On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
> >...
> >But the whole account of the Last Supper as it is found in the gospels
> >is probably quite late. Certainly "drinking the blood" appears to be a
> >late element.

> The idea of "drinking the blood" seems to be present in the writing of
> Paul in I Corinthians 10.16 - "The cup of blessing which we bless, is
> it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?" It would seem that the idea
> could be early, and may even be original to Jesus.

Brian,

Lk 22:19,20 is equivalent to 1 Cor 11:24,25, and this presents a serious
problem. Which way does the dependence go? There was a long discussion of
this on Crosstalk couple of years ago. Evidence seems persuasive that
there are interpolations in Paul in this area. You can see my arguments on
my webpage, starting with my survey of Van Cangh's arguments that Markan
eurcharist is the earliest. From this follows that Lk/Paul version of the
eurcharist is late.

I don't think there's any need to launch into linguistic speculations like
Jack does in order to explain this matter.

Thanks to Louis for correcting my mistake about the proper name for
Tabernacles. If he wants to find a historical kernel in various accounts
of the Last Supper, he should read Van Cangh who does an excellent job in
analysing all the texts very closely.

Best regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 Maluflen@... wrote:

> In a message dated 2/4/2000 12:14:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> scarlson@... writes:
>
> << On page 321 of his ORIGINS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Loisy assigns a date
>  of 140 at the earliest for the canonical edition of Matthew, but then
>  on page 322, Loisy dates the canonical Luke between 135 and 140.  This
>  dating thus excludes the dependence of the canonical Luke on canonical
>  Matthew.  Of course, Loisy also considers earlier, non-canonical
>  editions of the gospels, which complicates the picture.>>

Well, this is exactly so, Stephen. According to Loisy, there were earlier
editions of all the gospels, and they all influenced each other along the
way. No, his theories are not for those who wish to find simple or
simplistic solutions to the Synoptic problem. But I'm afraid a simple and
straightforward "one-step" solution to the Synoptic problem simply doesn't
exist.

> I had seen these references, and this would make it all the more
> amazing to imagine the final redactor of Luke never having seen an
> edition of Matthew (i.e., the fact that such a redactor was at work,
> according to Loisy, almost in the middle of the second century). Loisy
> doesn't say this explicitly (that the latest redactor did not know
> Matt), but on the other hand, I have not yet found a statement in the
> book where he clearly envisions even any of the later redactors of
> Luke having known and used Matthew. I suppose Yuri may still find such
> a passage, but they don't jump out at you from the book, to say the
> least.

It's there, Leonard. I've been writing about this repeatedly over the last
couple of years. Loisy certainly believed that the last edition of Lk is
aware of Mt. Like you write yourself, to give 140 as the date for the
final edition of Lk and to maintain its isolation from Mt is simply not
realistic. I will look up the passage soon (you're right, he's not making
a major argument out of this, just mentions this in passing). If it's not
in the ORIGINS, then it must be in the BIRTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

Your argument that Jesus was crucified during the week of Sukkoth,
rather than Pesach, is interesting.  I have never thought about the
detail of the “upper room” in that way.

Of course, the view that the Triumphal Entry happened during Sukkoth is
not new.  (As everyone notes, Mark’s time indicators, from which our
notion of a “Passion Week” is derived, come from his hand.)  It has been
argued by a number of scholars already.

Yet, I don’t think anyone has given the argument for a Sukkoth dating
the attention it really deserves, and a couple of more supports could be
added to the argument.

First, recent studies have emphasized that Sukkoth was primarily a
celebration of the Temple.  (See esp. Hakan Ulfgard, *The Story of
Sukkot*.)  This brings an added dimension to Jesus’ comments directed
against the Temple.

Secondly, I don’t think that Peter’s outburst at the Transfiguration has
been properly interpreted.  Those scholars who have interpreted Peter’s
words in the light of Sukkoth have unfortunately tended to combine it
with other details of the story, and have only posited a general Sukkoth
imagery lies behind the account.  This, I think, is a
misinterpretation.  Peter’s reference to booths is a chronological
indicator: the forthcoming journey to Jerusalem had the celebration of
Sukkoth as its (immediate) purpose.  The Transfiguration is the last
thing that happened in Galilee before Jesus and the disciples made for
Jerusalem.  Peter’s comment, “Lord, let us make three booths here,” was
a lastditch effort to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem, *where he
was going to celebrate Sukkoth*.


John C. Poirier
Middletown, Ohio

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
>...
>But the whole account of the Last Supper as it is found in the gospels
>is probably quite late. Certainly "drinking the blood" appears to be a
>late element.
>
Brian Wilson replied --
>
>The idea of "drinking the blood" seems to be present in the writing of
>Paul in I Corinthians 10.16 - "The cup of blessing which we bless, is
>it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?" It would seem that the idea
>could be early, and may even be original to Jesus.
>
Yuri Kichinsky answered --
>
>Lk 22:19,20 is equivalent to 1 Cor 11:24,25, and this presents a
>serious problem. Which way does the dependence go? There was a long
>discussion of this on Crosstalk couple of years ago. Evidence seems
>persuasive that there are interpolations in Paul in this area. You can
>see my arguments on my webpage, starting with my survey of Van Cangh's
>arguments that Markan eucharist is the earliest. From this follows that
>Lk/Paul version of the eucharist is late.
>
Yuri,
       I was not writing about I Cor 11.24,25 but about the passage
concerning the worship of idols in I Cor 10. My reference, I Cor 10.16,
was clearly given, as shown above.

There is no reasonable doubt that Paul wrote I Cor 10.l6. There are no
scholarly grounds for excising I Cor 10.16 which has no similarly-worded
parallel in the synoptic gospels. Paul wrote the words of I Cor 10.16
before the synoptic gospels were written, even supposing Mark was penned
65 CE and the others soon afterwards.

In which case, Paul wrote "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
a sharing in the blood of Christ?" at an early date compared with the
writing of the synoptics, and the idea may indeed have originated with
Jesus himself. This is even consistent with your argument stated above
that the Markan version of the eucharist is the earliest, and which
attributes to Jesus the words, "This (cup) is my blood of the covenant
which is poured out for many" (Mk 14.24).

Jesus did have some new things to say about God, and some of these did
get passed on to Paul. Neither of them was a tame traditionalist. One
was crucified for his beliefs, and the other was severely beaten
several times, imprisoned more than once, and possibly be-headed, for
his. There is no reasonable doubt that at least occasionally each said
something not in conformity with the teachings of others of their day.
We cannot validly rule out sayings attributed to Jesus or Paul merely on
the grounds that they are not the traditional teachings of their
contemporaries.

I have been reading your homepage and your thought on Paul. Perhaps
contributors to this List have also read the following paragraph from
your homepage summarizing your findings -
>
>In my view it is extremely improbable that he was some Mythical and
>Unique Apostle to the Gentiles Appointed So by God from Day One. This
>is how he was made to look -- over a number of generations -- by his
>dedicated followers who were adding up plenty to his original writings
>while they were polemicizing against various other rival Christian
>factions of their times -- especially the Jewish-Christians, who
>actually had _real disciples of Yeshu_ to base their claims on. So the
>Pauline school made themselves an Apostle who wasn't really a "real
>Apostle", but was instead "more than an Apostle", and who received his
>revelations directly from the Spiritual Jesus through a miracle.
>
I really feel there is no need for me, or anyone else, to comment on
such thinking on Paul, Jesus, and their followers in the years before
the synoptic gospels were written, or on the way in which this is
presented here. Scholars will make their own judgement.

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON

EM brian@... HP www.twonh.demon.co.uk TEL+44(0)1480385043
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE18 8EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
_

Stephen Carlson wrote:

>We are still at the point where the argument for the existence of
>Q requires the independence of Matthew and Luke, in your analogy,
>we are still faced with a decision between Tuckett's waves and
>Goulder's corpuscles.  To go with the 3SH's photons, we need a new
>discovery and an Einstein.

Stephen,
   You and the majority of scholars may be at that point, but that is
because of your (mis-?!)understanding of the application of Occam's
Razor. (For consistency you presumably believe Colossians, Ephesians and
the Pastorals were written by Paul for the simplest hypothesis in that
case is that Paul wrote all 13 letters attributed to him. However most
critical 2SH scholars do not so believe. They are thus inconsistent in
their application of Occam's Razor.) This is precisely why the Synoptic
Problem remains unsolved. Did it require an Einstein to resolve the
Proto-Luke hypothesis? No. It merely required scholars prepared to take
the same old data and interpret it differently. That is all that's
needed to solve the Synoptic Problem.

Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail:  ron.price@...

