Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Synoptic-L] The Sermon on the Plain

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Wrong. It means, in the context of a posited theory (in this case the Farrer Theory), what Luke chose to select from an earlier source. If we grant that he
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 5, 2008
      I had written:

      > In spite of the existence of a plentiful supply of 'Luke-pleasing'
      > 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, . . .

      Bruce Brooks replied:

      > The adjective "Luke-pleasing" is to me one of the big mistakes in the
      > vocabulary of the FGH people, going back to the founder of the movement. It
      > means merely "what I think Luke would have liked."

      Wrong. It means, in the context of a posited theory (in this case the Farrer
      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 from
      >> 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.

      It is a report of what Luke did *according to the Farrer Theory*.

      > The perfectly arbitrary expectation that aLk will cut the prototype passage,
      > AND NOTHING ELSE, has been proved wrong.

      Not so. Your logic is as follows:

      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:
      > 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
      > anybody?

      Not impossible, just unlikely on Goulder's 'abbreviation' hypothesis.

      > One test of a hypothesis (for a complex phenomenon) is not whether it covers
      > 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.

      Goulder's "Luke: A New Paradigm" makes a very good case for Luke's use of
      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.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.