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

Re: Synoptic relations

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    LEONARD ... Since the preponderance of scholarship in the western world finds the double tradition material as often, if not much more often, more original
    Message 1 of 21 , Oct 24, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      LEONARD
      > The point I am making is that the weight of evidence on the other
      > side so vastly outweighs the few times where a case could be made that Luke's
      > text is more "original" than Matthew that very few have ever been attracted by
      > an hypothesis that reverses the relationship of dependency between the two
      > gospels.

      Since the preponderance of scholarship in the western world finds
      the double tradition material as often, if not much more often, more
      "original" in Luke than in Matthew it is hard for me to imagine that
      your statements to the contrary will convince many. Whom can you
      cite who agrees with you other than the dozen people who hold
      to the Griesbach or Farrer hypotheses who must of necessity agree
      with you?

      Steve
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 98-10-24 18:56:37 EDT, miser17@epix.net writes:
      Message 2 of 21 , Oct 25, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 98-10-24 18:56:37 EDT, miser17@... writes:

        <<
        LEONARD
        > The point I am making is that the weight of evidence on the other
        > side so vastly outweighs the few times where a case could be made that
        Luke's
        > text is more "original" than Matthew that very few have ever been attracted
        by
        > an hypothesis that reverses the relationship of dependency between the two
        > gospels.

        STEVE: Since the preponderance of scholarship in the western world finds
        the double tradition material as often, if not much more often, more
        "original" in Luke than in Matthew it is hard for me to imagine that
        your statements to the contrary will convince many. Whom can you
        cite who agrees with you other than the dozen people who hold
        to the Griesbach or Farrer hypotheses who must of necessity agree
        with you?

        LEONARD: The judgment on this matter of the "preponderance of scholarship in
        the western world", if indeed it is what you say it is above, is less than a
        neutral witness. It is influenced by the desire to demonstrate the thesis it
        begins with: namely, Luke's independence from Matthew and the consequent
        marvelous existence of Q that brings us closer to the ipsissima verba of
        Jesus. The fact remains that few -- extremely few -- have seen enough evidence
        to deem it worth even seriously entertaining the idea that Matt depends on
        Luke.

        Leonard Maluf
      • William E. Arnal
        ... But this is the very question I m asking, really. Not WHETHER Matthew used Luke as a source (I don t think he did, since the evidence strikes me as very
        Message 3 of 21 , Oct 25, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:

          > LEONARD: The judgment on this matter of the "preponderance of scholarship in
          > the western world", if indeed it is what you say it is above, is less than a
          > neutral witness. It is influenced by the desire to demonstrate the thesis it
          > begins with: namely, Luke's independence from Matthew and the consequent
          > marvelous existence of Q that brings us closer to the ipsissima verba of
          > Jesus. The fact remains that few -- extremely few -- have seen enough evidence
          > to deem it worth even seriously entertaining the idea that Matt depends on
          > Luke.

          But this is the very question I'm asking, really. Not
          WHETHER Matthew used Luke as a source (I don't think he did,
          since the evidence strikes me as very clearly indicating
          independence), but why it is that no one (or rather -- I
          stand corrected -- ONE person?) has seriously argued for
          Matthean dependence on Luke? ON THE SURFACE OF IT (i.e., not
          in terms of the actual detailed verbal data, nor again in
          terms of such features as editorial fatigue, and the like),
          Matt --> Luke and Luke --> Matt would equally well explain
          double tradition without recourse to Q, as well as
          accounting for the minor agreements in a way the two source
          theory cannot. And since at least basic treatments of the
          problem never seem to provide detailed evidence why Matthew
          COULD NOT be dependent on Luke, although at least 2ST
          theorists do the reverse, I am curious why the whole thing
          is seen as a non-starter. It seems to me that Steve Davies
          is probably correct to put it down to the supposed Jewish
          --> less Jewish trajectory; as is Antonio also to attribute
          the phenomenon (I mean, the phenomenon of scholarly lack of
          attention to this [potential] hypothesis) to the supposed
          eschatological --> less eschatological trajectory.
          Most recent Q scholarship, by the way, portrays Q as
          redactionally developed to an extent analogous to the
          canonical gospels. There is no real concern with ipsissima
          verba Jesu. You might want to read some of the stuff, or at
          least familiarize yourself with it, before offering such
          broad -- and inaccurate -- characterizations.

          Bill
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 98-10-25 08:17:04 EST, wea1@is7.nyu.edu writes: Luke and Luke -- Matt would equally well explain double tradition without
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 25, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 98-10-25 08:17:04 EST, wea1@... writes:

            << Matt --> Luke and Luke --> Matt would equally well explain
            double tradition without recourse to Q, as well as
            accounting for the minor agreements in a way the two source
            theory cannot.>>

            LEONARD: Without recourse to Q and without the presupposition of Markan
            priority, the entire question of "the double tradition" doesn't really have
            the same meaning as it does with such presuppositions. The problem changes
            entirely, and there ceases to be a reason to isolate the category "double
            tradition" from the rest of the data regarding the interrelationship between
            Matt and Luke. And on the basis of that larger data base, the suggestion of
            Luke as source of Matt (as opposed to the opposite) seems unreasonable in the
            extreme.

            BILL: Most recent Q scholarship, by the way, portrays Q as
            redactionally developed to an extent analogous to the
            canonical gospels.

            LEONARD: It was predicted decades ago (by Farrer) that a serious study of Q
            material would show it to be "redactionally developed to an extent analogous
            to the canonical gospels", and in particular to be redactionally so close in
            inspiration to the AMt's redactional work as to be virtually indistinguishable
            from it, thus rendering the hypothesis itself rather dubious. Might this be
            part of what is being recognized in recent trends in Q scholarship?

            BILL: There is no real concern with ipsissima
            verba Jesu. You might want to read some of the stuff, or at
            least familiarize yourself with it, before offering such
            broad -- and inaccurate -- characterizations.

            LEONARD: Just a question: if you were aware of evidence that shows beyond a
            doubt that Luke knew and used Matthew, would you waste a lot of time with Q
            scholarship? I actually am not so far out of it as not to be fully aware that
            Q scholarship has come way beyond an interest in the ipsissima verba Jesu. As
            most people know, it has (unfortunately) quite nearly reached the status of a
            religion today. I was speaking of the origin of the theory and its original
            appeal.

            Leonard Maluf
          • William E. Arnal
            ... Double tradition, under any theory of synoptic relationships, refers to material that appears in Matthew and Luke without a Marcan parallel. Different
            Message 5 of 21 , Oct 25, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:

              > LEONARD: Without recourse to Q and without the presupposition of Markan
              > priority, the entire question of "the double tradition" doesn't really have
              > the same meaning as it does with such presuppositions. The problem changes
              > entirely, and there ceases to be a reason to isolate the category "double
              > tradition" from the rest of the data regarding the interrelationship between
              > Matt and Luke. And on the basis of that larger data base, the suggestion of
              > Luke as source of Matt (as opposed to the opposite) seems unreasonable in the
              > extreme.

              Double tradition, under any theory of synoptic
              relationships, refers to material that appears in Matthew
              and Luke without a Marcan parallel. Different
              source-critical hypotheses account for double tradition in
              different ways (Q, or Luke-pleasing Matthean additions to
              Mark, or Mark-displeasing agreements between Matthew and
              Luke, or whatever).

