Re: [Synoptic-L] Again on Michael Goulder
- On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
>I can see an argument that the poetic style of the Double Tradition suggests
> 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.
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.
Austin Graduate School of Theology
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Jeff Peterson wrote:
> I can see an argument that the poetic style of the Double Tradition suggestsJeff,
> an origin in Aramaic or at least pre-Matthean composition
So far, so good.
> (although Goulder did a pretty good job identifying common style in MatthaeanMy contention here is that Goulder's arguments about common style were based
> redaction of Mark, Q, and M, particularly in his JBL articles; Matthew's date,
> habits, and concerns are remarkably similar to Q's).
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 thanThere are three serious problems with this 'invited' explanation. Firstly it
> 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.
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
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'.