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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Synchronous Genitive

Expand Messages
  • LARRY SWAIN
    ... Leonard, I reviewed your question when I wrote to Ron and should have been more explicit in my reply to him. It seemed to me though that Ron was taking
    Message 1 of 26 , Jan 27, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Maluflen@... wrote:
      > In a message dated 1/27/2003 7:30:39 AM Pacific
      > Standard Time,
      > theswain@... writes:
      >
      >
      > > With regard to "synchronous genitive" suggested by
      > > Leonard, when I asked for examples:
      > > > There isn't an unambigous one. But it's a
      > > >grammatical possibility, what Leonard called (if
      > I
      > > >remember correctly) a "synchronous" genitive.
      > >
      > > With due respect for Leonard, I must disagree.
      > >
      > I never intended to invent a new grammatical
      > category of the synchronous
      > genitive. I merely asked the question as to whether
      > Luke elsewhere than in
      > the passage in question (Lk 6:16) ever uses the
      > genitive to refer to a
      > synchronic (sibling) relationship, rather than to a
      > vertical one.

      Leonard,
      I reviewed your question when I wrote to Ron and
      should have been more explicit in my reply to him. It
      seemed to me though that Ron was taking this as a
      possible genitive use rather than as a question on
      your
      part. I'm sorry if my terse and turgid prose implied
      otherwise.


      Leonard continues:
      Larry, did
      > I correctly understand you to respond that the
      > genitive does not in fact
      > refer to a sibling relationship anywhere else in the
      > known corpus of Greek
      > literature? If this is so, then I would certainly
      > take this as a strong
      > argument against understanding IOUDAS IAKWBOU (in Lk
      > 6:16) as referring to a
      > Judas whose brother is James.

      Not that I've been able to find. I won't claim to
      have been exhaustive, but I did check one introductory
      Greek grammar, 1 NT grammar, and 2 classical grammars
      and struck out. I then checked L&S and name catalogs
      that I could locate quickly. I could not find a
      single example inside or outside of the NT or any
      discussion of it. I could also not think of a single
      example in any Indo-European language I know--Greek,
      Latin, Old ENglish, Old Norse, Gothic,or Old Saxon
      (granted the latter two in particular are known from
      translations of Biblical texts.....so in a way can't
      tell us much). It just doesn't seem to be a way of
      expressing synchronous relationships. Probably in
      Greek this is because the source or origin notion is
      so strong that it is natural to speak of A of B in a
      diachronic fashion, whereas the syncrhonous
      relationship doesn't fit into the governing notions of
      the genitive well. Thus, I with you would take this
      as pretty strong reasons NOT to read Jude as the
      brother of James instead of son in Lk. If Luke had
      somehow indicated a different reading or something in
      the text that would be a different story, but it looks
      very straightforward, a genitive of origin.

      Warm Regards,

      Larry Swain

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • LARRY SWAIN
      ... Thanks Mark, its worth quite a lot actually. The problem I have with Goulder, and similarly with MacDonald s Mark imitated Homer argument is that neither
      Message 2 of 26 , Jan 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...> wrote:
        > On 27 Jan 2003 at 7:26, LARRY SWAIN wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > I'm glad that you seem to be so persuaded by
        > Goulder.
        > > But merely mentioning his name and his work isn't
        > > convincing.
        >
        > For what it's worth, I wrote over 150 pages on
        > Goulder's theory of
        > Lucan creativity in L material (it's Part 2 of a
        > fairly dull book
        > called _Goulder and the Gospels_) and, to cut a long
        > story short, I
        > felt that while Goulder was successful in drawing
        > attention to a
        > substantial degree of Lucan creativity in the L
        > material, his notion
        > that Luke has no sources for this material outside
        > of Mark, Matthew
        > and the OT is unconvincing. The major omission in
        > Goulder's work on
        > the L material is any consideration of plot or story
        > structure; so
        > while he can successfully isolate elements in the
        > story that could
        > plausibly be due to Lucan creativity, he does not
        > grapple with the
        > problem of how Luke derived the essential story
        > framework.
        >
        > Mark

        Thanks Mark, its worth quite a lot actually. The
        problem I have with Goulder, and similarly with
        MacDonald's Mark imitated Homer argument is that
        neither succesfully deals with 1) the fact that the
        Christian movement had itinerant preachers passing
        tradition down and that anyone writing about Jesus
        would have to have some way of dealing with it if they
        expected their work to have acceptance and 2) their
        models don't match what we know of ancient practices
        of composition of a literary OR a supposedly
        historical work.

        I know this reference was given before on here, so
        I'll copy it down this time and go read the article.

        Many Thanks,

        Larry Swain

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Matson, Mark (Academic)
        ... ... Larry: What I find very interesting in your post above is the recognition that Luke seems to be melding togetther the Mark/Matthew tradition
        Message 3 of 26 , Jan 28, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Larry Swain commented:
          > >
          > > >I'm afraid I must continue to be the fly in the
          > > >ointment. I'll grant that John 21 and Luke 5 may
          > > be drawing on the same tradition, but they can not
          > be
          > > >literarily dependent on one another; they bear far
          > > too few of the hallmarks of such dependence, and
          > what
          > > they do share can easily be explained by tradition.

          <snip>

          > Based on what Ron? Again, the three parallels listed
          > in the NA apparatus to Lk 5 are negligible consisting
          > of a parallel of the name Zebedee, occurs elsewhere
          > besides Lk 5; of the word "nets", which not only
          > occurs elsewhere besides Lk 5 but is to be expected of
          > a fishing story, and finally verse 11, which in fact
          > says the opposite of the supposed parallel in Lk.
          > This isn't convincing. What's left? That's its
          > fishing story, that it includes a large haul, and that
          > Peter and the Zebedees are involved. Given that ALL
          > Christian tradition, from pre-gospel to post-gospel,
          > depicts the four as fishermen, and fishermen, (even
          > professional ones) always have stories of incredible
          > hauls (I have a few myself from college days when I
          > worked on fishing boats to put my way through), which
          > of course become Jesus centered stories after the
          > Easter event. No surprises there. Great sermon
          > illustrations. And given that of all the 12, only
          > Anderw and Peter, James and JOhn are said to be
          > fishermen, their inclusion in both stories is also
          > hardly significant.
          >
          > So both stories are similar, yes. And it is not
          > surprising if Luke, looking at the call of Peter and
          > Andrew and James and John in Mark and Matthew and the
          > tradition lieing behind John 21 should meld the two
          > together; this is in fact what Bultmann argued and
          > while that was some time ago, it seems to me the most
          > cogent explanation of Luke 5; rather than that John
          > knew Luke 5 and rewrote it, and not only rewrote it,
          > but rewrote it in such a way as to change almost all
          > the salient details, change the time of day, the
          > setting, the context, the meaning etc. As you
          > yourself said "They do not bear the hallmarks of
          > indisputable literary dependence". I argued in my
          > last message reasons why in my view they are best
          > read as independent uses of the same tradition.
          > Merely stating that my case is weak is not quite the
          > same thing as demonstrating it.
          > I wrote, after noting the significant number of
          > differences between Jn 21 and Lk 5:

          Larry:

          What I find very interesting in your post above is the recognition that Luke seems to be melding togetther the Mark/Matthew tradition with another tradition, that is John. I think you are right on with this view, and that Luke's story shows all the signs of working across two very different traditions. Sometimes he agrees with Mark/Matthew, sometimes with John, sometimes combines them. This is precisely what I tried to demonstrate in my book on Luke's use of John's passion story. Now in that book I suggest that Luke had available John -- which of course flies in the face of most views that John is (a) late, (b) derivative, and (c) completely theological. But I think I at least made a reasonable case that Luke can be seen as melding traditions together.