              > LEONARD: It was predicted decades ago (by Farrer) that a serious study of Q
              > material would show it to be "redactionally developed to an extent analogous
              > to the canonical gospels", and in particular to be redactionally so close in
              > inspiration to the AMt's redactional work as to be virtually indistinguishable
              > from it, thus rendering the hypothesis itself rather dubious. Might this be
              > part of what is being recognized in recent trends in Q scholarship?

              No, not in the least. Q redaction seems quite easily
              distinguishable from that of GMatt. Anyway, there is no
              reason to think that ANY source will be unaffected by some
              kind of redactional perspective, so I'm not sure that
              Farrer's prediction means anything here.

              > LEONARD: Just a question: if you were aware of evidence that shows beyond a
              > doubt that Luke knew and used Matthew, would you waste a lot of time with Q
              > scholarship? I actually am not so far out of it as not to be fully aware that

              If indeed I were aware of such evidence, I would focus on it
              rather than mischaracterize scholarship I didn't know
              anything about.

              > Q scholarship has come way beyond an interest in the ipsissima verba Jesu. As
              > most people know, it has (unfortunately) quite nearly reached the status of a
              > religion today. I was speaking of the origin of the theory and its original
              > appeal.

              Well, it's original appeal has NOTHING to do with why people
              accept it today, and so the comment was irrelevant. The
              majority of synoptic scholars, so far as can be told,
              continue to hold the thesis of Matt/Luke independence. And
              since Q is not an object of great concern for them, or, if
              it is, is not treated as ipisissima verba Jesu (and really
              has not been treated this way since, say, WW1), their vast
              ignorance in taking this position must be attributable to
              some other cause.

              Bill
            • Stevan Davies
              ... This sounds to me exactly like the Thomas dependence argument that Thomas carefully goes out of his way never to utilize the unique phraseology or
              Message 6 of 21 , Oct 25, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                > LEONARD: Antonio, this point would be easy to make against me by simply
                > producing a single case where a clearly structural element in Matt has in fact
                > been literally reproduced by Luke. (Matthew's text is full of such structural
                > elements.) I would welcome the evidence, if it exists. Maybe you didn't
                > understand what I mean by "formal element"? Perhaps I should have said "a
                > structure, based on either a verbal, a conceptual, a dialogical or a numerical
                > pattern". (Someone help me if there is a more economic way of expressing
                > this). This means ALk does not literally reproduce a Matthean literary
                > inclusion, for example, or a word or phrase or device that recurs so as to
                > structure a Matthean passage in some other way (parallel, chiastic, numerical
                > pattern, etc.). If Matt, e.g., has eight beatitudes, Luke would never copy
                > this eight-fold structure (even if he might copy the word MAKARIOI, a material
                > element of the structural pattern, a few times); if Matt has seven petitions
                > in the Our Father, Luke would never reproduce this seven-fold structure
                > literally. If the expression KAI IDOU occurs three times, creating a kind of
                > parallel structure in a Matthean pericope, Luke will either avoid the
                > expression completely, or at least it will not occur as a structural element
                > in his version of the story. Etc., etc.

                This sounds to me exactly like the Thomas dependence argument
                that Thomas carefully goes out of his way never to utilize the unique
                phraseology or redactional characteristics of Mt Mk Lk and thus the
                lack of such characteristics (saving the few instances when Th
                slipped) indicates a redactional tendency of Thomas and so does not
                support independence.

                In both the cases of Mt------->Lk and Mt Mk Lk-------->Th the
                natural expectation is that an author using a source will use it
                without consciously setting out with a deliberate program to appear
                not to have used it. But we are to ignore this and substitute for it
                the curious thesis that both Lk and Th were superb redaction
                critics motiviated by who knows what to exercise their critical
                abilities to deceive anyone who might hold the abovementioned
                natural expectation.

                When Thomas dependence people fathom the wierdness of this
                approach they move to another position, that of secondary orality
                where the Canon has re-entered oral tradition and by virtue of that
                fact has lost redactional characteristics and, indeed, apparently
                (but not in fact, of course) regained pre-canonical sayings forms.

                Can you, just out of curiousity, do this with Mt------->Lk so that
                you don't have to hold the prima facie absurd thesis you do hold?
                [Not all prima facie absurd is false, I'll concede, e.g. Quantum
                theory.] In other words, could you maintain a thesis that Luke knew
                Matthew from oral recitation but Mark he had as a text in front of him?
                This would allow Lk double tradition material to approximate
                primitive forms just as it allows the Thomas material to do so
                against the synoptics due to the specious secondary orality factor.

                But maybe Leonard is the wrong one to ask. I think you hold the
                Griesbach position which will give us Mt Lk-----------> Mk where,
                sigh, Mk is laboring mightily along with Lk and Th to get rid
                of all the clear redactional material that would betray his use of
                his sources.

                Mark Goodacre? Is this a useful plan?

                Steve
              • Ian Hutchesson
                I think I ve got it, Steve: Thomas was giving a slide-show presentation, having picked up a few books over the weekend and digested them, and putting together
                Message 7 of 21 , Oct 25, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  I think I've got it, Steve: Thomas was giving a slide-show presentation,
                  having picked up a few books over the weekend and digested them, and putting
                  together his slides from memory. All I have to do now is figure out what he
                  used as a projector.






                  Ian
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 98-10-25 16:15:09 EST, wea1@is7.nyu.edu writes:
                  Message 8 of 21 , Oct 25, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 98-10-25 16:15:09 EST, wea1@... writes:

                    <<
                    On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:

                    > LEONARD: Without recourse to Q and without the presupposition of Markan
                    > priority, the entire question of "the double tradition" doesn't really
                    have
                    > the same meaning as it does with such presuppositions. The problem changes
                    > entirely, and there ceases to be a reason to isolate the category "double
                    > tradition" from the rest of the data regarding the interrelationship
                    between
                    > Matt and Luke. And on the basis of that larger data base, the suggestion of
                    > Luke as source of Matt (as opposed to the opposite) seems unreasonable in
                    the
                    > extreme.

                    Double tradition, under any theory of synoptic
                    relationships, refers to material that appears in Matthew
                    and Luke without a Marcan parallel. Different
                    source-critical hypotheses account for double tradition in
                    different ways (Q, or Luke-pleasing Matthean additions to
                    Mark, or Mark-displeasing agreements between Matthew and
                    Luke, or whatever).

                    LEONARD: I fully concur with your statements here (allowing you some latitude
                    on the "pleasing-displeasing" terminology). And they do not, of course,
                    invalidate a single statement I made above.


                    > LEONARD: It was predicted decades ago (by Farrer) that a serious study of Q
                    > material would show it to be "redactionally developed to an extent
                    analogous
                    > to the canonical gospels", and in particular to be redactionally so close
                    in
                    > inspiration to the AMt's redactional work as to be virtually
                    indistinguishable
                    > from it, thus rendering the hypothesis itself rather dubious. Might this be
                    > part of what is being recognized in recent trends in Q scholarship?

                    No, not in the least. Q redaction seems quite easily
                    distinguishable from that of GMatt.

                    LEONARD: The discussion would turn more productive at this point if you would
                    tell me something concrete that you think is typical or characteristic of Q
                    theology and is non-Matthean. This would be seriously problematic for me.

