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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Sparrows: Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7.

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    David, I ve just read through the parallels a couple of times, and there is no difference in the fear/don t fear motif in them.  Don t fear someone who can
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      David,

      I've just read through the parallels a couple of times, and there is no difference in the fear/don't fear motif in them.  Don't fear someone who can kill you physically; fear the one who can send you to hell.  Am I missing something?

      Chuck


      ________________________________
      From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:12 PM
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] Sparrows: Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7.



       
      It looks to me as though both the DT ‘sparrows’ passages at Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7 could be interpolations. They are self-contained, and in both cases the rest of the text reads just as well without them. In both Mt and Lk there is an obvious ‘fear’ motif tying this passage to the preceding one, but while in the first the reader is told to fear, in the second he/she is told to NOT fear, suggesting (to me) that this saying does not really follow the previous one. There is also the question of which of these passages came first. Any thoughts?

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

      Tricky NT Textual Issues <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/>

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




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic (cc: WSW) In Response To: David Inglis and Chuck Jones On: Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7 and Parallelism of Verses From: Bruce I sort of agree with
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 21, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic (cc: WSW)
        In Response To: David Inglis and Chuck Jones
        On: Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7 and Parallelism of Verses
        From: Bruce

        I sort of agree with David's sense of the choppiness of this sequence,
        without necessarily reaching an interpolation conclusion. I think it is more
        of an aggregate, a little like the salt sayings in Mark, and perhaps even
        following their example, such as it is.

        Lk 12:2-3. "What is hidden shall be revealed." (So what? Does this mean that
        our sins will be exposed? A passage elsewhere compares the light of the
        believer, his public works of good, to a lamp on a stand, something
        desirable to be seen and not hidden).

        Lk 12:4-5. "Fear not earthly death, but the Devil, who kills forever." (The
        Mt parallel seems to have a different connection).

        Lk 12:6-7. "Sparrows not forgotten before God". (The believer is assured
        that his life is thought important by God).

        Lk 12:8-9. He who acknowledges and he who does not. (The crime of denial;
        another warning).

        Lk 12:10. Repeat of preceding, in terms of blasphemy (denial of Holy
        Spirit).

        I have the sense that any of these duplets might be eliminated with little
        harm to the others. The connecting thread (I almost wrote "threat," which
        however would not apply to the sparrows) is of the scantiest. As to the
        mixed texture of this series, notice that several have vague Markan
        similarities, but not in the same place in Mark (4:22, 8:38, 3:28-29).

        From where I sit, one reason for inconsecutivity in Luke is that Luke B
        sometimes adds from Mt a passage that he likes, but can find only a rough
        home for in his own previous (Luke A) writings. Luke's sequence is always
        better if we remove these Matthean additions. Notice that the parallel to Lk
        12:10 is not anything in Mt 10 (where the previous Luke sayings are
        paralleled), but in Mt 12:32.

        -------

        Has anyone noticed how, in the above summary of Lk 12:2-10, the verses go in
        pairs? With a final unpaired saying to end the set? This seems to be very
        frequent in the Gospel writings, even when the verses are of unequal length.
        It is also ubiquitous in the Confucian writings (both the Analects and
        Mencius, and in one sector only, the most elite sector, of the generally
        sub-elite Mician writings). It may also be seen in the Twelve Tables,
        insofar as convincingly reconstructed, and I suspect that it has its origin
        in legal contexts. We give a rule, and then we give a necessary qualifying
        rule to complete it. Hebrew parallelism of verses, perhaps especially in the
        wisdom literature of the OT, would be another extensive example. For ears
        attuned to forensic rhetoric, and few Jewish ears in the 1c can have been
        wholly unattuned to forensic rhetoric, it seems to me that this formal
        arrangement would add authority and convincement, quite apart from content,
        or from the thematic continuity of the content.

        Among the Micians, it is surely the writers of what are called the logical
        or dialectal chapters who are most concerned with hard evidence, with direct
        eyewitness accounts and not with hearsay. This strikes me as a very forensic
        atmosphere. And these are the guys with the conspicuous pairing of
        statements. Coincidence? If so, there is an awful lot of it going around.

        The only ethical Mician who shows an equally keen sense of legal procedure
        is Mwo Di himself, if as we think he is the source of MZ 17, the oldest of
        the ethical chapters (c0390). A chapter which might easily have been an
        argument before a magistrate, indicting the Powers that Be for their
        manifestly illegal war crimes, since war itself is a crime: murder
        multiplied.

        How much different is a rabbi from a legal interpreter? Isn't that what the
        brothers asked Jesus to do, in dividing a disputed inheritance?

        The task is not to repeat the law -any fool or any child can repeat the law.
        The task is to interpret the law, to detect its application to the situation
        in front of one. Or in the case of an advocate, and most of the Warring
        States philosophers were advocates, to persuade higher authority to apply
        the law, the commonly agreed principle, in a certain desired way.

        Bruce
      • David Inglis
        Chuck, that’s OK as far as it goes, but you have only covered Lk 12:4-5. As I read it, Lk 12:6-7 basically goes on to say; “but don’t worry, because god
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 21, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Chuck, that’s OK as far as it goes, but you have only covered Lk 12:4-5. As I read it, Lk 12:6-7 basically goes on to say; “but don’t worry, because god doesn’t forget the sparrows, and you’re more important than them, so you have nothing to fear.



