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

Alternating Primitivity

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    In his The Case Against Q , Mark Goodacre addresses a couple of the better-known cases where Luke is commonly deemed to have a more primitive text than
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 13, 2008
      In his "The Case Against Q", Mark Goodacre addresses a couple of the
      better-known cases where Luke is commonly deemed to have a more primitive
      text than Matthew in the Double Tradition. But outside the circle of Q
      advocates there appears to have been little discussion of the many other
      cases.

      I have examined twelve cases where a Lukan phrase has been deemed by both
      Fleddermann and the 'Critical Edition of Q' to be more primitive than its
      Matthean equivalent. These phrases occur in Lk 6:39; 10:4; 10:5; 11:30;
      11:44; 12:8; 12:11; 12:24; 13:20; 14:35; 17:6; 17:24 respectively. They are
      my selection. There are probably many more such phrases. I compared the
      relevant comments of Fleddermann ("Q: a Reconstruction and Commentary") with
      those of Goulder ("Luke: a New Paradigm").

      Whereas I strongly agree with Goulder regarding passages such as the
      Temptation and the Centurion's Servant, when it comes to aphorisms (and all
      the above-mentioned phrases belong to aphorisms) my assessment is at the
      opposite end of the spectrum. Indeed some of Goulder's arguments here seem
      to come close to special pleading, reminiscent of Stanton's comment on
      scholars who claim Luke used Matthew, quoted by Goodacre, ibid., 63. (I
      wonder whether Stanton had Goulder primarily in mind?).
      Take for example the phrase ELEGETE AN TH SUKAMINW TAUTH in Lk 17:6.
      Goulder claims that Luke's sycamine tree is based on the fig tree in Mt 21,
      and draws attention to the fact that a sycamine tree is bigger and therefore
      more impressive than a fig tree. But he also claims that 'If you have faith
      as a grain of mustard seed' comes from Mt 17:20. The difference in size
      between a fig tree and a sycamine tree pales into insignificance compared
      with the difference in size between a tree and a 'mountain' (also in Mt
      17:20). So how can Luke have had greater impressiveness in mind when at the
      same time he opted not to use Matthew's vastly more impressive "mountain"?

      Has any Farrer Theory supporter published a treatment of aphorisms (other
      than Drury on parables, which has only a partial overlap in subject matter)?

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Chuck Jones
      Ron, I looked through your examples very quickly, and could see your point in many of them, less so in others (no problem--as I said, I moved pretty quickly).
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 13, 2008
        Ron,

        I looked through your examples very quickly, and could see your point in many of them, less so in others (no problem--as I said, I moved pretty quickly).

        One of my favorite examples of Lukan primitivity vs. Matthean theological development is Lk 14:16 vs. Mt 22:2, the parable of the great banquet. The extent to which Mt has fiddled with the basic story to insert his theology is striking. And, like any metaphor taken too far, Mt's story looses all touch with reality. (It's a capital offense or an act of war to miss a dinner?)

        Chuck

        Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
        In his "The Case Against Q", Mark Goodacre addresses a couple of the
        better-known cases where Luke is commonly deemed to have a more primitive
        text than Matthew in the Double Tradition. But outside the circle of Q
        advocates there appears to have been little discussion of the many other
        cases.

        I have examined twelve cases where a Lukan phrase has been deemed by both
        Fleddermann and the 'Critical Edition of Q' to be more primitive than its
        Matthean equivalent. These phrases occur in Lk 6:39; 10:4; 10:5; 11:30;
        11:44; 12:8; 12:11; 12:24; 13:20; 14:35; 17:6; 17:24 respectively. They are
        my selection. There are probably many more such phrases. I compared the
        relevant comments of Fleddermann ("Q: a Reconstruction and Commentary") with
        those of Goulder ("Luke: a New Paradigm").

        Whereas I strongly agree with Goulder regarding passages such as the
        Temptation and the Centurion's Servant, when it comes to aphorisms (and all
        the above-mentioned phrases belong to aphorisms) my assessment is at the
        opposite end of the spectrum. Indeed some of Goulder's arguments here seem
        to come close to special pleading, reminiscent of Stanton's comment on
        scholars who claim Luke used Matthew, quoted by Goodacre, ibid., 63. (I
        wonder whether Stanton had Goulder primarily in mind?).
        Take for example the phrase ELEGETE AN TH SUKAMINW TAUTH in Lk 17:6.
        Goulder claims that Luke's sycamine tree is based on the fig tree in Mt 21,
        and draws attention to the fact that a sycamine tree is bigger and therefore
        more impressive than a fig tree. But he also claims that 'If you have faith
        as a grain of mustard seed' comes from Mt 17:20. The difference in size
        between a fig tree and a sycamine tree pales into insignificance compared
        with the difference in size between a tree and a 'mountain' (also in Mt
        17:20). So how can Luke have had greater impressiveness in mind when at the
        same time he opted not to use Matthew's vastly more impressive "mountain"?

        Has any Farrer Theory supporter published a treatment of aphorisms (other
        than Drury on parables, which has only a partial overlap in subject matter)?

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

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






        ---------------------------------
        Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Lukan Priofity (The Great Banquet) From: Bruce In responding to Ron Price s list of twelve passages which he
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 16, 2008
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Chuck Jones
          On: Lukan Priofity (The Great Banquet)
          From: Bruce

          In responding to Ron Price's list of twelve passages which he considers have
          Lk > Mt directionality (as I would call it), Chuck inserted a new
          consideration:

          CHUCK: One of my favorite examples of Lukan primitivity vs. Matthean
          theological development is Lk 14:16 vs. Mt 22:2, the parable of the great
          banquet. The extent to which Mt has fiddled with the basic story to insert
          his theology is striking. And, like any metaphor taken too far, Mt's story
          looses all touch with reality. (It's a capital offense or an act of war to
          miss a dinner?)

