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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Apr 17 4:48 PM
      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      Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6237 - Release Date: 04/10/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.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 2 of 6 , Apr 18 12:21 AM
        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 3 of 6 , Apr 18 5:30 AM
          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 4 of 6 , Apr 18 5:38 AM
            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.