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

Re: [Synoptic-L] FH and Thomas

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    Bruce Brooks wrote: ..... the failure of M Goulder to prove unidirectionality of common material between Mt and Lk - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 2 2:22 AM
      Bruce Brooks wrote:

      ..... the failure of M Goulder to prove
      unidirectionality of common material between Mt and Lk

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      While I agree with this judgement, I nevertheless see Goulder as having been
      partly right.

      For it seems to me clear that Goulder and Goodacre have between them made a
      thoroughly convincing case for Luke's dependency on Matthew in both
      narrative material and in some longer parables.

      As for the second century GTh, its impact on synoptic problem solutions is
      restricted to its genre. I suggest it is neutral in regard to the Farrer
      Theory, it positively supports the radical form of the 3ST (which posits a
      written collection of Jesus sayings), and it leads to an astonishing lack of
      critical thinking when used in support of the 2ST (whose posited source
      cannot properly be described as a written collection of Jesus sayings).

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      On: FH and Thomas Bruce [Previously]: . . . the failure of M Goulder to prove unidirectionality of common material between Mt and Lk . . . Ron Price: While I
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 2 8:07 AM
        On: FH and Thomas

        Bruce [Previously]: . . . the failure of M Goulder to prove
        unidirectionality of common material between Mt and Lk . . .

        Ron Price: While I agree with this judgement, I nevertheless see Goulder as
        having been partly right. / For it seems to me clear that Goulder and
        Goodacre have between them made a thoroughly convincing case for Luke's
        dependency on Matthew in both narrative material and in some longer
        parables.

        Bruce: Same statement. The Mt/Lk material is bidirectional. M Goulder has
        made a good case for the part of the material that is in fact Mt > Lk
        directional. He is wrong for the other part of the material, which is
        instead Lk > Mt directional. Ron's remark is like saying that the phlogiston
        theory was right for materials which lose weight on burning, but wrong for
        materials which gain weight on burning. The bottom line is that the
        phlogiston theory was wrong about burning. I have a great affection for
        Michael (in real life, he and I were on a sort of first-name basis, albeit
        via correspondence), and I love reading his stuff, including his Psalms
        stuff, but the planet turns, and the bottom line is the bottom line.

        Ron: As for the second century GTh, . . .

        Bruce: Needs proof. I would prove it this way: gThos 47:3 = Lk 5:39, nobody
        after drinking old wine wants new wine. This violently reverses the meaning
        of what precedes it in Luke, and it is absent in Mark, Matthew, and, I think
        suggestively, in Bezae. Then it is a late addition to Lk, and most plausibly
        an anti-Marcionite addition (defending old = OT tradition, which Marcion had
        sought to jettison), perhaps c150. Given this origin of Lk 5:39 in the
        history of 2c dispute about the text of Luke, it is not likely to have been
        drawn from Thomas or anywhere else, and we thus have not only a
        directionality, but a date (and probably a place, namely Rome). If gThos
        were a single text, we would have to date it to the latter 2c at earliest.
        But Thos may not be a single text, as witness the many stratification
        proposals. One simple stratification proposal is that gThos was at one point
        confined only to what is attested by the Greek text, namely gThos 1-39. If
        we for the moment regard this as a possible core, note that its date is not
        affected by the conclusion just reached about gThos 47.3. It might be
        earlier. So also for the other theories. These things have to be grasped
        entire to be solved.

        Ron: . . . its impact on synoptic problem solutions is restricted to its
        genre.

        Bruce: I very much doubt that we can assume this in advance of considering
        what gThos actually is, and does. Anything may affect anything. What, for
        instance, about Luke? Meaning, Luke the actual guy? Among the things that
        were certainly available to him were his own experience of Christian
        preaching (sermons), and Christian worship (prayers, baptismal formulae);
        his whole life as a Christian. Is it really to be supposed that he began
        work on his Gospel by forgetting all this, wiping his mind clean of it, and
        then, with his disk suitably erased, and just as stupid as any of the rest
        of us concerning First Century matters, going to the reading room of the
        British Museum, sitting down, getting his paper and pencil ready, and
        calling for the attendant to bring him their second best copy of Mark?
        Bultmann buys this scenario, or something very like it. I somehow doubt it.

        Ron: I suggest it is neutral in regard to the Farrer Theory, it positively
        supports the radical form of the 3ST (which posits a written collection of
        Jesus sayings), and it leads to an astonishing lack of critical thinking
        when used in support of the 2ST (whose posited source cannot properly be
        described as a written collection of Jesus sayings).

        Bruce: No text which might be dated even in part to the 1c can be a priori
        excluded from relevance for the FH or for any other imaginable H. There may
        be textual relations, and those relations may have a directionality. As for
        "posited," that is exactly one of the troubles. People posit too much and
        observe too little. That is not the correct order of operations.

