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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re herring or red flag?

Expand Messages
  • Graham Budd
    Surely one argument for some sort of Q is that of Bussmann, rehashed entertainingly by Casey: ie that the Q material can be seen to fall into two types: one
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 21, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Surely one argument for some sort of Q is that of Bussmann, rehashed
      entertainingly by Casey: ie that the Q material can be seen to fall
      into two types: one where verbal agreement is tight (implying a common
      Greek source, which could of course be Matthew!) and one where the
      greek agreement is much less close, implying a common non-greek source
      (ie in the mind of both of these authors, an Aramaic source). Casey
      says in his monograph on Aramaic sources and Q that it is important to
      pay attention to the distinction between these two types of "Q" and
      its relationship to the order of the Q material in Matthew and Luke,
      which sounds very intriguing but is not expanded further as far as I
      can see. Any suggestions here gratefully received!

      In extremis, one could use this to shrink Q down to i) passages of
      Matthew that Luke inserted (including Mark-Q overlap) and ii) common
      knowledge of an Aramaic source that they either independently
      translated or had access to different translations of. Given that
      there is precise linguistic contact in the Passion narrative twice
      ("who was it who struck you?" and "Peter went out and wept
      bitterly"*), the suggestion would be that passion narrative minor
      agreements would be from Matthew, not a Q source.


      Graham Budd

      *the latter of which has some textual "issues" however...

      _____________________________________
      On 21 sep 2009, at 16.16, Ron Price wrote:

      > In his "The Case against Q", pp. 165-69, Mark Goodacre argues that
      > if the
      > Minor Agreements were to be accepted as valid evidence that Luke knew
      > Matthew, then this would vindicate his case against Q. In a footnote
      > (p.167,
      > n.51), he claims that the fact that a handful of scholars [Simons et
      > al.]
      > accept Luke's dependence on both Q and Matthew is a red herring
      > because
      > these scholars had reasons other than Mt/Lk independence for
      > postulating Q.
      > He goes on to claim that Luke's knowledge of Matthew would take away
      > the
      > very reason for postulating Q.
      >
      > I see no red herring. Indeed the fact that even a handful of
      > scholars have
      > other reasons for accepting Luke's dependence on both Q and Matthew
      > should
      > have acted as a red flag, for it plainly contradicts Mark's claim in
      > the
      > last sentence of my previous paragraph.
      >
      > The heart of the problem is semantic. "Q" is a hypothetical and
      > secondary
      > construct which means a whole range of different things to different
      > scholars. To get back to basics, we should surely try to minimize our
      > references to "Q".
      >
      > Therefore, given the priority of Mark's gospel, I would like to see
      > the
      > 'case against Q' presented instead as (1) the case for Luke's
      > knowledge of
      > Matthew (the details of which Mark G. presents very well, but
      > regrettably
      > not in a distinct section) and (2) the case for/against the
      > existence of a
      > written sayings source. Farrer supporters tend to avoid facing up to
      > the
      > latter, preferring to hide behind the semantically confusing mantra
      > that
      > Luke's knowledge of Matthew 'takes away the very reason for positing
      > Q'. If
      > the intention is to claim that Luke's knowledge of Matthew
      > 'undermines the
      > case for a written sayings source', then they should say so, and
      > present the
      > arguments against the 'other reasons' for such a source. Perhaps
      > they are
      > reluctant to choose between abandoning the claim that Sanders &
      > Davies are
      > on the side of Farrer (for they expressed confidence in [unspecified]
      > sources for the sayings material), and admitting that there is/are
      > such
      > source(s) and therefore there is no 'undermining'.
      >
      > Ron Price
      >
      > Derbyshire, UK
      >
      > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Lupia
      My dear brother Leonard Matthew does not rest in peace but beholds the glory of Jesus Christ forever. As for Matthew using Mark, huh! Prove it! As far as I am
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 21, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        My dear brother Leonard

        Matthew does not rest in peace but beholds the glory of Jesus Christ forever.

        As for Matthew using Mark, huh!

        Prove it!

        As far as I am concerned all markers (pun intended) and pointers show Matthew was written well before Mark.

        BTW, this is not a contest, or protest. Since all four Gospels were written by the Catholic Church by the original eyewitnesses by the authority of the Church in concert there is no Synoptic Problem, and obviously a solution to your perceptions is very easy to document and explain.

        John



        John N. Lupia III

        New Jersey, USA; Beirut, Lebanon

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/

        God Bless Everyone

        --- On Mon, 9/21/09, Maluflen@... <Maluflen@...> wrote:

        From: Maluflen@... <Maluflen@...>
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re herring or red flag?
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, September 21, 2009, 7:53 PM






         





        Bruce wrote:



        I have separately called for more attention to the question of how Mt uses

        Mk. There were no replies to my request for previous studies on this. My own

        range of awareness includes Bacon, Farrer, and again Goulder. If someone

        recalls another, I would still be interested to know of it. In my mind, this

        study should precede the other, as clearing the ground, introducing

        ourselves to Matthew and his way with previous texts, and the points at

        which he was, and was not, comfortable with the narrative and theological

        points reached by his chief predecessor.



        An inauspicious day to make the above comment, the feast-day of Saint Matthew, who I am sure resents the idea that he was largely a plagiarist any day of the year, but would hope for?relief?from this hypothesis once a year, at least,?on September 21. Requiescat in pace!



        L.M.



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































        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Leonard On: Matthew From: Bruce LEONARD: . . .Saint Matthew, who I am sure resents the idea that he was largely a plagiarist . . .
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 21, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Leonard
          On: Matthew
          From: Bruce

          LEONARD: . . .Saint Matthew, who I am sure resents the idea that he was
          largely a plagiarist . . .

          BRUCE: No matter whose feast day this may chance to be, this remark is
          completely uncalled for. Is it customary to refer to Vergil as a plagiarist
          because his work is massively shaped around, and extrapolated from,
          something by Homer? Is the only term of approbation for an Evangelist going
          to be that every word in his work is made up completely out of his own head?
          It would surely create something of a revolution in systematic theology, to
          mention no other areas, if this attitude were adopted.

          Maybe we could use a more workmanlike list of days.

          As a start on one, I might note that 19 Sept 1740 was the birthday of Tswei
          Shu, the most systematic critic of ancient texts and historical traditions
          that traditional China ever produced. His moment of untruth (he tells us)
          occurred before the age of twenty, when he began to doubt the authenticity
          of certain Analects passages, but he went far beyond mere authenticity
          questions, and far beyond the focus on one text. He took up the whole of
          ancient tradition, and asked how much of it was credible. His lifework,
          collectively titled Kau-syin Lu (Investigations in Credibility), was his
          answer to that question. Tswei Shu worked in poverty all his life. He died
          leaving a few published sections of his work. His one disciple, Chvn Li-hv
          (1761-1825), devoted the remaining ten years of his own life to trying to
          publish a few more.

          So far my old Philology Calendar, now offline. Tswei Shu is not exactly an
          encouraging model, and better so. It would be wrong to be encouraging, since
          this is a hard business. It does not run parallel, for any great distance,
          with the way of the great world. But I intend it to be an inspirational
          model. Tswei Shu inherited a scholarly tradition almost totally stultified,
          and he let some air of reason into it. The moral is that the thing can be
          done. By anyone, or by any six, who are prepared to make the effort, and to
          pay the price.

          But name-calling is not going to get us there. Would anyone who is
          interested in taking up these matters in an analytical vein care to get in
          touch with me privately?

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • Ron Price
          ... It s true that I ve made this general case before, but not in exactly this way. In making a measured criticism of a passage in Mark s most important book
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 22, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Bruce Brooks wrote:

            > I feel we are in deja vu country here, but sometimes repetition has its
            > point, especially if nothing happened last time.

            It's true that I've made this general case before, but not in exactly this
            way. In making a measured criticism of a passage in Mark's most important
            book on the Synoptic Problem, I was (maybe even 'am') hoping to provoke a
            response from Mark himself (if you're reading this, greetings from
            Derbyshire!).

            > Let me then repeat my
            > earlier agreement with Ron, that the removal of the assumption that Lk did
            > not know Matthew DOES NOT not necessarily entail the vanishing of the Q
            > hypothesis.

            Thanks for the expression of agreement, though the assessment would be less
            ambiguous if "Q hypothesis" were replaced by "hypothesis of a written
            sayings source" if indeed that's what you mean, Bruce, according to the 'get
            back to basics' principle I tried to advocate in my original post in this
            thread.

            > What it does probably do is require the Q hypothesis to be
            > reformulated, and Q to be reconstructed entirely de novo, consistently on
            > the new assumptions.

            This I have done, and it's all set out on my Web site.

            Ron Price

            Derbyshire, UK

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          • fathchuck@aol.com
            I don t know where to begin! First, little or none of Mr.Lupia s post is the official teaching of the Catholic Church and as I understand it not the common
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 26, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I don't know where to begin! First, little or none of Mr.Lupia's post is the official teaching of the Catholic Church and as I understand it not the common position of Catholic scripture scholars. But a note or two:



              1. Many of us Catholics -- both those of us trained in Scriptures and those not -- would argue for Markan priority, and in my case preach it.



              2. He also says "Since all four Gospels were written by the Catholic Church by the original eyewitnesses by the authority of the Church
              in concert". None of this is offical Church teaching and?is a rather odd understanding of the way that the Gospels were written. No one would claim they were written BY the Church as official Church documents are today. It's not like Pope Peter or Linus called Matthew Mark Luke and John and said -- hey guys write me some Gospels. And the fact is that, as we all?know,?they were not all written by eyewitnesses.



              I want tobe sure everyone is clear: This is not in any way shape or form the official position of the Catholic Church.



              Rev. Charles M. Schwartz, administrator

              Saint Dorothea

              Eatontown, NJ



              My dear brother Leonard

              Matthew does not rest in peace but beholds the glory of Jesus Christ forever.

              As for Matthew using Mark, huh!

              Prove it!

              As far as I am concerned all markers (pun intended) and pointers show Matthew
              was written well before Mark.

              BTW, this is not a contest, or protest. Since all four Gospels were written by
              the Catholic Church by the original eyewitnesses by the authority of the Church
              in concert there is no Synoptic Problem, and obviously a solution to your
              perceptions is very easy to document and explain.

              John







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Tony Buglass
              Charles Schwarz wrote: He [John Lupia] also says Since all four Gospels were written by the Catholic Church by the original eyewitnesses by the authority of
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 27, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Charles Schwarz wrote:
                He [John Lupia] also says "Since all four Gospels were written by the Catholic Church by the original eyewitnesses by the authority of the Church
                in concert". None of this is offical Church teaching ...

                To be honest, when I read John's words, I thought it was a joke. It really does look like a total cariciature (you know, on the lines of "if St Paul used the KJV, it's good enough for me..."). The problem is that humour doesn't always translate clearly in email, and especially across cultures. He was responding to Leonard Maluflen, who has argued Matthean priority on this list for a very long time, and (while he has himself done so from a clear academic standpoint) has occasionally given the impression that it is or should be RC orthodoxy. His final comments about the feast of St Matthew and "requiescat in pacem" may have been the ones which pressed John's button to make the comment he did.

                Perhaps I should have said a long time ago, if you really want to get it right, you have to ask the Methodists. (Grabs coat, and runs for cover...)

                Cheers,
                Rev Tony Buglass
                Superintendent Minister
                Upper Calder Methodist Circuit

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ron Price
                ... Graham, I m sure there is some truth in this. However degree of verbal agreement as a criterion is not as useful as one might think. If there is very
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 27, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Graham Budd wrote:

                  > Surely one argument for some sort of Q is that of Bussmann, rehashed
                  > entertainingly by Casey: ie that the Q material can be seen to fall
                  > into two types: one where verbal agreement is tight (implying a common
                  > Greek source, which could of course be Matthew!) and one where the
                  > greek agreement is much less close, implying a common non-greek source
                  > (ie in the mind of both of these authors, an Aramaic source).

                  Graham,

                  I'm sure there is some truth in this. However 'degree of verbal agreement'
                  as a criterion is not as useful as one might think. If there is very close
                  and reasonably extensive verbal agreement, we can be confident that the
                  source was Greek (and Luke could have been using Matthew). But the opposite
                  is not necessarily true, for a synoptic writer could have chosen to vary
                  considerably from his source. Also if Luke used Matthew as well as an
                  Aramaic source (which I believe), and if these sources overlapped (as they
                  probably did), there may be a few cases in which Matthew had translated a
                  saying from Aramaic, then Luke made use of Matthew's translation. One such
                  case seems to be the Signs saying (where the 'Queen of the South' and 'men
                  of Nineveh' passages are especially closely worded). Matthew's text would
                  have been open at the right place after copying 'Unclean Spirit' (Mt
                  12:43-45 // Lk 11:24-26).

                  A more useful criterion for separation is on the one hand Semitic aphorisms
                  (indicated e.g. by the use of parallelism), and on the other hand narrative,
                  and/or the presence of Matthean style in Luke.

                  > ..... Given that
                  > there is precise linguistic contact in the Passion narrative twice
                  > ("who was it who struck you?" and "Peter went out and wept
                  > bitterly"*), the suggestion would be that passion narrative minor
                  > agreements would be from Matthew, not a Q source.

                  And most other minor agreements, for that matter.

                  Ron Price

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                • David Mealand
                  Ron s web page does list some of the problems with some of the theories. There are problems esp over minor agreements on the Q view. There are also problems
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 29, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ron's web page does list some of the problems with
                    some of the theories.

                    There are problems esp over minor agreements on the Q view.
                    There are also problems over why Luke should have done what he did
                    on the view that Luke used Matthew. To propose the latter
                    view AND some kind of sayings source retains the second set
                    of problems and adds the problem of multiplying hypotheses
                    by positing a further entity.

                    If I changed my view that the difficulties for Q are less
                    weighty than the difficulties in holding that Luke used
                    Matthew, then I think I would go for the latter "straight".

                    So my first question is why go the trouble of proposing
                    a further source if one thinks that Luke used Matthew?

                    My second question is this:
                    Is it really the case that where there are cogent
                    arguments for some sort of sayings source these
                    do not also reveal some of the
                    difficulties for the view that Luke used Matthew?

                    David M.



                    ---------
                    David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                    --
                    The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                    Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                  • Ron Price
                    ... David, You don t spell out the latter problems. If you refer to Luke s treatment of Matthew s birth and resurrection narratives, then my explanation would
                    Message 9 of 12 , Sep 30, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      David Mealand wrote:

                      > There are problems esp over minor agreements on the Q view.
                      > There are also problems over why Luke should have done what he did
                      > on the view that Luke used Matthew.

                      David,

                      You don't spell out the latter problems. If you refer to Luke's treatment of
                      Matthew's birth and resurrection narratives, then my explanation would be
                      similar to that provided by advocates of the Farrer Theory.

                      If you refer to Luke's treatment of the Sermon on the Mount, then my
                      explanation is different. For on the Three-Source Theory Luke did what any
                      good scholar would have done, namely to base his document primarily on the
                      earliest sources available. These were Mark's gospel (ca. 70 CE) for his
                      narrative, and the logia (ca. 45 CE) for the sayings. Thus his 'destruction'
                      of Matthew's sermon was simply a side-effect of good practice.

                      Luke's preference for the Markan order over the Matthean order (Kloppenborg)
                      was also because Luke had chosen Mark as his primary source for narratives.

                      > To propose the latter
                      > view AND some kind of sayings source retains the second set
                      > of problems and adds the problem of multiplying hypotheses
                      > by positing a further entity.

                      If this 'further entity' were entirely hypothetical like Q, then you would
                      have a valid point here. But the source is historically attested. For the
                      most natural understanding of Papias' "logia" or 'oracles' is that it was a
                      collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. I am aware that Kloppenborg calls
                      Papias' statement "legendary at best" ("Excavating Q", p.80). But I can't
                      help thinking that his conclusion was influenced by the fact that it doesn't
                      match his deduction of a Q which originated in Greek.

                      This last deduction was based mainly on texts which the Three-Source Theory
                      can take as cases of Luke copying Matthew directly. Thus for example the
                      Temptation story with its quotations from the Septuagint, the only two
                      probable cases of genitive absolute (Mt 11:7 par.; Mt 9:33 par.), and the
                      majority of passages with a high degree of verbal agreement, all occur in
                      texts which I assign to Luke's direct dependence on Matthew. The removal of
                      such texts as candidates for the sayings source will almost certainly
                      undermine any case against the translation hypothesis. The remainder of the
                      Double Tradition texts will be seen to be aphorisms, many of which exhibit
                      Semitic parallelism, and a few of which exhibit either paronomasia, or signs
                      of mistranslation in the Greek of Matthew and/or Luke. There is thus no bar
                      to their Aramaic origin, and no reason to disparage Papias' statement.

                      > If I changed my view that the difficulties for Q are less
                      > weighty than the difficulties in holding that Luke used
                      > Matthew, then I think I would go for the latter "straight".
                      >
                      > So my first question is why go the trouble of proposing
                      > a further source if one thinks that Luke used Matthew?

                      On the page cited below under "Evidence that Luke also used a sayings
                      source" I've given a set of reasons for thinking there was a sayings source,
                      and longer set indicating Luke's use of it. Even if the odd reason is
                      rejected, the cumulative set of reasons is surely weighty.

                      > My second question is this:
                      > Is it really the case that where there are cogent
                      > arguments for some sort of sayings source these
                      > do not also reveal some of the
                      > difficulties for the view that Luke used Matthew?

                      Not as far as I know. On the contrary, positing that the Double Tradition
                      was dual-sourced not only leads to the solution of the main problems
                      associated with both the 2ST and the FT, but by removing the barriers to an
                      Aramaic source it opens up again a perspective which has been gradually
                      stifled during the last 50 years or so, and brings to light a crucial
                      historical link between the Aramaic-speaking Jesus community in Jerusalem
                      and the authors of the Greek-language synoptic gospels.

                      Ron Price

                      Derbyshire, UK

                      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.