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

RE: [Synoptic-L] A synoptic idea

Expand Messages
  • Matson, Mark (Academic)
    Dave: This is interesting. I certainly like the observation that much of the LukeQ material looks Matthean (though note substantial modifications as in the
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave:

      This is interesting. I certainly like the observation that much of the
      "LukeQ" material looks Matthean (though note substantial modifications
      as in the beatitudes, the modifications sounding very Lukan). While I
      have had somewhat of a hunch of this, I have done no formal analyses of
      the langague. And that is partly because I am not sure what it tells us
      for Luke, since he is a remarkably adept writer -- sometimes feigning
      LXX style, other times more formal styles. A study of the speeches in
      Acts, almost certainly coming from Luke's hand, would indicate his
      facility with various styles of Greek prose.

      On the one hand, you concede the essential point many of us have made --
      that the "independent" use of a source by Luke and Matthew does not hold
      water. There are too many indications of some reliance one way or the
      other.

      But I wonder why you are so hesitant to see Luke as a highly creative
      author who can choose to select material from Matthew, sometimes using
      it without much modification, other times excercising editorial control
      with substantial modifications in order and in content. Why can't Luke
      be an author? Why can't he choose to use "sources" differently
      according to his own compositional strategy?

      Is there some reason that we constantly want to explain things by means
      of an original document that "does away" with Luke's editorial and
      compositional freedom?

      Mark A. Matson
      Academic Dean
      Milligan College
      http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/personal.htm



      > -----Original Message-----
      > Luke's "Q" section seems to be dependent on Matthew. Mark
      > Goodacre has noted stylistic similarities. Also my vocabulary
      > study indicated that "Q" and sonndergut Matthew seems to
      > share a common or at least correlated vocabulary profile.
      > http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html
      >
      > Some subsequent investigation of the vocabulary showed that
      > even if we just look and Luke's Q section just as it is found
      > in Luke, it looks more like other material found only in
      > Matthew than it does like other material found only in Luke.

      > This seems to support the "Mark without Q" hypothesis.

      <portions clipped>
      > Suppose "Q" and Matthew have the same author. The scenario
      > runs like this - Mark is an old and established text. A late
      > 1st century author claims to have a list of sayings by the
      > disciple Matthew, but in fact it is really a completely
      > contemporary document. This document is then published in a
      > limited way, but this same author who forged "Q", then goes
      > on to produce the gospel of Matthew. The author of Luke is
      > taken in by the "Q" forgery, and believes it is an
      > authentically from an apostle.
      > But Luke recognizes "Matthew" as a contemporary document, and
      > while he is aware of Matthew, he generally does not choose to use it.
      >
    • gentile_dave@emc.com
      ... sayings source.
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Ken Olsen wrote (in part):

        >>Some issues however - Luke's scattering of the sayings material really
        >>does tend to suggest a
        sayings source.<<

        'Splain why. Is there a rule that one is likely to rearrange a saying
        source, but not likely to rearrange the order of sayings embedded in a
        narrative source? What literature shows this?

        >>Also we have an odd combination of apparent respect for Matthew's text
        (following the wording closely), with apparent disrespect (ignoring the
        first 2 chapters, and scattering the material)<<

        And an ancient author would never copy the wording of parts of a source
        while omitting or heavily recasting other parts, is that the idea? Have you

        ever looked at the compositional theories scholars use to explain
        Chronicles, Jubilees, Josephus' rewriting of the biblical history, or
        Pseudo-Philo's LAB?

        >>Here is an idea that simply explains all of the above -<<

        Still, not as simple as the theory that Luke used Matthew.


        Dave:

        I do think Luke had access to Matthew, and used Matthew to a limited extent.
        Also, I would obviously agree, that "Mark without Q" is simpler than the
        3-source hypothesis (in any form). And I certainly would not make any
        sweeping statements like "an author would never do this". However, the
        scattering of the sayings is something that suggests (not proves) a saying
        source, as I think those that support the 2-source hypothesis have correctly
        pointed out.

