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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Minor Agreements and Markan Redaction

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/26/2000 9:33:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com writes: My dictionary doesn t contain the
    Message 1 of 25 , Oct 27, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 10/26/2000 9:33:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      LeeEdgarTyler@... writes:


      <<Dictionary out of reach?>>

      My dictionary doesn't contain the expression "mitigate against". And it is a
      humongous one.

      << No: My statement meant that Luke COULD have harmonized the account that
      he invented with Matthew's account in a manner that it did not make Matthew
      appear a virtual liar. The Lukan and Matthean accounts of the Resurrection
      are mutually exclusive, despite your insufficient attempt to explain away
      the
      obvious contradictions.>>

      You seem to have missed an important point I made in my previous post. It
      makes no sense to speak of contradiction or mutual exclusion in this context
      unless the accounts were intended to be taken as literal history. Most
      scholars hold that they are not.

      << The fact that you accept tradition as a "valid purveyor of knowledge" has
      nothing whatever to do with the validity of the knowledge it purveys. You
      are certainly free to entertain any quaint notions or superstitions you wish
      about all the folklore surrounding the fates of the apostles, but you surely
      cannot expect anyone else to take you seriously when you espouse it. >>

      In fact the knowledge purveyed by tradition regarding the authorship of the
      Gospels is taken seriously, and has been, by millions of Christians for the
      last two millennia. For most purposes I am prouder of my identification with
      these people than I am of any claim I might have to fellowship with the heady
      rascals of academia. I said nothing about the fates of the apostles, which go
      back to second-century stories that have always been taken much less
      seriously.

      << Fine: You stop relying on this nebulous and meaningless rhetoric with
      its
      dearth of specifics, and I'll stop calling a spade a spade. I'd like to see
      you try to explain Luke's treatment of the purported Matthean source of the
      Resurrection account, and do so with a modicum of discipline and without
      recourse to special pleading or self-privileging readings.>>

      I was hoping you would be more specific than this, but I will attempt to
      oblige. Only give me a couple of days!

      << The historical factuality of the accounts is irrelevant; the coherence of
      the
      accounts is quite relevant. I certainly don't think that the Homeric epics,
      for instance, were intended to be received as history; nevertheless, it was
      invariably Agamemnon who met his death upon his arrival home, not Odysseus.
      The discrepancies between the Lukan and Matthean accounts are about as
      discordant as Odysseus' arrival home to the knife of Clytemnestra would have
      been to the Greeks. Maybe more so. Of course you're going to reject that
      out of hand....>>

      Yes, and why shouldn't I? You continue here with an exaggerated statement of
      the problem that has characterized your treatment of the issue throughout
      this exchange.

      My apologies, in conclusion, for attempting to rewrite your original post.
      As you have by now undoubtedly noticed, I have most recently been obliged to
      apply the same, gently critical measure to one of my own. (I mistakenly wrote
      depravation for deprivation; what depravity!).

      Leonard Maluf




      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
      In a message dated 10/26/2000 9:30:31 PM Canada Central Standard Tim, ... contradictions ... not ... Of course I am not saying that no writer dependent upon
      Message 2 of 25 , Oct 27, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 10/26/2000 9:30:31 PM Canada Central Standard Tim,
        scarlson@... writes:

        > At 08:04 AM 10/26/00 EDT, LeeEdgarTyler@... wrote:
        > >My overriding assumption (that I'll willingly unpack for you) is that any
        > >theory of Lukan dependence upon Matthew must account for the
        contradictions
        >
        > >as well as the congruencies between the two gospels. A second is that
        > >explanations of these contradictions must be evaluated critically. And a
        > >third is that whenever an explanation proposed by a theory fails to pass
        > >assumption two, it's time to go in search of another theory: One does
        not
        > >solve the problems of the contradictions by pointing to the similarities.

        > >Naturally, I do recognize that explanations of these contradictions that
        > >satisfy some people will leave others unconvinced.
        >
        > Before even getting to the second and third assumptions, I'm
        > still hung up on the first assumption (which incorporates
        > many controversial assumptions of its own and needs unpacking).
        > I don't understand what you mean by "any theory of Lukan
        > dependence upon Matthew must account for the contradictions."
        > Are you saying that no writer dependent on another would ever
        > contradict his source? If so, please justify it. If not, please
        > explain how your issue of contradictions is relevant to Luke's use
        > of Matthew.
        >

        Of course I am not saying that "no writer dependent upon another would every
        contradict his source." But if he does so, he does so for a reason and in an
        identifiable manner; and any theory addressing his sources and treatment
        thereof must be able to articulate a coherent account of both. It won't do
        at all merely to assert "Oh, writers often contradict their sources, so this
        is just another example of such a contradiction." You cannot assume facts
        not in evidence for the sake of convenience.

