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

RE: [XTalk] Luke 11: the LP

Expand Messages
  • William Arnal
    ... What do you mean, what did he [the disciple] mean? Have we now sunk to tossing over 100 years of scholarship out the window, so that we can revert to naive
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Bob et al.:

      >In Luke 11:1 we read,
      > >He was praying in a certain place, and after he had finished, one of his
      > >disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his
      >disciples."
      >
      >Matthew's version presents the LP as part of the sermon on the mount,
      >unprompted by any questions, or references to John. [Has anyone compared
      >the the SOTM to John's farewell discourses? But I digress...]
      >
      >What exactly did the disciple [or, perhaps, Luke] mean by his question?

      What do you mean, what did he [the disciple] mean? Have we now sunk to
      tossing over 100 years of scholarship out the window, so that we can revert
      to naive speculations about the personal motivations of "individuals" whose
      existence we only know of through texts? Shall we set aside source
      criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and every other interesting
      thing generations of scholars have conjured up, and return instead to
      "interpreting" biblical aporiae by adducing speculative details of fact
      which the author (or rather, *recorder*) neglected to convey, thereby
      rendering his otherwise-accurate tale narratively bumby? The question is
      framed in exactly the wrong way. And in fact the answer is already contained
      in your observations about the text's parallel in Matthew. What follows is
      just elementary source criticism . . .

      No matter which of the three major source-critical hypotheses one subscribes
      to, Luke's Lord's Prayer is derivative of some other text. By the 2-source
      hypothesis, that text is Q. By either the Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis (I
      LIKE that -- I'm gonna start calling it that), OR the Griesbach-Farmer
      hypothesis, radically different though they may be, Luke is dependent on
      Matthew for this text. In any of the three cases, moreover, Luke's source
      has the prayer embedded in speech material -- since Matthew has it in the
      larger Sermonic discourse, and since Q is more or less a sayings source in
      toto. If, therefore, Luke wants to give the prayer a narrative context, he
      is forced to INVENT that context. And so the question becomes, NOT What did
      Jesus' interlocutor intend? but What did the author of Luke intend by the
      question? There's no "perhaps" about it.

      As for the problem you identify . . .

      >The usual assumption seems to be that the request was for *words*,
      >especially because that is how Luke's Jesus appears to respond. But its not
      >like Jews (or even Galileans, for that matter) didn't know any words for
      >prayers.

      This is not so much a problem if one reframes the question I as have, since
      we are not dealing anymore with Galilean Jews, or any Jews at all, but an
      urban Gentile of the late first century or even later. As my Doktorvater is
      once reputed to have said, "Luke wouldn't know a Samaritan if one bit him on
      the ***." I suspect his knowledge of Galileans and Judeans was comparable.

      But I actually don't think that is the solution to your problem. What I
      think is going on here -- and this could be applied to your original
      question as much as my reframing of it as a literary issue -- is that the
      disciple is asking for a SECTARIAN prayer. This is implied by the reference
      to John. The point intended by Luke is not: "how should one pray?" but: "how
      should WE, i.e., Jesus-people, pray, as distinct from other people?" Jesus'
      response is to offer a short prayer with few sectarian markers, and so to
      demonstrate his distinction -- and the distinction of his movement -- from
      other sectarian groups. That, at least, seems to me what Luke has in mind,
      and doesn't require us to speculate about the motives of anonymous (and
      probably non-existent) people, although, as I say, this explanation COULD
      apply to a real person as much as to a literary character -- it's just that
      this text gives us no reason to posit such a real person.

      regards,
      Bill
      ______________________
      William Arnal
      University of Regina

      _________________________________________________________________
      Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound
      e-mail and attachments.
      http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
      Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN� Premium right now and get the
      first two months FREE*.
    • Bob Schacht
      ... Well, gee, Bill, it is great that you ve been roused out of lurk mode, and I m happy to be the one to do it, but aren t you over-reacting just a wee bit
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 05:11 PM 7/25/2004, William Arnal wrote:

        >Hello Bob et al.:
        >
        > >In Luke 11:1 we read,
        > > >He was praying in a certain place, and after he had finished, one of his
        > > >disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his
        > disciples."
        > >
        > >Matthew's version presents the LP as part of the sermon on the mount,
        > >unprompted by any questions, or references to John. ...
        > >
        > >What exactly did the disciple [or, perhaps, Luke] mean by his question?
        >
        >What do you mean, what did he [the disciple] mean? Have we now sunk to
        >tossing over 100 years of scholarship out the window, so that we can revert
        >to naive speculations about the personal motivations of "individuals" whose
        >existence we only know of through texts? Shall we set aside source
        >criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and every other interesting
        >thing generations of scholars have conjured up, and return instead to
        >"interpreting" biblical aporiae by adducing speculative details of fact
        >which the author (or rather, *recorder*) neglected to convey, thereby
        >rendering his otherwise-accurate tale narratively bumby? The question is
        >framed in exactly the wrong way.

        Well, gee, Bill, it is great that you've been roused out of lurk mode, and
        I'm happy to be the one to do it, but aren't you over-reacting just a wee
        bit here? Obviously, I was hedging about the source, but you're reacting as
        if I'm a Biblical literalist, ignoring the hedge. And we've known each
        other (on XTalk and its precursor) for long enough that, unless you're
        afflicted by some form of premature dementia, that's not my stance. So why
        the blunderbuss?

        >And in fact the answer is already contained
        >in your observations about the text's parallel in Matthew. What follows is
        >just elementary source criticism . . .
        >
        >No matter which of the three major source-critical hypotheses one subscribes
        >to, Luke's Lord's Prayer is derivative of some other text.

        But this critical model, as you've presented it, is that *only* texts can
        be a source. To which I say, sir, um, that I beg to differ.

        >By the 2-source hypothesis, that text is Q. By either the Goulder-Goodacre
        >hypothesis (I
        >LIKE that -- I'm gonna start calling it that), OR the Griesbach-Farmer
        >hypothesis, radically different though they may be, Luke is dependent on
        >Matthew for this text.

        This ignores the *possibility* that, by G-G or G-F, or Q, Luke blended one
        of his own sources with a known literary source (Matthew or Q)

        Furthermore, it has been obvious for a long time that Matthew's SOTM is a
        compilation of sayings scattered in time and space, stripped of their
        original narrative frame, so how can you be so sure that it is Luke who
        adds, rather than Matthew who subtracts?

        >In any of the three cases, moreover, Luke's source
        >has the prayer embedded in speech material -- since Matthew has it in the
        >larger Sermonic discourse, and since Q is more or less a sayings source in
        >toto. If, therefore, Luke wants to give the prayer a narrative context, he
        >is forced to INVENT that context.

        Oh, foo. Again, you are portraying a context in which Luke has no sources
        other than Mark and Q (or Matthew, if you prefer), despite his claim at the
        opening of his Gospel. You may be right, but you cannot prove it. I suppose
        that, by your reasoning, Special Luke is 100% authorial creation. I don't
        buy it. In fact, I reject both extremes: that Special Luke is either 0% or
        100% authorial creation.

        >And so the question becomes, NOT What did
        >Jesus' interlocutor intend? but What did the author of Luke intend by the
        >question?

        It may have escaped your notice that was included in my question.

        >There's no "perhaps" about it.

        I beg to differ, as outlined above.


        >As for the problem you identify . . .
        >
        > >The usual assumption seems to be that the request was for *words*,
        > >especially because that is how Luke's Jesus appears to respond. But its not
        > >like Jews (or even Galileans, for that matter) didn't know any words for
        > >prayers.
        >
        >This is not so much a problem if one reframes the question I as have, since
        >we are not dealing anymore with Galilean Jews, or any Jews at all, but an
        >urban Gentile of the late first century or even later. As my Doktorvater is
        >once reputed to have said, "Luke wouldn't know a Samaritan if one bit him on
        >the ***." I suspect his knowledge of Galileans and Judeans was comparable.
        >
        >But I actually don't think that is the solution to your problem. What I
        >think is going on here -- and this could be applied to your original
        >question as much as my reframing of it as a literary issue -- is that the
        >disciple is asking for a SECTARIAN prayer. This is implied by the reference
        >to John. The point intended by Luke is not: "how should one pray?" but: "how
        >should WE, i.e., Jesus-people, pray, as distinct from other people?" Jesus'
        >response is to offer a short prayer with few sectarian markers, and so to
        >demonstrate his distinction -- and the distinction of his movement -- from
        >other sectarian groups. That, at least, seems to me what Luke has in mind,
        >and doesn't require us to speculate about the motives of anonymous (and
        >probably non-existent) people, although, as I say, this explanation COULD
        >apply to a real person as much as to a literary character -- it's just that
        >this text gives us no reason to posit such a real person.

        This is a reasonable framing, especially if one dates Luke late, since by
        then the issue of a corporate identity (18th Benediction or not) different
        from Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah would have been
        more pressing. The issue then would not be, as I asked, one of attitude or
        method, but one of corporate identity.

        Despite the [unnecessary, in my view] scolding, it is good to hear from you
        again <g>.
        Bob


        Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
        Northern Arizona University
        Flagstaff, AZ

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • William Arnal
        ... Precisely BECAUSE I figured you weren t a biblical literalist, nor were arguing for such a position, but then in fact included the OBVIOUS first (literary)
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Howdy again Bob:

          >Well, gee, Bill, it is great that you've been roused out of lurk mode, and
          >I'm happy to be the one to do it, but aren't you over-reacting just a wee
          >bit here? Obviously, I was hedging about the source, but you're reacting as
          >if I'm a Biblical literalist, ignoring the hedge. And we've known each
          >other (on XTalk and its precursor) for long enough that, unless you're
          >afflicted by some form of premature dementia, that's not my stance. So why
          >the blunderbuss?

          Precisely BECAUSE I figured you weren't a biblical literalist, nor were
          arguing for such a position, but then in fact included the OBVIOUS first
          (literary) question only as a parenthetic aside. Moreover, the framing of
          your question/problem -- wouldn't a first-century Jew, even a Galilean know
          better -- took for granted the literalist (i.e., historical) reading of the
          text and backgrounded the textual reading of the text. But look, if I
          misread you, apologies all around -- obviously you're in a better position
          to know what you meant than I am.

          >But this critical model, as you've presented it, is that *only* texts can
          >be a source. To which I say, sir, um, that I beg to differ.

          Not at all my point. It is obvious that Luke has either oral or at least
          no-longer-extant (in addition to Q) written sources, because of all that "L"
          stuff in the middle of the Gospel, which I do NOT think Luke simply made up
          (and for good reasons -- he often seems unable to effectively interpret or
          use this material, which suggests he derived it from a source and did the
          best he could with it). Rather, it's that when we HAVE an obvious source
          from which Luke has derived text x, then in the absence of a sustained
          argument, or evidence, to the contrary, we must assume that Luke has
          introduced the changes to this source where he differs from it. It is not
          that the alternative CANNOT be the case, but that Lukan alteration is the
          simplest and most elegant explanation -- again, barring any evidence or
          argument to the contrary. I see no such evidence for the Lord's prayer, nor
          have heard any argument from you about why Luke must have had a source other
          than Q (or Matthew). So it seems that with this text -- and only with this
          text -- we'll have to assume Luke introduced the changes. Unless one can
          show otherwise. It would be a total misrepresentation of my argument here,
          however, to claim that I am suggesting that Luke had no other sources,
          period. By my reading (i.e., as a Q proponent), he must have had at least
          three. At least. But not three different sources for this single pericope!