          BRUCE: I think the joker here is that more than these two pieces may be
          involved, in which case the question is more than one of simple
          directionality, as I would prefer to call it, between related versions. And
          are the versions in fact related? I quote the introductory paragraph from
          Klyne Snodgrass's new book on the Parables (which references GThos 64 as a
          third member):

          "Whether the accounts of this parable - Matthew on one hand and Luke/GosThom
          on the other - are two versions of the same parable or two separate parables
          is debatable, and therefore, whether the two should even be treated together
          is questionable. Matthew's version is enough to make any interpreter go weak
          in the knees; I consider it among the most difficult parables of all. . . .
          "

          To these difficulties I would add the suggestion that Matthew's version
          should also be read against Luke's additions (or such I have earlier argued
          that they are) to Matthew in the Wicked Tenants, Mt 21:33-46, Mk 12:1-12, Lk
          20:9-19, and Klyne Snodgrass would add GThos 65-66. In other words, we here
          have a six-part problem, not a two-part problem, and a satisfactory solution
          of any two elements must in the end be compatible with what we find
          ourselves moved to do with the other four. Perhaps the problem might be
          taken up separately, in due course, but hopefully in its fullness.

          Conveniently, Klyne has placed his discussion of the Wicked Tenants directly
          before the Wedding Banquet, so the material he assembles for each is
          conveniently available to students of the other. If anyone still lacks this
          recently released book, I may perhaps be pardoned for mentioning that it is
          currently featured in what we call the Warring States Bookshop
          (http://www.umass.edu/wsp/bookshop/index.html). We can offer you a
          meaningful discount, plus no tax and no shipping charge to most US persons,
          and in addition, you have the satisfaction of knowing that you have in a
          tiny way helped to support global philology.

          Respectfully suggested,

          Bruce
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Ron Price On: Alternating Primitivity [Mt/Lk] From: Bruce Chuck Jones has given a quick first impression of Ron s list of
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 16, 2008
            To: Synoptic
            Cc: GPG
            In Response To: Ron Price
            On: Alternating Primitivity [Mt/Lk]
            From: Bruce

            Chuck Jones has given a quick first impression of Ron's list of twelve
            examples of Lk > Mt directionality (as I should prefer to call it; the term
            "primitivity" seems to me to claim too much, since both of two related items
            may easily be late, and thus not primitive in the usual sense of
            "primitive"). Chuck's impression, if I read him correctly, was that some of
            the examples seem to him to go in one way, and some in another. That is, the
            list as a whole does not seem to him to be conclusive for either Mt > Lk or
            for Lk > Mt.

            Me neither.

            EXCURSUS

            In the field in which I work (classical Sinology), we have many examples of
            related texts whose history is pretty much known, and whose directionality
            is thus a given. These make excellent practice material. The task is to
            compare *every* detail of both, and assess the directionality of that
            detail, and at the end of the afternoon (some of these things are more than
            a page long), sum up the tendency of the assessments.

            The results, if I may be candid, are usually sobering for anyone who begins
            the afternoon thinking themselves pretty good at directionality
            determinations. Out of 53 points where an assessment is possible, 32 might
            point in one direction, and 21 in the other. The catch is that, in the
            nature of the case, one of these groups represents errors of determination.
            It is the expert who can hope to have 32 right; the beginner may easily wind
            up with 32 wrong.

            So one tries to get better at it, and the years pass. One thing the years
            teach is that it is extremely difficult, even for a moderately experienced
            hand, to inhabit, and report, the predilections and authorial strategies of
            someone long dead, operating in a culture also long dead, and with a purpose
            about which nothing is known at the outset, and which can itself only be
            glimpsed through the material in question, with all the dangers of
            circularity which that situation presents. It is these authorial inscenation
            attempts about which (as it seems to me) it can be not too unfairly said
            that they are, in the common term, "reversible," meaning that a plausible
            argument can be made for the opposite direction. Obviously, one of the pair
            of arguments must be wrong (if the pieces are related in this way, then
            there IS a directionality), but which is wrong is not always easy to tell
            from the outside.

            Non numerantur sed ponderantur. One therefore learns to put weight, not on
            inscenation exercises, but on such stronger cases as may happen to be
            available. Among these would be (a) framing material from one imported,
            incongruously, into the other; (b) words in the first text misread by the
            author of the second; and (c) originally consistent details adapted, but
            inconsistently, into the second author's context. That is, one looks for
            literary failures, not literary successes. They are higher yield material.

            The bulk of the differences between two related texts are in most cases not
            of this type; they are what I would call directional small change. With
            Chuck's perhaps implicit concurrence, I might be inclined to say that Ron's
            Twelve are also pretty much directional small change, in that if we suddenly
            WERE TOLD which way the relationship ran, we could probably live with the
            resulting verdict about the ones where we had initially inclined to the
            opposite solution.

            THE TWELVE

            Just a few remarks in passing about the Twelve:

            Lk 6:39 (the blind leading the blind). The Mt/Lk versions are from different
            areas of the respective Gospels; that is, they are skew parallels. The
            difference of placement must be considered along with the difference in
            wording.

            Lk 10:4 and 5 (instructions to missionaries). These were extensively
            discussed earlier on Synoptic. My own sense is that Lk makes the
            instructions to the disciples too consistently austere for practicality. My
            standard of comparison is of course the Markan parallel, which surely needs
            to be considered here. So does the skewness of the Lukan member. Suppose we
            ask our students: Which represents earlier tradition, a story of Jesus
            commissioning Twelve missionaries, or a story of Jesus commissioning Seventy
            missionaries? I think that we will mostly be inclined to favor those
            students who answer, The Twelve. No?

            Lk 11:30 (the Sign of Jonah). Mt can be said to spell out the "three days
            and three nights" implication of the Sign, making clearer that Jesus here
            refers to his later Resurrection after three days. And Lk can be said to
            underline the relevance to the coming doom of the present generation (one of
            Lk's themes, more consistently developed by Lk than in Mt, where it is also
            present, is God's rejection of the "present generation"). Is it likelier
            that a second writer would make the content of the reference clearer, or
            that he would make the application of the reference clearer? I do not think
            that any general principle exists here, and I am content to take whichever
            answer is indicated by such stronger directionality evidence as may exist.