        You are aware, no doubt, that the question of Luke's dependence upon Matthew
        is by no means taking place in a scholarly vacuum: There are more such
        discussions going on than one can count, over a wide variety of texts. The
        points I make above are quite in step with generally accepted methodologies
        for these cases, and in most circles would meet with unanimous assent. After
        all, if Luke's blatant contradictions of his purported Matthean source are so
        easily explained that one can take them for granted, as you seem to think,
        then it should be remarkably easy to account for them. I don't understand
        your objection to doing so.

        If it is your position, as it seems to be, that the proponent of a theory of
        Lukan dependence upon Matthew has no obligation at all to address the
        egregious contradictions between the two accounts, I'd expect you to offer
        some justification for it.

        Lee Edgar Tyler
        Baton Rouge, LA


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
        In a message dated 10/27/2000 4:47:15 AM Canada Central Standard Tim, ... that ... Resurrection ... context ... Your assertion that the expectation of
        Message 3 of 25 , Oct 27, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 10/27/2000 4:47:15 AM Canada Central Standard Tim,
          Maluflen writes:

          >
          > << No: My statement meant that Luke COULD have harmonized the account
          that
          > he invented with Matthew's account in a manner that it did not make Matthew
          > appear a virtual liar. The Lukan and Matthean accounts of the
          Resurrection
          >
          > are mutually exclusive, despite your insufficient attempt to explain away
          > the
          > obvious contradictions.>>
          >
          > You seem to have missed an important point I made in my previous post. It
          > makes no sense to speak of contradiction or mutual exclusion in this
          context
          > unless the accounts were intended to be taken as literal history. Most
          > scholars hold that they are not.
          >

          Your assertion that the expectation of narrative coherence was reserved for
          "literal history" and has no bearing on texts such as the gospels is simply
          false and can be demonstrated so by recourse to both ancient and living
          traditions. The notion of "right" and "wrong" story patterns is quite vital
          to mythic narratives, and audiences hold a narrator to the expectation that
          he'll adhere to the "right" one.

          For instance, it is very well documented in Greek, Slavic, Turkic, Indian,
          and Mongolian traditions (to name but a few) that under the stressful
          exigencies of performance, storytellers and singers of narrative tales will
          frequently err and introduce the wrong story elements into their
          performances. When this occurs, their audiences will correct them, and get
          them back into the pattern they perceive as the proper one. They do not
          permit contradiction of the expected narrative. Analogous phenomena occur
          widely with respect to dissemination of written narratives.

          Now, if you wish to suggest that Luke's audience would be some sort of an
          exception to this universal phenomenon, you must propose it as an exception
          and substantiate your proposal. Your assertion above does not suffice.

          Lee Edgar Tyler
          Baton Rouge, LA

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: To: Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 4:35 AM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Minor Agreements and Markan
          Message 4 of 25 , Oct 27, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <LeeEdgarTyler@...>
            To: <Synoptic-L@...>
            Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 4:35 AM
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Minor Agreements and Markan Redaction


            >
            > If it is your position, as it seems to be, that the proponent of a theory
            of
            > Lukan dependence upon Matthew has no obligation at all to address the
            > egregious contradictions between the two accounts, I'd expect you to offer
            > some justification for it.

            Even with the application of literary, form, source and redaction critical
            methods, I just cannot see how we will ever know the stemmata of the
            gospels. These books were composed and used by disparate communities
            in the 1st century middle east and Asia Minor to tell a "Jesus story" to
            their
            particular audience. The Lukan author is not going to tell the same story
            to his audience that the Matthean author tells to his, even when they use
            the same sources (Mark, Greek Q, Aramaic Q) or one uses the other.

            The brachiation from the autographs is further complicated by the annoying
            tendency of 2nd and 3rd generation copyists to tamper with the accounts
            either for the purpose of harmonization or regional theology.

            Matthew has the family hot footing it to Egypt because he is a Jew and wants
            to equate Jesus with the Tanakh and Moses. He may be ticked off over the
            issuance of the Birkhat haMinim and concerned because he sees more gentile
            participation in the prevailing "Jesus story" than his own community of
            diaspora Jews and wants to say, "Hey! Wait a minute! This is a Jewish
            thing."

            The Lukan author is one of those gentiles that sees no need to duplicate a
            mini-exodus to his audience, hence we have a "contradiction." He is a
            follower or an heir to the Pauline camp and wants to say, "Hey, this is
            a gentile thing too."

            The semi-gnostic Johannine author is another story.

            We can argue these issues on points that we believe significant to the
            question
            but we all peer through different critical windows....but unless or until a
            DSS-like cache of an early Nazarene library is discovered, our discussions
            and disagreements on these issues are going to be fun, stimulating,
            intriguing,
            non-conclusive, but I hope always cordial.

            Jack


            -----
            ______________________________________________

            taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

            Jack Kilmon
            North Hollywood, Ca.
            jkilmon@...

            http://www.historian.net

            sharing a meal for free.
            http://www.thehungersite.com/




            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
            In a message dated 10/27/2000 10:48:37 AM Canada Central Standard Ti, ... offer ... wants ... I certainly agree, Jack, which is the reason I have stopped
            Message 5 of 25 , Oct 27, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 10/27/2000 10:48:37 AM Canada Central Standard Ti,
              jkilmon@... writes:

              > >
              > > If it is your position, as it seems to be, that the proponent of a theory
              > of
              > > Lukan dependence upon Matthew has no obligation at all to address the
              > > egregious contradictions between the two accounts, I'd expect you to
              offer
              > > some justification for it.
              >
              > Even with the application of literary, form, source and redaction critical
              > methods, I just cannot see how we will ever know the stemmata of the
              > gospels. These books were composed and used by disparate communities
              > in the 1st century middle east and Asia Minor to tell a "Jesus story" to
              > their
              > particular audience. The Lukan author is not going to tell the same story
              > to his audience that the Matthean author tells to his, even when they use
              > the same sources (Mark, Greek Q, Aramaic Q) or one uses the other.
              >
              > The brachiation from the autographs is further complicated by the annoying
              > tendency of 2nd and 3rd generation copyists to tamper with the accounts
              > either for the purpose of harmonization or regional theology.
              >
              > Matthew has the family hot footing it to Egypt because he is a Jew and
              wants
              > to equate Jesus with the Tanakh and Moses. He may be ticked off over the
              > issuance of the Birkhat haMinim and concerned because he sees more gentile
              > participation in the prevailing "Jesus story" than his own community of
              > diaspora Jews and wants to say, "Hey! Wait a minute! This is a Jewish
              > thing."
              >
              > The Lukan author is one of those gentiles that sees no need to duplicate a
              > mini-exodus to his audience, hence we have a "contradiction." He is a
              > follower or an heir to the Pauline camp and wants to say, "Hey, this is
              > a gentile thing too."
              >
              > The semi-gnostic Johannine author is another story.
              >
              > We can argue these issues on points that we believe significant to the
              > question
              > but we all peer through different critical windows....but unless or until a
              > DSS-like cache of an early Nazarene library is discovered, our discussions
              > and disagreements on these issues are going to be fun, stimulating,
              > intriguing,
              > non-conclusive, but I hope always cordial.
              >

              I certainly agree, Jack, which is the reason I have stopped responding to
              posts on this subject that lack this cordiality. Stephen Carlson asked a
              perfectly legitimate question, and I respect his demand for rigor on my part
              without reading a lack of cordiality into that demand; I trust he and others
              will extend the same consideration to me when I return the demand for rigor
              on their parts. And I have of course maintained all along that given the
              present state of affairs the problem will probably remained unresolved for
              those who do not accept easy answers on either side.

              Now as I mentioned before, the points that I see as significant to this
              question are quite in line with generally accepted principles of methodology
              in analogous cases; it is not as if I'm expecting anything remarkable here,
              and I do not understand the ambient resistance.

              Now, I notice in the above that you do precisely what I suggest is essential:
              You account for a "contradiction" --you neither minimize it nor do you
              assert a privilege to ignore it. And in fact, I find your explanation for
              Luke's excision of the Flight to Egypt from Matthew's version of the Nativity
              tale convincing. (That's granting for the sake of argument only that Matthew
              was his source. We cannot ignore the quite possible scenario that Luke never
              read Matthew's account.) If Luke read Matthew, you've provided a reasonable
              explanation for the absence of the Flight in Luke's tale. I remain cordially
              skeptical that all the rest of the problems posed by Lukan dependence upon
              Matthew can be as handily resolved.

              best,

              Ed Tyler
              Baton Rouge, LA

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.