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

Re: [Synoptic-L] resonse with regard to Mark and the shepherd's staff

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic L In Response To: John Lupia, Rick Richmond On: The Text of Mark (outgrowth of: Staff) From: Bruce A couple of comments from recent postings
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic L
      In Response To: John Lupia, Rick Richmond
      On: The Text of Mark (outgrowth of: Staff)
      From: Bruce

      A couple of comments from recent postings rather caught my eye. I here
      attempt to respond (as they say at banquets) for philology.

      JOHN LUPIA: The evangelists were more fluid than modern researchers allow.
      They could jumble things up since that is licit as long as the original
      meaning of what Jesus said is not lost, twisted, obscured or radically
      altered giving it an altogether different one. It is because of this
      fluidity that we have 4 Gospels with varying versions since each wrote to a
      specific historical situation in the Church addressing their own issues and
      served as clarifications of what some mistook the text to mean that was
      written by their predecessor. Unfortunately, to modern eyes and minds each
      appears in conflict and contradiction to the other and so we have the
      Synoptic Problem, a misinterpretation of the very nature of the Gospels and
      total darkness on how they were written.

      BRUCE: On this account, there is no Synoptic Problem, except as an artifact
      of modern ignorance. I don't think the difficulties will go away that
      easily. My sense of the history of the SP is that it arose precisely from
      trying to combine the most closely similar three Gospels together, as John
      seems here to suggest, and finding that it didn't quite work. Alignment does
      not produce unity, and rearrangement plus alignment also does not produce
      unity (if they did, we would have, not a Synoptic Problem, but a Synopsis).
      There are any number of directly irreconcilable features among the three,
      not only in order, but in substance. For example, the two genealogies of
      Jesus (in Mt and Lk) are not switchings around of material, or recontexting
      of material, they are different entities, apparently seeking to prove
      different things. No Synopsis known to me attempts to juxtapose them; they
      are given separate pages. Insulated from direct comparison. They will not
      stand direct comparison.

      RICK: Why do we need to talk about Mark's document in light of the context
      of his "interpolations" or the sources used in his compilation? This
      approach is founded in remote speculation and ignores the document as a
      complete unit.

      BRUCE: The recommendation strikes me as circular. The text of GMk, like any
      ancient text, cannot be taken as a complete unit until we have warrant to do
      so. Examination of the text, in search of that warrant, discloses clear
      signs of construction, including some which suggest interpolation. The
      reason we need to talk about those signs is that they are there, in the
      material. They are not remote, and they are not speculation. They arise
      during a search to validate the expectation of unity in the text, and having
      thus arisen, they deny the validity of that expectation.

      Leaving aside other instances, as too unwieldy for one note, but feeling the
      need of an example, I subjoin some considerations pointing to interpolation
      status for Mk 6:7-13 (the Sending of the Disciples). A few were mentioned
      earlier.

      1. There is no other instance in Mk where the disciples take over the
      evangelical role from Jesus. This gives rise to the suspicion that we have
      here a set of guidelines for the post-Jesus ministry, formulated as though
      given by Jesus during his lifetime. That is, if this passage proves to be an
      interpolation (on which see below), there is a fairly obvious motive for it.
      There is also a whole raft of precedents, not only in Christian writings,
      but in the early documents of Buddhism and Confucianism, whole stretches of
      which are exercises in using the validating power of these texts to
      legitimize or forbid practices and beliefs which arose only later in the
      history of the respective persuasions. Updating interpolations are
      essentially normal in such situations. They require local argument, but the
      category itself is unproblematic.

      2. The disciples in this passage are called "apostles," a usage which is
      unique in Mark, and a probable anachronism. It is the language of the
      post-Crucifixion period.

