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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A synoptic idea

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Dave, I don t think there is a good argument, for these two suppositions seem to me to be essentially incompatible. For in my opinion Mark s liberal
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 10, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave Gentile wrote:

      > So, let's try this, let's suppose your Q/Matthew reconstruction is
      > essentially correct, and suppose that I'm correct that an earlier
      > (less corrupted) version of Mark lacked most overlap material. If
      > that were the case, then can you think of a good argument to favor
      > an early date for Q vs. a late forgery that claims to be from an
      > apostolic source?

      Dave,

      I don't think there is a good argument, for these two suppositions seem to
      me to be essentially incompatible. For in my opinion Mark's liberal
      treatment of the basically Jewish sayings source is just what would be
      expected from his sharp criticisms of the original Jewish followers of
      Jesus. It would be a very odd co-incidence if a third party had added to
      Mark, material which so well matches his attitude in the narrative sections.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Dave Gentile
      Ron Price wrote: For in my opinion Mark s liberal treatment of the basically Jewish sayings source is just what would be expected from his sharp criticisms of
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 10, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron Price wrote:

        For in my opinion Mark's liberal
        treatment of the basically Jewish sayings source is just what would
        be expected from his sharp criticisms of the original Jewish
        followers of Jesus.

        It would be a very odd co-incidence if a third party had added to
        Mark, material which so well matches his attitude in the narrative
        sections.

        Dave:

        Did you have a specific narrative example in mind?

        And do you mean that you think the added material itself fits well
        with the narrative material, or just that it fits that he would omit
        as much as he did of Q if it were available?

        Because, if all we are saying is that the "omitted" part of Q and
        Mark have different views, then that could run in either direction.
        Suppose for example Mark is first, and then there is a Gnostic
        movement that develops, and Q/Matthew represents a conservative
        reaction to the Gnostics who in their view represent too drastic of
        a change.

        As for the fit of the added material, I'm not so sure it does fit
        well. It is possible for example that your perception of Mark's
        narrative sections is colored by the saying sections. But suppose we
        did find elements with strong commonality, that could of course mean
        I'm wrong about these sections being added, or alternately, it could
        indicate that a community that used the gospel of Mark, and held
        views consistent with it, added material that they thought fit well
        with the original Mark.

        In any case, I can see that what would be needed to support my idea
        over yours here would be a detailed presentation of the
        reconstruction I did for myself of "synoptic prime". I don't
        currently have that available. So I'll concede that at least at this
        point I can't demonstrate the superiority of one idea over the
        other.

        Dave Gentile
        Riverside, IL

        --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dave Gentile wrote:
        >
        > > So, let's try this, let's suppose your Q/Matthew reconstruction
        is
        > > essentially correct, and suppose that I'm correct that an earlier
        > > (less corrupted) version of Mark lacked most overlap material. If
        > > that were the case, then can you think of a good argument to
        favor
        > > an early date for Q vs. a late forgery that claims to be from an
        > > apostolic source?
        >
        > Dave,
        >
        > I don't think there is a good argument, for these two suppositions
        seem to
        > me to be essentially incompatible. For in my opinion Mark's liberal
        > treatment of the basically Jewish sayings source is just what
        would be
        > expected from his sharp criticisms of the original Jewish
        followers of
        > Jesus. It would be a very odd co-incidence if a third party had
        added to
        > Mark, material which so well matches his attitude in the narrative
        sections.
        >
        > Ron Price
        >
        > Derbyshire, UK
        >
        > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        >
      • Ron Price
        ... Dave, The most prominent is the story of Peter s denial which presents Peter as disloyal, but there are several other passages such as Mk 3:31-35 which
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 11, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I had written:

          > For in my opinion Mark's liberal
          > treatment of the basically Jewish sayings source is just what would
          > be expected from his sharp criticisms of the original Jewish
          > followers of Jesus.
          >
          > It would be a very odd co-incidence if a third party had added to
          > Mark, material which so well matches his attitude in the narrative
          > sections.

          Dave Gentile replied:

          > Did you have a specific narrative example in mind?