            Lk 11:44 (woe to Pharisees). Mt has a very sonorous denunciation of
            Pharisees in general, without notable narrative setting. Lk blends that
            denunciation into an account of a particular Pharisee occasion. On how many
            occasions, outside of Luke, does Jesus accept the hospitality of Pharisees?
            I think the answer is, Zero. Then the story as set in Luke may involve Lukan
            agendas, which may be of more consequence to directionality decisions than
            the wording of any one passage in the story.

            Lk 12:8 ("he who acknowledges Me"). "I" (Mt) vs "Son of Man" (Lk). The whole
            Son of Man question, and the different spin which Mk, Mt, and Lk give to it
            (and the contexts in which they use it at all). "My Father" (Mt) vs "angels
            of God" (Lk). Is it a coincidence that Mt alone speaks of the Father, and Lk
            alone speaks of the Son? I would guess not, and would put this case in the
            same rather indeterminate "authorial preference" category as Lk 11:30.

            Lk 12:11 ("and when they bring you"). Clearly a prediction of future
            persecutions of the believers. Lk is more detailed about the tribunals,
            mentioning "synagogues and rulers and authorities." I am not sure that we
            know enough about 1c history, independently of such passages as this, to say
            whether (eg) the "synagogues" reference is early or late. And even if we
            did, what is to prevent Mt being general, and Lk specific, about the same
            known history of persecutions? I would class this one as indeterminate: the
            kind of thing on which any facts we discover elsewhere will shed light, but
            not itself an unambiguous source of light about Gospel relationships.

            Lk 12:24 ("consider the ravens"). Mt has less specifically "birds of the
            air." See above comment; I find no general rule of directionality as between
            general and specific. Poetic license.

            Lk 13:20 (parable of the leaven). Kingdom of Heaven (Mt) vs Kingdom of God
            (Lk). Mt often, but not invariably, has Kingdom of Heaven. He did not get
            this from Mk, who invariably has Kingdom of God. Lk follows Mk's vocabulary
            (if not always his text) in having always Kingdom of God. Then all instances
            of "Kingdom of God" in Mt need scrutiny as exceptions, and thus as locally
            conditioned. This passage is not such an instance, and I consider the
            difference in 31:20 to be respectively typical of the two writers.
            Indeterminate at best.

            Lk 14:35 (salt losing its savor). The Markan member must also be considered;
            no judgement based only on the Mt/Lk differences can be final. Postponed
            until a later occasion.

            Lk 17:6 (moving the sycamine tree). Mt has "mountain," Lk has "sycamine
            tree." Of interest also is the fact that Lk's minimally animate tree "will
            obey you," whereas the inert Matthean mountain "will move," not necessarily
            implying volition in the mountain. The Mt version is a nature miracle, the
            Lk one is closer to the empathy miracles of Jesus. Do these Evangelists have
            a generally different theory of command miracles? I haven't taken the time
            this morning to find out. What I suggest meanwhile is that in addition to Mt
            17:20, we also need to dial in Mt 21:21 (which has a tree *plus* a
            mountain). The general question of Matthean doublets also needs to be looked
            at, sometime. Perhaps in light of that larger question, this smaller
            question will become more obviously decidable. Best postponed.

            Lk 17:24 (the lightning flashing). Mt has "comes from the east and shines as
            far as the west." That is poetic enough, but it leaves out of account cases
            where one has a thunderstorm in the west; are such events not to be
            comprehended in this comparison? Lk (as I would imagine) remedies this
            defect, if such he regarded it, and I repeat that these argument from inside
            the head of an Evangelist tend to be perilous, by having his lightning light
            up the whole sky at once, wherever it may have started from. Literarily, at
            least to my reading eye, Lk is superior (if not more meteorologically
            accurate). Some would say that this makes it better, and thus earlier. My
            own experience is that later versions often improve, or attempt to improve,
            on earlier ones. I would consider Lk's lightning a case of successful
            improvement. But that judgement is subject to the literary taste of a modern
            observer, and I wouldn't give it more weight than any hard evidence for
            directionality that may happen to be available.

            In sum, I think that some of these cases need to be considered in larger
            context before anything firm can be safely gotten out of them, and that some
            of the others are indeterminate or weak. I may have missed it (like Chuck, I
            here report only a cursory inspection), but I don't see a strong indicator
            in the lot. Among the weak indicators, I find, if anything, a tendency
            toward a Mt > Lk solution.

            But I am willing to see any one or several of them argued in detail as
            instances of Lk > Mt.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            http://www.umass.edu/wsp
          • Chuck Jones
            Bruce, While I ve not read the book backing up the quote you share with us, I do have the strong reaction: of course it is two versions of the same parable.
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 16, 2008
              Bruce,

              While I've not read the book backing up the quote you share with us, I do have the strong reaction: of course it is two versions of the same parable. It simply contains significant insertions. Take out the insertions (which are clumsy) and the core story is there.

              It is rare for synoptic writers to take this much liberty with a source, but not unprecedented. I think of Lk's extensive reworking of Mk's story of the rejection in Nazareth.

              What Mt's version has in common with Lk's Nazareth passage is that both have been reworked *to advance the theological aims of the author/editors.* Mt has clearly turned this story into a pointed rebuke of the rejection by Jewish individuals of the message of the Jesus followers. And their punishment has been the destruction of their city. Likewise, the epilogue about dressing properly for the banquet refers to the focus on righteousness that pervades Mt, most notably in the SoM.

              Rev. Chuck Jones
              Atlanta, Georgia

              Bruce wrote concerning the parable of the Great Banquet: I quote the introductory paragraph from
              Klyne Snodgrass's new book on the Parables (which references GThos 64 as a
              third member):

              "Whether the accounts of this parable - Matthew on one hand and Luke/GosThom
              on the other - are two versions of the same parable or two separate parables
              is debatable, and therefore, whether the two should even be treated together
              is questionable. Matthew's version is enough to make any interpreter go weak
              in the knees; I consider it among the most difficult parables of all. . . .








              ---------------------------------
              Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ron Price
              ... Bruce, True. For the list I gave was a list of Lukan verses, each of which *contains* a phrase which (for CrEdQ and Fleddermann) looks to be more likely to
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 17, 2008
                Bruce Brooks was in agreement that:

                > ..... the list as a whole does not seem ... to be conclusive for either
                > Mt > Lk or for Lk > Mt.

