Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yuri Kuchinsky · 04-09-2006, 10:47 AM

Hi, Ben,

I do agree with you re: the wedding feast in Matthew 22.1-13 but still, generally speaking, I think there's a bit of inconsistency in what you're saying. Because I don't think that, overall, you differentiate sufficiently between the double tradition and the triple tradition.

In so far as the double tradition (Mt + Lk) is concerned, there are many studies that show that the Lukan version of the double tradition is more original. That's why Q is numbered according to Luke's verse numbers.

I fully agree with the Q scholars in this regard, and completely disagree with Goulder/Goodacre. IMHO Goulder/Goodacre's efforts to argue to the contrary in this area have failed entirely.

As far as the triple tradition (Mt + Mk + Lk) is concerned, things are a bit more complicated here.

Goulder/Goodacre claim to have found a small handful of instances where Lk seems to be fatigued with Mk. But... so what?

This is just so silly! It's as if finding a couple of such readings completely settles the case for Markan priority over Lk. Nonsense!

Because I have 1000 cases of Anti-Markan agreements, and they demonstrate conclusively that Mk wasn't the earliest gospel.

So the score so far is 1000 to 6! (Assuming that Goodacre does have his 6 cases of 'Lukan fatigue'.)

The whole thing is a joke!

Cheers,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith · 04-09-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

I do agree with you re: the wedding feast in Matthew 22.1-13 but still, generally speaking, I think there's a bit of inconsistency in what you're saying.

So far all that I have said here is that Matthew appears to get fatigued with the Lucan version of the great supper and Luke appears to get fatigued with the Matthean version of the talents. Even if I am mistaken on both counts, I am not sure how I have been inconsistent.

Quote:

Because I don't think that, overall, you differentiate sufficiently between the double tradition and the triple tradition.

So far on this thread I have written only about the double tradition (talents and pounds, wedding and supper). As such, I do not think I have had sufficient opportunity or reason to distinguish between the double and triple traditions.

Quote:

In so far as the double tradition (Mt + Lk) is concerned, there are many studies that show that the Lukan version of the double tradition is more original.

In many cases I think it is. In many cases (though probably fewer) I think it is not.

Quote:

That's why Q is numbered according to Luke's verse numbers.

Hmmm. I thought this versification system was based on the perceived primitivity of the order of Q material in Luke, not on the perceived primitivity of the contents of the Q material in Luke. But I am eager to be corrected.

Quote:

As far as the triple tradition (Mt + Mk + Lk) is concerned, things are a bit more complicated here.

Goulder/Goodacre claim to have found a small handful of instances where Lk seems to be fatigued with Mk. But... so what?

You are often pegged as an advocate of Lucan priority, but I do not believe you really are, at least by how I would define the term. There is a big difference between saying that gospel A served as a source for gospel B and saying that gospel A is more primitive than gospel B. When I speak of Lucan priority I am thinking of the former (Mark or Matthew or both copied from Luke). When you speak of Lucan priority I suspect you are thinking of the latter (Luke contains more primitive material than Matthew or Mark or both).

You mention on your website that all three synoptics are late. Do you really care one way or another which was written first? Rather, it seems to me that you are much more concerned with the relative primitivity of their contents.

Somewhere on another thread I agreed with you that Luke very often appears more primitive than either Matthew or Mark.

Quote:

Because I have 1000 cases of Anti-Markan agreements, and they demonstrate conclusively that Mk wasn't the earliest gospel.

I do not think the logic holds. The agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark neither confirm nor deny that Mark was the earliest gospel. Because there are also (and even more) numerous agreements of Matthew and Mark against Luke and of Luke and Mark against Matthew, none of these sets proves anything on its own.

I am not an advocate of the Farrer theory, but I can admit that the minor agreements are consistent with Mark writing first, then Matthew copying from Mark, then Luke copying from both Matthew and Mark (in which case the agreements are simply those parts where Luke preferred Matthew to Mark). They are also consistent with Luke writing first, then Matthew, then Mark (in which case the agreements are simply those parts where Mark eschewed both Matthew and Luke and went his own way). They are also consistent with... well, you get the idea.

