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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Did overlaps affect Luke's decision to omit material?

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    Re: [Synoptic-L] Did overlaps affect Luke s decision to omit material?This is my response to three points from Ron Price s post of 7/1/2002. I apologize once
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 27, 2002
      Re: [Synoptic-L] Did overlaps affect Luke's decision to omit material?

      This is my response to three points from Ron Price’s post of 7/1/2002. I apologize once again for the delay in responding. Unfortunately, I will be traveling for the next two weeks, so any further responses will probably be delayed even more.

      I) "DOUBLETS" AND "SUBSTITUTIONS"

      KO:

      > I’d also be interested to
      >know if you or Fledddermann have a

      definition of a "doublet" that would
      >differentiate it from a
      "substitution".

      RP:

      >>The most interesting thing about many doublets is that they
      seem to suggest the use of two different sources. Recently I've tended to relax my definition of a doublet to include instances where an author (usually Mark) seems to have taken the kernel of a saying and developed it along different lines for his own purposes. Thus for instance I take Mk 13:31 ("Heaven ..... my words will not pass away") to be an adaptation of the saying recorded in Mt 5:18 // Lk 17:17, and thus count as doublets Mt 5:18 // 24:35 and Lk 16:17 // 21:33. Similarly I now take Mk 10:29-30 (the hundredfold recompense) to be Mark's adaptation of the thrones saying in order to present a reward suitable for many Gentiles, thus counting as doublets Mt 19:28 // 19:29 and Lk 22:28-30 // 18:29-30.
      Perhaps I should define a "source doublet" as two separated sentences in a gospel which appear to derive from the same saying, but to have entered the gospel through the use of two different sources. My primary interest here is in such source doublets, for they may be useful indicators of the origin of the synoptic texts.<<

      KO:

      > Luke altered 21.14-15 enough so that it is *not* a doublet with

      12.11-12.
      >This is similar to what he appears to have done with the two
      versions of
      >the Mission Charge.

      RP:

      >>Your statement here illustrates my previous paragraph. These
      verses may not constitute what you call a "doublet" (which we haven't yet defined). But what matters in regard to the history of these verses is that they *do* constitute what I called a source doublet. So I'm not sure you achieve a great deal by disputing Fleddermann's classification of Lk 12:11-12 // 21:14-15 as a doublet.<<

      KO:

      As in any field of study, the system of classification used is a means to an end and not an end itself. Classifications are intended to allow us to describe things more precisely in order to understand them better. In this case, I think classifying Luke 12:11-12//21:14-15 as a "doublet"obscures what Luke has done because it emphasizes the similarities in Luke’s sources and ignores the changes that Luke made to them. Fleddermann, you, and I are all in agreement that Luke had at least two written sources (i.e., Mark and Q/Matthew) that had versions of this saying and that these two versions had a good deal of verbatim overlap. We also agree that Luke has incorporated versions based on both sources in his gospel . Further, I think we all agree that Luke has altered the material from Mk. 13.11 very heavily (far more heavily than he altered the source of Lk. 12.11-12) before including it in Lk. 21.14-15. On the basis of sources, location in the text, and theme Luke 12.11-12//21.14-15 might be called a "doublet". I do not think it can be called a "doublet" on the basis of verbal parallels between the two passages. I think Luke has deliberately avoided using the same language twice.

      I suspect that Luke 11.27-28, True Blessedness, is another example of the same phenomenon. Luke has True Blessedness immediately following The Return of the Unclean Spirit (Lk. 11.24-26). Matthew has Jesus’ True Relatives (Mt. 12.46-50; paralleled in Mk. 3.31-35) immediately following his version of the Unclean Spirit (Mt. 12.43-45). Luke’s True Blessedness and Matthew’s True Relatives have obvious thematic parallels. I suspect that Luke, having already used a version of True Relatives, in one of his Markan blocks at Lk. 8.19-21, then "substituted" True Blessedness for it the second time it occurred in his sources to avoid using the same language twice. The point is that something can be a "doublet" at the level of sources, location, and theme and still not be a doublet at the level of verbal agreements.

      [I think Mark Goodacre has argued somewhere that Lk. 11.27-28 shows signs of a high level of Lukan creativity, but I can’t locate the reference at the moment.]


      II) ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT LUKE’S PROCEDURES ON THE 3DH

      KO:

      > I think you are playing down the difficulties that your 3DH Luke
      would
      >face. He *did* rearrange Matthews 18000 word document. Hes gone
      through
      >Matthews c. 1100 verses and taken from it 12 pericopes (Im going
      by the 12
      >you list as "Pericopae Wrongly Assigned to Q" on your web
      site; sorry, I
      >dont know what the 16 are), totaling c. 102 verses.

