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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.