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

[Synoptic-L] If Luke knew Matthew - part two

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    I turn now to Tuckett s three remaining arguments that Luke did not use Matthew. They are based on order, greater originality and doublets respectively. On
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I turn now to Tuckett's three remaining arguments that Luke did not
      use Matthew. They are based on order, greater originality and doublets
      respectively.
      On order, the question to ask is why Luke apparently made such
      significant changes to the order of the non-Markan material if this was
      taken from Matthew, when he generally preserved Mark's order quite
      closely.
      On greater originality, we observe that there are several cases where
      Luke appears to have preserved the more original version of a saying,
      which is unlikely if Luke took those sayings from Matthew.
      On doublets, surely many can be most naturally explained if Matthew or
      Luke was taking material from both Mark and a second common source.
      The details of all three arguments as presented by Tuckett have merit.
      The problem is that not one of them is actually against Luke's use of
      Matthew, but rather they are arguments *for* the use of a sayings
      source. In other words, they contain the unstated assumption that we are
      dealing with an either/or situation. Once we acknowledge the possibility
      that Luke might have used a sayings source as well as made occasional
      use of Matthew, the force of these arguments *as applied to show that
      Luke did not know Matthew*, is seen to be completely nullified.
      One detail in the argument on order is worth particular mention.
      Tuckett explicitly lists the Baptism and Temptation narratives as
      exceptions (p.8) to the general changing of order of the non-Markan
      material. This fits the 3ST very well, for on the 3ST, the sayings
      source has no narratives: the Baptism and Temptation are seen as
      examples of Luke's occasional use of Matthew.

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Zeba Crook
      Ron, To return briefly to our discussion of the Minor Agreements. There has been detailed debate in the last 20 years between Goulder, Neirynck and Tuckett on
      Message 2 of 18 , Oct 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron,

        To return briefly to our discussion of the Minor Agreements. There has been
        detailed debate in the last 20 years between Goulder, Neirynck and Tuckett
        on the relationship between the MAs and Luke's knowledge of Matt. Goulder
        argued that all the MAs are Matthean in nature and un-Lukan, and that
        therefore Luke must have known Matthew. Trouble is, Tuckett showed later
        that statistically, many of the MAs are as un-Matthean as they are un-Lukan,
        and for this to work in Goulder's favour, they must all be obviously
        Matthean *and* un-Lukan. I refer you to that body of literature.

        More below:

        Ron Price wrote:

        > I turn now to Tuckett's three remaining arguments that Luke did not
        > use Matthew. They are based on order, greater originality and doublets
        > respectively.
        > On order, the question to ask is why Luke apparently made such
        > significant changes to the order of the non-Markan material if this was
        > taken from Matthew, when he generally preserved Mark's order quite
        > closely.
        > The details of all three arguments as presented by Tuckett have
        > merit.
        > The problem is that not one of them is actually against Luke's use of
        > Matthew, but rather they are arguments *for* the use of a sayings
        > source.

        The argument about respect for order is important, and it does not, as far
        as I can see, argue for Luke's use of a sayings source, but not against his
        use of Matt. In fact, Luke's respect of the Markan order is very strong.
        In 76 pericopae that he takes from Mark, he retains the Markan order of all
        but 6 (Lk 3:19-20; 4:16-24; 6:12-16; 6:17-19a; 8:19-21; 22:21-23). What is
        important about this is that one who has Luke rely on Matt and Mark must
        have Luke act completely differently with each of them. Clearly it is *not*
        impossible that Luke did act in completely contradictory ways with Matt and
        Mark, but by that standard nothing in source criticism is completely
        impossible. But it is not too much to ask, as does the 2DH, to have the
        gospel writers behave consistently in their redaction activity, because if
        you allow inconsistent behaviour to become the norm, then you're left in a
        position where nothing can be tested.

        Cheers,

        Zeb

        ***

        Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
        University of St. Michael's College
        Faculty of Theology
        81 St. Mary Street
        Toronto, Ontario, Canada
        M5S 1J4

        (416) 964-8629
        http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kquinn/
        (please note new web page address)


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 10/30/2001 9:03:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, zeba.crook@utoronto.ca writes:
        Message 3 of 18 , Oct 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 10/30/2001 9:03:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          zeba.crook@... writes:

          << To return briefly to our discussion of the Minor Agreements. There has
          been
          detailed debate in the last 20 years between Goulder, Neirynck and Tuckett
          on the relationship between the MAs and Luke's knowledge of Matt. Goulder
          argued that all the MAs are Matthean in nature and un-Lukan, and that
          therefore Luke must have known Matthew. Trouble is, Tuckett showed later
          that statistically, many of the MAs are as un-Matthean as they are un-Lukan,
          and for this to work in Goulder's favour, they must all be obviously
          Matthean *and* un-Lukan. I refer you to that body of literature.>>

          What exactly does the word "statistically" mean in the second last sentence
          above? I would have expected to see the adjective "subjectively" there
          somewhere as the "statistic" in question must have been arrived at through
          the highly subjective, and I suspect weak judgment of Tuckett to come up with
          that result. But I wouldn't mind seeing a few of his arguments or evidence
          for such a conclusion. Do have some examples handy?


