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

Re: Matthew's Sermon broken up?

Expand Messages
  • poirier
    Here we are in 2010 and people are *still* assuming that if one evangelist followed another, then we have to explain why he departed from his source s order,
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 21 3:37 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Here we are in 2010 and people are *still* assuming
      that if one evangelist followed another, then we have to
      explain why he departed from his source's order, or failed
      to include something found in that source. Those
      assumptions should have died a long, long, long, long, long
      time ago. What is keeping them alive?
      Here I would only mention that these assumptions only seem
      to be invoked in the case of the synoptic problem. No one
      who thinks that the Fourth Gospel used Luke seems to be
      troubled by all the stuff that the Fourth Gospel omitted (or
      rearranged). And no one who thinks that Thomas used the
      synoptics seems to be troubled by all the stuff that Thomas
      omitted (or rearranged). Why is Luke the only one that
      scholars hold to this criterion?
      And why should we expect Luke to keep things in order?
      Doesn't he more or less tell us that he's reacting to other
      gospels, and that that's the reason he's writing his own?
      Wouldn't we expect him to restructure his sources, just for
      the sake of making his gospel distinct from his
      competitors'?
      John C. Poirier




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      Here I would only mention that these assumptions only seem o be invoked in the case of the synoptic problem. No one ho thinks that the Fourth Gospel used
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 21 9:32 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Here I would only mention that these assumptions only seem
        o be invoked in the case of the synoptic problem. No one
        ho thinks that the Fourth Gospel used Luke seems to be
        roubled by all the stuff that the Fourth Gospel omitted (or
        rearranged). And no one who thinks that Thomas used the
        ynoptics seems to be troubled by all the stuff that Thomas
        mitted (or rearranged). Why is Luke the only one that
        cholars hold to this criterion?

        John, you make good points here, with all of which I strongly agree, but your final question above has a rather simple answer. It is the generally accepted, and fearfully retained theory of Marcan priority which best explains why Luke as a gospel redactor is held to standards of copying -- without drastic revision -- that are not applied elsewhere (the argument being an argument by analogy). I assume you know this quite well, but I thought it worth mentioning, in case anyone missed it. If Luke had only the Gospel of Matthew (and of course nearly the whole Greek OT) in front of him when he wrote, then he did nothing remotely surprising when he broke up and rewrote Matthew's great sermon. He did the same, consistently, with each of the other four major discourses in Matthew.

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA






        -----Original Message-----
        From: poirier <poirier@...>
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 6:37 am
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Matthew's Sermon broken up?


        Here we are in 2010 and people are *still* assuming
        hat if one evangelist followed another, then we have to
        xplain why he departed from his source's order, or failed
        o include something found in that source. Those
        ssumptions should have died a long, long, long, long, long
        ime ago. What is keeping them alive?
        Here I would only mention that these assumptions only seem
        o be invoked in the case of the synoptic problem. No one
        ho thinks that the Fourth Gospel used Luke seems to be
        roubled by all the stuff that the Fourth Gospel omitted (or
        rearranged). And no one who thinks that Thomas used the
        ynoptics seems to be troubled by all the stuff that Thomas
        mitted (or rearranged). Why is Luke the only one that
        cholars hold to this criterion?
        And why should we expect Luke to keep things in order?
        oesn't he more or less tell us that he's reacting to other
        ospels, and that that's the reason he's writing his own?
        ouldn't we expect him to restructure his sources, just for
        he sake of making his gospel distinct from his
        ompetitors'?
        John C. Poirier



        Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        ------------------------------------
        Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
        Individual Email | Traditional
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        I am sending this a second time, as it seems not to have survived the trip on the first go.... John Poirier wrote (for full text, see below): Here I would only
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 21 9:53 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I am sending this a second time, as it seems not to have survived the trip on the first go....

          John Poirier wrote (for full text, see below):




          Here I would only mention that these assumptions only seem
          o be invoked in the case of the synoptic problem. No one
          ho thinks that the Fourth Gospel used Luke seems to be
          roubled by all the stuff that the Fourth Gospel omitted (or
          rearranged). And no one who thinks that Thomas used the
          ynoptics seems to be troubled by all the stuff that Thomas
          mitted (or rearranged). Why is Luke the only one that
          cholars hold to this criterion?