Web site:  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

Leonard,
   I could reply in detail to your arguments but I think that in the end
the discussion will not get us anywhere because of our different
attitudes to the priority of Mark. If and when you come to realize that
Mark came first  :-)  it might be worth resuming the topic.
   Just one further comment.
   You wrote:
> accusing him [ Au_Matt ] of not caring for the poor
   It was not intended as an "accusation". I was not meaning to pass any
moral judgement. It was merely an observation about an anonymous person
in ancient history based on a few clues, which is all we often have in
this type of study.

Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail:  ron.price@...

Web site:  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

Dear Ron:

At 11:53 AM 2/5/00 +0000, you wrote:
>
>  You and the majority of scholars may be at that point, but that is
>because of your (mis-?!)understanding of the application of Occam's
>Razor. (For consistency you presumably believe Colossians, Ephesians and
>the Pastorals were written by Paul for the simplest hypothesis in that
>case is that Paul wrote all 13 letters attributed to him.

With this statement, you have demonstrated the source of the problem.
Unfortunately, it is you who does not understand Occham's Razor.  Given
your obvious interest in the subject, it might be worth while to come to a
better understanding of it.  In fact, given the differences in word usage,
theology, and writing style in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals,
with respect to the authentic Pauline corpus, the most parsimonious
conclusion is that they were written by someone else.  The application of
Occham's Razor to this problem is that too many assumptions would have to
be made in order to fit Paul to those letters, whereas the simplest
explanation is that they were written by someone else.

Best Regards,
Mike

_______________________________________________________________
Michael T. MacDonell, Ph.D. (Microbiology, 1984)
and Doctoral Student in Biblical Studies
Trinity Bible College and Seminary
_______________________________________________________________
Dieu mésure le froid à la brebis tondue.
-Henri Estienne (1594): Les Prémices, etc. p. 47.
_______________________________________________________________

On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --

> >Lk 22:19,20 is equivalent to 1 Cor 11:24,25, and this presents a
> >serious problem. Which way does the dependence go? There was a long
> >discussion of this on Crosstalk couple of years ago. Evidence seems
> >persuasive that there are interpolations in Paul in this area. You can
> >see my arguments on my webpage, starting with my survey of Van Cangh's
> >arguments that Markan eucharist is the earliest. From this follows that
> >Lk/Paul version of the eucharist is late.

> Yuri,
>       I was not writing about I Cor 11.24,25 but about the passage
> concerning the worship of idols in I Cor 10. My reference, I Cor 10.16,
> was clearly given, as shown above.
>
> There is no reasonable doubt that Paul wrote I Cor 10.l6. There are no
> scholarly grounds for excising I Cor 10.16 which has no similarly-worded
> parallel in the synoptic gospels. Paul wrote the words of I Cor 10.16
> before the synoptic gospels were written, even supposing Mark was penned
> 65 CE and the others soon afterwards.

The first thing that came into my mind when I read this, Brian, was this
verse by Belloc,

But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
          -- Hilaire Belloc

So if one accepts that I Cor 11.24,25 is an interpolation, as seems
likely, would it be such a huge stretch of logic to recognize I Cor 10.l6,
which seems so close to I Cor 11.24,25 in spirit, as also an
interpolation?

I assure you, Brian, that there are all kinds of grounds for doubting I
Cor 10.16, as well as other passages surrounding it, the warnings against
idolatrous foods, as interpolations. The argument has been made, but
you'll never know it until you investigate it.

> In which case, Paul wrote "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
> a sharing in the blood of Christ?" at an early date compared with the
> writing of the synoptics, and the idea may indeed have originated with
> Jesus himself. This is even consistent with your argument stated above
> that the Markan version of the eucharist is the earliest, and which
> attributes to Jesus the words, "This (cup) is my blood of the covenant
> which is poured out for many" (Mk 14.24).

But I don't think this originated with Jesus himself. Highly unlikely in
my view.

> Jesus did have some new things to say about God, and some of these did
> get passed on to Paul. Neither of them was a tame traditionalist. One
> was crucified for his beliefs, and the other was severely beaten
> several times, imprisoned more than once, and possibly be-headed, for
> his. There is no reasonable doubt that at least occasionally each said
> something not in conformity with the teachings of others of their day.
> We cannot validly rule out sayings attributed to Jesus or Paul merely
> on the grounds that they are not the traditional teachings of their
> contemporaries.

But by the same token, we cannot validly accept sayings as attributed to
Paul merely on the grounds that they are traditionally seen as teachings
that are credited to Paul. Let me remind you that the traditional
authorities attributed to Paul seven letters that he almost certainly
didn't write. So what makes you think that they would have left the other
seven untouched just like Paul wrote them?

> I have been reading your homepage and your thought on Paul. Perhaps
> contributors to this List have also read the following paragraph from
> your homepage summarizing your findings -
> >
> >In my view it is extremely improbable that he was some Mythical and
> >Unique Apostle to the Gentiles Appointed So by God from Day One. This
> >is how he was made to look -- over a number of generations -- by his
> >dedicated followers who were adding up plenty to his original writings
> >while they were polemicizing against various other rival Christian
> >factions of their times -- especially the Jewish-Christians, who
> >actually had _real disciples of Yeshu_ to base their claims on. So the
> >Pauline school made themselves an Apostle who wasn't really a "real
> >Apostle", but was instead "more than an Apostle", and who received his
> >revelations directly from the Spiritual Jesus through a miracle.
> >
> I really feel there is no need for me, or anyone else, to comment on
> such thinking on Paul, Jesus, and their followers in the years before
> the synoptic gospels were written, or on the way in which this is
> presented here. Scholars will make their own judgement.

Let's hope so, Brian.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l,
unmoderated. To post to loisy-l, send email to loisy@egroups.com

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

John C. Poirier wrote:
>
> Your argument that Jesus was crucified during the week of Sukkoth,
> rather than Pesach, is interesting.  I have never thought about the
> detail of the “upper room” in that way.
>
> Of course, the view that the Triumphal Entry happened during Sukkoth is
> not new.  (As everyone notes, Mark’s time indicators, from which our
> notion of a “Passion Week” is derived, come from his hand.)  It has been
> argued by a number of scholars already.

Indeed, an original Sukkoth of the Transfiguration appears to be
possible and the suggestion about the "upper room" is intruiging.
However, (a) in canonical Mark, as we have it, the last meal is dated in
the context of Pesach. (b) Mark and the synoptics date the crucifixion
on Pesach while John, for reasons all his own, date the crucifixion on
Nisan 14. (c) With the typical Markan expression, "ton logon ekratesan"
+ "questioning what this rising from the dead could mean" the
Transfiguration now appears to be related to Mark's passion story about
Pesach. (d) Canonical Mark shows clear signs of the editing of an older
document (e.g. 3, 13; 4, 10-12 etc).
     It appears to me that the traumatic events surrounding the Fall of
Jerusalem led Mark to radically revise an older passover haggadah which
ended with the transfiguration narrative (orginally read during
Sukkoth?).   Karel



>
> Yet, I don’t think anyone has given the argument for a Sukkoth dating
> the attention it really deserves, and a couple of more supports could be
> added to the argument.
>
> First, recent studies have emphasized that Sukkoth was primarily a
> celebration of the Temple.  (See esp. Hakan Ulfgard, *The Story of
> Sukkot*.)  This brings an added dimension to Jesus’ comments directed
> against the Temple.
>
> Secondly, I don’t think that Peter’s outburst at the Transfiguration has
> been properly interpreted.  Those scholars who have interpreted Peter’s
> words in the light of Sukkoth have unfortunately tended to combine it
> with other details of the story, and have only posited a general Sukkoth
> imagery lies behind the account.  This, I think, is a
> misinterpretation.  Peter’s reference to booths is a chronological
> indicator: the forthcoming journey to Jerusalem had the celebration of
> Sukkoth as its (immediate) purpose.  The Transfiguration is the last
> thing that happened in Galilee before Jesus and the disciples made for
> Jerusalem.  Peter’s comment, “Lord, let us make three booths here,” was
> a lastditch effort to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem, *where he
> was going to celebrate Sukkoth*.
>
> John C. Poirier
> Middletown, Ohio

ll wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > And further on in your [K.H.] message you seemed to assume that there was an
> > earlier pre-70 passover haggadah before Mk was written. But this
> > assumption is not so common among scholars.

Louis Lomasky (11) commented:
> This is also a rather difficult assertion to maintain considering the fact
> that there is virtually no evidence for the existence of codified
> written haggados before the Mishnah was written.  I believe that the
> earliest we have is from the Gaonic Era from Sa'adia.
> 'Twould be an unexpected innovation for Mark to be writing haggados before
> the destruction of the Temple.  With a central meeting place established
> and a standard order well in place there would be little need for written
> documents telling one how to lead a seder.

