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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Source reconstruction (was: GTh comparison)

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Ron Price On: Sayings Source Reconstruction From: Bruce I had asked Ron about the principles of construction for his
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 8 8:13 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG
      In Response To: Ron Price
      On: Sayings Source Reconstruction
      From: Bruce

      I had asked Ron about the principles of construction for his version of a
      lost Sayings Source (available at
      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQet.html).

      RON: Here is a rough guide of the procedure, from which the principles
      should be apparent.

      1. Doublets are duplicated sayings in Matt or Luke which look as if they can
      best be explained as resulting from the later synoptic writer taking one
      version from Mark and the other from a sayings source. There are around 25
      in Matthew and 15 in Luke, which because of Mt/Lk overlap allows us to
      identify 28 to 30 sayings in all (we cannot be precise at this stage because
      a text might be one big saying or two little ones). These are taken as the
      core sayings which define the literary and theological characteristics of
      the source, and can be used as a template by which to assess other candidate
      sayings. (Incidentally already at stage 1. they include 5 non-Q sayings.)

      BRUCE: I like this because it is more or less the same for all observers,
      and doesn't necessarily involve Synoptic assumptions. Thus, one could say
      that a doublet in Mt is here defined as two similar Mt sayings, of which one
      strongly resembles something in Mk. (So also for the Lukan case). The
      question would then be: do the non-Markan members of these doublet pairs
      have anything in common? I would like to see that argued out without
      superimposing any further experimental assumptions. However:

      RON: 2. It is proposed that the Double Tradition material comes from two
      sources: some Luke copied from Matthew and some came from the sayings
      source. In this way we can add another 30 or so sayings which are compatible
      with the core sayings. (Most of the remaining pericopes show clear signs of
      Matthean style).

      BRUCE: This is obviously a report of Ron's own next step, and so also with
      the other four Ron provided. I merely note that my interest, as one new to
      his procedure, would be in seeing the first step argument completed, and an
      inventory of the resulting conjectural Source given, before proceeding
      further.

      For instance: How much of each of his A, B, C, and D categories is supplied
      by this first step? How many of the Source sayings identified by this first
      step are common to Matthew and Luke? These are some of the questions which
      the final reconstruction itself leaves me asking. In reconstruction
      arguments such as this, it may be that a step by step presentation is more
      convincing than a final version, where all the loose ends are tucked in, and
      all the argument that led to the result is smoothed away.

      If there were, say, an International Ron Project, its massive publications
      would presumably include a page or two of such stepwise exposition. It's not
      fair to ask Ron himself to simulate the output of such a vast establishment,
      but if he should be tempted to do so anyway, I wanted to assure him of at
      least one interested viewer.

      Thanks meanwhile for this much. I quite agree that if there were a Jesus
      sayings source, it would not be terribly likely to include a tale of John
      the Baptist, and that aspect of Ron's versions suggests to me that if there
      is a right path in this matter, he is, in my amateur opinion, more likely to
      be on it than is IQP.

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Ron Price
      ... Bruce, Actually it doesn t work quite like that. We can often only see which of the pair is taken from Mark by observing the context. Thus for instance
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 9 7:59 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce Brooks wrote:

        > ....... one could say
        > that a doublet in Mt is here defined as two similar Mt sayings, of which one
        > strongly resembles something in Mk. (So also for the Lukan case).

        Bruce,

        Actually it doesn't work quite like that. We can often only see which of the
        pair is taken from Mark by observing the context. Thus for instance Matthew
        does not generally appear to be using Mark in the 'Sermon on the Mount', and
        Luke does not generally appear to be using Mark in the major part
        (9:51-18:14) of the so-called 'Journey to Jerusalem'.

        > The question would then be: do the non-Markan members of these doublet
        > pairs have anything in common?

        Where they are different, they tend to look more original than their Markan
        counterparts. The IQP go further (too far in my opinion) as they appear to
        ignore Mark entirely in their attempt to reconstruct Q.

        > I would like to see that argued out without
        > superimposing any further experimental assumptions.

        It would be possible to argue convincingly for the general greater
        originality of the non-Markan versions, and for the *occasional* greater
        originality of the Markan version. But to set out all the arguments in
        detail would be a major undertaking.

        > ....... I merely note that my interest, as one new to
        > his procedure, would be in seeing the first step argument completed, and an
        > inventory of the resulting conjectural Source given, before proceeding
        > further.
        >
        > For instance: How much of each of his A, B, C, and D categories is supplied
        > by this first step? How many of the Source sayings identified by this first
        > step are common to Matthew and Luke?

        O.K. Here is an outline of the information you asked for, with the
        non-Markan versions listed first. Note the implication that a few of the
        Markan versions have been considerably altered. In these cases (indicated by
        *) the 'parallel' is more like a parallel with what I take to be Matthew's
        or Luke's copy of a Markan derivative of the source saying.

        < indicates that the comparison involves only a small part of the saying.

        Sayings which were later allocated to section A:

        Lighting a lamp Lk 11:33 // 8:16
        Law * Mt 5:18 // 24:35 Lk 16:17 // 21:33
        Hand/eye Mt 5:30,29 // 18:8-9
        Divorce Mt 5:32 // 19:9
        Ask < Mt 7:8 // 21:22

        Sayings which were later allocated to section B:

        Harvest * Mt 9:37-38 // 13:24-30
        Instructions < Lk 10:3-11 // 9:3-5
        Instructions < Mt 10:7 // 4:17
        Hated/endure Mt 10:22 // 24 9b,13
        Through all Israel * Mt 10:23 // 24:14
        Hand over/words Mt 10:17-20 // 24:9a Lk 12:11-12 // 21:12-15
        Nothing hidden < Lk 12:2 // 8:17
        Nothing hidden < Mt 10:32-33 // 16:27 Lk 12:8-9 // 9:26
        Division * Mt 10:34-36 // 10:21 Lk 12:51,53 // 21:16
        Worthy/cross Mt 10:38 // 16:24 Lk 14:27 // 9:23
        Save/lose Mt 10:39 // 16:25 Lk 17:33 // 9:24
        Whoever welcomes Mt 10:40 // 18:5 Lk 10:16 // 9:48
        For/against Lk 11:23 // 9:50

        Sayings which were later allocated to section C:

        Kingdom come! < Mt 6:9a,12 // 6:14
        Request for a sign < Mt 12:39 // 16:4
        Ruler/servant Mt 23:11 // 20:26
        Mulberry tree Mt 17:20 // 21:21
        Treasure in heaven Mt 6:19 // 19:21 Lk 12:33 // 18:22
        Much given Mt 25:29 // 13:12 Lk 12:48 // 8:18
        Reward * Mt 19:28 // 19:29 Lk 22:18-30 // 18:29-30
        Last/first Mt 20:16 // 19:30

        Sayings which were later allocated to section D:

        Seats/greetings Mt 11:43 // 20:46
        False prophets Mt 24:11 // 24:24
        Look he is... Mt 24:26 // 24:23 Lk 17:23 // 21:8
        Watch/thief Mt 24:42 // 25:13

        > If there were, say, an International Ron Project, its massive publications
        > would presumably include a page or two of such stepwise exposition.

        If there is any publisher lurking out there who would be interested in 'An
        alternative Q - basis, construction and description', I could guarantee the
        alternative would by comparison make the standard Q look like a disorganized
        mess. What I could not guarantee is to match the output of the IQP
        quantitatively!

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.