What the minor (and in some cases major) agreements tends to prove, I think, is that Matthew and Luke were not independent of one another, mediated only by a Q text of some kind.

As I continue my (temporarily slowed down) synoptic project, I keep adding to my bare list of agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. I cannot guarantee that I am catching all of them, and I am consciously not listing agreements of omission, but it should be quite a long list when I am finished.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson · 04-09-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Hmmm. I thought this versification system was based on the perceived primitivity of the order of Q material in Luke, not on the perceived primitivity of the contents of the Q material in Luke. But I am eager to be corrected.

That's a good attitude to have in general, but in this case you were right.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson · 04-09-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Why, so you can poke holes in it?

I have a brief discussion of it on my page on redactional tendency and editorial fatigue; it is the last example of fatigue, toward the bottom of the page (under Luke copied Matthew). For convenience, here is most of it:

Thanks for sharing that, Ben, but I don't quite see what the editorial fatigue is supposed to be? Where did Matthew omit or change a detail in Luke and then copied Luke in such a way that it refers to the detail as presented in the source (Luke) instead of the secondary text (Matt)?

In the other example, however, Matt had three servants, but Luke first changes it to ten and then slips into referring to them as first, second, and the other.

Stephen

Ben C Smith · 04-10-2006, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Thanks for sharing that, Ben, but I don't quite see what the editorial fatigue is supposed to be? Where did Matthew omit or change a detail in Luke and then copied Luke in such a way that it refers to the detail as presented in the source (Luke) instead of the secondary text (Matt)?

Matthew apparently added details to the Lucan version (the throwing out of a guest for improper attire, the king razing a city) that are in tension with what Matthew copied over from Luke (the gathering of impromptu guests, the sending out of invitations), much as Goodacre argues that Luke added a detail to the Matthean version of the pounds (the doling out of entire cities) that is in tension with what Luke copied over from Matthew (the redistribution of mere talents or pounds).

I admit none of this is as clean as what Luke does with the ten and the three, but it does rather neatly fit the profile of what Goodacre describes regarding the handing out of cities.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson · 04-10-2006, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I admit none of this is as clean as what Luke does with the ten and the three, but it does rather neatly fit the profile of what Goodacre describes regarding the handing out of cities.

I'm not sure I would agree. Goodacre defines fatigue in his article as follows:

I do not think so. There are undoubtedly several inconsistencies and clumsy expressions in Mark's Gospel, (25) incoherences that on the standard view Matthew and Luke have taken care to tidy-up. But this is different from the phenomenon of fatigue. The examples above are not merely cases where Matthew and Luke show signs of incoherence in relation to a coherent Marcan account. Rather, in most cases, Matthew and Luke differ from Mark at the beginning of the pericope, at the point where they are writing most characteristically, (26) and they agree with Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less characteristically. It is not possible to find the same phenomenon in Mark.

In order to show fatigue, it is not sufficient to have a muddle, inconsistency, or other tension in the text. It is also necessary to connect that tension to a specific sequence of agreements and non-agreements with a proposed source. I just cannot find that in the case of the parable of the wedding banquet.

Ben C Smith · 04-10-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson, emphasis mine

I'm not sure I would agree. Goodacre defines fatigue in his article as follows:

I do not think so. There are undoubtedly several inconsistencies and clumsy expressions in Mark's Gospel, (25) incoherences that on the standard view Matthew and Luke have taken care to tidy-up. But this is different from the phenomenon of fatigue. The examples above are not merely cases where Matthew and Luke show signs of incoherence in relation to a coherent Marcan account. Rather, in most cases, Matthew and Luke differ from Mark at the beginning of the pericope, at the point where they are writing most characteristically, (26) and they agree with Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less characteristically. It is not possible to find the same phenomenon in Mark.

I do not read that paragraph as a definition. It is more a typical profile. For one thing, Goodacre has given 6 examples of fatigue so far in the article, but one of them, the feeding of the five thousand, does not fit the criterion of characteristic writing mentioned above (as Goodacre acknowledges on pages 53-54; refer also to note 24). For another, that very exception is the example of fatigue that Goodacre himself regards as the best example of fatigue (page 50). Finally, one of the examples of fatigue from the parable of the pounds for which I cited Goodacre does not exactly fit the profile from that paragraph. When Luke adds his subplot about rewarding servants with cities he is not writing characteristically in the introduction of the pericope then lapsing into docile reproduction only later; rather, he is sustaining this plot change throughout the pericope (the cities are set up by the nobleman and the kingdom in 19.12, continued in 19.17, and then continued again in 19.19)... with only the one exception that betrays the nature of his source in 19.24.

Quote:

In order to show fatigue, it is not sufficient to have a muddle, inconsistency, or other tension in the text.

I absolutely agree.

Quote:

It is also necessary to connect that tension to a specific sequence of agreements and non-agreements with a proposed source.

Again, I agree.

In the parable of the pounds Luke agrees with Matthew in the entrusting of funds, in the investment and noninvestment of those funds, and in the redistribution of those funds afterward (a sequence of agreements). In that same parable Luke also adds a subplot involving the rewarding of cities (a nonagreement with Matthew, the proposed source). The problem, as Goodacre notes, is that the rewarding of cities is in tension with the sequence that Luke purportedly takes over from Matthew.

Likewise, in the parable of the wedding feast Matthew agrees with Luke in the sending out of invitations, the rejection of those invitations, and the resending out of impromptu invitations to different invitees (a sequence of agreements). In that same parable Matthew also adds a subplot involving the burning of an entire city and the kicking out of a guest for improper attire (nonagreements with Luke, the proposed source). The problem, as I see it, is that the burning of a city and the kicking out of an impromptu guest for improper attire are in tension with the sequence that Matthew purportedly takes over from Luke.

These cases look very parallel to me. Standing back from the first example, forgetting the matter of fatigue for a moment, does it not look like Luke got into trouble because he tried to combine two different plots, one of which we find alone in Matthew? And, analogously, does it not look like Matthew got in trouble in the second example because he tried to combine three different plots, one of which we find alone in Luke? (This is not fatigue per se, of course, but rather a good reason why fatigue was possible; any failure to perfectly integrate a subplot might tend to betray possible sources.)

As I mentioned, none of this is as clean as the matter of 10 and 3 in Luke; but I see it as a kind of fatigue nonetheless.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson · 04-10-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I do not read that paragraph as a definition. It is more a typical profile. For one thing, Goodacre has given 6 examples of fatigue so far in the article, but one of them, the feeding of the five thousand, does not fit the criterion of characteristic writing mentioned above (as Goodacre acknowledges on pages 53-54; refer also to note 24). For another, that very exception is the example of fatigue that Goodacre himself regards as the best example of fatigue (page 50). Finally, one of the examples of fatigue from the parable of the pounds for which I cited Goodacre does not exactly fit the profile from that paragraph.

I still cannot see how the parable of the banquet fits any of the criteria, much less all of them that Goodacre outlined for an ideal case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

When Luke adds his subplot about rewarding servants with cities he is not writing characteristically in the introduction of the pericope then lapsing into docile reproduction only later; rather, he is sustaining this plot change throughout the pericope (the cities are set up by the nobleman and the kingdom in 19.12, continued in 19.17, and then continued again in 19.19)... with only the one exception that betrays the nature of his source in 19.24.

The subplot is not what shows the fatigue. Luke 19:24 is what does it--all of a sudden Luke forgets that his first servant have control of ten cities and eleven pounds, and starts talking about "the one who has ten pounds." If Luke had written "ten cities" or "eleven pounds," we wouldn't be able to detect the fatigue, regardless of the city subplot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

In the parable of the pounds Luke agrees with Matthew in the entrusting of funds, in the investment and noninvestment of those funds, and in the redistribution of those funds afterward (a sequence of agreements). In that same parable Luke also adds a subplot involving the rewarding of cities (a nonagreement with Matthew, the proposed source). The problem, as Goodacre notes, is that the rewarding of cities is in tension with the sequence that Luke purportedly takes over from Matthew.

