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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Lk 4:14-30

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/18/2005 7:02:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Again, I find it remarkable that in this long post, of which I cite only the final
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 18, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 9/18/2005 7:02:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      brooks@... writes:

      > I regret not having to hand the Neirynck discussion of Lukan transpositions
      > to which Fitzmyer defers for detail, but perhaps the present detail will
      > suffice for a decision. I emerge from this wider consideration of the Lk 4
      > problem with the previous conclusion: Lk >Lk. That is: Luke has at some
      > point been reordered from a previous condition of that text; one whose order
      > of material was more Markan than that of our present Luke. The hypothesis of
      > a less Markan Proto-Luke behind our Luke seems not to hold up well upon
      > examination, in that it does not eliminate the inconcinnity problems, as it
      > was claimed to do.
      >

      Again, I find it remarkable that in this long post, of which I cite only the
      final paragraph, not a word is said about Matthew. And this, even from someone
      who actually accepts that Luke knew Matthew! It is as though, although Luke
      knew Matthew, the only relevant discussion is how Luke's text compares to Mark.
      I say this because I have studied these Lukan texts in great depth, and have
      always found by far the most enlightenment for their understanding to come
      from studying them in the light of Matthew. If I cannot convince even FH people
      of this, then I guess I am really fighting an uphill battle. I would like to
      remind people of a "misprint", or Freudean slip, I once noted on this list, in
      the English edition of a recent book by G. Theissen on the Synoptic Gospels,
      where a chart exhibiting the literary relationships between the Gospel has the
      symbol "Mk" in two places and "Matt" nowhere at all. It is of course a
      misprint, but it says a lot, I think.

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic Cc: WSW (to whom friendly greetings from afar) In Response To: Leonard Maluf (Synoptic) On: Lk 4:14-30 From: Bruce In two recent messages, Leonard
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 19, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        Cc: WSW (to whom friendly greetings from afar)
        In Response To: Leonard Maluf (Synoptic)
        On: Lk 4:14-30
        From: Bruce

        In two recent messages, Leonard has suggested that more attention be paid to
        Matthew in connection with the Lk 4:14-30 problem. I will comply as well as
        I can. First, it may help to restate the position I believe I have reached,
        though without repeating earlier arguments as to inconcinnity and literary
        excellence, and with all acknowledgement to Leonard in helping me to reach
        that position.

        What we have, in the Lukan three-pericope set including the Teaching at
        Nazareth, is most fundamentally a difference of order between Lk and the
        other two Synoptics. Not to use prejudicial alphabet letters, let me state
        the order by abbreviations, thus:

        Matthew and Mark:
        SIM = The Calling of Simon
        CAP = The First Teaching (and Healing) at Capernaum
        and, after a considerable amount of intervening material,
        NAZ = The Teaching at Nazareth

        Luke:
        NAZ = The Teaching at Nazareth
        CAP = The First Teaching (and Healing) at Capernaum
        and, also consecutively,
        SIM = The Calling of Simon

        The one is the reverse of the other, plus the inclusion or elimination of
        material in Mt/Mk separating the NAZ segment from the rest. One might say,
        Well, these three segments were simply unordered and freely combinable
        modules, provided and held in suspension by "the tradition," and Luke
        happens to have put them in a different order than did the other two, so no
        directionality indicator subsists therein.

        That will not do. As pointed out before, by Leonard, by earlier
        commentators, and by myself, the Lukan order involves internal narrative
        inconcinnities which are absent in the Mt/Mk order. Then the Lukan modules,
        *as we have them in Luke,* have not been written to be in that order, but
        have been rearranged from an earlier order in which those same modules, or
        modules closely similar to them, occurred in the order SIM-CAP-NAZ, that is,
        in the Mt/Mk order. That the Lukan versions have been beautifully written,
        and that in terms of characterization and motivation they are far superior
        to the Mt/Mk parallels, I have previously demonstrated, and that superiority
        is in any case obvious to the meanest reader (Luke is not for nothing the
        Beloved Gospel).

        But it is not the point. The point is that the Lukan segments could not have
        been written de novo to appear in the Lukan order. As they now stand, they
        can only have been written to appear in the Mt/Mk order. The conclusion, I
        should say, is inescapable, that a rearrangement of order has occurred with
        these three Lukan passages (or passages closely similar). Either that
        rearrangement occurred within the text formation process of Luke itself (at
        an earlier stage of which, the modules appeared in the Mt/Mk order), or it
        occurred within some outside source which Luke has taken over substantially
        intact. By present majority opinion, that outside source would be Q. But it
        is also held by present majority opinion (insofar as it posits a specific
        order of material in Q) that it is usually Luke who preserves the order of
        Q. If, then, the three Lukan modules are in fact the Q material in the Q
        order, the same problem exists up the line in Q, and we must to Q transfer
        our question: From what prior state has this material been rearranged?
        Sooner or later that question needs to be answered, if we are to have a
        satisfactory account of things. I will here take the ordering of the Lukan
        material as a Lukan authorial activity.

        It is at this point, as I see it, that Leonard's suggestion to pay attention
        to Matthew properly comes in. I will go him one better, and pay attention to
        both Matthew and Mark.

        To what extent was the order of the Lukan material determined by Matthew or
        Mark? Answer: zero, because the order common to Matthew and Mark is
        different, and also narratively problematic, in Luke. The Lukan order, in
        fact, the Lukan reordering, is then due to Luke himself. This is what was
        meant by my perhaps cryptic previous conclusion: Lk > Lk.