        I suspect my suggestion will have limited appeal to those that are already
        strongly persuaded by either the 2SH, or "Mark without Q", however, some who
        find some merit in both ideas, might find my suggestion attractive, or at
        least I would hope that to be the case.

        For the choice between "Mark without Q" and my suggestion, we have to ask if
        there is enough evidence to support the idea that Luke used a saying source
        at all. I know that many who favor the 2SH find Luke's scattering behavior
        somewhat implausible in the "MwQ" hypothesis, as well as his omission of the
        birth narrative.

        Let me ask and answer a few simple questions -
        Q: Is Luke's omission of Matthew's birth narrative more consistent with
        respect for the text of Matthew or lack of respect?
        A: Lack of respect.
        Q: Is Luke's rearrangement of Matthew's text more consistent with respect
        for Matthew's text, or lack of respect?
        A: Lack of respect
        Q: Is Luke's close copying of the words of Matthew and or Q, more consistent
        with respect for that text, or lack or respect?
        A: Respect.

        Thus we have at least some evidence of both respect for Matthew and or Q,
        and some evidence of lack of respect for Matthew's text (assuming Luke knew
        it). Thus two texts one of which had Luke's respect, and one of which did
        not, would have more explanatory power than one text here.

        We also know that sayings sources existed (Thomas), And we know that Luke
        has treated the material as individual unit sayings. Just given that
        information, if we had to guess at the nature of Luke's source, we would
        guess Luke had a saying source.

        So I do think we have some evidence that suggests a saying source, and
        therefore my suggestion explains additional data in ways empirically at
        least somewhat more probable than the explanation of "Mark without Q".
        However, again I do agree "Mark without Q" has greater parsimony. And at
        this point I do not have a formal argument that the increased explanatory
        power of my hypothesis justifies the decrease in parsimony, so I'll just
        leave that up to individual judgment.

        Dave Gentile
        Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician
        B.S./M.S. Physics
        M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)
        Riverside, IL
      • gentile_dave@emc.com
        Mark Matson wrote: This is interesting. I certainly like the observation that much of the LukeQ material looks Matthean (though note substantial
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 8, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark Matson wrote:

          This is interesting. I certainly like the observation that much of the
          "LukeQ" material looks Matthean (though note substantial modifications
          as in the beatitudes, the modifications sounding very Lukan). While I
          have had somewhat of a hunch of this, I have done no formal analyses of
          the langague. And that is partly because I am not sure what it tells us
          for Luke, since he is a remarkably adept writer -- sometimes feigning
          LXX style, other times more formal styles. A study of the speeches in
          Acts, almost certainly coming from Luke's hand, would indicate his
          facility with various styles of Greek prose.


          Dave:

          In my vocabulary study, the frequencies of the most common Greek words in
          the synoptics are studied. I think it would be difficult to imitate this
          aspect of another's style.

          Mark:

          But I wonder why you are so hesitant to see Luke as a highly creative
          author who can choose to select material from Matthew, sometimes using
          it without much modification, other times excercising editorial control
          with substantial modifications in order and in content. Why can't Luke
          be an author? Why can't he choose to use "sources" differently
          according to his own compositional strategy?

          Is there some reason that we constantly want to explain things by means
          of an original document that "does away" with Luke's editorial and
          compositional freedom?

          Dave:

          I think Luke's use of Mark allows us to at least form the hypothesis that
          Luke is interested in closely following early sources he respects, where
          they exist. However, we can of course also note that Luke does seem to
          exhibit considerable creative freedom as well. It is certainly not
          impossible that what we see in Luke could be the result of the use of
          Matthew and Mark alone. But I would argue that the use of Mark, Matthew, and
          Q is more probable (see my previous post to Ken Olsen here). My opinion is
          that there seems to be enough evidence suggestive of a sayings source among
          Luke's sources to justify the decreased parsimony of my solution relative to
          "Mark without Q".

