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

Re: the Markan Cross Factor

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    ... Brian, This set of peculiarities does follow from the AH as I have sketched it out before. So that would explain why it doesn t flow from the 2D or Ferrar
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 10, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:14 PM 4/10/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
      >In the introduction to his *Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark*,
      >(1st edition, Jerusalem, 1969), pages 20-21, R. L. Lindsey wrote of the
      >"Markan Cross Factor". He wrote further on this in 'Jerusalem
      >Perspective' Volume 2 Number 10 (Sept/Oct 1989) pages 10-12. His basic
      >idea was that (1) there is high verbal identity between the wording of
      >Matthew and Luke in the double tradition, but low pericope-order
      >agreement, and (2) that there is low verbal identity between Matthew and
      >Luke in the triple tradition, but high pericope-order agreement.
      >
      >It is clear in a synopsis, for instance, that the double tradition
      >parable of the Speck and the Plank is very similar in wording to Mt
      >7.3-5 and Lk 6.41-42, and that generally this strong similarity of
      >wording between Matthew and Luke occurs in the other passages of the
      >double tradition. It is also clear that the order of the double
      >tradition in Matthew is not closely similar to the order of the parallel
      >material in Luke.
      >
      >Synopses also show that, for instance, in the triple tradition Feeding
      >of the Five Thousand, only about half the words of the Matthaean account
      >(Mt 14.13-21) are also found in the Lukan version (Lk 9.10-17), and that
      >usually Matthew and Luke do not agree closely in their wording in their
      >parallel passages where they also parallel Mark. Yet in the triple
      >tradition passages, the order of material in Matthew agrees quite
      >strongly with the order of the parallel material in Luke.
      >
      >Lindsey argued if Matthew and Luke had both copied from Mark, we should
      >expect that the verbal identity between Matthew and Luke in the triple
      >tradition passages would have been at least as high, if not higher, than
      >the verbal identity between Matthew and Luke in the double tradition,
      >especially as Matthew and Luke do generally follow the order of the
      >material they use from Mark. But the opposite is observed. This "Markan
      >Cross Factor" is therefore incompatible with the idea that Matthew and
      >Luke copied from Mark.
      >
      >In which case, neither the Two Document Hypothesis nor the Farrer
      >Hypothesis is to be accepted.
      >
      >Do others agree? How is the Markan Cross Factor to be explained? Why is
      >there high verbal agreement, and low pericope-order agreement, between
      >Matthew and Luke where they do not parallel Mark, but also low verbal
      >agreement and high pericope-order agreement between Matthew and Luke
      >where they do parallel Mark?
      >
      >Best wishes,
      >BRIAN WILSON

      Brian,

      This set of peculiarities does follow from the AH as I have sketched it out
      before. So that would explain why it doesn't flow from the 2D or Ferrar
      hypotheses.

      To recap it, this involves the writer of Luke having held high regard for
      Mark and low regard for Matthew, since Mark does not denigrate gentiles and
      allows that they should very much be disciples, while Matthew generally does
      not.

      Yet the writer of Luke did want his gospel to be more universal than Mark,
      and was therefore obliged to reincorporate into his gospel much from Matthew
      that Mark omits. He could show his respective high/low preferences by (a)
      following Mark's order and text well where Mark *deviates* from Matthew's
      order, and (b) by taking Matthew's text that Mark omits out of order and
      often out of context. This latter showed his low regard for Matthew. A
      bulk of this is done within Luke's "Great Omission."

      Since the triple tradition, by definition, doesn't involve pericopes that
      Mark omits, (c) the writer of Luke did generally follow along in Mark's
      order there. If he had not, this would not have allowed his disregard for
      Matthew's order, where Mark omits Matthew, to stand out and display his
      preference for Mark.

      At the end of Luke's "Great Omission," Luke once again follows Mark's order.
      But since in this region Mark follows Matthew's order very faithfully and
      this is triple-tradition material (save for the parable of the pounds), (d)
      Luke's order of pericopes in this triple-tradition material consequently
      follows Matthew's order also. But in this region the writer of Luke did not
      need to follow Mark's text real closely, since Mark there does not deviate
      from Matthew's order. So (e) it is in the triple tradition that Luke
      recasts so heavily.

