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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Alternating Primitivity (#5-6 bis)

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG, WSW In Response To: Ron Price On: Alternative [Mt/Lk] Primitivity #5-6 bis From: Bruce CASE 5 (Lk 11:44 || Mt 23:27; woe to Pharisees). I
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 21, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG, WSW
      In Response To: Ron Price
      On: Alternative [Mt/Lk] Primitivity #5-6 bis
      From: Bruce

      CASE 5 (Lk 11:44 || Mt 23:27; woe to Pharisees). I had noted that
      Fleddermann, at least as quoted, has not considered the other member of the
      doublet, so that the case is incompletely presented, and I decline to judge
      it on the basis of an incomplete presentation. I also noted that even if (as
      I think, wrongly) one regards Luke's order as just a pile of junk, there is
      not an inevitable tendency to go from less ordered to more ordered; the
      reverse direction has perfectly respectable scientific precedents (entropy),
      so that Synoptic critics "may see merit even in the proposal order > junk".

      Ron: But rarely when the output of a rational human mind is under
      consideration.

      Bruce: This assumes that all human minds are rational, and that all rational
      minds work the same way. Demonstrably not true. In any case, my chief point
      is that the order of Luke, though it ventures to depart from that of Matthew
      (not to mention Mark), is probably not in fact junk; it is much more likely
      intentional, and has a discoverable design of its own. Until that design is
      detected, appreciated, and made a part of the argument for Mt/Lk
      primitivity, there is no argument to consider.

      Ron: I await a counter argument.

      Bruce: I await an argument. I don't propose to do ALL Fleddermann's work for
      him.

      PS: As to other and perhaps wider light on the "Woes" passage in Mt, did
      everybody get to hear Yair Furstenberg at SBL last November? His argument, I
      believe I am correct in stating, was that Matthew's order is closer to the
      seemingly cognate Woes in the Mishna Yadayim 3:6-8, so that the variant
      order in Lk 11 is actually further than Mt from a possible Jewish original.
      If that holds, then we have another case of the Jonah > Mt > Lk type,
      previously suggested, where Mt is closer to the probable nonSynoptic
      original, and Lk diverges further from it, putting the washing of the cup
      ahead of the tithing of mint and rue; this Lk does for what seem like
      clearly connectivity reasons, since his setting is a dinner in the house of
      a Pharisee, which Jesus begins by no washing his hands. If the order in Mt
      is conditioned by his Jewish source, and if the different order in Lk is
      locally conditioned by narrative considerations (and narrative
      considerations unique to Lk, since only he shows Jesus accepting hospitality
      from Pharisees), then everything is accounted for, and we have the sequence
      Mishna Yadayim > Mt > Lk.

      [I am copying this note to Yair, so that even if he is not on this list he
      can respond to me personally with corrections if he likes; I will undertake
      to pass his comments to the list if they are forthcoming. I must confess
      that I found it hard to take decent notes at the actual SBL session, but see
      his abstract at SBL].

      CASE 6 (Lk 12:8 || Mt, "before the angels of God"). I had considered at some
      length the other members of this doublet, as relevant to a proper decision
      about indebtedness and originality.

      Ron: [Bruce's subsequent arguments only appear to relate indirectly to the
      above].

      Bruce: No, they are consequential. If you take one sentence of the witness's
      testimony, and blank out the rest, you are not allowing the witness to
      speak. Improper procedure at law, and perilous proceeding in philology. The
      other member of the doublet must come into the argument.

      Ron: Both Matthew and Luke have a perfectly balanced piece of poetry,
      suggesting greater originality than Mark's offering in Mk 8:38.

      Bruce: The lit people have noticed that poetic items often stand at the head
      of literary traditions, whence the sometimes mentioned dictum that poetry is
      generally earlier than prose. But such vague tendencies cannot validly be
      applied to specific cases, especially those occurring late in a tradition,
      when all options are fully available to any writer. The poetic parts in the
      Arthashastra, for instance, are late decorations on the prose parts of the
      Arthashastra, as can be proved in the laboratory by taking out the prose and
      regarding the poetry as the core text. This experiment replicably produces a
      nonsensical result. Other examples (including one of my mom's) at request.
      So the conclusion of "greater originality" for Mt and/or Lk over Mk on
      grounds of poetry has no force. The instrument is too blunt for the purpose.

      How, then, about Mt/Lk?

      Ron: So the main choice is between Matthew's "Father in heaven" and Luke's
      "angels of God". As "Father
      in heaven"/"heavenly Father"/"Father who is in heaven" is heavily
      characteristic of Matthew, and "angels of God" is only mildly characteristic
      of Luke (only one example outside the two under consideration in Lk 12:8-9),
      we can reasonably deduce that it is more probable that Matthew replaced
      "angels of God" with "Father in heaven" than that Luke did the opposite.

      Bruce: Angels occur in both, so anything can be argued for with some
      support. The real question, it seems to me, is *where* they occur. I think
      my analysis of the angels available to Luke at this point can stand, and to
      avoid wearisome length, I refer anyone interested in that analysis to the
      previous note. Methodological moral: General word or concept frequency does
      not avail against occurrence in directly relevant passages. Specific is
      sharper than general, and sharper cuts better.

      I end by repeating my earlier impression, that this is not a terribly strong
      case. Whichever way it goes (should we later discover Luke's diary, or his
      Interlibrary Loan record, or something), those who had thought otherwise
      should have no trouble shrugging off the result.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst

      http://www.umass.edu/wsp
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.