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

RE: [Synoptic-L] FH and Thomas

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Jun 2, 2011
      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 2 of 13 , Jun 2, 2011
        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 3 of 13 , Jun 2, 2011
          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 4 of 13 , Jun 2, 2011
            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 5 of 13 , Jun 2, 2011
              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 6 of 13 , Jun 2, 2011
                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 7 of 13 , Jun 3, 2011
                  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 8 of 13 , Jun 3, 2011
                    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 9 of 13 , Jun 3, 2011
                      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 10 of 13 , Jun 5, 2011
                        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 11 of 13 , Jun 5, 2011
                          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.