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

Primitivity of Lk 6:39; 10:1-12 (was "Alternating Primitivity")

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Mar 21, 2008
      Bruce Brooks wrote:

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

      Bruce,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

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