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

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

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    What strikes me here is that the main objection to Q is that no extant copy exists, so theories that don t need it are to be preferred.   Here we have a copy
    Message 1 of 34 , May 13, 2009
      What strikes me here is that the main objection to Q is that no extant copy exists, so theories that don't need it are to be preferred.
       
      Here we have a copy of Mk with a big hole in it--a copy which of course does not exist nor leave a trace in the textual history.  We find this explanation to preferrable--no wait--irrefutable.
       
      Interesting.
       
      Separately, how did Streeter treat Lk's small ommission?  Coffee stains?
       
      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Atlanta, Georgia

      --- On Wed, 5/13/09, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:


      From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Matthew and "Q"
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: "GPG" <gpg@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:45 AM








      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG
      In Response To: Ron Price
      On: The Lukan Great Omission
      From: Bruce
      Date: 13 May 2009

      I had pointed out that Streeter (The Four Gospels, p172-178) had
      irrefutably - repeat, irrefutably, and let anyone who doubts it collate the
      Greek text of Mk and Lk at this point, and tell the rest of us how you come
      out) - established that Luke omitted this material, not because he somehow
      disliked it, as all the commentators still delight in saying, but because it
      was not present in his copy of Mark. Then:

      RON (snittily): Perhaps someone should have pointed this out to Professor
      Goulder, who finds traces of this section of Mark elsewhere in Luke ("Luke:
      A New Paradigm", p.436f.).

      BRUCE (goodnaturedly as always): Michael should have checked with me before
      writing that. For that matter, he should have read Streeter more carefully.
      Streeter explains the Bethsaida bit very adequately. And as for other
      echoes, Michael believes, as Streeter did not (and indeed Michael's whole
      point in this book is to establish), that Luke knew Matthew. That important
      conclusion, which I should say is in its turn irrefutable, opens up the
      situation here in question to a rational explanation which was unavailable
      to Streeter (who went off into regrettable conniptions on the question of
      Luke knowing Matthew) but WAS available to Michael. I should have advised
      Michael (back in 1989, not all that long ago) simply to have used what,
      through his own admirable efforts, was available to him and not to Streeter.

      Which is, or leads to, roughly this: Luke at this point is following Mark,
      and is doing his honest best (see Streeter, who walks us through it very
      convincingly) to make sense across the break of several pages in his
      Vorlage. But he also has Matthew around, on his mind if not always in the
      center of his tabletop, and as we can see in a hundred places (most of them
      very ably discussed by Michael), Luke is wont to rearrange and redistribute
      themes and snatches of original Matthean material, which, save for a
      somewhat greater coefficient of respect, is how he treats Mark also.

      Luke does not follow Matthew for the passage in question; he follows Mark
      and makes the best of Mark. But if he scatters here and there at other
      points in his composition a stray motif from Matthew's better version of
      that passage (not that Luke will have thought it better; he will have
      thought it one more Matthean expansion, and treated it as deeply
      inauthoritative, though occasionally of some literary interest), there is
      nothing to be wondered at.

      Is there?

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst



















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

        >
        > 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!

        Dave:

        '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.


        Ron:

        >
        > 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.

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