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

Why not Mt used Lk?

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    All, Allow me to ask a foundational and maybe foolish question. Why have NT scholars ruled out the possibility that Mt used Lk? In the debate about the
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      All,

      Allow me to ask a foundational and maybe foolish question.

      Why have NT scholars ruled out the possibility that Mt used Lk? In the debate about the existence of Q, it seems that the only two options discussed are that Mt and Lk used Q independently or that Lk used Mt. Why is the other directionality, from Lk to Mt, not considered an option?

      The only thing I ever see on this, usually mentioned in passing, is that Lk was written later than Mt. But that seems like circular reasoning to me. Shouldn't we first look at the literary evidence and see if a case can be made *from the actual content of Mt and Lk* that Mt used Lk? If that case can be made, then it wouldn't it--shouldn't it--affect our dating of Lk and Mt?

      I'm fully aware that it's likely that this possibility was ruled out a long time ago after thorough study, and that everyone now simply takes the results of that study for granted--in which case I'd love a brief summary of the salient points.

      thanks,

      Chuck

      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Altanta, Georgia


      ---------------------------------
      Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Eric Eve
      ... debate ... that ... directionality, ... Lk was ... Shouldn t ... the ... then it ... long ... results ... I can only answer very briefly now, as I have a
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Chuck Jones wrote:

        > Allow me to ask a foundational and maybe foolish question.

        > Why have NT scholars ruled out the possibility that Mt used Lk? In the
        debate
        > about the existence of Q, it seems that the only two options discussed are
        that
        > Mt and Lk used Q independently or that Lk used Mt. Why is the other
        directionality,
        > from Lk to Mt, not considered an option?

        > The only thing I ever see on this, usually mentioned in passing, is that
        Lk was
        > written later than Mt. But that seems like circular reasoning to me.
        Shouldn't
        > we first look at the literary evidence and see if a case can be made *from
        the
        > actual content of Mt and Lk* that Mt used Lk? If that case can be made,
        then it
        > wouldn't it--shouldn't it--affect our dating of Lk and Mt?

        > I'm fully aware that it's likely that this possibility was ruled out a
        long
        > time ago after thorough study, and that everyone now simply takes the
        results
        > of that study for granted--in which case I'd love a brief summary of the
        > salient points.

        I can only answer very briefly now, as I have a student coming in a minute,
        so I'll just make a few brief points.

        (1) There are a few NT scholars (Martin Hengel being the one that springs to
        mind) who do argue for Matt's use of Luke.

        (2) One major reasons for preferring the order Matt->Luke to the order
        Luke->Matt is the far higher incidents of Mattheanisms (e.g. OLIGOPISTOS) in
        Luke that Lukanisms in Matthew (a single occurence of NOMIKOS in some MSS of
        Matthew being a possible exception).

        (3) The 'fatigue' argument applied to the parable of the tenants/pounds.
        Matthew starts and ends with three servants entrusted sums of money; Luke
        starts with ten and ends with three. This is easy enough to explain as
        Luke's fatigue in using Matthew (or a source common to them both), but
        harder to explain from Matthew's use of Luke.

        (4) A perception, stemming at least from Farrer, that the 'Q' material looks
        Matthean in style and substance (more easily explained if Luke used Matthew
        than vice-versa, and partly overlapping with point 2).


        Sorry that's very brief and sketchy, but it's all I have time for now.

        -- Eric
        ----------------------------------
        Eric Eve
        Research Fellow and Tutor in Theology
        Harris Manchester College, Oxford
        http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049/
      • gentile_dave@emc.com
        I d point to my statistical study here. (Mostly because that is what I m most familiar with). http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html The minor
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I'd point to my statistical study here. (Mostly because that is what I'm
          most familiar with).



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



          The minor agreements (category 212) have a vocabulary that is related to
          the vocabulary in some categories found only in Matthew's version of the
          triple tradition. (211, 210). But the vocabulary of the minor agreements
          does not relate Luke's unique triple tradition in the same way.
          (Categories 112, 012). In past discussion it has been pointed out that
          when the study finds a relationship, it rules out non-relationship. But
          when it does not find a relationship that does not rule out a
          relationship. That is - absence of evidence does not count (at least
          directly) as evidence of absence. So the study does not rule out the 2SH
          which would expect both Luke and Matthew to be related to the minor
          agreements. The study also tends to favor (at least here), hypotheses
          like "Mark without Q", which would expect the minor agreements to
          reflect Matthew's vocabulary, and not Luke's.



          However, a hypothesis that would involve Mathew's use of Luke, is ruled
          out, since it has no explanation for the vocabulary of the minor
          agreements relating to Matthew.



          The same argument can be made from the double tradition material where
          "Q" vocabulary found in both Matthew and Luke shows a relationship to
          sonndergut Matthew, and to Matthew's unique vocabulary in "Q" sections,
          but does not significantly relate to sonndergut Luke or to Luke's
          vocabulary in the Q sections. The 2SH can be made to fit here, with some
          adjustments, and again Luke's use of Matthew seems to be supported, but
          again Matthew using Luke is contradicted by the results of the study.



          In short the study strongly supports the order Mark, Matthew, Luke, but
          does not have much ability to make any finer distinctions than that, so
          it leaves open a lot of related possibilities, that have the gospels
          written in at least roughly that order. All this of course assumes there
          are no major errors in the study that would discredit its results.





          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]
        • Chuck Jones
          Thanks, Dave. I confess I struggle to understand the study, a function no doubt of my not having a background in math or statistics. On your point that Lk
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks, Dave. I confess I struggle to understand the study, a function no doubt of my not having a background in math or statistics.

            On your point that Lk > Mt is ruled out by minor agreements, it seems to me that every proposed solution to the synoptic problem leaves some unexplained data. (Which is the main reason, I think, no agreement has been reached.)

            Chuck

            gentile_dave@... wrote:
            I'd point to my statistical study here. (Mostly because that is what I'm
            most familiar with).

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

            The minor agreements (category 212) have a vocabulary that is related to
            the vocabulary in some categories found only in Matthew's version of the
            triple tradition. (211, 210). But the vocabulary of the minor agreements
            does not relate Luke's unique triple tradition in the same way.
            (Categories 112, 012). In past discussion it has been pointed out that
            when the study finds a relationship, it rules out non-relationship. But
            when it does not find a relationship that does not rule out a
            relationship. That is - absence of evidence does not count (at least
            directly) as evidence of absence. So the study does not rule out the 2SH
            which would expect both Luke and Matthew to be related to the minor
            agreements. The study also tends to favor (at least here), hypotheses
            like "Mark without Q", which would expect the minor agreements to
            reflect Matthew's vocabulary, and not Luke's.

            However, a hypothesis that would involve Mathew's use of Luke, is ruled
            out, since it has no explanation for the vocabulary of the minor
            agreements relating to Matthew.

            The same argument can be made from the double tradition material where
            "Q" vocabulary found in both Matthew and Luke shows a relationship to
            sonndergut Matthew, and to Matthew's unique vocabulary in "Q" sections,
            but does not significantly relate to sonndergut Luke or to Luke's
            vocabulary in the Q sections. The 2SH can be made to fit here, with some
            adjustments, and again Luke's use of Matthew seems to be supported, but
            again Matthew using Luke is contradicted by the results of the study.