I am using the term Passover Haggadah rather broadly. I agree that the
written Seder, as we have it. Mark's haggadah is certainly not like the
Seder we all know. However, the written Seder is rather late but it must
have had old roots long Before the Common Era.
   David Daube rightly, I think, complained already in '58 of the "cool
reception" his proposal received to follow what he termed "some
desirable lines of exploration of the Gospels". He described the
parallel structure of the order of the questions put to Jesus on the
Temple Square and the order the questions by the wise son (chakham)
asking about the Law; the wicked one (rasha') who asks to jeer; the
simple one (tam) "asking for plain guidance" and the one who doesnot
know how to ask questions" (she'eno yodhe'a lish'ol). In the Seder the
person presiding himself poses the question in place of this last son.
So does Jesus On the Temple square. Daube opts for a very early
tradition (40 CE?) within christian circles, which Mark used (no
'euthus' here and the verb "to dare" (12,34b) lacking in Matthew. Note
also the 'tribute to Caesar' question posed by some of the Herodians and
Pharisees 12,13, cf 3,6).
Yurinski wrote also:
... 2. The counting from the Sunday after Passover. According to
Goudoever,
> > Sadducees (Boethusians), Zadokites, Samaritans, and Karaites preferred to
> > follow this practice. Goudoever sees this as the more traditionalist
> > Jewish practice.

  Louis L commented:
> It is odd that he mentioned Karaites as they did not come into existence
> until centuries after the destruction of the Second Temple.  Whether it is
> more traditionalist is another matter.

Van Goudoever was well aware of the phenomenon of the Karaites "probably
in the ninth century" (see his Biblical Calendars, p 22)

Re. your interesting observations on Sukkoth, plesse consider my
comments to John Poirier which also deals with your research.

regards   Karel

In a message dated 2/5/2000 6:54:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ron.price@... writes:

<<  I could reply in detail to your arguments but I think that in the end
  the discussion will not get us anywhere because of our different
  attitudes to the priority of Mark. If and when you come to realize that
  Mark came first  :-)  it might be worth resuming the topic. >>

Sounds like a cop-out to me. If I recall correctly, a number of my arguments
against your statements about AMatt and his favoring of the rich were based
on your source hypothesis. I wonder how these would be replied to "in detail"?
Moreover, it is unfortunate, if true, that anyone would have an "attitude" to
the point in question. My disposition toward the priority of Mark has always
been subject to revision pending the appearance of argumentation in its
support that has more logical merit than do the commonly offered reasons, and
sufficient force to outweigh the not insignificant evidence in Mark that it
is a late and developed conflation of material from the other two Synoptic
gospels.  Since you include "when" with your "if" above, can I assume that
you are presently in possession of such arguments, which you have not yet had
occasion to share with members of Synoptic-L?

Leonard Maluf

In a message dated 2/5/2000 11:49:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sendero@... writes:

<< In fact, given the differences in word usage,
  theology, and writing style in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals,
  with respect to the authentic Pauline corpus, the most parsimonious
  conclusion is that they were written by someone else.  The application of
  Occham's Razor to this problem is that too many assumptions would have to
  be made in order to fit Paul to those letters, whereas the simplest
  explanation is that they were written by someone else.>>

Just out of curiosity, what do we do with the parts of the above letters
(quantitatively significant especially in Colossians) that are very typically
Pauline in every respect? Perhaps here the razor is applied rather too
quickly (or thoroughly)? Perhaps part of the chin has been shaved off along
with the beard.
  In any case, one would have to say that arguments for non-Pauline authorship
of the above-named letters are not quite as decisive as in the case of
Hebrews (excluding its last four verses).

Leonard Maluf

At 02:51 PM 2/5/00 EST, Maluflen@... wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, what do we do with the parts of the above letters
>(quantitatively significant especially in Colossians) that are very typically
>Pauline in every respect? Perhaps here the razor is applied rather too
>quickly (or thoroughly)? Perhaps part of the chin has been shaved off along
>with the beard.

In this case, I would ask that replies be directed off-list, either
privately or to Corpus Paulinum.  Pauline authorship of the various
epistles is a very controversial subject that is outside the scope
of this List, but quite suitable in other fora.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

Dear Leonard:

At 02:51 PM 2/5/00 -0500, Leonard Maluf wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, what do we do with the parts of the above letters
>(quantitatively significant especially in Colossians) that are very
typically
>Pauline in every respect? Perhaps here the razor is applied rather too
>quickly (or thoroughly)? Perhaps part of the chin has been shaved off along
>with the beard.
> In any case, one would have to say that arguments for non-Pauline
authorship
>of the above-named letters are not quite as decisive as in the case of
>Hebrews (excluding its last four verses).

This is an excellent point, especially when Colossians is contrasted with
Hebrews.
Bornkamm and Dodd, for example, both suggest that Hebrews (as well as
James, 2Peter, and the Pastorals) were authored as correctives during the
development of the early church.  Colossians, and also (although to a
slightly lesser degree) Ephesians and 2Thessalonians  on the other hand,
are remarkably Pauline.  Nevertheless, they show clear signs of not having
been authored by Paul himself.  I agree with the consensus on this, that
they were most likely authored by disciples of Paul, meant to be understood
as Pauline and representing a continuation of Pauline thought.

I particularly like your "Perhaps part of the chin has been shaved off
along with the beard."

Best Regards,
Mike

_______________________________________________________________
Michael T. MacDonell, Ph.D. (Microbiology, 1984)
and Doctoral Student in Biblical Studies
Trinity Bible College and Seminary
_______________________________________________________________
Dieu mésure le froid à la brebis tondue.
-Henri Estienne (1594): Les Prémices, etc. p. 47.
_______________________________________________________________

I've had the pleasure of attending at least part of the Michael
D. Goulder Symposium today at Johns Hopkins University in
Baltimore, MD.  As people on Synoptic-L probably know, Goulder
is the leading proponent of the Farrer Hypothesis alternative
(Mark without Q) to the regnant Two Source Hypothesis (Mark
with Q).

As the opening speaker Kyle McCarter explained, the Goulder
Symposium was inspired by a Dr. John Goch (sp?), who although
a medical doctor has a very keen interest in Christian Origins.
Dr. Goch had visited England and became acquainted with Goulder
and concluded that Goulder was not sufficiently appreciated in
the USA.  Consequently, the seed was planted, and the Goulder
is the fruit.

Looking at the audience, I would not characterize it as youthful,
only a few people appeared to be be under 40 with most of the
audience in their late 50s and older.  Goulder himself, of course,
is not young, having a very long career, but the enthusiasm he
brings to his subject matter quickly dissipates any such notions
of a doddering old gentleman, as one of the other participants
appeared to be.  There is a vitality and wit in Goulder's speaking
that is so engaging that one is firmly drawn into what he is saying
even if one disagrees with his views.

Goulder had the privilege of giving the first paper, "Sections and
Lections in Matthew," which he stated that he would talk about rather
than to read so as to better gauge the audience reaction.  Now,
lectionary theory has never really appealed to me in the past, but
I must admit that I became intrigued by the concept.

Goulder starts with the common assumption that the gospels were
written to be read during worship, and quickly set aside some
proposed views on the matter, viz. Nineham (passages are chosen
at will for the occasion) and Hengel (gospels read in their
entirety).  Goulder rather would prefer to look at Jewish praxis,
for which there is some evidence dating to the first century (e.g.
Philo) that Jews would engage in a continuous reading (lectio
continua) of the Torah throughout the year.  Therefore, Goulder
proposes that Matthew was written to be read continuously
throughout the year.

To support his position, Goulder turns to the AD 381 description
of the Jerusalem liturgy by Lady Egeria, who describes a reading
of Matthew throughout the holy week.  (I found a web site for
Egeria at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mikef/durham/egeria.html )  From
this, Goulder notes the particular attention paid to the various
watches in the gospel text (both Matthew and Mark) and argues
that chapters 26 and 27 of Matthew were meant to be reading in
order at the various times of day on the 15 of Nisan.

Then, Goulder futher notes that Matthew easily divides into units
of 15-17 verses, which are digestible chucks for the laity.  He
supports this with internal observations of Quotations, Opening
formulae, use of Threes, Inclusions, and Closing formulae.  The
number of these units in Matthew is 64, of ten or so fall within
Holy Week.  This number correlates very well with the Jewish
number of 54 weekly lections throughout the year.