      At this point one needs to look into the behavior of the later translator of
      Hebraic Matthew into Greek (this still follows the AH in the form of this
      Hebraic tradition as well as the Mt-Mk-Lk priority tradition). This
      translator wanted to point out that a lot of Luke derived from their Hebraic
      Matthew, though it might not look like it at first glance, what with Luke
      written in Greek, Matthew in Hebraic, and so much of Luke's reincorporation
      of Matthew taken out of order and context. (f) By replicating lengthy
      strings of Lucan text, then, from the "Q" passages, producing high verbal
      agreement, this translator could make this fact more obvious. This would
      help restore the primacy and authority to the new and later appearing Greek
      Matthew, which could otherwise be lost if it weren't made obvious that much
      of Luke derives from Matthew.

      So with this form of the AH, the answer to: "Why is there high verbal
      agreement, and low pericope-order agreement, between Matthew and Luke where
      they do not parallel Mark"? lies in (b) and (f) above.

      And as to why is there "also low verbal agreement and high pericope-order
      agreement between Matthew and Luke where they do parallel Mark?" the answer
      lies in (d) and (e) above.

      Parts of the above explanation are very much involved in why the AH was
      rejected in the 19th century, since the (plausible) reasons for this
      editorial behavior on the part of the writer of Luke were considered
      (theologically) unacceptable at that time. I hope that this is still not
      the situation.

      More on this is in my web site article:
      http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/priority.htm


      Jim Deardorff
      Corvallis, Oregon
      E-mail: deardorj@...
      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
    • Antonio Jerez
      ... What makes Lindsey think that Luke must necessarily deal in the same way with the double and the triple traditions? I know that this is hard to fathom for
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 11, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Brian E. Wilson wrote:


        >In the introduction to his *Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark*,
        >(1st edition, Jerusalem, 1969), pages 20-21, R. L. Lindsey wrote of the
        >"Markan Cross Factor". He wrote further on this in 'Jerusalem
        >Perspective' Volume 2 Number 10 (Sept/Oct 1989) pages 10-12. His basic
        >idea was that (1) there is high verbal identity between the wording of
        >Matthew and Luke in the double tradition, but low pericope-order
        >agreement, and (2) that there is low verbal identity between Matthew and
        >Luke in the triple tradition, but high pericope-order agreement.
        >
        >It is clear in a synopsis, for instance, that the double tradition
        >parable of the Speck and the Plank is very similar in wording to Mt
        >7.3-5 and Lk 6.41-42, and that generally this strong similarity of
        >wording between Matthew and Luke occurs in the other passages of the
        >double tradition. It is also clear that the order of the double
        >tradition in Matthew is not closely similar to the order of the parallel
        >material in Luke.
        >
        >Synopses also show that, for instance, in the triple tradition Feeding
        >of the Five Thousand, only about half the words of the Matthaean account
        >(Mt 14.13-21) are also found in the Lukan version (Lk 9.10-17), and that
        >usually Matthew and Luke do not agree closely in their wording in their
        >parallel passages where they also parallel Mark. Yet in the triple
        >tradition passages, the order of material in Matthew agrees quite
        >strongly with the order of the parallel material in Luke.
        >
        >Lindsey argued if Matthew and Luke had both copied from Mark, we should
        >expect that the verbal identity between Matthew and Luke in the triple
        >tradition passages would have been at least as high, if not higher, than
        >the verbal identity between Matthew and Luke in the double tradition,
        >especially as Matthew and Luke do generally follow the order of the
        >material they use from Mark. But the opposite is observed. This "Markan
        >Cross Factor" is therefore incompatible with the idea that Matthew and
        >Luke copied from Mark.