          Dave,

          The most prominent is the story of Peter's denial which presents Peter as
          disloyal, but there are several other passages such as Mk 3:31-35 which
          presents Jesus' brothers as disrespectful and Mk 10:35-40 which presents two
          followers of Jesus as greedy.

          > And do you mean that you think the added material itself fits well
          > with the narrative material, or just that it fits that he would omit
          > as much as he did of Q if it were available?

          It's the combination of what is omitted and how the remainder is redacted,
          that broadly matches the criticism of Jews and Judaism in a number of
          passages in the rest of Mark's gospel. In a few cases the match is quite
          specific. For instance, Mark transforms the 'Q' saying about the endurance
          of the Jewish law (Q 16:17) into a saying about the endurance of Jesus'
          words (Mk 13:31), which matches his proclamation that Jewish food laws can
          be ignored (Mk 7:14-19).

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        • gentile_dave@emc.com
          I wrote: Did you have a specific narrative example in mind? And Ron replied: The most prominent is the story of Peter s denial which presents Peter as
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 11, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I wrote:



            Did you have a specific narrative example in mind?

            And Ron replied:

            The most prominent is the story of Peter's denial which presents Peter
            as
            disloyal, but there are several other passages such as Mk 3:31-35 which
            presents Jesus' brothers as disrespectful and Mk 10:35-40 which presents
            two
            followers of Jesus as greedy.



            Dave:



            O.K. I understand what you were referring to now. We might and that the
            disciples seem rather dense.



            I had written:


            > And do you mean that you think the added material itself fits well
            > with the narrative material, or just that it fits that he would omit
            > as much as he did of Q if it were available?



            Ron then replied:


            It's the combination of what is omitted and how the remainder is
            redacted,
            that broadly matches the criticism of Jews and Judaism in a number of
            passages in the rest of Mark's gospel. In a few cases the match is quite
            specific. For instance, Mark transforms the 'Q' saying about the
            endurance
            of the Jewish law (Q 16:17) into a saying about the endurance of Jesus'
            words (Mk 13:31), which matches his proclamation that Jewish food laws
            can
            be ignored (Mk 7:14-19).



            Dave:

            And we could add things like Mark's "the Sabbath was made for man, not
            man for the Sabbath".



            So, no doubt we could call Mark "liberal" in his interpretation of
            Jewish scripture,

            and we could say that Mark's presentation of the disciples and the
            family of Jesus is unfavorable. We agree.



            But how I would explain Mk. 13:31 and Q 16:17, is that Mark 13:31 is
            Mark's original work, which by Mark 13 does not seem out of step with
            Mark's gradual revelation about the nature of Jesus. Then Q 16:17 is
            authored later, by the author of Q/Matthew, as part of a conservative
            reaction. I would speculate that this conservative reaction is driven
            in part by the emergence of Gnosticism, with a complete rejection of the
            OT and the OT God. Matthew in reaction, while not particularly favorable
            to the Jewish people, is very interested in saying that the OT is still
            scripture, (and therefore) we are still followers of the same God.



            So my hypothesis says "Matthew" has Mark in hand, and wants to write a
            new gospel from his conservative view-point (conservative in regards to
            Jewish scripture), and he forges a sayings list in the name of an
            apostle that justifies this intended gospel. Mt. 5:18/Q 16:17 would be
            an example of this. He borrows a bit of language from Mark (which will
            help lend authenticity to his new "saying-source"), but changes Mark's
            words to support his own conservative agenda. He wants to say that Mark
            was close to correct, but got some things a bit wrong.



            Of course like most synoptic phenomena, this seems to be nearly fully
            reversible, depending on assumptions.



            But there are other less reversible examples, I think.

            The salt sayings would be another less reversible example, and there are
            some other potential examples under "Matthew, Luke, and Salt" on my page

            http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Mark.html

            I believe they show Matthew revising Mark in non-Q sections to be more
            favorable towards the OT and the old covenant.