            In short the study strongly supports the order Mark, Matthew, Luke, but
            does not have much ability to make any finer distinctions than that, so
            it leaves open a lot of related possibilities, that have the gospels
            written in at least roughly that order. All this of course assumes there
            are no major errors in the study that would discredit its results.

            Dave Gentile

            Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

            B.S./M.S. Physics

            M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)

            Riverside, IL



            .





            ---------------------------------
            Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • gentile_dave@emc.com
            Chuck, I think I d argue that all the various hypotheses, when stated in full, explain the data in some way. Some just resort to more implausible auxiliary
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Chuck,



              I think I'd argue that all the various hypotheses, when stated in full,
              explain the data in some way. Some just resort to more implausible
              auxiliary hypotheses than others.



              The probable "truth" of a hypothesis is going to depend on both
              explanatory power, and some measure of simplicity, and given the
              complexity of the problem, and the scarcity of data (in addition to the
              possibility of strong biases), it is not at all obvious how to
              objectively evaluate the data - thus the disagreement.



              That said however, when it comes to reconciling the idea that Matthew
              used Luke, (and Luke did not use Matthew), with the results of the
              study, I think that one would have to resort to auxiliary hypotheses
              that are simply too implausible. One could argue, for example, that
              despite the statistical results the relationships are coincidence, but
              here the study can tell us precisely how unlikely such an accident would
              be.



              Alternately, (and more plausibly) one could say that the frequency of
              common Greek words in the text and the relationship between the
              categories is determined by some factor other than authorship. Here it
              has been plausibly argued that genera or topic might separate double
              tradition sections from triple tradition sections, for example. But that
              argument would not help a Luke => Matthew scenario.



              Another, less plausible, suggestion would be that when author B extracts
              words from author A, the resulting vocabulary profile of the extracted
              set of words, is more in the style of the extracting author, than the
              original author. This strikes me as highly implausible. And of course,
              there may be possible ad hoc hypotheses to account for the results that
              no one has proposed, or there may simply be mistakes in the study.



              But, given the study, and my present state of knowledge of possible
              auxiliary hypotheses that could save a Luke => Matthew scenario, I
              consider the Luke => Matthew scenario to be nearly completely eliminated
              from consideration.





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



              From: Chuck Jones [mailto:chuckjonez@...]
              Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:42 AM
              To: Gentile, David (Captiva); Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Why not Mt used Lk?



              Thanks, Dave. I confess I struggle to understand the study, a function
              no doubt of my not having a background in math or statistics.



              On your point that Lk > Mt is ruled out by minor agreements, it seems to
              me that every proposed solution to the synoptic problem leaves some
              unexplained data. (Which is the main reason, I think, no agreement has
              been reached.)



              Chuck






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Chuck Jones
              Thanks, Dave. Chuck Rev. Chuck Jones Atlanta, GA gentile_dave@emc.com wrote: Chuck, I think I d argue that all the various hypotheses, when stated in full,
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks, Dave.

                Chuck

                Rev. Chuck Jones
                Atlanta, GA

                gentile_dave@... wrote:
                Chuck,

                I think I'd argue that all the various hypotheses, when stated in full,
                explain the data in some way. Some just resort to more implausible
                auxiliary hypotheses than others.

                The probable "truth" of a hypothesis is going to depend on both
                explanatory power, and some measure of simplicity, and given the
                complexity of the problem, and the scarcity of data (in addition to the
                possibility of strong biases), it is not at all obvious how to
                objectively evaluate the data - thus the disagreement.

                That said however, when it comes to reconciling the idea that Matthew
                used Luke, (and Luke did not use Matthew), with the results of the
                study, I think that one would have to resort to auxiliary hypotheses
                that are simply too implausible. One could argue, for example, that
                despite the statistical results the relationships are coincidence, but
                here the study can tell us precisely how unlikely such an accident would
                be.

                Alternately, (and more plausibly) one could say that the frequency of
                common Greek words in the text and the relationship between the
                categories is determined by some factor other than authorship. Here it
                has been plausibly argued that genera or topic might separate double
                tradition sections from triple tradition sections, for example. But that
                argument would not help a Luke => Matthew scenario.

                Another, less plausible, suggestion would be that when author B extracts
                words from author A, the resulting vocabulary profile of the extracted
                set of words, is more in the style of the extracting author, than the
                original author. This strikes me as highly implausible. And of course,
                there may be possible ad hoc hypotheses to account for the results that
                no one has proposed, or there may simply be mistakes in the study.

                But, given the study, and my present state of knowledge of possible
                auxiliary hypotheses that could save a Luke => Matthew scenario, I
                consider the Luke => Matthew scenario to be nearly completely eliminated
                from consideration.

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

                From: Chuck Jones [mailto:chuckjonez@...]
                Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:42 AM
                To: Gentile, David (Captiva); Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Why not Mt used Lk?

                Thanks, Dave. I confess I struggle to understand the study, a function
                no doubt of my not having a background in math or statistics.

                On your point that Lk > Mt is ruled out by minor agreements, it seems to
                me that every proposed solution to the synoptic problem leaves some
                unexplained data. (Which is the main reason, I think, no agreement has
                been reached.)

                Chuck

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






                ---------------------------------
                Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: Synoptic Cc: WSW In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Matthew Used Luke From: Bruce I have the impression (though it is a narrowly based impression, and not
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  To: Synoptic
                  Cc: WSW
                  In Response To: Chuck Jones
                  On: Matthew Used Luke
                  From: Bruce

                  I have the impression (though it is a narrowly based impression, and not
                  meant to preclude a more informed comment from the learned of the list) that
                  the Lk > Mt possibility has been swamped in Synoptic studies generally by
                  the Q matter. That is, the directionalities usually considered as between
                  Matthew and Luke are chiefly the ones involved with the so-called Double
                  Tradition material, which was the original definition of Q (Q has long since
                  been promoted to Gospel status, but that is another issue). Just a few
                  things occur to me to mention in response:

                  1. Wilke, whose 1838 publication effectively launched Markan Priority for
                  our world, believed, as I understand it (I have not seen his book) that
                  Matthew was secondary to Luke; Wilke did not offer to suggest where Luke
                  himself got the non-Markan material from. (It was Weisse, in that same year,
                  who published the variant theory of Markan Priority Plus Q, which quickly
                  established itself in the esteem of the faithful, in which esteem it is, at
                  last report, still firmly ensconced).

                  2. Ed Sanders, in Appendix II to his published dissertation The Tendencies
                  of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge 1969), listed some "Suggested
                  Exceptions to the Priority of Mark," namely passages in which "either
                  Matthew and/or Luke is thought by one or more of these scholars to have a
                  more original form of a certain passage than does Mark." This list was
                  reprinted in the later Bellinzoni volume. According to Ed, it has never been
                  taken up in detail, either before or after Bellinzoni. With Ed's approval, I
                  began to consider these items one by one on the old Synoptic-L list, but
                  desisted due to manifest lack of general interest. If we mentally eliminate
                  Q from these problems, then what remains can be construed as cruxes of Mt/Lk
                  directionality, with references to scholars who preferred what amounts to a
                  Lk > Mt directionality.

                  3. In the same vein: Those with unlimited time and money can see arguments
                  pro and con Matthean vs Lukan primality in the Documenta Q series. Most
                  amusing are the cases where the current Q editors have gone against the
                  entire weight of previous scholarly opinion in the form of a given story
                  which they have accepted into the sacred if insubstantial precincts of Q. In
                  any case, for close arguments about which version of a "double tradition"
                  saying is older, these more or less blue volumes (the publishers can't seem
                  to keep to one idea of what constitutes the ideal "blue") are a rich
                  resource. Same final comment as preceding.

                  4. Those accepting Lukan Priority will tend to find Matthew secondary to
                  Luke, though in Stephen Carlson's diagram, Mark intervenes in that
                  relationship. I have never investigated the Lindsey approach, which strikes
                  me as simply wrongheaded, and thus don't know how a sample passage would
                  look if argued in this way. The Jerusalem Perspective people's Lindsey web
                  site is at http://www.jerusalemperspective.com

                  5. Of course the opposite position, that Matthew is prior to Luke without
                  the intermediation of Q, is supported by Griesbach persons (see eg McNicol,
                  Luke's Use of Matthew), as well as, in extenso, by Michael Goulder (Luke: A
                  New Paradigm). The former, at least to me, is philologically disappointing.
                  But has only to reverse the decisions of the latter, and there you are.
                  Whether the reversals prove to be tenable is the question. From the cases I
                  have so far considered, I would tend to suspect not, but other opinions are
                  doubtless possible. It would be interesting to see a case argued, on this
                  list or elsewhere. One case which, unsurprisingly, has attracted early and
                  ongoing attention is the Lord's Prayer, dealt with already by Farrer in a
                  way which I for one find convincing. (I also find the Markan Lord's Prayer
                  an interpolation, and specifically a late intrusion from Matthew, a position
                  which has some support in the literature, including F C Grant, but that gets
                  us into other territory).

                  I would personally be glad to see a Lk > Mt directionality argument, for any
                  passage of choice. Consider this response one vote in favor of such a
                  contribution.

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  http://www.umass.edu/wsp
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Matthew Used Luke (PS) From: Bruce I guess I should read my own stuff better. As a pendant, then, to my previous
                  Message 8 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic
                    In Response To: Chuck Jones
                    On: Matthew Used Luke (PS)
                    From: Bruce

                    I guess I should read my own stuff better. As a pendant, then, to my
                    previous suggestions about places where a Luke > Matthew directionality
                    might be explored in the literature, I will add to the Wilke 1838 theory two
                    other theories, from the end of the page (at http://www.umass.edu/wsp >
                    Synoptica > Synoptic Theories) where I list the 25 possible conditions of
                    relationship among 3 literary texts. The three in question read as follows:

                    Theory #23. B > C >> A [Wilke Hypothesis 1838: Mark first; Matthew drew from
                    both]
                    Theory #24. C > A >> B [Büsching Hypothesis 1766: Luke first; Mark conflated
                    both]
                    Theory #25. C > B >> A [Lockton Hypothesis 1922: Luke first; Matthew drew
                    from both]

                    I have never investigated any of these, and don't have more precise
                    references, but online library catalogues can probably provide them. Best
                    wishes,

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  • gentile_dave@emc.com
                    Bruce wrote: I would personally be glad to see a Lk Mt directionality argument, for any passage of choice. Consider this response one vote in favor of such a
                    Message 9 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bruce wrote: I would personally be glad to see a Lk > Mt directionality
                      argument, for any
                      passage of choice. Consider this response one vote in favor of such a
                      contribution.



                      Dave: This reminds me of one more small note I should add, regarding
                      the results of the study.

                      All it can say is that on balance the directionality can not be Lk =>
                      Mt.

                      That does not preclude the idea that on occasion our received text of
                      Matthew may be dependent on our received text of Luke.





                      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]
                    • Chuck Jones
                      Bruce, Thanks very much for the references below. Does anyone know of any online availability of these? Chuck Rev. Chuck Jones Atlanta, Georgia E Bruce Brooks
                      Message 10 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bruce,

                        Thanks very much for the references below. Does anyone know of any online availability of these?

                        Chuck

                        Rev. Chuck Jones
                        Atlanta, Georgia

                        E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:
                        ...The three in question read as follows:

                        Theory #23. B > C >> A [Wilke Hypothesis 1838: Mark first; Matthew drew from both]
                        Theory #24. C > A >> B [Büsching Hypothesis 1766: Luke first; Mark conflated both]
                        Theory #25. C > B >> A [Lockton Hypothesis 1922: Luke first; Matthew drew from both]


                        ---------------------------------
                        Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Chuck Jones
                        Bruce wrote: I would personally be glad to see a Lk Mt directionality argument, for any passage of choice. Consider this response one vote in favor of such a
                        Message 11 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bruce wrote:

                          I would personally be glad to see a Lk > Mt directionality argument, for any
                          passage of choice. Consider this response one vote in favor of such a
                          contribution.

                          Bruce,

                          If Mt used Lk, a significant structural issue would dissolve--the fact that much of the double tradition in Mt is organized into five speeches while in Lk it is scattered through the book.

                          Two individual passage relationships that make much more sense if Mt used Lk are the lord's prayer and the beautitudes.

                          Of course, many passage relationships can be trotted out in which it makes most sense that Lk used Mt.

                          I think one of the strongest arguments for the existence of an independent source (Q) is the fact that sometimes Mt's version of a passage seems more "primitive" than Lk's and vice versa. One would expect evident dependence to flow in a single direction if there was no independent source for the double tradition.

                          This is what prompted me to start this thread. The theory that Lk used Mt has many holes in it. So would the theory that Mt used Lk. I wonder why the later seems to have no current advocates. Too many holes maybe?

                          Chuck

                          Rev. Chuck Jones
                          Atlanta, Georgia


                          ---------------------------------
                          Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • E Bruce Brooks
                          To: Synoptic Cc: WSW In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Mt Lk From: Bruce CHUCK: If Mt used Lk, a significant structural issue would dissolve--the fact that
                          Message 12 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            To: Synoptic
                            Cc: WSW
                            In Response To: Chuck Jones
                            On: Mt > Lk
                            From: Bruce

                            CHUCK: If Mt used Lk, a significant structural issue would dissolve--the
                            fact that much of the double tradition in Mt is organized into five speeches
                            while in Lk it is scattered through the book.

                            BRUCE: Certainly two of the great overreaching empirical facts about Mt and
                            Lk are that (a) in the details they share with Mk they largely have the same
                            order as Mk, but (b) in details which they share only with each other, they
                            typically have different order. This latter, plus the claim that (c) there
                            is no constant directionality in those Mt/Lk shared units, is what gives us
                            the Q hypothesis.

                            I think the sovereign principle in directionality questions, articulated by
                            Metzger and attributed by him to Griesbach, is that "that version is
                            original which can be most readily seen as giving rise to the other." Most
                            people, I believe, will find it easier to imagine that Mt has thematically
                            grouped certain sayings from a less organized prior version, than that Lk
                            has merely scattered them, with no other end in view. If instead Lk is
                            actually following the order of a prior source, and merely keeping that
                            order (whatever its own logic or lack of it), whereas Mt is changing that
                            prior order into a more thematically clustered and literarily impressive
                            form, then the logic of both Mt and Lk appears cogent. This too gives us Q,
                            along with the additional assumption that the order of Q was that of Lk
                            (otherwise the problem of order in Lk remains unsolved).

                            So, yes, these are big time issues.

                            CHUCK: Two individual passage relationships that make much more sense if Mt
                            used Lk are the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes.

                            BRUCE: Because, in the case of the Lord's Prayer, the Lukan version is
                            shorter, right? There is more to be said on this highly visible passage. I
                            again recommend the treatment by Austin Farrer, in his essay reprinted in
                            the Bellinzoni volume. In terms of my old Synopsis, the Matthean version
                            [6:9-15], with those parts not present in Lk [11:2-4] bracketed, and
                            omitting some parts attested by less than all MS authorities, and ignoring
                            small differences, would be:

                            "[Our] Father, [who art in Heaven], hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come,
                            [Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven]. Give us this [/each] day
                            our daily bread, and forgive us our debts [/sins], as we also have forgiven
                            our debtors, and lead us not into temptation [but deliver us from evil].

                            The Lukan version is superficially more apocalyptic, and thus arguably more
                            primitive. The Matthean version might defensibly be called watered-down
                            apocalyptic, and thus derivative: the Lord's Prayer not of a universe about
                            to vanish, but of a steady-state universe. And thus later, after the hope of
                            a soon end of the world had been in some measure given up, or at least put
                            on long hold.

                            Those wanting to sample a huge mass of opinion on this and on at least some
                            of the Beatitudes will find useful two of the Documenta Q volumes mentioned
                            earlier: (1) Q 11:2b-4 (The Lord's Prayer), Stanley D Anderson (ed), Peeters
                            1996, and (2) Q 6:20-21 (The Beatitudes for the Poor, Hungry, and Mourning),
                            Thomas Hieke (ed), Peeters 2001. No matter which side of the argument you
                            like, and in these volumes it is dissected line by line, you will have very
                            great NT names on your side. What I call a win/win situation.

                            CHUCK: Of course, many passage relationships can be trotted out in which it
                            makes most sense that Lk used Mt.

                            BRUCE: I like neutral terminology better. The fact is that many more Mt/Lk
                            doublets suggest a Mt > Lk relationship than the opposite. This casts the
                            Lord's Prayer and a few other examples in an especially strong light, as
                            exceptions in that almost general flow. Of course, if the general flow could
                            be shown to be the total flow, if the LP and a few other high-profile items
                            could be analyzed as Mt > Lk, then we would have Mk > Mt >> Lk as our
                            indicated Synoptic Theory, and Q would simply vanish. Except of course for
                            the unsold warehouse stock, and that is not my concern.

                            CHUCK: I think one of the strongest arguments for the existence of an
                            independent source (Q) is the fact that sometimes Mt's version of a passage
                            seems more "primitive" than Lk's and vice versa. One would expect evident
                            dependence to flow in a single direction if there was no independent source
                            for the double tradition.

                            BRUCE: Fully agreed. This was the view of Harnack among many others. As far
                            as I understand it, this conclusion is a foundation stone of the present
                            majority opinion. It was precisely a unidirectionality of flow, in the
                            direction Mt > Lk, that Goulder sought to demonstrate in detail. I find that
                            Goulder mixes in too many other ideas along with this task, and I observe
                            that his view has been faulted largely through objections to those other
                            ideas, without fully confronting his directionality analysis. That might
                            suggest a revising of his directionality arguments, as such, straight.

                            But we have here among us the Heir Presumptive to the Farrer-Goulder line of
                            argument, and perhaps we ought at this point to pause for a word from him.

                            E Bruce Brooks
                            Warring States Project
                            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                            http://www.umass.edu/wsp
                          • E Bruce Brooks
                            To: Synoptic Cc: WSW In Response To: Chuck Jones (PPS) On: Lk Mt Passages (The Refused Invitation) From: Bruce How much general interest there may be in this
                            Message 13 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              To: Synoptic
                              Cc: WSW
                              In Response To: Chuck Jones (PPS)
                              On: Lk > Mt Passages (The Refused Invitation)
                              From: Bruce

                              How much general interest there may be in this exchange I cannot tell, but I
                              may offer one further addendum to my previous suggestions about passages in
                              Mt which have been thought to be secondary to their parallels in Lk.

                              McNeile (1915) xxvii, in confidently dating Matthew to after the Roman
                              destruction of the Temple in the year 70, relied on Mt 22:1-10 as a post-70
                              rewriting of Lk 14:16-24, or its source. Benjamin Bacon, Studies in Matthew
                              (1930) 64, explains why McNeile drew this inference. He places the two
                              passages side by side (a thing not practicable in E-mail), and italicizes
                              the parts in the Mt version that depart from the Lk version. It should be
                              said by way of context that this segment is immediately preceded in Mt by a
                              parable which Mt, Mk, and Lk all contain: the Parable of the Wicked Tenants.
                              The burden of that parable is that the owner of the vineyard, when he comes,
                              will kill the wicket tenants and give the vineyard to others entirely. This
                              already looks like a symbol of the rejection of the Jewish nation, but in
                              all versions it is explicitly explained as having been told "against the
                              Pharisees," that is, it means a power displacement within Judaism, not a
                              rejection of Judaism in favor of another nation entirely.

                              But in the Matthean version, there follows (after the quote from Psa 118,
                              "the stone which the builders rejected"), this comment, as spoken by Jesus,
                              which is without parallel in Mk or Lk: "Therefore I tell you, the Kingdom of
                              God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits
                              of it" [Mt 21:43]. It would seem to me that this extra and uniquely Matthean
                              note DOES envision the turning away of God from Israel as such.

                              Now we move on to the next Matthean item. Mark here drops out, and we have
                              the parable of the Refused Invitation (some call it the Marriage Feast, but
                              that only describes the Matthean version). The Lukan version is at a non-cor
                              responding place in Lk. I put in CAPS the material in Mt which differs from
                              that in Lk, and otherwise copy Bacon p65f:

                              AND JESUS ANSWERED AND SPAKE TO THEM AGAIN IN PARABLES, saying, THE KINGDOM
                              OF HEAVEN IS LIKENED UNTO a certain KING WHO made a MARRIAGE supper FOR HIS
                              SON. And he sent forth his servants to invite the gueses to the WEDDING, and
                              they would not come. AGAIN HE SENT OTHER SERVANTS, SAYING, TELL THE GUESTS,
                              LO, I HAVE PREPARED MY BANQUET, MY OXEN AND MY FATLINGS ARE SLAUGHTERED AND
                              ALL THINGS ARE READY: COME TO THE WEDDING. But they paid no heed and went
                              away, one to his field, another to his merchandise - AND THE REST LAID HOLD
                              ON HIS SERVANTS AND MALTREATED AND KILLED THEM. BUT THE KING WAS ANGRY AND
                              SENT HIS ARMIES AND DESTROYED THOSE MURDERERS AND BURNED THEIR CITY. - Then
                              he saith to his servants, THE WEDDING IS READY, BUT THE INVITED GUESTS WERE
                              NOT WORTHY. Go forth they to the partings of the roads and invite all that
                              ye find to the WEDDING. So those servants went forth into the highways, and
                              gathered all that they found, BOTH BAD AND GOOD, and the WEDDING was
                              supplied with guests.

