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

re: article on Matt. 4.1-11

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Here follow my comments on Jeffrey Gibson s article (at http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/test.txt). Inevitably (because of my own interests), my
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 17, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Here follow my comments on Jeffrey Gibson's article (at
      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/test.txt).

      Inevitably (because of my own interests), my comments will be largely
      source-critical. Although Jeffrey's piece is not really
      source-critical, the comments might still be of interest,
      especially to Synoptic-L subscribers.

      Comments:

      1. How far would the first readers pick up the link between
      EIRHNOPOIOS and sonship already in Chapter 4? The
      link works well in Matthew generally, especially the Sermon on the
      Mount -- and a good case is made for this in the article -- but what
      is there leading up to the Temptation narrative that prepares the
      reader for this? The answer, I suppose, is partly the reference to
      DIKAIOSUNH in the baptism story, but does not DIKAIOSUNH have a
      broader meaning for Matthew than that which focuses purely on
      EIRHNOPOIOS?

      2. The piece constitutes quite a strong (unintentional) argument for
      the Farrer Theory. Such a good case is made for Matt. 4.1-11 as
      integral to Matthew's thought, narrative structure and Christology,
      that one cannot help thinking that there is no need for Q here. There
      does not seem to be any space here between the viewpoint of Matthew
      and the viewpoint of Q.

      3. Indeed, the Farrer Theory would benefit the argument in several
      ways: the narrative context in Matthew is baptism + Temptation. The
      Matthean version of the baptism features the unique Matthean element
      about DIKAIOSUNH as well as the Markan hUIOS TOU QEOU. This prepares
      splendidly for the Temptation narrative. A reference to hUIOS TOU
      QEOU may of course be in Q but it is a notorious difficulty because
      of the Mark - Q overlap. The IQP Critical Text chose at this point to
      return a verdict of Q 3.21-22 as "unreconstructable".

      4. Likewise, the beatitude (Matt. 5.9) that seems so crucial for the
      theory is in Matthew alone (contrast the standard reconstructions of
      the Q beatitudes).

      5. On Bultmann's theory that the Devil argues and cites Scripture
      reflecting "the form, method and intent of Rabbinic disputation":
      again it is arguable that this makes better sense of the context in
      Matthew than it does of the supposed context in Q.

      6. On the parallel between Jesus' Wilderness Temptation and "the
      PEIRASMOS which Israel, God's firstborn and hUIOS was subjected to . .
      .", one might note that Matthew himself has the Hosea quotation "Out
      of Egypt I called my son" in 2.15.

      7. On the question of "what first century Palestinian Judaism
      reputedly believed the Messiah would do", the point made in the
      article might be further re-inforced by noting that it is virtually a
      consensus (isn't it?) that there was great variety in the 1st C. in
      conceptions of Messiah(s), including prophecies of the end that
      included no Messiah at all.

      8. There seems to be an assumption throughout that is spelled out
      just after note 60 that Matthew is "the master of his material". Yet
      Matthean scholarship often assumes the contrary, does it not? At the
      very least, there are some famous incongruities in Matthew (Mission,
      Universalism etc.).

      9. We have already discussed the question of EI = if / since. I am
      still not convinced that "since" is right. If it is, how do we
      explain translations always going for "if" (assuming that they do)?

      10. Under the subheading "The Way of God's Son in Matthew", Matt.
      5.46 is given as OIKTIRMONES KAQWS . . . Isn't this Luke 6.36? Matt.
      5.48, the parallel to Luke 6.36, has TELEIOS etc.

      11. Is there an uneasy slippage from time to time between Matthew and
      Q, e.g. in note 33?

      12. Luke 4.3 does seem to constitute a weakness for one aspect of the
      theory. n. 80 is conscious of this, but is it convincing that in Luke
      4.3, LIQWi TOUTWi = the Rock = God? It would take alot to persuade me
      of this.

      All the best

      Mark
      --------------------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
      Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

      --------------------------------------

      Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... Mark, Thanks for your response and the amount of attention you paid to my article on Matt. 4:1-11. Your comments are, as always, incisive and helpful. They
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 17, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Goodacre wrote:
        >
        > Here follow my comments on Jeffrey Gibson's article (at
        > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/test.txt).
        >
        > Inevitably (because of my own interests), my comments will be largely
        > source-critical. Although Jeffrey's piece is not really
        > source-critical, the comments might still be of interest,
        > especially to Synoptic-L subscribers.