          >Furthermore, it has been obvious for a long time that Matthew's SOTM is a
          >compilation of sayings scattered in time and space, stripped of their
          >original narrative frame, so how can you be so sure that it is Luke who
          >adds, rather than Matthew who subtracts?

          Because if Luke is literarily dependent on Matthew, then he is dependent on
          the SOTM in its Matthean form, whether that form is secondary or not.

          >Oh, foo. Again, you are portraying a context in which Luke has no sources
          >other than Mark and Q (or Matthew, if you prefer), despite his claim at the
          >opening of his Gospel. You may be right, but you cannot prove it. I suppose
          >that, by your reasoning, Special Luke is 100% authorial creation. I don't
          >buy it. In fact, I reject both extremes: that Special Luke is either 0% or
          >100% authorial creation.

          As I state above, this is a significant misrepresentation of my argument.
          "Special Luke" is by definition constituted by unparalleled pericopes -- it
          is not Lukan redactional emendation of material whose sources have been
          identified (i.e., Mark and Q; or Mark and Matthew, depending on your source
          hypothesis). It is of course possible that material unique to Luke -- oral
          or written -- has overlapped with material derived from other sources and
          has influenced Luke's redaction of those sources -- there are, in my view,
          several instances of Mark-Q overlap, for example. BUT: 1) those overlaps
          must be demonstrated, not posited in the absence of evidence; and 2) EVEN if
          such sources existed, why assume that THEY are any more historically
          "authentic" than Luke is? In other words, even if Luke didn't himself invent
          this interlocutor (which he surely did!), there's no reason to assume this
          narrative is authentic. But Luke did invent this narrative frame.

          >This is a reasonable framing, especially if one dates Luke late, since by
          >then the issue of a corporate identity (18th Benediction or not) different
          >from Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah would have been
          >more pressing. The issue then would not be, as I asked, one of attitude or
          >method, but one of corporate identity.

          Precisely! And in fact, I would think this explanation would serve even in
          the extremely unlikely event that the episode actually happened. But you're
          right -- it works better in Luke's historical context than elsewhere. This
          is yet another indication, I would think, that the whole framing is a Lukan
          creation.

          >Despite the [unnecessary, in my view] scolding, it is good to hear from you
          >again <g>.

          Likewise. Great news about Hawaii, I would think. Did I hear/read that
          right?

          cheers,
          Bill
          ______________________
          William Arnal
          University of Regina

          _________________________________________________________________
          Share a single photo or an entire photo slide show right inside MSN�
          Messenger.
          http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
          Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN� Premium right now and get the
          first two months FREE*.
        • Joseph Weaks
          ... True, and hedging on source is an acceptable suspension of some questions for the sake of exploring others, but it is a good reminder that searching for a
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On Jul 25, 2004, at 8:52 PM, Bob Schacht wrote:
            > At 05:11 PM 7/25/2004, William Arnal wrote:
            >> ...Shall we set aside source
            >> criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and every other
            >> interesting
            >> thing generations of scholars have conjured up, and return instead to
            >> "interpreting" biblical aporiae by adducing speculative details of
            >> fact
            >> which the author (or rather, *recorder*) neglected to convey, thereby
            >> rendering his otherwise-accurate tale narratively bumby? The question
            >> is
            >> framed in exactly the wrong way.
            >
            > Well, gee, Bill, it is great that you've been roused out of lurk mode,
            > and
            > I'm happy to be the one to do it, but aren't you over-reacting just a
            > wee
            > bit here? Obviously, I was hedging about the source...

            True, and hedging on source is an acceptable suspension of some
            questions for the sake of exploring others, but it is a good reminder
            that searching for a hermeneutic based upon an
            story-at-historical-face-value offers little more than a creative
            exercise.