            Could we say that Q's text looks suspiciously supportive of Matthew's
            agenda? Or maybe you would argue instead that Matthew only chose to use
            Q, *because* Q supported his agenda. In that case, at the very least, we
            could say that Matthew and Q seems to share the same view point. And,
            while it is clearly possible for two different authors to share a point
            of view, the fact that Q and Matthew do seems to agree, would at least
            constitute supporting evidence for their authorship by the same person.



            Dave Gentile

            Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

            B.S./M.S. Physics

            M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)

            Riverside, IL

















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Ron Price
            ... Dave, As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way round, it seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q 16:17. ...
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Dave Gentile wrote:

              > But how I would explain Mk. 13:31 and Q 16:17, is that Mark 13:31 is
              > Mark's original work, which by Mark 13 does not seem out of step with
              > Mark's gradual revelation about the nature of Jesus. Then Q 16:17 is
              > authored later, by the author of Q/Matthew, as part of a conservative
              > reaction.

              Dave,

              As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way round, it
              seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q 16:17.

              > I would speculate that this conservative reaction is driven
              > in part by the emergence of Gnosticism, with a complete rejection of the
              > OT and the OT God.

              But the synoptic gospels, within which this conservative reaction is
              supposed to have been manifested, were all penned in the first century,
              whereas my understanding is that gnosticism didn't really have much
              influence until the early second century.

              > So my hypothesis says "Matthew" has Mark in hand, and wants to write a
              > new gospel from his conservative view-point (conservative in regards to
              > Jewish scripture), and he forges a sayings list in the name of an
              > apostle that justifies this intended gospel.

              But Jesus was a Jew, and all his original followers (including all the
              original apostles) were Jews. Therefore I think it's quite reasonable,
              bearing in mind Papias' statement that Matthew assembled the logia, to
              attribute the first written form of Lk 16:17 to the apostle Matthew.

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, UK

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
            • gentile_dave@emc.com
              Ken wrote: You make a bunch of initial assumptions Dave: I m sure I make some assumptions for simplification, although at least some of these have an empirical
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Ken wrote:



                You make a bunch of initial assumptions



                Dave:



                I'm sure I make some assumptions for simplification, although at least
                some of these have an empirical base, if we probe deeper. Of course, if
                some false assumption is made, we would indeed want to uncover that. I'm
                sure you have simplifying assumptions as well, in your argument.



                Ken: and then you propose a bunch of hypothetical sources



                Dave: And you have your own hypothesis about Luke's behavior. We propose
                competing hypotheses and look for evidence to support of contradict
                them. Standard rational-empiricism.



                Ken: When your assumptions are criticized, you restate them



                Dave: You argued that "respect" might not be uniform quality, that it
                was divisible, so I changed my wording. "Estimation of a source's
                position to know" is not a something that can easily vary across a
                document by (what we assume to be) a single author.



                Ken: and hypothesize new and different hypothetical sources to do away
                with the difficulties.



                Dave: Additional hypotheses to better explain data are also part of the
                rational-empirical process.



                Ken: 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 charcters in his Lives.



                Dave: If we were discussing free-will and determinism, I don't think I'd
                say something like "Could you read Einstein and consider what
                implications special relativity may have for the question?" Rather, I
                think I would provide information on how it might be relevant. (Special
                relativity brings into question the whole idea of linear time, and if we
                are asking if the past fully constrains the present, understanding what
                we mean by "past" is relevant.)



                So, if you think the actions of a particular ancient author are a good
                analogy to use for your proposed actions by Luke, then I would ask that
                simply state that case. Obviously we have somewhat different background.
                If we didn't there would be no point in discussion, because working from
                the same set of facts and experiences, we'd pretty much arrive at the
                same answer I'd expect. So sharing information not available to the
                interlocutor is one of the things I would expect discussion to
                accomplish.



                Ken: Not everything can be accounted for by assuming variant source
                texts.



                Dave: I'd agree. And I'd also note that what I'm proposing is not
                exactly Boismard.



                Ken: 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.



                Dave: What if we propose that Luke might have been doing something
                analogous to say Herodotus? That is interviewing people, gathering
                sources, and generally trying to make sense of it. Now, I would not
                suggest that that is the only thing Luke is up to, he certainly has
                other purposes. But Luke does tell us



                "1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have
                been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those
                who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
                Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from
                the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for
                you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of
                the things you have been taught."



                From this we can gather he is interested in sources, and witnesses, and
                investigation, and establishing "certainty" or the facts of the matter.
                Again he can be interested in other things, but he tells us he is
                interested in these things. So again here I would ask what does Luke
                think of Matthew status as a witness or a source, what is Luke's opinion
                of Matthew's ability to know?



                In passing I would add that I don't think a historical account is what
                the author of Mark was up to at all. He was (in my opinion) trying to
                show Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecy, and doing something much
                closer to Midrash.



                Ken:

                If by "we" you mean contemporary systems analysts and statisticians who
                try to reduce the synoptic problem to a multivariable equation,



                Dave: I'm accused of reductionism. Scientific investigation requires
                that we be able to reduce the input data to verifiable facts, which map
                as unambiguously as possible to the terms of our language (probably
                mathematical). Certainly in NT studies there are a great many things
                that will not lend themselves to this sort of investigation. However,
                the synoptic problem can be approached this way. If your goal is not the
                scientific or rational-empirical answer to this problem, then we are
                about different tasks.



                Ken:

                Can you give the reasons that it seems unlikely to you?



                Dave: Given that Luke has told us he is interested in witnesses, and
                getting things correct, and given that we accept this (and note that we
                do have cooberation in the fact that we agree he is working from
                multiple sources), it is unlikely he would use direct quotes from a
                source that he thought had no clue.



                Ken:

                Explain to me how you know that sayings source (and only sayings
                sources), have authoritative wording but not authoritative order.



                Dave: I did not say "only a saying source". That is a sort document that
                we know existed (at least by the 2nd century), and that easily can have
                authoritative wording without authoritative order. The sayings could be
                in thematic order or pneumonic order, for example. Could some other sort
                of document have this characteristic? Yes. Do you want to say this
                characterizes Matthew? That is - do you want to say that Luke thought
                Matthew was in a position to know the facts of the matter, but did not
                regard Matthew's order as representing the correct order of events? I
                think you'd have to argue something like "Luke recognizes that Matthew
                belongs to a genera of writing unconcerned with the real order of
                events." How then does Matthew's genera differ from Mark's in Luke's
                view?



                I mean obviously you think Luke rearranges Matthew, but do you think
                Luke does this while thinking that Matthew's order has little to do with
                the real order of events, or do you think Luke does this rearrangement
                thinking that Matthew' order probably is related to the real order of
                events, but Luke is simply not that concerned with the order of events?
                How would you argue that latter point? (other than pointing to the
                rearranged text, which is circular, since that is what we are trying to
                explain). You could of course point to other ancient authors who were
                not concerned with the order of events. That would be enough to raise,
                as one possibility, the idea that Luke was not interested in the order
                of events, but that is not enough show that it is *probable* that Luke
                would not care about the order of events. On the other hand we have what
                Luke told us about his intentions, and the fact that he does follow the
                order of Mark, both of which argue that he probably did care about the
                order of events.



                Ken: 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).



                Dave: In my recent posts to Ron, I pointed out that I don't believe that
                an earlier, less corrupted version of Mark contained most of the "Mark/Q
                overlap" material. I described the idea of using text-critical methods
                to go one step further. That is currently we would use the surviving
                texts of Mark to reconstruct Mark, etc. But after we have these and a
                synoptic solution with Markian priority, we can go one step more. We can
                say that our reconstruction of canonical Mark is the conservative
                witness to the original text of Mark, but Matthew and Luke are also
                (less conservative) witnesses to the original text of Mark. We can then
                use text-critical methods to reconstruct "synoptic-prime", a less
                corrupted version of Mark. Having tried this exercise, just for myself,
                the answer I got was that most Mark/Q sections were not in the original
                Mark, and often probably not in Luke's copy of Mark.



                Ken: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.