          > I turn now to Tuckett's three remaining arguments that Luke did not
          > use Matthew. They are based on order, greater originality and doublets
          > respectively.
          > On order, the question to ask is why Luke apparently made such
          > significant changes to the order of the non-Markan material if this was
          > taken from Matthew, when he generally preserved Mark's order quite
          > closely.
          > The details of all three arguments as presented by Tuckett have
          > merit.
          > The problem is that not one of them is actually against Luke's use of
          > Matthew, but rather they are arguments *for* the use of a sayings
          > source.

          <<The argument about respect for order is important, and it does not, as far
          as I can see, argue for Luke's use of a sayings source, but not against his
          use of Matt. In fact, Luke's respect of the Markan order is very strong.
          In 76 pericopae that he takes from Mark, he retains the Markan order of all
          but 6 (Lk 3:19-20; 4:16-24; 6:12-16; 6:17-19a; 8:19-21; 22:21-23). What is
          important about this is that one who has Luke rely on Matt and Mark must
          have Luke act completely differently with each of them. Clearly it is *not*
          impossible that Luke did act in completely contradictory ways with Matt and
          Mark, but by that standard nothing in source criticism is completely
          impossible. But it is not too much to ask, as does the 2DH, to have the
          gospel writers behave consistently in their redaction activity, because if
          you allow inconsistent behaviour to become the norm, then you're left in a
          position where nothing can be tested.>>

          You should at least mention here that the GH also avoids offering an
          inconsistent Luke. And unlike the 2DH, the GH also has Luke behave in a
          manner consistent with what he clearly implies in his prologue, namely, that
          he intends introduce quite significant changes in the order of what has come
          to him from the tradition. It is, after all, in particular his own ordering
          of events that will produce the desired asfaleia in his addressee. After
          making such a promise in his prologue, it is downright puzzling, on the 2 DH,
          why Luke should have followed Mark's order so consistently, as you point out.
          Comparing Luke with Matthew one finds a thoroughgoing reording of both words
          and events to produce a strikingly new overall effect.

          Leonard Maluf

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Zeba Crook
          ... Leonard, I m sorry, I haven t the article in front of me, and I haven t the time to search it out. Try NTS perhaps 10 years ago in response to an NTS
          Message 4 of 18 , Oct 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Maluflen@... wrote:

            > What exactly does the word "statistically" mean in the second last sentence
            > above? I would have expected to see the adjective "subjectively" there
            > somewhere as the "statistic" in question must have been arrived at through
            > the highly subjective, and I suspect weak judgment of Tuckett to come up with
            > that result. But I wouldn't mind seeing a few of his arguments or evidence
            > for such a conclusion. Do have some examples handy?

            Leonard,

            I'm sorry, I haven't the article in front of me, and I haven't the time to search
            it out. Try NTS perhaps 10 years ago in response to an NTS article by Goulder on
            the MAs and Mattheanisms (or did he do that only in _LUke a New Paradigm_).
            Sorry for the sketchiness of this.

            > You should at least mention here that the GH also avoids offering an
            > inconsistent Luke. And unlike the 2DH, the GH also has Luke behave in a
            > manner consistent with what he clearly implies in his prologue, namely, that
            > he intends introduce quite significant changes in the order of what has come
            > to him from the tradition. It is, after all, in particular his own ordering
            > of events that will produce the desired asfaleia in his addressee. After
            > making such a promise in his prologue, it is downright puzzling, on the 2 DH,
            > why Luke should have followed Mark's order so consistently, as you point out.
            > Comparing Luke with Matthew one finds a thoroughgoing reording of both words
            > and events to produce a strikingly new overall effect.


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... search ... Goulder on ... It sounds like you re thinking of: C. M. Tuckett, On the Relationship Between Matthew and Luke, New Testament Studies 30 (1984)
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 30, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              At 08:29 PM 10/30/2001 -0500, Zeba Crook wrote:
              >I'm sorry, I haven't the article in front of me, and I haven't the time to
              search
              >it out. Try NTS perhaps 10 years ago in response to an NTS article by
              Goulder on
              >the MAs and Mattheanisms (or did he do that only in _LUke a New Paradigm_).
              >Sorry for the sketchiness of this.

              It sounds like you're thinking of: C. M. Tuckett, "On the Relationship Between
              Matthew and Luke," New Testament Studies 30 (1984) 130-42. This article was in
              response to M. D. Goulder, "On Putting Q to the Test," New Testament
              Studies 24
              (1978): 218-34.

              I wouldn't characterize Tuckett's analysis of the MAs as "statistical."
              Rather,
              Tuckett's point was that it is necessary for an MA to "satisfy very stringent
              conditions" (viz., positively Matthean and positively un-Lukan) before he'll
              begin to find Goulder's case convincing.

              Tuckett did do a rather devastating statistical argument against the double
              expressions commonly cited by some proponents of the Griesbach hypothesis,
              and Goodacre did do a statistical demurrer of Goulder's MA argument. As for
              the latter, I think that Goulder was able to save his argument in the IQP
              self-
              contradiction piece (pace Darrenbacker and Kloppenborg) by refining his
              criteria.

              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
              ... There are three further bits of relevant bibliography, Michael Goulder, Luke s Knowledge of Matthew , in G. Strecker (ed.), _Minor Agreements: Symposium
              Message 6 of 18 , Oct 31, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                On 30 Oct 2001, at 21:08, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                > It sounds like you're thinking of: C. M. Tuckett, "On the Relationship
                > Between Matthew and Luke," New Testament Studies 30 (1984) 130-42.
                > This article was in response to M. D. Goulder, "On Putting Q to the
                > Test," New Testament Studies 24 (1978): 218-34.