                    > LEONARD: Just a question: if you were aware of evidence that shows beyond a
                    > doubt that Luke knew and used Matthew, would you waste a lot of time with Q
                    > scholarship? I actually am not so far out of it as not to be fully aware
                    that

                    If indeed I were aware of such evidence, I would focus on it
                    rather than mischaracterize scholarship I didn't know
                    anything about.

                    LEONARD: I'm edified. But minimally, your answer implies that you wouldn't
                    waste a lot of time with Q scholarship. I didn't think so.

                    > Q scholarship has come way beyond an interest in the ipsissima verba Jesu.
                    As
                    > most people know, it has (unfortunately) quite nearly reached the status of
                    a
                    > religion today. I was speaking of the origin of the theory and its original
                    > appeal.

                    Well, it's original appeal has NOTHING to do with why people
                    accept it today, and so the comment was irrelevant. The
                    majority of synoptic scholars, so far as can be told,
                    continue to hold the thesis of Matt/Luke independence. And
                    since Q is not an object of great concern for them, or, if
                    it is, is not treated as ipisissima verba Jesu (and really
                    has not been treated this way since, say, WW1), their vast
                    ignorance in taking this position must be attributable to
                    some other cause.

                    LEONARD: I wouldn't go so far as to speak of vast ignorance. The evidence for
                    Luke's knowledge of Matthew is complex, even if decisive, and most people are
                    simply unwilling to proceed along the road to that discovery, especially once
                    they have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the Q theory, which is so much
                    simpler and appealing to the source critic as such. The Q hypothesis doesn't
                    require one to imagine that the evangelists were anything more than glorified
                    copiers, which is a controlable entity if one is doing source criticism. The
                    theory that Luke was a writer and not a compiler of sources is (apparently)
                    too much for most people to handle at this time. The irony is, of course, that
                    redaction criticism, even though usually based on the 2 SH, has for years been
                    moving fast in the direction of ever-increased awareness of the evangelists as
                    writers. The mounting tension between this emerging redaction-critical view
                    and the view of the evangelists that was the presupposition of the dominant
                    source theory itself will eventually become too great to sustain. At that
                    point scholars will be forced (even without my urging) to re-examine the whole
                    Synoptic problem from the ground up. I don't have the slightest doubt that
                    this will happen in the next 25 to 50 years.

                    Regards,
                    Leonard Maluf
                  • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                    On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 Maluflen@aol.com wrote: ... Leonard, Your assumption here is clearly If Lk used Mt, then there was no Q . This assumption is not valid. As
                    Message 9 of 21 , Oct 26, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:

                      ...

                      > LEONARD: Just a question: if you were aware of evidence that shows
                      > beyond a doubt that Luke knew and used Matthew, would you waste a lot of
                      > time with Q scholarship?

                      Leonard,

                      Your assumption here is clearly "If Lk used Mt, then there was no Q".
                      This assumption is not valid. As I've repeated many a time already, for my
                      part, I freely accept that some passages of Lk betray a clear dependence
                      on Mt. (This applies to the latest layer of Lukan redaction. The number of
                      such passages is not great.) Therefore, "Lk used Mt" cannot be considered
                      as weaking the Q hypothesis in any substantial way, in spite of what you
                      and Mark G. may wish to believe.

                      Regards,

                      Yuri.
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      ... I see what you are asking, and my previous answer tended to answer the slightly different (though related) question of why Luke s use of Matthew and Mark
                      Message 10 of 21 , Oct 26, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 25 Oct 98 at 8:17, William E. Arnal wrote in response to Leonard Maluf:

                        > But this is the very question I'm asking, really. Not
                        > WHETHER Matthew used Luke as a source (I don't think he did,
                        > since the evidence strikes me as very clearly indicating
                        > independence), but why it is that no one (or rather -- I
                        > stand corrected -- ONE person?) has seriously argued for
                        > Matthean dependence on Luke? ON THE SURFACE OF IT (i.e., not
                        > in terms of the actual detailed verbal data, nor again in
                        > terms of such features as editorial fatigue, and the like),
                        > Matt --> Luke and Luke --> Matt would equally well explain
                        > double tradition without recourse to Q, as well as
                        > accounting for the minor agreements in a way the two source
                        > theory cannot. And since at least basic treatments of the
                        > problem never seem to provide detailed evidence why Matthew
                        > COULD NOT be dependent on Luke, although at least 2ST
                        > theorists do the reverse, I am curious why the whole thing
                        > is seen as a non-starter.

                        I see what you are asking, and my previous answer tended to answer the slightly
                        different (though related) question of why Luke's use of Matthew and Mark is
                        more plausible than Matthew's use of Luke and Mark. But what you are asking is
                        really two related questions (1) Why has hardly anyone argued for Matthew's use
                        of Luke and Mark? and (2) Why do two-source theorists often spend a little time
                        refuting Luke's use of Matthew and Mark but no time at all refuting Matthew's
                        use of Mark and Luke?

                        The answer to (2) is simple, especially for contemporary Q theorists, for
                        whom one has to ask why it is that they engage, however briefly, with the
                        theory of Luke's use of Matthew. And the answer is that they are engaging with
                        actual, reputable scholarly positions that are argued in the literature. They
                        do not argue with the theory of Matthew's use of Luke because the position is
                        not one that has been argued, except by Evan Powell who is pretty much unknown.
                        In other words, scholarship tends to engage theses that are actually held by
                        respected scholars who produce their material in books with major publishers,
                        in refereed journals and at major conferences.

                        As for the answer to (1), I suspect that the answer is simply that the thesis
                        of Matthew's use of Luke as well as Mark will just not run. If anyone has
                        toyed with the idea, they will soon come up against (in my view) insurmountable
                        problems like the fact that while Matthew and Mark are both sometimes the
                        middle term among the synoptics, Luke almost never is. This is a state of
                        affairs that is congenial to Luke's use of Mark and Matthew, but not to
                        Matthew's use of Mark and Luke.

                        > Most recent Q scholarship, by the way, portrays Q as
                        > redactionally developed to an extent analogous to the
                        > canonical gospels. There is no real concern with ipsissima
                        > verba Jesu. You might want to read some of the stuff, or at
                        > least familiarize yourself with it, before offering such
                        > broad -- and inaccurate -- characterizations.

                        I wonder if this might be a little unfair to Leonard. His point was that for
                        many "Q brings us closer" to the ipsissima verba Jesu and while this is indeed
                        not a concern in some Q scholarship, it is certainly very much on the agenda of
                        NT / Jesus scholarship more broadly. Let's take one American example and one
                        German example. American: Crossan clearly privileges Q material in his
                        itinerary for Jesus research. German: Theissen does the same -- "Q is
                        certainly the most important source for reconstructing the teaching of Jesus"
                        (_The Historical Jesus_, p. 29).

                        But if one wants something even more striking than this, here is one of my
                        favourites -- the blurb for Marcus Borg's _The Lost Gospel: The Original
                        Sayings of Jesus_:

                        "These are the original words of Jesus, preserved and written by his
                        contemporaries. For the past 150 years, scholars around the world have
                        been rediscovering fragments of this lost Gospel. It is presented here for
                        the first time in its entirety. Features the original Sermon on the Mount,
                        The Beatitudes, and the Lord's Prayer, along with parables, aphorisms, and
                        Jesus' guidance for living a good and compassionate life."