          Dave Gentile
          Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician
          B.S./M.S. Physics
          M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)
          Riverside, IL
        • Chuck Jones
          Dave, As to your second question below, the answer is Mk, Mt and Lk. When the three overlap, Mk s order is followed some huge percentage of time (forgot the
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Dave,

            As to your second question below, the answer is Mk, Mt and Lk. When the three overlap, Mk's order is followed some huge percentage of time (forgot the number).

            Chuck

            dave wrote:

            Is there a rule that one is likely to rearrange a saying
            source, but not likely to rearrange the order of sayings embedded in a
            narrative source? What literature shows this?



            Recent Activity

            2
            New Files

            Visit Your Group
            Search Ads
            Get new customers.
            List your web site
            in Yahoo! Search.

            Y! Toolbar
            Get it Free!
            easy 1-click access
            to your groups.

            Yahoo! Groups
            Start a group
            in 3 easy steps.
            Connect with others.



            .





            ---------------------------------
            All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Dave Gentile
            That was Ken s question that I was quoting, (apparently without clarity). But thanks for the answer. Dave Gentile Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician B.S./M.S.
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              That was Ken's question that I was quoting, (apparently without
              clarity). But thanks for the answer.


              Dave Gentile
              Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician
              B.S./M.S. Physics
              M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)
              Riverside, IL

              --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dave,
              >
              > As to your second question below, the answer is Mk, Mt and Lk.
              When the three overlap, Mk's order is followed some huge percentage of
              time (forgot the number).
            • Ken Olson
              ... So you perceive a problem with Luke s scattering and back it up with an appeal to the authority of those who accept the 2DH? Let s take a look at what a
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On 8 September, David Gentile wrote:

                > I do think Luke had access to Matthew, and used Matthew to a limited extent.
                > Also, I would obviously agree, that "Mark without Q" is simpler than the
                > 3-source hypothesis (in any form). And I certainly would not make any
                > sweeping statements like "an author would never do this". However, the
                > scattering of the sayings is something that suggests (not proves) a saying
                > source, as I think those that support the 2-source hypothesis have correctly
                > pointed out.

                So you perceive a problem with Luke's "scattering" and back it up with an appeal to the authority of those who accept the 2DH? Let's take a look at what a leading proponent of the 2DH actually says about Luke's order. In his review of Mark Goodacre's Case Against Q, Chritopher Tuckett of Oxford takes Goodacre to task for explaining how Luke's ordering of his double-tradition material does indeed make sense. Tuckett complains:

                "The difficulty here is that this is not quite the argument that Q defenders have used. No one has ever doubted that Luke's order may make (Lukan) sense. The argument is not that Luke's order per se is incoherent; it is that Luke's _changes to Matthew's order_ may be difficult to conceive" [Novt 46.4 (2004) 401-403].

                So, according to Tuckett, Luke's order is fine in and off itself. [Tuckett leaves himself an out with the "may"]. The problem is in conceiving why he would have departed from Matthew's order, right?

                [snip]

                > Let me ask and answer a few simple questions -
                > Q: Is Luke's omission of Matthew's birth narrative more consistent with
                > respect for the text of Matthew or lack of respect?
                > A: Lack of respect.
                > Q: Is Luke's rearrangement of Matthew's text more consistent with respect
                > for Matthew's text, or lack of respect?
                > A: Lack of respect
                > Q: Is Luke's close copying of the words of Matthew and or Q, more consistent
                > with respect for that text, or lack or respect?
                > A: Respect.

                There is an unstated, and I believe incorrect, assumption in your reasoning here that I tried and apparently failed to bring to your attention in my last post. So let me ask a few simple questions in return. Is" respect" a relative or an absolute term, and is it uniformly distributed or might it vary from place to place? If Luke had two or more sources should we expect him to respect them all equally or some more than others? And within an individual document should we expect him to respect all aspects and all parts of the document equally, or should we expect his level or respect to vary for different aspects (e.g., he might in theory repect its sequence of events more than he respected the quality of its Greek) and from part to part. In fact, might he not respect some specific aspect or part of one document more than some specific part or aspect of another document even though, in general, he respects the other document more? Your argument that if Luke (ever?) respected Matthew's wording, he would also have respeted his order is a non sequitur.