                There are three further bits of relevant bibliography,

                Michael Goulder, 'Luke's Knowledge of Matthew', in G. Strecker
                (ed.), _Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen, 1991_
                (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 143-60

                This is Goulder's critical updating of his own earlier 1978 piece,
                largely in the light of Tuckett's 1984 critique. The second is:

                Mark Goodacre, _Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a
                New Paradigm_ (JSNTSup, 133; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
                Press, 1996), Chapter 3

                This is my own analysis of the different arguments Goulder is in
                fact using over the Minor Agreements, with some critical comment
                on the relative strengths of each in the light of Tuckett's critique. I
                also propose six Minor Agreements that do satisfy Goulder's
                criteria (positively Matthaean, positively unLucan) and one (perhaps
                two) that satisfy the reverse criteria (positively Lucan, positively
                unMatthaean). And third:

                Frans Neirynck, 'Goulder and the Minor Agreements', ETL 73
                (1997), pp. 84-93

                This is Neirynck's discussion of my six MAs mentioned above.

                For an updated more general study on the role played by the Minor
                Agreements in the Farrer theory, incorporating critical comments
                on all of the above, see Chapter 8 (Major and Minor Agreements) in
                my _The Case Against Q_, out very soon from Trinity.

                > I wouldn't characterize Tuckett's analysis of the MAs as
                > "statistical." Rather, Tuckett's point was that it is necessary for an
                > MA to "satisfy very stringent conditions" (viz., positively Matthean
                > and positively un-Lukan) before he'll begin to find Goulder's case
                > convincing.

                Agreed. Broadly, Tuckett is successful in knocking some holes in
                Goulder's 1978 article but he is not successful -- in my opinion -- in
                dealing with all of Goulder's examples. Both Goulder and Tuckett
                conduct their respective arguments on the law-court adversarial
                model -- no point conceded to one's opponent.

                > Tuckett did do a rather devastating statistical argument against the
                > double expressions commonly cited by some proponents of the Griesbach
                > hypothesis, and Goodacre did do a statistical demurrer of Goulder's MA
                > argument. As for the latter, I think that Goulder was able to save
                > his argument in the IQP self- contradiction piece (pace Darrenbacker
                > and Kloppenborg) by refining his criteria.

                Thanks for this; by way of clarification for those unfamiliar with the
                literature, I should point out that my "statistical demurrer" is more
                in connection with Goulder's argument over the vocabulary of Q
                (Goulder and the Gospels, Chapter 2). Further, Goulder's "Self-
                Contradiction" piece focuses on the double tradition and not the
                MAs.

                Mark
                -----------------------------
                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
                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@...
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... Thanks for the clarification; it is correct. I should have written Goulder s QC argument, which concerns the Mattheanness of the common Q wording. Your
                Message 7 of 18 , Oct 31, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 09:52 AM 10/31/2001 -0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                  >On 30 Oct 2001, at 21:08, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                  >> Tuckett did do a rather devastating statistical argument against the
                  >> double expressions commonly cited by some proponents of the Griesbach
                  >> hypothesis, and Goodacre did do a statistical demurrer of Goulder's MA
                  >> argument. As for the latter, I think that Goulder was able to save
                  >> his argument in the IQP self- contradiction piece (pace Darrenbacker
                  >> and Kloppenborg) by refining his criteria.
                  >
                  >Thanks for this; by way of clarification for those unfamiliar with the
                  >literature, I should point out that my "statistical demurrer" is more
                  >in connection with Goulder's argument over the vocabulary of Q
                  >(Goulder and the Gospels, Chapter 2). Further, Goulder's "Self-
                  >Contradiction" piece focuses on the double tradition and not the
                  >MAs.

                  Thanks for the clarification; it is correct. I should have written
                  "Goulder's QC argument," which concerns the Mattheanness of the common
                  Q wording. Your study came to mind as relevant to Zeba's "as un-Matthean
                  as they are un-Lukan" statement.

                  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@...
                • Ron Price
                  ... Zeba, all ? This is just as unrealistic as me demanding to see a first century manuscript of Q before taking the 2ST seriously. There must be many MAs
                  Message 8 of 18 , Oct 31, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Zeba Crook wrote:

                    > ..... Tuckett showed later
                    >that statistically, many of the MAs are as un-Matthean as they are un-Lukan,
                    >and for this to work in Goulder's favour, they must all be obviously
                    >Matthean *and* un-Lukan.

                    Zeba,
                    "all"? This is just as unrealistic as me demanding to see a first
                    century manuscript of 'Q' before taking the 2ST seriously. There must be
                    many MAs which are neither obviously Matthean nor obviously Lukan. Our
                    reaction to these will depend on where we see the onus of proof. Tuckett
                    would be right in saying that these cases do not show conclusively that
                    Luke used Matthew. On the other hand, he is wrong to say confidently
                    that Luke never uses Matthean redaction of Mark, as many of these cases
                    could be most readily explained in this way.

                    >The argument about respect for order is important, and it does not, as far
                    >as I can see, argue for Luke's use of a sayings source, but not against his
                    >use of Matt.

