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

Re: [Synoptic-L] The genealogies and the Diatessaron.

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Peterson
    Marcion s Christology gave him a reason not to include a genealogy if he knew of one. And how would Tatian have gone about harmonizing the Matthaean and Lucan
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Marcion's Christology gave him a reason not to include a genealogy if he
      knew of one. And how would Tatian have gone about harmonizing the Matthaean
      and Lucan genealogies if he were inclined to?

      Jeff Peterson


      On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:23 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > The Diatessaron does not contain a genealogy. Is there any evidence to
      > suggest that Tatian knew of one when he wrote it?
      > If not, what is the earliest evidence of a genealogy existing in either Mt
      > or Lk? Is it possible they are both
      > post-Tatian interpolations? (Marcion's gospel does not contain a genealogy
      > either)
      >
      > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
      >
      > https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Inglis
      Thank you Jeff. My reference to Marcion was to forestall anyone who might have suggested his gospel as a possible source for Tatian. I have no idea how Tatian
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 17, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you Jeff. My reference to Marcion was to forestall anyone who might have suggested his gospel as a possible source
        for Tatian. I have no idea how Tatian might have attempted to harmonize the versions in Mt and Lk, but the fact that he
        didn't include a genealogy of any kind tells us nothing about whether he actually saw either of them.

        David Inglis

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Peterson
        Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:50 PM
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The genealogies and the Diatessaron.

        Marcion's Christology gave him a reason not to include a genealogy if he knew of one. And how would Tatian have gone
        about harmonizing the Matthaean and Lucan genealogies if he were inclined to?

        Jeff Peterson


        On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:23 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > The Diatessaron does not contain a genealogy. Is there any evidence to
        > suggest that Tatian knew of one when he wrote it?
        > If not, what is the earliest evidence of a genealogy existing in
        > either Mt or Lk? Is it possible they are both post-Tatian
        > interpolations? (Marcion's gospel does not contain a genealogy
        > either)
        >
        > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
        >
        > https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

        Synoptic-L homepage: http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links



        -----
        No virus found in this message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6237 - Release Date: 04/10/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic Cc: GPG, WSW On: The Jesus Genealogy in (or not in) Tatian From: Bruce David Inglis has asked, The Diatessaron does not contain a genealogy. Is
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 18, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          Cc: GPG, WSW
          On: The Jesus Genealogy in (or not in) Tatian
          From: Bruce

          David Inglis has asked, " The Diatessaron does not contain a genealogy. Is
          there any evidence to suggest that Tatian knew of one when he wrote it?"

          I would tend to answer:

          1. The pattern of the Matthean and Lukan genealogies is developmental, with
          the simpler and thus presumably earlier Matthean one taking Jesus back to
          David (Mt 1:6), with an extension to the still specifically Jewish patriarch
          Abraham (Mt 1:1, 1:17), whereas the more universal and thus presumably later
          Lukan one takes him back to Adam (Lk 3:38). Luke thus, in effect, removes
          Jesus from the sphere of Jewish cultural politics and makes him more widely
          human: sharing in the Creation with everything else that exists. If these
          two genealogies, with their contrasting implications for Jesus theory, were
          added later to the respective Gospels, the adder or adders would have had to
          appreciate and then skillfully counterfeit the particular predilections of
          the respective Gospel writers. This implies a level of adroitness far beyond
          the ordinary (for the more maladroit ordinary, see #3 below). Absent
          evidence in support, I am disinclined to suppose it. What other
          possibilities remain?

          2. The genealogies could of course have been harmonized, simply by regarding
          the short Matthean genealogy as subsumed in the long Lukan genealogy (note
          that, in the Birth Narrative, Tatian tends to favor Luke over Matthew when
          he must choose, and choosing Luke's version loses not very much Matthean
          information). Given the availability of Mt and Lk as we have them (see
          preceding), there was thus no bar, as far as Tatian's practice elsewhere
          seems to imply, to his including a genealogy in the Diatessaron. Then the
          only reason for a genealogy not to be included in the Diatessaron is that
          Tatian intentionally declined to include it. We thus have the question: Is
          there a reason why he might have done this? I think a clue is to be found in
          the fact that, though his main problem was straightening out the not quite
          parallel Synoptics, Tatian also had a considerable fondness for John, as
          witness his beginning with the opening passage of John. There is of course
          no birth narrative, and no genealogy, in John, who is much further down the
          Divinization Trajectory - for which see again my piece on Gospel
          Trajectories,

          http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp1/index.html

          - than either Matthew or Luke.