                > Thus we have at least some evidence of both respect for Matthew and or Q,
                > and some evidence of lack of respect for Matthew's text (assuming Luke knew
                > it). Thus two texts one of which had Luke's respect, and one of which did
                > not, would have more explanatory power than one text here.

                Because respect is absolute and indivisible? You've never, for instance, seen a movie that generally sucked but had some excellent lines it? Or a good movie with tedious scenes that you wanted to fast forward through? Does Luke's use of Mark as a source generally show respect, or lack of respect for Mark? What about his changes of Mark's grammar? What about his Great Omission of material from Mark 6-8? In fact, does not the rewriting of source material into a new narrative almost by definition show a combination of repect and lack of respect, or, rather, varying degrees of respect?

                > We also know that sayings sources existed (Thomas), And we know that Luke
                > has treated the material as individual unit sayings. Just given that
                > information, if we had to guess at the nature of Luke's source, we would
                > guess Luke had a saying source.

                I am unable to follow the argument here. If it is true that Luke has "treated the material as individual unit sayings" doesn't that mean he is not following the order of his source, whether it was Matthew or a sayings source? If not, what does it mean?

                > So I do think we have some evidence that suggests a saying source, and
                > therefore my suggestion explains additional data in ways empirically at
                > least somewhat more probable than the explanation of "Mark without Q".

                You appear to be using some definition of "empirically" with which I'm not familiar. Empiricism is precisely what I don't see in your discussion. You are attempting to answer the synoptic problem by posing a series of choices as binary opposites and working on a purely theoretical level. You don't deal with Luke's likes and dislikes at the level of content, or his historical situation, or the methods of composition that might have been avaialble to him, nor do you try to set his work in the context of other ancient literature (excepting a very slight appeal to the other synoptics and Thomas). To use a (somewhat) common expression, you are assuming a spherical cow.

                > However, again I do agree "Mark without Q" has greater parsimony. And at
                > this point I do not have a formal argument that the increased explanatory
                > power of my hypothesis justifies the decrease in parsimony, so I'll just
                > leave that up to individual judgment.

                Formal arguments, greater parsimony, and explanatory power are all very nice in their places, but if you want to solve the synoptic problem, or convince anyone that you can, you are first going to have to show that you understand Mark, Matthew, and Luke as authors, and explain why they wrote what they did. I'm afraid that I do not foresee your efforts to solve the synoptic problem at the abstract will ever be successful.

                Best,

                Ken

                Kenneth A. Olson
                MA, History, University of Maryland
                PhD Student, Religion, Duke University


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ken Olson
                ... As to your second question below, the answer is Mk, Mt and Lk. When the three overlap, Mk s order is followed some huge percentage of time (forgot the
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 8, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Chuck wrote:

                  >>Dave,

                  As to your second question below, the answer is Mk, Mt and Lk. When the
                  three overlap, Mk's order is followed some huge percentage of time (forgot
                  the number).

                  dave wrote:

                  Is there a rule that one is likely to rearrange a saying
                  source, but not likely to rearrange the order of sayings embedded in a
                  narrative source? What literature shows this?<<

                  Chuck,

                  Actually that was ny question, and a trick one at that. Could you find out
                  what that "huge percentage" is and document it? On the 2DH, Luke is held
                  generally to follow the order of his sayings source against his narrative
                  source in the so-called Mark-Q overlap passages.

                  Best,

                  Ken

                  Kenneth A. Olson
                  MA, History, University of Maryland
                  PhD Student, Religion, Duke University



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  Following Dave s logic here, would it not also be true to say that Luke most likely used not only the LXX OT, but also a hypothetical sayings source containing
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 9, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Following Dave's logic here, would it not also be true to say that Luke most likely used not only the LXX OT, but also a hypothetical sayings source containing the sayings of OT characters when he composed, say, Acts 7? He shows great "lack of respect" to his LXX source, with regard to the way he (1) completely omits large segments of the story from his source (say, Exodus), and (2) completely re-writes the stories he does tell from this source. However, he shows "respect" for his other source, when he cites words said by these characters, including God, verbatim! Or is there something wrong with Dave's argument?

                    Leonard Maluf
                    Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                    Weston, MA
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: gentile_dave@...
                    To: kenolson101@...; Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 4:12 PM
                    Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] A synoptic idea



                    For the choice between "Mark without Q" and my suggestion, we have to ask if
                    there is enough evidence to support the idea that Luke used a saying source
                    at all. I know that many who favor the 2SH find Luke's scattering behavior
                    somewhat implausible in the "MwQ" hypothesis, as well as his omission of the
                    birth narrative.

                    Let me ask and answer a few simple questions -
                    Q: Is Luke's omission of Matthew's birth narrative more consistent with
                    respect for the text of Matthew or lack of respect?
                    A: Lack of respect.
                    Q: Is Luke's rearrangement of Matthew's text more consistent with respect
                    for Matthew's text, or lack of respect?
                    A: Lack of respect
                    Q: Is Luke's close copying of the words of Matthew and or Q, more consistent
                    with respect for that text, or lack or respect?
                    A: Respect.

                    Thus we have at least some evidence of both respect for Matthew and or Q,
                    and some evidence of lack of respect for Matthew's text (assuming Luke knew
                    it). Thus two texts one of which had Luke's respect, and one of which did
                    not, would have more explanatory power than one text here.








                    Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l
                    Yahoo! Groups Links



                    (Yahoo! ID required)

                    mailto:Synoptic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com



                    ________________________________________________________________________
                    Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Dave Gentile
                    ... reasoning here that I tried and apparently failed to bring to your attention in my last post. So let me ask a few simple questions in return. Is
                    Message 9 of 12 , Sep 9, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ken Olsen wrote:
                      >
                      > There is an unstated, and I believe incorrect, assumption in your
                      reasoning here that I tried and apparently failed to bring to your
                      attention in my last post. So let me ask a few simple questions in
                      return. Is" respect" a relative or an absolute term, and is it
                      uniformly distributed or might it vary from place to place? If Luke
                      had two or more sources should we expect him to respect them all
                      equally or some more than others? And within an individual document
                      should we expect him to respect all aspects and all parts of the
                      document equally, or should we expect his level or respect to vary
                      for different aspects (e.g., he might in theory repect its sequence
                      of events more than he respected the quality of its Greek) and from
                      part to part. In fact, might he not respect some specific aspect or
                      part of one document more than some specific part or aspect of
                      another document even though, in general, he respects the other
                      document more? Your argument that if Luke (ever?) respected
                      Matthew's wording, he would also have respeted his order is a non
                      sequitur.

                      Dave: Let's try a word other than "respect", that might capture my
                      meaning better. Does Luke regard the gospel of Matthew as an older
                      source with better knowledge of actual events than Luke himself has?
                      Or does Luke regard Matthew as a contemporary with an actual
                      knowledge of events similar to Luke's own? I think Luke, in general,
                      can only have one opinion of the author's position to know. I
                      suppose that we might make a rather special exception for the birth
                      narrative, but other than that, I think Luke's view has to be fairly
                      consistent regarding Matthew's ability to know.

                      Now could Luke have regarded Matthew as an authoritative source and
                      still rewritten him? Yes. Although I think we would want to see
                      argument as to why he would want to, before we considered this the
                      most likely possibility. In other words, this does not strike us as
                      the most probable apriori. Could Luke have viewed Matthew as
                      relatively unauthoritative and still used his wording for quotes?
                      Yes, although this last idea seems somewhat unlikely to me.

                      Ken:

                      >
                      > > We also know that sayings sources existed (Thomas), And we know
                      that Luke
                      > > has treated the material as individual unit sayings. Just given
                      that
                      > > information, if we had to guess at the nature of Luke's source,
                      we would
                      > > guess Luke had a saying source.
                      >
                      > I am unable to follow the argument here. If it is true that Luke
                      has "treated the material as individual unit sayings" doesn't that
                      mean he is not following the order of his source, whether it was
                      Matthew or a sayings source? If not, what does it mean?