                Bruce,

                True. For the list I gave was a list of Lukan verses, each of which
                *contains* a phrase which (for CrEdQ and Fleddermann) looks to be more
                likely to be the source of the Matthean equivalent. In other words, this set
                of phrases (but not necessarily their contexts) seem to imply Lk --> Mt.

                > Non numerantur sed ponderantur. One therefore learns to put weight, not on
                > inscenation exercises, but on such stronger cases as may happen to be
                > available. Among these would be (a) framing material from one imported,
                > incongruously, into the other; (b) words in the first text misread by the
                > author of the second; and (c) originally consistent details adapted, but
                > inconsistently, into the second author's context. That is, one looks for
                > literary failures, not literary successes. They are higher yield material.


                Mark Goodacre's published arguments from "fatigue" come into this category.
                The problem is that the number of pericopes in which examples can be found
                is rather limited.

                >
                > THE TWELVE
                >
                > Just a few remarks in passing about the Twelve:
                >
                > Lk 6:39 (the blind leading the blind). The Mt/Lk versions are from different
                > areas of the respective Gospels; that is, they are skew parallels. The
                > difference of placement must be considered along with the difference in
                > wording.

                The phrase I had in mind was MHTI DUNATAI TUFLOS TUFLON ODHGEIN.
                What you say is true, and Fleddermann does just that, arguing from the
                context that Matthew removed the question format and made the saying into a
                criticism of the Pharisees.

                > Lk 10:4 ...

                The phrase here was KAI MHDENA KATA THN ODON ASPASHSQE. This seems to be
                related to the ASPASASQE in Mt 10:12. It seems to me much more likely that
                the latter was derived from the former (Uro & Fleddermann) rather than the
                other way round (Goulder).

                > and 5 (instructions to missionaries).

                The phrase here was LEGETE EIRHNH. The EIRHNH (as opposed to Matthew's
                ASPASASQE) makes better sense of Mt 10:13 // Lk 10:6.

                > These were extensively
                > discussed earlier on Synoptic. My own sense is that Lk makes the
                > instructions to the disciples too consistently austere for practicality. My
                > standard of comparison is of course the Markan parallel, which surely needs
                > to be considered here.

                Looking at the rest of the saying, yes. But perhaps most commentators think
                the austerity is plausible (these folk were dedicated to their cause), and
                that it's more likely that a later editor would alleviate the austerity than
                introduce more austerity.

                > So does the skewness of the Lukan member. Suppose we
                > ask our students: Which represents earlier tradition, a story of Jesus
                > commissioning Twelve missionaries, or a story of Jesus commissioning Seventy
                > missionaries? I think that we will mostly be inclined to favor those
                > students who answer, The Twelve. No?

                Yes. But it's not quite so simple. I agree with Q scholars that to get back
                to the original mission instructions we need to assess the texts phrase by
                phrase, or perhaps even word by word. It turns out that the introduction,
                with its mention of the *number* of missionaries, was probably an editorial
                addition (Markan?!) to the original set of instructions (though I think the
                "twelve" as recipients may have been implicit in the mind of the original
                speaker/author).

                > Lk 11:30 (the Sign of Jonah).

                The phrase I had in mind was OUTWS ESTAI KAI O UIOS TOU ANQRWPOU TH GENEA
                TAUTH.
                Most commentators seem to think that Matthew transformed this phrase into
                his imaginative three days and three nights analogy. This is surely much
                more likely than the opposite direction of influence.

                > Lk 11:44 (woe to Pharisees).

                The phrase I had in mind here was TA MNHMEIA TA ADHLA. Fleddermann rightly
                sees Matthew's redactional influence in the bringing together of the two
                inside/outside sayings in Mt 23:25-26 and 23:27. As they are not together in
                Luke, one can argue that the inside/outside purity theme in Mt 23:27 was
                introduced by Matthew to replace the 'unmarked tombs'.

                > Mt has a very sonorous denunciation of
                > Pharisees in general, without notable narrative setting. Lk blends that
                > denunciation into an account of a particular Pharisee occasion. On how many
                > occasions, outside of Luke, does Jesus accept the hospitality of Pharisees?
                > I think the answer is, Zero. Then the story as set in Luke may involve Lukan
                > agendas, which may be of more consequence to directionality decisions than
                > the wording of any one passage in the story.

                You appear to be considering the directionality of the saying as a whole.
                Those of us who believe that an early sayings source lies behind the
                aphorisms (which, by the way, I define as short pithy sayings) can
                reconstruct an original which is partly reflected in Matt, in Luke, and even
                in Mark, thus ending up with multiple directionality in a single saying.

                > Lk 12:8 ("he who acknowledges Me"). "I" (Mt) vs "Son of Man" (Lk). The whole
                > Son of Man question, and the different spin which Mk, Mt, and Lk give to it
                > (and the contexts in which they use it at all). "My Father" (Mt) vs "angels
                > of God" (Lk). Is it a coincidence that Mt alone speaks of the Father, and Lk
                > alone speaks of the Son? I would guess not, and would put this case in the
                > same rather indeterminate "authorial preference" category as Lk 11:30.

                My phrase was indeed O UIOS TOU ANQRWPOU. The best clue we have is Mk 8:31
                // Mt 16:21, where Matthew replaces "Son of Man" by "he". On the basis of
                this one example of Matthew replacing the phrase by a personal pronoun, it
                seems somewhat more likely that he made a similar replacement in Mt 10:32 //
                Lk 12:8 than that Luke replaced "I" by "Son of Man" for which there are no
                precedents elsewhere in Luke.

                > Lk 12:11

                My phrase was EPI TAS SUNAGWGAS.

                > ("and when they bring you"). Clearly a prediction of future
                > persecutions of the believers. Lk is more detailed about the tribunals,
                > mentioning "synagogues and rulers and authorities." I am not sure that we
                > know enough about 1c history, independently of such passages as this, to say
                > whether (eg) the "synagogues" reference is early or late. And even if we
                > did, what is to prevent Mt being general, and Lk specific, about the same
                > known history of persecutions? I would class this one as indeterminate: the
                > kind of thing on which any facts we discover elsewhere will shed light, but
                > not itself an unambiguous source of light about Gospel relationships.