        > Comments:
        >
        > 1. How far would the first readers pick up the link between
        > EIRHNOPOIOS and sonship already in Chapter 4? The
        > link works well in Matthew generally, especially the Sermon on the
        > Mount -- and a good case is made for this in the article -- but what
        > is there leading up to the Temptation narrative that prepares the
        > reader for this? The answer, I suppose, is partly the reference to
        > DIKAIOSUNH in the baptism story, but does not DIKAIOSUNH have a
        > broader meaning for Matthew than that which focuses purely on
        > EIRHNOPOIOS?
        >
        > 2. The piece constitutes quite a strong (unintentional) argument for
        > the Farrer Theory. Such a good case is made for Matt. 4.1-11 as
        > integral to Matthew's thought, narrative structure and Christology,
        > that one cannot help thinking that there is no need for Q here. There
        > does not seem to be any space here between the viewpoint of Matthew
        > and the viewpoint of Q.
        >
        > 3. Indeed, the Farrer Theory would benefit the argument in several
        > ways: the narrative context in Matthew is baptism + Temptation. The
        > Matthean version of the baptism features the unique Matthean element
        > about DIKAIOSUNH as well as the Markan hUIOS TOU QEOU. This prepares
        > splendidly for the Temptation narrative. A reference to hUIOS TOU
        > QEOU may of course be in Q but it is a notorious difficulty because
        > of the Mark - Q overlap. The IQP Critical Text chose at this point to
        > return a verdict of Q 3.21-22 as "unreconstructable".
        >
        > 4. Likewise, the beatitude (Matt. 5.9) that seems so crucial for the
        > theory is in Matthew alone (contrast the standard reconstructions of
        > the Q beatitudes).
        >
        > 5. On Bultmann's theory that the Devil argues and cites Scripture
        > reflecting "the form, method and intent of Rabbinic disputation":
        > again it is arguable that this makes better sense of the context in
        > Matthew than it does of the supposed context in Q.
        >
        > 6. On the parallel between Jesus' Wilderness Temptation and "the
        > PEIRASMOS which Israel, God's firstborn and hUIOS was subjected to . .
        > .", one might note that Matthew himself has the Hosea quotation "Out
        > of Egypt I called my son" in 2.15.
        >
        > 7. On the question of "what first century Palestinian Judaism
        > reputedly believed the Messiah would do", the point made in the
        > article might be further re-inforced by noting that it is virtually a
        > consensus (isn't it?) that there was great variety in the 1st C. in
        > conceptions of Messiah(s), including prophecies of the end that
        > included no Messiah at all.
        >
        > 8. There seems to be an assumption throughout that is spelled out
        > just after note 60 that Matthew is "the master of his material". Yet
        > Matthean scholarship often assumes the contrary, does it not? At the
        > very least, there are some famous incongruities in Matthew (Mission,
        > Universalism etc.).
        >
        > 9. We have already discussed the question of EI = if / since. I am
        > still not convinced that "since" is right. If it is, how do we
        > explain translations always going for "if" (assuming that they do)?
        >
        > 10. Under the subheading "The Way of God's Son in Matthew", Matt.
        > 5.46 is given as OIKTIRMONES KAQWS . . . Isn't this Luke 6.36? Matt.
        > 5.48, the parallel to Luke 6.36, has TELEIOS etc.
        >
        > 11. Is there an uneasy slippage from time to time between Matthew and
        > Q, e.g. in note 33?
        >
        > 12. Luke 4.3 does seem to constitute a weakness for one aspect of the
        > theory. n. 80 is conscious of this, but is it convincing that in Luke
        > 4.3, LIQWi TOUTWi = the Rock = God? It would take alot to persuade me
        > of this.


        Mark,

        Thanks for your response and the amount of attention you paid to my
        article on Matt. 4:1-11. Your comments are, as always, incisive and
        helpful.

        They are, however, as you yourself mention, primarily focused on a
        source critical issue (is the Matthean story largely a Mattthean
        creation?) that the article seems to raise, and not on the article's
        thesis. And since my pupose was only to deal with what the Matthean
        story says regading the content of Jesus testing, not the source of the
        story itself, I don't propose here to go into any detailed response to
        all you've noted.

        I will note two things. First, even if we grant that what I have said
        provides some support for the Farrer hypothesis (which, if I recall
        correctly, sees Matt. 4:1-11 as based on Mk 1:12-13), do we not still
        need to account for all of the non markan material that appears in Matt.
        4:1-11? Is this a Matthean construction, a midrash of sorts? And if not
        a Matthean construction, then what?

        Second, I take your point about whether the issue of Son=EIRHNOPOIOS
        would be clear before a reader got to the sermon on the mount. But the
        point has force, I think, only if we presuppose that the reader of
        Matthew's Gospel had no prior acquaintance with the story of Jesus, let
        alone Mark's story of Jesus. How certain can we be of this? And if they
        *were* familiar with the story, especially as it came from Mark, would
        they not have had a picture of Jesus as the Servant figure already in
        the minds, so that the link between Son and peacemaker was there before
        Matthew makes it explicit? It certainly seems to be in Matthew's mind.

        OK, having said that, I now await your comments on the article's thesis.
        I am especially eager to see what you think of my interpretation of the
        third testing.

        Yours,

        Jeffrey

        --
        Jeffrey B. Gibson
        7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
        Chicago, Illinois 60626
        e-mail jgibson000@...
        jgibson@...
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... I suppose that what I was trying to say was that belief in Q slightly hinders the overall case. You show that the story makes such good sense in the
        Message 3 of 12 , Jun 18, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

          > I will note two things. First, even if we grant that what I have
          > said provides some support for the Farrer hypothesis (which, if I
          > recall correctly, sees Matt. 4:1-11 as based on Mk 1:12-13), do we
          > not still need to account for all of the non markan material that
          > appears in Matt. 4:1-11? Is this a Matthean construction, a midrash
          > of sorts? And if not a Matthean construction, then what?

          I suppose that what I was trying to say was that belief in Q slightly
          hinders the overall case. You show that the story makes such good
          sense in the narrative context of Matthew that one might be inclined
          to see more Matthean creativity than is possible on the Q theory, for
          the Q theory is necessarily constrained by the Lukan parallel.

          Is it a Matthean creation? I think so, but I would imagine that
          Matthew has produced it by creatively interacting with Mark 1.12-13
          in the light also of oral tradition(s), traditions themselves
          influenced by Mark 1.12-13 or similar. That the story in Matt.
          4.1-11 bears a pervasive Matthean stamp seems highly likely.

          >
          > Second, I take your point about whether the issue of Son=EIRHNOPOIOS
          > would be clear before a reader got to the sermon on the mount. But
          > the point has force, I think, only if we presuppose that the reader
          > of Matthew's Gospel had no prior acquaintance with the story of
          > Jesus, let alone Mark's story of Jesus. How certain can we be of
          > this? And if they *were* familiar with the story, especially as it
          > came from Mark, would they not have had a picture of Jesus as the
          > Servant figure already in the minds, so that the link between Son
          > and peacemaker was there before Matthew makes it explicit? It
          > certainly seems to be in Matthew's mind.

          I think that this is a good response to my point. Indeed it raises
          two interesting questions: (1) does Matthew presuppose knowledge of
          the whole when writing the parts? One might substitute "implied
          author" here for "Matthew" and attempt to answer this question
          narrative-critically. (2) did Matthew expect his readers to be
          familiar with Mark?
          >
          > OK, having said that, I now await your comments on the article's
          > thesis. I am especially eager to see what you think of my
          > interpretation of the third testing.

          I hope that some of my comments were relevant to the thesis.
          Points 6 and 7 were attempts to further strengthen it. But let me
          develop two of the worries more fully (numbers 8 and 12 on the
          list).

          The paper attempts to deal with the common reading that the devil is
          tempting Jesus to behave like a thaumaturge. Some of the arguments
          against this seem strong (e.g. lack of spectators, lateness of the
          traditions that associate such things with a Messiah / Deliverer
          figure) but others less so. In particular:

          "Second, to hold that, according to Matthew, the Devil's first
          and second petitions each embody a solicitation for Jesus
          himself to perform a miracle *makes Matthew out to be either
          a bungler as a story teller or an incompetent theologian*. It
          is obvious from Mt. 4.4 that, in Matthew's eyes, to do what the
          Devil demands in Mt. 4.3 would be for Jesus to act contrary to
          the will of God. Yet if what the Devil demands is that Jesus
          perform a miracle and produce bread, then Matthew contradicts
          himself. For later in his Gospel, Matthew, not once but *twice*
          (at Mt. 14.13-21 and at Mt. 15.32-39, explicitly depicts Jesus as
          engaging in the very thing which, according to Mt. 4.4, is
          forbidden him: miraculously producing bread (ARTOI)."

          Now, could not it be said that many would have Matthew as a
          "bungler", or, to put it less strongly, as a redactor doing his best
          with disparate source material (my original point 8)? Further, just
          how similar is turning stones to bread (for hunger?) to feeding a
          multitude that Jesus has had compassion on and healed? So my
          question would be: (a) is it a contradiction? and (b) if so, so what?

          On the explanation of the temptation ("Mt. 4.3 is to be
          taken as a demand from the Devil that Jesus order God to perform a
          miracle on his behalf"), I am still concerned about Luke 4.3 (my
          original point 12): how far does Luke 4.3 constitute a weakness for
          the theory? Are you convinced that LIQWi TOUTWi = the Rock = God
          there? That sounds most implausible to me. If this is not a good
          explanation, what value do you assign to Luke 4.3 in helping us to
          determine the meaning of the wording in the Matthean parallel, i.e.
          might not this be a temptation to do wonder-working after all?

          There are other things I would like to discuss, but I will leave it
          at this for now. Let me recommend the article to others
          (http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/test.txt). It is longish
          (prints out at about 19 pp. + footnotes) but well worth reading.

          Mark

          -------------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
          Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

          --------------------------------------------

          Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.findmail.com/list/synoptic-l
          Synoptic-L Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          Listmembers, You ll find below Mark Goodacre s response to *my* response on (mostly) source critical things he had to say with respect to my article on Matt.
          Message 4 of 12 , Jun 18, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Listmembers,

            You'll find below Mark Goodacre's response to *my* response on (mostly)
            source critical things he had to say with respect to my article on Matt.
            4:1-11. Forgive me for reproducing the whole substance of the exchange;
            but I feel that the best way to respond this time is not (as I usually
            do) to summarize in my own words the essence of the exchange and then
            reply, but to "do a Yuri" (no! not to appeal to Loisy or claim that
            sections of Mark's response must be interpolations) and place my remarks
            immediately after each of Mark's.

            One note, however, before I begin. For the most part, the exhange over
            what I have to say on Matt. 4:1-11 has been something of a private
            matter. That is to say, it seems as though it is only Mark and myself
            who have entered into debate over the points I raise on the Matthean
            text. I am "tempted" to take this as a sign that no one else is
            interested in joining in. And if *that* is the case, then continuing to
            use the list to answer points raised by Mark is probably becoming
            annoying to all other listmembers. My apologies if this is so. Mark and
            I have consulted one another on this point, and we have concluded that
            if we don't see anyone else publicly joining in the debate or commenting
            on the paper's central thesis, then we won't persist in posting our
            points of view here.


            > Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
            >
            > > I will note two things. First, even if we grant that what I have
            > > said provides some support for the Farrer hypothesis (which, if I
            > > recall correctly, sees Matt. 4:1-11 as based on Mk 1:12-13), do we
            > > not still need to account for all of the non markan material that
            > > appears in Matt. 4:1-11? Is this a Matthean construction, a midrash
            > > of sorts? And if not a Matthean construction, then what?
            >
            > I suppose that what I was trying to say was that belief in Q slightly
            > hinders the overall case. You show that the story makes such good
            > sense in the narrative context of Matthew that one might be inclined
            > to see more Matthean creativity than is possible on the Q theory, for
            > the Q theory is necessarily constrained by the Lukan parallel.

            We'll, to my mind this seems to assume that the story does not (or would
            not) also make sense in the context of Q (assuming such a beastie). I
            think it does, especially in the light of the Q theme of "this
            generation" and the importance of the Deuteronomistic sense of history
            that seems to pervade Q. Indeed, I think themes in the temptation story
            are consistent with the Wisdom emphasis that Kloppenborg argues is the
            background of Q1, if one is partial to seeing layers in Q. In any case,
            the argument that the stories congeniality with Matthean themes would
            conetitute evidence of Matthean composition only if there was an
            imcompatability between the special emphases of Matthew and those of Q.
            May we not say that Matthew was sympathetic to Q themes?

            > Is it a Matthean creation? I think so, but I would imagine that
            > Matthew has produced it by creatively interacting with Mark 1.12-13
            > in the light also of oral tradition(s), traditions themselves
            > influenced by Mark 1.12-13 or similar. That the story in Matt.
            > 4.1-11 bears a pervasive Matthean stamp seems highly likely.
            >

            I'm not sure what to do with this. I think that the Lukan version of the
            story bears a pervasive Lukan stamp too (e.g. centrality of Jerusalem).
            Does that necessarily signify Lukan composition of the passage?


            > > Second, I take your point about whether the issue of Son=EIRHNOPOIOS
            > > would be clear before a reader got to the sermon on the mount. But
            > > the point has force, I think, only if we presuppose that the reader
            > > of Matthew's Gospel had no prior acquaintance with the story of
            > > Jesus, let alone Mark's story of Jesus. How certain can we be of
            > > this? And if they *were* familiar with the story, especially as it
            > > came from Mark, would they not have had a picture of Jesus as the
            > > Servant figure already in the minds, so that the link between Son
            > > and peacemaker was there before Matthew makes it explicit? It
            > > certainly seems to be in Matthew's mind.
            >
            > I think that this is a good response to my point. Indeed it raises
            > two interesting questions: (1) does Matthew presuppose knowledge of
            > the whole when writing the parts? One might substitute "implied
            > author" here for "Matthew" and attempt to answer this question
            > narrative-critically. (2) did Matthew expect his readers to be
            > familiar with Mark?


            This is a point best taken up by other listmembers.

            > > OK, having said that, I now await your comments on the article's
            > > thesis. I am especially eager to see what you think of my
            > > interpretation of the third testing.
            >
            > I hope that some of my comments were relevant to the thesis.
            > Points 6 and 7 were attempts to further strengthen it. But let me
            > develop two of the worries more fully (numbers 8 and 12 on the
            > list).
            >
            > The paper attempts to deal with the common reading that the devil is
            > tempting Jesus to behave like a thaumaturge. Some of the arguments
            > against this seem strong (e.g. lack of spectators, lateness of the
            > traditions that associate such things with a Messiah / Deliverer
            > figure) but others less so. In particular:
            >
            > "Second, to hold that, according to Matthew, the Devil's first
            > and second petitions each embody a solicitation for Jesus
            > himself to perform a miracle *makes Matthew out to be either
            > a bungler as a story teller or an incompetent theologian*. It
            > is obvious from Mt. 4.4 that, in Matthew's eyes, to do what the
            > Devil demands in Mt. 4.3 would be for Jesus to act contrary to
            > the will of God. Yet if what the Devil demands is that Jesus
            > perform a miracle and produce bread, then Matthew contradicts
            > himself. For later in his Gospel, Matthew, not once but *twice*
            > (at Mt. 14.13-21 and at Mt. 15.32-39, explicitly depicts Jesus as
            > engaging in the very thing which, according to Mt. 4.4, is
            > forbidden him: miraculously producing bread (ARTOI)."
            >
            > Now, could not it be said that many would have Matthew as a
            > "bungler", or, to put it less strongly, as a redactor doing his best
            > with disparate source material (my original point 8)? Further, just
            > how similar is turning stones to bread (for hunger?) to feeding a
            > multitude that Jesus has had compassion on and healed? So my
            > question would be: (a) is it a contradiction? and (b) if so, so what?

            Yes, but we find the same contradiction (if it is one) in Luke. So if
            Matthew is a bungler, so is Luke. Do we want to admit that? And whether
            or not there is any similarity between turning stones to bread and
            multiplying bread, the issue still seems to me to be one of conflicting
            attitudes in the tradition toward miracles per se if the thamatugic view
            of the testing story is accepted.

            > On the explanation of the temptation ("Mt. 4.3 is to be
            > taken as a demand from the Devil that Jesus order God to perform a
            > miracle on his behalf"), I am still concerned about Luke 4.3 (my
            > original point 12): how far does Luke 4.3 constitute a weakness for
            > the theory? Are you convinced that LIQWi TOUTWi = the Rock = God
            > there? That sounds most implausible to me. If this is not a good
            > explanation, what value do you assign to Luke 4.3 in helping us to
            > determine the meaning of the wording in the Matthean parallel, i.e.
            > might not this be a temptation to do wonder-working after all?

            No I am not absoultely convinced that LIQWi TOUTWi = the Rock = God,
            though I don't think it can be ruled out entitely. (A side note: As I
            metioned in the footnote you refer to, this idea was originally
            something suggested to me by my friend Troy Martin. I told Troy that if
            anyone challenged me on it, I'd pass the blame on to him!). But I also
            think, as I tried to show in the footnote, that admitting this does not
            automatically entail acceptance of the view that Lk. 4:3 presents (or
            presupposes the view of) Jesus as a thaumaturge.

            > There are other things I would like to discuss, but I will leave it
            > at this for now. Let me recommend the article to others
            > (http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/test.txt). It is longish
            > (prints out at about 19 pp. + footnotes) but well worth reading.
            >

            Yours,

            Jeffrey

            --
            Jeffrey B. Gibson
            7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
            Chicago, Illinois 60626
            e-mail jgibson000@...
            jgibson@...
          • Jim Deardorff
            ... Here s what impresses me most that the writer of Luke, along with the writer of Matthew and probably of Mark also, did indeed view Jesus as a miracle
            Message 5 of 12 , Jun 18, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              At 10:31 AM 6/18/98 -0700, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
              >Listmembers,
              >
              >You'll find below Mark Goodacre's response to *my* response on (mostly)
              >source critical things he had to say with respect to my article on Matt.
              >4:1-11. [.....]

              >No I am not absoultely convinced that LIQWi TOUTWi = the Rock = God,
              >though I don't think it can be ruled out entitely. [...]. But I also
              >think, as I tried to show in the footnote, that admitting this does not
              >automatically entail acceptance of the view that Lk. 4:3 presents (or
              >presupposes the view of) Jesus as a thaumaturge.

              Here's what impresses me most that the writer of Luke, along with the writer
              of Matthew and probably of Mark also, did indeed view Jesus as a miracle
              worker as well as a Messiah figure, and treated any opinion to the contrary
              as distasteful or anathema.

              In Mt 13:58 = Mk 6:5, Jesus failed to perform many miracles in Nazareth, due
              to their unbelief. This could imply that he had been unable to perform such
              miracles there even though he may have wanted to. Assuming Luke came after
              the other two Gospels, this apparently did not set well with its writer,
              because Luke does not contain any parallel to Mt 13:58 & Mk 6:5.
              It instead contains a different explanation as to why Jesus did not perform
              many mighty works there, this being the story of Lk 4:16-30. In that story
              the point is brought out that for a certain period Elijah worked only one
              miracle (multiplying a meager food supply) and did not do the same for many
              others in need, and similarly for Elisha in healing lepers. So this very
              much looks like apologia for Jesus not performing many mighty works in
              Nazareth, and presupposes that the episode of Mt 13:58 was already known to
              many. In Luke's story the question of whether Jesus did or did not perform
              miracles in Nazareth moreover doesn't arise, as he is quickly drummed out of
              town, apparently for having mentioned Elisha's preference for healing only
              Naaman the Syrian. In that manner the writer of Luke explains away the
              few-mighty-works embarrassment of the rejection at Nazareth in Matthew & Mark.

              In my opinion the writer of Matthew had made his own redactions to handle
              the situation, but did not do so well enough. I believe that he purposely
              avoided mentioning the name Nazareth at that point as "punishment" for that
              towns' unbelief. Then the writer of Mark simply followed along with the
              Matthean text.

              Jim Deardorff
              Corvallis, Oregon
              E-mail: deardorj@...
              Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              ... Jim, I really don t know what to say in reply to your post. Not only does it seem to studiously ignore the matter at hand (i.e., whether within or behind
              Message 6 of 12 , Jun 18, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim Deardorff wrote:
                >
                > At 10:31 AM 6/18/98 -0700, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                > >Listmembers,
                > >
                > >You'll find below Mark Goodacre's response to *my* response on (mostly)
                > >source critical things he had to say with respect to my article on Matt.
                > >4:1-11. [.....]
                >
                > >No I am not absoultely convinced that LIQWi TOUTWi = the Rock = God,
                > >though I don't think it can be ruled out entitely. [...]. But I also
                > >think, as I tried to show in the footnote, that admitting this does not
                > >automatically entail acceptance of the view that Lk. 4:3 presents (or
                > >presupposes the view of) Jesus as a thaumaturge.
                >
                > Here's what impresses me most that the writer of Luke, along with the writer
                > of Matthew and probably of Mark also, did indeed view Jesus as a miracle
                > worker as well as a Messiah figure, and treated any opinion to the contrary
                > as distasteful or anathema.
                >
                > In Mt 13:58 = Mk 6:5, Jesus failed to perform many miracles in Nazareth, due
                > to their unbelief. This could imply that he had been unable to perform such
                > miracles there even though he may have wanted to. Assuming Luke came after
                > the other two Gospels, this apparently did not set well with its writer,
                > because Luke does not contain any parallel to Mt 13:58 & Mk 6:5.
                > It instead contains a different explanation as to why Jesus did not perform
                > many mighty works there, this being the story of Lk 4:16-30. In that story
                > the point is brought out that for a certain period Elijah worked only one
                > miracle (multiplying a meager food supply) and did not do the same for many
                > others in need, and similarly for Elisha in healing lepers. So this very
                > much looks like apologia for Jesus not performing many mighty works in
                > Nazareth, and presupposes that the episode of Mt 13:58 was already known to
                > many. In Luke's story the question of whether Jesus did or did not perform
                > miracles in Nazareth moreover doesn't arise, as he is quickly drummed out of
                > town, apparently for having mentioned Elisha's preference for healing only
                > Naaman the Syrian. In that manner the writer of Luke explains away the
                > few-mighty-works embarrassment of the rejection at Nazareth in Matthew & Mark.
                >
                > In my opinion the writer of Matthew had made his own redactions to handle
                > the situation, but did not do so well enough. I believe that he purposely
                > avoided mentioning the name Nazareth at that point as "punishment" for that
                > towns' unbelief. Then the writer of Mark simply followed along with the
                > Matthean text.
                Jim,

                I really don't know what to say in reply to your post. Not only does it
                seem to studiously ignore the matter at hand (i.e., whether within or
                behind the Devil's petition at Lk 4:3, not elsewhere in Luke, there is
                the assumption that Jesus is a miracle worker), but it uses the actual
                issue under discussion as a springboard for another of your discursions
                on synoptic relationships. Can we focus on the point, please, and not on
                your agenda?

                Yours grouchily,

                Jeffrey Gibson (who probably, by morning, will regret saying this, but
                who nevertheless feels it has to be said).

                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson
                7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                Chicago, Illinois 60626
                e-mail jgibson000@...
                jgibson@...
              • Jim Deardorff
                ... Jeffrey, As you know, I was responding to your But I also think, as I tried to show in the footnote, that admitting this does not automatically entail
                Message 7 of 12 , Jun 19, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 09:47 PM 6/18/98 -0700, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                  >Jim Deardorff wrote:
                  >>
                  >> At 10:31 AM 6/18/98 -0700, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

                  >> >No I am not absoultely convinced that LIQWi TOUTWi = the Rock = God,
                  >> >though I don't think it can be ruled out entitely. [...]. But I also
                  >> >think, as I tried to show in the footnote, that admitting this does not
                  >> >automatically entail acceptance of the view that Lk. 4:3 presents (or
                  >> >presupposes the view of) Jesus as a thaumaturge.

                  JD wrote:
                  >> Here's what impresses me most that the writer of Luke, along with the writer
                  >> of Matthew and probably of Mark also, did indeed view Jesus as a miracle
                  >> worker as well as a Messiah figure, and treated any opinion to the contrary
                  >> as distasteful or anathema.
                  >>
                  >> In Mt 13:58 = Mk 6:5, Jesus failed to perform many miracles in Nazareth, due
                  >> to their unbelief. This could imply that he had been unable to perform such
                  >> miracles there even though he may have wanted to. Assuming Luke came after
                  >> the other two Gospels, this apparently did not set well with its writer,
                  >> because Luke does not contain any parallel to Mt 13:58 & Mk 6:5.
                  >> It instead contains a different explanation as to why Jesus did not perform
                  >> many mighty works there, this being the story of Lk 4:16-30. In that story
                  >> the point is brought out that for a certain period Elijah worked only one
                  >> miracle (multiplying a meager food supply) and did not do the same for many
                  >> others in need, and similarly for Elisha in healing lepers. So this very
                  >> much looks like apologia for Jesus not performing many mighty works in
                  >> Nazareth, and presupposes that the episode of Mt 13:58 was already known to
                  >> many. In Luke's story the question of whether Jesus did or did not perform
                  >> miracles in Nazareth moreover doesn't arise, as he is quickly drummed out of
                  >> town, apparently for having mentioned Elisha's preference for healing only
                  >> Naaman the Syrian. In that manner the writer of Luke explains away the
                  >> few-mighty-works embarrassment of the rejection at Nazareth in Matthew &
                  >> Mark
                  >> In my opinion the writer of Matthew had made his own redactions to handle
                  >> the situation, but did not do so well enough. I believe that he purposely
                  >> avoided mentioning the name Nazareth at that point as "punishment" for that
                  >> towns' unbelief. Then the writer of Mark simply followed along with the
                  >> Matthean text.

                  >Jim,
                  >
                  >I really don't know what to say in reply to your post. Not only does it
                  >seem to studiously ignore the matter at hand (i.e., whether within or
                  >behind the Devil's petition at Lk 4:3, not elsewhere in Luke, there is
                  >the assumption that Jesus is a miracle worker), but it uses the actual
                  >issue under discussion as a springboard for another of your discursions
                  >on synoptic relationships. Can we focus on the point, please, and not on
                  >your agenda?

                  Jeffrey,

                  As you know, I was responding to your "But I also
                  think, as I tried to show in the footnote, that admitting this does not
                  automatically entail acceptance of the view that Lk. 4:3 presents (or
                  presupposes the view of) Jesus as a thaumaturge."

                  So I presented evidence from a different slant indicating that the writer of
                  Luke very definitely viewed Jesus as a thaumaturge, among other things. Just
                  because many pericopes involve other matters than just thaumaturgy, and if
                  considered in isolation could leave one in doubt, is no reason to forget the
                  strongest evidence stemming from other pericopes that does indicate the
                  writer's view of Jesus as a thaumaturge.

                  I think it's OK on this list to focus on synoptic relationships. Goodacre
                  brought out certain aspects of your paper that pointed towards a Farrer
                  solution, which wasn't your point but which was also quite OK.

                  Jim Deardorff
                  Corvallis, Oregon
                  E-mail: deardorj@...
                  Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                • BMDainton@aol.com
                  In a message dated 18/6/98 17:22:40, you write:
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jun 20, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 18/6/98 17:22:40, you write:

                    << Mark and
                    I have consulted one another on this point, and we have concluded that
                    if we don't see anyone else publicly joining in the debate or commenting
                    on the paper's central thesis, then we won't persist in posting our
                    points of view here. >>


                    Please go on. I've just finished reading the original paper, with interest,
                    and will be making some comments when i) I have time and energy ii) I think of
                    some that no-one else has made.

                    Bernard
                  • KWhitt@aol.com
                    ... I have consulted one another on this point, and we have concluded that if we don t see anyone else publicly joining in the debate or commenting on the
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jun 20, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jeffrey wrote:
                      >>Mark and
                      I have consulted one another on this point, and we have concluded that
                      if we don't see anyone else publicly joining in the debate or commenting
                      on the paper's central thesis, then we won't persist in posting our
                      points of view here.<<

                      Jeffrey:

                      Please don't take the thread private. I haven't had time to read the article
                      yet, but will in the next day or so. I'm interested in Mark's comments on
                      DIKAIOSUNH. It does have a broader meaning in Mt. than most (e.g.,
                      Przybylski) allow. Keep the dialogue flowing.

                      Keith Whitt
                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      At 09:47 PM 6/18/98 -0700, in response to a message from Jim Deardorf which was ostensively about whether Lk 4:3 presents Jesus as,(or presupposes him to be, a
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jun 21, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 09:47 PM 6/18/98 -0700, in response to a message from Jim Deardorf
                        which was ostensively about whether Lk 4:3 presents Jesus as,(or
                        presupposes him to be, a thaumaturge, but which focused largely on Luke
                        version of the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth and how the diefferences
                        between *this* passga and it's parallels in GMatt and GMark could be
                        explained and seemed to support a thesis of synoptic relationships which
                        Jim has been mooting, Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
                        >
                        >Jim,
                        >
                        >I really don't know what to say in reply to your post. Not only does it
                        >seem to studiously ignore the matter at hand (i.e., whether within or
                        >behind the Devil's petition at Lk 4:3, not elsewhere in Luke, there is
                        >the assumption that Jesus is a miracle worker), but it uses the actual
                        >issue under discussion as a springboard for another of your discursions
                        >on synoptic relationships. Can we focus on the point, please, and not on
                        >your agenda?

                        Jim's response was:
                        >
                        > Jeffrey,
                        >
                        > As you know, I was responding to your "But I also
                        > think, as I tried to show in the footnote, that admitting this does not
                        > automatically entail acceptance of the view that Lk. 4:3 presents (or
                        > presupposes the view of) Jesus as a thaumaturge."
                        >
                        > So I presented evidence from a different slant indicating that the writer of
                        > Luke very definitely viewed Jesus as a thaumaturge, among other things. Just
                        > because many pericopes involve other matters than just thaumaturgy, and if
                        > considered in isolation could leave one in doubt, is no reason to forget the
                        > strongest evidence stemming from other pericopes that does indicate the
                        > writer's view of Jesus as a thaumaturge.
                        >
                        > I think it's OK on this list to focus on synoptic relationships. Goodacre
                        > brought out certain aspects of your paper that pointed towards a Farrer
                        > solution, which wasn't your point but which was also quite OK.
                        >