        To what extent could the substance of the Lukan material have been
        determined by Matthew or Mark? This is the sort of question, involving fine
        points of Greek vocabulary, that I will defer to the Farmer Synopsis, which
        gives in different colors, for each Greek word in each Synoptic, the degree
        of verbal agreement with the other two Synoptics. Farmer shows the following
        (taking the material in Lukan order):

        1. NAZ. It is easy to determine the parallel passages by content, but there
        is very little exact identity of word. Most of what little verbal identity
        there is in Luke, is indeterminate with respect to determining Luke's source
        as between Mt and Mk (Farmer's blue). The very little that *is* determinate
        is mostly function words, kai and de and company, and it would take a subtle
        Greek grammarian to build a case on such. I won't attempt it. But in NAZ we
        have the word Nazara, (not Nazaret or Nazareth), which is absolutely
        confined, in NT, to the two respective Mt and Lk passages. If Lk at this
        point is secondary to any extant text, then Matthew is that text. I believe
        that this is the point which Leonard wishes me to re-acknowledge, and I do
        so most willingly.

        2. CAP. This text is considerably indebted, not for single words but for the
        length of whole sentences, to Mk (Farmer's green). There is not much Mt/Mk
        common wordage (Farmer's blue), and of distinctively Matthean words
        (Farmer's red), none beyond autes, autous. If Lk at this point is secondary
        to any extant text, then, on far stronger grounds than those just cited for
        NAZ, Mark is that text.

        3. SIM. Same general situation as in NAZ. Very little of the wordage is
        anything but original Lk. There are some indeterminate Mt/Mk contacts (para,
        eiden). Of the Matthean contacts (Farmer's red) that look to be worth
        anything, I see only duo "two" ("He saw two boats"), but in Mt, the word
        occurs in "he saw two other brothers" (ie, Jacob and John, who in Luke come
        into the story in a different way). Given the lack of real parallel in the
        context for duo, I would not push that too far; it could only operate (as
        Taylor said of his Proto-Luke) as dissolved within Luke's consciousness,
        rather than studiously imitated from off the page. Of distinctive Markan
        contacts (Farmer's green), not much more than an initial kai.

        Given that the Lukan order cannot be original, and that Luke's literary
        artistry also implies a polished rather than a primitive version, the
        question of sources thus arises, and to the extent that identity of wording
        implies a source, the unmistakable source for Luke in this series is Mk for
        the CAP segment (which is the least individually written of the Lukan
        three), with a strong if single indicator for some level of awareness of Mt
        in the NAZ segment, and a fainter possibility of the same relation in the
        SIM segment.

        There are other ways of comparing these versions than by Farmer's criterion
        (identity of word), but as far as it is suggested thereby, how should we
        describe the authorial activity of Luke in these three consecutive segments?
        I suggest the following: Luke has placed at the beginning of his entire
        Ministry account a Nazareth episode which in every identifiable possible
        source came much later, and has rewritten it to make the Messianic claim of
        Jesus, and the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, thematically clear from the
        very outset, rather than have it (as in Mk and Mt) develop gradually over
        time, a point of considerable theological and practical importance. In
        rewriting the sources, Luke in NAZ has had in the corner of his eye (as far
        as the words of the text can be said to suggest), Matthew rather than Mark.
        In the following CAP segment, which is the least rewritten of the three
        (that is, the most like something else of the three), Luke on the contrary
        has tended to follow what among extant texts can only be Mark. In the
        concluding SIM segment, where again Luke takes a firmer authorial hand as
        compared to his possible sources, there may again be a hint of the specific
        Matthew, and there is ambiguity otherwise as between Matthew and Mark.

        Overall, ALk seems to have asserted his authorial rights strongly in this
        series, though not so carefully as to repair the concinnity damage done by
        his thematically motivated rearrangements. Where he tends to accept his
        source (as in CAP), that source tends to be Mark. Where he tends to depart
        from any known sources and go off on his own (in NAZ and again in SIM), we
        can see some traces of Matthew at the edge of his awareness. Luke then knew,
        and in some operative sense had before him, the comparable passages of both
        Matthew and Mark. His activity as a theologian and literary dramatist
        evidently includes his making very free with those sources, whenever his
        literary sense or theological (or other) agenda prompts him to do so.

        This imputed difference of treatment by Luke, as between Mark (on the whole
        respectful, at points where Mark sufficiently serves his purposes) and
        Matthew (on the whole adversative, though with some hints of awareness, eg
        Nazara, nevertheless coming through), has been denounced by Streeter and
        others as radically inconceivable: the behavior of a madman. It is not at
        all the behavior of a madman, but it may well be the behavior of an angry
        man. Luke begins by announcing his awareness of other versions of Jesus's
        deeds. He then proceeds to write out his own version of those deeds, and
        this fact - the fact of the existence of Luke's version, tells us all we
        need to know about how satisfactory he found those other versions The above
        fine-grained consideration of Luke's authorial behavior makes sense if Luke
        respected Mark (perhaps as known to be the older, but anyway, for some
        reason) and used it without too drastic rewriting where it was adequate for
        his purposes, but if he was at the same time in direct competition with
        Matthew, whose (perhaps more recent) version seemed to him to be
        theologically and literarily less than the situation called for. It was this
        deficiency of the available versions that was his own motivation. It was
        this that aroused sufficient anger to make him pick up his pen.

        This is what Streeter could not see, but it is a perfectly rational set of
        motives all the same, and it has the further advantage of being compatible
        with what Luke himself says about his motives.

        Otherwise, I suggest, the whole Gospel of Luke, a matter of many pages in
        its present version, would read this way:

        "Most esteemed Theophilus, There has just appeared in the stores here the
        most terrific account of Jesus's deeds which I have ever seen; it is by
        somebody up in Antioch named Matthew. I enclose a copy for your edification.
        Yours faithfully, Luke MD."

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.