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

Re: Why not Mt used Lk?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
      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 2 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
        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 3 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
          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 4 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
            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 5 of 18 , Nov 30, 2006
              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 6 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                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 7 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                  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 8 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                    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 9 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                      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 10 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                        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 11 of 18 , Dec 1, 2006
                          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 12 of 18 , Dec 2, 2006
                            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 13 of 18 , Dec 2, 2006
                              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 14 of 18 , Dec 3, 2006
                                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 15 of 18 , Dec 4, 2006
                                  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 16 of 18 , Dec 5, 2006
                                    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.