                        I now write:

                        Jim,

                        That you "presented evidence from a different slant indicating that the
                        writer of Luke very definitely viewed Jesus as a thaumaturge" may seem
                        to you to be what you have done in the post quoted above. But it wasn't
                        clear to me (was it clear to anyone else on the list?) that this is what
                        you were up to. Had you really wanted to do this, all you would have had
                        to have done was to note the places in Luke in which Jesus actually
                        performs a miracle (i.e., Lk. 4:31-37; 5:17-26, etc.) Moreover, if what
                        claim to have been your intention really was so, there would have been
                        no need for you to go on to tell us how you explain the differences
                        between Lk. 4:16-30 and it's parallels. For this has nothing to do with
                        whether or not Luke presents Jesus as a thaumaturge in Lk 4:3 or
                        anywhere else in his Gospel. And so I still feel correct in saying that
                        what you were really doing in your post was attending more to your own
                        agenda, (which is to sway people towards what you call a version of the
                        AH) than speaking directly to the issue at hand.
                        More importantly, you missed the point of the discussion about Lk 4:3
                        and it's parallel in GMatt which is, as is noted in depth in my article
                        on Matt 4:1-11, that it is precisely *because* Luke and Matthew present
                        Jesus as a thaumturge throughout their Gospels *after* their respective
                        versions of the temptations story that makes the view that Jesus is
                        being presented as (or is presupposed to be) a thaumaturge in Lk
                        4:3//Matt. 4:3 so problematical. This makes Matthew and Luke present
                        Jesus as doing what he has deemed as diabolical! In other words, I was
                        never denying that Luke and Matthew go on to portray Jesus as a
                        thaumaturge. Instead, I was raising the conflict that seeing Jesus as
                        approached as a thaumaturge in the temptation narrative creates with the
                        tradition in which he is indisputably portrayed as being such. So your
                        pointing out to me that Luke presents Jesus as a thamaturge after the
                        temptation was really unnecessary.

                        And as to whether it is OK on this list to focus on synoptic
                        relationships: of course it is, *provided* the question of synoptic
                        relationships is the issue that is being raised, which it wasn't in this
                        case, and (b) that the evidence you use to do so are parallels of the
                        texts under discussion.

                        When Mark Goodacre took up my paper on what the Devil is up to in Matt.
                        4:1-11 to discuss Synoptic relationships, he at least had the grace to
                        say that what he was doing really wasn't to the point at hand, and
                        apologized for ignoring the central thesis of the paper. So in essence
                        he knew that what he was doing was *not* OK. But nothing like that
                        appears in your posts. So please do not take the fact that "Mark
                        Goodacre brought out certain aspects of [the Matt 4:1-11] paper that
                        pointed towards a Farrer solution, which wasn't [the] point" is
                        justification for you to do likewise with respect to you "solution" to
                        the Synoptic problem. Plainly and simlpy, it isn't.

                        Yours pugnaciously,

                        Jeffrey Gibson
                        --
                        Jeffrey B. Gibson
                        7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                        Chicago, Illinois 60626
                        e-mail jgibson000@...
                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                        ... Speaking solely for myself, one the reasons why I m excited about a list like Synoptic-L is that synoptic source criticism is always on topic.
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jun 23, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 12:21 6/21/98 -0700, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                          >And as to whether it is OK on this list to focus on synoptic
                          >relationships: of course it is, *provided* the question of synoptic
                          >relationships is the issue that is being raised, which it wasn't in this
                          >case, and (b) that the evidence you use to do so are parallels of the
                          >texts under discussion.

                          Speaking solely for myself, one the reasons why I'm excited about a
                          list like Synoptic-L is that synoptic source criticism is always "on
                          topic." Synoptic-L is one of the few places in the Internet where
                          discussion of the synoptic problem is actually welcome. I hope that
                          this will always be true.

                          True, the original article did not involve the question of synoptic
                          relationships, but it is a fact of life on the Internet that a post
                          on one topic often proves to be a springingboard to quite different
                          topics. Some of these digressions lead to much participation on
                          interesting threads, and others are dead on arrival. However, I
                          would be saddened if people feel afraid to participate because their
                          point is not exactly the issue being raised -- as long as their
                          messages are within the scope of the list and courteous.

                          Stephen Carlson
                          --
                          Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                          scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                          http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                          I forgot add that if you do digress from the subject matter of a thread, please change the title of the message! This ll help others. Stephen Carlson ... --
                          Message 12 of 12 , Jun 24, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I forgot add that if you do digress from the subject matter of a
                            thread, please change the title of the message! This'll help
                            others.

                            Stephen Carlson

                            At 01:30 6/23/98, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                            >True, the original article did not involve the question of synoptic
                            >relationships, but it is a fact of life on the Internet that a post
                            >on one topic often proves to be a springingboard to quite different
                            >topics. Some of these digressions lead to much participation on
                            >interesting threads, and others are dead on arrival.
                            --
                            Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
                            scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
                            http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.