            >> And in fact the answer is already contained
            >> in your observations about the text's parallel in Matthew. What
            >> follows is
            >> just elementary source criticism . . .
            >>
            >> No matter which of the three major source-critical hypotheses one
            >> subscribes
            >> to, Luke's Lord's Prayer is derivative of some other text.
            >> By the 2-source hypothesis, that text is Q. By either the
            >> Goulder-Goodacre
            >> hypothesis (I
            >> LIKE that -- I'm gonna start calling it that),

            Me, too. I've already adopted the habit of calling it Goulder-Goodacre
            hypothesis in my last course as well.

            >> But I actually don't think that is the solution to your problem. What
            >> I
            >> think is going on here -- and this could be applied to your original
            >> question as much as my reframing of it as a literary issue -- is that
            >> the
            >> disciple is asking for a SECTARIAN prayer.

            You may accuse me of being a form critical reductionist here, but I
            would argue that the introduction to the Lord's Prayer in Luke has
            significance exactly equal to zero. There was this tradition of a
            Lord's Prayer, that Luke knew from Matthew or Q and his own church
            perhaps as well, and wanted it included in his telling of the gospel,
            so he simply used this brief context to introduce the prayer. It's
            like... "A guy walks into a bar..." Well, who cares WHY the guy walked
            into the bar, or what bar he walked into. It's just filler, a segue
            (and not a very smooth one, as was noted).

            I really like focusing on the Lord's prayer, cause it makes an
            interesting study regarding its traditional use in contemporary
            churches.
            In my sermon this morning, I spoke about the way these versions of the
            Lord's Prayer offer exemplify that tradition affects how it is we speak
            to God, even in the midst of Luke's context, where prayer is offered as
            the means of getting out of our ruts (beds) and continually being
            renewed by our ongoing conversation with God.

            Cheers,
            Joe

            **************************************************************
            Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
            Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
            Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
            j.weaks@...
            **************************************************************
          • William Arnal
            Hi again, all. ... That s NOT an accusation I would be likely to make! ... In terms of Lukan style, this is eminently plausible. Consider Luke s introduction
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi again, all.

              Joseph Weaks wrote:

              >You may accuse me of being a form critical reductionist here, but I

              That's NOT an accusation I would be likely to make!

              >would argue that the introduction to the Lord's Prayer in Luke has
              >significance exactly equal to zero. There was this tradition of a
              >Lord's Prayer, that Luke knew from Matthew or Q and his own church
              >perhaps as well, and wanted it included in his telling of the gospel,
              >so he simply used this brief context to introduce the prayer. It's
              >like... "A guy walks into a bar..." Well, who cares WHY the guy walked
              >into the bar, or what bar he walked into. It's just filler, a segue
              >(and not a very smooth one, as was noted).

              In terms of Lukan style, this is eminently plausible. Consider Luke's
              introduction to yet another (I would argue) Q passage, the business about
              faith as a grain of mustard seed (Luke 17:5-6; Matt 17:20; and various
              doublets). Matthew integrates this into a Markan story. Luke slaps it into
              an extended discourse with the rather sad segue, "The apostles said to the
              Lord, 'Increase our faith!' And the Lord said . . ." (Luke 17:5-6).
              Similarly, Luke/Q 17:35-37: "There will be two woman grinding together; one
              will be taken and the other left. [. . .] *And they said to him, 'Where,
              Lord?'* He said to them, 'Where the body is, there the vultures will be
              gathered together." The "where, Lord?" doesn't even really make sense -- it
              certainly is a not reasonable response to what Jesus is saying, and is
              obviously only tossed in here to provide narrative segue to yet another Q
              saying.