                    Perhaps I didn't explain this properly. If most of the double
                    tradition sayings were taken from Matthew, then we have a puzzle as to
                    why Luke kept close to Mark's order when copying Markan pericopae but
                    not to close Matthew's order when copying double tradition pericopae. If
                    most of the double tradition sayings were taken from a sayings source
                    whose order was much closer to Luke than to Matthew, then the puzzle
                    evaporates. (Though we then have to explain why *Matthew* changed the
                    order of the sayings!) But this in no way proves that Luke could not
                    have used Matthew *for a minority of the double tradition pericopae*. In
                    my presentation of the 3ST, Luke took 18 pericopae from Matthew. I have
                    compared their order in Matthew and Luke. The sample correlation
                    coefficient is 0.78, which implies that Luke followed Matthew's order
                    here moderately closely.

                    But is it so unrealistic to suppose that Luke did treat Mark and
                    whatever source was behind most of the double tradition in radically
                    different ways as far as order is concerned? Two further observations
                    are essential if we're to get to the bottom of this. Firstly Leonard
                    Maluf has rightly brought to our attention the Lukan prologue. Luke was
                    clearly dissatisfied in some way with the order of previous accounts of
                    the life of Jesus (implied in Lk 1:3), so we should reasonably expect
                    some reordering of pericopae. Secondly Mark is predominantly narrative
                    and the double tradition is predominantly sayings. Tuckett appears to
                    have ignored this distinction. Why should we necessarily expect the
                    order of sayings to be preserved as faithfully as the order of
                    narrative? We shouldn't.

                    My net conclusion is that the argument from order is flawed.



                    Ron Price

                    Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                    e-mail: ron.price@...

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Mark Goodacre
                    ... I was going to comment on the same point; yes, Goulder s case is only based on a rump of cases where he sees the positively Matthaean / positively
                    Message 9 of 18 , Oct 31, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 31 Oct 2001, at 13:25, Ron Price wrote:

                      > Zeba,
                      > "all"? This is just as unrealistic as me demanding to see a first
                      > century manuscript of 'Q' before taking the 2ST seriously. There must
                      > be many MAs which are neither obviously Matthean nor obviously Lukan.

                      I was going to comment on the same point; yes, Goulder's case is
                      only based on a "rump" of cases where he sees the positively
                      Matthaean / positively un-Lucan criteria fulfilled. He is keen to
                      point out that the majority of the Minor Agreements do make sense
                      on the Streeter / Schmidt / Neirynck / Tuckett et al position of
                      Matthew's and Luke's independent redaction of Mark. Indeed, if
                      anything, Goulder overstates this point. I am not as convinced as
                      he is that the number of Minor Agreements overall is insignificant.

                      > But is it so unrealistic to suppose that Luke did treat Mark and
                      > whatever source was behind most of the double tradition in radically
                      > different ways as far as order is concerned?

                      This is another useful point. The standard argument from order in
                      relation to Luke's use of Matthew is based on the unnecessary
                      inference that we will have expected Luke to treat Matthew in the
                      same way that he treated Mark. One of several difficulties with this
                      inference arises where one of those sources (Matthew) might have
                      been recognised as a version of the other of those sources (Mark).
                      I suggest that Luke is even more convinced than we are of the
                      Priority of Mark because he has known Mark for longer than he has
                      known Matthew and has got to know it well. We should resist the
                      anachronistic assumption that Luke would have behaved like
                      Tatian.

                      > Two further observations
                      > are essential if we're to get to the bottom of this. Firstly Leonard
                      > Maluf has rightly brought to our attention the Lukan prologue. Luke
                      > was clearly dissatisfied in some way with the order of previous
                      > accounts of the life of Jesus (implied in Lk 1:3), so we should
                      > reasonably expect some reordering of pericopae.

                      I agree again that this is a useful point, and it is one that has also
                      been pressed by Goulder. The conservative Luke of the Two-
                      Source Theory does not sit happily with the apparent stress on
                      order in the Prologue.

                      > Secondly Mark is
                      > predominantly narrative and the double tradition is predominantly
                      > sayings. Tuckett appears to have ignored this distinction. Why should
                      > we necessarily expect the order of sayings to be preserved as
                      > faithfully as the order of narrative? We shouldn't.

                      This is another useful point. It's also a point that can be
                      strengthened by looking at how Luke behaves in relation to Marcan
                      discourses, i.e. it's important to get clues about what Luke's
                      attitude to Matthew might have been by looking at Luke's attitude
                      to Mark. As Goulder points out in _Luke: A New Paradigm_, Luke
                      treats the discourses in Mark 4 and 9 in the same way that he
                      treats the Sermon on the Mount -- keeps some, omits some,
                      redistributes the rest. I develop this point in my _Case Against Q_,
                      Chapter 4 (another plug! Sorry, and it won't be the last!).

                      > My net conclusion is that the argument from order is flawed.

                      Ron, you are not far from the kingdom of heaven : )

                      Mark
                      -----------------------------
                      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
                      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@...
                    • Peter M. Head
                      At 02:30 PM 10/31/01 +0000, Mark G wrote: The standard argument from order in relation to Luke s use of Matthew is based on the unnecessary inference that we
                      Message 10 of 18 , Oct 31, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 02:30 PM 10/31/01 +0000, Mark G wrote:

                        "The standard argument from order in relation to Luke's use of Matthew is
                        based
                        on the unnecessary inference that we will have expected Luke to treat Matthew
                        in the same way that he treated Mark."

                        A few moments later, however, he wrote:

                        "it's important to get clues about what Luke's attitude to Matthew might
                        have been
                        by looking at Luke's attitude to Mark."

                        Hmmmmmm.

                        Will the book sort this one out?

                        Pete



                        Peter M. Head, PhD
                        Research Fellow
                        Tyndale House
                        36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                        566607
                        Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608


                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Mark Goodacre
                        ... Hi Peter; if the implication is that there is a contradiction between the two statements above, quoted from different contexts, then let me try to clarify
                        Message 11 of 18 , Oct 31, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 31 Oct 2001, at 15:28, Peter M. Head wrote:

                          > At 02:30 PM 10/31/01 +0000, Mark G wrote:
                          >
                          > "The standard argument from order in relation to Luke's use of Matthew
                          > is based on the unnecessary inference that we will have expected Luke
                          > to treat Matthew in the same way that he treated Mark."
                          >
                          > A few moments later, however, he wrote:
                          >
                          > "it's important to get clues about what Luke's attitude to Matthew
                          > might have been
                          > by looking at Luke's attitude to Mark."
                          >
                          > Hmmmmmm.
                          >
                          > Will the book sort this one out?

                          Hi Peter; if the implication is that there is a contradiction between
                          the two statements above, quoted from different contexts, then let
                          me try to clarify by drawing the points together. The standard anti-
                          Farrer argument from order complains that on this theory Luke is
                          conservative with Mark's order but relatively radical with Matthew's.
                          One of my concerns is that it is unnecessary to infer that Luke will
                          have treated each of his sources *in the same way*, especially if
                          one of those sources, Matthew, might have been recognised as a
                          version of the other source, Mark. However, his use of the primary
                          source, Mark, might provide *clues* about Luke's attitude to the
                          secondary source, Matthew. The specific example that is worth
                          attention is Luke's attitude to discourse material: Luke treatment
                          of Mark's Parables Chapter provides analogies for the treatment of
                          Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, viz. retention, omission,
                          redistribution.

                          To take the second point seriously reinforces the first point. Given
                          Luke's attitude to Marcan discourse material, we will expect Luke
                          to have reacted even more strongly to Matthew's far longer, far
                          more varied discourses, retaining some, omitting some,
                          redistributing the rest. As soon as that point is realized, the idea
                          that Luke will have been as conservative with Matthew overall as he
                          is with Mark overall is weakened. The very structure of Matthew is
                          all about the great discourses.

                          Does that make sense? Or should I just refer you to the
                          forthcoming book again like proper scholars do?

                          Mark
                          -----------------------------
                          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
                          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@...
                        • Zeba Crook
                          ... ... Mark, Is it not asking a bit much to read Luke s reference to writing an orderly account as inference that he was displeased with the *order*
                          Message 12 of 18 , Oct 31, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Mark Goodacre wrote:

                            > The standard argument from order in relation to Luke's use of Matthew is
                            > based on the unnecessary inference that we will have expected Luke to
                            > treat Matthew in the same way that he treated Mark. One of several
                            > difficulties with this inference arises where one of those sources
                            > (Matthew) might have been recognised as a version of the other of those
                            > sources (Mark). I suggest that Luke is even more convinced than we are
                            > of the Priority of Mark because he has known Mark for longer than he has
                            > known Matthew and has got to know it well. We should resist the
                            > anachronistic assumption that Luke would have behaved like Tatian.
                            >

                            <snip>

                            > I agree again that this is a useful point, and it is one that has also
                            > been pressed by Goulder. The conservative Luke of the Two-Source Theory
                            > does not sit happily with the apparent stress on order in the Prologue.

                            Mark,

                            Is it not asking a bit much to read Luke's reference to writing an
                            "orderly" account as inference that he was displeased with the *order* of
                            other accounts? Luke writes that in as much as others have attempted to
                            compile a narrative (the "orderly" in Lk 1:1 of the RSV is only implied),
                            it seemed worthy to him to do so as well (kaqws). Are there lexical
                            markers I'm missing which suggest Lk is dissatisfied with his sources, let
                            alone that it is the order which he finds so dissatisfying? I read here
                            that he is doing what others have done simply because it seems to him
                            worthwhile.

                            As to your first point, on unnecessarily demanding consistency: I agree
                            that nothing is impossible, least of all that Luke behaved differently with
                            two different sources. But my concern still stands, namely that when we
                            open the doors to inconsistent behaviour, the cannons of redaction
                            criticism (which are based surely on consistency) evaporate. How can we
                            test each other's hypotheses if anything goes?

                            Cheers,

                            Zeb

                            ***

                            Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
                            University of St. Michael's College
                            Faculty of Theology
                            81 St. Mary Street
                            Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                            M5S 1J4

                            (416) 964-8629
                            http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kquinn/
                            (please note new web page address)


                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Landry, David T.
                            ... I think the orderly (or something like it) is more than implied; it is stated rather directly in the term kathexes. I wrote my dissertation on Luke
                            Message 13 of 18 , Oct 31, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Zeba Crook wrote:

                              > Is it not asking a bit much to read Luke's reference to writing an
                              > "orderly" account as inference that he was displeased with the *order* of
                              > other accounts? Luke writes that in as much as others have attempted to
                              > compile a narrative (the "orderly" in Lk 1:1 of the RSV is only implied),
                              > it seemed worthy to him to do so as well (kaqws). Are there lexical
                              > markers I'm missing which suggest Lk is dissatisfied with his sources, let
                              > alone that it is the order which he finds so dissatisfying? I read here
                              > that he is doing what others have done simply because it seems to him
                              > worthwhile.
                              >
                              >
                              I think the "orderly" (or something like it) is more than implied; it is
                              stated rather directly in the term "kathexes." I wrote my dissertation on
                              Luke 1-2, and in it I argued that a better translation than "orderly" for
                              this term would be "correctly" or "comprehensively" (that is, with the
                              maximum possible persuasiveness or rhetorical impact). But most
                              interpretations take the term to refer to Luke's structuring of the material
                              in a certain sequence. The translations include "orderly" (RSV; Talbert),
                              "systematically" (Fitzmyer), "seriatim" (Cadbury); "in succession" or
                              "connectedly" (Drury); and "without a gap" (Mussner). I was most persuaded
                              by Tannehill's argument that kathexes does not imply historically accurate
                              sequence or the logical order of an essay, but an order appropriate to
                              narrative. (Narrative Unity I, 9-10) If Tannehill is right about this (and
                              he was not thinking about the synoptic problem when he wrote this, I am
                              rather sure), then it would buttress the claim that Luke might have
                              preferred Mark's order to Matthew's.

                              While it would have been nice if Luke had given us an even clearer
                              indication of his reasons for writing a narrative when others already
                              existed, and the brief indication given here in the preface is open to
                              various interpretations, the fact that he does give such an indication is
                              significant. So even though kathexes is not much to go on, it is
                              something--indeed it is the best indication that Luke gives, and hence I
                              don't think it is "too much" to suggest that Luke's desire to write a
                              kathexes account was one of his main motivations for writing, especially
                              when this desire is confirmed by the contents of the gospel itself.

                              Moreover, I think it is a mistake to regard Luke's attitude toward his
                              predecessors as "neutral" or "complementary." The act of creating a new
                              version of the story of Jesus in and of itself implies in some sense that
                              the previous versions were not entirely adequate, especially given the scope
                              and magnitude of the changes that Luke makes to these previous versions.
                              Otherwise there would be no need for a new one. As Schuyler Brown notes,
                              "obviously, Luke does not regard his own work as superfluous." The fact
                              that the gospels of Matthew and Luke--by their mere existence--both display
                              a rather critical attitude toward Mark is a point that has been pressed by
                              Mary Ann Tolbert, among others. She argues that Matthew and Luke were
                              attempting, for different reasons and in different ways, "not to clarify and
                              extend Mark's vision but to refute and undermine it." (Sowing the Gospel,
                              28). She cites the strong argument in favor of this view found in Sandmel,
                              "Prolegomena to a Commentary on Mark" in Two Living Traditions, 152-153, and
                              she adds that the fact that there were many Christians (at least in the 2nd
                              century) who were dissatisfied with Mark's presentation of the story can be
                              gathered from the defensive tone of Papias' remarks on the authorship of
                              Mark in Eusebius.


                              David Landry, Ph.D.
                              Associate Professor of Theology
                              University of St. Thomas
                              Mail #4213, 2115 Summit Ave.
                              St. Paul, MN 55105
                              dtlandry@...
                              http://personal1.stthomas.edu/dtlandry


                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Zeba Crook
                              David Landry, Thanks for this great response. Let me clarify only that what I m getting at is that this amounts to yet another piece of synoptic evidence
                              Message 14 of 18 , Oct 31, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                David Landry,

                                Thanks for this great response. Let me clarify only that what I'm getting at is
                                that this amounts to yet another piece of synoptic evidence which quite fairly
                                points in two directions. I agree with much of your assessment. As you say, it
                                would be nice if Luke had been more clear, but that does not give us license to
                                rest so much on such a vague piece of data. Said another way, supporters of
                                this reading should not be disappointed when others don't read it the same way.

                                Zeb

                                ***

                                Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
                                University of St. Michael's College
                                Faculty of Theology
                                81 St. Mary Street
                                Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                                M5S 1J4

                                (416) 964-8629
                                http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kquinn/
                                (please note new web page address)

                                "Landry, David T." wrote:

                                > I think the "orderly" (or something like it) is more than implied; it is
                                > stated rather directly in the term "kathexes." I wrote my dissertation on
                                > Luke 1-2, and in it I argued that a better translation than "orderly" for
                                > this term would be "correctly" or "comprehensively" (that is, with the
                                > maximum possible persuasiveness or rhetorical impact). But most
                                > interpretations take the term to refer to Luke's structuring of the material
                                > in a certain sequence. The translations include "orderly" (RSV; Talbert),
                                > "systematically" (Fitzmyer), "seriatim" (Cadbury); "in succession" or
                                > "connectedly" (Drury); and "without a gap" (Mussner). I was most persuaded
                                > by Tannehill's argument that kathexes does not imply historically accurate
                                > sequence or the logical order of an essay, but an order appropriate to
                                > narrative. (Narrative Unity I, 9-10) If Tannehill is right about this (and
                                > he was not thinking about the synoptic problem when he wrote this, I am
                                > rather sure), then it would buttress the claim that Luke might have
                                > preferred Mark's order to Matthew's.
                                >
                                > While it would have been nice if Luke had given us an even clearer
                                > indication of his reasons for writing a narrative when others already
                                > existed, and the brief indication given here in the preface is open to
                                > various interpretations, the fact that he does give such an indication is
                                > significant. So even though kathexes is not much to go on, it is
                                > something--indeed it is the best indication that Luke gives, and hence I
                                > don't think it is "too much" to suggest that Luke's desire to write a
                                > kathexes account was one of his main motivations for writing, especially
                                > when this desire is confirmed by the contents of the gospel itself.
                                >
                                > Moreover, I think it is a mistake to regard Luke's attitude toward his
                                > predecessors as "neutral" or "complementary." The act of creating a new
                                > version of the story of Jesus in and of itself implies in some sense that
                                > the previous versions were not entirely adequate, especially given the scope
                                > and magnitude of the changes that Luke makes to these previous versions.
                                > Otherwise there would be no need for a new one. As Schuyler Brown notes,
                                > "obviously, Luke does not regard his own work as superfluous." The fact
                                > that the gospels of Matthew and Luke--by their mere existence--both display
                                > a rather critical attitude toward Mark is a point that has been pressed by
                                > Mary Ann Tolbert, among others. She argues that Matthew and Luke were
                                > attempting, for different reasons and in different ways, "not to clarify and
                                > extend Mark's vision but to refute and undermine it." (Sowing the Gospel,
                                > 28). She cites the strong argument in favor of this view found in Sandmel,
                                > "Prolegomena to a Commentary on Mark" in Two Living Traditions, 152-153, and
                                > she adds that the fact that there were many Christians (at least in the 2nd
                                > century) who were dissatisfied with Mark's presentation of the story can be
                                > gathered from the defensive tone of Papias' remarks on the authorship of
                                > Mark in Eusebius.
                                >
                                > David Landry, Ph.D.
                                > Associate Professor of Theology
                                > University of St. Thomas
                                > Mail #4213, 2115 Summit Ave.
                                > St. Paul, MN 55105
                                > dtlandry@...
                                > http://personal1.stthomas.edu/dtlandry
                                >
                                > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Maluflen@aol.com
                                In a message dated 10/31/2001 1:50:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, DTLANDRY@stthomas.edu writes:
                                Message 15 of 18 , Oct 31, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 10/31/2001 1:50:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                  DTLANDRY@... writes:

                                  << I was most persuaded
                                  by Tannehill's argument that kathexes does not imply historically accurate
                                  sequence or the logical order of an essay, but an order appropriate to
                                  narrative. (Narrative Unity I, 9-10) If Tannehill is right about this (and
                                  he was not thinking about the synoptic problem when he wrote this, I am
                                  rather sure), then it would buttress the claim that Luke might have
                                  preferred Mark's order to Matthew's. >>

                                  The claim that Luke preferred Mark's order to Matthew's is buttressed, not by
                                  the implications of Luke's prologue but by Luke's behavior, in spite of his
                                  prologue, assuming the validity of Markan priority.

                                  Without that assumption, what the prologue actually implies coheres well with
                                  what we find when we compare Luke's text with that of Matthew as a presumed
                                  source and model. What is meant by "Tannehill's argument that kathexes does
                                  not imply historically accurate sequence or the logical order of an essay,
                                  but an order appropriate to narrative" is not fully clear to me. What, after
                                  all, is an order appropriate to narrative, or rather, (Luke's purpose is) an
                                  order appropriate to what narrative, to a narrative with what aim? I think
                                  the idea of "the logical order of an essay" (with a rhetorically convincing
                                  strategy governing the ordering of events as portrayed) should not be
                                  excluded as very much part of what Luke is after, so long as one acknowledges
                                  that this essay or argument is given narrative form. In addition to Matthew,
                                  Paul and the author of the Catholic epistles may be among those who before
                                  Luke have attempted to set in order compelling accounts of things brought to
                                  fulfillment in our midst. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus...comes from
                                  the pen of Paul. Diegesis means not only narrative but also exposition. Luke
                                  doesn't say, though he probably implies, that he himself will produce an
                                  alternative diegesis to those produced before him. The infinitive grapsai is
                                  in the absolute, modified only by the adverb kathexes -- and by the purpose
                                  clause that constitutes the climax of the prologue.

                                  Leonard Maluf

                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • Mark Goodacre
                                  ... David Landry has made some useful comments on this, and I appreciate your subsequent response. I d just add in relation to the source-critical issue that
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Nov 1, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 31 Oct 2001, at 12:50, Zeba Crook wrote:

                                    > Is it not asking a bit much to read Luke's reference to writing an
                                    > "orderly" account as inference that he was displeased with the *order*
                                    > of other accounts? Luke writes that in as much as others have
                                    > attempted to compile a narrative (the "orderly" in Lk 1:1 of the RSV
                                    > is only implied), it seemed worthy to him to do so as well (kaqws).
                                    > Are there lexical markers I'm missing which suggest Lk is dissatisfied
                                    > with his sources, let alone that it is the order which he finds so
                                    > dissatisfying? I read here that he is doing what others have done
                                    > simply because it seems to him worthwhile.

                                    David Landry has made some useful comments on this, and I
                                    appreciate your subsequent response. I'd just add in relation to the
                                    source-critical issue that Goulder's discussion of this on _Luke_,
                                    pp. 198-204 is well worth a look -- he is critical of the soft
                                    translation for KAQEXHS of "orderly"; cf. also Drury, _Tradition
                                    and Design_, p. 82. I happen to have a quotation from the latter in
                                    digital form, so will paste here:

                                    > "The adverb KAQEXHS lets the reader into Luke's reason for writing
                                    > and his way of going about it. At Luke 8.1 and Acts 18.23 he uses it
                                    > of Jesus and Paul travelling from place to place, at Acts 3.24 of a
                                    > succession of prophecy beginning with Samuel which foretold the events
                                    > he narrates, and at Acts 11.4 of Peter telling in orderly succession
                                    > the events which led him to support the admission of the gentiles.
                                    > Its meaning emerges as 'in succession', 'connectedly' or 'in
                                    > historical order'. It testifies to Luke's enthusiasm for temporal
                                    > succession as his vehicle for theology, a conviction inherited from
                                    > the Old Testament and, above all, from the Deuteronomistic historian
                                    > whose Succession Narrative, well so called, deployed it on an equally
                                    > epic scale."