        What makes Lindsey think that Luke must necessarily deal
        in the same way with the double and the triple traditions?
        I know that this is hard to fathom for most scholars, but I will
        go on arguing that Luke had as a policy to alter the text as
        much as possible whenever Mark and Matthew had very
        similar wording in a pericope. In the double tradition Luke felt
        much freer to copy Matthew straight off since he didn't feel as
        much of a copycat when he only had ONE earlier version of
        a pericope or story to work with. That is in my opinion the
        reason why there is a lower verbal identity between Matthew
        and Luke in the triple tradition than in the double tradition.

        >In which case, neither the Two Document Hypothesis nor the Farrer
        >Hypothesis is to be accepted.
        >
        >Do others agree? How is the Markan Cross Factor to be explained? Why is
        >there high verbal agreement, and low pericope-order agreement, between
        >Matthew and Luke where they do not parallel Mark, but also low verbal
        >agreement and high pericope-order agreement between Matthew and Luke
        >where they do parallel Mark?

        See my explanation above and in earlier messages. And please
        take a closer look at the way Mark, Matthew and Luke handle all
        time markers (in the evening, after eight days etc.). The fact that
        Luke almost ALWAYS diverge when Matthew and Mark agree is
        a strong indication that my thesis is basically right. Does anybody
        else on the list have a more plausible explanation for this phenomenon?

        Best wishes

        Antonio Jerez
        Goteborg, Sweden
        antonio.jerez@...
      • Jim Deardorff
        ... Antonio, Perhaps this is an opportunity to discuss this more fully than we did a month or two ago. Our two solutions to this bear a a good deal of
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 11, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          At 06:40 PM 4/11/98 +0200, Antonio Jerez wrote:
          >Brian E. Wilson wrote:
          >
          >>In the introduction to his *Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark*,
          >>(1st edition, Jerusalem, 1969), pages 20-21, R. L. Lindsey wrote of the
          >>"Markan Cross Factor". He wrote further on this in 'Jerusalem
          >>Perspective' Volume 2 Number 10 (Sept/Oct 1989) pages 10-12. His basic
          >>idea was that (1) there is high verbal identity between the wording of
          >>Matthew and Luke in the double tradition, but low pericope-order
          >>agreement, and (2) that there is low verbal identity between Matthew and
          >>Luke in the triple tradition, but high pericope-order agreement. ...

          >>Lindsey argued if Matthew and Luke had both copied from Mark, we should
          >>expect that the verbal identity between Matthew and Luke in the triple
          >>tradition passages would have been at least as high, if not higher, than
          >>the verbal identity between Matthew and Luke in the double tradition,
          >>especially as Matthew and Luke do generally follow the order of the
          >>material they use from Mark. But the opposite is observed. This "Markan
          >>Cross Factor" is therefore incompatible with the idea that Matthew and
          >>Luke copied from Mark.

          >What makes Lindsey think that Luke must necessarily deal
          >in the same way with the double and the triple traditions?
          >I know that this is hard to fathom for most scholars, but I will
          >go on arguing that Luke had as a policy to alter the text as
          >much as possible whenever Mark and Matthew had very
          >similar wording in a pericope. In the double tradition Luke felt
          >much freer to copy Matthew straight off since he didn't feel as
          >much of a copycat when he only had ONE earlier version of
          >a pericope or story to work with. That is in my opinion the
          >reason why there is a lower verbal identity between Matthew
          >and Luke in the triple tradition than in the double tradition.

          Antonio,

          Perhaps this is an opportunity to discuss this more fully than we did a
          month or two ago. Our two solutions to this bear a a good deal of
          similarity, since we try to place ourselves in the writer's shoes.