Goulder then asks: how do I test this hypothesis?  He answered,
that if the scheme is right, then the Jewish festivals throughout
the year should align with the corresponding passages in Matthew.
After much discussion, he finds that they do.  For example, the
festival of Pentecost commemorates the giving of the Law to
Moses on the mountain.  Psalm 119 is read during that festival,
which is directed to the law, and commences with a set of
beatitudes.  What is the seventh lection of Matthew that would
occur at Pentecost?  It is the Beatitudes that commence the
Sermon of the Mount, in which Jesus gives his own interpretation
of the Law.

Therefore, Goulder concludes that the cycles fit.

Kloppenborg had the opportunity to give the first question and
stated that he would ahve to pick a little fight, mainly on
the issue of scholarly reproducibility.  (In my own words,
I guess it boils down to the issue of who actually is the creative
person responsible for this cycle: Matthew or Michael?)  Kloppenborg
asks, isn't Matthew 12 or 24 a better fit for the fast on the 9th
of Ab than Goulder's Matthew 9?

Goulder replied that a "fine young chap" (i.e. our very own Mark
Goodacre) has written a book on the question, testing his lectionary
theory, precisely in the way that Kloppenborg was asking about.
The conclusion, Goulder related, that even if one or two other
possibilities could be granted, the odds are still very good (20:1)
that the order of Matthew is not attributable to chance, and at
any rate, there really is no better fits for some of the other
major festivals, including Pentecost.

Krister Stendahl gave the next question, and wondered how Goulder's
lectionary hypothesis fit with Matthew's dependence on Mark.  The
brief answer is that Mark too is lectionary, but for only part of
the year starting from the Jewish New Year, and Matthew is an attempt
to improve Mark by extending the lections throughout the entire year.
Thus, the displacement of pericopae can be understood in this manner.

That's all for my summation of Goulder's paper at the Symposium.  As
a disclaimer, this is based on my notes and my memory and may not
necessarily accurately reflect the views and nuances of the participants.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

This installment summarizes my take on Kloppenborg's paper
read at the Goulder Symposium today, entitled "Is There a
New Paradigm? A Critical Appreciation of Michael D. Goulder's
Contribution to the Synoptic Studies."

As an initial matter, Kloppenborg thanked Goulder (and Farmer)
for keeping the debate on the synoptic problem fresh for his
graduate students.

Basically, Kloppenborg's paper examined and evaluated Goulder's
invocation of the notions of Popper's falsifiability and Kuhn's
paradigms to conclude that Goulder's does not represent neither
a "new" paradigm nor a distinct paradigm at all.

As regular readers of Synoptic-L would realize, we had a vigorous
discussion of this very topic around Christmastime, thanks to
Brian E. Wilson and others.  Therefore, I felt grateful that I
happened to have just the right background (having recently read
Popper and Kun) to appreciate the thrust of Kloppenborg's
remarks.

Kloppenborg observed that, in addition to becoming a popular
buzzword (1200+ references to "paradigms" in ATLA alone outside
of the former sense of grammatical paradigm), Popper and Kuhn
had different notions of a paradigm, and felt that, despite
Goulder's invocation of Kuhn, Goulder's use of paradigms fits
much better in the Popperian sense than the Kuhnian sense.

Kloppenborg argues that a true paradigm in the Kuhnian sense
should involve a key insight (or trick) that sets out a whole
new set of problem to be solved and to tools to go about it.
As a example (with which I fully agree), J. J. Griesbach in
1774 had the insight that the gospels accounts should be
compared at a literary level rather than to harmonize their
historical details in the tradition of Tatian and Osiander.
For this purpose, Griesbach created the Three-Column Synopsis.

This paradigm shift is still in place today, and Kloppenborg
argues that Goulder's work "fits snugly" into the Modern
Synoptic Research Paradigm, even though he happens to disagrees
with the reigning source hypothesis.

Thus, Kloppenborg sees Goulder's "new paradigm" more fitting
in the Popperian sense of a theoretical framework, rather
than the Kuhnian sense, and this is reflected in Goulder's
insistence on falsiability and on deductively testing the 2SH,
such as the Minor Agreements (MAs).

Kloppenborg notes that it is characteristic for all theoretical
frameworks (not just dying paradigms) have a tolerance of
anomalies (i.e. data that cannot be easily explained).  It is
only when the anomalies accumulate to a sufficient extent that
the framework collapses.

Based on my reading of Popper, Kuhn, and Chalmers who explains
them very well, it is clear that the biggest problem with Popper's
notion of falsibility is that there is no guidance on which
premise to discard once a contradiction is found.  Goulder would
have us junk Q on the basis of the MAs, but Kloppenborg would
prefer to set aside the notion that our critical texts of the
gospel (only a reconstruction) are necessarily correct as to
the actual text of Mark that Matthew and Luke used.  And, in
fact, that is basically Kloppenborg's response to the issue of
the MAs.  Yes, they do constitute anomalies for the 2DH, but
given what we know of textual transmission in the ancient world,
surely there must be some differences between the text that Mark
composed, that Matthew used, that Luke used, and that has been
transmitted down to us.  In fact, Kloppenborg states that the
only real difficulty the 2DH has due to the MAs is too many
explanations.

While Kloppenborg feels that there are reasonable explanations
for the MAs in the 2DH, he does not feel that the Farrer has a
reasonable explanation for Luke's detachment of the non-Markan
material in Matthew from the Matthean contexts and Luke's nearly
entire lack of support for Matthew's changes to Mark.

Finally, Kloppenborg observed that, while he and other Q scholars
are not convinced by Goulder for technical reasons, he suspects
that the real reason for the success of the 2DH outside of the
specialists is that it is very compatible with the broader
theological objects and models, especially in the quest for the
historical Jesus.  For example, he cites John P. Meier as using
Q for a ready access to Jesus's sayings.  Even Kloppenborg's
own work on Q stratification may also cast doubt on the utility
of Q, it is much harder for people to overlook Goulder's threat
to their reconstructions of the historical Jesus.

In response, Michael Goulder only made a few remarks.  He conceded
that his use of Popper of Kuhn may not translate will to biblical
studies, because Popper and Kuhn are directed to experimental
sciences.  (Actually, I thought that Kloppenborg did a good job
in applying Popper's and Kuhn's ideas to biblical studies.)

Goulder also related a discussion with a leading female text critic
he won't name (as if it is none other than Barbara Aland), who
characterized as "disreputable" any theory that required every text
of Matthew to be corrupt.  Naturally, she was surprised that the
theory Goulder had in mind was the Q hypothesis with Streeter's,
Tuckett's, and Nierynck's resolution for the well known passion
narrative MA.

Finally, Goulder said that the problem of Mattheanisms (which he
said took more than 25 years to properly develop) is a much more
serious threat to Q than the MAs and was disappointed that Kloppenborg
did not address that argument.  He cited his recent "Self-Contradiction
in the IQP" article.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

William of Occam is a hero of mine. He came from the village in Surrey,
England, UK, which was, and still is, "Ockham" - with a "kh" in the
middle of the name. He is sometimes referred to as "William of Ockham"
for this reason.

It seems that the different spelling "Occam" is the Latin version of the
name of the village which was used in the 14th century by William in his
writings, and by others.

I think the famous principle of parsimony is, correctly, "Occam's Razor"
- using the Latin spelling with no "k" and no "h".

One thing William of O. is reported as having said (more than once, and
with variations in the wording) is  "entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeter necessitatem" - "entities should not be multiplied without
necessity". We should note, however, that in his thinking, William
criticized people who argued that the simplest hypothesis is necessarily
the best. The point he made was that the simplest hypothesis may be too
simple. What is needed is a hypothesis which is sufficiently complex to
fit all the observed facts, but no more complex than is required by
them. The simplest hypothesis may be false.

It does seem to me that some synoptic hypotheses are beautifully simple,
(for instance the Farrer Hypothesis with all additional sources
explicitly ruled out), but are too simple to fit all the facts (for
instance the story dualities I describe on my home page).

It also seems to me that there is no synoptic hypothesis which works
even moderately well which does not posit at least one hypothetical
source.  Thus the Griesbach (or Two Gospel) Hypothesis does not work
unless at least one hypothetical documentary source is posited as a
source of Luke's central section.  Similarly, the Farrer Hypothesis does
not work (pace Goulder) without positing a hypothetical source for the
double tradition material in Matthew.

No doubt we will hear more of Occam's Razor.

