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

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

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