          However, I don't see that the writer of Luke here was feeling free to copy
          Matthew "straight off." He was instead half-way disguising his copying from
          Matthew. In his parable of the pounds, for instance, he changed talents to
          pounds and put the parable in a different context. Within our context of
          Lucan dependence upon Matthew, the instructions to the seventy comes from
          Matthew's instructions to the twelve; Luke's parable of the Great Supper is
          in quite a different context from Matthew's parable of the Rejected
          Invitation and with different punch lines, though exhibiting unmistakable
          dependence; Luke's Woes against the Lawyers bears an unmistakable connection
          to Matthew's Woes against the scribes and Pharisees, but takes only some of
          them and in different order. Luke's parable of the fig tree is in totally
          different context than Matthew's.
          Luke's Way of the Cross (Lk 14:25-35) is in a different context than
          Matthew's, making use of both Mt 10:37-38 and Mt 5:13 (Mk has no parallel to
          Mt 5:13b). At the end of Luke's rendition of "Who is the greatest?" (triple
          tradition) he adds in from Mt 19:28 (not in Mark), which in Matthew has a
          different context.

          These (and no doubt more of them) are familiar to List members. The point
          is, in doing this the writer of Luke was treating Matthew most
          disrespectfully! How is this at all consistent with your explanation? This
          isn't "straight out" copying, but deliberate alteration of order and context
          within the framework of Luke's dependence upon Matthew. If it is
          theologically unacceptable, the easiest solution is to postulate Q.

          But is not the editorial behavior of the writer of Luke consistent with that
          of an early Christian writer who felt that the days should long since have
          been past when gentiles are treated like dogs, as Matthew does?

          And your hypothesis (or explanation) did not come to grips with the great
          verbal agreement within the same verses. Do you really think that an editor
          who heaps so much disrespect upon another's text by placing it in totally
          inappropriate contexts, at times disguising his use of it, would then turn
          about and quote lengthy strings of up to 27 words long from the other's
          Greek text?

          >... And please
          >take a closer look at the way Mark, Matthew and Luke handle all
          >time markers (in the evening, after eight days etc.). The fact that
          >Luke almost ALWAYS diverge when Matthew and Mark agree is
          >a strong indication that my thesis is basically right. Does anybody
          >else on the list have a more plausible explanation for this phenomenon?

          See my previous on this. In being disrespectful to Matthew but respectful
          towards Mark, the writer of Luke did not wish to have to closely agree with
          Matthew where it and Mark agree, yet did not wish to disagree with Mark. So
          there was where he did most of his recasting or diverging. Where Mark
          totally diverges from Matthew's order, there the writer of Luke followed
          Mark very well.

          Jim Deardorff
          Corvallis, Oregon
          E-mail: deardorj@...
          Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... I m afraid that we may looking for a source-critical reason when a form-critical answer will do. The double tradition is largely (but not wholly) sayings
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 11, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:14 4/10/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
            >In the introduction to his *Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark*,
            >(1st edition, Jerusalem, 1969), pages 20-21, R. L. Lindsey wrote of the
            >"Markan Cross Factor". He wrote further on this in 'Jerusalem
            >Perspective' Volume 2 Number 10 (Sept/Oct 1989) pages 10-12. His basic
            >idea was that (1) there is high verbal identity between the wording of
            >Matthew and Luke in the double tradition, but low pericope-order
            >agreement, and (2) that there is low verbal identity between Matthew and
            >Luke in the triple tradition, but high pericope-order agreement.

            I'm afraid that we may looking for a source-critical reason when a
            form-critical answer will do. The double tradition is largely (but
            not wholly) sayings of Jesus, and the triple tradition is mostly
            narrative. It stands to reason that a later evangelist would be
            less inclined to rewrite the words of Jesus than another's
            narrative, while, at the same time, it is easier to rearrange
            sayings topically than narrative.

            Stephen Carlson
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
            scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
            http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
          • Brian E. Wilson
            Brian Wilson wrote (SNIP) - ... Stephen Carlson replied - ... Like Stephen, I think Lindsey s approach is dubious. My observation, however, would be that the
            Message 5 of 11 , Apr 13, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian Wilson wrote (SNIP) -
              >>In the introduction to his *Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark*,
              >>(1st edition, Jerusalem, 1969), pages 20-21, R. L. Lindsey wrote of
              >>the "Markan Cross Factor". He wrote further on this in 'Jerusalem
              >>Perspective' Volume 2 Number 10 (Sept/Oct 1989) pages 10-12. His basic
              >>idea was that (1) there is high verbal identity between the wording of
              >>Matthew and Luke in the double tradition, but low pericope-order
              >>agreement, and (2) that there is low verbal identity between Matthew
              >>and Luke in the triple tradition, but high pericope-order agreement.

              Stephen Carlson replied -
              >I'm afraid that we may looking for a source-critical reason when a
              >form-critical answer will do. The double tradition is largely (but
              >not wholly) sayings of Jesus, and the triple tradition is mostly
              >narrative. It stands to reason that a later evangelist would be
              >less inclined to rewrite the words of Jesus than another's
              >narrative, while, at the same time, it is easier to rearrange
              >sayings topically than narrative.

              Like Stephen, I think Lindsey's approach is dubious.

              My observation, however, would be that the double tradition is mostly
              direct speech (by John the Baptist, the devil, the centurion, Jesus, and
              others), whereas the triple tradition is mostly not direct speech. In
              both the double and the triple tradition, generally direct speech in
              Matthew is strongly similar in wording to the parallel material in Luke.
              In both the double and the triple tradition, material which is not
              direct speech in Matthew is generally only weakly similar in wording to
              the parallel material in Luke.

              On this analysis, Lindsey's "Markan Cross Factor" evaporates. For there
              is generally high verbal identity between Matthew and Luke in direct
              speech in both the double and the triple tradition passages, and there
              is generally low verbal identity between Matthew and Luke in material
              which is not direct speech also in both the double and the triple
              tradition passages. The relationship between Matthew and Luke is
              therefore the same where they parallel Mark as where they do not.

              The main question still to be answered, of course, is why Matthew and
              Luke agree more closely in wording which is direct speech than in
              material which is not direct speech, whether in the double or the triple
              tradition, and whether within pericopes which are narratives or within
              pericopes which largely consist of sayings.

              Best wishes,
              BRIAN WILSON
            • Jim Deardorff
              ... Would it not generally take more audacity for an editor to alter what is said than its context or related narratives? What was spoken was more important
              Message 6 of 11 , Apr 13, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                At 08:58 AM 4/13/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                > [...]
                >The main question still to be answered, of course, is why Matthew and
                >Luke agree more closely in wording which is direct speech than in
                >material which is not direct speech, whether in the double or the triple
                >tradition, and whether within pericopes which are narratives or within
                >pericopes which largely consist of sayings.

                Would it not generally take more audacity for an editor to alter what is
                said than its context or related narratives? What was spoken was more
                important than the context in which it was said. Yet we can't be very
                definite in the above distinction. There is a good deal of Lucan recasting
                even of speech within the triple tradition, as in Lk 21:25 vs Mt 24:29 & Mk
                13:24-25a, or some 8 times within Lk 21; then more in Lk 22:24-28,33,
                57-58,60a,71 and so on.

                Since (or if) the writer of Luke did feel the need to include in his gospel
                most of what Mark omits from Matthew, but wished to include it in a manner
                that would show his disrespect for Matthew, he could do this by retaining
                the direct speech nearly intact while altering the context. To do it the
                other way around wouldn't make sense, I don't think, if this writer did feel
                obliged to include in his gospel the essence of what Mark omits from
                Matthew. Then, these portions of nearly intact speech is what the later
                translator of Matthew could notice as being out of context; he could then
                point some of them out by replicating lengthy strings of their Greek wording
                into his Greek Matthew.

                Jim Deardorff
                Corvallis, Oregon
                E-mail: deardorj@...
                Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
              • Gérard Layole
                ... De : Brian E. Wilson À : Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Date : lundi 13 avril 1998 10:01 Objet : Re: the Markan
                Message 7 of 11 , Apr 14, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  -----Message d'origine-----
                  De : Brian E. Wilson <brian@...>
                  À : Synoptic-L@... <Synoptic-L@...>
                  Date : lundi 13 avril 1998 10:01
                  Objet : Re: the Markan Cross Factor


                  >Brian Wilson wrote
                  >
                  >The main question still to be answered, of course, is why Matthew and
                  >Luke agree more closely in wording which is direct speech than in
                  >material which is not direct speech, whether in the double or the triple
                  >tradition, and whether within pericopes which are narratives or within
                  >pericopes which largely consist of sayings.
                  >
                  Couldn't we suppose, like different french scholars, that the source of
                  sayings used by the double tradition was a greek writen recollection and the
                  narrative, if not oral tradition, aramaic document?
                  In this case,we easily explain that the wordings remained very close and the
                  narration, due to the differencies between the translators, so varying in
                  the form.
                  Gerard Layole
                • Brian E. Wilson
                  Brian Wilson wrote - ... Gerard Layole replied - ... The difficulty with this suggestion is that it does not seem to explain why the direct speech within the
                  Message 8 of 11 , Apr 14, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Brian Wilson wrote -
                    >>
                    >>The main question still to be answered, of course, is why Matthew and
                    >>Luke agree more closely in wording which is direct speech than in
                    >>material which is not direct speech, whether in the double or the
                    >>triple tradition, and whether within pericopes which are narratives or
                    >>within pericopes which largely consist of sayings.
                    >>
                    Gerard Layole replied -
                    >Couldn't we suppose, like different french scholars, that the source of
                    >sayings used by the double tradition was a greek written recollection
                    >and the narrative, if not oral tradition, aramaic document? In this
                    >case, we easily explain that the wordings remained very close and the
                    >narration, due to the differencies between the translators, so
                    >varying in the form.

                    The difficulty with this suggestion is that it does not seem to explain
                    why the direct speech within the narratives in Matthew is closely
                    similar in wording to the parallel direct speech in Luke whether in the
                    double tradition or **in the triple tradition**.

                    For instance, in the double tradition "John's Question to Jesus" in Mt
                    11.2-6 // Lk 7.18-23, the direct speech in Matthew is very similar in
                    wording to the wording which is parallel in Luke, but the parts of
                    Matthew which are not direct speech show hardly any verbal agreement at
                    all with the parts of Luke which are not direct speech. This is true
                    also of the double tradition account of the Temptation of Jesus. Matthew
                    and Luke agree closely in wording where the devil is speaking, or Jesus,
                    but the material which is not direct speech is not at all similar. The
                    same thing generally happens in the triple tradition also, however. For
                    example, in the triple tradition account of Jesus and his disciples
                    walking through the cornfields (Mt 12.1-8, Mk 2.23-28, Lk 6.1-5), the
                    direct speech by the Pharisees and by Jesus is mostly very similar in
                    Matthew and Luke, but Matthew and Luke have very little verbal
                    similarity in the material which is not direct speech.

                    It seems to me that we can hardly suppose that the triple tradition
                    account of Jesus with disciples in the cornfields circulated in Aramaic
                    without any direct speech from the Pharisees or Jesus, and that later,
                    this was translated and then had direct speech inserted from a written
                    Greek sayings collection, and that this was generally true of narratives
                    in the triple tradition. Even a form critic would hesitate to propose
                    that generally the narratives about Jesus circulated entirely without
                    direct speech within them.

                    It seems to me that the pattern described above still needs to be
                    explained. Incidentally, the pattern can be viewed very conveniently in
                    W. R. Farmer's SYNOPTICON which is not about his attempted solution to
                    the synoptic problem but which sets out the text of the synoptic gospels
                    with coloured backgrounds for some words. Agreement of wording between
                    Matthew and Luke not found in Mark (including the double tradition) is
                    with a red background. Agreement in wording between all three synoptic
                    gospels is shown in blue. Most of the "red" words in Matthew or Luke are
                    direct speech. Similarly, most of the "blue" words in Matthew or Luke
                    are also direct speech. The SYNOPTICON really is very useful, if you can
                    get hold of one. I think it is out of print at the moment. I bought my
                    copy second-hand some years ago.

                    Best wishes,
                    BRIAN WILSON

                    E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                    SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                    10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                    Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                  • Mahlon H. Smith
                    ... By this standard, Stephen, Luke should be the most conservative of the synoptic writers when it comes to revising sayings of Jesus found in his alleged
                    Message 9 of 11 , Apr 29, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                      >
                      > It stands to reason that a later evangelist would be
                      > less inclined to rewrite the words of Jesus than another's
                      > narrative, while, at the same time, it is easier to rearrange
                      > sayings topically than narrative.

                      By this standard, Stephen, Luke should be the most conservative of the
                      synoptic writers when it comes to revising sayings of Jesus found in his
                      alleged sources---that is, IF one accepts the traditional dating that
                      places Luke after both Mark & Matthew.

                      IF this is the case, then it would seem impossible to defend the
                      hypothesis that Luke knew both Matthew & Luke. For there are myriad
                      places where Matthew & Mark are in near verbatim agreement in reporting
                      sayings of Jesus where Luke's version of Jesus' words diverges from both
                      by omitting precisely the wording in which the the other two agree.
                      E.g., the chreia on Jesus' true kin, the parable of the mustard, the
                      judicial pronouncement about forgiveness of blasphemy. At other places
                      he presents a variant form of sayings which are virtually identical in
                      Matt & Mark. E.g., the parable of the sower, the proverb of the patch,
                      the aphorism about binding a strong man, the principle of equal
                      measures. And what about Luke's so-called "great omission." Matthew &
                      Mark parallel each other closely here.

                      I agree that one would EXPECT a later evangelist to be less inclined to
                      rewrite words of Jesus in texts that he really knew & used. How then is
                      one going to account for these phenomena? Curious, non? Especially
                      curious IF one maintains Luke knew & used BOTH of the other synoptics as
                      his textual sources.

                      Shalom!

                      Mahlon
                      --
                      *****
                      Mahlon H. Smith
                      Department of Religion, Rutgers University
                      New Brunswick NJ 08901

                      Homepage: http://religion.rutgers.edu/mhsmith.html
                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                      ... Mahlon, in my statement I was attempting to contrast how a later evangelist would handle Jesus sayings of his source as compared to his handling of the
                      Message 10 of 11 , Apr 29, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 04:19 4/29/98 -0400, Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
                        >Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                        >> It stands to reason that a later evangelist would be
                        >> less inclined to rewrite the words of Jesus than another's
                        >> narrative, while, at the same time, it is easier to rearrange
                        >> sayings topically than narrative.
                        >
                        >By this standard, Stephen, Luke should be the most conservative of the
                        >synoptic writers when it comes to revising sayings of Jesus found in his
                        >alleged sources---that is, IF one accepts the traditional dating that
                        >places Luke after both Mark & Matthew.

                        Mahlon, in my statement I was attempting to contrast how a later
                        evangelist would handle Jesus' sayings of his source as compared
                        to his handling of the narrative material of his source. I did
                        not intend to make any suggestion that a later evangelist would
                        tend to be more conservative than an earlier evangelist in the
                        treatment of the sayings of Jesus.

                        As for your other points about why would Luke present a variant
                        to a saying that Matthew and Mark agree verbatim or even omit a
                        great amount of text where Matthew and Mark closely agree, I
                        will offer the standard rebuttal: Matthew and Mark were readily
                        available in Luke's community, so Luke felt no compulsion in
                        reproducing them, especially if there was other material he
                        wanted to use. [See H.T.Fleddermann, MARK & Q (Leuven: 1995) p.16
                        who uses this argument as a prototypical example why "general
                        arguments have limited usefulness."]

                        Luke's "Great Omission" of Mark (and Matthew?) is best explained
                        as a way reserving enough space on his scroll for the L (and Q?)
                        material. Furthermore, I doubt the technical feasibility of
                        comparing texts written in a continuous script to determine what
                        the verbatim agreement is. Like most ancient authors, Luke
                        oprobably found it much easier to deal with one source at a time.
                        (Tatian is hardly a counterexample, because the emerging canonicity
                        of the four Gospels in the mid to late second century provided ample
                        motivation.)

                        Stephen Carlson
                        --
                        Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                        scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                        http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.