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

Re: [Synoptic-L] RE: [GPG] Matthew and "Q"

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG; WSW; CGC In Response To: Dave Inglis From: Bruce At the end of a statistical report (which as Dave Gentile noted, suppressed information
    Message 1 of 34 , May 8, 2009
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG; WSW; CGC
      In Response To: Dave Inglis
      From: Bruce

      At the end of a statistical report (which as Dave Gentile noted, suppressed
      information of technical interest at least to me, but that's OK, I have
      other ways of getting it), we had this from Dave Inglis:

      DAVE: Where I depart from Dave G is in his attempt to try to understand the
      motives for why the synoptic authors did what they did. As we know almost
      nothing about the date and place of writing any of the synoptic material (we
      at least think we know directionality, but not much more), whether the
      synoptics were each written in one session or over an extended period (maybe
      even years), whether the authors were alone or with other people at the
      time, whether they wrote themselves or dictated, whether they knew (or at
      least knew something about) the other synoptic authors, what feelings (if
      any) they had for the other authors, etc., then I don't see how it's helpful
      to basically guess at how or why the synoptics were created.

      BRUCE: I approve the caution, but I think I dissent from the philosophy.
      Dave is recognizing two categories, (1) things we confidently know, and (2)
      things of which we should not speak at all. I submit that there are few
      things, either in the fall of dice or in the agendas of the Evangelists,
      that we can say we know in the usual sense of "know." The one is a future
      event, or a series of them, the other is somebody else's inner event. The
      former cannot in principle be known; the latter by common consent is not
      directly intuitable either. But this does not mean that we can say nothing
      at all about them. Statistics exists to tell us quite a few things about the
      fall of future dice, especially if more than one throw of them is envisioned
      (hence Galileo, Pascal, and Newton, though not Pepys or de Méré; hence the
      success, when it is not mismanaged from the top, of industrial quality
      control, not to mention annuities). Historical inference, as it seems to me,
      also offers a range which includes *less* reasonable, but also *more*
      reasonable conjectures; it is not all unavoidably irresponsible. There is a
      workable middle ground, and it is within this ground that historical
      investigation takes place.

      This is not to say that all of Dave G's suggestions are herewith affirmed
      and supported, merely that he was not necessarily out of line,
      methodologically, in offering suggestions in the first place.

      To take a recent example (albeit from another list) of Synoptic
      inferrability, if we see Luke altering the order and content of some of
      Mark's anecdotes in a way that, for us, makes the motivations of the people
      in the anecdotes more intelligible, then it is not unreasonable to
      conjecture that motivational plausibility was one of Luke's categories of
      concern. (Even at the cost of the narrative inconcinnities which some of the
      rearrangements and rewritings demonstrably produced). The more seeming
      examples of it we find, and there are several, the stronger grows that
      suspicion, and eventually, that inference. And if in Acts Luke makes Peter
      out to be a harbinger of Paul (in the matter of allowable foods), but also
      superfluous in the early Jerusalem church as soon as Brother Jacob appears,
      and absent altogether as soon as Paul appears, and if he concludes by
      showing that the climax and definitional moment of early Christianity occurs
      under Paul at Rome, with Peter long gone from the story, then we may be on
      tenable ground in suggesting that Luke had a Pauline rather than a Petrine
      conception of Christian history. (And he himself tells us, unless we reject
      the Prologue as spurious, and few of us do, that he was writing in order to
      correct wrong impressions of that history given by previous writers). These
      and like details add up to giving a partial picture of what Luke was up to
      in writing what he wrote, based on the text itself and in some cases
      confirmed, rather than independently established, by what he said about what
      he wrote).

      We just don't know what city he way, when he looked up from his labors for a
      moment and looked out the window.