Likewise, in the parable of the wedding feast Matthew agrees with Luke in the sending out of invitations, the rejection of those invitations, and the resending out of impromptu invitations to different invitees (a sequence of agreements). In that same parable Matthew also adds a subplot involving the burning of an entire city and the kicking out of a guest for improper attire (nonagreements with Luke, the proposed source). The problem, as I see it, is that the burning of a city and the kicking out of an impromptu guest for improper attire are in tension with the sequence that Matthew purportedly takes over from Luke.

I don't see the tensions caused by Matthew's presumed editing of Luke either. On the presumption that Matthew editted Luke, he must have changed an ordinary host of a banquet to a king hosting a wedding banquet. Burning cities and tossing people into prison who do not properly respect the king is consistent with what kings do. Had Matthew retained a reference to a non-kingly host and/or host of a non-wedding banquet as we see in Luke, then you might have something.

In fact, one could argue that in this case, it is Luke showing fatigue of Matthew. If Luke was editing Matthew, then he must have changed the king hosting a wedding banquet to an ordinary host of an ordinary banquet. This change would be to provide a better fit with Luke's teaching on humility in 14:7-14. However, Luke 14:22 at the end of the passage unexpectedly refers to the ability of the host to coerce people: "Then the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled." This coercion is what kings, not ordinary citizens, can do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

These cases look very parallel to me. Standing back from the first example, forgetting the matter of fatigue for a moment, does it not look like Luke got into trouble because he tried to combine two different plots, one of which we find alone in Matthew? And, analogously, does it not look like Matthew got in trouble in the second example because he tried to combine three different plots, one of which we find alone in Luke? (This is not fatigue per se, of course, but rather a good reason why fatigue was possible; any failure to perfectly integrate a subplot might tend to betray possible sources.)

A poorly integrated subplot can also be fairly easy to excise, so. even if Matt hacked up a simpler account, we cannot tell--without the specific evidence of Matt's actually lapsing into his source--whether Luke was the source or he merely restored it by deleting the parts that stick out. That's why the additional criteria that Goodacre identified are important.

Stephen

Ben C Smith · 04-10-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The subplot is not what shows the fatigue. Luke 19:24 is what does it....

Not according to Goodacre (page )...:

The account lacks cohesion: the man in Luke actually has ten cities now, so a pound extra is nothing....

...and apparently Goulder (see note 43, citing Goulder, Luke, A New Paradigm, page 681):

...a mna is an absurd sum, a tip.

It appears to me that Goodacre regards the wide difference between a pound and a city as fatigue in and of itself compared to Matthew. The note in Luke 19.24 is gravy:

...and, in any case, he does not have ten pounds but eleven.

Quote:

If Luke had written "ten cities" or "eleven pounds," we wouldn't be able to detect the fatigue, regardless of the city subplot.

I disagree. We would still have the absurdity of giving an extra pound to somebody now in charge of ten cities. That tension is very real as it stands, as Goodacre appears to argue.

Quote:

I don't see the tensions caused by Matthew's presumed editing of Luke either. On the presumption that Matthew editted Luke, he must have changed an ordinary host of a banquet to a king hosting a wedding banquet. Burning cities and tossing people into prison who do not properly respect the king is consistent with what kings do.

You take the outer darkness as a synonym for prison? At any rate, I can find no rationale for kicking someone out for improper attire when that person was dragged in impromptu. Can you? Even if we assign it purely to royal whim and fancy, why is only one guest singled out? Surely (nearly) all of the guests dragged in off the streets would be underdressed, would they not?