                      Dave: Maybe I can improve that slightly. The fact that Matthew and
                      Luke present the material in different orders, in pieces the size of
                      individual sayings and pericope, suggests, on the face of it, that
                      the material does not have any authoritative order. This in turn
                      brings to mind a saying source, which could have authoritative
                      wording, without authoritative ordering.

                      Of course one could argue that Luke chose to change what he regarded
                      as an authoritative order. But, then this does need argumentation in
                      order to contradict the face-value suggestion.

                      Ken: To use a (somewhat) common expression, you are assuming a
                      spherical cow.

                      Dave: O.K. that's not completely inapt here. The arguments above are
                      extremely high level and not at all detailed. I would argue they are
                      empirical, but at a universal level rather than a detailed one.

                      Without looking back at your original post, your position seems to
                      me to have been that the idea of a saying source has no merit at
                      all. I do think my high level arguments are enough to contradict
                      that idea.

                      You also seemed to be saying that Luke could have done what he did
                      without a saying source, and I agreed.

                      Now, if you are saying that based on detailed study of Luke's
                      behavior in all cases, you think there is enough evidence to do away
                      with a saying source as a serious contender, then I'm certainly
                      willing to accept that as your view based on your study of those
                      individual details.

                      Dave Gentile
                      Riverside, IL
                    • Dennis Dean Carpenter
                      snip We also know that sayings sources existed (Thomas) snip There was a sayings source (Thomas), but we don t really know that it was any earlier than the
                      Message 10 of 12 , Sep 10, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        snip "We also know that sayings sources existed (Thomas)" snip

                        There was a sayings source (Thomas), but we don't really know that it was any earlier than the second century, or for that matter, that the fourth century Coptic manuscript we have points us in a trajectory toward the first century.

                        Dennis Dean Carpenter
                        Dahlonega, Ga. USA

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Ken Olson
                        ... meaning better. Does Luke regard the gospel of Matthew as an older source with better knowledge of actual events than Luke himself has? Or does Luke regard
                        Message 11 of 12 , Sep 11, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 10 September 2006, Dave Gentile wrote:

                          >>Dave: Let's try a word other than "respect", that might capture my
                          meaning better. Does Luke regard the gospel of Matthew as an older
                          source with better knowledge of actual events than Luke himself has?
                          Or does Luke regard Matthew as a contemporary with an actual
                          knowledge of events similar to Luke's own? I think Luke, in general,
                          can only have one opinion of the author's position to know. I
                          suppose that we might make a rather special exception for the birth
                          narrative, but other than that, I think Luke's view has to be fairly
                          consistent regarding Matthew's ability to know.<<

                          It's not the word I'm objecting to, it's the method. You make a bunch of
                          initial assumptions and then you propose a bunch of hypothetical sources to
                          fit them and you wait for everything to click into place. When your
                          assumptions are criticized, you restate them and hypothesize new and
                          different hypothetical sources to do away with the difficulties. It doesn't
                          seem to have dawned on you that you may just be using the wrong approach.

                          Perhaps you could read Jubilees and then tell me whether the author
                          considered the Torah an "authoritative" text or not. Or make a list of
                          biblical quotations in John and then tell me if John regarded the OT as an
                          "authoritative" text. Or tell me why Plutarch assigns certain sayings to
                          different characters in his Lives. Not everything can be accounted for by
                          assuming variant source texts. Mark Goodacre has used the ways modern
                          filmmakers adapt the gospels to film to illustrate the different ways that
                          purpose and medium affect the final product. He's been criticized for using
                          an anachronistic analogy. But that is much of the point--we may be
                          committing anachronisms ourselves if we assume that the gospel authors went
                          about their business with the same purposes and the same methods modern
                          historians do.

