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

Re: a hypothesis like the Farrer one

Expand Messages
  • Antonio Jerez
    ... Brian, I have not studied the Lagrange hypothesis, but judging by your own exposition it is not the Farrer hypothesis. But in a sense it is related to
    Message 1 of 18 , Feb 15, 1998
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Wilson wrote:


      >Antonio Jerez wrote -
      >>A hypothesis like the Farrer one may not be able to
      >>explain just about everything down to the most minimal
      >>jota, but I think it is enough if it can explain things to
      >>a fairly high degree without resorting to a lot of crisscrossing
      >>hypothetical documents.
      >
      >Antonio,
      > M. J. Lagrange posited that Matthew copied from Mark, and that
      >Luke copied from both Matthew and Mark. So far, this is the same as the
      >hypothesis put forward by Austin Farrer. Lagrange also held that
      >Matthew used a written Aramaic Proto-Matthew and that at least one other
      >documentary source was used by Matthew, and, again, at least one other
      >documentary source was used by Luke. Here Lagrange and Austin Farrer
      >parted company. Where Lagrange posited hypothetical documentary
      >material, Farrer posited hypothetical oral material used by Matthew and
      >Luke.
      >
      >Do you accept Lagrange's Hypothesis as "a hypothesis like the Farrer
      >one" ? And would you kindly give a reason for your answer?


      Brian,
      I have not studied the Lagrange hypothesis, but
      judging by your own exposition it is not the Farrer
      hypothesis. But in a sense it is related to Farrer since
      both presume that Luke used Matthew. Another related
      hypothesis is the Gundry-Morgenthaler which presumes
      both Luke's use of Matthew and the existence of a Q
      document that was used by both Matthew and Luke.
      As for myself I wholeheartedly endorse the part of the
      hypothesis' of Lagrange, Farrer and Gundry-Morgenthaler
      that presume Luke's use Matthew. I am more undecided
      about the form of the sources that Luke used besides
      Matthew (and Mark). They may have been both written
      and oral.

      Best wishes

      Antonio
    • Jim Deardorff
      ... I hope I may comment here, as this lies close to my own main interests. A modified Augustinian hypothesis of course also solves this problem -- that the
      Message 2 of 18 , Feb 16, 1998
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        At 07:07 PM 2/16/98 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
        >Antonio Jerez wrote -
        >>As for myself I wholeheartedly endorse the part of the >>hypothesis of
        >>Lagrange, Farrer and Gundry-Morgenthaler that presume Luke's use >>of Matthew.

        >Fair enough, if you wish to hold that view. I would only comment that
        >by itself the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew, Mark and other sources,
        >and that Matthew used Mark, is not a solution to the synoptic problem to
        >my way of thinking.
        >
        >For one thing, Matthew contains hundreds of verses of material - about
        >half his gospel - not found in Mark. A solution to the synoptic problem
        >would, I think, have to be compatible with this phenomenon which can be
        >observed in any synopsis.

        I hope I may comment here, as this lies close to my own main interests.

        A modified Augustinian hypothesis of course also solves this problem -- that
        the writer of Mark in Rome did indeed abbreviate Matthew, as Irenaeus,
        Origen, Augustine... indicated. The primary reason would be the usual one:
        that this writer was writing a gospel for gentiles whom he felt wouldn't be
        much interested in Judaisms. But I sense in addition that he omitted some
        items from Matthew that he did not endorse, and others that he did not
        understand. The latter may have been due partly to original Matthew having
        been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, if for consistency this part of the
        tradition is followed, too.

        >For another thing, is it not a rather odd idea that Luke should have
        >deliberately cannibalized two books (Matthew and Mark), already in use,
        >to produce a third book (Luke)? Was that the done thing in those days?

        I believe that those partaking in such actions would have thought of it as
        correcting serious deficiencies in the previous gospel(s), and not
        cannibalization. The writer of Luke, in striving for a universal gospel,
        would have realized that Mark omits far too much from Matthew, and so the
        omitted material would need to be reinstated into his own gospel (in
        whatever context and order!). The writer of Mark would previously have felt
        that Matthew contains far too much anti-gentile material, and inexcusably
        excluded gentiles from the kingdom. So that had to be remedied.

        I call this part of a modified Augustinian hypothesis because, unlike the
        standard one, it presupposes that the Gospels were written rather late and
        not by their namesakes. In any event, I'm heartened at least to see some
        support on this list for Luke having made use of Matthew.

        Jim Deardorff
      • Antonio Jerez
        ... I m also heartened to see that other people on the list support Luke having used Matthew. But where Jim Deardorff and I part ways appears to be over the
        Message 3 of 18 , Feb 17, 1998
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Brian E Wilson wrote:
          >>For another thing, is it not a rather odd idea that Luke should have
          >>deliberately cannibalized two books (Matthew and Mark), already in use,
          >>to produce a third book (Luke)? Was that the done thing in those days?

          Jim Deardorff replied:
          >I believe that those partaking in such actions would have thought of it as
          >correcting serious deficiencies in the previous gospel(s), and not
          >cannibalization. The writer of Luke, in striving for a universal gospel,
          >would have realized that Mark omits far too much from Matthew, and so the
          >omitted material would need to be reinstated into his own gospel (in
          >whatever context and order!). The writer of Mark would previously have felt
          >that Matthew contains far too much anti-gentile material, and inexcusably
          >excluded gentiles from the kingdom. So that had to be remedied.
          >
          >I call this part of a modified Augustinian hypothesis because, unlike the
          >standard one, it presupposes that the Gospels were written rather late and
          >not by their namesakes. In any event, I'm heartened at least to see some
          >support on this list for Luke having made use of Matthew.

