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

[Synoptic-L] Re: "Lord's Prayer"

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/31/1999 1:05:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes: [Responding to me, who wrote:]
    Message 1 of 15 , Oct 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 10/31/1999 1:05:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      scmiller@... writes:

      [Responding to me, who wrote:]

      < I will illustrate the fallacy by an analogous syllogism, whose
      conclusion (I hope) will be so evidently erroneous as to inspire a review
      of your own argument (with a focus on your use of the term "prefer"). >

      [Steve]
      << What you seem to be suggesting is that just because most everyone prefers
      one version, that does not prove that there is not one person out there who
      might not prefer a different version.>>

      No, no, no, no, no... ! Steve, please slow down and try to follow what I am
      actually saying. You give a theoretically possible objection to your own
      position, but it is not what I said at all. Did you READ my "analogous
      syllogism"? Listen. I appreciate the cordial tone of your response, and also
      your supplying me with background for an understanding of where you are
      coming from in this exchange (the Farmer connection). But let's get beyond
      all this now. I also admit that some of my own writing is somewhat elliptical
      at times, because I tend to assume that people remember things I have already
      written on, often more than once, in this forum. But if you had read my
      syllogism, you should know that I am not saying what you say I am saying at
      all. So please read the following carefully.

      I am not envisioning Luke with one or, alternatively, two versions of the
      Lord's Prayer that preexist his editorial activity, and that, in the latter
      case, confronts him with a choice. No. My hypothetical scenario is of an
      entirely different order (and please believe me that the above two do not
      exhaust the possible theoretical scenarios). I am thinking of Luke as a
      Hellenistic author who (like Josephus, and many others) has been trained
      since boyhood on how a writer should proceed when he is using (more
      technically "imitating") a classical text. The exercises that formed part of
      this training were called "chreiai", and one thing the budding writer was NOT
      allowed to do was to simply copy what was in front of him. As a writer, one
      had to analyse the text in front of him, in terms of its substance (i.e., one
      had to identify a theme) and in terms of its form. The young prospective
      writer was supposed, as part of the exercise, to put the same subject matter
      into different form. (This is what "writing" was in the Hellenistic world. In
      almost all cases, a literary model was used, but always in this abstract
      sense -- never as something that was expected to be copied.) That is, the
      student was not allowed to reproduce any of the formal or structural devices
      or elements of the text before him that served as model.

      This is precisely what Josephus has done when re-telling the stories of the
      LXX OT in his Antiquities. There are structuring devices (inclusions,
      parallel elements, etc.) in almost every pericope of the LXX, and Josephus
      reproduces none of these, but tells the same stories, often with other words,
      and always in a different "form". And it is what Luke does consistently, on
      the hypothesis that he is using Matthew, with virtually every Gospel pericipe
      without exception. (Note: I am not saying that the above "scenario" PROVES,
      or in any way can prove that Luke was using Matt. The evidence for the fact
      that ALk knew and used Matt is abundant, but other than the above. The above
      simply points to a literary fact that is significant, once the hypothesis of
      Luke's use of Matthew has been adopted on other grounds).

      OK. Are you still with me? Now then. This scenario makes the situation of the
      Lord's Prayer in Luke fully explicable. It is not a matter of which version
      of the Lord's Prayer Luke "prefers". The form of the prayer in Matthew is
      excluded for Luke's use in his Gospel -- on principle (i.e. the above
      outlined principle, based on what is known of Hellenistic writing exercises,
      etc.). Luke may well have LIKED Matthew's version better, and used it
      elsewere, liturgically etc., rather than his own. But he was simply following
      the standard writing practice of Hellenistic authorship when he renounced
      reproducing Matthew's form of the Lord's Prayer, with its seven-fold
      structure, within his own Gospel. I gave a plausible suggestion as to why
      Luke chose to use a five-fold structure instead, and thus to shorten, rather
      than lengthen, the prayer. He was aware of the context of the prayer in Matt,
      where Jesus is trying to make the point that the essential, in prayer, can be
      said in a few words. As with many other things in his Gospel, Luke can do
      that even better than Matthew had done it.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Ron Price
      Steven Craig Miller wrote, ... Steven, Not quite. I m not talking about a final redactor . Almost every clause in our present Greek text (NTG, 27th. edn.)
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Steven Craig Miller wrote,
        >You seem to be suggesting (if I'm understanding your correctly) that the
        >final redactor to Luke's gospel had a "sQ" and simply adopted the whole
        >block rather than compare it with Matthew and make changes to it, is that
        >correct?

