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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Source Theories and the HHB Concordance

Expand Messages
  • Tony Buglass
    Just back from midnight communion - feeling well-frozen and well-blessed! Happy Christmas to all of you and yours, Blessings, Rev Tony Buglass Superintendent
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 24, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Just back from midnight communion - feeling well-frozen and well-blessed!

      Happy Christmas to all of you and yours,
      Blessings,
      Rev Tony Buglass
      Superintendent Minister
      Calderdale Methodist Circuit

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tony Buglass
      Of course, I intended to change the subject line to Christmas Greetings - I refer you to the comment about being well frozen - the brain stopped working...
      Message 2 of 17 , Dec 24, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Of course, I intended to change the subject line to "Christmas Greetings" - I refer you to the comment about being "well frozen" - the brain stopped working...

        Blessings, all!
        Rev Tony Buglass
        Superintendent Minister
        Calderdale Methodist Circuit

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        DAVE GENTILE: Leaving the study, there are other arguments to make, most of which I ll leave to other people to make if they wish. But my own argument has been
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 26, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          DAVE GENTILE:
          Leaving the study, there are other arguments to make, most of which
          I'll leave to other people to make if they wish. But my own argument
          has been from Luke's behavior. Luke follows the wording of the sayings
          very closely. However, the order he follows not at all. It has been
          noted by some that the order of "Q" material in Luke and Matthew is
          correlated. However, if you take out the narrative parts of the
          hypothetical "Q" (which I suspect have a different history than the
          sayings), you find that the order of the sayings in Matthew and Luke do
          not correlate at all.

          LEONARD:
          This last comment is an overstatement. What you do not find between
          Matthew and Luke, in terms of the sayings of Jesus they offer, is
          perfect alignment. On the other hand, there certainly is significant
          correlation, as well as some non-correlation, between Matthew and Luke
          in the sayings material as a whole. For instance, if you begin with
          focusing on the five major discourses in Matthew, Luke generally has
          material corresponding to these -- in parts of his Gospel that also
          correspond generally to their sequence in Matthew (sermon on the
          mount/plain, commissioning of the twelve, eschatological discourse,
          etc.).

          DAVE:
          If Luke uses Matthew and regards Matthew as a contemporary document,
          and not a historical one, then I find it odd that Luke quotes Matthew
          so precisely, as if he were preserving the words Jesus actually spoke.
          On the other hand, if Luke thought Matthew was an old historical
          source, then I think the way he rips it apart is odd. I would expect it
          to be treated more like he treats Mark.

          LEONARD:
          Responding to the first sentence above, there are any number of reasons
          why Luke might have thought the sayings of Jesus in Matthew are worth
          quoting precisely, to the extent that they are indeed so quoted, even
          if the hypothesis that Luke considered Matthew a “contemporary”, and
          “not a historical” document were sound. The hypothesis that sayings
          believed to preserve words that Jesus actually spoke would for that
          reason be recorded by Luke without alteration also rests on modern (not
          to say Protestant/fundamentalistic) presuppositions that are probably
          quite irrelevant to the behavior of the Evangelists. The
          presuppositions in the final two sentences above are also problematic.
          The idea that Luke could calmly asses Matthew as a contemporary
          document that could be treated casually compared to a “historical” Mark
          that would require more respectful treatment flies in the face of the
          historical evidence from very soon after the composition of Luke. How
          could Luke’s audience be expected to concur with this evaluation of
          Matthew, and yet an ecclesiastical consensus emerges, without
          challenge, just a few years later, to the effect that Matthew was the
          first Gospel written? The evidence of strangely different treatment by
          Luke of Matthew and Mark respectively is most convincingly handled by
          the assumption that Luke did not know or use Mark, and that the
          symmetry between Luke-Mark double tradition and Matthew-Mark double
          tradition results from a single author, Mark, making use of the two
          traditional gospels, one Jewish-Christian and the other
          Gentile-Christian, for his own conciliatory, catechetical-liturgical
          and dramatic purposes.

