Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Questioning Questioning Q

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic In Response To: Eric Eve On: Verheyden Review of Q Q From: Bruce [To take note of Eric s followup message, the copy of his posting which reached
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 14, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Eric Eve
      On: Verheyden Review of Q Q
      From: Bruce

      [To take note of Eric's followup message, the copy of his posting which
      reached me direct had sidelining and blue highlighting, and was formally
      clear. The two copies that went through the server had that formatting
      stripped, and were much harder to figure out. Yahoo may now be removing
      RichText signals, and such. That being so, I still much prefer the format I
      adopt below (at which I arrived years ago for analogous reasons) - it is
      proof against any such code stripping. Respectfully suggested. / Bruce]

      Some interesting group rhetoric points here. I give my remarks for what they
      may be worth, it being understood that as an outsider my NT knowledge base
      is very limited. What they may be worth despite that is due to the fact
      that, in my own field, I have been in much the same position as the authors
      of Questioning Q. Some strategic considerations may be parallel. In that
      spirit, and hoping to apply some of these suggestions in my own future
      publications, here are some further responses.

      ERIC: My initial impression from reading Verheyden's review is that he also
      not entirely even-handed in his assumption of where the burden of proof
      should lie.

      BRUCE: It's clearly a hostile review, determined to defend Q rather than
      fully engage the book. For that purpose, any blunting of arguments offered
      will suffice. The phrase "weakest link" tends to turn up in such defensive
      review situations, and good luck with a rejoinder on the logical structure
      of the argument. Basically, book writing is an enterprise with no second
      chances. In view of this inevitable reviewer tendency, and with a thoroughly
      entrenched system like Q, it is probably good strategy to present the best
      arguments in logically simple form, avoid analogies, and avoid speculations.
      Anti-Q writing, from Farrer on down (to my outside eye) has tended to blunt
      its effect by adding in speculations about Gospel structure (Hexateuch
      schemes, Lectionary models, etc etc) which have their own difficulties of
      acceptance. The package as a whole demands too much new thinking, and may
      not be equally well grounded at all points. The first thing (on one view of
      the matter) is to get rid of Q. New thinking in the resulting vacuum can
      then more easily take place. A learned audience, at least the one I
      customarily address, can only take one step at a time. Hence (to my eye) the
      intrinsic difficulty of any "multidimensional" assault. It may blur rather
      than focus the root issue, and it may ask for agreement at too many points,
      some of which will inevitably appear less convincing than others.

      ERIC: . . . but he has firstly not made clear what he would count as such a
      proof and has secondly not offered a single argument to the contrary. The
      unwritten assumption seems to be that the Q theory is true unless it is
      *proved* to be false.

      BRUCE: Exactly how it looks to me, and I would guess, fully predictable. It
      might thus have been a good preliminary for the book's authors to assess
      what would count as proof, not to themselves, but to their potentially
      skeptical readers. Offering proofs (or refutations) outside that context,
      without knowing at what point one may validly write QED, is like playing
      tennis with no net. As far as the present game goes, for the great majority
      of potential readers, Q exists, and bears significant exegetical weight and
      doctrinal function. The burden of disproof thus automatically falls on those
      who doubt Q. This is not fair, it is not logical, but it would seem to be
      the rhetorical context. That context might then, with advantage to the book,
      have shaped the book itself more consistently. Thus an ideal chapter
      structure might have been, (a) identify the problem, the particular point
      being discussed, (b) state the rules, and only then (c) offer the
      demonstration. Some parts of the book do have that structure, but it is not
      consistently applied, and when present, it is not *insistently* presented.
      More uniformity (the same three steps in each chapter, over and over), and
      more labeling, and more boldface in the labeling (and a few more diagrams to
      break up the printblock, and a slightly larger typeface, and slightly wider
      margins, all those proved subliminal convincers of the mass market) might
      have made a more formidable challenge to Q, or to Verheyden et Cie. That
      repetitive method lacks literary finesse, it's maybe a little clunky, but so
      was the T-34 tank, whose merit was that it got the job done. There is no
      point running around antagonizing people, quite the contrary, and I always
      recommend framing arguments in terms of propositions rather than people (the
      constant ad hominem of Farmer surely grates on other reader sensibilities
      than just my own). But with the opposing proposals, it seems to me that
      there is also such a thing as being too subtle and too polite.

      ERIC: . . . I'm inclined to doubt even that a majority of FGH (Mark without
      Q) supporters are hostile or indifferent to Christian belief.

      BRUCE: I shouldn't think it requires hostility, or even indifference. I
      would imagine that it does require a decoupling of some of one's own
      beliefs, and that it presents severe challenges for anyone responsible for
      what is sometimes called the cure of souls, that is, other people's beliefs.
      If belief in the Virgin Birth is thought necessary to salvation, as standard
      creedal statements apparently claim, and if Mark is the earliest and best
      authority for the facts in the matter, and if Mark not only does not mention
      the Virgin Birth but evinces a Christology in which the Virgin Birth has no
      place (reaching a certain view of Jesus by a different route entirely; the
      word adoptionism might conceivably occur), then there is a sharp unavoidable
      conflict between scripture and belief. Not everyone tolerates that conflict
      equally well (some people can bracket off this and all miracle questions;
      others, not). It may then not be so surprising if people prefer a Gospel
      theory that keeps the conflict from arising in the first place. I note that
      the earliest statement about relative age of the Gospels asserted that the
      ones with the genealogies (and the birth stories) were the earliest. And I
      sense in this statement a move to protect precisely this segment of dogma.
      Is this an outlandish suspicion? And if it is a reasonable suspicion, does
      it not limit the zone of possible convincement?

