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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Nov 1, 2001
      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 2 of 18 , Nov 1, 2001
        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 3 of 18 , Nov 2, 2001
          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.