        Steven,
        Not quite. I'm not talking about a "final redactor". Almost every
        clause in our
        present Greek text (NTG, 27th. edn.) apart from the so-called "Western
        non-interpolations" was written by Au_Luke.
        It was essentially (in the context of this discussion) a single stage
        process. Au_Luke had three sources: Mark, sQ and Matthew. He
        incorporated
        all of sQ, but not in a single block. He confined its sayings to two
        blocks:
        6:20-49 and 9:57-17:35. But within these blocks he mixed it with other
        material. Also he didn't necessarily keep the sQ sayings in their
        original
        order, nor did he refrain from making alterations to the wording where
        he thought fit. However I don't think he searched out the Matthean
        version
        of each sQ saying before incorporating it in his own gospel. Bear in
        mind that
        these searches through an 18000 word document would have been a **very**

        tedious exercise. He had no computerized 'search' option !!

        >How (according to the 3SH) does the last redactor of Luke use Matthew's gospel?

        Au_Luke (not the 'last redactor') had less respect for Matthew than for
        his other
        two sources, so he made relatively little use of it. But he did use
        these
        passages which in my opinion were never in Q:
        Matt 3:7-12; 4:1-11; 8:5-13; 11:2-27; 12:22-32; 19:28d; 22:1-10;
        25:14-30.
        In addition, having studied Matthew he remembered some of its wording
        and it
        influenced him when editing Mark. This would account for many of the
        'minor
        agreements'.

        Ron Price

        ron.price@...

        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 11/1/1999 5:28:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, ron.price@virgin.net writes:
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 11/1/1999 5:28:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          ron.price@... writes:

          << Au_Luke (not the 'last redactor') had less respect for Matthew than for
          his other
          two sources >>

          In Ron's world, I guess, the greatest compliment an author can pay to a
          predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his work. I don't believe this. By the
          way, do you know any modern authors who copy others' work? (No. Of course you
          don't. It's people who can't write who copy.) An author who wishes to
          maintain any kind of respectability takes care to really author his work. If
          he (she) takes material from a source, he attributes that material to the
          source employed OR significantly re-structures, re-forms it. (The missing
          premise in the above is, of course, that I believe Luke was an author).

          Leonard Maluf
        • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
          ... I have been reading this thread with some interest - and also restraint. Of course the modern concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient world. The
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            > In Ron's world, I guess, the greatest compliment an author can pay to a
            > predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his work. I don't believe
            > this. By the
            > way, do you know any modern authors who copy others' work? (No.
            > Of course you
            > don't. It's people who can't write who copy.) An author who wishes to
            > maintain any kind of respectability takes care to really author
            > his work. If
            > he (she) takes material from a source, he attributes that material to the
            > source employed OR significantly re-structures, re-forms it. (The missing
            > premise in the above is, of course, that I believe Luke was an author).
            >
            > Leonard Maluf

            I have been reading this thread with some interest - and also restraint.
            Of course the modern concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient
            world. The ownership of intellectual property is a rather modern notion.
            Modern authors do acknowledge their sources, and do so in a manner that was
            not unknown but far less common in antiquity. Indeed, the creative use
            of another's words was an important aspect of "authorship" in the ancient
            world. Imposing the concepts of "authorship" and "plagiarism" as we
            understand and define them in the twentieth century, it seems to me,
            blurs rather than understands what authorship meant in the first century.

            In the modern world copying would not be the greatest compliment that
            an author could pay to a predecessor. I agree. Laying aside the innuendo
            about "Ron's world," the question would be how copying another's words
            would be understood in the first century. As one who has examined
            conflation as a technique employed by ancient (and not so ancient)
            authors, I am not convinced that Leonard Maluf's use of these modern
            concepts is an appropriate analogy to authorship in the ancient world.

            Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
            Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
            Director, African-American Studies Program
            Colby College
            Waterville, ME 04901
            Email: t_longst@...
            Office phone: 207 872-3150
            FAX: 207 872-3802
          • Carl W. Conrad
            ... I was appalled to see the heavy-handed rhetoric in: the greatest compliment an author can pay to a predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his work. Of
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              At 8:17 AM -0500 11/1/99, Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote:
              >> In Ron's world, I guess, the greatest compliment an author can pay to a
              >> predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his work. I don't believe
              >> this.
              >>
              >> Leonard Maluf
              >
              >I have been reading this thread with some interest - and also restraint.
              >Of course the modern concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient
              >world. The ownership of intellectual property is a rather modern notion.
              >Modern authors do acknowledge their sources, and do so in a manner that was
              >not unknown but far less common in antiquity. Indeed, the creative use
              >of another's words was an important aspect of "authorship" in the ancient
              >world. Imposing the concepts of "authorship" and "plagiarism" as we
              >understand and define them in the twentieth century, it seems to me,
              >blurs rather than understands what authorship meant in the first century.
              >
              >In the modern world copying would not be the greatest compliment that
              >an author could pay to a predecessor. I agree. Laying aside the innuendo
              >about "Ron's world," the question would be how copying another's words
              >would be understood in the first century. As one who has examined
              >conflation as a technique employed by ancient (and not so ancient)
              >authors, I am not convinced that Leonard Maluf's use of these modern
              >concepts is an appropriate analogy to authorship in the ancient world.

              I was appalled to see the heavy-handed rhetoric in: "the greatest
              compliment an author can pay to a predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his
              work." Of course plagiarism is not in question, but the ancient literary
              tradition depends upon the author's expectation that reader will recognize
              the deft reformulation of phraseology from a predecessor and understand it
              both as a compliment to the predecessor and as authentic originality on the
              part of the author. I think this is a fairly well-known truth about Greek
              and Latin literature, but I rather think that the echoes of the earlier
              prophets in Deuteronomy and the recurrent "repetitions with a difference"
              of Old Testament texts in the New Testament. The author of Revelation is a
              master at this, and I would readily assume that every one of the composers
              of gospels were doing the same thing--and this does not mean at all that
              they weren't authors. Is it possible that this hasn't entered at all into
              considerations about synoptic gospel relationships? Of course it's not that
              simple a matter to determine which direction the literary comment is going
              but to me, at least, it would seem very strange that such adoption of
              phraseology of one evangelist by another with slight alterations that
              transform its meaning should NOT be a factor in synoptic relationships.


              Carl W. Conrad
              Department of Classics/Washington University
              One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
              Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
              cwconrad@...
            • Mark Goodacre
              ... I agree, and yet it is rare to see appreciation of this factor in the discussion of synoptic interrelationships. One of the few places I have seen it
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                On 1 Nov 99, at 8:16, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

                > Is it possible that this hasn't
                > entered at all into considerations about synoptic gospel relationships? Of
                > course it's not that simple a matter to determine which direction the
                > literary comment is going but to me, at least, it would seem very strange
                > that such adoption of phraseology of one evangelist by another with slight
                > alterations that transform its meaning should NOT be a factor in synoptic
                > relationships.

                I agree, and yet it is rare to see appreciation of this factor in the
                discussion of synoptic interrelationships. One of the few places I have
                seen it explored is in Mark Matson's as yet unpublished piece
                available on his web site, "Luke as Dialogue with Previous Gospels",
                http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/faculty/matson/Bauckham.html.
                It is something I have touched on myself too, especially in relation to
                Luke's prologue, which may imply that Luke expected his readers to
                engage with his gospel in the light of their reading of the work of his
                predecessors. It is one of the directions in which I would like to see
                future synoptic study developing. Contemporary interest in narrative-
                criticism and intertextuality might be the catalyst for such
                developments.

                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: Leonard Maluf, SCM:
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  To: Leonard Maluf,

                  SCM: << : If Luke knew two editions of the "Lord's Prayer," one being the
                  Matthean version, it is "more probable" that he too (like the rest of
                  Christendom) would have preferred the Matthean version over his own version. >>

                  ML: << Luke may well have LIKED Matthew's version better, and used it
                  elsewere, liturgically etc., rather than his own. But he was simply
                  following the standard writing practice of Hellenistic authorship when he
                  renounced reproducing Matthew's form of the Lord's Prayer, with its
                  seven-fold structure, within his own Gospel. >>

                  You seem now to want to suggest that although Luke knew Matthew's version
                  of the "Lord's Prayer," he was bound by a Hellenistic writers code to
                  re-write everything he used, and unfortunately Luke lacked the creative
                  genius to improve on Matthew's version (although later scribes we able to
                  do so) and so was forced to submit his butchered version of the "Lord's
                  Prayer" instead of Matthew's version.

                  First of all, Matthew's version of the "Lord's Prayer," is 61 words (using
                  NA27). But according to the Griesbach hypothesis, Luke copied 63 words from
                  Matthew at Mt 3:7b-10 // Lk 3:7b-9 almost verbatim (i.e., with a few minor
                  changes). So such (almost) verbatim copying is not impossible, even with
                  Luke's supposed Hellenistic writers code. Furthermore, I would suggest that
                  a prayer from Jesus would have had greater value to Luke than John the
                  Baptist's preaching on repentance (Lk 3:7b-9) and no "Hellenistic writers
                  code" could have prevented Luke from copying all 61 words if Luke so desired.

                  Second, I find it hard to believe that Luke, if he was using Matthew's
                  gospel as a source, didn't have the creative genius to actually improve on
                  Matthew's version. After all, later scribes were able to modify Matthew's
                  version and thus "improve" Matthew's version.

                  Finally, you suggest that Luke "may" have liked Matthew's version better,
                  and "may" have even used it liturgically. This too I find hard to reconcile
                  with what Luke actually wrote. Luke writes that one of Jesus disciples
                  asked Jesus: "Lord, teach us to pray." And Luke claims that Jesus responds
                  by saying: "When you pray, say: ..." Was Luke then supposed to turn around
                  and tell his congregation that one should not use the prayer which Jesus
                  gave them, instead one should use this much better prayer that he had
                  learned from Matthew? IMO one should not forget that these gospels were
                  propaganda (in the good sense of the term) pieces! They were meant to be
                  taken seriously and to influence people's behavior. If Luke puts a
                  liturgical prayer in the mouth of Jesus, it would be safe to assume (IMO)
                  that Luke meant for people to actually use that prayer.

                  In my opinion, the "Lord's Prayer" is a serious weakness in both the
                  Owens-Griesbach and Farrer-Goulder hypotheses. Of course, no one issue will
                  make or break any hypothesis.

                  -Steven Craig Miller
                  Alton, Illinois (USA)
                  scmiller@...

                  "Refutations have often been regarded as establishing the failure of a
                  scientist, or at least his theory. It should be stressed that this is an
                  inductivist error. Every refutation should be regarded as a great success;
                  not merely a success of the scientist who refuted the theory, but also of
                  the scientist who created the refuted theory and who thus in the first
                  instance suggested, if only indirectly, the refuting experiment" (Karl R.
                  Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations," 243).
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 11/1/1999 9:28:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes:
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 11/1/1999 9:28:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                    cwconrad@... writes:

                    << I was appalled to see the heavy-handed rhetoric in: "the greatest
                    compliment an author can pay to a predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his
                    work." Of course plagiarism is not in question, but the ancient literary
                    tradition depends upon the author's expectation that reader will recognize
                    the deft reformulation of phraseology from a predecessor and understand it
                    both as a compliment to the predecessor and as authentic originality on the
                    part of the author. I think this is a fairly well-known truth about Greek
                    and Latin literature, but I rather think that the echoes of the earlier
                    prophets in Deuteronomy and the recurrent "repetitions with a difference"
                    of Old Testament texts in the New Testament. The author of Revelation is a
                    master at this, and I would readily assume that every one of the composers
                    of gospels were doing the same thing--and this does not mean at all that
                    they weren't authors. Is it possible that this hasn't entered at all into
                    considerations about synoptic gospel relationships? Of course it's not that
                    simple a matter to determine which direction the literary comment is going
                    but to me, at least, it would seem very strange that such adoption of
                    phraseology of one evangelist by another with slight alterations that
                    transform its meaning should NOT be a factor in synoptic relationships.
                    >>

                    I don't see the relevancy of any of this to what I said in the original
                    posting. Nor do I quite understand what you are saying. If you are intending
                    to communicate with me (and I am honestly not sure from the above that you
                    are) could you please express yourself in a few sentences that make your
                    point and that address directly points I had made? Thanks.

                    Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying in the sentence you cite as
                    containing appalling, heavy handed rhetoric. Ron is of the opinion (and has
                    said so more than once on this list) that ALk did not care much for the
                    Gospel of Matthew. His opinion, as I read him, is based mainly on the fact
                    that, according to his Synoptic theory, Luke did not copy much directly from
                    Matt. I was trying to say that copying someone's work is not the only way to
                    pay that person a compliment. Let me give you an example. In Matt 9:13 we
                    find the words of Jesus: "Go and learn what this means: 'I will have mercy
                    and not sacrifice'". Luke did not copy these words. Instead, he probably paid
                    AMt the far greater compliment of obeying them, and we have the results of
                    Luke's research on the theme "mercy and not sacrifice" in the OT in the
                    magnificent parable of the Good Samaritan.

                    Leonard Maluf
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 11/1/1999 12:31:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes:
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 11/1/1999 12:31:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                      scmiller@... writes:

                      <<
                      LM: < Luke may well have LIKED Matthew's version better, and used it
                      elsewere, liturgically etc., rather than his own. But he was simply
                      following the standard writing practice of Hellenistic authorship when he
                      renounced reproducing Matthew's form of the Lord's Prayer, with its
                      seven-fold structure, within his own Gospel. >

                      << You seem now to want to suggest that although Luke knew Matthew's version
                      of the "Lord's Prayer," he was bound by a Hellenistic writers code to
                      re-write everything he used, and unfortunately Luke lacked the creative
                      genius to improve on Matthew's version (although later scribes we able to
                      do so) and so was forced to submit his butchered version of the "Lord's
                      Prayer" instead of Matthew's version.>>

                      I am tempted here to use your favorite phrase (inflamatory rhetoric) with
                      reference to your last comment. On a more substantive note, I suggested, if
                      you recall, that Luke's version was in one sense better than Matthew's: it
                      illustrated better the point made by the Matthean Jesus that it is not
                      necessary to use many words when praying to the Father.

                      << First of all, Matthew's version of the "Lord's Prayer," is 61 words (using
                      NA27). But according to the Griesbach hypothesis, Luke copied 63 words from
                      Matthew at Mt 3:7b-10 // Lk 3:7b-9 almost verbatim (i.e., with a few minor
                      changes). So such (almost) verbatim copying is not impossible, even with
                      Luke's supposed Hellenistic writers code.>>

                      This is an interesting point, and it illustrates how difficult it is to do
                      anything of this kind in a format like this. Although I didn't write on this
                      topic in this particular posting, of course I am aware of passages that
                      exhibit extended exact verbatim copying between Luke and Matt. As I have said
                      a few times before, though, this kind of copying (of Matt by Luke) takes
                      place only in sayings material, and it extends over more than a few words
                      only in cases where such material is relatively unstructured. If you will
                      kindly examine carefully the entire pericope on John the Baptist in its Lukan
                      form, compared to that found in Matt, you will note that the material as a
                      whole has been thoroughly restructured, with ALL the "structures" of the
                      Matthean text removed, and replaced with new structuring elements in Luke.
                      Thus, the pericope (as a whole) illustrates very well the main point I was
                      making, in spite of the extensive verbal agreement in sayings material that
                      occurs within it.

                      <<Furthermore, I would suggest that
                      a prayer from Jesus would have had greater value to Luke than John the
                      Baptist's preaching on repentance (Lk 3:7b-9) and no "Hellenistic writers
                      code" could have prevented Luke from copying all 61 words if Luke so
                      desired.>>

                      OK. This argument will undoubtedly appeal to some, and it is not unreasonable
                      in itself. However, consider the following: when Luke cites from any OT
                      passage of a length comparable to the Lord's Prayer, he invariably names his
                      source (often through the mouth of a character in his story). Of course
                      Matthew was not a work Luke intended to "cite" in this way. In Hellenistic
                      writing, a "model" that was being used as the basis of imitation writing was,
                      by convention, NOT mentioned by the author using that model (think of the
                      Epistle to the Ephesians, or 2 Pet, or Virgil's Aeneid). For example, Luke
                      does not cite the Books of Samuel by name when he uses them as partial models
                      for his infancy stories, or the prophecy of Ezekiel when he is writing about
                      Peter and the sheet in Acts. The decision to write a new Gospel, modeled on
                      the popular Gospel already in existence (Matt), thus already dictates what
                      Luke will do when he comes to the structured "saying" of Jesus that we now
                      know as the "Our Father". He will reproduce it in substance, but with an
                      altered form.

                      <<Second, I find it hard to believe that Luke, if he was using Matthew's
                      gospel as a source, didn't have the creative genius to actually improve on
                      Matthew's version. After all, later scribes were able to modify Matthew's
                      version and thus "improve" Matthew's version.>>

                      Again, this involves a subjective judgment about the quality of Luke's work,
                      and ignores the subtlety of what Luke is doing here with respect to the
                      discussion on prayer in Matt 6.

                      << Finally, you suggest that Luke "may" have liked Matthew's version better,
                      and "may" have even used it liturgically. This too I find hard to reconcile
                      with what Luke actually wrote.>>

                      You need a little time for this idea to ripen. I see it is too new for you as
                      yet. It will seem less difficult after you have been convinced that what I am
                      saying about the conventions of Hellenistic writing is valid.

                      << IMO one should not forget that these gospels were
                      propaganda (in the good sense of the term) pieces! They were meant to be
                      taken seriously and to influence people's behavior. If Luke puts a
                      liturgical prayer in the mouth of Jesus, it would be safe to assume (IMO)
                      that Luke meant for people to actually use that prayer.>>

                      You are guilty of anachronism here. We don't really know when even Matthew's
                      form of the "Lord's Prayer" began to be used "liturgically". I know it is
                      hard for us to imagine that there was ever a time when it wasn't, but this is
                      nevertheless a distinct possibility. Remember that in Matt, Jesus has just
                      made the statement that when we pray, we should enter into our chamber and
                      closing the door pray to our Father in secret. This does not describe
                      "liturgical" prayer.

                      Leonard Maluf
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 11/1/1999 8:23:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, t_longst@colby.edu writes:
                      Message 10 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 11/1/1999 8:23:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                        t_longst@... writes:

                        << In the modern world copying would not be the greatest compliment that
                        an author could pay to a predecessor. I agree. Laying aside the innuendo
                        about "Ron's world," the question would be how copying another's words
                        would be understood in the first century. As one who has examined
                        conflation as a technique employed by ancient (and not so ancient)
                        authors, I am not convinced that Leonard Maluf's use of these modern
                        concepts is an appropriate analogy to authorship in the ancient world.
                        >>

                        I never meant to suggest that these concepts applied in the same way in the
                        ancient world than they do today. Nevertheless, the above observations are
                        very much on target with respect to the type of dialogue I hoped my remarks
                        would generate. Conflation was indeed a common literary procedure in
                        antiquity (and one, by the way, employed very frequently by Luke, as well as
                        by Mark in my understanding of the 2 GH), but I wonder if one wouldn't have
                        to distinguish between significantly different types of conflation, the
                        essential difference being in how literally the employed sources were
                        reproduced. I do not think that authors who simply incorporated into their
                        works large portions of the works of predecessors, with only minor
                        alterations (as Mark does, according to the 2 GH) were in fact regarded on
                        anything like a par with authors who were far more creative, but also
                        employed abstract literary models, and used minor conflationary touches as
                        one of many sophicated writing tools. In other words, literary critics
                        roughly contemporary with the Evangelists, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus
                        and Quintilian, certainly differentiated clearly between great writers, on
                        the one hand, and quite mediocre authors on the other. I suspect that you
                        will not find among those they regarded as great, authors whose writings are
                        known to involve extensive and fairly literal copying from older sources.

                        Leonard Maluf
                      • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                        ... as ... have ... Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Quite a few studies have been published over the last thirty to forty years providing, I think,
                        Message 11 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > ............... Conflation was indeed a common literary procedure in
                          > antiquity (and one, by the way, employed very frequently by Luke, as well
                          as
                          > by Mark in my understanding of the 2 GH), but I wonder if one wouldn't
                          have
                          > to distinguish between significantly different types of conflation, the
                          > essential difference being in how literally the employed sources were
                          > reproduced.

                          Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

                          Quite a few studies have been published over the last thirty to forty years
                          providing, I think, clear evidence that authors who conflate do so in
                          different ways, i.e., that there are, indeed, significantly different types
                          of conflation. Could you be more specific about the discussion that you wish
                          to stimulate to advance the discussion of this issue and help us better to
                          understand the process of conflation?

                          Thank you.

                          Thomas R. W. Longstaff
                          Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
                          Director, African-American Studies Program
                          Colby College
                        • Carl W. Conrad
                          ... If I misunderstood you, I apologize; I took the opening comment as intentional sarcasm and what followed in the above paragraph as denying that repetition
                          Message 12 of 15 , Nov 2, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 8:10 PM -0500 11/1/99, Maluflen@... wrote:
                            >In a message dated 11/1/1999 9:28:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                            >cwconrad@... writes:
                            >
                            ><< I was appalled to see the heavy-handed rhetoric in: "the greatest
                            > compliment an author can pay to a predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his
                            > work." Of course plagiarism is not in question, but the ancient literary
                            > tradition depends upon the author's expectation that reader will recognize
                            > the deft reformulation of phraseology from a predecessor and understand it
                            > both as a compliment to the predecessor and as authentic originality on the
                            > part of the author. I think this is a fairly well-known truth about Greek
                            > and Latin literature, but I rather think that the echoes of the earlier
                            > prophets in Deuteronomy and the recurrent "repetitions with a difference"
                            > of Old Testament texts in the New Testament. The author of Revelation is a
                            > master at this, and I would readily assume that every one of the composers
                            > of gospels were doing the same thing--and this does not mean at all that
                            > they weren't authors. Is it possible that this hasn't entered at all into
                            > considerations about synoptic gospel relationships? Of course it's not that
                            > simple a matter to determine which direction the literary comment is going
                            > but to me, at least, it would seem very strange that such adoption of
                            > phraseology of one evangelist by another with slight alterations that
                            > transform its meaning should NOT be a factor in synoptic relationships.
                            > >>
                            >
                            >I don't see the relevancy of any of this to what I said in the original
                            >posting. Nor do I quite understand what you are saying. If you are intending
                            >to communicate with me (and I am honestly not sure from the above that you
                            >are) could you please express yourself in a few sentences that make your
                            >point and that address directly points I had made? Thanks.

                            At 6:14 AM -0500 11/1/99, Maluflen@... wrote:
                            >In a message dated 11/1/1999 5:28:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                            >ron.price@... writes:
                            >
                            ><< Au_Luke (not the 'last redactor') had less respect for Matthew than for
                            > his other two sources >>
                            >
                            >In Ron's world, I guess, the greatest compliment an author can pay to a
                            >predecessor is to copy (plagiarize) his work. I don't believe this. By the
                            >way, do you know any modern authors who copy others' work? (No. Of course you
                            >don't. It's people who can't write who copy.) An author who wishes to
                            >maintain any kind of respectability takes care to really author his work. If
                            >he (she) takes material from a source, he attributes that material to the
                            >source employed OR significantly re-structures, re-forms it. (The missing
                            >premise in the above is, of course, that I believe Luke was an author).

                            If I misunderstood you, I apologize; I took the opening comment as
                            intentional sarcasm and what followed in the above paragraph as denying
                            that repetition of another's phraseology with subtle alteration was in fact
                            a standard practice in antiquity, particularly in a society wherein
                            literary texts are composed to be heard and important ones are committed to
                            memory. My own intention was to state a proposition to the contrary of what
                            I took you to be rejecting with contempt, and I was not really (and should
                            perhaps have made this clear) commenting on the substance of your exchange
                            with Ron Price.

                            Again: At 8:10 PM -0500 11/1/99, Maluflen@... wrote
                            >Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying in the sentence you cite as
                            >containing appalling, heavy handed rhetoric. Ron is of the opinion (and has
                            >said so more than once on this list) that ALk did not care much for the
                            >Gospel of Matthew. His opinion, as I read him, is based mainly on the fact
                            >that, according to his Synoptic theory, Luke did not copy much directly from
                            >Matt. I was trying to say that copying someone's work is not the only way to
                            >pay that person a compliment. Let me give you an example. In Matt 9:13 we
                            >find the words of Jesus: "Go and learn what this means: 'I will have mercy
                            >and not sacrifice'". Luke did not copy these words. Instead, he probably paid
                            >AMt the far greater compliment of obeying them, and we have the results of
                            >Luke's research on the theme "mercy and not sacrifice" in the OT in the
                            >magnificent parable of the Good Samaritan.

                            I appreciate this example, although I don't really believe that Luke's use
                            of the parable of the Good Samaritan in his gospel was inspired by his
                            reading of Matthew's gospel and I wonder whether you do either? Well, if
                            you think this is a consequence of Luke's research into that theme in the
                            OT, perhaps you really do believe that, and perhaps you believe that the
                            parable of the Good Samaritan is Luke's own creation, a possibility I would
                            certainly not reject out of hand. I think that compassion is a powerful
                            theme in both gospels, but I don't think that Luke derived it from Matthew
                            or vice versa. I might add, for what it's worth, that I believe all three
                            of the Synoptic evangelists were authors in the sense you are using the
                            word, and Mark not the least of them. Increasingly I think that the great
                            difficulty in reaching any real consensus on Synoptic relationships derives
                            from the fact each of the evangelists--whether or not we think of the
                            finished gospels as undergoing one or more redactions--was quite creative
                            with the traditional materials at his disposal.


                            Carl W. Conrad
                            Department of Classics/Washington University
                            One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
                            Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
                            cwconrad@...
                            WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
                          • Petros Boyd
                            One of the few places I have ... Thanks for calling our attention to this very interesting note. If Luke s preface is compared with that of Josephus, the
                            Message 13 of 15 , Nov 6, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              One of the few places I have
                              > seen it explored is in Mark Matson's as yet unpublished piece
                              > available on his web site, "Luke as Dialogue with Previous Gospels",
                              > http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/faculty/matson/Bauckham.html.

                              Thanks for calling our attention to this very interesting note.
                              If Luke's preface is compared with that of Josephus, the question arises
                              whether the intention of his gospel is to 'correct' possibly misleading data
                              in the earlier undertakings. So the promise to write akribos and kathexes
                              confirms serious and even critical engagement with already published works.

                              On the question of naive readers, how would we assess Theophilus?
                              Luke writes so that he may have asphaleia ['safety' or 'certainty' ?] in the
                              matters in which he has received instruction. The instruction left him still
                              needing information that is guranteed. Clearly Theophilus could have been
                              his literary patron. If so the community aspect tends to fall into the
                              back-ground.. Yet the claim that he the events 'have been fulfilled among
                              us' suggests that the community context is not totally absent.
                              But is there any need for an either/or on this question? Why not
                              'both /and' We have to balance the cost of publication which might need
                              the kind of financial support a community could give to a costly undertaking
                              of producing in Luke's case a two-volume wor on papyrus. Also Luke in Acts
                              provides evidence of numerous churches not founded by any known apostle, but
                              as a result of vigorous natural expansion of the Cbristian faith. They would
                              doubtless have many naive readers as well as sophisticated ones. The whole
                              thrust of Luke-Acts is characterised by the universal character of the
                              Gospel for a whole empire and world, more so than Matthew or Mark, yet that
                              need not rule out a community of faith with a high calling to witness to the
                              world.

                              Regards,

                              petros



                              > It is something I have touched on myself too, especially in relation to
                              > Luke's prologue, which may imply that Luke expected his readers to
                              > engage with his gospel in the light of their reading of the work of his
                              > predecessors. It is one of the directions in which I would like to see
                              > future synoptic study developing. Contemporary interest in narrative-
                              > criticism and intertextuality might be the catalyst for such
                              > developments.
                              >
                              > 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
                              >
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.