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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Alternating Primitivity

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.