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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Dec 24, 2010
      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 2 of 17 , Dec 26, 2010
        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 3 of 17 , Dec 27, 2010
          > 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.