                Matthew's omission of "synagogues" in Mt 10:19a was probably because he had
                already mentioned them in 10:17. Thus both Matthew and Luke mention
                synagogues in this context, and "synagogues" was probably in the original.

                > Lk 12:24 ("consider the ravens"). Mt has less specifically "birds of the
                > air." See above comment; I find no general rule of directionality as between
                > general and specific. Poetic license.

                I beg to differ. Other things being equal I think the specific is more
                likely to be original, especially where poetry is concerned. The specific
                makes for colourfulness, and vivid poetry is more impressive than dull
                poetry.

                > Lk 13:20 (parable of the leaven).

                My phrase was TINI OMOIWSW THN BASILEAN TOU QEOU.

                > Kingdom of Heaven (Mt) vs Kingdom of God .....

                The phrase "kingdom of heaven" is exclusive to Matthew, so most commentators
                consider Luke's "kingdom of God" to be original here. But what about the
                question format? Goulder thinks Luke was influenced by Mk 4:30. But this
                seems fanciful as (a) Luke wasn't in a 'Markan block' in Lk 13:20 and (b)
                he's just written the very similar Lk 13:18. The question format in the
                mustard seed's Lk 13:18 is probably original (Semitic poetic parallelism).
                Therefore the question format in the similar yeast's Lk 13:20 is probably
                also original.

                > Lk 14:35 (salt losing its savor).

                My phrase was OUTE EIS GHN OUTE EIS KOPRIAN.

                Again this is more specific (and poetic) than the doubtless accurate but
                rather dull Matthean alternative ("anything" NRSV). The former is therefore
                more likely to be original.

                > The Markan member must also be considered;
                > no judgement based only on the Mt/Lk differences can be final.

                I agree that we should take Mark into account. There is no direct parallel
                to the phrase in Mark (unless we count Mk 9:50b, which looks pretty
                obviously redactional). Looking elsewhere in the saying, I think the MWRANQH
                ("made foolish") of Mt and Lk is a nonsensical mistranslation from Aramaic,
                and here Mark alone got it right with ANALON GENHTAI "lost its saltiness".

                > Lk 17:6 (moving the sycamine tree).

                I've already commented on this, rejecting Goulder's idea that Luke had in
                mind impressiveness when referring to a sycamine tree.

                > ..... What I suggest meanwhile is that in addition to Mt
                > 17:20, we also need to dial in Mt 21:21 (which has a tree *plus* a
                > mountain).

                Mt 21:21 is dependent on Mark, and I posit that it was Mark who first
                introduced the "mountain" into the saying on faith, using the mountain to
                replace the sycamine tree. Matthew later remembered and preferred the vivid
                "mountain" when editing the 'faith-can-move-a-tree' saying.

                > The general question of Matthean doublets also needs to be looked
                > at, sometime.

                Not a bad idea! Doublets, along with Alternating Primitivity, constitute two
                of the strongest arguments for the existence of an early sayings source
                behind the synoptic gospels.

                > Lk 17:24 (the lightning flashing).

                The phrase I had in mind here was OUTWS ESTAI O UIOS TOU ANQRWPOU EN TH
                HMERA AUTOU, and the main choice here is between Matthew's "coming" and
                Luke's "day". The former is the generic description of the expected
                phenomenon. The latter is the poetic metaphor, and therefore seems more
                likely to be original.

                Ron Price

                Derbyshire, UK

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: Synoptic Cc: GPG, WSW In Response To: Ron Price On: Twelve Proposed Lk Mt Passages (#1-2) From: Bruce Thanks to Ron for clarifying just what words he has
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 20, 2008
                  To: Synoptic
                  Cc: GPG, WSW
                  In Response To: Ron Price
                  On: Twelve Proposed Lk > Mt Passages (#1-2)
                  From: Bruce

                  Thanks to Ron for clarifying just what words he has in mind. Could I however
                  take a moment to get the big picture in mind, before we shrink ourselves
                  down to the single syllable level?

                  PROLEGOMENA

                  Literary Question: What is the genre of the Gospels? Answer: The question is
                  meaningless, in the sense that we cannot label (eg) Mark as "romantic
                  biography" or "Greek drama" and walk away, with all Mark's features
                  explained for us as belonging to the special effects inventory of that
                  genre. The Gospels elude the "genre" question, and why? Because they are
                  undertaking more than one task, none of which is to entertain their readers.
                  Specifically: (1) They are apologias, laboring to explain the death of
                  Jesus. (2) They are mystifications, identifying the founder (and thus
                  themselves) with ever higher cosmological levels. (3) They are
                  legitimations, giving enabling precedents for early Christian practices and
                  beliefs. (4) They are homilies, addressing the needs of the faithful in
                  continuously threatening times, chiding their shortcomings and strengthening
                  their supernatural hopes. Any view of any Gospel which focuses on one of
                  these to the exclusion of the others contorts and violates the text. I
                  recommend that we not.

                  Historical Question: What is the big movement here? Answer: The big movement
                  here is the evolution of a Jewish puristic and Messianic movement, whose
                  political agenda was blocked once and for all by the efficient Romans, into
                  a personal salvation formula which by and large had appeal, not to Jews (who
                  preferred to remain focused on the Zion question), but to Gentiles. The
                  later Gospels are continually at pains (it is their fifth diagnostic
                  quality; for the other four, see above) to deny the early stages of this
                  process (eg, the Galilean churches, which from Matthew on are mentioned only
                  to be cursed) and on their ruins, to erect a rationale and pseudohistory for
                  the later stages of the process.

                  I think that if we do not lose sight of these basic answers, then even if we
                  get some of the small-change questions wrong (and at this distance in time
                  and taste, it will be a wonder if we do not), we will still come through the
                  exercise more or less OK.

