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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.