                        The blurb for the audio version is even more pronounced.

                        Mark
                        -------------------------------------------
                        Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                        Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

                        Recommended New Testament Web Resources:
                        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/links.htm
                        World Without Q:
                        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
                        Homepage:
                        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                      • Jeff Peterson
                        At 11:18 AM 10/26/98, Mark Goodacre wrote (much omitted): [T]he thesis ... It seems to me that a further difficulty in claiming Matthaean use of Luke may be
                        Message 11 of 21 , Oct 26, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 11:18 AM 10/26/98, Mark Goodacre wrote (much omitted):
                          [T]he thesis
                          >of Matthew's use of Luke as well as Mark will just not run. If anyone has
                          >toyed with the idea, they will soon come up against (in my view)
                          >insurmountable
                          >problems like the fact that while Matthew and Mark are both sometimes the
                          >middle term among the synoptics, Luke almost never is. This is a state of
                          >affairs that is congenial to Luke's use of Mark and Matthew, but not to
                          >Matthew's use of Mark and Luke.

                          It seems to me that a further difficulty in claiming Matthaean use of Luke
                          may be presented by the existence of Acts as Luke's sequel. On 2ST,
                          Griesbach, or Farrer (i.e., any Synoptic hypothesis with more than six
                          adherents, on Steve's reckoning) Luke's literary achievement was twofold:
                          (a) producing his own edition of his predecessors' works on Jesus; and (b)
                          extending the story of "events fulfilled among us" (Luke 1:1) to include
                          the continuing work of the Spirit poured out by the risen Christ on the
                          apostles.

                          On Griesbach or Farrer Luke's second volume can be seen as taking its cue
                          from the conclusion of Matthew, which anticipates a mission to the nations
                          on which Jesus pledges he will accompany the Eleven, "to the completion of
                          the [present] age [and the advent of the age to come]." Acts can be taken
                          as showing how this promise began to be fulfilled in the first generation
                          of the church and so unpacking Matthew's rather poetic conclusion. I
                          suppose one might make out an argument for Lucan priority to Matthew on
                          this score, with Matt 28:16-20 compressing the narrative of Acts for an
                          Evangelist who ran short of interest or papyrus, but the other direction
                          seems more plausible.

                          Best,

                          Jeff

                          Jeffrey Peterson
                          Institute for Christian Studies
                          Austin, Texas, USA
                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                          ... I realize that you are contemplating contemporary adherents, but Matthew s use of Luke was argued by Wilke in 1838. Although that aspect of his synoptic
                          Message 12 of 21 , Oct 26, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 06:18 PM 10/26/98 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                            >The answer to (2) is simple, especially for contemporary Q theorists, for
                            >whom one has to ask why it is that they engage, however briefly, with the
                            >theory of Luke's use of Matthew. And the answer is that they are engaging with
                            >actual, reputable scholarly positions that are argued in the literature. They
                            >do not argue with the theory of Matthew's use of Luke because the position is
                            >not one that has been argued, except by Evan Powell who is pretty much unknown.

                            I realize that you are contemplating contemporary adherents, but Matthew's
                            use of Luke was argued by Wilke in 1838. Although that aspect of his
                            synoptic theory was a non-starter, his work remains influential because
                            of his advocation for Markan priority at a time when the Griesbach Hypothesis
                            was dominant.

                            Stephen Carlson

                            --
                            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                            Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                          • Mark Goodacre
                            ... How about the classic Matt. 7.28 // Luke 7.1? Surely the most famous indicator of Matthew s structure is the fivefold And when he had finished these
                            Message 13 of 21 , Oct 27, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Leonard Maluf wrote:

                              > > LEONARD: Antonio, this point would be easy to make against me by simply
                              > > producing a single case where a clearly structural element in Matt has in
                              > > fact been literally reproduced by Luke. (Matthew's text is full of such
                              > > structural elements.) I would welcome the evidence, if it exists.

                              How about the classic Matt. 7.28 // Luke 7.1? Surely the most famous
                              indicator of Matthew's structure is the fivefold "And when he had finished
                              these sayings / parables etc. . . ." (Matt. 7.28, 11.1, 13.53, 19.1, 26.1).
                              This is unanimously taken to be Matthew's way of marking off his five big
                              teaching blocks (Matt. 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 24-25). The problem is that one of
                              them (7.28 // Luke 7.1) apparently crops up in Q (and is read there by, e.g.
                              the IQP). It's doubly problematic for the Q theory because either (1) it
                              provides clear evidence of Luke's use of Matthew or (2) it shows Q to have a
                              blatant narrative framework, as I have often attempted to establish in the
                              past.

                              On 25 Oct 98 at 17:54, Stevan Davies wrote:

                              > This sounds to me exactly like the Thomas dependence argument
                              > that Thomas carefully goes out of his way never to utilize the unique
                              > phraseology or redactional characteristics of Mt Mk Lk and thus the
                              > lack of such characteristics (saving the few instances when Th
                              > slipped) indicates a redactional tendency of Thomas and so does not
                              > support independence.

                              I agree that it does sound odd; but I think that Leonard's position on this one
                              is unnecessary.
                              >
                              > In both the cases of Mt------->Lk and Mt Mk Lk-------->Th the
                              > natural expectation is that an author using a source will use it
                              > without consciously setting out with a deliberate program to appear
                              > not to have used it. But we are to ignore this and substitute for it
                              > the curious thesis that both Lk and Th were superb redaction
                              > critics motiviated by who knows what to exercise their critical
                              > abilities to deceive anyone who might hold the abovementioned
                              > natural expectation.

                              This caricature will certainly not do for Luke's use of Matthew. Everyone
                              thinks that there is some literary connection between Matthew and Luke, whether
                              direct or mediated via Q. On the assumption that Luke used Matthew, there is
                              no case for saying that Luke must have eradicated Matthean elements, for they
                              are there in abundance, as Goulder has pressed (weeping, wailing and gnashing
                              of teeth, ye of little faith etc.). [Though I think that one needs to be
                              careful about the way in which this argument is used outside of this kind of
                              context, see e.g. _Goulder and the Gospels_, Chapter 2).
                              >
                              > When Thomas dependence people fathom the wierdness of this
                              > approach they move to another position, that of secondary orality
                              > where the Canon has re-entered oral tradition and by virtue of that
                              > fact has lost redactional characteristics and, indeed, apparently
                              > (but not in fact, of course) regained pre-canonical sayings forms.

                              As far as Thomas is concerned, this seems to present a "dependence people" vs.
                              independence people polarisation again where my position would be somewhere in
                              between, attempting to make sense of the evidence for Thomas's interaction with
                              the Synoptics but at the same time attempting to make sense of the evidence for
                              Thomas's interaction with oral traditions independent of the Synoptics. The
                              picture envisaged here, therefore, would not make much sense to me, though it
                              is presumably the kind of thing imagined by scholars like Blomberg (correct me
                              if I am wrong).
                              >
                              > Can you, just out of curiousity, do this with Mt------->Lk so that
                              > you don't have to hold the prima facie absurd thesis you do hold?
                              > [Not all prima facie absurd is false, I'll concede, e.g. Quantum
                              > theory.] In other words, could you maintain a thesis that Luke knew
                              > Matthew from oral recitation but Mark he had as a text in front of him?
                              > This would allow Lk double tradition material to approximate
                              > primitive forms just as it allows the Thomas material to do so
                              > against the synoptics due to the specious secondary orality factor.

