Dominus Paradoxum

In another thread, I just posted:

So, any thoughts? Why do no current scholars defend this?

Roland

Possibly because Luke admits right up front that other gospels already existed so it is easier to just assume he must be talking about Mark and Matthew.

Roland

I'm reading a quite fascinating book, by the way, that argues that Luke is the FIRST of the four gospels written and that all of them were composed in the 2nd half of the 2nd Century!

I'd give you the name and author except the book is currently in my car and I can't rmember either offhand (though I think the title is "The History of Christianity to the Year Two Hundred." It was written in the late 1800's but it seems very thorough). I'll give you the actual title and author when I get the chance.

Dominus Paradoxum

That preface could be a post-autograph redaction. And in any case, he could be referring to gospels that were lost. Countless early Christian documents were.

Roland

I agree. I was just positing what some might use as an argument. Good points.

Vorkosigan

Does Luke have the more ancient form of the sayings?

As Goodacre notes:

"In other words, the notion that Luke often features the more original Q wording is based in part on a fallacy in the way that this "original wording" is calculated. If we accept the existence of Q, we know tht its style was at least sometimes Matthean in nature. This deprives us of one of the main grounds for concluding that Matthean language in Q passages where Matthew and Luke differ is secondary." (The Case Against Q, p63)

Goodacre goes on to point out that Luke's style is much richer than Matthew's and consequently making judgments about "primitivity" is difficult. Because Luke uses many synonyms, scholars are apt to claim that a given language usage is "un-Lukan" where it is merely a variation of his/her normal style. Goodacre cites Stanton:

"Scholars who claim that Luke has used Matthew must accept that it is always Luke who has changed Matthew's earlier form of the tradition. Their attempts to defend this view often look like special pleading."

Goodacre then goes on to demolish the idea that Lukan version of the Lord's Prayer is more primitive than Matthew's, pointing out that today Catholics eliminate the same parts of Matthew's prayer. In other words, the "primitivity" argument is entirely subjective. Goodacre also points out that Luke does this to Mark as well.

In sum, there is no reason to assume that any saying in Luke is more primitive than that of Matthew.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

That is more or less saying 'we have no conclusive evidence'. Luke may have known of 5 other gospels now lost to us at that time. Of course if we believe Mark started the general narrative gospel we now associate with this genre then we must mark ca. 70 c.e. as the start of the transition from oral creativity to narrative creativity. Thus, the question of how rapidly gospel writing occured after Mark may lean towards a Lk using Mk and Mt scenario but it doesnt. Many scholars under the MP situation suggests two evangelists used Mark within a decade of its existence. Why couldn't others? And if Lk is dated 95ish rather than 80ish even more time is open.

If GJohn has layers (a REAL possibility), if their were proto-Gospels (a real possibility), if Au-Lk considered things like Thomas and GMary and others to be part of the "other accounts" and so on.

There are a million and one things to account for. That Luke refers to many writings is meaningless. We have like 40 gospels and counting as it is....

Crossan goes over how to determine direct literary dependence in Boc or the HJ. I forget which one but I recommend him for a tutorial here.

Vinnie

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Vork,

I think Goodacre oversimplifies this matter considerably. For him, it's either Lk used Mt, or both Lk and Mt used Q.

But there are also many other options that he completely neglects. The most likely of them is a Multi-Stage Hypothesis of Boismard. Lk [the editor of Lk] could have used Mt, but also [the editor of] Mt could have used Lk.

The truth was probably that there were many small sayings collections that got included in the gospels. Some of them could have been quite early, but others also late.

And I don't think that the idea that Luke usually features the more original wording is wrong necessarily. Goodacre is in the minority here -- by a long shot.

All the best,

Yuri

Vinnie

Yuri, I sometimes get cynical and think NT scholars try to oversimplify all such problems in NT research. If we admit to not knowing a heck of a lot about the formation and possibile stages and redactional layering of our sources, then how could we use them to engage in historical investigation? I tend to think of history as being more than mere guesswork.

So many "experts" make so many ridiculous arguments and statements at various times one questions the competance of the group. How many non-sequiturs and silly arguments are advanced such as "luke refers to many writings"?

They are not infrequent.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

I do. Not simply because of the issues cited by Goodacre above, but also because I think Luke dates from the latter part of Hadrian's reign or even later, and was the last canonical written, with the other texts in front of him/her. I don't think there is anything in Luke that need be accounted for by the hypothesis of Luke having an independent set of the sayings found in Matthew.

Goodacre's use of cinema for comparative purposes is instructive. I watched the Return of the King against today -- my kids have watched it every day since we got back -- and I was struck by the simplification and re-arrangement that Jackson did. Had one not witnessed it in person, and not heard Jackson discuss it, one could hardly believe that he had eliminated the most cinematically dramatic moment in the book, when the Lord of the Nazgul enters Minas Tirith as the cock crows and the Riders of Rohan at last appear. Nor could it be believed that he simply dumped the Scouring of the Shire, everyone's favorite part. Nor that he switched the Lord of the Nazgul's death from Merry to Eowyn, thus giving no reason at all for Merry to be acknowledged by the assembly at Minas Tirith after the Fall of Sauron. Hard to believe anyone could bollux up the story so badly, but there it is. Ditto for Luke and Matthew.....

In short, I think the whole Q hypothesis is based on several apologetic reactions
(1) Luke the Historian -- if Luke rearranged Matthew wholesale, Luke's reliability may suffer -- by the same token, if Q is early, then Luke's "preservation" of it raises his credentials as a historian and documentarian of early Christianity. The historicity of Q, indirectly, reinforces the historicity of Acts, something Christianity very badly needs.
(2) the need for an independent "early" document going back to the legendary First Christians and therefore, to Jesus (which acknowledges in a backhanded way, that the Gospels are fictions).
(3) the unconscious assumption that the Pious Do Not Re-Arrange Gospels.

Vorkosigan