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
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
> 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:
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm