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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Luke 6:6-11

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/3/1999 5:48:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes:
    Message 1 of 44 , Oct 3 4:17 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 10/3/1999 5:48:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      scmiller@... writes:

      To: the participants of the Synoptic-L,

      If one is to assume that Luke used Matthew as his source for the pericope
      of the man with the withered hand (Lk 6:6-11 & Mt 12:9-14), why did Luke
      here change the direct discourse found in Matthew to indirect discourse?
      What motivated Luke here to omit both the question Jesus was asked along
      with Jesus' answer? Why would Luke change "they asked him" to "they watched
      him"? And why did Luke change the direct discourse: "'Is it lawful on the
      sabbaths [plural] to heal?'" to the indirect discourse: "whether it is
      lawful on the sabbath [singular] to heal"?

      It amazes me if these are seriously thought to be unanwerable rhetorical
      questions. The obvious counter-question to the series of questions as a whole
      is: why did Luke bother to sit down to "write an orderly account" of things
      brought to fulfillment in our midst, if his intention was to simply copy the
      Gospel in front of him? The whole point of writing a new Gospel is precisely
      that Luke thought he could do it differently, and better, than Matthew.

      As for the individual questions (arguments?), they are totally without merit
      if understood to be difficulties for the hypothesis of a 2nd Gospel, Luke,
      following Matt. There is a distinct and verifiable tendency, e.g., in
      "second" tellers of a story to put in indirect discourse what was in direct
      discourse in a source. Take for example, Josephus' retelling of the story of
      Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac in his Antiquities: Josephus turns into
      indirect discourse every single case of direct discourse in the story as told
      in Gen 22 LXX. Why shouldn't Luke do the same with the text of Matthew? (I
      assume we agree that LXX Gen was a source of Josephus, and that there is no
      question about which came first?)

      << As I read this pericope synoptically, it makes more sense to assume that
      Mark's account was written first and that both Matthew and Luke made
      redactional changes in order to correct what they perceived to have been a
      problem. In Mark, Jesus is motivated into action merely by malevolent
      scrutiny. Luke makes it clear that Jesus knew what was going on by adding
      "he knew their calculations." Matthew makes this even more explicit by
      transforming the indirect discourse into a direct question.>>

      This strikes me as a very weak argument for Markan priority in this pericope
      - particularly in light of the following observations of your own:

      <<FWIW ... there are a number of interesting 'Markan Additions,' e.g.: "But
      they were silent"; "... with anger, saddened at the hardness of their
      heart"; and "... immediately with the Herodians." >>

      Yes, and what, may I ask, motivated Matt and Luke to independently remove
      each of the above colorful features, (which make much more sense as
      psychological details added by a later writer, a good story teller,
      attempting to appeal to a popular audience of Romans through a dramatic
      retelling of the Gospel story)? So, both my observations and your own seem to
      point to a 2 GH order of composition for this series of Synoptic parallels.

      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.
        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,

        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.