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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Matthew's Sermon broken up?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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]
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.