                                    More broadly in relation to Luke's order, I simply find it difficult to
                                    imagine Luke creating that feeling of narrative continuity, of
                                    movement, of biographical plausibility, while retaining the huge
                                    Matthaean structures. I'm just not sure how it would have been
                                    possible to do that.

                                    > As to your first point, on unnecessarily demanding consistency: I
                                    > agree that nothing is impossible, least of all that Luke behaved
                                    > differently with two different sources. But my concern still stands,
                                    > namely that when we open the doors to inconsistent behaviour, the
                                    > cannons of redaction criticism (which are based surely on consistency)
                                    > evaporate. How can we test each other's hypotheses if anything goes?

                                    I'd put more faith in coherency and plausibility than in consistency
                                    per se. Surely what we are doing in redaction-criticism is to
                                    provide accounts of the evangelists' behaviour on the assumption
                                    that they were behaving coherently. Think of Matthew: does he
                                    behave consistently in relation to the expansion of / abbreviation of
                                    pericopes from source material? No, sometimes he expands and
                                    sometimes he abbreviates, presumably as he saw the need in
                                    relation to the subject matter, context, literary preference,
                                    theological preference. We don't find that incoherent although it is
                                    not "consistent".

                                    When we look at the isse of Luke's alleged use of Matthew, it's
                                    important to ask not so much whether it is identical with his agreed
                                    use of Mark, something that is in any case excluded given that
                                    Matthew is a fresh version of Mark, but rather whether Luke's
                                    alleged use of Matthew is coherent given what we know of his
                                    attitude to Mark. Now given that we have clues about Luke's
                                    attitude to discourses in source material from his treatment of Mark
                                    4 (and 9), it is then natural to infer that he may have treated the far,
                                    far longer discourses in Matthew in a similar, nay, more radical
                                    way. The Farrer Theory's Luke is coherent and plausible. If one
                                    wants to press the "consistency" term, it's his attitude that is
                                    consistent.

                                    Mark
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
                                    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@...
                                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 10/31/2001 7:43:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, Maluflen@aol.com writes:
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Nov 1, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 10/31/2001 7:43:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                      Maluflen@... writes:

                                      << Diegesis means not only narrative but also exposition. Luke
                                      doesn't say, though he probably implies, that he himself will produce an
                                      alternative diegesis to those produced before him. The infinitive grapsai is
                                      in the absolute, modified only by the adverb kathexes -- and by the purpose
                                      clause that constitutes the climax of the prologue.>>

                                      My last statement here presupposes a phrase division of the text that I
                                      thought was quite universally agreed upon. I now note, however, that a
                                      coherent (though I believe ultimately unconvincing) argument has recently
                                      been made again for dividing the text differently: specifically, for taking
                                      the adverb akribos as also modifying grapsai. See the article by David Balch,
                                      which is chapter 9 in a very interesting collection of essays on Luke-Acts
                                      under the title "Jesus and the Heritage of Israel", (ed. David P. Moessner;
                                      Trinity Press International 1999, pp. 229-250). The quality of the essays in
                                      this volume suggests that Trinity Press Int. will be a worthy forum for the
                                      upcoming publication of Dr. Goodacre.

                                      Leonard Maluf

                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • Emmanuel Fritsch
                                      ... Is it not possible to say that in order , for Luke, means in fact in an order , ie Luke means that several documents for the different tradition about
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Nov 2, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Mark Goodacre wrote :

                                        > > "The adverb KAQEXHS lets the reader into Luke's reason for writing
                                        > > and his way of going about it. At Luke 8.1 and Acts 18.23 he uses it
                                        > > of Jesus and Paul travelling from place to place, at Acts 3.24 of a
                                        > > succession of prophecy beginning with Samuel which foretold the events
                                        > > he narrates, and at Acts 11.4 of Peter telling in orderly succession
                                        > > the events which led him to support the admission of the gentiles.
                                        > > Its meaning emerges as 'in succession', 'connectedly' or 'in
                                        > > historical order'. It testifies to Luke's enthusiasm for temporal
                                        > > succession as his vehicle for theology, a conviction inherited from
                                        > > the Old Testament and, above all, from the Deuteronomistic historian
                                        > > whose Succession Narrative, well so called, deployed it on an equally
                                        > > epic scale."
                                        >
                                        > More broadly in relation to Luke's order, I simply find it difficult to
                                        > imagine Luke creating that feeling of narrative continuity, of
                                        > movement, of biographical plausibility, while retaining the huge
                                        > Matthaean structures. I'm just not sure how it would have been
                                        > possible to do that.

                                        Is it not possible to say that "in order", for Luke, means
                                        in fact "in an order", ie Luke means that several documents
                                        for the different tradition about Jesus is "disorder", ie
                                        not 'connected', not 'in succession' ?

                                        With other words : May "in order" be just the mix of all information
                                        that come to Luke into a single documents, presenting a BION of Jesus
                                        in continuity, and thus, "in order" would just represent the trend
                                        to merge stories ?

                                        a+
                                        manu

                                        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.