RE: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
- Stephanie (sorry for the spelling of your last name):
I included you only because earlier on this thread you commented (and I think correctly) that any solution is probably more complicated than the main theories outline. That is really what Ed Sanders said, even though he more or less leaned toward the Farrer theory among the main ones discussed. I was agreeing with you and bringing that into my response to Chuck.
You are of course correct that Goulder was very "hardline" in his view that Luke only used Matthew (and Mark) plus scripture, and nothing else. But I think most would agree that is a "hardline" approach.
I will let Mark Goodacre voice his opinion for himself if he wishes, but I think a central issue in Mark without Q is simply to object to Q as a major "document" that explains the similarity of Luke and Matthew. There is a wide variety of views about the nature of any sources, but I think most of us would surely agree that it is likely that Matthew and Luke used some sources. I do. I know many others do.
Now you raise the issue of written versus oral sources... any judgment here is, of course, speculative as you suggest. I would concede it is possible that there might be written sources. But I don't think there is strong evidence for such written sources (I would be open to suggestions); it is just as likely that any additional sources that Luke and Matthew might have used would be oral. And even here we might question the degree that such sources had become "fixed" in tradition (per the form critics, with "rules" of transmission and retention), or (per Bauckham) we might have in some instances reliance on eyewitness testimony, which makes the oral source more primary than secondary.
I don't know how one adjudicates the issue of written versus oral. Are there strong markers that might point to written sources as opposed to oral? What would those look like?
I might note here as well that even if some sources were written, what would it look like for an author to use them? I think Robert Derrenbacker has raised some concern about some view of an author juggling little bits of written sources to be woven into a final text -- ancient writing practices apparently did not work that way.
There are two main reasons, in my opinion, why Mark without Q theorists don't dwell on other sources:
1. The main issue at stake right now is usually whether or not to hold to Q as the link that explains the similarity of Matthew and Luke. so other material is simply not pertinent to this debate. But that doesn't mean that theorists don't have opinions about the rest. It just means it is extraneous to the central debate.
2. At the same time, one of the concerns many of us have about Q is the way it has turned into a vague "Quelle" into a document with citations, rescencions, etc... But hypothetical sources are just that, hypothetical. So I suspect that we shy away from discussing "that which we do not know" out of a certain natural reticence that might explain why we are suspicious of Q in the first place.
Not sure if this helps explain certain ways of thinking. But perhaps it does. I would welcome critiques.
Mark A. Matson
From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com on behalf of stephanie fisher
Sent: Thu 2/5/2009 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
Mark Matson (Academic)
I'm not sure why that was directed to me as well. I don't know what you mean by "significant". While Goulder was hardline in his proposal that Luke used Matthew, Goodacre articulated the theory in a more realistic way by conceding the possibility of some oral sources as for example with the Lord's Prayer. However I am not aware of the Mark without Q theory conceding the possibility of written sources and surely conceding the possibility of an oral Lord's Prayer is speculative anyway? Isn't this why oral sources are not a "significant" feature in the Mark without Q theory?
(it's Fisher by the way).
----- Original Message -----
From: Matson, Mark (Academic)
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
Actually, Chuck, my argument was not that Mark has no sources. (though I don't think he had written sources because I think Mark is an original composition). Rather, my argument with you was primarily with your rationale, your argumentation. I did not find your reasons convincing.
With those of the Griesbach hypothesis, my engagement turns in a very different way. While we disagree (as with my discussions with David Dungan, for instance), the basis for our disagreement was very clear.
To be specific about what I think (and we could use that as a basis for discussion):
1. It think Mark is an original composition based on oral sources, some of which may have been eyewitness accounts.
2. I think Matthew used Mark, supplemented by oral sources. Maybe a written source, but if so that is unrecoverable.
3. I think Luke used Mark and Matthew, supplemented by oral sources. And may have known and engaged John.
To my mind (and Stephanie Fischer this may be directed to you as well), Farrer theorists do not usually dispute significant additional sources (e.g. oral traditions). And do not rule out-of-hand written sources. But there is a tendency to not rely on sources that are speculative, and especially reject a common written source that both Luke and Matthew used, since the basis for that is tenuous.
And as Ed Sanders pointed out many years ago, the real situation is indeed probably very complex, and involves re-oralization, developing readings and liturgy in churches, etc. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to figure it out.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Chuck Jones
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:47 AM
> To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Theory Types
> Sorry to take one more stab at this, but I'm doing so because you never
> responded to this observation:
> Implicit in posts from you and Mark Matson, the Griesbach hypothesis or
> any other version of Markan non-priority is not possible. You argued
> that it is obvious that Mark (1) was not written from sources and (2)
> is formatically different from Mt and Lk.
> Would you agree to the above statement and make the implicit explicit?
> Rev. Chuck Jones
> Atlanta, Georiga
> Bruce wrote:
> "...2SH is the dominant Synoptic theory of our time, and it is obvious
> that most of the
> listable alternatives, for which see conveniently Stephen Carlson's
> http://www.mindspri <http://www.mindspri/> ng.com/~scarlson /synopt/, involve Markan
> "...Griesbach (2GH), or another Synoptic theory (Augustinian,
> Büsching, Jerusalem, Lindsey, de Wette, Marsh, Parker II, etc) ...
> Mark later than Matthew and/or Luke....
> "Stephen himself, on the page above cited, calls 2SH "dominant," and
> Griesbach (in America) and FGH (in England) as its main alternatives."
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date: 30/01/2009 5:31 p.m.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]