Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:02 am
So my point is valid? (even if you don't agree with it?)Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pmIn the case of Luke 3.1-18? No.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:15 pmAre you able to use the same methods by which you detected the various sources in that Mark pericope discussed earlier in detecting Luke's sources in 3:1-18? Or do we need to have Mark, Matthew and Isaiah all with us to identify them?
That's fine. I have no problem with your interest. I'm also interested in it.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pmBut in other cases, yes. I gave an example of this earlier: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3616&p=77915#p77890 (Luke 5.12-16), and there are quite a few more. We can in no way expect seams like that to happen every time; that would be crazy. We are basically waiting patiently for the author to slip up, and s/he is not necessarily going to slip up every single time s/he writes a new pericope.
So, in Luke 3.1-18, if we did not have Mark and Matthew to hand, I would almost certainly not know (with the tools at my disposal so far) that Luke sourced most of that passage from other texts. It has been my intent for a while now, however, to find instances (like Luke 5.12-16) of certain kinds of seams which we can tell have resulted from source manipulation, and then see if we can find the same kinds of seams in Mark. I think we can, and I have made those arguments, moving from the known (seams in Luke or Matthew based on following Mark) to the unknown (seams in Mark based possibly on following somebody else). I do not expect you to agree with them, but that has been an interest of mine for some time.
I am interested in literary criticism which looks at the whole. We can break anything down to say blocks of 10 or so verses and draw a conclusion from a handful of those blocks, . . . . but that's not the literary whole, is it?Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pmHonestly, I fail to see how the Arabic Diatessaron fails to qualify as your patchwork text, then. It adds very little to the four gospel texts, takes very little away, and is woven together phrase by phrase, sentence by sentence, and block by block; also, it is very easy to imagine the harmonist studying the various sources before him and marking different passages in each of them to see how he can combine them; I am not even sure how else s/he could have done it. If neither the Arabic Diatessaron nor Luke 3.1-18 qualify as what you are talking about, please give an example (even hypothetical, if necessary) to let me know.I ask that question because I think "Luke" is writing like a real author, creatively adapting his sources (Mark and Matthew in particular) to produce a new story. .... It is difficult to imagine "Luke" studying the various sources before him and marking different passages in each of them to see how he can combine them, or studying two similar narratives and working out how he has to somehow use them both. Luke has worked with his sources to create something new and it would be difficult to describe his narrative as an artless "patchwork".
Yes of course (as you know) I have read Goodacre's "Fatigue". But (also as you know) that is not the same thing you were using as clues to identify sources in Mark's early synagogue pericope.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pmHave you read Goodacre's argument to the contrary ("Fatigue in the Synoptics")? He documents several examples of telltale awkwardness in Luke's editing of Mark and Matthew/Q.I don't think Luke demonstrates the same awkward or less awkward tell-tale signs of piecing together different sources as source critics sometimes (often) argue is the way Mark wrote. That sort of analysis suggests a process of writing that I don't think anyone practised.
It is your assumption that the way Luke/Matthew used Mark that I am questioning. So I come back to asking what it is that you think I am arguing.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pmAs a reminder of something I have said several times before, if you ever think you hear me arguing that Mark did something to hypothetical sources other than what Matthew and Luke did to Mark and either each other or Q, then you have probably misheard me. My whole method is to look at how Luke and Matthew treated Mark (or at how other ancient authors treated their sources), seeking telltale signs of editing, and upon finding them applying that knowledge to Mark to see whether he shows any of the same signs.
The one you provided. Luke 3:1-18/Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pmReally? I would love some examples.[Luke] has various sources in front of him, has assimilated them well in his creative brain, and proceeds to make a new cake from all the ingredients. That's not uncommon for authors, not even for ancient ones.
And I have been saying (trying to, at least), exactly that.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pmKen Olson, for instance, has made the following claim (in his Master's thesis):
From this brief survey, it appears that classical writers did indeed combine or “conflate” different written sources. Such conflation, however, was achieved by the interweaving of different episodes, what we may call “block-by-block” or “macro” conflation, rather than close conflation of different accounts of the same episode, which we may call “close” or “word-by-word” or “micro” conflation. The usual procedure of a classical author with more than one source was to choose one source as the basis for his account for any single episode.
No, I really do confess to some impatience here. You tell me what it is that you think I am arguing.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pmAnd I have found quite a few claims by other scholars confirming this same claim, including several claiming that Plutarch followed only one source at a time for each episode or topic. And I have found this to be the case for Josephus, as well, in his use of Chronicles and King(dom)s, at least so far. I have been largely unable to find ancient texts besides the gospels and the Diatessaron which seem to bounce back and forth between different sources in the same pericope/episode (as we find in Luke 3.1-18 and rather many other passages in the synoptics). So please let me know if you have viable examples from other ancient texts; I have been on the lookout for them.
You are really pushing it now, Ben. Please tell me what it is that you think is my argument. I want to know what it is that you are boxing (or shadow-boxing) against.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm (If you did not mean that you knew of examples of texts which used sources line by line like we find in Luke 3.1-18, then please just ignore this part.)