spin

Yeah, I know what you mean.


spin

Ben C Smith

Hi, spin.

Rather than answer your entire (and huge) post all at once, I will try to handle some of the issues in smaller doses so that we can focus down on the central issue(s).

Yes, I momentarily forgot about the variant. But I think you are going too far to assume that 2.23 had Nazara. The case can be made, and I am not against it, but it is not ironclad.

I am from the school that says: Read both.

No, of course not. Can you guarantee that Luke did not move the pericope at a later time? If you think I am arguing that Luke was written in one day, you are simply mistaken, and are tilting at a strawman. For all I know Luke could have rewritten the pericope a year or more before reinserting it earlier in the text. That does not mean that he did it over the course of two different published editions.

Okay:

A little after Noon I found the Sea very calm, and the Tyde ebb’d so far out, that I could come within a Quarter of a Mile of the Ship; and here I found a fresh renewing of my Grief, for I saw evidently, that if we had kept on board, we had been all safe, that is to say, we had all got safe on Shore, and I had not been so miserable as to be left entirely destitute of all Comfort and Company, as I now was; this forc’d Tears from my Eyes again, but as there was little Relief in that, I resolv’d, if possible, to get to the Ship, so I pull’d off my Clothes, for the Weather was hot to Extremity, and took the Water, but when I came to the Ship, my Difficulty was still greater to know how to get on board, for as she lay a ground, and high out of the Water, there was nothing within my Reach to lay hold of; I swam round her twice, and the second Time I spy’d a small Piece of a Rope, which I wonder’d I did not see at first, hang down by the Fore-Chains so low, as that with great Difficulty I got hold of it, and by the help of that Rope, got up into the Forecastle of the Ship; here I found that the Ship was bulg’d, and had a great deal of Water in her Hold, but that she lay so on the Side of a Bank of hard Sand, or rather Earth, that her Stern lay lifted up upon the Bank, and her Head low almost to the Water; by this Means all her Quarter was free, and all that was in that Part was dry; for you may be sure my first Work was to search and to see what was spoil’d and what was free; and first I found that all the Ship’s Provisions were dry and untouch’d by the Water, and being very well dispos’d to eat, I went to the Bread-room and fill’d my Pockets with Bisket, and eat it as I went about other things, for I had no time to lose; I also found some Rum in the great Cabbin, of which I took a large Dram, and which I had indeed need enough of to spirit me for what was before me: Now I wanted nothing but a Boat to furnish my self with many things which I forsaw would be very necessary to me.

So I need to present some reason why a redacter would insert references to the Decapolis, implying that the movability of this place name is not a reason in and of itself for thinking it is an insertion. It is at best a way to leave the door open for an insertion argued for on other grounds.

Thanks!

Thanks again.

Well, sure, but you asked about only one of them. There is no need to accost me for not answering a question you failed to ask.

You ask about Nazara in Matthew, I answer about Nazara in Matthew, you then claim I have ignored Luke, and I am the one who is losing focus? Come now.

You later challenge me to describe the Lucan redactional process. I intend to do just that. But it will be a bit.

You are right. There is nothing up my sleeve. When I get around to describing the redactional process, it will all be crystal clear.

The Lucan blunder does not even lead to a contradiction. It merely betrays an editorial seam of some kind. Yours, on the other hand, looks like a direct contradiction until you finesse it just right by way of explanation; doubtless Defoe could finesse his blunder, too (Crusoe found clothes while on board the ship, but Defoe did not narrate that part?). I suggest that you did not think about how those two kinds of statement (Mark 1.9 does not indicate hometown; Mark 1.9 conflicts with a hometown in Capernaum) would look together. You wrote them at slightly different times. Luke probably did his manipulations at slightly different times, too. (In fact, I intend to retrace at least one likely reason for his mistake, based on how ancient books were generally composed, when I detail his redactional process.)