      3. The passage is curiously unspecific as to who did what where. We have
      only "they," without other specification of persons, and with no
      specification of place. This is in strong contrast to GMk otherwise, where,
      convincingly or not (and all will be aware how contested is the geography of
      Jesus's doings in GMk), locations are persistently specified. We are told in
      6:12 that the disciples went out and preached, and then for some minutes we
      are shown (as it were) a film clip of John the Baptist, including a long and
      highly picturesque account of his beheading, complete with motivations and
      intrigues and inner feelings, with enough sex and violence to constitute a
      modern play libretto or operatic libretto, as indeed it has. All
      demonstrating, in the immediate vicinity, that GMk is not averse to detail
      as such. One effect of this John interlude in GMk considered as a linear
      presentation experience (it seems to me) is to allow enough real time to
      elapse between the Sending and the Return that the reader is less directly
      shocked by the brevity of that narrative itself, and by its almost total
      lack of content. If, however, we pull our minds away from the Dance of the
      Seven Veils, and focus on these other things, we notice that the Sending
      passage consists of detailed advice for preparation, but virtually nothing
      on the actual accomplishment. No Synopsis would dare to label this pericope
      The Preaching of the Disciples, which is precisely what it disappoints us by
      not containing. It is the Preparation of the Disciples for Preaching, and it
      deals solely with logistics.

      4. After the return of the disciples, or apostles, the large narrative of
      Mark resumes as though nothing had happened. The disciples slip back into
      their former identities and functions. These people, who in 6:12-13 are said
      to preach and to heal, just like Jesus, are now repeatedly presented as
      baffled by Jesus's preaching (not my impression: they are rebuked both by
      Jesus and by the narrator of GMk for this), and as incapable of duplicating
      some of his feats of healing. That is, Mk 6:7-13 not only has no narrative
      consequences in the later text, it is directly and repeatedly contradicted
      by the imperception and ineptitude of the disciples in the later text.

      All this makes Mk 6:7-13 suspicious. It is unique, it is strangely
      featureless, except for its travel advice, (as though it could prescribe but
      could not relate), it temporarily usurps Jesus's function, it has no
      standing in the following narrative, and it is in contradiction with the
      personae of the disciples in the following narrative.

      So it seems that there are grounds for doubt that this was part of the
      original flow of GMk. But can those doubts be objectively confirmed? Not by
      imagination, but by what is there in front of us in the text itself?

      5. I think they can, and here is how. There are actually two departures for
      preaching which are mentioned in this zone of GMk:

      6:6b And he was going around the villages in a circuit, preaching
      6:7b And he began to send them out two by two, giving them authority over
      unclean spirits

      In 6:6b, it is one person who goes out; in 6:7b, many. This sets up our
      test.

      5. In 6:14-16 we have a reaction to preaching, a reaction by Herod and
      apparently, by several of his advisors. Herod is concerned at the wonders
      being wrought, and wants to know who is doing them. Our question is this: do
      Herod and his advisors react to the wonders wrought by many, or to wonders
      wrought by one? Here is the passage:

      "And King Herod heard of this, for his name had become known, and some said,
      John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and thus these powers are at
      work in him. But others said, It is Elijah, and still others said, A
      prophet, like the prophets of old. And having heard these things, Herod
      said, It is John, whom I beheaded, who has been raised."

      All the speculations here refer to the wonder-working of one man, not the
      wonder-working of a group of man fanned out over a whole region. At 6:14,
      the RSV says, not literally, "Jesus's name had become known," but the
      liberty is surely justified. It is Jesus's works which are causing concern.
      All the candidates for identification offered by the advisors, or by Herod
      himself, are one man: John, Elijah, or one of the prophets. Herod and his
      advisors have in view one man working miracles. Not a dozen men working
      miracles.

      Then we must conclude that Mk 6:14-16 is in sequel with, and in response to,
      the preaching of Jesus as mentioned, albeit briefly, in 6:6b, and has no
      relation to the preaching of the disciples (or apostles) in 6:7-13.

      So in this case, as does not always happen with this or other ancient texts,
      we can satisfy the second test of an interpolation: When the proposed
      interpolation is removed, does the surrounding text make more sense or less
      sense? In this case, removing 6:7-13 leaves a text that clearly makes more
      sense: is more consecutive. Here is the summary:

      6:6b. And [Jesus] went around the villages in a circuit, teaching.
      6:14. And King Herod heard of it, for his name had become known, and they
      were saying, John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and thus these
      powers are at work in him. . . .