                              I think that this would be difficult because the verbatim agreement in double
                              tradition material is so high. I think that Goulder was on the right lines
                              when he hypothesised that Luke had either Matthew or Mark in front of him at a
                              given time. When he is working mainly from Matthew, we have either double
                              tradition material or triple tradition material in which Matthew is the middle
                              term; when he is working mainly from Mark, we have triple tradition in which
                              Mark is the middle term.
                              >
                              > But maybe Leonard is the wrong one to ask. I think you hold the
                              > Griesbach position which will give us Mt Lk-----------> Mk where,
                              > sigh, Mk is laboring mightily along with Lk and Th to get rid
                              > of all the clear redactional material that would betray his use of
                              > his sources.
                              >
                              > Mark Goodacre? Is this a useful plan?

                              No; I'm afraid not, because the premise is unnecessary. The signs of Matthean
                              redactional activity cropping up in Luke are one of the things that hint that
                              Luke knows Matthew's Gospel.

                              Mark
                              -------------------------------------------
                              Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                              Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

                              Recommended New Testament Web Resources:
                              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/links.htm
                              World Without Q:
                              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
                              Homepage:
                              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                            • Stevan Davies
                              ... Can you explain this? Superficially it seems to beg the question (would a Lk------- Mt theorist not claim Luke to be sometimes the middle term?). Doesn t
                              Message 14 of 21 , Oct 27, 1998
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > From: "Mark Goodacre"

                                > As for the answer to (1), I suspect that the answer is simply that the thesis
                                > of Matthew's use of Luke as well as Mark will just not run. If anyone has
                                > toyed with the idea, they will soon come up against (in my view) insurmountable
                                > problems like the fact that while Matthew and Mark are both sometimes the
                                > middle term among the synoptics, Luke almost never is.

                                Can you explain this? Superficially it seems to beg the question
                                (would a Lk------->Mt theorist not claim Luke to be sometimes
                                the middle term?). Doesn't which is the middle term depend on which
                                one one presupposes influenced the other? Maybe not and I don't get it.
                                Perhaps some examples would help.

                                > I wonder if this might be a little unfair to Leonard. His point was that for
                                > many "Q brings us closer" to the ipsissima verba Jesu and while this is indeed
                                > not a concern in some Q scholarship, it is certainly very much on the agenda of
                                > NT / Jesus scholarship more broadly. Let's take one American example and one
                                > German example. American: Crossan clearly privileges Q material in his
                                > itinerary for Jesus research. German: Theissen does the same -- "Q is
                                > certainly the most important source for reconstructing the teaching of Jesus"
                                > (_The Historical Jesus_, p. 29).

                                This is probably impossible to discuss, for it's based on trying to
                                fathom scholars' secret motivations. Is it
                                A. Since we conclude there was a Q then we can use it to get
                                closer to the Ips Verba?
                                B. Since we want to get closer to the Ips Verba we conclude there
                                must have been a Q?

                                I'm sure they would say A even if Leonard will suspect B.

                                But in the Ips Verba collection effort, all Q does is give some
                                support to Lk variants over against Mt, which for some Q
                                sayings its opponents concede anyhow.
                                It's not like Q has known sayings that aren't already in the canon.
                                All Q does is demonstrate that Mt or Lk didn't make them up. Which
                                isn't a widely held position.
                                Mack and others don't take Q to be Ips Verba anyhow, but toss out
                                the eschatological sayings as secondary.

                                As for your other letter today, Mark, I see the "oral Mt" thesis
                                won't fly.

                                Steve
                              • Stephen C. Carlson
                                ... No. Being a middle term does not presuppose the direction of influence. Here is a quick explanation of a middle term: If A, B, and C are documents and if
                                Message 15 of 21 , Oct 27, 1998
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 03:32 PM 10/27/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
                                  >Can you explain this? Superficially it seems to beg the question
                                  >(would a Lk------->Mt theorist not claim Luke to be sometimes
                                  >the middle term?). Doesn't which is the middle term depend on which
                                  >one one presupposes influenced the other? Maybe not and I don't get it.
                                  >Perhaps some examples would help.

                                  No. Being a middle term does not presuppose the direction of
                                  influence. Here is a quick explanation of a middle term: If A,
                                  B, and C are documents and if A and B often agree against C and
                                  B and C often agree against A, but the agreements of A and C are
                                  relatively less common, then B is said to be the middle between
                                  A and C. This is a source critical neutral observation and
                                  does not depend on any source theory.

                                  Assuming only direct dependence, there are four basic ways in which
                                  B can be a middle term between A and C:

                                  1. Priority of B: A <- B -> C
                                  2. Priority of A: A -> B -> C
                                  3. Priority of C: A <- B <- C
                                  4. B as Conflation: A -> B <- C

                                  If one allows for use of shared sources (indirect dependence), then
                                  there are five more possibilities:

                                  5. A <- X -> B -> C
                                  6. A <- B <- Y -> C
                                  7. A -> B <- Y -> C
                                  8. A <- X -> B <- C
                                  9. A <- X -> B <- Y -> C

                                  Generally in the synoptic tradition, the agreements between Mark and
                                  Matthew or Luke against the other (anti-Matthean and anti-Lukan
                                  agreements) is quite common but agreements between Matthew and Luke
                                  against Mark (anti-Markan agreements) are much less common. This is
                                  the observation that Mark is the middle term. Both the 2SH and the
                                  FH employ the Markan Priority Hypothesis (option #1) as the solution.
                                  The Griesbach Hypothesis, e.g. the 2GH, chooses option #4, a
                                  Conflation Hypothesis.

                                  However, there is a notorious rump of passages in which Matthew, not
                                  Mark, is the middle term, e.g. Mt12:12-37, 18:6-9, and 22:34-40. For
                                  this, the 2SH and the FH part ways. The 2SH opts for and indirect
                                  conflation of Mark and Q=Luke (option 7, with A=Mk, B=Mt, C=Lk), while
                                  the FH appeals to option 2. See Sanders & Davies, STUDYING THE
                                  SYNOPTIC GOSPELS for more information.

                                  The "Middle Term Fallacy" is the invalid assertion of the priority of
                                  the middle term. As delineated above, other options are possible.
                                  The more conspicuous victims of this fallacy are in the Oxford school
                                  including Abbott, Woods, Burkitt, Hawkins, and Streeter (1875-1925).
                                  The "Middle Term Fallacy" is my own term; B. C. Butler called it the
                                  "Lachmann Fallacy" (1951) even though Lachmann (1835) never committed
                                  it.

                                  As you may have remembered, I used the observation that Luke (Lk) is
                                  a middle term between Thomas (Th) and Mark (Mk) as part of an argument
                                  for some dependence of Th on Lk (Lk -> Th:

                                  Premise 1: Lk is a middle term between Mk and Th.

                                  Thus, there are nine basic possibilities:
                                  a. Mk <- Lk -> Th
                                  b. Mk -> Lk -> Th
                                  c. Mk <- Lk <- Th
                                  d. Mk -> Lk <- Th
                                  e. Mk <- XX -> Lk -> Th
                                  f. Mk <- Lk <- YY -> Th
                                  g. Mk -> Lk <- YY -> Th
                                  h. Mk <- XX -> Lk <- Th
                                  i. Mk <- XX -> Lk <- YY -> Th

                                  Premise 2: Mark depends on Luke (Mk -> Lk).