                          >>Now could Luke have regarded Matthew as an authoritative source and
                          still rewritten him? Yes. Although I think we would want to see
                          argument as to why he would want to, before we considered this the
                          most likely possibility. In other words, this does not strike us as
                          the most probable apriori.<<

                          If by "we" you mean contemporary systems analysts and statisticians who try
                          to reduce the synoptic problem to a multivariable equation, project modern
                          ideas of historiography and investigative journalism onto first century
                          authors, and have not engaged in study of how ancient authors used their
                          sources or what the term "authoritative source" might mean in an ancient
                          context, I might agree.

                          >>Could Luke have viewed Matthew as
                          relatively unauthoritative and still used his wording for quotes?
                          Yes, although this last idea seems somewhat unlikely to me.<<

                          Can you give the reasons that it seems unlikely to you? Or do you mean for
                          us to take the fact that it seems unlikely to you as having probative value?
                          At least you're using the first person here.

                          >>Dave: Maybe I can improve that slightly. The fact that Matthew and
                          Luke present the material in different orders, in pieces the size of
                          individual sayings and pericope, suggests, on the face of it, that
                          the material does not have any authoritative order. This in turn
                          brings to mind a saying source, which could have authoritative
                          wording, without authoritative ordering.<<

                          Explain to me how you know that sayings source (and only sayings sources),
                          have authoritiative wording but not authoritative order. Do you mean this
                          is intuitively obvious to you, or have you done a study of ancient
                          literature that shows authors kept the wording of order and sayings found in
                          narrative sources but kept the only the wording but changed the order of
                          sayings sources? Which literature shows this? While you're at it explain
                          to me why Luke departs from the Markan order for most of the so-called
                          Mark/Q overlaps (everything after the Temptation).

                          >>Of course one could argue that Luke chose to change what he regarded
                          as an authoritative order. But, then this does need argumentation in
                          order to contradict the face-value suggestion.<<

                          Aaaargh! The meaning of the word "authoritative" needs to be
                          contextualized. It does not have a "face-value" applicable to all times and
                          places.

                          >>Ken: To use a (somewhat) common expression, you are assuming a
                          spherical cow.

                          Dave: O.K. that's not completely inapt here. The arguments above are
                          extremely high level and not at all detailed. I would argue they are
                          empirical, but at a universal level rather than a detailed one.<<

                          The assumptions you make are neither empirical nor universal.. You state a
                          bunch of a priori principles that you expect the evangelists to have
                          followed. When problems with these assumptions are pointed out to you, you
                          try hypothesizing new lost sources that don't have to face them rather than
                          admit that your assumptions may be wrong. Your "universal" level is not
                          universal, it grew up in a particular time and place. I do not mean to
                          suggest that modern epistemological methods are bunk--I'm kind of fond of
                          them. However, you seem to be assuming not just that modern epistemological
                          methods work, but that ancient authors used them in the same way you would.
                          And you're wrong.

                          >>Without looking back at your original post, your position seems to
                          me to have been that the idea of a saying source has no merit at
                          all. I do think my high level arguments are enough to contradict
                          that idea.<<

                          Actually, it's the "high level arguments" to which I am objecting.

                          >>You also seemed to be saying that Luke could have done what he did
                          without a saying source, and I agreed.<<

                          Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

                          >>Now, if you are saying that based on detailed study of Luke's
                          behavior in all cases, you think there is enough evidence to do away
                          with a saying source as a serious contender, then I'm certainly
                          willing to accept that as your view based on your study of those
                          individual details.<<

                          OK. I have, in fact, put these arguments to you before. When I point out
                          that Luke may have rearranged Matthew's order in response to the conditions
                          he faced in trying to combine Markan and Matthean material, your response
                          has invariably been to try to do away with the conditions I describe by
                          hypothesizing further lost sources for which those conditions did not exist.
                          But I'll give it one more shot. I should, perhaps, add that I can speak only for myself and other proponents of the Farer theory may well disagree with me.