      This confirms the conclusion to which other evidence had already pointed. I
      thus think it necessary to conclude that 6:14 was written when 6:6b
      existed, but before 6:7 existed, and that 6:7 is thus later, in our GMk,
      than either 6:6b or 6:14.

      No?

      I would like to add that I think there are interpretational advantages to
      this conclusion. (1) Obviously, getting rid of an inconsecutive fragment
      from this (or any other) text makes the text that much more consecutive, and
      thus that much more liable to interpretation as a single document. A
      document that can more successfully be treated as we are all instinctively
      inclined to treat it. (2) In this specific case, the juxtaposition of John
      and Jesus, with which GMk begins, is better developed in Mk 6 on present
      assumptions, than if we leave 6:7-13 in place to separate them and confuse
      the association. The motif is more clearly visible without 6:7-13
      intervening. Whether this association was true historically, I have not the
      slightest idea. That it was motivically important to AMk [the author of the
      Gospel of Mk] seems unmistakable, and this (I submit) adds to our very
      slender stock of first-hand information about AMk.

      To me, that's an advantage.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • John Lupia
      ... In a nutshell, yes. I don t think the difficulties ... The difficulties to which you refer are not in the texts but in the minds of contemporaries. My
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:

        > To: Synoptic L
        > In Response To: John Lupia, Rick Richmond
        > On: The Text of Mark (outgrowth of: Staff)
        > From: Bruce
        >
        > A couple of comments from recent postings rather
        > caught my eye. I here
        > attempt to respond (as they say at banquets) for
        > philology.
        >
        > JOHN LUPIA: The evangelists were more fluid than
        > modern researchers allow.
        > They could jumble things up since that is licit as
        > long as the original
        > meaning of what Jesus said is not lost, twisted,
        > obscured or radically
        > altered giving it an altogether different one. It is
        > because of this
        > fluidity that we have 4 Gospels with varying
        > versions since each wrote to a
        > specific historical situation in the Church
        > addressing their own issues and
        > served as clarifications of what some mistook the
        > text to mean that was
        > written by their predecessor. Unfortunately, to
        > modern eyes and minds each
        > appears in conflict and contradiction to the other
        > and so we have the
        > Synoptic Problem, a misinterpretation of the very
        > nature of the Gospels and
        > total darkness on how they were written.
        >
        > BRUCE: On this account, there is no Synoptic
        > Problem, except as an artifact
        > of modern ignorance.

        In a nutshell, yes.

        I don't think the difficulties
        > will go away that
        > easily.

        The difficulties to which you refer are not in the
        texts but in the minds of contemporaries.


        My sense of the history of the SP is that it
        > arose precisely from
        > trying to combine the most closely similar three
        > Gospels together, as John
        > seems here to suggest, and finding that it didn't
        > quite work.

        Not really my suggestion, Mr. Brooks, it was voiced
        long before my birth.

        Alignment does
        > not produce unity, and rearrangement plus alignment
        > also does not produce
        > unity (if they did, we would have, not a Synoptic
        > Problem, but a Synopsis).

        This is circular and redundant.

        > There are any number of directly irreconcilable
        > features among the three,
        > not only in order, but in substance.

        I disagree.

        For example,
        > the two genealogies of
        > Jesus (in Mt and Lk) are not switchings around of
        > material, or recontexting
        > of material, they are different entities, apparently
        > seeking to prove
        > different things. No Synopsis known to me attempts
        > to juxtapose them; they
        > are given separate pages. Insulated from direct
        > comparison. They will not
        > stand direct comparison.


        Here you have clearly misread my original point and
        perhaps it is my fault for failing to state it more
        precisely that I was referring to material that in the
        literature IS considered parallel and comprises what
        IS referred to as the SP.


