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

Re: Further on the 3ST (Section B)

Expand Messages
  • Dave Gentile
    One quick comment - I do like the idea that all of one section of the saying source (in Bruce s modification) is also found in Mark. The question I would then
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 28, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      One quick comment - I do like the idea that all of one section of
      the saying source (in Bruce's modification) is also found in Mark.
      The question I would then be interested in is – Which came first,
      the SS or Mark? I think Mark has priority in the opening Salt/Light
      section. But, I've spent less time looking at other items on the
      list. Anyone have a favorite we could toss around?

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL


      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:
      >
      > To: Synoptic
      > On: Further on the 3ST (Section B)
      > From: Bruce
      >
      > You know how it is; it is hard to recommend something without
      doing it
      > oneself. I thus, though briefly, take up section B of the
      conjectured P
      > source, along the lines of the previous note on section A.
      >
      > SECTION B
      >
      > Suppose we find the previous winnowing of linkages convincing, or
      at least
      > suggestive. Its rules are: (1) no triplets, only duplets, (2) no
      overlapping
      > links, and (3) no very long sayings, as unamenable to
      epitomization. What
      > happens if we approach section B on this basis?
      >
      > Here is section B, as previously provided:
      >
      > B: The Mission of the Kingdom
      > Mark Matthew Luke Saying / internal links
      >
      > 1. (1:16-20) 8:19-22 9:57-60 Following Jesus /
      discipleship
      > 2. 9:41 10:42 ----- Cup of water /
      discipleship
      > 3. (4:26-29) 9:37-38 10:2 Harvest / fr w B14;
      send; worker
      > 4. 1:15; 6:8-11 10:5b-15 10:4-12 Instr / fr w/B7; send;
      worker; sheep
      > 5. ----- 10:16 10:3 Sheep/wolves /
      send; sheep
      > 6. 13:13 10:22 ----- Hated/endure / all
      > 7. (13:10) 10:23 ----- Through all
      Israel / all
      > 8. 13:9,11 10:17-20 12:11-12 Hand over ... words /
      don't worry
      > 9. (4:22; 8:38) 10:26-33 12:2-9 Nothing hidden / don't be
      afraid
      > 10. (13:12) 10:34-35 12:51,53 Division / family
      > 11. 8:34 10:37-38 14:26-27 Worthy/cross /
      Whoever ...; family
      > 12. 8:35 10:39 17:33 Save/lose / Whoever
      > 13. 9:37b 10:40 10:16 Whoever welcomes /
      Whoever; me
      > 14. 9:40 12:30 11:23 For/against /
      Whoever; me
      >
      > PROBLEMS
      >
      > There are two places where we have links joining more than two
      passages:
      > B3-5 "send" and B11-14 "whoever." In the former case, it happens
      that we can
      > eliminate any one of the three and the result is a linked pair. We
      might
      > then consider the other set first.
      >
      > In the latter, the solution is clearer: if we eliminate B12, which
      has only
      > the thematic link "whoever," we get two adjacent pairs simply
      linked: B10-11
      > "family" and B13-14 "me." Then B12 is the formally odd member, and
      may be
      > discarded with advantage to the formal scheme.
      >
      > Returning to the former case, B3-5, we may now note that B3 is
      considered to
      > have a formal resonance with B14, and we have just preserved B14
      as part of
      > the group. Then the link with it is probably best preserved. If we
      extend
      > this consideration also to B4 (which resonates with B7, a passage
      which has
      > not been suggested to be anomalous), then the odd member seems to
      be B5. I
      > herewith propose eliminating it from P.
      >
      > RESULT
      >
      > Here is the resulting inventory of section B:
      >
      > B: The Mission of the Kingdom
      > Mark Matthew Luke Saying / internal links
      >
      > 1. (1:16-20) 8:19-22 9:57-60 Following Jesus /
      discipleship
      > 2. 9:41 10:42 ----- Cup of water /
      discipleship
      >
      > 3. (4:26-29) 9:37-38 10:2 Harvest / fr w B14;
      send; worker
      > 4. 1:15; 6:8-11 10:5b-15 10:4-12 Instr / fr w/B7; send; worker
      >
      > 6. 13:13 10:22 ----- Hated/endure / all
      > 7. (13:10) 10:23 ----- Through all
      Israel / all
      >
      > 8. 13:9,11 10:17-20 12:11-12 Hand over ... words /
      don't worry
      > 9. (4:22; 8:38) 10:26-33 12:2-9 Nothing hidden / don't be
      afraid
      >
      > 10. (13:12) 10:34-35 12:51,53 Division / family
      > 11. 8:34 10:37-38 14:26-27 Worthy/cross / family
      >
      > 13. 9:37b 10:40 10:16 Whoever welcomes / me
      > 14. 9:40 12:30 11:23 For/against / me
      >
      > I make the following observations about this revised inventory.
      >
      > 1. As with the revised inventory of section A, it now consists of
      pairs of
      > sayings linked by a single thematic link, without overlap.
      >
      > 2. The only passage in this section with no Markan parallel (B5,
      Mt 10:16)
      > has been eliminated. The result is a set ALL of whose members have
      Markan
      > parallels. This goes beyond the result for section A, in which the
      > proportion of sayings with Markan parallels was merely increased.
      But it is
      > in that same direction, and that direction may be a propitious one.
      >
      > 3. The number of passages has been reduced from 14 to 12. Is this
      bad? Not
      > necessarily. If we think of the number as well as the form of P as
      > authorially intentional, then 12 is a lot more likely number than
      14.
      >
      > 4. In fact, 10 may be likelier than either. For consider: 5 is
      about the
      > highest possible number it is possible to hold in the mind as a
      singularity
      > (or in practical terms; to subitize; with 6 objects or more in
      front of you,
      > you have to actually count them). Then 5 sayings, or 5 pairs of
      sayings, are
      > a good base for a text meant to be memorized. Was P, given that it
      was a
      > text, meant to be memorized? I can't think of any other plausible
      intention
      > for it.
      >
      > If so, then the above revision of section B has not yet reached
      bottom as a
      > revised reconstruction.
      >
      > RETROSPECT: AGAIN SECTION A
      >
      > 5. Looking back briefly to section A, does the possibility exist
      of
      > eliminating two pairs, reaching a decalogue like structure in
      which all
      > sayings have Markan parallels? Not quite. What IS possible is to
      eliminate
      > two pairs which have NO Markan parallels, so that if we consider
      the pair
      > and not the saying as the unit of account, then a Markan
      connection for the
      > pair can be achieved. If we take that further step, section A
      would after
      > all look like this:
      >
      > A: Entering the Kingdom
      > Mark Matthew Luke Saying / internal links
      >
      > 2. 9:50a 5:13 14:34-35 Salt / influence others
      > 3. 4:21 5:15 11:33 Light lamp / influence
      others
      >
      > 4. (13:31) 5:18 16:17 Law / God's law persists
      > 5. ----- 5:25-26 12:58-59 Your accuser / God's law
      persists
      >
      > 6. 9:43,47 5:30,29 ----- Hand/eye / separation
      > 7. 10:11 5:32 16:18 Divorce / separation
      >
      > 13 ----- 7:3-5 6:41-42 Speck/plank / criticize
      others
      > 14 (4:24) 7:1-2 6:37-8 Judge/measure / criticize
      others
      >
      > 17 ----- 7:15-20 6:43-44 Good tree / good & evil
      > 19 (11:24) 7:7-11 11:9-13 Ask / good & evil
      >
      > I suspect we may here be going beyond the point of utility, but
      two tests
      > might be tried before giving up. (1) Does the Matthean scenario
      for the
      > composition of the Sermon on the Mount favor one of these
      revisions of
      > section A over the other? And, (2) is the formal character, as
      distinct from
      > the symbolic character of the total number of sayings, improved by
      these
      > changes? As to the latter, there would seem to be a Yes answer; at
      least as
      > I transcribed it from Ron's web site, the linking for sayings A15-
      16 was not
      > overwhelmingly convincing.
      >
      > Here is Ron's authoritative web site:
      >
      > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      >
      > where it can be confirmed that neither A8 nor A16 had
      any "internal links"
      > at all. It may then be a virtue of the present series of
      objections that
      > neither of those passages figures in the revised P suggestion.
      >
      > Maybe we are getting somewhere. At least some of the proposals
      here made
      > seem to find support within the material itself. Which is not to
      say that
      > this will continue to be the case.
      >
      > Respectfully suggested,
      >
      > Bruce
      >
      > E Bruce Brooks
      > Warring States Project
      > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.