          I'm also heartened to see that other people on the list
          support Luke having used Matthew. But where Jim Deardorff
          and I part ways appears to be over the question of Markan
          priority. I am a staunch adherent of Markan priority. I actually
          take it as one of the few assured results of biblical criticism
          that Mark is the first gospel. The arguments for this are legion,
          and I am sure that we will have ample opportunity to return
          to it on this list.
          Jim gave some reasons why Mark could have set out to
          rewrite Matthew. I do not think the reason given that Matthew
          "inexcusably excluded gentiles from the kingdom" is a good
          one. Where do you find evidence in Matthew that the evangelist
          did not admit gentiles to his Church?

          Best wishes

          Antonio
        • Antonio Jerez
          ... I have not claimed that it is a total solution of the synoptic problem, but it is a big step on the way. And as I have said before - I do not believe it is
          Message 4 of 18 , Feb 17, 1998
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On 98-02-17 Brian E. Wilson wrote:


            >Antonio Jerez wrote -
            >>As for myself I wholeheartedly endorse the part of the hypothesis of
            >>Lagrange, Farrer and Gundry-Morgenthaler that presume Luke's use of
            >>Matthew. I am more undecided about the form of the sources that Luke
            >>used besides Matthew (and Mark). They may have been both written
            >>and oral.
            >
            >Fair enough, if you wish to hold that view. I would only comment that
            >by itself the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew, Mark and other sources,
            >and that Matthew used Mark, is not a solution to the synoptic problem to
            >my way of thinking.


            I have not claimed that it is a total solution of the
            synoptic problem, but it is a big step on the way.
            And as I have said before - I do not believe it is
            possible to solve the synoptic problem in its entirety.
            How are we to know 2000 years later all the streams
            of oral traditions and written traditions that may have
            fed the gospels in the NT?

            >For one thing, Matthew contains hundreds of verses of material - about
            >half his gospel - not found in Mark. A solution to the synoptic problem
            >would, I think, have to be compatible with this phenomenon which can be
            >observed in any synopsis.

            That is true. Matthew contains hundreds of verses of material
            that are not found in Mark. Most scholars believe he got part
            of that material from a document called Q. I am sceptical
            about that. I think Matthew made up quite a lot of what we
            find in Q himself. A lot of the M material in Matthew was also
            written by Matthew. What Matthew inherited from tradition
            or made up by himself has to be decided on a case by case
            basis.

            >For another thing, is it not a rather odd idea that Luke should have
            >deliberately cannibalized two books (Matthew and Mark), already in use,
            >to produce a third book (Luke)? Was that the done thing in those days?

            I don't think it odd at all. Luke had a lot of reasons to
            write a gospel of his own. Mark had written a gospel
            for gentile Christians that contained to few sayings
            and made to radical a break with Judaism for Luke's
            taste. Matthew on the other hand was to much molded
            for Jewish-Christians for Luke to have much use of it in
            his gentile Church. So Luke took what he deemed was
            best out of both gospels, blended it with his own storys
            and got a gospel that was better suited for gentiles at the
            end of the first century.

            Best wishes

            Antonio
          • Jim Deardorff
            ... that Matthew contains far too much anti-gentile material, and inexcusably excluded gentiles from the kingdom. So that had to be remedied. [...] ...
            Message 5 of 18 , Feb 17, 1998
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              At 03:28 PM 2/17/98 +0100, Antonio Jerez wrote:
              >Brian E Wilson wrote:
              >>>For another thing, is it not a rather odd idea that Luke should have
              >>>deliberately cannibalized two books (Matthew and Mark), already in use,
              >>>to produce a third book (Luke)? Was that the done thing in those days?

              >Jim Deardorff replied:
              >>I believe that those partaking in such actions would have thought of it as
              >>correcting serious deficiencies in the previous gospel(s), and not
              >>cannibalization. [...] The writer of Mark would previously have >>felt
              that Matthew contains far too much anti-gentile material, >>and inexcusably
              excluded gentiles from the kingdom. So that had >>to be remedied. [...]

              >I'm also heartened to see that other people on the list
              >support Luke having used Matthew. But where Jim Deardorff
              >and I part ways appears to be over the question of Markan
              >priority. I am a staunch adherent of Markan priority. I actually
              >take it as one of the few assured results of biblical criticism
              >that Mark is the first gospel. The arguments for this are legion,
              >and I am sure that we will have ample opportunity to return
              >to it on this list.
              >
              >Jim gave some reasons why Mark could have set out to
              >rewrite Matthew. I do not think the reason given that Matthew
              >"inexcusably excluded gentiles from the kingdom" is a good
              >one. Where do you find evidence in Matthew that the evangelist
              >did not admit gentiles to his Church?

              Antonio,

              I wouldn't say that the writer of Matthew had anything to do with admitting
              persons to his own church, but in maintaining that discipleship was for
              Jews, not gentiles.

              This was spelled out in detail by Pierson Parker in his "The posteriority of
              Mark" in W. R. Farmer's _New Synoptic Studies_.
              Key verses are:

              Mt 10:5 "Go nowhere among the Gentiles";

              Mt 15:24 "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel";

              Mt 15:26 "..not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs".

              Several other verses in Matthew treat the gentiles very derogatorily and not
              in the manner one would treat potential disciples of your own faith. You
              don't call people names like that and expect them to still want to join the
              brotherhood of disciples. These verses are:

              Mt 5:47 "...do not even the Gentiles do the same [as the tax collectors]?"

              Mt 6:7 "And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do;"

              Mt 6:32 "...For the Gentiles seek all these things;" implying that
              non-gentiles were not nearly so anxious about material things of life.

              Mt 10:18, in which the gentiles (not just governors and kings) are included
              among those who will be hearing the testimony of the disciples in their
              martyrdom.

              Mt 18:17 "...let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

              An additional key point is the strong likelihood that Mt 28:18-20 is a later
              addition. This is indicated by "...in the name of the Father and of the Son
              and of the Holy Spirit" -- a Trinitarian-like formula. This was surely
              added by someone else than the original writer of Matthew, in an attempt to
              counteract the preceding anti-gentile material.

              Jim Deardorff
            • Timothy T. Dickens
              [snip of major information] ... Jim, do you know what the Greek NT critical apparatus says on this verse. Does the apparatue hint whether or not the verse was
              Message 6 of 18 , Feb 17, 1998
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                [snip of major information]
                >Mt 18:17 "...let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
                >
                >An additional key point is the strong likelihood that Mt 28:18-20 is a later
                >addition. This is indicated by "...in the name of the Father and of the Son
                >and of the Holy Spirit" -- a Trinitarian-like formula. This was surely
                >added by someone else than the original writer of Matthew, in an attempt to
                >counteract the preceding anti-gentile material.
                >
                >Jim Deardorff

                Jim, do you know what the Greek NT critical apparatus says on this verse.
                Does the apparatue hint whether or not the verse was inserted? I am at work
                now and, therefore, do not have a copy of the Greek NT with me.

                Thanks

                Timothy T. Dickens
                Georgia Department of Education
                1752 Twin Towers East
                Atlanta, Georgia 30334
                (404) 656-2600 WK

                Please check out my webpage at:

                http://www.mindspring.com/~tynell/timspge.htm
              • Jim Deardorff
                ... Tim, NA-27 doesn t indicate any possibility of this that I can see, merely a change in spelling of baptizing in some witnesses. It was instead an article
                Message 7 of 18 , Feb 17, 1998
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 03:42 PM 2/17/98 -0500, Timothy T. Dickens wrote:
                  > [snip of major information]
                  >>Mt 18:17 "...let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
                  >>
                  >>An additional key point is the strong likelihood that Mt 28:18-20 is a later
                  >>addition. This is indicated by "...in the name of the Father and of the Son
                  >>and of the Holy Spirit" -- a Trinitarian-like formula. This was surely
                  >>added by someone else than the original writer of Matthew, in an attempt to
                  >>counteract the preceding anti-gentile material.
                  >>
                  >>Jim Deardorff

                  >Jim, do you know what the Greek NT critical apparatus says on this verse.
                  >Does the apparatue hint whether or not the verse was inserted? I am at work
                  >now and, therefore, do not have a copy of the Greek NT with me.
                  >
                  >Thanks
                  >
                  >Timothy T. Dickens

                  Tim,

                  NA-27 doesn't indicate any possibility of this that I can see, merely a
                  change in spelling of "baptizing" in some witnesses.

                  It was instead an article by George Howard that brought out this possibility
                  to me, in his "A note on the short ending of Matthew," in HTR 81 (1988)
                  117-120; it stems from analyses of what Eusebius failed to say when
                  discussing this general area of Matthew. Also,
                  the primitive Hebrew text Howard analyzed fails to have Mt 28:19 and 20b.

                  I notice that F. Beare, in his commentary on Matthew, gives a couple reasons
                  why Mt 28:19 "is a relatively late formulation."

                  Regarding your mention of Father-Son-Holy Spirit being very prevalent in the
                  NT, my quick look through a concordance doesn't find the combination there
                  at all. Not in the Gospels or in Paul's epistles. Faulty concordance??

                  Is it indeed in the Didache? I've been one who favors the Didache as having
                  come out a little later than Matthew, in which case it wouldn't prove anything.

                  Jim Deardorff
                • Mark Goodacre
                  ... You may already be familiar with this, but there is some discussion of Goulder, both appreciative and critical, on the World Without Q web site
                  Message 8 of 18 , Feb 18, 1998
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Peter EYS wrote:

                    > In our Q discussion, would anyone like to respond to
                    > Goulder's argument on the existence of Q?

                    You may already be familiar with this, but there is some discussion of
                    Goulder, both appreciative and critical, on the World Without Q web
                    site (http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q.htm). For arguments from the
                    perspective of Q theorists, see in particular World Without Q Debate
                    (http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q~debate.htm) in which I argue with
                    Steve Davies (expert on Gospel of Thomas, author of *Jesus the Healer*
                    etc.) and, at more length, with William Arnal (expert on Q, one of
                    Kloppenborg's former students, now with a post at New York
                    University).