                              The "both bad and good" part is to prepare for the unique passage Mt 22:11f,
                              where the wedding guest without a wedding garment is bound and "cast into
                              the outer darkness; there man will weep and gnash their teeth." One feels
                              that the pose of allegory has been here abandoned, and that we have
                              dissolved into the Final Judgement itself.

                              In terms of basic concinnity, it seems to me obvious that the points of
                              difference with the Lk version make a hash of the Matthean version. One
                              minute we have a ruler angry with his neighbors, and the next minute that
                              ruler has become a distance enemy, who sends his armies to burn their city,
                              the teller of the tale evidently forgetting that by the previous narrative
                              it is his own city too. The absentee owner of the preceding vineyard has
                              evidently impressed itself here on aMk, to the exclusion of aMk's sense of
                              where his story has been going. Not to mention that the servants of the king
                              are no sooner killed by the unwilling guests than he has a second supply to
                              do his further bidding; a gaucherie which was not committed by any version
                              of the preceding parable (where successive servants are sent, and finally
                              the landlord's own son). The narrative scale is not consistent, and the
                              rationality of the dramatis personae also leaves something to be desired.
                              Then the Lk version, to which none of these objections apply, would seem to
                              be nearer to the original, with the Mt version some sort of variation on it.

                              McNeile's point, expanded by Bacon, is that the burning of the city seems
                              decisively to refer to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in the Jewish
                              Revolt of 70. I am prepared to concede that point.

                              COMMENT

                              It would seem to follow, though Bacon did not pause to note this, that if
                              the Matthean changes were what made this 70 reference unmistakable, then
                              they were NOT unmistakable in the Lk version (or its original), which might
                              defensibly be dated to BEFORE the year 70. But there are pretty clear
                              indications of the end of Jerusalem in the parallel Lk material, and
                              especially in what precedes that material (in Q, what *directly* precedes
                              that material) in Lk.

                              P45, Alexandrinus, and a few other manuscripts lack Mt 22:1-14, but due to
                              damage rather than omission. There is then no warrant for supposing that Mt
                              22:1-14 was added after the closing of the text of Mt, and for scenarios, we
                              seem to be limited to events occurring during the formation periods of the
                              respective Gospels.

                              Sequence. In Lk, the Refused Invitation parable does not follow the Wicked
                              Tenants parable, but instead comes after a "parable" in which instructions
                              are given for guests at formal banquets: not to take the highest place, lest
                              you be displaced by a later arriving and more honorable guest. Also, when
                              you give a feast, invite the poor, and you will be blessed since they cannot
                              repay you. This is not a parable in the usual sense of "parable." Then
                              follows the Refused Invitation piece, as though in answer to a remark by a
                              guest at a banquet where Jesus was also present (this is spelled out in Lk
                              14:1). Are these preceding comments also present in Q? Not at any rate in
                              the Critical Edition of Q, where the numbers are given, but then crossed
                              out. The preceding thing in that version of Q is Lk 13:34-35, including the
                              remark to Jerusalem, "Look, your house is forsaken!" To that warning, as
                              noted above, Lk 14:16f as the next Q piece would be thematically relevant,
                              IF we take it also in the sense of the rejection of Israel. This is
                              countenanced, albeit less dramatically than in Mt, by the concluding line in
                              Lk (not paralleled in Mt): "For I tell you, None of those men who were
                              invited shall taste my banquet. The rejection of Israel is not necessarily
                              the same as the destruction of Jerusalem, though it is possible to imagine
                              the difference being bridged by sufficiently skillful argument.

                              The Q scenario apparently is that a previous text contained the simple
                              (Lukan) form of this story, and that separately (a) Matthew elaborated it
                              into a variant of the Wicked Tenants story, and placed it by association
                              after that story, and (b) Luke retained it more or less as it was, keeping
                              it after the warning to Jerusalem but interpolating a context which makes a
                              story about banquet guests apposite. This is a little awkward, though it
                              might perhaps be improved by further reconsideration about what one thinks
                              was originally contained in Q. The trouble, from a Q point of view, is that
                              the more we do this, the more Q and Lk tend to converge.

                              There are thus at least modest difficulties in any direction, and I leave it
                              at that stage, noting that it is easier to imagine the Matthean version
                              having been altered from a Lukan original than vice versa.

                              Anyone have a comment?

                              Bruce

                              E Bruce Brooks
                              Warring States Project
                              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                            • Ron Price
                              ... Bruce, This focus on the transition seems to me to be unduly narrow, and therefore flawed. It fails to ask about the likelihood or otherwise that the
                              Message 14 of 18 , Dec 2, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Bruce Brooks wrote:

                                > I think the sovereign principle in directionality questions, articulated by
                                > Metzger and attributed by him to Griesbach, is that "that version is
                                > original which can be most readily seen as giving rise to the other."

                                Bruce,

                                This focus on the transition seems to me to be unduly narrow, and therefore
                                flawed. It fails to ask about the likelihood or otherwise that the earlier
                                text could have been composed as postulated (see below).

                                > Most
                                > people, I believe, will find it easier to imagine that Mt has thematically
                                > grouped certain sayings from a less organized prior version, than that Lk
                                > has merely scattered them, with no other end in view. If instead Lk is
                                > actually following the order of a prior source, and merely keeping that
                                > order (whatever its own logic or lack of it), whereas Mt is changing that
                                > prior order into a more thematically clustered and literarily impressive
                                > form, then the logic of both Mt and Lk appears cogent.

                                This is what I find nonsensical. If it is difficult to understand the lack
                                of order of sayings in Luke, how much more difficult to understand the lack
                                of order in those same sayings in the much smaller early sayings source.
                                Would anyone have created such a mess? Luke, on the other hand, does have a
                                structure, and there are indications for at least some sayings why they were
                                moved. For instance the saying about asking (11:9-13) is deliberately placed
                                after two passages concerning prayer, and the salt saying (14:34-35) might
                                have been deliberately placed next to a brief scene which mentions eating
                                (15:1-2). Similarly Luke placed the saying about the greatest (22:24-27,
                                with its Lukan addition "But I am among you as one who serves") within the
                                passion story in order to present Jesus as the Servant who suffers (c.f. Is
                                53). Note that Luke's narrative context provides lots of opportunities for
                                non-sequential selection of suitable sayings, and contrast this with a
                                (nearly?) pure sayings source where there is little or no such context. The
                                idea that Luke retained almost all of the sayings source in its original
                                order is, to my mind, incredible.