                Dave: To use Occam's razor in its strict sense, it must be the case that
                the proposed hypothesis (say B), when compared to another hypothesis
                (say A), represents a decrease in parsimony without any increase in
                explanatory power. To say that the saying source has no additional
                explanatory power at all is a rather high burden of proof, don't you
                think? Rather, we should acknowledge that your idea is more
                parsimonious, and mine has at least some additional explanatory power
                (as almost any *real* extra hypothesis will), and recognize that both
                factors can contribute to the probable truth of a hypothesis. That is,
                all else equal, the simple hypothesis is more probable, and all else
                equal, the hypothesis with more explanatory power is more probable. When
                all else is not equal there will be cases where the most probable
                hypothesis is the most parsimonious, and there will be cases where the
                most probable hypothesis is the one with the greater explanatory power.
                Our task is to figure out which we are dealing with here.



                Ken:



                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 Matthian 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.



                Dave: O.K. we from here on out we have actual arguments of the matter at
                hand. I'd point out that my original intent was just to say that both
                the FH, and the 2SH have merit and that my idea preserved some of the
                merits of both. My intent was not really to do a critique of the
                arguments for either side, which is what we seem to be doing here. But,
                I'm interested in the argument anyway.



                Ken: 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.



                Dave: Mostly I agree (except with the number and/or name of sources).
                Mark has been around, Matthew is new.



                Ken: Luke knows Mark well and can tell where Matthew has changed it by
                adding, omitting, or recasting material.



                Dave: O.K.



                Ken: Some of the additional material he likes a great deal, particularly
                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.



                Dave: Sounds good.



                Ken: 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.



                Dave: Yep.



                Ken: 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 difficult 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.



                Dave: Is this an appeal to authority? (which can have merit) In support
                of a point that may be rather critical to your argument? And what do we
                mean by close conflation? I mean no one here is suggesting anything like
                what the GH folks claim Mark did in conflating Matthew and Luke. The
                question is more whether Luke could/would have kept Matthew in the same
                order at a basically a pericope level. Certainly that could constitute
                "chucks" of material, although smaller than your proposed chunks. Also,
                most ancient authors were not dealing with two versions of the same
                story. So, an analogy here may have little warrant.



                Ken: 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.



                Dave: Why exactly from the above? You've pointed out that Luke seems to
                have in fact done this, but that does nothing for establishing our prior
                expectation that he would have done this. We want to ask if our prior
                expectations, based on our hypothesis match with the facts, in order to
                support or disconfirm the hypothesis. We can't use the facts to form the
                prior expectation on our hypothesis, in this case.



                Ken: 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.



                Dave: Hmmm...this is rather circular. Your first sentence maintains that
                Luke had a dislike of doublets. One would imagine that this is widely
                acknowledged, *because* Luke in fact does not have many doublets. But
                then we can't use Luke's dislike of doublets to form a prior expectation
                that he would not form doublets. The fact of the doublets can't be part
                of any prior expectation about doublets. And we care about the prior
                expectation of doublets, because you want to argue that the reason for
                the observed text is that Luke would consider elimination of doublets as
                more important than keeping an (authoritative?) order. That would
                require providing reasons to believe Luke would dislike doublets, other
                that the fact that he avoided them. We need to know what might motivate
                his distaste for doublets. I might suggest that maybe he didn't like
                doublets, because he was concerned about actual events, and actual
                events don't happen twice. Alternately, we might say he didn't want to
                waste space, or something like that, but I thought I'd throw the
                possible concern about actual events in there.



                Ken: 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.



                Dave: So your argument then is that Luke rearranged an (authoritative?)
                source, because it would have been too difficult to keep in the correct
                order and avoid doublets? That would not work for me, since we've agreed
                Luke has a good working knowledge of Mark. He should be able to avoid
                doublets (if this was his goal), with any order he chooses that at least
                roughly follows Mark.