      Luke, as I read him, happens to be a rather revealing author; there are also
      many less favorable cases. We all know that some facts in history are
      unrecoverable, and that some propositions in history are undecidable, which
      by the way is also the case in number theory. But the possibility of
      historical inference in general, like the possibility of appendectomy in
      general, deserves to be judged on the favorable cases. And I think the
      favorable cases are favorable to the possibility of historical inference. An
      inference, even a well-grounded and uncontradicted inference, should not be
      confused with a fact. All historical inferences, like all inferences in
      astrophysics, are subject to restatement or refutation in the light of new
      evidence. But this is to say that the categories are not two, silence and
      knowledge, but rather three: silence, responsible inference, and knowledge.

      The question is which inferences are responsible, and that is where
      historical and philological method, helped out now and then by the
      multiplication table and the square of the correlation coefficient, come in.

      To take Dave I's specifics seriatim:

      (1) "we know almost nothing about the date and place of writing any of the
      synoptic material (we at least think we know directionality, but not much
      more). . ."

      The directionality gives what is usually called a relative date. A relative
      date is not an absolute date, but it is also not no date. It does not leave
      us wholly in the dark about chronology. As for place, people have read the
      signs in different ways, but that is not to say that some of the ways may
      not be better than other ways. A multiplicity of answers should not dissuade
      us from choosing among the answers. One use of methodology is in discovering
      possibilities; another is in choosing rightly among competing possibilities.

      (2) " . . . whether the synoptics were each written in one session or over
      an extended period (maybe
      even years), . . . "

      It is doubtful if anything as long as Luke/Acts could be calligraphed in one
      literal sitting. But the option of a second or even a seventh consecutive
      sitting is meaningless, as far as I can see, for any Synoptic question of
      real interest. Where the issue of duration becomes interesting is if the
      period of formation lasts long enough to include what are properly called
      strata, whether mere afterthought interpolations or whole new areas of
      material (including the possibility of removing, as well as supplementing,
      earlier material). And if this should be the case, we can expect to find
      internal evidences of it; we don't need to deduce it from the length of the
      formation period itself. I have earlier mentioned, and still find
      convincing, some evidences of later rearrangement in Luke, and evidences of
      subsequent addition, amounting to new strata and reflecting recent
      theological developments, in Mark. Grammatical evidence presented at SBL
      2008 gave a strong push to the idea that Acts was originally much shorter,
      and was only later extended. A suggestion, by the way, that on other
      evidence and in different form goes back to the early years of the 20c.

      If we accept the general trend of the evidence as respects Synoptic
      directionality and also Synoptic trajectory development, then we have the
      result, certainly chronological and in all probability also directional,

      Mk > Mt > Lk.

      It turns out to be interesting, in my opinion, that we also have the
      possibility of distinguishing the directionality

      Mk A > Mk B > Mk C . . . .

      and separately,

      Lk A > Lk B

      The main statement greatly clarifies the larger Synoptic formation picture,
      and the latter two have the potential to equally clarify the microhistory
      (if you will) of the constituent Synoptics themselves. No one detail gives
      us a complete picture of Synoptic formation, and we are probably never going
      to possess anything like the complete picture of Synoptic formation, but
      each detail makes the general picture clearer, and the Synoptic Situation
      looks to me like one that is going to be eventually amenable to a rather
      detailed and generally consistent and intelligible understanding. A workable
      basis for whatever related problem next comes up for consideration.

      (3) " whether the authors were alone or with other people at the time, . . .

      I confess I don't see the importance of this, and am content to do without
      this particular body of information.

      (4) "whether they wrote themselves or dictated, . . . "

      A dictation theory has been invoked to explain how Peter, for instance, or
      maybe Judas [anglice "Jude"] could have written a Greek so much better than
      we feel entitled to posit for these individuals as we think we understand
      them. But does it have much place in Synoptic calculations? Maybe if we
      think of Matthew as one of the Twelve, but does anybody really think of
      Matthew as one of the Twelve? On the whole, I am pretty much prepared to do
      without this datum also, though I would welcome it or any other to the Zone
      of Known Things if it showed up in a well-supported form.