          John, you make good points here, with all of which I strongly agree, but your final question above has a rather simple answer. It is the generally accepted, and fearfully retained theory of Marcan priority which best explains why Luke as a gospel redactor is held to standards of copying -- without drastic revision -- that are not applied elsewhere (the argument being an argument by analogy). I assume you know this quite well, but I thought it worth mentioning, in case anyone missed it. If Luke had only the Gospel of Matthew (and of course nearly the whole Greek OT) in front of him when he wrote, then he did nothing remotely surprising when he broke up and rewrote Matthew's great sermon. He did the same, consistently, with each of the other four major discourses in Matthew.

          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA






          -----Original Message-----
          From: poirier <poirier@...>
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 6:37 am
          Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Matthew's Sermon broken up?


          Here we are in 2010 and people are *still* assuming
          hat if one evangelist followed another, then we have to
          xplain why he departed from his source's order, or failed
          o include something found in that source. Those
          ssumptions should have died a long, long, long, long, long
          ime ago. What is keeping them alive?
          Here I would only mention that these assumptions only seem
          o be invoked in the case of the synoptic problem. No one
          ho thinks that the Fourth Gospel used Luke seems to be
          roubled by all the stuff that the Fourth Gospel omitted (or
          rearranged). And no one who thinks that Thomas used the
          ynoptics seems to be troubled by all the stuff that Thomas
          mitted (or rearranged). Why is Luke the only one that
          cholars hold to this criterion?
          And why should we expect Luke to keep things in order?
          oesn't he more or less tell us that he's reacting to other
          ospels, and that that's the reason he's writing his own?
          ouldn't we expect him to restructure his sources, just for
          he sake of making his gospel distinct from his
          ompetitors'?
          John C. Poirier



          Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          ------------------------------------
          Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
          Individual Email | Traditional
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Matson, Mark (Academic)
          And, following on Jack s point below, the whole term order is suspect anyway. Is it chronological order? (no). Is it simply Matthew s order? (why?). What
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 21 2:34 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            And, following on Jack's point below, the whole term "order" is suspect anyway. Is it "chronological order?" (no). Is it simply Matthew's order? (why?). What order are we talking about? The assumption always starts with a presumed superiority of Matthew's version.


            At any rate, I think I made a pretty good stab at explaining Luke's method in rewriting Matthew's sermon in the Questioning Q volume (ed. Goodacre and Perrin; with articles by Poirier and Peterson. My article still has a certain explanatory force for me. But what would you expect?


            Mark A. Matson
            Academic Dean
            Milligan College
            http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm




            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
            > Behalf Of poirier
            > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:38 AM
            > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Matthew's Sermon broken up?
            >
            > Here we are in 2010 and people are *still* assuming
            > that if one evangelist followed another, then we have to
            > explain why he departed from his source's order, or failed
            > to include something found in that source. Those
            > assumptions should have died a long, long, long, long, long
            > time ago. What is keeping them alive?
            > Here I would only mention that these assumptions only seem
            > to be invoked in the case of the synoptic problem. No one
            > who thinks that the Fourth Gospel used Luke seems to be
            > troubled by all the stuff that the Fourth Gospel omitted (or
            > rearranged). And no one who thinks that Thomas used the
            > synoptics seems to be troubled by all the stuff that Thomas
            > omitted (or rearranged). Why is Luke the only one that
            > scholars hold to this criterion?
            > And why should we expect Luke to keep things in order?
            > Doesn't he more or less tell us that he's reacting to other
            > gospels, and that that's the reason he's writing his own?
            > Wouldn't we expect him to restructure his sources, just for
            > the sake of making his gospel distinct from his
            > competitors'?
            > John C. Poirier
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
          • brooks@asianlan.umass.edu
            To: Synoptic In Response To: Leonard Maluf On: Breaking Up Matthew From: Bruce In responding to John Poirier s question, Leonard had said: LEONARD: If Luke had
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 21 6:05 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Synoptic
              In Response To: Leonard Maluf
              On: Breaking Up Matthew
              From: Bruce

              In responding to John Poirier's question, Leonard had said:

              LEONARD: If Luke had only the Gospel of Matthew (and of course nearly
              the whole Greek OT) in front of him when he wrote, then he did nothing
              remotely surprising when he broke up and rewrote Matthew's great
              sermon. He did the same, consistently, with each of the other four
              major discourses in Matthew.

              BRUCE: Excellent point, Leonard, and indeed akin to one I made a bit
              ago. It is easier to explain Luke at many points than at only one. Our
              guesses at one point may be many; our experience of what Luke does at
              other points usefully narrows the range of possibilities. The large is
              easier to understand than the small.

              Now let me explain to you about the Trajectory Arguments for Synoptic
              order . . .