          3. I get the sense that behind the Gospels lies a real-time disagreement
          about the nature of Jesus, including his human nature. Evidences remaining
          in Mark suggest that one early faction regarded Jesus as a national saviour
          (the Anointed), and grounded that claim in Jesus' supposed Davidic ancestry;
          thus the crowds acclaiming Jesus at his highly staged entry into Jerusalem
          (Mk 11:10; note that the David element is retained in Mt 21:9, but,
          consistently, is eliminated in Lk 19:33). A variant of this view
          acknowledged that Jesus was not *exactly* a lineal descendant of David, but
          that Scripture could be invoked to show that this did not disqualify him as
          the coming Anointed (thus Jesus himself, there addressing the experts and
          not being addressed by the crowds, Mk 12:35-37). Paul, in ingratiating
          himself to the early Christians at Rome, at least some of whom held this
          Davidic connection to be important, accepted it at Romans 1:3 ("who was
          descended from David according to the flesh" - note the qualification). He
          did this for momentary tactical and rhetorical reasons; he and other
          Mediterranean authors, like Vergil and Ovid and Lucretius, regularly use
          this device at the beginnings of their works, to reassure an audience about
          what, nevertheless, is going to be a precisely contrary message. (For a
          Chinese parallel, see the misleadingly reassuring opening of Sywndz 17, the
          essay On Heaven, which praises the power of Heaven over the seasons and such
          things, but then goes on to say that all this has nothing whatever to do
          with the world of man: the cultural and ethical world). The joke here is
          that the rather wooden author of 2 Timothy, mistaking Rom 1:3 as expressing
          Paul's own belief (chortles here permissible), woodenly wrote it down as
          such in 2 Tim 2:8 ("Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended
          from David" - and get this: "as preached in my Gospel"). This, I have the
          impression, is the more usual level of forgery in the NT: careful in a
          certain sense, knowledgeable to a certain degree, but on the whole, not
          really very perceptive.

          Which is fine with me; the clumsy ones are easier to detect than the adroit
          ones, and as a philologist, I prefer easy work to hard work. A pox, indeed,
          upon ancient adroitness (as Bruce Metzger in effect observed, a propos
          intentional scribal improvements, in Text 4ed 259; I am with Bruce all the
          way on this).

          4. Matthew takes the side of the Markan crowds against the Markan Jesus, and
          simply inserts a Davidic genealogy (which Luke than generalizes upward; the
          idea of a Lk > Mt directionality here simply doesn't work, and this is a
          passage in which M Goulder is in his element; see Paradigm 1/283f). Matthew
          wants it both ways, and the idea of Scriptural confirmation of anything
          about Jesus was just too attractive for him, as his extensive use of the
          device of Scriptural Validation of Jesus will easily show. (This sort of
          thing, this Jewish validation of Jesus, leaving Jesus stuck permanently in a
          Jewish context, and depending forever on that context for his credentials in
          the wider world, is doubtless what disingratiated Matthew with Marcion -
          Marcion wanted a Christianity with its own independent basis, free of
          ongoing entanglement with its Jewish origins).

          But, and here is the rub, the Davidic authentication of Jesus proceeds via
          Jesus' earthly father Joseph, whereas the idea of a divine birth is
          entirely, utterly, and radically opposed to this, and asserts instead a
          one-step genealogy: God > Mary. Note how Luke handles this rather delicate
          point: "the son (*as was supposed*) of Joseph" (Lk 3:23). Here, then, is
          another point in favor of Lukan posteriority in this passage: Luke corrects
          a problem lying unresolved and thus troublesome in his source. Would the
          opposite directionality have any convincement at all? I suggest not. Here is
          a clear case of Mt > Lk (or as I have recently preferred to put it, more
          precisely Mt > Lk B).

          5. Depending on how thoroughly Tatian recognized the incompatibility of
          heavenly and earthy fathers, the genealogy - any human genealogy - would
          have confronted him with a contradiction, and it was surely part of his
          purpose, in writing at all, to get rid of contradictions among and between
          the Gospels. I suggest that, like Luke, he saw the problem, and having to
          choose, he chose, not between Matthew and Luke or any conflation of the two,
          but instead chose John. He chose to omit.