                  CASE 1 (Lk 6:39 || Mt 15:14)

                  The phrase Ron had in mind was MHTI DUNATAI TUFLOS TUFLON ODHGEIN, or
                  "Surely the blind cannot lead the blind." I had pointed out that the Mt/Lk
                  passages are not from parallel passages, but from skew parallels, located in
                  different parts of the respective narrative sequences. Ron responds "What
                  you say is true, and Fleddermann does just that, arguing from the context
                  that Matthew removed the question format and made the saying into a
                  criticism of the Pharisees."

                  Or vice versa, and can we tell which? How important, to the later Luke, were
                  the factional disputes of Jesus within Judaism? A later Evangelist might
                  include such things our of textual inertia, or out of piety toward ancient
                  and venerable Mark, but they play a lesser role in the story for both
                  Matthew and Luke than they did for Mark. For Matthew, when you get right
                  down to it, Jesus died because it had long been prophesied that he would,
                  and indeed must; not because the affronted Pharisees plotted with Herod to
                  kill him. So also for Luke, if not more so. If in this particular case, Luke
                  has recast (and rearranged) Matthew so as to give less weight to the
                  factional point, and more weight to another point, what is so astonishing
                  about that?

                  Nothing; it is right in line with the general tendencies.

                  It remains to see if Luke has given the "blind/blind" saying any different
                  context. In Matthean terms, the segment of Luke containing this passage is
                  drawn from hither and yon in Matthew; it presents at first glance something
                  of the appearance of a grabbag. But it has a detectable logic. In Luke, our
                  passage directly follows one with Markan parallels, the "measure you give"
                  commercial maxim (Mk 4:24, cf Mt 7:2). Luke fills this out luxuriantly, the
                  "measure you get" is going to be "pressed down, shaken together, running
                  over." All this is in turn part of the expansion of the Golden Rule maxim,
                  separate in Mt but combined in Lk (at 6:31) with the "return good for evil"
                  maxim, which, as all Sinologists if not all seminarians know, has a
                  different Chinese origin than the Golden Rule proper. As to the Matthean
                  Golden Rule, note that it honors its immediate Jewish antecedents by echoing
                  the Hillel formulation ("for this is the law and the prophets"), a
                  rabbinical touch (and before that also a Confucian touch; see The Original
                  Analects, Columbia 1998, Index sv Golden Rule) which Luke, consistently with
                  his place in the larger Gentilizing trajectory, omits.

                  All right; proceeding with due deliberation, we are now at the blind leading
                  the blind. That remark does not seem to continue the previous Lukan text in
                  any obvious way, in expounding the logic of "return good for evil," an
                  exposition which seems to end and culminate in "judge not that ye be not
                  judged," another Matthean remark which Luke has pulled in from a different
                  context in Matthew. But so far, there is a perceptible logic to Luke's
                  assemblage. We may not like it better than Matthew, that is a matter of
                  taste (*our* taste), but it is at least possible to see that Luke is up to
                  *something,* and that is sufficient for present purposes. We are not, as
                  Streeter would have it, looking at the ravings of a madman.

                  OK, we begin a new section of exposition, and what is it about? Continuity
                  not being obvious in the previous passages, we can only look for clues at
                  the following passage, which is "A disciple is not above his teacher." (I
                  might toss in here a reference to a later Confucian philosopher, Sywndz, but
                  probably enough is already enough for one day, and I therefore pass it up).
                  This, at least if we confine ourselves geographically to the Ancient Near
                  East, corresponds to yet *another* part of Matthew, and either Luke is a
                  pile of raw materials out of which Matthew has produced an effective
                  sequence, or it is a redistribution of Matthean elements with a purpose
                  (whether or not an aesthetically successful purpose) of its own. Luke
                  continues with yet another relocated Matthean thought, the "speck in your
                  brother's eye."

                  Now comes the question: Has the Lukan sequence any coherent character of its
                  own? I think so. In this sequence, the student without a teacher is blind;
                  one needs to be led by someone who knows where they are going. And when this
                  *is* the case, the student cannot expect to excel the teacher; but only to
                  get to the proper end. Getting to the right destination is 100% on the
                  final; there is no 105%. Students should not compete with their teacher, nor
                  (in the following "speck in the eye" passage) should they dispute virtue
                  with fellow students (this precept is also present in the Epistle of James,
                  to my eye a very early letter to the northern churches). None of this
                  material is new in the sense of not being already present in Matthew; it is
                  merely given a new twist by being put together in a different way. Of the
                  two versions, the order of Matthew has more precedents in Mark, hence that
                  of Luke is more of a *departure from* Markan precedent, so far as Markan
                  precedent obtains, and thus most intelligible as a further reworking of the
                  material.

                  I do not see (with Fleddermann, cited by Ron, and many seem to agree) that
                  Matthew's application of the "blind" saying to the Pharisees is necessarily
                  a later use. I think it is at least as easy to see it as being detached from
                  the old and now obsolete sectarian squabbles of Jesus's lifetime, and
                  applied more generally to the instruction, and indeed the reproof, of
                  contemporary Christian learners.

                  So Fleddermann is welcome to his idea that application to the Pharisees
                  represents a step along the larger trajectories of Gospel development, but I
                  decline to join him. I think that pay dirt lies in the opposite direction.

                  I note in passing my suspicion that Fleddermann seems to be influenced by
                  Bultmann, with his pronouncement that the narrative settings of
                  apophthegmata (Bultmann's term) are always secondary to the sayings to which
                  they give context. Sometimes that happens, and I can furnish additional
                  examples if required, but by no means always. So Bultmann's observation
                  cannot be a rule, still less (under the name Formgeschichte) a discipline of
                  its very own. In any case, what we have here is not an uncontexted saying in
                  Luke given context in Matthew (à la Bultmann), but a saying which has
                  *different* contexts and functions in Matthew and Luke. Our task is to judge
                  which of those contexts might be a revision of the other. I have set forth
                  above the case for Lukan secondarity as I see it.I am influenced, I am free
                  to admit, by the overwhelming evidence for Lukan secondarity in the
                  surrounding material, and in the Gospel as a whole. But at minimum, I see
                  nothing in the "blind" saying which would refute this other evidence, and
                  sufficient reason to be content with the idea that Luke is here abandoning
                  obsolete arguments and refashioning their fragments into contemporary
                  advice.

