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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.