          6. This nonfeasance of Joseph in the begetting of Jesus was of course
          strongly developed in later Jesus theory, including the idea that Jesus'
          "brothers" (so Mk 3:33-35) were actually his cousins, or that in some other
          way Mary retained her virginity (as respects man) to the end. This is not
          the only strand of Jesus theory (the problem of David and Jesus is met
          another way in the Protevangelium of James 10:1, Elliott 61, which gives
          Mary herself a Davidic ancestry). But I suggest that it is useful to add it
          to our calculations of what options Tatian had, how theologically hot they
          were in his perception, and how, in the end, he chose among them.

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

          7. This thing of Jesus and man (meaning, males in their procreative aspect)
          has a rich later history. In arguing for women's rights at Akron Ohio in
          1851, and thus for the importance and worth of women in the world generally,
          the former slave Sojourner Truth is reported to have said:

          "And how came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and the
          woman who bore him. Man, where was your part?"

          Nor are text-critical issues absent in this case. The above quote is taken
          from an account of Sojourner's speech written up shortly afterward by a
          newspaperman who was present. It has, as Leopold von Ranke would remind us,
          the presumption proper to early evidence. More than a decade later, the
          organizer of that meeting, Ohio resident and activist Frances Gage, rewrote
          and republished Sojourner's speech, in a much longer and rhetorically more
          impressive form, with a recurring refrain ("Ain't I a woman?") which
          eventually gave a title to the speech, and with a more powerful expression
          of the above quote. So much more powerful that I decline to quote it here,
          lest it obscure, as it was designed to do, the humbler original. That
          rewrite also gave Sojourner the voice of a Southern plantation slave, which
          was the then preferred mode for blacks (including Charles Chesnutt and Paul
          Lawrence Dunbar, both Northern in their own speak) when addressing the
          northern white liberal world. Gage's version thus better fit the acceptance
          pattern of her time, and surely worked better for the cause - up to the
          present, Sojourner is quoted exclusively in Gage's version of her sayings.
          As it happens, Sojourner was not a Southern plantation slave; she was born
          in New York, and her first language was not Southern anything, but Dutch.
          The Sojourner of later liberal tradition is thus a *product* of later
          liberal tradition, and not of any "historical memory" of the actual
          occasions when she spoke, or the actual things she said, let alone of her
          discoverable personal origins and native language. I suspect that when all
          the cards are down, much the same will be said of the historical Jesus, now
          only dimly and intermittently visible behind the structures by which he was
          adjusted, rationalized, repackaged, and ever more widely and more
          successfully preached, in the late 1st century.

          8. Such things, such transformations and inventions of the past, are not
          exceptional. They are rather the normal and indeed inevitable work of a
          minor tradition continually reprocessing itself, seeking always for greater
          effectiveness in the major world, the normally hostile major world, which
          the group in question happens to confront. Nothing could be more natural;
          the minor tradition which does not take such steps in its own behalf is
          likely to die young. We see this pattern again (and it would surely be
          astonishing if we did not) in classical China. Not only did the Micians
          contend with the Confucians for the ritual soul of the emerging common
          Sinitic culture (their running feud over the three-year mourning
          requirement, in the first quarter of the 03c, is one of the classics of
          cultural confrontation), but even within Micianism there were controversies.
          Thus the main Micians (whose text record is the so-called ethical chapters
          of the common corpus, MZ 1-39) believed, or at one point came to believe, in
          supernatural retribution and thus in the reality of ghosts and spirits, as
          the mechanism for validating and enforcing certain cherished ethical
          principles. They harangue, they anecdotalize, they cite eyewitnesses, they
          quote verbatim from wholly imaginary ancient official records, all in order
          to nail down for their public - the ruling elite of that time - the reality
          of ghosts and spirits, especially those of the avenging kind (see now, or
          see soon, Al Cohen's piece in WSP v2, on certain 04c stories of spirit
          retribution,

          http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp2/index.html

          Along with Taeko's companion piece, on the general situation of ghosts and
          spirits in Mician cultural propaganda.