                                > This too gives us Q,
                                > along with the additional assumption that the order of Q was that of Lk
                                > (otherwise the problem of order in Lk remains unsolved).

                                There you go again (though I realize you're following what many others have
                                written). How on earth is a perceived problematic order solved by blaming it
                                on an earlier source? Is it a case of 'Out of sight, out of mind'?

                                Ron Price

                                Derbyshire, UK

                                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                              • E Bruce Brooks
                                To: Synoptic Cc: Al Cohen; WSW In Response To: Ron Price On: Methodology Points in re Q From: Bruce I had said, BRUCE: I think the sovereign principle in
                                Message 15 of 18 , Dec 2, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  To: Synoptic
                                  Cc: Al Cohen; WSW
                                  In Response To: Ron Price
                                  On: Methodology Points in re Q
                                  From: Bruce

                                  I had said,

                                  BRUCE: I think the sovereign principle in directionality questions,
                                  articulated by Metzger and attributed by him (perhaps a bit too generously)
                                  to Griesbach, is that "that version is original which can be most readily
                                  seen as giving rise to the other."

                                  RON: This focus on the transition seems to me to be unduly narrow, and
                                  therefore flawed.

                                  BRUCE: For fine points of variant wording in manuscripts, as well as for
                                  large points of relationship between whole texts, I think it is the best we
                                  have. Narrower precepts, such as Griesbach's own "lectio brevior" dictum,
                                  simply don't cover the ground which philology actually encounters, as
                                  Sanders was at pains to show, at both the word and the text level, in his
                                  Tendency of the Synoptic Tradition (1969). And as Housman had long before
                                  remarked, in terms more caustic than I would care to use in the present
                                  environment, but those who feel themselves up to that challenge may consult
                                  him direct (http://www.umass.edu/wsp > Philology > Housman).

                                  RON: . . . It fails to ask about the likelihood or otherwise that the
                                  earlier text could have been composed as postulated (see below).

                                  BRUCE: Not at all. It opens judgement to all the evidence, not merely to the
                                  wordcount of some fraction of the evidence. As for "below," see below.

                                  I had next said:

                                  BRUCE: Most people, I believe, will find it easier to imagine that Mt has
                                  thematically grouped certain sayings from a less organized prior version,
                                  than that Lk has merely scattered them, with no other end in view. If
                                  instead Lk is actually following the order of a prior source, and merely
                                  keeping that order (whatever its own logic or lack of it), whereas Mt is
                                  changing that prior order into a more thematically clustered and literarily
                                  impressive form, then the logic of both Mt and Lk appears cogent.

                                  RON: This is what I find nonsensical. If it is difficult to understand the
                                  lack of order of sayings in Luke, how much more difficult to understand the
                                  lack of order in those same sayings in the much smaller early sayings
                                  source. Would anyone have created such a mess?

                                  BRUCE: That is very easy to understand, and I think that it is part of the
                                  appeal of Q, allegedly a "sayings Gospel," that it offers such an
                                  understanding. It is a question of genre. Luke, if we take note of its
                                  manifest form, and/or the intention expressed in the ostensible
                                  self-introduction, is trying to put together a coherent narrative account; a
                                  history. If his material appears unordered by that criterion, that is, if it
                                  doesn't make narrative sense, then there is a problem between the seeming
                                  intention of Luke and the text that Luke has actually produced. On the other
                                  hand, Q is supposed to be a "sayings Gospel," for which one model is Thomas.
                                  Thomas tells no very visible story. It simply gives you wisdom vignettes one
                                  after the other, though sometimes with keyword or other associational links.
                                  It has never been perceived as a fault in Thomas that it does NOT tell a
                                  story, because storytelling is not the formal intent of that kind of text.
                                  No reasonable and genre-conscious person could possibly object.

                                  [I have mentioned before that this "sayings collection" genre, though rare
                                  or even conjectural in the Mediterranean world, is very common in the
                                  contemporary and slightly earlier classical Chinese world, and that
                                  experience gained with these EXTANT early Chinese wisdom collection might be
                                  useful to the NT field. I mention it again, but only in parentheses. Does
                                  this mean that all seminarians should learn classical Chinese? No. But they
                                  might manage to lunch occasionally with someone who has a foot on that shore
                                  of our common lake].

                                  The "Sermon on the Mount" literature is there in its reverential depth and
                                  enthusiastic breadth to attest that the Matthean arrangement of the "Q"
                                  wisdom material is supremely convincing and thus successful. The same
                                  material is more dispersed in Luke, and most readers seem to have found Luke
                                  inferior to Matthew in this respect. Thus arises a difficulty for the theory
                                  that Luke used Matthew: Why (people perpetually ask) would Luke break up the
                                  Sermon on the Mount, of all things, and that in a way which achieves a
                                  notably less successful result? A terrible situation, surely. But if Luke is
                                  NOT using Matthew, but is INSTEAD respecting the order of a wisdom or
                                  Sayings source for this material, just as he respects the order of the
                                  narrative material he has taken from Matthew, then (1) any defects in order
                                  of Luke's wisdom material, as compared to Matthew, are to be attributed to
                                  the "wisdom" order, which will be at most an associational order, in Luke's
                                  source, and Luke is not to be faulted for his faithfulness to his source.
                                  His seeming defect as an author accordingly vanishes. This is a conclusion
                                  which is likely to be applauded by fans of Luke, and everybody is in some
                                  degree a fan of Luke.

                                  RON: Luke, on the other hand, does have a structure, and there are
                                  indications for at least some sayings why they were
                                  moved. For instance the saying about asking (11:9-13) is deliberately placed
                                  after two passages concerning prayer, and the salt saying (14:34-35) might
                                  have been deliberately placed next to a brief scene which mentions eating
                                  (15:1-2). Similarly Luke placed the saying about the greatest (22:24-27,
                                  with its Lukan addition "But I am among you as one who serves") within the
                                  passion story in order to present Jesus as the Servant who suffers (c.f. Is
                                  53).

                                  BRUCE: This is precisely what I mean by "associational" ordering, as
                                  distinct from the historical ordering which Luke otherwise purports to
                                  exhibit. Luke as it stands, especially as read by someone who knows Matthew,
                                  seems to hover between two genres: narrative (things in historical order),
                                  and wisdom (things in associational clusters). If instead the author of Luke
                                  is merely alternating between two sources of different genre, and doing his
                                  best to intercalate the one into the other, then all is well. No?

                                  [I should add that Ron's suggestions of how Luke might rationally be derived
                                  from Matthew, without the hypothesis of a separate source Q, may well be
                                  helpful contributions toward the World Without Q which some at least on this
                                  list have in mind as the right answer to the question. I don't evaluate
                                  those possibilities here, but I am aware of their potential].