                                  This eliminates possibilities a, c, e, f, h, and i, leaving:
                                  b. Mk -> Lk -> Th
                                  d. Mk -> Lk <- Th
                                  g. Mk -> Lk <- YY -> Th

                                  Here, when we encounter an agreement between Luke and Thomas against
                                  Mark (e.g. "fast AND PRAY"), we are faced with two basic possibilities:
                                  (b) Thomas got "AND PRAY" from Lukan REDACTION of Mark, or Luke CONFLATED
                                  Thomas (d) or a Thomasine tradition (g) with Mark.

                                  Premise 3. Luke avoids conflation.
                                  [Under the 2SH, Luke famously avoids conflating Mark and Q, creating
                                  doublets. Under the Fh, Luke avoids conflating Mark and Matthew,
                                  creating those doublets.]

                                  Therefore, option b, Mk -> Lk -> Th, is more probable than the others,
                                  because it does not have to posit conflation by Luke. Thus, Thomas is
                                  dependent on secondary synoptic tradition, e.g. Lk.

                                  To bolster the argument, it is noted that "AND PRAY" is typical Lukan
                                  redaction.

                                  Nota bene: My argument does not work under the Griesbach Hypothesis,
                                  but which supporter of the Griesbach Hypothesis is in favor of
                                  Thomasine non-dependence?

                                  >This is probably impossible to discuss, for it's based on trying to
                                  >fathom scholars' secret motivations. Is it
                                  >A. Since we conclude there was a Q then we can use it to get
                                  >closer to the Ips Verba?
                                  >B. Since we want to get closer to the Ips Verba we conclude there
                                  >must have been a Q?
                                  >
                                  >I'm sure they would say A even if Leonard will suspect B.

                                  During the 19th century, when the Synoptic Problem was most heavily
                                  debated, with the winner being the 2SH, motivation B was operative.

                                  Stephen Carlson
                                  --
                                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                  Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                • Mark Goodacre
                                  Many thanks to Stephen Carlson for the exemplary post on the middle terms , which features much food for thought. With reference to the issue that brought
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Oct 28, 1998
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Many thanks to Stephen Carlson for the exemplary post on the "middle terms",
                                    which features much food for thought. With reference to the issue that
                                    brought this about, the question of why so few argue for Matthew's dependence
                                    on Luke, I would want to point to passages like the Beelzebub Controversy
                                    (Matt. 12.22-32 and par.) in which there are major agreements between Matthew
                                    and Mark against Luke, major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark
                                    but only minor agreements between Mark and Luke against Matthew. In passages
                                    like this, the role usually taken by Mark in triple tradition is taken by
                                    Matthew. Most of the so-called Mark-Q overlap passages are like this: they are
                                    pericopae in triple tradition in which Matthew and not Mark is the middle term.
                                    On the Farrer Theory, these are the triple tradition passages in which Luke
                                    depends primarily on Matthew, with only minor agreements coming in from Mark.
                                    The fact that there are very few, if any, passages in which Luke is the middle
                                    term would seem to tell against the idea of Markan Priority + Matthew's use of
                                    Luke, hence my claim that anyone who attempted to run with this theory would
                                    come up against difficulties pretty quickly.

                                    On 27 Oct 98 at 15:32, Stevan Davies wrote:

                                    > But in the Ips Verba collection effort, all Q does is give some
                                    > support to Lk variants over against Mt, which for some Q
                                    > sayings its opponents concede anyhow.
                                    > It's not like Q has known sayings that aren't already in the canon.
                                    > All Q does is demonstrate that Mt or Lk didn't make them up. Which
                                    > isn't a widely held position.
                                    > Mack and others don't take Q to be Ips Verba anyhow, but toss out
                                    > the eschatological sayings as secondary.

                                    I think that there is more to it than this. Not only is it, as Stephen points
                                    out, that Q partly got off the ground because of the search for the Ipsissima
                                    Verba, but also it is that this remains an aspect of its enduring appeal.
                                    Q provides us with a window to material that we know to be early, helping us
                                    to distinguish between reliable and less reliable Jesus tradition. Consider
                                    the Jesus Seminar's Premises 43-44:

                                    "43. The major independent sources of information about Jesus are Q (all
                                    three stages), Thomas (first edition), Mark, and the signs gospel embedded
                                    in the Gospel of John. 44. The earliest sources are Q1 and Thomas1. The
                                    second and third editions of Q follow closely."

                                    I suspect too that Q continues to remain popular because it seems to have
                                    something to offer everyone. As (I think) Jeff Peterson pointed out recently,
                                    there are conservatives who are keen on Q because it can be used to give us an
                                    early anchor into authentic Jesus material, while there are less conservative
                                    scholars who are keen on Q because it offers us a witness to a non-Passion
                                    oriented "trajectory" in early Christianity.

                                    But Steve is quite right that it will not do simply to speculate about "secret"
                                    scholarly motivations, for how can we know how much these may or may not
                                    prejudice sound academic judgements? What we need is a demonstration of the
                                    untenability of the hypothesis on academic grounds.

                                    Mark
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                    Dept. of Theology Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7512
                                    University of Birmingham Fax: +44 (0)121 414 6866
                                    Birmingham B15 2TT
                                    United Kingdom

                                    Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                    World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
                                  • Stevan Davies
                                    ... JEFF ... I was speaking of Thomas proverb (from memory) A prophet is not held in honor in his home town, A physician does not heal those who know him.
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Nov 2, 1998
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > At 6:58 PM 11/2/98, Antonio Jerez wrote:
                                      > >. . . [A]s a general rule in ancient litterature an aphorism or
                                      > >a saying is more probably turned into a narrative than the other
                                      > >way around. Stevan Davies has put forward this argument in a
                                      > >debate with me about GThomas. Maybe he can tell us more
                                      > >about the basis for this kind of argument.
                                      JEFF
                                      > The reverse movement, distilling aphorisms from narrative, is evident in
                                      > the collection of CHREIAI from famous philosophers and rhetors; Menander of
                                      > Laodicea suggests that BIOI are great sources from which to pull CHREIAI.

                                      I was speaking of Thomas' proverb (from memory)
                                      A prophet is not held in honor in his home town,
                                      A physician does not heal those who know him.

                                      This strikes me as a commonplace proverb (understanding
                                      physician not as an M.D. but a religious healer). I see no
                                      reason to think that Jesus invented it (or any other of the
                                      proverbs attributed to him, although the possibility cannot
                                      be excluded).

                                      Mark, I said, changed this proverb into narrative in 6:1-6, which
                                      seems transparently obvious to me.

                                      Does the process "aphorisms from narrative" include the
                                      creation of aphorisms or rather their distillation from narrative?