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON

EM brian@... HP www.twonh.demon.co.uk TEL+44(0)1480385043
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE18 8EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
_

I wrote:

>>  You and the majority of scholars may be at that point, but that is
>>because of your (mis-?!)understanding of the application of Occam's
>>Razor. (For consistency you presumably believe Colossians, Ephesians and
>>the Pastorals were written by Paul for the simplest hypothesis in that
>>case is that Paul wrote all 13 letters attributed to him.

Mike MacDonell replied:

> ....... Unfortunately, it is you who does not understand Occham's Razor.

   You misunderstand my attempt to parody the orthodox position. Perhaps
I should have spelt it out more clearly. Let's have another go. (By the
way I am not trying to discuss Pauline issues here, merely using them as
an analogy to help solve the Synoptic Problem.)

   In their application of Occam's Razor to the Synoptic Problem, Stephen
and others put undue weight on the **number of sources** as opposed to
the many other complexities involved. If they were to put a similar
undue weight on the **number of authors** in the problem of the
authenticity of the Pauline corpus, they would probably conclude that
Paul wrote all thirteen letters attributed to him. In the latter case
most critical scholars rightly have a broader, more balanced assessment
of the probabilities which allows them to override the simple conclusion
that Paul wrote all those letters. All I am doing is appealing to the
2SH and Farrer advocates to adopt a more balanced approach and not rule
a hypothesis out of court merely because it involves Luke having had
*three* different sources whilst in all probability acknowledging that
the Pauline corpus had *at least* three different authors.

Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail:  ron.price@...

Web site:  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

Leonard Maluf wrote:

>My disposition toward the priority of Mark has always
>been subject to revision pending the appearance of argumentation in its
>support that has more logical merit than do the commonly offered reasons, and
>sufficient force to outweigh the not insignificant evidence in Mark that it
>is a late and developed conflation of material from the other two Synoptic
>gospels.  Since you include "when" with your "if" above, can I assume that
>you are presently in possession of such arguments, which you have not yet had
>occasion to share with members of Synoptic-L?

Leonard,
   I'm very reluctant to present the standard arguments for the priority
of Mark on this list because I'm sure that people like Stephen Carlson
and Mark Goodacre could present them much better than I could. In any
case they're listed in lots of textbooks and it is only a small
proportion  of critical scholars who have any doubts about them.
   Suffice it to say that the more I have studied Mark (from a critical
point of view), the more I have been impressed by the genius of the
author. The person who wrote such a brilliant story so full of
subtleties was assuredly no mere copyist.
   In any case if Matthew had been written before Mark then the latter
would have been a complete waste of time. If you say that Au_Mark
regarded Mattthew as unsuitable for a Gentile audience, I would point
out that Matthew became easily the most popular of the gospels, and by
then the Christian Church was already largely composed of people of
Gentile origin.

Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail:  ron.price@...

Web site:  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

At 08:14 AM 2/6/00 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>It also seems to me that there is no synoptic hypothesis which works
>even moderately well which does not posit at least one hypothetical
>source.  Thus the Griesbach (or Two Gospel) Hypothesis does not work
>unless at least one hypothetical documentary source is posited as a
>source of Luke's central section.  Similarly, the Farrer Hypothesis does
>not work (pace Goulder) without positing a hypothetical source for the
>double tradition material in Matthew.

A clarification: when you say "without positing a hypothetical source
for the double tradition material in Matthew" in the last sentence, are
you referring to a documentary (written) source or merely any hypothetical
source, which could include oral tradition?

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

In a message dated 2/6/2000 12:02:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
scarlson@... writes:

<<
  Finally, Goulder said that the problem of Mattheanisms (which he
  said took more than 25 years to properly develop) is a much more
  serious threat to Q than the MAs and was disappointed that Kloppenborg
  did not address that argument.  He cited his recent "Self-Contradiction
  in the IQP" article. >>

I have long held this to be the case, only I would add to Goulder's argument
a category of consistently constructed non-Mattheanisms in Luke as well, by
which I mean a CONSISTENCY in the way Luke alters Matthean materials, such
that one can often predict the kind of thing Luke will do with a given datum
in Matt. For example, when one comes to Matthew 24 and reflects on what Luke
is likely to do with the material therein contained, one can predict, on the
basis of consistent Lukan behavior, that the long speech will be cut into at
least two smaller segments in Luke that will appear in separated chapters (in
this case, mainly chapters 17 and 21). There is precedent for precisely this
approach on the part of Luke in each of the preceding major discourses of
Matt. This pattern is also reinforced by consistent bending of similar
Matthean material, in different locations, by Luke in a generally Pauline
direction.

Leonard Maluf

In a message dated 2/6/2000 3:19:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
brian@... writes:

<< It also seems to me that there is no synoptic hypothesis which works
  even moderately well which does not posit at least one hypothetical
  source.  Thus the Griesbach (or Two Gospel) Hypothesis does not work
  unless at least one hypothetical documentary source is posited as a
  source of Luke's central section.  >>

Why? (Or should I say, why on earth?) There is a presupposition here that I
think is invalid, or at least questionable.

Leonard Maluf

In a message dated 2/6/2000 7:42:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ron.price@... writes:

<< Leonard,
    I'm very reluctant to present the standard arguments for the priority
  of Mark on this list because I'm sure that people like Stephen Carlson
  and Mark Goodacre could present them much better than I could.>>

Perhaps, but you must be aware that Mark Goodacre is not much more impressed
with the validity of these arguments than I am. That is why he had to get
into this "fatigue" thing, which he wrote about so brilliantly in NTS 44
(1998), 45-58 (see especially, p. 45).

<< In any case they're listed in lots of textbooks and it is only a small
  proportion  of critical scholars who have any doubts about them.>>

I am delighted that at least some scholars (such as Mark G.) are no longer
impressed by the number of textbooks in which these stardard arguments are
found. Need I insist that this adds little to their validity. So I don't
think your remark here is valid if applied to the scholars on this list.

<<   Suffice it to say that the more I have studied Mark (from a critical
  point of view), the more I have been impressed by the genius of the
  author. The person who wrote such a brilliant story so full of
  subtleties was assuredly no mere copyist. >>

This is what I think when I read Matthew and Luke (from a critical point of
view).

   << In any case if Matthew had been written before Mark then the latter
  would have been a complete waste of time.>>

This is one of the standard arguments that has been sufficiently refuted by
many. And see my response to your next point.

  <<If you say that Au_Mark
  regarded Mattthew as unsuitable for a Gentile audience, I would point
  out that Matthew became easily the most popular of the gospels, and by
  then the Christian Church was already largely composed of people of
  Gentile origin.>>

This may have happened in spite of its unsuitability for Gentile audiences,
not because of it, and as a result of the fact that it had, nevertheless,
antiquity in its favour. I have also argued at length on this list that a
late Mark is explicable not only as an adaptation of Jewish material to a
Gentile audience, but also (and especially) as an adaptation of
sophisticated, somewhat elitist material, to a definitely non-elitist
audience. Mark is (or can be viewed as) a popularization of an originally
sophisticated Gospel presentation in two different forms, the Matthean and
the Lukan. It is also, and at the same time, a dramatization of this
material, analogous to a film version of a modern novel (and note that the
film normally follows the novel).

Leonard Maluf

A full statement of the Seminar's policies and procedures (how it will be run, etc.) will be sent to all registered Seminar participants on or about Feb. 8th.

Come join us if you haven't already.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

*******************
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
XTalk ONLINE SEMINAR WITH JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN

The moderators and staff advisors of the XTalk Discussion List (Historical Jesus and Christian Origins  -- http://www.xtalk.org) are pleased to announce that John Dominic Crossan, author of The Historical  Jesus, Who Killed Jesus?, The Birth of Christianity and founding member of the Jesus Seminar, has agreed to conduct a three week online Seminar with XTalk members and other interested parties on the topic of Materials and Methodology in Historical Jesus Research.

The Seminar, to be carried out under the auspices of XTalk and its managers,  will begin on  Friday, February 11 and run Mondays through Fridays until Friday, March 3rd, 2000.

So as to be managed effectively, the Seminar will be conducted on a subscription only basis, and any posts submitted by Seminar members will first be moderated before they are passed on to Professor Crossan. These moderated posts will be answered by Professor Crossan on a daily basis.

The messages from Seminar List members and the replies of Professor Crossan will be posted regularly to the XTalk List, allowing XTalk members or List observers who are not subscribed to the Seminar to see the course of the exchanges. Non XTalk affiliated parties who are interested only in observing the give and take of the Seminar are urged to subscribe to the XTalk List or to read the daily postings on the public XTalk web page (http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2/).

Topics for discussion, and upon which questions may be raised, are those which are grounded in the issues of  how both the particular materials used and the methods employed by Historical Jesus scholars bear upon the conclusions they come to in their reconstructions of the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

Since the discussion of these issues as set out in Professor Crossan's The Birth of Christianity will be the Seminar's initial focal point, a major prerequisite for anyone wishing to participate in the Seminar is one's familiarity with the contents and theses of this work.

To apply for membership in the Seminar, send a blank e-mail message to:

hjmaterialsmethodolgy-subscribe@eGroups.com

PLEASE NOTE that while applications for membership in the Seminar are being accepted immediately, posts to Professor Crossan are not. Nothing should be sent in to the Seminar until its opening day, Friday, February 11, 2000.

Questions or comments about the Seminar may be sent to the following e-mail address:  hjmaterialsmethodolgy-owner@eGroups.com
 

Yours sincerely (and on behalf of the entire XTalk administrative staff),

Jeffrey Gibson
Co-moderator and List Owner of XTalk and HJMaterials/Methodology
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
 

Leonard Maluf wrote:

> Mark Goodacre is not much more impressed
>with the validity of these arguments than I am. That is why he had to get
>into this "fatigue" thing, which he wrote about so brilliantly in NTS 44
>(1998), 45-58 (see especially, p. 45).

   I think Mark's article provides excellent additional support for the
priority of Mark's gospel. But how can you think he wrote so brilliantly
and yet not be convinced by the evidence he provided?
Perhaps this is why you still believe in Matthean priority: you simply
ignore all the brilliant arguments against it.  ;-)

I wrote:

>>It is only a small proportion  of critical scholars who have any doubts
>>about [ the arguments for the priority of Mark ]

Leonard replied:

>I don't
>think your remark here is valid if applied to the scholars on this list.

   You could be right. But I'd be surprised if you are.

I wrote:

>> ....... The person who wrote such a brilliant story so full of
>> subtleties was assuredly no mere copyist.

Leonard replied:

>This is what I think when I read Matthew and Luke (from a critical point of
>view).

   But this is different because according to 2SH, 3SH and Farrer each
author made a significant contribution to the gospel story. But if
Au_Mark knew Matthew and Luke his contribution was almost nil.

I wrote:

>>  In any case if Matthew had been written before Mark then the latter
>> would have been a complete waste of time.

Leonard replied:

>This is one of the standard arguments that has been sufficiently refuted by
>many.

Refuted? I doubt it. But to be fair I haven't seen the 'refutation'.

Leonard wrote:

>Mark is (or can be viewed as) a popularization of an originally
>sophisticated Gospel presentation in two different forms, the Matthean and
>the Lukan.

   But here again if this was an aim, it failed abysmally because
**Matthew** became the most popular gospel. Was Au_Mark so out of touch
with Christians? I don't believe so.

   No, the truth is that the seminal influence of Mark is revealed by the
popularity of its second edition (alias Matthew).

Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail:  ron.price@...

Web site:  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

I will not include all of the previous messages, but just respond to one or
two points.

At 10:13 PM 2/6/00 +0000, you wrote:

>   I think Mark's article provides excellent additional support for the
>priority of Mark's gospel. But how can you think he wrote so brilliantly
>and yet not be convinced by the evidence he provided?
>Perhaps this is why you still believe in Matthean priority: you simply
>ignore all the brilliant arguments against it.  ;-)

Or, rather, recognize that "brilliant" arguments for Markan priority (or
against Matthean proirity) are definitely a minority group. Most of the
arguments historically offered for Markan proirity are rather weak, many
have been shown to be fallacious, but they continue to be used.

> >>It is only a small proportion  of critical scholars who have any doubts
> >>about [ the arguments for the priority of Mark ]
>
>Leonard replied:
>
> >I don't
> >think your remark here is valid if applied to the scholars on this list.
>
>   You could be right. But I'd be surprised if you are.

Well, surprises are sometimes fun. I am one of the members of this list who
have doubts about the arguments for the priority of Mark. I know that there
are many members of the list, who like me, likewise have doubts about these
arguments.

>I wrote:
>
> >> ....... The person who wrote such a brilliant story so full of
> >> subtleties was assuredly no mere copyist.

Most of us, even those who see Mark as later, do not think of him as a
"mere copyist." This is a perjorative description of how Mark would be
understood by those who see Mark's gospel as late. On any solution to the
synoptic problem the later authors bring their own insights and creativity
to their work. This is no less true of Mark than any of the others/

>   But this is different because according to 2SH, 3SH and Farrer each
>author made a significant contribution to the gospel story. But if
>Au_Mark knew Matthew and Luke his contribution was almost nil.

I simply don't think that this is so. Often Mark brings a different
perspective to a passage also found in Matthew and/or Luke. As I said
above, on any solution to the synoptic problem the later authors are
certainly not mechanical copyists.

> >>  In any case if Matthew had been written before Mark then the latter
> >> would have been a complete waste of time.
>
>Leonard replied:
>
> >This is one of the standard arguments that has been sufficiently refuted by
> >many.
>
>Refuted? I doubt it. But to be fair I haven't seen the 'refutation'.

I know. I keep hearing this argument and keep responding to it. Years ago,
in a chapter on Markan theology, I tried to show, in some detail, why this
line of reasoning is flawed. I've discussed this several times on
Synoptic-L. These arguments seem to presume (as I think one cannot) that
the later gospels were written to replace the earlier ones. While the later
gospels may have been written to replace the earlier ones, it may also be
that the later authors wrote, fully expecting that the earlier gospels upon
which they drew, would continue to be available and read within the church.
In this case the later authors would intend, not to replace, but to
supplement or even to correct (in some details) the earlier works. They
might also have intended to set the traditions in a new context, relating
them to new situations in the life of the church. In fact this seems to me
a more likely scenario than one in which we envision the later authors as
intending to replace the earlier gospels. If this is so, the "Markan
omissions" would not mean the loss of these narratives (i.e., the birth
stories, the sermon on the mount, etc.). Likewise the assertion that if
Matthew and Luke had been written before Mark then the latter would have
been a complete waste of time assumes, probably incorrectly, that Mark does
no more than mechanically copy some of his sources. But I suggest that
there are themes and perspectives in Mark that are not found in the other
gospels and which would render this gospel valuable, even if it were third.
To choose only two examples (of many that might be cited) Lamar Cope has
shown that if Mark were later than Matthew and Luke he would have
skillfully transformed a Matthean story about the Torah ("Why do you ask me
about the good?") into a story about Jesus' identify ("Why do you call me
good?"). I have suggested that, if Mark were third, the revision of the
story of the women who discover the empty tomb is a powerful one - hardly a
mechanical copy with nothing new to offer. Several others have made this
argument (I am not alone) but, without reference to it, people continue to
refer to the Markan omissions and to portray Mark as a mere copyist. I'm
not sure how many more times I want to make this same point. Perhaps it
lacks the substance of rhetorical statements such as "Mark would have no
reason to omit the birth narratives and the sermon on the mount," or "if
Matthew had been written before Mark then the latter would have been a
complete waste of time." Whatever the case, many of those who favor Markan
priority seem to ignore these responses and to keep saying what they have
always said." Perhaps they find the Markan omissions and the idea that Mark
would, on any other hypothesis be reduced to a "mere copyist" to be among
the most convincing for Markan priority.

Why do I keep writing, again and again, to make this same point? Few but me
seem to find it a significant response. But I still do.

trwl

Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
Director, African-American Studies Program
Colby College
4643 Mayflower Hill
Waterville, ME 04901-8846
Email: t_longst@...
Office phone: 207 872-3150
FAX: 207 872-3802

On 6 Feb 00, at 0:01, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

>
> This installment summarizes my take on Kloppenborg's paper
> read at the Goulder Symposium today, entitled "Is There a
> New Paradigm? A Critical Appreciation of Michael D. Goulder's
> Contribution to the Synoptic Studies."

Many thanks for this report too.  I'll make my comments briefer
here.

> This paradigm shift is still in place today, and Kloppenborg
> argues that Goulder's work "fits snugly" into the Modern
> Synoptic Research Paradigm, even though he happens to disagrees
> with the reigning source hypothesis.

This sounds like a very good point.  This is an aside, but I would
want to add that in many respects Goulder works much too closely
within the prevailing paradigm of gospel studies.  John Drury took
Farrer's theory in a slightly different direction from Goulder,
exploring the literary / narrative advantages of seeing Luke's Gospel
as a reworking of Mark & Matthew.  Goulder essentially works
within the standard source & redaction-critical paradigm of his
opponents.  I am keen to see some more marriage between a
development of a Drury-type approach and a development of
Goulder's approach.  Both were legitimate off-shoots from Farrer,
but I think Goulder missed the opportunity to explore one of the
genuinly "new" possibilities present in germ in Farrer's work.

>
> Kloppenborg notes that it is characteristic for all theoretical
> frameworks (not just dying paradigms) have a tolerance of
> anomalies (i.e. data that cannot be easily explained).  It is
> only when the anomalies accumulate to a sufficient extent that
> the framework collapses.

Good point, and I think that in time this is what may happen with
the 2ST.

>
> Based on my reading of Popper, Kuhn, and Chalmers who explains
> them very well, it is clear that the biggest problem with Popper's
> notion of falsibility is that there is no guidance on which
> premise to discard once a contradiction is found.  Goulder would
> have us junk Q on the basis of the MAs, but Kloppenborg would
> prefer to set aside the notion that our critical texts of the
> gospel (only a reconstruction) are necessarily correct as to
> the actual text of Mark that Matthew and Luke used.  And, in
> fact, that is basically Kloppenborg's response to the issue of
> the MAs.  Yes, they do constitute anomalies for the 2DH, but
> given what we know of textual transmission in the ancient world,
> surely there must be some differences between the text that Mark
> composed, that Matthew used, that Luke used, and that has been
> transmitted down to us.  In fact, Kloppenborg states that the
> only real difficulty the 2DH has due to the MAs is too many
> explanations.

Actually the MAs are only a relatively minor aspect in Goulder's
thesis.  He has basically pushed them in two places (1) his article
"On Putting Q to the Test" and (2) Chapter 1 of _Luke_. In the
latter I think he was simply looking for a fresh way of attacking the
2ST, a fresh debating point.  Personally, I liked the ploy of pushing
the MA at Mark 14.65 very much, not least because it
embarrasses people like Neirynck & Tuckett. But it is not the
whole story. If the Farrer theory only had the MAs to rely on, it
would not be strong, and it would be to misread Goulder to suggest
that he always places sole or even primary weight on them.


> While Kloppenborg feels that there are reasonable explanations
> for the MAs in the 2DH, he does not feel that the Farrer has a
> reasonable explanation for Luke's detachment of the non-Markan
> material in Matthew from the Matthean contexts and Luke's nearly
> entire lack of support for Matthew's changes to Mark.

I would be interested to see how Kloppenborg would formulate
these points.  I hope they will be there in _Excavating Q_, not least
because the standard formulation of the second point is based on a
(not commonly perceived) fallacy.   Kloppenborg is careful and has
the most amazing eye for details, so I don't expect him to be
making elementary mistakes (though I can always hope :-)  )


> Finally, Kloppenborg observed that, while he and other Q scholars
> are not convinced by Goulder for technical reasons, he suspects
> that the real reason for the success of the 2DH outside of the
> specialists is that it is very compatible with the broader
> theological objects and models, especially in the quest for the
> historical Jesus.  For example, he cites John P. Meier as using
> Q for a ready access to Jesus's sayings.  Even Kloppenborg's
> own work on Q stratification may also cast doubt on the utility
> of Q, it is much harder for people to overlook Goulder's threat
> to their reconstructions of the historical Jesus.

Again, there is alot of truth in this.  But perhaps one day it will be
seen that Goulder's model is not the only possible way to construe
sayings material in both Matthew & Luke.  I'd like to see a return to
Farrer's view here, which stresses the living stream of oral tradition.
  Under such circumstances, Historical Jesus scholars (etc.) will
begin to see how unduly limiting it is to become so obsessed with
the Lukan extrapolations of non-Markan material in Matthew.
Neither the Epistle of James or the Gospel of Thomas decided to
limit themselves to what we would call Q material -- and early
witnesses like this are important.


> Finally, Goulder said that the problem of Mattheanisms (which he
> said took more than 25 years to properly develop) is a much more
> serious threat to Q than the MAs and was disappointed that Kloppenborg did
> not address that argument.  He cited his recent "Self-Contradiction in the
> IQP" article.

I look forward to seeing a response in due course from the leading
players in the IQP.  Following our (Stephen's & my) recent
exchange on this on Synoptic-L, I am more than ever convinced
that there are insurmountable problems here for the Q theory.  I
can say this with, I hope, a little authority, as one who studied this
matter full time for an entire year, decided that I had falsified
Goulder's linguistic argument, only to be persuaded against all the
odds that Goulder's reworking of the argument is decisive.

Mark
---------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre          mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology
University of Birmingham    Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
Birmingham   B15 2TT       Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
   All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
   New Testament Gateway
   Mark Without Q
   Aseneth Home Page

Many thanks, Stephen, for your most interesting report on the first
part of the Goulder symposium.  I hope you won't mind a few
comments on your comments from someone who would have loved
to have been there to experience it first hand.

On 5 Feb 00, at 22:58, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

> Looking at the audience, I would not characterize it as youthful,
> only a few people appeared to be be under 40 with most of the
> audience in their late 50s and older.  Goulder himself, of course,
> is not young, having a very long career, but the enthusiasm he
> brings to his subject matter quickly dissipates any such notions
> of a doddering old gentleman, as one of the other participants
> appeared to be.  There is a vitality and wit in Goulder's speaking
> that is so engaging that one is firmly drawn into what he is saying
> even if one disagrees with his views.

I think that Goulder is quite the most engaging speaker I have ever
heard. My own interest in his work proceeded first from hearing him
speak here in Birmingham as a teenager (as Goulder himself
mentions in his preface to my book) and only subsequently from
reading his stuff.

> Goulder had the privilege of giving the first paper, "Sections and
> Lections in Matthew," which he stated that he would talk about rather than
> to read so as to better gauge the audience reaction.  Now, lectionary
> theory has never really appealed to me in the past, but I must admit that
> I became intrigued by the concept.

Somehow it is more intriguing when one hears Goulder do it stage
by stage, building it up.  The paper "Sections & Lections" appeared
in the latest _JSNT_ (Dec. 1999) along with my "Impasse" article &
John Poirier's response to Maccoby (plus more, of course).
>
> Goulder starts with the common assumption that the gospels were
> written to be read during worship, and quickly set aside some
> proposed views on the matter, viz. Nineham (passages are chosen
> at will for the occasion) and Hengel (gospels read in their
> entirety).  Goulder rather would prefer to look at Jewish praxis,
> for which there is some evidence dating to the first century (e.g.
> Philo) that Jews would engage in a continuous reading (lectio
> continua) of the Torah throughout the year.

I argue in _Goulder and the Gospels_ that he does not distinguish
adequately between reading sequentially (i.e. each time picking up
from the previous occasion) and specifically reading in lectionary
sequence.  The evidence from the Mishnah might incline one more
to the former option than the latter.  I argue that the evidence from
Philo for an annual cycle beginning in Nisan is Goulder's best
evidence but it is still not strong.  Marcus, on whom Goulder is
dependent, was not convinced himself.

>  Therefore, Goulder
> proposes that Matthew was written to be read continuously
> throughout the year.
>
> To support his position, Goulder turns to the AD 381 description
> of the Jerusalem liturgy by Lady Egeria, who describes a reading
> of Matthew throughout the holy week.  (I found a web site for
> Egeria at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mikef/durham/egeria.html )  From
> this, Goulder notes the particular attention paid to the various
> watches in the gospel text (both Matthew and Mark) and argues
> that chapters 26 and 27 of Matthew were meant to be reading in
> order at the various times of day on the 15 of Nisan.

I argue that this is the strongest side of Goulder's case but claim
also that the evidence makes better sense for a liturgical origin for
materials on which the Synoptic Passion Narratives are based
rather than for the creation of the Synoptic Passion Narratives
specifically for use in the liturgy.

> Then, Goulder futher notes that Matthew easily divides into units
> of 15-17 verses, which are digestible chucks for the laity.  He
> supports this with internal observations of Quotations, Opening
> formulae, use of Threes, Inclusions, and Closing formulae.  The
> number of these units in Matthew is 64, of ten or so fall within
> Holy Week.  This number correlates very well with the Jewish
> number of 54 weekly lections throughout the year.

Goulder's re-division of the Matthean text here is a direct result of
the problems the earlier case in _Midrash & Lection in Matthew_
(London: SPCK, 1974) faced.  There he divided Matthew up on the
basis of the divisions in Alexandrinus but ended up with some
hopelessly short divisions (e.g. the whole Sermon = one lection
against only a couple of verses for other lections).  I was critical of
the division of the text in the book and in response, at the time, he
said that he had never been happy with the division himself
because of a comment of HFD Sparks at the original lectures on
which the book was based.  He had not really solved the problem
until recently, with the new article.

I am planning to write a brief response to the latest article & I'll put
it on Synoptic-L.  Briefly, I think it helps clear up one of the big
problems with the original thesis but at the expense of adding a
fresh problem.  The reason Goulder ran into problems is that he
wants the Sermon on the Mount for Pentecost and he *was* very
keen on having Matthew 11 for New Year, for two reasons: (1) Mark
1 is Mark's New Year & here in Matt. 11 we have John rediviva; (2)
Isa. 34-35 was later the haftara for New Year -- and Isa. 35 is
fulfilled here in Matt. 11.  But the problem is: how do you get from
Pentecost to New Year in 3 chapters?  You can only do it by tiny
divisions of the text.  So now, things have changed and New Year
is given to Chapter 12.

In the new division, Goulder has simply abandoned having Matt. 11
as a New Year reading.  Given the stress on how perfectly it all
fitted the first time round, I am concerned about this, not least in
relation to the next point, on which I once exerted lots of energy:
>
> Goulder then asks: how do I test this hypothesis?  He answered,
> that if the scheme is right, then the Jewish festivals throughout
> the year should align with the corresponding passages in Matthew.
> After much discussion, he finds that they do.  For example, the
> festival of Pentecost commemorates the giving of the Law to
> Moses on the mountain.  Psalm 119 is read during that festival,
> which is directed to the law, and commences with a set of
> beatitudes.  What is the seventh lection of Matthew that would
> occur at Pentecost?  It is the Beatitudes that commence the
> Sermon of the Mount, in which Jesus gives his own interpretation
> of the Law.
>
> Therefore, Goulder concludes that the cycles fit.

An additional problem here, to which I also draw attention in the
book, is that this inevitably involves dividing the Sermon to make it
fit the lections across the year. This is problematic given its
obvious *literary* unity for Matthew.  Indeed Goulder himself had
earlier been so convinced of this that he devoted an entire chapter
in _Midrash_ to "The Unity of the Sermon".

>
> Kloppenborg had the opportunity to give the first question and
> stated that he would ahve to pick a little fight, mainly on
> the issue of scholarly reproducibility.  (In my own words,
> I guess it boils down to the issue of who actually is the creative
> person responsible for this cycle: Matthew or Michael?)  Kloppenborg
> asks, isn't Matthew 12 or 24 a better fit for the fast on the 9th
> of Ab than Goulder's Matthew 9?
>
> Goulder replied that a "fine young chap" (i.e. our very own Mark
> Goodacre) has written a book on the question, testing his lectionary
> theory, precisely in the way that Kloppenborg was asking about.
> The conclusion, Goulder related, that even if one or two other
> possibilities could be granted, the odds are still very good (20:1)
> that the order of Matthew is not attributable to chance, and at
> any rate, there really is no better fits for some of the other
> major festivals, including Pentecost.

Yes -- the fit for Pentecost is the most impressive aspect of the
thesis, particularly given that Passover is fixed at the end of the
Gospel.  The fine young chap blushes to be mentioned favourably
though he should perhaps point out that his results do keep some
question marks over Goulder's thesis.  The other fits are not all
ideal in Matthew because of the stubborn question of the division of
the text, which presents Goulder with an irresolvable problem:
either the Sermon is a unity, in which case New Year comes too
soon, or it is not, in which case the lectionary theory is not
consonant with the major literary features of the gospel, something
which was earlier essential to his theory.


> Krister Stendahl gave the next question, and wondered how Goulder's
> lectionary hypothesis fit with Matthew's dependence on Mark.  The
> brief answer is that Mark too is lectionary, but for only part of
> the year starting from the Jewish New Year, and Matthew is an attempt to
> improve Mark by extending the lections throughout the entire year. Thus,
> the displacement of pericopae can be understood in this manner.

Goulder's treatment of Mark is a tour de force and typical of the
way he thinks.  It is potentially the lectionary theory's greatest
problem yet he manages to turn the question "Who on earth would
have wanted a lectionary for six and a half months?" into a
component part of his thesis:  "That's just what Matthew thought --
we need to write a fresh first half for Mark".  A good tack to
recommend to students:  identify the weakest point in your thesis
and attempt to turn it into a strength.

>
> That's all for my summation of Goulder's paper at the Symposium.  As
> a disclaimer, this is based on my notes and my memory and may not
> necessarily accurately reflect the views and nuances of the >
participants.

Thanks again

Mark
---------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre          mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology
University of Birmingham    Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
Birmingham   B15 2TT       Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
   All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
   New Testament Gateway
   Mark Without Q
   Aseneth Home Page

In a message dated 2/6/2000 5:15:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ron.price@... writes:

Dear Ron,

   Since Thomas Longstaff graciously responded for me to most of your post,
and in a manner that largely reflects my thinking as well, I will limit my
comments to the single following segment:

<< Leonard wrote:

  >Mark is (or can be viewed as) a popularization of an originally
  >sophisticated Gospel presentation in two different forms, the Matthean and
  >the Lukan.

    But here again if this was an aim, it failed abysmally because
  **Matthew** became the most popular gospel. Was Au_Mark so out of touch
  with Christians? I don't believe so.>>

There is an important distinction here you are missing, based on the
ambivalence of the term "popular". The adjective applies to Matt in the sense
of the German "beliebt", and we know of this "popularity" almost exclusively
through Matt's enthusiastic appropriation and use by a (relatively) elite
group of Christian intellectuals, the Fathers and Doctors of the church. The
people for whom Mark wrote his gospel would have been those without a voice
or a pen, those therefore who cannot have registered their preference in
terms of recorded history. So Mark's gospel is "popular" in a different sense
of the term. It is sense numbers 4 and 6 (as opposed to sense 1 [beliebt]) in
my American Heritage Dictionary:

4. "Fit for or reflecting the taste and intelligence of the people at large",
and

6. "Suited to or within the means of ordinary people."

Leonard Maluf

>Brian Wilson wrote --
>
>It also seems to me that there is no synoptic hypothesis which works
>even moderately well which does not posit at least one hypothetical
>source.  Thus the Griesbach (or Two Gospel) Hypothesis does not work
>unless at least one hypothetical documentary source is posited as a
>source of Luke's central section.  Similarly, the Farrer Hypothesis
>does not work (pace Goulder) without positing a hypothetical source for
>the double tradition material in Matthew.
>
Stephen Carlson comments --
>
>A clarification: when you say "without positing a hypothetical source
>for the double tradition material in Matthew" in the last sentence, are
>you referring to a documentary (written) source or merely any
>hypothetical source, which could include oral tradition?
>
I was including the possibility of an oral source. I see no reason why
an advocate of the FH should not make posit an additional source whether
documentary or oral. I do think, however, that it is essential that we
should not attempt to discuss classes of synoptic hypotheses, since that
would lead only to confusion. What I write above is on the basis of
having considered separately each synoptic hypothesis which does not
posit a hypothetical source (I think there are 18 such hypotheses).
Taking one at a time, I seem to find that none works well, but that each
can be made to work better to some extent by adding a hypothetical
source.

For instance, if we put forward the Farrer Hypothesis simpliciter - that
Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew, and no other sources
were used (as Goulder), then the difficulty arises that, on this view,
it would seem that Matthew must have created out of his own head all the
double tradition and all the special material in his gospel.

Now we could re-formulate the Farrer Hypothesis as Matthew using Mark
and a hypothetical documentary source "X", and Luke using Mark and
Matthew (but not X). X contained the double tradition material and also
material special to Matthew. This would have the advantage of being able
to account for the double tradition in Matthew and the material special
to Matthew, without having to posit that Matthew created all of that
(about two fifths of his gospel?) out of his own head. So the FH with
the additional hypothetical "X" works better than the FH with any
additional source explicitly ruled out.

Or we could formulate the Farrer Hypothesis as Matthew using Mark and an
oral tradition source "M", and Luke using Mark and Matthew (but not M).
(We need to take this separately from the question of a documentary
source, since the use of oral rather than documentary changes the
hypothesis.) Now this would have the advantage of being able to account
for the double tradition in Matthew, and also the material special to
Matthew, instead of having to suppose that Matthew created all that non-
Markan material out of his own head. So, again, it would seem that the
FH with an additional source works better than the FH without one.

I would say that the Farrer Hypothesis with one hypothetical source
added, works better than that Farrer Hypothesis simpliciter, with all
extra sources ruled out. This is not to say that it works completely,
even with the additional source. There is, for example, the question of
Luke containing a lot of material special to his gospel.

Best wishes,
BRIAN WILSON

EM brian@... HP www.twonh.demon.co.uk TEL+44(0)1480385043
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE18 8EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
_