      (5) "whether they knew (or at least knew something about) the other synoptic
      authors, . . . "

      This might be interesting, and I seem to recall making a suggestion or two
      along more or less these lines, a while back. The closer together we put
      Matthew and Luke in place (Antioch has been conjectured for both, though
      not, I think, for both at the same time) and in time (does anyone really put
      more than 10 years between the two?), the likelier it becomes that they knew
      each other. Or at least had mutual acquaintances, which would bring up
      similar issues. But again, though I am ready to be refuted by any momentous
      later discoveries or convincing conjectures, I don't think at this moment
      think that these details are going to be central to a core understanding of
      Synoptic relationships.

      (6) "what feelings (if any) they had for the other authors, etc."

      Here, I think, in the psychological rather than in the factual, we do have a
      certain amount of evidence. Writing may not convey much biographical
      information about the writer (some of the Chinese classics are
      infuriatingly, and perhaps intentionally, uninformative about their
      geographical angle of view, and the same motive may well obtain with the
      Evangelists also), but it does betray a good deal about the inner feelings
      and propensities and priorities of the writer. Just as a good clinical
      psychologist will not only hear the patient's words, but also observe
      supralexical details (facial rubidity is a favorite, also fidgeting,
      sweating, handwringing, hesitating, etc etc) in order to produce a
      diagnostically adequate interview. In our problem, it has been observed by
      several that Luke seems to respect Mark, even though he frequently departs
      from Mark and hugely supplements Mark. For Matthew, I still like my
      suggestion that Luke felt a complicated mix of admiration and envy and sheer
      cussedness: he would (as it seems to me) sometimes go so far as to produce a
      variant that even he must have known was not as good, in order not to
      acknowledge Matthew as having written an effective paragraph. Or chapter.

      But not always. And a study of places where Luke does and does not closely
      follow Matthean wording in substantively parallel passages without
      counterpart in Mark would probably have interesting implications for the
      reactivity profile of Lk vs Mt. Has that been done?


      I thus think that Synoptic Relationships are not wholly beyond the reach of
      responsible conjecture, which means that they are not wholly unavailable to
      historical clarification. Of course, few people will be satisfied with that;
      what they really want is the Historical Jesus. The Historical Jesus problem
      is very difficult of direct access. One has to do the preliminaries first.
      There is no Royal Road to geometry either; you have to somehow sweat the
      cosine rule. But putting the Synoptic Relationships Problem on a reasonably
      nonrickety footing, it seems to me, would go a long way toward making the
      Historical Jesus Question realistically rather than speculatively

      (A number of us think we have already made a pretty good approach, in my
      case by distinguishing strata in Mark, the text which Synoptic Relations
      conclusions indicate is likely to be the most fruitful for the HJ, and also
      in some of the other texts which have a chance of reflecting very early
      post-Jesus ideas of Jesus. But that is a story for other days, a
      considerable number of which, in my case, have already been spent on this
      list over the past ten years or so. It would be tedious and irrelevant to
      expound that result or its basis here, and I will leave that tale to be
      told, if at all, by the list archive).


      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Dave Gentile
      ... Dave: Better , is a subjective judgment. Personally I d prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that s just my subjective judgment.
      Message 34 of 34 , May 15, 2009

        > Dave,
        > What you propose is clearly not impossible. But it is certainly not as good
        > as the original. What you present here is a brief general call to
        > repentance, followed by scenarios of people eager to repent. In our extant
        > Luke there is a warning of wrath and fire, so that by verse 10 one can sense
        > the crowds feeling guilty and ready to make amends. It parallels an
        > evangelistic meeting where there is a lengthy build-up of emotion before a
        > challenge to commitment. Luke was a good storyteller!


        'Better', is a subjective judgment. Personally I'd prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that's just my subjective judgment.

        Consistency, and sticking with a theme is a less subjective measure.


        > But there remains the jump in the opposite direction, between verses 3 & 4.
        > In the extant text vv. 4-6 represent a temporary departure from the theme of
        > repentance so that Luke can portray the Jewish scriptures as hinting at the
        > salvation of the Gentiles (v.6).

        I really don't see this as much of a jump, if any. v3 mentions forgiveness (group not named), and the quote from Isaiah's 'punchline' is about salvation (for all). "Forgiveness -> salvation" seems like theme continuity to me.

        I've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.