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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Alternating Primitivity

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Mar 16, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 8 , Mar 16, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 8 , Mar 16, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 8 , Mar 17, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 8 , Mar 20, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 8 , Mar 21, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                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.