As for the burning of the city, how is it that in Matthew 22.4 the wedding feast is ready, then in 22.7 a military campaign is waged against the city of those that refused to come, then (τοτε, at that time) in 22.8 the wedding feast is still ready? Even if one can somehow connect the dots, the fact remains that Matthew has written up a confusing exchange of events. My best reason for this incongruity is that in the Lucan version there was no very long delay in the process of filling up the house.

Furthermore, it looks to me like the two reactions in Matthew 22.5 were originally intended to be complete (μεν... δε), implying that all the invitees simply returned to their affairs (as they do in Luke!), ignoring the invitation; yet in 22.6, the part perhaps most likely to be drawn from the parable of the tenants, we hear about the rest (οι λοιποι).

Quote:

However, Luke 14:22 at the end of the passage unexpectedly refers to the ability of the host to coerce people: "Then the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled." This coercion is what kings, not ordinary citizens, can do.

I disagree. In 2 Corinthians 12.11 the presumably ordinary citizens of Corinth have compelled Paul to speak foolishly. In 1 Esdras 4.6 it is ordinary citizens compelling each other to pay taxes. Compelling is not the sole province of royalty; it can also simply mean strong persuasion.

Quote:

A poorly integrated subplot can also be fairly easy to excise, so, even if Matt hacked up a simpler account....

I think you are arguing to the possible, not to the probable. In all the cases of fatigue that Goodacre adduces it is of course possible that the purportedly fatigued author actually tripped up on his own two feet and that the purportedly original author noticed the slip and took care of it. That is why Goodacre insists on page 47:

Of course the evidence of one pericope alone will not do to establish Marcan priority.

If my case suffers from anything, it is from its being virtually alone as an example of fatigue (at least AFAICT so far) that points to Matthean dependence on Luke.

Quote:

...we cannot tell--without the specific evidence of Matt's actually lapsing into his source--whether Luke was the source or he merely restored it by deleting the parts that stick out.

After adding the mustering of men and razing of a city to the process of fulfilling the invitations, Matthew has lapsed back into the Lucan version in which the banquet hall is still being filled right before the feast, apparently with no real delay brought on by the military campaign in the meantime.

Ben.

Charles Wilson · 04-10-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The Lucan version is simple and straightforward. A man decides to host a dinner (14.16), and he sends out his servant to invite the guests (14.17). The servant is met only with excuses (14.18-20 names three, but does not imply that those three exhaust the list). So the man sends his servant out to invite the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame to the great dinner (14.21-23), vowing that none of the original invitees will ever taste of the meal (14.24).

Things get rather more complicated in the Matthean version. It appears that Matthew has attempted to rewrite the parable. The man hosting a dinner has become in 22.2 a king hosting a wedding feast for his son. The king sends out, not just one servant, but many, and the invitees not only reject the offer but actually kill and otherwise mistreat the messengers (22.6), provoking the king to kill them and, incongruously, to burn their entire city (22.7). Then the king sends his servants out to the streets to invite others, both evil and good (22.10), to the feast. One (only one?) such impromptu guest happens to arrive without wedding clothes, and is promptly cast into the outer darkness (22.11-13).

What has happened to the simple, straightforward tale of frustrated dinner plans? Now a violent subplot of killed servants, a city torched in vengeance, and the outer darkness intrudes. Both the parable of the tenants in Matthew 21.33-46 and the historical fall of Jerusalem in year 70 appear to have infiltrated what was once a parable like that in Luke 14.15-24.

The incongruity both of relating a wedding invitation to the burning of a city and of banishing an admittedly impromptu guest out into a place of torment for failing to appear in the proper wedding attire, even though that guest was literally dragged in off the street, is the result of Matthean overreaching.

Matthew has apparently tried to combine three different parables or ideas for parables, the first a parable like we find in Luke 14.15-24, the second a parable about a king wreaking vengeance on those who slew his servants (as in the parable of the tenants), and the third a parable about invited guests arriving at a wedding dressed inappropriately. But he leaves us with a muddle, evidence that he has become fatigued with the Lucan version of the parable.

The Matthean version of the parable is deservedly the more popular of the two, for it is simpler, more coherent and easier to follow. There are three servants; one receives five talents, one two and the other one. The first makes five more talents and is rewarded, the second two more and is rewarded; the other hides his talent and is punished.

The Lucan version is not so simple. It appears that Luke has tried to rewrite the parable. For one thing, the master in Matthew becomes a nobleman in Luke who has his own separate storyline: He goes off amid protests to receive a kingdom (19.12, 14, and upon his return commands that the protesters be killed (19.27). None of this is in Matthew, and all of it is extraneous to what the servants are doing with their pounds.

Indeed. It is also interesting that giving the nobleman an entire kingdom has provoked Luke to set the first servant over ten cities and the second over five cities (19.17, 19). So, when the pound from the third servant is taken from him and given to the first (19.24), the reader is left to wonder, so what? What is an extra pound to somebody who has just received ten cities?

Luke has apparently tried to combine two different parables or ideas for parables, the first a parable like we find in Matthew 25.14-30, the second a parable about a man leaving to receive a kingdom and returning to wreak vengeance on his enemies. He has also tried to slip in one of his favorite numbers, the number ten. But he leaves us with a muddle, evidence that he has become fatigued with the Matthean version of the parable.[/INDENT]
Interestingly, one of the elements (as noted above) that Matthew appears to add to his parable of the wedding feast is the historical fall of Jerusalem in 70, while one of the elements that Luke appears to add to his parable of the pounds is the historical journey of Archelaus to Rome some 73 years earlier. Not sure what to make of that parallel yet.

Ben.

These stories are all thrown up around the Slaughter of the Temple Worshippers during Passover in 4 BCE. Please see my postings on this site - "Jesus vs. Archelaus". These stories are NOT about the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, but are about survivors of the Temple Slaughter who live to write about it. They reassemble for one last call to honor in 8 - 12 CE. The writing of the Jesus stories occurs in this 8 - 12 CE time period.
Herod was dying in Jericho before the Passover and evidently dies too soon. There is a group of 50 Jews in route to Rome, with permission from Varus, to argue in front of the emperor for a rulership by a Syrian general acceptable to the emperor. When Herod dies, Archelaus takes over and ends up responsible for the deaths of 3000 (According to Josephus, _Antiquities_, Book 17, etc.). Archelaus goes to Rome, is accused by his own family and is defended by Nicholas of Damascus. Archelaus collapses at the feet of the emperor and is raised up by the emperor and appointed to rule.

*These stories are Re-Valued into a story of a human sacrifice figure, a god/man.* The destruction of the Temple provides a cover for this re-valuation. This may even be the second or third Re-Valuing by the time it is redacted onto the gospels as we have them.

I invite you to read the posts to see the alignment. I would welcome any comment you might have.

Charles

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-09-2006, 10:47 AM	#11
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Hi, Ben, I do agree with you re: the wedding feast in Matthew 22.1-13 but still, generally speaking, I think there's a bit of inconsistency in what you're saying. Because I don't think that, overall, you differentiate sufficiently between the double tradition and the triple tradition. In so far as the double tradition (Mt + Lk) is concerned, there are many studies that show that the Lukan version of the double tradition is more original. That's why Q is numbered according to Luke's verse numbers. I fully agree with the Q scholars in this regard, and completely disagree with Goulder/Goodacre. IMHO Goulder/Goodacre's efforts to argue to the contrary in this area have failed entirely. As far as the triple tradition (Mt + Mk + Lk) is concerned, things are a bit more complicated here. Goulder/Goodacre claim to have found a small handful of instances where Lk seems to be fatigued with Mk. But... so what? This is just so silly! It's as if finding a couple of such readings completely settles the case for Markan priority over Lk. Nonsense! Because I have 1000 cases of Anti-Markan agreements, and they demonstrate conclusively that Mk wasn't the earliest gospel. So the score so far is 1000 to 6! (Assuming that Goodacre does have his 6 cases of 'Lukan fatigue'.) The whole thing is a joke! Cheers, Yuri.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.