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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Oral Tradition - the joker in the pack

Expand Messages
  • Steven Craig Miller
    To: Mark Goodacre, You wrote:
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Mark Goodacre,

      You wrote:

      << If we extend the same scenario also to Luke, we find that we lose one of
      the standard reasons for believing in Q, for if Luke interacts with Matthew
      in the light of the continued, living stream of oral tradition, we will
      expect Luke, on occasion, to show signs of knowledge of "more original"
      forms. Indeed we can see this kind of thing at work in his use of Mark --
      witness the way he changes the Eucharistic material in the light of the
      living stream of oral tradition, paralleling what we have in 1 Cor. 11. >>

      I'm having problems understanding you here. To what does the pronoun "we"
      refer, and what did "we lose"?

      -Steven Craig Miller
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... We means something like intelligent contemporary readers of Luke s Gospel . By we lose one of the standard reasons for believing in Q I meant that
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 4, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        I wrote:

        > << If we extend the same scenario also to Luke, we find that we lose one
        > of the standard reasons for believing in Q, for if Luke interacts with
        > Matthew in the light of the continued, living stream of oral tradition, we
        > will expect Luke, on occasion, to show signs of knowledge of "more
        > original" forms. Indeed we can see this kind of thing at work in his use
        > of Mark -- witness the way he changes the Eucharistic material in the
        > light of the living stream of oral tradition, paralleling what we have in
        > 1 Cor. 11. >>

        On 1 Oct 99, at 5:05, Steven Craig Miller wrote:

        > I'm having problems understanding you here. To what does the pronoun "we"
        > refer, and what did "we lose"?

        "We" means something like "intelligent contemporary readers of
        Luke's Gospel". By "we lose one of the standard reasons for
        believing in Q" I meant that "we find that one of the standard
        arguments for belief in Q is seen to be compromised".

        Mark
        --------------------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
        Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        The New Testament Gateway
        Mark Without Q
        Aseneth Home Page
      • Steven Craig Miller
        To: Mark Goodacre, MG:
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 4, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Mark Goodacre,

          MG: << If we extend the same scenario also to Luke, we find that we lose
          one of the standard reasons for believing in Q, for if Luke interacts with
          Matthew in the light of the continued, living stream of oral tradition, we
          will expect Luke, on occasion, to show signs of knowledge of "more
          original" forms. Indeed we can see this kind of thing at work in his use
          of Mark -- witness the way he changes the Eucharistic material in the light
          of the living stream of oral tradition, paralleling what we have in 1 Cor.
          11. >>

          SCM: << I'm having problems understanding you here. To what does the
          pronoun "we" refer, and what did "we lose"? >>

          MG: << "We" means something like "intelligent contemporary readers of
          Luke's Gospel". By "we lose one of the standard reasons for believing in
          Q" I meant that "we find that one of the standard arguments for belief in Q
          is seen to be compromised". >>

          I'm still not for sure that I understand what you think has been lost. If
          all you are wanting to say (in the above quoted passage) is that IF one
          holds that Luke redacted Matthew, then we have lost one of our reasons for
          believing in Q, then, I guess I would concur, but advocates of Q have never
          held that Luke redacted Matthew. On the other hand, if you are wanting to
          say that IF one holds that Luke had access to a "living stream of oral
          tradition," then we have lost one of our reasons for believing in Q, then,
          I would disagree. The Two-Source hypothesis has always assumed that Matthew
          and Luke had access to a "living stream of oral tradition" beyond Mark and
          Q. If you had wanted to say something else altogether, please forgive me
          for being so dense, but I would ask you clarify the issue further.

          -Steven Craig Miller (scmiller@...)
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... The focus is on the question of more original forms . One of the standard arguments for Q is that of alternating primivity, viz. that sometimes Luke,
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 5, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On 4 Oct 99, at 11:41, Steven Craig Miller wrote:

            > I'm still not for sure that I understand what you think has been lost. If
            > all you are wanting to say (in the above quoted passage) is that IF one
            > holds that Luke redacted Matthew, then we have lost one of our reasons for
            > believing in Q, then, I guess I would concur, but advocates of Q have
            > never held that Luke redacted Matthew. On the other hand, if you are
            > wanting to say that IF one holds that Luke had access to a "living stream
            > of oral tradition," then we have lost one of our reasons for believing in
            > Q, then, I would disagree. The Two-Source hypothesis has always assumed
            > that Matthew and Luke had access to a "living stream of oral tradition"
            > beyond Mark and Q. If you had wanted to say something else altogether,
            > please forgive me for being so dense, but I would ask you clarify the
            > issue further.

            I wrote:

            > > MG: << If we extend the same scenario also to Luke, we find that we
            > > lose one of the standard reasons for believing in Q, for if Luke
            > > interacts with Matthew in the light of the continued, living stream
            > > of oral tradition, we will expect Luke, on occasion, to show signs
            > > of knowledge of "more original" forms. Indeed we can see this kind
            > > of thing at work in his use of Mark -- witness the way he changes
            > > the Eucharistic material in the light of the living stream of oral
            > > tradition, paralleling what we have in 1 Cor. 11. >>

            The focus is on the question of "more original forms". One of the
            standard arguments for Q is that of alternating primivity, viz. that
            sometimes Luke, sometimes Matthew has the more original form of a
            Q saying. It is thought that this state of affairs is impossible if Luke
            has been redacting Matthew throughout. However, I was attempting
            to point out that if Luke has been redacting Matthew, as he redacts
            Mark, by interacting with the living stream of oral tradition, then the
            presence, on occasion, of more original forms of double tradition
            material in Luke is precisely what we will expect to find.
            
            Mark


            --------------------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
            Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

            http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
            The New Testament Gateway
            Mark Without Q
            Aseneth Home Page
          • Jim Deardorff
            ... Mark, A more probable reason, in my oinion, why it need not be thought that this state of affairs is impossible if Luke has been redacting Matthew
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 5, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              At 12:09 PM 10/5/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
              >... One of the
              >standard arguments for Q is that of alternating primivity, viz. that
              >sometimes Luke, sometimes Matthew has the more original form of a
              >Q saying. It is thought that this state of affairs is impossible if Luke
              >has been redacting Matthew throughout. However, I was attempting
              >to point out that if Luke has been redacting Matthew, as he redacts
              >Mark, by interacting with the living stream of oral tradition, then the
              >presence, on occasion, of more original forms of double tradition
              >material in Luke is precisely what we will expect to find.

              Mark,

              A more probable reason, in my oinion, why it need not be thought that "this
              state of affairs is impossible if Luke has been redacting Matthew
              throughout" I've stated before. It is, simply, that ALk redacted Semitic
              Matthew, thereby incorporating the more original form into Greek, while at
              times adding his own Lukanisms. Subsequently, the translator of Semitic
              Matthew sometimes replicated Luke's Greek in parts of the "Q" passages, for
              reasons I've also given. This led to an appearance of "alternating primitivity."

              So my non-rhetorical question is, what, if anything, makes this solution
              improbable, given that there is plenty of evidence supporting the priority
              of (Semitic) Matthew over Mark?

              Jim Deardorff
              Corvallis, Oregon
              E-mail: deardorj@...
              Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.