        Who is the main figure in gThos? It is Thomas? There are lines in the text
        to that effect, whence a whole literature. But there are also lines which
        suggest that the text at one point took James of Jerusalem as its guiding
        figure. Does this make any sense? Well, at least it might, since James (to
        my surprise, but I am here to learn from the texts and not to tell them what
        to do) is associated with a number of Gnostic documents, and gThos at its
        beginning (at the point, if such existed, when #12 was its concluding
        saying) may have been one of them. Are there any contacts of text or
        doctrine between gThos (or at least its first dozen sections) and the other
        Jacobean Gnostic literature? What about the pseudo-Clementine literature
        (this gets us into Ebionite territory, but why not?), which also makes much
        of James as a central adjudicating authority? I haven't tried to find out.
        But presumably someone has, and I would appreciate hearing what their
        results might have been.

        And we haven't even touched the gThos/gJn contacts. Are there any in the
        first 12 gThos units? According to the list before me, No. Are there any in
        the first 39 units? Some are claimed; I am not sufficiently convinced to
        transcribe them here. Does anyone have a Th/Jn list they are happy with, and
        would share?

        E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      • Ronald Price
        ... Bruce, Not the same at all. My statement contains an additional claim. For the aphorisms the dependence was bidirectional, and Goulder was often wrong. But
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 2 11:10 AM
          I had written:
          >
          > While I agree with this judgement, I nevertheless see Goulder as
          > having been partly right. / For it seems to me clear that Goulder and
          > Goodacre have between them made a thoroughly convincing case for Luke's
          > dependency on Matthew in both narrative material and in some longer
          > parables.
          >
          Bruce Brooks replied:

          > Same statement. The Mt/Lk material is bidirectional.

          Bruce,

          Not the same at all. My statement contains an additional claim. For the
          aphorisms the dependence was bidirectional, and Goulder was often wrong. But
          for other types of pericope, Luke was dependent on Matthew, and here Goulder
          was invariably right. I could back this up with evidence given enough space
          and time.

          > Ron's remark is like saying that the phlogiston
          > theory was right for materials which lose weight on burning, but wrong for
          > materials which gain weight on burning. The bottom line is that the
          > phlogiston theory was wrong about burning.
          >
          The phlogiston theory was simply wrong. But there are theories which
          correctly explain some data but not other data, e.g. the theory that light
          behaves like electromagnetic waves.

          Ron Price,

          Derbyshire, UK

          http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jeff Peterson
          Goodacre s *Case Against Q* retrieves from Farrer an aspect of the Marcan Priority without Q theory that Goulder had jettisoned (or nearly so), viz., the
          Message 4 of 13 , Jun 2 3:08 PM
            Goodacre's *Case Against Q* retrieves from Farrer an aspect of the "Marcan
            Priority without Q" theory that Goulder had jettisoned (or nearly so), viz.,
            the oral transmission of sayings of Jesus to all three Synoptists and not
            only to Mark. (And well he might, as Luke's preface suggests that's how he
            first learned of "the things fulfilled among us" in the ministry of Jesus,
            which other Evangelists before him had then undertaken to cast in written
            form.) In those cases where a plausible Lucan redactional motive can't be
            identified for a difference from Matt in the Double Tradition (few, in my
            judgment), what's to stop a Farrerian from appealing to an oral variant of a
            Matthaean saying that Luke preferred?

            In recent years, I've on occasion googled up an anecdote or joke I vaguely
            remembered and then altered details of the written version online back in
            the direction I originally heard when I thought those worked better, as well
            as introducing my own redactional improvements, as I judged them. There's an
            obvious potential for circular argument here, but I'm wondering if listers
            proclaiming the death of the Farrer Hypothesis (with exaggeration, to judge
            from the volume of recent publications) would suggest how such a procedure
            could be falsified for Luke vis-�-vis Matthew.

            Jeff Peterson
            Austin Graduate School of Theology
            Austin, Texas



            On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Ronald Price <ron-price@...>wrote:

            >
            >
            > I had written:
            > >
            > > While I agree with this judgement, I nevertheless see Goulder as
            > > having been partly right. / For it seems to me clear that Goulder and
            > > Goodacre have between them made a thoroughly convincing case for Luke's
            > > dependency on Matthew in both narrative material and in some longer
            > > parables.
            > >
            > Bruce Brooks replied:
            >
            > > Same statement. The Mt/Lk material is bidirectional.
            >
            > Bruce,
            >
            > Not the same at all. My statement contains an additional claim. For the
            > aphorisms the dependence was bidirectional, and Goulder was often wrong.
            > But
            > for other types of pericope, Luke was dependent on Matthew, and here
            > Goulder
            > was invariably right. I could back this up with evidence given enough space
            > and time.
            >
            > > Ron's remark is like saying that the phlogiston
            > > theory was right for materials which lose weight on burning, but wrong
            > for
            > > materials which gain weight on burning. The bottom line is that the
            > > phlogiston theory was wrong about burning.
            > >
            > The phlogiston theory was simply wrong. But there are theories which
            > correctly explain some data but not other data, e.g. the theory that light
            > behaves like electromagnetic waves.
            >
            > Ron Price,
            >
            > Derbyshire, UK
            >
            > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mark Goodacre
            It sounds to me like Jeff is here hypothesizing a kind of re-Farrerizing of Goulder, disrupting the clear uni-directionality that points from Farrer Goulder
            Message 5 of 13 , Jun 2 7:35 PM
              It sounds to me like Jeff is here hypothesizing a kind of
              re-Farrerizing of Goulder, disrupting the clear uni-directionality
              that points from Farrer > Goulder > Goodacre. This does not sound
              like a workable hypothesis. Moreover, the model does not fit with
              what we know of the biography of these people. Goodacre claimed to be
              a disciple of Goulder whereas he cannot have even met Farrer. So the
              model, while attractive, is flawed.

              Back in serious mode, Goulder did have a more Farrerian model in his
              earlier work and did speak about the living stream of oral tradition
              in his article on the Lord's Prayer. It is also worth noting that
              even in his later work, he occasionally allows for Matthean and Lucan
              Sondergut, e.g. he thinks the women in Luke 8.1-3 are traditional. I
              would add too that a careful appreciation of Goulder's work
              illustrates multiple places where he sees Luke effectively
              re-primitivizing Matthew. It is the very basis of the theory that
              Luke frequently agrees with the more primitive Gospel (Mark)
              notwithstanding his knowledge of a later, dependent Gospel (Matthew).
              Moreover, even in his use of Matthew, there are places where his
              redaction re-primitivizes under the influence of the LXX, what one
              might call "septuagintalizing".

              My main disagreement with Goulder, worked out over 160 fairly tedious
              pages in part 2 of Goulder and the Gospels, is that the strong
              arguments in favour of Lucan creativity do not require one to dispense
              with other traditional material for Luke. Indeed, in the light of the
              Preface (as Jeff mentions) and in the light of his observable
              tendencies mentioned above, it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

              But why am I wasting my time? I need to get back to the funeral arrangements.

              All best
              Mark

              On 2 June 2011 18:08, Jeff Peterson <peterson@...> wrote:
              > Goodacre's *Case Against Q* retrieves from Farrer an aspect of the "Marcan
              > Priority without Q" theory that Goulder had jettisoned (or nearly so), viz.,
              > the oral transmission of sayings of Jesus to all three Synoptists and not
              > only to Mark. (And well he might, as Luke's preface suggests that's how he
              > first learned of "the things fulfilled among us" in the ministry of Jesus,
              > which other Evangelists before him had then undertaken to cast in written
              > form.) In those cases where a plausible Lucan redactional motive can't be
              > identified for a difference from Matt in the Double Tradition (few, in my
              > judgment), what's to stop a Farrerian from appealing to an oral variant of a
              > Matthaean saying that Luke preferred?
              >
              > In recent years, I've on occasion googled up an anecdote or joke I vaguely
              > remembered and then altered details of the written version online back in
              > the direction I originally heard when I thought those worked better, as well
              > as introducing my own redactional improvements, as I judged them. There's an
              > obvious potential for circular argument here, but I'm wondering if listers
              > proclaiming the death of the Farrer Hypothesis (with exaggeration, to judge
              > from the volume of recent publications) would suggest how such a procedure
              > could be falsified for Luke vis-à-vis Matthew.
              >
              > Jeff Peterson
              > Austin Graduate School of Theology
              > Austin, Texas
              >
              >
              >
              > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Ronald Price <ron-price@...>wrote:
              >
              >>
              >>
              >> I had written:
              >> >
              >> > While I agree with this judgement, I nevertheless see Goulder as
              >> > having been partly right. / For it seems to me clear that Goulder and
              >> > Goodacre have between them made a thoroughly convincing case for Luke's
              >> > dependency on Matthew in both narrative material and in some longer
              >> > parables.
              >> >
              >> Bruce Brooks replied:
              >>
              >> > Same statement. The Mt/Lk material is bidirectional.
              >>
              >> Bruce,
              >>
              >> Not the same at all. My statement contains an additional claim. For the
              >> aphorisms the dependence was bidirectional, and Goulder was often wrong.
              >> But
              >> for other types of pericope, Luke was dependent on Matthew, and here
              >> Goulder
              >> was invariably right. I could back this up with evidence given enough space
              >> and time.
              >>
              >> > Ron's remark is like saying that the phlogiston
              >> > theory was right for materials which lose weight on burning, but wrong
              >> for
              >> > materials which gain weight on burning. The bottom line is that the
              >> > phlogiston theory was wrong about burning.
              >> >
              >> The phlogiston theory was simply wrong. But there are theories which
              >> correctly explain some data but not other data, e.g. the theory that light
              >> behaves like electromagnetic waves.
              >>
              >> Ron Price,
              >>
              >> Derbyshire, UK
              >>
              >> http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
              >>
              >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >



              --
              Mark Goodacre
              Duke University
              Department of Religion
              Gray Building / Box 90964
              Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
              Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

              http://www.markgoodacre.org
            • E Bruce Brooks
              A propos the Mt/Lk relationship, we had, speaking of Lk: Moreover, even in his use of Matthew, there are places where his redaction re-primitivizes under the
              Message 6 of 13 , Jun 2 9:33 PM
                A propos the Mt/Lk relationship, we had, speaking of Lk: " Moreover, even in
                his use of Matthew, there are places where his redaction re-primitivizes
                under the influence of the LXX, what one might call "septuagintalizing"."