      ERIC: It may be that there's a vested interest in belief in Q, but if so, it
      is probably not faith related; if it exists it is more likely be the vested
      interest of 'scholarly orthodoxy' quite apart from 'religious orthodoxy',
      namely that a great deal has been written on the gospels on the assumption
      of the 2DH, and a great many standard textbooks and commentaries assume it,

      BRUCE: From analogous experience and not from detailed inspection of NT
      structures, I would tend to doubt that the scholarly orthodoxy is entirely
      separate from the faith orthodoxy. I would suspect that it exists with some
      degree of tolerance from the faith orthodoxy. My reading in the early 20c
      literature of Gospel proposals repeatedly turns up situations where a
      scholar will make interesting philological suggestions in some chapter, but
      then conclude with three pages assuring the reader that this suggestion
      offers no challenge to faith (cf the Westcott/Hort insistence that no
      textual variant in the NT - repeat, NO textual variant - imperils any major
      doctrine). These people seem to have been well aware of a conflict in their
      potential readership, and my guess would be that they were correct in their
      assessment. But certainly the scholarly superstructures built within the
      parameters implied by this situation have their own weight, and require to
      be considered in the strategic thinking of anyone proposing to remove a
      major piece of the current edifice of conclusions.

      ERIC: Again, I don't know how far the present generation of undergraduates
      may be
      indicative of future generations of scholars, but from the exam papers I
      marked this summer I'd say Q-scepticism is every bit as popular as Q-support
      among undergraduates finishing at Oxford; of course, this probably reflects
      views on the synoptic problem held among their teachers, but it doesn't
      suggest that Q-scepticism is such an unpalatable point of view that it's
      only worth discussing among a few eccentric devotees of lost causes.

      BRUCE: Students do tend to write what they think their teachers will
      approve, since so much depends on their teachers' approval. If Q-skepticism
      is spreading by this means, fine with me. But with any belief, it matters a
      lot how it is held. Are the youthful Q-skeptics merely memorizing the
      locally approved answer, or do they understand the structure of the argument
      by which that answer is reached? Even among friends or dependents, logic
      counts. It wears better than all the alternatives.

      As for "lost causes," I would prefer a softer phrase, but still: My library
      contains two previous books by MarkG assaulting Q. If they succeeded, what
      justified this third book? And if they failed, is not a reassessment of the
      chances of convincement, and the scope of its probable success,
      appropriately due? One addresses a well-defined audience differently than a
      general one. If the best hope is with the well-defined audience, then maybe
      . . .

      [I will defer discussion of my Caesarea Philippi suggestion to a separate
      note, this one being already too long. Let me end by saying that if Q Q gets
      rave reviews in other journals, implying wide acceptance and suggesting that
      Q is on the wane globally, nobody, including the authors, will be happier
      than myself].

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Ron Price
      ... Bruce, I think we need to go back to first principles and approach the problem scientifically. Each of the main competing theories should be examined to
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 14, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce Brooks wrote:

        > Other approaches are doubtless possible, and I would be interested to hear
        > what other List members think they might be.

        Bruce,

        I think we need to go back to first principles and approach the problem
        scientifically.

        Each of the main competing theories should be examined to find all the
        'predictions' it makes. Where the theories make different predictions, these
        can be tested against the available data.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron Price On: Synoptic Theories From: Bruce RON: Each of the main competing theories should be examined to find all the
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 14, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Ron Price
          On: Synoptic Theories
          From: Bruce

          RON: Each of the main competing theories should be examined to find all the
          'predictions' it makes. Where the theories make different predictions, these
          can be tested against the available data.

          BRUCE: Sounds like a job for a committee, and we don't have one. Why not
          instead, for starters, focus on one "prediction" that QH makes, and a
          prediction in that same area that FGH makes, and try adjudicating them? If
          that works, we can get a grant and hire the committee.

          Presumably this has been done at some point in the not scanty Q-dubiety
          literature, and some learned can simply cite a sample test passage or
          prediction pair. Would somebody please do that?

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • Mark Goodacre
          Thanks for the interesting messages, Bruce and Eric. A couple of minor notes in relation to this one: ... MARK: The review is also partial, i.e. it focuses
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 14, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks for the interesting messages, Bruce and Eric. A couple of
            minor notes in relation to this one:

            On 14/09/05, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:

            > BRUCE: It's clearly a hostile review, determined to defend Q rather than
            > fully engage the book. For that purpose, any blunting of arguments offered
            > will suffice. The phrase "weakest link" tends to turn up in such defensive
            > review situations, and good luck with a rejoinder on the logical structure
            > of the argument.

            MARK: The review is also partial, i.e. it focuses only on those essays
            Verheyden sees as potentially vulnerable. The same is true of Paul
            Foster's recent review for ExpT. I know that this may be inevitable
            in a review of a collection, but in terms of forwarding the discussion
            of the Synoptic Problem, it is disappointing. For example, my own
            essay on the quasi-text-critical rationale of the IQP ("When is a Text
            Not a Text?") is addressed by neither; Olson's essay ("Unpicking on
            the Farrer Theory") is not addressed by Foster; Peterson (on the order
            of the double tradition) and Matson (Luke's Rewriting of the Sermon on
            the Mount) are pretty well ignored by both and so on. [Note: Peterson
            is misspelt Petterson].

