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

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

Expand Messages
  • Steven Craig Miller
    Leonard Maluf, I had written:
    Message 1 of 44 , Oct 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Leonard Maluf,

      I had written:

      << 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"? >>

      To which you replied:

      << It amazes me if these are seriously thought to be unanswerable
      rhetorical questions. >>

      Just for the record, I never once considered my questions to have been
      merely rhetorical, nor unanswerable. In fact, I assumed that it was very
      possible for someone, perhaps even yourself, to have very satisfactory
      answers to my questions. (But I will note, in passing, that you didn't
      answer those questions, rather you moved onto other issues which you deemed
      to be more important.)

      I wrote:

      << 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." >>

      To which you replied:

      << 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)? >>

      I would be more than happy to try my hand at answering such questions. But
      just for the record, I don't believe that ALL the synoptic phenomena
      unequivocally points to any one particular solution to the synoptic
      problem. I happen to currently hold that the best solution to my mind is
      the Two-Source hypothesis. I came to this result when I first read through
      Aland's synopsis in the Greek with my pastor (we meet, to read Greek,
      almost every week). At that time (it must have been over 10, maybe 15,
      years ago), I had just read Farmer's "The Synoptic Problem" (1976), and I
      had initially accepted what he had to say, and at that time I accepted the
      Griesbach hypothesis. But as I read through the synoptic gospels in Greek,
      and through further study, I changed my mind and came to accept the
      Two-Source hypothesis. My pastor, FWIW, has accepted Goulder's hypothesis.
      After having left off reading the Synoptic gospels to read other things
      (the last being Acts), my pastor and I have now started to read through the
      Synoptic gospels again in Greek.

      As to why Matthew and Luke omitted these 'Markan Additions,' Davies and
      Allison [1988] note 8 passages where Jesus experiences emotion in Mark
      (e.g. 1:41,43; 3:5; 6:6; 8:12; 10:14,21; 14:33) and which were omitted by
      Matthew (1:104-105). And Willoughby Allen made the same observation in his
      ICC commentary on Matthew (pp. xxxi-xxxii). The suggestion is that given
      Matthew and Luke's higher Christology, they were prone to omit references
      to Jesus' experiencing an emotion of anger. Thus this 'Markan Addition' is
      another proof of Markan priority!

      On the other hand, why was "But they were silent" missing? For Matthew it
      is perhaps because he was not following Mark at this point, having just
      interpolated a saying into his redaction of Mark. But for Luke, I don't know.

      And as for the omission of "with the Herodians." For Luke it is perhaps
      missing because he decides to re-work the whole ending to this pericope.
      Mark mentions the Herodians twice in his gospel, once at 12:13 and here at
      3:6. Assuming the 2SH, Matthew retained the one at 12:13 (i.e., at Mt
      22:16), so why didn't he retained the mention at this pericope? I don't know.

      -Steven Craig Miller (scmiller@...)
    • 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.