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

[Synoptic-L] creative?

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Leonard Maluf wrote- ... Leonard, My understanding of what you write is that you consider that (GH1) Luke knew and made use of the text of Matthew when freely
    Message 1 of 78 , Aug 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Leonard Maluf wrote-
      >
      >You are still refusing to see a significant difference, even within a
      >given synoptic theory, in how an evangelist is conceived as having
      >viewed his project. And I would continue to opine that there is such a
      >difference, and that this weakens parts of the argument you make
      >against the Griesbach and other Synoptic theories.
      >

      Leonard,
      My understanding of what you write is that you consider that

      (GH1) Luke knew and made use of the text of Matthew when freely
      composing his gospel

      as opposed to

      (GH2) Luke produced an edition of Matthew by extensive editing of the
      text he was copying.

      You seem to be saying that even if GH2 may be ruled out by my arguments,
      GH1 is not.

      If I have not understood reasonably correctly here, then please do tell
      me.

      It seems to me that in places Luke agrees with Matthew so closely that
      the observable agreement could be described as virtually verbatim. For
      example Mt 3.7-10 // Lk 3. 7-9 and Mt 8.8(b)-10 // Lk 7.6(b)-9.
      Furthermore, in many places throughout Matthew there is material which
      is not only to some extent similar in wording but also is in the same
      order as material in Luke. These similarities, whether virtually
      verbatim or less close but in the same order, are so significant that it
      is beyond reasonable doubt that either Matthew used Luke, or Luke used
      Matthew, or both are descendants of a common documentary ancestor. The
      relationship is basically documentary.

      On the assumption of GH1/2, this conclusion follows whether or not Luke
      was freely composing in any sense. Even if in places in his gospel he
      was freely composing, he did so in such a way that in other places he
      reproduces very significant agreements of wording and order of material
      from Matthew. In this respect, on the GH1/2, Luke was not typical of
      writers of his day. Generally, writers did not take a book and do what
      Luke did, if he made use of Matthew. The similarities are astonishing.
      So even if Luke was in some sense freely composing as he used Matthew,
      it still needs to be explained why Luke is so astonishingly similar in
      wording and order of material to Matthew. Explaining the apparent
      creativity of Luke is easy. Explaining why such an apparently talented
      writer followed so closely the wording and order of Matthew, if he used
      Matthew, is very hard.

      I make no apologies, therefore, for focussing on similarities in the
      synoptic gospels. The similarities are the Synoptic Problem.

      As regards GH1 as distinct from GH2 above, it seems to me that GH1 does
      not fit well observed synoptic patterns such as (1) "story dualities",
      (2) "non-parallel words", (3) Mattheanisms and Lukanisms, (4) the
      absence from each synoptic gospel of the use of the first person to
      refer to the writer of the gospel - Lk 1.1-4 being regarded here as a
      dedication of the book proper, Lk 1.5ff, which follows, and (5) the
      absence of a clear outline to any synoptic gospel. The argument here is
      not that it is utterly impossible that an explanation might be found for
      these patterns on the basis of GH1, but that it is difficult to do so,
      whereas the Greek Notes Hypothesis fits well patterns such as these,
      with no difficulty.

      I would suggest that some of the patterns I mention may in fact be more
      difficult to accommodate under GH1 than under GH2, whereas it may be
      less difficult for others. But I think the patterns I instance are all
      difficulties for both GH1 and GH2 in some way. Insofar as it may be less
      difficult to accommodate some of the patterns under GH1 than under GH2,
      I suppose I agree with your analysis. Insofar as all the patterns are a
      difficulty for both GH1 and GH2, I would say that your analysis does not
      affect the conclusion to be drawn.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE ***RECENTLY UPDATED*** (AGAIN)
      SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
      10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Brian Wilson wrote to Mark Goodacre - ... Jim Deardorff commented - ... Jim, Your posting was in two parts. I here answer the first part (shown above), since
      Message 78 of 78 , Sep 15, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Brian Wilson wrote to Mark Goodacre -
        >
        >I am afraid you have not explained why, on the Farrer Hypothesis,
        >no synoptic gospel is usually the middle term on the level of wording.
        >Do I take it that the Farrer Hypothesis cannot explain this, in fact?
        >If so, is that not pretty damaging to the Farrer Hypothesis? Are you
        >really stuck on this one?
        >
        >It seems you are now moving to the idea that "there is simply no doubt
        >that Mark is usually the middle term" in the order of triple tradition
        >material (previously you were talking in terms of "SUBSTANTIAL
        >agreements of wording", or "MINOR agreements of wording", of two
        >synoptic gospels against the third.) I am not at all clear what you now
        >mean, I must confess.
        >
        >Are you saying that the Gospel of Mark is the middle term as regards
        >order of pericopes in a way in which neither Matthew nor Luke are the
        >middle term? If this is the case, could you please say in just what
        >way Mark is the middle term as regards order in which Matthew and Luke
        >are not?
        >

        Jim Deardorff commented -
        >
        >There is the well known agreement in order between Matthew & Mark from
        >Mt 12 or 13 on and Mk 6 or so on. Then there is the general agreement
        >in order between Luke and Mark from Lk 4:31 and Mk 1:21 on to Lk 9:17
        >and Mk 6:43. Aside from the triple tradition commencing around Lk 18,
        >there is then very little agreement in order between Matthew and Luke.
        >Hence Mark is the middle term here.
        >

        Jim,
        Your posting was in two parts. I here answer the first part (shown
        above), since this keeps to the point I was making. I am answering the
        second part in a different posting (and under a different subject
        heading), since it goes on to a quite separate matter concerning the
        Greek Notes Hypothesis and the distribution of the "double tradition" in
        the synoptic gospels.

        I agree with your above description of the general agreement in order
        of pericopes of Mark and Matthew in the "second half" of Mark, and of
        Mark and Luke in the "first half" of Mark. My question is, given these
        observations, what makes Mark the "middle term" with regard to order of
        pericopes in a way in which Matthew is NOT the middle term, and in which
        Luke is NOT the middle term?

        In other words, even if Mark is the middle term with regard to the order
        of pericopes, how do you know that neither Matthew nor Luke is the
        middle term also in this respect?

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE
        SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
        10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.