          John 21, of course, is more problematic than the rest of John simply because we see it as a late edition to John. I don't know what to do with this. Perhaps, as you state, Luke is simply using a tradition that John also uses. Perhaps the John 21 story originally was more central to an earlier John account (Fortna's sign's gospel has it so as one of the "signs"). But I think you have correctly identified Luke's editorial procedure, as opposed to simply assuming that John is late and drawing on Luke -- which would seem to be very odd here.

          And further, in reply to Ron's dismissal of John's historicity:
          >
          > a) Interesting. And here I thought all along that in
          > many cases John has been shown to be more
          > geographically and historically accurate than the
          > Synoptics in many cases. IN which case, such a
          > blanket statement regarding John's historical concerns
          > can not be made.
          > b) By maintaining that Luke purposely and knowingly
          > obfuscated and perpetuated the list of apostles,
          > invented murder stories etc, one can not maintain that
          > he had a concern for historical accuracy, even by
          > ancient standards.
          > c) Such a claim also seems a knee jerk reaction to
          > John, whose author claims also to have been an
          > eyewitness to the things he records. Now since I
          > believe that Jesus and the boys were real first
          > century Jews walking around the ol' lake and environs
          > further south, I don't have an historical problem that
          > at least some of the material in John is based in oral
          > tradition from an eyewitness. And since Luke also
          > claims to be investigating and composing his gospel
          > based in part on those who have passed down what
          > happened by witnessing it (a claim later taken up by
          > Paul, the author of I Peter, and the author of the
          > Johannine letters). Thus, that Luke, while
          > investigating, runs across this story in Ephesus by a
          > man who witnessed things also living in Ephesus should
          > not be a surprise. It doesn't make either of them
          > unhistorical, that's the great thing about tradition
          > criticism.
          > d) Finally, you're "why not" answer which isn't really
          > an answer was already addressed in the first post.
          > Briefly, there isn't any need to include them unless
          > the author wishes to be historical. He has changed
          > everything else about the story save Peter's
          > involvement if we think he took this from Luke 5,
          > including who was there. Obviously with such
          > significant changes to the story, one can not claim
          > that the text of Luke was so special and precious that
          > John oculd not excise the "fictional" Zebedees. They
          > further seem to play no further role in the story, so
          > why does the author list who was there and relate this
          > story right after a claim to historicity? Perhaps
          > because there were other witnesses to it whose
          > disciples could verify it? Probably. Otherwise all
          > he has done is waste ink and precious space on the
          > page.

          Again I think you have hit "spot on" with this point. We so often assume that John is late and unhistorical. But there are a lot of reasons to question that -- including John's own rhetorical statements. And we know to the contrary that Luke acknowledges the use of multiple sources. So it seems that a reasonable starting point for discussion would be to acknowledge the potential validity of these "method" statements and work from there. They may be wrong, but one would have to prove them wrong. But the general starting point is simply to write off John as late and unhistorical.

          And Luke's method can be seen as carefully assessing and weighing the strength of various traditions. This is not simply making stuff up, but is itself a historical or semi-historical process of evaluating sources and recasting the narrative to make the most sense of the data one (e.g. Luke) has available.

          Thanks for your posts.

          mark

          Mark A. Matson
          Academic Dean, Milligan College
          http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm
          >

          ---
          Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
          Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
          Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 1/10/2003


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Ron Price
          I must point out that both the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible have a footnote to Lk 6:16 re Judas son of James indicating that the relationship could have been
          Message 4 of 26 , Jan 28, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I must point out that both the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible have a
            footnote to Lk 6:16 re "Judas son of James" indicating that the
            relationship could have been "brother".
            So here we have two surely independent translators who knew much more
            Greek than I do indicating that "brother" is a possibility here. Unless
            some new research has since disproved this, then the *possibility* must
            stand.

            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@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.