            BRUCE:
            > Anti-Q writing, from Farrer on down (to my outside eye) has tended to blunt
            > its effect by adding in speculations about Gospel structure (Hexateuch
            > schemes, Lectionary models, etc etc) which have their own difficulties of
            > acceptance. The package as a whole demands too much new thinking, and may
            > not be equally well grounded at all points.

            MARK: I agree, and have argued that this is one of the difficulties
            with much Q sceptic writing (e.g. Chapter 1 of Case Against Q, and
            "World Without Q" chapter in Questioning Q). I think that Goulder has
            been at his best in some of his essays on the topic in the 1990s and
            2000s, especially "Is Q a Juggernaut" and "Self-Contradiction in the
            IQP", which have more limited goals. If one does not accept the
            consensus position, it is important to think about one's strategies
            for attempting to persuade colleagues that the consensus needs
            re-examining.

            > BRUCE: Exactly how it looks to me, and I would guess, fully predictable. It
            > might thus have been a good preliminary for the book's authors to assess
            > what would count as proof, not to themselves, but to their potentially
            > skeptical readers. Offering proofs (or refutations) outside that context,
            > without knowing at what point one may validly write QED, is like playing
            > tennis with no net.

            MARK: That may be a valid point, but as far as my own context is
            concerned, I have already attempted to set out my own Case Against Q
            in another book, and the purpose of this book was not to remake the
            Case Against Q with a little help from my friends, but rather to go at
            the problem in a different way, by raising a variety of questions of
            the Q hypothesis, hence the title.

            > BRUCE: I shouldn't think it requires hostility, or even indifference. I
            > would imagine that it does require a decoupling of some of one's own
            > beliefs, and that it presents severe challenges for anyone responsible for
            > what is sometimes called the cure of souls, that is, other people's beliefs.
            > If belief in the Virgin Birth is thought necessary to salvation, as standard
            > creedal statements apparently claim, and if Mark is the earliest and best
            > authority for the facts in the matter, and if Mark not only does not mention
            > the Virgin Birth but evinces a Christology in which the Virgin Birth has no
            > place (reaching a certain view of Jesus by a different route entirely; the
            > word adoptionism might conceivably occur), then there is a sharp unavoidable
            > conflict between scripture and belief.

            MARK: But even if your argument here is valid, it is irrelevant to
            the question of Q as it is framed for most of those writing in this
            book, for whom Marcan Priority is not in doubt.

            BRUCE: > Not everyone tolerates that conflict
            > equally well (some people can bracket off this and all miracle questions;
            > others, not). It may then not be so surprising if people prefer a Gospel
            > theory that keeps the conflict from arising in the first place. I note that
            > the earliest statement about relative age of the Gospels asserted that the
            > ones with the genealogies (and the birth stories) were the earliest.

            MARK: Let me recommend Stephen C. Carlson, "Clement of Alexandria on
            the "Order" of the Gospels", _New Testament Studies_ 47 (2001):
            118-25, reproduced at
            http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/greek/clement.htm

            > ERIC: Again, I don't know how far the present generation of undergraduates
            > may be
            > indicative of future generations of scholars, but from the exam papers I
            > marked this summer I'd say Q-scepticism is every bit as popular as Q-support
            > among undergraduates finishing at Oxford; of course, this probably reflects
            > views on the synoptic problem held among their teachers, but it doesn't
            > suggest that Q-scepticism is such an unpalatable point of view that it's
            > only worth discussing among a few eccentric devotees of lost causes.

            MARK: I quite agree, and I have the same experience in Birmingham.
            The difficulty I have is persuading students of the plausibility of Q
            in the first place, long before I've had the chance to cover some of
            the difficulties with it. I have talked to other teachers world-wide
            on this problem and I know that this is a common experience. In my
            experience, the problem is to get the students to a point where they
            can understand why Q is a plausible hypothesis.

            BRUCE: > As for "lost causes," I would prefer a softer phrase, but
            still: My library
            > contains two previous books by MarkG assaulting Q. If they succeeded, what
            > justified this third book? And if they failed, is not a reassessment of the
            > chances of convincement, and the scope of its probable success,
            > appropriately due? One addresses a well-defined audience differently than a
            > general one. If the best hope is with the well-defined audience, then maybe
            > . . .

            MARK: Is "this third book" in question Questioning Q? If so, are the
            two previous books The Case Against Q and The Synoptic Problem: A Way
            Through the Maze? If so, Questioning Q is a different book from Case
            Against Q (see above) and, as it happens, it was Nick Perrin's
            initiative. Way Through the Maze is a student guide so is quite
            different from Case. As to whether either "succeeds" or not, I will
            leave others to judge.

            With best wishes
            Mark
            --
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:Goodacre@...
            http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
            http://NTGateway.com
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: Synoptic In Response To: MarkG On: Q Q Q From: Bruce Always a privilege to be able to discuss a book with its authors. I find myself tempted accordingly
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 14, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Synoptic
              In Response To: MarkG
              On: Q Q Q
              From: Bruce

              Always a privilege to be able to discuss a book with its authors. I find
              myself tempted accordingly into a line or two more:

              MARK: The review is also partial, i.e. it focuses only on those essays
              Verheyden sees as potentially vulnerable. The same is true of Paul Foster's
              recent review for ExpT. I know that this may be inevitable in a review of a
              collection, . . .