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            • brooks@asianlan.umass.edu
              To: Synoptic Cc: WSW, GPG In Response To: Mark Matson On: Breaking Up Matthew From: Bruce] The issue here is the importance of order. MARK: the whole term
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 21 7:00 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                To: Synoptic
                Cc: WSW, GPG
                In Response To: Mark Matson
                On: Breaking Up Matthew
                From: Bruce]

                The issue here is the importance of order.

                MARK: the whole term "order" is suspect anyway.

                BRUCE: Not to me. Is this a touch of the old Lachmann allergy?

                MARK: Is it "chronological order?" (no).

                BRUCE: We don't know that the order of events presented in any of the
                Gospels corresponds to the true Historical Jesus order. So much may be
                granted. But I should think it is obvious that each of the Gospels
                *purports* to tell that story in the order in which it happened. No
                Gospel but begins the working life of Jesus with the Baptism, has a
                middle section of more or less length in which Jesus makes the
                transition from Galilee to Jerusalem, and ends with his Crucifixion at
                Jerusalem. If any of these major elements occurred in a different
                sequence, we might fairly say that we were dealing with a mere
                collection of anecdotes. But they don't, and we aren't. What Matthew
                gives us, in his highly formalized way, is still something that offers
                itself to us as a chronology, a consecutive account, of Jesus.

                MARK: Is it simply Matthew's order? (why?).

                BRUCE: Because that is what we have in front of us. How that order
                differs in detail from that of the other Gospels is also in front of
                us; it is a perfectly objective fact, and a perfectly valid topic of
                investigation.

                MARK: What order are we talking about?

                BRUCE: See the archive. The initial question concerned the order of
                Luke, and whether it is construable as a rearrangement of that of
                Matthew.

                MARK: The assumption always starts with a presumed superiority of
                Matthew's version.

                BRUCE: "Superiority" begs the question. Superiority is a matter of
                taste, and it has been known since antiquity that arguing tastes leads
                nowhere.

                "Priority" is the real question, and that is surely investigable.
                Thus: If we had only the texts of Matthew and Luke, with no
                information or presuppositions, it would not take us long to discover
                that the two cover much the same narrative ground, though with many
                differences. One of the differences is in the tone and tendency of the
                common incidents; much there to work on. Another is the difference in
                the order in which some of the incidents are presented; much there as
                well. The original question directs our attention to the latter data
                set.

                At first glance, the differences in order between the two bring us up
                short: each order is by implication an implied real chronological
                order (see above), but at points where they differ, at least one of
                them must be chronologically wrong. We then do a directionality study
                of each of those places, and see what we come up with. Are there
                reasons why, given the A sequence, another author might have
                rearranged it as the B sequence? Or is it easier to see the B sequence
                as an intentional rearrangement of the A sequence? In this area, all
                of us are students of Tischendorf: The version which can most readily
                be seen as giving rise to the other is presumptively prior to the
                other. And proceeding in that way, we should eventually be able to
                say, This text, at all points in question (or at all points where with
                present knowledge a plausible sequence can be inferred), is prior to
                that other text.

                Then we have learned something useful. And the technique of learning
                it finds wider uses also. Thus, Fitzmyer does a pretty good job of
                showing why Luke moved certain parts of Mark from their Markan
                position to a different one. It's not all that difficult, and it's not
                a priori futile. So also with Matthew and Luke; Luke's propensities
                are readily discoverable from a reading of his entire text, and it can
                be seen in at least some cases that his differences of order from
                Matthew are consonant with those propensities. This leads toward the
                conclusion Mt > Lk.

                Which is surely a useful point to have reached, no?

                No author, no musician, no performer of any stripe, thinks order of
                presentation irrelevant. For example, a symphony should end briskly,
                not to leave the audience in a gloomy state of mind. There are thus
                conductors who will not touch Tchaikovsky's Sixth, where this rule is
                grossly violated. For a church organist to do something equally
                downbeat at end of the service is to court instant dismissal, for
                reasons that pastor and people do not even need to put into words.

                Sequence is powerful. Climax is powerful. Interlude, as it relates to
                climax, is powerful in its own kind of way. Bizet's intermezzi. The
                Greek tragedians liked to fill their transitions and interludes with
                certain kinds of material. And the way the Japanese "no" play writers
                treat the "michiyuki" portion of their groundplan would have delighted
                Luke. I get the impression that the Gospel writers understood these
                things superlatively well. Why is it irrelevant, or "suspect," to
                notice this aspect of their art?

                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.