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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Goulder on Mt to Luke directionality (was: FH and Thomas)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Jun 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 13 , Jun 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 13 , Jun 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 13 , Jun 3, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 13 , Jun 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 13 , Jun 3, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 13 , Jun 5, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 13 , Jun 5, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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.