              BRUCE: No. Simply no. A reviewer pressed for space might reasonably skip
              some weak items in a miscellaneous Festschrift, but to pick only select bits
              of an integrated joint work in a 5-page review (with more available; this is
              an on-line journal) is a violation of scholarly expectations. Book review
              editors exist to correct such imbalances before they see print. These two
              editors seem not to have done their job, or perhaps to have done a different
              job well. Of some 30 reviews of my Analects book, I know of two cases where
              the editor ordered a negative review. It happens that both reviewers defied
              those orders, but it takes a certain amount of nerve to do this. (Of the two
              reviewers, the untenured one is now entirely unemployed in the field).

              MARK: I think that Goulder has been at his best in some of his essays on the
              topic in the 1990s and 2000s, especially "Is Q a Juggernaut" and
              "Self-Contradiction in the IQP", which have more limited goals. If one does
              not accept the consensus position, it is important to think about one's
              strategies for attempting to persuade colleagues that the consensus needs
              re-examining.

              BRUCE: I agree about Goulder, and have been very glad to see him keep going
              in recent years. The main thing, the first rule of politics, is not to drop
              out. And I also agree that he has done well to focus more tightly. Knowing
              when to stop is half of art. The Chinese have made practically a whole
              philosophy out of this rather simple insight. (And perhaps in consequence,
              Chinese literature runs much shorter than Greek literature on comparable
              topics).

              MARK: But even if your argument here [about the doctrinal threat of a Prior
              Mark] is valid, it is irrelevant to the question of Q as it is framed for
              most of those writing in this book, for whom Marcan Priority is not in
              doubt.

              BRUCE: I suspect that Markan Priority is widely accepted. It is the removal
              of the insulating Q from that understanding, I suggest, that turns Markan
              Priority into a threat to basic dogma. In the mind of the reader, and it is
              the reader who counts in these calculations.

              ERIC EVE [from previous post]: Again, I don't know how far the present
              generation of undergraduates may be indicative of future generations of
              scholars, but from the exam papers I
              marked this summer I'd say Q-scepticism is every bit as popular as Q-support
              among undergraduates finishing at Oxford;

              MARK: I quite agree, and I have the same experience in Birmingham. The
              difficulty I have is persuading students of the plausibility of Q in the
              first place, long before I've had the chance to cover some of the
              difficulties with it. I have talked to other teachers world-wide on this
              problem and I know that this is a common experience. In my experience, the
              problem is to get the students to a point where they can understand why Q is
              a plausible hypothesis.

              BRUCE: I don't want to seem to coin a phrase, but preaching to the
              unconverted is easy. They haven't yet gotten habituated to the wrong idea. I
              can cite parallel experiences. If I explain classical text chronology to a
              Chinese person educated in the sciences, the response is usually, "Of
              course, perfectly reasonable." It's the country schoolmasters with their
              thorough habituation to standard (but wrong) views who are nearly
              impregnable to reason. My guess would be that the average human is willing
              to learn something once, but not twice. Puts a premium on getting there
              first, and hence (in this case), a premium on undergraduate education.

              The more power, then, to those who are doing it.

              MARK: As to whether either [Q book] "succeeds" or not, I will leave others
              to judge.

              BRUCE: They will anyway. But on what timescale? The Chinese in particular
              take a long view of this sort of thing, and Chinese writers born into an
              unreceptive century are often at pains to leave behind them something that
              will prove convincing to the right kind of reader, who may take centuries to
              turn up. Even in the short term, it's a useful discipline for contrarian
              writers (I venture to suggest) to proofread with an eye to stylistic
              durability. Is this argument too enshrined in the issues of the moment? Are
              there allusions that won't survive the decade? Jokes that will date? Reti (I
              believe it was) wrote his book on the middle game as a series of
              animadversions against chess theorists with other views. In the second
              edition, he took all that out, and simply presented his ideas as such. The
              other theorists, the newspaper oracles of that particular decade, have
              vanished into the past without a trace, but Reti (in his second edition) is
              still read and respected. If one is gambling on outwearing the opposition
              (and no other supposition really justifies writing, above the broadside
              level), one may as well make the assumption that posterity won't be dealing
              with that opposition.

              Just a thought, offered by one who wants to see the enterprise succeed.

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            • John C. Poirier
              ... This is really disconcerting, Bruce. I hope that this doesn t happen in the New Testament field, but I guess I shouldn t be surprised if it does happen.
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 15, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                E Bruce Brooks writes:



                > Of some 30 reviews of my Analects book, I know of two cases where

                > the editor ordered a negative review.



                This is really disconcerting, Bruce. I hope that this doesn't happen in the
                New Testament field, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised if it does happen.



                In my experience, many editors don't even try to be even-handed. I once
                submitted an article to a journal whose board of editors all pretty much
                represented the point of view that I was attacking. I was naive enough to
                expect them to judge my submission on its own merits, but they turned down
                my article on the basis of something they found wrong with a single sentence
                (which really had nothing at all to do with my larger argument and could
                have been removed without any effect on the article whatsoever).