                Or if keeping the order of Matthew was not too difficult the argument
                would then be that Luke wants to avoid pericope-level conflation for
                some reason, even though he could do it, if he chose to? Well, that
                would be one side of an argument then. On the other side I would say
                that given that Luke has two sources with the same basic story, and
                given that he has expressed an interest in witnesses, sources, and
                actual events, he probably would attempt such a pericope level
                conflation if he viewed Matthew's order as historical. (All else being
                equal)



                Alternately if Luke did not think Matthew had a better knowledge of
                actual events than Luke himself, then his decision to use Matthew at
                all, and particularly to use verbatim quotes from Matthew that
                contradict Mark, does not fit with Luke's own statement of his
                intentions. In fact we stipulated above that Luke regards Matthew's
                gospel as new on the scene, if we then hypothesis that Luke used Matthew
                extensively then this contradicts Luke's statement of his intent to go
                back to the beginning.



                I suppose the other piece to testing these hypotheses would be to look
                at the actions on Matthew's part. Given that Mark is well established,
                and if we suppose Matthew does not himself have first hand knowledge,
                then does Matthew have reasonable expectation that his gospel will be
                accepted and read if he just writes it, without claiming any earlier
                sources? (Luke, his contemporary, seems to think he needs a preface with
                this claim), and renaming Levi to Matthew may be part of Matthew claim
                to being based on first hand accounts) Is it reasonable for Matthew (if
                this is a late work and not the work of a disciple) to expect people to
                use his gospel instead of Mark? That would depend how the community of
                Christians looked at the gospel of Mark at the time Matthew was written.
                From Paul we might infer that they already had an idea of Christian
                Scripture by the time Matthew writes. Maybe I'm wrong, but while people
                generally accept commentary on scripture, or new insight, they generally
                don't like fully contemporary re-writes to scripture. In any case, the
                claim of a source (perhaps claimed to be translated from Hebrew of
                Aramaic) could not help but increase the popularity of Matthew's gospel,
                if people believed the claim.



                So where are we in summary?



                If say Matthew is fully contemporary to Luke we might expect some
                problem with its acceptance, given that there is already a concept of
                scripture, and that Luke needed to use a preface to say he used old
                sources, and that Matthew's rename of Levi may be a claim of being based
                on a first hand witness. Also contradicting this idea are Luke's
                verbatim quotes from Matthew, after telling us he is interested in
                original witnesses and events.



                If we say Matthew is in fact in position to know first hand, then we
                might wonder why it is written so late. We might also appeal to
                authority and say most modern scholars do not hold this to be the case.
                It also seems quite possible for Luke to keep Matthew's order of events
                at a pericope level (this is not particularly close conflation), while
                avoiding doublets. But Luke does not do this. And I would argue that
                based on Luke's statement about his intentions, and given that Luke
                regards Matthew as an authentic witness, all else being equal, we would
                expect him to try to preserve Matthew's order where it was reasonably
                achievable, but the facts contradict this expectation.



                However, if Matthew is a contemporary of Luke, given the barrier that
                might be present to the publication of a second more contemporary
                version of the gospel, Matthew has motive to forge a saying source
                (which could have quotes in no historical order, but say in thematic
                order). Luke's behavior then is fully consistent with his stated
                intentions of going to original sources and witnesses, and his
                acceptance of the saying source as original, and his recognition of
                Matthew as contemporary.



                Dave Gentile

                Riverside IL









                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Dave Gentile
                ... round, it ... 16:17. ... That s reasonable. And, all else being equal, probably our first guess. But Christianity was also a fairly radical break from
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ron wrote:

                  >
                  > As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way
                  round, it
                  > seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q
                  16:17.
                  >

                  That's reasonable. And, all else being equal, probably our first
                  guess. But Christianity was also a fairly radical break from
                  tradition.
                  Maybe we shouldn't expect much in the way of *conservative* Jewish
                  attitudes from the first followers. Paul didn't like them much in
                  his early conservative stage.


                  > But the synoptic gospels, within which this conservative reaction
                  is
                  > supposed to have been manifested, were all penned in the first
                  century,
                  > whereas my understanding is that Gnosticism didn't really have much
                  > influence until the early second century.

                  O.K. proto-Gnostic then. But for that matter, I doubt the author of
                  Matthew would have though much of the gospel of John (or the ideas
                  that led to it) either. Identifying Jesus as God may have been a
                  step to far for him. In any case, we agree the author of Matthew
                  represents a conservative turn from Mark, at least when it comes to
                  his attitude towards Hebrew scripture.