                                      Steve
                                    • Stevan Davies
                                      ... arguably doesn t do this notion justice. Desperately would be better. It has no relationship to the couplet whatsoever but is a separate proverb.
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Nov 3, 1998
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Jeff:
                                        > The saying is Thos 31 (// POxy 1.30ff). I think the Marcan creation of the
                                        > scene to exemplify the proverb is a possible explanation of 6:1-6, but I
                                        > don't see a reason to prefer this to Thomas' derivation of it from a
                                        > Synoptist, probably Luke:
                                        >
                                        > (1) Mark's threefold conclusion "fatherland/kinfolk/house" has its third
                                        > member amputated by Matthew and retains only the first in Luke; i.e., both
                                        > Synoptists trim the saying back to fit its immediate context (PATRIS is in
                                        > the pericope, and the Mattheaen OIKIA [both family and structure] has
                                        > figured in the narrative at 12:46-13:2, at the introduction to the discoure
                                        > that 13:53ff caps).
                                        >
                                        > (2) Thomas, w/o narrative context, agrees most nearly with the shorn Lucan
                                        > form of the saying; just as possible that Thomas drew this from Luke as
                                        > that Mark took Thomas' simpler form and elaborated it, with Matthew and
                                        > Luke paring it back towards it original form and Luke succeeding.
                                        >
                                        > (3) Marcan omission of the very pertinent "healer" member of the Thomas
                                        > saying seems odd; if anything one might expect Mark to invert the Thomasine
                                        > clauses and so lead the reader from "healer" (the work of Jesus in view
                                        > from Mark chap. 5) to "prophet." The presence of the line in Thomas,
                                        > arguably reflecting Luke's IATRE QERAPEUSON SEAUTON (4:23), yields a
                                        > pleasing couplet.

                                        "arguably" doesn't do this notion justice. "Desperately" would be
                                        better. It has no relationship to the couplet whatsoever but is a
                                        separate proverb.

                                        Thomas 31
                                        "no prophet is accepted in his hometown;
                                        no physician heals those who know him."

                                        The "couplet" is what is known as "parallel structure" to those who
                                        prefer more syllables, and is a recognized common trope of Hebraic
                                        style found throughout the OT.

                                        The second element is what Mark has revised into narrative. You
                                        will recall that after having Jesus say no prophet is accepted in
                                        his fatherland/kinfolk/house (itself entirely explicable an expansion
                                        based on Markan denigration of Jesus' family) he goes on to show Jesus'
                                        inability to heal more than a few Nazarenes (unwilling to admit he
                                        could heal none of them?) because of their lack of faith. Here
                                        the "physician does not heal those who know him" has become
                                        a story about Jesus' inability to heal those who know him. I do not
                                        think this narrative is by sheer coincidence a narrative that will
                                        follow from taking Thomas 31 to be a report of Jesus' activities.

                                        The notion that Thomas has taken the first from Luke and simply
                                        invented the second from an unrelated parable also in Luke is
                                        not convincing. To say the least.

                                        Frankly, if I may be exasperated for a minute, I think your effort to
                                        use any means to find some sort of rationale, however slight, to
                                        prove Thomas' use of the canon is state-of-the art in conservative
                                        discussion of the issue. I cannot conceive that anyone on earth
                                        would find your arguments convincing except those who have an
                                        ideological commitment that requires them to do so. The
                                        ubiquity of such folks causes me to despair.

                                        Steve
                                      • Jeff Peterson
                                        ... The saying is Thos 31 (// POxy 1.30ff). I think the Marcan creation of the scene to exemplify the proverb is a possible explanation of 6:1-6, but I don t
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Nov 3, 1998
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 8:28 PM 11/2/98, Stevan Davies wrote:
                                          >> At 6:58 PM 11/2/98, Antonio Jerez wrote:
                                          >> >. . . [A]s a general rule in ancient litterature an aphorism or
                                          >> >a saying is more probably turned into a narrative than the other
                                          >> >way around. Stevan Davies has put forward this argument in a
                                          >> >debate with me about GThomas. Maybe he can tell us more
                                          >> >about the basis for this kind of argument.
                                          >JEFF
                                          >> The reverse movement, distilling aphorisms from narrative, is evident in
                                          >> the collection of CHREIAI from famous philosophers and rhetors; Menander of
                                          >> Laodicea suggests that BIOI are great sources from which to pull CHREIAI.
                                          >
                                          >I was speaking of Thomas' proverb (from memory)
                                          >A prophet is not held in honor in his home town,
                                          >A physician does not heal those who know him.
                                          >
                                          >This strikes me as a commonplace proverb (understanding
                                          >physician not as an M.D. but a religious healer). I see no
                                          >reason to think that Jesus invented it (or any other of the
                                          >proverbs attributed to him, although the possibility cannot
                                          >be excluded).
                                          >
                                          >Mark, I said, changed this proverb into narrative in 6:1-6, which
                                          >seems transparently obvious to me.

                                          The saying is Thos 31 (// POxy 1.30ff). I think the Marcan creation of the
                                          scene to exemplify the proverb is a possible explanation of 6:1-6, but I
                                          don't see a reason to prefer this to Thomas' derivation of it from a
                                          Synoptist, probably Luke:

                                          (1) Mark's threefold conclusion "fatherland/kinfolk/house" has its third
                                          member amputated by Matthew and retains only the first in Luke; i.e., both
                                          Synoptists trim the saying back to fit its immediate context (PATRIS is in
                                          the pericope, and the Mattheaen OIKIA [both family and structure] has
                                          figured in the narrative at 12:46-13:2, at the introduction to the discoure
                                          that 13:53ff caps).

                                          (2) Thomas, w/o narrative context, agrees most nearly with the shorn Lucan
                                          form of the saying; just as possible that Thomas drew this from Luke as
                                          that Mark took Thomas' simpler form and elaborated it, with Matthew and
                                          Luke paring it back towards it original form and Luke succeeding.

                                          (3) Marcan omission of the very pertinent "healer" member of the Thomas
                                          saying seems odd; if anything one might expect Mark to invert the Thomasine
                                          clauses and so lead the reader from "healer" (the work of Jesus in view
                                          from Mark chap. 5) to "prophet." The presence of the line in Thomas,
                                          arguably reflecting Luke's IATRE QERAPEUSON SEAUTON (4:23), yields a
                                          pleasing couplet.

                                          >
                                          >Does the process "aphorisms from narrative" include the
                                          >creation of aphorisms or rather their distillation from narrative?

                                          The latter is in view in Menander, who recommends Plutarch's _Lives_ as
                                          good sources for CHREIAI. But the adaptation of the Lucan saying in Thomas
                                          argued for above isn't at all out of line with the transformation of
                                          sayings in the rhetorical tradition.

                                          Jeff

                                          Jeffrey Peterson
                                          Institute for Christian Studies
                                          Austin, Texas, USA
                                        • Jeff Peterson
                                          At 6:32 PM 11/3/98, Stevan Davies wrote in reply to my suggestion that the evidence for dependence in Thos 31//Mark 6:4//Matt 13:57//Luke 4:24 is ... I had no
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Nov 4, 1998
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            At 6:32 PM 11/3/98, Stevan Davies wrote in reply to my suggestion that the
                                            evidence for dependence in Thos 31//Mark 6:4//Matt 13:57//Luke 4:24 is
                                            inconclusive:

                                            >Frankly, if I may be exasperated for a minute, I think your effort to
                                            >use any means to find some sort of rationale, however slight, to
                                            >prove Thomas' use of the canon is state-of-the art in conservative
                                            >discussion of the issue. I cannot conceive that anyone on earth
                                            >would find your arguments convincing except those who have an
                                            >ideological commitment that requires them to do so. The
                                            >ubiquity of such folks causes me to despair.

