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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Why not Mt used Lk?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 [B├╝sching 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 5 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 6 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 [B├╝sching 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.