                  So we have this time line -

                  1) Early Jewish followers (probably rather radical)
                  2) Mark – with a liberal take on Hebrew scripture
                  3) Mathew, with a conservative view of Hebrew scripture.

                  So, if we have another document with a conservative attitude, where
                  does it fit in that time line? Well, anywhere really.

                  <snip>

                  >I think it's quite reasonable,
                  > bearing in mind Papias' statement that Matthew assembled the
                  logia, to
                  > attribute the first written form of Lk 16:17 to the apostle
                  Matthew.

                  Reasonable, yes. But a successfully forged early saying source, and
                  a real early saying source will probably have much in common,
                  including Papias' testimony about them, so that can't be used to
                  separate the ideas.

                  Dave Gentile
                  Riverside, IL
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic In Response To: Dave Gentile On: Sayings Sources, Real and Otherwise From: Bruce Among much else of interest in his latest contribution, Dave had
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 13, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic
                    In Response To: Dave Gentile
                    On: Sayings Sources, Real and Otherwise
                    From: Bruce

                    Among much else of interest in his latest contribution, Dave had remarked,
                    "But a successfully forged early saying source and a real early saying
                    source will probably have much in common, including Papias' testimony about
                    them, so that can't be used to separate the ideas."

                    I merely want to say that I think this is a very important principle. Too
                    many things could correspond to certain bits of medium early external
                    testimony for complete certainty, and in any case, our ability to detect
                    forgeries at this distance is necessarily somewhat impaired. Any hypothesis
                    compatible with the words of Papias (wherever the boundary between them and
                    Eusebius's comments may lie, and whatever exactly they mean, and ignoring
                    the Johannine bias of Papias, and assuming that Papias in this remark has a
                    probity which is conspicuously missing from what we know of his own
                    writings) is probably the better for it, other things being equal. But it is
                    still worthwhile to be reminded that the category of hypotheses which could
                    be judged compatible with the words of Papias is a somewhat wide one.

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                    [The name "Papias" reminds me that in the early China field, we have a
                    conspicuous case of a major court historian, a man of learning or anyway of
                    wide acquaintance in the world of texts, who showed incredible naivete in
                    evaluating recent forgeries as genuine productions of antiquity, and whose
                    own editing of earlier texts for inclusion in his book ranged from
                    amateurish to downright clumsy. He had an accepting mind and a trembling
                    hand].
                  • Emmanuel Fritsch
                    Hello, Arguing about technical details in Luke on a french forum, we deeply disagree about keramon in Luke 5:19. It has been said that tiles were not
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 11, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello,

                      Arguing about technical details in Luke on a french forum, we deeply
                      disagree about "keramon" in Luke 5:19. It has been said that "tiles"
                      were not present in Syria at the beginning of Ist century, so that it
                      constitutes an error of Luke.

                      Since I was not convinced, I said it, and I have been sharply accused
                      for being a defender of inerrancy.
                      Hence I would like to look around the question.

                      Even if "tiles" for "keramon" is the mainstream translation, in french,
                      english, german, we have other translation for this "keramon". Segond
                      translate "par une ouverture du toit".

                      Bailly, the standard greek-french dictionnary, proposes "clay".
                      Greek online bible (http://www.greekbible.com) proposes :
                      > 1) clay, potter's earth
                      > 2) anything made of clay, earthen ware
                      > 3) a roofing tile
                      > 3a) the roof itself
                      > 3b) the phrase "through the roof", means through the door in the
                      > roof to which a ladder or stairway led up from the street
                      > (according to the Rabbis distinguish two ways of entering
                      > a house, "the way through the door" and "the way through
                      > the roof". For Synonyms see entry 5858

                      I would like to know :
                      - what is the source for this definition ? (and for the whole lexicon of
                      greek online bible)
                      - are there any other stuff about the translation of "keramon" I should
                      have looked at ?
                      - are there any other stuff about "keramon" in Luke ?

                      Thanks in advance,

                      a+
                      manu
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.