                  CASE 2 (Lk 10:4, cf Mk 6:8-11 || Mt 10:9-14 || Lk 9:3-5)

                  Ron specifies Luke's KAI MHDENA KATA THN ODON ASPASHSQE ["And do not salute
                  anybody on the way"], and adds, "This seems to be related to the ASPASASQE
                  ["Greet (the house)] in Mt 10:12. It seems to me much more likely that the
                  latter was derived from the former (Uro & Fleddermann) rather than the other
                  way round (Goulder).

                  That is not all we have to notice, and let's back up a little. The large
                  picture is that to the Markan Sending of the Twelve, clearly a mission to
                  the towns and villages of Israel, and preserved as such in Matthew (who even
                  rules out Samaria), Luke has added a wholly invented Sending of the Seventy,
                  without Gospel parallel and intrinsically implausible, symbolizing the
                  Mission to the Gentiles (7 and 70, in all the gospels, symbolize completion,
                  and specifically "all the nations"). So the real narrative parallel is the
                  one given above (Mk 6:8-11 ||, the Sending of the Twelve), with Lk 10:4 etc
                  (the Sending of the Seventy) as something of an outlier.

                  The immediate question is with the verb "greet, salute." Luke says that one
                  should not greet anyone on the road, that is, en route to one's destination
                  village. Why not? To avoid dilly-dallying? It's not obvious, at least not to
                  me. Filing that perplexity for later consideration, I turn to Matthew, where
                  one is *supposed* to deliver a greeting or salutation, this time not to a
                  person, but to a building: the house of one's host in the destination
                  village. My spontaneous reaction is that one should greet people, not
                  buildings, so again I am perplexed. But Davies and Allison explain: "the
                  command to 'greet' (ASPASASQE, cf Lk 10:5) a house is the idiomatic
                  equivalent of the commend to say, 'Peace to this house' (cf b Ta'an 20b and
                  see on 5:27) - although one unacquainted with the OT or Jewish tradition
                  might have missed this" (fn ref to Septuagint Exod 18:7, Judg 18:15).

                  Then the greeting in Mt is a speaking of peace, and segues naturally into
                  Mt's next: "and if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if
                  it is not worthy, let your peace return to you." That is, the "greeting" is
                  the actual speaking of peace, and the next lines tell what to do if that
                  greeting is not, so to speak, returned. I can only agree with Davies and
                  Allison that the whole business is too Jewish for general comprehension, and
                  I can readily imagine that Luke, writing for Gentiles rather than Jews, felt
                  the same way. He substitutes for the inscrutable phrase about greeting the
                  house, the actual *words* of greeting, "Whatever house you enter, first say,
                  'Peace be to this house.'" Thus does Luke clear up, for one audience, what
                  might have been clear to Matthew's quite different audience. Narrative
                  consideration.

                  Luke seems however to have liked the irenic word "greet," and so used it in
                  a different way a little higher up in his text. To what effect? Manson has
                  cited 2 Kings 4:29, which orders an emissary not to greet anyone on his way,
                  but to proceed with all speed to his destination. This sorts well with the
                  urgency expressed in the introduction to this particular sequence (Lk 10:1,
                  "sent them on ahead of him"), and is probably what Luke had in mind. Luke
                  may be deJudaizing in general, but he does seem to expect his readers to
                  know the Septuagint. Myself, I am still working on it, with a little help
                  from Manson.

                  CODICIL

                  A theory of two-stage Lukan composition, which I introduced at last year's
                  SBL and may conceivably develop further at the coming SBL, holds that these
                  Lukan doublets (in this case, the highly duplicative instructions to the
                  Twelve and the otherwise unattested Seventy) mostly arise from following Mk
                  in the first stage, and Matthew (plus any remembered Mark) in the second.
                  That theory is most strongly supported if one member of the doublet is
                  indebted for its wording only to Mark (plus Luke's imagination), and if the
                  second member, and only the second member, is unambiguously indebted at
                  least at some points to Matthew. That seems to be the case here. Luke's
                  instructions to the Twelve vary from Mark's, but not in ways or with words
                  that might have been suggested by Matthew. In the Instructions to the
                  Seventy, Luke has chiefly cannibalized his own account of the Twelve, which
                  was drawn from Mark, but he also shows that this time around he knows
                  Matthew, and his handling of the "greeting" matter, by Gentilizing it for
                  his own audience, is one of the clearest of those indications. As far as
                  this complicated instance goes, then, and always allowing for the sometimes
                  inscrutable results of authorial caprice, the texts seem to behave as the
                  theory predicts. That is nice news for the theory.

                  It also adds to the theory (which is still under construction) the not very
                  surprising datum that the Sending of the Twelve in Luke is to be assigned to
                  Luke A, while the Sending of the Seventy is to be assigned to Luke B.

                  METHODOLOGICAL EXCURSUS

                  There are parallel texts such that one can be explained from the other, and
                  there are parallel texts such that neither can be satisfactorily explained
                  from the other, and both are better explained by some third text, if
                  necessarily a conjectural third text, from which both have drawn. It is
                  situations of the latter type which would properly give rise to a
                  conjectured source of the Q type. So far, meaning in these two out of Ron's
                  twelve examples, I don't see any indications that would require a third-text
                  solution. Luke is not a failed copy of Matthew. But it may plausibly be
                  taken as a stubbornly independent *use* of Matthew among other things, aimed
                  at a different audience than Matthew's, and following a somewhat different
                  theological and historical agenda. Luke among other things is concerned to
                  deJudaize Christianity, and if in the process he somewhat deJudaizes the
                  words that he permits to remain attributed to Jesus, well, there is not yet
                  any major inconsistency in that.