      RP:

      >>Sorry to confuse you here. In my recent posting I was
      excluding 'Talents' because I believe it wasn't in the first edition of Luke and therefore not part of his major editorial task. I was also dividing up the Matthean material differently for ease of comparison with Luke, i.e. treating an apparently single Matthean pericope as two if Luke split it into two.
      But for the purposes of this discussion I'll revert to my Web site division.<<

      KO:

      > Despite Matthews extensive overlaps with Mark, Luke has managed
      to avoid
      >(any?) Matthew/Mark doublets by taking nine pericopes (totaling
      c. 63
      >verses) that are additional material that Matthew added to Mark
      and
      >preferring Matthews version to Marks for the remaining three
      pericopes
      >(Temptation, Beelzebul, Talents).
      RP:

      >>As I see it, the primary aim behind Luke's selection from Matthew was

      to supplement material from his other sources. So naturally he picked out mainly pericopae like 'Woe to Chorazin' which were neither in Mark nor sQ. Only in the three you mentioned is there potential for overlap, and he appears to have avoided it in these pericopae.<<

      KO:

      >He has set JBaps Testimony and the Temptation in their Markan
      context,

      RP:

      >>I follow Goulder here in seeing Luke as depending almost excusively

      on Matthew up to Lk 4:30. (_Luke: A New Paradigm_, p.270) So Luke simply took over Matthew's context, who in turn had been dependent on Mark.<<

      KO:

      > put the Centurion’s Servant in his lesser insertion, and
      rearranged the
      >remaining 9 pericopes of c. 76 verses in his central
      section.

      RP:

      >>The amount of rearrangement was minimal. Only Mt 8:11-12 // Lk

      13:28-29 and Mt 11:12-13 // Lk 16:16 are substantially out of order.<<

      KO:

      >He has also avoided taking (any of?) Matthews 20 to 30 sayings that
      >overlapped with sQ.

      RP:

      >>Yes, apart from Mt 25:29 (see below). But note that the pericopae

      which had no narrative element were picked out individually. This left only Jn B's Testimony, the Temptation, the Centurion's Servant, Jn B's Inquiry and Beelzebul. These happened to contain no sQ material, but I don't see this as particularly odd.<<

      KO:

      > This is all in addition to his use of the 3000 word sQ,
      >which he

      has interspersed with Matthean material in his non-Markan blocks.
      >Is
      this correct?

      RP:

      >>Yes. But as the Matthean pericopae were kept roughly in order, this

      would not have been too difficult.<<

      KO:

      >If so, I don’t see that this is self-evidently "simpler" than what

      Farrer’s
      >Luke is held to have done,
      RP:

      >>We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.<<


      KO:

      > ..... nor do I think that your Luke could have done
      >this without going through all three of his sources and noting their
      overlaps.

      RP:

      >>He may have managed with a mental note of overlaps. This might
      explain his inconsistency.<<

      KO:

      We may have to agree to disagree, but I’d like to clarify where that disagreement lies:

      1) You think Luke could have gone through Matthew and extracted the material he wanted to use from it, while (with a single exception) avoiding taking material that overlapped with material he was using from one of his other sources.

      2) You think Luke and/or Matthew could have rearranged the order of much of their common non-Markan material and combined it with other material (i.e., as your Luke and/or Matthew do with sQ).

      3) You think it unlikely that Luke could have BOTH gone through Matthew and extracted the material he wanted to use AND rearranged its order and combined it with other material.

      I disagree with you on point 3, because I think that if our evangelists are capable of extracting material from a source, and of reordering material from a source, they ought to be capable of doing both in combination (i.e., of extracting material from a source and reordering that material). Also, your Luke is remarkably consistent (there’s one exception) in avoiding taking doublets from Matthew when extracting material from that gospel. I think this might more plausibly be ascribed to Luke’s having made direct comparison of his written sources, rather than his reliance on "mental notes of overlaps".

      III) STAGES IN LUKE’S "COPYING" AND "REARRANGING"

      KO:

      >Here I disagree with you about Lukes "re-copying" . I think he
      would not have
      >wanted to have risked messing up his roll or codex by
      composing directly
      >onto it. This procedure of doing rough drafts is
      recommended by Quintilian
      >(Institutio Oratoria 10.3-4) .....

