Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nazaroo · 03-20-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

Nor have I ever issued such a claim. Indeed, I claim just the opposite -- that the text is often corrupt, arcane, and difficult to parse or understand. It deals with events and social structures far removed from our present day context. So my second claim is that knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and the sociohistorical context allows for a more nuanced understanding of the text, even while acknowledging that the aforementioned difficulties prevent us from achieving perfect clarity.

Here again you are misunderstanding me. I have never claimed that the KJV OT is a theologically tendentious translation. Only that it smoothes over difficulties in the Hebrew. I often find the KJV to be beautiful.

Good Apikorus, I am in agreement with you on all this. I think my original post was worded a bit badly. "It would be a little desengenuous etc..." My apologies for my short-cuts in speech here if they caused an inadvertant and unintended 'tone'. Like most internet users, I'm still learning to express myself clearly without facial expressions and/or body gestures.

Yes the KJV has a power and breadth that modern English users rarely achieve.

Nazaroo · 03-20-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let me try again to prod at the edges of Nazaroo's theory to try to stimulate some ooze of enlightenment.

---o0o---

First you say that Matt has left out various things from Luke, then you say "The fact that Luke 'leaves out' Mk 6:45-8:26 is strong evidence .. that.. [t]his section was added to Greek Mark much later." It's alright according to for Matthew to leave stuff out, but again according to you Luke couldn't leave stuff out.

Lets have a look: The point here is that Luke doesn't go around 'leaving out stuff' from Mark at all. He appears rather to be extensively 'block-copying'.

The only thing Luke appears to leave out is Mark 6:45-8:26. Its not that he couldn't have done it, but rather there is no logical reason for him to leave out this particular section. It doesn't even really form a homogenous literary unit. So why start here and stop there?

And so it is totally out of character for the rest of Luke's copying procedures.

In fact, not only does Luke reproduce all of Mark, but he does it entirely in Mark's order, except for two small exceptions:

(1) the calling of Simon Andrew, James and John (Mark 1:16-20/Luke 5:1-11) only slightly displaced for better story-telling style, and

(2) Jesus visit to Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6a/Luke 4:16-30). Here again, it appears to simply provide a smoother telling of the story.

Luke really doesn't rearrange his material at all.

Matthew on the other hand operates entirely differently, regardless of how we solve the Synoptic Problem. Matthew makes extensive rearrangements of both Markan and (presumably Q on the independant model) other material, gathering it topically, as in the giant and quite artificial Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew also distorts the time-sequence of events, not as Luke could be accused of doing (to make a more coherent and smoothly flowing story), but to impose an artificial structure upon the gospel as five 'Torah-like' mini-books.

Matthew freely edits and drops items to suit his portrayal of Jesus as the new 'Moses'. Luke has no such plan, nor does he dare to treat his sources that way.

Quote:

Then you attribute stuff to Matthew changing Luke when an easier explanation is that Matt simply used his Marcan source in some of the various cases you have cited. Obviously the writers have their own interests and you may even be right in specifying some of them, however your conclusions from the data seem to be more contrived than the simpler notion of each adapting their source materials differently and there be no sign that the writer(s) of Matt knew Luke. (This of course doesn't mean that there was no later cross-fertilization from one gospel to another at a scribal/editorial level.)

Readers will have to ask themselves which appears more 'contrived'.

That two authors would

(1) reproduce 95% of each other's material in spite of significant and extensive changes in meaning and order,

(2) be part of the same early fledgling church which is acknowledged to have internal disputes and political problems,

(3) that they could write at different times (is it really plausible they wrote simultaneously?) without hearing about each other's work?

(4)...that they could do this without at least one of them having knowledge of the previous writer?

(5) That they could both have their work accepted as authoritative without each of them having a central position in the church at some point.

My point is, that they could produce such consonance, even word-for-word correspondance without one copying the other is by far the harder piece of BS to swallow.

Quote:

Matt puts its own slant on the source material while Luke puts its different slant on it. How would the data present itself differently after such a process from the process you advocate?
spin

That each puts their own slant on it is a given. That one might even undo or ignore the other in deference to their common source (e.g. Mark or a Q sayings document) occasionally is admitted.

But that they could produce near-identical gospels in content without one copying or having at least a knowledge of the outline of the other seems preposterous to me.

Now you're entering into 'magical dictations' or something.

hatsoff · 03-20-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Lets have a look: The point here is that Luke doesn't go around 'leaving out stuff' from Mark at all. He appears rather to be extensively 'block-copying'.

The only thing Luke appears to leave out is Mark 6:45-8:26. Its not that he couldn't have done it, but rather there is no logical reason for him to leave out this particular section. It doesn't even really form a homogenous literary unit. So why start here and stop there? And so it is totally out of character for the rest of Luke's copying procedures.

Mk 10:35-45 should appear after Lk 18:34, but does not; Mk 11:19-26 is missing after Lk 19:48; and Mk 12:28-33 belongs after Lk 20:38. Now, Mk 6:45-8:26 is certainly the longest of these blocks, but it is only one among at least four noticeable ones. So, I would say there is a precedent.

Quote:

In fact, not only does Luke reproduce all of Mark, but he does it entirely in Mark's order, except for two small exceptions:

(1) the calling of Simon Andrew, James and John (Mark 1:16-20/Luke 5:1-11) only slightly displaced for better story-telling style, and

(2) Jesus visit to Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6a/Luke 4:16-30). Here again, it appears to simply provide a smoother telling of the story.

Luke really doesn't rearrange his material at all.

Well, you've just proven that he does, in fact, rearrange it, on rare occasion. But I agree he rakes the material far less than does Matthew.

Quote:

Readers will have to ask themselves which appears more 'contrived'.

That two authors would

(1) reproduce 95% of each other's material in spite of significant and extensive changes in meaning and order,

But do they do this? I've never seen this 95% figure. I distrust it.

Quote:

(3) that they could write at different times (is it really plausible they wrote simultaneously?) without hearing about each other's work?

(4)...that they could do this without at least one of them having knowledge of the previous writer?

They latter author may have known of the former--perhaps even had occasion to read some of it--but all that is necessary for documentary independence is that one did not copy directly from the other.

Quote:

(5) That they could both have their work accepted as authoritative without each of them having a central position in the church at some point.

Why is this implausible, or even unlikely?

Quote:

My point is, that they could produce such consonance, even word-for-word correspondance without one copying the other is by far the harder piece of BS to swallow.

That each puts their own slant on it is a given. That one might even undo or ignore the other in deference to their common source (e.g. Mark or a Q sayings document) occasionally is admitted.

But that they could produce near-identical gospels in content without one copying or having at least a knowledge of the outline of the other seems preposterous to me.

Enter Q.

Nazaroo · 03-20-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Mk 10:35-45 should appear after Lk 18:34, but does not; Mk 11:19-26 is missing after Lk 19:48; and Mk 12:28-33 belongs after Lk 20:38. Now, Mk 6:45-8:26 is certainly the longest of these blocks, but it is only one among at least four noticeable ones. So, I would say there is a precedent.

Mark 10:35f and Luke 21:24f are quite different, but I'm not adverse to one having inspired the other. It makes Luke even less creative, and more dependant on Mark.

And these small sections of a few verses aren't really 'blocks' in the sense that say Mk 10:1-34 (= Lk 18:15-33) are blocks.

Also, now that you've brought up the 'Fig Tree' story, it is a much later harmonization with Matthew. The seams are showing, as well as the omission by Luke.

Quote:

Well, you've just proven that he does, in fact, rearrange it, on rare occasion. But I agree he rakes the material far less than does Matthew.

Yes, its not just that the rearrangements are minimal, its also that their purpose is different from Matthew's rearrangements.

Quote:

But do they do this? I've never seen this 95% figure. I distrust it.

Don't trust it. Its a ballpark based on verses. I didn't do any word-counts.
I'd be happy to say 89% of Luke is clearly in Matthew. (ignoring interesting but related substitutions)

Quote:

They latter author may have known of the former--perhaps even had occasion to read some of it--but all that is necessary for documentary independence is that one did not copy directly from the other.

And yet large blocks of Luke/Matt are virtually word for word, and not really accountable by 'harmonization'.

Quote:

Why is this implausible, or even unlikely?

The early church was centralized and small. How else would Matthew (or Luke for that matter) come to be accepted by all subsequent Christians?

Seems to me the onus is on those who would deny Matthew(or the committee) and Luke central roles in the early church.

Quote:

Enter Q.

Enter Ockham. Exit Q.

If Q can't even be confidently defined, let alone established under current theories, its even more nebulous when Matthew's knowledge of Luke is admitted. And if we admit Matthew had access to both Mark and Q (however sized and defined), why not Luke as well?

hatsoff · 03-20-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Mark 10:35f and Luke 21:24f are quite different, but I'm not adverse to one having inspired the other. It makes Luke even less creative, and more dependant on Mark.

At least one of us is confused, here. Why are you comparing Mk 10:35 to Lk 21:24?

Quote:

And these small sections of a few verses aren't really 'blocks' in the sense that say Mk 10:1-34 (= Lk 18:15-33) are blocks.

I disagree. Your block is the largest, and thus encompasses more material. However, mine are just as self-enclosed. Mk 10:35-45, for example, has a totally different setting than what comes before and what comes after. It has no topical connection, either.

Quote:

Also, now that you've brought up the 'Fig Tree' story, it is a much later harmonization with Matthew. The seams are showing, as well as the omission by Luke.

Are you saying that you would call Mk 11:19-26 a later interpolation? On what basis? If that is what you think, I suggest you look more closely. In Mark, the story is spread out, beginning with 11:12-14 and continuing later with 11:20-25. Matthew's version is combined, 21:18-22, and truncated, just as he usually does with Markan pericopes. Even Matthew's tendency to "correct" Mark is present; for example, the last clause of Mk 11:13, which implies that Jesus should not have expected fruit, is removed, making Jesus seem less unreasonable in Matthew. In short, this pericope bears all the earmarks of Matthean corruption.

Quote:

Don't trust it. Its a ballpark based on verses. I didn't do any word-counts.
I'd be happy to say 89% of Luke is clearly in Matthew. (ignoring interesting but related substitutions)

If I were to estimate, I'd say the percentage is more like 60. That's why I found your 95% figure so odd.

Quote:

The early church was centralized and small. How else would Matthew (or Luke for that matter) come to be accepted by all subsequent Christians?

Seems to me the onus is on those who would deny Matthew(or the committee) and Luke central roles in the early church.

I would take issue that the first century church was "centralized and small," but fortunately that is not an issue. All that need happen was for the third evangelist to lack or decline immediate access to a ms. of the second Gospel. It is not required that he not know of or even have read the other.

Quote:

Enter Ockham. Exit Q.

If Q can't even be confidently defined, let alone established under current theories, its even more nebulous when Matthew's knowledge of Luke is admitted. And if we admit Matthew had access to both Mark and Q (however sized and defined), why not Luke as well?

You might as well ask why Clement made use of Hebrews but not 1 Corinthians. We just don't know.

As for Occam, I would say Q leaves us with less unneeded assumptions than Matthean use of Luke. So would most others, I think.

Steven Avery · 03-20-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

I often find the KJV to be beautiful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Yes the KJV has a power and breadth that modern English users rarely achieve.

Amen.
Nicely spoken.

spin · 03-20-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Lets have a look: The point here is that Luke doesn't go around 'leaving out stuff' from Mark at all. He appears rather to be extensively 'block-copying'.

In no sense is this true. The writer is continually modifying the text at a word level, fixing grammatically and lexically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

The only thing Luke appears to leave out is Mark 6:45-8:26. Its not that he couldn't have done it, but rather there is no logical reason for him to leave out this particular section. It doesn't even really form a homogenous literary unit. So why start here and stop there?

Because you can't see a logical reason doesn't mean that one hasn't been seen. I'm sure you've seen one.

It could even be as simple as a few pages got lost from an early codex. If I work at it I can demonstrate that a section of the material that Matt got from Mark has been dislocated and treated as a separate source, as though the pages had been "dropped".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

In fact, not only does Luke reproduce all of Mark, but he does it entirely in Mark's order, except for two small exceptions:

(1) the calling of Simon Andrew, James and John (Mark 1:16-20/Luke 5:1-11) only slightly displaced for better story-telling style, and

(2) Jesus visit to Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6a/Luke 4:16-30). Here again, it appears to simply provide a smoother telling of the story.

Actually, a Lucan editor has moved it there for tendentious purposes -- to diminish the importance of Capernaum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Luke really doesn't rearrange his material at all.

I'm too lazy to chase this up, but if you note Mk 3:31-35 which should have preceded Lk 8:4 is now at 8:19.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Matthew on the other hand operates entirely differently, regardless of how we solve the Synoptic Problem. Matthew makes extensive rearrangements of both Markan and (presumably Q on the independant model) other material, gathering it topically, as in the giant and quite artificial Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew also distorts the time-sequence of events, not as Luke could be accused of doing (to make a more coherent and smoothly flowing story), but to impose an artificial structure upon the gospel as five 'Torah-like' mini-books.

Matthew freely edits and drops items to suit his portrayal of Jesus as the new 'Moses'. Luke has no such plan, nor does he dare to treat his sources that way.

So, editorially their policies were a little different. It doesn't mean that Luke is slavish. The Lucan writer is less interested in overtly Jewish materials so he leaves it out. He's not averse to changing things around as can be seen by three passages moved. Omissions are difficult to explain and "omission, what omission?" certainly doesn't explain it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

they could produce such consonance, even word-for-word correspondance without one copying the other is by far the harder piece of BS to swallow.[/B]

What's this word for word crap?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

That each puts their own slant on it is a given. That one might even undo or ignore the other in deference to their common source (e.g. Mark or a Q sayings document) occasionally is admitted.

I think any cross-fertilization is well after the writing stages and into the copying stage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

But that they could produce near-identical gospels in content without one copying or having at least a knowledge of the outline of the other seems preposterous to me.

Now you're entering into 'magical dictations' or something.

I think you're into the repetitive stress zone myself. You aren't looking at the gospels for what they actually are, but as idealized constructs. What is this "near-identical gospels" claim? Probably every verse is different, though most of the contents are the same. There is a lot of "special" material in both Luke and Matt. I don't think you're representing the story truthfully.

spin

spin · 03-20-2007, 06:38 PM

As a reference, here is a quick and dirty synopsis of the three gospels using Mark as the framework for reference while in combat:

Code:

Mark                          Luke                          Matthew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proclamation of JtB           Proclamation of JtB           Proclamation of JtB

Baptism                       Baptism                       Baptism

                              (Genealogy)

Temptation   1:12             Temptation                    Temptation  4:1

Beginning of ministry         Beginning of ministry         Beginning of ministry

Jesus calls 1st disciples     (moved -> 5:1)                Jesus calls 1st disciples  4:18

                              (Hometown rejection <-)

                                                            (Spreading fame)

                                                            (Sermon on the mount)

Unclean spirit                Unclean spirit  4:31          (Jesus cleanses leper <-)

                                                            (Centurion)

Simon's house                 Simon's house                 Simon's house  8:14

                                                            (let the dead bury the dead)

Preaching around Gal          Preaching in synagogues

                              (Jesus calls 1st disciples <-)

                                                            1 (Jesus calms the storm  <-)

                                                            2 (Gadarene demoniacs  <-)

Jesus cleanses leper          Jesus cleanses leper  5:12    (moved -> 8:1)

Jesus heals paralytic  2:1    Jesus heals paralytic         Jesus heals paralytic

Jesus calls Levi              Jesus calls Levi              Jesus calls Matthew

John's disciples' question    John's disciples' question    John's disciples' question  9:14

                                                            3 (Girl/Woman healed  <-)

                                                            (Two blind men  <-)

                                                            (Healing of mute)

                                                            (Harvest great, laborers few)

                                                            (Jesus appoints the 12 <-)  10:1

                                                            4 (Mission of twelve)

                                                            (Persecutions)

                                                            (Who to fear)

                                                            (Not peace but the sword)

                                                            (Rewards)

                                                            (John tBap material)

                                                            (Woes for cities)

                                                            (Thanking the father)

Grainfields on sabbath  2:23  Grainfields on sabbath  6:1   Grainfields on sabbath

Man with withered hand        Man with withered hand        Man with withered hand

Multitude at seaside                                        [Crowds, Isaiah prophecy]

Jesus appoints the 12         Jesus appoints the 12         (moved -> 10:1)

Jesus & Beelzebub  3:19       (moved -> 11:14)              Jesus & Beelzebub  12:22

                              (Teaches & heals)

                              (Blessings & woes)

                              (Love for enemies)

                              (Judging others)

                              (Tree & fruit)                (Tree & fruit)

                              (Two foundations)

                              (Centurion's servant)  7:1

                              (Widow's son at Nain)

                              (John tBap material)

                              (Sinful woman forgiven)

                              (The 12 plus the women)

                                                            (Sign of Jonah)

                                                            (Return of unclean spirit)

True kindred of Jesus 3:31                                  True kindred of Jesus  12:46

Parable of the sower  4:1     Parable of the sower 8:4      Parable of the sower

Purpose of parables           Purpose of parables           Purpose of parables

                                                            (Parable of the weeds)

Lamp under the bushel         Lamp under the bushel         
                
                              (True kindred of Jesus <-)

Growing seed  4:26

Mustard seed                                                Mustard seed

                                                            (Yeast)

Use of Parables                                             Use of Parables

                                                            (Parable of weeds explained)

                                                            (Three parables)

                                                            (New and old treasures)

Jesus calms the storm         Jesus calms the storm         (moved 1)

Gerasene demoniac  5:1        Gerasene demoniac             (moved 2)

Girl/Woman healed             Girl/Woman healed             (moved 3)

Hometown rejection            (moved)                       Hometown rejection

Mission of the twelve         Mission of the twelve  9:1    (moved 4)

Death of JtB                  Herod's perplexity            Death of JtB  14:1

Feeding 5000  6:30            Feeding 5000                  Feeding 5000

Walking on water                                            Walking on water

Healing sick in Gennesaret                                  Healing sick in Gennesaret

Tradition of the elders  7:1                                Tradition of the elders  15:1

                                                            (Things that defile)

Syrophoenician woman                                        Canaanite woman

Jesus cures the deaf man                                    Jesus cures various people

Feeding 4000   8:1                                          Feeding 4000

Demand for a sign                                           Demand for a sign  16:1

Yeast of the Pharisees                                      Yeast - Pharisees/Sadducees

Blind man at Bethsaida                                      (transformed & moved)

Peter's declaration           Peter's declaration           Peter's declaration

Jesus foretells death         Jesus foretells his death     Jesus foretells his death

                                                            (take up the cross)

Transfiguration  9:2          Transfiguration  9:28         Transfiguration  17:1

Coming of Elijah              

Jesus heals a Boy...          Jesus heals a Boy...          Jesus heals a Boy...

Jesus foretells death *       Jesus foretells death *       Jesus foretells death *

                                                            Temple tax

Who is the greatest           True greatness  9:46          True greatness

Another exorcist              Another exorcist              

Temptations of sin                                          Temptations of sin

                                                            (Lost sheep)

                                                            (Forgiveness)

                                                            (Unforgiving servant)

                              (Samaritan village)

                              (let the dead bury the dead)

                              (Mission of 70)  10:1

                              (Woes for cities Mt 11:20)

                              (70 return)

                              (--Lucan excursion--)

                              (Jesus & Beezebub)  11:14

                              (Return of unclean spirit Mt 12:43)

                              (Sign of Jonah Mt 12:38)

                              (--Lucan excursion--)

Teaching on divorce  10:1                                   Teaching on divorce  19:1

Jesus blesses children        Jesus blesses children        Jesus blesses children

The rich man                  The rich man 18:18            The rich man

                                                            (Laborers in vineyard)  20:1

3rd foretelling of death      3rd foretelling of death      3rd foretelling of death

Request of James and John                                   Request of James and John

Healing blind man             Healing blind man             Healing two blind men

                              (Zacchaeus)  19:1

                              (Ten pounds)

Triumphal entry  11:1         Triumphal entry  19:28        Triumphal entry  21:1

Cursing the fig tree                                        Cursing the fig tree

                              (Weeping over Jerusalem)

Cleansing the temple          Cleansing the temple           

Jesus's authority questioned  Jesus's authority questioned  Jesus's authority questioned

                                                            (Parable of two sons)  

The wicked tenants  12:1      The wicked tenants            The wicked tenants   

                                                            (Parable of wedding banquet)      

Paying taxes (denarius)       Paying taxes (denarius)       Paying taxes (denarius)

Question on resurrection      Question on resurrection      Question on resurrection  22:23

First commandment                                           Greatest commandment

About David's son             About David's son             About David's son

Denouncing scribes            Denouncing scribes            Denouncing scribes & Pharisees

Widow's offering              Widow's offering  21:1        

                                                            (Lament over Jerusalem)

Destruction of temple  13:1   Destruction of temple  21:5   Destruction of temple  24:1

Persecution foretold          Persecution foretold          Persecution foretold

Flee to mountains             Flee to mountains             Flee to mountains

Coming of SoM                 Coming of SoM                 Coming of SoM

Lesson of fig tree            Lesson of fig tree            Lesson of fig tree

Importance of being alert     Importance of being alert     Importance of being alert

                                                            (Faithful & unfaithful slaves)

                                                            (Ten bridesmaids)  25:1

                                                            (Talents)

                                                            (Judgment of nations)

Plot to kill Jesus  14:1      Plot to kill Jesus  22:1      Plot to kill Jesus  26:1

Anointing at Bethany                                        Anointing at Bethany 

Judas conspires               Judas conspires               Judas conspires

The Passover preparation      The Passover preparation      The Passover preparation

Lord's supper                 Lord's supper                 Lord's supper

Peter's Denial Foretold       Peter's Denial Foretold       Peter's Denial Foretold

                              (Sword)

Gethsemane                    Gethsemane                    Gethsemane

Betrayal                      Betrayal                      Betrayal

                              (Peter's denial)  

                              (Mocking & beating)

Jesus before priests          Jesus before priests          Jesus before priests

Peter's denial                (moved)

Jesus before Pilate  15:1     Jesus before Pilate  23:1     Jesus before Pilate  27:1

                                                            (Suicide of Judas)

                              (Jesus before Herod)

                                                            (Pilate questions Jesus)

                                                            (Barabbas or Jesus)

Pilate hands Jesus over       Jesus sentenced               Pilate hands Jesus over

Soldiers mock Jesus           (transformed & moved)         Soldiers mock Jesus

Crucifixion                   Crucifixion                   Crucifixion

Death of Jesus                Death of Jesus                Death of Jesus

Burial                        Burial                        Burial

                                                            (Guarded tomb)

Resurrection  16:1            Resurrection  24:1            Resurrection  28:1

(Criticisms understandable, but wasted.)

spin

hatsoff · 03-20-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In no sense is this true. The writer is continually modifying the text at a word level, fixing grammatically and lexically.

He's talking about copying groups of pericopes isolated by topic and setting as opposed to groups which have a connection to their adjacent material, not linguistic management.

Quote:

Because you can't see a logical reason doesn't mean that one hasn't been seen.

I agree. Moreover, just because we don't know the reason or that it was not "logical" doesn't mean Luke didn't have his own unique plans.

Quote:

Actually, a Lucan editor has moved it there for tendentious purposes -- to diminish the importance of Capernaum.

Possibly, but I wouldn't assert this as a likelihood.

Quote:

So, editorially their policies were a little different. It doesn't mean that Luke is slavish. The Lucan writer is less interested in overtly Jewish materials so he leaves it out. He's not averse to changing things around as can be seen by three passages moved. Omissions are difficult to explain and "omission, what omission?" certainly doesn't explain it.

A good look at the three texts reveals that Matthew was clearly more willing to change his source text in significant and narratively meaningful ways. The sermons on the mount and plain provide a great example of this.

Quote:

What's this word for word crap?

Luke quotes Mark verbatim in places.

Quote:

I think any cross-fertilization is well after the writing stages and into the copying stage.

So do I, but it requires Q, which Nazaroo believes violates Occam's razor.

Quote:

I think you're into the repetitive stress zone myself. You aren't looking at the gospels for what they actually are, but as idealized constructs.

Hardly. He has basically stated he thinks Matthew is a step above garbage, and that Mark is inferior to Luke. There is no love lost there.

Quote:

What is this "near-identical gospels" claim? Probably every verse is different, though most of the contents are the same. There is a lot of "special" material in both Luke and Matt. I don't think you're representing the story truthfully.

They are extremely similar, but I agree that he should not tout them as "near-identical" or "95%" similar.

spin · 03-20-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

He's talking about copying groups of pericopes isolated by topic and setting as opposed to groups which have a connection to their adjacent material, not linguistic management.

But it is not "block-copying". And what Luke has done so has Matt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Quote:

Actually, a Lucan editor has moved it there for tendentious purposes -- to diminish the importance of Capernaum.

Possibly, but I wouldn't assert this as a likelihood.

I've already argued this on this site, giving the stages of the change. I think it is quite plain when you analyse it. It was done in two steps. You'll note that Mark doesn't name the hometown. Luke has inserted "Nazara", then a second reference to Capernaum, before moving the whole passage forward to be placed before the first reference to Capernaum!

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

A good look at the three texts reveals that Matthew was clearly more willing to change his source text in significant and narratively meaningful ways. The sermons on the mount and plain provide a great example of this.

One reason I supplied the synopsis is that I think Matthean willingness to change is far overrated.

Another was to show that some of that willingness is actually misrepresentation. If we look at the Marcan sequence of pericopes "Jesus calms the storm"/"Gerasene demon"/"girl & woman healed", we see that it has been treated like a separate source, which suggests that it has come adrift from the Marcan text.

I don't really see that Matt has things wildly more modified than Luke."

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Luke quotes Mark verbatim in places.

Show me some Greek that hasn't been improved and I might consider the possibility. Otherwise, I think it's crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

So do I, but it requires Q, which Nazaroo believes violates Occam's razor.

And I think the gross amount of cherry-picking involved in his theory violates Occam's razor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Hardly. He has basically stated he thinks Matthew is a step above garbage, and that Mark is inferior to Luke. There is no love lost there.

Idealized in the sense that he is not representing them as they really are but as some abstracted versions. His Matt for example seems ridiculously simplified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

They are extremely similar, but I agree that he should not tout them as "near-identical" or "95%" similar.

Again my synopsis shows the similarities, but it is structural. Looking at the texts and there are differences in every verse. Lots of stuff that is obscure in Mark has been removed. They are extremely similar on the macro-level perhaps, but not on the micro-level.

spin

View Poll Results: What is the literary relationship between Matthew and Luke?
Matthew used Luke.	2	5.56%
Luke used a primitive Matthew; an Ur-Matthew, if you will.	3	8.33%
Luke used a text of Matthew roughly equivalent to our modern Matthew.	12	33.33%
Matthew and Luke developed their gospels indepently of each other (but drew much material from Q)	19	52.78%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.