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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke's narrative introductions

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    ... Luke ... hypothesis ... argument ... it s ... implausible ... This is one of several areas where I ve been trying to think through just where the 2DH and
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 6:51 PM on 1/29/01 Mark Goodacre wrote:

      > On 30 Jan 2001, at 14:30, Ken Olson wrote:
      >
      > > I had an ulterior motive in asking the question. One of the
      > > objections 2DHers make to the Farrer hypothesis is that
      > > Luke cuts down Matthew's long discourses.
      > > But it seems to me that, if Q was a long list of sayings which
      Luke
      > > broke up into short units which he then provided with their own
      > > narrative introductions, then the objection to the Farrer
      hypothesis
      > > is one of motive rather than compositional practice. The 2DH
      argument
      > > isn't that Luke didn't create short units with new introductions,
      it's
      > > that he wouldn't have done so if he had known Matthew's superior
      > > arrangement. Or have I misconstrued the 2DH?
      >
      > It's an interesting question and this sounds partly right to me,
      > especially the last part about "Matthew's superior arrangement" --
      > that's just a (highly dubious) value judgement. But wouldn't you say
      > that the 2DH argument is also about the role that Mark plays in all
      > this? One of the things that Q theorists apparently find so
      > implausible about Luke's use of Matthew is the notion that Luke
      > avoided placing Q material into the same place in the Marcan
      > outline as Matthew. Luke's breaking up of Q into short units with
      > fresh introductions, as you describe it, is thought to be
      implausible
      > because of where he places these units, i.e. in non-Marcan //
      > Matthean contexts after Chapter 4.

      This is one of several areas where I've been trying to think through
      just where the 2DH and the FGH part company on the question of how
      Luke composed his gospel. In most cases the two
      theories appear extraordinarily similar. It seems to me that Q is a
      "Matthew-like" source for Luke that has been designed to meet
      objections to the theory that Luke used Matthew directly. Some of
      these objections include:

      (1) Luke would be abbreviating Matthew's long discourses.
      (2) After the Temptation, Luke never places double-tradition material
      in the same Markan contexts as Matthew.
      (3) Luke rarely takes over Matthew's settings for double-tradition
      material.

      It seems to me that on point (1), the 2DHers think that the length (or
      lack thereof) of the double-tradition pericopes in Luke is due to
      Luke's own preferences. Luke takes a certain number of verses out of
      Q and provides them with new narrative introductions. I'm not sure
      that's what the 2DH suggests; but if it is, I don't think that what
      the 2DH
      proposes Luke did with Q is hugely different from what the FGH
      proposes Luke did with Matthew. Except, of course, in regard to
      order.

      On point (2), which you raise, the implication is that if Luke knew
      Matthew, he would put his double-tradition material in the same
      contexts Matthew does. Proponents of Luke's use of Matthew have
      answered (at least back to Jameson in 1922) that Luke doesn't put his
      double tradition material into Markan contexts at all but keeps it in
      separate blocks. To that I would add that it's been observed by
      Streeter and others that, when Luke has two versions of the same story
      (as he did in the Mark-Q overlaps on the 2DH) he doesn't conflate. He
      chooses to follow one
      version and set aside the other (except for a few MAs caused by
      reminiscence). I don't really see how Luke can put the
      double-tradition material into Markan contexts if it's his policy to
      keep his two sources separate.
      Even in the Mark-Q overlaps, where on the 2DH Luke knows both Markan
      and non-Markan versions of pericopes and also knows the Markan
      contexts of the Markan versions, Luke doesn't conflate the two
      versions or put material from his other source into the Markan
      contexts. It seems that it was his practice not to do so.

      And point (3) seems to be a result of Luke's "fear of doublets." Many
      of Matthew's narrative introductions for "Q" material (including at
      least most of those for the five great discourses) are taken from
      Mark. Luke doesn't want to create doublets by re-using material from
      Mark, so he creates new introductions. In cases where he can take
      over Matthew's introductions without re-using Markan material he often
      does (e.g., in the Centurion's boy, which has no Markan parallel, and
      in Beelzebul for which he omits the Markan parallel). And then there
      are the cases already discussed under (1) where Luke creates new
      introductions because he's breaking up longer groups of sayings into
      shorter ones, so he needs more introductions than he can find in his
      source. It seems to me that the 2DH's Luke does this, so I don't see
      why it's unreasonable to suppose the FGH's Luke would do this as well.

      Doubtless all of this will need refinement and clarification. Thanks
      for the responses to my initial question. I'd like to ask a
      further one: on the FGH, how many cases are there where Luke fails to
      take over a Matthean narrative introduction for his Matthean ("Q")
      material that Matthew has *not* taken from Mark?

      Ken

      Kenneth A. Olson
      Graduate Teaching Assistant
      Department of History
      2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
      University of Maryland
      College Park, MD 20742
      kaolson@...

      I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything - T.H.
      Huxley



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • RSBrenchley@aol.com
      ... If we accept the existence of Q (which I m not sure about), then perhaps we should distinguish between original Q ; the document actually existing in NT
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Brian Wilson writes:

        > My notion was that only **material common to Matthew and Luke** was in
        > Q. That is to say, if a piece of material is in Q then it is material
        > common to Matthew and Luke. From this it does necessarily follow that
        > all non-Matthean material is not in Q. And from this it necessarily
        > follows that Luke's non-Matthean narrative introductions are not in Q.
        > So my conclusion does necessarily follow from my premise.
        >
        If we accept the existence of Q (which I'm not sure about), then perhaps
        we should distinguish between 'original Q'; the document actually existing in
        NT times, and 'knowable Q'; those parts which we can reasonably hope to
        reconstruct today. If material is common to Matthew and Luke, we can posit Q
        as an explanation of this. As long as we use the double tradition as evidence
        that a text was in Q, however, we can never eliminate the possibility that
        other parts of the Gospels *may* have been taken from Q. It is relatively
        easy to posit a 'minimal Q' (material common to both Gospels); is there any
        way that Q theorists can set a limit to those parts of the Gospels which
        *could* have been taken from it by one author alone?

        Regards,

        Robert Brenchley

        RSBrenchley@...

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... This is explained a bit in Kloppenborg Verbin s EXCAVATING Q (2000): 91-101, who endorses the criteria, with some adjustments, proposed by Petros
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          At 03:15 PM 2/2/01 EST, RSBrenchley@... wrote:
          >It is relatively
          >easy to posit a 'minimal Q' (material common to both Gospels); is there any
          >way that Q theorists can set a limit to those parts of the Gospels which
          >*could* have been taken from it by one author alone?

          This is explained a bit in Kloppenborg Verbin's EXCAVATING
          Q (2000): 91-101, who endorses the criteria, with some
          adjustments, proposed by Petros Vassiliadis (1978: 67).
          According to these criteria, a singly attested pericope
          would be assigned to Q if (1) it was a component of texts
          already assigned to Q, (2) it accorded stylistically with
          other known Q texts, (3) there appears little reason for
          Matthew or Luke to have created the passage to fulfill some
          editorial code or conversely if there is evidence of an
          independent existence (e.g. in Mark or Thomas), and (4)
          good reasons for its omission by the other evangelist.
          Kloppenborg rejects Vassiliadis's criteria of exhibiting
          the language of country life and location in Luke's Travel
          Narrative.

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... These are helpful questions and if I may venture an opinion, I think a distinction needs to be made between (a) material unique to one of the evangelists
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On 2 Feb 2001, at 15:15, RSBrenchley@... wrote:

            > If we accept the existence of Q (which I'm not sure about), then
            > perhaps
            > we should distinguish between 'original Q'; the document actually
            > existing in NT times, and 'knowable Q'; those parts which we can
            > reasonably hope to reconstruct today. If material is common to Matthew
            > and Luke, we can posit Q as an explanation of this. As long as we use
            > the double tradition as evidence that a text was in Q, however, we can
            > never eliminate the possibility that other parts of the Gospels *may*
            > have been taken from Q. It is relatively easy to posit a 'minimal Q'
            > (material common to both Gospels); is there any way that Q theorists
            > can set a limit to those parts of the Gospels which *could* have been
            > taken from it by one author alone?

            These are helpful questions and if I may venture an opinion, I think
            a distinction needs to be made between (a) material unique to one
            of the evangelists falling broadly *within* double tradition pericopae -
            - this is the material to which Ken Olson was referring at the
            inception of this thread -- and (b) entire pericopae occurring in
            Matthew or Luke alone which may have come from Q.

            For (b) there is a useful discussion, as Stephen points out, in
            Kloppenborg's _Excavating Q_, picking up elements from
            Vassiliadis. I'd add that there is also a useful discussion in
            Tuckett's _Q and the History of Early Christianity_, don't recall the
            chapter (?2). I think I'm right in saying that on the whole the IQP
            has been reluctant to include any of this material in its Critical
            Text, though individuals maintain the likelihood that this piece or
            that piece may have come from Q. Popular candidates include the
            Lost Coin, the Friend at Midnight and the Rich Fool (all of which
            look rather Lucan to my Q sceptical eye).

            (a) is where the real discussions in the reconstruction of Q tend to
            take place. I reckon in the discussion of this material, it is helpful
            to use Michael Goulder's division into "QC", words within double
            tradition shared by Matthew and Luke, and "QD", words within
            double tradition not shared by Matthew and Luke. However,
            this nomenclature has not caught on. I think I'm the only person to
            have used it in published work, though I may be wrong; the value
            of it is that it really helps clarity in describing the data.

            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
            Homepage
            http://NTGateway.com
            The New Testament Gateway

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Brian E. Wilson
            ... Robert, I think it is much more difficult than is commonly supposed. In fact the triple tradition, which includes a passion narrative, is all material
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              >Robert Brenchley wrote --
              >
              >It is relatively easy to posit a 'minimal Q' (material common to both
              >Gospels);
              >
              Robert,
              I think it is much more difficult than is commonly supposed. In
              fact the triple tradition, which includes a passion narrative, is all
              material common to both Gospels (Mt and Lk). I do not think "material
              common to both Gospels (Mt and Lk)" will do as a definition of Q for
              most advocates of the 2DH, therefore.

              Earlier in this thread I gave my understanding of the 'minimal Q'
              definition in the following wording --
              >
              >As I understand it, some Q theorists who accept the 2DH define a
              >"minimal Q" as wording common to both Matthew and Luke (whether double
              >or triple tradition) which, on the 2DH, could not have been derived
              >from Mark.
              >
              That really is quite complex. On the one hand it admits the triple
              tradition "Mark-Q Overlaps" into Q, but on the other hand rules out all
              triple tradition which is not "Mark-Q Overlap". I would suggest that in
              the 2DH, the concept of Q is strangely complex.
              >
              >is there any way that Q theorists can set a limit to those parts of the
              >Gospels which *could* have been taken from it by one author alone?
              >
              Only if the 'minimal Q' definition is set aside. It is just not possible
              for material to be both common to Mt and Lk and also to be in only Lk,
              or in only Mt. The laws of logic will not allow it.

              Best wishes,
              BRIAN WILSON

              E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

              Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
              > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
              > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
              _

              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.