      RP:
      Rough drafts may have been practised by some authors. But copying the sayings in preparation for putting them in the desired order would have been yet another copying process. I suppose you could argue that if Luke was prepared to make a rough draft prior to writing the autograph, then copying was not seen as a problem and therefore he might have copied the sayings initially as well. Perhaps. But it might alternatively have been the straw which threatened to break the camel's back as it were.

      KO:

      I am not at present convinced that "copying the sayings in preparation for putting them in the desired order would have been yet another copying process". It is certainly possible that there were two separate stages involved, but I don’t think that the data require this conclusion. My thinking here is that Luke knew what Matthean material he wanted to use because he had annotated the margins of Matthew at an earlier stage when he compared Matthew and Mark. He would not necessarily have needed to recopy the Matthean material he wanted to use into another document prior to writing his rough drafts.

      When Quintilian recommends doing rough drafts on wax tablets or parchment notebooks, he also says, "whichever we employ, we must leave blank pages [vacuae tabellae] that we may be free to make additions when we will. For lack of space at times gives rise to a reluctance to make corrections, or, at any rate, is liable to cause confusion when new matter is inserted" and a bit later adds, "space must also be left for jotting down the thoughts which occur to the writer out of due order" (Institutio Oratoria 10.3, trans. Butler, LCL).

      If Luke is using the procedure Quintilian recommends, he could be sorting the Matthean material he wants to use and composing his own versions of it in the same stage. He would "check off" each passage in Matthew as "used" (to avoid repetition) once he had composed his own version of it, which he would place in his notebooks near other passages he considered to be related topically. He could then revise his versions and smooth out the transitions between passages in his notebooks before they were recopied into his scroll or codex.

      I don’t think that such a procedure would have been prohibitively complex. The Matthean material in Luke’s first two non-Markan blocks keeps fairly close to its Matthean order with a few insertions and inversions as exceptions. Luke’s central section would have required a good bit more rearrangement, but if the organizational principle he’s using is (to borrow your idiom) a "rough and ready" topical or thematic one rather than a "meticulous" calendrical, Deuteronomistic, or chiastic one, Luke has a great deal of leeway with which to work.

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      kaolson@...

      Kenneth A. Olson
      Graduate Teaching Assistant
      University of Maryland
      Department of History
      2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
      College Park, MD 20742-7315

    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/27/2002 10:50:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... The first part of this statement is based largely on insight, the last part, largely on
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 27, 2002
        In a message dated 7/27/2002 10:50:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kaolson@... writes:


        >>I follow Goulder here in seeing Luke as depending almost exclusively on Matthew up to Lk 4:30. (_Luke: A New Paradigm_, p.270) So Luke simply took over Matthew's context, who in turn had been dependent on Mark.<<




        The first part of this statement is based largely on insight, the last part, largely on ideology. If one really looked without bias at the first chapter of Mark, it would readily be seen that it is secondary in most respects to the corresponding texts of Matthew. But, as I have always said, Goulder is to be credited for being half way there.

        Leonard Maluf
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... Thanks for mentioning this, not least because it reminds me of the need to pull my finger out and get back to the article in question. It is an unpublished
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 28, 2002
          On 27 Jul 2002 at 13:46, Ken Olson wrote:

          > [I think Mark Goodacre has argued somewhere that Lk. 11.27-28 shows
          > signs of a high level of Lukan creativity, but I can't locate the
          > reference at the moment.]

          Thanks for mentioning this, not least because it reminds me of the
          need to pull my finger out and get back to the article in question.
          It is an unpublished piece on Luke 11.27-28 and argues that it shows
          a high level of Lucan creativity, and that the close verbal parallel
          in Thomas 79 shows Thomasine dependence on Luke. I submitted it to a
          major journal who asked me to do extra bits and bobs and I've never
          got round to it -- and it's now two or three years later. Typical.

          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 UK

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          http://NTGateway.com


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Randall Buth
          shalom ... Luke must like to use egeneto + en + infinitive + ... finite verb. (see Howard s observations in vol. 2 of Moulton) and idioms like lift up a
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 29, 2002
            shalom
            >It is an unpublished piece on Luke 11.27-28 and argues that it shows
            >a high level of Lucan creativity,<

            Luke must like to use egeneto + en + infinitive + ... finite verb.
            (see Howard's observations in vol. 2 of Moulton)
            and idioms like 'lift up a voice'
            and parallelistic poetry.

            ERRWSO
            Randall Buth


            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.