                                  RON: Note that Luke's narrative context provides lots of opportunities for
                                  non-sequential selection of suitable sayings, and contrast this with a
                                  (nearly?) pure sayings source where there is little or no such context. The
                                  idea that Luke retained almost all of the sayings source in its original
                                  order is, to my mind, incredible.

                                  BRUCE: Well, go argue that one with the Q establishment. I do so myself, and
                                  I would take up some details on this list, except that the last time I
                                  offered to do so, no particular interest seemed to exist. Far be it from me
                                  to bore a large concentration of learned persons, least of all at this
                                  season of the year.

                                  Noting, in any case, the attractions of this model for framers or acceptors
                                  of Q, I had added:

                                  BRUCE: This too gives us Q, along with the additional assumption that the
                                  order of Q was that of Lk (otherwise the problem of order in Lk remains
                                  unsolved).

                                  RON: There you go again (though I realize you're following what many others
                                  have written).

                                  BRUCE: I am indeed; I am in part trying to inhabit the mind of Q acceptors,
                                  and see what is going on in there. I think that the whole enterprise rests
                                  on feet of something or other, but that does not mean that there is nothing
                                  that an approach de novo cannot use, or usefully provide for in other ways.

                                  RON: How on earth is a perceived problematic order solved by blaming it on
                                  an earlier source? Is it a case of 'Out of sight, out of mind'?

                                  BRUCE: Tsk. Already answered, but once again: There is no question of
                                  "blame," merely a question of trying to find what makes sense of the data in
                                  front of our noses. If the wisdom material in Lk is even in part
                                  associational, then to that extent it constitutes a departure from Lk's
                                  otherwise historical texture. That is one alternative, and it is not very
                                  flattering to Luke. But If the wisdom material in Lk is associational, not
                                  because Lk has changed his structural principle in midstream (and back
                                  again, over and over, like some bipolar idiot), but merely because he has
                                  changed his source, with a view to completeness, telling the WHOLE story of
                                  Jesus as best he can with the sources available to him, then our view of Lk
                                  as a historian is altered for the better, and our view of Lk's sanity
                                  (faulted already by Streeter and by others since) becomes more benign. I
                                  suspect that people like this, and I also suspect that their liking it is
                                  one of the ongoing attractions of the Q idea.

                                  I like it myself, but I am not prepared to stop there. The editors of the
                                  Critical Edition of Q have not only given a table of contents of Q as they
                                  see it, but also a list of Q in Matthean order. In those lists, or in the
                                  somewhat simpler but largely equivalent table given by Raymond Brown in his
                                  Introduction, one can see that some sayings or other units which are
                                  consecutive in Matthew have been, so to speak, broken up and rearranged in
                                  Q. To their credit, the Documenta Q people consider scholarly opinions, not
                                  only about the wording of the units they discuss, but also about their
                                  sequential order. If we take the Matthean and not the Lukan sequence of the
                                  Q material as more likely to be original (just a thought experiment), then
                                  we find a whole different picture in front of us; one which, like the other,
                                  makes sense of the material, but DIFFERENT sense of DIFFERENT PARTS of the
                                  material. Probably, somewhere in the gigantic Q literature, someone has
                                  investigated the possible implications and consequences of this. Can anyone
                                  here present point to such an investigation, or summarize its findings?

                                  E Bruce Brooks
                                  Warring States Project
                                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                  http://www.umass.edu/wsp
                                • Ron Price
                                  ... Bruce, I don t see how you come to this conclusion. The focus is solely on the process of giving rise to , i.e. on how the author of the later text might
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Dec 3, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Bruce Brooks wrote:

                                    > I think the sovereign principle in directionality questions,
                                    > articulated by Metzger and attributed by him (perhaps a bit too generously)
                                    > to Griesbach, is that "that version is original which can be most readily
                                    > seen as giving rise to the other."
                                    > ...
                                    > [This principle] opens judgement to all the evidence

                                    Bruce,

                                    I don't see how you come to this conclusion. The focus is solely on the
                                    process of "giving rise to", i.e. on how the author of the later text might
                                    have edited the earlier text. There is no mention of assessing the
                                    plausibility of the behaviour of the author in producing the earlier text.
                                    This is why I say the principle is too narrow.

                                    >> If it is difficult to understand the
                                    >> lack of order of sayings in Luke, how much more difficult to understand the
                                    >> lack of order in those same sayings in the much smaller early sayings
                                    >> source. Would anyone have created such a mess?

                                    > It is a question of genre.
                                    > ..... Q is supposed to be a "sayings Gospel," for which one model is Thomas.
                                    > Thomas tells no very visible story.

                                    The clue is in your words "supposed to be". Q is a mess by comparison with
                                    GTh because (a) it contains some narratives (b) the distribution of these
                                    narratives is peculiarly skewed (c) it contains some words attributed to
                                    John the Baptist. It is indeed a question of genre, and if one looks at the
                                    contents of Q in an investigative rather than a defensive manner, it will be
                                    seen that Q doesn't fit any known genre, despite Kloppenborg's strenuous
                                    attempts to prove otherwise. Q is an oddity. No person in their right mind
                                    could have produced such an inconsistent mess. When will the NT world wake
                                    up to this?

                                    > ..... But if Luke is
                                    > NOT using Matthew, but is INSTEAD respecting the order of a wisdom or
                                    > Sayings source for this material, just as he respects the order of the
                                    > narrative material he has taken from Matthew,

                                    Presumably you mean Mark.
                                    You're not making sufficient allowance for the difference between narrative
                                    and sayings. The order of the former was often constrained by the logic of
                                    the overall story. Matthew and Luke were both free to make many changes to
                                    the order of the sayings without thereby showing any disrespect.

                                    > ..... any defects in order of Luke's wisdom material, as compared to
                                    > Matthew, are to be attributed to the "wisdom" order,

                                    Or it could be that the subtlety of Luke's editorial endeavours is beyond
                                    the comprehension of modern commentators. Why are they so sure of
                                    themselves? Luke's skill has been vastly underestimated.

                                    > which will be at most an associational order,

                                    If you mean 'the wisdom material will only be ordered by word associations
                                    between adjacent sayings', then I don't agree. In my reconstruction of the
                                    sayings source there are 46 other links (including seven in a recent
                                    discovery of one-to-one links between the blessings and the woes), plus a
                                    clear division into four sections, two of which are each clearly divided
                                    into two equal halves.

                                    > ..... Luke is not to be faulted for his faithfulness to his source.

                                    This is a widely held scholarly assumption. However it is untrue. For
                                    instance, scholars arguably only reject Lk 10:5b and 10:23 because they make
                                    this very assumption.

                                    > ..... everybody is in some degree a fan of Luke.

                                    Yes. But why? It's in part because he rejected sayings such as Mt 6:7; 7:6;
                                    10:5b and 10:23, and in two other cases replaced "Gentiles" by a euphemism
                                    to avoid a slur. Basically Luke is attractive to Gentiles because he tends
                                    to remove the evidence of authentic pro-Jewish attitudes (which we should
                                    naturally expect from the original disciples), to play down apocalyptic
                                    fervour (unpalatable to most Christians from Luke's time onwards), and to
                                    introduce nice little stories like the Good Samaritan which praises a
                                    non-Jew.