                                            I had no intention of exasperating anyone and find it regrettable that the
                                            exploration of a possibility should have this effect. My stated aim was not
                                            to "prove Thomas' use of the canon" but to suggest that the evidence for
                                            dependence in this case is equivocal and a conclusion either way is
                                            possible. I began the post by saying that "the Marcan creation of the scene
                                            to exemplify the [Thomasine] proverb is a possible explanation of 6:1-6"
                                            and later commented that it's "just as possible that Thomas drew this from
                                            Luke as that Mark took Thomas' simpler form and elaborated it" -- i.e., I
                                            left two hypotheses on even footing.

                                            So the question whether Steve is experiencing justified frustration reduces
                                            to the question whether the Thomas-abstracting-Luke alternative is a
                                            reasonable explanation of the evidence or represents (what were the
                                            phrases? oh, yes) a desperate attempt to find some sort of rationale for
                                            concluding to Thomasine dependence.

                                            >Jeff:
                                            >> The saying is Thos 31 (// POxy 1.30ff). I think the Marcan creation of the
                                            >> scene to exemplify the proverb is a possible explanation of 6:1-6, but I
                                            >> don't see a reason to prefer this to Thomas' derivation of it from a
                                            >> Synoptist, probably Luke:
                                            >>
                                            >> (1) Mark's threefold conclusion "fatherland/kinfolk/house" has its third
                                            >> member amputated by Matthew and retains only the first in Luke; i.e., both
                                            >> Synoptists trim the saying back to fit its immediate context (PATRIS is in
                                            >> the pericope, and the Mattheaen OIKIA [both family and structure] has
                                            >> figured in the narrative at 12:46-13:2, at the introduction to the discoure
                                            >> that 13:53ff caps).
                                            >>
                                            >> (2) Thomas, w/o narrative context, agrees most nearly with the shorn Lucan
                                            >> form of the saying; just as possible that Thomas drew this from Luke as
                                            >> that Mark took Thomas' simpler form and elaborated it, with Matthew and
                                            >> Luke paring it back towards it original form and Luke succeeding.
                                            >>
                                            >> (3) Marcan omission of the very pertinent "healer" member of the Thomas
                                            >> saying seems odd; if anything one might expect Mark to invert the Thomasine
                                            >> clauses and so lead the reader from "healer" (the work of Jesus in view
                                            >> from Mark chap. 5) to "prophet." The presence of the line in Thomas,
                                            >> arguably reflecting Luke's IATRE QERAPEUSON SEAUTON (4:23), yields a
                                            >> pleasing couplet.
                                            >
                                            >"arguably" doesn't do this notion justice. "Desperately" would be
                                            >better. It has no relationship to the couplet whatsoever but is a
                                            >separate proverb.

                                            There's no color coding or other indication in my edition of Luke to mark
                                            4:23 as unrelated to 4:24, nor was there anything in Thomas's putative copy
                                            preventing him from finding inspiration in the one verse for the redaction
                                            of the other; I'm not sure this is quite what Mark Goodacre has in mind
                                            when he refers to "interaction," but it strikes me that this term may be
                                            helpful in describing what I'm suggesting Thomas may have done. Steve's
                                            picture of Thomas on the basis of which my suggestion is declared
                                            unreassonable appears to be that of a stenographer getting down whatever
                                            he's heard verbatim, or as near to that possible; if I'm not
                                            misunderstanding this, that makes Thomas the only ideologically unmotivated
                                            tradent in early Christianity, as Steve is Thomas's only modern interpreter
                                            free of ideological motivation. I had no idea there would be such benefits
                                            when I subscribed to CrossTalk!

                                            >
                                            >Thomas 31
                                            >"no prophet is accepted in his hometown;
                                            >no physician heals those who know him."
                                            >
                                            >The "couplet" is what is known as "parallel structure" to those who
                                            >prefer more syllables, and is a recognized common trope of Hebraic
                                            >style found throughout the OT.

                                            Yes, and this has no bearing on the question of its originality. An author
                                            steeped in the Jewish Scriptures could turn such phrases himself with ease,
                                            as 1 John and Revelation do among the later books of the NT. In spite of
                                            its venerable history, I don't much like the jargon term "parallelism," by
                                            the way, and generally prefer brevity to prolixity, although I confess that
                                            I don't usually count syllables in posts.

                                            >
                                            >The second element is what Mark has revised into narrative. You
                                            >will recall that after having Jesus say no prophet is accepted in
                                            >his fatherland/kinfolk/house (itself entirely explicable an expansion
                                            >based on Markan denigration of Jesus' family) he goes on to show Jesus'
                                            >inability to heal more than a few Nazarenes (unwilling to admit he
                                            >could heal none of them?) because of their lack of faith. Here
                                            >the "physician does not heal those who know him" has become
                                            >a story about Jesus' inability to heal those who know him. I do not
                                            >think this narrative is by sheer coincidence a narrative that will
                                            >follow from taking Thomas 31 to be a report of Jesus' activities.

                                            As I've said, I think Steve's explanation is possible. The alternative I'm
                                            suggesting would have Thomas composing the second line of the couplet under
                                            the influence of the Lucan/Synoptic narrative, and in spite of Steve's
                                            protestations I can't see anything to rule these possibilities out.

                                            >
                                            >The notion that Thomas has taken the first from Luke and simply
                                            >invented the second from an unrelated parable also in Luke is
                                            >not convincing. To say the least.

                                            It wouldn't be at all out of line with what one sees in the chreia
                                            tradition; I'll leave it to others to assess its convincingness in regard
                                            to Thomas and the Synoptics.

                                            Jeff


                                            Jeffrey Peterson
                                            Institute for Christian Studies
                                            Austin, Texas, USA
                                          • Mark Goodacre
                                            ... I think I agree with Jeff on this one. It is quite possible that Steve is right but I can t see any strong reason to prefer that explanation to Jeff s. In
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Nov 5, 1998
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 4 Nov 98 at 12:16, Jeff Peterson wrote:

                                              > As I've said, I think Steve's explanation is possible. The alternative I'm
                                              > suggesting would have Thomas composing the second line of the couplet under
                                              > the influence of the Lucan/Synoptic narrative, and in spite of Steve's
                                              > protestations I can't see anything to rule these possibilities out.

                                              I think I agree with Jeff on this one. It is quite possible that Steve is
                                              right but I can't see any strong reason to prefer that explanation to Jeff's.
                                              In arguments for directionality here it seems to be a draw. The only hint that
                                              to me seems to give a clue either way is the presence of DEKTOS in Luke //
                                              Thomas. If one thinks that this is Luke's redactional addition of a word fresh
                                              in his mind from the Isaiah quotation earlier in the pericope (as Tuckett
                                              argues), then the presence of the formulation in Thomas featuring the same word
                                              will be a minor indication of Thomasine dependence on Lukan redaction of Mark.
                                              But as I say, I think that this is a hint rather than overwhelming
                                              evidence. It is possible, of course, that Luke is redacting Mark in the light
                                              of his knowledge of a Thomasine-type version of the saying, in which case the
                                              presence of DEKTOS also in the Isaiah quotation will simply be coincidence.

                                              Mark
                                              -------------------------------------------
                                              Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                                              Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

                                              Recommended New Testament Web Resources:
                                              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/links.htm
                                              World Without Q:
                                              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
                                              Homepage:
                                              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.