                    With good wishes

                    Mark
                    --------------------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
                    Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm
                  • Jim Deardorff
                    ... [...] ... anything. ... Ulrich, (I think you failed to send your post also to the List, so let me post it here. In any event, your question here was soon
                    Message 9 of 18 , Feb 18, 1998
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 12:50 PM 2/18/98 +0100, you wrote:
                      >On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote:
                      [...]
                      >>>>Mt 18:17 "...let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
                      >>>>
                      >>>>An additional key point is the strong likelihood that Mt 28:18-20 is a later
                      >>>>addition. This is indicated by "...in the name of the Father and of the Son
                      >>>>and of the Holy Spirit" -- a Trinitarian-like formula. This was surely
                      >>>>added by someone else than the original writer of Matthew, in an attempt to
                      >>>>counteract the preceding anti-gentile material.
                      >>>>
                      >>>>Jim Deardorff

                      >>>Jim, do you know what the Greek NT critical apparatus says on this verse.
                      >>>Does the apparatue hint whether or not the verse was inserted? I am at work
                      >>>now and, therefore, do not have a copy of the Greek NT with me.
                      >>>
                      >>>Thanks
                      >>>
                      >>>Timothy T. Dickens

                      >>Tim,
                      >>
                      >>NA-27 doesn't indicate any possibility of this that I can see, merely a
                      >>change in spelling of "baptizing" in some witnesses.
                      >>
                      >>It was instead an article by George Howard that brought out this possibility
                      >>to me, in his "A note on the short ending of Matthew," in HTR 81 (1988)
                      >>117-120; it stems from analyses of what Eusebius failed to say when
                      >>discussing this general area of Matthew. Also,
                      >>the primitive Hebrew text Howard analyzed fails to have Mt 28:19 and 20b.
                      >>
                      >>I notice that F. Beare, in his commentary on Matthew, gives a couple reasons
                      >>why Mt 28:19 "is a relatively late formulation."
                      >>
                      >>Is it indeed in the Didache? I've been one who favors the Didache as having
                      >>come out a little later than Matthew, in which case it wouldn't prove
                      anything.
                      >>
                      >>Jim Deardorff


                      >(1) Those favouring the later addition of Mt 28:19-20 do they also want to
                      >remove Mt 2:1-11; 8:5-13; 12:21; 21:33-46; 24:14; 26:13?

                      Ulrich,

                      (I think you failed to send your post also to the List, so let me post it
                      here. In any event, your question here was soon after seconded, essentially,
                      by Antonio Jerez.)

                      Re your question (1), not generally, I'd say. But given all the evidence
                      that the writer of Matthew was anti-gentile, it is only natural to explore
                      reasons why he nevertheless would have included certain material that seems
                      pro-gentile.

                      Regarding Mt 2:1-11, let's keep in mind the writer's key desire to include
                      material from his source (and add some of his own) that portrayed Jesus as
                      the prophesied Messiah. The verse from Micah 5:2, in distorted form, makes
                      clear the Messianic underpinnings of the visit by the Magi. And these magi,
                      along with their worshipful actions, were proof of the babe's Messianic
                      status. The writer of Matthew could not have failed to include that in his
                      gospel, in spite of his anti-gentile attitude.

                      Regarding Mt 8:5-13, it may have been a close decision, I don't know,
                      whether the writer should include it or not. Each miracle was very worthy
                      of inclusion, especially if it portrayed Jesus as an authority as well as a
                      Messianic miracle worker. But it does not seem implausible to me that this
                      factor outweighed the fact that the centurion was a gentile, especially
                      since the centurion was so subservient to Jesus. (The pericope's omission
                      from Mark, within the Augustinian framework, is admittedly more difficult to
                      understand, unless the writer of Mark in Rome frowned upon a centurion
                      professing to be unworthy, and did not believe in Matthean admonitions to be
                      meek; and wished that the healing had been described in some detail.)

                      Regarding Mt 12:21, it was again inserted by the writer of Matthew (in
                      distorted form from Isa 42:4) to show that Jesus (not just the servant
                      Jacob) was the Messiah. Isn't the one true Messiah supposed to reign over
                      all nations, not just Israel? So in this context inclusion of gentiles
                      supported full messianism, despite the writer's distaste for gentiles.

                      Regarding Mt 21:33-46, and Mt 21:43-45 in particular, this was a stern
                      warning to Israel and especially to the chief priests and
                      Pharisees who were not accepting Jesus' teachings. The writer of Matthew
                      was very much engaged in trying to bring the messianic form of Christianity
                      to the Jews, and was evidently very upset that it was not catching on well
                      with them (as indicated by Mt 27:25). So what worse fate was there to
                      threaten than to have the fruits of the kingdom taken away from Israel and
                      given to a gentile nation? If his source material had anything close to this
                      in it, he would wish to include it for the severity of the admonition.

                      Regarding Mt 24:14, you have me there. I do believe it is close to the
                      original source material. However, having said this, I do see a distinction
                      between preaching a gospel to all nations, thus making them subservient to
                      the Messiah, and desiring to make disciples out of their peoples to the
                      extent of baptizing them, as in Mt 28:19. Of course, the later editor who
                      fed in 28:19 didn't harbor a strong dislike of gentiles.

                      Regarding Mt 26:13, I feel the same way as above (and that it is a prophecy
                      come true). But as you indicated by (?), it doesn't much relate to offering
                      discipleship.

                      >(2) The Hebrew text (Shem Tov) edited by Howard is, of course, not
                      >"primitive". It is a late 14th century text produced in Spain; cf. the
                      >review of W.L. Petersen, JBL 108 (1989), 722-726.

                      But the 14th-century text was based upon something earlier. Howard gave
                      reasons why it contains material that seems to date back to very early
                      times. In an article by Robert Shedinger (NTS 43 (1997) 58-71), he tends to
                      support Howard on this.

                      >(3) The triadic combination of Father-Son-Holy Spirit, interestingly
                      >enough, is found in the Gospel of Thomas, log. 44. Quite a few scholars
                      >consider GTh as belonging to the oldest strata of the Gospel tradition(s).
                      >Do we have to remove log. 44 from Gth as well in order to keep our nicely
                      >arranged layers of Gospel tradition developments? [...]

                      No, merely give those scholars' arguments more consideration who see GTh to
                      be subsequent to the Gospels! I see log. 44 as deriving from Mt 12:31-32
                      without having to be a later development than that. To me, the GTH reads
                      like it was written by a semi-Gnostic who had gained the opportunity to read
                      through some of the Gospels in their earliest form, when there were but a
                      few of them and they were quite inaccessible, but he was not welcome enough
                      to be granted sufficient time to sit down with the precious manuscripts and
                      transcribe significant portions of them. But he wished to set forth the
                      teachings he recalled from reading them so that others of like mind could
                      read it.

                      Jim Deardorff
                    • U. Schmid
                      On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote in part: [Schmid] ... [...] ... The crucial fact is not that the centurion was a gentile, but that his belief _as a
                      Message 10 of 18 , Feb 18, 1998
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote in part:

                        [Schmid]
                        >>(1) Those favouring the later addition of Mt 28:19-20 do they also want to
                        >>remove Mt 2:1-11; 8:5-13; 12:21; 21:33-46; 24:14; 26:13?
                        >
                        >Ulrich,
                        >
                        >(I think you failed to send your post also to the List, so let me post it
                        >here. In any event, your question here was soon after seconded, essentially,
                        >by Antonio Jerez.)
                        >
                        [...]
                        >
                        >Regarding Mt 8:5-13, it may have been a close decision, I don't know,
                        >whether the writer should include it or not. Each miracle was very worthy
                        >of inclusion, especially if it portrayed Jesus as an authority as well as a
                        >Messianic miracle worker. But it does not seem implausible to me that this
                        >factor outweighed the fact that the centurion was a gentile, especially
                        >since the centurion was so subservient to Jesus.

                        The crucial fact is not that the centurion was a gentile, but that his
                        belief _as a gentile_ is contrasted with the belief found in Israel (Mt
                        8:10). Moreover, the following verses (Mt 8:11-12) suggest the
                        eschatological exclusion of the "sons of the kingdom" while those coming
                        from the distant parts of the world will enter the kingdom and be united
                        with Israel's fathers at the eschatological banquet. In this context, no
                        doubt, the Israel-versus-gentile issue is very much at stake, hardly in
                        favour of the present (Mattheian) Israel. This is very much in line with Mt
                        21:33-46 (esp. v. 43). In my view, these are very strong statements (cf.
                        also Mt 23:29-36). If they are present (as well as the others, esp. Mt
                        24:14), I can also also accept 28:19-20. How to reconcile them with the
                        gentile polemics in Matthew is quite a different matter. My point is simply
                        that there is the other issue as well in this Gospel. The idea expressed in
                        Mt 28:19-20 with regard to the positive perception of the gentiles is not
                        isolated. Therefore, the case for excluding these verses is not very
                        strong.

                        >>(2) The Hebrew text (Shem Tov) edited by Howard is, of course, not
                        >>"primitive". It is a late 14th century text produced in Spain; cf. the
                        >>review of W.L. Petersen, JBL 108 (1989), 722-726.
                        >
                        >But the 14th-century text was based upon something earlier. Howard gave
                        >reasons why it contains material that seems to date back to very early
                        >times. In an article by Robert Shedinger (NTS 43 (1997) 58-71), he tends to
                        >support Howard on this.

                        Shedinger and Howard, of course, are among my favorites when it comes to
                        demonstrate improper use of textual data. I won't go into detail here,
                        especially because Petersen already did the job, and he will do it once
                        again in a thoroughgoing review of Howard's second edition (soon to be
                        published on the electronic TC journal). Just one general observation. It
                        is amazing how Shedinger and Howard could compare a 14th century Hebrew
                        text from Spain with predominantly 3-5th centuries Greek texts without,
                        _first of all_, checking western medieval texts. Of course, if you, for
                        whatever reason, narrow down or ignore evidence, short-cuts are the only
                        adequate result.

                        >>(3) The triadic combination of Father-Son-Holy Spirit, interestingly
                        >>enough, is found in the Gospel of Thomas, log. 44. Quite a few scholars
                        >>consider GTh as belonging to the oldest strata of the Gospel tradition(s).
                        >>Do we have to remove log. 44 from Gth as well in order to keep our nicely
                        >>arranged layers of Gospel tradition developments? [...]
                        >
                        >No, merely give those scholars' arguments more consideration who see GTh to
                        >be subsequent to the Gospels! [...]

                        That's alright with me.


                        Ulrich Schmid

                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
                        schmiul@...
                      • Jim Deardorff
                        ... Sorry, I had missed the point there, in Mt 8:5-13. The way my own research explains this part of the dichotomy is that the writer of Matthew s source
                        Message 11 of 18 , Feb 18, 1998
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 12:48 AM 2/19/98 +0100, U. Schmid wrote:
                          >On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote in part:

                          Ulrich wrote:
                          >The crucial fact is not that the centurion was a gentile, but that his
                          >belief _as a gentile_ is contrasted with the belief found in Israel (Mt
                          >8:10). Moreover, the following verses (Mt 8:11-12) suggest the
                          >eschatological exclusion of the "sons of the kingdom" while those coming
                          >from the distant parts of the world will enter the kingdom and be united
                          >with Israel's fathers at the eschatological banquet. In this context, no
                          >doubt, the Israel-versus-gentile issue is very much at stake, hardly in
                          >favour of the present (Mattheian) Israel. This is very much in line with Mt
                          >21:33-46 (esp. v. 43). In my view, these are very strong statements (cf.
                          >also Mt 23:29-36). If they are present (as well as the others, esp. Mt
                          >24:14), I can also also accept 28:19-20. How to reconcile them with the
                          >gentile polemics in Matthew is quite a different matter. My point is simply
                          >that there is the other issue as well in this Gospel. The idea expressed in
                          >Mt 28:19-20 with regard to the positive perception of the gentiles is not
                          >isolated. Therefore, the case for excluding these verses is not very
                          >strong.

                          Sorry, I had missed the point there, in Mt 8:5-13.

                          The way my own research explains this part of the dichotomy is that the
                          writer of Matthew's source material contained much harsh language against
                          the Pharisees and scribes, and even against the Jews who unthinkingly
                          followed their teachings. It contained much more than is in Matthew. The
                          writer of Matthew, having been a Jew or even a Pharisee himself, before
                          converting, naturally softened or omitted much of this harsh material. But
                          he didn't remove it all because after converting he agreed to a considerable
                          extent with his source, because the scribes and Pharisees weren't accepting
                          Jesus' teachings. Thus I believe that in Matthew's source, its equivalent
                          to Mt 23 was even harsher against the scribes & Pharisees.

                          So I believe that Mt 8:11-12 was retained for this reason; or it was
                          overlooked when the compiler of Matthew edited out much harsher neighboring
                          material directed against the "sons of the kingdom."

                          As a sidelight, I find Mt 8:10b quite interesting: "Not even in Israel have
                          I found such faith." To me this implies that Jesus had traveled around a
                          lot outside of Israel.

                          >>>(2) The Hebrew text (Shem Tov) edited by Howard is, of course, not
                          >>>"primitive". It is a late 14th century text produced in Spain; cf. the
                          >>>review of W.L. Petersen, JBL 108 (1989), 722-726.

                          >>But the 14th-century text was based upon something earlier. Howard gave
                          >>reasons why it contains material that seems to date back to very early
                          >>times. In an article by Robert Shedinger (NTS 43 (1997) 58-71), he tends to
                          >>support Howard on this.

                          >Shedinger and Howard, of course, are among my favorites when it comes to
                          >demonstrate improper use of textual data. I won't go into detail here,
                          >especially because Petersen already did the job, and he will do it once
                          >again in a thoroughgoing review of Howard's second edition (soon to be
                          >published on the electronic TC journal). Just one general observation. It
                          >is amazing how Shedinger and Howard could compare a 14th century Hebrew
                          >text from Spain with predominantly 3-5th centuries Greek texts without,
                          >_first of all_, checking western medieval texts. Of course, if you, for
                          >whatever reason, narrow down or ignore evidence, short-cuts are the only
                          >adequate result.

                          But perhaps you're overlooking some possibilities. What if Matthew had been
                          written in Hebrew first, and only translated into Greek after Mark and Luke
                          came out (and at that later time Mt 28:19 was fed in). The Matthean school
                          would then want the Hebrew Matthew to be retired, and any further Matthean
                          texts in Hebrew would be translated from the later Greek Matthew. But
                          perhaps a transcription of this oldest Hebraic Matthew survived somewhere
                          and was rediscovered in Spain in the 14th century. One item in this text I
                          find suggestive of an original Hebraic Matthew, besides the short ending, is
                          in its Mt 28:16 where it mentions 12 disciples, not 11. The Gospel of Peter
                          mentions the same number, as does Paul.

                          Jim Deardorff
                        • Richard H. Anderson
                          ... Schleiermacher, I believe in the 1840 s, proposed that Matthew was written in stages. If you and Schleiermacher are correct, this would certainly explain
                          Message 12 of 18 , Feb 18, 1998
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jim Deardorff, greetings:
                            >

                            >
                            > But perhaps you're overlooking some possibilities. What if Matthew >had been
                            > written in Hebrew first, and only translated into Greek after Mark and >Luke
                            > came out (and at that later time Mt 28:19 was fed in).

                            Schleiermacher, I believe in the 1840's, proposed that Matthew was
                            written in stages. If you and Schleiermacher are correct, this would
                            certainly explain the tensions noted in the gospel. R. Bultmann said
                            these 'tensions' (I think Bultmann was discussing a passage in the
                            GJohn) was the evidence that the author used multiple sources.

                            I suspect that the early followers of Jesus being all Jewish were not
                            initially troubled by the entry of Gentiles as long their numbers were
                            insignificant (this tokenism is evident in Acts) but that there was a
                            conservative reaction that led to the imposition of restrictions at the
                            Jerusalem Council and a victory for the conservative faction. The
                            gospels written after that event are a reflection of that conservative
                            reaction. This not only explains Acts but also the gospels. The writings
                            of Paul suggest that he pulled back from his earlier views and attempted
                            in Romans 9-11 a reconciliation much in the same manner as Luke's
                            irenical presentation.


                            Richard H. Anderson
                          • Jim Deardorff
                            ... Richard, ... Hello Richard, I don t think Schleiermacher had in mind as extensive a source for Matthew as I do, as I think it was even larger than Matthew
                            Message 13 of 18 , Feb 18, 1998
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 09:18 PM 2/18/98 -0500, Richard H. Anderson wrote:
                              >Jim Deardorff, greetings:

                              Jim wrote:
                              >> But perhaps you're overlooking some possibilities. What if Matthew >had been
                              >> written in Hebrew first, and only translated into Greek after Mark and >Luke
                              >> came out (and at that later time Mt 28:19 was fed in).

                              Richard,
                              >Schleiermacher, I believe in the 1840's, proposed that Matthew was
                              >written in stages. If you and Schleiermacher are correct, this would
                              >certainly explain the tensions noted in the gospel. R. Bultmann said
                              >these 'tensions' (I think Bultmann was discussing a passage in the
                              >GJohn) was the evidence that the author used multiple sources.

                              Hello Richard,

                              I don't think Schleiermacher had in mind as extensive a source for Matthew
                              as I do, as I think it was even larger than Matthew (which I find reasonable
                              if Papias wrote 5 treatises on it). But I've never learned just how
                              extensive Schleiermacher's vision of the Logia was.

                              >I suspect that the early followers of Jesus being all Jewish were not
                              >initially troubled by the entry of Gentiles as long their numbers were
                              >insignificant (this tokenism is evident in Acts) but that there was a
                              >conservative reaction that led to the imposition of restrictions at the
                              >Jerusalem Council and a victory for the conservative faction. The
                              >gospels written after that event are a reflection of that conservative
                              >reaction. This not only explains Acts but also the gospels.

                              I'm not sure of the time scales you have in mind here, but my view of when
                              the first Gospel was written is relatively late (early 2nd century), so that
                              I guess it would be after the Jerusalem Council. When was that council, may
                              I ask?

                              I had rather pictured that the writer of Matthew was a very late holdout for
                              the conservative or Pharisaic view that was antagonistic towards gentiles,
                              or at least towards gentiles within Israeli territories. So I had pictured
                              this "conservative faction" as being in a fairly small minority within the
                              Syrian-Anatolian region by the time the Gospels were written. By what date
                              do you think this conservative faction had dwindled away?

                              Jim Deardorff
                              Jim Deardorff
                              http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                            • Antonio Jerez
                              ... My own opinion goes quite in the opposite direction from Jim s. Matthew added a lot of anti-pharisaic and anti-scribe matter to his gospel, not from a lost
                              Message 14 of 18 , Feb 19, 1998
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Jim Deardorff wrote:


                                >At 12:48 AM 2/19/98 +0100, U. Schmid wrote:
                                >>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote in part:
                                >
                                >Ulrich wrote:
                                >>The crucial fact is not that the centurion was a gentile, but that his
                                >>belief _as a gentile_ is contrasted with the belief found in Israel (Mt
                                >>8:10). Moreover, the following verses (Mt 8:11-12) suggest the
                                >>eschatological exclusion of the "sons of the kingdom" while those coming
                                >>from the distant parts of the world will enter the kingdom and be united
                                >>with Israel's fathers at the eschatological banquet. In this context, no
                                >>doubt, the Israel-versus-gentile issue is very much at stake, hardly in
                                >>favour of the present (Mattheian) Israel. This is very much in line with Mt
                                >>21:33-46 (esp. v. 43). In my view, these are very strong statements (cf.
                                >>also Mt 23:29-36). If they are present (as well as the others, esp. Mt
                                >>24:14), I can also also accept 28:19-20. How to reconcile them with the
                                >>gentile polemics in Matthew is quite a different matter. My point is simply
                                >>that there is the other issue as well in this Gospel. The idea expressed in
                                >>Mt 28:19-20 with regard to the positive perception of the gentiles is not
                                >>isolated. Therefore, the case for excluding these verses is not very
                                >>strong.
                                >
                                >Sorry, I had missed the point there, in Mt 8:5-13.
                                >
                                >The way my own research explains this part of the dichotomy is that the
                                >writer of Matthew's source material contained much harsh language against
                                >the Pharisees and scribes, and even against the Jews who unthinkingly
                                >followed their teachings. It contained much more than is in Matthew. The
                                >writer of Matthew, having been a Jew or even a Pharisee himself, before
                                >converting, naturally softened or omitted much of this harsh material. But
                                >he didn't remove it all because after converting he agreed to a considerable
                                >extent with his source, because the scribes and Pharisees weren't accepting
                                >Jesus' teachings. Thus I believe that in Matthew's source, its equivalent
                                >to Mt 23 was even harsher against the scribes & Pharisees.


                                My own opinion goes quite in the opposite direction from
                                Jim's. Matthew added a lot of anti-pharisaic and anti-scribe
                                matter to his gospel, not from a lost source but from his own
                                head. Just as Matthew (who was probably a former pharisaic
                                scribe) adds a lot of hellfire symbolism to what he found in
                                Mark. Luke deletes a lot of Matthew's most excessive diatribes
                                against the pharisees and scribes and a lot of the hellpreaching.

                                >So I believe that Mt 8:11-12 was retained for this reason; or it was
                                >overlooked when the compiler of Matthew edited out much harsher neighboring
                                >material directed against the "sons of the kingdom."

                                I have problems with arguments of this sort. I don't think
                                any gospel writer overlooked inherited material that goes
                                contrary to their own bias and theological inclination. If so
                                Matthew must have overlooked a lot, and I take him to be
                                quite an intelligent man.

                                Best wishes

                                Antonio Jerez
                              • Jim Deardorff
                                ... Antonio, I think this raises an important point, though we ve probably exhausted some of the other arguments. Suppose the relevant parts of the lost
                                Message 15 of 18 , Feb 19, 1998
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 12:12 PM 2/19/98 +0100, Antonio Jerez wrote:

                                  >Jim Deardorff wrote:
                                  >>[...]
                                  >>So I believe that Mt 8:11-12 was retained for this reason; or it was
                                  >>overlooked when the compiler of Matthew edited out much harsher neighboring
                                  >>material directed against the "sons of the kingdom."

                                  >I have problems with arguments of this sort. I don't think
                                  >any gospel writer overlooked inherited material that goes
                                  >contrary to their own bias and theological inclination. If so
                                  >Matthew must have overlooked a lot, and I take him to be
                                  >quite an intelligent man.

                                  Antonio,

                                  I think this raises an important point, though we've probably exhausted some
                                  of the other arguments. Suppose the relevant parts of the lost source (I
                                  call it the Logia) contained some 2000 sentences, of which only a couple
                                  hundred were acceptable as they were, the rest requiring heavy editing: much
                                  substitution, insertion and omission. In the course of this editing, in
                                  which the compiler would attempt to retain as much as he could, he would err
                                  perhaps one percent of the time in failing to edit out a phrase or clause.
                                  This would leave 18 instances of conflict or "tension" within his gospel.
                                  And probably even more instances of inconsistencies and disruption of
                                  textual flow.

                                  Again, this is not at all implausible, since Papias found the Logia worthy
                                  of writing 5 treatises about, and since Eusebius's portrayal of what Papias
                                  had written involved gnostic-like themes that would have required heavy
                                  editing to render acceptable.

                                  Also, I wouldn't call the Logia "inherited" material in the sense that it
                                  was openly handed down from priest to priest or scribe to scribe within some
                                  church. Instead, the paucity of information about the Logia and initiation
                                  of Matthew, the fact the Logia didn't survive, and the lack of survival of
                                  Papias's treatises about it indicate to me that the Logia was generally
                                  unacceptable, even heretical, though indispensible to the writer of the
                                  first Gospel.

                                  Jim Deardorff
                                  Jim Deardorff
                                  http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                                • Richard H. Anderson
                                  ... Schleiermacher wrote before the discovery of Q; I doubt if he specified the content of the Logia. ... 48 C.E. + or - three years. ... F.C. Baur said the
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Feb 19, 1998
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Jim Deardorff, greetings:

                                    > I don't think Schleiermacher had in mind as extensive a source for >Matthew as I do, as I think it was even larger than Matthew (which I >find reasonable if Papias wrote 5 treatises on it). But I've never >learned just how
                                    > extensive Schleiermacher's vision of the Logia was.

                                    Schleiermacher wrote before the discovery of Q; I doubt if he specified
                                    the content of the Logia.
                                    >
                                    > I guess it would be after the Jerusalem Council. When was that >council, may I ask?

                                    48 C.E. + or - three years.
                                    >
                                    > I had rather pictured that the writer of Matthew was a very late holdout for
                                    > the conservative or Pharisaic view that was antagonistic towards gentiles,
                                    > or at least towards gentiles within Israeli territories. So I had pictured
                                    > this "conservative faction" as being in a fairly small minority within the
                                    > Syrian-Anatolian region by the time the Gospels were written. By what date
                                    > do you think this conservative faction had dwindled away?
                                    >
                                    F.C. Baur said the the Jewish Christian influence continued well into
                                    the 2nd century. However most scholars today assert the influence of the
                                    Jewish Christian dwindled after the destruction of the temple and they
                                    were no longer a factor as the Jewish Christians either re-joined the
                                    synagogues or merged into the Gentile Christian communities with
                                    resultant loss of identity.

                                    Richard H. Anderson
                                  • Jim Deardorff
                                    ... may I ask? ... Thanks for the info, Richard. ... I m with him on that, but I don t think that the Gospels came out quite as late as he did -- 130 CE or
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Feb 19, 1998
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      At 07:01 PM 2/19/98 -0500, Richard H. Anderson wrote:
                                      >Jim Deardorff, greetings:

                                      >Schleiermacher wrote before the discovery of Q; I doubt if he specified
                                      >the content of the Logia.

                                      >> I guess it would be after the Jerusalem Council. When was that >council,
                                      may I ask?

                                      >48 C.E. + or - three years.

                                      Thanks for the info, Richard.

                                      >F.C. Baur said the the Jewish Christian influence continued well into
                                      >the 2nd century.

                                      I'm with him on that, but I don't think that the Gospels came out quite as
                                      late as he did -- 130 CE or so. I shave a decade or so off of that.

                                      Jim Deardorff
                                      Jim Deardorff
                                      http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.