              I would argue, though, that even if the point of all of these (and other)
              Lukan narrative transitions is really just to serve as narrative
              transitions, it is in some cases clear that Luke had something in mind --
              that he framed things one way, as opposed to another way, for some sort of
              reason. Thus, for instance, the "increase our faith" -- certainly a
              throw-away line -- is still a clear manifestation of Luke's desire to
              present the disciples (NB, here, "apostles"!) in a positive light. And so
              the saying about faith becomes an instruction, rather than an indictment. In
              short, I do think you're right that the main point of Luke 11:1 is precisely
              to introduce the specific sayings material on prayer, and not much else. But
              there is still, in the specific framing Luke gives it, some trace of Luke's
              own concerns, e.g., classically, with prayer; but also, I would say, with
              "sectarian" identity, manifested here in the reference to John's disciples.

              regards,
              Bill
              ______________________
              William Arnal
              University of Regina

              _________________________________________________________________
              Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft�
              SmartScreen Technology.
              http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
              Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN� Premium right now and get the
              first two months FREE*.
            • Bob Schacht
              ... Gee, I had no idea that parentheses were so demeaning . I did not mean the parentheses to be a mere aside, but rather an alternative of equivalent value
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                At 07:35 PM 7/25/2004, Bill Arnal wrote:

                >Howdy again Bob:
                >
                > >... aren't you over-reacting just a wee
                > >bit here? Obviously, I was hedging about the source, but you're reacting as
                > >if I'm a Biblical literalist, ignoring the hedge. ...
                >
                >Precisely BECAUSE I figured you weren't a biblical literalist, nor were
                >arguing for such a position, but then in fact included the OBVIOUS first
                >(literary) question only as a parenthetic aside.

                Gee, I had no idea that parentheses were so demeaning <g>. I did not mean
                the parentheses to be a mere aside, but rather an alternative of equivalent
                value (which probably won't satisfy you).

                >Moreover, the framing of
                >your question/problem -- wouldn't a first-century Jew, even a Galilean know
                >better -- took for granted the literalist (i.e., historical) reading of the
                >text and backgrounded the textual reading of the text. But look, if I
                >misread you, apologies all around -- obviously you're in a better position
                >to know what you meant than I am.

                Again, I did not mean to privilege a literalist reading. To avoid other
                distractions, then, why did Luke frame the LP with a disciple's question,
                and why did he include J the B as a point of reference?


                > >But this critical model, as you've presented it, is that *only* texts can
                > >be a source. To which I say, sir, um, that I beg to differ.
                >
                >Not at all my point. It is obvious that Luke has either oral or at least
                >no-longer-extant (in addition to Q) written sources, because of all that "L"
                >stuff in the middle of the Gospel, which I do NOT think Luke simply made up
                >(and for good reasons -- he often seems unable to effectively interpret or
                >use this material, which suggests he derived it from a source and did the
                >best he could with it).

                Thanks for the clarification.

                >Rather, it's that when we HAVE an obvious source
                >from which Luke has derived text x, then in the absence of a sustained
                >argument, or evidence, to the contrary, we must assume that Luke has
                >introduced the changes to this source where he differs from it.

                But for a Q proponent, as I understand you to be, it is building castles in
                the air to suppose that we know how Q was written, so that therefore we
                know how Luke changed it. The matter of how the LP was framed in Q, while
                the object of formidable scholarship, is still conjectural, especially
                since the IQP often seems to lean to Luke rather than Matthew in its
                reconstruction.

                >It is not that the alternative CANNOT be the case, but that Lukan
                >alteration is the
                >simplest and most elegant explanation -- again, barring any evidence or
                >argument to the contrary.

                It is, if we agree that the wording of Q lacked Luke's frame. But I am
                concerned that there may be something akin to question-begging here.

                >I see no such evidence for the Lord's prayer, nor
                >have heard any argument from you about why Luke must have had a source other
                >than Q (or Matthew).

                "Must" is stronger than I meant. "May" is what I had in mind. If the Lukan
                frame can be shown to be in line with known Lukan editorial tendencies,
                then the likelihood of Lukan authorial creativity rises. But if the frame
                seems independent of those tendencies, then the likelihood of an unknown
                Lukan source rises.

                >So it seems that with this text -- and only with this
                >text -- we'll have to assume Luke introduced the changes. Unless one can
                >show otherwise.

                It is one thing to assert that Luke introduced the changes. It is another
                to allege that the changes were not based on other sources, and were merely
                authorial creation.

                >It would be a total misrepresentation of my argument here,
                >however, to claim that I am suggesting that Luke had no other sources,
                >period.

                I am relieved <g>.

                >By my reading (i.e., as a Q proponent), he must have had at least three.
                >At least.

                i.e., Q, Mark, and Special Luke?

                >But not three different sources for this single pericope!

                Two would be quite sufficient <g>


                > >Furthermore, it has been obvious for a long time that Matthew's SOTM is a
                > >compilation of sayings scattered in time and space, stripped of their
                > >original narrative frame, so how can you be so sure that it is Luke who
                > >adds, rather than Matthew who subtracts?
                >
                >Because if Luke is literarily dependent on Matthew, then he is dependent on
                >the SOTM in its Matthean form, whether that form is secondary or not.

                I had in mind Q here. Why is the IQP so sure that it is Luke who added,
                rather than Matthew who subtracted?


                >... It is of course possible that material unique to Luke -- oral
                >or written -- has overlapped with material derived from other sources and
                >has influenced Luke's redaction of those sources -- there are, in my view,
                >several instances of Mark-Q overlap, for example. BUT: 1) those overlaps
                >must be demonstrated, not posited in the absence of evidence; and 2) EVEN if
                >such sources existed, why assume that THEY are any more historically
                >"authentic" than Luke is? In other words, even if Luke didn't himself invent
                >this interlocutor (which he surely did!), there's no reason to assume this
                >narrative is authentic.

                Well, I do not presume to have demonstrated anything; I just raised the
                question. And regardless of the sources (or lack thereof), why this
                *particular* Lukan frame?

                >But Luke did invent this narrative frame.

                Well, that may be "fact" to you, but not to me.


                > >This is a reasonable framing, especially if one dates Luke late, since by
                > >then the issue of a corporate identity (18th Benediction or not) different
                > >from Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah would have been
                > >more pressing. The issue then would not be, as I asked, one of attitude or
                > >method, but one of corporate identity.
                >
                >Precisely! And in fact, I would think this explanation would serve even in
                >the extremely unlikely event that the episode actually happened. But you're
                >right -- it works better in Luke's historical context than elsewhere. This
                >is yet another indication, I would think, that the whole framing is a Lukan
                >creation.

                Perhaps. But we're still left with the question of the purpose of Luke's
                frame. The group identity issue serves this purpose, as previously
                discussed. But does that argument rise above mere plausibility?


                > >Despite the [unnecessary, in my view] scolding, it is good to hear from you
                > >again <g>.
                >
                >Likewise.

                Indeed. I have not had a good argument for a while, so I might be getting
                rusty <g>.

                >Great news about Hawaii, I would think. Did I hear/read that
                >right?

                Yep.

                Bob


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Joseph Weaks
                ... You are, of course, positively correct. I shouldn t have been so hyperbolic. There are some tidbits to be gleaned even from such throw away intros. For
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Jul 25, 2004, at 10:44 PM, William Arnal wrote:
                  >> I would argue that the introduction to the Lord's Prayer in Luke has
                  >> significance exactly equal to zero... It's just filler, a segue
                  >> (and not a very smooth one, as was noted).
                  >
                  > In terms of Lukan style, this is eminently plausible... I would argue,
                  > though,
                  > that even if the point of all of these (and other)
                  > Lukan narrative transitions is really just to serve as narrative
                  > transitions, it is in some cases clear that Luke had something in mind
                  > --
                  > that he framed things one way, as opposed to another way, for some
                  > sort of
                  > reason.
                  ...
                  > In short, I do think you're right that the main point of Luke 11:1 is
                  > precisely
                  > to introduce the specific sayings material on prayer, and not much
                  > else. But
                  > there is still, in the specific framing Luke gives it, some trace of
                  > Luke's
                  > own concerns, e.g., classically, with prayer; but also, I would say,
                  > with
                  > "sectarian" identity, manifested here in the reference to John's
                  > disciples.

