[Synoptic-L] Re: AMatt's attempt to make his source "suitable"
- At 04:02 PM 7/29/99 -0500, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>Jim Deardorff wrote:substantial
>> If AMt's source was not Mark at all, but an extensive (Logia) document that
>> required massive amounts of editing to make sanctionable or suitable, this
>> would explain most of Matthew's doublets. That is, in substituting for
>> unacceptable material in his source, AMt would at times repeat himself; at
>> other times he would retain the passage from his source with only minor
>> editing and then later edit it further into a more suitable passage. Only if
>> you dismiss the external evidence concerning the Logia are you forced to
>> look for other explanations for the doublets.
>Many times now, in your numerous attempts to defend as true your "solution" to
>the Synoptic problem, and to account for the particular scenario of editorial
>changes which you see as having occurred in the history of the Synoptic
>tradition, you have made reference, as you have above, to the "fact"
>(supposedly testified to by external evidence, especially Papias) that our
>canonical Gospels are grounded not only in an originally lengthy, Semitic
>document which contained the actual teaching of the Historical Jesus, but one
>which later evangelists found so "heretical" that, in the interest of making it
>"sanctionable" to the rest of those who were at the time of their writing
>**already** followers of Jesus, they (especially AMatt). had to make
>chances to this document.Note that I didn't call it a "fact," since I realize it isn't one to most
>Assuming that I've stated your claim correctly, ...
members of this list.
>...I must say that the whole thingof the
>baffles me. To say that AMatt found the document heretical or in need of change
>before it would be suitable to other Christians implies that the teaching
>historical Jesus, of whom AMatt was presumably a follower, was using someJesus
>criteria other than the teaching of the Historical Jesus to determine what
>actually taught.Your presumption there is where the reasoning goes wrong. Some presumptions
are true, many others are not. Many decades elapsed between the time Paul
set the basic tenets of earliest Christianity into place and the time the
Gospels were written. This is not a new thesis by any means. With the
modified AH, AMt was presumably a follower of the early Christianity that
evolved during the last half of the 1st century and early part of the 2nd.
The teaching of the historical Jesus then faded because it was unpopular
with Paul, with Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees, and not well understood by
>Or to put this another way, since it is presumably the teaching of theevangelist
>historical Jesus as embodied in this original, lengthy Semitic source (your
>Logia?) that is the norm by which all other representations of his thought and
>teaching is to be judged orthodox or heretical, "suitable" or unsuitable, then
>on your "solution" to the Synoptic Problem, it is AMatt (or any other
>who bowdlerized the teaching of the HJ) and the Gospel he (they) producedwho is
>(are) heretical.Certainly. AMt's theology was heretical with respect to the true teachings,
but of course not heretical with respect to early Christianity, which AMt
helped shape. This is rather like the Walter Bauer hypothesis. It is due to
these true heresies that there is almost complete silence on what the
Matthean source, or Logia, was all about, on what all Papias had to say
about it in his five treatises, and on the circumstances of the writing of
the Gospels -- their true authors, provenances, time of writing, and such. I
believe the argument of silence was used just recently by Mark Goodacre
relative to ALk; the argument of silence is especially strong, however, when
there are heresies involved of overwhelming impact.
>So let me ask two plain and simple question question in the hope of a plain andsanctionable or
>simple answer: What is the source of the criteria by which AMatt (or any of our
>canonical evangelists) came to see that the source of the teaching of his
>putative master needed to be edited massively before it would be
>suitable?The source of the criteria were the multiple divergences between what the
(Logia) source taught and narrated relative to the teachings of the early
church and of Paul. If that's not simple enough, I'd need to start spelling
out what these divergences were.
>And since "to be made sanctionable or suitable" assumes a "for whom",recognized
>that is to say, since, on your claim, there were Christians who AMatt
>as being no longer able or willing to accept as suitable the original teachingI need to stop you right there. Those who did accept the true teachings were
>of their master, ...
never Christians. How could they have been, with the differences having been
>then **from where** did they get *their* (on your grounds,They got it mostly from a very influential man who, if he ever met Jesus and
>historically quite incorrect, and therefore heretical) vision of what
>Christianity was all about? It hardly seems correct to call what ever this
>source was "Christianity" since it disagrees with what -- on your claim for
>Gospel origins -- Jesus actually taught.
heard him teach, disliked what he had to say so much that he became the arch
persecutor of his followers. After his views swung to the other extreme,
after his conversion event, Paul then pushed across the key concepts of
which you're fully aware, which formed the basis of early Christianity.
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm