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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 [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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.