Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, cweb!

I guess you're talking primarily about the Sayings material... Actually, the idea that the Sayings material in Lk is prior to Mt is currently the mainstream view among NT scholars. Only very few would disagree with this.

So this basically helps my case, because the priority of Luke's Sayings material can be seen as a good stepping stone to seeing the whole of Lk as early.

All the best,

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Mike,

Yes, the shortness of Mk is often cited as the best evidence that Mark was the earliest gospel. Well, it's actually quite likely that the earliest versions of all 4 canonicals were rather short!

The basic reality is that all 4 canonicals most likely derived from one and the same proto-gospel, that must have been rather short. So while Mk still preserves quite well the shortness of that original proto-gospel, upon a close examination it'll turn out that the actual contents of Mk is not really all that early.

Regards,

Yuri.

Chris Weimer

Really, it's the mainstream right now? Wow, I thought I was the only one. Ok, let's see how far they agree with me... Q doesn't have the sayings listed, but in parables and teachings.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, ConsequentAtheist, you'd still need to explain why would have a late translator of Mt into Hebrew done these things...

His job was to translate Mt into Hebrew, and instead he starts to tinker with it, and to add to it all sorts of Lukan material.

Keep in mind that a lot of this Lukan material in HMt is completely trite and inconsequential, such as a plethora of minor grammatical features that cannon possibly be of importance to anyone. So why do it?

What I'm proposing -- i.e. to see HMt as a key missing link between Lk and the canonical Mt -- is a scenario that seems entirely rational and logical. But what you seem to be proposing is a scenario that entirely lacks in reason or logic, since there's a manifest lack of motivation for a late translator of Mt to do these things.

You see, I could understand if this hypothetical late translator of Mt would have wanted to import from Lk some particular theological material, for example, that he might have liked in Lk. But this is not the textual evidence that is before us.

Well, HMt is a text that we have before us, so we have to deal with it the way it is. All I'm trying to do is understand its proper place in the history of gospel tradition. We need to explain where this text is coming from.

Oh, don't worry...

Just about everybody is slow at this stuff. The number of people in the world who really understand this Synoptic stuff is very small indeed... And most of them, being of course members of the NT studies guild, also seem to be entirely brainwashed, and completely immune to any new ideas! :banghead:

Cheers,

Yuri

Jayhawker Soule

Thanks, Yuri. That was helpful.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, cweb,

All the Q scholars think that the Sayings material in Lk is mostly prior to Mt. That's why they number the verses of their reconstructed "Q" according to their locations in Luke.

For example, Q 4:11 means "the verse that stands in Lk 4:11".

Only very few scholars challenge Q at this time. The overwhelming majority still likes Q... It's the herd instinct, I guess, which is no doubt the main motivator in NT studies.

Cheers,

Yuri

Vorkosigan

Yes, from the clues in Paul. Richard Hays argued that Galations 3:1-4:11 contains text that more or less is a narrative. If you read Paul, there is a narrative in it that could easily be fleshed out.

For Mark to give up the virgin birth would not have been difficult; he was a Pauline, read the letters, and knew from Philippians that God designated Jesus as his son. Therefore Mark's Christology was Adoptionist. There's no argument in either direction from either length or the Birth Narrative.

The reality is that literary structure shows conclusively that Matt and Luke depend on Mark, as does the Greek. Mark was a far more brilliant writer than either the doltish Matthew or the polished Luke. I've already pointed out that Mark 15:20-39 contains a chiasm that Matt and Luke both trashed. Consider also Mark 12:1-12:

A = Jesus is at Capernaum with many gathered about the door.
...B = Paralytic on a pallet, remove roof, lower paralytic in
......C = my son sins are forgiven due to faith
........D = scribes question in their hearts
......C = blasphemy who can forgive but god!
........D = Why do you question thus in your heart?
......C = which is easier, to forgive sins or say rise?
.......D = so you know the son of man has authority to forgive sins
...B' = "Rise and walk!" Paralytic walks.
A' = The paralytic walks and everyone glorifies god.

The center of this is organized around keywords in typical Markan style:

forgiven
hearts
forgive
heart
forgive
know

Matthew deletes the part about being lowered through the roof, and some of the keywords, trashing this chiasm. Luke gets rid of the same keywords that Matt does, but preserves the lowering through the roof, but changes the roof to the impossible "tiles" which did not exist in Palestine. Once again we face the same problem: did Matt and Luke trash an extant chiasm, or did Mark create a chiasm out of one or the other? My money is not on the second choice....

Mark was first, Yuri. And best.

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky

Sorry, Vork, but I think these chiasms are mostly in your mind.

Did anybody else notice this particular chiasm other than yourself?

And even _if_ there is a chiasm there, who's to say that this was not merely a later literary embellishment?

Yours as always,

Yuri.