          In complete, total, direct, and explicit disagreement, another branch of
          Micians (their repository is the dialectal chapters of the common corpus, MZ
          40-45), who were concerned with soundness of statement and thus with the
          firmness of evidence for statement, by which they meant the accuracy of
          sensory input, entirely avoided the topic of supernatural beings. And as for
          the dream state in which the lower culture (the home ground of the subelite
          Micians) was inclined to receive appearances of or predictions by avenging
          spirits, they explicitly denied that it had any validity whatsoever (Canons
          A23-24). Zowie!

          9. Here, then, is an internal theological difference (a difference, in this
          case, between theology and no theology) visible in an early movement just
          getting a sense of itself, doing so in separate groups and factions, and
          responding in different ways to the urgent need to make itself intelligible,
          and indeed convincing, not only to itself, but also, and no less urgently,
          to a more powerful outer world organized along rather different lines. There
          has been some recent scholarly interest in seeing Micianism as a species of
          general religious history (not to mention intellectual history), and my
          suspicion is that more is waiting to be done along those lines. But only by
          those who know that there is such a subject, and how far it has progressed
          up to the present moment.

          For the Project HQ contribution to that work, see now the first

          http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/index.html

          but even more the forthcoming, volumes of the Project's journal, Warring
          States Papers. Yes, we are indexed in New Testament Abstracts, so in the end
          nobody is going to miss anything (at least nothing Neotestamental; Chris
          Matthews of NTA has unfortunately if understandably declined to be
          interested in our general methodology pieces, let alone the perhaps even
          more suggestive comparative religion pieces). But what enterprising NT
          researcher wants to wait, allowing the other entrepreneurs several months'
          or a year's lead? Jobs are scarce, competition to produce good new research
          is intense; go figure. Get it while it's hot. Still only $40, and thus
          requiring at most two pizza abstentions in order to be fully funded.
          Remember, pizza is bad for you anyway. And at the library level, can any
          theological center of present or future repute afford to be without this
          item? Do people propose to wait for Novum Testamentum to inform them about
          Matthew, not to mention the Micians?

          I ask you.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst

          http://www.umass.edu/wsp
        • Chuck Jones
          David, I believe that no manuscript of Mt and Lk exists without the genealogies (except fragments that do not contain the relevant portions of the books, of
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 18, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            David,

            I believe that no manuscript of Mt and Lk exists without the genealogies (except fragments that do not contain the relevant portions of the books, of course).  So the earliest evidence for genealogies existing in Mt and Lk may be the earliest complete copies of Mt and Lk themselves.  Others can comment on the first external reference to a gospel genealogy; I've not studied the church fathers much at all.

            Rev. Chuck Jones
            Atlanta, Georgia


            ________________________________
            From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:23 PM
            Subject: [Synoptic-L] The genealogies and the Diatessaron.



             
            The Diatessaron does not contain a genealogy. Is there any evidence to suggest that Tatian knew of one when he wrote it?
            If not, what is the earliest evidence of a genealogy existing in either Mt or Lk? Is it possible they are both
            post-Tatian interpolations? (Marcion's gospel does not contain a genealogy either)

            David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

            https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Chuck Jones
            Picturing Tatian staring at the two passages brings a smile to my face, Jeff.  Once the two genealogies pass David, they are irreconcilable.  Son of Solomon
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 18, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Picturing Tatian staring at the two passages brings a smile to my face, Jeff.  Once the two genealogies pass David, they are irreconcilable.  Son of Solomon or son of Nathan?  Was Jesus' grandfather Heli or Jacob?

              Rev. Chuck Jones
              Atlanta, Georgia


              ________________________________
              From: Jeff Peterson <peterson@...>
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:49 PM
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The genealogies and the Diatessaron.


              Marcion's Christology gave him a reason not to include a genealogy if he
              knew of one. And how would Tatian have gone about harmonizing the Matthaean
              and Lucan genealogies if he were inclined to?

              Jeff Peterson


              On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:23 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

              > **
              >
              >
              > The Diatessaron does not contain a genealogy. Is there any evidence to
              > suggest that Tatian knew of one when he wrote it?
              > If not, what is the earliest evidence of a genealogy existing in either Mt
              > or Lk? Is it possible they are both
              > post-Tatian interpolations? (Marcion's gospel does not contain a genealogy
              > either)
              >
              > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
              >
              > https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >

              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

              Synoptic-L homepage: http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.