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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke's editorial task

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... John, I m saying that I still can t see the point you re trying to make. Obviously Luke would have held the above opinion if the Farrer Theory were true.
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 26, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      John Poirier wrote:

      > I’m saying that Luke considered his
      >*own* new ordering of the *double* tradition to be superior to Matthew’s.

      John,

      I'm saying that I still can't see the point you're trying to make.
      Obviously Luke would have held the above opinion if the Farrer Theory
      were true.

      > Of course, Luke had both texts in front of him.

      I assume you mean that every time Luke redacted a Markan pericope, he
      had both this and the corresponding Matthean pericope visible in front
      of him.

      > I simply referred to the fact that Luke’s
      >familiarity with Mark and relative unfamiliarity with Matthew would have
      >made his
      >task of demarcating new material in Matthew fairly easy.

      O.K. I've already agreed with you on this.

      > By this I mean Luke’s
      >relative unfamiliarity with a text right in front of him, hence the minor
      >agreements.

      But now you've lost me again. If both earlier versions of a pericope
      were simultaneously visible to Luke, what on earth does familiarity have
      to do with it?
      In any case if greater familiarity is to help in explaining the minor
      agreements, it would have to be Luke's greater familiarity with
      *Matthew* coming into play when he was concentrating on redacting Mark,
      which is the opposite of what you claimed.

      >I’m simply talking about how
      >easy it was for Luke to recognize Matthean material as Matthean, which is about
      >all one needs to grant in order to think of the Farrer hypothesis as a
      >realistic solution.

      Not so. You need to think through all the implications of a theory if
      it is to be realistic. Based on what you wrote above, it's not yet clear
      to me that you have done so.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, 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@...
    • John C. Poirier
      Ron, you opened this thread by stating that “Any given author would weigh the difficulty against the perceived gains before making the decision to tackle a
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron, you opened this thread by stating that “Any given author would weigh the
        difficulty against the perceived gains before making the decision to tackle a
        complicated merger/rearrangement.” I suggested that “Luke considered his *own* new
        ordering of the *double* tradition to be superior to Matthew’s,” and you responded
        by agreeing with this, but stating that you couldn’t see the point. The point is
        this: Luke had a reason to write his gospel, and it involved the devaluation of
        Matthew’s ordering of non-Markan material. Therefore, the notion of a Markan
        context was a part of this purpose, in such a way that Luke clearly valued Mark
        above Matthew. The correct order that Luke thought he knew constituted the
        “perceived gains.” I went on to suggest that these “perceived gains” were greater
        than the “difficulty” because, in fact, the difficulty of proceeding in the
        mechanical way suggested by the Farrer hypothesis has been greatly exaggerated by
        Farrer’s detractors. This is the point I’m trying to make. Your claim that “Any
        given author would weigh the difficulty against the perceived gains before making
        the decision to tackle a complicated merger/rearrangement” does not accurately
        represent Luke’s motive or his procedure on the Farrer hypothesis.

        I wrote, “By this I mean Luke’s relative unfamiliarity with a text right in front of
        him, hence the minor agreements,” and you responded:

        > But now you've lost me again. If both earlier versions of a pericope
        > were simultaneously visible to Luke, what on earth does familiarity have
        > to do with it?
        > In any case if greater familiarity is to help in explaining the minor
        > agreements, it would have to be Luke's greater familiarity with
        > *Matthew* coming into play when he was concentrating on redacting Mark,
        > which is the opposite of what you claimed.

        Luke is looking at both texts, an easy thing to do when both texts follow a common
        order. My use of “unfamiliarity” has nothing to do with absolute first-hand
        knowledge of a text that one is copying, but with the sort of relative unfamiliarity
        that makes having the text in front of oneself a requisite for knowing what it
        says. It is this level of unfamiliarity that makes the task of demarcating
        non-Markan passages in Matthew easy for Luke. There is nothing inconsistent with my
        use of “unfamiliarity” and my positing of Luke’s direct use of Matthew. In fact, in
        my earlier message I invoked this notion of unfamiliarity expressly in order to
        explain how Luke did what he did when he was looking directly at Matthew, so there’s
        no way I could have implied that unfamiliarity meant that Luke never looked at
        Matthew. My opposing of familiarity with unfamiliarity was intended to explain how
        Luke pulled off the macrostructural aspect of his project. It has nothing to do
        with the microstructural aspect, since that is determined by Luke’s simultaneous
        reading of Matthew and Mark.


        John C. Poirier,
        Middletown, Ohio




        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Ron Price
        ... John, Perhaps now you will admit that unfamiliarity with a text right in front of Luke can in no way explain the minor agreements, as your sentence
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 28, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          John Poirier wrote:

          >>> By this I mean Luke’s relative unfamiliarity with a text right
          >>> in front of him, hence the minor agreements.

          I replied:

          >> But now you've lost me again. .....
          >> ..... if greater familiarity is to help in explaining the minor
          >> agreements, it would have to be Luke's greater familiarity with
          >> *Matthew* coming into play when he was concentrating on redacting Mark,
          >> which is the opposite of what you claimed.

          John countered:

          > ..... My opposing of familiarity with unfamiliarity was intended to
          >explain how
          >Luke pulled off the macrostructural aspect of his project. It has nothing
          >to do
          >with the microstructural aspect, since that is determined by Luke’s
          >simultaneous
          >reading of Matthew and Mark.

          John,

          Perhaps now you will admit that "unfamiliarity with a text right in
          front of Luke" can in no way explain the minor agreements, as your
          sentence quoted above appears to imply.

          For those of us who accept that Luke knew Matthew, I can see two ways
          to explain the minor agreements. In each triple tradition pericope
          either Luke had both texts open in front of him, as you have suggested,
          and he carefully compared the wording, basing it on Mark but often
          mixing in some of Matthew's words.
          The alternative explanation is that Luke the scholar had become quite
          familiar with Matthew's gospel and its phraseology as part of his
          preparation for the task ahead. Consequently when only the Markan text
          was open in front of him, he often remembered corresponding Matthean
          words or phrases and inserted them without further reference to Matthew.
          This latter explanation better fits the widely accepted view that Mark's
          text was generally used as the basis. It also better matches Luke's
          treatment of the first few chapters (up to Mt 4:11?), when he had
          Matthew open in front of him but not Mark (there is little evidence of
          direct Markan influence in Lk 1:1-4:13).

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, 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@...
        • John C. Poirier
          I wrote, ... Ron Price responded, ... I don’t understand this at all. What part of what I wrote implies that “‘unfamiliarity with a text right in front
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 29, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I wrote,

            >> My opposing of familiarity with unfamiliarity was intended to
            >> explain how
            >> Luke pulled off the macrostructural aspect of his project. It has nothing
            >> to do
            >> with the microstructural aspect, since that is determined by Luke’s
            >> simultaneous
            >> reading of Matthew and Mark.

            Ron Price responded,

            > Perhaps now you will admit that “unfamiliarity with a text right in
            > front of Luke” can in no way explain the minor agreements, as your
            > sentence quoted above appears to imply.

            I don’t understand this at all. What part of what I wrote implies that
            “‘unfamiliarity with a text right in front of Luke’ can in no way explain the
            minor agreements”? Do I have to explain once again what I mean by
            “unfamiliarity”? The scheme I am imagining is precisely the first one that you
            admit as an explanation for the minor agreements. Would it help if I spoke of
            Luke’s “underfamiliarity” with Matthew rather than his “unfamiliarity”?

            Ron Price wrote,

            > This latter explanation [viz. that the minor agreements are the product of
            Luke’s memorization of Matthew’s wording] better fits the widely accepted view
            that Mark's
            > text was generally used as the basis.

            I don’t understand this either. Luke’s preference for Mark in no way suggests
            that he did not also have Matthew open in front of him. He needed Matthew open
            in front of him for the double tradition anyway, so why would he have closed
            (or rerolled?) Matthew when working with the triple tradition? If Luke was
            self-consciously writing a work of reconstruction, so that he was not
            dismissive of reconstruction as such, would he not have considered the value of
            Matthew's reconstructions here and there?


            John C. Poirier
            Middletown, Ohio




            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Ron Price
            ... John, Let s try again, as you completely misunderstood the first part of my last reply. Will you, in the light of the above quotation, agree with me that
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 29, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              John Poirier wrote:

              >>> My opposing of familiarity with unfamiliarity was intended to
              >>> explain how
              >>> Luke pulled off the macrostructural aspect of his project. It has nothing
              >>> to do
              >>> with the microstructural aspect, since that is determined by Luke’s
              >>> simultaneous
              >>> reading of Matthew and Mark.

              John,

              Let's try again, as you completely misunderstood the first part of my
              last reply.

              Will you, in the light of the above quotation, agree with me that
              "unfamiliarity with a text right in front of Luke" cannot explain the
              minor agreements, which must surely be classed as "microstructural
              aspects" in your terminology?

              > Would it help if I spoke of
              >Luke’s “underfamiliarity” with Matthew rather than his “unfamiliarity”?

              No. I fully understood that the word "unfamiliarity" was being used in
              a relative sense.

              > Luke ..... needed Matthew open
              >in front of him for the double tradition anyway, so why would he have closed
              >(or rerolled?) Matthew when working with the triple tradition?

              You seem to be making out that the easiest thing for Luke to do was to
              leave Matthew's gospel "open". But that would have achieved nothing. The
              question is rather whether he carefully searched for the Matthean
              equivalent of every Markan pericope that he redacted.

              > If Luke was
              >self-consciously writing a work of reconstruction, so that he was not
              >dismissive of reconstruction as such, would he not have considered the value of
              >Matthew's reconstructions here and there?

              Yes, if it were not too tedious.

              But I'm still convinced that on the Farrer Theory Luke would not have
              had a strong enough incentive to use Mark at all. He would have
              recognized Matthew as a second expanded and superior edition of Mark and
              simply ignored the first edition. This would without doubt have
              simplified his editorial task, as you admitted when you wrote:

              >>> Of course it's easier to use Matthew as the basis of a new gospel,

              You added:

              >>> but why write a new gospel if Matthew got it all right (even literarily)?