                I've also had articles turned down on the recommendation of peer reviewers
                who didn't understand what I was saying (although my language was clear
                enough), but that's another problem.



                Suffice it to say that if publishing really is a "game", it's one that isn't
                always played fairly.





                John C. Poirier

                Middletown, Ohio





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Eric Eve
                Just a couple of quick points in response to Bruce and Mark. MARK: The review is also partial, i.e. it focuses only on those essays Verheyden sees as
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 15, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Just a couple of quick points in response to Bruce and Mark.

                  MARK: The review is also partial, i.e. it focuses only on those essays
                  Verheyden sees as potentially vulnerable. The same is true of Paul
                  Foster's recent review for ExpT. I know that this may be inevitable
                  in a review of a collection, but in terms of forwarding the discussion
                  of the Synoptic Problem, it is disappointing. For example, my own
                  essay on the quasi-text-critical rationale of the IQP ("When is a Text
                  Not a Text?") is addressed by neither; Olson's essay ("Unpicking on
                  the Farrer Theory") is not addressed by Foster; Peterson (on the order
                  of the double tradition) and Matson (Luke's Rewriting of the Sermon on
                  the Mount) are pretty well ignored by both and so on.

                  BRUCE: No. Simply no. A reviewer pressed for space might reasonably skip
                  some weak items in a miscellaneous Festschrift, but to pick only select bits
                  of an integrated joint work in a 5-page review (with more available; this is
                  an on-line journal) is a violation of scholarly expectations. Book review
                  editors exist to correct such imbalances before they see print. These two
                  editors seem not to have done their job, or perhaps to have done a different
                  job well.

                  ERIC: I haven't read Paul Foster's review of Questioning Q in ExpT, but in
                  this case reviewer and editor are probably one and the same person; Paul has
                  commissioned quite a few reviews for the ExpT from me over the last couple
                  of years and has generally seemed happy with what I've provided him.


                  MARK: I quite agree, and I have the same experience in Birmingham.
                  The difficulty I have is persuading students of the plausibility of Q
                  in the first place, long before I've had the chance to cover some of
                  the difficulties with it. I have talked to other teachers world-wide
                  on this problem and I know that this is a common experience. In my
                  experience, the problem is to get the students to a point where they
                  can understand why Q is a plausible hypothesis.

                  ERIC: That's also borne out by the finals papers I marked in June; many of
                  the Q-Sceptical answers I read really didn't do justice to the Q hypothesis
                  in the first place; to be fair, though, the better answers probably did do
                  it as much justice as possible in the time available to both state and
                  criticize it under exam conditions.

                  Best wishes,

                  Eric
                  ----------------------------------
                  Eric Eve
                  Research Fellow and Tutor in Theology
                  Harris Manchester College, Oxford
                  http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049/
                • Karel Hanhart
                  Eric, In the post below who is snipping whom in the following phrase, I end with one tiny ... You were citing Verheyden, I think, after his sentence, Once
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 17, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Eric,

                    In the post below who is "snipping" whom in the following phrase, "I end
                    with one tiny
                    > suggestion.
                    > [much snipped]
                    > It fails, for instance, with the Question at Caesarea Philippi (Mt
                    > 16:13-16

                    You were citing Verheyden, I think, after his sentence, "Once the threat of
                    a
                    > prior GMark is eliminated, the theoretical need for a Q Hypothesis
                    > immediately vanishes, and the modern Griesbachians in fact dispense with
                    > it." Didn't your reply begin after that point?
                    Why would you 'snip'your own answer? Please, clarify.

                    Karel



                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Eric Eve" <eric.eve@...>
                    To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:23 PM
                    Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Questioning Questioning Q


                    >E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                    > This recent volume (Intervarsity 2004) has received notice in Reviews of
                    > Biblical Literature (5 Sept 2005),
                    > Thanks for calling my attention to this review.
                    > This rhetorical advantage of Q is very substantial. Verheyden makes
                    > continual use of it and
                    > of its even more sinister cousins. "We already know that objection" is
                    > his
                    > Leitmotif. It is not necessary to actually answer the objection. It
                    > suffices
                    > to point out that the objection is not novel.
                    > My initial impression from reading Verheden's review is that he also not
                    > entirely even-handed in his assumption of where the burden of proof should
                    > lie. For example, his main critism of my contribution seems to be that I
                    > have not proved that the doubts I raise about the possibility of a
                    > reconstructed Mark apply to Q; but he has firstly not made clear what he
                    > would count as such a proof and has secondly not offered a single argument
                    > to the contrary. The unwritten assumption seems to be that the Q theory is
                    > true unless it is *proved* to be false.
                    > That's already a losing scenario. But in the view of this outsider, a
                    > still
                    > more impregnable aspect of Q, not logically or rhetorically but
                    > practically,
                    > is the fact that the community of believers will simply not accept GMark
                    > as
                    > the earliest, and thus most authoritative, version of the tradition of
                    > Jesus. {snip] Central belief, as defined by that
                    > community, requires to be supported by Matthew and Luke, and thus if
                    > threatened by an authoritative GMark, as is presently the case, the
                    > community is determined, by some means, to restore full authority to the
                    > portions of Matthew and Luke not attested in GMark. [snip]
                    >
                    > [much snipped] It is suggestive that
                    > the only non-Q theory to win significant modern support is the Griesbach
                    > theory, which puts GMark in third position, and by doing so eliminates
                    > the
                    > problem which Q offers to solve in a different way. Once the threat of a
                    > prior GMark is eliminated, the theoretical need for a Q Hypothesis
                    > immediately vanishes, and the modern Griesbachians in fact dispense with
                    > it.
                    >
                    > This being so (as far as I can detect from my outside position), it is
                    > futile to think of convincing the larger community of the unreality of Q,
                    > unless the Griesbach situation can itself become widely popular, which
                    > does
                    > not seem to be happening.
                    > I would be more convinced by this if there were a demonstrable correlation
                    > between faith stance and positions held on the Synoptic Problem, but I'm
                    > not
                    > at all sure that there is. So far as I am aware, it is not the case that
                    > all
                    > Q-sceptics are outside 'the community of believers' and all Q-supporters
                    > within. I'm inclined to doubt even that a majority of FGH (Mark without Q)
                    > supporters are hostile or indifferent to Christian belief.
                    >
                    > It may be that there's a vested interest in belief in Q, but if so, it is
                    > probably not faith related; if it exists it is more likely be the vested
                    > interest of 'scholarly orthodoxy' quite apart from 'religious orthodoxy',
                    > namely that a great deal has been written on the gospels on the assumption
                    > of the 2DH, and a great many standard textbooks and commentaries assume
                    > it,
                    > and that it's the assumed default position of a great majority of scholars
                    > who are not particularly interested in examining the question for
                    > themselves
                    > since they have what are, to them, quite legitimately more interesting
                    > questions to pursue. In particular (see my comments on Oxford below), I
                    > suspect that such scholarly orthodoxies tend to be self-perpetuating since
                    > they get passed on from one generation to the next - but positions can
                    > shift
                    > with time.
                    >
                    > Whatever the merits of "Questioning Q" as an argument (and I would be
                    > interested to see a criticism by someone with standing in the field, yet
                    > inclined toward the FG Hypothesis), I would thus judge that it was bound
                    > to
                    > fail in its intended purpose, namely, as a general deconvincement
                    > concerning
                    > Q. But as long as it is understood that the audience likely to be
                    > receptive
                    > to such an argument is probably numbered in the low teens (it is not even
                    > clear to me that more than a small minority of the Synoptic List
                    > subscribers
                    > doubt the reality of Q), there is probably no harm in proceeding with it,
                    > but essentially as a gratuitous exercise in logic, and in a small room
                    > with
                    > the door closed.
                    > I have no idea what the proportion of Q-sceptics and Q-supporters is among
                    > the subscribers to Synoptic-L, but it seems to me that a sizeable
                    > proportion
                    > of people who post here are Q-sceptics of one form or another (posts in
                    > support of the 2DH here seem to be to be relatively rare). And in any
                    > case,
                    > your conclusion seems unduly pessimistic; to paraphrase, you seem to be
                    > saying "don't bother with rational debate when vested interest holds the
                    > field." If that's true, then we're all wasting our time!
                    >
                    > Again, I don't know how far the present generation of undergraduates may
                    > be
                    > indicative of future generations of scholars, but from the exam papers I
                    > marked this summer I'd say Q-scepticism is every bit as popular as
                    > Q-support
                    > among undergraduates finishing at Oxford; of course, this probably
                    > reflects
                    > views on the synoptic problem held among their teachers, but it doesn't
                    > suggest that Q-scepticism is such an unpalatable point of view that it's
                    > only worth discussing among a few eccentric devotees of lost causes.
                    > How, on that understanding, and assuming this list to be the room in
                    > question, might one reasonably proceed de novo? I end with one tiny
                    > suggestion.
                    >
                    > [much snipped]
                    >
                    > It fails, for instance, with the Question at Caesarea Philippi (Mt
                    > 16:13-16
                    > || Mk 8:27-29 || Lk 9:13-20), where the theory of independent invention
                    > is
                    > not plausible, since the coincidences would be too great. Some reliance
                    > of
                    > two of them ultimately on a third is (on those assumptions) unavoidable.
                    > If
                    > so, then we can proceed, with this one arbitrarily selected passage, to
                    > ask:
                    > in terms of directionality theory, where do the lines of connectedness
                    > lie?
                    > And at the same time, what motive can be assigned to the authorial
                    > departures from what is explained by that connectedness? If
                    > directionality
                    > can be consistently assigned, AND if intelligible motives can be found
                    > for
                    > departures from directionality, then the Synoptic Problem (insofar as it
                    > is
                    > represented by this passage) would be solved, and the solution could then
                    > be
                    > checked for evidence of outside, non-Synoptic, sources - things remaining
                    > unexplained by the solution.
                    > The trouble is that arguments about authorial motives so often turn out to
                    > be reversible, at least, that's how it's often appeared to me in previous
                    > debates on this list. This is no doubt because quite a bit of subjectivity
                    > comes into making such judgments; what appears plausible and compelling to
                    > one scholar may not seem at all so to another. This is not simply because
                    > we're all biased in favour of arguments that tend to support our own
                    > position (though there's no doubt an element of that), but also because we
                    > each have our own individual intellectual temperaments, and so we all make
                    > (sometimes quite subtly) different evaluations on such issues as what
                    > needs
                    > to be explained, what counts as a satisfying explanation, and what is more
                    > plausible than what.
                    > Other approaches are doubtless possible, and I would be interested to
                    > hear
                    > what other List members think they might be. If the discussion of the
                    > Synoptic Problem, intertwined as it presently is with the Q Problem, were
                    > back at Day One. Right now, counting from Wilke/Weisse, it's at Day
                    > 60,993,
                    > and it seems to be at something of a dead end.
                    > And there may be any number of reasons for that, of which the nature of
                    > the
                    > data is one that surely looms large.
                    >
                    > Thanks for your thoughts,
                    >
                    > Eric
                    > ----------------------------------
                    > Eric Eve
                    > Research Fellow and Tutor in Theology
                    > Harris Manchester College, Oxford
                    > http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049/
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Eric Eve
                    Dear Karel, I m currently on holiday and won t be back at my desk for another two weeks, so I don t have access to correspondence to check this point. But from
                    Message 9 of 12 , Sep 17, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Karel,