                  Respectfully submitted,

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  http://www.umass.edu/wsp

                  Copyright © 2008 by E Bruce Brooks
                • Ron Price
                  ... Bruce, There are two factors here. Firstly because elsewhere (in 11:39ff.) Luke retains detailed criticisms of some Jewish groups. This nullifies your
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 21, 2008
                    Bruce Brooks wrote:

                    > CASE 1 (Lk 6:39 || Mt 15:14)
                    >
                    > The phrase Ron had in mind was MHTI DUNATAI TUFLOS TUFLON ODHGEIN, or
                    > "Surely the blind cannot lead the blind." I had pointed out that the Mt/Lk
                    > passages are not from parallel passages, but from skew parallels, located in
                    > different parts of the respective narrative sequences. Ron responds "What
                    > you say is true, and Fleddermann does just that, arguing from the context
                    > that Matthew removed the question format and made the saying into a
                    > criticism of the Pharisees."
                    >
                    > Or vice versa, and can we tell which? How important, to the later Luke, were
                    > the factional disputes of Jesus within Judaism? A later Evangelist might
                    > include such things our of textual inertia, or out of piety toward ancient
                    > and venerable Mark, but they play a lesser role in the story for both
                    > Matthew and Luke than they did for Mark. For Matthew, when you get right
                    > down to it, Jesus died because it had long been prophesied that he would,
                    > and indeed must; not because the affronted Pharisees plotted with Herod to
                    > kill him. So also for Luke, if not more so. If in this particular case, Luke
                    > has recast (and rearranged) Matthew so as to give less weight to the
                    > factional point, and more weight to another point, what is so astonishing
                    > about that?

                    Bruce,

                    There are two factors here. Firstly because elsewhere (in 11:39ff.) Luke
                    retains detailed criticisms of some Jewish groups. This nullifies your
                    argument about Luke's supposed lack of interest in Jewish factional
                    disputes. Secondly because the change from a question in Luke to an
                    assertion in Matthew would have made Matthew's criticism of the Pharisees
                    more barbed, whereas the change from an assertion in Matthew to a question
                    in Luke would seem quite pointless.

                    > ..... we are now at the blind leading
                    > the blind. That remark does not seem to continue the previous Lukan text in
                    > any obvious way, .....

                    Quite. Your observation matches well the hypothesis that Luke was here
                    taking sayings from an early source and not keeping them in their original
                    order.

                    > So Fleddermann is welcome to his idea that application to the Pharisees
                    > represents a step along the larger trajectories of Gospel development, but I
                    > decline to join him.

                    I don't think Fleddermann said that. In some places the trajectory is not as
                    smooth as an idealistic view of history might suggest.

                    > CASE 2 (Lk 10:4, cf Mk 6:8-11 || Mt 10:9-14 || Lk 9:3-5)
                    >
                    > Ron specifies Luke's KAI MHDENA KATA THN ODON ASPASHSQE ["And do not salute
                    > anybody on the way"], and adds, "This seems to be related to the ASPASASQE
                    > ["Greet (the house)] in Mt 10:12. It seems to me much more likely that the
                    > latter was derived from the former (Uro & Fleddermann) rather than the other
                    > way round (Goulder).

                    Bruce is not alone in wondering what this phrase meant. Most likely it
                    refers to the urgency of the mission in view of the imminent coming of the
                    kingdom/Son of Man. But I have an additional explanation. The editor of the
                    logia wanted the word "greet"/"greeting" in the instructions in order to
                    create a link between the corresponding sayings B4 and D4 ("... and to be
                    greeted with respect in the marketplaces."

                    > .....
                    > I can readily imagine that Luke, writing for Gentiles rather than Jews, felt
                    > the same way. He substitutes for the inscrutable phrase about greeting the
                    > house, the actual *words* of greeting, "Whatever house you enter, first say,
                    > 'Peace be to this house.'" Thus does Luke clear up, for one audience, what
                    > might have been clear to Matthew's quite different audience. Narrative
                    > consideration.

                    On the contrary, Luke's Semitic greeting "Peace ..." correctly reflects the
                    Palestinian background of this early saying. Matthew's "Greet it", i.e. the
                    house or household, saves a few pen strokes but makes the next verse more
                    difficult to understand. My view is that Matthew's version is too obscure to
                    have been original.

                    >> ..... But it's not quite
                    >> so simple. I agree with Q scholars that to get back to the original mission
                    >> instructions we need to assess the texts phrase by phrase, or perhaps even
                    >> word by word. It turns out that the introduction, with its mention of the
                    >> *number* of missionaries, was probably an editorial addition (Markan?!) to
                    >> the original set of instructions (though I think the "twelve" as recipients
                    >> may have been implicit in the mind of the original speaker/author)."

                    > If the second Sending was not conceived of by Luke (and only he *has* a
                    > second one) as a Sending of Seventy, but originally as a Sending of Twelve,
                    > as Ron seems here to imply, then surely he is seriously forgetful of what he
                    > has already written (and only one chapter previously, for Goodness' sake),
                    > and he probably needs to seek medical help. There is no point to the second
                    > Sending unless it be a symbolic widening of the narrower Jesus mission to
                    > the whole Gentile world, .....

                    You misunderstand me. You insult me at the same time. I did not deny that
                    the framework of Luke's second sending was conceived by Luke. All I was
                    doing here was reiterating the majority view that the original version of
                    the mission instructions deriving from an early source which predated the
                    synoptic gospels, did not include the *number* of missionaries. Of course
                    the number of missionaries in Lk 10 was introduced by Luke.

                    > and the label "seventy" (symbolically "all," and
                    > specifically so in "nations of the world" contexts)

                    The best MSS have "seventy-two". This was the number in the original text of
                    Luke.

                    > ..... Ron would sacrifice it as an "editorial addition."

                    It was part of Luke's editorial 'wraparound' to his second version of the
                    mission instructions, a version which was dependent on an early sayings
                    source. His first version in Lk 9 had been dependent on Mark. These two
                    dependencies happen also to be the view of the majority of scholars (though
                    I differ from them somewhat on the supposed contents of the sayings source).

                    > ..... I can't see how the passage
                    > following is going to work, symbolically, unless it *was* his original
                    > thought. I thus posit that it *was* his original thought.

                    It is perfectly possible to conceive that Luke added his original thought to
                    a kernel which he had not written himself but found in an early sayings
                    source.

                    Ron Price

                    Derbyshire, UK

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.