              In this scenario Luke would have acknowledged the value of much of the
              *content* of Matthew, but he would have been highly critical of the
              Matthean *order*.
              We know that didn't happen because we see much evidence of Luke
              copying Mark. Therefore the Farrer Theory fails to give an adequate
              explanation of Luke's editorial strategy (i.e. choice of source(s) to
              work from).

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, 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@...
            • Ken Olson
              ... had a strong enough incentive to use Mark at all. He would have recognized Matthew as a second expanded and superior edition of Mark and simply ignored the
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 29, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                On April 29, 2003 Ron Price wrote:

                >>But I'm still convinced that on the Farrer Theory Luke would not have
                had a strong enough incentive to use Mark at all. He would have
                recognized Matthew as a second expanded and superior edition of Mark and
                simply ignored the first edition.<<

                Leaving the Farrer Theory aside for the moment, doesn't your 3ST Luke choose
                to follow Mark instead of Matthew for most of the triple tradition, as well
                as electing not to use Matthew's order for the double tradition material?

                Best Wishes,

                Ken


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Ron Price
                ... Ken, Yes, he does. But on the 3ST there are two important differences which would have influenced Luke s strategy. Firstly Luke took only 17 pericopae from
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 30, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  I wrote:

                  >>But I'm still convinced that on the Farrer Theory Luke would not have
                  >>had a strong enough incentive to use Mark at all. He would have
                  >>recognized Matthew as a second expanded and superior edition of Mark and
                  >>simply ignored the first edition.<<

                  Ken Olson replied:

                  >Leaving the Farrer Theory aside for the moment, doesn't your 3ST Luke choose
                  >to follow Mark instead of Matthew for most of the triple tradition,

                  Ken,

                  Yes, he does.

                  But on the 3ST there are two important differences which would have
                  influenced Luke's strategy. Firstly Luke took only 17 pericopae from
                  Matthew. In other words it was the least important of his three sources,
                  so we can reasonably suppose that as a whole he liked Mark better than
                  Matthew. Secondly, Luke the scholar would have thoroughly studied all
                  his sources before embarking on his editorial task. He knew that the
                  Aramaic TA LOGIA contained sayings of Jesus penned by one of Jesus'
                  original disciples (as testified many years later by Papias), so it was
                  a relatively reliable and ancient source. However his studies would have
                  revealed a considerable overlap between this source and Matthew's Greek
                  text. TA LOGIA also overlapped with Mark, but to a much lesser extent
                  (around a third as much clear overlap). Thus using Mark as the main
                  narrative source would enable Luke to minimize the overlap problems.

                  > as well
                  >as electing not to use Matthew's order for the double tradition material?

                  On the 3ST this material has two distinct origins.
                  The 17 pericopae taken from Matthew do on the whole follow Matthew's
                  order, as I could show in detail if required.
                  Having decided to take the sayings material from its original Aramaic
                  source, Luke's order of the sayings would naturally have been *based* on
                  that source and not on Matthew. But it turns out that Luke had no great
                  respect for the order of the ancient sayings. Matthew was more faithful
                  to their original order. Here 2ST advocates have made another error,
                  i.e. totally ignoring the possibility that Matthew's neat order could
                  have been derived in part from the neat order of the original
                  collection.

                  Ron Price

                  Derbyshire, 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@...
                • Ken Olson
                  ... KO: So on your 3ST Luke did not recognize Matthew as a second expanded and *superior* [emphasis mine] edition of Mark, but as a whole he liked Mark
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 30, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Wednsday April 30, Ron Price wrote:

                    > But on the 3ST there are two important differences which would have
                    > influenced Luke's strategy. Firstly Luke took only 17 pericopae from
                    > Matthew. In other words it was the least important of his three sources,
                    > so we can reasonably suppose that as a whole he liked Mark better than
                    > Matthew.

                    KO:
                    So on your 3ST Luke did not recognize Matthew as a "second expanded and
                    *superior* [emphasis mine] edition of Mark," but "as a whole he liked Mark
                    better than Matthew."

                    RP:
                    > Secondly, Luke the scholar would have thoroughly studied all
                    > his sources before embarking on his editorial task. He knew that the
                    > Aramaic TA LOGIA contained sayings of Jesus penned by one of Jesus'
                    > original disciples (as testified many years later by Papias), so it was
                    > a relatively reliable and ancient source.

                    KO:
                    So on your 3ST "Luke the scholar" "thoroughly studied all his sources before
                    embarking on his editorial task," and he preferred the source(s) which he
                    knew to be more ancient and reliable.

                    RP:
                    > Having decided to take the sayings material from its original Aramaic
                    > source, Luke's order of the sayings would naturally have been *based* on
                    > that source and not on Matthew. But it turns out that Luke had no great
                    > respect for the order of the ancient sayings. Matthew was more faithful
                    > to their original order.

                    KO:
                    So on your 3ST "Luke had no great respect for the order" of the sayings
                    material in his source. The original order of that material is better
                    represented in Matthew.

                    Hmm...

                    Best Wishes,

                    Ken

                    kaolson@...




                    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.