                      I'm currently on holiday and won't be back at my desk for another two weeks,
                      so I don't have access to correspondence to check this point. But from
                      memory and the presence of "[much snipped"], I'd say I was still citing
                      Verheyden at that point.

                      Regards,

                      Eric

                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Karel Hanhart [mailto:k.hanhart@...]
                      > Sent: 17 September 2005 10:42
                      > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com; Eric Eve
                      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Questioning Questioning Q
                      >
                      >
                      > Eric,
                      >
                      > In the post below who is "snipping" whom in the following phrase, "I end
                      > with one tiny
                      > > suggestion.
                      > > [much snipped]
                      > > It fails, for instance, with the Question at Caesarea Philippi (Mt
                      > > 16:13-16
                      >
                      > You were citing Verheyden, I think, after his sentence, "Once the
                      > threat of
                      > a
                      > > prior GMark is eliminated, the theoretical need for a Q Hypothesis
                      > > immediately vanishes, and the modern Griesbachians in fact
                      > dispense with
                      > > it." Didn't your reply begin after that point?
                      > Why would you 'snip'your own answer? Please, clarify.
                      >
                      > Karel
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "Eric Eve" <eric.eve@...>
                      > To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:23 PM
                      > Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Questioning Questioning Q
                      >
                      >
                      > >E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                      > > This recent volume (Intervarsity 2004) has received notice in
                      > Reviews of
                      > > Biblical Literature (5 Sept 2005),
                      > > Thanks for calling my attention to this review.
                      > > This rhetorical advantage of Q is very substantial. Verheyden makes
                      > > continual use of it and
                      > > of its even more sinister cousins. "We already know that objection" is
                      > > his
                      > > Leitmotif. It is not necessary to actually answer the objection. It
                      > > suffices
                      > > to point out that the objection is not novel.
                      > > My initial impression from reading Verheden's review is that he also not
                      > > entirely even-handed in his assumption of where the burden of
                      > proof should
                      > > lie. For example, his main critism of my contribution seems to be that I
                      > > have not proved that the doubts I raise about the possibility of a
                      > > reconstructed Mark apply to Q; but he has firstly not made clear what he
                      > > would count as such a proof and has secondly not offered a
                      > single argument
                      > > to the contrary. The unwritten assumption seems to be that the
                      > Q theory is
                      > > true unless it is *proved* to be false.
                      > > That's already a losing scenario. But in the view of this outsider, a
                      > > still
                      > > more impregnable aspect of Q, not logically or rhetorically but
                      > > practically,
                      > > is the fact that the community of believers will simply not
                      > accept GMark
                      > > as
                      > > the earliest, and thus most authoritative, version of the tradition of
                      > > Jesus. {snip] Central belief, as defined by that
                      > > community, requires to be supported by Matthew and Luke, and thus if
                      > > threatened by an authoritative GMark, as is presently the case, the
                      > > community is determined, by some means, to restore full
                      > authority to the
                      > > portions of Matthew and Luke not attested in GMark. [snip]
                      > >
                      > > [much snipped] It is suggestive that
                      > > the only non-Q theory to win significant modern support is the
                      > Griesbach
                      > > theory, which puts GMark in third position, and by doing so eliminates
                      > > the
                      > > problem which Q offers to solve in a different way. Once the
                      > threat of a
                      > > prior GMark is eliminated, the theoretical need for a Q Hypothesis
                      > > immediately vanishes, and the modern Griesbachians in fact
                      > dispense with
                      > > it.
                      > >
                      > > This being so (as far as I can detect from my outside position), it is
                      > > futile to think of convincing the larger community of the
                      > unreality of Q,
                      > > unless the Griesbach situation can itself become widely popular, which
                      > > does
                      > > not seem to be happening.
                      > > I would be more convinced by this if there were a demonstrable
                      > correlation
                      > > between faith stance and positions held on the Synoptic
                      > Problem, but I'm
                      > > not
                      > > at all sure that there is. So far as I am aware, it is not the
                      > case that
                      > > all
                      > > Q-sceptics are outside 'the community of believers' and all Q-supporters
                      > > within. I'm inclined to doubt even that a majority of FGH (Mark
                      > without Q)
                      > > supporters are hostile or indifferent to Christian belief.
                      > >
                      > > It may be that there's a vested interest in belief in Q, but if
                      > so, it is
                      > > probably not faith related; if it exists it is more likely be the vested
                      > > interest of 'scholarly orthodoxy' quite apart from 'religious
                      > orthodoxy',
                      > > namely that a great deal has been written on the gospels on the
                      > assumption
                      > > of the 2DH, and a great many standard textbooks and commentaries assume
                      > > it,
                      > > and that it's the assumed default position of a great majority
                      > of scholars
                      > > who are not particularly interested in examining the question for
                      > > themselves
                      > > since they have what are, to them, quite legitimately more interesting
                      > > questions to pursue. In particular (see my comments on Oxford below), I
