At 10:38 AM 4/7/2002 EDT, Maluflen@...
>In a message dated 4/5/2002 9:27:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> (2) I felt when
> writing the piece that the best kind of answer would be one that was
> able to provide strong counter-examples. Again, I've not been
> convinced by those given. >>
>I don't think I've ever tried to give a counter example (I hope I'm
>remembering correctly here!) and I think the idea that there ought to be
>such, given an alternative source hypothesis, may be one of Goodacre's
>weakest methodological assumptions.
Goodacre's comments makes the most sense in its dialectal context:
the comparison of the Farrer theory with the Two Source Theory.
It is seems possible that a Two-Sourcer may try to deflect the
force of Goodacre's argument by stating that perhaps the reason
that there is no fatigue of Matthew with respect to Q (as evidenced
in Luke) is that Matthew was a much more careful editor than
Luke. This is not so, however, because Goodacre produced several
good examples of Matthean fatigue in using Mark. Why should
Matthew all of a sudden get more careful with Q? Genre? However,
Luke shows fatigue in both the triple and double traditions, so
genre does not appear to be such a compelling factor as far as
Luke's fatigue is concerned.
The only way out for the Two-Source Theory without resorting to
those ad-hoc explanations is to find examples of Matthew's fatigue
in the double tradition. Mutual fatigue is indicative of a common
source, i.e. Q. I haven't looked for examples of Matthew's fatigue
in the double tradition, and no one else has found any either.
Goodacre has thrown down the gauntlet, and the most disappointing
thing about his article is that no one has picked it up yet.
What about the Griesbach Hypothesis? I suppose one could resort
to the position that fatigue does not really exist and all of
Goodacre's examples can be explained away. This seems to be
your position, Leonard. The problem I have with it is that
fatigue is only probative directional indicator that I'm aware
of, and I've been looking for a probative directional indicator
for a long time. If fatigue is not probative of indicating
the direction of dependence, then I'm afraid that no indicator
is probative. The big scandal behind synoptic source criticism
is that critics, particularly those skeptical of the 2ST, spend
most of their time spinning "Just-So-Stories" for why the gospels
just has to come out the way they did on their favorite source
theory, rather than researching and developing the analytical
tools for deciding the question. Goodacre's fatigue, which
requires not only a narrative tension, but corroboration in the
evangelist's own characteristic expressions, is precisely the
kind of tool that is so desperately needed in synoptic source
If you don't like fatigue as an argument--fine, give me a better
tool than fatigue. Otherwise, we should attempt to the use the
best tools that are available. On the Griesbach hypothesis, you
could argue that Mark shows even better examples of fatigue than
Goodacre's examples in the opposite direction. Or you can propose
a better tool. For me, however, it does not seem productive to
denigrate possibly the only analytical tool of any worth without
making the synpotic source criticism an impossible enterprise.
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
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...