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
There's a simple explanation for Q Narrative that's not in "Mark". "Mark" chose not to use it. Generally the Q relationship of Jesus to The Disciples is Positive. Understand Dear Reader?

A Possible scenario is as follows:

1) Peter/James were disciples of Jesus.

2) Q is the product of Peter/James.

3) "Mark" had Q as a Source but deliberately ignored Wisdom sayings not needed for his Narrative and positive treatment of Peter/James.

4) "Matthew"/"Luke" used what "Mark" ignored in Q because their Motivation regarding the importance of Teaching/Healing and treatment of the Disciples was the Opposite of "Mark's".

In your Inventory of Agreement between "Matthew" and "Luke" Ben it would be nice if you go beyond Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship and look at possible Motivation for the agreement.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Okay, but was a mention of Nazara one of the things in Q, in your humble opinion? Why did both Matthew and Luke, albeit in very different ways, but against Mark, decide to insert a visit to Nazara after the temptation but before the first narrated arrival in Capernaum?

It is a bare list, as announced right up front. I have not yet even really begun to analyze its meaning(s) beyond a few preliminary considerations.

Ben.

spin

I have argued for two redactions, which you have just postulated. I cannot say that it was one person (it seems improbable to me), but for some reason you can. I don't think you have a skerrick of evidence for such a claim.

The fact that we have two documents such as Mark and Luke shows that we have texts that have been redacted more than once and apparently by different people.

But these two redactions are inconsequential to the Nazareth issue. It was merely to show that such things did happen and that your refusal to see that as a good possibility for the evidence from Matt seems more a matter of ideology than anything else.

[Defoe stuff]
It could even be as simple as that he took off his outer layer of often talked about a hip pocket in a singlet.

You seem to think that you can throw up anything that is the vaguest parallel to what you are talking about.

Well, I guess you need some positive feedback somehow, Ben C.

Accost you? I'm trying to keep you from going off the topic. Remembering that Luke has an independent reference to Nazara, should help you not make conclusions on the usage based solely on Matt.

That's partly why it is important. I'm not interested so much in the fact that it is a blunder, but that it shows the processes at work.



You don't show any signs of interacting with what you are dealing with. Your condemnation of Defoe is over the top, when it would seem much gentler than the Lucan seam.

And I think you are clutching at straws with regard to what you are attempting to grub together as a contradiction.

So the scribe who put the reference to Nazareth in 1:9 didn't think too long about the implications.

Well, get to it and save me from the anticipation.


spin

spin

Bingo!

This had to come out, despite the fact that the only thing that they have in common is the fact the same name appears in the same vague order in the two accounts, though the two redactors shifted things in their second source about freely, and that the Lucan writer had shifted the hometown passage which he decided was Nazara sometime after he inserted Nazara.

This Nazara thing that Q people insist on is simply insubstantial hairsplitting.


spin

Ben C Smith

Luke going over his own material more than once, before publication, seems a certainty, especially given how ancient books were assembled, according to Galen, Lucian, and others.

I cannot help that for you it seemed to be all or nothing; either he wrote it at one sitting or it was two different authors. It never even occurred to me to suggest the obvious to you, that an author would work on a text over the course of time.

I cannot guarantee you that it was one person. But I can and do dispute your assertion that it was certainly more than one and that a chap would have to be incompetent to think otherwise.

Mark and Luke are different texts with different attributions; we have these different texts right in front of us. Of course they were redacted by different people. Your L1 is a conjecture on your part, since all we have before us of Luke is L2. That is not to say that you are mistaken; that is to say that you have to provide some sort of demonstration. You attempted to demonstrate this by pointing out the narrative tension in the Nazareth episode. I have now demonstrated that such narrative tensions are possible without having two different authors. Therefore, if you wish to argue for L1 and L2, you will have to find a different avenue (several of which are available; a two-layered Luke has been in vogue at various times).

My ideology (of history) is to find the most economical, persuasive solution to the problem. I do not know what you are imagining. Positing various unattested textual layers is a last recourse with me across the board. If you wish to call that ideology, feel free. I find the term quite unhelpful when all one is trying to do is discover the answer.

You seem to think that you need no parallel or precedent at all.

I cannot remember what I do not even think in the first place. Luke is, in my judgment, not independent of Matthew. His reference to Nazara is, in my judgment, directly influenced by Matthew.

You are free to disagree that Luke knew Matthew (or that both Matthew and Luke got Nazara from Q). But you are not free to require me to import your understanding of the situation into my answer to a question that does not, on its own merits, involve Luke.

Same here.

Nobody is condemning Defoe. Such language is a distraction from the issue, which is that the same author can put two statements together that are in tension with one another. If that is the case, then tensions within a work, while certainly capable of pointing to an editorial process, do not necessarily signal a change of authorship. To base an L1 and L2 mainly on this kind of internal tension is a mistake.

Patience. Some of us have jobs, families, and other interests.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

This is the order of passages:

Baptism: Matthew 3.1-17 = Mark 1.2-11 = Luke 3.1-22.
[Genealogy: Luke 3.23-38.]
Temptation: Matthew 4.1-11 = Mark 1.12-13 = Luke 4.1-13.
Galilee: Matthew 4.12 = Mark 1.14 = Luke 4.14-15.
Nazara: Matthew 4.13a = Luke 4.16-30.
Capernaum: Matthew 4.13b-16.
Preaching: Matthew 4.17 = Mark 1.15.
Call of 4: Matthew 4.18-22 = Mark 1.16-20.
Capernaum: Mark 1.21-28 = Luke 4.31-37.

All three synoptics show Jesus going to Galilee after the temptation. So far so good. But now Matthew has Jesus leaving Nazara (implying that when he went to Galilee he went to Nazara) to go to Capernaum. And Luke has Jesus going to Nazara before going to his next stop, again Capernaum.

Here is my question: How did Luke know that after the temptation Jesus went to Nazara before going into Capernaum? Mark has nothing about Nazara or Nazareth at this point in the narrative. Talk about fuzzy parallels all you wish, but I think you have to answer this question. How did Luke know?

Ben.

spin

Put the Lucan Nazara mention back in the order of the hometown rejection where it was first placed.

How did the Lucan writer know? Who says he did? Putting Nazara where he did was his means of dealing with the Capernaum home which he showed intent to remove. He placed the already written Nazara scene before Capernaum. He couldn't really have placed it any earlier now, could he?


spin

spin

You must think that he didn't read his efforts, despite the fact that you have him going over his material. He placed the Nazara passage immediately before the Capernaum material which is presented as a first reference to the place.

And yet they are evidence that the one text had been redacted twice, just as the tradition which passed through Mark onto Matt. Multiple redaction is the rule not the exception. We even have two prime examples and a number of minor examples, as with the various endings to Mark.

It is sufficient that we have signs of such activity in three gospels.

When you have so much evidence of multiple redaction in the literature, I don't think "most economical" is reasonable in the material we are dealing with.

This seems to say that because we can't get before the earliest texts the redactional process is improbable before those texts. Let's ignore the vast variation that exists after those first texts as not indicative of the general process of text production.

Then why am I arguing from synoptic parallels, from internal evidence?

...as if the gospel tradition didn't exist outside texts.

Now that I see you are trying to breathe life into the attempts to bring Nazara into the Q fold, things become a little clearer, not better. Nazara in Q is as convincing as Bush on winning the Iraqi war.

The comparison with Defoe is poor at best. We have clear evidence that the hometown rejection passage has been moved, and we even know where from. If you want to call Luke incompetent, then I guess that's your prerogative, though be honest. The same guy who wrote the two pieces on Capernaum, specifically chooses one of them as the insertion point, then copies the other before it. A gospel is not a particularly long work in comparison to a novel, so management problems are not so severe.


spin