          David Inglis



          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jones
          Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:39 AM
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Sparrows: Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7.

          David,

          I've just read through the parallels a couple of times, and there is no difference in the fear/don't fear motif in them. Don't fear someone who can kill you physically; fear the one who can send you to hell. Am I missing something?

          Chuck

          ________________________________
          From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> >
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:12 PM
          Subject: [Synoptic-L] Sparrows: Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7.


          It looks to me as though both the DT ‘sparrows’ passages at Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7 could be interpolations. They are self-contained, and in both cases the rest of the text reads just as well without them. In both Mt and Lk there is an obvious ‘fear’ motif tying this passage to the preceding one, but while in the first the reader is told to fear, in the second he/she is told to NOT fear, suggesting (to me) that this saying does not really follow the previous one. There is also the question of which of these passages came first. Any thoughts?

          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

          Tricky NT Textual Issues <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/>





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Inglis
          Bruce, you may be correct. It does look like a collection of sayings that have been assembled based on a particular theme, and the fact that they appear in two
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 21, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Bruce, you may be correct. It does look like a collection of sayings that have been assembled based on a particular
            theme, and the fact that they appear in two different chapters in Mt support the view that aLk could have assembled them
            what he saw in Mt, i.e. that here the directionality runs Mt -> Lk. The problem I have is that Lk 12:6-7 is not in
            Marcion's gospel [Mcg]. I can't see any reason to remove it from Lk, but, if Mcg pre-dates Mt, then I can't see why aMt
            would add it. Also, we see these verses in pairs, but how were they viewed before there were verses?



            David Inglis



            From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
            Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:25 PM
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: WSW
            Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Sparrows: Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7.

            To: Synoptic (cc: WSW)
            In Response To: David Inglis and Chuck Jones
            On: Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7 and Parallelism of Verses
            From: Bruce

            I sort of agree with David's sense of the choppiness of this sequence, without necessarily reaching an interpolation
            conclusion. I think it is more of an aggregate, a little like the salt sayings in Mark, and perhaps even following their
            example, such as it is.

            Lk 12:2-3. "What is hidden shall be revealed." (So what? Does this mean that our sins will be exposed? A passage
            elsewhere compares the light of the believer, his public works of good, to a lamp on a stand, something desirable to be
            seen and not hidden).

            Lk 12:4-5. "Fear not earthly death, but the Devil, who kills forever." (The Mt parallel seems to have a different
            connection).

            Lk 12:6-7. "Sparrows not forgotten before God". (The believer is assured that his life is thought important by God).

            Lk 12:8-9. He who acknowledges and he who does not. (The crime of denial; another warning).

            Lk 12:10. Repeat of preceding, in terms of blasphemy (denial of Holy Spirit).

            I have the sense that any of these duplets might be eliminated with little harm to the others. The connecting thread (I
            almost wrote "threat," which however would not apply to the sparrows) is of the scantiest. As to the mixed texture of
            this series, notice that several have vague Markan similarities, but not in the same place in Mark (4:22, 8:38,
            3:28-29).

            From where I sit, one reason for inconsecutivity in Luke is that Luke B sometimes adds from Mt a passage that he likes,
            but can find only a rough home for in his own previous (Luke A) writings. Luke's sequence is always better if we remove
            these Matthean additions. Notice that the parallel to Lk 12:10 is not anything in Mt 10 (where the previous Luke sayings
            are paralleled), but in Mt 12:32.

            Bruce



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Chuck Jones
            Don t have it in front of me, but yesterday I read Mt the same way. Chuck Sent from my iPhone ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 22, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Don't have it in front of me, but yesterday I read Mt the same way.

              Chuck

              Sent from my iPhone

              On Jun 21, 2013, at 6:43 PM, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

              > Chuck, that’s OK as far as it goes, but you have only covered Lk 12:4-5. As I read it, Lk 12:6-7 basically goes on to say; “but don’t worry, because god doesn’t forget the sparrows, and you’re more important than them, so you have nothing to fear.
              >
              > David Inglis
              >
              > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jones
              > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:39 AM
              > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Sparrows: Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7.
              >
              > David,
              >
              > I've just read through the parallels a couple of times, and there is no difference in the fear/don't fear motif in them. Don't fear someone who can kill you physically; fear the one who can send you to hell. Am I missing something?
              >
              > Chuck
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> >
              > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:12 PM
              > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Sparrows: Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7.
              >
              > It looks to me as though both the DT ‘sparrows’ passages at Mt 10:29-31 and Lk 12:6-7 could be interpolations. They are self-contained, and in both cases the rest of the text reads just as well without them. In both Mt and Lk there is an obvious ‘fear’ motif tying this passage to the preceding one, but while in the first the reader is told to fear, in the second he/she is told to NOT fear, suggesting (to me) that this saying does not really follow the previous one. There is also the question of which of these passages came first. Any thoughts?
              >
              > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
              >
              > Tricky NT Textual Issues <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/>
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >


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