          Leonard Maluf
        • gentdave1
          ... LEONARD: This last comment is an overstatement. What you do not find between Matthew and Luke, in terms of the sayings of Jesus they offer, is perfect
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 27, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            > However, if you take out the narrative parts of the
            > hypothetical "Q" (which I suspect have a different history than the
            > sayings), you find that the order of the sayings in Matthew and Luke do
            > not correlate at all.
            >
            >

            LEONARD:
            This last comment is an overstatement. What you do not find between
            Matthew and Luke, in terms of the sayings of Jesus they offer, is
            perfect alignment. On the other hand, there certainly is significant
            correlation, as well as some non-correlation, between Matthew and Luke in the sayings material as a whole. For instance, if you begin with focusing on the five major discourses in Matthew, Luke generally has material corresponding to these -- in parts of his Gospel that also correspond generally to their sequence in Matthew (sermon on the mount/plain, commissioning of the twelve, eschatological discourse, etc.).

            Dave: It was a precise statement, indicating something that is mathematically true about the ordering of the non-narrative "Q" sayings. If you simply number the sayings, the order of the sayings do not correlate significantly.

            Of course it is still possible that what you say is also true. We could achieve a zero total correlation by taking blocks of sayings and moving them around, but still have perfect correlation within the blocks. So this is not really a test for "zero information" in common between the two sets. It might be interesting to test some of these blocks. Does the order of sayings within the blocks correlate? Another test would be to see how often pairs are in the same order, etc...

            Let's suppose we find a relation (or without bothering to do any math, look at the sermons, for example, and note what seems to be a fair amount of common content. What would this tell us? If Luke was using Matthew then we still have him doing a fairly rigorous job of rearranging the sayings. On the other hand, if they both work from a saying source it tells us that, to some extent at least, sections of the list of sayings seemed to group together in the source. Possibly we could suppose that there was even some sort of sub-list, which constituted a sermon in the source. Although, my speculation would be that this structure is something Luke picked up after contact with Matthew. If Luke-A was re-written to Luke-B after Matthew as Bruce suggests, then my guess would be that the sermon is added to Luke at this point, and that Luke borrows some things that might previously have been elsewhere in his text and adds them here.

            Outside of the sermons, what commonalities in ordering do you perceive?

            LEONARD:
            The hypothesis that sayings
            believed to preserve words that Jesus actually spoke would for that
            reason be recorded by Luke without alteration also rests on modern (not
            to say Protestant/fundamen talistic) presuppositions that are probably
            quite irrelevant to the behavior of the Evangelists.

            Dave: I'm relying more on Luke's opening, when he tells us he wants to go back to the beginning. I think he does have respect for what he regards as historical facts. He is certainly not above inventing things to suit his literary and Theological needs, but he may feel somewhat constrained to present as history, what he (and probably much of his audience) regard as established history.

            LEONARD:
            How could Luke's audience be expected to concur with this evaluation of Matthew, and yet an ecclesiastical consensus emerges, without
            challenge, just a few years later, to the effect that Matthew was the
            first Gospel written?

            Dave: My thesis is this:

            A list of saying appears on the scene, say around 80 AD for example, it is in Aramaic and Greek "translation" (although it may be in large part back translation) which claims to be words spoken by Jesus as remembered by "Matthew" and written down by him at the time, in Aramaic. From this list, and from Mark, the gospel of Matthew is composed around the year 80.

            Luke knows the gospel of Matthew is contemporary, and is convinced (incorrectly I believe) that the saying list is authentic. His behavior of quoting the sayings, while paying relatively little attention to the rest of Matthew then seems very intelligible.

            The later ecclesiastical consensus is then explicable too. Matthew's gospel is regarded as the most authoritative, relying on both the supposed first written source, and Mark (which it "corrects"). A short hand of this gets passed down as "Matthew wrote first".

            LEONARD:

            The evidence of strangely different treatment by
            Luke of Matthew and Mark respectively is most convincingly handled by
            the assumption that Luke did not know or use Mark, and that the
            symmetry between Luke-Mark double tradition and Matthew-Mark double
            tradition results from a single author, Mark, making use of the two
            traditional gospels, one Jewish-Christian and the other
            Gentile-Christian, for his own conciliatory, catechetical- liturgical
            and dramatic purposes.

            Dave: The statistical study is nearly proof that this did not happen.

            Dave Gentile
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.