                      > > suspect that such scholarly orthodoxies tend to be
                      > self-perpetuating since
                      > > they get passed on from one generation to the next - but positions can
                      > > shift
                      > > with time.
                      > >
                      > > Whatever the merits of "Questioning Q" as an argument (and I would be
                      > > interested to see a criticism by someone with standing in the
                      > field, yet
                      > > inclined toward the FG Hypothesis), I would thus judge that it
                      > was bound
                      > > to
                      > > fail in its intended purpose, namely, as a general deconvincement
                      > > concerning
                      > > Q. But as long as it is understood that the audience likely to be
                      > > receptive
                      > > to such an argument is probably numbered in the low teens (it
                      > is not even
                      > > clear to me that more than a small minority of the Synoptic List
                      > > subscribers
                      > > doubt the reality of Q), there is probably no harm in
                      > proceeding with it,
                      > > but essentially as a gratuitous exercise in logic, and in a small room
                      > > with
                      > > the door closed.
                      > > I have no idea what the proportion of Q-sceptics and
                      > Q-supporters is among
                      > > the subscribers to Synoptic-L, but it seems to me that a sizeable
                      > > proportion
                      > > of people who post here are Q-sceptics of one form or another (posts in
                      > > support of the 2DH here seem to be to be relatively rare). And in any
                      > > case,
                      > > your conclusion seems unduly pessimistic; to paraphrase, you seem to be
                      > > saying "don't bother with rational debate when vested interest holds the
                      > > field." If that's true, then we're all wasting our time!
                      > >
                      > > Again, I don't know how far the present generation of
                      > undergraduates may
                      > > be
                      > > indicative of future generations of scholars, but from the exam papers I
                      > > marked this summer I'd say Q-scepticism is every bit as popular as
                      > > Q-support
                      > > among undergraduates finishing at Oxford; of course, this probably
                      > > reflects
                      > > views on the synoptic problem held among their teachers, but it doesn't
                      > > suggest that Q-scepticism is such an unpalatable point of view that it's
                      > > only worth discussing among a few eccentric devotees of lost causes.
                      > > How, on that understanding, and assuming this list to be the room in
                      > > question, might one reasonably proceed de novo? I end with one tiny
                      > > suggestion.
                      > >
                      > > [much snipped]
                      > >
                      > > It fails, for instance, with the Question at Caesarea Philippi (Mt
                      > > 16:13-16
                      > > || Mk 8:27-29 || Lk 9:13-20), where the theory of independent
                      > invention
                      > > is
                      > > not plausible, since the coincidences would be too great. Some
                      > reliance
                      > > of
                      > > two of them ultimately on a third is (on those assumptions)
                      > unavoidable.
                      > > If
                      > > so, then we can proceed, with this one arbitrarily selected passage, to
                      > > ask:
                      > > in terms of directionality theory, where do the lines of connectedness
                      > > lie?
                      > > And at the same time, what motive can be assigned to the authorial
                      > > departures from what is explained by that connectedness? If
                      > > directionality
                      > > can be consistently assigned, AND if intelligible motives can be found
                      > > for
                      > > departures from directionality, then the Synoptic Problem
                      > (insofar as it
                      > > is
                      > > represented by this passage) would be solved, and the solution
                      > could then
                      > > be
                      > > checked for evidence of outside, non-Synoptic, sources -
                      > things remaining
                      > > unexplained by the solution.
                      > > The trouble is that arguments about authorial motives so often
                      > turn out to
                      > > be reversible, at least, that's how it's often appeared to me
                      > in previous
                      > > debates on this list. This is no doubt because quite a bit of
                      > subjectivity
                      > > comes into making such judgments; what appears plausible and
                      > compelling to
                      > > one scholar may not seem at all so to another. This is not
                      > simply because
                      > > we're all biased in favour of arguments that tend to support our own
                      > > position (though there's no doubt an element of that), but also
                      > because we
                      > > each have our own individual intellectual temperaments, and so
                      > we all make
                      > > (sometimes quite subtly) different evaluations on such issues as what
                      > > needs
                      > > to be explained, what counts as a satisfying explanation, and
                      > what is more
                      > > plausible than what.
                      > > Other approaches are doubtless possible, and I would be interested to
                      > > hear
                      > > what other List members think they might be. If the discussion of the
                      > > Synoptic Problem, intertwined as it presently is with the Q
                      > Problem, were
                      > > back at Day One. Right now, counting from Wilke/Weisse, it's at Day
                      > > 60,993,
                      > > and it seems to be at something of a dead end.
                      > > And there may be any number of reasons for that, of which the nature of
                      > > the
                      > > data is one that surely looms large.
                      > >
                      > > Thanks for your thoughts,
                      > >
                      > > Eric
                      > > ----------------------------------
                      > > Eric Eve
                      > > Research Fellow and Tutor in Theology
                      > > Harris Manchester College, Oxford
                      > > http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049/
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.