                Bruce: It's a nice word, but the trouble with models like this is that they
                are too useful. On such a basis, it would seem to be possible to argue that
                Mark is secondary to Matthew, and has "reprimitivized" all the too smooth
                places, including the smooth Greek in which they are presented in Matthew.
                Of course exactly that has been claimed, but perhaps not very convincingly.

                Consider it for a minute. On that theory, how would Mark have known what was
                primitive in the first place? Either he knew it first hand, or had an
                extraordinary facility in imagining it. If he knew it first hand, why did he
                have to go to Matthew for it? If he didn't, what would have been his motive
                for imagining it? If he didn't like the trend of current theological
                developments, he might have hoped to reverse them, but again, how could he
                have been aware of a trend without himself knowing some earlier stage? (And
                why would this rejection of the *content* of Matthew have extended to the
                *language* of Matthew?). It puts us back on the same circle. One way or
                another, it seems unavoidable that Mark knew an earlier state of things than
                we find reflected in Matthew. The least troublesome way to state this is
                that Mark is earlier than Matthew. The concept of "Matthew" becomes
                superfluous for explaining what we encounter in Mark.

                Reflecting thus, the only plausible meaning I can see for "reprimitivizing"
                is simply "primitive." There are places in Luke that are theologically
                and/or narratively more primitive (primary) than the corresponding passages
                in Matthew. We can expand this fact into a whole theory of Lukan priority to
                Matthew (whence Lindsay), or draw a line around those passages in Luke and
                move them outside Luke as "Q," (whence lots of people). Or there is a third
                option, which I have already mentioned and won't repeat. The third option
                has the advantage, though, that it solves the Major Agreements in a way
                compatible with the Minor Agreements (unsolved in "Q," and famously
                difficult for "Q"), as well as addressing some difficulties with the present
                order of pericopes in Luke (not addressed in any Synoptic theory I ever
                heard of).

                E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              • Jeff Peterson
                On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, E Bruce Brooks ... perspective of FH: Order in the Double Tradition and the Existence of Q, in the volume *Questioning Q*
                Message 7 of 13 , Jun 2 10:23 PM
                  On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, E Bruce Brooks
                  <brooks@...>wrote:

                  > [snip] some difficulties with the present order of pericopes in Luke
                  > (not addressed in any Synoptic theory I ever heard of).
                  >
                  > On this point I can recommend an article by your scribe from the
                  perspective of FH: "Order in the Double Tradition and the Existence of Q,"
                  in the volume *Questioning Q* (ed. Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin).

                  Executive summary: To the extent that Luke's arrangement can be accounted
                  for in literary/compositional/rhetorical terms (a project which recent Lucan
                  scholarship has advanced considerably, as cf. Tannehill, Green, Johnson),
                  the need to account for it via docile retention of a source's order is
                  reduced (especially as Luke shows himself willing to reorder and alter his
                  Marcan source for the sake of a point, e.g. in Luke 4:16ff).

                  Jeff Peterson
                  Austin


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic (Cc: GPG) On the question of Lukan order, we had: Jeff Peterson: On this point I can recommend an article by your scribe from the perspective of
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jun 3 11:10 AM
                    To: Synoptic (Cc: GPG)

                    On the question of Lukan order, we had:

                    Jeff Peterson: On this point I can recommend an article by your scribe from
                    the perspective of FH: "Order in the Double Tradition and the Existence of
                    Q," in the volume *Questioning Q* (ed. Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin).
                    Executive summary: To the extent that Luke's arrangement can be accounted
                    for in literary/compositional/rhetorical terms (a project which recent Lucan
                    scholarship has advanced considerably, as cf. Tannehill, Green, Johnson),
                    the need to account for it via docile retention of a source's order is
                    reduced (especially as Luke shows himself willing to reorder and alter his
                    Marcan source for the sake of a point, e.g. in Luke 4:16ff).

                    Bruce: Very nice, but that was not the point. The purpose of Questioning Q
                    is to argue for Luke's arrangement, and all other details of Luke, as (a)
                    authorially valid in their own terms, and (b) intelligible, in the Mt/Lk
                    material, as secondary to Mt. The paper above cited had its role in that
                    demonstration. The whole book assumes a conventional definition of the
                    Synoptic Problem, and the papers are written on that assumption. But that
                    definition was not adequate in the first place. Here is why.

                    Imagine three points on a sheet of paper, labeled Mk, Mt, Lk. The problem is
                    to connect the points with arrows, showing in which direction the literary
                    indebtedness flows. We have an arrow pointing from Mk to Mt, and another
                    from Mk to Lk. Good. One more arrow, and we are done. This is the arrow that
                    must connect Mt and Lk. Which way does it point? More or less everything
                    turns on the answer to this question.

                    (a) Some find that it points now in one direction and now in another; that
                    is, it is bidirectional. This makes the puzzle unsolvable in the terms
                    stated, and those people (or most of them) go outside those terms to posit a
                    fourth point Q, with arrows separately pointing to Mt and Lk, and nothing at
                    all connecting Mt and Lk. This solves the bidirectionality problem (all
                    arrows are unidirectional, and all three Synoptics are included), while
                    creating a few others in its wake. These (eg, Minor Agreements, which are
                    most easily seen as artifacts of Mt/Lk contact) are the residue of this
                    solution.

                    (b) Others argue that all the directionalities can be taken as pointing from
                    Mt to Lk (Farrer and several others). This keeps the puzzle within its
                    original boundaries, which allow only unidirectional arrows. This solves the
                    problem, as long as one accepts the argument for such passages as the
                    Beatitudes or the Lord's Prayer or a couple of others, where to the
                    untutored reader Luke seems to be more primitive. These places are the
                    residue of this solution.

                    We thus have two solutions, but each solution has a stubborn residue of
                    unexplained or unconvincingly explained material. So we look at the rules of
                    the problem again. It requires unidirectional arrows. Is there any reason to
                    think that this unidirectional arrow requirement may be invalid? Yes, there
                    is. The question of Lk reordering of Mk material (see the nice if
                    incomplete list in Fitzmyer 71f) has not been dealt with. The reasons
                    Fitzmyer gives for the different placement of several passages in Luke are
                    reasonable enough, and if all we have to account for is Luke's original
                    selection process, where he rearranges some of his material at the same time
                    that he selects it, there is no problem. But there IS a problem, because in
                    their present positions, those passages create narrative inconcinnities, a
                    fact which Fitzmyer has not noticed. And some of the inconcinnity comes from
                    words that Luke has added to his Markan original. If Luke modified these
                    passages at the time when he took them over (with rewriting) from Mark, then
                    he has created inconcinnities in what he has written at that moment, and
                    this is not a very attractive supposition. We now notice that if instead we
                    transfer those passages back to their Markan position in Luke, there is no
                    longer a narrative inconcinnity. That is, the passages, as we have them, are
                    better placed in Luke in their Markan order. This can be explained if we
                    suppose that, at first, they WERE in fact in their Markan order.

                    Then the better explanation is that Luke kept very closely to Mark's order
                    in his first version of his Gospel, but at some later point, and for some
                    reason or reasons (those in Fitzmyer will do for the time being) he
                    relocated them, unconsciously creating narrative inconcinnities in the
                    process (since he was attending to another point, it is easier to suppose
                    that he overlooked these problems).

                    What this requires us to posit is at least two stages of Lk, which for the
                    time being we may distinguish as Luke A and Luke B. That is, the place of
                    the "Lk" position on our Synoptic chart must now be taken by two things, LkA
                    and LkB. It may then be that the Lk > Mt directionality passages in the
                    common material may be accommodated by a unidirectional line from LkA to Mt,
                    and the others, of opposite tendency, may be accommodated by a
                    unidirectional line from Mt to LkB. There is no longer a bidirectional
                    relation between any two points on the chart, and also no need to assume a Q
                    type of new entity. There is also no great difficulty with the Minor
                    Agreements, which only arise as an issue if we assume no literary contact
                    between Mt and Lk. That is, this model solves the residue problems attending
                    both of the above two solutions.

                    Of course it is required to show that this works out in detail, just as M
                    Goulder sought to show that the unidirectional Mt > Lk solution worked out
                    in all relevant details. I made a beginning on this project at SBL/NE a
                    month or so ago, dealing with the Sermon on the Plain as an original Lukan
                    construction, and showing how it drew on Jesus Tradition material which is
                    still visible in the early layers of Mk and, a step later, in the Epistle of
                    James, with a few new additions of Luke's very own. There was no refutation
                    at the session (about 22 people; I ran out of handouts), but we shall see.
                    That paper and its handout are available online for anyone who would like to
                    offer a refutation, or for that matter an improvement.

                    http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/current/sbl.html

                    E Bruce Brooks / Warring States Project
                  • Jeff Peterson
                    On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:10 PM, E Bruce Brooks ... Not if one allows a role for oral tradition like that I cited from personal experience in my earlier post:
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jun 3 12:53 PM
                      On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:10 PM, E Bruce Brooks
                      <brooks@...>wrote (inter multa alia):

                      >
                      > (a) Some find that it points now in one direction and now in another; that
                      > is, it is bidirectional. This makes the puzzle unsolvable in the terms
                      > stated
                      >

                      Not if one allows a role for oral tradition like that I cited from personal
                      experience in my earlier post: Luke reads a saying in Matt, he thinks,
                      "That's not the way Paul [or Timothy or whoever] used to quote that logion,
                      and as I'm on record as holding that 'The old is pleasing,' I think I'll go
                      with the version I heard before," and so redacts Matthew accordingly. On
                      that supposition, the primitivity of Lucan logia where it can be identified
                      doesn't defeat FH. My question in the earlier post was whether advocates of
                      3ST or a more complicated source theory can suggest how that might be
                      falsified; that seems to me worth discussion.

