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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Again on Michael Goulder

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Peterson
    ... I can see an argument that the poetic style of the Double Tradition suggests an origin in Aramaic or at least pre-Matthean composition (although Goulder
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 26, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > Goulder never deduced that
      > the multitude of Semitic aphorisms in the Double Tradition clearly indicate
      > an origin several decades earlier than Matthew, and probably require a
      > written source to explain their transmission to both Matthew and Luke.
      >
      I can see an argument that the poetic style of the Double Tradition suggests
      an origin in Aramaic or at least pre-Matthean composition (although Goulder
      did a pretty good job identifying common style in Matthaean redaction of
      Mark, Q, and M, particularly in his JBL articles; Matthew's date, habits,
      and concerns are remarkably similar to Q's).

      But it's hard to see how this could "require" a common source rather than
      direct use of one Evangelist by another; as Sanders and Davies noted, a
      degree of Matthew/Luke agreement close enough to establish independent use
      of a common source positively invites explanation by Luke's direct
      acquaintance with Matthew (or, much less plausibly, vice versa). And that
      holds regardless of the style of the common material and of the source from
      which the earlier Evangelist derived it.

      Jeff Peterson
      Austin Graduate School of Theology
      Austin, Texas


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ron Price
      ... Jeff, So far, so good. ... My contention here is that Goulder s arguments about common style were based primarily on the non-aphoristic passages in Q,
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 27, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeff Peterson wrote:

        > I can see an argument that the poetic style of the Double Tradition suggests
        > an origin in Aramaic or at least pre-Matthean composition

        Jeff,

        So far, so good.

        > (although Goulder did a pretty good job identifying common style in Matthaean
        > redaction of Mark, Q, and M, particularly in his JBL articles; Matthew's date,
        > habits, and concerns are remarkably similar to Q's).

        My contention here is that Goulder's arguments about common style were based
        primarily on the non-aphoristic passages in Q, which passages I deem to have
        a Matthean origin.

        > But it's hard to see how this could "require" a common source rather than
        > direct use of one Evangelist by another; as Sanders and Davies noted, a
        > degree of Matthew/Luke agreement close enough to establish independent use
        > of a common source positively invites explanation by Luke's direct
        > acquaintance with Matthew (or, much less plausibly, vice versa). And that
        > holds regardless of the style of the common material and of the source from
        > which the earlier Evangelist derived it.

        There are three serious problems with this 'invited' explanation. Firstly it
        assumes we can treat the Double Tradition as a unity when considering the
        relationship of the Matt/Luke versions of its material. Secondly it requires
        that in every case Luke's version of a DT pericope is secondary to Matthew's
        version. Thirdly it assumes that the question of how Matthew acquired the
        aphorisms is an irrelevance.

        To deal with the first point first, there is a significant difference in
        style between the Semitic aphorisms and material such as the Temptation, the
        Centurion's Servant, the Talents/Pounds and the Lament for Jerusalem. The
        widespread use of Semitic parallelism in the aphorisms indicates an origin
        in a Semitic environment several decades before Matthew. The latter material
        includes indications of sympathy towards the Gentiles, quotations from the
        Septuagint, a hint that Jerusalem had already fallen, the acceptance of a
        delay in Jesus' promised return, as well as considerable signs of Matthew's
        characteristic style.

        Concerning indications of greater Lukan primitivity, see the paragraph
        headed "Occasional Lukan Originality" in the Web page below.

        Thirdly, where did Matthew get the Semitic aphorisms from? Was it from oral
        tradition or was it from a written source? It is very unlikely that so many
        authentic-looking aphorisms could have been preserved through several
        decades of oral tradition spanning the break-up of the Jerusalem Jesus
        movement and the era of the dominance of an apostle who took little interest
        in the life or sayings of Jesus. Surely therefore Matthew had a written
        source containing the aphorisms. Did Luke also use this source? Well there
        are the mistranslations in Lk 11:41 & 11:48 which show that at least two of
        the woes were taken not from Matthew but from an Aramaic source. Then of
        course there's the above-mentioned 'Occasional Lukan Originality'.

        Confirmation of the written source comes from the historical testimony of
        Papias, which neatly matches a scenario in which the synoptic authors had to
        make their own translations of the sayings.

        Finally there are the hints dropped by Luke.
        (1) I had already found that the aphorisms seemed to be arranged in pairs
        when I spotted that Lk 10:1 appears to hint at this. It also hints that
        there were 72 sayings in all, and my investigations have shown how a highly
        coherent structure can be formed from 72 sayings.
        (2) In April 2006 I discovered another hint, this time in Lk 9:28. Here Luke
        redacts Mark's "six days" to "about eight days". How odd. Now my posited
        structure has four distinct sections, with each section having two equal
        halves. We thus have eight half-sections. Luke must have recognized these
        because certain material Matthew largely keeps together, Luke splits: the
        mission material (part into Lk 9:57-10:12 and part of the rest into ch.12.),
        and the judgement material into the woes (ch.11) and the rest (mainly
        ch.17). Lk 9:28 is placed immediately after he had copied saying C12 (Mk
        9:1), the opening saying in the sixth of eight subsections. Lastly he added
        to Mark's version the superfluous "META TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS", arguably
        confirming that Lk 9:28 referred to the 'logia'.

        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.