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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.