                                    > Luke as it stands, especially as read by someone who knows Matthew,
                                    > seems to hover between two genres: narrative (things in historical order),
                                    > and wisdom (things in associational clusters). If instead the author of Luke
                                    > is merely alternating between two sources of different genre, and doing his
                                    > best to intercalate the one into the other, then all is well. No?

                                    He was indeed doing his best at intercalation. Unfortunately NT scholarship
                                    on the whole seriously underestimates the freedom which Luke exercised in
                                    reordering his sayings source and in creating new parables.

                                    > ..... I am in part trying to inhabit the mind of Q acceptors,
                                    > and see what is going on in there. I think that the whole enterprise rests
                                    > on feet of something or other, but that does not mean that there is nothing
                                    > that an approach de novo cannot use, or usefully provide for in other ways.

                                    This is exactly what I've done (my new approach salvaging the majority of
                                    Q), and what Farrer supporters have conspicuously avoided doing.

                                    > If the wisdom material in Lk is even in part
                                    > associational, then to that extent it constitutes a departure from Lk's
                                    > otherwise historical texture. That is one alternative, and it is not very
                                    > flattering to Luke. But If the wisdom material in Lk is associational, not
                                    > because Lk has changed his structural principle in midstream (and back
                                    > again, over and over, like some bipolar idiot),

                                    Again I think you underestimate Luke's flexibility. He was extremely skilled
                                    in several aspects of literature. He could even imitate the style of others,
                                    whether Hebraic, Septuagintal or formal. There's no reason why he shouldn't
                                    have made use of association, and I referred to least one example (the theme
                                    of prayer in Lk 11:2-4; 5-8; 9-13). In any case Luke's "historical texture"
                                    was somewhat stretched in the artificial 'journey to Jerusalem'.

                                    > If we take the Matthean and not the Lukan sequence of the
                                    > Q material as more likely to be original (just a thought experiment), then
                                    > we find a whole different picture in front of us; one which, like the other,
                                    > makes sense of the material, but DIFFERENT sense of DIFFERENT PARTS of the
                                    > material. Probably, somewhere in the gigantic Q literature, someone has
                                    > investigated the possible implications and consequences of this. Can anyone
                                    > here present point to such an investigation, or summarize its findings?

                                    My Web site contains the detailed results of an investigation which adopts
                                    this as well as other revolutionary approaches. The resulting proposed order
                                    of the original sayings in relation to their positions in the synoptics can
                                    best be seen on the following page:

                                    http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQsQ.html

                                    Ron Price

                                    Derbyshire, UK

                                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                  • Ron Price
                                    ... Chuck, That s a fair question. Firstly compared to the nearest documents: the synoptic gospels, all of which have a definite structure and a story line
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Dec 4, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Chuck Jones wrote:

                                      > Q is a mess compared to what?

                                      Chuck,

                                      That's a fair question.

                                      Firstly compared to the nearest documents: the synoptic gospels, all of
                                      which have a definite structure and a story line which develops logically
                                      from a dramatically sensible start to a dramatically sensible end.

                                      Secondly compared to what are perhaps the theologically closest collections
                                      of sayings/poetry: the psalms, the proverbs and GTh. All three of these
                                      appear to exhibit a remarkable uniformity of style. I would expect any
                                      sayings collection produced by the earliest followers of Jesus to have had
                                      at least this degree of stylistic uniformity.

                                      > It seems to me that a natural trajectory of gathering and retaining memories
                                      > from the career of Jesus would be something like (1) the community told,
                                      > retold and created stories about the sayings and deeds of Jesus, (2) they
                                      > began to write the stories down, (3) the stories were gathered into
                                      > collections, (4) at some point those collections were arranged thematically,
                                      > and then (4), evidently with Mark, they were arranged into a career/life-of
                                      > narrative framework.
                                      >
                                      > If Mt and Lk drew from a document produced at stage (3), is it fair to call
                                      > that document a mess?

                                      I'm not happy with your trajectory, for it seems to me to demand a leisurely
                                      timescale which would not fit into the time available. Don't forget that
                                      Paul had met Peter, and Mark was probably written less than ten years after
                                      Paul's death. Another problem is that the death and destruction associated
                                      with the Jewish rebellion would have cut across any chain of oral tradition.
                                      Finally another barrier becomes apparent when we take together the fact that
                                      Paul showed relatively little interest in the sayings of Jesus, and the fact
                                      that Pauline Christianity rapidly became the norm. It seems to me that the
                                      only way a large number of Jesus' sayings could have been reliably
                                      transmitted to posterity is if the twelve committed them to writing before
                                      ca. 60 CE whilst Jerusalem was at peace (which indeed is just what I am
                                      proposing). Furthermore I would expect them to put in the requisite
                                      expertise and effort to make a good job of it right from the start, once
                                      they had decided that Jesus' return was not quite so imminent as to make the
                                      job pointless.

                                      Ron Price

                                      Derbyshire, UK

                                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                    • Chuck Jones
                                      Ron, My reconstruction implies no particular elapsed time. In fact a compressed time frame would make it more likely that Mt and Lk would have a stage 3
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Dec 5, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Ron,

                                        My reconstruction implies no particular elapsed time. In fact a compressed time frame would make it more likely that Mt and Lk would have a stage 3 document (collected sayings that had not been placed into any thematic order) at their disposal.

                                        Chuck

                                        Rev. Chuck Jones
                                        Atlanta, Georgia

                                        Chuck Jones wrote:

                                        > It seems to me that a natural trajectory of gathering and retaining memories
                                        > from the career of Jesus would be something like (1) the community told,
                                        > retold and created stories about the sayings and deeds of Jesus, (2) they
                                        > began to write the stories down, (3) the stories were gathered into
                                        > collections, (4) at some point those collections were arranged thematically,
                                        > and then (4), evidently with Mark, they were arranged into a career/life-of
                                        > narrative framework.
                                        >
                                        > If Mt and Lk drew from a document produced at stage (3), is it fair to call
                                        > that document a mess?

                                        Bruce replied:
                                        I'm not happy with your trajectory, for it seems to me to demand a leisurely
                                        timescale which would not fit into the time available. Don't forget that
                                        Paul had met Peter, and Mark was probably written less than ten years after
                                        Paul's death. Another problem is that the death and destruction associated
                                        with the Jewish rebellion would have cut across any chain of oral tradition.
                                        Finally another barrier becomes apparent when we take together the fact that
                                        Paul showed relatively little interest in the sayings of Jesus, and the fact
                                        that Pauline Christianity rapidly became the norm. It seems to me that the
                                        only way a large number of Jesus' sayings could have been reliably
                                        transmitted to posterity is if the twelve committed them to writing before
                                        ca. 60 CE whilst Jerusalem was at peace (which indeed is just what I am
                                        proposing). Furthermore I would expect them to put in the requisite
                                        expertise and effort to make a good job of it right from the start, once
                                        they had decided that Jesus' return was not quite so imminent as to make the
                                        job pointless.



                                        .







                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.

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