                          Luke has two main written sources, Mark and Matthew. He and the Christian
                          community he knows have had Mark for a while before Matthew comes along.
                          Luke knows Mark well and can tell where Matthew has changed it by adding,
                          omitting, or recasting material. Some of the additional material he likes a
                          great deal, particulary some of Jesus' ethical teachings (which Mark does
                          not have a lot of), other material is less pleasing, and some of it is
                          awful. Where Matthew has recast Mark, he generally, but not always, prefers
                          the original that he and his church have used for a long time. But he
                          recognizes the potential of what Matthew has done in rewriting and
                          "updating" Mark and making it fit the needs of his target audience better.
                          He decides to do the same thing.

                          Luke decides he's going to follow Mark, the older and usually fuller [in the
                          overlapping material] source for as far as Mark goes, taking over its basic
                          narrative and keeping it in its Markan order. He will use Matthew's
                          additional material primarily to supplement Mark. The question is: how will
                          he go about adding the supplementary material to his Markan framework?
                          There are two considerations that must be made before addressing this
                          question.

                          First, close conflation of two different written sources at the level of
                          wording is a diffiuclt procedure. The consensus among classicists is that
                          that most ancient authors did not attempt close conflation but wrote with
                          one source in front of them at one time. In The Four Gospels, Streeter
                          notes that Luke follows Mark and his other source (which Streeter took to be
                          Proto-Luke, a combination of Q and L) in fairly large alternating blocks for
                          a few chapters at a time. He also noted that Luke's sources overlapped (the
                          so-called Mark-Q overlaps) and that when this happened, Luke followed one or
                          the other and didn't try to conflate them. Streeter noted that in the case
                          of the Mark-Q overlaps Luke chose to follow the version in his non-Markan
                          source instead of that of Mark. He admitted that he could not tell where
                          the reverse might have happened (i.e., if Luke was following Mark's version,
                          how would we tell if there were also a version in his non-Markan source?).
                          So if Luke's sources are Mark and Matthew we might reasonably expect that he
                          would use them in alternate blocks and not try to conflate them closely.

                          Second, one of the most widely acknowledged characteristics of Luke is his
                          dislike of doublets. He does indeed have about ten doublets, all sayings
                          and none more than two verses in length. Whether he did not care enough to
                          take the the time to edit them out, or he especially liked these sayings
                          enough to use them twice I don't know. But in general, he does not like
                          doublets. We do not have two Temptations, two Beelzebul pericopes, two
                          Parables of the Mustard Seed, or two Feeding Miracles in Luke, despite te
                          fact that he would have had more than one version of each in his sources.
                          So we might reasonably expect a Luke who knew Mark and Matthew generally not
                          to reuse the same material in both its Matthean and Markan forms.

                          Now if Luke follows these two principles (as major scholars who accept the
                          2DH argue he does) it will be almost impossible to follow Matthew's order,
                          and undesirable to try. Matthew's order depends on Mark. His settings for
                          his five sermons are taken from Markan settings, which Luke has already used
                          and doesn't want to repeat. He also isn't going to attempt close conflation
                          by trying to stick all of Matthew's additions into the closest possible
                          Markan parallel location. Further, except for the Sermon on the Mount,
                          Mathew's sermons are expanded versions with a core of Markan material, which
                          Luke has already used. This leaves Mark with a bunch of Matthean material
                          removed from its Markan context, and Luke arranges it as best he can. The
                          Sermon on the Mount is a special case, being more than twice as long as any
                          speech in Luke-Acts. It is a "masterpiece" when read by one studying it at
                          his leisure, but a horror to anyone forced to listen to it read aloud from
                          beginning to end (something no modern lectionary attempts). Luke, like
                          modern filmmakers who have portaryed the Sermon, keeps a trimmed form of the
                          Beatitudes and a few other things in nearly the same location and
                          redistributes the rest to other parts of his gospel. When combined with
                          Luke's other Matthean and special material, the final result is one that "no
                          one has ever doubted may make good (Lukan) sense." Or so Tuckett says.

                          Best,

                          Ken

                          Kenneth A. Olson
                          MA, History, University of Maryland
                          PhD Student, Religion, Duke University

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