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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.