        Now, what you are saying above is that whichever
        Gospel were first written on the genealogies had it
        all and the other ran off in a direction
        unexplainable. However, long ago this problem was
        solved, to at least my satisfaction, wherein it was
        pointed out that Lk gives us the genealogy of Mary and
        Matthew that of Joseph, her spouse.



        With best regards,
        John N. Lupia, III

        John N. Lupia, III
        Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA
        Fax: (732) 349-3910
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
        God Bless America



        ____________________________________________________
        Yahoo! Sports
        Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
        http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 7/4/2005 12:15:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... It occurs to me that the data you point out could well be regarded as an example of
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 7/4/2005 12:15:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, brooks@... writes:

          . In 6:14-16 we have a reaction to preaching, a reaction by Herod and
          apparently, by several of his advisors. Herod is concerned at the wonders
          being wrought, and wants to know who is doing them. Our question is this: do
          Herod and his advisors react to the wonders wrought by many, or to wonders
          wrought by one? Here is the passage:

          "And King Herod heard of this, for his name had become known, and some said,
          John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and thus these powers are at
          work in him. But others said, It is Elijah, and still others said, A
          prophet, like the prophets of old. And having heard these things, Herod
          said, It is John, whom I beheaded, who has been raised."

          All the speculations here refer to the wonder-working of one man, not the
          wonder-working of a group of man fanned out over a whole region. At 6:14,
          the RSV says, not literally, "Jesus's name had become known," but the
          liberty is surely justified. It is Jesus's works which are causing concern.
          All the candidates for identification offered by the advisors, or by Herod
          himself, are one man: John, Elijah, or one of the prophets. Herod and his
          advisors have in view one man working miracles. Not a dozen men working
          miracles.


          It occurs to me that the data you point out could well be regarded as an example of "fatigue" in Markan editing of Matthew, or as simply an unfortunate result of Mark's policy of conflating the two Gospels of Matthew and Luke. After (if not already during) his abbreviated form of Matthew's mission discourse, Mark has moved to Luke's text to find mention of the actual going forth of the twelve on mission (and later their return). He resumes the story line following Matthew, where there has been no actual going forth, preaching or working of miracles by the disciples, for the Herod and John the Baptist passage. Thus the incoherency in Mark's text that you note.

          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA
        • John Lupia
          ... Perhaps, but the image seems broader to me than the narrower take you have. Mk is saying the name (obviously the result of his fame) of Jesus was
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Maluflen@... wrote:

            > In a message dated 7/4/2005 12:15:44 AM Eastern
            > Daylight Time,
            > brooks@... writes:
            >
            > > . In 6:14-16 we have a reaction to preaching, a
            > reaction by Herod and
            > > apparently, by several of his advisors.

            Perhaps, but the image seems broader to me than the
            narrower take you have. Mk is saying the name
            (obviously the result of his fame) of Jesus was
            widespread, giving the impression he was now a
            household word, not merely confined to fame at Herod's
            court. Mk places this as an Introduction to Herod
            beheading John, but immediately following---guess
            what?--- the mission of the twelve who made the name
            of Jesus famous since they cured in his name.

            Herod is
            > concerned at the wonders
            > > being wrought, and wants to know who is doing
            > them.

            The characterization of Herod being concerned is not
            apparent in the text.

            Our question is this: do
            > > Herod and his advisors react to the wonders
            > wrought by many, or to wonders
            > > wrought by one? Here is the passage:

            This is a rather silly question. AMk has already told
            us that Herod as well as everyone else had heard about
            Jesus. (cf Mk 6:12-13 what Leonard calls Mark's Acts
            of the Apostles) The question among them was "Who is
            this guy, really?" How can some unknown work such
            signs of power, not only in person, but by remote
            control through his field agents?

            Apparently Jesus' fame according to all the Gospel
            accounts post dates that of JB. Also apparent is the
            fact that signs of equal power were known and
            attributed to JB (who were JB's field agents?) and
            Elijah (his field agent became his successor Elisha).
            Now it is very important and even more subtle that
            some say "He is a prophet, like the prophets we used
            to have." This last phrase is very telling since it
            does not suggest that they are saying that a prophet
            from the past is risen from the dead, but that a
            prophet-like man is now circulating in our midst who
            emulates qualities like the prophets of the past. You
            know, like the one's we used to have.


            [snip]

            > >
            > > All the speculations here refer to the
            > wonder-working of one man, not the
            > > wonder-working of a group of m[e]n fanned out over
            a
            > whole region.

            Uh, what? I have read this post and the logic eludes
            me.

            At 6:14,
            > > the RSV says, not literally, "Jesus's name had
            > become known," but the
            > > liberty is surely justified. It is Jesus's works
            > which are causing concern.

            Here you go with that "concern" again, found nowhere
            in the text. And you failed to see that it is not just
            Jesus' powers in his person but his ability to
            transmit that power to others who remote from him
            physically are able to perform feats in his name as if
            he were present. Now, I hardly see how they were
            "concerned" instead of fascinated and curious and
            perhaps even a bit excited. This could work in their
            favor too. Ever had a really bad toothache?


            > > All the candidates for identification offered by
            > the advisors, or by Herod
            > > himself, are one man: John, Elijah, or one of the
            > prophets.

            Again you limit the fame and talk exclusively to
            Herod's court when Mk's text clearly implies everyone
            everywhere was talking about Jesus. They are not
            identifying one man since JB, Elijah or some new guy
            in town who is reminiscent of prophets like those good
            ones we used to have is at least 3 not one. Note among
            the suggestions two are specific individuals who
            require being raised from the dead. The 3rd suggestion
            has no requirement, but rather, he seems like a really
            good guy who performs signs and wonders like the
            prophets we used to have.


            Herod and his
            > > advisors have in view one man working miracles.
            > Not a dozen men working
            > > miracles.
            > >


            They are exclusively talking about Jesus, yes. Why do
            you think they are talking about a dozen other men.
            The only time other men are discussed are in the 3
            suggestions about "Who is this Jesus, really?"
            See, just one guy, not a dozen.


            Leonard:
            > It occurs to me that the data you point out could
            > well be regarded as an
            > example of "fatigue" in Markan editing of Matthew,


            No Leonard. This is a bad call here. The huge pink
            elephant being missed here is what I have pointed
            out---the 3rd suggestion that Jesus seems like a nice
            enough man who displays signs of being a holy man of
            God like the prophets we used to have ---remember?
            Now how is this a sign of fatigue? Mark Goodacre are
            you paying close attention? See Mk 8:28. The 3rd
            suggestion in Mk 6:15 has now changed to "One of the
            prophets" this means he is some unnamed prophet from
            ancient times raised from the dead. A fatigue using Lk
            9:18-21 who was copied in Mt 16:13-20 . This is an
            excellent example of Markan fatigue (pun intended
            Mark).

            With best regards,
            John N. Lupia, III

            John N. Lupia, III
            Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA
            Fax: (732) 349-3910
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
            God Bless America



            ____________________________________________________
            Yahoo! Sports
            Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
            http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: Synoptic-L In Response To: John Lupia On: Mt/Lk Genealogies From: Bruce JOHN: Now, what you are saying above is that whichever Gospel were first written on
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Synoptic-L
              In Response To: John Lupia
              On: Mt/Lk Genealogies
              From: Bruce

              JOHN: Now, what you are saying above is that whichever Gospel were first
              written on the genealogies had it all and the other ran off in a direction
              unexplainable.

              BRUCE: Not at all. I merely point out that the two genealogies are different
              in a way that cannot be accounted for by scribal error, and thus require
              explanation. Both are to some degree stylized, it seems, but they are not
              stylized from the same base of information.

              JOHN: However, long ago this problem was solved, to at least my
              satisfaction, wherein it was
              pointed out that Lk gives us the genealogy of Mary and Matthew that of
              Joseph, her spouse.

              BRUCE: Long ago is right. Commentaries available to me identify this as the
              theory of Annius of Viterbo (c1490), advanced more recently by Hartl 1909
              (see Nolland) and Heer 1910 (see Fitzmyer). Other suggestions for
              reconciliation, such as the levirate marriage theory, go back still further,
              to Africanus (3rd century). I take all these as evidence that there is
              something needing to be explained; something not obviously compatible, plus
              a desire on the part of the tradition that they should be compatible. These
              pressures are exactly how commentary traditions arise in the first place -
              to explain difficulties in the canonical texts, or to apply them to modern
              situations which those texts did not envision.

              I wouldn't recommend judging the Annius theory or any other theory by its
              degree of scholarly acceptance (nor will any other adherent of the widely
              unaccepted Farrer hypothesis), but some scholarly reasons for not accepting
              Annius strike me as having merit. Everyone will have their own taste in
              these matters, and John has indicated his. Mine runs with Manson 1930, who
              said (p34) "But the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are not, as they stand,
              reconcilable, for Joseph is in Luke the son of Heli, whereas in Matthew he
              is the son of Jacob. It does not remove this discrepancy to assume that the
              Lukan genealogy is that of Mary, and to understand the words "the son, as
              people supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli" to mean that Jesus (though
              nominally the son of Joseph) was actually (ie on his mother's side) the son
              (ie grandson) of Heli. The word "son" does not admit of two different
              meanings in one sentence."

              If we can't, agreeably to each other, reconcile the genealogies as scribal
              errors for a common original, or as all within the Jesus family, there may
              be a larger possibility. It is a commonplace of traditions both sacred and
              secular that they tend, over time, to aggrandize their central figures.
              George Washington had his mythical aggrandization process, Confucius had a
              quite spectacular one, Buddha an even more spectacular one (partly fueled by
              Sri Lankan local chauvinism). It is not unthinkable that something of the
              sort may have happened to Jesus as well. As a possible example of an
              aggrandizing tradition, I note the following as regards genealogies of
              Jesus:

              GMk: none; Jesus's baptism is the occasion of his validation
              GMt: from Abraham; Israelite-validational in implication
              GLk: from God; inclusively human in implication
              GThos: before the creation of the world; universal in implication

              These agree with the characters of the respective Gospels, and they also
              make, for me, a very plausible aggrandization sequence. Which, plus the
              thought that the improved models GMt and GLk largely obsoleted the primitive
              GMk on which both had drawn, will also apparently account for all the
              papyrological termini ante quem, this being probably the best direct
              chronological evidence we have.

              Working from an outside perspective, as I do in these matters, and leaving
              insiders free to go their own way in the matter, as they will whether I say
              so or not, I would be inclined to enter this situation as evidence
              supporting a GMk > GMt > GLk > GThos chronological sequence. Not decisive,
              but contributory.

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... This comment quoted by Manson frustrates me. Clearly, Luke is up to something because he threw in a hWS ENOMIZETO ( as was supposed ), which signals that
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                At 02:33 AM 7/5/2005 -0400, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                >I wouldn't recommend judging the Annius theory or any other theory by its
                >degree of scholarly acceptance (nor will any other adherent of the widely
                >unaccepted Farrer hypothesis), but some scholarly reasons for not accepting
                >Annius strike me as having merit. Everyone will have their own taste in
                >these matters, and John has indicated his. Mine runs with Manson 1930, who
                >said (p34) "But the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are not, as they stand,
                >reconcilable, for Joseph is in Luke the son of Heli, whereas in Matthew he
                >is the son of Jacob. It does not remove this discrepancy to assume that the
                >Lukan genealogy is that of Mary, and to understand the words "the son, as
                >people supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli" to mean that Jesus (though
                >nominally the son of Joseph) was actually (ie on his mother's side) the son
                >(ie grandson) of Heli. The word "son" does not admit of two different
                >meanings in one sentence."

                This comment quoted by Manson frustrates me. Clearly, Luke is up to something
                because he threw in a hWS ENOMIZETO ("as was supposed"), which signals that a
                word is being used in a non-standard sense, but Manson's argument quoted here
                refuses to credit Luke's phraseology. Furthermore, hUIOS can be taken in a
                broader sense of a "male issue," which avoids the charge of lexical inconsistency.
                (At any rate, Mason's criticism runs into problems at the end of the genealogy
                with Adam's being a son of God.)

                For frustrating to me is that Manson is refusing any invitation from Luke's text
                to interact with the genealogy with Matthew (the weasel wording of hWS ENOMIZETO
                and the different senses of hUIOS). Manson's refusal to harmonize is certainly
                appropriate hermeneutically if Luke is independent of Matthew. What if, however,
                Luke wrote with knowledge of audience's awareness of Matthew? In that case, it
                would be appropriate to accept the text's invitation to interact with the Matthean
                genealogy and the issue would then become how to determine what the nature of
                that intertextuality is supposed to be (harmonization, correction, or something
                else).

                Here's why this is a problem for synoptic source criticism. Many arguments
                for the relative independence of Luke and Matthew bring forth as evidence
                the conflicting genealogies between Matthew and Luke. Yet, the genealogies
                are conflicting when they are interpreted under a hermeneutical assumption
                that they are independent of one another. In other words, the hermeneutics
                is begging the source critical question.

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Chuck Jones
                To: Synoptic-L In Response To: Bruce On: Mt/Lk Genealogies From: Chuck Jones BRUCE: SNIP If we can t, agreeably to each other, reconcile the genealogies as
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment

                  To: Synoptic-L
                  In Response To: Bruce
                  On: Mt/Lk Genealogies
                  From: Chuck Jones

                  BRUCE:

                  SNIP If we can't, agreeably to each other, reconcile the genealogies as scribal
                  errors for a common original... SNIP

                  CHUCK:

                  Bruce, you put your finger on the key *synoptic* question about the geneaologies in the above quote.  The synoptic question is whether the genealogies suggest that Mt used Lk or Lk used Mt, and they emphatically suggest not.  Discussions of how two such different genealogies came to exist (Mary's lineage vs. Joseph's, etc.) take for granted (don't they?) that Mt and Lk worked independently in creating or including their geneaologies.

                  We face a similar situation with the birth narratives.  Any story has four elements:  setting, characters, plot and dialog. Mt and Lk's birth narratives have in common the settings of Bethlehem and Nazareth and the characters Mary, Joseph, Jesus and an angel.  One piece of dialog overlaps, set in two different contexts:  "'She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus...'," the angel tells Joseph in Mt 1:21, while Gabriel tells Mary in Lk 1:31,"'And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus.'"  There is zero overlap in plot--no event occurs in both narratives.  (This seemingly impossible phenomenon is true because Mt does not record the actual birth.)

                  Given this, it seems to me that the most likely scenario is that Lk knew *of* Mt but had little exposure and no access to the document, or vice versa.  Complete ignorance of each other's work seems unlikely:  How would each independently decide to begin their gospel with a birth narrative and a genealogy?  But literary dependence seems equally unlikely:  Why would either author/editor include completely independent--and contradictory--birth stories and genealogies if they had access to the other?

                  Put another way:  if I assigned a group of students to write a biography of Jesus, and offered no further guidance, I would conclude that Lk and Mt conferred as to how to begin their submissions.  I would also conclude they did not reveal to each other the actual content of those beginning sections.

                  Chuck Jones

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                • Chuck Jones
                  Stephen C. Carlson wrote: Here s why this is a problem for synoptic source criticism. Many arguments for the relative independence of Luke and Matthew bring
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 5, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment


                    "Stephen C. Carlson" wrote:

                    Here's why this is a problem for synoptic source criticism. Many arguments
                    for the relative independence of Luke and Matthew bring forth as evidence
                    the conflicting genealogies between Matthew and Luke. Yet, the genealogies
                    are conflicting when they are interpreted under a hermeneutical assumption
                    that they are independent of one another. In other words, the hermeneutics
                    is begging the source critical question.

                    Stephen,

                    I'm having trouble understanding your line of thought in the above paragraph.

                    The two genealogies conflict with one another.  Any reconstruction of how that might have come to be must begin with this starting fact.  Right?

                    Chuck  Jones

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com

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