                  You are, of course, positively correct. I shouldn't have been so
                  hyperbolic. There are some tidbits to be gleaned even from such "throw
                  away" intros. For instance, the mention of J the B might offer some
                  hint regarding competing traditions known in 80 CE.

                  Cheers,
                  Joe

                  **************************************************************
                  Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                  Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                  Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                  j.weaks@...
                  **************************************************************
                • Ron Price
                  ... Bob, Good point. If you want to see the original context of the LP in a reconstruction of the original sayings source which is based more on Matthew than
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 26, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bob Schacht wrote:

                    > The matter of how the LP was framed in Q, while
                    > the object of formidable scholarship, is still conjectural, especially
                    > since the IQP often seems to lean to Luke rather than Matthew in its
                    > reconstruction.

                    Bob,

                    Good point. If you want to see the original context of the LP in a
                    reconstruction of the original sayings source which is based more on Matthew
                    than on Luke, see the saying "C1" on the following page:

                    http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQet.html

                    Ron Price

                    Derbyshire, UK
                  • Mark Preece
                    ... [...] ... Might not Luke have intended us to imagine motivations for his characters, whether of not the individuals actually existed in history? After all,
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 26, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 08:11 PM 7/25/2004, William Arnal wrote:
                      >What do you mean, what did he [the disciple] mean? Have we now sunk to
                      >tossing over 100 years of scholarship out the window, so that we can revert
                      >to naive speculations about the personal motivations of "individuals" whose
                      >existence we only know of through texts?
                      [...]
                      > And so the question becomes, NOT What did
                      >Jesus' interlocutor intend? but What did the author of Luke intend by the
                      >question? There's no "perhaps" about it.

                      Might not Luke have intended us to imagine motivations for his characters,
                      whether of not the individuals actually existed in history? After all, he's
                      just had a dialogue between Jesus and a lawyer in which the (possibly
                      non-existent) lawyer has tried to "test" Jesus and to "justify" himself.
                      Plenty of motivation ascribed to a fictional character there. I don't think
                      the original question about what the disciples intended needs to imply that
                      we're throwing away 100 years of scholarship, it just has to be understood
                      as implying "within the context of Luke's narrative."

                      Peace,

                      Mark.
                    • Ken Olson
                      ... pray, which is what the petitioner had in mind that prompted the question? I suspect that J the B was as much concerned about attitude and method as he was
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 26, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On July 25, 2004, Bob Schacht asked:

                        >>First, what do we know about what John taught his disciples about how to
                        pray, which is what the petitioner had in mind that prompted the question?
                        I suspect that J the B was as much concerned about attitude and method as
                        he was by precise words. When he called for repentance, was that meant to
                        be an act of prayer, or a social act of some kind (e.g., making amends)?<<

                        Bob,

                        I would approach this question in terms of Luke's general attitude towards
                        the form of Judaism claiming John as its founder and its relationship to
                        Luke's own form of Christianity. The two puzzling passages in Acts
                        18.24-28, 19.1-7 suggest to me that the two groups were in some sense parts
                        of a larger movement within Judaism and that Luke was concerned to bring
                        "Johannine Christianity" (to borrow Conzelmann's term) into conformity with
                        what he regarded as normative Christianity. The use of a specific prayer in
                        Lk. 11.1-4, like baptism in the Holy Spirit in Acts 19, may have been part
                        of this process. So I would agree with William Arnal that Luke's concern in
                        the introduction to the LP has to do with constructing a sectarian identity.

                        Best Wishes,

                        Ken

                        kaolson@...
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.