                      As to order of pericopes, Luke (on the terms of FH) undertakes his revision
                      of his predecessor Evangelists under two constraints: (1) the necessity of
                      choosing between Mark and Matthew as supplying the skeleton of his
                      narrative; and (2) the intention to minimize great speeches that tax the
                      auditors' stamina and instead present the bulk of Jesus' teaching in
                      digestible anecdotes of the Marcan type. In deciding to follow the narrative
                      of Mark (a Gospel he's known and used in teaching for perhaps two decades),
                      he also commits himself to non-Matthaean order for most any pericope he's
                      going to take from Matt 3�11 (which depart considerably from Marcan order,
                      unlike Matt 12�28). As to the teaching that Luke derives from Matt's five
                      discourses (and from Mark's two, in chaps. 4 and 13), the question Luke set
                      for himself by adopting the plan on which he wrote the Gospel (clarified by
                      the work of Tannehill et al. cited earlier) was how most effectively to
                      present those pericope to advance his understanding of Jesus' mission and
                      message; one device he settled on to sustain reader interest was to
                      alternate between crowds, disciples, and opponents as addressees of Jesus'
                      instruction (as David Moessner details).

                      Such an account of Luke's procedure, while involving hypothesis, depends
                      ultimately on close attention to patterns of arrangement evident in the text
                      of Luke and clarified by literary interpreters for whom commitment to a
                      particular Synoptic theory is of nearly zero relevance to their exposition
                      of Luke. Once again, I'd be interested in how one would undertake to falsify
                      it.

                      Jeff


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • E Bruce Brooks
                      To: Synoptic (Cc: GPG) Jeff Peterson: . . . [the Synoptic Problem is not insoluble as a set of unidirectional arrows] if one allows a role for oral tradition
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jun 3 2:32 PM
                        To: Synoptic (Cc: GPG)

                        Jeff Peterson: . . . [the Synoptic Problem is not insoluble as a set of
                        unidirectional arrows] if one allows a role for oral tradition like that I
                        cited from personal experience in my earlier post: Luke reads a saying in
                        Matt, he thinks, "That's not the way Paul [or Timothy or whoever] used to
                        quote that logion, and as I'm on record as holding that 'The old is
                        pleasing,' I think I'll go with the version I heard before," and so redacts
                        Matthew accordingly.

                        Bruce: That Paul (or Timothy, or whoever) ever quoted sayings of Jesus,
                        other than those applying to church order and church discipline including
                        divorce, is not supported by the genuine Pauline epistles. Quite the
                        contrary; see Koester or any other adequate list of those quotations (plus
                        Paul's explicit statement that he is not concerned to know Jesus "after the
                        flesh"). Further, that Luke was a follower of Paul depends solely on Acts
                        plus DeuteroPauline evidence (his name appears in the NT only in three
                        pieces of that spurious literature), and propositions unsupported by best
                        evidence are unsound. There is thus (1) no evidence that Paul ever quoted
                        such things, and (2) no evidence that, if he had, Luke would have been there
                        to hear him. Should not Synoptic theories be current with the results of
                        careful investigation of other NT texts?

                        And I think there are other problems with this "reprimitivization" scenario.
                        According to Jeff's version of it, Luke is moved to mention something
                        nonMarkan by seeing it in Matthew, and only then being reminded of other
                        versions he knows, which he proceeds to substitute. I should think it
                        likelier that Luke writes in the first place out of what he knows from his
                        own experience as a Christian, including the Lord's Prayer. That Matthew
                        takes these Lukan items and rephrases them according to his own ideas of
                        completeness and sonority (the LP) or standard morality (the attenuated
                        Beatitudes) is a more natural assumption. The Beatitudes are an especially
                        fine example: Did the "spiritualized" version come first, and did Luke for
                        some reason translate it into terms of genuinely poor people? Or did Luke
                        himself come out of a church which had been through the same opposition of
                        rich and poor that is expressed, sometimes violently, in James, and did
                        Matthew (here as everywhere else in his Gospel) avoid mentioning, let along
                        privileging, the poor, and speak instead of more affluent people, and, in
                        his Parables, in terms of larger sums of money? Given the clear trends of
                        both authors, as evidenced from their treatment of Mark and from their own
                        additions (passages without parallel in the other), the latter looks like
                        the better bet.

                        There, it seems to me, in the experience of at least some churches as
                        recorded in Mark (dimly) and James (loudly), is the real "oral tradition"
                        available to Luke. He did not get it from Matthew, and he did not need to be
                        reminded of its existence by Matthew. It was in his bones, his ear, his
                        reflexive responses to regular preaching. If one stops to look at the Sermon
                        on the Plain in its own terms, and allowing for the omission of some no
                        longer pressing issues, it is interesting that in general outline it is not
                        all that far from the circular sermon preserved for us as the "Epistle" of
                        James. I think we have here (though not widely recognized by commentators on
                        James) more than one piece of evidence for a certain style of early
                        Christian preaching or exhortation.

