Rick Sumner

You've got it backwards (and Stephen has indicated that this is not his motivation). One begins with the assessment of the Synoptic Problem resulting in a Mark without Q hypothesis. One then asks "Why is the birth dating so different?" and concludes that, perhaps it isn't.

This would not be evidence that Luke knew Matthew, it would be an appraisal of Luke under the framework that he knew Matthew.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

JoeWallack

JW:
If I understand you correctly now, you are saying, If you Assume that "Luke" knew "Matthew" that would be a reason for translating "Foremost" because it avoids a potential Dating error which "Luke" would be aware of since "Luke" would know when "Matthew" dated Jesus' birth.




Joseph

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

Rick Sumner

No, if I meant Assume I would have used the word. I, in fact, specifically avoided it because I knew you would attempt to play it as some sort of "gotcha," which, I suppose predictably, you did anyway.

One can (in fact, most presentations do) make a perfectly good case that Luke knew Matthew without referencing the infancy narrative. There is no need to Assume anything.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

JoeWallack

JW:
No "Gotcha" Rick, just trying to understand what you were saying.

In my opinion there is no good case to be made that "Luke" knew "Matthew" and even if "Luke" did I don't think "Luke" would care about contradicting "Matthew", but let's try this:

If you Believe that "Luke" knew "Matthew" that would be a reason for translating "Foremost" because it avoids a potential Dating error which "Luke" would be aware of since "Luke" would know when "Matthew" dated Jesus' birth.




Joseph

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

Rick Sumner

Since you think the birth narrative would have anything to do with it, I can't imagine that your opinion is based on any analysis of the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis, since you're clearly quite unfamiliar with it. But whether Luke knew Matthew is an entirely separate issue, and one I'm not going to spend time on here, not least because I don't have the time to spend on what would be a considerably more demanding excercise.

You're getting closer. How about "If Luke knew Matthew, and if the Lukan infancy isn't interpolated, that needs to be taken into consideration in our understanding of Luke 2.2." Or even "How can we account for Luke's knowledge of Matthew, given the apparent divergence on the dating of Jesus' birth?"

Regards,
Rick Sumner

JoeWallack

JW:
You trying to start an Argument Rick?

JW:
Great, now I can pin the Infancy Tale on the Donkey. The idea that "Luke" may have written 2:2 with "Matthew" in mind is Ridiculous. Do the two Infancy Narratives sound anything alike? "Matthew" has an Infanticide that moves the family to Egypt. "Luke" has a Census that moves the family to Bethlehem. Neither Infancy Narrative shows knowledge of the other apart from the VB. But in connection with this awareness theory "Luke" uses a word which normally means "first" to distinguish that the famous Quirinius' census was not first. As Brown indicates, if it wasn't for "Matthew" no one would even think to question "Luke's" Dating.

JW:
Stephen said he thinks "foremost" is what "Luke" was saying. But he also accepts what you are saying as evidence.



Joseph

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

Rick Sumner

Who, exactly, do you think you're arguing against? I didn't argue the point. you asked for reasons other than apologetics one might take Stephen's position. I gave you an example. Surely you don't take that as tacit endorsement? Particularly given my emphasized ambivalence. Whether not Luke meant "first" or "foremost" is of little relevance to me, which is why I haven't offered a comment on it.

That's not entirely true. Both agree on the name of Jesus' father (something not found in Mark). Both place it in Bethlehem.

It's cute that you think that has anything to do with the "awareness" theory. And further attestation that you aren't terribly familiar with the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

So what? We run into situations where extra sources create these sorts of complications all the time, in a wide assortment of areas of history.

He's said nothing of the sort. He said it was a bonus. And then went on to explain precisely what his motivation was.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

S.C.Carlson

Thanks for trying to clarify. I've pretty much given up trying to correct Joe Wallack's misstatements about my views. It's so exasperating.

JoeWallack

JW:
I Am delighted that you and Rick can communicate so clearly, without any misstatements. I was hoping for you to make it clear for me. But alas, you don't. You said it was a "bonus" yet you also seem to deny here that you take it as evidence for "foremost". Simple question, do you take "Luke" being familiar with "Matthew" as evidence for "Foremost"?

Yes, we do have a Communication problem Stephen, but now it seems to have turned more into Credibility than Misstatement. I'm going to keep trying to Communicate but if you choose not to so be it.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Yes, you're welcome Stephen for my pointing out that every Translation we are both aware of takes the Genetive Absolute, "Quirinius was governor of Syria" as Temporal and thus translates the verb "while/when" and with this Chronological time marker translates "protes" as "First" and for making you rethink your corresponding "while/when" translation for the first time since at least December 2004. I think Jeff would find it extremely curious that this Revelation which you now accept so easily was never even mentioned by any of your fellow Greek fellows on your Blog.

Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar Mounce Page 282:

"Most genitive absolutes in the New Testament are temporal, and you will translate the genitive absolute as a temporal clause. Use "while" if the participle is present."

Do you only cite grammar rules/guidelines if they favor your translation Stephen?

Regarding:

"It had been bothering me for a long time that, if ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου was temporal, why doesn't it preceed the main verb as such genitive absolutes usually do? Instead, it follows the main verb. Looking at the examples in BDF, most of such cases are not temporal at all, but causal or concessive."

Do it for "Luke" and let's see it as you've used up all your Credit.

You still have to establish Temporal vs. Causal based on Context.

"This was the first registration while Quirinius' was governing Syria." needs nothing else. It makes perfect sense as is and this is how every translation takes it.

Exactly How does the Context support "this became a very important registration on account of Quirinius' governing of Syria":

1) Now the supposed distinction is unclear. Maybe it refers to the same census Joseph responded to or maybe it refers to a different one.

2) If it refers to a different one there's no evidence for two here. Doesn't that need explanation.

3) If it refers to a different one than "Luke" is using a word which she normally uses to mean "first" to refer to a census that she wants to tell us was not first which makes her look like a complete idiot.

4) Why would Quirinius governing Syria make the census foremost? It's just a digression that needs further explanation.



Joseph

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