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

[Synoptic-L] Luke - die Mitte der Schrift

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    It is unfortunate that recent discussion on this list of the pericope of the man with the withered hand has limited its focus to the texts of Matt and Mark. As
    Message 1 of 44 , Oct 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      It is unfortunate that recent discussion on this list of the pericope of the
      man with the withered hand has limited its focus to the texts of Matt and
      Mark. As is almost always the case, I would argue that the most profound
      insight into the triple tradition comes through a careful study of what Luke
      has done with the text of Matt, on the assumption that ALk is writing second.
      Let me make just a few observations, therefore, about Lk 6:6-11, though I
      will keep in mind the entire section of Lk 6:1-11, which is parallel to Matt
      12:1-14.

      (1) It is noteworthy that in both pericopes in Matt, Jesus speaks at some
      length, and in a clearly didactic tone. In both corresponding pericopes in
      Luke, the discourse of Jesus has been reduced in a way that is exactly
      proportionate to the way in which Luke reduces (and focuses) the material in
      each of his main parallels to Matthew's great discourses (the Sermon on the
      Mount/Plain, e.g., etc.).

      (2) The main omission by Luke in our pericope is the words of Jesus in Matt
      12:11-12. There are numerous indications, however, that Luke was aware of
      these Matthean verses:

      a.) He has a rough parallel to their contents in both 13:15 and 14:5
      (especially the latter). These are stories, in my view, that are simply
      doublets created by Luke, with variations on the theme of Matt 12:9-14.

      b.) In accordance with regular custom, ALk conflates Matt 12:11 with Matt
      18:1ff to begin his own version of the lost sheep parable in Lk 15:3-6. Note
      also that in the body of the parable the lost sheep in Lk is not only found,
      but also lifted up, as is the sheep in Matt 12:11 (but not in Matt 18).

      c.) Lk introduces into the scene an entire new element of dramatic action not
      found in Matt, where the man is ordered by Jesus to "rise" and stand "in the
      middle" (eis to meson: clearly a Lukan phrase [see Lk 4:35, with no Markan
      parallel] later, in this case, copied by Mark). What is happening here,
      however, is that Jesus is acting out in Lk the "raising" of the "sheep" on
      the Sabbath that is alluded to in the parable of Matt 12:11, with the use of
      the same term used there (egerein: thus, perhaps, the absence of this TERM in
      Lk 15). Lk notably employs the reverse process in his parable of the fig tree.

      3. Just as Luke here substitutes Jesus' action (and words) for the parable of
      Matt 12:11, so he introduces an explicit reference to Jesus' teaching (kai
      didaskein: 6:6) not found in the Matthean pericope.

      4. Luke's drastic reformulation of Jesus' words of challenge to the scribes
      and Pharisees in 6:9 shows a knowledge of Matt's redactional conclusion to
      the pericope (Matt 12:14), even though Luke will compose a conclusion of his
      own in 6:11. There (i.e., in Matt 12:14) the narrator remarks that the
      Pharisees took council as to how they might "destroy" Jesus. So Luke produces
      the contrast, within Jesus' words, between agathopoiein and kakopoiein,
      followed by pseuchen sosai and apolesai (to destroy). Note that the theme of
      "salvation (pseuchen sosai) has been introduced by Luke into the narrative as
      a theological category illuminating the kalos poiein of Jesus, and this may
      explain why Luke's text also introduces the name "Jesus" twice into the
      pericope, though it is not found at all in Matt 12:9-14.

      5. Finally, it should be noted that AMatt is most probably the originator of
      both stories in Matt 12:1-14. They are intimately linked to the words of
      Jesus in Matt 11:28-30. They are stories that illustrate the "sweet yoke" and
      "light burden" of Jesus, which refer to the fact that Jesus is a leader of
      Israel who, unlike the Pharisaic scribes, is one who interprets Torah in a
      way that is not burdensome, but rather life-giving to people. As usual, Luke
      is not as interested in this original point of Matthew, but he is able to use
      these stories to make a point of broader appeal: namely, that, independently
      of Jesus' teaching understood as a gentle interpretation of Torah, Jesus'
      actions and words are universally recognizable as life-giving and beneficial,
      in contrast to the words and deeds of the Scribes and Pharisees which are
      life-threating and mean. [As usual, Mark merely conflates elements of the
      Lukan and Matthean texts].

      Leonard Maluf
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Leonard Maluf replied -- ... Leonard, Your argument seems to me to be that, if we assume the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar), (1) Mark
      Message 44 of 44 , Feb 28, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Brian Wilson wrote --
        >
        >I would suggest that it does not take much imagination or ingenuity to
        >work out very convincing reasons for what Mark did if he used Matthew,
        >or for what Matthew did if he used Mark.
        >
        Leonard Maluf replied --
        >
        >Often true, in individual cases. But overall, the view of Matt re-
        >Judaizing an originally Jewish-Christian tradition that has previously
        >been substantially un-Judaized by Mark is difficult. One should only
        >assume such a tortuous line of development for very good reasons.
        >Those usually supplied in support of the relative priority of Mark do
        >not fit the bill.
        >
        Leonard,
        Your argument seems to me to be that, if we assume the Farrer
        Hypothesis (or similar), (1) Mark must have un-Judaized his source
        material and (2) Matthew must then have re-Judaized this source
        material, and that this is "tortuous" and therefore unlikely. What are
        the grounds for either (1) or (2), however?

        With respect to (1), it is conceivable that Mark un-Judaized none of his
        source material, but faithfully used the source material available to
        him, however un-Judaic it might be. If Mark wrote first, we cannot
        distinguish between tradition and redaction in the Gospel of Mark. If we
        had a method for making such a distinction, we would immediately be able
        to use it to tell whether Matthew used Mark, or Mark used Matthew, and
        the synoptic problem would be solved in a flash. On the Farrer
        Hypothesis (or similar), not only do we not know which material Mark un-
        Judaized, but we do not even know that he un-Judaized any source
        material at all.

        With respect to (2), on the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar) since half
        the Gospel of Matthew is non-Markan material, it would seem that Matthew
        has combined un-Judaic Mark with Judaic source material of some kind(s).
        This is neither overall un-Judaizing nor overall Judaizing. It is
        overall conflation.

        So, on the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar), there is no tortuous
        development of un-Judaizing followed by re-Judaizing. There is only
        conflating of Judaic and un-Judaic material. This would have been very
        understandable bearing in mind that Christian communities such as those
        at Rome, Antioch in Syria, Corinth and so on, were an intermingling of
        Gentile and Jewish Christians, and that the writer of the Gospel of
        Matthew would have realized that his book could be copied and circulated
        widely to such "mixed" assemblies within weeks of it being written.

        The question remains whether it is possible for the advocate of the
        Griesbach Hypothesis to give an irreversible directional indicator
        showing that Matthew did not use Mark. The alternative question is
        whether the advocate of the Farrer Hypothesis (or similar) can give an
        irreversible indicator to show that Mark did not use Matthew. I doubt
        that either can do this.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        EM brian@... HP www.twonh.demon.co.uk TEL+44(0)1480385043
        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE18 8EB,UK
        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
        _
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.