                        SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

                        1. I have derived Luke from the tradition also represented by James. James
                        is famous for directly opposing Paul's doctrine (in Romans) of faith vs
                        works. We can test the supposed James continuity by asking, What is Luke's
                        stand on this issue? Answer: We can see it in how he treats Mark. Mark has
                        only two passages expressing Paul's faith doctrine (that Jesus's death
                        ransoms others from sin). Luke, who uses most of Mark, repeats neither of
                        those passages. Then in this matter, Luke visibly, albeit quietly, sides
                        with James on one of the most divisive issues of the day. He cleans up Mark
                        in just that sense.

                        It has been noticed by many (and prominently by Kloppenborg) that "Q"
                        contains no mention of the Resurrection or its associated doctrines, and on
                        that basis, K identifies it as the original Galilean Gospel. If for "Q" I
                        substitute "certain specified passages in Luke, for whose order and wording
                        Luke is naturally our best authority," then I think we may reasonably say,
                        "Luke includes many concepts going back to the early and probably indeed
                        Galilean days of Jesus's ministry, and like other known writings of similar
                        character (eg, the original Didache), it makes no reference to, and places
                        no soteriological weight on, the supposed Resurrection of Jesus. In this
                        included nonMarkan material, as in his pair of Markan suppressions, Luke
                        shows a strong continuity with what on its merits is probably the oldest
                        Jesus tradition - the preaching of Jesus before his death."

                        This concerns Luke's antecedents. I now turn to his consequents, with a view
                        to seeing who in later times might still have found Luke, and particularly
                        these portions of Luke, definitive.

                        2. At least one commentator takes the time to refute the idea (based on
                        Luke's well known special interest in the poor) that Luke was an Ebionite.
                        Or we might more carefully say, a proto-Ebionite. That idea happens to be
                        testable, and we may phrase the test this way: Does Luke's radical notion
                        (expressed in the Woes of his Sermon, but also, separately, in a passage not
                        subject to suspicion as inspired by Matthew, in his Parable of Lazarus) that
                        the poor will be saved simply because they are poor, and vice versa, find
                        any expression in later literature? And if so, in what kind of later
                        literature? Answer: The Clementine Homilies, agreed to be an Ebionite text,
                        takes time to refute precisely these propositions, and to substitute for
                        them others more agreeable to standard moral sensibilities (eg, only the
                        *virtuous* poor will be saved). Then the Lukan Sermon remained not only
                        alive, but problematic, for the later Ebionites. There, I submit, is
                        substantial evidence for the association. See my handout (complete with
                        unidirectional arrows) to the paper whose URL was given previously.

                        And yes, neither the Clementine Recognitions nor the Clementine Homilies
                        (both very long texts, featuring almost endless preaching and doctrinal
                        disputation by Peter) mentions the Resurrection, or attributes salvation to
                        any other factor than the good or evil deeds of the individual - that is,
                        both keep strictly within the theological limits which James also observes;
                        the soteriology of the Two Ways document, without admixture or adulteration.
                        The probable Galilean Gospel.

                        E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                      • David Mealand
                        Bruce wrote-------------- Bruce: Needs proof. I would prove it this way: gThos 47:3 = Lk 5:39, nobody after drinking old wine wants new wine. This violently
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jun 5 5:03 AM
                          Bruce wrote--------------
                          Bruce: Needs proof. I would prove it this way: gThos 47:3 = Lk 5:39, nobody
                          after drinking old wine wants new wine. This violently reverses the meaning
                          of what precedes it in Luke, and it is absent in Mark, Matthew, and, I think
                          suggestively, in Bezae. Then it is a late addition to Lk, and most plausibly
                          an anti-Marcionite addition (defending old = OT tradition, which Marcion had
                          sought to jettison), perhaps c150. Given this origin of Lk 5:39 in the
                          history of 2c dispute about the text of Luke, it is not likely to have been
                          drawn from Thomas or anywhere else, and we thus have not only a
                          directionality, but a date (and probably a place, namely Rome). If gThos
                          were a single text, we would have to date it to the latter 2c at earliest.
                          But Thos may not be a single text, as witness the many stratification
                          proposals.
                          ------------------------

                          Phew! And I just thought that Luke knew his wine and perhaps
                          also had a sense of irony.

                          David M.


                          ---------
                          David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                          --
                          The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                          Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                        • E Bruce Brooks
                          To: Synoptic (cc: GPG) My explanation of Lk 5:39 (as an anti-Marcionite addition to Lk) seems to have been too much for some recipients, as witness: Phew! And
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jun 5 8:25 AM
                            To: Synoptic (cc: GPG)

                            My explanation of Lk 5:39 (as an anti-Marcionite addition to Lk) seems to
                            have been too much for some recipients, as witness:

                            "Phew! And I just thought that Luke knew his wine and perhaps also had a
                            sense of irony."

                            The preference for aged over new wine is standard for modern Western
                            drinkers, and if we view Luke as a connoisseur of that sort, we make him a
                            familiar figure, a man of vintages and with a certain budget at his
                            disposal. A portly but likeable figure; very nice. But in the process, we
                            may be doing some damage to the text:

                            (1) Lk 5:39 apparently reverses the sense of the previous text, or at least
                            that is what many readers have thought; this is not what we expect from a
                            consecutive story or saying. It is therefore narratively suspect. (2) The
                            preceding passage, Lk 5:36-38 ||, reported in all the Synoptics, and thus
                            not suspect in the same way, seems to favor new wine, not over old wine, but
                            as not being containable in old wineskins. For what is this a metaphor?
                            Seemingly, the doctrines of Jesus, as not being capable of accommodation
                            within older beliefs. Since Mk in particular (largely followed by Mt and
                            indeed by Lk) is widely concerned to demonstrate and document the
                            incompatibility of Jesus's teachings with those of the Pharisees (also
                            identified as the doctrines of the fathers, that is, old tradition), this
                            reading seems to be entirely in keeping, and not problematic. No commentator
                            so far has suggested that this earlier part of the story is defective, or
                            unintelligible, without an equivalent of Lk 5:39, so we may take it that Lk
                            5:39 is at minimum extraneous. (3) WH bracket 5:39, and well they might.
                            Here is why. Lk 5:39 is absent, not only from Mk and Mt (not your usual
                            Minor Agreement), but from Bezae and the Old Latin, a pattern we find again
                            in the Western Non passages, which also tend to cluster in Lk, and which
                            seem to modernize Lk in several ritual respects; that is, they are early
                            additions to Lk (and only to Lk; not also to Mt or Mk). Fitzmyer finds the
                            attestation of 5:39 (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and some papyri) to be
                            overwhelming, and so in this case does the usually sagacious Metzger, but
                            this amounts to saying that Vaticanus is a pure text, without admixture, and
                            not to be contradicted by any other witness. Careful attention to text
                            criticism details, across all the Synoptics (to mention only the Synoptics)
                            will tend not to support that impression: there are places where
                            Varticanus/Sinaiticus do not after all give the best reading. Nobody who
                            knows the TC scene will wish to claim that Vaticanus is in all cases the
                            archetype for all the texts it contains. I agree with Keith Elliott, up to a
                            point, in the thought that mechanical Vaticanus assent is not a sufficient
                            doctrine of text criticism. Here, as with the Western Non, we have a case
                            where an assumption of Vaticanus primacy seems to go against the grain, the
                            Tendenz, of the respective readings. (4) Metzger, who took a valiant stand
                            against the reintroduction of the Western Non passages, but accepts 5:39,
                            does suggest that "its omission from several Western witnesses may be due to
                            the influence of Marcion, who rejected the statement because it seemed to
                            give authority to the Old Testament." Well, that is exactly what it does, on
                            any perceptive reading. But Marcion's excisions, detailed by Tertullian and
                            others, are not made in our Luke, or in any major witness to Luke. That this
                            one Marcion excision got into the text stream (and that our Luke preserves
                            the Vorlage of Marcion) is not the pattern we find with other attested
                            Marcion excisions. (5) So Marcion and Lk 5:39 are at odds, and at a point
                            vital to the program of Marcion: getting rid of the Jewish background of
                            Christianity was pretty much the whole ballgame to him. Accepting this as
                            the field of contention, then either we have an original passage inimical to
                            Marcion and accordingly excised by a hostile Marcion, or a passage inserted
                            because it was hostile to Marcion. Either scenario is possible, but which is
                            more likely? I cannot but suspect that the better attested reading (without
                            5:39, the other Synoptics plus Bezae and Old Latin), which happens also to
                            be the narratively coherent and unproblematic reading, is the correct one.
                            (6) That the preceding story (about the incompatibility of Jesus doctrine
                            and the old understanding) would have suited Marcion down to the ground,
                            would indeed have virtually defined his approach to Scripture, is obvious.
                            Suppose someone after 150 thought to curb Marcion, by removing this passage
                            as a whole from *their* text of Luke. But that would be tactically
                            impossible: Marcion himself was vilified by the orthodox for taking stuff
                            out of Luke, and it would not be practical to imitate him, to inaugurate a
                            war of excisions. Better then to add something, as a sort of stopper to the
                            clear implications of Lk 5:36-38. This is exactly what 5:39 does, and it is
                            all that 5:39 does. Unless we call in modern literary doctrines to read it
                            differently.

                            As for "irony," among those doctrines, I seem to see that word cropping up
                            whenever it is desired to have a passage mean more or less the opposite of
                            what it says. A sort of freely insertable smiley face. I don't find that
                            device typical of Jesus rhetoric. I don't even find it within the range of
                            Jesus rhetoric. Paul is likely enough to use a term in a sort of sarcastic
                            reverse sense (eg, "super-Apostles"), but Jesus? I would need to see a
                            convincing second example. Is there one?

                            E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.