice, Luke clearly in some sense liked the passages he
selected and disliked the passages he rejected. In any case my context
should have made it absolutely clear that "Luke-pleasing" meant 'liked
sufficiently to include in his gospel'.
>> . . . he decided to augment the 'abbreviation' with three sayings fromIt is a report of what Luke did *according to the Farrer Theory*.
>> elsewhere in Matthew: Mt 15:14 // Lk 6:39; Mt 10:24-25 // Lk 6:40; Mt
>> 12:34-35 // Lk 6:45.
> This is said as though it were self-refuting. It is not
> self-refuting. It is simply a report of what aLk did.
> The perfectly arbitrary expectation that aLk will cut the prototype passage,Not so. Your logic is as follows:
> AND NOTHING ELSE, has been proved wrong.
1. Let's assume the Farrer Theory correct.
2. On this basis, proposition 'x' is found to be wrong.
3. Therefore proposition 'x' is false.
My expectation is that if Luke set out to abbreviate the Sermon on the
Mount, then by Occam's razor he would be unlikely to want to supplement the
material with sayings from elsewhere in Matthew.
> From this evidence, I would reflect as follows about the workings of aLk:Not impossible, just unlikely on Goulder's 'abbreviation' hypothesis.
> Sometimes when you cut something, you find that the ragged pieces of what is
> left can use a little patching, whether with borrowed material or with new
> material improvised on the spot. aLk, to the best of my recollection, does
> both in his handling of the Sermon on the Matthean Mount, and I think the
> better of him for it. He also moves things around; ditto. He is not just a
> chopper, he is a craftsman. Is this visualization of aLk a problem for
> One test of a hypothesis (for a complex phenomenon) is not whether it coversGoulder's "Luke: A New Paradigm" makes a very good case for Luke's use of
> all the data, since often it won't, but whether it leaves behind it an
> intelligible residue of the unexplained, or less convincingly explained. I
> think that this test is met by Goulder's Luke. The points which I for one
> see running in a direction (Lk > Mt) opposite to that predicted by the FGH
> theory have a very simple trait in common, and suggest a very simple
> amendment to the hypothesis, thus (to my mind) strengthening and completing
> the hypothesis.
Matthew's narratives and longer sayings.
But its treatment of the aphorisms is not convincing. This aspect of
synoptic origins is a major weakness of the Farrer Theory.
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm