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

[Synoptic-L] Re: "Lord's Prayer" & the 3SH

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
      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 2 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
        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 3 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
          > 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 4 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
            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 5 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
              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 6 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                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 7 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                  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 8 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                    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 9 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                      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 10 of 15 , Nov 1, 1999
                        > ............... 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 11 of 15 , Nov 2, 1999
                          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 12 of 15 , Nov 6, 1999
                            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.