Primitivity of Lk 6:39; 10:1-12 (was "Alternating Primitivity")
- Bruce Brooks wrote:
> CASE 1 (Lk 6:39 || Mt 15:14)Bruce,
> 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?
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 leadingQuite. Your observation matches well the hypothesis that Luke was here
> the blind. That remark does not seem to continue the previous Lukan text in
> any obvious way, .....
taking sayings from an early source and not keeping them in their original
> So Fleddermann is welcome to his idea that application to the PhariseesI don't think Fleddermann said that. In some places the trajectory is not as
> represents a step along the larger trajectories of Gospel development, but I
> decline to join him.
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)Bruce is not alone in wondering what this phrase meant. Most likely it
> 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).
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."
> .....On the contrary, Luke's Semitic greeting "Peace ..." correctly reflects the
> 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
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 quiteYou misunderstand me. You insult me at the same time. I did not deny that
>> 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, .....
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," andThe best MSS have "seventy-two". This was the number in the original text of
> specifically so in "nations of the world" contexts)
> ..... 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 passageIt is perfectly possible to conceive that Luke added his original thought to
> following is going to work, symbolically, unless it *was* his original
> thought. I thus posit that it *was* his original thought.
a kernel which he had not written himself but found in an early sayings
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm